Awwwww, Neo, you misunderstand.  You're a joke to me.  It's you, not any violence or hypocrisy from the left or anywhere else.  


Just you.

Glad we cleared that up.

(October 11, 2017 at 2:24 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Right, because when confronted with the violence and hypocrisy infecting the left, it's all jokes to you.

I view violence on the left as necessary due to having been backed into a corner by intolerance on the right.

It's an interesting bit of political theater, of late..in that the alt right seems to be operating on the "UMADBRO?" theory of political agitation.  Meanwhile, groups like antifa are mischaracterized as "the left" when, ofc, they have no allegiance to the left whatsoever..... and therefore don't give a shit whether or not fascist trolls will use their actions to discredit political opposition.

I'm sure Khemical is okay with threats and intimidation because, you know, freedom and equality, etc. etc...

Why are you silencing people who just want to express their differing opinion on what should happen to advocates of colonialism?

Quote:Much of the journal’s editorial board resigns, saying that a controversial article arguing in favor of colonialism failed to pass peer review but was published anyway -- and that the journal’s editor then misrepresented the process.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017...al-article

(October 11, 2017 at 3:02 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Why are you silencing people who just want to express their differing opinion on what should happen to advocates of colonialism?

Quote:Much of the journal’s editorial board resigns, saying that a controversial article arguing in favor of colonialism failed to pass peer review but was published anyway -- and that the journal’s editor then misrepresented the process.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017...al-article

But there were still threats and intimidation regardless of how they rationalized pulling the article. My point stands - you are an apologist for political violence.

Perhaps you should read the article. I'm not sure why you'd think it would bother me that I would advocate for political violence in the first place?

(October 11, 2017 at 3:12 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Perhaps you should read the article.

That's no good. What if he reads it the same way he reads the bible?

I'm a point-and-laugher, remember?  I hope he does...this is me handing him the megaphone, and he rarely disappoints.  

(October 11, 2017 at 1:53 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Your definition of what an sjw was followed by criticisms of hypocrisy.   If they make claims to tolerance, for example..but are meaningfully hypocritical..this is a charge of intolerance.

 
It's not as simple as them being intolerant of intolerance, it's their behavior towards their own and towards their opponents and the way they oppose them. Both of which I've covered previously. 

Quote:Well, what's -your- interpretation of the event..I did ask.

Just what I said. She wanted to open up conversation with her political adversaries and in return she got rail roaded by her own compatriots for not towing the line.

Quote:Can you be more specific?

I think both sides are fostering the us and them mentality is what I mean. Sure it's the bigot's main issue, but does acting like them towards them help or exacerbate the situation? I can't propose a solution myself because it's beyond me but the answer is obvious to this question. 

Quote:I don't actually, I generally expect people to agree with the concept of social justice.  What would you refer to as an example of the concept of social justice being misused?

Censorship, for one. 

Quote:I just said that the terms use as such was created explicitly by people who do object to social justice, though..obviously..I think that at least some people who use the term do so because of the pervasive way it was disseminated and cultivated.  There are at least two, in this thread, imo.

Definitely better than how it came across at least. 

Quote:What people are we talking about..is the question I keep asking.  More specifically, does your characterization of those peoples actions accurately describe those actions?

What is it that you're after? Names? Addresses? I've described the general lay of the land pretty well in previous posts. 

I'd say it does but that's subjective isn't it? 

Quote:Is there some requirement that you provide a platform for bigotry, or be docile and inactive when you could effectively oppose bigotry...to be for equality and freedom?  I was worried that we'd strayed into "just another opinion" territory..but now you've went ahead and planted your flag in it.  Where oh where have I heard this before?  I'm perfectly comfortable with people refusing to allow a bigot a platform if and where they can.  I don't have to let a bigot set up shop in my living room.  I can tell a business or venue that I won't patronize them with my support if they, in turn, provide a bigot with a platform to spread their bigotry.  I can demand that richard fucking spencer not be allowed to speak to my grade schoolers in their auditorium.

Sure, as a business owner or school you can screen things as you see fit and as a citizen you can protest or pull your patronage but if you are actively silencing someone who has attained permission from the proper channels at that venue or has funded use of a space themselves by attacking them or charging the stage, taking their mic away or causing such a scene that the police shut it down... what kind of precedence does that set? What can you expect when enough people disagree with you or someone that espouses your views? I'm not even talking "the golden rule" here I'm saying do you not think these things could be used against you as well? Do you think people wouldn't take notice of this being an accepted practice? 

"We don't agree with you so you don't get to speak." 

There are plenty of people I don't agree with, bigots chief among them. That being said, they can speak until they're blue in the face, especially if they paid to do so. 

Quote:I'm not seeing a problem, though I am watching you parrot their talking point with this.  Personally..I'd hand the fuckers a megaphone just so I can point and laugh, but there's no requirement to do so..and a person who points out that doing so is to enable the spread of bigotry in the first place are right.  That is how it;s down, that is how it;s normalized, and there's a definite risk to that approach.  While I'm pointing and laughing, some disaffected asshole is shaking his head in the crowd thinking "finally, that guy up on the stage gets it" and that's a plus-1 for the bigots.  

I'm not really sure why anyone worries about bigots not having a platform in the first place.  We hear an awful lot from them for a people so thoroughly silenced and oppressed......

See the above. 

Quote:Another one, really?  I guess it's just completely impossible that your opinions might have been influenced, and it's all just a giant coincidence .



I wonder why that might be?

Maybe it's because you're wording it like a dickhead would. The second time around no less. Say what you mean.