It's sad that there doesn't seem to be as many left leaning individuals standing against those sorts of things.
Quote from: Aether on April 08, 2018, 07:32:53 PM It's sad that there doesn't seem to be as many left leaning individuals standing against those sorts of things.they all doevery single one of themyou just don't really understand what censorship and political correctness actually are, what they mean, or what they really entail
Countless times over the past few years there have been mobs of protestors and even rioters attempting to deplatform speakers they disagree with. And nearly always they are left-leaning. I don't think I've ever seen a single right-wing group attempt a hecklers veto (I'd sure be happy for someone to show me). Exactly how are people like that standing against censorship?
How is a mob of left-wing comedians getting Owen Benjamin's booked venues to back out of hosting his shows because he said nigga in one of his jokes a stand against political correctness?
As someone who is more left leaning than right, who has always been a bit at odds with my mostly religious and conservative family, I've been seriously disappointed in what I've seen coming from the left these past few years.
Seriously, though, if anyone knows any left-wing peeps that aren't down with censorship/PC mess, let me know.
Quote from: Aether on April 08, 2018, 08:13:10 PMSeriously, though, if anyone knows any left-wing peeps that aren't down with censorship/PC mess, let me know.I cannot think of any who are, but you would probably like this guy.Being politically correct is a good thing, first of all. What you're against is being "unreasonably polite."
free speech is not freedom to have whatever fucking soapbox you think you deserve to have
The first point isn't censorship it's de-platforming, but people who do that sort of thing aren't the type to stand against censorship.
You said that all of the left stands against political correctness, yet now you're saying political correctness is a good thing, so presumably, they wouldn't stand against it? That seems a bit contradictory.
I will always be against the condemnation of words alone. Condemning the intent behind the words is another matter I believe is perfectly reasonable within a certain context, but words alone are not inherently harmful and being offending by a word seems to me to be either over-reaching outrage for the sake of using it against someone, or a sign of emotional fragility and weakness. Neither of which, I believe, is good for a person or society in general.
When it comes to censorship, I thought I already made it clear that what I had pointed out was de-platforming. The point I was making is that those who attempt to hecklers veto someone they disagree with are not the types of people that would stand against censorship, especially if it was happening to those they disagree with.
Quote from: Aether on April 08, 2018, 08:59:26 PMI will always be against the condemnation of words alone. Condemning the intent behind the words is another matter I believe is perfectly reasonable within a certain context, but words alone are not inherently harmful and being offending by a word seems to me to be either over-reaching outrage for the sake of using it against someone, or a sign of emotional fragility and weakness. Neither of which, I believe, is good for a person or society in general.and everyone—EVERYONE on the left agrees with thiswhich contexts are reasonable is where you disagreepeople who condemn vacuumized words are extremists who don't represent the whole of "the left," and they don't even represent a small fraction—even most of the ones who CLAIM to condemn that don't even really believe itQuoteWhen it comes to censorship, I thought I already made it clear that what I had pointed out was de-platforming. The point I was making is that those who attempt to hecklers veto someone they disagree with are not the types of people that would stand against censorship, especially if it was happening to those they disagree with.i would attempt to heckler's veto someone, regardless of whether i agree or disagree with them, and i stand against all censorshipoops looks like i proved you wrong
My example with Owen Benjamin goes against what you're saying, though. The context of him saying the word nigga was ignored by the people who protested him. They didn't care that he was making a joke pointing out the absurdity of racism from rich white yuppies, they didn't care that he was just referencing an old meme, they didn't care that he isn't racist at all, they simply hated the fact that he said nigga being a white man.
As for the point about censorship, I was not making that point about individuals, I was speaking generally. It's good to know you wouldn't try to censor anyone although it's sad to me that you would be willing to de-platform people.
Quote from: Aether on April 08, 2018, 09:28:47 PMMy example with Owen Benjamin goes against what you're saying, though. The context of him saying the word nigga was ignored by the people who protested him. They didn't care that he was making a joke pointing out the absurdity of racism from rich white yuppies, they didn't care that he was just referencing an old meme, they didn't care that he isn't racist at all, they simply hated the fact that he said nigga being a white man.oh okay, i see nowyeah, i guess it was wrong for him to be imprisoned and beaten to death, thenoh wait, he's still alive? he's still doing okay? and still perfectly free to do whatever he wants?well then, looks like we got ourselves a non-fucking-issueQuoteAs for the point about censorship, I was not making that point about individuals, I was speaking generally. It's good to know you wouldn't try to censor anyone although it's sad to me that you would be willing to de-platform people.you've yet to explain how de-platforming is even bad to begin withit's good
Quote from: Shhhhhh on April 08, 2018, 09:34:11 PMQuote from: Aether on April 08, 2018, 09:28:47 PMMy example with Owen Benjamin goes against what you're saying, though. The context of him saying the word nigga was ignored by the people who protested him. They didn't care that he was making a joke pointing out the absurdity of racism from rich white yuppies, they didn't care that he was just referencing an old meme, they didn't care that he isn't racist at all, they simply hated the fact that he said nigga being a white man.oh okay, i see nowyeah, i guess it was wrong for him to be imprisoned and beaten to death, thenoh wait, he's still alive? he's still doing okay? and still perfectly free to do whatever he wants?well then, looks like we got ourselves a non-fucking-issueQuoteAs for the point about censorship, I was not making that point about individuals, I was speaking generally. It's good to know you wouldn't try to censor anyone although it's sad to me that you would be willing to de-platform people.you've yet to explain how de-platforming is even bad to begin withit's goodIf people want to listen to and exchange ideas with someone, then they should be able to do so. They should be able to allow someone a platform to speak, regardless of what that person's own ideas are. So long as there is no incitement to violence. It's that simple. It's a matter of principle. It also allows radicals to be confronted by the general public by which their ideas have a greater chance to be challenged, and creates less of a chance for them to withdraw into whatever dark corner they would have where they can claim to be oppressed and be radicalized even further.In regards to the Owen Benjamin situation, I was simply making the point that these people, who claim to be a part of the left, are offended by his use of the word nigga and not the context behind that use. Which goes against what you're saying about the entirety of the left being opposed to getting upset over words alone.
Define incitement concisely.
Quote from: eggsalad on April 08, 2018, 09:55:59 PMDefine incitement concisely.Telling people that they should go and physically attack others or their property?
Quote from: Aether on April 08, 2018, 09:58:08 PMQuote from: eggsalad on April 08, 2018, 09:55:59 PMDefine incitement concisely.Telling people that they should go and physically attack others or their property?Okay, does this mean specific people? Can I say that a demographic is subhuman, less deserving of rights, that our country would be better off if they could somehow be removed? Can I doxx someone and describe all the horrible acts they have committed, but not explicitly instruct anyone to harm them?
So long as all you're doing is shitting on a specific group or just making claims that they don't have certain rights, then the right to speak remains. It's sad that people will spout that kind of rhetoric but they need to see how society in general will respond to it, they need to have their little bubble of ideas popped by the ideas of others. I think it's much worse if they stay inside that bubble where an echo chamber forms and no one is challenging them.I'm not so afraid of radicals recruiting your average person to their cause when their rhetoric is so flawed, unreasonable, and/or oppressive. I have faith that people can be taught to think critically and discern what is really right and wrong.
Quote from: Aether on April 08, 2018, 10:25:45 PMSo long as all you're doing is shitting on a specific group or just making claims that they don't have certain rights, then the right to speak remains. It's sad that people will spout that kind of rhetoric but they need to see how society in general will respond to it, they need to have their little bubble of ideas popped by the ideas of others. I think it's much worse if they stay inside that bubble where an echo chamber forms and no one is challenging them.I'm not so afraid of radicals recruiting your average person to their cause when their rhetoric is so flawed, unreasonable, and/or oppressive. I have faith that people can be taught to think critically and discern what is really right and wrong.This all strikes me as naive.This assumption that somehow bad ideas will fail and good ideas will win in the marketplace of ideas makes false assumptions about the conditions of the market. The only way in which this happens is when people are fully rational and value ideas based on merit, but people aren't always rational. Do you realize how often people on opposing sides of a discussion will think the speaker in a debate that they agree with won? How exactly do you think these "bubbles" will pop? Not all of these people present their shit rhetoric through the form of debate, or even answer questions. Some just throw it out there with no opportunity for rebuttal. Many treat debates merely as whacky personality shows in which they can just try and troll their way through it so that their followers can think they're so hip and cool for not being serious. It is *strategic* to use these ideas of free speech in order to try and give your message as broad a scope as possible to garner as many potential followers as possible. They don't care about intellectual honesty, and you seem to not realize what it takes to defend against that.
Oh I know. I'm not looking for someone who's completely non-partisan. We all have are our biases and preconceptions. I'm just browsing for someone who at least seems honest and generally interested in fairness, balance and some nuance. Most of these political commentators who present themselves as rational, factual and interested in the actual truth are pretty much the opposite and are extremely selective in how they cover things and what conclusions they (want to) draw. The Kraut guy you suggested doesn't seem to be active anymore though.
And you can think I'm naive all you want to, but I still believe people in general can be taught to discern right from wrong
Quote from: Aether on April 08, 2018, 11:08:52 PMAnd you can think I'm naive all you want to, but I still believe people in general can be taught to discern right from wrongh i s t o r y d i s a g r e e s
"Skeptics"
