#MiloAtCali canceled - Violent Rioting

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · February 03, 2017, 02:33:30 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

eggsalad · February 03, 2017, 02:48:39 PM

Quote from: ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ on February 03, 2017, 02:33:30 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on February 03, 2017, 02:29:51 PM
Quote from: ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ on February 03, 2017, 02:25:37 PM
Quote from: eggsalad on February 03, 2017, 02:18:58 PM
I realize these types adore the idea of saying "the 'tolerant' left is intolerant of opposing views", but at some point you have to realize letting Germany run death-camps is not permissible if you want to live in a world of diversity.
You realize you just equated Milo's making fun of SJWs to the Nazi genocide campaign, don't you?

I want you to take a step back and think about this for a moment.
That's your conflation, not mine.

That was to establish that the idea that someone who claims themselves "tolerant" must be tolerant of any and all beliefs or expressions, is a clearly flawed way of thinking of the word tolerate.

I'm not saying Milo is killing Jews. I'm saying there is a definitive point at which a tolerant person can't tolerate opposing views. Therefor the argument that the left has to accept someone yelling Nigger or Fag is possibly fallacious, because where that definitive line is drawn is a matter of subjectivity. If you want to discuss where it lies, that's an open discussion. But to say that the left is hypocritical or contradicting itself is simply wrong.
Then why not just say "yelling nigger"? There's quite a big jump between outright genocide and calling people mean names, and it includes actual engagement in violence.

We do say that. Why should it be acceptable? All the word does is encourage minorities to shy away from places where that dialogue is spewed openly. That's the point. If speech is harmful to the point it discourages a group from even existing in that space, then that speech isn't conducive to diversity.

I would say calling transwomen men trying to infiltrate women's restrooms like rodents is akin to calling a black person a monkey, nigger, etc. At least when the argument for sex based bathroom regulation is framed around defending women from sexual predators who pretend to be trans, a discussion can be had about the effectiveness of the policy or about the weight of the consequences. But just calling trans people degenerates doesn't contribute to the discussion, it does nothing but discourage it.

Verbatim · February 03, 2017, 02:50:06 PM

something something get thicker skin etc.

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · February 03, 2017, 02:53:35 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

challengerX · February 03, 2017, 03:25:57 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Luciana · February 03, 2017, 04:01:16 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 02:28:41 PM

It is very sad to see so many underestimate the power of truth that they would feel the need to shelter, not only themselves, but other people as well from ignorance and delusion

Well that's what's happening, because people are accepting blatant lies as truth and truth as opinion whenever it doesn't fit into their ideology. It's a dangerous thing we're seeing happen around the country.

Luciana · February 03, 2017, 04:03:58 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 02:28:41 PM

All speech is free speech. It is isn't physical then we need not ban it.

I suppose we should be able to yell "bomb" in an airport then or "fire" in public places? What logic is this? Free speech isn't 100% free. It just means the government can't prosecute you because you have different beliefs. That doesn't mean society has to tolerate it all when it dives into simple name calling and racism.

Luciana · February 03, 2017, 04:11:38 PM

Quote from: ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ on February 03, 2017, 02:21:51 PM

-snip-

A lot to take away from this, but a few things.

Hate speech to me, is when you promote a race over another and try to oppress another

And I'm not on about what's "truth" or not. I know and accept the left isn't right with everything, I don't accept a lot of beliefs the far left pushes. On the other hand, the far right isn't exactly amazing either. Yes yes I know, playing the "moderate" card, which would normally be the case. But now a days we're seeing both sides, especially the alt-right, buy into blatant lies as if they're facts. Hard based truth doesn't exist anymore it seems. It seems whatever "truth" there is, only counts when it fits into your own confirmation bias, and that's dangerous as hell to see. We already see it here with Psu who's clearly admitted it. And no it's not just the alt right. I just think it's more cancerous on that side. I've seen plenty of stuff from the far left that annoys the hell out of me too.

Either way, I do think free speech is a sacred thing. I just don't think people should be so accepting and open armed about hearing clearly toxic rhetoric that is in NO means "productive" when it comes to casting an entire race or people as "a bad guy" or something along those lines. If you wanna go on loudly about how abortion is shit, or how we need religion to save us, I'm all for it. Even talk about how liberals are fucking retarded with guns and how the right has it 100% correct. I don't mind that.

I do mind though when a "discussion" is simply someone promoting racism and intolerance as a political viewpoint.

As for the other stuff, idk, you kinda went on a rant, but it's not like I 100% disagree with you.

Oh right, as for the filthy Europeans or whatever, I know Americans are far more touchy about free speech.

Aether · February 03, 2017, 04:14:52 PM

Quote from: Luciana on February 03, 2017, 04:03:58 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 02:28:41 PM
All speech is free speech. It is isn't physical then we need not ban it.
I suppose we should be able to yell "bomb" in an airport then or "fire" in public places? What logic is this? Free speech isn't 100% free. It just means the government can't prosecute you because you have different beliefs. That doesn't mean society has to tolerate it all when it dives into simple name calling and racism.

Please, don't conflate controversial ideas and beliefs with something like yelling, "bomb!" in an airport. You have the capacity to understand what I'm referring to as speech in this topic. As long as it isn't physical or an incitement of actual physical violence or panic then it shouldn't be banned.

You, personally, don't have to tolerate racist or insulting rhetoric, but no person or organization should tell other people that they aren't allowed to tolerate it. You need to let people make up their own minds.

Luciana · February 03, 2017, 04:26:33 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 04:14:52 PM

Quote from: Luciana on February 03, 2017, 04:03:58 PM
Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 02:28:41 PM
All speech is free speech. It is isn't physical then we need not ban it.
I suppose we should be able to yell "bomb" in an airport then or "fire" in public places? What logic is this? Free speech isn't 100% free. It just means the government can't prosecute you because you have different beliefs. That doesn't mean society has to tolerate it all when it dives into simple name calling and racism.
Please, don't conflate controversial ideas and beliefs with something like yelling, "bomb!" in an airport. You have the capacity to understand what I'm referring to as speech in this topic. As long as it isn't physical or an incitement of actual physical violence or panic then it shouldn't be banned.

You, personally, don't have to tolerate racist or insulting rhetoric, but no person or organization should tell other people that they aren't allowed to tolerate it. You need to let people make up their own minds.

I know what you meant, I was just going by the logic you were throwing at me.

Yeah but when people do decide and protest about it, people go on about how they're retarded.

Verbatim · February 03, 2017, 04:39:45 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 04:14:52 PM

Please, don't conflate controversial ideas and beliefs with something like yelling, "bomb!" in an airport.

But you did say that all speech is free speech. You can't just fuck around with words like "all" if that's not what you mean.

Either free speech has limitations or it doesn't--which one is it?

Aether · February 03, 2017, 04:39:50 PM

Quote from: Luciana on February 03, 2017, 04:26:33 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 04:14:52 PM
Quote from: Luciana on February 03, 2017, 04:03:58 PM
Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 02:28:41 PM
All speech is free speech. It is isn't physical then we need not ban it.
I suppose we should be able to yell "bomb" in an airport then or "fire" in public places? What logic is this? Free speech isn't 100% free. It just means the government can't prosecute you because you have different beliefs. That doesn't mean society has to tolerate it all when it dives into simple name calling and racism.
Please, don't conflate controversial ideas and beliefs with something like yelling, "bomb!" in an airport. You have the capacity to understand what I'm referring to as speech in this topic. As long as it isn't physical or an incitement of actual physical violence or panic then it shouldn't be banned.

You, personally, don't have to tolerate racist or insulting rhetoric, but no person or organization should tell other people that they aren't allowed to tolerate it. You need to let people make up their own minds.
I know what you meant, I was just going by the logic you were throwing at me.

Yeah but when people do decide and protest about it, people go on about how they're retarded.

And they can go on about it so long as they don't try to censor those protesting. Each side should have the ability to speak their mind as long as it doesn't devolve into violence.

Aether · February 03, 2017, 04:41:16 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2017, 04:39:45 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 04:14:52 PM
Please, don't conflate controversial ideas and beliefs with something like yelling, "bomb!" in an airport.
But you did say that all speech is free speech. You can't just fuck around with words like "all" if that's not what you mean.

I'm sorry, it's just an expression. Most people I've encountered don't take it so literally in the context of this argument.

eggsalad · February 03, 2017, 04:42:18 PM

Quote from: ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ on February 03, 2017, 02:53:35 PM

So we're defining what is and is not acceptable speech based on how conducive it is to your definition of diversity?

Well I was of the impression people in this thread were defending free speech because it helps maintain a diverse pool of opinions from which to draw meaningful discourse and discussion. This makes sense in an academic setting, to a point. I think alienating and excluding demographics isn't conducive to that, so expressions that do nothing but alienate and exclude people while adding nothing else to the conversation aren't conducive to the values of free speech.

If I'm wrong and this is about how the government's going to snowball out of control and start jailing people for thought crimes, sorry, I misinterpreted the subject. I just didn't buy the whole "we need opposing opinions to reach truth" garbage.

Quote

I don't really think you have any right to complain about others discouraging discussion when you want to decide what is or is not acceptable discussion in the first place.

If you can't see how fostering speech that discourages discussion is irreconcilable with the idea of wanting discussion then there's no reason talking to you.

Saying insults isn't discussion, and if it is to you, then all I have to tell you is not all discussion is of equal value.

Verbatim · February 03, 2017, 04:42:24 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 04:41:16 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2017, 04:39:45 PM
Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 04:14:52 PM
Please, don't conflate controversial ideas and beliefs with something like yelling, "bomb!" in an airport.
But you did say that all speech is free speech. You can't just fuck around with words like "all" if that's not what you mean.
I'm sorry, it's just an expression. Most people I've encountered don't take it so literally in the context of this argument.

We're talking about speech and whether it's okay to censor it, so I'd elect to choose my words very carefully.

Aether · February 03, 2017, 04:45:57 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2017, 04:42:24 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 04:41:16 PM
Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2017, 04:39:45 PM
Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 04:14:52 PM
Please, don't conflate controversial ideas and beliefs with something like yelling, "bomb!" in an airport.
But you did say that all speech is free speech. You can't just fuck around with words like "all" if that's not what you mean.
I'm sorry, it's just an expression. Most people I've encountered don't take it so literally in the context of this argument.
We're talking about speech and whether it's okay to censor it, so I'd elect to choose my words very carefully.

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and expect that they'll understand the expression and its exceptions. I suppose it's a bit foolish but maybe I'm just optimistic about the capacity of other people's understanding.

Verbatim · February 03, 2017, 04:58:34 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 04:45:57 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2017, 04:42:24 PM
Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 04:41:16 PM
Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2017, 04:39:45 PM
Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 04:14:52 PM
Please, don't conflate controversial ideas and beliefs with something like yelling, "bomb!" in an airport.
But you did say that all speech is free speech. You can't just fuck around with words like "all" if that's not what you mean.
I'm sorry, it's just an expression. Most people I've encountered don't take it so literally in the context of this argument.
We're talking about speech and whether it's okay to censor it, so I'd elect to choose my words very carefully.
I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and expect that they'll understand the expression and its exceptions. I suppose it's a bit foolish but maybe I'm just optimistic about the capacity of other people's understanding.

So if I say that all X are Y, and you provide me with a counterexample that demonstrates otherwise, I can just turn around and say, "Well, it was just an expression; I guess you were just too stupid to understand that."

That's kinda nifty, I'll have to keep that in mind.

Aether · February 03, 2017, 05:00:27 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2017, 04:58:34 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 04:45:57 PM
Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2017, 04:42:24 PM
Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 04:41:16 PM
Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2017, 04:39:45 PM
Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 04:14:52 PM
Please, don't conflate controversial ideas and beliefs with something like yelling, "bomb!" in an airport.
But you did say that all speech is free speech. You can't just fuck around with words like "all" if that's not what you mean.
I'm sorry, it's just an expression. Most people I've encountered don't take it so literally in the context of this argument.
We're talking about speech and whether it's okay to censor it, so I'd elect to choose my words very carefully.
I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and expect that they'll understand the expression and its exceptions. I suppose it's a bit foolish but maybe I'm just optimistic about the capacity of other people's understanding.
So if I say that all X are Y, and you provide me with a counterexample that demonstrates otherwise, I can just turn around and say, "Well, it was just an expression; I guess you were just too stupid to understand that."

That's kinda nifty, I'll have to keep that in mind.

I didn't say anyone was stupid, I only expected that they would understand. The only person I've said was a fool was myself.

Verbatim · February 03, 2017, 05:10:46 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 05:00:27 PM

I didn't say anyone was stupid, I only expected that they would understand. The only person I've said was a fool was myself.

Read your post again--"maybe I'm just optimistic about the capacity of other people's understanding"--and tell me that doesn't seem condescending as hell.

It's not about people's lack of understanding--it's about the importance of specificity in a discussion of something as delicate, broad, and nuanced as free speech.

Anyway, you've established a limitation to free speech--shouting "bomb!" in a crowded theater is not okay.

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here and ask, why not? It doesn't hurt anybody. It causes people to panic, but that has nothing to do with me or what I've done. Maybe people should control their emotions. Maybe people shouldn't just take word from random strangers. How is that any different than calling a nigger a nigger and then getting beat up for it? Both times, I never hurt anybody. Why are you trying to inhibit my free speech?

I'm just making sure you have an understanding of why you believe what you believe.

Aether · February 03, 2017, 05:23:37 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2017, 05:10:46 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 05:00:27 PM
I didn't say anyone was stupid, I only expected that they would understand. The only person I've said was a fool was myself.
Read your post again--"maybe I'm just optimistic about the capacity of other people's understanding"--and tell me that doesn't seem condescending as hell.

Anyway, you've established a limitation to free speech--shouting "bomb!" in a crowded theater is not okay.

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here and ask, why not? It doesn't hurt anybody. It causes people to panic, but that has nothing to do with me or what I've done. Maybe people should control their emotions. Maybe people shouldn't just take word from random strangers. How is that any different than calling a nigger a nigger and then getting beat up for it? Both times, I never hurt anybody. Why are you trying to inhibit my free speech?

I'm just making sure you have an understanding of why you believe what you believe.

Well I guess it does, but I'm the guy who expected people to be able to understand, it seems to be you who's implying that I shouldn't expect that.

I don't think shouting, "bomb!' in an airport should be allowed because it has immediate capacity to cause panic and get people hurt or even killed. Similarly, I don't believe someone should be allowed a platform to say "kill all Jews," or "destroy X and Y's neighborhood and business'," as that is an incitement to violence.

I don't believe a verbal insult equates to physical violence. Two people can insult each other all day long, but the instant one of them resorts to physical violence then they are going too far.

Verbatim · February 03, 2017, 05:26:59 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 05:23:37 PM

I don't believe a verbal insult equates to physical violence.

But could a verbal insult equate to (or lead to) an incitement to violence?

If so, where do you draw the line?

Aether · February 03, 2017, 05:42:48 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2017, 05:26:59 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 05:23:37 PM
I don't believe a verbal insult equates to physical violence.
But could a verbal insult equate to (or lead to) an incitement to violence?

If so, where do you draw the line?

No I don't believe it is. Saying, "X are the problem," or, "Y are some derogatory term" does not equate to, "we should attack X or Y and/or their property. One can just as well have the attitude that they need to help X or Y instead of feeling the need to get rid of or attack X or Y after hearing rhetoric against them.

I understand that some people are going to get emotional to the point that they snap and become violent, but I don't think it should ever be accepted as something that's okay to do, and as long as someone is not supporting violence as a course of action then I believe they should have a legal right to express their ideas.

challengerX · February 03, 2017, 05:48:06 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · February 03, 2017, 05:54:55 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 05:42:48 PM

No I don't believe it is. Saying, "X are the problem," or, "Y are some derogatory term" does not equate to, "we should attack X or Y and/or their property. One can just as well have the attitude that they need to help X or Y instead of feeling the need to get rid of or attack X or Y after hearing rhetoric against them.

I understand that some people are going to get emotional to the point that they snap and become violent, but I don't think it should ever be accepted as something that's okay to do, and as long as someone is not supporting violence as a course of action then I believe they have a right to express their ideas.

All right. So it's not okay to yell "bomb!" because it elicits a dangerous emotional response out of people, but it's perfectly acceptable to belittle people past their breaking point--even though that also elicits a dangerous emotional response.

I guess I just don't see your throughline here.

If you're the type of person who snaps when they're called a certain derogatory term, do you think it's going to matter to you whether it's """okay""" to become violent? Do you think you'd care? Why should you care?

Aether · February 03, 2017, 06:18:37 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2017, 05:54:55 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 05:42:48 PM
No I don't believe it is. Saying, "X are the problem," or, "Y are some derogatory term" does not equate to, "we should attack X or Y and/or their property. One can just as well have the attitude that they need to help X or Y instead of feeling the need to get rid of or attack X or Y after hearing rhetoric against them.

I understand that some people are going to get emotional to the point that they snap and become violent, but I don't think it should ever be accepted as something that's okay to do, and as long as someone is not supporting violence as a course of action then I believe they have a right to express their ideas.
All right. So it's not okay to yell "bomb!" because it elicits a dangerous emotional response out of people, but it's perfectly acceptable to belittle people past their breaking point--even though that also elicits a dangerous emotional response.

I guess I just don't see your throughline here.

If you're the type of person who snaps when they're called a certain derogatory term, do you think it's going to matter to you whether it's """okay""" to become violent? Do you think you'd care? Why should you care?

I think there's a clear difference between the emotional response from someone yelling,"bomb!" in an airport and someone yelling "nigger!" Fear for one's life isn't the same thing as rage, and I don't think people should be held as accountable for fearing for their lives as they should be for behaving violently out of rage.

I do believe that if someone is continuously slandering an individual personally, then that individual has a right to take legal action on the basis of harassment. Where to draw the line on harassment is subjective of course, but we do have laws defining it.

However, when a demographic is slandered in a general sense then I don't believe anyone should try to censor the one's slandering it or resort to violence. If an idea is wrong then it is easily undermined by the truth. I get that physically attacking the person slandering a group you identify with can bring catharses, but it isn't just. Their words do not equate to physical violence. Slander them back, if you must, but don't attack them physically. If someone has a vendetta against you as a person then take any legal action you can if you have to, just don't resort to violence against them.

Verbatim · February 03, 2017, 06:24:15 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 06:18:37 PM

I think there's a clear difference between the emotional response from someone yelling,"bomb!" in an airport and someone yelling "nigger!" Fear for one's life isn't the same thing as rage, and I don't think people should be held as accountable for fearing for their lives as they should be for behaving violent out of rage.

What they share in common is their capacity to be controlled. You can fear for your life, but not panic. You can be pissed off, but not become violent. I've feared for my life before--not panicking did me wonders.

eggsalad · February 03, 2017, 07:02:03 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 06:18:37 PM

If an idea is wrong then it is easily undermined by the truth.

Except this doesn't happen in reality. Creationists engage in debate with scientists all the time, and there are still creationists. Climate-change denial is common in US legislation. Cults and religions proliferate because there are many credulous people out there. People will pick and choose what information is significant to affirm their beliefs.

This frame of mind resembles thinking the invisible hand of the free market can magically solve monopolization. It's an oversimplification and symptomatic of a lack of understanding.

Aether · February 03, 2017, 07:03:18 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2017, 06:24:15 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 06:18:37 PM
I think there's a clear difference between the emotional response from someone yelling,"bomb!" in an airport and someone yelling "nigger!" Fear for one's life isn't the same thing as rage, and I don't think people should be held as accountable for fearing for their lives as they should be for behaving violent out of rage.
What they share in common is their capacity to be controlled. You can fear for your life, but not panic. You can be pissed off, but not become violent. I've feared for my life before--not panicking did me wonders.

Yes I understand that panic and rage are both very difficult to control when they've set in. But I do believe those enraged should still be held accountable for their actions and not the person that enraged them.

Aether · February 03, 2017, 07:07:07 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on February 03, 2017, 07:02:03 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 06:18:37 PM
If an idea is wrong then it is easily undermined by the truth.

Except this doesn't happen in reality. Creationists engage in debate with scientists all the time, and there are still creationists. Climate-change denial is common in US legislation. Cults and religions proliferate because there are many credulous people out there. People will pick and choose what information is significant to affirm their beliefs.

This frame of mind resembles thinking the invisible hand of the free market can magically solve monopolization. It's an oversimplification and symptomatic of a lack of understanding.

Rest assured, truth will undermine ignorance, but I don't mean to say that everyone is going to accept the truth. it's unfortunate, but that is why I believe in teaching people to be critical thinkers, to practice mindfulness, and to question the teachings of others because it will make them seekers of truth and that is something this world needs more of.

eggsalad · February 03, 2017, 07:12:09 PM

Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 07:07:07 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on February 03, 2017, 07:02:03 PM
Quote from: Aether on February 03, 2017, 06:18:37 PM
If an idea is wrong then it is easily undermined by the truth.

Except this doesn't happen in reality. Creationists engage in debate with scientists all the time, and there are still creationists. Climate-change denial is common in US legislation. Cults and religions proliferate because there are many credulous people out there. People will pick and choose what information is significant to affirm their beliefs.

This frame of mind resembles thinking the invisible hand of the free market can magically solve monopolization. It's an oversimplification and symptomatic of a lack of understanding.
Rest assured, truth will undermine ignorance, but I don't mean to say that everyone is going to accept the truth. it's unfortunate, but that is why I believe in teaching people to be critical thinkers, and to question the teachings of others, because it will make them seekers of truth and that is something this world needs more of.

Wishful thinking. That doesn't really fix issues presented by the fact people are ignorant here and now. Legislation is being passed to pander to these people. It'd be like saying we should have just let slavery "phase" out in the South over time. Without any tangible time table or realistic expectation as to when that cultural shift will happen, you end up just sounding like an apologist.