DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => New Political and Religious Forum => Topic started by: 7th on January 14, 2017, 01:45:08 PM

Title: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: 7th on January 14, 2017, 01:45:08 PM
A very disturbing trend in partisan politics has been emerging where the goal is not to engage in discussion but to silence opposing views.  Now we are entering silence or violence situations:

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/01/13/reports-leftists-pull-hammers-milo-uc-davis-event-smash-windows/

Milo is a gay man for crying out loud!  Since when do gay people get silenced in Davis CA?  Since when should anyone be silenced in the USA? 

Can anyone offer a justification for the stifling of free speech in the USA, especially on college campuses?  Colleges are where these discussions should be happening!  Why are young adults showing up to a Milo event with hammers?       
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: eric42434224 on January 14, 2017, 02:10:23 PM
Opposing views are also free speech, as are protests.  Also The co-speaker was the lovely Shkreli.  No injuries and no property damage.  Not sure why you seem to think this type of thing is new on either political side.  Not only is it not new, it is very tame to tons of other incidents.
Plus Brietbart  :\
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: KevShmev on January 14, 2017, 03:20:11 PM
Colleges are really bad with this stuff now.  Young college students now don't want discussion; they want to live in their echo chamber and shout down anyone with opposing viewpoints.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: 7th on January 14, 2017, 03:34:29 PM
Not sure why you seem to think this type of thing is new on either political side.

Free speech being opposed on college campuses is a relatively new phenomenon.  Gay speakers being "protested" in one of the gayest cities in America is also new.  This wasn't really protest, this was disruption which is what the left is openly practicing now and it is not protected as free speech.  Why are they doing this?  Doesn't the left resorting to disruption basically disqualify the conversation entirely and hand the ethical baton to the right?  Milo did nothing wrong, says nothing wrong, and he's a great example of why many progressive assumptions and assertions are horseshit.  Do you want to live in a nation where the left leaners are the bad guys openly doing bad things to disrupt free speech because they don't like what is being said?  Neither side of the endless argument should behave this way.

If Brietbart doesn't meet your standards for news, CNN are reporting on it too: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/14/us/milo-yiannopoulos-uc-davis-speech-canceled/index.html       
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: eric42434224 on January 14, 2017, 04:20:25 PM
I didn't see anything in that article about preventing anyone's free speech.  And it was a protest. Nothing new or unique.  Turning it into some huge meaningful commentary about ethical batons of political parties is just hyperbole.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: 7th on January 14, 2017, 04:40:09 PM
I didn't see anything in that article about preventing anyone's free speech.

How about the guy in the video who said "we came here to kick these bastards out, mission accomplished!" or something to that effect.  They *shut down* the event through the threat of violence!!  Protests don't do that, they simply protest.  You get the difference right?

But, and this is in line with my original question, why do you feel compelled to defend or minimize the situation?  Instead of recognizing that what they did was fundamentally wrong, you've instead minimized the significance of a group bullying a college to shut down an event through the threat of violence.  I am not being snarky here, I really want to know what emotion or reasoning or combination thereof leads to the view that this behavior is normal and acceptable in the USA.  Why does the left feel it necessary to silence opposing views?  My answer?: I personally believe that it is because they know their values and beliefs are indefensible by reason.  Either I am wrong or we must simply conceded that the modern progressive movement has abandoned the values of liberty and equality for fascism (which is what these "protestors" were practicing). 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on January 14, 2017, 04:48:06 PM
I read a study some months ago looking at whether or not right wing people or left wing people (at least in America) are more prone to political intolerance (which would include your urge to silence opposing views, as well as not allow them to voice their opposing opinions).


Turns out both sides are equally prone to it. So that means it's just a human nature thing. Nothing special about the left or the right.

Why do we do it? Most likely the inability to tolerate distress to certain degrees.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: eric42434224 on January 14, 2017, 05:03:57 PM
What about what?  They didnt want them speaking on their campus, protested, and got the event cancelled.  No injuries or violence.  Happened countless times before, and will happen again.  No one lost their right to free speech here.

Also, I am not minimizing or defending anything that happened....just pointing out the hyperbole.  Exaggerating this to some new phenomenon that is done by the "left" is what I am pointing out.  What I am minimizing is statements that use a report with sketchy details to conclude with the generalization that the "modern progressive movement has abandoned the values of liberty and equality for facism "

Seriously?
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: 7th on January 14, 2017, 05:09:04 PM
I read a study some months ago looking at whether or not right wing people or left wing people (at least in America) are more prone to political intolerance (which would include your urge to silence opposing views, as well as not allow them to voice their opposing opinions).


Turns out both sides are equally prone to it. So that means it's just a human nature thing. Nothing special about the left or the right.

Why do we do it? Most likely the inability to tolerate distress to certain degrees.

Sure and I'd ask the same question if a bunch of KKK guys were shutting down Al Sharpton speeches.  You make a good point about the inability to tolerate distress.  I guess the party of "tolerance" has simply had enough. :-)

I personally don't have the desire to shut people up.  I love listening to other's views no matter how different from mine they might be.  When I see people do stuff like the Davis shutdown I actually feel sorry for them.  They are so misguided, so willfully ignorant, that I actually feel sorry for them.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on January 14, 2017, 05:12:08 PM
I mean, I feel there's a decent discussion somewhere buried underneath your anti-left rants and agenda.

If you feel like dropping the constant insults and digs against leftists/progressives/liberals, whatever, we might be able to discuss what could be an interesting topic.

Edit: Also, comparing protesters you don't like to the KKK really doesn't help your points either. And this happened before the board got shut down, your points being overlooked by all of your hyperbole and anti-liberal agenda. Just discuss the points.

I'll check back in a bit to see if that happens, but I'll leave you guys with this thought.


Do you think the way we have it now, where one party always has much more power than the other, that this gives way for the less powerful people to feel the need to be more extreme in their resistance or views? If so, would assuring a coalition of both (or more) parties at all times help alleviate that, or is it better to make sure two people (Prez and Vice) are of the same party and the same agenda/values?
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: 7th on January 14, 2017, 05:30:06 PM
What about what?  They didnt want them speaking on their campus, protested, and got the event cancelled.  No injuries or violence.  Happened countless times before, and will happen again.  No one lost their right to free speech here.

Also, I am not minimizing or defending anything that happened....just pointing out the hyperbole.  Exaggerating this to some new phenomenon that is done by the "left" is what I am pointing out.  What I am minimizing is statements that use a report with sketchy details to conclude with the generalization that the "modern progressive movement has abandoned the values of liberty and equality for facism "

Seriously?

Head meet sand.  No hyperbole here man, the "protestors" showed up in masks with weapons and started tearing shit apart to *disrupt* a speaking event.  When put on camera there was no "peaceful protest" talk, it was "we came here to shut them down" talk.  If you can't see that, well, fine, but I can see it.  Also, many reports of leftist organizations calling for *disruption* now instead of protesting.  I called it partisan because I've never seen right wing groups do this sort of thing.  The inauguration day will probably be full of this costly, wasteful, and pointless shit.  If you are cool with it, fine, I am not.  BTW, my statement about fascism was not a generalization at all.  It's pretty clear that modern progressivism has morphed into something weird that condones fascist behavior like silencing political speech.  Even Shkreli commented on it in the video - "progressivism is about *having* the conversation."

Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: eric42434224 on January 14, 2017, 06:26:28 PM
I mean, I feel there's a decent discussion somewhere buried underneath your anti-left rants and agenda.

If you feel like dropping the constant insults and digs against leftists/progressives/liberals, whatever, we might be able to discuss what could be an interesting topic.

Edit: Also, comparing protesters you don't like to the KKK really doesn't help your points either. And this happened before the board got shut down, your points being overlooked by all of your hyperbole and anti-liberal agenda. Just discuss the points.

I'll check back in a bit to see if that happens, but I'll leave you guys with this thought.


Yeah this pretty much sums up my position with 7th as well.
Well said.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: orcus116 on January 15, 2017, 10:06:27 AM
Colleges are really bad with this stuff now.  Young college students now don't want discussion; they want to live in their echo chamber and shout down anyone with opposing viewpoints.

I know it's not all colleges but it does seem that some reputable (not all) institutions of learning and development are abandoning their credibility by essentially bowing down to their, typically, mentally and emotionally under developed students. I'm guessing it has a lot to do with the students funding the universities by attending them so why rock that boat but if I was a parent I'd be really skeptical sending my child to a place that promotes and feeds the types of incredibly toxic behavior that is becoming somewhat of the norm in certain circles.

Here is a really long but very, very good interview of Jordan Peterson by Joe Rogan. For anyone that doesn't know who Peterson is he's a professor at the University of Toronto who is one of the more articulate liberal voices when it comes to combating the types of viewpoints of the "equality for all but only the way I personally define equality" mindset. He's been outspoken about not using gender pronouns and as a result there are several videos of individuals approaching him and attempting to bait him into arguments.

The video touches on the suppression of viewpoints people don't want to hear a few times and the discussion is very well put together.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: TheOutlawXanadu on January 17, 2017, 11:45:03 AM
Thanks for sharing, Orcus. I found that video really interesting.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: orcus116 on January 17, 2017, 06:43:35 PM
You're welcome. I typically don't watch things on Youtube that are that long but his points are just fascinating to listen to.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Cool Chris on February 01, 2017, 09:27:46 PM
More of the same. I swear I'd never heard of this Milo guy till a couple months ago.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley-20170201-story.html

Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Progmetty on February 01, 2017, 09:33:22 PM
I know him from his feud with the African American ghost busters actress, at first I was automatically on his side since I hate the movie but then I found he was sending waves of his twitter followers with the lipstick frog to throw racial insults at her and realized he was a douche.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Cool Chris on February 01, 2017, 09:36:47 PM
Who's the more douchey, the douche or the douches who follow him?

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/91/10/94/91109428dd6ebb407cb4ccc1f1111b41.jpg)
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: lonestar on February 01, 2017, 09:40:12 PM
More of the same. I swear I'd never heard of this Milo guy till a couple months ago.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley-20170201-story.html

Yeah... don't start up the Berkeley people, you're talking about protesters who camped out in fucking trees for three years to prevent a football stadium upgrade. Don't even want to imagine how far off the rails they'll go for this one.


:gobears:
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Genowyn on February 02, 2017, 10:55:37 AM
So a few thoughts on this recent riot...

One, I've heard the actual violence and property is being perpetrated by an anarchist group called the Black Bloc who like to show up to any protests in the area and start shit.

Second, whether that's true or not, these sort of protests just seem so counterproductive. All protesting Milo does is feed into his narratives about the left being intolerant of his ideas, and sell more copies of his book to people who agree with him anyway. You know what would really be a kick in the dick to Milo? Ignoring him. Imagine how sad he would be if there were not only no protests, but hardly anyone showed up to his speech. I can't imagine there are that many of his fans at a place like Berkeley.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: pogoowner on February 02, 2017, 11:38:33 AM
I don't think it would be that difficult to organize a group of people to buy the vast majority of the tickets to his event and either not show up or stage a walkout (assuming it's a ticketed event).
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: cramx3 on February 02, 2017, 03:39:56 PM
I don't think it would be that difficult to organize a group of people to buy the vast majority of the tickets to his event and either not show up or stage a walkout (assuming it's a ticketed event).

That's a much cooler and better idea for a protest.  Sort of put your money where your mouth is in a way.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Cool Chris on February 02, 2017, 03:47:40 PM
Or, for the Berkeley protesters, their parents' money. Har.

And yes Anarchists and "professional" protesters will often show up at these events.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: lonestar on February 02, 2017, 04:34:36 PM
Or, for the Berkeley protesters, their parents' money. Har.

And yes Anarchists and "professional" protesters will often show up at these events.

Yes, the pros show up at every significant one in the Bay area. Even in the politically slow times they can be seen on certain street corners in Berkeley spouting some stupid message or another over microphones while the mass of students walk by.

As to the students on their parent's money, they're in a room studying, the vast majority don't give a shit about political stuff, they're too busy trying not to get swallowed by the mass that is Berkeley. I would gather somewhere around 35k students, maybe 500 were at the protest last night (the other thousand being pros and the mass of homeless and transients that live in the four block radius around that area).
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: pogoowner on February 02, 2017, 07:16:38 PM
I don't think it would be that difficult to organize a group of people to buy the vast majority of the tickets to his event and either not show up or stage a walkout (assuming it's a ticketed event).

That's a much cooler and better idea for a protest.  Sort of put your money where your mouth is in a way.
Although given Milo's history of using his platform to out trans and undocumented students, ruining their lives, I'm not exactly bothered by the fact that he was unable to speak.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: portnoy311 on February 02, 2017, 08:55:27 PM
Milo dox'ed his own supporters at the event in Boulder. The CU College Republicans sent out an email to all attendees - and didn't BCC: them. They were all visible to everyone involved. Someone then sent out a threatening email to the list (I have no idea if it was a false flag or an overzealous Philosophy student or what), and then Milo put the threatening email WITH EVERYONE'S ADDRESSES up on the projector during his presentation. Again, if it was a false flag email (definitely possible), or not Milo himself outed the email addresses of all the students at his event. The video on youtube has been watched thousands of times.

A kid at the College Republicans not knowing how BCC works, coupled with Milo giving negative fucks about his own supporters resulted in a massive dox. I'd be pissed if I was going.

I watched the first 20 minutes or so of his speech and not one time during that 20 minutes did he mention what he actually believes, instead was just talking about how stupid liberals are. How original.

I agree with everyone who said the best thing to do is just ignore him. Sadly, it looks like the rioters this week were an organized group who don't care how much harm they're actually doing.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: antigoon on February 02, 2017, 08:57:48 PM
violence is bad

counterpoint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMHpgQxTC64
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: pogoowner on February 02, 2017, 09:34:14 PM
Quote
UC Berkeley officials are warning the hosts of a Wednesday night event featuring right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos that his campus speech may be used to target individual students in the country without documentation.

“We are deeply concerned for all students’ safety and ability to pursue their education here at Cal beyond Milo’s speech,” the university’s Office of Student Affairs said in a letter Tuesday to the Berkeley College Republicans, the students hosting the event. “Milo’s event may be used to target individuals, either in the audience or by using their personal information in a way that causes them to become human targets to serve a political agenda.”

The UC Berkeley letter warns the Republican hosts of the event that Yiannopoulos could target individual students — holding up their photos or revealing personal information about them — during the speech that will be live-streamed, “putting students at risk.”

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/UC-warns-campus-group-Yiannopoulos-event-could-10901517.php
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 03, 2017, 10:02:52 AM
Milo dox'ed his own supporters at the event in Boulder. The CU College Republicans sent out an email to all attendees - and didn't BCC: them. They were all visible to everyone involved. Someone then sent out a threatening email to the list (I have no idea if it was a false flag or an overzealous Philosophy student or what), and then Milo put the threatening email WITH EVERYONE'S ADDRESSES up on the projector during his presentation. Again, if it was a false flag email (definitely possible), or not Milo himself outed the email addresses of all the students at his event. The video on youtube has been watched thousands of times.

A kid at the College Republicans not knowing how BCC works, coupled with Milo giving negative fucks about his own supporters resulted in a massive dox. I'd be pissed if I was going.

I watched the first 20 minutes or so of his speech and not one time during that 20 minutes did he mention what he actually believes, instead was just talking about how stupid liberals are. How original.

I agree with everyone who said the best thing to do is just ignore him. Sadly, it looks like the rioters this week were an organized group who don't care how much harm they're actually doing.

What does it mean to "dox" someone/something?  Can you "dox" something?
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: antigoon on February 03, 2017, 10:04:52 AM
Milo dox'ed his own supporters at the event in Boulder. The CU College Republicans sent out an email to all attendees - and didn't BCC: them. They were all visible to everyone involved. Someone then sent out a threatening email to the list (I have no idea if it was a false flag or an overzealous Philosophy student or what), and then Milo put the threatening email WITH EVERYONE'S ADDRESSES up on the projector during his presentation. Again, if it was a false flag email (definitely possible), or not Milo himself outed the email addresses of all the students at his event. The video on youtube has been watched thousands of times.

A kid at the College Republicans not knowing how BCC works, coupled with Milo giving negative fucks about his own supporters resulted in a massive dox. I'd be pissed if I was going.

I watched the first 20 minutes or so of his speech and not one time during that 20 minutes did he mention what he actually believes, instead was just talking about how stupid liberals are. How original.

I agree with everyone who said the best thing to do is just ignore him. Sadly, it looks like the rioters this week were an organized group who don't care how much harm they're actually doing.

What does it mean to "dox" someone/something?  Can you "dox" something?

It's when you publicize private or otherwise publicly unknown information about someone. It's a harassment technique.

More here: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/what-is-doxxing.htm
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 03, 2017, 10:05:57 AM
So what my generation would call "outing" is now "doxing"?   Got it.  (And no, I'm not being snarky; I'm trying to understand.)
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on February 03, 2017, 10:06:57 AM
So what my generation would call "outing" is now "doxing"?   Got it.  (And no, I'm not being snarky; I'm trying to understand.)

Yea, I didn't know that either. I thought it was like "letz take dis down 2 to the dox and sort it out"
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: antigoon on February 03, 2017, 10:08:23 AM
So what my generation would call "outing" is now "doxing"?   Got it.  (And no, I'm not being snarky; I'm trying to understand.)

Yeah, I guess so. Except nowadays with everything being digital the scope of what can be found and published is much wider.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Implode on February 03, 2017, 10:19:21 AM
Doxing is usually a bit more serious than just revealing a name too. For example, Richard Spencer was doxed a few weeks ago in the form of people publicly spreading around his name, address, phone number, etc. Sometimes it gets to be as bad as someone finding information like credit card numbers and releasing that too.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 03, 2017, 12:13:46 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/milo-yiannopoulos-uc-berkeley-event-cancelled

One of the directors of The Matrix, Lana Wachowski,  was at the Berkeley protest.
Quote
Lana Wachowski, another protester, defended using extreme tactics to deny Yiannopolous a platform. “The moral imperative is to win,” she said. “There’s something to be said for fighting according to a code, but if you lose, people are going to die. People are going to get deported.

“It’s absolutely acceptable to use violence. They are 100% certain to use it against us.”
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 03, 2017, 02:47:11 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/milo-yiannopoulos-uc-berkeley-event-cancelled

One of the directors of The Matrix, Lana Wachowski,  was at the Berkeley protest.
Quote
Lana Wachowski, another protester, defended using extreme tactics to deny Yiannopolous a platform. “The moral imperative is to win,” she said. “There’s something to be said for fighting according to a code, but if you lose, people are going to die. People are going to get deported.

“It’s absolutely acceptable to use violence. They are 100% certain to use it against us.”

Huh; I knew about Lana, but I did not know about Lilly.  Learn something new every day. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Tick on February 04, 2017, 08:16:17 AM
I like how conservatives are painted as intolerant and filled with hate  by the people who smash windows and torch cars because they have no tolerance for anything that goes against there core beliefs.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Scorpion on February 04, 2017, 08:28:24 AM
I like how conservatives are painted as intolerant and filled with hate  by the people who smash windows and torch cars because they have no tolerance for anything that goes against there core beliefs.

And yet you equate liberals with vandals and rioters. Just because I hold a more liberal worldview does not mean that I in any way endorse rioting or violence against property or people - just as you being a conservative doesn't mean that you're intolerant and filled with hate.

Generalisations don't help anyone.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: antigoon on February 04, 2017, 09:03:49 AM
I like how conservatives are painted as intolerant and filled with hate  by the people who smash windows and torch cars because they have no tolerance for anything that goes against there core beliefs.
just as you being a conservative doesn't mean that you're intolerant and filled with hate.

or endorse mass murder

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/alexandre-bissonnette-trump-travel-ban-quebec-mosque-shooting-1.3966687
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 06, 2017, 08:10:03 AM
I like how conservatives are painted as intolerant and filled with hate  by the people who smash windows and torch cars because they have no tolerance for anything that goes against there core beliefs.

And yet you equate liberals with vandals and rioters. Just because I hold a more liberal worldview does not mean that I in any way endorse rioting or violence against property or people - just as you being a conservative doesn't mean that you're intolerant and filled with hate.

Generalisations don't help anyone.

A point I've made time and time again.  So why does it keep happening?   Why the lies?  Why the hyperbole?  This is STILL called a "MUSLIM ban", and there's not one shred of evidence that this is the case (it's a pretty shitty ban if it only covers 200 million out of the 1.8 BILLION Muslims in the world).   And I STILL hear people talking about Trump's "hatred" of homosexuals, even if there isn't one SHRED of evidence that he has any animosity against gays. 

I have to spend an inordinate amount of time explaining how some of my political beleifs aren't in fact "hateful" and "intolerant", and it's frustrating because it doesn't seem to move the needle one bit.  I am ADAMANTLY pro-choice, ADAMANTLY for letting people do as they please in their bedrooms (even to extremes, sometimes, which is ironic at least to me), and yet god forbid you suggest that these laws that FORCE a person to make a cake for a gay couple getting married is actually providing them MORE rights than the rest of the population (a cake owner can deny me a cake for any reason, or no reason at all.  If was gay, that wouldn't be the case).   GOD FORBID you suggest that perhaps the argument that "I was born this way" is flawed, because, likely, sociopaths and pedophiles are "born that way" as well.   It's not intended to infringe on rights or marginalize, it's an attempt to UNDERSTAND, so that we can make laws that are reflective of SCIENCE, and withstand the scrutiny of those that truly DO have a problem with treating our homosexual friends equally (who I personally think are narrow-minded and short-sighted in their views). 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Genowyn on February 06, 2017, 01:51:14 PM
I don't think anyone is suggesting only gay people should be protected from discrimination. Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc.

And that should apply whether you're a white, Christian, male, straight, conservative or a black, lesbian, muslim, communist.

The only reason you feel like this is giving people "extra" rights is because you don't need to worry about businesses discriminating against you. It is the very definition of privilege.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 07, 2017, 07:16:14 AM
I don't think anyone is suggesting only gay people should be protected from discrimination. Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc.

And that should apply whether you're a white, Christian, male, straight, conservative or a black, lesbian, muslim, communist.

The only reason you feel like this is giving people "extra" rights is because you don't need to worry about businesses discriminating against you. It is the very definition of privilege.

NO.  Don't start with me on that.   "Privilege".  That's just a way of marginalizing the argument without actually ADDRESSING the argument.   It's not "privilege".  It's that I don't go into any store with the expectation that I SHOULD be served or I HAVE to be served.   I HAVE been denied service for various reasons, some my fault, some bullshit, and guess what?  No lawsuits.  No complaining on Twatter.  No calling the establishment "racist".  I take my business elsewhere, and if I can't find my business elsewhere I make do.   "Privilege" is just the same entitlement that anyone else has, without the luxury of a "minority" or "special class" tied to it.   

My dad.  Handicapped since he was about 30, 35 (severe rheumatoid arthritis).  Until some breakthroughs in treatment, I used to have to put his socks and shoes on for him in the morning to go to work, and most days I had to help lift him out of his chair.   I can remember him coming home from a job interview, and telling my mom "doesn't look good; they said they wanted someone more 'healthy'".    Guess what he did.  Call a lawyer?  Nope.  Whine on Instachat?  Nope.   Complain to the higher ups in the company?  Nope.    Give that business one star on Yelp and tell all his friends not to buy their goods?  Nope.    He opened the newspaper and kept looking, until he finally DID get a job.  Period.  And that's the lesson I took from that. EVERYONE has an excuse at some point.  You either rise above or you don't.   

Now, I'm in no way shape or form saying that the entire world has to "suck it up, butter cup", as there are real egregious cases of discrimination that have to be stopped.  No question.  I also am not saying that ALL laws in this regard are unnecessary, or frivolous.  Without question, if I do Job A for $x,000, and a woman is doing Job A, they should be paid $x,000, full stop.    That's not at all what I'm talking about.   

But once we incorporate the "entitlement" mentality into those laws, we're fucked, and in my opinion, we already have (and the "privilege" argument is predicated on the "entitlement" mentality). The laws ought to minimize the possibility of "wrongs" from happening; it should not be establishing a new set of "wrongs" to be adhered to.     
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Genowyn on February 07, 2017, 07:32:39 AM
Alright so now that you've attacked the last word in my post how about the rest of my point?
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Chino on February 07, 2017, 07:42:31 AM
I don't think anyone is suggesting only gay people should be protected from discrimination. Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc.

And that should apply whether you're a white, Christian, male, straight, conservative or a black, lesbian, muslim, communist.

The only reason you feel like this is giving people "extra" rights is because you don't need to worry about businesses discriminating against you. It is the very definition of privilege.

My dad.  Handicapped since he was about 30, 35 (severe rheumatoid arthritis).  Until some breakthroughs in treatment, I used to have to put his socks and shoes on for him in the morning to go to work, and most days I had to help lift him out of his chair.   I can remember him coming home from a job interview, and telling my mom "doesn't look good; they said they wanted someone more 'healthy'".    Guess what he did.  Call a lawyer?  Nope.  Whine on Instachat?  Nope.   Complain to the higher ups in the company?  Nope.    Give that business one star on Yelp and tell all his friends not to buy their goods?  Nope.    He opened the newspaper and kept looking, until he finally DID get a job.  Period.  And that's the lesson I took from that. EVERYONE has an excuse at some point.  You either rise above or you don't.   


Do you remember what job it was your father applied for? I mean, if it was something that required lots of physical labor, I can understand the handicap being a legitimate, understandable, and maybe even expected reason to not hire someone. I mean, you couldn't have someone who regularly suffers from seizures operating a skyrise crane, and I would hope the person who suffers from the seizures would understand why they were not hired for such a job. I wouldn't consider that discrimination, and I'd imagine they'd keep looking until they could find a job that could safely accommodate whatever their handicap is. Now if a guy had 15 years on a similar same crane, met all the qualifications, and didn't get the job because he's clearly gay and then went home to the interviewer's facebook page and found it filled with hate speech, I'd say discrimination is likely. That I'm not really cool with, but at the same time, part of me feels like a business owner should have 100% control over who they hire. Providing services is a different story though. In that realm, I fully support not being able to discriminate.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 07, 2017, 09:27:13 AM
Alright so now that you've attacked the last word in my post how about the rest of my point?

I thought I answered it.   We allow businesses to discriminate every single day.  Why is it special when it's a homosexual?  it would make no sense not to, for business reasons, but if I went into a cake store and said "I'd like a cake that says, in big pink letters, "I Love Me Some Vagina!"", they don't have to sell that to me.   If I asked for a cake that said "I Wish Pedophilia Was Legit, and Someday, God Willing, It Just May Be!", they don't have to sell that to me.  And there are no grounds other than their own morals that would prevent them from doing so. 

Again, I recognize it's a very fine line here, and we have to be diligent in policing that line, but this is a BALANCE of competing rights, here, and I think that nuance has been lost.    Please understand that I am not at all advocating AGAINST gay rights, I am merely saying that they should be EQUAL, and nothing more, nothing less.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 07, 2017, 09:30:37 AM
I don't think anyone is suggesting only gay people should be protected from discrimination. Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc.

And that should apply whether you're a white, Christian, male, straight, conservative or a black, lesbian, muslim, communist.

The only reason you feel like this is giving people "extra" rights is because you don't need to worry about businesses discriminating against you. It is the very definition of privilege.

My dad.  Handicapped since he was about 30, 35 (severe rheumatoid arthritis).  Until some breakthroughs in treatment, I used to have to put his socks and shoes on for him in the morning to go to work, and most days I had to help lift him out of his chair.   I can remember him coming home from a job interview, and telling my mom "doesn't look good; they said they wanted someone more 'healthy'".    Guess what he did.  Call a lawyer?  Nope.  Whine on Instachat?  Nope.   Complain to the higher ups in the company?  Nope.    Give that business one star on Yelp and tell all his friends not to buy their goods?  Nope.    He opened the newspaper and kept looking, until he finally DID get a job.  Period.  And that's the lesson I took from that. EVERYONE has an excuse at some point.  You either rise above or you don't.   


Do you remember what job it was your father applied for? I mean, if it was something that required lots of physical labor, I can understand the handicap being a legitimate, understandable, and maybe even expected reason to not hire someone. I mean, you couldn't have someone who regularly suffers from seizures operating a skyrise crane, and I would hope the person who suffers from the seizures would understand why they were not hired for such a job. I wouldn't consider that discrimination, and I'd imagine they'd keep looking until they could find a job that could safely accommodate whatever their handicap is. Now if a guy had 15 years on a similar same crane, met all the qualifications, and didn't get the job because he's clearly gay and then went home to the interviewer's facebook page and found it filled with hate speech, I'd say discrimination is likely. That I'm not really cool with, but at the same time, part of me feels like a business owner should have 100% control over who they hire. Providing services is a different story though. In that realm, I fully support not being able to discriminate.

Plant manager/Operating manager at a manufacturing facility in Bridgeport.  They made the casters, the little wheels you see on the bottom of suitcases and IKEA furniture.   In a perfect world, yeah, probably it's better to have The Rock than, say, Phil Collins circa 2016 (if you saw him on Kimmel a few weeks ago, you'd get this reference), but it was by no means a job requirement. 

but I'm with you; that's for the business to decide.   And frankly, their mistake wasn't in the decision, it was just in saying that to my dad.  Though I respect their honesty, they could have made that decision and told him it was for any of a 100 different reasons that wouldn't have hurt him or demoralized him, but that's the way it goes. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Genowyn on February 07, 2017, 11:14:21 AM
Alright so now that you've attacked the last word in my post how about the rest of my point?

I thought I answered it.   We allow businesses to discriminate every single day.  Why is it special when it's a homosexual?  it would make no sense not to, for business reasons, but if I went into a cake store and said "I'd like a cake that says, in big pink letters, "I Love Me Some Vagina!"", they don't have to sell that to me.   If I asked for a cake that said "I Wish Pedophilia Was Legit, and Someday, God Willing, It Just May Be!", they don't have to sell that to me.  And there are no grounds other than their own morals that would prevent them from doing so. 

The difference here, and it is a pretty big one, is that in your examples you are being refused service based on what you want written on the cake, not who you are.

It's not like people are upset that a christian baker won't write "Gay Pride Forever!" on a cake. They're still a gaping asshole, but that's their call. The problem is that they're being asked to make a regular cake that just so happens to be for a gay wedding.

Imagine if you tried to order a cake for your wedding, and after giving your name they say, "Oh you know what, we don't serve pollacks here."

That's what I'm saying should be illegal.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 07, 2017, 06:32:05 PM
Alright so now that you've attacked the last word in my post how about the rest of my point?

I thought I answered it.   We allow businesses to discriminate every single day.  Why is it special when it's a homosexual?  it would make no sense not to, for business reasons, but if I went into a cake store and said "I'd like a cake that says, in big pink letters, "I Love Me Some Vagina!"", they don't have to sell that to me.   If I asked for a cake that said "I Wish Pedophilia Was Legit, and Someday, God Willing, It Just May Be!", they don't have to sell that to me.  And there are no grounds other than their own morals that would prevent them from doing so. 

The difference here, and it is a pretty big one, is that in your examples you are being refused service based on what you want written on the cake, not who you are.

It's not like people are upset that a christian baker won't write "Gay Pride Forever!" on a cake. They're still a gaping asshole, but that's their call. The problem is that they're being asked to make a regular cake that just so happens to be for a gay wedding.

Imagine if you tried to order a cake for your wedding, and after giving your name they say, "Oh you know what, we don't serve pollacks here."

That's what I'm saying should be illegal.

So "having an opinion that is contrary to yours" = "gaping asshole".  Good to know. 

If they said "we don't serve Polacks here", I'd take my business elsewhere, end of story.   I don't know why that's so hard.  I don't see the fundamental difference.   If the cake is intended to showcase one's love of little boys - through the words - or one's love of their husband - through its presence at the wedding, I'm not sure there's a meaningful difference there.  So if a dude walked in and said "I want a cake that says "Someday!  Keep praying and SOMEDAY!"" and the cake maker says "Sure!  What's it for? What are you praying for?" and the dude says "it's for my local NAMBLA meeting!  Praying for my love to be legal!" they HAVE to sell it to him?  Because, after all, it's not about the words, it's about WHO HE IS.  He's born that way just as much as I'm born attracted to a beautiful smile, and Lance Bass is attracted to whatever it is that turns his head.     
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Genowyn on February 08, 2017, 10:43:57 AM
So "having an opinion that is contrary to yours" = "gaping asshole".  Good to know. 

If that opinion is, "Certain types of people aren't fully human like me", then yeah, I'm pretty comfortable with that.


If they said "we don't serve Polacks here", I'd take my business elsewhere, end of story.   I don't know why that's so hard.  I don't see the fundamental difference.   If the cake is intended to showcase one's love of little boys - through the words - or one's love of their husband - through its presence at the wedding, I'm not sure there's a meaningful difference there.  So if a dude walked in and said "I want a cake that says "Someday!  Keep praying and SOMEDAY!"" and the cake maker says "Sure!  What's it for? What are you praying for?" and the dude says "it's for my local NAMBLA meeting!  Praying for my love to be legal!" they HAVE to sell it to him?  Because, after all, it's not about the words, it's about WHO HE IS.  He's born that way just as much as I'm born attracted to a beautiful smile, and Lance Bass is attracted to whatever it is that turns his head.     

OK first of all, can you stop with the pedophile bit? There's a fairly obvious distinction, namely, if the pedophile gets to do his thing he's hurting people, if the gay couple do they are not.

Secondly, and here I'm going to try to explain what I meant earlier without using the dreaded "p" word... both you and I know that, barring some massive upheaval in American society, noone is actually going to discriminate against you. Even if there were one asshole (see, it applies if they discriminate against you, too!), it's hardly going to be systemic. You're not going to see half of the political spectrum rushing to defend some guy's right to not serve Polish people. So, ultimately, this remains a purely philosophical question to you. It's never a problem you will have to deal with in real life. It's extremely simple for you to say that you would act and feel in a way that aligns with your political beliefs when you have not and will never experience it.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: bosk1 on February 08, 2017, 10:49:25 AM
Genowyn, it's hardly a persuasive argument tactic to throw out what you believe to be a persuasive example, only to dismiss it as irrelevant and then just fall back on "you can't possibly understand since you aren't part of the group that is being impacted" once you realize the person on the other side can articulate a defense to it.  You are pretty much displaying the very problem this thread was meant to call out and discuss.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Genowyn on February 08, 2017, 10:57:23 AM
Well when I gave the pollack example I never thought it was going to change Stadler's mind, I was mainly using it to express that I would want these sort of protections to apply to everyone.

So, Stadler's response of "Well I would just do what my beliefs say I would", was sort of missing the point.

And the fact is psychological studies show that when push comes to shove people do often act in ways they never thought they would before they were in that situation.

Also I wasn't falling back on anything, I was bringing it back to the discussion about the naughty 'p' word and trying to avoiding triggering anyone by typing it out.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 08, 2017, 11:23:54 AM
So "having an opinion that is contrary to yours" = "gaping asshole".  Good to know. 

If that opinion is, "Certain types of people aren't fully human like me", then yeah, I'm pretty comfortable with that.

Uh, there's a massive gap (see what I did there) between "I find your lifestyle lacking, morally" and "you aren't fully human like me".    Not wanting to write "Gay Pride Forever" on a cake is firmly in the former camp, not the latter. 

Quote
OK first of all, can you stop with the pedophile bit? There's a fairly obvious distinction, namely, if the pedophile gets to do his thing he's hurting people, if the gay couple do they are not.

Ah, see, you fell for it.  I never once ever said ANYTHING about "touching a kid", and in fact, the fact pattern was very much structured the opposite: "I recognize it's illegal, and won't act on my urges until it IS legal".  That's the point.  Whether you think someone is being "hurt" or not is not even a variable in the equation.  We're talking thoughts and ideas here.   The programming is about IDEAS.   If you're not down with "the IDEA", you're a homophobe right out the gate.   There is a very strong possibility that the biology of "pedophilia" is the same as the biology of any sexual behavior, including heterosexuality, and homosexuality.   So yes, when there is action there is harm (just like certain forms of consensual sex have harms) but we're not at that point yet.   I can think about killing my ex-wife, but unless and until I take affirmative action to actually kill her, there's no crime.   Same here. 

Quote
Secondly, and here I'm going to try to explain what I meant earlier without using the dreaded "p" word... both you and I know that, barring some massive upheaval in American society, noone is actually going to discriminate against you. Even if there were one asshole (see, it applies if they discriminate against you, too!), it's hardly going to be systemic. You're not going to see half of the political spectrum rushing to defend some guy's right to not serve Polish people. So, ultimately, this remains a purely philosophical question to you. It's never a problem you will have to deal with in real life. It's extremely simple for you to say that you would act and feel in a way that aligns with your political beliefs when you have not and will never experience it.

No, sport, you don't get to marginalize the argument by saying "it's not you".   The point isn't about whether it's me; by that argument, unless you are actually gay, you can't argue FOR or AGAINST gay rights.  That pretty much kills the revolution right there.  In any event, that's sort of my one beef with the gay rights movement; it's not rooted in "equal rights for all"; it's rooted in some tautology that applies really only to homosexuals.   if you're really FOR "equal rights for all", you're not worried about the probabilities of "Polacks" coming under fire, you're worried about creating an environment where NO ONE comes under fire, and you're worried about creating a legal framework where if one does come under fire, they can avail themselves of that argument.   

I don't have to explain my bona fides to you, but you don't have any idea how I've applied - or not - my political beliefs to my real life.   
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 08, 2017, 11:37:01 AM
Well when I gave the pollack example I never thought it was going to change Stadler's mind, I was mainly using it to express that I would want these sort of protections to apply to everyone.

So, Stadler's response of "Well I would just do what my beliefs say I would", was sort of missing the point.

And the fact is psychological studies show that when push comes to shove people do often act in ways they never thought they would before they were in that situation.

Also I wasn't falling back on anything, I was bringing it back to the discussion about the naughty 'p' word and trying to avoiding triggering anyone by typing it out.

I responded to your other post before I saw this, so...

You're right about some of the psychological studies; but that it happens in SOME cases, doesn't mean it happens in all, or that you can create laws based on that.  I have more than enough examples of both in my life, but THANK GOD I have far more of consistency than not.  I personally don't believe it's right to take a life; you can imagine what that means in terms of abortion.  Politically, I'm pro-choice.   In real life, when faced with a child that was preliminarily diagnosed with moderate to severe Down's Syndrome, I walked the walk.   We went ahead with the birth.  I've already related the story of my dad.  It's all a form of "Tend Your Own Garden".

I'm not at all trolling you, but in a sense I am baiting you, in a polite, constructive way.  I know the points I've raised are controversial ones.   And you've kind of proved my point; we're NOT willing in this society to entertain these kinds of ideas.   They scare us (perhaps for different reasons on either side).   The common wisdom is that we hate what we fear.   Studies have shown that there is a correlation between homophobic behavior and homosexual desires (that's not the right way of saying it, but you get the point).  You rejecting my arguments out of hand because "I can't possibly know" is akin to that.  The underlying notion here is there is no "right or wrong" per se, at least in terms of the arguments, it's a matter of psychology on both sides.  Your "hate" is no better or worse, no more moral or not, than anyone else's "hate". 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 08, 2017, 12:09:03 PM
Uh, there's a massive gap (see what I did there) between "I find your lifestyle lacking, morally" and "you aren't fully human like me".    Not wanting to write "Gay Pride Forever" on a cake is firmly in the former camp, not the latter. 
The problem with the godforsaken cakes wasn't what was written on them, it was to whom they were being sold.  And, to a certain extent, judging someone to be beneath you, to not be worthy enough to do business with them not because of something they have done but for who or what they ARE is dehumanizing them; "you aren't fully human like me."

Just one possible viewpoint.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Genowyn on February 08, 2017, 12:26:42 PM
I find it rather troubling that when the discussion turns to privilege (I'll say it now), your reaction is that it is an attempt to say your perspective is irrelevant. It's not. What it is is saying, "Hey maybe if you recognize your life is inherently different from these people you could try to understand their point better."
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: bosk1 on February 08, 2017, 12:31:24 PM
Uh, there's a massive gap (see what I did there) between "I find your lifestyle lacking, morally" and "you aren't fully human like me".    Not wanting to write "Gay Pride Forever" on a cake is firmly in the former camp, not the latter. 
The problem with the godforsaken cakes wasn't what was written on them, it was to whom they were being sold.  And, to a certain extent, judging someone to be beneath you, to not be worthy enough to do business with them not because of something they have done but for who or what they ARE is dehumanizing them; "you aren't fully human like me."

Hef, you are mistaken on this point.  I don't know of a single case where the issue was to whom the cakes were being sold rather than what was written on them.  In every single case I read about, the business owners/cake decorators objected to the message of the cakes and said it had nothing to with who the people are, and that if those same people wanted cakes for any other occasion, they would gladly sell to them.  That is by definition about the message and not the person.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 08, 2017, 12:59:10 PM
I find it rather troubling that when the discussion turns to privilege (I'll say it now), your reaction is that it is an attempt to say your perspective is irrelevant. It's not. What it is is saying, "Hey maybe if you recognize your life is inherently different from these people you could try to understand their point better."

Aren't they the same thing?  You assuming - for whatever reason - that my position is based on a lack of understanding is the problem.   By your logic, no white person can comment on race relations, no straight person can comment on the politics of sexuality...  and (respectfully) you're missing the point that the law doesn't - and shouldn't - account for that.  it should work regardless of your "understanding" or regardless of whether your life is "inherently different".  The person who is a sociopath is "inherently different", but doesn't get a special set of rules. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 08, 2017, 01:19:34 PM
Uh, there's a massive gap (see what I did there) between "I find your lifestyle lacking, morally" and "you aren't fully human like me".    Not wanting to write "Gay Pride Forever" on a cake is firmly in the former camp, not the latter. 
The problem with the godforsaken cakes wasn't what was written on them, it was to whom they were being sold.  And, to a certain extent, judging someone to be beneath you, to not be worthy enough to do business with them not because of something they have done but for who or what they ARE is dehumanizing them; "you aren't fully human like me."

Hef, you are mistaken on this point.  I don't know of a single case where the issue was to whom the cakes were being sold rather than what was written on them.  In every single case I read about, the business owners/cake decorators objected to the message of the cakes and said it had nothing to with who the people are, and that if those same people wanted cakes for any other occasion, they would gladly sell to them.  That is by definition about the message and not the person.
Not mistaken.  The case that started it all was a Colorado shop that refused to sell a wedding cake (just a regular wedding cake) to a gay couple.  The cake itself had no message.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: bosk1 on February 08, 2017, 01:26:42 PM
A wedding cake by its very nature has a message.  We can quibble over the specifics of that message.  But generally speaking, it conveys a celebratory message of the event of the wedding.  The owners in that case objected to the message, not the people, and are on record that they would (and have in the past) provide other cakes for those same people.  There isn't an argument that it is somehow about the people rather than the message.  That isn't really open to interpretation based on these facts.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on February 08, 2017, 01:40:02 PM
When the message is basically "people like us should have the same marriage rights as people like you", it is, admittedly, difficult to divorce it from the idea that the baker is looking down on the person.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Chino on February 08, 2017, 01:46:16 PM
Uh, there's a massive gap (see what I did there) between "I find your lifestyle lacking, morally" and "you aren't fully human like me".    Not wanting to write "Gay Pride Forever" on a cake is firmly in the former camp, not the latter. 
The problem with the godforsaken cakes wasn't what was written on them, it was to whom they were being sold.  And, to a certain extent, judging someone to be beneath you, to not be worthy enough to do business with them not because of something they have done but for who or what they ARE is dehumanizing them; "you aren't fully human like me."

Hef, you are mistaken on this point.  I don't know of a single case where the issue was to whom the cakes were being sold rather than what was written on them.  In every single case I read about, the business owners/cake decorators objected to the message of the cakes and said it had nothing to with who the people are, and that if those same people wanted cakes for any other occasion, they would gladly sell to them.  That is by definition about the message and not the person.
Not mistaken.  The case that started it all was a Colorado shop that refused to sell a wedding cake (just a regular wedding cake) to a gay couple.  The cake itself had no message.

That shop also offered to make the couple anything else in their catering menu for their wedding, they just couldn't make the cake. Not sure if this was the same bakery, but I think they also offered to bake and base-decorate the cake, they just wouldn't put the wedding flare on.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: El Barto on February 08, 2017, 01:56:44 PM
Uh, there's a massive gap (see what I did there) between "I find your lifestyle lacking, morally" and "you aren't fully human like me".    Not wanting to write "Gay Pride Forever" on a cake is firmly in the former camp, not the latter. 
The problem with the godforsaken cakes wasn't what was written on them, it was to whom they were being sold.  And, to a certain extent, judging someone to be beneath you, to not be worthy enough to do business with them not because of something they have done but for who or what they ARE is dehumanizing them; "you aren't fully human like me."

Hef, you are mistaken on this point.  I don't know of a single case where the issue was to whom the cakes were being sold rather than what was written on them.  In every single case I read about, the business owners/cake decorators objected to the message of the cakes and said it had nothing to with who the people are, and that if those same people wanted cakes for any other occasion, they would gladly sell to them.  That is by definition about the message and not the person.
Not mistaken.  The case that started it all was a Colorado shop that refused to sell a wedding cake (just a regular wedding cake) to a gay couple.  The cake itself had no message.

That shop also offered to make the couple anything else in their catering menu for their wedding, they just couldn't make the cake. Not sure if this was the same bakery, but I think they also offered to bake and base-decorate the cake, they just wouldn't put the wedding flare on.
This quote chain demonstrates to me quite nicely what I figured all along. They're all a bunch of silly cunts. Both parties. We should let them all burn.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 08, 2017, 01:57:53 PM
Uh, there's a massive gap (see what I did there) between "I find your lifestyle lacking, morally" and "you aren't fully human like me".    Not wanting to write "Gay Pride Forever" on a cake is firmly in the former camp, not the latter. 
The problem with the godforsaken cakes wasn't what was written on them, it was to whom they were being sold.  And, to a certain extent, judging someone to be beneath you, to not be worthy enough to do business with them not because of something they have done but for who or what they ARE is dehumanizing them; "you aren't fully human like me."

Hef, you are mistaken on this point.  I don't know of a single case where the issue was to whom the cakes were being sold rather than what was written on them.  In every single case I read about, the business owners/cake decorators objected to the message of the cakes and said it had nothing to with who the people are, and that if those same people wanted cakes for any other occasion, they would gladly sell to them.  That is by definition about the message and not the person.
Not mistaken.  The case that started it all was a Colorado shop that refused to sell a wedding cake (just a regular wedding cake) to a gay couple.  The cake itself had no message.

That shop also offered to make the couple anything else in their catering menu for their wedding, they just couldn't make the cake. Not sure if this was the same bakery, but I think they also offered to bake and base-decorate the cake, they just wouldn't put the wedding flare on.
This quote chain demonstrates to me quite nicely what I figured all along. They're all a bunch of silly cunts. Both parties. We should let them all burn.

You said it, not me.  ;)
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 08, 2017, 02:10:29 PM
A wedding cake by its very nature has a message.  We can quibble over the specifics of that message.  But generally speaking, it conveys a celebratory message of the event of the wedding.  The owners in that case objected to the message, not the people, and are on record that they would (and have in the past) provide other cakes for those same people.  There isn't an argument that it is somehow about the people rather than the message.  That isn't really open to interpretation based on these facts.
OK.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: kaos2900 on February 09, 2017, 11:54:13 AM
So I've been reading up on the hubbub about the Under Armor CEO and how people are going to boycott the company because he supports Trump's views on business. I'm extremely bothered by this trend to boycott anyone who supports the president. It seems childish and unproductive. Watching the news one would assume that no man, woman, or person of color voted for Trump and he just magically appeared in the White House as president.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: orcus116 on February 09, 2017, 01:07:48 PM
We as a society seem to have this knee-jerky reaction to anything that doesn't agree with our viewpoint to a point where, yes, we are becoming more mentally like children on a whole.

I'm not sure if there is any substance to these slacktivist movements by "boycotting" products you weren't going to buy anyways other than to make yourself feel good to typing out a message or hashtag and releasing it into the wild.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 09, 2017, 01:20:22 PM
I certainly support the right of others to boycott, but I don't do it.  People often take it too far, or boycott for reasons that are insufficient for me.

I remember many people boycotting Chik-Fil-A because their owner has supported some "anti-gay" causes.  I get it, I suppose, but I like their food, so I'm not boycotting them.  I don't see it really accomplishes anything.

Same with Under Armour.  I mean, I'm not really in the market for any of their products at the moment, but I were, I wouldn't base my purchasing decision on this.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on February 09, 2017, 01:25:27 PM
So I've been reading up on the hubbub about the Under Armor CEO and how people are going to boycott the company because he supports Trump's views on business. I'm extremely bothered by this trend to boycott anyone who supports the president. It seems childish and unproductive. Watching the news one would assume that no man, woman, or person of color voted for Trump and he just magically appeared in the White House as president.

And protesting all of that stuff is their right (minus the violence).
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 09, 2017, 01:37:48 PM

I remember many people boycotting Chik-Fil-A because their owner has supported some "anti-gay" causes.  I get it, I suppose, but I like their food, so I'm not boycotting them.  I don't see it really accomplishes anything.


But this is the problem with "boycotts", at least for me.  They're one note, and basically tied to the cause du jour.  I was lucky enough to meet Truett Cathy, and he is far more than any "anti-gay" beliefs he might have.  He taught Sunday school for 50 years.   He gives all his employees Sundays off - whether they worship or not - just to be with family.  He has given almost $25 MILLION in scholarships to deserving kids.  He has fostered underprivileged children for the better part of 30 years. 

His big crime?  His "anti-gay activism"?  An interview with the Atlanta Journal Constitution, where he said "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman".  He said nothing derogatory about gay people, he didn't say they were immoral, or anything like that.  He simply said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. 

If you can't have an opinion, what's the point of the Constitution?   

This was published later, after the hoopla:  "Cathy himself hasn't changed his own views on same-sex marriage. As he told the AJC:  “I think the time of truths and principles are captured and codified in God’s word and I’m just personally committed to that,” he said. “I know others feel very different from that and I respect their opinion and I hope that they would be respectful of mine.”"

I don't have to agree with it, but I think shutting down his business is a rather draconian "consequence" for voicing his opinion.   
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: El Barto on February 09, 2017, 01:48:31 PM

I remember many people boycotting Chik-Fil-A because their owner has supported some "anti-gay" causes.  I get it, I suppose, but I like their food, so I'm not boycotting them.  I don't see it really accomplishes anything.


But this is the problem with "boycotts", at least for me.  They're one note, and basically tied to the cause du jour.  I was lucky enough to meet Truett Cathy, and he is far more than any "anti-gay" beliefs he might have.  He taught Sunday school for 50 years.   He gives all his employees Sundays off - whether they worship or not - just to be with family.  He has given almost $25 MILLION in scholarships to deserving kids.  He has fostered underprivileged children for the better part of 30 years. 

His big crime?  His "anti-gay activism"?  An interview with the Atlanta Journal Constitution, where he said "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman".  He said nothing derogatory about gay people, he didn't say they were immoral, or anything like that.  He simply said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. 

If you can't have an opinion, what's the point of the Constitution?   

This was published later, after the hoopla:  "Cathy himself hasn't changed his own views on same-sex marriage. As he told the AJC:  “I think the time of truths and principles are captured and codified in God’s word and I’m just personally committed to that,” he said. “I know others feel very different from that and I respect their opinion and I hope that they would be respectful of mine.”"

I don't have to agree with it, but I think shutting down his business is a rather draconian "consequence" for voicing his opinion.
I agree with all of this. Boycotts are where my principles become conflicted in all of this. I support his right to his opinion, and I support the right of people to opt not to do business with him if they don't like his points of view. The problem is simply that it's so easy for a personal boycott to become an orchestrated campaign nowadays, and when that happens it's rarely based on anything rather than emotion aroused by dubious interpretations. It's inciting the mob to sharpen their pitchforks when the mob is not known for asking why.

One thing I will add is that "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" is a denouncement of gay marriage. We don't live in a vacuum and his statement really can't be seen as anything other. You already know I'm on your side on this, but you suggested, probably inadvertently, that his remarks were innocent and I can see people feeling personally threatened by them.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 09, 2017, 02:03:27 PM

I remember many people boycotting Chik-Fil-A because their owner has supported some "anti-gay" causes.  I get it, I suppose, but I like their food, so I'm not boycotting them.  I don't see it really accomplishes anything.


But this is the problem with "boycotts", at least for me.  They're one note, and basically tied to the cause du jour.  I was lucky enough to meet Truett Cathy, and he is far more than any "anti-gay" beliefs he might have.  He taught Sunday school for 50 years.   He gives all his employees Sundays off - whether they worship or not - just to be with family.  He has given almost $25 MILLION in scholarships to deserving kids.  He has fostered underprivileged children for the better part of 30 years. 

His big crime?  His "anti-gay activism"?  An interview with the Atlanta Journal Constitution, where he said "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman".  He said nothing derogatory about gay people, he didn't say they were immoral, or anything like that.  He simply said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. 

If you can't have an opinion, what's the point of the Constitution?   

This was published later, after the hoopla:  "Cathy himself hasn't changed his own views on same-sex marriage. As he told the AJC:  “I think the time of truths and principles are captured and codified in God’s word and I’m just personally committed to that,” he said. “I know others feel very different from that and I respect their opinion and I hope that they would be respectful of mine.”"

I don't have to agree with it, but I think shutting down his business is a rather draconian "consequence" for voicing his opinion.
I agree with all of this. Boycotts are where my principles become conflicted in all of this. I support his right to his opinion, and I support the right of people to opt not to do business with him if they don't like his points of view. The problem is simply that it's so easy for a personal boycott to become an orchestrated campaign nowadays, and when that happens it's rarely based on anything rather than emotion aroused by dubious interpretations. It's inciting the mob to sharpen their pitchforks when the mob is not known for asking why.

One thing I will add is that "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" is a denouncement of gay marriage. We don't live in a vacuum and his statement really can't be seen as anything other. You already know I'm on your side on this, but you suggested, probably inadvertently, that his remarks were innocent and I can see people feeling personally threatened by them.

As for the last, yes, but there has to be SOME room for honest discussion.   Denouncing "gay marriage" isn't an indictment on gays themselves, and it's not necessarily a rejection of "equality".   We impose restrictions on things all the time.  There's a whole slew of people I can't marry - legally - and "my desire", or who I'm sexually attracted to, doesn't factor in.   I can't marry another guy, neither can George Michael.  I can marry any woman on the planet who is above a certain age, not first cousins, able to give consent, and not otherwise married, and so can George Michael.   I can't marry anyone I choose, I can't necessarily marry the person I love, and neither can George Michael.    We have "equality". 

I would never advocate AGAINST gay marriage - honestly, as much as I dislike myself for this, it's really gotten to the point that I couldn't care less about "how marriage is defined" - but we have to stop extrapolating out and assuming all these hidden meanings where none exist.  Other than being mildly annoyed at overly queen-like behavior (as a general proposition; I don't like divas either), I don't even think about someone's sexuality.  I don't want them thinking about mine, why should I think or care about theirs?  Hell, my daughter's god parents are a lesbian couple.  If asked, I would do everything in my power to legally acquire all the rights that a person might have "via marriage" for a gay client, to make them whole.  So it's not about "equality", necessarily, it's just that "equality" was determined to be the "best argument" (though even then, it's really not; the best argument for gay marriage is "gender discrimination", but that doesn't put butts in the seats).  Google "argument for gay marriage" and you get a lot of ad hominem arguments that don't go to the subject issue.  Stuff like "it should be legal, because otherwise it's uncivilized".   Wha?   And we let Snookie into our living rooms, and we're worried about being "civilized"?
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: El Barto on February 09, 2017, 02:12:32 PM

I remember many people boycotting Chik-Fil-A because their owner has supported some "anti-gay" causes.  I get it, I suppose, but I like their food, so I'm not boycotting them.  I don't see it really accomplishes anything.


But this is the problem with "boycotts", at least for me.  They're one note, and basically tied to the cause du jour.  I was lucky enough to meet Truett Cathy, and he is far more than any "anti-gay" beliefs he might have.  He taught Sunday school for 50 years.   He gives all his employees Sundays off - whether they worship or not - just to be with family.  He has given almost $25 MILLION in scholarships to deserving kids.  He has fostered underprivileged children for the better part of 30 years. 

His big crime?  His "anti-gay activism"?  An interview with the Atlanta Journal Constitution, where he said "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman".  He said nothing derogatory about gay people, he didn't say they were immoral, or anything like that.  He simply said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. 

If you can't have an opinion, what's the point of the Constitution?   

This was published later, after the hoopla:  "Cathy himself hasn't changed his own views on same-sex marriage. As he told the AJC:  “I think the time of truths and principles are captured and codified in God’s word and I’m just personally committed to that,” he said. “I know others feel very different from that and I respect their opinion and I hope that they would be respectful of mine.”"

I don't have to agree with it, but I think shutting down his business is a rather draconian "consequence" for voicing his opinion.
I agree with all of this. Boycotts are where my principles become conflicted in all of this. I support his right to his opinion, and I support the right of people to opt not to do business with him if they don't like his points of view. The problem is simply that it's so easy for a personal boycott to become an orchestrated campaign nowadays, and when that happens it's rarely based on anything rather than emotion aroused by dubious interpretations. It's inciting the mob to sharpen their pitchforks when the mob is not known for asking why.

One thing I will add is that "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" is a denouncement of gay marriage. We don't live in a vacuum and his statement really can't be seen as anything other. You already know I'm on your side on this, but you suggested, probably inadvertently, that his remarks were innocent and I can see people feeling personally threatened by them.

As for the last, yes, but there has to be SOME room for honest discussion.   Denouncing "gay marriage" isn't an indictment on gays themselves, and it's not necessarily a rejection of "equality".   We impose restrictions on things all the time.  There's a whole slew of people I can't marry - legally - and "my desire", or who I'm sexually attracted to, doesn't factor in.   I can't marry another guy, neither can George Michael.  I can marry any woman on the planet who is above a certain age, not first cousins, able to give consent, and not otherwise married, and so can George Michael.   I can't marry anyone I choose, I can't necessarily marry the person I love, and neither can George Michael.    We have "equality". 

I would never advocate AGAINST gay marriage - honestly, as much as I dislike myself for this, it's really gotten to the point that I couldn't care less about "how marriage is defined" - but we have to stop extrapolating out and assuming all these hidden meanings where none exist.  I wouldn't hesitate to represent a gay person, and to the extent of my abilities, if asked, I would do everything in my power to legally acquire all the rights that a person might have "via marriage" for a gay client, to make them whole.  So it's not about "equality", necessarily, it's just that that was determined to be the "best argument" (though even then, it's really not; the best argument for gay marriage is "gender discrimination").  Google "argument for gay marriage" and you get a lot of ad hominem arguments that don't go to the subject issue.  Stuff like "it should be legal, because otherwise it's uncivilized".   Wha?
I'm certainly aware of the equality argument. And you're certainly aware of the counterarguments. The fundamental right to the pursuit of happiness being pretty high up among them.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 09, 2017, 02:30:33 PM

I remember many people boycotting Chik-Fil-A because their owner has supported some "anti-gay" causes.  I get it, I suppose, but I like their food, so I'm not boycotting them.  I don't see it really accomplishes anything.


But this is the problem with "boycotts", at least for me.  They're one note, and basically tied to the cause du jour.  I was lucky enough to meet Truett Cathy, and he is far more than any "anti-gay" beliefs he might have.  He taught Sunday school for 50 years.   He gives all his employees Sundays off - whether they worship or not - just to be with family.  He has given almost $25 MILLION in scholarships to deserving kids.  He has fostered underprivileged children for the better part of 30 years. 

His big crime?  His "anti-gay activism"?  An interview with the Atlanta Journal Constitution, where he said "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman".  He said nothing derogatory about gay people, he didn't say they were immoral, or anything like that.  He simply said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. 

If you can't have an opinion, what's the point of the Constitution?   

This was published later, after the hoopla:  "Cathy himself hasn't changed his own views on same-sex marriage. As he told the AJC:  “I think the time of truths and principles are captured and codified in God’s word and I’m just personally committed to that,” he said. “I know others feel very different from that and I respect their opinion and I hope that they would be respectful of mine.”"

I don't have to agree with it, but I think shutting down his business is a rather draconian "consequence" for voicing his opinion.
Well, that's why I put "anti-gay" in quotations like that.  I didn't remember what it was, because I didn't care what it was.  Just pass the Chicken Minis please.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 09, 2017, 02:34:32 PM
Of course.  I think I'm beating the dead horse here, as you've seemed to agree with the downsides of "boycotting" already, but I just think we do a long-term disservice to our cause when we chill ideas - even ones we don't like - with draconian things like boycotts.    Destroying someone's livelihood doesn't likely make them change their mind - if anything, it does the opposite, and steels their beliefs - and it serves to drive the ideas in a more subversive direction. 

It's like roaches.  Turning the light on doesn't make them go away, or kill them; it just makes them hide a little more diligently.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 09, 2017, 02:38:10 PM
I guess.

I mean, I'm not against the concept of boycotts, and would certainly never say that people don't have the right to do it.  But I have rarely seen something that would, for me, be worth the boycott.  It's gotta be something more than "the CEO is up to some shady shit", because I just assume that is already the case.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 09, 2017, 02:41:42 PM

I remember many people boycotting Chik-Fil-A because their owner has supported some "anti-gay" causes.  I get it, I suppose, but I like their food, so I'm not boycotting them.  I don't see it really accomplishes anything.


But this is the problem with "boycotts", at least for me.  They're one note, and basically tied to the cause du jour.  I was lucky enough to meet Truett Cathy, and he is far more than any "anti-gay" beliefs he might have.  He taught Sunday school for 50 years.   He gives all his employees Sundays off - whether they worship or not - just to be with family.  He has given almost $25 MILLION in scholarships to deserving kids.  He has fostered underprivileged children for the better part of 30 years. 

His big crime?  His "anti-gay activism"?  An interview with the Atlanta Journal Constitution, where he said "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman".  He said nothing derogatory about gay people, he didn't say they were immoral, or anything like that.  He simply said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. 

If you can't have an opinion, what's the point of the Constitution?   

This was published later, after the hoopla:  "Cathy himself hasn't changed his own views on same-sex marriage. As he told the AJC:  “I think the time of truths and principles are captured and codified in God’s word and I’m just personally committed to that,” he said. “I know others feel very different from that and I respect their opinion and I hope that they would be respectful of mine.”"

I don't have to agree with it, but I think shutting down his business is a rather draconian "consequence" for voicing his opinion.
Well, that's why I put "anti-gay" in quotations like that.  I didn't remember what it was, because I didn't care what it was.  Just pass the Chicken Minis please.

I could live off their regular sandwich, fries (with the "Chik-fil-a sauce), a chicken salad sandwich, and their diet lemonade.  Their diet lemonade is literally the ONLY diet drink I ever drink, no exceptions.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: pogoowner on February 09, 2017, 02:43:46 PM
The Spicy Chicken Deluxe can't be beaten.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: portnoy311 on February 09, 2017, 05:29:54 PM

I remember many people boycotting Chik-Fil-A because their owner has supported some "anti-gay" causes.  I get it, I suppose, but I like their food, so I'm not boycotting them.  I don't see it really accomplishes anything.


But this is the problem with "boycotts", at least for me.  They're one note, and basically tied to the cause du jour.  I was lucky enough to meet Truett Cathy, and he is far more than any "anti-gay" beliefs he might have.  He taught Sunday school for 50 years.   He gives all his employees Sundays off - whether they worship or not - just to be with family.  He has given almost $25 MILLION in scholarships to deserving kids.  He has fostered underprivileged children for the better part of 30 years. 

His big crime?  His "anti-gay activism"?  An interview with the Atlanta Journal Constitution, where he said "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman".  He said nothing derogatory about gay people, he didn't say they were immoral, or anything like that.  He simply said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. 

If you can't have an opinion, what's the point of the Constitution?   

This was published later, after the hoopla:  "Cathy himself hasn't changed his own views on same-sex marriage. As he told the AJC:  “I think the time of truths and principles are captured and codified in God’s word and I’m just personally committed to that,” he said. “I know others feel very different from that and I respect their opinion and I hope that they would be respectful of mine.”"

I don't have to agree with it, but I think shutting down his business is a rather draconian "consequence" for voicing his opinion.


Actually, no, that's not at all what the boycott was about. It was about the anti gay groups that the Winshape Foundation was making donations to. It has nothing to do with simple comments, but rather money from Chick Fil A was actively being used to fund anti- gay groups. And Chick Fil A as a company has now publicly said they will no longer be active politically and the Winshape Foundation has ceased donating to all of the causes that caused the ruckus. It worked.

I get it, you're anti mob. Not everything should be misconstrued as some kind of witchhunt around simple comments. This was much more than that, as the company themselves have acknowledged.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 09, 2017, 08:11:50 PM

I remember many people boycotting Chik-Fil-A because their owner has supported some "anti-gay" causes.  I get it, I suppose, but I like their food, so I'm not boycotting them.  I don't see it really accomplishes anything.


His big crime?  His "anti-gay activism"?  An interview with the Atlanta Journal Constitution, where he said "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman".  He said nothing derogatory about gay people, he didn't say they were immoral, or anything like that.  He simply said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. 

If you can't have an opinion, what's the point of the Constitution?   

This was published later, after the hoopla:  "Cathy himself hasn't changed his own views on same-sex marriage. As he told the AJC:  “I think the time of truths and principles are captured and codified in God’s word and I’m just personally committed to that,” he said. “I know others feel very different from that and I respect their opinion and I hope that they would be respectful of mine.”"

I don't have to agree with it, but I think shutting down his business is a rather draconian "consequence" for voicing his opinion.


Actually, no, that's not at all what the boycott was about. It was about the anti gay groups that the Winshape Foundation was making donations to. It has nothing to do with simple comments, but rather money from Chick Fil A was actively being used to fund anti- gay groups. And Chick Fil A as a company has now publicly said they will no longer be active politically and the Winshape Foundation has ceased donating to all of the causes that caused the ruckus. It worked.

I get it, you're anti mob. Not everything should be misconstrued as some kind of witchhunt around simple comments. This was much more than that, as the company themselves have acknowledged.

See this is a perfect example where discussion breaks down for me.   Here we have two people looking at the exact same event but focusing on different aspects.  Are there incorrect facts here?  I don't think so yet we have two opposite conclusions.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: portnoy311 on February 10, 2017, 03:08:32 AM
Why? One does not get to change what others were protesting about. Saying it was about a simple statement fits the narrative of oversensitive SJWs. If they were actively protesting causes, it is entirely different. It's not a matter of simple disagreement.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 10, 2017, 07:10:13 AM
Why? One does not get to change what others were protesting about. Saying it was about a simple statement fits the narrative of oversensitive SJWs. If they were actively protesting causes, it is entirely different. It's not a matter of simple disagreement.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy

I'm not "changing the facts"; to the extent there was more, it's my error.  No need to go all "alternative fact" on me.    I made a mistake.   I don't remember the "Winshape Foundation" donations, I do remember articles like these:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/03/19/chick-fil-a-ceo-cathy-gay-marriage-still-wrong-but-ill-shut-up-about-it-and-sell-chicken/#7fa160e1a4f9 where Clare O'Connor (the author) helpfully tells us how to think by filling in the blanks and constantly (and wrongly) referring to his "anti-gay marriage stance" as his "stance against equal rights" when it's nothing of the sort.  She never once mentions any "donations", and pins it all on HIM PERSONALLY, making it not a discussion of ideas, but a personal attack.   And there are countless articles like this, just google "Truett Cathy anti-gay" or "Chik-fil-A anti-gay". 

I think actively donating to groups that act in a certain direction changes the game some, but I still think ruining a person's livelihood - and by extension every person that works for them - in order to bully your cause through is akin to blackmail, and even if it achieves the desired result, can't be said to "work".   Individually, sure, make your choices, but as soon as you unite and make it a collective effort, I think the line is crossed.   And it doesn't matter WHAT the issue is, I feel this way. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on February 10, 2017, 07:30:25 AM
The Spicy Chicken Deluxe can't be beaten.

Truth.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 10, 2017, 08:53:13 AM
The Spicy Chicken Deluxe can't be beaten.

Truth.

Don't care for the spice; but I'll take the chicken salad all day long, and as I might have said, the "Chick-fil-A" sauce is not to be denied.   
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: kaos2900 on February 10, 2017, 11:03:28 AM
The Spicy Chicken Deluxe can't be beaten.

Truth.

I'll second that. Worth every second of uncomfortable indigestion and the burning crap that comes the next day.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 10, 2017, 11:23:55 AM
The Spicy Chicken Deluxe can't be beaten.

Truth.
Same, that's my go-to sandwich there.

I also like the nuggets.  Polynesian Sauce FTW!
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: chknptpie on February 10, 2017, 12:04:00 PM
I don't know a better place to throw this... but has anyone watched the video from the Utah Town Hall? That was a friggin MOB!
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: lonestar on February 13, 2017, 04:25:02 PM
I don't know a better place to throw this... but has anyone watched the video from the Utah Town Hall? That was a friggin MOB!

Are you talking the one with the ten year old girl asking the congressman if he believes in science?
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: chknptpie on February 13, 2017, 04:37:41 PM
I don't know a better place to throw this... but has anyone watched the video from the Utah Town Hall? That was a friggin MOB!

Are you talking the one with the ten year old girl asking the congressman if he believes in science?

That was one part of it - it was like a 2 hour video and I only watched about half of it.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: lonestar on February 13, 2017, 04:55:05 PM
I watched some of it, I'm surprised the dude made it out alive. They were PISSED.


(ain't gonna lie though, that little girl was awesome haha)
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: antigoon on February 13, 2017, 08:25:52 PM
The whole thing was awesome - I'm glad Chaffetz's constituents are starting to realize what a hack he is.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: lonestar on February 13, 2017, 08:29:08 PM
Here's hoping this continues down both sides of the aisle.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: jsbru on February 16, 2017, 12:57:21 PM
Bill Maher is getting heavily criticized from liberals for having Milo Yiannopolous on tomorrow.  FWIW, I support having Milo on as a guest.  It will give him an opportunity to prove to a wider audience that he's a tool.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 16, 2017, 01:37:36 PM
Bill Maher is getting heavily criticized from liberals for having Milo Yiannopolous on tomorrow.  FWIW, I support having Milo on as a guest.  It will give him an opportunity to prove to a wider audience that he's a tool.

I do not think he should have him on, but I don't like Bill Maher much anyway. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 16, 2017, 02:35:40 PM
Bill Maher is getting heavily criticized from liberals for having Milo Yiannopolous on tomorrow.  FWIW, I support having Milo on as a guest.  It will give him an opportunity to prove to a wider audience that he's a tool.

I do not think he should have him on, but I don't like Bill Maher much anyway.

Just curious, but why?   I can't stand Bill Maher; I literally wouldn't tune in to him to hear about the end of the world.  I wouldn't tune into him if Margot Robbie was announcing that I was her new true love.  And I'm no fan of Milo - though I would reserve my name calling - BUT... I don't understand why we would be against hearing opposing view points, even if it is, as jsbru says, to see what a tool he is.   Although my petty, childish side probably leans toward him doing it to sandbag him and show how intellectually superior Maher feels he is, he should have an opportunity to present his views.  If he can't do that (and he has shown some inability to do that) it doesn't inherently mean the underlying argument is bad, it just means he's a.. well, tool.   
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: cramx3 on February 16, 2017, 02:44:12 PM
I view Maher a bit like O'Reilly, as entertainers.  And they are both pretty good at that.  I enjoy watching both shows from time to time because I think both hosts are really good at being dicks essentially while having opposite views from each other.  Well somewhat at least, I don't watch enough of either to really feel like I know either of them well.  But I think giving this controversial figure a spot to talk is OK, I'm sure Maher will do his best to tear him apart and let's see how that works out. 

I was flipping through the channels the other night and I saw Mark Cuban being interviewed by OReilly, I stopped to watch because I like Mark Cuban a lot even if I disagree with some of his views.  Two guys with opposing views going at it.  It was entertaining and both made good points while being respectful to each other.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 16, 2017, 06:28:56 PM
Bill Maher is getting heavily criticized from liberals for having Milo Yiannopolous on tomorrow.  FWIW, I support having Milo on as a guest.  It will give him an opportunity to prove to a wider audience that he's a tool.

I do not think he should have him on, but I don't like Bill Maher much anyway.

Just curious, but why?   I can't stand Bill Maher; I literally wouldn't tune in to him to hear about the end of the world.  I wouldn't tune into him if Margot Robbie was announcing that I was her new true love.  And I'm no fan of Milo - though I would reserve my name calling - BUT... I don't understand why we would be against hearing opposing view points, even if it is, as jsbru says, to see what a tool he is.   Although my petty, childish side probably leans toward him doing it to sandbag him and show how intellectually superior Maher feels he is, he should have an opportunity to present his views.  If he can't do that (and he has shown some inability to do that) it doesn't inherently mean the underlying argument is bad, it just means he's a.. well, tool.

I think having him on is a lose-lose propostion for everyone except Milo.  He's not going on there to speak to that audience, they aldready hate him.  No he's going  for his band of weasely neo-nazi supporters who will love every second of liberals losing their shit.    As for Milo he'll be paid and have one more platform for his hate speech, one more line on his resume.  He's climbing a ladder.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: kingshmegland on February 16, 2017, 06:40:16 PM
You're not looking at this correctly.  Bill is looking for ratings and this is the polar opposite view and the rants both side will be interesting and fun to watch. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 16, 2017, 06:47:40 PM
You're not looking at this correctly.  Bill is looking for ratings and this is the polar opposite view and the rants both side will be interesting and fun to watch.

Polar opposite on some things, but Maher is sometimes sympathetic to anti-women grenade lobbers wich is part of why I don't like him. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: kingshmegland on February 16, 2017, 07:36:29 PM
You are nit picking. By that I mean one subject.    I know and agree that is an important subject but every other subject makes for great arguments/discussions.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 17, 2017, 08:13:28 AM
Bill Maher is getting heavily criticized from liberals for having Milo Yiannopolous on tomorrow.  FWIW, I support having Milo on as a guest.  It will give him an opportunity to prove to a wider audience that he's a tool.

I do not think he should have him on, but I don't like Bill Maher much anyway.

Just curious, but why?   I can't stand Bill Maher; I literally wouldn't tune in to him to hear about the end of the world.  I wouldn't tune into him if Margot Robbie was announcing that I was her new true love.  And I'm no fan of Milo - though I would reserve my name calling - BUT... I don't understand why we would be against hearing opposing view points, even if it is, as jsbru says, to see what a tool he is.   Although my petty, childish side probably leans toward him doing it to sandbag him and show how intellectually superior Maher feels he is, he should have an opportunity to present his views.  If he can't do that (and he has shown some inability to do that) it doesn't inherently mean the underlying argument is bad, it just means he's a.. well, tool.

I think having him on is a lose-lose propostion for everyone except Milo.  He's not going on there to speak to that audience, they aldready hate him.  No he's going  for his band of weasely neo-nazi supporters who will love every second of liberals losing their shit.    As for Milo he'll be paid and have one more platform for his hate speech, one more line on his resume.  He's climbing a ladder.

Why is that any better that the liberals who watch that show to love every second of Bill Maher spewing his Agenda Approved Hate?   If his message is truly as abhorrent as you think it is, the truth will out.  It always does (the trick is, the timing).   

Why NOT let him spew his nonsense?  Do you honestly think that the average limousine liberal who watches Maher is going to go "Hey, you know what? Milo's on to something.   Those pesky Jews ARE in control of everything!"  And even if there is, there only needs to be one person that says "wow, that was worse than I thought; this guy is a dick", then we're back at square zero.   Personally, the fascist libertarian angle is not my thing (to me the things are antithetical) but he has an interesting take; I'm fascinated by the psychology of how and why an openly gay man can say some of the things he says.  Is it grandstanding?  Does he know something we don't?   Is there, as there usually is, truth on both sides?   

Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: cramx3 on February 17, 2017, 08:28:51 AM
I'd argue it's a win-win.  Bill will get the ratings because he has a controversial figure on, that his fan base will think he will rip Milo apart and then Milo's fan base can actually see him talk without a riot.  Then people like myself can just watch the interaction for entertainment which I may or may not do.  I don't typically watch him, but sometimes if he is on when I channel surf I'll check it out for a bit.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: KevShmev on February 17, 2017, 05:27:14 PM
Maher is a monster jack hole, but can be entertaining to watch at times (if I home and he's on, I'll tune in, depending on how annoying his guests are or aren't).  His take on liberals and their odd infatuation with defending Islam is totally on the money. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Cool Chris on February 17, 2017, 08:14:00 PM
His take on liberals and their odd infatuation with defending Islam is totally on the money. 

They are being PERSECUTED!

(Openly gay and married to another man) Mayor Ed is giving his annual address in a mosque to stand up to persecution of Muslims. Good thing that Mosque is here and not in Sandland, he and his spouse would really learn the definition of persecution.

http://mynorthwest.com/548357/mayor-murray-mosque-presentation/

More on topic: The left can continue to be dismissive of people who disagree with them to their own peril in upcoming elections.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on February 17, 2017, 08:16:52 PM
Sandland? Seriously?

I mean, do you really need to mock them? Does it help anything?

Also, if you're against people being persecuted in Arab or Muslim countries.....shouldn't you be equally against it here too? I feel like those kinds of messages are like "Shut up and stop complaining, other countries do way worse things". That's not a great message.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 17, 2017, 08:29:46 PM
  His take on liberals and their odd infatuation with defending Islam is totally on the money.

Another reason why I don't like Maher, I wholeheartedly disagree with this take. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: KevShmev on February 17, 2017, 08:39:53 PM
I think it's right on the money.  It's basically, "Every time there's a terrorist attack committed by someone affiliated with Islam, instead of asking 'how can we stop this?,' liberals say, 'don't be mean to muslims.'"  The real laugher is that some liberals (generally speaking, for those accusing me of generalizing) who are also atheists love to mock christians, but are quick to defend muslims.  It doesn't make any sense.  All of these bleeding hearts who marched weeks ago when they were duped into thinking Trump's stupid ban was strictly a muslim ban, does anyone think they would have done the same thing if a president was accused (wrongly or not) of trying to keep more christians out of the country? 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 17, 2017, 08:57:06 PM
I think it's right on the money.  It's basically, "Every time there's a terrorist attack committed by someone affiliated with Islam, instead of asking 'how can we stop this?,' liberals say, 'don't be mean to muslims.'"  The real laugher is that some liberals (generally speaking, for those accusing me of generalizing) who are also atheists love to mock christians, but are quick to defend muslims.  It doesn't make any sense.  All of these bleeding hearts who marched weeks ago when they were duped into thinking Trump's stupid ban was strictly a muslim ban, does anyone think they would have done the same thing if a president was accused (wrongly or not) of trying to keep more christians out of the country?

I strongly disagree with everything but what could I possibly say,  you sure have liberals pegged.   :yeahright
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Cool Chris on February 17, 2017, 09:02:30 PM
Also, if you're against people being persecuted in Arab or Muslim countries.....shouldn't you be equally against it here too?

I would care more that people are being persecuted in other countries, but I am not a citizen of those countries and do not have any electoral voice there. I would like nothing more to actively work toward ending such persecution abroad, but then I see what happens when we meddle in geographical areas we shouldn't.

Otherwise I might have misunderstood your post, or I misunderstood yours #nyquil
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on February 17, 2017, 09:04:40 PM
I get that you're saying that persecution in certain other countries is awful and you wish you could do something.

However, I didn't here anything about you being truly against the persecution faced by people in America, I guess unless it's to the same level as it is in other countries.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: KevShmev on February 17, 2017, 09:14:01 PM
I think it's right on the money.  It's basically, "Every time there's a terrorist attack committed by someone affiliated with Islam, instead of asking 'how can we stop this?,' liberals say, 'don't be mean to muslims.'"  The real laugher is that some liberals (generally speaking, for those accusing me of generalizing) who are also atheists love to mock christians, but are quick to defend muslims.  It doesn't make any sense.  All of these bleeding hearts who marched weeks ago when they were duped into thinking Trump's stupid ban was strictly a muslim ban, does anyone think they would have done the same thing if a president was accused (wrongly or not) of trying to keep more christians out of the country?

I strongly disagree with everything but what could I possibly say,  you sure have liberals pegged.   :yeahright

I made a point to italicize the word 'some' (bolded now in case you missed it) to avoid painting all liberals with the same brush.  Maher's comment, which I agreed with, sounds like he is doing that, but it's clear that he meant some liberals as well, not all (since he himself is a liberal).
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Cool Chris on February 17, 2017, 09:18:30 PM
Oh, then I truly misspoke. Or mistyped. I have so much disdain for the Mayor and much of Seattle politics - fortunately I am outside the city, but it is the largest city by me - that much of it was lost in my post. Peace? 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on February 17, 2017, 09:19:48 PM
(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder824/500x/59094824.jpg)
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 17, 2017, 09:39:28 PM
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/milo-yiannopoulos-talks-leslie-jones-lena-dunham-trump-real-time-all-i-care-is-free-speech-9772?utm_source=twitter

From the look of this it sounds like Milo and Bill had a nice friendly chat about how much they hate women in hollywood.  The whole thing is just a clusterfuck  :tdwn
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Cool Chris on February 17, 2017, 09:53:03 PM
If that is all you got out of it, you are missing the bigger picture, and only echo what others have been saying about the left's inability to get out from under their own shells and listen to others whom they might disagree with.

Quote
Maher, who previously lobbied to have Yiannopoulos on his show, responded to Scahill's cancelation with the following statement: "Liberals will continue to lose elections as long as they follow the example of people like Mr. Scahill whose views veer into fantasy and away from bedrock liberal principles like equality of women, respect for minorities, separation of religion and state and free speech."
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 17, 2017, 10:33:36 PM
I think it's right on the money.  It's basically, "Every time there's a terrorist attack committed by someone affiliated with Islam, instead of asking 'how can we stop this?,' liberals say, 'don't be mean to muslims.'"  The real laugher is that some liberals (generally speaking, for those accusing me of generalizing) who are also atheists love to mock christians, but are quick to defend muslims. It doesn't make any sense.  All of these bleeding hearts who marched weeks ago when they were duped into thinking Trump's stupid ban was strictly a muslim ban, does anyone think they would have done the same thing if a president was accused (wrongly or not) of trying to keep more christians out of the country?

I strongly disagree with everything but what could I possibly say,  you sure have liberals pegged.   :yeahright

There's some truth to that; there was NEVER any apology for lumping all "Christians" into the "Westboro Baptist Church" bucket of evangelical Christians, who didn't actually KILL anyone but just took an unpopular social position.   In the US, something like 85% of Americans - 275 million people - are technically Christians, whereas only about 15 million are "evangelicals".   Even assuming that ALL evangelicals "hate gays" and are "pro-life", it's still a small minority of all Christians.   No one cared about "Christianity" as a "religion of peace", but we bend over backwards to make the distinction about Islam. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on February 17, 2017, 10:41:50 PM
While I totally disagree with the mindset of being cool with attacking one group because another group is also being attacked, I completely agree with your general points about Christianity.

While there is no actual threat to Christianity in this country (at least not one that counts), I do believe that non-Christians go way too far in their Christian-bashing. Whether it's linking it to WBC, saying they're all anti-gay and want to outlaw abortion, or yadda yadda yadda, it's not helpful, it's factually incorrect and it only produces negativity.

Can't we all just go back to attacking Scientologists? I could have sworn their purpose was to unite everyone else against a common foe.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 17, 2017, 10:46:14 PM

 there was NEVER any apology for lumping all "Christians" into the "Westboro Baptist Church" bucket of evangelical Christians,

What a nice strawman you've built here.  Who exactly is supposed to apologize, and to whom?   How conviently vague. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 17, 2017, 10:47:56 PM
For the record, I'm Catholic - technically a "Christian" - and am pro-choice and fully supportive of equal rights for homosexuals.   Some polls have Catholic support for gay marriage and legal (albeit limited) abortion rights as high as 50% (which when compared to the national levels, isn't as bad as it sounds).
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 17, 2017, 11:01:40 PM
https://youtu.be/0PUu6M8ThhM

At least Larry Wilmore seemed to know what was up.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on February 17, 2017, 11:06:56 PM
I feel like he's trying to be the gay male Anne Coulter.

Which makes a lot more sense after seeing him with Bill.

My only exposure to this Milo dude is from the above posted video. I assume he's a character or something and this is meant to be a major societal troll?


Edit: Actually, if you got rid of the cartoon character, that was a really entertaining talk! I had no idea. Never watched Bill Maher before like that.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: antigoon on February 18, 2017, 09:34:43 AM
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/milo-yiannopoulos-talks-leslie-jones-lena-dunham-trump-real-time-all-i-care-is-free-speech-9772?utm_source=twitter

From the look of this it sounds like Milo and Bill had a nice friendly chat about how much they hate women in hollywood.  The whole thing is just a clusterfuck  :tdwn

Yeah, Bill and Milo have a lot more in common than you might think. No thanks to either of them.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 20, 2017, 04:44:07 PM
Apparently, Simon & Schuster is cancelling the publication of Milo's book "Dangerous" and he was disinvited by the Conservative Polical Action Conference.   So I guess people finally drew a line at advocating sex with young boys, all the other hateful shit he said before that was just fine, let's invite him to speak.   :angry:
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on February 20, 2017, 05:15:53 PM
Guess that's an inherent risk of being a cartoon character. Such a thin line between humor and offense, especially when you're facading as a real person.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Cool Chris on February 20, 2017, 05:24:56 PM
I've checked like 5 news sources, and I can't find any quotations from these videos of his. Are they documented somewhere one could reasonably expect to find them?

Adami has been most accurate about this guy as far as I can tell on this thread. The line between himself and his character has become too blurred. Of course, we are the ones to thank for that. He might survive this, he might not, depends on where he really wants to take this persona he has created.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: portnoy311 on February 20, 2017, 08:53:45 PM
The thing is Milo is more troll than actual political voice. The guy rose to prominence by coordinating an online harrassment effort of actress Leslie Jones. He's not being ostracized because his views are different, but he's also not being treated like a political commentator when he's not.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: KevShmev on February 20, 2017, 09:44:59 PM
The thing is Milo is more troll than actual political voice. The guy rose to prominence by coordinating an online harrassment effort of actress Leslie Jones. He's not being ostracized because his views are different, but he's also not being treated like a political commentator when he's not.

After seeing him for the first time anywhere on Maher the other night, that was my impression, too. I have no doubt that he believes most of the disgusting things he says, but he obviously goes way over the top with the way he says things just to get a reaction out of people.  That is like the textbook definition of a troll.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Cool Chris on February 20, 2017, 09:58:13 PM
It is also the best way nowadays to be heard.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on February 20, 2017, 09:59:58 PM
It is also the best way nowadays to be heard.

I dunno dude. I can think of a whole lot of people who are heard without being cartoon characters. I don't think it's necessary, even if it is easier.

A wise man once said, work hard at achieving something, you'll appreciate it more.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 21, 2017, 06:24:08 AM
Apparently, Simon & Schuster is cancelling the publication of Milo's book "Dangerous" and he was disinvited by the Conservative Polical Action Conference.   So I guess people finally drew a line at advocating sex with young boys, all the other hateful shit he said before that was just fine, let's invite him to speak.   :angry:

Well, because that is clearly both illegal and - largely because of that illegality - considered immoral.   I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can at least see why the line is being drawn there and not somewhere else.   
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: cramx3 on February 21, 2017, 09:06:27 AM
I watched the Milo/Maher interview over the weekend with my entire family.  It was actually pretty good.  I think both made some good points and neither were really in attack mode or anything.  Just good dialogue for the most part (besides Milo singling out people which just hurts his points when he does that).  Then it came out that Milo sexually assaulted a young boy?  wtf.  Not that I thought he was necessarily a credible voice, but having never heard him before that interview, I thought he had good points (mostly about free speech)... sadly none of that means anything to me if the guy is a pedophile.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: pogoowner on February 21, 2017, 09:14:48 AM
Then it came out that Milo sexually assaulted a young boy?  wtf.  Not that I thought he was necessarily a credible voice, but having never heard him before that interview, I thought he had good points (mostly about free speech)... sadly none of that means anything to me if the guy is a pedophile.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't think that's what happened. Milo had a priest take advantage of him as a young teen, and he basically said there was nothing wrong with adults and minors getting involved with each other.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: cramx3 on February 21, 2017, 09:23:14 AM
Then it came out that Milo sexually assaulted a young boy?  wtf.  Not that I thought he was necessarily a credible voice, but having never heard him before that interview, I thought he had good points (mostly about free speech)... sadly none of that means anything to me if the guy is a pedophile.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't think that's what happened. Milo had a priest take advantage of him as a young teen, and he basically said there was nothing wrong with adults and minors getting involved with each other.

I thought I read a tweet with him admitting it?  I really haven't looked into it, just saw something my brother in law sent me which may or may not have been real I guess? 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: pogoowner on February 21, 2017, 09:33:18 AM
Then it came out that Milo sexually assaulted a young boy?  wtf.  Not that I thought he was necessarily a credible voice, but having never heard him before that interview, I thought he had good points (mostly about free speech)... sadly none of that means anything to me if the guy is a pedophile.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't think that's what happened. Milo had a priest take advantage of him as a young teen, and he basically said there was nothing wrong with adults and minors getting involved with each other.

I thought I read a tweet with him admitting it?  I really haven't looked into it, just saw something my brother in law sent me which may or may not have been real I guess? 
It's possible I just haven't seen it. I'm just going by the interview with Joe Rogan that resurfaced, which started all of this up.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: cramx3 on February 21, 2017, 10:06:04 AM
I read it wrong, I just re-read his facebook post which was what was sent to me.  I mean, the guy is a way over the top and not someone I particularly care for in terms of following his politics.  He seems more like an entertainer honestly.  The interview with Bill Maher was still pretty good overall though.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Chino on February 21, 2017, 10:10:17 AM
I read it wrong, I just re-read his facebook post which was what was sent to me.  I mean, the guy is a way over the top and not someone I particularly care for in terms of following his politics.  He seems more like an entertainer honestly.  The interview with Bill Maher was still pretty good overall though.

I thought he killed it on Maher's show. I don't know what to make of this guy. I've only been aware of him since the Berkley incident. I haven't looked into his past comments, but everything of his that I've read over the last month does not seem out of line at all, at least to me.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 21, 2017, 10:31:55 AM
Then it came out that Milo sexually assaulted a young boy?  wtf.  Not that I thought he was necessarily a credible voice, but having never heard him before that interview, I thought he had good points (mostly about free speech)... sadly none of that means anything to me if the guy is a pedophile.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't think that's what happened. Milo had a priest take advantage of him as a young teen, and he basically said there was nothing wrong with adults and minors getting involved with each other.

Not exactly; what I understand he said - and for the record, I don't agree with this - was that SOME 13-year-olds are mature enough to make an informed consent decision on sexual matters.  Forget about "young boys" for a moment, this flies in the face of most of accepted science.  There's a REASON age of consent is 18, and it's not "politics".   This is not scandalous because "Alt-Right" or any of that.    I think if ANYONE said that - about boys or girls - it would be fishy.   We can't confuse their LOOKS with their mental maturity. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Chino on February 21, 2017, 10:54:13 AM
Then it came out that Milo sexually assaulted a young boy?  wtf.  Not that I thought he was necessarily a credible voice, but having never heard him before that interview, I thought he had good points (mostly about free speech)... sadly none of that means anything to me if the guy is a pedophile.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't think that's what happened. Milo had a priest take advantage of him as a young teen, and he basically said there was nothing wrong with adults and minors getting involved with each other.

Not exactly; what I understand he said - and for the record, I don't agree with this - was that SOME 13-year-olds are mature enough to make an informed consent decision on sexual matters.  Forget about "young boys" for a moment, this flies in the face of most of accepted science.  There's a REASON age of consent is 18, and it's not "politics".   This is not scandalous because "Alt-Right" or any of that.    I think if ANYONE said that - about boys or girls - it would be fishy.   We can't confuse their LOOKS with their mental maturity.

I would agree that some 13 year olds are mature enough for such a decision, so I don't have any qualms with that statement persae. That being said, the number of 13 year olds who are mature enough to make such a decision is probably so insignificantly small that it shouldn't even be considered when writing legislation. It's like when you have a 12 year old that for whatever is able to handle college level classes. I'm sure if they can understand advanced calculus and computer sciences, knowing the ins and outs of sexual matters is probably not at all over their heads.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 21, 2017, 11:05:50 AM
Well, I agree in part (I'm sure there is ONE 13-year-old somewhere who does; if there is, it's statistically insignificant) but I don't necessarily agree that intellectual capacity is the same thing.  Intellectual capacity is fairly easily measured, it isn't correlatable with emotional capacity, and emotional capacity isn't entirely a learned thing.   We know the brain is still developing, and that perceptions of the world change significantly between the ages of say 12 and 22, 25 (depending on gender). 

This is why even for intellectually superior students, they don't recommend moving up too fast - a grade or two - because there isn't a corresponding emotional maturity. 

But that he may or may not be wrong, the fact that you and I are having this debate, this discussion, is why he shouldn't be silenced, as some are calling for. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Chino on February 21, 2017, 11:10:41 AM
But that he may or may not be wrong, the fact that you and I are having this debate, this discussion, is why he shouldn't be silenced, as some are calling for.

 :tup


This isn't directed at you, Stadler. I just don't feel like making another post.

This was Milo's statement two days ago posted on his FB account.
 
"I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim.
I would like to restate my utter disgust at adults who sexually abuse minors. I am horrified by pedophilia and I have devoted large portions of my career as a journalist to exposing child abusers. I've outed three of them, in fact -- three more than most of my critics. And I've repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophilia in my feature and opinion writing. My professional record is very clear.
But I do understand that these videos, even though some of them are edited deceptively, paint a different picture.
I'm partly to blame. My own experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say anything I wanted to on this subject, no matter how outrageous. But I understand that my usual blend of British sarcasm, provocation and gallows humor might have come across as flippancy, a lack of care for other victims or, worse, "advocacy." I deeply regret that. People deal with things from their past in different ways.
As to some of the specific claims being made, sometimes things tumble out of your mouth on these long, late-night live-streams, when everyone is spit-balling, that are incompletely expressed or not what you intended. Nonetheless, I've reviewed the tapes that appeared last night in their proper full context and I don't believe they say what is being reported.
I do not advocate for illegal behavior. I explicitly say on the tapes that I think the current age of consent is "about right."
I do not believe sex with 13-year-olds is okay. When I mentioned the number 13, I was talking about the age I lost my own virginity.
I shouldn't have used the word "boy" -- which gay men often do to describe young men of consenting age -- instead of "young man." That was an error.
I am certainly guilty of imprecise language, which I regret.
Anyone who suggests I turn a blind eye to illegal activity or to the abuse of minors is unequivocally wrong. I am implacably opposed to the normalization of pedophilia and I will continue to report and speak accordingly."
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: kaos2900 on February 21, 2017, 11:25:58 AM
I don't agree with a lot of what Milo says but this is a prime example of trying to silence an opposing view.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on February 21, 2017, 11:38:42 AM
There's also a difference between silencing the opposing view and choosing not to endorse or help propagate it.

Dude doesn't have a right to a soapbox.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: pogoowner on February 21, 2017, 11:56:15 AM
There's also a difference between silencing the opposing view and choosing not to endorse or help propagate it.

Dude doesn't have a right to a soapbox.
Exactly. He shouldn't be silenced. But a publisher is under no obligation to work with him. Nor are conferences obligated to invite him to speak. Nor television shows obligated to bring him on as a guest. If I find someone's views abhorrent, I'm not going to hand them a megaphone.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Chino on February 21, 2017, 12:03:47 PM
There's also a difference between silencing the opposing view and choosing not to endorse or help propagate it.

Dude doesn't have a right to a soapbox.
Exactly. He shouldn't be silenced. But a publisher is under no obligation to work with him. Nor are conferences obligated to invite him to speak. Nor television shows obligated to bring him on as a guest. If I find someone's views abhorrent, I'm not going to hand them a megaphone.

You should though. Bring them on and refute. Jeremy Scahill cancelled his scheduled appearance on Real Time last week. Rather than standing up and arguing his case in opposition of Milo, he pussed out and didn't show as a form of "protest". If you're really against someone's words and are so convinced yours are correct, go toe to toe with them. Silence perpetuates problems. The real issue with Milo is he's in the middle of the road. CNN and MSNBC want nothing to do with him because he'll say stuff on air that that the networks and their followers will likely agree with, and god forbid anyone actually shares common ground with the opposing side. This all or nothing crap that media has become is worse than anything coming out of the presidency.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on February 21, 2017, 12:11:39 PM
I have no idea how you see Milo as middle of the road.

And debate and refute only works with reasonable people. Not a person whose only goal is to piss people off.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: cramx3 on February 21, 2017, 12:18:11 PM
Well this weekend's interview was hardly about refuting.  It actually seemed like the two of them got along.  Without knowing much of anything about Milo, I'd say he is far from a typical conservative and actually seemed to have some views that were middle of the road (the discussion was not broad so just limited to what they talked about).  Both guys made great points about being too PC and Maher calling him a "British fag" would probably lead anyone else to be in hot water.  However, the context made it fitting IMO, but surprised no one is pitchforking outside Mr. Maher's house.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Chino on February 21, 2017, 12:27:40 PM
I have no idea how you see Milo as middle of the road.

He's a gay, jewish republican that has a black boyfriend, and he's friendly with Bill Maher. How's that not middle of the road when looking at average makeup of the GOP and Democrats?
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on February 21, 2017, 12:30:39 PM
I have no idea how you see Milo as middle of the road.

He's a gay, jewish republican that has a black boyfriend that fucks him in the ass who's a fan of Bill Maher. How's that not middle of the road when looking at average makeup of the GOP and Democrats?

Who he is doesn't make him middle of the road. Dude is (from what I've seen) is very anti Trans, saying that tons of them are sexual predators. Is anti-gay rights and said gays should get back in the closet. Also thinks the best way to promote free speech is to insult, ridicule and verbally harm others.
Maybe it's the fact that I am a very big LGBT ally, but I can't just brush that aside.

Is free speech good? Hell yea. Is what he doing middle of the road? No.

Also, I don't take him too seriously since as I said, he's a cartoon character. He tried to pull an Anne Coulter and screwed it up.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: antigoon on February 21, 2017, 12:55:21 PM
Yeah, there's nothing middle of the road about that guy.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 21, 2017, 02:04:47 PM
There's also a difference between silencing the opposing view and choosing not to endorse or help propagate it.

Dude doesn't have a right to a soapbox.
Exactly. He shouldn't be silenced. But a publisher is under no obligation to work with him. Nor are conferences obligated to invite him to speak. Nor television shows obligated to bring him on as a guest. If I find someone's views abhorrent, I'm not going to hand them a megaphone.

You should though. Bring them on and refute. Jeremy Scahill cancelled his scheduled appearance on Real Time last week. Rather than standing up and arguing his case in opposition of Milo, he pussed out and didn't show as a form of "protest". If you're really against someone's words and are so convinced yours are correct, go toe to toe with them. Silence perpetuates problems. The real issue with Milo is he's in the middle of the road. CNN and MSNBC want nothing to do with him because he'll say stuff on air that that the networks and their followers will likely agree with, and god forbid anyone actually shares common ground with the opposing side. This all or nothing crap that media has become is worse than anything coming out of the presidency.

This, this, holy crap this.  I am in a discussion on another board with a good friend of mine who takes the position that if you knowingly propagate something you are effectively promoting it, and implicitly endorsing it.   I adamantly disagree with that point.   How do you have unbiased, reasoned political discourse if you're only willing to put out views that share yours?   What's that quote?  "Show me a room where everyone is in full agreement, and I'll show you a room where no one is thinking"?   If that's not a quote, I claim it, because I just wrote it.  :) Put it out there and knock it the fuck down if you disagree with it.  But anything else is censorship, and I firmly believe that people that call for this stuff to be censored are bullies.   

jsbru continually calls the current administration "fascist", but despite unprecedented levels of dissent and protest, they haven't shut ANYONE down.    Yeah, this guy is controversial, yeah, he's an opportunist, but like Hitchens used to do (or rather, try to do), debate him, and make him look silly if his position is so wrong.   I too am of the opinion that if your argument is strong enough, it will withstand a Milo now and again. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 21, 2017, 02:07:06 PM
I have no idea how you see Milo as middle of the road.

And debate and refute only works with reasonable people. Not a person whose only goal is to piss people off.

But you're not trying to convince HIM.   The only reason you silence him is in the mistaken belief that someone ELSE won't be galvanized to action.   By debating him, and proving him wrong, you at least get a chance to stop the galvanization process, or perhaps convert someone else to your side. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: cramx3 on February 21, 2017, 02:12:46 PM
How do you have unbiased, reasoned political discourse if you're only willing to put out views that share yours?   

Did you watch the interview?  Bill said this exact same thing and his answer to his own question was "I'd be interviewing myself" (or similar wording).  It's true.  Got to have the discussion with the people who disagree with you if you ever want to understand.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 21, 2017, 02:14:15 PM
I have no idea how you see Milo as middle of the road.

He's a gay, jewish republican that has a black boyfriend that fucks him in the ass who's a fan of Bill Maher. How's that not middle of the road when looking at average makeup of the GOP and Democrats?

Who he is doesn't make him middle of the road. Dude is (from what I've seen) is very anti Trans, saying that tons of them are sexual predators. Is anti-gay rights and said gays should get back in the closet. Also thinks the best way to promote free speech is to insult, ridicule and verbally harm others.
Maybe it's the fact that I am a very big LGBT ally, but I can't just brush that aside.

Is free speech good? Hell yea. Is what he doing middle of the road? No.

Also, I don't take him too seriously since as I said, he's a cartoon character. He tried to pull an Anne Coulter and screwed it up.

So, Adami, honest, legit question:  please talk to me a little about how he's not to be forgiven for what he says, but is a cartoon character?  Aren't they sort of mutually exclusive?   I mean, I don't think it's all that cut and dry, frankly - some of his views - the ones that don't fit neatly into a Twitter quote - are provocative.   I think the "back in the closet" is taken out of context a little bit (I think the point was to remove the sensationalism from the sexuality.  In other words, you can't base your identity on your sexuality then accuse others of reacting to that identity; not an entirely unreasonable point) and I think the "aberrant" is also meant to make a deeper point (about the role of genetics and biology in our sexuality).     Now I get the argument that his other stuff - about choice and what not - removes some of his credibility, but where do you draw the line, and more importantly, how do we decide what topics are unilaterally not for discussion?   
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on February 21, 2017, 04:51:13 PM
Listen, I don't think he should be shut down because he's alt-right, or hyper conservative, or gay, or a douche or a cartoon character.

It's because he's British. I firmly believe that British people should silenced at all costs.


Seriously though.

I said he was a cartoon character facading as a real person. And forgive him for what? He didn't do anything. I'm not mad at the dude. There's nothing to forgive.

I also never said to silence him or that subjects are unfit for discussion. I said the dude has no right to a soapbox. He has no right to get a book published and he has no right to be hosted by TV radio or newspaper people or anyone else. Those are privileges, not rights.

I also said a debate with him is likely pointless if your goal is to debate and refute since his goal is to instigate and piss people off. It has NOTHING to do with the topics or subjects. There are probably tons of people with his point of view, ones that are not cartoon characters, that would be great to debate. He, personally, is just not one of them.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XJDenton on February 21, 2017, 05:14:32 PM
Engaging Milo with rational debate is like engaging a suicide bomber in a fencing match. Debate only works if both parties are interested in following the same rules.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Cool Chris on February 21, 2017, 06:41:43 PM
Milo will debate, and do it fairly. Most people choose not to do so with him, for various reasons.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on February 21, 2017, 07:15:21 PM
Milo will debate, and do it fairly. Most people choose not to do so with him, for various reasons.

I have no idea what you're watching. I'm not saying he won't let other people talk (though he often tries) but I have seen nothing that says he wants to debate. He was presenting complete nonsense as proven fact and didn't allow for it to be questioned. That's not debating.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 21, 2017, 08:00:17 PM
Milo will debate, and do it fairly. Most people choose not to do so with him, for various reasons.

 :facepalm: it's like living in different realities
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: KevShmev on February 21, 2017, 08:20:13 PM
The irony is that most would still have no clue who this guy even is if those people in CA hadn't decided to protest and riot because of his scheduled appearance.  By protesting him, they gave him a much more vocal voice. Way to go.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: portnoy311 on February 21, 2017, 10:35:13 PM
I've actually watched a Milo talk before. Not live - I had no interest in being there - but I did watch the YouTube video. Again, this guy is not a political voice. He spent the first 30 straight minutes making fun of liberals. Not once mentioning why they're wrong, or even what he believes. Just straight up mocking liberals with the most extreme strawmen examples. Yeah, posting a picture of an overweight woman wearing a shirt that says, "Don't grab my pussy" and then responding, "WE WON'T HAHAHA" is really a great political discussion.

This right here is frankly one of the more mundane topics Milo could be taken to task for. I do think he misspoke and was actually mostly talking about himself. I also think the guy is a troll for so many of the other things he's said and done.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: KevShmev on February 22, 2017, 07:07:53 PM
The one thing he said that was correct was that liberals take the bait every time, and that is in regards to saying anything they disagree with or anything they find the least bit offensive.  They simply cannot help themselves but to get offended or outraged any time either happens.  Obviously, this does not apply to all liberals, for anyone saying I am saying they are all like that, but a lot of them are.  I see it all the time.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on February 22, 2017, 07:33:53 PM
The one thing he said that was correct was that liberals take the bait every time, and that is in regards to saying anything they disagree with or anything they find the least bit offensive.  They simply cannot help themselves but to get offended or outraged any time either happens.  Obviously, this does not apply to all liberals, for anyone saying I am saying they are all like that, but a lot of them are.  I see it all the time.

Eh, conservatives do the same thing. It's just different topics and different means of expressing the offense.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: cramx3 on February 23, 2017, 04:23:32 AM
The one thing he said that was correct was that liberals take the bait every time, and that is in regards to saying anything they disagree with or anything they find the least bit offensive.  They simply cannot help themselves but to get offended or outraged any time either happens.  Obviously, this does not apply to all liberals, for anyone saying I am saying they are all like that, but a lot of them are.  I see it all the time.

Eh, conservatives do the same thing. It's just different topics and different means of expressing the offense.

Yea it goes both ways, but in terms of the context of the interview which was mostly about free speech and PCism, he hit the nail on the head about taking the bait in terms of when someone says something that isn't PC.  Which also makes sense considering Bill Maher called him a "British Fag" and no one went up in arms on that, probably as my family concluded because Bill Maher is a liberal show, had someone on Fox News said that, even in the context of the conversation, people would be rioting.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 23, 2017, 06:58:35 AM
The one thing he said that was correct was that liberals take the bait every time, and that is in regards to saying anything they disagree with or anything they find the least bit offensive.  They simply cannot help themselves but to get offended or outraged any time either happens.  Obviously, this does not apply to all liberals, for anyone saying I am saying they are all like that, but a lot of them are.  I see it all the time.

Eh, conservatives do the same thing. It's just different topics and different means of expressing the offense.

I do think the responses are different though.  I may get up in arms when a liberal hippy (I'm kidding) spouts some nonsense, but I'm not out calling for BOYCOTTS, and libeling/slandering people with the toxic RACIST tag.   I feel like there's an "anything goes" mentality with more liberals than conservatives.   What liberals want to call "promoting racism", I call "real tolerance".   Yes, there are conservatives that overreact, but they're easily classified as lunatics.  Even "normal" liberals seem more than fine to ruin someone's life because they have different ideas about what constitutes "racism" or "bigotry".    Hell, I worry a lot that even some of the conversations here will result in someone playing that card with me (it's happened before; a guy on the Genesis forum I used to visit passed a sort of petition to get me perma-banned, his argument being that the band wouldn't want a "known racist" posting on their forum. Thankfully he got nowhere.)
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: antigoon on February 23, 2017, 07:25:13 AM
Yeah, conservatives have their own world of 'political correctness' too. Merry Christmas!! Radical Islamic terrorism! How dare you kneel during the national anthem! Voter fraud!
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: kaos2900 on February 23, 2017, 07:43:49 AM
The one thing he said that was correct was that liberals take the bait every time, and that is in regards to saying anything they disagree with or anything they find the least bit offensive.  They simply cannot help themselves but to get offended or outraged any time either happens.  Obviously, this does not apply to all liberals, for anyone saying I am saying they are all like that, but a lot of them are.  I see it all the time.

Eh, conservatives do the same thing. It's just different topics and different means of expressing the offense.

I do think the responses are different though.  I may get up in arms when a liberal hippy (I'm kidding) spouts some nonsense, but I'm not out calling for BOYCOTTS, and libeling/slandering people with the toxic RACIST tag.   I feel like there's an "anything goes" mentality with more liberals than conservatives.   What liberals want to call "promoting racism", I call "real tolerance".   Yes, there are conservatives that overreact, but they're easily classified as lunatics.  Even "normal" liberals seem more than fine to ruin someone's life because they have different ideas about what constitutes "racism" or "bigotry".    Hell, I worry a lot that even some of the conversations here will result in someone playing that card with me (it's happened before; a guy on the Genesis forum I used to visit passed a sort of petition to get me perma-banned, his argument being that the band wouldn't want a "known racist" posting on their forum. Thankfully he got nowhere.)

This worries me as well. The apparent ease of many liberals to label people as Nazi's or Fascists is both frightening and infuriating.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 23, 2017, 08:06:24 AM
Yeah, conservatives have their own world of 'political correctness' too. Merry Christmas!! Radical Islamic terrorism! How dare you kneel during the national anthem! Voter fraud!

Okay, that's fair.  But show me where they are calling for people to lose their professions because they don't have a Christmas tree?  Or where there are Twitter bullies calling out people for their failure to stand? 

Some liberals can be bullies when it comes to their beliefs in ways that a significant majority of conservatives are not.  It's not enough to have your beliefs, you have to MAKE others believe them too.    We've left "tolerance" in the dust long ago, and it's now "ACCEPTANCE" that is a requirement.

"Tolerance" is "I'll sell to homosexuals in my store.   I'll agree that they can marry.  But I still feel it's a choice they make, and they're genetic mutants for wanting to have sex that way."  Do you honestly think that would be an acceptable point of view in the climate today?   You don't think SOMEONE would respond that that person is a homophobe?   
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 23, 2017, 08:14:53 AM

"Tolerance" is "I'll sell to homosexuals in my store.   I'll agree that they can marry.  But I still feel it's a choice they make, and they're genetic mutants for wanting to have sex that way."  Do you honestly think that would be an acceptable point of view in the climate today?   You don't think SOMEONE would respond that that person is a homophobe?

That person would be the definition of a homophobe, yes. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: antigoon on February 23, 2017, 08:18:22 AM
Yeah, conservatives have their own world of 'political correctness' too. Merry Christmas!! Radical Islamic terrorism! How dare you kneel during the national anthem! Voter fraud!

Okay, that's fair.  But show me where they are calling for people to lose their professions because they don't have a Christmas tree?  Or where there are Twitter bullies calling out people for their failure to stand? 
 
There's plenty of conservative outrage online over these things.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 23, 2017, 08:31:14 AM

"Tolerance" is "I'll sell to homosexuals in my store.   I'll agree that they can marry.  But I still feel it's a choice they make, and they're genetic mutants for wanting to have sex that way."  Do you honestly think that would be an acceptable point of view in the climate today?   You don't think SOMEONE would respond that that person is a homophobe?

That person would be the definition of a homophobe, yes.

Boom, point made.     Why?   They don't treat them any differently.   You don't "choose" the person - not the gender, the PERSON - you sleep with?    You've basically just said that even acknowledging that homosexuality is genetic may still be ground for being a "homophobe".  What more could you possibly want??
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 23, 2017, 08:34:09 AM

"Tolerance" is "I'll sell to homosexuals in my store.   I'll agree that they can marry.  But I still feel it's a choice they make, and they're genetic mutants for wanting to have sex that way."  Do you honestly think that would be an acceptable point of view in the climate today?   You don't think SOMEONE would respond that that person is a homophobe?

That person would be the definition of a homophobe, yes.

Boom, point made.     Why?   They don't treat them any differently.   You don't "choose" the person - not the gender, the PERSON - you sleep with?    You've basically just said that even acknowledging that homosexuality is genetic may still be ground for being a "homophobe".  What more could you possibly want??

I don't "want" anything, it was your cartoonish example.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 23, 2017, 08:35:18 AM
Yeah, conservatives have their own world of 'political correctness' too. Merry Christmas!! Radical Islamic terrorism! How dare you kneel during the national anthem! Voter fraud!

Okay, that's fair.  But show me where they are calling for people to lose their professions because they don't have a Christmas tree?  Or where there are Twitter bullies calling out people for their failure to stand? 
 
There's plenty of conservative outrage online over these things.

I didn't say there wasn't "outrage".  "Outrage" is fine; it's when any and all consequences are deemed fine in order to make your political point.    I don't see anyone trying to ruin Bruce Springsteen's career over his overt political leanings.  I don't see anyone "boycotting" Katy Perry over her political leanings.  But some are calling for a Taylor Swift boycott.  Why?  Does she hate gays? Nope.  Hate Muslims?  Nope.   She just didn't come out AGAINST Trump hard enough.    http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/02/lena-dunham-defends-taylor-swifts-lack-of-political-talk.html   I'm no Lena Dunham fan, but like a broken clock, she's right twice a day, and here she's right.   
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 23, 2017, 08:47:10 AM

"Tolerance" is "I'll sell to homosexuals in my store.   I'll agree that they can marry.  But I still feel it's a choice they make, and they're genetic mutants for wanting to have sex that way."  Do you honestly think that would be an acceptable point of view in the climate today?   You don't think SOMEONE would respond that that person is a homophobe?

That person would be the definition of a homophobe, yes.

Boom, point made.     Why?   They don't treat them any differently.   You don't "choose" the person - not the gender, the PERSON - you sleep with?    You've basically just said that even acknowledging that homosexuality is genetic may still be ground for being a "homophobe".  What more could you possibly want??

I don't "want" anything, it was your cartoonish example.

What's cartoonish about it?   There are people that feel that way.   In a sense, that's me.  I believe that we are born at a certain point on the sexual continuum.  Some of us are solely heterosexual, others are solely homosexual, some are at a transition point on that continuum.   I have no bias against a person for being homosexual, and would never treat them any different than if that person were straight.  I believe all people have the choice  about WHO they sleep with.  Meaning, I'm in a committed relationship.  It is MY CHOICE if I sleep with someone outside that relationship.   At the end of my first marriage, the last say, two or three years were sexless.   I was not having congress with my wife.  I did not have sex with anyone outside of my marriage and that was MY CHOICE. I don't feel I have a right to "have sex".   If I cheated on my wife, I wouldn't get to say "well, I was BORN this way, and it's NATURAL."  No, I can control my urges. 

I feel pedophiles are born as such as well.  But I'm comfortable with having that be illegal because I feel we can be held accountable for our urges.  The pedophile doesn't get to argue that he/she was "born that way" or that his urges are "natural". 

I mention the "pedophile" not to compare it to homosexuality - there are profound differences, not least of which is "consent" - but to note that I am fascinated by the nature/nuture debate, and I feel like if we were asking more fundamental questions about heterosexuality/homosexuality, we might glean insight into other human conditions that potentially cause irreparable harm.

Yet, you called me a "homophobe".   Cool beans.   
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 23, 2017, 08:57:14 AM

What's cartoonish about it?

"But I still feel it's a choice they make, and they're genetic mutants for wanting to have sex that way"   That was in your example and I think it's homophobic.  That's all I was answering to. 

Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: cramx3 on February 23, 2017, 09:00:11 AM
I'll say using the word "mutant" is what, to me, made that example come off as homophobic.  It shows tolerance by continuing to do business and not disrupt the homosexuals life, but if internally you are thinking homosexuals are mutants, than I can't help but feel that is homophobic.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 23, 2017, 09:26:47 AM
I'm sort of playing with you guys, but if one has a genetic mutation - and we all do to some degree or another - they are "mutants".  I didn't intend that depth of argument with the original example, but it still shows you're not reading the underlying premise, or my feelings about the people whose identity we're discussing, you're just worried about word choice. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: cramx3 on February 23, 2017, 09:33:17 AM
Is being gay a genetic mutation?  I honestly didn't know that if so. 

And I know you are just giving an example to make a point so I'm not personally attacking you or anything, just saying, that from my personal view of homophobia, considering them mutants seems homophobic.  Granted if homosexuality is indeed a genetic mutation, then I will say that your wording is correct although I think a lot of people, regardless, would find it offensive.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Chino on February 23, 2017, 09:40:02 AM
Is being gay a genetic mutation?  I honestly didn't know that if so. 

It's been linked to the same gene that makes certain females have a higher rate of fertility. Not all women have it, and that gene (Xq28) when slightly mutated can express itself as homosexuality. From an evolutionary standpoint, the occasional gay person is outweighed by having a population of females with greater fertility.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: cramx3 on February 23, 2017, 09:46:13 AM
Is being gay a genetic mutation?  I honestly didn't know that if so. 

It's been linked to the same gene that makes certain females have a higher rate of fertility. Not all women have it, and that gene (Xq28) when slightly mutated can express itself as homosexuality. From an evolutionary standpoint, the occasional gay person is outweighed by having a population of females with greater fertility.

Thanks for the lesson, I had no idea this was known.  I thought it was still a debate about being born gay vs. choosing to be gay, although I always figured people were probably born that way without knowing any reason why.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Chino on February 23, 2017, 10:01:45 AM
Is being gay a genetic mutation?  I honestly didn't know that if so. 

It's been linked to the same gene that makes certain females have a higher rate of fertility. Not all women have it, and that gene (Xq28) when slightly mutated can express itself as homosexuality. From an evolutionary standpoint, the occasional gay person is outweighed by having a population of females with greater fertility.

Thanks for the lesson, I had no idea this was known.  I thought it was still a debate about being born gay vs. choosing to be gay, although I always figured people were probably born that way without knowing any reason why.

If I remember correctly, that was based on a pool of 4500ish people. I'm sure there are homsexuals that lack that mutation. Based on being able to not feel pain or the ability to reduce a fever with only a placebo effect, I don't see why someone convincing themselves that they're gay would be considered a huge stretch.

Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 23, 2017, 10:24:48 AM
Quote from: cramx3
Is being gay a genetic mutation?  I honestly didn't know that if so. 

It's been linked to the same gene that makes certain females have a higher rate of fertility. Not all women have it, and that gene (Xq28) when slightly mutated can express itself as homosexuality. From an evolutionary standpoint, the occasional gay person is outweighed by having a population of females with greater fertility.


Thanks for the lesson, I had no idea this was known.  I thought it was still a debate about being born gay vs. choosing to be gay, although I always figured people were probably born that way without knowing any reason why.

There's a lot of work to be done.   There's some speculation too that male homosexuality is genetically different from female homosexuality.    I find all of this fascinating and worthy of further study and scrutiny.  I would hate to think that that genetic research is chilled or outright rejected based on identity politics issues.  Any of us that want to have a meaningful dialogue on this underlying issue shouldn't be in fear of being labeled a "homophobe", as is evidenced here. 

Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 23, 2017, 10:33:14 AM

 I would hate to think that that genetic research is chilled or outright rejected based on identity politics issues.  Any of us that want to have a meaningful dialogue on this underlying issue shouldn't be in fear of being labeled a "homophobe", as is evidenced here. 

 :censored you, I have no problems with scientific research, it was your facetious example I had a problem with. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: bosk1 on February 23, 2017, 10:36:07 AM

 I would hate to think that that genetic research is chilled or outright rejected based on identity politics issues.  Any of us that want to have a meaningful dialogue on this underlying issue shouldn't be in fear of being labeled a "homophobe", as is evidenced here. 

 :censored you, I have no problems with scientific research, it was your facetious example I had a problem with. 

And this post is an example of what is NOT tolerated on this forum, for several reasons.  You don't get to personally attack someone.  You also don't get to label an example "facetious" simply because you disagree with it.  Even if it is an objectively, demonstrably BAD example, you don't get to shut down discussion by labeling it facetious.  Any more posts like this, and you will lose your P/R posting privileges.  That isn't how we do things here.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 23, 2017, 11:42:48 AM
I say this respectfully, but how was it either "facetious" or "demonstrably BAD"?   It's legit.  It's essentially me.   I can understand why "mutant" would be inflammatory, but it's not factually incorrect. 

I DO think sexuality is a genetic state, and I don't believe it is as simple as "recessive" or "dominant".  It's why there are trends with respect to (at least) gay males; they are predominantly in families with multiple sons, not only children.   In those families, they are predominantly the youngest (or younger) sons.   This is fascinating on multiple levels, and can help us with other sexual conditions, as well as with non-sexual ones.    It's cutting edge science, and research shouldn't be curtailed out of fears that "someone might be offended". 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: cramx3 on February 23, 2017, 11:58:40 AM
Ill be honest, the term mutant threw me off.  I didn't know anything about homosexual mutations and my thought was that it was used derogatory.  Now with some more understanding, I do think it's a poor choice of words just because mutant is typically referred to negatively, but I don't think the statement is outright homophobic.   Sort of like the guerilla discussion in another thread. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: chknptpie on February 23, 2017, 12:25:00 PM
I think there are two different points being made here right?
1 - thoughts - no one can control your thoughts
2 - actions - society has set expectations

So you can be a bigot through your thoughts, but not through your actions.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 23, 2017, 01:14:14 PM
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/02/23/p.c.-culture-vs.-the-big-joke 

a long (way long) piece about political correctness clashes, Milo, Pewdiepie, etc that I thought was very good.  I've followed this person's writing for years and it's always very thoughtful and there are things about empathy in this  that I care very much about. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: PowerSlave on February 23, 2017, 02:47:35 PM
I say this respectfully, but how was it either "facetious" or "demonstrably BAD"?   It's legit.  It's essentially me.   I can understand why "mutant" would be inflammatory, but it's not factually incorrect. 

I DO think sexuality is a genetic state, and I don't believe it is as simple as "recessive" or "dominant".  It's why there are trends with respect to (at least) gay males; they are predominantly in families with multiple sons, not only children.   In those families, they are predominantly the youngest (or younger) sons.   This is fascinating on multiple levels, and can help us with other sexual conditions, as well as with non-sexual ones.    It's cutting edge science, and research shouldn't be curtailed out of fears that "someone might be offended".

I read a study that theorized that a mother's immune system attacked male fetuses in certain circumstances because it thought that it was an "Invader"(for lack of better terms) after the first male child. It was a few years ago, and my memory is sketchy at best on the details. However, I think that they ended up debunking the theory afterwards. I'm far from certain, though. Is this what you're referring to?
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 23, 2017, 02:49:11 PM
I think there are two different points being made here right?
1 - thoughts - no one can control your thoughts
2 - actions - society has set expectations

So you can be a bigot through your thoughts, but not through your actions.


Well, basically, though I think there is a third:   we ought to go a lot easier on the "BIGOT" stuff.   One man's bigotry is another man's scientific inquiry.    I think "bigotry" ought to be constrained to just actions.   
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: cramx3 on February 23, 2017, 03:03:32 PM
I think there are two different points being made here right?
1 - thoughts - no one can control your thoughts
2 - actions - society has set expectations

So you can be a bigot through your thoughts, but not through your actions.


Well, basically, though I think there is a third:   we ought to go a lot easier on the "BIGOT" stuff.   One man's bigotry is another man's scientific inquiry.    I think "bigotry" ought to be constrained to just actions.   

Well I kind of differ, if internally you think or believe lets say that gays are bad people, but you never take action on that.  I still think you are a bigot, but the reality is that I'd never know that so I would never come to that conclusion either.  But theoretically, to me, I would still think so.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 23, 2017, 03:35:27 PM
If you say "bad people" I suppose you're right; but I'm talking about somewhere in between.  I was called a homophobe merely because I suggested a mechanism for a person being gay, not because of their character. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: cramx3 on February 23, 2017, 03:41:30 PM
If you say "bad people" I suppose you're right; but I'm talking about somewhere in between.  I was called a homophobe merely because I suggested a mechanism for a person being gay, not because of their character.

That's different I agree.  Like the mutant wording.  With some more understanding of the mechanism, I don't think that's a homophobic thought although initially I had thought so because I thought you meant it in a negative connotation and not knowing there was a literal relationship there.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 24, 2017, 07:05:36 AM
I don't think I baited anybody, but that was the point; we DON'T know, and we can't be throwing around words like "homophobe" and "racist" until we do.    It's like dog shit; you can scrape it off your shoe, but the stink still lingers.   And yet, we seem to have no problem tarring and feathering people with those words.   What makes that okay?   Why don't you (collective) have an obligation to make sure it's right - and not your knee-jerk reaction - before you potentially ruin someone's life?   I don't think anyone gives a rat's ass whether  some douche on the interwebs - me - is a "homophobe" or not, but do that to a celebrity who's career depends on units moved, and it has deep ramifications. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 24, 2017, 09:06:06 AM
I didn't say there wasn't "outrage".  "Outrage" is fine; it's when any and all consequences are deemed fine in order to make your political point.    I don't see anyone trying to ruin Bruce Springsteen's career over his overt political leanings.
You weren't here in North Carolina last year when Bruce was the first big-name artist/act/event to cancel an appearance here over HB2 (the bathroom bill).  He was practically burned in effigy here by the rednecks.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XJDenton on February 25, 2017, 03:38:04 AM
I'm sort of playing with you guys, but if one has a genetic mutation - and we all do to some degree or another - they are "mutants".  I didn't intend that depth of argument with the original example, but it still shows you're not reading the underlying premise, or my feelings about the people whose identity we're discussing, you're just worried about word choice. 

Everyone has genetic mutations, and by that definition we are ALL mutants. Singling out a single subsection because of one particular mutation and calling them mutants, with the implication everyone else is "normal" is, by definition, discriminatory.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: orcus116 on February 25, 2017, 07:45:30 AM
I don't think I baited anybody, but that was the point; we DON'T know, and we can't be throwing around words like "homophobe" and "racist" until we do.    It's like dog shit; you can scrape it off your shoe, but the stink still lingers.   And yet, we seem to have no problem tarring and feathering people with those words.   What makes that okay?   Why don't you (collective) have an obligation to make sure it's right - and not your knee-jerk reaction - before you potentially ruin someone's life?   I don't think anyone gives a rat's ass whether  some douche on the interwebs - me - is a "homophobe" or not, but do that to a celebrity who's career depends on units moved, and it has deep ramifications.

I can't figure out exactly what causes someone like a celebrity to be fair game (meaning are they too well known) where the general public actually gets joy out of demonizing them to the point where they are actively participating in ruining someone's career. In this age of social media if someone famous makes a comment and someone takes it slightly the wrong way and starts this game of digital telephone suddenly this out of context comments gets turned into that celebrity being called all kinds of things you've previously mentioned. I can't figure out if the demonization over nothing that the general public does is fulfilling some twisted schadenfreude or if, as a collective, there is actually some offense going on. Or maybe it's both, with the offended people getting false information since a story has blown out of control but still wanting to bring down whatever person/celebrity that originally said the comment.

I'm not saying that people of fame don't say genuinely off-color things but we're pretty much at a zero tolerance policy in the public forum and I personally find that very scary.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 27, 2017, 07:56:51 AM
I'm sort of playing with you guys, but if one has a genetic mutation - and we all do to some degree or another - they are "mutants".  I didn't intend that depth of argument with the original example, but it still shows you're not reading the underlying premise, or my feelings about the people whose identity we're discussing, you're just worried about word choice. 

Everyone has genetic mutations, and by that definition we are ALL mutants. Singling out a single subsection because of one particular mutation and calling them mutants, with the implication everyone else is "normal" is, by definition, discriminatory.

Then you can't say anything about ANY genetic mutation, then, if the automatic implication is that everyone else is "normal".   I'm not at all looking to "single anyone out".   This is content neutral and independent of the subject matter we're asking about. I'm merely saying that at this point simply TALKING about certain things is de facto ammunition for the easily offended to justify their existence.

Another case in point:  Demi Lovato.  http://www.torontosun.com/2017/02/26/demi-lovato-sorry-for-tweeting-shes-1-african

Notwithstanding the question of why we should care about Demi Lovato's, DNA, the backlash is ridiculous. One comment was, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, "You're one percent African?  So why are you white?"   Huh?   
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 27, 2017, 07:58:26 AM
I don't think I baited anybody, but that was the point; we DON'T know, and we can't be throwing around words like "homophobe" and "racist" until we do.    It's like dog shit; you can scrape it off your shoe, but the stink still lingers.   And yet, we seem to have no problem tarring and feathering people with those words.   What makes that okay?   Why don't you (collective) have an obligation to make sure it's right - and not your knee-jerk reaction - before you potentially ruin someone's life?   I don't think anyone gives a rat's ass whether  some douche on the interwebs - me - is a "homophobe" or not, but do that to a celebrity who's career depends on units moved, and it has deep ramifications.

I can't figure out exactly what causes someone like a celebrity to be fair game (meaning are they too well known) where the general public actually gets joy out of demonizing them to the point where they are actively participating in ruining someone's career. In this age of social media if someone famous makes a comment and someone takes it slightly the wrong way and starts this game of digital telephone suddenly this out of context comments gets turned into that celebrity being called all kinds of things you've previously mentioned. I can't figure out if the demonization over nothing that the general public does is fulfilling some twisted schadenfreude or if, as a collective, there is actually some offense going on. Or maybe it's both, with the offended people getting false information since a story has blown out of control but still wanting to bring down whatever person/celebrity that originally said the comment.

I'm not saying that people of fame don't say genuinely off-color things but we're pretty much at a zero tolerance policy in the public forum and I personally find that very scary.

What's REALLY scary is that the "zero tolerance" is not only present, but encouraged and commended.  It's put out there as if it's a GOOD thing.    Censorship much?  Fascism much (since that seems to be the accusation du jour)? 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: kaos2900 on February 27, 2017, 09:17:01 AM
I don't think I baited anybody, but that was the point; we DON'T know, and we can't be throwing around words like "homophobe" and "racist" until we do.    It's like dog shit; you can scrape it off your shoe, but the stink still lingers.   And yet, we seem to have no problem tarring and feathering people with those words.   What makes that okay?   Why don't you (collective) have an obligation to make sure it's right - and not your knee-jerk reaction - before you potentially ruin someone's life?   I don't think anyone gives a rat's ass whether  some douche on the interwebs - me - is a "homophobe" or not, but do that to a celebrity who's career depends on units moved, and it has deep ramifications.

I can't figure out exactly what causes someone like a celebrity to be fair game (meaning are they too well known) where the general public actually gets joy out of demonizing them to the point where they are actively participating in ruining someone's career. In this age of social media if someone famous makes a comment and someone takes it slightly the wrong way and starts this game of digital telephone suddenly this out of context comments gets turned into that celebrity being called all kinds of things you've previously mentioned. I can't figure out if the demonization over nothing that the general public does is fulfilling some twisted schadenfreude or if, as a collective, there is actually some offense going on. Or maybe it's both, with the offended people getting false information since a story has blown out of control but still wanting to bring down whatever person/celebrity that originally said the comment.

I'm not saying that people of fame don't say genuinely off-color things but we're pretty much at a zero tolerance policy in the public forum and I personally find that very scary.

What's REALLY scary is that the "zero tolerance" is not only present, but encouraged and commended.  It's put out there as if it's a GOOD thing.    Censorship much?  Fascism much (since that seems to be the accusation du jour)?

This is a scary trend that unfortunately is becoming the norm in America. I think we are turning into a fascist nation and it's not because of the guy with bad hair sitting in the White House.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on February 27, 2017, 09:34:04 AM
So would you say that Germany now (which outlaws promoting Nazi propaganda) is more fascist now than in the 1930s?
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on February 27, 2017, 10:30:52 AM
So would you say that Germany now (which outlaws promoting Nazi propaganda) is more fascist now than in the 1930s?

I can't speak for kaos2900, but for me, I can't answer that.  It's not just "one issue".   I can wrap my arms around that German requirement (and can articulate a constitutional argument for it, though it's not really a strong one).   I'm more talking about a general attitude or belief that somehow MY beliefs, MY intolerance is okay, but yours isn't.   We either all get to speak our mind or we don't.  This notion that somehow the "popular opinion" carries weight only works when yours is the popular opinion.    I have no beef with the LGBT agenda, per se, but I love how when 35% of the population said they were in favor of equal rights for homosexuals, including gay marriage, the population were Neanderthals (my word), but now that it's upwards of 55% or more, all of a sudden they've had some enlightening.   

Progress isn't always smooth, neat and clean.  I think this is a sort of revolution for the press and media, and all that we are talking about is related.   Trump's not nearly articulate enough (or self-aware enough) to present the argument, but I think a lot of his "Fake News" is legit, not in the sense that "CNN made that shit up" - they most certainly did NOT - but in the sense that we've so blurred the notion of a "fact" - a discrete, provable, piece of information - so much with a firehose of competing pieces of quasi-editorial information packets that masquerade as facts.  INCLUDING the sort of bullying and message control that we're talking about right now.    "Intolerance of intolerance" is every bit as much "fake news" as Trump saying that Hillary gave 20% of the U.S. uranium supply to Russia. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: kaos2900 on February 27, 2017, 01:08:47 PM
So would you say that Germany now (which outlaws promoting Nazi propaganda) is more fascist now than in the 1930s?

I can't speak for kaos2900, but for me, I can't answer that.  It's not just "one issue".   I can wrap my arms around that German requirement (and can articulate a constitutional argument for it, though it's not really a strong one).   I'm more talking about a general attitude or belief that somehow MY beliefs, MY intolerance is okay, but yours isn't.   We either all get to speak our mind or we don't.  This notion that somehow the "popular opinion" carries weight only works when yours is the popular opinion.   

This is the issue for me as well.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: orcus116 on February 27, 2017, 05:44:26 PM
In sort of a lateral thought there was something that happened recently at ESPN that, according to a local sports talk show, caused a bit of public ire. There was some top 10 sports moments of the day and they showed some kids making crazy basketball shots, dunks, etc. The number one was a group of kids picking up a disabled kid and helping him make a basket. You know, the sort of  heartwarming stuff that's fairly inoffensive. Apparently the host said something like "how come that got number one?" because she felt that one of the earlier plays was better. Sort of an innocuous comment but it irked some people that said she was being insensitive to the disabled kid. After explaining the story one of the hosts of the sports talk show was saying how disgusting her comment was and that she should, at minimum, be suspended from her show for a few weeks. Over that? Seriously? She didn't come out and call the kid a retard or something similar, just expressed her opinion. I was taken aback at how knee-jerky we, and especially corporations from the PR damage control aspect, have become over something as minor as this. When you're calling for someone's job or something that affects them personally maybe we should step back and really ask ourselves "am I going overboard with my reaction?".
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: kaos2900 on April 20, 2017, 11:30:21 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/us/campus-free-speech-trnd/index.html

I don't know if this article made me more angry or depressed. Our country is screwed if this how the next generation is going to act.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: chknptpie on April 20, 2017, 02:07:38 PM
I think part of the issue is campus is like your home. These students LIVE on campus. If someone came to your house and started bashing everything you believed in and saying things you find offensive - wouldn't you want to kick them out?
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: bosk1 on April 20, 2017, 02:11:33 PM
Inside their dorm/apartment complex would be "home."  "Anywhere on or in the same town as campus" is not. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: cramx3 on April 20, 2017, 02:12:40 PM
I think part of the issue is campus is like your home. These students LIVE on campus. If someone came to your house and started bashing everything you believed in and saying things you find offensive - wouldn't you want to kick them out?

Are we talking about a physical bashing here?  That's what seems to happen if you have a different view these days on some campuses.

And a campus is not a home, that's your dorm.  Which of course if someone was coming to my dorm to speak, I would feel like I'd want them out, but they are going to an open forum on campus in all these scenarios I have heard about.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: chknptpie on April 20, 2017, 02:14:45 PM
I think its more than just the dorm when you're living that life. These people are brainwashed to love everything about their school - from sports to the businesses.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: El Barto on April 20, 2017, 02:15:26 PM
I think part of the issue is campus is like your home. These students LIVE on campus. If someone came to your house and started bashing everything you believed in and saying things you find offensive - wouldn't you want to kick them out?
Yes. But if they were a guest of my roommates then we'd have to work something out.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: cramx3 on April 20, 2017, 02:16:20 PM
I think its more than just the dorm when you're living that life. These people are brainwashed to love everything about their school - from sports to the businesses.

What do you mean these people?!  :lol (I am totally a brainwashed PSU lover)

But I still disagree, I don't think that's a good excuse for shutting down free speech.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: chknptpie on April 20, 2017, 02:17:01 PM
I think its more than just the dorm when you're living that life. These people are brainwashed to love everything about their school - from sports to the businesses.

What do you mean these people?!  :lol (I am totally a brainwashed PSU lover)

But I still disagree, I don't think that's a good excuse for shutting down free speech.

I didn't say that it was.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: El Barto on April 20, 2017, 02:20:54 PM
I have to wonder how much of this is orchestrated. If I'm the head of the student's Young Fascists organization, booking one of these nimrods and then letting all of the easily upsetables know weeks in advance and "encouraging" protests sounds like it'd be a helluva lot of fun.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: PowerSlave on April 20, 2017, 02:22:46 PM
I have to wonder how much of this is orchestrated. If I'm the head of the student's Young Fascists organization, booking one of these nimrods and then letting all of the easily upsetables know weeks in advance and "encouraging" protests sounds like it'd be a helluva lot of fun.

Trolling in other words.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: cramx3 on April 20, 2017, 02:26:27 PM
Yea, I can see that too.  Attention and making news.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: KevShmev on April 20, 2017, 08:35:37 PM
I think its more than just the dorm when you're living that life. These people are brainwashed to love everything about their school - from sports to the businesses.

I get nervous around anybody who gushes as much love for the school they went to as they would their first born; it's kinda creepy.  School pride is one thing, but a lot of people go totally overboard with it.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on April 21, 2017, 07:21:44 AM
I think part of the issue is campus is like your home. These students LIVE on campus. If someone came to your house and started bashing everything you believed in and saying things you find offensive - wouldn't you want to kick them out?
AND
Inside their dorm/apartment complex would be "home."  "Anywhere on or in the same town as campus" is not. 

if I can find the link, I'll post it, but there is a very interesting video discussing the nature of free speech, and the trends in liberalism (in the purely political context) on campus.  And they use a recent example on the Yale campus, which, tl;dr is basically that one person in the administration put out a "do's and don'ts" for Halloween costumes.  And another professor released an email she sent in protest to that, that was taken - only because of the context - as "racist", because it seemed to advocate for racist costumes (which it did not do; it merely said that the students were free to make their choices and live with their consequences and their consciences).    Subsequently, there was a gathering in a quad adjacent to the dorm in which the "racist'" professor and her husband lived as supervisors.   He came out to the quad to advocate for free exchange of peaceful, respectful ideas, as it was an "intellectual safe zone" and that that was the purpose of university.   

One woman burst into tears and said something to the effect of "this isn't a place for intellectual growth!  It's my HOME!  It's my HOME!".  He later said something to the effect of "let's debate this reasonably", and another woman started screaming, "This isn't a debate! This isn't a debate! I want your job!  I want your JOB!".   Within a week, the husband was reassigned within the university and the allegedly "racist" professor was terminated.

This is not free speech. This is not how intellectual intercourse is supposed to work.   University is NOT your home.  It is NOT.  If one student makes it that, it is at their leisure, and with the understanding that considering it "your home" does not allow you to set the rules of discourse as you would in your own home.  You do not OWN anything, you do not have anything other than temporary use rights in a dormitory system.  And even if was - it's not, but I'll humor you - you still have to share that "home" with anywhere from 1000 to 20,000 (at schools like UConn and PSU) other people that live there.    You have to accept that they might have differing ideas, and while you don't have to ACCEPT all those ideas, you do have to accept that they exist and you have to tolerate the ideas themselves.    I can stop you from ACTING as a, say, racist, but I cannot and should not be able to stop you from THINKING like a racist, if that's the conclusion to which your thought process and experiences have brought you.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on April 21, 2017, 07:28:42 AM
I think its more than just the dorm when you're living that life. These people are brainwashed to love everything about their school - from sports to the businesses.

I get nervous around anybody who gushes as much love for the school they went to as they would their first born; it's kinda creepy.  School pride is one thing, but a lot of people go totally overboard with it.

I have the UConn Husky tattooed on me twice; I have the old husky on my chest over my heart:
(http://i1165.photobucket.com/albums/q591/Stadler111/Old%20Husky_zpsuzit9b26.jpg)


and the new one just above my pubes (which are trimmed accordingly) and below my beltline:

(http://i1165.photobucket.com/albums/q591/Stadler111/New%20Husky_zps7ppaphrf.jpg)


Makes for an interesting conversation for those lucky few that get to see it, and even more so for those that get to look it in the eye.  :)
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: kaos2900 on April 21, 2017, 07:48:28 AM
These kids are in for a rude awakening when they enter the real world.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: bosk1 on April 21, 2017, 08:03:35 AM
Well, in light of recent posts, I would alter yours slightly to read
These kids are in for a rude awakening when they enter the real world Stadler's bedroom.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: mikeyd23 on April 21, 2017, 08:19:19 AM
 :lol
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on April 21, 2017, 09:36:42 AM
Bosk, you're on fire lately, seriously.    :)     ;D
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: bosk1 on April 21, 2017, 09:47:33 AM
:dunno:  I'm just picturing a scenario where you take a young lady back to your apartment, and things progress and are about to get serious when you remove your pants, and she suddenly shrieks and gets wide-eyed.  Since this would obviously be unsettling, you in a very concerned tone ask her what is wrong.  She is unable to form the words and begins sobbing inconsolably.  You again ask what is wrong as you sit down on the edge of the bed next to her and try to put your arm around her.  She then stands abruptly, unzips her jeans, and peels them down just far enough that you see an Orangemen tat just above her crotch.  You gasp for air as the room begins spinning around you.  But you finally understand.  It is all you can do to form the words, "yeah...yeah, it's...this probably isn't going to work out." 

At least, that's how it played out in my mind on a Friday morning at the office.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on April 21, 2017, 10:11:19 AM
:clap:
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: chknptpie on April 21, 2017, 12:58:50 PM
When did these types of discussions start occurring on campus? I don't remember this occurring when I went to ASU. Was I just oblivious to it? Also - why do these discussions even need to occur on a school campus? There are so many venues available here in the Phoenix metro area that speaking on campus doesn't seem necessary.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: cramx3 on April 21, 2017, 01:19:18 PM
I would say speaking on a campus makes the most sense actually.  It's supposed to be a place of openness, free speech, opposing views, and a learning experience (even if you disagree).  Of course there are other options and makes me think some of this is set up for attention like Barto implied.

At PSU we had a guy called "The Willard Preacher" because he literally stood outside the Willard building which was near the center of campus and hosted a lot of classes so there would be thousands of people going in and out of the building that he would preach in front of.  This guy was mostly religious preaching.  He didn't like anything that went on at the campus, which was ranked #1 when I graduated for drinking schools.  He was a very vocal person, likely paid by a local church to do what he did every single day of my 4 years on campus.  Generally, no one liked him or agreed with him.  Occasionally he'd get into a heated argument with someone, but that was it.  Never violent, and no one ever said he can't do it.  Often people who were bored or on break, would go to the Willard steps just to listen to him even if they didn't agree, it could be entertaining.  I've heard he isn't there anymore.  Not sure what happened (I'm not trying to imply he was shut up either, I just honestly don't know).
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on April 24, 2017, 09:27:31 AM
^We had guys like that at both universities I attended during my academic career.^
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on April 24, 2017, 09:50:42 AM
:dunno:  I'm just picturing a scenario where you take a young lady back to your apartment, and things progress and are about to get serious when you remove your pants, and she suddenly shrieks and gets wide-eyed.  Since this would obviously be unsettling, you in a very concerned tone ask her what is wrong.  She is unable to form the words and begins sobbing inconsolably.  You again ask what is wrong as you sit down on the edge of the bed next to her and try to put your arm around her.  She then stands abruptly, unzips her jeans, and peels them down just far enough that you see an Orangemen tat just above her crotch.  You gasp for air as the room begins spinning around you.  But you finally understand.  It is all you can do to form the words, "yeah...yeah, it's...this probably isn't going to work out." 

At least, that's how it played out in my mind on a Friday morning at the office.

HAHAHAHAHAHA, I lost it when I got to "Orangemen" and at that point I realized you had it exactly right.  100% exactly right.  :)
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Chino on April 24, 2017, 09:56:06 AM
“Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous ― to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation . . .

To me, it’s a sign of intellectual weakness. If you can’t ask Ann Coulter in a polite way questions which expose the weakness of her arguments, if all you can do is boo, or shut her down, or prevent her from coming, what does that tell the world?

What are you afraid of ― her ideas? Ask her the hard questions. Confront her intellectually. Booing people down, or intimidating people, or shutting down events, I don’t think that that works in any way.”
- Bernie Sanders
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on April 24, 2017, 10:01:53 AM
When did these types of discussions start occurring on campus? I don't remember this occurring when I went to ASU. Was I just oblivious to it? Also - why do these discussions even need to occur on a school campus? There are so many venues available here in the Phoenix metro area that speaking on campus doesn't seem necessary.

I'm sort of with Cram on this; when I was at UConn (large state school) it didn't happen much, but at law school and business school (smaller campuses) speakers were often an off-shoot of a class module or something like that.   Especially business school; we were in Atlanta (Emory) so we would get Jimmy Carter, S. Truett Cathy (Chick-fil-A founder), CNN talking heads, etc. and some were controversial for Various reasons (see "Truett Cathy") but it allowed for debate and counterpoint.

Now, though - and I blame social media for the bulk of this - we live in a society where we have empowered people to believe - falsely - that their opinions actually matter (as opposed to ideas).   We don't require people to bolster their positions with fact or reasons; in response we get "don't bully me!" or "but I'm terrified!", or some religious justification for ignoring plain information that has to be accounted for in the real world.    That you feel it, believe it, doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean that others can't or shouldn't feel differently.   We've lost that. 

I can remember hearing Jesse Jackson speak at UConn and being BLOWN AWAY (still one of the top three speakers I've ever heard personally) and while I didn't agree with a lot of what he was saying, I HAD to account for it.  I HAD to process it, and assimilate it into the things I believed.   I was not doing myself, or my views any justice by just ignoring that which I disagreed with.  (And I'll be honest; during that assimilation, I realized that there were points on which I had it wrong and Jesse was right.  I'm a better person for that today.)   Shutting it out or quieting it doesn't work.  The ideas don't just go away; in fact, they fester.   

We've had 20 years or so of hard-core PC thinking, shutting down ideas that are/were controversial, and dictating the dialogue based on what has the least emotional impact and based on the "perceived offense" measurement.  Does anyone believe there is less hate these days?  Less bigotry?  Less intolerance (and I'm not even talking about the blatant bigotry and hate from the "intolerant of intolerance" crowd)?   I didn't think so.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on April 24, 2017, 10:04:02 AM
“Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous ― to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation . . .

To me, it’s a sign of intellectual weakness. If you can’t ask Ann Coulter in a polite way questions which expose the weakness of her arguments, if all you can do is boo, or shut her down, or prevent her from coming, what does that tell the world?

What are you afraid of ― her ideas? Ask her the hard questions. Confront her intellectually. Booing people down, or intimidating people, or shutting down events, I don’t think that that works in any way.”
- Bernie Sanders

I fucking love Bernie Sanders more and more every day.  I really do.  I don't agree with some of his economic policies, nor his attacks on the "beeyonaires!", but in terms of his approach, his demeanor, and his confidence in his ideas, I find few people in politics -hell, ANYWHERE - to be his peer.    Really impressed with that guy, and for the first time in my life, I would love to be able to tell him that in person. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Chino on April 24, 2017, 10:11:30 AM
“Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous ― to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation . . .

To me, it’s a sign of intellectual weakness. If you can’t ask Ann Coulter in a polite way questions which expose the weakness of her arguments, if all you can do is boo, or shut her down, or prevent her from coming, what does that tell the world?

What are you afraid of ― her ideas? Ask her the hard questions. Confront her intellectually. Booing people down, or intimidating people, or shutting down events, I don’t think that that works in any way.”
- Bernie Sanders

I fucking love Bernie Sanders more and more every day.  I really do.  I don't agree with some of his economic policies, nor his attacks on the "beeyonaires!", but in terms of his approach, his demeanor, and his confidence in his ideas, I find few people in politics -hell, ANYWHERE - to be his peer.    Really impressed with that guy, and for the first time in my life, I would love to be able to tell him that in person.

That's why I was a fan of his. I don't fall in line with a lot of his policies (even more so those of his hardcore followers), but I admire the man's approach and willingness to converse. His ability to take a step back and think before reacting. He seems like he'd happily sit down and discuss anything with anyone without any shit slinging.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: bosk1 on April 24, 2017, 10:14:08 AM
“Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous ― to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation . . .

To me, it’s a sign of intellectual weakness. If you can’t ask Ann Coulter in a polite way questions which expose the weakness of her arguments, if all you can do is boo, or shut her down, or prevent her from coming, what does that tell the world?

What are you afraid of ― her ideas? Ask her the hard questions. Confront her intellectually. Booing people down, or intimidating people, or shutting down events, I don’t think that that works in any way.”
- Bernie Sanders

I fucking love Bernie Sanders more and more every day.  I really do.  I don't agree with some of his economic policies, nor his attacks on the "beeyonaires!", but in terms of his approach, his demeanor, and his confidence in his ideas, I find few people in politics -hell, ANYWHERE - to be his peer.    Really impressed with that guy, and for the first time in my life, I would love to be able to tell him that in person.

That's why I was a fan of his. I don't fall in line with a lot of his policies (even more so those of his hardcore followers), but I admire the man's approach and willingness to converse. His ability to take a step back and think before reacting. He seems like he'd happily sit down and discuss anything with anyone without any shit slinging.
Agreed.  That is the one reason I would have very seriously considered not voting against the Democratic party if he were the candidate, especially if it was him vs. Trump.

Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Chino on April 24, 2017, 10:18:22 AM
“Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous ― to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation . . .

To me, it’s a sign of intellectual weakness. If you can’t ask Ann Coulter in a polite way questions which expose the weakness of her arguments, if all you can do is boo, or shut her down, or prevent her from coming, what does that tell the world?

What are you afraid of ― her ideas? Ask her the hard questions. Confront her intellectually. Booing people down, or intimidating people, or shutting down events, I don’t think that that works in any way.”
- Bernie Sanders

I fucking love Bernie Sanders more and more every day.  I really do.  I don't agree with some of his economic policies, nor his attacks on the "beeyonaires!", but in terms of his approach, his demeanor, and his confidence in his ideas, I find few people in politics -hell, ANYWHERE - to be his peer.    Really impressed with that guy, and for the first time in my life, I would love to be able to tell him that in person.

That's why I was a fan of his. I don't fall in line with a lot of his policies (even more so those of his hardcore followers), but I admire the man's approach and willingness to converse. His ability to take a step back and think before reacting. He seems like he'd happily sit down and discuss anything with anyone without any shit slinging.
Agreed.  That is the one reason I would have very seriously considered not voting against the Democratic party if he were the candidate, especially if it was him vs. Trump.

When I cast my vote in November, it was a vote against Trump. Had Bernie been on the ticket, it would have been a vote for Bernie.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: bosk1 on April 24, 2017, 10:23:49 AM
Yes, I know.  And I was looking for a reason to vote against Trump.  Hillary simply could not provide that reason.  But we've beat that drum to death, and this thread isn't really the place for it, so I won't go any farther.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on April 24, 2017, 10:40:09 AM
Well, let's not go crazy; I don't think I would have voted for him - economically, his programs are a disaster - but I can disagree with him and still respect the shit out of him.    I don't mean from a policy standpoint but from a demeanor standpoint, you can't ask for better (now, to put it in voting terms, if Hillary conducted herself like he did/does, I would have voted for her in a heartbeat.  Or conversely, if he was more moderate in his platforms, THEN I could have voted for him.  I don't care if you're Margot Robbie, I'm not voting for a self-avowed "democratic socialist").
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: PowerSlave on April 26, 2017, 02:00:33 PM
Well, let's not go crazy; I don't think I would have voted for him - economically, his programs are a disaster - but I can disagree with him and still respect the shit out of him.    I don't mean from a policy standpoint but from a demeanor standpoint, you can't ask for better (now, to put it in voting terms, if Hillary conducted herself like he did/does, I would have voted for her in a heartbeat.  Or conversely, if he was more moderate in his platforms, THEN I could have voted for him.  I don't care if you're Margot Robbie, I'm not voting for a self-avowed "democratic socialist").

Just out of curiosity, is there any of his policies that you do agree with?
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on April 26, 2017, 02:37:31 PM
Well, let's not go crazy; I don't think I would have voted for him - economically, his programs are a disaster - but I can disagree with him and still respect the shit out of him.    I don't mean from a policy standpoint but from a demeanor standpoint, you can't ask for better (now, to put it in voting terms, if Hillary conducted herself like he did/does, I would have voted for her in a heartbeat.  Or conversely, if he was more moderate in his platforms, THEN I could have voted for him.  I don't care if you're Margot Robbie, I'm not voting for a self-avowed "democratic socialist").

Just out of curiosity, is there any of his policies that you do agree with?

Well, I don't know his platform up and down, but socially we probably aren't far apart.  I don't necessarily agree with the idea that 90% of our population is being metaphorically raped by the remaining 10%, but generally there is some common ground.  The problem is that it's never 100%.    I agree with his position on global warming - that it's a serious problem - but am not all in on how he'd address it.   I agree with him that there is no company that is "too big to fail", and white collar criminals have to be prosecuted, but I don't necessarily think we should proactively break them up and I don't think "making money" is necessarily the grounds for that prosecution.  I agree with him wholeheartedly on healthcare (that we should  have a single-payer system).  Like Bernie, I'm pro-choice, pro-legalization, and anti-death penalty.   I agree with him generally on LGBT and racial rights, though I don't necessarily agree with some of his systemic positions on that. 

Even some - very few, but some - of his economic policies make sense, but fail in the implementation.  I don't mind looking hard at student loans, but just relieving people unilaterally of their debt - debt that they took on with full will and intent - is not right.   And while I support revising the tax code, we can't and shouldn't rely on the "top 10%" to fund this country.  I agree with a progressive tax rate, but with reason. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Cool Chris on September 19, 2017, 08:59:46 PM
Guess we've moved on from silencing opposing views to punching them right in the face. Aside from the specific act of violence, this article reads like it is a "thing" now to locate potential targets and coordinate attacks on them.

http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/man-with-swastika-armband-gets-punched-in-downtown-seattle-while-yelling-at-people/611177899

Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on September 19, 2017, 09:58:45 PM
Guess we've moved on from silencing opposing views to punching them right in the face. Aside from the specific act of violence, this article reads like it is a "thing" now to locate potential targets and coordinate attacks on them.

http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/man-with-swastika-armband-gets-punched-in-downtown-seattle-while-yelling-at-people/611177899

Not arguing with your point at all, but this made me question something.

How would people react to a headline that said something like "Man wearing "I support baby rape" shirt punched in face"? Would people cheer that on?
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: portnoy311 on September 19, 2017, 10:58:48 PM
The irony of this thread is always good for a giggle. OP busted out a breitbart link, and later got himself banned for doing exactly what this thread's topic is.

Anyway, fta:

After receiving reports about a man instigating fights, officers responded to the area and found him on the ground. The man refused to give information about what happened, took off his armband, and left, according to police.

It's less interesting if you remove the armband from the situation. Then it's just a guy trying to instigate fights who gets himself knocked out.


I don't condone Antifa at all, just as I don't think any rational person does. Yes, I am worried about them. But I am also a little weary about those ready to call Antifa "the left."
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: antigoon on September 19, 2017, 11:03:21 PM
removing the fact that he openly advocates for ethnic cleansing makes him less sympathetic?
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: El Barto on September 19, 2017, 11:15:07 PM
The irony of this thread is always good for a giggle. OP busted out a breitbart link, and later got himself banned for doing exactly what this thread's topic is.

Anyway, fta:

After receiving reports about a man instigating fights, officers responded to the area and found him on the ground. The man refused to give information about what happened, took off his armband, and left, according to police.

It's less interesting if you remove the armband from the situation. Then it's just a guy trying to instigate fights who gets himself knocked out.


I don't condone Antifa at all, just as I don't think any rational person does. Yes, I am worried about them. But I am also a little weary about those ready to call Antifa "the left."
He sure didn't seem to be instigating fights when he got waylayed. He was backing away with his hand out, clearly trying to avoid violence. He should have pressed charges. I'd kind of like to see the "hero" go to jail on this one.

But you're right. Takeaway the armband and it is a very different story. Then it's just a guy speaking in a public forum that gets clocked by a guy twice his size who didn't like what he had to say.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4497126/racist-nazi-armband-punched-unconscious-seattle-video/   
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: portnoy311 on September 20, 2017, 12:11:06 AM
removing the fact that he openly advocates for ethnic cleansing makes him less sympathetic?

I just said the story gets less interesting, nothing about him being sympathetic. It only becomes a free speech discussion if the guy is wearing an armband. Otherwise it's a run of the mill guy trying to be violent and getting it.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: portnoy311 on September 20, 2017, 01:52:47 AM
The irony of this thread is always good for a giggle. OP busted out a breitbart link, and later got himself banned for doing exactly what this thread's topic is.

Anyway, fta:

After receiving reports about a man instigating fights, officers responded to the area and found him on the ground. The man refused to give information about what happened, took off his armband, and left, according to police.

It's less interesting if you remove the armband from the situation. Then it's just a guy trying to instigate fights who gets himself knocked out.


I don't condone Antifa at all, just as I don't think any rational person does. Yes, I am worried about them. But I am also a little weary about those ready to call Antifa "the left."
He sure didn't seem to be instigating fights when he got waylayed. He was backing away with his hand out, clearly trying to avoid violence. He should have pressed charges. I'd kind of like to see the "hero" go to jail on this one.

But you're right. Takeaway the armband and it is a very different story. Then it's just a guy speaking in a public forum that gets clocked by a guy twice his size who didn't like what he had to say.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4497126/racist-nazi-armband-punched-unconscious-seattle-video/   

I don't know, we only saw the 3 seconds prior to the punch. Multiple people reported him for trying to pick fights - those aren't antifa members calling the cops. It's hard to guess what really happened, but I'd still place my trust in the general public over a guy walking around Seattle (of all places) wearing a Nazi armband (of all things, I doubt he was just out for a stroll and decided to dust off his Nazi armband). Especially when the only thing that entails is a post on a message board, I'm not gonna lose any sleep over him or his weak chin. I'm sure the proper people have more information than I do at this point.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on September 20, 2017, 08:08:29 AM
I don't condone Antifa at all, just as I don't think any rational person does. Yes, I am worried about them. But I am also a little weary about those ready to call Antifa "the left."

Just curious, but why?   Why is it any different than the "Nazi's" being called the "right"?   I lean right and I can't even begin to tell you how much I abhor what the Nazi's stand for, and you can even take out the "I hate Jews/gays/immigrants" from that.    But they get lumped in with the right all the time.

The answer, in my view, is that "extremism is extremism", and it fails not because of WHAT it stands for, but HOW it stands for it.  I disagree with many, but I don't want to KILL them, or silence them.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: El Barto on September 20, 2017, 08:09:39 AM
The irony of this thread is always good for a giggle. OP busted out a breitbart link, and later got himself banned for doing exactly what this thread's topic is.

Anyway, fta:

After receiving reports about a man instigating fights, officers responded to the area and found him on the ground. The man refused to give information about what happened, took off his armband, and left, according to police.

It's less interesting if you remove the armband from the situation. Then it's just a guy trying to instigate fights who gets himself knocked out.


I don't condone Antifa at all, just as I don't think any rational person does. Yes, I am worried about them. But I am also a little weary about those ready to call Antifa "the left."
He sure didn't seem to be instigating fights when he got waylayed. He was backing away with his hand out, clearly trying to avoid violence. He should have pressed charges. I'd kind of like to see the "hero" go to jail on this one.

But you're right. Takeaway the armband and it is a very different story. Then it's just a guy speaking in a public forum that gets clocked by a guy twice his size who didn't like what he had to say.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4497126/racist-nazi-armband-punched-unconscious-seattle-video/   

I don't know, we only saw the 3 seconds prior to the punch. Multiple people reported him for trying to pick fights - those aren't antifa members calling the cops. It's hard to guess what really happened, but I'd still place my trust in the general public over a guy walking around Seattle (of all places) wearing a Nazi armband (of all things, I doubt he was just out for a stroll and decided to dust off his Nazi armband). Especially when the only thing that entails is a post on a message board, I'm not gonna lose any sleep over him or his weak chin. I'm sure the proper people have more information than I do at this point.
I wouldn't trust the people of Seattle to distinguish between picking fights and picking arguments any more than I'd trust them to bathe regularly. In any case, that was assault and while, like you, I'm not too bent out of shape about it, the people who are calling him a hero are just as fucking bad as he is. That was two assholes confronting each other and a lot more assholes happy that their guy won.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: portnoy311 on September 20, 2017, 09:07:13 PM
I don't condone Antifa at all, just as I don't think any rational person does. Yes, I am worried about them. But I am also a little weary about those ready to call Antifa "the left."

Just curious, but why?   Why is it any different than the "Nazi's" being called the "right"?   I lean right and I can't even begin to tell you how much I abhor what the Nazi's stand for, and you can even take out the "I hate Jews/gays/immigrants" from that.    But they get lumped in with the right all the time.

The answer, in my view, is that "extremism is extremism", and it fails not because of WHAT it stands for, but HOW it stands for it.  I disagree with many, but I don't want to KILL them, or silence them.

I've never called them "the right" and would push back if I saw it being done.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: El Barto on September 20, 2017, 09:30:32 PM
I've never seen it done, but I've certainly seen the right called Nazis for nothing more than their politics.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on September 20, 2017, 09:45:44 PM
I've never seen it done, but I've certainly seen the right called Nazis for nothing more than their politics.

People call things dumb names all the time. Idiots call the right Nazis. Idiots call the left terrorist sympathizers or Obama a Muslim. It's whatever. I don't know why we need to spend so much time focusing on these extreme arguments and essentially brush aside the vast majority of pragmatic perspectives.

Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on September 21, 2017, 09:47:36 AM
Well, it's anecdotal, and so therefore useless, but when I was on the old Genesis forum, I made a comment, and the resident Lefty noted, just before his week's vacation, that I was a "Nazi baby-killer" (ignoring for a second that most far right-wingers are pro-life) for my conservative views.    It's not a stretch, nor is it coincidence in my view, that it's a short putt from "right" to "alt-right", and yet while leaning right, I have almost nothing in common with the alt-right. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: antigoon on September 21, 2017, 11:07:46 AM
idk, can you prove you're not a nazi baby killer?
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on September 21, 2017, 11:14:01 AM
Except for the tattoos, yes.  :) 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Adami on September 21, 2017, 11:15:56 AM
Nazi baby killer? That's insane.

How do you even know that a baby is a Nazi before you kill them?
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: antigoon on September 21, 2017, 11:16:10 AM
:lol
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: eric42434224 on September 21, 2017, 11:22:36 AM
Nazi baby killer? That's insane.

How do you even know that a baby is a Nazi before you kill them?

Now that's funny
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XJDenton on September 22, 2017, 10:37:34 AM
Nazi baby killer? That's insane.

How do you even know that a baby is a Nazi before you kill them?

Shine a torch in its eyes. If it doesn't react it's clearly nazi-ing anything.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: TL on September 22, 2017, 08:09:08 PM
Well, it's anecdotal, and so therefore useless, but when I was on the old Genesis forum, I made a comment, and the resident Lefty noted, just before his week's vacation, that I was a "Nazi baby-killer" (ignoring for a second that most far right-wingers are pro-life) for my conservative views.    It's not a stretch, nor is it coincidence in my view, that it's a short putt from "right" to "alt-right", and yet while leaning right, I have almost nothing in common with the alt-right.
I think part of it is that breaking it down into just "Left, Center, Right" is far too simplistic to be useful. Honestly, even at its most basic, a political spectrum should include Far Left, Left, Center-Left, Center, Center-Right, Right, Far Right.  Even then it's leaving out a lot of nuance, but it at least provides a little clarity.

Most people fall into Center-Left, Center, Center-Right.
If someone genuinely falls into one of the "Far" designations, on either end, they really need to re-evaluate some things. I view the Far Left and the Far Right as similarly awful.
Stadler, I definitely view you as being Center-Right. That's a fine place to be. Many good people are Center-Right. One of the greatest Premiers my province ever had was a Center-Right politician.
For me, I'd probably be around the border of Center-Left and Left, at most.

The "Alt-Right" (which is a self branding on their part, and not particularly accurate as far as I'm concerned) are basically neo-nazis. I don't consider them typical of the normal right wing. If Nazis even fall on the political spectrum, it would be at the furthest edge of Far-Right. Even then, I feel like their politics are so beyond the pale that it's almost unfair to moderate right wingers to even put them at the extreme of that side.

Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: portnoy311 on September 22, 2017, 08:53:55 PM
Yup, great post. I have a (former) friend that I had lost contact with after college, save for Facebook. He deleted his account last month (or was perma banned) after spending the last year using his page as pure propaganda for the alt-right, including their less than savory or mature internet tactics. I actually had to google what a "beta herb" was when he called someone that who dared question what the hell he was talking about when posting something about the white ethnocentrist nation state he was calling for. I never engaged him, but I did check his page frequently just for the "car crash" factor. He routinely said stuff like "I'm not a Nazi, but I'm complimented when you libtards resort to that ad hominem" coupled with bullshit about his IQ (his STEM degree made him a super genius apparently, nevermind multiple of my friends who did actually engage him and I hold STEM degrees from the same university). Honestly, a lot of what that guy was advocating for WAS incredibly close to what the Nazis wanted. But, pointing that out and calling his views related to Nazism (which again I never did, he probably doesn't even realize I looked at his page), wouldn't at all be reflective of views of the mainstream right or actual sane conservatives.

Just as I haven't seen too many people here get offended when antifa is called out for their tactics, I am going to push back on the idea that "it's a short putt from right to alt-right." The right is engaged in their own brand of political correctness and the irony and hypocrisy is going over a lot of people's heads. "Don't use certain terms to describe anyone who leans right, even if I disagree with 95% of their platform, because that offends me personally as I also advocate for fiscal conservatism."


Or to put it in a way that will create more pushback (that's what we need - a good solid disagreement!), the problem I have with Hillary's "half of Trump's supporters are what I call 'Deplorables' " isn't at all the petty 'deplorables' moniker, she's hardly wrong on that point. It's the 'half.' No, it's not that many, but you're damn right they do exist, and they are deplorable. That has nothing to do with the rest of them. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on September 25, 2017, 10:30:49 AM
Well, it's anecdotal, and so therefore useless, but when I was on the old Genesis forum, I made a comment, and the resident Lefty noted, just before his week's vacation, that I was a "Nazi baby-killer" (ignoring for a second that most far right-wingers are pro-life) for my conservative views.    It's not a stretch, nor is it coincidence in my view, that it's a short putt from "right" to "alt-right", and yet while leaning right, I have almost nothing in common with the alt-right.
I think part of it is that breaking it down into just "Left, Center, Right" is far too simplistic to be useful. Honestly, even at its most basic, a political spectrum should include Far Left, Left, Center-Left, Center, Center-Right, Right, Far Right.  Even then it's leaving out a lot of nuance, but it at least provides a little clarity.

Most people fall into Center-Left, Center, Center-Right.
If someone genuinely falls into one of the "Far" designations, on either end, they really need to re-evaluate some things. I view the Far Left and the Far Right as similarly awful.
Stadler, I definitely view you as being Center-Right. That's a fine place to be. Many good people are Center-Right. One of the greatest Premiers my province ever had was a Center-Right politician.
For me, I'd probably be around the border of Center-Left and Left, at most.

The "Alt-Right" (which is a self branding on their part, and not particularly accurate as far as I'm concerned) are basically neo-nazis. I don't consider them typical of the normal right wing. If Nazis even fall on the political spectrum, it would be at the furthest edge of Far-Right. Even then, I feel like their politics are so beyond the pale that it's almost unfair to moderate right wingers to even put them at the extreme of that side.

I think that's a great post, and I love the nuance that it brings.  I know for me, I'm still struggling with the linearity of the designations and how you balance them.   If you believe in single payer healthcare and free tuition, but want a white America, does that average out to moderate?  I'm using extreme positions to make a point, but in a more substantive way, I struggle with the increasing divide between identity politics and fiscal politics.   At that point the binary nature of these labels doesn't work. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on September 25, 2017, 10:43:00 AM
Just as I haven't seen too many people here get offended when antifa is called out for their tactics, I am going to push back on the idea that "it's a short putt from right to alt-right." The right is engaged in their own brand of political correctness and the irony and hypocrisy is going over a lot of people's heads. "Don't use certain terms to describe anyone who leans right, even if I disagree with 95% of their platform, because that offends me personally as I also advocate for fiscal conservatism."

It's not "political correctness" in this context, it's called "framing"; all politics is "framing".  It's "pro life" (and not "anti-choice") for a reason.   If you're for it, repealing Obamacare is removing onerous taxes unfairly placed on a portion of our society.  If you're against it, repealing Obamacare is giving tax cuts to the rich.   I think where we fail ourselves is not being able to discuss these issues without the "protections" of the "framing". 

Quote
Or to put it in a way that will create more pushback (that's what we need - a good solid disagreement!), the problem I have with Hillary's "half of Trump's supporters are what I call 'Deplorables' " isn't at all the petty 'deplorables' moniker, she's hardly wrong on that point. It's the 'half.' No, it's not that many, but you're damn right they do exist, and they are deplorable. That has nothing to do with the rest of them.

Of course they exist, but she was wrong not just in number. She was (and still is) wrong in her assessment.  She didn't lose because all "deplorables" voted for Trump (Carlos Danger is "deplorable" but he didn't (presumably) vote for Trump.)  She lost because anywhere from 10 to 15 million people that voted for Obama decided that the unknown is  better than the same-old, same-old.   
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on September 25, 2017, 11:11:41 AM

  She lost because anywhere from 10 to 15 million people that voted for Obama decided that the unknown is  better than the same-old, same-old.

That's far from the only reason Trump won.  It's the one you're most comfortable with because it describes you specifically  (except you didn't vote for Trump, I know but you still preferred the unknown)
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Chino on September 25, 2017, 11:15:07 AM

  She lost because anywhere from 10 to 15 million people that voted for Obama decided that the unknown is  better than the same-old, same-old.

That's far from the only reason Trump won.

That's a large (if not the largest) part of it though. Even with those 10M-15M going the other way, she still won the popular vote by 3M. Had the democrats ran just about anyone even slightly more likeable that didn't have the last name Clinton, I think that 3M spread would have been notably larger.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on September 25, 2017, 11:19:00 AM

  She lost because anywhere from 10 to 15 million people that voted for Obama decided that the unknown is  better than the same-old, same-old.

That's far from the only reason Trump won.

That's a large (if not the largest) part of it though. Even with those 10M-15M going the other way, she still won the popular vote by 3M. Had the democrats ran just about anyone even slightly more likeable that didn't have the last name Clinton, I think that 3M spread would have been notably larger.

agreed
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 25, 2017, 11:22:44 AM
Had the democrats ran just about anyone even slightly more likeable that didn't have the last name Clinton, I think that 3M spread would have been notably larger.

I told my brother Friday night when we were talking that one.....neither candidate was a good candidate. They both sucked and still suck, as people and as leaders. Had Joe Biden just went ahead and ran against her he'd have beaten Trump handily. I'd have voted for him in a heartbeat. He should have looked at it as a (1) term gig just to keep obama's agenda/momentum...whatever you want to call it going and to keep as much stability going as possible in Washington. He's respected by both sides and probably could have gotten some good work done.

But, the Clinton 'machine' and powers that be simply wouldn't let him.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on September 25, 2017, 02:03:30 PM

  She lost because anywhere from 10 to 15 million people that voted for Obama decided that the unknown is  better than the same-old, same-old.

That's far from the only reason Trump won.  It's the one you're most comfortable with because it describes you specifically  (except you didn't vote for Trump, I know but you still preferred the unknown)

It actually doesn't describe me at all.  I did not prefer the unknown.  I was very clear that I didn't then and still don't think that anyone's first elected office should be the President of the United States of America.   I don't have the beef with politicians that most do; I would never get heart surgery from someone who never operated on someone before.   I would never ask anyone who's never managed a project to renovated my house. 

Had those people voted to party, Trump would not have won. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: kaos2900 on September 27, 2017, 02:13:12 PM
Had the democrats ran just about anyone even slightly more likeable that didn't have the last name Clinton, I think that 3M spread would have been notably larger.

I told my brother Friday night when we were talking that one.....neither candidate was a good candidate. They both sucked and still suck, as people and as leaders. Had Joe Biden just went ahead and ran against her he'd have beaten Trump handily. I'd have voted for him in a heartbeat. He should have looked at it as a (1) term gig just to keep obama's agenda/momentum...whatever you want to call it going and to keep as much stability going as possible in Washington. He's respected by both sides and probably could have gotten some good work done.

I agree with all of this. We were in for 4 years of shit regardless.

But, the Clinton 'machine' and powers that be simply wouldn't let him.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Chino on September 28, 2017, 12:10:25 PM
Had the democrats ran just about anyone even slightly more likeable that didn't have the last name Clinton, I think that 3M spread would have been notably larger.

I told my brother Friday night when we were talking that one.....neither candidate was a good candidate. They both sucked and still suck, as people and as leaders. Had Joe Biden just went ahead and ran against her he'd have beaten Trump handily. I'd have voted for him in a heartbeat. He should have looked at it as a (1) term gig just to keep obama's agenda/momentum...whatever you want to call it going and to keep as much stability going as possible in Washington. He's respected by both sides and probably could have gotten some good work done.

But, the Clinton 'machine' and powers that be simply wouldn't let him.

Please don't think I'm trying to dig deep or insinuate anything here.. just kind of curious. You've said a few times that your vote for Trump was primarily rooted in not wanting Hillary to have a (maybe two) SCOTUS appointment(s). What is it about Biden that would lead you to believe he wouldn't have made nearly identical choices as Clinton? I too would have much rather seen Biden run and I think he would have walked away with that election had he done so.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on September 28, 2017, 01:10:48 PM
Had the democrats ran just about anyone even slightly more likeable that didn't have the last name Clinton, I think that 3M spread would have been notably larger.

I told my brother Friday night when we were talking that one.....neither candidate was a good candidate. They both sucked and still suck, as people and as leaders. Had Joe Biden just went ahead and ran against her he'd have beaten Trump handily. I'd have voted for him in a heartbeat. He should have looked at it as a (1) term gig just to keep obama's agenda/momentum...whatever you want to call it going and to keep as much stability going as possible in Washington. He's respected by both sides and probably could have gotten some good work done.

But, the Clinton 'machine' and powers that be simply wouldn't let him.

Please don't think I'm trying to dig deep or insinuate anything here.. just kind of curious. You've said a few times that your vote for Trump was primarily rooted in not wanting Hillary to have a (maybe two) SCOTUS appointment(s). What is it about Biden that would lead you to believe he wouldn't have made nearly identical choices as Clinton? I too would have much rather seen Biden run and I think he would have walked away with that election had he done so.

I think Chino is right here; I would have likely voted for Biden, too, but it would have been with the full understanding and knowledge that I would be sacrificing one or maybe two Supreme Court picks.  Biden is a good guy, fair, and a consummate politician, but he is not going to swerve too far out of the lines when it comes to those "legacy" things that arise from the Presidency.   He is a Washington guy through and through (not necessarily a bad thing). 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: TL on October 01, 2017, 07:37:00 PM
Well, it's anecdotal, and so therefore useless, but when I was on the old Genesis forum, I made a comment, and the resident Lefty noted, just before his week's vacation, that I was a "Nazi baby-killer" (ignoring for a second that most far right-wingers are pro-life) for my conservative views.    It's not a stretch, nor is it coincidence in my view, that it's a short putt from "right" to "alt-right", and yet while leaning right, I have almost nothing in common with the alt-right.
I think part of it is that breaking it down into just "Left, Center, Right" is far too simplistic to be useful. Honestly, even at its most basic, a political spectrum should include Far Left, Left, Center-Left, Center, Center-Right, Right, Far Right.  Even then it's leaving out a lot of nuance, but it at least provides a little clarity.

Most people fall into Center-Left, Center, Center-Right.
If someone genuinely falls into one of the "Far" designations, on either end, they really need to re-evaluate some things. I view the Far Left and the Far Right as similarly awful.
Stadler, I definitely view you as being Center-Right. That's a fine place to be. Many good people are Center-Right. One of the greatest Premiers my province ever had was a Center-Right politician.
For me, I'd probably be around the border of Center-Left and Left, at most.

The "Alt-Right" (which is a self branding on their part, and not particularly accurate as far as I'm concerned) are basically neo-nazis. I don't consider them typical of the normal right wing. If Nazis even fall on the political spectrum, it would be at the furthest edge of Far-Right. Even then, I feel like their politics are so beyond the pale that it's almost unfair to moderate right wingers to even put them at the extreme of that side.

I think that's a great post, and I love the nuance that it brings.  I know for me, I'm still struggling with the linearity of the designations and how you balance them.   If you believe in single payer healthcare and free tuition, but want a white America, does that average out to moderate?  I'm using extreme positions to make a point, but in a more substantive way, I struggle with the increasing divide between identity politics and fiscal politics.   At that point the binary nature of these labels doesn't work.
That is a good point. While useful as a shorthand, and while there is some correlation that, "People who hold position X often also hold position Y", it definitely gets a lot more complicated than that in practice. Someone who wants single payer but is completely opposed to abortion. Someone who is strongly pro LGBTQ, but also favors small government. Someone who likes guns and also wants the government to fight climate change.

I think this is something people often lose sight of in political discourse (and I'll admit even I'm guilty of this sometimes). It's convenient to sort politics into a few labels, but the reality is much messier than that.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on October 02, 2017, 09:18:28 AM
This isn't me crying victim at all, because I'm used to it, but I run across this a LOT, particularly because  of where I draw the lines.  I'm more of a "how" than a "what" guy.   I don't at all agree with that wing of the Republican party that deals so adamantly with the social issues side of things, and while I think Bernie to be economically incompetent, I don't necessarily disagree with the general premise of some of his ideas.   

But I think I'm most distraught with how quickly people are willing to reduce to personal terms.  That I'm against the ACA doesn't mean I "want people to die", and I resent the way that some of the arguments are phrased that way.  To this day, I struggle to find how the repeal bills FORCE someone to NOT have insurance.   
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: El Barto on October 13, 2017, 11:45:12 AM
Not the slightest bit surprising, this is the new America and it's what the people have been clamouring for, after all,but it's still fucking sad.

http://www.sunherald.com/news/local/counties/jackson-county/article178572326.html
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: gmillerdrake on October 13, 2017, 11:49:45 AM
Not the slightest bit surprising, this is the new America and it's what the people have been clamouring for, after all,but it's still fucking sad.

http://www.sunherald.com/news/local/counties/jackson-county/article178572326.html

I disagree. It's another example of the minority opinion dictating something upon the majority. the whole 'new America' idea that  you hint at is choc full of the minority ruling the majority....because the majority refuses to push back out of 'fear' they'll be labeled racist/sexist/homophobic/ etc etc etc.

I've said it before and again it's pertinent.....you reap what you sow folks.....
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on October 13, 2017, 12:22:09 PM
Hopefully the book will always be discovered by current and future generations whatever some schools decide to do, but it's a shame they pulled it from their curriculum for what seems like flimsy reasons (complaints?)
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 13, 2017, 12:27:19 PM

Not the slightest bit surprising, this is the new America and it's what the people have been clamouring for, after all,but it's still fucking sad.

http://www.sunherald.com/news/local/counties/jackson-county/article178572326.html

I disagree. It's another example of the minority opinion dictating something upon the majority. the whole 'new America' idea that  you hint at is choc full of the minority ruling the majority....because the majority refuses to push back out of 'fear' they'll be labeled racist/sexist/homophobic/ etc etc etc.

I've said it before and again it's pertinent.....you reap what you sow folks.....

Thats the dumbest thing ever. Its how they talked back in the day. Those people are idiots and probably haven't read the book.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on October 13, 2017, 12:32:09 PM
I always find these cases really odd.  Like,  I would bet good money that for all the arguments and bickering on this sub-forum,  all of us agree on this.    Yet that doesn't translate in these real world cases.  What context are the people making these decisions have that we don't,  or is it more likely they're not looking at the bigger picture? 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on October 13, 2017, 12:52:03 PM

Not the slightest bit surprising, this is the new America and it's what the people have been clamouring for, after all,but it's still fucking sad.

http://www.sunherald.com/news/local/counties/jackson-county/article178572326.html

I disagree. It's another example of the minority opinion dictating something upon the majority. the whole 'new America' idea that  you hint at is choc full of the minority ruling the majority....because the majority refuses to push back out of 'fear' they'll be labeled racist/sexist/homophobic/ etc etc etc.

I've said it before and again it's pertinent.....you reap what you sow folks.....

Thats the dumbest thing ever. Its how they talked back in the day. Those people are idiots and probably haven't read the book.
Ben, it PROVES they didn't read the book, or at least comprehend it.  The very premise of the book is what they are ostensibly trying (and failing) to achieve by arbitrarily trying to remove words from existence. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: sylvan on October 13, 2017, 01:09:29 PM
I always find these cases really odd.  Like,  I would bet good money that for all the arguments and bickering on this sub-forum,  all of us agree on this.    Yet that doesn't translate in these real world cases.  What context are the people making these decisions have that we don't,  or is it more likely they're not looking at the bigger picture?

Amen to this. When two hypothetical people, who argue opposite sides of the most important issues plaguing modern society, can both look at a specific example and say, "Well that's just fucking stupid," then we've found that area that Stadler thinks doesn't exist, only because it's like finding the 7th dimension: Common sense.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Dave_Manchester on October 13, 2017, 02:01:24 PM
All too predictable. And believe me, this will be the tip of the iceberg. If you read the Penguin Classics edition (the 'official' edition, approved by his wife Sonya) of George Orwell's 1984, he predicted in his notes for the novel that one day 'they' would come for even his work. And it will happen. They won't be satisfied until every single challenging idea is consigned to Room 101. Until anything which can provoke a young person to think independently is removed from the curriculum.

What is disturbing to me about this story is the comment by the 'Vice President' of the Biloxi School Board (Kenny Holloway): "We can teach the same lesson with different books". Really? Which 'lesson', Mr Holloway? This is literature, we don't use it for didactic purposes. Only dictatorships use literature to 'teach lessons', free societies let words and books speak for themselves. Harper Lee's novel is a snapshot of a time, it is not something to be used to push an agenda. What will be next, are we going to expunge Othello for its depiction of hot-headed Moors, or Oliver Twist for its reference to Fagin as 'The Jew'?

This is what happens when you have intellectual mediocrities running a school programme, they see everything through the lens of 'telling children what they need to believe', and can't think in terms of teaching kids to think and evaluate for themselves.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: El Barto on October 13, 2017, 02:33:17 PM
All too predictable. And believe me, this will be the tip of the iceberg. If you read the Penguin Classics edition (the 'official' edition, approved by his wife Sonya) of George Orwell's 1984, he predicted in his notes for the novel that one day 'they' would come for even his work. And it will happen. They won't be satisfied until every single challenging idea is consigned to Room 101. Until anything which can provoke a young person to think independently is removed from the curriculum.

I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning. Setting aside the fact that nobody should be forced to suffer through 1984, the censorship there takes a very different form towards a different goal. What Orwell describes is a very real thing and is already happening here in various forms. However, what we're seeing with this and Mark Twain is censorship by the people combined with a general aversion to having to deal with meatheads. They will come for the subversive 1984, but it's us that will takeaway the pornographic Brave New World.

Quote
What is disturbing to me about this story is the comment by the 'Vice President' of the Biloxi School Board (Kenny Holloway): "We can teach the same lesson with different books". Really? Which 'lesson', Mr Holloway? This is literature, we don't use it for didactic purposes. Only dictatorships use literature to 'teach lessons', free societies let words and books speak for themselves. Harper Lee's novel is a snapshot of a time, it is not something to be used to push an agenda. What will be next, are we going to expunge Othello for its depiction of hot-headed Moors, or Oliver Twist for its reference to Fagin as 'The Jew'?

This is what happens when you have intellectual mediocrities running a school programme, they see everything through the lens of 'telling children what they need to believe', and can't think in terms of teaching kids to think and evaluate for themselves.
Capital, dude. Capital.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on October 13, 2017, 03:10:44 PM

"We can teach the same lesson with different books". Really? Which 'lesson', Mr Holloway? This is literature, we don't use it for didactic purposes. Only dictatorships use literature to 'teach lessons',

I'm not sure I follow... litterature classes use books to teach.  THey have lesson plans.  That's how I understood the statement.   
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: El Barto on October 13, 2017, 03:54:59 PM
They should teach you how to better interpret a book. How to understand what the author was trying to say. How to gain your own understanding. They shouldn't be using them to try and teach a moral message from the book. That's something the reader should learn to do on his own. To use the current example, "the teens were slated to learn that compassion and empathy are not dependent upon race or education." While that is one message, I had a different takeaway from it. I view Atticus as a man who understood that shit jobs need to be done. If he was the only person capable or willing to do them, then he did them. A more pragmatic interpretation, but one that was very meaningful to me. Atticus Finch gets hero status in my world. That's why you teach somebody to interpret something, rather than teach them your idea of the meaning. Often times there are more than one.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Dave_Manchester on October 13, 2017, 03:57:59 PM

"We can teach the same lesson with different books". Really? Which 'lesson', Mr Holloway? This is literature, we don't use it for didactic purposes. Only dictatorships use literature to 'teach lessons',

I'm not sure I follow... litterature classes use books to teach.  THey have lesson plans.  That's how I understood the statement.

I'm not a reader of didactic fiction, and never was as a child, so I'll have to believe you on what you've written there. To me it's childish to seek lessons in a work of proper literature, and only 3rd-rate writing ever tries to 'teach' people something. But to a broader point (and I'll use what's commonly accepted as one of the greatest masterworks of the English language), for what do you think children and university students read Hamlet? What 'lesson' does that play have to give that other works on similar themes don't? Did Shakespeare go to so much trouble to write that play only to have it end up 'teaching lessons' to imbecilic children and their 'teachers'? Is that what education is to be now? Studying purveyors of illustrated ideas in order to find out 'what the author meant'? To receive 'the message'? Don't answer from the point of view of what teachers do, XeRocks, they have their own interests, I am asking your opinion of literature and proper writers, don't give silly importance to teachers' "lesson plans", think about the purpose of literature.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: El Barto on October 13, 2017, 04:41:34 PM

"We can teach the same lesson with different books". Really? Which 'lesson', Mr Holloway? This is literature, we don't use it for didactic purposes. Only dictatorships use literature to 'teach lessons',

I'm not sure I follow... litterature classes use books to teach.  THey have lesson plans.  That's how I understood the statement.

I'm not a reader of didactic fiction, and never was as a child, so I'll have to believe you on what you've written there. To me it's childish to seek lessons in a work of proper literature, and only the 3rd-rate writing of tense mediocrities ever tries to 'teach' people something. But to a broader point (and I'll use what's commonly accepted as one of the greatest masterworks of the English language), for what do you think children and university students read Hamlet? What 'lesson' does that play have to give that other works on similar themes don't? Did Shakespeare go to so much trouble to write that incomparably written play only to have it end up 'teaching lessons' to imbecilic children and their 'teachers'? Is that what education is to be now? Studying purveyors of fatuous illustrated ideas in order to find out 'what the author meant'? To receive 'the message'? Don't answer from the point of view of what teachers do, XeRocks, they have their own interests, I am asking your opinion of literature and proper writers, don't give silly importance to teachers' "lesson plans", think about the purpose of literature.
That Norwegians should never be counted upon to do the sensible thing.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Dave_Manchester on October 13, 2017, 04:48:08 PM

"We can teach the same lesson with different books". Really? Which 'lesson', Mr Holloway? This is literature, we don't use it for didactic purposes. Only dictatorships use literature to 'teach lessons',

I'm not sure I follow... litterature classes use books to teach.  THey have lesson plans.  That's how I understood the statement.

I'm not a reader of didactic fiction, and never was as a child, so I'll have to believe you on what you've written there. To me it's childish to seek lessons in a work of proper literature, and only the 3rd-rate writing of tense mediocrities ever tries to 'teach' people something. But to a broader point (and I'll use what's commonly accepted as one of the greatest masterworks of the English language), for what do you think children and university students read Hamlet? What 'lesson' does that play have to give that other works on similar themes don't? Did Shakespeare go to so much trouble to write that incomparably written play only to have it end up 'teaching lessons' to imbecilic children and their 'teachers'? Is that what education is to be now? Studying purveyors of fatuous illustrated ideas in order to find out 'what the author meant'? To receive 'the message'? Don't answer from the point of view of what teachers do, XeRocks, they have their own interests, I am asking your opinion of literature and proper writers, don't give silly importance to teachers' "lesson plans", think about the purpose of literature.
That Norwegians should never be counted upon to do the sensible thing.

On the contrary, Fortinbras ended up ruling the entire shebang!
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: El Barto on October 13, 2017, 05:01:52 PM
Since the joke seems to have fallen flat I'll abandon it. But my recollection is that Fortinbras wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. Old Norway wanted him mucking about in Poland and not stirring up the Danes.

Eh, I should have gone with diving into someone's grave never looks as cool as you think it will.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on October 14, 2017, 07:23:13 AM

"We can teach the same lesson with different books". Really? Which 'lesson', Mr Holloway? This is literature, we don't use it for didactic purposes. Only dictatorships use literature to 'teach lessons',

I'm not sure I follow... litterature classes use books to teach.  THey have lesson plans.  That's how I understood the statement.



I'm not a reader of didactic fiction, and never was as a child, so I'll have to believe you on what you've written there. To me it's childish to seek lessons in a work of proper literature, and only the 3rd-rate writing of tense mediocrities ever tries to 'teach' people something. But to a broader point (and I'll use what's commonly accepted as one of the greatest masterworks of the English language), for what do you think children and university students read Hamlet? What 'lesson' does that play have to give that other works on similar themes don't? Did Shakespeare go to so much trouble to write that incomparably written play only to have it end up 'teaching lessons' to imbecilic children and their 'teachers'? Is that what education is to be now? Studying purveyors of fatuous illustrated ideas in order to find out 'what the author meant'? To receive 'the message'? Don't answer from the point of view of what teachers do, XeRocks, they have their own interests, I am asking your opinion of literature and proper writers, don't give silly importance to teachers' "lesson plans", think about the purpose of literature.

Whoa now.  I'll just reitirate that I think we all agree pulling that book from the curriculum was a dumb idea and leave it at that. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: portnoy311 on October 14, 2017, 07:42:40 PM
The outrage over this should be equaled by the outrage each and every time a school district puts an unscientific insert about evolution in their science books.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: jammindude on October 14, 2017, 08:05:23 PM
Dave,

While I get that there are some pieces of art that exist purely for entertainment value... (and even though Shakespeare mostly just for that purpose in his time, he has since been elevated above that because so much of his prose became part of our every day vernacular....thus, why it should be at least acknowledged as being an important part of our history of literature)...you cannot deny that much entertainment is trying to send a message.  In fact, I would say more than half.   I mean, every childhood fairy tale we were ever told had a "moral of the story" (the entire reason we have that idiom is BECAUSE so many stories are trying to give us "a message")

I think you'd be very hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn't agree that To Kill a Mockingbird is one of those stories that conveys not just one, but several messages.   Atticus Finch is probably one of the most revered characters in modern literature just because of his morals, and self restraint in the face of evil, and passion for justice balanced with belief in due process.   It also teaches us about evils of going along with the crowd in a mob mentality, how difficult it can be to stand up to that mob....and also the ability to understand the human beings that have problems most people could never understand.   There's WAY too much there to just pass off as just pure "popcorn entertainment"
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: sylvan on October 15, 2017, 06:54:32 AM
Unfortunately I can't find the exact article that referenced it, but according to Harper Lee, she didn't understand the controversy, as "it's just a love story."

Whether or not that's accurate, let's roll with it for a second. Let's say that her aim was to tell a love story. The idea that people can take different messages or interpretations, regardless of the intent of the writer, is kinda the main argument against what was said earlier about ""We can teach the same lesson with different books." I don't see the teaching/learning of literature as an instructor telling me the meaning of a text. The text is there for me to read and make my own interpretation. The point is for the group to read so that the interpretations can be discussed. It's not about right or wrong, but about discussion and understanding. The idea that an educator can decide that there's a specific lesson to be taught/learned from literary pieces is, to me at least, completely counter to the true intention of higher learning and understanding.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Dave_Manchester on October 15, 2017, 08:35:12 AM
Jammin,

I'm not saying literature is just "popcorn entertainment", I'm saying that it isn't a means to teach facile civics lessons to simpletons. Has there ever been an intelligent person who began to read To Kill A Mockingbird who wasn't already aware of the "messages" it had to teach? Has anyone ever finished that novel and thought "Well I was planning on blindly following a mob tomorrow but I may have to rethink a few things now"? If proper literature has a 'message' it's only an incidental by-product of having done its job well, which is to show life and the human condition as accurately as possible. We read To Kill a Mockingbird for its characterisation and its prose and its depiction of a time; not to receive inane 'lessons' about racism and justice or whatever. If that were the reason to read it then Harper Lee could simply have written a page full of bullet points.

A teacher of literature has one task: to present the novel (or the play, or the poem). It is not his or her job to first formulate a message they want to convey to children and then select literature they feel 'teaches' that message. To return to the claim of the Vice President of the School Board ("We can teach the same lesson with different books"), with which other books can you teach the character arcs of Atticus, Scout, Jem, etc? Or was that never the point of the 'lesson'? Is literature class no longer about actual literature, but is instead reduced to "Good morning children, racism is baaaaaad!!! Come on kids, repeat it in unison now: Racism...Is...Baaaaaaadd!!!! And also: like Atticus Finch, we must not follow mob mentality...except when removing potentially offensive books about Atticus Finch"

So much has been infantilized already, we don't need to start doing it with classic literature. You mentioned fairy tales, Jammin, but fairy tales are for infants. Literature is for intelligent people (adults and children). If we really need to start parenting children in the classroom, then fine, quickly give them a sheet of commandments before the lesson begins (Don't be racist, don't be a dick, think independently, etc). But otherwise, leave that silly shit out of the school programme. Just present the novel. Present its characters, look at its language, put it in context, by all means consider its themes, but let it speak for itself to every individual reader. Don't decide beforehand and on behalf of the children what its 'message' is.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Dave_Manchester on October 15, 2017, 09:51:02 AM
One last clarification comment - the only thing that triggered me about that story was the comment of the VP (about having "other books" to teach the desired lesson). If people want to garner 'messages' from the literature they read, that's absolutely fine, it's none of my business, but that guy is the Vice President of the school board. It's frightening someone like him is in that position. His words suggest to me that his concept of literature is as some kind of tool for haranguing young people with a pre-determined message, and I think that devalues it.
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: XeRocks81 on October 15, 2017, 10:48:54 AM
One last clarification comment - the only thing that triggered me about that story was the comment of the VP (about having "other books" to teach the desired lesson). If people want to garner 'messages' from the literature they read, that's absolutely fine, it's none of my business, but that guy is the Vice President of the school board. It's frightening someone like him is in that position. His words suggest to me that his concept of literature is as some kind of tool for haranguing young people with a pre-determined message, and I think that devalues it.

Fair enough.  That's NOT what I was reacting to at all so that's probably why I didn't get where you were going at first.    My issue was that it seems like the book was pulled because it made some people uncomfortable (who? Students, teachers, parents, it's unclear) . Wich is crazy to me because confronting racism is supposed to make you uncomfortable.  I understand that's far from the only theme in the book though (like El Barto mentioned)  and there's plenty to discuss in it (again reinforcing the shortsightedness of pulling it from class).   The article mentions "To Kill a Mockingbird" would still be in the school library available for kids to read and discover on their own time wich seems more like what you were talking about Dave.   
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on October 16, 2017, 09:59:35 AM
They should teach you how to better interpret a book. How to understand what the author was trying to say. How to gain your own understanding. They shouldn't be using them to try and teach a moral message from the book. That's something the reader should learn to do on his own. To use the current example, "the teens were slated to learn that compassion and empathy are not dependent upon race or education." While that is one message, I had a different takeaway from it. I view Atticus as a man who understood that shit jobs need to be done. If he was the only person capable or willing to do them, then he did them. A more pragmatic interpretation, but one that was very meaningful to me. Atticus Finch gets hero status in my world. That's why you teach somebody to interpret something, rather than teach them your idea of the meaning. Often times there are more than one.

Something like this, for me too (though slightly different message; though I still consider Atticus a hero).  My kid read this in school (and the recently published 'alternate version', which was the focus of the lesson).  Because it had been ages since I read it, I re-read it and we had some amazing discussions about it, and oddly enough (not) the word and the concept that is so "terrifying"TM to that school board never came up, not even once.   We spent far more time on the odd kid.   
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Stadler on October 16, 2017, 10:01:21 AM
Since the joke seems to have fallen flat I'll abandon it. But my recollection is that Fortinbras wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. Old Norway wanted him mucking about in Poland and not stirring up the Danes.

Eh, I should have gone with diving into someone's grave never looks as cool as you think it will.

As someone who has actually seen that (my best friend lost his brother to a DWI accident, and his mom jumped in the open grave in her grief) I can vouch for that.   That was a shit show. 
Title: Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
Post by: Dave_Manchester on November 20, 2017, 01:46:18 PM
As much as I despise The Daily Mail, this is shameful and embarrassing. A British stationary company has been bullied into severing its advertising ties with the paper because it "promotes divisive views":

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42057493

Note the company's properly penitent reply:

We’ve listened to you about this weekend’s newspaper promotion. We now know we were wrong to do this - we’re truly sorry and we won’t ever do it again. Thanks for telling us what you really think and we apologise if we have let you down on this one. Lesson learnt.

Sounds sincere, doesn't it? But never mind sincerity, rationality, calm heads, civil debate, opposing views and freedom of expression and trade. What matters is that the purveyor of "divisive views" is being taken down one advertiser at a time. The utopian goal of The Land Of No Opposing Voices Anywhere moves one step closer.

Shameful and pathetic.