Author Topic: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?  (Read 6032 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8732
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #70 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 Gods word and Im 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"?
« Last Edit: February 09, 2017, 02:15:27 PM by Stadler »

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18503
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #71 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 Gods word and Im 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.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40250
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #72 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 Gods word and Im 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.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8732
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #73 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.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40250
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #74 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.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8732
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #75 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 Gods word and Im 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.

Offline pogoowner

  • Pancake Bunny
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2775
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #76 on: February 09, 2017, 02:43:46 PM »
The Spicy Chicken Deluxe can't be beaten.

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 706
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #77 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 Gods word and Im 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.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2017, 05:38:23 PM by portnoy311 »

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 231
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #78 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 Gods word and Im 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.

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 706
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #79 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

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8732
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #80 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. 

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13773
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #81 on: February 10, 2017, 07:30:25 AM »
The Spicy Chicken Deluxe can't be beaten.

Truth.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8732
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #82 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.   

Offline kaos2900

  • Posts: 1804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #83 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.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40250
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #84 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!
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2931
  • Gender: Female
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #85 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!

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Head Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 15162
  • Gender: Male
  • First Follower
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #86 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?
Quote from: nightmare_cinema
So should lonestar and I have babies or something now, is that how this works?
Dang, you're easily the coolest fogey I know of

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2931
  • Gender: Female
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #87 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.

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Head Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 15162
  • Gender: Male
  • First Follower
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #88 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)
Quote from: nightmare_cinema
So should lonestar and I have babies or something now, is that how this works?
Dang, you're easily the coolest fogey I know of

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10188
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #89 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.

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Head Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 15162
  • Gender: Male
  • First Follower
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #90 on: February 13, 2017, 08:29:08 PM »
Here's hoping this continues down both sides of the aisle.
Quote from: nightmare_cinema
So should lonestar and I have babies or something now, is that how this works?
Dang, you're easily the coolest fogey I know of

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 956
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #91 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.
The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 231
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #92 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. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8732
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #93 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.   

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15335
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #94 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.

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 231
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #95 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.

Offline kingshmegland

  • defender of the brew!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 35191
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #96 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. 
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'. - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 231
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #97 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. 

Offline kingshmegland

  • defender of the brew!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 35191
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #98 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.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'. - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8732
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #99 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?   


Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15335
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #100 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.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25380
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #101 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. 

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4731
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #102 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.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24610
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #103 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.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 231
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why The Urge to Silence Opposing Views?
« Reply #104 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.