PC censorship vs debate and free speech, worrying trends.
Discussion
ATG said:
Opposition to fascism should be the default position of anyone who understands what facsism is .
So you're supporting the position that I should think as you do "because"?A default position should (IMHO) be that people are allowed to make a decision for themselves, ideally based on having heard & considered what each group has to say. Your position is clearly different & I fully support your right to hold different views to mine.
Rovinghawk said:
A default position should (IMHO) be that people are allowed to make a decision for themselves, ideally based on having heard & considered what each group has to say. Your position is clearly different & I fully support your right to hold different views to mine.
Are you suggesting that ALL views and attitudes carry equal weight?So, someone who thinks that people should have (say) access to affordable healthcare is no more righteous than someone who thinks that people should be blocked from certain occupations and positions because of their ethnic background?
Are all positions and points of view equally valid?
Eric Mc said:
Rovinghawk said:
A default position should (IMHO) be that people are allowed to make a decision for themselves, ideally based on having heard & considered what each group has to say. Your position is clearly different & I fully support your right to hold different views to mine.
Are you suggesting that ALL views and attitudes carry equal weight?So, someone who thinks that people should have (say) access to affordable healthcare is no more righteous than someone who thinks that people should be blocked from certain occupations and positions because of their ethnic background?
Are all positions and points of view equally valid?
Boydie88 said:
rscott said:
Or that Wikipedia isn't always a perfect reference.
https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-a...
gives right wing incidents in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2007.
That also shows that the death by right wing attacks since 2001 was higher until that that of Islamist attacks until 2016. It was the very large number of deaths in San Bernadino & the Orlando night club which swung the totals over.
Thanks, interesting to see no mention of the rising anti democracy extreme left in there when talking about current threats. The right spike correlates with Obama in power - that graph will be interesting the further into Trump's reign we get.https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-a...
gives right wing incidents in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2007.
That also shows that the death by right wing attacks since 2001 was higher until that that of Islamist attacks until 2016. It was the very large number of deaths in San Bernadino & the Orlando night club which swung the totals over.
Eric Mc said:
Are you suggesting that ALL views and attitudes carry equal weight?
Are all positions and points of view equally valid?
Not at all; I'm suggesting that every opinion (within legal limits) has equal right to be held or aired.Are all positions and points of view equally valid?
Those who wish to restrict the freedom of those whose views they dislike are IMO the bad people.
Speech can't be 100% free but any limits should be extremely broad and purely out of necessity rather than taste.
Rovinghawk said:
So you're supporting the position that I should think as you do "because"?
A default position should (IMHO) be that people are allowed to make a decision for themselves, ideally based on having heard & considered what each group has to say. Your position is clearly different & I fully support your right to hold different views to mine.
Stop arguing for the sake of it.A default position should (IMHO) be that people are allowed to make a decision for themselves, ideally based on having heard & considered what each group has to say. Your position is clearly different & I fully support your right to hold different views to mine.
We fully support your right to hold different views to ours as well.
You may hold fascist views, that's up to you. I don't think you should, because I think fascism is bad.
Do you know the difference between right and wrong?
Mothersruin said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Mothersruin said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
I will bet that a lot of young men, if they see that, will stop calling themselves alt-right immediately.
Most of them seem to think it's just a loud organised way of protesting against SJWs. They were wrong, and now it's obvious.
How do they call out the SJWs then, because letting them (SJWs) speak freely while seemingly being promoted in much of the media seems to recruit a whole bunch of other morons, as shown in that vid, to their cause.Most of them seem to think it's just a loud organised way of protesting against SJWs. They were wrong, and now it's obvious.
Are you saying young men need some organisation or loose group to be a part of to do that (I don't dispute that they might)?
Or are you asking how they justify speaking against the SJWs now?
I initially read it as the latter, but then decided you meant the former. So I better ask
But they may need the former for confidence and organisation.
I think it's pretty easy intellectually to speak out against the majority of common SJW ideology.
With the basic SJW methodology being threats of violent protests to shut down any discussion they don't agree with, I think it quite natural that young men would want to be able to associate themselves with a moderate, perhaps somewhat right wing or conservative group.
We are after all a tribal species.
There was a fine example a few pages back of what happens when a lone free speech advocate politely confronts a group of SJWs.
Pesty said:
Rovinghawk said:
Eric Mc said:
Are you suggesting that ALL views and attitudes carry equal weight?
Are all positions and points of view equally valid?
Not at all; I'm suggesting that every opinion (within legal limits) has equal right to be held or aired.Are all positions and points of view equally valid?
Those who wish to restrict the freedom of those whose views they dislike are IMO the bad people.
Speech can't be 100% free but any limits should be extremely broad and purely out of necessity rather than taste.
Eric Mc said:
Rovinghawk said:
A default position should (IMHO) be that people are allowed to make a decision for themselves, ideally based on having heard & considered what each group has to say. Your position is clearly different & I fully support your right to hold different views to mine.
Are you suggesting that ALL views and attitudes carry equal weight?So, someone who thinks that people should have (say) access to affordable healthcare is no more righteous than someone who thinks that people should be blocked from certain occupations and positions because of their ethnic background?
Are all positions and points of view equally valid?
It's then up to the individual to decide which, if any, group they feel represents their views in some way, shape or form.
Rovinghawk said:
Eric Mc said:
Are you suggesting that ALL views and attitudes carry equal weight?
Are all positions and points of view equally valid?
Not at all; I'm suggesting that every opinion (within legal limits) has equal right to be held or aired.Are all positions and points of view equally valid?
Those who wish to restrict the freedom of those whose views they dislike are IMO the bad people.
Speech can't be 100% free but any limits should be extremely broad and purely out of necessity rather than taste.
Order66 said:
Eric Mc said:
Are all positions and points of view equally valid?
The right to say something doesn't impart an obligation on anyone to listen.rscott said:
I don't think Rovinghawk is saying that. I take it that he's saying that all parties should have the right to say their views, no matter how daft, disgusting or downright pathetic others may personally find them.
At the risk of sounding like some posters on here, you think correctly.chrispmartha said:
So if they're the bad people in your opinion who are the good uns?
Dudes like this:In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". (which is often misattributed to Voltaire himself) as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs. Hall's quotation is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Mothersruin said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Mothersruin said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
I will bet that a lot of young men, if they see that, will stop calling themselves alt-right immediately.
Most of them seem to think it's just a loud organised way of protesting against SJWs. They were wrong, and now it's obvious.
How do they call out the SJWs then, because letting them (SJWs) speak freely while seemingly being promoted in much of the media seems to recruit a whole bunch of other morons, as shown in that vid, to their cause.Most of them seem to think it's just a loud organised way of protesting against SJWs. They were wrong, and now it's obvious.
Are you saying young men need some organisation or loose group to be a part of to do that (I don't dispute that they might)?
Or are you asking how they justify speaking against the SJWs now?
I initially read it as the latter, but then decided you meant the former. So I better ask
But they may need the former for confidence and organisation.
I think it's pretty easy intellectually to speak out against the majority of common SJW ideology.
With the basic SJW methodology being threats of violent protests to shut down any discussion they don't agree with, I think it quite natural that young men would want to be able to associate themselves with a moderate, perhaps somewhat right wing or conservative group.
We are after all a tribal species.
There was a fine example a few pages back of what happens when a lone free speech advocate politely confronts a group of SJWs.
Pesty said:
(Even if she is a Liverpool fan... https://twitter.com/LFCConnecticut/status/89965489... )
Rovinghawk said:
rscott said:
I don't think Rovinghawk is saying that. I take it that he's saying that all parties should have the right to say their views, no matter how daft, disgusting or downright pathetic others may personally find them.
At the risk of sounding like some posters on here, you think correctly.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff