Yourself isit wrote: » Really?
midnight city wrote: » Left wing authoritarians are making an attempt to take over almost every facet of society. If you disagree with them they will shut you down if they can. I have my issues with the alt right but they are the only ones really fighting back against the authoritarian left.
oscarBravo wrote: » I won't deny that it's blowback, but the idea that black people should have just shut up and accepted that they were disproportionately victims of police violence is abhorrent. If you're fighting for equality in the context of gross inequality, it's not "idiotic" to point out that you are disproportionately disadvantaged. I probably should have read this far before replying.I have never - not once, ever, in my entire life - seen the claim that a black person can't be racist against a white person. Maybe you have, but I very much doubt that you can substantiate the bizarre and egregious claim that the "regressive left" (a loaded and meaningless term if there ever was one) has collectively made such a claim. The idea that BLM was responsible for this abhorrent hate crime is a bare-faced lie - and it's only made worse by self-styled "reasonable" people arguing that if black people would only shut up about their very real problems, they wouldn't have to worry about backlash from racists.
Brian? wrote: » There are plenty of journalist in the Times "speaking candidly" on mass immigration and feminism, they just have opposing views to your own.
So, like most people, you don't read the Irish Times because it challenges your thinking on the issues. So instead you read news sources that do agree with your thinking on issues like mass immigration and feminism, I'm guessing mainly US sources. This is exactly how you get sucked in to the right wing echo chamber. I found myself doing the exact same thing with liberal/left wing sources when I lived in the US. So I stopped watching MSNBC in the evenings and switched to Foxnews. It mad me angry but at least I was being challenged. It's the same reason I post on here, I enjoy having my ideas and beliefs questioned. So you're standing by the idea it was ok for the alt right to associate BLM with that assault even though they had nothing to do with it.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Part of this is a very direct and obvious blowback against the regressive left's "some victims are more equal than others because of their demographic" bullsh!t over the last few years. There's no denying it...
...and in my view there's no denying that this was an idiotic stance to take especially in the context of fighting for equality.
The reason the alt-right are so delighted to have a white victim of a racist hate crime is because the regressive left have spent the last five years claiming that... a black individual cannot be racist against a white individual, a female individual cannot be sexist against a male individual, etc.
Sweetemotion wrote: » Why isn't this simply the case though, because they disagree with your personal views? And everyone else should just agree with you. Tudos on getting Hitler in that comment also.
Brian? wrote: » There are plenty of journalist in the Times "speaking candidly" on mass immigration and feminism, they just have opposing views to your own. So, like most people, you don't read the Irish Times because it challenges your thinking on the issues. So instead you read news sources that do agree with your thinking on issues like mass immigration and feminism, I'm guessing mainly US sources. This is exactly how you get sucked in to the right wing echo chamber. I found myself doing the exact same thing with liberal/left wing sources when I lived in the US. So I stopped watching MSNBC in the evenings and switched to Foxnews. It mad me angry but at least I was being challenged. It's the same reason I post on here, I enjoy having my ideas and beliefs questioned. So you're standing by the idea it was ok for the alt right to associate BLM with that assault even though they had nothing to do with it.
midnight city wrote: » I read the Irish times about once or twice a year. It's too right on for me. They need a few more right wing journalists who aren't afraid to speak out against the excesses of feminism and mass immigration. Nobody in that paper is speaking candidly on those issues.
B_Wayne wrote: » Also absolute freedom of speech rarely exists. People are criticising the Irish Times and that's a part of freedom. They lose readers and that's as a result of exercising their right to publish drivel.
20Cent wrote: » Folks freedom of speech refers to freedom from government interference. It doesn't mean everyone has to listen to your speech and not criticise or reply to it.
20Cent wrote: » Did she say it shouldn't have been published at all or in the Irish Times? Difference there. People expect a high degree of truthfulness from that paper. Should an opinion piece advising parents not to vaccinate their children be published? Old people shouldn't bother with flu shots? How about advertisements disguised as stories. Not as straightforward as "shutting down" or censorship. More about quality.
Brian? wrote: » You seem to see any type of editorial bias as censorship. I disagree. Publishing an article means that the editor of a newspaper has given tacit approval or at a bare minimum agreed that it's contents are intellectually robust. In your vision of a world free of editorial bias, all ideas will hold equal validity and worth. This simply isn't the case though. An article praising Hitler's dealings with the Jews doesn't deserve to be published by the Irish Times and I'm happy for the editor to dismiss it as not worth publishing. There is no right to free speech in Ireland, unlike the US. There are hate speech laws that already prohibit publishing some types of opinion. I wouldn't like to see it changed.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Not addressed to me, but I absolutely do, yes. While I support the paper's right to refuse to publish something, I personally wouldn't ever support denying a platform on ideological grounds. The problem is, who is the arbiter of "wrong" opinions? The mob? The educated? The politicians? Who? In my view, it is impossible to enact any kind of ideology-based censorship without at least a certain amount of biased, wrongful censorship based on the personal prejudices of the person who presides over the publishing process. The lesser of two evils, in my view, is to censor nothing at all based on ideology. My view is that everything should be allowed a platform, and that it's up to individual consumers of media, not publishers, to decide for themselves which ideologies to reject and which to support. If we allow a small handful of people - in this case, editors - to decide which ideologies are "right" or "wrong", we are placing an inordinate amount of political power in their hands. Personally, I don't like the idea of anybody wielding that kind of power in any capacity.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » There's a difference between simply criticising ("I vehemently disagree with this article") and advocating ideological censorship ("This article should not have been published / this person should not be allowed to speak") - because who the f*ck gives any individual the right to be arrogant enough to decide what "should" or "should not" be "allowed"?
20Cent wrote: » Objecting to puff pieces designed to normalise fascism is controversial now?
Brian? wrote: » I don't agree with Una here. The Irish Times can publish anything they like and exposing the alt right is great. However, she is not being "fascist" in the least. Serious question, if someone submitted an article on he merits of national socialism to the Irish Times, should they publish it in the name of free speech? Or should they decline to publish as its hate speech? Do you believe that all ideas have equal merit and deserve to be aired, no matter what?
hatrickpatrick wrote: » This is precisely what I mean when I refer to the regressive left. As a leftist, I personally find them to be a sickening and toxic element which I really wish more people would be vocal in condemning. I originally identified as a leftist in the 1990s precisely because the right, usually with religion or 'family values' as a justification, was all about censorship - anti porn, anti provocative music videos, anti dirty humour etc - while the liberal left was all about unfettered freedom of speech. Sometime during the last five years, this new and incredibly vocal movement on the left has emerged and left me and quite a few other people as "ideological orphans" - I don't want to identify with those assholes, but while I'm delighted that the alt-right are trolling and triggering the sh!te out of them, rubbing it in their faces that no matter how much they whine they cannot prevail against the untameable nature of the internet (for now, at least), I despise the alt-rights ideology with regard to pretty much everything except the censorship issue. And I'm very much opposed to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" as an ideology. In all honesty I'm just not sure what I identify as politically anymore. I've been called a closeted alt-rightist by SJWs because I support the alt-right's right to say anything it wants without being punished for it, and I've been called a 'cuck' by alt-rightists because I support left-wing civil liberties and economic policies. I foresee a major split on the left with the emergence of a new identity for culturally libertarian, socially and economically liberal people (as opposed to the culturally authoritarian, socially and economically liberal nature of the regressive left) which states very clearly that one not only is not part of, but actively stands against the latter.
Jan_de_Bakker wrote: » I see Una Mullaly had an article in the Irish Times saying how the IT should never have published the Alt. Right piece - does she not see the irony here ? She will go on about this "fascism" yet she is the one trying to shut down free speech.
Jan_de_Bakker wrote: » What fascism ?
midnight city wrote: » Much like the alt right there is no blm membership. From their comments on Facebook though they were certainly blm supporters and inspired by blm retoric.
Brian? wrote: » I'm not having this. You're completely refusing to call out one side in their dishonesty. I won't budge until you do. Then we can discuss BLM's dishonesty.
