20Cent wrote: » Never heard of him. Milo on the other hand is vile.
FTA69 wrote: » Osarusan is bang on. The OP has opened a thread about decent discussion and then promptly engaged in the exact same type of baiting and inflammatory nonsense language he himself is criticising. He then goes on to state how much of a rigorous academic he is while using empty, meaningless, rallying insults such as "cultural Marxism" (whatever the f*ck that is) and "SJW" and the like. Simply another cheek of the same arse really.
20Cent wrote: » Never heard of him.
20Cent wrote: » Lectures are different to debates. If the audience had equal time to challenge Milo and Shapiro's "ideas" it would be ok but they don't they arrive at the campus expecting to be able to attack and humiliate minority students at will they cry censorship if anyone protests this.
Widdershins wrote: » To be fair, I think the OP has been on the receiving end of some of what he's mentioned, to quite a nasty level.
tritium wrote: » If the first few posts here highlight anything its that the extremes of both the right and left have a victim mentality and exhibit a refusal to engage in meaningful discourse (not a criticism of the posters but based on the examples given). Which isnt really surprising. What is surprising is how these two groups dont actually see this failing in themselves only in their opponents. The recent US election was a fine example of this. No attempt to understand by either side why anyone might vote against their candidate, just dismiss anyone who did as either misogynist redneck men or snowflake sjws, ignoring how detestable both candidates actually were to a lot of people
Shenshen wrote: » I think those are called straw-men arguments, and as far as I can tell they invariably spring from mentally grouping people into "types"
infogiver wrote: » Agreed, vile. Shapiro is far far superior. But why not go to the lecture and make an argument with him, show him up for what he is, vile as he is, rather than shout him down in a mob outside?
Shenshen wrote: » I'd take it a step further (and have been labeled both SJW and snowflake for that in the past) - I think that whole notion of types is counter-productive and utterly misleading, as once you think along those lines you have a tendency to assume things that weren't even said. To give an example: a poster is giving an opinion that is pro-life. You won't have to wait for long before the first reply pops up accusing the poster of being brain-washed by religion and being an apologist for child abuse that happened in church-run institutions in the past. Another example: a poster states that they feel that there is something amiss with pigeon-holing toddlers into a pink group and a blue group, and maintaining that throughout the child's formative years as it's stifling both girls and boys. Within minutes you'll have someone ranting at them for being a man-hating, child-abusing feminist wanting to force everyone to be trans-gender and with an agenda to destroy Western civilisation. I think those are called straw-men arguments, and as far as I can tell they invariably spring from mentally grouping people into "types"
Grant Limited Peddler wrote: » Take a look at any terrorist related thread on AH, if you are not completely against Islam, asylum seekers or anything related, you are a terrorist sympathizer and revel in their "achievements"... somehow...
Ash.J.Williams wrote: » I've always identified as far away from right wing as possible without being leftie.... But recently the left area has transformed into something I don't recognise.... I've even started calling people snowflakes.... I'll be recording fox news next at this rate
JupiterKid wrote: » I'm seeing more and more of this on internet message boards. Where any attempt to have a rational, reasoned discussion on matters such as power structures, race relations, global politics and gender equality is hijacked by the far left who seem to ignore empirical facts and accuse anyone of holding different views as them as racists, bigots and worse. It's very intolerant and actually reflects very poorly on them more then it does those they attack, often with vitriol. Any attempt at a dissenting view, no matter how reasoned and moderate, is shut down. As an academic who prides my work on rigid empiricism and evaluation of factual data, this "postmodernist" cultural Marxism that feeds into SJW ideology is based on very little rigid analysis of hard data and instead thrives on "groupthink" and reactionary sentiment. Ironically, the far left is almost as bad now as the far right. This seems to have diffused from American universities - first it was political correctness in the 90s, but now has evolved into more extreme forms - and has infiltrated the West to a large extent. It seems to be offensive to hold centrist views on any key issues these days for fear of being attacked. I think SJW ideology is actually going to drive more and more people towards the far right which is a very sad thing. Anyone share my sentiments? Or should we all eagerly embrace SJW cultural Marxist groupthink?
20Cent wrote: » You mean pay them to reply? Protest outside is totally reasonable.
kunst nugget wrote: » I'm nearing 40 and would have tended to be sympathetic to the left wing but the censorious nature of identity politics and the belief that suppression of opposing viewpoints is a good thing is completely anathema to me. Having grown up in a country that advocated censorship for the moral good, it's not something that I want to see take hold again.
infogiver wrote: » I don't know what you mean by "pay them to reply"? Pay who? Protest outside is totally reasonable as long as the protest is peacefull. Smashing windows and physically bullying and threatening lecture attendees so that campus police have to come and shut down the lecture is not reasonable, its cowardly and demonstrates that the protestors have no argument other then that they don't think people who disagree with them should be allowed to speak. Faciscm in other words.
20Cent wrote: » You said one could attend the lecture and reply to the points made by milo or shapiro. To do that you'd have to pay the entrance fee. Give money to the person attacking you in other words. Rioting is wrong of course but pretty rare.
Shenshen wrote: » Interestingly, I tend to make the exact opposite experiences - as soon as certain buzz words come up (vegetarianis, feminism, multi cultural, transgender, Islam, ...), rational discussions become impossible as a red mist seems to descend over a number of people which is coupled with a desire to call everyone perceived to not feel exactly the same a "special snowflake", or SJW.
Shenshen wrote: » Sorry, I don't follow - you claimed that racism was going down at a time when it was showing its most nasty side right across Europe - from minorities being killed in relatively moderate Germany to genocides in the Balkans to the Front National in France actually running their first presidential candiate.
infogiver wrote: » There is no entrance fee. The tickets are free but must be applied for and collected in advance. Another cowardly approach by the left is to apply for and collect all the tickets as soon as they become available and then not show up. Anything rather than actually debate. Shapiro's fee is paid by Republican right wing groups. Once again I don't know what you've been reading but there are riots at every Uni he speaks at.
jmayo wrote: » Actually if you look the 90s were not the first time the FN ran a candidate in presidential election. Jean-Marie Le Pen got over 14% of the vote in the presidential election in 1988. That was a fair bit better than his 0.75% in the 1974 presidential election.
Shenshen wrote: » This pretty much described my own view on life. The censors used to be the conservative and right-wing forces. Now I see universities banning groups from speaking there - that's not what a university should ever do.
DrumSteve wrote: » I find it funny when people try to import the white privilege argument to Ireland.
Shenshen wrote: » I agree on the white part. But I'm wondering about the privilege part - from personal experience, people take a lot of things for granted if they've never experienced their absence. Be that absence of education, absence of liberty, even absence of security. And it can lead to not understanding others who had to grow up and live without these things. It can lead to judging them and taking the moral high ground without justification. It's easily done and hard to avoid.
Lovely Bloke wrote: » Absolutely 100% true, which is why it's sensible to accept that countries like Hungary, Poland - where left-wing communism was the cause of so much hardship for 50+ years, and people who were in their late teens to early 30s at the downfall of those regimes are now of an age where they are in governmental leadership positions - if they align themselves to the right we can't really judge them harshly for that. I've known many Hungarians through work over the last five to seven years, and to a man they've all told me they'll never, ever vote for anything resembling Socialism, even a Labour type party that we have here, centre-left, they'd not vote for that, because they view it as a slippery slope back to the worst times of their lives. But no, they elect people like Orban, and people in the west with absolutely zero clue of what it was like to live under tyrannic communists start screeching "Racist" at them.
