Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #351  
Old 03-22-2019, 05:24 AM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
Please show me where Harris has ever said that a non-fundamentalist muslim is less of a muslim.
Uh, you confirmed that yourself just a few posts ago:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble
As for being less "islam-y" (good term BTW) He makes the point quite clearly when talking about Jains. The more closely a Jain follows their beliefs the less they are a danger. The same cannot be said for other monotheistic religions [...]
You are very clearly making, and attributing to Harris, the claim that the "good Jains" are the ones who are following their beliefs more closely, whereas the "good Muslims" are the ones who are following their beliefs less closely.

In other words, a less fundamentalist Muslim is a less "Muslim" Muslim, i.e., one who is less in compliance with the so-called "true nature" of Islam.

Of course that's bullshit, but it's what Harris seems to think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble
Harris does not, and has never to my knowledge, made the case that violent muslims are the only "true" muslims.
What he says, consistently and repeatedly, is that the "fundamental" or "true" nature of Islam is evil, and that the more a Muslim adheres to the so-called "true nature" of Islam, the more likely they are to be and do evil.

As I said, this is bullshit. This is Harris naively taking a historically specific modern-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, which is indeed deeply engaged with oppression and violence, as somehow equivalent to an alleged intrinsic "essence" of Islam; and assuming that Islam can be good only insofar as it is fundamentally "reformed" or changed or else diluted with other beliefs like secularism.

The notion that other, less oppressive interpretations of Islam could have just as valid a claim to be the "true nature" or "essence" of Islam, without requiring reformation or rejection of any so-called "core" of the religion, is one that Harris refuses to entertain. Not surprisingly, since he makes his living largely from attention-seeking self-consciously "controversial" statements, and pretending to be a brave public intellectual who will dare to violate liberal "taboos" against criticizing Islam is a very lucrative schtick for him.
  #352  
Old 03-22-2019, 05:40 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boo Boo Foo View Post
That's bullshit logic. Take "Six Degrees of Separation" and apply that concept to a Mass Shooting and what you've done is found a way to make every person on the planet responsible, in some way or another.
Not every person. Just the major celebrities using their massive platforms to feed into the narrative that "the west" is at war with an amorphous Muslim threat that may or may not encompass any given individual Muslim, and the major celebrities whose massive platforms help serve as a pipeline straight to those who do. Sam Harris kind of straddles that non-existent, blurry line.

If I was part of said pipeline, even if it was entirely unintentional and definitely not my fault, you know what I would do? I would do what I could to turn my viewers away from those dangerous ideas. I'd say loud and clear, "This is not okay". If I had the kind of heft a person like PewDiePie has (literally the largest youtube channel in the world), I would not only make it clear that white nationalists aren't welcome on my channel, I'd speak to Youtube directly about how their algorithm keeps on recommending people who do "gaming content" that's barely veiled reactionary rhetoric, and what they can do about the nazis in my comments section. It's not his fault, but it is his responsibility.

But I wonder - where does this "6 degrees of separation" game stop? These ideas don't come from nowhere. People don't get radicalized out of nowhere. The concept of "stochaistic terrorism" is a relatively recent one, but it isn't exactly baseless. At what point do you bear some responsibility for someone taking your beliefs to their logical conclusion? When you say "Israelis like to build things. Arabs like to bomb shit and live in open sewers" as part of your ongoing defense of ethnic cleansing of palestinians? When you argue that white people are being bred out of existence and that this is literally genocide that must be pushed back against? Does anyone bear any responsibility for radicalizing this guy?
  #353  
Old 03-22-2019, 05:41 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,375
FFS, Sam Harris is not a neocon.

And most of his podcast episodes are not about Muslims or any controversial hot-button political subject. If he’s out to make money by endlessly flogging those topics, why does he keep inviting guests on to talk about artificial intelligence, addiction, etc.?

ETA: BPC, you are bothered by ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Good. So am I. So what do you say about the verses in Deuteronomy that explicitly call for the extermination of Canaanites? Ultra-orthodox Jews with outsize power in the Israeli government take those commandments literally.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 03-22-2019 at 05:45 AM.
  #354  
Old 03-22-2019, 06:21 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...oh fuck off. Are you reading the conversation? He's not dictating the terms of our "discussion." I am. You normalize the conversation when you tell me to ignore his racism and his xenophobia and his religious bigotry to let him stink up this thread by letting him pretend to be the "good guy." You don't see any value in addressing him? Fuck off. This is the fucking pit. Stop normalizing his rhetoric. Stop letting him pretend that his abhorrent views don't really exist. Stop letting him get away with it. This is life or death for people like me. I'm not going to put up with his shit any more. Especially in this thread.
So I've been thinking about this post.

Yeah, you're right. This is life and death for people like you. It's not for me. White dudes like me tend to be on the other end of the gun. So I figure what you have to say gets weighted more heavily than what I have to say.

And yet.

I just counted the 50 posts on page 7 of this thread. 10 of them are from that arrogant racist buttmunch SlackerInc. Another 29 of them are either direct responses to him, or secondary responses (e.g., posts talking about ARB's podcast crush Sam Harris). Only 11 were talking about what's going on in New Zealand without spraying attention on Slacker.

You told me to fuck off because I said, "Talk about the issues. Don't let Slacker become the ringleader." I give your concerns a lot of weight, but it still looks to me like Slacker's become the ringleader in this thread.

I don't see the value in that.
  #355  
Old 03-22-2019, 06:33 AM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Only 11 were talking about what's going on in New Zealand without spraying attention on Slacker.
Yeah, I have to admit that it especially bothers me that a thread inspired by the brutal hate-crime massacre of dozens of innocent Muslims has become yet another sounding board for Islamophobic attacks on the so-called "fundamental nature" of the religion that those poor murdered people were following. I'm sorry I contributed to that even negatively by calling out Slacker on his anti-Islam rhetoric, and I'm leaving it alone in this thread henceforth.

Condolences to our NZ Dopers for having had to deal with this terrible thing, and congratulations to them for the humane, compassionate and thoughtful way that their nation as a whole seems to have responded to it.
  #356  
Old 03-22-2019, 06:44 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
You told me to fuck off because I said, "Talk about the issues. Don't let Slacker become the ringleader." I give your concerns a lot of weight, but it still looks to me like Slacker's become the ringleader in this thread.

I don't see the value in that.
...go back and read the posts again. I'm not the one that deserves the lecture. I didn't engage Slacker on his own terms. I didn't let Slacker dominate and pivot the conversation. I'm not the one who let Slacker become the "ringleader." The minute I backed off and walked away from the thread Slacker came out of hiding. So why, two days later, are you coming back to the thread to have a moan to me? Do you think I'm responsible for his behaviour? Take it up with him, or take it up with the people who enable him.

I told Slacker to fuck off. If you are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a racist, misogynist hater-of-muslims and you aren't telling him to "fuck off" then you are doing things wrong. He shouldn't be made to feel comfortable here. The mistake everyone is making is not that they are engaging him: but they are engaging him on his terms. Thats the fucking problem.
  #357  
Old 03-22-2019, 06:50 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tee View Post
You have a powerful voice and an even greater anger to draw from and a willingness to confront, and you can make a mockery of that whole belief system piece by piece if you want to, loudly and often. And I hope you do.
...kia ora.
  #358  
Old 03-22-2019, 06:57 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...go back and read the posts again.
...
The mistake everyone is making is not that they are engaging him: but they are engaging him on his terms. Thats the fucking problem.
I think I see what you mean. Debating him is a terrible idea, because he is, as mentioned before, a racist butt-munch. Is that what you mean by engaging him on his terms?

What terms CAN you engage him on that doesn't meet his purposes, though? It seems that his purpose is to get attention, and like a neglected child, any attention, even negative attention, meets his needs.

...

And yes, there's some irony in continuing to give him attention here. Maybe this should move over to his stupid Sam Harris thread, so at least that's the thread being hijacked.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 03-22-2019 at 07:00 AM.
  #359  
Old 03-22-2019, 07:01 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
What terms CAN you engage him on that doesn't meet his purposes, though? It seems that his purpose is to get attention, and like a neglected child, any attention, even negative attention, meets his needs.
...you tell him to fuck off.

This isn't very hard.
  #360  
Old 03-22-2019, 07:10 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...you tell him to fuck off.

This isn't very hard.
Fair.
  #361  
Old 03-22-2019, 07:15 AM
Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Covfefe View Post
It's going to continue to be a combustible issue anyway with climate change spurring migration.
It's not "a" issue. It's many different issues. The issue of people fleeing home with the clothes on their back and no papers, the issue of Indian expats to Spain not being offered Spanish-language lessons while their colleagues do get English for free during working hours, the issue of SAHmothers who are completely isolated because they don't speak the language so they don't meet anybody so they barely leave the house so they don't meet anybody, the issue of "[location] culture for women" courses whose content is actually addressed towards SAH wifes (not to women who are expats on their own right, with their own work permit), the issue of how can someone defend themselves if their immigration lawyer turns out to be a crook…

Many, many issues.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 03-22-2019 at 07:17 AM.
  #362  
Old 03-22-2019, 09:39 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 8,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Another quote from the article that illustrates the point brilliantly:



This is the kind of environment we exist in. Sam Harris probably doesn't like Breitbart, but he runs ideological cover for them and serves as part of the pipeline that leads people down that road.
I admit that I'm not familiar with Sam Harris, so I won't weigh in on him specifically, but it's relatively easy to find pseudo-intellectual sophists who can make a half-baked argument that Islam is dangerous and mass migration is dangerous.

The kind of migration that enveloped much of Europe in 2015? Look, I acknowledge that this is a challenge that will inevitably strain the resources of any country. I don't think we should avoid that, but let's not avoid the real underlying causes, which are the profoundly dumb-shit policies of neoconservative neocolonialism.

FFS, you had some of the most experienced policy wonks in Washington at the time and apparently not a god damn one of them had ever cracked open a history book. They could have started with T. E. Lawrence's summary of what happened when they tried taming Mesopotamia (Iraq) nearly a 100 years earlier.

Quote:
The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are to-day not far from a disaster.
And this is what France and Germany were afraid of, and suspected all along would ultimately happen -- and it did. Not so surprisingly. And so when the right wing wants to talk about being overrun by migrants, there's a lesson there if they can just snap out of their blinkered state for a moment and understand that it is absolutely in our sovereign interests to ensure that living conditions for our neighbors are, at minimum, at least tolerable and preferably more than that. Economics matters. Security matters. When people in Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador have a livelihood, when they live in governments that aren't corrupt, that's in our interests. They'd much rather stay home. They come here out of desperation. The right wing in the United States has perpetually undermined the security and living standards in these countries for their own economic gain, and there are consequences for that. Of course I'm not saying it's entirely our fault; we're in some cases dealing with cultures of political corruption, but we've certainly encouraged it in a lot of cases. And in many instances we've even fought against democracy and economic reforms .

Last edited by asahi; 03-22-2019 at 09:40 AM.
  #363  
Old 03-22-2019, 08:49 PM
Boo Boo Foo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southport, Aus.
Posts: 2,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...go back and read the posts again. I'm not the one that deserves the lecture. I didn't engage Slacker on his own terms. I didn't let Slacker dominate and pivot the conversation. I'm not the one who let Slacker become the "ringleader." The minute I backed off and walked away from the thread Slacker came out of hiding. So why, two days later, are you coming back to the thread to have a moan to me? Do you think I'm responsible for his behaviour? Take it up with him, or take it up with the people who enable him.

I told Slacker to fuck off. If you are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a racist, misogynist hater-of-muslims and you aren't telling him to "fuck off" then you are doing things wrong. He shouldn't be made to feel comfortable here. The mistake everyone is making is not that they are engaging him: but they are engaging him on his terms. Thats the fucking problem.
Blah Blah Blah....

You're a conflict junkie. Worse yet you're a conflict junkie in denial. Time after time you're hijacking a thread which is about a mass shooting to make it all about you. Every post you write always ends up entirely about YOU and the conflict you're constantly finding yourself embroiled in. That's what conflict junkies do.
  #364  
Old 03-22-2019, 09:01 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I think I see what you mean. Debating him is a terrible idea, because he is, as mentioned before, a racist butt-munch. Is that what you mean by engaging him on his terms?

What terms CAN you engage him on that doesn't meet his purposes, though? It seems that his purpose is to get attention, and like a neglected child, any attention, even negative attention, meets his needs.

...

And yes, there's some irony in continuing to give him attention here. Maybe this should move over to his stupid Sam Harris thread, so at least that's the thread being hijacked.
Let's all just "Ignore" him.
  #365  
Old 03-22-2019, 09:05 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
I figure this is the right thread to post this:



More at the link.
He's lucky. In some neighborhoods, they'd have hung him from a telephone pole.
  #366  
Old 03-22-2019, 10:31 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
The minute I backed off and walked away from the thread Slacker came out of hiding.

Don't flatter yourself. I was never "hiding"; and I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't keep track of your presence--or lack thereof--in a thread.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #367  
Old 03-22-2019, 11:00 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Don't flatter yourself. I was never "hiding"; and I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't keep track of your presence--or lack thereof--in a thread.
...fuck off Slacker.

And you can fuck off as well Boo Boo Foo. Claiming I've hijacked this thread to talk about me is absolutely-fucking-laughable. You only have to read my posts to see you are talking out of your fucking arse. I've given updates on Christchurch, I've quoted our Prime Minister at length, I've been on fucking topic, much more on topic than you have been. Calling me a conflict junkie? What percentage of posts of yours in this thread have you spent attacking me?

You've outed yourself. I know what you are now.
  #368  
Old Yesterday, 06:12 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 31
All the world’s major religious texts contain massive amounts of hate speech. This hate speech has been the direct cause of countless acts of violence towards all kinds of minority’s groups for thousands of years.

Should these texts be banned? If not, why not?

See, I’m trying to figure out why it’s cool to ban someone from YouTube for saying God hates group X, but why (apparently) it’s not cool to ban the actual holy book which says the exact same thing.

I’m also trying to figure out why all the anti-free speech warriors in this thread won’t answer this very, very straightforward question, even though this is now the FOURTH time I’ve asked it. My guess is simple intellectual cowardice, but I’m keeping an open mind.
  #369  
Old Yesterday, 06:42 PM
elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,110
Two men were just arrested for exactly that, in my city. Although they are charged with a public nuisance infraction, they were standing on street corners quoting scripture and screaming at women wearing make up or yoga pants, for being whores! With a bullhorn! 75 complaints lodged since start of year. I’ve encountered them a few times and they are exceedingly obnoxious. And possibly mentally ill.

Not a single church or organization in town seems to have a problem with this action. All in agreement, it would seem, women should be able to be in the public space without such harassment.

I’m not sure why you think this doesn’t happen. You’re wrong, it does. It’s not especially protected because it’s scripture. Use it to harass and get charged, seems simple enough.

Not sure what huge dramatic point you think you’re making. You’re not getting responses because it’s not the gotcha you seem to think, but whatever.
  #370  
Old Yesterday, 06:57 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 31
Quote:
I’m not sure why you think this doesn’t happen. You’re wrong, it does. It’s not especially protected because it’s scripture. Use it to harass and get charged, seems simple enough.

Not sure what huge dramatic point you think you’re making. You’re not getting responses because it’s not the gotcha you seem to think, but whatever.
You’ve not answered my question. Do you think the religious texts themselves should be banned? After all, they contain hate speech. It’s a yes or no question.
  #371  
Old Yesterday, 07:18 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
I’m also trying to figure out why all the anti-free speech warriors in this thread won’t answer this very, very straightforward question, even though this is now the FOURTH time I’ve asked it. My guess is simple intellectual cowardice, but I’m keeping an open mind.
...here's a reality check for you:

We are not obligated to engage you.

You are arguing a strawman. It is such an obvious, blatant strawman that people can't be bothered replying to you.

The reality is you are such a bad fucking troll that your attempt to suck people into your trap is so fucking bad that people are simply scrolling past what you have written. Nobody has noticed you. You've asked your question four times and this is the first time I've seen it. How bad do you have to be at "getting a reaction" that you have to remind everybody that this is the fourth time you've said exactly the same thing?

To answer your question: the answer is "no." All the world’s major religious texts should not be banned. Why not? Because I haven't personally advocated banning anything, so why would my position change on the world’s major religious texts?
  #372  
Old Yesterday, 07:34 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear
To answer your question: the answer is "no." All the world’s major religious texts should not be banned. Why not? Because I haven't personally advocated banning anything, so why would my position change on the world’s major religious texts?
You advocate deplatforming though, right? If someone’s going round saying “Everyone in group X is evil”, you’d want that person deplatformed. You’d want them booted off social media. You’d want publishers to ignore them. You’d want colleges to disinvite them and TV stations to deny them air time.

So why would you oppose the banning of religious texts which also say “Everyone in group X is evil”? Texts which directly inspired the people you want deplatformed.

The hypocrisy seems outrageous. Deplatform XYZ because his videos are alt-right, or a “pipeline” to the alt-right (whatever that is) but don’t put any restrictions on the holy books which inspired XYZ. How does that make sense?

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; Yesterday at 07:34 PM.
  #373  
Old Yesterday, 07:55 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 425
You got us bro.
  #374  
Old Yesterday, 07:56 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
You advocate deplatforming though, right? If someone’s going round saying “Everyone in group X is evil”, you’d want that person deplatformed. You’d want them booted off social media. You’d want publishers to ignore them. You’d want colleges to disinvite them and TV stations to deny them air time.

So why would you oppose the banning of religious texts which also say “Everyone in group X is evil”? Texts which directly inspired the people you want deplatformed.

The hypocrisy seems outrageous. Deplatform XYZ because his videos are alt-right, or a “pipeline” to the alt-right (whatever that is) but don’t put any restrictions on the holy books which inspired XYZ. How does that make sense?
...LOL.

You are outraged?

I don't fucking care.

Don't accuse me of "hypocrisy" when your argument immediately pivots from "banning" to "deplatforming." Do you seriously think you are the first person to try that on?
  #375  
Old Yesterday, 08:02 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...LOL.

You are outraged?
No. Outrageous as in excessive, like ‘He spends an outrageous amount of money” or whatever.

Quote:
Don't accuse me of "hypocrisy" when your argument immediately pivots from "banning" to "deplatforming." Do you seriously think you are the first person to try that on?
Where’s the pivot? What, in practical terms, is the difference between the two?
  #376  
Old Yesterday, 08:05 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man
You advocate deplatforming though, right? If someone’s going round saying “Everyone in group X is evil”, you’d want that person deplatformed. You’d want them booted off social media. You’d want publishers to ignore them. You’d want colleges to disinvite them and TV stations to deny them air time.

So why would you oppose the banning of religious texts which also say “Everyone in group X is evil”? Texts which directly inspired the people you want deplatformed.
Uh, whatever one's personal position on civil liberties, it's pretty easy to distinguish, rights-wise, between "deplatforming" something via consumer/public opinion pressure on private entities and "banning" something via governmental prohibition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man
What, in practical terms, is the difference between the two?
One's the result of normal give-and-take in the marketplace of ideas in society, and the other is (by US standards, at least) an infringement of fundamental civil liberties.

Last edited by Kimstu; Yesterday at 08:07 PM.
  #377  
Old Yesterday, 08:09 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
No. Outrageous as in excessive, like ‘He spends an outrageous amount of money” or whatever.
...you are spending an outrageous amount of time arguing a strawman.

Quote:
Where’s the pivot? What, in practical terms, is the difference between the two?
In practical terms they are two completely different things. You even acknowledge they mean two different things when I answered your stupid fucking question. Why the fuck are you asking me this question? You already know the answer.
  #378  
Old Yesterday, 08:19 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
You’ve not answered my question. Do you think the religious texts themselves should be banned? After all, they contain hate speech. It’s a yes or no question.
I haven't been following this particular thread, but in a casual perusal I couldn't help but notice your trollishness. Perhaps the only reason no one has directly addressed your alleged "question" is that you're obviously a fucking moron. Where I live, Canada, hate speech is a legal principle, and has been used to good effect for instance against neo-Nazis promoting "Aryan" white supremacy and genocide. And yet -- prepare to be amazed -- no one has advocated the banning of the Bible, or the Qu'ran, or the Torah. Perhaps I live in a horrifically hypocritical society. Or perhaps not. To understand the difference, I recommend you go soak your head in a bucket of ice water for a couple of hours, or until rationality returns, whichever comes first.
  #379  
Old Yesterday, 08:24 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
Uh, whatever one's personal position on civil liberties, it's pretty easy to distinguish, rights-wise, between "deplatforming" something via consumer/public opinion pressure on private entities and "banning" something via governmental prohibition.
There’s little difference in practical terms, from the perspective of a speaker, between being silenced by the government and being silenced by the mob. What I want to know is this: Why are the “mob” in this thread happy to use public pressure to silence online hate speech (or even things which may form some hypothetical “pipeline” to such hate speech), but not happy to use public pressure to get rid of religious texts which are a “pipeline” to online hate speech. Why does the “pipeline” start at YouTube, and not at the Bible or Koran or whatever?
  #380  
Old Yesterday, 08:31 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
In practical terms they are two completely different things.
Why?

If you use public pressure to get me banned from every online platform, every TV channel, every radio station, every venue, and every publication, you will have silenced me every bit as effectively as any government could ever do. So what, in practical terms, is the difference between the two? And why would you shy away from using the same tactics to “deplatform” religious texts as much as you’re able to do so? After all, they all contain massive amounts of hate speech


Quote:
You even acknowledge they mean two different things when I answered your stupid fucking question.
I did no such thing.
  #381  
Old Yesterday, 08:37 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
There’s little difference in practical terms, from the perspective of a speaker, between being silenced by the government and being silenced by the mob.
That's like saying that there's little difference in practical terms between being ostracized because nobody likes you and having the government lock you up in solitary confinement. You're still isolated and lonely either way, right?

What that sort of transparent sophistry fails to take into account is that there are in fact huge and very practical differences between being shunned by private entities and being officially suppressed by the government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man
Why are the “mob” in this thread happy to use public pressure to silence online hate speech (or even things which may form some hypothetical “pipeline” to such hate speech), but not happy to use public pressure to get rid of religious texts which are a “pipeline” to online hate speech. Why does the “pipeline” start at YouTube, and not at the Bible or Koran or whatever?
I think you need to clarify what you're on about here. Are you asking what the difference is between modern inflammatory hate rhetoric and ancient religious texts, and what the reasons are that the two categories are generally viewed differently in public discourse?
  #382  
Old Yesterday, 08:37 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,703
In practical terms, speech that is banned by governmental decree is likely to have legal consequences, whereas speech that is deplatformed has the consequence of... What, not being heard?

Do you see the difference between speech being illegal and just not being given a platform?
  #383  
Old Yesterday, 08:39 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post

I did no such thing.
Obvious troll is obvious.

Piss off now.
  #384  
Old Yesterday, 08:44 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I haven't been following this particular thread, but in a casual perusal I couldn't help but notice your trollishness. Perhaps the only reason no one has directly addressed your alleged "question" is that you're obviously a fucking moron. Where I live, Canada, hate speech is a legal principle, and has been used to good effect for instance against neo-Nazis promoting "Aryan" white supremacy and genocide. And yet -- prepare to be amazed -- no one has advocated the banning of the Bible, or the Qu'ran, or the Torah. Perhaps I live in a horrifically hypocritical society. Or perhaps not. To understand the difference, I recommend you go soak your head in a bucket of ice water for a couple of hours, or until rationality returns, whichever comes first.
Has Canadian hate speech legislation ever been used against people who go around saying “God hates gay people and they should be killed?”

If so, why shouldn’t it also act against the Bible (“Thou shall not lie with man as with woman. It is an abomination”) or the Hadith (“Kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done”).

And if there’s a legal reason why not, what possible moral reason could there be, from the perspective of posters advocating the de facto banning of conservative commentators online on the grounds that they’re a “pipeline to the alt-right”, for not insisting the Canadian government expand the reach of their hate speech laws to cover religious texts?
  #385  
Old Yesterday, 08:45 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
In practical terms, speech that is banned by governmental decree is likely to have legal consequences, whereas speech that is deplatformed has the consequence of... What, not being heard?

Do you see the difference between speech being illegal and just not being given a platform?
Yeah, the mob can’t throw me in jail. But equally, the government isn’t likely to send me death threats, burn my house down, or attack me in the street. Personally, if I were a conservative commentator with “problematic” views, I’d be a thousand times more scared of the mob.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; Yesterday at 08:47 PM.
  #386  
Old Yesterday, 08:48 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Why?
...because they are.

Quote:
If you use public pressure to get me banned from every online platform, every TV channel, every radio station, every venue, and every publication, you will have silenced me every bit as effectively as any government could ever do.
Bullshit.

There is nothing stopping you starting your own website, standing on a street corner, self-publishing your manifesto. You haven't been silenced. You literally haven't been banned.

Quote:
So what, in practical terms, is the difference between the two?
What, in practical terms, is the difference between "banning free speech" and every online platform, every TV channel, every radio station, every venue, and every publication, not broadcasting "Freddy Got Fingered?" Do I not have the constitutional right to watch Tom Green?

Quote:
And why would you shy away from using the same tactics to “deplatform” religious texts as much as you’re able to do so?
Because I don't fucking want too?

Quote:
After all, they all contain massive amounts of hate speech
Do you know what a strawman is? Who the fuck are you arguing with?


Quote:
I did no such thing.
Of course you fucking did you disingenuous snot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Obvious troll is obvious.

Piss off now.
Indeed. Fuck off Unreconstructed Man. We are going to deplatform you now. But we aren't going to ban you. Only the mods can do that. Do you understand the practical difference now?
  #387  
Old Yesterday, 09:00 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
Bullshit.

There is nothing stopping you starting your own website, standing on a street corner, self-publishing your manifesto. You haven't been silenced. You literally haven't been banned.
Apart from the mob going after my service providers, my publishers, or shouting me down in the street so no-one can hear what I’m saying. All of which are things which have happen to real people.

Quote:
What, in practical terms, is the difference between "banning free speech" and every online platform, every TV channel, every radio station, every venue, and every publication, not broadcasting "Freddy Got Fingered?" Do I not have the constitutional right to watch Tom Green?
If those stations make that decision under duress from a mob then, at least from Tom Green’s point of view there’s no practical difference.

Quote:
Because I don't fucking want too?
Why not? If I could demonstrate a plausible “pipeline” from the Bible to the alt-right, or from the Koran & Hadith to ISIS (both of which are trivially easy to do), would that change your mind? If not, why not?

Quote:
Do you know what a strawman is? Who the fuck are you arguing with?
Currently, I’m arguing with a very, very angry little man.

Quote:
Of course you fucking did you disingenuous snot.
No I didn’t.

Quote:
Indeed. Fuck off Unreconstructed Man. We are going to deplatform you now. But we aren't going to ban you. Only the mods can do that. Do you understand the practical difference now?
Probably for the best that you do. I’m starting to worry about the effect this conversation is having on your blood pressure. But do you understand that there’s a difference between deplatforming someone and ignoring them?
  #388  
Old Yesterday, 09:03 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
If you use public pressure to get me banned from every online platform, every TV channel, every radio station, every venue, and every publication, you will have silenced me every bit as effectively as any government could ever do. So what, in practical terms, is the difference between the two?
Ah, I think I see your problem now: you are laboring under the delusion that society somehow owes you a mass-communications conduit for the public expression of your opinions, no matter what those opinions may be. But this is not the model on which our civic life is ultimately based.

Gather round, children, and let your Aunt Kimstu tell you what things were like back in the days not just before social media and the internet, but before network proliferation and cable TV and talk radio. Almost nobody had a mass-communications conduit for the public expression of any opinions at all!

If you wanted to express your opinions publicly, you could write a letter to the editor of a newspaper or magazine; but they might not publish it. Or if you had the money you could publish your opinions in your own paper or magazine; but maybe nobody would carry it or buy it. Or you could stand on a street corner and exhort people, as long as you weren't disturbing the peace or obstructing traffic; but maybe nobody would listen to you. Or you could put up a big sign on your house; but everybody might ignore it. Or you could offer to give an address at a local civic-group meeting; but they might decline your offer. Or you could try to purchase a billboard ad; but if the billboard company didn't like your ad they didn't have to sell you the billboard space. Or you could write and send chain letters to everybody you knew; but they might ignore them and break the chain even though you specifically mentioned in your letter that that would bring very bad luck.

And guess what, kids: none of our civil liberties were being infringed at all in that situation. Just because we couldn't be jailed for expressing our opinions or forced to publicly recant them didn't mean that any entity, governmental or private, was in the least obligated to provide us with a channel of mass communication for disseminating them. We were not being in any way silenced; we just weren't being amplified.

That remains true to this day. You young'uns are so used to taking it for granted that you can advertise everything from your deepest thoughts to pictures of your sandwich all over the world at the speed of light day in and day out, on your Facetubes and your Instatwit channels, that you have fallen into the habit of thinking that that kind of amplification is somehow yours by right, and that if someone kicks you off their broadcasting platform then they are illegitimately "silencing" you.

But you're wrong, pets, you're wrong. If you want to see the very real practical differences between being merely "de-amplified" and being silenced, just try going out there and publicly saying something inflammatory that the government is not required to tolerate on constitutional free-speech grounds. You'll soon notice a distinct change in the circumstances.
  #389  
Old Yesterday, 09:09 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
But you're wrong, pets, you're wrong. If you want to see the very real practical differences between being merely "de-amplified" and being silenced, just try going out there and publicly saying something inflammatory that the government is not required to tolerate on constitutional free-speech grounds. You'll soon notice a distinct change in the circumstances.
Was about to turn in for the evening but just quickly wanted to ask, would “Kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done” count? Like, if one literally just stood on a soapbox and just read that line from the Hadith over and over (or its Biblical equivalent), would the government be compelled to act? If so, for what moral reason can one who supports deplatforming not ask them to act against the book itself? I know this is a bit of a tangent but I’m curious what you think.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; Yesterday at 09:12 PM.
  #390  
Old Yesterday, 09:20 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
[...] the government isn’t likely to send me death threats, burn my house down, or attack me in the street.
All of which, btw, are highly illegal actions, no matter how unpleasant your opinions may be, and I don't see anybody here condoning them at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man
[...] would “Kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done” count? Like, if one literally just stood on a soapbox and just read that line from the Hadith over and over (or its Biblical equivalent), would the government be compelled to act?
Er, "compelled to act" how, exactly? I mean, the words "kill" and "die" obviously occur in lots of religious texts, if not all of them. Does that mean that you can get away with standing on a soapbox and shouting "Kill! Kill! Kill!" or "Die! Die! Die!" at passersby, on the grounds that you're just quoting Scripture? I wouldn't count on it. Similarly, I wouldn't count on being able to get away with cherrypicking somewhat longer scriptural excerpts for your rants, if they're delivered in a similarly inflammatory way.
  #391  
Old Yesterday, 09:56 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Has Canadian hate speech legislation ever been used against people who go around saying “God hates gay people and they should be killed?”
No, but close enough for the purposes of your idiotic argument:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...-gay-1.4721243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
If so, why shouldn’t it also act against the Bible (“Thou shall not lie with man as with woman. It is an abomination”) or the Hadith (“Kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done”).

And if there’s a legal reason why not, what possible moral reason could there be, from the perspective of posters advocating the de facto banning of conservative commentators online on the grounds that they’re a “pipeline to the alt-right”, for not insisting the Canadian government expand the reach of their hate speech laws to cover religious texts?
See, this is why it's a waste of time to argue with a troll like you.

People can read what they want, believe what they want, worship how they want, and talk about what they want. In a Supreme Court test of the case above, the SCC even ruled that parts of the law under which the individual above was charged that made it illegal to engage in any act that "ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground" was in fact unconstitutional. You can do that. It's immoral and reprehensible, but it cannot be made illegal.

What CAN be made illegal is the public advocacy of hate against a protected group, because the long and painful lesson of history is that hate promotes bigotry, discrimination, and ultimately, violence. It doesn't matter whether the hate comes from a literal interpretation of ancient Biblical scripture and the ignorant failure to understand its historical context, or whether it comes from Mein Kampf or the writings of Joseph Goebbels or his latter-day equivalents like Richard Spencer, Ernst Zündel, or David Duke. It only matters that it fosters hate and violence which is counter to the objectives of a peaceful and just society. There are discussions to be had about the historical prejudicial influences of religion to those objectives, but those discussions are not to be had with trolls like you.

Last edited by wolfpup; Yesterday at 09:59 PM.
  #392  
Old Today, 02:56 AM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 28,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
In a Supreme Court test of the case above, the SCC even ruled that parts of the law under which the individual above was charged that made it illegal to engage in any act that "ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground" was in fact unconstitutional.
Minor correction: in the SCC case you're referring to, the individual was not charged with an offence. It was a civil complaint, brought under a provincial human rights code, and all that was in issue was money and an order that he stop distributing the documents in issue.

This may seem a minor point of vocabulary, but "charged" means a penal offence, sometimes carrying a criminal record, and also often with a possibility of incarceration. That wasn't in issue in that case, which was civil in nature.
  #393  
Old Today, 06:02 PM
Boo Boo Foo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southport, Aus.
Posts: 2,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...LOL.

You are outraged?

I don't fucking care.

Don't accuse me of "hypocrisy" when your argument immediately pivots from "banning" to "deplatforming." Do you seriously think you are the first person to try that on?
You don't care? Truly? Are you so incapable of self-insight? The word "denial" was used earlier to describe your claim that you're not trying to change people through a sustained pattern of insults and conflict. And now, after responding to "Unconstructed Man" no less than 19 times, you're claiming you "don't care?"

Again, none of your rants have anything to do with a mass shooting in New Zealand anymore. Indeed, it's the height of distastefulness. In the context of this thread and this messageboard, the Christchurch massacre has become little more than a cynical vehicle in which you can satisfy your relentless need to engage in conflict.
  #394  
Old Today, 06:47 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boo Boo Foo View Post
You don't care? Truly? Are you so incapable of self-insight? The word "denial" was used earlier to describe your claim that you're not trying to change people through a sustained pattern of insults and conflict. And now, after responding to "Unconstructed Man" no less than 19 times, you're claiming you "don't care?"
...LOL.

I know you've demonstrated throughout this thread that you have a tenuous relationship to the truth, but now we have descended into the world of "fake news." Only a fucking idiot would re-contextualise 4 multi-quoted posts into "19 replies." You've been here since 2002 and you don't know how a fucking messageboard works?

And you are being deceptive about "I don't care" as well. I don't fucking care if somebody is outraged by a strawman. Because its a fucking strawman. You clearly can't be bothered reading what I wrote.

Quote:
Again, none of your rants have anything to do with a mass shooting in New Zealand anymore.
LOL.

How many of your posts in this thread have been about the mass shooting? I think this was your only actual post about the shooting:

"All of us, every single day, are statistically more likely to die in a car crash than a mass shooting."

Well thanks for that. Aren't you a peach? Glad to see where your priorities lie.

Quote:
Indeed, it's the height of distastefulness. In the context of this thread and this messageboard, the Christchurch massacre has become little more than a cynical vehicle in which you can satisfy your relentless need to engage in conflict.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boo Boo Foo View Post
After all these years Guin, I note your gigantic ego still has you thinking you're a self appointed arbiter of taste on behalf of everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boo Boo Foo View Post
All of us, every single day, are statistically more likely to die in a car crash than a mass shooting. That's still true, despite your rhetoric.
In what way is it life or death for you?


You can't change people, you can only change your reactions. Block him and move on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boo Boo Foo View Post
Oh puh-leeze.... you're dancing on the graves of 50 dead countrymen so that you can portray yourself as a victim too. If that mass-shooting didn't happen none of your woe-is-me-too rhetoric would have a voice right now. I can't stop you lying to yourself but I'm not buying it.

You're in denial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boo Boo Foo View Post
This is true, up until the point where opponents of your view (whatever your view might be) start to falsely label your rhetoric as hate speech even when it isn't. And that's becoming an extremely pervasive tactic. Here's why....

The major social media carriers... YouTube, Facebook, Twitter etc etc... they are becoming increasingly sensitive to the many claims which argue they allow hate speech to foster on their platforms. This is why user accounts are being deleted left right and centre nowadays. If you're a minority of some sort, it doesn't matter who or what or where, it's becoming the default "go to" tactic to describe EVERYTHING that you don't approve of as hate speech, even when it's not even remotely close to being the case. It's the new wonder tactic because if enough allegations of "hate speech" are made, even if it isn't hate speech, action is usually taken against the person/group/mouthpiece who you're in opposition to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boo Boo Foo View Post
Well you know what they say.... denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boo Boo Foo View Post
That's bullshit logic. Take "Six Degrees of Separation" and apply that concept to a Mass Shooting and what you've done is found a way to make every person on the planet responsible, in some way or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boo Boo Foo View Post
Blah Blah Blah....

You're a conflict junkie. Worse yet you're a conflict junkie in denial. Time after time you're hijacking a thread which is about a mass shooting to make it all about you. Every post you write always ends up entirely about YOU and the conflict you're constantly finding yourself embroiled in. That's what conflict junkies do.
LOL.

Its hilarious to see you accuse me of the "height of distastefulness" when every single post you've made in this thread has either been an attack on somebody else, a defense of the racist misognistic hater of muslims, or peddling some alt-right conspiracy about how "the minorities" are really the people with all the power.

You are in no position to lecture me on what is "distasteful." But hey, I look forward to you popping back into the thread in a couple of days to continue to lie and misrepresent my posts, to continue to attack me, and to continue to completely ignore the people of New Zealand, the innocent Muslims that died, and the clear and present danger presented by the alt-right and white supremacy. You keep showing us who you really are.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017