When you scan the global landscape of politics you see really fast that race and gender have no bearing on quality of leadership.
What you do see is power corrupts and no one is immune.
Yeah, not like the *paradise *it was under White ones… :rolleyes:
No. Being anti-American *may *be bigotry, or it may be a valid, reasoned response to particular American actions, or a valid emotional one to same.
Racism, on the other hand, necessarily always is bigotry.
“And how does the well-water taste, Prince Vlad?”
“shit hole SA is becoming”…
Are you seriously suggesting that South Africa was better off under apartheid? :eek:
If not, then what the hell do you mean by “becoming”?
Yeah, about that…
- I’m not American.
- You don’t have to necessarily say something hateful in order to be bigoted. “Jews are good with money”, and “Blacks have rhythm” are both unacceptably bigoted generalisations, although they’re superficially complimentary.
- Point 2 doesn’t even matter anyway, because you did say something hateful. Specifically, you said “But of course Americans believe that only the past ten years exist and ignore actual history.” You later tried to hand wave this away as “hyperbole”, which is a time-honoured excuse of bigots everywhere and is totally not the kind of thing you’d let anyone else get away with.
- It’s “Definition”, not “Defination” - Don’t you use spellcheck?
- That generalisation has been repeatedly validated at the ballot box.
- “French people like a strong administrative state” and “Americans don’t care about history” are qualitatively different statements, and if you can’t figure out why, you’re in no position to call anyone else stupid.
It’s based on nothing but your own ignorance and bigotry.
America is an enormous country, with 310 million residents, and a multiplicity of divergent cultures. Sure enough, there are some broad strands, such as, for instance, an appreciation of the benefits of capitalism, that run through many, if not all of them. An inability or disinclination to appreciate history is not one of those strands. That you persist in defending this ridiculous position does nothing but highlight how committed you are to your own bigotry.
If you can’t figure out the difference between finding fault with the overtly hostile actions of a subsection of left-wing activists on the one hand, and saying an entire nation of people share a deficient intellectual outlook on the other, then you’re not worth engaging.
I’m just going to stick you on ignore. Feel free to have the last word.
Three months here and already putting good posters on ignore! Carry on, and soon enough you won’t be seeing anyone who disagrees with you. Which might be what you’re aiming at, of course.
Wait…you can put people on ignore here?
Been posting here for 17 years…now I have to go compile my (lengthy) ignore list. 
Great, I will!
It’s hilarious to me that you trot out things like “When you generalise about an entire group of people like you’ve literally just done, you’re a bigot” and then you generalize about an entire group of people but deny any bigotry.
You’re the one saying you can’t generalize about a group without it being bigotry. Ever think maybe if someone catches you out on your saying something that makes no fucking sense, it might mean that you are just incredibly, intensely lazy and bad at making arguments?
You want so very badly to show that those other people are the real bigots. Them. Over there. Someone not like you. So when a Derek shows up and displays bigotry but is on your side? Total silence.
You’re like a guy who goes and climbs a mountain, searches for weeks to find an old, diseased bear hibernating in a cave, then runs back to the village to try to gin up a hunting party to go get it because it’s coming for you. All this while asps and adders live in your root cellar and regularly find their way into your shoes.
And then you whine that other people are going out of their way to be outraged and offended. It would be funny if it weren’t so stupid. Okay, it’s actually still really funny.
I have not been following this whole thread and just stepped in so if this has already been said please let me know.
I am really on the fence about this.
On the one hand I absolutely believe in free speech and the best policy is to engage in dialog rather than hinder or suppress it.
On the flip side the cartoon XKCD sums up the issue when you prevent someone from speaking. In short, no one is obliged to give you a platform to spout your bullshit.
To Rick Sanchez I would ask if there is nothing someone could talk about on your property that you would not stop. Something that you would say is so far from your ideals you do not want to give them a place to spout their (as you see it) bullshit. They are free to stand in their yard and scream at the wind but not in your yard.
By “best,” what do you mean?
I don’t think the XKCD cartoon is really germane to the Peterson situation. IMO, it’s better suited to what just happened with DerekMichaels001. Derek joined the board, made numerous posts which flouted the clearly stated rules, received several warnings, was suspended, then came back and carried on where he left off, at which point he was banned. Derek was only ever here at the sufferance of the admins. They had every right to “show him the door” at any point during his posting history. Hell, they could’ve banned him because they didn’t like his username. It would have been dickish, but it wouldn’t have been an infringement on his right to speak.
The Peterson situation is different. He was invited to the university by an established student group, in accordance with all proper procedures for booking a guest. There is no question that the student group who invited him had the right to invite him. Attendance was entirely voluntary, and those who attended came with a reasonable expectation of being allowed to hear him speak. No-one had to listen to him. Peterson wasn’t inflicting his views on anyone. The way I see it, Peterson had a right to be there (because he was invited) and attendees had a right to hear him (because attendance was voluntary). When unaffiliated students gatecrashed the event and screamed “TRANSPHOBIC PIECE OF SHIT!!!” over, and over, and over again until the event had to be called off, they were infringing on the right of Peterson to speak and the right of earnest attendees to listen.
Imagine if, prior to joining the SDMB, DerekMichaels001 had been a member of a different board and had said something which offended some posters there, but that he’d behaved in a perfectly innocuous manner here. Then a bunch of people from the other board hacked the SDMB and deleted all his posts, or kept repeatedly blocking his username. That’s more in line with what those students did at the Peterson event.
While I agree that no-one is obliged to give anyone else a platform, if I choose to give someone a platform, others are obliged respect my choice.
Not sure where the confusion lies.
I think dialog is preferable to not talking in most cases.
At the least I want those I oppose out in the open talking rather than secretly behind closed doors. I want them where I can see them.
Yes, this means you get the occasional person ranting on your subway car or some asshat on TV or on a college stage saying hateful shit. As awful as it is I think forcing silence is worse. The flip side (as I noted earlier) is deciding when to give a stage to people you passionately disagree with. It is a difficult question.
As regards the whole SJW thing this goes to the idea that some people feel they should be shielded from hurtful (to them) speech. I think this is where the special “snowflake” meme comes from (to be fair conservatives are guilty of it too). The notion that you should be protected from “bad words” in case you are “triggered”.
“Best” could mean “This is what my ideology demands, even if it doesn’t lead to optimum outcomes.” It could mean “This is what works.” It could mean “This is what makes me feel best about myself.”
Imagine someone from history (need not be famous) that you despise right down to the core of your being wants to join your book reading club and want to come over and have tea and talk about books. While at the book club they are perfectly respectful and keep discussion to the book at hand. Also, they bring really excellent tea.
You’d be fine with that person in your living room?
Now imagine that they tell you they want to come over and talk about their ideology at your book club. Are you still ok with that person in your living room?
I think I explained myself. If something was unclear let me know.
Since it seems unlikely you’re reading smallish left-leaning SA news sites, where did you hear about this article? I know that Milo Yiannopoulos troll picked up on it - is that where you heard it from?
@jsgoddess:
That sounds kinda snarky. Did not mean it to come out that way.
Sorry about that.
I’m guessing the person defending ISIS as “marginalized people” isn’t a stupid social justice warrior, either…
No worries. I didn’t take it as snarky.
I think there’s a difference between passionately disagreeing with someone and thinking that person is actually trying their best to harm people. I don’t have any issue, for example, keeping anti-vaxxers off any stage. I’m not a believer in saying there has to be balance or fairness or legitimacy offered just because someone can be identified who has a different point of view.
The question is and will always be “Where is this line drawn?” Where do we distinguish between a controversy having two legitimate sides and one with one legitimate side and one (or more) bullshit sides?
Of course, we do this all the time. No matter how much someone claims they are all for anyone speaking, at some point lines get drawn. I might put mine at a different place than you put yours, but we both have them. To be clear, I am not attempting to claim that you have said there are no lines, but I’ve encountered the argument before, and I’ve seen it come from both the left and the right.
I had a whole long-ass post started about triggering, and then I realized that if I bored myself while writing it, I would bore the universe by asking anyone to read it.
I will say that I have been accused indirectly of being a snowflake dozens of times on this board. Why? Because I can’t eat gluten. Sometimes, what we think is an affectation is something real that we just don’t understand or maybe just don’t like.