You’re not to; you have solved it, you have cracked the code.
Seems we are. So long as we all agree that some complaints are without merit, that not everyone who demands an apology deserves one, and it’s perfectly possible that sometimes, people are wrong to be offended then, yes, I think we’re done.
It’s funny, though, how so many take that reasonable position and immediately extrapolate it to “…and therefore any complaint **I personally **feel to be without merit may be disregarded and the complainant assumed to be an oversensitive SJW.”
Not that you’d do this, of course.
Oh, yes I would agree with that. This thread contains many examples of that. Where there is a complaint that someone on the internet said something that wasn’t complementary to straight white males.
This is true, but that means that you are assigning yourself as the arbiter of who deserves an apology, and that seems like more work than simply apologizing and moving on.
Oh, absolutely. Thee are many examples in this thread of people getting offended over what some college stunde on some blog said somewhere, or get offended about some article that they read on an alt-right site that changes the context and meaning of otherwise innocuous actions into some sort of assault on the sensibilities of the straight white guy, and not only are they often wrong to be offended, they are often wrong than there was anything to be offended about in the first place.
That’s cool. At least you learned somethign from your participation in this thread.
You mean racism.
I apologise to people on the basis of whether or not I feel they deserve it, not because it makes life easier for me. That’s because apologies actually mean something to me. They’re not get out of jail free cards to be deployed as and when it’s convenient.
There are also examples of students using the heckler’s veto to shut down invited speakers because they think any speech which offends them doesn’t deserve to be heard by anyone. What do you have to say about them? I already know you have a blasé attitude to racism, but what about slander, defamation, disorderly conduct and other manifestations of autistic screeching? Innocuous? Hijinks? Harmless fun?
I’ve learnt that you’re warmly approving of racism, provided it’s directed at white people. That’s certainly something.
Duly noted that you consider anything not complimentary to straight white males to be racism.
Straight and white are unnecessary qualifiers but yes, uncomplimentary generalisations about an entire racial group (indeed, any generalisations about a racial group, complimentary or otherwise) are racist by definition. That this is unclear to you is indicative just how far down the identity politics rabbit hole you’ve fallen.
And yet you’re the one expanding it to “all”. I refer you back to a previous post of mine:
Keep waving those hands.
Please share with everyone the objective algorithm for calculating “merit”.
No, I mean what I said. You complain any time there is anyone on the internet that is not complimentary to white straight males. They don’t even have to be insulting to us, just as long as they do not hold us as above them, that is enough to offend you.
I apologize to someone when I come to realize I have caused them harm. The easiest way to determine that is if they tell me that I have caused them harm. Rather than potentially compounding that harm by then calling the person I may have harmed a liar, I apologize, and make note of how to reduce the harm I do to others.
I could be defensive, and complain that anyone who says that I harmed them is a liar, but that not only is a very antisocial position to take, it’s also much more work than I am willing to put in.
I am not sure you know what the heckler’s veto is.
Actually, I am pretty sure that you do not understand any of the terms you used in that paragraph.
Then you are a truly poor student. I am sorry for you.
I do find it kinda funny that a guy with the name ‘Sanchez’ is playing the alt-right all-white martyr.
You’d think white supremacists wouldn’t want a hispanic in their midst.
Bullshit, you liar.
You just lied about me. I don’t “complain any time there is anyone on the internet that is not complimentary to straight while males”. I find your lies offensive and hurtful. I expect your apology in due course.
If you did that every time, that would indeed make you a prick. Well, more of a prick. Sometimes, however, people pretend to take offence to score points. They pretend to take offence to shut you down. Sometimes, their offence genuine, but is more of a reflection of their skewed priorities than it is on the offensiveness of what you may have done. If you can’t tell those people apart from the people you’ve genuinely hurt (or if you’re too chickenshit to stand up to them), you’re simply asking to be taken advantage of.
In common parlance, the term “Heckler’s veto” is used to describe situations where hecklers or demonstrators silence a speaker without intervention of the law. Like the SJW dickheads did to Jordan Peterson in the video linked to in my OP.
A student can only be as good as his teacher.
It’s a ‘Rick and Morty’ reference. I’m not alt-right, I’m not a white supremacist, you can’t possibly have fairly gotten that from anything I’ve written, and thus I can only conclude that you’re either a shameless liar, or are simply so dirt stupid that you have to whistle when you go to the toilet to remind yourself which end to shit through.
Just last night, at 7:36, you complained about a university putting out a pamphlet that encouraged its staff member to take note that some things that they could do could make their students feel uncomfortable, and that the students may take it as racism. Now, you linked to a hit piece that took that pamphlet out of context, and lied about it’s actual use and intent, but even with their lies, you cannot show where in that article it was racist against white men, just how to be less racist towards minorities.
I do apologize if I hurt your feelings by pointing out the gross inaccuracies in your assessments.
And you lied about me lying about you.
And, this being the pit, it aint no safe place, so if your precious sensibilities are offended, I suggest you take your idiocy elsewhere.
If you do that every time to the same person, if every time you walk by a person, they complain that you have harmed them in some asinine way, I would agree.
But you are not talking about a single person, you are talking about large groups of people, often comprising millions of people each. So, if you offend one minority in one way, and apologize, that does not mean that if you offend another minority, then you don’t need to apologize.
You are treating demographic cohorts as if they are some sort of organized entity, or even as if they were a single individual. That is your failing.
Your common parlance is exactly at odds with the actual useage, but whatever.
If a speaker gets disinvited because the students make their voices heard, then I see no problem with that.
He specifically advocates to remove protections from people, including the protection against genocide.
Now, I am not sure why you would want to invite a speaker that advocates for genocide just because of your gender expression, but I can see why I would be inclined to object to him being given validity, and a platform to validate the listener’s bigotry.
Actually, a teacher’s greatest moment is when his student surpasses him, but in this case, I suppose I will have to settle for when the student learns to wipe his own ass.
The pamphlet contained the extremely stupid suggestion that not making eye contact could be construed as a racial microaggression. I pointed it out, not as an example of racism against white men, but as an extreme example of the kind of micromanaging nonsense busybodies come up with when they don’t have enough real work to do. Everything else is pure projection on your part. You took my post out of context and then lied about my intent.
But still, if you think the article I linked to was a “hit piece”, maybe you’ll find this Huffington Post article on the subject more palatable, even though it says the exact same fucking thing.
Oh, the old “I’m sorry you’re offended” non-apology apology. Not good enough. You lied about my views, knowingly and repeatedly. I want an apology for your lies.
Being in the Pit doesn’t excuse lying. I’m offended by your lies. I expect a sincere apology. Or, alternatively, you could do what you actually want to do and tell me to fuck off, thereby tacitly admitting your premise is bullshit. Either or.
I’ve been confining my criticisms to hypersensitive fauxial justice hypocrites. I’ve not talked about any group “comprising millions of people each”. If you disagree, by all means quote me so I can point out how you’re wrong in more detail.
Again, quote me or retract.
Oh, cut the shit. You know damn well that the term “Heckler’s veto” has two distinct meanings. The former is a legal expression in which the government shuts down speech for fear of inciting violence from hecklers, and the second is a common expression which denotes the practise of shouting speakers down from the audience. There is no one definition which is the “actual” definition. Both are actually used, and the latter definition is considerably more common than the former.
Peterson wasn’t “disinvited”. He was invited, and then, when he actually turned up, a bunch of assholes summarily decided that his speech shouldn’t be heard and shouted him down screaming “TRANSPHOBIC PIECE OF SHIT!” and “NO SPEECH FOR JORDAN PETERSON” over and over again until he left. You want to whine about this being an example of the heckler’s veto? Fine. Call it “Being a bunch of self-righteous cunts” instead. Whatever.
Bullshit. Cite?
I’m not sure why you don’t make even the slightest effort to learn what a person’s arguments actually are before spouting off. Actually, wait. I am sure. It’s because you’re a liar.
If that’s your standard, I’m happy to say I surpassed you a very long time ago.
Say what?
I’m not sure why you don’t make even the slightest effort to learn what a person’s arguments actually are before spouting off. Actually, wait. I am sure. It’s because you’re a liar.
[/quote]
Okay, what are your arguments?
I can only base them on what you have said in this thread, if you would like to cite other sources that I may pursue to divine your true intentions you are welcome to.
If I was teaching a class on logical fallacies, I’d pass you magna cum laude.
(In Europe is there much similar to the U.S. “SJW” dialog we see in this thread?)
Clearly, social change proceeds too quickly for conservatives’ comfort, but ideally that throttle serves as a time-tested stabilizing influence in society. And there is often much wisdom in caution.
But wisdom is largely irrelevant to the issues right-wingers raise today. (N.C.'s public restroom law :smack: ). Instead we have distracting debates that just feed political rage and hatreds. Bipolarization increases; political failure often results; often the failure is deliberately plotted and achieved by kleptocrats.
**Let me ask the anti-SJW crowd here a serious and important question:
** Please give a 120- to 300-word account of the thing you’ve done or said in past R.L. that would draw the most charges of “racist,” or “chauvinist,” etc. from competent and relatively moderate observers
Until I get such specific responses, I want to reserve judgement.
Surely you must see this turns your opponent into a strawman, the Scarecrow in Oz.
You may find the wingnut loathesome, but suppose it’s due to a physical ailment, e.g. the “bloated amygdala syndrome.” You don’t say angry words to the blind, deaf, crippled, etc. I do not think that all of those advocating nuance or moderation in this thread suffer from the bloated amygdala ( :eek: ), but even if they did — Why not show pity and help train the handicapped?
Thank you Mr. Befriender for the more nuanced response to the (alleged) shitbags.
+++
I’ve objected to large-scale “Women In Media” events organised by professional bodies of which I’m a member and said organisation’s efforts to promote everything women working in the media do, when they are not providing the same promotion efforts to “men in media”.
There are female-only grants available, but not men-only grants.
Women make up the large majority of journalists and PR folks in this country; they’re not a minority or oppressed and the media is running increasingly more “lifestyle” and “soft” news, with advertising increasingly targeted at female audiences and about typically female-appealing subjects.
That’s no criticism of the journalists/PR folks themselves - many of them are fantastic and extremely talented - but the point remains professional bodies think it’s OK to organise “Yay women in media!” events, but an event for “Yay men in media!” would be torn to shreds on social media and IRL by the offenderati.
Cite?
ETA: oh wait I foundonebut it doesn’t support your claim