I most certainly do as long as its private citizens who aren't violating an agreement they signed with with an employer. In such cases, its a dispute that needs to be adjudicated between both parties. I do think Houston shouldn't be doing this to her retroactively though.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I most certainly do as long as its private citizens who aren't violating an agreement they signed with with an employer. In such cases, its a dispute that needs to be adjudicated between both parties. I do think Houston shouldn't be doing this to her retroactively though.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 36,199
Why should state money go to BDS promoters when the concept of BDS is completely contrary to US policy ?
You aren't expressing openness and a willingness to see different ideas expressed if that willingness stops the moment it goes against US policy.
Borden
New Member
if these people cared about speech and censorship at all they would be writing about the fact that texas (among other states) bars state money from going to anyone involved in BDS or the reporters who face jail time for reporting on the j20 protests
If you think genocide is wrong then why have I never seen you condemn the Rwandan genocide?
Is that evidence that you don't think genocide is wrong, or am I being an idiot?
Yeah, but criticising Israel isn't free speech, it's only a free speech issue when you're attempting to turn black and brown people into subhumans for an upcoming genocide.
Free speech isn't in question in this case - but an entity like a University does have the right to negotiate terms of employment with their contractors and/or employees. Albeit not retroactively.
Silva
Full Member
every timeor am I being an idiot?
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 36,199
If you think genocide is wrong then why have I never seen you condemn the Rwandan genocide?
Is that evidence that you don't think genocide is wrong, or am I being an idiot?
He's (rightfully) pointing out that these right-wingers who champion free speech only ever tend to be championing freedom of speech when it's on issues that affect their own side. It's a bit tenuous in a single case but when it applies to the vast majority of issues they discuss it's fair game to call out.
You aren't expressing openness and a willingness to see different ideas expressed if that willingness stops the moment it goes against US policy.
Nonsense. Anti-US views are fairly common around here since most posters are orthodox lefties.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 36,199
Nonsense. Anti-US views are fairly common around here since most posters are orthodox lefties.
I agree. That wasn't the point I was addressing in your post though. Was just pointing out you didn't seem overly concerned about the BDS issue since it was something that ran contrary to US policy.
He's (rightfully) pointing out that these right-wingers who champion free speech only ever tend to be championing freedom of speech when it's on issues that affect their own side. It's a bit tenuous in a single case but when it applies to the vast majority of issues they discuss it's fair game to call out.
That's generally because the process doesn't require the help of Shaprio, Harris, and friends when you have an entire MSM apparatus who are willing to cover racist and free speech incidents that effect their core audience.
I agree. That wasn't the point I was addressing in your post though. Was just pointing out you didn't seem overly concerned about the BDS issue since it was something that ran contrary to US policy.
I don't happen to support US policy on Israel in the present, nor do I support the BDS movement.
Minimalist
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2013
- Messages
- 15,091
These fcukers sure do talk alot for people having their speech restricted.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 36,199
That's generally because the process doesn't require the help of Shaprio, Harris, and friends when you have an entire MSM apparatus who are willing to cover racist and free speech incidents that effect their core audience.
I'm not sure that's the point though. If Shapiro and Peterson inherently care about freedom of speech then they should be discussing issues which affect all sides. If they're not doing that then their interests are clearly skewed, and it highlights that they might not necessarily care about freedom of speech but about freedom of speech when it impacts their side.
I don't include Harris in that because for all the controversy surrounding him in here I don't think he's ever really been fully banded in with the alt-right bunch. Always been seen as closer to Dawkins, Hitchens etc in that regard.
These fcukers sure do talk alot for people having their speech restricted.
They don't talk nearly enough and to a wide enough audience.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 36,199
They don't talk nearly enough and to a wide enough audience.
What does that even mean? As has been pointed out they regularly talk on major shows etc, have strong core audiences and clearly appeal to a lot of people. What's the correct level of exposure for them?
Borden
New Member
He's (rightfully) pointing out that these right-wingers who champion free speech only ever tend to be championing freedom of speech when it's on issues that affect their own side. It's a bit tenuous in a single case but when it applies to the vast majority of issues they discuss it's fair game to call out.
Several of these people aren't right-wingers by any stretch of the imagination. And I don't recall any of them arguing for the repression of speech they don't agree with, not from what I've seen or heard anyway. If you can provide examples of that I'd be interested in seeing it (and frankly it wouldn't surprise me given that less-than-bright people like Dave Rubin are included in the article).
I'm haven't seen a lot of incessantly complaining that their free-speech is being curtailed from them either for that matter. More lamenting the state of free speech on the far-left these days, notably the insane smear-campaigns and attempts to destroy people's careers and reputations over nothing, a point which I wholly agree with.
Last edited:
I'm not sure that's the point though. If Shapiro and Peterson inherently care about freedom of speech then they should be discussing issues which affect all sides. If they're not doing that then their interests are clearly skewed, and it highlights that they might not necessarily care about freedom of speech but about freedom of speech when it impacts their side.
I don't include Harris in that because for all the controversy surrounding him in here I don't think he's ever really been fully banded in with the alt-right bunch. Always been seen as closer to Dawkins, Hitchens etc in that regard.
Their core schtick isn't being free speech advocates - Harris has his schtick on Atheism, morality, free will etc. Peterson has an entirely different one, as does Nawaz, Shapiro and the rest of them. There is no common thread other than that their ideas are generally shunned in contemporary debate, when they should be debated more, not shut down.
Minimalist
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2013
- Messages
- 15,091
They don't talk nearly enough and to a wide enough audience.
What are you on about? They never fcuking stop. Or am I missing sarcasm?
Silva
Full Member
Fuhrer, apparently.What does that even mean? As has been pointed out they regularly talk on major shows etc, have strong core audiences and clearly appeal to a lot of people. What's the correct level of exposure for them?
What does that even mean? As has been pointed out they regularly talk on major shows etc, have strong core audiences and clearly appeal to a lot of people. What's the correct level of exposure for them?
Its not about the individuals in question - but rather that a broader set of ideas should be debated in popular culture. Currently, people have to go fishing on YouTube, Reddit and Twitter to ferret out these debates when said ideas should be more prominently talked about on MSM outlets.
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
I most certainly do as long as its private citizens who aren't violating an agreement they signed with with an employer. In such cases, its a dispute that needs to be adjudicated between both parties. I do think Houston shouldn't be doing this to her retroactively though.
literally 30 minutes ago you were saying how these right wingers are being oppressed because they dont get to appear on tv enough or there arent as many fawning articles in papers of record as there should be and now you think its fine to force people to sign loyalty oaths to a foreign country before they can lecture about plate tectonics at waco community college
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
Free speech isn't in question in this case - but an entity like a University does have the right to negotiate terms of employment with their contractors and/or employees. Albeit not retroactively.
its a public university and a texas state law.
its a public university and a texas state law.
Do states have a right to enact laws that meet their community standards ?
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
If you think genocide is wrong then why have I never seen you condemn the Rwandan genocide?
Is that evidence that you don't think genocide is wrong, or am I being an idiot?
ok
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
Do states have a right to enact laws that meet their community standards ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Minimalist
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2013
- Messages
- 15,091
Its not about the individuals in question - but rather that a broader set of ideas should be debated in popular culture. Currently, people have to go fishing on YouTube, Reddit and Twitter to ferret out these debates when said ideas should be more prominently talked about on MSM outlets.
Some of stuff put out by Peterson, Rubin, Shaprio is absolute drivel. There's no conspiracy about their views not being top of the news every night.
I don't see Chapo Trap House-like content on my TV either.
And now Fox News has that moron buddy of Rubin, Candace Owens on full blast all the time from what I can see.
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
Its not about the individuals in question - but rather that a broader set of ideas should be debated in popular culture. Currently, people have to go fishing on YouTube, Reddit and Twitter to ferret out these debates when said ideas should be more prominently talked about on MSM outlets.
what are mainstream media outlets in your opinion? the new york times? the wall street journal? the washington post? NBC? FOX? MSNBC? these people are prominently featured there
Some of stuff put out by Peterson, Rubin, Shaprio is absolute drivel. There's no conspiracy about their views not being top of the news every night.
I don't see Chapo Trap House-like content on my TV either.
Some is and some isn't. That's all subjective. The overarching point being that they should be heard, as should their critics.
what are mainstream media outlets in your opinion? the new york times? the wall street journal? the washington post? NBC? FOX? MSNBC? these people are prominently featured there
All the usual "liberal media" suspects excluding Fox.
Silva
Full Member
Is Fox different from FOX?
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
Some of stuff put out by Peterson, Rubin, Shaprio is absolute drivel. There's no conspiracy about their views not being top of the news every night.
I don't see Chapo Trap House-like content on my TV either.
conservatives control every branch of the federal government. they control a large majority of state governments. the flagship lib paper features david brooks, ross douthat, brett stephens and bari weiss. and yet they still complain about being oppressed.
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
Some is and some isn't. That's all subjective. The overarching point being that they should be heard, as should their critics.
except if they support bds. then they have no right to be heard
Minimalist
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2013
- Messages
- 15,091
Genuine proposal: put Shapiro, Rubin etc on some kind of Kardashian's level programme following them day to day as the mutter about the 'regressive left' like homeless alcoholics. That's the level of respect they deserve.
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
All the usual "liberal media" suspects excluding Fox.
and yet all of them feature these brave dark web warriors prominently
Silva
Full Member
The law is worse than that. They no right to any government resources.except if they support bds. then they have no right to be heard
Genuine proposal: put Shapiro, Rubin etc on some kind of Kardashian's level programme following them day to day as the mutter about the 'regressive left' like homeless alcoholics. That's the level of respect they deserve.
Rather than attempt to suppress them because you disagree with their views - why not put them on a proper debate stage with their critics, negotiate a moderator and ground rules and let them hash it out on national tv.
and yet all of them feature these brave dark web warriors prominently
I wouldn't say prominently. The only one vaguely pushing them is Maher - obviously because he agrees with their views. Other appearances are generally one offs.
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
I wouldn't say prominently. The only one vaguely pushing them is Maher - obviously because he agrees with their views. Other appearances are generally one offs.
Bari Weiss posts this type of article every couple months in the new york time, the paper of record in this country
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
Rather than attempt to suppress them because you disagree with their views - why not put them on a proper debate stage with their critics, negotiate a moderator and ground rules and let them hash it out on national tv.
Great let's give bds supporters as much exposure as we give Jordan Peterson and ben Shapiro
Great let's give bds supporters as much exposure as we give Jordan Peterson and ben Shapiro
I have no issue with that at all. Let them debate the pros and cons of Israel policy - something that isn't done nearly enough.
Minimalist
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2013
- Messages
- 15,091
Rather than attempt to suppress them because you disagree with their views - why not put them on a proper debate stage with their critics, negotiate a moderator and ground rules and let them hash it out on national tv.
Why? What does a debate do? I agree with Sam Harris a lot of the time but even when he went against critics in debate (and in my view won), it didn't make any difference to those of the opposite opinion. A debate does feck all.
My legit interest is in why people can't see through shitty arguments. I don't actually care about the individuals like Shapiro etc. He's a qualified lawyer - he can lie his ass off and look after himself.
Share: