Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

SophistiKat

Political Correctness

Recommended Posts

Triple Vacuum Seal

Folks thinking college campuses are sensitive ain't seen nothing yet. Check out corporate America. We were prohibited from having jack-o-lanterns in the our offices during the fall (even behind our doors/out of sight) because the resemblance to a skeleton might offend Christians who free-associate it with Satan and sacrilege. I dgaf about office decorations personally, but it speaks volumes about the origins of PC culture. PC is a predominantly corporate phenomena nowadays.


The state should muzzle you. If my right to free speech evaporates alongside yours I'll call it a big win.


We have too much 'freedom of speech'? The most obvious problem with this selective authoritarianism is as follows...

"Hello state. Please censor me because I need to be safe from having my feelings hurt, but it's not your place to protect me from pollutants, unscrupulous health insurance companies, predatory banks, a corrupt campaign finance system, the electoral college, and an urban housing crisis. The real power lies with these edgy people who say mean things."

We can take a piss on a forum? Big deal. If anything's getting muzzled, it needs to be corporate influence on the public.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

 

I still never said that "Republicans should get shot."

I'm not even going to repeat what you did say about how they should be killed, because of how truly utterly reprehensible it was.

 

Do you not see any irony in railing against 'PC culture' while handwringing over--and refusing to even repeat--El_D's post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Smith

^Bit of a difference between bringing attention to somebody apparently essentially calling for the murder of people, and being offended by the skin colour of a glass of milk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

This is what puzzles me, though. On one hand, Euty is calling for every kind of bigotry to be, if not accepted, them made legally permissible as he's a proponent of the notion that addressing these beliefs is the best way of disrupting them (not something I inherently disagree with) and that hate speech isn't measurably harmful unless it calls directly for acts of violence (which I don't agree with at all). But here he is refusing to even address the statement made by another poster as to abhorrent too even repeat.

 

It does definitely strike me as at least a mild hypocrisy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

 

I still never said that "Republicans should get shot."

I'm not even going to repeat what you did say about how they should be killed, because of how truly utterly reprehensible it was.

Do you not see any irony in railing against 'PC culture' while handwringing over--and refusing to even repeat--El_D's post?

 

all because the GOP would rather stoke historical racism and fear mongering and cry about losing an election than actually attempt to help govern the country. they should be strung up by their heels, slashed at the wrists, and allowed to bleed out dry on the Capitol steps for all of us to watch; you know the kind of treatment truly befitting of treasonous traitors.

Are you happy now? Furthermore, I can't remember ever using the word combination 'PC culture'. As for the Republican shooting incident post, I just can't be bothered looking it up, because it contributes nothing to the discussion, and because a discussion about Diablo as a person is not worth my time. The post that I did repost which Chiari dug up is plenty.

 

and that hate speech isn't measurably harmful unless it calls directly for acts of violence (which I don't agree with at all).

 

Read this from the previous page:

 

An issue with free speech is that it gives people a large amount of space to be unreasonable, hateful, and divisive. Freedom helps eroding cohesion. Part of the reason why modern societies are so ideologically polarized, why there is so much hate between 'liberals' and 'conservatives', is because they are so radically free, and secularized. Anything other than a large amount of free speech is outdated and horribly oppressive. But free speech is also part of the increasing atomization of individuals in society.

 

The theme in your comment is really, if a freedom can be used for something bad, then people shouldn't have it. What I would say to this is that the very essence of freedom is that you can use it for evil. Without the freedom to do evil there is no freedom at all. On the premise that we do not deserve the freedom to do harmful things, we all deserve to be in prison. Abolishing freedom to completely rule out the possibility of someone with bad intentions using freedom for harm, is like using a flamethrower to cut your lawn. We could very well move to a 1984 like future where an AI determines, just like you, that human beings are simply too fallible and malicious to deserve freedom, and that is a dystopian future I wish to avoid.

 

But personally I'm on the libertarian side on the topic of free speech. This doesn't mean I have no understanding of the harm people can do under this freedom.

 

I don't think you've been reading up.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

It's because all this anti-PC crusading does't come from a place of concern over civil liberties or principles of free speech, it comes from a hatred of girls on tumblr at best or marginalised groups at worse. This is why people in here are pretending that laughing at widely despised people getting hurt is somehow tantamount to calling for the actual murder of specific people and not incredibly common, edgy rhetoric. People on comedy panel shows make jokes about guillotining bankers or whatever. If this were 2005 and Kanye West fell down a well there'd be jokes about how we should leave him down there.

 

If they actually gave a f*ck about free speech they'd first off be more concerned about police lumping up leftists than Clarkson getting fired or whatever, and they'd also care about PC sensitivity more broadly: you can't say 'f*ck' even on entertainment that's supposed to be consumed only by adults and pilots get fired for being like "we're coming into the airport flush yer drugs lol."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

If leftists were arrested on the basis of their speech, I would be gravely concerned, but then again I'm not sure where in the Western world that is actually occurring. I mean, except maybe if you consider leftist extremists organising vandalism and violence online, which the authorities should most definitely crack down on.

It's because all this anti-PC crusading does't come from a place of concern over civil liberties or principles of free speech

I mean, sure, sometimes it doesn't. And Canada's bill C-16 doesn't come from a place where leftists want to protect trans people. It comes from a place where leftists want to mandate speech and control the linguistic territory. I mean, you can keep making up tu quoques and keep on poisoning wells, but why don't you go take a look at your little buddies? The far right and the far left actually both see free speech as just a tool for their agenda, and not as a principle. Hence why in the 60's the left on campuses was a driving force behind free speech and civil liberties, and now that they have fully accomplished their speaking rights, want to shut the speech of their political opponents down.

This is why people in here are pretending that laughing at widely despised people getting hurt is somehow tantamount to calling for the actual murder of specific people and not incredibly common, edgy rhetoric

Nah, you are moving the goalposts. You can't argue for hate speech laws criminalizing the right, saying that people should be 'decent', and then also simultaneously like the posts of a rambling maniac that thinks it's a silly joke to say it would be good or fair if Republicans were murdered. That makes you an utter hypocrite and an imbecile.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dacelo

I mean, sure, sometimes it doesn't. And Canada's bill C-16 doesn't come from a place where leftists want to protect trans people. It comes from a place where leftists want to mandate speech and control the linguistic territory.

Stop getting all your political opinions from Peterson and you'll realise that referring to people the way that they'd like to be referred to isn't 'speech control', it's common courtesy.

 

 

 

mfw someone asks me to stop being a stubborn old man and be decent to people

 

jordanpeterson.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

you'll realise that referring to people the way that they'd like to be referred to isn't 'speech control', it's common courtesy.

Mandating speech by law, is not speech control? I think you are incredibly silly and disingenuous here. Mandating speech has nothing to do with courtesy. Courtesy occurs on the basis of choice. Forcing someone to be courteous does not result in courtesy. In fact, it veils courtesy, because there is no option to not adopt the predetermined norm, and therefore no way to know if it has been followed voluntarily or out of coercion. Mandating speech thus undermines and destroys the idea of courtesy.

 

Stop getting all your political opinions from Peterson

Even if I did this, which I don't, it would be vastly preferable to getting my views from someone unable to use critical reflection such as you, and who spouts self evident absurdities.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dacelo

Think of it less like 'forcing people to be courteous' and more like 'giving an incentive to not be a dick to people for no reason'.

People like Peterson should really be thankful for stuff like bill c-16, it's basically just insurance to make sure you don't expose yourself as a dickhead in public. Really, they're doing a service to him; though he can still reveal how much of a salty old bastard he is on Youtube inbetween the BS self-help videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

Think of it less like 'forcing people to be courteous' and more like 'giving an incentive to not be a dick to people for no reason'.

I don't think of it that way, because that's not what it is. "Think of this turd as being a delicate flower". No.

 

it's basically just insurance to make sure you don't expose yourself as a dickhead in public.

Ah, I see. And so are people saying "Trump is Hitler" "masculinity is toxic" or "all white people are racist" very nice as opposed to those awful conservatives? What a depressing lens your view of the world must. Your ability to discern who the 'dickheads' are is fundamentally godawful.

 

Really, they're doing a service to him; though he can still reveal how much of a salty old bastard he is on Youtube inbetween the BS self-help videos.

I guess Peterson is not for you, and you can go back to leftist videos about how all white people are complicit and guilty of something they've never participated in, and how masculinity is toxic, and how we should actually all loath ourselves and be pathetic.

 

Are you a shadow account of Melchior or something?

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dacelo

I'm not gonna engage with your examples of 'very nice' statements because two of them aren't comparable since they aren't targeting an individual and the other is being rude to the president which should always be allowed whether it's coming from the left or the right (provided it isn't out of bigotry).

 

When someone asks to just be referred to as 'they' and you refuse because you don't agree with it, you're making a concious decision to be a dickhead to them because your social politics differ from theirs (note how easy it is to just slip 'they' and 'their' into your speech? A child could manage it!).

If a transgender person asks you to use feminine or masculine pronouns and you refuse, you're making a concious decision to be a dick to them.

 

Both of these examples seem pretty objective dickhead moves to me, but I'm not a university professor who, and I quote, would not agree to use prefered pronouns if he 'could detect that ... they were [asking me] with political motives'. As though he has some kind of sixth sense when someone is trying to use cooltchural maakzism against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

When someone asks to just be referred to as 'they' and you refuse because you don't agree with it, you're making a concious decision to be a dickhead to them because your social politics differ from theirs (note how easy it is to just slip 'they' and 'their' into your speech? A child could manage it!).

"Those who have different views from me are dickheads" ----> the sophistication of your thought

And then you call others 'childish'. How hilarious.

 

If a transgender person asks you to use feminine or masculine pronouns and you refuse, you're making a concious decision to be a dick to them.

I would use male or female pronouns on request generally. I have done so in the past. On the gender neutral ones, I have some serious issues and doubts. And I think addressing someone with a plural is idiotic. But really, this is besides the point. What is relevant here is that I should have the choice what words I use, and that mandating speech is insane.

 

a university professor who, and I quote, would not agree to use prefered pronouns if he 'could detect that ... they were [asking me] with political motives'.

Well, he's completely right. Making the idea that gender and sex are completely seperate independent phenomena law, is turning something into law that is empirically false. So he is spot on. Turning leftist ideology into law and mandating everyone to abide by it is utter insanity.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

^Bit of a difference between bringing attention to somebody apparently essentially calling for the murder of people, and being offended by the skin colour of a glass of milk.

 

 

I don't think El_D was actually advocating for the murder of anyone, though. There's a pretty big difference between a flippant remark and an actual call for violence. I just find it odd that no speech is off limits, yet El_D's remarks are--apparently--too reprehensible and offensive to even repeat. Isn't that an example of 'political correctness' in of itself?

 

Are you happy now? Furthermore, I can't remember ever using the word combination 'PC culture'.

 

 

You may not have used that exact phrase. This doesn't detract from my point, though.

 

If leftists were arrested on the basis of their speech, I would be gravely concerned, but then again I'm not sure where in the Western world that is actually occurring.

 

 

 

Or you would applaud it, just like you do when it actually happens. You practically celebrated the mass arrest of 200 people at Trump's Inauguration, and you cheered on German authorities when they cracked down on IndyMedia. Come off it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

Are you happy now? Furthermore, I can't remember ever using the word combination 'PC culture'.

You may not have used that exact phrase. This doesn't detract from my point, though.

It does detract from your point, because you made it seem as if you were ridiculing a term I used, eventhough I think I've never used that term.

 

Or you would applaud it, just like you do when it actually happens. You practically celebrated the mass arrest of 200 people at Trump's Inauguration, and you cheered on German authorities when they cracked down on IndyMedia. Come off it.

Oh, sure. And if you quoted my next sentence, you'd be aware why.

 

Isn't that an example of 'political correctness' in of itself?

The fact that I don't really like posting and repeating vile descriptions of violence is not political correctness, nope. You've got it all wrong. I'm also not prohibiting, or even discouraging, other people from posting them. I am discouraging people from making vile violent threats though. But if you think that that is 'pc', and the same thing as prohibiting someone from saying "minorities are overrepresented in crime" "men and women are different" etc.. Then your perspective is out of whack.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

It does detract from your point, because you made it seem as if you were ridiculing a term I used, eventhough I think I've never used that term.

 

It makes no difference whether or not you've used the phrase 'PC culture', it's a common phrase and at no point did I attribute it to you.

 

 

Oh, sure. And if you quoted my next sentence, you'd be aware why.

 

 

I'm already aware that you are a hypocrite and completely full of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

The fact that I don't really like posting and repeating vile descriptions of violence is not political correctness, nope.

 

 

That's 'political correctness' to a T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

I'm already aware that you are a hypocrite and completely full of it.

Normally the epithet 'hypocrite' has some sort of argument supporting it as a claim. It's funny that you fail giving such an argument, and then also call me 'full of it'.

 

That's 'political correctness' to a T.

No, it's really not. The fact that I wouldn't like reposting the grave details of a murder case for instance, is actually completely apolitical. It has nothing to do with politics. I would concede that just as political correctness it has to do with sensibilities. But I've never argued that people shouldn't ever consider sensibilities. Often that is a good idea actually. I would also not post porn on this forum, but no, that's not political correctness.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dacelo

"Those who have different views from me are dickheads" ----> the sophistication of your thought

And then you call others 'childish'. How hilarious.

You missed my point. If people have different views, fine, whatever, but when you refuse to come to a compromise and act like a dick to people because your social politics differ from theirs that's real dickhead behaviour. Feel free to miss the point again and act like being rude to the president is somehow comparable to acting like an ass to another regular person if you want.

 

What is relevant here is that I should have the choice what words I use, and that mandating speech is insane.

Just like you should have the choice whether to refer to a gay person as 'fa**ot' if you want and never face any repercussions?

 

 

Well, he's completely right. Making the idea that gender and sex are completely seperate independent phenomena law, is turning something into law that is empirically false. So he is spot on. Turning leftist ideology into law and mandating everyone to abide by it is utter insanity.

I kind of feel like we're done here if you're gonna pull the whole 'my understanding of biology and sex ends at grade school biology textbooks' sh*t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

Feel free to miss the point again and act like being rude to the president is somehow comparable to acting like an ass to another regular person if you want.

It sort of is pretty similar. But you are really failing to make a clear point here.

 

Just like you should have the choice whether to refer to a gay person as 'fa**ot' if you want and never face any repercussions?

Well, you see, not every time someone acts rude or offensive the authorities should get involved. Imagine if I walk up to a random fat person on the street and call them 'lardo', that's certainly very sh*tty and rude. But should the police get involved? Probably not. Because we are not toddlers that need the nanny state state to protect our fragile sensibilities. And what I take issue with even more strongly is predesignating homosexuals as a group of fragile toddlers who need the nanny state to protect their feelings from the hurtful word 'fa**ot', because I think that is incredibly condescending.

 

I kind of feel like we're done here if..

That is perfectly fine by me really.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dacelo

"If you ever stand up for anyone you're evil because you think they're fragile"

lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

You don't need to stand up for someone who can stand up for themself. Standing up for someone, even in cases where it is well intentioned, can be condescending, yes. And yes, sometimes people can 'protect' others to infantilize them, and manipulate them. That's perfectly possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

Normally the epithet 'hypocrite' has some sort of argument supporting it as a claim. It's funny that you fail giving such an argument, and then also call me 'full of it'.

 

 

It was already proven months ago when you cheered on the DOJ and the German state while claiming to be a proponent of 'free speech'. You are a hypocrite and completely full of sh*t.

 

 

No, it's really not. The fact that I wouldn't like reposting the grave details of a murder case for instance, is actually completely apolitical. It has nothing to do with politics. I would concede that just as political correctness it has to do with sensibilities. But I've never argued that people shouldn't ever consider sensibilities. Often that is a good idea actually. I would also not post porn on this forum, but no, that's not political correctness.

 

 

 

What El_D said is not comparable to either of those things. Your moral outrage and refusal to even repeat his "reprehensible" statement is possibly the most cut and dry example of 'political correctness'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

I have to wonder: do you get some kind of sick pleasure out of seeing violent rhetoric against conservatives? I mean you're pretty much begging for him to quote it so you can see it again. Does it get you off?

 

PS, there's a huge different between being politically incorrect and promoting some kind of radically violent outlook. If you don't understand this maybe a knock-and-talk will demonstrate better than I can explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

I have to wonder: do you get some kind of sick pleasure out of seeing violent rhetoric against conservatives? I mean you're pretty much begging for him to quote it so you can see it again. Does it get you off?

 

I literally can't orgasm unless someone mentions dead politicians.

 

 

PS, there's a huge different between being politically incorrect and promoting some kind of radically violent outlook.

I don't think saying "it's a shame that guy didn't shoot more politicians" is the same thing as 'promoting some kind of radically violent outlook'. I'm also not part of the uptight, humorless, PC thought-police, so maybe that's why I feel that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

If leftists were arrested on the basis of their speech, I would be gravely concerned, but then again I'm not sure where in the Western world that is actually occurring. I mean, except maybe if you consider leftist extremists organising vandalism and violence online, which the authorities should most definitely crack down on.

Oh no, not vandalism!

 

I actually just meant the police hitting people with truncheons and launching gas bombs into crowds, I forgot you were also an apologist for actual arrests and prosecutions on the grounds that the victims were standing in physical proximity to people smashing windows.

 

 

 

I mean, sure, sometimes it doesn't. And Canada's bill C-16 doesn't come from a place where leftists want to protect trans people. It comes from a place where leftists want to mandate speech and control the linguistic territory. I mean, you can keep making up tu quoques and keep on poisoning wells, but why don't you go take a look at your little buddies?

I'm actually more or less opposed to Bill C-16 but not because I listened to Peterson's rants about how it represents leftists taking control of the language, which is the stupidest most melodramatic take on the issue I've ever heard.

 

 

 

Mandating speech by law, is not speech control? I think you are incredibly silly and disingenuous here. Mandating speech has nothing to do with courtesy. Courtesy occurs on the basis of choice. Forcing someone to be courteous does not result in courtesy. In fact, it veils courtesy, because there is no option to not adopt the predetermined norm, and therefore no way to know if it has been followed voluntarily or out of coercion. Mandating speech thus undermines and destroys the idea of courtesy.

Courtesy should indeed be mandated in certain contexts (like for university teachers) and in fact already is. I don't think calling someone "xe/xir" or "mi/ming dynasty" falls under common courtesy but you know what I mean.

 

 

 

The far right and the far left actually both see free speech as just a tool for their agenda, and not as a principle. Hence why in the 60's the left on campuses was a driving force behind free speech and civil liberties, and now that they have fully accomplished their speaking rights, want to shut the speech of their political opponents down.

Are people on the left trying to criminalise speech of any kind? Not really, just stifling discussion in various forms. The idea that people are going to be arrested for disagreeing with the radical left is an absurd, self-aggrandising fantasy from people who want to pretend their opposition to tumblr activists in their early 20s is about more than their own personal issues.

 

 

 

Nah, you are moving the goalposts. You can't argue for hate speech laws criminalizing the right, saying that people should be 'decent'

Legit never said any of this. I'm more or less indifferent to hate speech laws apart from concerns that they could form the basis for laws which protect power; concerns I laid out earlier in the thread. I definitely don't think they're an attempt to criminalise right-wing politics though, they're a genuine attempt on behalf of the state and judiciary to maintain social cohesion and protect people form harm.

 

 

 

I guess Peterson is not for you, and you can go back to leftist videos about how all white people are complicit and guilty of something they've never participated in

Who is saying this though? What exactly are white people being asked to give up to make up for racism?

 

 

 

and how masculinity is toxic

Masculinity is bad. It's actually pretty obvious when performing masculinity is second nature like it is for me.

 

 

 

how we should actually all loath ourselves and be pathetic.

I think the people who are self-loathing and pathetic are the people who cling to the marginal status offered to men and white people and think that any form of self-critique is a form of weakness. I mean responding to feminism with "you're right ladies, I do have unrealistic expectations of women and punching other men is bad!" is a lot braver than shoving your fingers in your ears and being like "nah nah nah I can't hear you!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

It was already proven months ago when you cheered on the DOJ and the German state while claiming to be a proponent of 'free speech'. You are a hypocrite and completely full of sh*t.

So if the far right organized to set your house on fire because they think you are an Antifa üntermensch, and the police would intervene, would you be rooting for their freedom of speech to organize vandalising where you live? It's good you brought it up, but the full of sh*t hypocrite is you in this case.

 

What El_D said is not comparable to either of those things. Your moral outrage and refusal to even repeat his "reprehensible" statement is possibly the most cut and dry example of 'political correctness'.

You can repeat the same garbage argument, without engaging with counterargumentation, and it'll still be a garbage argument. I'm not sure whether you are just disingenuous or fundamentally incompetent to understand what I'm saying here.

 

I forgot you were also an apologist for actual arrests and prosecutions on the grounds that the victims were standing in physical proximity to people smashing windows.

Policing is difficult and messy, and mistakes are made. That doesn't mean we should let scumbags freely destroy property and violently assault police agents by throwing glass or stones and get away with it.

 

Oh no, not vandalism!

It's funny how ridiculously childish you are considering you called yourself a 'full grown man' with the proudness of a three your old some days ago, and keep coming up with the same boring 'edgy' childish schtick.

 

Courtesy should indeed be mandated in certain contexts (like for university teachers) and in fact already is.

It's mandated as part of the job, and that is indeed completely fair and normal. We shouldn't allow teachers to needlessly insult students, of course. But this is mandated as part of the job, not as part of law. A teacher needlessly insulting a student should be fired but not criminally prosecuted.

 

Are people on the left trying to criminalise speech of any kind? Not really, just stifling discussion in various forms. The idea that people are going to be arrested for disagreeing with the radical left is an absurd, self-aggrandising fantasy from people who want to pretend their opposition to tumblr activists in their early 20s is about more than their own personal issues.

Well, yes. We just talked about bill c-16, but in general there is a growing consensus that hate speech, which is often just things conservatives say, should be made illegal, by leftist millennials. Policitical correctness is specifically a growing phenomenon concerning our generation.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

 

40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities. American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data on free speech and media across the globe.

 

Legit never said any of this.

You didn't. But it was the context within which I used Diablo's post. Then you pulled it out of context and claimed people took Diablo's 'silly jokes' too seriously, which was a moving of the goalposts. I was talking about how hypocritical certain left wing posters are in how they treated inflammatory speech from the right compared to that from the left. They see "we should murder Republicans" not as hatespeech, and "black people are less intelligent" as hate speech that should be banned. You can't maintain this distinction unless you are simply arguing the right should be criminalized. But don't veil your intent to criminalize the right as opposition to 'hatespeech', because as my examples indicate, that is clearly horsesh*t. You removed this entire context. I argued in favor of Diablo's freedom to say vile idiotic things. I'm arguing in favor of everyone's right to do so.

 

Masculinity is bad. It's actually pretty obvious when performing masculinity is second nature like it is for me. I think the people who are self-loathing and pathetic are the people who cling to the marginal status offered to men and white people and think that any form of self-critique is a form of weakness.

Clearly you are self loathing if you think masculinity is bad, because you are male. The people unable to respond to feminist arguments are not self loathing per se. I engage with feminist argumentation all the time, so this has no application concerning me at all.

 

I mean responding to feminism with "you're right ladies, I do have unrealistic expectations of women and punching other men is bad!" is a lot braver than shoving your fingers in your ears and being like "nah nah nah I can't hear you!"

That just sounds like something a weasly pathetic self loathing pandering white knight would say. In Western society people in general have all kinds of unreasonable narcissistic expectations, but that is not a specific male thing. It's a cultural general problem. It's also funny to see you saying punching other men is bad, considering the whole Richard Spencer incident.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

 

It was already proven months ago when you cheered on the DOJ and the German state while claiming to be a proponent of 'free speech'. You are a hypocrite and completely full of sh*t.

So if the far right organized to set your house on fire because they think you are an Antifa üntermensch, and the police would intervene, would you be rooting for their freedom of speech to organize vandalising where you live? It's good you brought it up, but the full of sh*t hypocrite is you in this case.

 

Of the 200 people that were arrested during the Inauguration, the evidence is scant that any of them were actually involved in property destruction--or any real crime. It didn't stop you from cheering on the DOJ. I also already refuted the notion that German anarchists were planning 'violent actions' via IndyMedia, because anarchists are more security-conscious than that and aren't planning actions anywhere on the internet. We already discussed this months ago. You refused to address my arguments then, and I'm not interested in having the same argument now, months later.

 

You can repeat the same garbage argument, without engaging with counterargumentation, and it'll still be a garbage argument. I'm not sure whether you are just disingenuous or fundamentally incompetent to understand what I'm saying here.

 

 

 

 

There isn't really any counter-argument worth engaging. It's just like "well this isn't political correctness because i'm just appealing to morality and people's fragile sensibilities--even though that is more-or-less exactly the point of 'political correctness' and is a working example of it in of itself."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

and I'm not interested in having the same argument now, months later.

Then how about stfu and gtfo? You want to throw around big boy words like 'hypocrite' and 'full of sh*t' but you can't back them up. You're an utter coward.

 

the evidence is scant that any of them were actually involved in property destruction--or any real crime.

This is f*cking laughable. There was abundant evidence that was thoroughly mentioned.

 

I also already refuted the notion that German anarchists were planning 'violent actions' via IndyMedia

You didn't refute sh*t. The fact that they were planning the usual vandalism and assault was well documented in the media, and you are really a lying deceitful sniveling sh*t.

 

There isn't really any counter-argument worth engaging.

I thoroughly argued why being unwilling to repeat gory explicit texts is in many cases, and in this case, completely apolitical, and therefore has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with political correctness. But once again, if there is nothing to engage with, you can take the advice to get the f*ck out really.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

in the 60's the left on campuses was a driving force behind free speech and civil liberties, and now that they have fully accomplished their speaking rights, want to shut the speech of their political opponents down.

 

Again, the world is not a college campus. Limiting the scope in such a way is a bit misleading . It's not all about Nazis vs. Antifa either. It's profit-driven corporatist eunuchs vs everyone else. Corporations control language, not oversensitive student activists.

 

 

A few media conglomerates have almost complete ownership of information infrastructure (and most content) in conjunction with state governments. They deliver information. To the extent that such firms are accountable to external authority, they are accountable to a handful of investment banks. They kinda fund information. To convince you that this reality is totally acceptable, we have PR firms who are essentially privatized propagandists. They digest information for you so you don't have to think. Among these message brokers, there are no anti-corporate leftist of any stripe. So it's probably best we lay off the "leftists...control the linguistic territory" shtick. Political correctness was never about the dignity of marginalized peoples; it's just that marginalized peoples buy $hit too. This preoccupation with university snowflakes is quite a distraction from the fact that acceptable speech is mostly dictated by market forces atm.

 

 

 

As far as corporate messaging goes, even if this broadly-conceived left does finally have a mere parity with the moronic blind traditionalism on the right, it would honestly say f*ck all about the former's ability to "shut(down) the speech" of more-relevant capitalist opponents who foster public divisions in the first place. Speech tends to get shut down and pushed to the fringes when it's critical of capitalism. Doesn't it strike you as odd how these emerging young radicals on the left and right, disillusioned, drowning in college debt, and underemployed, result from the same 'free-market' forces that deem them to be economically expendable? Different radical takes on the same economic reality. Economic conditions changed. Century-old radical positions on the far right and left didn't just magically start making more sense.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.