"Ban Free Speech Because Muh Feelings" Tucker Carlson DESTROYS Liberal Professor

by Guest Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:22 am

First topic message reminder :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63lICclWM-k

I could not stop laughing at how hypocritical this regressive Professor is.

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:59 pm

Jules wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
I don't need her to defend me thanks - her defence usually ends up with her licking the boots of the abuser anyway.

There is NO danger of me defending you, ever, and you know it, so don't start on me.

I don't comment when I see you climbing up the ass of extreme types whose values are as far removed from christianity as possible, so keep your hypocrital views to yourself. You are worse than SCUM.

I didn't start on you - I was talking to Didge because he asked if you defended me. Take it up with him. You're really a nasty piece of work Canny, and you used to be OK.

by JulesV Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:01 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Jules wrote:

There is NO danger of me defending you, ever, and you know it, so don't start on me.

I don't comment when I see you climbing up the ass of extreme types whose values are as far removed from christianity as possible, so keep your hypocrital views to yourself. You are worse than SCUM.

I didn't start on you - I was talking to Didge because he asked if you defended me. Take it up with him. You're really a nasty piece of work Canny, and you used to be OK.

YOU are scum and you used to be scum.
One day I REPLIED to Wolfie and you jumped in and claimed I must be desperate to tagteam with him. When in fact the supposed ''victim'' was tagteaming her head off nonstop - but you typically see only what want to see.

Look at all the lowlives who are your tagteaming partners. Don't start judging me and expect not to be judged back.

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:04 pm

Jules wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't start on you - I was talking to Didge because he asked if you defended me. Take it up with him. You're really a nasty piece of work Canny, and you used to be OK.

YOU are scum and you used to be scum.
One day I REPLIED to Wolfie and you jumped in and claimed I must be desperate to tagteam with him. When in fact the supposed ''victim'' was tagteaming her head off nonstop - but you typically see only what want to see.

Look at all the lowlives who are your tagteaming partners. Don't start judging me and expect not to be judged back.

I used to be scum? Is that why you used to be fine with me then - because you're scum too?

Look at the low-lives you mix with - oh sorry, used to mix with, and now even they won't have anything to do with you and your forum.

by JulesV Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:07 pm

I am incredibly happy with my site. Got it just the way I want it, at long last. Thanks for your concern. Now go fight with someone else.

Off you go!

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:12 pm

Jules wrote:I am incredibly happy with my site. Got it just the way I want it, at long last. Thanks for your concern. Now go fight with someone else.

Off you go!

Oh just go away and suck up to someone revolting.

by JulesV Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:27 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Jules wrote:I am incredibly happy with my site. Got it just the way I want it, at long last. Thanks for your concern. Now go fight with someone else.

Off you go!

Oh just go away and suck up to someone revolting.

I am going to apologise for calling you scum, Ragga. There are some folks online who are literally real scum but you are not one of them. It's not a word that should be used lightly so I won't use it on people like you who don't deserve it.

Your habit of treating me like someone with no feelings has often annoyed me, but I don't think you are even aware of this, cos you are simply too wrapped up in yourself, to realise what is going on around you. You may not accept my apology cos it comes with some criticism, but at any rate I have now apologised, that's the main thing. Let's leave it there.

by JulesV Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:39 pm

Yes I've known you for many years and I remember the times we got on very well and even joined forces to ''help others''.

by nicko Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:00 am

Jules, want to give me the name of your site? if your a bit coy PM me.

by Ben Reilly Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:20 am

You know, Hillary Clinton wasn't even talking about the white working class, so that DESTROYS Carlson's entire point, actually:

"In too many places still, LGBT Americans are singled out for harassment and violence. You can get married on Saturday, post your pictures on Sunday and get fired on Monday. That's why we've got to continue the forward march of progress."

"And we cannot do it alone. I cannot do it alone. I'm not like Donald Trump, who says, 'I alone can fix it.' I've never quite figured out what it is he alone can fix. But that's not what you'll hear from me. I think we have to do this together. So, together we're gonna pass the Equality Act to guarantee full equality. We're going to put comprehensive quality affordable healthcare within reach for more people, including for mental health and addiction. We're going to take on youth homelessness, and as my wonderful, extraordinary, great daughter said, we are going to end the cruel and dangerous practice of conversion therapy. We're going to keep working toward an AIDS-free generation, a goal that I set as secretary of state, and with your help we're going to pass comprehensive gun laws. ..."

"I know there are only 60 days left to make our case -- and don't get complacent, don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he's done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."

"But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

Not only did she never identify the "basket of deplorables" in terms of race or class, she went out of her way to point out that a lot of Trump supporters were not, as she put it, "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it."

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:22 am

But she wants to stop Free speech.
I have no doubt Tucker told Fibs, but this is about her shutting down Free Speech.

by Ben Reilly Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:26 am

Thorin wrote:But she wants to stop Free speech.
I have no doubt Tucker told Fibs, but this is about her shutting down Free Speech.

But is it really?

Or is it about hate speech? If you think about what she actually says, she's talking about speech that causes tangible harm to others. Is that not how we define hate speech?

This video's title basically mocks the notion of feelings meaning anything, but don't they? Don't, for example, the feelings of depressed people often lead them to suicide?

Is this a case of free speech being stifled, or harmful speech being regulated? http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/05/us/texting-suicide-case-trial-begins/index.html

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:32 am

Ben Reilly wrote:
Thorin wrote:But she wants to stop Free speech.
I have no doubt Tucker told Fibs, but this is about her shutting down Free Speech.

But is it really?

Or is it about hate speech? If you think about what she actually says, she's talking about speech that causes tangible harm to others. Is that not how we define hate speech?

This video's title basically mocks the notion of feelings meaning anything, but don't they? Don't, for example, the feelings of depressed people often lead them to suicide?

Is this a case of free speech being stifled, or harmful speech being regulated? http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/05/us/texting-suicide-case-trial-begins/index.html

Here we go again in what you deem hate speech, when for example Universities are the one place where they should open discussion on anything.

So what you are saying is that any speech which may offend the feelings o anyone, should be banned or even worse finned and who then judges whether someone is offended? When we already have laws based on discrimination and prejudice? Do you now want to include anyone offended? I find such a notion abhorrent which could quickly lead to just about every comedian being arrested as they may have hurt the feelings of people.

Now what you conflate wrongly is bullying which is wrong and more needs to be done about, but to claim anytime someone feels offended that someone should be told they cannot speak, is what is wrong with how some of the left are shutting down any speak they deem is unacceptable. Such views would shut down any genuine criticism of bad beliefs and ends up backing views like Blasphemy, making society go backwards

What some need to do is grow a backbone and sadly many reasonable speech is being shut down as hate speech, simply because some of the left do not like it.

Again we already have laws that protect people from discrimination and what you propose is absurd.

by Ben Reilly Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:34 am

Thorin wrote:But she wants to stop Free speech.
I have no doubt Tucker told Fibs, but this is about her shutting down Free Speech.

And by the way, if you pay attention, you can tell that the professor is there to have a cordial discussion with the new American king of right-wing cable talk, Tucker Carlson. She could very well have been granting him some amount of right-of-way on his own show to run with a false claim, that Hillary Clinton had denigrated the whole of American working-class whites.

by Ben Reilly Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:35 am

Thorin wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Thorin wrote:But she wants to stop Free speech.
I have no doubt Tucker told Fibs, but this is about her shutting down Free Speech.

But is it really?

Or is it about hate speech? If you think about what she actually says, she's talking about speech that causes tangible harm to others. Is that not how we define hate speech?

This video's title basically mocks the notion of feelings meaning anything, but don't they? Don't, for example, the feelings of depressed people often lead them to suicide?

Is this a case of free speech being stifled, or harmful speech being regulated? http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/05/us/texting-suicide-case-trial-begins/index.html

Here we go again in what you deem hate speech, when for example Universities are the one place where they should open discussion on anything.

So what you are saying is that any speech which may offend the feelings o anyone, should be banned or even worse finned and who then judges whether someone is offended? When we already have laws based on discrimination and prejudice? Do you now want to include anyone offended? I find such a notion abhorrent which could quickly lead to just about every comedian being arrested as they may have hurt the feelings of people.

Now what you conflate wrongly is bullying which is wrong and more needs to be done about, but to claim anytime someone feels offended that someone should be told they cannot speak, is what is wrong with how some of the left are shutting down any speak they deem is unacceptable. Such views would shut down any genuine criticism of bad beliefs and ends up backing views like Blasphemy, making society go backwards

What some need to do is grow a backbone and sadly many reasonable speech is being shut down as hate speech, simply because some of the left do not like it.

Again we already have laws that protect people from discrimination and what you propose is absurd.

You know that's not what I was saying. But I feel your teeth closing around my pant leg and know from bitter experience that it's time to just let you have my pants. Good night.

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:35 am

Ben Reilly wrote:
Thorin wrote:But she wants to stop Free speech.
I have no doubt Tucker told Fibs, but this is about her shutting down Free Speech.

And by the way, if you pay attention, you can tell that the professor is there to have a cordial discussion with the new American king of right-wing cable talk, Tucker Carlson. She could very well have been granting him some amount of right-of-way on his own show to run with a false claim, that Hillary Clinton had denigrated the whole of American working-class whites.

Who cares?
What has that got to do with anything.
Now I think he is an idiot also.
Two wrongs do not make a right, but you defend her and I defend neither.
Also Clinton is corrupt and not someone I would want in power anymore than Trump

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:36 am

Ben Reilly wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Here we go again in what you deem hate speech, when for example Universities are the one place where they should open discussion on anything.

So what you are saying is that any speech which may offend the feelings o anyone, should be banned or even worse finned and who then judges whether someone is offended? When we already have laws based on discrimination and prejudice? Do you now want to include anyone offended? I find such a notion abhorrent which could quickly lead to just about every comedian being arrested as they may have hurt the feelings of people.

Now what you conflate wrongly is bullying which is wrong and more needs to be done about, but to claim anytime someone feels offended that someone should be told they cannot speak, is what is wrong with how some of the left are shutting down any speak they deem is unacceptable. Such views would shut down any genuine criticism of bad beliefs and ends up backing views like Blasphemy, making society go backwards

What some need to do is grow a backbone and sadly many reasonable speech is being shut down as hate speech, simply because some of the left do not like it.

Again we already have laws that protect people from discrimination and what you propose is absurd.

You know that's not what I was saying. But I feel your teeth closing around my pant leg and know from bitter experience that it's time to just let you have my pants. Good night.

Ah, so when all else fails turn this on the poster in me

That always works.

Night

by Original Quill Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:48 am

Ben Reilly wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Here we go again in what you deem hate speech, when for example Universities are the one place where they should open discussion on anything.

So what you are saying is that any speech which may offend the feelings o anyone, should be banned or even worse finned and who then judges whether someone is offended? When we already have laws based on discrimination and prejudice? Do you now want to include anyone offended? I find such a notion abhorrent which could quickly lead to just about every comedian being arrested as they may have hurt the feelings of people.

Now what you conflate wrongly is bullying which is wrong and more needs to be done about, but to claim anytime someone feels offended that someone should be told they cannot speak, is what is wrong with how some of the left are shutting down any speak they deem is unacceptable. Such views would shut down any genuine criticism of bad beliefs and ends up backing views like Blasphemy, making society go backwards

What some need to do is grow a backbone and sadly many reasonable speech is being shut down as hate speech, simply because some of the left do not like it.

Again we already have laws that protect people from discrimination and what you propose is absurd.

You know that's not what I was saying. But I feel your teeth closing around my pant leg and know from bitter experience that it's time to just let you have my pants. Good night.

He's got shit for brains, but he uses his penchant for non-linear reasoning as an asset, innit? And he's like the energizer bunny...keeps going, and going, and going, and going, going, going....

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:51 am

Original Quill wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:

You know that's not what I was saying. But I feel your teeth closing around my pant leg and know from bitter experience that it's time to just let you have my pants. Good night.

He's got shit for brains, but he uses his penchant for non-linear reasoning as an asset, innit? And he's like the energizer bunny...keeps going, and going, and going, and going, going, going....

Ah when all else fails just attack the poster and not his points eh?

by Original Quill Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:07 am

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

He's got shit for brains, but he uses his penchant for non-linear reasoning as an asset, innit? And he's like the energizer bunny...keeps going, and going, and going, and going, going, going....

Ah when all else fails just attack the poster and not his points eh?

I'm just laughing at Ben's words about leaving. It's sooo fookin' hard to break off with you, cause the argument just goes on, and on, and on... Razz

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:09 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Ah when all else fails just attack the poster and not his points eh?

I'm just laughing at Ben's words about leaving. It's sooo fookin' hard to break off with you, cause the argument just goes on, and on, and on...

No you called me shit for brains, that is attacking the poster, simple because you do not agree with my views.

Its not hard to break off at all, its a conscious choice to do so.

Again I express my views, just as Ben has done and yet both you turn this about me and not the points at hand.

Am happy that you do so, as it just reinforces my views being made

by Original Quill Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:23 am

Thorin wrote:No you called me shit for brains, that is attacking the poster, simple because you do not agree with my views.

Oh, that's just a colloquialism. It's short for...he doesn't do it with clever arguments. The point I was making was, you wear a person out with endless talk.

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:27 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:No you called me shit for brains, that is attacking the poster, simple because you do not agree with my views.

Oh, that's just a colloquialism. It's short for...he doesn't do it with clever arguments. The point I was making was, you wear a person out with endless talk.

But the only point you made is about me and not my points. That is misdirection and done deliberately due to the fact you run from tackling my points. Its a sign of desperation and then to use me as a reason to not continue the debate, is poor to say the least. Its what is called a copout and quite frankly myopically stupid.

by Original Quill Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:36 am

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Oh, that's just a colloquialism. It's short for...he doesn't do it with clever arguments. The point I was making was, you wear a person out with endless talk.

But the only point you made is about me and not my points. That is misdirection and done deliberately due to the fact you run from tackling my points. Its a sign of desperation and then to use me as a reason to not continue the debate, is poor to say the least. Its what is called a copout and quite frankly myopically stupid.

Well you didn't have any points in the exchange. It was just between Ben and me. I was laughing and nodding in agreement...that's all. I had just come on-line, and I saw Ben's post and it made me giggle.

Go to sleep. It's late here. Nite.

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:40 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

But the only point you made is about me and not my points. That is misdirection and done deliberately due to the fact you run from tackling my points. Its a sign of desperation and then to use me as a reason to not continue the debate, is poor to say the least. Its what is called a copout and quite frankly myopically stupid.

Well you didn't have any points in the exchange. It was just between Ben and me. I was laughing and nodding in agreement...that's all. I had just come on-line, and I saw Ben's post and it made me giggle.

Go to sleep. It's late here. Nite.

lol, so there you go, you being subjective based on your views, saying I had no views. Even though I did by backing free speech, which Ben wants to censure based off his subjective view as to what he thinks qualifies to being spoken.

I suggest you understand what is Free Speech and why some on the left have done 180 turn on this and now no longer defend Free speech, but want to shut it down instead, based not on reason, but on what they do not like.

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:48 am

Ben Reilly wrote:
Thorin wrote:But she wants to stop Free speech.
I have no doubt Tucker told Fibs, but this is about her shutting down Free Speech.

But is it really?

Or is it about hate speech? If you think about what she actually says, she's talking about speech that causes tangible harm to others. Is that not how we define hate speech?

This video's title basically mocks the notion of feelings meaning anything, but don't they? Don't, for example, the feelings of depressed people often lead them to suicide?

Is this a case of free speech being stifled, or harmful speech being regulated? http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/05/us/texting-suicide-case-trial-begins/index.html

Remember what you said above?
Now I would not ban the speaker below, but surely you would, based on it causing tangible harm?
I would not allow a safe space for this hate to happen behind closed doors, but want it openly debated publicly with people like ourselves to counter such backward views. So lets see how honest you are Ben? Based on whether you would apply your reasoning to this and allow this kind of backward discrimination taught behind closed doors in what is not a safe space but a space to preach hate where it cannot be countered?

For the champions of righteousness, platform pieties and safe space niceties are central to the struggle.
Consider former National Union of Students President Malia Bouattia, for example:

The President of the National Union for Students (NUS) has defended the the union’s No Platform policy, claiming places of education should be “safe spaces in which to debate and discuss ideas”.
…
“We’re not stopping the tearing apart of problematic views and ideas. It’s incredibly naive to believe that unless we provide spaces where racist, xenophobic, homophobic views are aired, that they’re not otherwise known about.”

Here are some views which seem distinctly “unsafe” and best suited to pungent platforms.

The Human Rights Trick
Human rights as they are understood and promoted today are a trick:

Today when we talk of human rights, we look upon it as a political concept. It becomes a slogan that people today talk about the world. The United Nations Charter talks about member states fulfilling the rights and fulfilling the human rights of one another, of its citizens and of fellow citizens for other countries. But today we know what is that human rights. That human rights culture in today’s time is nothing but a guise to bring about imperial hegemony.

Don’t be fooled!

"Ban Free Speech Because Muh Feelings" Tucker Carlson DESTROYS Liberal Professor - Page 2 Amnesty-300x125

Imperialist plotters

Equal Rights For Women? Nonsense!
Modern notions of equal rights for women are actually “manifestly absurd” and “nonsense”. Men have and must have authority over women. Women should not enter the workplace, where their “dignity, honour and respect” would be “undermined”. No, “look after the home, for in that lies your jihad.” Men shouldn’t even shake women’s hands. This is “impermissible”.
If a woman does venture out, mind the rules:

It is not permissible for a Muslim female to travel beyond 48 kilometres without a male mahram [a member of the family who cannot marry the woman]. Which we all know is part of sharia. We cannot deny it.

"Ban Free Speech Because Muh Feelings" Tucker Carlson DESTROYS Liberal Professor - Page 2 Theresa-May-300x196

Not doing jihad. Very, very bad.

Secular Education Must Be Rejected
Secular education is generally “negative”, “harmful”, and “detrimental”. There is no resolution to the conflict with Islam:

The secular system and the Islamic system have opposed views on life. They are based on opposed views and perceptions of life. So it is impossible for that system, that value system, to come into an individual without it having its consequences, bringing in anti-Islamic influences in a community, in a society, in an individual.

This is how bad it can get:

The secular system of education is based on the freedom of the individual. The individual is supreme. It is repeatedly told to you that he is sovereign. He has the right to do as he pleases. Because of this freedom, because of this he being the sovereign and supreme, it brings about in its wake a whole host of freedoms. Freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom to do as he deems fit. To enact laws which he feels are expedient.

If he [sic] feels that he wants to be a gay or a lesbian, he is free to do so, and that system of education would not prevent, but would rather encourage him to follow his particular freedom. This is something which each and every one who goes through this system of education would have to agree.

"Ban Free Speech Because Muh Feelings" Tucker Carlson DESTROYS Liberal Professor - Page 2 The-horror-300x185

”Negative, harmful, detrimental”

But hark, Islam is the solution:

The Islamic system of education never teaches that you are free to do whatever you want.

Defend Homophobes
Speaking of homosexuality, that “perversion” which many people “abhor”, spare a thought for poor Ismail Menk. All the preacher said was that homosexuals are worse than animals. And then his UK university lecture tour was cancelled by the tour organisers.

And this is actually what happens sometimes with regard to people who do not understand their rights, who are not confident with regard to going out there, into the open, and being able to argue what you stand for, and yet not be looked upon as someone who is extreme.

Stand up for hatred!

Disbelievers Are Stupid
Don’t be too proud of your degrees if you are a disbeliever. Actually, you’re an idiot:

The learned are those who fear Allah the most. They are in reality learned. Otherwise, you can have a whole host of degrees, a whole host of Ph.Ds. But if it does not bring you closer towards Allah, you might have those degrees, but in the words of the Qur’an and hadith, you are an informed illiterate. You might be informed, but you are illiterate.

Otherwise, how can you answer, that a person is supposed to be a Ph.D, he has all the things, and you ask him what is his religion, and he will say “I am an agnostic. I do not believe in anything”. Is that person intelligent? Can you call him an intelligent person no matter how much Ph.Ds he has? He is an informed illiterate. He is not intelligent in the least.

"Ban Free Speech Because Muh Feelings" Tucker Carlson DESTROYS Liberal Professor - Page 2 Bertrand-Russell-300x236

A man of no intelligence

Who Said That?
So, who made these remarks? Ah, none other than Ebrahim Bham in hissermons. He is a scheduled speaker at Ismail Patel’s “Palestine Expo” at the QE II Centre in Westminster on July 8 and 9.
And who will be sharing that very space and platform with him? Malia Bouattia. With the backing of the NUS.
LSE is keen too.

"Ban Free Speech Because Muh Feelings" Tucker Carlson DESTROYS Liberal Professor - Page 2 LSE-backs-Palestine-Expo-300x262

"Ban Free Speech Because Muh Feelings" Tucker Carlson DESTROYS Liberal Professor - Page 2 LSE-backs-Palestine-Expo-300x262

If you like hypocrisy as well as deranged hatred of Israel, the QE II Centre will be a very safe space indeed next weekend.

http://hurryupharry.org/2017/07/03/platform-pieties-safe-spaces-and-palestine-expo/

by 'Wolfie Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:55 am

Tucker Carlson is a wanker...

by Original Quill Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:24 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tucker Carlson is a wanker...

Yeah, he is. If Faux News is going to invest their future in that intellectual elf, they're in for a whole lot of hurt. Evil or Very Mad

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tucker Carlson is a wanker...

Yeah, he is. If Faux News is going to invest their future in that intellectual elf, they're in for a whole lot of hurt.

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:35 pm

You see that was the great thing about Christopher Hitchins, that he could bridge the gap between left and right.

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:42 pm

by Original Quill Tue Jul 04, 2017 6:13 pm

Hitchens is a very clever and level speaker. But he never addresses what Laura Beth Nielson addresses in her talk with Carlson about repressive tolerance. He still assumes the 18th-century model of authority suppressing speech.

He speaks of Mill's 19th-century view of the issue, that there is just a yes-no, authoritative aspect to free speech. What Mill says, and Hitchens quotes, is that free speech is vouchsafed by preventing authority from shutting it down. This misses the point.

What if it is not authority, but the people in all their common habits that shut down free speech? That's what Tocqueville meant by his chapter title, "Tyranny of the Majority", in Democracy in America. It's not the police, or some dictator, but the majority of the people themselves…people who won’t listen. And Marcuse only picked it up, in offering a remedy: repression of that tyranny...free speech.

In other words, the topic shifts from free speech to free listening. It is not authority that shuts down free exchange of ideas, but the willingness to listen. And the authority is not government, but it is us...in our unwillingness to listen.

The fact is, advertisers and modern marketing has learned this far sooner that politicians. The key to getting people to listen is repetiton...over and over, in TV advertising. You asked for it, you got it. Toyoooota....over, and over, and over, again. That's the way you overcome the tyranny of the majority. Not repressive tolerance, but outshouting!

Yes, the people who wrote that Toyota ad got what it took Marcuse books to write.

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 6:23 pm

Original Quill wrote:Hitchens is a very clever and level speaker. But he never addresses what Laura Beth Nielson addresses repressive tolerance.

He speaks of Mill's 19th-century view of the issue, that there is just a yes-no, authoritative aspect to free speech. What Mill says, and Hitchens quotes, is that free speech is vouchsafed by preventing authority from shutting it down. This misses the point.

What if it is not authority, but the people in all their common habits that shut it down? That's what Tocqueville meant by his chapter title, "Tyranny of the Majority", in Democracy in America. Marcuse only picked it up, in offering a remedy: repression of that tyranny...free speech.

In other words, the topic shifts from free speech to free listening. It is not authority that shuts down free exchange of ideas, but the willingness to listen. And the authority is not government, but it is us...in our unwillingness to listen.

The fact is, advertisers and modern marketing has learned this far sooner that politicians. The key to getting people to listen is repetiton...over and over, in TV advertising. You asked for it, you got it. Toyoooota....over, and over, and over, again. That's the way you overcome the tyranny of the majority. Not repressive tolerance, but outshouting!

Yes, the people who wrote that Toyota ad got what it took Marcuse books to write.

He does not have to address it as he is now dead and sadly we have come to see the tyranny of the majority in the left in Universities trying to shut down free speech. That is the reality of the tyranny of the majority as it now comes from the left in places of learning. When all forms of topic should be open to debate.

So the only intolerance being seen is like where we had the riots in Berkeley. That is the intolerance being seen today. The reality is we are seen as stated before where the left fought for free speech, we now see the new left try to shut it down based off a subjective view based around speech they like or dislike. Those who fought would be ashamed of what they see and many on the left are just appalled at what they are seeing.

So it does not matter what the content of that speech is, only that it should be allowed to take place but will counter views to reason over whether something has merit or not.

The fact that you are unwilling to listen has been the problem through centuries. Just when the Church did not want to listen themselves to Free speech and ideas that brought about secularism, science and enlightenment. It was people who did not want to listen, that wanted to continue on with Slavery. So to say you do not want to listen is being blind to then any issue. As you truly never understand any issue.

by Original Quill Tue Jul 04, 2017 6:27 pm

Thorin wrote:He does not have to address it as he is now dead and sadly we have come to see the tyranny of the majority in the left in Universities trying to shut down free speech.

The "majority" does not attend university. If the majority is not there, let alone in control, the universities are not the problem. Your own self-contradiction makes the point.

You have misunderstood the problem, so you unable to discuss a remedy.

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 6:31 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:He does not have to address it as he is now dead and sadly we have come to see the tyranny of the majority in the left in Universities trying to shut down free speech.

The "majority" does not attend university. If the majority is not there, let alone in control, the universities are not the problem. Your own self-contradiction makes the point.

We are talking about those within Universities who are the majority politically who get to decide who speaks and as seen riot to stop others speak
So the Universities are part of the problem
Take this case in point
Evergreen College

by Original Quill Tue Jul 04, 2017 6:57 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The "majority" does not attend university. If the majority is not there, let alone in control, the universities are not the problem. Your own self-contradiction makes the point.

We are talking about those within Universities who are the majority politically who get to decide who speaks and as seen riot to stop others speak
So the Universities are part of the problem
Take this case in point
Evergreen College

No, you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. As neither the students nor the administration of universities are a 'majority', you are not even addressing the right problem of tyranny of the majority.

You are just out of the loop.

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 6:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

We are talking about those within Universities who are the majority politically who get to decide who speaks and as seen riot to stop others speak
So the Universities are part of the problem
Take this case in point
Evergreen College

No, you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. As neither the students nor the administration of universities are a 'majority', you are not even addressing the right problem of tyranny of the majority.

You are just out of the loop.

Not trying to fit anything but showing you the reality
Again where the problem is within Universities is the Tyranny of the majority of Leftist students, which is ironic being as you started off on the concept of the tyranny of the majority

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:06 pm

The student Left’s culture of intolerance is creating a new generation of conservatives.

Student demands for censorship get a lot of coverage. Spiked Online’s Free Speech University Rankings, now in its third annual edition, argues that there is a “crisis of free speech on campus”. By analysing the censorious policies and actions that have taken place on British campuses, Spiked concluded that 63.5 per cent of universities actively censor speech and 30.5 per cent stifle speech through excessive regulation. You can barely go a few days without encountering a new op-ed covering censorship on campus.

Maajid Nawaz describes the students demanding censorship as members of the “regressive left”. Milo Yiannopoulos calls them “snowflakes”. With all of this book-burning and platform-denying madness sweeping up much of the media’s interest in campus culture, the gradual rise of another group of students has gone under-reported. British and American millennials and post-millennials – also known as ‘Gen Z’ – are warming to conservatism. To understand why this is happening, it is important to consider the vast changes that have taken place in Western student politics over the last fifty years.

Students were once in favour of free speech. In the mid-1960s, students of the University of California, Berkeley undertook a mass-movement for free speech. Under the leadership of Leftist heroes like Jack Weinberg, Bettina Aptheker and Jackie Goldberg, students demanded that the university administration retracted their on-campus ban of political activities. They demanded their freedom of speech. Mario Savio delivered what is generally recognised as the iconic speech of the University of California, Berkeley's (UCB) free speech movement. Here is the speech’s most powerful section:

“There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it — that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!”

Savio’s speech helped push the movement towards success. Berkeley students won their full rights. Students, now liberated from the “machine” of university censorship, were able to create the anti-Vietnam student movement, another famous campus protest. Nowadays, the student Left are unwilling to honour Savio’s legacy. On the 2nd of February, violent protests at Berkeley shut down a talk by popular conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos. Instead of maintaining a liberal and free atmosphere for speech and argument, Berkeley students have become the gears, wheels and levers of the machine that Savio wanted to stop.

In the space of fifty years, Berkeley students have gone from rioting against a university administration that limited their freedom of speech to violently opposing the presence of a speaker they disagree with. In the modern era, students have often been attracted to the politics of the Left. 1968 saw pivotal student protests around the world. In the United States, students were central to the civil rights movement. In France, students joined forces with millions of striking workers to protest against capitalism.

The conservative philosopher Roger Scruton was in Paris during the 1968 riots and has said that it was whilst witnessing the uprising that he became a conservative.

The violence at Berkeley mirrors the street protests in Paris from 1968. Privileged and excitable students living in one of the most blessed parts of the world went out and created havoc in order to overthrow an opponent that they refused to tolerate. The Parisians, at least, had a deeper political cause – but the Berkeley students carried out the ugliest form of protest. It is the form of protest that says “I don’t like that view, therefore you must not be allowed to express it” and it is causing a lot of students to have their own ‘Scruton moment’.

There have been several responses to campus censorship in the United Kingdom and the United States. One of the most interesting developments has been the rise in demand for conservative thought. In the United States, college tours by speakers popular with conservatives such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro and Christina Hoff Sommers have become huge events. There has been a spike in membership in conservative college clubs including Young Americans for Liberty, which boasts 804 chapters filled with 308,927 members.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/02/17/student-lefts-culture-intolereance-creating-new-generation-ofconservatives/

More to read on the link

by Original Quill Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:07 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

No, you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. As neither the students nor the administration of universities are a 'majority', you are not even addressing the right problem of tyranny of the majority.

You are just out of the loop.

Not trying to fit anything but showing you the reality
Again where the problem is within Universities is the Tyranny of the majority of Leftist students, which is ironic being as you started off on the concept of the tyranny of the majority

Haha...now you are trying to put words in Tocqueville's mouth. Rolling Eyes

I'm afraid the he has been read to widely for you to rewrite history. Deal with reality for once.

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:08 pm

Thorin wrote:The student Left’s culture of intolerance is creating a new generation of conservatives.

Student demands for censorship get a lot of coverage. Spiked Online’s Free Speech University Rankings, now in its third annual edition, argues that there is a “crisis of free speech on campus”. By analysing the censorious policies and actions that have taken place on British campuses, Spiked concluded that 63.5 per cent of universities actively censor speech and 30.5 per cent stifle speech through excessive regulation. You can barely go a few days without encountering a new op-ed covering censorship on campus.

Maajid Nawaz describes the students demanding censorship as members of the “regressive left”. Milo Yiannopoulos calls them “snowflakes”. With all of this book-burning and platform-denying madness sweeping up much of the media’s interest in campus culture, the gradual rise of another group of students has gone under-reported. British and American millennials and post-millennials – also known as ‘Gen Z’ – are warming to conservatism. To understand why this is happening, it is important to consider the vast changes that have taken place in Western student politics over the last fifty years.

Students were once in favour of free speech. In the mid-1960s, students of the University of California, Berkeley undertook a mass-movement for free speech. Under the leadership of Leftist heroes like Jack Weinberg, Bettina Aptheker and Jackie Goldberg, students demanded that the university administration retracted their on-campus ban of political activities. They demanded their freedom of speech. Mario Savio delivered what is generally recognised as the iconic speech of the University of California, Berkeley's (UCB) free speech movement. Here is the speech’s most powerful section:
“There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it — that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!”

Savio’s speech helped push the movement towards success. Berkeley students won their full rights. Students, now liberated from the “machine” of university censorship, were able to create the anti-Vietnam student movement, another famous campus protest. Nowadays, the student Left are unwilling to honour Savio’s legacy. On the 2nd of February, violent protests at Berkeley shut down a talk by popular conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos. Instead of maintaining a liberal and free atmosphere for speech and argument, Berkeley students have become the gears, wheels and levers of the machine that Savio wanted to stop.

In the space of fifty years, Berkeley students have gone from rioting against a university administration that limited their freedom of speech to violently opposing the presence of a speaker they disagree with. In the modern era, students have often been attracted to the politics of the Left. 1968 saw pivotal student protests around the world. In the United States, students were central to the civil rights movement. In France, students joined forces with millions of striking workers to protest against capitalism.

The conservative philosopher Roger Scruton was in Paris during the 1968 riots and has said that it was whilst witnessing the uprising that he became a conservative.

The violence at Berkeley mirrors the street protests in Paris from 1968. Privileged and excitable students living in one of the most blessed parts of the world went out and created havoc in order to overthrow an opponent that they refused to tolerate. The Parisians, at least, had a deeper political cause – but the Berkeley students carried out the ugliest form of protest. It is the form of protest that says “I don’t like that view, therefore you must not be allowed to express it” and it is causing a lot of students to have their own ‘Scruton moment’.

There have been several responses to campus censorship in the United Kingdom and the United States. One of the most interesting developments has been the rise in demand for conservative thought. In the United States, college tours by speakers popular with conservatives such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro and Christina Hoff Sommers have become huge events. There has been a spike in membership in conservative college clubs including Young Americans for Liberty, which boasts 804 chapters filled with 308,927 members.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/02/17/student-lefts-culture-intolereance-creating-new-generation-ofconservatives/

More to read on the link

I suggest you try reading Quill

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:31 pm

Of course, Didge believes in free speech unless it's about Israel, then listen to the screams of 'anti-semitism'. You couldn't meet a bigger hypercrite if you searched for a century.

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:27 pm

sassy wrote:Of course, Didge believes in free speech unless it's about Israel, then listen to the screams of 'anti-semitism'. You couldn't meet a bigger hypercrite if you searched for a century.

Well the above does not make any sense

I am not against criticism of Israel

I am not against Jew haters speaking like Linda Sarsour, only that people who are honest expose them for what they are with reason

We already see countless antisemitics preaching hate against Israel in Universities, which need to be countered with the truth and facts.

I am against antisemitism and that we counter any antisemitics like yourself who back Hamas as freedom fighters and not terrorists, by exposing you for what you are

by Original Quill Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:36 pm

Thorin wrote:
Thorin wrote:The student Left’s culture of intolerance is creating a new generation of conservatives.

Student demands for censorship get a lot of coverage. Spiked Online’s Free Speech University Rankings, now in its third annual edition, argues that there is a “crisis of free speech on campus”. By analysing the censorious policies and actions that have taken place on British campuses, Spiked concluded that 63.5 per cent of universities actively censor speech and 30.5 per cent stifle speech through excessive regulation. You can barely go a few days without encountering a new op-ed covering censorship on campus.

Maajid Nawaz describes the students demanding censorship as members of the “regressive left”. Milo Yiannopoulos calls them “snowflakes”. With all of this book-burning and platform-denying madness sweeping up much of the media’s interest in campus culture, the gradual rise of another group of students has gone under-reported. British and American millennials and post-millennials – also known as ‘Gen Z’ – are warming to conservatism. To understand why this is happening, it is important to consider the vast changes that have taken place in Western student politics over the last fifty years.

Students were once in favour of free speech. In the mid-1960s, students of the University of California, Berkeley undertook a mass-movement for free speech. Under the leadership of Leftist heroes like Jack Weinberg, Bettina Aptheker and Jackie Goldberg, students demanded that the university administration retracted their on-campus ban of political activities. They demanded their freedom of speech. Mario Savio delivered what is generally recognised as the iconic speech of the University of California, Berkeley's (UCB) free speech movement. Here is the speech’s most powerful section:

Savio’s speech helped push the movement towards success. Berkeley students won their full rights. Students, now liberated from the “machine” of university censorship, were able to create the anti-Vietnam student movement, another famous campus protest. Nowadays, the student Left are unwilling to honour Savio’s legacy. On the 2nd of February, violent protests at Berkeley shut down a talk by popular conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos. Instead of maintaining a liberal and free atmosphere for speech and argument, Berkeley students have become the gears, wheels and levers of the machine that Savio wanted to stop.

In the space of fifty years, Berkeley students have gone from rioting against a university administration that limited their freedom of speech to violently opposing the presence of a speaker they disagree with. In the modern era, students have often been attracted to the politics of the Left. 1968 saw pivotal student protests around the world. In the United States, students were central to the civil rights movement. In France, students joined forces with millions of striking workers to protest against capitalism.

The conservative philosopher Roger Scruton was in Paris during the 1968 riots and has said that it was whilst witnessing the uprising that he became a conservative.

The violence at Berkeley mirrors the street protests in Paris from 1968. Privileged and excitable students living in one of the most blessed parts of the world went out and created havoc in order to overthrow an opponent that they refused to tolerate. The Parisians, at least, had a deeper political cause – but the Berkeley students carried out the ugliest form of protest. It is the form of protest that says “I don’t like that view, therefore you must not be allowed to express it” and it is causing a lot of students to have their own ‘Scruton moment’.

There have been several responses to campus censorship in the United Kingdom and the United States. One of the most interesting developments has been the rise in demand for conservative thought. In the United States, college tours by speakers popular with conservatives such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro and Christina Hoff Sommers have become huge events. There has been a spike in membership in conservative college clubs including Young Americans for Liberty, which boasts 804 chapters filled with 308,927 members.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/02/17/student-lefts-culture-intolereance-creating-new-generation-ofconservatives/

More to read on the link

I suggest you try reading Quill

Ah didge...another C&P that you haven't even bothered to read yourself?

I know it's off-point, because you haven't yet grasped the point. Give me one indication that you even know what Professor Neilson's idea is, let alone understand it, and I'll read. Until then, you're a waste of time.

by Guest Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:39 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I suggest you try reading Quill

Ah didge...another C&P that you haven't even bothered to read yourself?

I know it's off-point, because you haven't yet grasped the point. Give me one indication that you even know what Professor Neilson's idea is, let alone understand it, and I'll read. Until then, you're a waste of time.

So you call statistical evidence crap?
I told you it was the left in Universities that are the Tyranny of the majority and you did not believe me.
Funny how your concepts come back to haunt you.
We then see you turn this yet again about me
One thing the regressive left (not all the left) have in common is when their arguments are flawed they can only attack the posters

by Original Quill Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:20 am

Thorin wrote:I told you it was the left in Universities that are the Tyranny of the majority and you did not believe me.

Didge, that's a self-contradiction, because the left is not the majority.

Furthermore, it's a tautology to say that the dependent variable of the hypothesis is somehow confirmation of the independent variable. It goes the other way. Censorship figures tell you nothing about the pool.

Do you have anything else to offer? As I've said, you don't even understand the thesis.

by Guest Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:24 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:I told you it was the left in Universities that are the Tyranny of the majority and you did not believe me.

Didge, that's a self-contradiction, because the left is not the majority.

Furthermore, it's a tautology to say that the dependent variable of the hypothesis is somehow confirmation of the independent variable. It goes the other way. Censorship figures tell you nothing about the pool.

Do you have anything else to offer? As I've said, you don't even understand the thesis.

Quill, you have the patience of Job, but really, he will never understand what you mean

by Guest Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:25 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:I told you it was the left in Universities that are the Tyranny of the majority and you did not believe me.

Didge, that's a self-contradiction, because the left is not the majority.

Furthermore, it's a tautology to say that the dependent variable of the hypothesis is somehow confirmation of the independent variable. Censorship figures tell you nothing about the pool.

Do you have anything else to offer? As I've said, you don't even understand the thesis.

They are as students and as teachers in Universities,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/eight-ten-british-university-lecturers-left-wing-survey-finds/

Like I say the tyranny of the majority and why we are seeing more and more problems in University.

I mean I disagree with Tommy's views on homosexuality where he claims its abnormal. Under this regressive Professor based on what she believes is factual, she would ban Tommy airing his views

Thanks again for the concept of the tyranny of the majority, as its apt when it comes to the left as students and teachers in universities

by Original Quill Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:41 am

Your verification? Here's the title:

The Telegraph wrote:Eight in ten British university lecturers are 'Left-wing', survey finds

First, we were talking about Berkeley, not "British universities". But more importantly, why are you focusing in on lecturers? They are not in the majority. And how does the writer even code left/right? It's clear from reading down the article, they are speaking of left/right in a policy sense, whereas Tocqueville and Marcuse are speaking of a predominant opinion, whatever the leaning.

I'm not sure that Tocqueville even intended a statistical statement. As I read him, he was talking more about who listens, than who speaks. I mean, when the majority opinion pushes out the minority opinion, doesn't it do so by being listened to more, not by shouting louder? If so, that's more about the audience then the lecturer.

by Guest Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:46 am

Original Quill wrote:Your verification? Here's the title:

The Telegraph wrote:Eight in ten British university lecturers are 'Left-wing', survey finds

First, we were talking about Berkeley, not "British universities". But more importantly, why are you focusing in on lecturers. And how does the writer even code left/right?

I'm not sure that Tocqueville even intended a statistical statement. As I read him, he was talking more about who listens, than who speaks. I mean, when the majority opinion pushes out the minority opinion, doesn't it do so by being listened to more, not by shouting louder? If so, that's more about the audience then the lecturer.

No we are not just talking about Berkeley but all Universities in the US and Britain.
Its important that we focus in also on lecturers, as there is a bias in teaching also, which is why we end up with more left wing students in Uni. It goes hand in hand, as seen by the stats that I have presented to you.
The reality is you will have a confirmation bias with many teachers.

The reality is we have seen a change from where the left were the champions of Free speech and now we see it is those on the right who champion Free speech

You can ignore the facts all you like Quill, but they are damning to your case.

by Guest Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:53 am

This is what the RW ACTUALLY actually think of free speech:

"Ban Free Speech Because Muh Feelings" Tucker Carlson DESTROYS Liberal Professor - Page 2 Tory_f11

"Ban Free Speech Because Muh Feelings" Tucker Carlson DESTROYS Liberal Professor - Page 2 Tory_f11

by Guest Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:55 am

lol, so one person?

I am against people like this also who attempt to shut down free speech, which is odd, as he argues exactly like the Professor

by Sponsored content