In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On April 23 2016 06:56 Mohdoo wrote: This is how you handle BLM. Beautifully done, based milo.
"You hate yourself! You hate yourself!"
...
"Thank you for that very intelligent question"
Haha, I love Milo.
What's sad is that people such as him (Milo), who have a very poor understanding of the world, who barely says anything intelligent nor interesting (watched some of his video, he is a caricature), are somewhat grandiose en eloquent thanks to the stupidity of two guys who cry and repeat insults such as "fuck fuck fuck". In the end, the debate never took place, and all sides are reassured in their stupidity. Ho how simple the world is when you can label anyone that disagree with you as someone racist, sexist, or mentally ill.
Milo serves his purpose well: he perfectly illustrates the absurdity of the modern PC left. The fact is that those idiots are completely out of control, have created a toxic environment for public discourse on important issues, and are the single largest impediment to improvement on the very issues that they claim to champion.
You do realize that characterizing the foils of a greaseball performance artist like Milo as the substantive face of "the modern PC left," whatever that means, is the same thing as assuming that the face of the modern conservative Right are the many ridiculously stupid/racist Trump fans plastered all over youtube? Both involve confidence men with a bad haircut and the prized ability to bring the worst out in easily inflamed people. I mean, it's not like it's a bad idea to judge entire political ideologies based on the volume of the self-identifying group being poked into yelling the loudest, right?
The regressive PC left would exist whether or not Milo was a public figure who held talks for them to protest.
Incidentally I think the "right" gets protested, including with that kind of behavior, significantly more than the left is so protested by the right (i.e., to a degree bigger than my perceptive bias). Hasn't the left always been more engaged in activism, isn't that the point, to try to live up to the name "revolutionary."
What's sad is that people such as him (Milo), who have a very poor understanding of the world, who barely says anything intelligent nor interesting (watched some of his video, he is a caricature), are somewhat grandiose en eloquent thanks to the stupidity of two guys who cry and repeat insults such as "fuck fuck fuck". In the end, the debate never took place, and all sides are reassured in their stupidity. Ho how simple the world is when you can label anyone that disagree with you as someone racist, sexist, or mentally ill.
Milo serves his purpose well: he perfectly illustrates the absurdity of the modern PC left. The fact is that those idiots are completely out of control, have created a toxic environment for public discourse on important issues, and are the single largest impediment to improvement on the very issues that they claim to champion.
You do realize that characterizing the foils of a greaseball performance artist like Milo as the substantive face of "the modern PC left," whatever that means, is the same thing as assuming that the face of the modern conservative Right are the many ridiculously stupid/racist Trump fans plastered all over youtube? Both involve confidence men with a bad haircut and the prized ability to bring the worst out in easily inflamed people. I mean, it's not like it's a bad idea to judge entire political ideologies based on the volume of the self-identifying group being poked into yelling the loudest, right?
You've been in law school too long. I'm not even sure that I understand that first sentence.
What's sad is that people such as him (Milo), who have a very poor understanding of the world, who barely says anything intelligent nor interesting (watched some of his video, he is a caricature), are somewhat grandiose en eloquent thanks to the stupidity of two guys who cry and repeat insults such as "fuck fuck fuck". In the end, the debate never took place, and all sides are reassured in their stupidity. Ho how simple the world is when you can label anyone that disagree with you as someone racist, sexist, or mentally ill.
Milo serves his purpose well: he perfectly illustrates the absurdity of the modern PC left. The fact is that those idiots are completely out of control, have created a toxic environment for public discourse on important issues, and are the single largest impediment to improvement on the very issues that they claim to champion.
The single largest impediment to curb police violence and stop discrimination are liberal college students? Crippling poverty, the war on drugs and so on won't matter as long as the pesky pc students go away?
you try to argue with the guy that thinks "asians" are a homogeneous group that can be compared to "blacks", thinks that blacks are inferior to jews, palestinians are at fault for getting imperialistically opressed and deserve what ever israel is doing, because (economic) might makes right, has expressed several times the only way to get rid of terrorism is "total war" on everyone that harbours any antipathy (which will cylce into a full genocide as you blow up people until everyone is against you and you have to blow them all up), and somehow thinks the very unique case of the second world war somehow makes this viable....
maybe that explains why he thinks the right to say enraging stupid stuff against others is the really important issue... and not (in his mind) their self inflicted problems like racist police violence
What's sad is that people such as him (Milo), who have a very poor understanding of the world, who barely says anything intelligent nor interesting (watched some of his video, he is a caricature), are somewhat grandiose en eloquent thanks to the stupidity of two guys who cry and repeat insults such as "fuck fuck fuck". In the end, the debate never took place, and all sides are reassured in their stupidity. Ho how simple the world is when you can label anyone that disagree with you as someone racist, sexist, or mentally ill.
Milo serves his purpose well: he perfectly illustrates the absurdity of the modern PC left. The fact is that those idiots are completely out of control, have created a toxic environment for public discourse on important issues, and are the single largest impediment to improvement on the very issues that they claim to champion.
You do realize that characterizing the foils of a greaseball performance artist like Milo as the substantive face of "the modern PC left," whatever that means, is the same thing as assuming that the face of the modern conservative Right are the many ridiculously stupid/racist Trump fans plastered all over youtube? Both involve confidence men with a bad haircut and the prized ability to bring the worst out in easily inflamed people. I mean, it's not like it's a bad idea to judge entire political ideologies based on the volume of the self-identifying group being poked into yelling the loudest, right?
You've been in law school too long. I'm not even sure that I understand that first sentence.
It's just a bit of syllogistic logic, I'm sure you can understand it. The point is that the people that are most easily goaded into yelling like stupid people in bad youtube videos are usually not good representatives of whatever group they claim to be a part of.
What's sad is that people such as him (Milo), who have a very poor understanding of the world, who barely says anything intelligent nor interesting (watched some of his video, he is a caricature), are somewhat grandiose en eloquent thanks to the stupidity of two guys who cry and repeat insults such as "fuck fuck fuck". In the end, the debate never took place, and all sides are reassured in their stupidity. Ho how simple the world is when you can label anyone that disagree with you as someone racist, sexist, or mentally ill.
Milo serves his purpose well: he perfectly illustrates the absurdity of the modern PC left. The fact is that those idiots are completely out of control, have created a toxic environment for public discourse on important issues, and are the single largest impediment to improvement on the very issues that they claim to champion.
You do realize that characterizing the foils of a greaseball performance artist like Milo as the substantive face of "the modern PC left," whatever that means, is the same thing as assuming that the face of the modern conservative Right are the many ridiculously stupid/racist Trump fans plastered all over youtube? Both involve confidence men with a bad haircut and the prized ability to bring the worst out in easily inflamed people. I mean, it's not like it's a bad idea to judge entire political ideologies based on the volume of the self-identifying group being poked into yelling the loudest, right?
You've been in law school too long. I'm not even sure that I understand that first sentence.
It's just a bit of syllogistic logic, I'm sure you can understand it. The point is that the people that are most easily goaded into yelling like stupid people in bad youtube videos are usually not good representatives of whatever group they claim to be a part of.
Yes, but no one is disputing that those people are morons. They aren't Milo's real targets (nor are they mine).
What's sad is that people such as him (Milo), who have a very poor understanding of the world, who barely says anything intelligent nor interesting (watched some of his video, he is a caricature), are somewhat grandiose en eloquent thanks to the stupidity of two guys who cry and repeat insults such as "fuck fuck fuck". In the end, the debate never took place, and all sides are reassured in their stupidity. Ho how simple the world is when you can label anyone that disagree with you as someone racist, sexist, or mentally ill.
Milo serves his purpose well: he perfectly illustrates the absurdity of the modern PC left. The fact is that those idiots are completely out of control, have created a toxic environment for public discourse on important issues, and are the single largest impediment to improvement on the very issues that they claim to champion.
You do realize that characterizing the foils of a greaseball performance artist like Milo as the substantive face of "the modern PC left," whatever that means, is the same thing as assuming that the face of the modern conservative Right are the many ridiculously stupid/racist Trump fans plastered all over youtube? Both involve confidence men with a bad haircut and the prized ability to bring the worst out in easily inflamed people. I mean, it's not like it's a bad idea to judge entire political ideologies based on the volume of the self-identifying group being poked into yelling the loudest, right?
We can judge the right by Trump though. He is the 2016 pledge delegate winner. More Republicans have voted for him this year than any other candidate. His statements reflect back on at least those who voted for him, and will reflect back on the people who remain in the Republican party when he is the nominee.
yep don't buy the left == right stuff, if you actually elect a guy who sums his position on waterboarding up with "I love it, I think it's great" you're in trouble
On April 23 2016 14:28 Sermokala wrote: you can be in the republican party and not agree with trump. A lot of leadership and other congress people have already come out against trump.
True - and yet, he has a wide enough base of support to get as far as he has despite the fact that his major platform is a lot of explicitly nativist ideas. If you want to say that those supporters are not a large and significant portion of the base, then I would say that you're using a real No True Scotsman there.
Same goes for any protest movement if all it becomes known for is its unfortunate ways of getting attention. Every group has troublemakers and they shouldn't be taken to represent the entire movement, but if the face of the entire movement seems rotten, then you have a problem.
On April 23 2016 09:46 oBlade wrote: The regressive PC left would exist whether or not Milo was a public figure who held talks for them to protest.
The right is much more regressive than the left, and "PC" is pure buzzword.
It means "stop liking what I don't like" and/or "stop being a decent human being". In my experience you hear it most from neo-reactionary types, white supremacists, MRAs and so on.
On April 23 2016 13:08 Nyxisto wrote: yep don't buy the left == right stuff, if you actually elect a guy who sums his position on waterboarding up with "I love it, I think it's great" you're in trouble
Yup. It's embarrassing and a slap in the face of liberty that we have someone campaigning for the US presidency with promises to legalize war crimes. He's pretty much the closest thing we have to American fascism. He's staunchly pro-torture (he considers waterboarding the "light form" and not only wants to legalize it, but legalize more than that as well) and pro-internet censorship.
Some interesting studies were done that directly shown how authoritarian tendencies in people correlate with a preference for him more than any other factor.
On April 23 2016 09:46 oBlade wrote: The regressive PC left would exist whether or not Milo was a public figure who held talks for them to protest.
The right is much more regressive than the left, and "PC" is pure buzzword.
It means "stop liking what I don't like" and/or "stop being a decent human being". In my experience you hear it most from neo-reactionary types, white supremacists, MRAs and so on.
I think it's painfully naive to try reduce people who you don't like down to singular, petty memes.
No, you don't have the right to say whatever you want without fear of social repercussion. Yes, things like racist slurs and rape jokes used in casual context is tactless at best.
But the repercussions for doing such things in the last several years has extended far beyond getting a meagre telling off, and easily escalates to thousands of people taking any recorded gaff you make and amplifying far beyond the impact of your initial statement. And because of the permanence of the internet for anything going even moderately viral, relatively minor issues can now harm people's futures severely.
Is it acceptable that people act like asses to others? No, not really. Should a teenager or young adult have anything they've said in private or non-mass communication spread across social media for all future employers to easily find when they inevitably search their name? Definitely not, either.
And as much as you'd like to mock the complaints that being "PC" is oppression, there is some legitimate concern in the sense of social mob justice that follows it very closely.
What's sad is that people such as him (Milo), who have a very poor understanding of the world, who barely says anything intelligent nor interesting (watched some of his video, he is a caricature), are somewhat grandiose en eloquent thanks to the stupidity of two guys who cry and repeat insults such as "fuck fuck fuck". In the end, the debate never took place, and all sides are reassured in their stupidity. Ho how simple the world is when you can label anyone that disagree with you as someone racist, sexist, or mentally ill.
Milo serves his purpose well: he perfectly illustrates the absurdity of the modern PC left. The fact is that those idiots are completely out of control, have created a toxic environment for public discourse on important issues, and are the single largest impediment to improvement on the very issues that they claim to champion.
Milo strikes me as a dangerous sort of intelligent person: an intelligent fool. One of his more recent articles, he attempted to defend the alt right as not being racist so much as droll trolls, and that any supposed racist comments are just an attempt to playfully tweak those leftists. Aw shucks, those alt rights, they say the darnedest things.
To which daily stormer replied, no actually we are racist and we hate you because you are gay and a Jew. We joke because we must, but we are angry, deeply angry at the Jews. But good job attempting to mainstream our views even if you have completely misunderstood what we are. (More or less calling him a useful idiot.)
There are a few cases where I kind of see what Milo is getting at, but I largely think his intelligence and enthusiasm is wasted on being a real life troll... maybe the best thing that could be said of him is the older term 'gadfly', but not of a particularly useful gadfly that I can see.
On April 23 2016 09:46 oBlade wrote: The regressive PC left would exist whether or not Milo was a public figure who held talks for them to protest.
The right is much more regressive than the left, and "PC" is pure buzzword.
It means "stop liking what I don't like" and/or "stop being a decent human being". In my experience you hear it most from neo-reactionary types, white supremacists, MRAs and so on.
I think it's painfully naive to try reduce people who you don't like down to singular, petty memes.
No, you don't have the right to say whatever you want without fear of social repercussion. Yes, things like racist slurs and rape jokes used in casual context is tactless at best.
But the repercussions for doing such things in the last several years has extended far beyond getting a meagre telling off, and easily escalates to thousands of people taking any recorded gaff you make and amplifying far beyond the impact of your initial statement. And because of the permanence of the internet for anything going even moderately viral, relatively minor issues can now harm people's futures severely.
Is it acceptable that people act like asses to others? No, not really. Should a teenager or young adult have anything they've said in private or non-mass communication spread across social media for all future employers to easily find when they inevitably search their name? Definitely not, either.
And as much as you'd like to mock the complaints that being "PC" is oppression, there is some legitimate concern in the sense of social mob justice that follows it very closely.
And so what? Wake up, you've never had the right to say whatever you want without fear of social repercussion. Two centuries ago it was "PC" to say that Black were inferior to White, or that they weren't even human. One century ago it was "PC" to say that homosexuals were degenerates. Today, in a far-right family, it's "PC" to say that homosexuals should not have the right to marry, in the sense that hinting at the opposite in a family dinner will probably get you a bad reputation. At all times, in a given social frame, there are things that are OK to say and others that are not OK. Mob justice (there's no need for "social" in here, a mob is social anyway) has always been a thing too, and if you think it's more extreme and causes more damage today than in the past, I really suggest you study some history.
Additionally, blaming the "PC culture" or "SJWs" everytime someone hints that what you said should not have been said is counter-productive. Since you basically use it as an insult, everyone understands that you lost the argument, even though it's probably comfortable for your ego to do that. It'd be much more productive to put aside all these stupid words like "PC culture", "SJW" (and even "racist", "sexist", "islamophobic", etc when used in the wrong situation) ; and actually explain what you said.
I actually think it's a great read in general - it's a balanced view on how greater sensitivity has in some cases been a societal blessing, and how in other cases, hypersensitivity can ruin lives.
What's sad is that people such as him (Milo), who have a very poor understanding of the world, who barely says anything intelligent nor interesting (watched some of his video, he is a caricature), are somewhat grandiose en eloquent thanks to the stupidity of two guys who cry and repeat insults such as "fuck fuck fuck". In the end, the debate never took place, and all sides are reassured in their stupidity. Ho how simple the world is when you can label anyone that disagree with you as someone racist, sexist, or mentally ill.
Milo serves his purpose well: he perfectly illustrates the absurdity of the modern PC left. The fact is that those idiots are completely out of control, have created a toxic environment for public discourse on important issues, and are the single largest impediment to improvement on the very issues that they claim to champion.
I understand the idea ; it's sure easy to be bored by the rhetoric of some people (a minority) that consider themselves as defendors of the "black lives matter" movement, but it is also sure easy to be bored by the arguments of people such as Milo. What you consider to be a waste disposer can easily be seen as a polluter with simply a different perspective. Think a little about what it means for public debate when someone like Milo is valued for his "purpose" ... The debate never took place, the exchanges are empty, everybody can turn back and feel safe knowing their beliefs are untouched and "truth" - the only thing that could reconcile people to a certain extent - is nowhere to be found.
you've never had the right to say whatever you want without fear of social repercussion
Social repercussion is social, not made by some minority within the minority that terrorize everybody. You should be allowed to say whatever you please, as long as its not asking for people to be killed or attacked. Think about what it means for a teacher when you can't say some things, discuss some argument, because you fear that your students will badly respond to it...
What's sad is that people such as him (Milo), who have a very poor understanding of the world, who barely says anything intelligent nor interesting (watched some of his video, he is a caricature), are somewhat grandiose en eloquent thanks to the stupidity of two guys who cry and repeat insults such as "fuck fuck fuck". In the end, the debate never took place, and all sides are reassured in their stupidity. Ho how simple the world is when you can label anyone that disagree with you as someone racist, sexist, or mentally ill.
Milo serves his purpose well: he perfectly illustrates the absurdity of the modern PC left. The fact is that those idiots are completely out of control, have created a toxic environment for public discourse on important issues, and are the single largest impediment to improvement on the very issues that they claim to champion.
I understand the idea ; it's sure easy to be bored by the rhetoric of some people (a minority) that consider themselves as defendors of the "black lives matter" movement, but it is also sure easy to be bored by the arguments of people such as Milo. What you consider to be a waste disposer can easily be seen as a polluter with simply a different perspective. Think a little about what it means for public debate when someone like Milo is valued for his "purpose" ... The debate never took place, the exchanges are empty, everybody can turn back and feel safe knowing their beliefs are untouched and "truth" - the only thing that could reconcile people to a certain extent - is nowhere to be found.
you've never had the right to say whatever you want without fear of social repercussion
Social repercussion is social, not made by some minority within the minority that terrorize everybody. You should be allowed to say whatever you please, as long as its not asking for people to be killed or attacked. Think about what it means for a teacher when you can't say some things, discuss some argument, because you fear that your students will badly respond to it...
Uh? It seems normal to me that a teacher, like anyone, should face consequences of their words. I mean, do you really expect to be able to say that Black men are stupid to a racially mixed class and to a 100% white, rich, far-right leaning class, and be seen in the same way? Do you really expect to be able to say that all pharmacists always seek to maximize their profits even if it means harming the patients to children of pharmacists (true story), and get away with it fine? Do you really expect to be able to insult a student based on his race (true story) and suffer no repercussion?
Saying something is an action like any other. If your freedom concerning usual actions is limited by the way people will react to it, why shouldn't your freedom of speech be limited too?
And yes, social repercussions are social. Social is not synonymous with society, however ; any social group, be it a family, a classroom, a syndicate/union, an association, whatever, can produce social repercussions.
Everyone needs to be conscious about what they say and where they say it. But I certainly think it's problematic that I, as a job-seeking teacher, am not comfortable with publicly stating that I think marijuana should be legalized or that smoking a couple joints really isn't a big deal. I'm not even sure how comfortable I would be with posting on facebook that alcohol is significantly more dangerous than weed - even though that's just a factual statement and not my personal opinion.
I also think it's troublesome if other people feel a similar need to moderate themselves from making moderate statements questioning immigration policies. These are examples of hypersensitivity negatively shaping public discourse.
However, there is a far cry between moderate statements questioning immigration policies and statements I've actually seen have repercussions. I don't understand how a teacher can expect to teach muslims (and it's unlikely that European teachers, at least in cities, will have classes free of muslim students/pupils) while publicly stating that Islam represents evil and oppression. (The Norwegian leader of Pegida, who made such statements, lost his job because his pupils, understandably imo, had huge issues with him being supposed to teach them sociology).
At the same time, even though I don't think we're currently in a place where people have really unfairly lost their jobs for making 'politically incorrect' statements (most statement I've seen have job-repercussions has been of the 'let's beat up some shitniggers' type of racism, where I am actually completely fine with it having consequences), we must be cautious about how moderated public speech should be. This is not an easy debate, and attempting to draw a line is kind of a hopeless endeavor - certain statements are obviously not-ok and certain statements are obviously okay, but I can also think of many statements a teacher could possibly make where I would not be sure whether I'd be okay with it. Like, obviously we don't want mobs inciting violence towards minority groups - but we also don't want people to only publicly state opinions that coincide with majority opinion - then there is no longer room for debate. And while I don't really think we're at the point where 'slightly controversial, but should be okay' statements are all that negatively received (aside from the aforementioned drug case ), it's definitely important that we keep track of where we are going..
What's sad is that people such as him (Milo), who have a very poor understanding of the world, who barely says anything intelligent nor interesting (watched some of his video, he is a caricature), are somewhat grandiose en eloquent thanks to the stupidity of two guys who cry and repeat insults such as "fuck fuck fuck". In the end, the debate never took place, and all sides are reassured in their stupidity. Ho how simple the world is when you can label anyone that disagree with you as someone racist, sexist, or mentally ill.
Milo serves his purpose well: he perfectly illustrates the absurdity of the modern PC left. The fact is that those idiots are completely out of control, have created a toxic environment for public discourse on important issues, and are the single largest impediment to improvement on the very issues that they claim to champion.
I understand the idea ; it's sure easy to be bored by the rhetoric of some people (a minority) that consider themselves as defendors of the "black lives matter" movement, but it is also sure easy to be bored by the arguments of people such as Milo. What you consider to be a waste disposer can easily be seen as a polluter with simply a different perspective. Think a little about what it means for public debate when someone like Milo is valued for his "purpose" ... The debate never took place, the exchanges are empty, everybody can turn back and feel safe knowing their beliefs are untouched and "truth" - the only thing that could reconcile people to a certain extent - is nowhere to be found.
you've never had the right to say whatever you want without fear of social repercussion
Social repercussion is social, not made by some minority within the minority that terrorize everybody. You should be allowed to say whatever you please, as long as its not asking for people to be killed or attacked. Think about what it means for a teacher when you can't say some things, discuss some argument, because you fear that your students will badly respond to it...
Uh? It seems normal to me that a teacher, like anyone, should face consequences of their words. I mean, do you really expect to be able to say that Black men are stupid to a racially mixed class and to a 100% white, rich, far-right leaning class, and be seen in the same way? Do you really expect to be able to say that all pharmacists always seek to maximize their profits even if it means harming the patients to children of pharmacists (true story), and get away with it fine? Do you really expect to be able to insult a student based on his race (true story) and suffer no repercussion?
Saying something is an action like any other. If your freedom concerning usual actions is limited by the way people will react to it, why shouldn't your freedom of speech be limited too?
And yes, social repercussions are social. Social is not synonymous with society, however ; any social group, be it a family, a classroom, a syndicate/union, an association, whatever, can produce social repercussions.
So for you it's normal that teacher in philosophy can't present the argument that god does not exist, like many philosopher did... This idea that words are performative is galvauded (sure, Charlie Hebdo's caricature were on par with what the Kouachi brothers did right ?) : freedom is being able to say two plus two equal four, said Orwell. Whatever the feeling of others, it should be okay to tell the truth. If what you say is factually untrue, then you should be reprimanded for sure. People who feel "insulted" by a comment should first look at themselves and try to understand why they feel that way, they could gain a lot from it, in maturity and knowledge of themselves : that's how you grow.
And yes, social repercussions are social. Social is not synonymous with society, however ; any social group, be it a family, a classroom, a syndicate/union, an association, whatever, can produce social repercussions.
And the equality of mankind as a value is refuted by racist social groups. This does not mean that institutions, such as a university, should accept their reclamation and punish a teacher that argue that all men are equal ; repercussion are social which exactly mean that "the society" (which is an abstraction but whatever) make them. It is a collective process that goes from individuals and groups to institutions through negotiations and power play - it's problematic when a specific group have such an ascendant on institutions that they can enforce their own vision on every possible topic ; it create hatred and resentment.
EPT
), it's definitely important that we keep track of where we are going..
