"Irrational ideologies of the left"

[swansont]

College "safe spaces", radical feminism (or feminaziism), social justice warrior culture, referring to anyone criticizes Islam as "bigots" or "racist", Black Lives Matter, etc etc etc. All of these are irrational ideologies of the far left. Most of them are staunch opponents of free speech, and are, themselves, bigoted.

I would be interested in discussing this further, if it can be done in accordance with the rules on civility and slurs, and the rules against logical fallacies (as I see both strawmen and characterization that would fall under the slur category in the above).

 

Pick one, Tampitump, and tell us what you think it means and/or what issues you have with it. I'm guessing your view will be very different than what others think.

 

[Tampitump]

[Strange]

How about you tell us what you think about one of these issues?

[Arete]

I stopped watching when they suggested that ANY restriction on free speech makes you a "regressive".

 

According to the video, phrases like: "I believe in free speech, but child pornography should be illegal/ you shouldn't be able to publish lies about people/ pretend someone else's work is your own." make one a "regressive".

 

Free speech is not absolute, and no sensible person would generally assert that it is. For example, the supreme court has ruled that, among other things, child pornography, defamation, plagiarism and false advertising are exceptions to the first amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Edited September 12, 2016 by Arete

[Strange]

Mouseover: "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."

Edited September 12, 2016 by Strange

[Tampitump]

Islam - One of many religions I find to be preposterous and unworthy of respect. I criticize it all the time. Many liberals now think that Islam should be exempt from such criticism on the grounds that it is "racist" or "bigoted". I say screw those liberals. I have the right to criticize anything I want. True discussions cannot take place when free speech is prohibited. This should not be confused with a hatred towards muslims. I recognize that the people who are affected by the absurdities of Islam the most are other muslims. It is, I think, the single most illiberal and oppressive belief system on the planet in this day, and that the relatively high support of doctrinal barbarism in the Islamic world is indicative of its incompatibility with secular, western values. There is nothing bigoted or racist about that statement. True liberals should be speaking against the doctrine of Islam, and sticking up for women and children in the muslim world, instead of engaging in the stupid fallacies of moral-relativism and postmodernist nonsense to try and excuse this type of behavior in the name of political correctness. My position is merely an honest recognition of the obvious. People who deny the barbarism of Islam, and the relatively high support for its more heinous prescriptions in the muslim world are engaging in the highest obscurantism. That's my opinion on that.

 

Feminism - I'm a second-wave feminist, which was a movement to gain rights for women when women were legitimately deprived of rights. Many of today's feminists engage in fallacious, non-scientific, perpetually dishonest methodologies to try to assert their agenda. The talking points of third-wave feminists are bigoted against men, and propose conspiracies of a patriarchal system which does not exist. I have never met one man who wasn't unequivocally supportive of women doing anything they want to do. Over half of the political offices in my county are occupied by women. My state capital has a female mayor. The most acclaimed women's college basketball coach in my state was a woman. This so-called "patriarchy" is a myth as far as I'm concerned, and if it did exist, I would be the first one to oppose it. Third-wave feminist culture is largely what allows postmodernist ideology to penetrate government and academia, allowing tolerance for multi-culturalism even when the influx of new cultures in the western world hold the antithesis of western values (i.e. Islam). I strongly oppose third-wave feminism for these reasons.

 

Black lives Matter - I better let Milo handle this one:

 

Mouseover: "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."

Fully agree. Nothing in my position negates this. College safe spaces on public campuses are NECESSARILY a violation of the first amendment.

 

BTW, I never said that, for instance, cancelling speakers at universities, cancelling people's shows, or banning people from internet communities was a violation of the first amendment. They clearly are not. It is the ethic I am protesting. You should not deplatform people you disagree with. You should argue the point with proper rhetoric. I object to the liberals who hold these values and am not accusing every instance of being 1st amendment violations.

I stopped watching when they suggested that ANY restriction on free speech makes you a "regressive".

 

According to the video, phrases like: "I believe in free speech, but child pornography should be illegal/ you shouldn't be able to publish lies about people/ pretend someone else's work is your own." make one a "regressive".

 

Free speech is not absolute, and no sensible person would generally assert that it is. For example, the supreme court has ruled that, among other things, child pornography, defamation, plagiarism and false advertising are exceptions to the first amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Of course, because those are legitimate crimes. Child pornography is a legitimate violation of children. Plagiarism is illegal because it does harm other people. You can make monetary gains through someone else's work, etc. These are examples of the use of speech harming or affecting someone else in a demonstrable, cut-dry way. Whether or not me calling someone fat hurts that person is questionable. Some people may be affected by it, some may not. But me using someone else's words as my own for personal gain can affect that person in more ways than just emotionally. All of the instances you are citing are examples in which speech is demonstarbly harmful enough that the law can be justified in criminalizing it. There needs to be tangible reasons to criminalize something.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Tampitump

[swansont]

I guess I should have also included the rule on posting videos in my emphasis on possible trangressions.

 

So let's try again: pick one, and tell us your views. i.e. You explain it, rather than someone else doing it for you in a video.

[Delta1212]

You still fail to understand where I'm coming from. Even if I'm wrong about Islam, and Islam is perfectly peaceful and wonderful, my positions still stand. What I'm saying is that no one should be put down for criticizing any idea. Many liberals now want to slap the label "bigot" on you for even mentioning it most of the time. I just watched a statement from Hillary Clinton at my grandparent's house where she called half of Trump's supporters "deplorable, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic....." and all the other "phobics" you can think of. She might be right, but many of these labels are generated to stifle debate, and to deprive free speech. It's a way of silencing legitimate criticisms of these things that liberals like to ignore. Most liberals want to ignore the barbarism of Islam. Mentioning the possibility that some muslims are, in fact, not peaceful or supportive of western values kills their narrative of high-brown, elite, bleeding-heart liberalism, so they ignore these parts of the muslim world and call people "bigots" for mentioning them in order to end the debate. This is true whether Islam is violent or not. In fact, I'll go ahead and concede that Islam is perfectly peaceful and wonderful for the sake of this conversation, and you'll still be on the wrong end of the argument.

If no one should be put down for criticizing an idea, shouldn't you stop putting down liberals for criticizing the ideas of Trump's followers?

 

The idea people should not be criticized for criticizing ideas isn't self-sustainable, and while I see similar thoughts coming from a number of conservative leaning friends and acquaintances, it is often couched unironically in the language that is used to justify so-called "safe spaces" and the like, often in the same breath that they are criticizing those spaces.

 

Ultimately, everyone does need to come to terms with the fact that you are personally going to face criticism and sometimes personal attacks for expressing your point of view and that nobody likes to face those things for voicing their own opinion and will seek to avoid it as much as possible.

 

The simultaneous need to complain that people should not attack you for the things you say and should also not be allowed to complain about you attacking them for the things they say seems to be a common human trait, and one that most people apparently have a very difficult time recognizing within themselves and therefore an equally difficult time trying to shake.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Can we stick to the OP please and avoid making this another thread rehearsing badly understood notions of islam. There is a new thread for people to discuss the alleged protection of islam from criticism

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98484-do-liberals-think-islam-should-be-protected-from-criticism/

 

[swansont]

Thank you.

 

So can you pick one to discuss (other than Islam, as it now has a thread)? What shall it be: feminism, safe spaces, SJW, or Black Lives Matter?

[Strange]

BTW, I never said that, for instance, cancelling speakers at universities, cancelling people's shows, or banning people from internet communities was a violation of the first amendment. They clearly are not. It is the ethic I am protesting. You should not deplatform people you disagree with. You should argue the point with proper rhetoric.

 

As you accused me of being a "regressive liberal", I will just point out that the one and only time I have taken part in any sort of political action was when my university tried to ban a speaker from a fascist party from speaking. We managed to get that ban overturned (and the cretin came and was ridiculed by his audience).

 

 

Of course, because those are legitimate crimes

 

So it sounds like you don't agree with the video which you posted to support your view.

 

And the people who ban opposition political parties or criticism of the self-proclaimed President-for-Life think that there are legitimate reasons for criminalizing those things. So by you logic, it is OK for that freedom to be curtailed? Obviously not, but it does seem to indicate that you have a rather simplistic view and haven't really thought through all the implications.

 

For example, you might agree that libelling/slandering someone is wrong and there should be laws against it. But then if someone is a witness in court case, should they be worried that they might be sued for giving evidence against the accused, if they are later found not guilty?

[MigL]

You totally missed Tampitump's point, Delta.

 

He didn't criticize H. Clinton for arguing against D. Trump followers with solid factual arguments based on evidence ( which, let's face it, she easily could have ).

What she did was 'label' them ( with the usual derogatory terms ) in an effort to stifle discussion.

 

As to the other subjects...

 

No one has the right to NOT be offended ( what is this safe spaces bullshit ? )

Black lives don't matter any more than any other lives ( why segregate and make the distinction ? ).

I see Islam has its own thread ( that should be interesting ).

Don't have a problem with feminism. I like being asked out.

Edited September 13, 2016 by MigL

[swansont]

Safe spaces it is.

 

As to the other subjects...

 

No one has the right to NOT be offended ( what is this safe spaces bullshit ? )

 

Do you disagree with the SFN rules on civility?

[DrmDoc]

You totally missed Tampitump's point, Delta.

 

He didn't criticize H. Clinton for arguing against D. Trump followers with solid factual arguments based on evidence ( which, let's face it, she easily could have ).

What she did was 'label' them ( with the usual derogatory terms ) in an effort to stifle discussion.

 

As to the other subjects...

 

No one has the right to NOT be offended ( what is this safe spaces bullshit ? )

Black lives don't matter any more than any other lives ( why segregate and make the distinction ? ).

I see Islam has its own thread ( that should be interesting ).

Don't have a problem with feminism. I like being asked out.

 

Although the perception of her comments is unfortunate, Mrs. Clinton wasn't addressing the entirety of Mr. Trumps supporters. Her comments were directed towards a "half" or element of Trump's base that spew actual hatred.

 

As to the other subjects:

 

In America, everyone has a right to freedom from harm. If an offense can or does cause harm, everyone has rights against that offense. Regarding the BLM movement, as you are not an American citizen nor seem to be a person of color, you might not or even care to know and understand the significance of this issue in America. If so, your opinion here is clearly without basis. Unless you care to add further?

[MigL]

No, because I choose to participate,Swansont .

I don't consider being a member a 'right'. It is a privilege.

 

So I don't see how its related.

 

We have BLM in Canada. Very militant and hijacked the PRIDE parade in Toronto this year because they had an issue with Police officers marching in the parade, DrmDoc. And I live 15 min. from the American border.

I think there is a big difference between what I said with regards to being OFFENDED ( someone hurt your feelings , Nancy ? ), and what you refer to as an OFFENCE, which could be physical/economic harm.

Edited September 13, 2016 by MigL

[Delta1212]

You totally missed Tampitump's point, Delta.

 

He didn't criticize H. Clinton for arguing against D. Trump followers with solid factual arguments based on evidence ( which, let's face it, she easily could have ).

What she did was 'label' them ( with the usual derogatory terms ) in an effort to stifle discussion.

 

As to the other subjects...

 

No one has the right to NOT be offended ( what is this safe spaces bullshit ? )

Black lives don't matter any more than any other lives ( why segregate and make the distinction ? ).

I see Islam has its own thread ( that should be interesting ).

Don't have a problem with feminism. I like being asked out.

Critiicizing Black Lives Matter on the basis that black lives don't matter more than anyone else's lives is like criticizing Breast Cancer Awareness Month on the basis that people with breast cancer aren't more important than people with other serious illnesses.

 

Black Lives Matter is not a slogan about black lives being more important than anyone else's lives. It is a slogan about black lives being just as important as everyone else's, because they are not treated as such in our media or public reactions to things that claim the lives of black victims. Black people are more likely to fall victim to certain kinds of violence for a variety of reasons, and society at large is less likely to care, also for a variety of reasons. Black victims are frequently framed differently than white victims in the media, especially when the police are involved.

 

All lives do matter, but saying that all lives matter does nothing to help those lives that are not currently placed on an equal footing with others' lives. When there is a problem, pointing out that problem does not mean the problem area is more important than other areas, it just means that there is a problem in that specific area that needs addressing.

 

When the intercom says "Clean up on aisle 5", the janitor doesn't respond "No, the whole store should be clean" and then go back to reading his newspaper as if that solves the problem.

[DrmDoc]

No, because I choose to participate.

I don't consider being a member a 'right'. It is a privilege.

 

So I don't see how its related.

 

I don't see how these comments relate to my post?

[Delta1212]

 

I don't see how these comments relate to my post?

I think that was addressed to swansont.

[MigL]

Sorry DrmDoc.

Its corrected.

[studiot]

 

tampitump post#6

 

legitimate crimes

 

 

 

Have I accidentally stumbled on the jokes thread?

[swansont]

No, because I choose to participate.

I don't consider being a member a 'right'. It is a privilege.

 

So I don't see how its related.

If you can choose to participate, you can choose not to participate, right? That's part of the concept of a safe space. If there are rules about not hounding people because of personal attributes (as covered by a rule against ad hominem), that's part of a concept of a safe space.

 

You can be gay and go to a gay bar. That's a safe space. Don't you have the right to do that — go to a place where there's an expectation of not being hassled because of who you are? In a broader sense of the concept, being a redneck and going to a redneck bar would probably also qualify. Belonging to a fraternity or a sorority. But it's generally reserved for marginalized groups who don't belong to the group by choice

 

Where is the irrationality in that?

[MigL]

Are you saying that if I or anyone have differing ideas which may offend another we have the option of not going to college/university ?

And we should go without an education ?

 

Are you saying if I light up a cigarette beside you in a restaurant, you have the option of going to another one, and I don't have to butt-out ? ( I'm assuming smoking laws are the same in Canada and the US, or else I'm gonna look foolish )

There are many 'legitimate' crimes studiot.

They may still be in the book as crimes but no one will arrest you for sparking up a doobie ( in Canada anyway ).

[swansont]

Are you saying that if I or anyone have differing ideas which may offend another we have the option of not going to college/university ?

And we should go without an education ?

Not at all. I was talking about here at SFN. If you go to a university, are you in class 24 hours a day? Obviously not. Don't you have the right to not be confronted by people or certain concepts ideologies when you are not in class, if that's what you want? You get to eat with your friends, you get to join clubs that have some common theme. You get to go to a church (or equivalent) of your choosing. If you're an atheist, shouldn't you be able to go somewhere without a religious fanatic following you, telling you you'll burn in hell?

 

Are you saying if I light up a cigarette beside you in a restaurant, you have the option of going to another one, and I don't have to butt-out ? ( I'm assuming smoking laws are the same in Canada and the US, or else I'm gonna look foolish )

Lighting up a cigarette is not the same thing.

[DrmDoc]

No, because I choose to participate,Swansont .

I don't consider being a member a 'right'. It is a privilege.

 

So I don't see how its related.

 

We have BLM in Canada. Very militant and hijacked the PRIDE parade in Toronto this year because they had an issue with Police officers marching in the parade, DrmDoc. And I live 15 min. from the American border.

I think there is a big difference between what I said with regards to being OFFENDED ( someone hurt your feelings , Nancy ? ), and what you refer to as an OFFENCE, which could be physical/economic harm.

 

As I now understand, your country has a BLM movement and you appear to have found it more disruptive than productive? Although I too disagree with some of the movement's demonstration methods, I've at least devoted some time to understanding the origin of the BLM cause and I do agree with its motives. Our country, unlike Canada, has a deplorable history in the treatment of people of color and the indigenous people of America. There's more than sufficient recent evidence that certain deplorable treatment continues unabated by past civil rights efforts, which I also supported. I support the movement because it's to my advantage to live in a society where others receive the same measure of consideration and respect I demand for myself. Regarding words of offense and whether they are harmful, I'm reminded of how easily a word in stereotyped use harmed the dignity of an important part of our population. I'm certain there are words or phases you will not countenance or calmly face against you or loved one without an angry response. You have a right to personal honor and dignity, which no one has a right to verbally or otherwise denigrate unjustly with impunity.

[Willie71]

Are you saying that if I or anyone have differing ideas which may offend another we have the option of not going to college/university ?

And we should go without an education ?

 

Let's be clear. If you want to hold on to ideas that contradict what the evidence shows, education might not be the best option for you. That's OK. Education is about broadening perspectives and learning new things.

 

 

Regarding BLM. They are correctly stating that black lives have not mattered to the police, and that needs to change. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. The propaganda that black lives matter believe they matter more than other lives is absurd, calling into question the intellectual honesty of those who propagate those views.