- Joined
- 23 November 2004
- Posts
- 3,974
- Reactions
- 850
I share your outrage. And apparently there's no link between SSM and religious and speech freedomsI am disgusted with where universities are now positioned in regard to free speech, free thought and free debate.
Universities used to be places where there was free thought and where different ideas were fostered. They could be freely discussed , debated and analysed. This is no longer the case.
Read this blog from Andrew Bolt and take the time to listen to the audio. You too will be disgusted in the way Lindsay Shepherd was treated and how the University now acts and thinks...
...I am ashamed to call myself a university graduate if this is the bullsh#t they are serving up now.
Don't go to university if you want a rounded education It's just not available any more.
“University education” - RIP
"The fourth and final reason is that there is a short supply of bigotry, but a high demand for it. Students want to be offended, and for that, they need offensive people. But as racism and sexism have declined, they have to maintain their high level of outrage by lowering the bar for what’s considered offensive."
I’m a student. Here’s how free speech died at university.
http://www.news.com.au/national/im-...y/news-story/748b6979096c523fb7c8cbc89fef7102
We havn't reached 2018 yet and our resident All Righeters are hard at again.You don't need to dissect our universities to see nouveau social obedience, hurt feelings and cry babies. They are here in numbers and boy are they a handful to keep from blaming the candy floss for their sticky hair.
As usual utter shite. Let's look at Ben Shapario a poster boy Alt right who the writer screamed was not allowed to speak at Berkley University. Check out this guy's form. He seems to be Milo in a suit and one degree less incoherant.
But just as rapid, incoherant and poisonous.
The whole point of this is not whether you personally like or dislike someone or their views, it's about whether they should be allowed to present those views in a forum such as a university.
To me, this is or should be an exercise in rational thinking for students. Is the guy/gal talking bull$hite or not ? If they are, then argue with them, or walk out if you think they are a waste of time. Universities should be places where anyone can present an argument and have it torn down if it doesn't live up to the standards required.
PS, did you mean rapid or vapid ?
Are you truly opposed to hate speech bas?From all of the evidence to date I do not believe their is any policy point of view in the extreme right platform. By policy I mean some coherant argument critiquing what is currently happening in society and then proposing, with persuasive argument and evidence an alternative direction.
What I see happening is a continual assault on people and institutions that these actors despise and wish to see destroyed.
It is hate speech. It uses lies and fabrications to demean/destroy individuals, institutions and organisations that are seen as the enemy. I copied out the analysis of Ben Schapiros views to illustrate how intellectually bankrupt and poisonous his presentations are.
The voice of the Alt Right is the voice of demagoguery. As far as I can see attempting to calmly use argument, logic and evidence against such weapons is not going to be successful. European countries introduced laws around hate speech, vilification and Holocaust denial to counter efforts of the far Right in the 80's to revive the ideals of Nazi Germany and renew their attack on Jews. It's interesting to note that the Alt Right today reserve their strongest condemnation against laws like hate speech and vilification which would circumscribe their capacity to further inflame the community.
How about Milo ? Brought to Australia to stir the pot so to speak. To use his hyperbole to create change. What does he actually say ? What would his publication Dangerous have looked like ? The would be publishers of his book had plenty to say to Milo about how he might at least seem to have some coherant argument beyond mindless, nasty hate. I'll post their comments on What does the Alt Right want thread.
(And yes I meant vapid..)
Demagoguery is an appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side.
Demagoguery is a manipulative approach — often associated with dictators and sleazy politicians — that appeals to the worst nature of people. Demagoguery isn't based on reason, issues, and doing the right thing; it's based on stirring up fear and hatred to control people. For example, a politician who stirs up a fear of immigrants to distract from other issues is using demagoguery. Demagoguery is one of the most negative aspects of politics, but it's also one that's all too common.
Are you truly opposed to hate speech bas?
If so then why are you expressing such hateful sentiments towards ben, milo etc.?
The only thing clear, at this stage, is that you seem to have no problem accusing others of your very own behaviours.Really ? I'm observing the hateful nature and character of their work. I'm observing how almost all their activity is directed to demeaning and destroying individuals, institutions, interest groups et al.
It is their activity I find hateful Cynic. Get that clear please.
Thanks for that bas.Hmn Cynic. That's pretty good. I mean that is really good. Indeed a Cynic special.
I'm calling out the Alt Right on the objectively proven basis of what they say in terms of denigration of women, blacks, liberals (which covers anyone they don't like) Jews and so on. I'm saying that their modus operandi is continued verbal assault in the name of freedom.. That's all on the record Cynic. That is why Milo revels as a "troll extraordinaire"
Your response is to hypothesise ! that I could, might be, probabvy even, be doing exactly the same thing perhaps even worse. In a court of law for example it would be the equivalent of an alleged thief/rapist/murderer opening the defense gambit with hypothesing on the possible immorality of the judge, the prosecutor, perhaps even the jury!
Your are of course allowed to express such a hypothetical. ( Good luck with actually finding anything.) But wouldn't it be more appropriate to turn your attention to what the Alt Right is saying and how they go about it ?
Thanks for that bas.
Getting back to my question, what entitles you to decide whom deserves persecution?
What leads you to your conviction of righteous innocence, whilst engaging in the vilification of your opponents?
Bas. When you actually start demonstrating some regard for objective evidence, I will start responding to your posts more seriously - until then enjoy your self righteous fantasy.Good luck with that line in court Cynic. Some of us are dealing with objective evidence. Others are just making up hypotheticals that are as relevant and provable as the numbers of angels that can dance on a pinhead.
Ding ding ding, bingo Cynic.The only thing clear, at this stage, is that you seem to have no problem accusing others of your very own behaviours.
Perhaps you believe persecution of persecutors to be justified.
Even so, the question remains, on what basis do you determine your justification for persecution of others?
How do you know you aren't, just as (or possibly even more) guilty, of offense, than those you so readily accuse?
Bas, those to the right of center are a broad church. Your characterisation of everyone to rhe right of Pol Pot as alt right, is asinine and ludicrous.Hmn Cynic. That's pretty good. I mean that is really good. Indeed a Cynic special.
I'm calling out the Alt Right on the objectively proven basis of what they say in terms of denigration of women, blacks, liberals (which covers anyone they don't like) Jews and so on. I'm saying that their modus operandi is continued verbal assault in the name of freedom.. That's all on the record Cynic. That is why Milo revels as a "troll extraordinaire"
Your response is to hypothesise ! that I could, might be, probabvy even, be doing exactly the same thing perhaps even worse. In a court of law for example it would be the equivalent of an alleged thief/rapist/murderer opening the defense gambit with hypothesing on the possible immorality of the judge, the prosecutor, perhaps even the jury!
Your are of course allowed to express such a hypothetical. ( Good luck with actually finding anything.) But wouldn't it be more appropriate to turn your attention to what the Alt Right is saying and how they go about it ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?