Peterson, Harris, etc....

[RedTiger]

"this idea is fecking moronic, it completely ignores the historical context and promotes an extreme ethnocentric ideology that is dangerous"

"yeah, well, it's not literally illegal to say it so stop treading on my free speech"

"what the feck are you talking about, you're constantly on major news outlets no one is treading on your free speech"

"but someone was mean to me on the internet which is worse than literal stalinism"

Pretty much

 

[Borden]

Article about the likes of Harris, Shapiro, Peterson et al. Expecting Glenn Greenwald and his posse to be in full on drama queenish meltdown over this at some point.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I like that, mostly because it will upset all the right people.

 

[Archie Leach]

A Bari Weiss article is appropriate in a thread about offensive cretins.

 

[Raoul]

I like that, mostly because it will upset all the right people.

It will no doubt upset Team Greenwald, but it shouldn't. Weiss should also do a follow on piece that delves more into the counterargument to the "Intellectual Dark Web", which broadly would be to debate/answer criticisms of enabling intolerance.

 

[Eboue]

They aren't on very often. But they should be, and they should be debating their critics like Greenwald, Hasan, and friends. Competing ideas need to be fleshed in the broadest public domain possible out and that process should be publicized in the mainstream media.

they are on all the time. bari weiss was on morning joe literally an hour ago. jordan peterson was on nbc news last week. shapiro is constantly on fox news. bill maher regularly has sam harris on to reassure him that its okay to hate muslims. theres a nyt article titled "Ben Shapiro, A Provocative Gladiator". Sommers is on Tucker Carlson all the time. these people are the establishment. they arent oppressed.

 

[Raoul]

they are on all the time. bari weiss was on morning joe literally an hour ago. jordan peterson was on nbc news last week. shapiro is constantly on fox news. bill maher regularly has sam harris on to reassure him that its okay to hate muslims. theres a nyt article titled "Ben Shapiro, A Provocative Gladiator". Sommers is on Tucker Carlson all the time. these people are the establishment. they arent oppressed.

That's a good thing, but over the past couple of years they haven't been so much. If they are starting to make more appearances that's a positive sign that their ideas are receiving more mainstream recognition.

 

[Eboue]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

help help im being repressed by being given bylines in the new york times, the washington post and the wall street journal

 

[Silva]

Yeah, well, a 14 year old girl said racism is bad on twitter, that's, like, an oppression of my ideas, man.

 

[Eboue]

if these people cared about speech and censorship at all they would be writing about the fact that texas (among other states) bars state money from going to anyone involved in BDS or the reporters who face jail time for reporting on the j20 protests

 

[Raoul]

if these people cared about speech and censorship at all they would be writing about the fact that texas (among other states) bars state money from going to anyone involved in BDS or the reporters who face jail time for reporting on the j20 protests

Why should state money go to BDS promoters when the concept of BDS is completely contrary to US policy ?

 

[Eboue]

Why should state money go to BDS promoters when the concept of BDS is completely contrary to US policy ?

i thought you cared about speech and ideas?

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Silva]

Yeah, but criticising Israel isn't free speech, it's only a free speech issue when you're attempting to turn black and brown people into subhumans for an upcoming genocide.

 

[Raoul]

i thought you cared about speech and ideas?

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I most certainly do as long as its private citizens who aren't violating an agreement they signed with with an employer. In such cases, its a dispute that needs to be adjudicated between both parties. I do think Houston shouldn't be doing this to her retroactively though.

 

[Cheesy]

Why should state money go to BDS promoters when the concept of BDS is completely contrary to US policy ?

You aren't expressing openness and a willingness to see different ideas expressed if that willingness stops the moment it goes against US policy.

 

[Borden]

if these people cared about speech and censorship at all they would be writing about the fact that texas (among other states) bars state money from going to anyone involved in BDS or the reporters who face jail time for reporting on the j20 protests

If you think genocide is wrong then why have I never seen you condemn the Rwandan genocide?

Is that evidence that you don't think genocide is wrong, or am I being an idiot?

 

[Raoul]

Yeah, but criticising Israel isn't free speech, it's only a free speech issue when you're attempting to turn black and brown people into subhumans for an upcoming genocide.

Free speech isn't in question in this case - but an entity like a University does have the right to negotiate terms of employment with their contractors and/or employees. Albeit not retroactively.

 

[Silva]

or am I being an idiot?

every time

 

[Cheesy]

If you think genocide is wrong then why have I never seen you condemn the Rwandan genocide?

Is that evidence that you don't think genocide is wrong, or am I being an idiot?

He's (rightfully) pointing out that these right-wingers who champion free speech only ever tend to be championing freedom of speech when it's on issues that affect their own side. It's a bit tenuous in a single case but when it applies to the vast majority of issues they discuss it's fair game to call out.

 

[Raoul]

You aren't expressing openness and a willingness to see different ideas expressed if that willingness stops the moment it goes against US policy.

Nonsense. Anti-US views are fairly common around here since most posters are orthodox lefties.

 

[Cheesy]

Nonsense. Anti-US views are fairly common around here since most posters are orthodox lefties.

I agree. That wasn't the point I was addressing in your post though. Was just pointing out you didn't seem overly concerned about the BDS issue since it was something that ran contrary to US policy.

 

[Raoul]

He's (rightfully) pointing out that these right-wingers who champion free speech only ever tend to be championing freedom of speech when it's on issues that affect their own side. It's a bit tenuous in a single case but when it applies to the vast majority of issues they discuss it's fair game to call out.

That's generally because the process doesn't require the help of Shaprio, Harris, and friends when you have an entire MSM apparatus who are willing to cover racist and free speech incidents that effect their core audience.

 

[Raoul]

I agree. That wasn't the point I was addressing in your post though. Was just pointing out you didn't seem overly concerned about the BDS issue since it was something that ran contrary to US policy.

I don't happen to support US policy on Israel in the present, nor do I support the BDS movement.

 

[Minimalist]

These fcukers sure do talk alot for people having their speech restricted.

 

[Cheesy]

That's generally because the process doesn't require the help of Shaprio, Harris, and friends when you have an entire MSM apparatus who are willing to cover racist and free speech incidents that effect their core audience.

I'm not sure that's the point though. If Shapiro and Peterson inherently care about freedom of speech then they should be discussing issues which affect all sides. If they're not doing that then their interests are clearly skewed, and it highlights that they might not necessarily care about freedom of speech but about freedom of speech when it impacts their side.

I don't include Harris in that because for all the controversy surrounding him in here I don't think he's ever really been fully banded in with the alt-right bunch. Always been seen as closer to Dawkins, Hitchens etc in that regard.

 

[Raoul]

These fcukers sure do talk alot for people having their speech restricted.

They don't talk nearly enough and to a wide enough audience.

 

[Cheesy]

They don't talk nearly enough and to a wide enough audience.

What does that even mean? As has been pointed out they regularly talk on major shows etc, have strong core audiences and clearly appeal to a lot of people. What's the correct level of exposure for them?

 

[Borden]

He's (rightfully) pointing out that these right-wingers who champion free speech only ever tend to be championing freedom of speech when it's on issues that affect their own side. It's a bit tenuous in a single case but when it applies to the vast majority of issues they discuss it's fair game to call out.

Several of these people aren't right-wingers by any stretch of the imagination. And I don't recall any of them arguing for the repression of speech they don't agree with, not from what I've seen or heard anyway. If you can provide examples of that I'd be interested in seeing it (and frankly it wouldn't surprise me given that less-than-bright people like Dave Rubin are included in the article).

I'm haven't seen a lot of incessantly complaining that their free-speech is being curtailed from them either for that matter. More lamenting the state of free speech on the far-left these days, notably the insane smear-campaigns and attempts to destroy people's careers and reputations over nothing, a point which I wholly agree with.

 

[Raoul]

I'm not sure that's the point though. If Shapiro and Peterson inherently care about freedom of speech then they should be discussing issues which affect all sides. If they're not doing that then their interests are clearly skewed, and it highlights that they might not necessarily care about freedom of speech but about freedom of speech when it impacts their side.

I don't include Harris in that because for all the controversy surrounding him in here I don't think he's ever really been fully banded in with the alt-right bunch. Always been seen as closer to Dawkins, Hitchens etc in that regard.

Their core schtick isn't being free speech advocates - Harris has his schtick on Atheism, morality, free will etc. Peterson has an entirely different one, as does Nawaz, Shapiro and the rest of them. There is no common thread other than that their ideas are generally shunned in contemporary debate, when they should be debated more, not shut down.

 

[Minimalist]

They don't talk nearly enough and to a wide enough audience.

What are you on about? They never fcuking stop. Or am I missing sarcasm?

 

[Silva]

What does that even mean? As has been pointed out they regularly talk on major shows etc, have strong core audiences and clearly appeal to a lot of people. What's the correct level of exposure for them?

Fuhrer, apparently.

 

[Raoul]

What does that even mean? As has been pointed out they regularly talk on major shows etc, have strong core audiences and clearly appeal to a lot of people. What's the correct level of exposure for them?

Its not about the individuals in question - but rather that a broader set of ideas should be debated in popular culture. Currently, people have to go fishing on YouTube, Reddit and Twitter to ferret out these debates when said ideas should be more prominently talked about on MSM outlets.

 

[Eboue]

I most certainly do as long as its private citizens who aren't violating an agreement they signed with with an employer. In such cases, its a dispute that needs to be adjudicated between both parties. I do think Houston shouldn't be doing this to her retroactively though.

literally 30 minutes ago you were saying how these right wingers are being oppressed because they dont get to appear on tv enough or there arent as many fawning articles in papers of record as there should be and now you think its fine to force people to sign loyalty oaths to a foreign country before they can lecture about plate tectonics at waco community college

 

[Eboue]

Free speech isn't in question in this case - but an entity like a University does have the right to negotiate terms of employment with their contractors and/or employees. Albeit not retroactively.

its a public university and a texas state law.

 

[Raoul]

its a public university and a texas state law.

Do states have a right to enact laws that meet their community standards ?

 

[Eboue]

If you think genocide is wrong then why have I never seen you condemn the Rwandan genocide?

Is that evidence that you don't think genocide is wrong, or am I being an idiot?

ok

 

[Eboue]

Do states have a right to enact laws that meet their community standards ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[Minimalist]

Its not about the individuals in question - but rather that a broader set of ideas should be debated in popular culture. Currently, people have to go fishing on YouTube, Reddit and Twitter to ferret out these debates when said ideas should be more prominently talked about on MSM outlets.

Some of stuff put out by Peterson, Rubin, Shaprio is absolute drivel. There's no conspiracy about their views not being top of the news every night.

I don't see Chapo Trap House-like content on my TV either.

And now Fox News has that moron buddy of Rubin, Candace Owens on full blast all the time from what I can see.

 

[Eboue]

Its not about the individuals in question - but rather that a broader set of ideas should be debated in popular culture. Currently, people have to go fishing on YouTube, Reddit and Twitter to ferret out these debates when said ideas should be more prominently talked about on MSM outlets.

what are mainstream media outlets in your opinion? the new york times? the wall street journal? the washington post? NBC? FOX? MSNBC? these people are prominently featured there

 

[Raoul]

Some of stuff put out by Peterson, Rubin, Shaprio is absolute drivel. There's no conspiracy about their views not being top of the news every night.

I don't see Chapo Trap House-like content on my TV either.

Some is and some isn't. That's all subjective. The overarching point being that they should be heard, as should their critics.

 

[Raoul]

what are mainstream media outlets in your opinion? the new york times? the wall street journal? the washington post? NBC? FOX? MSNBC? these people are prominently featured there

All the usual "liberal media" suspects excluding Fox.