|
woke wedding drone posted:Nah, the truth is sometimes Milo is the guy who runs the company. And how often does your average entry level worker interact with the CEO? Or are you arguing that the CEO poisons the work culture so much that everyone is free to also be Milos and HR can't do poo poo about it?
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Believing in an epidemic of people claiming to be raped for attention is not an opinion that can be discoursed with, as it is purely a facade meant to support rape and rapists. There's nothing to it, intellectually. Yes this is the primary thing George Will talks about and is known for. I too dismiss anyone's ability to contribute meaningful ideas based on the one thing they said that I disagree with. The list of people I consider intellectually pure consists of:
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
cravius posted:Yes this is the primary thing George Will talks about and is known for. I too dismiss anyone's ability to contribute meaningful ideas based on the one thing they said I that I disagree with. The list of people I consider intellectually pure consists of: Okay, so you're saying we need to tolerate this view, that it is not heinous, that it's just plain normal. Everyone has an opinion as bad as that one! We shouldn't let someone's support of rape define our understanding of them. They have so many other good qualities otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:And how often does your average entry level worker interact with the CEO? Or are you arguing that the CEO poisons the work culture so much that everyone is free to also be Milos and HR can't do poo poo about it? Pretty often when the company is small. Also your second point is true as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Okay, so you're saying we need to tolerate this view, that it is not heinous, that it's just plain normal. Everyone has an opinion as bad as that one! We shouldn't let someone's support of rape define our understanding of them. They have so many other good qualities otherwise. By your logic we shouldn't listen to anyone who holds, or once held an opinion that we disagree with. Is that what you're saying?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Stop touching poop, guys.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
cravius posted:By your logic we shouldn't listen to anyone who holds, or once held an opinion that we disagree with. Is that what you're saying? Thanks for admitting that you agreed with my characterization of you, although it was in such a roundabout way. Perhaps you merely believe that all opinions are identical, that, say, believing it's okay to kill people and eat them if you're bored is identical to believing that puppies are cute. Regardless, it's interesting how thin your ability to defend your opinions is before you retreat into "you're being intolerant" and blubbering like a little baby.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:Nah, the truth is sometimes Milo is the guy who runs the company. Yeah, because I run into the CEO of my company all the time.  cravius posted:Actually I am. I sincerely doubt it. woke wedding drone posted:Now we're seeing the real fascism come out, I guess. I appreciate your honesty. How is calling an rear end in a top hat an rear end in a top hat fascism? Care to explain that, or are you just trolling because you're bored?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:Pretty often when the company is small. Also your second point is true as well. So you're saying it's better that college kids be exposed to hateful fucks early so that they can learn to tolerate them in the workforce? Shouldn't the lesson be to notice when the company's culture is super toxic and bail?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
I don't really see the issue of telling someone "your idea has no legitimacy, no evidence, and has been refuted and debunked literally hundreds of times by actual academics, ergo we're not going to invite you as a speaker". Like, would you invite an actual klansman/Nazi to speak at a college? No, of course you wouldn't because clearly what they're saying is nonsense. Nothing Milo or Hannity says is going to have any more truth to it, so why bother giving them a platform? It's not saying "I disagree with your opinion so you're not allowed here" its "your opinion is verifiably incorrect so we're not giving you a place to speak at our institution of learning".
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yeah, because I run into the CEO of my company all the time. If people are so sure they believe in God, they should be able to sit through a talk by Christopher Kitchens or Terry Eagleton. In fact they routinely do, and choose what to believe or disbelieve. This is what education should be. But saying "welp, I have determined that my beliefs are correct and therefore will not entertain any other possibility" is the height of arrogance and intellectual weakness
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
cravius posted:If people are so sure they believe in God, they should be able to sit through a talk by Christopher Kitchens or Terry Eagleton. In fact they routinely do, and choose what to believe or disbelieve. This is what education should be. But saying "welp, I have determined that my beliefs are correct and therefore will not entertain any other possibility" is the height of arrogance and intellectual weakness "Christopher Kitchens" lmao.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
cravius posted:There's really no point in arguing with people who characterize any opposing view as hate speech. It's an intellectually weak argument that runs counter to the free exchange of open ideas and healthy debate that constitutes higher learning. Once you categorize a huge chunk of the countries beliefs as unworthy to even be discussed, any chance of rational discourse is out the window. i haven't done that though, i've pointed out milo is an idiot and i've poked holes in your assumptions if you don't want to argue with the rest of the thread on grounds you've convinced yourself are true then i expect you to stick to your principles and stop posting itt
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
cravius posted:If people are so sure they believe in God, they should be able to sit through a talk by Christopher Kitchens or Terry Eagleton. In fact they routinely do, [Citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Anchor Wanker posted:I don't really see the issue of telling someone "your idea has no legitimacy, no evidence, and has been refuted and debunked literally hundreds of times by actual academics, ergo we're not going to invite you as a speaker". Like, would you invite an actual klansman/Nazi to speak at a college? No, of course you wouldn't because clearly what they're saying is nonsense. Nothing Milo or Hannity says is going to have any more truth to it, so why bother giving them a platform? It's not saying "I disagree with your opinion so you're not allowed here" its "your opinion is verifiably incorrect so we're not giving you a place to speak at our institution of learning". Just because forums poster Anchor Wanker thinks there's no truth to Hannity's views doesn't make it so. In fact, half the country would disagree with you. I don't get where this moral certitude comes from.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
cravius posted:If people are so sure they believe in God, they should be able to sit through a talk by Christopher Kitchens or Terry Eagleton. In fact they routinely do, and choose what to believe or disbelieve. This is what education should be. But saying "welp, I have determined that my beliefs are correct and therefore will not entertain any other possibility" is the height of arrogance and intellectual weakness I think Terry Eagleton is a Catholic. He hated The God Delusion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
cravius posted:If people are so sure they believe in God, they should be able to sit through a talk by Christopher Kitchens or Terry Eagleton. In fact they routinely do, and choose what to believe or disbelieve. This is what education should be. But saying "welp, I have determined that my beliefs are correct and therefore will not entertain any other possibility" is the height of arrogance and intellectual weakness i'm sure all the folks down at Strawman U are stung by this biting criticism but here, back in reality, when has this ever happened aside from in your own imagination?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
ductonius posted:Stop touching poop, guys. i dunno the guy freaking out about phantom censorship is a pretty telling example of why so many people are up in arms about trigger warnings on campus
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
cravius posted:If people are so sure they believe in God, they should be able to sit through a talk by Christopher Kitchens or Terry Eagleton. In fact they routinely do, and choose what to believe or disbelieve. This is what education should be. But saying "welp, I have determined that my beliefs are correct and therefore will not entertain any other possibility" is the height of arrogance and intellectual weakness Colleges should be able to choose who is allowed to speak (with an amplified voice, ie: with an auditorium, microphone, and student money) on their campus. Do you agree or disagree? Colleges should be allowed to change their mind about who they chose to speak, for whatever reason they want. Do you agree or disagree?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
cravius posted:Just because forums poster Anchor Wanker thinks there's no truth to Hannity's views doesn't make it so. In fact, half the country would disagree with you. I don't get where this moral certitude comes from. Have you considered that it is very possible that half the country is wrong about a lot of things? Its not because "I think" its wrong that he's wrong. He's wrong because of actual proof to the contrary of what he says.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
cravius posted:You just don't want to be exposed to beliefs and ideas you disagree with and that's a damning indictment of the strength of yalls convictions. So what if I wanted to give a speech about, say, the mating habits of the common unicorn? Should the college be made to provide me with an extraordinary venue to hold that speech? If they refused, would that just be an admission that they're afraid of exposing their students to the dangerous yet seductive pro-unicorn agenda? For every single prospective speaker about any given topic, colleges need to make a judgement about whether there's a point to inviting them. Whether whatever they have to say is in some way, shape, or form conducive to their students' development and education. And the key point here is: The mere fact a given position runs contrary to the current mainstream does not give that position any intrinsic merit or value. There is no great nationwide controversy about whether phrenologists should be invited to medical schools, or flatearthers to astronomical faculties. There are countless of positions and beliefs that disagree with the mainstream, and most of them never get anywhere near a college speaking engagement. And in the same vein, it's perfectly alright for a college to look at a speaker whose main points run along the lines of "Rape is actually no big deal, women just need thicker skins" and decide that there's nothing to be gained from providing that speaker with a venue. The idea that the alt-right's ideas in particular carry enough merit to deserve such speaking engagements is essentially an outgrowth of truth-is-in-the-middle-ism. The current zeitgeist among young people trends vaguely left-ish, so people assume that basically anything that bills itself as right-wing is automatically a valid and necessary counterpoint. Especially so in the US, where basically any random issue can and will be framed in a left/right, liberal/conservative perspective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Horking Delight posted:Colleges should be able to choose who is allowed to speak (with an amplified voice, ie: with an auditorium, microphone, and student money) on their campus. Do you agree or disagree? I agree with both. They are certainly free to do both. Peoples criticism of their choice to do both is also valid and fair to be discussed, not dismissed as a figment of the media's fixation with outrage. Do you agree or disagree?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Anchor Wanker posted:Have you considered that it is very possible that half the country is wrong about a lot of things? Its not because "I think" its wrong that he's wrong. He's wrong because of actual proof to the contrary of what he says. What proof lmao
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
"Half the country" is a blatant lie, by the way. 37% of the country identifies as "conservative".
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Aren't speakers optional to go to?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
amuayse posted:Aren't speakers optional to go to? Shhhh
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
cravius posted:What proof lmao the dozens of times hannity insisted obama was born in africa, for starters dude is a hack
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
cravius while you're up here galloping about censorship, good faith arguments, and whatever else is up your rear end on this nice sunday do you actually have anything you're really trying to say or are you just generally expressing your displeasure with liberal academia because you seem to be all over the place in terms of what you're actually mad about. as far as i can tell you're just plain old mad
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
amuayse posted:Aren't speakers optional to go to? Certain classes can require them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Gotta hear both sides, so if you let a pro-Trump person speak on campus, you should also invite a pro-Hillary person. But to be truly equitable, also a Jill Stein and a Gary Johnson surrogate. And to be truly open-minded and inquisitive and academic, someone who argues for a monarchy. And someone who believes a theocratic monarchy. And someone who wants a Caliphate. And someone who wants to end humanity. And also someone who thinks the President is a myth. And someone else who believes in a citystate based on rape. Otherwise you're a coddled widdle safe space baby.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Edge & Christian posted:Gotta hear both sides, so if you let a pro-Trump person speak on campus, you should also invite a pro-Hillary person. This is all of course showing our Human bias. What if humans didn't exist? Are we just afraid to have our beliefs challenged?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
cravius posted:I agree with both. They are certainly free to do both. Peoples criticism of their choice to do both is also valid and fair to be discussed, not dismissed as a figment of the media's fixation with outrage. Do you agree or disagree? so you're arguing to keep the status quo? because that's pretty much how things are working right now 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
cravius posted:What proof lmao Do we really need to go through every single thing that Hannity has been wrong about? There are two whole threads here dedicated to that poo poo and it doesn't even scratch the surface. C'mon man, seriously. We deserve better shitposting than what you're doing here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:cravius while you're up here galloping about censorship, good faith arguments, and whatever else is up your rear end on this nice sunday do you actually have anything you're really trying to say or are you just generally expressing your displeasure with liberal academia because you seem to be all over the place in terms of what you're actually mad about. as far as i can tell you're just plain old mad I'm concerned with the concept prevalent in academia that oppossing views should not be entertained. Whether the dismissal is framed as an objection to [insert controversial remark here] or by claiming that conservative ideology has been "disproven" ( I mean what does that even mean?) it definitely runs contrary to the purpose of a college education, which involves a considered examination of all views in order to come to a conclusion. Do we really not trust students to realize how moronic people like Milo's opinions are?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
cravius posted:I'm concerned with the concept prevalent in academia that oppossing views shoukd not be entertained. you have yet to actually demonstrate this is a prevalent concept and not something you're imagining. having been in academia for a decade, i never say any censorship. where did you go to school? do you have any examples of this happening or are you just working out your anxieties in a group discussion?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:How is calling an rear end in a top hat an rear end in a top hat fascism? Care to explain that, or are you just trolling because you're bored? Well you already said demagogues shouldn't be allowed to speak, wasn't that you? So such an anodyne speaker as George Will, who represents the beliefs of a large number of Americans, is apparently off limits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:you have yet to actually demonstrate this is a prevalent concept and not something you're imagining. having been in academia for a decade, i never say any censorship. where did you go to school? do you have any examples of this happening or are you just working out your anxieties in a group discussion? I'm basing this off my own experiences at college, and the plethora of news articles where controversial speakers are disinvited due to "safety concerns" or just outright protesting by a small segment of the student body.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
cravius posted:I'm concerned with the concept prevalent in academia that oppossing views should not be entertained. quote:it definitely runs contrary to the purpose of a college education, which involves a considered examination of all views in order to come to a conclusion. Do we really not trust students to realize how moronic people like Milo's opinions are? no we absolutely do trust them to do that, and they have, and what you're seeing is the "in order to come to a conclusion" part of what you're demanding. the conclusion is that students disagree with these views and object to the people in question being given a public soapbox from which they can express these opinions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
amuayse posted:Aren't speakers optional to go to? If part of the fees I pay to a college are used for facility upkeep it stops being acceptable to say "just don't listen to him" if they let a rape apologist use those facilities which I am paying for as a platform for their message.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
cravius posted:I'm basing this off my own experiences at college, and the plethora of news articles where controversial speakers are disinvited due to "saftey concerns" or just outright protesting by a small segment of the student body. i dont find this convincing, given that you put scare quotes around safety concerns and you seem to be suffering from a strong degree of confirmation bias - something which is pretty ironic given that you're advocating for rational, even-handed consideration of opposing ideas like, has it occured to you at all that there are actual logistical reasons why people might be disinvited, and that not all behavior of a college administration is to enforce ideological censorship? basically i haven't been convinced by your last posts that you're actually capable of a non-biased, non-leading opinion you also insist that protests are based on a desire to remain ignorant of a speaker rather than rejection of a speaker's known opinions, a giant flaw in your argument which you've as of yet failed to address
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:51
|
|