Play Nice 45th President of the United States - Donald Trump (continued in Part 2)

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The lack of freedom of speech that undocumented people endure is far more important as an issue, than giving more national platforms for neo-nazis and pseudo-comedians who are happy to casually associate with these neo nazis.

 

[yebiga]

Yep. It appears the terms of freedom of speech are now primarily concerned with the freedom to be racist, sexist and homophobic and endorse ethnic cleansing.

...again, provided you don't explicitly or implicitly advocate for the destruction of windows, glass or screen doors.

Now you got it

 

[Cooldude]

Derp, in the post you replied to I explained that this was unnecessary, just like your continued denial that it has happened in the first place. You just don't get it.



Of course it does, the stated objective of many of these groups was to deny Milo an audience. They often succeed, but fail in the long run.



Hooligans are mere troublemakers, the violence behind attacks such as Berkely are for express political purposes. It seems your misunderstanding is partly based in your refusal to acknowledge that there are groups behind this, and it's not just random violence.



Nope, it's less, in fact it's zero. S&S don't have to publish Milo's book, Breitbart didn't even fire Milo, he resigned. This has nothing to do with free speech, they're pure market forces.

You don't read do you? Rioting is not stopping free speech, so equating the two in the first place is idiotic, you keep trying to nitpick the success of it shows you got nothing. None of it is even authoritarian, which btw you still don't know the meaning of the word. You talking about denial is rich when your head is basically up your own ass the whole time

And I've repeated myself many times, protesting about someone else's free speech is not suppressing or oppressing any one's free speech, because you are so dumb you just keep having it fly over your head. They rioted and wrongly so but Yiannopoulos still has an audience, so nothing has been suppressed. If you think they're denying their audience, then Milo Yiannopoulos trying to witch hunt a black man for not being black without evidence because he is an activist of black live matters is his very way to stop and delegitimise his activist voice. Yet you champion one and condemn the other. Which is why you are a hypocrite

Of course S&S and Breitbart aren't stopping Yiannopoulos's free speech, just as the rioting isn't, I bring it up because you are selectively picking which one to get outraged about, but that keeps flying over your head because your head's buried in the sand.

Haha, are you always this literal? We're clearly having this discussion in the context of what kind of ideas speakers like Spencer and Milo are allowed to express, nothing to do with active discrimination in the workplace, public transport harrassment, etc.

So you're now backpedalling? You said we're fortunate to live in a country that allows people to be as sexist and racist as they want, how would you like people to interpret it? You just trapped yourself in your own blatant moral and outrage hypocrisy so your escape is "ha I am not literal", well of course you aren't literal since from our exchange you seem to know very little about the meaning of many words

Btw Australia does not have guaranteed freedom of speech, it literally isn't in the Constitution, so maybe you should * off out of the country then? Why do you know so little about so many things?

 

[yebiga]

No, that's not what Im saying.

Im saying the lack of freedom of speech undocumented people are, and will, ensure is far more pressing than giving more national platforms for neo-nazis and pseudo-comedians who are happy to casually associate with these neo nazis.

Where do you get deciding who's speech is more pressing! It possible millions of fully documented people in this country also don't have a voice for their concerns.

Your playing a pissing contest because you are defending the speech of those you determine are the most in need of a voice.

What you clearly don't believe is that allowing the organic intercourse of speech can lead to anything good. Essentially your espousing at best your moral superiority and at worst a misanthropic creed.

You are in fact playing god - all compassionistas do. The possibility that random free speech may actually organically help resolve and educate threatens you and your self appointed moral prefecture.

What is evidentially clear throughout history is that the real enemy are those who would manipulate free speech whether for the right or the left.

You my friend are the enemy of man. And woman - lol

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Where do you get deciding who's speech is more pressing! It possible millions of fully documented people in this country also don't have a voice for their concerns.

Their need for greater protections is infinitely more important than neo-nazis need for even more platforms.

 

[Gough]

39-45 is a good example of why Nazis need to be put down before they get too much of a voice. These dickheads love to talk about Chamberlain's appeasement in 1938 when it comes to Islam, but they generally fail to then look at the subsequent seven years, the carnage it caused, and the people who were largely responsible for it.

 

[Lethality]

You don't read do you? Rioting is not stopping free speech, so equating the two in the first place is idiotic, you keep trying to nitpick the success of it shows you got nothing.

It is in this case, that is both the express purpose of it, and often the result.

And I've repeated myself many times, protesting about someone else's free speech is not suppressing or oppressing any one's free speech

I've never said anything against protesting. People can protest all they want, in a civil, peaceful way.

Of course S&S and Breitbart aren't stopping Yiannopoulos's free speech, just as the rioting isn't, I bring it up because you are selectively picking which one to get outraged about

The rioting is, though, as I've explained. It's their purpose to shut down Milo talks, and they believe that they have been successful. Simon and Shuster just don't want to get involved. The two are completely different, as publishers don't need to publish anyone they don't want to.

So you're now backpedalling? You said we're fortunate to live in a country that allows people to be as sexist and racist as they want, how would you like people to interpret it?

In the context of talking about people like Spencer and Milo, which we were.

Btw Australia does not have guaranteed freedom of speech, it literally isn't in the Constitution, so maybe you should **** off out of the country then? Why do you know so little about so many things?

LOL, we don't get all our human rights from the Constitution, nor from Australia. The right to free speech is enshrined in law in Australia though.

 

[yebiga]

Their need for greater protections is infinitely more important than neo-nazis need for even more platforms.

Like I said - your playing god
And then your surprised or offended when others find that beyond contempt

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Like I said - your playing god
And then your surprised or offended when others find that beyond contempt

Playing god? No, Ive issued an opinion.

You do aswell, albeit they are always wrong and poorly articulated.

 

[PalaceGun]

I'm finding the misuse of "your" and "you're" beyond contempt.

Sort it out, man.

 

[PalaceGun]

and while we're at it, can the poster who keeps bringing up "Berkeley", for some reason or another, start spelling it correctly?

 

[yebiga]

39-45 is a good example of why Nazis need to be put down before they get too much of a voice. These dickheads love to talk about Chamberlain's appeasement in 1938 when it comes to Islam, but they generally fail to then look at the subsequent seven years, the carnage it caused, and the people who were largely responsible for it.

The Nazi slur is just ignorant
And proof of that is that it works just as well against Muslims or Jews

The necessary conditions for a NAZI
Movement simply aren't there. It first requires mass poverty in western countries and even then technology has so surpassed the compass of any such movement that it would be near impossible.

Then those countries would need to entirely stop trading relations with their enemies - again unimaginable

And in the end race is such weak differentiator today that it only has traction for the truly disaffected.

What we are seeing today is only incidentally a racial conflict snd far more a economic cultural conflict.

It's a redefining of our economic culture in preparation for some serious issues on the immediate horizon

 

[madmug]

The Nazi slur is just ignorant
And proof of that is that it works just as well against Muslims or Jews

The necessary conditions for a NAZI
Movement simply aren't there. It first requires mass poverty in western countries and even then technology has so surpassed the compass of any such movement that it would be near impossible.

Then those countries would need to entirely stop trading relations with their enemies - again unimaginable

And in the end race is such weak differentiator today that it only has traction for the truly disaffected.

What we are seeing today is only incidentally a racial conflict snd far more a economic cultural conflict.

It's a redefining of our economic culture in preparation for some serious issues on the immediate horizon

Absolute poverty like in India. Or relative poverty like in the USA.
Its interesting to see which society is closer to Nazism.
Brexit was more a repudiation of the 'others' coming into the UK, not the economic benefits of the EU.

 

[Cooldude]

It is in this case, that is both the express purpose of it, and often the result.

I've never said anything against protesting. People can protest all they want, in a civil, peaceful way.

The rioting is, though, as I've explained. It's their purpose to shut down Milo talks, and they believe that they have been successful. Simon and Shuster just don't want to get involved. The two are completely different, as publishers don't need to publish anyone they don't want to.

In the context of talking about people like Spencer and Milo, which we were.

LOL, we don't get all our human rights from the Constitution, nor from Australia. The right to free speech is enshrined in law in Australia though.

Goodness, you really don't like to read, do you? We've been through this a million times, you keep repeating the same dumb point that I've repeatedly debunked and all you do is just repeat your debunked point again like a human cassette player, just so you know, the more times you repeat it to yourself doesn't make it any less wrong

I'm not gonna repeat myself on how utterly dumb your outrage against the riots are, I'll just sum it up: you are a hypocrite and you don't really care about it because you condemn the riots (which are wrong) yet champion a guy who has led a racist tirade against an actress just because her movie sucked, to a point where she quit twitter at a point. Then he questioned and led a smear campaign against a black life matters activist's blackness (without proof) to try to delegitimise and stop his activist voice.

All of that in your definition is him trying to stop someone else's free speech (not mine, no one, not the riots, nor Yiannopoulos's actions has ever had anything to do with free speech or authoritarianism, a word you don't understand), but you champion him as necessary evil. That shows your utter hypocrisy and idiocy, which is why you constantly avoid talking about it when you selectively quote my posts like the most annoying of posters

Oh right in the context of alt righters and Neo Nazis you can talk about how they should be allowed to be as sexist and racist as they want and "fortunately we live in a country that does". Context, is that another word you don't know the meaning of? Buy a dictionary.

When you're advocating for all the racism and sexism in the world because of "free speech" without understanding that there are laws against hate speech and discrimination, yet talk about how you hate people who "suppress free speech" by being hooligans, which is a crime and they're rightfully punished, you show yet again your selectively moral code and outrage, which are never consistent

Btw if you think fortunately Australia's like that, then you must've missed Section 18C, and yet again you show your utter ignorance when not all forms of free speech is guaranteed but political communications. Why are there so many things you don't get, and why are you so all over the place with your faus moral code?

Also a few pages ago you said you'd stop talking about this and here you are keep sprouting the same BS that has been continually smacked down, yet again saying one thing and doing another, tells us a lot about you as a human being

Just face it, you don't care about "free speech", you only want people's rights to be as sexist and racist as they want without consequences, which is why you champion Milo, yet condemn the ones oppose to him, even though those two are pretty much the same thing: as extreme and terrible as one another

 

[yebiga]

Playing god? No, Ive issued an opinion.

You do aswell, albeit they are always wrong and poorly articulated.

My opinion does not involve interfering or deciding who is allowed to speak or who should be listened to
My opinion does not involve moralizing - except to moralize against the moralizing - I suppose

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

My opinion does not involve interfering or deciding who is allowed to speak or who should be listened to

Neither has mine.

 

[Lethality]

I'll try to address the parts which are relevant to our discussion.

All of that in your definition is him trying to stop someone else's free speech

No it's not, and I'm not claiming Milo is trying to stop anyone else's free speech either. You can claim that it's the same thing, but anyone can claim it. You have not shown any real reasoning, just blind assertions of hypocrisy.

When you're advocating for all the racism and sexism in the world because of "free speech" without understanding that there are laws against hate speech and discrimination

Obviously this applies to the free expression of ideas, and I made that point. It doesn't relate to active discrimination. You can continue to ignore this point if you want, but you're only contributing to your own ignorance in order to facilitate your mindless tirades.

Btw if you think fortunately Australia's like that, then you must've missed Section 18C

Not at all, but I read 18D which comes after it and protects freedom of speech, allowing for offence in matters of public debate, scientific inquiry, commentary. I made this distinction earlier, and the law does the same. All of this is taken for granted by most people, yet here you are ranting and raving against basic human rights. LOL.

 

[yebiga]

Neither has mine.

Rubbish!
Your prescribing one type of speech as worthy of attention and amplification and the other to be marginalized or suppressed.

Please deny it

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Rubbish!
Your prescribing one type of speech as worthy of attention and amplification and the other to be marginalized or suppressed.

Please deny it

Saying some group's speech needs to be amplified, and others' need to be ignored (i.e. neo-nazis) is exactly what Im saying.

 

[Cooldude]

I'll try to selectively address the parts which are suitable to my argument

EFA

You've kept annoying split my post so I'm gonna do the same with yours. Necessary evil, eh?

No it's not, and I'm not claiming Milo is trying to stop anyone else's free speech either. You can claim that it's the same thing, but anyone can claim it. You have not shown any real reasoning, just blind assertions of hypocrisy.

I've explained exactly why they're both "trying to suppress other people's speech" in your own definition, you just keep choosing to ignore it, reasoning's there but it's probably a bit hard to understand for a man who does not understand what the meaning of the words authoritarianism, censor and even context are

You cannot advocate one and condemn the other when they're at both ends of the batshit insane extreme, you lose all moral ground by doing so. That's been repeated many times, yet you continually ignore it and keep being selective and one-eyed.

Obviously this applies to the free expression of ideas, and I made that point. It doesn't relate to active discrimination. You can continue to ignore this point if you want, but you're only contributing to your own ignorance in order to facilitate your mindless tirades.

"Anyone should be allowed to be as racist and sexist as they want" isn't "free express of ideas", goodness me there's another phrase you don't understand. Racism and sexism are by nature discrimination, saying you want people to be allowed to do it without limit then say yeeeeah but not when it's active discrimination is the most nonsensical and contradictory tripe you've said so far, and you have the gall to call anyone else ignorant

Not at all, but I read 18D which comes after it and protects freedom of speech, allowing for offence in matters of public debate, scientific inquiry, commentary. I made this distinction earlier, and the law does the same. All of this is taken for granted by most people, yet here you are ranting and raving against basic human rights. LOL.

Your comprehension yet again fails, only in the matters of certain public debate, scientific inquiry and commentary is not "all the racism and sexism they want" now is it? Don't tell me "all" is another word you don't know the meaning of, that's the simplest one so far! There's still limits, Andrew Bolt showed there's still limits. Yet again you don't understand something you cite, why am I not surprised?

 

[Summer Nights]

Just added Kidd Vicious to the ignore list. What a very low quality poster.

 

[Lethality]

I've explained exactly why they're both "trying to suppress other people's speech" in your own definition

Not by my definition you haven't, only by your poor understanding of it. If you're referring to the Simon and Shuster argument, that's laughable, and I've explained why.

You cannot advocate one and condemn the other when they're at both ends of the batshit insane extreme

I've already explained why they're not, however feel free to keep repeating yourself rather than addressing the explanation.

"Anyone should be allowed to be as racist and sexist as they want" isn't "free express of ideas", goodness me there's another phrase you don't understand

Also in the context of the discussion on people like Spencer, Milo, etc. It's about public commentary. Again, if you want to ignore that point rather than address it, go ahead, however simply overlooking key points because they're inconvenient to your argument is dishonest.

Your comprehension yet again fails, only in the matters of certain public debate, scientific inquiry and commentary is not "all the racism and sexism they want" now is it?

See above.

 

[Chief]

Haven't been sucked in by it, and I'm not advocating any form of ethnic cleansing, but there is a distinction at least to be made.



LOL, I'm not going to sit here and dissect people's personal tastes in humour.



Yeah, and largely thanks to the kind of people I'm talking about. Don't tell me you couldn't see this happening years ago?

Do you think this Yiannopolous guy doesn't believe the s**t he spouts?

 

[Lethality]

Do you think this Yiannopolous guy doesn't believe the s**t he spouts?

I bet he doesn't believe half of it.

 

[Gough]

I bet he doesn't believe half of it.

Then why pay him any heed?