They do like to do that.

Fake Antifa Twitter Accounts Are Trolling People And Spreading Misinformation

Dude, no posters on here are important, it's a message board with like 10 posters. Nothing we do here matters at all.

Secondly, people post for different reasons and while Fly definitely has a reasonably high false positive rate I find his posting to be entertaining.

Wat? You're saying I should go check out StormFront or else I'm in a bubble or am I misunderstanding you? Because, like
1) I actually did check out StormFront once to see what it was like.
2) I'm pretty sure posters like 5ive and FlyWf who you would criticize the most as being in a bubble are actually the ones among the left here who actually do look at right-wing stuff on a regular basis.
3) I'm pretty sure I don't need to frequent hate sites to avoid "living in a bubble".

Also lol at YouTube being on the chopping block, noone is calling YouTube a hate site.

Again, a few points:
1) I didn't watch the video but if you read my posts I said that the reason I didn't watch it was I didn't care if it was legit. And the reason I didn't care if it was legit is because I know similar and legit things exist and so the legitimacy of your specific video wasn't relevant.

2) People have limited time and noone wants to be linked ****ing youtube videos as sources. The contingent of posters here who like to post youtube videos think we are dismissing them because of the source or whatever but no, we are dismissing them because they are EXTREMELY INCONVENIENT.

Ditto for like, entire chapters of books.

Uh, wait, that video was meant to support that there are serious civil rights activists making that argument. The video of the college kid? He's a serious civil rights activist?

And yes, as explained above, the videos will be ignored.

Okay... but doesn't this directly contradict your previous claims about how there is no middle yada yada?

Yeah.. as Bladesman said.. volume is not your issue.

Whats funny is if you argue against FoldnDark he puts you in a tribe. Even if you dont belong.

Twitter trolls gonna troll.

Yes, I consider students shutting down a school and their professors who support it to be serious civil rights activists.

No, I don't expect you to go to every hate site, but what happens is that practically any source that provides information that is critical of the prevailing social justice narrative here is labeled a hate site, alt-right propaganda, terrible source, etc, and treated the same. See Bladesman's recent post.

I'm sorry you don't like videos, I realize it can be cumbersome. They do have a way of actually showing visual evidence though, so that is important to support certain claims. I dislike it too, because it's hard to quote things from videos, and the inevitable obfuscation I'll soon face on this will be difficult to disprove to those who don't want to view the evidence.

Ok, so you went with

Kathy Griffin et al are bad, therefore TiltedDonkey should try to put forward candidates with better ideas.

I.. have questions.

1) I thought we agreed that Kathy Griffin et al are not candidates, so how is their badness/goodness related to the ideas of the candidates?
2) I don't really choose the candidates, so I was looking for a more practical step.
3) "Candidates with better ideas" than... who? Kathy Griffin?

FWIW I don't think I'll be voting Kathy Griffin in 2020 or the next 2016.

Trump does not have a coherent ideology and he is not very smart.

I'm hoping he starts to listen more to folks than professors about tribalism, for balance.

Yes, where does it say there anybody other than the radio station implored that this cancellation was made?

****ing nowhere.

Like walk me through the steps here. Dawkins is invited by a radio station to give a talk and schedules it at Berkley. They later rescind the invitation noting that they disagree with his Twitter musings.

Where exactly is the scary left running rampant happening here?

Nobody told you to vote for Kathy Griffin.

Stop with the ad homing of Trump might be a good start.

What policy has Trump implemented that you disagree with and what would you rather see done? And what would candidates you're looking at in 2018 put forward or do differently?

Ok. This is a non sequitur unless by "visit hate sites" you actually meant "read the links and watch the YouTube videos I link here". I read Bladesman's post and it doesn't attack the legitimacy of the sites you post links to, it attacks the way you post them.

Man visual evidence is not needed for many things. Like, for example, your claim about "serious civil rights activists" does not require visual evidence.

You're saying that happened on its own and they didn't receive letters of complaint? Get your head out of your ass.

If the claim you are trying to dispute is that "no serious civil rights activists 'are attempting to justify their position on discrimination on the basis of their race'" then there's two steps

1) establish that some person (or group) is a "serious civil rights activist"
2) establish that said person or group is attempting to justify their position on the basis of their race

Before bothering to contest (1) in regard to students at Evergreen (which, meh, Evergreen is a pretty unique environment), I'd first be more interested in hearing how the events at Evergreen (which, to be clear, I've previously stated I think were indicative of some dysfunction at the school) satisfy condition (2), because I don't see it.

What is required is an argument to accompany whatever supported evidence is offered. What did they actually say or do that constitutes saying "we're right because we're black"? Especially given how many of the protestors are, in fact, not black.

Do you have evidence that they did? Because I read their statement. Did you read a different statement outlining different circumstances?

Okay, well I'm trying to puzzle out why you think my level of caring about Kathy Griffin (et al) should be >0. Currently it is 0.

First, lol "ad homing".

Second, calling Trump dumb is not an ad hominem for a couple reasons:
a) ad hominem is "a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." In this case, Trump is the substance of the argument; he is not the arguer. The arguer here would be you.

b) Trump's intelligence level is directly relevant because being intelligent is necessary for performing well at the job. Even if a person who is known to be unintelligent has not yet made any egregious errors, one should not want that person as President.

I mean, Trump has implemented ~nothing as far as I can tell, but:

1) The travel ban. I would rather see no travel ban.
2) The bill rolling back privacy protections for browsing history, etc. I would rather see those protections remain in place.
3) I don't support Jeff Sessions' policy of going super hard after all drug offenders. I think the Obama era policy was better.

There are other things that are proposed but not done, i.e.

4) The wall. I would rather do nothing, i.e. not build a wall.
5) I don't want any of those Congressional bills regarding healthcare to become law.

Why are you calling someone a dumbass in a post where you show him to be correct? Sounds like you're the dumbass, this is some pretty bad arguing.

If I were involved in the KPFA decision, my opinion would probably have been that Dawkins is interesting and knowledgeable enough to be worth inviting and listening to even if you strongly disagree with him on Islam or find some of his comments offensive. I think uninviting him on this basis is sort of lame. Note that I've never really liked Dawkins that much, and I think most of his more philosophical work in regard to atheism is kind of meh. But uninviting him on this basis is also meh imo. This is where I think the kinds of cultural criticisms that foldn is fond of referencing (i.e. when he cites Obama, or various other opinion pieces) have some merit.

On the other hand, there is clearly no legal free speech issue there whatsoever.

Okay then, you want to dispute they're serious or consequential. I've heard this one before. Yet their mindset is what dominates discourse in the P forum. Good luck trying to argue any conservative, moderate, or even fairly liberal points about racism, sexism, Islam, anything that might question the idea that white cis males hold the power, are oppressing marginalized groups, and that is the most important thing to focus on in any discussion related to said issues.

He wrote, "1000's of terrible ones". And this is part of the problem. That's the judgement constantly and flagrantly made of practically anything or anyone that doesn't tow the party line, who provide legitimate criticisms. There's lots more video that will be deemed "terrible ones" from that protest and others showing civil rights activists using concepts like white privilege (which do represent valid critiques of society as Well Named can probably teach us) to bludgeon others who disagree with them, dismiss their arguments as invalid, and do precisely what Well Named claims doesn't happen. But then maybe you and he will fall back on the "serious" definition.

Fine, dismiss Fly, crowds of masked Antifa, students at colleges and their professors egging them on, as 'not serious' civil rights advocates. Actually condemn that behavior (shouting down views you dislike, for example), and argue with them why it's wrong. That's what needs to be done more, imo. Publicly. Instead of cheering them on because they're "entertaining" and their hearts are in the right place, or whatever else you use to give them the benefit of the doubt while you simultaneously label and dismiss those you* disagree with white supremacist alt-righters, and ignore their criticisms. This would help bring things back toward sane, less tribal thinking on all ends and we might actually see the right (who are better at tribalism) lose power.

* not you, the royal you

We are not going to debate Trump's intelligence level. He was smart enough to get elected President - it directly refutes your assertion that he is dumb.


1) Great policy. It's why he got elected. You don't like it, have your party run better candidates. It might help if they don't call their opponents deplorable.
2) I don't know - Google can do it but Comcast can't? http://time.com/4724128/donald-trump...owser-history/ I mean, I guess I don't like it. I assume both Google and Comcast anonymize the data sets before advertisers can purchase them. Buying Paul Ryan's browsing history" is a strawman.
3) I don't think Trump will go along with this. Jury is still out.
4) Once again, run a better candidate. When Trump builds the wall and it costs too much, have your new candidate point that out. Seems to be working so far.
5) I didn't want Obamacare to become law. It's been a disaster for me.

Dumbass gonna defend dumbass. Whaddya gunna do?

I don't think it's a legal issue. It's just a bad look. Not free speech, just dumb.

Berkely didn't ban. However, if the University pressured KPFA, I might have a problem. I doubt Dawkins would sue them to find out though.

Yes. If that mindset "dominates discourse" about those subjects in the real world you should be able to provide an example that isn't some college kid.

Why? Because the college kids are going to come find me?

What? You think he is calling them "terrible ones" because they "provide legitimate criticisms"?

Yeah I heavily dispute that randoms are important. They are randoms. All kinds of random people do all sorts of random stupid **** all the time and none of it matters.

A "serious civil rights activist" is some sort of prominent, respected voice. Not a random college kid. Not some protester screaming. Come on man.

I have no idea who Fly is in real life so for all I know he is a "serious civil rights activist" but like the persona FlyWf on 2+2 obviously isn't. If you tried to give a FlyWf post as an example of a "serious civil rights activist" doing X that would be ridiculous. HE'S JUST SOME RANDOM ON THE INTERNET!

I just think you have a vastly inflated sense of
a) the importance of randoms
b) the ability of anyone to control the actions of randoms

Outside of this forum I don't follow anything about US campuses and their internal politics, so forgive me if I know nothing about Evergreen (as in, not even sure where it is, never mind the political climate of that area). How about you tell me what's actually going on there, and why you disagree with it, instead of just giving me a youtube video and expecting me to deconstruct the whole situation from there?

Don't just tell me there's "more context". It's your point, you're supposed to provide the context that this is an example for.

When 'nazis' speaking closed the clinic on campus, the protestors were the University's rationale for closing the clinic. Appeal from authority, who is going to defy?

'You don't punch Nazis,' eh? As I've mentioned before, I come from an RAF family. You will perhaps recall what the Third Reich looked like in 1945 after the RAF had finished with it. It looked like the face of the ****ing Moon. That's what Nazis have coming to them. Except in the United States, apparently, where they're just fine.