Actually, very simple to identify prejudice, it has indications. Acrimonious argument like you make is not the way for that happen. You'll be just like that- running your mouth blaming some meaningless generalization while the prejudice is right under your nose.

Do you take Louis CK at his word?

Of course, but maybe...

Apparently not, because Regressives have been pretty ****ty at it for a looong, looong time.

Me: "I don't think you should harass Jewish people by sending them memes about the Holocaust."
Jiggy: "You are a regressive who gets oppression points and doesn't even spend them on smart things!"
Me: "Great argument."

Whatever.

Email a few funny memes about spousal killings to your ex-wife and see how the Louis CK defense works for you.

So only someone who explicitly says "I am a bigot" is a bigot?

Wrap it up everyone. We solved bigotry. It doesn't exist anymore

We've really moved into the phase where those who shout bigot tend to be the biggest bigots.

I have absolutely no problem saying I am bigoted against racist and sexist bigots.

This argument is a lost cause or a satire of a lost cause.

Regressives couldn't identify a racist if they were under their jackboot.

Start a list:

1. ____

I guess cause I live in a red state, but this fear about people and genders and disrespecting them causing so much strife just seems weird. I have heard 10000000x times more racist innuendo, outright racist slurs, "common sense" racist sh*t, not even counting getting into "micro aggression" or whatever than I have ever heard about more than 2 genders being offensive or whatever.

9/10ths of the anger about "PC police" is actually about getting called out on what sounds like common sense to the person ("they just need to get their act together and stop doing those drugs and they'd get off of welfare") and the shock they get when they get called racist than it is about some college kids. I think the college kids and their outrageous behavior provide a useful foil as a way to say all those "common sense" points are just the way it is if it weren't for those uppity liberals saying it racist.

I say that while even thinking those college kids do go too far sometimes in completely idiotic ways.

I live in NYC (well, to be exact, I live right across the river and work in NYC) and outside of the internet I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk about gender pronouns ever.

Also I've been out of college for only 5 years (3 if you count grad school) and still haven't heard it.

To be fair I was going to take a gender studies class because it fulfilled like 3 requirements at once but I dropped it when I found out they were going to make me write 2 (two!!!) full papers so who knows what would've went on there.

If you're advocating trying to shout them down, or otherwise get them deplatformed, thereby not only denying them the right to speak, but their audience the right to hear them, then I urge you reconsider why that is not only an illiberal tactic, but ultimately very counterproductive.

Perhaps so, and perhaps not. Not everyone is the same, and you're of course assuming that "those types of arguments" are actually white supremacist arguments, and not say valid arguments like the sort Steven Pinker makes.

Even if they are as you say, just having the conversations, and disputing your opponent's arguments with better arguments can have an effect on the audience who may be watching. At least some of them may be swayed. You should consider why many of the places where the bad arguments are generated will ban you for disputing them. It's because bad ideas can only survive in such a "safe space", protected from better ideas. I don't know why you would volunteer to help.

I question a lot of poster's ability to distinguish evidence of bigotry by how often I'm accused of it here. Are you aware that I'm a known Holocaust denier? If I were 20 years younger, I might be sending Fly et. al. frog memes too out of frustration.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD FOLDN SHUT THE **** UP

people have been trying to explain this to you for years and you adamantly refuse to even try to understand it

"Shouting down" someone on the street is fine, but doings so in a venue can lead to arrest. Nobody has a right to a platform. It is perfectly fair to publicly pressure organizations, advertisers and etc. to drop a speaker.

People don't really care about the actual researchers working on intelligence and etc. But political scientists like Charles Murray are not worth having an argument with. The tell here is that there are a bunch of people who really, really care about differences between white and black IQ scores. There's no particular reason to care.

Okay, you could. But you would be judged by your actions. If people wrongly accuse me of something, I'm not going to send them things that support their wrong conclusions and then expect them to change their minds. That's insane behavior.

So should Hillary Clinton send Sean Hannity a picture of Seth Rich with "He ain't talkin'!" scrawled on it in lipstick? Seems like that's a terrible idea and she would rightly be called out for her tasteless act.

The best thing to do is ask why do you want to talk about AA iq. Or just accept their arguments at face value and say, now what? Because the reason most talk about it sure as hell ain't intellectualism so make them skip to the end game.

Sure, but you and I know that's not all that's been going on. It's become quite common for university students to stand up, shout down, pull fire alarms, barricade doors, riot, and face no consequences. There is video after video after video, after video. This is being encouraged by plenty of folks here, but I hope you're condemning it.

Btw yes, speakers invited to state universities absolutely have the right to speak, and those who invited them have the right to hear them. The free exchange of ideas is critical to learning and creating knowledge, especially on college campuses. That's where thoughts go to collide, where everyone should be encouraged to speak their minds. Even if you really, really disagree with them.

Do you know the best way to actually shut them up? Convince their audience they're wrong, and stop treating everyone you disagree with as if they aren't allowed the fundamental right to have a voice and express their thoughts freely. It's a basic commitment to liberalism and rejection of authoritarianism. If a man hate speaks in an empty auditorium, does it make a frown? No, but try to shut them down and the Streisand effect kicks in, as more and more instances of dis-invitations, (often because the school cannot insure the speaker's safety) are recorded and rightly pointed out by your political opponents.

Your stance on this topic is just plain wrong, and it seems everyone is condemning it these days, from republicans (above) to Obama to:




I have a feeling trolls who send dank memes and many of you have something in common, they have given up on changing the minds of their adversaries, and are instead content to ridicule and drive them away.

FoldN is really getting good at the Gish Gallop. Practice makes perfect.

I had to look that up but wow, describes Foldn perfectly.

OH PLEASE SIR TELL ME MORE ABOUT HOW AFRICANS ARE LITERALLY F**KING ******ED THIS FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS IS CRITICAL TO LEARNING AND CREATING KNOWLEDGE GODDAMIT FOLDN WTF R U TALKING ABOUT

Were you peeking your head in during He Who Shalt Not Be Named But Lol I'm Totally Talking About Toothsayer's reign of terror? We brought up the Ol' Gallop more than a few times then.