To me the issues are separate enough that I didn't think yours was a blanket response.

So, if I went on stage and starting debating Milo that would be a violation of others' right?

Btw I was aware of Milo debating feminism, but this new Milo era is about MAGAism and immigration and alt-rightishness, and I don't see any public debates about that. He's not throwing down with Coates about critical race theory and so forth.

p.s.

Let me restate the scenario:

There are no tickets and this is a free show, with an auditorium big enough that people weren't camping outside to get a spot in the audience.

p.p.s.

I once went on stage during a Beck show and started breakdancing, whereby I was quickly accosted by 1/2 dozen security members. Discuss.

If you forced your way on stage, that would be disruptive of the free speech of Milo, and the audience's right to hear him. Nobody invited you and your foul gibberish, they came to see Milo babble on. But I doubt guys like Milo or Shapiro would turn down a planned debate with anyone, and I doubt someone like Coates would accept such an invitation, but who knows? I'd love to hear Coates "son" both of them.

Here's a really good debate (through essay) between Coates and Jonathan Chait that I keep meaning to talk about in another thread.

http://spiegelandgrau.tumblr.com/pos...ates-and-chait

Where's this 'forced' coming from? I even concocted a scenario where I have my own mic and pignose so I wouldn't need to snatch a mic from somebody's hand or even leech any electricity. And I'd be debating relevant topics, not regaling the crowd about my favorite horror movies and why anybody that doesn't agree should hang their head in shame for such unabashed bad taste.

Why don't I have the right to speak?

And since I'm not really trying to go all socratic, why don't you come up with a scenario where I do have the right to speak and debate Milo in public before an audience, one where it wasn't arranged and I wasn't pre-invited.

Why would goaders of supremacy go to colleges and rile up people to stereotype with youtubes?

HOL UP

What business does a group of Republicans have at a university?

Haha gg

One thing I think those of you "good" social justice activists miss about this is you probably never have much opportunity to argue against the social justice views you promote. I say you're "good" because you rarely if ever partake in or condone the sorts of illiberal 1-4 from above. I believe this is because you actually understand the arguments better than most, and you don't feel the need to "protect" them from criticism, instead welcoming and understanding the value of criticism.

Lord and I are positing that a large part of the social justice movement, perhaps even the bulk of it, do not know wtf they are talking about and cannot defend their arguments from even critics who are sympathetic to the causes of social justice without resorting to 1-4, much less defend their arguments from those less sympathetic. I don't think you understand the frustration (and therefore huge political counter reaction) of trying to reason with these people because I assume you rarely have opportunity to do it.

so-called liberals want people to have the right to a trial and a lawyer before they're thrown in jail for ages. they should realise they're the real threat to liberty


https://twitter.com/JohnFPfaff/statu...80371932938241

Since unlike SJW extremest right wing groups in the US have decades of killing under there belts and still kill today it should not be hard for you to join the cause of killing.

I'm positing that LordJvK is guilty of also not knowing wtf he is talking about, I've a list over in P, and that posts such as

Is engaging in 1 and if you are going to critical of 1 type posts one should refrain from 1 type posting.

And this is the reason for my Opposition to Social Justice thread, the fact is that opponents of social justice are guilty of the same rhetoric and methods they accuse SJWs of. This is particularly problematic when criticism of SJWs is a criticism of their methods not their goals. Hence some SJW's you don't consider good take the view that criticism of methods isn't actually what motivates OSJers and instead they object to SJW goals.

Well, I'm a horrible elitist snob so you'll get no argument from me that lots of people have no idea what they are talking about, including people with whom I feel a great deal of political solidarity. Unfortunately, there's no solution to that problem, but it has not been my experience that it is a larger problem on the left than on the right.

It's not clear to me why you think it is the case that you have more opportunities to argue against clueless social justice activists than me. What is it about our respective situations that makes this the case? I imagine we have similar opportunities, although it is perhaps likely you take more of them than I do. It's also not clear why you would think it's more frustrating to argue with clueless SJWs than it is to argue with clueless right-wingers, so to speak. I will absolutely claim to understand the frustration of arguing with people who argue badly.

Right, I wish people would spend less time with the pointless task of trying to derive other's intentions and instead simply stick the the arguments.

Much of the problem with identity politics as practiced is just that, it promotes teams instead of truth and then no meaningful knowledge can be created or passed on. Emotion-driven tribalism takes over which rarely ends well. Yes, the right is probably more guilty of this. So in our society, who does it benefit most to resort to tribalism?

Foldndark correct again.

I find it safe to assume people like "OSJs" who show repeatedly they don't know what they are talking about while telling both layman and experts across fields that they don't know what they are talking about, don't know what they talking about.

Meanwhile the information from any and all sides remains readily available here and there with any need for supremacy to enforce it.

So what is your real point? Does it bother you see to supremacists utterly fail? Don't bother, it is in the designs of supremacy to fail repeatedly. It's kind of a cosmic joke in that supremacists are really inferior.

No, I definitely don't see that the "machinery of state" is with the students in the second case, or in the majority of others cases I'm aware of involving dumb student demands or actions. There is, at times, a certain kind of institutional power, especially if you mean the very abstract sociological definition of "institutional".

Somewhat ironically, given some of your previous posting, my reaction to a certain amount of social tumult which I consider sub-optimal is to shrug my shoulders in the knowledge that it's impossible to regulate people to meet my satisfaction, and it's almost certainly better not to try. That's not to say I don't think it's worth making arguments, or teaching, or engaging students on the value of traditional liberal ideals. I think this article for example makes a reasonable argument for the need to revitalize liberalism. It just means I'm not inclined to be as alarmed by the excesses of students as you are, following the same line of thought as uke_master which I quoted above.

I mean, to zoom out, I am worried about the future of democracy in the US given the apparent unsuitability of most of our citizenry for participation therein :P I recall at some point quoting some list of concerns you gave and agreeing with most of them, along these lines. It's just I'm not any less concerned about that when we're talking about middle aged conservatives than I am when were talking about 20 year old radicals.

I don't think the size and power of them is really exaggerated. When people are doing reports on universities being some of the places that score worst for free speech...

When people fall over themselves to defend the shutting down of said free speech and roundly cajole and mock those who would defend it...

The problem is significant enough for it to have permeated everyday news and to have infested the minds of people who self-identify as being on the left.

The problem with the SJWs is that they actually put the alt right in the right, they make them correct. And because they really are as predictable as their charicature a man like Steve Bannon can play them to perfection.

When Bannon makes political calculations on how "snowflakes" will react, he has a more astute grip on culture now than someone like Hilary looking at demographics and identifying "the Latino vote". Bannon gets how things are better than she does.

As long as that is true, the SJW is problem.

I haven't noticed you arguing much against the particular views of social justice with the posters in this forum who, for example, spend their time following me around claiming I'm a racist, sexist, rapist, Holocaust-denying fascist, and who support 1-4. So I just assume it's because they are generally doing so in the name of social justice, and you share their general opinions about social justice, even if not their tactics.

Yes, I agree many right wingers are often just as insufferable; however, when they try to mold society into their moral view using 1-4, they also suffer the same criticisms, and are condemned by liberals like you, me and the ACLU. I think it's clear those tactics have -EV to promoting their causes, which could help explain why they've been in retreat for so long, but are now seeing a renewed resurgence. It might be telling that you don't notice LGBT speakers shouted down by angry Christians these days.

How much you and I can do about these illiberal tactics is unclear, but I'd guess acknowledging the damage they do and arguing against it, even with those we generally agree with ideologically, is the place to start.

Why are you an over-authority on tribalism, emotions, truth, knowledge, and human identity all the sudden? Because some lord makes youtubes and assertions with an air of authority about those topics and then backs you up?

He's read Haidt

There is no superior or alternative substitute for getting to know people for real in a non-stereotypical fashion.

Trolls have zero to do with knowledge.

Right. It's politics.

Pro-abortion people actually stand for something. What do Milo, etc, stand for except being apologists for the racist alt right?

Like say all universities said Milo is no longer welcome. What idea is actually lost or suppressed in that scenario?