If you are requiring faculty to sign agreements not to listen to "sinful ideas" and administering the same thought control on students, stifling free inquiry, that is highly illiberal. Just because it's liberal for the state to allow people to voluntarily believe whatever cockamamie ideas they want, to join cults and send their kids to sunday school to be brainwashed, doesn't mean joining cults or brainwashing is a liberal thing to do.

There have been openly Holocaust denying professors on liberal campuses before, and it's been tolerated you know. Nobody even died. Here's one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Butz

Part of the price of freedom is people are sometimes inspired to kill form others words. You can be glib but sometimes people die.

There are laws against incitement to violence, but they are very narrow and require specific targets and credible threats I believe. Good thing too, or lots of people calling for violence against fascists while carelessly tossing the term around would be sitting in jail right now, I assume.

It is a good thing. Think hate speech should be allowed in general and we should not go down the European road of banning it. That changes nothing i said.

Do you think it is illiberal for a church to require its pastor to assent to their statement of faith?

If not, then what is wrong with an avowedly religious college requiring its faculty to also sign a statement of faith? They aren't coercing anyone to sign it. You aren't religious and don't care for their beliefs. Fine, go to a different school then.

It is coherent to believe that procedural liberalism should guide government, but Christian morality and theology should guide private life and education. If someone wants to run a university on that basis, they do not need to give up the belief that government in diverse societies like ours is best run with rules guaranteeing freedom of religion, press, speech, assembly, etc. They are not setting up a government.

Are you anti sjw folk fighting for all people on state college campuses getting free speech or do you still want the the trades people to follow HR guidelines? Because the janitor being able to tell the professors or students to **** off when they walk on a freshly moped floor could be interesting.

Yes I do see a difference but that's a different presentation to;

Person A: That advert is not racist.
Person B: Of course that advert is racist you ****ing idiot.

Person A*: That advert is racist.
Person B*: Of course that advert is not racist you ****ing idiot.

Here's a great example of anti-intellectual SJW tactics in action:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...rty-r-1653798/

Here, a poster called AC Slater makes a claim about the biggest shift in poliics we've seen in our lifetimes. It's a fairly innocuous post:

Now this isn't a terrible point, it's actually what most commentators have been saying.

How was this received?

Immediate mockery.

This shuts down discussion, it doesn't open it up. It just mocks the guy's point.

Now Slater steps it up a bit and makes a more contentious political claim:


Okay, so now he's pushing a harder message. Now, we might agree or disagree with this assessment, but it's worth going into WHY we do.

The response?

That's one, two, three ... FIVE different posters who pile in and not a SINGLE counter-argument of substance between them. Not one.

1. Just laughing
2. Flat shock
3. Just laughing
4. Labelling
5. Labelling + derailment attempt

There is no attempt at all here to adress the core of the argument. Let's see what happens next.

Slater makes two more posts:

Simple argument. Why is he right or wrong? It should require at least some engagement to agree or disagree.

And then, sadly, he's drawn to take the derailment bait.


And he's basically right here that all he's had is screeching outrage and zero actual substantive argument. He look what has happened, now he has to defend against claims that he supports Hitler and they AREN'T talking about globalism vs. nationalism anymore.

It goes on.

More mockery, abuse, derailment and this time an accusation also: that he reads Breitbart.

Here he's flatly being told to go away because "his sort isn't wanted there".

And once again sadly he's drawn into taking the derailment bait:

Again, Slater has been entirely arguing in good faith here, but he's been met with nothing but sneering and scorn from people just point-blank refusing to come up with any counter-arguments.

It keeps going, but let's stop it there.

Imagine a world where people would actually adress the ****ing ARGUMENTS instead of doing this routine of name calling and derailment.

SJWs do this. It's pretty disgraceful and a cancer on political discourse.

Imagine a world where there are conservative forums (or posters) who do it with different words of shame. Like leftist, beta, cuck, SJW.

Nah im sure the Breitbarts (do they got a forum?) of the world always attack the argument not the arguer with words of shame to shut down conversation.


Not that this is meant as an excuse.

Lord JvK's Playbook to Counter Illiberal SJW tactics.

Over the past couple of weeks I have seen patterns of behaviour that the SJW uses to squirm away from reasoned debate. I have compiled them and made some suggestions for counter-tactics against the illiberal threat.

1. Flag any and all attempts to label you as an attempt at derailment. This can come in many forms. Here are some examples:

Here, do not get drawn into pointing out that you didn't vote for Trump or that you do not read Breitbart. This is what they want so that they can turn around and accuse you of lying. You then get sidetracked into the issue of whether or not you are lying. This is a TRAP. You must ignore any and all attempts to do so. If you do acknowledge it flag it in the manner suggested.

2. Bat away their "whataboutery". This is their tactic of trying to come up with things that "your side" apparently have done as a means of excusing SJW tactics. This is more derailment as well as deflection.

This is a means of getting you to try to address a topic other than the one you are talking about, AND a means of them avoiding the demand to make actual counter arguments. Flag this or ignore this.

3. Do not get drawn into petty arguments about the definitions of words or some other pedantic point of grammar. Examples:

This is mere pedantry and is another diversion tactic that constitutes derailment. This again gets you onto a topic other than the one under discussion.

4. Source quibbling. If you post data from some place, a common SJW tactic is immediately to question the source. SJWs like nothing more than to side-track from debating the actual issue at hand by using these heuristics -- for example if you post a bunch of articles -- let's say TEN different links -- all pointing to the same thing, if ONE of those articles is on the SJW blacklist of right-wing publications, some clown in their number will highlight the fact you linked to that one source and then use that to discredit the whole post.

You must try to work around this as follows:

- only post from official sources of data, wherever possible try to link direct to the original report, and not to some newspaper write-up of it
- If you are forced to use media links rather than research institute or government links, wherever possible use ones which cannot be accused of pro-rightwing bias. BBC news, for example.
- NEVER link to these sources:

Traditional media

Alt media
The left-wing mind functions in a very simple binary way. Either people and insititutions are GOOD = acceptable, or they are BAD = evil, unacceptable, compromised. Try to be diligent in reducing the risk of getting sidetracked by giving them scope to attack the source. Do what you can to avoid linking ANY of the places linked above.

The leftist keeps vast lists of these good and bad things in their heads and reject everything and anything that comes from a bad list. This can include people as well as publications. Because of this, it can sometimes hit you unawares, for example, when I quoted Sam Harris on the issue of identity politics and its ills, instead of engagement with his argument, instead I got back:

Clearly Sam Harris has done something to find himself on the bad list. When this happens you must insist they they attack the argument, not the man. DO NOT get drawn into an argument about whether or not the person is good, this is a derailment and a diversion. INSIST that they address the argument being made.

5. Since they will seek to discredit your sources EVEN IF you cite them from a credible source, example:

Here a leftist has already attacked a government source and therefore managed to get the source onto the "bad list".

In this second example, I linked to a Chatham House poll. Because the data did not confirm their point of view, leftists were forced to try to discredit the report. They were not able to attack the source (because it is reputable), so instead we got this:

In these cases, rather than get drawn into questions of methodology from your sources instead insist on data for the counter claims they make. And if they do provide data, then use their OWN questions of your data back on their data. This is important since it will expose the fact that they are being driven to make their arguments because of their emotional reflexes and not because of the actual facts of the matter.

6. Do not lose your temper or be provoked into calling them names back. This will be taken as a victory for the SJW, they will ignore all of the provocation, abuse, derailment etc that they've done, and instead focus on the one time you let your emotions get the better of you. You must be as the zen monk, resist this urge. Focus on the topic only. Never get personal. Never get drawn into flame wars.

Use these six rules consistently and you will force the SJW into honest debate. If they still fail to argue coherently or honestly, then at least you have exposed their behaviour for what it is. Your chief goal should be ONLY to insist on sticking to the argument at hand and to EXPOSE all attempts at deviating from this.

It wasn't much of an argument and the response showed no one agreed with him. If you can't take people making fun of your argument you should make a better argument.


Maybe you should start the change at home? After you got complete wrecked in the alta thread about the prof who posted something regrettable on the internet and got protested for it you refused to discuss it in this thread. Refusing to answer a simple question that went to the heart of your argument. Instead you mocked me. Shame!

You have done everything that you complain about in this post.

Note again that the whining about SJWs has nothing to do with the SJ part.

Lord, go argue in Breitbart comments and see how it goes. Are they all SJWs too?

Rule 2 violation:

This has nothing to do with what I posted. Stick to that.

Rule 2 violation again.

Another rule 2 violation.

Stick to the topic at hand.

lol, you can't win an argument so you're trying to win a meta argument. Sad!

If Lord attempts to post any links to his ****ty youtube videos further in this forum, make sure to report it to Mat so we can stop this guy from getting free advertising on this website, which he freely admits here is what he is after.

You are trying to shut down free speech in doing this.

**** you. Why don't you go ask Mat how free his advertising is.

How many other external links are you going to target in this crackdown?

Any that are posted by the author in an attempt to get views

And the cool thing is that any mod can ban a spammer...

Master has successfully shut down me posting my youtube links, a great day for liberty and free speech. Let's move on.

lol, Master has convinced you to stop spamming your personal youtube channel in order to make money on idiots who still follow youtube links.

Business is a totalitarian construct.