CHECK THE TIMESTAMPS!

Again, it matters not a bit whether you or I agree with Dworkin, or how you or I take her quotes. They are clearly inflammatory and they offend a lot of people. I'll bet that was even their intent. Would you disagree?

I was standing up for her right to say such things, no matter how they're taken, no matter how many poor boys feelings are hurt. That's what freedom of speech means.

Look, you may have had a point if I were trying to smear her, or judge her somehow. But I wasn't, and didn't even bother to name her.

FFS, the quote next to it was the 1 in 5 college sexual assault falsehood repeated by feminists for years, yet I defend their rights to say that as well! If you haven't yet, read up on that. Even the authors of the study warn not to make that claim. Talk about arguing in bad faith. The point is speakers are allowed to be invited to schools and even argue in bad faith. The solution is to correct them, not to ban them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/20...o-hate/420171/

Why do you think people read the links you post when there is a better than 50/50 chance that you haven't read it?

Um...no? From memory, I think it was a character who had recently been raped expressing their emotions at the time. It was supposed to be something readers could feel empathy for, not to insult or offend anyone.

This is why it matters so much that you would post links to lists of these supposedly awful feminist quotes. It's misinformation at best. At worst it's propagating a particularly nefarious bunch of MRA talking points. So don't treat that **** as though it's real. And don't then come back to me with crap about how I need to read the whole list. One lie on that scale is enough for me to not need to read it.

Ok. All I'm saying is using real examples of stuff that you actually understand will really bolster your credibility.

You weren't trying to smear Dworkin specifically, you were smearing feminists whether intentionally or not.

And this is another reason why you might want to check your sources once in a while, because now you throw up something that I absolutely need to read up on after you've shown you don't do the most basic fact checking when it suits you. Plus it's more of the usual gish gallop.

Lol, at Dwarkin not making inflammatory quotes designed to offend:

I wasn't trying to smear feminists any more that Milo, but let me take the opportunity to do that now. Both can be real drama queens sometimes, and could clearly use a good spanking.

Btw, thx for offering your opinion on how to bolster my credibility with people who insist on misreading posts and not reading sources.

Remember back when I said this would go into you throwing one more quote at me, then five more, and so on? You've got to be a little impressed by that read.

Your response to having been caught out with a quote with absolutely no context is to throw more quotes with, well, absolutely no context. And the game here is that having well explained one of them to you, you bombard me with quotes so that I eventually have to explain the entire body of Andrea Dworkin's work or, as is obviously going to happen eventually, my knowledge of her runs out, you do a victory dance. This is called the gish gallop, that my referencing twice before was impotent to prevent.

Edit: and it's also back to that arguing in bad faith thing. As in, you claim to have no interest in smearing Dworkin but then you go on a search to quote mine as many objectionable things as you can. Apparently it's taken you one hour to go from definitely not wanting to smear anyone to "clearly this is all inflammatory nonsense".

This exchange was literally sparked by your not having read or checked your sources.

No, I didn't vet just one source, and thanked you for your help. It made no difference to my argument.

You refuse to read any of my sources, and continually deflect my actual points even after I've clarified them for you repeatedly.

Since you continue to provide live examples of the subject of this thread topic, I'll again extend to you my gratification.

Its ok for the right to shout down and restrict speech. They are grandfathered in since they have been doing it so long.

Yes, it is possible, but I think unlikely. This election in particular seems a triumph for older people as a cohort. Young people might have more impact on culture, but they still seem politically fairly impotent.

I think you didn't understand what I said.

You don't use any data to support your claims.

The underlying cause seems to be that many conservatives and liberals don't agree with some progressive views on race, sex, gender, bigotry and so on. Highlighting the stupidest and most foolish-looking of your political opponents has been a common practice among political movements since forever. This is even easier now with smartphones and the internet. So we get social "phenomenon" like SJWs, which is basically the same thing that has always gone on in these protests and on the left, just laid end-to-end in a video channel and shared over the internet.

So where did those last three quotes originate, Foldn? You want to give me their original context? I'm going to guess that you have no idea.

I find it amazing that you still haven't gotten that one of the defenses of free speech is to protect from people taking things out of context in attempt to silence others. Do you really think that those who try to silence conservatives at universities don't take things out of context?

FYI, those quotes are from some of her non-fiction, again, not that it really matters. Everyone, even people who sound like loons to you or me, even "dangerous" loons, get the right to speak their minds in our society, and a liberal school will allow this regardless of viewpoint.

I understand your point, it's just not the part I've been talking about. I've been talking about your gross misrepresentation of something on the back of your half-arsed "research". And, believe me, I understand that that isn't something that overly worries you.

This has gone on for ever, social and political movements using bad or anecdotal evidence to drive outrage, and it's only become easier in the internet age.

It's funny, because that's one of my critiques of the "social justice left." So much of what drives these movements today are fueled by non-scientific data, like the 1-4 campus sexual assault myth, or a handful of terrible youtubes showing that police do actually kill black people. No doubt feminists and Black Lives Matter have legitimate gripes, but those examples are not evidence. Yet they are constantly repeated.

I've already admitted to you I don't have a peer-reviewed study here to back up my feeling that the illiberal faction of the social justice left and the generally suffocating PC atmosphere of the past few years has done more harm than good, perhaps even significantly contributing to political backlash that creates our current political situation. I have only a bunch of anecdotal evidence and lots of scattered theories to support it. But they are piling up, and I'm not getting a lot of real counterargument from you other than... you just don't see it and you apparently need peer reviewed studies to even give it a second thought? Hey, I'd like that too.

But I've been providing you tons of material from guys like Haidt and Rorty to outline why this could be a problem, and since there aren't actual studies on this (are there?) I've piled on the anecdotal (at some point that can become data). The youtube comparison of social justice advocacy vs criticism doesn't mean nothing does it? That's a helluva lot of people.

Speaking of youtube, here's the most popular youtuber in the world, with 53MM subscribers who is decidedly anti-PC, and has recently suffered quite a brow beating for joking about nazis. Apparently the NYT and some white nationalist both agree this guy is a reactionary, and should now be considered a part of the alt-right. Can I chalk up his influence over his 53MM subscribers as another data point in favor of my arguments?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/m...st-revolt.html

Of course you don't, because your 'feeling' is simply your own racial paranoia.

Your "argument" seems to be that pewdiepie is wildly popular with young people but also kids today are too overly sensitive to enjoy pewdiepie. It's basically a repackaging of your grievance about college students not wanting to go see Jerry Sinefeld, only this time the students actually do want to go see Jerry.

Lol, does anyone in here follow this guy?



Here's his death to all jews video:

No, my argument is people actually hate you. Most of them do, even most kids.

No, you're argument is something you have pulled out of your ass when you admit you cannot find any peer reviewed studies.

It's why educated people laugh at you.

So you are spreading a message of hate on behalf of haters? You may wanna check yourself on that.

OK, but that seems to be at odds with your usual claim that kids today are over sensitive, coddled, and swaddled in PC culture. It seems like a good chunk of them are still able to enjoy risqué humor.

It doesn't surprise me that trolls who take a sick pleasure following people they disagree with around the internet lying, smearing and shaming might not accept the claim they aren't doing gods work.

You're the only troll itt.

You can't form a solid argument. When you tried to in the Safe Spaces thread it was apparent you can't be bother to take the time to actually read your own material you link.

Be careful calling him names Paul, he can tell people to stick their opinions up their ass but no one else can.

If this is one of your critiques of the social justice left, then why do you do it yourself?
I've outlined two specific disagreements with you. You have given me no good evidence to support your view (I didn't ask for a peer-reviewed study, you're exaggerating to make me look unreasonable). Rorty's speculations about the future of American politics is interesting, but not evidence. Haidt has raised some concerns about university intellectual culture, but I've not seen anything on the specific disagreements I raised. The number of YouTube videos that criticize the left is irrelevant.

Also, regarding the bolded, I tried arguing with you on this issue in the PC thread. I provided many counterarguments, which you either ignored or misunderstood. You kept complaining about me taking your views too seriously or replying at too much length, so I eventually decided you just weren't interested in that kind of discussion.

I'm sorry, but the number of people who are against your point of view is always relevant in a democracy. My arguments have never hinged on my never doing the things I'm critiquing, just much less, or that the right isn't just as illiberal or worse than these bad elements of the social justice left. This is a big flaw in your criticism. You need to think more about how things have changed and how equilibriums are shifting. I've given you way more than Rorty and Haidt to chew on, btw.

You don't have to agree, or even read any of the material I've been offering you. Your view that yes these people exist, yes PC abuse happens, and identity politics may be divisive but these things have had little to no negative effect on our political situation is perfectly fine for you to hold. If the left continues to dismiss these critiques, then I hope you're right!

I'm bouncing this stuff off guys like you to see if you can convince me my suspicions are wrong, and you've given me little besides 1) you see no good evidence and 2) nobody of any significance supports/cares about the illiberal elements of the left. Maybe I have "misunderstood" your arguments, and I could say the same.