Nah .... it was letting them speak without being spoken to first.

Round 'em up and put 'em all in petting zoos.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

Oh c'mon. I talk marriage here once a year.

You call people you don't even know racists with regularity.

_________________

I don't think you know what that word means.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Miralax can help.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

Seacrest knows what I mean. What can same sex couples do to marriage that hasn't already been done?

_________________

Do you run into that a lot? Because I don't and I certainly know plenty of people I consider racists. They simply aren't running around pushing some white supremacist philosophy.

Anyway, your premise certainly is not the case in so many of the instances we are discussing. And in the present case, discussion over whether another person can order you how to speak and what words to use or that such a thing can be reasonably legislated is a long way off from any "ism" I can think of. In fact, if there is any "ism" at play here it's authoritarianism, although masquerading as something else.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

I respectfully disagree. I have levied that charge against Trump on numerous occasions but before I did I had supporting evidence that was strong. I cited his history and I also had cited interviews from people that had known him.

Whites and blacks look at racism from two different lenses. Blacks experience racism and whites don't. It's because of that their antennas will always be up regarding it. I will admit to being much more attuned to it as Ive gotten older. I used to be more idealistic with respect to things changing but now I'm not.

Some individuals are quick to yell racism at a moment's notice but there are MANY more individuals who are quick to say that something isn't racist. To hear people tell it the only people that are racist in this country are the ones that are overt about it. If they aren't Neo Nazis or KKK then they can't be racist.

Subtle racism is much more prevalent than overt racism. Most people who hold racist views will never admit to being racist anyway. As you've correctly surmised they may lose their job or something else because of it.

On some level there will always be a disconnect between blacks and whites on this particular issue. The effects of racism are simply not felt the same way. With this being the case it will always be difficult for the issue to be viewed in the same manner.

_________________

While I agree with you there is something about Leash's post that you seem to agree with but could not come around to stating your agreement. His basic notion that racist, the word, has become a weapon is true and it weakens its real meaning.

You seem agree there there are levels of racism or at the very least a difference between overt and subtle types of it. You and some others need to simply agree that some today throw a racist nuclear bomb into discussions they simply disagree with. There is no better example than the one Leash used. Affirmative action is a very complex issue that many people can have varied opinions on. It is very common now to shout down even a sensible alternate opinion by calling the person saying it a racist.

That is sad and retards evolution on the race matter rather than moving the entire thing forward.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

I also realize that too some MANY in fact, nothing is ever Racist. People will freely admit that Racism exists but when there are individual instances of it they eirher deny or ignore it.

Opposition to Affirmative Action doesn't necessitate that a person is racist. I agree about that. There is an argument to be made against it. There is a much stronger argument to be made for it however. Affirmative Action was merely a reaction to historic and systemic racism. It was deemed necessary due to this country's reluctance to address the problem of racism. If this country had addressed the problem earlier and more forcefully then Affirmative Action would never have existed.

I'd actually like to discuss this particular issue separately at some point. Don't know when but at some point.

_________________

Affirmative Action is racism against white people.

I just picked AA randomly as it was mentioned. I am sure it would be a good thread on its own. At any rate it is just an example where discussion can be shut down with a word.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

I will reference this point again because it is relevant to this particular discussion. I was referred to as an Anti Semite for having a problem with the way Israel was created. I have never spoken ill of Jewish people on here or anywhere else for that matter. Isn't that sort of the same thing?

The concerns that I advanced were legitimate. I was called Anti Semitic and my the points that I raised were misconstrued to the point where it became about an advocacy for the destruction of Israel. I never once advanced any position related to it yet I was labeled anyway. It's essentially the same thing.

_________________

Come on, LTG, you of all people are familiar with the phrase "dog whistle". I've seen you use it a bunch of times (though I still don't understand it's meaning).

Yeah I'm familiar with it.

_________________

Good. Your anti-Israel stance (particularly calling them "terrorists", thereby invalidating their claim to sovereignty) bears all the marks of anti-semetic dog whistling.

You need to stop rewriting it. You literally said for months that Israel should not be in anywhere in the Middle East, while also not saying where it should be. I must have asked you 10 times about this subject and your answer was always the same. This is clearly an anti-Semetic view. Eventually, you kind of acknowledged that Israel has a right to exist though even that came off as fairly hollow as it seems you would be fine if the Muslim states took it upon themselves to rid the Middle East of Israel. You can't play the "misconstrued" card when there were many times that people asked you point blank if Israel should exist in the Middle East and your answer was no.

If you have noticed, even acknowledging that Israel has a right to exist where it does now has all but stopped the anti-Semetic charge being thrown at you even when you do things like the "Jews in Hollywood" routine you did in the Weinstein thread.

It's getting to the point where it seems like you want to be the victim here because people said it was anti-Semetic to want the state of Israel to not exist currently in Israel, and with no response to where it should be. Now, you'll go on for paragraphs about how all along you simply meant that Israel was created with many mistakes(and most agree) even though you spent months responding to the discussion without EVER saying that was your actual point.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

thread about oversensitive burritos at a Canadian university turns into a bunch of dudes shoving each other out of the way to prove why they deserve to be crowned Most Valuable Goy.

Did I call Israelis terrorists or the Mossad? Let's get some clarity before proceeding.

The more guys like you and Brick respond the more valid My point in conjunction with Mike's becomes. This is simply despicable.

Brick's claims were shown to be fraudulent the second his thoughts on original home were debunked.

_________________

Did I call Israelis terrorists or the Mossad? Let's get some clarity before proceeding.

_________________

You rarely make any sense with the things that you post and you always try to twist what someone says.

For the record I stated that I have a problem with the way Israel was founded. Doesn't make me An Anti Semite for feeling that way.

It also doesn't mean that I advocate for the destruction of Israel. If I have ever advocated for the destruction of Israel then find the quote or stop making the claim.

You won't be able to find the quote because i never made the quote.

_________________

We should just not proceed.

What's amusing of course is that Peterson and his followers love namecalling the most of all. Anyone who ever disagrees is a postmodernist or Marxist or worst of all, both, and Peterson thinks such people definitely deserve to be doxxed for their evil plans of indoctrinating the youth.

Leave it to Long Time Guy to make a terrible thread even worse.

_________________

This.

_________________

Anything concerning Peterson is probably a separate issue. He seems to be more of a popularizer than a researcher. But he was right about this cultural issue (he predicted it would happen), just as the grad student was right about the pedagogical issue.

The grad student's pedagological justification for airing the debate in the first place was still tenuous at best and has been lost amidst the outrage about the instructor and university making fools of themselves. And Peterson's predictions aren't really backed up by this, as one university's speech code says little to nothing about the actual implications of C16, which has been what he railed against the most and has frequently misrepresented.

I didn't mention Peterson. Why would people talking about pronoun usage be called Marxists? I think you're exaggerating that.

_________________

Kay is regurgitating the arguments Peterson makes in that editorial. And I'm not exaggerating at all. Peterson absolutely calls pretty much anyone he disagrees with politically a neo-Marxist or postmodernist. He complains that the humanities and social sciences are dominated by "neo-Marxists" and wants to do away with entire departments and fields he claims are neo-Marxist to their core.

And lest you think that he's talking just about campus radicals, guess again! All progressives are just neo-Marxists too operating under a different name. Talking about gender pronouns is simply another way for the damned cultural Marxists to subvert Western Civlization.

It seems like one of three things happened with her decision to show the video:
LEAST LIKELY: she really is a crypto-Nazi spreading the gospel of alt-right v-neck-tee-and-sportcoat Len Kasper
SOMEWHAT LIKELY: she's teaching freshman English to bored kids who snapchat through class and she thought a CONTROVERSIAL~! debate would at least get the little shits engaged for half an hour
MOST LIKELY: she mistakenly thought the debate material was more relevant to her lesson plans than it really was, but now, having been dragged into a room to be yelled at by tenured professors who at the very least will gang up on her and treat her like a very stupid person ("do you know what confirmation bias is? do you know what peer review is?" she's not a 10-year-old, you asshole) and at the most will ruin her career, she panicked and doubled down on her error so many times over that it stopped being about the video and even stopped being about her, though in fairness, it's plain as day that the professors/administrator were perfectly uninterested in remotely trying to defuse the situation before it escalated as it did.

I'm glad she did what she did and got this Kafka bullshit out in the open. The audio made my skin crawl, from the aforementioned condescension about high school psychology topics to that other guy's voice, HIS FUCKING REEDY LITTLE BITCH VOICE, I'm sorry, he just sounds like someone you'd never want to stop beating the shit out of, even without such gems as "I don't want to compare Jordan Peterson to Hitler, but this is literally Hitler" and "positionality." And the real punchline of it all, after they told her that she wouldn't be able to teach her class each day without express approval of her lesson plans and would have to be monitored, was "well, this was the informal meeting." If the left wants self-criticism, criticize this passive-aggressive 'problematic?" (always with the rising inflection) shit out of existence.

_________________

And of course, would.

_________________