UNLIMITED 2016 Starting Early With Batshittery Thread.

[Doktor Howl]

I'm pretty 100% behind free speech, but those stats made it clear that there is a lot of privilege on my part behind that. I'll have to give it some thought.

I am not prepared to abrogate the right of free speech over an issue of privilege for reasons that should be blatantly obvious.

I would have agreed wholeheartedly half an hour ago. But seeing that it's mostly white people who think it's no a problem has made me pause. I'm not decided yet.

The rules are established by those, mostly, who have privilege.

So let's let them decide who gets to say what.

YEP. THIS.

If hate speech is made illegal, I will guarantee you that the people getting prosecuted for hate speech crime will be overwhelmingly the disempowered.

Even if hate speech laws prosecuted no one but the privileged and didnt put minorities at any disadvantage at all they would still be wrong.

Well, of course.  But sometimes you have to approach this from practicality.

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

I'm pretty 100% behind free speech, but those stats made it clear that there is a lot of privilege on my part behind that. I'll have to give it some thought.

I am not prepared to abrogate the right of free speech over an issue of privilege for reasons that should be blatantly obvious.

I would have agreed wholeheartedly half an hour ago. But seeing that it's mostly white people who think it's no a problem has made me pause. I'm not decided yet.

The rules are established by those, mostly, who have privilege.

So let's let them decide who gets to say what.

YEP. THIS.

If hate speech is made illegal, I will guarantee you that the people getting prosecuted for hate speech crime will be overwhelmingly the disempowered.

Even if hate speech laws prosecuted no one but the privileged and didnt put minorities at any disadvantage at all they would still be wrong.

Well, of course.  But sometimes you have to approach this from practicality.

True, but what bugs me is how Hoopla stated that they agreed wholeheartedly with free speech, until they found out, on noez, more white people support free speech than black people by a margin of about 20%. Without any other new information, no argumentation, nothing at all they were willing to drop their supposed principles because of a complete robotic emotional reaction to being on the "white(ignore the 43% of white people who want hate speech laws)" and therefore wrong side of an issue.

I still want to know. Where exactly is the line? What other things would he be unsure of just because 51% of black people didnt like it?

[LMNO]

I think his reaction was fairly normal for someone who has become aware that their ideological point of view has the potential of being biased due to racial contexts.

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

I think his reaction was fairly normal for someone who has become aware that their ideological point of view has the potential of being biased due to racial contexts.

But what evidence did he receive that the principle of free speech was wrong? There have been countless arguments made against free speech, I assume he was at least marginally familiar with them. When it came to all of that his principles were unshakable, but somehow black people supporting hate speech laws by certain percentage more than white people made him unsure.

Im just saying, if your so called wholehearted principles cant withstand the crushing moral ambivalence of disagreeing with a black person, maybe they arent so ironclad after all. In fact maybe you dont have any principles at all.

[LMNO]

Since when is

I'll have to give it some thought.

some abandonment of principle? 

I, for one, believe people should be thinking about their principles ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

Since when is

I'll have to give it some thought.

some abandonment of principle? 

I, for one, believe people should be thinking about their principles ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

They should. This is not thinking about your principles. This is the opposite.

I would have agreed wholeheartedly half an hour ago. But seeing that it's mostly white people who think it's no a problem has made me pause. I'm not decided yet.

Was completely decided on the issue, come hell or high water. Then finds out that its mostly white people who agree with him. THAT, of all things makes him unsure. So again, how far does this go? Blacks support gay marriage less than whites too. Does knowing that make you reexamine the influence of racial conflicts on your ideological point of view about gay marriage? Are you suddenly undecided on gay marriage?

What is he even thinking about? How do you go from "X% of black people disagree with me" to some kind of critique of your worldview? Its not an argument, its not a challenge to what he thinks at all. It makes him uncomfortable, so he immediately buckles.

[hooplala]

Since when is

I'll have to give it some thought.

some abandonment of principle? 

I, for one, believe people should be thinking about their principles ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

They should. This is not thinking about your principles. This is the opposite.

I would have agreed wholeheartedly half an hour ago. But seeing that it's mostly white people who think it's no a problem has made me pause. I'm not decided yet.

Was completely decided on the issue, come hell or high water. Then finds out that its mostly white people who agree with him. THAT, of all things makes him unsure. So again, how far does this go? Blacks support gay marriage less than whites too. Does knowing that make you reexamine the influence of racial conflicts on your ideological point of view about gay marriage? Are you suddenly undecided on gay marriage?

What is he even thinking about? How do you go from "X% of black people disagree with me" to some kind of critique of your worldview? Its not an argument, its not a challenge to what he thinks at all. It makes him uncomfortable, so he immediately buckles.

You seem to equate "think about it" with buckling, which I think says more about you than it does about me. 

I saw something which made me pause and look at it from a different angle, which isn't something that occurs all that regularly.  Thankfully, since it's not pleasant to suddenly wonder if part of your worldview is based on a bad premise.  I've been wrong before (many times, in fact) and thought it was probably a good sign to step aside and give it some time to mull it over.  I also wanted to hear opinions from others who I respect (not just Nigel, Roger, that was just for lols. She and you and others) before I made up my mind.  I do this fairly regularly, on a number of subjects.

And yes, I said "agreed wholeheartedly" because up until then I had no new data to disagree with my view... then I got new data.  That's how I work.

I'm not going to answer your further questions because it seems like a lot of "slippery slope" straw man stuff I'm not much interested in discussing.  Sorry if any of this damaged your view of someone you hardly know.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm pretty 100% behind free speech, but those stats made it clear that there is a lot of privilege on my part behind that. I'll have to give it some thought.

I am not prepared to abrogate the right of free speech over an issue of privilege for reasons that should be blatantly obvious.

I would have agreed wholeheartedly half an hour ago. But seeing that it's mostly white people who think it's no a problem has made me pause. I'm not decided yet.

The rules are established by those, mostly, who have privilege.

So let's let them decide who gets to say what.

YEP. THIS.

If hate speech is made illegal, I will guarantee you that the people getting prosecuted for hate speech crime will be overwhelmingly the disempowered.

Even if hate speech laws prosecuted no one but the privileged and didnt put minorities at any disadvantage at all they would still be wrong.

Well, of course.  But sometimes you have to approach this from practicality.

True, but what bugs me is how Hoopla stated that they agreed wholeheartedly with free speech, until they found out, on noez, more white people support free speech than black people by a margin of about 20%. Without any other new information, no argumentation, nothing at all they were willing to drop their supposed principles because of a complete robotic emotional reaction to being on the "white(ignore the 43% of white people who want hate speech laws)" and therefore wrong side of an issue.

I still want to know. Where exactly is the line? What other things would he be unsure of just because 51% of black people didnt like it?

It's called "taking a step back and re-evaluating, because maybe those other people who have a completely different perspective from my own, and have a statistical tendency to be targeted/effected by this issue more than my own demographic does, have a valid point that I have been hitherto unable to see".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The fact that those other people with a different perspective are non-white is relevant because Hoopla is white, and therefore he decided to consider whether his opinion was primarily a byproduct of his perspective as a white person, in which case considering it from a different perspective, ie. that of a non-white person, might bring him new information that could change his mind.

It's basic fucking critical thinking, FFS.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm pretty 100% behind free speech, but those stats made it clear that there is a lot of privilege on my part behind that. I'll have to give it some thought.

I am not prepared to abrogate the right of free speech over an issue of privilege for reasons that should be blatantly obvious.

I would have agreed wholeheartedly half an hour ago. But seeing that it's mostly white people who think it's no a problem has made me pause. I'm not decided yet.

The rules are established by those, mostly, who have privilege.

So let's let them decide who gets to say what.

YEP. THIS.

If hate speech is made illegal, I will guarantee you that the people getting prosecuted for hate speech crime will be overwhelmingly the disempowered.

Even if hate speech laws prosecuted no one but the privileged and didnt put minorities at any disadvantage at all they would still be wrong biased as fuck, what the fuck kind of fucked-up laws only prosecute the privileged?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Since when is

I'll have to give it some thought.

some abandonment of principle? 

I, for one, believe people should be thinking about their principles ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

They should. This is not thinking about your principles. This is the opposite.

I would have agreed wholeheartedly half an hour ago. But seeing that it's mostly white people who think it's no a problem has made me pause. I'm not decided yet.

Was completely decided on the issue, come hell or high water. Then finds out that its mostly white people who agree with him. THAT, of all things makes him unsure. So again, how far does this go? Blacks support gay marriage less than whites too. Does knowing that make you reexamine the influence of racial conflicts on your ideological point of view about gay marriage? Are you suddenly undecided on gay marriage?

What is he even thinking about? How do you go from "X% of black people disagree with me" to some kind of critique of your worldview? Its not an argument, its not a challenge to what he thinks at all. It makes him uncomfortable, so he immediately buckles.

I  think it's really weird that this is how you read that.

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

The fact that those other people with a different perspective are non-white is relevant because Hoopla is white, and therefore he decided to consider whether his opinion was primarily a byproduct of his perspective as a white person, in which case considering it from a different perspective, ie. that of a non-white person, might bring him new information that could change his mind.

Ok, I ask again. Is my support of gay marriage primarily a byproduct of my perspective as a white person? Blacks also support the NSA's domestic spying program more than whites. Is my opposition to the NSA a byproduct of my perspective as a white person?

While were on the topic of perspective let me try and explain why this bugs me so much. I personally believe in freedom of speech as a basic human right and that any limitation on it is abhorrent. So an article about how most of America thinks that we should just toss the rest of the constitution in the furnace and just get it over with irked me just a little bit. So I post it here, assuming that most people are on the same wavelength. Only someone reads the article and decides that "WELL GEE MAYBE FREE SPEECH JUST AINT ALL ITS CRACKED UP TO BE". This alone pushes my buttons, but the fact that there was no argument. There was no case made against his previous support that made him doubt. The fact that all it took to make someone here wonder if maybe, just maybe certain thoughts should be illegal is playing to identity politics, oh boy.

Then this:

I'll have to give it some thought.

What I really meant was "wait to see what Nigel says, because she's always right".

He changed his mind back, without even looking at all those mindblowing black pro-censorship perspectives you all keep talking about. No argument on the value of free speech was given, instead the issue was reframed, again using identity politics. So before he was questioning his opposition to anti-thoughtcrime laws, without even knowing why. Then, he comes full circle, not when someone refutes these arguments that have made him doubt his worldview despite not even knowing them, but when someone reframes the issue so his old view is now on the non-shitlord side. So now he doesnt even have to look into all these alternative perspectives out there, which again, are so persuasive he was moved by them before he even heard them. Because hate speech laws would actually oppress blacks, whew, crisis averted. That isnt thinking, that isnt critically evaluating your ideology, thats being a tool.

All it takes is "Check yer privs" and suddenly banning ideas is up for debate. Without the identity politics angle he would have never even considered that maybe some ideas should be illegal, and if anyone did without the identity politics angle absolutely none of you would ever defend them. Its disgusting. Limiting freedom of thought is disgusting and so is anyone who supports it. It is absolutely disgusting and my life is too short to call it anything but what it is.

[Doktor Howl]

It's basic fucking critical thinking, FFS.

Which is un-American as fuck, and Hoopla oughta be ashamed of himself.

[hooplala]

You can say I changed my mind back, but it was never changed in the first place, which you don't seem to be getting. Pausing to think is not necessarily a 180.

And yes, everything is up for theoretical debate.

[hooplala]

It's basic fucking critical thinking, FFS.

Which is un-American as fuck, and Hoopla oughta be ashamed of himself.

I'll hand in my 'Murrican card at the door.