Problematic Stuff

[Seabass]

This isn't nearly as problematic as feminists saying mean things about men!

Feds: White supremacist group discussed bombing Pa. Capitol rally

Members of a white supremacist group with ties to the Lehigh Valley discussed setting off a suicide bomb to kill counter protesters expected to show up at a November 2016 neo-Nazi rally at the Pennsylvania Capitol, a court filing says.

Confidential witnesses working with state and federal law enforcement reported the discussion took place during a fall 2016 meeting at the Potter County property of Aryan Strike Force president Ronald “Dozer” Pulcher, the filing says.

At the meeting, members of the group also trained to use weapons, according to the document in a federal drug and gun trafficking case against other members of the group.

It says members of Aryan Strike Force, including founder Joshua Steever of Phillipsburg, discussed the plan with members of the National Socialist Movement, a neo-Nazi group that held a Nov. 5, 2016, rally at the state Capitol. Cooperating witnesses told investigators that an Aryan Strike Force member who had a life-threatening disease told the group he was willing to blow himself up.

The intended targets of the bomb, which was to be hidden inside the ailing Aryan Strike Force member’s oxygen tank, were anti-facist protesters expected to oppose the neo-Nazi rally, according to the court filing.

http://www.mcall.com/news/police/mc-nws ... story.html

[Forty Two]

They should be arrested and jailed. Of course that's problematic. But you're missing the point of the thread, which is more about pointing to things that people say are problematic, but which are ridiculous things to complain about.

Feminist says to jail men for sexist comments and thought -

...women are exempt, of course, because women can never be sexist.

...sexist speech and sexist thought would be criminalized "because it's hateful." LOL. "Make it a felony. Put them away. Let them serve jail time. Teach them a lesson."

Define sexist statements -- "hurtful to women." "If a woman is offended, it might be the wrong thing to do.... women who are aware of it, understand it.... we have to teach people that it is wrong...."

...said with a straight face.

[pErvinalia]

They should be arrested and jailed. Of course that's problematic. But you're missing the point of the thread, which is more about pointing to things that people say are problematic, but which are ridiculous things to complain about.

I think you are missing the point about your ridiculous levels of bias. You have explicitly stated that SJWism is a greater threat to society than the Alt-Right (or some other proxy).

[Forty Two]

That's a different issue than the topic of this thread.

However, yes, I think that SJWism is a greater threat to society than the "alt right" because I think that SJWism gets the support of the media and is far more pervasive than asshat alt righters.

Obviously, certain people, for their own reasons, include mere moderate conservatives, or conservatives in general (and even libertarians and classical liberals) among the "alt right." If you accept that inclusion, then of course the conservatives and libertarian/classical liberal amalgum has a great deal of influence. But, I reject the inclusion of all such persons and groups under the rubric "alt right." I include in the alt right these days (as distinct from what it was when the term was first coined, which was just basically young, unabashed conservatives - neoconservatives), the wacko Spencer "white identity" folks, who are just as bad as the SJWs in their use of identity politics.

So, the reason why SJWs and such are more of a concern to me is the acceptance in areas of society that the alt-right does not get. If someone is like Milo Yiannopoulis, who is called alt right, comes around - he's lucky if he's not deplatformed, and media coverage is resoundingly negative. However, when SJWs are covered in the mainstream media, it's generally favorable, and their ideological ilk have taken over our universities and are spreading their nonsense quite effectively.

I'll say it again - I am concerned with events like that violent right-wing incident that was recounted in the article above. Such persons ought to be prosecuted vigorously. Such violence is not acceptable. It's criminal. I can't say it strongly enough. That being said, that's like preaching to the choir. Who doesn't think that that kind of violence is unacceptable? I mean, other than the "white pride" folks themselves, right? 98% of people surveyed would say "planning out the bombing and murder of counterprotestors is wrong and should be prosecuted."

Compare that with the hand-wringing that took place about whether it's acceptable to do violence against those holding views that the left wing radicals and SJWs oppose. There was open consideration in the media of whether it was acceptable to "punch a Nazi," and whether the riots in Berkely were justified by antifa's laudable goals.

Jordan Peterson was just at a college in Kingston Ontario, and protestors started destroying property and breaking windows. “There is a lot of commitment out here for trans rights and for shutting down the conspiratorial hate speech of Jordan Peterson – I’m really happy to see that happening,” Shepherd said. “The protest has been successful in letting people know that even if we didn’t stop him from talking, we’ve let it be known that we are opposed to him speaking.” http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2018- ... ade-exits/

"An organizer of the protest told The Journal, “we’re here to protest Jordan Peterson being given a platform at Queen’s University. Jordan Peterson, aside from not knowing what he’s talking about vis-a-vis the law, Peterson tends to incite hatred wherever he goes.”

“It’s not a discussion about the toppings you like on pizza,” they continued. “It’s a discussion of which people should be considered human, which people to respect and that’s not a debate that should happen anywhere.”"

Errr....honey baby, you don't get to decide what debates happen where. And, the fact that it's not a discussion of something as mundane as pizza toppings doesn't change that. For your information, important topics of public concern are what freedom of expression is all about. We don't live in countries where the people are free to discuss pizza toppings, but not free to discuss who deserves respect. The position of these protestors is fascistic and totalitarian in nature. They award themselves the power and authority to decide for others what messages will be heard, and what topics "should be discussed" -- and they're doing it at an institution of higher learning, wherein all topics are fair game.

If they wanted to have a debate on the merits or lack thereof of human slavery, that is a discussion that is permitted in colleges. To band together like vigilantes and conspire to stop such a discussion, through the use of intimidating tactics like destruction of property is a violation of the law. Having a discussion about trans rights and pronoun usage is not a violation of the law, even if Jordan Peterson is totally wrong on the law and completely wrong in everything he says.



What would you say if some "conservatives" showed up at a pro-trans or pro-black lives matter speech like this decided they could disrupt and deplatform the speaker this way? Would it be appropriate? If not, is it appropriate here? Is this good or bad? If supporters of Ben Shapiro showed up to protest a pro-abortion rights speaker, and did this same stuff, would it be acceptable?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 424704002/

Does leftist zealotry on American college campuses imperil freedom of speech and liberal values, or is this a largely made-up issue that distracts from far more serious threats on the right? The latest polemics about this have been ignited by an incident at Lewis & Clark College law school in Portland, Ore., where protesters tried to shut down a talk by author, scholar and feminism critic Christina Hoff Sommers.

After a failed attempt to get her disinvited, the students repeatedly disrupted her talk with chanting and loud music. To opponents of “political correctness,” this is a sign of chilling authoritarianism. Skeptical progressives argue that, despite a few highly publicized conflicts, actual data show free expression on college campuses is alive and well — and supported by most students, especially political liberals.

But there is plenty of evidence that the problem of left-wing intolerance in the universities is real and damaging.

And two other recent surveys related to campus speech show disturbingly high approval for speech suppression, even by the state. In a 2017 survey by the Cato Institute and the YouGov polling firm, about half of current college students — compared to 40% of all Americans — favored government prohibition of hate speech. (Disclosure: I am an unpaid adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute.)

Among all respondents with college experience, majorities of Democrats believed that speakers expressing offensive or controversial views — for instance, that police are justified in stopping black people more frequently, or that transgender people have a mental disorder — should not be allowed to give a talk on their campus even if invited. Sizable minorities of Republicans agreed.

Meanwhile, a just-released Gallup/Knight Foundation poll of current college students finds that nearly 30% — up from 22% in 2016 — prefer a “positive” campus environment with speech prohibitions to an “open” one where offensive speech is allowed. While openness still wins, the trend is alarming. What’s more, over half of students say that inclusiveness and diversity should take priority over free speech rights. And more than a third, including half of the self-identified Democrats, believe it is at least sometimes acceptable to shout down campus speakers.

But disinvitation is just one kind of illiberal reaction; the aggressive disruption experienced by Sommers is another. And many incidents of leftist intolerance in the past few years have been directed not at outside speakers but at faculty members, staff, or students. Thus, Erika Christakis, formerly a Yale lecturer on early childhood education, resigned in 2015 after angry protests sparked by her defense of Halloween costumes that borrow from other cultures.

As the example of Christakis shows, the heresies today’s college protesters consider intolerably offensive are often neither bigoted nor extreme. The students who opposed Sommers as an alleged promoter of “male supremacy” pointed to her arguments that there is no sexual assault epidemic on campus and no pay gap for women and men doing the same work.

The protesters’ statement, signed by nine progressive law student groups, asserted that free speech is important but “that freedom stops when it has a negative and violent impact on other individuals.” When law students endorse such a deeply illiberal view, a free speech problem on campus definitely exists.

[pErvinalia]

I'll say it again - I am concerned with events like that violent right-wing incident that was recounted in the article above. Such persons ought to be prosecuted vigorously. Such violence is not acceptable. It's criminal. I can't say it strongly enough. That being said, that's like preaching to the choir. Who doesn't think that that kind of violence is unacceptable? I mean, other than the "white pride" folks themselves, right? 98% of people surveyed would say "planning out the bombing and murder of counterprotestors is wrong and should be prosecuted."

Compare that with the hand-wringing that took place about whether it's acceptable to do violence against those holding views that the left wing radicals and SJWs oppose. There was open consideration in the media of whether it was acceptable to "punch a Nazi," and whether the riots in Berkely were justified by antifa's laudable goals.

Ok, I'm comparing them, and on one hand we've got mass murder, and on the other hand we've got some people getting punched. Are you for fucking real?

[Forty Two]

Scientific objectivity reinforces "whiteness", so.... that's a problem. https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10658

Western science - white science - ignores other forms of knowledge and thereby discounts and denigrates the knowledge of "indigenous persons" and people of color.

[Forty Two]

All women's college says it's problematic to call women women. https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10660

[pErvinalia]

Scientific objectivity reinforces "whiteness", so.... that's a problem. https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10658

Western science - white science - ignores other forms of knowledge and thereby discounts and denigrates the knowledge of "indigenous persons" and people of color.

I must admit, this is the bollocks that drives me the most crazy. And I think someone also stated that Mathematics is racist too. Is it wrong that I feel like punching people like that?

[Forty Two]

I'll say it again - I am concerned with events like that violent right-wing incident that was recounted in the article above. Such persons ought to be prosecuted vigorously. Such violence is not acceptable. It's criminal. I can't say it strongly enough. That being said, that's like preaching to the choir. Who doesn't think that that kind of violence is unacceptable? I mean, other than the "white pride" folks themselves, right? 98% of people surveyed would say "planning out the bombing and murder of counterprotestors is wrong and should be prosecuted."

Compare that with the hand-wringing that took place about whether it's acceptable to do violence against those holding views that the left wing radicals and SJWs oppose. There was open consideration in the media of whether it was acceptable to "punch a Nazi," and whether the riots in Berkely were justified by antifa's laudable goals.

Ok, I'm comparing them, and on one hand we've got mass murder, and on the other hand we've got some people getting punched. Are you for fucking real?

it's not on the one hand and the other. Radical leftists have traditionally been in favor of violence and killing, and it's been part of their far left ideology for over 100 years. Violent revolution. The antifa folks advocate the use of violence to achieve their goals.

But, you're missing the point, which is one ideology gets support in the media and the mainstream, and the other gets near universal opposition. Of course there are isolated incidents on the extremes, but the ideology that is exerting real, concrete influence on law and public policy today is the leftist ideology. That's why it's a big concern.

You're missing that point, and you want to simply say "planning a bombing is worse than punching someone." Yes, indeed it is. But, an isolated group of a few guys, who are resoundingly outside of the mainstream, and nearly universally condemned in no uncertain terms and whose ideology has zero chance of becoming any part of law or public policy, is not as influential as a group that openly preaches violence and at the same time whose ideology is not only apologized for in the media, but they are making headway in legal and and public policy debates.

From the standpoint of long term and systemic damage to our western, liberal, Enlightenment societies, something like Count Dakula being convicted of a hate crime for a grossly offensive joke, and possibly to serve jail time for it. In the United Kingdom. Is more alarming than a wackjob extremist group plotting a bombing, because nobody really sympathizes with the wackjob extremist group and it's a rare event. However, if the law has adopted the leftist mantra of protecting groups from offense via the criminal law and the suppression of expression, then we have a serious, systemic problem that effects or can eventually effect everyone.

[Forty Two]

At Queen's College in Ontario, Canada:

Early in the lecture, two women invaded the building and walked across the stage holding a banner reading “Freedom to smash bigotry.” In the balcony at the back of the hall, a male student shouted abuse at the stage. All three students were roundly booed by the audience, which was sprayed with an unidentified liquid by the women when they left they hall.

Outside, a mob of dozens shouted slogans and obscenities and banged on the doors and windows of Grant Hall. They kept up the racket for the 90-minute length of the forum, stopping briefly only after a woman broke one of the stained glass windows of the historic Victorian Romanesque-style building.

“Mark my words, that’s the sound of the barbarians pounding at the gates,” Peterson told the audience.

The mob blocked the front and back doors of the hall with trash and recycling bins, forcing the audience to leave via an adjacent hall, where they ran a gauntlet of protesters screaming “Shame on you.” One woman quipped, “Lock them in and burn it down” to the cheers of the other protestors.

"There is a lot of commitment out here for trans rights and for shutting down the conspiratorial hate speech (sic) of Jordan Peterson,” he told the Journal. “The protest has been successful in letting people know that even if we didn’t stop him from taking, we’ve let it be known that we are opposed to him speaking.”

About as brazen as you can get. Advocating violence and murder. Engaging in property damage. A gang of leftist assholes violently trying to stop a civil discussion, at a university, about the status of "compelled speech" in Canada. This, to the leftist assholes, is beyond the pale. It's hate speech. It is, in their view, speech that should be against the law, and should not be allowed.

Their position is, of course, absurd, totalitarian, and they use fascist tactics to spread what they think is a righteous message. They are a cult. They would be irrelevant, of course, if they were not taken seriously by universities, and if they were not sympathized with by so many professors. And, their ideology is forming the basis of legislation in Canada, the US and elsewhere.

Their ideology is infecting the fabric of western society, and is anathema to western Englightenment values.

[Brian Peacock]

Bollocks. And on the last point, the ideology of ideologues is the problem - perpetually singling out one brand of ideology as a scapedoat for all the supposed ills of society is just another kind of ideological insistence.

[pErvinalia]

I'll say it again - I am concerned with events like that violent right-wing incident that was recounted in the article above. Such persons ought to be prosecuted vigorously. Such violence is not acceptable. It's criminal. I can't say it strongly enough. That being said, that's like preaching to the choir. Who doesn't think that that kind of violence is unacceptable? I mean, other than the "white pride" folks themselves, right? 98% of people surveyed would say "planning out the bombing and murder of counterprotestors is wrong and should be prosecuted."

Compare that with the hand-wringing that took place about whether it's acceptable to do violence against those holding views that the left wing radicals and SJWs oppose. There was open consideration in the media of whether it was acceptable to "punch a Nazi," and whether the riots in Berkely were justified by antifa's laudable goals.

Ok, I'm comparing them, and on one hand we've got mass murder, and on the other hand we've got some people getting punched. Are you for fucking real?

it's not on the one hand and the other. Radical leftists have traditionally been in favor of violence and killing, and it's been part of their far left ideology for over 100 years. Violent revolution. The antifa folks advocate the use of violence to achieve their goals.

But, you're missing the point, which is one ideology gets support in the media and the mainstream, and the other gets near universal opposition. Of course there are isolated incidents on the extremes, but the ideology that is exerting real, concrete influence on law and public policy today is the leftist ideology. That's why it's a big concern.

I've never seen Black Bloc (what you call Antifa) get any support in the media. Do you have an example from mainstream media?

[Forty Two]

Bollocks. And on the last point, the ideology of ideologues is the problem - perpetually singling out one brand of ideology as a scapedoat for all the supposed ills of society is just another kind of ideological insistence.

If the leftist ideologues would be resounding lambasted in the media, and overwhelmingly rejected within university professorships, administrations, and in the legislative halls - if they stopped getting invited to tell legislators what legislation to pass, etc., and if the were no longer seriously entertained -- i.e. if they were treated as the pariahs the alt-right are treated as, then I'd find them to be funny, but irrelevant.

Their danger is in the media and mainstream acceptance of what they say. When these asshats talk about compelling the use of pronouns, and suggesting that opposing such compulsion is "hate speech" and tantamount to violence, and when mainstream media folks approach the discussions from the standpoint of defending such compulsion as part of a reasonable way to be nice and kind, then we have a problem. They're using the pronoun issue as a means to wedge in the overall ideology in schools, workplaces and government. They are in some ways succeeding.

It's infecting high schools and middle schools in the US, where social justice is taught as a moral good, and that opposition to it is hate. That's a problem, because social justice is not justice. It's not good, IMO, and I oppose it. I won't stand by and be silenced by the leftist labeling tactics and their attempts to create administrative machinery to silence such opposition.

We saw that kind of machinery being brought to bear in relation to Lindsey Shepherd. We also saw that the University of Toronto legal department were quite willing to send a letter to Jordan Peterson stating that his public pronouncements on the issue might violate the law. We see laws being passed and administrative rules being passed on this issue, and they are oppressive and authoritarian in nature, and contrary to fundamental, liberal principles that have developed the the West over 700 or so years, since Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, the modern western Enlightenment, etc.

The radical leftists do not subscribe to such liberal principles, and they see the western Enlightenment society as oppressive and something to be brought down. They need to be opposed.

It's good to see some extremism experts starting to take note of the far left: https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/3kp ... t-the-left

The violence is not directed only at avowed racists like Spencer: In June of last year, demonstrators—at least some of whom were associated with antifa—punched and threw eggs at people exiting a Trump rally in San Jose, California. An article in It’s Going Down celebrated the “righteous beatings.”

Antifascists call such actions defensive. Hate speech against vulnerable minorities, they argue, leads to violence against vulnerable minorities.

So, they're violent. They're self-righteous moralizers. And, they add to that an incoherent and internally inconsistent ideology, which they believe despite its own absurdity. They have a fervor. A righteous ferver.

A similar cycle has played out at UC Berkeley. In February, masked antifascists broke store windows and hurled Molotov cocktails and rocks at police during a rally against the planned speech by Yiannopoulos.

Portland has become a bastion of antifascist militancy. Masked protesters smashed store windows during multiday demonstrations following Trump’s election. In early April, antifa activists threw smoke bombs into a “Rally for Trump and Freedom” in the Portland suburb of Vancouver, Washington.

Antifa believes it is pursuing the opposite of authoritarianism. Many of its activists oppose the very notion of a centralized state. But in the name of protecting the vulnerable, antifascists have granted themselves the authority to decide which Americans may publicly assemble and which may not. That authority rests on no democratic foundation. Unlike the politicians they revile, the men and women of antifa cannot be voted out of office. Generally, they don’t even disclose their names.

Antifa’s perceived legitimacy is inversely correlated with the government’s. Which is why, in the Trump era, the movement is growing like never before. As the president derides and subverts liberal-democratic norms, progressives face a choice. They can recommit to the rules of fair play, and try to limit the president’s corrosive effect, though they will often fail. Or they can, in revulsion or fear or righteous rage, try to deny racists and Trump supporters their political rights. From Middlebury to Berkeley to Portland, the latter approach is on the rise, especially among young people.

Revulsion, fear, and rage are understandable. But one thing is clear. The people preventing Republicans from safely assembling on the streets of Portland may consider themselves fierce opponents of the authoritarianism growing on the American right. In truth, however, they are its unlikeliest allies.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ft/534192/

[Brian Peacock]

Bollocks. And on the last point, the ideology of ideologues is the problem - perpetually singling out one brand of ideology as a scapedoat for all the supposed ills of society is just another kind of ideological insistence.

If the leftist ideologues would be resounding lambasted in the media, and overwhelmingly rejected within university professorships, administrations, and in the legislative halls - if they stopped getting invited to tell legislators what legislation to pass, etc., and if the were no longer seriously entertained -- i.e. if they were treated as the pariahs the alt-right are treated as, then I'd find them to be funny, but irrelevant.

Their danger is in the media and mainstream acceptance of what they say. When these asshats talk about compelling the use of pronouns, and suggesting that opposing such compulsion is "hate speech" and tantamount to violence, and when mainstream media folks approach the discussions from the standpoint of defending such compulsion as part of a reasonable way to be nice and kind, then we have a problem. They're using the pronoun issue as a means to wedge in the overall ideology in schools, workplaces and government. They are in some ways succeeding.

It's infecting high schools and middle schools in the US, where social justice is taught as a moral good, and that opposition to it is hate. That's a problem, because social justice is not justice. It's not good, IMO, and I oppose it. I won't stand by and be silenced by the leftist labeling tactics and their attempts to create administrative machinery to silence such opposition.

We saw that kind of machinery being brought to bear in relation to Lindsey Shepherd. We also saw that the University of Toronto legal department were quite willing to send a letter to Jordan Peterson stating that his public pronouncements on the issue might violate the law. We see laws being passed and administrative rules being passed on this issue, and they are oppressive and authoritarian in nature, and contrary to fundamental, liberal principles that have developed the the West over 700 or so years, since Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, the modern western Enlightenment, etc.

The radical leftists do not subscribe to such liberal principles, and they see the western Enlightenment society as oppressive and something to be brought down. They need to be opposed.

It's good to see some extremism experts starting to take note of the far left: https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/3kp ... t-the-left

The violence is not directed only at avowed racists like Spencer: In June of last year, demonstrators—at least some of whom were associated with antifa—punched and threw eggs at people exiting a Trump rally in San Jose, California. An article in It’s Going Down celebrated the “righteous beatings.”

Antifascists call such actions defensive. Hate speech against vulnerable minorities, they argue, leads to violence against vulnerable minorities.

So, they're violent. They're self-righteous moralizers. And, they add to that an incoherent and internally inconsistent ideology, which they believe despite its own absurdity. They have a fervor. A righteous ferver.

A similar cycle has played out at UC Berkeley. In February, masked antifascists broke store windows and hurled Molotov cocktails and rocks at police during a rally against the planned speech by Yiannopoulos.

Portland has become a bastion of antifascist militancy. Masked protesters smashed store windows during multiday demonstrations following Trump’s election. In early April, antifa activists threw smoke bombs into a “Rally for Trump and Freedom” in the Portland suburb of Vancouver, Washington.

Antifa believes it is pursuing the opposite of authoritarianism. Many of its activists oppose the very notion of a centralized state. But in the name of protecting the vulnerable, antifascists have granted themselves the authority to decide which Americans may publicly assemble and which may not. That authority rests on no democratic foundation. Unlike the politicians they revile, the men and women of antifa cannot be voted out of office. Generally, they don’t even disclose their names.

Antifa’s perceived legitimacy is inversely correlated with the government’s. Which is why, in the Trump era, the movement is growing like never before. As the president derides and subverts liberal-democratic norms, progressives face a choice. They can recommit to the rules of fair play, and try to limit the president’s corrosive effect, though they will often fail. Or they can, in revulsion or fear or righteous rage, try to deny racists and Trump supporters their political rights. From Middlebury to Berkeley to Portland, the latter approach is on the rise, especially among young people.

Revulsion, fear, and rage are understandable. But one thing is clear. The people preventing Republicans from safely assembling on the streets of Portland may consider themselves fierce opponents of the authoritarianism growing on the American right. In truth, however, they are its unlikeliest allies.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ft/534192/

Again, you've fallen to scapegoating a singled out ideology in the service of your own brand self-righteous moralising. The following could be said about the nasty end of the right as much as the left...

• "So, they're violent. They're self-righteous moralizers. And, they add to that an incoherent and internally inconsistent ideology, which they believe despite its own absurdity. They have a fervor. A righteous ferver."

The question is, why is the ideology of the far-left singled out so keenly and so often, while you not only avoid criticising right-wing ideologues but defend them on the basis of their presumed moral equivalence with the far-left?

Let me reinstate my point so that you might address it head on: the problem (for most of us) is with the ideologies of ideologues, regardless of the bearing on their political compass.

[Sean Hayden]

It's what lead me to think he's a Republican shill. I thought the same of Seth.