Problematic Stuff

[Forty Two]

Where do sjw's say they believe in the ideological liberal idea of free speech? I'd suggest that they don't.

They believe in it for themselves.

So they don't believe in the ideological liberal idea of free speech? Is there any point in me continuing to read the rest of your non-sequitur?

Yes, because it's not a non sequitur, but it's your practice to just skip people's actual arguments and then go on to bleat about what you imagine they really believe.

They afford themselves the right of free speech, and not only that but a privileged position to act out. These folks would be aghast if someone microaggressed against a minority or a trans person by asking where they were really from or what their real sex is, but they grant themselves the right to blare profanities in people's faces, hit them, scream at them, shut down their peaceful gatherings, and the like. This is not just "not believing in an ideology of free speech," it's not having any rational concept of free speech and when an individual might have it or might not. This comes from them being steeped in postmodernism, which eschews the notion of rationality and logic altogether as tools of the patriarchal capitalist oppressor. And they are steeped in the Marxist notion of a class struggle, which they've transferred to identity politics and replaced the proletariat with "protected marginalized groups" and the bourgeois and aristocracy are the oppressor races and such. It's the same idea - its postmodernism nested in Marxist thought.

[Forty Two]

That's so much projection, it's not even fun.

As if that's what the Progressive left identity politics folks do, meekly approach "the man" who is in charge and ask politely to "talk about" the problems women and minorities face. LOL. That's why they shut down opinions on the subject they don't like -- because they want to discuss the problems women and minorities face, so they shut down discussion of the topic that doesn't agree with them.

Here they are, politely asking to talk about the problems faced by minorities and women....

Note the SJWs, engaging politely and civilly in a discussion of those problems.

Now what would happen if, say, a bunch of "righties" did exactly this at a feminist rally? Or, during a speech at the women's march? Madonna on the podium...suddenly, a group of right wingers crowd around the stage and beat cow bells, drums, blare horns, and start screaming so loud as to make it very difficult for all, and impossible for some, to hear what she was saying. Imagine they keep doing it for an hour or two, continually chanting, and then screamed and yelled that she was "not welcome here!" "shut her down!" and "this is where we draw the line!"

....of course...she's marginalized, so she gets to speak....

Question, is Jordan Peterson being oppressed in that video? If not, why is that not oppression?

[laklak]

Oppression is what happens to feminists, of course. You can't oppress a Privileged White Male by definition.

[Forty Two]

Oppression is what happens to feminists, of course. You can't oppress a Privileged White Male by definition.

He got what was coming to him.

[pErvinalia]

Where do sjw's say they believe in the ideological liberal idea of free speech? I'd suggest that they don't.

They believe in it for themselves.

So they don't believe in the ideological liberal idea of free speech? Is there any point in me continuing to read the rest of your non-sequitur?

Yes, because it's not a non sequitur,

It's clearly a non-sequitur as your initial reference to sjw's and free speech was faux incredulity. If you know very well that they don't believe in the liberal idea of free speech, then why make the point in the first place like you were shocked that they don't? I can't think of anybody who thinks that sjw's believe in free speech.

but it's your practice to just skip people's actual arguments and then go on to bleat about what you imagine they really believe.

It's my practice to ignore the garbled "reason" of the likes of you and Seth. Most of it is just equivocation.

They afford themselves the right of free speech,

What the fuck are you talking about? They don't have to "afford" it to themselves. The state grants them that right.

Couldn't bring myself to read the rest.

[pErvinalia]

That's so much projection, it's not even fun.

As if that's what the Progressive left identity politics folks do, meekly approach "the man" who is in charge and ask politely to "talk about" the problems women and minorities face. LOL. That's why they shut down opinions on the subject they don't like -- because they want to discuss the problems women and minorities face, so they shut down discussion of the topic that doesn't agree with them.

I suspect they have gone rabid because the politely ask approach doesn't really work. I think most of these clowns are doing themselves a disservice by doing what they do, but I can see why they've been driven to look for alternatives other than "politely ask" for equal rights and social justice.

[Forty Two]

Where do sjw's say they believe in the ideological liberal idea of free speech? I'd suggest that they don't.

They believe in it for themselves.

So they don't believe in the ideological liberal idea of free speech? Is there any point in me continuing to read the rest of your non-sequitur?

Yes, because it's not a non sequitur,

It's clearly a non-sequitur as your initial reference to sjw's and free speech was faux incredulity. If you know very well that they don't believe in the liberal idea of free speech, then why make the point in the first place like you were shocked that they don't? I can't think of anybody who thinks that sjw's believe in free speech.

I'll put it this way. Yes, they don't believe in the liberal view of free speech. However, their view of free speech, such as it is, is hypocritcal. They hold, quite often, views many other people deem reprehensible. Yet they afford to themselves the right to speak, and not only to speak but harass, threaten and even hit their opposition, and they afford to themselves the right to determine which views are so reprehensible as to merit disruption and harassment, etc., and then if others speak out against them and their views, they pretend they are being microaggressed against, and claim that they need to be protected from the opposing views. They deny to others what they grant themselves. That's hypocritical.

They afford themselves the right of free speech,

What the fuck are you talking about? They don't have to "afford" it to themselves. The state grants them that right.

I'll put it another way. They happily exercise the right of free speech, which they apparently believe includes blaring horns, screaming profanities, clanking cowbells and other noisemakers, as well as shutting down and disrupting peaceful conferences and presentations. They are of the view, however, that other individuals do not have the right to exercise the right of free speech, even peacefully and quietly. If, for example, Jordan Peterson showed up with a group of his devotees, and did exactly what the SJWs protesting him did, but did it to a feminist conference, what do you think the SJWs would claim? Harassment? Lack of a safe space? Sure, they'd claim they have a right to a safe space, and that they should be protected from the disruption.

That's why they are hypocritical assholes.

[Forty Two]

In Canada, Mr. Lorne Grabher cannot have his last name on his license plate, because it's offensive to women. http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2017/03/ ... nse-plate/

So much for Kramer's (of Seinfeld fame) license plate "Assman" - that would probably not be permitted anymore...

And, Guilherme Crabogiale Fuck, who lives in Canada incidentally, should apply for a vanity plate and see what they say....lol

Grabher. Very problematic. Women driving behind his car will be, well, nothing, but you know.... think of the children.

[Scot Dutchy]

We dont have that here. You take what you are given. We have few letters in our number plates with no vowels and list of other letters due to confusion and automatic recognition.

[Forty Two]

Here it's a cash stream for the departments of motor vehicles. They charge people extra to have stuff on their license plates. it creates problems, because the department of motor vehicles people start policing what can be on there, so atheists have trouble...and apparently people with last names that probably had them teased in grammar school are once again victimized by an uncaring, patriarchal, capitalist system...

[JimC]

We have vanity plates as well.

It's a good way to identify shallow arseholes...

[Forty Two]

Indeed, I have never understood the need to pay extra for a custom plate. Here we not only have vanity plates, but also we have themed plates. So, you can get your plate to say "Mr. Happy" with a logo of the football team, or a reference to some cause like education, or dolphins or whatever among a list of different logo plates. All entail a significant fee and there is no benefit other than decoration.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah we've got them here too. Capitalism FTW!

[Scot Dutchy]

Here there is no point of vanity plates. 80% of the car market is lease so the love affair with a car is short lived. The car plates can only be used on one car. Once it is scrapped the number no longer exists and you cant transfer it.

[pErvinalia]

Marxists!