Milo/UC Berkley protestors stop 'hate speech' by using violence and hate...

hurfdurf said:
[..]
But no, you go on believing him when he says he didn't say it, or that he did but didn't mean it like that.
Click to expand...

I do because the evidence extremely strongly indicates that's the truth:

1) It's what he says about his own position and he's a fairly reliable source. He'll spin stuff, but he won't simply lie about it.
2) He's written repeatedly on the subject in the past and his position is very clear.
3) He's taken a more active role too - he's used his resources to expose paedophiles.
4) Everything you say is evidence that the opposite is true.

So multiple aspects of the evidence strongly indicate that he didn't say it.

It truly is me who is living in the Harry Potter universe. [..]
Click to expand...

Harry Potter et alia aren't advocating irrational prejudices and authoritarianism imposed by violence and murder and you are. You're not powerful enough to be Voldemort. You're not living in the Harry Potter universe.
 
When we live in a world where an organisation can simply get away with brushing the mass global rape of underage children, this sort of damnation against a victim is very unironic and very unfunny.
 
C4 had a piece on "how PC are we" tonight.

They invited some student union reps to discuss "safe spaces".

By a large majority they decided that sombreros (mexican hats) had a "high risk" of being offensive, and also that dressing as a fictitious character could offend somebody that identified with that fictitious character, esp if said non-existent character had experienced oppression during their non-existent life. By the end almost everything they had been asked to categorise was potentially "unsafe".

I hated student unions before tonight, and this just reaffirms my prejudice against them. Because they're idiots :p

And if we in any way pander to their time-wasting "safe space" nonsense, we need to give ourselves a good, hard slap too.
 
FoxEye said:
C4 had a piece on "how PC are we" tonight.

They invited some student union reps to discuss "safe spaces".

By a large majority they decided that sombreros (mexican hats) had a "high risk" of being offensive, and also that dressing as a fictitious character could offend somebody that identified with that fictitious character, esp if said non-existent character had experienced oppression during their non-existent life. By the end almost everything they had been asked to categorise was potentially "unsafe".

I hated student unions before tonight, and this just reaffirms my prejudice against them. Because they're idiots :p

And if we in any way pander to their time-wasting "safe space" nonsense, we need to give ourselves a good, hard slap too.
Click to expand...

Fell for that hook, line and sinker didn't we.

"How PC are we"

aka

"Here's some daft naive students we managed to find to reinforce your world view, keep watching us!"
 
Angilion said:
I do because the evidence extremely strongly indicates that's the truth:

1) It's what he says about his own position and he's a fairly reliable source. He'll spin stuff, but he won't simply lie about it.
2) He's written repeatedly on the subject in the past and his position is very clear.
3) He's taken a more active role too - he's used his resources to expose paedophiles.
4) Everything you say is evidence that the opposite is true.

So multiple aspects of the evidence strongly indicate that he didn't say it.



Harry Potter et alia aren't advocating irrational prejudices and authoritarianism imposed by violence and murder and you are. You're not powerful enough to be Voldemort. You're not living in the Harry Potter universe.
Click to expand...

Yea, hes so into exposing it, here is the moment where he talks openly about not dropping people in it for having Brian Synger esq parties with 14 year old boys. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJhHwspZGcg&t=216s&ab_channel=TheProvidence
 
Vox have got an interview with the person who made the video that killed Milo's book deal, forced him to quit his editor's job and saw him uninvited from speaking gigs... a 16-year old girl from Canada.

There's some interesting quotes in the interview:

“I see Milo as this embodiment of the awfulness you see over the past few years with the general tilt of millennial conservatism,” said the teen. “It’s diverged from this traditional conservatism so much. You’ve seen it essentially become full of awfulness and all about attacking the left and not about actual principles. It has nothing to do with conservative ideology so much as it has with opposing the leftists, SJWs, and so on and so forth.”
Click to expand...
 
MrMD said:
You clearly arnt very familar with the band or the sub genre as a whole.Marduk's lyrical content may contain many references to WW2 from a german perspective,but its definatly not 'pro nazi' or glorifying those views.One thing they defiantly are however is vehemently anti religion

They have been touring worldwide for about 20 years but now all of a sudden now they promoting pro-nazi messages? They are just being targeted by people who see what they want to see and have something to outraged about.It would be fine if they forced cancellations or protested bands with overtly legitimate extremist views,but thats not whats happening here.

NSBM is a thing,but its very fringe,extremely marginalized and is looked down upon by the community as a whole and is shunned when it comes to festivals and major tours.

The metal community overall is an extremely liberal in the classical sense :)
Click to expand...

Thinking you can be both liberal and also violently opposed to anything non-liberal.

Contemptible and outrageous, any liberal who supports violence regardless of who the other person is, is just a degenerate.
 
StriderX said:
Thinking you can be both liberal and also violently opposed to anything non-liberal.

Contemptible and outrageous, any liberal who supports violence regardless of who the other person is, is just a degenerate.
Click to expand...

Erm, yes, you can be. See Popper for problems with tolerance fundamentalism, and Chris Hitchens et al for a liberal case for war, but there were others around the Iraq War; they didn't all end up as Neo Cons. Also Rawls on self-preservation. A friend also reminded me that a more classic case would be JSM and his speech in favour of capital punishment. More broadly, plenty of thinkers in the utilitarian tradition are susceptible to the min/max problem on violence. Negative liberty also ends up abused often. I can't think of any more this late.
 
Last edited:
mid_gen said:
Fell for that hook, line and sinker didn't we.

"How PC are we"

aka

"Here's some daft naive students we managed to find to reinforce your world view, keep watching us!"
Click to expand...
Some times there is some truth to news stories, even on Channel 4, believe it or not!

Are you certain that universities up and down the country aren't suffering from ultra-PC student movements? According to the program lecturers have lost their jobs over this crap.

At the very least they are being given more and more air time. Remember that wannabe "latino" diversity officer who posted that white men should be killed? That "cisgender white males" were not welcome at her diversity meetings?

This kind of crap is going on at universities. And to a lesser extent the PC movement is gaining ground elsewhere too. Everybody terrified to offend minorities. "Cultural appropriation" entering the dictionary... It's happening, man. The world is going mad whether you like it or not.
 
FoxEye said:
Remember that wannabe "latino" diversity officer who posted that white men should be killed? That "cisgender white males" were not welcome at her diversity meetings?
Click to expand...

God. If I had met her I would have had a few choice words for her that is for sure. That kind of person really annoys me. This whole "you can't offend anyone" rubbish has got to end. I'm fed up with it. If I were in charge I would have sacked her instantly. Then again when I was at University someone asked me if I wanted to join the Socialist / Communist group so I gave them a few choice words as well.
 
h4rm0ny said:
You might consider not abandoning principles of civilised behaviour if only for your own sake. Do you really want a world where violence is an acceptable method of resolving political debate? Are you that confident that "your side" would come out on top in such a world or that others wont be hurt in the struggles that follow?
Click to expand...

There are some political beliefs (that I am not saying I agree with) that believe revolution is the only way to power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom