Peterson, Harris, etc....

Silva said:
"this idea is fecking moronic, it completely ignores the historical context and promotes an extreme ethnocentric ideology that is dangerous"

"yeah, well, it's not literally illegal to say it so stop treading on my free speech"

"what the feck are you talking about, you're constantly on major news outlets no one is treading on your free speech"

"but someone was mean to me on the internet which is worse than literal stalinism"
Click to expand...
Pretty much
 
Borden said:
I like that, mostly because it will upset all the right people.
Click to expand...

It will no doubt upset Team Greenwald, but it shouldn't. Weiss should also do a follow on piece that delves more into the counterargument to the "Intellectual Dark Web", which broadly would be to debate/answer criticisms of enabling intolerance.
 
Raoul said:
They aren't on very often. But they should be, and they should be debating their critics like Greenwald, Hasan, and friends. Competing ideas need to be fleshed in the broadest public domain possible out and that process should be publicized in the mainstream media.
Click to expand...

they are on all the time. bari weiss was on morning joe literally an hour ago. jordan peterson was on nbc news last week. shapiro is constantly on fox news. bill maher regularly has sam harris on to reassure him that its okay to hate muslims. theres a nyt article titled "Ben Shapiro, A Provocative Gladiator". Sommers is on Tucker Carlson all the time. these people are the establishment. they arent oppressed.
 
Eboue said:
they are on all the time. bari weiss was on morning joe literally an hour ago. jordan peterson was on nbc news last week. shapiro is constantly on fox news. bill maher regularly has sam harris on to reassure him that its okay to hate muslims. theres a nyt article titled "Ben Shapiro, A Provocative Gladiator". Sommers is on Tucker Carlson all the time. these people are the establishment. they arent oppressed.
Click to expand...

That's a good thing, but over the past couple of years they haven't been so much. If they are starting to make more appearances that's a positive sign that their ideas are receiving more mainstream recognition.
 
if these people cared about speech and censorship at all they would be writing about the fact that texas (among other states) bars state money from going to anyone involved in BDS or the reporters who face jail time for reporting on the j20 protests
 
Eboue said:
if these people cared about speech and censorship at all they would be writing about the fact that texas (among other states) bars state money from going to anyone involved in BDS or the reporters who face jail time for reporting on the j20 protests
Click to expand...

Why should state money go to BDS promoters when the concept of BDS is completely contrary to US policy ?
 
Yeah, but criticising Israel isn't free speech, it's only a free speech issue when you're attempting to turn black and brown people into subhumans for an upcoming genocide.
 
Eboue said:
i thought you cared about speech and ideas?

Click to expand...


I most certainly do as long as its private citizens who aren't violating an agreement they signed with with an employer. In such cases, its a dispute that needs to be adjudicated between both parties. I do think Houston shouldn't be doing this to her retroactively though.
 
Raoul said:
Why should state money go to BDS promoters when the concept of BDS is completely contrary to US policy ?
Click to expand...

You aren't expressing openness and a willingness to see different ideas expressed if that willingness stops the moment it goes against US policy.
 
Eboue said:
if these people cared about speech and censorship at all they would be writing about the fact that texas (among other states) bars state money from going to anyone involved in BDS or the reporters who face jail time for reporting on the j20 protests
Click to expand...

If you think genocide is wrong then why have I never seen you condemn the Rwandan genocide?

Is that evidence that you don't think genocide is wrong, or am I being an idiot?
 
Silva said:
Yeah, but criticising Israel isn't free speech, it's only a free speech issue when you're attempting to turn black and brown people into subhumans for an upcoming genocide.
Click to expand...

Free speech isn't in question in this case - but an entity like a University does have the right to negotiate terms of employment with their contractors and/or employees. Albeit not retroactively.
 
Borden said:
If you think genocide is wrong then why have I never seen you condemn the Rwandan genocide?

Is that evidence that you don't think genocide is wrong, or am I being an idiot?
Click to expand...

He's (rightfully) pointing out that these right-wingers who champion free speech only ever tend to be championing freedom of speech when it's on issues that affect their own side. It's a bit tenuous in a single case but when it applies to the vast majority of issues they discuss it's fair game to call out.
 
Cheesy said:
You aren't expressing openness and a willingness to see different ideas expressed if that willingness stops the moment it goes against US policy.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Anti-US views are fairly common around here since most posters are orthodox lefties.
 
Raoul said:
Nonsense. Anti-US views are fairly common around here since most posters are orthodox lefties.
Click to expand...

I agree. That wasn't the point I was addressing in your post though. Was just pointing out you didn't seem overly concerned about the BDS issue since it was something that ran contrary to US policy.
 
Cheesy said:
He's (rightfully) pointing out that these right-wingers who champion free speech only ever tend to be championing freedom of speech when it's on issues that affect their own side. It's a bit tenuous in a single case but when it applies to the vast majority of issues they discuss it's fair game to call out.
Click to expand...

That's generally because the process doesn't require the help of Shaprio, Harris, and friends when you have an entire MSM apparatus who are willing to cover racist and free speech incidents that effect their core audience.
 
Cheesy said:
I agree. That wasn't the point I was addressing in your post though. Was just pointing out you didn't seem overly concerned about the BDS issue since it was something that ran contrary to US policy.
Click to expand...

I don't happen to support US policy on Israel in the present, nor do I support the BDS movement.
 
These fcukers sure do talk alot for people having their speech restricted.
 
Raoul said:
That's generally because the process doesn't require the help of Shaprio, Harris, and friends when you have an entire MSM apparatus who are willing to cover racist and free speech incidents that effect their core audience.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's the point though. If Shapiro and Peterson inherently care about freedom of speech then they should be discussing issues which affect all sides. If they're not doing that then their interests are clearly skewed, and it highlights that they might not necessarily care about freedom of speech but about freedom of speech when it impacts their side.

I don't include Harris in that because for all the controversy surrounding him in here I don't think he's ever really been fully banded in with the alt-right bunch. Always been seen as closer to Dawkins, Hitchens etc in that regard.
 
Raoul said:
They don't talk nearly enough and to a wide enough audience.
Click to expand...

What does that even mean? As has been pointed out they regularly talk on major shows etc, have strong core audiences and clearly appeal to a lot of people. What's the correct level of exposure for them?
 
Cheesy said:
He's (rightfully) pointing out that these right-wingers who champion free speech only ever tend to be championing freedom of speech when it's on issues that affect their own side. It's a bit tenuous in a single case but when it applies to the vast majority of issues they discuss it's fair game to call out.
Click to expand...

Several of these people aren't right-wingers by any stretch of the imagination. And I don't recall any of them arguing for the repression of speech they don't agree with, not from what I've seen or heard anyway. If you can provide examples of that I'd be interested in seeing it (and frankly it wouldn't surprise me given that less-than-bright people like Dave Rubin are included in the article).

I'm haven't seen a lot of incessantly complaining that their free-speech is being curtailed from them either for that matter. More lamenting the state of free speech on the far-left these days, notably the insane smear-campaigns and attempts to destroy people's careers and reputations over nothing, a point which I wholly agree with.
 
Last edited:
Cheesy said:
I'm not sure that's the point though. If Shapiro and Peterson inherently care about freedom of speech then they should be discussing issues which affect all sides. If they're not doing that then their interests are clearly skewed, and it highlights that they might not necessarily care about freedom of speech but about freedom of speech when it impacts their side.

I don't include Harris in that because for all the controversy surrounding him in here I don't think he's ever really been fully banded in with the alt-right bunch. Always been seen as closer to Dawkins, Hitchens etc in that regard.
Click to expand...

Their core schtick isn't being free speech advocates - Harris has his schtick on Atheism, morality, free will etc. Peterson has an entirely different one, as does Nawaz, Shapiro and the rest of them. There is no common thread other than that their ideas are generally shunned in contemporary debate, when they should be debated more, not shut down.
 
Cheesy said:
What does that even mean? As has been pointed out they regularly talk on major shows etc, have strong core audiences and clearly appeal to a lot of people. What's the correct level of exposure for them?
Click to expand...

Its not about the individuals in question - but rather that a broader set of ideas should be debated in popular culture. Currently, people have to go fishing on YouTube, Reddit and Twitter to ferret out these debates when said ideas should be more prominently talked about on MSM outlets.
 
Raoul said:
I most certainly do as long as its private citizens who aren't violating an agreement they signed with with an employer. In such cases, its a dispute that needs to be adjudicated between both parties. I do think Houston shouldn't be doing this to her retroactively though.
Click to expand...

literally 30 minutes ago you were saying how these right wingers are being oppressed because they dont get to appear on tv enough or there arent as many fawning articles in papers of record as there should be and now you think its fine to force people to sign loyalty oaths to a foreign country before they can lecture about plate tectonics at waco community college
 
Raoul said:
Its not about the individuals in question - but rather that a broader set of ideas should be debated in popular culture. Currently, people have to go fishing on YouTube, Reddit and Twitter to ferret out these debates when said ideas should be more prominently talked about on MSM outlets.
Click to expand...

Some of stuff put out by Peterson, Rubin, Shaprio is absolute drivel. There's no conspiracy about their views not being top of the news every night.

I don't see Chapo Trap House-like content on my TV either.

And now Fox News has that moron buddy of Rubin, Candace Owens on full blast all the time from what I can see.
 
Raoul said:
Its not about the individuals in question - but rather that a broader set of ideas should be debated in popular culture. Currently, people have to go fishing on YouTube, Reddit and Twitter to ferret out these debates when said ideas should be more prominently talked about on MSM outlets.
Click to expand...

what are mainstream media outlets in your opinion? the new york times? the wall street journal? the washington post? NBC? FOX? MSNBC? these people are prominently featured there
 
Minimalist said:
Some of stuff put out by Peterson, Rubin, Shaprio is absolute drivel. There's no conspiracy about their views not being top of the news every night.

I don't see Chapo Trap House-like content on my TV either.
Click to expand...

Some is and some isn't. That's all subjective. The overarching point being that they should be heard, as should their critics.
 
Eboue said:
what are mainstream media outlets in your opinion? the new york times? the wall street journal? the washington post? NBC? FOX? MSNBC? these people are prominently featured there
Click to expand...

All the usual "liberal media" suspects excluding Fox.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.