Switch Theme:

Anita Sarkeesian to be an "Industry Guest of Honor" at GenCon 2018?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






topaxygouroun i wrote:
We tried that and now have an admitted serial sexual assaulter who thinks some Nazis are good people in the White House. Your approach just doesn't work.


Name one of your freedoms that got suppressed since Trump got the office.


My cousin can no longer visit the country where pretty much the entirety of his extended family lives.

So that's one pretty direct one right there. Freedom to have my family members come and visit me.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in nl
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch



Netherlands



I think you need to find a better way to phrase this argument.

Reds8n

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/08 18:14:14


14000
15000
4000 
   
Made in ie
Battleship Captain





 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Carnikang wrote:
topaxygouroun i wrote:
Democracy dakkagakker! Do you speak it?


Considering the political climate here in America, democracy is being threatened on a fundamental level. And theyre part of the movement, though not the entirety of it.

I agree with Peregrine, partially though. We should not tolerate intolerance in an inclusive, tolerant, and diverse society. Shooting them may go too far, but letting them do as they please to gather and spew vile rhetoric is much too little.


This is exactly what you should do. Let them gather and speak, then counter their arguments with their own and make them look foolish and backwards in public or maybe even change some minds. If you're secure and informed well enough in your beliefs that should be easy enough to do. Driving them underground and forcibly silencing them feeds into their own victim complex, entrenching them further into their own radicalization. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.


Without getting too much into US politics, we've seen people double down on their tribalism when informed and ignore some truly heinous gak their candidates do. They even brag about voting specifically to hurt the other side, the one warning them. Your approach just doesn't work.

Honestly, I think this is one of those cases where the average person who has never been one of the untermenschen on the extermination list just doesn't get it, not on a personal level. This goes back to the earlier discussion about how homophobia just doesn't seem like the most important issue when you have the option to opt out of being affected by it. But for the people with the targets on their backs they can't get rid of, it feels a lot more like a life and death issue.


Did you just play the "you've never been oppressed" card on a Celt?


Do people tell you to climb into an oven?

The oppression you have experienced is different, and I don't know what it was like. If you tell me someone is acting to put you and yours in the ground, I'll believe you. But I do know what it is like to have people threaten me or casually bring up their cabal theories or state that Jews can't be trusted, or that I am good with money all because of my ancestry. I know there are groups of people who would gladly stomp my face if they were sure they wouldn't go to jail for it, and they have told me so. It makes the idea of stopping Nazis before they have the profile to protect each other all the more urgent.


So you're playing the "my oppression is more valid than yours" card now? No, nobody tells me to climb into an oven but if me and my partner cross the border and go into Belfast I hear a lot of colourful language that I can't repeat here. There are other forms of oppression and violence on other races or groups that don't involve nazis.


 
   
Made in nl
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch



Netherlands

the_scotsman wrote:
topaxygouroun i wrote:
We tried that and now have an admitted serial sexual assaulter who thinks some Nazis are good people in the White House. Your approach just doesn't work.


Name one of your freedoms that got suppressed since Trump got the office.


My cousin can no longer visit the country where pretty much the entirety of his extended family lives.

So that's one pretty direct one right there. Freedom to have my family members come and visit me.


Wasn't this a thing with Russians even before Trump? I have a colleague from a former Soviet state and she was not allowed to travel to the US for training with the local groups even since before Trump. Or am I mistaken?

14000
15000
4000 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Carnikang wrote:
That sort of is the issue at heart. Expression of belief is subjective.
No. It's not. That's why none of this gak has reached the courts. If someone seriously got up in front of a judge and tried to say, "this sexy miniature is creating a culture of rape that is harmful to women", the judge would have to respond with, "tough titties". Because expression is the most protected right we have in the US, and even hate speech has been repeatedly, constantly, and uniformly rules as expression protected by the First Amendment.

But nobody is taking it to court because they'd lose. We know this because they've tried this in the past with things like satire, pornography, and hate speech and guess what? They lost. And because they'd lose, people are arguing in the court of public opinion, because the standards are lower and things like laws, rights, and justice are open for debate.

Adressing the underlined.... Not really? Hate speech is a vague term in my opinion. Its too widely used as a buzz word to 'rally the troupe'. When someone is actually spreading hate through words and actions, it is a dangeros expression. Using a racial slur on its own is really gakking rude, but using it as a means to focus hate on a particular party or person could be considered a dangerous action.
If you live in the US, hate speech is protected expression backed up by dozens, if not hundreds of court cases and Supreme Court verdicts. It's a vague term because hate speech does not legally exist in the US.

To "focus hate on a particular party or person", that's called incitement and there's legal precedence for that too. Basically, incitement of events in a indefinite future is protected expression, while imminent incitement is not protected. So, tweeting "Hamsters should all be set on fire" is protected because whatever reaction such a comment would yield is nebulous. However, giving a gun to the guy next to you and saying, "Kill this mother touching hamster", that is not protected speech. The vast, vast majority of what people would consider hate speech falls under the first category.

Burning the flag is generally seen as an act of aggression, depending on the who what when and where. Retiring the flag in flames is an expression of respect, while hoisting the flag and burning it while yelling anti-American slogans is threatening.
See "incitement" above. Ever seen the movie, "The American President". Great movie and it has one of my favorite movie monologues ever:

Aaron Sorkin wrote:America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






topaxygouroun i wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
topaxygouroun i wrote:
We tried that and now have an admitted serial sexual assaulter who thinks some Nazis are good people in the White House. Your approach just doesn't work.


Name one of your freedoms that got suppressed since Trump got the office.


My cousin can no longer visit the country where pretty much the entirety of his extended family lives.

So that's one pretty direct one right there. Freedom to have my family members come and visit me.


Wasn't this a thing with Russians even before Trump? I have a colleague from a former Soviet state and she was not allowed to travel to the US for training with the local groups even since before Trump. Or am I mistaken?


Any foreign national can be denied travel through the normal visa/vetting process. However my cousin and his family have held valid visas and been through vetting (not to mention having over a dozen US citizen relatives able to vouch for him) several times. However, one of Trump's major campaign promises was a ban on all muslims entering the US "until we figure out what's going on."

The "we figured out how to deliver on this campaign promise somehow while not also being so blatantly illegal that it would never ever be able to pass even a moment's examination in the courts" version of that was the ban on travel from several countries we consider national security threats that just so happen to be the ones people know that "them weird furriners" come from. This means no matter if you have valid visas in hand, you can't travel to the US if you're from Iran, Chad, Syria, etc. My family is originally from Iran, we still have several relatives there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At this point we're just waiting until Trump "figures out what's going on."

That definitely seems like a solid way to govern a country to me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/08 18:17:39


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





the_scotsman wrote:
At this point we're just waiting until Trump "figures out what's going on."
No true scotsman would question a sitting president.

(it may have an audience of one, but I couldn't help myself)
   
Made in us
Stealthy Sanctus Slipping in His Blade





Sqorgar, I want to be clear that I agree on the majority of your points made. I in fact havnt seen that movie, though the dialogue makes sense.

You approach it from a legal standpoint, of the courts, which is perfactly applicable. Im not dismissing it, though i will say I'm not the most wellversed person when it comes to all this.

Expessing your belifs is subject to review, meaning it can be more than that. Expressing a belief in hate, sharing that and giving others a focus for it is only incitement? Is using the same words "Hamsters should be set on fire" in two different settins all that differentiates it between free expression and incitement?

As an aside,despite some of the rising emotions, this has been pretty interesting and educating on a number of matters.

PourSpelur wrote:
It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.
Hive Fleet Hercual - 6760pts
Hazaak Dynasty - 3400 pts
Seraphon - 4600pts
 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Carnikang wrote:
"Hamsters should be set on fire" in two different settins all that differentiates it between free expression and incitement?


Are you sitting on your toilet muttering that to yourself, chuckling it into a mic at a stand up comedy club, or are you standing in front of an angry mob holding torches surrounding a hamster ball?

Yes, context of situation matters.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
War Walker Pilot with Withering Fire




 Carnikang wrote:
Expessing your belifs is subject to review, meaning it can be more than that. Expressing a belief in hate, sharing that and giving others a focus for it is only incitement? Is using the same words "Hamsters should be set on fire" in two different settins all that differentiates it between free expression and incitement?.


Yes, context significantly matters, for a variety of reasons. It might not be the only thing that differentiates it (tbh, not sure), but it is a factor. Let me give you a couple of examples:

Libel and slander - there are different standards for how, um, critical you can be depending on who you criticize (laws are more lax when discussing public figures compared to private individuals); this is in part so the public can better discuss larger societal issues without risking punishment.

Situation - yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater would be illegal, yelling "Fire!" in an abandoned theater or privacy of your own home would be fine. As such, context matters due to potential for harm.

If I tell a group of incited, emotional people at a political rally that they should shoot my political rival or beat up all the Jews/gays/Catholics/Muslims/etc...well, you be the judge.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/06/08 18:53:52


 
   
Made in us
Posts with Authority





HuskyWarhammer wrote:

Situation - yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater would be illegal, yelling "Fire!" in an abandoned theater or privacy of your own home would be fine. As such, context matters due to potential for harm.

If I tell a group of incited, emotional people at a political rally that they should shoot my political rival or beat up all the Jews/gays/Catholics/Muslims/etc...well, you be the judge.


Except communicating a threat and broadcasting a false alarm are actually crimes, and not at all comparable to "I hate X people". Nice try.

I go to work and suddenly Dakka is back at it with the NAZIS IN MAH CEREAL childishness again.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/08 19:26:32


Mob Rule is not a rule. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Carnikang wrote:
You approach it from a legal standpoint, of the courts, which is perfactly applicable. Im not dismissing it, though i will say I'm not the most wellversed person when it comes to all this.
Not from a legal standpoint, from a guiding principle standpoint. The US was built on the principle of freedom of expression - a premise I wholeheartedly endorse and agreed with - and this principle has been tested repeatedly. Constantly. Daily. And every time, we, as a country, have decided that we value this principle above all else. In places where it is uneasy, difficult, or upsetting, we've still stated, clearly and unequivocally, that the sacrifices we make in the pursuit of this principle are worth it. It is better to suffer mildly in a world in which we hear uncomfortable speech than to suffer in a world where the wrong person is deciding what we are allowed to hear. And there is NOBODY who is the right person in that situation. History has proven that point repeatedly as well.

They've done surveys, which reflect well my personal experiences, that a large number of Millennials are okay with limiting speech (40% of them). All I can say to that is if they get what they want, they'll get what they deserve.

Expessing your belifs is subject to review, meaning it can be more than that. Expressing a belief in hate, sharing that and giving others a focus for it is only incitement? Is using the same words "Hamsters should be set on fire" in two different settins all that differentiates it between free expression and incitement?
Well, context matters, doesn't it? Even then, legally speaking, because the freedom of expression is the most fundamental right given to our citizenry, when it is unclear, the First Amendment is the default standard. I think that, legally speaking, it would be impossible to claim that saying "Hamsters should be set on fire" is incitement because it is not a direct command that someone is reasonably expected to follow. Instead, it is an expression of one's rights and the audience is directly responsible for their own response. In that case, responding to hate speech with violence would be the immoral and illegal thing to do. I can probably track down some court cases about this (I remember reading some a few years ago), but we aren't really here to talk about the legality of this stuff.

Though, generally speaking, when principles and legality differ, legality tends to win out. So it's a moot point to think hate speech is bad if it is constitutionally protected, because tough titties.
   
Made in us
Posts with Authority





 Disciple of Fate wrote:
No, I don't know what your obsession is with the idea I'm currently actually going out and hurting people? I'm saying once those people start to go out to hurt me/others I have the right to defend myself/others.


This is the correct answer. When they do something. And when the Nazis go out and start hurting people, you have my rifle, pistol, and knife.

Well, YOU don't have it, I do, I payed money for that. But I'll be right there with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Verviedi wrote:
Nazis cannot be countered by rational argument.


If you can't counter a Nazi in a rational argument, you actually suck at arguments, objectively.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/08 19:32:46


Mob Rule is not a rule. 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Sanctus Slipping in His Blade





Sqorgar makes a good case answering what i asked here before. Disregard this post.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/08 19:42:38


PourSpelur wrote:
It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.
Hive Fleet Hercual - 6760pts
Hazaak Dynasty - 3400 pts
Seraphon - 4600pts
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

If you can't counter a Nazi in a rational argument, you actually suck at arguments, objectively.


Lots of folks think arguing is about convincing the other person more so than those observing.

From extensive experience, it's damned difficult to reason with a neo-nazi. I could 'beat' someone in an argument profusely, but if they refuse to use logic or reason even remotely similar to mine they aren't likely to acknowledge it. Lots of people take that as not really winning the argument.

I can counter them, do a little dance on their ideas, waste my entire day explaining how their 'facts' are fabrications and how their world view is little more than an elaborate form of scapegoating, but in the end I've most often just wasted my own time more than convinced that person to change their mind. Had far better luck with the audience in people actually changing opinions as they aren't the ones digging their heels in to oppose me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/08 19:41:18


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Libel and slander - there are different standards for how, um, critical you can be depending on who you criticize (laws are more lax when discussing public figures compared to private individuals); this is in part so the public can better discuss larger societal issues without risking punishment.
It's almost impossible to win with libel or slander laws. You have to prove that the person slandering you knows it to be untrue and is using it in such a way to confuse a reasonable person into believing it. So if I say, "Trump likes to pee on reporters", I know that is untrue, but no reasonable person would believe it. It also means that expletives and exaggerations are not slander/libel, so I can call Trump an donkey-cave baby rapist all I want.

Situation - yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater would be illegal, yelling "Fire!" in an abandoned theater or privacy of your own home would be fine. As such, context matters due to potential for harm.
Actually, I'm glad you brought that one up. It turns out that yelling fire in a crowded theater was a comment made by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Jones (I think) during a case, and was never legally binding. It was just used as an example to justify the argument - and that particular supreme court case is considered one of the worst First Amendment rulings in American history and was overturned a few decades later. The actual case was about a communist distributing flyers, and this was deemed to be inciting distrust and discontent... so, hate speech, basically.

Hold on, let me find an article on this because I see this talking point come up repeatedly. Ah, here's one from The Atlantic. U.S. v. Schenck was the case. In 1969, Brandenburg v. Ohio, ruled in favor of the KKK and hate speech, basically setting the precedence for the incitement stuff that I was talking about earlier. So, anyone who brings up that fire in a crowded theater to defend putting limits on the First Amendment should be directed to the fact that it wasn't binding, the court case was bs, and it was overturned much later when the Supreme Court actually defended the literal KKK.
   
Made in us
Posts with Authority





YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

If you can't counter a Nazi in a rational argument, you actually suck at arguments, objectively.


Lots of folks think arguing is about convincing the other person more so than those observing.

From extensive experience, it's damned difficult to reason with a neo-nazi. I could 'beat' someone in an argument profusely, but if they refuse to use logic or reason even remotely similar to mine they aren't likely to acknowledge it. Lots of people take that as not really winning the argument.

I can counter them, do a little dance on their ideas, waste my entire day explaining how their 'facts' are fabrications and how their world view is little more than an elaborate form of scapegoating, but in the end I've most often just wasted my own time more than convinced that person to change their mind. Had far better luck with the audience in people actually changing opinions as they aren't the ones digging their heels in to oppose me.


You are correct, sir.

If I'm arguing with a Nazi, a Commie, a bigot, or a person who puts ketchup on their meatloaf- my objective is not to make them change their mind. I'm not going to bother. My objective is to make them look as stupid and wrong as possible to the casual observer. If the end result is everyone is snickering and pointing at them, then that's how you 'counter' or 'win' the argument.


Mob Rule is not a rule. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
From extensive experience, it's damned difficult to reason with a neo-nazi. I could 'beat' someone in an argument profusely, but if they refuse to use logic or reason even remotely similar to mine they aren't likely to acknowledge it. Lots of people take that as not really winning the argument.

It's actually not difficult to reason with a neo-nazi. You may just be thinking that your argument seems so self evident that you may be doing a poor job of defending it. To reason with someone who disagrees with you, you must first understand why they disagree with you. Saying what you believe without listening to what they believe is just preaching.

That being said, the absolute best way to convince someone to change their mind is to simply let them talk. Most people haven't put much effort into their world view and the longer they go on trying to explain it, the more contradictions and holes they, themselves, will find. When trying to fill those holes, they'll end up changing their views to something more reasonable. So, just let people talk and ask respectful questions.

This does not work for progressives because their entire world view is built around not having to explain anything or listen to anything. There's a number of talking points that they will constantly repeat, and if you ever manage to get them to move past those points, they get uneasy, call you a racist, and then ban you (or gets the thread locked). The talking points aren't there for you, they are there for them. They also won't get into a discussion when there isn't an audience around that is sympathetic to their side, so that any time there is a moment of near self reflection, one of the peanut gallery will jump in, insult you to much cheering, and derail the discussion. I honestly have never finished a conversation with a dyed in the wool progressive, but I've had lots of really great discussions with religious fundamentalists, advocates against gay marriage, and even holocaust deniers.

Now that I think about it, when you are less open to discussion than a holocaust denier, that should really be a moment for self reflection...
   
Made in us
War Walker Pilot with Withering Fire




 Sqorgar wrote:
HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Libel and slander - there are different standards for how, um, critical you can be depending on who you criticize (laws are more lax when discussing public figures compared to private individuals); this is in part so the public can better discuss larger societal issues without risking punishment.
It's almost impossible to win with libel or slander laws. You have to prove that the person slandering you knows it to be untrue and is using it in such a way to confuse a reasonable person into believing it. So if I say, "Trump likes to pee on reporters", I know that is untrue, but no reasonable person would believe it. It also means that expletives and exaggerations are not slander/libel, so I can call Trump an donkey-cave baby rapist all I want.

Situation - yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater would be illegal, yelling "Fire!" in an abandoned theater or privacy of your own home would be fine. As such, context matters due to potential for harm.
Actually, I'm glad you brought that one up. It turns out that yelling fire in a crowded theater was a comment made by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Jones (I think) during a case, and was never legally binding. It was just used as an example to justify the argument - and that particular supreme court case is considered one of the worst First Amendment rulings in American history and was overturned a few decades later. The actual case was about a communist distributing flyers, and this was deemed to be inciting distrust and discontent... so, hate speech, basically.

Hold on, let me find an article on this because I see this talking point come up repeatedly. Ah, here's one from The Atlantic. U.S. v. Schenck was the case. In 1969, Brandenburg v. Ohio, ruled in favor of the KKK and hate speech, basically setting the precedence for the incitement stuff that I was talking about earlier. So, anyone who brings up that fire in a crowded theater to defend putting limits on the First Amendment should be directed to the fact that it wasn't binding, the court case was bs, and it was overturned much later when the Supreme Court actually defended the literal KKK.


I think you might've been missing the forest for the trees: what I'd meant to illustrate is that identical speech can be illegal or not dependent on the circumstances, and inciting a mass panic with the likelihood of injury would be considered as under that. I'd say that the colloquial use of the phrasing should've made it clear, but there's always one pedant or another, I suppose.
   
Made in us
Posts with Authority





HuskyWarhammer wrote:
I think you might've been missing the forest for the trees: what I'd meant to illustrate is that identical speech can be illegal or not dependent on the circumstances, and inciting a mass panic with the likelihood of injury would be considered as under that. I'd say that the colloquial use of the phrasing should've made it clear, but there's always one pedant or another, I suppose.


Except that didn't hold water when that psycho Antifa teacher in Cali, Yvette Falarca, actually incited a riot.

Mob Rule is not a rule. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





HuskyWarhammer wrote:
I think you might've been missing the forest for the trees: what I'd meant to illustrate is that identical speech can be illegal or not dependent on the circumstances, and inciting a mass panic with the likelihood of injury would be considered as under that. I'd say that the colloquial use of the phrasing should've made it clear, but there's always one pedant or another, I suppose.
I get what you were saying. I wasn't arguing against you specifically. It's just that the fire in a crowded theater is one of the most common, if not the absolute most common, thing I see quoted in debates about the First Amendment, and it's all kind of bs. I just saw an opportunity to debunk it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/08 20:12:06


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Sqorgar wrote:
YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
From extensive experience, it's damned difficult to reason with a neo-nazi. I could 'beat' someone in an argument profusely, but if they refuse to use logic or reason even remotely similar to mine they aren't likely to acknowledge it. Lots of people take that as not really winning the argument.

It's actually not difficult to reason with a neo-nazi. You may just be thinking that your argument seems so self evident that you may be doing a poor job of defending it. To reason with someone who disagrees with you, you must first understand why they disagree with you. Saying what you believe without listening to what they believe is just preaching.

That being said, the absolute best way to convince someone to change their mind is to simply let them talk. Most people haven't put much effort into their world view and the longer they go on trying to explain it, the more contradictions and holes they, themselves, will find. When trying to fill those holes, they'll end up changing their views to something more reasonable. So, just let people talk and ask respectful questions.

This does not work for progressives because their entire world view is built around not having to explain anything or listen to anything. There's a number of talking points that they will constantly repeat, and if you ever manage to get them to move past those points, they get uneasy, call you a racist, and then ban you (or gets the thread locked). The talking points aren't there for you, they are there for them. They also won't get into a discussion when there isn't an audience around that is sympathetic to their side, so that any time there is a moment of near self reflection, one of the peanut gallery will jump in, insult you to much cheering, and derail the discussion. I honestly have never finished a conversation with a dyed in the wool progressive, but I've had lots of really great discussions with religious fundamentalists, advocates against gay marriage, and even holocaust deniers.

Now that I think about it, when you are less open to discussion than a holocaust denier, that should really be a moment for self reflection...


Yes, I'm sure that when you try to have a discussion convincing people who hold extreme political views on the side of the spectrum you more commonly agree with are much, much less apt to just resort to crowd pleasing tribalism when you approach them in a place where they know they are surrounded by their team.

I'm sure the Charlottesville protests could have been easily broken up without violence if only you had been there, talking to one shirtless neonazi in a group of 50.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Maryland

 Sqorgar wrote:
YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
From extensive experience, it's damned difficult to reason with a neo-nazi. I could 'beat' someone in an argument profusely, but if they refuse to use logic or reason even remotely similar to mine they aren't likely to acknowledge it. Lots of people take that as not really winning the argument.

It's actually not difficult to reason with a neo-nazi. You may just be thinking that your argument seems so self evident that you may be doing a poor job of defending it. To reason with someone who disagrees with you, you must first understand why they disagree with you. Saying what you believe without listening to what they believe is just preaching.

That being said, the absolute best way to convince someone to change their mind is to simply let them talk. Most people haven't put much effort into their world view and the longer they go on trying to explain it, the more contradictions and holes they, themselves, will find. When trying to fill those holes, they'll end up changing their views to something more reasonable. So, just let people talk and ask respectful questions.

This does not work for progressives because their entire world view is built around not having to explain anything or listen to anything. There's a number of talking points that they will constantly repeat, and if you ever manage to get them to move past those points, they get uneasy, call you a racist, and then ban you (or gets the thread locked). The talking points aren't there for you, they are there for them. They also won't get into a discussion when there isn't an audience around that is sympathetic to their side, so that any time there is a moment of near self reflection, one of the peanut gallery will jump in, insult you to much cheering, and derail the discussion. I honestly have never finished a conversation with a dyed in the wool progressive, but I've had lots of really great discussions with religious fundamentalists, advocates against gay marriage, and even holocaust deniers.

Now that I think about it, when you are less open to discussion than a holocaust denier, that should really be a moment for self reflection...


Hm.

This does not work for conservatives because their entire world view is built around not having to explain anything or listen to anything. There's a number of talking points that they will constantly repeat, and if you ever manage to get them to move past those points, they get uneasy, call you a snowflake, and then ban you (or gets the thread locked). The talking points aren't there for you, they are there for them. They also won't get into a discussion when there isn't an audience around that is sympathetic to their side, so that any time there is a moment of near self reflection, one of the peanut gallery will jump in, insult you to much cheering, and derail the discussion. I honestly have never finished a conversation with a dyed in the wool conservative, but I've had lots of really great discussions with atheists, advocates for gay marriage, and even feminists.


Having you talk about self reflection is almost funny, really. Maybe you should spend a little time and consider where your own hostilities, prejudices, and sympathies lie.

   
Made in ie
Battleship Captain





Just found out Feminist Frequency's latest crowdfunding venture is $25,000 for them to set up a Discord chat which is a free to set up and $35,000 for a VIRTUAL talk to schools about feminism.

$35000 for a Skype call and a chat room. Truly she is a woman of integrity and not at all exploiting her zealots.


 
   
Made in us
Posts with Authority





the_scotsman wrote:
I'm sure the Charlottesville protests could have been easily broken up without violence if only you had been there, talking to one shirtless neonazi in a group of 50.


...you mean the one where they were just walking down the street with Home Depot tiki torches?

Yeah, man, big threat there. Oh Lord, how did we survive a bunch of guys in khakis and polos chanting with tiki torches. Damn. CLOSE CALL!

A bunch of donkey-caves whining about a loser monument. A loser monument that went into a museum where it could generate revenue from people wanting to see it and be protected from future vandalism. If you're really actually concerned about this sort of monument.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Just found out Feminist Frequency's latest crowdfunding venture is $25,000 for them to set up a Discord chat which is a free to set up and $35,000 for a VIRTUAL talk to schools about feminism.

$35000 for a Skype call and a chat room. Truly she is a woman of integrity and not at all exploiting her zealots.


Stupid people and their money are often temporary relationships.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 infinite_array wrote:
Having you talk about self reflection is almost funny, really. Maybe you should spend a little time and consider where your own hostilities, prejudices, and sympathies lie.


I like how your only response is to do the exact thing he was talking about.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/08 20:20:39


Mob Rule is not a rule. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

Wow, this thread is an epic clusterfeth of whataboutism, black and white fallacy, and strawmen to put Wickerman to shame. "Not the bees!"

Usually I have to go into the OT for this kind of gakposting.

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in us
Posts with Authority





Also, LOL:

A discord chat. She set up a discord chat.

Oh, the trolls are gonna have a blast with this one. Of course, that's probably what she wants to farm 'threats' and 'harassment'. I wonder how many socks she's had made for this purpose?

You know, the last time someone pulled something like this- Bullyhunters- we found that the 'harassers' were just fake accounts used by the people at Bullyhunters.

Mob Rule is not a rule. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





the_scotsman wrote:
Yes, I'm sure that when you try to have a discussion convincing people who hold extreme political views on the side of the spectrum you more commonly agree with are much, much less apt to just resort to crowd pleasing tribalism when you approach them in a place where they know they are surrounded by their team.
Not like this. I mean, I like arguing on the internet. I do it all the time. I do it for fun. I set a goal for myself to write 1,000 words a day, and I'll tell you, when I get into a good discussion, I can do 10x that easily. I've had good discussions with a lot of people about a lot of things, even things that I otherwise agree with but am playing the devil's advocate, and I've never seen anything like the way the progressive crowd operates.

Hell, I burned a US flag, posted a picture of me doing it, and the proceeded to have an email conversation with an ex-marine that lasted for weeks - and it was cordial and polite, though he started off very heated at first.

I think part of it is that the progressive crowd is obsessed with the concept of power. They seek it out and seek to undermine it when they don't have - both on a conscious and subconscious level. Because of this, winning arguments is less about making the best point or persuading your opponent, but about exploiting power to disable or disallow their opponent.

A normal political argument tends to follow a very specific path of escalation. Initial points are made and argued, but eventually it sort of boils down to repeating talking points, talking over each other, the people actually having the discussion get tired and sort of fade off, leaving on the trolls and extremists who eventually discuss Nazis, and then a moderator shuts the thread down. When talking with a progressive, in a progressive environment (I've never managed to get one on one debates), doesn't go like that. It starts with the talking points, moves to ridicule, and then rather than the thread being shut down, everyone who disagrees is given a temporary ban while the progressives continue the thread, saying all their talking points to unanimous agreement and making fun of the people who get banned. It's so weird.

I'm sure the Charlottesville protests could have been easily broken up without violence if only you had been there, talking to one shirtless neonazi in a group of 50.
Oh, there's about a thousand things that could've broken up that protest without violence, but I'd rather not return to the Nazi well after we so aptly managed to bring the conversation back to something interesting.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Maryland

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 infinite_array wrote:
Having you talk about self reflection is almost funny, really. Maybe you should spend a little time and consider where your own hostilities, prejudices, and sympathies lie.


I like how your only response is to do the exact thing he was talking about.


Not really? If your argument against a group of people is so generalized it can literally be flipped around by replacing words with the opposite, it's not much of an argument.

I mean, really. At what point does someone have to stop and think, hey, maybe the reason I'm having such great conversations with these people is because I agree with them, and not because what they're saying is factually true or morally superior?

 feeder wrote:
Wow, this thread is an epic clusterfeth of whataboutism, black and white fallacy, and strawmen to put Wickerman to shame. "Not the bees!"

Usually I have to go into the OT for this kind of gakposting.


Hey, I tried bringing it back around to having something to do with gaming. Not much of a bite there.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/08 20:27:01


   
Made in us
Posts with Authority





 infinite_array wrote:
I mean, really. At what point does someone have to stop and think, hey, maybe the reason I'm having such great conversations with these people is because I agree with them, and not because what they're saying is factually true or morally superior?


Are you actually sitting here and insinuating that if someone can have a calm, reasonable, and polite conversation with an extremist- that it's because they may actually be a Nazi?

I've read two things on Dakka that have made me go "Holy SH** that is insane", and the other one was a guy making crying noises at a poker tournament so a woman would lactate uncontrollably.

This statement is the other one.

Well done, sir, well done.

Mob Rule is not a rule. 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: