Are we going to admit Universities are producing thin-skinned people?

Argus · December 22, 2016

3 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

You haven't understood a word that has been said.

My English is quite good. You want to be able to call people insulting names but bear no responsibility for the consequences because, in your mind, you are simply telling them the truth as you see it. But if people started hurling insults your way, and I can think of quite a few, you'd be highly offended, even if they were true as far as the other person was concerned.

WestCoastRunner · December 22, 2016

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

WCR, the practical issue here is that you are insulting, or at the very least lecturing somebody. Calling THEM a racist, versus something they said, or even better framing it as your perception {Hmmm... what you said seems racist to me. Can you explain that ?} would be better to achieve an understanding. If, that is, what you want to do. And if not, then why are you talking to this person ? Why not just strike them ?

I encourage you to seek out a podcast called 'You Are Not So Smart' and how they changed peoples' minds with 'Deep Canvassing'.

Well of course I would use 'what you say sounds racist'.

Michael Hardner · December 22, 2016

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Clearly to the protesters.

Ok, well she should have been allowed to speak too.

Argus · December 22, 2016

5 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Well of course I would use 'what you say sounds racist'.

What if I were to say "what you say sounds like the blatherings of a chimp."?

All that you need to do challenge what a person says is to show that it is or is likely to be incorrect. You have no need of insulting them.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Argus

Argus · December 22, 2016

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, well she should have been allowed to speak too.

It is not a matter of 'too'. They can walk up and down with picket signs outside for all I care. When they deliberately employ force to stop a person from giving a speech they are undeserving of any respect, and neither is their message.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Argus

Michael Hardner · December 22, 2016

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

You have no need of insulting them.

Wait a second... is that really such an insult ? They could easily say "you are right, I didn't mean it to come out that way". It's not the same as calling someone a racist, a racist to the core. Isn't the problem with 'racist' as a term that it covers too broad a territory ? That it Godwins anybody who says something slightly objectionable ?

If you're not allowing it to be used at all, then you are reverse-Godwining. Or something.

Michael Hardner · December 22, 2016

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

It is not a matter of 'too'. They can walk up and down with picket signs outside for all I care. When they deliberately employ force to stop a person from giving a speech they are undeserving of any respect, and neither is their message.

Force ? They chained themselves together and yelled. Seems like a protest to me.

drummindiver · December 22, 2016

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

No he became amused when an article you linked to in this OP of your's said; It’s now official: leftists are the actual book-burners.

Your style is pretty much completely patented now.

lol. I apologized for being wrong and not vetting my links better.

One of us at least xan admit when they're wrong.

eyeball · December 22, 2016

1 hour ago, drummindiver said:

Then why did you think it was DogOnPorch?

I didn't. Why you think that is just another echo of something else you imagined.

Argus · December 22, 2016

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Force ? They chained themselves together and yelled. Seems like a protest to me.

Chaining yourself up in an area where you can block someone's activities is force. They are not only refusing to leave when ordered (which is criminal trespass under the law), but chaining themselves to aid in their physical resistance to being removed. And what happened? They got their way, and as far as we know, suffered no consequences other than the admiration of their fellow SJWs, who will now realize this is an acceptable manner to stifle protest they don't like.

eyeball · December 22, 2016

It's terrorism.

TimG · December 22, 2016

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Force ? They chained themselves together and yelled. Seems like a protest to me.

People who use their bodies to prevent other people from doing things they have a right do are using violence to achieve their ends. They are no different from someone who threatens to punch someone if they try to pass. The idea that these are "non-violent" protests is nonsense. Non-violent protest is standing with signs in places which do not interfere with the rights of others.

Edited December 22, 2016 by TimG

Argus · December 22, 2016

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Wait a second... is that really such an insult ?

There are no absolutes, but in today's society it is certainly considered a major foul to use racist language. There certainly are a few instances where it is deserved. But think of the many, many MANY times it has been used here. How many of them were in response to a directly, obviously, clearly racist statement. Ie, "N... are inferior to white men!" Never, as far as I'm aware. Instead it's usually used, at least here, whenever anyone makes a statement with regard to a group which SJWs consider to be under their protection. For example, I can say anything derogatory about Americans and not risk the accusation. If I say something unflattering about Muslims, though, who are not a race, I'd get that accusation, even if what I say is accompanied by evidence supporting the statement. The same word is used if I say something unflattering about some other group, blacks, as a group, and using statistics. People don't want to hear it, true or not. IT offends them so they lash out with insults.

drummindiver · December 22, 2016

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I didn't. Why you think that is just another echo of something else you imagined.

lol...you said it alright.

Why this constant off topic ad hom?

eyeball · December 22, 2016

13 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Why this constant off topic ad hom?

You tell me.

1 hour ago, drummindiver said:

lol. I apologized for being wrong and not vetting my links better.

One of us at least xan admit when they're wrong.

And I'll be sure to do so when that happens.

dialamah · December 22, 2016

2 hours ago, TimG said:

People who use their bodies to prevent other people from doing things they have a right do are using violence to achieve their ends. They are no different from someone who threatens to punch someone if they try to pass. The idea that these are "non-violent" protests is nonsense. Non-violent protest is standing with signs in places which do not interfere with the rights of others.

Wow, passive resistance is the same as punching someone! The ideas here get more bizarre by the day.

TimG · December 22, 2016

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Wow, passive resistance is the same as punching someone! The ideas here get more bizarre by the day.

I said "threatening to punch someone". Passive resistance is a threat to use violence if others choose to exercise their rights.

I have nothing but contempt for people who claim to be non-violent while they threaten violence.

The only way such passive resisters can claim to be non-violent is if they remain passive while people lift and move them to a different location. Do you believe that people engaging in such protests would be able to maintain their passivity if they were moved or would they attack someone who tried?.

Edited December 22, 2016 by TimG

dialamah · December 22, 2016

52 minutes ago, TimG said:

I said "threatening to punch someone". Passive resistance is a threat to use violence if others choose to exercise their rights.

I have nothing but contempt for people who claim to be non-violent while they threaten violence.

The only way such passive resisters can claim to be non-violent is if they remain passive while people lift and move them to a different location. Do you believe that people engaging in such protests would be able to maintain their passivity if they were moved or would they attack someone who tried?.

I've seen people who have remained passive when moved, yes. Unlike you, I can't make assumptions about the protesters in question, unless they actually said they'd fight back if moved. Did they?

Did the protest

TimG · December 22, 2016

53 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I've seen people who have remained passive when moved, yes. Unlike you, I can't make assumptions about the protesters in question, unless they actually said they'd fight back if moved. Did they?

Then why weren't security called in to move them? Are you saying that security is simply incompetent and allowed an event to be disrupted when the protesters could be peacefully relocated? Or perhaps the threat of violence from the protesters was overt enough to give them pause. I think the latter because people who pull these kinds of stunts are bullies who are not afraid to use violence to impose their will on others.

Edited December 22, 2016 by TimG

Moonlight Graham · December 22, 2016

6 hours ago, TimG said:

You are missing the point. When you use labels like that in a public debate you are using it as an excuse to avoid an actual discussion of the issues. Instead of looking at the nuance of the arguments being made you want to label it as 'untouchable' and impute the motives of the people advancing the argument. This poisons public discourse and encourages people you disagree with to adopt the same propaganda tactics. Now if you don't care about a reasoned debate and like the current toxic environment then keep labeling people as racist for expressing ideas you disagree with.

I think you can use the term "racist" and still have a respectful, intelligent discussion. Labeling someone a racist is like you said. As a label it's pejorative term meant to degrade the person and often meant to cast any debate aside as ridiculous/wrong without examining it or debating it. Now, if during a discussion you hear an argument you think is racist, you can say "that's a racist argument", so you're attacking the argument instead of labeling the person.

On the other hand, some people are indeed just flat-out racist. Doesn't mean you can't have a discussion on their thoughts with them though.

?Impact · December 22, 2016

3 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Now, if during a discussion you hear an argument you think is racist, you can say "that's a racist argument", so you're attacking the argument instead of labeling the person.

Apply that to all labels, and we might make some progress. Like I have said many times before, the other label outnumber the racist label thousands to one.

Moonlight Graham · December 22, 2016

6 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said:

If someone on this forum is called a racist why not address the accusation and delve into it deeper instead of whining to the mods that they can't handle it. It's just a word and it can evolve into a constructive conversation.

Personally I don't think any racist remarks on MLW should be censored unless they're literally illegal. Usually hate speech laws in Canada center around calls for genocide, or if such speech "incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace".

Moonlight Graham · December 22, 2016

6 hours ago, Argus said:

The way to end this sort of thing is that if these are students at the university, expel them, and if they're not, arrest them and charge them with trespassing, then sue them for all additional costs incurred by the people whose speech they disrupted.

Sounds like they're disturbing the peace, preventing freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. So if they refuse to move they should be charged IMO. I've seen videos of a cop in the US protecting a religious preacher near a college campus who was being harassed by disagreeing students and the cop was protecting the preacher from the crowd so he could be free to keep speaking as was his right.

Moonlight Graham · December 22, 2016

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's draconian. Students protest, that's what they do. Administrators are better politicians than you or I, plus they have a good vision for what the response would be to a crackdown. Protesters, though, have to live with the fact that their actions have consequences. They could have been removed and still made their point.

The school feared the backlash that would result from removing aboriginal protestors. They cowered. They were bullied.

It's also useful to point out that our Charter rights are only applicable to interactions between the state and private individuals.

Michael Hardner · December 22, 2016

10 hours ago, TimG said:

Non-violent protest is standing with signs in places which do not interfere with the rights of others.

I disagree with your definition. Illegal occupation and resistance is non-violence in my books, though the protesters have to live with the results of their actions. The school's failure to deal with it is on them IMO.