This is now very little ability to disagree with the Left

[Argus]

A university professor made the mistake of coming out with a study which said there was no link between racism and police shootings. Naturally he was forced to resign.

Cesario is the Michigan State psychology professor who co-authored the study published July 2019 that debunked the notion that police are more likely to shoot African-Americans. Hsu wrote on his blog that the paper concluded “there is no widespread racial bias in police shooting.” Professor Cesario received a small amount of funding for his research under Hsu’s leadership.

Cesario pointed out to The Wall Street Journal “we had no idea what the data was going to be, what the outcome was going to be, before we did this study.”

The “MSU communications team highlighted the mention in the June 9 edition of their email newsletter, InsideMSU. The next day, the Graduate Employees Union denounced Mr. Hsu. By June 11, editors of the newsletter had apologized ‘for including the item and for the harm it caused,’” the Journal reports.

The graduate union told The Fix that administrators should not share research that runs counter to public statements by the university.

“It is the union’s position that an administrator sharing such views is in opposition to MSU’s statements released supporting the protests and their root cause and aim,” Ackles wrote in an e-mail to The College Fix.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/scholar-forced-to-resign-over-study-that-found-police-shootings-not-biased-against-blacks/

[Moonbox]

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Julian Assange, the person who leaked the emails, said that he got them from Seth Rich. What more evidence could you want than that?

No he didn't.  He said a bunch of vague nonsense in a 2016 interview and avoided clarifying when given the opportunity.  Wikileaks later made an explicit statement saying that they were not implying that Seth Rich was there source, or that his murder was connected to their publications, but that didn't stop all the morons who were happy to make up their own facts and run with the story.  It takes a special kind of intellect to call that "evidence".  

Quote

How did that lawsuit against CNN, NBC and WashPo go again? Oh yeah, CNN settled and now Sandman and his lawyers have some money to go after the other two. The kid received death threats, his school received bomb threats, all they did was attend a pro-life rally. What kind of a sick god-damned piece of garbage would think that Fox was the bad apple and CNN was a bastion of democracy? That's not just unfathomable stupidity, it takes equal amounts of ignorance.

I'm not vouching for CNN or NBC, nor am I vouching for CTV or CBC.  What I did do is refer to Fox News as a worthless clown show and that Rebel Media is even worse. 

All that ranting and carrying on and you're pretty much arguing with yourself.  You're so caught up in your own nonsense that you can't even follow the debate you're participating in.  Instead, you make up opinions and positions to argue against and then brag to nobody in particular about how you're "destroying" them.  All of this is built on a foundation of absolutely stunning ignorance.  

Thanks for the laughs.  I'm done with your foolishness.  

 

 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Moonbox
Spelling/grammar

[WestCanMan]

32 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No he didn't.  He said a bunch of vague nonsense in a 2016 interview and avoided clarifying when given the opportunity.  Wikileaks later made an explicit statement saying that they were not implying that Seth Rich was there source, or that his murder was connected to their publications, but that didn't all the morons who were happy to make up their own facts and run with the story.  It takes a special kind of intellect to call that "evidence".   

What I posted was not vague at all. It couldn't have been any more pointed. The problem with him naming Rich as the sole source of the leak is that when other potential leakers see that dead body, and the quick cover-up, they opt to watch Hillary's six instead of stepping up.

If you recall:

Quote

“I’m suggesting that our sources take risks,” Assange said, “and they become concerned to see things occurring like that.”

There is no more wikileaks if their informants are leaking blood instead of info. 

 

Quote

I'm not vouching for CNN or NBC, nor am I vouching for CTV or CBC.  What I did do is refer to Fox News is a worthless clown show and that Rebel Media is even worse. 

Wrong. GFYS. When you're singling Fox out as fake news then by defult you're propping up the moron.

Quote

All that ranting and carrying on and you're pretty much arguing with yourself.  You're so caught up in your own nonsense that you can't even follow the debate you're participating in.  Instead, you make up opinions and positions to argue against and then brag to nobody in particular about how you're "destroying" them.  All of this is built on a foundation of absolutely stunning ignorance.  

Thanks for the laughs.  I'm done with your foolishness. 

It's not my fault that you are unwilling or unable to come to grips with what's going on in this world little buddy. 

When you're lying awake or chatting with other demmies, wondering why the world is getting more and more fucked up, just don't point the finger other people. Your ignorance and your support for the people who are dividing the country is exactly why things are going downhill. Lying and divisiveness never helped anything anywhere get better.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

You're not replying to my point. We can pay people temporarily, but the policies the climate change crowd want would shut things down indefinitely. How do we afford that?

No one wants to shut things down, the 'climate change crowd' knows full well that impoverished people make the worst stewards of the environment around them.

Quote

The economy is the life blood of any nation, of every nation. As much as the Left likes to mock conservative determination to keep it strong they seem to forget that when economies go sour unemployment rockets up, and people die - in very large numbers. Suicide rises. Violence rises. And the worse an economy gets the less money government can spend to ameliorate the social ills of our society.

That's correct.  The climate change crowd was pointing out decades ago the pitfalls of economic collapse in the hope people would stop ignoring the fact that the planet's natural capital is the life blood of our human economy. What it is that so-called conservatives don't get about conserving has always been a mystery to me.  The only way I can get around it is to conclude that I'm one of the few genuine conservatives here and you so-called ones are something else.

Quote

Why not? It's directly on the point of this topic.

I thought the point of the topic was to celebrate the unwillingness of our respective ideologies to have anything to do with one another.

[Michael Hardner]

16 hours ago, Moonbox said:

1)  You're being semantic. Nobody ever loses the ability to disagree, so if you're going to argue this point then you're assuming the OP is utter nonsense and you're arguing against utter nonsense.   Again, I think you're being disingenuous here.  You getting trolled on an internet forum is hardly the same thing as being publicly declared as a racist, misogynistic or "transphobic" for disagreeing with the cause of the day. 

2) JK Rowling's attempt at distinguishing a "biological" woman from a trans woman is the sort of example we're talking about.  Writers, actors, celebrities etc have all piled on and she's being called "hateful" now because she doesn't agree with the LGBT's vague definition of "woman".  

3)  She apologized for the original statement (probably for the rhetoric, and hopefully for the claims that there are men who are deliberately getting hormone therapy to beat women in sports) but then doubled down on her conclusion later that the she doesn't think it's fair for them to participate in women's sports.  Again, this is another woman being labeled as "transphobic" for that.

4)  That's what we're doing here, isn't it?  

5)  This is low-hanging fruit where they can actually demonstrate that the nebulous "left" is overreaching.  

1) The degree to which this website or twitter are 'public' is being worked out.
2) It's not vague and what we're talking about is denying the existence of trans women.  You might have a different response if you say "trans women don't exist" versus "we should look at their participation in elite sports and have a dialogue".  But the OP puts all of these things together as "disagreeing with the left".  
3) "Elite" women's sports.  Being labelled by whom ?  "The Left" is being used as a bogeyman term now.  Joe Biden ?  The Left ?  Come on.
4) Yes
5) So if someone really cares about dialogue as the OP purports to do, then insist on a real discussion instead of bugaboos, rogues, Patreon-seekers and dull snakes.

"We AREN'T ALLOWED TO DISAGREE WITH THE LEFT !!!" and then they roll out some bullshit from The Rebel... or a lie from The Toronto Sun...

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

I thought the point of the topic was to celebrate the unwillingness of our respective ideologies to have anything to do with one another.

Which is ironic, given that the OP lies about me wanting to ban ideas that I don't agree with.  I find it odious that a person would lie like that about a cohort, and hypocritical that the same person would decry the inability to have civil dialogue.  Ridiculous, in fact.  "Where is the civil dialogue with the left... oh and by the way here are some lies and name-calling on a person I don't agree with..."

[Independent1986]

When we loose our freedoms through some extremist form of government or foreign agent, please try to remember that excesses in every single department including social issues is what we got us there.

When we are not happy what we have and don't realize that by constantly pushing society to "change" at a rate of speed that the tracks are not designed for don't be surprised if the train derails. 

If I was an economic struggling white guy and i listened to some of these posts putting me down because I am not enlightened enough I think I would be tunning on far right radio daily.

[Moonbox]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) The degree to which this website or twitter are 'public' is being worked out.
2) It's not vague and what we're talking about is denying the existence of trans women.  You might have a different response if you say "trans women don't exist" versus "we should look at their participation in elite sports and have a dialogue".  But the OP puts all of these things together as "disagreeing with the left".  
3) "Elite" women's sports.  Being labelled by whom ?  "The Left" is being used as a bogeyman term now.  Joe Biden ?  The Left ?  Come on.
 

1)  You're being trite. Not only are you anonymous here, nobody would take someone calling you a cuck as anything but an insult from a someone who was angry with you. 

2)  Nobody's denying the existence of trans women, and if they are then we can laugh at them.  What's being disputed is that trans women are the same thing as biological women.  There are precious few instances where the distinction really matters, but where it does there are objective arguments to be made against it.  

3)  It's not just elite sports.  There's a lawsuit in Connecticut where 3 high school students are suing the state over Transgender athletes, where two trans women have won 15 state titles in 2 years.  https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/14/us/transgender-athletes-connecticut-lawsuit/index.html

Your bogeyman argument is pretty silly, at least in respect to whatever conversation you and I are having.  I don't see why I need to frame and qualify the people who are denouncing and labeling individuals offering dissenting viewpoints, especially by what would end up being an arbitrary category.  I have provided examples of the phenomenon and can continue to, so eventually you either have to acknowledge that this sort of censorship is happening or try to refute it.  

Additionally, I'd argue that there's a fairly clear political divide on this sort of issue, and would suggest that a Jefferson City Republican is far less likely to support transgender definitions than a Portland Democrat.  Would you disagree?  

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) It's not vague and what we're talking about is denying the existence of trans women.

This is a frequent left wing talking point. If you refuse to accede to a long list of demands, if you question the coherence of a long list of grievances you are 'Denying my existence!'. It is part and parcel of how the radical left catastrophizes everything, and makes honest disagreement into an immoral attack.

It's also, of course, incredibly dishonest. NO ONE in the world is denying the 'existence' of transgenders. What they're denying, among other things, is the right of male-bodied 'women' to beat the living shit out of ordinary women in wrestling or boxing or karate or rugby. What they're denying is the right of transgenders to strip naked in the shower with women, to go to womens prisons, to insist that they're lesbians and any lesbian who won't sleep with them because they have a penis is a bigot.

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You might have a different response if you say "trans women don't exist" versus "we should look at their participation in elite sports and have a dialogue".  But the OP puts all of these things together as "disagreeing with the left".  

No, the OP says you can't actually have a discussion with the Left on this because the Left will go berserk, start screaming abuse, and try to destroy you.

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

"We AREN'T ALLOWED TO DISAGREE WITH THE LEFT !!!" and then they roll out some bullshit from The Rebel... or a lie from The Toronto Sun...

Yeah, except no one has posted anything from the Rebel or Toronto Sun here. But that's another typical attitude of the woke left. Casually dismiss all information that come from even mildly centrist or conservative sources as if they're somehow illegitimate. It saves having to respond to the points they raise and helps keep your mind tightly closed and locked.

 

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Which is ironic, given that the OP lies about me wanting to ban ideas that I don't agree with.

You have made it clear that like the rest of the woke Left you do not support or respect freedom of speech. The very mention of things like the Sun or the Rebel makes you froth at the mouth. Your hatred for anything on the right side of the political spectrum is palpable.

Quote

I find it odious that a person would lie like that about a cohort, and hypocritical that the same person would decry the inability to have civil dialogue.  Ridiculous, in fact.  "Where is the civil dialogue with the left... oh and by the way here are some lies and name-calling on a person I don't agree with..."

You don't support freedom of speech. You just don't have the balls to admit it. You made it clear that 'hate speech' should be banned. And no, you're not referring to the legal definition but to YOURS. When I objected, you accused me of wanting alt-right terrorists to murder people. Now you try to present yourself as Mr. Reasonable attacked by the cruel right winger.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

1)  You're being trite. Not only are you anonymous here,
2) nobody would take someone calling you a cuck as anything but an insult from a someone who was angry with you. 
3)  Nobody's denying the existence of trans women, and if they are then we can laugh at them. 
4) There are precious few instances where the distinction really matters, but where it does there are objective arguments to be made against it.  
5)  It's not just elite sports. 
6) There's a lawsuit in Connecticut where 3 high school students are suing the state over Transgender athletes, where two trans women have won 15 state titles in 2 years.  https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/14/us/transgender-athletes-connecticut-lawsuit/index.html
7) I don't see why I need to frame and qualify the people who are denouncing and labeling individuals offering dissenting viewpoints, especially by what would end up being an arbitrary category.  I have provided examples of the phenomenon and can continue to, so eventually you either have to acknowledge that this sort of censorship is happening or try to refute it.

8) Additionally, I'd argue that there's a fairly clear political divide on this sort of issue, and would suggest that a Jefferson City Republican is far less likely to support transgender definitions than a Portland Democrat.  Would you disagree?  

1) Anonymity doesn't disqualify a 'public'.  The American public was born out of anonymously written pamphleteers like "Poor Richard".  
2) Ok.  People do complain about being attacked "on twitter" though, ie. insulted, for their views.
3) This is the very debate.  To say that trans women aren't women is denying that are anything but men.  I agree that we can laugh at them but the OP will say they are no longer able to disagree with you because they were scorned.
4) Then let those arguments happen and please separate them from the other arguments in your mind.
5) From what I read Navartalova is no longer saying that trans women can't compete with women in any women's sp;orts.
6) OK, well I quickly read through the complaint and it sounds like a vigorous and informed discussion.  Nobody seems to be complaining that they have "little ability to disagree" much less, a bunch of white middled aged males who actually have no stake in the question.
7) You are being very reasonable, in that you seem to be correctly assuming good faith on my part.  So - no - you don't need to frame and qualify the people... unless you want to convince me.  And I will acknowledge that censorship is possible, and furthermore that I have seen it.  The last issue I looked into on this topic was the Jessica Yaniv "controversy" which was essentially a long troll by the far right, so I'm a little leery of snowflakes that shriek that "the left" is suppressing them.
8) I don't know what those things are.  Republicans and Democrats are brand names and even within that you can't tell what they stand for except that it's about tribal loyalty. 

 

I'm a conservative, because the definition of conservative has now dragged people so far to the right that it dragged liberals over.  I believe in rights, and in process.   Trans and Black rights, to pick two groups, are about freedom.  The far-right is stunned when racists and haters are chastised for their comments and they mistakenly say that people like me what to "ban them" for their opinions.

Far from it - I welcome a difference and opinion, as it allows us to find the spaces of agreement and disagreement within our common values.  It's a healthy thing to experience - on an individual level, and on a larger scale also.

 

 

[Independent1986]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

should be banned. And no, you're not referring to the legal definition but to YOURS.

The mainstream establishment fraction on both sides is one of the main factors that leads to the average individual citizen becoming more and more divided and reaching out for the extremes.

The arrogance and the tone like they are morally superior to the rest of us is what causes people on both sides to choose characters like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. 

I hope the day will come when the LGBTQ community and the minority communities will turn to these individuals and tell them to be quiet, they can speak and defend their position for themselves.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Independent1986

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, Independent1986 said:

The mainstream establishment fraction on both sides is one of the main factors that leads to the average individual citizen becoming more and more divided and reaching out for the extremes.

The arrogance and the tone like they are morally superior to the rest of us is what causes people on both sides to choose characters like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. 

I hope the day will come when the LGBTQ community and the minority communities will turn to these individuals and tell them to be quiet, they can speak and defend their position for themselves.

I think one of the mistakes people make is believing there is any leadership in the LGBTQ and other communities. There isn't. No one is chosen as representatives of Blacks or Gays or Transgenders or Indo-Canadians or 'the left'. What we see, what we hear are activists, who by their nature tend to be shrill and extreme. I remember seeing an interview with Douglas Murray a while back where he laughed at the very idea there even WAS a LGBTQ community, as if they all hung around together and had the same beliefs. They don't. Gays and lesbians, he said, have never really thought much of each other, both are suspicious of the BIs, and they're quite divided on the Ts. None of them chose the 'representatives' who purport to speak for them. Similarly, groups like BLM do not represent the Black community. They're a radical left activist group which by its nature attracts people with extreme views.

[bush_cheney2004]

29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm a conservative, because the definition of conservative has now dragged people so far to the right that it dragged liberals over.  I believe in rights, and in process.   Trans and Black rights, to pick two groups, are about freedom.  The far-right is stunned when racists and haters are chastised for their comments and they mistakenly say that people like me what to "ban them" for their opinions.

 

OK...then why have you not championed the free speech rights of the so called alt-right ?   It does seem a bit cheeky that you and others can shift between civil rights frameworks (Canada / USA) so as to avoid being pinned down.    If the American narrative and media culture battle informs this discussion, then it comes with some firm ground rules that cannot be changed by the mob.

[Argus]

7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

OK...then why have you not championed the free speech rights of the so called alt-right ?   It does seem a bit cheeky that you and others can shift between civil rights frameworks (Canada / USA) so as to avoid being pinned down.    If the American narrative and media culture battle informs this discussion, then it comes with some firm ground rules that cannot be changed by the mob.

But the ground rules are shifting for the Left. There was a time when the Jewish lawyers of the ACLU fought for the right of Nazis - literal Nazis - to march defiantly through a Jewish neighborhood filled with holocaust survivors. They did this despite being disgusted by the Nazis because they felt that what protecting constitutional rights which belong to EVERYONE meant they were protecting Jews. The concept that only if a freedom was for everyone was it secure seems to have faded away from the minds of the Left. Now they rant and rail against people with obnoxious viewpoints - not even Nazis, just commonplace bigots or people who feel differently about the Left's special, protected identity groups- being allowed to speak their piece. Because, remember, speech can be violence now.

I mean, a woman showed up with a garrote to a speech given by Jordan Peterson, and other fanatics brought a homemade guillotine to a speech by Meghan Murphy. And neither of them is even right wing!

Edited July 2, 2020 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

But the ground rules are shifting for the Left. There was a time when the Jewish lawyers of the ACLU fought for the right of Nazis - literal Nazis - to march defiantly through a Jewish neighborhood filled with holocaust survivors. They did this despite being disgusted for the Nazis because they felt that what protecting constitutional rights which belong to EVERYONE meant they were protecting Jews. The concept that only if a freedom was for everyone was it secure seems to have faded away from the minds of the Left. Now they rant and rail against people with obnoxious viewpoints - not even Nazis, just commonplace bigots - being allowed to speak their piece. Because, remember, speech can be violence now.

 

Nevertheless, the ACLU would still defend the right for neo-Nazis to peacefully march through Skokie, IL.

Cases with standing would easily prevail in U.S. courts...eventually.  Hate speech is protected expression in the United States.

...can't say that for Canada, which has a different set of rules.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

1. OK...then why have you not championed the free speech rights of the so called alt-right ?  

2. It does seem a bit cheeky that you and others can shift between civil rights frameworks (Canada / USA) so as to avoid being pinned down.    If the American narrative and media culture battle informs this discussion, then it comes with some firm ground rules that cannot be changed by the mob.

1. I have championed conservative causes when they're under threat.

2. I enjoy being pinned down.  I would say that the American sphere drives certain rights discussions such as BLM.  Canadian leftists still need to pay attention to their own house and may be starting to.  But I am interested in these ground rules - what are they ?  Anything that forestalls collapse would be comforting to my fragile Canadian nerves...

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

I think one of the mistakes people make is believing there is any leadership in the LGBTQ and other communities. There isn't. No one is chosen as representatives of Blacks or Gays or Transgenders or Indo-Canadians or 'the left'. What we see, what we hear are activists, who by their nature tend to be shrill and extreme. I remember seeing an interview with Douglas Murray a while back where he laughed at the very idea there even WAS a LGBTQ community, as if they all hung around together and had the same beliefs. They don't. Gays and lesbians, he said, have never really thought much of each other, both are suspicious of the BIs, and they're quite divided on the Ts. None of them chose the 'representatives' who purport to speak for them. Similarly, groups like BLM do not represent the Black community. They're a radical left activist group which by its nature attracts people with extreme views.

There are those among them who make important decisions like "police can't show their faces at the LGBTQ parade but the BLM can". 

Hopefully the BLM aren't providing security there. We saw how their police-free utopia in Seattle worked out.  

 

[Moonbox]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) Ok.  People do complain about being attacked "on twitter" though, ie. insulted, for their views.
3) This is the very debate.  To say that trans women aren't women is denying that are anything but men.  I agree that we can laugh at them but the OP will say they are no longer able to disagree with you because they were scorned.
4) Then let those arguments happen and please separate them from the other arguments in your mind.
5) From what I read Navartalova is no longer saying that trans women can't compete with women in any women's sp;orts.
6) OK, well I quickly read through the complaint and it sounds like a vigorous and informed discussion.  Nobody seems to be complaining that they have "little ability to disagree" much less, a bunch of white middled aged males who actually have no stake in the question.
7) You are being very reasonable, in that you seem to be correctly assuming good faith on my part.  So - no - you don't need to frame and qualify the people... unless you want to convince me.  And I will acknowledge that censorship is possible, and furthermore that I have seen it.  The last issue I looked into on this topic was the Jessica Yaniv "controversy" which was essentially a long troll by the far right, so I'm a little leery of snowflakes that shriek that "the left" is suppressing them.
8) I don't know what those things are.  Republicans and Democrats are brand names and even within that you can't tell what they stand for except that it's about tribal loyalty. 

People complain about being attacked on twitter etc because it happens all the time...everywhere.  I know that if I tried to make the arguments I'm making here on facebook or twitter, I'd be skewered.  If you don't believe me on that, I dare you to try for yourself...or to even ask if it's something that should be debated.  It's extremely naive, I think, to downplay this sort of censorship as the far-right crying wolf.  You and I have reviewed a multitude of examples and have talked about how Jordan Peterson's research funding was pulled or how WLU made a mess out of the Lindsay Shephard affair.  We've talked about Martina Navartalova (who's only recanted her rhetoric on transgender "cheaters" as far I've read) and the complaint in Connecticut (which is being criticized as dangerous and discriminatory).  I can keep giving you more.  Look up Maya Forstater, who was fired for saying that men cannot change into women.  

That leads to the next point, which is whether trans women are women.  To say that they are, you're accepting that "woman" is gender identity concept, rather than a biological distinction.  It used to just mean a person with two X chromosomes (or as JK Rowling would say, people who menstruate).  The latter definition, however, is "not worthy of respect in democratic society" (as per Forstater case ruling) and publicly holding that belief can, according to British courts, legally get you fired.  There you have a common law precedent of the sort of censorship that I, at least, find troubling.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Moonbox

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

The latter definition, however, is "not worthy of respect in democratic society" (as per Forstater case ruling) and publicly holding that belief can, according to British courts, legally get you fired.  There you have a common law precedent of the sort of censorship that I, at least, find troubling.  

I concur with the two examples related to Peterson but not that case.  I looked it up on BBC.com

 

 

"It is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment," he continued.

"The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society."

So, she wants to use disrespectful language at work and she got fired.  I don't think that is really remarkable.

[Independent1986]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

wanting to ban ideas that I don't agree with.

Michael I have a question for you, how can you be a fiscal conservative and in the same time such a liberal (borderline activist) when it comes to social issues ? Are you donating money to these causes ? How exactly are you supporting this other than debating in such a philosophical matter and blaming white men in a collective matter ? 

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I have championed conservative causes when they're under threat.

2. I enjoy being pinned down.  I would say that the American sphere drives certain rights discussions such as BLM.  Canadian leftists still need to pay attention to their own house and may be starting to.  But I am interested in these ground rules - what are they ?  Anything that forestalls collapse would be comforting to my fragile Canadian nerves...

 

1.  This is not evident.   I seem to recall strident positions against conservative views about several topics, from climate change to firearms regulation, to the point of not respecting such views, let alone protecting them.    Perhaps you are making a finer small c conservative distinction now.

2.  I think that is the issue...the American framework invites conflict by design, something that Canada abhors..."peace, order,  yada, yada, yada".  Many leftists no longer tolerate opposing views that clash with their "values", including hate speech, "microaggressions", abortion on demand, gender identity, etc. to the point of seeking to silence others as peace.

The American narrative has a different set of rules that are not so easily reconciled in a Canadian context, despite drinking from the fire hose that is American news and social media platforms.   It is too volatile and dangerous for the Canadian palate, but many like to watch.

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

1.  This is not evident.   I seem to recall strident positions against conservative views about several topics, from climate change to firearms regulation, to the point of not respecting such views, let alone protecting them.    Perhaps you are making a finer small c conservative distinction now.

2.  I think that is the issue...the American framework invites conflict by design, something that Canada abhors..."peace, order,  yada, yada, yada".  Many leftists no longer tolerate opposing views that clash with their "values", including hate speech, "microaggressions", abortion on demand, gender identity, etc. to the point of seeking to silence others as peace.

3. The American narrative has a different set of rules that are not so easily reconciled in a Canadian context...

1. I am.  Also I would say that Climate Change opposition isn't a conservative viewpoint but more of a conspiracy theory.  If that's a strident position then ok.

Here's a post where I advocated pro freedom...

2. Fair enough but I don't support such things.  I support the Canadian hate laws which are about macro aggression.

Everybody has their line, their axis.  I become strident when I see hysterical posts sometimes.

3. What are these rules though?

[bush_cheney2004]

51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I am.  Also I would say that Climate Change opposition isn't a conservative viewpoint but more of a conspiracy theory.  If that's a strident position then ok.

Here's a post where I advocated pro freedom...

2. Fair enough but I don't support such things.  I support the Canadian hate laws which are about macro aggression.

Everybody has their line, their axis.  I become strident when I see hysterical posts sometimes.

3. What are these rules though?

 

1.   Pro freedom....with the accepted limits and compromises for Canada, not American excess (too much freedom).

2.   Understood, but this is clearly incompatible with the American free speech framework, so the two should not be mixed.  Hate speech is protected expression in the U.S. public sphere, not just tolerated, and should be fiercely defended because of the underlying principle(s).

3.   The other rules are those that protect all legal expression, publication, and consumption, even when banned on private platforms, including "fake news" and religious rights...in a much larger marketplace.  Canada has restrictions on such content even in the public space.   For instance, several American platforms chose to abandon Canadian political ad revenue when faced with such restrictions and regulation, and there was/is no equivalent Canadian platforms to fill the void.   Different strokes for different folks.

 

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

20 hours ago, Argus said:

No, the OP says you can't actually have a discussion with the Left on this because the Left will go berserk, start screaming abuse, and try to destroy you.

I just don't know what's more ridiculous this issue, getting excited for it or against it.  If men and women want to compete against themselves or one another who am I to argue?  In any case I only spend about 0.005% of my time watching sports so...

Edited July 3, 2020 by eyeball