Critics of the left aren’t oppressed and they don’t believe in “rational debate.”

[Losttribe]

Blackking is banned

You said The Coli is an "anti black site" and asked to be banned.

And you posted this shyt:

I said it was an anti black site because,

Members were being bushed and threads deleted for saying pro black things

So i got a message that said...." Well since its not black enough for you then take this ban." But I didn't ask for a ban

you're in your emotions for some reason..... But I don't know why.

As far as my posting back then- i made troll threads and real threads and had platinum threads whenever i posted. I wouldn't do that now because most real sohh posters have left as we are only left with lames and cacs like yourself. Peace.

 

[Red Shield]

In 2018 people still trying to spin eugenics






This world is coming to a end

The world ending as we know it will end these fukkers spinning this eugenics shyt.







and it's fine if hl is a circle jerk.. got enough places online where some of these posters can have their alt|far-right dankmemes shyt

 

[Oville]

This operates under the false premise that everything needs to be debated over and over after being debunked.

This is the same tactic flat earthers use.

This operates under the assumption that every minor annoyance is worth of attacking or debating which is what certain overly PC people do on certain issues. Plus who decides what should or shouldn't be debated is a murky subject that can be abused.

 

[General Mills]

Blackking is banned

You said The Coli is an "anti black site" and asked to be banned.

And you posted this shyt:

 

[the cac mamba]

Remember this next time the conservative trolls complain that HL is a liberal circle jerk where their views aren't tolerated. It's nonsense.

it's fine if hl is a circle jerk

this guy gets it

embrace the jerk, breh. look at how well stormy daniels is doing lately your skills might serve you well

 

[NoMayo15]

Ive listened to a ton of sam harris, how much you want me to listen to? dude is clearly biased af towards muslims and now blacks with this iq shyt. nikkaz want me to listen to every single thing he did before i have an opinion? nah, some people you can listen a little and tell theyre full of shyt. he actually thinks islam itself is the cause, not circumstance. hes dusted off a long ago debunked argument of racial iq and why? to appeal to the alt right, ive seen him on dave rubin and in talks with peterson, just the fact hes mentioned alongside all these other right wing faux intellectuals should also show you smthg. voting for clinton/obama dont make you a leftist, it might make you a neolib, no wodner he gets along with maher who has become nothing but a democrat schill in recent years. keep stanning though, is harris gonna talk about skulls being filled with marbles next to measure intelligence by race?
harris said he would rather ben carson be in charge than noah chomsky purely because of his hatred for muslims, thats a laughable opinion, he also believes in determinism. hes just not actually smart at all

How is he biased towards Muslims? He critiques all the Abrahamic religions for their barbarism and violence, it just so happens at this moment in history followers of Islam seem to be using their particular scriptures to justify some of the violence they perpetrate. If you think he only has a problem with Muslims for some racist reason, you haven't been playing close enough attention. You should listen more before you open your mouth.

Again, you've avoided my direct question about his views on IQ. Either you don't actually know what they are, or can't explain how they're racist.

Being mentioned in the same breath as Shapiro and Peterson doesn't mean they share the same views, and it's fallacious for you to say so. The only thing that links them are their concerns about this tactic of stifling speech by accusing one of racism/sexism/Islamophobia. Harris in particular is concerned because this move is despised by mass numbers of (white) people, and will hurt the chances of any politician that is viewed as catering to these tricks. You can advocate for the equal rights of people of color, women and Muslims in America without going full SJW and simply accusing those with differing opinions of hating said groups. Even if Harris hated Muslims, for example, it doesn't negate the points he brings up about extremists who (at least claim to) follow Islam.

If anyone doesn't sound smart, it's you.

 

[Pressure]

This operates under the assumption that every minor annoyance is worth of attacking or debating which is what certain overly PC people do on certain issues. Plus who decides what should or shouldn't be debated is a murky subject that can be abused.

This is the most illogical statement I've read so far on the Coli.

 

[NoMayo15]

You love popping into these IQ debates don’t you? I smell a rat.

He’ll slip up sooner or later. They all do.

I just don’t understand why they come here in the first place. Shouldn’t they be congregating with their ilk on st0rmfr0nt or some shyt reveling in their supposed superiority.

This isn't a debate on IQ. Someone asserted Harris has racist views regarding IQ, and I asked them to justify said assertion. It seems to me they are unable to do that.

Breh, I posted on SOHH in '01 and here since anon shut it down. Don't try to play me because you can't handle facts.

NO ONE has said anyone is superior to anyone else. That's your own inferiority complex clouding your mind, confusing you to think people are saying things they aren't. I am not inferior because I happen to be black, and being black doesn't mean you are unintelligent. No one, except actual racists, are making this claim.

 

[Oville]

This is the most illogical statement I've read so far on the Coli.

How so?

 

[Pressure]

How so?

You've admitted these people are naive.

I've simply pointed out that is a good enough reason to be ignored or criticized for their naive views.


You're attempting to sell people not engaging in pointless debate has oppressive or dishonest when it couldn't be further from the truth.

Then when you receive engagement for these naive points that people shut down or just flat out tell them they're wrong you cry that they're the victim of being overly PC.

As far as your last tidbit a out who decides what should be debated, it's fairly simple - - the parties at hand. If you want to debate a topic I find retarded and decide I'd rather not waste my time it's over.

However this sends many of yall into a need to debate what you should debate.

Again this is also a result of the naiveté you've already admitted exists.

 

[Oville]

You've admitted these people are naive.

I've simply pointed out that is a good enough reason to be ignored or criticized for their naive views.


You're attempting to sell people not engaging in pointless debate has oppressive or dishonest when it couldn't be further from the truth.

Then when you receive engagement for these naive points that people shut down or just flat out tell them they're wrong you cry that they're the victim of being overly PC.

As far as your last tidbit a out who decides what should be debated, it's fairly simple - - the parties at hand. If you want to debate a topic I find retarded and decide I'd rather not waste my time it's over.

However this sends many of yall into a need to debate what you should debate.

Again this is also a result of the naiveté you've already admitted exists.

Dude the fact that I think their naive in certain points is my opinion but I dont think my opinion should dictate whether they should have a platform. Theirs a difference between personally ignoring someone or critiquing someones point and actively trying to take away their platform from saying something which is what Im against.

Plus me feeling that Sam Harris Jordan Peterson or whoever are naive in certain areas doesnt mean I cant agree with them on certain areas. For example one thing I feel that both those men are naive about is eliminating the idea of group think. I can agree with them in a broader sense that identity politics can sometimes take people away from looking at matters ovjectively but their are certaim matters that are specific to certain communities and interest groups and thats where collective identity and mobilization is essential. Thats where a debate in this subject can be fruitful because you can hope to reach a middle ground between approaching things from an individualistic and collectivist approach.

Even if I met someone in real life tho that had a perspective I felt was naive Id still look to have a respectable debate with them cuz thats who I am. If someone chose to ignore someone they disagree with more power to them. But I have an issue with people taking active measures to silence and repress people for taking away platforms they dont agree with

 

[Pressure]

Dude the fact that I think their naive in certain points is my opinion but I dont think my opinion should dictate whether they should have a platform. Theirs a difference between personally ignoring someone or critiquing someones point and actively trying to take away their platform from saying something which is what Im against.

They have their platform.

I'm ignoring the rest. You don't need to form a middle ground with proud idiots. And if you believe this you're missing the point of debate/discussion.

 

[Oville]

They have their platform.

I'm ignoring the rest. You don't need to form a middle ground with proud idiots. And if you believe this you're missing the point of debate/discussion.

YOU don't need to form a middle ground thats your opinion and your right. I can choose to respond to it how I wish.

Regarding how they already have a platform, you're right they do. But when u see people being banned from universities which are supposed to promote debate and free thought sets a bad precedent in my opinion.

You stating that Im missing the point of what debate/discussions comes off completely arrogant because it suggests that you do. Who the fukk determines that. They're certain issues that are so concrete empirically such as the earth being round that it doesnt merit discussion. When it comes to social sciences though, philosohpy, and morality and ethich which is what the people mentioned in the article generally talk about, those areas are a lot murkier and grey and can merit meaningful discussions even if you disagree with their perspective

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

But when u see people being banned from universities

"Nazism is good, we're Nazis, let's start the killing."

"We don't want you Nazis on our campus."

"THE LEFT IS ATTACKING FREE SPEECH!"

 

[Oville]

A rally asking for likeminded people to mobilize and take action that would be a crime is completely different from a Nazi coming in to express his ideas of white supremacy.