Man shut the hell up with this nonsense. Now you're just talking out of your ass.
But but but why won't people engage in serious debate around my pseudo science.
I can't prove the bullshyt I spew and I'm being oppressed because colleges won't pay me to spew my bullshyt.
I was a philosophy major. This statement is patently false.
Before I respond I want to correct a typo I made from last post "The fact that one person might disagree with his opinion on that matter doesnt mean that they've proven him factually wrong. You can counter his points but offering a thesis on a philosophical issue about morality or ethics is
not something that can usually be critiqued but hard to disprove the overriding argument"
I highlighted "not" because I meant to say that philosophical issues about morality and ethics IS something that can usually be critiqued but hard to disprove.Obviously you can critique someone's values and ethics I meant to say that you can't really disprove them because their based on that person's subjective ideals.
Back to the discussion at at hand:
How is someone expressing an opinion on the dangers of religion a form of hard science or even a pseudoscience? Its an opinion so suppressing them from expressing that opinion can't be based off the fact that what their saying is false, its being suppressed by people who might be offended. You're focus on this issue is so honed in on these particular characters that your ignoring the slippery slope that this trend can present. If a black studies professor for example teaches a class on group economics and some butt hurt white people get pissed and cry reverse racism because they feel excluded or unsafe in a school with what they would consider a "radical professor", you start to set a precedent for having that black studies professor removed or his curriculum removed. shyt when Jan Brewer was running shyt in Arizona, they literally banned books talking about the struggles of brown people in America or anything else that might considered "offensive" to certain groups "white people".
You and the writer of the article seemed to trivialize the implications of this matter. Take the whole Aziz Ansari situation that went down a few months ago which is also an opinion that the woman mentioned in the article Bari Weiss, received heat over. I'm sure ya all know the story but basically a girl talked about a date she had with the dude in which she had regrets about engaging in sexual activities with him and felt dirty about the fact that he brought her over for sex. This happened during the wave of the Me Too movement that was going on and so obviously it was important issue but its a topic that was uncomfortable but at least through the discussion we can get to a place where we as a society can talk about where the lines are when it comes to these issues. Me asking that we don't take a prosecutorial approach to every man accused of something isn't me trying to trivialize the very valid situations and claims that happen to women in the realm of sexual harrassment.
If Ayaan Ali Hirsi makes a speech talking about how Islamic countries oppress women and cites laws and statistics to back her claim its important that someone is their to debate her claim and find nuance in her arguments that shows examples of Islamic have scriptures that show that something like the female dress code for example is written in the form of a suggestion and not necesarily a hard affirmative law within the religion. While I disagree Hirsi-Al, Harris, and Peterson on some of their ideas and approaches I've never gotten the idea that they won't admit to being wrong and seen them give people on the opposite side of the argument their due.
Plus it isn't just these people you regard as dumb know-it-alls that have this critque. Comedians are increasingly disinterested in performing in colleges for example due to the oversensitivity of people. You got Spotify now dropping artists from their music for controversial actions they'v have scriptures that show that something like the female dress code for example is written in the form of a suggestion and not necesarily a hard affirmative law within the religion. While I disagree Hirsi-Al, Harris, and Peterson on some of their ideas and approaches I've never gotten the idea that they won't admit to being wrong and seen them give people on the opposite side of the argument their due. e taken. Its not rational and reasonable to act like you can remove anything you deem offensive out of your life. Their were people who were upset that Bill Maher gave Milo Yiannopolus a platform or that Megan Kelly for interviewing Alex Jones because it gave them a "platform". Well first of all both of those men have strong followings and are respresenting a political phenomenon in this country that's real and its important to know who they are, and how they got their influence, and why are people gravitating to them so that we can take the pulse of some of the under currents going on in the country. Being ignorant of these political phenomenons may have led to a lot of people underestimating trump's influence and campaign and could have inspired a lot more progressives to vote to keep him out of office. All supressing these men from doing interviews does it makes the Alt-Right influence in this country stronger because it emboldens their ideas of the game being rigged. Plus at the end of the day they made themselves look terrible in those interviews anyway.
Trust me when I say that I get annoyed when the people mentioned in the article use all their energy talking about the "regressive left" over and over again as if its the biggest issue in the country. However, I'm not gonna act like its not an issue at all and I'd think we'd be much better off exposing and challenging ideas as opposed to suppressing ideas and putting everyone into little safe zones.
Have I been hallucinating all this open Neo-Nazi activity lately?
for a$$hole bill maher and charles murray's new best friend, brehs
