Critics of the left aren’t oppressed and they don’t believe in “rational debate.”
- Thread starter Berniewood Hogan
- Start date
So you consider kneeling during the national anthem hate speech and grounds for unemployment?
Interesting, but Negged all the same.
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
The same people arguing that they’re being silenced want to gain power and have the state do the things they’re loudest about
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
Just Larping as a fascist, what’s the big deal guys? What’s with all the brow beating? I just want to kill and oppress you because of your religion or ethnicity, where’s my equal say? You’ll have a voice from the grave.
Last edited:
No, you idiot. The exact opposite.
The issue here is the stifling of speech by corporate and peer intimidation. The question isn't whether or not the NFL has the legal right to punish athletes who don't stand during the anthem (they clearly do), but whether they ought to punish said athletes. It's not whether students have the right to protest and petition Shapiro from speaking to campus Republicans, but whether they ought to protest and petition.
My answer to both of these questions is a resounding no!
The first amendment is important because it serves the purpose of protecting unpopular ideas/speech. As far as I can tell, Kaepernick nor Shapiro are advocating actual physical violence, so they should be able to express themselves however they'd like. Corporations have got to stop capitulating to the mob, but moreso, people have to lose this notion that they should get someone fired because something offensive was said or done.
Last edited:
Berniewood Hogan
IT'S BERNIE SANDERS WITH A STEEL CHAIR!
They clearly don't. I forget where I read it earlier today, but what they're proposing is against various labor laws.
Shapiro's whole purpose for coming to these campuses is to say "See? Liberals are the real bigots! This campus is Liberal Nazi headquarters"
No matter what you do, if you prove each and every one of his points wrong, he'll just lie or bullshyt or deflect. We know all these guys' moves, it's always the same deal.
"That's factually wrong, Ben."
"Okay maybe but listen, trannies are mentally ill."
"We were talking about the Iraq war."
"TRANNIES, BREHS!"
Read Shapiro's old stuff. He used to say shyt like all the Palestinians should be put down like rabid dogs, etc. It's wild, because he was completely off the hinges for years in his writings and now his routine is "I don't use feelings, only facts." He was an angry little guy for a long time. Look at his face. He's furious.
Okay. We will see when the NFLPA or a player inevitably sues, but as far as I can tell this rule change will be implemented this season.
Shapiro's whole purpose for coming to these campuses is to say "See? Liberals are the real bigots! This campus is Liberal Nazi headquarters"
No matter what you do, if you prove each and every one of his points wrong, he'll just lie or bullshyt or deflect. We know all these guys' moves, it's always the same deal.
"That's factually wrong, Ben."
"Okay maybe but listen, trannies are mentally ill."
"We were talking about the Iraq war."
"TRANNIES, BREHS!"
Read Shapiro's old stuff. He used to say shyt like all the Palestinians should be put down like rabid dogs, etc. It's wild, because he was completely off the hinges for years in his writings and now his routine is "I don't use feelings, only facts." He was an angry little guy for a long time. Look at his face. He's furious.
My understanding is people like Shapiro are invited to campus, generally by student groups within the university, and the hostility has grown over time. That's fair if you dislike him because you think he argues dishonestly... I've only recently discovered him, and of the videos I've seen/pieces from him I've read, I've never seen him be intentionally dishonest or deflect in the way you're describing here. Do you have a specific instances you're thinking of that you can point me towards? From what I've seen, he'll generally engage the audience quite directly.
I will say I was sort of disappointed in his reaction to the White House correspondence dinner. For someone who, like you say, claim not to care about ones feelings, he was awfully quick to defend and take offense on behalf of Huckabee-Sanders, who was the butt of a few jokes.
Berniewood Hogan
IT'S BERNIE SANDERS WITH A STEEL CHAIR!
the cac mamba
Veteran
@ill i know you accuse me of being on some bullshyt when it comes to israel, and maybe i am. but this is one of those things that you have to justify to me when i say that there's something 'off' about the america/israel relationship
Triipe
All Star
@ill i know you accuse me of being on some bullshyt when it comes to israel, and maybe i am. but this is one of those things that you have to justify to me when i say that there's something 'off' about the america/israel relationship
breh watchout you might get a warning for being racist with allat chitchat
got that the other day
Shalom Coli monitors, I just donated to https://www.aipac.org/ I have been reformed
This is what I'm talking about. Shapiro has written and said a lot about Muslims, but it's odd that after a quick google search of "Palestinians shot like dogs Ben Shapiro" not a single result suggests he's said anything close to what you've claimed. Now, it's possible that I'm not the best at using search engines and could have dug deeper to find what you're talking about... but it's also possible that you're misremembering, or worse, making shyt up. You can't just accuse someone of lying and being dishonest, then turn around and misquote them to make them sound worse than they actually are. Shapiro has made some highly inflammable tweets and comments aimed at Muslims over the years, so you don't need to lie.
Last edited:
Ben Shapiro is a hypocrite who has no real measure of a point. He and the intellectual dark web are the cultural zenith of the long and lauded history of American Anti-Intellectualism. Where all discourse and academia is nothing more than intransigent rubbish meant to pollute the mind of the common rabble with their notions of whatever the scary buzzword of the day happens to be (and with this batch we've cycled back around to McCarthyism level irrational fears of MARXISM).
The Radical Evil Of The Palestinian Arab Population, by Ben Shapiro
"The radical evil of the Palestinian Arab population" denote this, it's wording is clear and concise for a reason. It's the playbook that's been used by the government and conservatives for decades now. It's hypernormalization, to call not some of them evil, not Hamas, no, the entire population. Here are some choice quotes
"The Palestinian people, who support, fund and execute suicide bombings. The Palestinian people, who dress their toddlers in bomb belts and then take family snapshots. The Palestinian people, who cheered on September 11 as the World Trade Center towers fell. "
"The idea of an entire population corrupted by bloodthirsty anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism violates modern ideas of politics. "
"The Palestinian Arab population is rotten to the core. "
Whether he calls them rabid dogs isn't key to the point, the things he says are just as evil and inflammatory and more importantly, outside his field of expertise and study. You can claim what follows has no bearing to the point but it has everything to do with the point.
This is a clear and marked point, an insight into the mans mind. He views this entire population of people, millions of people, to a man, woman, and child, to be evil and vile. That they are rotten. This is the playbook of the "dark web intellectual", to otherize and make an enemy, now it's "leftists", of a group or collection of groups that are nebulous and lack a cohesive identity other than their otherism. People like Shapiro are equivalent to people like Richard Spencer, they use their platform to radicalize and encourage anger, sure they aren't calling directly for violence, but what do you think encouraging and attempting to tell groups of people that "the world is your enemy, we must fight back" will do?
Allowing people like that who's only goal is to incite and create division is not opening discourse, if a private group of Republican students wants to host a speaking event, why should the campus allow that if said speaking event exists solely to debase and dehumanize other students? Milo Yiannoplois before his fall spoke at a university in Minnesota where he identified and attacked a trans person who wasn't even in attendance to his event, by name. That person was harassed and attacked until they had to leave the university. That's what these people do, they aren't interested in any kind of intellectual discourse, nor any form of rational debate seeing as they never agree to debate any people that genuinely call them out without bringing a hoard of their ravenous fanbase with them to attack and drag down their opponents.
They are merely interested in the same thing all political hucksters since William Buckley, using conservatism to create enemies that they can exploit financially and damn who they hurt and how much damage they do to other people. A campus is under no legal or moral obligation to allow them to speak within one of their halls, if they wish to use free speech and speak they can do so in a public avenue where people can deride them and call them to task just like everybody else, or they can book a room or venue just like everybody else. You are not entitled to a platform simply because freedom of expression exists, you are merely safe from the government denying you that platform based on their whims. But anybody else can deny you a platform at any time for any demonstrable reason.
These people are not intellectuals, they are hucksters and entertainers masquerading as such while attacking actual intellectuals who have spent time and effort and years of study into these fields. None of the "dark web" crew are experts in these fields and yet they constantly dismiss and deride those that are, why is that? It's because they need that divide, they need to feed their base. At least Joe Rogan is honest that he's nothing more than entertainment. These people's audiences don't want to hear their intellectual ideas, they want drama, they want conflict, they thrive off the otherization these people provide them so that they can attack the others. The voices and bodies change but the bloodthirst does not. You can ask "Sargon" aka Carl of England how that went for him when he realized that the alt-right audience he had crafted only used him to fuel the drama and their hatred of women.
Allowing people a platform to incite hatred and violence is not guaranteed them by a state entity nor the student body attending said entity. To me, Ben Shapiro and his ilk exist in the same intellectual and moral plain as this growing contingent of "radical" anti-intellectual black men that deny the atrocities committed upon the AA community were ever fact because they are ashamed of themselves and their ancestors. Something to be ridiculed, pitied, and not allowed to stand as fact or given a platform in a place of education and knowledge to spew their hate and their lies.
The Radical Evil Of The Palestinian Arab Population, by Ben Shapiro
"The radical evil of the Palestinian Arab population" denote this, it's wording is clear and concise for a reason. It's the playbook that's been used by the government and conservatives for decades now. It's hypernormalization, to call not some of them evil, not Hamas, no, the entire population. Here are some choice quotes
"The Palestinian people, who support, fund and execute suicide bombings. The Palestinian people, who dress their toddlers in bomb belts and then take family snapshots. The Palestinian people, who cheered on September 11 as the World Trade Center towers fell. "
"The idea of an entire population corrupted by bloodthirsty anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism violates modern ideas of politics. "
"The Palestinian Arab population is rotten to the core. "
Whether he calls them rabid dogs isn't key to the point, the things he says are just as evil and inflammatory and more importantly, outside his field of expertise and study. You can claim what follows has no bearing to the point but it has everything to do with the point.
This is a clear and marked point, an insight into the mans mind. He views this entire population of people, millions of people, to a man, woman, and child, to be evil and vile. That they are rotten. This is the playbook of the "dark web intellectual", to otherize and make an enemy, now it's "leftists", of a group or collection of groups that are nebulous and lack a cohesive identity other than their otherism. People like Shapiro are equivalent to people like Richard Spencer, they use their platform to radicalize and encourage anger, sure they aren't calling directly for violence, but what do you think encouraging and attempting to tell groups of people that "the world is your enemy, we must fight back" will do?
Allowing people like that who's only goal is to incite and create division is not opening discourse, if a private group of Republican students wants to host a speaking event, why should the campus allow that if said speaking event exists solely to debase and dehumanize other students? Milo Yiannoplois before his fall spoke at a university in Minnesota where he identified and attacked a trans person who wasn't even in attendance to his event, by name. That person was harassed and attacked until they had to leave the university. That's what these people do, they aren't interested in any kind of intellectual discourse, nor any form of rational debate seeing as they never agree to debate any people that genuinely call them out without bringing a hoard of their ravenous fanbase with them to attack and drag down their opponents.
They are merely interested in the same thing all political hucksters since William Buckley, using conservatism to create enemies that they can exploit financially and damn who they hurt and how much damage they do to other people. A campus is under no legal or moral obligation to allow them to speak within one of their halls, if they wish to use free speech and speak they can do so in a public avenue where people can deride them and call them to task just like everybody else, or they can book a room or venue just like everybody else. You are not entitled to a platform simply because freedom of expression exists, you are merely safe from the government denying you that platform based on their whims. But anybody else can deny you a platform at any time for any demonstrable reason.
These people are not intellectuals, they are hucksters and entertainers masquerading as such while attacking actual intellectuals who have spent time and effort and years of study into these fields. None of the "dark web" crew are experts in these fields and yet they constantly dismiss and deride those that are, why is that? It's because they need that divide, they need to feed their base. At least Joe Rogan is honest that he's nothing more than entertainment. These people's audiences don't want to hear their intellectual ideas, they want drama, they want conflict, they thrive off the otherization these people provide them so that they can attack the others. The voices and bodies change but the bloodthirst does not. You can ask "Sargon" aka Carl of England how that went for him when he realized that the alt-right audience he had crafted only used him to fuel the drama and their hatred of women.
Allowing people a platform to incite hatred and violence is not guaranteed them by a state entity nor the student body attending said entity. To me, Ben Shapiro and his ilk exist in the same intellectual and moral plain as this growing contingent of "radical" anti-intellectual black men that deny the atrocities committed upon the AA community were ever fact because they are ashamed of themselves and their ancestors. Something to be ridiculed, pitied, and not allowed to stand as fact or given a platform in a place of education and knowledge to spew their hate and their lies.
