Isaiah Bradley
Banned
start: 33:57
end: 37:30
thoughts?
end: 37:30
thoughts?
refusing to engage in dialog about something, is in essence true bigotry?
- Thread starter Isaiah Bradley
- Start date
Rubin equates not debating his dumb ass talking points with being afraid....nah, sometimes people don't owe you the time or day for saying dumb shyt
Isaiah Bradley
Banned
but how easy would it be to prove a person wrong with facts and reasoning instead of name calling and being dismissive?
Rubin is disingenuous and uses this inflection point to guilt people into going to his show
Isaiah Bradley
Banned
how does this answer my question?
Isaiah Bradley
Banned
To label a person, you still have to have proof of why they are that label to solidify your view and so that others remain engaged
By conditioning folks into viewing Saddam's presidency as being bad, then anything negative about him, true or false, will be believed and any actions against him would not receive the critical analysis that it deserves
if you were to watch the entire interview I posted, Rubin mentioned being on a panel where an audience member was a holocaust denier, she was allowed to have dialogue with the panel, despite all the panelist disagreeing. He said it was great to see such principles, like freedom of speech, being implemented
BocaRear
The World Is My Country, To Do Good Is My Religion
In certain circumstances there are certain issues that don't deserve to be debated; and rightfully so.
For instance 'the race realists'. Race realism has already been debunked several times, yet there are still people who cling to these ideas.
The problem with these types of ideas is that a lot of the time they aren't worthy of debate because the arguments are not presented in good faith.
These types of 'free speech' arguments , such as the race realist one, almost always serve an ulterior political agenda that intends to muddys the waters of socially acceptable thought and shift the 'overton window'.
The conclusion for these eugencists is genocide or subjugation of those who they consider to be inferior.
What zizek is saying is that it doesn't matter whether who's right or wrong in the debate because of the potential implications of said arguments.
That's not what he's saying. Zizek argues that the argument is not whether Saddam is bad or good.
What's important is what are the implications of going to war with Saddam = continuation of western imperalism ect
She should have been laughed off stage.
You give ideologies like this a platform and you will see the implications of it.
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
two terrible threads at the top of page 1. very bad poster. sad!
Menelik II
I wanna see receipts!
some people arent worth engaging. time is a scarce resource, you have to use it optimally. if someone has already been debated, proven to lie and have a strong specific agenda, then you are wasting your time and actually doing a disservice to free speech.
surely the forfeit for bad ideas in a free speech world is you get ridiculed and no one engages with you again. all ideas are not created equal.
surely the forfeit for bad ideas in a free speech world is you get ridiculed and no one engages with you again. all ideas are not created equal.
:KhaledUSmart::fatherstretchmyhands:
What many of you are failing to realize is that these debates, this discourse is not JUST to the two ppl engaging. These types of conversations aren't happening in a vacuum. Or else why put it on tv/internet, whatever?
By having these debates for ppl to watch you are trying to sway the viewers, not necessarily the person in front of you. By ignoring or refusing to argue points or showing proof and substantiation further weakens your side.
And to just brush it off like "you don't deserve my time to answer you" is pathetic. Why are you even there in the first place? If you know someone is a type of way then you should come prepared or don't come at all. Refusing to engage is weak
By having these debates for ppl to watch you are trying to sway the viewers, not necessarily the person in front of you. By ignoring or refusing to argue points or showing proof and substantiation further weakens your side.
And to just brush it off like "you don't deserve my time to answer you" is pathetic. Why are you even there in the first place? If you know someone is a type of way then you should come prepared or don't come at all. Refusing to engage is weak
Lol, so you one star a thread, just to use that as a point against this thread?
two terrible threads at the top of page 1. very bad poster. sad!
Bruh, you and your ilk that are afraid of engaging in conversation cuz your rebuttals are weak can get the fukk out. One starring and negging is passive aggressive as fukk, but I wouldn't expect any less out of you clowns.
Last edited:
is Bitta your other account? 