Originally posted by SurturThen you don't want a discussion. 👇
No I don't think you follow, but allow me to enlighten you I do not mind: I wanted a discussion, but I did not set out to change the hearts and minds of people who disagree with me.
noun
1.
an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate.
Or do you not view what you've suggest as a solution to be explored?
Holy shit how is this difficult? I wanted to discuss something, but I wasn't going to be trying to persuade people they are wrong if they disagree.
People could post why they feel these have a place or why they don't. You see if someone thinks these courses are a good idea then I feel I couldn't say anything to dissuade that notion.
Yes. If a university sees fit to create a course, and there's no good reason against it, why shouldn't the course exist?
If you don't like a course and you're a student, drop it. Unless it's dangerous in some way (let's say hypothetically a course existed which was either radicalizing Muslim students, or instilling Neo-Nazi values, that I think would be worth axing) just don't take the course and let other students who are interested take it.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yes. If a university sees fit to create a course, and there's no good reason against it, why shouldn't the course exist?If you don't like a course and you're a student, drop it. Unless it's dangerous in some way (let's say hypothetically a course existed which was either radicalizing Muslim students, or instilling Neo-Nazi values, that I think would be worth axing) just don't take the course and let other students who are interested take it.
I respect that view, I just wish some college kids took your "if you don't like a course, drop it" logic and used it in other aspects of life when it comes to things they don't like, you know?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
No, I'm not sure what you mean.
Let me explain: you know the Triggering going on, right? Milo Yiannopoulos and others touring colleges? These aren't required classes or anything, these are lectures the kids attend just to whine about the people lecturing.
So I just wish if they didn't like it they just wouldn't attend. So just like your very common sense approach to "if you don't like a course drop it" well, if you don't like a speaker don't go to their lectures. If you don't like a certain book or tv show, don't read it. You don't like a certain youtuber don't watch their videos, etc etc.
I'm sure you could get on board with that, right? These people don't rule the world, they don't make policies, they just go around sharing opinions and these kids can't handle it. But instead they show up to shout at these people and then end up getting utterly dominated because the lecturers actually are educated beyond social justice courses and know what they are talking about while all these kids know how to do is shout "racist" or "misogynist" a bunch of times.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think I agree, but only because throwing insults and being disruptive only appears to validate pseudo-intellectuals like Yiannopolous while they impart their hateful drivel.
They actually validate themselves just fine with facts. The whiny kids just set themselves up to get wtf owned by people more intelligent then them.
But can you just give me an example of hateful drivel he has put out? He certainly dislikes feminists who spout bullshit and misrepresent facts I will give you that, but then shouldn't we all dislike people who do that?
EDIT: I see you edited out the hateful part, may I ask why? Is it that you don't actually believe he is hateful?
It's difficult because you have very different values and will probably dismiss any example I provide, but basically his problem is that he encourages the myth that white men are somehow disadvantaged in modern society, and by this attempts to blot out the actual disadvantages to women and minorities. The reason this is harmful is that if enough gullible white men believe it instead of doing their part in correcting socieity's inequities they'll just double down, leading to more strife and inequality.
He also says ridiculous things about homosexuality such as it being a "choice" (when there's no evidence that this is the case).
Oh yeah, and he claims the Jews control everything, which is such a refreshing statement that couldn't have been the cornerstone of European bigotry for the last three hundred years...
In sum: the guy's just a troll masquerading as someone with legitimate points, whose only directive is to stir up trouble and fight the perceived "oppression" of liberalism and progressivism.
So a gay man saying he believes homosexuality is a choice is hateful? He actually doesn't blot out disadvantages to women and minorities, he blots out the bullshit of how extreme people say these disadvantages are.
He also provides facts for the stuff he says though. Perhaps not for the Jew thing I've never heard that, but 99% of the stuff you talk about he gives facts and stats.
If you watch him go up against feminists or anything on one side its: personal anecdote, personal anecdote, personal anecdote. On his side it's: fact, fact, fact.
In other words doesn't he counter the utter harm feminists and others do by spouting these untrue things about how disadvantaged they are, etc.? Someone needs to step up and say: hey, there is no rape culture. hey, there is no war on women. hey, there is no wage gap. hey, men face disadvantages as well, it's not just females.
Also how does he "masquerade" as someone with legit points? You don't think he makes a bunch of legit points? He does troll people, it's essentially his job lol. I'm serious, he calls himself a professional provocateur.
Him being gay doesn't make it okay to say incorrect things about homosexuality.
You're absolutely wrong there, he made a scholarship fund for white men (poor white men, granted) with the reasoning being that they could compete on equal footing with minorities and women, as if minorities and women are somehow advantaged. I know you like to believe that as a white man you're somehow oppressed, but twisting facts don't change reality.
Somehow I don't believe that, but I don't really have an interest in watching his debates so I'll take your word for it.
As for the comments on jews, look it up, and then do your best to spin that to his advantage.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Him being gay doesn't make it okay to say incorrect things about homosexuality.
It doesn't make it hateful. He is gay and he believes it is a choice.
You're absolutely wrong there, he made a scholarship fund for white men (poor white men, granted) with the reasoning being that they could compete on equal footing with minorities and women, as if minorities and women are somehow advantaged.
Lol but again he points out FACTS for why he believes these things. You need to look up why he believes this and then you need to basically look at the facts he lists as to why he believes it. He doesn't just go "white men are so oppressed".
As for the scholarship, as I understand it was meant to make some kind of point? Since we have scholarships for specifically minorities and women and all this shit. Again: professional provocateur man. It doesn't make it right or wrong.
I know you like to believe that as a white man you're somehow oppressed, but twisting facts don't change reality.
Can you name a fact he has twisted? It's almost like you don't like that he uses facts to back up his arguments.
Somehow I don't believe that, but I don't really have an interest in watching his debates so I'll take your word for it.
But it's true: the dude is always citing studies and facts, etc. for the shit he says. Then the feminists just either ignore it or say "no". If you haven't watched any of his debates or anything then it's weird for you to say he twists facts and masquerades as someone with legit points.
As for the comments on jews, look it up, and then do your best to spin that to his advantage.
I don't need to spin it: he is a professional troll. That is not a joke or an insult, it's what he considers himself. He uses the word "provocateur" but that is just a troll lol. The thing is trolls aren't always wrong. The thing is some people need to be trolled. I can give you a perfect example close to home: you remember Star, right? Yeah, someone like that pretty much needs to be trolled.
As for the Jew thing like I said I don't need to spin it: either he has actual facts backing up his statement(I think a lot of jews own businesses or whatever? I dunno) or he is just saying shit like that to piss people off because he should be able to say whatever he wants without people freaking out. I'd like to see why he said the Jew thing before I judge it.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's difficult because you have very different values and will probably dismiss any example I provide, but basically his problem is that he encourages the myth that white men are somehow disadvantaged in modern society, and by this attempts to blot out the actual disadvantages to women and minorities. The reason this is harmful is that if enough gullible white men believe it instead of doing their part in correcting socieity's inequities they'll just double down, leading to more strife and inequality.He also says ridiculous things about homosexuality such as it being a "choice" (when there's no evidence that this is the case).
Oh yeah, and he claims the Jews control everything, which is such a refreshing statement that couldn't have been the cornerstone of European bigotry for the last three hundred years...
In sum: the guy's just a troll masquerading as someone with legitimate points, whose only directive is to stir up trouble and fight the perceived "oppression" of liberalism and progressivism.
How do you live in America and not believe in the jewish conspiracy?
Lol okay so here is what he said about jews:
Do Jews run a lot of the banks? Do Jews have a whole f*ckton of media control? Serious question. Is he wrong when he says they disproportionately run a lot of the banks and the media?
You acted like he said "grr those damn dirty Jew bastards controlling the world". Since I'm pretty sure the thing about the banks is actually true, right?
Originally posted by SurturBut it's true: the dude is always citing studies and facts, etc. for the shit he says. Then the feminists just either ignore it or say "no". If you haven't watched any of his debates or anything then it's weird for you to say he twists facts and masquerades as someone with legit points.
watch?v=8yDHK0x2j80
Basically the dance with liberals goes like that:
Cultural Libertarian: ''Here are the facts, do you disagree with them?"
Liberal: "Yes, well, uhhh... I need to go now. I think my mom calls me."
Exactly, on one side people just talk from the heart and about their feelings and on the other side people use facts.
It's like when Ben Shapiro owned the black lives matter movement. He spouted fact after fact and all they could do is just kind of smile and shake their heads. They couldn't REFUTE any of it. When they attempt to try they end up saying stupid things because they legitimately aren't used to having people bring up facts.
I think that is the heart of the issue: some people come at these issues with their hearts instead of their heads. They let the way they believe the world is prevent them from seeing the way the world actually is.
You can look at things like the rape culture. Why are people so quick to believe this? When we really think about it..it makes no actual sense for a person in this country to believe a majority of the time we react to rape with either indifference or immediate disbelief. It makes NO SENSE and yet people believe it because they also believe the notion that women are just so horribly oppressed in this country so thus they are ready to believe nobody gives a shit about rape because if we don't give a shit about women in general why would we care if they are raped? When the people trying to put the end to these utterly false narratives are seen as the bad guys then there is a serious problem.
I mean Omega no offense but..you believed in the rape culture, and one of the reasons is you said you know some men like that who are all rapey or whatever. So it was personal anecdote versus facts.
Any kind of class that teaches tolerance is imo, a good thing. Anything that encourages racism or sexism though, no. Bad. If they want to put on social justice classes? Cool. Just don't make them mandatory.
Milo amuses. I don't agree with everything he says, but when he's right, he's right, and it's great to have someone that, as he says himself "doesn't have a dog in the race".
Originally posted by -Pr-
Any kind of class that teaches tolerance is imo, a good thing. Anything that encourages racism or sexism though, no. Bad. If they want to put on social justice classes? Cool. Just don't make them mandatory.Milo amuses. I don't agree with everything he says, but when he's right, he's right, and it's great to have someone that, as he says himself "doesn't have a dog in the race".
PR the problem is in theory they teach tolerance, but in practice it is sometimes the opposite. For example we have these gender studies classes for women. Can I ask you what you would think would be more likely for one to experience in such a class: discussions about how the rape culture isn't a thing, backed up with facts and studies, etc. or..the victim card being played with the rape culture being played up as very very much a thing that exists. I can't help but wonder how many females are legitimately scared of going to college because they mistakenly believe men are just waiting in the wings to just pop out and rape them.
I think we both know which narrative we're more likely to find in such a class. I guess that is not exactly the opposite of tolerance, since it's not exactly intolerance but ignorance. But then again it could be intolerance since the things they don't want to tolerate are..the truth lol.
It scares me the vitrol people spew not at hate speech, but at facts.
Originally posted by Surtur
I mean Omega no offense but..you believed in the rape culture, and one of the reasons is you said you know some men like that who are all rapey or whatever. So it was personal anecdote versus facts.
What they cannot bear is facts and figures. And when you mix facts and figures with some provocative and funny language, they are doomed.
Originally posted by Surtur
PR the problem is in theory they teach tolerance, but in practice it is sometimes the opposite. For example we have these gender studies classes for women. Can I ask you what you would think would be more likely for one to experience in such a class: discussions about how the rape culture isn't a thing, backed up with facts and studies, etc. or..the victim card being played with the rape culture being played up as very very much a thing that exists. I can't help but wonder how many females are legitimately scared of going to college because they mistakenly believe men are just waiting in the wings to just pop out and rape them.I think we both know which narrative we're more likely to find in such a class. I guess that is not exactly the opposite of tolerance, since it's not exactly intolerance but ignorance. But then again it could be intolerance since the things they don't want to tolerate are..the truth lol.
It scares me the vitrol people spew not at hate speech, but at facts.
shrug
A private college can offer classes in whatever it wants. Whether they should or shouldn't is up for debate, sure, but until the people running shit accept some truths that they currently don't seem willing to, classes like this are the least of people's worries.