French government denounces American Woke Left

[SD_Film Artists]

That sounds like a pretty negligable difference especially in the way that it's being presented with 'facism' in the title rather than simply saying 'during WW2 the British used tanks, and facists used tanks'.



Yes, like defending free speech. It's a great irony that Antifa types are supporting all the tools needed to create a fascist government; such as free speech being a privilage rather than a right.

No, not really.

Amazing how these people only care about free speech when they can no longer attack others for being gay, or trans, or what have you.

Because there's so many left-wing free speech marches happening.

Also I still don't see how that article is anything else than an attempt to equate the government with fascists. I mean, if it wasn't about that then would you and Vass even bother posting it?

[Celritannia]

No, not really.

Amazing how these people only care about free speech when they can no longer attack others for being gay, or trans, or what have you.

Because there's so many left-wing free speech marches happening.

But people should be able to attack others for their race, sexual orientation, etc?

[Vassenor]

No, not really.

Amazing how these people only care about free speech when they can no longer attack others for being gay, or trans, or what have you.

Because there's so many left-wing free speech marches happening.

Also I still don't see how that article is anything else than an attempt to equate the government with fascists. I mean, if it wasn't about that then would you and Vass even bother posting it?

And the rightist conception of free speech seems to revolve entirely around whether they can attack minority groups.

[Nilokeras]

Because there's so many left-wing free speech marches happening.

Also I still don't see how that article is anything else than an attempt to equate the government with fascists. I mean, if it wasn't about that then would you and Vass even bother posting it?

And the rightist conception of free speech seems to revolve entirely around whether they can attack minority groups.

Now let's be fair, that's not all of what they demand.

They also consider that ensuring pundits, New York Times columnists and professors keep their job no matter how many grad students or assistants they assault of vital importance.

[Vassenor]

And the rightist conception of free speech seems to revolve entirely around whether they can attack minority groups.

Now let's be fair, that's not all of what they demand.

They also consider that ensuring pundits, New York Times columnists and professors keep their job no matter how many grad students or assistants they assault of vital importance.

While also insisting that anyone who criticises Trump or Johnson or others be immediately fired.

[Proctopeo]

No, not really.

Amazing how these people only care about free speech when they can no longer attack others for being gay, or trans, or what have you.

Because there's so many left-wing free speech marches happening.

they're actively supportive of most attacks on free speech, but don't tell nobody

[SD_Film Artists]

Because there's so many left-wing free speech marches happening.

But people should be able to attack others for their race, sexual orientation, etc?

Because there's so many left-wing free speech marches happening.

Also I still don't see how that article is anything else than an attempt to equate the government with fascists. I mean, if it wasn't about that then would you and Vass even bother posting it?

And the rightist conception of free speech seems to revolve entirely around whether they can attack minority groups.

And by 'attack' you mean incite violence or saying a joke which may possibly offend someone, as free speech advocates generally don't support the former. And even if some right-wing types do get to say their jokes, that's a pretty small price to pay for removing government control on speech- something which the yale professor supposedly supports.

[Yawkland]

If they really want to be ballsy, criticize the neoliberal globalized capitalist system the woke left simps for. Call NATO the arm of financial imperialism that it is and promote a French identity based on agrarianism, patriarchy, and the Church.

[Celritannia]

Because there's so many left-wing free speech marches happening.

they're actively supportive of most attacks on free speech, but don't tell nobody

Wow, so you have barley engaged with me on here, and already think you know what I stand for, that's quite laughable.

[The Lone Alliance]

Now let's be fair, that's not all of what they demand.

They also consider that ensuring pundits, New York Times columnists and professors keep their job no matter how many grad students or assistants they assault of vital importance.

What are you even talking about?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Because there's so many left-wing free speech marches happening.

they're actively supportive of most attacks on free speech, but don't tell nobody

"Most" attacks on free speech go entirely un-noticed, by left or right. They're actually required by Terms of Service and the laws of most countries.

If I started promoting a special skin-whitening pill that hardly costs anything but might be a bit toxic, and I persisted doing that with animated gifs and links to audiovisual and sites where you can buy a big pack of the pills for just one credit card ... how many threads would I have to post that in before you ran to the mods?

No, it's only when some right wing troll whose political free speech gets terminated for sullying the brand of the platform it was on, that you get all "my freedom to consume whatever I want for free" is so grievously infringed. You don't actually care about them, you only care about their "right" to troll people you don't like.

There are limits on all sides, to free speech. Free speech in principle, is NEVER implemented in practice. You should probably have spoken up when extreme trolling and personal threats on the internet were forbidden by law, because platforms and publishers have applied a much stricter standard of what is "newsworthy" way ahead of the law. You're trying to fight last century's battles, and it's sad to see. You lost. Before you were even born.

[Parxland]

they're actively supportive of most attacks on free speech, but don't tell nobody

"Most" attacks on free speech go entirely un-noticed, by left or right. They're actually required by Terms of Service and the laws of most countries.

If I started promoting a special skin-whitening pill that hardly costs anything but might be a bit toxic, and I persisted doing that with animated gifs and links to audiovisual and sites where you can buy a big pack of the pills for just one credit card ... how many threads would I have to post that in before you ran to the mods?

No, it's only when some right wing troll whose political free speech gets terminated for sullying the brand of the platform it was on, that you get all "my freedom to consume whatever I want for free" is so grievously infringed. You don't actually care about them, you only care about their "right" to troll people you don't like.

There are limits on all sides, to free speech. Free speech in principle, is NEVER implemented in practice. You should probably have spoken up when extreme trolling and personal threats on the internet were forbidden by law, because platforms and publishers have applied a much stricter standard of what is "newsworthy" way ahead of the law. You're trying to fight last century's battles, and it's sad to see. You lost. Before you were even born.

Well worded, good sir.

[The Reformed American Republic]

they're actively supportive of most attacks on free speech, but don't tell nobody

"Most" attacks on free speech go entirely un-noticed, by left or right. They're actually required by Terms of Service and the laws of most countries.

If I started promoting a special skin-whitening pill that hardly costs anything but might be a bit toxic, and I persisted doing that with animated gifs and links to audiovisual and sites where you can buy a big pack of the pills for just one credit card ... how many threads would I have to post that in before you ran to the mods?

No, it's only when some right wing troll whose political free speech gets terminated for sullying the brand of the platform it was on, that you get all "my freedom to consume whatever I want for free" is so grievously infringed. You don't actually care about them, you only care about their "right" to troll people you don't like.

There are limits on all sides, to free speech. Free speech in principle, is NEVER implemented in practice. You should probably have spoken up when extreme trolling and personal threats on the internet were forbidden by law, because platforms and publishers have applied a much stricter standard of what is "newsworthy" way ahead of the law. You're trying to fight last century's battles, and it's sad to see. You lost. Before you were even born.

I'm pretty anti-woke, but a lot of times the "free speech" crowd is more like the "let me be the biggest lowlife I can possibly be on the internet and God forbid I suffer repercussions as a result." Not every free speech absolutest is like that, but many of them are, with a paper thin commitment to free speech anyway, turning against it when their political enemies say something. Obviously certain things shouldn't be censored just because they're not the most politically correct by left-wing standards, but free speech should not be absolute. People shouldn't be forced to be ultra-woke, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be lines drawn.

With that being said, being a bit controversial should not be worthy of an instant firing unless they're like an actual Nazi or something. They're aught to be more of a backbone against Twitter mobs.

[United Chinese Communes]

With that being said, being a bit controversial should not be worthy of an instant firing unless they're like an actual Nazi or something. They're aught to be more of a backbone against Twitter mobs.

The thing is, I'm not so sure that the dreaded Twitter mob is really as terrible and powerful as the 'anti-cancel culture' crowd would have you believe. What can they do to force a company to fire someone? If a company decides that they don't want to work with someone because of their controversial opinions, should they have to? And as for claims that cancelling ruins people's lives, I haven't been able to find any concrete examples of this occurring. Often, the 'cancelled' person does quite well for themselves by endlessly complaining about how they were cancelled. They get book deals and appearances in (usually right-wing) media and the like, and often seem to be doing better financially than they were before the cancelling.

[The Reformed American Republic]

With that being said, being a bit controversial should not be worthy of an instant firing unless they're like an actual Nazi or something. They're aught to be more of a backbone against Twitter mobs.

The thing is, I'm not so sure that the dreaded Twitter mob is really as terrible and powerful as the 'anti-cancel culture' crowd would have you believe. What can they do to force a company to fire someone? If a company decides that they don't want to work with someone because of their controversial opinions, should they have to? And as for claims that cancelling ruins people's lives, I haven't been able to find any concrete examples of this occurring. Often, the 'cancelled' person does quite well for themselves by endlessly complaining about how they were cancelled. They get book deals and appearances in (usually right-wing) media and the like, and often seem to be doing better financially than they were before the cancelling.

Kind of funny seeing a communist take a free market position. Look, most of that post was against right wing dramatics, but yes, there are people "cancelled" for the wrong reasons. I don't care if their lives are permanently ruined or not. There are cases of people being too sensitive to things like old comments and the like, and I'm not one who likes to empower corporations as guardians of the truth and justice.

[United Chinese Communes]

The thing is, I'm not so sure that the dreaded Twitter mob is really as terrible and powerful as the 'anti-cancel culture' crowd would have you believe. What can they do to force a company to fire someone? If a company decides that they don't want to work with someone because of their controversial opinions, should they have to? And as for claims that cancelling ruins people's lives, I haven't been able to find any concrete examples of this occurring. Often, the 'cancelled' person does quite well for themselves by endlessly complaining about how they were cancelled. They get book deals and appearances in (usually right-wing) media and the like, and often seem to be doing better financially than they were before the cancelling.

Kind of funny seeing a communist take a free market position. Look, most of that post was against right wing dramatics, but yes, there are people "cancelled" for the wrong reasons. I don't care if their lives are permanently ruined or not. There are cases of people being too sensitive to things like old comments and the like, and I'm not one who likes to empower corporations as guardians of the truth and justice.

Well, I certainly am no fan of corporations, but given that they exist within our extant system, I would still afford them (or rather the people that they are composed of) the freedom to associate themselves with who they please. You are right of course that many 'free speech absolutists' are really looking to shield themselves and their opinions from criticism which they decry as 'censorship'. Freedom of speech is important, but so is the freedom to criticise that speech, ideally in a constructive manner that will result in improvement.

[Fahran]

While also insisting that anyone who criticises Trump or Johnson or others be immediately fired.

Nobody has suggested anything similar to that, largely because that would mean firing most of our professors. I have no interest in suppressing criticism of right-wing viewpoints. I find it important for the same reason that I find allowing criticism of left-wing viewpoints important. It allows us to more rigorously pursue truth through debate, discourse, and presentation of evidence. Harassing people should still be punishable and pushing complete nonsense should still damage people's credibility.

[Celritannia]

While also insisting that anyone who criticises Trump or Johnson or others be immediately fired.

Nobody has suggested anything similar to that, largely because that would mean firing most of our professors. I have no interest in suppressing criticism of right-wing viewpoints. I find it important for the same reason that I find allowing criticism of left-wing viewpoints important. It allows us to more rigorously pursue truth through debate, discourse, and presentation of evidence. Harassing people should still be punishable and pushing complete nonsense should still damage people's credibility.

CRITICISE EVERYTHING!

[Ostroeuropa]

Compare your evaluation of me to the Covington kids incident dude.

Deflection. We are talking about you, not complaints about 'many leftists' you found on Reddit.

You are reading far too much into this.

This is a pattern of behaviour that's repeated itself across this thread many times. It's obvious to anyone paying attention.

No dude, it's not a deflection, and it's not about reddit. I'm pointing out to you that this whole "You're being ensnared by false information into a hate movement" thing was prominent enough on the left to impact several major news organizations into an anti-white shitshow and impacted basically all of the woke types. And it took *months* for most of them to admit that incident was nonsense. *Some still don't*.

So in terms of scale and "Being brainwashed" by a hate movement, I really don't think you have much of a leg to stand on. Especially as this *impacted major institutions and actually targetted individuals with death threats* rather than merely resulted in a comment on a forum which was then retracted.

And you still fail to understand my point about vigilance. You remind me of the observation, often apt, about how people who think of themselves as "Logical" as though it's a personality trait are often anything but because they don't actually keep their own biases in check.


You strike me as someone who thinks "My opinions are well founded and researched.". Probably because you are a Marxist.

I don't think that.

I think "This opinion is well founded and researched" and "This one isn't". I hold some opinions strongly, and others less strongly. This is normal behavior. As I pointed out to you, when evidence is provided that should change my opinion, it changes. Because you view "Well researched" as an essentialist quality and personality trait, this has caused you to assume my entire worldview is poorly researched. It suggests that even your most baseless opinions will be held by you until the heat death of the universe no matter how much evidence stacks up against them, because so long as you have some well researched opinons and view it as a quality of your identity that informs your *entire* worldview, you will falsely ascribe a strength of evidence to those opinions they do not deserve.

Meanwhile, i'm free to change opinions that don't actually matter all that much to me. As i said to you, you don't seem willing to consider what it might say about my views that when confronted with evidence on this point, I conceded, yet I *don't* concede on other points.

Frankly, i'll take criticism of my overall epistemelogical method from someone who demonstrates they know more about a topic I care about than I do. Otherwise i'm quite comfortable continuing to be more well informed than most people on mens issues and the like.

[Cultural Posadism]

When?

When people stopped falling back on their fainting couches because of interracial dating, marriage, and children. If people were still just as racist today as they were back then, then the conditions for such things shouldn't be able to happen.

That's not a useful answer. Do you have a specific time period? With approximate dates? And how did you measure the whole "people stopped seeing race" thing?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Nobody has suggested anything similar to that, largely because that would mean firing most of our professors. I have no interest in suppressing criticism of right-wing viewpoints. I find it important for the same reason that I find allowing criticism of left-wing viewpoints important. It allows us to more rigorously pursue truth through debate, discourse, and presentation of evidence. Harassing people should still be punishable and pushing complete nonsense should still damage people's credibility.

CRITISIE EVERYTHING!

I sense a trap. But no, I am not and nor ever have been a member of the Grammar Nazis.

But all caps? Is that really nece--

[Kowani]

Nobody has suggested anything similar to that, largely because that would mean firing most of our professors. I have no interest in suppressing criticism of right-wing viewpoints. I find it important for the same reason that I find allowing criticism of left-wing viewpoints important. It allows us to more rigorously pursue truth through debate, discourse, and presentation of evidence. Harassing people should still be punishable and pushing complete nonsense should still damage people's credibility.

CRITISIE EVERYTHING!

critique number 1: typo

[The Lone Alliance]

When people stopped falling back on their fainting couches because of interracial dating, marriage, and children. If people were still just as racist today as they were back then, then the conditions for such things shouldn't be able to happen.

That's not a useful answer.

When is anything on here actually useful?

Do you have a specific time period? With approximate dates?

When the post Civil Rights era generation grew up.
https://www.pewresearch.org/2010/02/01/ ... -marriage/

And how did you measure the whole "people stopped seeing race" thing?

I didn't mean people stopped seeing race I'm saying people stopped seeing race as the sole deciding quality of a person. To look beyond the one dimensional thinking of race.
Which apparently was too complicated for the idiots of today because it looks like people are going back to thinking that way.

[Fahran]

CRITISIE EVERYTHING!

Well, yes. It encourages the development of more robust thought. If your paradigm has never been seriously challenged, you're going to have an extremely hard time defending it when push comes to shove - even against intellectual pygmies. I don't think students should have to hear "black people are dumb" or "being gay is a choice" on a daily basis, but I do think discussing those ideas and, importantly, how to refute them and why they're incorrect is exceedingly important. And it's even more important when the issue in question is still a controversial or unsettled one out in society itself or even within academia.

[Fahran]

critique number 1: typo

RIP