Search results

Back on my former ethics tutor Glen Newey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_Newey https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/may/18/research.highereducation

Is it really such a paradigm shift though? It's not like we really believe that every other politician tells the truth? It's his disdain for keeping up the pretence that's the problem right? Echoing vimothy's recent thoughts, isn't he just disrespecting institutions that aren't really...

Apologies if this has been posted before: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

The interpretation I get from the above is that this 'rise of populism' couldn't have happened if it wasn't for safe spaces. Even if that was true, I'd personally be more inclined to hold the actual populists responsible but I find it really hard to believe. Populists definitely snack on this...

Yeah I understood you were not going to engage over a prolonged period, but I thought the article was a good example of someone doing pretty much exactly what they think they're attacking. And no, I don't think the charge of being pernickety has any substance whatsoever.

And his son became that cunt Toby Young.

Well...... So without going on a full-analysis thousand word think-piece.....Melhuish is not defining hate-speech, implicitly or explicitly, as an opinion she disagrees with. I think the article goes wrong here (weasel word bolded by me): When you see the word 'essentially', then like...

I think there's a possible argument to be had around whether, for example, Germaine Greer is guilty of 'hate speech' against trans people - but even if you think it isn't, that doesn't mean you necessarily get to legitimately accuse those who think it is as defining 'hate crime' as 'whatever...

How often does this (the dishonest, presumably implicit, definition of 'hate speech', or something similar) actually happen? In what contexts does it happen? How do you know when this has happened? Is it actually significant? Or to put in another, perhaps simpler, way - when do I get to tell a...

328 words. Talking. About a stuck record.

Fair enough I suppose, but I can't really get behind such an extreme line of thinking, and find it really hard to imagine wanting to fight for it. And no platforming is a form of deciding who you don't want that group. This is the thing I find weird. Apparently you have to be against free...

I pointed out that Tea's rhetoric had basically become a set of Breitbart talking points, and he responded with something like 'Yeah, I am basically Hitler' - which is another stock Alt-Right response. I mean yeah, his schtick is probably more Toby Young than Milo but it's a slippery slope -...

I didn't mean to imply that there are infact no examples of "no platforming (being) used and justified in this way", but I think it is much better form to point out the specifics rather than indulge in dishonest lost performatives and universal quantifiers like "The *entire* reasoning behind...

You do jump from argument to argument pretty fast, as Luka has pointed out, but even this is technically wrong - their voice was never in that particular debate to begin with, so it hasn't been silenced per se. This may seem pedantic....ok it is quite pedantic, but when you're going to make...

Admitting metaphorically conflating structural oppression with violence is an odd move given your previous stance, but I wasn't setting the bar quite that high funnily enough. Can you actually answer the question? In relation to the other point......christ....let's say you....well not you...

Has it occurred to you that there might be a reason for this?

I don't think that's pedantic when the nature of structural oppression and liberty are at the heart of the matter, it's an important philosophical point actually (one that should be important to you, given your thoughts on the primacy of physical violence over other types of oppression). The...

Well I don't think I'm exaggerating that much if at all. I don't honestly think either of them addressed eachother's arguments in any real way, and if this is all that can be expected from 'these things' then I am not sure why anyone would consider them worthy of such reverence.

I actually sat through Milo and Bindel having a debate with eachother; 'Is Feminism Cancer?' - plenty they could have disagreed and debated on, they spent 95% of the time telling eachother how right they are on what they agreed upon. Strange.

Yes that's true (though they never argued against the former point), but you've cherry-picked what is almost certainly the weakest point of what they've written, and it's not a point that the rest of their views particularly rely upon.