| |
Discussion: Atheists & Agnostics Hangout Thread.
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 15,921
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lucas32
There is no such thing as a reasonable SJW. SJWs are extremists and they are no better than extremist on the right. They are perhaps even more dangerous than extremists on the right because everyone sees those people for what they are yet we somehow turn a blind eye to extremist people on the left. People need to understand that most people who speak out against SJWs don't believe that society is perfect or that there are no social inequalities that need to be dicussed. Being anti-SJW does not mean you are anti social justice and I applaud anyone who tries to make a difference regarding real issues and puts their time and effort into that. SJWs are not that.
SJW are are a very particular kind of liberal extremists who are regressive in nature and promote divisiveness in society.They are the type of people who seek for problems that don't exist,find misleading evidence for it and then attack everyone who criticizes them. They are the ones who push people into a victim mentality that does them no favors. They are the type of people who get people fired over jokes. They are the ones who want to get ridd of due process on college campuses. They are the ones who cheer for themselves when they get a speaker blocked from campus effectively going against free speech, possibly the most liberal principle in history. Nobody should be more outspoken against these people than liberals just like nobody should be more outspoken against extremists on the right than conservatives. These people are running amok under the same label you use and the **** they spew inevitably sticks to you as well.
|
Couldn't agree with you more sis! This post is ON POINT.
I am legit cringing at my old SJW-esque tweets from last year and from earlier this year! Nnnn;
Glad you can speak my exact thoughts on this, because I am usually very horrible and expressing myself in English. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/16/2011
Posts: 19,718
|
Quote:
Originally posted by AvrilLaQueen
@Sunshine. but why not make a thread about trans issues that face other parts of the world too? ATRL is free to open any type of news thread, why censor this tragic event that happen in Russia? We should be having a discusion about this and we need to! Because this crime was committed in the name of RELIGION. A system that opresses people and teach them that such crimes are okay and justified to do, in their holy book!
|
I agree things like that should be shared. And I can admit that the article sounded promising from the title "Muslim woman killed..." so I went into it with an open mind. But upon reading it, the article didn't quite carry the punch through to the end.
You shouldn't censor religious overreach, but there are also weak and strong arguments to make. And that article was an especially weak argument where religion and transphobia was concerned. Cause religion wasn't even mentioned after the first paragraph. 
tldr; I don't think that example was thread worthy.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/16/2011
Posts: 19,718
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lucas32
There is no such thing as a reasonable SJW. SJWs are extremists and they are no better than extremist on the right. They are perhaps even more dangerous than extremists on the right because everyone sees those people for what they are yet we somehow turn a blind eye to extremist people on the left. People need to understand that most people who speak out against SJWs don't believe that society is perfect or that there are no social inequalities that need to be dicussed. Being anti-SJW does not mean you are anti social justice and I applaud anyone who tries to make a difference regarding real issues and puts their time and effort into that. SJWs are not that.
[...]
|
Hmm. I almost agree with everything you said except these two points.
Quote:
|
They are the type of people who get people fired over jokes.
|
If you're unperceptive enough to post/say objectionable things and someone makes it a point to inform your employer, whether it be a physical neighbor reporting on your words/behavior, or an online stranger following up on your comments, the only person to blame is the person who made the post.
There's a level of accountability that comes with putting your opinions out there for everyone to digest. And if it's something that doesn't sit well with the school, an employer, or your constituency, it's something you have to answer for.
Quote:
|
They are the ones who cheer for themselves when they get a speaker blocked from campus effectively going against free speech, possibly the most liberal principle in history.
|
This is actually one stop short of actually describing "the most liberal principle in history". If we're being intellectually honest, those speakers are not barred from speaking their minds. They're simply not being provided a specific platform from which to do so. In fact, any protest is actually an exercise of free speech. If you oppose something, you can voice that.
Just had to address those shaky points. But I agree with the rest. Especially the attempt to do away with due process in regard to sexual assault. Some things should be dealt with on an individual case-by-case basis. But I'm also not naïve to think there aren't some large scale systemic issues to work on after Brock Turner's slap on the wrist. It's all about finding balance in the issues.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 30,642
|
May God be with yall. #Prayin4YourSouls #SeeTheLightBeforeItIsTooLate 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/1/2013
Posts: 6,762
|
Quote:
Originally posted by IBeMe
May God be with yall. #Prayin4YourSouls #SeeTheLightBeforeItIsTooLate |
God is hot 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 5,054
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sunshine.
Hmm. I almost agree with everything you said except these two points.
If you're unperceptive enough to post/say objectionable things and someone makes it a point to inform your employer, whether it be a physical neighbor reporting on your words/behavior, or an online stranger following up on your comments, the only person to blame is the person who made the post.
There's a level of accountability that comes with putting your opinions out there for everyone to digest. And if it's something that doesn't sit well with the school, an employer, or your constituency, it's something you have to answer for.
This is actually one stop short of actually describing "the most liberal principle in history". If we're being intellectually honest, those speakers are not barred from speaking their minds. They're simply not being provided a specific platform from which to do so. In fact, any protest is actually an exercise of free speech. If you oppose something, you can voice that.
Just had to address those shaky points. But I agree with the rest. Especially the attempt to do away with due process in regard to sexual assault. Some things should be dealt with on an individual case-by-case basis. But I'm also not naïve to think there aren't some large scale systemic issues to work on after Brock Turner's slap on the wrist. It's all about finding balance in the issues.
|
Exercising a right should never strip someone else of theirs. You can protest but still letting the person speak. When you protest in order to completely block a platform to someone it's extremism.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 15,921
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sunshine.
I agree things like that should be shared. And I can admit that the article sounded promising from the title "Muslim woman killed..." so I went into it with an open mind. But upon reading it, the article didn't quite carry the punch through to the end.
You shouldn't censor religious overreach, but there are also weak and strong arguments to make. And that article was an especially weak argument where religion and transphobia was concerned. Cause religion wasn't even mentioned after the first paragraph.
tldr; I don't think that example was thread worthy. |
I don't understand, what's the problem then? The lack that they mentioned they were muslims who killed transgender woman in the article or? Not sure what's your point, but it doesn't really matter at this point honestly lol
Quote:
Originally posted by Sunshine.
This is actually one stop short of actually describing "the most liberal principle in history". If we're being intellectually honest, those speakers are not barred from speaking their minds. They're simply not being provided a specific platform from which to do so. In fact, any protest is actually an exercise of free speech. If you oppose something, you can voice that.
|
I disagree, when there was a debate about LGBT rights on TV, the gay activist barely had any time to express his opinions without right-wing christians shutting him down, yelling over him and blocking him from saying anything about it. That's not them "protesting their freedom of speech", that's them censoring different point of view. I always wait when I am having a debate with someone to them say whatever opinion they have and have a conversation using strong evidence and arguments against their claims rather than yelling over them and being bigoted unless the person themselfs is being bigoted and arogant to which a point of having an argument is useless. The more stupid their arguments get, the more easy it is for me to beat them in a debate. When I feel confident in myself and my arguments, there's really no need to censor anybody
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/16/2011
Posts: 19,718
|
Quote:
Originally posted by AvrilLaQueen
I don't understand, what's the problem then? The lack that they mentioned they were muslims who killed transgender woman in the article or? Not sure what's your point, but it doesn't really matter at this point honestly lol
|
Basically. I don't think the religious component was as prevalent as just the transphobia part of it. Cause he was killed in Russia after all, which is very against any non-traditional sexual orientation. It's a queerphobia which comes from even the highest levels of government like Putin. You're not safe if you're gay, and you're definitely not safe if you're trans.
So there was just a lot of other factors involved than just Islam—which I don't doubt contributed to the father's views. But it's hard to pin it all down to that one thing, which is why I thought it'd be a hard case to make as a thread. Especially with the hypersensitivity to criticism of Islam.
Quote:
Originally posted by AvrilLaQueen
I disagree, when there was a debate about LGBT rights on TV, the gay activist barely had any time to express his opinions without right-wing christians shutting him down, yelling over him and blocking him from saying anything about it. That's not them "protesting their freedom of speech", that's them censoring different point of view. I always wait when I am having a debate with someone to them say whatever opinion they have and have a conversation using strong evidence and arguments against their claims rather than yelling over them and being bigoted unless the person themselfs is being bigoted and arogant to which a point of having an argument is useless. The more stupid their arguments get, the more easy it is for me to beat them in a debate. When I feel confident in myself and my arguments, there's really no need to censor anybody
|
That's more of an issue of debate etiquette than censorship.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/16/2011
Posts: 19,718
|
Quote:
Originally posted by FBF
Exercising a right should never strip someone else of theirs. You can protest but still letting the person speak. When you protest in order to completely block a platform to someone it's extremism.
|
No.
I was confronted with this real life scenario when a club at my University that leans conservatively invited a speaker who had espoused views that social inequality was a result of the inferiority of black and Latino genes. He had this stuff written in his books as good theory. So he was a textbook racist, in the most traditional sense.
The response by the Black Student Association at my university was that he had no business spouting his racist views at a university that celebrated diversity. So they took it up with the administration and when they didn't budge, they negotiated to have a roped off area outside the building in which he was speaking. where they could protest his views. Some of them also opted to go into the lecture hall and directly challenge his views.
-The Federalist Society inviting him
-The Black Student Association challenging that invitation
-The administration taking both clubs' views into consideration and allowing him to speak anyway but encouraging protest
-Students protesting in the fenced off area
-Students going into his talk and raising hard points against his views
It's all an exercise in free speech.
If he had never been allowed to speak after the BSA challenged his invitation. That too would have been an exercise in free speech.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/16/2011
Posts: 19,718
|
The extremist view of free speech, to me, is that every viewpoint should be heard equally without any challenge or social repercussion. That's actually more policing of opinion than for a group to make a persuasive enough point for the administration or organization to disallow a speaker or point of view in a private venue.
No one has a right to access every platform.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 31,029
|
Quote:
Originally posted by FBF
That sucks.. I liked them they were cool..
|
Quote:
Originally posted by FBF
That sucks.. I liked them they were cool..
|
Quote:
Originally posted by FBF
That sucks.. I liked them they were cool..
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 31,029
|
Everybody should be free to express their opinions without fear of legal repercussions. Having an open market of ideas is how we achieve true progress. Creating safe spaces and suppressing unwanted opinions can only lead to bad results and frankly is totalitarian by its nature. I used to think that supressing hate speech was the right thing to do, until I was called a nazi on here 100 times for no reason and realised that implementing rules against hate speech does indeed create a slippery slope where basically only one idea can survive and all others become inadmissible
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/16/2011
Posts: 19,718
|
Suppressing and challenging are two different concepts.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 31,029
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sunshine.
Suppressing and challenging are two different concepts.
|
Ofc challenging is essential to progress. But challenging has to happen on the marketplace of ideas. When government intervenes and implements fines or jail time for expressing unpopular or unwanted opinions that is just wrong.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/16/2011
Posts: 19,718
|
Oh yeah. That much is a given.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 2,483
|
Hear me out please... There is a God, I can feel it. God is unlike anything and everything we imagine. God is not an individual, human-like, nor a separate entity. God is neither man or woman. God shares no characteristics with us. God is everywhere and anywhere. The grand universe that views us from outside, the large gargantuan mass that exists which contains us and everything else. The universe itself is a manifestation of this deity... the grandeur, the beauty, the way everything exists... The magnificence of our majestic universe is God.
We are all connected, all of us.. humans, animals, and etc. The worst of the worst and the best of the best, the planets, the stars, everything is connected. That is what God is. If God is everywhere, then God is within us too.
I'm NOT a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim... these fairytale religions.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 31,029
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Gary
Hear me out please... There is a God, I can feel it. God is unlike anything and everything we imagine. God is not an individual, human-like, nor a separate entity. God is neither man or woman. God shares no characteristics with us. God is everywhere and anywhere. The grand universe that views us from outside, the large gargantuan mass that exists which contains us and everything else. The universe itself is a manifestation of this deity... the grandeur, the beauty, the way everything exists... The magnificence of our majestic universe is God.
We are all connected, all of us.. humans, animals, and etc. The worst of the worst and the best of the best, the planets, the stars, everything is connected. That is what God is. If God is everywhere, then God is within us too.
I'm NOT a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim... these fairytale religions.
|
What you just described is called Pantheism and that is a fully acceptable notion. Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking thought the same way.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 5,054
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ecstasy
|
I don't know if you're a she or a he sis
Welcome back ! 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 5,054
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sunshine.
No.
I was confronted with this real life scenario when a club at my University that leans conservatively invited a speaker who had espoused views that social inequality was a result of the inferiority of black and Latino genes. He had this stuff written in his books as good theory. So he was a textbook racist, in the most traditional sense.
The response by the Black Student Association at my university was that he had no business spouting his racist views at a university that celebrated diversity. So they took it up with the administration and when they didn't budge, they negotiated to have a roped off area outside the building in which he was speaking. where they could protest his views. Some of them also opted to go into the lecture hall and directly challenge his views.
-The Federalist Society inviting him
-The Black Student Association challenging that invitation
-The administration taking both clubs' views into consideration and allowing him to speak anyway but encouraging protest
-Students protesting in the fenced off area
-Students going into his talk and raising hard points against his views
It's all an exercise in free speech.
If he had never been allowed to speak after the BSA challenged his invitation. That too would have been an exercise in free speech.
|
The fact is, every opinion is allowed technically as disgusting as they are it's the truth. Of course I can't counter your example because racism won't ever be accepted and thankfully. But what you have experienced like 30 years ago could've very well been a homosexual activist trying to speak out and an association trying and successfully blocking them would've been free speech as well ?
Every opinion should be able to be expressed imo, then people will choose to listen or to not listen
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 31,029
|
Quote:
Originally posted by FBF
The fact is, every opinion is allowed technically as disgusting as they are it's the truth. Of course I can't counter your example because racism won't ever be accepted and thankfully. But what you have experienced like 30 years ago could've very well been a homosexual activist trying to speak out and an association trying and successfully blocking them would've been free speech as well ?
Every opinion should be able to be expressed imo, then people will choose to listen or to not listen |
MTE Queen. Literally every victory for social equality was gained thanks to free speech. You're not a christian. If you really think that you are correct then somebody questioning your stance will only give you an opportunity to gain an upper hand. It reminds me of how Catholic church would respond to atheists by calling them "heretics" and burning them. Today's version is calling somebody a racist/phobic and just screaming so loud that they can't ever be heard. A racist man mumbling racist nonsense being countered with actual logic as all racists and homophobic arguments usually get, will only make your position stronger and theirs weaker. By denying them the opportunity to speak, you deny yourself the opportunity to get the upper hand. So what did those students in college want to do? Lock themselves up in that university forever? Go through life as if racism and racists don't exist? Thats not how the world works
|
|
|
|
|
|
