@Lethologica
"So if your only point of comparison between bb and hitler is that neither of them was a patron saint of never being offended, congratu-fucking-lations, but it doesn't make bb's position fascist in any way, shape or form."
Um... no. That's wrong. Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Hitler: any contrary ideas that they were able to squash, they did. They got offended. Their ideologies questioned.
The problem here is that: President's can get offended. Monarchs can get offended/ So why did I choose Fascism??? Why: because they have a long history of using specifically censorship to shut down ideas. Ever since 1984 was published, there has been an undeniable link between censorship/thought control and Fascism.
It's become a fascism standard.
"I never thought I would see a conservative arguing from a position of total moral subjectivity, but here we fucking are"
that's interesting that you are grouping me in with conservatives.
"More to the point, though, once again we see that the only thing in common here is that each person has a nonzero number of things they consider hateful crap."
ok... people hate some opinions. We're on the same page.
"Making insulting/degrading remarks towards LGBT" and "Being a Jew" are not similar things"
I'm not sure we're on the wavelength.
BB is proLGBT, and is against people who disagree with him, by his own standards
Hitler is proNazi, and is against people who disagree with him-JEWS- by his owns standards.
you're mixing a state of being, with a certain specific attack, and I find that weird, and I think there's something that you're trying to same I'm not catching on to.
", and the responses proposed are again completely different."
not in terms of censorship. In that way it was the same. I'll concede that later he said
"Im not calling for a federal ban on rebel flags. Im calling for a society that shames people who wave them to be as deploarable as waving nazi flags. Shun"
so since our original argument he's made it CLEAR that he's purely calling for it by society, not government. He never specified earlier, which is why we got into this argument. Now he and I aren't arguing... but you are arguing for him. I have no problem with him now. He's cleared up what he said. I'm fine with that. It was his initial statements I disagreed with, and I'm not even sure you're defending those.
"So unless you're arguing that having something one considers hateful crap is a particularly fascist position"
no i'm not. I'm saying the RESPONSE: CENSORSHIP, is a trademark fascist tool. Once again, in all recent literature, fascist has an inexorable link the censoring. I don't know how you can deny this.
PS I am not saying BB wants to kill anti-LGBT people like Hitler wanted to kill his opposition: Hitler took extra steps, but the initial phase for both: burn books, or deem hate speech, is the same devaluing of ideas based off personal standards. I REPEAT BB has made his position more clear, and now I agree with him and what's he is saying. I don't know who you're arguing for.
"You must have a really fucking weird definition of "molding fascism". In terms of slippery slopes, you're taking us up One WTC and comparing bb's moving a single step down to falling off the goddamn building. Or not even that--you're looking at bb from across the room and saying that because his side of the building is an inch lower that he basically wants to jump off."
once again, BB has made it clear that he only wants a social shunning. Earlier when he hadn't specified that he did NOT want a legal shun, I argued with him. A LEGAL step down creates something called a Precedent. This is when I proposed my argument, that we are seeing the slippery slope occur already on Campuses. The CAMPUS ARGUMENT WAS NOT AGAINST BRAINBOMB. I said the initial moral argument of Brainbomb, led to a social Precedent of banning other words.
thus i had my hypothetical legal slippery slope that hasn't been observed, but a VERY observable social slippery slope, in which many people are dimming words unfit.
SOURCES!!! yay
"Now to your sources, right? You note the existence of faculty training and impute "teachers are fired" without one iota of evidence."
Ok well you may have some confusion so I'll walk you through it.
goto:
http://ijr.com/2015/07/379988-saying-youre-american-university-new-hampshire-can-now-get-trouble/
click on "Campus Reform"
It is paragraph 18.
I can give you screenshot walkthroughs if you want, I don't know why you're not seeing this.
"You use this leap to completely discredit my attack on your sources as if you aren't conveniently forgetting how 2.9 out of the 3 sources completely fail to support your claim. Are we, at some point, going to see you acknowledge that the other 2.9 out of 3 things we're talking about are perfectly acceptable forms of advocacy?"
http://heatst.com/culture-wars/uw-milwaukee-posters-warn-students-not-to-say-politically-correct-or-use-words-like-lame-crazy-and-trash/
http://watchdog.org/245557/banned-words/
these sources i'm fine with, as are the method of advocation they SPECIFICALLY use, but in my response I was addressing @bo_sox, who didn't think anti-word movements were occurring on campuses. This was just to show that stuff was occurring.
this was supporting a different claim, but you grouped it in with EVERYTHING ELSE i was saying. maybe i should have separated the links and addressed them specifically, but i dunno. I thought people would have the mental capacity to realize "this link doesn't apply to his argument against me, perhaps it isn't intended for me" but ya know. I guess you're the exception.
Look back: Bo CLEARLY asks me for sources, to prove that many colleges were doing this. Why your brain could not process this
the world may never know.
MY first link was to you. the later links were for the later comment. I apologize for not making it more clear.
@Lethologica
"You're gonna accuse me of lying for *that*? Pathetic."
I didn't just accuse you of lying. I accused you of not caring enough. You say
"Due diligence =/= crawling every hyperlink of every hyperlink until I've scoured the entire Internet looking for something cited by a citation of your citation that might be relevant."
AND THOSE ARE MORE LIES!
it was the only link there, it tied in with what the original article was saying directly: i thought both would be good for context.
"HYPERLINK OF EVERY HYPERLINK... LOOKING FOR SOMTHING CITED BY A CITATION OF YOUR CITATION THAT MIGHT BE RELEVANT"
what. a. joke. You made it sound like it was some dark corner that is hard to reach. Bro it was one step. IT was in the middle of the page in Shiny blue letters. you make it sound like 5 steps that were all very convoluted. That's wrong. that's not true. that is a LIE.
)
Average Trump supporters found to have an IQ between 85-100
)
)
)
)
)