Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 151 to 174 of 174
  1. #151
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    37,732
    I'm not angry just disappointed... In myself.

    Seriously though I'm not always the sharpest tool in the shed but do credit myself with at least being observant so when I miss things it annoys me a little bit.

  2. #152
    Thailand Expat
    Latindancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:33 AM
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    12,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh Cow View Post
    Intelligent debate is dead and buried on TD and totally pointless. It just breeds a torrent of abuse from the more intellectually challenged who are unable to debate ideas in a calm rational discourse.
    No names mentioned, but there are certain posters who dog my ...and others'.... footsteps this way.

    Observe how after many of my posts, they are the first to answer with put-downs.

  3. #153
    Thailand Expat
    Klondyke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Online
    Today @ 04:29 PM
    Posts
    7,307
    A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

    July 7, 2020
    The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at letters@harpers.org

    Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

    The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

    This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

    Elliot Ackerman
    Saladin Ambar, Rutgers University
    Martin Amis
    Anne Applebaum
    Marie Arana, author
    Margaret Atwood
    John Banville
    Mia Bay, historian
    Louis Begley, writer
    Roger Berkowitz, Bard College
    Paul Berman, writer
    Sheri Berman, Barnard College
    Reginald Dwayne Betts, poet
    Neil Blair, agent
    David W. Blight, Yale University
    Jennifer Finney Boylan, author
    David Bromwich
    David Brooks, columnist
    Ian Buruma, Bard College
    Lea Carpenter
    Noam Chomsky, MIT (emeritus)
    Nicholas A. Christakis, Yale University
    Roger Cohen, writer
    Ambassador Frances D. Cook, ret.
    Drucilla Cornell, Founder, uBuntu Project
    Kamel Daoud
    Meghan Daum, writer
    Gerald Early, Washington University-St. Louis
    Jeffrey Eugenides, writer
    Dexter Filkins
    Federico Finchelstein, The New School
    Caitlin Flanagan
    Richard T. Ford, Stanford Law School
    Kmele Foster
    David Frum, journalist
    Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University
    Atul Gawande, Harvard University
    Todd Gitlin, Columbia University
    Kim Ghattas
    Malcolm Gladwell
    Michelle Goldberg, columnist
    Rebecca Goldstein, writer
    Anthony Grafton, Princeton University
    David Greenberg, Rutgers University
    Linda Greenhouse
    Rinne B. Groff, playwright
    Sarah Haider, activist
    Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern
    Roya Hakakian, writer
    Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution
    Jeet Heer, The Nation
    Katie Herzog, podcast host
    Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College
    Adam Hochschild, author
    Arlie Russell Hochschild, author
    Eva Hoffman, writer
    Coleman Hughes, writer/Manhattan Institute
    Hussein Ibish, Arab Gulf States Institute
    Michael Ignatieff
    Zaid Jilani, journalist
    Bill T. Jones, New York Live Arts
    Wendy Kaminer, writer
    Matthew Karp, Princeton University
    Garry Kasparov, Renew Democracy Initiative
    Daniel Kehlmann, writer
    Randall Kennedy
    Khaled Khalifa, writer
    Parag Khanna, author
    Laura Kipnis, Northwestern University
    Frances Kissling, Center for Health, Ethics, Social Policy
    Enrique Krauze, historian
    Anthony Kronman, Yale University
    Joy Ladin, Yeshiva University
    Nicholas Lemann, Columbia University
    Mark Lilla, Columbia University
    Susie Linfield, New York University
    Damon Linker, writer
    Dahlia Lithwick, Slate
    Steven Lukes, New York University
    John R. MacArthur, publisher, writer
    Susan Madrak, writer
    Phoebe Maltz Bovy, writer
    Greil Marcus
    Wynton Marsalis, Jazz at Lincoln Center
    Kati Marton, author
    Debra Mashek, scholar
    Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago
    John McWhorter, Columbia University
    Uday Mehta, City University of New York
    Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University
    Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
    Samuel Moyn, Yale University
    Meera Nanda, writer and teacher
    Cary Nelson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
    Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine
    Mark Oppenheimer, Yale University
    Dael Orlandersmith, writer/performer
    George Packer
    Nell Irvin Painter, Princeton University (emerita)
    Greg Pardlo, Rutgers University – Camden
    Orlando Patterson, Harvard University
    Steven Pinker, Harvard University
    Letty Cottin Pogrebin
    Katha Pollitt, writer
    Claire Bond Potter, The New School
    Taufiq Rahim
    Zia Haider Rahman, writer
    Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, University of Wisconsin
    Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institution/The Atlantic
    Neil Roberts, political theorist
    Melvin Rogers, Brown University
    Kat Rosenfield, writer
    Loretta J. Ross, Smith College
    J.K. Rowling
    Salman Rushdie, New York University
    Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment
    Daryl Michael Scott, Howard University
    Diana Senechal, teacher and writer
    Jennifer Senior, columnist
    Judith Shulevitz, writer
    Jesse Singal, journalist
    Anne-Marie Slaughter
    Andrew Solomon, writer
    Deborah Solomon, critic and biographer
    Allison Stanger, Middlebury College
    Paul Starr, American Prospect/Princeton University
    Wendell Steavenson, writer
    Gloria Steinem, writer and activist
    Nadine Strossen, New York Law School
    Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Harvard Law School
    Kian Tajbakhsh, Columbia University
    Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University
    Cynthia Tucker, University of South Alabama
    Adaner Usmani, Harvard University
    Chloe Valdary
    Helen Vendler, Harvard University
    Judy B. Walzer
    Michael Walzer
    Eric K. Washington, historian
    Caroline Weber, historian
    Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers
    Bari Weiss
    Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
    Garry Wills
    Thomas Chatterton Williams, writer
    Robert F. Worth, journalist and author
    Molly Worthen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
    Matthew Yglesias
    Emily Yoffe, journalist
    Cathy Young, journalist
    Fareed Zakaria

    A Letter on Justice and Open Debate | Harper's Magazine

  4. #154
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    67,463
    Quote Originally Posted by English Noodles View Post
    The letter spoke of “the free exchange of information and ideas” and of how this constituted “the lifeblood of a liberal society”.
    There is nothing new in that piece, just the same tired excuses for letting Rowling bitch about the trans community and make up stories about them.

    Fuck her.

    And fuck them.

  5. #155
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    67,463
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    ^Yup. It seems the threats to Freedom, of Expression and the Free exchange of Ideas are emanating every bit as much these days from the Illiberal Left as it traditionally has from the Unconservative Right. A sad development, accompanied by the same herd mentality.

    True liberals, conservatives, and obviously those in the centre accept the necessity for Freedom of Expression in our free, diverse, pluralistic society- it is in fact one of it's fundamental building blocks. If we upset a few spongecakes by our insistence on these Rights, well diddums.
    I'm trying to remember who has been responsible for the most attempts at banning books in the US.

    Have a wild fucking guess eh?



    Freedom of expression my arse, you're only for it if you agree with the messenger, you hypocritical turd.

  6. #156
    Never Mind The Bollix
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 09:46 PM
    Posts
    12,596
    Quote Originally Posted by misskit View Post
    Didn’t see that at all. More like the writers of the first letter were speaking from a bully pulpit was the point.
    The original petition was about extreme personal attacks being made on individuals for having political opinions that do align with the attackers.

    The response criticises the petitioners for

    1. having the wrong colour skin
    2. having too much money
    3. having privileged backgrounds
    4. using a privileged platform to publish their petition

    This seems to me to be whataboutism.

    A person's identity attributes (race/wealth/background) are not a basis for criticising their political views and neither are they credentials for claiming validity in one's own political views.

  7. #157
    The Dentist English Noodles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Gaslightingshire
    Posts
    17,816
    Ten woke ways to shut down debate


    Some people would prefer you didn’t talk back — here's how they'll try to cancel you


    Suppressing free speech has a long and bloody history. To see how violence and intimidation can be used to silence opponents, just look at the record of any tyrannical regime that’s ever existed.
    And then there are more subtle methods. ‘Cancel culture’ is spoken of as if it were something new. It isn’t. You don’t need social media to whip up a mob. And as for attacking your getting opponents fired, that too goes all the way back. Administratively competent dictators usually sack their enemies before jailing or killing them. The same goes for ‘no platforming’ — another new name for a very old practice. If you control the public square then you can deny dissidents a voice.

    This article is about the less obvious threats to free speech. I’m not referring to the constant bellendery of what happens online (and, increasingly, in the TV studio). Nor is this an article about the way in which spurious accusations of bigotry are used to tear down decent individuals (latest victim: Trevor Phillips).

    Rather, my focus is on the tactics used to derail and discredit the practice of debate itself.
    What makes these methods all the more harmful is that, at first sight, they appear to be justifiable — even virtuous. The biggest danger isn’t that they might be used against people of goodwill, but that they will be used by them.

    Here are ten to watch out for:


    1. Declaring ‘no-debate’
    As important as argument is to democracy, there simply isn’t time for everyone to debate everything. There are certain issues that people just don’t want — or feel the need — to discuss. They should be under no pressure to do so: freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak or even to listen.

    The best way to deal with cranks and bigots is not to waste your energy dealing with them. After all, the great majority of reasonable people have more than enough disagreements on sensible subjects to be getting on with.

    However, there’s a world between ignoring the obvious loonies and declaring certain issues to be settled or beyond question when, in fact, they’re still the subject of mainstream debate. In a free country, it’s not for anyone to take such authority upon themselves.

    In any case, if you do declare no-debate, but people keep debating, what are you going to do about it? Any attempt to establish control over the public discourse — whether in the media, universities or the arts — rarely succeeds completely or permanently. For instance, ‘no-debate’ is a constant refrain among some transgender campaigners, but that hasn’t stopped the issue from being very hotly debated.

    Nevertheless, by spending so much time on the meta-argument — about the terms of debate — we end-up neglecting the debate itself and thus any hope of progress.


    2. Claiming that the science is settled
    This one is a special case of declaring no-debate. It rests upon the assumption that questioning the scientific consensus is a potentially dangerous distraction. And on some issues, especially medical ones, that can be the case.

    The facile counter-argument is that science is never settled. And, technically, that’s true. From time to time, some aspect of the scientific consensus is overturned. Nevertheless, some facts are so well established that they provide perfectly reasonable grounds for action. To never proceed on the basis of the best available evidence would be crazy.

    So to avoid such insanity, should we suppress dissent? A hugely important example is climate change policy. For fear that public support for action might be undermined, do we declare no-debate on any opinion that diverges from the scientific consensus?


    No, because such tactics will only backfire, making martyrs out of deniers. Furthermore, we’d risk suppressing legitimate and necessary discussion — for instance over how best to interpret and respond to the best available evidence.

    No-debate tactics create an unhealthy dynamic in which people are forced to make a choice between complete compliance with the orthodoxy and entrenched opposition to it. There is no guarantee that the (mostly) right side will win and no space within which honest doubts can be aired and addressed.

    In any case, crank science tends to wither away for lack of compelling evidence and credible supporters. Flat Earth debates don’t need to be suppressed: they’ll just become irrelevant because no one sensible turns up.


    3. Emotional blackmail
    The right to free speech does not include the right to harass and harangue those who have no wish to engage with you.

    Of course, there are limits to the right to privacy, too — certainly when it comes to what happens in public.

    So-called safe spaces blur the distinction between the public and the private. However, the real threat comes from the idea that claims of feeling ‘unsafe’ can be use to reach out and silence people peacefully expressing their opinions in contexts explicitly set aside for purposes of debate.

    Consider the attacks on the
    Guardian columnist Suzanne Moore — who is now the target of a campaign by her own colleagues because she expressed her opinions in an opinion column.

    But this sort of thing isn’t limited to the Left. Though Right-wingers don’t really go in for displaying their own emotional vulnerabilities, they don’t mind using the fears of others as emotional blackmail. A prime example is the charge that climate change campaigners are scaring children.
    Obviously there’s a problem if the kids are too young, or being propagandised instead of taught by their teachers. That said, there’s no denying that climate change is frightening — but that doesn’t change the facts. Older pupils, who we shouldn’t wrap in cotton wool, need to hear them — and the associated arguments.

    Facts and logic, unlike emotion, are objective. They provide a basis on which all arguments can be examined consistently. However, there is no consistency in the way in which different people feel about a particular argument. It’s not that feelings can be kept out of public discourse, but they shouldn’t be allowed to dictate what does and doesn’t get heard.

    4. Accusations of gaslighting
    Gaslight is a 1944 film starring Ingrid Bergman as a woman whose husband tries to convince her she’s going mad. It’s a classic story of psychological manipulation — and the origin of the term ‘gaslighting’, which is when abusers attempt to make their victims doubt their own experience of being abused.

    It’s a useful name for an all-too-real phenomenon. And yet it can also be misused — weaponised as an accusation to shut down debate. Argument, by its very nature, is an attempt to get the person you’re arguing with to change their mind, to see things differently, to question their basic assumptions. Because of these parallels, it’s easy to lob in a charge of gaslighting — and thus present the accused as an abuser and to characterise debate itself as a form of abuse.


    If you don’t believe me, just do a Twitter search on the word ‘gaslighting’. Most the tweets that come up, including many of those from blue tick accounts, use the term with casual abandon. Pro- and anti-Trumpers are especially fond of describing the claims and counter-claims of the other side as gaslighting, when what they’re actually referring to is argument (albeit of very low quality).

    If your opponents are talking a load of rubbish, then, by all means, dispute their evidence; but don’t throw around half-understood, but very serious, accusations of emotional abuse.

    5. Accusations of ‘mansplaining’
    ‘Mansplaining’ is another new word for something that does actually happen. Google it and you’ll find endless examples of men explaining things to women in a patronising and unsolicited manner.
    And yet, like gaslighting, the definition has been stretched to breaking point; the word is used to silence people not because of what they’ve said or how they’ve said it, but simply for who they are.

    The twisted logic goes like this: you’re a man, you’re explaining, therefore you’re mansplaining, therefore shut up.

    Last year, the Labour MP Catherine West appeared in a televised exchange with the Green Party politician Jonathan Bartley. West had just argued that Jeremy Corbyn was “green before the greens existed”, but when Bartley tried to interject, West repeatedly told him to stop mansplaining (“I’ve asked you three times”). Well, he is a man, but as co-leader of the Green Party he was perhaps well-placed to dispute West’s statement — especially given that the occasion was a debate between politicians, not a speech from one of them.

    Mansplaining has inspired a whole string of other neologisms — ‘whitesplaining’, ‘cisplaining’ etc. And, of course, there are anti-PC mirror-image terms like ‘womansplaining’. It’s a game at which all sides in the culture wars can play — but no substitute for a good argument.

    6. Accusations of ‘white fragility’
    Further to the above. I should point out that I’m a man who’s just explained what I think about mansplaining. This makes a mansplainer squared, so feel free to disregard.

    I’m also white, so bear that in mind as I move on to the concept of ‘white fragility’. This basically means that when white people deny that they’re racist it’s actually proof that they are — because what they’re really complaining about is having their privilege challenged.


    When white working class voters in rust belt states got Trump elected, liberal commentators were swift to blame racism (and not just on the part of the Trump campaign). If one assumes racism and regards denial of it as further evidence, it’s hard to reach any other conclusion. And yet the voter realignment of 2016 happened time-after-time in counties (especially in the rust belt) that had voted for Barack Obama in both 2012 and 2016. It’s not that there’s no racism, just that other factors — such as a preference for the candidate offering the greatest hope of change — may be the more important factor.

    Incidentally, it doesn’t have to be white fragility. You can put any adjective you like in front of the noun and wave it around as an all-purpose rhetorical weapon. It’s like accusing someone of being defensive — there’s no way they can defend themselves. The ‘heads-I-win-tails-you-lose’ argument doesn’t provoke debate, it makes it impossible.

    7. “I’m not here to educate you”
    Speaking of rhetorical weapons, here’s another. Its purpose is not to silence your opponents, but to provide you with an excuse not to answer them.

    In its proper context, the phrase “I’m not here to educate you” expresses the idea that members of oppressed groups are not responsible for explaining their oppression — and especially not to their oppressors. Quite right too. While it is the right of individuals to advocate for their community, it is certainly not a duty. In any case, the onus is on the people responsible for an injustice to undo it.

    Ostensibly well-meant, but intrusive, questions from a member of one culture to another also merit the above reply. No one should be expected to serve as an ambassador for a community just because they happen to belong to it.

    The trouble, of course, is that the use of “I’m not here to educate you” has mutated — being used in general argument as a get-out clause (and one that makes the other person look like the fool). If you didn’t want to get into a debate in the first place, then fair enough, but if you did and you’ve been challenged on something you’ve said, then it is your job to stand your claims up or concede the point.

    8. Who funds you?
    Does it matter who funds a think tank or a publication? Yes, it does.

    But if they won’t tell you, and the law doesn’t require them to, that doesn’t alter the validity of their arguments. Facts are facts, and lies are lies, irrespective of who pays for them to be communicated.

    So, beyond the quality of the evidence presented, what’s the objection? That those in receipt of undisclosed funds might not personally believe in what they’re saying? If that’s the problem then does that mean we should ban the advertising and PR industries?

    “Who funds you?” is a question that’s especially asked of free market think tanks. As believers in low taxes and minimal regulation, they unsurprisingly attract commercial sponsorship. But note that the money follows the ideology, not the other way round.

    If the folks spouting off a load of libertarian nonsense about, say, smoking were only doing it for the cash then why wouldn’t they do it for some public affairs company instead, where the pay’s better?

    To refuse to engage with their arguments or, even worse, to seek to have them excluded from mainstream public discourse altogether, betrays a lack of confidence in the counter-argument. It’s also a wasted opportunity; if these people really are no more than a front for vested interests, then why pass up on a rare chance to confront their propaganda head-on?

    So while “who funds you?” is a pertinent question, it’s a rotten end to a conversation.

    9. Alt democracy
    In a free society, debate can take place just about anywhere — from the pub to the poshest dinner party. In reality, though, some arenas matter more than others — Parliament, for instance, or the opinion pages of a national newspaper.

    Those who wish to devalue the outcome of this high level public discourse (because they keep losing) can always cry foul — pointing to issues like the influence of money on party politics or the ownership of newspapers. The system isn’t working, they say — we need an alternative.

    And thus we see proposals for things like ‘democratic control’ of the media or for alternative decision-making bodies such as citizen assemblies. What all these proposals have in common is that they replace bottom-up mechanisms like universal suffrage and letting individuals decide which publications they want to read, with systems in which debate is managed from the top down — and which deny most people a direct say.


    This ‘alt-democracy’ might have some peripheral uses — for instance in conducting public consultation exercises, but as a substitute for our established democratic institutions it is a threat to liberty.

    If debate is to be curated, it must be by directly-elected representatives that everyone has a chance to vote in or out, or by media outlets that everyone can decide to pay attention to or ignore.

    10. The catastrophisation of disagreement
    It’s taken a real catastrophe (Coronavirus) to drive Brexit from the headlines. But for most of the last four years, Leave versus Remain has torn us apart as a nation (supposedly).

    Indeed, for some people the deep divisions over the issue were as worrying as the issue itself.
    But why shouldn’t we have massive disagreements about matters of huge importance? The alternative is to not let people have their say — or, at least, not in any way that might make a difference. To avoid heated debate we must, in effect, let one side win without a contest — either fossilising the status quo or to granting a cultural elite exclusive influence over the pace and direction of social change. That might make for a quieter life, but it isn’t democracy.

    We should be concerned if our politics is becoming more polarised, but if that’s really the case it surely makes free and open debate all the more important.

    https://unherd.com/2020/03/ten-devious-ways-to-shut-down-debate/

  8. #158
    Thailand Expat
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    20,988
    Quote Originally Posted by English Noodles View Post
    ‘Cancel culture’ is spoken of as if it were something new.
    Quote Originally Posted by English Noodles View Post
    And as for attacking your getting opponents fired, that too goes all the way back.
    So these above comments led up to this dandy...

    Quote Originally Posted by English Noodles View Post
    Administratively competent dictators usually sack their enemies before jailing or killing them.
    That sounds like the orange moron in the White House and all of the world leaders he admires Putin, Kim Jong-un are the two he most admires.


    That said I went on that website and it would appear the author "Peter Franklin" of this "article" has "written" over 6,600 articles since 2017. That is 4.5 article a day with no days off since 2017. Seems credible.

    Peter Franklin, a writer for UnHerd

  9. #159
    Thailand Expat
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    20,988
    All the right is trying to do is flood the web with so much propaganda and bullshit that people drown in it.

  10. #160
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    67,463
    I don't see what all this Noodles horseshit is supposed to be about.

    Anyone has the freedom to post whatever shit they want.

    And anyone has the right to respond to it.

    That's the end of it.

    Have any of Rowling's inane tweets ever been removed?

  11. #161
    Thailand Expat
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    20,988
    Steve Bannon is the master orchestrator of this propaganda theory. He stated to...


    “Flood the zone with shit”

    Domestic Disinformation Is a Growing Menace to America | Time

  12. #162
    Thailand Expat
    Klondyke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Online
    Today @ 04:29 PM
    Posts
    7,307
    Quote Originally Posted by English Noodles View Post
    Ten woke ways to shut down debate

    Some people would prefer you didn’t talk back — here's how they'll try to cancel you
    None of the those "ways to shut down debate" applies to our debaters, surely not to the "frequent fliers"...

  13. #163
    Thailand Expat misskit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    32,066
    Here’s a good example of someone being “canceled” over something written on Twitter.


    Reza Aslan Reveals How CNN’s Jeff Zucker and Trump ‘Canceled’ Him Over a Tweet

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/reza-a...tweet?ref=home

  14. #164
    Thailand Expat misskit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    32,066
    The political culture of censoriousness-f2b57b4f-b0f1-4556-b9f6-9f61e44895e6-jpeg

    Tucker Carlson’s head writer seems to have “canceled” himself!

    Blake Neff, Tucker Carlson Writer, Resigns for Racist Posts
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails The political culture of censoriousness-f2b57b4f-b0f1-4556-b9f6-9f61e44895e6-jpeg  

  15. #165
    The Dentist English Noodles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Gaslightingshire
    Posts
    17,816
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Hammy the Hamster takes pole from Mad Max with a quite exceptional wet lap.
    Let's just hope that chip on his shoulder doesn't weigh him down.

  16. #166
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    14,330
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    I don't see what all this Noodles horseshit is supposed to be about.
    grievance.

    being a straight, white male is becoming slightly less of a privileged existence than it used to be.

  17. #167
    En route
    Cujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 04:38 PM
    Location
    Reality.
    Posts
    29,968
    Quote Originally Posted by raycarey View Post
    grievance.

    being a straight, white male is becoming slightly less of a privileged existence than it used to be.
    Bullshit, it's fucking great. You wouldn't believe the doors that open and how easy things are.

  18. #168
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    14,330
    Quote Originally Posted by Cujo View Post
    it's fucking great
    hold on..... are you claiming to be straight?

    The political culture of censoriousness-34384-transformation-hopefully-motivational-thread-img_20190425_080919-a

  19. #169
    Hangin' Around cyrille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    20,250
    He has the gaunt, wizened look of a heavy drinker and smoker.

    The Cro Magnon jawline does not suggest intelligence.

    The upper lip looks very flat, as if he's had teeth knocked out.

    The 'pub quiz prize' clothing suggests he's on his uppers.

    But there's no way he looks gay.

  20. #170
    En route
    Cujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 04:38 PM
    Location
    Reality.
    Posts
    29,968
    Quote Originally Posted by cyrille View Post




    The 'pub quiz prize' clothing...

    .
    WTF is that ?

    And yes, I wondered what reacharound thought was gay about that pic. He does seem to love it though, he keeps posting it and he's actually saved it and named it 'gay cyclist' What a wierdo.
    Everything with people like him is gay and or racist.
    Last edited by Cujo; 12-07-2020 at 04:16 PM.
    “If we stop testing right now we’d have very few cases, if any.” Donald J Trump.

  21. #171
    Thailand Expat
    Klondyke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Online
    Today @ 04:29 PM
    Posts
    7,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Klondyke View Post
    A Letter on Justice and Open Debate
    The open letter against cancel culture was a ray of hope… until some signatories canceled themselves out of it
    9 July 2020

    Recently, dozens of scholars, authors, and others signed an open letter against cancel culture. Not even 24 hours later, some rescinded because of “other people on the list,” handing ‘cancel culture’ a bitterly ironic victory.

    On July 7, Harper’s Magazine published a piece called ‘A Letter on Justice and Open Debate’. It is a bold letter that calls for less censorship and more exchange of ideas, which flies in the face of modern cancel culture (which those involved in try to pretend doesn’t exist). It is signed by dozens of academics, authors, and journalists who support the idea that cancel culture is the antithesis to a liberal society.

    And then a bunch of them distanced themselves from it because “they didn’t know THAT person had signed it.”

    Aside from Jennifer Boylan of the New York Times, historian Kerri Greenridge asked to be removed from it. Vox critic-at-large Emily VanDerWerff complained to Vox’s editors about a colleague signing it. She stated she felt “less safe.” How Matt Yglesias’ signature on a letter that’s about preserving free expression (which lets her do her job) is harmful is left up to interpretation.

    The irony of these presumably straight-faced backtrackings is unbelievable.

    You don’t pledge your support for free expression and then go “oh no, not THOSE people’s free expression.” If you want a civil, liberal society with free expression, there are going to be people you don’t like that share the same opinions as you. There are also going to be people you like that share opinions you hate.

    The whole idea of free expression is what allows artists, journalists, and novelists to make a living. It gives them the chance to be themselves instead of living in constant fear of a mob trying to destroy their lives and their work. The attitude of said mob is no more complex than when Yosemite Sam would say “this town ain’t big enough for the two of us” in Looney Tunes. If that’s your attitude toward other people who might cosign the sentiment, cancel culture has won. You have handed it the victory.

    The battle against cancel culture is not a right-wing or left-wing idea. Cancel culture comes for anyone who doesn’t bend the knee. It is a tyrannical force that demands fealty and surrender. It despises free expression because it cannot control free expression. It doesn’t care whether you voted Trump or Hillary, Brexit or Remain. If you do not adhere to the tenants of the Church of Woke, you must be destroyed. There is no forgiveness, and even personal growth counts for nothing. There is only ruin. It can be best described as an ideological Schutzstaffel. No creation. Only destruction.

    There are people out there that you are not going to agree with. That’s life. The important thing is facing forward and fighting the bigger enemy. If cancel culture is not destroyed, more and more things will inevitably be deemed ‘wrongthink’ until all culture is ruined or neutered into irrelevance. It will continue to echo many of the things seen in Orwell’s ‘1984’, which is a future that no one should want. It’s time to put aside political differences, stop acting like conservatives or liberals (depending on where you declare you stand) eat babies in their spare time, and give the proverbial finger to an ideology that wants all of us silenced.

    The open letter against cancel culture was a ray of hope… until some signatories canceled themselves out of it — RT Op-ed

  22. #172
    The Dentist English Noodles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Gaslightingshire
    Posts
    17,816
    Quote Originally Posted by Klondyke View Post
    The battle against cancel culture is not a right-wing or left-wing idea. Cancel culture comes for anyone who doesn’t bend the knee. It is a tyrannical force that demands fealty and surrender.
    The political culture of censoriousness-ebpqmhfvaaevas5-jpg

  23. #173
    Thailand Expat
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    20,988
    OMG...

    ,,,,The retardation

  24. #174
    En route
    Cujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 04:38 PM
    Location
    Reality.
    Posts
    29,968
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    OMG...

    ,,,,The retardation
    Jesus christ you're one to talk you boring retarded shitstain.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •