SJW's in Toronto turn violent

[Pebrocks The Warlock]

You really not see anything wrong with the (hourly thread about) SJW are against the freedom of speech, they disagree with me and should shut up

Only thing I see wrong with it is there should simply be a "SJW Mega Thread" to keep the recurring actions there.

[Yarathir]

What are you trying to say here? You're not making much sense.

Look at the username.

[Saucexorzski]

The pushing was a small part of the video. So basically, you assumed something, and were wrong.



Expressing yourself in protest is not attempting to silence those you're protesting.

This is what I mean; you folks seem to have this idea that "freedom of speech" means you have a right to a platform to express yourself without opposition or outcry. That's not the case. That's a position that necessarily restricts freedom of speech, it doesn't defend it.

Freedom of speech is not protected by declaring that one person has the sole right to speak and everyone else has to shut up.

You are not wrong, these tactics were used by the KKK to suppress blacks back in the day.

[sarahtasher]

Only thing I see wrong with it is there should simply be a "SJW Mega Thread" to keep the recurring actions there.

You mean the threads of people saying ''LULZ, get outraged on command on stupid SWJ that are outraged about stupid things'' ? (which is somehow ''smart')

[Endus]

You are not wrong, these tactics were used by the KKK to suppress blacks back in the day.

And also resulted in their current status as a shameful group that basically no one professes to be connected with.

Freedom of speech as a right means protecting EVERYONE'S speech, even those you think are wrong or assholes or whatever. The only time I'd allow for an exception to that rule is when the public's safety comes into question as a result, which is why inciting riots and such aren't considered free speech.

[Pebrocks The Warlock]

You mean the threads of people saying ''LULZ, get outraged on command on stupid SWJ that are outraged about stupid things'' ? (which is somehow ''smart')

You were doing better before but once again you're not making sense. Can you please converse without sprouting random words?

[Deleted]

Yeah. Pushing isn't particularly violent, but it's still violence. Unless, someone wants to argue why shoving protesters around isn't bad or violent.

Regardless of if you consider it violence per se or not - it's really poor behaviour.

[Kraenen]

This argument keeps cropping up, but it fundamentally ignores what freedom of speech is. You're trying to create a valuation of certain kinds of speech to justify attacking other kinds of speech you deem have lesser value. That's not a stance that supports free speech. That's an assault of free speech.

You cannot argue that the rights of the protestors should be infringed to protect the same rights of those giving their speech. Not and claim to be protecting free speech as a value.

Shouting at people you disagree with is free speech. It does not in any way silence those you're shouting at.

No I'm not. If this were true, you'd be arguing against yourself ad infinitum.

Okay? I never did and I won't.

Verbal harassment can't silence? I disagree.

[Livnthedream]

2> The video opens with a statement that there were white noise machines "blaring" throughout, and there's no white noise anywhere in the video, so I have to chalk that up as a lie.

You can see them in action here: /watch?v=HAlPjMiaKdw (This youtube vid is from later in the same protest, new account so can't link it directly)

How am I a "known anti-free speech advocate"? I've always championed freedom of speech.

The difference is that I respect everyone's freedom of speech, including that of protestors who want to shout down someone they dislike. Which, yes, is free speech.

Hecklers Veto isn't free speech.

I'm not even defending the actions of these counter-protestors. I'm taking issue with the biased reporting.

"It wasn't demonstrated so it must be a lie!"

Seriously? If you want to call *that* biased reporting then you should hop on virtually every story. Or is it only biased when it is something you don't like?

[Saucexorzski]

And also resulted in their current status as a shameful group that basically no one professes to be connected with.

Freedom of speech as a right means protecting EVERYONE'S speech, even those you think are wrong or assholes or whatever. The only time I'd allow for an exception to that rule is when the public's safety comes into question as a result, which is why inciting riots and such aren't considered free speech.

I see the complaint of the video being here more of the way they went about protesting not the they were protesting. And that way they went about it lead to a mild violent conflict between the two sides.

[Dug]

Verbal harassment can't silence? I disagree.

Then I hope you disagree every other time someone you agree with uses the same tactics to shut down their opponents.

[Tradewind]

Expressing yourself in protest is not attempting to silence those you're protesting.

This is what I mean; you folks seem to have this idea that "freedom of speech" means you have a right to a platform to express yourself without opposition or outcry. That's not the case. That's a position that necessarily restricts freedom of speech, it doesn't defend it.

Freedom of speech is not protected by declaring that one person has the sole right to speak and everyone else has to shut up.

Had you bothered to watch the video and listen to what Mr Peterson is saying, you might understand what's so amusing about the whole situation. His entire platform is about how talking and discussion is what drives society forward and these mongs are doing exactly the opposite. That's what's amusing, that's what makes it ironic. They are completely proving his point for him. It's the collective equivalent to covering your ears and singing la la la la.

Nothing more, nothing less. I've never said anything close to suggesting that they not be allowed to protest, or that they should shut up about their problems.

In the end, is it wrong to expect a higher standard of protesting?

- - - Updated - - -

The typical ''my freedom of speech is infringed by people telling me my views sucks hardcore'' ?

Look if you have nothing to contribute other than trying to instigate, maybe you should go elsewhere.

[zealo]

Yeah. Pushing isn't particularly violent, but it's still violence. Unless, someone wants to argue why shoving protesters around isn't bad or violent.

Even if pushing isn't particularly violent in itself, crossing that line and getting physical is an invitation for others to respond in kind. Don't be surprised if someone decks them one day in self defence if that's their idea of a civil protest

[Endus]

Had you bothered to watch the video and listen to what Mr Peterson is saying, you might understand what's so amusing about the whole situation. His entire platform is about how talking and discussion is what drives society forward and these mongs are doing exactly the opposite. That's what's amusing, that's what makes it ironic. They are completely proving his point for him. It's the collective equivalent to covering your ears and singing la la la la.

Nothing more, nothing less. I've never said anything close to suggesting that they not be allowed to protest, or that they should shut up about their problems.

In the end, is it wrong to expect a higher standard of protesting?

I'll just note that I never supported the protest. I'm saying that having issues with them doing so is an attack on their rights. If they wanted to paint themselves blue and make fart noises while singing Bananaphone at the top of their lungs, that'd be stupid as hell but still within their rights.

[Saucexorzski]

Had you bothered to watch the video and listen to what Mr Peterson is saying, you might understand what's so amusing about the whole situation. His entire platform is about how talking and discussion is what drives society forward and these mongs are doing exactly the opposite. That's what's amusing, that's what makes it ironic. They are completely proving his point for him. It's the collective equivalent to covering your ears and singing la la la la.

Nothing more, nothing less. I've never said anything close to suggesting that they not be allowed to protest, or that they should shut up about their problems.

In the end, is it wrong to expect a higher standard of protesting?

Not wrong but kinda naive. Humans tend to do the easier of things...shouting someone out is generally more easy then reasoning them to your side.

[Kraenen]

Then I hope you disagree every other time someone you agree with uses the same tactics to shut down their opponents.

Oh I would. I just don't agree with many of the type who would do something like that (at least that I can think of right now).

[Tradewind]

I'll just note that I never supported the protest. I'm saying that having issues with them doing so is an attack on their rights. If they wanted to paint themselves blue and make fart noises while singing Bananaphone at the top of their lungs, that'd be stupid as hell but still within their rights.

And I've never suggested that their rights be curtailed. At most, I am suggesting that people adopt a modicum of respect. That's usually how civilized people behave.

- - - Updated - - -

Not wrong but kinda naive. Humans tend to do the easier of things...shouting someone out is generally more easy then reasoning them to your side.

Oh I'm fully aware lol. I'm being facetious as fuck because I have no expectations at all that people like "them" are even remotely capable of not acting like a horde of morons. Since that's been the MO of these "types" for a long time now. Children having tantrums.

[Kraenen]

I'll just note that I never supported the protest. I'm saying that having issues with them doing so is an attack on their rights. If they wanted to paint themselves blue and make fart noises while singing Bananaphone at the top of their lungs, that'd be stupid as hell but still within their rights.

Is this really a good way of having a free, open, and honest discussion in your worldview?

[Endus]

Is this really a good way of having a free, open, and honest discussion in your worldview?

The alternative is denying those people their right to speak as they wish. In short, "yes". If you want them to cut it out, the proper way to do so is to talk to them, not try and have them silenced for your benefit.

You seem to be under the impression that freedom of speech is meant to create civilized discussion. It isn't. It's meant to let whatever yahoo who wants to speak, speak, and say whatever yahoo things they want. Because you can't protect civilized speech while silencing all those you deem "uncivilized" and pretend you're standing for people's free speech.


Is free speech a good way to produce exclusively civilized, informed discussion? Absolutely not. I think the public discourse in pretty much any country that respects free speech demonstrates this.

[Tradewind]

The alternative is denying those people their right to speak as they wish. In short, "yes". If you want them to cut it out, the proper way to do so is to talk to them, not try and have them silenced for your benefit.

Bullshit.

Clearly there was multiple people talking at the microphone. You honestly believe that they were denied access to do the same? That shouting and shoving people was their only recourse? fuckinlol

Mr Peterson is no stranger to debate and discussion. Had one of these mouth breathing "non-conformists" simply asked for a chance, I bet real money he would have relished the opportunity to debate the issues. Especially since that was the entire point of his speech, he'd at the very least done it out of sheer principle.