SJW's in Toronto turn violent

[garr21]

So no one should have the right to protest then. I mean are you against counter protests from groups trying to drown out the White Nationalists rallies who sit on their microphones and Scream "No Blacks, No Jews, the inferior races have got to go." as they march down the streets of towns they do not want to listen? If you think people are not allowed to protest that then you do not believe in free speech. If you think people should be able to protest the White Nationalists then you are being inconsistent and are effectively stating that you believe only in speech you like.

Protests are disruptive and are meant to disrupt a group via the group who wants to be heard. When Civil Rights activists protested Pro-segregationists they didn't go to the rallies and just say "Oh we would like to debate you. Don worry we will sit here in the background and be ultra quiet as you list reasons why White people are better and how the races must not mix.".

- - - Updated - - -



Yes there were. The Statens medieråd upheld a ban of movies from Mad Max to Nosferatu until 2011 when the Statens medieråd was disbanded and a new Statens medieråd took its place.

Whoa whoa did you just compare a real revolution to what these twats are pushing for? Thats just low you are comparing an issue of racism that was over with 50 years ago to some first world problems that these assholes have. How very rude of you. The very idea is so insulting.

[The Silver Prince]

Whoa whoa did you just compare a real revolution to what these twats are pushing for? Thats just low you are comparing an issue of racism that was over with 50 years ago to some first world problems that these assholes have. How very rude of you. The very idea is so insulting.

First of all, what you view as "trivial" can get applied to serious issues. How naive of you to not realize that American Hate speech laws meant to foster acceptance of races were in fact applied to minorities explicitly to curb their speech against the institution of segregation. How LOW of you to not understand that when you want to curb someone's speech because you think their argument is trivial that all you do is CURB YOUR OWN. Laws once applied to curb even the most trivial also apply to serious situations.

Second, anyone that physically assaulted anyone will get punished under existing laws. So your self-righteous indignation is utterly disingenuous. You can have a protest against teddy bears and if your viewpoint is "hey they are TWATS AND STUPID AND SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO PROTEST!" then guess what? Any law designed to curb the Teddy Bear protest will apply to that Protest against state corruption.

Now go learn the what the word "Subjective" means. It will help you oneday when you realize how you view the world is not the same as everyone else. And what you view as "trivial" may be serious to someone else. What behaviors you think are fine maybe something some tyrant may want to push for Laws to curb.

[garr21]

First of all, what you view as "trivial" can get applied to serious issues. How naive of you to not realize that American Hate speech laws meant to foster acceptance of races were in fact applied to minorities explicitly to curb their speech against the institution of segregation. How LOW of you to not understand that when you want to curb someone's speech because you think their argument is trivial that all you do is CURB YOUR OWN. Laws once applied to curb even the most trivial also apply to serious situations.

Second, anyone that physically assaulted anyone will get punished under existing laws. So your self-righteous indignation is utterly disingenuous. You can have a protest against teddy bears and if your viewpoint is "hey they are TWATS AND STUPID AND SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO PROTEST!" then guess what? Any law designed to curb the Teddy Bear protest will apply to that Protest against state corruption.

Now go learn the what the word "Subjective" means. It will help you oneday when you realize how you view the world is not the same as everyone else. And what you view as "trivial" may be serious to someone else. What behaviors you think are fine maybe something some tyrant may want to push for Laws to curb.

I am so sure that pushing for safe spaces is so important compared to world hunger and war.
/s
Prioritys man learn to use them. As i say this nothing but first world problems. Just like pronouns and cultural apropration.

[The Silver Prince]

I am so sure that pushing for safe spaces is so important compared to world hunger and war.
/s
Prioritys man learn to use them. As i say this nothing but first world problems. Just like pronouns and cultural apropration.

Priorities? You bring nothing but strawmen and logical fallacies. You also make the wrong assertion that I agree with the protestor's argument which I do not. However, since you seem to like European style Free Speech then all you would be doing is giving the keys to the protestors that you despise.

Second, you seem not to understand that no matter how trivial something is anything meant to curb it will apply to serious situations. So since you want to talk about WAR AND WORLD HUNGER. Any rules that you enacted to curb these Pronoun Warrior's protest would apply to Anti-war and World Hunger protests.Rights aren't something that you can just itemize and throw away. You want the right to criticize a war then guess what? You are going to have to deal with idiots protesting angrily about the texture of Taffy.

Learn to connect the dots. We just had a state make a law that is so broad it essentially waves due process and criminalizes parental care all in the name of stopping sexual abuse. The law is so broad that changing a baby's diaper IS sexual assault and the most disturbing thing is the courts found that it is the onus of the parents to disprove the states assertion.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...aregivers.html

[garr21]

Priorities? You bring nothing but strawmen and logical fallacies. You also make the wrong assertion that I agree with the protestor's argument which I do not. However, since you seem to like European style Free Speech then all you would be doing is giving the keys to the protestors that you despise.

Second, you seem not to understand that no matter how trivial something is anything meant to curb it will apply to serious situations. So since you want to talk about WAR AND WORLD HUNGER. Any rules that you enacted to curb these Pronoun Warrior's protest would apply to Anti-war and World Hunger protests.Rights aren't something that you can just itemize and throw away. You want the right to criticize a war then guess what? You are going to have to deal with idiots protesting angrily about the texture of Taffy.

You know you don't get to throw out words like strawman and think they will make your argument water proof they don't. Not once did i strawman anything that you said. What i did say was it was wrong of you to compare first world problems to an actual issue that was solved in one of the great moments of the 20th century. That is way more important than this silly issue at hand. I hope you understand this. But i guess you want to "win" this argument and will pull out the "internet book of debate" on me. Just remember one thing live by debate rules you better die by them also.

[TrumpIsPresident]

Here's my recap, pause for full effect.

Bobblehead Timbercuck @ 0:17
Harley Quinn and The Joker's aborted fetus @ 0:19
Neckbeard Nosehook @ 0:43
PDiddy @ 2:32 (seriously, is that actually him?)
I have literally no idea what I'm looking at @ 2:51
Bros-on-the-down-lows @ 3:20
feelsbadgal @ 4:40
A Serbian hottie @ 5:02
They disagree with us! GET UM! @ 5:07
Dr House in the house @ 6:12
Feelin' smug in my beanie @ 5:53
My beanie's got a secret @ 5:54
Surprised beanie is surprised @ 5:55
I'm covered in g-g-g-glitter @ 7:00
Shammmeeeeee feat. the cast of Freakshow @ 7:29

[thilicen]

To all the kids on here that think left wing PC liberals are the essence of progression in the west, take a look at this video filmed during a meeting about free speech. Disgraceful human beings

What we have here folks, is OP being a generalising right-wing prick who can't find a proper leg to stand on, as such he has to turn to ridiculous overexaggerations.

infracted - minor flaming

[TrumpIsPresident]

What we have here folks, is OP being a generalising right-wing prick who can't find a proper leg to stand on, as such he has to turn to ridiculous overexaggerations.

Lot of words, but other than your insult to the OP you've said nothing.

What did he "generalize"?

How is he not finding a "proper leg to stand on"?

And what did he "ridiculously over-exaggerate"?

The OP gave an apt critique.

People who claim to support "progress" and oppose "hate" showed up with designs to censor free speech (which would be a regress to a time before freedom) and then attacked people that didn't agree with them (out of their hatred for those people).

Can you break down his OP and illustrate the "generalize", the "proper leg to stand on", and the "ridiculously over-exaggeration" for me?

[The Silver Prince]

You know you don't get to throw out words like strawman and think they will make your argument water proof they don't. Not once did i strawman anything that you said. What i did say was it was wrong of you to compare first world problems to an actual issue that was solved in one of the great moments of the 20th century. That is way more important than this silly issue at hand. I hope you understand this. But i guess you want to "win" this argument and will pull out the "internet book of debate" on me. Just remember one thing live by debate rules you better die by them also.

Claiming "First World Issues" is a strawman argument. It's a sham argument that in no way refutes anything. Claiming that inhibiting one form of protest would not in any way affect "serious" protests either makes you woefully uninformed or incredibly deceptive. Your fake "outrage" is just another logical fallacy in an attempt to shame an argument you either do not understand, are unwilling to understand, or understand fully and hoping to derail with crocodile tears.

What YOU think is more important doesn't matter. Your view is about as important as the turds I flushed down the toilet 20 minutes ago. Now, you want to shift the argument as if I am just arguing to win when you are doing nothing but trying to cowardly provide yourself an out so to leave an argument you cannot articulate. The greatest moment in the 20th Century could have been derailed by people like you who sought to curb an inane protest of dissatisfied customers who belligerently protested a confectionary company. If you do not understand that then you have ZERO CLUE about how laws work.

Now, if you want to cry about how you cannot make a single point and how I am being mean for pressing you then that is on you. You protested, so either make a point or step out of the argument. Claiming "First world Issues" isn't a point and such an argument falls on its face when you are on a gaming website crying foul in an off-topic forum. Yeah, first world issues are so important to you that you decided a video game forums was the best place to bring them up.

[garr21]

Claiming "First World Issues" is a strawman argument. It's a sham argument that in no way refutes anything. Claiming that inhibiting one form of protest would not in any way affect "serious" protests either makes you woefully uninformed or incredibly deceptive. Your fake "outrage" is just another logical fallacy in an attempt to shame an argument you either do not understand, are unwilling to understand, or understand fully and hoping to derail with crocodile tears.

What YOU think is more important doesn't matter. Your view is about as important as the turds I flushed down the toilet 20 minutes ago. Now, you want to shift the argument as if I am just arguing to win when you are doing nothing but trying to cowardly provide yourself an out so to leave an argument you cannot articulate. The greatest moment in the 20th Century could have been derailed by people like you who sought to curb an inane protest of dissatisfied customers who belligerently protested a confectionary company. If you do not understand that then you have ZERO CLUE about how laws work.

Now, if you want to cry about how you cannot make a single point and how I am being mean for pressing you then that is on you. You protested, so either make a point or step out of the argument. Claiming "First world Issues" isn't a point and such an argument falls on its face when you are on a gaming website crying foul in an off-topic forum. Yeah, first world issues are so important to you that you decided a video game forums was the best place to bring them up.

I don't know why you are getting so mad over this, i just told you that "safe spaces" and the civil rights movement are not in the same weight class. And remember you just attacked me and not the argument thats a no no in internet debate(see i can do it too).

[Deleted]

Are you speaking of Sweden? A country that holds the right to ban movies due to their violent or scary content (Mad Max and Nosferatu are banned in Sweden)?

No movie is banned.
It's just that the movie theaters are not allowed to show those movies - it's a movie rating system.
By the way, the last movie they did anything too, was in 96' - they don't do shit no more.

Also American Free Speech is recognized by Academics in both Europe and North America to be the freest form of Speech laws in the world.

yes, whether or no that is the way to protect the principle of free speech remains to be determined.

That in no way means you have the right to be heard

and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers"

whatever.

The "Right to be heard" would mean people would be forced to listen whether they wanted to or not. In affect it would be legalized coercion. No where in what you posted even vindicates your argument. If going by what your claiming the UN is saying I would be in violation of the rule if you just walked up to me and said "I have an opinion and YOU WILL LISTEN." and if I replied "Nope, shut up and get out of my face." . By refusing to hear your message I would be impinging your right of Free Speech but unfortunately for you and fortunately for me the rule doesn't work like that.

And that's a straw man of epic proportions.

[The Silver Prince]

I don't know why you are getting so mad over this, i just told you that "safe spaces" and the civil rights movement are not in the same weight class. And remember you just attacked me and not the argument thats a no no in internet debate(see i can do it too).

No, now you are trying to play the victim. Laws do not care about the argument of the protest. In the eyes of the law, an act of civil disobedience (a protest) does not change its status based on its substance. Meaning, protesting about a corrupt official and how he needs to go does not have any more merit than the Waynesboro Church's hateful protests. If you want to make categories for what is and isn't acceptable protest then you are building a foundation in which people decide what is worthwhile protest and what isn't. Guess what that means? It means that people who may disagree with you may decide your own protests aren't protected speech.

- - - Updated - - -

No movie is banned.
It's just that the movie theaters are not allowed to show those movies - it's a movie rating system.
By the way, the last movie they did anything too, was in 96' - they don't do shit no more.

Movies were banned and the last movie they banned was Casino. Also, the rating system in Sweden is censorship and Sweden doesn't even pretend it isn't censorship. Thank you for validating my point.

yes, whether or no that is the way to protect the principle of free speech remains to be determined.

Seeing how we do not criminalize people for "expressing contempt" yeah I would say we have free speech and you are just deluding yourself. Heck, it's funny you are even attempting to debate since Sweden will enact laws that the Pronoun Warriors are looking to instill upon Canada.

whatever.

Impart, does not mean to force. Then again a person who thinks a country with Hate speech laws is somehow a bastion of free speech wouldn't know what free speech is.

And that's a straw man of epic proportions.

Yeah, since you live in Sweden why don't you go open a forum about how the Jews are monsters. Let's see how fast you get arrested, then you can try to lecture us on free speech and how that meeting went when the Police came in, handcuffed you, and carted you away. Where was your right to be heard then?

[garr21]

No, now you are trying to play the victim. Laws do not care about the argument of the protest. In the eyes of the law, an act of civil disobedience (a protest) does not change its status based on its substance. Meaning, protesting about a corrupt official and how he needs to go does not have any more merit than the Waynesboro Church's hateful protests. If you want to make categories for what is and isn't acceptable protest then you are building a foundation in which people decide what is worthwhile protest and what isn't. Guess what that means? It means that people who may disagree with you may decide your own protests are protected speech.

- - - Updated - - -



Movies were banned and the last movie they banned was Casino. Also, the rating system in Sweden is censorship and Sweden doesn't even pretend it isn't censorship. Thank you for validating my point.



Seeing how we do not criminalize people for "expressing contempt" yeah I would say we have free speech and you are just deluding yourself. Heck, it's funny you are even attempting to debate since Sweden will enact laws that the Pronoun Warriors are looking to instill upon Canada.




Impart, does not mean to force. Then again a person who thinks a country with Hate speech laws is somehow a bastion of free speech wouldn't know what free speech is.



Yeah, since you live in Sweden why don't you go open a forum about how the Jews are monsters. Let's see how fast you get arrested, then you can try to lecture us on free speech and how that meeting went when the Police came in, handcuffed you, and carted you away. Where was your right to be heard then?

Its interesting that you ignore your own "foul" when i comes to internet debate shall i remind you as to show that you did just attack me and not the argument

Now, if you want to cry about how you cannot make a single point and how I am being mean for pressing you then that is on you. You protested, so either make a point or step out of the argument. Claiming "First world Issues" isn't a point and such an argument falls on its face when you are on a gaming website crying foul in an off-topic forum. Yeah, first world issues are so important to you that you decided a video game forums was the best place to bring them up.

I told you if you are going to live by internet debate rules you better die by them too. Ofcouse you are willing to call out others but can't take it yourself and admit you are wrong.

[The Silver Prince]

Its interesting that you ignore your own "foul" when i comes to internet debate shall i remind you as to show that you did just attack me and not the argument

I told you if you are going to live by internet debate rules you better die by them too. Ofcouse you are willing to call out others but can't take it yourself and admit you are wrong.

So, you are essentially tucking your tail between your legs and reduced to whining about me being unfair? There is no foul when debating someone who starts out with this.

Whoa whoa did you just compare a real revolution to what these twats are pushing for? Thats just low you are comparing an issue of racism that was over with 50 years ago to some first world problems that these assholes have. How very rude of you. The very idea is so insulting.

Fake outrage,and once you are called out and unable to defend your argument you are reduced to whining. You first tried to act as if I was a supporter and then once it is brought to your attention that you ideals would harm the very civil rights movement you "so admire" you are reduce to crying on the forums that I am unfair. Lol at you.

[jellmoo]

A small shoving match between a few people is hardly an outbreak of violence that can be attributed to mythical "SJWs". I'm still not understanding the issue though. People are all just exercising their freedom of speech, whether they agree with the dude screaming at them or not.

[Deleted]

Movies were banned and the last movie they banned was Casino. Also, the rating system in Sweden is censorship and Sweden doesn't even pretend it isn't censorship. Thank you for validating my point.

No, no movie was banned.
Cinemas were forbidden to show them, that's not the same thing as 'banned'.
And Casino went up in Theaters, they just cut out the scene (IIRC) where Joe Pesci gets tortured before he is executed - A movie i watched on terrestrial television by the way.

Seeing how we do not criminalize people for "expressing contempt" yeah I would say we have free speech and you are just deluding yourself. Heck, it's funny you are even attempting to debate since Sweden will enact laws that the Pronoun Warriors are looking to instill upon Canada.

Oh I hate, hate speech laws, don't get me confused with someone else.

Impart, does not mean to force. Then again a person who thinks a country with Hate speech laws is somehow a bastion of free speech wouldn't know what free speech is.

That was and is a straw man - You may choose not to listen to a person, you may not choose to make other people stop listening by making noise.

Yeah, since you live in Sweden why don't you go open a forum about how the Jews are monsters. Let's see how fast you get arrested, then you can try to lecture us on free speech and how that meeting went when the Police came in, handcuffed you, and carted you away. Where was your right to be heard then?

Yeah, that part wasn't the part that was a straw man.
Oh also, this guy was acquitted.
Very happy day for me.

[volkanik]

University of Toronto is by far the best university in Canada. Amazing place really. There seems to be a lot of feminists there as well. Not sure why....

Because it's a University. Universities are breeding grounds for SJWs, and Feminists.

[The Silver Prince]

No, no movie was banned.
Cinemas were forbidden to show them, that's not the same thing as 'banned'.
And Casino went up in Theaters, they just cut out the scene (IIRC) where Joe Pesci gets tortured before he is executed - A movie i watched on terrestrial television by the way.

You are at this point lying to try to save face. The movies were banned until 2011 when the council was disbanded. You know this. Do not try to lie by thinking we are ignorant.

Oh I hate, hate speech laws, don't get me confused with someone else.

you brought up sweden which has hate speech laws.

That was and is a straw man - You may choose not to listen to a person, you may not choose to make other people stop listening by making noise.

Umm. no. There is nothing that says that I cannot argue back and there is nothing that states anywhere that I must give the individual an impromptu debate. At this point, all you can do is lie and deny anything you do not like hearing. A strawman isn't something that disproves your argument. I know you hate it but you actually need to make an intelligent argument. So far you are pretty much refusing to do so and try to declare yourself the winner at the drop of a hat. Your argument is essentially free speech means you can make any claim and no one can refute aka Free Speech is a "Safe Space". No one can protest your views and you point to a free speech country is Sweden (A country that attempts to be a nation of Safe Spaces)... a nation which used to ban movies for being too "violent" or "scary" and has hate speech laws. Ultimately, your argument falls flat on its face since Sweden has terrible freedom of speech laws and you cannot in any way refute that America's Freedom of Speech laws are inferior. In fact, as I have said again even Academia purports that US freedom of speech laws are stronger and freer than all of Europe.

Oh but you want the right to be heard, right? You think Freedom of Speech is a Safe Space.

Yeah, that part wasn't the part that was a straw man.
Oh also, this guy was acquitted.
Very happy day for me.

He was only acquitted due to his sermon was based on the bible and religious belief. Dan Berner however flies in the face of your argument.

[Deleted]

You are at this point lying to try to save face. The movies were banned until 2011 when the council was disbanded. You know this. Do not try to lie by thinking we are ignorant.

No, they were not. I am living in Sweden, they were banned for a few years after release and that's it. Not until 2011.

[The Silver Prince]

No, they were not. I am living in Sweden, they were banned for a few years after release and that's it. Not until 2011.

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel...rtikel=6194465

It doesn't matter. The fact that they were banned and that the board was only disbanded in 2011 speaks volumes. You cannot argue that a ban on movies from public viewing (movie theatres) is not a curtailing of free speech. You cannot argue that editing movies for their content is not a violation of free speech. All you can say is "well they aren't banned anymore!" while the bans are gone it still doesn't ring true due to hate speech laws. As Slavoi Zizek says, Free Speech cannot have cavaets due to whats polite and proper. Either everything is on the table or it is not. Europe pretends it has free speech but in truth it doesn't.