Berekrly "Free Speech Feyival"

[PC2]

How so? /10char

Are you asking how they are tangential? That's what happens when ideas are not exclusive to one side of a spectrum. You can add more and more dimensions, but it becomes harder to visualize on our 2D screens.

[Zython]

Are you asking how they are tangential? That's what happens when ideas are not exclusive to one side of a spectrum. You can add more and more dimensions, but it becomes harder to visualize on our 2D screens.

Oh! I get it now! I get jokes!

[PC2]

Oh! I get it now! I get jokes!

Okay. Let me know if you want to have more discussion about it.

[Rasulis]

'It’s got almost 205 million Muslims,' Shapiro said. "According to one 2009 poll, it showed almost 50 percent of Indonesians support strict Sharia law, not just in Indonesia but in a lot of countries. And 70 percent blame the United States, Israel or somebody else for 9/11. You make that calculation, it’s about 143 million people who are radicalized. You scared yet? We’re just getting started.'

To get to 143 million "radicalized" Muslims, Shapiro took the 70 percent of Indonesia’s Muslims who blamed someone other than al-Qaida for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

How did they do the poll? Have you been to Indonesia? My wife and I owned a vacation home in Ubud, Bali. To get to our house, you have to walk through the rice fields of Tegalalang for 2 miles. This is not uncommon. There are thousands of villages that are not on the map, that are reachable only by offroad vehicles or on foot. The idea that anybody can do a meaningful poll of the Indonesian population is, at the very least, laughable. Even if it is only in Jakarta. Once you get off the main streets, and start to traverse the alleys, you'll quickly realize that Shapiro was talking out of his ass.

[greaseflub]

wtf is a feyival?

[Masark]

wtf is a feyival?

A typo of "festival". presumably.

[Mormolyce]

They forgot to teach millenials that free speech laws were made to protect speech they disagree with.

From the government.

Not from criticism.

- - - Updated - - -

wtf is a feyival?

Presumably it appears in the same dictionary as "Berekrly".

[fengosa]

It's real simple: just MAKE everyone agree and there's no problem. The Progressive Agenda.

Progressives work similarly to scientific peer review. If you can make a convincing argument that your point of view is correct and worthy of discussion they will be open to it. If you're Milo or Ann Coulter or spend 8 years denouncing Obamacare without a viable replacement or are an anti-vaxxer or climate change denier or don't understand than the US Constitution grants civil rights to Muslims and the LGBT community or think BLM is a terrorist organization or deny Russias interference in democratic elections than progressives aren't going to embrace your opinion.

You have it backwards. It isn't that progressive make people embrace their ideas, it's that progressives embrace good ideas and stand against bad ideas.

[Deleted]

You mentioned the left. Authoritarianism and identity politics are common place when discussing the left and right because sometimes they try to take tangential ideas then claim they are left or right.

Any extreme left or extreme right has authoritarianism in it.

- - - Updated - - -

Progressives work similarly to scientific peer review. If you can make a convincing argument that your point of view is correct and worthy of discussion they will be open to it. If you're Milo or Ann Coulter or spend 8 years denouncing Obamacare without a viable replacement or are an anti-vaxxer or climate change denier or don't understand than the US Constitution grants civil rights to Muslims and the LGBT community or think BLM is a terrorist organization or deny Russias interference in democratic elections than progressives aren't going to embrace your opinion.

Not really. Science has nothing to do with progressive work, heck they even denounce science when it doesn't confirm their bias, even more when it comes to the whole "two genders" idea. Progressive is and always be "feelz" over science, hence why the dominant progressive areas are pseudo-science fields.

[fengosa]

Any extreme left or extreme right has authoritarianism in it.

- - - Updated - - -



Not really. Science has nothing to do with progressive work, heck they even denounce science when it doesn't confirm their bias, even more when it comes to the whole "two genders" idea. Progressive is and always be "feelz" over science, hence why the dominant progressive areas are pseudo-science fields.

I'm not sure what your 2 genders idea refers too. It may have been previously thought to be true but once new evidence came about opinions changed. That's exactly how the scientific method works. Your example seems contradictory to your argument.

[Sama-81]

I'm not sure what your 2 genders idea refers too. It may have been previously thought to be true but once new evidence came about opinions changed. That's exactly how the scientific method works. Your example seems contradictory to your argument.

First of all, the term 'gender' has nothing what-so-ever to do with actual science, and the validity of the term most certainly has not gone through any sort of scientific rigor. Science deals in 'sexes', which obviously includes males and females only, while 'gender' is basically a purely sociological/political construct. As far as medicine goes, gender dysphoria is a disorder, ie a functional abnormality/disturbance - the term 'gender' however does play a role here, as a sort of therapeutic measure, making the 'patient' (hopefully/possibly) feeling more psychologically secure, but that's also pretty much it really.

In terms of progressives and 'the scientific method', they might very well have come to the conclusion that the concept is sound, via some sort of internal peer review. However, as every professional scientist can tell you, that is NOT enough to adhere to the scientific method, in spirit or in actuality. It might of course make the term valid inside the progressive sphere itself, for example, but not in general, and there also seem to be a distinct lack of any sort of null hypothesis involved (not to mention disinterest in one). Which of course is extremely reckless, considering the underlying premise being a sort of 'medical condition', with different forms of therapy being regularly involved. It might certainly be proven to be a prudent stance, at least in part, but the opposite can not be excluded either.

[Coffeh]

Progressives work similarly to scientific peer review. If you can make a convincing argument that your point of view is correct and worthy of discussion they will be open to it. If you're Milo or Ann Coulter or spend 8 years denouncing Obamacare without a viable replacement or are an anti-vaxxer or climate change denier or don't understand than the US Constitution grants civil rights to Muslims and the LGBT community or think BLM is a terrorist organization or deny Russias interference in democratic elections than progressives aren't going to embrace your opinion.

You have it backwards. It isn't that progressive make people embrace their ideas, it's that progressives embrace good ideas and stand against bad ideas.

What a bunch of nonsense. Progressives don't even listen to any belief contrary to their own. The movement is based on silencing any opposing thoughts. The rules only apply to those who share their beliefs, and the rights of those who don't don't matter. Quick example...a business denies service to a gay couple. Progressives flip out. A business denies service to Trump supporters. Progressive cheer. The best word to describe it is hypocrisy.

There is no healthy, open exchange of ideas with Progressives. A Conservative wants to speak at Berkeley? Burn the campus to the ground! Riot, chaos, loot, rampage. Anything to suppress opposing beliefs. It is the opposite of the civil rights movement of the 60s, which was about tolerance and peace. It's been perverted into something sick and twisted called Progressivism.

[Deleted]

How come so many universities are breeding grounds for lunatics?

And why is this never the case at universities that focus mostly on business and economics?

[baskev]

Let's see if this guy can take up an entire page with one post filled with quotes.

....that will take a age :S

- - - Updated - - -

i am back. And i will respond to you tomorrow. And find a way not to make it even more messy as it is. And about the quote's in quote's. But if we keep quoting...then some quote's will go 10 layers deep and you will not be able to follow it.

btw funny that you did not respond to my last bid.....

The stuff that i responded to a other person post and you took it out of proportion and twisted my words....
Kinda proofs my point you are just here to win and continue a argument you are trying to win. I would like to say a discussion but you are side stepping allot of stuff

- - - Updated - - -

Everyone else seems to have no problem with how quotes work on this site, and indeed seem to rely on them to keep track of separate points. Those numbers aren't Shapiro's numbers, they're Pew Research data, as per the Politifact article. Did you even bother to read it?

And again you are twisting my words and not reading stuff....i am not saying i do not know how quote's work ( what you are suggesting) . I am saying 10 quotes deep makes things a mess.

Because it's Wikipedia! Wikipedia is persona non grata as a source! Nobody can use it because it's user-edited! Don't believe me? I can go make an account right now, and edit the articles on there to say whatever the hell I want, and link that and say "boom, I'm right because this article that I just edited says I'm right." For that reason, it's not trustworthy, that and half its references return 404 errors, so they have no citations to back their claims up. Wiki has the same problem that you do; neither of you actually bother to source your claims.

And you do know your facts are checked. If if they find out you are editing stuff to make false claims they will ban you? And using your logic...what site's are?? Non of them!!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.4b697ec82391

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiiGkB6wp4A

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/homosexuality

I'll just let the sources speak for themselves.

Lets start with the youtube one....Anyone can call him or her self something. Or call someone something...it does not make it true

Washtington post one: You did read that its about 2 country's not all muslims in all country right? And that the part about what shaira laws should mean and be and to who it should relate etc differ allot?

And reli facts: If this site is really correct i stand corrected.

I'm going to give you a little lesson about generalizations, induction, and how to avoid errors in reasoning. "Birds fly." That is a true statement. It is a generalization arrived at by observing many different species of birds, and seeing that they fly. That process, is called inductive reasoning; you arrive at a general principle or rule by observing many similar cases of a given phenomenon. It's a process that is absolutely critical to the sciences. Of course, this generalization doesn't hold true in all cases. There are outliers, like penguins and other flightless birds. The existence of those outliers doesn't make the statement, "birds fly," false however. If I were to say, "all birds fly," that would be false, because it is a sweeping generalization. The opposite of the sweeping generalization, is the hasty generalization, where you observe only very few cases and from there reach your conclusion. Now, let's take these ideas and apply them to what you just said, and the numbers I linked above regarding Islam and how they handle gay people.

"Muslims believe gay people should be killed, for being gay." That is not an untrue statement. It is in fact a true and accurate generalization, because that is true of the majority. Obviously, not all Muslims, but that demonstrates a clear problem within the large body of Islam that needs to be dealt with.

On the other hand, only a small minority of Christians, mainly concentrated in the Roman Catholic Church, are pedophiles.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...newspaper.html

One in 50, and you have the Pope, saying this is a disease that needs to be dealt with. You don't have Ayatollahs arguing against Islam's problem with gays, despite how widespread it is, but you have Pope Francis, arguing against a much smaller problem, numerically, within the Roman Catholic Church. To say, "Christians/Catholics are pedophiles" based on this information, would be a hasty generalization because it's a very tiny minority.

And again you are sidestepping and twisting words. I am saying: If you can say all muslims are homophobic then all priest are pedo's...
And yes your facts in how much priest are pedo's are correct. I am not disputing it. I am saying you can not use rules for 1 group and then not use them for a other.

Ask them if they want you dead. Ask them if they believe you shouldn't be gay. I know if I was gay, I wouldn't be friends with people like that. I don't make friendly relations with people who have fundamental problems with a piece of who I am. I tolerate those people.

i asked: Nope they do not want me dead, They say its my own choice. They would not have chosen it tough. And again you are twisting words and making things into stuff they are not...really do you think this is a discussion if you change stuff?? I said i know 2 more extreme muslims ( not in extreme extreme. Just very strict ones). I did not say they where my friends!!!

I never said that you lying scumbag. As far as I'm concerned a lie that severe is an insult and I demand you retract it immediately.

??? First i did not say that...so use for retracting something i did not say. ( i even ctrl-f it to search for the word scum). And again it was about you saying that only muslims did horrible things to gay people. And when i give 2 example's you do not react to it. Proving once again you are solely focused on your one hate of something.

No, we're not. You called him alt-right. You said, "Ben is alt-right." Not that he might be alt-right, or that he is far-right, in the first post of yours that I responded to, you called him alt-right.

Okay lets call him right wing and not alt right. Happy? He is still on the right ( no pun intended) of the political spectrum.

Because this shit doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Nope it does not. And if you want to talk about it i will love to do so. But we started talking about ben, then about the right and gay people. Not about the contrast between left and right. Both in ben, gay people's right according to religion or right politics have added value to say something about the left.
So ( i said this before) if you want to talk about left ( witch has a huge problem to called sjw's. and acting like they are different while they are pretty much the same as the right)

"I suppose that's fair." Those were the words I used when you acknowledged the problem with the left. What was strange to me though, is after you acknowledged the problem with the left, you went right back to defending them.

Simple: you are trying to drag other things into this "discussion" . And in the grand scheme of things, they are just a hair thickness less horrible then the right. I hate the method's they use and how they talk. But the equality and freedom they talk about is in my eye's better then the ( insert witch portion of the right) thinks about freedom of certain people's and groups.
So that is why i defend them. ( antifa does not include in this)

They identify as anarcho-communists, not just anarchists. That's why they have a red/black flag instead of just a black flag. They also fly the hammer and sickle. No anarchist flies the fucking hammer and sickle.

Then they are changing faster then i can keep up.( i stand corrected on this one) Most stuff i read about them ( because i do not know any in real life) they are identified as anarchists. And you are saying it yourself...they are not just communist. So my point is still valid.

No, they aren't. Any time a black person disagrees with them, the SJWs start shouting racial slurs at them. They hate black people as much as they say their opponents do. I've seen it, personally. As for women's rights...they've got that one backwards. Do you want to know who suffers more in today's society, in the developed western world? Men? Men are 3/4 of the suicides. Men are 93% of workplace fatalities. Men are 95% of combat deaths. Paternity fraud is legal. Male genital mutilation. Men are the ones missing rights, and white people these days are being discriminated against, hard. It is harder for a white person to get into a college based on SAT scores than a black person, who can get in on lower scores. It's not nearly so black and white as you make it out to be. It's not equal treatment, it's favoritism and it needs to stop.

You do know SJW have a group called BLM connected ( but not part off as far as i know) to them? And i am not disagreeing here with you. I said it myself they say they are for rights. And they are until you do not agree with them. Again what you are saying it said before!!! so why are you rating?? because you did not read what i said?

If someone dies of a heart attack because they were scared, whatever scared them is not culpable. She was morbidly obese. She was like 150 lbs. overweight. The paramedics tried to revive her, but her heart was so strained due to her blocked arteries that they couldn't do anything for her. The "healthy at any size" movement is what killed her, if anything.

Again i do not think she died of a heart attack. But say if she did. Its still death by fault. If he did not drive at here should would not have had a heart attack. So he started the chain of events that caused the Hearth attack.

I didn't start bringing up stuff from years ago until you did. The KKK has been out of power for decades. This is about Antifa vs. the alt-right.

You did....you where first talking about a few cases the last few years and then moved beyond more then 2 years. So if you can change the timeline why cant i? You just want the timeline to stop where you can "prove" your point.

You're talking about the Oathkeepers. The Oathkeepers haven't actually shot at anyone yet. They've just stood there, looking intimidating. On the other hand, Antifa has already thrown bombs into crowds, and set people on fire using Molotovs. Which is worse? Standing there, holding a weapon and not doing anything? Or trying to blow people up and set them on fire?

And standing there like that does not trigger more reactions?? you do not think that is aggressive.
btw : http://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/201....aclu-virginia

And again i think both of them are horrible. stop trying to make it sound like i do...it only makes you look silly.
I am just saying, violence becomes violence.

So it's wrong for people to defend themselves? They should just let Antifa burn them alive?

And again you are trying to change stuff. I never said its wrong to defend yourself. I said bringing guns, Molotovs, masks ,anything else but peaceful signs to a protest is wrong!!

Bullshit. I'm a leftist liberal who is called an extreme right-winger by former SJW "friends" because I said I wasn't a communist and that I think affirmative action has over-corrected. It's not a reaction to extreme right, it's people who have move so far to the left they see everything as extreme right.

Are we talking about your politcal spot...nope we are not. This has nothing to do with what you are quoting right here. I feel sorry for you that they left you..and i think you are right about over pc, and they should not be your friends if they act like that.

But you are reacting to a quote that i say this: That the sjw left is a reaction to the more and more extreme right political actions.
To put it simple for you: In the 90's you had a very small group of sjw's and a large group of right wing people who where anti gay. The right wing became more and more extreme and got more and more president/senators etc that became more and more extreme. Then the sjw's numbers grew. So its a reaction TO the righ twing growth.

Who are you talking about? Trayvon Martin? Jesus...you really have been brainwashed. Zimmerman fucked up when he tried to follow Trayvon, yes, but Trayvon fucked up a thousand times worse when he turned around and attacked Zimmerman. Warning: Graphic Content.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/geo...mans-injuries/

That is what Trayvon Martin did to George Zimmerman, before Zimmerman pulled the gun. But you want to talk about hate-killings?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2714761

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/08/us/phi...sts/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKBN17K2DJ

Where is the left's outrage about that? Do you want to know who is actually treating this like the problem that it is? The right. The left doesn't give a shit. Even half the news outlets that report on stuff like this, like CNN, just say, "oh, that happened," but then don't bother to push for any kind of change. But if a black teen falls down and scrapes a damn knee, the entire nation self-detonates.

First of yup i am talking about zimmerman. A vigilante following a kid. You talk about self defense...lets say he did attack first...he was being stalked by a older guy? But i do not agree with you. He should not have followed him to start with. Or make his intentions clear from the start. ( again i can have a discussion about this).

And again...i am part native america so i know how biased the news is about hate killings. I just do not live in america and do not have the time to read every america killing. (witch are sadly to much).

You resorted to the history books first, and Antifa is a communist front-group. They have been since the 30s.

Again, you changed to timeline past a few years ( aka 2 years). If you can change the timeline i can do to. And again stalin killed people because they where against him...not because of a doctrine that said all jews must die. And it was anarchist- communist group according to you and now they are communist? And still saying you are something does not make you something.
basic communist: Marx believed that a truly utopian society must be classless and stateless. (It should be noted that Marx died well before any of his theories were put to the test.) Marx's main idea was simple: Free the lower class from poverty and give the poor a fighting chance. How he believed it should be accomplished, however, was another story. In order to liberate the lower class, Marx believed that the government would have to control all means of production so that no one could outdo anyone else by making more money. Unfortunately, that proves to this day to be more difficult than he might have realized.

I would like to point out, that he didn't start going super-fast until the back of his car was hit by a baseball bat. We had every reason to think that he would have stopped before that happened. I've been telling people that it will probably be involuntary manslaughter at worst, but there's every chance, due to the circumstances, that he will get off.

I wasn't just talking about Stalin. I was talking about Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong too. And yes, they all followed true communist beliefs, despite what communists today w ill tell you. They're either idiots or liars. But don't take my word for it, read for yourself.

Here's a copy of the Communist Manifesto.

http://www.slp.org/pdf/marx/comm_man.pdf

Here is Vladimir Lenin's What is to be Done?

https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...d/what-itd.pdf

And here are Mao's selected works.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/a...orks/index.htm

Read that shit and then tell me those aren't "true communist beliefs." Modern day communists call themselves "MLMs" or "Marxist-Leninist-Maoists." This is what Antifa calls themselves. Again, don't take my word for it, go ask them yourself. Stalin is hardly any different than Marx, Lenin, or Mao, and Antifa is taking all their cues from those guys. Again, they even fly the hammer and sickle.

Again saying you follow a belief but not use any of its lessons does not make you a true believer. Communist basic prince able is about equality. Staling was anti that. Mao twisted the whole basic beliefs. And in the original works it says nothing about using force or mass murder. And lenin "only" had a few thousand in the civil war ( still to much). And hitler stated that the jews needed to be killed.

Wanting to destroy the current order is political...especially when every ancom group in history has dropped the "anarcho" from their name and ideology and become full communist after they've overthrown whatever government they were trying to overthrow.

@Demsi Don't bother, this is one of the crazy ones, I think.[/QUOTE]


And again the name calling...it does not help your "points" .
You keep reacting to only half the stuff i say. So you sound better.
And keep twisting words, and changing things i say because you want to look better.
So i look forward to your next rants.

But for the fun of it...would you care to read EVERYTHING. and respond to EVERYTHING. Not just the points you "think" you can "win" .