Define "toxicity"

[Machismo]

I agree 100% with that. Just to be clear, I never made any statements in defense of any figures or ideologies that are already regarded as toxic. In fact, I agree completely that our responsibility as a well-intentioned society should be to denounce evil. It's always up to the people.

- - - Updated - - -



There has been an effort to silence Jordan Peterson and compartmentalize him as being alt right for quite a while now. Do your research and you'll see. A group of students pushed him and the ones who wanted to listen to him speak out of a campus auditorium because they deem him transphobic, etc. Have you listened to him in all the interviews he's done or the speeches he's given? If you have you'll understand how he's been the victims of "hostile misrepresentation."

Now as for me making a "hostile misrepresentation" of interest groups. How so? Where is the hostility?

You keep saying all these attacks on free speech are happening, where is your evidence? As you pointed out, the burden of evidence is on you.

Stop trying to make people into victims based on your false narratives.

[Mihalik]

Honestly, you're really not that difficult to figure out.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...he-Mandalorian

That read like something straight out of 2014.

Forgive me for this, if I get infracted for it I accept it.

FUCK YOU SJW CUCKS. STOP TRYING TO RUIN STAR WARS. YOU PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO HIT A SOFT SPOT FOR ME AND I CAN'T STAND IT. THIS IS STARTING TO TRIGGER ME. KEEP YOUR SJW BULLSHIT OUT OF STAR WARS.

That's some healthy, sophisticated discourse right there for us right there. No toxicity in sight.

[Machismo]

That read like something straight out of 2014.



That's some healthy, sophisticated discourse right there for us right there. No toxicity in sight.

It's not like these people are hard to figure out.

[Sagenod]

Who is trying to shut down freedomnof speech? You keepsaying this, but cannot seem to show how.

You seem to be basing things on a false premise.

- - - Updated - - -



Cancel culture is nothing more than the choice to exercise free speech. It's not denying anyone their freedom of speech.

What examples do you need? They've been reining in our freedom of speech for years now. I'm not saying I disagree, as there are certainly reprehensible things that should never be said to another individual and they deserve to have an assertive and denouncing reply. Just like there always has been, there are groups of people who want to control others.

I never said cancel culture was a method of denying free speech did I?

- - - Updated - - -

That read like something straight out of 2014.



That's some healthy, sophisticated discourse right there for us right there. No toxicity in sight.

Another classic: Bringing up old posts to discredit somebody. Not that I don't still stand by what I said those years ago, they've been messing up Star Wars.

[Calfredd]

Considering you made this thread almost immediately after your Asmongold thread was locked, I'd say this was some kind of passive-aggressive attempt at revenge.

[Lenonis]

They've been reining in our freedom of speech for years now.

You seem to be under the amusing misunderstand that freedom of speech requires a guarantee to a platform and an audience. It does not. Your repetition of this indicates your care little about freedom of association.

[Machismo]

What examples do you need? They've been reining in our freedom of speech for years now. I'm not saying I disagree, as there are certainly reprehensible things that should never be said to another individual and they deserve to have an assertive and denouncing reply. Just like there always has been, there are groups of people who want to control others.

I never said cancel culture was a method of denying free speech did I?

- - - Updated - - -



Another classic: Bringing up old posts to discredit somebody. Not that I don't still stand by what I said those years ago, they've been messing up Star Wars.

This is literally your bullshit narrative, the burden of evidence is on. You can repeat it all you like, that isn't the same as providing actual evidence. Making vague comments about supposed freedoms being taken away isn't the argument you think it is... not when you cannot actually formulate an argument.

So, where is your evidence?

[Otimus]

Toxicity is when interacting with people is so notoriously bad in a game that it drives people away from playing the game. It's used because it's so "toxic" that it poisons the game, thus gets the publishers less money.

It doesn't mean people are offensive. It means they're so offensive that it makes people avoid the game to not interact with these people.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

It appears Connal has returned with a sock puppet. Still fellatiating over Jordan Peterson after all these years?

Insert Severus Snape meme.

- - - Updated - - -

You're reading way too deep into it and probably projecting somewhat. It's just a really, really subjective thing, on top of absolutely being a rallying cry. You have plenty of examples in this thread already.

No, no one is reading too far into anything. I mean, your reply here only reinforces what that poster was saying about you.

[Endus]

There has been an effort to silence Jordan Peterson and compartmentalize him as being alt right for quite a while now.

This is trivially false. There is no such thing. He's still a U of T professor and still publishing and doing tours. You're literally making this shit up out of nothing.

A group of students pushed him and the ones who wanted to listen to him speak out of a campus auditorium because they deem him transphobic, etc.

Not a restriction of his freedom of speech. Private platforms decided they didn't want to provide a platform to him. As is their freedom and right.

Have you listened to him in all the interviews he's done or the speeches he's given? If you have you'll understand how he's been the victims of "hostile misrepresentation."

I've heard enough to be very familiar with the deliberately disingenuous if not outright dishonest tools he uses to manufacture and push disinformation.

He hasn't been "misrepresented" in this. He's just not nearly as clever at hiding his motives as he thinks he is.

He's directly attacked trans rights, in his opposition to Bill C-17 here in Canada, where he willfully lied about what the bill actually did to push his bigoted agenda.

He repeatedly speaks out against "cultural marxism", which isn't a thing. It's just an anti-semitic conspiracy theory, literally invented out of nothing by the Nazis as one of many propaganda tools to demonize Jewish intellectuals.

And so on. Those two points there aren't even disputable; those are simply facts, and not in any way an opinion I am expressing. He was factually wrong about Bill C-17 and knew it, and stated his bullshit anyway. He has unearthed and re-used a Nazi conspiracy theory used to target Jewish academics, without context or conscience or any basis to it whatsoever. Facts. Maybe you don't like the facts, but they're still facts.

Now as for me making a "hostile misrepresentation" of interest groups. How so? Where is the hostility?

"It seems as though nowadays the groups that want to affect social change tend to put the cart before the horse, believing their stance is inherently just and thus everyone should just follow along"

Your words. Attacking groups pushing for social justice, by dismissing that their cause has any justice to it to begin with, and that it's all just differences of opinion rather than identifiable injustices.

Sure, racism and bigotry is a "difference of opinion", but it's pretty objectively condemnable.

- - - Updated - - -

What examples do you need? They've been reining in our freedom of speech for years now.

Literally not happening. You're making that shit up.

What's happening is that you're facing criticism, which is someone else's freedom of speech, and you don't like it. Well, tough. That's what freedom of speech feels like.

Freedom of speech is not a right to some platform.
Freedom of speech is not a right to an audience.
Freedom of speech is not a freedom from criticism or response.
Freedom of speech does not obligate anyone to support you or your speech.

Freedom of speech means you can go into a public space and step up on the soapbox you brought with you and speak to whoever wants to stop. And that's about it. If you don't own the soapbox, you've got no right to it, and if you want to use someone else's soapbox (publishing services, meeting spaces, theaters, etc), you get to abide by the owner's requirements and desires or you can go buy your own.

A thousand voices calling someone a stupid bigot for saying a stupid bigoted thing is "freedom of speech". That bigot never getting a speaking gig anywhere else as a result is not an infringement of their freedoms in any way. Freedom of speech protects you against government backlash for the content of your speech. It doesn't provide any kind of shield against social consquences from others. Who have the same freedoms you have, no matter how much that annoys you.

[Hotmail]

No, no one is reading too far into anything. I mean, your reply here only reinforces what that poster was saying about you.

No, it doesn't. If you don't see the irony in any of this, then there's no point in even starting a discussion.

Not like this wasn't a bait thread to begin with.

[Machismo]

"I'm not being toxic, it can't be toxic if you finish with a smiley-faced emoji."

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

No, it doesn't. If you don't see the irony in any of this, then there's no point in even starting a discussion.

Not like this wasn't a bait thread to begin with.

Yes it was, but by saying "...there is no point in starting a discussion" you're just looking for an easy out after you have made multiple bad posts.

Ironically this is toxicity on these forums.

[downnola]

Hold the phone: I'm not the one who's being adversarial. When you question my intent and have an inclination toward it being negative,I'm going to defend myself to the best of my ability.

It just looks like sealioning to me, bubs.

[Dezerte]

I agree 100% with that. Just to be clear, I never made any statements in defense of any figures or ideologies that are already regarded as toxic. In fact, I agree completely that our responsibility as a well-intentioned society should be to denounce evil. It's always up to the people.

You say that, but then you say this:

There has been an effort to silence Jordan Peterson and compartmentalize him as being alt right for quite a while now. Do your research and you'll see. A group of students pushed him and the ones who wanted to listen to him speak out of a campus auditorium because they deem him transphobic, etc.

This is an example of free speech and freedom of association. As someone else has mentioned, free speech does not mean you are entitled to a platform (freedom of association means people can say they don't want their institution to be associated with a person).

[Orby]

RE: Define Toxicity

twitter

fuck that blue bird...