Safe spaces for everyone?

Manfred Belheim said:
Okay, then you're playing semantic games by not looking further than the word used and pretending it's referring to the same thing twice. "Offensive" practices are not the same as "offensive" speech and you know this.
Click to expand...

Nah, I didn't know that. I'm not playing a semantic game, I'm laughing at the blatant hypocrisy of you pathetic, pathetic snowflakes who are so fragile you can't even stand the idea of a safe space somewhere nearby
 
Senethro said:
In fact, some of you have regularly complained about SJW and antifa protest of (alt?)right wing rallies and events, while protest is typically regarded as a political right.
Click to expand...
Nobody complains about "SJW and antifa protests". What people do complain about:

a.) violence between the protesters and counter-protesters, usually caused by an engagement by the counter-protesters
b.) destruction of property in some of the riot-like "protests"
c.) attempts at shutting down protests and speeches
d.) counter-protests that are designed to disrupt the protest, not to actually "protest" against it
 
Lexicus said:
Nah, I didn't know that. I'm not playing a semantic game, I'm laughing at the blatant hypocrisy of you pathetic, pathetic snowflakes who are so fragile you can't even stand the idea of a safe space somewhere nearby
Click to expand...

Again, there's nothing contradictory or hypocritical in being for (or at least not against) offensive speech while being against offensive actions/practices. They're not the same thing. I'm not sure which is less charitable - to believe that you genuinely still can't grasp something so obvious, or that you're lying about not knowing the difference. I'm leaning towards the latter unfortunately.
 
Manfred Belheim said:
Again, there's nothing contradictory or hypocritical in being for (or at least not against) offensive speech while being against offensive actions/practices.
Click to expand...

"It's totally different when we're offended"

Speech can be reframed as a practice quite easily. Your argument is just nonsensical special pleading.
 
No... it's totally different when you're banning things to when you're saying things. You're going to say things like "speech can be reframed as practice" and still claim not to be playing semantic games? You really believe that pointing out the difference between doing things and talking about things is "nonsensical"? No you don't, stop lying.
 
Manfred Belheim said:
No... it's totally different when you're banning things to when you're saying things. You're going to say things like "speech can be reframed as practice" and still claim not to be playing semantic games? You really believe that pointing out the difference between doing things and talking about things is "nonsensical"? No you don't, stop lying.
Click to expand...

Manny my boy, we're both playing semantic games, the only difference is that I'm aware of it and you aren't. Do you actually believe that the categories of interpretation - the terms under which you're attempting to carry on this exchange - have any real ontological validity? If you do, I feel sorry for you, honestly.
 
Lexicus said:
I'm not playing a semantic game
Click to expand...

Lexicus said:
Manny my boy, we're both playing semantic games, the only difference is that I'm aware of it and you aren't.
Click to expand...

that contradiction didn't take long...at least you avoided doing it in the same post

I'm laughing at the blatant hypocrisy of you pathetic, pathetic snowflakes who are so fragile you can't even stand the idea of a safe space somewhere nearby
Click to expand...

I can see why it would be blatantly hypocritical to complain about insults only to throw the same insults at other people, but why is it blatantly hypocritical to support free speech?
 
Berzerker said:
that contradiction didn't take long...at least you avoided doing it in the same post
Click to expand...

It must be very boring to be anchored in one frame of reference the way you are.

Berzerker said:
I can see why it would be blatantly hypocritical to complain about insults only to throw the same insults at other people, but why is it blatantly hypocritical to support free speech?
Click to expand...

You people don't support free speech, you just want to be open bigots without social censure.
 
Apparently pointing out when something isn't actually contradictory or hypocritical makes you a bigot. Who knew.
 
Lexicus said:
You people don't support free speech, you just want to be open bigots without social censure.
Click to expand...
I think we need to start appreciating that one of great anxieties underlying a lot of conservative politics is the fear of becoming deviant. We understand that conservatives pour thunder onto those they perceive as deviant, and imagine themselves righteous for doing so, but I think we're often over-generous and assuming that there's some of principal or coherent moral reasoning beyond their sense of what constituency deviancy. Most of them understand, even if they'd never admit it, that deviance is a question of social norms, and the prospect of social norms changing such that they become deviant is absolutely terrifying.

This has lead conservatism, particularly in the United States, to a place of profound confusion, from a recognition that casually racist speech and neo-Nazism are both taboo to an inability to appreciate that there's any moral difference between the two. When you never had a clear sense of right and wrong in the first place, when you only ever working from in-group solidarity and distrust of difference, and when your old reference points shift and dissolve, it's almost to be expected that some people who are not themselves raging bigots will find comfort in the company of those who are.
 
There's some level of irony in stating that it's the conservative viewpoint that's unable to distinguish neo-Narzism from other things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom