Toughen up losers

[Hehehe]

"Free speech" does not give you the right to spout racist views. Yin can be as racist as you like; in the privacy of your own home. Such views are not welcome here. And neither are people who spout them. The right claiming to want "free speech" is just code for "I can say whatever racist/sexist/homophobic filth I want, and you can't stop me.

You actively called for selective breeding to fix IQ deficiencies amongst ethnic minorities. That is literally a call for ethnic cleansing via eugenics. Maybe I should compare you to Milosevic rather than Hitler, if we're being pedantic.

And we all know the reason you like to visit different forums is to spread your vile views far and wide. You're not interested in discussion; you're interested in propaganda. Go back to Breitbart.

Do we even need to go in-depth into this de-facto de-jure debate about free speech? As for my views, you're lying about me. No wonder you're so scared, making stuff up in your own head

 

[HoloDoc]

Well, I guess this back and forth yuh-huh nuh-huh debate isn't going anywhere. I guess my closing thoughts would be these: I think that if you really could debunk me, you'd have no trouble having those discussions.

I never once wanted any of those discussions closed, and I definitely never bragged about it.

I have debunked you. So have others. You have refused to acknowledge those debunkings. The earlier reference to Von Daniken was not chosen at random.

And you literally made a smartarse remark about the thread on racism being closed, when it was closed for review because of you. You should know, you were infracted in it.

(For the record, I would like that thread re-opened, as long as racist views like yours are immediately infracted, deleted, and you're tossed into the hole you belong in.)

Do we even need to go in-depth into this de-facto de-jure debate about free speech? As for my views, you're lying about me. No wonder you're so scared, making stuff up in your own head

I'm not lying, and I have actually linked to posts in this thread which prove my point. Unlike you, who simply says things with no evidence, I provided some. You don't have any. So I guess you acknowledge that you have been "blown out of the water" in this "fair and open debate."

Your views are demonstrably false. Mine, at least as it pertains to such factual statements as "you were caught actively promoting eugenics in a thread on racism," are demonstrably true. I have linked to the evidence. You have not. So, like I said, piss off back to Breitbart and rip out your tongue on the way.

 

[Hehehe]

(For the record, I would like that thread re-opened, as long as racist views like yours are immediately infracted, deleted, and you're tossed into the hole you belong in.)

Well, I guess that does sum up your position, I give you that.

I'm not lying, and I have actually linked to posts in this thread which prove my point. Unlike you, who simply says things with no evidence, I provided some. You don't have any. So I guess you acknowledge that you have been "blown out of the water" in this "fair and open debate."

Your views are demonstrably false. Mine, at least as it pertains to such factual statements as "you were caught actively promoting eugenics in a thread on racism," are demonstrably true. I have linked to the evidence. You have not. So, like I said, piss off back to Breitbart and rip out your tongue on the way.

I promoted voluntary genetic engineering. I have never promoted "selective breeding" or "ethnic cleansing".

I guess I'll address the Nazi accusations one more time. You do realize that my views are in line with the Western Allied soldiers who actually fought the Nazis? I have never ever wanted anything other than a liberal democracy.

 

[Lexicus]

If I was a conspiracy minded idiot I'd be tempted to think this weird fragility epidemic is a bunch of paid actors to make actual left leaning individuals look ridiculous and weak.

I just wish we could choose between "leftists are infantile babies who get PTSD from hearing a dissenting idea" and "leftists are a totalitarian force of nature who will destroy liberal society itself in order to prevent anyone from saying bad things"

 

[Hehehe]

I just wish we could choose between "leftists are infantile babies who get PTSD from hearing a dissenting idea" and "leftists are a totalitarian force of nature who will destroy liberal society itself in order to prevent anyone from saying bad things"

Technically, those two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not saying that either of them is true, I'm just pointing this out

 

[HoloDoc]

You actively promoted eugenics in order to breed out "IQ deficiencies" in ethnic minorities. That is an explicitly racist viewpoint, and very much ethnic cleansing. I linked to the post earlier, and there were plenty of others in that thread. You are it interested in a debate, merely in spreading your views, and I am not interested in helping you do so.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I've actually floated a possible practical solution here, one time, but I didn't get any takers.

I think the controversial speaker should be in an auditorium, with whatever audience wants to go hear him or her.

Then, there should be a second auditorium where the speech is projected on a big screen, but where students in the audience can post onto the screen refutations (pop-up video style, from their cellphones, say) of the claims made in the speech.

The speaker gets to speak. The people who simply want to hear him get to hear him. The people who find him reprehensible get a "safe space," but in that safe space, they are engaging with the "ideas," such as they are, in the controversial speaker's speech. The total record of the speech is the speech plus all the refutations. If the refutations are stronger than the claims (i.e. link to supporting studies), then the speaker is defeated.

 

[Hehehe]

You actively promoted eugenics in order to breed out "IQ deficiencies" in ethnic minorities. That is an explicitly racist viewpoint, and very much ethnic cleansing. I linked to the post earlier, and there were plenty of others in that thread. You are it interested in a debate, merely in spreading your views, and I am not interested in helping you do so.

We're going in circles, aren't we? Like I said, I only ever promoted voluntary genetic engineering. Nothing about it is "ethnic cleansing". It doesn't result in the disappearance of a people. I'm not promoting for other peoples anything that I wouldn't promote to my own people. It seems like you're trying to distort my views in order to smear me.

 

[Hehehe]

I've actually floated a possible practical solution here, one time, but I didn't get any takers.

I think the controversial speaker should be in an auditorium, with whatever audience wants to go hear him or her.

Then, there should be a second auditorium where the speech is projected on a big screen, but where students in the audience can post onto the screen refutations (pop-up video style, from their cellphones, say) of the claims made in the speech.

The speaker gets to speak. The people who simply want to hear him get to hear him. The people who find him reprehensible get a "safe space," but in that safe space, they are engaging with the "ideas," such as they are, in the controversial speaker's speech. The total record of the speech is the speech plus all the refutations. If the refutations are stronger than the claims (i.e. link to supporting studies), then the speaker is defeated.

I actually kinda like this idea. Would the speaker have a chance to respond to the things that are posted on the screen?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think we've seen a pretty clear demonstration here of why "debating" the right wing troll Shapiro isn't an effective strategy. A right wing troll that is willing to respond to their lies being exposed by just repeated lying isn't open to debate. Savagery is the only viable option.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I actually kinda like this idea. Would the speaker have a chance to respond to the things that are posted on the screen?

After the speech, he can, and would in fact be expected to, as part of his speaking fee.

Of course, he can also just go on his own radio show and whine.

I don't know if Tim's latest comment is addressing me, or just the preceding exchange, but in the second auditorium people can be as savage as they want to be.

 

[HoloDoc]

I think we've seen a pretty clear demonstration here of why "debating" the right wing troll Shapiro isn't an effective strategy. A right wing troll that is willing to respond to their lies being exposed by just repeated lying isn't open to debate. Savagery is the only viable option.

This guy gets it!

 

[Estebonrober]

Well, I guess that does sum up your position, I give you that.

I promoted voluntary genetic engineering. I have never promoted "selective breeding" or "ethnic cleansing".

I guess I'll address the Nazi accusations one more time. You do realize that my views are in line with the Western Allied soldiers who actually fought the Nazis? I have never ever wanted anything other than a liberal democracy.

Your views are based on 19th century science and western white supremacy. Even the allies that believed such things have grown out of those beliefs. Like any rational being who with more evidence was swayed they decided to change their views. They being almost the entirety of western academia. I can pull 10 studies to every one of yours and you will claim they are all from leftist sources and such and then repeat your nonsense.

Furthermore you advocacy for volunteer genetic engineering is abhorrent. It takes one slip into massive genocide. You might have a peace loving racist attitude but others who embrace your thinking likely will not look so kindly on the “filthy dregs of society”.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: Thread closed for review.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889