The Refuge of the Toads

[Billie from Ockham]

So you do agree it is intimidation for the purpose of censorship?

No I don't agree that at all, quite the opposite. This petition is asking for the meeting to be recorded so it can be discussed and analysed.

I guess that I was wrong. :oops:

[Ape+lust]

Regrets. We could be arguing whether "Peez ran first" right now.

http://imgur.com/UDZjXkQ.jpg

http://imgur.com/6X49ezr.jpg

[Brive1987]

Nice to see PZ has a friend.

http://i.imgur.com/OUla5yj.jpg

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

So you do agree it is intimidation for the purpose of censorship?

No I don't agree that at all, quite the opposite. This petition is asking for the meeting to be recorded so it can be discussed and analysed.

Jordan Peterson is quite happy to go on the record and defend what he says publicly.
George Ciccariello set his tweets to private and pretended it was just a joke without denying the sentiments he expressed. I would like to hold him accountable for other things he said on Twitter such as, "To clarify: when the whites were massacred during the Haitian Revolution, that was a good thing indeed." and "Make Communism brutal again" which is a hell of a thing for a revolutionary communist to say. I would really like him to be forced to defend his words or not only retract them but denounce this violent and racist rhetoric.

In theory, a university has room for diversity of opinion. If he is intimidated it is mostly likely because he isn't confident that he can convince the university of the virtues of Revolutionary Communism... but I suppose if Communism was convincing they probably wouldn't need armed revolutions.

Disingenuous. The university was already aware of his tweet and the matter was between him and the university. The only reason for this is to intimidate by public opinion. He can defend or not on the medium in which his view was expressed, and it can and already has been discussed there and elsewhere. This is involvement to silence, an intimidation tactic.

[VickyCaramel]

I think that everyone (here) knows that the goal of Sargon et al. is to quash speech.

Thats the dumbest thing you have said all day. Even more stupid than the idea that a University can censor it's customers but it's staff should be held to a different standard.

George Ciccariello made his account private. He has issued statements where he has lashed out and tried to laugh off his comments without retracting them. We want him to be forced to defend his words, we don't want to censor him. If we want his meeting documented it is because we want to hear what he has to say not to shut him up.
And then we want to be able to debate him, what better place that the university where he is teaching the Revolutionary Communism he has been preaching on Twitter?

[free thoughtpolice]

[youtube][/youtube]

[Billie from Ockham]

Here's my wife's reaction to all this (paraphrased): "odds are, Sargon is just testing whether his followers would stoop so low as to adopt the methods of SJWs as long as it was against an SJW."

And she'd never heard of Sargon before five minutes ago.

[Really?]

Here's my wife's reaction to all this (paraphrased): "odds are, Sargon is just testing whether his followers would stoop so low as to adopt the methods of SJWs as long as it was against an SJW."

And she'd never heard of Sargon before five minutes ago.

I haven't yet caught up with this whole situation, but I have very little sympathy for SJWs who have their tactics used against them. If you devote your time and attention to dehumanizing and marginalizing people on the basis of their politics, you shouldn't be surprised if people point out that you say shit that is equally, if not more offensive and inflammatory.

[Billie from Ockham]

Even more stupid than the idea that a University can censor it's customers but it's staff should be held to a different standard.

I know. It's almost like I'm expecting people to know something about the difference between the relationship between a school and a student vs the relationship between a school and a professor. At least before making pronouncements about it. I mean, what's next for me? Am I going to suggest that people read paperwork before signing? Com'on. Who has time for that shit? It's just a four-year school or a job that you hope to keep for life. And there are no other schools, anyway. All schools are just branches of Drexel just like all restaurants are Taco Bell. And don't even try to play the en loco parentis card ... 1961 was a long time ago. I'm such an idiot.

[Kirbmarc]

So you do agree it is intimidation for the purpose of censorship?

No I don't agree that at all, quite the opposite. This petition is asking for the meeting to be recorded so it can be discussed and analysed.

Do you think that Drexel U would agree to release a record of a meeting with an employee of theirs to the public? Wouldn't Professor Commie be entitled to sue Drexel U for recording the meeting and releasing without his permission?

Anyway Prof. Commie doesn't represent Drexel U, he never claimed to and they've made it clear that they don't support his views. Why does it matter so much to go after him? Just hold him as yet another example of egregious SJW assholery and save his tweets so that when SJWs say "nobody in academia has ever argued for white genocide, you're making it all up" you can show his tweets as evidence. That's perfectly fine and it's good to report on.

But what's there to be gained by asking for "transparency" in a private meeting between him and his employers, other than trying to create a chilling effect on SJW speech, just like the SJW tried to create a chilling effect on the speech they didn't like? What else does Sargon hope to achieve by asking for a "public record" of what Prof. Commie and his employers discuss? What's the point?

Jordan Peterson is quite happy to go on the record and defend what he says publicly.
George Ciccariello set his tweets to private and pretended it was just a joke without denying the sentiments he expressed. I would like to hold him accountable for other things he said on Twitter such as, "To clarify: when the whites were massacred during the Haitian Revolution, that was a good thing indeed." and "Make Communism brutal again" which is a hell of a thing for a revolutionary communist to say. I would really like him to be forced to defend his words or not only retract them but denounce this violent and racist rhetoric.

Why? What's the point? You've said some pretty extreme stuff here on the pit (you admitted that your position was extreme yourself), like the fact that you wish that Israel would disappear as a political entity and that jews should basically leave the area and move elsewhere. Do you think it'd be fair if some ADL goons exposed you and asked you to publicly defend your position for your shitposting here, or retract and denounce your position? Would it be fair if you worked in a university and Israel supporters started a petition for a "public record" of a meeting between you and your faculty?

I don't think it'd be fair, I'd go as far as to call it an attempt to stifle controversial speech. Why is it any different for Professor Brutal Commie?

[free thoughtpolice]

[youtube][/youtube]

[Kirbmarc]

Here's my wife's reaction to all this (paraphrased): "odds are, Sargon is just testing whether his followers would stoop so low as to adopt the methods of SJWs as long as it was against an SJW."

And she'd never heard of Sargon before five minutes ago.

I haven't yet caught up with this whole situation, but I have very little sympathy for SJWs who have their tactics used against them. If you devote your time and attention to dehumanizing and marginalizing people on the basis of their politics, you shouldn't be surprised if people point out that you say shit that is equally, if not more offensive and inflammatory.

This isn't a matter of personal sympathy, it's a matter of consistent principles. I don't care about Professor "Make Communism brutal again" as a person, his opinions are disgusting and he's a coward who has played the "just kidding!" card.

What matters is that SJW tactics are bad. It's not OK to steal from a thief, it's not OK to rape a rapist, or to murder a murderer. Some things are plainly wrong no matter who does them to whom.

I don't like vigilantism. It's the gateway to the corrosion of institutions, it's sectarian and arbitrary, and it lacks any check or balance. Internet vigilantism is even worse. Internet vigilantes are cogs in big machines, they're not accountable for anything. SJWs love internet vigilantism and moral panics because it's a good way for them to stifle speech they don't like without the hassle of changing the legal system. I don't think it's a good idea to go down that road, no matter how unsympathetic the white genocide commie fan is.

[MarcusAu]

Here's my wife's reaction to all this (paraphrased): "odds are, Sargon is just testing whether his followers would stoop so low as to adopt the methods of SJWs as long as it was against an SJW."

And she'd never heard of Sargon before five minutes ago.

Sargon's request for complete transparency - is either genuine (in which case he is naive), or a calculated strategy - ie he is making a demand that can be conceded for a something else.
For example, instead of complete disclosure, a summary of the meeting could be given, or this may be just to keep up pressure Drexel so that they don't sweep it under the rug. This seems a little skeevy to me - it just doesn't quite sit right (if it is what he is doing).

Anyway, he has had experience with online mobs in the past (both for an against him) - but it sounds like sooner or later something is going to bite him in the arse.


nb Your wife should read more ancient history.

[Billie from Ockham]

Carrie Fisher was murdered because the book that she's been pushing says that she had an affair with Harrison Ford while he was still married to his first wife. Alex Jones is a national treasure.

[Kirbmarc]

Carrie Fisher didn't make it.

http://people.com/movies/carrie-fisher- ... _peoplemag

I've had enough of this year.

Charmingly, PZ makes it all about himself. This is his entire post on the matter:

Carrie Fisher and I were about the same age, so I have to agree, she was too young and lively to die.
Dang. I should have headed off to Hollywood when I was 19 to become a cinema icon. Missed my chance.

Cunt.

Taxi Driver was released in 1976. I can really imagine Peezie as Travis Bickle. Alternatively he could have starred as the main character in this forgotten gem. He would have even saved the production some money on special effects.

[Tigzy]

[youtube][/youtube]

'I don't wanna start a conspiracy theory here -'

That'll be a first, Alex

'But -'

Well. Not unexpected.

[free thoughtpolice]

Carrie Fisher was murdered because the book that she's been pushing says that she had an affair with Harrison Ford while he was still married to his first wife. Alex Jones is a national treasure.

People tell me Alex learned jourmalism from the Sealouse. :geek:

[Billie from Ockham]

I just went back and asked: she know the historical Sargon was ... she just also knows me well enough to assume that I meant "one of your on-line friends."

As to the idea that Drexel might release any details about a personnel issue other than a final action, if any: don't hold your breath. They will probably feel obligated to make at least one more empty statement after the meeting has happened. After that they will pray for another white celebrity to die and distract everyone. That's what we all do. It's why so many have been dying lately.

[Kirbmarc]

I just went back and asked: she know the historical Sargon was ... she just also knows me well enough to assume that I meant "one of your on-line friends."

As to the idea that Drexel might release any details about a personnel issue other than a final action, if any: don't hold your breath. They will probably feel obligated to make at least one more empty statement after the meeting has happened. After that they will pray for another white celebrity to die and distract everyone. That's what we all do. It's why so many have been dying lately.

I think that Drexel U doesn't need to do more than what they've already done. "These tweets don't represent us, and we'll talk about them with Ciccariello, to make sure he doesn't use the same rhetoric in class" is fine for anyone who's not a shit-stirrer who uses moral outrage.

Ciccariello's tweets are evidence of his assholish behavior and should be archived for eventual future reference, but beyond that nobody got hurt physically or financially, there's no evidence of this being what Ciccariello teaches in class, so it's "just, like, his opinion, man".

[VickyCaramel]

Why? What's the point? You've said some pretty extreme stuff here on the pit (you admitted that your position was extreme yourself), like the fact that you wish that Israel would disappear as a political entity and that jews should basically leave the area and move elsewhere. Do you think it'd be fair if some ADL goons exposed you and asked you to publicly defend your position for your shitposting here, or retract and denounce your position? Would it be fair if you worked in a university and Israel supporters started a petition for a "public record" of a meeting between you and your faculty?

I don't think it'd be fair, I'd go as far as to call it an attempt to stifle controversial speech. Why is it any different for Professor Brutal Commie?

I have said nothing I haven't already defended in bigger arenas than this. The reason I am annon is that those cunts WILL come to your house and break your legs. It now turns out that George Ciccariello is fully in support of introducing baseball bats to the legs of people he disagrees with, in the name of "self defense" of course.
http://archive.is/KQtk6

This is a political battle. You would let him run away, I would hunt him down and corner him and have the battle wherever it suits me best in beating him. Your argument is complete bollocks, we are at war with bad ideas, who gives a fuck it we have a chilling effect on them because they are unable to defend them? They only spout these bad ideas where they are not allowed to be challenged.
If the slympit is only ever going to document shit and fight on the SJWs own terms, it will continue to be ineffective.

[Billie from Ockham]

This guy was new to me:

[youtube][/youtube]

[MarcusAu]

This guy was new to me:

[you.tube][/youtube]

I think it's an old audio clip of Internet Aristocrat / Mr Metokur / Jim - just with new visuals and a distorted audio.

[Brive1987]

Why? What's the point? You've said some pretty extreme stuff here on the pit (you admitted that your position was extreme yourself), like the fact that you wish that Israel would disappear as a political entity and that jews should basically leave the area and move elsewhere. Do you think it'd be fair if some ADL goons exposed you and asked you to publicly defend your position for your shitposting here, or retract and denounce your position? Would it be fair if you worked in a university and Israel supporters started a petition for a "public record" of a meeting between you and your faculty?

I don't think it'd be fair, I'd go as far as to call it an attempt to stifle controversial speech. Why is it any different for Professor Brutal Commie?

I have said nothing I haven't already defended in bigger arenas than this. The reason I am annon is that those cunts WILL come to your house and break your legs. It now turns out that George Ciccariello is fully in support of introducing baseball bats to the legs of people he disagrees with, in the name of "self defense" of course.
http://archive.is/KQtk6

This is a political battle. You would let him run away, I would hunt him down and corner him and have the battle wherever it suits me best in beating him. Your argument is complete bollocks, we are at war with bad ideas, who gives a fuck it we have a chilling effect on them because they are unable to defend them? They only spout these bad ideas where they are not allowed to be challenged.
If the slympit is only ever going to document shit and fight on the SJWs own terms, it will continue to be ineffective.

Peace of Daughter of Mykeru. In the objectively true realm of anti-SJW I'd agree.

But I also feel that,on balance, I'd rather have Israel fucking about in the Mideast than "just another Arab shithole". In fact Israel did a pretty good job at fighting those who would destroy them "on their own terms".

[Brive1987]

And they even did it with left over Sherman's no one else wanted.

[Billie from Ockham]

This guy was new to me:

[you.tube][/youtube]

I think it's an old audio clip of Internet Aristocrat / Mr Metokur / Jim - just with new visuals and a distorted audio.

I fall for those all the time. Drat.

[free thoughtpolice]

But I also feel that,on balance, I'd rather have Israel fucking about in the Mideast than "just another Arab shithole". In fact Israel did a pretty good job at fighting those who would destroy them "on their own terms".

Muhammad Amin al-Husayni dindu nuffin.

[Kirbmarc]

I have said nothing I haven't already defended in bigger arenas than this. The reason I am annon is that those cunts WILL come to your house and break your legs. It now turns out that George Ciccariello is fully in support of introducing baseball bats to the legs of people he disagrees with, in the name of "self defense" of course.
http://archive.is/KQtk6

This is a political battle. You would let him run away, I would hunt him down and corner him and have the battle wherever it suits me best in beating him. Your argument is complete bollocks, we are at war with bad ideas, who gives a fuck it we have a chilling effect on them because they are unable to defend them? They only spout these bad ideas where they are not allowed to be challenged.
If the slympit is only ever going to document shit and fight on the SJWs own terms, it will continue to be ineffective.

Forgive me for thinking that the aim of the fight was the ability of people to criticize SJWs without being threatened, to have a free discussion of ideas, to fight bad ideas with good ideas, not with soft censorship. I want to discredit censorship and soft censorship altogether, and let people form their informed opinion. Apparently you want to silence the ideas you don't like.

I want Prof. Commie to carry on spouting bad ideas, it helps others to know what kind of a person he is, and to form their informed opinion on him and on those who support him. I want his ideas to be challenged: I want people to be able to debate him, criticize him, mock him, satirize him, expose him. If his ideas are indefensible that'll be enough, and he and his cronies will gradually be left in the minority. The last thing I want is to censor him/get his employers to fire him just because I don't like what he says.

You apparently want the communists/SJWs to go into hiding and become martyrs of free speech, because fuck them, that's why. It's the exact same kind of arguments SJWs use. "Oh, those ideas are horrible, better make sure that they're not allowed around!" Who decides what's the next idea that shouldn't be uttered in public, lest the Online Morality Police strikes again? Maybe it's anti-theism, those anti-theists guys are so "hateful" of the poor oppressed religious folk after all, how can we allow our children to hear bad things about the good saint Mother Theresa! Sad!

And by the way I think that this is illiberal derail is going to backfire just like the SJW attempt to silence any critic of their stupidity backfired. SJWs will finally have some real fuel for their victimhood routine, and their moronic ideas will look edgy and appealing to the young because they're prohibited, just like "racial realism" looks edgy and "cool" because it's shouted at.

If fighting for soft censorship is your political war then we're not on the same side. Toodle-oo, live long and prosper, I'll carry on defending your right to say things I don't like, but here's when we part ways.

[free thoughtpolice]

Holy shit!
[youtube][/youtube]

[screwtape]

I want Prof. Commie to carry on spouting bad ideas, it helps others to know what kind of a person he is, and to form their informed opinion on him and on those who support him. I want his ideas to be challenged: I want people to be able to debate him, criticize him, mock him, satirize him, expose him. If his ideas are indefensible that'll be enough, and he and his cronies will gradually be left in the minority. The last thing I want is to censor him/get his employers to fire him just because I don't like what he says.

An argument I have had many times at the dining table, with a wife who thinks freedom of speech is a license to commit evil, and that hate speech laws are God's gift to Canada. I have learned that it is an argument that must not be opened if the marriage is to continue (there's a similar one about religion.) I have been either a) sensible enough to understand that social necessity means getting along and thus we must bite our tongues, or b) cowardly to the point where I have failed to argue my case properly. Take your pick: we all know what it is like. The take away lesson is the tragedy that people of exceedingly different IQs have to attempt to live together.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

snip

I have said nothing I haven't already defended in bigger arenas than this. The reason I am annon is that those cunts WILL come to your house and break your legs. It now turns out that George Ciccariello is fully in support of introducing baseball bats to the legs of people he disagrees with, in the name of "self defense" of course.
http://archive.is/KQtk6

Yikes! So this is already happening? Baseball bats?

2-bigfoot-swing.jpg

(497.52 KiB) Downloaded 142 times

[ROBOKiTTY]

What's such a big deal about white genocide anyway? The freedom of speech is not just there to defend your right to pooppost on the Internet. The only time free speech is ever justifiably quashed is if it's inciting imminent harm. No Whitey McWhiteFase is going to die because some academic no one's ever heard of has a few wires loose. That should be the end of that. Leave him alone.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

[tweet]

"Come in we're cunts"?
Sounds like a slymepit header.

I thought Fry had conclusively flounced from Twitter because of the bad things?

[Kirbmarc]

I want Prof. Commie to carry on spouting bad ideas, it helps others to know what kind of a person he is, and to form their informed opinion on him and on those who support him. I want his ideas to be challenged: I want people to be able to debate him, criticize him, mock him, satirize him, expose him. If his ideas are indefensible that'll be enough, and he and his cronies will gradually be left in the minority. The last thing I want is to censor him/get his employers to fire him just because I don't like what he says.

An argument I have had many times at the dining table, with a wife who thinks freedom of speech is a license to commit evil, and that hate speech laws are God's gift to Canada. I have learned that it is an argument that must not be opened if the marriage is to continue (there's a similar one about religion.) I have been either a) sensible enough to understand that social necessity means getting along and thus we must bite our tongues, or b) cowardly to the point where I have failed to argue my case properly. Take your pick: we all know what it is like. The take away lesson is the tragedy that people of exceedingly different IQs have to attempt to live together.

Censorship doesn't change people's minds, it just makes them mask their thoughts, and soft censorship is even more ineffective. Ideas lose appeal after they lose the monopoly of education and it can be shown how much they fail. Censorship only gives unearned nobility to the censored, who look like rebels and heroes of free speech.

The SJWs learned the price of trying to censor "un-PC thoughts" in the last election: they made support for Trump so publicly shameful that it was massively underreported, and so they were shocked by his unexpected victory.

This is especially true in the age of the Internet. The Streisand effect is real.

[Sunder]

"Come in we're cunts"?
Sounds like a slymepit header.

FT, please, put it in, put it in, like, hard!

Seconding.

Also, I just got back from Rogue One myself, although I happened to hear about the news before I went.

[Billie from Ockham]

Keep in mind that when Vicky writes that "George Ciccariello is fully in support of introducing baseball bats to the legs of people he disagrees with" what this means is that Ciccariello started a petition to get Michael Hirsh back his job on the grounds that Hirsh's doxxing and apparent threats against Richard Spencer were misunderstood and/or justified. There was nothing about "legs" in anything that Hirsh wrote, for example, but taking the few minutes to check wasn't worth it. Go with what sounds good, no matter what they actually wrote.

[Kirbmarc]

What's such a big deal about white genocide anyway? The freedom of speech is not just there to defend your right to pooppost on the Internet. The only time free speech is ever justifiably quashed is if it's inciting imminent harm. No Whitey McWhiteFase is going to die because some academic no one's ever heard of has a few wires loose. That should be the end of that. Leave him alone.

There's no big deal about "white genocide". The only big deal is that it shows evidence of SJW assholery/double standards.

By the way there's no big deal about an imminent "black genocide" or "asian genocide" in the US, either. No Black or Asian person is going to die because some idiot no one's ever heard of has a few wires loose.

[Ape+lust]

Peez is introduced as "co-initiator" of this "emergency organizing meeting" of refuseniks.

[youtube][/youtube]

So, Peez's new path to glory runs through lending his boob-ery to the Trump Opposition. I hope some of them get wise to what happened to New Atheists before he causes Trump to become Emperor of North America.

I used to think he had fucked up posture because he's a schlub, but today I think it might be because he's a b-i-g-f-o-o-t.

[Aneris]

In reality, the quality of the NHS has fluctuated a lot. It was terrible during the 70s, improved a bit through the 80s,

Improved in the 80's? It was run almost into the ground by Thatcher, constantly underfunded in a deliberate attempt to persuade people to go private. And private of course were her buddies.

Exactly.

• Defund.
• Say it's ineffective when the state is involved, free market magic baby!
• Postpone necessary investment into other party's terms.
• Privatize, for cheaps.
• Use funds to subsidize military and other buddies, keep some to present a better looking treasury. Also cutting investments leaves more in the bank.
• Retire, work as “consultant” or speaker for industries sold to, or subsidized.
• Win-Win. Win duped voters, who think decisions were good, for deficit is kept in check (through non-incestment, selling assets). Win new friends who will show gratitude later, for the purpose of showing the next generation of politicians that being friendly (i.e. screwing tax payers) will be rewarded.
• Make voters jaded in the long run, because the state comes across as incompetent and kleptocratic.

The right wing script that always works with their easy-to-amaze voter base.

[free thoughtpolice]

snip

I have said nothing I haven't already defended in bigger arenas than this. The reason I am annon is that those cunts WILL come to your house and break your legs. It now turns out that George Ciccariello is fully in support of introducing baseball bats to the legs of people he disagrees with, in the name of "self defense" of course.
http://archive.is/KQtk6

Yikes! So this is already happening? Baseball bats?

2-bigfoot-swing.jpg

I can only guess is this unfortunate creature has found his ancestral home inundated with apartments with substandard drywall and was driven to righteous anger.

[Kirbmarc]

Keep in mind that when Vicky writes that "George Ciccariello is fully in support of introducing baseball bats to the legs of people he disagrees with" what this means is that Ciccariello started a petition to get Michael Hirsh back his job on the grounds that Hirsh's doxxing and apparent threats against Richard Spencer were misunderstood and/or justified. There was nothing about "legs" in anything that Hirsh wrote, for example, but taking the few minutes to check wasn't worth it. Go with what sounds good, no matter what they actually wrote.

Ciccariello wrote "super embarrassed but still team kill nazi". Stupid, excessive, violent rhetoric, but ultimately harmless, just like Peezie's "shank the priests who want to convert me" wet dreams. Cicciarello is a massive cunt but not a threat.

Hirsh doxxed Spencer on Facebook and wrote "Our grandfathers brought baseball bats to Bund meetings. Want to join me?”. That's a bit less weak sauce. I don't think it was a serious threat (although it doesn't sound good, not at all siree) and Hirsh didn't deserve legal action but still it was a dick move, not just Hirsh expressing dumb opinions, and I think that Politico was within its rights not to want to be associated to someone who doxxes people he doesn't like. At the very least it's unethical for a journalist to publish private information without permission.

[Really?]

I have said nothing I haven't already defended in bigger arenas than this. The reason I am annon is that those cunts WILL come to your house and break your legs. It now turns out that George Ciccariello is fully in support of introducing baseball bats to the legs of people he disagrees with, in the name of "self defense" of course.
http://archive.is/KQtk6

This is a political battle. You would let him run away, I would hunt him down and corner him and have the battle wherever it suits me best in beating him. Your argument is complete bollocks, we are at war with bad ideas, who gives a fuck it we have a chilling effect on them because they are unable to defend them? They only spout these bad ideas where they are not allowed to be challenged.
If the slympit is only ever going to document shit and fight on the SJWs own terms, it will continue to be ineffective.

Forgive me for thinking that the aim of the fight was the ability of people to criticize SJWs without being threatened, to have a free discussion of ideas, to fight bad ideas with good ideas, not with soft censorship. I want to discredit censorship and soft censorship altogether, and let people form their informed opinion. Apparently you want to silence the ideas you don't like.

I want Prof. Commie to carry on spouting bad ideas, it helps others to know what kind of a person he is, and to form their informed opinion on him and on those who support him. I want his ideas to be challenged: I want people to be able to debate him, criticize him, mock him, satirize him, expose him. If his ideas are indefensible that'll be enough, and he and his cronies will gradually be left in the minority. The last thing I want is to censor him/get his employers to fire him just because I don't like what he says.

You apparently want the communists/SJWs to go into hiding and become martyrs of free speech, because fuck them, that's why. It's the exact same kind of arguments SJWs use. "Oh, those ideas are horrible, better make sure that they're not allowed around!" Who decides what's the next idea that shouldn't be uttered in public, lest the Online Morality Police strikes again? Maybe it's anti-theism, those anti-theists guys are so "hateful" of the poor oppressed religious folk after all, how can we allow our children to hear bad things about the good saint Mother Theresa! Sad!

And by the way I think that this is illiberal derail is going to backfire just like the SJW attempt to silence any critic of their stupidity backfired. SJWs will finally have some real fuel for their victimhood routine, and their moronic ideas will look edgy and appealing to the young because they're prohibited, just like "racial realism" looks edgy and "cool" because it's shouted at.

If fighting for soft censorship is your political war then we're not on the same side. Toodle-oo, live long and prosper, I'll carry on defending your right to say things I don't like, but here's when we part ways.

I agree with your earlier comments to me about the problems with vigilantism. I just have an empathy problem when a bad person is brought down by their own shitty tactics. I may not join in with that fight against the white genocide professor, but I'm also a lot less likely to go out of my way to show that person the empathy they refused to show others.

As for the above equally thoughtful comment, I wonder about the limits of earnest argument. Will Lindy West ever realize that she is full (to bursting) of shit and that she has harmed a great many people and has devoted her life to an inherently broken ideology that was really all about her taking power? I don't think they will.

The SJWs will always have fuel for their victimhood routine. They manufacture it and the mainstream media runs with it. Think of Brianna Wu, who is obviously a terrible person and a grifter. She's running for a political seat now and the mainstream media will not tell the truth about her and never will. Same with Randi Harper, Sarkeesian, PZ, Carrier. Christ, the Friendly Atheist is still trying to go with the "well, we don't know what happened" shit with respect to the accusations against Shermer, et. al.

SJWs never put themselves in a position to be questioned by sensible people. They stay in their own little bubbles and the media reports what happens in that bubble. This is why Milo Yiannopoulos can be booted from Twitter for saying that Leslie Jones looks like one of his ex-boyfriends and Leslie Jones can literally tell her followers to "get 'em" (inciting targeted harassment!) and she is the victim who gets all kinds of extra opportunity even though she isn't funny and her whole schtick is sexually harassing white men who subsequently express discomfort.

I also want the stupid people to be challenged, to be forced to debate in public, but they usually don't. That trans man who debated Jordan Peterson comes off looking like a crazy person to people like us, but it doesn't matter. He has tenure. He has the MSM defending him as a victim. He's high on the progressive stack.

What we should be urging is more challenging of ideas, not mere expression of ideas. So those lunatics who harassed Jordan Peterson because he wouldn't use their made-up pronouns should rightfully be allowed to ask him why. But then Jordan Peterson should be allowed to challenge them on equal ground, not with law enforcement and the college administration opposing him by default.

[Sunder]

Cripes, is Peez in a permanent slouch?

I think your hypothesis has some merit. He's certainly got the compliant gait down pat. This man is almost certainly an ornery 'squatch who's been shaved and made to teach introductory biology.

[Billie from Ockham]

[youtube][/youtube]

So glad that they brought in a scientist. Non-scientists often get the facts wrong.

Then I got to 4:40 and heard PZ say that "these [greenhouse] gases are largely generated from human sources."

Since when does 4% qualify as "largely"?

But asking a biologist to know about the sources of CO2 is probably asking too much.

[Kirbmarc]

Exactly.

• Defund.
• Say it's ineffective when the state is involved, free market magic baby!
• Postpone necessary investment into other party's terms.
• Privatize, for cheaps.
• Use funds to subsidize military and other buddies, keep some to present a better looking treasury. Also cutting investments leaves more in the bank.
• Retire, work as “consultant” or speaker for industries sold to, or subsidized.
• Win-Win. Win duped voters, who think decisions were good, for deficit is kept in check (through non-incestment, selling assets). Win new friends who will show gratitude later, for the purpose of showing the next generation of politicians that being friendly (i.e. screwing tax payers) will be rewarded.
• Make voters jaded in the long run, because the state comes across as incompetent and kleptocratic.

The right wing script that always works with their easy-to-amaze voter base.

The exact same script happens with the left wing, though, only instead of cronyism through privatization it's cronyism within public institutions, by appointing friends to position of power, by giving state commission to other friends and by giving generous welfare/jobs in the public sector to the people who are more likely to vote for you, regardless of whether the system works or not in the long run.

Also politicians both in the left and the right are often tied to local interests at the expense of larger interests, i.e. pork barrel or Kirchturmpolitik. Croynism and special interests simply the way the system works everywhere, in democracies just like in dictatorships.

The big difference is that in liberal democracies politicians both on the left and the right have also an interest in their country's prosperity because they depend on taxes on productive activities rather than on other commodities (monopoly of natural or labor resources), and lower prosperity means lower tax revenue.

"Draining the swamp" is really, really hard, and even when you do it anti-lobby laws and transparency on contributions can only limit the damage, not eliminate it.

[VickyCaramel]

Apparently you want to silence the ideas you don't like.

What the fucking fuck? Nobody is asking for him to be censored! I'm not asking him to be fired.

You apparently want the communists/SJWs to go into hiding and become martyrs of free speech, because fuck them, that's why.

What the fuck are you talking about? He HAS gone into hiding because there is no way he can defend his views and he knows it. We have chased him back to his university and will challenge him there. If he is an ideologue posing as an academic, and if he doesn't belong there thats his problem. If the universities had kept on top of things this really wouldn't be an issue in the first place, they need fixing.

He teaches revolutionary communism, we have seen him making outrageous Tweets going back 18 months based on revolutionary communism. What part of this do you not get? We are not calling for him to be fired or no-platformed, we want him to defend his statements.
He is not a car mechanic, he doesn't work at Walmart, he is a Professor of Politics and History and is tweeting as such with links to the two universities he works for in his profile. He has been tweeting violent rhetoric and anti-science nonsense since before anyone heard of the alt-right. If he was teaching biology and tweeting his disdain for evolution we wouldn't call it soft censorship to bring this up with his employers.

Holy shit, it common knowledge you lot are autistic, but this is fucking ridiculous.

I want his ideas to be challenged: I want people to be able to debate him, criticize him, mock him, satirize him, expose him.

Don't you worry, I'm sure somebody will do that for you, while you sit thinking up ways to criticize them for doing it.

[katamari Damassi]

I think that everyone (here) knows that the goal of Sargon et al. is to quash speech. The only issue is whether there are justifiable reasons for an employer to respond to the non-work-related activities of employees with anything other than "thanks for your input" (which is the polite way of saying "fuck off"). Vicky appear to be defending this position. She appears to be arguing that anything that could in any way hurt the business/university, at any time in the future, justifies crossing the line between professional and private, even when you have never explicitly warned the employee of this. I find this PoV to be somewhat terrifying, but can't claim to believe that Vicky is the only one to uphold it.

Sorry Billie but this is the new reality. SJW's will use it effectively on us. To not use their weapon against them, cedes the field of battle. Maybe when enough of them have lost their jobs over "hate" speech, they'll knock it the fuck off.

[Kirbmarc]

I agree with your earlier comments to me about the problems with vigilantism. I just have an empathy problem when a bad person is brought down by their own shitty tactics. I may not join in with that fight against the white genocide professor, but I'm also a lot less likely to go out of my way to show that person the empathy they refused to show others.

That's understandable. I'm not a fan of Commie McCommieFace myself.

As for the above equally thoughtful comment, I wonder about the limits of earnest argument. Will Lindy West ever realize that she is full (to bursting) of shit and that she has harmed a great many people and has devoted her life to an inherently broken ideology that was really all about her taking power? I don't think they will.

I don't care about Lindy West as a person. I care about how others see Lindy West. The goal isn't to get Lindy to change her mind, it's to get people to roll their eyes and say "Christ, Lindy, just stop whining already!" and "Oh god, you're quoting Lindy West of all people, and not ironically? Seriously?".

The SJWs will always have fuel for their victimhood routine. They manufacture it and the mainstream media runs with it. Think of Brianna Wu, who is obviously a terrible person and a grifter. She's running for a political seat now and the mainstream media will not tell the truth about her and never will. Same with Randi Harper, Sarkeesian, PZ, Carrier. Christ, the Friendly Atheist is still trying to go with the "well, we don't know what happened" shit with respect to the accusations against Shermer, et. al.

True but there's no reason to give the media some real meat for their manufactured outrage machine. I think that after Brexit and Trump SJWs are gradually losing, and that the media will start to report things more honestly once it's clear that people are no longer supporting them. Trust in the media is at an all-time low, sooner or later the incestuous circle-jerks will no longer be profitable. If nobody buys them/watches them anymore they'll have to change their tune.

SJWs never put themselves in a position to be questioned by sensible people. They stay in their own little bubbles and the media reports what happens in that bubble. This is why Milo Yiannopoulos can be booted from Twitter for saying that Leslie Jones looks like one of his ex-boyfriends and Leslie Jones can literally tell her followers to "get 'em" (inciting targeted harassment!) and she is the victim who gets all kinds of extra opportunity even though she isn't funny and her whole schtick is sexually harassing white men who subsequently express discomfort.

And all of this must be pointed out and repeated, over and over. I'm fine with reporting heavily on SJW shittyness, including Mr. Commie ILoveWhiteGenocide (the fact that he's not a threat doesn't mean he's above criticism). I'm less fine on attempt to censor or soft censor him.

If Sargon's video was only about "this idiot exists, let's not forget it, next time SJWs claim that nobody advocated for white genocide show them his tweets" I would have been fine with it. It's only the "transparency" petition which seems excessive to me, not the focus on George "Trans-Black Stalin" Cicciariello.

I also want the stupid people to be challenged, to be forced to debate in public, but they usually don't. That trans man who debated Jordan Peterson comes off looking like a crazy person to people like us, but it doesn't matter. He has tenure. He has the MSM defending him as a victim. He's high on the progressive stack.

He was challenged in public. The backlash to his words was huge. No matter how much the MSM defend him, he made the SJW look like morons. He's alienate lots of people from "Gender Studies".

What we should be urging is more challenging of ideas, not mere expression of ideas. So those lunatics who harassed Jordan Peterson because he wouldn't use their made-up pronouns should rightfully be allowed to ask him why. But then Jordan Peterson should be allowed to challenge them on equal ground, not with law enforcement and the college administration opposing him by default.

Absolutely. Give voice to him, focus on him, defend him from illiberal college/law enforcement procedures. If he's fined or fired or suspended or arrested, protest it vigorously, allow him to bring his case the court and support him, economically if necessary. I don't like some of Peterson's ideas but if he lost his job or was physically or financially harmed, or jailed/fined/suspended/fired for using the "wrong" pronouns I'd be all the way behind him, and I'd even contribute to his legal founds if necessary.

Just don't use those same illiberal weapons onto others.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

I think that everyone (here) knows that the goal of Sargon et al. is to quash speech. The only issue is whether there are justifiable reasons for an employer to respond to the non-work-related activities of employees with anything other than "thanks for your input" (which is the polite way of saying "fuck off"). Vicky appear to be defending this position. She appears to be arguing that anything that could in any way hurt the business/university, at any time in the future, justifies crossing the line between professional and private, even when you have never explicitly warned the employee of this. I find this PoV to be somewhat terrifying, but can't claim to believe that Vicky is the only one to uphold it.

Sorry Billie but this is the new reality. SJW's will use it effectively on us. To not use their weapon against them, cedes the field of battle. Maybe when enough of them have lost their jobs over "hate" speech, they'll knock it the fuck off.

I have trouble remembering when any SJW learned a lesson unless it happened to them directly, and even then learning from it is a rarity.

I think the only thing that will happen if we stoop to their level is that we will look just as bad as they do. Public opinion was slowly turning against them before Trump got elected. If by some miracle Trump doesn't legitimize many of their grievances, they will slowly lose influence and fade into relative obscurity.

[AndrewV69]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... emale-dna/

There is no such a thing as male and female DNA. True or false.

So I start reading and get to here:

Male and female are not so simply defined by X and Y chromosomes, and it’s dishonest to pretend that they are.

I bailed at that point. I dunno where he is going with this but he can go there all by himself. I have a feeling given his track record it is only a matter of time before he is into "not even wrong" territory.

I believe that it is only a matter of time that some biologist is going to develop a position on invasive species based on his position on immigration.

Pretty sure I have mentioned this before.

[Kirbmarc]

Apparently you want to silence the ideas you don't like.

What the fucking fuck? Nobody is asking for him to be censored! I'm not asking him to be fired.

What's the point of wanting records of a private meeting if not to start a campaign if the guy isn't punished enough?

You apparently want the communists/SJWs to go into hiding and become martyrs of free speech, because fuck them, that's why.

What the fuck are you talking about? He HAS gone into hiding because there is no way he can defend his views and he knows it. We have chased him back to his university and will challenge him there. If he is an ideologue posing as an academic, and if he doesn't belong there thats his problem. If the universities had kept on top of things this really wouldn't be an issue in the first place, they need fixing.[/quote]

Except that there's no evidence that he teaches those same ideas in his courses. People are able to keep their political ideas and their professional life separate. If he is an ideologue in his courses his employers will decide what to do about it.

Also, what does "challenge him in his university" mean? Are people planning a conference at his uni or inviting him to a public debate? No, they're asking for records of what him and his employers will talk about. That's not "challenging", that's demanding that the university answers to you, and being ready to protest if you think he got away with a slap on the wrist.

He teaches revolutionary communism, we have seen him making outrageous Tweets going back 18 months based on revolutionary communism. What part of this do you not get? We are not calling for him to be fired or no-platformed, we want him to defend his statements.

Again, what does "defend his statements" mean in practice? Sargon's petition is about knowing what will happen between him and his employers, not about challenging to a public debate. If Sargon wanted the guy to "defend his statements" he could have invited the guy to a do a hangout with him, he's done it with anyone from an-caps to communists. Instead he went for the "let's see what his university will do, then act on it".

He is not a car mechanic, he doesn't work at Walmart, he is a Professor of Politics and History and is tweeting as such with links to the two universities he works for in his profile. He has been tweeting violent rhetoric and anti-science nonsense since before anyone heard of the alt-right. If he was teaching biology and tweeting his disdain for evolution we wouldn't call it soft censorship to bring this up with his employers.

The petition isn't just for "bringing this up to his employers". That already happened, the employers are already aware of what he said and they've publicly distanced themselves. The petition is to have access to data about what his employers will decide to do about him and why.

Holy shit, it common knowledge you lot are autistic, but this is fucking ridiculous.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

[SkepticalCat]

George Ciccariello's big mistake was in not preceding his remarks with a "trigger warning" for conservatives....clearly Sargon et al are in dire need of a "safe space"... :bjarte:

[Wild Zontargs]

I think that everyone (here) knows that the goal of Sargon et al. is to quash speech. The only issue is whether there are justifiable reasons for an employer to respond to the non-work-related activities of employees with anything other than "thanks for your input" (which is the polite way of saying "fuck off"). Vicky appear to be defending this position. She appears to be arguing that anything that could in any way hurt the business/university, at any time in the future, justifies crossing the line between professional and private, even when you have never explicitly warned the employee of this. I find this PoV to be somewhat terrifying, but can't claim to believe that Vicky is the only one to uphold it.

Sorry Billie but this is the new reality. SJW's will use it effectively on us. To not use their weapon against them, cedes the field of battle. Maybe when enough of them have lost their jobs over "hate" speech, they'll knock it the fuck off.

To quote Vox Day's "SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police" (this would be the extreme form of the pro-retaliation argument):

Strategy 4: Deny them employment.

This is the strategic element that will likely prove most difficult for even the most serious anti-SJW to accept, but it is a necessary one. Remember, turnabout is fair play and striking back in kind is justice. This is a cultural war, not a garden party, and one of the primary reasons truth, liberty, and justice are being systematically eradicated from our society is that their defenders are unwilling to take the cultural war seriously or take out the enemy's soldiers. Make no mistake, that fat little middle-aged woman who potters around the organization making herself indispensable as she issues those seemingly harmless little homilies about diversity and equality is your enemy, and she will not hesitate to destroy your livelihood if given the opportunity.

It is entirely common for non-SJWs to need to keep quiet about their politics, about their religious faith, and in some cases, even about their identities in order to keep their jobs. I don't have a single game credit to either my given name or my best-known pen name since 2007 because the game companies with whom I work prefer to avoid the inevitable flak they will take from SJWs within and without the company simply for hiring me. It doesn't cause me very much trouble because I have a long history and a lot of personal connections in the industry, but younger, less-experienced non-SJWs can be much more easily black-balled.

And make no mistake, they are being black-balled by SJWs in the industry. Leigh Alexander of Gamasutra and Laralyn McWilliams, the Chief Creative Officer at The Workshop Entertainment, publicly threatened one young developer's career for defending what Alexander called "sexist argument" in May 2015. Nor was that the only example chronicled by DeepFreeze.

The problem is that when SJWs are actively seeking out those who challenge their Narrative and disemploying them or preventing them from getting hired while non-SJWs blithely permit SJWs to freely enter their organizations, the outcome is both predictable and inevitable. The only way to reverse the trend is to start actively hunting SJWs, using every available legal means to disemploy them. Remember, while race, sex, age and sexual orientation are protected classes, political affiliations are not. Attempts by Republicans and conservatives to sue universities have repeatedly failed, despite massively incongruous hiring patterns that violate the statistical standards of disparate impact far more greatly than is normally required to interest the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

So, once you've discovered that a co-worker or an employee belongs to a political party that indicates SJW sympathies, or has a COEXIST bumper sticker, or regularly utilizes language that indicates he is an SJW, arrange to have him jettisoned at the earliest opportunity. Don't let any misguided sympathy hold you back; in the long term it is literally a case of you or him. Rest assured, jettisoning you won't cause an SJW to lose any sleep at all; quite the contrary, it's the sort of thing he will brag to his friends about for years. You don't need to take any sadistic pleasure in hunting SJWs (although you may well develop a taste for it), but you do need to do it nevertheless in self-defense of your own career.

The enemy has nukes. We have nukes. The enemy has already used their nukes on civilian targets. It is acceptable to use our nukes on military targets. Failure to do so will convince them that they can continue to nuke people with impunity. MAD sucks, but it beats the fuck out of unilateral disarmament.

[Kirbmarc]

Oh, well, if people want to become the right-wing version of the SJWs they're free to do so.

I thought all people here cared about liberal democratic values, but if Vox Day's insane rants about getting SJWs or even simply people you think are SJWs fired for their ideas are normalized as "part of the cultural war" I have to assume I was wrong.

[Really?]

[youtube][/youtube]

So glad that they brought in a scientist. Non-scientists often get the facts wrong.

Then I got to 4:40 and heard PZ say that "these [greenhouse] gases are largely generated from human sources."

Since when does 4% qualify as "largely"?

But asking a biologist to know about the sources of CO2 is probably asking too much.

I guess PZ is right. Men who are accused of rape seldom suffer professional consequences and seldom lose their authority in society.

The enemy has nukes. We have nukes. The enemy has already used their nukes on civilian targets. It is acceptable to use our nukes on military targets. Failure to do so will convince them that they can continue to nuke people with impunity. MAD sucks, but it beats the fuck out of unilateral disarmament.

I am curious to see what Kirbmarc thinks about this line of argument. SJWs love to attack people who are just going about their business. Zarna Joshi is an SJW hero for being "sexually harassed" by some random overweight guy who spoke at a city council meeting. That guy has no power. He's not rich. He's not an elected official.

The SJWs have the full weight and support of the media and the law (in some places) and the universities. They wield this power as a cudgel to prevent free and open discussion of issues. As a result, anti-SJW people must resort to alternative media. Then when you show your SJW friend that Brianna Wu is, in fact, a psychopath and GamerGate is not a movement to chain women to stoves, they simply say, "That's Breitbart." But ABC News, CNN, NBC, Slate, Salon, Vox repeat bullshit lies and the SJWs and SJW friendlies take it as gospel.

It's a time-honored question. How do you handle asymmetric war when you are the insurgency?

[Wild Zontargs]

Oh, well, if people want to become the right-wing version of the SJWs they're free to do so.

I thought all people here cared about liberal democratic values, but if Vox Day's insane rants about getting SJWs or even simply people you think are SJWs fired for their ideas are normalized as "part of the cultural war" I have to assume I was wrong.

ibid:

Once the enemy sets a precedent by utilizing a certain tactic, you are not only free to utilize that tactic against him, but you must do so if you wish to prevent him from continuing to use it successfully against you.

This is a principle that makes many anti-SJWs uncomfortable, but it is important to understand that what distinguishes us from the SJWs is not the type of air we breathe or the sort of tactics upon which we rely, but our ultimate objectives. Those ends do not justify the means, nor do they need to do so, as the means are fully justified by our enemy's use of them. The ends simply serve to make it perfectly clear that we are not them and they are not us. The reason the Germans did not use gas in World War II after introducing it in World War I was not because they had become more civilized, but because the French and British responded in kind. It is the ultimate purposes for which the tactics are used that matter, not the tactics themselves.

[ERV]

Carrie Fisher didn't make it.

http://people.com/movies/carrie-fisher- ... _peoplemag

I've had enough of this year.

In terms of celebrity icons shuffling off this mortal coil can't see the next few years being an improvement on 2016.
The pop stars and actors of the seventies and eighties (who didn't OD on drugs) are reaching the age where heart disease and cancer really takes its toll on their generation - particularly the ones who weakened their bodies through past excesses (Bowie, Prince, George Michael, Lemmy, Carrie Fisher - errm, isn't that all of them?)

Cheer up - by this time next year we might all be gone.

Thats optimistic! Im wondering if anyone is going to see the new year.

Also Greg Laden literally tried to get me kicked out of school for the social/political opinions I hold so some yall need to meditate on that for a bit.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Well, a certain quote by Nietzsche comes to mind. We are not waging a war against SJW directly, but to win the hearts and minds of the vast uniformed public, whose opinion and tax dollars will determine the ultimate victor. All we do is look like a mirror image of the cunts we're fighting.

And if I'm being honest, I still believe in acting honorably. I've had some pretty nasty things done to me IRL, but I have never responded in kind. As I get older and more infirm, that is a kind of comfort to me.

[Kirbmarc]

I am curious to see what Kirbmarc thinks about this line of argument. SJWs love to attack people who are just going about their business. Zarna Joshi is an SJW hero for being "sexually harassed" by some random overweight guy who spoke at a city council meeting. That guy has no power. He's not rich. He's not an elected official.

The SJWs have the full weight and support of the media and the law (in some places) and the universities. They wield this power as a cudgel to prevent free and open discussion of issues. As a result, anti-SJW people must resort to alternative media. Then when you show your SJW friend that Brianna Wu is, in fact, a psychopath and GamerGate is not a movement to chain women to stoves, they simply say, "That's Breitbart." But ABC News, CNN, NBC, Slate, Salon, Vox repeat bullshit lies and the SJWs and SJW friendlies take it as gospel.

It's a time-honored question. How do you handle asymmetric war when you are the insurgency?

Trump won, Clinton lost. The war isn't exactly asymmetric now. Things likely won't be the same after January the 20th. The SJW are doubling down for as long as they can, but if they keep doing it they'll keep the Democratic party out of the white house for the next twenty years. That's going to have a huge effect on the law, on universities and even on the media.

I'd say that it's better, if possible, to shield your own soldiers from nukes than to nuke others. People will likely get a less SJW friendly supreme court under Trump. It'll be time to challenge Title IX, pronoun laws and other SJ friendly laws in court, and this time the SJWs are likely to lose. If special pronoun laws are declared unconstitutional that'd be a huge win, much better than getting Zarna Joshi fired.

[VickyCaramel]

Except that there's no evidence that he teaches those same ideas in his courses. People are able to keep their political ideas and their professional life separate.

You can't actually believe that... when his profession is teaching politics, you think he can keep his politics separate... when his is teaching the exact branch of politics which he has been spouting off about... really? Come on, you are having me on!
It's the same damn thing!

Again, what does "defend his statements" mean in practice? Sargon's petition is about knowing what will happen between him and his employers, not about challenging to a public debate.

Asking that it be recorded changes the nature of the meeting. If it is all recorded the Dean or head of department cannot just call him in for a bollocking and say "what the hell are you thinking you asshole, shut the fuck up" (I paraphrase). It cannot really be a tribunal either, it would have to take the form of some kind of inquiry, discussion and resolution. It is not as unreasonable as some would make out, it might even help him keep his job.

Of course, this gives the genocidal commie another opportunity to double down and insist that for the last 18 months he has just been trolling about white genocide and throwing people into gulags, at which point he should be asked to make his true position clear on those subjects. He will then be trapped in that lie. If he mentions it again we can either throw it back at him that he is trolling now or lying before.

The real fact of the matter is that we already know what his real position is. He believes there is no such thing as race and so it makes no difference if we all end up coffee coloured and he is hoping for that.... because it is white culture he really hopes to end, because white culture is anti-communist. This isn't even internally consistent, it confuses culture and race, and contradicts biological reality, and he has made various contradictory statements to this while trying to overlay oppressor/oppressed onto white/coloured.

I am not sure if the university will see enough of his old tweets to figure this out and challenge him on it, but that will just make things more interesting later.

Of course I doubt they will record it. They will however probably have to issue a statement which will amount to the same thing as we will find out the official positions of both parties. We can then hold them to it.

...and then, you better believe we will go after him, not as just another asshole shitposting on twitter, but as a university professor. Thats when we can nail his neck to the floor.

abolish.png

(84.25 KiB) Downloaded 103 times

I am not all that interested about screaming "racism", it is far more devastating to challenge the ideas that brought him to this conclusion.

[Really?]

I am curious to see what Kirbmarc thinks about this line of argument. SJWs love to attack people who are just going about their business. Zarna Joshi is an SJW hero for being "sexually harassed" by some random overweight guy who spoke at a city council meeting. That guy has no power. He's not rich. He's not an elected official.

The SJWs have the full weight and support of the media and the law (in some places) and the universities. They wield this power as a cudgel to prevent free and open discussion of issues. As a result, anti-SJW people must resort to alternative media. Then when you show your SJW friend that Brianna Wu is, in fact, a psychopath and GamerGate is not a movement to chain women to stoves, they simply say, "That's Breitbart." But ABC News, CNN, NBC, Slate, Salon, Vox repeat bullshit lies and the SJWs and SJW friendlies take it as gospel.

It's a time-honored question. How do you handle asymmetric war when you are the insurgency?

Trump won, Clinton lost. The war isn't exactly asymmetric now. Things likely won't be the same after January the 20th. The SJW are doubling down for as long as they can, but if they keep doing it they'll keep the Democratic party out of the white house for the next twenty years. That's going to have a huge effect on the law, on universities and even on the media.

I'd say that it's better, if possible, to shield your own soldiers from nukes than to nuke others. People will likely get a less SJW friendly supreme court under Trump. It'll be time to challenge Title IX, pronoun laws and other SJ friendly laws in court, and this time the SJWs are likely to lose. If special pronoun laws are declared unconstitutional that'd be a huge win, much better than getting Zarna Joshi fired.

As always, I love the thoughtfulness of your argument. I have to disagree that the Trump election is going to have a big effect on the problem. The SJWs (who still control universities and the media) are emboldened. They are fighting Hitler in their time. I'm not sure of the effect that the Supreme Court will have on SJW policies, though I'm sure that the Court will annoy the left in a number of ways for decades to come because of Trump.

I don't know if I agree about your idea that the Democrats will wise up. What have they changed? What faults have they admitted? Instead of admitting that Hillary was a bad candidate at the wrong time, they're trying to start a war with Russia.

I also love the idea of confronting SJW bullshit in court, but where and how can that realistically happen? Zarna Joshi is a piece of garbage, but she didn't break the law, really. The kind of lawbreaking SJWs do is in their personal lives. They gain and consolidate power by lying about victimhood and collecting money based upon that fake victimhood.

Instead of researching his interests, Jordan Peterson is forced to spend a lot of his time fighting SJW bullshit. Instead of fighting pseudoscience and fake medical shit, skeptics are now forced to spend a lot of time fighting SJW bullshit. Instead of fighting church and state violations, the American Humanist Association is fighting humanists about SJW bullshit.

It seems like we just need to accept that we're going into a kind of Dark Age until these 18 year olds who are directing federal policy finally realize they are insane and alone and that they are the problem.