So apparently JonTron is a racist

[TheMysteriousGX]

As for that petition, i actually agree that courses that seem to taking students and turning them into activists should be suspended for review. If nothing else its a fundamental betrayal of the concept of university, instead of being enlightened theese students have come out with worse job prospects than before and indoctrinated into a 'Everyone i dont like is Hitler' school of thought.

Mate, Carl does so little research that the letter for said petition is going to be delivered to "Universities", and the whole of its entire body of text is "Suspend social justice courses."

Carl's either grandstanding virtue signaling, advertising, or he does so little research that he didn't figure out how change.org works.

 

[gigastar]

and the whole of its entire body of text is "Suspend social justice courses."

I wouldnt even have bothered responding to you if it want for that line.

The body of the petition reads;

Social justice has become scientifically illiterate, logically unsound, deeply bigoted and openly supremacist. Social justice professors are indoctrinating young people into a pseudoscientific cult behind closed doors that is doing damage to their health, education and future.

Social justice has become a victim of its own good intentions and in the desperate attempt to make the world better for some it is creating a world better for none. It has become another ideology fit only to pave the road to Hell, so it is time to turn around and choose another path that is concerned with reason, science and improving the lives of every human.

To clarify, we are calling for the teaching of social justice courses in universities to be temporarily suspended. What follows is up for debate, but as it stands now, social justice is causing far more harm than good and it must be halted and reassessed.

https://www.change.org/p/universities-suspend-social-justice-in-universities

Theres a fucking link to it in this thread already and you still couldnt represent it accurately.

 

[Dizchu]

Come to think of it i actually find that debate to be relevant to Destiny and JonTron too. Both Sargon and Jon were not experienced debaters and their opponents gave them the rope to hang themselves with.

And that's what all these people have in common. Sargon, Jontron, Thunderf00t etc. their arguments evaporate upon exposure to the outside world because their arguments rely heavily on a lack of skepticism and of a very selective interpretation of reality. They're bad at debating because debating was never something they had any intention of doing.

Now Jon's a bit different, he made a few cock-ups on social media and there were two reactions. You had those that were annoyed by what he said and people like TotalBiscuit who tried to offer him advice on one side and on the other side you have the reactionary idiots who wanted to push him further in their direction and it looks like they came out on top. Reactionaries tend not to be great at debating, even the "GLORIOUS SJW DESTROYER" Milo Yiannopoulos is terrible at debating because if he wasn't he wouldn't have to resort so heavily on ad hominem attacks, Gish galloping and red herrings. Which doesn't matter to his fans, because once someone confronts his bullshit by telling him to go fuck himself they'll insist that he was treated unfairly.

This is the kind of thing that has pushed me firmly to the left. All of this reactionary nonsense is just disingenuous and considering how many people make a living off of this, be it Youtubers like Sargon of Akkad or conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson, one has to wonder what the actual motivation is because I strongly doubt that it's for any sincere intention of making the world a better place or trying to advance as a society.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

and the whole of its entire body of text is "Suspend social justice courses."

I wouldnt even have bothered responding to you if it want for that line.

*snip*

Theres a fucking link to it in this thread already and you still couldnt represent it accurately.

Which just shows that you know as much about how change.org works as Carl of Swindon does.

Click on the bit at the bottom that says "Read the letter". That's the bit that change.org is going to attach these signatures to and send off, not the part on top explaining the petition.

So like I said:

Carl's either grandstanding virtue signaling, advertising, or he does so little research that he didn't figure out how change.org works.

 

[gigastar]

As for that petition, i actually agree that courses that seem to taking students and turning them into activists should be suspended for review. If nothing else its a fundamental betrayal of the concept of university, instead of being enlightened theese students have come out with worse job prospects than before and indoctrinated into a 'Everyone i dont like is Hitler' school of thought.

How on earth do you know that? What's your level of familiarity with these courses?

All we have to go on is a highly charged, rhetorical account from a political opponent. We cannot simply assume his analysis is on the money and he must be right about them.

Suspend for review is what i said.

If the review of the cirricula finds that professors arent taking impressionable young minds and inoctrinating them into a cult of political activists, then they can resume thier normal activities.

However, given not only theese students propensity for staging protests simply due to presence of people who dont agree with them, as seen multiple times with the Dangerous ****** tour, or everything that went down at Mizzou after the shit swastika appeared, i would say there at least needs to be an investigation into who or what is ifluencing theese students into behaving like this.

First logical step being the cirricula, since i think the Department of Education would take a dim view on its money being used to indoctrinate students into a cult of political activism.

If the cirricula is clean, then the professors should be investigated next, and if things like this are any indication...

...i think thats where we may find the real problem.

 

[Story]

As for that petition, i actually agree that courses that seem to taking students and turning them into activists should be suspended for review. If nothing else its a fundamental betrayal of the concept of university, instead of being enlightened theese students have come out with worse job prospects than before and indoctrinated into a 'Everyone i dont like is Hitler' school of thought.

How on earth do you know that? What's your level of familiarity with these courses?

All we have to go on is a highly charged, rhetorical account from a political opponent. We cannot simply assume his analysis is on the money and he must be right about them.

Suspend for review is what i said.

If the review of the cirricula finds that professors arent taking impressionable young minds and inoctrinating them into a cult of political activists, then they can resume thier normal activities.

However, given not only theese students propensity for staging protests simply due to presence of people who dont agree with them, as seen multiple times with the Dangerous ****** tour, or everything that went down at Mizzou after the shit swastika appeared, i would say there at least needs to be an investigation into who or what is ifluencing theese students into behaving like this.

First logical step being the cirricula, since i think the Department of Education would take a dim view on its money being used to indoctrinate students into a cult of political activism.

If the cirricula is clean, then the professors should be investigated next, and if things like this are any indication...

...i think thats where we may find the real problem.

I really really wanted to stay out of this but I just want some clarification namely this:
Why is being passionate about political activism a bad thing? Why is it something that needs to be removed? For as far as I see it is good that people care enough about an issue to stand up for it. There aren't enough people that do. I used to think the same thing as you that I didn't need social justice courses because I was already firm in my own beliefs. But I quickly found that to be rather troubling and a close minded way of thinking even some courses that I took I didn't agree with, I still learned a lot from that perspective.

Secondly, I have a problem with wanting to review social justice courses because why would it stop there? I can easily picture moving on to reviewing a evolution class or any social studies class for the same reasons.

 

[Silvanus]

Suspend for review is what i said.

If the review of the cirricula finds that professors arent taking impressionable young minds and inoctrinating them into a cult of political activists, then they can resume thier normal activities.

That in itself as a massive move. Why should that be done, on the basis of some shoddy one-sided account by an online personality?

However, given not only theese students propensity for staging protests simply due to presence of people who dont agree with them, as seen multiple times with the Dangerous ****** tour, or everything that went down at Mizzou after the shit swastika appeared, i would say there at least needs to be an investigation into who or what is ifluencing theese students into behaving like this.

First logical step being the cirricula, since i think the Department of Education would take a dim view on its money being used to indoctrinate students into a cult of political activism.

If the cirricula is clean, then the professors should be investigated next, and if things like this are any indication...

...i think thats where we may find the real problem.

Protesting is a behaviour that needs investigating, is it? Bollocks. If visitors can deliver speeches, then students can express their feelings towards people invited on-campus to deliver speeches. There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

I find it frankly absurd that you find it so objectionable that people might protest others' right to give speeches... that you want their protests investigated, and their curriculae censored if you find it politically objectionable. It really is the sheerest hypocrisy.

The sacredness of speech only extends to some, it seems, as usual.

 

[Skatologist]

However, given not only theese students propensity for staging protests simply due to presence of people who dont agree with them

In bold due to show that this phrase/argument/fallacy is still in wide use and still one of the most poisoning the well things you can do.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

How on earth do you know that? What's your level of familiarity with these courses?

All we have to go on is a highly charged, rhetorical account from a political opponent. We cannot simply assume his analysis is on the money and he must be right about them.

Suspend for review is what i said.

Suspend for review by whom?

 

[gigastar]

Protesting is a behaviour that needs investigating, is it? Bollocks. If visitors can deliver speeches, then students can express their feelings towards people invited on-campus to deliver speeches. There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

I find it frankly absurd that you find it so objectionable that people might protest others' right to give speeches... that you want their protests investigated, and their curriculae censored if you find it politically objectionable. It really is the sheerest hypocrisy.

The sacredness of speech only extends to some, it seems, as usual.

And i find it absurd that you think allegations of coercion and indoctrination in education shouldnt be investigated.

And i dont treat education as speech. If education gets all the same protections as speech does then youll get classes turning out radical sectarians, facists and communists and there wont be a thing you can do about them.

And of course the sacredness of speech only extends to some, ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali about how she had to flee the Netherlands for fears of her own safety after daring to be critical of Islam. Or Milo having to abort his speech at UC Berkley, due to the riot waiting to get him.

In bold due to show that this phrase/argument/fallacy is still in wide use and still one of the most poisoning the well things you can do.

Jordans crime? Refusing to use gender neutral pronouns.

I dont care how you cut it, this is not rational human behaviour and ill be cold and dead before i admit otherwise.

 

[Story]

Protesting is a behaviour that needs investigating, is it? Bollocks. If visitors can deliver speeches, then students can express their feelings towards people invited on-campus to deliver speeches. There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

I find it frankly absurd that you find it so objectionable that people might protest others' right to give speeches... that you want their protests investigated, and their curriculae censored if you find it politically objectionable. It really is the sheerest hypocrisy.

The sacredness of speech only extends to some, it seems, as usual.

And i find it absurd that you think allegations of coercion and indoctrination in education shouldnt be investigated.

And i dont treat education as speech. If education gets all the same protections as speech does then youll get classes turning out radical sectarians, facists and communists and there wont be a thing you can do about them.

And of course the sacredness of speech only extends to some, ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali about how she had to flee the Netherlands for fears of her own safety after daring to be critical of Islam. Or Milo having to abort his speech at UC Berkley, due to the riot waiting to get him.

In bold due to show that this phrase/argument/fallacy is still in wide use and still one of the most poisoning the well things you can do.

Jordans crime? Refusing to use gender neutral pronouns.

I dont care how you cut it, this is not rational human behaviour and ill be cold and dead before i admit otherwise.

I hate to interject again but I want to thank you for being up Jordan Peterson's case. That was an interesting read and it made me better understand why people do not like social justice causes; because it breaks away from the norm. While I see Peterson's position on the issue of transgendered pronouns (in that use of them seems authoritarian and controlling) refusing to say them on request of the host is pretty disrespectful. It's a shame that the host returned the same disrespect in turn. Defiantly disagree with the way the people handled that situation.

All that said what you posted didn't refute Skatologist's case (by that I mean the post he linked to). If anything it reaffirms it because by showing the video out of full context, you are suggesting that those protesters only interrupted him because they disagreed with his choice of pronouns but Appearently there is a lot more too it. Like the legal implications of it and the refusal to use them implies that he does not acknowledge that gender fluidity is valid. In general, it's trivializing the opponent...actually what Skatologist's warns about.

 

[Silvanus]

And i find it absurd that you think allegations of coercion and indoctrination in education shouldnt be investigated.

Allegations from students, or people with direct experience, should be investigated. Random politically-motivated online rants should not be investigated. A waste of time and brain cells.

And i dont treat education as speech. If education gets all the same protections as speech does then youll get classes turning out radical sectarians, facists and communists and there wont be a thing you can do about them.

You're happy for educational courses to have so little protection that unsubstantiated rumours on the internet are enough to have them brought off the course listings?

That's not a recipe for protecting the little ones from indoctrination. That's a recipe for putting the power to decide what is taught into the hands of sensationalist idiots on the net. It would increase the politicisation of education a thousandfold.

And of course the sacredness of speech only extends to some, ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali about how she had to flee the Netherlands for fears of her own safety after daring to be critical of Islam. Or Milo having to abort his speech at UC Berkley, due to the riot waiting to get him.

Am I supposed to be defending those who forced Ali and Yiannopolous to flee, or something? Is that why you're bringing that up?

I see no reason why those unrelated events justify the approach you've taken, to afford the right to speak to the visitors, but to deem any protest grounds for "investigation" and censorship.

 

[Saltyk]

Or Milo having to abort his speech at UC Berkley, due to the riot waiting to get him.

Dude, has it occurred to you that people are less likely to take you seriously when you act like defending a Nazi apologist is the most important civil rights challenge of your lifetime and getting shitty with people who don't see Nazis as a protected class?

So, you think riots, destruction of public property, and violence are legitimate forms of protest? Would that be a proper response to Anita Sarkesian giving a speech? Obama? Putin?

When you think that violent acts can be warranted by the person they are being perpetrated against, that is a problem. How can you not see that?

 

[runic knight]

> "Let's have an honest conversation about race."

> Literally says wealthy blacks commit more crimes than poor whites with absolutely no basis in actual fact.

You know, honest! /s

"Anytime someone brings up an uncomfortable statistic, you freak out, and burn things down." Jon, from the same video.

I can't tell if you didn't bother hearing his reply, or just tuned it out for something else, but you pretty much are demonstrating the entire message of his reply video to the letter right here.

As he states himself, the point made was that you can't keep harping on about everything being racial and then act surprised when everything is thought of in those terms. Ignoring that and ignoring that discrimination is universally wrong is simply divisive and intellectually dishonest. And yet that is so commonplace in the media itself, it is harmful to the very notion of tackling race issues.

You can't fight racism by enacting racism, and yet that seems to be the acceptable answer nowadays.

 

[Baffle]

yet that seems to be the acceptable answer nowadays.

Is it or isn't it? Don't sit on the fence, you'll get a sore bottom.

Tentative answers are annoying and should only be used in academia, where no one hears what you say anyway. Say it firmly, with conviction!

 

[gigastar]

And i find it absurd that you think allegations of coercion and indoctrination in education shouldnt be investigated.

Allegations with no merit are just hot air. Your proof consists of a handful of logical fallacies, some lies, and a lot of emotional overreaction.

And what is now known as in the UK as Operation Trojan Horse wasnt anything more than allegations, until Ofsted investigated it [https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1579/investigation_report_trojan_horse_letter_the_kershaw_report].

Why argue against an investigation if youre so sure nothings wrong?

Or Milo having to abort his speech at UC Berkley, due to the riot waiting to get him.

Dude, has it occurred to you that people are less likely to take you seriously when you act like defending a Nazi apologist is the most important civil rights challenge of your lifetime and getting shitty with people who don't see Nazis as a protected class?

Well i dont particularly like Milo either but since you like your asinine assertions i suppose ill have to defend him now.

Milo does not count himself among Richard Spencers enthno-facist alt-right. He championed the label before Richard showed up and turned it into the white supremacist movement we know today.

Even Milos detractors acknowledge hes not a white nationalist. [http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/02/03/24847763/retraction-milo-yiannopoulos-is-not-a-white-nationalist]

Milo is of Jewish descent and is a homosexual, either of which would have meant his death warrant under the Nazis. Not even fucking Antifa label him a Nazi. [https://antifascistnews.net/2016/11/03/meet-the-alt-lite-the-people-mainstreaming-the-alt-rights-white-nationalism/]

 

[runic knight]

yet that seems to be the acceptable answer nowadays.

Is it or isn't it? Don't sit on the fence, you'll get a sore bottom.

Tentative answers are annoying and should only be used in academia, where no one hears what you say anyway. Say it firmly, with conviction!

Sorry, I meant to imply that enough of the media has aligned itself to the notion that fighting racism with racism is the correct course, making the description of "it seems to be the correct answer" as apt a description to what is the acceptable norm in western culture as I could make without damning my position with a claim that it was the culturally accepted one (which wouldn't be true since as jon demonstrates by being just the latest in a long line of such rejections, there is a large and growing backlash to the notion.) So I suppose it would have been a little clearer to say something to the effect of "thanks to the media, it now seems acceptable culturally to fight racism with more racism". Though I would probably also feel the need to specify that the cultural acceptability applies along racist lines as well, as only those of left-leaning can acceptable be racist in the name of fighting racism, while those who are right leaning replying to that racism are not culturally accepted currently.

Though that is just rehashing jon point in his reply video about the hypocrisy of the current politically climate itself.

My personal views on it is not and never has been fence sitting on the subject. I personally think that racism used to fight racism is a stupid idea. Irrational and emotional retribution against a group of people because of their race because of what others of that race has done has never been a good idea, and the same applies to gender, sexuality, nationality, or other such traits of that fashion. I've argued against that line of reasoning for years on this site as well, so I am actually a little surprised that anyone would assume I don't oppose that line of emotional masturbation by now.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

"Anytime someone brings up an uncomfortable statistic, you freak out, and burn things down." Jon, from the same video.

How's it uncomfortable, however?

I as an independently wealthy person (not 'rich') commit way more crimes than your average lower working class person.

Having money means getting away with more. Whether it's speeding, or doing drugs, tax evasion (I only got audited and this was an accident to begin with, before anybody starts) ... The more money you have the more immunity and options that you have. You think the working class poor would get away having done half the stuff that someone like Donald Trump has provenly done and not have the book thrown at them?

How many working class people could survive 3500 legal actions (incl. class actions) from everything from sexual assault, to willfully breaking contracts, etc? More over, even if only an eighth of them did represent some criminal aspect (remember, breach of contract alone is not a crime) ... still more court time than any working class person will likely see.

 

[gigastar]

While I see Peterson's position on the issue of transgendered pronouns (in that use of them seems authoritarian and controlling) refusing to say them on request of the host is pretty disrespectful.

Peterson has said that he would use neutral pronouns if asked 'in a certain way', which i assume means politely.

All that said what you posted didn't refute Skatologist's case (by that I mean the post he linked to). If anything it reaffirms it because by showing the video out of full context, you are suggesting that those protesters only interrupted him because they disagreed with his choice of pronouns but Appearently there is a lot more too it. Like the legal implications of it and the refusal to use them implies that he does not acknowledge that gender fluidity is valid. In general, it's trivializing the opponent...actually what Skatologist's warns about.

The only legal matter i can find that Peterson is involved with is his criticism of Bill C-16 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code], which aims to "amend the Canadian Human Rights Act by adding "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination".

Ill keep it short and say i think this bill should not become law.

And i do not think gender fluidity is valid. That shit can stay on Tumblr where it belongs.

 

[Baffle]

And i do not think gender fluidity is valid. That shit can stay on Tumblr where it belongs.

Why not?