By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Jonathan Blow Speaks Out For Free Speech

VGPolyglot on 04 February 2017
Aura7541 said:
VGPolyglot said:

Message me when California makes the bourgeoisie give the means of production to the workers. Until then, there's no way that they lean left. You're equating liberals with leftists, when liberals are centrists, not leftists.

No I'm not. If your argument is solely dependent on strawman fallacies, then you have no argument at all. In addition, the law that constitute riots a crime apply to both left and right-wing extremism. If right-wingers riot, then they are breaking the law, too.

How am I strawmanning? You're referring to leftists when you actually mean liberals. And your last two sentences prove my point: police are allowed to beat people up and arrest them, without getting in trouble, so it's very obvious that the laws are favouring the establishment.



Around the Network
badgenome on 04 February 2017
ClassicGamingWizzz said:

 

Those aren't mutually exclusive ideas. If he posited that these people are such thin skinned pussies that they'll react to speech they don't like by throwing a big, violent temper tantrum like a bunch of overgrown toddlers then, clearly, he wasn't wrong.



Aura7541 on 04 February 2017
VGPolyglot said:
Aura7541 said:

No I'm not. If your argument is solely dependent on strawman fallacies, then you have no argument at all. In addition, the law that constitute riots a crime apply to both left and right-wing extremism. If right-wingers riot, then they are breaking the law, too.

How am I strawmanning? You're referring to leftists when you actually mean liberals. And your last two sentences prove my point: police are allowed to beat people up and arrest them, without getting in trouble, so it's very obvious that the laws are favouring the establishment.

This is still a strawman fallacy. You are just making this assertion repeatedly without substantiating it. Your last sentence is also irrelevent because that pertains to a different topic altogether: police brutality. As a result, no, the laws are not favoring the establishment. The definition of a riot according to Californian law is apolitical.



VGPolyglot on 04 February 2017
Aura7541 said:
VGPolyglot said:

How am I strawmanning? You're referring to leftists when you actually mean liberals. And your last two sentences prove my point: police are allowed to beat people up and arrest them, without getting in trouble, so it's very obvious that the laws are favouring the establishment.

This is still a strawman fallacy. You are just making this assertion repeatedly without substantiating it. Your last sentence is also irrelevent because that pertains to a different topic altogether: police brutality. As a result, no, the laws are not favoring the establishment. The definition of a riot according to Californian law is apolitical.

Liberals support the continuation of the capitalist system and its institutions, they just want different leadership/policies.

Leftists support the abolition of capitalism and the institutions the perpetuate it. That means that the workers seize ownership of the means of production and that the United States, its empire and its government would be abolished.

Police brutality happens because the people that are generally targeted are less fortunate people. Rich people will almost never have the same problems with the police as poorer people will. Also, property laws are advantageous to the rich, and even if the laws don't explicitly favour the rich the policies still do because they have way too much power to be held accountable.



Trunkin on 04 February 2017
ClassicGamingWizzz said:

roflmfao, I'm dying!



Around the Network
Lawlight on 04 February 2017
WolfpackN64 said:
Lawlight said:

So, that's how you excuse the violence from the rioting left? Got it.

Well, unfortunatly we can't throw him into a gulag, so riots it is.

So, not only do you promote violence and riots but you also want to send someone who's not committed any crime to a forced-labour camp. Some people on this site...



WolfpackN64 on 04 February 2017
Lawlight said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Well, unfortunatly we can't throw him into a gulag, so riots it is.

So, not only do you promote violence and riots but you also want to send someone who's not committed any crime to a forced-labour camp. Some people on this site...

Well, at least Mr. Yiannopoulos will make himself useful that way.



nuckles87 on 04 February 2017
Sentinel said:
Puppyroach said:

By that logic, the whole demonstration might be a lie, it was after all the MSM that first reported of it :). Or you could use your own common sense: What is more likely, that the absolute majority of the students protested camly with some instigators invading it to cause trouble or that such a huge amount of students dress up in black clothes and hoodies to be violent? Of course a few students might have been involved but how can that be a reason to apply their behaviour on the entire group? Is that supposed to be the new standard for logic and rational behaviour?

 I actually meant to reply to the comment that the protestors were not the ones breaking and burning stuff.  However, your are reaching hard with that ridiculous logic of yours. If you watch the various videos that the people who participate in these riots post and not only what the media shows you, you would know. Maybe you should get more informed instead making pointless comments.

By the same logic how can you excuse the whole group if you admit that students were involved? How do you know none of the students dressed up in black clothes and hoodies and helped to incite the riot? None of this is what most people would consider rational behavior; so where is the outrage against these people?

But it wasn't the so called "lying mainstream media" that said the protestors weren't the ones who were burning stuff. It was the university police. You'd know that if you read the link I provided.



Lawlight on 04 February 2017
WolfpackN64 said:
Lawlight said:

So, not only do you promote violence and riots but you also want to send someone who's not committed any crime to a forced-labour camp. Some people on this site...

Well, at least Mr. Yiannopoulos will make himself useful that way.

At least now you've stopped the pretense of being for free speech, etc.



monocle_layton on 05 February 2017
badgenome said:
NightDragon83 said:

Indeed. Next thing you know they'll start burning Milo and other conservative author's books as a protest against "fascism", all while having the irony of it all completely sail over their heads.

Speaking of books...

 

Well done, dummies. You've given this attention whore exactly what he wanted.

why is a book by him doing better than 1984?

By giving him attention, we're just making him more popular. Some people have absolutely no logic. If you want him to disappear, be polite and debate him! I remember attending a debate about whether 9/11 was real or not. I didn't see protests with people going nuts and throwing bricks. Instead, there were questions asked, answers given, and an audience that evaluated the information.

 

The biggest problem isn't their attempt to attack him- rather, the ignorance and bigoted mindset of many people (not just liberals) shows how intolerant we are to many people.