“It’s ok to be white” 4chan campaign.

[Speaker to Animals]

You think opposing political correctness is the same thing as political correctness? Sounds like you are an SJW, honestly.

Political correctness is utterly poison to an open society. To claim that somebody who cherishes the freedom of speech is just another dimension of a totalitarian is kind of silly, don't you think?

Unless, that is, you don't see political correctness as a form of totalitarianism (which it truly is)..


There actually is a pretty deep problem in Chicago-area universities with respect to political correctness and anti-human rights (such as opposition to the freedom of speech, or of association, or even of thought). You might just be so buried beneath it that you can't see the alternatives. It depends on your campus how bad it is. Like I said before, University of Chicago is not so bad. UIC is utterly garbage at this point. Other universities range between those two. I am not so sure what it's like at Northwestern, though. I would hope they are more like University of Chicago.

The extremes of both sides are the same. Please don't misinterpret what I wrote down to suit your agenda. The extremes replace white buzzwords with brown buzzwords. You can call me an SJW if you'd like, but I think we both know you're trying to use it as a scapegoat term. It reminds me of the discussion of "safe spaces" at our university and how the university faculty was against them due to the fact they felt they inhibited free discussion. Students protested it and suddenly everyone thought "ThE LiBerAls ArE RuiNiNg EdUcAtiOn AgAiN" when really it was just a conflict of definitions.

The student body considered "safe space" or "trigger warnings" to simply be an email from the professor informing students that there would be a discussion on the Soviet mass rapes during the Soviet offensive. The university inferred "safe space" to mean these discussions would be censored. The students inferred that, at worst, students that didn't feel comfortable discussing it could write a response paper to make up for their participation in that class. Not really a big deal.

There are several degrees of views on political correctness. Most people tend to fall into the camp that you can say what you wish to say, but that doesn't mean you won't suffer consequences for what you say if it is balls-off-the-wall nuts. Again, you go into an argument with the mentality that people have a positive motive for why they hold their positions and suddenly discussions start to become fruitful. I've never heard anyone argue that cherishing freedom of speech is another dimension of totalitarianism. I don't think you could find a person on campus that didn't think the free expression of ideas was essential to creating a great society.

You're talking to a dude that does go to UChicago. You'll find most people here are going to be socially liberal and that the true defining features are your stances on economic issues and their significance in society.

Please elaborate how much freedom of speech we can abridge that is acceptably not "extreme".

In other words, if standing up for the freedom of speech is somehow the "flip side of the coin" from totalitarianism, how much free speech should we outlaw or ban in order to free ourselves from totalitarianism?

[Heraclius]

Please elaborate how much freedom of speech we can abridge that is acceptably not "extreme".

In other words, if standing up for the freedom of speech is somehow the "flip side of the coin" from totalitarianism, how much free speech should we outlaw or ban in order to free ourselves from totalitarianism?

You're taking general terms you know people are usually in support of or against, manipulating the terms so that you are on the side that is "positive," and making the opposing side look evil for being against your "obviously good" position. Why do you need to do that?

No reasonable person is against freedom of speech.
No reasonable person wants totalitarianism.
These people, in this discussion, are the moderates.

The extremes that do want these things, tend to be the people that are either full-blown PC and anti-PC to the point that this shapes their entire worldview. There is a difference between being anti-PC and being completely consumed by it in my eyes. Same as there is a difference between being an SJW and just leaning towards the PC side of issues. But again, I'm talking about this from a college campus perspective.

[The Conservative]

Actually, YouTube does have a monopoly.

Another one who doesn't understand what a monopoly is. Would you like the government to force YouTube to host content, too?

And I quote:

Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted. Monopolist firms (in their attempt to maximize profits) keep the price high and restrict the output, and show little or no responsiveness to the needs of their customers. Most governments therefore try to control monopolies by (1) imposing price controls, (2) taking over their ownership (called 'nationalization'), or (3) by breaking them up into two or more competing firms. Sometimes governments facilitate the creation of monopolies for reasons of national security, to realize economies of scale for competing internationally, or where two or more producers would be wasteful or pointless (as in the case of utilities).

When you want to see a video where do you go? YouTube.
No one else owns the market share they do. If YouTube does something the market follows.

That’s a monopoly.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Actually, YouTube does have a monopoly.

Another one who doesn't understand what a monopoly is. Would you like the government to force YouTube to host content, too?

And I quote:

Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted. Monopolist firms (in their attempt to maximize profits) keep the price high and restrict the output, and show little or no responsiveness to the needs of their customers. Most governments therefore try to control monopolies by (1) imposing price controls, (2) taking over their ownership (called 'nationalization'), or (3) by breaking them up into two or more competing firms. Sometimes governments facilitate the creation of monopolies for reasons of national security, to realize economies of scale for competing internationally, or where two or more producers would be wasteful or pointless (as in the case of utilities).

When you want to see a video where do you go? YouTube.

Hard to see how the entry of new producers is "highly restricted". A single, dominant participant in the market is not, necessarily, a monopoly. De facto, but not de jure.

[K@th]

\

When you want to see a video where do you go? YouTube.
No one else owns the market share they do. If YouTube does something the market follows.

That’s a monopoly.

I'm using Vimeo quite a lot these days.

I can't choose my electric company. That's a monopoly.

[The Conservative]

Another one who doesn't understand what a monopoly is. Would you like the government to force YouTube to host content, too?

And I quote:

Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted. Monopolist firms (in their attempt to maximize profits) keep the price high and restrict the output, and show little or no responsiveness to the needs of their customers. Most governments therefore try to control monopolies by (1) imposing price controls, (2) taking over their ownership (called 'nationalization'), or (3) by breaking them up into two or more competing firms. Sometimes governments facilitate the creation of monopolies for reasons of national security, to realize economies of scale for competing internationally, or where two or more producers would be wasteful or pointless (as in the case of utilities).

When you want to see a video where do you go? YouTube.

Hard to see how the entry of new producers is "highly restricted". A single, dominant participant in the market is not, necessarily, a monopoly. De facto, but not de jure.

YouTube can dictate what is published, or deny people the right to obtain revenue from their videos.

[SuburbanFarmer]

And I quote:




When you want to see a video where do you go? YouTube.

Hard to see how the entry of new producers is "highly restricted". A single, dominant participant in the market is not, necessarily, a monopoly. De facto, but not de jure.

YouTube can dictate what is published, or deny people the right to obtain revenue from their videos.

So can any retailer, or media outlet.

[pineapplemike]

This is dumb, there are a plethora of video streaming services on the internet. Myspace was never a monopoly and neither is Youtube.

Maybe once Google gets into the ISP business and standardizes Youtube, but not now

[Speaker to Animals]

Please elaborate how much freedom of speech we can abridge that is acceptably not "extreme".

In other words, if standing up for the freedom of speech is somehow the "flip side of the coin" from totalitarianism, how much free speech should we outlaw or ban in order to free ourselves from totalitarianism?

You're taking general terms you know people are usually in support of or against, manipulating the terms so that you are on the side that is "positive," and making the opposing side look evil for being against your "obviously good" position. Why do you need to do that?

No reasonable person is against freedom of speech.
No reasonable person wants totalitarianism.
These people, in this discussion, are the moderates.

The extremes that do want these things, tend to be the people that are either full-blown PC and anti-PC to the point that this shapes their entire worldview. There is a difference between being anti-PC and being completely consumed by it in my eyes. Same as there is a difference between being an SJW and just leaning towards the PC side of issues. But again, I'm talking about this from a college campus perspective.

Not really. I wrote in very specific terms. Political correctness is the attempt to define what kinds of ideas are acceptable speech; to sow fear amongst people to even dare to speak dissent against whatever is "politically correct". It's literally a manifestation of totalitarianism.

You stated that people who opposed political correctness are "extremists" who are just the "flip side of the same coin" as the totalitarian SJWs.

Now you are saying no reasonable person is against freedom of speech or wants totalitarianism. To which I agree. But then you state that people who support freedom of speech and oppose totalitarianism are the "moderates". Moderated from what, exactly? How much freedom of speech do we have to surrender in order to become the "reasonable moderates"?

What you are posting is not really self-consistent. You come across as somebody who agrees with the politics of the SJWs but who is emberassed by the SJW's inability to actually bully dissenters into compliance any longer. You then go on to proclaim people who are anti-SJW (that is, anti-totalitarian), as really the same thing. It's a totally false framing of the situation and it doesn't survive basic scrutiny.

Opposing totalitarianism is not "extremism". I think you might identify with the political objectives of the SJWs but you realize their tactics are laughably ineffectual. I can think of no other way to integrate your assertion that opposing the totalitarianism of SJWs is itself a form of "extremism" that is the flip side of the coin from SJWs.

[K@th]

So can any retailer, or media outlet.

Our little fascist has a genuine belief that once a company reaches a certain status, the government should be able to dictate what they do/don't sell/offer and what prices they can/can't charge. He's very firm in his belief that this is the panacea.