Objectively intelligent.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Like I said, she’s quite conventional. So much so she borders on provincial.

Really? That’s the point you thought I was making? That’s she’s prudish?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This author argues that White Fragility infantilizes Blacks. He’s Black, and liberal. Be interesting to see how this article is received: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...gility/614146/

Actually, it probably won’t be interesting. The Twitter lunatics will just scream at the guy and demand he be fired.

There’s a fair bit of criticism about the book out there from black commentators. Haven’t heard of any of them getting fired.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Whoever the nuts are who’ve been demanding Bennett’s firing and complaining to management about being triggered by insufficiently woke co-workers.

My guess is Charles Blow, who seems sincere but clearly has some mental health issues and several axes to grind, probably controls a faction of strident lefties. He’s activist, and I can’t see him abiding someone like Weiss.

But I could be wrong. Perhaps he is an ardent supporter of true free speech.

So the Black journalists and commentators at the Times, then? They should just be quiet or something? In the name of true free speech?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Whoever the nuts are who’ve been demanding Bennett’s firing and complaining to management about being triggered by insufficiently woke co-workers.

I don't think either of those things actually happened, as much fun as your version is. IMO, no one particularly was gunning for Bennet, but his position was impossible after he first told people that Cotton's piece was published because people need to be exposed to his views, and then admitted that he never read the piece.

I don't recall anyone at the Times complaining about being triggered. I do know people there thought that Weiss misrepresented what was happening internally in her tweets.

When you think about how establishment the Times is, and what sort of person you need to be to get hired there, your description of the staff there sounds more like right-wing agitprop than anything grounded in reality.

My guess is Charles Blow, who seems sincere but clearly has some mental health issues and several axes to grind, probably controls a faction of strident lefties. He’s activist, and I can’t see him abiding someone like Weiss.

He "controls a faction of strident lefties"? You forgot the Soros part.

But I could be wrong. Perhaps he is an ardent supporter of true free speech.

Once again, in your make-believe world, the only opponents of "true free speech" are crazy lefty activists.

Free speech called. It wants you to stop abusing its name.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

“Perpetuating” anti-Semitism. That’s rich. They can’t call it actual anti-semitism, because it isn’t. But it’s adjacent to it, kind of (but not really), and that’s good enough. Off with Cannon’s head.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts...-anti-semitism

But I must note that this is probably also a way for Viacom, a shitpile of lousy old content, to steal Cannon’s intellectual property.

Richard “Professor Griff” Griffin: (12:38)
And I’m asking basic questions, and maybe you can help me out.

Nick Cannon: (12:41)
Right.

Richard “Professor Griff” Griffin: (12:42)
Let’s look up the word “anti-Semitic.”

Nick Cannon: (12:45)
Right.

Richard “Professor Griff” Griffin: (12:46)
Who are the Semitic people? And then we’re going to get to the Public Enemy thing.

Nick Cannon: (12:49)
Right.

Richard “Professor Griff” Griffin: (12:50)
So I looked up who was the Semitic people, and there’s a list of Semitic people, and anyone can do this right now. You can look up who are the Semitic people, what are the Semitic languages.

Nick Cannon: (13:01)
Right.

Richard “Professor Griff” Griffin: (13:01)
Has absolutely nothing to do with any white people.

Nick Cannon: (13:04)
Right.

Richard “Professor Griff” Griffin: (13:06)
Not at all. So in order for me to be anti-Semitic, I’d have to be anti-Black man, anti-Black woman, anti-Black people, anti-Africa, anti all of the people.

Nick Cannon: (13:17)
Because the Semitic people …

Richard “Professor Griff” Griffin: (13:20)
Are Black people.

Nick Cannon: (13:20)
Are Black people . So y’all get that clarity. We going to to say that again. The Semitic people are Black people.

Richard “Professor Griff” Griffin: (13:26)
So I cannot be anti-Semitic. Now, what do they really use the phrase “anti-Semitic” to do? That’s the thing.

Nick Cannon: (13:34)
To divide us.

Nick Cannon: (24:13)
Right. So let’s dive into it. Who are they? When we speak up, because this is where it truly is. And we talk about the six corporations, when we go as deep as the Rothschilds, centralized banking, the 13 families, the bloodlines that control everything even outside of America. When we talk about the people who, if we were truly the children of Israel, and we’re defining who the Jewish people are, because I feel like if we actually can understand that construct, then we can see that there is no hate involved. When we talk about the lies, the deceit, how the fake dollar controls all of this, then maybe we can get to the reason why they wanted to silence you, why they want to silence Minister Farrakhan, and they want to throw that we are having hate speech when it’s never hate speech, when it’s not. You can’t be anti-Semitic when we are the Semitic people, when we are the same people that who they want to be, that’s our birthright.

Richard “Professor Griff” Griffin: (25:19)
It’s our birthright.

Nick Cannon: (25:21)
So if that’s truly our birthright, there’s no hate involved.

Richard “Professor Griff” Griffin: (25:25)
It’s not.

Nick Cannon: (38:07)
So ultimately are we saying that there’s a certain group of people that maybe they’re scared of the truth?

Richard “Professor Griff” Griffin: (38:12)
I think there’s Jewish people, but I just think there’s a group of Jewish people inside of that. You could call them Zionists. You can call them whatever.

Nick Cannon: (38:20)
Let’s dig into that for a second because that’s where I, and even sometimes I find myself wanting to debate this idea, and it gets real wishy-washy and unclear for me when we give so much power to the “they,” and then the theys then turn into the Illuminati, the Zionists, the Rothschilds …

Richard “Professor Griff” Griffin: (38:48)
The Freemasons.

Nick Cannon: (38:49)
The Bilderberg group, the Freemason. And as a community I feel, and I’ve done this myself, I want to blame others for the position that I’m currently in. And that often becomes when you say the privileged white girlfriend comes into the room or the apologists or these people come in and say, “Why aren’t you guys over slavery already?” or “Why are you always complaining? And why don’t you do for yourself? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. And my people were also oppressed.” We hear all of this stuff all the time, which a lot of times I really can’t debate what they’re saying, because some of what they’re saying, there’s some truth in it because we’re often blaming and saying the “theys,” but I would love to dive in real quick, just for the people that are listening and watching, even specifically the Illuminati.

What would Bari Weiss say?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He "controls a faction of strident lefties"? You forgot the (((Soros))) part.

Fixed that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Fixed that.

Some dude I don't know wrote a really good piece about the free speech debate ("debate") that Sebby should read: Free Speech Defenders Don’t Understand the Critique Against Them.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Like I said, she’s quite conventional. So much so she borders on provincial.

“Not incidentally, hypocrisy is also a central criticism of Weiss. She denounces cancel culture, builds up cancel culture opponents as heroes and martyrs, and tries to cancel people whose expressions she deems antisemitic.”

Oh, this was the point I was making? I can see why you tried to ignore it. But it made you seem like a fool. Again. Let’s just pretend I was calling her provincial.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Some dude I don't know wrote a really good piece about the free speech debate ("debate") that Sebby should read: Free Speech Defenders Don’t Understand the Critique Against Them.

You want to hold a mirror up to Sebby. But Sebby can't recognize himself.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You want to hold a mirror up to Sebby. But Sebby can't recognize himself.

That’s all fine, but it’s not relevant to my point.

I am not advocating banning cancel culture. I’m arguing that it is:

1. Stupid (the McWord “counter-speech” demonstrates its idiocy... there is no such thing - there is just speech);
2. It’s low culture and should be mocked as such (bleating that someone should be fired for violating orthodoxy is something the poorly educated do);
3. Alternatively, it should be ignored (don’t feed the trolls).

I do not seek to stop anyone from saying anything. My argument is that thinking adults should disagree on the merits of positions. That’s enlightened. That’s what sophisticated people do. The cancel culture people are just left wing variants of the idiot Trumpkins.

If you wish to defend people of low mind, to embrace their bleating, have at it. I just don’t think they should be taken seriously. I think one has to be able to think broadly and in a circumspect fashion to be considered worthy of engagement. Screaming for boycotts or firings was garbage-think when Brent Bozell and Pat Robertson did it, and it remains so today.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

“Not incidentally, hypocrisy is also a central criticism of Weiss. She denounces cancel culture, builds up cancel culture opponents as heroes and martyrs, and tries to cancel people whose expressions she deems antisemitic.”

Oh, this was the point I was making? I can see why you tried to ignore it. But it made you seem like a fool. Again. Let’s just pretend I was calling her provincial.

Was it? I don’t know. I just read what you wrote.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Fixed that.

You can’t help yourself, can you? More so than anyone here, like a crackhead to the pipe, you’ll take the most juvenile shots available.

Grow up.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What would Bari Weiss say?

She’s call him an anti-Semite. And I think be wrong. But that’s not the question. The question is, would she engage the merits in reaching the conclusion, or would she just scream for his head?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

So the Black journalists and commentators at the Times, then? They should just be quiet or something? In the name of true free speech?

They should write about all the flaws in Cotton’s piece, and even criticize the editor for printing it.

But they should not jump to demanding a scalp.

But that’s just me. I’m a dinosaur who thinks one should examine the circumstances and dismantle bad arguments on their merits. And I’d argue for a return to a bit of elitist-think, if that’s at all allowed, and suggest the most aggressive and demanding of voices are often the dumbest, and their screams for a sacrifice should not be granted by fearful organizations like the Times.

Even the French aristocracy were given show trials.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Was it? I don’t know. I just read what you wrote.

You read what I wrote and ignored it because it was inconvenient for your argument. I said: “ Anyone who once tried to get a fellow staffer blackballed from the publishing industry for using the word ‘fuck’ on Twitter, is maybe not the poster child for free speech that you are looking for.” It was pretty obvious to everyone here but you the point that I was making, which was that focusing on a person who perpetually complains about being a victim of “bullying” and being “silenced” while simultaneously bullying and silencing others does not compellingly support your argument that the radical Twitter left has a stranglehold on the marketplace of ideas. There are lots of ways you could have responded that would have not have been the weaselly dodge you came up with. You could have argued that, just because she has engaged in suspect behavior does not mean she was not, in fact, the victim of intellectual bullying herself. Or that her hypocrisy does not necessarily delegitimize her criticisms of the NYT. Instead, like you often do, you tried to sidestep the obvious point I was making and pretended instead that I was calling her out for being prudish about a co-worker’s Twitter language. These weaselly little dodges are transparent and make you look silly. And they are one of the reasons it is pointless to try to substantively engage you.