You could say basically the same thing about marxist sjw types. Are they a threat?

Its generally bad to have an enemy working against you, and generally bad to ignore any given attack vector an enemy is using.

Lol, Im incorrigible what can I say.

Ya, youre right for once Benkei. My apologies Maw, that was harsh and uncalled for on my part.

Lol. Ok that made me laugh. Your a liar AND funny.

How about you address your dirtbag cherrypicking? You are dishonest, and when your blatant dishonesty is pointed out you just carry on as if it didnt happen.
You quoted half a sentence, and tried to pass that off as a legitimate point. It wasnt, it was a lie. You are a liar.
You owe ssu an apology, and everyone else as well since you and your dirtbag tactics make discourse more difficult on this forum.
Its staggering how self righteous you are considering how little ethic you show in discussion. Shame on you sir. You are the problem.

Well its direct, not indirect. Its straightforwardly denying that state granted right of free speech. Also, not sabotage. New hate speech laws and amendments to the old are systemic changes. I dont know why you would think there is anything sneaky about it, its open, direct and mainstream. They dont have to sabotage something they dont care about or believe in (free speech), they just ignore it because the ends justify their means. Its cult like.

Thats true, the majority of these types of people are useful idiots to the cynical grabbers of power.
I shouldnt say that the cynical grabbers arent sincere believers, its more accurate to say what they sincerely believe in is a worldview that necessitates a cynical grab for power. The distinction I was attempting was between a person buying into a specific ideology and a person who has sacrificed a specific ideology for a specific end (which justifies the sacrifice) where they have the power and control. There is more utility in framing it the way you did though.
Generals and soldiers might be a good analogy.

I cant disagree with any of that. I think it nets a negative, doing more harm than good. In contrast, its hard to see any significant negative effects of Daryl Davies (to stick with the example) method.

I understand what you're saying, but I think you are conflating the motivations of the cancellers, or at least talking about a different motivation than I am.
So the type of canceller that you are talking about are the ones after social control, power. They seek to tear down what is and replace it with their own (insane) ideology/“utopia”. Racism is just one vector for them to do this. For these folks, I think you’ve made your point well, I agree.
Another kind of canceller is purely focused an one issue, like racism or some other ideology they agree/disagree with. Remember I used Meagan Phelps as another example to consider. I wanted to talk about combating ideologies, and the two methods of doing so I mentioned. These cancellers are not cynical grabbers of power but sincere believers.
I think you are focused on the broader battle, while im focused on the method. My focus is applicable in one on one situations and broader ones as well, where as your focus is on the terrain, the “movement if troops” if you will.
Im not saying youre wrong nor that your points are not pertinent, but rather my point is for clarity so we do not talk past one another. Put simply, you are talking about the political arena with all of its complexity and im talking about something much simpler, whether to respond with something “shut the fuck up” followed by fingers in ears or something like “why do you believe that” followed by discussion.
Also, you used an example of Davies work of a high ranking KKK member. I heard him tell that story too but that wasnt his first and his numbers are not a few, they are over 200. Thats not including the people that quit because of the Davies effected people, the 200+ are him personally talking to the members over time. I want to include the broader effect (what happened in the orbit of those Davies turned) in the judgement over which is the better way. (Just like I want to include the damage done in the orbit of the cancellers way).
That was a bit verbose so feel free to cherry pick what you think is most important to respond to, if anything.

I dont see anything to disagree with there. The tactics themselves are immoral to start with but even if we take it as granted that it isnt immoral then there is still the matter of whether or not its anywhere near as effective as the open battleground of ideas method. (Which I dont think it is).

That doesnt answer why Im wring about Daryl Davies way being more effective. You are just saying that most people dint do it that way. That doesnt mean its not the best way to do it.

Well said.

Im very well versed in the incident. :up:

Im not familiar with the example or this Fox guy, but I would want Fox to be able to speak, and for others to explain why he is wrong. That will have a much greater effect in fighting racist views than having Fox never to have spoken at all. Once QT is over, Fox is still a racist and that bad idea still contagious. Daryl Davies has the discussion, he changes minds so that the bad idea is no longer contagious, in fact now Fox is going to be spreading anti-bodies.

Ok, but I meant this as more about ideologies rather than strictly censorship/free speech. In that context, changing names of football games does nothing to combat racism. Its inly about making non-racists comfortable. Combating racism is more important than making a small group (by which I mean the small group of censors, not the minority group) comfortable.

I think the idea is that it helps prevent the spread of these harmful ideas. — darthbarracuda

Right, but I dont think it does, or at least it doesnt do as good a job of it than engaging/exposing the ideology.
The people who are susceptible to bad ideology arent made less so by silencing the speakers, and the majority of people who hear the speaker are not susceptible to it. So Im not sure silencing people does much at all to help, the maun benifit seems to be the comfort of people who dint like thise ideas anyway.

How could it be argued thus? — darthbarracuda

Well because silencing someone publicly doesnt actually stop the spread of bad ideas, it just changes where and how a person is exposed to the idea.
Instead of the town square where the bad idea can be exposed for what it is, the bad idea is spread privately. With no counter-points/arguments, its much easier to recruit a susceptible person into a bad ideology.
So for example, you got Bob the Racist, Jim the Disenfranchised and Ryan the Anti-Racist. Bob the racist tries to infect Jim with his ideas at a public protest or event. Jim hears Bob and it appeals to Jims disenfranchisement but luckily Ryan also speaks, and exposes Bobs ideas fir the hate filled rhetoric designed to tap into Jims anger that it is. Jim realises that Bob is wrong.
Now imagine instead of Ryan, there is Jack the Silencer. When Jim shows up at the event, Bob has been silenced by Jack and Jim is not exposed to Bobs ideology. However, Jim has also not been exposed to Ryans view since that discussion never took place, and Jim is not equipped with Ryans anti-racism. So Jack pats himself on the back and Calls it a job well done. Bob is still out there, Bob is still looking for the Jims out there except now when Bob talks to Jim there is no one to counter Bobs bad ideas. This is ideal for Bob, it makes it easier to get Jim onboard.
In that way, Jack has made the situation worse. We cant know where and how these bad ideas are now being spread. The spreading of these bad ideas hasn't been stopped, merely hidden. Daryl Davies stops those bad ideas dead in their tracks, he doesnt even need to worry about Jim, he goes after Bob. Not to silence him but to change Bobs mind so that now when Bob finds Jim, Bob has a much different tale to tell. Plus, Bob will talk to other Bobs and that is simply far more effective at combating these bad ideas.

Yes, I think we're in agreement this far. The system should be set up as well as possible. Usually, the way this is done is to ensure first that everyone has a chance to make their case, and second that all decisions can be appealed at least once. Of course, there are practical and all too often monetary constraints on how much oversight you can establish. Eventually, someone needs to make a final decision that will stand. — Echarmion

Yes, and I would also say having a someone in place to make a judgement call when the systems rules fail at the primary purpose fir which the system was made, in this case justice, would be a good thing as well.

On the other hand, there is no oversight over the presidential pardon. It's a single point of failure. A single corrupt president could neuter any conviction they disagreed with. Imagine a democratic president in favour of legalisation of marijuana pardoning every single person convicted for possession. The entire system would become a farce. Now you may agree with their specific goal, but once we establish that in effect voiding laws you dislike is something presidents do, what is keeping the next president from pardoning everyone who beats up members of the opposition? — Echarmion

Thats a good point, though thats less about Trump and more about the presidential pardon. I agree that oversight is needed. Thats the absolute power we mentioned...not a good thing for any system really.

It's difficult to explain the value of functioning institutions if you're used to thinking mostly in terms of individual merit. — Echarmion

Well thats not the terms I think in, im not a “libertarian, freedom trumps everything individualist type”.
I just wanted to respond to that for clarities sake. If your inclined Ill just stick to the main disagreement at the end. (But we can go through the other stuff too if you think its important.)

But everyone knows that no justice system always serves justice. Yet it must still function in some way. Would you install some superintendent with absolute power just so you could overturn those decisions that did not ultimately come out just? — Echarmion

So this doesnt directly address my points, but lets start here cuz I think its our main point of disagreement.

The purpose of a justice system is to serve justice. The fact that a justice system is fallible doesn't mean we should ignore justice, we should still try to make sure justice is being served wherever we can. It doesnt mean we should ignore injustices, that cant be part of the justice system.
I wouldnt want to give absolute power to anyone of course, but ya I think someone making sure there are no miscarriages of justice as best they can would be a good thing. Youre saying that It wouldn't be good because of potential corruption but couldnt that be said about any part of the system at any level?

Is that a serious question? I have eyes and a working brain, that's how I know. Anyways It's the threat of politically motivated interference that does the damage. With corruption, it doesn't so much matter whether it can be proven that there is corruption. It's sufficient that the trust in impartial justice is damaged. — Echarmion

So if someone disagrees with your assessment, or doesnt place the same value as you do on appearances then they have no brain or eyes (or lack the ability to use them)?
Trust in the system is more important than the system actually working and it trumps ethical consideration of individual cases? Gosh, what could go wrong doing it that way?

Not much I can do about you "not buying" the importance of the judiciary being and being perceived as impartial. — Echarmion

Sure there is, you could have a stronger justification for writing off miscarriages of justice.
Do you not see how similar your argument is to the ones used by places like China and N Korea where the state reigns supreme and individuals dont matter?

I think the operation of the system of checks and balances is more important than individual corrections. There is a reason this system exists: The people making corrections might themselves be wrong or corrupt. — Echarmion

Well this is the fundamental disagreement we have. I understand the importance of impartiality, but its not more important than individual corrections. Ultimately the justice system is about justice being served, not the system itself.

Why is it politically motivated? How did you determine that it was politically motivated rather than correcting an injustice? Im not buying this threat to rule of law bit, nor the appeal to consensus that follows. The fact it benefits any involved party doesnt mean it isnt the right thing to do, it can be both.
Anyone with the power to do so should always correct a miscarriage of justice.

Still besides the point, but I dont blame you for being guarded.

That's what makes the corruption. Even if Stone's conviction had been some striking miscarriage of justice, it'd still be wrong and corrupt for Trump to commute that sentence. — Echarmion

It would be the opposite imo, if “striking miscarriage of justice“ occurred, then its moral and not corrupt to correct that injustice isnt it? Isnt a striking miscarriage of justice precisely the circumstance under which you would want an overriding executive decision?

Besides the point, you put spin on that. He lied, thats much different than not being 100% correct. I thought better of you than that, thats all.

Come on...not ”100% correct“? He lied under oath, which is a crime. Relativists point stands, his conviction for his crime was just and your position that it wasn't just is incorrect.
Is it just hard to admit it sometimes because of the constant mud and dishonesty you have to wade through on here?

I would go further and say that identity politics is not just a distraction, but a deliberate way to further polarization of the political field and reinforce the status quo where bipartisanship or any kind of consensus seeking doesn't exist. Both parties encourage their own view of identy politics and welcome it with open arms. — ssu

I would go a step further than calling it a distraction, i would say its about power and control. There are useful idiots who participate in the PC and outrage culture, and there are real activists who want change, and bad actors using it as an excuse to act shitty AND there is a core ideology spread by idealogues that use the groups, social media structure and social justice culture to exercise authoritarian social control.
We even have an excellent case study, Evergreen University. The academics produced ideologues who produced outrage that produced a culture that produced a cult. It started out just like it has in the wider world, changing definitions of words like “racism”, controlling speech and framing everything as identity politics and it ended up with nothing short of an authoritarian cult roaming around the campus committing acts of violence and hunting down the “racists” and “bigots” who had become everybody but their cult group. Like we see now, the police were told to stand down, to not interfere. Like we see now, the Dean and staff were cowed into submission with guilt and shame so that the cult could take over and thats exactly what they did.
Nazi Germany and the other horrors of modern history started this way too, but somehow its been forgotten. So we have Evergreen, very recent. Lesson learned? Nope! Failure of memory? Nope! Failure of courage, failure of attention.

I dont think Fishfry was was addressing you either you clueless hypocrite. The concerns he expressed are 100% legit, and dismissing them only shows your hopeless bias. Kev made a good point about reason not being an option.
Junior. :roll:

...you’ve reached maximum delusion. You have no more space up your ass for your head to fit inside of.

Indeed, as evidenced on this very forum where reason seems in short supply on certain topics.
I think the behaviour is cultish, with cultish characteristics. Purity testing (virtue signalling), in-group reporting, rigid adherence to ideology, us vs them mentality, Belief in the moral superiority of those in the cult, punishing dissent or doubt, use of shame/guilt to influence/control members of the cult, the ends justify the means...all characteristics shared by these extreme activist types and a cult.

:lol: :lol: :rofl:

I see. Couple world greats huh?

Wow. Why do you have to be cruel to Metaphysician?

How could anyone dare to argue with one of the greatest mathematicians in the world?
Though I am honoured you came down from the mountain to humble us (im sure your very busy with all the genius math you are doing) with your declarations, I simply can not in good conscience go against your almost singular understanding of mathematics, O Calculating One.
“2+2 equals anything but 4”.
Riveting. Bold. Original. Gregory the Great ladies and gentlemen, be humbled in his presence or not at all.
:meh:

Philosophy isn't at all practical. You can't use philosophy in your ordinary life. — Wheatley

Ok, so that seems to contradict what you said in the above quote. Philosophy seems to have some practical value after all, and is useful in everyday life.

I think that there is a lot of philosophy that is sort of arcane and impractical like you say but there is a lot thats useful as well.
It depends on how you define philosophy, I think a case could be made that philosophy can be applied generically, outside academia as well as within. To me, its more about thinking, how to think and thoughtful consideration than strictly academia or philosophical history.
The more impractical aspects of philosophy are also interesting as thought exercise, which I would say is of practical value.

Ok, so are critical thinking and logic of practical value?

Edited for clarity.

You arent answering the question, Im not sure why but you keep giving me Wishy washy non-sequators. Ill take the hint and leave you be.

Sure, thats fine. Im asking you if you think those two things fall under “philosophy”. Like, if you were to study critical thinking or logic, would I be taking a philosophy class or something else? Its like if I asked you if geometry or calculus are under the purview of math....you wouldnt say “not so fast, using geometry isnt the same as studying geometry”, thats non-sequitor.
Do you think critical thinking and logic fall under the purview of philosophy?

So thats no? They arent under the purview of philosophy?
Im asking because if they were a part of philosophy then that would mean the claim philosophy is not at all practical is false as those things are clearly very practical. Have you considered that implication?

You dont think critical thinking or the rules of logic are philosophy then I take it?

How do you define philosophy? What is it you dislike about it?

Sure, but isnt 2 the only one determinism specifically entails? Thats not mutually exclusive to what you said.