Berkeley "liberals" contra free speech

[Nice Squirrel]

The Yiannopoulos Privilege Grant is exclusively available to white men who wish to pursue their post-secondary education on equal footing with their female, queer and ethnic minority classmates.

So they have to endure years of being told they are lesser that "normal" people?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

In related Nazis on campus news: http://www.citypages.com/news/with-...ty-of-minnesotas-nazi-problem-grows/414237863

That's the only conclusion to draw about a liberal arts campus in a big city when the sentence "They caught that Nazi guy" could reasonably be responded to with the question: "Which one?"

Other questions that come to mind: Where are we? What year is it?

 

[Bomb#20]

Nothing but one strawman about what the left is after another. ... "The left is a bunch of free speech hatin' scum"

And that would be a strawman because, presumably, it's one of his "absurd sweeping generalizations that have no basis in fact". Because, presumably, leftists favoring censorship is one of those "fringe issues involving extremely few people". So, since there are an awful lot of leftists on this board, you should have no trouble pointing out at least as many of you who thought the government should have allowed Citizens United to advertise "Hillary: The Movie" as there were of you who had a conniption fit over the ruling.

 

[repoman]

This is a bit of a tangent, but I wonder if it is more likely to cause damage if a priest has sex with a 14 year old straight boy compared to a gay boy.

Maybe Milo was partially physically wanting what happened but not really ready for the emotional aftermath. Possibly he has attachment problems from that predation - or maybe he is just a bad seed and it is unrelated.

At any rate a 14 year old straight kid would be even more conflicted. not attracted or even repulsed by the man and maybe freaked out that he was getting an erection and later needlessly question his straight sexuality.

Milo seemed not to care about what the priest was doing to other boys and how it would affect them.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Nothing but one strawman about what the left is after another. ... "The left is a bunch of free speech hatin' scum"

And that would be a strawman because, presumably, it's one of his "absurd sweeping generalizations that have no basis in fact". Because, presumably, leftists favoring censorship is one of those "fringe issues involving extremely few people". So, since there are an awful lot of leftists on this board, you should have no trouble pointing out at least as many of you who thought the government should have allowed Citizens United to advertise "Hillary: The Movie" as there were of you who had a conniption fit over the ruling.

My beef had less to do with content and more to do with shadow money in elections. Nobody was going to be swayed by that film in the first place.

 

[ZiprHead]

Simon & Schuster canceling publication of Yiannopoulos book

 

[Toni]

This is a bit of a tangent, but I wonder if it is more likely to cause damage if a priest has sex with a 14 year old straight boy compared to a gay boy.

Maybe Milo was partially physically wanting what happened but not really ready for the emotional aftermath. Possibly he has attachment problems from that predation - or maybe he is just a bad seed and it is unrelated.

At any rate a 14 year old straight kid would be even more conflicted. not attracted or even repulsed by the man and maybe freaked out that he was getting an erection and later needlessly question his straight sexuality.

Milo seemed not to care about what the priest was doing to other boys and how it would affect them.

The correct term is rape, not sex with a 14 year old (or younger). Victims are just as raped if they are male, or female, straight or gay or bi or asexual or if they are young enough to have never considered their orientation.

Your post seems to play with the idea that a young gay boy would be less likely to be traumatized than a straight boy--or a girl. This is a rather disturbing idea but consistent with the same ideology that suggests that female rape victims are just having morning after regrets --and that all victims os sexual abuse by priests are male. And that all victims of rape are female, unless the rapist is a priest.

But I'll settle something for you: rape is not sex. It is sexual assault and is sexually gratifying only for the rapist. The girl who is raped by the guy or teacher or coach or priest she maybe kind of had a crush on is as traumatized as the boy who is raped by his teacher, coach or priest. Or stranger who broke into their home at 2 o'clock in the morning.

Rape is rape. It is not some forbidden yet tantalizing sexual awakening for someone on the edges of adolescence. Whatever your personal fantasies might be.

 

[repoman]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psychoanalysis-30/201101/talking-about-sexually-abused-boys-and-the-men-they-become

Sexually abused boys are also troubled if they were aroused while being abused. Teenagers are easily aroused, having little control over the hormones surging through their bodies. But if they're stimulated by aspects of their experience, they may feel they participated in or even invited the abuse. This confuses a boy who also knows he was also repelled by the experience. Feeling guilty about any sexual pleasure he felt during his molestation, he may become ambivalent about all sexual pleasure.

Finally, when the abuser is male (and even sometimes when she is female), many boys - whether straight or gay - develop fears and concerns about sexual orientation. Conventional wisdom says sexual abuse turns boys gay, although there's no persuasive evidence that premature sexual activity fundamentally changes sexual orientation. Nevertheless, a heterosexual boy is likely to doubt himself, wondering why he was chosen by a man for sex. A homosexual boy may feel rushed into considering himself gay, or may hate his homosexuality because he believes it was caused by his abuse. Whether boys are gay or straight, these manipulative introductions to sexuality can set lifetime patterns of exploitation and self-destructive behavior.

Bolded the part that Milo may be dealing with. Not sure.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing but one strawman about what the left is after another. ... "The left is a bunch of free speech hatin' scum"

And that would be a strawman because, presumably, it's one of his "absurd sweeping generalizations that have no basis in fact". Because, presumably, leftists favoring censorship is one of those "fringe issues involving extremely few people". So, since there are an awful lot of leftists on this board, you should have no trouble pointing out at least as many of you who thought the government should have allowed Citizens United to advertise "Hillary: The Movie" as there were of you who had a conniption fit over the ruling.

What?

There is no getting through the modern American right-wing brain.

The left has an intellectual foundation. What connects it is a desire to spread democracy as far as possible, to spread power as far as possible.

It is not random actions by random individuals.

But the right at present is filled with religious fundamentalists, science deniers, alternate fact enthusiasts. With their backs firmly turned to working people. All a betrayal of the intellectual foundations of conservatism.

 

[repoman]

And that would be a strawman because, presumably, it's one of his "absurd sweeping generalizations that have no basis in fact". Because, presumably, leftists favoring censorship is one of those "fringe issues involving extremely few people". So, since there are an awful lot of leftists on this board, you should have no trouble pointing out at least as many of you who thought the government should have allowed Citizens United to advertise "Hillary: The Movie" as there were of you who had a conniption fit over the ruling.

What?

There is no getting through the modern American right-wing brain.

The left has an intellectual foundation. What connects it is a desire to spread democracy as far as possible, to spread power as far as possible.

It is not random actions by random individuals.

But the right at present is filled with religious fundamentalists, science deniers, alternate fact enthusiasts. With their backs firmly turned to working people. All a betrayal of the intellectual foundations of conservatism.

You mean it is different from the 1956 Republican platform?!?

The Eisenhower Administration will continue to fight for dynamic and progressive programs which, among other things, will:
Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers;

Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers;

Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system;

Protect by law, the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits;

Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;

Clarify and strengthen the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on Federal and Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts;

Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;

Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex;

Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment.

 

[untermensche]

What?

There is no getting through the modern American right-wing brain.

The left has an intellectual foundation. What connects it is a desire to spread democracy as far as possible, to spread power as far as possible.

It is not random actions by random individuals.

But the right at present is filled with religious fundamentalists, science deniers, alternate fact enthusiasts. With their backs firmly turned to working people. All a betrayal of the intellectual foundations of conservatism.

You mean it is different from the 1956 Republican platform?!?

The Eisenhower Administration will continue to fight for dynamic and progressive programs which, among other things, will:
Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers;

Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers;

Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system;

Protect by law, the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits;

Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;

Clarify and strengthen the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on Federal and Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts;

Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;

Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex;

Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment.

Exactly. The modern Republican party is a radical party. A party free of any intellectual foundation.

Really a fundamentalist movement, not a party.

 

[Toni]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psychoanalysis-30/201101/talking-about-sexually-abused-boys-and-the-men-they-become

Finally, when the abuser is male (and even sometimes when she is female), many boys - whether straight or gay - develop fears and concerns about sexual orientation. Conventional wisdom says sexual abuse turns boys gay, although there's no persuasive evidence that premature sexual activity fundamentally changes sexual orientation. Nevertheless, a heterosexual boy is likely to doubt himself, wondering why he was chosen by a man for sex. A homosexual boy may feel rushed into considering himself gay, or may hate his homosexuality because he believes it was caused by his abuse. Whether boys are gay or straight, these manipulative introductions to sexuality can set lifetime patterns of exploitation and self-destructive behavior.

Bolded the part that Milo may be dealing with. Not sure.

FFS: Girls, gay or straight or bi and boys, gay or straight or bi, as well as transsexuals and intersexuals struggle with fearing that they participated or invited the abuse.

Sure, in our society boys may feel that if they were abused by a male that somehow the male 'knew' that deep down, they might be gay. This is not different than girls feeling that their attacker somehow 'knew' that they had been having impure thoughts that even the girl didn't know she had but she must have because otherwise why would she have wanted to sit on grandpa's lap or worn that dress or left her bedroom window a crack open on a hot night. For starters.

 

[LordKiran]

Breitbart News May Boot Milo Yiannopoulos Over Sex Comments | Fox Business

I had heard of these comments long ago. I wonder why all of sudden it's a dealbreaker.

The same reason HRC was openly against gay marriage as an institution but nobody cared until her latest presidential bid I would presume. Not to continue bagging on Hillary but it was the most immediate comparison I could think of.

 

[Bomb#20]

And that would be a strawman because, presumably, it's one of his "absurd sweeping generalizations that have no basis in fact". Because, presumably, leftists favoring censorship is one of those "fringe issues involving extremely few people". So, since there are an awful lot of leftists on this board, you should have no trouble pointing out at least as many of you who thought the government should have allowed Citizens United to advertise "Hillary: The Movie" as there were of you who had a conniption fit over the ruling.

My beef had less to do with content and more to do with shadow money in elections. Nobody was going to be swayed by that film in the first place.

What's your point? Are you suggesting that banning somebody from advertising a movie doesn't count as censorship if you're doing it as a means to an end instead of as an end in itself?

 

[Bomb#20]

And that would be a strawman because, presumably, it's one of his "absurd sweeping generalizations that have no basis in fact". Because, presumably, leftists favoring censorship is one of those "fringe issues involving extremely few people". So, since there are an awful lot of leftists on this board, you should have no trouble pointing out at least as many of you who thought the government should have allowed Citizens United to advertise "Hillary: The Movie" as there were of you who had a conniption fit over the ruling.

What?

There is no getting through the modern American right-wing brain.

Or the left-wing brain either -- modern or otherwise, American or otherwise. It goes with being out on a wing. If you want to get someone to see reason, find a moderate to argue with.

The left has an intellectual foundation. What connects it is a desire to spread democracy as far as possible, to spread power as far as possible.

"The place for opposition parties is jail." - V.I. Lenin

Some of the left desires democracy and some of it doesn't. What connects the left is tribal hostility to its outgroup.

But the right at present is filled with religious fundamentalists, science deniers, alternate fact enthusiasts. With their backs firmly turned to working people. All a betrayal of the intellectual foundations of conservatism.

The left at present is also filled with religious fundamentalists, science deniers, alternate fact enthusiasts. A plague on both your houses.

But even if it were the case that the right is even more bone-headed, even less intellectually founded, and even more religious than the left, none of that would alter the reality that "The left is a bunch of free speech hatin' scum" is not a strawman, but has considerable basis in fact. There are relatively few on the left who give a fig for their political opponents' First Amendment rights. The reaction to Citizens United v FEC is proof of that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Some of the left desires democracy and some of it doesn't. What connects the left is tribal hostility to its outgroup.

Some of the left has hostility to its outgroup and some of it doesn't.

 

[Potoooooooo]

The left at present is also filled with religious fundamentalists, science deniers, alternate fact enthusiasts.

Such as?

 

[untermensche]

What?

There is no getting through the modern American right-wing brain.

Or the left-wing brain either -- modern or otherwise, American or otherwise. It goes with being out on a wing. If you want to get someone to see reason, find a moderate to argue with.

The left has an intellectual foundation. What connects it is a desire to spread democracy as far as possible, to spread power as far as possible.

"The place for opposition parties is jail." - V.I. Lenin

Lenin is completely rejected by the modern left.

He has nothing to do with it.

But people very ignorant of what the modern left actually is don't know that.

It is amazing how the most ignorant think they can make actual observations.

The left at present is also filled with religious fundamentalists, science deniers, alternate fact enthusiasts. A plague on both your houses.

Name a major thinker on the modern left who fits that description.

You have no idea who is and isn't a serious thinker on the left.

Again, Chomsky, Zinn, Vidal, these are the modern left, and many more, but these are a few giants.

Have you read any of them?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

My beef had less to do with content and more to do with shadow money in elections. Nobody was going to be swayed by that film in the first place.

What's your point? Are you suggesting that banning somebody from advertising a movie doesn't count as censorship if you're doing it as a means to an end instead of as an end in itself?

My point is about shadow money in elections. That is all. Do not read anything else into it.

 

[TSwizzle]

Breitbart News May Boot Milo Yiannopoulos Over Sex Comments | Fox Business

I had heard of these comments long ago. I wonder why all of sudden it's a dealbreaker.

His original comments were ambiguous and he has clarified his position so I'm not sure why people are getting into such a froth about him.