Free Speech

[prisonermonkeys]

He wanted to come speak at UC-Berkely, but then all these people don't want him there because they think he's just there to push hate speech. If you agree with free speech, then don't you think everybody deserves the opportunity to share their opinion?

Isn't he just as bad, then? He immediately characterises people who disagree with him as hating free speech. He loves free speech - but only if he is the only person who gets to speak.

 

[BobK]

Isn't he just as bad, then? He immediately characterises people who disagree with him as hating free speech. He loves free speech - but only if he is the only person who gets to speak.

Who has he tried to silence?

 

[mustafur]

Isn't he just as bad, then? He immediately characterises people who disagree with him as hating free speech. He loves free speech - but only if he is the only person who gets to speak.

From the little expereince I have from seeing what he has done this is generally when the person who disagrees doesn't allow anyone to speak by yelling their agenda profoundly.

But if you can show me a genuine example of someone who wants to have a proper argument ill take it.

Either way the guy is still a dick, but to each their own.

 

[Imari]

Isn't he just as bad, then? He immediately characterises people who disagree with him as hating free speech. He loves free speech - but only if he is the only person who gets to speak.

Oh look, this again.

Proof. Now. Or stop peddling this outrageous lie.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Who has he tried to silence?

I just told you. He calls anyone opposed to him somebody who hates free speech. You can either hear what he has to say and agree with him, or disagree and be branded as someone opposed to a basic freedom.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I just told you.

Maybe, I don't pay much attention to what you say.

He calls anyone opposed to him somebody who hates free speech.

That is not true.

You can either hear what he has to say and agree with him, or disagree and be branded as someone opposed to a basic freedom.

That is not true.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't pay much attention to what you say.

Clearly, since I wasn't responding to you.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Clearly, since I wasn't responding to you.

Well you are now, but clearly you have nothing to back up you claims against Milo.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

you have nothing to back up you claims against Milo

I wasn't aware opinions needed to be backed up with facts. After all, opinions are subjective whereas facts are objective. I never claimed that my opinion on him was a fact, and I find it a double standard that you expect me to. During the unrest at Berkerly, he looked straight into the camera and said "all of these people hate free speech". He made no attempt to establish what each and every person involved thought on the matter; he offered up an opinion based on his observations of the subject. I'm doing exactly the same thing - based on my observations, he has represented anyone opposed to him as hating free speech. He's not the champion of freedom of speech that he makes himself out to be, but a demagogue.

 

[W3H5]

This video pretty much sums up my opinion on the topic.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I wasn't aware opinions needed to be backed up with facts. After all, opinions are subjective whereas facts are objective. I never claimed that my opinion on him was a fact, and I find it a double standard that you expect me to. During the unrest at Berkerly, he looked straight into the camera and said "all of these people hate free speech". He made no attempt to establish what each and every person involved thought on the matter; he offered up an opinion based on his observations of the subject. I'm doing exactly the same thing - based on my observations, he has represented anyone opposed to him as hating free speech. He's not the champion of freedom of speech that he makes himself out to be, but a demagogue.

Don't you see the problem with your own argument? They were protesting to shut him down, and they succeeded.

There are many videos on YouTube of Milo debating with people on issues. He does not, do as you said:

...calls anyone opposed to him somebody who hates free speech.

He welcomes debate. He loves winning!

And he does.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

They were protesting to shut him down

Did you go out there and ask every single protester why they were there? And if not, how do you know they were all there to shut him there?

 

[Famine]

I find it hypocritical how some advocate free speech, but then want to censor any viewpoints they disagree with.

Not really.

Freedom of 'x' is the freedom from governmental censure for exercising 'x'. One can be wholly against arrest, criminal procedings and imprisonment for speaking, while also being against people saying certain things on their own private property.

I support freedom of speech. I don’t think that someone should be put in prison for saying "the N word". I also don't want them saying it on this site or in my house. These are not contrary positions.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Did you go out there and ask every single protester why they were there? And if not, how do you know they were all there to shut him there?

I probably talked to as many as you did. Protesting free speech is protesting free speech, that is what they were doing. And Starbucks, as usual, paid the price.

I would love to see an example of Noam Chomsky or any other leftest being prevented from speaking by right wingers.

Those on the right welcome debate.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Those on the right welcome debate.

Only on their terms. How many times have you seen someone dismissed, disregarded out outright demonised as a "leftist" or a "liberal"?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Only on their terms. How many times have you seen someone dismissed, disregarded out outright demonised as a "leftist" or a "liberal"?

Milo, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, I can't think of a single time they have resorted to name calling and backed down from a debate.

If you can, show me.

I will forgive your ignorance because you do not live here. It is those on the right that are dismissed here by the media.

Did you forget about our 'crazy' President?

That is the narrative that has been pushed by the biased media since the election.

 

[Imari]

I wasn't aware opinions needed to be backed up with facts.

Well there's a new tack.

But wrong. "Milo immediately characterises people who disagree with him as hating free speech" isn't an opinion. It's a statement of fact. One that you cannot apparently produce any evidence for. Not even any evidence to support your own "opinion" that this is true, or that might have been important in establishing your own opinion about the matter.

Just stop. Put up or admit that you've been lying for months.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

admit that you've been lying for months

That's a new one - I'm not sure how I can be lying about my own opinion.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

@prisonermonkeys , just admit defeat, and go home.

 

[BobK]

I just told you. He calls anyone opposed to him somebody who hates free speech. You can either hear what he has to say and agree with him, or disagree and be branded as someone opposed to a basic freedom.

You did not. My question was:

Who has he tried to silence?

You merely stated that "[h]e calls anyone opposed to him somebody who hates free speech." How is that silencing anybody?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

How is that silencing anybody?

Because it gives you a choice - if you speak up against him, you're accused of hating free speech. You either conform to his view, or you become a pariah. If just one person chooses not to give voice to their ideas because it would mean being branded an enemy of free speech, he has silenced them.

 

[Imari]

That's a new one - I'm not sure how I can be lying about my own opinion.

Hoho, are you going to tell us all it was a joke next?

Saying that someone does something is not an opinion. It's either true or it isn't. It is, as we say, and objective fact. As an English teacher, you'd know all about that.

Since this is the internet and everything is available for everyone to read, let's take a look at exactly what it was that you have said. You know, I'm going to do for you exactly what you refuse to do for Yiannopolous.

Let's start with this thread.

He (Milo) calls anyone opposed to him somebody who hates free speech. You can either hear what he has to say and agree with him, or disagree and be branded as someone opposed to a basic freedom.

Isn't he (Milo) just as bad, then? He immediately characterises people who disagree with him as hating free speech. He loves free speech - but only if he is the only person who gets to speak.

Or are you talking about Milo? Perhaps you could find a better example than the self-proclaimed champion of free speech who refuses to let anyone else have a voice. After all, he's repeatedly accused anyone who disagrees with him of hating free speech after he's had a chance to voice his opinion but before anyone else can speak up.

And from the America thread. Let's see how close to the start of everything I can find it:

I mean, it was just coincidence that Milo Yiannopolis had a camera rolling and a speech prepared condemning the evils of the political left as hating free speech and democracy, all ready to go the moment the protest turned violent.

His underlying message is "I think this and anyone who disagrees with me hates democracy and free speech". Self-styled champion of free speech he may be, but he attempts to stifle it by immediately tarnishing anyone who disagrees with him as hating his values. Is it any wonder that he gets protested?

Before you dismiss it outright, remember that Yiannopolis is already a political radical. He decries anyone who disagrees with him as someone who hates free speech, which is in itself a way of stifling free speech. He's trying to intimidate opponents into silence, and the idea that people might hate what he stands for has clearly never occurred to him. So unless he's the personification of free speech - which he's not - he's a radical. And judging by the public image that he has crafted for himself, he's got the makings of a Messiah complex.

He says that anyone who disagrees with him hates free speech. Nobody gets the opportunity to disagree with him because by doing so, they "hate free speech". So they can either keep quiet and let him dominate the political discussion, or they can speak up and be branded as being opposed to your rights. It's a lose-lose situation, and intimidation.

To make matters worse, he's a hypocrite. He can't champion free speech and then tarnish anyone who disagrees with him as hating free speech. Nor can he distance himself from the alt-right and then turn around and lump everyone from the left together with a generalisation as he did during the protests.

Milo's problem is that he takes any negative reaction as an attempt to suppress free speech, because to his mind, he's not doing anything wrong so long as he's exercising his right to free speech. The irony is that he goes around calling himself the "Dangerous Faggott", but as soon as he says something dangerous and provocative enough to get a negative response, he backs away from it and claims to be the victim of deliberate misrepresentation by people who want to silence him on principle.

Thus his hypocrisy shows itself: he's allowed to exercise his right to free speech, but anyone who disagrees with him is trying to suppress that right. And by launching a pre-emptive attack on those who disagree with him, he's essentially saying "accept my right to free speech or be branded an enemy of a democratic principle", which is in itself a form of suppression. He wants his soapbox, but he doesn't want to hear a dissenting opinion.

Free speech isn't a shield to hide behind. If Milo wants to express his opinion, that's fine - so long as he accepts that people will disagree with him and are just as entitled to express that counter-opinion as he is to express his opinion in the first place. Because right now, it sounds suspiciously like "if you don't agree with me, shut up", in which case he has no right to call himself a defender of free speech.

I have no doubt that he loves free speech - just so long as he is the only one with a voice.

Then there was the whole laughable section where he tried to claim to have been asked to not go into it further, but was actually just broadly interpreting a post from Famine:

How are you going backing up your statements about Milo Yiannopolous? Is it harder than you thought?

It was suggested to me that discretion is the better part of valour and that I might be better served letting the discussion move on regardless of whether or not I could provide the requested information. I received that advice before I even started looking, and chose to observe it. Now, you can continue to make an issue of it if you wish, but I would not be surprised if you receive a discreet tap on the shoulder if you do.

Mods, if any of you would mind shooting me a quick message to make sure that this isn't another lie, it'd be much appreciated. I assume that it was site staff that suggested this to prisonermonkeys, because if not then it's just another way for him to avoid having to provide any basis for his statements.

The details of a private message are just that - private. They are between the messenger and the recipient. Since you are neither messenger nor recipient, you have no right or need to know what was said.

No, but I don't need to know what the details of the message were. I can simply ask the mods to confirm or deny whether your previous statement was a lie. Just a yes or no. That seems reasonable, does it not? It doesn't reveal any information that you haven't already given me. Unless you were lying.

@Imari is so intent on proving that I am lying that he's come up with the idea that I am claiming to have received a private message from the moderators when I never said anything of the sort. For the record, it was this post by @Famine that I was alluding to, and this one, but I had to Google the part about water and wine because I had never heard the expression before.

All that I tried to do was discreetly exit that line of discussion because it occurred to me that it was a lose-lose situation. Had I produced the evidence that others like Imari were demanding, it is unlikely that it would have been accepted. But no, he had to get one last jab in, and now we are in this situation where he is accusing me of lying after jumping to the wrong conclusion.

Now, can we please move this discussion along?

"Had I provided the evidence that others like Imari were demanding..." he says, implicitly acknowledging that it exists. Will we see it? No, because that would give us information to discuss and dispute Prisonermonkeys' claims, and that's not what the Opinions and Current Events section is for. Especially not in a Free Speech thread.

In response to the above I posted the following (amid a much longer post):

Yes, well you made that decision for all of us, didn't you?

Is that because the evidence was unconvincing? Because it didn't exist? Because earlier you said that you didn't even bother looking. You do have a lot of back and forth between some of your posts. Are you going to tell us that this was all a joke again?

Like I said, I wouldn't be totally surprised if Milo was suppressing free speech. On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that in general he doesn't, like his Q&A sessions after his speeches. Let's roll on your evidence of him suppressing people. You show us, and let us decide for ourselves whether or not we accept it.

Of course, nothing happened.

==========

Now clearly in the above walls of text there are some sections of Prisonermonkeys' opinion in there, but there are also some statements presented as facts intended to support the opinions. One of the most repeated and clearest of these is the idea that Milo Yiannopolous will cast any negative reaction as an attack on his free speech and attempt to shut it down.

Let's take just one example, but there are many more:



He speaks for about the first 20 minutes and then it's Q&A.

At his speeches, Milo generally seems to take questions from the audience and tends to engage regardless of whether the question is supportive of his views or not. There may be examples of him shutting people down (as I said to Prisonermonkeys above) but I haven't seen any of him unjustifiably shutting people down. However there are examples of him not shutting people who have dissenting opinions down like above, and him taking time in his speeches to respond to their points (however aggressively and humorously).

There are also examples of other groups shutting him down (eg. Berkeley riots), and also examples of him being allowed to speak and provided with a platform (eg. Bill Maher). Seems fine.

For anyone who is about to send me hate mail for supporting Yiannopoulos, I kinda do and don't. I disagree with the vast majority of what he says, but I think he presents his information in an aggressively humorous and thought provoking way. It's often hard to describe exactly why he's wrong, and I find it most valuable for me to be able to take what he says and analyse it until I truly understand why I disagree.

On the other hand, I haven't heard him say anything so awful that I thought was worth getting out of my seat for, let alone rioting. He's largely a provocateur, and good at it. Behind the snappy comebacks there are some interesting thoughts about militant feminism in the modern age and various other things. I see no reason why such a man shouldn't be afforded the same protections and respect that any other speaker would, and I see no justification for Prisonermonkeys' claims that he suppresses anyone who disagrees with him as anti-free speech. On the other hand, he gets accused of being anti-free speech himself a lot and I see no real evidence of it.

Since I can see no evidence of it, and since Prisonermonkeys has gone to such extreme lengths to assure us all that there is evidence but he just can't show it to us, he's been told not to, we'd disagree with him, it's only an opinion, etc. etc., I sort of have to assume that at this point he's simply lying so that he gets to hang onto a treasured political whacking stick.

Prove me wrong, Prisonermonkeys.

==========

For those who managed to read all the way through to the end, a special bonus prize!

Just for a bit of character reference (and humour!) we all remember the thread where Prisonermonkeys lied repeatedly and specifically in order to win an internet award, and then tried to pass it off as though it were a carefully planned joke.

Classic!

 

[mistersafeway]

Hoho, are you going to tell us all it was a joke next?

Saying that someone does something is not an opinion. It's either true or it isn't. It is, as we say, and objective fact. As an English teacher, you'd know all about that.

Since this is the internet and everything is available for everyone to read, let's take a look at exactly what it was that you have said. You know, I'm going to do for you exactly what you refuse to do for Yiannopolous.

Let's start with this thread.







And from the America thread. Let's see how close to the start of everything I can find it:













Then there was the whole laughable section where he tried to claim to have been asked to not go into it further, but was actually just broadly interpreting a post from Famine:













"Had I provided the evidence that others like Imari were demanding..." he says, implicitly acknowledging that it exists. Will we see it? No, because that would give us information to discuss and dispute Prisonermonkeys' claims, and that's not what the Opinions and Current Events section is for. Especially not in a Free Speech thread.

In response to the above I posted the following (amid a much longer post):



Of course, nothing happened.

==========

Now clearly in the above walls of text there are some sections of Prisonermonkeys' opinion in there, but there are also some statements presented as facts intended to support the opinions. One of the most repeated and clearest of these is the idea that Milo Yiannopolous will cast any negative reaction as an attack on his free speech and attempt to shut it down.

Let's take just one example, but there are many more:



He speaks for about the first 20 minutes and then it's Q&A.

At his speeches, Milo generally seems to take questions from the audience and tends to engage regardless of whether the question is supportive of his views or not. There may be examples of him shutting people down (as I said to Prisonermonkeys above) but I haven't seen any of him unjustifiably shutting people down. However there are examples of him not shutting people who have dissenting opinions down like above, and him taking time in his speeches to respond to their points (however aggressively and humorously).

There are also examples of other groups shutting him down (eg. Berkeley riots), and also examples of him being allowed to speak and provided with a platform (eg. Bill Maher). Seems fine.

For anyone who is about to send me hate mail for supporting Yiannopoulos, I kinda do and don't. I disagree with the vast majority of what he says, but I think he presents his information in an aggressively humorous and thought provoking way. It's often hard to describe exactly why he's wrong, and I find it most valuable for me to be able to take what he says and analyse it until I truly understand why I disagree.

On the other hand, I haven't heard him say anything so awful that I thought was worth getting out of my seat for, let alone rioting. He's largely a provocateur, and good at it. Behind the snappy comebacks there are some interesting thoughts about militant feminism in the modern age and various other things. I see no reason why such a man shouldn't be afforded the same protections and respect that any other speaker would, and I see no justification for Prisonermonkeys' claims that he suppresses anyone who disagrees with him as anti-free speech. On the other hand, he gets accused of being anti-free speech himself a lot and I see no real evidence of it.

Since I can see no evidence of it, and since Prisonermonkeys has gone to such extreme lengths to assure us all that there is evidence but he just can't show it to us, he's been told not to, we'd disagree with him, it's only an opinion, etc. etc., I sort of have to assume that at this point he's simply lying so that he gets to hang onto a treasured political whacking stick.

Prove me wrong, Prisonermonkeys.

==========

For those who managed to read all the way through to the end, a special bonus prize!

Just for a bit of character reference (and humour!) we all remember the thread where Prisonermonkeys lied repeatedly and specifically in order to win an internet award, and then tried to pass it off as though it were a carefully planned joke.

Classic!

Interesting post. Although I've yet to see proof that Milo is anything but a well spoken (possible) idiot with some unpleasant views*, I've never really seen a reason to try to shut him up, just oppose the bad things he says** at every turn and explain why he's wrong if you care that much. Or just ignore him, which is what I do unless the subject of him comes up. *shrug* I guess he's just not that important to me, probably because he's not that influential.

*Some of his views have varying amounts of merit, though, at least as far as I can tell. It's just that it's hard to be certain, what with him being mostly ignored until he says something particularly awful, or a bunch of "liberals" set 🤬 on fire because of the mere possibility of being in his general vicinity.

**Or you could just say 'Milo said puppies are nice, get 'im!'

 

[huskeR32]

They were protesting to shut him down, and they succeeded.

Surely such protesting also constitutes free speech?

--

It is those on the right that are dismissed here by the media.

Some on the right are dismissed by some of the media.

Just like some of the left are dismissed by some of the media.

And don't try to peddle your "Fox is marginal" nonsense here to discount the fact that it goes both ways.

 

[Imari]

Surely such protesting also constitutes free speech?

Non-violent protesting is free speech. Rioting is not.

 

[huskeR32]

Non-violent protesting is free speech. Rioting is not.

True enough.

But when it turns violent, that's the crime. There's still no violation of anybody else's free speech happening.

 

[Tornado]

Because it gives you a choice - if you speak up against him, you're accused of hating free speech. You either conform to his view, or you become a pariah. If just one person chooses not to give voice to their ideas because it would mean being branded an enemy of free speech, he has silenced them.

Ignoring Imari's post above since you'll no doubt so the same, how is that much different from how you conduct yourself on this forum?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

how is that much different from how you conduct yourself on this forum?

Because I don't accuse you of hating free speech if you disagree with me.

Then there was the whole laughable section where he tried to claim to have been asked to not go into it further, but was actually just broadly interpreting a post from Famine:

Don't blame me if you read what you wanted to read and jumped to the wrong conclusion. As it is, you knowingly misrepresented what I posted, so why should I give in to your demands? You'll misrepresent anything I say.

 

[Imari]

Oh look, it's Prisonermonkeys Diversionary Tactic #2: Attempt to deflect the conversation to incidentals.

As it is, you knowingly misrepresented what I posted, so why should I give in to your demands?

Well, firstly because the AUP says thou shalt not lie. As ex-staff you know this.
Secondly, how on earth can I misrepresent what you posted when I quoted your own posts verbatim? That's perfect representation.

However, if you think that you've been misrepresented then feel free to explain how and I'll correct it. After you provide your evidence for your statements about Milo. Not before. You've deflected and avoided and straight up abandoned conversations for too long to be allowed the benefit of the doubt.

You'll misrepresent anything I say.

Good job then that this is a public forum, and you're not reliant on me to relay your comment to everyone else. You can speak, and we can all see exactly what you have to say. I can't misrepresent that.

Besides, you're not a child. You're a grown adult who I would hope given your profession is completely capable of clearly expressing your own opinions and addressing when people have misinterpreted or misrepresented you. That you're scared that I'll twist your words into something you haven't said is not an excuse.

Even what you quote above is not a misrepresentation. You did claim to have been asked not to go into it further based on your interpretation of a post from Famine. However I made sure to provide the actual conversation so that people could see for themselves and not rely on my description of what was said. If someone else wants to summarise that differently, then they're welcome.

But all of this is really irrelevant, and is just you attempting to lay grounds for Prisonermonkeys Diversionary Tactic #4: I can't tell you because you won't understand. How about you treat the rest of us like the adults that we are and allow us to judge the information for ourselves, instead of assuming that you know best? We have brains and can be trusted to think for ourselves, you know. As a teacher, you should probably be used to getting people to think for themselves about information, and it's sure tough when the teacher won't even give you the information you're supposed to be thinking about.

 

[Tornado]

Because I don't accuse you of hating free speech if you disagree with me.

That's probably because it wouldn't make any sense for you to try and lecture on something you frequently don't believe should apply, but I have seen you accuse people of being racist and bigoted and sheltered and badly parented and fools plenty enough times when people don't instantly acquiesce to your attempts at moral browbeating to see the same behavior you keep accusing (but not proving, still) Milo of doing. Which once again brings up the question why the hell you think you're any better than what you're accusing (but not proving, still) Milo of doing.