Funny, I gave examples that backed him up.
EDIT: Okay, refute the actual evidence I presented then...
Stanford SJW’s gonna SJW
- Thread starter FAUlty Gator
- Start date
Funny, I gave examples that backed him up.
EDIT: Okay, refute the actual evidence I presented then...
You're completely insane and a liar. My whole point is 100% contrary to this drivel. I'm pointing out that calling someone "dangerous" that isn't, is so stupid and a bull shit way to try to get your point across. So, no...I don't think they are dangerous and never said I thought they were dangerous. This is your imagination taking over for your sense of reality once again. It happens often.
You mean like you referring to people Trump supporters as cockroaches yesterday? You and Ben are two peas in a pod, I guess.
Did you not read Shapiro's words in the Tweet you used to start this thread? You might be the least self-aware poster on HROT.
Nope, I called racists, homophobes, and other bigots cockroaches (see the Paradox of Tolerance). Are you saying you can't tell the difference between the two groups? Freudian slip of the memory?
What is it your imagination thinks is in here that helps your point here?
He said..."Nothing says fighting intolerance like depicting your political opponents as insects to be exterminated. Well done, Stanford SJWs!"
What is it that tweet is doing again?
Anti-immigrant, anti-asylum seeker rhetoric is often cited as part of the motive for some of the mass shootings. Shapiro is one of the stalwarts delivering this rhetoric. Thus the protesting.
Shapiro is clearly making the point that these protesters are dangerously intolerant for using the image of bug extermination. How do you fail to connect the easiest of dots?
He's pointing out their hypocrisy. Like your hypocrisy, complaining about things he said while calling others cockroaches.
Again, read up on the Paradox of Intolerance. You are an enabler. And Ben Shapiro fits in here well...
Again, read up on the Paradox of Intolerance. You are an enabler. And Ben Shapiro fits in here well...
And as usual, you're trying to have it both ways. It's OK for you to make a blanket statement and call a third of the country "cockroaches" but you get all up in arms if Shapiro calls out people who want to rid the earth of his heritage. You know...anti-semites like Omar. It's OK to call her a cockroach, correct? Of course, we all know that would trigger you as well. It's only OK to call the bigots you disagree with cockroaches.
And still...you haven't posted a single thing that might suggest that these SJW's are correct in stating he is putting black people and gays in danger by his mere presence, as they suggest.
I'd like to see those quotes. Forgive me if I don't trust your paraphrasing.
Seriously? That's quite a reach, even for you. Stop looking for things that aren't there.
I know this response will not change your mind, and that's the sad part.
If he tweeted "Good Morning" you'd find something wrong with it.
Omar is not an anti-Semite. For the thousandth time, being critical of Israel does not equal antisemitism. Hell, full-blown anti-Zionism isn't even antisemitic.
Will you please internalize this once and for all?
FYI—protesting Shapiro, fine. The choice of bug-killer on the flier, bad.
A) Clearly the definition of "paradox" is beyond your comprehension.
B) Who TF brought up Ilhan Omar? Her tropes are dangerously anti-Semitic. Are you done moving the goalposts now?
C) You again conflated bigots, racists, and homophobes with Trump supporters. That's telling.
You so painfully unaware of how bad your shit smells that having a debate with you is impossible, because you will always dig in and never reflect on how you enable your own nutcases.
I'm sure you feel the same about Bernie Sanders then. His constant attack on how 'if Republicans win you are going to die' shtick almost got Steve Scalise killed if we use this logic. Do I blame Bernie for that heck no because there is no correlation. But keep blaming Shapiro for the nutbags actions in El Paso.
Link to Bernie saying that type of stuff?
Also, I’m not blaming Shapiro. Shapiro, himself, isn’t necessarily to blame. But dangerous rhetoric is dangerous. Thus the protest.
The cool thing about Shapiro’s game is that he gets to position himself the victim, gets folks all riled up against liberalism. Stokes your anger and aggrievement.
We’re all being played.
Last edited:
Anyone have any idea how big this group of Stanford students is? Big enough it's got a Florida poster bringing it to a Iowa message board. I suspect he wants to be protested to further a certain mentality among his audience. It loses some of its effect if it's just a few dozen people.
Ugh. Come on you guys.
1) of course the students have a right to protest -- but does it make sense to protest?
2) No, their protest doesn't make sense here. Ben Shapiro simply doesn't present any sort of real threat to the minority students mentioned here. At best you could argue that there is a "downstream" negative affect on minority students by the mere presence of a guy like Shapiro existing and espousing conservative viewpoints.
3) The downstream argument card shouldn't be played. If that's our standard in presentable discourse -- avoidance of any possible downstream negative effects -- we'd be paralyzed as a society in discussing almost anything. Because just about any position can be made extreme or distorted so as to cause a negative effect. Many, many positions, it could be argued then, could be made an entry point to radicalization.
4) The real problem here is the Stanford protesters hurting their own cause. Gross over-reactions don't help minority quality of life. They're giving conservative media and critics red meat. Bad idea. Some on the left see this -- I'll bet you lots of money Obama is agreeing with everything I say here -- and some don't. What you see a lot of here is reactionary partisan battles. You'll catch more flies with honey than woke absurdness.
5) On Ben Shaprio. Having listened to the man a number of times now, I don't see anything extreme. He's annoying and uses divisive partisan rhetoric -- something we need less of -- but he's also quite a bit more thoughtful than a Hannity and or Limbaugh and would represent a nice upgrade there for conservatives.
6) Shapiro supports legal immigration and is rather libertarian in that regard. He believes the trans thing is a mental illness because of its DSM classification. (which is a dumb argument for a lawyer given that's just an argument from authority position)
But doesn't support the withholding of any essential rights based on that status. As a whole, he's rather reasonable and liberal where individual rights are concerned. On the Israel issues, he's definitely a homer. (of course, I think plenty on the left swing too far the other direction)
He's just not an extreme guy.
1) of course the students have a right to protest -- but does it make sense to protest?
2) No, their protest doesn't make sense here. Ben Shapiro simply doesn't present any sort of real threat to the minority students mentioned here. At best you could argue that there is a "downstream" negative affect on minority students by the mere presence of a guy like Shapiro existing and espousing conservative viewpoints.
3) The downstream argument card shouldn't be played. If that's our standard in presentable discourse -- avoidance of any possible downstream negative effects -- we'd be paralyzed as a society in discussing almost anything. Because just about any position can be made extreme or distorted so as to cause a negative effect. Many, many positions, it could be argued then, could be made an entry point to radicalization.
4) The real problem here is the Stanford protesters hurting their own cause. Gross over-reactions don't help minority quality of life. They're giving conservative media and critics red meat. Bad idea. Some on the left see this -- I'll bet you lots of money Obama is agreeing with everything I say here -- and some don't. What you see a lot of here is reactionary partisan battles. You'll catch more flies with honey than woke absurdness.
5) On Ben Shaprio. Having listened to the man a number of times now, I don't see anything extreme. He's annoying and uses divisive partisan rhetoric -- something we need less of -- but he's also quite a bit more thoughtful than a Hannity and or Limbaugh and would represent a nice upgrade there for conservatives.
6) Shapiro supports legal immigration and is rather libertarian in that regard. He believes the trans thing is a mental illness because of its DSM classification. (which is a dumb argument for a lawyer given that's just an argument from authority position)
But doesn't support the withholding of any essential rights based on that status. As a whole, he's rather reasonable and liberal where individual rights are concerned. On the Israel issues, he's definitely a homer. (of course, I think plenty on the left swing too far the other direction)
He's just not an extreme guy.
When people don't have access to health care, there are seriously unnecessary grave results, including death. Look at the stats. Is it dramatic thing to say? Yes. Do I wish he spoke with more nuance? Yes.
Note the difference between attacking a policy versus actually characterizing people as vermin, invaders, human scum, etc.
They literally are advocating gassing a Jew. We have people on here defending them calling for the gassing of a Jew. That is what they have done. Called for the extermination of a Jew and posted a chemical to do it. The only thing they forgot was to label the bottle Zyklon b.
This sure looks like hate speech...not free speech
This sure looks like hate speech...not free speech
What's the problem? Calling Shapiro an insect is a lot nicer than I would be.
What civility and discourse. You know those things you rightfully rip the president for. Welcome to Trump's world.
I'm really upset with these liberals.
How dare they insult insects by comparing them with Ben Shapiro.
1. Until you first address the nonsense used to argue against my OP (like, BS poses a violent threat to gays and blacks because he said something negative about Arabs once), your point is meaningless. Take time to read through all of that crazy bullshit and understand why my Omar point is relevant. Or dont. Whatever.
2. This is part of the point of the thread and his tweet. Not about them not being allowed to protest.
I have a feeling this might turn out to be a hoax.
I'm going to go on a limb here and suggest that Shapiro has more than one example of dangerous rhetoric. In fact, I think he sort of plays the enemy complex game as his main schtick, right? I mean, he did it in response to the flier itself, didn't he? His response was one of opportunism—to broad brush SJWs as some sort of deplorable thing.
I commented on the flier. It's bad. Apparently the student group that created it has apologized. I know, who cares, apologies are meaningless.
When people only accept what they feel like accepting, it's all pretty much meaningless.
Feel better?
So your modus operandi is to double down on that which you believe is unfair?
I'm going to go on a limb here and suggest that Shapiro has more than one example of dangerous rhetoric. In fact, I think he sort of plays the enemy complex game as his main schtick, right? I mean, he did it in response to the flier itself, didn't he? His response was one of opportunism—to broad brush SJWs as some sort of deplorable thing.
I commented on the flier. It's bad. Apparently the student group that created it has apologized. I know, who cares, apologies are meaningless.
When people only accept what they feel like accepting, it's all pretty much meaningless.
Feel better?
What exactly was the wrong/ broad brush comment he made in that Tweet again? He pointed out that a group of people who wear the “pro-tolerance” badge are using an anti-semetic trope while complaining about their own safety. What about them or their idiotic flier should be off limits to insult or scorn?
Right wing media, of which Shapiro is of course a member, have managed to turn the notion of fighting for social justice into a derogatory slight. Do some people aiming to uncover social injustices go too far on occasion? Of course. Notice how every time they do it is a huge damn story? Why do you think that is? Who do you think that serves? Why does someone like you get (disproportionately, I might argue) caught up in this?
The student group apologized. The flier sucks. Shapiro sucks. We all suck.
Disproportionately reacting to shit like this when very real social, socio-economic, and socio-environmental injustices continue to plague society gives license to the perpetrators of injustices as well as provides cover for them.
Shapiro is basically a war profiteer who has manufactured a more or less fake war. You seem really engaged. Cool.
And I’d argue that giving license to this kind of hyperbolic rhetoric (on either side) without taking it to task only allows more instances like this to originate and fester and divide us when there’s no need for it. My contention has always been that when and IF there’s enough ACTUAL negative shit that a person does to be called out for, fabricating stuff that isn’t so, hurts your cause and your credibility.
But would you have been just as stupid (or more) by saying his mere presence puts everyone that’s not white and straight in danger?
Hmmmmm...I can see that.
Given his rhetoric in the past...given who follows him...I'm not sure why you have a problem with that. What's monumentally stupid is whining about a peaceful protest against the presence of a hateful person. But you carry it off...as usual.
So gassing a Jew brochures are ok but some flyers that state white people matter is a hate crime
The flyer literally compares a Jewish man to an insect and has a bottle of poison to exterminate him. A Jewish man being threatened with poison gas.
The flyer literally compares a Jewish man to an insect and has a bottle of poison to exterminate him. A Jewish man being threatened with poison gas.
Imagine getting upset that a group of students wouldn't want a speaker sharing a message like this on their campus.
And whose upset about a group wanting to protest him? No one I can see in this thread. Making up your shit and applying it to others and then arguing against it is...well...the definition of a strawman. You and many others here are arguing against points NO ONE IS MAKING.
It’s great that they’re protesting. Fantastic. I love the first amendment. They can protest their little hearts out and I’ll applaud if you wish. So please...stop making that dumb shit up. And if you do actually decide to be honest, point out what’s going on to the rest please.
Similar threads
