The intellectual dark web

[icecube]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

She's not pandering to the alt-right. Enough of this bull####. Enough of these lies. She outright criticizes them and denounces them. She doesn't want their support.

Maybe she's making money from this attention, but it's hilarious how people like you refuse to acknowledge what she says and have a discussion and instead label her as "alt-right" or an alt-right sympathizer, aka a bigot, and therefore can easily discredit her. It's just like CHL said, once you label somebody under one of these bigoted terms, they have no further voice or credibility in a debate. It's clockwork for the left. It's cheap. It's easy. It's embarrassing.

The left are so off base now that people who should be considered liberals are now considered conservatives or even alt- or far right.

It's just amazing, how after the 3-4 pages of discussion we just had on all this, how tone deaf you still can be.

Lindsay Shepherd- "I'm not alt- right"

Also Lindsay Shepherd- "Hey Faith Goldy can you come to an event I organized and will profit from to speak about how the aryan race is the master race?"

[burn_this_city]

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If someone has truly reprehensible beliefs, isn't debating and destroying their positions the best solution to educate the public? Why does everyone need to be shielded from negative ideas or emotions?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I'm curious: In your opinion, does the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Gladue treat group identity as more important than individual actions or does it seek to minimize the systemic negative effects of group identity that already exist?

It's a sincere question. Put another way: Are additional sentencing considerations for aboriginal offenders from troubled backgrounds "identity politics" or good law meant to maximize the individual freedom of people who might otherwise be disadvantaged by their group identity?

I'm surprised that there are so many posters who are so confident that they k kW where to draw the line. I'm not so confident.

To take something as mind-meltingly complex and nuanced as the forces that shape a person's life outcomes, and to wrap it up in such a tidy package is:

A) Intellectually untenable, and

B) Fundamentally illiberal and a threat to liberal democracy.

It yields absurdities like a third-generation doctor being granted 'oppressed' status and a drywaller who grew up in poverty deemed 'privileged' simply because of their genders. Or where a man who rapes a Native woman is less likely to spend time in prison than a man who rapes a non-Native woman.

The more we institutionalise group identities in our political and economic systems, the more all groups will exert their political will through these identities. Women and men. Natives and whites. The notion that a narrative of collective guilt will deter working class whites or low-status men from actively organizing along gender and race lines is astonishing in its naivete. I don't know how anyone who has any familiarity with human history can believe this will turn out well.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The status quo was treating people differently depending on their identity. Disruption was treating all individuals the same regardless of their identity. And those movements would never had gained traction and public support if Canada wasn't already a society with liberal values embedded in it. There's a reason all of these movements succeeded first in Canada, the UK, and Sweden, rather than in Egypt, China, and India.

Do you think that accessible parking spaces (and the legislation which regulates them) are a product of identity politics (treating an individual differently because of his or her group identity) or a product of a liberal society (attempting to reduce the barriers faced by disabled persons so that they can maximize their individual freedom as well as non-disabled persons)?

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by icecube

Lindsay Shepherd- "I'm not alt- right"

Also Lindsay Shepherd- "Hey Faith Goldy can you come to an event I organized and will profit from to speak about how the aryan race is the master race?"

This is so disingenuous that it's ludicrous. It has already been addressed in this very thread, a direct response to you.

People like you can never be debated with because you have no intention of actually listening and challenging what you believe to be right.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by icecube

Lindsay Shepherd- "I'm not alt- right"

Also Lindsay Shepherd- "Hey Faith Goldy can you come to an event I organized and will profit from to speak about how the aryan race is the master race?"

I didn't know who Faith Goldy was, and only vaguely recollected the Lindsay Shepherd incident so I googled it quickly and found the same article that was linked in this thread.

It doesn't sound anything like what you just wrote so you might want to take some time to read that article as I didn't see anything nefarious in it. Then again, I wasn't really looking for it either.

Sounded like it was supposed to be a debate format, not a willful endorsement of a persons views. She even stated that she did not agree with the views put forward by Faith Goldy.

Maybe a re-evaluation is in order? Again, I am not the most informed on this as I just read about it before writing this post, but it seems like you might not be either?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

In an attempt to get this thread somewhat back on topic...

Wilfrid Laurier professor withdraws from free speech task force in protest

It's sad that the tactic of threatening violence has proven so effective at suppressing speech and dissent from orthodoxy on campus. I wonder what kinds of precedents there are for institutions taking on the costs of security in the interests or protecting their ideals. For instance, if pro life groups threatened to impose thousands of dollars of security costs on a campus pro choice rally, would the people organizing the pro choice rally be forced to cancel?

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by icecube

Lindsay Shepherd- "I'm not alt- right"

Also Lindsay Shepherd- "Hey Faith Goldy can you come to an event I organized and will profit from to speak about how the aryan race is the master race?"

You're right. We should really just prevent viewpoints that we disagree with from being heard. Whoever occupies the moral majority should be able to extinguish ideas from the opposing side without debate.

[icecube]

not my original thought but I got a kick out of this post...

"I'm starting a podcast called Unpopular Opinion (unpopular means racist and/or bigoted) where we talk to a (not) diverse group of controversial (actual racist) guests. First up will be Adolf Hitler (#### Godwin).

Like & subscribe on social media, and don't forget to donate (screw actual charity) to my Patreon!"

[icecube]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If someone has truly reprehensible beliefs, isn't debating and destroying their positions the best solution to educate the public? Why does everyone need to be shielded from negative ideas or emotions?

It's the year 2018 and we should still be having debates with neo nazi's on a university campus? Wtf is there to debate about?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

To take something as mind-meltingly complex and nuanced as the forces that shape a person's life outcomes, and to wrap it up in such a tidy package is:

A) Intellectually untenable, and

B) Fundamentally illiberal and a threat to liberal democracy.

You've lost me already. No one (let alone the Supreme Court of Canada) has claimed that these things can be wrapped up in a tidy package. No one has ever claimed that Gladue sentences are a perfect or even close to perfect solution. Everyone acknowledges that these issues are complex and difficult. But that isn't a reason not to discuss them or try to take steps that we thing are reasonable and fair and may be effective. Just shouting "identity politics" and plugging your ears isn't helpful.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Or where a man who rapes a Native woman is less likely to spend time in prison than a man who rapes a non-Native woman.

This is a great example. One consequence of Gladue, combined with the fact that sexual abuse is endemic in many first Nations communities and that people who are sexually assaulted are typically assaulted by someone they know (especially someone e in their family) is that product who sexually assaut first Nations women do indeed (on average anyway) spend less time in custody than someone who sexually assaults a non-first Nations woman. And that does sound absurd.

However, the Gladue decision was in response to to the fact that the proportion of indigenous youth and adults in Canadian prisons is over nine times higher than their representation in the Canadian population. That is also an absurd result.

Which one is more absurd? Which one is more illiberal?

The more we institutionalise group identities in our political and economic systems, the more all groups will exert their political will through these identities. Women and men. Natives and whites. The notion that a narrative of collective guilt will deter working class whites or low-status men from actively organizing along gender and race lines is astonishing in its naivete. I don't know how anyone who has any familiarity with human history can believe this will turn out wll.

I have some familiarity with human history and I think that familiarity makes me far less certain about the future than you seem to be.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by icecube

It's the year 2018 and we should still be having debates with neo nazi's on a university campus? Wtf is there to debate about?

If the person is actually a neo-Nazi and not just a leftist defined neo-Nazi, the hope would be to convince onlookers to not follow or support these people and their beliefs. Even better if you can get the speaker to start questioning their own beliefs.

[icecube]

"now wait a sec guys.. I need to hear what this actual nazi has to say about things before I make up my mind. Let's debate this"

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If someone has truly reprehensible beliefs, isn't debating and destroying their positions the best solution to educate the public? Why does everyone need to be shielded from negative ideas or emotions?

I agree with this. But there is a concern when it comes to universities. Speaking at Yale can have a powerful legitimizing effect for the casual observer (who are the most likely to be seduced by charlatans in the first place.)

Not sure what the answer is though.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by icecube

It's the year 2018 and we should still be having debates with neo nazi's on a university campus? Wtf is there to debate about?

I definitely agree with this. There’s even a debate to be had about what makes sense to debate, but I think the book is closed on nazism. It’s bad and dumb. Further debate optional if you just want repeated conclusions of “After this debate, I’m further convinced nazism is bad.”

I suppose the benefit to debating nazism, though (should you be willing to find an idiot willing to represent the nazi side of it) is you do get repeated opportunities to showcase the same conclusion.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

If the person is actually a neo-Nazi and not just a leftist defined neo-Nazi, the hope would be to convince onlookers to not follow or support these people and their beliefs. Even better if you can get the speaker to start questioning their own beliefs.

Eh, nazis are a special case. There’s not really a lot of convincing you’re going to do or a nazi, because their beliefs aren’t formed in reality.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Do you think that accessible parking spaces (and the legislation which regulates them) are a product of identity politics (treating an individual differently because of his or her group identity) or a product of a liberal society (attempting to reduce the barriers faced by disabled persons so that they can maximize their individual freedom as well as non-disabled persons)?

We can demonstrably prove that a physical disability is something a person has or does not have. And the social redress for it is narrow and specific.

This specific person should be able to park closer to a store is fundamentally different from this entire gender/race should be treated differently by our laws, our culture, and our political system irrespective of their individual life experiences.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Eh, nazis are a special case. There’s not really a lot of convincing you’re going to do or a nazi, because their beliefs aren’t formed in reality.

I would hope the debate would include more difficult questions than "is Nazism good?" or "is it wrong to gas the Jews?".

As much as you are others may dislike Faith Goldy (and I'm not convinced the characterization of her as a Nazi is correct), it's not like Shephard is debating with a tatted-out, sieg heiling lunatic on the street. Somebody like Goldy is exactly the kind of person you want to have a debate with because she appeals to a larger audience than the caricature many have of neo-Nazis.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by icecube

"now wait a sec guys.. I need to hear what this actual nazi has to say about things before I make up my mind. Let's debate this"

Taking a time machine back 70 years ago? Cause that is where you actually find real nazis. Actions speak louder than words.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Makarov

However, the Gladue decision was in response to to the fact that the proportion of indigenous youth and adults in Canadian prisons is over nine times higher than their representation in the Canadian population. That is also an absurd result.

The rational approach is to look at why indigenous youths are over nine times more likely to commit crimes than their representation in the Canadian population. Given what we know about crime, it's likely due to being raised in single-parent households, surrounded by substance abuse, with no examples of deferred gratification leading to a better life.

But if being raised in single-parent homes, surrounded by substance abuse, and with no clear incentive to defer gratification and get an education are bad things for Native youth, they're also bad for non-Natives.

So why try to fix things at the age of 23 or 30, when it's too late? And why not deal with the problem by addressing single-parent households, family environments with substance abuse, and incentives to defer gratification for all youth?