Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Nice try. I’m hell bent here on showing GGG’s politics are classic doctrinaire liberal talking points. Wanna-be bourgeoise elitism. It’s not thoughtful, and it’s dangerously opposed to actual free speech.
The rules are idiot simple. Virtue signal on liberal issues of the moment. Lob accusations of bigotry and sexism reflexively at everything one can. But as to economic policies that savage the disadvantaged you otherwise champion? Shut your mouth. Do not touch any issue that could imperil your slot in the top 10%.
You know exactly the sort of bullshit progressivism I’m discussing. It’s cheap, it’s easy, and you’re doing it right here. You know goddamn well I’m not rehabilitating Murray. But you keep throwing that accusation to try to argue that I’m trafficking in deviancy. Do you seriously think your full-of-shitness there could ever be hidden?
Engage honestly and stop being sleazy.
|
No one involved in this entire conversation is advocating any kind of censorship, and your repeated invocation of the word shows that you don't know what it means.
If you go to a cocktail party and insist on telling everyone at length that Murray is a victim of censorship, and you just keep repeating yourself instead of engaging in conversation, and everyone else there agrees that your ideas are stupid and they've heard enough and the hosts don't want to invite you to their next party -- if that happens, you haven't been censored. You've had a chance to communicate your views, and people don't want to hear any more.
If two historians are having a debate about the French Revolution, and one presents a feminist analysis of the what happened, and the other says, you know, you can't really understand what happened in the French Revolution without understanding the economic incentives, that also is not censorship. That is how ideas are contested.
Classical liberalism says the remedy to speech you don't like is more speech. That is exactly what Klein did with Murray and Harris, and what I have done with you. No one has shut anyone up. There have been a lot of questions to show that certain ideas are incomplete and wrong. Pointing that out also is not censorship, and more than you were censored in the seventh grade when you wrote a mediocre essay and your teacher gave you a C+.
I know you wish that I would say that being the victim of discrimination absolves a person from any responsibility for their subsequent actions. But I don't think that and haven't said it.
What I have said, repeatedly, is that talking about
- the "responsibility"
- of a "group"
for its collective circumstances
- cannot be "assessed" in any rigorous way, let alone
- with "science."
If you can't get the difference between what I have and have not said, you are dumber than I give you credit for. And you are not that stupid. So when you tell me that I am not being "honest" with you, take a long hard look in the mirror.
