LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 885
0 members and 885 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 08-27-2018, 08:53 PM   #2513
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,231
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
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.
Is there a mirror one cannot look into for a long time? I’ve never met one.

It’s kind of like a conversation with you, where you find some narrow point - a thin one, often - and repeat it endlessly, driving every subsequent branch of the conversation back to it, so can “win.” It’s the same thing, over and over, unchanging.

But I like mirrors. And I’ll take vanity over insecurity all day. Nobody ever got laid being the most officious Timmy in the room.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:59 PM.