Protesters smear fake blood on faces at blogger Milo Yiannopoulos' Rutgers talk

[Juvenal]

The real irony here is a thread on TWeb supporting the free speech of a speaker who can't be quoted or even have his speaking tour named because either would violate campus decorum.

I can't link it, but folks should feel free to google "Milo Yiannopoulos speaks about free speech at Rutgers."

[lilpixieofterror]

I asked you that question because Milo said he thinks they should. Warning someone that material might cause trauma flashbacks takes very, very little effort and does not obstruct anything. Milo and those that agree with him are against PC extremists but misdirect their anger at perfectly reasonable concepts. That more evokes the image of an angry mob than an academic debate.

And there's your problem PM:

1. PTSD doesn't effect most of the population.
2. Triggers, for PTSD, vary greatly.
3. Reasonable things, such as the above, have been long hijacked by people who simply don't want to hear things that disagree with them.

You want to see who to blame for extremest PM? Look at those whom you seem to want to mindlessly defend here. Likewise, if you don't like the speaker or care for what they have to say, exercise your right not to attend. It isn't as though any of them were forced to attend.

[Sparko]

Notice: This post contains trigger words and topics that might cause stress to liberal weenies. Please use discretion before reading it.

I asked you that question because Milo said he thinks they should. Warning someone that material might cause trauma flashbacks takes very, very little effort and does not obstruct anything. Milo and those that agree with him are against PC extremists but misdirect their anger at perfectly reasonable concepts. That more evokes the image of an angry mob than an academic debate.

And you are supposed to know everything that might trigger something in someone in order to warn them? Really? That's YOUR responsibility? What about TV? Does TV have to give out trigger warnings to make sure that no show could possibly trigger something in someone? How about billboards and magazine articles and ads? Should the entire society go around on tiptoes so it doesn't trigger some reaction in someone?

How about the person with the problem be responsible for his own actions or reactions and take precautions to avoid triggers, or even to get psychiatric help to avoid being triggered? Like maybe a rape victim should not watch "Law and Order SVU" or take a class on criminal justice in college? Or a veteran with PTSD should avoid war movies and college classes on history dealing with wars?

[Sparko]

The real irony here is a thread on TWeb supporting the free speech of a speaker who can't be quoted or even have his speaking tour named because either would violate campus decorum.

I can't link it, but folks should feel free to google "Milo Yiannopoulos speaks about free speech at Rutgers."

Since it is part of a news article, it can be linked to just fine. We just don't allow gratuitous vulgarness.

I find it ironic that the liberals are demonizing a homosexual. It seems OK to be bigoted jerks when it is in the cause of liberalism.

[Spartacus]

I find it ironic that the liberals are demonizing a homosexual. It seems OK to be bigoted jerks when it is in the cause of liberalism.

Not as ironic as you trying to use his homosexuality as a shield.

[Sparko]

Not as ironic as you trying to use his homosexuality as a shield.

huh?

[Juvenal]

Since it is part of a news article, it can be linked to just fine. We just don't allow gratuitous vulgarness.

It's the Rutger's campus newspaper, so it's not exactly mainstream. But with permission ...

I find it ironic that the liberals are demonizing a homosexual. It seems OK to be bigoted jerks when it is in the cause of liberalism.

It's not as ironic as the bare statement suggests. He is, after all, endorsing a position that grants permission to demonize homosexuals. It's incorporated in the name of his speaking tour. I'll quote that much for context, with a caution that he's also quoted dropping an F-bomb in the article.

Milo Yiannopoulos speaks about free speech at Rutgers

That epithet refers to the practice of killing homosexuals by treating them as faggots, that is, pieces of wood to be thrown on the fire. It's as horrific as it is historic. This is the free speech you're defending. Granting its usage in the tour name is intentionally ironic in some puerile fashion, it's difficult to argue it's principled and even more difficult to pretend his opponents are simply bigoted jerks.

[Meta Knight]

That epithet refers to the practice of killing homosexuals by treating them as faggots, that is, pieces of wood to be thrown on the fire.

No, it doesn't.

It's as horrific as it is historic.

So not at all then?

it's difficult to argue it's principled

Was anyone?

[Darth Ovious]

I asked you that question because Milo said he thinks they should. Warning someone that material might cause trauma flashbacks takes very, very little effort and does not obstruct anything. Milo and those that agree with him are against PC extremists but misdirect their anger at perfectly reasonable concepts. That more evokes the image of an angry mob than an academic debate.

They don't want warnings though, they just want no speakers to be able to speak at all. A lot of these people with "PTSD" are completely faking it. I've seen these people claim they have developed PTSD for the most simplest of things. They don't have PTSD, they have a victimization complex.

[Sparko]

It's the Rutger's campus newspaper, so it's not exactly mainstream. But with permission ...



It's not as ironic as the bare statement suggests. He is, after all, endorsing a position that grants permission to demonize homosexuals. It's incorporated in the name of his speaking tour. I'll quote that much for context, with a caution that he's also quoted dropping an F-bomb in the article.

Milo Yiannopoulos speaks about free speech at Rutgers

That epithet refers to the practice of killing homosexuals by treating them as faggots, that is, pieces of wood to be thrown on the fire. It's as horrific as it is historic. This is the free speech you're defending. Granting its usage in the tour name is intentionally ironic in some puerile fashion, it's difficult to argue it's principled and even more difficult to pretend his opponents are simply bigoted jerks.

Wow I didn't know all that! I have changed my mind. Free speech should only be allowed when the speaker is saying nice things that I agree with and doesn't offend anyone. Whew thanks Jess. What WAS I thinking?

Now please do not post anything controversial or anti-Christian on theologyweb any longer. Just nice platitudes. M'kay? Thx.

[Darth Ovious]

That epithet refers to the practice of killing homosexuals by treating them as faggots, that is, pieces of wood to be thrown on the fire. It's as horrific as it is historic. This is the free speech you're defending. Granting its usage in the tour name is intentionally ironic in some puerile fashion, it's difficult to argue it's principled and even more difficult to pretend his opponents are simply bigoted jerks.

You really need to know Milo to know what he is like. He is a British conservative but he likes to be a bit controversial in what he says and this just shows he doesn't mind taking a dig at himself once in a while too. He isn't actually advocating for people to be mean to homosexuals.

[Juvenal]

No, it doesn't.

So not at all then?

Was anyone?

Even Breitbart has its standards for writing. Brush up before your interview.

[Juvenal]

Wow I didn't know all that! I have changed my mind. Free speech should only be allowed when the speaker is saying nice things that I agree with and doesn't offend anyone. Whew thanks Jess. What WAS I thinking?

Now please do not post anything controversial or anti-Christian on theologyweb any longer. Just nice platitudes. M'kay? Thx.

Likely you're under the impression I oppose Yiannopoulos' right to speak at Rutgers. You should reconsider that.

[Sparko]

Likely you're under the impression I oppose Yiannopoulos' right to speak at Rutgers. You should reconsider that.

well considering your parting shot "This is the free speech you're defending. Granting its usage in the tour name is intentionally ironic in some puerile fashion, it's difficult to argue it's principled and even more difficult to pretend his opponents are simply bigoted jerks."... er... yup.

[Meta Knight]

Even Breitbart has its standards for writing. Brush up before your interview.

...So anyway, yeah, that's not where the word comes from.