[Goober5000]

I find Mr. Vega's original post to be illuminating...

It is hard to be tolerant of opinions that fuel and justify actions that harm others; to use William O. Douglas's term, beliefs can be "brigaded with action," and in doing so forfeit their acceptance.

You are pushing that phrase much farther than it was ever intended to go.  Douglas used the "brigaded with action" phrase to describe the sole exception to the protection of speech -- to wit, falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.  So you justify your position in terms of the "imminent danger" test, but then you go on to extend it to harming people and even society generally.

I also find it telling that you took Douglas's original term which was about speech and applied it to beliefs.  So now instead of having a freedom of speech argument we're having a freedom of thought argument.  Whether you intended it or not, that's straight out of 1984.

Here's what really needs to be emphasized, since a lot of people in our generation don't seem to understand it now (for which I partly blame the culture of the internet): arguing that we as a society should not tolerate certain intolerant beliefs is not censorship. The whole purpose of the principle that governments should be forbidden, by banning the legal censoring of speech and opinion, from deciding what is acceptable and is not acceptable is so that decision is left to us. We have always had the right to decide what is and what isn't acceptable as a community. To speak your mind should never be a crime - but we don't have to indulge you, and award you the resources you need to successfully advocate for policies that harm others. We can damn well make the choice to shun you. Should we have a damn good reason for doing so? You bet, but we have every right to do it. Every human society that has ever existed has had some rules that everyone is expected to follow, either inside or outside the law; the question is what those rules should be. And at some point, we have a right to invoke the Harm Principle to justify (non-legal) sanctions against certain activities.

And here's another interesting.  You emphasize that you are against censorship (i.e. legal sanction) of certain beliefs, but then you turn right around and say that you're strongly in favor of societal sanction.  How is that any different from a practical standpoint?

Let me ask you this: would you be in favor of reporting a post on HLP to sanction someone you disagree with?

The point you all seem to be missing is that some things people consider to be "views" are actual fact.

And the point that others seem to be missing is that some things people consider to be facts are actually views.  For example, the dogmatic meme of "climate change" -- which was "global warming" in the 1990s and "global cooling" in the 1970s.  Every 20 years the scientists suddenly think that we can control the weather.  It's like they think we're all Bond supervillains.

[AdmiralRalwood]

And the point that others seem to be missing is that some things people consider to be facts are actually views.  For example, the dogmatic meme of "climate change" -- which was "global warming" in the 1990s and "global cooling" in the 1970s.  Every 20 years the scientists suddenly think that we can control the weather.  It's like they think we're all Bond supervillains.

...Choosing to ignore facts doesn't mean the facts don't exist, and just because you don't agree with reality doesn't mean reality is just a point of view.

[Luis Dias]

I had no idea that reality was a forum member to whom someone could disagree with.

Here's a possibility: there is no "reality" in forums. There are only points of view. About Reality. Problems arise when someone confuses their own points of view with Reality itself. You disagree with me? Well you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Reality, you see?

And I totally get MP's point. Of course there are some points of view that are better than others. The problem here is that no one here is God. Therefore if someone fervently believes their own point of view is the best representation of Reality, he / she / it should at least not misunderstand their place in the forum and automatically believe that their own point of view should be taken as the null hypothesis of everyone else, and if not, well those who disagree are just bigots and creotards and deniers dontchaknow.

And it always starts so well. It always starts with simpletonic sentences like "Well but are you suggesting we should tolerate the KKK?", "Are you saying that Global Warming does not exist?", "Are you saying that there is no such thing as mysoginy?", which are the kind of asinine questions that are blatantly asked to shame people into accepting your own (much less direct, more nuanced, more questionable) shenanigans by fiat. By far, those black and white scenarios are not the problem, no one will actually take them seriously, they are just boogeymen concocted to create a moral panic that we somehow are on THE VERGE! of being OVERWHELMED! by racist mysoginistic deniers all over the place and they will eat your children if you don't stand at the gates. This is the "Power of Nightmares" all over again. Kittens are about to be killed! By kitten haters! But don't you worry, we will protect everyone from kitten deniers! With big badass words!

All praise these knights of righteousness. What would the world be without them.

[Mr. Vega]

You are pushing that phrase much farther than it was ever intended to go.  Douglas used the "brigaded with action" phrase to describe the sole exception to the protection of speech -- to wit, falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.  So you justify your position in terms of the "imminent danger" test, but then you go on to extend it to harming people and even society generally.

I also find it telling that you took Douglas's original term which was about speech and applied it to beliefs.  So now instead of having a freedom of speech argument we're having a freedom of thought argument.  Whether you intended it or not, that's straight out of 1984.

That is not what I said. We have a right to ban harmful action but only to shun (which is a combination of many individual actions and not something the state does) harmful expression. You are correct that I applied the term to the mere advocacy of an opinion as opposed to an actually directly harmful act contained within speech, but I also compensated by considerably downgrading the steps we can take to curtail it.

And here's another interesting.  You emphasize that you are against censorship (i.e. legal sanction) of certain beliefs, but then you turn right around and say that you're strongly in favor of societal sanction.  How is that any different from a practical standpoint?

First, read what I said:

To speak your mind should never be a crime - but we don't have to indulge you, and award you the resources you need to successfully advocate for policies that harm others. We can damn well make the choice to shun you.

I'll turn it back around on you. Who are you to tell people who they have to listen to? That's a choice made person by person - who are you to tell them who they can't listen to, block, hire, ban from a forum if they run it?

I'm not going to go all libertarian on you and now say that anything goes as long as the government doesn't do it. There needs to be some space left for any idea or speech to be allowed, in a place in which anyone can hear it if they wish. But turn "societal sanction" around and look at it from the other direction, and it looks like the free actions of individuals. How dare you compel them to give a space to ideas they made a choice to reject?

Like it or not we have to very carefully navigate the boundaries between ensuring personal liberty, and not de facto denying the liberties of others in the exercise of it. That's why we have things like laws against housing discrimination. You are not seeing this. You are thinking too abstractly. Sometimes, any choice you can make does one or the other - you have to weigh the benefits and costs and decide what really matters to you. The goal should be to realistically maximize both individual freedom and social justice, for the latter is required for both the former to truly exist in reality and to allow the meaningful exercise of it.

[Mr. Vega]

Sorry, I have a bad habit of posting one point quickly without thinking if I wanted to stop there and then spending several minutes adding in a whole 'nother response to the original post.

[Goober5000]

You are pushing that phrase much farther than it was ever intended to go.  Douglas used the "brigaded with action" phrase to describe the sole exception to the protection of speech -- to wit, falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.  So you justify your position in terms of the "imminent danger" test, but then you go on to extend it to harming people and even society generally.

I also find it telling that you took Douglas's original term which was about speech and applied it to beliefs.  So now instead of having a freedom of speech argument we're having a freedom of thought argument.  Whether you intended it or not, that's straight out of 1984.

That is not what I said.

What is not what you said?  Everything in that quote was sourced from your post.

I'll turn it back around on you. Who are you to tell people who they have to listen to? That's a choice made person by person - who are you to tell them who they can't listen to, block, hire, ban from a forum if they run it?

If that's a question for me, then I'll direct you to the question in my post which you haven't answered: "Would you be in favor of reporting a post on HLP to sanction someone you disagree with?"  Answer that one and I'll answer this.

I'm not going to go all libertarian on you and now say that anything goes as long as the government doesn't do it. There needs to be some space left for any idea or speech to be allowed, in a place in which anyone can hear it if they wish. But turn "societal sanction" around and look at it from the other direction, and it looks like the free actions of individuals. How dare you compel them to give a space to ideas they made a choice to reject?

You've managed to completely invert the logical process here.  You are arguing in favor of societally shunning those who have certain opinions -- the end result of which would be to compel them to either change their opinions or leave the society.  It is you who are arguing in favor of compulsion, not me.

The goal should be to realistically maximize both individual freedom and social justice, for the latter is required for both the former to truly exist in reality and to allow the meaningful exercise of it.

What is your definition of "social justice"?  For that matter, what is your definition of "individual freedom"?

[Mr. Vega]

If that's a question for me, then I'll direct you to the question in my post which you haven't answered: "Would you be in favor of reporting a post on HLP to sanction someone you disagree with?"  Answer that one and I'll answer this.

I stated multiple times that merely being offensive is not sufficient criteria. My answer is no.

You've managed to completely invert the logical process here.  You are arguing in favor of societally shunning those who have certain opinions -- the end result of which would be to compel them to either change their opinions or leave the society.  It is you who are arguing in favor of compulsion, not me.

If that makes us like 1984, then every society that has ever existed is like 1984.

[Lorric]

deathspeed, your beliefs are very close to my own on tolerance and interacting with people. And MP-Ryan, I've said it before and I'll say it again, you are the poster I respect the most when it comes to Gen Disc. An example to us all in how to conduct yourself imo. And Luis, please take this as the friendly advice it’s meant as, I know why you are angry. I know all too well what you are feeling. But please try to calm down, for while I agree with just about everything you are saying, it is damaging the effectiveness of your arguments. And you are right. Your anger is justified. And while I love the passion, the anger is getting in your own way. Please try to calm down and re-read your posts once you are calm and try to imagine how they could come across in current form, and then imagine how they would look if you strip the angry words out. Also, you don’t need to come at this topic right away. Take some time if you need it to cool down before you post.

Some people seem to be getting caught up with the problem of thinking we have to tolerate the extreme. I don't think anyone is referring to the extreme in this. For some people around here they will do whatever it takes to win and destroy the credibility of the other side. If that means coming at someone sideways and attempting a character assassination and twisting everything they say into the worst possible interpretation and applying the most sinister motives they can think of to that person, so be it. They make the discussions so hostile. You would think we were making history turn before us on here with the cut-throat way some people behave here in our discussions. Anything seems to go as long as you're right it seems for them. And of course, they always think they're right. For who is going to argue points that they don't think are right?

Now, I and I think others will look at this behaviour and be confused. Confused because it’s not going to solve anything. Because it’s not going to win that person over. Putting someone on the defensive and making them attach negative associations to interactions with you is about the worst way to go about winning someone’s heart and mind. But I don’t think it’s about that single person, though there are certainly very real negative feelings towards that person, it’s certainly not impersonal with regard to that person. It’s about spreading whatever it is they’re getting behind, and using the tactics of the politician to do that. What I mean by that is when you see opposing politicians meet or go on campaign, they’ll often go after the other person’s character. Why bother meeting them in a fair debate on each subject when you can simply invalidate all the arguments they make by planting in the minds of the people the notion that that person is a moron, a bigot, a racist, or whatever the flavour of the month happens to be. It’s a cheap and nasty shortcut. Someone like Anita Sarkeesian operates in much the same way. She shuts down all opportunities for the opposition to engage with her, and uses the trolls as a vehicle to paint everyone who opposes her as the same as those trolls. And some people like that because they don’t care how the view is promoted and pushed, only that it is. Whatever works. Whatever gets the job done. The path of least resistance rather than the right path. Why bother with anything else, when you can just cut the legs out from under the opposition immediately by associating them with those trolls and making the resistance melt away because people won’t even step up for fear of being branded a hatemonger, a troll, a misogynist? Bring this association into the minds of people, that the only possible opposition to Anita Sarkeesian is from trolls and misogynists. From a dying gaming culture of misogynistic, sexist, hateful people who are in the process of going the way of the dinosaur. Here on the forum, I think it’s about promoting your views simply by making it so you are the only one expressing said views, and exploiting the power of peer pressure. Setting up an us or them dynamic, they always seem to go for the us and them dynamic, and make the other side to the one they’re standing on look as unattractive and difficult to stand on as possible. Discredit, demonise and destroy the opposition or simply make life difficult enough for them that they melt away. But not everyone is going to do that. And when these people meet with resistance that refuses to conform or be broken down by these insidious tactics, they get angry. They get really angry.

Tolerance doesn't mean you have to respect someone. It doesn't mean you have to like them. It doesn't mean you have to stay silent and allow them to spread their views unchallenged. You're never going to like everyone in a place like this. That doesn't mean you should try and remove them from it by making life difficult for them, harassing them, or trying to get rid of them. There are two people on this forum who I will not name who I strongly dislike, which has nothing to do with hostile action against me. I just ignore these two people completely. Oh, I read their posts. But I don't talk to them. If they're not doing anyone here any harm, then they have a right to be here and be unmolested. I truly believe that. Their mere presence here does not bother me. This place is big enough for the three of us and then some. If you choose to interact with someone, you should treat them with respect. And I don't mean anything special here, nothing more than the basic respect you'd give a stranger is needed. If you can't do that for whatever reason, and they're not doing any harm, leave them alone. And harm doesn’t include expressing opinions you don’t like, if it’s done in a respectful way. I know of at least one person here who does not like me, but doesn’t try to do me any harm. And I respect them for that. The feeling of dislike is not mutual.

It's possible to vehemently oppose someone's view while not being out to harm them. It’s possible to be passionate about what you believe in without that passion turning into hate and negativity. It's possible to dissect someone's arguments while being nice and friendly at the same time, or at the very least, impersonal. It’s possible to enter a discussion with an open mind even if it involves viewpoints and ideologies that you despise. You can have two people who completely and very strongly disagree with each other and still have them hold a civil and open minded discussion with each other with mutual respect. If even enemies in war can sometimes respect each other, I’m sure we can too. As well as the fact this place is not primarily for discussion. The off topic forums are called that for a reason. We all have something in common. And personally, I find it helpful to remember that fact.

[Mr. Vega]

Someone like Anita Sarkeesian operates in much the same way. She shuts down all opportunities for the opposition to engage with her, and uses the trolls as a vehicle to paint everyone who opposes her as the same as those trolls.

Okay. Lorric. Have you or have you not seen the incredibly vile responses directed at her in response to her videos and comments? Even if you think that she really is as you describe (and I sure as hell think she is not), why does she have to deal with that stuff? Should she engage in "outreach" against those who are calling her a ***** with every other word, much less sending her rape and death threats? Seriously, how would you react if that was the **** you had to put up with every day, you'd damn well do exactly what she does, and carefully restrict the ability of others to make your life awful. And if that creates the impression of refusing to listen to criticism, big ****ing deal! Her first duty is to protect herself, just as it is for you or anyone else! She doesn't have to be a ****ing martyr - she can try to get her message out and be a person who doesn't want to read all that **** at the same time. There's just no empathy here.

Doing what you advocate would make her life pretty much unlivable (as in, even more than it already is). That's what you're asking of her, and that's not her ****ing fault - that's the fault of those who are trying to make her life unlivable, all because she posts some videos they don't like. Direct your anger at them, not her.

Do you understand why I see arguments like this as a cover for actual attacks on her person? It looks like a demand for martyrdom, which is quite effective at discouraging other people like her from voicing their opinions. You know, the whole freedom to speak your mind thing? Do I think that this is what you intend? No. But I do think that is what arguments like the one you are advancing actually do. I don't give a damn about your character, and if I ever gave that impression I apologize. I'm just flabbergasted by the idea we as a community could actually take seriously the idea that the price of daring to be a social critic is to have to open the front door to your house and let everyone scream at you one by one by one by one. Or worse. These are people's lives that are being ****ed with, for real!

[Lorric]

I don't want to derail the thread with the Anita Sarkeesian thing. I'll PM you.

[Mr. Vega]

I mean, I don't want it to take over the thread either, but it's within the topic at hand.

[Goober5000]

If that's a question for me, then I'll direct you to the question in my post which you haven't answered: "Would you be in favor of reporting a post on HLP to sanction someone you disagree with?"  Answer that one and I'll answer this.

I stated multiple times that merely being offensive is not sufficient criteria. My answer is no.

Fair enough; I will remember that for future reference.  As an aside, it's interesting that you equate "someone you disagree with" with "being offensive".

In return I'll answer the question you posed:

Who are you to tell people who they have to listen to? That's a choice made person by person - who are you to tell them who they can't listen to, block, hire, ban from a forum if they run it?

I'm not in favor of compelling mature adults to listen to ideas they disagree with.  That's indoctrination.  Indeed, multiple workplaces and universities often have required seminars, unrelated to their jobs or studies, that espouse politically correct propaganda.  I would entirely support their personal choice to not listen to such things.

However, as I said in my previous post, refusing to exclude someone from a community is not the same thing as forcing everybody to listen to him.  In diverse communities, some people will wish to listen to him and some will not.  Those who want to listen will, and those who do not want to will not.

[Mr. Vega]

As an aside, it's interesting that you equate "someone you disagree with" with "being offensive".

I meant that "being offensive" is a much more legitimate justification than "I disagree with it", and yet I still don't accept it as one.

In diverse communities, some people will wish to listen to him and some will not.  Those who want to listen will, and those who do not want to will not.

The whole society, by whatever reasonable standard you want to apply to that term? Absolutely. But can smaller subcommunities like ours impose its own standards, just like an individual might impose his or her own?

[AtomicClucker]

If that's a question for me, then I'll direct you to the question in my post which you haven't answered: "Would you be in favor of reporting a post on HLP to sanction someone you disagree with?"  Answer that one and I'll answer this.

I stated multiple times that merely being offensive is not sufficient criteria. My answer is no.

Fair enough; I will remember that for future reference.  As an aside, it's interesting that you equate "someone you disagree with" with "being offensive".

In return I'll answer the question you posed:

Who are you to tell people who they have to listen to? That's a choice made person by person - who are you to tell them who they can't listen to, block, hire, ban from a forum if they run it?

I'm not in favor of compelling mature adults to listen to ideas they disagree with.  That's indoctrination.  Indeed, multiple workplaces and universities often have required seminars, unrelated to their jobs or studies, that espouse politically correct propaganda.  I would entirely support their personal choice to not listen to such things.

However, as I said in my previous post, refusing to exclude someone from a community is not the same thing as forcing everybody to listen to him.  In diverse communities, some people will wish to listen to him and some will not.  Those who want to listen will, and those who do not want to will not.

The problem with political correctness is a fear of "toxic ideas and concepts," based on a measurement of perceived harm vs factual and or statistical realities. Toxicity in Free Speech is no laughing matter as our current society wrestles on which speech is deemed harmful and not. One reason I've kept from posting till now is for a clarification regarding our scales of "Intolerant vs Tolerant" speech. It's a sliding scale between the two facets with no "correct setting."

And frankly, we shouldn't expect one with the concept of "Free Speech."

It's why I argue many issues dividing society may seem like little things in the short term, but people are heavily invested in a long term war of Risk vs Safety (and I think its way too easy to be locked into a "safety" set of mind). My opinion is, and always will be, tolerating toxic ideas, speech, and even notions that I strongly disagree with. I may vigorously protest ideas, speech and things I don't like on this forum, but I have to be willing to let that side, short of violating forum policy upon both engaged parties, to let their speech be heard. That and a game of both criticism and counter-criticism as long as it remains in a civil fashion.

[Bobboau]

I find Mr. Vega's original post to be illuminating...

...

You are pushing that phrase much farther than it was ever intended to go.  Douglas used the "brigaded with action" phrase to describe the sole exception to the protection of speech -- to wit, falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.  So you justify your position in terms of the "imminent danger" test, but then you go on to extend it to harming people and even society generally.

I also find it telling that you took Douglas's original term which was about speech and applied it to beliefs.  So now instead of having a freedom of speech argument we're having a freedom of thought argument.  Whether you intended it or not, that's straight out of 1984.

And here's another interesting.  You emphasize that you are against censorship (i.e. legal sanction) of certain beliefs, but then you turn right around and say that you're strongly in favor of societal sanction.  How is that any different from a practical standpoint?

Let me ask you this: would you be in favor of reporting a post on HLP to sanction someone you disagree with?

And the point that others seem to be missing is that some things people consider to be facts are actually views.  For example, the dogmatic meme of "climate change" -- which was "global warming" in the 1990s and "global cooling" in the 1970s.  Every 20 years the scientists suddenly think that we can control the weather.  It's like they think we're all Bond supervillains.

 

you had to go THERE didn't you 

[Mr. Vega]

Again,

That is not what I said. We have a right to ban harmful action but only to shun (which is a combination of many individual actions and not something the state does) harmful expression. You are correct that I applied the term to the mere advocacy of an opinion as opposed to an actually directly harmful act contained within speech, but I also compensated by considerably downgrading the steps we can take to curtail it.

[AtomicClucker]

I find Mr. Vega's original post to be illuminating...

...

You are pushing that phrase much farther than it was ever intended to go.  Douglas used the "brigaded with action" phrase to describe the sole exception to the protection of speech -- to wit, falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.  So you justify your position in terms of the "imminent danger" test, but then you go on to extend it to harming people and even society generally.

I also find it telling that you took Douglas's original term which was about speech and applied it to beliefs.  So now instead of having a freedom of speech argument we're having a freedom of thought argument.  Whether you intended it or not, that's straight out of 1984.

And here's another interesting.  You emphasize that you are against censorship (i.e. legal sanction) of certain beliefs, but then you turn right around and say that you're strongly in favor of societal sanction.  How is that any different from a practical standpoint?

Let me ask you this: would you be in favor of reporting a post on HLP to sanction someone you disagree with?

And the point that others seem to be missing is that some things people consider to be facts are actually views.  For example, the dogmatic meme of "climate change" -- which was "global warming" in the 1990s and "global cooling" in the 1970s.  Every 20 years the scientists suddenly think that we can control the weather.  It's like they think we're all Bond supervillains.

 

you had to go THERE didn't you 

Hah, I remember how liberals flocked to the Global Warming buzzword. Group think and checkmate. I was surprised how people flocked to it likes flies to the a freshly laid cowpie.

I was an ousted proponent, because well, I said that humans are damn well capable of climate change. 1 human might do little, 7 billion, yes, we do. Global Warming is a side effect of humans altering the environment - the difference between a factual reality check and media induced hysteria buzzword and something the liberal idiots thought was trendy. I got the shaft from several sides for not "siding" with Global Warming hysteria.

[Lorric]

One reason I've kept from posting till now is for a clarification regarding our scales of "Intolerant vs Tolerant" speech. It's a sliding scale between the two facets with no "correct setting.

I'm not sure if this is a question that could ever be answered in advance. I think the answer would have to be learned from experience. Though there's no one I'd want to see banned off the site straight off the bat once it became clear what they are. I think someone mentioned nazis and KKK members at one point. I don't think it would be right if we had one to just boot them just because. There are a myriad of ways such a person could legitimately get themselves banned off the site, but by merely being here and it being known what they are? Also, I wouldn't want to see open season on them simply for what they are. What is it they say, everyone hates free speech until somebody uses it? If the topic came up I'd take a crack at debating the topic and not the person. It would be a test of my tolerance that I haven't been put to, but I would know I wouldn't possibly make a difference by being just another person on the attack which they've probably already seen a million times from a million different people.

My opinion is, and always will be, tolerating toxic ideas, speech, and even notions that I strongly disagree with. I may vigorously protest ideas, speech and things I don't like on this forum, but I have to be willing to let that side, short of violating forum policy upon both engaged parties, to let their speech be heard. That and a game of both criticism and counter-criticism as long as it remains in a civil fashion.

And that... is tolerance. That is what I believe too.

[AtomicClucker]

One reason I've kept from posting till now is for a clarification regarding our scales of "Intolerant vs Tolerant" speech. It's a sliding scale between the two facets with no "correct setting.

I'm not sure if this is a question that could ever be answered in advance. I think the answer would have to be learned from experience. Though there's no one I'd want to see banned off the site straight off the bat once it became clear what they are. I think someone mentioned nazis and KKK members at one point. I don't think it would be right if we had one to just boot them just because. There are a myriad of ways such a person could legitimately get themselves banned off the site, but by merely being here and it being known what they are? Also, I wouldn't want to see open season on them simply for what they are. What is it they say, everyone hates free speech until somebody uses it? If the topic came up I'd take a crack at debating the topic and not the person. It would be a test of my tolerance that I haven't been put to, but I would know I wouldn't possibly make a difference by being just another person on the attack which they've probably already seen a million times from a million different people.

My opinion is, and always will be, tolerating toxic ideas, speech, and even notions that I strongly disagree with. I may vigorously protest ideas, speech and things I don't like on this forum, but I have to be willing to let that side, short of violating forum policy upon both engaged parties, to let their speech be heard. That and a game of both criticism and counter-criticism as long as it remains in a civil fashion.

And that... is tolerance. That is what I believe too.

Heh. Experience is a key factor in how we do things. Learning to respect views is important. But agreeing to it? Hah, no. Just to ruffle feathers, I'll practice my "toxicity" here:

(/on Sex Positive Feminist)

As long as Anita Sarkesian and her cooky writer Jonathan McIntosh remains on the airwaves, I won't spend a moment supporting them and fighting their existence as much as they preach ending the "menace of Sexism." I may recognize their angle and supposed goals, but I damn well know their intent and modus operandi. The danger they pose to a society with Free Speech and Sexual Expression is simple: they don't tolerate the existence of toxic ideology and trying to masquerade as academic criticism without the proper merit and eloquence is equally damning in my eyes. Anita put it on Twitter succinctly that she believes even if we don't play it or buy, it's existence alone is harmful enough. McIntosh? The idiot's ramblings earned themselves a Twitter hash tag.

(/off Sex Positive Feminist).

And that will be the only time I'll mention her in this thread. Off topic, unneeded, and completely unbowed~

But back to the topic, it's the ability to admit we are wrong and are subject to our own criticism and rebuttals. I think its important that we can engage in conversation, but also be mindful of it.

[Grizzly]

The problem with debates around Anita Sarkeesian and Gamergate and stuff like that is that unfortunately, the enviroment that created those debates is in itself toxic (and possibly ignorant), and there are people with vested interests in keeping it toxic. This toxicity (and possible ignorance) inevetably find itself onto GenDisc, which inevitably leads to problems. If you have an enviroment that has one of the co writers of a youtube reel equated to forest gump's famous "Full retard" line, that will never end well. There is too much a risk of strawmanning, which is something I have seen a lot in these debates on this forum, which is defenitely a problem.