Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by John55)
    He re-tweeted a tweet which was clearly fake without knowing it was fake... is what your telling me?

    Anyhoo, I was just saying, convenient probably isn't the right word, more like, I just
    highly doubt those tweets were hers, stuff like 'how can white people call themselves human' and calling for a genocide of homosexuals, you'd have thought that would have caused uproar at the time, but I guess you could argue that's proof of his point about there being a double standard...
    The tweets linked to her Twitter page on here are hers, I don't believe that he realised that what he retweeted i think he wanted to end the argument and make her look bad and he posted something if he looked at again he would realise was fake, have you never been debating a position then linked to it without reading it properly? I have.

    It also should be noted that what he 'incited' was already happening at that time and he at no time set said to his followers go harass this person, Leslie Jones did that.

    There is no denying that the people who actually sent the racist abuse to her should at least be banned but Twitter isn't worried about them they just want to push their agenda.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    He's brash and 'in your face' but I don't agree with how they try and silence his talks on campuses. Twitter is unable to shut down certain accounts but has no problem silencing right-leaning commentators. Interesting.
    Why not? He is a cancer to humanity, his talks foster hatred, his views are abominable. He is an attention seeking troll, so don't give him a platform. He is the kind of person stupid people follow, because his half-truths or even lies are that what people want to hear so they won't question the validity.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    I don't really have anything against him, as he's pretty much trolling everyone but his supporters aren't very bright. "I slept with a Black guy, therefore can't be racist" is a ridiculous quote for someone to be taking seriously. Slavers slept with (well, raped) Black women, that didn't make them non-racist.
    That's true but there were also consensual relationships between enslaved men and women and free men and women (not sure why you only refer to black women being raped, white women had such relationships with black men).

    Master may love his slave girl but that doesn't make him any less racist. He still thought it was unfortunate that she was "inferior" and worthy of domination and oppression (the loving kind ofc).
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Why not? He is a cancer to humanity, his talks foster hatred, his views are abominable. He is an attention seeking troll, so don't give him a platform. He is the kind of person stupid people follow, because his half-truths or even lies are that what people want to hear so they won't question the validity.
    If someone is lying, you point out their lies you don't silence them. People are allowed to have opposing views to you. An example of this is the NAACP who encouraged a KKK march to take place in a mostly black neighbourhood despite the obvious vitriol on the part of the KKK. You don't prove someone wrong by silencing them, you just allow their views to fester.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nellythumper)
    If someone is lying, you point out their lies you don't silence them. People are allowed to have opposing views to you. An example of this is the NAACP who encouraged a KKK march to take place in a mostly black neighbourhood despite the obvious vitriol on the part of the KKK. You don't prove someone wrong by silencing them, you just allow their views to fester.
    Not if you have to repeatedly do that. Waste of time and energy. Some views and opinions should not be expressed. There is no such thing as free speech anyway.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    ITT: People who think that anyone who can't be pigeonholed easily is a troll.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    He's great. I'm sure some proportion of what he says is just trolling, but he says some interesting things too, and at the very least he annoys all the right people.

    (Original post by Sorani)
    When he did his famous "Feminism is cancer" quote, it really steals away from people like Christina Hoff Sommers who is an intelligent woman who has made points about how working-class boys is a group that suffers a lot. She's isn't as adept at soundbites, though.
    She also voluntarily shares a stage with him quite frequently, so I don't think you can blame him for taking away her attention. If anything he brings attention to her.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    He's funny, well-spoken and smart, and I enjoy his treatment of particularly stupid elements of the progressive agenda, but, especially online, his behaviour is often nothing more than deliberate provocation and low-blow trolling which has no intellectual grounding.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    He's funny, well-spoken and smart, and I enjoy his treatment of particularly stupid elements of the progressive agenda, but, especially online, his behaviour is often nothing more than deliberate provocation and low-blow trolling which has no intellectual grounding.
    That is exactly the problem.

    Always.

    I hate him, because he honestly is just a massive ****. But he has some very valid points. But they get lost in his unbearable manner and trolling. Just like Trump, some of the things he wants, are not bad. But they get lost.

    There is never a middle ground.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Why not? He is a cancer to humanity, his talks foster hatred, his views are abominable. He is an attention seeking troll, so don't give him a platform. He is the kind of person stupid people follow, because his half-truths or even lies are that what people want to hear so they won't question the validity.
    Censorship does nothing positive. All it does is give his message more clout.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Censorship does nothing positive. All it does is give his message more clout.
    He can say in private what he wants. A university however should be able to say no to him. Not to give him a platform. That is not outright censorship either.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    He can say in private what he wants. A university however should be able to say no to him. Not to give him a platform. That is not outright censorship either.
    University is a place to hear opposing opinions to learn and grow as a person not to be pandered to like a child.

    Surely if he is lying and not telling the whole truth you should want it to be aired so you can show people the truth.

    What better way of keeping people unaware of the truth than to stop people talking about things that contradict the narrative, people disagreeing is how we grow as a society.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    University is a place to hear opposing opinions to learn and grow as a person not to be pandered to like a child.

    Surely if he is lying and not telling the whole truth you should want it to be aired so you can show people the truth.

    What better way of keeping people unaware of the truth than to stop people talking about things that contradict the narrative, people disagreeing is how we grow as a society.
    But that's exactly how he doesn't operate. He just shuts people down, says a some catchy, witty phrases and people who want to hear that, think he is right and won't see logic. Now mix in that he does say some things that are "true" or rather make sense and I agree with, and overall he looks like he won the debate.

    And we grow as a society? With social media and ease of information and opinions, we aren't growing anymore. Everywhere you look the extremes are winning. I wouldn't call that growing.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    University is a place to hear opposing opinions to learn and grow as a person not to be pandered to like a child.

    Surely if he is lying and not telling the whole truth you should want it to be aired so you can show people the truth.

    What better way of keeping people unaware of the truth than to stop people talking about things that contradict the narrative, people disagreeing is how we grow as a society.
    This is essentially the 'Teach the Controversy' fallacy. The idea that any argument at all is an equally valid "opposing opinion" and they should all be taught or given an equal platform on grounds of "teaching/presenting all sides" or "academic freedom".

    The actual effect of this is damaging to academic freedom and critical skills, as it makes it more difficult to straight up reject something as incorrect and false, as it has been given a greater foothold than it deserves.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    He's a professional troll yellow journalist who lives off being "controversial" (here defined as "******** that also happens to annoy people"). Thing is, he's not even an ideologue, just someone who gets a thrill out of feeling he's being edgy, jumping and changing depending on what's fashionable at the time.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    This is essentially the 'Teach the Controversy' fallacy. The idea that any argument at all is an equally valid "opposing opinion" and they should all be taught or given an equal platform on grounds of "teaching/presenting all sides" or "academic freedom".

    The actual effect of this is damaging to academic freedom and critical skills, as it makes it more difficult to straight up reject something as incorrect and false, as it has been given a greater foothold than it deserves.
    Usually he backs up most of his views with studies and would share them at his talk if he had remembered them and if he couldn't he would always tell whoever asked to send him a email or message on Twitter and he would provide them with the source.

    His sources are varied when he talks about campus rape culture 1 in 4 will be raped he would use fbi and doj statistics which are more reliable than the study that found that as even the authors of the study discredited their own study saying it was unreliable, he would also use the American Enterprise Institute which is one of the top 20 think tanks in the world among others.

    I would that these source give his points validity.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Razamataz666)
    you may or may not know who this guy is, if not there will be a link below to learn more. but for those who do know this alt-right gay guy, what is your opinion of him? personally i love him. so funny, clever and excellent at destroying feminazis.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3_2svKFkE4
    It's funny how the woman is offering no facts or research,just making unfounded statements, it seems to be a theme of feminism


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    He can say in private what he wants. A university however should be able to say no to him. Not to give him a platform. That is not outright censorship either.
    Actually, it is. A university's mission is to provide students with a diverse set of ideas and let them decide for themselves what is right or wrong; after all, that is what the 'real world' is all about. It should not up to an administration to decide what can and cannot be said.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Actually, it is. A university's mission is to provide students with a diverse set of ideas and let them decide for themselves what is right or wrong; after all, that is what the 'real world' is all about. It should not up to an administration to decide what can and cannot be said.
    Is it censorship if one newspaper refuses to publish something but another does? What if the government tells newspapers it can't publish something?

    It is not censorship.

    And I disagree. There are topics and speakers a university should very well refuse the right to speak.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Is it censorship if one newspaper refuses to publish something but another does? What if the government tells newspapers it can't publish something?
    The core principles behind the two are very different and therefore cannot be compared.

    (Original post by inhuman)
    And I disagree. There are topics and speakers a university should very well refuse the right to speak.
    And who determines this? The dean? The faculty? The students? All three have some form of bias, which may not be to the community's benefit and may go against the core mission statement of an educational institution.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.