Death threats sees speaker pull out of Australia tour

[Gnske]

She should consider it a blessing that she didn't have to go 4v1 on Clap&A

 

[hendrix]

If emotional pain is 'fake' due to being electrons buzzing around a neural network then why is physical pain 'real' when it's literally the same thing?

I think if watson's point is that emotional pain is not the same as physical pain, we can agree.

I think what watson is missing is whether this type of speech incites bullying or hatred (which does actually lead to serious emotional and physical pain). Which is something that protestors have an imperative to prove, before they call it hatespeech.

 

[zorax]

I think if watson's point is that emotional pain is not the same as physical pain, we can agree.

I think what watson is missing is whether this type of speech incites bullying or hatred (which does actually lead to serious emotional and physical pain). Which is something that protestors have an imperative to prove, before they call it hatespeech.

I'm just pointing out the absurdity of trying to discredit any human experience by breaking it down to the most basic biological functions.

I dont engage in these discussions anymore I just wait on the sidelines and like the posts that are spicy

 

[Victor Ian]

chilli buritto for Zorax

 

[Munificent_Fool]

More relevantly, how much should Australian's spend to listen to someone who is divisive, who wont debate anyone so that her drivel is found out, and most importantly has nothing to offer for the betterment of Australia? Let the police have the afternoon off.

Ah divisive. Always used pejoratively. Sort of like bi-partisan is always used positively.

I don't want the country to "come together", "unite", or any of that platitudinous crap. I want division and polarisation. It's healthy for society.

 

[Victor Ian]

maybe divisive was just my clean way of saying she is a stupid racist piece of **** who will not debate anyone for fear of them showing she is a stupid racist piece of ****.

 

[sledger]

You can say the same thing about why people follow any idiotic philosophy though, be in a religion, Communism, Nationalism or Libertarianism. They're all equally ****ed up.

And Environmentalism.

 

[hendrix]

Ah divisive. Always used pejoratively. Sort of like bi-partisan is always used positively.

I don't want the country to "come together", "unite", or any of that platitudinous crap. I want division and polarisation. It's healthy for society.

I've heard this used many times by pseudo-intellectual nationalists so you're going to have to elaborate here.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It's quite possible for "coming together" and "uniting" to be something short of an absolute good and for division and polarisation to still be undesirable. Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

 

[Ausage]

maybe divisive was just my clean way of saying she is a stupid racist piece of **** who will not debate anyone for fear of them showing she is a stupid racist piece of ****.

Tell us what you really think...

Also, against which race would you say she's racist?

 

[straw man]

I've heard this used many times by pseudo-intellectual nationalists so you're going to have to elaborate here.

It's quite possible for "coming together" and "uniting" to be something short of an absolute good and for division and polarisation to still be undesirable. Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

Also I think this thesis -> antithesis -> synthesis process isn't much good if the synthesis of the polarised ideas never actually happens, which might be because
- everyone is too angry and entrenched (and moderates get yelled down)
- synthesising ideas and compromising is hard work

 

[watson]

Ah divisive. Always used pejoratively. Sort of like bi-partisan is always used positively.

I don't want the country to "come together", "unite", or any of that platitudinous crap. I want division and polarisation. It's healthy for society.

I agree with the 'platitudinous crap' as I see no point in watering down a perfectly reasonable argument just because someone is overly precious and can't handle their emotions.

However, the end game for society is not 'division and polarisation' at all, but concensus and peaceful co-existence.

The paradox of course is that in order to minimise 'division' and 'polarisation' within society the toxic ideas and ideologies that cause them have to be bitterly debated and strongly resisted. This is where 'freedom of speech' comes in.

 

[Victor Ian]

Tell us what you really think...

Also, against which race would you say she's racist?

Every single time!.... How about you coin the word for religionist - the world needs it. Until then, we all know what is meant by calling a religionist racist.

 

[watson]

maybe divisive was just my clean way of saying she is a stupid racist piece of **** who will not debate anyone for fear of them showing she is a stupid racist piece of ****.

And for the millionth time - a religion is merely a set of ideas that modifies an individual's behaviour, not their genetic phenotype

 

[watson]

I think if watson's point is that emotional pain is not the same as physical pain, we can agree.

I think what watson is missing is whether this type of speech incites bullying or hatred (which does actually lead to serious emotional and physical pain). Which is something that protestors have an imperative to prove, before they call it hatespeech.

The over-riding point in the case of Hirsi Ali, Dawkins, Hitchens, Rushdie, and Danish Cartoonists et al is that the reaction to them is at times utterly disproportionate to their words or message.

 

[Victor Ian]

I agree with the 'platitudinous crap' as I see no point in watering down a perfectly reasonable argument just because someone is overly precious and can't handle their emotions.

However, the end game for society is not 'division and polarisation' at all, but concensus and peaceful co-existence.

The paradox of course is that in order to minimise 'division' and 'polarisation' within society the toxic ideas and ideologies that cause them have to be bitterly debated and strongly resisted. This is where 'freedom of speech' comes in.

I agree with most of this - probably all - not that that means much. I just wonder why I should pay to let a person speak who is not open to fair debate. As far as Australian's go, who does she represent?

 

[Victor Ian]

And for the millionth time - a religion is merely a set of ideas that modifies an individual's behaviour, not their genetic phenotype

yes - and for the billionth time, that set of ideas is something which people can discriminate on. Have you ever told a religious person he is a ****wit and had them say "You know what Watson - you are right - I'm coming to the dark side" Personal Religious preference is not as open to change as you seem to think it is.

 

[Victor Ian]

That is only half true. The over-riding point in the case of Hirsi Ali, Dawkins, Hitchens, Rushdie, and Danish Cartoonists et al is that the reaction to them is at times utterly disproportionate to their words or message.

You know this goes both ways. These people are not into debate - they are into making a point that misses most of the target audience while gratifying their ego. They are all bulldogs and bulldogs do not create useful dialogue.

Don't pretend these guys are up for debate. They do it with very weak opposition and only in completely narrow fields that only a weak opposition would even attempt to discuss. How about you tell me what Hirsi Ali would tell us that will be useful to Australia.

 

[watson]

yes - and for the billionth time, that set of ideas is something which people can discriminate on. Have you ever told a religious person he is a ****wit and had them say "You know what Watson - you are right - I'm coming to the dark side" Personal Religious preference is not as open to change as you seem to think it is.

Actually no.

And tbh I don't really care if you take my opinions seriously or not, because I'm not actually sure about most of them myself. Quite often I'll go back and re-read my posts after a day or two, and think "well that was crap".

 

[Ausage]

Every single time!.... How about you coin the word for religionist - the world needs it. Until then, we all know what is meant by calling a religionist racist.

How about you coin it instead of misapporpriating a word with a different meaning?

A set of ideas absolutely should not be protected in the way of intrinsic cores to people's being (Race, sexuality etc). And in case you didn't notice there was a week long debate a few months ago on whether violence on people with certain ideas is ok, now were debating whether you should be able to speak out against them?