Any New Right EFL Teachers in Seoul?

I would love to see the lefts best regularly debate someone like dinesh dsouza.  They won’t because they simply get destroyed, which is kind of weird considering that they consider themselves the smart ones

Wish granted!

Christopher Hitchens vs. Dinesh D'Souza - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gnj48E-hXw
Peter Singer vs. Dinesh D'Souza - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcwWliq8PDI
Thom Hartman vs. Dinesh D'Souza - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOWCgukPzhs
William Ayers vs. Dinesh D'Souza - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWxCxMy-_s0
David Silverman vs. Dinesh D'Souza - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rACrVLuIfDY
Cenk Uygur vs. Dinesh D'Souza - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4sULDNpvqs
Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens vs. Dinesh D'Souza and various others - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAmdbBWluYE


And for good measure, some self-identified libertarians...

Penn Jillette vs. Dinesh D'Souza - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SakF4FJPyCo
Michael Shermer vs. Dinesh D'Souza - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SLxwkhomxs

U trying to be cute?
Yes he destroys everybody in those videos especially cenk uygur
They should do it more. 
I’m talking about leftist heroes like Chomsky and west

I would love to see the lefts best regularly debate someone like dinesh dsouza.  They won’t because they simply get destroyed, which is kind of weird considering that they consider themselves the smart ones

Wish granted!

Christopher Hitchens vs. Dinesh D'Souza - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gnj48E-hXw
Peter Singer vs. Dinesh D'Souza - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcwWliq8PDI
Thom Hartman vs. Dinesh D'Souza - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOWCgukPzhs
William Ayers vs. Dinesh D'Souza - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWxCxMy-_s0
David Silverman vs. Dinesh D'Souza - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rACrVLuIfDY
Cenk Uygur vs. Dinesh D'Souza - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4sULDNpvqs
Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens vs. Dinesh D'Souza and various others - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAmdbBWluYE


And for good measure, some self-identified libertarians...

Penn Jillette vs. Dinesh D'Souza - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SakF4FJPyCo
Michael Shermer vs. Dinesh D'Souza - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SLxwkhomxs

U trying to be cute?
Yes he destroys everybody in those videos especially cenk uygur
They should do it more. 
I’m talking about leftist heroes like Chomsky and west

You'd have to be brain dead not to be able to beat Cenk Uygur in a debate. Of course!

U trying to be cute?

Totally.  R U?

My fellow male English teachers and I always debate our strategy for cuteness maximus. I say it's 50% makeup, 50% attitude. My friend James from Australia says 30% makeup, 70% Instagram filter! Hee hee!

A huge group of male English teachers has chartered a bus to a makeup outlet in Gyeonggi-do for later tonight. Find us on Insta and send a DM if you wanna join: sknnyjnzROK

Being fired for saying something shitty 10 years ago sucks, but realistically this is only happening in outstanding cases (or to people who have it coming). Facing a boycott because your CEO hates the gays is also not that big of a deal for your average non-CEO person.

The rest of this comes across as a bit wishy washy. I mean either you think it's OK to police people's speech or jokes , force them to apologise and try to get them fired over it, or you don't. It doesn't matter whether this happens rarely, someone is a CEO, had it coming or not.

The left often comes out with these arguments but I'd have more respect for them if they were honest and said 'yes we think certain types of speech should be policed and punished.'

I think we have a different view of this issue. It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you view this censorship as a kind of top-down system. I view as a bottom-up system. In other words, when you say:

I'd have more respect for them if they were honest and said 'yes we think certain types of speech should be policed and punished.'

Policed by who? Punished by who?

It's not that ideology or some omnipotent censor (ex. the government) is judging what can or should be punished. Certainly, I'm not the censor. And, for the sake of this argument, whether I agree one way or another regarding certain cases of speech policing is irrelevant, in my opinion. If you say something that a large portion of society doesn't like, there will be consequences. This is the effect social media is having on our society.

I certainly don't think the government should step in to fire people for being racist or anything like that (top-down censorship). However, if you're an employee and you start slinging racial slurs at potential customers and it goes viral and you get fired... that's 2019, baby. People should understand that words, particularly words delivered in public, have consequences. This is what we're dealing with and people should stop being shocked when things like this happen. This is why I'm more sympathetic to the people who get caught for tweets 10 years ago before we had this culture of calling people out.

That all said, I do still think what we're seeing cuts both ways. I will agree that there are a lot of cases of this kind of democratic censorship going to far (some voices are being heard more than others, on both sides). It's not perfect, but I genuinely think it's better than "say whatever the **** you want." It's more of a "say whatever the **** you want, but if someone punches you in the face for it, you probably shouldn't have said it." That's how it was on the playground right?

(Idk I see conservatives refer to things like "the playground" or "the locker room" or "the old days" a lot, so I thought I'd give it a try, your thoughts?)

I think we have a different view of this issue. It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you view this censorship as a kind of top-down system. I view as a bottom-up system. In other words, when you say:

Quote
I'd have more respect for them if they were honest and said 'yes we think certain types of speech should be policed and punished.'

Policed by who? Punished by who?

Generally policed by the twiterati/media and enforced by the organisations. E.g. the government or private business. It's a combination of the two. However in the UK under hate speech/thought crime legislation speech is also literally policed by the police. See these examples

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/katie-hopkins-reported-to-police-for-hate-crimes-against-overweight-people-in-new-tv-show-9951155.html.

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/8xqz7k/nottinghamshire-police-misogyny-hate-crime-investigation.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/23/man-who-filmed-dog-giving-nazi-salutes-fined

I think we have a different view of this issue. It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you view this censorship as a kind of top-down system. I view as a bottom-up system. In other words, when you say:

Quote
I'd have more respect for them if they were honest and said 'yes we think certain types of speech should be policed and punished.'

Policed by who? Punished by who?

Generally policed by the twiterati/media and enforced by the organisations. E.g. the government or private business. It's a combination of the two. However in the UK under hate speech/thought crime legislation speech is also literally policed by the police. See these examples

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/katie-hopkins-reported-to-police-for-hate-crimes-against-overweight-people-in-new-tv-show-9951155.html.

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/8xqz7k/nottinghamshire-police-misogyny-hate-crime-investigation.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/23/man-who-filmed-dog-giving-nazi-salutes-fined

Yeah, but who is the "twiterati"? They're just people (or bots) as far as I'm aware.

As for private businesses/the media, they're looking out for their investors and profits.

I do think gov't shouldn't be too involved in it. That said, I don't feel much sympathy for the "gas the jews" "it's a joke meant for my girlfriend" "but i uploaded it to facebook" guy. It's not a particularly compelling case, IMO.

On that note, are you fully against governments outlining certain speech as hate speech (or certain crimes as hate crimes)?

I don't see why white people shouldn't be proud of their heritage/race if they want to be.

There's a difference between appreciating the invention of let's say the telephone and being a belligerent white supremacist bellend.

Yup. Like there's a difference between whites who are proud of albert einstein and the ****** honkyswho go around championing hitler or the grand wizards of everyone's favorite ghost themed slumber party.

So do you think that saying something like this  'I'm proud of famous white inventors like Albert Einstein and Alexander Graham Bell because they were great white men and I'm white too', would go down well in polite company?

100 percent of the time if someone is talking about being "proud of being white," they're a white supremacist. People like Lauren Southern and other trolls. Find me someone who says they're proud of being white who isn't clearly a white supremacist. And you can't use yourself, because you frequently defend racists and racism.

I'm sorry if your white supremacist attitudes make you feel unwelcomed. Wait, no, not sorry.

@ Tylerthegob

Yes to your last question. I think you can distinguish between the strength of intention in crimes but I don't think you can say one kind of intention is worse in one crime compared to another. E.g. Punching someone because you think they were looking at your girlfriend is no worse or better than punching them because you thought they looked gay.

Do you think shouting 'nice arse' at someone walking by should be a criminal offense? Do you think it's a worse crime if a man does it to a woman than if a woman does it to a man? I'd answer no to both questions.

Re the Gas the Jews guy, the people being prosecuted for hate speech of course are going to be of dubious moral fibre, Loud mouth builders, Katie Hopkins etc...and what they said was rude/controversial etc..but it's not really the point. The point is whether it should be a police matter at all.

I don't see why white people shouldn't be proud of their heritage/race if they want to be.

There's a difference between appreciating the invention of let's say the telephone and being a belligerent white supremacist bellend.

Yup. Like there's a difference between whites who are proud of albert einstein and the ****** honkyswho go around championing hitler or the grand wizards of everyone's favorite ghost themed slumber party.

So do you think that saying something like this  'I'm proud of famous white inventors like Albert Einstein and Alexander Graham Bell because they were great white men and I'm white too', would go down well in polite company?

100 percent of the time if someone is talking about being "proud of being white," they're a white supremacist. People like Lauren Southern and other trolls. Find me someone who says they're proud of being white who isn't clearly a white supremacist. And you can't use yourself, because you frequently defend racists and racism.

I'm sorry if your white supremacist attitudes make you feel unwelcomed. Wait, no, not sorry.

You were the one who seemed to be saying it's Ok to be proud of Alexander Graham Bell. I was simply asking whether it'd be Ok to be proud of Alexander Graham Bell because he was white. Looks like you've answered my question. So is it Ok for other races to be proud of successful people because they are the same race?

@ Tylerthegob

Yes to your last question. I think you can distinguish between the strength of intention in crimes but I don't think you can say one kind of intention is worse in one crime compared to another. E.g. Punching someone because you think they were looking at your girlfriend is no worse or better than punching them because you thought they looked gay.

Do you think shouting 'nice arse' at someone walking by should be a criminal offense? Do you think it's a worse crime if a man does it to a woman than if a woman does it to a man? I'd answer no to both questions.

Re the Gas the Jews guy, the people being prosecuted for hate speech of course are going to be of dubious moral fibre, Loud mouth builders, Katie Hopkins etc...and what they said was rude/controversial etc..but it's not really the point. The point is whether it should be a police matter at all.

the gob. kill me.

i don't see anything wrong with saying one kind of intention is worse than another. that, specifically, is why the punishment is worse for hate crimes, right?

no, i don't think catcalling should be a criminal offence and no it's not worse if a man does it. i would say this is in the "going too far" department. on the other hand, if you catcalled the manager's daughter and happened to get fired for it, i don't have much sympathy for you (because catcalling is shitty and you got caught).

saying "gas the jews" is hate speech. saying "nice ass" is not hate speech. hate speech should be a police matter.

i don't see anything wrong with saying one kind of intention is worse than another.

And the government decides, right? Which groups are allowed to have special victim status and which aren't. According to which victim group shots the loudest? You don't think that's a recipe for never ending victim-hood whining? Why shouldn't fat people have official victimhood status, why shouldn't gingers, if women can, why can't men, why can't white people? etc. etc.

saying "gas the jews" is hate speech. saying "nice ass" is not hate speech. hate speech should be a police matter.

Obviously, even if you believe in 'hate speech' as a concept, context is important otherwise we'd both be guilty of hate speech in this thread. Saying 'gas the jews' as a joke to get your pug to do the nazi salute is not, in my opinion being especially anti-semitic, though you could argue that commenting on a real woman's body to denigrate her is misogynistic.   

i don't see anything wrong with saying one kind of intention is worse than another.

And the government decides, right? Which groups are allowed to have special victim status and which aren't. According to which victim group shots the loudest? You don't think that's a recipe for never ending victim-hood whining? Why shouldn't fat people have official victimhood status, why shouldn't gingers, if women can, why can't men, why can't white people? etc. etc.

saying "gas the jews" is hate speech. saying "nice ass" is not hate speech. hate speech should be a police matter.

Obviously, even if you believe in 'hate speech' as a concept, context is important otherwise we'd both be guilty of hate speech in this thread. Saying 'gas the jews' as a joke to get your pug to do the nazi salute is not, in my opinion being especially anti-semitic, though you could argue that commenting on a real woman's body to denigrate her is misogynistic.   

hate crimes are generally crimes based on sex, religion, sexual orientation, race, etc. there are hate crimes against white people. i don't think this is contentious?

i think saying gas the jews in almost any context outside of very few is anti-semitic. the problem with the "it was just a joke" defense is that it could be used by almost anyone (and people who aren't "just joking" in particular). in other words, how would your average viewer of that video know it was a joke? there is a line between tasteless jokes (which should be protected) and hate speech (which should not).

you can't say "i'm going to kill you" to someone and then say "but it was just a joke" when the cops show up.

in other words, how would your average viewer of that video know it was a joke?

A video of a guy getting his dog to do a Hitler salute and someone watching it wouldn't realise it was a joke? What would they think, that he was genuinely training up the next weapon in the struggle against the big Jewish conspiracy? Come on.

in other words, how would your average viewer of that video know it was a joke?

A video of a guy getting his dog to do a Hitler salute and someone watching it wouldn't realise it was a joke? What would they think, that he was genuinely training up the next weapon in the struggle against the big Jewish conspiracy? Come on.

Obviously not. But, that doesn't make the symbolism or the "gas the jews" part any less hateful. Where's the joke?

If I posted a video saying "gas the jews" without a dog, should I be able to just say "oh, it was a joke" once I start taking heat for it? I don't think so.

edit: im just curious. how far would he need to go for this to be hate speech to you? is the nuremberg rally video and hitler picture not enough?

in other words, how would your average viewer of that video know it was a joke?

A video of a guy getting his dog to do a Hitler salute and someone watching it wouldn't realise it was a joke? What would they think, that he was genuinely training up the next weapon in the struggle against the big Jewish conspiracy? Come on.

Obviously not. But, that doesn't make the symbolism or the "gas the jews" part any less hateful. Where's the joke?

If I posted a video saying "gas the jews" without a dog, should I be able to just say "oh, it was a joke" once I start taking heat for it? I don't think so.

edit: im just curious. how far would he need to go for this to be hate speech to you? is the nuremberg rally video and hitler picture not enough?

I don't believe in hate speech as a criminal term, but if I did, there'd have to be proof that he had bad intentions towards Jewish people in his heart when he arranged the stunt and that when he said 'gas the jews' he was actually telling the audience this was what he wanted them to do. Known as a 'call to action' in the States, which doesn't have hate speech laws.

Just a thought but if someone attacks someone else for let's say being black and gay, and they shout out 'you black, gay b...stard' just before they punch the guy, should they be prosecuted for two hate crimes? Logically they should because the hate speech part is on top of the actual crime. 

I don't believe in hate speech as a criminal term, but if I did, there'd have to be proof that he had bad intentions towards Jewish people in his heart

Which is something that can't possibly be proved.  Well done, sir. 

After all, training your pet to mimic one of the most hated symbols of oppression in the post-war world for fun is not at all an insight into your deeper being.  Nuff said.

Which is something that can't possibly be proved.  Well done, sir. 

Which is why I'm not a fan of thought crime laws. Though you could show beyond reasonable doubt that the guy had a history of violence/antagonism towards Jewish people and had a following with the same intentions. Which he didn't by the way.

After all, training your pet to mimic one of the most hated symbols of oppression in the post-war world for fun is not at all an insight into your deeper being.  Nuff said.

It's reactions like these that actually turn it into a funny joke. The outrage. Reminds me of the way people talked about Life of Brian back in the 80s. Is nothing sacred? etc...

"Sir, my message is simple. N---, Jews, Mexicans, homosexuals, Arabs, and all different kinds of ch*nks stink and I hate 'em!"

"Kill that n---!"

"Don't let the liberal media tell you how to think and feel. If you've got hate in your heart let it you. If you have a problem watching Will & Grace that don't mean there's a problem with you. It means there's a problem with Will. He's a homosexual."

"Let's talk about Chinese people with their kung-fu and all their silly ching-chang-chong talk. I can't understand you. Go back to your country. White Power!"

Surely such statements are hateful, racist, and a sign of this person's character. These are notorious statements caught on camera by someone who at the time for a majority of them, was in actual Klansmen garb. I don't see much difference between that and pug dog guy.

eggieguffer, if you insist that context is important with regard to hate speech (something with which I fully agree), why is it so hard to accept that context is also relevant to expressions of white pride? Maybe it will be different in the future, and maybe it was different in the past, but within our lifetime, most people encounter white pride as a prison tattoo or something screamed by a skinhead as he's putting the sole of his boot into an Indian shopkeeper's face. Or, to use a more immediate example, something that gets attached to a paranoid, anti-Semitic screed written by a swivel-eyed loon. That's why people are generally reluctant to announce "I'm proud to be white!" in "polite company". That's not the fault of the twitterati, or SJWs, or the government, or postmodernism, or the NAACP. You keep trying to divorce it from context and turn it into an abstract question of moral equivalency, based on entirely on decontextualized language, while ignoring the circumstances that have produced a taboo around it. Not all taboos are entirely logical, and the proscriptions against expressions of white pride may not satisfy your desire for perfect logical symmetry, but culture, history and morality are messy. In other words, context still matters.

in other words, how would your average viewer of that video know it was a joke?

A video of a guy getting his dog to do a Hitler salute and someone watching it wouldn't realise it was a joke? What would they think, that he was genuinely training up the next weapon in the struggle against the big Jewish conspiracy? Come on.

Obviously not. But, that doesn't make the symbolism or the "gas the jews" part any less hateful. Where's the joke?

If I posted a video saying "gas the jews" without a dog, should I be able to just say "oh, it was a joke" once I start taking heat for it? I don't think so.

edit: im just curious. how far would he need to go for this to be hate speech to you? is the nuremberg rally video and hitler picture not enough?

I don't believe in hate speech as a criminal term, but if I did, there'd have to be proof that he had bad intentions towards Jewish people in his heart when he arranged the stunt and that when he said 'gas the jews' he was actually telling the audience this was what he wanted them to do. Known as a 'call to action' in the States, which doesn't have hate speech laws.

Just a thought but if someone attacks someone else for let's say being black and gay, and they shout out 'you black, gay b...stard' just before they punch the guy, should they be prosecuted for two hate crimes? Logically they should because the hate speech part is on top of the actual crime.

Well, I guess that's where we fundamentally disagree. I think very few well-meaning people would ever get in legal trouble for hate speech (which seems to be your concern). On the other hand, if we used your near impossibly high bar for what is hate speech, tons of people will (and do) have free reign to be as hateful as they want. That's not the kind of society I want to live in. That's not the kind of society that cultivates the virtues I hold dear.