The Importance of Free Speech

[Younggun]

It's a pain in the ass on a phone and less tedious on a computer.

Mostly consists of breaking up the pieces you want and making sure they start with [ quote ] and end with [ /quote ] without the spaces. Anything between will show in a quote box.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

I thought it wasn’t supposed to be a debate by design, but rather a conversation.

I seem to remember hearing that at the outset.

 

[Charlie Primero]

Yes, it's gotten difficult to be reasonable with out being called a cuck or a NAZI.

What about being called a "Dirt Bag" ?

Him and his alt right buddies are dirt bags with a shit agenda and no respect for individual rights.

I just now decided to join the Alt-Right. I'm now a member, and I agree with you. When you call us Nazi Dirtbags, it is indeed difficult to have reasonable discussions.

Are the alt-right guys really anything more than wanna be thugs?

I'm an Alt-Right guy, and I'm not a thug. I'm one of the millions of Alt-Right guys who go to work every day, take care of their families, contribute to our communities, and obey the laws. We are not thugs.

 

[Charlie Primero]

In this 2 minute video Nazi Dirtbag Lauren Rose explains why she is no longer a Civic Nationalist.

Her reasons are the same as mine.

 

[Younggun]

What about being called a "Dirt Bag" ?



I just now decided to join the Alt-Right. I'm now a member, and I agree with you. When you call us Nazi Dirtbags, it is indeed difficult to have reasonable discussions.



I'm an Alt-Right guy, and I'm not a thug. I'm one of the millions of Alt-Right guys who go to work every day, take care of their families, contribute to our communities, and obey the laws. We are not thugs.

So you're not a thug, you just support a group who's ideological goal is to round up all non whites and force them from their homes to live in another place of your choosing because they lack the necessary whiteness required to be part of your ethno-state. You support a group who fights the progressives ideas of race based hierarchies not because the group feels race based hierarchies are wrong, but because whites are not at the top of it.

Is that what you're saying?

 

[Younggun]

I thought it wasn’t supposed to be a debate by design, but rather a conversation.

I seem to remember hearing that at the outset.

It became a debate pretty quickly.

 

[Charlie Primero]

Is that what you're saying?

Nope.

I'm saying that White People have the right exist in their own ethnically-based nations the same way Japanese people do, Jewish people do, and Tibetan people do.

Convince me they don't.

 

[Younggun]

Nope.

I'm saying the White People have the right exist in their own ethically-based nations the same way Japanese people do, Jewish people do, and Tibetan people do.

Convince me they don't.

I already said they could go somewhere else and create an ethno-state. That's not the ideology they support. The leadership of the Alt Right lays it out as I describe. You are part of a group that supports forced relocation of non whites based on nothing more than race.

 

[Charlie Primero]

The leadership of the Alt Right lays it out as I describe.

Some factions inside the AltRight do support what you describe. Some do not.

I do not. I prefer a slow, peaceful process, something similar to The FreeState Project.

Today I'm listening to a debate concerning this topic (I think) between Dr. Greg Johnson and Styx, moderated by Tara McCarthy. I'm about 15 minutes in.

They are beginning to discuss this issue. Good for throwing on your phone to listen while you commute or do yard work...

https://cdn.counter-currents.com/ra...nd+Greg+Johnson+Discuss+Ethno+Nationalism.mp3

For those who prefer YouTube:

 

[pronstar]

Your debate arguments are moot in some circles...from the WSJ

I can't believe this shit...



‘White-Informed Civility’ Is the Latest Target in the Campus Wars
The rules of collegiate debate are also coming under attack as racist and patriarchal.

By Steve Salerno
Jan. 2, 2018 7:19 p.m. ET

From the land that irony forgot—which earlier gave us microaggressions and trigger warnings—comes a new and surprising movement, this time to combat civility. Civility, you see, is a manifestation of the white patriarchy. Spearheading this campaign are a duo of University of Northern Iowa professors, who assert that “civility within higher education is a racialized, rather than universal, norm.”

Their article in the Howard Journal of Communications, “Civility and White Institutional Presence: An Exploration of White Students’ Understanding of Race-Talk at a Traditionally White Institution,” describes a need to stamp out what they call “whiteness-informed civility,” or WIC. The pervasiveness of WIC, it seems, erases “racial identity” and reinforces “white racial power.”

Their thesis can be a tad hard to follow, unfolding as it does in that dense argot for which academia is universally beloved. But their core contention is twofold: One, that civility, as currently practiced in America, is a white construct. Two, that in a campus setting, the “woke” white student’s endeavor to avoid microaggressions against black peers is itself a microaggression—a form of noblesse oblige whereby white students are in fact patronizing students of color. Not only that, but by treating black students with common courtesy and expecting the same in return, white students elide black grievances, bypassing the “race talk” that is supposed to occur in preamble to all other conversations. Got it?

Something similar is happening in collegiate debate, where historically high standards of decorum are under siege as manifestations of white patriarchal thinking. So are the factual and logical proofs that debaters are normally expected to offer in arguing their case. Some participants are challenging the format, goals and ground rules of debate itself, in some cases refusing even to stick to the topic at hand.

Again the driving theory is that all conversations must begin by addressing race. As one top black debater, Elijah J. Smith, writes, debate must, before all else, “acknowledge the reality of the oppressed.” He resists the attempt on the part of white debaters to “distance the conversation from the material reality that black debaters are forced to deal with every day.”

Mr. Smith and his think-alikes seek to transform debate into an ersatz course in Black Studies. In a major 2014 debate finals, two Towson University students sidestepped the nominal resolution, which had to do with restricting a president’s war powers, in order to argue that war “should not be waged against n—as.” Two other students decided that rather than debate aspects of U.S. policy in the Mideast, they’d discuss how the common practices of the debate community itself perpetuate racism. Other recent debates involving black participants have devolved into original rap music.

A few debates have featured profane outbursts and even the hurling of furniture. In one memorable case, when the clock ran out on a student during the championship round, he yelled, “F— the time!”

Increasingly at major competitions, there must be a pre-debate debate on the terms of engagement: whether students are required to cite proof or are free to argue wholly from their feelings and so-called lived experience. Far from being banned or even maligned by debate judges, such antics increasingly win converts and, not coincidentally, matches. Such was in the case with the aforementioned Towson pair.

“Finally, there’s a recognition in the academic space that the way argument has taken place in the past privileges certain types of people over others,” Joe Leeson Schatz, director of speech and debate at Binghamton University, told the Atlantic. “Arguments don’t necessarily have to be backed up by professors or written papers. They can come from lived experiences."

Classroom protocols are under attack as well. A primer titled “Diversity and Inclusiveness in the Classroom,” produced under the auspices of the University of Arizona, asserts that classroom debate “must be an “accessible space,” and that “sharing should be based on one’s own feelings, experiences and perceptions.” Students are pointedly discouraged from rebutting feelings that don’t jibe with verifiable reality. Should someone slip up by introducing a “challenging” fact, however, the text has a prescription: “If a student feels hurt or offended . . . the hurt student can say ‘ouch.’ ”

This rising academic shrine to supposed inclusiveness rests on a pair of dubious pillars. As with the attack on “white civility,” it assumes that students of color wish to talk about nothing but color. Even if that’s true for some, it is not a proclivity that educators should encourage.

Worse, a cynic might conclude that the unstated goal is to make it possible for students of color to succeed academically by talking about nothing but color, thus allowing race to inflect whole areas of inquiry to which race is irrelevant. Such practices denature the college experience and bespeak a breathtaking level of condescension.

Civility is civility. Debate is debate. Education is education. It does no one any good to bastardize those concepts in service of a brand of inclusion that actually excludes.

Mr. Salerno is an author and journalism professor who lives in Las Vegas.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-...e-latest-target-in-the-campus-wars-1514938758


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[C_Hallbert]

It's a pain in the ass on a phone and less tedious on a computer.

Mostly consists of breaking up the pieces you want and making sure they start with [ quote ] and end with [ /quote ] without the spaces. Anything between will show in a quote box.

Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MTA]

Your debate arguments are moot in some circles...from the WSJ

I can't believe this shit...



‘White-Informed Civility’ Is the Latest Target in the Campus Wars
The rules of collegiate debate are also coming under attack as racist and patriarchal.

By Steve Salerno
Jan. 2, 2018 7:19 p.m. ET

From the land that irony forgot—which earlier gave us microaggressions and trigger warnings—comes a new and surprising movement, this time to combat civility. Civility, you see, is a manifestation of the white patriarchy. Spearheading this campaign are a duo of University of Northern Iowa professors, who assert that “civility within higher education is a racialized, rather than universal, norm.”

Their article in the Howard Journal of Communications, “Civility and White Institutional Presence: An Exploration of White Students’ Understanding of Race-Talk at a Traditionally White Institution,” describes a need to stamp out what they call “whiteness-informed civility,” or WIC. The pervasiveness of WIC, it seems, erases “racial identity” and reinforces “white racial power.”

Their thesis can be a tad hard to follow, unfolding as it does in that dense argot for which academia is universally beloved. But their core contention is twofold: One, that civility, as currently practiced in America, is a white construct. Two, that in a campus setting, the “woke” white student’s endeavor to avoid microaggressions against black peers is itself a microaggression—a form of noblesse oblige whereby white students are in fact patronizing students of color. Not only that, but by treating black students with common courtesy and expecting the same in return, white students elide black grievances, bypassing the “race talk” that is supposed to occur in preamble to all other conversations. Got it?

Something similar is happening in collegiate debate, where historically high standards of decorum are under siege as manifestations of white patriarchal thinking. So are the factual and logical proofs that debaters are normally expected to offer in arguing their case. Some participants are challenging the format, goals and ground rules of debate itself, in some cases refusing even to stick to the topic at hand.

Again the driving theory is that all conversations must begin by addressing race. As one top black debater, Elijah J. Smith, writes, debate must, before all else, “acknowledge the reality of the oppressed.” He resists the attempt on the part of white debaters to “distance the conversation from the material reality that black debaters are forced to deal with every day.”

Mr. Smith and his think-alikes seek to transform debate into an ersatz course in Black Studies. In a major 2014 debate finals, two Towson University students sidestepped the nominal resolution, which had to do with restricting a president’s war powers, in order to argue that war “should not be waged against n—as.” Two other students decided that rather than debate aspects of U.S. policy in the Mideast, they’d discuss how the common practices of the debate community itself perpetuate racism. Other recent debates involving black participants have devolved into original rap music.

A few debates have featured profane outbursts and even the hurling of furniture. In one memorable case, when the clock ran out on a student during the championship round, he yelled, “F— the time!”

Increasingly at major competitions, there must be a pre-debate debate on the terms of engagement: whether students are required to cite proof or are free to argue wholly from their feelings and so-called lived experience. Far from being banned or even maligned by debate judges, such antics increasingly win converts and, not coincidentally, matches. Such was in the case with the aforementioned Towson pair.

“Finally, there’s a recognition in the academic space that the way argument has taken place in the past privileges certain types of people over others,” Joe Leeson Schatz, director of speech and debate at Binghamton University, told the Atlantic. “Arguments don’t necessarily have to be backed up by professors or written papers. They can come from lived experiences."

Classroom protocols are under attack as well. A primer titled “Diversity and Inclusiveness in the Classroom,” produced under the auspices of the University of Arizona, asserts that classroom debate “must be an “accessible space,” and that “sharing should be based on one’s own feelings, experiences and perceptions.” Students are pointedly discouraged from rebutting feelings that don’t jibe with verifiable reality. Should someone slip up by introducing a “challenging” fact, however, the text has a prescription: “If a student feels hurt or offended . . . the hurt student can say ‘ouch.’ ”

This rising academic shrine to supposed inclusiveness rests on a pair of dubious pillars. As with the attack on “white civility,” it assumes that students of color wish to talk about nothing but color. Even if that’s true for some, it is not a proclivity that educators should encourage.

Worse, a cynic might conclude that the unstated goal is to make it possible for students of color to succeed academically by talking about nothing but color, thus allowing race to inflect whole areas of inquiry to which race is irrelevant. Such practices denature the college experience and bespeak a breathtaking level of condescension.

Civility is civility. Debate is debate. Education is education. It does no one any good to bastardize those concepts in service of a brand of inclusion that actually excludes.

Mr. Salerno is an author and journalism professor who lives in Las Vegas.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-...e-latest-target-in-the-campus-wars-1514938758


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Losing debates is racissss

 

[TheDan]

I think where I divulge from Spencer the most is that I feel that other races can and will be Americanized if given the chance. Then the only difference is skin color and I think most people wouldn't care about that if immigrants were shamed into assimilating just like Italians, Irish, Germans etc were.

I used to feel strongly the same way. When I was growing up I had friends whose parents or grandparents were from Asia, Central & South America, Middle East, etc. and the kids my age that were raised here were just as American as I am. The data shows that is no longer the case. The children of immigrants are now less American than even their immigrant parents. I definitely blame leftist's "multiculturalism" for this shift.

So essentially the powers at be just tell a large group of white, young men that they are inherently evil, they have no purpose in life and they shouldn't feel any kinship to each other unless of course they include everyone.

I empathize with you on this, but race is a huge red herring. My advice to anyone who has had racism directed towards them is to suck it up. Someone doesn't like you; boo hoo. The issue is in the systems that those people use to try to oppress you. If you're capable of defending yourself and those large coercive systems don't exist, then people who just don't like you for whatever reason are not an issue. So lets get rid of those coercive systems instead of focusing on the red herring.

 

[TheDan]

And it wouldn't be a big deal if they were planning to go somewhere and form their ethno-state, but that's not what they want to do. They want to claim what's already been built and shit all over the rights of American citizens to do it.

I thought you were talking about the leftist, criminal immigrants, and soft jihadists at first

 

[Younggun]

I thought you were talking about the leftist, criminal immigrants, and soft jihadists at first

Lol, them too.

 

[Shady]

I would love to see an all white community try to pop up, even if it was built from the ground up and not just an encampment on a large property but an actual subdivision ain't no way in hell that would ever be allowed.

I already said they could go somewhere else and create an ethno-state. That's not the ideology they support. The leadership of the Alt Right lays it out as I describe. You are part of a group that supports forced relocation of non whites based on nothing more than race.

 

[Charlie Primero]

So lets get rid of those coercive systems instead of focusing on the red herring.

This sounds like an excellent idea.

Give us some historical examples where ethnic minorities convinced the majority to stop voting against them and both sides abandoned coercive government power.

We can use those as our model for progress.

 

[TheDan]

There was a point in time when a constitutionally limited federal republic based on the ideals of individual liberty and self governance had never existed. We need more innovation like that.

 

[Charlie Primero]

There was a point in time when a constitutionally limited federal republic based on the ideals of individual liberty and self governance had never existed. We need more innovation like that.

Then we are in agreement. I would love to return America to a constitutionally limited Republic that was 90% White People where Blacks, Asians, and Native Americans were excluded from the Polity.

The difference is that I want to build it as peacefully as possible. Not with brutal conquest and ethnic armed conflict like the Founding Fathers did.

 

[Younggun]

There was a point in time when a constitutionally limited federal republic based on the ideals of individual liberty and self governance had never existed. We need more innovation like that.

Exactly.

The main issue I see is that ethnicity gets mixed with race far too often. We don't need African American, Asian American, etc. These arbitrary distinctions are the seeds of division that the Alt Right uses as an excuse for the need for an Ethno-State and the Progressives use as a tool for everything they do. My ethnicity is American. Encouraging other ethnic groups to travel here and cling to the ethnicity of their home nation will create issue. We should stop encouraging that and go back to the old ways of only allowing those in to this Nation who wish to be part of it, not simply live inside of it. Not something that would be easily achieved today, but a far greater chance of success than the formation of an Ethno-State and far less oppressive to the citizens of this nation. Multiculturalism is a major issue because it's going to create conflict between the cultures, get rid of that and simply cling to American culture based around Nationalism and basic human rights.

Of course, need to get rid of the progressive left and Alt Right for it to work, and they will fight against it because loosing such labels would make them obsolete and take away the enemy they need in order to promote themselves and gain power.