Clint Eastwood on Presidential Candidates, and being in a P**** generation

I agree. I never understood this notion of "these people are being polite to each other, it must be due to fear of being seen as politically incorrect and not because they are actually good people."

Since when did "speak your mind" start to mean "be a dick"? Not everybody has nothing but hatred on their minds. For many people being politically correct is them speaking their mind.

@toast_burner: Yeah it's kind of sad to see some people throw around the term "political correctness" as an accusatory slam simply because there are those out there who treat others with dignity and respect because it's the right thing to do.

....... We aren't talking about things we can clearly classify easily as hate speech.. We are talking about the mere fact you may disagree with something or be critical towards a certain view point has the other side immediately crying out that your a racist or sexist.. Being labeled as such as a mark upon you within society that you really can't be called anything worse inless it involves something illegal, it is poisoning the well.. Which is my point.. Not in touch with reality? We fucking have the BLM movement having a field day with this very rhetoric.. In crying out against supposed racism while openly saying some of the most racist stuff out there with impunity.. If your going to be against racism, be against all racism.. Currently the most racist and sexist rhetoric I have been hearing as of late are from people who are supposedly "fighting" against it.

But from what you wrote you clearly don't understand what I was talking about.. No where did I talk about employers.. Or the fact of the matter that statements like "gas the jews!" is a call to action which is in fact ILLEGAL to begin with, and is not the thing I am trying to defend. I am specifically talking about the current culture where even questioning certain things that "trigger" people leads to a knee jerk reaction of calling a person a racist or sexist.. But why should I care what you say because your most likely a WHITE MALE, meaning your opinion really doesn't matter because of your privilege from the culture I am specifically talking about.

There's a difference between saying something because you're polite and saying something because you're scared you might offend someone.

The fact that some people fail to judge why someone else says something does not make this difference any less real.

Dignity and respect aren't showed with words alone.

So where is your line drawn as to when it's acceptable to call a person a racist? So we've determined "gass the jews" is definitely worth calling racist, what about "I hate jews" can I call a person a racist if they say that?

This is why I said your ideology is flawed. It's so full of contradictions and unclear lines. If people should speak their mind then they shouldn't need to justify whats on their mind to you before they speak it. I don't need a valid reason to call someone a racist. I could call you a racist right now, it won't make sense but freedom of speech allows me to not make sense if I don't want to, you racist.

No where have you given an example of anyone being silenced. All you've said is "if they say this someone will call them names" so what?

Perhaps because it is fascist in nature in which we have seen the greatest offenders are the very people that prop up the pc culture... I am fine with political correctness within reason, but it has turned largely into something that is meant to control the rhetoric while being absolute hypocrisy.. As I said we are seeing the troubling change in which the people who are supposedly fighting racism and sexism saying some of the most blatantly sexist and racist things out there. This is not trying to defend the KKK or Clint Eastwood.. This is merely attack against this specific ultra PC culture that has propped up that is passive aggressive by nature fueled by outrage.

So why is it wrong for SJWs to get upset but perfectly ok for the anti-sjws to get upset? You don't seem to understand that racist is just a word. Sure it may trigger you, but just grow thicker skin. Yes people say dumb shit, that's nothing new and especially not something to get so triggered about.

College campuses are private property. If you don't like the lack of disciplinarian action taken by their administration then take your business elsewhere.

Whats assaulting people got to do with calling someone a racist? Assault is illegal, calling someone a racist isn't.

YET she wasn't arrested, because he was labeled a racist! That is exactly my point.. That using this excuse has led people to doing blatantly awful things, including saying other racist thigns while claim to be the victim.. IDGAF what people call one another it's how they are using it to control the entire rhetoric to out right excusing violence and anti free speech.. This includes people justification of assaulting Trump supporters with police not lifting a finger..

Triggered? THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK what they want.. THAT IS MY ENTIRE point.. I am all for freedom of speech, what I AM AGAINST is a group that is specifically trying to shut down ANOTHER which we are seeing in the SJW movement.. The people who are talking about "triggers" are the ones that are the ones trying to censor people..

But clearly your in favor of fascism. Which George Carlin said best, "Political Correctness is fascism pretending to be manners".. So please.. Prattle on fascist.. Tell us how this movement has attempted to censor people and ideas they don't agree with and tell us all here why it's such a great thing for society.

I assume you're referring to Melissa Click, who was fired and charged for assault which she then plead guilty to and had to perform community service. Helps if you do your research.

And how are they stopping anyone from saying what they want? Someone in the crowd yelling "racist" doesn't prevent you from talking, if they become disruptive then you kick them out, unless you're not the property owner in which case if the property owner doesn't want them to leave then clearly he respects the protesters right of free speech to interrupt your talk. This again comes down to your entitlement of expecting other people to provide you a platform to speak on. If you don't like that all these campuses are allowing protesters to interrupt you, then rent your own hall and then you'll be able to decide who's let in and whether people are allowed to interrupt or not.

P.S The irony of you calling me a fascist is delicious. I thought you didn't like people incorrectly using words inorder to poison the well. Also stop highlighting who said something. I don't care if it's Obama, George Carlin, Ghandi, or some junky in an alleyway. The source of a quote is irrelevant, all that matters is whether it's true or not. The fact that you put so much importance on who said it rather than what they said makes it look like you are incapable of thinking on your own.

Oh boo-fucking-hoo cry me a river. If someone is getting "silenced" by someone else... tough shit. Be louder than the other person. That's also on them for choosing the wrong audience. Why try to have an audience with someone who clearly doesn't care about what you have to say? They have a right to speak sure, but that doesn't mean they need to be afforded a platform on a whim to spew their shit. This goes for both sides.

It took months of Click to be actually fired and charged even with indisputable video evidence, and only after massive public outrage.. And Yet again your completely skirting over the person that assaulted Milo, took away his mic, and physically threatened him.. Which isn't even the part that bothered me, it was the fact that NOTHING happened.. Security didn't stop her, she wasn't charged, nor did the school to my knowledge take any kind of action towards... We aren't talking about screaming in the crowd, we are talking about some one forcing themselves on the stage, physically ripping the mic out of your hand, than threatening them with violence.. But yet again I am not a fascist so of course I would be concerned with this.

Well sorry I don't share your fascist view points there buddy.

So did Milo press charges against her? Is grabbing a mic even enough to count as assault?

What part of "it's not your stage" do you not understand? If security aren't stopping them then they hardly "forced their way on". If Milo wants to talk without being yelled at or having other people go on the stage, then why is he performing talks at places that allow that? Why doesn't he rent his own hall and make his own rules for how the audience has to behave?

Again misusing the word fascist. Will you die if you go a single post without making a fool of yourself? Like I said before the irony of thinking calling someone a racist is evil because it's poisoning the well, but to then immediately call someone a fascist, it's like something out of Little Britain. Astounding, absolutely astounding.

Well I am glad Toaster that you admitted to be in full support of this kind of behavior.. Nothing really more needs to be said, agree to disagree.. Apologies for names being thrown around, clearly things got out of hand.

And where did I say that? I don't support customer service being rude, that doesn't mean I'll call the police and force them to be nice to me next time.

I'll repeat my question from a page back. Whats your alternative. So you think freedom of speech is bad, ok we've established that. But how would you fix it? Should businesses that don't allow Milo to say whatever he wants without being interrupted be forcibly shut down and it's owners arrested? Should there be snipers aimed at the crowd at all times, or should they be tied up and ballgaged the entire time? Hey maybe there should be no crowd at all, lets just outlaw talking and we can all give lectures to empty rooms.

How exactly do you expect to get this absolute control that you want when you're on other peoples property? Shouldn't the hosts of the talks be the ones establishing the rules on acceptable behaviour (as long as no laws are being broken)?

Yeah we are done here, have a good evening sir.

Well this went from Eastwood's answers, to a verbal fight about freedom of speech and insults.

With one side going " Of course I can call anyone I want a racist, or something else, if I think they are one. That's what my freedom of speech ensures" Which is true, you can call anyone you want a racist, pedophile, sexist, asshole etc. There is nothing stopping you from using those words if you find them appropriate or if you want to. ( Well besides the Gamespot TOS here on the board, seriously refrain from doing that)

And the other side going " We're trying to be silenced by being called that since it is thrown around willy-nilly and that everybody takes offense nowadays so we do need to walk on eggshells" Which is also kinda true. I've said I'm not fond of how Israel is handling the whole Gaza Strip and Palestines, which many has called me essentially a "Jew Hater" or "Nazi" as a response to. I've also said that compared to feminists in the past, the modern ones focus on smaller issues rather then the larger ones they really ought to focus on, like Honor killing or acid attacks on women who simply want an education, that had some call me "Sexist" for some reason.

The whole "They're actively trying to silence us", there's hardly a organized effort. If there is, then it's the worst effort anyone's put into anything in history.

Now blatant Racism and Sexism and such of course should be called out when it occurs, Should it be thrown out at everything you might percieve that way? You can do it, nothing is stopping anyone either way from saying, or writing, that all caucasians are racist by default and without exception or that all african-americans got large gentleman sausages.

Is it the right thing to do?

I guess it depends on what manners you got.

There's no such thing as the right to give a talk on someone else's property.

And you said the owners of the property did not stop that protester, so clearly they think that is acceptable behaviour. Milo was only a guest on the property, so why do you think he should be able to dictate whether other people are allowed to scream or get up o the stage? How is forcing the owners of a property to change their rules on what they allow on their property, supporting freedom? I don't believe that businesses should have absolute control, I think discrimination is bad for example. But you really need to draw a clear line. So far you seem to alternate between absolute freedom of speech and none at all.

So where's the line drawn? Heckling is ok, but grabbing mics bad. So going on the stage, is that bad, because the people who own the stage don't seem to think so?

Yes he was a guest and so was the protester. Both had permission to be there by the property owners and the property owners seem to have no problem with the people they allow on their property screaming their heads off.

The first amendment says nothing about providing anyone a platform to speak on free from interruptions or threats. The right the first amendment gives you is the right to create your own platform to speak on. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

It's a shame that there is a valid argument to be made about people avoiding conversations about serious issues such as the Israel situation. But unfortunately it's been tainted by people like @sSubZerOo who don't have a single valid point to make, they just spout nonsense and misinformation which in turn makes the whole situation look stupid. It's like how radical feminists give feminism such a bad name that you can't even have a single conversation about women's rights without it being derailed into a conversation about SJWs, where one side is arguing that all men must die, and the other is arguing that sexism is a myth and women were happier when they weren't allowed to vote.

Yet again I don't care if she is screaming at the top of her lungs.. Or even if she got on stage.. The problem is when she ripped the mic away from the host and loomed over Milo screaming in his face while holding her fist close to his face. That can be seen as a threat of violence to silence him.. That is not protected under free speech. This is my last post on the subject because I feel like we are going in circles.

No it's not a threat to silence him, it's just a threat, it's not silencing him in anyway. Threats are bad, and if he feels she crossed the line then he should have called the police. But how is this a free speech issue?

Nowhere did I actually say what she did is protected under free speech. What I said was that free speech does not mean Milo can give a talk wherever he wants and expect it to play out how he wants it to. If he wants control over how the talk goes, he should have hosted it himself rather than relying on someone else to provide the stage for him.

This is naive and unrealistic. People are polite precisely because they don't want to offend other people. Being wary of offending people is part of being a functioning adult. We are polite to keep the peace and we are often polite in spite of ourselves. In the same way that someone should have a reasonable fear of what would happen if they walked into the middle of the street, someone should have a reasonable fear of what would happen if they started shouting racial slurs in public.

Does this mean that one should always compromise their beliefs because they don't want to offend people? No. Like all things, there's a balance and sometimes people take offense without basis. But still, not wanting to offend others is how a normal person acts. And it's naive to think they're doing it because being polite is just part of their character. This might true some of the time, but there's also a strong element of wanting to avoid the social consequences of saying offensive things.

Don't want to do =/= being scared of doing.

The only naive and unrealistic thing here is your grasp of the reality that surrounds you if I have to spell that out.

This is just weak semantics. People often don't want to do things because they fear the consequences. Fear is an essential part of survival and that extends to social survival as well. To deny that shows that you've probably been living on the internet for too long.

This is a culture war, not a rights war.

This isn't about what you can or cannot do, this is about what you should or shouldn't do.

And with that said, I have to admit it does put a smile on my face to see the lengths at which people who claim others should adhere to their own notion of "being nice to eachother" go to, to defend majorly a**hole acts such as interrupting another person's speech at his own event or their own rights to be a**holes.

Funnily enough, this is exactly what the anti-PC crowd doesn't get. You can say whatever offensive thing you want. That doesn't mean it's wise and that also doesn't mean that you should be protected from the social consequences of doing so.

Exactly. You're allowed to be as racist as you want, but people are going to insult you and cut ties with you for it.

Who defended someone interrupting speeches? That's undeniably arseholish behaviour.

Right, stating not wanting to do something doesn't equate being scared of doing it is "weak semantics". Enough creepy shit for me for today.

Keyword social. The problem with the PC crowd is that they too often go way overboard with what constitutes social and what doesn't.

I think I need to give the exact details of the incident @sSubZerOo is talking about.
Milo Yiannopoulos was invited by a student group of DePaul University to speak on campus. As part of the agreement, university officials stated that the student group needed to hire external security for the event. During the 'speech', members of BLM marched onto the stage, grabbed Milo's mic, and pretty much put the entire event on hold. The student group requested for their hired security to intervene, but the university prevented them from doing so. Not long afterwards, the student group called the police but the university turned them away and stated that they had the situation under control.

Something that SubZerO did not mention is that recently Ben Shapiro was scheduled to hold an event at the same university, but that was cancelled because the university could not guarantee his safety.

Now, I don't particularly care about the legality of the Milo incident, but what I do care about is that that the anti-PC crowd was easily able to portray the university (and college campuses in general) as not being open to policy discussions.

Ben Shapiro's event wasn't cancelled because his security couldn't be guaranteed. It was cancelled because he was banned from the DePaul university. Crucible of innovative thought right there, banning everyone with a different opinion.

lol. You must be very sensitive if you think that statement is in any way "creepy."

You're missing the point. I said that you're engaging in weak semantics because you're using this distinction as a way of obsfucating. Yes, not wanting to do something doesn't equal being scared of doing something. That is obvious. But my point, which you are trying very hard to avoid, is that those two things are not mutually exclusive either. People often don't want to offend people because they would rather avoid the social consequences of doing so.

Again: "Fear is an essential part of survival and that extends to social survival as well. To deny that shows that you've probably been living on the internet for too long."

And he was banned from DePaul University because of security concerns. The Chicago Sun-Times and The Chicago Tribune both stated that a DePaul spokeswoman said the following:
"DePaul University’s Office of Public Safety determined, after observing events which took place when Mr. Shapiro spoke elsewhere, that it was not in a position to provide the type of security that would be required at this time.”

@-Toshy-: I saw video of that incident. The female BLM protester was a shameful stupid person, and represents every single negative stereotype of black people in general. She is doing her movement great harm. I think Milo is an ass, but he has the right to speak, to not only shut him down but put her hands on him and threaten him is criminal and should have resulted in arrests and jail time.

Unacceptable.

There are people who go overboard in any group. The larger point (that you've actually made beautifully) is that being ridiculed due to something you said does not equal having one's freedom of speech taken away (which is what so many anti-PC folks allege). The freedom of speech spiel is an attempt to elevate offensiveness to a moral highground that it doesn't deserve.

Agreed 100%. I despise Milo. Heck, I'm even okay with Twitter banning him because there is good evidence that he committed libel by knowingly retweeting posts created by a fake tweet generator in an attempt to defame Leslie Jones. Obviously a private institution like DePaul University isn't required to follow the same first amendment rights that the federal government is, but the university not attempting to get the event back on track makes our side look terrible.

In any group? Really? Please do show me what other group made a social pariah of a person that made a discovery or an invention of the caliber of the DNA double-helix or JavaScript because of their political views. I'll be waiting.

Right...having your freedom of speech not taken away is fine, we'll just shut you behind closed doors and make you starve to death. Your freedom of speech is gonna stay real pristine.

The freedom of speech spiel is an attempt to make people realize offensiveness is something personal and shouldn't be regulated as it is excessively fleeting for a canon to exist. The anti-PC "spiel" is an attempt at estabilishing an inquisition about what offensiveness is allowed and what isn't. Don't even try to make it look like any of the two sides is trying to estabilshing a "being nice" concept here.

The irony here is that the conservative bigots who are crying about being called a "racist" or "sexist" are calling any liberals who disagree with them "fascists"... Welcome to the world of conservative correctness.

Hogwash.

If the problem was security concerns alone the event would've been simply rescheduled. This is political.

Yes, in any group. Not sure what you think you're accomplishing by bringing up an example of the PC crowd going overboard. It doesn't in any way invalidate what I said. And I'm not sure why you think that example is somehow worse than some of the behavior from anti-PC folks (remember the threats made by Gamergaters?). Trying to single out the PC crowd as going overboard is simply not going to work.

You're really going to have to elaborate on that second paragraph and be more specific because I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I didn't say anything about a "being nice" concept. If you're going to respond to me, please make a basic attempt to comprehend what's being said. My point is that anti-PC folks falsely try to make the discussion about rights because it makes them feel like they have the moral highground (i.e. protecting freedom of speech) when they really just want to be offensive without being ridiculed. They want a safe space for their offensiveness.

Obviously we are free to speculate, but that's not something that you or I can confirm. Either way, the decision to ban him looks bad on the university.

If it is like you said, then the university is willingly trying to silence the anti-PC crowd.

If the university actually has security concerns, then it shows that they are incapable of fostering an environment that encourages discussion of unpopular viewpoints.

I don't like Ben Shapiro or Milo. I have never listened to any of Shapiro's speeches, but I know that Milo's speeches are pretty popular with a fair number of conservatives and refusing to allow him to speak allows the anti-PC crowd to paint the picture that progressives are not willing to hear their concerns. I don't agree with the anti-PC crowd, but I believe that the best way to counter their points is to listen to them and engage in a civil debate.

You got it backwards. The PC folk are the ones regularly whining about rights. The anti-PC folk aren't trying to elevate offensiveness to anything. In fact, they don't want anyone to feel elevated because they abide to some imaginary canon of what thoughts and words are acceptable, and they don't even want said canon to exist, because they know it cripples free exchange of ideas.

The very fact that your first example of someone being offensive was racial slurs...nay, the very fact that you're even referring to the anti-PC folk as wanting to defend offensiveness, speaks volumes about how much you understand about the topic you're talking about.

You are completely in denial about your own movement. Anti-PC people have regularly argued that their freedom of speech is being compromised by political correctness. In reality, what's happening is that they want to be offensive but they don't want to be called out for it, so they construct a safe space, one pillar of which is whining about freedom of speech being taken away.

You are completely blind to what's going on on your side of the argument.

I have to say, I do feel a malicious fit of glee in thinking about any SJW or SJW sympathizer trying to debate Shapiro. He's one of the most intelligent and level-headed persons I have ever witnessed talking, which makes him stand out particularly among journalists, and so far I don't think I've seen him leave a single debate without shredding the guy he was talking with.

Did you just "I'm rubber, you're glue" at me?

No. I'm pointing out that you're too emotionally invested in your side of the argument to see this clearly. Time and time again, anti-PC folks have configured political correctness as a threat to their free speech, making the argument about rights. Taking that into consideration, it is absurd for you to argue that rights is not part of the anti-PC argument. I mean, I know it annoys you that your initial comment about this not being about rights makes my point better than it makes yours, but you're being remarkably blind to the arguments that anti-PC people make. If you don't like those arguments, convince your fellow anti-PCers to dispense with them, but don't be dishonest about it.

It's not like he has to look far either. The last page of this thread is mostly made up of me arguing with a guy insisting that not being given a platform to speak from is somehow an infringement on freedom of speech.

ITT: People mixing up suppression of speech with getting criticized for said speech.

Bunch of anti-PC losers crying that racists and blowhards are having their speech criticized. Criticizing speech=/=suppressing speech. Don't like people with differing opinions challenging your views? Well time to grow up and join the adult world.

@GreySeal9:

"they really just want to be offensive without being ridiculed. They want a safe space for their offensiveness."

Man, that was really well said, thank you for that. I don't follow these debates and arguments of the anti-PC crowd like you do. I don't have the stomach for it. What I'm wondering though is, do these anti-PC philosophy deep thinkers take Trump as their intellectual leader?