Ben Shapiro banned from DePaul U

[Lucifer Alpha]

They are scared of his rhetoric, not his physicality...oye vey bin zonah harrah

Meanwhile, they let BLM run wild.

 

[Pixelated Porn]

Don't worry, dog. As long as billionaires can increase their bottom line free from government coercion, we can rest assured that freedom and liberty are alive and well in the nation.

Religion of the left....bow down.

 

[n...not crazy]

If it is not possible for the actions of a private enterprise to "infringe" on your or my right to free speech, how can one then refer to the actions of a private enterprise being an example of "how free speech dies"?

Break it down for me.

Idk, I haven't crafted a debate on this. Something about the next educated generation of voters having less respect for free speech, probably. Another college that serves as a snowflake factory. Another feather in the hat for censorship. Leftist mind control through violent threats. Whatever. None of that sounds good to me.

In any case I think your statement that Libertarians are "fucking themselves" and "marching off a cliff" is going overboard. They're always gonna point out limitation of speech, censorship, etc. in any and every arena, regardless of the micro-semantics of the first amendment. I do believe that free speech is under attack from the left, much as it was from the right when I was growing up.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I do believe that free speech is under attack from the left, much as it was from the right when I was growing up.

The irony in today's internet age exists in the fact that it is the laissez faire ideology of the right that is ensuring the success of the attack on free-speech coming from the PC/SJW left.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Meanwhile, they let BLM run wild.

Yep.

Just remember that the "they" is not the gubmint.

It's private universities and corporate social media giants.

Chickens.Home.To.Roost.

 

[slivercord]

Conservative gay? This milo character seems interesting, how does his right wing peers feel about him?

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

So here we have the Breitbart libertarians (again) acknowledging the ability of a private enterprise to kill free speech within the society when allowed to act in its own economic self-interest; in this case, DU banning Shapiro to avoid the potential for student injury and resulting lawsuits.

But, at the same time, continuing to serve an ideology that demands they defend the right of this private enterprise to do this killing work.

Moreover, the Breitbart brigade plays fast and loose with its terminology. Shapiro's ideology forbids him from saying that DU is "infringing" on his right of free speech in refusing him a platform within their privately owned facility.

So he instead plays semantics, claiming that "free speech dies" when "people in power" - in this case, DU - choose to censor a particular political or philosophical viewpoint.

(The same implication delivered by Milo's crew when asking Twitter personnel the gotcha question, "Do you believe in free speech?")

Yet, how can free speech be "killed" if it cannot be said that some human being's right to speak and express his/her viewpoint is being "infringed" or "limited" or "undermined" in some qualitative way?

Libertarians again fucking themselves, blindly marching over a cliff, by championing an anti-rule of law ideology that will never function in the best interests of individuals or groups who hold positions antithetical to the mainstream or majority within a society.

@Zeke's Chaingun

Don't tag me, you liar. I've already demonstrated how low you will sink to run a particular narrative here:

Milo Storms Twitter RNC Booth asking them a simple question: if they believe in free speech

Your lies and your semantic games were exposed there. It's clear you're not interested in a dialogue, because you refuse to come clean when you're caught bullshitting. You're interested in a particular narrative and will double down even if you have to lie and obfuscate to do it. What benefit is there to owning your dumb ass again?

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

I fully understand why you have become so desperate in this debate.

Me? Desperate? I'm beating you like a whipped dog. You're lying, dodging and obfuscating left and right, flip flopping on your positions, and you're not even owning up to your mistakes. Instead - as we see below - you try to blow off your mistakes as, "I was actually always right in my mind, but I am not writing for a publication, I am not proofreading my posts." If EVER there was someone desperate in an online debate, it's someone who says something like that. You. Are. A. Beaten. Dog.

Now your entire "case" rests on a single sentence - and one that did not even become part of the dialogue until long after you initially accused me of mischaracterizing libertarianism.

Oh really? You want to go back all the way to the beginning to see that it's not based upon a "single sentence?" It would give me great pleasure since you insist on lying.

So let's put things back into their original context, shall we? The OP shared this thread about a video in which Milo Yiannopolous storms a Twitter booth at the RNC asking them if they believe in Free Speech, and mocked liberals for being too afraid to answer the question.

This apparently did not sit well with you, as you were the 4th person to respond. You did not quote anyone else, so it's clear you were responding to the OP. You said:

Libertarians always end up with their dick in their own ass (I chose this metaphor in honor of Milo).

On the one hand they claim that private businesses should be able to serve or not serve customers on whatever basis the owners so choose.

While, on the other hand, when it is the libertarian, himself, getting thrown out of the "store", the exclusionary behavior is condemned as somehow fundamentally unAmerican, unconstitutional or unethical.

The chickens always eventually come home to roost for free-market ideologues.

What could this possibly mean other than what it says? You are responding to the OP's post about Milo and Twitter, as well as the OP's off hand remark about liberals. Your immediate response is to come back with a jab against libertarians.

What's funny though, is what you say about libertarians in this entire context makes no sense if you understand what's going on. You didn't reference any other libertarians. You didn't reference any other situation. It's pretty clear you want to respond to the OP by attacking libertarians, and you choose to do this in a way that flat out FAILS.

You suggest that libertarians get what's coming to them when they are the ones getting kicked out of "the store" (referencing Milo getting kicked out of Twitter, which again is the ONLY example in the entire thread at this point.) You suggest that when this happens the libertarians don't like it (again, referencing Milo's attempt at retaliation towards Twitter, which is the ONLY example in the entire thread at this point). You go on to suggest that "libertarians" then condemn "the store" - or in this situation, Twitter - as being somehow fundamentally unAmerican, unconstitutional, or unethical for what they did.

You just pulled this out of your ass. This is in no way happening in the Milo situation AT ALL. Since you have brought up no other examples, you're clearly referencing the situation that... you know... you responded to? Yet in this situation no libertarian, Milo or otherwise, is making the claim that you are claiming that they made. It didn't happen.

You fucked up. It isn't just "one sentence" that you later admit that you "didn't proofread", it is an ONGOING NARRATIVE that you carry throughout this ENTIRE THREAD. Observe:

But this is the crux of the whole issue...

Is this billionaire CEO just being a "stubborn cunt"? In which case everyone should shrug it off with a laugh and move on.

Or is this billionaire CEO behaving in a totalitarian manner that's toxic to democracy? And should his power be checked by law and regulation?

What libertarians really need to learn from this is that corporations, operating in an unfettered marketplace, have the ability to ostracize, undermine and ultimately starve small, marginalized groups.

Reality just stepped up an bit you in the ass once again. Here you CONTINUE ON with the SAME NARRATIVE. Your narrative, as it appeared in your first post and again in this one, is that libertarians are oblivious to the realities of their own philosophy and it comes back to bite them and they don't like it and don't get it. But that is not what is happening here and it is not what libertarians believe. Libertarians UNDERSTAND that "corporations, operating in an unfettered marketplace, have the ability to ostracize, undermine and ultimately starve small, marginalized groups." Well, I'd remove the word "starve" because that implies that there aren't any alternatives and that's a false dichotomy (Gov't forced access to the business or starvation).

Milo and company - nor libertarians - have at any point demonstrated that they do not understand this. Nor are they "getting caught with their own dick in their own ass" as you said earlier. In order for that to be true, they'd have to have found out that their philosophy backfired on them in a way that they're willing to contradict themselves. But they aren't contradicting themselves, they'd STILL support this system and they DO understand the reality of it. So how in the world are they getting caught with their dick in their ass and how in the world does the Milo situation demonstrate this?

Really, all you have said is that you feel this philosophy is bad or has bad consequences. You have not demonstrated any "dick in the ass" and you have not demonstrated that Milo or any libertarians are failing to understand something about their own philosophy. You have not demonstrated that libertarians are complaining about something being unAmerican or unconstitutional. It just didn't happen. So the ONLY thing you have done is managed to demonstrate that you don't like the libertarian free market system. That's it. Everything else you've tried to argue is you completely misunderstanding the situation with Milo or is a caricature of what libertarians understand.

I don't think you understand libertarian philosophy and the property rights argument. Private enterprise is private enterprise. What each capitalist owner serves or sells has no bearing on the ideology.

My first response to this thread and your posts included this quote from you, although I was responding particularly to the bold. In your previous posts - which I have included above - demonstrate YOUR failure to understand libertarian philosophy in regards to how you caricature Milo and the Twitter situation as well as how you attempt to "lecture" libertarians on what they don't understand about their own philosophy. Since I know you got the Milo situation all wrong - which you further demonstrate below - and I know that libertarians already understand what you want to "lecture them on", I know that you don't understand libertarian views and you don't understand the Milo situation. If you did, you wouldn't have used the Milo situation to argue that "libertarians got caught with their own dick in their own ass" nor that libertarians "complain when it happens to them, calling it unAmerican, unconstitutional, etc". None of this happened. So I respond to your post above after having read all of your miscalculations.

I think you don't understand the argument at all, which is not the least bit surprising.

The argument isn't that Twitter can't do this. The argument is to draw attention to what Twitter is doing, which is demonstrating a major bias.

You seem to think that a libertarian can only take a position of silence in terms of private business. That's nonsense. A libertarian believes in protests and boycotting. It doesn't believe in using government force. Milo isn't calling for Government force, he's attempting to humiliate Twitter by exposing their behavior.

So I try to correct you. Libertarian philosophy - and in particular MILO - aren't "getting caught with their own dick in their own ass." They aren't calling it "unAmerican or unconstitutional". These are all YOUR CLAIMS that I am responding to here. I am telling you that neither Milo nor libertarians are arguing that Twitter cannot do this nor are they arguing that Gov't needs to fix it. They aren't calling it unAmerican and they aren't calling it unconstitutional. You're just flat out wrong. Milo was challenging Twitter because they were saying one thing and doing another, and that's all. He was calling out their hypocrisy, not demonstrating his own as you suggested.

To which you reply:

Straw-man.

I never said or implied that there was hypocrisy at play in anything Milo or his libertarian supporters were trying to do in retaliation against Twitter.

I'm simply saying that this situation should wake up libertarian ideologues to the tyranny of the marketplace and to the tragic flaw inherent in any so-called "dollar democracy".

What's happening here is even worse than mob rule. Because in the marketplace you don't even need to form a mob to deprive a marginalized group their rights. You just need one authoritarian billionaire.

Which is nonsense. If this were true you wouldn't have said:

"On the one hand they claim that private businesses should be able to serve or not serve customers on whatever basis the owners so choose.

While, on the other hand, when it is the libertarian, himself, getting thrown out of the "store", the exclusionary behavior is condemned as somehow fundamentally unAmerican, unconstitutional or unethical."

If your goal was simply to say, "hey libertarians, this is an example of real tyranny of the market place, and now you see it." you wouldn't have created a Straw Man argument by suggesting that libertarians act in such a hypocritical manner. YOU SAID IT. In that quote you are saying that libertarians - and Milo - are being hypocritical. And then in response to me you say that you aren't saying or implying that they are hypocritical. Well which is it? Let's look at it again!

when it is the libertarian, himself, getting thrown out of the "store", the exclusionary behavior is condemned as somehow fundamentally unAmerican, unconstitutional or unethical."

I never said or implied that there was hypocrisy at play in anything Milo or his libertarian supporters were trying to do in retaliation against Twitter.

LIAR. You are caught, once again.

Moreover, there is no "tyranny of the marketplace." so you're wrong again. Twitter is not being tyrannical. They're just LYING. Milo isn't getting caught with his own dick in his own ass and neither are libertarians. As I already said, libertarians ALREADY UNDERSTAND situations like this. They know it happens. But they adhere to a greater principle, and that is that true tyranny comes from the use of FORCE. If you understood that you'd understand libertarian philosophy better. Which you don't, which is why I said that you don't.

But the reality is, I'm not writing things here for publication. And with little to no proof reading. In fact, like many posters, I assume, I compose posts on Sherdog in bursts, when a few minutes of time allow; usually between two or three other things that are also occupying my attention.

I'm trying to express my thoughts and opinions as best I can. But, I'm sure, some lawyerly examination and parsing of every sentence, devoid of all surrounding context, could have "found me out" numerous times throughout my history here.

Here is your backpedaling response to me catching you saying something that I have proven to be wrong with TWO videos. You are not honest. I bet you're voting for Hillary.

Here is the sentence in question. Expressing what I had thought I was conveying. But without the ambiguity.

"I'm assuming the Breitbart guys are asking this question {about Freedom of Speech} because they believe that Twitter's banning of Milo represented an action that was in conflict with support for and belief in freedom of speech."

This is consistent with everything I have stated throughout the rest of this thread.

Yes, consistently wrong, as i have just demonstrated. That isn't what Milo was doing. That isn't what libertarians do, and they aren't crying out "unAmerican! unconstitutional!" when situations like this happen. So yes, you have consistently been pushing this narrative and it's wrong.

But, somehow, you have repeatedly displayed a pattern of refusing to engage me on any of the pieces of "evidence" that directly and beyond any shadow of doubt prove your entire argument against me fallacious.

For example, here is what I wrote in post #168:

"But I guess if they (Twitter) had answered (in reply to the question from Breitbart), 'Yes. Absolutely. We believe in freedom of speech - in the public square. But Twitter isn't the public square. It's a privately owned square.

And anyway, we're not infringing on your right to express your opinions and ideas. In fact, you're doing it right here, right now. But when you're on our platform you're in our house and it's our rules, our call.'

Then the Breitbart guys would have said, 'Oh. OK. Cool. You're one of us. Lock-tight logic. Sorry for the hassle, bro.'"

Twitter didn't say that, so what is the use in this fantasy scenario? Milo and company WANTED Twitter to admit that they don't stand up for free speech in Twitter. Milo WANTED them to come out clean in that they demonstrate bias. Getting them to admit this would be damaging to their reputation and their stock. Twitter knows it, so they didn't answer. Milo and company didn't expect them to answer either, because they know that Twitter knows how damaging such an admission would be. They knew Twitter would play it safe and avoid answering, and they made their point by badgering them about it.

In conclusion, you lied multiple times and I have caught you. You could have got out of it by admitting that you were wrong in your initial estimates, but instead you doubled down on your bullshit.

-No libertarian got stuck with their dick in their own ass.
-No libertarian needs to understand what you suggested they should understand, because they already understand it.
-Milo was not being hypocritical as you suggested by saying that when he/libertarians get "thrown out of the store" that they cry "unAmerican!" "unconstitutional!", and then you lied to cover it up by saying that you didn't suggest that libertarians or Milo were being hypocritical.
-Milo was not calling out Twitter for violating his freedom of speech, despite you SAYING that this is what he was doing.

Let's face it. I caught you lying blatantly TWICE now, and you are wrong about a few other points. The only one with their dick up their ass is yourself.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Don't tag me, you liar. I've already demonstrated how low you will sink to run a particular narrative here:

Milo Storms Twitter RNC Booth asking them a simple question: if they believe in free speech

Your lies and your semantic games were exposed there. It's clear you're not interested in a dialogue, because you refuse to come clean when you're caught bullshitting. You're interested in a particular narrative and will double down even if you have to lie and obfuscate to do it. What benefit is there to owning your dumb ass again?

Yeah, I figured you would run from a clear, concise debate and revert to your paranoid, CTish delusions about "lies" and "misdirections".

But I was honorable enough to attempt the invitation.

Now, please, don't clog this thread with copy and pastes of your diarrhea diatribes from a previous thread. If you're afraid to engage me, just do the decent thing and walk away.

As there may actually be people here who want to discuss Breitbart, Shapiro and the (alleged) self-defeating nature of libertarianism in a spirit of mutual respect. And without distraction.

 

[TheStruggle]

Conservative gay? This milo character seems interesting, how does his right wing peers feel about him?

Ironically they fucking love him

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Yeah, I figured you would run from a clear, concise debate and revert to your paranoid, CTish delusions about "lies" and "misdirections".

But I was honorable enough to attempt the invitation.

The proven liar wants to spread the image of an honorable person just making an invitation. The set of balls on you, liar... I exposed you for the liar you are and you pretend that you just want to have a fair conversation?! You COULD have had a fair conversation if you just owned up to the fact that you made some arguments that were wrong. Instead you doubled down on your bullshit and lied. And got caught lying - posted above for all to see. Honorable... hah!

Now, please, don't clog this thread with copy and pastes of your diarrhea diatribes from a previous thread. If you're afraid to engage me, just do the decent thing and walk away.

Oh, and now you're the arbiter of decency? LOL! Just stop! Stop, you're killing me!

I engaged you and proved that you are a liar and that you are too arrogant to admit when you've been proven wrong on a few points. You aren't inviting me to a discussion, you're inviting me to a lecture without any moral standard other than "I'm right Zeke, no matter what".

As there may actually be people here who want to discuss Breitbart, Shapiro and the (alleged) self-defeating nature of libertarianism in a spirit of mutual respect. And without distraction.

I am sure they do, but you're not one of them. You want to run a narrative only, and you'll lie to do it.

Anyone engaging ultramanhyata should read our conversation linked above to see what kind of "conversation" you're in for. Observe his lies, obfuscation, doubling down on bullshit, dodging, and never conceding an inch no matter how wrong he is.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

coulda sworn college was about freedom of expression and learning, but not necessarily agreeing, w/ conflicting ideas......

no?

 

[Stoic1]

Conservative gay? This milo character seems interesting, how does his right wing peers feel about him?

Absolutely love him. Because we aren't all homophobic redneck racists the way we are portrayed.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Anyone engaging ultramanhyata should read our conversation linked above to see what kind of "conversation" you're in for. Observe his lies, obfuscation, doubling down on bullshit, dodging, and never conceding an inch no matter how wrong he is.

In all the years I've been posting here, all the heated exchanges I have had with various users, you are truly the most psychologically damaged individual I have ever encountered. Congratulations.

 

[punky brewster]

coulda sworn college was about freedom of expression and learning, but not necessarily agreeing, w/ conflicting ideas......

no?

Shut up, whitey.
Your views don't count.

 

[panamaican]

Was he there to speak for free?

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

In all the years I've been posting here, all the heated exchanges I have had with various users, you are truly the most psychologically damaged individual I have ever encountered. Congratulations.

Coming from you, that could only be a compliment.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Conservative gay? This milo character seems interesting, how does his right wing peers feel about him?

The Right Wing peers have mixed feelings on Milo. Ben Shapiro and Milo used to be friends, but they had a falling out over Trump. Shapiro hates Trump and Milo loves Trump, calls him daddy. Shapiro tried to debate Milo, and Milo was elusive and totally came off as dodging Ben - which is probably a good thing for him.

Shapiro doesn't think Trump is a true conservative and is a blow hard. He's concerned about Trump's ideas. Milo thinks Trump is a master troll and provocateur and is the perfect leader to rile up the "worst" people, the Social Justice Warrior/Regressive Left.

(worst is in quotes because obviously murderers and rapists are far worse, so it's an exaggerated label)

Other peers love Milo. People like Mike Cernovic and Ann Coulter LOVE Milo.

My opinion of Milo is that he is highly entertaining. I think ultimately he is doing a good thing challenging the 3rd wave feminists, social justice warriors, and Regressives. He's flamboyant, cocky, loves to push the envelope of what is "acceptable" in order to rile up the authoritarians who want to smother everyone and everything under "hate speech" and PC policing.

I don't find him particularly brilliant in terms of world history, economics, etc. Listen to his conversation with Douglas Murray on his radio show. I like both guys, but you can see how it was a little awkward as they're on two different levels in political brilliance - with Murray being the superior. Milo is excellent in his niche, but not so much outside of it.

 

[Tycho]

but fascism only comes from the right

Fascism usually equals slavish worship of authority or group think.

When put in those terms, you start to notice how modern SJWs would've basically been 1930s Hitler Youth.

 

[7437]

Was he there to speak for free?

I doubt it, he is on a speaking tour of colleges.

Cant find the actual email sent to shapiro either, just that excerpt.