"why is having thick skin so important to you!?" Because if you don't have thick skin you turn out to be like you pal, and who wants that shit? God forbid someone says something you disagree with. The horror!!!
+Eoghan Murt It's from tumblr, referring to when someone feels so horribly offended or hurt by an idea's presence that they feel wronged. If that sounds strange to you, you are not the only one.
+Eoghan Murt Originally it was the term used to describe flashback events in soldiers suffering from PTSD. Now it means self indulgent perpetual victims didn't like your opinion.
+Eoghan Murt like the poster said above. Soldiers coming back from war suffering from PTSD have triggers that can induce flashbacks. A slamming door, a smell that reminds them of dead flesh, crowds of people. A PTSD's brain goes into combat mode. They can have bad reactions. SJSs say they get triggered and have the same type of reaction. It's utter nonsense.
I disagree that Tim did a relatively good job. The fact is, people in today's modern society have thin skin and take great offence to words. Just look at incels shooting up schools in America, for instance, and the fact that good ideas beating the bad simply doesn't exist. Just look at the rise of Andrew Tate and his misogynistic rhetoric. Everyone deserves freedom of speech, but people shouldn't have a protected right to spill their such vile and toxic views, such as racial hatred, fascism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia
***** Slightly off topic but, is any part of that abortion debate available on the internet. Or was it shut down before it got started? It would be very interesting to hear people speak on that topic.
***** No need to apologize. I'm happy to speak about any topic with intelligent individuals. Especially charismatic girls such as yourself who are critical of feminism. (Was that sexist? I don't even know anymore.) Truly a pity about the debate. It would have been a truly interesting topic. I don't want to stray from the topic of this being "...the cringiest shit I've seen in months..." but if you would like to debate/discuss topics such as abortion or anything at all controversial, please feel free to contact me.
This guy lacks evidence. The first speaker had citations, this guy doesn't. It's hard to take an argument seriously when there's nothing to back it up.
"I wasted my money on a gender studies degree....wah. Patriarchy, racism, bigotry, cisgender, systemic, nuance, political correctness, heteronormative, gender pronouns, [insert term]-phobic....these are some terms I learned. Rather than fight an actual system or body of discriminatory power I like to go around and virtue signal by shaming people (unjustifiably) for things they aren't doing."
"Sticks and stones by break my bones but names will never hurt me" Sage old wisdom from a forgotten time. The reason why its important is that breaking a bone hurts no matter what. But you can choose to, or choose not to be hurt by names. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
First he attacks the speaker before him, not his ideas. (questions his morality more then really arguing against his points) Then he likens his moral compass to the law. And all this to finally compare offensive speech to open acts of racism or violence that are already covered by the law. Not only useless, but absolutely dangerous.
I think there is a difference between a white male telling a minority group that 'You are disadvantaged, you are marginalised but don't worry because we White males will help you to become equal with us.' and saying to that group 'You have the right to speak you mind, you have the right to empower yourself, you have the right to be as free as anyone else if you choose.' Personally, I would go with the latter every day of the week because the first delegates responsibility to someone who benefits from the current system of oppression so is very unlikely to fight for wholesale reform. Whereas, the latter is not dependant on a Paternalist pretence.
The issue with this man's point is that he believes harm must be avoided at all costs, that harm has no value. Harm is a necessary by-product of a fight and human cultural progress is a constant fight. Rigorous intellectual debate is a fight. To remove the possibility of harm is to remove the possibility of a fight and so, progress cannot occur. Human culture consists of a myriad of good and bad ideas. With freedom of speech comes the belief that human culture progresses faster and and in a more robust fashion when the population is allowed to filter and reform these ideas naturally, in a sense, unconsciously, automatically. Freedom of speech is the application of survival-of-the-fittest for ideas. It is the belief that more communication leads to better communication (and as a by-product better culture) and better judgement over an idea's value, specifically in the long run. Freedom of speech is the acceptance that a decentralised approach to cultural reformation is the most robust. Furthermore, state-protected speech does not quell hate speech, it pushes it underground. Free speech keeps it in the open, where it can be fought. Protected speech bypasses the essential intellectual process by which an idea's value is ascertained. I am not proposing that freedom of speech is the only mechanism by which good ideas can prevail, simply that it has been the mechanism for the vast majority of our progress thus far.
freedom of speech allows people to think aloud, giving us the possibility of finding out what others think about that. it is not coincidence that countries that have had the ideal of freedom of speech have done so well throughout history... that the first 'modern' nation that had it got to rule much of the world for a while or that the one nation that actually still has freedom of speech is the worlds super power. people like the boy in this video like to pretend that is because 'evil white oppressors, brutal violent genocides' but that doesn't explain why countries that have been colonized in the past often do much better than even their neighbours that weren't colonized.
4:22 - 4:32 “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” You are providing no evidence that suggests free speech actually causes harm.
Just to play devil's advocate - he's right that the issue is not always that speech is offensive to people's feelings, it's also that certain ideas out there are used for harm, like discrimination or violence against certain groups. I'd like to see a rebuttal against this point but the TH-cam comments aren't responding to that at all.
3:00 That look you get when you quote your opponent verbatim in an attempt to poison the well, and the audience applauds rather than jeers...priceless.
Brendan's speech = Facts, history, solid arguments (whether you agree or not), villainizes the leadership not individuals Tim's speech = Attack Brendan, constantly villainizes a single person, and is emotionally compromised, does not use facts.
He's very persuasive. Intelligent and I do understand what he means. Well said I say. It truly gives us something to think about. Sadly, there are a lot of assholes here making rude remarks. Looks to me like they're the ones who are silly and "triggered". Oh well. I do stand by the freedom to speak. And if others are offended so be it. Now having said that I think that he and the first guy are on two different pages. Targeting a person with rude speech (see some of the comments below) IS BULLYING. Speech can and is used to incite bullying and violence towards others. And YES, there are people who are weaker, who aren't as clever as others who are harmed by this kind of act that we as a society give permission to. We do hear of kids who kill themselves because of this kind of behavior. I stand by freedom of speech, we should all have it. I do purpose there should be laws in place for situations where this freedom is abused and that that abusers should be held accountable. If of course you can prove there is a PATTERN of abuse, not just a one off. And I must drop this in as well. If you're going to go see a comedian, do your homework. I happen to like Frankie Boyle and I know he's going to say something rude and offensive but he's not inciting anything. Because in the same breath he will indeed cut down offenders of what he just made a joke about.
Thank you for your nuanced and civilized comment. I'm not even really adressing the content of your words, but the simple fact that I just scrolled through a small myriad of comments to finally find one that is neither aggressive nor rude.
So what I got from this: someone criticizing you or disagreeing with you is HARM, and people should be protected from having to be confronted by different opinions... as long as you're from a pre-determined "victim" group.
This guy was involved in the attack on SubscribeStar. I bet he eats the third biscuit. I remember watching this when it came out when GamerGate was in full flow. There might even have been this woman in a purple who made the most ridiculous screeching speech which was later taken down due to the backlash against her. She chatted to Sargon I think and she claimed she was simply given a position to defend even though it wasn't her own but I now believe that was most likely a lie. Anyway... Capitalism ho!
Tim Squirrel's argument here has wounded me emotionally. I find myself highly disturbed by his gender politics, and determinations between the "privileged" and "marginalized" on the basis of sex, ethnicity, and the like. By claiming that men are universally a "privileged" class, compared against women, he diminishes the myriad of problems faced disproportionately by so many men in their daily lives. He is marginalizing their experiences through identity politics, and denying them a platform to make their voices heard. Of course, anyone contesting this is denying my own lived experiences, and therefore oppressing my person. I have no doubt that Tim would object, all things considered. As such, clearly he should not be allowed to speak. After all, by his own admission, his only reason for being involved in this debate is because of his ethnicity and gender. Since he's obviously the expert of his own lived experiences, we can only regard this claim at face value, and conclude that he has absolutely no personal merit. Nay, worse than that: He is actively participating in the subjugation of his fellow scholar. After all, if he is granted a platform to speak, that denies some other more marginalized individual the right to make their voice heard. But then they would also be denying someone the right to speak. So on and so forth. But we can certainly conclude that in censoring him, we give power to those marginalized demographics aforementioned. It doesn't matter if his argument is intended to serve the well-being of some facet of the population, of course. Because, the only relevant factor is that it has caused harm which cannot be contested since offense is subjective and my experiences cannot be denied without being oppressed. Therefore, he must not be allowed to speak his stance. _________ Hopefully folks can see the problem. Anyone can waffle on about how "X deserves a more prominent voice than Y because Z," but ultimately, it's just a tool of oppression, and authoritarianism. Who gets to decide is most deserving of the right to speak, if this right is not universal and in equal measure? Ah, yes, of course the answer is obvious: Those with the most to gain in the squelching of open discourse get to decide who may speak, and what they may say. How convenient.
A thick skin is very important. Having a thick skin doesn't mean one is without feelings or empathy, it means one is able to function in spite of what someone else says or thinks. Without this ability, one cannot live among the lions, as it were, and make oneself heard. They will be devoured alive by the people who have this necessary armor. A thin-skinned person is also not able to think rationally, but only from his strongest emotions, which are not always reliable or accurate. Becoming tougher is a painful and unfortunate part of growing up.
The usual reasoning of SJWs goes like this: offensive speech inevitably leads to violence, violence must be met with violence and legal punishment, therefore offensive speech should be outlawed. I also find it bizarre that Mr Squirell would stand among a crowd of men and women of every skin colour and sexual orientation and say that "people from non-privileged backgrounds: women, people of colour, trans people, homosexuals" are not invited to speak at Oxford Union. Just a cursory look through last year's speakers proves this is a dirty, incredibly stupid (and honestly offensive) lie. This is the epitome of white guilt, he's basically apologising for being a white male.
He switches back and forth between emotional and non emotional speech, suggesting he is totally insincere. I'm not surprised that it's an act but I don't know what it means that its an act.
Why is it important to have a thick skin? a-You are an adult, act like one b-You can be very emotional outside of science and social "sciences" but in the context of politics and sociology you MUST be rational and not emotional c-Because you will find that all the people who made a significant change in the world had to go through a significant amount of insults and.. well "offenses" which is funny, if you are not being offended, it means you are not doing anything at all to change the way the world works, and in that case, then you are useless to this field, demanding that society changes so that it doesn't offend you means you are demanding something similar to the socialist Utopia from Gramsci, in which Hegemony dies because everybody agrees that they all have the same interests, and there are many reasons why that can never happen
Couldn't get past the start, but seeing as the start was essentially "It's okay when it happens to white people because privilege and bad when it happens to non-white people because oppression." , it started out pretty shitty and I didn't expect much better from the rest. Really, I can get the same argument from Tumblr. 2/10
Learning to overlook shallow insults or receiving criticism is a bad thing? This person believes adults should remain children mentally. People grow when challenged that is why college/ universities exist. It is practical for real life. Boo hoo somone i dont know insults me... grow up.
His speech deeply harmed me and caused violent thoughts within myself. I think he should be silenced. Imagine using free speech to argue against people having the right to speak freely. What a dunce...
If he was that upset about being invited to speak at Oxford Union as a privileged white man, he could have declined and said that a black woman was more deserving.
I'm deeply offended at his weakness after hearing the pathetic arguments for censorship. In conclusion he goes down the old road that people have to be protected for their own good. Only the Packaging is new, his phrases about Privilege and Oppression are new, but the thinking behind is so old, Mark Twain answered it already: "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." That ist the just of it,
The patronizing demeanor of this moral busybody sickens me the most. He thinks women and minorities are so weak, feeble and in need of protection from Jokes that he can gallop in and be the Hero for them. Sorry to inform you, those people are also grown ups and don't need your stuckup attempts to guard them from reality and every social interaction. Those moral arbiters of good and bad with no mandate from anybody just disgust me deeply
Gotta give props to this channel that they've kept their like/dislike bar still there and haven't made a panic decision to remove it and prevent public opinion. Points to you
@@uploadJ Checking web archives of the video. November 21, 2020 273 Likes/ 2.5K Dislikes. Out of the people who liked or disliked the video, Assuming that its exactly 2,500 dislikes which it definitely isn't its probably a bit more then that. There would be 2773 people. Meaning: 9.8 percent of people liked the video. 90.2 percent of people disliked the video.
This guy has taken WAAAAAAAAAY too many "gender studies" courses. Individualism is the only thing that matters. Individual rights are the only ones that matter. "Society" DOESN'T exist outside of an amalgamation of.......INDIVIDUALS.
Cyril Squirrel's argument in summary: power exists, power is unevenly distributed, unevenness is unjust therefore a power should exist which picks and chooses who and what may offend. This power will compensate for the unevenness of power. Well, I for one am convinced by such stunning philosophical reasoning.
I'm an ethnic minority and friends with people from all over the race/religious/political/sexuality spectrum. I have strong beliefs of my own- my humanism and free thought is paramount to me and my friends who I disagree with have a robust debate with me about it. After that we're all friends. I cannot however say that I could ever entertain someone who makes such a trite argument AGAINST free speech. Free speech is what binds us, and is the minimum standard required for progress and maybe ultimately cohesion. As a free speech fundamentalist this speech made shocked me, then angered me, then made me sad. I still think it's important for people to watch it though, and that's the whole point.
He first demanded that speech be banned for the degree that it causes offense, and then celebrated the marginalized offending those in power with their speech. Thank god he’s god a British accent to sound smarter than he is.
I encourage and support your engagement in free speech. Without free speech we are not able to recognize the dangers in our communities. Without free speech it would have not been revealed to you that your ideology is fatally flawed and dangerous. Please be humble enough to receive your gifts and start over.
I keep convincing myself that I need to listen to the other side. Dear "other side", please start making an effort. If this is the best you have, then you have no argument.
If you quote Katherine Cross, who eagerly goes after peoples jobs over a disagreement, like that, you lose the debate. "Offence is never given, it is always taken."
"...We should be focusing on material harm, whether that be physical and psychological harm, and there really isn't that much the distinction between the two..." Uhm...Soooo...Women who psychologically undermine and abuse their husbands or partners...Their 'offenses' should be classed in the same category of crime as men who beat the shit out of their wives or girlfriends? Got it.
The first joke wasn't a Joke. The second joke was told wrong. It goes like this: "What do you *tell*" a woman with 2 black eyes?" not "what do you say to a woman. This is why nobody laughed, not because they were offensive jokes, but because the speaker is shit.
"...material harm, whether that be physical or psychological, and there really isn't that much of a distinction" Tim Squirrell, you have spoken like someone who has never suffered either. You've offended me. That's alright, though. You'll get away with it, because I'm one of those who believe it's your right. From the age of 7, through the age of 12, I was physically bullied. I was beaten up several times every week. Some of the instances included: - Being pushed in front of a semi-trailer going at 80 km/h, surviving only by rolling to the side. The wheels passed mere centimeters from my head. - Being beaten unconscious, and pushed into a partially frozen over lake. I woke up with my entire body partially submerged, and some of it fully submerged, seeing that the other kids had had time to walk more than 400 meters while I was lying there. - Being thrown down an old-fashioned well. They're damn hard to get out of, by the way. - Being beaten so badly that all my clothes were soaked through with blood, and I was so dizzy that I had to walk home in the ditch, to avoid stumbling into the road. Through all of it, my "white, male privilege" completely failed to protect me. And now you're lecturing me on that "privilege". It's true that one of the painful things was that this was happening in front of other kids, none of whom stepped in to help me, and many of whom cheered it on. That does hurt. It's humiliating, and it undermines one's faith in people. That's the thing about physical harm: It's always psychological, as well, and the two compound each other. The physical aspect makes you many times more vulnerable to the psychological aspect. Of course, as children do, I grew in size. Eventually, I grew to where even older kids decided it was best not to attack me. Not because I'd beaten anyone in a fight. Through all of this, no one had attacked me that I could possibly have defended myself against. It was always an older kid, or several kids, or, sometimes, several older kids, and all with allies around them. Fighting back was such a poor option, that I could only attempt to fend off the most vicious injury. It was simply that, at some point, they realized that I might win a fight, and they wouldn't risk that. So, instead, the bullying became purely psychological. It was a relief. Finally, I could simply walk away, when things got ugly. Ironically, being such a smug asshole, you are very much reminiscent of the ring leader. Your ignorance of what it is to suffer, your belief that physical and psychological harms are similar, leads me to believe that any experience you have with either, is as the perpetrator. So, what's so great about "thick skin"? Well, it enables me to move on. It enables me to listen to smug assholes like you, talking about things you have no idea of, and respond to them with words and arguments. That's a great thing. You see, eventually, I grew a lot. I became a 190 cm, 110 kilo man. Even so, and in spite of the fact that I have PTSD, an idiot like you can safely "trigger" me. Oh, I will be swept back to that school road. My body and mind will prepare to physically fight or die. However, thanks to my thick skin, I won't form a fist to strike. Instead, I'll either walk away, ignoring the whole thing, or counter the stupidity with arguments. Words really are harmless, mr. Squirrell. They have no more power than the listeners give them. They can't be imposed on anyone. You should hope that you'll never experience, through contrast, just how harmless they are. You are very privileged, and your privileges are of kinds that you would never even think to declare. One of them is the thick skin of people around you. Let me assure you that, as you triggered my PTSD through a medium I must assume reduced your obnoxiousness significantly, you must have triggered many, many others. You've managed to get away with that, without a single one of them teaching you exactly how wrong you are about physical harm, and about true fear of death. In gratitude, the least you can do is not dismiss so easily the incredible value and importance of thick skin.
3:38: It's *almost* as if the people here are in academia and prepared to debate on a floor. 3:55-4:00: The ability to withstand slings and arrows that would assault our most delicate sensibilities is an essential quality of securing our intellectual liberty. Emotional fortitude is what affords us the space and time to think critically as well as separate ourselves from ideas. If we are at the whim of every emotional appeal that bumps in to us, we do not get the chance to pause and reflect thoughtfully on matters. We are simply tossed from one emotion to the next like a rudderless ship on stormy waters, always at the mercy of the torrent of feelings that whorls inside. We know however, that emotional responses are the first reactions of humans (as opposed to calculated and thoughtful reactions) in most situations, so if we do not develop the wherewithal to sail through that turbulence, to clear thinking and consideration, then we doom ourselves to be constantly bouncing from one emotional response the next. If we do not have a thick enough skin to set our emotions aside, we cannot entertain reason. We must be able to remain unaffected by our feelings in order to encounter an idea, to think about it, yet not necessarily adopt it. Without that shield between rational thought and emotional reaction, we would be unable to separate ourselves from our ideas. We would not be able to hear an idea without also falling under its dominion. We would be controlled utterly by our love or hatred of a thing. We would not be able to extract fundamental principles from situational challenges, which is what leads people down the rabbit hole of cognitive dissonance. It is what allows people simultaneously think things such as denying inter-racial marriage is bigoted, but denying gay marriage is not; or that assert that the confederate flag causes hate and murder if a crime is perpetrated by a supremacist, but not also assert that the gay flag causes hate and murder if a crime is perpetrated by a homosexual. Without the ability to detach ourselves from the way things make us feel, we arrive at egregiously inconsistent conclusions. We are blocked from scrutinizing the core elements and principles of a situation in the world around us. Emotional fortitude is exactly what prevents us from running afoul of the idea (to paraphrase Shami Chakrabarti) that our own freedoom of speech is fine, it’s other people’s speech that is problematic.
It's seems a lot of commenters aren't aware that in a formal debate, such as this, one doesn't choose one's position. It's assigned... randomly. It's pretty clear that this speaker is arguing the side less popular among those in attendance. He may not personally agree with what he said, but he did a fine job of it.
TonboIV Fine job is arguing first Orewellian level.speevh control get the fuck out of here, he's just barely regressive, subhuman piece of filth who should have been purged from the gene pool long ago.
"We do not have some protected right to give harm to people, and the word 'offence' does not begin to cover the damage which our words can cause." Four years on... "In other news, a mother was arrested in front of her children and detained for seven hours for calling a trans woman a man on the internet." Here's the future you ordered, Mr. Orwell. Is it to your liking?
As someone who identifies as left-wing, I HATE that the loudest people that are trying to censor speech and missing the point are left-wingers that are usually right about most other things, and those that are standing up for the correct position of freedom of speech are right-wingers that are usually wrong about most other things.
Omfg people this is British Parliament style debating. Debaters get told their position (either opposition or government) and they have to run with it. It doesn't matter what they actually believe, they have to say their speech ,nonsense it may be, and say it confidently. The fact that you all believe that he holds this view personally just means he's a fantastic debater. Nothing more, nothing less.
The point made by O'Neil about "how progressive is it to say that black students need these wise white student leaders to protect them" is a point about how the banning of things that may cause offence to some are more offensive and regressive than not censoring anything in the first place. Squirrell misses the point, it's not a statement about the student leader body but about how hypocritical and moronic it is to pretend it is anything but regressive and possibly more prejudice than the censored material in the first place.
Some people in society ARE weak. And according to this speaker, they should stay that way. No attempts should be made to become stronger, more resilient, grow thicker skin. Sounds like a mindset that would benefit the oppressor, and not the oppressed.
I identify as a gay activist and an anarchist. All my life I have participated in numerous actions against state and corporate oppression and in defence of minorities being attacked. I DO NOT NEED a sensitive little liberal, #woke, well-fed pseudo-activist to protect me from "offensive" people. I can use my arguments against opinions I disagree with and I will resort to direct action against anyone that promotes violence and repression against me and the people I identify with. I DO NOT NEED a fucking safe space. For God's sake isn't being part of a super-elitist ultra prestigious university safe enough for these people? I understand now why the right is calling this new-age "left" a bunch of snowflakes. I d rather identify with Jordan Peterson than with any of these pseudo-leftist heirs. This is not he left of Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg, Anton Pannekoek, or Huey P. Newton or Ernest Hemingway and Steinbeck, Trumbo and Ursula LeGuin.
"Only by recognizing oppression and harm happen in a structural level . . . can we begin to understand why offense is the wrong way to frame this debate."
It baffles the mind that a person can hold such fascist views and yet so firmly believe they are doing good and protecting "the weak". How happy I am that they failed to oppose the proposition.
This is exactly the type of pearl-clutching, faux moral outrage peddling neo-jacobin, that should never be allowed into a position of power over other people’s lives. But not to worry: with a name like «Tim 🐿 PhD» and his handsome appearance he’ll probably make a fortune in the gay porn industry.
What's so important about being able to take insult after insult? That's life! It's a lot easier if you develop emotional fortitude from an early age. I was bullied in school, and while it wasn't easy, I did my best to pretend I wasn't that bothered. That made the bullying worse. But honestly, I was glad he was focused on me instead of bullying the other kids in our class, who I knew could not handle it as well. He had been, earlier in the school year, but I purposely put myself in between them as an emotional shield, because I could see how deeply it was impacting them. Yes, some people are weak and vulnerable, but it still isn't the job of a governmental body to protect them. It's up to individuals to step in, and also down to the weak themselves to make an effort to become stronger. I have done so. I've been through a lot (other than the bullying), and I sought counselling to help me fix myself. Right now *Tim and his cohort are the bullies.* I will do my very best to protect society (verbally) from their busybody intention to interfere with everyone's daily lives with thought-police. (note: As a person living a life of chastity, I could take offense to Tim's use of the sexualized term "fetishize" in the context of emotional fortitude, but I won't- because I have emotional fortitude ;P Also, I would never want his freedom to speak how he chooses to be taken from him, no matter how he offends me.)
"why is having thick skin so important to you!?"
Because if you don't have thick skin you turn out to be like you pal, and who wants that shit? God forbid someone says something you disagree with. The horror!!!
+Seph F Don't know how many man cards he should lose for saying that
+Seph F Because you bleed to easy if you don't.
Safe spaces do nothing but shield yourself from the real world, and turn the (apparently already) weak individuals, even weaker.
@Ebiru2387
The safe space is the intellectual equivalent of an impassable river or mountain; and speech is the virus that has just found a way in.
Bingo. It's like asking why is it important to have a strong immune system.
He's absolutely triggered
+Eoghan Murt It's from tumblr, referring to when someone feels so horribly offended or hurt by an idea's presence that they feel wronged.
If that sounds strange to you, you are not the only one.
+Eoghan Murt Originally it was the term used to describe flashback events in soldiers suffering from PTSD.
Now it means self indulgent perpetual victims didn't like your opinion.
+Pozitivity Your profile picture gives me hope that the future will be alright.
+Eoghan Murt like the poster said above. Soldiers coming back from war suffering from PTSD have triggers that can induce flashbacks.
A slamming door, a smell that reminds them of dead flesh, crowds of people.
A PTSD's brain goes into combat mode. They can have bad reactions.
SJSs say they get triggered and have the same type of reaction. It's utter nonsense.
self indulgent perpetual victimes? to be frank are you talking about black people?
"My ideas are better than yours. So I should have the right to shut you up!" That's basically what I got from this guy.
I disagree that Tim did a relatively good job. The fact is, people in today's modern society have thin skin and take great offence to words. Just look at incels shooting up schools in America, for instance, and the fact that good ideas beating the bad simply doesn't exist. Just look at the rise of Andrew Tate and his misogynistic rhetoric. Everyone deserves freedom of speech, but people shouldn't have a protected right to spill their such vile and toxic views, such as racial hatred, fascism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia
This is the cringiest shit I've seen in months...
+wibblegorm See the next speaker from the Opposition. Her statements are even worse.
+wibblegorm Yeah dude was a whiny bitch.
*****
The true tragedy in my eyes is that this is Oxford. They are supposed to be the intellectual elite. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
*****
Slightly off topic but, is any part of that abortion debate available on the internet. Or was it shut down before it got started? It would be very interesting to hear people speak on that topic.
***** No need to apologize. I'm happy to speak about any topic with intelligent individuals. Especially charismatic girls such as yourself who are critical of feminism. (Was that sexist? I don't even know anymore.)
Truly a pity about the debate. It would have been a truly interesting topic. I don't want to stray from the topic of this being "...the cringiest shit I've seen in months..." but if you would like to debate/discuss topics such as abortion or anything at all controversial, please feel free to contact me.
Seriously, this gets into Oxford?
Squirrell is an accurate last name.
+Jebus F Kennedy Ironic that he says "deeds which flow from words..." spiel to justify the blatant harassment that is intrinsic to no-platforming.
That's offensive to squirrels, so by default he should be silenced
This guy lacks evidence. The first speaker had citations, this guy doesn't. It's hard to take an argument seriously when there's nothing to back it up.
+Linkage Ayexe My favourite part of this was when he was citing Katherine Cross. That's Anita's agent.
ifgmbtf hahahaha
thats pretty much the only consistent thing about the opposition, they dont have citations
I'm feeling really marginalised right now. Can we have this video removed?
"I wasted my money on a gender studies degree....wah. Patriarchy, racism, bigotry, cisgender, systemic, nuance, political correctness, heteronormative, gender pronouns, [insert term]-phobic....these are some terms I learned. Rather than fight an actual system or body of discriminatory power I like to go around and virtue signal by shaming people (unjustifiably) for things they aren't doing."
I am offended by foul mouthed pompous, egos spouting nonsense . This child needs taken down a notch. Who raised this prissy,bossy, man child?
"Sticks and stones by break my bones but names will never hurt me"
Sage old wisdom from a forgotten time.
The reason why its important is that breaking a bone hurts no matter what. But you can choose to, or choose not to be hurt by names. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
Who decides it is offensive? If It is the offended, then the offender need to be shut down. It is called censorship.
offense is taken, not given.
First he attacks the speaker before him, not his ideas. (questions his morality more then really arguing against his points) Then he likens his moral compass to the law. And all this to finally compare offensive speech to open acts of racism or violence that are already covered by the law. Not only useless, but absolutely dangerous.
I think there is a difference between a white male telling a minority group that 'You are disadvantaged, you are marginalised but don't worry because we White males will help you to become equal with us.'
and saying to that group
'You have the right to speak you mind, you have the right to empower yourself, you have the right to be as free as anyone else if you choose.'
Personally, I would go with the latter every day of the week because the first delegates responsibility to someone who benefits from the current system of oppression so is very unlikely to fight for wholesale reform. Whereas, the latter is not dependant on a Paternalist pretence.
Performative anger doesn't make a point land better!
This is one squirrell that has lost his nuts.
You lost me at privilege.
The issue with this man's point is that he believes harm must be avoided at all costs, that harm has no value.
Harm is a necessary by-product of a fight and human cultural progress is a constant fight. Rigorous intellectual debate is a fight. To remove the possibility of harm is to remove the possibility of a fight and so, progress cannot occur.
Human culture consists of a myriad of good and bad ideas. With freedom of speech comes the belief that human culture progresses faster and and in a more robust fashion when the population is allowed to filter and reform these ideas naturally, in a sense, unconsciously, automatically.
Freedom of speech is the application of survival-of-the-fittest for ideas. It is the belief that more communication leads to better communication (and as a by-product better culture) and better judgement over an idea's value, specifically in the long run.
Freedom of speech is the acceptance that a decentralised approach to cultural reformation is the most robust.
Furthermore, state-protected speech does not quell hate speech, it pushes it underground. Free speech keeps it in the open, where it can be fought. Protected speech bypasses the essential intellectual process by which an idea's value is ascertained.
I am not proposing that freedom of speech is the only mechanism by which good ideas can prevail, simply that it has been the mechanism for the vast majority of our progress thus far.
freedom of speech allows people to think aloud, giving us the possibility of finding out what others think about that.
it is not coincidence that countries that have had the ideal of freedom of speech have done so well throughout history... that the first 'modern' nation that had it got to rule much of the world for a while or that the one nation that actually still has freedom of speech is the worlds super power.
people like the boy in this video like to pretend that is because 'evil white oppressors, brutal violent genocides' but that doesn't explain why countries that have been colonized in the past often do much better than even their neighbours that weren't colonized.
4:22 - 4:32 “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” You are providing no evidence that suggests free speech actually causes harm.
Just to play devil's advocate - he's right that the issue is not always that speech is offensive to people's feelings, it's also that certain ideas out there are used for harm, like discrimination or violence against certain groups. I'd like to see a rebuttal against this point but the TH-cam comments aren't responding to that at all.
3:00 That look you get when you quote your opponent verbatim in an attempt to poison the well, and the audience applauds rather than jeers...priceless.
Brendan's speech = Facts, history, solid arguments (whether you agree or not), villainizes the leadership not individuals
Tim's speech = Attack Brendan, constantly villainizes a single person, and is emotionally compromised, does not use facts.
Easy on the zed's
He's very persuasive. Intelligent and I do understand what he means. Well said I say. It truly gives us something to think about. Sadly, there are a lot of assholes here making rude remarks. Looks to me like they're the ones who are silly and "triggered". Oh well. I do stand by the freedom to speak. And if others are offended so be it. Now having said that I think that he and the first guy are on two different pages. Targeting a person with rude speech (see some of the comments below) IS BULLYING. Speech can and is used to incite bullying and violence towards others. And YES, there are people who are weaker, who aren't as clever as others who are harmed by this kind of act that we as a society give permission to. We do hear of kids who kill themselves because of this kind of behavior. I stand by freedom of speech, we should all have it. I do purpose there should be laws in place for situations where this freedom is abused and that that abusers should be held accountable. If of course you can prove there is a PATTERN of abuse, not just a one off. And I must drop this in as well. If you're going to go see a comedian, do your homework. I happen to like Frankie Boyle and I know he's going to say something rude and offensive but he's not inciting anything. Because in the same breath he will indeed cut down offenders of what he just made a joke about.
Thank you for your nuanced and civilized comment.
I'm not even really adressing the content of your words, but the simple fact that I just scrolled through a small myriad of comments to finally find one that is neither aggressive nor rude.
@@noah8236 This guy just gave a speech advocating for censorship. Why the hell do we need to be nuanced about it?
The clapping at 3:00 is hilarious.
So what I got from this: someone criticizing you or disagreeing with you is HARM, and people should be protected from having to be confronted by different opinions... as long as you're from a pre-determined "victim" group.
> Cites Katherine Cross
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
*Breathes*
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Feminist Logic is as follows.
-
I'm offended!
SO NOW I DISALLOW YOU TO HOLD AN OPINION AND A VOICE!
I can almost literally see the self loathing coming out of his mouth as he speaks.
There goes a future Labour Party leader....or a future Director General of the BBC.
This guy was involved in the attack on SubscribeStar. I bet he eats the third biscuit.
I remember watching this when it came out when GamerGate was in full flow. There might even have been this woman in a purple who made the most ridiculous screeching speech which was later taken down due to the backlash against her. She chatted to Sargon I think and she claimed she was simply given a position to defend even though it wasn't her own but I now believe that was most likely a lie. Anyway... Capitalism ho!
How low has the bar gotten at Oxford?
Tim Squirrel's argument here has wounded me emotionally. I find myself highly disturbed by his gender politics, and determinations between the "privileged" and "marginalized" on the basis of sex, ethnicity, and the like. By claiming that men are universally a "privileged" class, compared against women, he diminishes the myriad of problems faced disproportionately by so many men in their daily lives. He is marginalizing their experiences through identity politics, and denying them a platform to make their voices heard. Of course, anyone contesting this is denying my own lived experiences, and therefore oppressing my person. I have no doubt that Tim would object, all things considered.
As such, clearly he should not be allowed to speak. After all, by his own admission, his only reason for being involved in this debate is because of his ethnicity and gender. Since he's obviously the expert of his own lived experiences, we can only regard this claim at face value, and conclude that he has absolutely no personal merit. Nay, worse than that: He is actively participating in the subjugation of his fellow scholar. After all, if he is granted a platform to speak, that denies some other more marginalized individual the right to make their voice heard. But then they would also be denying someone the right to speak. So on and so forth.
But we can certainly conclude that in censoring him, we give power to those marginalized demographics aforementioned. It doesn't matter if his argument is intended to serve the well-being of some facet of the population, of course. Because, the only relevant factor is that it has caused harm which cannot be contested since offense is subjective and my experiences cannot be denied without being oppressed. Therefore, he must not be allowed to speak his stance.
_________
Hopefully folks can see the problem. Anyone can waffle on about how "X deserves a more prominent voice than Y because Z," but ultimately, it's just a tool of oppression, and authoritarianism. Who gets to decide is most deserving of the right to speak, if this right is not universal and in equal measure? Ah, yes, of course the answer is obvious: Those with the most to gain in the squelching of open discourse get to decide who may speak, and what they may say. How convenient.
This lad offended me, I suppose he has never been to Appalachia and seen the status of white privilege .
And let us appoint sir Tim Squirrell as the person who gets to decide what acceptable speech is.
Hahaha! He read out his oppositions quote and it got a round of applause! How so fucking beautiful!
What an angry young man.
His voice does my head in.
A thick skin is very important. Having a thick skin doesn't mean one is without feelings or empathy, it means one is able to function in spite of what someone else says or thinks. Without this ability, one cannot live among the lions, as it were, and make oneself heard. They will be devoured alive by the people who have this necessary armor. A thin-skinned person is also not able to think rationally, but only from his strongest emotions, which are not always reliable or accurate. Becoming tougher is a painful and unfortunate part of growing up.
The usual reasoning of SJWs goes like this: offensive speech inevitably leads to violence, violence must be met with violence and legal punishment, therefore offensive speech should be outlawed.
I also find it bizarre that Mr Squirell would stand among a crowd of men and women of every skin colour and sexual orientation and say that "people from non-privileged backgrounds: women, people of colour, trans people, homosexuals" are not invited to speak at Oxford Union. Just a cursory look through last year's speakers proves this is a dirty, incredibly stupid (and honestly offensive) lie. This is the epitome of white guilt, he's basically apologising for being a white male.
He switches back and forth between emotional and non emotional speech, suggesting he is totally insincere. I'm not surprised that it's an act but I don't know what it means that its an act.
Why is it important to have a thick skin?
a-You are an adult, act like one
b-You can be very emotional outside of science and social "sciences" but in the context of politics and sociology you MUST be rational and not emotional
c-Because you will find that all the people who made a significant change in the world had to go through a significant amount of insults and.. well "offenses" which is funny, if you are not being offended, it means you are not doing anything at all to change the way the world works, and in that case, then you are useless to this field, demanding that society changes so that it doesn't offend you means you are demanding something similar to the socialist Utopia from Gramsci, in which Hegemony dies because everybody agrees that they all have the same interests, and there are many reasons why that can never happen
So Oxford actually host actual fascists.
The moment he said "priviledge" I went "OH BOY HERE WE GO"
Couldn't get past the start, but seeing as the start was essentially "It's okay when it happens to white people because privilege and bad when it happens to non-white people because oppression." , it started out pretty shitty and I didn't expect much better from the rest.
Really, I can get the same argument from Tumblr. 2/10
Anyone's right to free speech does NOT end at you, or anyone else, being offended.
Learning to overlook shallow insults or receiving criticism is a bad thing? This person believes adults should remain children mentally. People grow when challenged that is why college/ universities exist. It is practical for real life. Boo hoo somone i dont know insults me... grow up.
Let's be honest, we all clicked on because his surname looked like squirrel.
'why would you think having thick skin is good?'
Holy shit.
His speech deeply harmed me and caused violent thoughts within myself. I think he should be silenced.
Imagine using free speech to argue against people having the right to speak freely. What a dunce...
If he was that upset about being invited to speak at Oxford Union as a privileged white man, he could have declined and said that a black woman was more deserving.
Oh, perfect!
I'm deeply offended at his weakness after hearing the pathetic arguments for censorship. In conclusion he goes down the old road that people have to be protected for their own good. Only the Packaging is new, his phrases about Privilege and Oppression are new, but the thinking behind is so old, Mark Twain answered it already: "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." That ist the just of it,
The patronizing demeanor of this moral busybody sickens me the most. He thinks women and minorities are so weak, feeble and in need of protection from Jokes that he can gallop in and be the Hero for them. Sorry to inform you, those people are also grown ups and don't need your stuckup attempts to guard them from reality and every social interaction. Those moral arbiters of good and bad with no mandate from anybody just disgust me deeply
Gotta give props to this channel that they've kept their like/dislike bar still there and haven't made a panic decision to remove it and prevent public opinion. Points to you
Well, YT took it all away ...
@@uploadJ
Checking web archives of the video.
November 21, 2020
273 Likes/ 2.5K Dislikes.
Out of the people who liked or disliked the video, Assuming that its exactly 2,500 dislikes which it definitely isn't its probably a bit more then that. There would be 2773 people.
Meaning:
9.8 percent of people liked the video.
90.2 percent of people disliked the video.
Seeing as this is a debate, I hold hope that he does not truly believe such nonsense. A difficult position to take anyway.
Yes, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt here- this is essentially debate club, and he was given the short straw. I'm hoping.
This guy has taken WAAAAAAAAAY too many "gender studies" courses. Individualism is the only thing that matters. Individual rights are the only ones that matter. "Society" DOESN'T exist outside of an amalgamation of.......INDIVIDUALS.
Cyril Squirrel's argument in summary: power exists, power is unevenly distributed, unevenness is unjust therefore a power should exist which picks and chooses who and what may offend. This power will compensate for the unevenness of power.
Well, I for one am convinced by such stunning philosophical reasoning.
I'm an ethnic minority and friends with people from all over the race/religious/political/sexuality spectrum. I have strong beliefs of my own- my humanism and free thought is paramount to me and my friends who I disagree with have a robust debate with me about it. After that we're all friends. I cannot however say that I could ever entertain someone who makes such a trite argument AGAINST free speech.
Free speech is what binds us, and is the minimum standard required for progress and maybe ultimately cohesion. As a free speech fundamentalist this speech made shocked me, then angered me, then made me sad.
I still think it's important for people to watch it though, and that's the whole point.
This guy may self-identify as a good person, but I wouldn't trust him around children.
Mr Squirrell, seriously, timing - you don't have it. Please, never do that again.
He first demanded that speech be banned for the degree that it causes offense, and then celebrated the marginalized offending those in power with their speech. Thank god he’s god a British accent to sound smarter than he is.
What he proposed was a horrific Orwellian nightmare.
I encourage and support your engagement in free speech. Without free speech we are not able to recognize the dangers in our communities. Without free speech it would have not been revealed to you that your ideology is fatally flawed and dangerous. Please be humble enough to receive your gifts and start over.
Is this the state academia is in now a days?
I keep convincing myself that I need to listen to the other side. Dear "other side", please start making an effort. If this is the best you have, then you have no argument.
We all are born weak, some of us get stronger others get offended.
If you quote Katherine Cross, who eagerly goes after peoples jobs over a disagreement, like that, you lose the debate.
"Offence is never given, it is always taken."
"...We should be focusing on material harm, whether that be physical and psychological harm, and there really isn't that much the distinction between the two..." Uhm...Soooo...Women who psychologically undermine and abuse their husbands or partners...Their 'offenses' should be classed in the same category of crime as men who beat the shit out of their wives or girlfriends? Got it.
This offended me to my very core. Guards, seize him.
The first joke wasn't a Joke.
The second joke was told wrong. It goes like this: "What do you *tell*" a woman with 2 black eyes?" not "what do you say to a woman.
This is why nobody laughed, not because they were offensive jokes, but because the speaker is shit.
Hearing Tim Squirrel is like looking directly at the sun with your ears.
"...material harm, whether that be physical or psychological, and there really isn't that much of a distinction"
Tim Squirrell, you have spoken like someone who has never suffered either. You've offended me. That's alright, though. You'll get away with it, because I'm one of those who believe it's your right.
From the age of 7, through the age of 12, I was physically bullied. I was beaten up several times every week. Some of the instances included:
- Being pushed in front of a semi-trailer going at 80 km/h, surviving only by rolling to the side. The wheels passed mere centimeters from my head.
- Being beaten unconscious, and pushed into a partially frozen over lake. I woke up with my entire body partially submerged, and some of it fully submerged, seeing that the other kids had had time to walk more than 400 meters while I was lying there.
- Being thrown down an old-fashioned well. They're damn hard to get out of, by the way.
- Being beaten so badly that all my clothes were soaked through with blood, and I was so dizzy that I had to walk home in the ditch, to avoid stumbling into the road.
Through all of it, my "white, male privilege" completely failed to protect me. And now you're lecturing me on that "privilege".
It's true that one of the painful things was that this was happening in front of other kids, none of whom stepped in to help me, and many of whom cheered it on. That does hurt. It's humiliating, and it undermines one's faith in people. That's the thing about physical harm: It's always psychological, as well, and the two compound each other. The physical aspect makes you many times more vulnerable to the psychological aspect.
Of course, as children do, I grew in size. Eventually, I grew to where even older kids decided it was best not to attack me. Not because I'd beaten anyone in a fight. Through all of this, no one had attacked me that I could possibly have defended myself against. It was always an older kid, or several kids, or, sometimes, several older kids, and all with allies around them. Fighting back was such a poor option, that I could only attempt to fend off the most vicious injury. It was simply that, at some point, they realized that I might win a fight, and they wouldn't risk that.
So, instead, the bullying became purely psychological. It was a relief. Finally, I could simply walk away, when things got ugly.
Ironically, being such a smug asshole, you are very much reminiscent of the ring leader. Your ignorance of what it is to suffer, your belief that physical and psychological harms are similar, leads me to believe that any experience you have with either, is as the perpetrator.
So, what's so great about "thick skin"? Well, it enables me to move on. It enables me to listen to smug assholes like you, talking about things you have no idea of, and respond to them with words and arguments. That's a great thing. You see, eventually, I grew a lot. I became a 190 cm, 110 kilo man. Even so, and in spite of the fact that I have PTSD, an idiot like you can safely "trigger" me. Oh, I will be swept back to that school road. My body and mind will prepare to physically fight or die. However, thanks to my thick skin, I won't form a fist to strike. Instead, I'll either walk away, ignoring the whole thing, or counter the stupidity with arguments.
Words really are harmless, mr. Squirrell. They have no more power than the listeners give them. They can't be imposed on anyone. You should hope that you'll never experience, through contrast, just how harmless they are. You are very privileged, and your privileges are of kinds that you would never even think to declare. One of them is the thick skin of people around you. Let me assure you that, as you triggered my PTSD through a medium I must assume reduced your obnoxiousness significantly, you must have triggered many, many others. You've managed to get away with that, without a single one of them teaching you exactly how wrong you are about physical harm, and about true fear of death. In gratitude, the least you can do is not dismiss so easily the incredible value and importance of thick skin.
Brilliantly put, I wish I could like this more than once, never have I heard the characteristics of the social justice crowd so succinctly described.
Ugh, this is just a little boy who hasn't fully grown up yet.
If I should be prevented from hearing anything it is this.
Some poor unfortunate people will have to deal with him in their lives at some point, thankfully I won't have that displeasure.
3:38: It's *almost* as if the people here are in academia and prepared to debate on a floor.
3:55-4:00: The ability to withstand slings and arrows that would assault our most delicate sensibilities is an essential quality of securing our intellectual liberty. Emotional fortitude is what affords us the space and time to think critically as well as separate ourselves from ideas.
If we are at the whim of every emotional appeal that bumps in to us, we do not get the chance to pause and reflect thoughtfully on matters. We are simply tossed from one emotion to the next like a rudderless ship on stormy waters, always at the mercy of the torrent of feelings that whorls inside.
We know however, that emotional responses are the first reactions of humans (as opposed to calculated and thoughtful reactions) in most situations, so if we do not develop the wherewithal to sail through that turbulence, to clear thinking and consideration, then we doom ourselves to be constantly bouncing from one emotional response the next.
If we do not have a thick enough skin to set our emotions aside, we cannot entertain reason. We must be able to remain unaffected by our feelings in order to encounter an idea, to think about it, yet not necessarily adopt it.
Without that shield between rational thought and emotional reaction, we would be unable to separate ourselves from our ideas. We would not be able to hear an idea without also falling under its dominion. We would be controlled utterly by our love or hatred of a thing.
We would not be able to extract fundamental principles from situational challenges, which is what leads people down the rabbit hole of cognitive dissonance. It is what allows people simultaneously think things such as denying inter-racial marriage is bigoted, but denying gay marriage is not; or that assert that the confederate flag causes hate and murder if a crime is perpetrated by a supremacist, but not also assert that the gay flag causes hate and murder if a crime is perpetrated by a homosexual.
Without the ability to detach ourselves from the way things make us feel, we arrive at egregiously inconsistent conclusions. We are blocked from scrutinizing the core elements and principles of a situation in the world around us.
Emotional fortitude is exactly what prevents us from running afoul of the idea (to paraphrase Shami Chakrabarti) that our own freedoom of speech is fine, it’s other people’s speech that is problematic.
When he asked 'why such people are not invited here' I liked to ask him: WHY DON'T YOU INVITE THEM?
@Squirrell - You should be banned from public speech for life, for offending all the people who value free speech - you are offensive.
It's literally not possible to not offend somebody when you say something but okay
It's seems a lot of commenters aren't aware that in a formal debate, such as this, one doesn't choose one's position. It's assigned... randomly. It's pretty clear that this speaker is arguing the side less popular among those in attendance. He may not personally agree with what he said, but he did a fine job of it.
TonboIV Fine job is arguing first Orewellian level.speevh control get the fuck out of here, he's just barely regressive, subhuman piece of filth who should have been purged from the gene pool long ago.
I can't wait for a world when no one can joke no more!
"We do not have some protected right to give harm to people, and the word 'offence' does not begin to cover the damage which our words can cause."
Four years on...
"In other news, a mother was arrested in front of her children and detained for seven hours for calling a trans woman a man on the internet."
Here's the future you ordered, Mr. Orwell. Is it to your liking?
This guy here brought about the beginning of the end of patreon
As someone who identifies as left-wing, I HATE that the loudest people that are trying to censor speech and missing the point are left-wingers that are usually right about most other things, and those that are standing up for the correct position of freedom of speech are right-wingers that are usually wrong about most other things.
Shut up communist
@@mariussielcken I actually am, yeah 😅
The fucking face he made after the black eyes joke.. I lost it.. I can't focus on what he's saying now.. That was funny shit.
"You're being patronized beyond belief"
Straight from the horses mouth
2:58 Yeah that backfired somewhat didn't it?
He needed to cite something to counter it lol, its just most people disagreed with squirrel which was inevitable.
Omfg people this is British Parliament style debating. Debaters get told their position (either opposition or government) and they have to run with it. It doesn't matter what they actually believe, they have to say their speech ,nonsense it may be, and say it confidently. The fact that you all believe that he holds this view personally just means he's a fantastic debater. Nothing more, nothing less.
The point made by O'Neil about "how progressive is it to say that black students need these wise white student leaders to protect them" is a point about how the banning of things that may cause offence to some are more offensive and regressive than not censoring anything in the first place. Squirrell misses the point, it's not a statement about the student leader body but about how hypocritical and moronic it is to pretend it is anything but regressive and possibly more prejudice than the censored material in the first place.
Some people in society ARE weak. And according to this speaker, they should stay that way. No attempts should be made to become stronger, more resilient, grow thicker skin. Sounds like a mindset that would benefit the oppressor, and not the oppressed.
I identify as a gay activist and an anarchist. All my life I have participated in numerous actions against state and corporate oppression and in defence of minorities being attacked. I DO NOT NEED a sensitive little liberal, #woke, well-fed pseudo-activist to protect me from "offensive" people. I can use my arguments against opinions I disagree with and I will resort to direct action against anyone that promotes violence and repression against me and the people I identify with.
I DO NOT NEED a fucking safe space. For God's sake isn't being part of a super-elitist ultra prestigious university safe enough for these people?
I understand now why the right is calling this new-age "left" a bunch of snowflakes. I d rather identify with Jordan Peterson than with any of these pseudo-leftist heirs.
This is not he left of Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg, Anton Pannekoek, or Huey P. Newton or Ernest Hemingway and Steinbeck, Trumbo and Ursula LeGuin.
Oh wow, 2mins in and this guy already admits to wanting a double standard.
Did he really just cite Catherine Cross? Why not just call everyone Nazis and be done with it? That's the level of his argument.
"Only by recognizing oppression and harm happen in a structural level . . . can we begin to understand why offense is the wrong way to frame this debate."
How is it possible for a name to so accurately describe a person.
It baffles the mind that a person can hold such fascist views and yet so firmly believe they are doing good and protecting "the weak". How happy I am that they failed to oppose the proposition.
that super posh RP accent is not helping
This is exactly the type of pearl-clutching, faux moral outrage peddling neo-jacobin, that should never be allowed into a position of power over other people’s lives. But not to worry: with a name like «Tim 🐿 PhD» and his handsome appearance he’ll probably make a fortune in the gay porn industry.
>katherin cross
>KATHERIN CROSS
KEK
Something I lost in my teenage years but have since regained in my late twenties is the confidence to say, when necessary, "Fuck off!"
*Tell me you got bullied at school without telling me that you got bullied at school...*
What's so important about being able to take insult after insult? That's life! It's a lot easier if you develop emotional fortitude from an early age. I was bullied in school, and while it wasn't easy, I did my best to pretend I wasn't that bothered. That made the bullying worse. But honestly, I was glad he was focused on me instead of bullying the other kids in our class, who I knew could not handle it as well. He had been, earlier in the school year, but I purposely put myself in between them as an emotional shield, because I could see how deeply it was impacting them. Yes, some people are weak and vulnerable, but it still isn't the job of a governmental body to protect them. It's up to individuals to step in, and also down to the weak themselves to make an effort to become stronger. I have done so. I've been through a lot (other than the bullying), and I sought counselling to help me fix myself. Right now *Tim and his cohort are the bullies.* I will do my very best to protect society (verbally) from their busybody intention to interfere with everyone's daily lives with thought-police. (note: As a person living a life of chastity, I could take offense to Tim's use of the sexualized term "fetishize" in the context of emotional fortitude, but I won't- because I have emotional fortitude ;P Also, I would never want his freedom to speak how he chooses to be taken from him, no matter how he offends me.)
Do you not understand what is a debate?
He’s just spouting irrational stuff like (paraphrasing) “this offends me and a few of my friends so lets make laws to stop people saying that”