The regressive left

[jillery]

<https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/21/latest-news-about-college-shenanigans-by-the-regressive-left-censorship-at-pomona-and-ucla-wellesley-student-paper-writes-we-need-free-speech-but-article/>

<http://tinyurl.com/mpzzqpp>


Jerry Coyne has posted a number of articles about his favorite
bugbear, of people who self-identify as "progressives" and "liberals",
but actively advocate censorship of people whose opinions annoy them.
The above is only his most recent example. IMO the recent call to
collectively stop replying to AB is T.O's contribution to that
phenomenon.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Sean Dillon]

I won't comment on the details of the Coyne essay, because they aren't relevant.

NO ONE is preventing AB from speaking, nor calling for "action to be taken" against AB, or anyone else for supporting or responding to him. Indeed, the entire concept is to encourage folks NOT to take action... not to PUNISH his behavior, but to stop REWARDING it.

The "on-campus" equivalent of what is happening here would be a group handing out pamphlets encouraging people not to attend a speech. That's not censorship, it is counter-advocacy.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I think you've lost the plot. First off nobody is being threatened if AB is
allowed to post here. As Coyne opined: "Finally, the Wellesley editorial
implicitly threatens harassment or violence against students who don’t get
properly “educated” about “hate speech” (shades of the Cultural
Revolution!)"

And few of us are melding postmodernism with regressive leftism. Coyne:
"...suffice it to say that this is what happens when postmodernism meets
Regressive Leftism, promoting prose laden with jargon and buzzwords, as
well as invidious denial of a concept of truth." Who here is doing that?

That you are conflating people here on usenet asking that AB be kindly
ignored with students losing their shit over the appearance of a
controversial author on a school campus takes disanalogy to new heights.

For one thing has anyone penned an angry letter to DIG saying how our sense
of justice is violated because a silly troll posts reams of tripe here?
Have we accused AB of hate speech?

Will you be calling us special snowflakes or social justice warriors now?

[*Hemidactylus*]

As recent events at Fox News have demonstrated private collective action is
a powerful thing. Was it censorship for sponsors to pull ads from the
O'Reilly Factor? AB's silly nonsense is nowhere near as egregious as the
alleged reasons for sponsors jumping ship on Fox, but it was a private
action and not governmental action directed at content. And his books are
still selling. Me not buying or reading _Old School_ is not censorship.
Neither is my not responding to AB posts.

If five or so of us were talking at a cafe and mutually agreed not to
read_Old School_, would that be censorship?

Maybe we censors should be gathered and forced to consume AB's tripe as a
means of "re-education".

I find it amazing how the term "regressive left" has mutated from Maajid
Nawaz's original usage for liberals tolerant of Islamist ideologies. It has
morphed considerably. Now it has joined "snowflake" as a broad spectrum
pejorative sweeping in usenetters sick of trolls.

[Alpha Beta]

I know, I rule.

[jillery]

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:10:56 -0700 (PDT), Sean Dillon
<seand...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 5:04:54 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/21/latest-news-about-college-shenanigans-by-the-regressive-left-censorship-at-pomona-and-ucla-wellesley-student-paper-writes-we-need-free-speech-but-article/>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/mpzzqpp>
>>
>>
>> Jerry Coyne has posted a number of articles about his favorite
>> bugbear, of people who self-identify as "progressives" and "liberals",
>> but actively advocate censorship of people whose opinions annoy them.
>> The above is only his most recent example. IMO the recent call to
>> collectively stop replying to AB is T.O's contribution to that
>> phenomenon.
>

>I won't comment on the details of the Coyne essay, because they aren't relevant.

You're entitled to your opinion, but your words I quote below are very
similar to some of the justifications claimed by the campus censors
Coyne describes.

>NO ONE is preventing AB from speaking, nor calling for "action to be taken" against AB, or anyone else for supporting or responding to him. Indeed, the entire concept is to encourage folks NOT to take action... not to PUNISH his behavior, but to stop REWARDING it.

From:
<1dcbaa28-7ac4-47b2...@googlegroups.com>

***************************************
This is a general call for everyone to not read and not reply
to the poster who refers to him/herself as "Alpha Beta".
***************************************

From:
<cbe1bb33-a565-4171...@googlegroups.com>
*************************************
I didn't call for the moratorium. I'm going along with it for the time
being, mostly out of recognition that AB's behavior is annoying
people,
*************************************

>The "on-campus" equivalent of what is happening here would be a group handing out pamphlets encouraging people not to attend a speech. That's not censorship, it is counter-advocacy.

Incorrect. Counter-advocacy would actively and affirmatively advocate
a contrasting POV. That's what you did in reply to AB until very
recently.

IMO putting someone in a corner and "letting" them talk to the walls,
which is a fair paraphrase of the what the "moratorium calls for,
doesn't satisfy the spirit of freedom of speech. Apparently your
mileage varies.

[jillery]

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 21:53:25 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/21/latest-news-about-college-shenanigans-by-the-regressive-left-censorship-at-pomona-and-ucla-wellesley-student-paper-writes-we-need-free-speech-but-article/>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/mpzzqpp>
>>
>>
>> Jerry Coyne has posted a number of articles about his favorite
>> bugbear, of people who self-identify as "progressives" and "liberals",
>> but actively advocate censorship of people whose opinions annoy them.
>> The above is only his most recent example. IMO the recent call to
>> collectively stop replying to AB is T.O's contribution to that
>> phenomenon.
>>
>I think you've lost the plot. First off nobody is being threatened if AB is
>allowed to post here.

More to the point, IMO no one is being threatened by AB or his posts.
As others have already noted, he's an annoyance.

>As Coyne opined: "Finally, the Wellesley editorial
>implicitly threatens harassment or violence against students who don’t get
>properly “educated” about “hate speech” (shades of the Cultural
>Revolution!)"

So how do you think having "everyone to not read and not reply" to AB
can be implemented?

>And few of us are melding postmodernism with regressive leftism. Coyne:
>"...suffice it to say that this is what happens when postmodernism meets
>Regressive Leftism, promoting prose laden with jargon and buzzwords, as
>well as invidious denial of a concept of truth." Who here is doing that?
>
>That you are conflating people here on usenet asking that AB be kindly
>ignored with students losing their shit over the appearance of a
>controversial author on a school campus takes disanalogy to new heights.

I do not argue against individual actions. To the contrary, I have
made very clear from when AB first started posting, my opinion of his
posts and his behavior. My objections are with 1) the collective
action 2) against AB specifically, allegedly for his behaviors, which
are shared by many other posters. Do you have any comments or
criticisms about those things?

>For one thing has anyone penned an angry letter to DIG saying how our sense
>of justice is violated because a silly troll posts reams of tripe here?
>Have we accused AB of hate speech?

What you describe above IMO are appropriate methods for removing a
poster from T.O. However autocratic such decisions may be, at least
DIG is consistent. IMO what is suggested to be done to AB is
arbitrary mob rule.

>Will you be calling us special snowflakes or social justice warriors now?

How would it make a difference if I did?

[*Hemidactylus*]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 21:53:25 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/21/latest-news-about-college-shenanigans-by-the-regressive-left-censorship-at-pomona-and-ucla-wellesley-student-paper-writes-we-need-free-speech-but-article/>
>>>
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/mpzzqpp>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jerry Coyne has posted a number of articles about his favorite
>>> bugbear, of people who self-identify as "progressives" and "liberals",
>>> but actively advocate censorship of people whose opinions annoy them.
>>> The above is only his most recent example. IMO the recent call to
>>> collectively stop replying to AB is T.O's contribution to that
>>> phenomenon.
>>>
>> I think you've lost the plot. First off nobody is being threatened if AB is
>> allowed to post here.
>
>
> More to the point, IMO no one is being threatened by AB or his posts.
> As others have already noted, he's an annoyance.
>

The hyperbole of your analogy I was puncturing was that nobody asking for a
moratorium on AB is threatening violence as happened at UC Berkeley
surrounding Milo Yiannopoulos recently. And looks as Ann Coulter has
similar hoopla centering on her:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/us/berkeley-ann-coulter-speech.html

This rather trivial moment in t.o. history is neither a safety for the
venue nor a looming 1st amendment case.

>
>> As Coyne opined: "Finally, the Wellesley editorial
>> implicitly threatens harassment or violence against students who don’t get
>> properly “educated” about “hate speech” (shades of the Cultural
>> Revolution!)"
>
>
> So how do you think having "everyone to not read and not reply" to AB
> can be implemented?
>

But voluntarily and nonviolently ignoring him if anyone decides to. The
anti-AB protest set for Sunday has been cancelled due to logistics. And I
had my sign made:


\|||/
(o o)
,~~~ooO~~(_)~~~~~~~~~,
| Please |
| don't feed the |
| TROLL! |
'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ooO~~~'
|__|__|
|| ||
ooO Ooo

We shall overcome.

>
>> And few of us are melding postmodernism with regressive leftism. Coyne:
>> "...suffice it to say that this is what happens when postmodernism meets
>> Regressive Leftism, promoting prose laden with jargon and buzzwords, as
>> well as invidious denial of a concept of truth." Who here is doing that?
>>
>> That you are conflating people here on usenet asking that AB be kindly
>> ignored with students losing their shit over the appearance of a
>> controversial author on a school campus takes disanalogy to new heights.
>
>
> I do not argue against individual actions. To the contrary, I have
> made very clear from when AB first started posting, my opinion of his
> posts and his behavior. My objections are with 1) the collective
> action 2) against AB specifically, allegedly for his behaviors, which
> are shared by many other posters. Do you have any comments or
> criticisms about those things?
>

I am waiting for it to go before the Supreme Court. Will Thomas break his
characteristic silence to offer commentary? How will the newbie Gorsuch
respond?

First the case has to start somewhere but it is a shoe-in for SCOTUS. Will
you be filing an amicus briefing? Will the ACLU?

>
>> For one thing has anyone penned an angry letter to DIG saying how our sense
>> of justice is violated because a silly troll posts reams of tripe here?
>> Have we accused AB of hate speech?
>
>
> What you describe above IMO are appropriate methods for removing a
> poster from T.O. However autocratic such decisions may be, at least
> DIG is consistent. IMO what is suggested to be done to AB is
> arbitrary mob rule.
>

Wait what? Autocratic decisions are OK but low level interpersonal
agreements based on free choice are not? Where is *our* freedom? AB's
freedoms remain completely intact under the voluntary moratorium. But you
would curtail our freedoms to enact such measures as we each see fit.

Don't we have a right to not speak in response to AB and to assembly in
that this nonresponse is collective? Is protest protected in jillery-world?
Can aggrieved Village Elders come together and march peacefully in
solidarity against the trolls?

>
>> Will you be calling us special snowflakes or social justice warriors now?
>
>
> How would it make a difference if I did?
>

You are misusing "regressive left" so I figured you could help yourself to
the others in your ridiculous defense of an aggrieved troll.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 04:25:07 -0500, *Hemidactylus*

>>> implicitly threatens harassment or violence against students who don?t get
>>> properly ?educated? about ?hate speech? (shades of the Cultural

I suspect AB may be a troll but if he's not then he is not the least
bit aggrieved, he wallows in his belief that he/Steady
Eddie/Ray/Glenn* are right and the rest of us are all wrong.

(*I'm not at all convinced that those are four different people.)

[Alpha Beta]

You guys are cute.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 04:07:40 -0700 (PDT), Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You guys are cute.

So I'm a cute, God-hating atheist?

[Alpha Beta]

Atheists are losing badly, the illusion of evolution is their last hope to rebel against the creator. They cannot prove evolution but want us to believe in it. They have fooled us quite often. Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Haeckel drawings, all proven to be hoaxes.

[Alpha Beta]

Genetics and fossil record are weaknesses of evolution. They never supported it.

[jillery]

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 04:25:07 -0500, *Hemidactylus*

>>> implicitly threatens harassment or violence against students who don?t get

>>> properly ?educated? about ?hate speech? (shades of the Cultural

>>> Revolution!)"
>>
>>
>> So how do you think having "everyone to not read and not reply" to AB
>> can be implemented?
>>
>But voluntarily and nonviolently ignoring him if anyone decides to. The
>anti-AB protest set for Sunday has been cancelled due to logistics. And I
>had my sign made:
>
>
> \|||/
> (o o)
>,~~~ooO~~(_)~~~~~~~~~,
>| Please |
>| don't feed the |
>| TROLL! |
>'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ooO~~~'
> |__|__|
> || ||
> ooO Ooo
>
>We shall overcome.

Go back and read Stockwell's call, a portion of which I copy here to
refresh your oh-so-convenient lapse of memory:

From:
<1dcbaa28-7ac4-47b2...@googlegroups.com>

***************************************
This is a general call for EVERYONE [emphasis mine] to not read and

not reply to the poster who refers to him/herself as "Alpha Beta".
***************************************

As you should know, Stockwell's premise is that AB posts to get
responses, and will leave when he gets none. By that logic, if even
one person replies to AB, that thwarts the collective will.
Collectives don't take kindly to having their will thwarted. All will
be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

>>> And few of us are melding postmodernism with regressive leftism. Coyne:
>>> "...suffice it to say that this is what happens when postmodernism meets
>>> Regressive Leftism, promoting prose laden with jargon and buzzwords, as
>>> well as invidious denial of a concept of truth." Who here is doing that?
>>>
>>> That you are conflating people here on usenet asking that AB be kindly
>>> ignored with students losing their shit over the appearance of a
>>> controversial author on a school campus takes disanalogy to new heights.
>>
>>
>> I do not argue against individual actions. To the contrary, I have
>> made very clear from when AB first started posting, my opinion of his
>> posts and his behavior. My objections are with 1) the collective
>> action 2) against AB specifically, allegedly for his behaviors, which
>> are shared by many other posters. Do you have any comments or
>> criticisms about those things?

I take the following as a "no". Is anybody surprised?

>I am waiting for it to go before the Supreme Court. Will Thomas break his
>characteristic silence to offer commentary? How will the newbie Gorsuch
>respond?
>
>First the case has to start somewhere but it is a shoe-in for SCOTUS. Will
>you be filing an amicus briefing? Will the ACLU?

You would do as well to appeal to Scalia.

>>> For one thing has anyone penned an angry letter to DIG saying how our sense
>>> of justice is violated because a silly troll posts reams of tripe here?
>>> Have we accused AB of hate speech?
>>
>>
>> What you describe above IMO are appropriate methods for removing a
>> poster from T.O. However autocratic such decisions may be, at least
>> DIG is consistent. IMO what is suggested to be done to AB is
>> arbitrary mob rule.
>>
>Wait what? Autocratic decisions are OK but low level interpersonal
>agreements based on free choice are not? Where is *our* freedom? AB's
>freedoms remain completely intact under the voluntary moratorium. But you
>would curtail our freedoms to enact such measures as we each see fit.
>
>Don't we have a right to not speak in response to AB and to assembly in
>that this nonresponse is collective? Is protest protected in jillery-world?
>Can aggrieved Village Elders come together and march peacefully in
>solidarity against the trolls?

I ask you again, if individual choice is sufficient, why is a
collective even necessary? If said collective action is against
trolls, then why is this collective action explicitly, specifically,
and uniquely focused on AB only? Sean Dillon can fall back on a
presumptive lack of history. You have no excuse for arguing as if AB
is the only, or even the worst, T.O. troll.

>>> Will you be calling us special snowflakes or social justice warriors now?
>>
>>
>> How would it make a difference if I did?
>>
>You are misusing "regressive left" so I figured you could help yourself to
>the others in your ridiculous defense of an aggrieved troll.

To the contrary, you are misusing your ability to read and reason. My
use of analogy does not require said analogy to match irrelevant
respects.

More to the point, you didn't respond to the issues I raised, whether
deliberately or because you lack nuance genes doesn't matter. I do
not defend a troll, aggrieved or otherwise, but instead object to the
misuse and abuse of legitimate political processes.

[raven1]

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 01:58:52 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:10:56 -0700 (PDT), Sean Dillon
><seand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 5:04:54 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>>> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/21/latest-news-about-college-shenanigans-by-the-regressive-left-censorship-at-pomona-and-ucla-wellesley-student-paper-writes-we-need-free-speech-but-article/>
>>>
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/mpzzqpp>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jerry Coyne has posted a number of articles about his favorite
>>> bugbear, of people who self-identify as "progressives" and "liberals",
>>> but actively advocate censorship of people whose opinions annoy them.
>>> The above is only his most recent example. IMO the recent call to
>>> collectively stop replying to AB is T.O's contribution to that
>>> phenomenon.
>>
>>I won't comment on the details of the Coyne essay, because they aren't relevant.
>
>
>You're entitled to your opinion, but your words I quote below are very
>similar to some of the justifications claimed by the campus censors
>Coyne describes.

I think you're badly missing the point. No one is attempting to censor
"AB". He's not even making any arguments, he's just trying to get a
reaction, like a five year old throwing a tantrum. The proper way to
deal with that is to stop giving him the attention he's seeking.

[Sean Dillon]

I would suggest that if there are trolls worse that AB who haunt these parts, coordinated collective ignoring may be an appropriate action (or rather inaction) in those cases too. So long as no one is being threatened, coerced, or otherwise compelled to participate, and no one is being prevented from posting as they see fit, I don't see anything problematic about that.

[jillery]

As I stated way back when AB first started posting, I agree AB is a
troll. I disagree that he's the worst, or even distinctively worse,
of the many T.O. trolls.

As for your claim that no one is attempting to censor AB, I refer you
to Stockwell's OP in a contemporaneous topic:

From:
<1dcbaa28-7ac4-47b2...@googlegroups.com>

***************************************
This is a general call for EVERYONE [emphasis mine] to not read and

not reply to the poster who refers to him/herself as "Alpha Beta".
***************************************

IMO the expressed intent above qualifies as censorship, and is similar
to that expressed by the campus censors which Coyne describes. So how
do you distinguish Stockwell's explicit call above from what you think
is censorship?

[Sean Dillon]

Censorship is the abridgement of the right to speak -- not the right to be heard, listened to, or responded to. No one has suggested ANY limitation on AB's right or ability to express his opinions on this forum, period. Unenforcably encouraging others to ignore the poster, which is what Stockwell did, is NOT CENSORSHIP. It chills me that anyone THINKS that is censorship.

As to whether AB is more deserving of such treatment than others, I couldn't say. No others have been named, nor similar behaviors identified.

I stand by my opinion that, in the fact of behavior LIKE AB's, coordinated silence is a valid response. I didn't suggest it, but I'm on board for now, because I'm honestly not convinced that engaging was of net benefit. Show me some other comparable troll, I will probably have a comparable response.

[*Hemidactylus*]

That you would call out Stockwell's rather innocuous call for nonresponse
to AB as so-called "regressive leftism" and by implication ask us to
mentally masturbate an obvious troll calls your capacity for reasonable
judgment into question. Why feed the troll? Is there a 1st amendment court
case to be had here? If not maybe you should stop making clearly asinine
objections.

And FWIW I didn't take the recent flamebait from your nemesis "rockhead"
recently either if we must make comparison between AB and elephants in the
room. Can you exercise such self-control? This comment will no doubt result
in a confused reminder yet again of the exploding head from Scanners that
still holds in his case. Even more so now. Reading his tripe leads me
perilously close to aneurysm. I cannot be alone in that sentiment.

I am left wondering why to respond to you much longer. You have gone off
the rails here.

[jillery]

My post above is a reply to Raven, not you. It is you who replied to
me. Your incendiary words are not my words. My impression is you
chose them to rationalize your irrational overreaction.

As I point out every time someone tries to blame me for their own
actions, you are free to reply to me or not as you wish, as am I. The
choice and the power and the right are entirely yours. But since you
say my posts are so upsetting to you, I agree it would be best if you
censored yourself.

[jillery]

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 21:35:52 -0700 (PDT), Sean Dillon

Yes, you stated your opinion above many times, and I replied to it;
freedom of speech is meaningless when it's pre-emptively decided to
not listen, as was explicitly "called" for in this case.

Raven had not expressed his opinion on this point before, and his post
suggested he hadn't read those previous posts. I think it's a good
idea to listen to his point of view as well. Apparently your mileage
varies.

[Sean Dillon]

I absolutely welcome Raven's perspective. And I apologize for being repetitive, but I guess I've been foolishly hoping with each new attempt that I will make my point simple and evident enough that you will see the obviousness in it.

To answer your point above: I disagree that freedom of speech is meaningless if people are being (unenforcably) encouraged not to listen. And that is because anyone who chooses to has the freedom to listen. If anyone WANTS to hear what AB has to say, they have the ability to do so. The freedom of speech is the freedom to speak to anyone who WISHES to listen. Choosing NOT to listen -- even choosing not to listen collectively -- is an exercise in the no less important Freedom of Association.

[eridanus]

there is a concept about freedom of speech that tells me, I have the freedom
to ignore something someone says, if I do not see any rational merit on it
to deserve a comment.
eri

[*Hemidactylus*]

If a group of people get up out of their seats and walk out en masse while
another at the podium spews forth the rhetoric that influenced the decision
to walk out are the rights of said speaker infringed by the rights of those
leaving to do so?

And yes jillery is conveniently sidestepping our right to associate and
assemble.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

"Freedom of association is the right of individuals to join or leave groups
of a person's own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to
pursue the interests of members."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly

"The terms freedom of assembly and freedom of association may be used to
distinguish between the freedom to assemble in public places and the
freedom to join an association. Freedom of assembly is often used in the
context of the right to protest, while freedom of association is used in
the context of labor rights and in the Constitution of the United States is
interpreted to mean both the freedom to assemble and the freedom to join an
association."

Of course these points are to some degree mooted as is the free speech
right in that we aren't talking about governmental action to curtail free
speech or assembly/association. The Bill of Rights speaks of what is
granted by the federal government to citizens which via 14th amendment is
pushed downward to states and municipalities. What you, me, and jillery do
here isn't quite touched by that now is it?

But if jillery wants to push free speech we can counter with
assembly/association in our collective right to agree to ignore AB's
unhindered babbling.

I am still left wondering what Maajid Nawaz's concept of regressive leftism
has to do with anything. An ill chosen title perhaps intended as clickbait
hyperbole. Or a way to malign those jillery disagrees with. Poor form
either way.

[Jonathan]

Calling for everyone to ignore someone is more
akin to a boycott. Censorship would be when
in this context posters try to get him
banned from posting by the moderator.

It's the difference between the govt
silencing a speaker, and the public
turning their back on someone due
to their opinions.

And btw, blasting atheism is not a troll
but the better opinion. Atheism is a
difficult position to defend, if not
impossible.

Reminding people that historically
religious institutions were the
places of higher learning, while
atheism is the one-off, shouldn't
be controversial let alone considered
trolling except by those with a
profound ignorance of religion
and it's role throughout history.

Atheists generally make up no more than
roughly 2% of the American public.
Agnostics barely more than that.

Not to mention some 10% of that 2% say
they believe in a 'universal spirit'.

Atheists should be considered the trolls
as their belief system is out of touch
with the mainstream and with reality.


PEW RESEARCH CENTER
10 facts about atheists
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/01/10-facts-about-atheists/

[Sean Dillon]

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 1:29:53 PM UTC-5, Jonathan wrote:
> On 4/21/2017 6:03 PM, jillery wrote:
> > <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/21/latest-news-about-college-shenanigans-by-the-regressive-left-censorship-at-pomona-and-ucla-wellesley-student-paper-writes-we-need-free-speech-but-article/>
> >
> > <http://tinyurl.com/mpzzqpp>
> >
> >
> > Jerry Coyne has posted a number of articles about his favorite
> > bugbear, of people who self-identify as "progressives" and "liberals",
> > but actively advocate censorship of people whose opinions annoy them.
> > The above is only his most recent example. IMO the recent call to
> > collectively stop replying to AB is T.O's contribution to that
> > phenomenon.
>
>
>
>
> Calling for everyone to ignore someone is more
> akin to a boycott. Censorship would be when
> in this context posters try to get him
> banned from posting by the moderator.
>
> It's the difference between the govt
> silencing a speaker, and the public
> turning their back on someone due
> to their opinions.
>
> And btw, blasting atheism is not a troll
> but the better opinion. Atheism is a
> difficult position to defend, if not
> impossible.

It isn't the content of one's views that makes one a troll, but one's manner. Repeated posting the same refuted points, over and over, with no intent to engage in a conversation makes one a troll, not being a theist or atheist, creationist or evolution supporter.

>
> Reminding people that historically
> religious institutions were the
> places of higher learning, while
> atheism is the one-off, shouldn't
> be controversial let alone considered
> trolling except by those with a
> profound ignorance of religion
> and it's role throughout history.

What do you mean exactly, but "atheism is a one-off?"

>
> Atheists generally make up no more than
> roughly 2% of the American public.
> Agnostics barely more than that.

The data you supplied directly contradicts you. 3.1% identify as atheists, another 4% as agnostics, 9% (regardless of whether they label AS atheists) express that they do not believe in God or a "universal spirit" and a whopping 22.8% are some form of non-relgious.

>
> Not to mention some 10% of that 2% say
> they believe in a 'universal spirit'.
>
> Atheists should be considered the trolls
> as their belief system is out of touch
> with the mainstream and with reality.

Even if we were out of touch with the mainstream (we're not... over a quarter of this country is non-religious), reality is not decided by a popularity contest. If you want to attack atheism on its actual merits, I will be happy to respond.

[Jonathan]

A troll is someone that posts in a way to antagonize
and disrupt an ng using offensive language or
opinions.

I don't see any of that in Alpa Beta's posts
but reading the last few it's more along
the lines of pointing out what evolution
can't explain.

>>
>> Reminding people that historically
>> religious institutions were the
>> places of higher learning, while
>> atheism is the one-off, shouldn't
>> be controversial let alone considered
>> trolling except by those with a
>> profound ignorance of religion
>> and it's role throughout history.
>
> What do you mean exactly, but "atheism is a one-off?"

Atheists in the US represent some 3 or 4% of adults
which qualifies as the exception, or a one-off
belief.


In addition atheists put forward no position on
creation of their own, as science has none.

Atheists simply say they lack belief in any God
yet fail to define the term in any meaningful way.

It's akin to saying I don't believe in 'whatever'.
It's an empty belief that's really just another
word for skepticism or blank denial.

Atheism is also illogical and inconsistent
with what we observe.

We observe in nature that every level of life
there exists 'something greater' than itself
which is forever unfathomable to that lower level
of existence.

Whether it's animals over plants, humans
over animals or wisdom over intelligence
there exists and always will a higher level
for which no objective understanding
is possible.

Every ecosystem is it's own mini-universe
with it's own laws or 'gods'. We can no more
grasp the ecosystem of collective intelligence
than an ecosystem of gnats can comprehend a
windshield.

To believe the natural state of infinitely
nested and unique ecosystems stops or ceases
to exist at the human level and goes no farther
defies all observation, logic and human reasoning.

If you believe in collective intelligence than
one must disown the concept of atheism as
that accepts the notion of a higher power.

The belief in God does not and is entirely
consistent with observation and especially
an evolutionary frame of reference especially
when viewed from an coevolutionary or
ecosystem perspective.

Again, I can't emphasize this enough,that each
ecosystem is a universe unto itself.

>>
>> Atheists generally make up no more than
>> roughly 2% of the American public.
>> Agnostics barely more than that.
>
> The data you supplied directly contradicts you. 3.1% identify as atheists, another 4% as agnostics, 9% (regardless of whether they label AS atheists) express that they do not believe in God or a "universal spirit" and a whopping 22.8% are some form of non-relgious.
>

Correct, I looked too quickly. But that's still
a glaring minority opinion.

>>
>> Not to mention some 10% of that 2% say
>> they believe in a 'universal spirit'.
>>
>> Atheists should be considered the trolls
>> as their belief system is out of touch
>> with the mainstream and with reality.
>
> Even if we were out of touch with the mainstream (we're not... over a quarter of this country is non-religious)

Non-religious is not atheism. And even still, a quarter is not a
consensus, not even close.

, reality is not decided by a popularity contest. If you want to attack
atheism on its actual merits, I will be happy to respond.

Yet science entirely rests itself on consensus.

[Martin Harran]

FWIW, the thread right now has 155 posts which puts it easily into the
half dozen most active threads in recent weeks. Also, without having
done a detailed count, it appears to have a much wider range of
posters contributing than most threads. Many (most?) of the posters
have continued to engage with AB including within that thread so, if
Sockwells original call was some form of attemnpted censorship, it was
a distinctly ineffective one.

[Sean Dillon]

That's one definition. The definition of troll that I would apply to AB is that he intentionally posts provocatory things, to get a rise out of others while having absolutely no interest or intention of engaging in dialogue.

> >>
> >> Reminding people that historically
> >> religious institutions were the
> >> places of higher learning, while
> >> atheism is the one-off, shouldn't
> >> be controversial let alone considered
> >> trolling except by those with a
> >> profound ignorance of religion
> >> and it's role throughout history.
> >
> > What do you mean exactly, but "atheism is a one-off?"
>
>
>
> Atheists in the US represent some 3 or 4% of adults
> which qualifies as the exception, or a one-off
> belief.
>

Except that more like 9% say they don't believe in God. Apparently it is just the word "atheist" they aren't keen on.

> In addition atheists put forward no position on
> creation of their own, as science has none.

Well there is the Big Bang of course... but admittedly we don't know why that happened. And it is OKAY to not know things. Better to not know a thing than to think you know a thing because you've used a silly putty explanation.

>
> Atheists simply say they lack belief in any God
> yet fail to define the term in any meaningful way.

It isn't our faults that different theists keep positing different and conflicting definitions of god. Give me your particular definition, I'll be happy to tell you whether I believe in the existence of the thing thus defined. I can tell you that I don't believe in any version of the Judeo-Christian God, nor the God of the Philosphers, or any sort of personal god at all. I do not believe in any grand unifying consciousness within or without the universe.

>
> It's akin to saying I don't believe in 'whatever'.
> It's an empty belief that's really just another
> word for skepticism or blank denial.

Again: not the fault of atheists that theists have a multitude of definitions of God.

"Ecosystems" do not stop at the human level, they stop at the planetary level. There is no reason to suppose that there are "ecosystems" of planets or solar systems or galaxies.

And ecosystems are NOT universes unto themselves.

>
>
>
>
> >>
> >> Atheists generally make up no more than
> >> roughly 2% of the American public.
> >> Agnostics barely more than that.
> >
> > The data you supplied directly contradicts you. 3.1% identify as atheists, another 4% as agnostics, 9% (regardless of whether they label AS atheists) express that they do not believe in God or a "universal spirit" and a whopping 22.8% are some form of non-relgious.
> >
>
>
>
> Correct, I looked too quickly. But that's still
> a glaring minority opinion.

Not when you look at ALL the data, not just the people who self-identify specifically as atheists.

>
>
>
> >>
> >> Not to mention some 10% of that 2% say
> >> they believe in a 'universal spirit'.
> >>
> >> Atheists should be considered the trolls
> >> as their belief system is out of touch
> >> with the mainstream and with reality.
> >
> > Even if we were out of touch with the mainstream (we're not... over a quarter of this country is non-religious)
>
>
>
> Non-religious is not atheism. And even still, a quarter is not a
> consensus, not even close.

I didn't say there was a consensus. I said it wasn't out of the mainstream.

>
>
>
> , reality is not decided by a popularity contest. If you want to attack
> atheism on its actual merits, I will be happy to respond.
>
>
>
> Yet science entirely rests itself on consensus.

Actually, science rests on disproof.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/21/2017 6:03 PM, jillery wrote:
>> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/21/latest-news-about-college-shenanigans-by-the-regressive-left-censorship-at-pomona-and-ucla-wellesley-student-paper-writes-we-need-free-speech-but-article/>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/mpzzqpp>
>>
>>
>> Jerry Coyne has posted a number of articles about his favorite
>> bugbear, of people who self-identify as "progressives" and "liberals",
>> but actively advocate censorship of people whose opinions annoy them.
>> The above is only his most recent example. IMO the recent call to
>> collectively stop replying to AB is T.O's contribution to that
>> phenomenon.
>
>
>
>
> Calling for everyone to ignore someone is more
> akin to a boycott. Censorship would be when
> in this context posters try to get him
> banned from posting by the moderator.
>

The moderator is not the government. The moderator has stepped in on very
rare occasion and slammed the ban hammer for the good of the group. The
targets were not construable as the unfortunate locked away child in le
Guin's " The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas". They deserved it. That you
are still posting demonstrates DIG's charitable benevolence. He also
filters spam which is a benefit to both of us and hides the seedier
underbelly of usenet from us.

>
> It's the difference between the govt
> silencing a speaker, and the public
> turning their back on someone due
> to their opinions.
>

True. And you are obviously a more cogent contributor to the group than AB
when not "accidentally" posting Syria stuff here. Some may have filtered
you for that, but you at least can be somewhat responsive to others.

>
> And btw, blasting atheism is not a troll
> but the better opinion. Atheism is a
> difficult position to defend, if not
> impossible.
>

Theism ain't so defensible either.

>
> Reminding people that historically
> religious institutions were the
> places of higher learning, while
> atheism is the one-off, shouldn't
> be controversial let alone considered
> trolling except by those with a
> profound ignorance of religion
> and it's role throughout history.
>

But there has been a long slow trend from humanism during the Florentine
Renaissance toward nontheism after the Enlightenment.

>
> Atheists generally make up no more than
> roughly 2% of the American public.
> Agnostics barely more than that.
>

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

Nonbelievers are 9-10% depending on whether universal spirit is included.

People explicitly identifying as atheist is around 3% based on:
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/pr_15-05-12_rls-00/

Agnostic is 4%. Therefore nonbelievers amount to 7% ca 2014. Don't know
that a sustainable trend follows or a topping out.

But some recent research points to these surveys underestimating prevalence
of nonbelievers if not atheists.

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/4/13/15258496/american-atheists-how-many

"One thing is clear from the results: Much more than 10 or 11 percent of
the country (as assessed in Gallup and Pew polling) does not believe in
God. “We can say with a 99 percent probability that it’s higher than [11
percent],” said Gervais.

His best estimate: Around 26 percent of Americans don’t believe in God.
“According to our samples, about 1 in 3 atheists in our country don't feel
comfortable disclosing their lack of belief,” Najle explains in an email."

I would take 26% as overestimation, but suggestive that 9-10% is too low.

>
> Not to mention some 10% of that 2% say
> they believe in a 'universal spirit'.
>
> Atheists should be considered the trolls
> as their belief system is out of touch
> with the mainstream and with reality.
>

Not a popularity contest.

>
> PEW RESEARCH CENTER
> 10 facts about atheists
> http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/01/10-facts-about-atheists/
>

That our numbers are low doesn't make us wrong. Boy bands are popular. Does
that make Blockheads more insightful about reality?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockhead

I admit Donny Wahlberg rocked his performance on Dreamcatcher! But that was
a scfi/horror film, not the way the universe works.

[jillery]

On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 20:25:58 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:


>FWIW, the thread right now has 155 posts which puts it easily into the
>half dozen most active threads in recent weeks. Also, without having
>done a detailed count, it appears to have a much wider range of
>posters contributing than most threads. Many (most?) of the posters
>have continued to engage with AB including within that thread so, if
>Sockwells original call was some form of attemnpted censorship, it was
>a distinctly ineffective one.

I don't know about Sockwell, but Stockwell might recall the phrase
"Banned in Boston", used in the past by MadMen to increase interest
in certain products and services in the more rational parts of the
U.S.

Advertising practices might have changed since then, but people
haven't.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

>there is a concept about freedom of speech that tells me, I have the freedom
>to ignore something someone says, if I do not see any rational merit on it
>to deserve a comment.
>eri

Nobody suggested nor implied otherwise. To the contrary, I explicitly
made that point myself. Being a self-identified ignorant, you're
excused from knowing what you're talking about.

[jillery]

On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 06:59:23 -0700 (PDT), Sean Dillon

>I absolutely welcome Raven's perspective. And I apologize for being repetitive, but I guess I've been foolishly hoping with each new attempt that I will make my point simple and evident enough that you will see the obviousness in it.

Since you mentioned them, when did repetition and/or assertion of
obviousness convince you that you're wrong? Me neither.

>To answer your point above: I disagree that freedom of speech is meaningless if people are being (unenforcably) encouraged not to listen. And that is because anyone who chooses to has the freedom to listen. If anyone WANTS to hear what AB has to say, they have the ability to do so. The freedom of speech is the freedom to speak to anyone who WISHES to listen. Choosing NOT to listen -- even choosing not to listen collectively -- is an exercise in the no less important Freedom of Association.

Since you say it's impossible to keep people from listening, then you
should recognize that it's equally impossible to keep people from
reading and/or replying to AB's posts, which makes Stockwell's call,
the thing you say you support, utterly pointless.

[jillery]

>>>> Censorship is the abridgement of the right to speak -- not the right to
>>>> be heard, listened to, or responded to. No one has suggested ANY
>>>> limitation on AB's right or ability to express his opinions on this
>>>> forum, period. Unenforcably encouraging others to ignore the poster,
>>>> which is what Stockwell did, is NOT CENSORSHIP. It chills me that
>>>> anyone THINKS that is censorship.
>>>>
>>>> As to whether AB is more deserving of such treatment than others, I
>>>> couldn't say. No others have been named, nor similar behaviors identified.
>>>>
>>>> I stand by my opinion that, in the fact of behavior LIKE AB's,
>>>> coordinated silence is a valid response. I didn't suggest it, but I'm
>>>> on board for now, because I'm honestly not convinced that engaging was
>>>> of net benefit. Show me some other comparable troll, I will probably
>>>> have a comparable response.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you stated your opinion above many times, and I replied to it;
>>> freedom of speech is meaningless when it's pre-emptively decided to
>>> not listen, as was explicitly "called" for in this case.
>>>
>>> Raven had not expressed his opinion on this point before, and his post
>>> suggested he hadn't read those previous posts. I think it's a good
>>> idea to listen to his point of view as well. Apparently your mileage

>>> varies..

>>
>> I absolutely welcome Raven's perspective. And I apologize for being
>> repetitive, but I guess I've been foolishly hoping with each new attempt
>> that I will make my point simple and evident enough that you will see the
>> obviousness in it.
>>
>> To answer your point above: I disagree that freedom of speech is
>> meaningless if people are being (unenforcably) encouraged not to listen.
>> And that is because anyone who chooses to has the freedom to listen. If
>> anyone WANTS to hear what AB has to say, they have the ability to do so.
>> The freedom of speech is the freedom to speak to anyone who WISHES to
>> listen. Choosing NOT to listen -- even choosing not to listen
>> collectively -- is an exercise in the no less important Freedom of Association.
>>
>If a group of people get up out of their seats and walk out en masse while
>another at the podium spews forth the rhetoric that influenced the decision
>to walk out are the rights of said speaker infringed by the rights of those
>leaving to do so?
>
>And yes jillery is conveniently sidestepping our right to associate and
>assemble.

Of course, Jillery is sidestepping nothing, even those things you only
just now mention.

Right here would have been a good place for you to have explained how
you think AB's posts inhibit your freedom to associate or to assemble.
And Jillery is still left wondering why you think Maajid Naawaz has
any more relevance to this topic than Huxley's original definition of
"agnosticism" has to its modern usage.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Would you defend the right of Stockwell and others to collectively ignore
it and at a small community level to invoke censure, boycott, or shaming as
a means to ideally punish bad behavior?

[Sean Dillon]

Not the freedom TO associate, but the freedom OF association. That is, the right to associate OR NOT associate with any individual or group. And the right of such groups "to take collective action to pursue the interests of members."

In other words, we individually have the right to ignore AB (we have a right not to associate with him), and we also have the right to join together as a group TO ignore AB, if we perceive that doing so is in our interest. So long as no one is compelled or coerced to join such a group, this is an expression of our individual and collective right of association. And as long as AB is not being PREVENTED from expressing his views to all willing listeners, it also isn't a censorship of his right to free speech.

[*Hemidactylus*]

You are evading. Stockwell, Hemi, et al's right to collectively ignore a
troll is just as salient as said trolls right to be a troll.

And when a blogger filters bad commenters at will is that a bad thing? If I
blogged I might just shut off comments altogether. Does that put me in
legion with Stalin or Kim Jung Un?

Jillery is the one admonishing anyone who mutually agrees to ignore AB. As
an evasive stalling tactic jillery puts it on AB and avoids jillery's own
tendency to shut down association or assembly rights. Jillery is not acting
in representative capacity as government agent so this is not an actionable
constitutional issue, but neither is Stockwell's call. Jillery is
handwaving to avoid these inconvenient truths as it appears jillery has
painted jillery into an inescapable rhetorical corner and doesn't want
anyone to take notice. So Hemi must be mistaken. Let's go with that tactic.
Hey look over there...squirrel!

>
> And Jillery is still left wondering why you think Maajid Naawaz has
> any more relevance to this topic than Huxley's original definition of
> "agnosticism" has to its modern usage.

Because regressive leftism has expanded beyond Nawaz's intent to include
everything new atheists (Harris, Boghossian, Coyne etc) find objectionable.
And since you are smearing us with that broadened brush label the onus is
on you to justify the thread title. Or admit you crossed a boundary.

Is Stockwell a "regressive leftist"? Am I? Or were you clickbaiting? Or
sloppily misapplying words?

> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire

What about my right to listen to Stockwell and plug my ears on AB?

[jillery]

On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:46:05 -0700 (PDT), Sean Dillon

To address your objection above, I am happy to rephrase: Right here

would have been a good place for you to have explained how you think

AB's posts inhibit your freedom OF association and/or OF assembly.

IIUC that change satisfies your objection, but it doesn't alter the
substance of mine. You replied to my reply to Hemi, so it's
reasonable for me to point out that neither of you have so explained.

>In other words, we individually have the right to ignore AB (we have a right not to associate with him), and we also have the right to join together as a group TO ignore AB, if we perceive that doing so is in our interest. So long as no one is compelled or coerced to join such a group, this is an expression of our individual and collective right of association. And as long as AB is not being PREVENTED from expressing his views to all willing listeners, it also isn't a censorship of his right to free speech.

It should go without saying, but I remind you that T.O. is a Usenet
group, not a social club. Your claims of rights OF association and/or
assembly notwithstanding, there are few rules on who can post here,
and how to behave here. And there is only one person with the
authority to enforce those rules. And unless he's using an alias, he
hasn't yet said anything about AB.

AIUI all posters have the right to read (or not) any post, and to
reply (or not) to any post. Beyond that, I am unaware of any other
rights provided by associating with T.O. IMO any suggestion that
additional rights should be expected, nevermind honored, as you do
above, is ridiculous.

You emphasize above the word PREVENT. Of course, it's impossible to
absolutely prevent someone from posting to a newsgroup, even for a
moderator, although he can strongly discourage. A more realistic
specification would be to "discourage". And the whole point of
Stockwell's call was to discourage AB from posting to T.O. Stockwell
also called on everybody (not just interested parties) to not read
AB's posts and not reply to him. So your "as long as" conditionals
aren't satisfied by the case in question.

--

[jillery]

Nope. You are. I can't evade what you have yet to specify.

>Stockwell, Hemi, et al's right to collectively ignore a
>troll is just as salient as said trolls right to be a troll.

Assuming you're actually serious that your right to associate and
assemble includes your right to collectively ignore a troll, right

here would have been a good place for you to have explained how you

think I'm sidestepping it.

>And when a blogger filters bad commenters at will is that a bad thing? If I
>blogged I might just shut off comments altogether.

It should go without saying, but I remind you that T.O. is a Usenet

group, not a blog. There are too many differences of rights and
responsibilities and ownership to conflate the two meaningfully.

>Does that put me in legion with Stalin or Kim Jung Un?

Are you claiming to own nuclear weapons? If so, that would be a
reasonable conclusion. If not, your question is not only irrelevant
but inane.

It's ironic that you raise all these irrelevant issues to evade
explaining how you think AB's posts inhibit your rights to associate
and assemble, while accusing me without basis of handwaving. As for
your alleged inconvenient truths, they would be more accurately
labeled alternate truths.

>> And Jillery is still left wondering why you think Maajid Naawaz has
>> any more relevance to this topic than Huxley's original definition of
>> "agnosticism" has to its modern usage.
>
>Because regressive leftism has expanded beyond Nawaz's intent to include
>everything new atheists (Harris, Boghossian, Coyne etc) find objectionable.
>And since you are smearing us with that broadened brush label the onus is
>on you to justify the thread title. Or admit you crossed a boundary.

IIUC you claim above that I accused you and others of everything
objectionable by new atheists. It's that kind of hyperbole which
makes it really hard to have a rational discussion.

Just to refresh your convenient amnesia, here's a copy from the quoted
text above, where I specifically and explicitly identified the
analogous behavior between what Coyne described and Stockwell's call:

***************************************************

of people who self-identify as "progressives" and "liberals",
but actively advocate censorship of people whose opinions annoy them.

****************************************************

IF, and that's a really big IF, you can avoid your hubris and
hyperbole, and limit your criticisms to what I actually wrote, there's
a chance for a coherent discussion.

>Is Stockwell a "regressive leftist"? Am I? Or were you clickbaiting? Or
>sloppily misapplying words?

IIUC you disagree that Stockwell's call qualifies as censorship, and
for that reason consider my cite irrelevant. OTOH I regard
Stockwell's call as an attempt at censorship, and what Coyne described
has strong parallels to it, as I previously described. So whether my
cite is "clickbait" or whether I crossed some imaginary boundary is a
matter of opinion. As the saying goes, everybody has one, to which
you're entitled. But you're not entitled to your own facts.

As to whether anybody here is a regressive leftist, that depends on
whether one labels people from a single action. I don't so label.
Apparently your mileage varies.

>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>>
>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>> Attributed to Voltaire
>
>What about my right to listen to Stockwell and plug my ears on AB?

What about it? Nothing I stated above criticizes either. OTOH your
inability to comprehend nuance is annoying. Using the arguments
recently posted by some in T.O., that would justify my not listening
to you.

--

[*Hemidactylus*]

You are on a ridiculous and misapplied free speech for trolls crusade yet
hypocritically ignore rights of people to assemble/associate. How much more
specific can it get?

>
>> Stockwell, Hemi, et al's right to collectively ignore a
>> troll is just as salient as said trolls right to be a troll.
>
>
> Assuming you're actually serious that your right to associate and
> assemble includes your right to collectively ignore a troll, right
> here would have been a good place for you to have explained how you
> think I'm sidestepping it.
>

That you think your initial free speech for trolls crusade was apropos is
the issue at hand. The association/assembly countermeasure merely builds on
that. Icing on cake.

You're obtuse. It is *you* who is ignoring rights to assemble/associate.
Read for comprehension. Or are you deliberately confusing the matter as
subterfuge?

>
>>> And Jillery is still left wondering why you think Maajid Naawaz has
>>> any more relevance to this topic than Huxley's original definition of
>>> "agnosticism" has to its modern usage.
>>
>> Because regressive leftism has expanded beyond Nawaz's intent to include
>> everything new atheists (Harris, Boghossian, Coyne etc) find objectionable.
>> And since you are smearing us with that broadened brush label the onus is
>> on you to justify the thread title. Or admit you crossed a boundary.
>
>
> IIUC you claim above that I accused you and others of everything
> objectionable by new atheists. It's that kind of hyperbole which
> makes it really hard to have a rational discussion.
>

The hyperbole you provided is right there in the thread title.

>
> Just to refresh your convenient amnesia, here's a copy from the quoted
> text above, where I specifically and explicitly identified the
> analogous behavior between what Coyne described and Stockwell's call:
>
> ***************************************************
> of people who self-identify as "progressives" and "liberals",
> but actively advocate censorship of people whose opinions annoy them.
> ****************************************************
>

Nothing about liberals giving Islamists a pass. Nor did you establish
censorship being exhibited on this thread. You failed.

>
> IF, and that's a really big IF, you can avoid your hubris and
> hyperbole, and limit your criticisms to what I actually wrote, there's
> a chance for a coherent discussion.
>

Evasion by misdirect noted.

>
>> Is Stockwell a "regressive leftist"? Am I? Or were you clickbaiting? Or
>> sloppily misapplying words?
>
>
> IIUC you disagree that Stockwell's call qualifies as censorship, and
> for that reason consider my cite irrelevant. OTOH I regard
> Stockwell's call as an attempt at censorship, and what Coyne described
> has strong parallels to it, as I previously described. So whether my
> cite is "clickbait" or whether I crossed some imaginary boundary is a
> matter of opinion. As the saying goes, everybody has one, to which
> you're entitled. But you're not entitled to your own facts.
>
> As to whether anybody here is a regressive leftist, that depends on
> whether one labels people from a single action. I don't so label.
> Apparently your mileage varies.
>

Yet you chose the thread title and started painting with your broad brush
from the onset.

>
>>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>>>
>>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>> Attributed to Voltaire
>>
>> What about my right to listen to Stockwell and plug my ears on AB?
>
>
> What about it? Nothing I stated above criticizes either. OTOH your
> inability to comprehend nuance is annoying. Using the arguments
> recently posted by some in T.O., that would justify my not listening
> to you.
>

Suit yourself.

>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>
>

You're deluded. You've dug in your heels on a ridiculous argument and
haven't the integrity to concede your errors.

[Sean Dillon]

What I was explaining was that it is not in fact AB who is attempting to infringe on our rights of association, but YOU, by insisting that coordinating to ignore AB is inappropriate censorship.

>
> >In other words, we individually have the right to ignore AB (we have a right not to associate with him), and we also have the right to join together as a group TO ignore AB, if we perceive that doing so is in our interest. So long as no one is compelled or coerced to join such a group, this is an expression of our individual and collective right of association. And as long as AB is not being PREVENTED from expressing his views to all willing listeners, it also isn't a censorship of his right to free speech.
>
>
> It should go without saying, but I remind you that T.O. is a Usenet
> group, not a social club. Your claims of rights OF association and/or
> assembly notwithstanding, there are few rules on who can post here,
> and how to behave here. And there is only one person with the
> authority to enforce those rules. And unless he's using an alias, he
> hasn't yet said anything about AB.

Nor has ANYONE suggested that AB should be prevented from posting or behaving as he pleases.

I think you roundly missed my point, which is NOT that AB presence or posting on this usenet group is a violation of anyone's rights, but that insistence that people may not band together to ignore someone they find objectionable is an attempt to curtail freedom of association.

>
> AIUI all posters have the right to read (or not) any post, and to
> reply (or not) to any post. Beyond that, I am unaware of any other
> rights provided by associating with T.O. IMO any suggestion that
> additional rights should be expected, nevermind honored, as you do
> above, is ridiculous.

No one is asking the site to provide or honor any further rights. There is no need. People innately have the right to associate or not associate with whomever they choose, on this site or elsewhere. I'm pointing out that your insistence that collectively ignoring AB is wrong runs contrary to the spirit of the freedom of association.

>
> You emphasize above the word PREVENT. Of course, it's impossible to
> absolutely prevent someone from posting to a newsgroup, even for a
> moderator, although he can strongly discourage. A more realistic
> specification would be to "discourage". And the whole point of
> Stockwell's call was to discourage AB from posting to T.O. Stockwell
> also called on everybody (not just interested parties) to not read
> AB's posts and not reply to him. So your "as long as" conditionals
> aren't satisfied by the case in question.

Of course they are. While Stockwell can CALL on everybody, only interested parties will choose to participate. Stockwell has no enforcable power over anyone here. And yes of COURSE the point is to discourage AB, but again -- that ain't censorship. Censorship is prevention, not disincentivization, and there is a gulf of difference between the two.

[jillery]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 05:51:06 -0700 (PDT), Sean Dillon

Really? So when you wrote "...but the freedom OF association..." I
was supposed to infer from that your goalpost shift from Alphabet boy
to me? Go figure.

Perhaps if instead of piggybacking on Hemi's injection of irrelevant
issues, you rebooted with a new thread, one that clearly and concisely
describes whatever objection(s) you have here. If you do, be sure to
explain in that post how you think your freedom OF association and
assembly relates to my OP, and how my OP is a threat to them.

[jillery]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 05:57:13 -0500, *Hemidactylus*

You're obtuse. Of course, I refer above to the fact that you have
only recently mentioned said rights, and have yet to even explain how
you think said rights are infringed by said troll or by me. Try to
keep up.

>>> Stockwell, Hemi, et al's right to collectively ignore a
>>> troll is just as salient as said trolls right to be a troll.
>>
>>
>> Assuming you're actually serious that your right to associate and
>> assemble includes your right to collectively ignore a troll, right
>> here would have been a good place for you to have explained how you
>> think I'm sidestepping it.
>>
>That you think your initial free speech for trolls crusade was apropos is
>the issue at hand. The association/assembly countermeasure merely builds on
>that. Icing on cake.

Then instead of baldly asserting said claims, and injecting
nonsensical and irrelevant rhetoric, right here would have been a good
place for you to have made an coherent and concise case, if only for
the novelty of the experience.

>>> And when a blogger filters bad commenters at will is that a bad thing? If I
>>> blogged I might just shut off comments altogether.
>>
>>
>> It should go without saying, but I remind you that T.O. is a Usenet
>> group, not a blog. There are too many differences of rights and
>> responsibilities and ownership to conflate the two meaningfully.

No reply. I'll assume your objection above what just more of your
nonsensical and irrelevant rhetoric.

>>> Does that put me in legion with Stalin or Kim Jung Un?
>>
>>
>> Are you claiming to own nuclear weapons? If so, that would be a
>> reasonable conclusion. If not, your question is not only irrelevant
>> but inane.

And yet another nonsensical and irrelevant bit of rhetoric dealt with.

You're hysterical. And I mean that in both senses.

>It is *you* who is ignoring rights to assemble/associate.
>Read for comprehension. Or are you deliberately confusing the matter as
>subterfuge?

Once again, I can't confuse an issue, deliberately or otherwise, when
you have yet to explain what you're talking about. Read for
comprehension.

>>>> And Jillery is still left wondering why you think Maajid Naawaz has
>>>> any more relevance to this topic than Huxley's original definition of
>>>> "agnosticism" has to its modern usage.
>>>
>>> Because regressive leftism has expanded beyond Nawaz's intent to include
>>> everything new atheists (Harris, Boghossian, Coyne etc) find objectionable.
>>> And since you are smearing us with that broadened brush label the onus is
>>> on you to justify the thread title. Or admit you crossed a boundary.
>>
>>
>> IIUC you claim above that I accused you and others of everything
>> objectionable by new atheists. It's that kind of hyperbole which
>> makes it really hard to have a rational discussion.
>>
>The hyperbole you provided is right there in the thread title.

Right here would have been a good place for you to have explained how

you think the topic title is hyperbole. Do you deny there exist
people who self-identify as "progressive" but openly advocate
censoring people whose opinions they label as "annoying"?

>> Just to refresh your convenient amnesia, here's a copy from the quoted
>> text above, where I specifically and explicitly identified the
>> analogous behavior between what Coyne described and Stockwell's call:
>>
>> ***************************************************
>> of people who self-identify as "progressives" and "liberals",
>> but actively advocate censorship of people whose opinions annoy them.
>> ****************************************************
>>
>Nothing about liberals giving Islamists a pass.

And how 'bout them Mets.

>Nor did you establish
>censorship being exhibited on this thread. You failed.

You're entitled to your opinion. That's how free speech works.

>> IF, and that's a really big IF, you can avoid your hubris and
>> hyperbole, and limit your criticisms to what I actually wrote, there's
>> a chance for a coherent discussion.
>>
>Evasion by misdirect noted.

Right here would have been a good place for you to have explained how

you think directing you to reply to what I actually wrote qualifies as
"misdirection".

>>> Is Stockwell a "regressive leftist"? Am I? Or were you clickbaiting? Or
>>> sloppily misapplying words?
>>
>>
>> IIUC you disagree that Stockwell's call qualifies as censorship, and
>> for that reason consider my cite irrelevant. OTOH I regard
>> Stockwell's call as an attempt at censorship, and what Coyne described
>> has strong parallels to it, as I previously described. So whether my
>> cite is "clickbait" or whether I crossed some imaginary boundary is a
>> matter of opinion. As the saying goes, everybody has one, to which
>> you're entitled. But you're not entitled to your own facts.
>>
>> As to whether anybody here is a regressive leftist, that depends on
>> whether one labels people from a single action. I don't so label.
>> Apparently your mileage varies.
>>
>Yet you chose the thread title and started painting with your broad brush
>from the onset.

Right here would have been a good place for you to have explained how

you think anything I wrote in this topic qualifies as painting with a
broad brush.

>>>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>>>>
>>>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>> Attributed to Voltaire
>>>
>>> What about my right to listen to Stockwell and plug my ears on AB?
>>
>>
>> What about it? Nothing I stated above criticizes either. OTOH your
>> inability to comprehend nuance is annoying. Using the arguments
>> recently posted by some in T.O., that would justify my not listening
>> to you.
>>
>Suit yourself.

Just as you do. Apparently you use different rules for yourself than
for me.

>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>>
>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>> Attributed to Voltaire
>>
>>
>You're deluded. You've dug in your heels on a ridiculous argument and
>haven't the integrity to concede your errors.

Right here would have been a good place for you to have explained how

you think it's delusional to acknowledge our mutual dependence to
defend individual liberties.

[*Hemidactylus*]

This thread is "recent" so I am not sure how you are trying to abuse the
adverb. Both Sean and I have been pointing this myopia of yours concerning
how people can band together and ignore a troll without infringing its
rights out to you. That it fails to register is the receiver's limitation,
not the senders.

> and have yet to even explain how
> you think said rights are infringed by said troll or by me.

You are still trying to manipulate with confusion over whether Sean and I
were referring to AB or you. You are the one ignoring that we can freely
agree to ignore AB without "censoring" its speech. This coming together as
inspired by Stockwell is akin to assembly. Would you say people cannot
picket or boycott for any reason but must accept the status quo?

> Try to
> keep up.
>
It is you that is slow on the uptake especially given your use of the term
"recently" above. The thread is less than a week old.

>
>>>> Stockwell, Hemi, et al's right to collectively ignore a
>>>> troll is just as salient as said trolls right to be a troll.
>>>
>>>
>>> Assuming you're actually serious that your right to associate and
>>> assemble includes your right to collectively ignore a troll, right
>>> here would have been a good place for you to have explained how you
>>> think I'm sidestepping it.
>>>
>> That you think your initial free speech for trolls crusade was apropos is
>> the issue at hand. The association/assembly countermeasure merely builds on
>> that. Icing on cake.
>
>
> Then instead of baldly asserting said claims, and injecting
> nonsensical and irrelevant rhetoric,

You're only saying that because you are flailing at a lost cause. This
thread was irrelevant and misguided in the OP. That's entirely on you.

> right here would have been a good
> place for you to have made an coherent and concise case, if only for
> the novelty of the experience.
>
>
>>>> And when a blogger filters bad commenters at will is that a bad thing? If I
>>>> blogged I might just shut off comments altogether.
>>>
>>>
>>> It should go without saying, but I remind you that T.O. is a Usenet
>>> group, not a blog. There are too many differences of rights and
>>> responsibilities and ownership to conflate the two meaningfully.
>
>
> No reply. I'll assume your objection above what just more of your
> nonsensical and irrelevant rhetoric.
>

Whether on a blog or usenet a private citizen can ignore or filter comments
they deem pointless or objectionable. They can killfile on a newsreader or
shutdown a participant on their blog.

>
>>>> Does that put me in legion with Stalin or Kim Jung Un?
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you claiming to own nuclear weapons? If so, that would be a
>>> reasonable conclusion. If not, your question is not only irrelevant
>>> but inane.
>
>
> And yet another nonsensical and irrelevant bit of rhetoric dealt with.
>

You admit your non sequitur about nukes was nonsensical. Stalin and Kim
are known censors and heads of state at that. Surprised that point escaped
you. You are a very tedious person. I don't see the need to address every
point, especially knowing the futility given your thick skull and need to
save face above all else. Oh and the chronic need for adulation.

You're taking lessons from Glenn I see.

>
>> It is *you* who is ignoring rights to assemble/associate.
>> Read for comprehension. Or are you deliberately confusing the matter as
>> subterfuge?
>
>
> Once again, I can't confuse an issue, deliberately or otherwise, when
> you have yet to explain what you're talking about. Read for
> comprehension.
>

You lack comprehension. Sean and I have explained it to you how you are
ignoring our prerogative to collectively ignore AB when you misconstrue
such action as censorship. That you fail to acknowledge this prerogative
is veering toward intellectual dishonesty on your part. Just as the example
our president provides you would rather try to save face than acknowledge
truth. That is your failing. You are more about debating points than truth.
You should apply for press secretary if Spicer steps down.

>
>>>>> And Jillery is still left wondering why you think Maajid Naawaz has
>>>>> any more relevance to this topic than Huxley's original definition of
>>>>> "agnosticism" has to its modern usage.
>>>>
>>>> Because regressive leftism has expanded beyond Nawaz's intent to include
>>>> everything new atheists (Harris, Boghossian, Coyne etc) find objectionable.
>>>> And since you are smearing us with that broadened brush label the onus is
>>>> on you to justify the thread title. Or admit you crossed a boundary.
>>>
>>>
>>> IIUC you claim above that I accused you and others of everything
>>> objectionable by new atheists. It's that kind of hyperbole which
>>> makes it really hard to have a rational discussion.
>>>
>> The hyperbole you provided is right there in the thread title.
>
>
> Right here would have been a good place for you to have explained how
> you think the topic title is hyperbole. Do you deny there exist
> people who self-identify as "progressive" but openly advocate
> censoring people whose opinions they label as "annoying"?
>

Nice attempt at shifting focus. You weren't merely saying such people
exist. You were equating t.o. participants with those people.

You obviously were carrying unresolved baggage from Stockwell's moratorium
thread when you penned the ill conceived OP. You decided to flame it up
with a derogatory term "regressive left" and after following Coyne's
example you unleashed a subtle broadside against participants in the other
thread with: "IMO the recent call to collectively stop replying to AB is
T.O's contribution to that phenomenon." That phenomenon being the
disparaging label "regressive left". You were generalizing or painting with
broad strokes.

>
>>> Just to refresh your convenient amnesia, here's a copy from the quoted
>>> text above, where I specifically and explicitly identified the
>>> analogous behavior between what Coyne described and Stockwell's call:
>>>
>>> ***************************************************
>>> of people who self-identify as "progressives" and "liberals",
>>> but actively advocate censorship of people whose opinions annoy them.
>>> ****************************************************
>>>
>> Nothing about liberals giving Islamists a pass.
>
>
> And how 'bout them Mets.
>

Uh oh! We are starting with the queued automatisms. You obviously are
unfamiliar with the provenance of the "regressive left" label you are
abusing in the thread title. I have Harris/Nawaz's book.

>
>> Nor did you establish
>> censorship being exhibited on this thread. You failed.
>
>
> You're entitled to your opinion. That's how free speech works.
>

But I'm not entitled to share my opinion and have others concur. Or more to
the point that isn't registering in that thick block of granite you call a
brain, Stockwell is not entitled to express an opinion on the problem that
is AB and see if others concur. Stockwell must keep those opinions to
himself because they upset jillery who then launches a save the trolls
crusade.

>
>>> IF, and that's a really big IF, you can avoid your hubris and
>>> hyperbole, and limit your criticisms to what I actually wrote, there's
>>> a chance for a coherent discussion.
>>>
>> Evasion by misdirect noted.
>
>
> Right here would have been a good place for you to have explained how
> you think directing you to reply to what I actually wrote qualifies as
> "misdirection".
>

I have been basing my commentary entirely on what you actually wrote. You
are trying to create a face saving smokescreen rather than admit you were
wrong to launch this misbegotten thread in the first place. Jillery is
never wrong.

>
>>>> Is Stockwell a "regressive leftist"? Am I? Or were you clickbaiting? Or
>>>> sloppily misapplying words?
>>>
>>>
>>> IIUC you disagree that Stockwell's call qualifies as censorship, and
>>> for that reason consider my cite irrelevant. OTOH I regard
>>> Stockwell's call as an attempt at censorship, and what Coyne described
>>> has strong parallels to it, as I previously described. So whether my
>>> cite is "clickbait" or whether I crossed some imaginary boundary is a
>>> matter of opinion. As the saying goes, everybody has one, to which
>>> you're entitled. But you're not entitled to your own facts.
>>>
>>> As to whether anybody here is a regressive leftist, that depends on
>>> whether one labels people from a single action. I don't so label.
>>> Apparently your mileage varies.
>>>
>> Yet you chose the thread title and started painting with your broad brush
>> from the onset.
>
>
> Right here would have been a good place for you to have explained how
> you think anything I wrote in this topic qualifies as painting with a
> broad brush.
>

Done above. You smeared many of us from the other thread as regressive
leftists. I think you owe some apologies.

>
>>>>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>>> Attributed to Voltaire
>>>>
>>>> What about my right to listen to Stockwell and plug my ears on AB?
>>>
>>>
>>> What about it? Nothing I stated above criticizes either. OTOH your
>>> inability to comprehend nuance is annoying. Using the arguments
>>> recently posted by some in T.O., that would justify my not listening
>>> to you.
>>>
>> Suit yourself.
>
>
> Just as you do. Apparently you use different rules for yourself than
> for me.
>
>
>>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>>>
>>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>> Attributed to Voltaire
>>>
>>>
>> You're deluded. You've dug in your heels on a ridiculous argument and
>> haven't the integrity to concede your errors.
>
>
> Right here would have been a good place for you to have explained how
> you think it's delusional to acknowledge our mutual dependence to
> defend individual liberties.
>

Only the liberties jillery acknowledges. All else is irrelevant.

>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

Fix your noncompliant sig. I shouldn't need to snip it. And it betrays the
fact you are tilting at windmills.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Sean has been very clear on this point as have I. That you are apparently
slow on the uptake might mean you are under the spell of extreme cognitive
dissonance.

>
> Perhaps if instead of piggybacking on Hemi's injection of irrelevant
> issues, you rebooted with a new thread, one that clearly and concisely
> describes whatever objection(s) you have here. If you do, be sure to
> explain in that post how you think your freedom OF association and
> assembly relates to my OP, and how my OP is a threat to them.
>

Sean has been been far clearer, more concise, and definitely more patient
and charitable with you than I could be. It's sad you resort to treating
him as if he hasn't completely demolished your BS. But that's your modus
operandi. He's new to town, so I am not sure he's witnessed you degenerate
into full blown indignant flailing mode yet. There were signs of that in
your reply to me. Gotta love those queued up automatisms for which you're
infamous.

3...2....1....

[jillery]

That you claim Sean's comment above is "very clear", only shows you
have no idea what you're talking about.

>That you are apparently
>slow on the uptake might mean you are under the spell of extreme cognitive
>dissonance.
>>
>> Perhaps if instead of piggybacking on Hemi's injection of irrelevant
>> issues, you rebooted with a new thread, one that clearly and concisely
>> describes whatever objection(s) you have here. If you do, be sure to
>> explain in that post how you think your freedom OF association and
>> assembly relates to my OP, and how my OP is a threat to them.
>>
>Sean has been been far clearer, more concise, and definitely more patient
>and charitable with you than I could be. It's sad you resort to treating
>him as if he hasn't completely demolished your BS. But that's your modus
>operandi. He's new to town, so I am not sure he's witnessed you degenerate
>into full blown indignant flailing mode yet. There were signs of that in
>your reply to me. Gotta love those queued up automatisms for which you're
>infamous.
>
>3...2....1....

Gotta love those baseless irrelevancies and personal attacks for which
you're infamous.

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:46:29 -0500, *Hemidactylus*

Yes, this thread is chronologically recent. No, this thread has
several generations. Being overly literal makes you sound even more
stupid than you usually do.

>so I am not sure how you are trying to abuse the
>adverb. Both Sean and I have been pointing this myopia of yours concerning
>how people can band together and ignore a troll without infringing its
>rights out to you. That it fails to register is the receiver's limitation,
>not the senders.

It does no good for you to repetitively and baldly assert *that* I
infringe on your rights. Instead, it would help for you to explain
*how* my POV infringes on your rights. Your failure to register that
distinction is on your shoulders.

>> and have yet to even explain how
>> you think said rights are infringed by said troll or by me.
>
>You are still trying to manipulate with confusion over whether Sean and I
>were referring to AB or you. You are the one ignoring that we can freely
>agree to ignore AB without "censoring" its speech.

Incorrect. I don't ignore it. To the contrary, I explicitly disagree
with it. Your failure to register that distinction is on your
shoulders.

>This coming together as
>inspired by Stockwell is akin to assembly. Would you say people cannot
>picket or boycott for any reason but must accept the status quo?

Since you asked, no I would not so say. Would you say people can
picket or boycott whatever and whenever they feel like it?

>> Try to keep up.
>>
>It is you that is slow on the uptake especially given your use of the term
>"recently" above. The thread is less than a week old.

One can only wonder why you would elevate your restrictive definition
of a word into yet another stupid manufactured argument.

>>>>> Stockwell, Hemi, et al's right to collectively ignore a
>>>>> troll is just as salient as said trolls right to be a troll.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assuming you're actually serious that your right to associate and
>>>> assemble includes your right to collectively ignore a troll, right
>>>> here would have been a good place for you to have explained how you
>>>> think I'm sidestepping it.
>>>>
>>> That you think your initial free speech for trolls crusade was apropos is
>>> the issue at hand. The association/assembly countermeasure merely builds on
>>> that. Icing on cake.
>>
>>
>> Then instead of baldly asserting said claims, and injecting
>> nonsensical and irrelevant rhetoric,
>
>You're only saying that because you are flailing at a lost cause. This
>thread was irrelevant and misguided in the OP. That's entirely on you.

Every time you baldly claim victory, you show that you're just blowing
smoke.

>> right here would have been a good
>> place for you to have made an coherent and concise case, if only for
>> the novelty of the experience.
>>
>>
>>>>> And when a blogger filters bad commenters at will is that a bad thing? If I
>>>>> blogged I might just shut off comments altogether.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It should go without saying, but I remind you that T.O. is a Usenet
>>>> group, not a blog. There are too many differences of rights and
>>>> responsibilities and ownership to conflate the two meaningfully.
>>
>>
>> No reply. I'll assume your objection above what just more of your
>> nonsensical and irrelevant rhetoric.
>>
>Whether on a blog or usenet a private citizen can ignore or filter comments
>they deem pointless or objectionable. They can killfile on a newsreader or
>shutdown a participant on their blog.

I explicitly agreed that individuals have every right to do as you
describe above. To refresh your convenient lapse in memory, my
argument was with a collective conspiring to restrict the rights of
others.

And FYI readers of blogs are typically unable to shut down other
participants. Just sayin'.

>>>>> Does that put me in legion with Stalin or Kim Jung Un?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you claiming to own nuclear weapons? If so, that would be a
>>>> reasonable conclusion. If not, your question is not only irrelevant
>>>> but inane.
>>
>>
>> And yet another nonsensical and irrelevant bit of rhetoric dealt with.
>>
>You admit your non sequitur about nukes was nonsensical.

Nope. I admit that I made no mention of Stalin or Kim Jung Un. You
pulled that from your fevered imagination.

>Stalin and Kim are known censors and heads of state at that.

So was Vlad the Impaler. As I pointed out before, I explicitly
identified in my OP the basis of my analogy. You have completely
ignored said basis, and instead tossed out one hysterical claim after
another.

>Surprised that point escaped
>you. You are a very tedious person. I don't see the need to address every
>point,

Even when the point is yours? I'm not surprised.

>especially knowing the futility given your thick skull and need to
>save face above all else. Oh and the chronic need for adulation.

Your baseless personal attacks reek of smoke.

You're taking lessons from rockhead and jonathan I see.

>>> It is *you* who is ignoring rights to assemble/associate.
>>> Read for comprehension. Or are you deliberately confusing the matter as
>>> subterfuge?
>>
>>
>> Once again, I can't confuse an issue, deliberately or otherwise, when
>> you have yet to explain what you're talking about. Read for
>> comprehension.
>>
>You lack comprehension.

You lack coherence.

>Sean and I have explained it to you how you are
>ignoring our prerogative to collectively ignore AB when you misconstrue
>such action as censorship. That you fail to acknowledge this prerogative
>is veering toward intellectual dishonesty on your part. Just as the example
>our president provides you would rather try to save face than acknowledge
>truth. That is your failing. You are more about debating points than truth.
>You should apply for press secretary if Spicer steps down.

Yet more baseless personal attacks. Apparently you don't know how to
compose a rational line of reasoning.

>>>>>> And Jillery is still left wondering why you think Maajid Naawaz has
>>>>>> any more relevance to this topic than Huxley's original definition of
>>>>>> "agnosticism" has to its modern usage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because regressive leftism has expanded beyond Nawaz's intent to include
>>>>> everything new atheists (Harris, Boghossian, Coyne etc) find objectionable.
>>>>> And since you are smearing us with that broadened brush label the onus is
>>>>> on you to justify the thread title. Or admit you crossed a boundary.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IIUC you claim above that I accused you and others of everything
>>>> objectionable by new atheists. It's that kind of hyperbole which
>>>> makes it really hard to have a rational discussion.
>>>>
>>> The hyperbole you provided is right there in the thread title.
>>
>>
>> Right here would have been a good place for you to have explained how
>> you think the topic title is hyperbole. Do you deny there exist
>> people who self-identify as "progressive" but openly advocate
>> censoring people whose opinions they label as "annoying"?
>>
>Nice attempt at shifting focus.

Nope. I have no need to shift focus. You do enough of that for both
of us.

And yours is a pathetic attempt to evade the question.

>You weren't merely saying such people
>exist. You were equating t.o. participants with those people.

Incorrect. As I explained previously, I compared Stockwell's
moratorium to a behavior which appears in other groups. All other
comparisons and allusion you have posted from your fevered imagination
are utterly irrelevant to this topic and my argument.

>You obviously were carrying unresolved baggage from Stockwell's moratorium
>thread when you penned the ill conceived OP. You decided to flame it up
>with a derogatory term "regressive left" and after following Coyne's
>example you unleashed a subtle broadside against participants in the other
>thread with: "IMO the recent call to collectively stop replying to AB is
>T.O's contribution to that phenomenon." That phenomenon being the
>disparaging label "regressive left". You were generalizing or painting with
>broad strokes.

Nope. I have no need to generalize or paint with broad strokes. You
do enough of that for both of us.

>>>> Just to refresh your convenient amnesia, here's a copy from the quoted
>>>> text above, where I specifically and explicitly identified the
>>>> analogous behavior between what Coyne described and Stockwell's call:
>>>>
>>>> ***************************************************
>>>> of people who self-identify as "progressives" and "liberals",
>>>> but actively advocate censorship of people whose opinions annoy them.
>>>> ****************************************************
>>>>
>>> Nothing about liberals giving Islamists a pass.
>>
>>
>> And how 'bout them Mets.
>>
>Uh oh! We are starting with the queued automatisms.

They are a natural consequence of your queued irrelevancies.

>You obviously are
>unfamiliar with the provenance of the "regressive left" label you are
>abusing in the thread title. I have Harris/Nawaz's book.

And how 'bout them Mets.

>>> Nor did you establish
>>> censorship being exhibited on this thread. You failed.
>>
>>
>> You're entitled to your opinion. That's how free speech works.
>>
>But I'm not entitled to share my opinion and have others concur.

If you say so. I didn't so say, your baseless innuendo
notwithstanding.

>Or more to
>the point that isn't registering in that thick block of granite you call a
>brain, Stockwell is not entitled to express an opinion on the problem that
>is AB and see if others concur. Stockwell must keep those opinions to
>himself because they upset jillery who then launches a save the trolls
>crusade.

You really should read for comprehension. Your baseless personal
attacks make you sound even more stupid than you usually do.

>>>> IF, and that's a really big IF, you can avoid your hubris and
>>>> hyperbole, and limit your criticisms to what I actually wrote, there's
>>>> a chance for a coherent discussion.
>>>>
>>> Evasion by misdirect noted.
>>
>>
>> Right here would have been a good place for you to have explained how
>> you think directing you to reply to what I actually wrote qualifies as
>> "misdirection".
>>
>I have been basing my commentary entirely on what you actually wrote.

You mean like your references to Stalin? To the contrary, your basis
is totally disconnected from reality. Get a grip.

>You
>are trying to create a face saving smokescreen rather than admit you were
>wrong to launch this misbegotten thread in the first place. Jillery is
>never wrong.

If you say so. Flattery won't get you anywhere.

>>>>> Is Stockwell a "regressive leftist"? Am I? Or were you clickbaiting? Or
>>>>> sloppily misapplying words?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IIUC you disagree that Stockwell's call qualifies as censorship, and
>>>> for that reason consider my cite irrelevant. OTOH I regard
>>>> Stockwell's call as an attempt at censorship, and what Coyne described
>>>> has strong parallels to it, as I previously described. So whether my
>>>> cite is "clickbait" or whether I crossed some imaginary boundary is a
>>>> matter of opinion. As the saying goes, everybody has one, to which
>>>> you're entitled. But you're not entitled to your own facts.
>>>>
>>>> As to whether anybody here is a regressive leftist, that depends on
>>>> whether one labels people from a single action. I don't so label.
>>>> Apparently your mileage varies.
>>>>
>>> Yet you chose the thread title and started painting with your broad brush
>>> from the onset.
>>
>>
>> Right here would have been a good place for you to have explained how
>> you think anything I wrote in this topic qualifies as painting with a
>> broad brush.
>>
>Done above. You smeared many of us from the other thread as regressive
>leftists. I think you owe some apologies.

I smeared no one. That's your twisted self-serving obfuscating
version.

And who is "us"? Is that a mouse in your pocket? Or are you just
playing with yourself?

>>>>>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>>>> Attributed to Voltaire
>>>>>
>>>>> What about my right to listen to Stockwell and plug my ears on AB?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What about it? Nothing I stated above criticizes either. OTOH your
>>>> inability to comprehend nuance is annoying. Using the arguments
>>>> recently posted by some in T.O., that would justify my not listening
>>>> to you.
>>>>
>>> Suit yourself.
>>
>>
>> Just as you do. Apparently you use different rules for yourself than
>> for me.
>>
>>
>>>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>>>>
>>>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>> Attributed to Voltaire
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You're deluded. You've dug in your heels on a ridiculous argument and
>>> haven't the integrity to concede your errors.
>>
>>
>> Right here would have been a good place for you to have explained how
>> you think it's delusional to acknowledge our mutual dependence to
>> defend individual liberties.
>>
>Only the liberties jillery acknowledges. All else is irrelevant.

I have no idea what you're talking about above. Don't be insulted
that I don't wait for you to explain.

>> --
>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>>
>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>> Attributed to Voltaire
>>
>Fix your noncompliant sig. I shouldn't need to snip it. And it betrays the
>fact you are tilting at windmills.

Apparently you think freedom of speech applies only to you.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Well this is weird but I mostly agree with Coyne on this one issue about
Ann Coulter linked below, but reserve my right to take exception to the
regressive left label he deploys which IMO applies narrowly if at all under
Nawaz's original usage. YMMV.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/coultergate-gets-more-confusing/

Is the world going to end if Coulter spreads her special brand of fecal
fertilizer on a college campus? I saw her *shamelessly* plug her book on a
Comedy Central roast of Rob Lowe and almost felt sorry for her because it
was so awkward. But if three or more people mutually agreed to plug their
ears in protest would you call *that* censorship?

> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>
>

That is apropos to Coulter not speaking at UC Berkeley. But your maligning
of Stockwell's call here is a different story. Can you grok the difference?

[Mark Isaak]

The KKK, under Trump's leadership, is alive and well in the San
Francisco area. In a recent protest march in Berkeley, people from the
Right came armed, intending to riot. Some on the Far Left matched them.
(Others on the Left came to participate in a peaceful march, and some
of them ended up visiting a hospital.)

In such a climate, inviting Ann Coulter equals inviting a riot. If I
were in a position of authority at Berkeley, I would say to Coulter,
"You're free to speak on any street corner anywhere, but we're sure as
heck not going to supply a welcome mat for you."

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin