In 1968, Buckley debated Gore Vidal. Here's the most famous part of that debate:

BUCKLEY: No, I won’t. Some people were pro-Nazi and, and the answer is they were well treated by people who ostracized them. And I’m for ostracizing people who egg on other people to shoot American Marines and American soldiers. I know you don’t care—

VIDAL (loftily): As far as I’m concerned, the only pro- or crypto-Nazi I can think of is yourself. Failing that—

SMITH: Let’s, let’s not call names—

VIDAL: Failing that, I can only say that—

BUCKLEY (snarling, teeth bared): Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in your goddam face, and you’ll stay plastered—

Vidal was right about the Right, only he was about 50 years ahead of his time.

Let me disabuse you of some of your assumptions...

I didn't do gamergate and I don't really give a fuck about feminism/anti-feminism as it pertains to how I treat women in the real world (that being egalitarian, everyone should be equal).

Now that that's out of the way, yeah, I am for fucking real. Whether it was a stunt or just a bunch of people turning up to a talk which they paid their money to get in to, it doesn't really matter. Sarkessian was the aggressor (unless you truly believe that threaten = criticise someone's ideas online then show up in person to let them have their say), using a position of power, backed up by a bunch of like minded people to abuse paying attendees who's only crime was sitting up the front and listening quietly, which they are entitled to do.

/shockfuckinghorror, never mind free speech, you can't even listen to people anymore without them wetting their pants in terror.

There is plenty of video footage of said event and you are more than welcome to point out to me exactly where in that footage any of the so called aggressors did anything actually aggressive. Aka, the point where my opinion of what went on is different to the reality. I don't need to convince people of the reality of the situation, I can just roll the footage.

She broke the code of conduct, and while other YT'ers were being ejected for being in public areas (a breach of the CoC), she was given an explicit pass by the Greens. Sargon and the rest of the so called aggressors were not ejected or banned from Vidcon which indicates to me that they did nothing wrong in the eyes of the organisers. The aggressors seemed to get along fine with other people they met that they ideologically disagree with, with no other incidents being recorded. Sark, on the other hand, also verbally abused Boogie2988, one of the nicest and most considerate people I've seen on YT, and someone who had gone out of his way not to offend her.

All this is a matter of record, not my opinion. So now comes the question of your integrity. Are you going to actually back up your claims with a little actual evidence, or are you just going to go back to calling names... ; P

and what angle would that be?
YOU said mike ward was "rightly sued" for basically calling a kid ugly,and i asked for you to explain how this is a legal matter.

or is it your contention that because mike ward "punched down" instead of "punching up" IS the legal precedent?

what if he spoke on how ugly patton oswald is?
or ridiculed michael j fox's parkinsons?

would THAT be acceptable?
or would that be acceptable,but just in poor taste?

and you still haven't addressed how this young boys reputation has been ruined.from what i have been reading it was not his reputation,but how mike wards joke had become semi-popular and the kids in his school started busting this young boys balls to a degree where school was becoming an anxiety riddled event for the young man.

why aren't his school mates also being fined?
i mean,if we are going to bring in the state to handle every and all social issues..let us at least be fair.

and what about the people in the audiences that found the joke funny?
aren't they contributing to the continuation of this young mans suffering in school?

see,i think you are viewing this as a bullying situation (my assumption),and you are viewing this young man as a victim.a victim to bad jokes done in poor taste,and maybe you are correct,but jokes are subjective..NOT objective..and there is no tangible evidence that this young mans reputation has been affected.

it is the INTENT of the joke that should be scrutinized,and that is something that is also subjective and an issue we all deal with on an individual basis.the legal system should NEVER be used to decide such arbitrary and subjective material,because now you setting precedent and punishment based on "feelings",and this tactic can be easily abused.

so you may "feel" mike wards jokes are offensive and damaging,and that in your country mike ward should be executed for his crimes (fascist much?).

but remember...that pandoras box door swings BOTH ways,and the abuse can come from a direction that you,and i for that matter,would be appalled in its application.

and to even suggest that this is not a free speech issue is incredibly naive'.
if you think being charged in a civil case,and having to show in court multiple times to defend "joke" with the possibility of even MORE financial hardship,will not affect how a comedian approaches his routine and the jokes he writes,you are simply NOT thinking this whole situation through and the unintended consequences of situations such as these.

this is most certainly a free speech issue.

let me give you a hypothetical,but using the same parameters.

the wesboro baptist church goes to protest an abortion clinic,and are met with counter protesters.

the counter protesters begin to chastise and berate the westboro people.ridicule their stance on abortion and their religion.so much so that one of the younger westboro children becomes distraught,and anxious and begins to cry.someone films the exchange and posts to youtube,and it goes viral.

now the young westboro kid is being harassed in school,being picked on and being called names.the young kid is so vexed and humiliated that he avoids school at every step and is having self esteem issues.

so much so that the westboro church decides to sue the counter protesters in court.

what do you think the outcome should be?
should they even be allowed to sue?
and if so,should the young westboro kid receive damages?
or should those counter protesters receive the death penalty in your country?

do you see what i am saying?
you getting what i am laying down?

because free speech means that you are free to express yourself,but you are NOT free from offense,and offense is subjective.what offends YOU might not offend ME,and vice versa.

free speech means you are free to express every little thought that pops into your pretty little head and share with the world,and i am free to ridicule you relentlessly if i so choose.

and i will.
with gusto.

Coming in at the last moment and making everyone put in normally unpaid overtime -is- being a jerk.

You could be called names too, but I won't lower myself to that level. Try working retail for a year or two, and see if you still feel the same way.

In America they would just scream at each other and call names me thinks. This type of dialogue is more my speed.

Just you and me now, Bob. They've given up. We're racist trolls.

You know what they say...when you call names, you've lost the argument.

@VoodooV

is that what you did?
you just wanted to understand morganths downvote?
for him to clarify his position on why he would downvote a video on discrimination?

ok..let us look at your original comment shall we?

"ahh the coward @Morganth rears their ugly head as well.

come on out of the shadows and defend your downvotes, your homophobia, and your shitty religion, if you can."

i didnt see you ask once WHY he downvoted.
i did,however,see you call him a coward,a homophobe and disrespect his religion.

now maybe each one of your assumptions are spot on but we will never know the truth of that.
why?
because they are assumptions!!!

which is what i was pointing out.i am not defending morganths possible (and maybe probable) homophobia,i am defending his right to downvote without being harassed.

you do not know why he downvoted and neither do i.
maybe he just didnt like the video.
maybe huckebee is his uncle.
maybe he IS a homophobe.
maybe he just doesnt like you.
who knows?

and now we may never know because you did not just ask him to clarify his position..you ridiculed him..in public.

and that brings me to my secondary comment which deals with this issue and i think its an important one.
the subjectiveness of our own perceptions.

now maybe being called names and being poked in the ribs will bring you out to defend your position.....but thats YOU.other people may have a totally different reaction/response.

if your desire to understand is the motivation then maybe calling people names is not the best path in order to get them to share some of their inner-most feelings and/or ideologies.

to get respect you have first to give it.
and assumptions and presumption is disrespectful.

@chingalera
no conspiracy,
no anger,nor shame or guilt.

the community has spoken.
the discussion is over.
yourhydra self-posted.

you are my friend but your rage is mis-directed.
what does it serve to call names to those you disagree?
what will be the end result in this constant tug of war?
and whom are you tugging against?
who is on the other end of that rope?

is it @chicchorea?
is it @dag?
is it me?

WHOM are you railing against?
/hands his friend a mirror

be at peace.
there will be another day and another opportunity my friend.
this chapter is over.

I think part of it must have been cut off. Christians are the most anti-pro-environmental people around, they are the ones most defending the giant corporations fight against the science of climate change. Fox News and the Republican party say it is junk, so they say it is all junk. Which I find odd for the same reason Louis CK notes in the video, if He was real and came back, He'd be upset that they didn't take better care of the Earth. They seemed to have forgotten how good stewardship works... it wouldn't matter if climate change science was BS, taking better care of the environment would be the right thing to do from a Biblical perspective, yet many if not most don't care. I've been told, "It doesn't matter anyhow as Jesus is coming again soon"... as if that is reason enough not to be a good steward of what He apparently gave them to watch over... It just boggles my mind how far disconnected from any sort of logical thought train that the vast majority of them seem to be on... and I don't mean where it contradicts the Bible, but where logic would follow the Bible and yet is still ignored as the vast right wing media machine tells them to...

I would think that if the Bible says to be a good steward of the Earth and the right wing media machine and Republican party says profits matter more, then I'd question the Republican party and right wing media machine. I would think that if Jesus said the rich won't inherit the kingdom of God, that we were to take care of the sick and the poor and needy, and the Republican party and right wing media machine said, no, we need to let the rich keep more of the money they made by not paying their workers a living wage and punish those working for them by taking away benefits that help them survive, then I would question that message... oh wait, I did. Which is why I changed from a Republican to a Libertarian (defending Fox News and bashing evolution and the whole bit) and eventually to the Liberal I am today. Everything the right wing folks do in the so called name of God is in contradiction to the teachings of the Bible... save perhaps abortion, the solution of which isn't laws restricting it, but affordable health care and education, two things they are against providing...

>> ^KnivesOut:

Hey @A10anis, there's no need to get upset, certainly no reason to call names.
Maybe get some sunshine, whatever you gotta do.>> ^A10anis:
You know, friends of mine, quite rightly, castigate me for bothering to post. I'm starting to agree that it is pointless. Yes, you moron, I am well aware of Obama. However, he is not a contender, he is the incumbent.



I apologize. Sometimes I get a little exasperated, forgive me.

Hey @A10anis, there's no need to get upset, certainly no reason to call names.

Maybe get some sunshine, whatever you gotta do.>> ^A10anis:
You know, friends of mine, quite rightly, castigate me for bothering to post. I'm starting to agree that it is pointless. Yes, you moron, I am well aware of Obama. However, he is not a contender, he is the incumbent.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'it gets better, stephen colbert' to 'it gets better, stephen colbert, bully, power, words, calling names, queer' - edited by Eklek

...Not done watching yet, but something struck me:

Why does Sweeny apologize, multiple times, for his angry outburst during his previous examination of Scientology? I can see him admitting that his reaction did no good, and was in fact probably exactly what they were trying to provoke him to do, as well as possibly saying that it wasn't particularly professional.

However, one cannot interview someone in a professional manner if they are constantly being interrupted, called names, etc. About the only way I imagine that he could have handled that situation better would have been to break into full-on farce and talk over their interruptions with non sequiturs.

$cientologist: This is an e-meter. It measures the presence of ...
Sweeny: I had a telephone for breakfast today. It was ringlicious.

$cientologist: Psychology is a lie! They just want to sell ...
Sweeny: Freud was a hamster that smelled of elderberries!

One good turn of farce deserves another.

*edit:
Finally finished, my connection was really slow to buffer that all. Two more thoughts:
1) A lot of their tactics seem like Fred Phelps' loonies: Provoke, act outraged at the reaction you are fishing for, and attempt to discredit or apply leverage to your opponents via their reactions.
2) The saddest part of the video: there are apparently quite a few people who get their heads on straight enough to break with the official branch of Scientology, yet still buy into the "core beliefs" enough to follow a "reformation".

its about time someone started calling these people out for what they are. this is exactly the right way to handle them.... quantum mushroom couldnt make a comment without slandering mr franks sexual orientation.
from urban dictionary ....Finook
Derived from "finocchio" or fennel, a derogatory term for homsexual or gay, i.e., people that wiseguys feel nervous around. Can also be spelled Fanook. this is how republicans "discuss", instead of issues ,lets call names and scream hitler !!!
Also mr frank does not get "free health care". its part of his benefit package. like my health care is. its not free, i work for it. i also pay 70 dollars a month in medicare taxes, probably to pay for this psycho ladys healthcare. the next question one should always ask is where do you get healthcare? ill bet one million shes on some government program. being on medicare or medicaid and protesting healthcare reform is like driving cross country to protest roads. these people arent against government healthcare,they are against anyone ELSE getting government healthcare. we need a system where everyone pays and everyone benefits. even republicans should be able to understand that simple concept.

Burdturgler:

I wear your downvote with honor ponceleon and look forward to your detailed and reasoned explanation.

Shuac:
You mean like this?

Burdturgler:

It's funny the way you word things. For an asshole like you there's only two ways. I can learn (agree with) what you're saying .. or I can remain stupid and ignorant. Tough fuckin call. Guess I'll go for stupid for the time being.

Burdturgler:

Why don't you fart gum drops and unicorns out of your ass? Why doesn't God just send a big meteor of cash hurtling through the atmosphere to explode everywhere? Better yet, why not just slip a few bills in everyone's pocket at the start of each fucking day?

Shuac:
See, when you resort to such pedestrian methods of debate, you do irreparable damage to your position.

You've been a great contributor to Videosift over the many months and I know you're not stupid in the slightest sense but I don't think debating is for you. You get too worked up.

Have you ever wondered why that, in nearly every forum/message board religious debate, those taking a pro-theist stance are much more prone to making emotionally-based arguments than non-theists? Now, I'm not saying non-theists don't get emotional or call names too. Some do. Nor am I saying there are no atheists who are ill-equipped to be debating as well. There are. But generally-speaking, this is what I've witnessed. It's worth thinking about.