|
emfive posted:Paying for higher education at any sort of institution is implicitly an investment meant to acquire the imprimatur of the institution when you graduate. You're paying and working to be recognized as a person worthy of getting a particular diploma. That a college or university would seek to ensure that students carrying such diplomas have demonstrated that they're generally not shitheaded racists seems like a good idea in order to protect the value of those diplomas. This is fine for a private institution, but public institutions are not supposed to do this kind of thought policing. Also, graduates being shithead racists has never really been bad for a university's brand. If anything, it would improve alumni relations and recruiting.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
Sharkie posted:"Excuse me I just heard you guys saying black people aren't inferior. Solely in the interest of avoiding an echo chamber, I feel I should say that" You should be fine but purge a trot just to be sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
platzapS posted:I wouldn't say precisely that--if, say, the debaters both fell ill and couldn't make it, I don't think it would be a particular loss to society. But for Oxford to deny one student group space for a speaker because other student groups didn't like it IS a loss. That helps create a culture on campus where if you don't like somebody's speech, you complain that it's offensive instead of arguing against it. That encourages an arms race of grievances in place of debate. I don't think the protestors' complaints could be summed up by saying they thought it's "offensive." I think that's reducing them to mere hurt feelings, when in fact they could argue that the idea they were protesting: men should debate and reason out what rights women should have, causes actual harm. Furthermore, the debate itself was a form of speech they were arguing against. platzapS posted:My thinking and rhetoric was kind of muddled there, yes. I guess I'd say that all ideas should be protected, in order for particularly useful radical ideas to come to the fore. I guess we just disagree. I don't think the invisible hand of the free market is any better at promoting or winnowing ideas than it is at allocating resources. And I'm sure that if you put your mind to it, you could easily come up with ideas you don't think should be protected - libel, perhaps? platzapS posted:Just because I think an idea should be allowed to be aired doesn't mean I think it should be acted upon. I'm fine with somebody arguing "Oxford should shut down an all-male debate on abortion", but I don't agree. I am saying that's a bad idea, and Oxford was bad for going along with it. This is a matter of prudence though, not a legal argument. We agree that this case is about prudence, not a legal argument, it's just that I'm looking at it from the perspective of the protestors, and since it isn't legally infringing on anyone's rights, I'm comfortable with them exercising their speech - which you appear to be as well - and I'm comfortable with their speech being listened and responded to. CharlestheHammer posted:You should be fine but purge a trot just to be sure. Cool. *grabs icepick, points over your shoulder and yells "hey look over there."*
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
This reminds me of what, I believe, Bill Nye once said about debating with climate change deniers. It is simply not worth it because the very idea of "debating" against such an illegitimate argument gives them an air of legitimacy and a podium that they don't deserve. Exactly how Deborah Lipstadt feels about Holocaust deniers. Basically there are arguments that are objectively unworthy of being given the time of day in any respectable forum for discussion in an academic setting. That being said they should absolutely be allowed to spout of their nonsense on a sidewalk or in the middle of the park until their lungs give out but everyone else has the right to laugh in their faces.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:This reminds me of what, I believe, Bill Nye once said about debating with climate change deniers. It is simply not worth it because the very idea of "debating" against such an illegitimate argument gives them an air of legitimacy and a podium that they don't deserve. Exactly how Deborah Lipstadt feels about Holocaust deniers. Basically there are arguments that are objectively unworthy of being given the time of day in any respectable forum for discussion in an academic setting. That being said they should absolutely be allowed to spout of their nonsense on a sidewalk or in the middle of the park until their lungs give out but everyone else has the right to laugh in their faces. From what I can tell that's the view the author of the book is trying to express so far. Now, like I said, i'm still fairly early on in my reading.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
I'm starting to worry that we're doing the OP's homework or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I'm starting to worry that we're doing the OP's homework or something. yeah i dont think anyone's in danger of taking away new or useful information from this thread
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I'm starting to worry that we're doing the OP's homework or something. Nope, graduated already. Just figured it would be a interesting discussion and I was fairly curious to see the forums thoughts. Nckdictator fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
emfive posted:And to think that there have actually been people named Gaylord. If that's really true about "shitlord" and if it's possible that people would take offense (other than the people people called "shitlord" for reasons having nothing to do with their orientation) then I'd stop using it because there are many other silly things to call people. Like, "boogerhead" is a viable substitute. I don't know. You asked the dude for a citation and I thought it was worth a google. I only read a few of the results and the others seemed supportive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:However, I, and I suspect some of the protestors, would argue that "men debating over what rights women should have" is not an unusual idea or the type of discussion that is in any danger of being marginalized in our society. So from that perspective, a group of women getting together to dissuade Oxford from hosting the debate is an example of people using their free speech to speak out against a much more popular, and louder, narrative (that men decide what rights women should have). It's an example of an "unusual idea" (that men have no place in deciding how women and their bodies should be controlled) being articulated and having an effect. So in this case, it was the protesting students, not the university, who were acting as a hotbed for unusual ideas and free debate. The invited guys did not lose any freedom to debate - they are not prevented from talking about abortion. Yes, the all-too-common leftist idea that certain people shouldn't discuss discuss certain subjects is precisely why these impediments to speech happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Yes, the all-too-common leftist idea that certain people shouldn't discuss discuss certain subjects is precisely why these impediments to speech happen. excuse me it sounds like your tyring to censor our freedome of speech i assume that the fire organization will have some things to say about your att
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
The United States has never had a common value of free speech as in "I can say whatever I want and people must humor my opinions". The idea that there was ever a period where everyone just got along and tolerated each other's views is a myth. In the 1800s it was illegal to distribute abolitionist literature in the South. In the 1900s we executed probably innocent Italian immigrants for being associated with anarchist movements. In the 1950s we blacklisted Communists and Civil Rights activists. During the Bush Administration the Administration leaned pretty heavily on journalists not to be so harsh on them, and the right wing media sphere literally did not stop bitching about how it was unfair that people were criticizing him for 8 straight years. American history is pretty much an unbroken string of people trying to silence their political opponents. The only difference here is that right wingers are on the receiving end of things
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Yes, the all-too-common leftist idea that certain people shouldn't discuss discuss certain subjects is precisely why these impediments to speech happen. This demand to have your opinions treated with respect and given hearing regardless of their actual merit is the most fundamental expression of privilege hth. The problem is that people of color and women have traditionally been denied exact this privilege. I'm sure you'll retort with something like "but all people should have their ideas listened to! That's what I believe!" But the trouble is that existing social structures can only mean that absent special protection the voices of wealth, whiteness, and maleness will always be able to marginalize other perspectives because they have been favored by those structures. This is why "race blind" policies without special protections for minorities reinforce an existing racial hierarchy, for example. So next time you're bitching about not being able to dominate every academic discussion remember that you don't have the right to do that and that people of color have just as much right as you to express their ideas. This can only occur if they are given special protection that you don't have. In conclusion,this silly poo poo is similar to demanding there be a white history month. In the usa every month is white history month. So shut up and listen to what women and people of color have to say already. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 10:15 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This demand to have your opinions treated with respect and given hearing regardless of their actual merit is the most fundamental expression of privilege hth. The upshot of this by the way is that speech which creates a hostile environment for minorities or women can have no place in a university setting. Such speech further excludes the marginalized people from the intellectual sphere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This demand to have your opinions treated with respect and given hearing regardless of their actual merit is the most fundamental expression of privilege hth. wow you must have really good opinions
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
a survey of 9,000 campus staff members shows that less than 20% of them believe it's safe to hold unpopular views on campus and it is plainly obvious to anyone with a brain that they're all white supremacists and garbage people who should shut up
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
fanged wang posted:a survey of 9,000 campus staff members shows that less than 20% of them believe it's safe to hold unpopular views on campus and it is plainly obvious to anyone with a brain that they're all white supremacists and garbage people who should shut up well the view "pedophilia rules" would be unpopular to hold, should people feel safe to hold that view? it is a retarded way to frame a survey question innit
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 11:36
|
|
|
Did you people all go to college in the bizarro universe? Seriously. The ideas you have about universities are really outlandish.
Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 11:41 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:well the view "pedophilia rules" would be unpopular to hold, should people feel safe to hold that view? it is a retarded way to frame a survey question innit hmmmm yes that probably is what they were thinking when they were asked to think of unpopular views that may not be welcome at a college campus, they were thinking about a hypothetical scenario involving pro pedophilia guest speakers just like any reasonable person would if you were to ask them that question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 11:45
|
|
|
fanged wang posted:hmmmm yes that probably is what they were thinking when they were asked to think of unpopular views that may not be welcome at a college campus, they were thinking about a hypothetical scenario involving pro pedophilia guest speakers just like any reasonable person would if you were to ask them that question. prolly were professors are pretty gross dude edit: seriously though just saying "unpopular view" leaves it up to the imagination of the survey filler to think of whatever poo poo is horrible in their own mind and then think "yeah i don't know how people would react if i voiced that view!" it's a lovely question. serious question though who gives a gently caress whether colleges are "intellectually free" (for right wingers to be cunts) anyway? people like to talk a big game about challenging ideas and poo poo but uh what student actually thinks like that? college is about getting either credentials or babysitting for four years. Homura and Sickle fucked around with this message at 11:55 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:prolly were professors are pretty gross dude that's fair. well debated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
fanged wang, the totalitarian statist in me is starting to think your posting might not be up to standards
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:
you're just like part of the problem, man EDIT: I tried to get my high school world history teacher fired for saying super racist stuff during class the day after Obama's re-election. (note: did not work) Am I some sort of free-speech challenging rear end in a top hat? Chelb fucked around with this message at 12:07 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 12:04
|
|
|
in a thread about kids getting expelled for protesting a parking garage and a dude getting disciplined at work for reading a history book about the university he works for this is the first postAmiYumi posted:Phone-posting, but it is 100% guaranteed that what anyone who unironically says "political correctness run amok" means by free speech being under attack is "my trash Republican comments were met with anything other than fawning approval". and then pretty much all the posts were that exact thing where did y'all hear that first was it first brewed up on sa or did bill maher say it in a monologue to deafening applause i don't really see the poetry in it but it seems to have thrilled your spirits like the opening guitar lick to layla might to a lonely teenager in a small town in the 1970s imo i think it's a way to inoculate oneself against introspection and load your posting guns with "ur racist" brand armor piercing debate bullets
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:you're just like That depends, what did they actually say? You say it's super-racist and maybe it was, but is it wise to assume your interpretation is the only correct one? Before I would endorse a high-school student's attempt to remove someone's livelihood I would want some corroboration at the very least. I don't know about the rest of you, but I and many people I know were much more foolish in High School. If they did in fact say 'super racist stuff' then perhaps termination would be warranted. Or maybe some measure of censure, unpaid leave. The most dramatic option is rarely the right one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
fanged wang posted:in a thread about kids getting expelled for protesting a parking garage and a dude getting disciplined at work for reading a history book about the university he works for this is the first post the cases given in the OP are all bullshit. 1) someone misinterpreted a book a dude was reading and claimed racial harassment. are you going to eliminate racial harassment as a punishable offense? what's your plan to 'fix' this situation? some people are wrongfully convicted of murder, welp looks like we're going to have to make murder legal 2) students in a poll think a thing? okay? why should I care? this doesn't have any solid relation to reality, it's a sentiment. 3) "diversity training classes = evil liberal nazis destroying speech" at this point is a 20 year old trope, and I don't need to bother refuting it 4) i know a good number of people involved in protest movements and this kind of heavy handed treatment is routine. but it's not ideologically motivated, it's just how institutions work. they're going to crack down hard on people loving with them. it's not evil liberals restricting speech, it's pragmatist bureaucrats
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
The Snark posted:That depends, what did they actually say? You say it's super-racist and maybe it was, but is it wise to assume your interpretation is the only correct one? Before I would endorse a high-school student's attempt to remove someone's livelihood I would want some corroboration at the very least. I admit, there were not racist in a 'I hate niggers' kind of way, but I believed (and still believe) that they were unprofessional, inappopropriate, and factually untrue statements unfit for a school classroom. Here's what I e-mailed one of my vice principles, word-for-word except for the omission of names: Me posted:While awaiting a response to my previous e-mail, several statements were made by [ ], also during his ninth period AP World History class. I have taken the liberty of recording [ ]'s statements, as written below. Was I stifling my teacher's freedom of speech? Am I 'the problem', or was I justified? Chelb fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
fanged wang posted:a survey of 9,000 campus staff members shows that less than 20% of them believe it's safe to hold unpopular views on campus and it is plainly obvious to anyone with a brain that they're all white supremacists and garbage people who should shut up "Unpopular views" includes everything from "Women shouldn't be in my Engineering classes," to "White people are all racist," to "I should be allowed to date students," so it's a stupidly open-ended question and it is plainly obvious to anyone with a brain that it's not a good metric of determining whether free speech is under attack much less by a specifically liberal power structure. Rollofthedice posted:Was I stifling my teacher's freedom of speech? Am I 'the problem', or was I justified? Of course you were justified but if you had succeeded in getting him censored you can bet someone would write an article about how you silenced his free speech because he had the courage to express these unpopular opinions and challenge your worldview  edit: Why can't we discuss how black and latino people are lazy criminals, I thought college was about the free exchange of ideas 
Sharkie fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:I admit, there were not racist in a 'I hate niggers' kind of way, but I believed (and still believe) that they were unprofessional, inappopropriate, and factually untrue statements unfit for a school classroom. Assuming that this is all accurate. So basically he regurgitated a number of glittering generalities and obliviously racist stuff that a vast number of older Americans tend to accept as fact without critical thought. I could see it warranting less dramatic censures than termination, as none of these things seem to be especially relevant to world history and largely seem to be him venting about the candidate he didn't like more winning. (I suspect many people vote not for the candidate the like more so much as the one they dislike/fear less, but I digress.) No, you are not 'the problem' and I would say you were justified in raising objection. Justified in wanting him fired though? I wouldn't agree with that. That was a poor excuse for KKK hate speech. It was, I would say, not in fact 'super' racist. Objectionable, definitely. On a side note though, I am not clear on why -”Individual responsibility is collapsing America” is an irresponsible assertion you felt unacceptable. Nothing seems to be even subtly racist in that, a bit bizarre though. Why would individual responsibility be collapsing America? Individual responsibility is a good thing, isn't it? The Snark fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Assuming that this is all accurate. Let me rephrase myself. 'tried to get him fired' was not my official goal, though at the time I certainly disliked him enough for it. I would've been fine if he had suffered any punishment at all, really. He did not, as far as I am aware. 'Super racist' may have also been hyperbole on my part - though I personally don't think racism should be advocated by an authority figure, unopposed, to anyone under adult age. And yeah, that last one is a bit weak. I don't quite remember my rationale for it, I made that email two years ago. Chelb fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:
That strawman sounds like a total dick. You should burn him. Let actual people speak though, even if you don't agree- even if you think they're stupid- there are things to be learned from them. At the very least you can learn WHY they believe these things. Is it a matter of media representation? Is it simply parroting what their parents said? Do they feel it is a personal observation? All of these things are worth learning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Assuming that this is all accurate. What possible action would be worthy of termination in your opinion, then? Openly supporting a candidate for political office? Calling for violence against minorities? Verbal abuse of students? Looks like that's all covered under 'free speech' to me hint: the teacher does not have any expectation to free speech from his private employer. he only has this expectation from the government. that's it. there is no broader societal expectation of free speech. it doesn't and shouldn't exist
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:What possible action would be worthy of termination in your opinion, then? Openly supporting a candidate for political office? Calling for violence against minorities? Verbal abuse of students? Looks like that's all covered under 'free speech' to me Of the options you have presented? Calling for violence against minorities, definitely. Hell, I would think further legal action would be worth considering in that case. Verbal abuse of students? Quite likely, but when you have a blanket term the devil is in the details. Openly supporting a given candidate? Sounds like a lesser censure issue. The hint was rather obnoxious. I can't agree that there shouldn't be a broader societal expectation of free speech- but within certain limits such as not allowing calls to violence against people you don't like. Assuming this was really acceptable to start with. Other limitations are reasonable to apply depending on the specific fora! Whether those limitations are right or wise is a matter of the case in question, but I would insist they should not be applied casually and should generally have more logic behind them than 'I don't want to hear things I disagree with.' The Snark fucked around with this message at 14:07 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
It just occurred to me that I never answered the question in the OP so I will now. No OP, not in any meaningful way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
The Snark posted:That strawman sounds like a total dick. quote:-Hispanics do not obey laws, and are more likely to be drug dealers; The Snark posted:Let actual people speak though, even if you don't agree- even if you think they're stupid- there are things to be learned from them. At the very least you can learn WHY they believe these things. Is it a matter of media representation? Is it simply parroting what their parents said? Do they feel it is a personal observation? Show me where in this thread I've said that people should not be allowed to speak. I have said that people have the right to deny them platforms and call them idiots. And you don't have to give Bob the racist classroom time or a speaking engagement to find out why he's a racist. I swear, some people in this thread feel that racist or misogynist speech is a rare thing facing extinction that must be supported and given platforms lest it perish from the face of the Earth. icantfindaname posted:hint: the teacher does not have any expectation to free speech from his private employer. he only has this expectation from the government. that's it. there is no broader societal expectation of free speech. it doesn't and shouldn't exist Yeah, this reminds me of threads where people clutch their pearls because the Duck Dynasty guy or that Mozilla CEO had a backlash against them for being racist/homophobic bigots and tremble about the terrible, censorious power of the PC police yet didn't know that you can still be fired just for being gay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Show me where in this thread I've said that people should not be allowed to speak. I have said that people have the right to deny them platforms and call them idiots. And you don't have to give Bob the racist classroom time or a speaking engagement to find out why he's a racist. I swear, some people in this thread feel that racist or misogynist speech is a rare thing facing extinction that must be supported and given platforms lest it perish from the face of the Earth. First, what you said still isn't what he said which isn't what the strawman said. You can interpret it that way, but when you change the words then the words being used are yours- not theirs. I do not agree with what that teacher said, and obviously it is not something they should get class time to rant about. The problem is that 'racist' or 'misogynist' speech has been applied a bit too casually and has been used as an excuse to dismiss people wholesale. Whole entire indistinct groups of people dismissed because someone can interpret an aspect as problematic or wrong. Oversimplification. Is it not the exact sort of thing people used to do to dismiss proponents of social justice? "They sound like a commie if you ask me." You seem to be saying saying that people have a right to speak, but just not anywhere they might be heard if you or someone else deems them conservative, racist, misogynist or otherwise 'wrong'. A very dangerous stance to take, one I don't believe is healthy for anyone. I doubt anyone in this thread is concerned for the survival of racist or misogynistic speech, but do suspect some people are using those labels to try and more or less ban anything they simply disagree with. Calling something out as stupid or racist- that's fine. To say that they should be banned from being heard accordingly- that is not something I feel should be done so lightly. I'm seeing people apply labels and dismiss the labeled out of hand without consideration, or even asking if the labels were accurately applied. I don't like it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
A quick question: do people agree with the decision in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:A quick question: do people agree with the decision in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
The Snark posted:That strawman sounds like a total dick. You should burn him. Haha no, that isn't true. The only thing an O'Reilly-watching moron has to teach is how not to live. quote:At the very least you can learn WHY they believe these things. Is it a matter of media representation? Is it simply parroting what their parents said? Do they feel it is a personal observation? We already know these things. But once you're presented with the fact of a grown person who believes them, the only thing we need to know is how to eliminate their influence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:A quick question: do people agree with the decision in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie? The worst thing in that case, I'd say, was the city banning all political demonstration in Marquette Park. Unless that was repealed that means it can't be used by anyone for political demonstration regardless of cause. I hope it never becomes important! So, yes. Liberties should not be taken away just because other people you don't like can use them too. Those liberties won't be lost by JUST them. Was glad to see they ultimately did not march through the community of holocaust survivors though. That would have been profoundly unpleasant. Nazis. You have to live in a very dark place to think it would have been awesome to be one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 17:59
|
|