|
What if protesters outside get so loud that they can't hear the speaker inside, should the protesters quiet down?
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:So do you have any examples of anybody being effectively permanently silenced as a result of college protests? Trabisnikof posted:So if I tell people to stop saying racial slurs in the public forum that's crossed the line into unethical speech?  at these "letting conservatives speak is the same as letting someone scream 'friend of the family' in the quad" equivalencies.Who What Now posted:So then people can't protest these speeches?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So wait, protests count as no-platforming now? Isn't that itself a form of censorship, demanding that protests against people be crushed so that grunting subhumans like Steven Crowder can feel free from dissent? There was a protest a few years ago that involved a feminist group pulling a fire alarm in a building to shut down an event some MRAs were having. I think that would be a valid example of a protest being used as a method of no-platforming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No one has argued that George Will not being allowed to speak is akin to having his tongue cut out. The issue is that some people want to police the range of acceptable viewpoints on campus by preventing, disrupting, or running off speakers they disagree with.The OP went to bat to argue this was a good thing. So is the issue that they're disrupting the speech or is protesting to prevent the speaker from ever starting to speak also wrong? Since race is clearly a sensitive topic for you, we can switch the example to climate denialism. Are students who protest to prevent a climate denier from speaking on the topic at their school wrong or unethical? What if the school extended an invitation but then protesters got it cancelled, is that unethical or wrong on the part of the protesters?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No one has argued that George Will not being allowed to speak is akin to having his tongue cut out. The issue is that some people want to police the range of acceptable viewpoints on campus by preventing, disrupting, or running off speakers they disagree with.The OP went to bat to argue this was a good thing. Once again it looks like you're saying that you're "supportive" of people protesting so long as they never actually accomplish anything. If that's the case, why allow them to protest at all?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Once again it looks like you're saying that you're "supportive" of people protesting so long as they never actually accomplish anything. If that's the case, why allow them to protest at all? Are you arguing that the ends justify the means?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Are you arguing that the ends justify the means? No gently caress you put Chewbacca back where you found him. Your non-retarded question is "Is he arguing that protesting, an activity that is disruptive and disliked, is a good thing especially when it accomplishes a good thing?" in which case I answer "duh"
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Are you arguing that the ends justify the means? No, I'm arguing that the right to protest should be meaningful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Once again it looks like you're saying that you're "supportive" of people protesting so long as they never actually accomplish anything. If that's the case, why allow them to protest at all? By protesting they make it known that they strongly disagree with the content of the protestee's speech.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
I think we reached a core point here: A lotta people don't get why protests happen and how they're supposed to resolve issues being protested.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
No. The issue is that there are different purposes that a protest can serve.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:By protesting they make it known that they strongly disagree with the content of the protestee's speech. And if the administration acknowledges this and cancels the event?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Then it isn't a very good administration.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Ok, so you don't support protests then. You support people being able to technically say things so long as they are completely disenfranchised and unable to affect change of any kind through what they say. I don't know why you couldn't say that from the start.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
If the goal of the protest is to bar someone from speaking at a university event then I do not support that protest. There are many other reasons to protest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:If the goal of the protest is to bar someone from speaking at a university event then I do not support that protest. There are many other reasons to protest. Why isn't it ethical or right for students of climate science to protest to stop a climate change denier from speaking if their lovely administration invited one to speak uncontested?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:If the goal of the protest is to bar someone from speaking at a university event then I do not support that protest. There are many other reasons to protest. Ok, so counter-protest and try to convince people to keep the event. A "protest" that has been stripped of all power to affect change is as much a real protest as a ballot that is never counted is a real vote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why isn't it ethical or right for students of climate science to protest to stop a climate change denier from speaking if their lovely administration invited one to speak uncontested? This is actually a good example of an exception, and it depends on how the speaker is being billed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:This is actually a good example of an exception, and it depends on how the speaker is being billed. See I don't think of this as an exception but proof of the rule. Protesting a future speaker because of their past speech is an ethical* speech act. I don't have faith that we can draw up a list of exceptions in this thread and I don't trust universities or any of our institutions to do it either. Instead, we will have to decide as a society and as institutions if the protesters should get their way or it. *obviously there are ways you can do it unethically, but that's a contention I think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ok, so counter-protest and try to convince people to keep the event. A "protest" that has been stripped of all power to affect change is as much a real protest as a ballot that is never counted is a real vote. Protesting to stop a political speaker from being heard is bullshit no-effort activism and I hope that it isn't effective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Protesting to stop a political speaker from being heard is bullshit no-effort activism and I hope that it isn't effective. As opposed to what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:See I don't think of this as an exception but proof of the rule. Protesting a future speaker because of their past speech is an ethical* speech act. I'm not saying that it is total exception, what I meant was that students of climate science would be justified in organizing to prevent a climate change denialist from speaking if he was being billed as some sort of expert in the field. In this case it's not the speech itself that is being protested but the way that it is being framed by the university.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:As opposed to what? Doing
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I'm not saying that it is total exception, what I meant was that students of climate science would be justified in organizing to prevent a climate change denialist from speaking if he was being billed as some sort of expert in the field. In this case it's not the speech itself that is being protested but the way that it is being framed by the university. But I really disagree with the framework that we as third parties will ever effectively adjudicate what are or are not just causes for protesting. So rather than saying that someone was wrong for protesting a cause you deem not worth it, just accept their speech and fail to be motivated. Certainly judge them for the things they say and do in protest, but for me, I can't find the certainty to judge protesting itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Doing Not having that speaker legitimized does support those goals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:If somebody is invited to speak on campus, going to their event and shouting over them until they have to literally stop the event is infringing on other people's right to hear the person speak. You're basically standing up and saying "No, invited speaker, I have decided that what you are saying should not be heard by other people. Other people: I am deciding for you that you don't want to hear this speaker, and shouldn't want to hear this speaker."  completely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:44
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Trabisnikof posted:But I really disagree with the framework that we as third parties will ever effectively adjudicate what are or are not just causes for protesting. But you don't really think that protesting is value neutral do you? Would say the same thing about people protesting on a small conservative campus to prevent a climate change scientist from speaking? In any case the people who are really wrong in these recent examples are the administration who bends to pressure and rescinds a person's opportunity to deliver political speech. [edited for grammar] The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Not having that speaker legitimized does support those goals. I strongly disagree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ok, so counter-protest and try to convince people to keep the event. A "protest" that has been stripped of all power to affect change is as much a real protest as a ballot that is never counted is a real vote. Votes are about control of institutional power. Without power, a vote becomes a poll. Speech is different. It matters even if there isn't any institutional power in play.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
So what should protesting look like to you? Protests that do not impede people's daily lives? Protests that only harm the thing that is harming the protesters? I'm gonna assume you disagree when BLM block highways. How would you like them to protest unjust murders by cops? Secular Humanist posted:If somebody is invited to speak on campus, going to their event and shouting over them until they have to literally stop the event is infringing on other people's right to hear the person speak. You're basically standing up and saying "No, invited speaker, I have decided that what you are saying should not be heard by other people. Other people: I am deciding for you that you don't want to hear this speaker, and shouldn't want to hear this speaker." Seriously, are you Sargon of Akkad? I hear this kinda poo poo from him all the time. This is a terrible argument; speakers misrepresent their points to neutral parties in your example, speakers' views disproportionately affect protesters' lives and not that of neutral parties and protesters don't want speakers to gain additional prestige so their points get more traction in the public's eye. Mind you I don't even know why I'm engaging with this point because it's fallacious: You're not talking about one guy exerting power over another to stop him from hearing a speaker. You're talking about a group preventing a famous, public speaker (one who prob gets money for speaking) from convincing a neutral crowd about their points. Usually because, again, the protesters know why said speaker is a piece of poo poo. Secular Humanist posted:Standing outside and protesting is acceptable because other people still have the option to hear the speaker; you are free to persuade them not to with your own free speech. Don't FORCE them not to by screaming over the invited speaker like a complete loving manchild. The second the statement "I protested against X's views on Y campus" carries the same prestige as "I was invited to speak about X at Y" you might have a kernel of a point. Secular Humanist posted:People really just seem to be desperately seeking permission to be incredibly rude and selfish while also feeling all cool and protesty. Having the (perceived) moral high ground is never an excuse to be an unbelievably entitled and obnoxious rear end in a top hat, in other words. hitler_tone.jpeg
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Protesting to stop a political speaker from being heard is bullshit no-effort activism and I hope that it isn't effective. So it takes no effort but has a grave chilling effect. poo poo fellas, I think we just discovered the most efficient form of protest known to man! I guess protesting to stop political speakers from being heard is exactly what students should be doing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:Votes are about control of institutional power. Without power, a vote becomes a poll. Speech actually doesn't matter if nobody is allowed to be convinced by it. You might as well claim that they can say whatever they want, so long as it's from the list of approved topics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Speech actually doesn't matter if nobody is allowed to be convinced by it. You might as well claim that they can say whatever they want, so long as it's from the list of approved topics. SSNeoman posted:So what should protesting look like to you? Protests that do not impede people's daily lives? Protests that only harm the thing that is harming the protesters? SSNeoman posted:I'm gonna assume you disagree when BLM block highways. How would you like them to protest unjust murders by cops? Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:So it takes no effort but has a grave chilling effect. The chilling effect is a societal disregard for the concept of free speech. If you think that is good then go right ahead pull the fire alarm at a local conservative political conference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Some stuff You seem to have absolutely no faith in other people's ability to hear ideas and decide for themselves whether they are good or bad ideas. I'm not sure how else to respond. The point I made in the previous post about "persuading people not to listen to the speaker using your own free speech" is the protest. Shouting down\silencing\otherwise censoring speakers you don't like that have been invited to speak on a college campus, no matter how big of a nazi racist piece of trash you think they are (they never are, btw), exhibits a flagrant disregard for other people's intelligence and a massive sense of selfish entitlement. And nope, I'm not Sargon. Although I am somebody who used to sound an awful lot like you, and was persuaded to change my mind by guys like him. I guess I've been conscripted. Secular Humanist fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:But you don't really think that protesting is value neutral do you? Would say the same thing about people protesting on a small conservative campus to prevent a climate change scientist from speaking? I actually do. Take those conservative students, let them protest and I would critique the specifics of their speech. But yeah, I expect protesters for most liberal events. I think administrations have failed both by inviting people they shouldn't have and disinviting people they shouldn't have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The chilling effect is a societal disregard for the concept of free speech. If you think that is good then go right ahead pull the fire alarm at a local conservative political conference. That societal disregard was already promoted by those very conservative speakers, who want minorities to stop talking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Why do you think speech includes the right to interfere in other people's lives? Because that's how society works, you use speech to convince people to do or not do things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The chilling effect is a societal disregard for the concept of free speech. If you think that is good then go right ahead pull the fire alarm at a local conservative political conference. You remind me of the people angry and Kaepernick for having a silent protest during the national anthem. You talk a big game about the important of free speech, but you don't want people to be able to actually use it to try and change things instead of enforcing the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:That societal disregard was already promoted by those very conservative speakers, who want minorities to stop talking. Who specifically are you talking about and what specifically have they done\said? Like, I know Milo is a douche, but I honestly don't think the guy is a racist white supremacist woman hating nazi like people make him out to be. He gets protested a lot; I'm curious what, specifically, he has said that people hate him so much for? I've only ever seen some clips of him talking and I just thought he was kind of obnoxious and just wanted to shock people which is nothing new?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 03:03
|
|