|
on the left posted:Frats should really go on the offensive against people who want to shut them down and not give an inch to those people. Looks like they disagree with you. You're a cheerleader with no team. Is there any reason anybody should listen to you over the people who are actually involved?
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
katlington posted:Looks like they disagree with you. You're a cheerleader with no team. Is there any reason anybody should listen to you over the people who are actually involved? He also thinks we should let Ebola kill as many Africans as possible to clear out the savages, so draw your own conclusions about the validity of his opinions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Child, when you get older you'll see that adults have to worry about things like "reputations", and "money" to pay "expenses" and they can't afford to sacrifice their financial responsibilities just to pander to your desire for a free venue to harass and assault rape victims. A public place is the venue for that though, and it's not a public university's position to police that kind of speech. The fact that universities are doing that is the point of the thread and it's why organizations like the FIRE exist. Remember earlier in the thread when everyone was saying that it's totally cool to drown out and harass people for speech you disagree with that? Why did everyone suddenly turn a 180? katlington posted:Looks like they disagree with you. You're a cheerleader with no team. Is there any reason anybody should listen to you over the people who are actually involved? They probably do not disagree at all, but are being coerced into making public apologies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Ah yes, the Silent Majority of rapists who will surely sweep the leadership next year. Edit: Liberals support speech and debate, yet all of a sudden they're not okay with harassment and assault? My my, quite the double standard. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
No one said you can assault people. You can't do that. Also it seems silly you can make assumptions about motive, but we can't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah yes, the Silent Majority of rapists who will surely sweep the leadership next year. They won't sweep the leadership, they'll just continue to do what they want to do and put the customary money in the swear jar every time they hurt people's fee fees.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Well, somewhat related news. http://www.sgvtribune.com/social-affairs/20141203/citrus-college-settles-free-speech-lawsuit-by-student quote:Citrus College is modifying its free speech policy and procedures after the college settled a First Amendment lawsuit on Wednesday.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 06:05
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If I declare myself a Stalinist at work, I'm definitely getting fired that loving day, but at university my classmates just have to deal with it, didn't they come here to get their dignity as humans challenged by fresh new ideas about the People's War?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
I would not be fired if I mentioned my politics at work though but I would be fired for racial slurs so  Like seriously, why is this so hard? Racial slurs aren't acceptable anywhere and almost any establishment will kick you out, but when it comes to universities suddenly we're taking the bigots seriously and going "well, we have to accept all views so just endure the slurs and taunting interfering with your education you're paying for and hope that ostracization makes them stop" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
The truth is always in the middle. But not in the sense that the truth is in the middle of everything. Just in the sense that the truth is always in the middle of something. For example: A:Sexual violence is good, and the government should fund it! B:Sexual violence is good, but I don't want my tax money spent on it! The truth is not in the middle of A and B; A and B are both wrong, and in the same direction. C:Sexual violence is good. D:Sexual violence is bad! The truth is not in the middle of C and D; C is wrong and D is the truth. However, the truth represented by D is in the middle of, say: E:Sexual violence is bad, so our legal system should dispense with due process in sexual assault cases. F:Sexual violence is good, and the fault of the victim, so our legal system should make convictions in sexual assault cases as difficult as possible. Here, the truth is in the middle because E and F are both wrong, in opposite directions. Admittedly, it's a bad example, because F is more wrong than E, but still, E and F are both wrong, and in opposite directions from the truth. This stands for all true statements - you may make two wrong statements that exist in opposite directions of the truth. And, because humans are stupid, you can pretty much always do this using only statements that somewhere out there actually believes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
This is actually incredibly deep.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
Are you open minded enough to admit everybody secretly agrees with me?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
on the left posted:They won't sweep the leadership, they'll just continue to do what they want to do and put the customary money in the swear jar every time they hurt people's fee fees. True, your position is superior and your group is all powerful. Also the feminist conspiracy is in complete control and is using that power to stifle you. There is no contradiction here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Meanwhile I am not clear on what precisely is supposed to be offensive about that quote. The quote, by itself, is not offensive. However, it directly contradicts the supposed commitment to free speech you project on him. In that quote he argues very strongly that professors should not discuss things irrelevant to the class material in class, especially if they are of a controversial nature or have the potential to offend VitalSigns posted:I would not be fired if I mentioned my politics at work though but I would be fired for racial slurs so You very well could be fired if you mentioned your politics at work, depending on your politics and your boss. It's perfectly legal to fire someone for their political opinions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:You very well could be fired if you mentioned your politics at work, depending on your politics and your boss. It's perfectly legal to fire someone for their political opinions. Well okay someone working for a lovely employer could be legally, but that would also be a legitimate reason in many people's eyes to criticize an employer or a university. Almost no one would criticize a business for kicking out a racist harassing minorities, but suddenly when a university does it we get: quote:When I was speaking at a conference of administrators several years ago one of them angerly asked me 'So there's nothing that can be done to prevent a students calling another the n-word?' This administrator saw anything short of punishment as doing nothing. My response was that political correctness as a cultural phenomenon has been incredibly successful; even back when I graduated from Stanford in 2000 anyone using a racial epithet would have been rightly vilified as a bigot. That is how change should come about in a free society, through cultural shifts, not coercion or enforced silence" Stop coercing bigots by refusing to associate with them or take their money, universities  Like seriously, he says he wants shaming and ostracism and economic pressure instead of force and coercion to discourage bigots, but when a university actually does this nonviolently by abrogating their business relationship with a bigot oh now he's got a problem with that too. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Almost no one would criticize a business for kicking out a racist harassing minorities, but suddenly when a university does it we get: I can't believe people get mad about a state-run organization policing speech. It's not like freedom of speech and association is one of the most important things the government is supposed to defer to whenever possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
on the left posted:I can't believe people get mad about a state-run organization policing speech. It's not like freedom of speech and association is one of the most important things the government is supposed to defer to whenever possible. That is your opinion but historically it doesn't hold up very well. The US has and will censor speech when it feels like it, just got to decide how much is enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
Oh you don't understand freedom of speech, okay then. Freedom of Speech means the government can't send you to Gitmo for saying the President sucks. It doesn't mean you can't get fired from your post office job or your university post no matter what you say, and it doesn't mean you get to walk onto government property and start abusing and assaulting people and they just have to let you hth
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh you don't understand freedom of speech, okay then. None of these students are employed by the university. And these universities typically do allow people to come on campus to explain how gays are an abomination and that abortion is an unforgivable sin. Plenty of youtube videos will show this in action.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
There's no requirement to do business with someone who is harassing other customers, why do you hate the free market. Surely the market will take care of this because universities that discriminate against the Silent Majority of rapists and Neo-Nazis will fail and be replaced by institutions that cater better to racists and criminals. I guess it's fashionable among freshman republicans to demand the federal government interfere in public and private colleges and coerce them into allowing harassment on campus. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There's no requirement to do business with someone who is harassing other customers, why do you hate the free market. You're getting hung up on thinking of universities as businesses just like any other. Public universities at least are the government, and the First Amendment restricts their ability to act on offensive speech. These universities have more leeway when policing their employees' speech than they do when policing students' speech.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There's no requirement to do business with someone who is harassing other customers, why do you hate the free market. Public universities aren't private businesses though, they are publicly supported institutions that answer to the state government.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Universities aren't sending anyone to jail for speech, and I'm pretty sure the post office is the government too so why don't you go in there and start calling people niggers and faggots. I'm sure they'll just let you hang out there all day exercising your freedom of speech.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Universities aren't sending anyone to jail for speech, and I'm pretty sure the post office is the government too so why don't you go in there and start calling people niggers and faggots. I'm sure they'll just let you hang out there all day exercising your freedom of speech. It's not like religious universities kicking out gay students are sending them to prison, but people still consider this a major breach of civil rights and are trying to make it illegal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
So your problem is you can't tell the difference between harassing gay people and not allowing gay people to be harassed. Uh. Okay. Is kicking out a student for calling people niggers the same as Jim Crow? (Oh gently caress right it's you, can you pretend for long enough to answer that question that you wouldn't love a return of Jim Crow) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So your problem is you can't tell the difference between harassing gay people and not allowing gay people to be harassed. Uh. Okay. Why should a university be responsible for protecting one civil right if it's clear that with the right justification (the other students feel uncomfortable), any civil right can be sidestepped? VitalSigns posted:(Oh gently caress right it's you, can you pretend for long enough to answer that question that you wouldn't love a return of Jim Crow) Says the person who can't seem to stop using the n-word. Why are so many D&D posts like "I sure do hate niggers, is what a conservative would say"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Calling people faggots on someone else's property isn't a civil right, sorry. Nor is the assault and battery of rape victims that you were white-knighting earlier. Gay people pay good money to go to a university, they deserve to be protected from the likes of you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Calling people faggots on someone else's property isn't a civil right, sorry Calling people slurs on public property is a civil right though. And public universities are so public that they have to use idiotic procurement methods and submit to state auditing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
So are Jim Crow laws a good thing or a bad thing, on the left?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
on the left posted:Calling people slurs on public property is a civil right though. And public universities are so public that they have to use idiotic procurement methods and submit to state auditing. Sorry no, there's no right to disrupt the education someone else has paid for by harassing them, no matter what a dirty slut or disgusting human being you think they are
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sorry no, there's no right to disrupt the education someone else has paid for by harassing them, no matter what a dirty slut or disgusting human being you think they are Sure, discipline people if they interrupt classes or actual education. No free speech in the classroom. In the walkways around campus, on Facebook, or off-campus, go nuts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
on the left posted:Says the person who can't seem to stop using the n-word. Why are so many D&D posts like "I sure do hate niggers, is what a conservative would say"? Because I won't let you hide behind euphemisms and pretend that making people unwelcome and afraid in their school by calling them niggers and faggots and dykes isn't exactly what you're white-knighting here. Sorry your own views are so offensive to you though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
on the left posted:Sure, discipline people if they interrupt classes or actual education. No free speech in the classroom. In the walkways around campus, on Facebook, or off-campus, go nuts. on the left's ideal college environment  well, except for the black woman not doing yard work of course
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
on the left posted:Calling people slurs on public property is a civil right though. And public universities are so public that they have to use idiotic procurement methods and submit to state auditing. Calling people slurs on public property isn't a civil right. That very clearly falls under the exceptions to free speech, and there's like half a dozen laws that can get you fined or arrested if you start hurling slurs at someone in public, even on government property.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
on the left posted:Calling people slurs on public property is a civil right though. And public universities are so public that they have to use idiotic procurement methods and submit to state auditing. Calling people slurs actually falls under 'fighting words' and can easily get you arrested if there's a statute or ordinance. Remember just because most people aren't arrested for an activity doesn't mean it's not illegal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Because I won't let you hide behind euphemisms and pretend that making people unwelcome and afraid in their school by calling them niggers and faggots and dykes isn't exactly what you're white-knighting here. You forgot to add that I support Nazis, NAMBLA, and child molesters. Main Paineframe posted:Calling people slurs on public property isn't a civil right. That very clearly falls under the exceptions to free speech, and there's like half a dozen laws that can get you fined or arrested if you start hurling slurs at someone in public, even on government property. Doesn't the ACLU go to court to get these laws overturned pretty often? A lot of towns have anti-swearing laws, but there's always been fights about their enforcement. Seriously, the campus preachers go out with signs that say stuff like "YOU DESERVE RAPE" and the police arrest people who assault them. on the left fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:on the left's ideal college environment I bet she was a sizeist transphobe so if you wouldn't have taken part in the direct action campaign like those other activists then I guess you don't want to create a safe space for obese shemales on campus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
"Fighting words" are held to be not protected by the 1st amendment. Now, as to what actually defines fighting words has been the subject of debate. The general definition is:quote:Fighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred or violence from their target. Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which upheld the arrest of a guy who called a cop a fascist: quote:There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. I don't agree with the decision, but keep in mind the logic of the sentence I bolded. In Snyder v. Phelps, quote:dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protester's speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress. So, broadly speaking, it seems that "fighting words" which are personal, not public, and "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas...of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by...social interest." So it seems pretty constitutionally sound for public universities to prevent people from calling other students niggers, faggots, sluts, etc. The other alternative is for women, black people, and LGBT people to consistently beat the poo poo out of anyone who uses these slurs, to the point where their mere utterance makes them overwhelmingly likely to incite violence (against the speaker) and thus not constitutionally protected.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
I thought "fighting words" just gave the target a license to legally kill or injure you? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
The Insect Court posted:I bet she was a sizeist transphobe so if you wouldn't have taken part in the direct action campaign like those other activists then I guess you don't want to create a safe space for obese shemales on campus. I don't think any university permits personal harassment of someone just walking down the street minding her own business, even if it is a transphobe bigot who refers to people with slurs like "shemales" unironically. Edit: Why is "safe spaces" such a horrific conservative trigger word? Oh no, people can go about their lives without fear of harassment or violence! The horror! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 08:52
|
|