|
What do you think, OP?
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
Universities, with the possible exception of right leaning ones like Bob Dole and religious colleges, don't pressure people into actively supporting political causes, right or left. You can be completely apolitical if you want and will run into no trouble. It is true that right wing ideology is usually not welcome around universities, but you don't actually have a right to have your ideology be welcome anywhere, only that the government can't restrict your ability to speak So yes, it does boil down to 'other people should be required to humor my terrible ideas'
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
fanged wang, the totalitarian statist in me is starting to think your posting might not be up to standards
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:By acquainting yourself with your adversary's arguments, you strengthen your own. A need to insulate yourself from them is a sign of insecurity in your positions. This sounds like a good idea. Then once we're acquainted with their arguments, we can fire them
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I'm completely opposed to coercing a private organization to sponsor or publish speech it finds odious. Somehow we made the leap from generic conservative organizations to neo-nazi organizations. This is a prime example of the Che Brigade's hallmark strawmanning. You really must be insecure in your position if you immediately resort to mischaracterization of those who rebut your conclusory statements. No one here is advocating for the KKK to be given equal time at the Harvard commencement address. Not everyone to the right of the Young and Spotty Sandwich Artist Maoist (Reformed) Party is a neo-nazi. You're trying to separate the promotion vs discouragement of speech, where people are not required to promote speech but are required not to discourage speech. This distinction is incoherent. They're the same thing. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:why is this thread full of leftists supporting restrictions on speech? In the real world you guys are the first ones they'd use the laws against. fascists don't generally wait for laws to be passed to start doing their thing The Snark posted:There doesn't seem to be discussion here, just circle jerking. Lol is that really it? You're dropping out of the argument already?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:That isn't my position. If Harvard made the foolish decision to host KKK speech, you would be within your right to denounce that decision. However, you would not be within your right to coerce Harvard to host your dissenting speech. By hosting the KKK, Harvard would be endorsing the KKK's speech, and as such, making it its own speech. They need not host your dissent, but you are completely within your rights to oppose it in your own forum or a forum willing to host you. So I'm allowed to denounce it up to the exact point where it would cause them to change their actions, and no more? Generally the reason people exercise free speech in the first place is to convince other people to alter their actions. Are you saying the KKK aren't trying to persuade people to take action with their speech? Why do they get protection for their speech but not their opponents? I guess whoever speaks first wins in your view, and gets to promote whatever views with no effective opposition And as for the 'public forum' poo poo it doesn't make any sense at all. You're allowed to drown out speech in a public forum, but not outside of it? What does 'public forum' even mean exactly? Wouldn't it make more sense to require free speech in public forums, and not outside of it? Your ideas are incoherent and you don't understand how speech works. Your motivation for arguing appears to be 100% indignation over a liberal strawman that exists only in your head icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I've explained the principles behind them quite clearly. If you are still having trouble grasping them, take issue with a specific point I've made, rebut it, and I'll address it. Freedom from interference in speech by actors other than the State is not particularly desirable, despite you insisting over and over that it is, and anyways interference in speech by non-state actors isn't a significant problem in the real world in TYOOL 2014. Sorry
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:What does interference in speech mean to you? Do you think it should not be illegal to hack websites like, say, Stormfront (or Something Awful)? Well, hacking computers over the internet is trespassing or property damage, so that's not really a relevant situation at all
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
Critical Theory isn't Marxism, it's a theory that borrowed terminology from Marxism
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 05:34
|
|