|
AmiYumi 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". You obviously weren't on campus in the early 90s, when 'speech codes' were in vogue. Even today, you're crazy if you think that there's a right-wing bias on the university campus.
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Right wing bias is a thing in University campus. Universities are solidly left-wing zones.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:I heard YAL was started around the same time Heritage and the National Review came into existence, and yeah they're basically another College Republicans group. That's their free speech.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:More left wing then more rural parts yeah, but that doesn't really mean anything by itself. It is more a mixture of both. It tilts heavily to the left, certainly more so than any other milieu in the US. quote:He never said anything different? It's an odd argument, mocking the speech of right-wingers on campus on a thread about censorship on campus. Right-wingers are heavily outnumbered on most university campuses, and subject to strong social ostracism. It's not per se censorship, but there's little direct honest engagement of their ideas and more dismissal by argumentum ad populum. TheImmigrant fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Nov 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Nah that doesn't really happen. Strange that you say that on this thread, where the sneering has already begun. Universities are very tolerant places when it comes to superficial things like skin color or piercings or sexual orientation, so long as everyone has similar ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Strong social ostracism? Get over yourselves. Or you know, participate in social activities with people who aren't conservatives. Oh that's right you can't because you fear and despise them. Who is promoting the ostracism? I'm not a conservative, although I do have conservatives in my social circles. Do you have any that you'd call friends? The social ostracism goes both ways, but since there are no conservatives on this thread (and very few on D&D in general), there's no point in debating them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Do you motherfuckers not understand that college is where you go to get your ideas challenged? When was the last time you had your left-wing ideas challenged at college? Have you ever considered attending an Objectivist lecture? Why not? I went to one once, just to see what it was about. I listened, thought about it, and was resoundingly unconvinced; but I was more secure in my rejection of Randianism after leaving than I had been when I walked in.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Nah I am talking about the US. I've been to university in France and Uruguay. In both countries, universities skew to the left of general society as well. Lots of flirtation with fashionable leftist stances, e.g. Trotskyism, syndicalism, even the occasional Maoist.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
There's a judicially-recognized difference between restricting time, place, and manner of speech; and restricting speech based on its content.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I think Reddit (which is now Conde Nast) is probably a good example of private suppression of free speech. Their system efficiently suppresses any opinion that is not racist, misogynist and generally in line with the thought of 51% + of their racist, misogynist user base. It's not something that should see legal action but it's good to be aware of it. Reddit, as publisher of the Reddit forum, is ultimately the one speaking when it publishes anything, even if initially written by someone else. If you don't like the rules or tone of Reddit, your freedom of speech means you have the right to set up your own forum to broadcast your own speech. You do not have a right to coerce others to publish your speech as their own.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Okay. So universities can choose who to provide a venue to. Just like reddit can. So therefore not letting right wingers have a venue in universities to be poo poo heads without scrutiny isn't a free speech issue. Case closed. It's different with state-sponsored universities. Besides, universities are places to challenge one's beliefs, as noted above. I expect more from universities, particularly public ones, than I do from Reddit. Edit: Interesting comment on thread titled "Is free speech on campus under attack[?]" TheImmigrant fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Nov 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:and no, theimmigrant, it is not different with state schools, because there is no first amendment right to pay people tens of thousands of dollars to spew bile. or to waste school resources to provide a stage for them to speak bile. this is not hard. What if they are speaking for free?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
fanged wang posted:there's actually a broad ideological spectrum between orthodox anime marxist and black person murdering rethuglican shitlord in my experience Nuance is for right-wing racists. You're either with us or against us.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:This is true, but when I was in college (early mid-2000s) the only public speakers who were ever on the lawn were 1) ranting and raving baptists screaming that you're going to hell and 2) anti-abortion activists. We never had war protestors, people demanding public healthcare, or people demanding better rights for immigrants. The public speakers were always far-right conservative nutjobs. And having spoken to graduates from other colleges since then, apparently my experience was not unique; these crazy baptist preachers and abortion protestors go all around the country specifically to talk to college students. I remember those people. They were heckled and ridiculed as hateful freaks, and had absolutely no visible support from anyone.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:So basically they're complaining that nobody shares their lovely views while eating expensive catering that no other college group can get because mommy and daddy aren't rich? This is literally the most college Republican thing possible. Who's complaining? The only complaining I see here is a bunch of lefties complaining that conservatives are permitted a voice on campus because, like, free speech.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:Conservatives have a voice on campus. The "problem" is that no one wants to listen to their lovely, half-baked ideas. That's not a problem. In a free marketplace of ideas, lovely ones won't gain any traction. Nothing to fear from them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:
When you look at the numbers (a few hundred, tops), I'd say that no, ISIS has not gained traction in the West.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:I'm going to assume you're not ignorant and instead are just trying to nitpick for whatever reason. I'm sure you're aware of any number of lovely ideas that have gained traction in the United States. The Klan had millions of members in the 20s...the fact that this declined doesn't controvert the idea that it did, in fact, gain traction. Segregation was a lovely idea. Prohibition was a failure. That's off the top of my head in 20th century America. The Dutch Tulip Bubble was a lovely idea. Mao advocating for the slaughter of sparrows leading to massive locust plagues was a lovely idea. And so on. To claim that lovely ideas do not gain traction is to ignore all of human history. What do you suggest? That we (those of us who Think Correctly, at least) appoint someone to determine what are lovely Ideas, and prohibit their expression? Sunlight truly is the best disinfectant.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You do realize that this is the exact same argument bigots use when they are criticized for expressing their hateful views. A policy of tolerance absolutely is not, nor has it ever been, required to tolerate hate speech. I agree. The mistake many people make here is to claim that any speech that is not left-wing is per se hate speech. There is nothing racist to neoliberal economics, for example, yet a lot of people conflate them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:It's a play off of gaylord. But nobody even cares about it's homophobic roots anymore. Homophobia is A-OK if deployed against those with insufficient leftist credentials, or splittists.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
The Snark posted:You and that other person tend to casually say 'nobody' does this and 'nobody' does that, despite the fact that in most cases it's probably not true. This is perhaps trivial, but it stinks of argumentum ad populum to me. No brain fevers here, pal. I'd prefer that everyone have the right to speak freely on their own fora.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:Which is convenient for you when you define your own fora as "everywhere". It's not everywhere. The Wall Street Journal is not my forum, and I have no right to coerce it to publish my speech. I have no right to force Something Awful to publish my speech. I do have a right to publish my speech on my own website or magazine or the side of my house.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
The Snark posted:How happy would you be if your speech was limited to the side of your house? What topic, however rational, would not make you look like a complete loony applied to the side of your house? Again, if you publish a newspaper, whatever is contained in that newspaper is your speech. You can choose to publish speech that was originally mine, but by publishing it, it becomes your speech. Free speech has a negative element too, meaning that no one can be compelled to speak in a way objectionable to them. How would you like it if free speech meant you were compelled to broadcast someone's neo-nazi propaganda on your website/magazine/side of your house?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What, exactly, useful things do you believe can be learned from examining hate speech? The same things that can be learned from examining terrorism. Why does it happen? Ignorance is never a virtue.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:I don't think I need to watch a neo Nazi debate to understand the flaws inherent in their arguments. How about a Randian?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Is free speech under attack on campus or are people overreacting?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It is objectively impossible for that person to be a good history teacher. I wonder what someone who confuses his opinions with objective fact is doing on what is, ostensibly, a debate forum. People who want to debate your objectivism must infuriate you for not already grasping Your Truth.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
The Snark posted:It's a veritable parade of straw men. If anyone lights a match this place is going to go up like a grain silo. It's pretty embarrassing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Have you at all tried to explain what we learn from allowing people to just spew hate speech without even the mildest punishment from a private organization who'd rather not be associated with such views, as opposed to using the history of such movements and groups? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted: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. 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. In a public forum, it would be different. If some loon started to rant about 9/11 conspiracies in a public park, you are completely free to shout him down or rebut him or otherwise interrupt him. With lunatics like conspiracy theorists or race-supremacists, I don't think it's a good idea to engage them as equals, as this tacitly acknowledges a validity to their argument. Ignoring or mocking them is a better tactic, but this is a tactical matter rather than a moral or legal one. This really isn't that difficult.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I don't think you know how free speech works? It means the government, barring a few VERY narrow circumstances, may not infringe on private speech. What does it mean to you? I did this for a year of ConLaw in law school, but I'm open-minded to hear whatever you think it means.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:
Who is this 'we'? I see this all the time from the most prolific D&D posters. Is there a definitive list of who is in the Gang? Do you have to take a doctrinal purity test to be admitted to 'we'?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted: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 The right to speech is about the speech itself, not results from that speech. It's not about quote: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? Yes. In a private forum (e.g., a specific newspaper, Something Awful, Stormfront), the owner of the forum is permitted to control the speech. In a public forum (e.g., a park, a city square, the Internet, publishing in general), it is open to all. You are free to create your own forum to broadcast your speech. Once you do so, no one can coerce you to broadcast speech you find abhorrent. quote: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 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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Freedom from interference in speech by actors other than the State is not particularly desirable, despite you insisting over and over that it is, 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)? quote:and anyways interference in speech by non-state actors isn't a significant problem in the real world in TYOOL 2014. Agreed, I can think of a lot worse problems in the world.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:creationist biologist This strikes me as a contradiction in terms, like Satanic Catholic priest. If your beliefs mean you are unable to perform your job, the job is a sacrifice you'll have to make for your beliefs.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Until the African-Sinta autistic children with cleft palates are on the same footing as Bill Gates, any humor or attempt at humor is per se racist.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Legislating good manners is generally a bad idea.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
It's pretty clear from this thread that failure to quash rightwing ideas is the same as rightwing extremism.
TheImmigrant fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 23:23
|
|