|
Come to think of it, has Milo actually been banned from speaking on a US university campus other than DePaul? And DePaul cancelled his talk for security concerns, not because they disagreed with his views.
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Protesting is fine, but administrators agreeing with protestors and actually cancelling the event is not? Only if the people protesting are some kind of minority. Otherwise that's fine too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Ormi posted:This is also important to consider. We should be accommodating to mental illness and disability as much as possible, but I think it's fair to say that at a certain point, students have a responsibility to self-select out of environments and discussion of subjects that inadvertently cause them stress. I would say that no number of sincere attempts to protect a vulnerable person can shield them from, for an extreme example, a thorough education on feminist theory if they are distressed by discussion of rape. We can't simply pretend it's unimportant or doesn't exist and give them a free pass. Academia has a duty to help them through it as best it can, but it also has a duty to teach the truth to every student. Now if only students had the ability to self-select out of environments that cause them undue stress, instead of being branded as whiners and being told they either put up or get an instant fail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Here's my indirect anecdote about trigger warnings. I hate to say it, but that poor woman wasn't long for this world in any case if talking about a story pushed her over the edge. The responsibility for her death is hers, not you or your classmates, and it's also a good example of how just about anything is going to set somebody off. Incest is rare, the idea of a trigger warning for it is absurd. What about death, should we have a trigger warning for death? Trigger warning: you're mortal and will die.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
I'd like to ask what people mean when they accuse students of "no platforming". Because this isn't the 1600's where there were very limited means of getting your message out to people effectively. If Milo or whatever other douchebag can't speak on a campus then they can go whine about it to their legions of fawning sycophants on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or put on a Livestream for all those groups at once. If anything they have too many platforms, and need to have some of them taken away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Where I went to school the conservative student orgs literally every year put up a bunch of wooden crosses somewhere with a sign that said "these represent dead babies!!!!" They also spammed anti-abortion fliers all over campus. All told people mostly just ignored them. They had every right to do so and the rest of us had every right to ignore it. They went apeshit about it being "disrespectful" when the campus atheist/agnostic org put up a similar display that was all dead gods. As in, "hey here's a list of gods nobody worships anymore. This will happen to yours some day." For better or for worse conservatives are very frequently hypocritical as hell. People on campus tended to hate the Young Republican org because they were just so drat obnoxious. Their faculty adviser kept trying to recruit people and frequently said "we especially want women as members because we have so few" while completely failing to realize why women aren't exactly flocking to the Young Republican banner. Granted they were also the only group that had people actively campaigning outside of polling places. The simple fact of the Republican anything is that there is a ton of money behind it; they'd get some expensive speakers in or mysteriously have money to do huge print runs of their fliers. They're a tiny group on campus with a disproportionately loud voice just because of how much outside financial support they have. This is part of why they have that "silent majority" bullshit going on; it looks like they have a lot of support but really they're just amplified by money. Of course they also have people handing out Gideon Bibles on campus every year. Of course they could also have their bullshit speakers on; the one that really sticks out in my mind was a woman who came on to talk about how abortion is actually very unhealthy and causes cancer and poo poo. Her name started with "Dr." but if you dug deeper all she had was a pair of honorary PhDs in theology from religious schools. She was in absolutely no way qualified to be talking medicine but was brought in to talk about medical things anyway. When people call Republicans on that bullshit they get whiny and talk about silencing and oppression. It's like...no. No, no, no that isn't what's going on; you're deliberately and knowingly spreading misinformation and the rest of us are loving tired of it. They're desperately clinging to relevance in a nation that just plain doesn't want them anymore. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:I hate to say it, but that poor woman wasn't long for this world in any case if talking about a story pushed her over the edge. The responsibility for her death is hers, not you or your classmates, and it's also a good example of how just about anything is going to set somebody off. Incest is rare, the idea of a trigger warning for it is absurd. drat bro careful youll cut yourself on that edge
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:drat bro careful I've taken a lot of suicide prevention training, but none of that training ever included "don't talk about scary stuff without a warning." Similarly you should not blame yourself if you talk about scary stuff and somebody decides to kill themselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
regarding the milo-esques: surely we are confident enough in our beliefs that we could easily respond and defeat what he says and thus know that we have nothing to fear from people like him?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Whorelord posted:regarding the milo-esques: Sure, if you were debating him 1-on-1. But that's never actually the case. There's no chance to ever respond to him on an equal level, it's them giving a speech, possibly taking a few questions, and then leaving without ever meaningfully interacting with the crowd. So what's the point in allowing all of that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Sure, if you were debating him 1-on-1. But that's never actually the case. There's no chance to ever respond to him on an equal level, it's them giving a speech, possibly taking a few questions, and then leaving without ever meaningfully interacting with the crowd. So what's the point in allowing all of that? what's the point in disallowing it? as long as the speaker in question isnt directly advocating for harming people (like saying 'go out and beat someone up') there's no reason for it to be banned Whorelord fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Is this exclusively a North American problem?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Sure, if you were debating him 1-on-1. But that's never actually the case. There's no chance to ever respond to him on an equal level, it's them giving a speech, possibly taking a few questions, and then leaving without ever meaningfully interacting with the crowd. So what's the point in allowing all of that? I wonder if a default perspective of "allowing" speech on campus is the right approach.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Whorelord posted:what's the point in disallowing it? Because it provides nothing of value to the school and is a waste of time and resources. Edit: woke wedding drone posted:I wonder if a default perspective of "allowing" speech on campus is the right approach. He's allowed to say whatever he wants on campus, I suppose. Anybody can walk into a campus and start speaking. I just don't see the value in allowing everybody and anybody access to stages and microphones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Whorelord posted:what's the point in disallowing it? as long as the speaker in question isnt directly advocating for harming people (like saying 'go out and beat someone up') there's no reason for it to be banned Because he skirts the line of that kind of speech by saying things like "rape culture is made up" and that harassment of women doesn't actually happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Whorelord posted:what's the point in disallowing it? as long as the speaker in question isnt directly advocating for harming people (like saying 'go out and beat someone up') there's no reason for it to be banned That's just it; they're often advocating for harming people or destroying the freedoms of entire groups of people. Granted at the same time they're also masters of dog whistling. Frequently the message isn't "we should just kill all the gays/Muslims/liberals" but is rather "gays/Muslims/liberals are very dangerous and you should be afraid of them," which directly leads to people taking action against those groups. That's the issue with hate speech and why there are massive, massive problems with these things. In the case of Milo he's multiple times told somebody that they "deserve to be harassed." That right there is crossing the line; all it takes is somebody else to hear that and decide "this person deserves to be harassed so I will harass them." This is what these people do; he then went on to claim that it was a grave injustice in that he was banned from Twitter because of his conservative view. He wasn't; he was targeting people for nasty things and advocating that people he didn't agree with be targeted by others. edit: And in the case of that whole "rape culture is made up thing" that's a serious problem as well. When he's claiming that rape is made up and mostly the victims' own fault he's going to lead directly to people getting raped. This is also why college campuses may not exactly be keen on letting him talk. You suddenly have a room full of impressionable, young men that will get the message of "it's totally acceptable to take a girl to a party, get her black out drunk, and then gently caress her when she's barely conscious." Sorry bro but that's rape and advocating for that to be totally acceptable is horrifyingly wrong. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Because he skirts the line of that kind of speech by saying things like "rape culture is made up" and that harassment of women doesn't actually happen. But isn't it redolent of weakness to rely on administrative sanctions to fight those kinds of ideas? The truth should prevail. Restricting dorks like Milo and his sycophants will only give them a legitimate grievance to nurse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Whorelord posted:what's the point in disallowing it? as long as the speaker in question isnt directly advocating for harming people (like saying 'go out and beat someone up') there's no reason for it to be banned what's the point in allowing it? woke wedding drone posted:But isn't it redolent of weakness to rely on administrative sanctions to fight those kinds of ideas? The truth should prevail. Restricting dorks like Milo and his sycophants will only give them a legitimate grievance to nurse. who cares?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
botany posted:who cares? People who are new to the argument. Like it or not, young people are looking for a way to rebel and they are susceptible to arguments like which worldview is being administratively suppressed. It seems to me like the best way to make misogynists and racists look absurd, rather than countercultural, is to let them say whatever they want and debate their ideas openly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:People who are new to the argument. Like it or not, young people are looking for a way to rebel and they are susceptible to arguments like which worldview is being administratively suppressed. It seems to me like the best way to make misogynists and racists look absurd, rather than countercultural, is to let them say whatever they want and debate their ideas openly. there is no debate involved in events like "the triggering". you can shout into the wind afterwards as much as you want, the poo poo is already out there. also again, as far as i know no ideas have been administratively suppressed, milo was blocked from speaking at DePaul because the university decided he was too big a security risk to handle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
In a survey by the aaup, less than one percent of humanities professors reported using trigger warnings. The million syllabi database contains zero instances of trigger warnings. No one can point to a single instance of a subject matter not being taught for it. The extreme cases reported in the media, like the Emory trump stuff, have all been proven false. Meanwhile, the NC legislature mandated the closing of three independently funded centers because they dealt with topics like poverty and biodiversity. Several states are considering laws that would mandate "intellectual diversity" (ie conservative viewpoints must be presented as equally valid). A Kansas professor was suspended for tweeting negative things about the NRA. Wisconsin voted to reduce tenure protections because professors were active in protesting the public unions law. Anyone, like chait or friedesdorf, who treats campus free speech as a matter of trigger warnings, is a dishonest hack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:But isn't it redolent of weakness to rely on administrative sanctions to fight those kinds of ideas? The truth should prevail. Restricting dorks like Milo and his sycophants will only give them a legitimate grievance to nurse. If they don't have any legitimate grievances then they'll just make something up. So we might as well give them something real to impotently whine about. woke wedding drone posted:People who are new to the argument. Like it or not, young people are looking for a way to rebel and they are susceptible to arguments like which worldview is being administratively suppressed. It seems to me like the best way to make misogynists and racists look absurd, rather than countercultural, is to let them say whatever they want and debate their ideas openly. Debating their ideas openly assumes an actual exchange of ideas. I know for a fact you aren't naive enough to think that any alt-right shithead is ever going to have a real debate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:But isn't it redolent of weakness to rely on administrative sanctions to fight those kinds of ideas? The truth should prevail. Restricting dorks like Milo and his sycophants will only give them a legitimate grievance to nurse. The only reason it might be construed as a "legitimate grievance" is if they have some sort of legitimate right to be given a public forum for their ideas. But of course they don't have any such right. So they piss and moan about having their non-existent rights violated in their efforts to spread their abhorrent ideas. The truth is prevailing because the administration is saying "these people's ideas are garbage and no we will not provide a forum for people to feed you garbage." woke wedding drone posted:It seems to me like the best way to make misogynists and racists look absurd, rather than countercultural, is to let them say whatever they want and debate their ideas openly. The problem is that these assholes have no desire to have their ideas debated openly. Set them up a formal debate against an opponent who knows his poo poo forward and backwards and they'll refuse the contest. They want a microphone and an audience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
botany posted:there is no debate involved in events like "the triggering". you can shout into the wind afterwards as much as you want, the poo poo is already out there. also again, as far as i know no ideas have been administratively suppressed, milo was blocked from speaking at DePaul because the university decided he was too big a security risk to handle. That makes sense, but potentially could set a bad precedent as well. Can right wingers keep feminist and antiracist speakers off campus by issuing enough threats?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
I'm not sure how it works at every college but I attended and helped organize things at two universities, one large and Midwestern and one relatively small and in New York City. Both of them have "student fees" above and beyond tuition. The NYC school's fees are minuscule compared to tuition (like, less than 1% if you're taking a full courseload) and basically went towards art film movie screenings, the occasional honorarium for someone to come talk, and wine for graduate student mixers. But at the Midwestern school it ended up being probably 10-15% of your total fees paid to the school, and into the seven figures every year for the entire student body. This money goes into a big fund that supports practically everything on campus, from the school athletic center to the radio station and newspaper to all of the various clubs on campus. At the Midwestern school there was a Student Union Activities organization that planned a variety of events throughout the year with money from this "student fee" along with whatever money was raised by the events, and organized everything from a Homecoming parade to quiz nights to bringing in people like Ray Bradbury and Desmond Tutu and Bob Dylan to come perform on campus. They money apportioned each year for these events/groups was determined by Student Senate, which wrote a budget and apportioned the money out. What this would turn into every year is a series of political fights where the Student Senate would threaten to reduce funding for the radio station or newspaper if they were critical of whatever the Senate's pet project was; when I was there it was increasing fees so that we'd get a new campus athletic center that was technically For Everyone but in reality would mostly be closed for anyone not in our athletic program like 60+ hours a week and other sort of boondoggles. This also trickled down into standard culture war things where if SUA wanted to bring in (say) John Lewis to give a talk, there would be an argument that an equal amount of money needs to be spent to bring in a conservative Congressperson to I don't know, defend segregation or something? This generally resulted in us bringing in really milquetoast people no one could really argue against, or dumb Campus Debates on Creationism or whatever where some touring creationist speaker would face off against someone from the science department to TEACH THE CONTROVERSY as a horse-trading move to let us bring in a rapper later in the school year for a concert. The other thing is that student fees are apportioned out to campus organizations, and at least at our school the Student Senate was dominated by the Greek system, which aligned with certain (white Christian conservative) demographics, and not so much the others. So it just so happened that the Campus Crusade for Christ and Young Republicans and etc. would get a lot of funding while [insert literally anyone else] would have to sweat to have enough money to like, buy a banner for their potluck. This also means that when those groups would try to bring in James Dobson or Trent Lott to speak, everyone on campus's money was being spent to bring them in, not just those groups. So it's basically like the old chestnut of MY TAX DOLLARS ARE PAYING FOR THIS? except at a more localized level. I believe Milo has postured that he never charges for campus appearances but I know plenty of bigger name people (from the arts, sciences, politics, academia) have speaking fees that probably end up being literally a dollar or more per student on campus, though you usually sell tickets to non-students (and/or reduced priced tickets to students) to compensate for that. It's also a zero sum game in which if you decide to put all your money into bringing in Newt Gingrich (or Noam Chomsky) you're cutting off the possibility of bringing in another person, either from "your side" of the spectrum or just you know, someone to tell jokes. Anyway, it's not just literally "no we don't want person we disagree with to be able to talk on campus", it's a whole business structure. And fun fact: the student body president who pushed through that rec center from my freshman year of college is on his way to winning a fourth term in the house. He also left a long drunken voicemail impersonating The Rock threatening to defund our radio station after being dissatisfied with the gay music we were playing in between election results the night he became president. Edge & Christian fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:Can right wingers keep feminist and antiracist speakers off campus by issuing enough threats? Apparently they can: http://kotaku.com/terror-threat-targets-anita-sarkeesian-for-speaking-at-1646371245
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Whorelord posted:what's the point in disallowing it? as long as the speaker in question isnt directly advocating for harming people (like saying 'go out and beat someone up') there's no reason for it to be banned at the very least universities have a responsibility to invite speakers who will advocate for their beliefs respectfully and in good faith. milo isn't interested in any of that, he just screams for the sake of screaming and doesn't raise any worthwhile points. he's not a speaker, he's a polemicist, and campuses already have procedures for anti-abortion and various brimstone preachers to show up on campus and get heckled by students, for free
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Restrictions on campus free speech are a media construct!!!! 1. Ban conservative speakers
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
cravius posted:Restrictions on campus free speech are a media construct!!!! Conservative speakers are fine. Demagogues are not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:at the very least universities have a responsibility to invite speakers who will advocate for their beliefs respectfully and in good faith. milo isn't interested in any of that, he just screams for the sake of screaming and doesn't raise any worthwhile points. he's not a speaker, he's a polemicist, and campuses already have procedures for anti-abortion and various brimstone preachers to show up on campus and get heckled by students, for free That's kind of the center of it; conservative speech these days is increasingly just hate speech. Conservative news is just "here are things that happened today that mean you should hate our Great Enemy of the week." The American conservative platform is just all hate, all the time; be afraid every hour of every day THEY'RE COMING FOR YOOOOOOUUUUUUU. Most people are, understandably, wanting them to shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Conservative speakers are fine. Demagogues are not. Why not? It's not like they have voodoo powers. Let them get up there and look absurd, and give people a clear idea of who they should be fighting against. Work life's going to hit students like a train if they don't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Conservative speakers are fine. Demagogues are not. My school had Bobby Seal speak and he historically is a bigger advocate for violence than loving Milo lmao
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:Why not? It's not like they have voodoo powers. Let them get up there and look absurd, and give people a clear idea of who they should be fighting against. Work life's going to hit students like a train if they don't. No, my office doesn't have some idiot yelling about how people deserve to be harassed, in fact, I would reckon there are extremely few offices that have that. This bullshit that students have to welcome hate into their hearts to succeed in the real world is complete nonsense. Nothing about the working world involves having to deal with people who are trying to troll you into getting "triggered." In fact, most humans treat each other with respect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:Why not? It's not like they have voodoo powers. Let them get up there and look absurd, and give people a clear idea of who they should be fighting against. Work life's going to hit students like a train if they don't. Every job I've ever worked at would have fire Milo before he ended his first day, so no, you're completely wrong on the idea they won't be prepared for work life. And, again, they can see his idea on any number of other platforms. You're using the Internet right now, don't pretend like a campus auditorium is the only place these people have a place to voice their horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:Why not? It's not like they have voodoo powers. Let them get up there and look absurd, and give people a clear idea of who they should be fighting against. Work life's going to hit students like a train if they don't. A moment ago you were arguing for debate. Now you're arguing that they should just be allowed to speak because
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No, my office doesn't have some idiot yelling about how people deserve to be harassed, in fact, I would reckon there are extremely few offices that have that. This bullshit that students have to welcome hate into their hearts to succeed in the real world is complete nonsense. But no one would say George Will is a demagogue or hate advocate and even he gets protested and banned. The whole problem is this idea that right wing thought = hate
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
cravius posted:My school had Bobby Seal speak and he historically is a bigger advocate for violence than loving Milo lmao And look how you turned out. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:Why not? It's not like they have voodoo powers. Let them get up there and look absurd, and give people a clear idea of who they should be fighting against. Work life's going to hit students like a train if they don't. we could just herd everyone into the auditorium and put on a bunch of weeping children for a tenth of the cost, if you're just looking to annoy students to toughen them up or whatever also lol if you think anything milo says wouldn't get him in front of an HR rep with quickness
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
cravius posted:But no one would say George Will is a demagogue or hate advocate and even he gets protested and banned. The whole problem is this idea that right wing thought = hate George Will believes that people who say they were raped are doing it for the attention, so he's nowhere near the best example, bucko.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
cravius posted:But no one would say George Will is a demagogue or hate advocate and even he gets protested and banned. The whole problem is this idea that right wing thought = hate no "the problem" is that students are using their first amendment rights to protest and it makes you sad
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:34
|
|