Is free speech under attack on campus or are people overreacting?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is free speech under attack on campus or are people overreacting?

«‹›18 »

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

How so? Unless it's the institution actively preventing people from speaking or expressing a view then it's really just a case of 'this person doesn't agree with me, my free speech!"

If a right wing student starts a debate about those uppity blacks and someone else decides he should shut the gently caress up and repeatedly tells him to do so, that is a perfectly valid use of free speech that the college has no part of.

Free speech doesn't mean you can say what you like when you like and never be challenged on it, It means you won't be sent to Gitmo for saying the wrong thing.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 16:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 05:31

Quidam Viator: Jan 24, 2001; ask me about how voting Donald Trump was worth 400k and counting dead.

From the teaching perspective, it unquestionably is. The deliberate murder of the full, tenured professorship has taken away a once-crucial bastion of intellectual speech and progress. Professors who might once have formed a nucleus for radical reformist thought are now too terrified to do anything other than bring in grant money and write papers. That's even if they make it to become professors; most American college teaching is now done by adjuncts and grad students, because they are cheap and easily disposed of.

Universities have no desire to keep expensive tenured professors on board, and it's due to the bitching from wealthy right-wing donors that evil liberal professors have too much power. Well, they WERE right; the university was once just about the only place a leftist thinker could speak up without being assaulted, and still retain his or her position. Through a simple strategy of making college into a profit-ridden venture over the past 35 years, the murder of free speech has been accomplished. Using money as a sledgehammer, universities have been smashed into a customer-service environment, run by those who have the most money to donate.

If you don't believe me, look at how beleaguered poor old 80+ Noam Chomsky is, still grinding the last axe of liberalism in a sea of right-wing political correctness. Could you even imagine Kent State style protests in this day and age? The time of liberalism on campus is over, deliberately killed to stifle free speech using the tool of money. You know, if someone conservative wants to come to a campus and speak, let them. If they expect fawning adulation, and piss and moan if they don't get it, then they suck. But the reality is that conservatism was never at home in colleges, and conservatives simply cannot accept NOT dominating every environment. They HAVE to be right.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 16:18

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Ddraig posted:

If a right wing student starts a debate about those uppity blacks and someone else decides he should shut the gently caress up and repeatedly tells him to do so, that is a perfectly valid use of free speech that the college has no part of.

What about when an uppity black starts a debate about systemic racism and the decent, hardworking students of the University decide that he should shut the gently caress up and repeatedly tell him to do so?

# ? Nov 28, 2014 16:39

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

Miltank posted:

What about when an uppity black starts a debate about systemic racism and the decent, hardworking students of the University decide that he should shut the gently caress up and repeatedly tell him to do so?

Provided they're not being abusive, they can knock themselves out!

They should probably be aware that while freedom of speech means that each expression has merit as a piece of expression that should be protected, it doesn't guarantee that said speech will be considered of any value

One side of the debate will be labelled among such illustrious bedfellows as eugenicists, white supremacists, neo-nazis, fascists, phrenologists and other quacks, and one will not.

If they can choose to live with that personal shame, more power to them!

# ? Nov 28, 2014 17:15

TheImmigrant: Jan 18, 2011

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

spacetoaster: Feb 10, 2014

CommieGIR posted:

Free Speech Zones!

I was wondering if this was going to come up.

I don't think it's okay for a government entity to tell you that "Yes, you absolutely have the right to free speech. Just at a place and time that I tell you."

(unless I disagree with the speech, then it's okay to restrict it)

# ? Nov 28, 2014 17:36

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Quidam Viator posted:

From the teaching perspective, it unquestionably is. The deliberate murder of the full, tenured professorship has taken away a once-crucial bastion of intellectual speech and progress. Professors who might once have formed a nucleus for radical reformist thought are now too terrified to do anything other than bring in grant money and write papers. That's even if they make it to become professors; most American college teaching is now done by adjuncts and grad students, because they are cheap and easily disposed of.

Universities have no desire to keep expensive tenured professors on board, and it's due to the bitching from wealthy right-wing donors that evil liberal professors have too much power. Well, they WERE right; the university was once just about the only place a leftist thinker could speak up without being assaulted, and still retain his or her position. Through a simple strategy of making college into a profit-ridden venture over the past 35 years, the murder of free speech has been accomplished. Using money as a sledgehammer, universities have been smashed into a customer-service environment, run by those who have the most money to donate.

If you don't believe me, look at how beleaguered poor old 80+ Noam Chomsky is, still grinding the last axe of liberalism in a sea of right-wing political correctness. Could you even imagine Kent State style protests in this day and age? The time of liberalism on campus is over, deliberately killed to stifle free speech using the tool of money. You know, if someone conservative wants to come to a campus and speak, let them. If they expect fawning adulation, and piss and moan if they don't get it, then they suck. But the reality is that conservatism was never at home in colleges, and conservatives simply cannot accept NOT dominating every environment. They HAVE to be right.

Excellent points and that just about covers it. The only ideology that is sacrosanct in universities is that money is swell and people with money should be courted at all costs. If conservatives want to be represented there they should spring for a new library or a speaker's series. Oh wait they do but the students aren't interested unless they're wearing blue dress shirts and khakis and are actually James O'Keefe undercover with a dart gun loaded with rohypnol.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 17:44

Patrick Spens: Jul 21, 2006; "Every quarterback says they've got guts, But how many have actually seen 'em?"; Pillbug

Quidam Viator posted:

From the teaching perspective, it unquestionably is. The deliberate murder of the full, tenured professorship has taken away a once-crucial bastion of intellectual speech and progress. Professors who might once have formed a nucleus for radical reformist thought are now too terrified to do anything other than bring in grant money and write papers. That's even if they make it to become professors; most American college teaching is now done by adjuncts and grad students, because they are cheap and easily disposed of.

No, but you see free speech is exactly the same thing as the first amendment, and so the growing corporate takeover of higher education is in no way shape or form a free speech issue.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 18:45

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

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.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 19:09

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

http://www.thefire.org/headline-reading-trigger-warning-apparently-enough-warning-purportedly-triggering-poster/

quote:

Headline Reading �Trigger Warning� Apparently Not Enough Warning for Purportedly Triggering Poster
By Susan Kruth November 7, 2014

As FIRE has argued before, trigger warnings can significantly chill discussion of difficult or controversial topics and are an inadequate solution for students who might actually deal with post-traumatic stress disorder. We like to think we�re pretty persuasive on our own, but sometimes it takes a completely ridiculous real-life story to drive our points home. Luckily for us, students at Knox College in Illinois have provided us with one.

The college�s student newspaper, The Knox Student, reported on the issue of whether there should be guidelines for materials posted around campus. Here�s what spurred the debate:

Conversations about a policy to regulate posters placed around campus started after student concerns were brought to Student Senate and the administration about posters that were found earlier this year that could potentially trigger survivors of sexual assault.

Some of these posters proclaimed �It�s Rape� in large letters, going on to explain consent, while others were headed with �Trigger Warning� and accompanied by a story of someone�s sexual assault. These posters ended with an email that people could send their stories to.

In response to these posters, Student Senate wrote an open letter to campus in last week�s issue of TKS, wishing to make clear that they supported the person posting these stories and did not want to silence them while encouraging these individual[s] to consider that their posters could be triggering to students on campus.

It sounds like the individual responsible did consider that the posters might be �triggering��hence the header that read �Trigger Warning.� If that�s not adequate, then no number of disclaimers to the contrary can change the fact that students do, in fact, want to silence speech, or at least keep it somewhere it is far less likely to be seen.

Title IX Coordinator Kim Schrader, too, claimed to value free speech while pointing out that �signage can be triggering and it�s important that we�re respectful and caring of people who are survivor-victims.� Associate Dean of Students and Title IX Deputy Coordinator Laura Schnack suggested that �even if a [posting] policy was not put in place, guidelines might be helpful for the community to clarify expectations on what is appropriate.� In other words, instead of threatening speech explicitly, expression will simply be chilled by statements about what is �appropriate.�

This would not be an acceptable result at an institution that presents itself as a place where students can speak freely. Knox is a private school, so it is not legally bound by the First Amendment. Its General Standards of Conduct, however, state that no member of the Knox community may �interfer[e] with a member�s freedom to hear, study, or express through writing, speech, or protest unpopular and controversial views on intellectual and public issues.� Accordingly, students at Knox have a reasonable expectation that they will be free to express themselves on campus.

The content of the posters, in particular, makes this story remarkable. The question of what consent is and how colleges and universities should be handling allegations of sexual assault has been hotly debated across the country in recent years, particularly in 2014. Does Knox College really want to hinder conversations about these topics by suggesting, through policy or �guidelines,� that a discussion about consent is not �appropriate� in public spaces?

FIRE often sees students confuse physical safety�an understable priority�with emotional comfort, which students must often forego if they wish to expose themselves to new ideas and challenge themselves intellectually. Here, too, it�s important to remember the distinction. The Knox Student relayed one student�s worries about the posters:

Student Senate Vice President and senior Robert Turski said that some students were frightened or felt targeted by the posters.

�The poster that said �It�s Rape� was scary, frankly. It was frightening. It sent a very strange tone on campus,� he said. �I know that some people felt weirdly targeted, I know that there was one put on the door of each frat house.�

Things have really come full circle when a community is considering censorship because students feel �frightened� and �targeted� by anti-rape and pro-victim advocacy. Turski stated that he is opposed to censorship and would support only a �very, very loose set of guidelines.� Given how easily vague policies can be abused, we hope he means a very tight set of guidelines on a very narrow swath of expression. Speech must not be censored just because it is �scary,� unless it constitutes a true threat or falls into another category of speech unprotected by the First Amendment.

According to The Knox Student, Diversity Chair and junior ChanTareya Paredes, who agreed that the posters were �triggering,� deferred to the masses on the question of whether there should be a posting policy:

�If the majority of the students wanted posters to start being screened, we as Student Senate would have to represent that regardless of our personal opinions,� she said.

Exactly wrong. An underlying principle of the First Amendment, the spirit of which is embodied in Knox�s conduct code, is that whether speech is protected should not be left to the whims of the majority or those in power on any given day.

Thankfully, some students appreciate the importance of open discourse and oppose restrictions on posters on campus. The Knox Student wrote, for example:

�I do not think that we should have a posting policy. I firmly, wholeheartedly believe that there should not be anything that you have to go through,� Health and Wellness Chair and junior Katie Mansfield said, noting that she feels that screening posters would violate students� right to free speech.

FIRE hopes that Knox will uphold its community members� rights to hear and debate even controversial ideas, and that it will decline to adopt posting policies that will restrict or chill protected speech.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 19:21

TheImmigrant: Jan 18, 2011

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

Dmitri-9: Nov 30, 2004; There's something really sexy about Scrooge McDuck. I love Uncle Scrooge.

Ddraig posted:

How so? Unless it's the institution actively preventing people from speaking or expressing a view then it's really just a case of 'this person doesn't agree with me, my free speech!"

One example of "preventing people from speaking" on campus would be an invited speaker getting a talk canceled because of protest from student or faculty. Of course this is another non-issue because no one is guaranteed a venue.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 19:42

Aves Maria!: Jul 26, 2008; Maybe I'll drown

The only "concerted" effort to mock and degrade right-wing speech that I've seen on a university was when the professor lightly mocked people who believed in Creationism. In an Evolutionary Biology course. And honestly, they deserve to be mocked for being idiots.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 19:58

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

TheImmigrant posted:

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.

You just agreed with me.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 19:58

Ogmius815: Aug 25, 2005; centrism is a hell of a drug

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.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 20:01

TheImmigrant: Jan 18, 2011

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

Homura and Sickle: Apr 21, 2013

considering that schools pay up to hundreds of thousands of dollars for high profile speakers, particularly at commencement, and this money is coming from tuition students should have a say in whether or not they want their money to go to loving monsters like phyllis schaffly.

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.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 20:09

TheImmigrant: Jan 18, 2011

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

Homura and Sickle: Apr 21, 2013

TheImmigrant posted:

What if they are speaking for free?

that's covered in the waste resources part by providing them a venue. if, i dunno, george bush wants to come and just speak through a megaphone on the sidewalk i don't think any university will make an effort to stop him.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 20:13

Aves Maria!: Jul 26, 2008; Maybe I'll drown

TheImmigrant posted:

What if they are speaking for free?

They can easily set up shop on the quad or in a courtyard like every other looney that comes to campus. The university doesn't have to allocate resources for them to speak.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 20:13

Ogmius815: Aug 25, 2005; centrism is a hell of a drug

TheImmigrant posted:

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.

The government doesn't have to give everyone a venue either though. That's stupid.

As for the nature of universities it really isn't that the right wing ideas aren't being given a fair hearing. It's that they've been considered and found repulsive. Like, I don't know what universe you guys live in, but universities invite incredibly right wing speakers to campus all he time. When I was in college the YR's had Karl Rove for example. What usually isn't allowed is people who are odious in that they personally attack a segment of the student body and advocate for them to be treated badly, because gently caress that.

Moreover, the nature of a university is against this kind of false equivalence. Universities are supposed to be about pursuing the truth and developing good ideas, not making everyone feel good.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 20:13

Deceitful Penguin: Feb 16, 2011

Quidam Viator posted:

From the teaching perspective, it unquestionably is. The deliberate murder of the full, tenured professorship has taken away a once-crucial bastion of intellectual speech and progress. Professors who might once have formed a nucleus for radical reformist thought are now too terrified to do anything other than bring in grant money and write papers. That's even if they make it to become professors; most American college teaching is now done by adjuncts and grad students, because they are cheap and easily disposed of.

Universities have no desire to keep expensive tenured professors on board, and it's due to the bitching from wealthy right-wing donors that evil liberal professors have too much power. Well, they WERE right; the university was once just about the only place a leftist thinker could speak up without being assaulted, and still retain his or her position. Through a simple strategy of making college into a profit-ridden venture over the past 35 years, the murder of free speech has been accomplished. Using money as a sledgehammer, universities have been smashed into a customer-service environment, run by those who have the most money to donate.

If you don't believe me, look at how beleaguered poor old 80+ Noam Chomsky is, still grinding the last axe of liberalism in a sea of right-wing political correctness. Could you even imagine Kent State style protests in this day and age? The time of liberalism on campus is over, deliberately killed to stifle free speech using the tool of money. You know, if someone conservative wants to come to a campus and speak, let them. If they expect fawning adulation, and piss and moan if they don't get it, then they suck. But the reality is that conservatism was never at home in colleges, and conservatives simply cannot accept NOT dominating every environment. They HAVE to be right.

I thought this was going to be about this, or maybe the Palestinian issue where in several places organizations like Hillel or J-Street have tried to stop Pro-Palestinian speakers from voicing their opinions or demand that a pro-Israeli speaker be also allowed. You can see poo poo like this with the Conflict Kitchen incident recently and the "not hiring" of Steven Salaita.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 20:18

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Jagchosis posted:

ive seen actual people in their twenties wearing BOWTIES.

Don't you dare knock Nation of Islam fashion sense.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 20:21

Ernie Muppari: Aug 4, 2012; Keep this up G'Bert, and soon you won't have a pigeon to protect!

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

http://www.thefire.org/headline-reading-trigger-warning-apparently-enough-warning-purportedly-triggering-poster/

Oh my god so boring.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 21:10

sugar free jazz: Mar 5, 2008

Rollofthedice posted:

I read the preface to a book entitled Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. It talked about how 'holocaust revisionist' (read: denialist) ads would be vilified and yet remain up due to newspaper editors feeling it to be a case of free speech. The author, Mrs. Lipstadt, also remarked on how she refuses to engage in debate with holocaust revisionists, as she believes that the last thing such a topic warrants is more attention drawn to it. To her, more exposure means more legitimacy is implied.

I wish more people held Mrs. Lipstadt's views, and not just on holocaust deniers.

Deborah Lipstadt owns and her book on the American press 1933-1945 wrt the Holocaust and Nazis owns.

Right wingers who are whiny loving cunts about being called out on their lovely awful views do not own. Well cya later.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 21:12

fanged wang: Nov 1, 2014; by Ralp

it's simply impossible the creepy masturbatory obsession with asserting your moral superiority over other people due to the inherent glorious rightness of your thoughts and inherent violent wrongness of those who disagree with you may have the unintended or heck wholly intended effect of silencing perfectly benign and acceptable behavior and speech, imo

# ? Nov 28, 2014 21:56

Homura and Sickle: Apr 21, 2013

fanged wang posted:

it's simply impossible the creepy masturbatory obsession with asserting your moral superiority over other people due to the inherent glorious rightness of your thoughts and inherent violent wrongness of those who disagree with you may have the unintended or heck wholly intended effect of silencing perfectly benign and acceptable behavior and speech, imo

literally politics everywhere

# ? Nov 28, 2014 22:00

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

fanged wang posted:

it's simply impossible the creepy masturbatory obsession with asserting your moral superiority over other people due to the inherent glorious rightness of your thoughts and inherent violent wrongness of those who disagree with you may have the unintended or heck wholly intended effect of silencing perfectly benign and acceptable behavior and speech, imo

And? So long as it's not the government doing the silencing it's perfectly legal.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 22:06

fanged wang: Nov 1, 2014; by Ralp

Who What Now posted:

And? So long as it's not the government doing the silencing it's perfectly legal.

where in the op does it make mention of government suppression of free speech because it would seem to me that while that would be a very cutting and incisive point to make in a discussion of that topic it doesn't seem like this topic is that topic and comes off as a total non sequiter when it is brought up 4 dozen times in this thread

# ? Nov 28, 2014 22:09

Ogmius815: Aug 25, 2005; centrism is a hell of a drug

fanged wang posted:

it's simply impossible the creepy masturbatory obsession with asserting your moral superiority over other people due to the inherent glorious rightness of your thoughts and inherent violent wrongness of those who disagree with you may have the unintended or heck wholly intended effect of silencing perfectly benign and acceptable behavior and speech, imo

I'll try to work on my masterbatory obsession with asserting the moral superiority of my position that people should not be treated as sub humans because of their genitals or skin color or what genitals they prefer to play with.

Douche.

Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Nov 28, 2014

# ? Nov 28, 2014 22:12

fanged wang: Nov 1, 2014; by Ralp

Ogmius815 posted:

I'll try to work on my masterbatory obsession with asserting the moral superiority of my position that people should be treated as sub humans because of their genitals or skin color or what genitals they prefer to play with.

Douche.

yeah anyone who disagrees with me is a violent racist piece of poo poo douche gently caress pice of fuckshit and i hope they die

# ? Nov 28, 2014 22:14

fanged wang: Nov 1, 2014; by Ralp

there's actually a broad ideological spectrum between orthodox anime marxist and black person murdering rethuglican shitlord in my experience

# ? Nov 28, 2014 22:16

Homura and Sickle: Apr 21, 2013

fanged wang posted:

yeah anyone who disagrees with me is a violent racist piece of poo poo douche gently caress pice of fuckshit and i hope they die

pretty much, yeah.

fanged wang posted:

there's actually a broad ideological spectrum between orthodox anime marxist and black person murdering rethuglican shitlord in my experience

not really, it's actually binary.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 22:16

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Ernie Muppari posted:

Oh my god so boring.

Then don't post ITT?

# ? Nov 28, 2014 22:18

brennon: Sep 15, 2004

Ddraig posted:

Do Americans just not know what the 1st Amendment is or something? I'm a dirty limey bastard but even I know the first amendment applies to government attempts to censor free speech only.

Any random Joe can tell you repeatedly to shut the gently caress up and could follow you around with the world's greatest sound system and constantly drown out all your speech for the rest of your life and he wouldn't be violating your right to free speech.

that's harrassment though and it's illegal!

# ? Nov 28, 2014 22:20

Patrick Spens: Jul 21, 2006; "Every quarterback says they've got guts, But how many have actually seen 'em?"; Pillbug

Who What Now posted:

And? So long as it's not the government doing the silencing it's perfectly legal.

There is more to free speech than governmental censorship.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 22:34

Homura and Sickle: Apr 21, 2013

Patrick Spens posted:

There is more to free speech than governmental censorship.

actually, no there isn't. you are conflating free speech with some other, more bitchmade concept.

least in the american sense, and we are discussing american universities so

# ? Nov 28, 2014 22:39

TheImmigrant: Jan 18, 2011

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

Ernie Muppari: Aug 4, 2012; Keep this up G'Bert, and soon you won't have a pigeon to protect!

fanged wang posted:

there's actually a broad ideological spectrum between orthodox anime marxist and black person murdering rethuglican shitlord in my experience

That's also been my experience IRL.

TheImmigrant posted:

Nuance is for right-wing racists. You're either with us or against us.

this is also true

# ? Nov 28, 2014 22:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 05:31

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

The major problem that conservatives have on college campuses is that (political) conservative thought tends to be based on false assumptions, horrible leaps in logic, and pure speculation. "Conservative" economics tend to be of the Austrian school, for example.

If you look at Enlightenment era-thinkers, too, you have Burke held up as one of the only 'conservative' voices, and he would actually be completely loving horrified by the modern 'conservative' movement.

There's plenty of 'conservative' stuff in academia, from the old meaning of conservative as not wanting to throw out old ideas and privilege new ones just for newness. In that regard, academia is hella conservative. In politics, it's liberal but the reason for that tends to be that modern political conservative thought is utter garbage.

# ? Nov 28, 2014 22:44

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is free speech under attack on campus or are people overreacting?

«‹›18 »