|
Jagchosis posted:i actually joined a conservative group that is dedicated to fighting back against the liberal dominance of discourse on campus (because they have really good food). it is literally just a bunch of white people hand wringing about how no one agrees with their lovely ideas. if there was actual systemic oppression of conservative ideology, then good, gently caress these people What do they have for food?
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Universities are solidly left-wing zones. 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. And these are public state schools in liberal cities, not private Christian colleges where you might expect more right-wing views. So while the attitudes of many of my peers were definitely liberal, some days (like when I was being presented with images of a bunch of miscarriages with the words "ABORTION IS MURDER" in bold) it sure didn't feel like I was in a left-wing zone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
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:What do they have for food? catering from the more expensive and meat filled local restaurants typically, as well as chick fil a (because of course). most of the other organizations have chain pizza or stale thai food. the difference is staggering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Conservatives have a voice on campus. The "problem" is that no one wants to listen to their lovely, half-baked ideas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:That's not a problem. In a free marketplace of ideas, lovely ones won't gain any traction. Nothing to fear from them. Then that's great, because that is just about every college campus. The reason you don't see conservative speakers galore is generally because either the university (and thus student body and alumni) must invite them, or specific student groups or professors/departments willing to foot the bill. It turns out that these groups generally don't care to pay for/accommodate high-profile conservative speakers, quelle surprise. I mean, we can talk about social pressures all you want but it is very rare that a conservative person is going to forcibly have their views silenced. This just reminds me of a creationist biologist complaining when his colleagues rightfully regard him as a crackpot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
stop disagreeing with me and let me voice my opinions completely unopposed forever you closedminded cowards
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
The only real first hand exposure I have to liberal suppression of free discourse was when my coo-coo radical college invited David Horowitz to debate the college president. He threw a fit onstage after a professor questioned him too pointedly during the Q&A session, something to the effect of "when you were a leftist you railed against right wing bias on campus, now that you're a conservative you rail against left wing bias. Are you sure you don't just have a persecution complex?".
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Free speech isn't simply a legal thing, like 'the government can't ban you from saying something'. It's a general principle that in a free and open society people should be allowed to express ideas that others (a majority, in fact) might find distasteful or wrong. And being allowed goes beyond the absence of government-supported censorship, it requires creating an environment where people can communicate without being ostracized, maligned, or worse. The first approach is a 'negative rights' approach, the second approach is more of a 'positive rights' approach. Saying 'well no one's forbidding you from saying your lovely views' is no different than saying 'no one's forbidding poor people from getting a job'. It strikes me as really idiotic and narrow-minded for people who lean left to defend these attitudes, since it's often leftists and people with left-leaning ideas who fall prey to these boycotts and protests and orchestrated campaigns, since left-leaning ideas are more outside the mainstream in America than right-leaning ideas. I only knew about FIRE from an earlier case, and based on that one I'm not sure why everyone immediately jumped to thinking they're a conservative front. The case in question is when FIRE was defending Dan Savage, who spoke at a University of Chicago event. He was accused by a student of hate speech because he used the word 'tranny' in the context of discussing the word itself. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Nov 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
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. Holocaust denial can be a touchy subject. In some places it's illegal and it's defined as ANY questioning of the government version of events. Even the smallest change to any part of the government narrative makes you criminally liable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
oh no how will outspoken newspaper editor dan savage overcome his vast petition writing and crying while room-leaving opposition
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Free speech isn't simply a legal thing, like 'the government can't ban you from saying something'. It's a general principle that in a free and open society people should be allowed to express ideas that others (a majority, in fact) might find distasteful or wrong. And being allowed goes beyond the absence of government-supported censorship, it requires creating an environment where people can communicate without being ostracized, maligned, or worse. The first approach is a 'negative rights' approach, the second approach is more of a 'positive rights' approach. Saying 'well no one's forbidding you from saying your lovely views' is no different than saying 'no one's forbidding poor people from getting a job'. In the context of university campuses, people can express their ideas freely in whatever courtyard/quadrangle, open patch of grass/cement they want. I would know, I see them every semester ranting about the gays, atheism, and whatever else they're on about. Only very rarely do I see people engage with them, and even rarer than that do I see people actively shout at them. The idea that just because they have ideas they have to be given an auditorium and a non-hostile audience to express them is ridiculous. If they want to pay for it? Fine, but I think you'll have a hard time convincing people whose entire ideology is to use talk circuits as graft to pay tens of thousands of dollars to rent out a university facility/staff. No one is or should be required to pay to have these people use campus resources, which seems to be the entire problem with the "censorship" crowd.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:oh no how will outspoken newspaper editor dan savage overcome his vast petition writing and crying while room-leaving opposition I think Dan's plan has something to do with cancer and murder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:The idea that just because they have ideas they have to be given an auditorium and a non-hostile audience to express them is ridiculous. 'Don't need to be given a non-hostile audience' is a really odd way of removing agency from the concept of going to other people's talks and preventing them from speaking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Free speech isn't simply a legal thing, like 'the government can't ban you from saying something'. It's a general principle that in a free and open society people should be allowed to express ideas that others (a majority, in fact) might find distasteful or wrong. And being allowed goes beyond the absence of government-supported censorship, it requires creating an environment where people can communicate without being ostracized, maligned, or worse. Is people ostracizing or maligning NAMBLA or the American Nazi Party a violation of free speech? Because that's what you're saying here. Also by saying "you can't/shouldn't" malign this group" is an implicit violation of the maligner's free speech as you've defined it here. TheImmigrant posted:In a free marketplace of ideas, lovely ones won't gain any traction. Nothing to fear from them. Haha, yeah, no one would run off to join a mass-murdering gang in Iraq to be used as cannon fodder, or believe the Queen of England is a shape-shifting alien lizard. Those lovely ideas would never gain traction!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:'Don't need to be given a non-hostile audience' is a really odd way of removing agency from the concept of going to other people's talks and preventing them from speaking. Not really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:'Don't need to be given a non-hostile audience' is a really odd way of removing agency from the concept of going to other people's talks and preventing them from speaking. If the university is paying money to invite a speaker against the wishes of the campus at-large then I see no problem with it. The students are the ones paying tuition. If it's a private event hosted by a group then the hecklers will almost certainly be removed. Though, I honestly haven't experienced this epidemic of dozens of people going to talks just to shut them down for no apparent reason so I'm not sure why this is even an issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Is people ostracizing or maligning NAMBLA or the American Nazi Party a violation of free speech? Because that's what you're saying here. Also by saying "you can't/shouldn't" malign this group" is an implicit violation of the maligner's free speech as you've defined it here. There is a difference between criticizing speech and banning it. There are different levels of consequence to speech. There needs to be consequence to speech but not to the extent that it acts as a huge deterrent to communicating your ideas. With NAMBLA or something like that, we know it's bad and we know it probably will remain bad. But in general, we don't know a priori which ideas are good and should be defended and which ideas are bad and should be destroyed, and that changes all the time. Most of the things people vigorously defend today are the things that are going to get them ostracized by their grandchildren. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:If the university is paying money to invite a speaker against the wishes of the campus at-large then I see no problem with it. Neither do I, but I don't think this is very common. Most speakers aren't so divisive that they're going to generate such a negative reaction from a large, diverse student body. In any case, that would basically be a problem between the university and the students, since the problem isn't the speaker's ideas, but that the university doesn't care about the students' opinions. So why go be hostile to the speaker? Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Haha, yeah, no one would run off to join a mass-murdering gang in Iraq to be used as cannon fodder, or believe the Queen of England is a shape-shifting alien lizard. Those lovely ideas would never gain traction!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:There is a difference between criticizing speech and banning it. There are different levels of consequence to speech. There needs to be consequence to speech but not to the extent that it acts as a huge deterrent to communicating your ideas. Sorry, but your ideas aren't very well-formed, at least not as expressed here. I agree that there is a difference between criticizing speech and banning it. But you also say that: quote:Free speech isn't simply a legal thing... It's a general principle that in a free and open society people should be allowed to express ideas that others (a majority, in fact) might find distasteful or wrong. And being allowed goes beyond the absence of government-supported censorship, it requires creating an environment where people can communicate without being ostracized, maligned So while you say that there can and should be consequences to speech, you think that the consequences should be limited so that they should not act as a "huge deterrent" to speech. First of all, what do you mean by "huge deterrent," and how is it different from a non-huge deterrent? Do you mean that you should be allowed to criticize speech as long as it does not lead to ostracizing or maligning? Why shouldn't you be allowed to malign something like NAMBLA, or "Lizard people rule the world" (to be clear, I don't think these ideas are equally bad)? Is calling it crazy bullshit maligning it? Also, you still haven't resolved the inherent contradiction of saying we need to create an environment where people can communicate, but that communication which is a "huge deterrent," or "maligns," someone else's speech, should be stopped, which by your terms is a violation of free speech. It comes across as you wanting free speech, unless it's too critical or harsh, in which case it's unsupportable by society. Your second paragraph is just a restatement of the marketplace of ideas. Any conceivable thought might be acceptable at some hypothetical future time; you're using this to say we shouldn't too harshly condemn - through speech, not government action - ideas that seem harmful or reprehensible. Nessus posted:Are you talking about ISIS or the US Army there? I actually remember a campus group that was taking the attitude of the former with regards to hollering at people talking to recruiters. I meant ISIS, but I appreciate the humor of the ambiguity 
Sharkie fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Conservatives should shut the gently caress up there that's my exchanging ideas in a free marketplace
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:When you look at the numbers (a few hundred, tops), I'd say that no, ISIS has not gained traction in the West. 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. edit: I suppose one could define "lovely idea" as an idea that doesn't gain traction, but then that's a tautology. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:oh no how will outspoken newspaper editor dan savage overcome his vast petition writing and crying while room-leaving opposition Did you ever notice how Dan Savage became William F. Buckley? I didn't notice until just now
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted: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. I'm suggesting that TheImmigrant posted:...In a free marketplace of ideas, lovely ones won't gain any traction. Nothing to fear from them. is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted: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. It kinda depends. Some lovely ideas should be attacked via explanations of why they're lovely. Other lovely ideas are actually based on lovely premises, and you can't really argue against them. The expression 'sunlight is the best disinfectant' is a really fatuously trite phrase, which is obvious if you think about it for five seconds. Some ideas thrive in the 'sunlight', like racism. Racism is not, at heart, a secret bias on the part of individuals, it is a societal-wide phenomenon. It is not just a collection of individual racist acts. Having racism expressed in public and just 'debated' rather than attacked or shamed does, indeed, encourage more racism, and allow racists equal standing. People who espouse racist ideas should be attacked on the basis of being loving awful people and horrible unethical; it's not that racism is illogical. We're not Vulcans. That's not how human society, nor argument, operates. Historically, very lovely ideas have gained tons of traction, repeatedly, to the extent that you saying it seems to be declaring a lack of any knowledge of human history. lovely ideas, whether you're talking ethical, practical, or philosophical, have caught on frequently, often precisely because they're lovely. Ayn Rand, for example, and her crude paleo-philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
nazis were popular, for a time
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Strange that you say that on this thread, where the sneering has already begun. If one of those "ideas" is that the very concept of sexual orientation isn't legitimate, which is something social conservatives often believe, how exactly do you expect liberals to address that view?" People in general don't tend to take too kindly to "your very existence is wrong/illegitimate" as an argument. I have no issue with people expressing these views but I think it's absurd to expect certain views that basically boil down to attacks against certain minority groups to be treated with kind and polite opposition. EDIT: A more succinct way if saying what I just posted is that "you must tolerate my intolerance" is a fallacy. The concept of tolerance by definition requires intolerance of intolerant views. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
look if you disagree with me then just shut up and silently disagree while i continue talking
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:Conservatives have a voice on campus. The "problem" is that no one wants to listen to their lovely, half-baked ideas. The problem is that in some cases, extremists will physically block entrances or pull fire alarms to stop sanctioned talks from happening, and not a finger is lifted to stop them (and god help you if you do anything to ensure that your activity proceeds as planned)
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
on the left posted:The problem is that in some cases, extremists will physically block entrances or pull fire alarms to stop sanctioned talks from happening, and not a finger is lifted to stop them (and god help you if you do anything to ensure that your activity proceeds as planned) all the time im erious
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
on the left posted:The problem is that in some cases, extremists will physically block entrances or pull fire alarms to stop sanctioned talks from happening, and not a finger is lifted to stop them (and god help you if you do anything to ensure that your activity proceeds as planned) This is a common thing and not at all in the fever dreams of 'persecuted' conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Actually, something not too dissimilar happened just last week in the UK which has a bearing on the issue of students' - or activist groups who claim to speak for them - current enthusiasm for the censorship of wrongthink. The author was attending a debate on abortion at Oxford University (for the pro-choice position, which should make him sufficiently Correct for D&D to tolerate) and the event was cancelled because of threats of "disruption" because the speakers both had the wrong chromosomes.quote:This is what those censorious Cambridgers meant when they kept saying they have the ‘right to be comfortable’. They weren’t talking about the freedom to lay down on a chaise longue — they meant the right never to be challenged by disturbing ideas or mind-battered by offensiveness. At precisely the time they should be leaping brain-first into the rough and tumble of grown-up, testy discussion, students are cushioning themselves from anything that has the whiff of controversy. We’re witnessing the victory of political correctness by stealth. As the annoying ‘PC gone mad!’ brigade banged on and on about extreme instances of PC — schools banning ‘Baa Baa, Black Sheep’, etc. — nobody seems to have noticed that the key tenets of PC, from the desire to destroy offensive lingo to the urge to re-educate apparently corrupted minds, have been swallowed whole by a new generation. This is a disaster, for it means our universities are becoming breeding grounds of dogmatism. As John Stuart Mill said, if we don’t allow our opinion to be ‘fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed’, then that opinion will be ‘held as a dead dogma, not a living truth’. kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:look if you disagree with me then just shut up and silently disagree while i continue talking Unironically was taught this in public education. Anyone giving a speech about something you disagree with, you weren't allowed to interrupt, debate or even discuss afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 02:46
|
|
