|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:You're free to feel however you want, I just thought as somebody posting in this topic you might like to discuss or debate what happened to Professor Rust at UCLA. It's a poorly cited piece that is filled with unnecessary attacks on feminists, blacks, and any other minority group. I'd no more debate or discuss that piece than an op-ed screed.
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:03 |
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:Why can't you debate at a more sophisticated level than pointing out the general political character of a publisher. I dunno, someone that's more upset about black students getting offended than about women getting raped might have some skewed viewpoints. Like... quote:Under current immigration policies, America is importing another underclass, one "with the potential to expand indefinitely," according to Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. To sentimentalists who cling to "the myth of the redeeming power of Hispanic family values, the Hispanic work ethic, and Hispanic virtue," she says... Not to mention her defense of racial profiling. It's almost like she's more concerned about those nefarious "people of color" than she is with free speech! Especially given her full-throated defense of the Patriot Act and wire taps. But about her article, shouldn't an ardent defender of free speech support what the students are doing, rather than condemn it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:I dunno, someone that's more upset about black students getting offended than about women getting raped might have some skewed viewpoints. Like... I have no problem the students exercising their right to free speech, I have a problem with the University administration caving into what appear to be spurious charges against what appears to be a good and principled professor on the basis of these flimsy and vague speech and tolerance codes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Read some more of the book today, went into "Free Speech Zones" which he describes are often in a isolated part of the campus as to isolate the protestors. Brings up a case at Texas Tech where a FIRE lawsuit got rid of a extremely tiny "Free Speech Gazebo" that the university was segregating anti-Iraq War protestors on/ ( http://www.thefire.org/this-month-in-fire-history-lawsuit-challenges-speech-code-and-free-speech-gazebo-at-texas-tech/ ) He brings up the fact that there are restrictions even in these "Free Speech Zones", Valdosta State University for example confined students to a "small stage" "use of which was restricted to two non-consecutive hours per day—and only on weekdays" (Looking on various sites this seems to have since been overturned by courts). He somewhat went on the attack in the latest chapter I read, writing quote:"Defenders of speech codes will often invoke nightmare scenarios of minority students chased off campus by mobs of bigots shouting racial slurs. These hypothetical examples often include speech that is not constitutionally protected; such as true threats, stalking, or vandalism. In reality the way speech codes are implemented often bears no resemblance to such horror stories, many cases involve nothing more serious then mockery of the university or the administration. Overall I'm finding that sometimes he makes good arguments, other times, 'eh, it's a bit iffy. It is fairly annoying how on every other page it seems he has to remind the reader that "I'M A DEMOCRAT, GUYS!".
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:Shameful Sounds like D&D. Racist microaggressions!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:I have no problem the students exercising their right to free speech, I have a problem with the University administration caving into what appear to be spurious charges against what appears to be a good and principled professor on the basis of these flimsy and vague speech and tolerance codes. Caving in to what? The guy is still a professor at UCLA in the same department. A half-second of googling uncovered a UCLA article with the professor in question sympathizing with some of the complaints and personal stories of the demonstrators. Most of the claims made in that article are completely uncited, which is why it's a truly poor piece of "journalism".
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Sounds like D&D. soundls like dnd whining about dnd
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:I have no problem the students exercising their right to free speech, I have a problem with the University administration caving into what appear to be spurious charges against what appears to be a good and principled professor on the basis of these flimsy and vague speech and tolerance codes. But you're just accepting her judgement that these are spurious charges. That piece is a screed against everything from multiculturalism and various academic disciplines: quote:Students specializing in “critical race theory” — an intellectually vacuous import from law schools—play the race card incessantly to the state of students' grammar. As far as Rust being a "good and principled professor," going up to a student who complained about you patting him on the arm and quote:After the meeting, Rust approached the student who had berated him for not seeking forgiveness and tried to engage him in conversation. Ever naive, Rust again reached out to touch his interlocutor. The student, a large and robust young man, erupted in anger Doing the exact same thing again doesn't strike me as a "good" move. She transparently completely discounts student complaints while citing a few anonymous sources complaining about how they're afraid of being called racists - then for good measure assumes that a student who claimed to get an email calling her a "n----r" was lying. Oh, and she concludes with this note about Ferguson: quote:the media suppressed any information about the incident that complicated its favored narrative about police brutality, all the while pumping out strained stories about racism in law enforcement and public life more generally. The result was days of violence, looting, and arson, It is a Very Bad Article, and she should have saved herself the effort and just wrote "Stop complaining about racism" a thousand times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 05:09
|
|
and eventually filed a criminal charge of battery
|
look maybe you dont get it heres an incredibly long article that pretty much just repeast the thing i just said with a single anectode added
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
I think the whole premise that speech is somehow some unique unassailable entity is kind of dumb. Speech can hurt people just as much as punching them in the face, and it seems entirely logical to restrict it in some contexts. While you should obviously try to encourage free expression whenever possible, I don't think there's some mandate from heaven that all speech/expression must be protected. As in most things, it should be looked at on a case by case basis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think the whole premise that speech is somehow some unique unassailable entity is kind of dumb. Speech can hurt people just as much as punching them in the face, and it seems entirely logical to restrict it in some contexts. While you should obviously try to encourage free expression whenever possible, I don't think there's some mandate from heaven that all speech/expression must be protected. As in most things, it should be looked at on a case by case basis. Because education involves examining and debating ideas, some of which will inevitably controversial. And these are universities, populated by adults, who choose to be there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
You see, if we model college students as Rational Actors, then
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted: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. Is this a typo? Tolerance does not 'require intolerance of intolerant views', it requires tolerance of "intolerant" views. If not, it's not tolerance, it's just liking what you like and not liking what you don't like. I don't think anyone is expecting people to treat noxious views with politeness, but just because you're not at one extreme (politeness) doesn't mean you have to go to the other one (trying to ban speech). You just have to be in the long stretch of middle ground between those two points in which most people are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Because modern conservative movements (in the US) run on the outrage machine. So you have to constantly be offended and every battle must be a last stand against persecution. It is actually a really really effective tactic and the fact liberals (or democrats I guess) haven't properly used this tactic is just weird to me. Liberals and left-leaning people definitely use this tactic right now. Especially on websites, since this stuff is very effective clickbait. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
okay but for real a lot of these speech codes that the folk here are handwringing about are about making female and minority students feel like they're not in a hostile environment. if the "view point" being challenged is the color of one's skin, their gender, or sexuality then nothing is lost at all by banning that kind of speech. why should the "rights" of white male assholes to be hostile to people not like them trump the needs of others to get an education without feeling like a worthless second class citizen? cue post saying IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT THAT HURFF, yeah it is
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:okay but for real a lot of these speech codes that the folk here are handwringing about are about making female and minority students feel like they're not in a hostile environment. if the "view point" being challenged is the color of one's skin, their gender, or sexuality then nothing is lost at all by banning that kind of speech. why should the "rights" of white male assholes to be hostile to people not like them trump the needs of others to get an education without feeling like a worthless second class citizen? cue post saying IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT THAT HURFF, yeah it is I doubt anyone believes that you have a right to free speech in the classroom, as the professor is free to issue consequences as he/she feels necessary. But outside of campus, yeah why not? I doubt there's much you can do outside of school to hurt a person's ability to get an education that wouldn't also be covered by criminal law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:Because education involves examining and debating ideas, some of which will inevitably controversial. And these are universities, populated by adults, who choose to be there. Do you understand the difference between academic speech and other speech? For example, calling classmates loving whores and bitches--do you think that's academic speech? on the left posted:I doubt anyone believes that you have a right to free speech in the classroom, as the professor is free to issue consequences as he/she feels necessary. But outside of campus, yeah why not? I doubt there's much you can do outside of school to hurt a person's ability to get an education that wouldn't also be covered by criminal law. How about the example that I gave, of a person who writes racist screeds and is also a TA? The Snark posted:I would ask, would you rather have the right to speak freely or to silence those you disagree with? Do you think that you might, just possibly, be oversimplifying the problem and presenting a false dichotomy? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
I would ask, would you rather have the right to speak freely or to silence those you disagree with? Please note that whichever you choose, said right must be shared with all of your fellows- including the ones you disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:I just looked it up and the Spectator is apparently a Conservative rag and the author is a libertarian who hates same sex marriage and thinks efforts to stop racism in soccer are bad. Because of course. Rather than waste time typing all that out, you could have just purged him as a kulak. Or a Trot, the bastards. kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Liberals and left-leaning people definitely use this tactic right now. Especially on websites, since this stuff is very effective clickbait. Eh, I wasn't saying liberals and democrats don't get outraged about anything, but that the cottage industry that arose in the conservative movement hasn't arisen in the other side, speaking strictly of the US of course. It is kind of weird but Democrats are kind of Milquetoast like that. kapparomeo posted:Rather than waste time typing all that out, you could have just purged him as a kulak. Or a Trot, the bastards. I thought purging trots was implied?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
I always associated the legalistic argument that private institutions were not subject to the First Amendment with the right's apologias for the chilling of speech, but apparently I was mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
on the left posted:I doubt anyone believes that you have a right to free speech in the classroom, as the professor is free to issue consequences as he/she feels necessary. But outside of campus, yeah why not? I doubt there's much you can do outside of school to hurt a person's ability to get an education that wouldn't also be covered by criminal law. Paying for higher education at any sort of institution is implicitly an investment meant to acquire the imprimatur of the institution when you graduate. You're paying and working to be recognized as a person worthy of getting a particular diploma. That a college or university would seek to ensure that students carrying such diplomas have demonstrated that they're generally not shitheaded racists seems like a good idea in order to protect the value of those diplomas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:I always associated the legalistic argument that private institutions were not subject to the First Amendment with the right's apologias for the chilling of speech, but apparently I was mistaken. *comments are disabled on this video* UGH IF YOU DONT PROVIDE ME WITH A PUBLIC FORUM AND AUDIENCE FOR MY FREE SPEECH THEM YOU ARE CENSORING ME
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:When was the last time you had your left-wing ideas challenged at college? Have you ever considered attending an Objectivist lecture? Why not? Because the philosophy department at my university had a policy of asking students to stick to credible academic topics, not illeducated barking whackjobs like Ayn Rand. Which is how it should be. Seriously. Read her "critique" of Kant. I don't actually think she ever read the guy because its up there with "Kantian Nihilism" and "The nazis where all liberals" in the "not even wrong" stakes of bad writing. duck monster fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Is this a typo? Tolerance does not 'require intolerance of intolerant views', it requires tolerance of "intolerant" views. If not, it's not tolerance, it's just liking what you like and not liking what you don't like. 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.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted: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. Right except that neoliberal economics is loving stupid and not racist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Right except that neoliberal economics is loving stupid and not racist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted: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. Policies that disproportionally affect minorities are racist, even if they aren't overtly so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Forgall posted:You start out in 1954 by saying, "friend of the family, friend of the family, friend of the family." By 1968 you can't say "friend of the family" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now that you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is that blacks get hurt worse than whites. I know, but he's stuck in some kind of loop where: "Suppression of speech occurs, it must be against conservatives on campus, because universities are left-wing, because they suppress speech on my internet forums, and they all go to university and suppress conservatives." He'll drat us all for daring to accuse the words "neo-liberal economics" of being racist, just as somebody whom constantly writes "You can't be racist against Muslims!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Today I learned that not having your views dominate every physical and cultural space you inhabit is oppression! Turns out I've been opressed all of my life. Who would have thought?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:*comments are disabled on this video* I am not saying it is not technically true. I am suggesting that the argument is not particularly relevant, interesting, or convincing as highlighted by the fact that it is routinely used by individuals regardless of ideology in order to obfuscate the pertinent issue. In this case, the relationship between the academy and speech has always extended beyond application of the Constitution and providing an answer based on constitutional interpretation adds virtually nothing to our understanding of academic freedom. That said, while anecdotes do suggest that speech in the academy is being chilled to a certain degree, this chilling is certainly no worse than in the past.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
emfive posted:Paying for higher education at any sort of institution is implicitly an investment meant to acquire the imprimatur of the institution when you graduate. You're paying and working to be recognized as a person worthy of getting a particular diploma. That a college or university would seek to ensure that students carrying such diplomas have demonstrated that they're generally not shitheaded racists seems like a good idea in order to protect the value of those diplomas. On the other hand, Liberty University embraces being a shitlord, so  .
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Today I learned that not having your views dominate every physical and cultural space you inhabit is oppression! Turns out I've been opressed all of my life. Who would have thought? you've only just learned that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:
But minorities are the real racists, amirite?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:Rather than waste time typing all that out, you could have just purged him as a kulak. Or a Trot, the bastards. A man with a history of being a shitlord and associates with a group of right wing libertarians that methodically undermine leftist groups thinks that kids these days are unthinking liberal drones. I cannot see how his view may be tainted here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:... I would say not. I am genuinely curious as to what people here would choose. Note, I attach no views to either side. I am not of the opinion it should matter. The question can be answered by anyone regardless of opinion. Me, I would rather have the right to speak. Not to speak unopposed, mind you, but the right to speak without being silenced. Disagreement should be expected as I would expect to be able to disagree with anyone else speaking. So once again I would ask, would you rather have the right to speak freely or to silence those you disagree with? Please note that whichever you choose, said right must be shared with all of your fellows- including the ones you disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
The Snark posted:would you rather have the right to speak freely or to silence those you disagree with? This is in fact a false dichotomy. You're also setting up a fictional, hypothetical world and acting like our choices there have bearing on our actions in the real world. You may as well ask "Would you rather everyone have free speech but no legs, or everyone has legs but can only praise Emperor LaRouche." I'm genuinely curious about what people would choose (not really), but I don't pretend it matters in real life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Why is being asked this question so alarming? Why can't it be answered? Especially if it is as frivolous as Sharkie would imply. You have deemed it a false dichotomy to discard it wholesale without answering and compared it to comical questions a strawman asked. So, in this fictional, hypothetical world- which would you choose? It has no bearing on the real world, obviously, and I do quite sincerely want to know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:03 |
|
|
The Snark posted:I would say not. I am genuinely curious as to what people here would choose. Well, sorry, it's just a dumb false dichotomy. We don't have to choose between those extremes. So nobody gives a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 23:08
|
|