|
I am inclined to believe a question that makes you uncomfortable is one well worth examining. This one seems to be making people rather uncomfortable. Obdicut posted:Well, sorry, it's just a dumb false dichotomy. We don't have to choose between those extremes. The last sentence of that is objectively false. It does remind me though that the unironically used insult 'shitlord' has turned up an awful lot here. Is coming up with an original otherizing insult that difficult? The Snark fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Nov 29, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:On the other hand, Liberty University embraces being a shitlord, so Right, and that's the point I'm making: a college or university is effectively a brand. Not everybody cares, of course, but people who go to Liberty University or Bob
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 23:17
|
|
.
|
The Snark posted:It does remind me though that the unironically used insult 'shitlord' has turned up an awful lot here. Is coming up with an original otherizing insult that difficult? I am disgusted. Shitlord is an anti-queer term which is offensive to people with the perfectly legitimate alternative sexualities of coprophagia, babying and diaper fetishes. People using the term will be no-platformed for their inexcusable heteronormative hate speech. kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:Shitlord is an anti-queer term [citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
The Snark posted:I am inclined to believe a question that makes you uncomfortable is one well worth examining. Othe rising insults are actually most effective if used consistently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
emfive posted:[citation needed] It's a play off of gaylord. But nobody even cares about it's homophobic roots anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:It's a play off of gaylord. But nobody even cares about it's homophobic roots anymore. Homophobia is A-OK if deployed against those with insufficient leftist credentials, or splittists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:It's a play off of gaylord. But nobody even cares about it's homophobic roots anymore. And to think that there have actually been people named Gaylord. If that's really true about "shitlord" and if it's possible that people would take offense (other than the people people called "shitlord" for reasons having nothing to do with their orientation) then I'd stop using it because there are many other silly things to call people. Like, "boogerhead" is a viable substitute. The term "gypsy" in America is a similar thing. People are given "Gypsy" as a first name. (My dog was given the name "Gypsy" by the shelter that found her.) I wouldn't use the word in any serious discussion of/with Roma people however.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:well lets see in the first case black coworkers repeatedly told the janitor to stop, and he continued to bring the book to work, and the administration told him to stop and he kept doing it and got fired. say what you will about freedom of thought or whatever the gently caress but we live in an at will employment country, so firing an employee for repeatedly pissing off his coworkers and completely disregarding their feelings doesn't exactly feel like a terrible thing imo. it sounds like he was a stubborn dick about it. do you support employer's right to fire employees at will? I know this is from a while ago, but I don't think the issue so much is that an employer should or shouldn't have the right to fire one of its employees at will; I think it's more a question of whether a university should be considering an employee's reading of a book on a controversial subject an issue worthy of terminating employment (regardless of whether other employees take offense). He wasn't being disrespectful to his coworkers, and he wasn't trying to be rude to them. He wasn't reading a book titled 'Why Black People Are Inferior' or graphic novels published by Stormfront. He wasn't plopping down in the Hillel to read Mein Kampf. It doesn't sound like he completely disregarded his coworkers' feelings; when they expressed their offense, he explained to them that none was meant and that the book was antagonistic toward the subject, and his coworkers either didn't listen or care. The 'racial harassment' complaint was completely unfounded. I think it's one thing for a place to want its employees to feel comfortable, but I had been under the impression that universities were places where exposure the free exchange of ideas is protected. There should be things at a university that make you uncomfortable -- that's kind of the point -- an if there aren't, it's not really doing its job. You should not feel threatened or harassed, but he wasn't doing this to his coworkers here, and the school should've recognized that. The book presumably wouldn't have been out of place in the curricula in one of the humanities classes; why would it ever want to fire one of its students for reading it? You bet that if Mississippi State or whatever fired one of its employees for reading a book on the history of gay rights because it offended one of his coworkers' religious sensibilities, I'd be cheering on the fact that he was a 'stubborn dick' about it. Hell, The Indiana chapter of the ACLU apparently defended this guy, and I'm glad they did. To be honest, I feel that this is one topic that is difficult to have a meaningful conversation about. I'm sure like 90% of the complaints about 'academic freedom' are from conservatives pissed that they can't shove their views down the throats of everyone else, but the nominal left (in which, by American standards at least, I tend to consider myself firmly entrenched) seems to ignore the remaining 10% by painting the people making them to be giant Republican strawmen. It's just not that black and white, and no one seems to like to consider nuance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Homophobia is A-OK if deployed against those with insufficient leftist credentials, or splittists. Considering that I certainly didn't know that shitlord was a "homophobic" term, I'm sure most who use it don't either, and it's not immediately obvious this seems like a ploy to drum up false outrage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
The Snark posted:I am inclined to believe a question that makes you uncomfortable is one well worth examining. Hey nobody thinks your question is "alarming" or "uncomfortable" outside of your fevered brain. You can assert that it's alarming and well worth examining all you want but that doesn't make it so. It's a stupid false dichotomy so no one in this thread besides you has been shown to care about answering it. emfive posted:And to think that there have actually been people named Gaylord. If that's really true about "shitlord" and if it's possible that people would take offense (other than the people people called "shitlord" for reasons having nothing to do with their orientation) then I'd stop using it because there are many other silly things to call people. Like, "boogerhead" is a viable substitute. Nobody in this thread seems to give a poo poo about "shitlord" other than people using it as a dumb "Who's the real homophobes, progressives  " issue. Also, my go-to silly thing to call people is "turd."edit: ^^ what 420DD Butts said.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Hey nobody thinks your question is "alarming" or "uncomfortable" outside of your fevered brain. You can assert that it's alarming and well worth examining all you want but that doesn't make it so. It's a stupid false dichotomy so no one in this thread besides you has been shown to care about answering it. You and that other person tend to casually say 'nobody' does this and 'nobody' does that, despite the fact that in most cases it's probably not true. This is perhaps trivial, but it stinks of argumentum ad populum to me. No brain fevers here, pal. But you are right, apparently no one besides myself is willing to answer the dread 'False Dichtomy'. (Edit: On this point it would seem we are both wrong. Thank you, TheImmigrant.) Which is: Would you rather have the right to speak freely or silence people you disagree with? Whichever right you choose must be shared with everyone else.' The Snark fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
The Snark posted:You and that other person tend to casually say 'nobody' does this and 'nobody' does that, despite the fact that in most cases it's probably not true. This is perhaps trivial, but it stinks of argumentum ad populum to me. No brain fevers here, pal. I'd prefer that everyone have the right to speak freely on their own fora.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
If a speaker was invited by a student group and allows for genuine question-and-answer time afterward, it is foolish and immoral to shout them down, no matter what they're talking about. I don't think this applies to all political speeches everywhere, but universities are a special haven for the debate of controversial ideas. If university students can't handle open debate of offensive and unorthodox views, I don't really see the point of universities. That said conservatives are being whiny babies about war criminal commencement speakers being protested. There's no free debate with a commencement speaker, and if you invite an rear end in a top hat to give a speech with no opposition allowed then of course students are going to protest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I'd prefer that everyone have the right to speak freely on their own fora. Which is convenient for you when you define your own fora as "everywhere".
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted: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. 420DD Butts posted:This is a truly terrible article for multiple reasons, not least of which is the "Kids these days!" bullshit. Of course an article coming from the right is going to have right-wing cliches ("kids these days"). Tell me what's wrong with the argument it presents. Are you OK with Oxford shutting down a debate based on threats of disruption? It may not be a widespread problem, but if leftists are stifling academic debate that's a bad thing and other leftists should criticize them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
platzapS posted:If a speaker was invited by a student group and allows for genuine question-and-answer time afterward, it is foolish and immoral to shout them down, no matter what they're talking about. I agree - let's run a "What's the best way to kill the blacks/Jews/Palestinians?" townhall. Edit: BTW, look up any David Horowitz speech with 'Q&A' where he basically blows off or attempts to strawman every question thrown at him that goes against him as proof that 'Q&A' is an idiotic concept since the speaker dominates the format.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:Which is convenient for you when you define your own fora as "everywhere". Ah, what is and isn't appropriate Fora is a fair question. Regarding the topic of this thread, I would presume fora is being provided for everyone- or should be. Albeit at different times, days or places perhaps. Equitability is a hard thing to ensure, but efforts should be made all the same. This is why the arguments for silencing bother me, because only so many decades past the same arguments could have been made by people of polar opposite ideology. Efforts to combat those arguments and create open forums have a lot to do with how it is possible people have heard arguments for greater justice in society and thus be swayed to push for positive changes in the modern age. It feels to me like a sort of profound ingratitude to use free speech and then when progress is made turn one's efforts towards silencing the speech of others. It feels very much like an example of the hero becoming the villain when it suits their purposes. People should disagree and argue, the more civil the better, but I do not believe they should be trying to gag each other outright.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:I agree - let's run a "What's the best way to kill the blacks/Jews/Palestinians?" townhall. Fine. Protest outside and be a nonviolent dick to all the speakers afterwards. I'm pretty sure you would unite 99%+ of the school in outrage and solidarity against it. If any of the attendees try to actually kill someone, use violent self-defense until the police arrive. platzapS fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
platzapS posted:Fine. Protest outside and be a nonviolent dick to all the speakers afterwards. Worked well for the protesters who got maced by the UC rent-a-cop, champ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Worked well for the protesters who got maced by the UC rent-a-cop, champ. But he displayed the mace to them before actually spraying them (something the LIBERAL MEDIA didn't bother to show), so it's obviously their fault for not going away 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Worked well for the protesters who got maced by the UC rent-a-cop, champ. If police are using pepper spray on people just sitting down, they'd probably use it on actively disruptive protesters too. platzapS fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
platzapS posted:If police are using pepper spray on nonviolent protesters, they'd probably use it on actively disruptive protesters too. So you agree that you're hosed if you try to protest any campus event by rent-a-thugs and therefore all controversial speeches/events should be banned en masse to avoid such campus tragedies? Good to hear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
platzapS posted:Of course an article coming from the right is going to have right-wing cliches ("kids these days"). Tell me what's wrong with the argument it presents. Are you OK with Oxford shutting down a debate based on threats of disruption? So students use their free speech to say "this debate is bullshit," the school listens to its students (i.e., customers) and responds, and you have a problem with it? Even if the debate was held and the students did show up to protest or disrupt it, you should be defending their right of free speech to do so. platzapS posted:It may not be a widespread problem, but if leftists are stifling academic debate that's a bad thing and other leftists should criticize them. "Leftists" saying "this is stupid, we'll protest or mock or annoy you for doing it" should be criticized by other leftists because...why? Last time I checked, making sure racists or misogynists had a platform wasn't high up on any "leftist" agenda. And just for laughs, let's look at some other PC atrocities the author uncovered: quote:Last month, the rugby club at the London School of Economics was disbanded for a year after its members handed out leaflets advising rugby lads to avoid ‘mingers’ (ugly girls) and ‘homosexual debauchery’. Under pressure from LSE bigwigs, the club publicly recanted its ‘inexcusably offensive’ behaviour and declared that its members have ‘a lot to learn about the pernicious effects of banter’. They’re being made to take part in equality and diversity training. At British unis in 2014, you don’t just get education — you also get re-education, Soviet style.  Let's look at those leaflets more closely: quote:...described women as “mingers”, “trollops” and “slags”...The leaflet, distributed at the freshers’ fair on Friday, also joked about not tolerating “outright homosexual debauchery” in its initiations and encouraged would-be members to do their best to “pull a sloppy bird”. It dubbed female students who play sport as “beast-like women who play sport just so they can come out with us on Wednesdays”...another section suggested a committee member embodied everything the club holds dear: “debauchery, hedonism and misogyny”. The Snark posted:This is why the arguments for silencing bother me Refusing to provide a platform for someone, or using speech to dissuade someone from providing them a platform, is not silencing them. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:So you agree that you're hosed if you try to protest any campus event by rent-a-thugs and therefore all controversial speeches/events should be banned en masse to avoid such campus tragedies? Good to hear. I don't understand what you're saying. Can you rephrase this? Sharkie posted:So students use their free speech to say "this debate is bullshit," the school listens to its students (i.e., customers) and responds, and you have a problem with it? Even if the debate was held and the students did show up to protest or disrupt it, you should be defending their right of free speech to do so. I'm fine with other students showing up and picketing, distributing literature, asking pointed questions (especially to the pro-choice dude) afterwards about whether the debate should be between two men. I'm saying Oxford shouldn't have canceled the debate. quote:"Leftists" saying "this is stupid, we'll protest or mock or annoy you for doing it" should be criticized by other leftists because...why? Last time I checked, making sure racists or misogynists had a platform wasn't high up on any "leftist" agenda. The left has traditionally been opposed to existing structures of force, wealth, and dogma. Creating academic spaces where all ideas can be challenged, even ones held dearly by the majority, will probably be a net gain. I think my ideas are better than the right's, so I might have a slight advantage there, whereas I have no faith that I can be louder or more disruptive than them. platzapS fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
It also bears repeating that the author of the Spectator article was the pro-choice speaker. I'm not sure how the woman who threatened the disruption was threatened or the wider female student body was suppressed by having someone agree with her, but I'm sure that preventing the pro-choice viewpoint from being heard was a worthwhile sacrifice for the greater cause of letting a bossy-boots feel that she was in control.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:Which is convenient for you when you define your own fora as "everywhere". It's not everywhere. The Wall Street Journal is not my forum, and I have no right to coerce it to publish my speech. I have no right to force Something Awful to publish my speech. I do have a right to publish my speech on my own website or magazine or the side of my house.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
platzapS posted:I don't understand what you're saying. Can you rephrase this? Why shouldn't have Oxford responded to the free speech of it's students? They used their free speech to dissuade Oxford from giving a platform to someone. Oxford doesn't have an obligation to host this guy, so in cancelling the event they're just responding to their customers (the students). Other students may have supported this event, but they didn't wield their speech as effectively. kapparomeo posted:It also bears repeating that the author of the Spectator article was the pro-choice speaker. I'm not sure how the woman who threatened the disruption was threatened or the wider female student body was suppressed by having someone agree with her, but I'm sure that preventing the pro-choice viewpoint from being heard was a worthwhile sacrifice for the greater cause of letting a bossy-boots feel that she was in control. I'd also like to point out that while for some people the event is about free speech, for the women who protested it was about men deciding how womens' bodies should be controlled, something with more immediate, personal, and life-changing consequences than the question of what platforms academicians should be granted. It's impossible to understand their reaction outside of their struggle to preserve bodily integrity. Kapparomeo, this is not a recent debate or issue, and suggesting it was an irrational tantrum just shows you're out of the loop re: the debate over abortion and women's rights. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Why shouldn't have Oxford responded to the free speech of it's students? They used their free speech to dissuade Oxford from giving a platform to someone. Oxford doesn't have an obligation to host this guy, so in cancelling the event they're just responding to their customers (the students). Other students may have supported this event, but they didn't wield their speech as effectively.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:It's not everywhere. The Wall Street Journal is not my forum, and I have no right to coerce it to publish my speech. I have no right to force Something Awful to publish my speech. I do have a right to publish my speech on my own website or magazine or the side of my house. How happy would you be if your speech was limited to the side of your house? What topic, however rational, would not make you look like a complete loony applied to the side of your house? Limiting speech to personal websites or housing exterior walls seems ill advised.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Why shouldn't have Oxford responded to the free speech of it's students? They used their free speech to dissuade Oxford from giving a platform to someone. Oxford doesn't have an obligation to host this guy, so in cancelling the event they're just responding to their customers (the students). Other students may have supported this event, but they didn't wield their speech as effectively. You seem to continually argue that it is a good thing to shut down discussion, as if that is a blow against anti-abortionists. If there had never been any discussion of this topic, if it had been successfully quashed- I feel it fairly safe to say that there would be much greater anti-abortionist support from people who just didn't know any better. Hell, we might not have progressed at all on that front. I don't think there is any reason to believe shutting down discussion now is any wiser.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
The Snark posted:How happy would you be if your speech was limited to the side of your house? What topic, however rational, would not make you look like a complete loony applied to the side of your house? Again, if you publish a newspaper, whatever is contained in that newspaper is your speech. You can choose to publish speech that was originally mine, but by publishing it, it becomes your speech. Free speech has a negative element too, meaning that no one can be compelled to speak in a way objectionable to them. How would you like it if free speech meant you were compelled to broadcast someone's neo-nazi propaganda on your website/magazine/side of your house?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
platzapS posted:I disagree that a customer/service provider relationship is the right model here. One of the best things about universities is that they're a hotbed for unusual ideas and free debate. That is better served by allowing a very wide range of student groups to invite whoever they want than by going along with whoever's grievances are the loudest. Oxford didn't have an obligation to host the debate. They also didn't have an obligation to listen to the groups who supported or opposed hosting it. However, they made their choice. You disagree with their choice because, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, you believe it was better for society to have hosted the debate than not hosted it. However, I, and I suspect some of the protestors, would argue that "men debating over what rights women should have" is not an unusual idea or the type of discussion that is in any danger of being marginalized in our society. So from that perspective, a group of women getting together to dissuade Oxford from hosting the debate is an example of people using their free speech to speak out against a much more popular, and louder, narrative (that men decide what rights women should have). It's an example of an "unusual idea" (that men have no place in deciding how women and their bodies should be controlled) being articulated and having an effect. So in this case, it was the protesting students, not the university, who were acting as a hotbed for unusual ideas and free debate. The invited guys did not lose any freedom to debate - they are not prevented from talking about abortion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Again, if you publish a newspaper, whatever is contained in that newspaper is your speech. You can choose to publish speech that was originally mine, but by publishing it, it becomes your speech. Free speech has a negative element too, meaning that no one can be compelled to speak in a way objectionable to them. That too is rather extreme and seems highly unfeasible. Perhaps, just maybe, there is some space between these two extremes wherein people are encouraged to use several different fora that are not their exterior house walls or someone else's and could civilly discuss or even argue about any number of things without having to do so via self-published newspapers or magazines. Maybe it would be a good idea to encourage this reasonably free speech in more or less public venues, be they privately owned or otherwise. Additionally I suspect it would be good for these fora to be very careful about what is forbidden lest they create an echo chamber. I think most people would agree echo chambers have a negative effect on rational thought.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
this thread is slowly swaying me over to the side that all speech should be illegal.The Snark posted:Maybe it would be a good idea to encourage this reasonably free speech in more or less public venues, be they privately owned or otherwise. Additionally I suspect it would be good for these fora to be very careful about what is forbidden lest they create an echo chamber. isn't a privately owned entity denying people they think are fuckers exercising the speech rights of the owners? anyway, i don't think that CNN's value of giving equal weight to two sides, even if one side is blatantly lying, should become a national agenda.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:this thread is slowly swaying me over to the side that all speech should be illegal. Welcome to the Dark Side friend. Their are two options for joining, make a right winger a bit uncomfortable or purge a trot. Pick the one you like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Their are two options for joining, make a right winger a bit uncomfortable or purge a trot. Pick the one you like. Give me the ice pick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:this thread is slowly swaying me over to the side that all speech should be illegal. "Excuse me I just heard you guys saying black people aren't inferior. Solely in the interest of avoiding an echo chamber, I feel I should say that" CharlestheHammer posted:Welcome to the Dark Side friend. My very existence makes right wingers uncomfortable. Should I purge a trot, or am I good?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:this thread is slowly swaying me over to the side that all speech should be illegal. Agreed, if they are blatantly lying. That said they shouldn't be dismissing a given side just because X person or X group of people claim there are lying. Ascertaining the truth is supposedly one of the things they should be trying to do. As for a privately owned entity denying free speech to individuals within it- you are right, they have that liberty. Does that make it ethically right? Does that make it wise? That would depend on who they think are fuckers and why I expect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
Sharkie posted:Oxford didn't have an obligation to host the debate. They also didn't have an obligation to listen to the groups who supported or opposed hosting it. However, they made their choice. You disagree with their choice because, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, you believe it was better for society to have hosted the debate than not hosted it. quote:However, I, and I suspect some of the protestors, would argue that "men debating over what rights women should have" is not an unusual idea or the type of discussion that is in any danger of being marginalized in our society. So from that perspective, a group of women getting together to dissuade Oxford from hosting the debate is an example of people using their free speech to speak out against a much more popular, and louder, narrative (that men decide what rights women should have). quote:It's an example of an "unusual idea" (that men have no place in deciding how women and their bodies should be controlled) being articulated and having an effect. So in this case, it was the protesting students, not the university, who were acting as a hotbed for unusual ideas and free debate. The invited guys did not lose any freedom to debate - they are not prevented from talking about abortion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:35
|
|