|
cravius posted:But no one would say George Will is a demagogue or hate advocate I absolutely would. Because he is.
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:57 |
|
|
So who would be an acceptable advocate of the thought process half of America subscribes to? Hmmm?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
cravius posted:So who would be an acceptable advocate of the thought process half of America subscribes to? Hmmm? You mean 37%. Anyways, if conservatives can't find an advocate that doesn't say heinous poo poo publicly, maybe conservatism really is hateful as an ideology, and non-hateful conservatives are simply bad at being conservative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
"who would be ok" is completely missing the point. students have the right to protest, whether they are liberal or conservative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
cravius posted:So who would be an acceptable advocate of the thought process half of America subscribes to? Hmmm? Good question. When you find a candidate let me know and I'll be happy to vet them for you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
botany posted:"who would be ok" is completely missing the point. students have the right to protest, whether they are liberal or conservative. Absolutely in agreement. And the schools should be able to bring those speakers in regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
cravius posted:So who would be an acceptable advocate of the thought process half of America subscribes to? Hmmm? Are you saying there are no conservatives who can agree with a university policy that campus rape is a real and bad thing that shouldn't happen?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
cravius posted:Absolutely in agreement. And the schools should be able to bring those speakers in regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative. So student should be able to protest, but colleges should never listen to them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
cravius posted:Absolutely in agreement. And the schools should be able to bring those speakers in regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative. So, the current status quo? Or are we saying that if a school feels it might be swayed by protests, the federal government should intervene and mandate the speaker present, and also crush the protesters?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
cravius posted:Absolutely in agreement. And the schools should be able to bring those speakers in regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative. If there's no dialogue between the student body and the administration just does whatever it wants, wouldn't that be pushing things more towards the end of the school administration attempting to indoctrinate the student body?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
cravius posted:Absolutely in agreement. And the schools should be able to bring those speakers in regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative. 'conservatives are banned from campus' is a really weak defense when we're talking about the content of people's speech and not their affiliation really this is rooted in the idea of conservatives pissing and moaning that their ideas don't stand up to rational scrutiny so obviously it must be insidious academic censorship
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So student should be able to protest, but colleges should never listen to them? Creating bubbles of thought that only cater to certain ideologies is the antithesis of higher education
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
cravius posted:Creating bubbles of thought that only cater to certain ideologies is the antithesis of higher education Should protesters be killed if they refuse to submit to the belief that they have to pay for rape apologists giving presentations about how feminism is a lie? Or merely brutalized by campus pigs?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
It's almost as if this isn't so much about 'free speech' but rather the vindication of undesirable beliefs. When people say they want a marketplace of ideas they're not looking for a competitive model, they're looking for their ideas to be actively subsidised.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:
"My ideology is correct and therefore doesn't need to be subject to scrutiny"
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
cravius posted:Creating bubbles of thought that only cater to certain ideologies is the antithesis of higher education Except it is impossible to escape putting yourself in a bubble of thought. An article of faith in the goodness and desirability of debate, and professing that left and right are morally equal is ideological, and would be catering to a particular ideology. Your views are never neutral.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
cravius posted:"My ideology is correct and therefore doesn't need to be subject to scrutiny" You don't need to put quotes from yourself into quotation marks. Helpful hint.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
cravius posted:"My ideology is correct and therefore doesn't need to be subject to scrutiny" ...says the man demanding equal time and protection from protest for his preferred ideology do you think about the things you say, before you get mad and just start posting?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:...says the man demanding equal time and protection from protest for his preferred ideology When did I ever said people shouldn't be allowed to protest
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
cravius posted:Creating bubbles of thought that only cater to certain ideologies is the antithesis of higher education So you're of course equally incensed about Christian colleges, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
As things exist currently there is nothing preventing universities from hosting conservative speakers, so I guess people saying conservatives need protection believe that unless liberal/lefty protesters are ground into hamburger by National Guard APCs they're censoring conservatives by advocating for things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
really your entire tantrum cravius hinges on two dumb assumptions 1) there are no conservative opinions on a college campus (tell that to college republicans) 2) campuses restrict speakers based on ideology, not on content of past speeches neither of these are evidently true but they have to be, in your mind, to cook up this weird scenario that nobody itt but you seem to believe (for mysterious reasons)
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
cravius posted:When did I ever said people shouldn't be allowed to protest You technically didn't. What you actually said is that their protests should never be listened to, which is a meaningless distinction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
cravius posted:When did I ever said people shouldn't be allowed to protest So you're only okay with protesting if it's completely ineffective? cravius posted:Absolutely in agreement. And the schools should be able to bring those speakers in regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
cravius posted:When did I ever said people shouldn't be allowed to protest When you said, in reference to the current state of affairs, cravius posted:Creating bubbles of thought that only cater to certain ideologies is the antithesis of higher education which implies that protests are creating these bubbles of thought. Maybe you just like to puke out irrelevancies?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:
On a campus that mandated trigger warnings, would it be reasonable for a professors to be sued for something like this happening?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
You just don't want to be exposed to beliefs and ideas you disagree with and that's a damning indictment of the strength of yalls convictions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
cravius posted:You just don't want to be exposed to beliefs and ideas you disagree with and that's a damning indictment of the strength of yalls convictions. this is a really weak cop-out that doesn't address any of the posts made against you and is basically an admission that you can't argue against them which is pretty ironic given that you're accusing people who have challenged your posts as instead running away in fear maybe it is, you, who lives, in, the, bubble? just, a thought
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
cravius posted:You just don't want to be exposed to beliefs and ideas you disagree with and that's a damning indictment of the strength of yalls convictions. Wow, I just got a bingo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
cravius posted:You just don't want to be exposed to beliefs and ideas you disagree with and that's a damning indictment of the strength of yalls convictions. Beliefs and ideas I disagree with are everywhere when I use the Internet. In fact, I'm currently using it for the express purpose of exposing myself to, and interacting with, beliefs and ideas I disagree with. Seriously, how can be posting here and not understand that there are limitless platforms for any and every idea there is?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
cravius posted:Absolutely in agreement. And the schools should be able to bring those speakers in regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative. universities, insofar as they are private institutions rather than state schools, should have the right to decide who they want as guest speakers. if the schools decide to listen to their student body, that's understandable, since a hostile student body makes your life as a university admin impossible. in any case universities have the obligation to make sure that both students and guest speakers are safe, and are therefore obligated to cancel talks if they have a reasonable suspicion that this safety cannot be guaranteed. this was the case with sarkeesian and with milo. in other words, everything is working as intended.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
cravius posted:You just don't want to be exposed to beliefs and ideas you disagree with and that's a damning indictment of the strength of yalls convictions. this is an idiotic talking point since opposition to people like milo is THE RESULT of being exposed to beliefs and ideas students disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
"you don't want to be exposed to ideas you disagree with!" shouts the foolish scrub over the din of multiple people engaging directly with his ideas
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:People actually don't have the right to have their speech taken seriously by other private actors in civil society. Sorry you're mad about war criminals being booed off stage That doesn't seem to be what FIRE is fighting about, though? Edit: A lot of what they do seems to be referring people to lawyers in cases where constitutional rights are at least arguably implicated. Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
CSPAN Caller posted:On a campus that mandated trigger warnings, would it be reasonable for a professors to be sued for something like this happening? No, of course not. That's absurd. But on a campus that mandated trigger warnings, I think it would be appropriate for "a student literally killed herself over this" to lead to a note on the next semester's syllabus that said something like "Note that we will be discussing incest in detail in discussion sections on these dates. Please talk to your TA if this may be a problem for you," followed by a stern warning, followed by the TAs being told to warn if the professor refuses, followed by maybe the TAs being replaced, if the professors and TAs all refused to use trigger warnings on a campus that mandated them. And frankly, the idea of "after a suicide, people are vehemently opposed to doing something others feel might have cleared their conscience better or might have made the situation less upsetting" is itself unlikely. Colin Mockery fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:this is a really weak cop-out that doesn't address any of the posts made against you and is basically an admission that you can't argue against them There's really no point in arguing with people who characterize any opposing view as hate speech. It's an intellectually weak argument that runs counter to the free exchange of open ideas and healthy debate that constitutes higher learning. Once you categorize a huge chunk of the countries beliefs as unworthy to even be discussed, any chance of rational discourse is out the window.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Every job I've ever worked at would have fire Milo before he ended his first day, so no, you're completely wrong on the idea they won't be prepared for work life. Nah, the truth is sometimes Milo is the guy who runs the company.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So you're of course equally incensed about Christian colleges, right? Actually I am.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I absolutely would. Because he is. Now we're seeing the real fascism come out, I guess. I appreciate your honesty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:57 |
|
|
cravius posted:There's really no point in arguing with people who characterize any opposing view as hate speech. It's an intellectually weak argument that runs counter to the free exchange of open ideas and healthy debate that constitutes higher learning. Once you categorize a huge chunk of the countries beliefs as unworthy to even be discussed, any chance of rational discourse is out the window. Believing in an epidemic of people claiming to be raped for attention is not an opinion that can be discoursed with, as it is purely a facade meant to support rape and rapists. There's nothing to it, intellectually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:13
|
|