National Coalition Calls for Campus Censorship of "Offensive" Speech (washingtonpost.com) 585
schwit1 writes with this opinion piece from Eugene Volokh, who teaches free speech law at UCLA School of Law, about the push to ban "offensive" speech and censor websites on campus. He writes: "A large coalition of advocacy groups has asked the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights to pressure colleges to (1) punish students for their speech and (2) block student access to certain Web sites — especially sites such as Yik Yak, which allow students to anonymously post their views..... Yet another example of today's Anti-Free Speech Movement for American universities — unfortunately, one that fits well into the Education Department's attitudes. Fortunately, courts have firmly rejected these kinds of calls to restrict college student speech, though the OCR and the college administrations it pressures can get away with a lot of restrictions until the lawsuits are actually brought."
Censoring speech... (Score:5, Interesting)
... how very European of them.
Re:Censoring speech... (Score:4, Insightful)
... how very European of them.
Next thing you know the USA will have anti-holocaust denial laws (for the Nazi holocaust) and anti-holocaust assertion laws (for the Native American holocaust).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, we have no problem asserting that the Spanish and the British empires committed genocide against Native Americans. Why would we be shy about that?
Re: (Score:3)
European diseases killed the vast majority of the Indians, not the Europeans themselves. Cortez would have died a nasty death if the Aztecs hadn't started dying of the diseases that the Spaniards had inadvertently brought with them; it is much easier attacking warriors already dying than attacking them when hale and healthy. Likewise when the Virginia and New England colonies settled the land was almost empty from plagues that had hit five and ten years earlier from no apparent sources.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's another word that the terrorist sympathizers abuse like "genocide".
In truth, Israel is by far the most progressive country in the middle east treating Palestinians as equals. They also do the same for all of the indigenous minorities that the BDS movement conveniently forgets about.
In other Arab countries, Palestinians are perpetually kept in "refugee camps" and prevented from assimilating. A Palestinian is better treated in Israel (or the US) than by their own people.
And let's not forget who keeps t
Re: (Score:3)
I don't recall seeing anything about that, do you have any links?
It is hard to call what happened in Gaza anything but self defense, when someone is firing rocket barrages at civilian targets, what Israel did in response was pretty tame, if it was the US they were attacking, the response wouldn't have been so tame. In fact, the phone calls warning of impending attack were a nice touch.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Asian countries for asians.
African countries for africans.
White countries for everyone.
Re: Censoring speech... (Score:5, Insightful)
The vast majority of the Syrians that have fled their country have ended up in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. Kind of hard to holocaust White Europeans from there...
Besides, this isn't Camp of the Saints [wikipedia.org]. Pre-war, Syria had one of the best educated and least religious populations of the nominally Islamic nations. The Syrians would be much better able to integrate into the workforce to actually contribute to the countries they resettle in, and not simply drag the economy down. This isn't some mass of rural-villagers or subsistence farmers, there was an actual economy and education system in Syria before the civil war.
Re: (Score:2)
No, we cannot. It's really old rhetoric and it's beyond boredom.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Censoring speech... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Insightful? Good grief! Let's unpack this tight little knot of hate.
In the US we already have less than 90% of the crime being perpetrated by less than 10% of the population.
Nope. In fact the maybe 70% of americans [politifact.com] have broken some law that could land them in jail.
I can see why they might be upset with a 1% bump
I see what you did there, implying that the 1% would be added to the 10% of criminals, and not to the general, law-abiding population. Kinda cheap.
nearly made entirely of Muslim males from shit holes and failed states in the Middle East, in their teens and twenties,
Nope. 51% of the Syrian refugees are women [factcheck.org], which is pretty much what you'd expect.
who are particularly notorious for their bad behavior.
Not sure if this refers to muslims, people from the Middle East, or males in their teens and twenties. Which makes this sta
Re: (Score:3)
What percent of Germany were members of the Nazi party?
33% of voters, in the last election.
What percent of colonial Americans were the founding fathers?
All of them?
Revolution only requires a zealous minority.
Yeah, that's why the KKK and Black Panthers have each had their turn running the US.
Re: Censoring speech... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we to ask them who was killed when they migrated across the land bridge from Asia? Or about internecine warfare prior to the coming of the white man? It seems that they're as much immigrants here in the Americas as are the Europeans; the only difference is they got here before the Europeans did. There's no evidence humans evolved on this continent at all.
What's always been surprising to me about the politically correct take on the Native American's situation is that it pays absolutely no mind to just how vicious and evil the Indians were to each other -- varied by tribe and time, of course, but still, they were all about conquer and murder and etc. before Europeans ever arrived here. Look at how the Aztec managed things, for example. You just haven't lived until you've seen the carved-out skull of a virgin, I tell ya.
Every taking of land -- ever, I suspect -- was done by some fairly active stomping of the locals into the ground or enslaving them, abusing them, etc. by the stronger and/or more technologically sophisticated party (but I repeat myself.)
Characterizing our Native Americans as innocents to whom evil was done doesn't seem to be even close to an accurate representation of history.
Finally, there's only just so much worship of "traditional ways" you can pursue before you've gone and shot yourself right in the foot. That's as much of a problem -- a self-inflicted one -- as anything that actually makes the news. But of course, you can't really say that without coming under some pretty heavy criticism. Not that such a thing could happen here on slashdot, of course. :)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
There ya go again, confusing the issue with facts. Can't we just agree that mean ole mister white man is the source of all evil in this world? If only us wicked white american males were gone the world would be all at peace with love and harmony everywhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you're saying that the technologically superior has the right to exterminate the inferior, especially if the latter is not as ethically immaculate as some positive racist (albeit outdated) narrative tells us?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's more apt to say that they tend to destroy or assimilate the inferior.
It's a rather hard moral dilemma whether or not to interact with technically inferior civilizations, often you can help them in many ways but the mere exposure tends to start the assimilation process.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I love it when I can start my day with a Star Trek reference.
Re: (Score:3)
No, you're saying that. I didn't.
I'm saying the current situation is not one that seems to me to call for anything outside of focusing on social integration rather than creating / maintaining special cases if the opportunities and benefits of the currently extant society are to be extended to everyone in a fair and even-handed manner. Because just as the civil war is over, and the revolutionary war is over, the Indian wars are over as well. It's over. But society is not handling it like it's over. That's ca
Re: Censoring speech... (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me see if I can provide an analogy to your argument... "I knew that my neighbor beat his wife sometimes, so I was totally justified in burning their house to the ground."
Re: Censoring speech... (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Very few were killed when they migrated over the land bridge, because at most very few were here, already (most evidence for a pre-Clovis population is sketchy at best - perhaps because the sea level rise at the end of the Ice Age drowned the good stuff).
2) Europeans didn't kill the 95% of the pre-existing Indian population, European diseases that even the Europeans themselves couldn't really treat did. Most of those diseases were borne by farm animals, which the Europeans brought with them. You can see the effects from the writings from a Spanish expedition into what would become the Deep South. They brought a herd of pigs with them rather than hunting the local animals that the locals would have needed, treated the Indians with no violence (as they were explorers, not conquistadores), and by the time that they returned the locals were already dying of mysterious plagues that seemed somewhat like Europeans childhood diseases gone crazy. The local adults had never had mumps, chicken pox, measles, etc., all of which are usually relatively harmless when experienced as children and terrible when an unexposed adult catches them. There were other diseases that hit the Europeans hard (smallpox, cholera, etc.) that still hit the then-unexposed even worse, but barring an offhand comment by Lord Amherst no one would have considered using, much like no one uses chemical weapons anymore if the wind can change directions and blow it back on one.
3) No one was very nice to anyone else in those days. If the Indians had a more extensive bacterial load than Eurasia they would have had no qualms about crossing the oceans and settling the depopulated European forests and the steppes, adopting wheat, barley,and rye to supplement their own maize and potatoes, and violating treaties with the whiteskins whenever the press of migration was too heavy.
Re: Censoring speech... (Score:4, Informative)
That is simply not true, we do pollute more, that is because we have more people and are much more effective at getting resources.
But killing is just wrong while we do kill people, we probably live in the most peaceful time in human existence.
Here are murder rates:
http://marginalrevolution.com/... [marginalrevolution.com]
if you want a citation from wars:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
also think about deaths from illness,
Also in the past remember slavery was acceptable,
I am as pessimistic as the next person but don't blind yourself with false assumptions.
Re: Censoring speech... (Score:3)
Re: Censoring speech... (Score:5, Funny)
I asked two. Running Deer disagreed and Mr. Patel agreed.
Dear National Coalition (Score:3, Insightful)
STFU. What was that? Rights. Well...
Re:Dear National Coalition (Score:5, Funny)
It's "intents and purposes", not "intensive purposes"
Re:Dear National Coalition (Score:4, Informative)
Also, it doesn't beg the question. It raises the question.
Begging the question is a logical fallacy, not a rhetorical device. It refers to circular or tautological reasoning.
Re:Dear National Coalition (Score:4, Funny)
No, you fool, it's "all in tents, and porpoises". The porpoises are the ones making that "whoosh" sound you hear.
Re: (Score:2)
If there's one thing Americans won't stand for, it's someone telling them to shut up.
Incidentally, I find it ironic that a decade ago people were complaining about "free speech zones," and now they want even more limitations on speech. What's wrong with these people.
Re:Dear National Coalition (Score:4, Interesting)
but now obama is president so... more restrictions are good???
Logic Implosion (Score:5, Insightful)
STFU.
So what you are saying is that you find this idea highly offensive and would like to have the people who suggested it censored. ;-)
Mind you I think you have hit on by far the most educational response to this request which is to immediately censor the idiots who made it. This would of course trigger a huge backlash from them against the injustice of them being silenced which would be the perfect time to point out that you found their ideas highly offensive and were just giving them exactly what they asked for.
Hopefully that would teach them a valuable lesson on the importance of free speech but sadly I doubt it if they were stupid enough to come up with the request in the first place.
Liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberals are all about freedom, expression, tolerance, etc. until you do or say something that they don't like.
Tolerance and acceptance only apply to those they tolerate and accept. Everyone else gets branded a bigot hate monger, racist, misogynist, etc. the instant they exercise their own right to speak their mind or utter any un-PC truths. This behavior by liberals, of course, is the very definition of bigotry.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish there was a party for me.
I don't want to see people down trodden by the system living on the streets with no food shelter or medical care. In this country of ours there should be plenty for everyone to have those basic needs met. (For those especially that are truly unable to meet those needs.)
But the freedoms of speech, religion(and from religion), and arms are in our god damned constitution. You don't fuck with that shit, quit trying to make exceptions to them. I also want to see people that freeload off the system to have to do community work. At that point welfare becomes wages. It would be nice if we had a new civilian conservation corp. We have bridges, roads, national parks, etc that need attention and that could be provided by those unable to find otherwise gainful employment.
I also wish both parties would quit fucking with the right to be free from warantless searches and seizures. Do any of our politicians even know what is in the bill of rights? It seems not.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Liberals (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Liberals (Score:4, Insightful)
All the libertarians that I know merely want to reduce the role and power of government over the lives of citizens. Reduce, not eliminate entirely.
My mind continues to be boggled by the assertion that a government that doesn't forcibly transfer goods and services from one citizen to another "shits on people who don't have money". That's the same inane argument that the government not paying for peoples abortions is the same as outlawing abortions. Stupid, stupid stupid.
For sure, elements of society want to eliminate a woman's right to make that choice but a government that doesn't take money from woman A against her will to pay for woman B's abortion is NOT shitting on woman B.
I will never understand the concept that a vast government bureaucracy is more compassionate and wise than the individuals of a free society who still have the ability and responsibility to make choices in their own lives.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish there was a party for me.
We tried holding it yesterday, but you called the cops when we got a bit noisy while setting it up. We tried.
I also wish both parties would quit fucking with the right to be free from warantless searches and seizures. Do any of our politicians even know what is in the bill of rights? It seems not.
Yes, it seems not, for the fourth amendment does not contain a prohibition against warrantless searches and seizures, but against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also does not define "reasonable" to mean "based upon a warrant", because that would be patently absurd. For example, if you point a gun at a cop, your gun will be seized and you will be searched prior to being put in jail. Neither requires a warrant (nor should they) but bother are reasonable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As William F. Buckley famously said [wikiquote.org], "Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view."
I guess you just outed yourself as anti-science (Score:4, Informative)
The FACT is that, using the federal govt's own stats, HIV in the US is primarily a male homosexual disease. It's common in the English-speaking world to say that a bad thing affecting a particular group is a "curse" (with no witch or witchdoctor implications - it's a figure of SPEECH, which I guess the left cannot tolerate).
When ALL the stats, even those collected by people with a political agenda contrary to the results, say that a particular thing is associated with a particular subset of the population it is completely dishonest/ignorant/childish to insist that the objective stats are true. HIV prevalence in all Western societies is primarily among those who engage in male homosexual acts (both homosexual men and bisexual men). HIV affects IV drug users to a lesser extent, and to a lesser extent the sexual partners of the afore-mentioned three groups. The African continent is the outlier in having HIV as a large problem in the "normal" population because the cultural norms are very different and ignorance in many "at-risk" populations is stunning; There are ares of Africa, for example, where men believe they can be cured of AIDS by having sex with young virgin girls. That sort of stuff pushes HIV into the non-gay population in a way that simply will never happen in the Western world.
Bill Buckley was right on this, as on many other things.
Oh, and the Democrats in California passed a law in 2000 making it illegal to teach anything like this in the schools - anything that can be construed as "anti-gay" is illegal in the public schools - so much for "free speech" and liberals supporting truth and science.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, and the Democrats in California passed a law in 2000 making it illegal to teach anything like this in the schools - anything that can be construed as "anti-gay" is illegal in the public schools - so much for "free speech" and liberals supporting truth and science.
There's nothing anti-gay about sharing facts and citing sources. Guess what else they had to teach in California schools until recently? Abstinence-only control. They had to let those kooks in the door to lie to kids.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same fake outrage we saw when anti-vaxers became a news item. Most of those awful "Liberals" turned out to be libertarians asserting their "sovereign individual" fantasy.
OTOH, if you want an environment of "intellectual freedom" where people are routinely attacked because of their backgrounds instead of the content of their character, then I can't think of a more deserving group to tar-and-feather than the Politically Incorrect crowd. They are defining a false kind of freedom without respect or
Re:Liberals (Score:4, Informative)
They are defining a false kind of freedom without respect or responsibility.
Two buzzwords often used in the arguments in favor of squelching speech that isn't "respectful" or "responsible".
Re: (Score:3)
They are defining a false kind of freedom without respect or responsibility.
"I'm all for free speech, just not hate speech" - said every opponent of free speech ever. Support the right to deeply offensive, hateful speech, or accept that you do not support free speech.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Liberals are all about freedom, expression, tolerance, etc. until you do or say something that they don't like.
Democrats are Opposite People. Whatever they are saying is always the opposite of what they actually do in practice. Hell, look at what they were saying about health insurance and then look at what they did to health insurance. 100% opposite. Then look at who they blame for what they did to health insurance and how the House and Senate votes actually went. 100% opposite.
Its true for every single topic. These are the least generous of the two parties complaining about how selfish the other party is. They
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats are Opposite People. Whatever they are saying is always the opposite of what they actually do in practice.
Sort of like how Republicans for smaller government?
You can bash democrats all you want. They probably deserve it. What I can;t stand is the implication that republicans are somehow better. And this goes for republican bashing as well.
If you think either side of the republicrat party is any good, you need to have your head examined.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I can;t stand is the implication that republicans are somehow better.
There was no such implication, therefore we know something about you.
Re: (Score:3)
Liberals are all about freedom, expression, tolerance, etc. until you do or say something that they don't like.
Democrats are Opposite People.
We were talking about liberals. Why did you bring up Democrats? Most of them aren't liberals, they are left-ish centrists, just like Republicans are right-ish centrists. We don't permit people with strong political views to speak in this country, at least, not loudly enough to be considered a credible presidential candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, a lot of people deny this and sometimes redefine terms to make it seem that they're right. For instance I see people trying to define the Nazi party as a leftist political movement, which is very absurd.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the Nazis were not "socialist" beyond a few token programs. And of course, neither were their biggest allies the Fascist Italians. I agree though that the fascist governments, like most dictatorships, never really fit into classical French styles of left vs right.
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Liberals (Score:4, Informative)
> Because I haven't heard any mainstream conservative groups try to restrict free speech;
Oh, my. Have you really not paid attention to the censorship of Planned Parenthood from discussing abortion with women? Or of discussing birth control in high schools? Or of teaching evolution in science classes? Or did you ignore the attempts by the US government to censoe the Pentagon Papers, or to censor Analog science magazine from printing details of the basic physical design of a simple atom bomb? Or of ongoing restrictions on publishing cryptography or security vulnerabilities, evidenced by speeches being censored at DefCon? Or the "Comic Book Code", applied to American comc books for decades?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you see some soi-disant "liberals" touting the political correctness line doesn't mean they're liberals.
So Not True Scotsman's?
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't "liberals" in the traditional political science or European sense. They are, however, "liberals" in the modern American sense, which means that they are a mix of progressives, right wing populists, and neo-Marxists.
Re: (Score:3)
Socialism
Capitalism
Fascism
RINO
Use something that is more descriptive than those words.
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to free speech is universal, and especially the most offensive of it must be protected if it is to survive at all.
Ideas and opinions are not your enemy, even, and especially, if you disagree with them.
Re:Liberals (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes and no.
Yes: For any society to survive and improve, anyone and everyone must be able to voice their concerns, any concerns. And anyone should be able to voice any angle for everyone to get a more complete view of the problem. Because the more complete our understanding is of a problem, the better our solution will be.
No: Offensiveness for the sake of being offensive, will alienate people. This causes communication breakdown, and so people will cease to communicate constructively. I'm not talking about offensiveness due to ignorance or oversensitivity of the reciever. I'm talking about malicious offensiveness.
As to political correctness, I see three groups:
1. The PC crowd. They fully embrace the No argument above, and use that to impose bigoted taboos. eg. In the US, black people can call each other nigga in mass media, but others can't even mention the word for fear of being branded racist. And don't call someone fat, unless you're even fatter. If those aren't bigoted taboos, then I'm the son af a llama.
2. The "offensive" crowd. They fully embrace the Yes argument above, and in doing so inadvertently justify the PC crowd. Saying something that is clearly intended to upset someone and then saying "You have the right to not be offended" is a good way recieve a well-earned fist in the face. But, again, I'm not talking about inadvertently offending someone. Shit happens, cope with it.
3. The "respectful" crowd. They understand both arguments, and insist that everyone should be allowed to say anything (Yes) but... without intentional malice (No). Malice of any kind is anti-social, and anti-social behaviour breaks down society. What the other two crowds need to understand is that it's not the choice of words that matter, it's the intent that matters. Once people begin to get used to the idea that hurtful things are seldom said or done maliciously, then they can get used to coping with that. Not that's not so easy when one is under actual attack. Please don't confuse this with PC.
Ideas and opinions are not your enemy, even, and especially, if you disagree with them.
Indeed. For example, last night my tenant was watching a documentary about homophobes in Russia, and I end up almost defending them even though I disagree with homophobia, because by actually listening to all angles I seem to have a better understanding and empathy. But being PC, he hasn't developed that ability.
How can we possibly approach social issues contructively when people ridicule what is politically incorrect?
Re:Liberals (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. This coalition is not "liberals", it probably covers a large range of political backgrounds.
Umm, dude ... look at tfa, there's a list of organizations that signed the petition at the bottom. It's a list of organizations that you can tell are almost certainly squarely on the left side of the US political spectrum just by their names.
Now, to the know-nothings thinking of responding: no, the organizations don't usually explicitly say they're liberal in their names, and some appear at first glance to be single-issue orgs, like "End Rape on Campus", but here's what's going on: the way they want to end rape on campus is probably by gutting the due process rights of those accused of rape (who are members of the patriarchy, so they don't deserve rights) and expelling anyone who makes jokes they don't like ("no means yes, yes means anal"). And for good measure probably also disciplining people who protest by holding up posters of aborted fetuses on the campus lawn for being disruptive -- they're obviously at war with women for doing that -- while allowing protests which involve carrying a mattress with you to all your classes, because that's of course not at all disruptive. These are not nonpartisan things to advocate.
None of this has much to do with actually ending rape on campus -- I'm pretty sure not wanting people to be raped is a nonpartisan cause -- but if you think organizations with names like "End Rape on Campus" aren't liberal, and organizations with names like "True Americans for Growth" and "Patriots for Law and Order" (I just made those up) aren't conservative, you haven't been paying attention to US politics for at least, oh, 10-15 years.
In short, if you can at all hear the dog whistles of US politics, the orgs in the list are all whistling "liberal" very loudly.
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Informative)
This coalition is not "liberals", it probably covers a large range of political backgrounds. If you look at attitudes historically, left leaning political views are very often more tolerant than right leaning views.
But as in this case usually aren't. The list consisted of dozens of left leaning multi-cultural groups mixed with a few anti-rape groups. Not a single member had anything to do with "conservative" viewpoints, unless you choose to count the handful of mildly religious-oriented groups. I think it's instructive to consider the chasm between the propaganda mentioned in your quote above and the reality of the political affiliations of the groups actually calling for suppression of free speech.
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
left leaning political views are very often more tolerant than right leaning views
Nope. Ideological extremity is usually what breeds totalitarianism. This barrier between moderate and extremist is most easily defined as the point where the ideology matters more than facts, truth, or rational argument. I think this 'coalition' is a datapoint among many suggesting we'll reach that point soon.
In the last century, there have been far more examples of socialism running amok than fascism (USSR, DPRK, nazi germany, maoist china, argentina, and yes, even sweden, which favors the cloth covered iron fist even today). In the US, the neo-right used christian dogma to drive their statist cultural package, and the left positioned themselves as the ones who'd fight back, which sounded great to the 20something generation at the time. By the 80s, the religious right lost its prestige, and now, after 20 years of political dominance, we're seeing the left show its true colors. eg: they're attacking the youth culture their 60's era 'counter culture' bootstrapped ('free love' --> 'rape tribunals'), and protection of rational criticism against religious belief has been replaced with babblings about atheist/christian 'bigotry' towards muslims. Black lives matter? No. All lives matter. A misbehaving state affects all of us. Don't let the propaganda redirect your attention.
Enough. I'm sick of the bullshit multilayered double standards. The whole left wing pantheon is based on these fixed hierarchies, defining which group is more oppressed than the other. It's just a smokescreen to compel these cross-sections to fight among each other. The left wing calls this 'intersectionality,' and you can major in this stuff at your local university, just like a real science degree! Anything, as long as no one pays attention to the marxists behind the curtain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
ad hom attacks? - check
nothing but rambling? check
posting AC while shouting down others? - check
The coddling of the american mind (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
goes into more details...
Oh sigh (Score:5, Informative)
This is the worst possible thing to do, not just for the basic liberties. The Atlantic [theatlantic.com] published an article explaining why.
We can't cocoon people and then let them out into the world. This is elementary-school treatment at a University Level.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is not a political phenomena going on here, but more of a continuation of trying to build a perfectly sheltered environment for children. At some point the offspring will encounter opposing view points, perhaps discover that evil exists in the world. They must be ready at that point to have a rational discussion. Instead we're teaching the offspring to either shut out the offense or to attack it.
And that is indeed what the modern political landscape looks like: with many people shutting themsel
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At some point the offspring will encounter opposing view points, perhaps discover that evil exists in the world.
They are being taught that evil exists in the world, in the form of straight white males.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. I'm thinking of going activitist on this bullshit purely as a pre-emptive defense for when these fuckwits enter the workforce.
The Minister for Inequality in the UK already wants companies to post a breakdown of pay differentials by gender - without also requiring a breakdown of hours works, experience or contribution.
I can see ten years from now losing my job because I'm too fucking white or too fucking male. Fuck that.
Free Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Free speech only means anything if it's the freedom to say things that are dangerous or unpopular.
It shouldn't mean the freedom to only say what is benign, acceptable, trivial, or politically correct.
Campuses Used to be Free Speech Havens (Score:5, Insightful)
During the 1960s college and university campuses were the birth places of free speech for students. Times have certainly changed with students demanding censorship.
Kind of like vaccination... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I was just struck with how like vaccination this whole thing is - these students grew up in a much more 'free speech' era than, say, the 1960s. As such, they aren't used to seeing the harm that anti-free speech laws and regulations cause.
Much like anti-vaxxors today who feel free to refuse vaccination because they haven't experienced the outbreaks and plagues that happened in history.
I mean, I understand because I'm old enough to have a grandfather who was permanently affected by polio. So I grew up with that. But those much younger than me?
As a Speaker Of TRUTH (Score:4, Insightful)
political correctness offends me.
Well? (Score:2)
Re:Well? (Score:5, Insightful)
fight stupidity with more stupidity
It seems like you've already started
OMG, if we let people say whatever they want (Score:3, Insightful)
OMG, if we let people say whatever they want, they might say something that conflicts with my worldview and gives me a boo-boo or a tummyache.
Wah Wah Wah!
SJWs, please help protect me from hearing anything I don't like!!
Re: (Score:3)
You aren't entitled to a university spending time and money to give you a platform to spread your message.
I couldn't agree more- a university is no place to allow free speech or controversial ideas!
Offensive, but so is this article (Score:2, Informative)
Now wait, I'm not saying don't get offended, you can go ahead and do that and it's even reasonable. But the WP article is inventive, inflammatory bullshit, shock amazement. For instance, this little snark-shit:
In fact, the quote "[Africa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, the quote "[African-AmericansÃ(TM)] entire culture just isnÃ(TM)t conducive to a life of success"
I get offended by people who try to claim trademarks on phrases like "African-AmericansÃ".
Re:Offensive, but so is this article (Score:4, Insightful)
Liberal arts is a joke. (Score:2)
It's as if all progress in the humanities has ended by fiat.
Re: (Score:3)
has ended by fiat.
Bad Car Analogy in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Complete failure to understand consequences (Score:2)
I suppose though that we could just ban these idiots from college campuses - for their own protection, of course.
The first question ought not to be... (Score:3)
Upon considering an idea, the first question ought not to be, "Is it offensive?" but rather, "Is it true?"
RIP Freedom of Speech (Score:2)
What a disgrace.
Can I make the list of whats Offensive? (Score:3)
Thats the true power, those who get to make the list of "Offensive" things to ban/censor. Might be the crazy reason we have a first amendment, and a 2nd to make sure we keep it.
That coalition isn't that large, really (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember when it was the religious right that was trying to impose its values on society using the government (eg: abortion rights). The left was positioning itself as supporting the live and let live attitude, especially concerning sex. Now, today's left is all about campus 'rape tribunals' that model soviet show trials and pushes out tons of fear-mongering propaganda to create neurotic behavior in young people (mostly men) about sex. Now this 'coalition'... I guess like the neocons censored for jesus, the New Left censors for marx. Yay for big statists!
How about we just let individuals speak their minds and deal with the fact that not everyone will agree? That is a required cornerstone of learning, right? Free thought? Free expression that includes criticism? What a bunch of pissant crybabies this society's become.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, this isn't so much the "left" as much as "progressives". Even the left has taken to calling them the regressive left, and are just as much disgusted by the nannyism.
And if we take a look back, these elements were always a part of the left (mostly from feminist that marched in lockstep with the religious right often enough), it's just they are at the forefront now, in many respects using the left as cover for their authoritarian agenda. Authoritarianism takes many forms.
And regardless, demonizing
Nothing to see here (Score:3)
Best Prof I had said (Score:3)
The entire course came back to this point over and over, showing that through history science and politics are entwined but how universities were places where offensive ideas had a way of cutting through that. Some ideas were eventually discarded, others were able to thrive. His entire last 3 hour lecture was about offensive ideas and how they should be protected in universities. Wonderful course and I hope lots more people take his course, though it's a very small class of 12 to foster discussion better.
Tea Party of the Left (Score:3)
The progressive/liberal side of the spectrum has their own "Tea Party" and they are frequently referred to as "SJWs" or "Social Justice Warriors". They need a better name, though, because there are genuine social justice "warriors" that do good-- you know, like fighting against gerrymandering and police brutality. The "SJWs" that mess it all up are those that attempt to change the meanings of words. Examples:
Violence: Violence used to mean action that caused physical harm. Today, SJWs (the bad ones) are trying to change the common vocabulary so that speech that makes someone uncomfortable can be described as "violence".
Triggering: Triggering is a medical term regarding the genuine overwhelming emotions and memories that come flooding to one's forethought after being reminded of an extremely traumatic experience. Today, SJWs (the bad ones) are attempting to make everything a potential "trigger" for someone because it reminds them of something bad. It's not the same.
Racism: This one's pretty bad. Racism has a very specific definition. It's the belief that one race is better than another. However, SJWs (the bad ones) are attributing racism to just about anything that touches the topic of race, ethnicity, culture, etc. People accuse things without the capability of having beliefs of racism ("Is science racist?").
The examples go on and on... these (bad) SJWs are the Tea Party of the left. They tear down anyone who isn't as extreme as they are. But here's the rub-- since they fight for things that are generally accepted as good (reducing harm, protecting people, etc.), you just can't come out as against them or their tactics. And THAT is why schools are bending over backwards to not fight them. Schools are horrifically liability averse and they will almost always give in to the extremists on their side(s) rather than fight them and risk being slandered as rape-cultured and racist organizations.
Re:How is this not harassment? (Score:5, Insightful)
It may not be, but when it's super easy to expand the definitions of 'harassment' to include criticism, suddenly the law becomes a tool to censor speech.
Re:Leftists are insane (Score:5, Interesting)
The real problem isn't the left or the right... it's the left AND the right and every other damn option out there.
While I am entirely aware I risk making the same mistake, you apparently have a gift of making impressively stupid comments without applying thought or reason to what you say and instead simply spout some populist nonsense that is little more than finger pointing.
Take responsibility for yourself, this article identifies a REAL problem. The problem is, we've (I am not even in America, yet I recognize "WE" is accurate) have established a "civilization" that contains some very clear and identifiable problems.
1) There are knuckle-draggers in our higher education system that clearly are in desperate need of an education but are also clearly not likely to obtain one as they have shown they're as ignorant as you by stereotyping based on some trait they believe makes another person less than they are... based on a group... which generally has no actual genuinely common characteristics.
2) There are fools in the higher education system who lack the intelligence to simply ignore the knuckle-draggers and steer clear of them if needed. While I can't identify from the article if the targets of the hate-speech are those who are complaining, I will assume at least a few of them are. The fools (like yourself and likely me for rising to the bait) making the hateful comments are a waste of time, food and air. What they say has utterly no relevance to anything. These fools who take offense to knuckle-draggers making such comments are a major problem.
3) There are fools who seem to believe the solution to the problem is to try and hide it. People who I don't believe are left, right, lib, conservative, etc... but instead are truly the most dangerous people I know, the PC enforcement crowd have identified a long list of causes they "feel strongly about". They want to the be the mommies of us all and instead of attempting to identify and resolve the issues progressively... devising an intelligent solution, they instead want to make us cover our ears and eyes and pretend like it will go away if we just sweep it under the rug and come up with punishments for people who say naughty things.
Fact 1) Thank goodness for the Internet... Racism is 100x better today than it was 10 years ago. Racists who talk on Facebook and Twitter have been learning that they have lots in common with all those people they used to hate for skin color and religion and now have learned that they can hate people no matter what their skin color or religion. So as a result, now a formerly racist person who desperately needs to believe that some group of people must be responsible for why their lives aren't better... they can point fingers at all kinds of other groups of people. It's like Christmas in July.
Fact 2) We don't need mommies and we really don't need PC enforcers. It's better to simply avoid/ignore people who we find offensive. Which leads us to...
Fact 3) People like you are a waste of time to make any effort on. It's just simply built into your system to pick some group to blame without actually even taking the time to identify whether those people are in fact a group or not. There is nothing me or any other person could say to teach you to think intelligently and objectively about each scenario and then make productive recommendations. Which leads us to
Fact 4) Finger pointers really aren't a necessity and are actually generally not even wanted. We have Fox, CNN, ABC and BBC to do that for us... we don't need anyone else to do it. I tend to find the shows on the news networks tend to spend a lot of time constructing groups of people who agree with e
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because, you know, truth (or lack of it) is defined by the number of people who believe relative to the number that believe something else, right? Galileo is spinning in his grave..
So, lets see, your post boils down to argumentum ad populum, and ad hominem. Your statement about universities is also wrong. While places like liberty.edu are censorious, Yale and Harvard are no better. Don't forget Duke.
https://youtu.be/im25MN5AwIc?t... [youtu.be]