The fact is, every opinion is allowed technically as disgusting as they are it's the truth. Of course I can't counter your example because racism won't ever be accepted and thankfully. But what you have experienced like 30 years ago could've very well been a homosexual activist trying to speak out and an association trying and successfully blocking them would've been free speech as well ?
Every opinion should be able to be expressed imo, then people will choose to listen or to not listen
Right. But it's not automatic. You're entitled to speak, but you're not entitled to be heard by everyone or even a certain group. If you want that access, you have to work for it and persuade and compromise. Things like gay rights and racial equality were an uphill battle because not everybody wanted to tune in nor were activists initially given a large platform to share their ideas....the fact of the matter is, they shared their ideas anyway and were eventually heard by the majority.
Free speech doesn't entitle you a specific platform to share your views. It just means you can. Period. If you want to write a book or a blog post or criticize god reincarnated, Beyoncé, like Tomi Lahren, you can. But then people are also permitted to respond to that and challenge your views or even professionally distance themselves from you, or possibly disinvite you as a speaker to an event, all because they have the right to dispute your views through their own words or non-violent actions.
That's the beauty of free speech. We can all exercise it. Not just people who want to say something controversial. But also people who don't want those controversial viewpoints to spread or take any hold in society.
So what did those students in college want to do? Lock themselves up in that university forever? Go through life as if racism and racists don't exist? Thats not how the world works
They wanted to limit the reach of his views. It's really simple.
They wanted to limit the reach of his views. It's really simple.
It's not free speech if you suppress it. They weren't challenging his views, they were trying to erase them and act like they didn't exist. They wanted to create a safe space, which is basically a gathering of people with same points of view, only listening to the exercise of free speech by the people whose opinions they already agree with. Colleges are literally the places where free speech should be protected the most. Did they try to have a book burning of his works too? Imagine where would civil rights or gay rights be if they were blocked from platforms everywhere except places that already welcomed them. How exactly would they reach people to gain more allies.
I have to say that I kind of feel betrayed by Europe in that regards. ever since I was a little kid I admired Europe so much. The culture, the people, the rich history. The fact that the two leading countries of mainland Europe: France and Germany, have laws that limit speech feels like I was stabbed in the back.
It's not free speech if you suppress it. They weren't challenging his views, they were trying to erase them and act like they didn't exist. They wanted to create a safe space, which is basically a gathering of people with same points of view, only listening to the exercise of free speech by the people whose opinions they already agree with. Colleges are literally the places where free speech should be protected the most. Did they try to have a book burning of his works too? Imagine where would civil rights or gay rights be if they were blocked from platforms everywhere except places that already welcomed them. How exactly would they reach people to gain more allies.
You're conflating suppression and non-endorsement.
The guy can still write books, post a blog, make YouTube videos, shout it on the streets, etc and is completely free to exercise his free speech. The university however is not obliged to host his views by providing him an audience and venue and, in effect, tacitly lend his opinions credibility.
There's no need to "imagine" anything for the examples you gave. The Civil Rights Movement did face the very issue of access and they got around that by reaching out to people, changing minds and hearts, and gaining traction so they could be allowed larger platforms. Same goes for the LGBT movement.
Free speech is protected on campuses. At least on mine we have so many opposing viewpoints cause all 6000 students are not going to think the same way. The question at hand isn't that people should or shouldn't share their personal views, but whether that speaker merited an invitation given his outdated and pseudoscientific views.
tl;dr - Not allowing someone to speak in a specific venue is not limiting their free speech. They're free to seek out other hosts or go about it individually through other mediums.
You're conflating suppression and non-endorsement.
The guy can still write books, post a blog, make YouTube videos, shout it on the streets, etc and is completely free to exercise his free speech. The university however is not obliged to host his views by providing him an audience and venue and, in effect, tacitly lend his opinions credibility.
There's no need to "imagine" anything for the examples you gave. The Civil Rights Movement did face the very issue of access and they got around that by reaching out to people, changing minds and hearts, and gaining traction so they could be allowed larger platforms. Same goes for the LGBT movement.
Free speech is protected on campuses. At least on mine we have so many opposing viewpoints cause all 6000 students are not going to think the same way. The question at hand isn't that people should or shouldn't share their personal views, but whether that speaker merited an invitation given his outdated and pseudoscientific views.
tl;dr - Not allowing someone to speak in a specific venue is not limiting their free speech. They're free to seek out other hosts or go about it individually through other mediums.
If he booked a venue to speak in legally then he had every right to speak there. If those students did not want to hear what he had to say, nobody forced them to go there and if they really wanted to challenge his opinions they could have challenged him isntead of trying to get his speaking spot removed.
OMFG, KWEEN ECSTASY IS FINALLY BACK!!! Ughhh, I missed you too!
Quote:
Originally posted by Ecstasy
Everybody should be free to express their opinions without fear of legal repercussions. Having an open market of ideas is how we achieve true progress. Creating safe spaces and suppressing unwanted opinions can only lead to bad results and frankly is totalitarian by its nature. I used to think that supressing hate speech was the right thing to do, until I was called a nazi on here 100 times for no reason and realised that implementing rules against hate speech does indeed create a slippery slope where basically only one idea can survive and all others become inadmissible
Quote:
Originally posted by FBF
The fact is, every opinion is allowed technically as disgusting as they are it's the truth. Of course I can't counter your example because racism won't ever be accepted and thankfully. But what you have experienced like 30 years ago could've very well been a homosexual activist trying to speak out and an association trying and successfully blocking them would've been free speech as well ?
Every opinion should be able to be expressed imo, then people will choose to listen or to not listen
Quote:
Originally posted by Ecstasy
It's not free speech if you suppress it. They weren't challenging his views, they were trying to erase them and act like they didn't exist. They wanted to create a safe space, which is basically a gathering of people with same points of view, only listening to the exercise of free speech by the people whose opinions they already agree with. Colleges are literally the places where free speech should be protected the most. Did they try to have a book burning of his works too? Imagine where would civil rights or gay rights be if they were blocked from platforms everywhere except places that already welcomed them. How exactly would they reach people to gain more allies.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ecstasy
If he booked a venue to speak in legally then he had every right to speak there. If those students did not want to hear what he had to say, nobody forced them to go there and if they really wanted to challenge his opinions they could have challenged him isntead of trying to get his speaking spot removed.
Hmm. I almost agree with everything you said except these two points.
If you're unperceptive enough to post/say objectionable things and someone makes it a point to inform your employer, whether it be a physical neighbor reporting on your words/behavior, or an online stranger following up on your comments, the only person to blame is the person who made the post.
There's a level of accountability that comes with putting your opinions out there for everyone to digest. And if it's something that doesn't sit well with the school, an employer, or your constituency, it's something you have to answer for.
This is actually one stop short of actually describing "the most liberal principle in history". If we're being intellectually honest, those speakers are not barred from speaking their minds. They're simply not being provided a specific platform from which to do so. In fact, any protest is actually an exercise of free speech. If you oppose something, you can voice that.
Just had to address those shaky points. But I agree with the rest. Especially the attempt to do away with due process in regard to sexual assault. Some things should be dealt with on an individual case-by-case basis. But I'm also not naïve to think there aren't some large scale systemic issues to work on after Brock Turner's slap on the wrist. It's all about finding balance in the issues.
There is definitely accountability to what you say and obviously it has consequences. I support open market principles of replacing workers if necessary. This part was about specific incidents of a vocal minority getting people fired over nothing. Like the woman who got two men fired over a "dongle joke" at a conference. Or the woman who got a Lyft driver temporarily fired because he had a hola doll on his deskboard which she deemed "offensive". This is what I meant by that. If you are making outright racist claims or anything of the sort it's not unlikely the company will take measures against you which I am in support of. I was refering specifically to a minority of people who are so vocal and obnoxious that they get people in trouble over things that are objectively a non-issue.
And oviously people have the right to protest and I fully support that.
What they don't have the right to do is to block speakers from venues they book for to speak at by blocking the entrance for example. Your right to free speech includes protesting sure but it ends when you block other people's right to free speech. Not to mention that if the people they are protesting are sooo dangerous and sooo stupid then the best thing to do is let them speak. Let them speak and when the discussion starts prove them wrong and debate them and expose them for what they are. These people have zero confidence in their ideas which is why they resort to blocking them entirely. Not to mention how the people that are often scholars like Christina Hoff Sommers simply because they don't wanna hear it not because she is in any way hateful. It usually boils down to downright censorship in most cases.
If he booked a venue to speak in legally then he had every right to speak there. If those students did not want to hear what he had to say, nobody forced them to go there and if they really wanted to challenge his opinions they could have challenged him isntead of trying to get his speaking spot removed.
Challenging his invitation is also an exercise in free speech. And if their points are persuasive enough to move the organizing body to reconsider, then the speaker should rebuttal with a more convincing presentation or repackaging of his views. That's just the natural progression of compromise.
There is definitely accountability to what you say and obviously it has consequences. I support open market principles of replacing workers if necessary. This part was about specific incidents of a vocal minority getting people fired over nothing. Like the woman who got two men fired over a "dongle joke" at a conference. Or the woman who got a Lyft driver temporarily fired because he had a hola doll on his deskboard which she deemed "offensive". This is what I meant by that. If you are making outright racist claims or anything of the sort it's not unlikely the company will take measures against you which I am in support of. I was refering specifically to a minority of people who are so vocal and obnoxious that they get people in trouble over things that are objectively a non-issue.
And oviously people have the right to protest and I fully support that.
What they don't have the right to do is to block speakers from venues they book for to speak at by blocking the entrance for example. Your right to free speech includes protesting sure but it ends when you block other people's right to free speech. Not to mention that if the people they are protesting are sooo dangerous and sooo stupid then the best thing to do is let them speak. Let them speak and when the discussion starts prove them wrong and debate them and expose them for what they are. These people have zero confidence in their ideas which is why they resort to blocking them entirely. Not to mention how the people that are often scholars like Christina Hoff Sommers simply because they don't wanna hear it not because she is in any way hateful. It usually boils down to downright censorship in most cases.
Interesting. I guess there are shades to either position. It comes back to balance I suppose.
Cause for someone like Trump to say what he says and people chastising organizations for dis-inviting him by citing "free speech" is such bogus reasoning.
And in my university example, the students were fully capable of swatting down his reasoning, but just didn't want the university lending their credibility to his views by giving him a platform there.
I think these types of outcomes are reasonable.
It's probably better dealt on a case by case basis. But my general point is if you say something that unsettles your employer, anyone is entitled to point it out and your boss is entitled to fire you. That is free speech. Or if you're anti-gay and an LGBT organizer books you to speak cause they thing it's a good idea yet their constituency vocally challenges your invitation and it get rescinded, that too is free speech.
But I can see that SJW do take these ideas to the extreme and apply it for every minor offense, which I guess muddies up the water on what's free speech and what's censorship.
I'm thinking one of the larger issues that percipitate SJW-ing is that people are obsessed with winning absolutely. Whatever side they may be on.
Some LGBT activists, for example, can't content themselves with having the right to get a cake with any message you want. They also have to push for freelance professionals like photographers to physically attend their weddings even if they disagree with the occasion.
Like, you shouldn't be denied from obtaining products or services on the basis of your orientation, but no human being should be legally obliged to participate in a ritual they aren't comfortable with.
Extreme liberals and conservatives need to stop trying to one up each other.
Challenging his invitation is also an exercise in free speech. And if their points are persuasive enough to move the organizing body to reconsider, then the speaker should rebuttal with a more convincing presentation or repackaging of his views. That's just the natural progression of compromise.
If that was your point, then I agree with you
I thought you agreed with people BLOCKING access to speaker, as in the university/organization did not reconsider the invitation or anything, but some students physically denied access to the university to the speaker. That's wrong.
Interesting. I guess there are shades to either position. It comes back to balance I suppose.
Cause for someone like Trump to say what he says and people chastising organizations for dis-inviting him by citing "free speech" is such bogus reasoning.
And in my university example, the students were fully capable of swatting down his reasoning, but just didn't want the university lending their credibility to his views by giving him a platform there.
I think these types of outcomes are reasonable.
It's probably better dealt on a case by case basis. But my general point is if you say something that unsettles your employer, anyone is entitled to point it out and your boss is entitled to fire you. That is free speech. Or if you're anti-gay and an LGBT organizer books you to speak cause they thing it's a good idea yet their constituency vocally challenges your invitation and it get rescinded, that too is free speech.
But I can see that SJW do take these ideas to the extreme and apply it for every minor offense, which I guess muddies up the water on what's free speech and what's censorship.
I agree tjhat dealing with it case-to-case is best here but generally I think it's best to give everybody the ability and platform to speak even if they spout horrible things or things you don't agree with at all.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sunshine.
I'm thinking one of the larger issues that percipitate SJW-ing is that people are obsessed with winning absolutely. Whatever side they may be on.
Some LGBT activists, for example, can't content themselves with having the right to get a cake with any message you want. They also have to push for freelance professionals like photographers to physically attend their weddings even if they disagree with the occasion.
Like, you shouldn't be denied from obtaining products or services on the basis of your orientation, but no human being should be legally obliged to participate in a ritual they aren't comfortable with.
Extreme liberals and conservatives need to stop trying to one up each other.
I'm kind of torn on this one because I do think pushing someone to participate in something they don't want to is far from optimal. But I don't think religious freedom should trump a person's right to be treated equally. But then again I don't think it's much of an issue anymore?I mean maybe a decade ago but it's not like these couples can't find countless other bakeries or photographers for their wedding these days. I think in many cases where people insist on getting a cake from a specific bakery it comes down to pettiness?Or perhaps even bitterness. Of course ideally we wouldn't have homophobic bakeries in the first place but I do wonder where religious freedom starts and when it turns into inequal treatment.
I thought you agreed with people BLOCKING access to speaker, as in the university/organization did not reconsider the invitation or anything, but some students physically denied access to the university to the speaker. That's wrong.
nnnn. Mess. I should have been more clear.
But yeah physically blocking the guy would have been extreme. What happened at my school was that the invitation was sent through by the Federalist Society club, the Black Student Association club lobbied against it, then the administration considered both clubs' position and the invitation was allowed but they provided a roped off area for the students to demonstrate and encouraged them to go into the lecture and challenge his views.
I thought you agreed with people BLOCKING access to speaker, as in the university/organization did not reconsider the invitation or anything, but some students physically denied access to the university to the speaker. That's wrong.
Same tbh. A public peaceful protest to his invitation is ofc an excercise in free speech. I was talking more about instances of like when feminists pulled fire alarms to not let MRA activists speak or when they blocked people from getting into university cuz they did not want that person to speak there. If they by peaceful means convinced the university to not let somebody speak then I see no problem with it.
But yeah physically blocking the guy would have been extreme. What happened at my school was that the invitation was sent through by the Federalist Society club, the Black Student Association club lobbied against it, then the administration considered both clubs' position and the invitation was allowed but they provided a roped off area for the students to demonstrate and encouraged them to go into the lecture and challenge his views.
Slay, this is the only real way to handle a situation like this. Both parties got to have a say.
================
Guys, I've been really getting into the work of the four horseman and I think Sam Harris is slowly becoming my favourite. That moment when he discussed the actual religion of peace Jainism kind of blew my mind His work with Maajid Nawaaz is pretty impressive because he doesn't really just stick to criticizing certain aspects but actually offers measures on how to improve the situation in the muslim communities of middle east.
btw, I also wanted to mention that I live in an orthodox country and orthodox christians hate catholics. There was a protest when the Pope visited, they called him a clown. I was lowkey hoping on a terrorist attack that would kill 3 birds with 1 C4.
Slay, this is the only real way to handle a situation like this. Both parties got to have a say.
================
Guys, I've been really getting into the work of the four horseman and I think Sam Harris is slowly becoming my favourite. That moment when he discussed the actual religion of peace Jainism kind of blew my mind His work with Maajid Nawaaz is pretty impressive because he doesn't really just stick to criticizing certain aspects but actually offers measures on how to improve the situation in the muslim communities of middle east.
Jainism really fascinates me, I'd like to learn more about it. What is the four horseman ?
COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC, but I'm cackling so hard to this I thought I'd share it with my atheist sisters
His work with Maajid Nawaaz is pretty impressive because he doesn't really just stick to criticizing certain aspects but actually offers measures on how to improve the situation in the muslim communities of middle east.