31–40 of 126 posts
I don't tolerate people who want to remove rights from and do harm to others. Such as the right to bodily autonomy for women. The right to get married and receive its protections and benefits, like visiting your spouse in hospital. Or for people to express their gender identity safely and without right wingers directing hatred at them.
> A record 87 student-involved deplatforming attempts occurred in 2023, and 2024 is already on track to beat it — with 18 already recorded as of Feb. 29. Maybe I'm just a filthy anarchist but I really don't see the issue with this. Not only because communities should be allowed to tell people they don't like to fuck off, but also because the telling-to-fuck-off itself is a valid political action. A system like a Univ…
Not 100 years ago, you'd be stoned for being a socialist, or being black in the wrong public setting. No one was going to protect you. Protected free speech is a myth, at best.
In 1924? What? Socialism was extremely popular in academia during that period. The US had the Espionage Act but I cannot think anywhere the stoning of socialists would happen, let alone in academia. Stoning black people was never a thing as far as I know. Do you have any pointers?
Lynching and posing with corpses for collectable postcards was also a thing of the times.
Technically none of this is stoning but it's easy to imagine church gowing people that are willing to lynch black people were very likely to stone them also.
Addendum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Summer
Beginning on July 27, the Chicago race riot marked the greatest massacre of Red Summer. Chicago's beaches along Lake Michigan were segregated by custom. When Eugene Williams, a black youth, swam into an area on the South Side customarily used by whites, he was stoned and drowned.
I haven't been in University for over a decade now, but is this an actual real problem or just conservative provocateurs whining?
> actual real problem or just conservative provocateurs whining Can't tell if this is a joke or not. If not, can't you see the irony in your own typing?
It sounds like a real problem to me but I'm not in school either.
> A significant portion of college students have become more hostile toward free speech * proceeds to use Milo Yiannopolous as an example *
Implying?
> A record 87 student-involved deplatforming attempts occurred in 2023, and 2024 is already on track to beat it — with 18 already recorded as of Feb. 29. Maybe I'm just a filthy anarchist but I really don't see the issue with this. Not only because communities should be allowed to tell people they don't like to fuck off, but also because the telling-to-fuck-off itself is a valid political action. A system like a Univ…
A victim of Maoist violence represents an "ugly hateful ideology"? This shunning bar has been moved from fascists for some years.
I haven't been in University for over a decade now, but is this an actual real problem or just conservative provocateurs whining?
I went to a state school for what was largely job training. I think that those who go to exclusive private schools (which is a minority among the minority of Americans who have college degrees) are going for different reasons. So ideological control of them is important amongst the elite, but I can't imagine it's a subject that the average American expends much energy thinking about; I certainly try not to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>some deplatforming attempts are themselves an exercise of free speech, where people who feel excluded from the platform are trying to rebalance the debate by asking that we stop focusing on debunked theories. Bizarre paradox where a group is disenfranchised enough in academia it needs to protest dissent yet it can consistently expel people from it for disagreeing.
Do they "consistently expel people" though? The very very large majority of requests to deplatforming are not followed by deplatforming. There are _tons_ of university and _tons_ of people complaining. If the majority was reaching their goal, everyone would be deplatformed all the time. (there are plenty of deplatforming protests from the "left", but as much from the "right", just look at all the banning laws discuss…
Academia can have an extreme concentration of leftist dogmatism while political society can have a far right one. Both can happen at the same time in different communities.
Not 100 years ago, you'd be stoned for being a socialist, or being black in the wrong public setting. No one was going to protect you. Protected free speech is a myth, at best.
In 1924? What? Socialism was extremely popular in academia during that period. The US had the Espionage Act but I cannot think anywhere the stoning of socialists would happen, let alone in academia. Stoning black people was never a thing as far as I know. Do you have any pointers?
Lynchings of black people continued well into the 1900s. https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/history-l...
And in particular during the civil rights movement, there was extraordinary violence against black people for daring to do nothing more than speak. Check out the library of congress: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-rights-act/civil-rights-e...
The State helped - the FBI tried to convince MLK to kill himself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_lette...
> Socialism was extremely popular in academia during that period.
For about 5 minutes until McCarthy and friends started chucking people in prison. This is such common knowledge I'm honestly not sure what to link other than simply the wikipedia article on McCarthyism lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
While it's not stoning, I consider arbitrary imprisonment also an unacceptable form of State violence and suppression of ideas.
So until the State or something as powerful as it starts literally imprisoning conservatives, or angry mobs start lynching them, I don't really care about the whining about "cancelling" and "deplatforming."
Go to a protest, the cops still buddy up with the Proud Boys. They still beat us for kneeling. Conservatives and their ideology are perfectly safe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're saying that because a century ago some people oppressed other people (in America?), therefore free speech was never protected. If that's what you're saying, I don't see that the conclusion follows from the premise. It is possible for a society to protect free speech in general but to fail to protect it in specific instances. That's a deplorable inconsistency for a society to have, but it doesn't make f…
Inconsistently protected rights are not "rights".
Are you saying you disbelieve in rights altogether?