Campus free speech was in trouble in 2018, and the data shows worsening

Your argument was that anti-vaxx cannot be that bad because we survived without vaccine.

I'm simply saying that being violence cannot be that bad because we survived with very violent time.

The second line is indeed the opposite of what you have claimed, but I reached this conclusion based on the exact same logic you used to argue that "anti-vaxx is not that bad".

Again, I'm not saying violence is good or whatever. I'm just saying that your conclusions are based on your personal moral compass, and that this compass is not better or worst than others. When you say "we should decide of free speech based on how much call to violence it contains", you are free or doing that and concluding "I like this free speech cancellation, I don't like that one". But you cannot say "This free speech cancellation is fine, this one is not fine, because I happen to have the ultimate compass that tells what is good and what is bad in an objective and ultimate way".

And if you don't say the second thing and in fact you say the first, then there is no problem: you just say you don't like it. Not that they are wrong, just that you don't like it.

Personally, I think that some speech that do not call for violence are in fact creating situations that hurts more people that some speech that call for violence (for example a racist and anti-scientific discourse that explain that black people are inferior but that we should not harm them vs a discourse calling oppressed black people to resist, preferably not violently, but violently if non-violence does not work). I understand you don't agree and it is fine. But it means that there is no reason that we will suddenly do everything "your way" just to please you when your position is not better than mine.

I'm well aware there's nuance but it's still a problem.

A country club is extremely biased towards conservatism even if there isn't an all encompassing authoritarian mind control scheme for it.

Leftism is popular in Academia because of selection bias and not some huge conspiracy, I'm aware, but that is still a problem if it lets so much misbehaviour pass and keeps gaslighting critics.

>being left-wing does not mean a scientist will accept to reject the truth

I agree but it's been known to happen and it's been known to be brushed under the carpet. Although there has been recent cases of literal socialist conspiracies in Ivy League universities.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-...

First, there aren’t “scores” of “deplatforming events” noted to any degree of verifiable specificity, there’s, at first blush, maybe a single score. Secondly, I’m also not sure we should embrace a phrase very loosely defined by those whose entire goal is to confirm the thing they’ve defined is growing in prevalence, as their definition seems to include any time a speaker was interrupted more than once for a self-reported “significant” amount of time. That alone would easily allow them to enumerate every standing ovation given to Adolf, or any time Goebbels interjected to praise his Fuhrer, as a “deplatforming event”… these people who are essentially writing an opinion piece about finding data that confirms their confirmation bias isn’t obviously a good source of truth.

All that said, my reason for jumping to that example is precisely to address your question… the answer to “what is their mindset” depends entirely on the speech being shouted down. People don’t shout down speech they don’t believe is offensive enough to be worth shouting down, and this “sensationalist” example proves them entirely correct when the speech is, objectively, offensive. So you’re not honestly asking what their mindset is, you’re asking what right they have to be so offended by speech you, personally, would not find offensive.

Personally I really do believe in freedom of speech… which implies freedom to shout down those you disagree with. If you have the right to say something that invites reproach then they have the right to reproach you, and if that means you losing your platform because you a) didn’t earn it or b) don’t own it and those whom you have offended do a better job of employing their speech, then so be it, either examine and evolve your beliefs or find a more receptive venue.

The point of free speech is to accept that other peoples opinions can be aired and shared. If you do not like him, do not attend his talk. That doesn't mean you have to prohibit everyone else from attending it too. I am not arguing the specific case of Milo, I think he may be a grifter but I honestly don't care. If people are trying to censor him I will stand by his side as I would with yours if you were being censored or "cancelled".

Since someone paying tuition perhaps feels the same way of someone you like, no one would be allowed on the campus in the long run with the logic that grifters should be cancelled.

> Leftism is popular in Academia because of selection bias and not some huge conspiracy

Even if indeed "academia is left-wing" (which I'm still not sure it's properly proven: everyone who said that appeared to just "feel it's the case" and turn out to have some sympathies with more right-wing values. Of course you think it's more left-wing if you see left-wing event and right-wing event in same quantities: the right-wing events are not "right-wing", they are just "normal", so you end up thinking "this uni is doing 50% of normal and 50% of left-wing, so it is left-wing". Not saying it's not the case, my problem is that if it is left-wing, I would expect it will be said by people who are less biased).

I was saying ... even if it is left-wing, it is interesting that you are attributing that to "selection bias". There are plenty of other hypothesis: - people in academia thinks a lot, and right-wing ideas are just not very good (I don't think it's true, but it's as charitable as 'selection bias') - approach in academia is more compatible to left-wing way of thinking - socio-economic and culture of people going to academia are more compatible to left-wing way of thinking - ...

> I agree but it's been known to happen and it's been known to be brushed under the carpet.

How is that relevant? It's like saying "academia is dominated by right-wing: we can see some collusion and then it being brushed under the carpet", such as whatever you can find by googling "pro-iran academia in us" or any other right-wing dictatorial countries.

I love how Americans are so brainwashed about "the communist threat". I'm sure there are sometimes political games from China, sometimes linked to ideology (and maybe the example you gave it's indeed one of them, big deal, there are plenty of fraud done by right-wing academics), but in the majority of the cases, China involvement in frauds is just because China is a big country with an emergent economy, with a lax regulation to fraud supported by a corrupted dictatorship. China would have been a right-wing dictatorship, the same thing would have happened. But again, you are doing a confirmation bias: you want to see reason why academia is ideologically communist.

It does not change anything to the initial argument: what you call a paradox is not a paradox. You are just pretending here that someone the students who do the protests are the one in charge of vetting the events they are protesting about in the first place, which is just stupid.