[flagged]
[flagged]
Reminder to anyone triggered by a “both sides” comment:
just like you, we are all aware of how the sides are different, it is valid to be more annoyed by the ways they are the same
A university president makes a case against cowardice
321–330 of 934 posts
Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice
#322Universities don’t have to roll over, they also don’t have to accept federal funds
Easy
Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice
#323Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Who is supporting terrorist groups? Pro-Palestinian protesting is not support for terrorism.
This guy perhaps?
Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice
#325Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think what's going on is a helpful reminder that there's no such thing as "rights" in the way you describe. Everything we have, everything we're permitted to do, is at the pleasure and permission of our governments. Constitutions and laws are only worth anything if the people in charge honor them. Might may not make right, but might does let you impose whatever you want on people who don't have your might. You can…
> Everything we have, everything we're permitted to do, is at the pleasure and permission of our governments. Wrong! The people are ultimately responsible for reigning-in their governments and are the ultimate source of any rules or rights that the governments end up enforcing. If you think that the ultimate authority is with the government, then you have justified every authoritarian regime out there.
There are two basic world views.
One is based on order and rule. You have a leviathan, an absolute ruler, who imposes order on society.
The other is one based on freedom and law/justice. A society based on affirmative mutual consent and a system orthogonal to power to handle disputes.
Unfortunately, power determining the outcome of disputes is the default, and a system of law or justice cannot enforce itself without the participation of those bound by it. The core founding principle of western society is solidarity via collective bargaining, what other option is there than other than to submit to someone more powerful than any individual?
Do you want to submit to a man, or submit to an idea? If you submit to an idea you must defend it. If you submit to a man, you deny your own agency and your own rights.
Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice
#327A lot of Americans support these attacks on universities. Why do people harbour this much animosity towards these institutions? Is there anything they could have done differently in the past decade or two to have broader sympathy now, or is people's ambivalence towards elite universities 100% irrational?
Why did the Germans burn books? Look there for your answers. And I mean that sincerely. There’s really nothing new under the sun.
Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
It's not an equation in what it does to people. Yes, abduction is worse than being yelled at.
However, it's pointing out that the general principle has been established: "People whose opinion I don't like can be banned from society." At first, it's only removing individuals from public discourse (cancel culture), then it's removing people physically (deportation).
This is always the endgame of eroding core liberal values. This has been pointed out to the illiberal left time and time again, to no avail.
Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice
#329[flagged]
[flagged]
One ban consists of the exercise of their right to... Not associate with you.
The other sends you to a Salvadoran gulag. (The silence from all the 'free speech' folks on this point is deafening.)
It's odd that one ban operates within the constraints of freedom (the freedom to associate requires the exercise of the freedom to not associate), while the other does not. It's almost like there's a categorical distinction.
It's utterly pointless to say that the starting point is the same, when one is an utter sabotage of all of society's rights and values... While the other is people affirming those rights.
Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice
#330Oh hey, Wesleyan on HN! I’m an alumnus (matriculated a year or two after Roth became president). Wesleyan has a rich history of activism and protest, and not always entirely peaceful (Roth’s predecessor, Doug Bennet, had his office firebombed at one point). I’ve had a few opportunities to speak with Roth since the Gaza war started, and I’ve always found him particularly thoughtful about balancing freedom of expressio…
[flagged]
> Many countries completely ban non citizens from joining political protests, even ostensibly western countries.
Which ones?