https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/08/07/opinion...cnn.com%2F
In an attempt to argue that “the left” is equally discriminated against primarily uses a single speech by Jeff Sessuons. But through out admits (as needed to be factual true) that “the right” is discriminated against too.
Since we all discriminate the point made is moot. The real issue is the preponderance of officially sanctioned discrimination on tax payer funded campuses where critical thinking or the teaching of should be advocated.
This piece is an attempt to join the “list” of victims (#me too?). Implying equivalency when it they admit it (the occasions) literally do not add up.
Nor does it address the root cause. Not the inability but the lack of will to listen to differing view points and offer a critique that deconstructs that view point offering a cogent reply.
KEN Barna is a good example of that mentality.
(08-08-2018 09:47 AM)gobaseline Wrote: [ -> ]https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/08/07/opinion...cnn.com%2F
In an attempt to argue that “the left” is equally discriminated against primarily uses a single speech by Jeff Sessuons. But through out admits (as needed to be factual true) that “the right” is discriminated against too.
Since we all discriminate the point made is moot. The real issue is the preponderance of officially sanctioned discrimination on tax payer funded campuses where critical thinking or the teaching of should be advocated.
This piece is an attempt to join the “list” of victims (#me too?). Implying equivalency when it they admit it (the occasions) literally do not add up.
Nor does it address the root cause. Not the inability but the lack of will to listen to differing view points and offer a critique that deconstructs that view point offering a cogent reply.
KEN Barna is a good example of that mentality.
It is easier to win an argument if you do not allow your opposition to be heard.
(08-08-2018 10:05 AM)GullLake Wrote: [ -> ] (08-08-2018 09:47 AM)gobaseline Wrote: [ -> ]https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/08/07/opinion...cnn.com%2F
In an attempt to argue that “the left” is equally discriminated against primarily uses a single speech by Jeff Sessuons. But through out admits (as needed to be factual true) that “the right” is discriminated against too.
Since we all discriminate the point made is moot. The real issue is the preponderance of officially sanctioned discrimination on tax payer funded campuses where critical thinking or the teaching of should be advocated.
This piece is an attempt to join the “list” of victims (#me too?). Implying equivalency when it they admit it (the occasions) literally do not add up.
Nor does it address the root cause. Not the inability but the lack of will to listen to differing view points and offer a critique that deconstructs that view point offering a cogent reply.
KEN Barna is a good example of that mentality.
It is easier to win an argument if you do not allow your opposition to be heard.
Absolutely. Further, which side is violently suppressing opposition viewpoint? Conservatives are getting beat up and harassed nationwide, with the blessing of the mainstream Democrap establishment I might add.
Dear gobaseline,
No.... You are the one that has that mentality.
(08-09-2018 08:22 AM)Ken Barna Wrote: [ -> ]Dear gobaseline,
No.... You are the one that has that mentality.
Ken,
Let's have a conversation about the topic of the CNN article.
What does it say to you and point out the specifics as evidence supporting your position.
I like this line from the article and support it 100 percent:
"Campuses have sometimes lapsed in protecting free speech, and the administration is right to stand up for open expression."
Nobody has a right to shout-down a speaker - regardless of his or her opinions - and nobody has a right to prohibit you from attending a speech from someone they do not agree with.
If somebody wants to peacefully protest a speaker, that is fine. But they have NO RIGHT to prohibit them from speaking, or you from listening.
I hope anyone at WMU who shouts down a speaker, or physically prohibits you from attending a speech, receives a billy-club to the mouth from campus police and loses teeth. We have to be serious about protecting free speech - regardless of opinion - or we will certainly lose it.
(08-10-2018 04:44 AM)GullLake Wrote: [ -> ]Here is a thoughtful editorial from the NY Times on the dangers of censoring so-called "Hate Speech."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/opini...tance.html
I am a strong proponent of the first amendment, and particularly free speech. However, a very frequent mistake folks make is remembering that those protections are against "GOVERNMENT" actions and laws, as opposed to private individuals or private companies. Facebook, for example, is a company which can make decisions based on its corporate ideology, even if it stifles its users from expressing opinions which would constitute "free speech" in the constitutional sense. This is also true with the NFL and its policies regarding the National Anthem. They can take whatever action, and quiet free speech within their own organization.
Now, this concept is the general rule; however, over the years the Supreme Court has bastardized the distinction, using the commerce clause as a vehicle. The analysis is complicated, and a never ending debate for those who are experts (and I am not).
Point being; the rights and liberties of both individuals and other private entities sometimes seem to conflict with the basic freedoms we tend to take for granted. We cant force civility on people. And we cant (or shouldn't) mandate how businesses act.
Agreed, you can’t mandate civility.
What you can do is to carry on with intellectual honesty and transparency.
I understand folks feel too busy, are uninterested and or are too intimidated to engage because they are unaware.
Whether the courts have muddied the waters common sense and civil discourse shouldn’t shrink. 1st amendment or not.
Quote:The real issue is the preponderance of officially sanctioned discrimination on tax payer funded campuses where critical thinking or the teaching of should be advocated.
Having someone speaking like Ben Shapiro (who I respect a good amt) or Ann Coulter (who I don't), should never be cancelled. Anyone with at least an honest attempt at actual intellectual discourse should of course be allowed on a college campus. That said, there can be extreme ones who Clearly don't -- not necessarily on a 2-way political spectrum per se, but just Objectively-speaking "wacko birds" doing things for sake of chaos where it's Clearly anti-intellectual. I do believe a college campus should have a right to say Yay or Nay when a student group calls for someone like that + mass protest against it.... where best to be put in a public park or something, not on a University campus. A University campus, IMO, should have a say when something's beyond the intellectual zone (or honest attempt at it), having an event on their campus. It's not the only public area in town, obviously. That said tho -- it can back-fire and give too much (faux) credibility & notoriety to said person aimed to speak, so it may not be a wise decision to heed that.
When it comes to "he/she's too right-wing, don't let them speak" or "let's have hands-free lassaiz faire immigration" -- that's not held by a majority of people who lean left (or more). Much the same as some of the Strong religious-right stuff on the other side either. I think Dems need to get more strong on freedom of speech(es) + immigration, instead of listening to a Loud pocket within. Much the same that the Repubs need to get more strong on not heeding to the religious right so much, either.
But then again, I'm a technocrat, so it's easier to b!tch about both sides (no emotional/intellectual loyalty to even the side I merely lean on).