Professor Turley shines a light on the views of many in our colleges on free speech and civility.
“Their Smug Civility was Infuriating”: Yale Editorial Denounces the Politeness of Pro-Life Students; Questions Right to Speak on Campus
Quote:On occasion, we will discuss student editorials as an insight into the view of free speech on our campuses. This week, one such editorial has attracted attention from Yale Daily News due to its chilling statements about free speech. The editorial by Hyerim Bianca Nam is striking in its rejection of the core values of free speech and its expression of anger over the civility and logical arguments of pro-life students.
Bianca Nam unloads on fellow students who set up a table to discuss abortion issues. She describes the students as “inviting passersby to engage in logical debates about fetal personhood and abortion ethics.” She notes with frustration that “they were polite” and “they held their voices low and spoke slowly and calmly. They had relaxed, open smiles.”
Nam takes offense not just to their civility and politeness but also to the fact that they were allowed to speak at all on campus:
“Their smug civility was infuriating; their invitations for debate, inflammatory. I could barely seethe out my opinion about the misogyny of holding such a debate at all…
The discussion never should have been entertained, because simply opening space for this ‘logical, respectful’ debate itself is a threat to human rights that should never be up for debate…
Some arguments aren’t worth engaging with, and quite frankly are dangerous for even existing.”
She added that “Yale should be more cognizant about the environment it fosters for women. We don’t need perfunctory celebrations of the anniversary of Yale’s women that accompany endorsements of misogynist dialogue.”
The editorial perfectly captures the rising intolerance and orthodoxy on our campuses. Nam insists that even allowing such debates is “an insult to our personhood, experience and rights.”
This is consistent with other editorials that we have previously discussed. A Berkeley columnist denounced civility and called for violent resistance. Dartmouth faculty and students demanded that the university shutdown a conservative newspaper. Wellesley editors endorsed shutting down conservative speakers and said that “violence may be warranted.” We have also documented repeated incidents where university newspapers have fired writers and editors for questioning Covid masks, challenging systemic racism claims, or holding other opposing views.
There has also been a repeated attack on civility as racist or reactionary. Even reporters at National Public Radio (NPR) have denounced civility as a “weapon wielded by the powerful.” Hillary Clinton has called for the end of civility toward any Republicans.
These morons have been "educated" by twisted individuals, who have given them a very strange reading of rights in our society.
The solution to speech you don't like is not to shut down speech, but rather have more speech. Free speech is not for issues everybody agrees on, it is for speech we disagree with. Those ideas have protection because they are not popular but do deserve to be heard.
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/04/14/th...on-campus/
If this is the kind of world that students are building for the future, then I'm glad that I'm entering the back nine of my life and won't have to live in it. Perhaps those holding these views will at some time regret it. But, I doubt it because their programming is so strong.
"A Berkeley columnist denounced civility and called for violent resistance."
Be careful what you wish for ...
If the same article were written about the libs viewpoint by a conservative opinion could you imagine the uproar? And the likely violent and not-so friendly protesting?
(04-18-2023 10:25 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]Professor Turley shines a light on the views of many in our colleges on free speech and civility.
“Their Smug Civility was Infuriating”: Yale Editorial Denounces the Politeness of Pro-Life Students; Questions Right to Speak on Campus
Quote:On occasion, we will discuss student editorials as an insight into the view of free speech on our campuses. This week, one such editorial has attracted attention from Yale Daily News due to its chilling statements about free speech. The editorial by Hyerim Bianca Nam is striking in its rejection of the core values of free speech and its expression of anger over the civility and logical arguments of pro-life students.
Bianca Nam unloads on fellow students who set up a table to discuss abortion issues. She describes the students as “inviting passersby to engage in logical debates about fetal personhood and abortion ethics.” She notes with frustration that “they were polite” and “they held their voices low and spoke slowly and calmly. They had relaxed, open smiles.”
Nam takes offense not just to their civility and politeness but also to the fact that they were allowed to speak at all on campus:
“Their smug civility was infuriating; their invitations for debate, inflammatory. I could barely seethe out my opinion about the misogyny of holding such a debate at all…
The discussion never should have been entertained, because simply opening space for this ‘logical, respectful’ debate itself is a threat to human rights that should never be up for debate…
Some arguments aren’t worth engaging with, and quite frankly are dangerous for even existing.”
She added that “Yale should be more cognizant about the environment it fosters for women. We don’t need perfunctory celebrations of the anniversary of Yale’s women that accompany endorsements of misogynist dialogue.”
The editorial perfectly captures the rising intolerance and orthodoxy on our campuses. Nam insists that even allowing such debates is “an insult to our personhood, experience and rights.”
This is consistent with other editorials that we have previously discussed. A Berkeley columnist denounced civility and called for violent resistance. Dartmouth faculty and students demanded that the university shutdown a conservative newspaper. Wellesley editors endorsed shutting down conservative speakers and said that “violence may be warranted.” We have also documented repeated incidents where university newspapers have fired writers and editors for questioning Covid masks, challenging systemic racism claims, or holding other opposing views.
There has also been a repeated attack on civility as racist or reactionary. Even reporters at National Public Radio (NPR) have denounced civility as a “weapon wielded by the powerful.” Hillary Clinton has called for the end of civility toward any Republicans.
These morons have been "educated" by twisted individuals, who have given them a very strange reading of rights in our society.
The solution to speech you don't like is not to shut down speech, but rather have more speech. Free speech is not for issues everybody agrees on, it is for speech we disagree with. Those ideas have protection because they are not popular but do deserve to be heard.
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/04/14/th...on-campus/
If this is the kind of world that students are building for the future, then I'm glad that I'm entering the back nine of my life and won't have to live in it.Perhaps those holding these views will at some time regret it. But, I doubt it because their programming is so strong.
at 57.8, I’m on one of the best par 3s in the ‘sip at HCC #15 … a handful of years in #costa will be just dandy if I can make it to the 18th tee …
"Free Speech is when I say things and people agree. Disagreeing is censorship"
I don't see anyone wanting to censor this person's speech, even though it's clear she would be one of the first to "shut down debate" if she were ever in a position to do so.
Quote:“Their smug civility was infuriating; their invitations for debate, inflammatory. I could barely seethe out my opinion about the misogyny of holding such a debate at all…
The discussion never should have been entertained, because simply opening space for this ‘logical, respectful’ debate itself is a threat to human rights that should never be up for debate…
Some arguments aren’t worth engaging with, and quite frankly are dangerous for even existing.”
I personally like to know who the ******* crazies are so that my family and I can avoid them.
(04-18-2023 11:15 AM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]"Free Speech is when I say things and people agree. Disagreeing is censorship"
Seriously? That's what you got from reading that?
(04-18-2023 12:25 PM)appst89 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 11:15 AM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]"Free Speech is when I say things and people agree. Disagreeing is censorship"
Seriously? That's what you got from reading that?
That seems to be the issue here, yes. No one was censored, and Mr. blog boy got some content out of it to peddle to his outrage addicts. Win:win from my perspective.
(04-18-2023 12:39 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 12:25 PM)appst89 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 11:15 AM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]"Free Speech is when I say things and people agree. Disagreeing is censorship"
Seriously? That's what you got from reading that?
That seems to be the issue here, yes. No one was censored, and Mr. blog boy got some content out of it to peddle to his outrage addicts. Win:win from my perspective.
The issue is the general lack of civility and inability to respectfully debate viewpoints on college campuses. It's actually pretty common with leftists. The fallacies of many of their positions are so easily pointed out that the only thing they can do is shout down opposing speech or try to label it in a derogatory manner.
(04-18-2023 12:48 PM)bearcat65 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 12:39 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 12:25 PM)appst89 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 11:15 AM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]"Free Speech is when I say things and people agree. Disagreeing is censorship"
Seriously? That's what you got from reading that?
That seems to be the issue here, yes. No one was censored, and Mr. blog boy got some content out of it to peddle to his outrage addicts. Win:win from my perspective.
The issue is the general lack of civility and inability to respectfully debate viewpoints on college campuses. It's actually pretty common with leftists. The fallacies of many of their positions are so easily pointed out that the only thing they can do is shout down opposing speech or try to label it in a derogatory manner.
If I know you're wrong based on what you say, and you continue to insist that I take your logic seriously despite it clearly being a waste of everyone's time, why on earth would you expect me (or anyone else) to be civil?
Additionally, civility is one topic. Conflating the lack of civility with "censorship" is exactly how you get into a position where people ignore you and treat your words with the amount of respect they demand, much like the story in the OP.
So, what you're saying is that if you weren't an old fart, you'd be standing right there with those who don't believe other viewpoints deserve to be heard. Typical leftist.
Yet, nobody is trying to censor you here on the board.
Also, your comment on Mr. Blog Boy is pretty stupid. This was a column by Professor Jonathan Turley, certainly no conservative and obviously much smarter than yourself.
(04-18-2023 12:39 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 12:25 PM)appst89 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 11:15 AM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]"Free Speech is when I say things and people agree. Disagreeing is censorship"
Seriously? That's what you got from reading that?
That seems to be the issue here, yes. No one was censored, and Mr. blog boy got some content out of it to peddle to his outrage addicts. Win:win from my perspective.
Your perspective is pretty warped, as you've already demonstrated repeatedly here.
(04-18-2023 12:58 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 12:48 PM)bearcat65 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 12:39 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 12:25 PM)appst89 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 11:15 AM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]"Free Speech is when I say things and people agree. Disagreeing is censorship"
Seriously? That's what you got from reading that?
That seems to be the issue here, yes. No one was censored, and Mr. blog boy got some content out of it to peddle to his outrage addicts. Win:win from my perspective.
The issue is the general lack of civility and inability to respectfully debate viewpoints on college campuses. It's actually pretty common with leftists. The fallacies of many of their positions are so easily pointed out that the only thing they can do is shout down opposing speech or try to label it in a derogatory manner.
If I know you're wrong based on what you say, and you continue to insist that I take your logic seriously despite it clearly being a waste of everyone's time, why on earth would you expect me (or anyone else) to be civil?
Additionally, civility is one topic. Conflating the lack of civility with "censorship" is exactly how you get into a position where people ignore you and treat your words with the amount of respect they demand, much like the story in the OP.
So if someone tells me they are a woman when I can tell for a fact they are not then I can be uncivil?
"I'm right, you're wrong, f**k facts and logic, my feels rule. Now I'll scream at you and maybe assault you because I can't argue your points."
Pretty much what's wrong with the world right there.
(04-18-2023 01:09 PM)appst89 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 12:39 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 12:25 PM)appst89 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 11:15 AM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]"Free Speech is when I say things and people agree. Disagreeing is censorship"
Seriously? That's what you got from reading that?
That seems to be the issue here, yes. No one was censored, and Mr. blog boy got some content out of it to peddle to his outrage addicts. Win:win from my perspective.
Your perspective is pretty warped, as you've already demonstrated repeatedly here.
He's not to be taken serious...
(04-18-2023 01:08 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]So, what you're saying is that if you weren't an old fart, you'd be standing right there with those who don't believe other viewpoints deserve to be heard. Typical leftist.
No i'm saying everyone is allowed first amendment rights and free speech, not just the boomers too old to care about being correct.
You and every person in the story from the OP have the right to say whatever they want. They also have the right to say "that's the stupidest thing i've ever heard" and walk away, which is the part you seem to be confused about.
(04-18-2023 01:11 PM)bearcat65 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 12:58 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 12:48 PM)bearcat65 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 12:39 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 12:25 PM)appst89 Wrote: [ -> ]Seriously? That's what you got from reading that?
That seems to be the issue here, yes. No one was censored, and Mr. blog boy got some content out of it to peddle to his outrage addicts. Win:win from my perspective.
The issue is the general lack of civility and inability to respectfully debate viewpoints on college campuses. It's actually pretty common with leftists. The fallacies of many of their positions are so easily pointed out that the only thing they can do is shout down opposing speech or try to label it in a derogatory manner.
If I know you're wrong based on what you say, and you continue to insist that I take your logic seriously despite it clearly being a waste of everyone's time, why on earth would you expect me (or anyone else) to be civil?
Additionally, civility is one topic. Conflating the lack of civility with "censorship" is exactly how you get into a position where people ignore you and treat your words with the amount of respect they demand, much like the story in the OP.
So if someone tells me they are a woman when I can tell for a fact they are not then I can be uncivil?
Sure thing bud, have at it. Just don't cry censorship when people don't want to associate with you because of it.
Quote:Additionally, civility is one topic. Conflating the lack of civility with "censorship" is exactly how you get into a position where people ignore you and treat your words with the amount of respect they demand, much like the story in the OP.
Nobody conflated civility with censorship. I made some comments after the article attempting to speak to those who don't believe all viewpoints should be heard, like yourself, Kruciff. The leftist kneejerk response is to censor those whose viewpoints differ from theirs. My point was to have a conversation about those differing viewpoints - i.e. MORE speech, not censorship.
You've made clear you don't care for civility. Nobody conflated the two. You made that genius level leap all on your own. Reading is fundamental. Try it sometime. Then, try using your head for more than a hat rack.
(04-18-2023 01:17 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 01:11 PM)bearcat65 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 12:58 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 12:48 PM)bearcat65 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2023 12:39 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]That seems to be the issue here, yes. No one was censored, and Mr. blog boy got some content out of it to peddle to his outrage addicts. Win:win from my perspective.
The issue is the general lack of civility and inability to respectfully debate viewpoints on college campuses. It's actually pretty common with leftists. The fallacies of many of their positions are so easily pointed out that the only thing they can do is shout down opposing speech or try to label it in a derogatory manner.
If I know you're wrong based on what you say, and you continue to insist that I take your logic seriously despite it clearly being a waste of everyone's time, why on earth would you expect me (or anyone else) to be civil?
Additionally, civility is one topic. Conflating the lack of civility with "censorship" is exactly how you get into a position where people ignore you and treat your words with the amount of respect they demand, much like the story in the OP.
So if someone tells me they are a woman when I can tell for a fact they are not then I can be uncivil?
Sure thing bud, have at it. Just don't cry censorship when people don't want to associate with you because of it.
LOL. But their logic is flawed, I know what they are saying is wrong and it's waste of everyone's time so by you own words we do not have to be civil.
‘IF LIBERTY MEANS ANYTHING AT ALL, IT MEANS THE RIGHT TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO HEAR’ – ALEXANDER BUTCHER