Berkeley "liberals" contra free speech

[untermensche]

It was done in response to learning how people felt.

.

It's a university. The whole point is to expose the students to new ways of thinking. Drag them out of their mental comfort zones.

Everything is wrong about your sentence. If people felt bad about him speaking they should have not attended the talk. Not riot about it.

Democracies are built on tolerance and respect for dissenting views. We are rapidly losing that ethos. It truly terrifies me.

Liberalism is built on protecting free expression. What will happens when it's biggest enemy is liberals. Conservatives, by tradition, have been against free speech. In the west they're often the only defenders of free expression.

You are confusing the ideals of a society at large with how a single university should operate.

Certainly in society people should be free to speak and publish their ideas.

To not allow it would be censorship.

But no University should be forced to allow people speaking on their campuses they do not want.

That is an infringement of their rights.

 

[iolo]

They should surely just have shot the bugger, like brave red-blooded Americans? In the back, naturally.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Nothing wrong with uninviting him, except that it was done in response to violence. It was the actions of the violence perpetrators that were anti free speech, not the school.

It was done in response to learning how people felt.

It was perfectly legal, just like the papers that wrote at length about Mohammed cartoons but refused to publish and show what they were talking about, due to the islamist violence.

Perfectly legal. Also perfectly cowardly, and perfect submission to and encouragement of violence.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You are confusing the ideals of a society at large with how a single university should operate.

I'm focusing on the ideals of learning. Which should be set apart and above the ideals of regular society. If people aren't intellectually challenged at universities, then what's the point? There's scores of famous student protesters from the 60'ies who have written articles about how fucked up it is today. Back in their day they had an actual reason to riot. Kids today don't. They just don't. The social problems and issues we have left to fix are too complex and subtle to fix with some simple changing of a law or two.

If a university doesn't feel comfortable about having an alt-right speaker talk then we're seriously in trouble. And it's not like it's left field. Trump won. This is something worthy of academic focus.

Certainly in society people should be free to speak and publish their ideas.

To not allow it would be censorship.

But no University should be forced to allow people speaking on their campuses they do not want.

That is an infringement of their rights.

Sure. I'm not arguing that. We shouldn't have to force them. They should have done this anyway. They should have stood their ground and insisted. Right now they fold at the slightest puff of liberal wind. And it is just wind. That's not how to educate free thinking future academics. If we keep this going universities will become irrelevant. Many argue that they've already become that.

And having state owned universities won't fix it. Sweden has that, and it's the same bullshit. This is an international scurge.

The big problem today is intolerance. I see these snowflake liberals as essentially the same as Trump supporters. Both are as stupid and intolerant. I can't identify a side I want to be on.

 

[untermensche]

I'm focusing on the ideals of learning.

No you're not.

Because the real lesson here is if people join together they can make the world around them better.

You want to deny people this right.

You are supporting tyranny here. You want some entity to force Universities to allow people, they don't want, to speak.

 

[untermensche]

It was done in response to learning how people felt.

It was perfectly legal, just like the papers that wrote at length about Mohammed cartoons but refused to publish and show what they were talking about, due to the islamist violence.

Perfectly legal. Also perfectly cowardly, and perfect submission to and encouragement of violence.

Nobody's right to publish anything was infringed here.

Speaking requires space to speak in.

Speakers have no inherent right to all space.

 

[LordKiran]

I'm focusing on the ideals of learning.

No you're not.

Because the real lesson here is if people join together they can make the world around them better.

You want to deny people this right.

You are supporting tyranny here. You want some entity to force Universities to allow people, they don't want, to speak.

To be fair, denying people the ability to speak at your university, even if not strictly illegal still runs rather counter to the principle of academic freedom that allows for the free exchange of ideas.

I would not be keen to be a student at any school that filters out information either they or the local community don't want me to have access to.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It was perfectly legal, just like the papers that wrote at length about Mohammed cartoons but refused to publish and show what they were talking about, due to the islamist violence.

Perfectly legal. Also perfectly cowardly, and perfect submission to and encouragement of violence.

Nobody's right to publish anything was infringed here.

Speaking requires space to speak in.

Speakers have no inherent right to all space.

What you wrote above in no way addressed what I wrote above, so why quote me?

 

[untermensche]

No you're not.

Because the real lesson here is if people join together they can make the world around them better.

You want to deny people this right.

You are supporting tyranny here. You want some entity to force Universities to allow people, they don't want, to speak.

To be fair, denying people the ability to speak at your university, even if not strictly illegal still runs rather counter to the principle of academic freedom that allows for the free exchange of ideas.

I would not be keen to be a student at any school that filters out information either they or the local community don't want me to have access to.

Nobody was prevented from exposing themselves to the ideas of this speaker.

The speaker was prevented from speaking them in a place shared by many.

And it was based on the toxic ideas themselves, not any aspect of the speaker.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm focusing on the ideals of learning.

No you're not.

Because the real lesson here is if people join together they can make the world around them better.

You want to deny people this right.

You are supporting tyranny here. You want some entity to force Universities to allow people, they don't want, to speak.

The entity I want to force universities to book uncomfortable speakers is the quest for knowledge. The quest to have one's values challenged. Which, last time I checked, is what universities are for.

Joining up to silence dissenters is not making the world a better place. If they would have joined up and thrown a "let's all hate Yiannopolous party" and left it at that then I'd be fine. But they did their best to protest a man to simply express his views. That's when they lose my sympathy. Silencing people isn't what liberalism is supposed to be about. Not if we look the word up in a dictionary. Today of course it's hard to tell who's the liberal and who's the fascist. They're starting to look uncomfortably similar.

 

[untermensche]

Nobody's right to publish anything was infringed here.

Speaking requires space to speak in.

Speakers have no inherent right to all space.

What you wrote above in no way addressed what I wrote above, so why quote me?

It does address your points.

You made a very bad analogy that has no connection.

I put it in perspective for you.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I'm focusing on the ideals of learning. Which should be set apart and above the ideals of regular society. If people aren't intellectually challenged at universities, then what's the point? There's scores of famous student protesters from the 60'ies who have written articles about how fucked up it is today. Back in their day they had an actual reason to riot.

What were those reasons? In my alma matter we rioted every year at our homecoming football game and it was far more destructive. There is no longer a homecoming football game because of this.

Now onto my take. Is Yiannopoulos's speech going to be intellectually challenging? It's true that it does challenge the status quo, but is he really going to debate with intellectual honesty? Or is he going to call for the doxing of vulnerable individuals?

The social problems and issues we have left to fix are too complex and subtle to fix with some simple changing of a law or two.

What are some of these problems?

If a university doesn't feel comfortable about having an alt-right speaker talk then we're seriously in trouble. And it's not like it's left field. Trump won. This is something worthy of academic focus.

The University proper did not invite Yiannopoulos, the chapter of the College Republicans did.

That's not how to educate free thinking future academics. If we keep this going universities will become irrelevant. Many argue that they've already become that.

But aren't we having the same debate they are having? We are debating the limits of free speech, the point of rioting, and the value of ideas. To these students it is not purely a philosophical debate, but one unfolding in front of them. I think the discussion will be far richer because of it.

And having state owned universities won't fix it. Sweden has that, and it's the same bullshit. This is an international scurge.

Berkeley is a public university, so am I curious at to why this would fix it.

The big problem today is intolerance. I see these snowflake liberals as essentially the same as Trump supporters. Both are as stupid and intolerant. I can't identify a side I want to be on.

Then I would recommend you get involved in the issues rather then the rhetoric.

 

[untermensche]

No you're not.

Because the real lesson here is if people join together they can make the world around them better.

You want to deny people this right.

You are supporting tyranny here. You want some entity to force Universities to allow people, they don't want, to speak.

The entity I want to force universities to book uncomfortable speakers is the quest for knowledge. The quest to have one's values challenged. Which, last time I checked, is what universities are for.

Joining up to silence dissenters is not making the world a better place. If they would have joined up and thrown a "let's all hate Yiannopolous party" and left it at that then I'd be fine. But they did their best to protest a man to simply express his views. That's when they lose my sympathy. Silencing people isn't what liberalism is supposed to be about. Not if we look the word up in a dictionary. Today of course it's hard to tell who's the liberal and who's the fascist. They're starting to look uncomfortably similar.

What so-called "ideas" do you think this guy has that everybody isn't fully aware of?

He is not presenting new ideas. He is presenting ignorance masked in rhetoric.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

No you're not.

Because the real lesson here is if people join together they can make the world around them better.

You want to deny people this right.

You are supporting tyranny here. You want some entity to force Universities to allow people, they don't want, to speak.

The entity I want to force universities to book uncomfortable speakers is the quest for knowledge. The quest to have one's values challenged. Which, last time I checked, is what universities are for.

Joining up to silence dissenters is not making the world a better place. If they would have joined up and thrown a "let's all hate Yiannopolous party" and left it at that then I'd be fine. But they did their best to protest a man to simply express his views. That's when they lose my sympathy. Silencing people isn't what liberalism is supposed to be about. Not if we look the word up in a dictionary. Today of course it's hard to tell who's the liberal and who's the fascist. They're starting to look uncomfortably similar.

They (the University Administration) did not cancel the event because of uncomfortable speakers, they cancelled it for public safety. You can choose to believe that they used public safety as an excuse, or that they were looking for any reason to cancel, but Berkeley's chancellor issued a statement on Yiannopoulos's visit a few days before the event stating that he would be allowed to speak

 

[untermensche]

There it is, public safety.

The same thing the cops use to prevent people from protesting.

End of story.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

To be fair, denying people the ability to speak at your university, even if not strictly illegal still runs rather counter to the principle of academic freedom that allows for the free exchange of ideas.

I would not be keen to be a student at any school that filters out information either they or the local community don't want me to have access to.

Nobody was prevented from exposing themselves to the ideas of this speaker.

The speaker was prevented from speaking them in a place shared by many.

And it was based on the toxic ideas themselves, not any aspect of the speaker.

You have no argument.

It was based on violence and threats of violence. As soon as you realize that the root of this issue was violence and threats of violence this discussion may actually progress.

To deny the reason he was "uninvited" is insanity. Serious insanity.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Now onto my take. Is Yiannopoulos's speech going to be intellectually challenging? It's true that it does challenge the status quo, but is he really going to debate with intellectual honesty? Or is he going to call for the doxing of vulnerable individuals?

The growth of the alt-right is interesting. It is interesting to hear their views and to analyse them. It's interesting to meet an alt-righter face to face to ask them questions. Also, Yiannopoulos is one of the more verbal and intellectually rigorous representative of the alt-right. Granted that isn't saying much.

Also, and excellent opportunity for students to practice sophistry.

I read Mein Kampf. Not because I had Nazi leanings. But because I was curious what the man himself had to say. I read the Bible for similar reasons. Knowledge in itself is not dangerous. Which is super super super important for universities to understand. Just because you let a speaker talk at a university doesn't mean you agree with them.

About ten years ago a university in Sweden booked a series of really fucked up speakers with all manner of extreme views. Everything from militant Muslims to Neo-Nazis. The idea was to expose the students to extremist views that aren't cartoonish misrepresentations. You know, to learn why they are so dangerous. And then discuss it. The professor who invited them got fired. That is the scandal here. Not that they were invited.

It's worth repeating. There's a crisis of intolerance in the liberal world hampering learning.

The social problems and issues we have left to fix are too complex and subtle to fix with some simple changing of a law or two.

What are some of these problems?

Here's an example. Black Lives Matter. You know how compound interest works? If you're slightly better off than your neighbour and you work as hard as him you will get much richer than him. The effect is exponential. The growth of wealth in the industrial age has made this exponential effect all the greater. When slavery was abolished in USA the blacks had no chance in hell of ever reaching the same level of wealth as whites. This would have been true even without racism.

The problem is capitalism and how financial markets work. If we "solve" this problem we're also most likely to make everybody equally worse off. For blacks in USA it's lose-lose.

And relative wealth matters. We admire rich people. We want to be with them. And if a rich person says things we're more likely to listen. The chance of a black person to reach that clique is pretty damn slim. It's of course equally slim for the white working class. But whites can at least pretend and identify with the rich American elite.

So when we see a black man in America we're a hell of a lot more likely to assume he's poor and/or a criminal. It's a vicious circle that feeds and creates already existing racism. This is a bad thing. That's what the BLM movement is about. They have a valid gripe.

But what the hell do they want? I don't understand what it is they're trying to change? It's like they're walking around with signs saying "make it all better". Ok, fine. But they're not going to make the world a better place like that, or make anything better. It just seems to be a colossal waste of time.

I'm all for them demonstrating at their hearts content. Whatever makes them happy. But they're going to change fuck all like this. It's a pointless movement IMHO. And this is coming from a person who thinks black lives should matter more than they currently seem to do.

If a university doesn't feel comfortable about having an alt-right speaker talk then we're seriously in trouble. And it's not like it's left field. Trump won. This is something worthy of academic focus.

The University proper did not invite Yiannopoulos, the chapter of the College Republicans did.

It's a distinction without a difference.

That's not how to educate free thinking future academics. If we keep this going universities will become irrelevant. Many argue that they've already become that.

But aren't we having the same debate they are having? We are debating the limits of free speech, the point of rioting, and the value of ideas. To these students it is not purely a philosophical debate, but one unfolding in front of them. I think the discussion will be far richer because of it.

Let's hope so.

The big problem today is intolerance. I see these snowflake liberals as essentially the same as Trump supporters. Both are as stupid and intolerant. I can't identify a side I want to be on.

Then I would recommend you get involved in the issues rather then the rhetoric.

I'm just leaving it to arguing on the Internet. It's all the energy I have

 

[LordKiran]

Nobody was prevented from exposing themselves to the ideas of this speaker.

The speaker was prevented from speaking them in a place shared by many.

And it was based on the toxic ideas themselves, not any aspect of the speaker.

You have no argument.

It was based on violence and threats of violence. As soon as you realize that the root of this issue was violence and threats of violence this discussion may actually progress.

To deny the reason he was "uninvited" is insanity. Serious insanity.

Yes it is unfortunate that the university canceled a public speaker due to random acts of violence by an group of unidentified agitators but they can't help that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The entity I want to force universities to book uncomfortable speakers is the quest for knowledge. The quest to have one's values challenged. Which, last time I checked, is what universities are for.

Joining up to silence dissenters is not making the world a better place. If they would have joined up and thrown a "let's all hate Yiannopolous party" and left it at that then I'd be fine. But they did their best to protest a man to simply express his views. That's when they lose my sympathy. Silencing people isn't what liberalism is supposed to be about. Not if we look the word up in a dictionary. Today of course it's hard to tell who's the liberal and who's the fascist. They're starting to look uncomfortably similar.

They (the University Administration) did not cancel the event because of uncomfortable speakers, they cancelled it for public safety. You can choose to believe that they used public safety as an excuse, or that they were looking for any reason to cancel, but Berkeley's chancellor issued a statement on Yiannopoulos's visit a few days before the event stating that he would be allowed to speak

This is how a society becomes fascist. If people are afraid to speak out because they're afraid for their lives we should provide them with an army of police. The American government should have called in the national guard or something. Provided tanks and riot police free of charge. Free speech and free expression can't be just something we say. We have to mean it.

In Sweden we have an artist called Lars Vilks. He's created all manner of works of art and is famous in his own right. Not super famous. But famous in Sweden. One work of art he did was blasphemy. He insulted Mohammed.. but artistically. That made the shit hit the fan. And suddenly he was stalked by Islamic assassins trying to protect Allah's sensitive snow flake feelings. Apparently the creator of the universe is a huge baby. Who knew? Anyhoo, for Sweden the response was obvious. He is now constantly surrounded by an army of Swedish secret police. It costs the Swedish state a colossal amount of money. But the social value of what that police protection buys cannot be quantified in money.

If we have to self censor ourselves because we are afraid to fucking die, then we are no longer free.

http://www.scancomark.com/Scancomark fotofile/Vilks-cartoom.jpg

 

[untermensche]

Nobody was prevented from exposing themselves to the ideas of this speaker.

The speaker was prevented from speaking them in a place shared by many.

And it was based on the toxic ideas themselves, not any aspect of the speaker.

You have no argument.

It was based on violence and threats of violence. As soon as you realize that the root of this issue was violence and threats of violence this discussion may actually progress.

To deny the reason he was "uninvited" is insanity. Serious insanity.

The reason given was fear of future violence, not because of previous violence.

You have it backwards.