Free speech derail from The Rise of Christian Nationalism

[steve_bank]

Those are politcal quetions.

From what is going on Seattle I am far more worried about progressives in power. WE have a woman on te progressive city council who said explity sge wnats to tear down the system and relace it with her own vision.

Durung the riots she unlocked city hall at night letting peole in.

There has been a steady progressive attack of free speech especially in colleges and universities since the early 90s. Cinservative speakers not allowed. One of the worse case is Evergreen State College here in Washington. Overt suppression of free speech deemed contrary to progeiives by taechers resulting in firing. A weekend was designated black only on campus. A white tecacherr called that biased and went on campus, and got fired.

An ideology being taught in primary education for which parents do not have a say in. Teachers and the union decidng wgar is 'right' to teach.

For the record I am an independent centrist.

The left threat is more subtle thraet than the violent right. Both are equal threats.

 

[Hermit]

There has been a steady progressive attack of free speech especially in colleges and universities since the early 90s.

The concerted campaigns against Critical Race Theory and the systematic culling of books in school and public libraries deemed dangerous by regressives is much more of a worry than the shouting down of some right wing speaker by a bunch of excitable students.

Cinservative speakers not allowed. One of the worse case is Evergreen State College here in Washington. Overt suppression of free speech deemed contrary to progeiives by taechers resulting in firing.

Neither Bret Weinstein nor Heather Heying were fired. They resigned. Although both complained bitterly that freedom of speech was at issue, it actually was not. Weinstein attracted the ire of students because he decided to ignore the college's decades-old tradition of observing a "Day of Absence".

An ideology being taught in primary education for which parents do not have a say in.

Apologies for the derail, southernhybrid, but I cannot leave the nonsense steve_bank posted go unchallenged. As for the WaPo article, I read it all. Worthy as it is, the only thing I did not know already is the existence of a broad-based organisation, the Congressional Freethought Caucus headed by a caucus of 16 members of the Democratic Party, which is focused on opposing White Christian Nationalism in an endeavour to safeguard secular democracy in the USA.

 

[Metaphor]

Weinstein attracted the ire of students because he decided to ignore the college's decades-old tradition of observing a "Day of Absence".

That is not what happened.

The college, in the year in question, decided to change the tradition from one of 'black people voluntarily absenting themselves from campus' to symbolise the importance of black labour to the functioning of a community, to 'white people are banned from campus for this one day'. Weinstein rightly pointed out, in an email, the problems with this new twist on the tradition.

 

[laughing dog]

Weinstein attracted the ire of students because he decided to ignore the college's decades-old tradition of observing a "Day of Absence".

That is not what happened.

The college, in the year in question, decided to change the tradition from one of 'black people voluntarily absenting themselves from campus' to symbolise the importance of black labour to the functioning of a community, to 'white people are banned from campus for this one day'. Weinstein rightly pointed out, in an email, the problems with this new twist on the tradition.

You have the facts wrong. White people were not banned from campus, but asked not to come to campus.

 

[Metaphor]

Weinstein attracted the ire of students because he decided to ignore the college's decades-old tradition of observing a "Day of Absence".

That is not what happened.

The college, in the year in question, decided to change the tradition from one of 'black people voluntarily absenting themselves from campus' to symbolise the importance of black labour to the functioning of a community, to 'white people are banned from campus for this one day'. Weinstein rightly pointed out, in an email, the problems with this new twist on the tradition.

You have the facts wrong. White people were not banned from campus, but asked not to come to campus.

Re-reading the Wikipedia article, you are correct. However, my recollection of events was far closer to correct than Hermit's.

From Wikipedia:

The change to the event asked white participants to stay off campus, to attend a program on race issues, while the on-campus program was designated for people of color.[15] Weinstein wrote that the change established a dangerous precedent:


There is a huge difference between a group or coalition deciding to voluntarily absent themselves from a shared space in order to highlight their vital and underappreciated roles.... and a group encouraging another group to go away. The first is a forceful call to consciousness, which is, of course, crippling to the logic of oppression. The second is a show of force, and an act of oppression in and of itself.
— Bret Weinstein, in a message to event organizer, Rashida Love[16]

The event organizers responded that participation was voluntary and that the event did not imply that all white people should leave.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course, Evergreen State College's gross mismanagement of the events of 2017, and its craven capitulation to the ideological maniacs on its own campus (and idiotic self-indulgence of its own "critical racists" in its faculty and administration) has ensured its continual decline, from 3,907 students in the Fall of 2017 to 2,116 in Fall 2021.

As I do not doubt the campus is openly hostile to men, it has not only faced a precipitous drop in students overall, but of male students in particular, with gender diversity on campus collapsing over the same time period.

Somebody in ESC's diversity and rainbows industrial-complex has slipped up, though. Its 'diversity' webpage uses the morally correct, American-imperialism wokelogism of 'Latinx', but clicking on the document shows rampant use of the words 'Hispanic' and 'Latino'!

 

[Hermit]

my recollection of events was far closer to correct than Hermit's.

Yes, I did miss the change in the college's decades-old tradition of observing a "Day of Absence", but that was not a detail of concern when I replied to @steve_bank's post. For someone who describes himself as an independent centrist his regurgitation of right wing drivel, such as this entire post makes me wonder just how far centrism can be stretched.

Cinservative speakers not allowed. One of the worse case is Evergreen State College here in Washington. Overt suppression of free speech deemed contrary to progeiives by taechers resulting in firing.

His belief in such factually wrong story contributes to him being far more worried about progressives in power, which is why I replied

Neither Bret Weinstein nor Heather Heying were fired. They resigned. Although both complained bitterly that freedom of speech was at issue, it actually was not. Weinstein attracted the ire of students because he decided to ignore the college's decades-old tradition of observing a "Day of Absence".

So what, if "Day of Absence" now (since 2017) means that white people should voluntarily absent themselves from the campus?

 

[Metaphor]

my recollection of events was far closer to correct than Hermit's.

Yes, I did miss the change in the college's decades-old tradition of observing a "Day of Absence", but that was not a detail of concern when I replied to @steve_bank's post. For someone who describes himself as an independent centrist his regurgitation of right wing drivel, such as this entire post makes me wonder just how far centrism can be stretched.

Cinservative speakers not allowed. One of the worse case is Evergreen State College here in Washington. Overt suppression of free speech deemed contrary to progeiives by taechers resulting in firing.

His belief in such factually wrong story contributes to him being far more worried about progressives in power, which is why I replied

Neither Bret Weinstein nor Heather Heying were fired. They resigned. Although both complained bitterly that freedom of speech was at issue, it actually was not. Weinstein attracted the ire of students because he decided to ignore the college's decades-old tradition of observing a "Day of Absence".

So what, if "Day of Absence" now (since 2017) means that white people should voluntarily absent themselves from the campus?

You wrote:

Although both complained bitterly that freedom of speech was at issue, it actually was not. Weinstein attracted the ire of students because he decided to ignore the college's decades-old tradition of observing a "Day of Absence".

Your characterisation is wrong and misleading. Weinstein did not ignore it: the college actively went against its own tradition. If anybody 'ignored' the tradition, it was the college administration.

It was then Weinstein's speaking out (in a staff email, mind, not to students) on this subject that caused the furore that followed and indeed made his continued employment at the college untenable. Over something he said. If that doesn't count as a free speech issue, I don't know what does.

EDIT: Weinstein expressed very eloquently why the change to the "day of absence" tradition was practically antithetical to the point of the tradition. In fact, I don't know how it has been practised since then, since ESC appears to have cancelled it for 2018 but I don't know what has happened since.

I would not be surprised if ESC has stuck to its guns since then, though, because religious madness does not respond to reason.

 

[Hermit]

my recollection of events was far closer to correct than Hermit's.

Yes, I did miss the change in the college's decades-old tradition of observing a "Day of Absence", but that was not a detail of concern when I replied to @steve_bank's post. For someone who describes himself as an independent centrist his regurgitation of right wing drivel, such as this entire post makes me wonder just how far centrism can be stretched.

Cinservative speakers not allowed. One of the worse case is Evergreen State College here in Washington. Overt suppression of free speech deemed contrary to progeiives by taechers resulting in firing.

His belief in such factually wrong story contributes to him being far more worried about progressives in power, which is why I replied

Neither Bret Weinstein nor Heather Heying were fired. They resigned. Although both complained bitterly that freedom of speech was at issue, it actually was not. Weinstein attracted the ire of students because he decided to ignore the college's decades-old tradition of observing a "Day of Absence".

So what, if "Day of Absence" now (since 2017) means that white people should voluntarily absent themselves from the campus?

You wrote:

Although both complained bitterly that freedom of speech was at issue, it actually was not. Weinstein attracted the ire of students because he decided to ignore the college's decades-old tradition of observing a "Day of Absence".

Your characterisation is wrong and misleading. Weinstein did not ignore it: the college actively went against its own tradition. If anybody 'ignored' the tradition, it was the college administration.

It was then Weinstein's speaking out (in a staff email, mind, not to students) on this subject that caused the furore that followed and indeed made his continued employment at the college untenable. Over something he said. If that doesn't count as a free speech issue, I don't know what does.

Neither Bret Weinstein nor Heather Heying were fired, nor were they pressured into resigning. Evergreen State College did nothing to impede their freedom of speech. The pair was shouted down by 50 over-exited (and in my opinion belonging to the lunatic fringe of the left) students, which the campus administration could do nothing about without impinging on their freedom of speech right in turn.

 

[Keith&Co.]

which the campus administration could do nothing about without impinging on their freedom of speech right in turn.

No, they couldn't.
Free Speech is a right that protects you from being shut down by the government.
Any free individuals, organizations, or business denying to provide a platform for some person or group, is not and cannot be a Free Speech violation. It is, infact, the exercising of free speech held by the individual, organization, or business.

 

[Metaphor]

which the campus administration could do nothing about without impinging on their freedom of speech right in turn.

No, they couldn't.
Free Speech is a right that protects you from being shut down by the government.
Any free individuals, organizations, or business denying to provide a platform for some person or group, is not and cannot be a Free Speech violation. It is, infact, the exercising of free speech held by the individual, organization, or business.

The quote nesting misattributes what you are quoting, but Evergreen State is a state college and not a private one.

 

[prideandfall]

For the record I am an independent centrist.

for the record, no you aren't. you never have been.
you are a completely boring run-of-the-mill paranoid reactionary regressive right-wing ditto who parrots whatever idiocy on FOX news that week, and you always have been for all the many years you've been posting here.
(well to be more specific, the content of your posts here are that. what you are, i have no idea as i'm not a telepath)

The left threat is more subtle thraet than the violent right. Both are equal threats.

the left "threat" is the barest fraction of a tiny shred of the sort of cultural weight-throwing that the right has been doing since pretty much the inception of humanity.
the difference is that the 'threat' posed by the left is that you might not be able to spit on a black person in the street and call them a nigger anymore, or some people might have to acknowledge that literal hundreds of years of legal and cultural oppression of certain segments of the population have had long-lasting consequences that are still in effect today and need to be dealt with.

 

[prideandfall]

The quote nesting misattributes what you are quoting, but Evergreen State is a state college and not a private one.

utterly irrelevant.

in the US, the concept of "free speech" is the federal government won't arrest you for saying things.
that is the beginning, the end, and the totality of what "free speech" means in terms of US law.

short of the federal government arresting you for saying things, it is not a "free speech" issue.

 

[Metaphor]

The quote nesting misattributes what you are quoting, but Evergreen State is a state college and not a private one.

utterly irrelevant.

in the US, the concept of "free speech" is the federal government won't arrest you for saying things.
that is the beginning, the end, and the totality of what "free speech" means in terms of US law.

short of the federal government arresting you for saying things, it is not a "free speech" issue.

Is that all you think is worth discussing about the freedom of speech?

 

[Trausti]

The quote nesting misattributes what you are quoting, but Evergreen State is a state college and not a private one.

utterly irrelevant.

in the US, the concept of "free speech" is the federal government won't arrest you for saying things.
that is the beginning, the end, and the totality of what "free speech" means in terms of US law.

short of the federal government arresting you for saying things, it is not a "free speech" issue.

Is that all you think is worth discussing about the freedom of speech?

A generation ago, it was left-leaning people who must forcefully defended both the law and value of freedom of speech. Our current crop of leftists have taken the opposite view. Leftist fascism?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A generation ago, it was left-leaning people who must forcefully defended both the law and value of freedom of speech. Our current crop of leftists have taken the opposite view. Leftist fascism?

Thank-you General Pettus for that cogent response.

 

[Hermit]

A generation ago, it was left-leaning people who must forcefully defended both the law and value of freedom of speech. Our current crop of leftists have taken the opposite view. Leftist fascism?

Fighting fascism is fascistic now, is it? Looks as though you have not heard of the paradox of tolerance.

I also regard hate speech and incitement to violence as disqualified from the protection of toleration and the right to free speech. And yes, I know there is a problem with all of that. It is that definitions of who is a fascist or a racist, and what constitutes hate speech or incitement to violence can - and has been - stretched beyond acceptability.

 

[prideandfall]

Is that all you think is worth discussing about the freedom of speech?

in this case since "freedom of speech" is being used (incorrectly, on top of everything else) as nothing more than a dog-whistle to bitch about the fact that regressive fascist voices aren't handed a platform upon which to spout their bullshit to the public, then yes the fact that you people don't even know what the term means is the only thing worth discussing.

 

[prideandfall]

A generation ago, it was left-leaning people who must forcefully defended both the law and value of freedom of speech.

10 generations ago, it was right-leaning people who most forcefully tried to use government to codify oppression, and stifle not just the means but the capacity and capability for free speech.
9 generations ago, it was right-leaning people who most forcefully tried to use government to codify oppression, and stifle not just the means but the capacity and capability for free speech.
8 generations ago, it was right-leaning people who most forcefully tried to use government to codify oppression, and stifle not just the means but the capacity and capability for free speech.
8 generations ago, it was right-leaning people who most forcefully tried to use government to codify oppression, and stifle not just the means but the capacity and capability for free speech.
6 generations ago, it was right-leaning people who most forcefully tried to use government to codify oppression, and stifle not just the means but the capacity and capability for free speech.
5 generations ago, it was right-leaning people who most forcefully tried to use government to codify oppression, and stifle not just the means but the capacity and capability for free speech.
etc etc etc.

if after 500 years of regressive authoritarian bullshit being given utterly free reign within society means that in the last 10 years those who have been traditionally marginalized are pretty much sick of your bullshit and no longer giving you an uncriticized public platform from which to spout your rhetoric, well then i guess maybe sometimes eventually actions have consequences.
insofar as nazis can't go marching in the streets anymore without a group of folks being like "hey, maybe fuck off with the nazi thing, hm?"

Our current crop of leftists have taken the opposite view. Leftist fascism?

well aside from the completely expected lack of understanding of what the word fascism means, or the concept of 'free speech', or i'd wager what the word 'opposite' means, you're wrong in every conceivable way.

 

[Metaphor]

Is that all you think is worth discussing about the freedom of speech?

in this case since "freedom of speech" is being used (incorrectly, on top of everything else) as nothing more than a dog-whistle to bitch about the fact that regressive fascist voices aren't handed a platform upon which to spout their bullshit to the public, then yes the fact that you people don't even know what the term means is the only thing worth discussing.

"You people".

Yes, American chauvinism is alive and well. "Free speech" is what Americans say it is.

The idea that Weinstein is a regressive fascist voice is so far beyond reason I'm quite sure you don't even take yourself seriously.