Universities should be free speech zones!!!11!1one

[Metaphor]

That's dishonest.



That's a fallacious strawman.

by talking about whiteness negatively and fantasies of killing white people, i.e. thought crimes. Conservatives say they want her to lose her job, i.e. cancel her.[/COLOR]

Some conservatives may want her to lose her job, but you will have to be more specific. Khilanani is a self-employed clinical psychiatrist and has no employer to fire her. However, to practise medicine in NY state requires a license, so she could be 'cancelled' from practising medicine if NY state decides that she does not qualify to hold a license. It is up to NY to decide if Khilanani fulfills the requirements:

• be of good moral character;
• be at least 21 years of age; and
• meet education, examination and experience requirements.

I can't speak for "conservatives", but my part in that thread was to question Khilanani's fitness to minister to the mental health of white people. In fact, if it is true her practise is permanently closed, I would say the market has cancelled her. I'm not surprised--I would change physicians if I thought mine had fantasised about murdering white people and was enraged by them and had pet theories about the origins of my problems due to my race and had cut 99% of white people from her life. I have always supported consumers's rights to not spend money on things that do not suit them.

2. In another thread we learn academic freedom to question if trans people are evil is sacred and further universities can't be safe spaces. So shut up, snowflake.

I am an 'extreme' free speech advocate, so if there were actually some discourse that proposed that 'trans people are evil', my default position would be to let it be (or counter it with other speech) and not to forbid its utterance. But your characterisation is false; nobody at the University of Melbourne proposed that trans people are evil. Trans ideologues, have, however, objected to expressing the idea that "trans women are men", and to exploring the demarcation between treating trans people as if they were the sex they identify with for all purposes, or if it is proper to restrict trans people from access to some places where people are already divided by sex (for example, sports, women's prisons, women's intimate spaces, all-women shortlists, etc).

Now, it seems to me that universities have generally given free reign for some ideas to be promulgated (for example, that whiteness is psychopathic), and those ideas, while I find them both distasteful and false, I would not want a speech code banning them. It follows that I would not want a speech code banning ideas that I believe to be true.

3. Flipping this all around yet again, the thread on Juneteenth, a celebration of freeing slaves in US, got derailed by conservatives who felt victimized because their new draconian laws were criticized.

If prominent left-wing media figures have a problem with the new laws in Texas and Oklahoma and other places, they are perfectly welcome to criticise them with facts. But to criticise them with falsehoods is quite a different matter.

These laws in some instances applied to universities and stifle free speech and academic freedom, stifling discussion of modern racism.

You would have to point out the specific laws and clauses you are talking about, rather than this vague claim of 'stifling discussion' for me to address this.

Without discussing the details of all those threads, how do you explain the conservative "principle" here?

There's no uniting principle, conservative or otherwise, that links the three threads in the false way you've characterised them, but there would not need to be in any case. People can have multiple values and sometimes those values conflict. But you haven't even shown that there is an actual conflict. Here's the summary, I can:

* think that a guest lecturer who delivers a product that a university is not satisfied with doesn't need to be invited back, believe that her views are not immune to criticism, and that given her particular duty of care to her patients, her publically revealed theories and attitudes may prompt fair speculation about her fitness to treat people she is enraged by

* think that a university should not have a free speech policy that carves out an exemption for a particular group, or have a free speech policy with a shutdown mechanism triggered by mere claims of offense and harm

* think that media figures (or anybody) should peddle false narratives (either misunderstandings or lies) about the alleged affect of laws they don't like.

And there is no conflict between any of these positions.

None of your bullet list about your alleged personal views needs to be read or understood since it is irrelevant to why conservatives take the positions they do. I am not even going to look at how contradictory they may be since they are irrelevant.

Good luck with your honest, open-minded, and good-faith attempt to find answers about 'conservative' positions.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Good luck with your honest, open-minded, and good-faith attempt to find answers about 'conservative' positions principles.

FIFY. Thanks, if you come up with something that makes sense because it applies to conservative principles, please let me know.

 

[Metaphor]

Good luck with your honest, open-minded, and good-faith attempt to find answers about 'conservative' positions principles.

FIFY. Thanks, if you come up with something that makes sense because it applies to conservative principles, please let me know.

Perhaps when you find a conservative who holds all three imagined positions simultaneously, you can ask them.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Good luck with your honest, open-minded, and good-faith attempt to find answers about 'conservative' positions principles.

FIFY. Thanks, if you come up with something that makes sense because it applies to conservative principles, please let me know.

Perhaps when you find a conservative who holds all three imagined positions simultaneously, you can ask them.

Sure, Jan.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

By the way, all....

the right-wing cancel culture twitter mob decided to click 1-star on the psychiatrist's profile on HealthGrades over and over and over...

then on Twitter, they called for her to be fired from Yale even though she doesn't work for Yale...

Some combination of all events, and perhaps even some we do not know, led somehow to her practice closing permanently.

 

[Metaphor]

By the way, all....

the right-wing cancel culture twitter mob decided to click 1-star on the psychiatrist's profile on HealthGrades over and over and over...

then on Twitter, they called for her to be fired from Yale even though she doesn't work for Yale...

Some combination of all events, and perhaps even some we do not know, led somehow to her practice closing permanently.

In your opinion, do you think a clinical psychiatrist who fantasised about killing white people, is enraged by white people, thinks white people have 'five holes in their head' and are psychopathic, believes that white people's mental problems emerge as a product of their 'colonial guilt', and who has cut 99% of white people from her life, may be compromised in her ability to deliver mental health services to white people?

I'm asking because if I discovered those things about my doctor, I would stop seeing them. Yet nobody on that thread seems to think it's an issue.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

By the way, all....

the right-wing cancel culture twitter mob decided to click 1-star on the psychiatrist's profile on HealthGrades over and over and over...

then on Twitter, they called for her to be fired from Yale even though she doesn't work for Yale...

Some combination of all events, and perhaps even some we do not know, led somehow to her practice closing permanently.

In your opinion, do you think a clinical psychiatrist who fantasised

Full stop. Fantasies are thoughts, not necessarily desires.

about killing white people, is enraged by white people, thinks white people have 'five holes in their head' and are psychopathic, believes that white people's mental problems emerge as a product of their 'colonial guilt', and who has cut 99% of white people from her life, may be compromised in her ability to deliver mental health services to white people?

She sounds kind of stiff to me and needs to be more open about her feelings.

I'm asking because if I discovered those things about my doctor, I would stop seeing them.

Not me. I'd ask her what's up. After answers, if I felt like it somehow applied to me in some harmful way, I'd try to get it corrected. Failing that, I'd leave, but your question is a fantasy that you are having that she was harming you.

In reality she stopped seeing white clients, perhaps any clients due to the negativity that overtook her.

That seems to make your hypothetical irrelevant.

Yet nobody on that thread seems to think it's an issue.

This really isn't an opportunity to merge thread purposes. This is a different thread with a different purpose.

 

[Metaphor]

Full stop. Fantasies are thoughts, not necessarily desires.

I realise you are required by law to object to every single sentence I compose, but your commentary that 'fantasies are thoughts' contributes nothing.

Not me. I'd ask her what's up. After answers, if I felt like it somehow applied to me in some harmful way, I'd try to get it corrected. Failing that, I'd leave, but your question is a fantasy that you are having that she was harming you.

My question is not a fantasy. It's a question. I did not say Khilanani harmed me or is harming me. Khilanani is not my physician.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Full stop. Fantasies are thoughts, not necessarily desires.

I realise you are required by law to object to every single sentence I compose, but your commentary that 'fantasies are thoughts' contributes nothing.

It contributes a lot. Now please stop arguing to argue.

Not me. I'd ask her what's up. After answers, if I felt like it somehow applied to me in some harmful way, I'd try to get it corrected. Failing that, I'd leave, but your question is a fantasy that you are having that she was harming you.

My question is not a fantasy. It's a question. I did not say Khilanani harmed me or is harming me. Khilanani is not my physician.

It's a fantasy in a clinical and technical sense. Your objection is irrelevant because Khilanani stopped seeing white clients.

 

[Jarhyn]

Full stop. Fantasies are thoughts, not necessarily desires.

about killing white people, is enraged by white people, thinks white people have 'five holes in their head' and are psychopathic, believes that white people's mental problems emerge as a product of their 'colonial guilt', and who has cut 99% of white people from her life, may be compromised in her ability to deliver mental health services to white people?

She sounds kind of stiff to me and needs to be more open about her feelings.

I'm asking because if I discovered those things about my doctor, I would stop seeing them.

Not me. I'd ask her what's up. After answers, if I felt like it somehow applied to me in some harmful way, I'd try to get it corrected. Failing that, I'd leave, but your question is a fantasy that you are having that she was harming you.

In reality she stopped seeing white clients, perhaps any clients due to the negativity that overtook her.

That seems to make your hypothetical irrelevant.

Yet nobody on that thread seems to think it's an issue.

This really isn't an opportunity to merge thread purposes. This is a different thread with a different purpose.

Waitwaiteaitwait.... Hold the phone.

Like, I had this big row with metaphor in Philosophy/principles where I maintained people have a responsibility to police their own negative invasives because nobody else could or had the right, and that allowing rampancy of such invasives can overcome reason in times of stress; metaphor THEN at THAT time claimed that it was just thoughts/words and nothing that ought have moral aspersions arise as a result thereof.

I am now detecting a MASSIVE cognitive dissonance happening from that quarter...

So if you want some material you can nail them to the wall for, I'm pretty sure there's some there in the "can that's be immoral" thread.

 

[prideandfall]

Without discussing the details of all those threads, how do you explain the conservative "principle" here?

simple: there is no conservative "principle" - it's a dead ideology, a bloated corpse being paraded around by people who have a belief system rooted in the faith that it is a living vibrant being, who are too fragile to admit it's dead and move on with their lives.

"conservatism" in the US might have once been a thing that had some kind of ideological stance, but that basically ended in the mid '30s when the new deal proved conclusively that an ideology of elitism, denial of resources, and wage slavery was not in fact the best way to promote the future of human civilization.
since then, progressive liberalism is the only remaining political strategy in the US, with "conservatism" now simply being made of two parts:
A. owning the libs
B. jesus

that's all it has left - be reactionary and shitty to whatever the "other side" is doing but without providing any actual solutions or alternative plans, or just scream about whatever thing you don't like and then say 'because jesus!' to shut down any discussion on how retarded you are for having a problem with that thing in the first place.

when you realize this and apply it to their behavior, everything conservatives do makes perfect sense.

 

[Jarhyn]

Without discussing the details of all those threads, how do you explain the conservative "principle" here?

simple: there is no conservative "principle" - it's a dead ideology, a bloated corpse being paraded around by people who have a belief system rooted in the faith that it is a living vibrant being, who are too fragile to admit it's dead and move on with their lives.

"conservatism" in the US might have once been a thing that had some kind of ideological stance, but that basically ended in the mid '30s when the new deal proved conclusively that an ideology of elitism, denial of resources, and wage slavery was not in fact the best way to promote the future of human civilization.
since then, progressive liberalism is the only remaining political strategy in the US, with "conservatism" now simply being made of two parts:
A. owning the libs
B. jesus

that's all it has left - be reactionary and shitty to whatever the "other side" is doing but without providing any actual solutions or alternative plans, or just scream about whatever thing you don't like and then say 'because jesus!' to shut down any discussion on how retarded you are for having a problem with that thing in the first place.

when you realize this and apply it to their behavior, everything conservatives do makes perfect sense.

It can be really tempting to fall into the mindset of accepting this as gospel.

Then, to realize the problems with it, you have to observe that really, it's more that they've been taught all their lives that their sins are forgiven and that guilt no longer ought chain them.

At that point, they can do anything for Jesus and not see the issue.

 

[Gospel]

Yeah like screaming "Universities should be free speech zones!" & "Critical Race theory should never be mentioned in universities!" in the same breath.

 

[prideandfall]

It can be really tempting to fall into the mindset of accepting this as gospel.

i disagree with this on two fundamental levels:
1. there's no real mindset to fall into here, this is just an observable fact about reality.
2. "accepting it as gospel" is likewise an illogical statement, the same way claiming that acknowledging gravity is 'accepting it as gospel'

Then, to realize the problems with it, you have to observe that really, it's more that they've been taught all their lives that their sins are forgiven and that guilt no longer ought chain them.

oh i'm not talking about conservative adherents, i wasn't making any claims about *people* - those who buy into conservatism as either a moral philosophy or political strategy are just a tragic combination of benightedly stupid and intellectually vapid, though i wouldn't call most them intentionally malicious. though, i would posit that there comes a point where you can be fucktarded to the point where it becomes indistinguishable from being evil, and the history of the european colonial west and the US pretty much proves that.

i'm talking about conservatism in its more abstract forms, as either a moral philosophy or political ideology - the broad concept of social regression and economic malignancy that is the framework for a political movement opposed to progressivism.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

i'm talking about conservatism in its more abstract forms, as either a moral philosophy or political ideology - the broad concept of social regression and economic malignancy that is the framework for a political movement opposed to progressivism.

Well, that's interesting, too, but first before addressing that, let me say I agree with Jarhyn that religion plays a role in adherents' capacity to act hypocritically. That said, I think your description also is somewhat consistent with the observations cited in the op. My disagreement is very nuanced in that I wouldn't exactly call it "dead." First, I'd point to the origins of right-wing versus left-wing terms themselves which came from the National Assembly in France where the left was in support of a people's revolution and the right was in support of the king, religion, i.e. elite status-quo power structures. Over the centuries, ideological positions began fleshing out more, but the over-arching fundamentals of the left: equalization of people and destruction of hierarchies versus the right: retention of hierarchies and class structure have generally speaking remained. In my observations, just offhand, I'll name some methods that today's Republican Party utilizes in order to win voters because winning voters is a significant factor in retaining power: propagandizing which they are good at because of their financial capacity and their connection to religious leaders who look forward to brainwashed masses; throwing bones, like for example, tax cuts that the wealthy benefit from the most, they will also apply to enough non-wealthy so as to gain supporters; and wedge issues where they attempt to gain support from outside the Republican Party that is sometimes related to fear of those lower in the hierarchies and/or class structure who it may be unpopular in trends of the times even beyond the typical Republican base. When one considers that the conservative principles are actually about retention of power structure of the elite, then the bulleted items in the op are actually not logically inconsistent at all. They are, however, logically inconsistent with the stated principles of the moment that conservatives are told they are supporting and there are probably several factors that enable such hypocrisy such as just living in the world of instant gratification/latest outrage/groupthink echo chambers that is today's Internet political climate, and Doing It for Jeebus as Jarhyn brings up, among two. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[prideandfall]

That's my opinion anyway.

i don't disagree with anything there, excepting perhaps to point out that a lot of what you said is still relating to adherent's of the US conservative narrative, which isn't something i was intending to make a point about.

when i say it's a dead ideology i don't mean in terms of political power within the structures of the US (or the world), i mean intellectually - it's not an ongoing system that is adapting to the needs of society as they arise.
it's dead in the sense that the core concept of conservatism is incapable of facilitating governance of human civilization, it's the philosophical equivalent of the appendix: a vestigial sack that does nothing, serves no purpose or function, has no value or benefit, and all it's capable of doing is becoming notably infected and then exploding and potentially killing the host organism.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That's my opinion anyway.

i don't disagree with anything there, excepting perhaps to point out that a lot of what you said is still relating to adherent's of the US conservative narrative, which isn't something i was intending to make a point about.

when i say it's a dead ideology i don't mean in terms of political power within the structures of the US (or the world), i mean intellectually - it's not an ongoing system that is adapting to the needs of society as they arise.
it's dead in the sense that the core concept of conservatism is incapable of facilitating governance of human civilization, it's the philosophical equivalent of the appendix: a vestigial sack that does nothing, serves no purpose or function, has no value or benefit, and all it's capable of doing is becoming notably infected and then exploding and potentially killing the host organism.

So it's alive in the sense that it is doing something, but it's dead in the sense of brain dead. Perhaps, we should compromise and call it undead.

 

[Gun Nut]

See? If they aren't allowed to incite a race riot on campus, how come they aren't allowed to fire people for literal thought crimes?

Huh? This college fired a student radio station manager for a non-racist, factual tweet.
On the other hand, rank racism by non-whites does not lead to firings.

How is that just?

Also, you leftists defend racists like the psycho psychiatrist or Al Sharpton etc., but condemn white people for any transgression, no matter how minor or even imaginary.

This is what is wrong with the whackiest, looniest of the left... and flat out criminality and anti-american power grabbing through blatent and evil lies is what the whackiest and looniest of the right is doing.
Your 1% of the dumbest republicans versus our 1% of the dumbest democrats. How is that helpful?

You are "nut picking"... you pick out the nuttiest nut and call the entire tree too nutty. I'd agree with some of your nit-picked shit if you didn't try to apply it to the whole.

I'd recommend watching Bill Mauer... he is a lot like you.... hates the far left as much as the far right.... you hate the far right equally, right? Overly radical nonsense and all that?

 

[Elixir]

... you leftists defend racists like the psycho psychiatrist or Al Sharpton etc., but condemn white people for any transgression, no matter how minor or even imaginary.

Yeah, people of oppressed classes should STFU about it and let those nice confederate flag-waving tourists provide 2nd amendment solutions if the darkies complain about patriots trying to install the rightful winner of an election!

You right wing extremists definitely have all the right ideas.

 

[Mumbles]

It may be true that a student expressing hatred for racial/sexual/gendered groups will be broadly *unpopular* on campus, but "free speech" can come with unpopularity. When it comes to outright censorhip, it's usually the right that wants governmnents to lay into various subject - see the howling over "CRT" as another example.

Are you seriously proposing that "howling" is a form of censorship rather than a form of unpopularity?

Howling that the government should outlaw broad categories of speech is certainly contradictory to espousing "free speech". Not sure how that confuses you.

As far as wanting governments to lay into various subjects goes, by all means, show us the right's bill to jail people for promoting CRT. Are you one of those folks who's under the impression that having a free-speech right to speak your mind means you have a free-speech right to make the public pay you to speak your mind?

Actually, it's long established that university teachers have a broad right to free speech in lectures, aside from those that directly target students for harm. And I see little reason why school teachers should have to adhere to more than broad categories - fines for teaching about mere concepts (as we've seen in multiple states) is right out.

(Then again, while I think everyone will hit upon a contradiction in beliefs once in a while, I'm used to extremists being fundamentally incoherent and doing nothing to address their severe hypocrisies)