1. criticism =/= lip service comparison

2. even so, people have shown multiple times ITT why this comparison is not apt

Heheh, it's not an appeal to authority to point out how many civil rights leaders, professors and presidents of all colors, races, genders and sexual orientations make the same arguments I do. It is a good way to counter ad hominems though.

That is literally the definition of appeal to authority. SMP people are so ****ing bad at Philosophy it's hilarious.

But of course, you're lying about their arguments like 95% of the time, so lol FoldN, lol culture war losers in general.

FoldN, this is you. NSFW.

You're not special, and just because you aren't religious don't you dare think you can look down on evangelicals. At least they have ****ing principles and an internally consistent belief structure. They hate LGBT people because they honestly believe an omniscient and omnipotent being commands them to do so on pain of eternal torment.

You hate LGBT people because saying dumb **** about trans bathrooms really winds the libtards up on the internet.

I love LGBT people, and I fight for their rights. Nice argument though, very substantial. This is you Fly.

Either you accept the principle that some points of view do not deserve an equal hearing or you don't. If you don't then have fun listening to the arguments of the flat earth society. And there's a nice containment thread in SMP for lunatic fringe nonsense discussions that have been recognized as not deserving the equal hearing of threads of their own.

If you do accept that principle then it becomes a matter of discretion as to which points of view should be excluded from the main stage. That doesn't mean they are censored. There are plenty of sources where they can be perused by anyone interested.

So it becomes a matter of opinion. I don't blame the students for expressing theirs with as much passion as they can muster. They are up against the powerful authority of the administration and professors. They need something to level the playing field for the exchange.

PairTheBoard

So what about the other students right to listen? Are you saying it's cool for a group of passionate protesters to prevent students from learning? Totally fine for a group of nazis to parade through a debate and shut it down too by your rationale.

Btw, it is the definition of censorship to stop someone from speaking, or to steal newspapers. This is not even worth debating. Just because total censorship is practically impossible in the US, does not change what it is. Tell the Chinese oh it's cool that the govt censors the web, all you need to do is learn how to get around it. How? It's on the web, dummy.

This is the incredible part. You have multiple posters trying to engage you and you continue to handwave and/or ignore them.

Dude, I just challenged you to make an actual argument and you fell utterly flat on your face and repeated an appeal to authority. Like you didn't even pretend to try to make your own argument. It really is hilarious.

Is it censorship to not invite someone to speak?


TRY NOT TO APPEAL TO ANYBODY. USE YOUR OWN WORDS. WRITE YOUR OWN PARAGRAPHS. DON"T LINK HOUR LONG YOUTUBE VIDEOS.

You know you can't just make up rights, right?

The above is what I meant by the below:

In no intelligent universe is your response an actual response that addresses the points and advances the discussion.

Yes, multiple posters whose entire counter arguments consist of ad hominem attacks on my motivations and character. Those arguments are irrelevant to the discussion on free speech at universities, and I only do you a favor by pointing this out repeatedly so you can learn how to think. I'm afraid that's a fool's errand though.

Foldn straight up Poe's lawing it up in here with this dog poop approach to discussion.

No

The right to listen is a fundamental part of the right to freedom of speech. Trees and forests, yo.

Asking you to CONSTRUCT AN ARGUMENT ON YOUR OWN isn't an ad hominem attack, fold. THis is basic stuff. It is like the exact ****ing opposite.

See my follow up post, about your response to darkhorse MVP candidate PairTheBoard.

So, quoting my own post that I know you weren't responding to, but it's kind of staggering how little you seem to know about how universities work.

As a matter of pure pragmatic value, there actually have to be decisions made about who is heard at universities. The physics department could dedicate a fair share of time to me plagiarising comedians, or to perpetual motion advocates, or flat earthers, but unfortunately they have pressing concerns about standards of education and time and stuff.

This goes all the way back to those lolz about a student not getting time out of a lecture to go on a homophobic rant. That might have been the free speech absolutist solution to take the time to listen to him, but it's impractical and detrimental to learning because, you know, there are qualified and well regarded people that could be speaking to the class.

There's a system to get yourself heard at universities. It's a long process of research, publishing, and having people accept your work as valid or worthwhile. It's a long route if your work is extremely controversial, but that's the best system they've got.

So this works well for throwing out the need for absolute free speech and determining who works at unis, but how does it tie in to guest lecturers and special events? Largely the protests are going to be something in the form of: the university has limited resources, this guy's saying some crazy **** that's either widely discredited, largely unaccepted, or hostile to a number of students, you can't justify inviting people with this sheer lack of credibility. That's what largely underpins "it's offensive". This is why you keep getting asked for all the valid arguments that could be made but aren't. If there were a ton of research being suppressed that might be an actual problem.

Now there's going to be a bunch of fringe cases where we argue about the value of hearing opposing views, political views that aren't largely settled upon etc. but then we're back to students having every right to vocalise their dissent towards these figures. And, of course, the need for you to actually show that anyone important is getting barred from speaking at any significant rate. I can certainly think of a few speakers off the top of my head that face protests but get to speak anyway because of the value of their work.

But at the very least can we move away from the idea that we have no basis to decide who's extremist or backwards? Academic consensus is a thing and I get that it sucks for the racists or anti-feminists to not be able to short cut the system and get access to large audiences before they've done any of the actual work real academics do, but **** them.

No, it's not! Literally the link explains what the ad hominem fallacy is, so you took all the steps necessary not to embarass yourself.

FoldN, when you say you fight for their rights, can you elaborate?

Sharing Milo youtubes does not make you a LGBT advocate!

This way, he doesn't have to attempt spelling it. It's a smart move, really.

Yes, but the academic consensus in the case PTB and I were discussing was to have the speaker who was shouted down by students, preventing the school from doing the job they set out to do: sharpen their students minds. Protest is great, so is civil disobedience, a group of students forcibly deplatforming a speaker is just fascism, no matter how great the cause.

lol "forcibly." No one has a right to speak at a given private venue, and no one has a right to get to hear them there.

This is what you do non stop, it is your best tool. It is also the go to tool for much of the forum, and represents about 50% of the argument ITT, which is why I sometimes enjoy just trolling you. But, alas, I'm running out of points with Wookie, who allows you and others to troll at will, make personal attacks, and generally just spam up this thread. So my best response is no response, otherwise get banned like anyone else who gives arguments Wookie dislikes. Not sure why Mat puts up with this farce of a forum, he must not care.

Uh, the university invited the speaker, and then while introducing him, the students stood up and shouted until they cancelled the speech. I suppose the officials could have forced the students to leave, but I assume they figured that would be too heavy handed. So they were forced to cancel instead.

Interesting. So if I don't invite somebody as I don't want to promote their noxious views, that isn't censorship. But if I protest as I don't want their noxious view promoted when someone else invites them, that is censorship?

Like this is an actual opinion you hold? Safe it to say you have devalued the word "censorship" entirely of meaning.



You are welcome to explain how this:

violates "right to listen".

Protesting things is bedrock american values, dude. I'm not sure why you are so anti-free speech.