and it's constructive so it's not just going round in circles.


You can if you like but it's not constructive and just goes round in circles. I gets some people enjoy the personal stuff, as do I of course. Nice to have some constructive stuff in there as well and recognise that people do enjoy reaching conclusions for fun because they are fun rather than because they are quite as reasonable as they like to make out.

The Horrific 'Deplatforming' of Remigio Pereira

I actually experienced this horrific 'deplatforming' in person. *shudder*

Source.

No, deplatforming David Duke is an example you brought up. It has not actually occured on campus anytime recently (or ever?) so it simply serves as an extreme theoretical example to test the bounds of free speech, a philisophical question, and you may recall it was you who suggested I take such conversations to SMP. I'll be glad to defend David Duke's right to speak anywhere he's invited, but you're probably right that such arguments should occur elsewhere to avoid distracting from real world political discussion.

So, in effort to find common ground and move forward with this conversation about real world politics, I asked you if you at least agreed with what we can both be certain Obama has publicly objected to: the deplatforming of speakers at universities over the past couple years. You've been very coy about answering that question. So again, a few of Obama's many words on this subject:


I hate to have to ask for a yes or no here, but considering your constant deflections, guys like Shamey trying to muddy the waters by weirdly putting his descriptions of event in quotes, and general equivocations everywhere, do you agree with me that Obama thinks the student activists of the last year or two were wrong to deplatform speakers, and do you agree with him? Yes or no?

I'm still more than a little baffled that the putative free speech advocates in the room are being mad at peaceful protests of the clearly fair game person that is condi. Is "no, no, you can only protest in this manner" really the new rallying called of fold and his ilk?

Can you describe some of the hate speech you've heard or heard of in UK lately that you believe deserves to be criminalized? Are gangs of britons going around shouting racial epithets at immigrants in the streets, or worse? What is the atmosphere there like?

I think I agree with Obama less than before; Wookie's argument that students are well within their rights to protest one of the architects of the Iraq War speaking at their commencement won me over.

I'm not trying to muddy the waters by scare-quoting 'deplatform'. I'm highlighting the fact that it's a propagandic snarl word used by the astroturfers@thefire.com, and their ilk. B.Obama doesn't use this alleged term, because he's not a fool.

So, the answer to your stupid question is 'no'. B.Obama has never offered an opinion regarding 'deplatforming' to students, or anyone else. Where do we go from here? Well I'll ask you what you mean by 'deplatforming', and you'll have a ~250 post mental meltdown like the last time you tried this propagandic snarl word game (remember: 'far left').

What's the point anyways: you're asking if B.Obama has some opinion, and if MrWookie agrees with this opinion. Why not cut out the middle man, and just ask MrWookie directly if he agrees with the opinion ??

I mean, if your principles are not refined enough to have an answer to a relatively straightforward and germane hypothetical, then lol. Why do you think you are excused by lack of foresight for having an inconsistent answer to an admittedly extreme but also blatantly obvious case? If you now think students should be subjected to David Duke at their own commencement and should sit quietly while enduring him for their own benefit, then let us lol at you for reversing your self-contradiction as soon as it was pointed out.

Let's go to the tape.

You asked me a direct question about a hypothetical case!

I answered it, explicitly being extreme for the sake of argument.

And your initial response is not that David Duke should be allowed to speak, but that dis-inviting him somehow doesn't even meet your definition of "deplatforming" or that booing him constitutes "shouting down." That is nonsense. The fact that this has not happened is completely irrelevant to your blatant logical inconsistency. You instead try to appeal to speakers that are closer in merit, but that is inconsistent with the principle you first laid out. It also completely undermines your argument that you state now, that you would argue for David Duke being able to speak just as you would argue that Condy should.

From Foldn's quote box for Obama

Obama -
"There will be times when you shouldn’t compromise your core values, your integrity, and you will have the responsibility to speak up in the face of injustice."

I think Obama would agree without equivocation that one of those times he's talking about speaking out (protesting) would be if David Duke were invited to speak at commencement. Once you recognize that principle it becomes a matter of opinion on when it properly applies. People of good will can disagree. As I've said before itt the pendulum may have swung too far in which case it will self regulate. Obama's input is part of that process along with a lot of discussion within Universities. It's all part of free speech rather than a threat to it.

PairTheBoard

I don't know why this is so hard for every one of you. Of course the students are within their rights to protest. I, you, Wookie and Obama agree. What they are protesting against is what is being criticized, and I can see how that would be confusing a bit, but sheesh, after about twenty times clarifying this I'm beginning to wonder if it's not purposeful ignorance. That's a lie. I've suspected from the start.

Obama and I, while we may agree with the protesters about most of the things they are protesting for, namely civil rights, we don't agree with one of them, namely, stopping speakers they disagree with from being heard.

This is clearly what is being discussed ITT with regard to deplatforming or shouting down speakers no matter how much some posters want to deflect. This is clearly what Obama and I object to, and what Wookie, who claims to agree with Obama, is stumbling with.

He is obviously calling on them to engage in discussion there. To fight bad ideas with good ones. Take that quote in context:

He's telling them you can't win by shutting down opponents' speech. You cannot deplatform the world. Obama couldn't be more clear here from that same quote:

This is a supremely stupid distinction. If students protest and the university reacts by saying "wow, our students are really unhappy with this speaker, maybe we should have someone else speak" you're furious. If students protest and the university doesn't do this, you're happy and think it's a great expression of democracy. The only thing that changed is the behavior of the university, but you're upset with the students!

Yes, you are criticizing the Rutgers Anti-"Free Speech" haters for protesting against war-mongering. We all get that.

But here's thing, just because you're pro-warmongering, and feel a need to whine about others disagreeing with you... why should I care? I'm anti-warmongering, and I think the 'deplatforming' the Rutgers Anti-"Free Speech" haters did was righteous.

I don't know why this is so hard for you. Why are you trying to 'deplatform' those who disagree with you?

Hahaha even with chezlaw trying to coach him FoldN still can't escape getting exposed

^^^ This is gold.

This is what I don't get. The Rutgers admins 'deplatformed' the anti-warmongers by giving a pro-warmonger (C.Rice) exclusive use of the platform. FoldnDark has no problem with this 'deplatforming' at all.

The anti-warmongers, the actual victims of the Rutgers admin's 'deplatforming', turn the tables and 'deplatform' the pro-warmonger. FoldnDark pees his pants.

LMFAO.

lol I wasn't familiar with the details of the Condoleezza Rice incident: link

She removed herself from the equation! And FoldN is furious!

Condi agrees with Wookie!!!

I rarely watch Fox News. That doesn't mean I'm "shutting down" Fox News' speech. I'm simply changing the channel. That's what the students are doing. They are telling the administration as forcefully as possible to change the channel.

If the day ever comes when David Duke is invited to speak at commencement and students do not protest to high heaven then god help us. That would be something to truly worry about.

PairTheBoard

That's a rather 'trying to be mean' way to put it but maybe it also misses fundamental difference between you and I which is nothing to do with Foldn.

You don't think getting people to be PC is of value do you? You would see it as a pretense taht needs to be exposed and a bad thing whereas I think it's a great thing because:

a) a racist pretending not to be racist/etc is good in itself -what people say and do matters
and
b) pretending makes it much more likely they will become.

(There's also the Wookian secret heart type view that there's no important difference between someone who successfully pretends not to be racist and someone who isn't racist).

FixedTheBoard

Again, nobody, even Obama, is telling students not to protest, just not to try to disinvite or shout down speakers. But you bring up a interesting point about the distinction between the reality of deplatforming on campuses today and the theoretical example you and Wookie are arguing.

Let's say a university did invite David Duke to speak at a commencement tomorrow. Let's set aside the chance he has had a "come to Jesus" moment and has renounced white supremacy, and assume he's there to promote it. Okay, well when that happens the students have a much larger problem than David Duke speaking, DUCY?

But since that hasn't happened, and won't anytime soon, let's talk about this in theory. Let's draw the line at David Duke. It's okay to deplatform him. Guess what happens next? David Duke is not an idea, he is a person. He has a ton of terrible ideas, but he may have had a few good ones too *gasp*. Like, once he probably told his kids to brush their teeth before bed. Not too bad. He may have even said a few other things that, while controversial, were not entirely wrong. Nobody but aholes listened because he's David ****ing Duke.

But now lets say someone else who entirely disagrees with David Duke about the virtues of white supremacy decides to make those same controversial, yet correct arguments. He is immediately compared to David Duke by his political rivals, plenty of non-thinkers and others afraid to stand up to the bullies fall in line, and another person is justified being deplatformed.

This is what is going on right now on college campuses, the internet, everywhere and it has always been the temptation. It's the reason the ACLU lost so many members when they fought for the right for Nazi's to march in Skokie, but have been vindicated by history, and it's why you have to stand up for principles of free speech for everyone in practice, not just in theory, or you risk losing them for everyone.

Obama's quote on deplatforming specifically looks dumber than ever in the context of what actually happened (she disinvited herself). He said you should instead have a conversation and hold their feet to the fire and ask them tough questions...which isn't something that's possible at a commencement speech. I agree with his overall sentiment but laugh at him choosing this specific incident to highlight.

The students and even some professors were not just protesting and accusing her of war crimes, but loudly demanding she not be allowed to speak at the university. This is what Obama and I disagree with. Furthermore, we can find tons more examples of this same activity leading to the outcome of actual disinvitation. Or even no-platforming lists of speakers backlisted by university student unions. For example, Myriam Namazie in schools in the UK. Her arguments against her religion are not welcome, despite the fact she is arguing for the civil rights for women and gays, etc.

...in which case you're mad at student protests for the actions of the university in rescinding the invitation.

And again, Wookie nailed (and Condi agrees with!!!!!!) the angle that a commencement speech is a place for celebration and inspiration.