I dont see much significance in people getting involved in a ding dong on a forum, maybe you do. Obama is President and has taken the time to talk about at least the possibility that students are being molly coddled. So presumably he feels it's worth talking about it.

Presumably, Obama thinks it is worth talking about the thing he talked about.

For the second time, Obama says zero about speech suppression and isn't even saying anything against safe spaces. That is a different viewpoint than was being argued earlier in this thread.

This is amazing. At least Shamey is willing to fess up to disagreeing with Obama (it's okay, really it is). But after days claiming there's nothing to see here, you are still claiming to agree with Obama? Then why have you continually refused to go through his quotes and explain how his views match yours?

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/201...ctness/405328/
Obama clearly articulates he believes there is a problem. Do you agree?

He continues:
Here Obama makes no bones about his disagreement with the need for trigger warnings, believing that they are tantamount to coddling students, and that protecting people from different points of view is not the way we learn. Do you agree?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...dogmatism.html
Obama seems to have a very different take on the subjects we've been discussing ITT than many of you guys. It appears he's read the same articles, seen the same examples posted ITT, and instead of dismissing them as a non-issue, or demanding even more examples, he has spoken out in favor of more dialogue and in condemnation of censorship, calling it a "recipe for dogmatism." Do you agree?

Nothing you quoted says he's against trigger warnings. Obama speaking out against disinvitations is not a counter argument to your own stats showing how totally rare and not a widespread problem it is. More awful posting and naked appeals to a non-authority.

Obama doesn't say anything about censorship.

Those quotes don't talk about speech suppression.

You conveniently ignore the whole paragraph where Obama advocates for some things that would fall under "creating safe spaces" or "eliminating triggers"

Obama directly says that if someone says something racist or bigoted, speak up, say its racist or bigoted. His idea of engagement isn't to politely listen to racist and bigoted viewpoints. Much of the tone policing about free speech on this message board involves complaining that racist and bigoted viewpoints are called racist and bigoted when that's exactly what Obama argues is standing up for the vulnerable (note: Obama does not consider protecting bigots on an internet message board as standing up for the weak and vulnerable)

So, no, Obama's viewpoint is not the one being espoused here.

Thanks, I forgot to mention he is also against disinvitations. What do you think he meant when he went on to say "...they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African-Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women. I gotta tell you, I don’t agree with that either. I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view."?

Whether or not Obama is an authority on this issue is irrelevant. He's one more opinion, and he's someone many of you claim to agree with, while clearly you don't. Why not just admit it and move on?

"And so when I hear, for example, you know, folks on college campuses saying, "We're not going to allow somebody to speak on our campus because we disagree with their ideas or we feel threatened by their ideas —" you know, I think that's a recipe for dogmatism. "

Obama is clearly talking about censorship.

Really I don't think I'll know how I feel unless that quote gets spammed at least a dozen more times.

No he is not. He's not saying the speaker is having their rights violated or are having their views censored. He's telling liberal college students they would be better off listening to viewpoints they disagree with.

He also would be 100% OK with students speaking up and saying that a speaker is saying bigoted things, which you complained earlier in the thread is censorship.

Not surprisingly, FoldNDark and Obama have very different views on free speech and safe spaces.

Well feel free to tell us what you think he is talking about.

Btw it's not an appeal to authority to be interested in what the president's views are. It's also a good focus for any topic.

Foldn, he's saying people should be more accepting towards views they disagree with. I agree with that. He's not saying rape victims shouldn't be told about the content of The Prince of Tides before reading it. Hope this helps.

Also I don't know wtf this "also against disinvitations" **** is, that's the only thing he was talking about. Disinvitations ARE the "censorship" he's talking about, and much like a politician talking about "the knockout game", the fact he's mentioning it doesn't make it a real, widespread problem.

Until someone shows me a concrete example of all this censorship FoldN is so worked up about, I really don't know. So far, the best anyone can come up with is some bigot not getting an honorary degree.

I'm also 100% with anyone speaking up if they feel a speaker is saying bigoted things, and like Obama, I encourage that discussion. You have a strange view of what censorship means if you don't think he's condemning it here. Even goofy is willing to concede that.


So assuming the knockout game is just a myth spread by the racist right wing media, if Obama took time on more than one occasion to publically speak out against it, you would probably take acception to that, right?

Um, no, earlier in the thread you complained that protesting bigoted speech was censorship. We've had 18 months of complaining that racist views on Mexicans and lucky duck slaves was inappropriate

FoldNDark and Obama, not surprisingly, have very different views of free speech and censorship as we have established numerous times ITT.

Another tell.

Uh, yes, we've been arguing about that for some time. In case you're not clear, I believe on many fundamental levels you have indefensible views on racism, both in definition and practice. When have I ever called for anyone to be banned? No, that's you guys always trying to ban people for disagreeing with you.

My goodness, is Foldn STILL quoting that same Obama passage over and over and over and over and feeling like he has won?

I'd assume his role as a politician is making him play dumb politics, but I'd still be disappointed because he should be smarter/better than that. From your performance ITT, however, you would look at an Obama quote saying "we shouldn't be violent towards others" and be like "HE'S TOTALLY SAYING THE KNOCKOUT GAME IS A REAL PROBLEM!!!11" much like you're twisting his words in the current quotes under discussion to assert they agree with you, when they don't. Just look at how you tried to say he's against trigger warnings above based on a quote that said nothing of the sort! Total, utter bull****.

So what are you arguing, those statements on Mexican circus music and lucky duck slaves weren't bigoted? Or that bigoted statements shouldn't be criticized?

Again, FoldN, at heart this latest obsession is you being angry that the world is becoming more PC and you can't bro out without being called on it.

Its just an extension of when you talked about how bitches be crazy or how you liked to drive drunk and got very defensive and upset when others said that drunk driving and describing sexual encounters as bitches be crazy. People giving you **** over that is not some existential free speech problem.

The tying it to Obama views that are very different than yours are a new twist, but its the same theme.

I mean, citation needed obviously, but to spoiler it, this is going to be like your disinvitations claim.

This forum has a liberal bent and "You guys" have probably called for a ban more than zero times, but banning for viewpoints is far from a widespread problem. What you really don't like is people taking Obama's advice and not letting bigoted statements go unchallenged.

Well, he's clearly against the idea we should be encouraging the use of trigger warnings. It's apparent he read the Atlantic article and agrees students don't need to be "coddled." That's also where I stand.

So if Obama decided to speak out against the knock out game, you'd be disappointed. Is it safe to say you're disappointed in his decision to publicly speak out about these issues?

The interview has a whole paragraph actually in favor of safe space/trigger sensitivities on college campuses.

Somehow it was accidentally omitted as non pertinent to this bizarre appeal to authority.

You need not go more than a page up to see citations of people calling for chez and I to be banned or exiled from P or idk for whatever silly reasons they can conjure in their minds and yours. To the rest, you're not arguing with me, as usual you're arguing with a strawman, and I have no interest in defending him.

So what indefensible views on racism are you talking about then?

Those reasons are explicitly not
Hell, posters are genuinely puzzled about chez point of view on any subject after 25,000 posts. How the heck could anyone be disagreeing with him?

Well then feel free to quote it bro! I've read it several times trying to figure out how my opinion is any different from his, where the disagreement ITT is coming from. So far the best I've got is that Obama is just pandering during a time when he will never need to win another election. Still only Shamey has had the stones to disagree with him about it.

Does the Atlantic have anything to say about The Knockout Game?