If a pro-apartheid poster joined this thread there is a 99% chance the thread would devolve into you arguing with the liberals that he doesn't really support apartheid, while at the same time he argued with liberals about whether apartheid was good. We've seen that movie before. It plays out the same way every time.

The 1% chance in these 99%s, of course, is that tiny sliver of hope you'll take your horrifying klansman's advocate act back to SMP. There is a zero point zero percent chance you would ever actually challenge a racist poster on the merits of their argument. Whether it's about slave rape, Hispanics ruining the neighborhood, Muslims ruining Europe, or whether institutional racism even exists at all, good ole' chezlaw always manages to logic and reason and civil discourse his way into the wrong side.

Lol. You and your straw world fly.

Getting more elaborate all the time. Well done.

That's a perfectly fine opinion. And plenty of people who criticized the decision in Ferguson would agree with you. It can be debated what sorts of limits to free speech should be allowed. I tend to think we should be very, very careful, and that the Supreme Court decision sends the wrong message in this regard that free speech is only okay when it's convenient to the state.

Speaking of angry mobs. I return to see there's one here. I'll admit to not being well versed on South African apartheid or the responses to it, including the academic boycott, but it's pretty illustrative of the level of discourse on this forum that posters would fully support academically boycotting as if they are experts on the matter and thoughtlessly trash anyone who would dare question it. Just a quick glance at wikipedia shows there was plenty of criticism within the anti-apartheid ranks similar to those I raised:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad...f_South_Africa
Additionally, it appears plenty of scholars afterwards think it was ineffective:

Like I said, I don't claim to be an expert, but it's pretty silly how quickly the typical reactionary types resort to invective instead of simply making their arguments. They're so very angry!

The only mindless poster is you FoldN. You didn't even realize South Africa didn't need to be taught western values because the place was a colony of western nations. You are WOAT.

Go back to SMP.

For someone who routinely drops 80's pop culture references, it's weird that FoldN has to turn to Wikipedia to look up what Apartheid was.

Seems like a pretty silly nit to me, but go ahead and replace "Western ideas" with "liberal ideas" in that sentence.

The important thing is that people weren't mean to those in favor of apartheid and acknowledged that their system of creating a system of racial segregation had some validity. If people had said mean things about those practicing apartheid, we never would have made progress.

How did I miss this?

You're squirming around with language to avoid the point, so I'll just let that go. But claiming other's opinions are worthless because the Supreme Court says so is another weird argument I'll point out. I mean it's fine to agree with the Supreme Court judges, they certainly have opinions worth valuing, and ultimately we follow the judgments they make. But if other opinions are worthless, I guess you think arguments against voter ID laws are worthless too?

A common lol of the budding far right constitutional scholars on this site is to give legal weight to district court decisions that get thrown out by higher courts. So like, its great that the judge has an opinion on what constitutes free speech, but it has zero weight about what the first amendment entails.

I welcome the involvement in this forum of anyone who wants to argue in favor of apartheid.

I guess I could dive into your murky playbook and regurgitate smears and fantasies that you are a despicable bigot for supporting the arrest of a black man peacefully protesting against police violence in front of the court house, or for apparently supporting voter ID laws, because the Supreme Court has previously upheld them. But that would be a terribly unfair, ridiculous and destructive non-argument. Instead I'll just say you and M2B are clearly wrong. Despite the fact the Supreme Court has final say on the laws, judges, legal minds and even ordinary citizens opinions matter in this country. Issues aren't solved and arguments aren't simply won by a few justices say so, or we would be a in pretty bad place in this country. Many of our civil rights would not be have been protected, including women's suffrage, gay rights, anti-segregation laws, etc, and we may as well just forget about fighting for campaign finance reform, fixing drug laws, and so on.

I mean, I didn't make any value judgments about the decision! Im just explaining to you and the other remedial level posters how our legal system works. Sure, his opinion matters in the same sense that ordinary citizens can have a view, but referencing him as having any extra authority or any legal standing because he is a district court judge is lol. It carries zero legal weight.

When posters say dumb stuff like "hey look, this district judge said x (then the Supreme Court said not x)" or "hey, the government isn't paying off this judgment that was thrown out in the appeals court" it becomes harder to have a discussion because one side doesn't grasp reality. Kind of like when someone comes on here blathering about how a key to fighting apartheid was giving South Africa a dose of "western values" or when someone posts a chain letter talking about how Jose the illegal immigrant makes $100,000 a year before taxes.

When a poster doesn't start from a basis in reality, he wont make informative posts, regardless of how many rage fueled 33 hour posting binges he goes upon or of any desperate attempts to appeal to the authority of random semi-related presidential speeches

Yeah... you certainly don't have any issues with reality, LG.

Pointing out that many others agree on the importance of preserving freedom of expression, including legal scholars and judges who also disagree with the Supreme Court's argument doesn't mean anyone is confused about the reality of the law.

We should discuss polite ways to bring Western values to SMP.

Can you explain what on earth this Supreme Court ruling has to do with college kids wanting clubhouses where people aren't openly racist? Like your argument hasn't been, as far as I know, that protesting racist speakers actually legally violates the first amendment. It's just that you are very mad when students protest racist speakers.

I don't really see why there should be any need to clarify this with you again. You seem to argue in bad faith, or else your emotions have gotten the better of you, and you actually believe I'm mad when people protest against those whom they believe to be racist. If it's the latter, I would encourage you to re-read our conversation.

The Supreme Court ruling is just an aside really, only related in that it's about freedom of expression and the court seems to need a "safe space" from it.

well it's a smoke fire thing. You seem utterly non plussed about racism. No examples of egregious racism. No discussion of the subtleties of racism and how that affects society. But you are OBSESSED with students who go over the line trying to fight racism and sexism and so forth. And not stupid students on any other subject. And not that you have any first hand experience with said students, but you've read the worst case scenarios on definitelynotreddit and want to parrot them here over and over.

You get that this looks a little....suspicious....right?


Glad to see you admit the Supreme Court bit had basically no relevance to his thread at all and was only vaguely intersected by having something to do with free speech.

This continues to be the most interesting part ITT.

You're all completely entitled to your opinions regarding my concern with racism, though it's ad hominem, and has nothing at all to do with the issue of safe spaces. That you seem to be unable to separate arguments from motivation only takes away from the discussion and impedes progress on the issue. You shouldn't feel too bad though, it's a common problem.

It should make no difference that, having lived in rural Missouri, I've argued with racists all my life, that I'm currently involved with a black woman, that I went up to Ferguson on the third day after the shooting and raised my hands with the protesters in front of the police station. That would all be irrelevant "black friend" defense to your charges of catering to racism, or whatever it is you want to think. It's the sort of thing free speech advocates are often charged with, like the ACLU, of which I'm a card-carrying member.

Fact is, I could just as well be a white supremacist who sports a hood on the weekends and it would not take away from the arguments I make in this thread. You should learn to stop making the mistake of ad hominem, and then I could stop using appeals to authority in defense. And you guys could stop looking like such fools for in effect accusing everyone concerned about this issue, including our President, of having such suspicious motives.

Well we've already explained just how ridiculous your safe space bull**** is, so what else is left?

Wonder if APA will weigh in on safe spaces.

From what I've read, the APA is in favor of schools establishing rules to prevent bullying and assisting with providing safe spaces, like student support groups, though I haven't found their view on extending safe spaces into classrooms or throughout campuses at large.

I haven't been arguing against students or faculty who want to provide safe spaces without imposing them on others. From the beginning, the argument has been how they should be implemented so as not to be abused by those types of dopes you find in forums like these (and IRL) who unscrupulously twist whatever words or arguments they please into hate speech, attempting to restrict views they don't like (you should remember this sort of treatment from the drunk rape thread, Duder, where you were constantly dismissed as a rape apologist MRA and eventually banned for reasonably questioning new campus policies).



I believe the APA also recommends colleges provide more counseling to students suffering from psychological stress due to identity issues, racism, etc, as rates of anxiety and depression on campus have been on the rise. That seems fine too, but it does raise a question many are trying to explain, including psychologists like Jonathan Haidt in the Atlantic article, of why students are becoming more distressed even as attitudes on racism and LGBTQ rights have changed favorably over the years. One would initially think that the trend should be going in the opposite direction as public opinion has shifted, and more and more people have become less prejudicial toward minorities and different lifestyle preferences than in the past.

FoldN given your background as a date rapist, maybe chill out with using that thread as an example.

That post doesn't really explain the motivations, it makes it worse. Like if you agree that schools should do more to prevent bullying and assist in providing safe spaces, don't disagree with their stated purpose, think their should be more counselling for those affected by racism etc........then why on earth are you so OBSESSED with instalinking every extreme example possible where someone steps over the line when aiming for these laudable goals you seemingly agree with?

Like of all the ways people are stupid, of all the ways a college kids are stupid, what specifically is it that animates you so much for this one specific thing?

Yes, they literally do and they should have it. The idea that the SC or congress is oblivious to any protests that don't happen on their front steps is silly.