Are you saying that if they aren't banned it's either a modding mistake or the description wasn't accurate (which somehow transforms it into a personal attack)?

You have to allow a gap don't you? 'Accurate' is not a given and 'racist' covers a huge spectrum and variable usage. These are matters of judgement.

Sure. Which is why it is reasonable that someone on a forum would reasonably call another a racist without immediately being banned. But what fold wants - how hilarious is this - is a safe space where nobody could ever call someone a racist when they say a tonne of racist things. And in the same breath as calling for a safe space form ever being called a racist, he makes fun of safe spaces in fourty hour benders.

Then it follows that we have to accept there will be personal attacks, disagreements about what is a personal attack and all the noise that comes with it.

The 'foldn wants a safe space' is just a bit of forum noise isn't it? The argument for not allowing the above is nothing to do with safe spaces, it's just a fairly standard view about political discussion to which there's no perfect solution.

Sure. I agree. But there is only one person ITT (and bruce) who is proposing a complete sanitation where the mods come down and remove any post calling someone else a racist, without any consideration.

Now if you want to have a cute semantic debate about whether that is a "safe space" or not go nuts you and fold can explore all the subtle delineations between fold spending a month mocking safe spaces and wanting a TOTALLY DIFFERENT "intellectual space" where he is safe from being called a racist.

To reiterate, while I may vehemently argue in favor of free speech and the First Amendment, I also acknowledge society cannot function well without certain carefully considered, well reasoned and equally enforced restrictions on speech. Similarly, forums like this cannot function well as serious places of political discussion without ground rules that are also equally enforced. In order to make this a place where healthy, productive debates stand some chance of succeeding, among others the first rule: "attack the argument, not the arguer," was implemented, and I think most accept it is a wise rule for this politics forum. One need only look next door at PU to see why.

Sure, it's very easy and tempting to toss around invectives and call many of you drooling morons for making stupid and obvious mistakes in reasoning, unable to follow slightly complex arguments, or even simple ones. To me, that is the very essence of idiocy. Of course you may judge the same of me, and you may also be positive someone has made racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., statements, which in your mind means they're racist, sexist, homophobes. But there are multiple reasons it is wrong to assume your interpretation of a statement or point of view is a reasonable representation of a person, the least of which is that it's distracting and largely unproductive, and often steers conversations off subject into insult fests. That's why Wookie was right to punish me for attacking you earlier, even if I did so just to make a point: if we want Politics to be a forum where reasonable debates occur on important controversial subjects, and for posters to have the best chance of learning new things, for this to be an "intellectual space," we should all try to follow the first rule and attack arguments, not arguers.

On that note, Politics forum can only be seriously considered an "intellectual space" for reasoned debate if the rules are enforced equally, and insomuch as they are not (by admission, even), it cannot be considered a forum where healthy debate is fostered. Instead, it's more of an "anti-intellectual space," or one may even say a "safe space" for those who agree with the sides encouraged to make personal attacks at the expense of other sides who are punished for doing so.

This brings to mind the "chilling effect" described by critics of the safe space movement on many college campuses today, where restrictions are being put in place that effectively and sometimes outright censure those who attempt to argue on the wrong side of topics like racism, sexism, homophobia, islamaphobia, antisemitism and so on. Whatever side you think you're on, you should want to foster healthy debate on such topics for everyone's benefit, including your own, and unequally enforcing the personal attack rule by design is the wrong way to do that.

Driving home the point that you should want to foster healthy debate on important topics, especially those you are most passionate and certain about is forum favorite, Glenn Greenwald, who also echoes the same concerns as the free speech advocates at The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) on the worrisome state of free speech and discourse on college campuses today:

https://www.thefire.org/so-to-speak-...ding-my-enemy/

That summary doesn't say anything about college campuses. Can you point us to timestamps of things he says during the podcast if that's where the discussion took place?

As I recall, he starts talking about colleges around 7-8 minutes in, and returns to it toward the end of the podcast.

Yes, the issue is with the funding -- the university terminated it due to the newspaper's viewpoint. That's censorship. By cutting funding the university infringed upon and restricted the newspaper's right to engage in free speech and the ACLU claims that violates the First Amendment, which is why they filed the lawsuit. The ACLU is claiming speech suppression.

To your question, I'm not sure. Judging by what they write, the ACLU supports all speech, especially unpopular speech, so I don't think they would agree that a university should be doling out finds to only the most popular newspapers. For example, if at a very conservative school a student government held a referendum and used the results to determine the top five most conservative newspapers would receive funding while cutting funding to less conservative papers, I doubt any free speech advocates would support that action. Whether or not it's lawful, I'm not sure how strong their case against would be, and it might hinge upon whether or not it could be shown as a matter of public record (like with The Koala) that the decision to censor was initiated by the student government and university's disapproval of a certain viewpoint.

This thread is the longest passive aggressive whining about moderation in forum history.

Once again, no... you are 100% wrong. You said it yourself... the issue is with funding. That's not censorship. That's not speech suppression. The ACLU isn't claiming speech suppression. Dude, here's a link to the actual lawsuit... link. Please to quote me where the ACLU claims the Koala, or any media for that matter, was ever subject to censorship. Please to quote me where the ACLU claims the Koala, or any media for that matter, was ever subject to suppression. Hint: you can't because you are 100% wrong.

Also... this has nothing at all to do with "safe spaces", with "academic freedom", with the university's curriculum, or any sense of word is "coddling students by shielding them from bad ideas", or whatever.

Can I get an amen any of to above ?? Could you at least spit out if you agree or disagree with any of these other four points ??

OK, I'll fill you in.

The AS doesn't have to fund any media or speech at all. Or they can, at their whim. However, CA statute, and policy of the Regents of UC, have opened up these campuses as limited public venues. So.. the AS can't pick-n-choose by content. (which is what the ACLU is alleging, not censorship, not suppression). Any other whim, including no media funding at all, or most popular, or drawing straws, or a political content free quality evaluation, or pretty much anything else... is all perfectly fine.

The other large public university in town, San Diego State, is also a limited public venue under CA statute and policy of the CA SU Board of Trustees. The ACLU isn't suing them. Here's the SDSU's AS funding criterea...

That's interesting, but it's clear the ACLU believes that by cutting off funding to all media (especially after having a public meeting about how to cut ties with and defund The Koala) the school infringed The Koala's First Amendment rights by unlawfully restricting their free speech, which is why the ACLU has sued the university over it's censorship of the paper. From their letter to the university in December:

https://www.aclusandiego.org/wp-cont...-President.pdf

(My bold)

And from the lawsuit:

https://www.aclusandiego.org/wp-cont...aint-FINAL.pdf

OK, now you've moved on from 'speech suppression' completely. The Koala, or any other media, were never suppressed. Your own quote from the ACLU says they published several times without AS funding. That's not suppression. And as I mentioned, the ACLU was never accusing the AS of speech suppression.

So... can I get an 'amen' that the Koala incident was never about 'speech suppression'. And while you are at it... how about an 'amen' that the Koala incident wasn't about 'safe spaces', wasn't about 'academic freedom', wasn't about the university's curriculum, and wasn't about "coddling bad thoughts etc" ??

Wha? They claim it is censorship, and they mentioned that multiple times! Censorship = speech suppression. They even charge that the defunding caused the paper to miss several planned issues. Anyway, if I can't convince you of that, there's no way I'm attempting the rest. Agree to disagree.

No.

Suppression would mean the publication was banned from campus. That never happened, no media was banned from campus. The word 'censorship' usually means prior- or post- restraint... as in the publication had to have their content pre-approved to publication, or that certain content was redacted after publication. That never happened either to any media.

That's what I mean by not suppression, and not censorship. So can I get an 'amen' that the Koala, or any other media, was never banned from campus, and was never subject to prior- or post- restraint?

Uh, nothing about the quibbling about the word 'suppression' is stopping you from giving an opinion if the Koala incident is (a) related to safe spaces, (b) (c) or (d). If you were genuinely interested in having this discussion you could have quickly answered which of the five you agree with, and which you don't. Then we could use that agreement as a building block to chat out the others.

What you've done is flat out refuse to do so... while basically stalling around even discussing the first one. Why are you acting out this way?

Pretty straightforward unless you are a drooling moron who makes basic logical errors

It's getting nitty to argue that it's not suppression or a form of censorship if it's just being excluded from benefits given to everybody else. Giving everybody else an advantage in a competitive space can be a very effective way to suppress something.

More honest than to go down to the semantic route is to argue that it's not happening or so what?

Guess I'll be waiting for my check from UCSD to fund FoldN is a drunken rapist magazine. If they don't send me one I have been censored and tone policed!

TIWSMPAB (or, more accurately, pretends to believe to whine about moderation)

What a surprise, the SMP people have trouble with basic definition of words...

You're letting that SMP thingy of yours get in the way again.

Maybe try to consider what is being said a bit more objectively?

I find it amazing the point is still being argued. The ACLU explains censorship here:

https://www.aclu.org/what-censorship

They wrote a letter to the university, posted above, where they condemned the university for censoring the paper. Anyone is welcome to dispute the definition of censorship, and even that the university unlawfully censored the newspaper, but it should be very clear by now the ACLU disagrees.

Or not.

How about an 'amen' that no media on UCSD was banned from campus, and no media on UCSD was subjected to prior- or post- restraint.

Is that really too much to ask ??

Also, how about an 'amen' that this Koala incident has nothing to do with (b) "safe spaces", (c) academic freedom, (d) university curriculum, or (e) this whole "coddling" line of whatev. Remember... I'm not looking for a detailed explanation here right now... I'm just asking for a quick "yes/no/maybe" to see what thingees we can agree on, so we can use that as a base to build upon as we chat out the other issues. You know... actually having an 'intellectual' conversation regarding the topic at hand.

Is that really too much to ask ??

The thing is...

what discussion do FoldN and chezlaw WANT to have that they can't because of the awful liberal politards?

We never get that filled in. It appears that chezlaw wants nothing more than to berate everyone who isn't racist for disagreeing with racists, which he can do, which he has been doing for years. So clearly the moderation works for him.

And FoldN gets this whole thread to randomly post links to **** and never actually articulated a point. Is the suggestion there that if the moderators more strictly enforced the SMP "no playing the race card" rule that he would've developed one earlier?

Three's nothing I want to discuss that can't be Fly and yes, unlike you? and Trolly I'm perfectly happy with the moderation.

We're you just trying to be mean again?

No, he wasn't just trying to be mean. There's a point being made too.

I can scroll up and quote mine some shiz FoldnDark posted about having spaces of 'intellectual' conversations, or whatever. But here ITT he is ITT going out of his way, including swallowing a coupla temp-bans, to avoid having any conversation regarding this Koala incident what-so-ever. I haven't been throwing around the "R" word ITT at all... so what gives?

Do we need a "A Safe Space to discuss the 'A Safe Space to discuss Safe Spaces' thread" thread so he might actually feel comfortable discussing this Koala incident ?