Tenure Ending Blog Post

[Timsup2nothin]

I dunno. I think they have at least part of this idea. It's not much of a leap to say "society would be better off without X group." That's basically why they would want them to be moved elsewhere by train.

Sure they have the idea. But they aren't trying to advance it.

 

[Oruc]

I love the OP's attempt to create a liberal hate-fest, a kind of reverse circle-jerk. It's funny, since it's also ostensibly about the need for more open-minded discussion of controversial issues and about the harm of shutting down debate. I think it points once again to the fact that conservatives will shout about free speech and claim whatever rights when it suits them, not necessarily when it doesn't.

So the same as any other group then? Real pearl of wisdom you shared.

 

[Senethro]

So the same as any other group then? Real pearl of wisdom you shared.

No, not the same as any other group. Conservatives want to frame the desire to remove rights from people as somehow equal to any other speech when it is obviously not.

 

[Gori the Grey]

And the expression of their desire to remove rights should be protected equally with any other speech.

Mercilessly mocked. Carefully refuted. Summarily ignored. But protected.

Let Truth and Falsehood grapple. Whoever knew Truth put the worse in a free and open encounter?

 

[Senethro]

And the expression of their desire to remove rights should be protected equally with any other speech.

Mercilessly mocked. Carefully refuted. Summarily ignored. But protected.

Let Truth and Falsehood grapple. Whoever knew Truth put the worse in a free and open encounter?

I see it as crossing similar lines to slander, intimidation, shouting fire in a theatre etc.

 

[Kaitzilla]

No, not the same as any other group. Conservatives want to frame the desire to remove rights from people as somehow equal to any other speech when it is obviously not.

Liberals have come a long way from "I disagree with what you say, but I respect your right to say it."

 

[aelf]

So the same as any other group then? Real pearl of wisdom you shared.

How about "those who live in glass houses should not cast stones"? Is that pearly enough a piece of wisdom for you, hmmm?

Liberals have come a long way from "I disagree with what you say, but I respect your right to say it."

Conservatives were never there.

 

[Senethro]

Liberals have come a long way from "I disagree with what you say, but I respect your right to say it."

"Abloo bloo bloo the mean liberals won't let me publicly discuss persecution of other human beings"

Dry your eyes conservatives

 

[Kaitzilla]

"Abloo bloo bloo the mean liberals won't let me publicly discuss persecution of other human beings"

Dry your eyes conservatives

That would in fact be the definition of trampling free speech yes.

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie

In 1978, the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived. The notoriety of the case caused some ACLU members to resign, but to many others the case has come to represent the ACLU's unwavering commitment to principle. In fact, many of the laws the ACLU cited to defend the group's right to free speech and assembly were the same laws it had invoked during the Civil Rights era, when Southern cities tried to shut down civil rights marches with similar claims about the violence and disruption the protests would cause. Although the ACLU prevailed in its free speech arguments, the neo-Nazi group never marched through Skokie, instead agreeing to stage a rally at Federal Plaza in downtown Chicago.

Why would you say the ACLU is proud of standing up for the Neo Nazis in this case?

 

[Senethro]

Because Americans draw the line in a funny place.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's a rough mental step from supporting to mocking the worst stuff. I think you can do it though.

 

[aelf]

Here's a thought: Conservatives like to say that private institutions can discriminate how they please because they are private, and people are free to boycott them or not. A restaurant can choose not to permit black customers in their premises, for example, which would be awful but still within its freedom to do. That's the conservative line, yes?

So why is there all this boo-hoo-ing about free speech when a private university decides not to allow employees and students to say anything they want? It's private, yes? What if they did the opposite and stopped people within from saying that gays are okay, which I'm sure some private organisations are doing (and which conservatives seem to have absolutely no problem with)?

I'm not very sympathetic at all, I must say.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

And that's really fine for the most part. People are pompous jerks
The people best at being pompous jerks manage to be loud while those that disagree with them get ''moved on'' quietly by the powers that be. All very harmonious.

That is some nuance-free and misanthropic relativism you got there. Sorry but this is not the world I live in. Besides, I was not so much concerned with what people "are" but what they do. People certainly are capable to not act like pompous jerks and if they do nevertheless and insist on doing so because "free speech" I will laugh at them because that makes them not only pompous jerks but pompous jerks justifying their behavior with the intellectual refinement of a 5-year-old.

Would you really want to lose the right to be a pompous jerk?

No one ever had such a right. If I am a pompous jerk people will punish me. And that is overall a good thing, I am certain to say.
However, if you mean by "right" that the state will not use its powers to punish me - then of course this should be a right. The point is - that is no good reason to be a pompous jerk. And people who think so deserve all the ridicule I can muster.

 

[Smote]

Sure they have the idea. But they aren't trying to advance it.

Hm, yeah.

 

[Smote]

No one ever had such a right. If I am a pompous jerk people will punish me. And that is overall a good thing, I am certain to say.
However, if you mean by "right" that the state will not use its powers to punish me - then of course this should be a right. The point is - that is no good reason to be a pompous jerk. And people who think so deserve all the ridicule I can muster.

Okay.

 

[Farm Boy]

That is some nuance-free and misanthropic relativism you got there. Sorry but this is not the world I live in. Besides, I was not so much concerned with what people "are" but what they do. People certainly are capable to not act like pompous jerks and if they do nevertheless and insist on doing so because "free speech" I will laugh at them because that makes them not only pompous jerks but pompous jerks justifying their behavior with the intellectual refinement of a 5-year-old.

You should laugh at them right up until the point they're silenced. At which point it's no longer funny and should start being introspective. If the environment is private, this may have been appropriate, but it's still something we should be thoughtful about rather than chanting at the fire.

Misanthropic though! I just understand that I'm going to piss people off with my stupidity(my five year old refinement as you put it) despite my best efforts not to. And they are going to do that to me as well. I find it hard to classify trying to thread the needle that allows enough breathing space to discredit the irredeemable without stomping those ahead of their time as... misanthropic?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

First you speak of everyone being a jerk, now of best efforts not to be a jerk.... And I don't think I referred to you having the refinement of a 5-year-old.

And sure, let's be thoughtful. I love being thoughtful, all about it.

Okay.

Thanks for noticing

 

[Farm Boy]

First you speak of everyone being a jerk, now of best efforts not to be a jerk

Not mutually exclusive!

 

[Terxpahseyton]

But heavily implied!

 

[Farm Boy]

Let me clarify then. Not mutually exclusive and never intentionally implied.