The Mizzou/Yale/PC/Free Speech Topic

[B-Man]

[4merper4mer]

 

As a military historian, it's been one of my constant observations of American culture: our society is heavily infused with militaria. Not that we're militarized, mind you, but even anti-war Americans have an unseemly worshipful attitude towards the American military.

 

 

IMO there is a difference between "worshipping the military" and "thanking the members of the military".

 

We are a nation founded on the individual. Many individuals have dedicated their life, or large portions of it, to the military....and these individuals deserve our respect whether or not we agree...as individuals....with every decision made involving the military as a whole.

 

The pathetic pot soaked hippies who spat on soldiers who had returned from Vietnam highlighted this. Ever since, primarily starting with Gulf War 1, I think people realize this. It seems to be steering the other way for some modern day hippies like the dolt reporter above who hates the flag.

 

The ceremonies.....30 seconds out of someone's day waaaaahhhhhhh......are for the individual members of the military, not for the military itself.

[B-Man]

[reddogblitz]

The pathetic pot soaked hippies who spat on soldiers who had returned from Vietnam highlighted this. Ever since, primarily starting with Gulf War 1, I think people realize this. It seems to be steering the other way for some modern day hippies like the dolt reporter above who hates the flag.

 

This is the ONLY thing we learned from Viet Nam. Don't spit on the troops when they come back.

[4merper4mer]

This is the ONLY thing we learned from Viet Nam. Don't spit on the troops when they come back.

 

 

It's the only thing on the topic. There is a lot to learn from everything but I was trying to stay on topic. In case you need reminding the topic was the one where you were whining about having to sit through tributes to military personnel and using the excuse that they were somehow a glorification of war.

[Deranged Rhino]

Pretty startling article from an NYU professor on the limits of free speech.

 

This is just nuts.

 

What ‘Snowflakes’ Get Right About Free Speech

 

The recent student demonstrations at Auburn against Spencer’s visit — as well as protests on other campuses against Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos and others — should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, rather than censorship. Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that the views of these individuals must be heard first to be rejected. But this is not the case. Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present otherwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to the public views they have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.

 

(snip)

 

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/opinion/what-liberal-snowflakes-get-right-about-free-speech.html?_r=1

 

 

The left is eating itself.

[row_33]

Grateful I went for undergrad studies during the late 80s, very quiet. However, student council members were threatened and taken away with police escort for whatever the situation(s) was at the time.

 

And post-grad was mostly through the internet with a few weeks of study and capstone modules during the summers on campus.

[B-Man]

Pretty startling article from an NYU professor on the limits of free speech.

 

This is just nuts.

 

What ‘Snowflakes’ Get Right About Free Speech

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/opinion/what-liberal-snowflakes-get-right-about-free-speech.html?_r=1

 

 

The left is eating itself.

 

 

NYT Publishes Speech Suppression Advocacy

by Wesley J Smith

 

These are dangerous times for free speech in the increasingly less free Western world. In Europe and Canada, one can be fined or jailed for expressing views that those in power find odious or “oppressive.”

 

Here in the USA, we see such authoritarian speech suppression increasingly embraced on college campuses. But in the New York Times?

 

Alas, yes. The paper that rarely publishes positions that materially diverge from its own editorial positions, has published a vigorous defense of speech suppression. The idea is that speech deemed antithetical to the “public good” can be squelched. From, “What Snowflakes Get Right About Free Speech,” by New York University professor Ulrich Baer

 

{snip}

 

Thus, speech that supposedly demeans those whom the speech suppressors deem to have been marginalized should be squelched. Hence, those refusing to accept that, say, Caitlyn Jenner is now a ”she,” not only can be–but should be–forcibly shut up.

 

But Uhlrich advocates an even broader suppression of speech, that could, if imposed, shut down NRO or punish Rush Limbaugh.

 

The tremendous peril here can’t be missed. Who gets to decide which view has what “inherent value?” Those in power. This means, as we see on college campuses today, that minority views are not only suppressed, but suppressed by threats of, or actual violence–as we have seen at UC Berkeley and Middlebury College.

 

Uhlrich concludes:

I am especially attuned to the next generation’s demands to revise existing definitions of free speech to accommodate previously delegitimized experiences.

 

Freedom of expression is not an unchanging absolute. When its proponents forget that it requires the vigilant and continuing examination of its parameters, and instead invoke a pure model of free speech that has never existed, the dangers to our democracy are clear and present.

 

 

So, First Amendment-protected political speech is a clear and present threat to democracy. No, Uhlrich is.

 

Moreover, he misses the obvious point that the power to squelch speech that conflicts with progressive social advocacy could be similarly used to punish those who call Donald Trump a fascist, if the government ever attained the power to punish disfavored views.

 

 

I have been thinking for some time that on issues of speech, we are watching a contest between the American Revolution–that guarantees the right to express unpopular social and political views–and the French Revolution that unleashes Jacobins to suppress heterodoxy.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/446991/nyt-publishes-speech-suppression-advocacy

 

 

[Azalin]

Pretty startling article from an NYU professor on the limits of free speech.

 

This is just nuts.

 

What ‘Snowflakes’ Get Right About Free Speech

 

The recent student demonstrations at Auburn against Spencer’s visit — as well as protests on other campuses against Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos and others — should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, rather than censorship. Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that the views of these individuals must be heard first to be rejected. But this is not the case. Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present otherwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to the public views they have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.

 

(snip)

 

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/opinion/what-liberal-snowflakes-get-right-about-free-speech.html?_r=1

 

 

The left is eating itself.

 

I may have posted a part of this video further up-thread - I looked but didn't see it. Anyway, one quote in particular stands out: if people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behavior.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I may have posted a part of this video further up-thread - I looked but didn't see it. Anyway, one quote in particular stands out: if people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behavior.

 

 

Good stuff.

 

And very true.

 

 

 

NYT Publishes Speech Suppression Advocacy

by Wesley J Smith

 

These are dangerous times for free speech in the increasingly less free Western world. In Europe and Canada, one can be fined or jailed for expressing views that those in power find odious or “oppressive.”

 

Here in the USA, we see such authoritarian speech suppression increasingly embraced on college campuses. But in the New York Times?

 

Alas, yes. The paper that rarely publishes positions that materially diverge from its own editorial positions, has published a vigorous defense of speech suppression. The idea is that speech deemed antithetical to the “public good” can be squelched. From, “What Snowflakes Get Right About Free Speech,” by New York University professor Ulrich Baer

 

{snip}

 

Thus, speech that supposedly demeans those whom the speech suppressors deem to have been marginalized should be squelched. Hence, those refusing to accept that, say, Caitlyn Jenner is now a ”she,” not only can be–but should be–forcibly shut up.

 

But Uhlrich advocates an even broader suppression of speech, that could, if imposed, shut down NRO or punish Rush Limbaugh.

 

The tremendous peril here can’t be missed. Who gets to decide which view has what “inherent value?” Those in power. This means, as we see on college campuses today, that minority views are not only suppressed, but suppressed by threats of, or actual violence–as we have seen at UC Berkeley and Middlebury College.

 

Uhlrich concludes:

 

So, First Amendment-protected political speech is a clear and present threat to democracy. No, Uhlrich is.

 

Moreover, he misses the obvious point that the power to squelch speech that conflicts with progressive social advocacy could be similarly used to punish those who call Donald Trump a fascist, if the government ever attained the power to punish disfavored views.

 

 

I have been thinking for some time that on issues of speech, we are watching a contest between the American Revolution–that guarantees the right to express unpopular social and political views–and the French Revolution that unleashes Jacobins to suppress heterodoxy.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/446991/nyt-publishes-speech-suppression-advocacy

 

 

[Taro T]

Pretty startling article from an NYU professor on the limits of free speech.

 

This is just nuts.

 

 

What Snowflakes Get Right About Free Speech

 

The recent student demonstrations at Auburn against Spencers visit as well as protests on other campuses against Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos and others should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, rather than censorship. Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that the views of these individuals must be heard first to be rejected. But this is not the case. Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present otherwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to the public views they have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.[/size]

 

(snip)[/size]

 

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities should not mean that someones humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.[/size]

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/opinion/what-liberal-snowflakes-get-right-about-free-speech.html?_r=1

 

 

The left is eating itself.

 

One would expect that things that "could never happen" such as Trump beating Hillary would cause some of these professors to rethink their "it's ok to stifle free speech if it's being done for the right reasons" views as whoever is in power will determine just which are the "right reasons." But yet they never seem to get there.

 

It was also kind of surprising (though it probably shouldn't have been) that he believes that suppressing in person free speech is ok because conflicting viewpoints can be found on the internet. Could someone please explian the logic of that?

Edited April 24, 2017 by Taro T

[DC Tom]

Pretty startling article from an NYU professor on the limits of free speech.

 

This is just nuts.

 

What ‘Snowflakes’ Get Right About Free Speech

 

The recent student demonstrations at Auburn against Spencer’s visit — as well as protests on other campuses against Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos and others — should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, rather than censorship. Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that the views of these individuals must be heard first to be rejected. But this is not the case. Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present otherwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to the public views they have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.

 

(snip)

 

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/opinion/what-liberal-snowflakes-get-right-about-free-speech.html?_r=1

 

 

The left is eating itself.

 

The best part is actually the sentence AFTER what you highlighted.

 

 

Free-speech protections [...] should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.

 

That - attacking, demeaning, or questioning their right to participate in political speech - is EXACTLY what he's advocating doing to the likes of Milo, Ann Coulter, etc.

[4merper4mer]

 

The best part is actually the sentence AFTER what you highlighted.

 

 

 

That - attacking, demeaning, or questioning their right to participate in political speech - is EXACTLY what he's advocating doing to the likes of Milo, Ann Coulter, etc.

It's called pretzel logic. Supertramp had an album called Pretzel Logic back in the day.

[row_33]

It's called pretzel logic. Supertramp had an album called Pretzel Logic back in the day.

 

not quite...

[reddogblitz]

It's called pretzel logic. Supertramp had an album called Pretzel Logic back in the day.

Actually, Pretzel Logic began the decline of Steely Dan .

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Actually, Pretzel Logic began the decline of Steely Dan .

Steely Dan = Supertramp = Fleetwood Mac

 

all nauseating lol

[row_33]

Steely Dan = Supertramp = Fleetwood Mac

 

all nauseating lol

 

 

SD not a hope in hades

Supertramp, not really

FM, you can say whatever you want, no arguments...

Actually, Pretzel Logic began the decline of Steely Dan .

 

Didn't AJA and Gaucho come out afterwards???

[4merper4mer]

Actually, Pretzel Logic began the decline of Steely Dan .

 

 

I didn't think bands competed like that.

Edited April 24, 2017 by 4merper4mer

[reddogblitz]

Didn't AJA and Gaucho come out afterwards???

Yes. Aja had its moments with the Steve Gadd drum solo and Josie. Gaucho was crap IMHO.

[row_33]

Yes. Aja had its moments with the Steve Gadd drum solo and Josie. Gaucho was crap IMHO.

 

I disagree but understand your view fully....