SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The fine folks over at The Tennessean bring us this interesting bit of news:
Inspired by a Breitbart News editor whose speeches have spurred protests at colleges across the country, state lawmakers on Thursday touted a bill that they said would protect free speech on Tennessee campuses.
While discussing the bill in a news conference, sponsors Rep. Martin Daniel and Sen. Joey Hensley referenced the protests against controversial conservative Milo Yiannopoulos, who is a senior editor at Breitbart. Violence erupted at a protest against a planned Yiannopoulos speech at the University of California, Berkeley, prompting officials there to cancel the speech. The lawmakers indicated that the violence had hampered the expression of conservative ideas at Berkeley. Similar issues have cropped up in Tennessee, they said.
Daniel, R-Knoxville, called his legislation "the Milo bill," and said it was "designed to implement oversight of administrators' handling of free speech issues."
Hensley, R-Hohenwald, said the bill was specifically tailored to defend students with conservative views that he said had been silenced in the past.
"We've heard stories from many students that are honestly on the conservative side that have those issues stifled in the classroom," Hensley said. "We just want to ensure our public universities allow all types of speech."
Glad to see my state getting this correct even though they can't pull their heads out of their asses about broadband competition.
[Ed. Note: The current bill has no summary on the Tennessee General Assembly site, but it is likely similar or identical to the previous year's version from the same sponsors which died in committee.]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @03:24AM
Nothing more than a republican virtue signaling to his base of bigots.
This is at least the second time the bill has been submitted and yet the author is unable to cite a single case of censorship at UT. Last year the republicans withdrew the bill when it was pointed out that ISIS could also recruit on campus. The bill's author wrote a weaselly excuse [local8now.com] that yes ISIS should be allowed to recruit but giving support to ISIS is illegal so they wouldn't actually be allowed to recruit. Its nice to have your cake and eat it too.
And of course there is no mention that Yiannopoulos's whole schtick is to wink-wink advocate for violence and harassment. [jsonline.com] When he says that he didn't literally call for anyone to be harmed, the only people fooled are the kind of motivated simpletons who think that if you don't say the n-word out loud that's proof you aren't racist. His well-documented history of harassment should be enough to deny him the use of university resources to potentially do it again [lgbtqnation.com] because regardless of what he has to say, harrassment is illegal but this virtue-signaling bigot doesn't care about that...
Meanwhile Tennessee republicans came down crazy hard on the university's diversity office for having the temerity to merely suggest that people use gender neutral pronouns. [insidehighered.com] They so utterly lost their shit over it that they actually killed the entire diversity office. [tennessean.com] Big proponents of freedom expression there.
And then there was the state-wide collective freak-out over public schools teaching about islam in social-studies class. The republicans were only too happy to indulge in yet more censorship and actually passed a bill to eliminate nearly the entire curriculum from public schools. [qz.com] Of course there was no such restriction on teaching about christianity in class. In fact there are entire programs devoted to studying "bible history" in TN public schools. [bibleintheschools.pr.co]
So, no buzzard, your state is not doing the right thing. Its a bunch of hypocrites pretending to stand up for freedom of expression when all they care about is freedom of repression.
Same as it has always been.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @03:28AM
So, it's okay when it's _not_ Republicans doing it? Can you clarify a bit about when it's okay and not okay?
(Score: 5, Informative) by aristarchus on Sunday February 12 2017, @03:57AM
It is not ok when the primary purpose of speech is to cause violence. Milo has come really close to being nothing but this, and if some alt-right types want to flaunt the bloody shirt of free speech about this, well that is just more of the same. Incitement.
So I would propose a test for free speech: First, it has to be speech. That means actual communication of ideas, not just dog-whistles and race-baiting and being all gay only for effect. Second, it has to be sincere. If someone is making an argument they do not actually hold, just for the purpose of lulz or in the service of The Order of the Golden Apple, they have no right to be heard. Third, the criteria for hate speech always apply. If the purpose of such speech is to implicitly intimidate, frighten, scare, or silence anyone, such speech can be opposed, and opposed prior to its execution. Even when the "chilling effects" are unintentional.
An example: Philosopher Peter Singer holds some rather extreme views on several issues, which is fine. One of these view is the idea that, from a utilitarian point of view, persons whose lives promise more suffering than pleasure would be better off being euthanized. Yes, we could debate all day about this. But Professor Singer was invited to give a talk at a German University on this subject. There were protests, he was shut down, not allowed to give his lecture. His response, much like the Morgany Buzzington, is that the Germans have not really learned the value of free speech. But anyone with a moral compass would say, you do not give a talk about euthanizing persons with birth-defects in a country where only a generation or two ago that was Nazi policy. Political Correctness? Damn straight. Other people call it, manners.
Milo is doing much the same thing, but probably intentionally where Singer just seems to be oblivious. Being given a voice by a university does in fact lend a smidgen of credence to the ideas being presented. No respectable university would allow an Electric Universe proponent to give a talk, or a Scientologist, or a National Socialist Workers Party representative. There are somethings that we can talk about, we can disagree on. But there are others that we risk giving standing to, by even allowing them into the conversation. Fake news? Alt-right? They just want to be allowed to sit at the adult table. But any adult knows that would be a serious mistake. So I say, a ball-gag for Milo! He will probably enjoy it, and he will then be able to tell us all about the violence inherent in the political correctness system. "Did you see that? This is what I'm on about! The mainstream media is trying to silence those of us with "different" opinions!" Poor Milo. So sad. It's true. So sade. Marquis de Sade.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:08AM
Do you truly care more about political correctness than the free exchange of ideas? In that case, I cannot agree with you in any way. If you refuse to allow an argument because it is "offensive", then you can refuse to allow any argument whatsoever for the same reason. I am offended by your argument on this matter, so it should cease to be presented. I demand that you never make postings such as this one again, because to do so is bad manners.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:20AM
I cannot agree with you in any way.
And I to you, oh amphibolous Anonymous Coward, cannot reply, since you clearly do not comprehend the difference between "ideas" and "offence". Here is an example. Racism is wrong because it treats your fellow human beings differently when there is no legitimate reason to do so. That is an idea, and I could make an argument. But if you say, "Reverse Racism! Political Correctness Run Amok!", that is not an idea. It is you. And you have no ideas, because you are stupid, racist, and probably have had carnal relations with Milo. See what we did there? We went from a potentially intellectual discussion about justice and human rights, to me calling you out like the cowardly backwards racist son-of-a-barnacle that you are! I wish you would not make me reduce myself to your level so much. It really is quite offensive.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by art guerrilla on Sunday February 12 2017, @02:59PM
thank you for proving you know nothing of the principles of free speech, nor freedom in general...
(go back and re-read your chomsky, moron)
what *is* amusing is the complete lack of self-awareness in your custom-made definitions to fit your 'morals', never for a second realizing you are acting in the EXACT mirror-image of the presumptuous and dictatorial manner as your adversaries...
we *are* amused...
oh, by the by, there is also no such thing as 'hate speech', 'hate crimes', and all the rest of that snowflake claptrap...
you have the right to NOT be assaulted; you do NOT have the right to NOT be insulted...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @05:29PM
here, here!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14 2017, @12:15AM
There, there. Poor thing.
(Score: 3, Informative) by https on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:01AM
There are quite a few ideas that don't qualify for the moniker "civil discourse". For example, Milo & crew's inference that being black means you deserve a premature and violent death is an idea that doesn't need free exchange - it needs a kick in the balls. With a baseball bat.
Suggesting such arguments are being shouted down because they are offensive (1) is false, and (2) and says a fuck of a lot about you.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 5, Informative) by jmorris on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:17AM
Citation needed because I have watched the live stream of several of Milo's stops in his "Dangerous Faggot" tour and never seen anything that, in a sane world, would be all that objectionable. Trollish? Often. Intended to provoke a bit? Yes. Stand up comedy? Yes. Incitement to violence? No. Mostly what he is doing is what used to be called "Speaking truth to power." The Left wants to pretend, when it suits their purposes, that they are not "the Man" now, that plucky malcontents aren't going to now be poking their system to try to get a reaction in exactly the same way they themselves did a generation ago.
If you can't see that Cultural Marxism and "Intersectionality" doesn't have far more opportunity for ridicule and baiting than any old "sexually repressed" establishment authority figure in the '60s it only means you are the one getting laughed at. The modern university campus is what is called a "target rich environment" for people like Milo. And get used to it because he will become legion as it doesn't take much to duplicate what he has done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:47AM
If you can't see that Cultural Marxism
Could some one please kick jmorris in the balls? It will probably be the closest to "sex" that he gets this decade! Maybe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @12:20PM
Silly fungus - you're jealous of the Morris!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:20AM
My god your reliance on buzz words is annoying! You have no original thoughts, just key phrases dropped by talk radio and promoted throughout the news cycle. They are manipulating you, manufacturing consensus by seeding specific words and phrases so that all your buddies say the same things and you go "omg this guy gets it too!". Sadly your both brainwashed pawns... Gj on being a sucker.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @12:22PM
"My god your reliance on buzz words is annoying! You have no original thoughts, just key phrases dropped by talk radio and promoted throughout the news cycle. They are manipulating you, manufacturing consensus by seeding specific words and phrases so that all your buddies say the same things and you go "omg this guy gets it too!". Sadly your both brainwashed pawns... Gj on being a sucker."
That's EXACTLY what I told the annoying progressive who followed me around Walmart last weak.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:44PM
Even the AC who sticks up for jmorris can't come up with an original thought! "What you said, but in Wallymart!" It's almost too perfect of a setup, right down to the shopping venue, but I can't imagine someone sarcastically defending jmorris.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @01:01PM
never seen anything that, in a sane world, would be all that objectionable
He didn't get kicked off twitter for being a swell guy.
That's one of those statements that has everything to do with who you are and nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Half your posts on soylent are nothing more than animus directed at racial and sexual minorities.
Of course you wouldn't find any of it objectionable. You are too busy cheering him on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @09:11PM
He didn't get kicked off twitter for being a swell guy
Back on January 24, I submitted a thing about violent vigilantism.
It was "Accepted" but never made the front page.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:23AM
There are quite a few ideas that don't qualify for the moniker "civil discourse". For example, Milo & crew's inference that being black means you deserve a premature and violent death is an idea that doesn't need free exchange - it needs a kick in the balls. With a baseball bat.
What, specifically, are you saying should happen to such people? That people should use their own free speech to launch vicious insults at them? That people should use violence against them? That universities and other places shouldn't allow them to give speeches? I would agree with the first one but not the other two, since I value the concept of freedom of speech even if I think the speech is horrendous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @10:04AM
What, specifically, are you saying should happen to such people?
That they should die in a fire? That they should die in a fire, with a red hot poker up their ass? I really have a hard time imagining the appropriate treatment for the alt-right racist idiots that have foisted Trump on the American people. But Chinese Buddhist afterlife porn is helpful! Dead, by a thousand cuts? Dead by being tied to a chimney and slowly roasting to death? Dead, by demons with phalluses with the most amazing innovations, not for your pleasure. Death by having the entire civilized world ridicule you, and your President, and his "Cabinet", and Kellyane and Ginger and Spicy, and their little dog too. Wait. Trump does not have a dog? Fuck, even G W Bush had a god-damned Whitehouse dog! What the hell is he doing? Grabbing Pussies in the Whitehouse? Well, we saw how well that worked out a couple of administrations ago.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 12 2017, @12:27PM
^ this ^
Whatever happened to the concept, "I despise what you're saying, but I'll defend your right to say it to the death if necessary."
Let's take televangelists for instance. I've never heard one, or even heard OF one, that I can respect. If/when I get trapped into listening to one for even a minute or two, I'm thinking, "Why don't you STFU you cretin?" At the very same time, if some left/dem/progressive/liberal/whatever attempted to silence the inane imbecile, I'd be far more "offended" than I am by the babbling fool himself.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:05AM
You can care about both. They aren't mutually exclusive. Freedom of speech is not an absolute, not license for anyone to say anything whatsoever anywhere and anytime they want, no. We have laws against libel and slander. That means, you can't fabricate a video of people you dislike that seems to show them molesting children or swindling seniors or something else heinous, then spread it around, trying to fool others into believing those fabricated activities really happened. That's libel. You also can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire. Would it be okay, would it be free speech, to post the names and addresses of every police officer in the city on a public site?
In this specific case, sure, this Milo can say what he wants. But universities are not obliged to let him visit their campuses and disrupt the school day.
This ugly attack on a transgender person is similar to McCarthy's last days. McCarthy resorted to talking trash about a young law graduate that everyone already knew was a Communist sympathizer, merely to avoid having to talk about more substantive subjects. A random person's career and good name was less important to McCarthy than a few more minutes of evading questions he had to answer anyway soon after. The reply was the famous line: "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" That was what sunk McCarthy. People saw loud and clear the sheer meanness and cruelty of the man, and abandoned him in droves.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:29AM
We have laws against libel and slander.
Which you don't have to agree with.
You also can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire.
Straight out of a case that resulted in war protestors being imprisoned. Of course, I don't even agree with the logic. If someone reacts to your speech by being violent or causing damage, that's on them.
Would it be okay, would it be free speech, to post the names and addresses of every police officer in the city on a public site?
I think so, yes.
In this specific case, sure, this Milo can say what he wants. But universities are not obliged to let him visit their campuses and disrupt the school day.
Then they can't claim to value free speech very much. I also don't think they should be accepting money from the government in that case.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:49AM
IMO, when you start making shit up, to incite outrage directed at a specific group (one person in the case of libel), you cross the line into hate speech.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday February 12 2017, @09:32AM
Even if it is hate speech, hate speech should be legal.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday February 12 2017, @10:18AM
hate speech should be legal.
Yeah, but speech that hates hate speech should not. And speech that tries to stop hate speech, well we obviously cannot allow that! And speech that shots paint balls into the heads of hate speakers, not cool! But lead projectiles at random proponents of free speech? OK? Nah, I always say, encourage the racists and the Nazis, take pictures of the bastards, and dry-gulch them when the least suspect it. Not that any law abiding person would ever do such a thing! But we could, if we wanted to. So perhaps, maybe, it is alright to shut down such rancid provocateurs such a Milo, before things come to such a pass? Or are you a Anal Pumpernichal Nazi? Well, are you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @01:42AM
What about your imbecilic comments? They contribute nothing other than more posts to sort through in favor of actual insight.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday February 12 2017, @12:02PM
Hate speech is legal.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday February 13 2017, @03:16AM
The problem with hate speech is that it leads to genocide.
That is why it is illegal in many jurisdictions.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday February 13 2017, @05:33PM
In Canada, hate speech is against the law. It is defined as knowingly spreading false news to incite hatred against an identifiable group. It is extremely difficult to get a conviction in a case of hate speech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:37AM
And we're back to those days with the rise of Trump. He can say the most vile and factually incorrect shit, but when he is criticized legitimately he throws a hissy fit more appropriate to a 5 year old. The bigots have had enough shaming (and to be fair PC has gotten ridiculously out of hand) and are pushing back. Too bad for them but the world is comprised of more decent folk than bigoted blowhards, so this is just the dying gasp for relevancy.
Also, free speech doesn't mean you're guaranteed a platform wherever you'd like.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @09:33AM
The bigots have had enough shaming (and to be fair PC has gotten ridiculously out of hand
No, and no. Bigots never get enough shaming, until they cease to be bigots. This is why certain allegedly Native Americans need to get their shit together and figure out which side they are on. Because they are not on the side they think they are on. And PC? Fuck your PC, shove it right up your ass (not you, AC, but those to whom you refer), because it does not fucking exist, anymore than the mythical SJWs! And I ought to know, since I am one. So fuck Trump, fuck dTrumpf, fuck his supporters, fuck those who voted from him! OK, you made your point. Now do the right thing to save your own ass and that of your country. White people are stupid, we know that. Trump products suck, we know that. Jeff Sessions is a racist asshole, and the Attorney General of the United States of the Confederacy. Oh, Shit. So, fuck you, racists! Fuck you, anti-semites! Fuck you, misogynists and zenophobes, and arachniphobes, and acrophobes, and trisdecacalliaphobists! All of you scaredy bastarts! Boo!, Trump! Boo!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday February 12 2017, @11:47AM
Sweety, the only violence caused by Milo's speaking has been from the left.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 12 2017, @12:06PM
FFS, who mods this shit up? Aristarchus is in effect telling us, "Censorship is bad, unless censorship conforms to my expectations!" Or, maybe more accurately, he is saying, "You're doing censorship all wrong, let me show you how it should be done!"
And, for that, he gets modded "insightful"?
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:43PM
I am convinced that this site has been targeted for wrongthink, and is being shilled on accordingly. Suddenly, after Trump's victory, this site went from about 50-50 wrongthink vs progressive, and now the modding is like 20-80.
Call me paranoid, but I can post objective fucking documented proof that the CIA was studying memes and how to control and combat them. Nothing is beyond possibility anymore.
Look up "Media Matters", their ties to Clinton, and their stated internal purpose - to "dynamically influence" opinon and content on the internet through ratings and pageviews.
Also note that major MSM sites have been buying traffic from China according to Alexa
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/fake-news-fake-stats-half-ny-times-wapo-guardian-traffic-china-wth/ [thegatewaypundit.com]
We live in dangerous times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @12:37AM
I am convinced that this site has been targeted for wrongthink, and is being shilled on accordingly. Suddenly, after Trump's victory, this site went from about 50-50 wrongthink vs progressive, and now the modding is like 20-80.
Look up "shilling", it does not mean what you think it means. And loud does not indicate numbers or even percentages. We (progressives) surround you!
Call me paranoid, but I can post objective fucking documented proof that the CIA
Oh look! Someone from Infowars! How quaint! Or it could just be that the real support for the far right in America, let alone on this site, is around 12%, same as the deadender death-eaters that supported Bush at the bitter end.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @01:51AM
You surround everything in the same way that a rancid hunk of feces surrounds my cock as I push deeper and deeper into your rectum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14 2017, @02:33AM
"We (progressives) surround you!"
Something like the other AC said. You surround us like the stench of meat rotting in a septic tank.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:32PM
> So I would propose a test for free speech: First, it has to be speech. That means actual communication of ideas, not just dog-whistles and race-baiting and being all gay only for effect.
Hypothetically: an artist goes "all gay" to make people react and think about their reactions. Unfortunately any communication is communication of ideas, yes even race-baiting communication, so this can't discriminate.
> Second, it has to be sincere. If someone is making an argument they do not actually hold, just for the purpose of lulz or in the service of The Order of the Golden Apple, they have no right to be heard.
Many Christians say that divorce is wrong but then get divorced. How could sincerity be objectively judged?
> Third, the criteria for hate speech always apply. If the purpose of such speech is to implicitly intimidate, frighten, scare, or silence anyone, such speech can be opposed, and opposed prior to its execution. Even when the "chilling effects" are unintentional.
Yes to the former. To unintentional cases - no! I myself used EXTREMELY race-baiting imagery in a publication once, unintentionally. Because I don't live in the USA, I simply didn't know that some actions and images are 'club patch' equivalents for lynch-mob racists. I literally did not know. It's probably my most embarrassing moment. But nobody should go to jail for a mistake they could not have reasonably forseen. I wasn't driving with my eyes closed, and my (normally diligent) editor was in a rush and didn't read it, just ran a spellchecker; she isn't at fault either, and also doesn't deserve to be a criminal.
> So sade. Marquis de Sade.
3 u aristarchus. I hope you and Milo end up together, and that you hold the reins, but don't hold back.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday February 12 2017, @11:56PM
Political Correctness? Damn straight. Other people call it, manners.
And philosophers would call it philosophizing (assuming that's the term they use in that discipline).
(Score: 3, Informative) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:03AM
Freedom of speech is not about Milo or any one person.
It is about affording the constitutional rights of every person while the same people were bitching about and attempting to subvert the constitution suddenly cared about it while 2 weeks before they were attempting to subvert it as an antiquated document, and only now do they care about states' rights. and the first amendment.
Let these Soros-funded chickshit yellow bastards BURN.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 12 2017, @05:30AM
Eth...the first rule of drug dealing is: DO NOT SAMPLE THE MERCH. You're a hilarious troll, but the instant you start actually believing the shit you spew, it's game over.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:17AM
You do realize you are describing the conservative base of the US right? If not you'd better link some sources for your wild claims.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @10:16AM
Wowee Free Speech is bad now that the other party is advocating for it! So many unprincipled partisan idiots on soylent lately.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @10:09PM
Actual Conservatives are the broad middle who like things pretty much as they are and want to preserve/conserve that.
That's not the bunch to which you are referring.
That bunch is NOT Conservative; they are RADICAL .
They don't like workers having rights, they don't like women being able to vote, and they think that people of color having lesser rights--even being property--is a natural state of affairs.
The word for those people who want the status quo ante is Reactionary.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @11:31PM
Thanks, good point. I'll call them reactionaries or extremists, more nonpartisan too!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:03AM
I have read the article you linked in regards to Milo. I have not found any sort of "wink-wink advocating for violence and harassment". Did you link the wrong article?
They so utterly lost their shit over it that they actually killed the entire diversity office.
So-called "diversity offices" are usually focused around diversity of skin color rather than diversity of opinions or the free exchange of ideas. In my opinion, diversity of skin color is neither meaningful nor valuable.
What kind of diversity office was this one?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:18AM
I have read the article you linked in regards to Milo. I have not found any sort of "wink-wink advocating for violence and harassment".
If you can't see that putting her face up on the giant screen, naming her and then proceeding to call her a man who just wants to follow women into the bathroom is not incitment to violence against her, then you are a motivated simpleton. Trans people get beat [stevewessler.com] up [oregonlive.com] and killed [satiratribune.com] for [nydailynews.com] that [rawstory.com] all [towleroad.com] the [wnep.com] time. [ketv.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:21AM
If you can't see that putting her face up on the giant screen, naming her and then proceeding to call her a man who just wants to follow women into the bathroom is not incitment to violence against her, then you are a motivated simpleton.
That isn't incitement to violence, no matter how reprehensible and idiotic it is. You need to go farther than that for it to be incitement. If someone responds to the speech in a violent way, that's entirely their own doing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:31AM
That isn't incitement to violence,
incitement [oxforddictionaries.com]
noun
[mass noun], [often with infinitive] The action of provoking unlawful behaviour or urging someone to behave unlawfully.
————————————————————————————————————————————————
Keep playing stupid, the only people you are fooling are the people who want to be fooled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:36AM
This isn't provoking unlawful behavior unless he actually intended for violence to occur. Do you have evidence that he had such intent?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:43AM
There was no other reason to identify her by name and image.
Any other point he could have made could have been made equally as well without that.
She was not a public figure.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Sunday February 12 2017, @05:15AM
He did indeed sue the university to force his way into the women's facilities, which naturally attracted press coverage, and his face and name were widely published in many places as a result. Milo apparently referred to the student newspaper for it, but he could have also gone to the local tv station ( http://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/uwm-student-says-shes-been-discriminated-against-at-the-klotsche-center ) or a very sympathetic article from a prominent left wing site ( https://thinkprogress.org/at-university-of-wisconsin-milwaukee-trans-students-may-have-finally-won-true-locker-room-access-2e3ddeb156e1 ) or even a less sympathetic writeup from a more conservative site (http://www.dailywire.com/news/5419/man-angry-university-not-letting-him-show-his-junk-amanda-prestigiacomo) for the info, and even if he had chosen not to use the name anyone that was curious could have found it with a single search (or would have already known it.)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:02AM
You're simply and demonstrably wrong, he was very much a public figure already.
Incorrect.
Filing a lawsuit and being reported on does not make one a public figure.
even if he had chosen not to use the name anyone that was curious could have found it with a single search (or would have already known it.
That's the disingenuousness of a motivated simpleton. The fact that someone who wanted to hunt her down could do it on their own is not the equivalent of deliberately hand-feeding that information to a crowd while inveighing that she is a deviant intent on doing harm.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:50AM
he was very much a public figure already.
...
He did indeed sue the university to force his way into the women's facilities
...
his face
You just couldn't help yourself, could you?
If anyone thought you were arguing in defense of free speech instead of against a minority you hold in contempt, you just gave yourself away.
Just admit it — you are happy that she was singled out for harassment. Everything else you've said is just a smokescreen to rationalize that.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:26AM
Yup, welcome to the shit stains that inhabit soylent news. They really don't see their prejudice and bias, they think they are freedom loving fair folk, but they would gladly slam boots on faces if it was socially acceptable. The silver lining of Trump's victory, letting the assholes think their shit is suddenly palatable. Gonna be a long four years, hopefully the jerks get enough feedback from their crazy rantings and realize that "oh shit, maybe we're the problem?"
I can dream
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @12:44PM
Well, shit stain, stop hating on real people so much. Most of the country is sick of your politically correct shit, and the stain it leaves in public places. At least have the courtesy to keep your stained self hidden.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @11:39PM
Denial only makes your problem worse. The world is moving on from horrible ideologies, except in the middle east where such crap was intentionally implemented by the US in pursuit of cheap oil and world power. So congrats, you are the next homegrown supporter of violence. Where are these PC stains in public spaces? You're full of it, stop listening to the media filling g your head with lies.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @08:45AM
A man who wishes to be a woman is still a man.
(Score: 4, Funny) by aristarchus on Sunday February 12 2017, @10:48AM
A man who wishes to be a woman is still a man.
Oh, calm down, you silly clit! The way I heard it, from someone much older and wiser than me, who had heard it from Tiresias himself, is that "When women dress like men, they are after socio-economic power. When men dress like women, they are seeking god." So, a woman who wished to me a man, is still a man? Be clear here, AC! What are you saying!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @12:42PM
he was very much a public figure already.
...
He did indeed sue the university to force his way into the women's facilities
...
his face
Let it be noted that he has a kind face. It's the kind of face most of us would like to kick. It's the kind of face that some of you would like to fuck. That distinction is what separates the men from the fruitcakes.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday February 12 2017, @02:21PM
You actually think that speaking proper grammatical English is a signal of contempt for minorities. You'll actually argue that with a straight face.
You have no idea what my actual attitudes are, you know nothing about my history of actions, and the thing is you're just dead sure you don't need to know. The fact that I have the nerve to speak (in this case, write) proper English is enough right there for you to dehumanize me completely.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @02:47PM
You actually think that speaking proper grammatical English is a signal of contempt for minorities.
Keep on digging.
Deliberately using incorrect pronouns is literally the opposite of proper english.
dehumanize me completely.
Wah! You are a hypocrite for judging me for my judgments!
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:01PM
Exactly! Which is why I avoided doing it.
"Wah! You are a hypocrite for judging me for my judgments!"
You're judging me based on sheer prejudice. You don't know my positions, and you show no interest in learning about them. You needed only one piece of information - that I use English traditionally, rather than mangling it in the way prescribed by your church, therefore I am clearly not a member. I might be much closer to your position than the majority, you don't care, that isn't good enough. I have conspicuously refrained from emitting a specific signal you demand as a sign of orthodoxy, and that's all you needed to condemn me.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:15PM
I have conspicuously refrained from emitting a specific signal
Lol. That's so fucking hilarious that you would even try to claim that.
Dude, you lit up the fucking bat-signal.
The Frank Miller version of the bat-signal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @11:42PM
So you bait someone into misunderstanding you then cry about it? Ha ha HAAAAAA, what a maroon!
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday February 13 2017, @12:17AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @07:20AM
The fact that I have the nerve to speak (in this case, write) proper English is enough right there for you to dehumanize me completely.
Yes, you are a brave boy for using "proper english."
A real hero, fighting the good fight!
God, do you ever listen to yourself?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @12:39PM
Obviously, then, liberals intend for gunowners to be killed when they post those gunowner's names and addresses on the internet, along with GPS coords superimposed on a map.
See how that works? What's good for the goose is good for the goose fuckers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @01:05PM
Obviously, then, liberals intend for gunowners to be killed when they post those gunowner's names and addresses on the internet, along with GPS coords superimposed on a map.
Absolutely.
What's good for the goose is good for the goose fuckers.
Just because you hate them all doesn't make them the same person.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @11:45PM
Was gonna say...
This thread is not actually funny, but I can't help but think about all the people calling for Muslims to condemn the extremists, yet when it comes to fuckers like Milo they get all defensive and lose perspective. Hypocrites hoorah
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @12:23AM
What Milo has done (that is, nothing, as far as this thread has shown) is nothing compared to what those "extremists" do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:42AM
Are you arguing that his speech was/should be recognized as illegal, or that his speech could be categorized as incitement according to certain definitions of the word?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:39AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:44AM
You just have to read his mind to know his intentions, or be able to read the Secret Code. Making such accusations based on such vague, flimsy reasoning is just fine. Twist your head sideways to see The Tower, then you'll reach enlightenment!
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:30AM
"Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"
Do you see an explicit call for violence in that? What happened as a result?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:34AM
If anyone acts on the speech by being violent, that's entirely their fault.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 12 2017, @12:37PM
Cross dressing dude who demanded to use the women's restroom? And, you call it a "she"? Your gaydar is fubar'd.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday February 12 2017, @05:33PM
No, what Milo did was far, far worse than inciting violence, so horrible you can't even speak it. He put him up on the screen to make him an object of ridicule, so everyone in the room could laugh at the mentally challenged 'tard and the evil people who refuse to explain reality to him because they are too busy using his disability as a weapon. Now normally that would be a social faux pas but the fact these people are being used as weapons by the Left means they are unfortunately political actors and once you are in the political arena it is more dangerous to NOT attack them. For if some political actors are immune to criticism, no matter how stupid their positions, they will quickly end up running things. Which is pretty much where we were heading, at warp speed, until The Trumpening.
If you support, like I do, keeping the mentally disabled out of the rough and tumble of the political world you guys need to stop using them as mascots.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:46AM
I'm just glad the regressives on the left all trying to win the fascism olympics and control what we can see, hear and say are getting such a strong pushback. Our society is not dying after all. Censorship pushed by the left wing to suppress anything that doesn't further their agenda won't stand, it just isn't tolerated anymore, it was a terrible failure of an idea, plus there are more channels to turn to now, thank God freedom is not dead!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @10:09AM
Why do you hate free speech? Yes diversity offices should be killed, there is no need for thought police.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @03:51AM
Something is wrong with your party if you rely on hate-mongers to score political points.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:01AM
Moron is not a protected class.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:09AM
Moron lives matter, too! Let the morons speak! Milo the moron may have something to tell us all, like that he is a moron and Steve Bannon is like a god to him! Let Milo speak! He is a disruptive faggot, because he has sided with the gay bashers, like VP Pence! Let him tell us why homosexual re-conversion therapy is a real thing! I cannot wait until Milo comes! Seriously
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @12:47PM
Silly faggot. Dicks are for chicks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:08AM
Berkeley ended the Milo speech because there was danger, NOT to censor him. Is Tennessee going to legislate living in danger?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:12AM
Is Tennessee going to legislate living in danger?
Living in Tennesseee is danger, just ask the Mighty Buzzard! Especially in Hazzard County! Them Duke boys!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @12:48PM
Life is dangerous. If you can't handle that, you may exit any time.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:13AM
A danger they themselves *allowed* to happen. The mayor basically told the police to gather up in the student union and sit there. None in the police broke ranks. They LET that riot happen. Then turned around and blamed Milo. I do not agree with him on a lot of things. But what they did to him should not be tolerated much less accepted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:56AM
You are criticizing the police for being where the crowd of protestors were and where the riot happened. [cbslocal.com]
As the gathered crowd got more agitated, masked “black bloc” activists began hurling projectiles including bricks, lit fireworks and rocks at the building and police.
Some used police barriers as battering rams to attack the doors of the venue, breaching at least one of the doors and entering the venue on the first floor.
In addition to fireworks being thrown up onto the second-floor balcony, fires were lit outside the venue, including one that engulfed a gas-powered portable floodlight.
You sound like one of those trolls whose only interest is in finding fault regardless of what actually happened.
And you don't even bother to provide evidence for your claim.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:40AM
Nailed it
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @01:35PM
"You are criticizing the police for being where the crowd of protestors were and where the riot happened."
He's criticizing them for being right there *and doing nothing* to prevent the riot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @10:10PM
Is someone claiming the Mayor ordered the cops to not do their job?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:28AM
Well fuck me! Is such an ass a Milo was coming to my community, I would not just "allow" the danger to happen, I would make sure it did happen, so I would not have to listen to his gay shit! Blue lives matter, bro!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday February 12 2017, @12:10PM
No, in fact they aren't. They're, should this bill pass, going to be obligated to make sure people from any political affiliation can speak safely at their campus. Which will mean pepper spraying a few hippies. Good times!
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 12 2017, @12:52PM
Jesus, Buzzard, leave the hippies alone. All the hippies are in their seventies now, and even the "wish I coulda been there" crowd are in their sixties. Let's just stick to pepper spraying progressives and/or SJW's, and assorted militants. Black, white, Islamic, it dosen't much matter. Bastard raises a fist, you spray him. Hell, if he raises an open hand, spray him. He raises a roach, offer him a light.
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday February 12 2017, @01:32PM
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Cognizant on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:15AM
I was reading along taking it in just fine until someone had to insert his opinion about what is correct. It would be nice if you save your fucking opinion for the comments section and stop slopping all over the news headline please. I do not like my news run through a filter of any kind, Fox news, CNN or you. Thank you.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:52AM
I'm not entirely clear what the problem is. Are you talking about the headline, the comment after the blockquote, something on the Tennessean.com site, or something else?
If you are talking about the comment after the blockquote, it should be fairly obvious that text is written by TheMightyBuzzard. It is not "slopping all over the news headline" (maybe you meant "slopping all over the summary"?). This is not the first story to include a submitter's opinion near the end of the summary.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Cognizant on Sunday February 12 2017, @05:26AM
It was obvious it was written by him surely. I am not a fan of what I perceive as to much opinion in my news. Maybe i miss the point of what your trying to do here with the headline portion. Is there not plenty of opinion in the comments without writers and editors flavoring a news story? Or in this case re-flavoring since it is simply a write up of a written story? I do understand it happened here before and I personally did not like it any more than now. No offense to Buzzard you or anyone else I just think that behavior is too common and someone needs to get writers of news to get out of the opinion business. I was interested in the story for itself. When someone is trying to get me the news i dont give a fuck what he thinks I just want the story. Then we can get down to debating the merits down here. I might be missing something here, i am getting old so that's happening a lot more lately, I just feel opinion should not get past editors. I love debate but I am just very tired of opinionated news. Maybe i am in the wrong place huh? Any way this is just MY opinion down here where i feel it belongs.
(Score: 2) by BK on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:47PM
I've railed about opinions in the stories before (more than once) but have come to realize that it is a feature of this site. That doesn't mean that I think the editors are infallible, but rather I recognize that they don't want to censor one or two lines of opinion on an otherwise interesting story.
I should also point out that if you go back a few months or even a year or more, you'll find lots of expression of opinions in front page articles, often contrary to the opinion that TMB offered here. Hell, SN's most infamous coward [soylentnews.org] puts one in most of his stories. If you are going to tolerate the one, it seems reasonable that you might tolerate the other...
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 1) by Cognizant on Sunday February 12 2017, @08:44PM
Thanks for your perspective.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:24AM
Holy shit - this is how to win! Whatever social ends we want, we should push by making it a controversial issue for some minority hard-conservative group. Gay hard-conservative (ha) rejected from the tea party club in school, or a straight Christian missionary preaching conversion therapy rejected by a lgbt club; pass a law preventing membership restriction by slgbt-etc status. You get the idea!
To get them to change the rules, we just put media and thus political attention on a spotlight issue hitting hard-conservatives, where the big picture favours social progress!
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by tisI on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:47AM
Free speech is like this Mr Milo Yaiwantitupmyassanddownmythroatopoulos,
you want to spew your racist hate into my face, you may feel have a right to, and you may attempt it ..
I will rebut your racist views with my own free speech statement of a sharp punch to your face. Simple as that. Problem solved!
Free speech vs. free speech. Which free speech will win?
Go fuck yourself asshole!
No, Berkeley did it right. Got the point across. Took fire and potential violence to the dick lickers, but the nazis got the hint.
No, nazi suck
Give 'em what they want, golden showers.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:55AM
violence = free speech?
I wonder which approach will win out in actual courts (not the court of public opinion).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by tisI on Sunday February 12 2017, @09:08PM
Our courts are a joke.
Corporations are people now.
Money is free speech.
Hate speech is free speech.
Nazi and the KKK are in the white house.
There is no longer any justice in america.
Money rules the day.
Everyone I know are unprincipled low life pieces of shit. Just of like you.
There is not one honest person in america today.
And that is the weather forecast for today. Cold hearted and shitty.
Tomorrow isn't looking much better.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday February 12 2017, @10:21PM
Exaggeration, misunderstanding, and business as usual.
What are you going to do about these dire events?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday February 12 2017, @05:00AM
Thanks for admitting that, it can be hard at times to convince normal people that folks like you actually exist.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @10:27AM
Milo Yaiwantitupmyassanddownmythroatopoulos,
I believe I have this copyrighted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @01:00PM
Closet fag gets halfway out of the closet, and starts talking tough. tisI, your mouth is moving, you should tend to that before you own jaw gets broken.
(Score: 2) by tisI on Sunday February 12 2017, @08:52PM
Big talk from a nutless AC over an anonymous forum.
All ACs are dick licking faggots. What else ya got shit eater?
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @12:58AM
My rancid cock is busy pushing away the rancid goodies in your hole so it can get to the centerpiece.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:53PM
"Free speech vs. free speech. Which free speech will win?"
Very obviously, the ones with the guns. Let me guess: You don't own one because you're "non-violent"? Even if you do, the other 90% of people on your side don't.
Oh, but that's right, the oppressive racist misogynistic police will save you! Save you, the people who pelt them with rocks and call for them to be jailed.
Rethink your position in society.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @09:56PM
Now I didn't like the OP but you show yourself to be the same basic moron. In fact I suspect SN may be the testing ground for new chatbots, its the only way to explain the stupidity that flows through here.. So what are you? Chatbot or shitty human?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @08:19AM
You know what? I don't agree with conservatives on a lot of things, but protecting free speech on college campuses is one thing I definitely agree with. The diversity offices of many campuses are slowly turning into thought police. They really aren't necessary to begin with. It's a waste of money to have them around and employ people who couldn't get jobs elsewhere. If people need diversity training, I'm sure the counseling office can do it just fine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @10:35AM
The diversity offices of many campuses are slowly turning into thought police.
Get the fuck off my Campus lawn, you god-damned ignoramous who probably did not graduate from high-school and has not read a fucking book in the last twenty years! You do not get an opinion, you do not have the resources to form one! You could not even qualify to apply to the diversity office of my campus, since you are an uneducated twerp. Now fuck off, before we call campus security on your ass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @10:49AM
Cool brah, an authoritarian college kid. Remember to bow down to the Don once you graduate, he IS the authority :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @01:02PM
No, that's not an authoritarian college kid. It's just a presumptuous little cock biter.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday February 12 2017, @01:13PM
I thought that the jurisdiction in which Tennessee is located already required free speech [billofrightsinstitute.org] and a free press, and the free exercise of religion, and freedom to assemble, and things like that. I honestly did. Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, that's for sure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @01:56PM
A place to have your views and preconceptions challenged. Nowadays it's increasingly seeming that many are using them as a place to do little more than reinforce biases.
And I think this is detrimental to any sort of critical thinking. It encourages the fallacious thinking so many already engage in where instead of surveying all evidence and pursuing a position based on this evidence, people choose a position based on personal biases and then find evidence to support their conclusion. Climate change is one strong example here. Yet the same is true of things like 'hate speech.' Milo is certainly a provocateur, but he in no way spreads 'hate speech' or violence or anything of the sort. I have 0 doubt that the vast majority of those protesting him have never seen or read anything from him, excepting cherry picked comments here and there invariably taken out of context.
I blame the increasingly business oriented nature of colleges. They're not there to educate but to make money from you. And with the sharply increasing cost of tuition and other fees many have turned to pandering to their students in the same way, and for the same reason, that private schools often pander to parents.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @02:37PM
Largely replace colleges with churches and I feel the same way you do my friend. God must really be bad with money if his house has to sell "My Son Loves You" buttons bought from Oriental Trading Company, Inc. [orientaltrading.com] This form of hatred is cookie cutter. Just fill in the blanks of this hatefilled speach and away you go.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @05:21PM
Perhaps churches are a good analogy, but I don't think in the way you're suggesting. Churches were always meant to essentially brain wash people into believing in unprovable ideologies largely by appeals to emotion while while also strictly defining their morals as well - going against which can be grounds for exclusion from the group. And in many ways I would agree that is what colleges are turning into today. The recent violence and riots happening at Berkeley is unbelievably ironic. Berkeley went from the literal origins of the major free speech movement in the 60s to a place where expressing the 'wrong' views is sufficient justification for physical assault. I'm sure they fancy themselves as fighting the good fight against fascism, yet fascism itself is most keenly recognized in its complete and absolute suppression and intolerance of different views. This [imgoat.com] image contrast sums up the situation with two images.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:24PM
That image ignores all the social changes that have occurred since the 60s, and was probably put together by the very kind of person they're protesting against in both pictures.
In the 60s, these people would use unrelated and trivial laws enforced creatively to silence a narrative they did not like. (Ask the Nixon administration about the war on drugs for example) Now those same people have indeed learned that approach does not work but shifted their tactics so that they now use the law to force their narrative anywhere narratives are being discussed even if unwanted and believe that the exclusion of their pet narrative is the true free speech suppression.
The problem then are those trying to force their narrative, not Berkeley's students admittedly ineffective demonstrating and posturing in reaction to the forced narrative.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:56PM
The language of protest is inevitably co-opted by the powerful.
See how the bigots are now the leading proponents of colorblindness. [salon.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @06:28AM
First we have this:
It encourages the fallacious thinking so many already engage in where instead of surveying all evidence and pursuing a position based on this evidence, people choose a position based on personal biases and then find evidence to support their conclusion. Climate change is one strong example here.
Immediately followed by this:
Yet the same is true of things like 'hate speech.' Milo is certainly a provocateur, but he in no way spreads 'hate speech' or violence or anything of the sort. I have 0 doubt that the vast majority of those protesting him have never seen or read anything from him, excepting cherry picked comments here and there invariably taken out of context.
Zero doubt, and no evidence or even a hint of irony. And you complain about the degradation of critical thinking! Ha! Fake comment!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:08PM
...how can it be required?
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday February 12 2017, @10:34PM
I'm a little late to the party here, but first off, while the summary can't seem to find the text of the proposed bill, I'm pretty sure it's here [tn.gov].
Reading through it, there's not a lot I'd disagree with directly -- certainly not the sentiment. (For the record, I strongly condemn the actions of the Berkeley rioters, even though I also see through Mr. Yiannopoulos's smokescreen and realize he is actually trolling, and the Berkeley students were just feeding into the hysteria. Like all rational people online should know, one should not feed the trolls. All it does is make them -- and here Mr. Yiannopoulos, the grand wizard of trolldom -- stronger.)
But there are some questions the bill raises. For example, there's section (b)(15) on requirements for university policies "on freedom of speech and expression":
Provides that the institution shall strive to remain neutral on the public policy controversies of the day, and may not take action, as an institution, on such controversies in such a way as to require students or faculty to publicly express a given view on public policy.
While I agree that students/faculty should not be "required" to express a view on public policy, what exactly qualifies as "public policy controversies of the day"? And what exactly does "remaining neutral" mean? I understand that a state university should tend not to get embroiled in politics. But on the other hand, is "global warming" a "public policy controversy"? Is the teaching of evolution? It's unclear. This clause seems to potentially stifle debate more than promote free expression.
And then you have stuff like this at (c)(6):
Gives faculty the right to regulate class speech; provided, that the faculty regulates the speech in a viewpoint and content neutral manner.
Again, I can understand the desire to protect speech on political topics. But what exactly does "a viewpoint and content neutral manner" mean, say, in a science class? Can a professor in an Evolutionary Biology class under this law curtail a discussion promoting Creationism or Intelligent Design, for example, without running afoul of the law? Can a physics professor shut down a group of students in class who want to talk about their personal belief that gravity isn't real and it's all just the doing of invisible microscopic gnomes? Isn't "content" part of the curriculum? How exactly can you regulate speech in a "viewpoint and content neutral manner" when the "content" of the course in many courses is dependent on verifiable facts... which are going to biased for or against certain "viewpoints" on the matter.
Indeed, other sections of the bill seem to go directly at this issue of breaking down "truth" and "knowledge." Section (c)(3):
Reassures students that to dissent or disagree with generally accepted truth and knowledge is acceptable and essential to free debate and inquiry and that students shall not be punished, disciplined, or censored by the institution for the content of the students' lawful speech
I will firmly stand by the necessity of allowing anyone to question "generally accepted BELIEFS or POSITIONS or IDEOLOGIES" or whatever... but "truth and knowledge"? Isn't part of the mission of education to impart knowledge of what is true to students? This is echoed in section (b)(8):
Does not allow the institution to suppress debate or deliberation because the ideas being debated or deliberated upon are considered to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong
Huh? We can't tell anyone they're "wrong"? We can't suppress debate or deliberation when someone says "2+2=5"? Is the university therefore required by law to host an event organized by the "Flat Earthers Association"? I absolutely support the idea of protecting free expression, but there are a number of problematic issues raised by this bill about implementation.
Lastly, I'll just note from a personal perspective as someone who went to college and graduate school and who has taught on college campuses that when there is "policing" of free speech, it's often not done by faculty members as much as tends to be implied. It's often initiated by students, both inside and outside the classroom. And many students who have less "mainstream" viewpoints often choose not to express themselves in class or whatever too, for all sorts of reasons. I personally have NEVER shut down a discussion for "political correctness" reasons, and I would condemn any faculty member who does. (The kinds of courses I've taught, however, aren't generally ones that get deeply involved in things like contemporary political issues and debates, so it's not a huge issue for me.) On the other hand, I *would* shut down the kinds of discussions that Mr. Yiannopoulos promotes, where he encourages deliberate trolling to get people worked up and yelling rather than having rational debate.
Anyhow, what I was saying is that there's a lot of irrational crap going on among students on all sides of debates, and it is up to faculty members to step in and (1) make sure viewpoints aren't being suppressed, (2) make sure people with various perspective feel welcome bringing them to discussion, and (3) also protect the decorum of the classroom to the extent that it promotes rational debate.
However, I'm also worried about the exact motivation behind this bill -- the discussions it actually suppresses (or requires to be "neutral") and perhaps the doors it is trying to open for debate on issues within science or other fields with established facts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @11:48PM
the Berkeley students were just feeding into the hysteria. Like all rational people online should know, one should not feed the trolls. All it does is make them -- and here Mr. Yiannopoulos, the grand wizard of trolldom -- stronger.)
Nope. That only works when the message isn't seductive on its own. Yellowpopulus is selling hate and that's always going to be popular with enough people that you can't let it go unchallenged because it grows anyway. There are no ideal solutions, but in the real world ignoring hate mongers is not sufficient. You have to take the hit and stand up to it. There are better and worse ways to stand up to it, but ignoring it is capitulation.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday February 13 2017, @12:41AM
Nope. That only works when the message isn't seductive on its own. Yellowpopulus is selling hate and that's always going to be popular with enough people that you can't let it go unchallenged because it grows anyway. There are no ideal solutions, but in the real world ignoring hate mongers is not sufficient. You have to take the hit and stand up to it. There are better and worse ways to stand up to it, but ignoring it is capitulation.
I guess you didn't read the rest of my post, when I specifically state that we should "shut down" the kind of trolling hate-filled incendiary stuff Mr. Yiannopoulos is encouraging. But the manner in which we do it is critical.
At no point did I say we should "ignore" the trolls -- I said we shouldn't "feed the trolls." In normal internet-speak, that generally refers to allowing a troll to "get a rise" out of you... because that's what trolls want. That is precisely the sort of reaction that they want. Mr. Yiannopoulos WANTS people like students at Berkeley to go crazy and riot and burn crap down because it feeds directly into his narrative that the Left is intolerant to his "free speech," etc. He is deliberately provoking people to go crazy and act in ways that make themselves look worse than him.
That's precisely the trap the Berkeley students fell into -- they fed the troll in a rather outrageous fashion.
No: we should NOT ignore trolls. But to defeat them, we cannot stoop to their level. We cannot allow them to bait us into acting like the horrible people they portray us as. There are all sorts of possible ways the students at Berkeley could have made their feelings known on the matter in a rational and reasonable way that recognizes civil discourse as the goal of university life.
In case you haven't figured it out, Mr. Yiannopoulos is running a campaign to get attention solely through riling other people up. In doing so, he draws public attention that he wouldn't otherwise. And, even worse, he causes other people to be drawn to his cause as a reaction against the crazy outrage and seemingly over-the-top behavior from his detractors. If you still don't get it, here's the guy who came up with Mr. Yiannopoulos's playbook telling you why you need to stop playing his game [observer.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @01:16AM
You keep saying that it was the students at berkeley that got out of hand.
Not so.
Its hard to take you seriously when you are so obviously ignorant of the details.
Read up on the black bloc.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday February 13 2017, @07:38AM
Its hard to take you seriously when you are so obviously ignorant of the details.
Read up on the black bloc.
I'm not "ignorant of the details." I know full well about the Black Bloc, etc. What I ALSO know is that many Berkeley students were interviewed after the fact who supported the form of the protests. What I know is that the student newspaper came out in support of the protests and the use of violence within them. Don't believe me? Read and learn [dailycal.org].
But YOU are missing the point and focusing on irrelevant details. If it was primarily the "Black Bloc," that name is primarily associated with extremist Leftists, so what difference to my argument would it make if the violent protests came from one extremist Leftist faction or another??
Now -- there have been some accusations that this was all some sort of right-wing conspiracy plot... that right-wing forces staged it. IF that were true (and I haven't seen clear evidence), then we could have a different discussion about the causes of the riots. BUT it still would NOT excuse the many students who defended the riots and associated violence afterward.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday February 13 2017, @07:45AM
Oh, and just to draw your attention to one of the more notable parts for your argument, see this particular [dailycal.org] op-ed piece from my link. And in particular this quote, from a self-identified member of the "Black Bloc":
But don’t get it twisted. We were not, as the news, the chancellor and concerned progressives have alleged, “unaffiliated white anarchists.” Behind those bandanas and black T-shirts were the faces of your fellow UC Berkeley and Berkeley City College students, of women, of people of color, of queer and trans people.