SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
An editorial in the Wellesley College student newspaper that called for "shutting down" some forms of hateful rhetoric became the latest flashpoint in a contentious national debate over free speech and its limits on college campuses.
The editorial, published Wednesday in the Wellesley News, argues that the campus community will "not stand for hate speech, and will call it out when possible."
"Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech," the editorial states. "The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging."
The editorial was widely criticized on social media as antithetical to the free exchange of ideas that is critical in a democracy and in liberal arts education. It comes as colleges across the country are wrestling with how to protect free speech in an era of trigger warnings, safe spaces, and even assaults on incendiary speakers invited to campuses.
Free speech for all. Unless they disagree with us on something...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 17 2017, @10:57AM (21 children)
I find it amusing that the "staff editorial" header was used for this story but the staff member wasn't a person of their convictions enough to put their name on it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Soylentbob on Monday April 17 2017, @11:07AM (10 children)
I wonder why. After reading the editorial, it appears to not call for any immediate consequences for what they call 'hate speech'. Therefore it is also just a statement of opinion, and students or institutions "not standing for" hate-speech, as in:
- not actively supporting it
- calling it out when seing it
- writing strongly worded letters against it
- motivate students to publicly oppose it
is imo all legitimate. Laying off people or failing students because of their offensive believes would imo not be ok, although some people here should be fine with that as well, since <sarcasm>obviously the free market will take care of that </sarcasm>
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @11:49AM (1 child)
Free markets take care of lots of things that nobody wants to take care of, like gender studies majors and champagne socialists baristas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 18 2017, @07:28PM
> Free markets take care of lots of things
Like uppity women asking for the same wage for the same work as men.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @03:02PM (1 child)
- not actively supporting it
- calling it out when seing it
- writing strongly worded letters against it
- motivate students to publicly oppose it
But that's censorship to Republican snowflakes, especially if somebody calls them "racist" while doing so. Saying "racist" to a Republican is like saying "nigger" to a black person. They'd need to go to their safe space where there are videos of Sean Hannity playing and copies of Breitbart articles.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @04:05PM
"Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech" is nothing but lies. Unless you threaten someone, nothing you say undermines their rights; and nothing you say can undermine their existence unless you're some kind of wizard. Banning speech is violating free speech you lying cunt. Be honest for once. You want other people to have as much free speech as the average North Korean.
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday April 17 2017, @03:55PM (1 child)
I agree. I'm really trying to figure out why this editorial garnered enough attention to warrant a piece in the Boston Globe. Yes, it is arguing against hateful and intolerant speech.
On the other hand, it doesn't seem to be arguing for such speech to be silenced. It does suggest that it be "called out." It primarily seems to be arguing against the escalation of hostility toward those who may support bringing "controversial" speakers to campus or whatever. It argues that education is important to recognize inappropriate bias and discrimination. It argues for having a "dialogue in a constructive and educational way" about the kind of speakers invited to campus. It encourages SPEECH as a response to this: "talk-back, protest videos and personal correspondences are also ways to have a constructive dialogue."
Basically, it's an OPINION stated FREELY in a newspaper about the types of speakers whom the editorial board things would best serve the Wellesley community, along with an extended call for measured "productive dialogue" about that issue, rather than blanket censorship or denying a voice to speakers or student groups who may support them. Wellesley College is a private institution which gets to invite whatever speakers it wants; this editorial is just making a (brief) argument about what speakers the editorial board prefers and then making a much longer argument encouraging dialogue (rather than hostility) about the issue.
Also, let's keep in mind this is an opinion written by a small group of undergraduate students, not a manifesto endorsed by the administration of Wellesley College. (The President of Wellesley has actually come out with a statement in support of free expression [wellesley.edu], a statement which notes that objecting to the invitation of a speaker is actually ALSO free expression of an opinion! Shouldn't that be obvious?!)
There are only two things I find objectionable in the editorial: (1) The sentence "Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech." This sentence doesn't define "shutting down," but it seems a marked contrast with the more measured approaches to promoting "dialogue" about such issues advocated in the rest of the editorial. It's no wonder that sentence is the one that's getting quoted in the summary, because it's one of the few that sounds extremist, when the rest of the piece argues for moderation. (2) The editorial wants to hold invited speakers more strongly accountable for their views rather than berating students who invite/support those speakers. I agree to some extent with that sentiment, but the piece goes overboard in basically making it sound like students who support these speakers likely come in with biases and prejudices taught to them when they were young (and presumably too stupid to know better), and they're just not "educated" enough to understand the error of their ways yet. There is some truth to the fact that a lot of bias and discrimination is often undermined by encounters with other viewpoints and by education, but this editorial comes across as needlessly infantilizing those who may hold different views or support controversial speakers.
That said, again -- it was written by a small group of undergrads. I don't expect that it will be a perfect polished reflection of a thoroughly coherent philosophy. But there's certainly a lot of this piece that seems to advocate productive responses and dialogue about controversy and controversial speakers, rather than kneejerk reactions. That deserves to be highlighted too, since it seems to be the main point of the piece.
And, well, I just searched for the video of the actual event [youtube.com] that caused all of this debate in the first place. I don't see anything like the kind of escalations encountered at other campuses -- the speaker wasn't shouted down or chased away... no rioting occurred. Instead, an academic gave a talk, some students asked some questions (some of them pointed). The end.
So, other than a few poor sentences in this editorial, what are Wellesley students doing here against free speech? They showed up to a talk and asked some questions. They posted a video claiming to 'debunk" the speaker. Some expressed some concern about why she was invited. The student newspaper suggested that there should be "productive dialogue" about some of the speakers that are invited. Almost all of this seems to be about encouraging dialogue. Why is the Boston Globe reporting on a couple problematic sentences in a student newspaper editorial again??
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday April 17 2017, @04:44PM
By the way, I have openly spoken out against the forms of unnecessarily violent student protest at Berkeley, Middlebury, etc. and their attempts to actively silence speakers. I am a strong defender of dialogue and free expression.
I am frankly baffled by the attention given to this Wellesley thing though. As I said, a few sentences in the student newspaper editorial seem problematic, but the overall tone is about dialogue. And by all accounts that's EXACTLY what happened at Wellesley. I just found this piece on WBUR [wbur.org] about the actual event surrounding the controversial speaker and its response:
Tom Cushman [the professor who invited the speaker, and campus leader of the conservative "Freedom Project"] said the fact that students like Boyk came and listened was proof that he’s in the right place.
“When I look at Middlebury, I run over to Wellesley and I kiss the ground. Because we’ve had nothing like that happen. Wellesley students, they’ve have proven to be very intense, very outspoken, but also extremely civil to our speakers. That’s what a public sphere is supposed to look like," Cushman said.
When the event was over, students applauded and milled around, discussing and arguing about Kipnis' speech. Cushman says sparking those tough conversations between very different people is worth the trouble — especially, he adds, since it’s not going so well in America right now.
THIS kind of response and a few sentences in a student newspaper editorial are enough to send the right-wing into a tizzy these days? Wow.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @05:36PM (3 children)
The thinking is that conservative speech is equal to violence. Opposing it with real violence is just self defense. You can "bash the fash", clubbing in a Trump supporter's head, without being unethical.
(Score: 2) by Soylentbob on Monday April 17 2017, @05:47PM (2 children)
The editorial does not mention violence in the slightest. That this is the first thing to come to your mind might tell more about you than about your expertise...
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @07:57PM
This time around, they aren't open about it, but yes they do mean exactly that.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday April 18 2017, @12:22AM
The editorial does not mention violence in the slightest.
Indeed. The claim in many conservative news headlines about this story advocating "violence" seems entirely based on one use of the word "hostility." Here's the problematic sentence:
This being said, if people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted.
But is this "hostility" advocating "violence"? Unfortunately, the many conservative headline writers seem to have failed basic reading comprehension, because the use of the word "hostility" is clearly referencing a sentence earlier in the editorial. Namely:
This being said, the tone surrounding the current discourse is becoming increasingly hostile.
What are they talking about here? They're talking about the supposed thought police who are being "hostile" to students who supported the conservative speaker. Yes, the editorial board is arguing against the "hostility" being used against those with different opinions from the campus norm (which, in this case, are likely conservatives). Rather than this 'hostile" environment, the editorial board recommends education:
....we argue that these questionable claims should be mitigated by education as opposed to personal attacks. [...] holding difficult conversations for the sake of educating is very different from shaming on the basis of ignorance.
Now, we may rightly object that the use of the word "education" here is akin to "indoctrination" in liberal values, something I objected to in a previous post on this thread. It's not an ideal argument to me, but it's not advocating "hostility" -- it's saying the campus debate has become "hostile," and instead we should talk calmly about this and educate ourselves about these issues.
IF this "education" fails, THEN "hostility may be warranted." But obviously in context this doesn't mean violence; it's referring to exactly what the word "hostile" meant earlier in the editorial -- i.e., "berating," "shaming," "personal attacks," etc. And even then, they aren't suggesting that students be targeted by this --
It is important to note that our preference for education over beration regards students [...] Paid professional lecturers and politicians are among those who should know better.
There's a lot of problematic wording in the editorial, a lot of which I'm personally not comfortable with. But -- despite the conservative media's inept reading of this editorial -- there is no suggestion of "violence" of any sort. Basically, it's a piece that says dialogue and education is superior to unproductive dialogue (like personal attacks and berating). And only when such dialogue has failed (as in speakers who "should know better" but still are advocating hateful speech) do they say that stuff like that less productive dialogue "may be warranted."
It's not the best writing, and there's a lot of questionable stuff in it. But at the core, it's advocating dialogue and discussion -- and at worst saying a bit of heated language against speakers who are themselves advocating hate speech may be "warranted." At least, that's what I get out of actually reading the whole text, rather than just choosing a few sentences out of context.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @11:41AM (1 child)
"Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard," it says. Not his real name (I hope) but hardly anyone uses those on this site.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 17 2017, @04:44PM
It (or a shortened version thereof) gets used more often than my actual name, both online and off. Make of that what you will.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday April 17 2017, @03:05PM (5 children)
I find it amusing that the "staff editorial" header was used for this story but the staff member wasn't a person of their convictions enough to put their name on it.
I could be wrong, but I would assume "staff editorial" means that it was written by and approved by the editorial STAFF (i.e., the editorial board) of the paper, kind of like generic "editorials" in most newspapers, which are generally unsigned and are taken to reflect the opinion of the editorial staff as a whole. And you can find the names (and bios and photos) of the editorial board clearly posted on the newspaper website [thewellesleynews.com], so nobody's hiding.
Taking a look back at the "staff editorial" archive on the website, it seems most of the "staff editorials" are of this form, likely reflecting the editorial board's opinion as a whole. There are occasional signed ones, where I assume there was less unanimity or it was important to single-out a specific author for a personal opinion/piece.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @03:13PM
You expect somebody gullible enough to take #pizzagate seriously to understand how editorials work?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 17 2017, @04:47PM (3 children)
Most editorials are in fact attributed to the author(s), or at least a pseudonym. That this is not the policy of said site speaks to their courage of conviction.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday April 17 2017, @06:16PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday April 17 2017, @06:58PM
Most editorials are in fact attributed to the author(s), or at least a pseudonym. That this is not the policy of said site speaks to their courage of conviction.
Hmm...that's odd. A quick survey of a few newspapers doesn't show that at all:
Editorials from Kansas City Star [kansascity.com] are attributed to the "editorial board";
Editorials from The Washington Times [washingtontimes.com] are attributed to "The Washington Times";
Editorials from The Wall Street Journal [wsj.com] are unsigned;
Editorials from The Boston Globe [bostonglobe.com] are also unsigned.
Opinion pieces by columnists or contributors pretty much always have an individual byline, editorials not so much.
Perhaps I chose the wrong newspapers for my quick and dirty survey. Which newspapers give editorials as opposed to columnist or contributor pieces individual bylines? Do tell.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday April 18 2017, @12:38AM
I'll echo the previous post and add some more links:
-- The Washington Post attributes [washingtonpost.com] its "The Post's View" editorials to the "Editorial Board" and contains a blurb on the side listing the names of exactly who is included.
-- The New York Times attributes [nytimes.com] its "Editorials" to "The Editorial Board."
-- The New York Post attributes [nypost.com] "Editorials" to the "Post Editorial Board."
-- The Chicago Tribune attributes [chicagotribune.com] "Editorials" to the "Editorial Board."
Etc., etc. I can't remember ever seeing a major newspaper in the U.S. that "signs" editorials regularly. Occasionally if there's disagreement among the board, you'll see something that's signed by some editors, perhaps with an "opposing view" piece written by another editor or something.
As How Stuff Works explains [howstuffworks.com], editorials are defined as: "unsigned commentary that reflects the collective position of the newspaper's editorial board." You'll find similar definitions elsewhere.
There's a word for what Mr. Buzzard is talking about: it's an "Op-Ed," i.e., an "opinion-editorial" which traditionally reflects a particular editor's opinion (that's where the word comes from). Nowadays the word "Op-ed" is sometimes used more freely to refer to stuff not written by editors, but traditionally the byline is pretty much what differentiated an individual "opinion editorial" from the newspaper's collective "editorial" pronouncements on behalf of its entire board.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @05:22PM (1 child)
I find it amusing that the "staff editorial" header was used for this story but the staff member wasn't a person of their convictions enough to put their name on it.
Why?
It represents the opinion of the editorial staff. Not just one person.
They publish staff editorials all the time.
http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/03/01/college-should-publicly-disclose-funding-sources/ [thewellesleynews.com]
http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/03/09/letter-from-the-editors-2/ [thewellesleynews.com]
http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/04/05/compensation-should-extend-beyond-college-government/ [thewellesleynews.com]
http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/03/24/highlighting-the-differences-between-news-and-opinions/ [thewellesleynews.com]
http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/03/09/response-from-the-editors-re-editorial-on-funding-sources/ [thewellesleynews.com]
http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/02/24/campus-staff-should-be-included-in-post-election-activism/ [thewellesleynews.com]
http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/02/15/commotion-around-clinton-takes-spotlight-off-commencement/ [thewellesleynews.com]
http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/02/13/wellesley-sanctuary-campus-petition-should-be-re-instated/ [thewellesleynews.com]
...
Seems like you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 17 2017, @05:27PM
How do you figure? I said I thought it was interesting not that I'm losing sleep over it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @11:23AM (10 children)
is speech that somebody really does not want to hear. Specifying what is or is not acceptable is entirely against the point of free speech. Imagine in a society where the majority of people believed that blacks were second class citizens, or even property. Such society might then decide to limit 'hateful' speech calling "property owners" all sorts of unacceptable names, insulting their character, and more. The exceptions to free speech such as 'fighting words' or not being able to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater are not easily twisted. 'Hate speech' on the other hand can be twisted to encompass nearly any sort of speech.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @11:35AM
This crap again? That's it, ban all ACs!!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @03:06PM (4 children)
>> Imagine in a society where the majority of people believed that blacks were second class citizens
Don't have to imagine, we already have it: Israel, all funded by the US taxpayer's Dollar. I find it particularly ironic when Americans start getting their knickers in a twist about these new threats to free speech when it has been de facto forbidden to criticize Israel pretty much since its existence. Even with issues as divisive as gun control or abortion you will find no shortage of mainstream politicians willing to argue support either side of the argument, but try and find a single elected official who dares to speak out against the brutal, racist, anti-semitic regime in Israel ?
Iran signed up to the non-proliferation treaty but unsubstantiated allegations of trying to develop weapons ? Well that deserves crippling sanctions. Israel: credible intelligence that they have developed weapons and point-blank refusing to sign up to non-proliferation: a US-sponsored free pass. Russia: annexes Crimea after a vote where the overwhelming majority of the population vote for the annex, well that's sanctions again. Israel: military annexation of West Bank with the consent of zero % of the population and decades of illegal 'settlements' as human shields, again all financed by the US taxpayer, well thats just fine and dandy.
Freedom of speech my ass.
And to any of you half-wits who want to accuse me of anti-semitism, that accusation would, ironically, be anti-semitic itself. I am criticizing Israel and Zionism, if you are having difficulty distinguishing the difference between Jews and Zionists, a simple analogy should help; its the same difference between Mafia members and Sicilians; Mafia members make a big deal about their Sicilian heritage but at the end of the day ordinary decent law-abiding Sicilians see them for what they are: criminal scum.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday April 17 2017, @05:47PM (1 child)
I'm glad you said this. Israel must be criticized for the awful actors they are. They've been conducting a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Palestinians for 40 years now, with nary a peep from the United States of America. They drop cluster bombs on civilians, with nary a peep from the United States of America. They actually do have nuclear weapons, and the USS Carl Vinson is somehow not steaming toward a showdown with Tel Aviv, preparing to strike their nuclear sites.
Why is that?
My best friend in NYC is an orthodox Jew. A prince of a guy. But in the wake of Trump's victory last fall he kept going on and on and on about how stupid and fascist his wall project was. I said, how can you be up in arms over Trump's proposal when Israel has actually had one enclosing the Palestinians in the West Bank in an open-air prison for over a decade and you haven't said a word? Either allow America has as much right to build a wall on its borders as Israel does, or call both things stupid and insist they be abandoned or torn down immediately.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 18 2017, @02:00AM
It's racism, plain and simple. Talk to some Zionists and you'll quickly learn that Israel Jews are mostly fair skinned people from Europe and Russia who are genetically superior as evidenced by the disproportionate Nobel prize winners and the high technology they produce. Palestinians are backwards sand niggers who ride camels and hate Jews.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 17 2017, @06:09PM
Israel: credible intelligence that they have developed weapons and point-blank refusing to sign up to non-proliferation: a US-sponsored free pass.
You're proposing to punish somebody for violating an agreement they didn't sign? How exactly does that work in international diplomacy?
Or we could roll up in there and kick ass and chew gum. Because that worked so well the last dozen times.
the brutal, racist, anti-semitic regime in Israel ?
I take it you mean "anti-Arab"? Not sure "anti-Semitic" works in this context.
Se·mit·ic
səˈmidik/
adjective
1.
relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family.
2.
relating to the peoples who speak the Semitic languages, especially Hebrew and Arabic.
Antisemitism (also spelled anti-Semitism or anti-semitism) is hostility, prejudice, or discrimination directed against Jews.[1][2][3] A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite. Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism.[4][5]
The root word Semite gives the false impression that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic people. However, the compound word antisemite was popularized in Germany in 1879[6] as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass "Jew-hatred",[7][8][9][10][11] and that has been its common use since then.[12][13]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 18 2017, @07:34PM
> Russia: annexes Crimea after a vote where the overwhelming majority of the population vote for the annex
Ah yes! The vote. Did you read about that in Pravda?
(Score: 5, Informative) by butthurt on Monday April 17 2017, @07:40PM
> The exceptions to free speech such as 'fighting words' or not being able to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater are not easily twisted.
Not easily twisted, really?
The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 17 2017, @09:24PM (2 children)
The exceptions to free speech such as 'fighting words' [...] are not easily twisted..
The idea of "fighting words" is utter nonsense, even more so than the 'fire in a crowded theater' garbage. Not only is this not mentioned in the Constitution, but the idea that you can be held responsible because someone else chose to react to your speech with violence is simply insane and runs contrary to the principle of personal responsibility. If you're offended or insulted by someone else's speech, that's your problem and you're not entitled to use violence against them. I'm not sure why this tripe is being defended here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 18 2017, @07:39PM (1 child)
> the idea that you can be held responsible because someone else chose to react to your speech with violence is simply insane
"Hey, I'm going to go rape your mother! I know where she lives - 208 H-Street - I'mma go there right now."
How could one know if the speaker were serious? The listener could well be justified in reacting with violence.
Would you like other despicable examples of speech which warrants violence? Where the speech itself might be construed as violence? Do you really think that harm can only be done using fists?
This tangent is gross but your idea is unworthy of being silently glossed.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 19 2017, @03:49AM
How could one know if the speaker were serious?
That depends on the context. If you have evidence that they are taking action to carry this out their threat, then this is no longer about speech, and therefore has nothing to do with "fighting words".
The listener could well be justified in reacting with violence.
That's not up to them to decide unless there is an imminent physical threat to themselves or others. If there is such a threat, then violence and/or calling the police can be justified. You can always claim you didn't know the other person was just joking or exaggerating in order to 'justifiably' initiate violence against someone else.
Would you like other despicable examples of speech which warrants violence?
No, because they are unlikely to sway me for the same reasons.
Do you really think that harm can only be done using fists?
No, there are plenty of other ways to inflict physical harm.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @11:41AM (5 children)
The First Amendment prohibition against restricting free speech is a prohibition against the government making laws restriction free expression. Any newspaper or private institution can follow whatever cockamamy rules its leadership decides to promulgate. Similarly as with the Fourth Amendment: It restricts the government from intrusion of individual privacy ... it in no way restricts, for example, Google or Facebook from spying on you.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @11:53AM
That's OK, google and facebook is the government now.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 17 2017, @12:40PM
In effect, a college campus sets itself up as a local government. It establishes laws, rules, and codes of conduct, which the individual students seldom get to participate in. That is, the laws are not democratically decided on, but established by some board, and maybe a few teacher's pets who know how to parrot the proper words and phrases.
Free speech laws apply to college campuses, especially when those colleges are funded by the state, in whole, or in part.
If there is anywhere outside of federal government agencies where free speech should be protected, then it is in college and university where it should be most jealously guarded.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 17 2017, @01:12PM
Any newspaper or private institution can follow whatever cockamamy rules its leadership decides to promulgate.
Unless they're being used by government as a way to dodge the First Amendment. If a newspaper, for example, fires a journalist critical of federal activities in some quid pro quo with government officials, that's First Amendment territory even though the newspaper was the party getting its hands dirty. But First Amendment is not the only defense for free speech on a college campus.
Any private institution can have crazy rules (subject to the laws of the land such as discrimination, laws on association, and disability accommodation law in the US), but they have to follow those rules consistently for contractual reasons. As I noted in another post, Wellesley college portrays itself [soylentnews.org] as honoring free speech, creating a reasonable expectation of free speech among its students and employees, and apparently has rules protecting the exercise of free speech (though I didn't bother to dig enough to find them). Thus, any subsequent punishment for speech is not just hypocrisy or craziness, it is also a legal issue which can be resolved against the college and the administrators responsible.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @01:21PM
Saying people support free speech because of the first amendment is like saying people support the right of women to vote because of the 19th amendment.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 17 2017, @04:49PM
I must have missed something, who said anything about the First Amendment?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday April 17 2017, @12:02PM (15 children)
Christians are against free speech, they don't what to hear in their church what cargo cult people (or muslims) have to say.
---
Point is, the way I read, Wellesley college [wikipedia.org] is a private institution, they can adopt whatever values they think suit them. They'll live and die (economically) by their choice.
So, what's with all this whinging?
It was your choice to allow... nay, encourage and nurture... private (as in "non-socialized") education, why are you so upset with the consequences?
(grin)
(mod me troll and I'll start shouting "censorship!!!", don't say a didn't warn you - large trollish grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday April 17 2017, @12:58PM (2 children)
Point is, the way I read, Wellesley college is a private institution, they can adopt whatever values they think suit them. They'll live and die (economically) by their choice.
Except that there are other rules which also apply. They can't use public funding to do that because then it becomes First Amendment territory. And if they advertise themselves as being free speech territory, then they are beholden to truth in advertising laws. For example, their president has repeatedly stated strong free speech positions [wellesley.edu] like:
Freedom is central to our mission and, more broadly, to liberal arts education. Wellesley supports diverse opinions and the rights of all members of our community to voice their views. Active, open debate enriches and illuminates—it is fundamental to how we create new ways of seeing and thinking.
Robust debate is also critical to the College’s process for addressing challenging issues—disagreement is a necessary part of that process, and something we should welcome rather than fear. The Freedom Project’s invitation to Laura Kipnis, the SAAFE students’ videotaped rebuttal, and the CERE faculty’s statement are all expressions of our commitment to active, open debate.
If after that, they punish people for unpopular "hate" speech, then that's a deceptive advertising practice at the least. It may also be a violation of the contract between the college and the party (if they are a student or faculty member).
Colleges often create restrictions on their ability to censor speech through stuff like this. It's not some private blog where the owner does whatever they want without legal consequence because nobody expects differently or cares. Colleges routinely create a reasonable expectation that free speech is permitted and perhaps even a contractual obligation to honor it.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 17 2017, @01:47PM (1 child)
Then it's up to you to show they accepted public funding to carry their day to day educational work.
(public funding used for research does not count - they delivered on a contract. Neither public money used for students tuition - they delivered the agreed level of educational services to those publicly sponsored students)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 18 2017, @04:08AM
Then it's up to you to show they accepted public funding to carry their day to day educational work.
It'd have to be even more specific than that. For example, if they were funding hate speech tribunals with public funding, then that would qualify. And I don't have to show that they were doing that, but rather that it is an exception. After all, the original assertion was universal.
Point is, the way I read, Wellesley college is a private institution, they can adopt whatever values they think suit them. They'll live and die (economically) by their choice.
One merely needs to show an exception can exist.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday April 17 2017, @03:12PM (1 child)
Likewise, you probably don't want them giving a sermon in your dining room when you're having dinner.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 17 2017, @03:40PM
No, indeed, I don't. And if it is my dining room, I'll ask them to leave if they do try.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 17 2017, @04:52PM (6 children)
Posting to a news site is not whinging; it is informing alums, other donators, and potential attendees. It is also relevant and newsworthy as schools becoming radicalized towards fascism is an important cultural issue.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 17 2017, @05:28PM (5 children)
Please hands up all those SN readers that are an Wellesley College alum, donatorated to the college or considered being an attendee...
Oh, cultural issue, wonderful. Let's follow this cultural path, shall we?
So, would you be so kind to enlighten us on what definition you use for fascism? Many people of culture have tried such a definition [wikipedia.org].
Maybe its the Mussolini's form, the one Roosevelt said "ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power"?
Or is the what marxists see it, like "the last attempt of a ruling class (specifically, the capitalist bourgeoisie) to preserve its grip on power in the face of an imminent proletarian revolution"?
Perhaps Orwell's description of "Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes... It is a planned system geared to a definite purpose, world-conquest, and not allowing any private interest, either of capitalist or worker, to stand in its way.".
No? I give up.
Oh, Mighty Buzz, would you help with the culture level of Wellesley College's "alums, other donators, and potential attendees."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 17 2017, @05:59PM (4 children)
Oh, you're saying we should stop posting NASA stories then because none of us are ever likely to go to space? Get a better argument.
Here you go [dictionary.com], definitions one and three.
Colleges cheered every time Obama issued an executive order in direct violation of his oath of office to uphold the Constitution.
Precisely what we are talking about here today.
Big, fat, whopping check mark there. It damned sure ain't the Republicans and Libertarians calling for more regulation.
Aggressive nationalism, check. They're just not particular which nation they're for, as long as it's against the U.S.
Racism, check. You'll find less hatred of and advocation against white men in Compton or Watts.
Yep, most colleges hit every single qualification to be fascists. Students wearing antifa uniforms and inciting/perpetrating violence those who dare to think or speak out of step with the party line is just one of many steps they've taken that all but mirror Germany in the 30s.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Monday April 17 2017, @07:29PM (3 children)
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power
Colleges cheered every time Obama issued an executive order [...]
Yep, most colleges hit every single qualification to be fascists.
You're simply saying that Obama is literally Hitler?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday April 17 2017, @08:15PM (2 children)
Obama isn't Hitler, but he was the evil fuck who set up due process free execution of American citizens based on secret legal memos, and he ran out of bombs in 2016 blowing up countries at which we are not at war. He's no Hitler, but he's no Jesus either.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday April 17 2017, @09:56PM (1 child)
There's a meme that goes "Obama is literally Hitler." I was wondering whether the original poster was invoking it. Had Mr. Obama literally run out of bombs, that would have set off our Geiger counters.
Certainly he was open about the extrajudicial killings of his own people, but I tend to think that such killings happened before he took office. I can't prove it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb#Death [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege [wikipedia.org]
I imagine that it will continue now that he's left office, too.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/12/03/philippine_president_duterte_says_trump_congratulated_him_on_violent_anti.html [slate.com]
Being able to kill on a whim is immense power. However, these student writers say "[...] questionable claims should be mitigated by education as opposed to personal attacks." The drone killings are personal attacks, are they not? I just don't see the fascist tendencies in the editorial.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday April 18 2017, @05:18PM
"The U.S. is running out of bombs to drop on ISIS [^w random people]": http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/air-force-20000-bombs-missiles-isis/ [cnn.com]
"America dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. What a bloody end to Obama's reign" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy [theguardian.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 17 2017, @06:36PM (2 children)
Two things.
Christians, in general, are not against free speech. They just don't have to host speech they don't like on their platform on their property. That seems reasonable. If I am in a venue with speech I don't like, and not allowed to counter it, then I either leave, or keep silent.
Muslims similarly don't want to hear what Christians (or Jews) have to say. In some countries Christians are beaten and / or imprisoned for their message contrary to the religion imposed within that country. I'm glad the US isn't like that (yet).
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 17 2017, @09:06PM (1 child)
Do you own any piece of property on Wellesley College?
If now, why should you feel entitled to teach them how to behave?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @09:51PM
If now, why should you feel entitled to teach them how to behave?
Because we also have freedom of speech, and can therefore criticize their actions. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you're right in doing it. I'm tired of the 'But it's private property!!!' defense of censorship, because most of the time it's just a huge straw man.
(Score: 3, Informative) by inertnet on Monday April 17 2017, @12:07PM (19 children)
Restricting free speech is an essential and inevitable step towards totalitarianism.
People have different ideas. It's reality, deal with it.
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Monday April 17 2017, @12:20PM (17 children)
FTFY.
If my mother would hear you swearing in her home, you'd pick your teeth from the floor. It may take more than one blow with her walking cane, I hope you'll understand she's not young anymore. Afterwards, you can shout "Censorship" through your gums as much as you like.
And yet, nobody is saying she's a cause for totalitarianism. Are you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by inertnet on Monday April 17 2017, @12:32PM (14 children)
Not just governments, religions too. And big business as well.
The problem here is that it's not your mother or a government (yet) restricting free speech. The problem here is that groups of people want to silence other groups, even by force. Fascists claiming to be anti-fascists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @12:50PM
And zionists claiming to be anti-zionists.
When you see paid people promoting something or silencing something, be suspicious. When those behind these paid shills get into governments and change laws to their favour, you have a problem. And don't get me started about these groups owning newspapers and media and changing public opinion to their favour.
Free speech is not free. You have to actively find and destroy these destroyers of freedom. Some won't like it though.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Monday April 17 2017, @02:05PM (12 children)
(I can only wish you've got the in her home words in my post)
The way I see, the Wellesley College students are in their home; to my mind, they are free to adopt for themselves whatever rules they please.
Second: you are the ones that shaped your society along around "what divides you" as opposed with "what you have in common". Yeah, sure, evolution and survival of the fittest mantra... Great. Now, that's the bed you made for yourselves, lie in it and stop whinging.
How can otherwise be, you ask? Here: The Netherlands has 14 parties in their parliament (senate included) [wikipedia.org] - no party has enough votes to govern by itself; all the govts since 1917 (the moment universal suffrage was introduced) have been coalition governments.
Let me "translate" this for you - all the Dutch governments since the introduction of representative democracy involved negotiations to form governments. As opposed to "politically kill the other guy, if you don't win by yourself you are a looser".
And the Netherlands is not a singular example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Monday April 17 2017, @02:24PM (2 children)
Funny that you're using the Netherlands as an argument to a Dutch person...
First it's not the Wellesley College students home, they don't get to decide the rules (although they're trying very hard).
Secondly, you contradict yourself. These students are the ones who are trying to "politically kill the other guy" by trying to kill free speech. It used to be that those with the best arguments won a debate, but now it has become fashionable to silence anyone who's opposed to one's opinion.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 17 2017, @02:59PM
Then it's up to the owners of the home to apply a correction (if they think is necessary), not everybody's damned business.
Look, the right to free speech doesn't automatically implies your speech will be listened or accepted by each and everyone, deal with it.
For example: you may turn blue in your face with arguments or just rhetoric, I'm simply not going to listen to you if you advocate slavery or genocide or flat earth (yes, there are such things that aren't subject of debate. At least speaking for myself, any attempt to argue those is a waste of time).
I won't stop you either in your attempts to convince others, if your words does not imply/conduce-to a psychical threat to myself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday April 18 2017, @05:05AM
Have you actually read the editorial? If not you should, they're basically saying that speech should be countered with speech (and education). Free speech is not a one way street where one group can say whatever they want and the other group has to silently suck it up even though they don't agree. As they say sometimes speech leads to frustration and hostile speech in return and they're trying to discourage that.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday April 17 2017, @03:06PM (8 children)
"The way I see, the Wellesley College students are in their home; to my mind, they are free to adopt for themselves whatever rules they please."
There are a couple of things wrong with this line of thought. First off, they are NOT in their home. They're at College. This is a place where they should meet intellectual challenges, not coddling and safe space.
But second, even setting that aside for the sake of argument, they are not all of one mind. If they were, there would be no need for such rules, no one would think of them, because everyone would follow them without being told. So what you're talking about is not a single person of a single mind alone in their home and not wanting to hear contradiction, but multiple people sharing a space and SOME of them want to be able to make the OTHERS shut up. Well, if it's their house, it's just as much the house of the other students, the ones they want to shut up...
Our societies are being polarized to shocking degrees, and don't feel so smug about Europe, the same thing is happening all over that continent too.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @03:20PM
So hilarious watching these people whine and complain, yet any time a business does anything like this its "a private business they can do what they want!". Lol, hypocrites blowing this out of proportion cause its their feelz this time.
I don't much care for this editorial, it pushes people onto the path of "wrongthink" but it isn't censorship and if you want to complain about shitty opinionated editorials I'm sure we could dig up some nasty stuff from conservative student papers.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 17 2017, @03:55PM (6 children)
Then it is for the owner of the said home to correct them. Dam'd sure, that's nobody else's business.
Then it's their business to learn how to negotiate a common way of life. The Ignites Free-Speech Debate is just meddling in their internal affair, doesn;t help them and sure doesn't bring any good for the ones outside - except venting some steam and digging their heels deeper for the next "brawl".
I don't feel smug at all, I'm not even living there (anymore). I'm only pointing out there are other ways to deal with issues than total polarization. Maybe it's a good lesson to try to get to some different solution.
How was that saying going? "Doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results" is... what?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 17 2017, @05:59PM (5 children)
Then it is for the owner of the said home to correct them. Dam'd sure, that's nobody else's business.
It should really be all our business what sort of education people are getting. Maybe not directly, but the future people in charge of shit should be getting a decent calibration.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 17 2017, @08:47PM (4 children)
Because, oh, you are so successful in what you are doing as a society, all the newer generations must repeat your mistakes forever, right?
Perhaps the entire world should replicate your successes and have your "first past the post" election and two parties politics and be divided exactly in two halves which endlessly quarrel and never negotiates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 17 2017, @09:15PM (1 child)
Hey, I didn't say we were doing a good job. But if not we should be interested in getting better.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 18 2017, @10:23AM
Point taken.
Maybe it would worth considering doing it somehow different, as the current way of doing it doesn't seem to work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @09:54PM (1 child)
Other people's opinions on SoylentNews are none of your business. Stop replying. What, are you trying to force everyone to replicate your lifestyle!?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 18 2017, @10:19AM
Of course they are not.
Where did you get the idea I'm replying? I'm not, I'm merely (and merrily, but no longer marrily) creating original content (grin)
God, no! (shudders) This planet couldn't support two of us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @06:14PM
So what you're saying is violent stupidity runs in your family.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @08:19PM
Your mother sounds like a special, entitled snowflake. She must be a Millennial.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday April 17 2017, @09:59PM
Are you seeing in the editorial a call for restrictions on speech? I see the opposite:
[...] a community we need to make an effort to have this dialogue in a constructive and educational way in order to build our community up. Talk-back, protest videos and personal correspondences are also ways to have a constructive dialogue. Let us first bridge the gap between students in our community before we resort to personal attacks. Our student body is not only smart, it is also kind. Let us demonstrate that through productive dialogue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @12:44PM (2 children)
Where the hell is this bit going? Can't tell it's going or coming.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @12:59PM
The writer is a paid communist troll. He proposes to shut down anything that calls out for investigation of groups of criminals because that group of criminals is suppressed for good reasons. He calls for suppression of informed truth.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Monday April 17 2017, @01:00PM
Where the hell is this bit going? Can't tell it's going or coming.
Redefining free speech to exclude speech the author doesn't like.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 17 2017, @02:03PM (7 children)
Simply ban all intolerant speech.
We should be absolutely intolerant of intolerant people!
But then won't the intolerant hateful people simply move underground? (figuratively) Won't ISIS and the neo nazis find new ways to communicate and spread their message of hate?
Maybe just don't require anyone to host hateful speech. Every platform can have a TOS. The mere existence of platforms that encourage and tolerate hate can be a useful resource. Both for mere citations and examples as well as for intelligence on the spread of hate. As a simple example, are there any books that should be burned? No matter how bad? No matter how hateful? Don't those books serve as a useful example from history? Don't we find insight into the thinking of the writings of serial killers, bombers, mass murders, and megalomaniacs?
So maybe the simple solution is not to ban hate speech. Just don't require anyone to have to host it if they don't want to. Cockroaches find dark places to hide. You cannot ban darkness enough to exterminate them.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 17 2017, @03:00PM (3 children)
Maybe just don't require anyone to host hateful speech.
Pretty sure those campuses that invited Milo Yanowhatever to give a speech weren't being forced, yet he still got shouted down and forced to cancel.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 17 2017, @04:53PM (2 children)
The guy is a painted clown and attention seeking nobody but keeps trying to claim he was instrumental in getting trump elected. His articles were lazy and degenerated into a dumb rant and his speeches were nothing more than circus side shows specifically tailored to get a rise out of people.
If he were coming to my campus I'd just ignore him. He wasn't inciting violence. Just diarrhea of the mouth. But no. Lets start a real circus for the clown to revel in.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 17 2017, @04:57PM
It doesn't matter what Milo is. Shutting him down with violence or threats thereof should be prosecuted.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 17 2017, @05:55PM
If he were coming to my campus I'd just ignore him.
Or even just picket outside the auditorium or something. But no, these guys have to be in the audience shouting him down. Really quite rude to the campus bureaucrats who were trying to host the thing, too.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @03:06PM (2 children)
Banning of intolerant speech is itself intolerant, so ban the ban, and therefore ... you know how co-routines can call each other infinitely and blowing up the stack? It's like that.
So blow the stack. That's the ticket.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 17 2017, @04:59PM
UPDATE users SET nickname = "The Stack" WHERE uid = 18;
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 17 2017, @05:30PM
We could also be intolerant of those intolerant of intolerant speech. And ban the banning of banned speech.
Then we could . . . oh, nevermind. It's intolerance and banning all the way down.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday April 17 2017, @02:25PM (7 children)
The difference between "hate speech" and "opinion" is when you deliberately make shit up to make an identifiable group look bad.
True hate speech is usually, but not always, difficult to prove.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 17 2017, @05:39PM (4 children)
One type of opinion is to hate someone. Then there is a type of speech called hate speech which is to say hateful things about the ones you hate.
The most easily recognized hate speech seems easy to prove.
All ${X_group} should die.
We should all get together and do ${violent-thing} to {$Y-group}
because they are ${evil | crazy | dishonest | dangerous | emacs-using | other-slur-goes-here }.
I could make up things about a group, and that may or not be hate speech. All vi-users wear their hair funny and tend to associate with those who use spaces instead of tabs.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday April 17 2017, @05:58PM (3 children)
It can be more subtle than that. I will use Blaire White's Children Transitioning = Child Abuse [youtube.com] video as an example.
She implies the Debie Jackson is a "SJW" what encouraged her daughter to transition. Critically, she cites Debi Jackson reading "That's Good Enough" [youtube.com] as proof.
However, it you actually watch the video, you learn that Blaire White is just making up a hateful narrative. At the very least, she refused to back down in the face of contrary evidence. That moves her video from "opinion" to "hate speech" against transgendered children (and their supporters).
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 17 2017, @06:26PM
That's a good example. I haven't watched, but I can imagine how it could indeed be hateful. And yes, that would be more subtle. But probably still recognizable. Having not watched it, I can also imagine that it could simply be someone with a different opinion that is insensitive to the feelings of others. Refusing to back down in the face of contrary evidence says something pretty strong though about it being hate driven. Especially since it seems like it isn't any of White's business.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @09:57PM (1 child)
No, it still remains someone's opinions. "Hate speech" and "opinion" are not mutually exclusive, and "hate speech" should certainly not be against the law or even censored in places that claim to respect the principle of free speech.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday April 18 2017, @06:16PM
The implication is that it is not an opinion if you do not believe it to be true.
But yes, I was assuming that people change their opinions in the face of contrary evidence. The opposite is actually true: people tend to hold their opinions more strongly in the face of contrary evidence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @06:02PM (1 child)
who gives a shit? if ideas about a group gain traction then there was a underlying reason that wasn't addressed, and the "hateful" action was a correction. usually caused by well intention-ed authoritarians like you.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday April 18 2017, @06:37PM
No. Sometimes power-hungry people spread lies because they know it will get their rivals hurt of killed.
- Rwandan genocide [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @05:55PM
They stood before the altar and supplied
The fire themselves in which their fat was fried.
In vain the sacrifice! --no god will claim
An offering burnt with an unholy flame. --M.P. Nopput