Oh yeah! Another great example. Anita Sarkeesian got a bomb threat called in against one of her paid speaking arrangements, presumably by one of the “gamergaters” who objected to her speech. Is this an example of “PC”, octopus? Please keep in mind - this is a yes or no question; while you’re free to elaborate on that yes-or-no answer, simply saying “I think they shouldn’t have done that” doesn’t actually answer the question in any meaningful way. 
Conservative speaker Ben Shapiro has been shouted down and been banned from speaking on college campuses mostly by liberals, mostly because he is a conservative. He is not hateful and he is not a provocateur, he is just very good at making the argument for conservative views (to a large extent by acquiescing on the more indefensible conservative positions).
Interesting example. I’ve just read his Wikipedia page, and, barring additional information, agree that he should not be banned from campuses. That’s awful.
His page goes on:
Tell me again how this is a problem predominant on the left?
Do you have cites for all this, particularly that he’s been “shouted down” and “banned”?
EDIT: I found examples pretty easily at Depaul and another school. That was bad behavior, but I see no reason to believe that it’s representatives of liberals as a whole. As LHoD notes, there are asshole conservatives just as there are asshole liberals.
Incidentally, while I oppose his being banned from campuses (absent additional information), at least some folks who have attended his speeches call him a provocateur.
I think that article is the best way to oppose folks like him.
Well, the article is not quite as cut and dried as you might think. I can see where someone might argue that institutional racism isn’t “written into our collective DNA”. It’s an undisputable part of our history, but saying that it’s part of our collective DNA implies a lot more than that. It implies that we can’t help it to some extent and that it’s inherent and it implies that it’ll be carried forward into the future, like some kind of genetic disorder.
I don’t like that interpretation. I can completely see how you can dispute that statement without denying the historical and present-day existence of institutional racism.
I should have wrote “speech of the following” to prevent the deliberate mischaracterization. Obviously, if I’ve been consistently for freedom of speech you’d think I wouldn’t need a verbose disclaimer explicitly stating I don’t necessarily agree with specific content of speech. Sad.
We’ve all, in this thread, “been consistently for freedom of speech”. The difference of opinion seems to be about what that means.
People are disagreeing on what freedom of speech means in this thread?
I think so, since (I think) you keep harping on it as if we disagree with you at the same time that we’re all insisting that we support freedom of speech. If I’m wrong, please educate me.
If I’m right, can you explain what you think we believe that you find contrary to freedom of speech?
You’ve accused me of a deliberate mischaracterization, which is interesting. My interpretation follows your direct words; as you yourself admit, you need to add to what you said to make it what you meant. And, obviously, if you’ve been consistently for freedom of speech you didn’t need to make that statement at all; it’s redundant if you’re adding nothing new.
May I ask what leads you to accuse me of deliberate mischaracterization? You’re calling me a liar.
I’m not saying the article is perfect. I’m saying that using speech to express disagreement is the correct way to respond to folks like Shapiro. The assholes on the right who send him nasty threatening antisemitic death wishes are not responding in the right way.
I agree completely!
In what reality does an advocate of free speech support whatever oppression totalitarians advocate? Use some common sense.
Why would I feel compelled to add a pointless and obvious qualifier? It’s because of people choosing to read meaning that is preposterous to imply.
Can you cite where I said it the first time?
I think we see more censorship from the left on college campuses. Don’t you?
I agree that both sides have assholes. When reasoned debate is met with insults and threats, its a pretty good sign you’ve won the argument.
I was referring here to octopus’s absurd claims about the left in this thread. As for who censors more on college campuses, sure, it’s the left on college campuses–because there are more liberals on college campuses. Go somewhere with more rightwingers, and you’ll find more censorship from the rightwing there. This isn’t rocket science.
This is a common, and absurd, argument. Sometimes it’s a pretty good sign that what one said was so fuckin idiotic that it ought not be dignified with a measured response.
Maybe people would understand you better if you defined your terms and answered follow-up questions.
It occurs to me we’re ignoring the elephant, so to speak, in the living room. We’re discussing the politics of opposing free speech, right, and the claim that right now it’s the left who’s mostly doing this?
Hmm. Hmm. Think for a moment. Who is the most prominent figure advocating restrictions on free speech? What famous American has gone on record calling for making it easier to sue media for reporting things he doesn’t like? What American has spoken approvingly of punching political opponents in the nose for being loud? What American has threatened journalists with reprisals?
The idea that, because some undergrads on the left have been acting like assholes, free speech faces its most serious threat from the left, is absurd.
That author doesn’t seem to know the definition of the term provocateur. Milo Yiannopolus is a provocateur saying outrageous shit and goading people into doing outrageous shit.
Ben Shapiro makes arguments. The most provocative thing he says (I think) is that rights trump feelings. I’ve seen him start off talks with the statement that he doesn’t give a shit about your feelings and if your argument is that he is hurting your feelings then he doesn’t give a shit because you’re all adults and rights Trump feelings every time (or at least they should). I don’t agree with most of what he says but he says most of it well.
In fact if you are looking for the perspective from the right and are willing to entertain the notion that not everyone on the right is a stupid poopyhead, you could do worse than listen to him debate Sally Kohn at Politicon (Politicon debates are pretty good debates for anyone to listen to if they want to escape their bubble, you’ll still hear what you want to hear but at least you won’t walk away knowing that the other side has an argument other than “derp de derp”).