It doesn’t matter how many times you ask. If I have been addressed by a moderator on a subject I’ll drop it. That said, if you were genuinely confused by my position I apologize for believing otherwise.
And what question is there to answer? My position is clear.
Yes, your position is clear.
You don’t like certain types of speech, and wish for those types of speech to be silenced. Those specific types of speech are any time anyone criticizes or disagrees with speech that you do like.
You cannot continue to claim that this is about you being against violence, when, not only has it has been shown that not only does your side do it too, but there is only crickets from you about it, no condemnation whatsoever, but that you are also complaining about people’s completely non-violent disagreement or criticism of speech that you like.
So, your claim that you are for free speech is not backed in any way by your statements, and the view that you wish to shut down speech that you dislike is obvious.
Even the kids’ attorney sees the profs as trying to protect their expressive rights. From what, I wonder, if not from attempts to harm their expressive rights?
So the student is trying to get the prof in trouble with her bosses for what she said.
Seems pretty clear-cut to me.
I specifically pointed out instances of speech that he wishes suppressed in my first post to you;
Obviously “preaching terror” and violence aren’t necessarily problematic to want to halt. But judging by what Robertson points out later, his concern does not seem to be with only those inciting violence - or, perhaps easier to say, he doesn’t seem to identify a middle ground between “preaching hate” and “no longer being Muslim”, which leads me to question whether he’s talking about identified inciters or just Muslims. And being against someone preaching “another form of government” is a direct free speech issue. You could also put “speaking Arabic” in there.
[/QUOTE]
You’re right that he seems to be quite the bigot, but he does also seem to be calling for suppression of free speech in several points of the section quoted by the article, too. Having through about it more, I don’t know whether or not his call for violence as pertains to the stopping of the wearing of Islamic dress or of carrying on Islamic customs wouldn’t also tie in to a suppression of free expression, if we’re going to widen the scope a little, too.
I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean by “all vectors”; could you dumb it down for me? That said, yes, I would say intimidation is suppressive of free speech, whether that’s threats of or actual physical or emotional violence, or attempts to get someone fired, or blackmail, or, well, any number of things.
I was. So, appreciated. 
The questions that I asked. By my count I have four separate questions to you that you haven’t answered, and on which your position is unfortunately not clear (thus the questions!).
Saying your position is clear doesn’t actually work in this way. It’d be as if I said, “I’m against abortions.”, you then asked, “Are you also against contraception?”, and I responded, “My position is clear.” I would’ve made a position clear, but not my position on the answer to the question.
I think people should be responsible for the shit they say. Free speech doesn’t mean consequence free speech.
The person that recorded her got suspended. Is that suppression of free speech as well?
So you think saying:
“No society should allow some alien body to come to its midst that preaches terror, preaches overthrow, preaches violence and preaches another form of government. We shouldn’t have that.”
Is suppression of free speech because he is saying we shouldn’t let people preach another form of government? I still think this is more bigotry than suppression of free speech but YMMV.
And being against the use of a foreign language is almost classic bigotry rather than suppression of free speech.
I’ll give you an example. NYC recently tried to pass a law that required signage to be in English because many stores in ethnic neighborhoods had signage almost exclusively in foreign languages. The proponents of the law would say shit like “how do we know its not a brothel” (because brothels would have signage to that effect, just not in English because foreigners are OK with brothels); or they would say that the stores in these ethnic neighborhoods were trying to exclude “American” clientele with their Chinese signs and their Chinese menus (this was a Korean ethnic enclave).
I guess I’m saying that when you can interpret any and all intimidation as a suppression of free speech regardless of whether or not they are actually trying to suppress free speech. You could say that the KKK was suppressing free speech when they burned a cross on your lawn or lynched a black man. I think things get muddled when you read suppression of free speech into so much that is not normally thought of as suppression of free speech.
Maybe–but we’ve had that discussion here before. There are various issues that make that question complicated, and you can search for that previous discussion as well as I can.
What’s not complicated is that your “as well” hides a vast difference in quality between the responses:
You tell me if there’s anything equivalent about the two.
(Or, of course, you can get hung up on how you never technically said that they were equivalent and spend like a dozen posts scolding me and demanding that I provide cites in triplicate that you said that–your call!)
Perhaps I missed something in this exchange, but the recorder issued or encouraged the threats? If not, then why would he be suppressing free speech? Also, the angry messages that I see referenced do not seem to be death threats but rather are speech.
Two things:
If you know that I didn’t “technically” say something (whatever that means), then why do you say that I did?
Can you remind me what those death threats were again? AFAICT she was called a lot of names and someone threatened to expose her personal information. Is that the death threat? Threatening to expose personal information like phone number address and salary? I read the article a couple of times now and I’m wondering if this is another one of those technicalities you are talking about.
Political correctness is currently on its death bed.
It is like a dying person with a terminal illness, and they only have a short time left to live.
“Political correctness” will not be rehabilitated, not in our lifetimes. It is becoming more and more irrelevant for every passing day.
…I don’t share your optimism.
I think the more likely outcome is that, 20 years from now, people will be afraid to call the sky blue for fear of offending people who think the sky is green.
He’s against allowing people to speak, with the later point that violence must be employed to halt this. That may well be motivated by bigotry - and I’d guess it is - but it’s also certainly an attempt at suppression of free speech.
Again, it’s both, given the call to violence in support of that suppression. Is there bigotry? It seems so. Is there an attempt to suppress free speech? It seems so. It’s not a one-or-the-other situation, or even a one-label-fits-better situation. It is a bigoted attack on free speech.
Assuming your details are accurate, this seems like bigotry-motivated attacks on free speech.
But in the cases you’ve give, they are attempting to suppress free speech. Robertson is against preaching for a new form of government, and speaking Arabic - those are attacks on free speech regardless of what else he has in mind. Your signage example, again, looks to me like people attempting to write into law suppression of free speech through language choice.
I think your analogy would be more accurate if it were the KKK burning a cross on the lawn of a person who wrote articles decrying their activities, or who lynched a black man who planned to testify against them. One part of these things is simple violence and bigotry - and the other part is “Shut up, if you know what’s good for you”, aimed at others in that second case.
When I was reading your post, I actually thought of an analogy myself; your argument, to me, looks like if we had someone who had been beaten to death while having vile racial slurs spewed at them, and then someone saying “Well, this matches more of a hate crime than a murder.” It’s both.
There you go!
Yes, I can. Trusting that you can Google just as surely as I can, I won’t.
Hopefully at some point you figure out that we are in great debates and that you can’t sidestep demands for evidence for your assertions just by citing the internet.
The more you know!
Well, then I think you and I disagree about what constitutes suppression of speech versus bigotry. Sure there is some suppression of free speech when you criticize the speech of others but its not the same as what you have when you bar people from entering a venue to give a speech.
Just because Robertson is against preaching another form of government doesn’t mean he is actually suppressing that preaching, does it? Robertson is a big deal but he’s not as big a deal as political correctness (and political correctness comes from both sides, see kneejerk applause whenever someone mentions they served in the military).
Yes, it can be both but who is being suppressed by Robertson? Who did he stifle? It just seems a bridge too far. YMMV.
As quoted above, Robertson said:
He goes far beyond mere criticism. He calls for violence to stop the “infection.”
An Iowa Republican wants universities to ask prospective professors: How would you vote?
There is literally a politically correct answer to this question, if you want a job. And this isn’t an undergrad, this is a lawmaker who helps run the universities, trying to get this policy passed.
Tell me again how political correctness on campuses is a problem of the left. Meanwhile, I’ll go dig up cites about what’s happened at the UNC system since Republicans packed the board of directors.