Which of the civil disobedience events of the 50s and 60s involved disrupting meetings and shouting down and silencing speakers? Most of the ones I remember involved protesters behaving in non-violent ways that shamed the segregationists - like children being sprayed with fire hoses, boycotting buses, and marching on Washington.
Regards,
Shodan
Getting that specific, I’m not sure. If you object to my comparison, feel free to disregard it; it’s an aside that is unnecessary for my main point.
Could you tell me more about this? What makes Vidor, TX a “modern sundown town”?
I mention Vidor because I grew up and went to college nearby and it’s notorious in the region. I’ve driven through it probably dozens of times, and (late 90s/early 00s) frequently saw KKK signs and symbols on the main roads. In one of the blackest parts of the country (SW Louisiana and east Texas), it’s ~0% black. This isn’t an accident – in the 90s, the Feds tried to integrate public housing in Vidor – the KKK marched and all the black people were gone within months.
More info here (along with lots of other suspected sundown towns):
The thing about sundown towns, especially today, is that they stay under the radar, deliberately. Policies and practices that used to be formal are now understood, but barely talked about. Vidor is relatively unique in being in a part of the country with very, very high percentage of black residents, making it stand out all that much more. Most sundown towns are probably in “whiter” parts of the country, and they don’t have to make nearly as much effort as Vidor in order to stay lily white.
OK, then, in general. How does disrupting and silencing a speaker who is addressing a self-selected audience help the voiceless?
I would argue the opposite is true - Antifa and the like make Ann Coulter look good and themselves look bad. And conservatives are far closer to “voiceless” in Berkeley than blacks or illegal immigrants or whatever.
Regards,
Shodan
I think you’re right in most cases. But I think circumstances could occur in which it’s the best of a bunch of bad choices, even if this would be relatively rare. In Apartheid South Africa, or the Jim Crow South, or in Vidor TX today (if it’s as bad as my worst fears), then there might be circumstances in which the choices are using disruptive, confrontational tactics like that one, or doing nothing at all.
Thank you for a snark-free discussion!
And provide the budget to the student group to pay for the speakers. Obviously, arrangements differ by university; the one I attended certainly funded the student organization that brought speakers to campus.
What are your examples of conservative public universities bringing provocative liberal speakers to campus in the first place?
Is it your contention that “the leftists” would attempt to silence any speech by Coulter or Yiannopolis in any venue? If not, then your hyperbolic assertions are nonsense.
Anywhere they thought they could get away with it, yes.
Regards,
Shodan
And the professor loses to the pro wrestler the instant she steps into the ring.
We can’t win against trolls through reverse trolling. They’re excellent at it, and they win at it.
What about if a speaker is invited into Suburban Anytown, USA to talk about the need for affordable housing there, since gentrification has pushed rents out of sight in many neighborhoods in the nearby big city? A suburban group billing itself as anti-crime marches on the speaking venue, claiming that the lecturer is advocating violence on the local citizenry, and due to its threats the local authorities shut down the meeting hall.
That doesn’t sound like a victory for free speech (though the backlash might be as damaging to the “anti-crime” group as the blowback from the campus speech saboteurs has been to the reputation of leftist students).
That sounds like a counterproductive example. If you thought I was in favor of this tactic in all or most circumstances, I think you’ve missed some of my posts in which I indicate the opposite.
TIL: when you change the power of the respective groups involved in something, the context changes too.
Or in other words: a slave beating their master to death isn’t quite the same as a master beating their slave to death. Big shocker.
So your argument is that since hypothetical liberals would do the thing you imagine they would do in a hypothetical situation, this proves that actual liberals hate dissenting views. Yes, that makes sense. To you. Apparently.
It is astonishing how often these Bizarro World argument surface, and how convincing some people find them to be.
Of course, if President Obama were invited to speak at Liberty University, these same conservatives would retire to their secret lair in a volcanic island and activate their death ray doomsday devices, so clearly we can say conservatives hate free speech.
Huh. Now I’m getting the appeal of making such arguments.
No, that actual leftists actually do that, as we saw in Berkeley and elsewhere. You asked if they would do what they have already done.
I’m sorry if you are having problems with the idea that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, but you are going to have trouble with answers to hypothetical questions until you clear it up. I believe LHoD teaches third grade - perhaps he can help
Ooops - never mind.
Regards,
Shodan
Sure can! You’re doing what I tell students not to do: you’re speculating from insufficient evidence, and you’re not paying attention to evidence that contradicts your conclusion. Kids who can’t unlearn these bad habits don’t pass the third grade EOG in reading.
For example, you’re looking at evidence that some liberals protest speakers on college campuses, and concluding that “‘the leftists’ would attempt to silence any speech by Coulter or Yiannopolis in any venue” “anywhere they thought they could get away with it.” You don’t have enough evidence to support that speculation.
Furthermore, Milo and Coulter speak in plenty of venues where leftists don’t try to silence them. You’re not paying attention to that evidence that contradicts your assertion.
Furthermore, there are plenty of “leftists”–including in this thread–who won’t attempt to silence speech. You’re not paying attention to that evidence that contradicts your assertion.
Sure, it’s easy to make these sort of lazy arguments. But they’re unpersuasive. Use evidence!
Glad to help you out; ask me for such help any time :).
No, that didn’t help any more than the death ray thing. Look, I understand that it is embarrassing when the lefties behave like jerks. But you don’t deal with that by pretending that, just because they did it is no reason to believe that they would do it. You have to convince them not to behave like jerks. And it has to be you - they aren’t listening to me, and I wouldn’t bother trying to persuade some anarchist asshole with purple hair and a bullhorn - just get the police to crack some heads and raise the opportunity cost of being a jerk.
Regards,
Shodan
I suspect that a variety of funding mechanisms may be involved to pay for speakers to come present at a university.
I was head of a student organization which invited a speaker to campus. We paid his fee from membership dues paid by our members. We did not rely on university providing funds. We did not accept funding from the student government.
At the same university another student organization invited Rabbi Meir Kahane to speak. That student organization did receive funds from the student government. Those fees are collected as a part of payment of tuition and fees paid by all students. But the student government can decide to raise or lower those fees from year to year. So though the monies flow through the university’s accounts, the university has no substantive control over the funds nor how they are spent.
And so on. Other organizations and other universities may very well have different set ups. The mere fact that a student group initiated the invite is no evidence that the university paid the event.
You are correct: that isn’t how I deal with it, because that has nothing to do with what I said. Once more, you’ll find that actually responding to folks’ actual words is more difficult and challenging than making up stupid paraphrases of their words and then mocking them for the stupid paraphrases. I suspect that once you build the habit of responding to folks’ actual, not imagined, arguments, you’ll find the rewards are worth the challenge.
Agreed with all of this as well.
That’s funny - someone posted something stupid about a death ray, and I could have sworn it was you.
Regards,
Shodan