Effective at what, for God’s sake? I am neither a conservative nor a defender of Murray’s ideas, but as far as I can tell, all that the Middlebury students accomplished was a) giving far more publicity to Murray than he would have had otherwise; and b) handing a massive amount of ammunition to conservatives who want to stereotype liberal college students as violent, entitled, and intolerant of other viewpoints.
Yeah, I’m not with Inbred here.
I think we can take for granted that one American in a thousand is a total fucking idiot, regardless of the particular flavour of their idiocy, be it shrieking about nonexistent sexual harassment, nonexistent wars on Christmas or nonexistent child-sex rings in nonexistent pizza parlor basements.
I want to emphasize that I am speaking of the tactic of shouting him down and making a scene about it. Like I said, there are laws for all the other problems in this particular case. Yes, conservative news media has more scary news stories about loud college students, but conservative news media will find stories about scary college students because they want to find it. On the other hand, colleges will think twice about having him as a speaker if it means their campus will have these kinds of protests.
Scientific data isn’t going to shut Murray up or get those who support him to change their mind.
Did he speak? No. Will other colleges want him on their campus? They’ll be more careful. In the end, they shut him up. It could have been accomplished without the violence. That part is unfortunate.
Oh, so you’re an extremist. Cool.
Raising one’s voice is extremism? Are you being serious?
I’m responding to a point that you made. This reply is bizarre.
Shooting him in the face would have been even more effective. Pansies.
No! Half! Measures!
You are in favor of intimidation, fear and a “little violence” to shut people up.
You, sir, are a Fascist.
All I saw was an article about two people getting into an argument over something stupid. I don’t know where SJW came into play. I know the writer used the term.
Rick Sanchez, Latro, and Stringbean, I know you are unable to yell at me for my views because this is the internet, but your irrational and ridiculous over-the-top statements are pretty much the internet equivalent of “making a scene”. It makes me not want to participate in the discussion any longer. I think this shows that yelling, mocking, interrupting, and making a scene to make a political point and shut down your political opponents is an effective tactic in preventing discussion of topics we find offensive.
On the other hand, Left Hand of Dorkness, Fretful Porpentine, ckalli1998 all behaved in accordance with the principles they support. I don’t agree with their principles because I think it’s perfectly legitimate to yell, mock, and make a scene in response to an objectionable political view. Yet they gave examples of reasoned responses to my beliefs while supporting the notion of having a reasonable discussion on political topics.
You believe in freedom of speech that you agree with, but shouting down the speech that you don’t agree with. Why should responses to your beliefs be “reasoned” when your beliefs aren’t?
And now you’re playing the victim…
Typical SJW.
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I don’t see anything about yelling between private citizens.
Did I mention the constitution?
This type of name calling and personalizing of argument is not appropriate in this fashion. If you feel you must, the Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
It isn’t the least bit effective. If Murray had been allowed to speak, nobody would have cared apart from the people in the auditorium. Now, thanks to the protestors, Murray’s been given a week’s worth of free publicity. I’d never heard of him, but now I’m going to make a point of reading his book just because I can. Just because people like you don’t want me to. I might conclude that it’s absolute garbage, but it sure as hell won’t be because of people like you shaming me into agreeing with you.
Get it straight: When you force someone to shut up, all you actually succeed in doing is making everyone around you curious about what it is you don’t want them to hear. In popular parlance, this is known as the ‘Streisand Effect’, although, after this past year, the ‘SJW Effect’ might be more apt.
So no. It doesn’t “work” in any meaningful sense.
Besides, why the hell do you even want it to work? You do realize that there’s nothing about your position that precludes bigots from shutting up people like you, right? When, eventually, the shoe is on the other foot and a liberal speaker is shouted down by a bunch of right-wing agitators, what are you going to say? You can’t complain. They’re just doing what people like you do.
It’s as though you think there’s this secret “rule” which forbids your enemies from using the same bully-boy tactics you use. Well…there isn’t.
And even if there was, you’d still be in the wrong. When Voltaire said "I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it", he didn’t make any exceptions for stuff that teenagers might find “triggering”. And before you bring up the 1st Amendment, remember that Voltaire was stating a moral principle, not a legal one. Defending a person’s right to speak means more than defending them from the Government. It also means defending them from extremists abusing the heckler’s veto to keep them from being heard.
[sub]And yeah, yeah. I know it wasn’t actually Voltaire. Stop googling.[/sub]
I disagree. I think it works in a very meaningful sense.
Maybe this one guy Murray got some publicity out of this one incident. But the next time someone is uncertain if they should have Murray - or someone else like Murray - speak, they are going to have to decide if they want to take the risk of this type of disruption and headache, and in some instances will decide that it’s just not worth it.
I think this is a totally ridiculous way to decide what to do. But I also think it happens a lot, and it’s the main reason why I think this tactic of shouting down racists is a bad tactic: it’s not effective.
Milo Y is the poster child for its counterproductiveness: he built his sorry-as career out of goading people into engaging with him like this, parlayed his halfwitted reactionary philosophy into a Jerry Springer episode. Conservatives, I am convinced, paid for his speeches mostly because they wanted to watch the shitshow that would invariably occur.
Don’t give them the pleasure. If you must engage with them, be clever about it. Shouting at them only helps them.
I was going to agree with Rick Sanchez, but a quick google search seems to lend the data that colleges are considering that it’s not worth it (still I mostly agree with Rick). Particularly awful is what happened at UC Berkley. We need more discussion not more attacks on free speech. Btw, I would like to thanks Inbred for providing a cogent example of what I have been talking about this whole time.
You may have never heard of him by name, but you probably remember something about the controversy surrounding The Bell Curve. He was one of the authors.