If it’s a “tactic of the left” it’s also a “tactic of the right”. More accurately, it’s a tactic of extremists on both sides. And nothing I said conflicts with the fact that some college students are assholes and idiots and have done dumb things.
You might not be able to reason the speaker out of them, but you might reason some folks listening from going down that path in the first place.
My argument is that it legitimizes them more to shout them down: doing so, in the minds of their potential recruits ,makes them look dangerous and courageous, and makes leftists look like they’re afraid of the ideas. It’s not a good or effective approach, and if there’s any lesson for us to learn from Milo’s nasty antics, that’s it.
…and the beards have all grown longer overnight.
I’m afraid I don’t get this reference.
EDIT: Oh yeah, the Who song.
So what?
What’s sad is how weak support for liberty actually is.
What in the post you responded to is anti-liberty?
Being afraid of free speech to the extent that a microphone and stage are some scary amplifier that the unwashed masses, completely devoid of independent thought, should be sheltered from by their intellectual superiors. I wonder how jsgoddess feels about free speech on the internet?
That’s not what jsgoddess said.
Yes, the demand that we give hate speakers a platform and a microphone is pretty anti-liberty.
They could get their own, but since you demand that we give it to them, it makes it appear as though we endorse their hate.
To demand that we give such vile creatures a platform to spew their vile is a very authoritarian attitude of you. Why do you hate freedom?
We both know that it’s not, you’re just smart enough to not admit that you really mean it.
Also, all of you who are arguing against free speech are fucking short-sighted idiots. If you deny to anyone else the right to say what you think is wrong, it will not be long before you will lose the right to say what you think is right.
Who, exactly, is arguing against free speech?
Shutting down “hate” speech is the same as arguing against free speech in my books. I leave actually reading the thread and noting who does that as an exercise to the reader.
What does “shutting down” mean? Is peacefully protesting a speaker “shutting down” free speech if it results in an invitation being withdrawn?
Arguing against a protest against hate speach is the same thing as arguing against free speech in my books.
Well, for one example:
Jennifer Lawrence: “It should be illegal to call somebody fat on TV.”
I meant who in this thread. That a celeb said something dumb shouldn’t be surprising to anyone.
That’s not the argument at all. Don’t be dishonest.
The argument is against using violence to prevent invited speakers from speaking.
It’s amazing how twisted and dishonest many on the left are when it comes to discussing an issue. Sad. It’s also amazing the hypocrisy with regards to the tolerance of calls to violence, “jokingly”, of course, that the board tolerates. More Sad!
So you are equating the illegal actions of violent protesters with talking now? You can’t be that dumb. :smack:
Yes, censorship is the same whether it is caused by an authoritarian at the top or by the tyranny of the mob.
Look, it’s one of the short-sighted morons I was talking about. When they come and silence you using the exact same logic that you use here, don’t be surprised.
So your answer is to silence people from protesting?
How do you square that with your expressed reverence for free speech? You are literally telling people they shouldn’t be allowed to speak up for what they feel is right.
Logic seems to be pretty separated from this discussion right now.