Oh, hell–that and climate change denialism both. Free speech is not a suicide pact. When your speech kills people, that’s the point at which I’m fine with making it a crime.
Conspiracy to commit negligent homicide should not be treated as protected speech.
Folks that would deny speakers on campus: do you apply similar logic to campus libraries? If paying a speaking fee indicates approval, does purchasing a book also indicate approval?
IOW, if you object to paying Ann Coulter to speak at a public university, do you similarly object to a public university stocking her books?
I dislike Coulter and everything she stands for. I think she’s the moral equivalent of her namesake in the Golden Compass. But bringing her to campus, or stocking her books in the library, does not indicate official approval of her views: instead, it indicates that her views are influential, and that students should be knowledgeable about them.
I apply similar reasoning to anti-vaxxers.
I would question the value of that book being on the libraries shelves.
It does depend on what library we are talking about. IF it is in the campus general library, under fiction, I would have no problem, if it were in the poli-sci library under demagoguery, I would have no objection. Just as if Milo was invited as an example of a right wing troll, rather than as someone who has something interesting or even “controversial” to say.
If it is instead featured prominently as a must read, or is promoted as being wise words of wisdom, I would object.
And I would make my voice known through the suggestion box or whatever means is allocated to the student body to express their desires. I wouldn’t steal it or vandalize it, I wouldn’t toss it in a fire (unless I was really cold and needed the warmth). Just as if I were a student, and Darren Myhill was invited to speak on how best to groom children for sex, I would object rather strenuously, and be sure that my objection is known, but just like I wouldn’t destroy Ann Coulter’s book, I would not advocate for violence to shut him down either.
Counterpoint to your example, expressed this time with Ann Coulter:
The issue, I think, is the university lends its prestige to those it invites to speak. For instance, a speaking engagement at Harvard carries a great deal more prestige than a speaking engagement at a local community college. It also suggests these speakers are of particular value else they would not be invited (what are the chances Harvard will let any of us speak in their auditorium?).
The mere act of granting the likes of Coulter access to their stage automatically raises her credibility. If she could only ever say she spoke at World Evangelism Bible College that credibility vanishes.
This whole “prestige” argument is a nonstarter for me. Where does that prestige come from–her allies, or her detractors? If her allies, they already hold her in prestige. If her detractors, don’t fuckin show up for her speech, or show up and demand equal response time. (Remember, I suggest that campuses require speakers to have mandatory question-and-answer sessions at the end of speaking engagements).
If universities make it clear that they invite shitheads to speak so that students can be exposed to their ideas, that prestige should vanish. Speaking in a Harvard auditorium should, in these circumstances, carry no more prestige than being dissected in a Harvard lab.
Again, shelve her book for something for students to be exposed to, similar to exposing them to a neutered smallpox virus. No, don’t promote it as a must-read; promote it as an important artifact in our current political environment.
Not about me desperately needing exposure, it’s about students needing it–and in some cases, wanting it. The idiocy you see above where someone says, “Free speech isn’t a suicide pact”? That shit is ridiculous, because listening to Coulter won’t kill you.
Whether someone should speak shouldn’t be based on whether their ideas are terrible or not. Someone should be allowed to speak on campus if:
The prestige derives from the platform they are given to speak on.
If a prestigious university says you can come speak in their auditorium they are, on some level, acknowledging that you are someone who deserves to be heard. That’s a feather in the speaker’s cap and worth noting on their resume or book flap.
If social justice were about what it claims to be about, there wouldn’t be an issue.
Of course, it’s not.
What Social Justice Claims to Stand For
[ul]
[li] Equality[/li][li] Justice[/li][li] Fairness[/li][/ul]
What Social Justice Actually Stands For
[ul]
[li]Hatred of Whites[/li][li]Hatred of Heterosexuals[/li][li]Hatred of Men[/li][li]Victimhood Glamorization[/li][li]Free Speech Silencing[/li][li]Viewpoint Discrimination[/li][li]Character Assassination[/li][li]Violence[/li][/ul]
So, while the social justice label creates the illusion that it’s a positive movement, we know that’s just a rhetorical trick. The content of the movement shows it for the evil that it is.
Oh look, a new troll.
And not even interesting.
…as an actual Social Justice Warrior: I have to say you’ve got it completely wrong. I don’t stand for any of those things you claim I stand for. I’m not evil. I don’t hate whites. I am hetrosexual. I don’t hate men: I am a man and I don’t hate myself.
What ridiculous notions you have. As the official spokesperson for Straightdope Chapter of the Church of Latter Day SJW’s I am happy to answer any questions you may have. What would you like to know?
You left out gay white male. It’s the perfect trifecta sjws get to hate on. It’s the latest thing.
Hi Cameron. Exams over?
Now the “OK” hand sign is racist.
Edit: Someone already started a thread.
And applause is exclusionary to the deaf and possibly triggering. Instead, the proper way to show appreciation is with "jazz hands."
That’s only when you’re clapping for Deaf people. No one Deaf or Hard of Hearing would applaud like that for hearing people… But it is always nice when people applaud so Deaf people can see it…
It’s like clapping in the air for blind people - it’s a waste of time.
And good on the National Union of Students for making sure everyone has equal access.
The problem is that you’re not looking at the issues via the special Decoder Ring. Here’s a quick explanation for those who haven’t drunk enough Ovaltine yet:
Hatred of Whites = acknowledging the existence of racism
Hatred of Heterosexuals = acknowledging the existence of homophobia
Hatred of Men = acknowledging the existence of sexism
Victimhood Glamorization = any suggestion that victims of racism, sexism or homophobia should be taken remotely seriously
Free Speech Silencing = pointing out when people say bigoted things
Viewpoint Discrimination = pointing out when people say bigoted things
Character Assassination = pointing out when people say bigoted things
Violence = responding back when someone hits you
See, what you have to realize is that when SJWs like you say - out loud in public - that some straight white men have done bad things to people who weren’t straight, white and/or men, that hurts the feelings of all straight white men everywhere. Which is clearly the worst possible crime, and why SJWs are so loathed. I mean, I think we can agree that when the time comes to choose between, say, “saying that women shouldn’t be subject to threats of rape, violence and death against them and their entire families merely for daring to suggest that sexism is bad” and “not hurting the feelings of straight white men”, the right choice is clear to all of us.
Kansas City Archdiocese boots Girl Scouts, calls group reflective of ‘troubling trends.’
Girl Scouts are in an organization that that Planned Parenthood likes, and also they mention feminist leaders as being a good thing. Get rid of them!
Which always boils down to “stop whining and put up with it”.
That’s just the way it is
Some things will never change
That’s just the way it is
Ah, but don’t you believe them