5 ms·

I can come up with moral and ethical objections for any given speaker; if one does not want money going to morally debatable speakers, they should object to all

by nickff 11y ago

I can come up with moral and ethical objections for any given speaker; if one does not want money going to morally debatable speakers, they should object to all paid speakers. I believe objecting to all paid speakers on campus to be a defensible position, but paying for a variety of speakers also seems to be a strong position.

thedz 11y ago
Everyone has their own lines for when a speaker is too objectionable, I honestly don't have a problem with someone protesting some speakers but not others. I mean, isn't that precisely what protesting something is? (That said, there are definitely I think good and bad ways to protest, and also reactionary protests that escalate way past what's acceptable)
- MCRed 11y ago
  If the college republicans weren't able spend their portion of student fees to bring some Republican I found repugnant to campus, how would I ever have the opportunity to ask him very uncomfortable questions during the Q&A after his speech? Back when I was a college leftist we welcomed these opportunities. The idea that they should be censored was abhorrent. In fact, we joined forces with them when the college papers editor decided that he could re-write and censor letters published by both groups (and in the process inflaming hostility between us, until we discovered our words had been changed as had theirs.) I think liberalism has lost sight of the mission of defending ALL people's rights, even ones you disagree with. "I will defend to the death your right to say it" and all that. ---- (so was I downvoted for challenging republicans or because we joined with the college republican to challenge the censorship in the school paper? Oh, maybe it was criticizing "liberalism"? I guess that's not PC.) ---- PPS -- This was during the days of "political correctness" when any position taken from the left was shot down with "that's just political correctness" and it was an insult- like you could never think that you're just being PC. Which of course as not in the least bit true. Back then. Alas, reality has become a parody of history.
  - eridius 11y ago
    There's various levels of offensiveness. And also bear in mind that both of these cases were for a commencement speech. Commencement speeches are not the places for divisive speakers. If the Young Republicans want to raise money to pay for someone to come speak, that's very different than the school paying the equivalent of free tuition for 3 students for a year for an extremely controversial speaker to give a 35-minute commencement speech.
- malandrew 11y ago
  I mean, isn't that precisely what protesting something is I'd say that it's generally considered better form to protest ideas over events and to protest events over people. Protesting individuals is intolerant and petty. Engaging with and debating their ideas (when they are promoting them) is a more reasonable solution.
woah 11y ago
That's not really an argument because you don't define any selection criteria, which is what the whole issue is about. Would you say that it's acceptable to have a neonazi speak, who charged $10000 per minute?
- malandrew 11y ago
  I would call that an ad hominem justification and a poor use of financial resources (a reasonable thing to object to). What matters is what this individual (regardless of which of the many labels that apply to them you want to focus on will talk about). For an example, check out the Curtis Yarvin Strangeloop situation: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/06/curtis_yarvin_booted_from_strange_loop_it_s_a_big_big_problem.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/06/cur... Furthermore, your argument is a strawman. Where is the line drawn? How about a neocon? A communist? A socialist? A fascist? A liberal? Lots of people have ideas that are objectionable to someone. If they are talking about something unrelated to those ideas you find objectionable, what's the problem?
  - tptacek 11y ago
    What of Yarvin? A small private conference invited a speaker to talk about a marginal piece of technology, unaware that the speaker was best known as a noisome defender of chattel slavery. The invitation was rescinded. I don't know why Auerbach sees this as a "big problem", but then, I don't know why Auerbach writes much of what he writes at Slate. He's not very good. Slate was probably better off with Farhad Manjoo.
    - SamReidHughes 11y ago
      > > For an example, > What of Yarvin? It was an example.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        Of what? There's bogus demand for "safe spaces", but there's also bogus whatever- the- opposite- of- that- is, and that's what the Yarvin case is.

by nickff 11y ago

thedz 11y ago

Everyone has their own lines for when a speaker is too objectionable, I honestly don't have a problem with someone protesting some speakers but not others. I mean, isn't that precisely what protesting something is? (That said, there are definitely I think good and bad ways to protest, and also reactionary protests that escalate way past what's acceptable)

MCRed 11y ago
If the college republicans weren't able spend their portion of student fees to bring some Republican I found repugnant to campus, how would I ever have the opportunity to ask him very uncomfortable questions during the Q&A after his speech? Back when I was a college leftist we welcomed these opportunities. The idea that they should be censored was abhorrent. In fact, we joined forces with them when the college papers editor decided that he could re-write and censor letters published by both groups (and in the process inflaming hostility between us, until we discovered our words had been changed as had theirs.) I think liberalism has lost sight of the mission of defending ALL people's rights, even ones you disagree with. "I will defend to the death your right to say it" and all that. ---- (so was I downvoted for challenging republicans or because we joined with the college republican to challenge the censorship in the school paper? Oh, maybe it was criticizing "liberalism"? I guess that's not PC.) ---- PPS -- This was during the days of "political correctness" when any position taken from the left was shot down with "that's just political correctness" and it was an insult- like you could never think that you're just being PC. Which of course as not in the least bit true. Back then. Alas, reality has become a parody of history.
- eridius 11y ago
  There's various levels of offensiveness. And also bear in mind that both of these cases were for a commencement speech. Commencement speeches are not the places for divisive speakers. If the Young Republicans want to raise money to pay for someone to come speak, that's very different than the school paying the equivalent of free tuition for 3 students for a year for an extremely controversial speaker to give a 35-minute commencement speech.
malandrew 11y ago
I mean, isn't that precisely what protesting something is I'd say that it's generally considered better form to protest ideas over events and to protest events over people. Protesting individuals is intolerant and petty. Engaging with and debating their ideas (when they are promoting them) is a more reasonable solution.

woah 11y ago

That's not really an argument because you don't define any selection criteria, which is what the whole issue is about. Would you say that it's acceptable to have a neonazi speak, who charged $10000 per minute?

malandrew 11y ago
I would call that an ad hominem justification and a poor use of financial resources (a reasonable thing to object to). What matters is what this individual (regardless of which of the many labels that apply to them you want to focus on will talk about). For an example, check out the Curtis Yarvin Strangeloop situation: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/06/curtis_yarvin_booted_from_strange_loop_it_s_a_big_big_problem.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/06/cur... Furthermore, your argument is a strawman. Where is the line drawn? How about a neocon? A communist? A socialist? A fascist? A liberal? Lots of people have ideas that are objectionable to someone. If they are talking about something unrelated to those ideas you find objectionable, what's the problem?
- tptacek 11y ago
  What of Yarvin? A small private conference invited a speaker to talk about a marginal piece of technology, unaware that the speaker was best known as a noisome defender of chattel slavery. The invitation was rescinded. I don't know why Auerbach sees this as a "big problem", but then, I don't know why Auerbach writes much of what he writes at Slate. He's not very good. Slate was probably better off with Farhad Manjoo.
  - SamReidHughes 11y ago
    > > For an example, > What of Yarvin? It was an example.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Of what? There's bogus demand for "safe spaces", but there's also bogus whatever- the- opposite- of- that- is, and that's what the Yarvin case is.