4 ms·

Wow, there's so many flaws in your argument I'm not sure where to begin. It seems you want minorities to listen to any and all bigoted opinions without protest

Wow, there's so many flaws in your argument I'm not sure where to begin. It seems you want minorities to listen to any and all bigoted opinions without protest and you want to treat such opinions as morally equal. When you're part of a minority that gets assaulted, murdered, and discriminated in general you don't have to listen to any and all people's opinions. If you think that I as a transwoman must listen to TERFs, social conservatives, and hand wringers then you're greatly mistaken. Their opinions are morally invalid for many reasons chief among them is their desire to control others. Being ostracized/protested by a minority is nowhere near being harmed by said minority. And if a private party like a university feels its reputation is contingent on reaching out to those minorities then that's their authority to do so. It doesn't matter what you or I think either way. If you don't like that university then don't attend it. Or call your representative and see if they can cut its public funding. Either way, you, the comedy society, and the comedian are not entitled to any platform. Free speech is not about fairness, it's about whether or not the state or collusive corporations are intentionally impeding your ability to speak. The comedian isn't out of work because of one gig. The comedy society isn't defunct because it has to find another venue to present comedians. If said university went out of its way to tell every other venue holder to not let that society or comedian act in their interests then that would be true harm. Also, the fact people throw the word censorship around seems troubling to me for a couple reasons. First, it's turning into the modern bogey man of our day. If Twitter bans someone I swear every other day I see someone claiming its censorship whether the account was by a political conservative or liberal. It's ridiculous. Stop using a word as a bludgeon to get your way. Deal with the fact private parties can and will protect their reputations. Second, calling anything censorship at will has the same effect as censorship especially when the opposing side has pointed out rightly the bigotry of a specific opinion (ex. people who refuse to desist from using racial slurs). And that's exactly how I've seen it used both on Twitter and on here. If you don't like being called a bigot then ask the accuser why they called you one. You'd be surprised how easily such an accusation is disarmed by one question (Wil Wheaton did that easily despite the slow uptake by certain people on Twitter yesterday). Simply put, learn to interact with people, especially minorities. And stop blaming them when they're in the right.

13thLetter 11y ago
"It seems you want minorities to listen to any and all bigoted opinions without protest..." Nobody was "forcing" any person to listen to anything, so this critique has pretty much gotten off on the wrong foot right at the start.
- norea-armozel 11y ago
  Yet free speech advocates are all for forcing private institutions to open their platforms to any and all speech. Sorry, but if you can't see this as a problem and probably a violation of property rights (especially in the US) then I can't say we'll ever agree on anything.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    > Yet free speech advocates are all for forcing private institutions to open their platforms to any and all speech. No, they are not in favor of forcing them to do so. You are making the unfortunately common mistake of confusing advocating something with making it legally required. These are not the same thing, and you'll be a more convincing advocate for your side once you really get that. What free-speech advocates are stating is that while private universities are legally allowed to ban speakers, because as you correctly state they have no obligation to provide a platform to anyone or anything they don't want to... that this is illiberal behavior, not in the spirit of freedom of speech, and these universities are not living up to their claimed principles when they do it. Which it is.
    - norea-armozel 11y ago
      >You are making the unfortunately common mistake of confusing advocating something with making it legally required. Nope I'm not. Try again. >because as you correctly state they have no obligation to provide a platform to anyone or anything they don't want to... that this is illiberal behavior, not in the spirit of freedom of speech, and these universities are not living up to their claimed principles when they do it. This is still trying to force a private institution to conform to your wishes. If you can't deal with a university telling you to eff off and your response is to try to bully them into opening their platform then you're a bullying twit imo. The HRC, GLAAD, and etc never demand that Liberty University (socially conservative institution) let say Dan Savage speak at their university. Why should the door be open only one way? You can speak big lofty words about free speech all you want, but the reality is that it's built on hypocrisy as the majority of online "free speech" advocates are socially conservative (they now call themselves culturally libertarian which IMO is an insult to libertarianism as a political position). So, I can't say I'm a supporter of the majority of free speech advocates since their agenda is as clear as day (i.e. to force widely rejected view points into class rooms of moderate to socially liberal institutions but not to open the door the other way to socially conservative ones for liberal speakers).

13thLetter 11y ago

"It seems you want minorities to listen to any and all bigoted opinions without protest..." Nobody was "forcing" any person to listen to anything, so this critique has pretty much gotten off on the wrong foot right at the start.

norea-armozel 11y ago
Yet free speech advocates are all for forcing private institutions to open their platforms to any and all speech. Sorry, but if you can't see this as a problem and probably a violation of property rights (especially in the US) then I can't say we'll ever agree on anything.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  > Yet free speech advocates are all for forcing private institutions to open their platforms to any and all speech. No, they are not in favor of forcing them to do so. You are making the unfortunately common mistake of confusing advocating something with making it legally required. These are not the same thing, and you'll be a more convincing advocate for your side once you really get that. What free-speech advocates are stating is that while private universities are legally allowed to ban speakers, because as you correctly state they have no obligation to provide a platform to anyone or anything they don't want to... that this is illiberal behavior, not in the spirit of freedom of speech, and these universities are not living up to their claimed principles when they do it. Which it is.
  - norea-armozel 11y ago
    >You are making the unfortunately common mistake of confusing advocating something with making it legally required. Nope I'm not. Try again. >because as you correctly state they have no obligation to provide a platform to anyone or anything they don't want to... that this is illiberal behavior, not in the spirit of freedom of speech, and these universities are not living up to their claimed principles when they do it. This is still trying to force a private institution to conform to your wishes. If you can't deal with a university telling you to eff off and your response is to try to bully them into opening their platform then you're a bullying twit imo. The HRC, GLAAD, and etc never demand that Liberty University (socially conservative institution) let say Dan Savage speak at their university. Why should the door be open only one way? You can speak big lofty words about free speech all you want, but the reality is that it's built on hypocrisy as the majority of online "free speech" advocates are socially conservative (they now call themselves culturally libertarian which IMO is an insult to libertarianism as a political position). So, I can't say I'm a supporter of the majority of free speech advocates since their agenda is as clear as day (i.e. to force widely rejected view points into class rooms of moderate to socially liberal institutions but not to open the door the other way to socially conservative ones for liberal speakers).