3 ms·

"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 crit

"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
      > This is still trying to force a private institution to conform to your wishes. I'm curious what your opinion is of our current advocacy campaigns attempting to "force" tech companies to hire more women, or "force" movies and TV to to have more characters who are ethnic minorities. > The HRC, GLAAD, and etc never demand that Liberty University (socially conservative institution) let say Dan Savage speak at their university. Maybe they should! They'd certainly be well within their rights. Although I'd be interested to learn more about a situation where someone like Savage was prevented from speaking at Liberty University, as I hadn't heard of that.
      - norea-armozel 11y ago
        >I'm curious what your opinion is of our current advocacy campaigns attempting to "force" tech companies to hire more women, or "force" movies and TV to to have more characters who are ethnic minorities. There's a huge difference between writing a crappy article on Kotaku and some jerk threatening to dogpile Twitter w/ false SEC/FTC reports. This has been the crap that's been circulating since NRx/alt-right and GG reared its collective fugly head. And they often operate under false pretenses of "free speech." >Maybe they should! They'd certainly be well within their rights. Or maybe they know something certain free speech advocates refuse to disclose: institutions are largely fossils of their time. Trying to convert an evangelical university to their cause is as Quixotic as you can get. >Although I'd be interested to learn more about a situation where someone like Savage was prevented from speaking at Liberty University, as I hadn't heard of that. Because social conservatives know what the believe and will exercise it to its fullest within the law (and sometimes outside of it)? Just saying. So you can stump for a cause that does not need protection (considering the strength of EFF and the ACLU on these matters) or you all can admit that maybe just maybe being PC isn't all that bad. And maybe just maybe a bigot should be freely called a bigot and jeered by the general audience whether or not John Cleese wants that to happen. Guess what? The Marx Brothers dealt with jeers and rotten tomatoes thrown their way so I'm sure modern comedians can deal with mean tweets and crappy Kotaku hit pieces.

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
    > This is still trying to force a private institution to conform to your wishes. I'm curious what your opinion is of our current advocacy campaigns attempting to "force" tech companies to hire more women, or "force" movies and TV to to have more characters who are ethnic minorities. > The HRC, GLAAD, and etc never demand that Liberty University (socially conservative institution) let say Dan Savage speak at their university. Maybe they should! They'd certainly be well within their rights. Although I'd be interested to learn more about a situation where someone like Savage was prevented from speaking at Liberty University, as I hadn't heard of that.
    - norea-armozel 11y ago
      >I'm curious what your opinion is of our current advocacy campaigns attempting to "force" tech companies to hire more women, or "force" movies and TV to to have more characters who are ethnic minorities. There's a huge difference between writing a crappy article on Kotaku and some jerk threatening to dogpile Twitter w/ false SEC/FTC reports. This has been the crap that's been circulating since NRx/alt-right and GG reared its collective fugly head. And they often operate under false pretenses of "free speech." >Maybe they should! They'd certainly be well within their rights. Or maybe they know something certain free speech advocates refuse to disclose: institutions are largely fossils of their time. Trying to convert an evangelical university to their cause is as Quixotic as you can get. >Although I'd be interested to learn more about a situation where someone like Savage was prevented from speaking at Liberty University, as I hadn't heard of that. Because social conservatives know what the believe and will exercise it to its fullest within the law (and sometimes outside of it)? Just saying. So you can stump for a cause that does not need protection (considering the strength of EFF and the ACLU on these matters) or you all can admit that maybe just maybe being PC isn't all that bad. And maybe just maybe a bigot should be freely called a bigot and jeered by the general audience whether or not John Cleese wants that to happen. Guess what? The Marx Brothers dealt with jeers and rotten tomatoes thrown their way so I'm sure modern comedians can deal with mean tweets and crappy Kotaku hit pieces.