4 ms·

No, you're trying to claim that they are not upholding those ideals by citing the actions against an individual whose occupation is not guided by these ideals,

No, you're trying to claim that they are not upholding those ideals by citing the actions against an individual whose occupation is not guided by these ideals, and in the process you want to discredit Universities ENTIRELY as a result. It's absurd. LOL @ Socrates being a professional troll. I feel like I'm being trolled when I read stuff like this... So you were citing the treatment of someone whom "who had never watched until yesterday" in support of your claim about Universities and open acceptance of ideas. That's a pretty good summation of how ideologically driven your arguments are. It sure didn't stop him from trying to hide behind "being a child abuse victim" to excuse his behavior. But that just makes him a hypocrite, what makes him a troll is that whatever "valid points" he has serves the interest of provocation, not discussion.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
My first comment was discrediting universities entirely conditional on tps5's claim that they are merely political actors, same as anyone else. I favor free speech, free thought and open inquiry even for ideas that I feel are harmful or dishonest. I want universities to be bastions of these values. For example, although feminists are far more dishonest than Milo and far more hostile to open inquiry and free thought, I still favor allowing them to speak at universities. They should even have the right to criticize specific individuals (like Milo was going to) and argue against the very freedom that allows them to speak. My knowledge of a specific speaker is completely irrelevant, because the argument I'm making has nothing whatsoever to do with who the speaker is or the content of his talk.