11 ms·

I feel like this sentence sums up the opinion presented in the article: > When speakers need police escort on and off college campuses, an alarm bell should be

I feel like this sentence sums up the opinion presented in the article: > When speakers need police escort on and off college campuses, an alarm bell should be going off that something has gone seriously awry. Whether you agree with her political stance or not is immaterial. Let's imagine Hitler (or if you like Hitler, imagine someone you think is/was horrible) was giving the speech. And then imagine Hitler writing a post on Medium talking about how terrible it was that he couldn't explain how important genocide was. Would you feel sorry for him? Or would you tell him that just because he has freedom of speech doesn't mean he's guaranteed a platform to exercise it on a college campus with many students who really hate him?

dangero 9y ago
The one nuance you are leaving out is that students invited her to speak. If Hitler was invited by students to speak then I would think he needs to be allowed or we have to be honest that we aren't supporting free speech except for ideas we are comfortable with, which is not free speech at all.
Helmet 9y ago
Reductio ad Hitlerum The people being barred, and often assulted, are fairly mainstream conservatives, not nazis.
- ivanbakel 9y ago
  The point is not the comparison, it's that the article's argument is totally independent of politic. Why should we find it incredible that students might object to a speaker, regardless of who they are?
  - stale2002 9y ago
    I would find it incredible if these students then went around assaulting people who attended these events with baseball bats, yes.
    - ivanbakel 9y ago
      You would find it incredible if students on a university campus were to assault Hitler with baseball bats?
      - stale2002 9y ago
        If they assaulted people ATTENDING the events, in the same way that antifa has been doing? Randos, that may not have ever heard of the speaker, or people who merely support free speech? Yeah, I would find that incredible and insane.
nyolfen 9y ago
i would absolutely defend the right of anyone to express their opinions in public, even if i despise their views. that's the principle of free speech. who decides who is "hitler" in this scenario? who is the ultimate arbiter of acceptable speech? you might agree with them today but you should be incredibly wary of ceding the power to regulate speech to them lest you disagree with them tomorrow. why is the preference of the protestors more important than the civil rights of the speaker and the preferences of the inviters? it's alarming to me how common your viewpoint has become.
- realo 9y ago
  Well... There is this thing called "hate speech", you know... And at least here in Canada, it is totally illegal. No freedom there at all. Is hate speech allowed in the US, in the name of "freedom" and "amendments"? I hope not.
  - LyndsySimon 9y ago
    > Is hate speech allowed in the US, in the name of "freedom" and "amendments"? I hope not. Yes, it is, and not by accident.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      It's not often I can be proud of the US, but this is one of those times I can be.
      - rubatuga 9y ago
        Alright, I applaud your love for free speech, but what good do you or anybody else get by inciting hatred on a particular group?
        toomuchtodo 9y ago
        Critical thinking and the free expression of ideas? Far more important than insuring you're not offended. There's a reason it's called "free speech", not "speech that mostly won't offend". No one has the right to not be offended by ideas in a public forum. If you're unable to handle that, show yourself out if the forum has been granted.
safek 9y ago
I wouldn't feel sorry for him, but I'd certainly want to interrogate the psychology of the people who insisted, wailing and screaming, that he be disinvited. The arguments I've seen on this subject revolve around two poles. One argues that if we give "hateful" (replace hateful with whatever fashionable adjective) speakers a platform, it will "promote," "validate," and "normalize" them. If Hitler gets to give a talk, it "sends the message" that he's a reasonable guy. The other pole argues, "sunlight is the best disinfectant." If this Hitler guy really is as bad as you say, let him babble without interruption. The more the talks, the more people will realize how crazy he is. And if they don't, have someone sane and reasonable respond to his ideas. The stark contrast will be apparent to the audience. It seems to me that the first camp always uses such vague language. What on earth does it means to "validate" or "normalize" someone? What does it mean to "send a message?" Who is the recipient of this message? Who is the hypothetical citizen today who will look on the stage, see Hitler there, and think to himself, "Hmm, that man is standing on a stage. That's where the important people stand. Gee, his ideas must be pretty good."? Who is conceivably that dumb, and why should political theory be informed by such a mentality? As someone who sometimes attends these college talks as a member of the audience, I find it insulting that I should be disallowed to listen to someone on the basis that they are so odiously toxic I have to be protected from them. Can't I just decide for myself?
- ivanbakel 9y ago
  I don't believe the argument is that people are convinced by power, but rather that people who agree with the speaker will be encouraged to be more vocal and confident in expressing and acting on views that the protestors oppose. >What on earth does it means to "validate" or "normalize" someone? To make their views appear valid, and to make it appear more normal to hold them, respectively. I really disagree that this is vague language.
  - glenra 9y ago
    What really validates is all this protesting. If the protestors are so afraid of a mild-mannered speaker that they need to prevent the speech from happening at all, that sends a pretty strong signal that the views being suppressed must be really powerful and probably contain a kernel of truth worth listening to. Or perhaps protests send the message that the views of the protestors are really fragile and can easily be disproven by the arguments of these speakers. The bigger the protest, the less credible the protestors seem. It's odd that they haven't yet noticed this.
stale2002 9y ago
You've got the analogy wrong. A better one would be as follows: "imagine a group of students went around calling anyone they disagree with to be equivalent to Hitler. And then imagine these people went around assaulting, not only these people that they disagree with, but ALSO people who merely support the concept of free speech. " You better not walk around campus at night wearing a red hat during these events. You can expect a group of black clad people to smash your head in with baseball bats.
- jamescostian 9y ago
  > people went around assaulting, not only these people that they disagree with, but ALSO people who merely support the concept of free speech This assaulting of innocent people is very wrong. If you told me about an innocent person wearing a red hat during one of those events getting assaulted for wearing that red hat, I would say that's awful. But my comment isn't addressing any violence, it's addressing freedom of speech, which I thought was the main issue presented in the article. If you want to talk about violence, then at least don't only focus on the violence against the people wearing red hats.
- douche 9y ago
  I'm a little worried about going back to my campus, given that my favorite hats are my conference Red Hat baseball caps...
BadassFractal 9y ago
Our only two options are dialogue or violence. By suppressing dialogue, you're not leaving people much of a choice over the long term.
monochromatic 9y ago
> people who disagree with me are Hitler so I am ethically obliged to do anything in my power to stop them
YooLi 9y ago
Why would you need to imagine it's Hitler giving a speech on a campus? How could that possibly be worthwhile, useful, or relevant? [Though it is telling that you used it as an example.] If the speaker was invited by students/faculty to speak to interested parties, they shouldn't require police escorts. Period.
adekok 9y ago
> And then imagine Hitler writing a post on Medium talking about how terrible it was that he couldn't explain how important genocide was. Tough. If someone is incapable of dealing with dissenting opinions, even terrible ones... they should crawl into a padded "safe space" with similar infants. If people protest speakers who have dissenting opinions, the protestors should obey the law. They should restrict their protest to the same medium used by the speaker: speech. If the protestors get violent, they should get arrested and charged. The universities should ban the violent criminals from campus. That's my $0.02 at least. The reality is that the universities seem to tolerate violent protests, so long as the protestors have the "right opinions". Instead of the violent criminals being arrested, the peaceful speakers are charged for police protection. In the interests of "safety", of course.
orthoganol 9y ago
This is a strange comment. On the one hand you trust students to be reasonable about how they throw around the Hitler/ Nazi/ fascism label - and clearly that is problematic - look at the name calling (not to mention riots) for people who are basically innocuous comedians or spectacles with right leaning politics, i.e. a Gavin McInnes or Milo Yiannopoulos. Then on the other hand you don't trust these same students to self regulate like intelligent adults and know what's worthy of attention and what isn't on their own, suggesting that censorship rules somehow would help them despite their infantilizing implications. If you trust them to use the Hitler/ fascist label responsibly why don't you trust them to self-regulate? Or if you think they need censorship, why don't you also talk about how irrational they are about calling people Hitler? Just feels like this position is a contradiction.
- jamescostian 9y ago
  > On the one hand you trust students to be reasonable about how they throw around the Hitler/ Nazi/ fascism label Nope. I do not. Much like your username, this idea and what I'm saying are orthogonal. My point is, if you'd let Hitler get booed down, why wouldn't you let someone else get booed down? Are you asking the protestors not the express themselves?
  - orthoganol 9y ago
    And once again you're contradicting yourself by saying their right to shut speakers down has something to do with their ability to figure out if its actually a Hitler or not.
  - notgood 9y ago
    The thing is that in any modern nation Hitler would likely have been in jail just after the first human rights violations, so he would have to give his speech from jail or something so your hypothetical example is preposterous? Seriously, your argument just reminds me of the "Anyone who dissagres with me is Hitler" meme and benefits little to the conversation and its an appeal to emotion -even when that wasn't your intention-.
jacobwilliamroy 9y ago
First and foremost, I would feel extremely concerned that the protesters were so insecure in the validity of their position, that they would actively try to obscure and suppress dissenting opinions. Secondly, I would feel extremely insulted that these protesters do not trust the general public with the ability to hear two sides of an argument and make an informed decision. Thirdly I would be immensly disappointed that certain words and ideas had become taboo on a university campus.
- jamescostian 9y ago
  > I would be immensly disappointed that certain words and ideas had become taboo on a university campus. You must be immensely disappointed! Go to a college football game and tell someone really into a specific team just how much their team sucks. It's so taboo! You'll be shocked by how much they try to sensor your ideas that go against their favorite football team.
  - jacobwilliamroy 9y ago
    Football fanaticism is disappointing. Without criticism from spectators or coaches, football teams would have a very hard time improving their game. It's counter-productive to silence football critics. Yes, censorship happens at football games; it does not follow that censorship ought to happen at public speaking events.
    - jamescostian 9y ago
      Looking back at my comment, it was quite snarky. I appologize. And your response is definitely a good point. I personally am fine with the current state of affairs when it comes to football fans, and I presumed that you were as well, but that you were only against what happened in this article due to your own personal political beliefs. You calmly demonstrated that my presumption was incorrect. Thank you for being an excellent, cool and collected arguer, and I'm sorry I was so tribalistic.
mcphage 9y ago
> Whether you agree with her political stance or not is immaterial. Let's imagine Hitler (or if you like Hitler, imagine someone you think is/was horrible) was giving the speech. And then imagine Hitler writing a post on Medium talking about how terrible it was that he couldn't explain how important genocide was. Would you feel sorry for him? Or would you tell him that just because he has freedom of speech doesn't mean he's guaranteed a platform to exercise it on a college campus with many students who really hate him? Let's go the opposite way. Let's imagine it was someone complete innocuous. Like they're giving a speech extolling the benefits of sunscreen, or brushing your teeth. But otherwise the same—police escorts, protestors, the whole shebang. Would you tell them that "just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean you're guaranteed a platform to exercise on it on a college campus with many students that really hate them."? Or would you instead say "something has gone seriously wrong here..."?

dangero 9y ago

The one nuance you are leaving out is that students invited her to speak. If Hitler was invited by students to speak then I would think he needs to be allowed or we have to be honest that we aren't supporting free speech except for ideas we are comfortable with, which is not free speech at all.

Helmet 9y ago

Reductio ad Hitlerum The people being barred, and often assulted, are fairly mainstream conservatives, not nazis.

ivanbakel 9y ago
The point is not the comparison, it's that the article's argument is totally independent of politic. Why should we find it incredible that students might object to a speaker, regardless of who they are?
- stale2002 9y ago
  I would find it incredible if these students then went around assaulting people who attended these events with baseball bats, yes.
  - ivanbakel 9y ago
    You would find it incredible if students on a university campus were to assault Hitler with baseball bats?
    - stale2002 9y ago
      If they assaulted people ATTENDING the events, in the same way that antifa has been doing? Randos, that may not have ever heard of the speaker, or people who merely support free speech? Yeah, I would find that incredible and insane.

nyolfen 9y ago

i would absolutely defend the right of anyone to express their opinions in public, even if i despise their views. that's the principle of free speech. who decides who is "hitler" in this scenario? who is the ultimate arbiter of acceptable speech? you might agree with them today but you should be incredibly wary of ceding the power to regulate speech to them lest you disagree with them tomorrow. why is the preference of the protestors more important than the civil rights of the speaker and the preferences of the inviters? it's alarming to me how common your viewpoint has become.

realo 9y ago
Well... There is this thing called "hate speech", you know... And at least here in Canada, it is totally illegal. No freedom there at all. Is hate speech allowed in the US, in the name of "freedom" and "amendments"? I hope not.
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  > Is hate speech allowed in the US, in the name of "freedom" and "amendments"? I hope not. Yes, it is, and not by accident.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    It's not often I can be proud of the US, but this is one of those times I can be.
    - rubatuga 9y ago
      Alright, I applaud your love for free speech, but what good do you or anybody else get by inciting hatred on a particular group?
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        Critical thinking and the free expression of ideas? Far more important than insuring you're not offended. There's a reason it's called "free speech", not "speech that mostly won't offend". No one has the right to not be offended by ideas in a public forum. If you're unable to handle that, show yourself out if the forum has been granted.

safek 9y ago

I wouldn't feel sorry for him, but I'd certainly want to interrogate the psychology of the people who insisted, wailing and screaming, that he be disinvited. The arguments I've seen on this subject revolve around two poles. One argues that if we give "hateful" (replace hateful with whatever fashionable adjective) speakers a platform, it will "promote," "validate," and "normalize" them. If Hitler gets to give a talk, it "sends the message" that he's a reasonable guy. The other pole argues, "sunlight is the best disinfectant." If this Hitler guy really is as bad as you say, let him babble without interruption. The more the talks, the more people will realize how crazy he is. And if they don't, have someone sane and reasonable respond to his ideas. The stark contrast will be apparent to the audience. It seems to me that the first camp always uses such vague language. What on earth does it means to "validate" or "normalize" someone? What does it mean to "send a message?" Who is the recipient of this message? Who is the hypothetical citizen today who will look on the stage, see Hitler there, and think to himself, "Hmm, that man is standing on a stage. That's where the important people stand. Gee, his ideas must be pretty good."? Who is conceivably that dumb, and why should political theory be informed by such a mentality? As someone who sometimes attends these college talks as a member of the audience, I find it insulting that I should be disallowed to listen to someone on the basis that they are so odiously toxic I have to be protected from them. Can't I just decide for myself?

ivanbakel 9y ago
I don't believe the argument is that people are convinced by power, but rather that people who agree with the speaker will be encouraged to be more vocal and confident in expressing and acting on views that the protestors oppose. >What on earth does it means to "validate" or "normalize" someone? To make their views appear valid, and to make it appear more normal to hold them, respectively. I really disagree that this is vague language.
- glenra 9y ago
  What really validates is all this protesting. If the protestors are so afraid of a mild-mannered speaker that they need to prevent the speech from happening at all, that sends a pretty strong signal that the views being suppressed must be really powerful and probably contain a kernel of truth worth listening to. Or perhaps protests send the message that the views of the protestors are really fragile and can easily be disproven by the arguments of these speakers. The bigger the protest, the less credible the protestors seem. It's odd that they haven't yet noticed this.

stale2002 9y ago

You've got the analogy wrong. A better one would be as follows: "imagine a group of students went around calling anyone they disagree with to be equivalent to Hitler. And then imagine these people went around assaulting, not only these people that they disagree with, but ALSO people who merely support the concept of free speech. " You better not walk around campus at night wearing a red hat during these events. You can expect a group of black clad people to smash your head in with baseball bats.

jamescostian 9y ago
> people went around assaulting, not only these people that they disagree with, but ALSO people who merely support the concept of free speech This assaulting of innocent people is very wrong. If you told me about an innocent person wearing a red hat during one of those events getting assaulted for wearing that red hat, I would say that's awful. But my comment isn't addressing any violence, it's addressing freedom of speech, which I thought was the main issue presented in the article. If you want to talk about violence, then at least don't only focus on the violence against the people wearing red hats.
douche 9y ago
I'm a little worried about going back to my campus, given that my favorite hats are my conference Red Hat baseball caps...

BadassFractal 9y ago

Our only two options are dialogue or violence. By suppressing dialogue, you're not leaving people much of a choice over the long term.

monochromatic 9y ago

> people who disagree with me are Hitler so I am ethically obliged to do anything in my power to stop them

YooLi 9y ago

Why would you need to imagine it's Hitler giving a speech on a campus? How could that possibly be worthwhile, useful, or relevant? [Though it is telling that you used it as an example.] If the speaker was invited by students/faculty to speak to interested parties, they shouldn't require police escorts. Period.

adekok 9y ago

> And then imagine Hitler writing a post on Medium talking about how terrible it was that he couldn't explain how important genocide was. Tough. If someone is incapable of dealing with dissenting opinions, even terrible ones... they should crawl into a padded "safe space" with similar infants. If people protest speakers who have dissenting opinions, the protestors should obey the law. They should restrict their protest to the same medium used by the speaker: speech. If the protestors get violent, they should get arrested and charged. The universities should ban the violent criminals from campus. That's my $0.02 at least. The reality is that the universities seem to tolerate violent protests, so long as the protestors have the "right opinions". Instead of the violent criminals being arrested, the peaceful speakers are charged for police protection. In the interests of "safety", of course.

orthoganol 9y ago

This is a strange comment. On the one hand you trust students to be reasonable about how they throw around the Hitler/ Nazi/ fascism label - and clearly that is problematic - look at the name calling (not to mention riots) for people who are basically innocuous comedians or spectacles with right leaning politics, i.e. a Gavin McInnes or Milo Yiannopoulos. Then on the other hand you don't trust these same students to self regulate like intelligent adults and know what's worthy of attention and what isn't on their own, suggesting that censorship rules somehow would help them despite their infantilizing implications. If you trust them to use the Hitler/ fascist label responsibly why don't you trust them to self-regulate? Or if you think they need censorship, why don't you also talk about how irrational they are about calling people Hitler? Just feels like this position is a contradiction.

jamescostian 9y ago
> On the one hand you trust students to be reasonable about how they throw around the Hitler/ Nazi/ fascism label Nope. I do not. Much like your username, this idea and what I'm saying are orthogonal. My point is, if you'd let Hitler get booed down, why wouldn't you let someone else get booed down? Are you asking the protestors not the express themselves?
- orthoganol 9y ago
  And once again you're contradicting yourself by saying their right to shut speakers down has something to do with their ability to figure out if its actually a Hitler or not.
- notgood 9y ago
  The thing is that in any modern nation Hitler would likely have been in jail just after the first human rights violations, so he would have to give his speech from jail or something so your hypothetical example is preposterous? Seriously, your argument just reminds me of the "Anyone who dissagres with me is Hitler" meme and benefits little to the conversation and its an appeal to emotion -even when that wasn't your intention-.

jacobwilliamroy 9y ago

First and foremost, I would feel extremely concerned that the protesters were so insecure in the validity of their position, that they would actively try to obscure and suppress dissenting opinions. Secondly, I would feel extremely insulted that these protesters do not trust the general public with the ability to hear two sides of an argument and make an informed decision. Thirdly I would be immensly disappointed that certain words and ideas had become taboo on a university campus.

jamescostian 9y ago
> I would be immensly disappointed that certain words and ideas had become taboo on a university campus. You must be immensely disappointed! Go to a college football game and tell someone really into a specific team just how much their team sucks. It's so taboo! You'll be shocked by how much they try to sensor your ideas that go against their favorite football team.
- jacobwilliamroy 9y ago
  Football fanaticism is disappointing. Without criticism from spectators or coaches, football teams would have a very hard time improving their game. It's counter-productive to silence football critics. Yes, censorship happens at football games; it does not follow that censorship ought to happen at public speaking events.
  - jamescostian 9y ago
    Looking back at my comment, it was quite snarky. I appologize. And your response is definitely a good point. I personally am fine with the current state of affairs when it comes to football fans, and I presumed that you were as well, but that you were only against what happened in this article due to your own personal political beliefs. You calmly demonstrated that my presumption was incorrect. Thank you for being an excellent, cool and collected arguer, and I'm sorry I was so tribalistic.

mcphage 9y ago

> Whether you agree with her political stance or not is immaterial. Let's imagine Hitler (or if you like Hitler, imagine someone you think is/was horrible) was giving the speech. And then imagine Hitler writing a post on Medium talking about how terrible it was that he couldn't explain how important genocide was. Would you feel sorry for him? Or would you tell him that just because he has freedom of speech doesn't mean he's guaranteed a platform to exercise it on a college campus with many students who really hate him? Let's go the opposite way. Let's imagine it was someone complete innocuous. Like they're giving a speech extolling the benefits of sunscreen, or brushing your teeth. But otherwise the same—police escorts, protestors, the whole shebang. Would you tell them that "just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean you're guaranteed a platform to exercise on it on a college campus with many students that really hate them."? Or would you instead say "something has gone seriously wrong here..."?