3 ms·

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

by 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.

ivanbakel 9y ago
>The bigger the protest, the less credible the protestors seem. I wouldn't agree. I've certainly never looked at a large protest and thought "wow, certainly those people look insecure", or seen someone speak unopposed and come to the logical conclusion that everyone who disagrees with them is so confident as to not show up. >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. There's a big debate as to what "mild-mannered" means, but I think it sends the stronger signal that there's a large group of the population who strongly oppose the speaker and will do the same to anyone who agrees with them: this is definitely effective, since articles like the one in the OP keep cropping up about how these people should be allowed to speak without fear of the protestors. In any case, the protest is not over how convincing the views are, but whether they should be expressible at all.
- safek 9y ago
  What shows weakness isn't that the protestors are protesting rather than staying home. It's that they're protesting rather than engaging in debate. There seems to be this idea that especially outrageous views ought to be banned outright. This seems weird to me, since the more obviously crazy an idea is, the easier it is to dismantle it. I'd rather debate Hitler than some of these speakers who get protested, because in front of an educated audience I'd win so quickly. Protesting speakers to bar them from speaking entirely certainly is effective as you say, but the effect of it is for onlookers to view the protestors as infants throwing their toys out the pram. What they're doing is an energetic way of saying, "I don't like what you're saying, so you can't speak." Their most promising defense is that speech is a threat to their safety, but I've yet to see the chain of reasoning that supports this. As a side note, I don't know how old you are and make no presumptions, but it's sometimes hard for me to explain to people over, say, 35 why this is a problem. "Well, social justice is good! Young people should be applauded for caring about it!" Right, but the banhammer has extended far beyond genuine racists, fascists, and nationalists. I encourage anyone to go on YouTube and listen to some of the speakers who've recently gotten banned. They're just not Hitler. They have criticisms, which frankly no one should be exempt from anyway, and they're right about some things and wrong about others. A lot of people would like to hear the bits they're right about.

by glenra 9y ago

ivanbakel 9y ago

>The bigger the protest, the less credible the protestors seem. I wouldn't agree. I've certainly never looked at a large protest and thought "wow, certainly those people look insecure", or seen someone speak unopposed and come to the logical conclusion that everyone who disagrees with them is so confident as to not show up. >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. There's a big debate as to what "mild-mannered" means, but I think it sends the stronger signal that there's a large group of the population who strongly oppose the speaker and will do the same to anyone who agrees with them: this is definitely effective, since articles like the one in the OP keep cropping up about how these people should be allowed to speak without fear of the protestors. In any case, the protest is not over how convincing the views are, but whether they should be expressible at all.

safek 9y ago
What shows weakness isn't that the protestors are protesting rather than staying home. It's that they're protesting rather than engaging in debate. There seems to be this idea that especially outrageous views ought to be banned outright. This seems weird to me, since the more obviously crazy an idea is, the easier it is to dismantle it. I'd rather debate Hitler than some of these speakers who get protested, because in front of an educated audience I'd win so quickly. Protesting speakers to bar them from speaking entirely certainly is effective as you say, but the effect of it is for onlookers to view the protestors as infants throwing their toys out the pram. What they're doing is an energetic way of saying, "I don't like what you're saying, so you can't speak." Their most promising defense is that speech is a threat to their safety, but I've yet to see the chain of reasoning that supports this. As a side note, I don't know how old you are and make no presumptions, but it's sometimes hard for me to explain to people over, say, 35 why this is a problem. "Well, social justice is good! Young people should be applauded for caring about it!" Right, but the banhammer has extended far beyond genuine racists, fascists, and nationalists. I encourage anyone to go on YouTube and listen to some of the speakers who've recently gotten banned. They're just not Hitler. They have criticisms, which frankly no one should be exempt from anyway, and they're right about some things and wrong about others. A lot of people would like to hear the bits they're right about.