3 ms·
Hello, Respectfully, I believe you’ve missed the point of my post, which is not to assert the validity or invalidity of either perspective (I agree both should
by GPerson 5y ago
Hello,
Respectfully, I believe you’ve missed the point of my post, which is not to assert the validity or invalidity of either perspective (I agree both should be protected by the first amendment), but to question why the audience of this website downvoted the original post so readily, and to boost the opinion that there is a political bias in university administrations.
Additionally, the flyer about Black Lives Matter could equally well be a talk.
- krapp 5y ago>Additionally, the flyer about Black Lives Matter could equally well be a talk. And if it were, it might hypothetically have been tolerated. However, "Black lives matter mostly peaceful arson and riot" doesn't describe a talk, it describes an arson and riot. Claims that Stanford reacting differently to the two would merely be due to political bias is disingenuous projection. Maybe GP intended to describe a satirical talk exactly like the one in the OP, but they didn't, and their language entirely undercut the premise of their attempted argument.
- GPerson 5y agoAh there’s a simple explanation. When I read the original post I missed the word “a”, which changes the meaning. When I read the post it sounded like a talk criticizing previous protests as riots, not an advertisement for a future protest. However I still assert that the talk titled as it is in my post would not be met well.