17 ms·

I always come back to this exchange between the Yale administrator and the protesting students: Prof: I stand behind free speech; yes, I do. Student 2: Well t

I always come back to this exchange between the Yale administrator and the protesting students: Prof: I stand behind free speech; yes, I do. Student 2: Well then that sorry doesn't mean anything. Student 3: Even when it's offensive? Prof (addressing Stud 3): Even when it's offensive. Especially if it's offensive. Even if- Stud 3: Even when it denigrates me? Prof: Even when it denigrates you, even though I don't agree with the content of the speech. I have the same objections to the speech that you do. The same ones. Stud 2 (interrupting): But it doesn't submit(?) afflict to you- Stud 1 (interrupting): But what about the swastika- Prof (cont'd): But, I defend the right for people to speak their mind. Stud 3: So when the IAC (Intercultural Affairs Council) sends out an email saying... Prof: So who gets to decide what's offensive? Who gets to decide guys? Stud 2: When it hurts me! Stud 1: When it's offensive to me! Prof: What if everybody says, "I'm hurt"? Does that mean everyone else has to stop speaking? Student 4: But that's not what was happening! Stud 1: No! Because you don't- No, but you don't under- Prof: Hold on. So I agree with the content of your speech. I am as against racism as you are. I am as against social inequality as you are. I have spent my life addressing these issues, even some of the students in my class can speak out to this, but that is different than the freedom of speech. The right to defend people to say whatever they want including you! Including your right to write what you want and speak to me; which I will also defend. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/3s5wz2/yale_administrators_responds_to_safe_space_hands/ https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/3s5wz2/yale_adminis...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
Professor seems to forget that freedom of expression includes the freedom of association. You’re free to say awful things, and <private university> is free to not want their name associated with yours. These freedoms always seem to extend just far enough to protect the person who offends, but never the reaction to the offense. I guess being offended is too offensive?
- gotoeleven 4y ago
  Perhaps if you do everything in your power to make freedom of expression difficult, you don't really believe in freedom of expression.
  - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
    Nobody does in any absolute sense, so it’s not really a position being taken in this argument.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  It's interesting that some groups want free speech when their opinions are unpopular... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement ...but then don't want free speech after similar groups have control of the institutions. It doesn't seem to be based on principle, but what is good for promoting their own ideology at the time. Which of course is something discussed in the book Rules for Radicals and similar, that one specifically arguing against principles and to pay attention only to achieving the ends.
  - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
    Attacking the group here is funny, because it ignores the idea to go after the flawed people implementing it. Instead, you should try and explain why it’s okay to be offended when someone expresses disgust at your viewpoint, but not okay to be offended by a viewpoint. Why does freedom of expression stop arbitrarily at the person saying the disgusting thing? It’s almost as if you want to prevent the expression (manifest in the form of bans and boycots), or something…
- komali2 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    Your comment seems to boil down to you thinking that you will lose the argument to the other side, so you need to use "suppression."
pgayed 4y ago
“This video is unavailable.”
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mpweiher 4y ago
  This appears to be the confrontation between Nicholas Christakis and students, the "Halloween Controversy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Christakis#Yale_Halloween_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Christakis#Yale_Hallo... Full video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiMVx2C5_Wg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiMVx2C5_Wg
ruszki 4y ago
The “it hurts me” argument is a very-very obvious red herring. If just saying “let’s kill xy” is not okay, then somebody already decides what is offensive. That somebody is for example the judges. The question always whether restricting something is beneficial to the population in general, or not. Spreading distractions to real issues is absolutely not beneficial. This video, and comment does exactly that. The real problem is what we do with this non beneficial behaviour for example. The absolutist viewpoint of freedom of speech, thinks that everybody can decide on their own what’s good for them. That’s obviously not true, we know countless examples of that. We just need to restrict access to real information, which happens currently to most of the people everywhere. Fortunately, the general population is not stupid, but we don’t have enough time/attention to details (I think). So we just needs to be sure, that everybody can get the real stuff in their own limited time. The problem is, you cannot achieve this without control, and probably, restricting others freedom of speech, because otherwise they can fill that “limited time”. Another obvious problem is what is the “real stuff”. One interesting idea is to restrict the amount of content which can be created per day, for example. The content still could be quite free. Obviously, these won’t be achieved in a free market, and I’m absolutely not sure that there won’t be new ways to break the system. What we can see today, is another idea, the context bubbles next to obvious lies, but this also have issues regarding deciding what’s true.
- amscanne 4y ago
  > If just saying “let’s kill xy” is not okay, then somebody already decides what is offensive No, that is not disallowed because it is “offensive”. Someone (the courts and legal system) can decide if this was a credible threat, given all the context. This is still not perfectly objective, but it is much more objective than whether something is offensive.
  - ruszki 4y ago
    Yes, it’s more difficult to prove, but it doesn’t matter at all. There are already similar laws in US, and everywhere in the world, that are very difficult to prove that somebody broke it. Especially doesn’t matter in the context of social norms.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

SpeedilyDamage 4y ago

Professor seems to forget that freedom of expression includes the freedom of association. You’re free to say awful things, and <private university> is free to not want their name associated with yours. These freedoms always seem to extend just far enough to protect the person who offends, but never the reaction to the offense. I guess being offended is too offensive?

gotoeleven 4y ago
Perhaps if you do everything in your power to make freedom of expression difficult, you don't really believe in freedom of expression.
- SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
  Nobody does in any absolute sense, so it’s not really a position being taken in this argument.
epicureanideal 4y ago
It's interesting that some groups want free speech when their opinions are unpopular... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement ...but then don't want free speech after similar groups have control of the institutions. It doesn't seem to be based on principle, but what is good for promoting their own ideology at the time. Which of course is something discussed in the book Rules for Radicals and similar, that one specifically arguing against principles and to pay attention only to achieving the ends.
- SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
  Attacking the group here is funny, because it ignores the idea to go after the flawed people implementing it. Instead, you should try and explain why it’s okay to be offended when someone expresses disgust at your viewpoint, but not okay to be offended by a viewpoint. Why does freedom of expression stop arbitrarily at the person saying the disgusting thing? It’s almost as if you want to prevent the expression (manifest in the form of bans and boycots), or something…
komali2 4y ago
[flagged]
- fallingknife 4y ago
  Your comment seems to boil down to you thinking that you will lose the argument to the other side, so you need to use "suppression."

pgayed 4y ago

“This video is unavailable.”

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mpweiher 4y ago
This appears to be the confrontation between Nicholas Christakis and students, the "Halloween Controversy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Christakis#Yale_Halloween_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Christakis#Yale_Hallo... Full video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiMVx2C5_Wg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiMVx2C5_Wg

ruszki 4y ago

The “it hurts me” argument is a very-very obvious red herring. If just saying “let’s kill xy” is not okay, then somebody already decides what is offensive. That somebody is for example the judges. The question always whether restricting something is beneficial to the population in general, or not. Spreading distractions to real issues is absolutely not beneficial. This video, and comment does exactly that. The real problem is what we do with this non beneficial behaviour for example. The absolutist viewpoint of freedom of speech, thinks that everybody can decide on their own what’s good for them. That’s obviously not true, we know countless examples of that. We just need to restrict access to real information, which happens currently to most of the people everywhere. Fortunately, the general population is not stupid, but we don’t have enough time/attention to details (I think). So we just needs to be sure, that everybody can get the real stuff in their own limited time. The problem is, you cannot achieve this without control, and probably, restricting others freedom of speech, because otherwise they can fill that “limited time”. Another obvious problem is what is the “real stuff”. One interesting idea is to restrict the amount of content which can be created per day, for example. The content still could be quite free. Obviously, these won’t be achieved in a free market, and I’m absolutely not sure that there won’t be new ways to break the system. What we can see today, is another idea, the context bubbles next to obvious lies, but this also have issues regarding deciding what’s true.

amscanne 4y ago
> If just saying “let’s kill xy” is not okay, then somebody already decides what is offensive No, that is not disallowed because it is “offensive”. Someone (the courts and legal system) can decide if this was a credible threat, given all the context. This is still not perfectly objective, but it is much more objective than whether something is offensive.
- ruszki 4y ago
  Yes, it’s more difficult to prove, but it doesn’t matter at all. There are already similar laws in US, and everywhere in the world, that are very difficult to prove that somebody broke it. Especially doesn’t matter in the context of social norms.