4 ms·

> Suffering racism hurts more than being called racist - those are not the same First -- no one said this. No one has made the argument that suffering racism

> Suffering racism hurts more than being called racist - those are not the same First -- no one said this. No one has made the argument that suffering racism isn't awful. You hold a mistaken and caricatured view of most conservatives. Second -- it's not a particularly conservative value to want to hear what a federal judge has to say to a classroom of law students. If you absolutely can't stand what a judge has to say, try to a form a question that might confound the judge, and which might demonstrate why you think they are wrong. That's one remedy for a law student. You can also choose not to attend. You can attend, and hold up a sign that shows your discontent. You can do any number of things, but one of them is not what amounts to a heckler's veto of a federal judge. Why? Because it's important liberal judges can speak to law students in Nebraska and Oklahoma and Mississippi without being shouted down. Because, although you may have already made up your mind about everything, persuasion, reasoned debate, and an open exchange of ideas matters to others of us. It's profoundly selfish to make the choice for me about what speech I should be able to listen to. Judge Duncan is not my cup of tea, but this illiberal strain of "progressivism" is certainly not it either.

foogazi 4y ago
> No one has made the argument that suffering racism isn't awful. gp I responded to stated: > When the “debate” includes some form of how racist or transphobic, or hateful, or privileged I am, then anything after that is going to be ignored So being called racist or hateful is enough to cancel their dialog, but those suffering under racism or hate must allow the dialog to continue > You can do any number of things, but one of them is not what amounts to a heckler's veto of a federal judge. They can, and they did > Judge Duncan is not my cup of tea, but this illiberal strain of "progressivism" is certainly not it either. Judge Duncan represents hate against women, gays, and transgender citizens https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_ad7a3a48-442c-11e8-b59c-77f6d9c9b3df.html https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/articl... > He’s built a lengthy and high-profile record of battling against gay, transgender and abortion rights, including defending abortion restrictions on behalf of the state of Louisiana. He also defended highly controversial voter ID laws in Texas and North Carolina and fought against gay marriage. We already know what he is going to say. He’s been able to argue in front of the Supreme Court. He can’t be cancelled. His words are literal law. He gets to say whatever he wants from a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary.
- mustache_kimono 4y ago
  > So being called racist or hateful is enough to cancel their dialog, but those suffering under racism or hate must allow the dialog to continue Again -- that's not what anyone said. Ignoring speech isn't canceling dialogue. Ignoring speech, here, is a much healthier response compared to a heckler's veto. > They can, and they did I was obviously saying that's not an avenue that's acceptable for law students. And this letter clearly and thankfully discourages that tact. I wish it went further. > We already know what he is going to say. I didn't and I don't? Please stop speaking about things you have no earthly clue about. The point was -- as I explained in some detail -- it's selfish of you to try to determine what speech I do or don't get to listen to (more simply, stop being a baby when you don't get your way?). If you know what he's going to say, and you don't care for it, then don't attend, or ignore his speech, or if you are a law student, pick one of the dozens of avenues for your speech that don't outright prevent the speech of others. And please, for the love of God, don't stop taking the bait and looking this ridiculous. These law students were caught shouting down their political enemies because they were angry and they had some power. But once exposed we can see this for what it was -- it was obviously silly. Why? Because -- once exposed -- it was obvious just how politically counterproductive for their cause this was. Most normal people hate academics acting this loony toons, and young people bullying their elders. So -- for one reason or another, please quit the self righteous act, and focus on winning the next round, not reminding us how you lost this one.
  - foogazi 4y ago
    You conveniently glossed over judge Duncan history of hate I repeat: Judge Duncan represents hate against women, gays, and transgender citizens https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_ad7a3a48-442c-11e8-b59c-77f6d9c9b3df.html https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/articl... > He’s built a lengthy and high-profile record of battling against gay, transgender and abortion rights, including defending abortion restrictions on behalf of the state of Louisiana. He also defended highly controversial voter ID laws in Texas and North Carolina and fought against gay marriage. I wouldn’t let a guy with “a lengthy and high-profile record of battling against gay, transgender and abortion rights” speak at my house would you ? And I’d question the intentions of anyone who invited him Same thing at Stanford, who TF in 2023 wants to hear anything he has to say ? I see the students protest in this same vein “not in our house”

foogazi 4y ago

> No one has made the argument that suffering racism isn't awful. gp I responded to stated: > When the “debate” includes some form of how racist or transphobic, or hateful, or privileged I am, then anything after that is going to be ignored So being called racist or hateful is enough to cancel their dialog, but those suffering under racism or hate must allow the dialog to continue > You can do any number of things, but one of them is not what amounts to a heckler's veto of a federal judge. They can, and they did > Judge Duncan is not my cup of tea, but this illiberal strain of "progressivism" is certainly not it either. Judge Duncan represents hate against women, gays, and transgender citizens https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_ad7a3a48-442c-11e8-b59c-77f6d9c9b3df.html https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/articl... > He’s built a lengthy and high-profile record of battling against gay, transgender and abortion rights, including defending abortion restrictions on behalf of the state of Louisiana. He also defended highly controversial voter ID laws in Texas and North Carolina and fought against gay marriage. We already know what he is going to say. He’s been able to argue in front of the Supreme Court. He can’t be cancelled. His words are literal law. He gets to say whatever he wants from a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary.

mustache_kimono 4y ago
> So being called racist or hateful is enough to cancel their dialog, but those suffering under racism or hate must allow the dialog to continue Again -- that's not what anyone said. Ignoring speech isn't canceling dialogue. Ignoring speech, here, is a much healthier response compared to a heckler's veto. > They can, and they did I was obviously saying that's not an avenue that's acceptable for law students. And this letter clearly and thankfully discourages that tact. I wish it went further. > We already know what he is going to say. I didn't and I don't? Please stop speaking about things you have no earthly clue about. The point was -- as I explained in some detail -- it's selfish of you to try to determine what speech I do or don't get to listen to (more simply, stop being a baby when you don't get your way?). If you know what he's going to say, and you don't care for it, then don't attend, or ignore his speech, or if you are a law student, pick one of the dozens of avenues for your speech that don't outright prevent the speech of others. And please, for the love of God, don't stop taking the bait and looking this ridiculous. These law students were caught shouting down their political enemies because they were angry and they had some power. But once exposed we can see this for what it was -- it was obviously silly. Why? Because -- once exposed -- it was obvious just how politically counterproductive for their cause this was. Most normal people hate academics acting this loony toons, and young people bullying their elders. So -- for one reason or another, please quit the self righteous act, and focus on winning the next round, not reminding us how you lost this one.
- foogazi 4y ago
  You conveniently glossed over judge Duncan history of hate I repeat: Judge Duncan represents hate against women, gays, and transgender citizens https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_ad7a3a48-442c-11e8-b59c-77f6d9c9b3df.html https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/articl... > He’s built a lengthy and high-profile record of battling against gay, transgender and abortion rights, including defending abortion restrictions on behalf of the state of Louisiana. He also defended highly controversial voter ID laws in Texas and North Carolina and fought against gay marriage. I wouldn’t let a guy with “a lengthy and high-profile record of battling against gay, transgender and abortion rights” speak at my house would you ? And I’d question the intentions of anyone who invited him Same thing at Stanford, who TF in 2023 wants to hear anything he has to say ? I see the students protest in this same vein “not in our house”