4 ms·

What is the mindset of a college student who goes out of their way to shout down and prevent other people from speaking? This isn't rhetorical, I genuinely wan

What is the mindset of a college student who goes out of their way to shout down and prevent other people from speaking? This isn't rhetorical, I genuinely want to know why they think, in a place ostensibly dedicated to learning, it's acceptable (and seemingly even admirable) behavior.

shrimp_emoji 3y ago
They think they're on the right side of history and are making the world a better place. Think Rust evangelists.
ecmascript 3y ago
Their mindset is "my ideology is good and pure, thus anyone that have other opinions are evil and must be fought by any means necessary"
cauch 3y ago
I may be wrong, but from what I've seen, the majority of "prevention of other people from speaking" is done to people who are not really constructive and muddy the water. The article mention Milo Yiannopolous, for example. If you look at the person, it is quite clear that his contribution will not help learning anything, just spreading cliché and create polarisation that will both destroy intelligent debate and possibly push for unfair decisions that will have a real impact on people.
- putzdown 3y ago
  But surely "not really constructive" and "muddy the water" implies a judgment—a pre-judgment—that the speech itself ought to be allowed to face. If he speaks and his ideas are "not really constructive" and "muddy the water", then the listeners can decide what to do with the ideas, both within their own minds and in conversation afterward. If he's not allowed to speak, then the people preventing the speech are enforcing their own opinions by violence. This behavior actually implies that his ideas are of more merit, because if the ideas were not really constructive or entirely lacked value, then the listeners could dismiss them thoughtfully. Or could it be that modern students don't have the ability to think carefully about or make good judgments about speech?
  - komali2 3y ago
    > a pre-judgment In the case of Milo, this is a fair pre-judgement. Are we expected to ignore a person's entire corpus of work and treat them as an untouched field of snow every time they present themselves? We're to "rehash" their position every time they speak? That seems silly. People like Milo form their careers on rage-bait. Shouting him down is the same as simply banning a troll or banning flame-bait on forums. For the others, for the most part it's the same - reactionary speakers, especially in the USA, are mostly uninterested in good faith debate. They leverage rhetorical fallacy and outright disinformation to muddy the waters. See: the Trump election conspiracies, the antivax movement, the rewriting of the cultural history of gender fluidity to attack trans people's existence, etc etc etc.
    - putzdown 3y ago
      It’s not clear to me that either political “side” has the corner on these faults. But even if they did, why not allow audiences to make their own judgments? Universities don’t have to provide auditoriums or catering. They shouldn’t have to provide extra security, if free speech is honored by students. Why can’t listeners simply walk away? I truly don’t understand.
      - komali2 3y ago
        Conversely, why aren't you respecting the free speech rights of students to speak out against people sharing hateful ideologies on their campus? (Ben Shapiro coming to spread transphobia for example) For decades we've tolerated anti-woman's-rights activists shoving pictures of medical procedures into people's faces, and preachers telling students they're going to go to hell for being gay. That's ok, but protesting a transphobe isn't? I truly don't understand the double standard. Just kidding, I get it. Leftists face a double standard when it comes to free speech. Dare to speak with your colleagues and organize a union? The president himself will order you to shut up and get to work. Stand up and shout at a transphobe who is speaking through a sound system your tuition pays for? Get escorted out by a security detail you're also paying for. Shove fetus pictures into people's faces? No problem! Strap on swastikas and March through town? Police escort! Take a knee in front of a slaver statue? Pepper spray! The article is crocodile tears.
- SamPatt 3y ago
  Saying they aren't constructive and muddy the water implies there's some clear shared goals / values and an understanding of acceptable paths towards those goals / values. Isn't part of the point of controversial speakers that they're challenging that our goals and values are fully shared? It sounds like the speech is being judged before it's given. Maybe for speakers who have explicitly called for violence, this would be appropriate, but my guess is nearly zero of the speakers deplatformed were actually calling for violence.
  - cauch 3y ago
    But would you say someone who says "I call for violence against pedophiles" deserves to be more deplatformed than someone who says "hm, I've heard that vaccine is linked to autism, just google it (and avoid classic media, they are all in the conspiracy anyway), and based on that take the correct decision for your children (knowing it will impact all the other children at school too)"? Not saying you are wrong, I just think it's way more subtle than what you present. (and I'm certainly not saying violence against pedophiles is the solution, just that it feels the consequences on the society seems way less bad than the second one)
    - SamPatt 3y ago
      Yes, the call for violence is more deserving of censorship. It's not about trying to make a net utilitarian estimate of how much harm each claim might make. It's about the acceptability of the behaviors proposed. We may not like the idea of people choosing different medical treatments than we'd choose, but that's their right. Even if it's a foolish behavior to reject modern science, they can choose foolishness. They cannot choose to employ violence against X group. Even if we'd agree it could improve society in some way, it's absurdly dangerous - who decides when someone is a part of X, etc?
      - cauch 3y ago
        > We may not like the idea of people choosing different medical treatments than we'd choose, but that's their right. Even if it's a foolish behavior to reject modern science, they can choose foolishness. The point I was trying to make is 1) the anti-vaxx discourse is spreading falsehood, the "violence against pedophiles" is not. The anti-vaxx is not just "opinion", is "demonstrably stupid opinion", while the second is "different moral than mine". 2) anti-vaxx will kill anti-vaxxer kids AND non-anti-vaxxer kids (because it will reenforce dangerous diseases). The anti-vaxx discourse is harming your innocent children, the "violence against pedophiles" will not harm innocent people (of course, you can imagine downward slide, but for sake of argument, let's say it's not the case here). You say that you are ok if people have different opinions, which themselves have direct impacts on people, but then, you say you are not ok if people have different opinions, because they have direct impacts on people. You have good point against the person having the "violence against pedophiles" opinion (and I agree with you that this opinion is not good), but you can build similar and exactly as valid arguments for the anti-vaxx one. So, it looks like that your choice of "violence is more deserving of censorship" is just you having specific moral opinion of what is worst and what is better. But other opinions are as valid as yours. So it's a bit strange to talk about "free speech" and explaining that someone is just wrong because they don't have exactly the same morals as you.
- snehk 3y ago
  > I may be wrong, but from what I've seen, the majority of "prevention of other people from speaking" is done to people who are not really constructive and muddy the water. No one on this planet (China, Russia, North Korea, for example) surpresses speech they say is constructive input. When people get jailed for online speech in Russia, for example, it's almost always classified as distributing hate speech. In 2018, Western Media even posted about "How a Social Media Post in Russia Can Land You in Jail[...]"[1]. Times have changed, I guess. [1] https://www.newsweek.com/2018/10/19/how-social-media-post-russia-can-land-you-jail-1157822.html https://www.newsweek.com/2018/10/19/how-social-media-post-ru...
yawpitch 3y ago
The answer depends, in its entirety, on the speech being shouted down. To Godwin, if famous “author” A. Hitler gets invited to your place of learning and starts promoting the usage of industrial ovens as a solution to his Jewish Question, then you bloody well shout him down, and if you don’t there is something fatally flawed in your humanity. The point of the university is to educate the students; in this case their education should be in what kinds of speech are quite simply not acceptable, and what kind of ideas simply aren’t worthy of being entertained, much less propogandized. The fact that someone is entitled to their idiot opinion doesn’t imply that they’re entitled to have their idiot opinion heard respectfully and without opposition.
- SamPatt 3y ago
  Of the scores of deplatforming events noted in the article, how many of them are you proposing are similar in kind to Hilter proposing genocide? If it's a tiny minority, then why use this sensationalist example?
  - yawpitch 3y ago
    First, there aren’t “scores” of “deplatforming events” noted to any degree of verifiable specificity, there’s, at first blush, maybe a single score. Secondly, I’m also not sure we should embrace a phrase very loosely defined by those whose entire goal is to confirm the thing they’ve defined is growing in prevalence, as their definition seems to include any time a speaker was interrupted more than once for a self-reported “significant” amount of time. That alone would easily allow them to enumerate every standing ovation given to Adolf, or any time Goebbels interjected to praise his Fuhrer, as a “deplatforming event”… these people who are essentially writing an opinion piece about finding data that confirms their confirmation bias isn’t obviously a good source of truth. All that said, my reason for jumping to that example is precisely to address your question… the answer to “what is their mindset” depends entirely on the speech being shouted down. People don’t shout down speech they don’t believe is offensive enough to be worth shouting down, and this “sensationalist” example proves them entirely correct when the speech is, objectively, offensive. So you’re not honestly asking what their mindset is, you’re asking what right they have to be so offended by speech you, personally, would not find offensive. Personally I really do believe in freedom of speech… which implies freedom to shout down those you disagree with. If you have the right to say something that invites reproach then they have the right to reproach you, and if that means you losing your platform because you a) didn’t earn it or b) don’t own it and those whom you have offended do a better job of employing their speech, then so be it, either examine and evolve your beliefs or find a more receptive venue.
komali2 3y ago
I'm curious if you genuinely believe it's worth listening to the nuance of a racist's arguments. Not everyone getting shouted down at universities are avowed racists, but some are, or transphobes, or have vocally opposed women's humanity (you can't call for the removal of women's bodily autonomy and square that with believing they're equal humans to men). So for the racists, what is there to learn? Not to mention that the entire modus operandi of reactionary ideologies is a dependence on fallacious arguments, rhetorical dishonesty, bad faith arguing, etc. Engaging with them is nearly always a waste of time. There's no point in debating reactionaries. They don't deserve it - they're not interested in "the marketplace of ideals," they're interested in muddying the waters and justifying violence. Shouting them down is the only thing they really deserve. In another world, maybe ignoring them would be the only thing they deserve, but they don't exist in a vacuum - they have followers. It's good to remind people that the majority of us find these ideas intolerable.
- SamPatt 3y ago
  Here's my fear when I read your comment. You're applying these labels to speakers (racist, transphobe, reactionary) and then claiming that if the label applies, engagement is pointless and they deserve to be shouted down. Let's say I agree this is true, on net, for some set of beliefs. There's still some huge problems here: 1) How can we all agree which sets of ideas deserve this treatment? 2) How can we be certain these labels are being applied accurately? Calls for violence are the only clear answer to the first question, but they're extremely rare - I'm guessing literally zero of the deplatformed speakers were actually calling for violence. Beyond that, it's very hard to come up with a set of beliefs which we can all agree to. Socialism / communism killed tens of millions in the 20th century - should they be banned from speaking? And who decides when these labels apply? I've personally seen examples of medical professionals using traditional scientific definitions of biological sex labeled as transphobes. Given the difficulties drawing the lines, it seems better to have prudence when inviting speakers initially (fewer Milos) but then allow individuals to determine where those lines are themselves.
  - komali2 3y ago
    > 1) How can we all agree which sets of ideas deserve this treatment? We probably can't, but we can discuss it. I don't believe in universal ethics, however I believe humans are very good at trending towards good ethics when left alone to do so (instead of i.e. being forced to participate in dehumanizing systems). Though there are some obvious things we should agree on, for a good society, such as slavery being bad, humans deserve equal rights, etc, that many of the speakers argue against. I propose we consider the issue settled and if anyone disagrees they can deal with hippie commie students yelling at them from a crowd I guess, oh well. > I'm guessing literally zero of the deplatformed speakers were actually calling for violence. This is the excellent line that the shill alt-right dances in the current culture war. There's this odd belief that so long as nobody says "kill all xyz," then they must have something worth hearing, or don't deserve to be deplatformed. After all, the only person that deserves being disinvited from a university speech is Hitler, I guess? In the 21st century I think we're smarter than that. cauch put it well elsewhere in this thread when someone said that smart listeners should be able to listen to the hateful ideas and dismiss them thoughtfully: > If it was true, then racism, populism, or prejudice would not exist at all, because all of that is based on flawed logic that can be easily demonstrated. The reality is that intelligent debate LOSES in front of convenient fearmongering. Not because people are idiot, but simply mathematically: fearmongering is way easier and way more convincing than rationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law > And who decides when these labels apply? Whoever's better at protesting, of course. What's wrong with that? People like Ben Shapiro will weaponize the inherent conservative nature of most systems (states, universities, capitalism) to give themselves literal megaphones and sound systems with deployed security to ensure their ability to spread their message, so somehow it's bad to weaponize the power of "finding people who agree with you" to organize a protest? Why is one method automatically more valid? IMO probably because you're participating in the banality of evil - it's a part of a system, it's something "normal," therefore it's on at least some level OK. In reality it's nontrivial to organize a protest. In reality, leftists almost always outnumber fascists and nazis and white supremacists at protests - at least all the ones I've been to. The reality is that protests, and these "campus cancellations," represent the will of the community. So, that's who decides. The system isn't protecting "from the mob," the system is the mob, empowering those who seek to harm humans. > but then allow individuals to determine where those lines are themselves. What's wrong with shouting back at a shouter? I really don't understand the opposition to lively discussion. How else do we determine our values? This is an ancient human tradition, arguably the core of our survival mechanism as a social species. > Socialism / communism killed tens of millions in the 20th century - should they be banned from speaking? FWIW I know very few leftists that would tolerate a speech by the genocider Stalin. There's a reason Stalin and Mao put leftists, anarchists, and communists against the wall. I believe it's intellectually dishonest to ascribe their actions to the entirety of socialist / communist thought. If that's the case, we can start blaming capitalism for all sorts of diabolical things that have happened throughout history, such as the transalantic slave trade.
major505 3y ago
I think is because people this days make what they consider hate speech as violence, and so thy see themselves as heroes.

shrimp_emoji 3y ago

They think they're on the right side of history and are making the world a better place. Think Rust evangelists.

ecmascript 3y ago

Their mindset is "my ideology is good and pure, thus anyone that have other opinions are evil and must be fought by any means necessary"

cauch 3y ago

I may be wrong, but from what I've seen, the majority of "prevention of other people from speaking" is done to people who are not really constructive and muddy the water. The article mention Milo Yiannopolous, for example. If you look at the person, it is quite clear that his contribution will not help learning anything, just spreading cliché and create polarisation that will both destroy intelligent debate and possibly push for unfair decisions that will have a real impact on people.

putzdown 3y ago
But surely "not really constructive" and "muddy the water" implies a judgment—a pre-judgment—that the speech itself ought to be allowed to face. If he speaks and his ideas are "not really constructive" and "muddy the water", then the listeners can decide what to do with the ideas, both within their own minds and in conversation afterward. If he's not allowed to speak, then the people preventing the speech are enforcing their own opinions by violence. This behavior actually implies that his ideas are of more merit, because if the ideas were not really constructive or entirely lacked value, then the listeners could dismiss them thoughtfully. Or could it be that modern students don't have the ability to think carefully about or make good judgments about speech?
- komali2 3y ago
  > a pre-judgment In the case of Milo, this is a fair pre-judgement. Are we expected to ignore a person's entire corpus of work and treat them as an untouched field of snow every time they present themselves? We're to "rehash" their position every time they speak? That seems silly. People like Milo form their careers on rage-bait. Shouting him down is the same as simply banning a troll or banning flame-bait on forums. For the others, for the most part it's the same - reactionary speakers, especially in the USA, are mostly uninterested in good faith debate. They leverage rhetorical fallacy and outright disinformation to muddy the waters. See: the Trump election conspiracies, the antivax movement, the rewriting of the cultural history of gender fluidity to attack trans people's existence, etc etc etc.
  - putzdown 3y ago
    It’s not clear to me that either political “side” has the corner on these faults. But even if they did, why not allow audiences to make their own judgments? Universities don’t have to provide auditoriums or catering. They shouldn’t have to provide extra security, if free speech is honored by students. Why can’t listeners simply walk away? I truly don’t understand.
    - komali2 3y ago
      Conversely, why aren't you respecting the free speech rights of students to speak out against people sharing hateful ideologies on their campus? (Ben Shapiro coming to spread transphobia for example) For decades we've tolerated anti-woman's-rights activists shoving pictures of medical procedures into people's faces, and preachers telling students they're going to go to hell for being gay. That's ok, but protesting a transphobe isn't? I truly don't understand the double standard. Just kidding, I get it. Leftists face a double standard when it comes to free speech. Dare to speak with your colleagues and organize a union? The president himself will order you to shut up and get to work. Stand up and shout at a transphobe who is speaking through a sound system your tuition pays for? Get escorted out by a security detail you're also paying for. Shove fetus pictures into people's faces? No problem! Strap on swastikas and March through town? Police escort! Take a knee in front of a slaver statue? Pepper spray! The article is crocodile tears.
SamPatt 3y ago
Saying they aren't constructive and muddy the water implies there's some clear shared goals / values and an understanding of acceptable paths towards those goals / values. Isn't part of the point of controversial speakers that they're challenging that our goals and values are fully shared? It sounds like the speech is being judged before it's given. Maybe for speakers who have explicitly called for violence, this would be appropriate, but my guess is nearly zero of the speakers deplatformed were actually calling for violence.
- cauch 3y ago
  But would you say someone who says "I call for violence against pedophiles" deserves to be more deplatformed than someone who says "hm, I've heard that vaccine is linked to autism, just google it (and avoid classic media, they are all in the conspiracy anyway), and based on that take the correct decision for your children (knowing it will impact all the other children at school too)"? Not saying you are wrong, I just think it's way more subtle than what you present. (and I'm certainly not saying violence against pedophiles is the solution, just that it feels the consequences on the society seems way less bad than the second one)
  - SamPatt 3y ago
    Yes, the call for violence is more deserving of censorship. It's not about trying to make a net utilitarian estimate of how much harm each claim might make. It's about the acceptability of the behaviors proposed. We may not like the idea of people choosing different medical treatments than we'd choose, but that's their right. Even if it's a foolish behavior to reject modern science, they can choose foolishness. They cannot choose to employ violence against X group. Even if we'd agree it could improve society in some way, it's absurdly dangerous - who decides when someone is a part of X, etc?
    - cauch 3y ago
      > We may not like the idea of people choosing different medical treatments than we'd choose, but that's their right. Even if it's a foolish behavior to reject modern science, they can choose foolishness. The point I was trying to make is 1) the anti-vaxx discourse is spreading falsehood, the "violence against pedophiles" is not. The anti-vaxx is not just "opinion", is "demonstrably stupid opinion", while the second is "different moral than mine". 2) anti-vaxx will kill anti-vaxxer kids AND non-anti-vaxxer kids (because it will reenforce dangerous diseases). The anti-vaxx discourse is harming your innocent children, the "violence against pedophiles" will not harm innocent people (of course, you can imagine downward slide, but for sake of argument, let's say it's not the case here). You say that you are ok if people have different opinions, which themselves have direct impacts on people, but then, you say you are not ok if people have different opinions, because they have direct impacts on people. You have good point against the person having the "violence against pedophiles" opinion (and I agree with you that this opinion is not good), but you can build similar and exactly as valid arguments for the anti-vaxx one. So, it looks like that your choice of "violence is more deserving of censorship" is just you having specific moral opinion of what is worst and what is better. But other opinions are as valid as yours. So it's a bit strange to talk about "free speech" and explaining that someone is just wrong because they don't have exactly the same morals as you.
snehk 3y ago
> I may be wrong, but from what I've seen, the majority of "prevention of other people from speaking" is done to people who are not really constructive and muddy the water. No one on this planet (China, Russia, North Korea, for example) surpresses speech they say is constructive input. When people get jailed for online speech in Russia, for example, it's almost always classified as distributing hate speech. In 2018, Western Media even posted about "How a Social Media Post in Russia Can Land You in Jail[...]"[1]. Times have changed, I guess. [1] https://www.newsweek.com/2018/10/19/how-social-media-post-russia-can-land-you-jail-1157822.html https://www.newsweek.com/2018/10/19/how-social-media-post-ru...

yawpitch 3y ago

The answer depends, in its entirety, on the speech being shouted down. To Godwin, if famous “author” A. Hitler gets invited to your place of learning and starts promoting the usage of industrial ovens as a solution to his Jewish Question, then you bloody well shout him down, and if you don’t there is something fatally flawed in your humanity. The point of the university is to educate the students; in this case their education should be in what kinds of speech are quite simply not acceptable, and what kind of ideas simply aren’t worthy of being entertained, much less propogandized. The fact that someone is entitled to their idiot opinion doesn’t imply that they’re entitled to have their idiot opinion heard respectfully and without opposition.

SamPatt 3y ago
Of the scores of deplatforming events noted in the article, how many of them are you proposing are similar in kind to Hilter proposing genocide? If it's a tiny minority, then why use this sensationalist example?
- yawpitch 3y ago
  First, there aren’t “scores” of “deplatforming events” noted to any degree of verifiable specificity, there’s, at first blush, maybe a single score. Secondly, I’m also not sure we should embrace a phrase very loosely defined by those whose entire goal is to confirm the thing they’ve defined is growing in prevalence, as their definition seems to include any time a speaker was interrupted more than once for a self-reported “significant” amount of time. That alone would easily allow them to enumerate every standing ovation given to Adolf, or any time Goebbels interjected to praise his Fuhrer, as a “deplatforming event”… these people who are essentially writing an opinion piece about finding data that confirms their confirmation bias isn’t obviously a good source of truth. All that said, my reason for jumping to that example is precisely to address your question… the answer to “what is their mindset” depends entirely on the speech being shouted down. People don’t shout down speech they don’t believe is offensive enough to be worth shouting down, and this “sensationalist” example proves them entirely correct when the speech is, objectively, offensive. So you’re not honestly asking what their mindset is, you’re asking what right they have to be so offended by speech you, personally, would not find offensive. Personally I really do believe in freedom of speech… which implies freedom to shout down those you disagree with. If you have the right to say something that invites reproach then they have the right to reproach you, and if that means you losing your platform because you a) didn’t earn it or b) don’t own it and those whom you have offended do a better job of employing their speech, then so be it, either examine and evolve your beliefs or find a more receptive venue.

komali2 3y ago

I'm curious if you genuinely believe it's worth listening to the nuance of a racist's arguments. Not everyone getting shouted down at universities are avowed racists, but some are, or transphobes, or have vocally opposed women's humanity (you can't call for the removal of women's bodily autonomy and square that with believing they're equal humans to men). So for the racists, what is there to learn? Not to mention that the entire modus operandi of reactionary ideologies is a dependence on fallacious arguments, rhetorical dishonesty, bad faith arguing, etc. Engaging with them is nearly always a waste of time. There's no point in debating reactionaries. They don't deserve it - they're not interested in "the marketplace of ideals," they're interested in muddying the waters and justifying violence. Shouting them down is the only thing they really deserve. In another world, maybe ignoring them would be the only thing they deserve, but they don't exist in a vacuum - they have followers. It's good to remind people that the majority of us find these ideas intolerable.

SamPatt 3y ago
Here's my fear when I read your comment. You're applying these labels to speakers (racist, transphobe, reactionary) and then claiming that if the label applies, engagement is pointless and they deserve to be shouted down. Let's say I agree this is true, on net, for some set of beliefs. There's still some huge problems here: 1) How can we all agree which sets of ideas deserve this treatment? 2) How can we be certain these labels are being applied accurately? Calls for violence are the only clear answer to the first question, but they're extremely rare - I'm guessing literally zero of the deplatformed speakers were actually calling for violence. Beyond that, it's very hard to come up with a set of beliefs which we can all agree to. Socialism / communism killed tens of millions in the 20th century - should they be banned from speaking? And who decides when these labels apply? I've personally seen examples of medical professionals using traditional scientific definitions of biological sex labeled as transphobes. Given the difficulties drawing the lines, it seems better to have prudence when inviting speakers initially (fewer Milos) but then allow individuals to determine where those lines are themselves.
- komali2 3y ago
  > 1) How can we all agree which sets of ideas deserve this treatment? We probably can't, but we can discuss it. I don't believe in universal ethics, however I believe humans are very good at trending towards good ethics when left alone to do so (instead of i.e. being forced to participate in dehumanizing systems). Though there are some obvious things we should agree on, for a good society, such as slavery being bad, humans deserve equal rights, etc, that many of the speakers argue against. I propose we consider the issue settled and if anyone disagrees they can deal with hippie commie students yelling at them from a crowd I guess, oh well. > I'm guessing literally zero of the deplatformed speakers were actually calling for violence. This is the excellent line that the shill alt-right dances in the current culture war. There's this odd belief that so long as nobody says "kill all xyz," then they must have something worth hearing, or don't deserve to be deplatformed. After all, the only person that deserves being disinvited from a university speech is Hitler, I guess? In the 21st century I think we're smarter than that. cauch put it well elsewhere in this thread when someone said that smart listeners should be able to listen to the hateful ideas and dismiss them thoughtfully: > If it was true, then racism, populism, or prejudice would not exist at all, because all of that is based on flawed logic that can be easily demonstrated. The reality is that intelligent debate LOSES in front of convenient fearmongering. Not because people are idiot, but simply mathematically: fearmongering is way easier and way more convincing than rationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law > And who decides when these labels apply? Whoever's better at protesting, of course. What's wrong with that? People like Ben Shapiro will weaponize the inherent conservative nature of most systems (states, universities, capitalism) to give themselves literal megaphones and sound systems with deployed security to ensure their ability to spread their message, so somehow it's bad to weaponize the power of "finding people who agree with you" to organize a protest? Why is one method automatically more valid? IMO probably because you're participating in the banality of evil - it's a part of a system, it's something "normal," therefore it's on at least some level OK. In reality it's nontrivial to organize a protest. In reality, leftists almost always outnumber fascists and nazis and white supremacists at protests - at least all the ones I've been to. The reality is that protests, and these "campus cancellations," represent the will of the community. So, that's who decides. The system isn't protecting "from the mob," the system is the mob, empowering those who seek to harm humans. > but then allow individuals to determine where those lines are themselves. What's wrong with shouting back at a shouter? I really don't understand the opposition to lively discussion. How else do we determine our values? This is an ancient human tradition, arguably the core of our survival mechanism as a social species. > Socialism / communism killed tens of millions in the 20th century - should they be banned from speaking? FWIW I know very few leftists that would tolerate a speech by the genocider Stalin. There's a reason Stalin and Mao put leftists, anarchists, and communists against the wall. I believe it's intellectually dishonest to ascribe their actions to the entirety of socialist / communist thought. If that's the case, we can start blaming capitalism for all sorts of diabolical things that have happened throughout history, such as the transalantic slave trade.

major505 3y ago

I think is because people this days make what they consider hate speech as violence, and so thy see themselves as heroes.