3 ms·

I thought we were broadly against colleges and universities banning politically incorrect speech. Wasn't that a huge talking point 2-3 years ago? Didn't we brin

I thought we were broadly against colleges and universities banning politically incorrect speech. Wasn't that a huge talking point 2-3 years ago? Didn't we bring back freedom of speech?

LocalH 10mo ago
[flagged]
- NoMoreNicksLeft 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - freejazz 10mo ago
    Yes
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 10mo ago
      [flagged]
      - freejazz 10mo ago
        You should ask them, not me. Maybe also read the article while you're at it.
      - anigbrowl 10mo ago
        Because they're massive hypocrites, a concept that is surely familiar to you.
        NoMoreNicksLeft 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        freejazz 10mo ago
        Only one here supposing they would be harmed is you
        NoMoreNicksLeft 10mo ago
        If it interferes with their opportunity to engage in their favorite narratives, such as espousing racial ideology, this turn of events can't have done anything except impair that. And you don't seem to be making the argument that they did this without realizing the consequences, or anything of that nature. Perhaps you are confused, I see that alot from people who don't use punctuation.
        freejazz 10mo ago
        >If it interferes with their opportunity to engage in their favorite narratives, such as espousing racial ideology, this turn of events can't have done anything except impair that. Yet they did it. >And you don't seem to be making the argument that they did this without realizing the consequences, or anything of that nature. Perhaps you are confused, I see that alot from people who don't use punctuation. I'm not. I don't need to make any arguments. It is a fact that it was done and it is a fact who it was done by. There is no disputing that. You can guess whatever reasoning you want, I do not particularly care. It was done by the Texas Board of Regents, not liberal woke purple haired coast elites. Get a grip already. > Perhaps you are confused, I see that alot from people who don't use punctuation. Funny coming from the poster with a bunch of posts that are flagged. I didn't even flag them!
uncletscollie 10mo ago
Freedom of speech is now defined as the person with the most power or who screams the loudest has the final say. That is what happens when you elect a dictator.
- gosub100 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - tstrimple 10mo ago
    You let the Nazis have their speech and now they are running the country. Let's see how they respond to your well reasoned arguments.
- daveguy 10mo ago
  It has been that way in the US since the supreme court decided that money is equivalent to speech. And the effects have been ramping up ever since. If there is only so much bandwidth in communication, then using money to monopolize airwaves directly reduces the speech of those who cannot afford the excessive cost that results. Monopolize here is used in the sense of dominating the available supply (of bandwidth) and bidding up the price. Citizens United must be overturned.
- zeroonetwothree 10mo ago
  > elect a dictator
lukev 10mo ago
It's really depressing how the popular discourse around these topics so consistently fails to address any kind of bad-faith reasoning on topics like this. Politicians complaining about free speech almost uniformly are referring to speech they don't like. Just like when they say they want to be "moral" its their morals, and when they say they want safety it's safety for a certain kind of person. But the media (institutional AND social) ends to just accepting their stated motivations at face value. And at this point it's making us all look like idiots.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
ToValueFunfetti 10mo ago
Who is "we" here? I can't count how many times I've argued against just an apparently broadly-held view that free speech ends at the first amendment and isn't a general principle that should be practiced at, eg., universities. Looks like when I argued that here, I was told that I should pick a different term for the principle of free speech in order to disambiguate from the first amendment (they recommended calling it 'my personal content preferences'). Likewise uncountable is the number of times I've said normalizing free speech restrictions against the other side will come back to bite you once they're (inevitably, especially given these tactics) in power. I can see how 'pro-speech' might have appeared to be a right-leaning position when violations were typically against right-leaning expression, but I never got the sense that either side really gave a damn.
watwut 10mo ago
Majority of that was bad faith argument designed to create exactly this situation. And it succeeded.

I thought we were broadly against colleges and universities banning politically incorrect speech. Wasn't that a huge talking point 2-3 years ago? Didn't we bring back freedom of speech?

LocalH 10mo ago

[flagged]

NoMoreNicksLeft 10mo ago
[flagged]
- freejazz 10mo ago
  Yes
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - freejazz 10mo ago
      You should ask them, not me. Maybe also read the article while you're at it.
    - anigbrowl 10mo ago
      Because they're massive hypocrites, a concept that is surely familiar to you.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        freejazz 10mo ago
        Only one here supposing they would be harmed is you
        NoMoreNicksLeft 10mo ago
        If it interferes with their opportunity to engage in their favorite narratives, such as espousing racial ideology, this turn of events can't have done anything except impair that. And you don't seem to be making the argument that they did this without realizing the consequences, or anything of that nature. Perhaps you are confused, I see that alot from people who don't use punctuation.
        freejazz 10mo ago
        >If it interferes with their opportunity to engage in their favorite narratives, such as espousing racial ideology, this turn of events can't have done anything except impair that. Yet they did it. >And you don't seem to be making the argument that they did this without realizing the consequences, or anything of that nature. Perhaps you are confused, I see that alot from people who don't use punctuation. I'm not. I don't need to make any arguments. It is a fact that it was done and it is a fact who it was done by. There is no disputing that. You can guess whatever reasoning you want, I do not particularly care. It was done by the Texas Board of Regents, not liberal woke purple haired coast elites. Get a grip already. > Perhaps you are confused, I see that alot from people who don't use punctuation. Funny coming from the poster with a bunch of posts that are flagged. I didn't even flag them!

uncletscollie 10mo ago

Freedom of speech is now defined as the person with the most power or who screams the loudest has the final say. That is what happens when you elect a dictator.

gosub100 10mo ago
[flagged]
- tstrimple 10mo ago
  You let the Nazis have their speech and now they are running the country. Let's see how they respond to your well reasoned arguments.
daveguy 10mo ago
It has been that way in the US since the supreme court decided that money is equivalent to speech. And the effects have been ramping up ever since. If there is only so much bandwidth in communication, then using money to monopolize airwaves directly reduces the speech of those who cannot afford the excessive cost that results. Monopolize here is used in the sense of dominating the available supply (of bandwidth) and bidding up the price. Citizens United must be overturned.
zeroonetwothree 10mo ago
> elect a dictator

lukev 10mo ago

It's really depressing how the popular discourse around these topics so consistently fails to address any kind of bad-faith reasoning on topics like this. Politicians complaining about free speech almost uniformly are referring to speech they don't like. Just like when they say they want to be "moral" its their morals, and when they say they want safety it's safety for a certain kind of person. But the media (institutional AND social) ends to just accepting their stated motivations at face value. And at this point it's making us all look like idiots.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]

ToValueFunfetti 10mo ago

Who is "we" here? I can't count how many times I've argued against just an apparently broadly-held view that free speech ends at the first amendment and isn't a general principle that should be practiced at, eg., universities. Looks like when I argued that here, I was told that I should pick a different term for the principle of free speech in order to disambiguate from the first amendment (they recommended calling it 'my personal content preferences'). Likewise uncountable is the number of times I've said normalizing free speech restrictions against the other side will come back to bite you once they're (inevitably, especially given these tactics) in power. I can see how 'pro-speech' might have appeared to be a right-leaning position when violations were typically against right-leaning expression, but I never got the sense that either side really gave a damn.

watwut 10mo ago

Majority of that was bad faith argument designed to create exactly this situation. And it succeeded.