College Students Are Ridiculously Infuriating Safe-Space/Mega-thread

[Alcon]

the most shocking thing about this thread is that people not in college care about student politics.

What does this have to do with student politics?  Or do you mean no one should care about what ideological or philosophical beliefs university students have?  Because...disagreed, considering university students subsequently become, you know, the vast majority of decision-makers in America.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

For the fairly obvious reason that these silly stories about students being very silly (and I observe that there has been little suggestion that the students in question are being anything other than very, very silly) pretty much only concern the Professional Student Activist 1% of the student body. And such people have always been utterly ridiculous (and habitually sell out within seconds of graduating...)

[MaxQue]

the most shocking thing about this thread is that people not in college care about student politics.

What does this have to do with student politics?  Or do you mean no one should care about what ideological or philosophical beliefs university students have?  Because...disagreed, considering university students subsequently become, you know, the vast majority of decision-makers in America.

Given than 99% of students don't care or involve in student politics, it is irrelevent.

[Alcon]

the most shocking thing about this thread is that people not in college care about student politics.

What does this have to do with student politics?  Or do you mean no one should care about what ideological or philosophical beliefs university students have?  Because...disagreed, considering university students subsequently become, you know, the vast majority of decision-makers in America.

Given than 99% of students don't care or involve in student politics, it is irrelevent.

I don't think you read my post correctly.

For the fairly obvious reason that these silly stories about students being very silly (and I observe that there has been little suggestion that the students in question are being anything other than very, very silly) pretty much only concern the Professional Student Activist 1% of the student body. And such people have always been utterly ridiculous (and habitually sell out within seconds of graduating...)

Have you not seen the age breakdown on polling about whether "offensive" political speech should be prohibited?  The Professional Student Activist 1% does not exist entirely in a vacuum, and plenty of people outside that core agree with their views, and very few feel comfortable speaking out against them.  If your entire argument is "a small group of political actors are disproportionately loud," true, but so what?  How is that phenomenon any different than the world at large?

I agree people tend to tone down after university, and I don't expect things quite this cartoonish to happen -- but the more moderate restrictions on political speech are popular with their age cohort, and I don't see why these views would disappear immediately after university ends.

[ingemann]

the most shocking thing about this thread is that people not in college care about student politics.

I'm not in France but I like to read about French politics. Mmmkay.

France politics have an effect on France and Europe.
Student politics don't even have an effect on most students.

Student politics doesn't stay student politics, it grow ups and in twenty years the things which are discussed on campuses today, will be part of the American political debate and even later we're going to deal with this in other countries, and if Americans thinks these debates are terrible, they can't imagine how horrible these debates are when they're pulled out of the cultural context they was born in (we had some morons bringing up a whiteness debate up a year ago, something which made little sense in cultures where racism is primarily based on language/culture, religion and ethnicity rather than race).

[Lyin' Steve]

Student politics doesn't stay student politics, it marinates for fifty years and becomes Bernie Sanders 2016.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Have you not seen the age breakdown on polling about whether "offensive" political speech should be prohibited?

No. But absolute freedom of speech is rarely popular, although exactly what is deemed to be beyond the pale (and how that is described) will change over time. There are more serious concerns wrt universities (mostly involving the root of all evil, naturally) than online petitions against statues of the long dead or whether this guest speaker or that guest speaker to a pointless post six pm 'debate' should be allowed to turn up or not.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Or rather: ridicule is fine and frankly well deserved (WE DEMAND that our pianos are tuned as regularly as we're pretty sure those of the OTHER students are!!!!). But the pearl clutching - and there are way worse places for that than here - is absurd.

[Alcon]

Have you not seen the age breakdown on polling about whether "offensive" political speech should be prohibited?

No. But absolute freedom of speech is rarely popular, although exactly what is deemed to be beyond the pale (and how that is described) will change over time.

Our generational cohort is much more likely than previous generational cohorts to deem political speech unacceptable, and support it being illegal, on the grounds it is "offensive."  Your argument is...what?  Are you rejecting these polls?  Are you arguing that these restrictions aren't destructive to the fundamental idea behind the freedom of speech?

You seem to be hand-waving this problem, but it's unclear why.

There are more serious concerns wrt universities (mostly involving the root of all evil, naturally) than online petitions against statues of the long dead or whether this guest speaker or that guest speaker to a pointless post six pm 'debate' should be allowed to turn up or not.

Wow, you're arguing that restricting political speech is not a big deal because you consider the topics and incidences silly?  That's horrible, dude.  If not, what are you arguing?

Also, not only did you choose the silliest possible examples here, but you're pretending that this silliness exists in isolation.  These kids also think it's acceptable to shut down conversation and debate in other forms, too.  You think they go, "oh, well, I'll be an anti-pluralist asshole...but only in situations Al considers silly"?  No, dude.

Or rather: ridicule is fine and frankly well deserved (WE DEMAND that our pianos are tuned as regularly as we're pretty sure those of the OTHER students are!!!!). But the pearl clutching - and there are way worse places for that than here - is absurd.

You seem to be under the very, very misguided belief that the concern here is how ridiculous this stuff is.  It's not that it's ridiculous, and these are ridiculous situations.  It's that it's toxic, and that it can -- and has -- affected situations that are not ridiculous.

[dead0man]

I'm here for two reasons, to make fun of dumb lefties and to point out when regular people get screwed over by the "the utterly ridiculous" 1% that are activists. (actually, the activists normally don't do anything because they are sniveling children.  They cry and bitch and call mommy (or the cops or the administrators, all the same thing to their tiny little minds) until someone with actual power caves to them and screws over the life of the teacher that offended their delicate little heads or the dude you enjoyed having sex with until your friend/parent/counselor/fellow activist convinces you it was rape 3 months later.

If you don't care about such things, fine don't come in here.  Or do and look silly, it doesn't matter to me.  I'm not trying to shut down anybody's speech.

[afleitch]

I'm here for two reasons, to make fun of dumb lefties and to point out when regular people get screwed over by the "the utterly ridiculous" 1% that are activists. (actually, the activists normally don't do anything because they are sniveling children.  They cry and bitch and call mommy (or the cops or the administrators, all the same thing to their tiny little minds) until someone with actual power caves to them and screws over the life of the teacher that offended their delicate little heads or the dude you enjoyed having sex with until your friend/parent/counselor/fellow activist convinces you it was rape 3 months later.

If you don't care about such things, fine don't come in here.  Or do and look silly, it doesn't matter to me.  I'm not trying to shut down anybody's speech.

Whiny right wing kids running to their parents or their pastor because reality is playing out in front of them at school are more annoying. And get almost no derision.

[dead0man]

Or attention, I'd gladly laugh along with you about them.  Do you have some examples?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Our generational cohort is much more likely than previous generational cohorts to deem political speech unacceptable, and support it being illegal, on the grounds it is "offensive."

I dispute that this is true. I can believe that when phrased like that younger people right now are more likely than older people to support such a proposition, but I don't think that means a lot (particularly as what is implicitly meant is racist/homophobic speech etc, a matter on which there is quite a lot of generation difference). During the Cold War most Americans supported restrictions on the political rights of Communists, I believe. I suspect that right now there would not be a massive generation difference regarding the rights of someone to preach ISIS propaganda in the middle of NYC.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that the idea of freedom of speech has had foes far more formidable than a handful of drunken students who will likely soon sell out and work in Marketing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well if that's how this is going to be then I'll say that it is also possible that I believe in freedom of association (another important democratic right!). I don't believe that an Assembly refusing to hear a particular person speak is an example of a restriction on freedom of speech, because that Assembly has a right to determine who has the right to speak to it. In the long history of student radicalism there have been incidences of things like attempting to influence what and is not taught in universities on political grounds and often backed up by violence (or the threat of violence). That is an assault on freedom of speech (amongst other things) and if there was much happening in that direction, then, yes; there would be grounds for a degree of concern (though it would have to be prefaced with: why is this happening, exactly?). But if the Students Union at Toad Suck Community College do not wish to hear the controversial figure Bill Dickhead speak at a public meeting because Bill Dickhead has said nasty things about [insert group here], then they are well within their rights to tell him that he is not welcome. Understandably Bill Dickhead would not be very happy about this, but he is not being silenced and his political rights are not being threatened. Now we can have a debate about whether it is a good idea to only hear from people who agree with you (you presume), but if the response is to get outraged about FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!! then this isn't going to happen because the student activists are just going to write you off as a young fogey not worth their time engaging with.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Added to that, I'm not opposed to freedom of speech. But too often, "freedom of speech" rhetoric is used as a cudgel against socially marginalized people(s) who are asserting their freedom of speech and association rights. That's what makes me uncomfortable about these discussions.

[Alcon]

Whiny right wing kids running to their parents or their pastor because reality is playing out in front of them at school are more annoying. And get almost no derision.

Yes, the tendency for conservative traditionalists to want to "make the world go away" when it disagrees with their worldview is gross and troubling.  But do you expect they'll have much sociopolitical power in 10-20 years?  I don't.  There are quite a lot of people in academia, and in the younger generational cohort, who think censorious behavior from the left has moral license.

Added to that, I'm not opposed to freedom of speech. But too often, "freedom of speech" rhetoric is used as a cudgel against socially marginalized people(s) who are asserting their freedom of speech and association rights. That's what makes me uncomfortable about these discussions.

Are you arguing for restrictions on freedom of speech, because you're worried that "freedom of speech" allows powerful majorities to "shout down" minorities?  If so, I'm sympathetic -- I don't think pluralism works well when people are "shouted down."  However, how can you possibly get from that, to restricting political speech using institutional power?  That is way, way more dangerous and way, way more of an historical cudgel against marginalized people historically.  I realize that free speech and pluralism both can have suboptimal results, but how can you not be vastly more uncomfortable with the consequences of allowing institutional power to parse what political speech is too "damaging" to say?

Could you give me some sense of what limitations on political speech you're OK with, and why?

I dispute that this is true. I can believe that when phrased like that younger people right now are more likely than older people to support such a proposition, but I don't think that means a lot (particularly as what is implicitly meant is racist/homophobic speech etc, a matter on which there is quite a lot of generation difference). During the Cold War most Americans supported restrictions on the political rights of Communists, I believe. I suspect that right now there would not be a massive generation difference regarding the rights of someone to preach ISIS propaganda in the middle of NYC.

If you dispute that is true, please take a few minutes and look at recent polling on this.  It's true that the biggest age gap is about political speech that is offensive to marginalized people, but the younger cohort is significantly less likely to endorse the abstract concept of political speech too.  So what in my argument are you disputing?  If you don't believe what I'm arguing, I can link you to the polling on it.

Also, even if the older generations were comparably as censorious with communism I'd find that totally screwed up too -- and I imagine they also flagged leftist speakers with being "too reminiscent of communism" to allow.  Same behavior; also unacceptable.  My point here is not to criticize my generation for being inherently awful (whatever that means).  I would be criticizing other generations' varying moral warrants for the same behavior if I thought it was bullsh**t.

I think that the idea of freedom of speech has had foes far more formidable than a handful of drunken students who will likely soon sell out and work in Marketing.

Al, you're strawmanning the living crap out of my argument.  Please stop.  This is bordering on disrespectful.  I have made it clear that I am not talking about a "handful" of students, and you know that I am not referring exclusively to the more cartoonish "stunts," which I agree will diminish.  My concern is with the durability of their fundamental distrust and hostility toward pluralism.  I have made that very clear.

Also, the idea that the students with this belief set are mostly "drunken" and will just "sell out to Marketing" and abandon their beliefs is complete horse crap.  I doubt you have any evidence for this claim, and no one who's been around a college environment thinks those beliefs are that shallow.  You're talking like you're a 50-year-old who hasn't been around people between 18 and 30 for years.  I am directly in this cohort.  Do you actually believe that these views about pluralism disappear immediately after college graduation?  Hint: they don't, and most of the people in the Millennial cohort in the polls I'm alluding to are not currently in college, nor are they part of the activist 1%.

Well if that's how this is going to be then I'll say that it is also possible that I believe in freedom of association (another important democratic right!). I don't believe that an Assembly refusing to hear a particular person speak is an example of a restriction on freedom of speech, because that Assembly has a right to determine who has the right to speak to it. In the long history of student radicalism there have been incidences of things like attempting to influence what and is not taught in universities on political grounds and often backed up by violence (or the threat of violence). That is an assault on freedom of speech (amongst other things) and if there was much happening in that direction, then, yes; there would be grounds for a degree of concern (though it would have to be prefaced with: why is this happening, exactly?). But if the Students Union at Toad Suck Community College do not wish to hear the controversial figure Bill Dickhead speak at a public meeting because Bill Dickhead has said nasty things about [insert group here], then they are well within their rights to tell him that he is not welcome. Understandably Bill Dickhead would not be very happy about this, but he is not being silenced and his political rights are not being threatened. Now we can have a debate about whether it is a good idea to only hear from people who agree with you (you presume), but if the response is to get outraged about FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!! then this isn't going to happen because the student activists are just going to write you off as a young fogey not worth their time engaging with.

You really don't have to talk with examples and analogies.  I'm perfectly fine with you using direct arguments.  Also, I don't really need you to lecture me about what will prompt college students to dismiss me, considering the ridiculous crap about social justice-y students just being drunken future sell-outs with no sincere, durable beliefs.  Look, I obviously have a fundamental issue with their beliefs, but I don't deny that most of them are fairly sincere.  I don't know how anyone who knows a significant number of these people could.  Even if they're fairweather activists (and most of those holding these beliefs aren't the activist corps anyway!), their beliefs are sincere.

I'm obviously not just shouting "freedom of speech!!!!"  When in this thread have I done that?  I'm clearly making an argument that this is an attack on pluralism, which happens to be what freedom of speech is meant to help provide a space for, but which has utility that isn't just granted by the existence of the American First Amendment.

I don't think that refusing to invite someone is a violation of freedom of speech, either.  My interest in pluralism is not just in upholding the text of freedom of speech.  My interest in pluralism is that it's incredibly important to give people access to ideas that they can parse, challenge, poke, vent, reject and/or incorporate.  That is why we have freedom of speech in the first place.  My issue with the "disinvitations" and similar is that it shows fundamental hostility toward the idea of competition between ideas.  It reflects many students' belief that certain ideas are too dangerous or emotionally trying to be heard, and that it is acceptable for them to use their power to avoid doing so.  It's not because the ideas lack substantive merit.  If that were the issue, it would be incredibly easy to point out the flaws, or just ignore the speaker.  It's because they think they have the moral right to shut down ideas they dislike or think are societally damaging -- and that belief is troubling.

I seriously don't know where you got the idea that my entire argument was "but FREE SPEECH!!11" and nothing else.  Are you substituting other internet debaters for me for some reason?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Whoa... #triggered much?

If you dispute that is true, please take a few minutes and look at recent polling on this.  It's true that the biggest age gap is about political speech that is offensive to marginalized people, but the younger cohort is significantly less likely to endorse the abstract concept of political speech too.  So what in my argument are you disputing?  If you don't believe what I'm arguing, I can link you to the polling on it.

But if I dispute that the polling is particularly meaningful then there's no point in showing me to the polling.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's fine and you're totally entitled to that that stance, but most people who have grumbled on this matter have done so from the classic 'everything is going to the dogs' point of view. I think it is useful to point out that this is nonsense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think I'm being disrespectful - or if I am then it certainly isn't intentional and neither is the rest of the reply - merely expressing a view that this problem, to the extent that it is a problem, is not a serious problem. I would suggest (for instance) that my country's libel laws are a greater threat to free speech (or whatever) than #triggered students, and that there are issues with universities across the world that are considerably more serious and which receive no attention (mostly involving money). Etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you don't think that most students maybe drink a little bit too much then I don't think you can have spent much time around a university environment either

As for the selling out thing, such is the inevitable path of the student radical. Doesn't mean their views aren't sincere, but History has shown what will happen. Mind you, there's the alternative route: from student radical to minister of state for paperclip procurement in two decades.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whereas you...?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most people, though, are barely political (sensible fellows!) and so any views they hold on 'pluralism' will be vague and not matter greatly to them. Certainly won't influence how they vote, for instance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But this is how I prefer to argue; we can understand nothing without context, therefore the more the merrier

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some of the people who have been most critical of the current generation of Radical Students were, and this is very interesting, Radical Students themselves back in the 60s and 70s (and were generally far more radical than the current lot, I have to note). I suspect that their views were quite sincerely held at the time as well, but I very much doubt that they hold them now.

Actually what has been hilarious has been the sight of people who have spent decades supporting this protest or that boycott or called for this person to be barred from addressing that meeting or whatever suddenly turn around and howl in entitled outrage when their methods are used against them. I am not sympathetic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah the famous free marketplace of ideas etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's one view. Another is that it is a rights matter (i.e. primarily about self-expression and perhaps even the sovereignty of the individual). Not that these positions are contradictory, automatically.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes it does. But this is not automatically problematic in itself and is not a threat to free speech

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But it is acceptable, isn't it? Again, an Assembly clearly has the right to choose who gets to address it. I very much doubt that I would be allowed to address a meeting of my local Conservative Association, and if I did I think it certain that I would be shouted down. Again, you might suggest that it would be better if hostile speakers were heard out more frequently, but...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is a belief held by about 99.9% of the population, however. Anyway, what of the heckler? Is the heckler expressing his/her right to Freedom of Speech or is he/she a nuisance interrupting the Free Marketplace of Ideas? Or perhaps both?

[Alcon]

Whoa... #triggered much?

I'm not mad.  Your first post rebutted arguments I'm not making, narrowed down the scope of arguments I was making to the point where it ignored the broader import of my argument, and did a lot of vague hand-waving.  I think you know you were doing all three.  I also think you understand that this wastes my time and fails to directly address my argument.

But if I dispute that the polling is particularly meaningful then there's no point in showing me to the polling.

In what way?  You don't think that self-stated opinions about whether pluralism is a good idea matter?  It's interesting that you've decided that self-reported answers to an unspecified question are certainly "[not] particularly meaningful."

That's fine and you're totally entitled to that that stance, but most people who have grumbled on this matter have done so from the classic 'everything is going to the dogs' point of view. I think it is useful to point out that this is nonsense.

OK, again, I also realize there are worse things -- cancer, for instance, that's bad! -- but that doesn't stop this from being an incredibly toxic, common belief in my generational cohort.

I don't think I'm being disrespectful - or if I am then it certainly isn't intentional and neither is the rest of the reply - merely expressing a view that this problem, to the extent that it is a problem, is not a serious problem. I would suggest (for instance) that my country's libel laws are a greater threat to free speech (or whatever) than #triggered students, and that there are issues with universities across the world that are considerably more serious and which receive no attention (mostly involving money). Etc.

I agree that your libel laws suck.  My argument, again, does not exclusively limit itself to universities, and I have no idea why you keep framing it like it does after I've said that so many times.

If you don't think that most students maybe drink a little bit too much then I don't think you can have spent much time around a university environment either

not what I said

As for the selling out thing, such is the inevitable path of the student radical. Doesn't mean their views aren't sincere, but History has shown what will happen. Mind you, there's the alternative route: from student radical to minister of state for paperclip procurement in two decades.

You are, yet again, acting as if I'm exclusively talking about a narrow band of student radicals.  I agree that people tend to stop being pie-in-the-sky radicals.  My complaint is not limited to (or even particularly about) radical student activism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whereas you...?

Graduated from a liberal arts university 2 1/2 years ago, and typed my last reply to you from its Political Science student lounge after giving a Q&A to 30 undergraduates.  Thanks for asking.

Most people, though, are barely political (sensible fellows!) and so any views they hold on 'pluralism' will be vague and not matter greatly to them. Certainly won't influence how they vote, for instance.

I agree with you, actually!  That's exactly why the 1% core of student activists is disproportionately powerful.  That's also why they get their way so often in universities.  Most of the people around them have weak convictions, and are swayed by the moral force of their delivery and, sometimes, hectoring.  That doesn't mean that they become deeply-grounded moral beliefs.  However, it does mean that they tend to defer and, yes, vote that way, as well as to some degree incorporate that stuff into their view of "goodness."  If you don't think that cohort views affect political behavior or moral belief, man, I don't even know what to say besides: you're blatantly wrong.

If your hypotheses were true that it has no sway over their later behavior, why the hell would those polls -- you know, the ones you are sure are irrelevant, despite not even knowing the phrasing or methodology (?!) -- reflect any shift in attitude toward pluralism?  Unless you totally sever anti-pluralist behaviors from overall anti-pluralist attitudes, which is absurd, it makes no sense.

But this is how I prefer to argue; we can understand nothing without context, therefore the more the merrier

I can understand plenty with simple syllogisms.

Actually what has been hilarious has been the sight of people who have spent decades supporting this protest or that boycott or called for this person to be barred from addressing that meeting or whatever suddenly turn around and howl in entitled outrage when their methods are used against them. I am not sympathetic.

You're proving my point for me.  That's exactly why pluralism is so damn important: because jackasses, when they get the first semblance of institutional power, use it to shut out people they don't want to hear from.  This whole "it's OK if we do it, because we're on the good side" crap is the problem.

Ah the famous free marketplace of ideas etc.

Try that next time with a snifter of scotch and a tweed jacket, for enhanced pseudo-profundity.

(I wouldn't call it a "free market" for the same reason I think "free market" can be a misnomer for the economic system.  I am aware of the complexities and troubles, because I'm not a dolt.)

That's one view. Another is that it is a rights matter (i.e. primarily about self-expression and perhaps even the sovereignty of the individual). Not that these positions are contradictory, automatically.

I know all of these words and concepts like the back of my hand, and that's a vague-ass trio of sentences if I've ever seen one.

Yes it does. But this is not automatically problematic in itself and is not a threat to free speech

Do you notice that sentence I wrote that you quoted one line earlier?  The sentence where I explicitly stated my concern wasn't about free speech, and then explained what my concern is?  This is what I said about wasting my time.

But it is acceptable, isn't it? Again, an Assembly clearly has the right to choose who gets to address it. I very much doubt that I would be allowed to address a meeting of my local Conservative Association, and if I did I think it certain that I would be shouted down. Again, you might suggest that it would be better if hostile speakers were heard out more frequently, but...

I did not deny that there is a right to choose speakers at an institution.  Would you like to try actually responding to my argument as I wrote it?  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is a belief held by about 99.9% of the population, however.

You think 99.9% of the population believes it is acceptable to use power to shut down substantive, sincerely-held political speech, because that political speech is emotionally upsetting and/or they think it would be bad if people were persuaded?

oh good thing you don't believe in polls or socio-psychological evidence so I'm just gonna have to believe you on that one

Anyway, what of the heckler? Is the heckler expressing his/her right to Freedom of Speech or is he/she a nuisance interrupting the Free Marketplace of Ideas? Or perhaps both?

I am happy to answer this question.  However, considering there were five instances in this post in which you addressed an argument I was not making, one literally one line after I'd explicitly said I'm not making it, I would like a formal promise that you'll actually address what I explicitly wrote.

If it makes you feel more comfortable agreeing to this, maybe you could start the promise off with something in character, like "Oh yes, contracts.  That old canard.  Quite."

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm not mad.  Your first post rebutted arguments I'm not making, narrowed down the scope of arguments I was making to the point where it ignored the broader import of my argument, and did a lot of vague hand-waving.  I think you know you were doing all three.  I also think you understand that this wastes my time and fails to directly address my argument.

Perhaps I was putting forward an argument of my own, rather than merely responding to yours?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've already explained how. Answers to surveys often depend to an alarming extent on how questions are worded, which is why I'm generally pretty dubious about survey-based quantitative research in general fwiw but that's getting all very tangential.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pretty much all the - now quite extensive - discourse about this whole thing here has been about universities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But that's what this thread is about?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I should point out that I'm not exactly fifty either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Its more that I don't believe that the views of the 1% shape particularly those of the 99%. Its hard to think of anything less important or relevant to most people's lives - students and former students included - than student politics.

Perhaps it goes the other way: after all we can say that the social condemnation of racism, homophobia etc has become firmer amongst young people in recent years, perhaps this influences the agenda of this generation of student radicals rather than the other way round?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A respectable viewpoint. I just don't believe that things have deteriorated recently.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not much of a drinker, but I do like tweed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not particularly.

But fine, an elaboration: one can believe that freedom of speech is primarily important as a right in of itself, rather than as a right that leads to something else (i.e. pluralism or whatever). This might lead you to different conclusions in certain cases if you thought of it mostly as a right-that-leads-elsewhere. Clearer?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course. But I wanted to emphasis the point about free speech.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would just mean that I would type out the same words again. I can alter the combination of words, however: I think its fine to deny someone the chance to speak to a particular audience if that audience does not wish to hear them speak.

I understand, of course, that you don't think this, and that's fine: we have a disagreement.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes?

The number itself is purely rhetorical, of course, and not a real number.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps as an experiment you could try handing out pro-ISIS leaflets in the middle of a shopping centre tomorrow?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But who defines whether I have addressed what you have written or not? I might be satisfied that I have done, while you might disagree

[Cassius]

The problem with students attempting to 'no-platform' various speakers is not that they're not entitled to do so; they're free to associate with whomever they want. The problem is that more often than not they're denying other students the right to listen to speakers and staking out markedly political stances in forums that should, in all honesty, be non-political. If a student Labour society or Islamic society wants to deny someone the opportunity to speak before them then they're perfectly within their right to do that. On the other hand, a student union trying to do that (unless said speaker is an actual criminal) isn't really on. Nobody is forcing these students to listen to the views of x speaker, but by trying to 'no-platform' them they are actively attempting to deny other students that opportunity.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

An address at a public meeting is by definition political and therefore arguing that it should be non-political is craven and stupid.* You're basically looking for an excuse to whine, not that anyone here will be surprised at that given that that's like the whole point of young fogeyism.

_{*Mind you who even turns up to these things? Ordinary students don't, and neither do the doomed-to-postgradland types like what I was...}

[Cassius]

An address at a public meeting is by definition political and therefore arguing that it should be non-political is craven and stupid.* You're basically looking for an excuse to whine, not that anyone here will be surprised at that given that that's like the whole point of young fogeyism.

_{*Mind you who even turns up to these things? Ordinary students don't, and neither do the doomed-to-postgradland types like what I was...}

Well, you know, I don't know how long ago you attended uni, but from my experience a fair few people whom you wouldn't think of as being particularly 'political' occasionally turn up to the odd one of these type of events (although my uni does apparently have a reputation for nerdishness and... anorakery). Given that one of the purposes of uni (theoretically) is to enable people to broaden their intellectual horizons and encounter new ideas, I don't really have much sympathy with the view that a bunch of knuckleheaded student 'activists' with enormous delusions of grandeur should be allowed to no-platform outside speakers who's views may be of interest to certain members of the student body.

I mean, I do recognise where your coming from when you talk about 'young fogeys' who get all hot and bothered about this type of thing and aren't afraid to show that in public (and if you think I'm some kind of 'young fogey', well, quite frankly, you're wrong), but I don't think it's unreasonable to be a little peeved about the annoying excesses of the 'no-platform' gang.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I've always been bemused by the notion that liberal freedoms are designed to promote "pluralism" because I've always seen the "freedom of expression" as an instrument of the "freedom of association". The freedom of expression gives individuals the ability to voice viewpoints/perspectives/ideas that can sway people to associate with other groups but, ultimately, the freedom of expression does not give anyone the right to "have their voice heard" or their opinions considered by another group or whatever nor should it. In fact, I'd argue that the viewpoint pluralism notion of the freedom of speech borders on an infringement of basic freedom: the freedom to have an utter disinterest in the opinions/views/beliefs of others. This is a deeply important implicit part of the "freedom of association". Because all human beings are social animals/political animals/non-atomized, we can't really conceive of freedoms as being separate to their role in the "social organism".

The freedom of expression is good but "viewpoint pluralism" is not necessarily good. In fact, it's often bad. No, I don't think that we should take stupid viewpoints seriously, however I define them. No, I don't think that people should be told that they must consider stupid viewpoints, they should not. They should run away from them because they are stupid. I support the rights of idiots to say stupid things out loud but I'm not going to listen to them and I hope that my peers will refuse to listen to them.

Anyways, this is just my take on liberal freedoms: they're good and worth defending but it's tiresome seeing certain political actors cloak their interests in the language of liberal freedoms/rights. It's "illiberal" to refuse to use student funds to finance a speech by some biovating hack or some moral cretin. It's actually well within the confines of the liberal tradition. What isn't particularly liberal is believing that "value pluralism" is the ultimate end of liberal freedoms: what Anglo-American political philosopher or theorist of note in the 20th Century has expressed that viewpoint? I have seen this view on a few blogs but the people who espouse this viewpoint mostly seem to be saddened by the fact that their right-wing libertarian or centrist perspectives are no longer taken seriously by young people, who have higher standards on issues of race, gender and sexuality.

[Alcon]

Perhaps I was putting forward an argument of my own, rather than merely responding to yours?

I mean, that's fine, but a little confusing when done in embedded replies to my post...

I've already explained how. Answers to surveys often depend to an alarming extent on how questions are worded, which is why I'm generally pretty dubious about survey-based quantitative research in general fwiw but that's getting all very tangential.

So...you're skeptical of the question phrasing, so you don't want to see how the question was phrased...?

Pretty much all the - now quite extensive - discourse about this whole thing here has been about universities.

...

But that's what this thread is about?

...

Its more that I don't believe that the views of the 1% shape particularly those of the 99%. Its hard to think of anything less important or relevant to most people's lives - students and former students included - than student politics.

This thread is about university students.  I am arguing a hypothesis that involves the behaviors of university students, and to some extent explains them, but extends beyond them.  

You seem to be posing a few "objections."  First, you object that student politics are trivial.  That doesn't negate my argument without committing the composition fallacy.  Second, you argue that the activist core doesn't have a huge effect on the larger populace at university.  I agree, but I think the relationship is two-way and more complex than that...

I could go into detail, but this is all fundamentally a waste of time unless we can establish agreement on whether distrust of pluralism is a norm among the broader group, beyond the student activists.  What sort of evidence would you accept for this claim, if not polls?  I understand the reluctance to extrapolate a core group of student activists to everyone.  I would reject that too.  But you seem to have excluded every available form of mass-observation, and yet you're not asserting you're agnostic on my claim; you're rejecting it.  Clearly you have some firmer evidence--share it?

Perhaps it goes the other way: after all we can say that the social condemnation of racism, homophobia etc has become firmer amongst young people in recent years, perhaps this influences the agenda of this generation of student radicals rather than the other way round?

That's definitely true...how is that mutually exclusive to what I'm saying?

A respectable viewpoint. I just don't believe that things have deteriorated recently.

Well, it's going to be hard to convince you of that if you dismiss the entire methodological approach of asking people what their beliefs are.

Not particularly.

But fine, an elaboration: one can believe that freedom of speech is primarily important as a right in of itself, rather than as a right that leads to something else (i.e. pluralism or whatever). This might lead you to different conclusions in certain cases if you thought of it mostly as a right-that-leads-elsewhere. Clearer?

Much, but I'm not sure what the point of observing that others hold this is an "a priori" right is.  I was explaining that I wasn't arguing freedom of speech as an inherent ends, and your response was "well, some people argue that it is, because..."  ...OK, and?

Of course. But I wanted to emphasis the point about free speech.

Again, when you're replying to points I made immediately after quoting me, it's kind of hard to expect me to know you're not replying to my argument!

That would just mean that I would type out the same words again. I can alter the combination of words, however: I think its fine to deny someone the chance to speak to a particular audience if that audience does not wish to hear them speak.

I understand, of course, that you don't think this, and that's fine: we have a disagreement.

Al, I'm not arguing that audiences should be forced to listen to people they refuse to hear.  Trust me, I live in a downtown area.  if I believed in that responsibility, I would spend half my life listening to liberal arts graduates try to convince me to donate $20/month to save the beavers.

Yes?

The number itself is purely rhetorical, of course, and not a real number.

...

Perhaps as an experiment you could try handing out pro-ISIS leaflets in the middle of a shopping centre tomorrow?

I like how you rejected a poll because the phrasing was imprecise, and then propose this as an experiment to isolate the proportion of people who think it's acceptable to "shut down" substantive political speech.  Much more controlled!

I really doubt 0.1% of people would want it forcibly shut down.  I'm sure plenty would--and I would disagree with those people.

Besides, let's be serious.  Flip the question.  What proportion of these students would find it an acceptable use of institutional power in a conservative society to "shut down" people for the dangerous act of promoting women's rights, religious pluralism, LGBT tolerance, and such?  Do they think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do for those with conservative theological views?  Do they think they are super down with Saudi Arabia and Russia oppressing that kind of political tolerance, even if they respectfully disagree?  Or do you think they should suddenly go: Oh wait, that's not OK, it's only OK to oppress minority viewpoints that I think are too dangerous to consider!?

Yeah, well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But who defines whether I have addressed what you have written or not? I might be satisfied that I have done, while you might disagree

Hmm, good question!  I suppose, by my system, you consent to responding to what I wrote, so that we can most efficiently compare, analyze, and discuss our positions, hopefully to strengthen them through an open-minded discussion of their advantages and weaknesses.

By your system, I guess we could figure out what the majority opinion is, and one of us could use institutional power and bullying to stop the other from advocating for his position, instead of responding to it.

I assume your support of the second system will be completely contingent on whether your opinion is the majority here, right?  Too bad you don't believe in polls so you can't check

[Alcon]

I've always been bemused by the notion that liberal freedoms are designed to promote "pluralism" because I've always seen the "freedom of expression" as an instrument of the "freedom of association". The freedom of expression gives individuals the ability to voice viewpoints/perspectives/ideas that can sway people to associate with other groups but, ultimately, the freedom of expression does not give anyone the right to "have their voice heard" or their opinions considered by another group or whatever nor should it. In fact, I'd argue that the viewpoint pluralism notion of the freedom of speech borders on an infringement of basic freedom: the freedom to have an utter disinterest in the opinions/views/beliefs of others. This is a deeply important implicit part of the "freedom of association". Because all human beings are social animals/political animals/non-atomized, we can't really conceive of freedoms as being separate to their role in the "social organism".

I don't disagree with any of this!  I'll add a caveat, though.  Plenty of people have had emotional attachment to ugly, screwed-up beliefs.  Cognitive dissonance sucks and is unpleasant.  There are so many cognitive biases and emotional commitments that lead us to want to re-affirm preexisting beliefs.  It's incredibly healthy (and I'd argue a personal duty) to avoid questioning illogical beliefs just because it's emotionally tough or draining.  That said, there is not -- and cannot -- be a legal obligation to do this.

(There's some complications with the public square -- like those dumb people who keep interrupting my damn phone calls on the street corner to ask me to save the beavers -- but that's another story.)

The freedom of expression is good but "viewpoint pluralism" is not necessarily good. In fact, it's often bad. No, I don't think that we should take stupid viewpoints seriously, however I define them. No, I don't think that people should be told that they must consider stupid viewpoints, they should not. They should run away from them because they are stupid. I support the rights of idiots to say stupid things out loud but I'm not going to listen to them and I hope that my peers will refuse to listen to them.

This is where you lose me a little.  It's one thing to say someone shouldn't engage stupid viewpoints...but not consider?  How the heck do you know if a viewpoint is stupid if you don't consider it?  

I think everyone has been on the receiving end of this before: "Your argument is so x I don't even have to consider it!" or "You're so y I don't even have to consider it!"  (Usually x is stupid, and y is terrible.)  I think sometimes it's pretty obvious this is just an attempt to avoid cognitive dissonance or possibly changing a fixed belief.  (Or maybe I'm just that awful because I didn't save those beavers?)

Again, not the domain of the law, but an incredibly important personal habit that a lot of people hate indulging in.  (And everyone dislikes sometimes.)

Anyways, this is just my take on liberal freedoms: they're good and worth defending but it's tiresome seeing certain political actors cloak their interests in the language of liberal freedoms/rights. It's "illiberal" to refuse to use student funds to finance a speech by some biovating hack or some moral cretin. It's actually well within the confines of the liberal tradition. What isn't particularly liberal is believing that "value pluralism" is the ultimate end of liberal freedoms: what Anglo-American political philosopher or theorist of note in the 20th Century has expressed that viewpoint? I have seen this view on a few blogs but the people who espouse this viewpoint mostly seem to be saddened by the fact that their right-wing libertarian or centrist perspectives are no longer taken seriously by young people, who have higher standards on issues of race, gender and sexuality.

We've had debates that clearly pissed you off in the past.  Do you think I'm a "bloviating hack" who should be shut down?  Did you, in the heat of the debate?

[dead0man]

It is a belief held by about 99.9% of the population, however.

no, it's clearly not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, certainly not both, and you'd have to pretty funking authoritarian to think that.  The Heckler is just an asshole, in every situation.  The Heckler might be right and he might win, but he'd still be an asshole.


*yes, there probably are some very specific situations where the heckler could potentially by right, and even the "hero".  But never on a college campus under normal conditions.