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

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I would like to officially apologise for this remark:

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

It is clear from the last page it has triggered many people. I promise not to hurt your safe space anymore.

[ingemann]

I would like to officially apologise for this remark:

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

It is clear from the last page it has triggered many people. I promise not to hurt your safe space anymore.

You forgot the smiley

[Alcon]

I would like to officially apologise for this remark:

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

It is clear from the last page it has triggered many people. I promise not to hurt your safe space anymore.

Idk who you're making fun of with that?  I'm the only one who's really engaged that particular comment as far as I can tell, and do you not feel that I gave it a thoughtful reply?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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?

Mostly I would want to see clear evidence of the supposed different actually happening in the public sphere.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure, but then I'm not sure if either of us are exactly engaging directly which may account for the oddness of this discussion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Its a bugger isn't it, but that's the way it is. Though if that's the route you wan to go down you can try more detailed/less crude methods of surveying, perhaps. Or try to be clever about how you read other survey data, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then what are you arguing for/against? Or is it that you are more concerned with the climate that leads to 'fyck off' being said more often than with the fact that someone responded to a request to speak with 'fyck off'? I suspect that's so, right? But not easy to spot from your tone earlier, you see.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ultimately most people are more interested in the results of a particular process than the process itself and would not regard the fact that political speech is massively infringed on in Russia as a reason for banning what they regard as hate speech in the United States. Whereas for you the process is a moral question in of itself, yes?

[Alcon]

Mostly I would want to see clear evidence of the supposed different actually happening in the public sphere.

My claim is about troubling, broad philosophical beliefs about pluralism among university students and their broader cohort.  I offer to show you a poll on that.  You're arguing we should instead look at...anecdotal evidence of...something?

I'm not sure, but then I'm not sure if either of us are exactly engaging directly which may account for the oddness of this discussion.

How am I not directly engaging?  You quoted me and replied.  I replied very directly.  You replied to indicate I was wrong to assume you were originally replying to me, when you your entire reply between block-quotes of things I said.  Now, you're saying I'm not "directly engaging"?  Let me engage you directly when I say that makes no sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Its a bugger isn't it, but that's the way it is. Though if that's the route you wan to go down you can try more detailed/less crude methods of surveying, perhaps. Or try to be clever about how you read other survey data, etc.

I am going to remind you that you continue to talk about a survey whose methodology you don't know, and that you rejected before you even read the question wording, and that you apparently prefer some unspecified anecdotal evidence over.

Then what are you arguing for/against? Or is it that you are more concerned with the climate that leads to 'fyck off' being said more often than with the fact that someone responded to a request to speak with 'fyck off'? I suspect that's so, right? But not easy to spot from your tone earlier, you see.

You don't need to read into my tone.  You could read into the words I'm saying.  You'll find a lot of those in your previous post -- the one you wrote, apparently while being afflicted by those bouts of uncontrollable spastic block-quoting that got me all confused.

Let me reiterate.  I'm not talking about cases where controversial ideas have no interested audience.  If you want my thoughts on that, see my response to DFB.  I'm talking about cases where controversial ideas do have an interested audience, and those who don't want to be part of that audience (or part of any sort of conversation) use institutional power to preempt the speakers from having any sort of audience.  

Ultimately most people are more interested in the results of a particular process than the process itself and would not regard the fact that political speech is massively infringed on in Russia as a reason for banning what they regard as hate speech in the United States.

I don't doubt that the Russians who support those speech restrictions also believe that the speech they're banning is destablizing and harmful.  I sincerely believe that most of Russia's virulent homophobes also believe that the suppression of homosexual behavior and content is crucial to social stability.  I also trust that most people who have executed the most f**ked-up, regrettable oppressive systems in history have believed they were doing good.

If you're arguing that restricting political speech is safe in the hands of those who consider themselves good, you're arguing that it's fine to put it in those hands.  If you're arguing that restricting political speech you consider harmful is reasonable because you are, in fact, convinced you're actually good, then those hands are yours.

Whereas for you the process is a moral question in of itself, yes?

At risk of destroying the rhetorical momentum of this post, and not "engaging directly": huh?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

This is pretty much all too long to read, so I'll just pop this link here. Probably not the best source, but whatever.

[dead0man]

hxstory.....what idiots.

[DC Al Fine]

From up north:

Campus radicals at the University of Alberta have taken to vandalizing a pro-life groups booths at campus events, disrupting the speakers they invite etc. In response, the administration has charged the pro-life group a $17,500 security fee.

What a great lesson for our democracy.

[This account no longer in use.]

This is pretty much all too long to read, so I'll just pop this link here. Probably not the best source, but whatever.

Now that's absolutely ridiculous. If you want to try to do something for feminism or egalitarianism, work hard and get a good job. Don't f---ing try to ban words from the English language just because they have the letters "his" in them.

[dead0man]

From up north:

Campus radicals at the University of Alberta have taken to vandalizing a pro-life groups booths at campus events, disrupting the speakers they invite etc. In response, the administration has charged the pro-life group a $17,500 security fee.

What a great lesson for our democracy.

I wonder what would happen if the local 1%ers chapter up there decided to pull security for them.  I hear they work for beer.  The Rolling Stones can be used as a reference.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

My claim is about troubling, broad philosophical beliefs about pluralism among university students and their broader cohort.  I offer to show you a poll on that.  You're arguing we should instead look at...anecdotal evidence of...something?

Well in order to comment on a social phenomenon we probably need to be sure that it is real, don't we?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You've misunderstood me. That was not a criticism or an attack. I'm observing that we are going round in circles here and am speculating as to why this might be because I don't think either of us is engaging in deliberate obfuscation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well you wrote 'poll' and I so I made some assumptions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have there been many cases of this happening? Though normally speakers are booked for an event before it is clear if there is an audience.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm arguing that thats the position that most people seem to take, to one extent or other, no matter how they phrase it. That the process is just process to them; technicalities. And that even when it is claimed that this is not so, actually, it pretty much always is (like a lot of the people crying foul about a lot of this studenty nonsense are quite happy to have State crackdowns on speech in other contexts. Which... er... many of those students are not happy with. Lawd). Whereas your concern is with the process, which (again) I observe that you see in essentially moral terms.

[dead0man]

(like a lot of the people crying foul about a lot of this studenty nonsense are quite happy to have State crackdowns on speech in other contexts. Which... er... many of those students are not happy with. Lawd).

bull sh**t

[Mr. Reactionary]

(like a lot of the people crying foul about a lot of this studenty nonsense are quite happy to have State crackdowns on speech in other contexts. Which... er... many of those students are not happy with. Lawd).

bull sh**t

[dead0man]

link - WaPo
Somebody threw a tequila party, tiny sombreros were worn.  Clearly that's a huge violation of somebody's civil rights so heads need to roll.  Administrators at colleges are little babies, afraid of perpetual victims.  My favorite part.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

**update**

Safe spaces are being provided by the University for those traumatized by the tiny sombreros.  I hope it's enough for them to overcome the severe emotional pain.

[Alcon]

Well in order to comment on a social phenomenon we probably need to be sure that it is real, don't we?

Like, I don't know, with a random, representative poll that directly asks people about their attitudes toward pluralism and free speech?

You've misunderstood me. That was not a criticism or an attack. I'm observing that we are going round in circles here and am speculating as to why this might be because I don't think either of us is engaging in deliberate obfuscation.

How did I misunderstand you?  You said you're "not sure if either of us are directly engaging."  I asked how I could possibly "directly engage" you more than directly responding to your statements and apparent rebuttals of mine.  It doesn't matter if it's a criticism or an observation...it's just not accurate.

Well you wrote 'poll' and I so I made some assumptions.

What assumptions did you make?  A "poll" is synonymous with "survey."  You then made some extremely vague criticisms of surveying, and advocated -- apparently -- for (apparently) looking at some unspecified anecdotal evidence instead.

Have there been many cases of this happening? Though normally speakers are booked for an event before it is clear if there is an audience.

Attempts to shut down speaking events because they were considered offensive or "too dangerous to be heard"?  Yes.  It even happened several times at my undergraduate.  Public research shows that our generational cohort is broadly sympathetic to the idea that speech (even political speech) can be restricted due to harm.  Additionally, there are a lot of people with an ideological conviction that oppressed causes can leverage whatever power they have -- including shouting people down or restricting political speech -- in order to try to combat their oppression.

It seems like a pretty big proportion of universities have had at least one student-led attempt to shut down or preempt a speaker who they didn't want to be heard, despite the existence of interest.

Regardless of how common this is -- and I think, in various scales, it's somewhat common -- can you not agree that it's screwed up?

I'm arguing that thats the position that most people seem to take, to one extent or other, no matter how they phrase it. That the process is just process to them; technicalities. And that even when it is claimed that this is not so, actually, it pretty much always is (like a lot of the people crying foul about a lot of this studenty nonsense are quite happy to have State crackdowns on speech in other contexts. Which... er... many of those students are not happy with. Lawd).

How is that any different from what I'm arguing against?

Whereas your concern is with the process, which (again) I observe that you see in essentially moral terms.

In what sense am I investing moral significance in the "process" (I'm assuming "the process" refers to unpoliticized pluralism)?  I don't think that's an inherent moral good in itself.  Rather, I think that politicizing the process has incredibly dangerous consequences -- that's not attaching moral significance to the process, any more than saying that anything is a good or bad idea is doing so.  Either way...why does it matter?  What are you trying to argue here?  I don't get the point of the observation you're making at all.

[dead0man]

Regardless of how common this is -- and I think, in various scales, it's somewhat common -- can you not agree that it's screwed up?

They don't agree, that's why they are here deflecting.

[Alcon]

Regardless of how common this is -- and I think, in various scales, it's somewhat common -- can you not agree that it's screwed up?

They don't agree, that's why they are here deflecting.

It always sucks to have someone hear a different argument than you're actually saying, so I don't think it's fair to presume that's the case.  Al hasn't said that explicitly, and I'm too confused about the meaning of his last couple of paragraphs to figure out what he's saying implicitly.

[dead0man]

Maybe you're right, hopefully you are.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The point is (and this is coming from someone who generally does speak in favour of Mr or Mrs Unpleasant coming to soeak if a society wants them is, on the rare chance I bother with student politics) is that it doesn't matter. People as a whole have never been in favour of "free speech" in the absolute form - although people as a whole probably think they are . Talking about it as if it's some crazy new anti-free speech trend perpetuated by dem PC JOOS is laughable paranoia.

[The Last Northerner]

Source with another interesting link.

[Bigby]

Source with another interesting link.

I find it odd how Millennials are the most likely to support free speech restriction, yet support for restrictions DECREASES with more and more college education.

[dead0man]

The point is (and this is coming from someone who generally does speak in favour of Mr or Mrs Unpleasant coming to soeak if a society wants them is, on the rare chance I bother with student politics) is that it doesn't matter. People as a whole have never been in favour of "free speech" in the absolute form - although people as a whole probably think they are . Talking about it as if it's some crazy new anti-free speech trend perpetuated by dem PC JOOS is laughable paranoia.

Maybe, so what's the harm in us making fun of it?  I mock attacks on free speech wherever they come from.  From social conservatives in American like Al Gore wanting to censor my Anthrax or social conservatives in the Middle East that want to censor me from drawing pictures of their silly prophet.  Or whiny children that don't want anybody to hear an opinion different from theirs.  They're all wrong, they all deserve to be made fun of and everybody that favors free speech should rub whatever stupid thing they fear in their face every chance they get until these people grow up.  Al Gore is just as big of a baby as some idiot beardo in Damascus who is just as big of a baby as the hipster trying to fit in at college by joining BDS.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

You would think in a forum that is partially dedicated to the science of polling would know when not to draw a spurious conclusion based on polling that uses specific language to tease out an answer.

[dead0man]

Was that meant for this thread?

[dead0man]

Meanwhile at the University of Arizona...