My take on this is pretty straightforward.
Violence and speech are not interchangeable terms.
Speech is to be answered with speech.
Violence may be answered with violence.
Anyone. left or right, who follows these guidelines may do as they please as far as I am concerned.
There is no such thing as unlimited tolerance, so the only remaining question is how much tolerance is allowed, and the answer is always “until the system that grants tolerance itself is in danger”.
It was a nice horse, a hard working horse, but it’s dead now and I shan’t whip it any more.
There’s several problems with this but I do agree with you that speech isn’t physical violence. But that I do think that speech can create environments or act as justifications for violence (emotive and rational). Which means I think as private citizens that defending such speech which condones harm against minorities should be privately censored. Yes, I said privately censored. No one is owed a platform in the private sphere and to fret over whether or not hosting /pol/-clones is going to lead to some chilling of speech is irrelevant as such rights to privately censor are respected both in law and in social norms. Conservatives are being hypocritical here since they constantly demand platforms to allow either themselves or others to speak while demanding property rights (which would preclude the former) on the other. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Why not? They’re just totally non-racist Real Americans™ expressing their economic grievances with the Coastal Elites. Why else would they have voted for a grifting NYC billionaire who constantly assures them that he’ll bring America back to the days when white entitlement was the norm? It’s not like the president* is calling white supremacists and Confederate revanchists “fine people” (which of course they are: saying anything else about these well-known pacifists would be intolerant).
I do think that publicly owned spaces (such as public university campuses) are not in the “private sphere” but other than that you are absolutely correct.
Harvard I believe is self-funded and the same for many religious colleges and universities. So my point still stands. Also, state universities I think still should have veto rights on all appearances if they can’t fund security or the people appearing refuse to put a bond on their appearance as insurance (that goes for even the likes of Marilyn Manson or whomever is the nominally left shock music artist).
And that’s the heckler’s veto, which I oppose. I think we are agreed in almost every other venue, though.
I never really understood the expression “living in someone’s head”. But I think I am living in yours.
It doesn’t matter. The fact is there’s property and lives at risk and the US is built on litigating such situations to death. Unless conservatives are willing to pay for higher taxes to fund public universities then they should refuse any appearance that leads to property damage on and off campus. They’re the ones who have to take the insurance hit and therefore are being forced to subsidize inflammatory jackwagons. I go by the TANSTAAFL metric on this. If you can’t pay then don’t play.
But that makes the argument that what conservative students should do is to threaten liberal speakers with enough mayhem that those speakers get disinvited, too. This is exactly the opposite of what should be…
Even here, although to hear those who decry the Muting script as “censorship” and “bubble-creating” you wouldn’t know it. Not co-incidently those who complain the most also tend to be the most Muted due to their constant bad-faith arguments that offer very little value to the site.
Still, it’s fun watching others knock down their straw-man arguments.
In Galt’s Gulch you can. Heck, in that government-free paradise you don’t even need to grow the wheat to make the cake.
Again, that’s wishful thinking in the current funding environment. If you want free speech then actually fund the universities such that they can afford security guards. Concerts often have to pay through the nose to get some venues because they have to pay for security just in case some drunken douches get out of hand. You can’t fool around with public engagements. I really wish there were some pixie dust we could sprinkle on this problem but the fact remains security costs MONEY. And it’s money conservatives refuse to allocate. If they want a secure environment which speakers won’t get lynched then they need to cough up the cash in the federal or state legislatures rather than waggling their fingers anytime people do the violent things that people naturally do. Live in the world as it is and not as you wish to be is my point.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
