Topic: Free Speech threatens Liberalism and must be destroyed!
ShitArse !saAqdaazn2 started this discussion 12 years ago #33,764
> Harvard senior Sandra KoRn says Free Speech is a threat to liberalism.
> Says university should stop granting the right for teachers and students to discuss controversial views.
> “If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?” asked Korn in her column.
Sauce: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/23/harvard-writer-free-speech-threatens-liberalism-and-must-be-destroyed/
The article itself: http://www.thecrimson.com/column/the-red-line/article/2014/2/18/academic-freedom-justice/?page=single#
> Says university should stop granting the right for teachers and students to discuss controversial views.
> “If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?” asked Korn in her column.
Sauce: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/23/harvard-writer-free-speech-threatens-liberalism-and-must-be-destroyed/
The article itself: http://www.thecrimson.com/column/the-red-line/article/2014/2/18/academic-freedom-justice/?page=single#
Metæ !PARAdoxiHw joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 18 minutes later[^] [v] #466,771
This is not terribly surprising. It's not "let's use knowledge and reason to prove racists wrong" (its not like she's a senior at Harvard or anything) it's "let's ban anything that doesn't toe the party line". This is dark ages thinking.
> Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.
Science by mob rule. Perhaps they'll reintroduce burning at the stake for heretics.
> Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.
Science by mob rule. Perhaps they'll reintroduce burning at the stake for heretics.
dBm !pVJ9q9g4BE joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #466,775
I'm pretty sure that free speech is a core tenet of actual liberalism, so the person in question is... actually, there's a fuck of a lot wrong with this all.
As far as I'm concerned, free speech means free criticism. That's my primary stance on the issue.
As far as I'm concerned, free speech means free criticism. That's my primary stance on the issue.
McStinkyNigger !dBGi/iH4eY joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #466,778
@previous (dBm !pVJ9q9g4BE)
Exactly. And while I might not like your opinions, I'll fight to make sure you can keep your opinions.
Exactly. And while I might not like your opinions, I'll fight to make sure you can keep your opinions.
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #466,779
closet conservative trying to keep her liberal job and have her conservative cake too.
Metæ !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #466,780
Kittydragon !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #466,791
@466,778 (McStinkyNigger !dBGi/iH4eY)
I'm not too concerned about legal rights pertaining to expression, as they're already immensely conditional. Like, I'm not gonna fight specifically to defend free speech for some specific fascist blowhard, but it's... well, speech is a tool, and I'll use it to confront harmful uses of it!
I'm not too concerned about legal rights pertaining to expression, as they're already immensely conditional. Like, I'm not gonna fight specifically to defend free speech for some specific fascist blowhard, but it's... well, speech is a tool, and I'll use it to confront harmful uses of it!
McStinkyNigger !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 12 years ago, 26 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #466,792
@previous (Kittydragon !!beW+FQoWB)
You should fight for their rights, if only so you can vocally refute them.
You should fight for their rights, if only so you can vocally refute them.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #466,802
OP sounds upset
ShitArse !saAqdaazn2 (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #466,813
Anonymous F replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #466,815
ShitArse !saAqdaazn2 (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #466,818
@previous (F)
So you dropped your name (Kittydragon) so you could anonymously spam some used up memes at me. I think you're too sensitive, calm down dear.
So you dropped your name (Kittydragon) so you could anonymously spam some used up memes at me. I think you're too sensitive, calm down dear.
Metæ !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 12 years ago, 15 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #466,819
@466,813 (ShitArse !saAqdaazn2)
Syntax claims to have invented namedropping while he was advising Louis XIV on income equality policy.
Syntax claims to have invented namedropping while he was advising Louis XIV on income equality policy.
McStinkyNigger !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 12 years ago, 40 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #466,820
@466,818 (ShitArse !saAqdaazn2)
Now now, before you go making yourself a fool, Joe DDM does not go anon like that.
Now now, before you go making yourself a fool, Joe DDM does not go anon like that.
Metæ !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #466,821
@previous (McStinkyNigger !dBGi/iH4eY)
I'm not technically supposed to reveal this, but every anon is actually JoeDDM.
I'm not technically supposed to reveal this, but every anon is actually JoeDDM.
ShitArse !saAqdaazn2 (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 34 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #466,822
@466,820 (McStinkyNigger !dBGi/iH4eY)
> Now now, before you go making yourself a fool, Joe DDM does not go anon like that.
I'm not up to date on the name of the community here. Joe DDM is dBm I think... ~The social justice furry. Is he also kittydragon?
> Now now, before you go making yourself a fool, Joe DDM does not go anon like that.
I'm not up to date on the name of the community here. Joe DDM is dBm I think... ~The social justice furry. Is he also kittydragon?
McStinkyNigger !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #466,824
ShitArse !saAqdaazn2 (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #466,826
Joe DDM !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 20 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #466,827
@466,813 (ShitArse !saAqdaazn2)
Huh?
@466,815 (F)
No, I'm beta.
@466,818 (ShitArse !saAqdaazn2)
What?
@466,820 (McStinkyNigger !dBGi/iH4eY)
Yeah, pretty much.
@466,821 (Metæ !PARAdoxiHw)
;3
@466,822 (ShitArse !saAqdaazn2)
Jody = Joe DDM = Athina = Tatsu = Kakubunretsu = dBm = kittydragon.
@previous (ShitArse !saAqdaazn2)
I just do.
Huh?
@466,815 (F)
No, I'm beta.
@466,818 (ShitArse !saAqdaazn2)
What?
@466,820 (McStinkyNigger !dBGi/iH4eY)
Yeah, pretty much.
@466,821 (Metæ !PARAdoxiHw)
;3
@466,822 (ShitArse !saAqdaazn2)
Jody = Joe DDM = Athina = Tatsu = Kakubunretsu = dBm = kittydragon.
@previous (ShitArse !saAqdaazn2)
I just do.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 42 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #466,830
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 14 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #466,835
shut the fuck up faggot
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 6 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #466,989
@466,821 (Metæ !PARAdoxiHw)picture related
@466,826 (ShitArse !saAqdaazn2)
trying to run from his past faggotry while still keeping his namefag creds? its pretty safe to say furrys and reality dont like each other
(Edited 52 seconds later.)
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 20 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #466,991
I had an opinion. I was going to post, but...
This looked like an interesting topic, but it turned into autistics arguing about autism.
Have fun guys!
This looked like an interesting topic, but it turned into autistics arguing about autism.
Have fun guys!
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 12 years ago, 15 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #466,993
@previous (J)
> but it turned into autistics arguing about autism
welcome to minichan, do you want an ass-mint on your pillow?
> but it turned into autistics arguing about autism
welcome to minichan, do you want an ass-mint on your pillow?
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 3 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #467,002
> Sandra KoRn
She named herself after a shit band. Wow, what an unbelievably stupid thing for a fat ugly usi-ridden annoying piece of shit to do.
She named herself after a shit band. Wow, what an unbelievably stupid thing for a fat ugly usi-ridden annoying piece of shit to do.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 15 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #467,125
Did any of you read the Korn article? She's arguing against liberalism's fondness of "academic freedom" in favor of what she calls "academic justice", or the restriction of free speech.
Apparently the Daily Caller misread the article. Great job, knuckle draggers!
Apparently the Daily Caller misread the article. Great job, knuckle draggers!
Metæ !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 12 years ago, 40 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #467,127
@previous (L)
I read both the Daily Caller and the original article, and the Daily Caller was about right in its summary.
Another great quote:
Last week, Erin Ching, a sophomore at Swarthmore College, took a similar view when she criticized her university for committing the unforgivable crime of allowing a conservative — Christian thinker Robert George — to speak on campus.
“What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion,” she said, according to the Daily Gazette. “I don’t think we should be tolerating [George’s] conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society.”
By diversity of opinion I guess she means "people who agree with me". Where would the liberal arts be without freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of action?
I read both the Daily Caller and the original article, and the Daily Caller was about right in its summary.
Another great quote:
Last week, Erin Ching, a sophomore at Swarthmore College, took a similar view when she criticized her university for committing the unforgivable crime of allowing a conservative — Christian thinker Robert George — to speak on campus.
“What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion,” she said, according to the Daily Gazette. “I don’t think we should be tolerating [George’s] conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society.”
By diversity of opinion I guess she means "people who agree with me". Where would the liberal arts be without freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of action?
dw ltd llc joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #467,128
way to write articles about like two stupid ass students
weird as hell this is what people write about
weird as hell this is what people write about
Anonymous G replied with this 12 years ago, 16 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #467,181
@467,125 (L)
The very same argument is used against global warming/climate change deniers and HIV=AIDS denialists. The technique has been in use for thousands of years. I can't imagine why this would shock anyone.
Basically it's religious dogma reemerging as some scientific/intellectual elite imperative; what we WANT to be true is far more important than open debate about what may or may not be true. And besides, even if we're wrong, doing the opposite of what WE WANT is guaranteed to be catastrophic to the collective, so you're automatically evil and WE don't need to prove shit.
The very same argument is used against global warming/climate change deniers and HIV=AIDS denialists. The technique has been in use for thousands of years. I can't imagine why this would shock anyone.
Basically it's religious dogma reemerging as some scientific/intellectual elite imperative; what we WANT to be true is far more important than open debate about what may or may not be true. And besides, even if we're wrong, doing the opposite of what WE WANT is guaranteed to be catastrophic to the collective, so you're automatically evil and WE don't need to prove shit.
(Edited 1 minute later.)