Censoring White Supremacy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2017, 12:52 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(24-08-2017 12:44 PM)Emma Wrote:  
(23-08-2017 11:28 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  If it's true good. With the Milo shit, everyone applauded -- but that was a huge mistake for the campus to do that. Colleges are the one place that all kinds of discussion should be allowed and if possible counter arguments presented.

Later, when they said "No thanks your invite is cancelled" to Dawkins (because of his criticism of Islam). I think people took pause. At least that's what I hope happened.

I still disagree with this one- with basically the same logic that applies here. Milo intentionally used his platform in a way that created a very real physical threat to marginalized people.

Controversial words created a literal physical threat?

More Min Gee Ziss
[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 12:56 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2017 01:03 PM by Emma.)
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(24-08-2017 12:52 PM)TSG Wrote:  
(24-08-2017 12:44 PM)Emma Wrote:  I still disagree with this one- with basically the same logic that applies here. Milo intentionally used his platform in a way that created a very real physical threat to marginalized people.

Controversial words created a literal physical threat?

Controversial words resulted in an environment where a student was not safe to continue to attend a school, in one instance.

Edit: We had a whole thread on this- so rather than dig this issue up all over again in this thread, I'll find and link that old thread.

Edit2: Here's that old thread. Y'all have fun with it! Tongue http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ence-Again
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Emma's post
24-08-2017, 12:58 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(24-08-2017 12:56 PM)Emma Wrote:  
(24-08-2017 12:52 PM)TSG Wrote:  Controversial words created a literal physical threat?

Controversial words resulted in an environment where a student was not safe to continue to attend a school, in one instance.

That sucks. Got a link to the story?

More Min Gee Ziss
[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 01:04 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(24-08-2017 12:44 PM)Emma Wrote:  
(23-08-2017 11:28 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  If it's true good. With the Milo shit, everyone applauded -- but that was a huge mistake for the campus to do that. Colleges are the one place that all kinds of discussion should be allowed and if possible counter arguments presented.

Later, when they said "No thanks your invite is cancelled" to Dawkins (because of his criticism of Islam). I think people took pause. At least that's what I hope happened.

I still disagree with this one- with basically the same logic that applies here. Milo intentionally used his platform in a way that created a very real physical threat to marginalized people.

I'm not arguing that. He was invited by a group, his appearance was approved. College campuses are exactly the place where his kinda shit should be shot down, by better arguments (not by violence and bullshit like that because all that proves is that the people that do that shit, get their way). In his case the college had no choice but to cancel his appearance because of violence and threats of more violence.

The University didn't have to approve him (likewise, he didn't have to be invited in the first place). Maybe that's the plan Berkeley has, to improve the vetting process so people like that won't be approved to begin with? That way they don't have cancel speakers. They just won't be invited.

Berkeley invited Dawkins, and later rescinded the invite because some people believed that his words about Islam might hurt muslim feelings.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
24-08-2017, 01:10 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(24-08-2017 12:58 PM)TSG Wrote:  
(24-08-2017 12:56 PM)Emma Wrote:  Controversial words resulted in an environment where a student was not safe to continue to attend a school, in one instance.

That sucks. Got a link to the story?

Posted in my comment above. I know I'm not likely to change your mind on that issue, but imo, the same logic applies to the subject of this thread.

Ideas need a platform to be disseminated. And they need a platform to be challenged. Any particular private organization should not be forced to cater to one side of an idea or another side.

This is not true of people themselves, in theory, though it's people that get blocked from platforms because they are the ones that deliver and espouse ideas. A person doesn't get denied service/platforms because they are a white supremacist, they get denied because they use that service/platform in a particularly egregious way. In that way it's different than say, denying service to a gay person at a bakery.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 01:11 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(24-08-2017 01:04 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(24-08-2017 12:44 PM)Emma Wrote:  I still disagree with this one- with basically the same logic that applies here. Milo intentionally used his platform in a way that created a very real physical threat to marginalized people.

I'm not arguing that. He was invited by a group, his appearance was approved. College campuses are exactly the place where his kinda shit should be shot down, by better arguments (not by violence and bullshit like that because all that proves is that the people that do that shit, get their way). In his case the college had no choice but to cancel his appearance because of violence and threats of more violence.

The University didn't have to approve him (likewise, he didn't have to be invited in the first place). Maybe that's the plan Berkeley has, to improve the vetting process so people like that won't be approved to begin with? That way they don't have cancel speakers. They just won't be invited.

Berkeley invited Dawkins, and later rescinded the invite because some people believed that his words about Islam might hurt muslim feelings.

I see. When you put it like that, I do agree with you, absolutely. It's a campus's failure to vet the speaker that was the biggest problem. They can, and should, provide platforms for controversial ideas. But they really need to be careful about who they pick to deliver those ideas and be aware of the tactics that they use.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 01:30 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2017 01:35 PM by Szuchow.)
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(23-08-2017 11:28 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Colleges are the one place that all kinds of discussion should be allowed and if possible counter arguments presented.


Universities are places of learning not arenas for idiocy to spread. Inviting "controversial" figures like people promoting ideas of ancient Poles fighthing with Roman legions* serves only to add unearned splendor to proponents of above mentioned absurdities - such ideas can't be really refuted as if someone is stupid enough to believe them then no reasoned argument will work. It's like religion in a way.

I don't see problem with controversial views on Universities but there is difference between being controversial and dumb as bag of rocks. Goldhagen and his book about Germans being willing executioners was controversial.



*Idiocy about ancient origins of pre-Poles I guess are sadly becoming more common. Seems that when country lacks real success some must be invented.

Edit: Don't know about this Milo guy so I used different example.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Szuchow's post
24-08-2017, 09:19 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2017 09:22 PM by jerry mcmasters.)
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(24-08-2017 12:44 PM)Emma Wrote:  I still disagree with this one- with basically the same logic that applies here. Milo intentionally used his platform in a way that created a very real physical threat to marginalized people.

But what does that mean to create a "very real physical threat to marginalized people"? If he literally threatens violence, then I'm with you. But otherwise it gets slippery, almost any criticism of an idea or a belief, whether left or right, could be interpreted as an incitement to violence. Who gets to make the interpretation?

EDIT: Nevermind. When I started typing this, the conversation was about ten posts younger...I gotta think faster...

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 09:38 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(24-08-2017 09:19 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
(24-08-2017 12:44 PM)Emma Wrote:  I still disagree with this one- with basically the same logic that applies here. Milo intentionally used his platform in a way that created a very real physical threat to marginalized people.

But what does that mean to create a "very real physical threat to marginalized people"? If he literally threatens violence, then I'm with you. But otherwise it gets slippery, almost any criticism of an idea or a belief, whether left or right, could be interpreted as an incitement to violence. Who gets to make the interpretation?

I think that's what the courts are supposed to do. Isn't that what we pay them for? If not that, what?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
25-08-2017, 05:18 AM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
I don't really know how censorship works online.

I was under the impression that I can easily search for lots of hate group propaganda if I want to, even if it's a group like ISIS.

Personally I think censorship should only be applied on child pornography or when people are using the internet in some way to organise crime.

I worry about all other sorts of censorship for reasons mentioned in the first post.

I don't think censoring a groups website actually does that much even if it's hate speech.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: