Chilling Orwellianism at NYU

[Khendraja'aro]

Exactly. I thought this was a standard "snowflakes on college campuses" piece after that sentence. And then the author went in the completely opposite direction.

The author's standard for free speech is "does the speech have inherent value", a highly subjective standard that is prone to misuse by those in power. That's a quite ironic position to take for a post-modernist, an ideology that emphasizes attempts by those in power to limit speech.

He claims free speech should be balanced with the need to allow everyone to "participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community". I have no idea what that means other than no group should be offended by the speech.

Are those really the standards you'd want for free speech? There's no mention of violence of any kind, probably because the author is defending violence against those voicing "inappropriate" views.

I actually had discussions here over what would happen if one of the campus groups invited someone like Coulter or Milo. My position was it would be stupid from the point of view of that organization, because these people don't contribute to any coherent political or ideological debate (similar to the point made by the author of this piece), but that these people should nevertheless be allowed to speak because it is not the government's role (we're a public college) to decide what kind of speech has "value." To put it another way, there would be no violation of academic freedom to prevent these people from coming, but there would be from the position of free speech. That means that a private college should feel free to reject them (non-government institutions can't stifle free speech, by definition), but not a public one.

Sorry, dude, but I don't put any value in hate speech. And I don't care too much about the "Free speech trumps all" notion.

If you want to gas Jews you don't deserve a public podium. Period.

This "free speech" notion is exactly the reason why the right-wingers are on the rise once again - they're allowed to lie and give voice to atrocities. Nope. Not having it. As soon as as you openly and consciously spout forth hate speech and lies, you lose your right to an open podium.

[Loki]

Sorry, dude, but I don't put any value in hate speech. And I don't care too much about the "Free speech trumps all" notion.

If you want to gas Jews you don't deserve a public podium. Period.

This "free speech" notion is exactly the reason why the right-wingers are on the rise once again - they're allowed to lie and give voice to atrocities. Nope. Not having it. As soon as as you openly and consciously spout forth hate speech and lies, you lose your right to an open podium.

You use the term "hate speech" far too liberally. Saying something offensive isn't hate speech. Saying something that doesn't take the experiences of certain groups into account isn't hate speech. Making shit up isn't hate speech. And yet that's the kind of speech that people are trying to restrict.

If anything, the attempt to suppress speech is what leads to the rise of populism, when new politicians can attack the establishment for suppressing traditional views.

Coulter cites statistics when she talks about negative outcomes of single motherhood. If you love children you should discourage people from doing things that contribute to poorer life outcomes for them. That's offensive to some people so the facts about it don't get out. She sheds light on it.

Furthermore you don't seem to understand that an argument cannot rest solely on facts. Facts are CRITICAL to 'winning' the debate or pushing forward your perspective however if it is just dry facts you will have no audience. Humor, interesting stories, personalizing the situation with the audience are all things people do to get and then maintain attention. I've read the Road to Serfdom and I've read Coulter, Hayek is boring as shit even though I pretty much agree with his ideas. How you present information is massively important. The idea that college shouldn't talk about the very real way people discuss and promote ideas is absurd. Academia should prepare people for the real world, and in the real world that is a big deal.

She cites them grossly out of context and conveniently leaves out data that contradicts her neat narrative, something any reasonably informed person would spot. Of course her audience aren't the reasonably informed. As for her arguments being persuasive: to who? She preaches to the converted. Universities aren't the places to learn how to be deceitful; plenty of other places to pick up that skill.

[Lewkowski]

She cites them grossly out of context and conveniently leaves out data that contradicts her neat narrative, something any reasonably informed person would spot. Of course her audience aren't the reasonably informed. As for her arguments being persuasive: to who? She preaches to the converted. Universities aren't the places to learn how to be deceitful; plenty of other places to pick up that skill.

Oh come on, you know my argument was about making an emotional connection with an audience and not about trying to lie to them. That is an actual key skill in personal and business life and the idea that you should remove everything but facts from a discussion is nonsense.

[Lewkowski]

Sorry, dude, but I don't put any value in hate speech. And I don't care too much about the "Free speech trumps all" notion.

If you want to gas Jews you don't deserve a public podium. Period.

This "free speech" notion is exactly the reason why the right-wingers are on the rise once again - they're allowed to lie and give voice to atrocities. Nope. Not having it. As soon as as you openly and consciously spout forth hate speech and lies, you lose your right to an open podium.

Who decides what is a lie and what is truth? The government? I'd be wary about giving governments that much power. Especially German governments, honestly.