"Ban Free Speech Because Muh Feelings" Tucker Carlson DESTROYS Liberal Professor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63lICclWM-k

I could not stop laughing at how hypocritical this regressive Professor is.

She is right out of Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy in America (1834), in the chapter titled, "The Tyranny of the Majority".  The thesis was picked up in the late 20th century by Herbert Marcuse, in several books, but particularly, Critique of Pure Tolerance (1965).

You can see it in the comparison with free economic theory: as we found out with the golden age days, free economics eventually reduces to monopoly.  Thus, in this country, they came up with the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act.

By comparison, a freemarket of ideas also eventually reduces to a monopoly.  For example, in this country love of laissez-faire capitalism has had the effect of squeezing out socialism...it's the reason why the US has no NHS like the UK, Canada or OZ. This is what Toqueville called the "Tyranny of the Majority," for which Marcuse suggested "repressive tolerance".  I happen to have a copy right here: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

But putting the lid on capitalism is much easier than putting the lid on free thought.  Granted, both distill down to the "established" (wealthy or thought), but the problem with prohibiting some ideas is, which ones?  Capitalists record their holdings, but thinkers rarely do.

Original Quill wrote:She is right out of Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy in America (1834), in the chapter known titled, "The Tyranny of the Majority".  The thesis was picked up in the late 20th century by Herbert Marcuse, in several books, but particularly, Critique of Pure Tolerance (1965).

You can see it in the comparison with free economic theory: as we found out with the golden age days, free economics eventually reduces to monopoly.  Thus, in this country, they came up with the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act.

By comparison, a freemarket of ideas also eventually reduces to a monopoly.  This is what Toqueville called the "Tyranny of the Majority," for which Marcuse suggested "repressive tolerance".  I happen to have a copy right here: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

But putting the lid on capitalism is much easier than putting the lid on free thought.  Granted, both distill down to the "established" (wealthy or thought), but the problem with prohibiting some ideas is, which ones?  Capitalists record their holdings, but thinkers rarely do.

Errr we are talking about Free speech and not views on Capitalism Quill

Do you back her view to censer free speech based off her contradictions?

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:She is right out of Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy in America (1834), in the chapter known titled, "The Tyranny of the Majority".  The thesis was picked up in the late 20th century by Herbert Marcuse, in several books, but particularly, Critique of Pure Tolerance (1965).

You can see it in the comparison with free economic theory: as we found out with the golden age days, free economics eventually reduces to monopoly.  Thus, in this country, they came up with the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act.

By comparison, a freemarket of ideas also eventually reduces to a monopoly.  This is what Toqueville called the "Tyranny of the Majority," for which Marcuse suggested "repressive tolerance".  I happen to have a copy right here: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

But putting the lid on capitalism is much easier than putting the lid on free thought.  Granted, both distill down to the "established" (wealthy or thought), but the problem with prohibiting some ideas is, which ones?  Capitalists record their holdings, but thinkers rarely do.

Errr we are talking about Free speech and not views on Capitalism Quill

Do you back her view to censer free speech based off her contradictions?

Stretch your mind.  Reread why I brought economics into the topic.  Both free speech and free economics operate the same in the state of nature.

On your question on my acceptance of her theory of censorship, I have already given my answer in my final paragraph.  Please reread.  Also, go to Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance" for a more elaborate discussion: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

As Marcuse says in his opening remarks:

Repressive Tolerance wrote:The author is fully aware that, at present, no power, no authority, no government exists which would translate liberating tolerance into practice, but he believes that it is the task and duty of the intellectual to recall and preserve historical possibilities which seem to have become utopian possibilities--that it is his task to break the concreteness of oppression in order to open the mental space in which this society can be recognized as what it is and does.

Marcuse's repressive tolerance is the basis for many European laws prohibiting, for example, Nazi symbols and language. We've visited my feelings on that.

I dont want to have this thread misdirected to your views on Capitalism, when its about Free speech Quill

Its interesting that you bring up repressive tolerance, as how do some of the left tolerate beliefs systems that are extreme?

I back Free speech and the ability to challenge anyone who speaks, through dialogue and debate

Thorin wrote:I dont want to have this thread misdirected to your views on Capitalism, when its about Free speech Quill

It isn't misdirected.  You just have to stretch your mind in order to see the connection.  Both are forms of freedom.  Work on it.

Thorin wrote:Its interesting that you bring up repressive tolerance, as how do some of the left tolerate beliefs systems that are extreme?

Yes, it's the same discussion.  It's been going on since Toqueville published Democracy in America in 1834.  What you call "extreme" topics, are the suppressed subjects that Marcuse speaks about.  Like socialism in the US...it's considered a taboo subject.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:I dont want to have this thread misdirected to your views on Capitalism, when its about Free speech Quill

It isn't misdirected.  You just have to stretch your mind in order to see the connection.  Both are forms of freedom.  Work on it.

Thorin wrote:Its interesting that you bring up repressive tolerance, as how do some of the left tolerate beliefs systems that are extreme?

Yes, it's the same discussion.  It's been going on since Toqueville published Democracy in America in 1834.  What you call "extreme" topics, are the suppressed subjects that Marcuse speaks about.  Like socialism in the US...it's considered a taboo subject.

Its never about stretching but opening, of which the views on capitalism have no relevance here. Take that point elsewhere as its not going to be debated by me. Is that clear Quill?

So if a set of beliefs call for the punishment off homosexuals, do you tolerate these beliefs in Islam?
Do you tolerate the same beliefs in Christianity and Judaism?
Which ones do you speak out on?
So I am all for talking about suppressed subjects and all for people to be allowed to be critical of anything.
As that is free speech right?

@quill
Very interesting and I can see your point that censorship in the US and the Capitalist depravity go hand it hand under the thesis of the tyranny of the majority.
It falls back to the classic right wing political methodology of "keep'em poor keep'em uneducated to keep'em conservative".

It is different down here due to a stronger socialist political movement that prevents the keeping of the majority in near poverty with little access to education.

It is unfortunately that some people simply do not have the mental capacity to think of topic outside of their silos. they are truly detrimental to any educated debate since it is the insular view of reality that allows them to be ignorant of the obvious faults to their 'mono-outlook' on almost all topics. Reality is not in separated into silos for simpleminded dissemination, It is a complex tapestry of interrelationship and multifaceted musings that come together to give us out point in time reality

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It isn't misdirected.  You just have to stretch your mind in order to see the connection.  Both are forms of freedom.  Work on it.



Yes, it's the same discussion.  It's been going on since Toqueville published Democracy in America in 1834.  What you call "extreme" topics, are the suppressed subjects that Marcuse speaks about.  Like socialism in the US...it's considered a taboo subject.

Its never about stretching but opening, of which the views on capitalism have no relevance here. Take that point elsewhere as its not going to be debated by me. Is that clear Quill?

So if a set of beliefs call for the punishment off homosexuals, do you tolerate these beliefs in Islam?
Do you tolerate the same beliefs in Christianity and Judaism?
Which ones do you speak out on?
So I am all for talking about suppressed subjects and all for people to be allowed to be critical of anything.
As that is free speech right?

To get the debate back on topic

Didge, this is another in your campaign to resist learning. The association of free speech with a certain perniciousness in America has been a topic of conversation for 180-years. But you resist the association of free speech with free economics--a very common analogy in this discussion--for no other reason than that you didn't think of it.

Fact is, neither did I. The association was first made in legal opinions during the first half of the last century. I am merely enlarging the subject to include that part of the universal discussion.

I think you need a little self-analysis here, into why you resist any remotely innovative thinking on any subject. As a former university professor, I think I see this as the reason why you were handed a washout degree in graduate school, and sent on your way. You have this tendency to resist innovative ideas, even innovative thinking, leading to a lack of progress in your education. That's what I mean by your lack of "stretch" in your thinking. But it's not a lack of ability, but rather a stubborn 'push back' with which you meet all innovative thinking. Perhaps your ego is impeding you? Maybe you are jealous of the 'good ideas' of others?

Other professors would just dismiss you and reject your application for advancement. I am willing to at least suggest ways that will help you in the future. Whenever you are handed a new idea, don't reject it out of jealousy...consider it, just as you should consider that there are others out in the world who might have as good, even better ideas than you.

veya_victaous wrote:@quill
Very interesting and I can see your point that censorship in the US and the Capitalist depravity go hand it hand under the thesis of the tyranny of the majority.
It falls back to the classic right wing political methodology of "keep'em poor keep'em uneducated to keep'em conservative".

It is different down here due to a stronger socialist political movement that prevents the keeping of the majority in near poverty with little access to education.

It is unfortunately that some people simply do not have the mental capacity to think of topic outside of their silos. they are truly detrimental to any educated debate since it is the insular view of reality that allows them to be ignorant of the obvious faults to their 'mono-outlook' on almost all topics. Reality is not in separated into silos for simpleminded dissemination, It is a complex tapestry of interrelationship and multifaceted musings that come together to give us out point in time reality

WOW!  Well expressed.  I like your image of "silo thinking" as being the way that belief systems channel us.  

Understand, Marcuse is writing on the heels of the Nazi regime.  What he is saying (by "repressive tolerance") is, not that all thinking should be repressed, but that the main wave of social belief ought to be contained, while new ideas are nurtured and helped along their way. The greater social belief system should not be able to snowball new ideas out of the way.  Marcuse has just seen how the Nazis were able to snowball out of the way any questioning, reasoning, or any hesitation, in favor of an overwhelming wave of hatred and depravity.  That, in reality, was a Tyranny of the Majority, as Tocqueville first conceived it.

I think Professor Neilson is carrying on that idea.

Original Quill wrote:Didge, this is another in your campaign to resist learning.  The association of free speech with a certain perniciousness in America has been a topic of conversation for 180-years.  But you resist the association of free speech with free economics--a very common analogy in this discussion--for no other reason than that you didn't think of it.

This is yet another topic where Liberals have made 180 degree on free speech. Going from obtaining free speech, that they now want to shut down any speech that does not conform to their liking and again I could not give one rats arse about the economics.

It has zero relevance here and is misdirection

The rest was your usual elitism, to then say you speak for countless people.

Again you do not, so stick to the points

So do you back Free Speech or not, as she does not back Free speech?

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Didge, this is another in your campaign to resist learning.  The association of free speech with a certain perniciousness in America has been a topic of conversation for 180-years.  But you resist the association of free speech with free economics--a very common analogy in this discussion--for no other reason than that you didn't think of it.

This is yet another topic where Liberals have made 180 degree on free speech. Going from obtaining free speech, that they now want to shut down any speech that does not conform to their liking and again I could not give one rats arse about the economics.

It has zero relevance here and is misdirection

The rest was your usual elitism, to then say you speak for countless people.

Again you do not, so stick to the points

So do you back Free Speech or not, as she does not back Free speech?

Do you see what I mean? You literally fight learning. Rather than accept the possibility that there is reasoning behind Professor Neilson's position, you opt out of the discussion...and you opt into a discussion about rules, propriety and boundaries.

Why is that, didge? Are you perhaps afraid to get into a real discussion over the substance? Do you perhaps feel inadequate? Or is it that you only delve into these more weighty issues when you don't know what you are getting into...and then when you find out, you hop around like a cat on a hot tin roof, screaming about rules, propriety and boundaries.

Never mind...drop out if you can't stand the heat. Wiser men and women will take over the discussion. I'd love to discuss it further with veya. It's an important American theme, with a long standing history.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

This is yet another topic where Liberals have made 180 degree on free speech. Going from obtaining free speech, that they now want to shut down any speech that does not conform to their liking and again I could not give one rats arse about the economics.

It has zero relevance here and is misdirection

The rest was your usual elitism, to then say you speak for countless people.

Again you do not, so stick to the points

So do you back Free Speech or not, as she does not back Free speech?

Do you see what I mean?  You literally fight learning.  Rather than accept the possibility that there is reasoning behind Professor Neilson's position, you opt out of the discussion...and you opt into a discussion about rules, propriety and boundaries.

Why is that, didge?  Are you perhaps afraid to get into a real discussion over the substance?  Do you perhaps feel inadequate?  Or is it that you only delve into these more weighty issues when you don't know what you are getting into...and then when you find out, you hop around like a cat on a hot tin roof, screaming about rules, propriety and boundaries.  

Never mind...drop out if you can't stand the heat.  Wiser men and women will take over the discussion.  I'd love to discuss it further with veya.  It's an important American theme, with a long standing history.

There is no reasoning behind what she proposes, as its regressive and not progressive and its based subjectively on what people do not like. That is not learning or being open to all ideas. It seeks to stifle views and even worse tries to teach a biased view to students and to people itself.

You then yet again turn in desperation to talk about me and not the actual topic. Its you throwing up the white flag on the debate which you do constantly. Wrongly thinking you have the higher moral ground when you do not. What it means is your answer is emotionally based as you attack the poster and not their views

So if a set of beliefs call for the punishment off homosexuals, do you tolerate these beliefs in Islam?
Do you tolerate the same beliefs in Christianity and Judaism?
Which ones do you speak out on?
So I am all for talking about suppressed subjects and all for people to be allowed to be critical of anything.
As that is free speech right?

Thorin wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63lICclWM-k

I could not stop laughing at how hypocritical this regressive Professor is.

OP, does this mean there will be no more shrill hissy fits from you when people on other sites use their FREE SPEECH to say exactly what they think of you?
Genuine question.

Jules wrote:

Thorin wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63lICclWM-k

I could not stop laughing at how hypocritical this regressive Professor is.

OP, does this mean there will be no more shrill hissy fits from you when people on other sites use their FREE SPEECH to say exactly what they think of you?
Genuine question.  

Oh look another poster attacks the poster and not the points raised
I am happy or people to speak about me on other sites if they so wish, if they are so obsessed to do nothing else. I have never been against but laugh that they need to talk about me. I have literally laughed at them and been critical that they do. So how is being critical of posters having a hissy fit to you?
I mean if I am the topic of conversation over there, more than the news. It really shows how bitter and hateful those posters must be?  But then I am not the only one, Victor, Eddie, Fred, Rags and now even Eilzel has suffered from rants of abuse directed at them.

Have you defended any of the above, from abuse on there?

In your own time

Yes or no?
Simple fucking question!

Jules wrote:Yes or no?
Simple fucking question!

Maybe you should go to specsavers as i said Yes

Oh look another poster attacks the poster and not the points raised
I am happy for people to speak about me on other sites if they so wish, if they are so obsessed to do nothing else. I have never been against but laugh that they need to talk about me. I have literally laughed at them and been critical that they do. So how is being critical of posters having a hissy fit to you?
I mean if I am the topic of conversation over there, more than the news. It really shows how bitter and hateful those posters must be? But then I am not the only one, Victor, Eddie, Fred, Rags and now even Eilzel has suffered from rants of abuse directed at them.

Have you defended any of the above, from abuse on there?

Now answer my question

Next time answer a simple question with just yes... (or no). Don't answer a simple question with an essay. and don't drag in lots of other names for support.

If you weren't so self obsesed you would know that I have said I was unfairly attacked on there too, and to sassy's credit she removed the offending posts.

Jules wrote:Next time answer a simple question with just yes... (or no). Don't answer a simple question with an essay. and don't drag in lots of other names for support.

If you weren't so self obsesed you would know that I have said I was unfairly attacked on there too, and to sassy's credit she removed the offending posts.

PMSL, I will answer how I want to answer it, as its not my fault you cannot read properly.

So yet again a thread has been ruined due to the hissy fits of the regressive left. By turning this into something about posters and not the topic at hand. You cannot make it up how some deliberately try to cause disruption on here.

Hey ho


So you again avoid my question

Have you spoken out and defended Fred, Rags, Eddie, Victor Eilzel from abuse?

To get back to the general topic of freedom of speech, ......  some folks translate "freedom of speech"  as  "freedom to be as obnoxiously offensive as possible to whoever you dislike".  It's not quite the same thing, but they think it is.

So, if you are preaching universal freedom of speech on your soapbox, don't grumble when people lay into you, using the very ''freedom of speech''  excuse which you so enthusiastically espouse.


Now I am departing this hypocritical thread.

Thorin wrote:

The clip by Greg Lukianoff, of conservative Prager University, is agreeable to me.  He speaks out against political correctness and over sensitivity as being the problem.  Other Marcusians I and agree with him, and point out the issue is neither conservative nor liberal.  It's a spacial dynamic, not influenced by left or right.

The truth is that the established belief systems try to smother out alternative thoughts and ideas of all sorts.  Unfortunately, they also smother out older and waning ideas, just as society itself shunts aside the seniors of society.  But the operation is the same, dominant and prevailing belief systems tend to try to shut out weaker, nascent and promising ideas.

It’s not a leftist idea, even though your manifestation of the problem is associated with universities.  Students may be leftist, but they are not running the show.  The administrators that are running the show, want to run the university as smoothly as possible.  They are the ones who cancel appearances, not because of ideology, but because of costs.

Jules wrote:To get back to the general topic of freedom of speech, ......  some folks translate "freedom of speech"  as  "freedom to be as obnoxiously offensive as possible to whoever you dislike".  It's not quite the same thing, but they think it is.

So, if you are preaching universal freedom of speech on your soapbox, don't grumble when people lay into you, using the very ''freedom of speech''  excuse which you so enthusiastically espouse.


Now I am departing this hypocritical thread.

Which shows you do not understand what free speech is do you?

Now take your tantrums off this forum, its clear you looked intentionally to start here and have zero interest with that

So enjoy talking to yourself

@Quill

The problem does come from the regressive left and not the left per say. This is what you fail to understand and thus its not conservatives stifling learning, but those on the regressive left. You then make the worst excuses going as to why some speakers are cancelled due to costs, which is not backed by evidence but the known fact is that its based on the regresssive left. Threatening to riot, just as they did in Berkeley. If they do not like the views of the speaker.

Thorin wrote:There is no reasoning behind what she proposes, as its regressive and not progressive

Didge, you are not reasoning yourself. “Regressive”? You are using labels and catch phrases. That’s a meaningless statement.

Thorin wrote:...and its based subjectively on what people do not like. That is not learning or being open to all ideas.

Why not? Reason is not a popularity contest. You hear, you listen, you make up your own mind. Why close out new ideas?

Thorin wrote:It seeks to stifle views and even worse tries to teach a biased view to students and to people itself.

It stifles only those ideas that are stifling others. You’re the one who always wants to battle the oppressor…why not battle the oppressive, established belief system in its suppression of emerging thoughts and ideas.

Thorin wrote:So if a set of beliefs call for the punishment off homosexuals, do you tolerate these beliefs in Islam?
Do you tolerate the same beliefs in Christianity and Judaism?
Which ones do you speak out on?
So I am all for talking about suppressed subjects and all for people to be allowed to be critical of anything.
As that is free speech right?

If statements are rejected, they are rejected on their merits. The issue you have raised is, do they get heard? That's what Professor Neilson is talking about.

Original Quill wrote:
Didge, you are not reasoning yourself.  “Regressive”?  You are using labels and catch phrases.  That’s a meaningless statement.

Thorin wrote:Well what is the opposite or progressive Quill?
Regressive by any chance?
So you ignore the fact it is people with regresssive views here that seek to deny Free speech and only speech they do not like.

Why not?  Reason is not a popularity contest.  You hear, you listen, you make up your own mind.  Why close out new ideas?

Thorin wrote:But people are being denied the ability to hear and listen with people ban free speech to people they do not like. So thanks for making my point

It stifles only those ideas that are stifling others.  You’re the one who always wants to battle the oppressor…why not battle the oppressive, established belief system in its suppression of emerging thoughts and ideas.

You battle the oppressors with reason, in open debate.
I mean where do you want to draw the line on oppressors?
Those with religious conservative views preaching against homosexuals?
By then banning any preaching from the Quran, bible and Torah?

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:So if a set of beliefs call for the punishment off homosexuals, do you tolerate these beliefs in Islam?
Do you tolerate the same beliefs in Christianity and Judaism?
Which ones do you speak out on?
So I am all for talking about suppressed subjects and all for people to be allowed to be critical of anything.
As that is free speech right?

If statements are rejected, they are rejected on their merits.  The issue you have raised is, do they get heard?  That's what Professor Neilson is talking about.

They get heard every week in Mosques, churches and even schools
Now these are oppressive views preached against homosexuals
Would you suppress this free speech?
As it clearly falls under discriminatory and prejudice speech

Thorin wrote:The problem does come from the regressive left and not the left per say. This is what you fail to understand and thus its not conservatives stifling learning, but those on the regressive left.

Can you prove that?  I don’t believe it’s true.  I think you are assuming that because it comes from university campuses, and universities are bastions of leftism.  Assumption is the mother of all fook-ups.

Thorin wrote:You then make the worst excuses going as to why some speakers are cancelled due to costs, which is not backed by evidence but the known fact is that its based on the regresssive left. Threatening to riot, just as they did in Berkeley. If they do not like the views of the speaker.

My explanation is backed by precisely what the administrators say. Your own Lukianoff, said as much.  It’s up to you to prove they are untruthful.  Administrators say they are tired of booking venues, and then having the speakers back out because they are afraid or don’t like the idea of appearing before a hostile crowd.  No one is blocking them…they are afraid.

Original Quill wrote:

Can you prove that?  I don’t believe it’s true.  I think you are assuming that because it comes from university campuses, and universities are bastions of leftism.  Assumption is the mother of all fook-ups.

Thorin wrote:You have got to be kidding me, as why is it conservative speakers being denied on campus? So you are saying conservative students are behind this?
Behave Quill.

My explanation is backed by precisely what the administrators say.  It’s up to you to prove they are untruthful.  Administrators say they are tired of booking venues, and then having the speakers back out because they are afraid or don’t like the idea of appearing before a hostile crowd.  No one is blocking them…they are afraid.

No many administrators are bowing down to tantrum kids, demanding their way. Which is authoritarian.
They are shutting down any views they do no like, which shows they cannot reason against views, but seek to silence them. Your explanation is a copout excuse. As its up to you to back your claim, as the onus is on you

Thorin wrote:Which shows you do not understand what free speech is do you?

Now take your tantrums off this forum, its clear you looked intentionally to start here and have zero interest with that

So enjoy talking to yourself

Your diatribe to Jules is an example of a real 'shut up and say no more'. Jules has every right to speak here, and she makes good points.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If statements are rejected, they are rejected on their merits.  The issue you have raised is, do they get heard?  That's what Professor Neilson is talking about.

They get heard every week in Mosques, churches and even schools
Now these are oppressive views preached against homosexuals
Would you suppress this free speech?
As it clearly falls under discriminatory and prejudice speech

Still waiting or an answer Quill

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:Which shows you do not understand what free speech is do you?

Now take your tantrums off this forum, its clear you looked intentionally to start here and have zero interest with that

So enjoy talking to yourself

Your diatribe to Jules is an example of a real 'shut up and say no more'.  Jules has every right to speak here, and she makes good points.

How is that so?

Have I denied her anything?

No

I simple will not engage in her attempts to cause a fight and that things on other forums should stay there and not on here

I never said she had no right, so again you invent lies to things I have not said,  but if you want to pander to her starting be my guest, its what you always do when your arguments are shown to be flawed by me

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Can you prove that?  I don’t believe it’s true.  I think you are assuming that because it comes from university campuses, and universities are bastions of leftism.  Assumption is the mother of all fook-ups.



My explanation is backed by precisely what the administrators say.  It’s up to you to prove they are untruthful.  Administrators say they are tired of booking venues, and then having the speakers back out because they are afraid or don’t like the idea of appearing before a hostile crowd.  No one is blocking them…they are afraid.

No many administrators are bowing down to tantrum kids, demanding their way. Which is authoritarian.

They are administrating, yes. But authoritarian? No. Authoritarian would be to disallow any speech. The Free Speech Movement (FSM) and Mario Savio began against the administration. If administrators were authoritarian, they would view any speech as a threat.

Thorin wrote:They are shutting down any views they do no like, which shows they cannot reason against views, but seek to silence them. Your explanation is a copout excuse. As its up to you to back your claim, as the onus is on you

You are just restating your hypothesis. Why should we believe you? You will have to prove your claims before they can be accepted.

Original Quill wrote:

They are administrating, yes.  But authoritarian?  No.  Authoritarian would be to disallow any speech.  The Free Speech Movement (FSM) and Mario Savio began against the administration.  If administrators were authoritarian, they would view any speech as a threat.

Thorin wrote:Its the students and some teachers who are acting Authoritarian. Again case in point the Berkeley riots. The administrators are caving in to pressure from regressive students who because they do not like some views shut down speakers for other students on campus

You are just restating your hypothesis.  Why should we believe you?  You will have to prove your claims before they can be accepted.

I have easily proved my claim and you are just stalling after fail to answer my points

Nationwide: Colleges Across the Country Disinvite Commencement Speakers
Category: Free Speech 

Every year around commencement time FIRE prepares for what we call “disinvitation season,” when students and faculty members get together to demand that an invited guest speaker—usually a commencement speaker—be disinvited because they disagree with something that speaker did, said, or believes. In 2014, however, disinvitation season rose to unprecedented proportions with a wave of speakers being disinvited or pressured to withdraw from their speaking engagements. This year’s commencement controversies included professors at Rutgers University joining together to demand that former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice be disinvited as their commencement speaker, International Monetary Fund managing director Christine Lagarde backing out of her planned commencement address, Ayaan Hirsi Ali being disinvited from hers, and many others. However, FIRE’s research shows that while they get the most press around graduation time, speaker disinvitation attempts actually take place on a year-round basis.

User’s Guide to FIRE’s Disinvitation Database

June 09, 2016 | » Read More

---

[*]

List of Campus Disinvitation Attempts, 2000–2014

June 03, 2014 | » Read More

---

[*]

New FIRE Report: ‘Disinvitations’ Skyrocketing

May 28, 2014 | » Read More

---

[*]

Disinvitation Report 2014 Infographic

May 28, 2014 | » Read More

---

[*]

Disinvitation Report 2014: A Disturbing 15-Year Trend

May 28, 2014 | » Read More

Thorin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

They get heard every week in Mosques, churches and even schools
Now these are oppressive views preached against homosexuals
Would you suppress this free speech?
As it clearly falls under discriminatory and prejudice speech

Still waiting or an answer Quill

It's irrelevant. You are not following the discussion. You are reaching down into the issues of free speech, not dealing with the freedom of speech itself.

What Professor Neilson is saying is, established belief systems shunt out less powerful ideas. You want to argue the ideas themselves. If that's the case, start a thread with that as the title. Don't bullshit people into discussing your diatribe against Muslims. It's boring as well as ignorantly bigoted.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

They are administrating, yes.  But authoritarian?  No.  Authoritarian would be to disallow any speech.  The Free Speech Movement (FSM) and Mario Savio began against the administration.  If administrators were authoritarian, they would view any speech as a threat.



You are just restating your hypothesis.  Why should we believe you?  You will have to prove your claims before they can be accepted.

I have easily proved my claim and you are just stalling after fail to answer my points

I'm waiting to hear. Prove why what the administrators say is untrue.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Still waiting or an answer Quill

It's irrelevant.  You are not following the discussion.  You are reaching down into the issues of free speech, not dealing with the freedom of speech itself.

What Professor Neilson is saying is, established belief systems shunt out less powerful ideas.  You want to argue the ideas themselves.  If that's the case, start a thread with that as the title.  Don't bullshit people into discussing your diatribe against Muslims.  It's boring as well as ignorantly bigoted.

Its very relevant and as seen I knew you would avoid answering as it makes for an awkward situation.
You then  turn this about me, when this is my thread and I combat ideas and beliefs.
You then bring up Muslims, when nobody did.
So you yet again lie.
You see its you trying to shut down any discussion of poor beliefs. Which is odd, that you are happy to do so when it comes to talking about conservatism, but not religious conservatism

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I have easily proved my claim and you are just stalling after fail to answer my points

I'm waiting to hear.  Prove why what the administrators say is untrue.

lol the onus is on you as its you claiming this off the administrators claiming cost 

So best you put up your evidence

What they generally actually do is cancel speakers due to safety concerns, generally due to Antifa, a leftist group causing riots, making it unsafe

Thorin wrote:

Jules wrote:Next time answer a simple question with just yes... (or no). Don't answer a simple question with an essay. and don't drag in lots of other names for support.

If you weren't so self obsesed you would know that I have said I was unfairly attacked on there too, and to sassy's credit she removed the offending posts.

PMSL, I will answer how I want to answer it, as its not my fault you cannot read properly.

So yet again a thread has been ruined due to the hissy fits of the regressive left. By turning this into something about posters and not the topic at hand. You cannot make it up how some deliberately try to cause disruption on here.

Hey ho


So you again avoid my question

Have you spoken out and defended Fred, Rags, Eddie, Victor Eilzel from abuse?

I don't need her to defend me thanks - her defence usually ends up with her licking the boots of the abuser anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


PMSL, I will answer how I want to answer it, as its not my fault you cannot read properly.

So yet again a thread has been ruined due to the hissy fits of the regressive left. By turning this into something about posters and not the topic at hand. You cannot make it up how some deliberately try to cause disruption on here.

Hey ho


So you again avoid my question

Have you spoken out and defended Fred, Rags, Eddie, Victor Eilzel from abuse?

I don't need her to defend me thanks - her defence usually ends up with her licking the boots of the abuser anyway.

No worries Rags, the point being made was on double standards

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm waiting to hear.  Prove why what the administrators say is untrue.

lol the onus is on you as its you claiming this off the administrators claiming cost 

So best you put up your evidence

What they generally actually do is cancel speakers due to safety concerns, generally due to Antifa, a leftist group causing riots, making it unsafe

That's stupid didge, and I'm not going to waste too much more time on you. The Administrators of these universities have given their perfectly sound reasons for refusing bookings from flaky organizations that cancel at the last minute.

If you have a counter-hypothesis, then substantiate it with evidence. Otherwise...you bore us with your non-answers.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


lol the onus is on you as its you claiming this off the administrators claiming cost 

So best you put up your evidence

What they generally actually do is cancel speakers due to safety concerns, generally due to Antifa, a leftist group causing riots, making it unsafe

That's stupid didge, and I'm not going to waste too much more time on you.  The Administrators of these universities have given their perfectly sound reasons for refusing bookings from flaky organizations that cancel at the last minute.

If you have a counter-hypothesis, then substantiate it with evidence.  Otherwise...you bore us with your non-answers.

So you made a claim and then cannot back it up, then make excuses.
You have offered zero evidence on Administrators
I have given an example where they cancelled due to safety reasons, after lefties rioted. 
You then turn this more on me as the poster and not my points. You then use the word "you" to state you also speak for others, which is comical.
Attack the points and not the poster, which you have consistently done so throughout this debate.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's stupid didge, and I'm not going to waste too much more time on you.  The Administrators of these universities have given their perfectly sound reasons for refusing bookings from flaky organizations that cancel at the last minute.

If you have a counter-hypothesis, then substantiate it with evidence.  Otherwise...you bore us with your non-answers.

So you made a claim and then cannot back it up, then make excuses.
You have offered zero evidence on Administrators
I have given an example where they cancelled due to safety reasons, after lefties rioted. 
You then turn this more on me as the poster and not my points. You then use the word "you" to state you also speak for others, which is comical.
Attack the points and not the poster, which you have consistently done so throughout this debate.

You argue like a child: Everything you say bounces of me and sticks to you.

You make claims, and you can't substantiate them.  Then you claim that you don't have to substantiate them!  Soooo...you would have us believe you are god?

It's ridiculous.  Your unsubstantiated claim is a collection of words (mostly insulting, to make them persuasive to you) until you provide proof.  You need a good course in logical positivism:

Bratinnica wrote:British philosopher A. J. Ayer presented many of the central doctrines of the positivist movement in his 1936 book, Language, Truth, and Logic. Ayer's polemical writing tried to show how the principle of verification could be used as a tool for the elimination of nonsense of every sort. In Ayer's formulation, the principle itself is a simple test:

We say that a sentence is factually significant to any given person, if and only if, [she or] he knows how to verify the proposition which it purports to express—that is, if [she or] he knows what observations would lead [her or] him, under certain conditions, to accept the proposition as being true, or reject it as being false.

Like the pragmatic theory put forward by Peirce, verificationism proposes that assertions are meaningful only when their content meets a (minimal) condition about the ways in which we would go about determining their truth.

So more infantile abuse thrown and nothing on my points
Still no evidence
Attack the points and not the poster, as I have zero interest in  what you think of me.

Thorin wrote:So more infantile abuse thrown and nothing on my points
Still no evidence
Attack the points and not the poster, as I have zero interest in  what you think of me.

You have no points, didge. You are an intellectual flim-flam man. You can't reason, and indeed...you have a limited vocabulary. Lol.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:So more infantile abuse thrown and nothing on my points
Still no evidence
Attack the points and not the poster, as I have zero interest in  what you think of me.

You have no points, didge.  You are an intellectual flim-flam man.  You can't reason, and indeed...you have a limited vocabulary.  Lol.  

And you have never been a judge or a lawyer Quill, that is evidently clear

The ironic thing is that its the majority left wing students are "The Tyranny of the Majority". By shutting down speakers off which views they do not like. Thus denying other students who invite them the chance to hear them speak.

Raggamuffin wrote:
I don't need her to defend me thanks - her defence usually ends up with her licking the boots of the abuser anyway.

There is NO danger of me defending you, ever, and you know it, so don't start on me.

I don't comment when I see you climbing up the ass of extreme types whose values are as far removed from christianity as possible, so keep your hypocrital views to yourself. You are  worse than SCUM.