I don't get it. Free Speech Under Threat At University? (Added Extra)

[irish286]

That is text book censorship and discrimination. A private institution? Sure it is there money, and if they receive no state funding that's fine they can allow whoever they want to speak and only the people who run the place have any say in it, but if you're taking tax payer money you lose that autonomy as an institution to discriminate in ways you might want to.

No because most university here in the USA receive some forum of subsidies even christian universities like liberty university are tax payer funded meaning someone like the thunderf00t can force a christian universities host one of his anti creationism speeches which does not seem fair to me. edit:this would allow creationists force secular universities to allow them spout theories how evolution is wrong.

They already try. They've been trying to legislate that for decades.

that is unfortunate I'm assume it never passed.

Well... it has and it hasn't. The attempts to teach creationism alongside science at all levels of schools in America has not been a pure victory for reason.

In the United States, the states of Texas, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Missouri, South Carolina, and Alabama require in their science standards that students "critically analyze key aspects of evolutionary theory." Two other states, Louisiana and Mississippi, have adopted legislation allowing teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of evolution.

That's where we're at right now, and it's pretty crazy when you think about it.

Why is that wrong? Nothing should be above critical analyzation in science.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

That is text book censorship and discrimination. A private institution? Sure it is there money, and if they receive no state funding that's fine they can allow whoever they want to speak and only the people who run the place have any say in it, but if you're taking tax payer money you lose that autonomy as an institution to discriminate in ways you might want to.

No because most university here in the USA receive some forum of subsidies even christian universities like liberty university are tax payer funded meaning someone like the thunderf00t can force a christian universities host one of his anti creationism speeches which does not seem fair to me. edit:this would allow creationists force secular universities to allow them spout theories how evolution is wrong.

They already try. They've been trying to legislate that for decades.

that is unfortunate I'm assume it never passed.

Well... it has and it hasn't. The attempts to teach creationism alongside science at all levels of schools in America has not been a pure victory for reason.

In the United States, the states of Texas, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Missouri, South Carolina, and Alabama require in their science standards that students "critically analyze key aspects of evolutionary theory." Two other states, Louisiana and Mississippi, have adopted legislation allowing teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of evolution.

That's where we're at right now, and it's pretty crazy when you think about it.

Why is that wrong? Nothing should be above critical analyzation in science.

Because their definition of "scientific evidence" is nonsense. There is no scientific basis for the denial of the existence of evolution. This would be like requiring geography students to write essays supporting flat earth theory or requiring astronomy students argue that the sun doesn't exist or the earth is at the center of the universe.

 

[irish286]

That is text book censorship and discrimination. A private institution? Sure it is there money, and if they receive no state funding that's fine they can allow whoever they want to speak and only the people who run the place have any say in it, but if you're taking tax payer money you lose that autonomy as an institution to discriminate in ways you might want to.

No because most university here in the USA receive some forum of subsidies even christian universities like liberty university are tax payer funded meaning someone like the thunderf00t can force a christian universities host one of his anti creationism speeches which does not seem fair to me. edit:this would allow creationists force secular universities to allow them spout theories how evolution is wrong.

They already try. They've been trying to legislate that for decades.

that is unfortunate I'm assume it never passed.

Well... it has and it hasn't. The attempts to teach creationism alongside science at all levels of schools in America has not been a pure victory for reason.

In the United States, the states of Texas, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Missouri, South Carolina, and Alabama require in their science standards that students "critically analyze key aspects of evolutionary theory." Two other states, Louisiana and Mississippi, have adopted legislation allowing teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of evolution.

That's where we're at right now, and it's pretty crazy when you think about it.

Why is that wrong? Nothing should be above critical analyzation in science.

Because their definition of "scientific evidence" is nonsense. There is no scientific basis for the denial of the existence of evolution. This would be like requiring geography students to write essays supporting flat earth theory or requiring astronomy students argue that the sun doesn't exist or the earth is at the center of the universe.

Why? Because you've deemed it so? Let the evidence speak for itself. Not allowing Ideas to be discussed is how you indoctrinate people to simply believe what they are told instead of question. In science you need to question everything.

 

[irish286]

That is text book censorship and discrimination. A private institution? Sure it is there money, and if they receive no state funding that's fine they can allow whoever they want to speak and only the people who run the place have any say in it, but if you're taking tax payer money you lose that autonomy as an institution to discriminate in ways you might want to.

No because most university here in the USA receive some forum of subsidies even christian universities like liberty university are tax payer funded meaning someone like the thunderf00t can force a christian universities host one of his anti creationism speeches which does not seem fair to me. edit:this would allow creationists force secular universities to allow them spout theories how evolution is wrong.

They already try. They've been trying to legislate that for decades.

that is unfortunate I'm assume it never passed.

Well... it has and it hasn't. The attempts to teach creationism alongside science at all levels of schools in America has not been a pure victory for reason.

In the United States, the states of Texas, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Missouri, South Carolina, and Alabama require in their science standards that students "critically analyze key aspects of evolutionary theory." Two other states, Louisiana and Mississippi, have adopted legislation allowing teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of evolution.

That's where we're at right now, and it's pretty crazy when you think about it.

Why is that wrong? Nothing should be above critical analyzation in science.

Because their definition of "scientific evidence" is nonsense. There is no scientific basis for the denial of the existence of evolution. This would be like requiring geography students to write essays supporting flat earth theory or requiring astronomy students argue that the sun doesn't exist or the earth is at the center of the universe.

Why? Because you've deemed it so? Let the evidence speak for itself. Not allowing Ideas to be discussed is how you indoctrinate people to simply believe what they are told instead of question. In science you need to question everything.

They have no evidence, they have fantasies they call evidence because they think that's an arbitrary word. They are very, very uneducated people at best, stupid beyond hope at worst. Meanwhile You're not making any more of a real argument or point than the dishonest creationists and their "Wedge Strategy". They know what they're doing too, and they don't use the "Why" method favored by toddlers.

Why do you object to them being proven wrong so much? Let them show their side of the argument and be proven wrong. The law doesn't force them to teach creationism, just to critically question evolution. That's a good thing because it teaches the kids to question and critically evaluate even the most accepted ideas. But no, we can't have that. Gotta have the little robots accept what ever they're told.

 

[wulf3n]

Affording the possibility is not assuming. You should probably stick to what I've actually said and done.

Let us stick with what you said then.

There is every chance you haven't even the slightest idea what it's like to feel at risk for these things in what is ostensibly a modern society.

Which is you saying I don't have the slightest idea what it's like to feel at risk for these things, despite the fact you have no idea what I have and haven't experienced.

But since you've pretty much stripped out anything of content from my message

Says the person stripped out everything but one post from my previous response.

I'm going to take it as a sign you're not interested in engaging me and just move on.

Au contraire. I am, but it seems you are not.

This shit is not easy to talk about, and I'm not going to bother if only to be casually dismissed.

I wasn't casually dismissing anything.


Perhaps you should stick to what I've actually said and done, as you seem to be under the impression I'm someone I'm not.

 

[Therumancer]

While it will take some doing, a new legal frontier the government needs to address is protecting people from private censorship, and yes that does mean removing a lot of the rights of the private owners of existing forums.

to control the speech of others. To put it bluntly, one citizen holding more power over another citizen than duly elected officials is absolutely ridiculous.

so in order to fight censorship you want to take away other people rights moderate ,ignore or decide who goes on their piece of media. I don't know about you but that sounds pretty fascist to me.

Then it's fascist, something I disagree with, but the label doesn't scare me. As far as I'm concerned freedom of speech is more important. Others of course have their own opinions. Right now liberals seem in favor of private censorship because they are holding most of the media cards, if the situation was on the other foot I think they would believe quite differently. It's always okay to see censorship in people's minds as long as it's things they disagree with that are being censored.

 

[Kanedias]

While it will take some doing, a new legal frontier the government needs to address is protecting people from private censorship, and yes that does mean removing a lot of the rights of the private owners of existing forums.

to control the speech of others. To put it bluntly, one citizen holding more power over another citizen than duly elected officials is absolutely ridiculous.

so in order to fight censorship you want to take away other people rights moderate ,ignore or decide who goes on their piece of media. I don't know about you but that sounds pretty fascist to me.

Then it's fascist, something I disagree with, but the label doesn't scare me. As far as I'm concerned freedom of speech is more important. Others of course have their own opinions. Right now liberals seem in favor of private censorship because they are holding most of the media cards, if the situation was on the other foot I think they would believe quite differently. It's always okay to see censorship in people's minds as long as it's things they disagree with that are being censored.

Couching your desire to be an autocrat in terms of freedom and censorship is nonsensical.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

That is text book censorship and discrimination. A private institution? Sure it is there money, and if they receive no state funding that's fine they can allow whoever they want to speak and only the people who run the place have any say in it, but if you're taking tax payer money you lose that autonomy as an institution to discriminate in ways you might want to.

No because most university here in the USA receive some forum of subsidies even christian universities like liberty university are tax payer funded meaning someone like the thunderf00t can force a christian universities host one of his anti creationism speeches which does not seem fair to me. edit:this would allow creationists force secular universities to allow them spout theories how evolution is wrong.

They already try. They've been trying to legislate that for decades.

that is unfortunate I'm assume it never passed.

Well... it has and it hasn't. The attempts to teach creationism alongside science at all levels of schools in America has not been a pure victory for reason.

In the United States, the states of Texas, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Missouri, South Carolina, and Alabama require in their science standards that students "critically analyze key aspects of evolutionary theory." Two other states, Louisiana and Mississippi, have adopted legislation allowing teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of evolution.

That's where we're at right now, and it's pretty crazy when you think about it.

Why is that wrong? Nothing should be above critical analyzation in science.

Because their definition of "scientific evidence" is nonsense. There is no scientific basis for the denial of the existence of evolution. This would be like requiring geography students to write essays supporting flat earth theory or requiring astronomy students argue that the sun doesn't exist or the earth is at the center of the universe.

Why? Because you've deemed it so? Let the evidence speak for itself. Not allowing Ideas to be discussed is how you indoctrinate people to simply believe what they are told instead of question. In science you need to question everything.

The body of evidence does speak for itself.

There is a reason I specifically compare it to flat earth theory and the geocentric model. We learn about both in schools, specifically to address how it is understandable how a person might think that is what is going on and why they are completely, undeniably wrong. This is a case where the evidence is allowed to speak for itself. The evidence does not support a flat earth or the geocentric model in anyway. A scientist pretending like the evidence in anyway supports these theories would be a deliberate lie.

This is the case with evolution. The body of evidence that supports the theory of evolution is incredibly strong and there is a complete lack of any evidence to the contrary. Pretending that it is still up in the air is nothing short of a deliberate lie.

 

[Therumancer]

While it will take some doing, a new legal frontier the government needs to address is protecting people from private censorship, and yes that does mean removing a lot of the rights of the private owners of existing forums.

to control the speech of others. To put it bluntly, one citizen holding more power over another citizen than duly elected officials is absolutely ridiculous.

so in order to fight censorship you want to take away other people rights moderate ,ignore or decide who goes on their piece of media. I don't know about you but that sounds pretty fascist to me.

Then it's fascist, something I disagree with, but the label doesn't scare me. As far as I'm concerned freedom of speech is more important. Others of course have their own opinions. Right now liberals seem in favor of private censorship because they are holding most of the media cards, if the situation was on the other foot I think they would believe quite differently. It's always okay to see censorship in people's minds as long as it's things they disagree with that are being censored.

Couching your desire to be an autocrat in terms of freedom and censorship is nonsensical.

No, I just don't play the game of trying to slap labels like facist onto this kind of an argument when one of the first things facists do is want to limit free speech, which is something we see happening through private platforms. Given the increasingly incestuous relationship between politics and private business it's becoming harder to separate them as well.

 

[irish286]

That is text book censorship and discrimination. A private institution? Sure it is there money, and if they receive no state funding that's fine they can allow whoever they want to speak and only the people who run the place have any say in it, but if you're taking tax payer money you lose that autonomy as an institution to discriminate in ways you might want to.

No because most university here in the USA receive some forum of subsidies even christian universities like liberty university are tax payer funded meaning someone like the thunderf00t can force a christian universities host one of his anti creationism speeches which does not seem fair to me. edit:this would allow creationists force secular universities to allow them spout theories how evolution is wrong.

They already try. They've been trying to legislate that for decades.

that is unfortunate I'm assume it never passed.

Well... it has and it hasn't. The attempts to teach creationism alongside science at all levels of schools in America has not been a pure victory for reason.

In the United States, the states of Texas, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Missouri, South Carolina, and Alabama require in their science standards that students "critically analyze key aspects of evolutionary theory." Two other states, Louisiana and Mississippi, have adopted legislation allowing teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of evolution.

That's where we're at right now, and it's pretty crazy when you think about it.

Why is that wrong? Nothing should be above critical analyzation in science.

Because their definition of "scientific evidence" is nonsense. There is no scientific basis for the denial of the existence of evolution. This would be like requiring geography students to write essays supporting flat earth theory or requiring astronomy students argue that the sun doesn't exist or the earth is at the center of the universe.

Why? Because you've deemed it so? Let the evidence speak for itself. Not allowing Ideas to be discussed is how you indoctrinate people to simply believe what they are told instead of question. In science you need to question everything.

The body of evidence does speak for itself.

There is a reason I specifically compare it to flat earth theory and the geocentric model. We learn about both in schools, specifically to address how it is understandable how a person might think that is what is going on and why they are completely, undeniably wrong. This is a case where the evidence is allowed to speak for itself. The evidence does not support a flat earth or the geocentric model in anyway. A scientist pretending like the evidence in anyway supports these theories would be a deliberate lie.

This is the case with evolution. The body of evidence that supports the theory of evolution is incredibly strong and there is a complete lack of any evidence to the contrary. Pretending that it is still up in the air is nothing short of a deliberate lie.

You're ignoring my point. Just disregarding is wrong. You need to explain why something is wrong and encourage kids to question things. Just saying something is wrong and giving a nebulous reason like "Science says so." Or "their evidence is BS so they're stupid" is how you get people that just accept what they are told without question.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

You're ignoring my point. Just disregarding is wrong. You need to explain why something is wrong and encourage kids to question things. Just saying something is wrong and giving a nebulous reason like "Science says so." Or "their evidence is BS so they're stupid" is how you get people that just accept what they are told without question.

Re read my post.

"There is a reason I specifically compare it to flat earth theory and the geocentric model. We learn about both in schools, specifically to address how it is understandable how a person might think that is what is going on and why they are completely, undeniably wrong."

That is exactly what I am saying we should do. And we, in fact, already do that! Every introduction course to biology will discuss theories like spontaneous generation and blending inheritance and other ideas that had some basis in reason but were rejected when new evidence was found (or people started to consider the evidence that existed). That teaches students to actually consider evidence.

That is not what the laws in those states require. They require teachers lie to students and pretend there are scientifically valid reasons and evidence to believe evolution is not real. There are no such reasons or evidence.

They do not require a fair assessment of evidence, nor do these requirements teach students to properly question ideas that may have strong cultural inertia. They teach children that actual evidence can be ignored in favor of personal opinion. It teaches that there is no need to adapt one's views to be consistent with the evidence at hand, that ignoring evidence that is counter to their views is a rational thing to do.

 

[Something Amyss]

Which is you saying I don't have the slightest idea what it's like to feel at risk for these things, despite the fact you have no idea what I have and haven't experienced.

Again, affording for the possibility is not saying you affirmatively don't. I literally just said this. You have to ignore both my original wording and my existing response. If you'd rather address things I didn't say than things I did, that's fine. Just don't expect me to bother with it further.

 

[scorn the biomage]

No, I just don't play the game of trying to slap labels like facist onto this kind of an argument when one of the first things facists do is want to limit free speech, which is something we see happening through private platforms. Given the increasingly incestuous relationship between politics and private business it's becoming harder to separate them

So in other words you want to force to listen too you speak isn't your demanding the right to be heard I'm guessing your type of person that hates Randi Harpers block list. I got off track but thing short in protecting free speech you would also inadvertently limiting others freedom of expression.

 

[johnnyboy2537]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcGFFf1uwT8
I think this says everything that needs to be said.

 

[NiPah]

Spoiler

Spoiler

Free speech under threat! From the students. Who made a democratic choice about how to spend money. Huh?

Wait, I get it! This is an ironic commentary. The free speech under threat is actually that of those students, from people who want to control how they spend their money from outside because of an ideological and political agenda. I get it now. Clever.

When that democratic choice is to ban organizations and individuals due to differences in ideology IE the textbook example of censorship yes people tend to take notice and judge the choice poorly. Also the ban also falls under people speaking for free as they're banned from using and union controlled facility and or speaking with any Union member.

Do you actually care about this issue beyond how the aesthetics of it offend you? Do you support the speakers in question, or is this really just that anything that looks a certain way hurts you so much that you wish it would go away?

This is a good learning tool, take everything you think you know about me, my opinions, my views on this subject and throw them out, they're utter nonsense and couldn't be farther from the truth.

Now let's look at the NUS, the universities, the text books, take everything they say on the subject of Al-Muhajiroun, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, British National Party, take all that as absolute fact because they're absolutely true.
No, actually they're probably wrong too, maybe not, but hearing it from the horse's mouth is a powerful learning tool.

This is why I hate censorship, especially in a situation like this, they're barring students from valuable sources of information, I think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an agenda pushing extremist but I still listened to him when he spoke as Columbia, somewhere between what my government says and what he says I believe lies the truth. Ata Abu Rashta is another example, given the chance I'd sit in on a lecture, it's a learning experience to say the least, but if I was a student under a NUS controlled school I'd never have that chance.

I'm not saying I support Omar Bakri Muhammad, but hearing a debate or speech with him and I'd have a different view on extremism and on why people are leaving Europe to join ISIL, and while I'd have to decide for myself what is true and what isn't, it'd be a lot more relevant then any textbook, and likely even more relevant than what a professor would say as well.

So yeah, that's where I stand.

This strikes me like the half-assing I usually see from creationists who ask to "Teach the controversy". What they don't mention is that there is no controversy they haven't invented.

Does it? Is that how it strikes you? I'm on one side of the spectrum saying the speech of certain people shouldn't be banned from NUS controlled universities and you say it's analogous to some religious people saying their rhetoric should be required teaching? Honestly this looks more and more like you're the one offended by the aesthetics of the situation and you're pulling anything you can to make it look like the censors aren't in the wrong even though you're not saying anything that makes me believe you're understanding the issue.

So outside of insulting my intentions and comparing my stance to Creationists, do you have anything to say about your stance on the subject?

 

[The Material Sheep]

No, I just don't play the game of trying to slap labels like facist onto this kind of an argument when one of the first things facists do is want to limit free speech, which is something we see happening through private platforms. Given the increasingly incestuous relationship between politics and private business it's becoming harder to separate them

So in other words you want to force to listen too you speak isn't your demanding the right to be heard I'm guessing your type of person that hates Randi Harpers block list. I got off track but thing short in protecting free speech you would also inadvertently limiting others freedom of expression.

Well the issues with Randi Harpers block list was not that she was ignoring people, but that she made a tool that was so slap dash in its blocking that following only a few people on twitter landed you immediately on the block list. Sure she had every right in the world to do something like that, but don't expect people to think you're a worth while person to interact with or even sane if you think that kind of needless paranoia and fragility is a necessary response to the events that occurred. If it was her compiling a list of the major players in GG and saying eh probably not worth my time as I am not interested in them, than sure go ahead. As soon as you start assuming people for the mere act of association with even a few figures is some how a complete invalidation of their opinion that you need to insulate yourself from, it absolutely becomes paranoid and is pretty nakedly showing you have absolutely no interest in anything but your own point of view.

 

[irish286]

Which is you saying I don't have the slightest idea what it's like to feel at risk for these things, despite the fact you have no idea what I have and haven't experienced.

Again, affording for the possibility is not saying you affirmatively don't. I literally just said this. You have to ignore both my original wording and my existing response. If you'd rather address things I didn't say than things I did, that's fine. Just don't expect me to bother with it further.

If actually knew anything about the subject you would know that there is actually some fairly scientifically valid reasons to question the Theory of evolution. But like most people who believe in popular science, you don't know anything and instead of questioning you blindly follow and attack anything that puts your views into question.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

If actually knew anything about the subject you would know that there is actually some fairly scientifically valid reasons to question the Theory of evolution. But like most people who believe in popular science, you don't know anything and instead of questioning you blindly follow and attack anything that puts your views into question.

I completed a 4 year degree on the subject. What did you do to gain your insight into the subject?

But I'll humor you, can you provide me with this evidence?