$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 125.78

7,483 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
47.2% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
30 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Is this behavior acceptable, or do "feelings" trump "discussion"? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Wikipedia is an interesting website, although most of it should be taken with a grain of salt (except for the science and medical stuff, which is usually pretty good). Regardless, I quickly saw something about Ben Shapiro being involved in a lawsuit against Cal-State LA as it relates to a speech that he gave their earlier this year, which included a serious breach of safety regulations when protesters prevented anyone from leaving the building during and after the speech. I read this on Wikipedia on Mr. Shapiro's page:

wikipedia.org wrote:
On February 25, 2016, Shapiro gave a speech at California State University, Los Angeles entitled "When Diversity Becomes a Problem." Shapiro's speech focused on how the concepts of microaggressions and safe spaces were being used to suppress free speech in the name of diversity of skin color, while ignoring the value of diversity of thought.[44] In response to the announcement of the speech, hosted by the campus's chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, student protesters demanded that the speech be cancelled, labeling it as "hate speech." The university's president, William Covino, eventually announced the cancellation of the speech three days before it was to take place, with the intention of rescheduling it so that the event could feature Shapiro debating someone with opposing viewpoints.[45] In response to the cancellation, Shapiro said he would be attending the event anyway, and several lawsuits were threatened against the university for canceling the speech. As a result, Covino ultimately backed down and allowed the speech to go on as planned.[46] The day of the speech, hundreds of student protesters formed human chains to block the doors to the theater where the event was to be held, shoving away anyone who attempted to enter and starting several fights in the crowded lobby. Some students were ultimately able to enter the theater by being sneaked in through back doors, though the protesters soon found out and barricaded those doors as well. Shapiro eventually made it into the theater and began his speech, only for a fire alarm to be pulled by one of the protesters; Shapiro continued speaking regardless, calling Covino "cowardly" and referring to the protesters as "spoiled brat snowflakes" and "fascists."[47] After the speech ended, Shapiro had to be escorted out a secret exit by police and his own bodyguards, while those inside the theater were told that they could not leave since the protesters were preventing anyone from leaving. Only after Shapiro left did the protesters eventually disperse, and those inside the theater were allowed to exit


Does anyone find this acceptable? Was it reasonable for protesters to protest? Was it reasonable for protesters to prevent anyone who choose to attend the speech attend the speech? Was it reasonable for protesters to prevent those inside the building where the speech was held from being able to leave the building?

The story on Wiki is essentially corroborated by a report on Newstation 7 . I do not have high google-fu skills nor the time to research more, so if anyone (other than Shreve and his wall-of-text) has more "stuff" about this, go ahead and post.

I am curious about people's opinion regarding this event, specifically, and campus "mayhem" in general as it relates to "the marketplace of ideas" from a conservative standpoint.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Myers
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
mbmbmbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:
Wikipedia is an interesting website, although most of it should be taken with a grain of salt (except for the science and medical stuff, which is usually pretty good). Regardless, I quickly saw something about Ben Shapiro being involved in a lawsuit against Cal-State LA as it relates to a speech that he gave their earlier this year, which included a serious breach of safety regulations when protesters prevented anyone from leaving the building during and after the speech. I read this on Wikipedia on Mr. Shapiro's page:

wikipedia.org wrote:
On February 25, 2016, Shapiro gave a speech at California State University, Los Angeles entitled "When Diversity Becomes a Problem." Shapiro's speech focused on how the concepts of microaggressions and safe spaces were being used to suppress free speech in the name of diversity of skin color, while ignoring the value of diversity of thought.[44] In response to the announcement of the speech, hosted by the campus's chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, student protesters demanded that the speech be cancelled, labeling it as "hate speech." The university's president, William Covino, eventually announced the cancellation of the speech three days before it was to take place, with the intention of rescheduling it so that the event could feature Shapiro debating someone with opposing viewpoints.[45] In response to the cancellation, Shapiro said he would be attending the event anyway, and several lawsuits were threatened against the university for canceling the speech. As a result, Covino ultimately backed down and allowed the speech to go on as planned.[46] The day of the speech, hundreds of student protesters formed human chains to block the doors to the theater where the event was to be held, shoving away anyone who attempted to enter and starting several fights in the crowded lobby. Some students were ultimately able to enter the theater by being sneaked in through back doors, though the protesters soon found out and barricaded those doors as well. Shapiro eventually made it into the theater and began his speech, only for a fire alarm to be pulled by one of the protesters; Shapiro continued speaking regardless, calling Covino "cowardly" and referring to the protesters as "spoiled brat snowflakes" and "fascists."[47] After the speech ended, Shapiro had to be escorted out a secret exit by police and his own bodyguards, while those inside the theater were told that they could not leave since the protesters were preventing anyone from leaving. Only after Shapiro left did the protesters eventually disperse, and those inside the theater were allowed to exit


Does anyone find this acceptable? Was it reasonable for protesters to protest? Was it reasonable for protesters to prevent anyone who choose to attend the speech attend the speech? Was it reasonable for protesters to prevent those inside the building where the speech was held from being able to leave the building?

The story on Wiki is essentially corroborated by a report on Newstation 7 . I do not have high google-fu skills nor the time to research more, so if anyone (other than Shreve and his wall-of-text) has more "stuff" about this, go ahead and post.

I am curious about people's opinion regarding this event, specifically, and campus "mayhem" in general as it relates to "the marketplace of ideas" from a conservative standpoint.


It's reasonable to protest. I don't know the speaker, but saying microaggressions are fascism is often simple racism. It's a tired mantra of "diversity is evil." You can protest whatever you want.

Blocking entrance to a public event is not ok. Physically accosting people should have ended in arrests for assault.

A debate would have worked better.
10 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Pustilnik
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The protest was acceptable. Blocking the entrance/exit was not. This was disorderly conduct, and those who did this should have been arrested.
10 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chengkai Yang
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
mbmb
I found that mess to be pretty deplorable. It doesn't really matter what vitriol or asinine commentary someone else is spewing out, by stooping down to such an action only weakens your own stance in my eyes.

Personally I've always been against such attempts at censorship and if you truly disagree with them, a public debate would be better recourse. The other being that there are very few things in life I would place such firm convictions in. Then gain I'm accepting of my ignorance on a lot of things and thus accept that I might be wrong, and we indeed have very large values for 2, such that 2+2=5.

Really I feel like it's also a failure to really push the Socratic method and instead we've moved towards a very polar system. "If you disagree with me your literally Hitler and you need to be taken out back and shot" has been our new style for debate. The same group also has the the ends justifying the means mentality and the use of everything from force and slander to silence dissenting viewpoints or criticism. We see this all the time even here in RSP, someone says no, then some user goes off and starts a slew of ad hominem attacks. Some people will also refuse to believe that water is wet, but I'll accept that if they aren't jackasses about it.
4 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris
United States
Sandy Springs
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with the posters above and would like to add falsely pulling a fire alarm is also a crime.

The fact that the protesters don't see their own hypocrisy is the most frightening thing of all.
3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
This demonstration is not authorized and is in clear violation of Mall of America policy.
badge
Those who continue to demonstrate will be subject to arrest.
mbmb
I'll point out that, while we seem to be in agreement about the protesters, Shapiro's response was absolutely deplorable, too. He portrayed being rescheduled with an opposing view represented as an attempt to avoid hearing his side. Were he actually committed to the principle he espouses, that people should face positions with which they disagree in a marketplace of ideas, he should have found that agreeable. Instead, he manufactured an opportunity to make "SJWs" look bad.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M. S.
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
mb
rinelk wrote:
I'll point out that, while we seem to be in agreement about the protesters, Shapiro's response was absolutely deplorable, too. He portrayed being rescheduled with an opposing view represented as an attempt to avoid hearing his side. Were he actually committed to the principle he espouses, that people should face positions with which they disagree in a marketplace of ideas, he should have found that agreeable. Instead, he manufactured an opportunity to make "SJWs" look bad.


Give me a break. I wouldn't expect anyone to enter into a debate under those circumstances.
4 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xuzu Horror
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Yep, these things are easy.

Peaceful protest - good.

Violent protest or obstructing other speeches/events - bad.



Although, even a peaceful protest that is not trying to restrict access to an event may end up making it hard to get to an event if the protest is large enough. It may not have been the intent, but it still may cause it. Hopefully if they were given a proper area to stage the protest, then this is not as big of an issue (not talking about this event specifically of course as you've stated it was intentional)

Was it intentional by some protesters or the majority?
1 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xuzu Horror
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Just seeing how wide spread the issue was here.

No matter what, it was not a good thing - no matter how many were causing the issue.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
This demonstration is not authorized and is in clear violation of Mall of America policy.
badge
Those who continue to demonstrate will be subject to arrest.
mbmb
red black wrote:
rinelk wrote:
I'll point out that, while we seem to be in agreement about the protesters, Shapiro's response was absolutely deplorable, too. He portrayed being rescheduled with an opposing view represented as an attempt to avoid hearing his side. Were he actually committed to the principle he espouses, that people should face positions with which they disagree in a marketplace of ideas, he should have found that agreeable. Instead, he manufactured an opportunity to make "SJWs" look bad.


Give me a break. I wouldn't expect anyone to enter into a debate under those circumstances.


The problem isn't refusing to talk later, it's writing propaganda like this: http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/02/22/beware-this-m.... Here's a quote:

Quote:
“The campus fascists have taken over,” Shapiro told Breitbart News. “I pay taxes in the state of California; I’m paying for these whiny children to be indoctrinated by radical leftists. For CSULA to pretend that they’re trying to provide balance isn’t just stupid, it’s insultingly stupid. I am the balance, and they’re too afraid to let me speak. These aren’t diversity warriors. They’re jackbooted thugs. If they want to call the men with guns to shut down free speech, they’ll demonstrate clearly just who they are. I’ll see them on Thursday.”
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
rinelk wrote:
red black wrote:
rinelk wrote:
I'll point out that, while we seem to be in agreement about the protesters, Shapiro's response was absolutely deplorable, too. He portrayed being rescheduled with an opposing view represented as an attempt to avoid hearing his side. Were he actually committed to the principle he espouses, that people should face positions with which they disagree in a marketplace of ideas, he should have found that agreeable. Instead, he manufactured an opportunity to make "SJWs" look bad.


Give me a break. I wouldn't expect anyone to enter into a debate under those circumstances.


The problem isn't refusing to talk later, it's writing propaganda like this: http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/02/22/beware-this-m.... Here's a quote:

Quote:
“The campus fascists have taken over,” Shapiro told Breitbart News. “I pay taxes in the state of California; I’m paying for these whiny children to be indoctrinated by radical leftists. For CSULA to pretend that they’re trying to provide balance isn’t just stupid, it’s insultingly stupid. I am the balance, and they’re too afraid to let me speak. These aren’t diversity warriors. They’re jackbooted thugs. If they want to call the men with guns to shut down free speech, they’ll demonstrate clearly just who they are. I’ll see them on Thursday.”

Kelsey,
when I was raised right after WWII, we were taught about Fascists and their tactics. They were thugs and used intimidation and violence to silence the other side(s).

In this case Shapiro sort of made a prediction. I assume, based on previous behavior of similar students there and elsewhere, he predicted that they [at least some of them] were thugs. Since in the even he was proved right, in my universe being proved right cuts the legs out from under the people who criticize you for what you said.

But, then I am not in sympathy with the current trend on campuses. Banning micro-aggressions and establishing safe spaces are wrong on a Univ. campus. Free speech is the core of a Univ. environment. On the other hand I would expect the campus police to arrest and administrative discipline be given to those who are disruptive of others. So, if there was a group that were meeting [in an open room because I closed down their "safe space"] and some thugs came and disrupted their meeting then the thugs are the ones arrested.

If anyone can't see that free speech is at the core of a Univ. environment then they are hopelessly lost. [Meaning they have strayed very far from American values and may not find their way back to them.]

4 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
This demonstration is not authorized and is in clear violation of Mall of America policy.
badge
Those who continue to demonstrate will be subject to arrest.
mbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
rinelk wrote:
red black wrote:
rinelk wrote:
I'll point out that, while we seem to be in agreement about the protesters, Shapiro's response was absolutely deplorable, too. He portrayed being rescheduled with an opposing view represented as an attempt to avoid hearing his side. Were he actually committed to the principle he espouses, that people should face positions with which they disagree in a marketplace of ideas, he should have found that agreeable. Instead, he manufactured an opportunity to make "SJWs" look bad.


Give me a break. I wouldn't expect anyone to enter into a debate under those circumstances.


The problem isn't refusing to talk later, it's writing propaganda like this: http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/02/22/beware-this-m.... Here's a quote:

Quote:
“The campus fascists have taken over,” Shapiro told Breitbart News. “I pay taxes in the state of California; I’m paying for these whiny children to be indoctrinated by radical leftists. For CSULA to pretend that they’re trying to provide balance isn’t just stupid, it’s insultingly stupid. I am the balance, and they’re too afraid to let me speak. These aren’t diversity warriors. They’re jackbooted thugs. If they want to call the men with guns to shut down free speech, they’ll demonstrate clearly just who they are. I’ll see them on Thursday.”

Kelsey,
when I was raised right after WWII, we were taught about Fascists and their tactics. They were thugs and used intimidation and violence to silence the other side(s).

In this case Shapiro sort of made a prediction. I assume, based on previous behavior of similar students there and elsewhere, he predicted that they [at least some of them] were thugs. Since in the even he was proved right, in my universe being proved right cuts the legs out from under the people who criticize you for what you said.

But, then I am not in sympathy with the current trend on campuses. Banning micro-aggressions and establishing safe spaces are wrong on a Univ. campus. Free speech is the core of a Univ. environment. On the other hand I would expect the campus police to arrest and administrative discipline be given to those who are disruptive of others. So, if there was a group that were meeting [in an open room because I closed down their "safe space"] and some thugs came and disrupted their meeting then the thugs are the ones arrested.

If anyone can't see that free speech is at the core of a Univ. environment then they are hopelessly lost. [Meaning they have strayed very far from American values and may not find their way back to them.]



He wrote that the university was too afraid to let him speak. He lied.

The threat to free speech on universities has been greatly exaggerated because fools like you love to read about it. How many speakers do you suppose were disinvited last year? What proportion of all invited speakers do you think that amounts to?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
Here in RSP I have been the target of "verbal thugs". They obviously can't get violent, they just start throwing lies and insults around.

However, they are acting like fascists. They are trying to stifle the voices of those who's opinions they disagree with. It seems that they in fact succeed in their objective way too often.

I don't doubt that they think that they are right and that the other side is so evil that they must be defeated by any means necessary. The thing is that in the world or in the society of a nation such thinking is what leads to war and civil war.

Now sometimes the other side is evil and must be opposed. WWII comes to mind. The Imperial Japanese Army were thugs who thought that might makes right and they had a right to exploit the people of their neighboring nations. They invaded China without permission or orders from their civilian gov. The IJ Army behaved very badly in China, for example "The Rape of Nanking". The civilized nations of the world demanded that it stop. The IJ Army basically said, "Make me stop". The 3 oil producing nations [USA, UK, and the Dutch (owners of the DEI, now Indonesia)] stopped all oil shipments to Japan. The IJ Army forced the IJ Navy to attack America and started the war with the US.

The IJ Army were thugs and had to be opposed by any means necessary. In the event America didn't even choose to use force. Japan forced that choice on the US by attacking Pearl Harbor.

I don't see any group in America that rises to that level of evil. So, I do not give the SJW any benefit of the doubt. They should not be allowed to stifle the voices of any other point of view in America. They can protest, that is their right also. If they violently protest, that may be their "right" also, BUT in that case they must be willing to pay the price of breaking the law. Just as the Civil Rights Protesters in the 60s were willing to go to jail for their cause. [Of course, the 60s protesters were mostly non-violent as a tactic.] The anti-war protesters of the 60s were more violent as another example of what I'm talking about.

This is my opinion and all who disagree with me are wrong because I'm right. I know because I'm one of the oldest Baby Boomers alive. I've lived through a lot. I know what America stands for and stands against. America got it right in the 40s. America was able to lead the Allied nations and gather the final huge number that finally joined the alliance because America was standing for things that the vast majority of civilized humans believed in deep in their hearts. I would point out FDR's 4 Freedoms as good examples of where to start a list: Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
rinelk wrote:
He [Shapiro] wrote that the university was too afraid to let him speak. He lied.

The threat to free speech on universities has been greatly exaggerated because fools like you love to read about it. How many speakers do you suppose were disinvited last year? What proportion of all invited speakers do you think that amounts to?

Kelsey, "lied" is a strong word. At the time he said it the Univ. was not going to let him speak. At the moment he said it, it could easily be said that the Univ. was afraid to let him speak. If they changed their position because they decided that they were actually more afraid of what the counter-protesters could do if he wasn't allowed to speak, that doesn't change the facts.
. . At the moment that Shapiro said that it was true. At least the Univ. was behaving as if it were true.

Like I said, lies and insults are thrown at those who disagree. It doesn't matter how many others are or were "disinvited" elsewhere. This is a specific case. Violence was used to keep people from hearing the speech. [Fist fights in the lobby were mentioned along with shoving.] Are you willing to excuse those actions in this case?

3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
This demonstration is not authorized and is in clear violation of Mall of America policy.
badge
Those who continue to demonstrate will be subject to arrest.
mbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
rinelk wrote:
He [Shapiro] wrote that the university was too afraid to let him speak. He lied.

The threat to free speech on universities has been greatly exaggerated because fools like you love to read about it. How many speakers do you suppose were disinvited last year? What proportion of all invited speakers do you think that amounts to?

Kelsey, "lied" is a strong word. At the time he said it the Univ. was not going to let him speak.


Why do you believe this? The university's proposal to reschedule his speech appears in the very same article in which Shapiro's quoted accusation appears later, and he certainly seems to be commenting on that proposal.

Steve1501 wrote:
It doesn't matter how many others are or were "disinvited" elsewhere. This is a specific case. Violence was used to keep people from hearing the speech. [Fist fights in the lobby were mentioned along with shoving.] Are you willing to excuse those actions in this case?


I am not, and expressed my agreement with others on that point already. What the disinvitations are relevant to is your earlier claim about the trends on university campuses. When people claim that they don't value the free exchange of ideas, disinvitations are the most common complaint. People talk them up like there's a large and growing trend of conservative speakers being disinvited.

As you might imagine, that's crap. Not only have disinvitations dropped over the past couple years, the worst year for disinvitations (not just of conservatives, but everyone) had fewer than twenty. Now, I don't claim to know how many invited speakers there are at institutions of higher learning around the country every year, but I'm guessing there are at least 500 such schools, averaging at least 10 departments. My old Philosophy department invited something like 25 speakers a year. 500*10*25 = 125,000. 20/125,000 = 0.00016. Less than a tenth of a percent of speaker invitations, even generously counted. For the most recent year for which FIRE has data, it's below a hundredth of a percent. Total guesswork figures, but hopefully adequate to show that there's at least a chance you're being sold a false narrative because the people selling it know you'll buy it.

So, don't trust me. Just don't trust anecdotes. If there's something you think is a trend on college campuses, look for data. A small number of idiots don't make up a meaningful trend, but they're all you need to write as many articles as you want about how absurd campuses are these days.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
This demonstration is not authorized and is in clear violation of Mall of America policy.
badge
Those who continue to demonstrate will be subject to arrest.
mbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
Here in RSP I have been the target of "verbal thugs". They obviously can't get violent, they just start throwing lies and insults around.

However, they are acting like fascists. They are trying to stifle the voices of those who's opinions they disagree with.


Mean words aren't what fascists used to stifle dissent, having dissenters killed and jailed is. Even if the idea of "verbal thug" made any sense, the analogue would be to have your account suspended or banned. Has anyone even advocated that the mods do that to you? Has someone tried to coerce you in some way--perhaps threatened to have your daughter's Pinterest account suspended?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
rinelk wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
rinelk wrote:
He [Shapiro] wrote that the university was too afraid to let him speak. He lied.

The threat to free speech on universities has been greatly exaggerated because fools like you love to read about it. How many speakers do you suppose were disinvited last year? What proportion of all invited speakers do you think that amounts to?

Kelsey, "lied" is a strong word. At the time he said it the Univ. was not going to let him speak.


Why do you believe this? The university's proposal to reschedule his speech appears in the very same article in which Shapiro's quoted accusation appears later, and he certainly seems to be commenting on that proposal.

Steve1501 wrote:
It doesn't matter how many others are or were "disinvited" elsewhere. This is a specific case. Violence was used to keep people from hearing the speech. [Fist fights in the lobby were mentioned along with shoving.] Are you willing to excuse those actions in this case?


I am not, and expressed my agreement with others on that point already. What the disinvitations are relevant to is your earlier claim about the trends on university campuses. When people claim that they don't value the free exchange of ideas, disinvitations are the most common complaint. People talk them up like there's a large and growing trend of conservative speakers being disinvited.


Kelsey, this is what I said [as you yourself quoted above], "But, then I am not in sympathy with the current trend on campuses. Banning micro-aggressions and establishing safe spaces are wrong on a Univ. campus. Free speech is the core of a Univ. environment." Granted the specific article that started this thread was more about "dis-invitations" than micro-aggressions, but that was what was more on my mind. The dis-invitations are just another part of the trend.

Good to see that you "are not" willing to excuse those actions. Too bad it wasn't more clear. BTW if a civil war every came to again to America I'm guessing that you and I would be on the same side. It is too bad that we on that same side can't be more civil to each other.

You're right I did ignore the Univ. offer to restructure his visit to make it a debate. I'm not sure why. Partly I don't have enough facts, like who had invited him and should they get a major say in if they want to see a speech or a debate? A debate can often be a way to allow the "other side" to just keep talking so as to not let the original invitee have much "airtime".

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
This demonstration is not authorized and is in clear violation of Mall of America policy.
badge
Those who continue to demonstrate will be subject to arrest.
mbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
You're right I did ignore the Univ. offer to restructure his visit to make it a debate.


Would you then agree with me that Shapiro lied when he claimed that the university was too afraid to let him speak?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
rinelk wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
You're right I did ignore the Univ. offer to restructure his visit to make it a debate.


Would you then agree with me that Shapiro lied when he claimed that the university was too afraid to let him speak?

No. It is how he felt. To him at the time it was the truth.

For example, did you "lie" when you called me a fool?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
red black wrote:
rinelk wrote:
I'll point out that, while we seem to be in agreement about the protesters, Shapiro's response was absolutely deplorable, too. He portrayed being rescheduled with an opposing view represented as an attempt to avoid hearing his side. Were he actually committed to the principle he espouses, that people should face positions with which they disagree in a marketplace of ideas, he should have found that agreeable. Instead, he manufactured an opportunity to make "SJWs" look bad.


Give me a break. I wouldn't expect anyone to enter into a debate under those circumstances.


Exactly. There is no way anyone on the other side of the issues would have been expected to make similar capitulations. Tell someone that their speech has been cancelled and they can only come back if they convert it from a speech to a debate, and hooooooooooooo.... the outcry of it! Shapiro didn't manufacture anything. He pointed out what had happened. The people who went well beyond the pale are the ones who made themselves look bad. There's nobody to blame but themselves on this one.
3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
rinelk wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
You're right I did ignore the Univ. offer to restructure his visit to make it a debate.


Would you then agree with me that Shapiro lied when he claimed that the university was too afraid to let him speak?


No. He absolutely wasn't lying. They were afraid to let him speak. So they insisted on having his speech tempered by putting it in a forum where he wasn't delivering a speech. Yes, he would get to speak and make points, but those points would be tempered by an opposing viewpoint. Would Michael Moore be held to that same standard of not being allowed to give a speech but instead be bullied into a point/counterpoint debate?

If you can show me where that standard was applied to anyone on the the traditionally liberal side of the issues, I will readily concede the point. But don't act like allowing someone on stage and letting them speak is the same thing as giving a speech.

Yes, the university was afraid of letting him give a speech. Or, more accurately, they were afraid of the reaction of the students if that speech was allowed.
1 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area / Currently I sponsor gaming groups in Monroe & Alexandria, LA.
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
John Oliver Tackled The Disingenuous "Feelings Vs. Facts" Conundrum of Trump-Supporting Republicans


"Last Week with John Oliver" Tackled The Disingenuous "Feelings Vs. Facts" Conundrum of Trump-Supporting Republicans






1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Staff
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:
Wikipedia is an interesting website, although most of it should be taken with a grain of salt (except for the science and medical stuff, which is usually pretty good). Regardless, I quickly saw something about Ben Shapiro being involved in a lawsuit against Cal-State LA as it relates to a speech that he gave their earlier this year, which included a serious breach of safety regulations when protesters prevented anyone from leaving the building during and after the speech. I read this on Wikipedia on Mr. Shapiro's page:

wikipedia.org wrote:
On February 25, 2016, Shapiro gave a speech at California State University, Los Angeles entitled "When Diversity Becomes a Problem." Shapiro's speech focused on how the concepts of microaggressions and safe spaces were being used to suppress free speech in the name of diversity of skin color, while ignoring the value of diversity of thought.[44] In response to the announcement of the speech, hosted by the campus's chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, student protesters demanded that the speech be cancelled, labeling it as "hate speech." The university's president, William Covino, eventually announced the cancellation of the speech three days before it was to take place, with the intention of rescheduling it so that the event could feature Shapiro debating someone with opposing viewpoints.[45] In response to the cancellation, Shapiro said he would be attending the event anyway, and several lawsuits were threatened against the university for canceling the speech. As a result, Covino ultimately backed down and allowed the speech to go on as planned.[46] The day of the speech, hundreds of student protesters formed human chains to block the doors to the theater where the event was to be held, shoving away anyone who attempted to enter and starting several fights in the crowded lobby. Some students were ultimately able to enter the theater by being sneaked in through back doors, though the protesters soon found out and barricaded those doors as well. Shapiro eventually made it into the theater and began his speech, only for a fire alarm to be pulled by one of the protesters; Shapiro continued speaking regardless, calling Covino "cowardly" and referring to the protesters as "spoiled brat snowflakes" and "fascists."[47] After the speech ended, Shapiro had to be escorted out a secret exit by police and his own bodyguards, while those inside the theater were told that they could not leave since the protesters were preventing anyone from leaving. Only after Shapiro left did the protesters eventually disperse, and those inside the theater were allowed to exit


Does anyone find this acceptable? Was it reasonable for protesters to protest? Was it reasonable for protesters to prevent anyone who choose to attend the speech attend the speech? Was it reasonable for protesters to prevent those inside the building where the speech was held from being able to leave the building?

The story on Wiki is essentially corroborated by a report on Newstation 7 . I do not have high google-fu skills nor the time to research more, so if anyone (other than Shreve and his wall-of-text) has more "stuff" about this, go ahead and post.

I am curious about people's opinion regarding this event, specifically, and campus "mayhem" in general as it relates to "the marketplace of ideas" from a conservative standpoint.


The thing is the left wing seems to put up with their "special snowflake brigades." I never see leftists coming out to challenge them. Only Bill Maher seems to do this from the left. It would be refreshing to see leftists say to them "Hey, it's free speech. How dare you censor an opposing view! You can't do this" and shake the angry fist.
4 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
msg tools
Pretty easy to sum up:
Student protests -- good
Students making their views known through non-violent means -- good.
The protest in question? They took it way too far and actually threatened people's safety by blocking exits and pulling the fire alarm -- bad.
Ben Shapiro? Ignorant human scum.

Like Mr. Fitt, I'm a Baby Boomer, although I'm one of the youngest in that group. Unlike Mr. Fitt, however, I like it that such issues are being discussed and cussed at universities and colleges around the country. I separate the tactics from the message, however. They did it wrong.

And here's one Baby Boomer who thinks America is on the exact right path (except for moron politicians). The expansion of freedom is the central theme of America's story, and it keeps growing. It's never easy, it's never without casualties, but slowly and surely the PEOPLE keep grinding away at the rich and powerful's privileges and elitism. And let's remember, it's the PEOPLE who built this economy, this political system, this country, not those weasel-like rich bastards who make money by pushing paper and stealing from the rest of us.
5 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
This demonstration is not authorized and is in clear violation of Mall of America policy.
badge
Those who continue to demonstrate will be subject to arrest.
mbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
rinelk wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
You're right I did ignore the Univ. offer to restructure his visit to make it a debate.


Would you then agree with me that Shapiro lied when he claimed that the university was too afraid to let him speak?

No. It is how he felt. To him at the time it was the truth.


So, you're saying feelings DO trump discussion?

"To him it was the truth" is literal nonsense. You could claim that he believed what he said, but I would have thought we'd agree he has some responsibility not to ignore evidence in order to justify being angry. When someone tells you you're welcome to speak soon, telling other people that that person was too afraid to let you speak is a lie.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.