Trigger warnings, safe spaces, and fascism on college campuses

[Jeff Lebowski]

Oh boy...

Embedded Tweet

[LiveCoug]

Oh boy...

Embedded Tweet

That is incredible. At this point, we should only allow debate between two thoughts that are basically the same, but maybe one thought has a cute quirk. If you REALLY disagree with our correct views, then we will NOT give you a platform.

Amazing

[Jeff Lebowski]

That is incredible. At this point, we should only allow debate between two thoughts that are basically the same, but maybe one thought has a cute quirk. If you REALLY disagree with our correct views, then we will NOT give you a platform.

Amazing

It gets more crazy. They muted the thread. Lol.

Embedded Tweet

[Pelado]

Amazing.

[Clark Addison]

I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but at this time I don't really have a problem with what the JMU debate folks are doing here. I am definitely concerned about restricting the marketplace of ideas, and the authoritarianism and bullying that we've seen at places like Stanford and Yale, but I don't really see this as doing that.

The other caveat here is that the tweet above is the only thing I have read about this. I haven't even read the replies.

So the theory here seems to be that we are open to all ideas, but if we are going to bring people in debate ideas, we should bring in people who will debate them honestly, and Liz Wheeler is not someone who will do that. From the little I know of Wheeler, I think they are correct. They specifically say that no one should be suppressed, but let's try to amplify those voices that speak in good faith and are interested in an honest exchange of ideas, rather than idealogues and populists.

Like I said, this seems reasonable to me. If I saw a group bring in Liz Wheeler, it would definitely lower my opinion of that group, and I would not be inclined to think they were interested in an honest debate.

Now, if a group decides to disregard this, and invites her anyway, and the JMU debate folks try to disrupt or shout her down, I would oppose that. But I have no problem with being open to all ideas, while at the same time being selective in the messenger of these ideas

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but at this time I don't really have a problem with what the JMU debate folks are doing here. I am definitely concerned about restricting the marketplace of ideas, and the authoritarianism and bullying that we've seen at places like Stanford and Yale, but I don't really see this as doing that.

The other caveat here is that the tweet above is the only thing I have read about this. I haven't even read the replies.

So the theory here seems to be that we are open to all ideas, but if we are going to bring people in debate ideas, we should bring in people who will debate them honestly, and Liz Wheeler is not someone who will do that. From the little I know of Wheeler, I think they are correct. They specifically say that no one should be suppressed, but let's try to amplify those voices that speak in good faith and are interested in an honest exchange of ideas, rather than idealogues and populists.

Like I said, this seems reasonable to me. If I saw a group bring in Liz Wheeler, it would definitely lower my opinion of that group, and I would not be inclined to think they were interested in an honest debate.

Now, if a group decides to disregard this, and invites her anyway, and the JMU debate folks try to disrupt or shout her down, I would oppose that. But I have no problem with being open to all ideas, while at the same time being selective in the messenger of these ideas

Help me understand how a group can say "We stand for free speech", and at the same time argue that we shouldn't allow people to speak on campus if we disagree with their message/ideology? Isn't the entire point of free speech to allow speech you disagree with, or even find deeply distasteful? And who gets to decide which guests are sufficiently tame or "good faith"?

Why not just ignore it? Or not attend?

Ironically the JMU Debate club just turned this from a minor event into something the entire country is now following. Dummies.

[LiveCoug]

I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but at this time I don't really have a problem with what the JMU debate folks are doing here. I am definitely concerned about restricting the marketplace of ideas, and the authoritarianism and bullying that we've seen at places like Stanford and Yale, but I don't really see this as doing that.

The other caveat here is that the tweet above is the only thing I have read about this. I haven't even read the replies.

So the theory here seems to be that we are open to all ideas, but if we are going to bring people in debate ideas, we should bring in people who will debate them honestly, and Liz Wheeler is not someone who will do that. From the little I know of Wheeler, I think they are correct. They specifically say that no one should be suppressed, but let's try to amplify those voices that speak in good faith and are interested in an honest exchange of ideas, rather than idealogues and populists.

Like I said, this seems reasonable to me. If I saw a group bring in Liz Wheeler, it would definitely lower my opinion of that group, and I would not be inclined to think they were interested in an honest debate.

Now, if a group decides to disregard this, and invites her anyway, and the JMU debate folks try to disrupt or shout her down, I would oppose that. But I have no problem with being open to all ideas, while at the same time being selective in the messenger of these ideas

It was just as much the topic as it was liz wheeler. I don't think they would have approved of entertaining ANY person who took a stance that was deemed unsafe for trans.

[Clark Addison]

Help me understand how a group can say "We stand for free speech", and at the same time argue that we shouldn't allow people to speak on campus if we disagree with their message/ideology? Isn't the entire point of free speech to allow speech you disagree with, or even find deeply distasteful? And who gets to decide which guests are sufficiently tame or "good faith"?

Why not just ignore it? Or not attend?

Ironically the JMU Debate club just turned this from a minor event into something the entire country is now following. Dummies.

Well, I am taking them at their word when they say

No person should be prohibited from expressing their viewpoints in the public sphere. Debate exists so those advocating bad ideas can be answered and repudiated by those skilled individuals advocating better ideas

There are a couple of things I don't love in those sentences, but the basic idea they SEEM to be putting out there is that speech is absolute, but let's try to amplify honest voices. Are they being completely honest about this? I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't, but I don't hate most of what they actually put out there in the statement.

I mean, if they came out and said "We don't think we should invite David Duke to talk about affirmative action", none of us would have an issue with that. Liz Wheeler isn't David Duke-level bad, but there are a LOT of better choices to honestly debate an opposing viewpoint.

I do agree with your last sentence.

It was just as much the topic as it was liz wheeler. I don't think they would have approved of entertaining ANY person who took a stance that was deemed unsafe for trans.

Yeah, maybe. I am trying to take them at their word. They may have learned enough from Stanford that they feel they need to give lip service to free speech, but don't really mean it. I would say the probability of that is significantly above zero. But I am trying to judge based on what they are actually saying, at least for now.

[Northwestcoug]

Um, I think your numbers 3 and 5 directly go against number four, governor Noem:

Embedded Tweet

[Moliere]

I don’t understand the infatuation with drag shows either from people that participate or people that think they should be banned. I’ll admit to living under a rock so maybe I don’t see the increasing desire of Americans to participate in and attend drag shows so maybe I’m just ignorant.

[Pelado]

I don’t understand the infatuation with drag shows either from people that participate or people that think they should be banned. I’ll admit to living under a rock so maybe I don’t see the increasing desire of Americans to participate in and attend drag shows so maybe I’m just ignorant.

Ditto

[Northwestcoug]

Having spent a few days with my mom and her husband, I can assure you that drag shows are a huge blight to society, and thankfully Fox News has the courage to report on them.

[Non Sequitur]

I don’t understand the infatuation with drag shows either from people that participate or people that think they should be banned. I’ll admit to living under a rock so maybe I don’t see the increasing desire of Americans to participate in and attend drag shows so maybe I’m just ignorant.

I feel the same way about Marvel movies. Sadly, none of my letters to the governor demanding they be banned have been answered.

[Moliere]

I feel the same way about Marvel movies. Sadly, none of my letters to the governor demanding they be banned have been answered.

Well, maybe when your public library invites The Winter Soldier to read books to children he or she will intervene.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Having spent a few days with my mom and her husband, I can assure you that drag shows are a huge blight to society, and thankfully Fox News has the courage to report on them.

It has become the socially acceptable way to say in code "get back in the [redacted] closet you [redacted] f****ts."