Has It Gone Too Far? Free Speech and Aggressive Activism

Quote: RonC

"I think there is a gay mafia," Maher said. "I think if you cross them, you do get whacked."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/04/bill_maher_there_is_a_gay_mafia_if_you_cross_them_you_do_get_whacked.html

Whether he meant it or it was tongue-in-cheek, is that what we need?

If by "what we need" you mean "do we need someone saying it" I say yes, we do. Same as we need someone calling out the mafia tactics of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, NOW, and others.

Quote: AZDuffman

OTOH, feel free to ignore yours and listen to other sources. The world needs sheep.

Call me whatever you want. I understand how to do peer review and calculate p-values. If you don't trust science I can't help you, best of luck. On your way out, turn in your GPS (relativity is required for those to work), vaccines (statistics are need to prove those are effective), and the ability to build skyscrapers (engineering and materials science). Enjoy living in the 14th century (for 40-60 harsh years if you are lucky).

Now every left leaning group that doesn't get there way presents the following arguments.

We need a "clear and transparent process" to decide the outcome.

We need a government enquiry since we don't trust the sources present at the enquiry.

We need to negotiate an outcome.

and the kicker

We didn't have any meaningfull negotiation because we didn't get the outcome we wanted.

Quote: endermike

Call me whatever you want. I understand how to do peer review and calculate p-values. If you don't trust science I can't help you, best of luck. On your way out, turn in your GPS (relativity is required for those to work), vaccines (statistics are need to prove those are effective), and the ability to build skyscrapers (engineering and materials science). Enjoy living in the 14th century (for 40-60 harsh years if you are lucky).

Not sure you got the idea that I don't trust science at all. What I have stated is I will not listen blindly to it when it goes against the experiences and logic I have seen (eg: so-called global warming.) Please read closer next time. Or else at least please refrain from suggesting that anyone who does not believe what they are told hook, line, and sinker is some kind of fool.

Quote: AZDuffman

Not sure you got the idea that I don't trust science at all. What I have stated is I will not listen blindly to it when it goes against the experiences and logic I have seen (eg: so-called global warming.) Please read closer next time. Or else at least please refrain from suggesting that anyone who does not believe what they are told hook, line, and sinker is some kind of fool.

And my point is there are large bits of science which can not be confirmed at intuition (relativity for example). Please read closer next time. Or at least please refraim from suggesting that anyone who questions what their own experience doesn't use (have) common sense.

Quote: endermike

And my point is there are large bits of science which can not be confirmed at intuition (relativity for example). Please read closer next time. Or at least please refraim from suggesting that anyone who questions what their own experience doesn't use (have) common sense.

I'm not sure when I questioned relativity or even brought it up. Looking back at the thread you and not me brought up questioning science. I have made the simple statement that I am going to trust my own experiences over unproven science, the best example being global warming for which I have given basis of questioning over, over, and over here.

Looking back at this entire thread I see that all I did was discuss some of the history of PC Speech Codes on college campuses and you then drove it to my "questioning science." If you wish to discuss science vs common sense there is a thread over at DT that is doing just that. I am involved there and will be happy to continue. Please do not continue the hijack here and lets return to topic.

Quote: RonC

"I think there is a gay mafia," Maher said. "I think if you cross them, you do get whacked."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/04/bill_maher_there_is_a_gay_mafia_if_you_cross_them_you_do_get_whacked.html

Whether he meant it or it was tongue-in-cheek, is that what we need?

Quote: AZDuffman

If by "what we need" you mean "do we need someone saying it" I say yes, we do. Same as we need someone calling out the mafia tactics of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, NOW, and others.

I'm sorry...I was unclear. Are we willing to accept a gay, straight, black, white, yellow, religious, etc. mafia who digs in not to find corruption or anything of that sort...but to find out who donated to what organization and then pressure the organization to rid themselves of someone simply based on a stand taken, not even apparently all that loudly (was he campaigning against gay marriage openly that we know of?)????

It is unacceptable to fire someone because they are gay. It is unacceptable to fire someone because they said something that gays oppose. It is acceptable to fire them if they spend work time promoting personal positions that oppose the corporation's position or if they do it under the name of the corporation.

Quote: RonC

I

It is unacceptable to fire someone because they are gay. It is unacceptable to fire someone because they said something that gays oppose. It is acceptable to fire them if they spend work time promoting personal positions that oppose the corporation's position or if they do it under the name of the corporation.

Again these two things are not comparable. Being gay is something someone is supporting a cause is something they do. The former CEO wasn't forced to resign because he was straight, which would be the direct analog of firing someone because they are gay.


Now you can say it is wrong they fired him for supporting anti-gay causes just like it would be wrong to fire someone for supporting pro gay cause but it is not the same as firing someone for being gay.

Quote: Twirdman

Again these two things are not comparable. Being gay is something someone is supporting a cause is something they do. The former CEO wasn't forced to resign because he was straight, which would be the direct analog of firing someone because they are gay.

Now you can say it is wrong they fired him for supporting anti-gay causes just like it would be wrong to fire someone for supporting pro gay cause but it is not the same as firing someone for being gay.

I'm sorry, but I wasn't looking to compare being gay to being against a gay position--there are more than few things that are unacceptable and both of my examples are unacceptable, as is your added example. It isn't a complete list, just a couple of things that are unacceptable. No need to look at the words for a deeper meaning.

Quote: AZDuffman

I'm not sure when I questioned relativity or even brought it up. Looking back at the thread you and not me brought up questioning science. I have made the simple statement that I am going to trust my own experiences over unproven science, the best example being global warming for which I have given basis of questioning over, over, and over here.

Looking back at this entire thread I see that all I did was discuss some of the history of PC Speech Codes on college campuses and you then drove it to my "questioning science." If you wish to discuss science vs common sense there is a thread over at DT that is doing just that. I am involved there and will be happy to continue. Please do not continue the hijack here and lets return to topic.

Way back when:
Your first post in this thread included "This has been going on for years. Started on college campuses, at first they banned a few words. Over time they banned thought. Over more time it became that not only that you could not speak your own thoughts but you had to be a cheerleader for the 'correct' thoughts."
I said your posts smack of a strong anti-intellectual vibe. I then said that conservative speech oppression on campuses is not nearly as bad as you portray it.
Then you said "Show me a person who trusts 'other sources over their own experiences' and I will show you a non-thinking person who is easily played." Next, you cited a few outlier, horror stories. After that you shared a story of a good prof. Finally, you concluded with a rather disrespectful way of saying you didn't mean everyone on campuses in your first post, although you still seem to say it is widespread.
I then responded that someone who trusts "their own experience over other sources" will not be in good shape either. Concluding, "obviously the good judges are those who can balance the two." I then said stories you pointed to were outliers, and you should not paint any group by their worst elements. Finally, I shared a bit about a prof I liked as well.

I was ready to leave it there. I agree speech protection on campus are weird and not perfectly enforced. The argument then progressed because of 24Bingo's post and your resultant reply. I then jumped in because I feel one should not generally put their own experience ahead of expert/scientific opinion without good reason. For my part in the derailment, I apologize.

Back to the topic at hand: The overwhelming majority of people on campuses are reasonable and respectful.