• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Coddling of the American Mind

sailordeac said:
Defending free speech is not defending racism. To say that defending free speech is defending racism is to misunderstand free speech. Defending free speech and opposing PC have nothing to do with racism, they are about freedom.
Click to expand...

wakephan09 said:
I'm not sure if anyone read the blog article I posted in post #237, but it includes this helpful and relevant bit:

I wish everyone could back up a step so that the entire discussion is not about free expression vs. censorship or between safe spaces and stereotype threats. Once the discussion has locked into those terms, then the “free speech” advocates are stupidly complicit in defending people who show up at parties in blackface or are otherwise costumed or having themed parties with deliberately offensive stereotypes. Once the discussion has locked into those terms, people who want to say that such stereotypes have a real, powerful history of instrumental use in systems of racial domination are forced to understand that advocacy as censorship–and are also unable to leave space open to hear people like Erika and Nicolas Christakis as making any other kind of point.
Click to expand...

A good, short article on "free speech" arguments as diversions from real discussions about racism. Sailor, did you ever get around to reading the one I posted above? You should read this one, at least.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/race-and-the-free-speech-diversion
 
Geez, this is getting out of hand. Professor resigns today after sending an email telling his students that skipping class because of threats of violence "lets the bullies win". Internet outrage ensues. Looks like the University won't be accepting his resignation.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-telling-students-not-let-bullies-win-n461686

On the other hand, there was also a great, thoughtful email from a Missouri professor this morning, reminding students that encouraging those that feel unsafe (in the sense of actual threatened violence) to stay home while others attended class only further marginalizes those students. He canceled class for everyone.
 
wakephan09 said:
It hasn't. It also articulates a pretty stupid argument.

Did you read any of the articles I posted? Two of them specifically address your statement from above.
Click to expand...

I read the New Yorker article and was not particularly impressed. I'll read the other one, when I get a chance.

The issue is pretty straightforward: people defending freedom of speech are not becoming racists by doing so; while, due to the tactics they use, the people professing opposition to racism are becoming opponents of free speech.
 
The problem with all of this, in my opinion, is that these students are upset about a legitimate, deeply engrained, institutional system of biases that are unfair, discriminatory, and dangerous, but they've chosen the wrong people and the wrong moments at which to outrage.

It's fair enough that all of these tensions have been simmering quietly under the surface at Missouri and Yale (and I'm sure elsewhere) and that these moments were the proverbial straws that broke the camel's back, but protesters just look totally unreasonable yelling and screaming, for instance, at the Yale faculty member whose wife wrote what was a pretty innocuous email. Or bullying and abusing the POC student photojournalist. Or coopting legitimate protest for people's personal and egotistic motives.
 
Two white male college students from other Missouri schools were arrested for threatening to kill black people at Mizzou.
 
sailordeac said:
I read the New Yorker article and was not particularly impressed. I'll read the other one, when I get a chance.

The issue is pretty straightforward: people defending freedom of speech are not becoming racists by doing so; while, due to the tactics they use, the people professing opposition to racism are becoming opponents of free speech.
Click to expand...

People support the "free speech" they agree with. It's simple as that. It's why conservatives hate the ACLU most of the time and love them some of the time and for liberals, it's vice versa. The ACLU is pretty damn consistent about where they stand on free speech.

That's why for some conservatives like Ben Carson, it's an assault on free speech to decry campus racism, but he wants to deny federal funding to those on campus who harbor what he sees as "extreme political bias." Conservatives even have their own website where conservatives can report liberal professors.
 
Last edited:
sailordeac said:
I read the New Yorker article and was not particularly impressed. I'll read the other one, when I get a chance.

The issue is pretty straightforward: people defending freedom of speech are not becoming racists by doing so; while, due to the tactics they use, the people professing opposition to racism are becoming opponents of free speech.
Click to expand...

This is certainly true in the case of the Missouri stuff with Click yesterday, and I think it will be (for better or for worse) one of the big takeaways from the whole Missouri protest. It was such an explicitly hypocritical turn of events that it hurt the cause of anti-racism. I'm not sure that is the case everywhere and in every case though.

On the other hand, while you're right in noting that not everyone defending Freedom of Speech is becoming a racist -- notably here, all of the administrators at Missouri and the journalists and activists nationwide that responded to the videos (or the ACLU, in general) -- once the conversation becomes about free speech like it has here, people tend to forget the very causes on which the movement was founded.
 
wakephan09 said:
This is certainly true in the case of the Missouri stuff with Click yesterday, and I think it will be (for better or for worse) one of the big takeaways from the whole Missouri protest. It was such an explicitly hypocritical turn of events that it hurt the cause of anti-racism. I'm not sure that is the case everywhere and in every case though.

On the other hand, while you're right in noting that not everyone defending Freedom of Speech is becoming a racist -- notably here, all of the administrators at Missouri and the journalists and activists nationwide that responded to the videos (or the ACLU, in general) -- once the conversation becomes about free speech like it has here, people tend to forget the very causes on which the movement was founded.
Click to expand...

This is why trying to limit free speech is such a terrible, counterproductive tactic in fighting against racism.
 
PhDeac said:
People support the "free speech" they agree with. It's simple as that. It's why conservatives hate the ACLU most of the time and love them some of the time and for liberals, it's vice versa. The ACLU is pretty damn consistent about where they stand on free speech.

That's why for some conservatives like Ben Carson, it's an assault on free speech to decry campus racism, but he wants to deny federal funding to those on campus who harbor what he sees as "extreme political bias." Conservatives even have their own website where conservatives can report liberal professors.
Click to expand...


Don't be such a cynic. Everyone can speak for themself. As for myself, I support free speech, not just the free speech I approve of. If most people only supported the free speech they approved of, then hardly anybody would be talking to anybody else.
 
sailordeac said:
This is why trying to limit free speech is such a terrible, counterproductive tactic in fighting against racism.
Click to expand...

What are the best tactics in your opinion? Feel free to PM me.
 
sailordeac said:
Don't be such a cynic. Everyone can speak for themself. As for myself, I support free speech, not just the free speech I approve of. If most people only supported the free speech they approved of, then hardly anybody would be talking to anybody else.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty fair description of where we stand in terms of having real dialogue in this country.
 
PhDeac said:
That's a pretty fair description of where we stand in terms of having real dialogue in this country.
Click to expand...

I think that you are exaggerating. Nevertheless, there is a good deal of talking past each other. Even so, the best alternative is to keep some sort of dialog, however flawed, alive. The other choices, silence or violence, are not particularly appealing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top