It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Finally, a college cracks down on the left’s snowflake fascists

page: 2
60
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Krakatoa

Do you imagine that wingnuts can't be triggered? Need some examples? Or that right-wing "snowflakes" aren't pro-censorship in many other contexts?

I can provide examples of that as well. From calling for CNN to be declared "domestic terrorists" and Trump-critical media outlets to have their broadcast licenses revoked for "sedition" to calls for imprisonment of Rachel Maddow and more recently, a RICO investigation of Snopes.

And that's all from ATS posts in the last few months. I can also link you a video of Fox News commentators saying that a rapper should be assassinated by the government over a song.

The fact is that most of us on the Left strongly agree that people with unpopular opinions shouldn't be, by force, denied a public platform for expressing their ideas. We don't support censorship and in fact, our ideological kin have long been champions against it as they have themselves been victims of it.

This is actually an area where we could find some agreement if it weren't for the fact that the Right was intent on constantly trying to smear us with the actions of a very small group compromised mostly of dumbass college kids.




Show me where I stated that there were no right-wing snowflakes? IMO, a snowflake mentality spans the political spectrum. In this particular case of the thread, they were left-wing snowflakes. Would you not agree? Acceptance of that fact does in no way imply that all people with left-leaning ideals are snowflakes. If that is what you feel, then the ultra-sensitivity is another attribute of the snowflakitis to which I referred.

So, for you, which is it?




posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

People expressing their opinions, as per the examples you give, is a far cry from the disruption of speakers. I'm not sure how conflating the two, nor the hypocrisy in your attempts to smear, help your argument in any way.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa


The title I used is the title of the article I referenced from in the OP. All per ATS guidelines.

No. The Political Mud Pit has no such rule.

The News sub-forums have those rules, such as BREAKING ALTERNATIVE NEWS:

3). Copy and paste the EXACT headline as it appears in the original news article. Do not create or sensationalize your titles. Some editorial leeway is allowed, of course, if the original title is too long, inappropriate for ATS, inflammatory, etc.

The title you put on this thread is your choice.



If that offends you, then I suggest you know the answers to your own questions. Any comments on the actual story now?

I didn't make any reference to being offended or not. As for what I think: I think your news source is engaged in low brow political spin.

As for the story: The college did not change its policy on free and open speech, nor did it change its procedures on discipline.



what is triggering you is a set of words in the OP article title. I think the act of being triggered by words is one of the qualificaitons of "snowflakitis" IMO.

I assume by your use of the word triggering that you mean "prompting a question or two". So Snowflakes are people with questions? Again, based on your usage.
edit on 25-7-2017 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963


Bet you if Law Enforcement showed a heavy hand against them you would be one of the first on ATS to be bitching about the heavy hand of the police state?

Sorry, you are not fooling anyone.


What do you mean by "heavy hand" exactly? It's always the wingnut authoritarians yammering about the Constitution who are the first to call for "heavy handed" treatment by the state against those they don't agree with.

I could care a less about whether or not you think I'm "fooling anyone" — your opinions are 99% garbage. I'd be far more concerned if you didn't disagree with me.

The biggest difference between most of you and these idiots are that they want to shut up people they don't like and you want the government to shut them up for you.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

That's an interesting argument but one I would consider wholly invalid. The First Amendment:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


The First Amendment protects our speech against infringement by the government, it does not compel the government to protect the speech of citizens against censorship from other citizens. It doesn't in the text nor in any interpretation of the 1A in any SCOTUS ruling I'm familiar with.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman


Thats on the list for places my kids may go.

I attended a 3 day event there around 1990. Spent two nights in a dorm room even. It was pretty nice then. Probably still is.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: theantediluvian

People expressing their opinions, as per the examples you give, is a far cry from the disruption of speakers. I'm not sure how conflating the two, nor the hypocrisy in your attempts to smear, help your argument in any way.


Hypocrisy? I don't author thread after thread, attempting to smear my political opponents by pointing to examples of fringe elements in their ranks. Not because it wouldn't be a simple matter of running to any number of websites and returning to ATS with links to stories about the exploits of unhinged right-wingers.

In the context of this thread, I'd say turnabout is fair play.

I would also add that while threads like this cite the actions of people who AFAIK aren't a part of our ATS community, I at least offered examples from these very forums.

As for the validity of my comparison — I'll stand by it. What these factions have in common is that that they are so desperate to shutdown opposing political views that they'll resort to extralegal measures. As I said in my response to seeker, the difference in my opinion is that one group will do it/attempt it through their own action (disruption or worse) while the other appeals to authority to infringe on the rights of others to accomplish a similar goal, arising from an identical desire.

That's a bit of a generalization on my part though as there are those from either group who will take action of their own, appeal to authority or both.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

You still have not acknowledged that the students in question in this case could be rightfully described as leftist snowflakes based upon their actions. Again, this is not a generalization at all, but addresses the individuals in this case only.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Fair enough. I'll readily agree that "snowflakes" span the political spectrum.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: theantediluvian

You still have not acknowledged that the students in question in this case could be rightfully described as leftist snowflakes based upon their actions. Again, this is not a generalization at all, but addresses the individuals in this case only.



And I'm responding to three posters between answering work emails and making chili (and no, it's not vegan
).

EDIT to add:

I wasn't familiar with the incident and I'm only somewhat more familiar now having read a few short news pieces but it sounds like they bodily prevented entrance to the event? Yeah, I don't agree with that. If they want to stand outside the auditorium and chant, that's their right and they should do it. If they want to hold a counter event and address their issues with the speaker, all the better.

Preventing people from entering is not only wrong but weak. I don't know if I'd personally refer to them as "snowflakes" as I believe it has slightly different connotations but they certainly seemed to have been "triggered" into something I clearly wouldn't defend so if that's what you want to call them, I won't disagree.


edit on 2017-7-25 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Thanks, And I agree that the right has probably just as many of the same actors in their midst. And if I see them react in the same manner in a new article, I will equally post that as well.

I don't advocate that type of reaction form any side. Peaceful protest, yes. Blocking entrance to others or shouting over the speaker both are attempts to prevent someone from speaking freely and expressing their ideas. That, in itself, is the act of someone that does not believe in open discussion and free speech.




posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: seeker1963


Bet you if Law Enforcement showed a heavy hand against them you would be one of the first on ATS to be bitching about the heavy hand of the police state?

Sorry, you are not fooling anyone.


What do you mean by "heavy hand" exactly? It's always the wingnut authoritarians yammering about the Constitution who are the first to call for "heavy handed" treatment by the state against those they don't agree with.

I could care a less about whether or not you think I'm "fooling anyone" — your opinions are 99% garbage. I'd be far more concerned if you didn't disagree with me.

The biggest difference between most of you and these idiots are that they want to shut up people they don't like and you want the government to shut them up for you.


lol

You know exactly what I mean.

We can play this game all day!



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I would also point out that many in the "liberal media" also spoke out against shutting down Mac Donald.

LA Times editorial board - Shutting down campus speech is a great way to lose an argument


The best way to refute the arguments that "War on Cops" author Heather Mac Donald makes in her book about policing in America is to read it and systematically dissect her assertions point by point. A decent backup plan might be to attend one of her campus lectures — like the one she delivered last week at Claremont-McKenna College by live stream after protesters blocked the entrance of the hall at which she was speaking — and subject her statements to pointed questioning and critique.

Instead, the approximately 250 protesters whittled even shallower arguments into shouted slogans that they paired with a display of brute force, declaring in essence that there was no debate to be had, because they had already done all the thinking and drawn all the conclusions and no one else need inquire into the issue. That’s an assertion, and those are tactics, that would be frighteningly familiar to anyone who has suffered under a populist but repressive dictator.


The Atlantic - Words Which by Their Very Utterance Inflict Injury


College students seeking to suppress or punish speech in their communities are the latest iteration of a longer tradition in American life than many of their critics acknowledge. That’s true even narrowing our backward gaze to Supreme Court cases from the last century.

If something like the Campaign Zero agenda for policing reform is going to triumph in America, future leaders at places like the Claremont Colleges will need to know how to meet people like Heather Mac Donald in face-to-face encounters, and to demonstrate that their critiques and ideas are superior. Simply declaring that she is a bigot will not, in fact, advance social justice. If these students succeed in changing free-speech norms in any realm, so that expression is more routinely suppressed when dubbed injurious or hateful or libelous, the history of speech restrictions on and off campus—a history routinely ignored by student censors—suggests marginalized communities will be hardest hit by their pyrrhic victory.


Hell, even The Root managed this in their story:


In any case, freedom of speech is freedom of speech, and just because you don’t like the message doesn’t mean you get to shut it down.

As evidenced by the UCLA video, it appears that is what people were trying to do.


One last thing I'd like to mention that hasn't been mentioned elsewhere that I saw (I could have missed it) and in either case, not by me.

The word "finally" at the beginning of the title (and I know it's not the OP's title) implies something that has been ongoing and hasn't been addressed.

What's the actual incidence of this? According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, there were 4,724 degree-granting institutions (2 & 4-year colleges/universities) in the US as of 2014.

How many similar incidents to this have there been from among those nearly 5,000 schools? 2? 3? Maybe 4? How does that compare to the reporting in right-wing media? The citing of these incidents in right-wing rhetoric? The number of threads on ATS?

Is it a concern? Sure. Is it the crisis the disproportionate mention would lead one to believe? I don't believe so.
edit on 2017-7-25 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

Alright, I really only find about 73% of your opinions to be bulls# but I do enjoy arguing with you.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Krakatoa

Yes, yes and yes.

It's about time somebody let these entitled, spoiled brats, realize that it's not all about them, and that you can't run around acting like wild buffoons without repercussions.



I'm shocked!!!....shocked I tell you!!!...college age young adults acting stupid!!!!.........they got taken care of at kent state a few decades ago...the national guard came in and simply shot them....



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Of course, they do. That's obvious to any observer without a political ax to grind--or at least one that isn't too big...
.

Campuses should be hot beds of social unrest--peaceable unrest, where I'm allowed to disagree with, say, you...without fear of being threatened myself, or the folks coming to hear me disagree with you. The opposite should, of course, be true, as well. You should be free to disagree with me in any fashion, so long as its peaceable, you choose.

No one should fear to appear on a college campus. Irregardless of their opinions on whatever. No one has to go to hear 'em.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


Hypocrisy? I don't author thread after thread, attempting to smear my political opponents by pointing to examples of fringe elements in their ranks. Not because it wouldn't be a simple matter of running to any number of websites and returning to ATS with links to stories about the exploits of unhinged right-wingers. 

In the context of this thread, I'd say turnabout is fair play. 

I would also add that while threads like this cite the actions of people who AFAIK aren't a part of our ATS community, I at least offered examples from these very forums. 

As for the validity of my comparison — I'll stand by it. What these factions have in common is that that they are so desperate to shutdown opposing political views that they'll resort to extralegal measures. As I said in my response to seeker, the difference in my opinion is that one group will do it/attempt it through their own action (disruption or worse) while the other appeals to authority to infringe on the rights of others to accomplish a similar goal, arising from an identical desire. 

That's a bit of a generalization on my part though as there are those from either group who will take action of their own, appeal to authority or both.


Yes hypocrisy; pretence. Excoriating others for something you yourself take part in, in this case in the very same sentence. Why would anyone take such criticism seriously?

Arguing about, expressing the opinion that, wishing, or “calling for”, any such measures are in no way similar to physically going out and doing it. Though I agree there is a danger there, until it becomes more than mere expression of opinion, that’s all it will remain.

The Right is guilty, however, of disinviting speakers, boycotting companies, and is once again fostering an outrage culture that it used to be famous for. But the left is still the greatest censor in these areas as of now. I’m with you that this is an area that all sides can come together on, because it is what allows us to have differing opinions in the first place, and I glad you took a few moments to call it out.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Krakatoa

Yes, yes and yes.

It's about time somebody let these entitled, spoiled brats, realize that it's not all about them, and that you can't run around acting like wild buffoons without repercussions.



I'm shocked!!!....shocked I tell you!!!...college age young adults acting stupid!!!!.........they got taken care of at kent state a few decades ago...the national guard came in and simply shot them....





posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Freedom of speech does not mean what you think it means.

In interactions between regular people. You don't have freedom of speech.

In interactions with the government. You have freedom of speech.

Big difference.

However I will say. These colleges need to start expelling troublemakers. One thing is to protest peaceably. Another is to be a jerk about it. No more.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Krakatoa



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Freedom of speech does not mean what you think it means.

In interactions between regular people. You don't have freedom of speech.

In interactions with the government. You have freedom of speech.

Big difference.

However I will say. These colleges need to start expelling troublemakers. One thing is to protest peaceably. Another is to be a jerk about it. No more.


If you actually read the posts in this thread before replying, you would have seen that I already addressed that topic.

But then, it wouldn't give you anything the whine about then I guess.




top topics



 
60
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join