Look who is coming to my campus.
I may attend, just because I’ve never seen a turd speak before.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Look who is coming to my campus.
I may attend, just because I’ve never seen a turd speak before.
Isn’t that the guy from Rules of Engagement ?
Our student conservative group had him speak last year as well. And Milo, 2 weeks later. There were a few university students there, but mostly it was attended by central PA (“Pennsyltucky”) locals. And it was crap, as expected. I tuned out when he went into “the party of Lincoln” rhetoric.
I find that difficult to believe, PZ.
You should have somebody find a video of his last campus speech so that you can prepare a number of students to ask pointed questions. Really, the liberals on campus should organize and prepare to boo this felon at appropriate points.
mikehuben@#4:
the liberals on campus should organize and prepare to boo this felon at appropriate points.
Observe his prior performances, then hand out bingo cards with phrases that he likes to use.
On the back, offer a short write-up predicting what he’ll say and explaining why his favorite talking-points are bullshit.
Hey! They forgot to add “Convicted Felon” to the poster.
“Science Auditorium”… that grates.
erichoug — And adulterer, which used to be an issue for fundies but that’s gone under the bus with other Christian values in the age of Trump.
Silly Robro. Everyone knows that the only way to be a “True Christian(tm)” is to vote Republican.
Is there any way to get a big “[citation needed]” banner hanging above him?
mikehuben,
Watching previous videos is a good idea. But students who need to be prepared to ask pointed questions are the wrong students to ask those questions. Why not have the students come up with their own pointed questions? Surely it can’t be that hard.
Asking pointed questions is fine. Silent protest is fine. But any student who interrupts an invited speaker should be ejected and appropriately punished. And anyone who encourages such behaviour should be ashamed of themselves.
@billyjoe #11
How about them not being ashamed of themselves? I mean putting “manners” up in defence of horrible people like Dinesh is what should make someone ashamed, not protesting him.
Besides, appropriately-timed booing is perfectly good mannered in my book (yes, I wrote it myself, but I copied off other people). Just like laughing at appropriate moments if someone invites a joker like that.
=8)-DX
=8)-DX,
Protesting that a particular person was invited to speak is free speech.
Lobbying to have that invitation revoked is against free speech.
Protesting before and after the speech is free speech.
Silently protesting during the speech is free speech.
Loudly protesting during the speech is against free speech.
Spontaneous clapping or laughing is a bit different from strategic booing.
Lobbying to disinvite a speaker is free speech. Only the government is prohibited from infringing on speech. People can pick and choose at will, and there is no law that compels any organization to offer a microphone and stage to right wing outrage mongers.
I can imagine the random student standing up in the middle of his inane speech and shouting “BINGO!”
someone needs to organize a prize table they can then run to and collect a prize.
I would pay to see that.
Tethys,
You don’t understand free speech.
Many universities allow their professors and student groups to invite whomever they wish to speak. To protest against the invitation of a speaker is part of free speech. To lobby to have the speaker disinvited is clearly against free speech. You are trying to silence a speaker who has been invited via legitimate channels. You are trying to prevent the speaker from speaking. You are also preventing those who want to hear him speak from hearing him speak. This is a clear violation of free speech.
I think you meant that only governments and government institutions are bound by the second amendment. Private institutions are not so bound, but they should nevertheless strive to abide by the spirit of the amendment.
The phrase “right wing outrage mongers” portrays your bias. Why not “left wing outrage mongers”? Why not simply “outrage mongers”. Even then, this is simply your opinion, and others will obviously have a different opinion about what constitutes an “outrage monger”.
But, I agree, no one is compelled to offer anyone a venue for their speech. This is not a free speech issue, and I’m not sure why it always comes up.
…sorry, wrong about “second amendment”, I was just reading about the idea to repeal that amendment (bad idea). I meant “first amendment”
*sigh* What idiot came up with the stupid and wrong narrative about freezepeach as demostrated by billyjoe? I am currently out of any patience or inclination for teaching basic principals of civics for the umpteenth time. Didn’t we eventually put together a collection of the threads so we didn’t have to go through it yet again for some dude who learned civics on reddit?.
billyjoe:
Because any performance (including question asking) is improved by being prepared.
The rules are set by the venue, not you. But if you will allow speech from the audience with applause, then it is hypocritical to forbid booing. You can’t simply assert that one is spontaneous and the other is not, and “free speech” by the audience is not judged by spontaneity.
You’re just making this stuff up? Persuading to disinvite does not stop the free speech of the speaker: it merely no longer offers one private venue. He is not prohibited from speaking any other way.
I’m looking forward to you hosting many liberal speakers in your home, where you will respectfully not voice disagreement with them.
I don’t know the guy, and probably would not agree with his views if I knew what they were, but turd is an inappropriate insult when applied to a person of colour.
Mikehuben,
From the bottom up:
My home is not a private institution.
I didn’t say “persuade”. I said “lobby”. Yes, you can try to persuade those who invited the speaker to disinvite him because of facts about the speaker of which they were unaware. No problem. But, if you try to lobby the university to overrule those who invited the speaker via accepted protocols, but who still want to invite him and still want to hear him speak, that is violation of free speech.
If you are seriously going to deny that spontaneous applause or laughter in response to what a speaker is saying is no different from organised booing for the specific purpose of disrupting speech, there’s not much more I can say. If you are now trying to imply that you meant spontaneous booing, then please explain why you said: “the liberals on campus should organize to plan to boo this felon at appropriate moments”.
I didn’t say the student should not be prepared.After all I agreed that watching previous videos is a good idea. I said preparing a student by providing a question for them to ask is not a good idea. They should be sufficiently up to speed on the topic to ask their own pointed question.
Captainblack.
…messed up the tag :(
Tethys,
You are implying some accepted way of looking at free speech. Excuse me if I don’t accept without argument your accepted version of free speech.
captainblack #20
You are cut off. Go home and go to bed.
billyjoe @#16:
Um… your comment at #13 was the first mention of “free speech” in the thread. It came up because you brought it up.
@billyjoe
Wow, you just love claiming things off the top of your head, don’t you.
It is not government nor public. So why isn’t it private?
Nope. Because he can still speak anywhere else in the world. Because the organizers can still arrange any venue they want anywhere else.
And what about spontaneous booing and organized applause? You seem to be complaining about organization, not whether the response is positive or negative. Since when do you want to restrict the speech of the audience as well? That’s up to the venue: they could permit torches and pitchforks if they wanted.
And are you going to require that speakers not recite “talking points” prepared by right wing propagandists? Wow, that would really shut up a lot of speakers.
If you want one-sided speech to only the party faithful, come out and say so. Otherwise, you have to endure two-way speech. Trump knows that, which is why he has people who oppose him ejected from his private venues.
Call me mark,
I was referring to the response along the lines of “no one is compelled to offer anyone a venue”. It always comes up as a refutation of a person’s “free speech” position even when that person hasn’t even suggested that is the case. Even when that person has been very clear that the compulsion to provide a venue is not part of the free speech issue, commenters nevertheless feel compelled to bring it up as if they’re winning a point or schooling their opponent.
Mikehuben,
If you think a person’s home is a private institution there’s nothing left to say. You obviously do not understand the meaning of the word “institution” and haven’t even bothered to look it up. Stop embarrassing yourself and avail yourself of a dictionary.
And you still refuse to understand that lobbying to prevent someone from speaking as arranged by a legitimate group using legitimate processes at a specified venue and time constitutes a violation of free speech. So much the worse for you.
And you are being disengenuous regarding spontaneous booing. It was clear from what you said that you were advocating organised booing. In fact you used those exact words, In fact I pointed that out and quoted you in my last comment, so now you’re going beyond just being disengenuous.
And of course you are still deliberately pretending to misunderstand my point about instructing students to ask pointed questions as opposed to students asking their own pointed questions. It is because you have no response to the point of that argument and you know it. Or maybe you don’t. That would explain it as well.
I implied that argueing with entitled trolls about the abject depths of their ignorance is tedious. We covered this at great length back in 2013. Go..read…educate yourself. Free speech vs. freeze peach
furthermore
My bias against this person is based on his awful opinions, and criminal behavior. I am similarly biased against the KKK, neo-nazis, alt-right white supremacists, Westboro church, and other hate groups. Nobody is required to listen to any of their hateful rhetoric, and protesting against the hate groups and their ideology is a well known and accepted expression of free speech.
Ah, a “freeze peach” asshole in billyjoe who fallaciously believes speech means somebody must listen “politely”. Sorry asshole, not the case. ALL SPEECH CAN AND WILL BE CRITICIZED, EVEN AT THE SPEECH. Don’t like speech you approve of not being accepted by silence, too bad. Here’s the problem. Show us by example you know how to listen to those who think, based on your words, you are nothing but a tone troll to be given the middle finger salute to. And what rational response do you expect from those who are on the receiving end of said salute? Show us you know how to take criticism.
Bring on the organized booing. Followed by organized garbage throwing, and potentially concluded with organized tar-and-feathering
The problem with some commenters on this blog is that, if you don’t fully agree with them on everything, they label you with the most extreme position possible. They then attack that position instead of the position you actually hold. What exactly is the point of that? All it shows is that they have no arguments against your actual position. I guess it’s just too easy to argue against extreme positions which you’ve rehearsed five years ago, than to bother addressing what the person is actually saying.
So now I’m expected to read a blog post and commentary from five years ago which presumably states what? The agreed position of the regular members of this blog about what is and is not free speech? Why not just state clearly why you think my position is wrong? Why should I be expected to search through a thread from five years ago to find out if you have explained why you think my position is incorrect? Why not explain it right here? Have you forgotten what the argument is?
Porivil Sorrens,
Yeah, be sure to refer back to that thread from five years ago to make sure that you state the argument correctly – as approved and certified by this blogs chief posters.
Wait…you don’t actually bother with any arguments do you?
You’re one of those yapping lap dogs who yap enthusiastically in defence of your owner.
billyjoe:
Such puling! Look, that people think and say DD is a piece of shit is free speech, no?
You think lobbying is per se against free speech but cavil about whether it’s itself free speech, you claimed if someone holds otherwise they don’t understand free speech, and get told that it’s something that has been considered before. Just as you’re not expected to read it (but there is the link, should you care to do so), others should not be expected to painstakingly remake an already-made case to you.
—
FWIW, I refrained from noting how stupid your original point was:
It’s not a dichotomy.
—
PS
<snicker>
Nerd of Redhead,
Nice.
Yes, it is the case. If a professor or student group goes through legitimate processes to invite someone to speak at a particular venue at a particular time and you choose to attend the speech, then, if you value free speech, you must listen quietly. If you try to interrupt that speech you are not a free speech advocate. It’s that simple. Also, others have come to hear the speech and you are preventing them from doing so. They have a right to hear a speech that has been legitimately organised via the usual channels.
Not sure why you felt the need to shout.
But, yes, you can criticise speech. I’ve never said otherwise. And, yes, you can ask questions at the appropriate time, or make comment if invited to do so. But, no, if you are a free speech advocate, you cannot interrupt the speaker to criticise him. If you do, you are not a free speech advocate. And, if you think you are, you don’t understand free speech.
If you are a free speech advocate, yes, you must hear the speech in silence. Spontaneous clapping or laughter is acceptable, because it’s unavoidable, but deliberate booing and calling out are un-acceptable for a free speech advocate…because you are interfering with someone else’s free speech.
I don’t see the analogy.
The only way you can demonstrate on this blog that you are not a free speech advocate is if you attempt to have me banned from the comment section without me having broken any rules. And this applies whether or not you are successful in your attempt.
The blog host can, of course, ban me at any time, for any reason, or no reason, because it’s his private blog and he is under no obligation to let me air my views here. If he did so, that would not be against free speech. He might be ethically challenged, however, if he did do so on a whim, or just because he didn’t like my views, or because other commenters wanted me gone and in a situation where I hadn’t broken any rules.
Tethys,
I do not know what you mean by “entitled”.
But I am not a troll. I’m simply offering an opinion about free speech that disagrees with yours. And no rational reading of my comments on this blog about free speech could possibly conclude that I am ignorant of the subject. If I get time I will have a look at your link, but it is telling that you are unable or unwilling to tell me in one short paragraph why you think I am incorrect in my opinion. This,of course, means actually reading what I have said, and understanding what Ihave said and not said.
I don’t think you understand the meaning of bias.
Bias is something we should all strive to eliminate. It is something all of us have, sometimes without realising it. But we should all try to understand and eradicate our biases.
What we should be left with is hopefully good reasons why we reject certain positions and why we reject all ideologies (because they all reflect biases). And we should have reasons that we can effectively communicate to others in order to counter the speech of those whose opinions and ideologies we reject.
No, you are not required to listen, but if you ever hope to effectively argue against their views, then you have to understand what their actual views are. When you attend a speech you are not listening to a group, you are listening to a speaker. The speaker may not actually represent the group. The speaker may have been misrepresented by others. You won’t really know if you don’t listen to the speaker speak. But, no, you are under no obligation to do so. But, if you are a free speech advocate, you must allow others, who have chosen to do so, to hear the speaker speak.
billyjoe to Tethys:
Way to conflate the justification for “their” views with “their” views.
(Or: there is no such entailment)
John Morales,
It’s free speech, but I wouldn’t rate it very highly. Maybe explain his views and explain why you disagree. That would be free speech worth hearing. Many people disagree with your assessment, and you’re not going to convert too many or prevent too many converts by calling him names.
I didn’t cavil. I stated my reasons clearly. Lobbying is not something a person does if that person is a free speech advocate. Because it is an attempt to limit or deny someone else’s free speech. Advocating free speech only for yourself, and for those with whom you agree, is not advocating for free speech. The test of free speech advocacy is advocating it for those with whom you disagree.
Lobbying itself is not free speech. It’s just an activity the purpose of which is to limit or deny someone else’s free speech. Like preventing the speaker or audience gaining access to the venue. Or like noisily interrupting the speaker during his speech. Neither are examples of free speech. Both are examples of activities aimed at limiting or denying free speech for those with whom you disagree.
Let’s just say an opinion that has to be referred elsewhere is not very convincing. That person may know that there is an explanation but may have forgotten what the explanation is and can’t be bothered to look it up. Here’s a link. Too easy. Also five years is a long time not to re-visit a position, especially a consensus position.
Well, thank heavens for that!
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
John Morales,
I’m not trying to justify “their views”. I’m saying that if you want to have any hope of arguing against “their views” then you need to actually know what “their views” are.
On the other hand, If you mean that simply attending the speech lends justification for the views expressed, then I’ve obviously been over-estimating you. Because that’s just nuts! Universities present a diversity of views. They couldn’t possibly be endorsing all the views expressed for the simple reason that most are contradictory or imcompatible with each other.
And, it may come as a surprise to you, but many of those who attend do not endorse all the views expressed either. And for the same reason. They just want to be exposed to ideas other than their own; to understand those views; to consider whether or not they accept or reject those views and the reasons for doing so; to be better placed when defending or arguing against those views; to maybe even to learn something.
But maybe you didn’t mean that?
Chigau,
I see you are above the fray.
No need for arguments when simplistic nonsense masquerading as “wisdom” will do.
And so easy.
From lap dog to “oh wise one” in a single bound!
(But wait till your mistress scolds you for messing up her dress!)
billyjoe #43
Just how much have you had to drink today?
@35
What thread are you talking about? Did you confuse me with Tethys?
I’m just advocating that we treat a deplorable the way a deplorable deserves. Can’t say I care too much about free speech insofar as it would prevent silencing an idiot like D’Souza, so bring on the hot tar and get the feather pillows ready.
And see, like, I actually don’t really care too much about making my argument. The people that treat deplorables how they deserve will do so regardless of whether or not you agree with them. Why should I give a shit if you do, when there’s clearly already plenty of college protesters willing to shut these people down?
Okay, I have read that article at the link provided by Tethys:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2013/05/free-speech-vs-freeze-peach/
Firstly, I was under the impression that I was being referred to a consensus statement by this blog’s host or the regular commenters on this blog regarding the meaning of free speech. In fact, it turns out to be an opinion on the meaning and non-meaning of free speech by Adam Lee on his blog in Patheos.
Secondly, Adam Lee’s article is about free speech as it relates to social media. On the contrary, the topic of this blog post is not about social media but about a speech about to be delivered at a university. The topic of the post, and my opinions about free speech in the commentary section have been about free speech as it relates to speeches organised and given at universities.
Thirdly, I didn’t disagree with any of Adam Lee’s opinions as expressed in his article regarding free speech as relates to social media. However, to some extent, his opinions on free speech as relates to social media can be extrapolated to free speech as it relates to speeches organised and given in universities (or any public or private institution for that matter). But where it does, it seems to support what I have been saying. I will offer two quotes from the article to make my case:
Those who removed the video were denying free speech to the maker of the video. She expressed her view in that video and, instead of responding to her arguments, those “trolls” simply took down her video. To my mind, this is analagous to people disrupting speech at a university. The person has been invited there to state his views, and instead of countering those views in the QandA session, or debating the speaker, or delivering speech counter to that of the speaker at a later date, they lobby to have his speech stopped or, failing that, they try to disrupt his speech.
The analogy with the scenario which is the topic of this post, and the scenario that I have been referring to in my opinions on free speech, must be obvious. Free speech is the right to speak your mind without harassment. Let the guy speak. Respond with your own speech – speak your mind if you are invited to comment; speak your mind via your pointed questions in the QandA session; speak you mind with a counter-speech delivered at any time after the speech. But don’t harass the speaker while he is speaking. By doing that you are advocating against free speech.
Chigau,
Three coffees.. Why?
Oh, I see, still avoiding giving arguments in order to hide your ineptitude.
How long has that been winning strategy for you?
Porivil Sorrens,
No those three “organised” I quoted came directly from your comment.
Except you spell it as “organized”, an acceptable but inferior alternative.
Did you forget what you wrote?
Fine.
Except that your charactisation of the speaker as “deplorable” is your opinion, but others will have a different opinion and some will find your opinions “deplorable” or even, heaven forbid, some may find you “deplorable”. So be careful what you wish for.
For example, some might interpret your views on free speech as advocating against free speech. They might find that “deplorable”. They may therefore characterise you as a “deplorable”. Shoe on other foot. Hot tar and feathers.
Of course there are.
The problem is that they are effectively advocating against free speech.
And what is your definition of “deplorable”? What criteria do you use to label someone as a “deplorable”? Does that have wide application? Or is there significant disagreement? Do you understand that, by someone else’s definition, you are a “deplorable”? Would you like to be silenced and hot tarred and feathered because there are people out there who regard you as a “deplorable” for what they regard as advocating against free speech and, therefore, against democracy?
How does that feel?
@49
For starters, I actually don’t support free speech. At least, not as something that is good for its own sake and that must always be protected. If I had to pick between suspending free speech and giving deplorables a platform, I’d gladly do the former.
Insofar as other people might disagree with my assessment and want to do the same to me, good for them. If anything, that’s more of an argument in favor of making sure they stay out of power by any means necessary. If that means breaking some eggs or no—platforming some speakers, fine by me.
Of course, as mentioned, I don’t care much about your arguments on the matter, as said @46. I’m not remotely interested in having my mind changed by you or in changing your mind on the matter.
BJ:
But people already know his views; that’s their very reason for calling him a piece of shit and why some object to his public exposition and justification of those views — they find them abhorrent. I too think he’s a nasty specimen.
More to the point: I don’t need to know the specific justification for some religious sect’s belief in its god and its commandments, I just need to point out how silly any such god-concept is to argue against their view. In DD’s case, his views are founded upon his malevolent Christianity, so my repudiation of the general god-concept is a repudiation of his view, too.
Again: knowing someone’s views is not the same thing as knowing that someone’s justification for those views.
Still tone trolling billyjoe. Still being an asshole and bully. That needs to stop. Step away from the keyboard.
Until you are going to learn from us, we have nothing to learn from you. An open mouth learns nothing.
BJ #48
Since I’m not giving arguments, how can you tell I’m not apt?
You really haven’t thought this through.
About 9 years in Pharyngula and over 60 in meatspace.
chigau number 53, I’m not sure you understood the word “ineptitude”, it has nothing to do with aptness. That said, I do wish you would cease inferring that commenters with whom you don’t agree have been “drinking” (presumably alcohol). It is not funny and can be damaging to those with substance abuse issues. Please have a little thought as to the consequences of your words, thanks.
From the Online Etymological Dictionary:
what a maroon: not sure you understand what etymology is. It describes the origins and derivations of words, it does not define their current meanings. Your comment is like talking about infectious disease spread by reference to miasma: the origin of the current theory may have links to past ideas, but those ideas have been replaced and refined, such that they are not directly relevant to current usage.
Trust me, I know what etymology is. When you say that ineptitude “has nothing to do with aptness,” the etymology is relevant.
But if you’re just interested in the modern use of inept, there’s this from Dictionary.com:
The original comment from chigau was, “how can you tell I’m not apt?”. I stand by my assertion that this was a misreading or misunderstanding of the word “ineptitude”, and not a witty play on C16 common usage.
I would argue that “aptitude”, as currently used and understood by the huge majority of English speakers, has no connection with “apt” (which I would say that huge majority would understand to mean suitable or apposite).
@Billyjoe:
I think some of your positions are reasonable, but some are utterly moronic. So when I tar some of your positions, I’m not tarring you for things you don’t believe. I am merely using a LOT of bitumen on the statements of yours that you, presumably, do believe.
You have contended that others here don’t understand free speech. I think it obvious that you don’t understand speech itself, which makes it pretty darn difficult for you to understand free speech. Moreover, I think you probably don’t actually believe some of the statements you’ve made. Rather, I think you believe in some highly-qualified version of them and simply don’t have a sufficient understanding of the topic, your own statement, or both to realize that qualification is needed to communicate the idea that you actually intend.
An early example in this thread is this one:
=8)-DX
billyjoe:
mikehuben:
The thing here is that no one before you mentioned that the clapping or laughing would be spontaneous, rather than strategic. And though mikehuben mentioned “organiz[ing] and prepar[ing] to boo this felon at appropriate points”, the person to whom you’re actually responding was clearly comparing all booing to all laughing.
In other words, you added something to the ideas of others to make them seem less acceptable without even appearing to be aware that you’re adding your own assumptions and failing to critique others ideas as they were originally expressed. Even mikehuben’s statement is that they should organize to boo at appropriate moments. Why should someone’s speech act at an appropriate moment be forbidden merely because they also communicated with others beforehand?
Do you even realize how stupid that sounds?
Person 1: Let’s organize to be appropriate in our communication.
Person 2: That’s forbidden, you anti-free speech Nazi!
But really, the Golden BillyJoe Award for Entirely Failing to Understand How Communication Works goes to:
To believe this, you have to believe that a protest against someone’s invitation is performed with no expectation or desire that this will have any effect on that invitation or future (potential) invitations. Moreover, “protests” are largely appropriate in my book, but since we’re talking about propriety anyway, making an appointment to visit someone’s office during work hours and then conversing with someone about an issue that is, presumably, within their professional area of responsibility can hardly be called inappropriate. My critique of lobbying as we currently understand it is not about lobbying writ large – the mere use of work time to discuss requests that one person has of another person or of an organization – but about the specific practice of lobbyists funding political campaigns: it’s about the money and the too-frequent corruption associated with the money, not about the speech.
So what’s your dreaded critique of lobbying? Apparently it’s that it might be successful:
First, this presumes that no “legitimate process” could ever incorporate appeals as part of that legitimate process. And/or it presumes that during an appeal, it is appropriate to forbid anyone from speaking on any side save that of the status quo … which would then be kind of hard to label “an appeal”. To what are you appealing? On what topic? For what results?
Ah, Appeals, we hardly knew ye!
But further, if no institution is required to give any particular speaker a venue at any particular time or place, then neither is any institution required to never rescind any particular venue invitation. If there is no requirement to furnish a venue, then there is no free speech implication for denying a venue. This does not change based on whether a venue was previously offered.
No doubt there may be other moral implications: inviting a speaker from out of town then cancelling at the last minute after expenses have been incurred carries with it negative implications if you don’t take responsibility for how your own actions have imposed those costs on the invitee. But it doesn’t raise a free speech implication. It can’t do so unless and until you successfully argue that one entity can be required by the principles of free speech to offer a venue or venues to certain other entities.
So you fail to understand the implications of your own concession that no one is required by the principles of free speech to offer a venue, you fail to understand what the fuck a protest is, and, finally, you would actually prohibit the polite conversation in an office environment of two or more people who are considering the best uses of a venue previously offered to a speaker.
YOU ARE AGAINST FREE SPEECH.
Seriously. Get it together. Read up on what protests are. Don’t penalize speech for being potentially successful. Stop adding your own assumptions to others statements. Don’t prohibit speech that is fucking defined as appropriate just because the speech and its message were discussed earlier (or, hey, you’d have to ban speakers who prepare their speeches, duh). Do think through whatever are your principles of free speech before you try to argue with other people about what does or does not violate them so you don’t engage in absurdities like agreeing venue provision is required then insisting that free speech principles themselves ever require venue provision.
Finally, think about speech itself. It might help you a bit. Even the venue problem becomes a little more clear when you recognize the difference between venue denial and silencing. If I am invited to use your venue between noon and two on some given day, then disinvited, my ability to speak is entirely unimpeded from noon to two on that day. I can say just as many words, wherever I happen to be, during those two hours whether or not the invitation is rescinded.
Rescinding a platform is not silencing. And if you don’t understand that, again, you simply don’t understand speech.
And you still refuse to understand that lobbying to prevent someone from speaking as arranged by a legitimate group using legitimate processes at a specified venue and time constitutes a violation of free speech. So much the worse for you.
Whoops! That last paragraph should have been cut and pasted, but was instead copied and pasted and thus appears twice, the first (appropriately) as a quote of billyjoe. The second time inappropriately in the default format that misleadingly implies that it is my own words.
My apologies.
Having long experience with Chigau’s dry wit and pithy use of language, I assert that you are in error, and nitpicking for no apparent reason. It would be truly bizarre if your motiviation for leaping into the conversation is that you were personally offended that Chigau asked if Billy might be drunk. (or over-caffeinated)
@Les Dawson:
Then you really fail to appreciate how much we like witty wordplay around here.*1
Moreover, I’m with What a Maroon on this one. When you say:
you are making a factual claim that is clearly wrong and clearly addressed by What a Maroon’s quoted etymology. “Ineptitude” clearly does have something to do with aptness. It has its very origins in concepts of aptness.
===========
*1: Though, for the record, I thought “‘aped Crusader” was pushing it and not up to the standards of the other puns in that thread, especially “Aye I” and “man, d’rill-y think so?”
Cain’t spell “assertion” without “ass”.
Tethys @61, I agree that I was nitpicking, and I wish I hadn’t. That reflects poorly on me.
Regarding the drinking snark (to be generous): not productive, and something I regard as offensive. Chigau uses this particular insult regularly in what seems to be an attempt to slander opponents, and it really grates. If she has/had substance abuse problems herself and uses this kind of “humor”(?) as a defense mechanism, then she of course has my sympathies. But dealing with it in this way, she should realize, causes splash damage to others in the same boat, as it were.
Crip Dyke @62, those links are 3 years old. Why should I know what “we” (you are the spokesperson here?) appreciated back then?
CD regularly speaks for me.
Eh, the thing is that those puns are just exemplars. I’m sure that there’s plenty of recent witty wordplay around here. I just happened to really like a couple of the puns in that thread. So it’s not that I expected you to be familiar with that specific thread (in fact, if I expected that you were, I wouldn’t have needed to bring it up), but just that I thought that while I was asserting that we appreciate witty wordplay around here, I may as well pass along some of the bits of it that I like.
First rule of holes, digging, seems to apply here to one of the current commentators.
Which raises a few questions: what is the second rule of holes? And how many hole-y rules are there?
Or is that a whole different thread?
@What a Maroon:
Yes, that is a different thread. A NSFW thread.
I shall say no more on the topic here. It would be … inappropriate.
It’s the holies which are a different thread. One that has lots of woo-woo, magic sky faeries, and presuppositional trolls (can be quite tasty slowly braised).
The second rule of holes seems questioner-dependent. If they don’t know the first rule, then the second is the same as the first, only with more emphasis. Otherwise, it’s perhaps a hint to turn off the steam shovel (not sure how these should be cooked, they mildly deranged penguin suggests since they have lots of iron, similar to spinach?).
All these nice threads around here, makes me feel underdressed.
@Les Dawson:
o hai. Number 72 is not 3 years old yet. Can I haz wordplay nao?
Billy
Add it to the list of things you fail to grasp. Again, perhaps you should spend more time using and absorbing the unlimited source knowledge at your fingertips rather than being rude, condescending, and demanding we remedy your ignonance? Just a thought. for example, this bit of contradictory billy nonsense
Firstly, this is the response of a disrespectful ignoramus. It is clear that thinking is not your strong point, so in future, try to refrain from insulting the people you then expect to fix your ignorance. There is nothing inherently wrong with bias itself, and it is impossible to eliminate it. Scientific bias is something we should strive to account for, so as to get accurate scientific data. Not all bias is a bad thing, such as being biased against those who would harm others because of their racial bias. I don’t need to listen to their hate speech out of some misguided effort at being fair and balanced.
Nemo @7
Perhaps in addition to timely booing, appropriately fed members of the audience could cut the cheese after particularly egregious statements.
Cheese? Cheese! Did somebody mention cheese? The mildly deranged penguin looks around eagerly, then starts running across the room, to and fro, surprisingly staying mostly on the floor, except for a brief argument with a chair (which is now embedded in the ceiling (fortunately, it was not the chair I am currently using)) — I use the diversion to sneak a generous slice of the Reblochon — before realising it would be wasted by pelting a talking turd.
Now, she seems to be noticing there is now much less Reblochon, and… (excuse me, urgent to to run away, run away…)
Just in case anybody needs fodder for bingo cards, here is a quick wonkette run down of possibilities. I suggest “real fascists”, an entire column for all things “Hillary” and something witty about books and Costco.
I am very amused to learn that CPAC disinvited the convicted felon from speaking this year, after some particularly egregious assholery to the Parkland kids. more bingo card fodder
How typical of those PC snowflakes at CPAC to deny DD his freedom of speech. I’m sure the NYT Op-Ed page is all afire about this attack on our basic freedoms.
Porivil Sorrens,
Thanks at least for your honesty.
I do support free speech.
I support free speech because I support democracy and you can’t have a democracy without free speech.
I support democracy not because it is perfect in practise, or even perfect in theory, because it is neither, but because, while upholding majority opinion, it also supports and protects the individual and minority groups against the oppression of the majority.
The only legal restriction on free speech is speech that constitutes a clear and present danger.
In my opinion, any activity the purpose of which is to restrict speech that does not constitute a clear and present danger, suppresses free speech and advocates against, and is a danger to, democracy, whether intentional or not.
Well at least you are consistent.
Consistent with your view that it is okay for you to try to suppress speech you assess as being “deplorable”, your view is also that it is okay for someone to try to suppress your speech if they assess it as being “deplorable”.
Would you be okay, then, if those attempts at supression of speech that people find “deplorable” (what you assess as being “deplorable” and what others might find “deplorable” about your speech) succeeded?
If you answer in the affirmative, do you agree, then, that you are thereby advocating against free speech? Of course, you’ve already answered that question, haven’t you?
By any means necessary?
Are you sure you wanted to say that?
On the other hand, I am interested in what people with views different to my own have to say, and to see if they have sufficiently tight arguments to at least cause me to stop and think; and maybe even convince me that I am wrong.
I am even interested in what Nazi’s, white supremacists, and racists have to say. They must have some reasons to believe what they do. What are they? If they are wrong, where have they gone wrong? Is it all emotion based? Have their views been affected by their life circumstances or particular events in their lives? I’m interested to know.
Tethys,
Perhaps I could have been clearer. I do understand the meaning of “entitled”. So, no, it is not on the list of things you believe I have failed to grasp! But I do not understand why you applied it to me, except as substituting name calling for argument.
That’s pretty presumptive of you.
You and others here have the unlimited knowledge and I am here to learn.
Even if that was the case, and there is little evidence of that, have you ever heard of learning by questioning what is being said. Do you really just expect me to just soak up everything said on this blog? Well, at least it’s consistent with your attempts to suppress free speech.
As for that presumed knowledge: you provided a link that was meant to inform me about the incorrectness of my argument. I read the article and showed how it actually supported my point of view. But there was no response from you. So much for your presumed knowledge.
I have not been rude or condescending.
By the way, talking about “rude”, how should I view the expletives you’ve used against me here and elsewhere on this blog? And, talking about “condescending”, how should I view your presumption that you and others here have some sort of unlimited knowledge base and that I am here simply to learn?
You might have had a point if I said “You don’t understand the meaning of bias” instead of “I don’t think you understand the meaning of bias”. It was an invitation for you to show that you do know the meaning of bias.
You might also have had a point if you actually did understand the meaning of bias and demonstrated that you did. Instead you have doubled down and show clearly that you do not understand the meaning of “bias”.
False, false, and false. Insult, hypocracy, and condescension. All in one short sentence.
I said that we should try to eliminate bias, not that it is possible to do so. I agree that it’s not possible to eliminate bias, just that we should try to eliminate it as much as possible. Because it clouds our judgement, and because it substitutes for good arguments for and against a point of view.
So, if we should try to eliminate bias as much as possible, how can bias not be “inherently wrong” or “a bad thing”. Bias is a bad thing. Even to be “biased against those who would harm others because of their racial bias” – how do you propose to fight bias with bias.
Yes you do. And it’s not about being “fair and balanced”. You need to listen in order to be able to assess whether or not it is even “hate speech”. Or are you going to trust the opinion of others that it is “hate speech”. You need to listen for yourself so that you can judge for yourself that it is “hate speech”.
And I haven’t even gotten to all the problems associated with defining “hate speech” and the disagreement about which speeches can called “hate speech” even with an agreed definition; and what all this means for free speech.
@billyjoe, #81
No one is required, morally, to listen to hate speech or to speech of any kind. Nor is anyone required practically. It certainly may be required to responsibly and/or faithfully exercise certain responsibilities (for instance, if you are paid to be a judge you certainly have to listen to the arguments and statements presented in court, including but not limited to any hate speech), but there is no general rule and you certainly haven’t demonstrated that Tethys occupies a position of unique responsibility that would give you reason to believe that she is an exception to the default position which does not require listening.
There are billions of people existing on this earth right now. Hundreds of millions are speaking or writing at this very moment. If I were required to listen, on the basis of principles of free speech or for any other reason, I literally could not function.
There may be practical reasons to listen to, read, or otherwise consciously take in and consider certain communication. There is no requirement, however, to listen to all the potential hate speech int he world so that I can make up my own mind about it.
Do you really even think about these positions you’re taking?
John Morales,
What you mean is that those who already know his views already know his views.
Firstly, the fact that some people say that they already know his views is not confirmation that they actually do know his views.
Secondly, there are people who don’t know his views at all, and a larger group who don’t know his views sufficiently well to know whether or not they agree with those views and what arguments they would use for and against his views.
Thirdly, nobody can really say that they fully understand anyone’s views. There’s always things they can still learn about a person’s views, including misconceptions they may have had about his actual views that they may have gleaned from listening to the opinion of other’s whose opinons of that person may have been biased.
Fourthly, others who say they know his views do not think they are abhorrent and do not think they should be barred from public exposure. They may think you views should be barred from public exposure
Here you’ve segued from a particular person’s point of view to the ideological beliefs of a religious sect.
This is a fallacious argument. It is called “The Fallacy of Division”. Adducing the characteristics of the part from the characteristics of the whole. And a repudiation of a general god concept could not possibly repudiate all the views of an individual who believes in that concept. You can’t just assume a whole set of views based on someone’s belief in a particular God.
I’m glad we agree.
But let me just point out that it would be pretty difficult to refute someone’s views without being able to refute the reasons for those views. That’s why you need to listen to his views. You need to understand his views as completely as you can and the reasons for those views in order to be able to effectivley refute those views.
Nerd of Redhead,
False accusations.
Substuituting expletives for arguments.
Trying to suppress speech because you don’t have an argument.
Yeah, I get it, this blog is the repository of all knowledge and I am here to soak it all up without question.
BJ, I have a comment caught by the filters*, but the problematic point was the same as Crip Dyke made.
So. Your contrarianism under the guise of free speech advocacy is tritely tedious because it lacks novelty.
I know you seek disputation, but alas, I know the commenting rules and heed them to the best of my ability.
—
* You make universal idealistic claims which are in reality untenable. Substitute the right variable into your claim, and… well, comments get trapped. ;)
I agree that the horde is an excellent source of knowledge, but unlimited might be a bit too much credit. Since it is clear that your only response to our efforts is to be a rude assholewhoknowsbetter I was suggesting you try this thing called the internet? It’s got much better uses than being a shitlord. Do you also require personal experience before you will believe that cyanide is deadly poison, or is this strange standard only applied to giving people with well-known histories of felony convictions your time and attention?
@billyjoe#83:
While that’s correct, what John Morales said was that
If, indeed, the views are “founded upon” upon something else, then the disproof of those other propositions necessarily disproves those particular views. That’s a natural consequence of being “founded upon” something else.
Look, I don’t want to embarrass you here. If you have some sort of disability that affects your comprehension or if English isn’t your first language or there’s some other special circumstance, do let me know. But absent that, I gotta call sloppy thinking what it is, and this is sloppy as all hell.
Crip Dyke,
Do you see the problem?
Tethys says she doesn’t “need” to do something. I reply that yes she does “need” to do that thing. And you interject that she is not “required” to do that thing. Do you not understand the difference between the “need” to do something and being “required” to do that thing? I may need to listen to someone’s argument (in order to understand and respond to it effectively), but I am not required to do so.
All you arguments are of this type.
In your previous response you claim that there is no difference between “protesting” against an activity and “lobbying” to have that activity stopped. You may not appreciate a difference but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. For example, someone can protest that a certain speaker was asked to speak (because they don’t think he is a suitable person to invite to speak) without going to the next step of lobbying to have that the speaker disinvited (because they respect the wishes of others who, now that he is invited, want to hear him speak).
You also went into a long daitribe about “spontaneous” and “organised” activity, when it was clear that the whole discussion resulted from someone suggesting that there should be organised booing during the speech. When they then responded with an illogical argument about clapping and laughter, my response was that “organised” activity is not the same as “spontaneous” activity. One is deliberate disruption of speech and the other is inadvertent disruption of speech. Deliberate disruption of speech is likely to continue and may even cause the speech to be abandoned. Inadvertent disruption of speech is likely to be limited unless it then becomes deliberate, in which case it is no longer spontaneous. Then others tried to broaden the discussion and, when I tried to limit the discussion to what was relevant to my argument, you characterised it as me failing to see the difference between their argument and the original argument.
Your argument in this post centered around your misreading of my response to Tethys, and you end with:
Well, maybe it’s not my failing to think about my positions but you failing to read and understand them.
Sometimes I miss TZT and the Thunderdome.
but really
not so much
Okay, I’ll bite:
What is the distinction that you draw between a “need” and a “requirement”?
Once you finish that, please tell me why it is accurate to state that Tethys “needs” to listen to hate speech but inaccurate to state that Tethys is “required” to listen to hate speech.
In general, of course, I notice that you went from responding point by point with others to vague handwaving with me.
What type is that? You don’t even specify.
What? I call bullshit. I never said there was no difference. In fact, I went out of my way to specify some of the differences. Why are you lying about this?
Moreover, I assert that people who protest intend for that protest to have an impact on the world. I assert that people do not go to a protest expecting and intending that literally nothing change and that the protest has no effects whatsoever.
Let’s look at how you describe the hypothetical protest:
Note that in your hypothetical, people are not protesting the content of the speech. They are protesting the invitation to speak. This is your hypothetical. If there is a protest on this topic, you have two comprehensive and mutually exclusive options:
In one case, the protesters intend and desire that literally nothing change. They are so upset about the invitation that they’ve come to protest so that the status quo can continue to exist.
In the other case, the protesters intend and desire that something about the invitation change. They might desire that the invitation be rescinded or they might desire an announcement that this invitation will be the last of its type (whatever type that is) or something similar. But rescinding the invitation is clearly one possible response of an administration to a protest of the administration.
While protests and lobbying have differences, I fail to see how protests that might lead to the cancellation of an invitation are morally distinct from lobbying that might lead to the cancellation of an invitation.
No. That’s factually wrong. The person who suggested that there should be organized, APPROPRIATE booing was a completely different person from the person who compared “appropriately-timed booing” generally to “laughing at appropriate moments”.
If you can’t tell the difference between the names on the comments to which you respond, then whatever problems I have with comprehension are far less serious than yours.
In any case, I think my previous comment stands up well: you’ve done little to address any specifics at all and I’m confident that other readers will recognize your various assumptions, elisions, and errors.
Crip Dyke,
My argument is that someone saying they know DD’s views, does not confirm that they do know his views. And someone saying that they know what his views are founded upon, does not confirm that they do know what his views are founded upon. In fact, it would be remarkable if any one person knew all his views completely and knew exactly what those views are founded upon. Even if DD himself said that his views are founded upon malevolent Christianity, you could not be sure that what he meant coincided exactly with you own concept of malevolent Christianity and therefore you could not know what views would necessarily flow from that.
Even you must understand that this is cheap shot although a little more sophisticated than chigau’s.
Well, I just hope you understand what I have done here.
Chigau,
I love your posts.
Not much nonsense to wade through :)
BJ:
Yeah. I suspect our host also understands. Heads up, good luck.
billyjoe
I have no idea who you are.
Why do you have your nickers in a twist about me?
*bugger*
it’s knickers, right?
No. That was your argument responding to a different statement by John Morales. Your argument to JM’s “founded upon” statement was this:
You are factually wrong about what your argument was. Your argument was that any assumption that views “founded upon” disproven facts or discredited views were not themselves disproven or discredited, because of the severability of the part from the whole.
This shows that you do not understand what “founded upon” means. If you had restrained yourself from making the “Fallacy of Division” argument, then your earlier argument (responding to a different part of JM’s statement) about ultimate epistemological uncertainty could have been assumed to carry over to this section. But that’s not what happened. You made a new, different argument.
And it was complete, utter bullshit, because you either failed to take in the words “founded upon” or you failed to appreciate what those words actually mean.
You know, if you acknowledge your obvious errors, I’m perfectly happy to consider a new, revised argument. I’m also willing to consider you an honest advocate for your position. However, when you are caught in obvious errors and you then make a defense out of something obviously untrue, then you undermine your credibility.
Is it your intention that we question your credibility as well as your competence? We all make mistakes. Owning up to them doesn’t make you stupid. Denying them when everyone can see the evidence that you have no possibility to hide is both stupid and dishonest.
How about you try not to be those things?
Crip,
When comments get to a certain length, fisking leads to exponential growth.
I have limited time and energy. I nearly didn’t respond to your rambling long posts for that reason. But I decided, to be fair I should respond to your effort in some way. But, now, in your most recent post, you ask me questions I’ve already answered, so it seems you are not even reading my replies. This is a lose/lose game. As for the details you go into, I am sorry if I didn’t answer every single one of them but, as I say, we can go on forever with exponentially increasing point by point replies, but all I have time and energy for is a general refutation of points relevant to my argument.
Maybe if you make one specific point about one particular argument I have made with which you disagree, I’ll give it ago.
Tethys,
Still no response to my defence of my arguments using your link.
Just more name-calling replacing argument.
Chigau,
Likewise.
I thought you realised I was just using you for a bit of light entertainment.
I thought you were in on it.
How wrong can you be?
@billyjoe:
Separately, let’s address this:
Sure this is trivially true. We also don’t know that we really exist as people. Perhaps we’re AI agents in a simulation or brains in vats. You really wanna go all hard-solipsism on us?
I guess the answer to that one is a resounding yes.
So here’s the 60 peso question: How does this ultimate epistemological uncertainty affect the principles of free speech and/or our
obligations“needs” under them?Maybe this would go better if you actually wrote up what your principles of free speech actually are, then wrote a couple paragraphs stating how these principles affect the “needs” of Tethys specifically and humans generally. I have a feeling that would be far more productive than your current disarticulated maunderings.
@billyjoe:
You have no
responsibilityneed to respond to anything I say here. Feel free to abandon the field at any time. It’s only if you wish to actually persuade others that a practicalrequirementneed exists to engage. You clearly aren’t persuading any of your interlocutors, though you never know what the impact is on readers who don’t comment. I’m willing to read your posts, but if you can’t be bothered, I’m also perfectly willing to let the conversation stand as is.John Morales,
Well that’s one way to try to shut me down.
Still there are all those posts were commenters are unjustly accusing me of being a racist, misogynist, rapist, not to mention the numerous expletives and deletives.
I wonder how that stacks up.
If you don’t see any more of my comments, you will know you have succeeded.
@billyjoe:
No. We won’t. Even if it was the intention of John Morales to “shut you down” we will have no way of knowing how verbose you’re being, and on what topics, just because your writing don’t appear on this particular thread of this particular blog on this particular site in this particular corner of the internet.
Being denied access to a particular forum is not the same as being silenced, however much you might wish that were true.
BJ, such paranoia! I might be allusive, but I don’t need to dissimulate.
Heads up. I think it’s still up to you.
(Martyrdom ain’t a trump card, but hey)
—
Anyway, it’s not the longest OP in the world — and I note it’s not it that you ostensibly dispute.
No, it isn’t!
billyjoe
Have a porcupine.
chigau, perhaps you have been drinking particularly heavily already today and have forgotten, but that insult is no longer welcome here.
One might say that PZ “spiked” it some time ago (that one was for Crip!!!)
LOL.
Thank you, Les Dawson: you just made my day.
Huh, nobody seems to have called billyjoe racist, or misogynist in this thread but he is very upset about it. He has had more than a few well-earned expletives aimed his way for his trolling in various other threads, but still has not grokked the basic principal of an ad hom argument, vs an argument in which you are wrong, and were offensive while restating your wrong understanding, so you also get called an idiot.
We aren’t engaged in a debate, and reasserting the wrong end of the stick is asinine. Remember when I experessed zero interest in fixing your misguided and illogical beliefs? I provided you the entire argument, since being an adult capable of using the internet to learn seems beyond your grasp. Why would I wish to spend any of my life teaching such an obnoxious student? Do you generally ask for explanations and then immediately deny the answer while claiming the teacher knows nothing about the subject?
I assume these are words that cause internet trolls to disappear in a poof? They would be quite useful.
Les Dawson If you are STILL upset days later about an offhand remark that was not directed at you in any way I suggest you contact a medical professional, and quit splaining your illness to chigau.
I suppose it is possible that Les was one of the egregious trolls who was actually gifted a porcupine back in the day? It would certainly explain his deeply aggrieved offense and claims of splash damage to alcoholics by inquiring if someone has been drinking.
Tethys,
Bottom line:
You have been unable or unwilling to defend your linked article against my demonstration that it actually supports my position. You may have plenty of “justifications” for not doing so, but excuse me if I conclude by default that you are unable to do so.
And, by the way, my demeanor is always one of intellectual engagement and emotional detachment which occasionally melts into amusement when someone has made a special effort at unkindness. But thanks for your concern.
And an expletive is something you and I know you wished to say but didn’t because you thought it might reflect badly on you rather than on me. I agree that this is a vanishing small sample of your full repertoire of abusive text. But thanks for the restraint anyway.
…oh, ad hominem, I defined for you before, but here is a link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
And have a look at that diagram to the right.
Most responses on this blog, including yours unfortunately, fall into the bottom four categories.
Les Dawson #107
Bullshit, PZ didn’t it. Consensus got rid of it. I was being nostalgic.
Have a nice day.
@billyjoe:
Okay, so I looked at your link. I looked at the diagram. And wouldn’t you know it, of the bottom four categories, only one describes/contains ad hominems. ALL of the responses could fit into the bottom 4 categories, and you still wouldn’t have proven that any fall into the specific category 2.
If you value that diagram, then strive to understand it: on a comment blog, the best method for clearly communicating a critique is described beautifully by the diagram:
“All y’all are either ad hom’ing or maybe doing one of 3 other things which are also less useful than a true refutation, therefore I was completely justified to say all y’all are ad hom’ing” isn’t merely less-than-useful for refuting any specific criticism, it’s the purest form of hypocrisy.
Not to mention the fact that you’re assuming that everyone cares. If you and others care that an argument stay on point, then great. When those others make a point, you, yourself, can stay on point and actually refute it. But some people just like name calling, and if they don’t actually assert that they are trying to refute argument, then calling names is likely perfectly useful for their purposes. It’s when you cite a source that asserts you should really be quoting your opponents making a specific error and demonstrate exactly why the quote is erroneous that your pattern of not doing exactly that thing makes you look like a hypocritical douchegabber.
In other words: don’t argue for standards that you can’t meet.