Wisconsin Speech Bill Might Allow Students To Challenge Science Professors (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: There have been some well-publicized incidents in which student groups or other protesters have interfered with scheduled appearances by right-wing speakers at U.S. universities. In response, a number of states have considered "campus free speech" bills based on model legislation produced by the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank. Different bills introduce specific penalties for students who shout down the speech of others and prevent college administrators from disinviting speakers, to give two examples. One such bill is being debated in Wisconsin. Faculty and university officials in the state are concerned about what else might be prevented by the bill's overly vague language, according to the local Cap Times. As often happens with bills relevant to science education, the debate has also elicited some rather bizarre comments from the bill's sponsors. The trouble comes from this section of the bill: "That each institution shall strive to remain neutral, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day, and may not take action, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day in such a way as to require students or faculty to publicly express a given view of social policy." While the bills' scope is focused on public events involving invited speakers, there are a couple key questions here. University officials want to know how far this requirement "to remain neutral" extends. For example, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has spoken out against proposed bans on stem cell research on campus. Would the university run afoul of this law if it did so again?

Comments

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick of these lefties fresh mouths.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh you hate lefties do you? Well it's time you get my dick in your mouth!

(OP puts dick in mouth, cries, eats it)

Wait I didn't mean actually eat it nnooo AAAGGGHHHH

(crunch noises)

Re:Good

[ShanghaiBill]

I'm sick of these lefties fresh mouths.

I think the lefties' behavior tarnishes their own cause, but I am skeptical of the righties' effort to ensure free speech by restricting speech.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I am confused. So you are a... shitposter?

Re:Good

[ArmoredDragon]

Restricting it how?

TFS makes it sound as though challenging science professors is a bad thing. So long as it isn't disruptive to the class, it shouldn't be discouraged. Science is often all about challenging long-held beliefs, even when those beliefs are held by tenured scientists.

Re:Good

[Jzanu]

Science is about challenging belief with evidence, particularly procedurally documented and experimentally generated evidence. In other cases it is observationally generated or synthesized by review of existing literature. All are valid. Disagreeing for the sake of disagreement, objecting for the sake of grandstanding, and claiming belief in the face of contrary evidence are poor imitations and must be called out as a deluded faker.

Re:Good

[elrous0]

I am skeptical of the righties' effort to ensure free speech by restricting speech.

Shouting down those who disagree with you so they can't be heard, pulling fire alarms in the buildings where they're trying to speak, and threatening violence against anyone who supports them isn't "free speech." It's fascism.

A citizen should have every right to speak freely, but they should never be allowed to silence their opposition through violence and activities designed specifically to deny their opposition a venue to speak or to be heard. It's your right to speak, but it's not your right to stop me from speaking too.

It's sad that these laws are even necessary. There was a time when the left stood up for free speech. Now they oppose it. Liberals like me have been alienated by the modern SJW liberal movement, and it's why blue states are turning red.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sick of righties calling techs lefties because they use big words
I am sick of righties thinking they can then turn around and threaten to dox people they can barely understand
i am sick of righties getting called out and whining that they're being bullied because they failed in a power gambit but they're doubling down & need a sucker

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans, conservatives, Trumplodytes all seem interested in the trappings of liberal society-education, government, etc. without actually committing to the rigor and discipline each require. Hence equating arguing against evolution without evidence with scientific discourse, telling a bunch of people to do crazy stuff as presidential without actually thinking things through and following the constitution or the body of common law, etc.

Re:Good

[SuricouRaven]

Challenging them with science, yes. But this bill isn't about science, it's about politics.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, no it doesn't. This "both sides are awful" bullshit needs to die in fire.

Re:Good

[SharpFang]

I think you might have the Gerstmann syndrome

The flagship left "social sciences" have been shamed over and again over accepting total BS for science and being unable to comprehend the scientific methods. And when a lander was reaching the surface of a comet, all the feminists could think about was what shirt the head of astrodynamics team wore.

Doxing... too many examples to list.

And as for 'power gambit', you mean the gambit of cheating Sanders out of the nomination in the primaries, only to lose the general elections?

Re:Good

[Opportunist]

They're as much the "flagship left social sciences" as the religious nutjobs acting as if creationism had any scientific merit being the "flagship right" scientists. BOTH of them make the normal and sane people on either side of the political spectrum cringe and wish that those idiots wouldn't tarnish the name "conservative" and "liberal".

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to the crowd grabbing others and throwing them out? As opposed to making it an offence to demonstrate in public? As opposed to spraying pepper spray in people's faces while wearing a police vest, hoping someone will hit back and therefore the protest will be a "violent riot" and everyone beaten and arrested? As opposed to shooting them dead in public?

Because these are the things rightwingers have done. Not really heard ANY cries against it happening (if it happens to lefties). Yet there's an entire fucking MOVEMENT of lefties that bitch and moan and complain endlessly about those actions of "lefties" you mention there. Take a look at Thunderf00t on YT. He's a leftie. He's not the only one.

When are you rightwingers going to start as a group complaining about the RWNJ like the lefties complain about the SJWs you so freely complain about and pretend are all the lefties?

Re:Good

[AmiMoJo]

Are these laws necessary? Seems like triggering a fire alarm or refusing to leave/be quiet on private property is already in violation of several laws. This proposal seems to go way, way beyond that into removing people's right to speak.

In fact it sounds very much like what the anti-SJWs claim to be fighting against - silencing people by claiming that their speech is somehow "bad" and must be restricted.

Re:Good

[jellomizer]

Normally in the 100 level classes you get students from other majors who need to fill out their required course. They don't think like scientist they think they can BS their way by impassioned speach.
Normally I would say you can just kick the student out of class for being disruptive.

But there has been a large growth of discourse towards heckling and egging people to become violent (on both sides) that is preventing the execution of expressing the ideas in an environment to do so.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

"Lol, no it doesn't" as in the lefties' behavior does not tarnish their own cause? If you count antifa as "leftist" (which is admittedly a stretch, but a stretch that a huge number of people have already bought into) then I respectfully disagree. The alt-left/antifa movement is to the left what the alt-right movement is to the right: an embarrassment. As a professor, the fact that this bill might make it illegal for me to hold this opinion publicly is, well, a bit troubling to say the least.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Also it could be challenging the lack of evidence, such as. Do we have evidence that our stem cell research won't release the zombie apocalypse, a question that most students will consider but not all professors.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the politically correct shunning that they are trying to stop, the bill in itself shows how bad things are, weather it becomes law or not.

Re:Good

[CrybabiesArePeople]

Boo hoo hoo!

Re:Good

[Drethon]

Science is about challenging belief with evidence, particularly procedurally documented and experimentally generated evidence. In other cases it is observationally generated or synthesized by review of existing literature. All are valid. Disagreeing for the sake of disagreement, objecting for the sake of grandstanding, and claiming belief in the face of contrary evidence are poor imitations and must be called out as a deluded faker.

And while most science should be based on observed behavior, or at least proven formulas, everything has human interpretation involved. Given a hundred scientists, there should at least be two (usually more) interpretations of a set of data and the minority should never be rejected just because it is the minority. All opinions should be accepted or rejected based on careful consideration.

Re:Good

[The Real Dr John]

This has nothing to do with challenging science. You would actually have to know something about science to challenge it. This is about trying for force false equivalence. "Scientists claim the earth is spherical, but some non-scientists disagree". That kind of crap comes from the right wing every day. It is called the doubt machine. Sow doubt that cigarettes cause cancer, doubt that humans are altering the biosphere or climate, Sow doubt that evolution is a well documented fact. It is all about preventing positive action that might hurt a political agenda or corporate bottom line.

When you can't win the argument, just pass a law. Bullshit.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

That kind of crap comes from the right wing every day.

Seems about on the level of, "Doctors claim vaccines don't cause autism, but Jenny McCarthy doesn't agree," which started from and is largely maintained by the left.

Re:Good

[ranton]

All opinions should be accepted or rejected based on careful consideration.

The problem we have now is that after the science community has carefully considered a particular "interpretation" and has rejected it, a large portion of our populace ignores this.

Re:Good

[ranton]

It is the politically correct shunning that they are trying to stop, the bill in itself shows how bad things are, weather it becomes law or not.

No, it only shows how bad politicians want to make things seem so they can rile up their base and win elections. It's no different than us spending so much time worrying about terrorism and immigration. Without these bogeymen the US political right has no platform capable of winning elections.

Re:Good

[gnick]

Do we have evidence that our stem cell research won't release the zombie apocalypse, a question that most students will consider but not all professors.

I would hope that most students would not consider that question. At least not seriously enough to voice the concern in class.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

You are somewhat right about the denial of science being an across-the-spectrum of politics phenomena, however I have not as of yet, seen a mob of conservatives get in a shouting match with a professor in class, or surround them in the hallway and threatening with violence because they didn't think the consensus about global warming was right.

Whereas, I have seen some of this in person and there is considerable evidence available on Youtube showing that such behavior is quite common for leftists.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

[ Citations needed]

If this is so common you should be able to provide a few links demonstrating it as such, no?

Re:Good

[Boronx]

"which started from"

No it didn't. It was started by a con man in England.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

You are somewhat right about the denial of science being an across-the-spectrum of politics phenomena, however I have not as of yet, seen a mob of conservatives get in a shouting match with a professor in class, or surround them in the hallway and threatening with violence because they didn't think the consensus about global warming was right.

Whereas, I have seen some of this in person and there is considerable evidence available on Youtube showing that such behavior is quite common for leftists.

Left or right doesn't really matter. To me, this type of agenda comes from both sides. One may be more forward than the other.

Also, using Youtube where anyone can push their agenda to public audiences is a bit too much. Who do you think would post the video to tarnish the other side's reputation? You attempt to quantify their behavior by assuming that people from both sides behave the same way and use the same method to push their agenda to public. I'm not sure that is really correct.

Re:Good

[Calydor]

It is a good thing there has never been a single staged video posted to Youtube, so we can take everything there at face value.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

With a sitting Republican president who's an anti-vax wacko you are gonna call it a position of t he left?

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

A majority of economists believe that raising the minimum wage has disemploent effects, but politicians disagree...

Re:Good

[rgbatduke]

Which opens the door to infinite evil. Do we have evidence that behaving sinfully won't end up with us cast posthumously into a pit of eternal fire? Well, no, partly because we have no evidence of life after death, pits of eternal fire, and no objective definition of sin. So this means that ANY presentation can be interrupted simply by asserting that thus and such are sinful, etc. Can you prove that it is NOT? Of course not. There simply in no evidence that it is.

Your example of a zombie apocalypse is well taken. Do we have the slightest shred of evidence that zombies or anything zombie-like is really possible? Not just heavily drugged or brain-damaged individuals deliberately harmed by slavers or practicers of voudoin, but actual living dead brain-eating zombies? Well, no, although rabies as a disease does have related effects and might have been part of the origin of zombie legend. So what the heck! Sure, the zombie apocalypse could be unleashed by mutant rabies, GMO foods, stem cells, a disease transported to Earth by meteors or space aliens, biowarfare gone awry, the deliberate act of a vengeful deity, the deliberate act of an evil supernatural demon, prions (a mutant mad cow disease), a new "safe" designer recreational drug anybody can make at home out of clorox and pepto-bismol that has a zombie side effect one year after it is ingested, pods from outer space, slugs that attach to your spinal column from outer space, nanites intended to cure brain cancer, or a mutation of the common cold. Maybe half of these possibilities have formed the basis in whole or in part of science fiction novels over the decades (mutant rabies, alien diseases, pods, and slugs, biowarfare gone awry...)

So, should we allow scientific talks on how stem cells are being used to cure nerve deafness in humans and parkinson's disease to be interrupted at will by whack jobs that want to claim, without evidence, that the individuals cured MIGHT turn into zombies, so all research into stem cells must instantly cease? Seriously? Or, because stem cells are making an end run around the "intelligent design" of the human body by a supernatural deity they are therefore sinful (no need for evidence or a firm definition of sin, remember, it is whatever you want it to be or allege that it is and nobody can prove you wrong) and will cause not the zombie apocalypse but the biblical apocalypse unless we gather up all of the researchers and burn them alive at the stake as a manner of atonement and banish all of their works and threaten all human with torture and death if they ever use the words "stem cells" again? Can you prove that this won't happen (well, except by ignoring the idiots and curing nerve deafness and Parkinson's anyway with no breaking of the seals or unleashing of the four horsemen etc)?

Lack of evidence is not positive evidence of lack. It is, however, something that can legitimately be used to state that lack is more likely the longer evidence is looked for and not found. We cannot positively assert that there are no pink unicorns living somewhere on Earth simply because one has never been seen, captured, found (with or without color) in the fossil record), but we can say that -- given the existing observational evidence -- it is pretty unlikely that any exist and are just lurking somewhere in deepest darkest Africa or Tibet or in a special volcanic cave in the middle of Antarctica. If you assert invisible pink unicorns (whatever color "invisible pink" ends up being) you make it even harder to disprove, as now you can literally look everywhere on Earth and just because you can't see them doesn't mean that they aren't there, because they are invisible! Does this mean that we have to now allow La La Loopsie/My Little Pony followers to disrupt scientific presentations of evolutionary biology?

Note well that I'm not certain legislation is the answer to stuff like this, but providing the idiots with an escort off campus and leaving them there with instructions not to come back (students or not) seems pretty reasonable.

Re:Good

[rgbatduke]

want to lie, shipwrecked and comatose, drinking fresh mango juice. Goldfish shoals nibbling at my toes. Fun, fun, fun.

Add a bit of pineapple and coconut and throw in a dash of rum and I'm there. I can take or leave the straw and little umbrella, although playing with the umbrella is fun when the goldfish get boring...

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is more about how colleges have turned into George Soros brainwashing Antifa training camps that blame whiteness for everything in order to facilitate the collapse of western civilization with economic disaster and mass immigration with African Welfare Queens that are pretending to be Syrian refugees. All while he and his friends make billions.

Re:Good

[Grishnakh]

That's bullshit. The anti-vax crap is on both sides of the political spectrum. The current President (a far right-winger) has spouted anti-vax BS, and there's been a bunch of it among religious groups who've then had outbreaks.

https://www.omicsonline.org/op...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

http://scienceblogs.com/insole...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/e...

But it's not just religious idiots who've latched onto the anti-vax hysteria, it's also some elements on the left, namely the loony ones who are also into various other "alternative medicine" hokum.

Remember, the "left" isn't a coherent, homogeneous group of people by any stretch, in fact it's a coalition of basically everyone who isn't right-wing. The right-wingers are generally conservative, which means they like the status quo, "traditional values", etc., so anyone who departs from this mindset is automatically left-wing, even though that can mean completely different philosophies ranging from simple "progressivism" (basically what Nordic countries have--democratic republics with a bunch of welfare state services and heavier regulation) all the way to actual communism. So the "left" includes irreligious people who want science and evidence-based thinking to determine public policy, and also fruity people who believe in garbage like "metaphysics" and the "ascended masters".

Re:Good

[Grishnakh]

I have not as of yet, seen a mob of conservatives get in a shouting match with a professor in class

That's because climate-denialist conservatives do not attend college in sufficient numbers for this kind of thing to happen. When they do attend college in high concentrations, it's at some bullshit "school" like Liberty University where they explicitly deny science in the curriculum.

The fact is, you're not going to find a bunch of conservative nutcases at a school like Evergreen; places like that attract leftist nutcases instead.

However, conservatives are disposed to violence just like anyone; just look at the various protests going on lately. There have been a bunch of documented cases of them attacking counter-protesters, and it's been documented that the local police look the other way.

Re:Good

[Grishnakh]

Go find your own citation, you moron. Those activities were all well-documented during the Occupy protests, particularly the pepper-spraying part.

Re:Good

[Grishnakh]

The alt-left/antifa movement is to the left what the alt-right movement is to the right: an embarrassment.

I disagree. The alt-right now represents the entirety of the right. If it didn't, they wouldn't have elected Trump, who was the standard-bearer for the alt-right and still has Steve Bannon (who's a self-proclaimed alt-righter) as one of his main advisors. The old-fashioned conservatives you're thinking of are basically extinct now; the mainstream IS the alt-right now, as the mainstream conservatives have mostly converted.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignorant student challenging established professor is about the stupidest fucking thing on the planet

"yeah, here's how global warming is a lie"

this shit passes I'm getting my gun and enforcing it my way

Re:Good

[rgbatduke]

Seems about on the level of, "Doctors claim vaccines don't cause autism, but Jenny McCarthy doesn't agree," which started from and is largely maintained by the left.

Started by "the left"? Say what? "Left" and "Right" have nothing to do with this. "Doctors" are at least as likely to be members of "the left" if by that you mean social liberals as opposed to conservatives. Oh, wait, they are more likely:

https://www.psychologytoday.co...

http://www.reuters.com/article...

http://jamanetwork.com/journal...

The last article is very thoughtful and analyzes trends in political contributions specifically, fractionated by gender, race, and subspeciality. It indicates that left/right even for physicians is more likely to be a question of income, gender, race, speciality, and age than it is of "intelligence" per se, but it is a simple matter of fact that on average liberals are smarter than conservatives.

Now, if you want to get into pseudoscience, we can talk about the "conservatives" in Texas and Kansas and Missouri who are passing legislation to make masturbation a misdemeanor crime (Texas), teach intelligent design on a par with evolution in the schools, rewrite history so that the founding fathers are Good Christians as opposed to deists or atheists and suppress evidence to the contrary to prevent it from being mentioned in school, let alone taught.

Personally, I tend to think of science as mostly being social value neutral, but the glaring exception to this is when science collides (as it so often does!) with religion. This is beautifully reflected in surveys like this:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

although it is perhaps better summarized by this piece:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

To quote:

The more religious a person is, the more conservative he is, and this relationship is strongly mediated by the value placed on tradition — respect for customs and institutions. But even though religiousness and spirituality are highly correlated, the more spiritual a person is, the more liberal he is. This relationship is mediated by the value placed on universalism — social tolerance and concern for everyone’s welfare.

As with previous studies, conservatives were more conscientious (organized and self-disciplined), while liberals were more agreeable and more open to new ideas and experiences. The trend of conservatives being more religious and liberals being more spiritual held even when controlling for these personality factors, and when controlling for age, gender and socioeconomic status.

As a scientist, I interpret this as the more orthodox religious a person is, the more likely they are to accept absolute nonsense as truth just because it is written down in a scriptural text somewhere and hence exempted somehow from the ordinary rules and methods of reason. The more spiritually religious they are, the more likely they are to accept absolute nonsense as truth just because they "feel" like it must be true and their feelings are again exempt from the ordinary rules and methods of reason. You can see the problem -- liberals and conservatives are almost equally likely to accept at least some nonsense as truth if they are religious, and liberals and conservatives who are intelligent enough not to do this are, almost by definition, less likely to accept nonsense as truth whether or not it is religious simply because they apply the rules

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. I'm an atheist Republican who believes in evolution, human-caused global warming, stem cell research, and strawman arguments made by fucking morons.

Clearly you are indisputable proof of one of these.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

That cuts both ways.

If you cannot sufficiently defend your position in a way which is convincing, and without appealing to emotion, then chances are you're wrong about something.

Liberals unfortunately scream racist and believe that is enough to prove any scientific argument. It isn't.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

It's a sad irony that far right extremists are now patriotic heroes on the front lines defending your ability to freely express your stupid fucking thoughts, even when you use that freedom to try to destroy open expression. They aren't the violent nut jobs anymore. That's your team now, jackass. Own it.

I'm Jewish, and I find myself siding more and more with these right-wing groups because I can see the seeds of true Nazism and fascism in the modern left. If you can punch them in broad daylight without cause, you could punch me too. I'm not scared of white supremacists anymore... I'm terrified of people like you.

Re:Good

[dcw3]

The current President (a far right-winger)

Thanks for the laugh. You clearly either don't know the far right, or Trump.

Re:Good

[dcw3]

There have been a bunch of documented cases of them attacking counter-protesters, and it's been documented that the local police look the other way.

Documented? Where? By who?

Re:Good

[HornWumpus]

They wanted 'more government', they got it.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Same. I'm a pretty strong liberal, but the identity politics and fascism of the left has turned me away from them almost entirely.

I voted straight Democrat my entire life, up until I voted for Trump last year... Not because I believe in anything he says, but because I actually find him less offensive... Which is saying A LOT.

Re:Good

[dcw3]

Bravo, from across the aisle.

Re:Good

[HornWumpus]

'alt' came from usenet.

There is never just one 'alt', there is 'mainstream' and a bunch of 'alt's. The right want to paint the entire alt-left as antifa, just as the left want to paint the entire alt-right as the KKK.

Mainstream cons voted Trump once he won the nomination. Having no place else to go and wisely hating Hillary.

The majority of cons will still vote for whoever the Rs nominate next, just as the majority of libs will vote for the D.

The /b/tards will continue to troll whoever provides the most luls. I'm betting on that being unhinged liberals for the foreseeable future.

Re:Good

[dcw3]

I am sick of righties calling techs lefties because they use big words
I am sick of righties thinking they can then turn around and threaten to dox people they can barely understand
i am sick of righties getting called out and whining that they're being bullied because they failed in a power gambit but they're doubling down & need a sucker

Then go to one of your safe spaces, and look up some "big words"...you managed to get one with three syllables. Keep up the good work. Oh, but while you're there, you might want to have a look see at which side controls all three branches of the federal government, while the loser of the presidential election is making the rounds, and using every imaginable excuse for her failed "power gambit".

Re:Good

[jedidiah]

Except the real problem here seems to have nothing to so with science classrooms. Anthropology profs have been ripping into fundies for decades. This headline is a red herring. The real problem is in the liberal arts where what is taught is driven by politics and contrary politics will get you in trouble with a professor.

This is the kind of liberal media distortion that makes it difficult to take the other story about election hacks seriously. It's so blatant.

In the past professional trolls were less transparent and set the bar higher so it was less obvious.

Re:Good

[ShanghaiBill]

The anti-vax crap is on both sides of the political spectrum.

Sure. But there is a difference. The leftists believe vaccines are a corporate conspiracy, while the rightists believe vaccines are a government conspiracy.

The current President (a far right-winger)

Trump's views may be stupid and incoherent, but they are not "far-right", and many of them are not "right" at all. For instance, his views on trade are leftist.

Re:Good

[jedidiah]

STEM profs aren't fragile snowflakes. They don't have to be protected by morons like you. They will eviscerate the student in question in short order. The disruption will be trivial. Total non issue here.

Re:Good

[Mashiki]

Not quite, they haven't invested in identity politics like the democrats have. And they haven't started pushing outright bigotry and racism like democrats have. Or have you missed all those times when democrats attacked whites, or pushed pro-segregation stances. Keeping in mind that all of this started because of a bunch of leftists in Berkeley decided to attack a right-wing gay who said stuff they didn't like, and it's been popping up more and more with the left. That the current case in like with Evergreen exists because of black racists.

Re:Good

[Mashiki]

Don't worry, I'm sure you also believe a cartoon frog is a hate symbol. This is why the democrats keep losing. The only people who believe that the "alt-right" is something more then a fringe are the same ones who believe that the riot in Berkeley was caused by people on the right. Both are false hoods.

Re:Good

[The Real Dr John]

I am one of the STEM scientists you claim to be defending. We don't need to be protected by assholes like you. I would have left the last part out if you had been civil.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo hoo hoo!

Isn't that the sound that Democrats made when Republicans took over the White House and Congress because so many states are turning from blue to red now?

Here's some free advice to my Democrat friends: When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Trump was the first Republican I've ever voted for too. It's surreal that the left has become so toxic that I would even consider voting for a guy who I would have laughed at if he had run 15 years ago. But, then again, I never would have thought that I would live to see the day when the left was actively opposing free speech and advocating racism while the right fought for free speech and equality. It's a truly upside-down world these days.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Go find your own citation, you moron.

Couldn't find any, huh?

Re:Good

[clong83]

Close, but I see it slightly differently.

The problem scientists have is a lack of a public voice over their own research. How many times have we watched two pundits on the television 'debate' anthropogenic global warming? I don't know about you, but I quite frankly don't trust Tucker Carlson NOR Rachel Maddow to really present the science in any kind of accurate way. That goes for any 'political' issue, not just AGW. By the time it gets to the mass public airwaves, any study is long separated from those who wrote it, and it is subject to the biased interpretations of partisan hacks who aren't trained to know what they are talking about, or even recognize what the study's purpose might have been.

Example: Suppose I test out a new numerical algorithm for oceanic climate modeling. I want to look at diffusion rates across ocean strata, and explore the effect this has on the overall result o the simulation, namely atmospheric transport, temperature, carbon content and the like. Suppose I run a bunch of cases, each with a somewhat different approach to this problem, and publish the results compared to historical data and with projections from each. Suppose one of those simulations shows dramatic and irreversible warming at the surface within the next ten years, and another shows a more or less stable surface environment for the next 50 years. Does it matter which one, I the author, think is correct? Or if I think both of these are extreme cases that are unlikely to be true, but are merely demonstrating the bounds of potential outcomes by varying a single parameter? Does it matter that my primary point may have simply been that some unknown factor could have dramatic effects on the path of global climate, and that we need to further study and understand this effect? Or does it only matter that I produced some computer simulations that people can argue about out of context on the TV? And nobody will bother to invite me on to explain these results because, well, that doesn't benefit any of the talking heads that make those decisions.

TL;DR: Scientists need to better interface with the public. Easier said than done, but I believe that is the crux of the problem.

Re:Good

[Mike Van Pelt]

The "pepper-spraying incident", as described by one of the pepper-sprayed in an interview by Amy Goodman on the "Democracy Now!" web page, was when the protesters who got sprayed were blocking the police from retreating from a situation they had become alarmed by. The person being interviewed outright gloated about how they were blocking the police from retreating.

Amy Goodman/Democracy Now! is not a right-wing conspiracy site. Conspiracy site, yeah, but definitely not right-wing.

Re:Good

[ranton]

The problem scientists have is a lack of a public voice over their own research.

Public discussion is not the best or even appropriate context for the debates you are discussing. That is best done between scientists, not between scientists and the public. The public only needs to know the result of these discussions. Laymen do not need an explanation for why one model is thrown out while the other is used; they just need to know the vast majority of scientists in the field agree with this decision.

Too many people get confused about the role of consensus in science. Scientific consensus should not be a factor in any single experiment, but consensus is the cornerstone of how scientific progress is made. Eventually consensus becomes strong enough that engineers can start developing products and politicians can start developing policy. Things only break down when laymen start ignoring this consensus. Scientists should always continue to expand upon and revise their consensus, but there is no place for that in the public arena.

The only thing breaking down the interface between scientists and the public is political partisanship. It happens on both sides, whether you are talking about climate change or organic foods. But certainly climate change denial is a much worse situation than people wasting money on organic fruit.

Re:Good

[SharpFang]

Still, do many universities award degrees in creationism?

Re:Good

[ArmoredDragon]

Science is about challenging belief with evidence, particularly procedurally documented and experimentally generated evidence.

No, it's not. Quite wrong, in fact. A hypothesis can challenge an existing belief without evidence; that's what a hypothesis is for. Evidence is established experimentally. It's not until evidence is established and new conclusions are reached that the new belief becomes a theory, or if it describes what is happening in a very specific (i.e. formulaic) manner then it becomes a law.

A good example of challenging a science professor would be to ask something like "well how do we know this doesn't happen because of x?" and a good response would be "well, can X be tested?" If not (i.e. saying it's because of god) then the answer should be something to the effect of "That's a question for your philosophy professor; we only deal with what can be tested here." If it's something that can be tested, a good answer would be either "well know, we know it doesn't because of Y" or if the answer is not known then a good response is "I honestly don't know, but I'll give you extra credit if you do your own research to find out why or why not, and if I determine that it's informative."

That is a great way to run a science class. Dismissing stuff outright because no immediate evidence is available is not only bad practice, but it's counterproductive to a learning environment because it discourages what can very well be very good questions.

claiming belief in the face of contrary evidence are poor imitations and must be called out as a deluded faker.

No. Going this direction is quite counterproductive to science because it discourages people who may very well be on to something, even if it sounds very unlikely.

As a network engineer, I deal with the scientific method all the time while troubleshooting, and I get paid big bucks because I'm damn good at it. If I rule out extremely unlikely things, then I may never get to a proper resolution. An example of this is I was having problems with a device deployment getting bad packet loss after we just installed new cabling for these devices. The group hypothesis was that the people who installed the cabling did a bad job. As a result of my troubleshooting, I discovered that the manufacturer had failed to perform quality control on the device NICs, and as a result, virtually all of them were defective. The later situation was extremely unlikely, but if I had ruled out that hypothesis without testing it, we would have been fighting these cable installs (wasting time and money) for much longer than we should have.

The scientific method is applicable to much more than science. Learn it and love it, and most importantly, DO NOT DISMISS THE UNLIKELY WITHOUT TESTING IT FIRST!

Re: Good

[ArmoredDragon]

Not a republican here, but I am an atheist with a strong belief in freedom of speech. That said, you are likely more unbiased here than the GGP Jzanu. Ironically, he doesn't quite understand the scientific method, and was given a +5 insightful, while I was modded troll and overrated for having a better understanding of it. Here's a more detailed explanation of where he has it wrong:

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Re:Good

[ArmoredDragon]

Ignorant student challenging established professor is about the stupidest fucking thing on the planet

No, and that is completely the wrong attitude to have about this.

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Re:Good

[ArmoredDragon]

Honestly, this is a total red herring, and therefore a bogus argument. I really doubt students are going to shout down the professor and argue that the earth is flat. This is as dumb as saying that we should ban gay marriage because people will marry animals. Could that happen? Maybe, and in some super rare cases it probably does, but it's extremely extremely unlikely, and even if it did, it wouldn't happen because of a change in the law.

Will this happen on the internet? You bet your ass it will, but nobody really gives a shit about Alex Jones except for some fringe groups that you only ever notice when they attack slashdot or other internet forums, just like vegetarians, #BLM, Apple fans, and APK.

Besides, your post is almost an argument against the scientific method. See my post for more detail about why GGP is wrong:

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Re: Good

[Jzanu]

You have the understanding of a child just learning by theory. Useless for application, and you don't even understand why.

Re:Good

[The Real Dr John]

I use the scientific method every day at work because I am a scientist. It takes a very acrobatic thought process to come to the conclusion that my post was an argument against the scientific method. My post was about making laws about what happens in college courses. This is a quote from one of the bills

“That each institution shall strive to remain neutral, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day, and may not take action, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day in such a way as to require students or faculty to publicly express a given view of social policy.”

That is saying the school can't take sides even when the science says one argument is accurate, and the other isn't (evolution is fact, or it is false).

Re:Good

[The Real Dr John]

And by the way, with regard to your other post that you directed me to - scientists and engineers do not use the same methods. Engineering is not working at discovering facts of nature, like how a particular transcription factor works in conjunction with other proteins to enhance transcription of a particular gene, or how a protein complex at synapses regulates neurotransmission by altering dopamine uptake. You build and test things. That is quite different.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/...

Re:Good

[RockDoctor]

The question of zombie apocalypses is a reasonable one. In a film studies or script-writing class. Plausibly in a prosthetics/ make up and SFX class too. Otherwise ... BFZ.

I completely fail to get the whole zombie thing. I mean, in general I like my SF films. But zombies - they're dead to me.

Re:Good

[RockDoctor]

I hope to the God of the Cats that you get the reference.

Re:Good

[RockDoctor]

An example of this is I was having problems with a device deployment getting bad packet loss after we just installed new cabling for these devices. The group hypothesis was that the people who installed the cabling did a bad job.

You didn't do acceptance testing of the wiring before hooking up the MTGPing? Come on - surely you did? And your cabling contractor bloody well should have done so too, before handing it over.

I knew a Sysadmin years ago who had a Power Over Ethernet cable which she used to threaten cabling contractors (and friends) with. A 240V plug at one end, and an RJ-45 plug and socket at the other end. Alternating wires connected to live and neutral. One wave, and the cabling contractor would hand over their signed check sheets.

Re: Good

[ArmoredDragon]

No, quite wrong, it's all empirical in my case. I illustrated the scientific method quite well, meanwhile you have all of about zero understanding of how empirical science actually works. Not only that, but I provided a very good example of how I apply it pretty much every working day.

Re: Good

[Jzanu]

Well for a supposed professional you ignored all aspects of the design of experiments. Instead you focused on what is taught in primary school, ignoring the actual work required for an experimenter in any real setting. We are expected to exclude those things that waste money, based on the existing knowledge base. You know, the parts that funding sources are most interested in due to the fact that it determines thee cost of research and experiments? Look I know this is a pissing match for you but I don't give a fuck. You're just a god damn idiot like the rest, trying to wave a fake flag around. Advice is just this: fix your defects and don't be such an idiot.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

retarded liar

Re: Good

[ArmoredDragon]

Well for a supposed professional you ignored all aspects of the design of experiments. Instead you focused on what is taught in primary school, ignoring the actual work required for an experimenter in any real setting. We are expected to exclude those things that waste money, based on the existing knowledge base.

You're going off on a tangential matter to the point I made. I never said anything about this, my comment was entirely about discourse between students and their science professors.

Re: Good

[ArmoredDragon]

BTW:

You're just a god damn idiot like the rest, trying to wave a fake flag around. Advice is just this: fix your defects and don't be such an idiot.

Speak of defects, you made a total straw-man argument without even realizing it.

Re:Good

[Opportunist]

No, but why would you want to add a right wing "you want fries with that" degree, doesn't the left wing social bullshit degrees produce enough future burger flippers?

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off kid

Oh yes, I know how it goes.

[Anonymous Coward]

First they come for the pedophiles.
Then they came for the rapists.
Then the racists.
Then the skeptics.

Then they come for you!

Re:Oh yes, I know how it goes.

[Anonymous Coward]

First they come for the pedophiles.
Then they came for the rapists.
Then the "racists". (most of us already locked up at this point)
Then the "misogynists".
Then the "skeptics".
Then the "Islamophobes".
Then the "cis gender".

FTFY

Re:Oh yes, I know how it goes.

[Anonymous Coward]

When are they coming for Kovfefe Drumphus?

Re:Oh yes, I know how it goes.

[stealth_finger]

After the power of the orb fades.

Re:Oh yes, I know how it goes.

[dcw3]

When are they coming for Kovfefe Drumphus?

After they've come for the Anonymous Cowards.

*remain neutral* = Shut yer uppity ass up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not question mah authoritay!

Summary reads kinda weird. What's up with that?

Re:*remain neutral* = Shut yer uppity ass up!

[SharpFang]

You should catch up with the news. Armed mobs setting fire to the campus to prevent a speaker of the opposing views from speaking. That's how "questioning the authority" currently looks like, and what the bill tries to curb. It's the title that is biased - yes, the bill might be overly broad, and overreaching, but it's not about "questioning the authority", it's about stopping armed thugs from strong-arming their view points through beating and arson.

Re:*remain neutral* = Shut yer uppity ass up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Shooting people dead because you "think" (read: believe) they're wrong and evil is how rightwingers make their speech free. You stop any further speech from them rather than at the one event.

PS those were bussed in external rioters. Since the rightwing thinktanks have already been caught trying to pay people to go and violently protest and pretend their lefties, you need to show how leftiwingers are responsible here for that, as opposed to people paid by the right to disrupt. Given you haven't said how many peacefully protested and how many rioted, you don't care about the facts, only a story.

Re:*remain neutral* = Shut yer uppity ass up!

[SharpFang]

Shooting people dead because you "think" (read: believe) they're wrong and evil is how rightwingers make their speech free.

Yeah, left-wingers prefer stabbing.

Given the damage to the city infrastructure, and the fact the peaceful protesters didn't even try to stop the rioters... yeah, the facts are that a lot of people got their property broken. Keep denying and downplaying that, instead of getting your shit together and actually doing something about it.

Also:

"PS those were bussed in external rioters." - an honest mistake (buses that shuttled participant of a business conference to a conference that happened to take place then and there, an entirely unrelated event) that grew into an urban legend, debunked a long, long time ago. Shows how you care about facts.

Re:*remain neutral* = Shut yer uppity ass up!

[Plus1Entropy]

the peaceful protesters didn't even try to stop the rioters

And how exactly would they do that?

Re:*remain neutral* = Shut yer uppity ass up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Put themselves between the rioters and the property that was being destroyed. As opposed to clapping and cheering.

Re:*remain neutral* = Shut yer uppity ass up!

[Rakarra]

Put themselves between the rioters and the property that was being destroyed. As opposed to clapping and cheering.

People who have done that get attacked by the rioters. You expect a random person to take a stabbing to... prevent property damage?

Re:*remain neutral* = Shut yer uppity ass up!

[cryptizard]

I'm confused. Is arson not illegal already? Is aggravated assault not a crime? Why do you need another law to fix these problems?

Re:*remain neutral* = Shut yer uppity ass up!

[SharpFang]

'cause currently threat of these makes universities bow to demands of the rioters.

With a law that disallows that, rioters will achieve nothing.

Re:*remain neutral* = Shut yer uppity ass up!

[SharpFang]

Yeah. I realize that. In defense of minorities and immigrants from Trump, they set a limousine owned by a Muslim immigrant on fire, and wounded the driver, who was a Mexican immigrant.

I seriously wonder how to stop this crap efficiently without using guns.

Could cause more harm than good.

[BitterOak]

While I agree with the motivation for discouraging universities from disinviting invited speakers, penalizing the practice may discourage universities from inviting even potentially controversial speakers in the first place, and so the effect of the law might be the exact opposite of what is intended: allowing a diversity of opinions and ideas to be expressed.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[mvdwege]

While I agree with the motivation for discouraging universities from disinviting invited speakers,

Why would you disagree with that? Since when do Universities get exempted from the First Amendment? Note that that also has some things to say about the government's right to interfere with who you associate with.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[fermion]

Speakers tend to be invited by students. The bill is likely intended to make sure folks like Alex Jones are not blocked by administration. The problem will be when some smart ass student forms a group and books an atheist who thinks that Jebus is the inherent force of evil.

Right now the radical right is the ones doing the screaming, but in my experience college administration usually just tries to control the smart ass students who want to do publicity stunts, left or right.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[JaredOfEuropa]

It's sad that it had to come to this. I do think that universities carry most of the blame for the current situation, given their lack of action against the disruption of classes and events. From the get go, their stance should have been that there can be only one answer to students who persist in denying the free exchange of ideas on campus: expulsion. And if universities are unwilling or unable to guarantee freedom to exchange ideas, then it's good that the government steps in.

This bill penalises universities for giving in to protesters. The idea perhaps being that this will force them to take action against those protesters. But I think you may well be right, given how similar rules have worked out in the past: universities will instead ensure that nothing controversial takes place to begin with.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[BitterOak]

While I agree with the motivation for discouraging universities from disinviting invited speakers,

Why would you disagree with that? Since when do Universities get exempted from the First Amendment? Note that that also has some things to say about the government's right to interfere with who you associate with.

I think we're talking about public universities here, so they are primarily funded by the government. I do think governments should keep an arm's length, as universities are traditionally bastions of free speech, but if government funded universities become too lopsided, allowing only one ideology to be promoted, I can see why government might want to intervene in some way. But my original post is arguing that this could do more harm than good.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[SharpFang]

"Right now the radical right is the ones doing the screaming,"

You should watch some videos from Berkeley, when Milo Yiannopoulos was to give a speech.
Nope, it wasn't the radical rights screaming, using fists, and setting the campus on fire.

I'd say some publicity stunts like some nutcases giving a speech to an empty lecture hall is a small price for stopping that sort of behavior.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

the biggest joke is the 'nothing controversial', as if an so called professor talking about more than 2 genders, isn't controversial to begin with... Or some other radical who wants to abolish the normal established family values, like father, mother and kids isn't even more controversial to begin with.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it was the radical right that turned up from outside the university and rioted. The leftist students were there for hours before them and not one of them were rioting, ever.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[JaredOfEuropa]

Yes, "nothing controversial" in this context means topics that don't result in an angry mob with masks, torches and pitchforks. So yeah, speakers affiliated with "alt-right/conservative" institutions will not be invited, while "progressive" speakers get a pass. Unless conservative students organise their own angry mobs. A course I wouldn't ever recommend (and certainly don't want to imply that there shouldn't be discussions on LGBT or other diversity issues). Though I don't think that's very likely to happen. This is something the left has always understood far better than the right: administrators hate dealing with trouble of this kind, and will go out of their way to avoid it. Especially if the guy in charge isn't a big fan of the topic in question either; in that case a hint of trouble provides the perfect excuse to ban undesirable opinions on grounds of public safety. Over here, right wing marches often got cancelled after a mere announcement by Antifa on their intention to stage a counter-demo.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it was the radical right that turned up from outside the university and rioted.

LMFAO!!

I'm sure ANTIFA will be shocked to learn they're "the Right"! XD

Dude, Propaganda Protip: Propaganda must have some kernel of believability in order to not be immediately dismissed and the speaker's/poster's credibility damaged, hampering future attempts.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, it was the Anti-Fa's that were burning their own campus, the radical left that has taken up rioting, vandalism and physical assaults. Yes some right wingers have responded back, mostly in defense but some just matching the actions of the left. But by and far the radical leftists are the ones rioting and burning their own campus. Liberal left wing comics won't perform on campuses anymore because of the radial leftists who attach anything that doesn't exactly match their world view.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Mashiki]

Right now the radical right is the ones doing the screaming

Sorry that's the left in berkely. Same with the bike lock attacker Nice collection of weapons pulled off antifa members who were looking to attack people at pro-trump/free speech rally. And I can really keep going, because there's not only dozens of cases like this but hundreds in the last 2 years.

Antifa are leftists of marxist/mao kind. BAMN are of the same kind, you also need to toss in their little cult camps. And people on the right didn't start responding until the left started going "OH NO, they're not us." We don't condone anything, while letting them slip back into the crows and cover them. Professor bikelock is the most recent and famous example of this. Now what I want you to do is freeze it within the first 3 seconds. You see all those masked people happily moving within that group of unmasked leftists?

Find any video where people are filming antifa and you'll see: Antifa slip into the crowd or part of the crowd, attack someone/attack in a group/crowd of unmasked leftists cover for them and let them slip back in.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[guises]

That's a good point. A university isn't just about research and classes, the school is to some degree there to help people who are young and dumb grow into people who are less dumb. And that sometimes means stopping them when they do something stupid, including when they invite someone to the school who preys on the gullible. Saying, "Yes I'm a con artist, but I'm a political con artist so you can't touch me." should not be a defense.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHA, YEah, those in power don't have an agenda to push.

You want neutral, get your own property.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[jebrick]

While I agree with the motivation for discouraging universities from disinviting invited speakers,

Why would you disagree with that? Since when do Universities get exempted from the First Amendment? Note that that also has some things to say about the government's right to interfere with who you associate with.

https://xkcd.com/1357/

Universities are not the Government. The 1st Amendment protects your speech from the Government arresting you for what you say. Universities can invite whatever speakers they want and disinvite them as well. Even the proposed law in Wisconsin is not a 1st Amendment issue. It is just a political law that public enforces the rights that everyone already has.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

> You should watch some videos from Berkeley, when Milo Yiannopoulos was to give a speech.

But Yiannopoulos *is* the screaming right, isn't he?

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[ranton]

While I agree with the motivation for discouraging universities from disinviting invited speakers, penalizing the practice may discourage universities from inviting even potentially controversial speakers in the first place, and so the effect of the law might be the exact opposite of what is intended: allowing a diversity of opinions and ideas to be expressed.

That wouldn't affect the intent of the law at all. In fact it would only enhance it. The intention of the law is to rile up the political right base and give them justifications for why they need to be in power. If colleges stop inviting controversial speakers it is just another thing to add to their stump speeches.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[XxtraLarGe]

Universities are not the Government.

Except that a lot of them are. Most accept government funding and have publicly elected officials serving on their boards, so that makes them an extension of the government. They are regulated by the Department of Education and they have to abide by special rules as a result of their acceptance of that money. He who pays the piper call the tune.

The 1st Amendment protects your speech from the Government arresting you for what you say.

No, the 1st Amendment protects you from prior restraint. If you use speech in a way that starts a riot, you most certainly can get arrested.

Universities can invite whatever speakers they want and disinvite them as well. Even the proposed law in Wisconsin is not a 1st Amendment issue. It is just a political law that public enforces the rights that everyone already has.

Except that in most instances, recent speakers like Ann Coulter (who I really dislike) were invited by student groups only to be cancelled by the administration. The claim made by Berkeley is that the group didn't follow the proper procedures, but then later admitted that they cancelled it due to "security concerns." And that is the sad state of affairs that we have today. In a civil society, what would happen is a free exchange of ideas. You let a person come & make their speech, then you challenge it in the open marketplace of ideas instead of resorting to violence. Violence is the refuge of people who understand that their ideas don't have any merit, so they must use physical force to intimidate anyone who might oppose them.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Progressives will try to revise history that is problematic for them. This person is just very inept at it.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[cayenne8]

...penalizing the practice may discourage universities from inviting even potentially controversial speakers in the first place,

But that's pretty much what we're seeing now with violent leftist protest causing universities from inviting even slightly controversial folks from the center right to far right....

This set of laws is trying to address what you mentioned that is already happening.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[cayenne8]

I'm sure ANTIFA will be shocked to learn they're "the Right"! XD

But it does look like they are becoming a sort of leftist liberal fascist group themselves....they sure are employing the tactics.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I simply do not know how you are going to get through to someone with that much cognitive dissonance. I'm a left-leaning libertarian (a collectivist anarchist to be specific), so I don't really have a party to root for (God, it's definitely not the Libertarians). When I last occupied a political party, it was the Democratic Party. There is so much cognitive dissonance on the left it's mind-blowing. Tell me, I wasn't that naive/stupid when I was a Democrat,... was I!?

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[tbannist]

Violence is the refuge of people who understand that their ideas don't have any merit, so they must use physical force to intimidate anyone who might oppose them.

Somehow I doubt that your statement is ever true. People just don't work the way you think they do. Your statement, however, is appallingly arrogant and condescending. Do you understand that normal people have these things called emotions? Do you understand the normal people often act on their emotions without thinking through the consequences? Do you understand that this type of behaviour is particularly common among people between the ages of 15 and 23?

The sad state of affairs is that Ann Coulter is a right wing troll and that instead of collectively ignoring her, the most easily manipulated members of our society are being deliberately exposed to her. It's literally her job to rile people up and make them angry, and people are surprised when there are consequences? They are surprised when people act on their anger? We should all know what's going to happen when someone throws a lit match into a powder keg and none of us should be surprised by the consequences.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[JesseMcDonald]

If you use speech in a way that starts a riot, you most certainly can get arrested.

If your speech has the ability to cause a riot on its own, without regard for anyone else's choices—you must be a magician. In reality riots occur not because someone makes a speech (regardless of the content) but because the listeners choose to riot. The liability for the riot lies entirely with those who choose to participate in it. They had the choice to riot or not, and chose incorrectly. Don't make the mistake of shifting the blame for their behavior onto someone else's speech.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

The schools have turned into Anti-white Zionist Soros Globalization brainwashing breading grounds for Antifa. They get special credit to violently protest. If you can have that, you can have someone from the other side. Most people go more to the right as they mature and grow up. If you can claim something is con-artistry, you can shut down any position.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[XxtraLarGe]

If your speech has the ability to cause a riot on its own, without regard for anyone else's choicesâ"you must be a magician.

The law seems to disagree with you...

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[XxtraLarGe]

Somehow I doubt that your statement is ever true. People just don't work the way you think they do. Your statement, however, is appallingly arrogant and condescending. Do you understand that normal people have these things called emotions? Do you understand the normal people often act on their emotions without thinking through the consequences? Do you understand that this type of behaviour is particularly common among people between the ages of 15 and 23?

It doesn't have to be true among the 15 to 23 year-olds, but the profs who are indoctrinating them are very well aware.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, currently the more ignorant segment of the progressive student bodies around the nation have been violent. Basically, they are the rednecks of the liberal world. There are tons of examples from recent weeks, from antifa "protests" to that college that, last I heard, had been CLOSED DOWN due to students telling all whites they had to stay home.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

How will shielding students from con artists better prepare them for life after graduation? Lots of parents attempt this with their children (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil). The results are a profoundly ignorant person who's totally unprepared for the shit that's going to be thrown at them in their lives.

Baby the students and they stay babies.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now the radical right is the ones doing the screaming,

Bullshit... BOTH sides are screaming, in their own ways - the radical right, however, seems to be more VOCAL than physical, whereas the radical factions of the left are certainly more physical.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[HornWumpus]

State universities are property of the state, not the students. So done.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

You left off right where arguments against free speech always go sideways. Lets continue...

Presumption: Its a good idea to protect the youth from listening to "con artists"

Followup Question: Who decides who the "con artists" are?

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[david_thornley]

State Universities are normally independent organizations that get some of their funding and some of their governance from the state. They are not normally property of the state.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Right now the radical right is the ones doing the screaming,"

How can you hear the "radical right" over top the radical left screaming, breaking windows, and lighting cars on fire? If I learned anything from the last election its that "progressives" are violent people and I'm glad I own a gun to protect myself and my family from them.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[dcw3]

Do you understand the childish people often act on their emotions without thinking through the consequences?

FTFY Learn to be an adult and control your emotions. You don't get to interfere with other people just because you're offended.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Triklyn]

i think a university is going to try denying an invitation to someone the students invite and get a permit for, and then they'll get asked why.

and then not having a good answer other than, it's going to cause violence that we're not inclined to defend against. isn't going to cut it. so they'll actually let the police and security hired for these events to crack some skulls of adults in black breaking other people's property.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Triklyn]

you can get charged for inciting a riot, in a leading role. you would not get charged for having people riot against you for something you're saying, and having the people listening to you not riot essentially.

i think the people culpable would be the people that organize antifa 'protesters' to show up en masse, and tell them that it's ok to use violence. that's where the 'inciting to violence' charge would probably be leveled, not at the speaker.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Triklyn]

i think more and more can be made the case that the left and liberalism should be disconnected. and liberalism should go back to describing those that defend individual liberties before anything.

the left these days seems to subordinate individual liberties to collective social equality.

that's how i see it anyway, and i'm assuming the left now sees it that there's everybody that is compassionate and good that agree with them, and nazis. who you can destroy by any means necessary.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

...becoming?

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[tbannist]

Do you understand the childish people often act on their emotions without thinking through the consequences?

FTFY Learn to be an adult and control your emotions. You don't get to interfere with other people just because you're offended.

Hey, I bet yelling "you'll all acting like children" will work really well to protect you from a mob. Why don't you go try it?

If you can't understand that college students are pretty much the poster children for irrational, short term, emotion driven behaviour, you are fucking clueless. So you're god damn right that they're acting childishly. The pre-frontal cortex on the average person doesn't complete it's develop until after they have graduated from college, and there's not a whole lot that anyone can do about that. Telling people to be different than they are is about as effective as pissing into the wind.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[tbannist]

It doesn't have to be true among the 15 to 23 year-olds, but the profs who are indoctrinating them are very well aware.

Wait, are those professors colluding with the scientists who invented Global Warming for the Chinese to kill American industry? Will our tinfoil hats protect us from their mind control? You should go post something about that on your blog!

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[dcw3]

With that line of thinking, we shouldn't allow anyone under the age of about 22 to be considered responsible for their actions. If you haven't learned that your actions have consequences by the time you're in college, you had fuckwits for parents, and that has nothing to do with the development of your pre-frontal cortex.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[blindseer]

Nice collection of weapons pulled off antifa members who were looking to attack people at pro-trump/free speech rally. http://www.officer.com/news/12...

Holy shit!! I think I saw the rusty hatchet stolen from my shed in there. Any chance I can get it back?

And what the hell is that at the bottom of the image? Is that a a gate hinge bolted to a shin guard? That's gotta hurt.

This also demonstrates that no government can disarm the public, people will improvise. You can take their guns and knives but then they'll just fashion their own. Part of the reason why the speakers and attendees to these speeches get their ass kicked so often is that the venue is "weapons free" but the area to and from is not. The police disarmed one group but not the other. Would these hooligans be so bold to bring a sack full of bricks if they thought the attendees might shoot back?

I know someone is thinking, "but at least the hooligans didn't have a gun." What makes you think the hooligans could buy a gun? These students are likely often high on drugs (prescribed or not), likely with previous criminal records, or a protection order out on them. They couldn't pass a background check to buy a firearm.

Another common reply to my comment, "Do you really think it justified to use a gun against someone swinging a sack of bricks?" Yes. Wait, let me make myself clear... HELL YES!! Swinging a sack of bricks, putting a plastic bag over someone's head, hitting them with a pipe wrench, or a bike lock, is deadly force. Deadly force should be met with deadly force. That includes the use of a firearm in defense of lives.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but if you're of college age you should be expected to act as an adult. That means not letting your actions be controlled by your emotions and flying off the handle at different opinions. Seriously, learning to handle your emotions is something normal people should have learned when they were children. College is supposed to be a time in which you learn, mature, acquire new skills and learn to think critically. College is not a day care for adult babies. Screaming, crying, intimidating, and inciting riots against those guilty of wrong-think not only retards your own development, but it impedes everyone else's ability to learn as well. Acting like a child in this manner should honestly be grounds for expulsion as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[JesseMcDonald]

i think the people culpable would be the people that organize antifa 'protesters' to show up en masse, and tell them that it's ok to use violence.

Even then, what would make it reasonable for these people to actually believe that it was OK to use violence, regardless of what they were told? They are adults and ought to know better than to behave like that. The responsibility for their actions is theirs alone. No matter how obviously the organizer(s) desired that outcome, they didn't cause it to happen. At any point the audience could have simply said "no" and walked away.

Laws against "incitement" violate not only the freedom of speech, but also the more fundamental principle of proportional response. If someone else speaks, and your response to that speech is more violent than simply speaking back, then you're the one in the wrong—not them. It doesn't matter what they said or what their intentions may have been.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Rakarra]

Just had to throw Soros in there, because obviously he has to be funding these groups, and somehow he's the root of all evil.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[SharpFang]

Well, he doesn't set anything on fire, and doesn't go punching random people. And he keeps his volume to reasonable levels too... most of the time.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Melissa Click.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[dcw3]

There's a clear difference between what you said, and "inciting" a riot.

Penal Law due to the fact there was much fighting in the streets, "A person is guilty of inciting to riot when one urges ten or more persons to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm."

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Support or opposition to stem cell research is not a scientific issue, any more than support or opposition to abortion is a scientific issue.
People who oppose (aborted fetal) stem cell research do not oppose it because they don't understand that it might be possible to develop cures from such research, but because such research is immoral. Universities by supporting such research are supporting immoral research using material from dead babies. This is not a scientific discussion it is a moral one. I particularly don't want public institutions to take these kinds of immoral stands. And more I don't want them to shut down speakers who come out against this kind of immoral behavior.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a strange view of how universities "used to be" or are even intended to be. It might be a good thing if they were "bastions of free speech," but that's never what they ever were. They started out as religious institutions where you could not publicly oppose the religious message for fear of getting your ears cropped. Some schools may have eventually secularized, but they remained bastions only of moneyed (and, consequently, white) privilege, and speech against that would have been shocking... shocking! and punishable. When some universities decided to make admission more objective by having tests, the very unpleasant and unanticipated admission of the children of immigrants and the poor occurred, displacing some of the scions of moneyed WASP families. The characterization of universities as centers of disagreeable speech (the only kind of speech whose "freedom" would even be questioned) may have started then, when a wave of red-diaper babies came through in the 00s to the 20s. Universities quickly amended their admissions to consider the "whole person", so as not to disadvantage too many lacrosse players. Perhaps the diversity toothpaste was out of the tube now, and through the 70s a wide variety of forms of expression were heard on campuses, much to the horror and bemusement of America-at-large. Lefties making themselves heard has led to the myth of universal leftiness among the faculty, a myth that can only be maintained by restricting your analysis to certain departments.

I notice that the poor sad victimized right-wing commentators who insist on more conservative faculty in English never insist on more liberal faculty in business, law, or engineering.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, it's the radical right, starting fights, punching girls in the face. THAT is the fist you're talking about, right?

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Cinnamon Beige]

If you can't understand that college students are pretty much the poster children for irrational, short term, emotion driven behaviour, you are fucking clueless. So you're god damn right that they're acting childishly. The pre-frontal cortex on the average person doesn't complete it's develop until after they have graduated from college, and there's not a whole lot that anyone can do about that. Telling people to be different than they are is about as effective as pissing into the wind.

Fun fact! Merely not having the finishing touches to your prefrontal cortex does not, in fact, do a damn thing to stop you from being capable of acting more mature than a college student. What happens to a person whose prefrontal cortex isn't working right is something I actually put in time studying--the short version? Imagine going through life with absolutely nothing whatsoever keeping you from getting caught in loops and following through with absolutely any and every impulse that skitters across your mind--yes you will be aware, people with prefrontal damage are even able to outright tell you that this is not a thing what they want to do. (Oh, yes, and on the whole consent doesn't really have anything to do with somebody with significant compromise to the prefrontal lobes...and any impulse you can imagine, some case study in the lit probably mentions a patient who had it skitter across their mind. Yes, even the nightmarish ones.)

The particular executive abilities associated with the prefrontal lobe, however, start turning up really, really early. You may have noticed this in that kids are capable of, well, learning to behave. Part of how you can tell its development is that kids will get better with age--and yes, this is also practice, practice helps firm up the development and keep the 'circuits' involved from getting culled for disuse. Cultures which expect kids to gradually pick up adult responsibilities actually have a very good idea here--you give them practice early, in a manner that will be rewarding for them ("Look I'm a big kid they let me do these grownup things now!") instead of just dropping it on them pretty much all at once & expecting them to do fine without practice.

So, actually, cultural expectations and methods of child-rearing do matter and certainly you can start a kid with low-end practice much, much earlier than you probably think a kid is capable of it--and it's a very, very good thing. Or did you not stop to think that there's a reason you can make an Elementary school age kid really happy just by trusting them to do something simple? Those skills do not just appear like you're buying them with experience points as you age...

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Cinnamon Beige]

You have incitement to riot backwards--the person who is supposed to be charged is the person who goes, basically, "Let's have a riot!" and has the audience respond with...let's call it enthusiastic approval. It preserves free speech, but like the fighting words doctrine, takes the view that free speech is 'free to say what you want' but not 'free of consequences.' (The rioters also are supposed to be charged, for what exactly depends on the locality, because you're quite right: They certainly could have chosen to just go "No" and leave.)

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[JesseMcDonald]

You have incitement to riot backwards--the person who is supposed to be charged is the person who goes, basically, "Let's have a riot!" and has the audience respond with...let's call it enthusiastic approval.

Yeah, that's how I understand it as well. And it's wrong. The rioters alone are responsible for the riot. No one else should be charged for "incitement".

It preserves free speech, but ... takes the view that free speech is 'free to say what you want' but not 'free of consequences.'

No, it does not preserve free speech. If the law imposes consequences which depend on the content of your speech then you are not free to speak. You are, in fact, subject to being punished specifically for speaking, which is pretty much the definition of an infringement of your freedom of speech.

Speech can of course have consequences—social ones, things that people could do on their own initiative whether you spoke or not. You may lose friends or become unwelcome in certain places. However, no amount or content of speech justifies taking away your property, locking you up, or any other limitation or restriction on your legal rights.

... like the fighting words doctrine ...

Which is also wrong for the same reason.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Cinnamon Beige]

By that reasoning, announcing very clearly that you are going over right now to rape, murder, and eat your neighbor's toddler--not necessarily in that order--should also not result in you getting at the very least an involuntary brief stay in a mental ward because that is definitely 'amount or content of speech' and it is 'locking you up.'

The same level of obviousness has almost always been required to have incitement to riot charges filed against you, or for the Fighting Words doctrine to be a viable defense for assaulting you--and currently you have to be very, very deliberately trying to hit the requirements, or have the sort of gifted stupidity that means that it probably isn't safe for you to be wandering around without a competent adult watching you.

And by 'very, very deliberately trying,' I mean that right now, you would almost certainly need to hire lawyers to help you figure out how to get yourself charged with incitement to riot or what you can say that would have the person who assaults you able to even try to use the Fighting Words doctrine as a defense. (I am not, of course, going to rule out that somebody could, in a fit of highly gifted stupidity, somehow manage to do it by complete and total accident. The odds are not zero--but they're very close to zero.)

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw you. IT IS THE RIGHT WHO IS SCREAMING. If you think otherwise, you're probably just a radical right shill.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[tbannist]

With that line of thinking, we shouldn't allow anyone under the age of about 22 to be considered responsible for their actions.

You seem to think I'm excusing their actions, rather than pointing out that if you take people who are not fully adults and then put them in a situation where they provoked into acting poorly, some of them are going to do so. I fully support holding people responsible for their actions, I just think that smart people should realize that college students are not fully adults and often lack the life experience, wisdom and even full mental faculties of older adults. It's easy to pontificate at them about how they should be more like you, either because of the benefit of hindsight, or because you were never in the same situation.

If you haven't learned that your actions have consequences by the time you're in college, you had fuckwits for parents, and that has nothing to do with the development of your pre-frontal cortex.

By the simple law of averages, some college students actually have fuckwits and worse for parents.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[dcw3]

Reading this response, I think we're actually in agreement.

Re:Could cause more harm than good.

[Mashiki]

Remember that part where antifa showed up like this to attack people first though? No? That's the difference in what's happened. That's what happened in Berkeley and Seattle for example, it wasn't until they started violently assaulting people that things started going down this road.

Damn shame

[Anonymous Coward]

When you gotta pass a law to force students in a public university paid for by everybody's tax dollars to actually allow-they don't have to even listen-but allow viewpoints that might disagree with their fragile little sheltered minds. Don't like it? Apply to a religious school like Berkeley.

Re:Damn shame

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh, I get Berkeley is public but you get the idea.

Re: Damn shame

[Anonymous Coward]

Berkley is a high cathedral of leftistism, which is as much a relgion as the Christian right in the US. Question it and be mocked by a team of professional millionaire satirists, while science promoters defame you in highly publicized statements.

Re: Damn shame

[Jzanu]

Good. The ignorant must be called out and even mocked when they attempt a decision based on their beliefs while real facts are available.

Re: Damn shame

[ArmoredDragon]

Sure, but denying them the opportunity to speak is not cool.

Re: Damn shame

[piojo]

Good. The ignorant must be called out and even mocked when they attempt a decision based on their beliefs while real facts are available.

What effect do you suppose that has? Does it spread knowledge? Does it encourage dialogue?

Re: Damn shame

[Jzanu]

Discussion isn't an end in itself. Rather productivity, development, advancement. Improvement. All those things discussion by itself fails at unless directed by the educated. Meaningless spittle from twats with a poor understanding of something doesn't add value and wastes time as well as every other resource.

Re: Damn shame

[piojo]

Discussion isn't an end in itself... Meaningless spittle from twats with a poor understanding of something doesn't add value and wastes time as well as every other resource.

I agree. But that is a good description of 99% of calling out and shaming. Most of it is not even genuine--people that want to feel they are part of something don't take the time to understand the issues, and lack the humility to recognize situations where they can't understand the issues. For example, calling out an author of a book you haven't read, or calling someone a sexist after reading their online post which you haven't understood at the level of every nuance.

To be fair, I don't know exactly what you're referring to, but I have seen calling out and shaming, and I hear about it being applied to undeserving targets far more often than I hear about shaming accomplishing good.

Re: Damn shame

[SharpFang]

Without being challenged, viewpoints degenerate, echo chambers amplify the noise until it overwhelms the signal.

Read up about feminist glaciology, how carbon fiber is sexist, or why snow should be removed from back roads first, leaving main arteries for later (hint: gender discrimination).

This is the kind of fruit of "science" borne from silencing the opposing views. This is the environment that happily swallows "penis is responsible for global warming" as a valid scientific conclusion - because it got so efficient at silencing and dismissing any opposing views that it's completely unable to tell complete bullshit from real science.

And what you're doing in your post is exactly dismissing the opposing views as "spittle from twats".

Maybe listen to some of that "spittle" before claiming with total authority that you're right and everyone who disagrees is wrong.

Re: Damn shame

[Opportunist]

Speak all you want, but be prepared for a rebuttal.

The first amendment does not shield you from someone else executing his first amendment right.

Re: Damn shame

[Anonymous Coward]

As a libtard what the hell are you talking about? Sounds like strawman arguments to me.

Re: Damn shame

[SharpFang]

If you missed the point of discussion, it was about universities. Institutions that are supposed to adhere to rules of good science and instill them in students.

Yes, discussion isn't an end by itself. Improvement is the end - but improvement requires weeding out errors, and that in order is only achievable through accepting and analyzing outside views and critical opinions - discussion. Discussion, therefore is a necessity.

Meanwhile, outright dismissing all criticism as bigotry - combined with labeling critics as all kinds of -ists, and -phobes - is the prevalent attitude. Taken by OP, by students, and the university staff. Any dissenting opinion is automatically assumed wrong, and critical discussion is deemed "meaningless spittle". Everyone, who doesn't agree with anything created in these echo chambers is quickly labeled a 'neonazi', 'pedophile apologist', 'bigot' and their contribution dismissed as invalid with zero consideration to any actual merit. And that allows total bullshit to proliferate unchallenged.

Re: Damn shame

[Anonymous Coward]

Discussion, therefore is a necessity.

Pretending you're having a discussion isn't necessary, nor desirable. It is a lie that promulgates errors and falsehood.

Meanwhile, outright dismissing all criticism as bigotry - combined with labeling critics as all kinds of -ists, and -phobes - is the prevalent attitude. Taken by OP, by students, and the university staff. Any dissenting opinion is automatically assumed wrong, and critical discussion is deemed "meaningless spittle". Everyone, who doesn't agree with anything created in these echo chambers is quickly labeled a 'neonazi', 'pedophile apologist', 'bigot' and their contribution dismissed as invalid with zero consideration to any actual merit. And that allows total bullshit to proliferate unchallenged.

Actually, that isn't true, that's just the common excuse being brought up, as a defensive counter-reaction to deflect and ignore genuine criticism and rejection, so you can assume it is wrong, and label them as the problem, therefore dismissing them and embracing whatever bullshit you prefer without challenge.

(Generic "You" here, as I just don't feel like rewriting it another way.)

Really, I've seen quite enough frenetic hand-wringing by self-proclaimed martyred victims that your own response is far less persuasive than you realize. Because you see, it's the bullshit spreaders who have adopted that tactic, to get us to ignore their racism, sexism, and other bigotry.

They cry wolf, and then embrace a naked emperor. And some of us know about it. We're familiar with the "race card" card.

In fact, this kind of law has a long history of being promulgated on the right, whether it be the Scopes Monkey Trial, the Gag Rule, or the Sedition Acts.

I know, I know, lots of people want to burble, but "the left called me racist" or "leftists killed millions in Cambodia" but the truth is that the right has its own blood-stained hands.

You know what is a good virtue? Realizing when somebody is spreading crap, and not the good kind that serves as fertilizer, the bad kind that poisons a whole field with contaminated sewage.

Re: Damn shame

[Triklyn]

rebuttals don't involve violent riots.

but dialogue is a patriarchal construct, and they're not going to play that power game, because the simple act of playing the power game is giving you power. so you don't fucking get to speak. bamn.

i think that's the line of thought for denying speakers or listeners the right to speak and listen.

what do you think 'de-platforming' is?

Re: Damn shame

[Triklyn]

pride cometh before the fall.

intelligence is not wisdom, wisdom is not taught.

discussion is integral to making sure those that think about important issues are thinking as fully about those issues as they can be. if all you ever hear is support and never a critical word, then how likely are you to question what you think? a contrary point of view, and devil's advocate is not really good enough, is vital to the growth of both points of view.

Re: Damn shame

[Triklyn]

those are legitimate articles, published and presumably peer reviewed. 'social science' as a name is oxymoronic at this point.

Re: Damn shame

[Anonymous Coward]

dumb ass

Re: Damn shame

[SharpFang]

Wait, are you disagreeing with me or agreeing with me? Because what you wrote is essentially the same as I wrote, except for some random negations and criticism of the rightists.

Racism disguised as oppression ("blacks can't be racists"), introducing black-only dorms, banning whites from events, successful influential, rich women whose social and material status would be a subject of envy of many, complain about being oppressed by patriarchy (not even generally - them, themselves!), big victories of feminism of 20th Century fought as patriarchal and chauvinist, "die cishet scum"...

That's pure racism and sexism.

Really, I've seen quite enough frenetic hand-wringing by self-proclaimed martyred victims that your own response is far less persuasive than you realize. Because you see, it's the bullshit spreaders who have adopted that tactic, to get us to ignore their racism, sexism, and other bigotry.

There. That sentence. I agree 100% but I believe we have a different outlook on who's a self-proclaimed martyr and bullshit-spreader.

Re: Damn shame

[SharpFang]

Actually, I posted the above and then did a double take.

Are you seriously defending "carbon fiber is sexist" and "feminist glaciology" as valid science, and claim criticism of that is bullshit and hand-waving, and you're dismissing discussion - criticism of THAT - as promulgating errors and falsehood?

Are you for real?

Re: Damn shame

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be blunt: you are a fucking idiot

Re: Damn shame

[SharpFang]

Your own response is far less persuasive than you realize

Re: Damn shame

[Opportunist]

So ... stop speaking because you could make sense?

Re: Damn shame

[Triklyn]

yeah and ideas are more dangerous than actual violence, so giving you an avenue to convince others of your wicked ways is a sin worse than killing you outright.

god, in those terms it really is a religion isn't it?

Re: Damn shame

[Opportunist]

What do you mean "in those terms"? It is one, it has all the characteristic qualities.

How dare you

[Zaelath]

impinge on my right to free speech by using yours!

How can this possibly get past the SCOTUS?

As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in his famous Whitney v. California opinion in 1927, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

Re:How dare you

[Anonymous Coward]

As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in his famous Whitney v. California opinion in 1927, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

Brandeis was a liberal, so we're supposed to vilify him and shun his beliefs, no matter what they may be.

Right wingers are the ones you should worry about.

[interkin3tic]

Oh boo hoo hoo, milo yogurt and ann coulter couldn't speak on a college campus because of protests. A republican student murdered another student for being black. If you're upset about liberals shutting down free speech but not the massive rise in right-wing hate crimes across the country, are you even fooling yourself? You hate liberals, you don't have a fucking reason other than they're not like you.

Science education?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know Milo was a science teacher...

You can do that anyway...

[RyanFenton]

I was that kind of nerd in class that would read the whole book at the start of the semester, then just sort of enjoy asking leading questions during the year, perhaps once or twice per class period. As long as it was a fair exploration of the topic, ~90% of teachers enjoyed the light challenge - especially the history teachers. I enjoyed finding out where I was wrong, or some detail that connected the subjects we were covering in some larger way.

There were also more religiously reactive students who would play the special-pleading game, trying to weaponize their belief lest others learn to believe in any other way. The answer there is usually increasing degrees of "you might very well be correct, and if you can find an international standards body recognized completely outside of your religious organization in [insert field], I'd suggest you contact [organization who sets school policy], and get the curriculus updated. Until then, this is what's going to be on the test."

I can't see that changing much, and if students decide to raise a stink, it would be fair for a teacher to offer to let the student test out of the class immediately, giving them the remaining homework/tests in one lump, and saving everyone a bit of time, since the student is unwilling to learn directly from the teacher.

Ryan Fenton

Re:You can do that anyway...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd mod you up if I could. Even if you aren't Ryan Fenton, I think we should own the things we say and think (as we do,) for we shouldn't have fear in putting forward rational perspectives. In the absence of fear, truth rises. That is what we all need.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[grasshoppa]

I can't see that changing much, and if students decide to raise a stink, it would be fair for a teacher to offer to let the student test out of the class immediately, giving them the remaining homework/tests in one lump, and saving everyone a bit of time, since the student is unwilling to learn directly from the teacher.

Have you even *been* on college campuses today? The term "inmates are in charge of the asylum" is frighteningly accurate. Students only need claim professors and/or curriculum "triggered" them via a series of "micro aggressions" and BAM! Headache for one and all. Well, not the students, who may retire to a "safe space", complete with crayons and comfy chairs.

If the topic is controversial enough ( say; someone refuting feminist dogma like the wage gap ), the professor can look forward to a full on witch hunt.

Schools are addicted to money, and the students are...not the source, but the catalyst for it. Thus, schools are becoming more and more like a fast food joint, complete with the questionable stains and general idiots on either side of the counter.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you even *been* on college campuses today? The term "inmates are in charge of the asylum" is frighteningly accurate. Students only need claim professors and/or curriculum "triggered" them via a series of "micro aggressions" and BAM! Headache for one and all. Well, not the students, who may retire to a "safe space", complete with crayons and comfy chairs..

Yes.

I've never seen that happen. Ever.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[AmiMoJo]

Is this actually true? I don't live in the US but when I survey US media for information about this I see a few isolated cases with incomplete information that is hard to judge, and a lot of alt-right blogs screaming about it as if it's some kind of epidemic.

Are teaching staff getting fired or sanctioned en-masse due to student complaints? Is there any reliable evidence for this? I don't mean links to a few stories or blogs, I mean evidence of it happening regularly to large numbers of staff.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[Mashiki]

Either you're a liar or an idiot. I'm not sure which, but there's a reason why The FIRE exists and there have been multiple court cases on this across the US. Here's an example from my own back yard. And the "micro aggression" crowd going after people for "cultural appropriation" and yoga mats. Now we can get into the UK the US, and some more of the US. And one can really keep going. FYI west coast universities, and universities in Southern Ontario are the worst in North America right now for this garbage.

Bonus article, about students in favor of banning free speech in the UK to protect feelings.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[AmiMoJo]

feminist dogma like the wage gap

Far worse than any censorship that takes places is people like you trying to poison the well. It makes debate almost impossible, both because listeners become prejudiced against ideas they are told are dogmatic and because it often forces the people debating to address all these random issues rather than the one at hand.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Are teaching staff getting fired or sanctioned en-masse due to student complaints?

No. It's so exceedingly rare that it's not a significant issue, but that doesn't stop insecure "snowflake" alt-right blog writers from claiming it is some kind of epidemic that is rolling across university environments like an unopposed tidal wave everywhere. Fact is, when SJWs go too far over the edge they get ample push-back from the rest of the university community without any embittered alt-right people needing to show up to make a big spectacle of it.

The last thing needed is for politicians to meddle in the process.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[grasshoppa]

That tactic only works if you let it. Competent adults are able to ignore being triggered and focus on the matter at hand instead of running around like a kid off his Ritalin addressing every aspect of the post which offends their delicate sensibilities.

But, as I haven't taken my Ritalin quite yet: https://www.prageru.com/course...

Re:You can do that anyway...

[Anonymous Coward]

First part you get right, about professors saying essentially "so what, I don't care, this is what I am teaching, now take the damn test." Which is true. If I'm going to teach about carbon dating in an earth sciences class and you believe in creationism, then you are shit out of luck for that class. You take a class to learn from the professor, not to try to persuade the professor or other students in your class.

Your last part is dead wrong. If they don't like it, every student has the option to drop a class. But no damn way should the professor be required to create an exam at the beginning of a semester, or create all homework at the beginning of a semester for some smart-ass, too good to be in the class, ass hole student. If you disagree with the class, try learning from a different perspective. Or drop the class -- and no credit given.

I don't believe much in Jesus or God, but in college I had to take a religion class. While I didn't personally agree with much that was taught, I also found it enlightening to learn more about what "people of faith" believe and the origins of their belief. Of course, 3/4 of the class identified as regular church goers, and it was astounding to me how they knew so much less than I did about a topic for which they profess their faith in. But that's a different story ;)

Re:You can do that anyway...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not true. Just more alt-right garbage from a RedPill swallower.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this actually true?

Yes. I quit my position as a professor one year ago becasue the situation was so bad. The faculty are terrified that a student will complain, and the administration will go to extraordinary lengths to appease the students.

By the way, the professors who identify with the far-left usually deny this. Because they have a political majority, they are relatively immune from these problems in their day-to-day work.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[apoc.famine]

I went back to grad school for the second time within the last ten years. I graduated about six years ago, and this certainly wasn't the case then. And this is at a university of ~50k students.
 
As far as I can tell, this meme stems from alt-right buthurt that universities are actually talking about and working to address discrimination. That there are systematic campaigns to talk about sexual assault.
 
When your social and emotional foundations are built on your superiority complex, it's quite threatening to see those you feel superior to empowered. The easiest way to counteract this is to continue to demean them, thus the trigger and micro-aggression memes.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[Tablizer]

"you might very well be correct, and if you can find an international standards body recognized completely outside of your religious organization in [insert field]...

I'm sure they can find some "internationally recognized" body of sufficient size that mostly shares their religious beliefs for a given subject.

It would make the test easier, I'm jealous.

1. How did bacteria form?

Goddiddit

2. How did humans form?

Goddiddit

3. How does the Krebs cycle work?

Goddoezit

4. Which writer on population density was an influence on Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species"?

Satan

Re:You can do that anyway...

[AmiMoJo]

That there are systematic campaigns to talk about sexual assault.

I sometimes wonder about this. Are they just so stupid that they think merely talking about sexual assault is an attack on them, even a personal attack? Or are they just trolling for some reason?

Or do they think sexual assault is actually okay and that's why they are pissed off about it? Some certainly seem to, talking about how guys have to make the first move and girls must say "no" several times because culture or something and it's normal to just push through that until she gives in. And the whole sexual marketplace thing...

Re:You can do that anyway...

[grasshoppa]

Except that such terms as "trigger" and "micro-aggression" and "safe spaces" exist for a reason. While I don't discount your notion that a superiority complex is partially to blame, that exists on both sides of the issue. You have children who have been told from birth that everything they do is amazing, so naturally when they hit the real world it must be the world at fault and not their own perceptions. It follows then, that they would attempt to change their environment to match their perceptions. This is normal behavior. What's relatively "new" is that colleges are so addicted to the funds these kids bring with them that they enable their behavior.

There are no "good guys" here. Only horrible people who have logic and facts to backup their horrible behavior.

I'm not sure why you introduced sexual assault into the equation, but it's certainly an issue worth discussing. Title IX's reinterpretation by the Obama administration opened the flood gates for destroying men's lives via false sexual assault claims. Note: I am not saying sexual assault doesn't exist. Nor am I saying it's acceptable. It's absolutely not. Incidents of sexual assault should be addressed harshly. However, in their zeal to punish the accused they forgot to verify that they were guilty first. Men, and it absolutely is a gender issue, are railroaded by colleges more worried about their image than the facts.

If a sexual assault happens, it should be handled by the local authorities and not a college.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[apoc.famine]

I think it's something else, actually. In decades past, sexual assault was the victim's fault, and it generally wasn't talked about. You could push for sex and probe boundaries very aggressively, because there were no real consequences for doing that. Now the pendulum has swung the other direction, and you can face serious repercussions for pushing too far. This is a radical shift in power, and this shift means more rejection.
 
I think this power shift triggers deep fears, such as, "What if I'm falsely accused, and suffer consequences?", and "If everyone understands how consent works, what if nobody consents to sleep with me?"
 
If you never had to face sexual assaults and unwanted groping, it probably looks and feels more like persecution than equality and civility.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[serviscope_minor]

of all the strange things you link to, I think the funniest is that you just used a Bing.com link.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[Anonymous Coward]

This probably isn't the full story for this college, but this is probably one of the worst instances lately. It's usually the social programs that have it worst, while STEM areas are generally still good:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/06/05/college-closed-for-third-day-concerned-about-threat-after-protests-over-race/?utm_term=.232dd84e9fac

The issue that began this was that they were trying to get the white professor to go home on their self-declared whites stay home day.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[Anonymous Coward]

I sometimes wonder about this.

Read Laura Kipnis's book Unwanted Advances . Kipnis isn't alt-right or conservative. She's a well-respected feminst who's on the same side of the political aisle as you, but she's very critical of the current campus culture.

If you read her book, I suspect that she will explain the problem to you in a way that you can understand.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Have you even *been* on college campuses today? The term "inmates are in charge of the asylum" is frighteningly accurate. Students only need claim professors and/or curriculum "triggered" them via a series of "micro aggressions" and BAM! "

Have you? Or are you sourcing angry twitter rants again?

Re: You can do that anyway...

[KGIII]

I am told that Bing is supposedly pretty good, these days. I don't actually know, as I am a creature of habit. But, I'm told people actually go there by choice - even when aware of the alternatives.

I haven't actually seen anyone going there, so it could be a myth. I can only offer up what I have read. I'm also well trained at typing google.com into the address bar. It'd take a lot if I wanted to break that habit.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[Mashiki]

You know what I think is funny? That after all these years the only thing you trust is information that's pre-vetted. Well that, and you can't dispute anything.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[HornWumpus]

When challenging false dogma becomes 'poisoning the well', you've lost.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[apoc.famine]

Title IX's reinterpretation by the Obama administration opened the flood gates for destroying men's lives via false sexual assault claims.

Where's your evidence for this? Does this happen more or less often now than sexual assault happens? Because if Title IX has significantly reduced sexual assaults at the cost of very few men's lives' destroyed, your anger about it is rather misplaced. Or do you not feel that a false accusation of rape and rape are on the same level when it comes to destroying lives?

Re:You can do that anyway...

[AmiMoJo]

Great point. Those are all common complaints from incels, the most extreme form of this kind of thinking.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[AmiMoJo]

I don't think you understand what that phrase means. Calling it "dogma" is not challenging it, it's using a weasel word to frame it.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Banning discussion is not nearly as bad as criticizing dogma I like during a discussion."

Off your rocker, as usual AmiMoJo. Anything to keep your worldview.

Some day the owners of Slashdot will learn to not let their property slide into irrelevancy and band you.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[david_thornley]

Have you even *been* on college campuses today? The term "inmates are in charge of the asylum" is frighteningly accurate.

What's this "today" stuff about? People have been saying things like that for decades. I haven't seen any significant changes in the rhetoric since I was actually on a campus a lot, observing none of the things you say.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[david_thornley]

The wage gap exists. It isn't false dogma.

What you're probably trying to say is that the wage gap becomes small if you stick to similar jobs and similar seniority.A lot of people who apparently feel like you get defensive when asked questions of why the disparity in jobs and seniority, coming up with plausible excuses that often look like mansplaining.

This stuff is complicated. There are no easy-to-find final answers, and I'm very strongly against assuming that this is the best of all possible worlds, and all observed gender differences are biological.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[HornWumpus]

Dogma are a set of 'facts' that are not to be questioned...if you do, you will be charged with 'poisoning the well' by those that hold the dogma.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[Anonymous Coward]

AmiMoJo, I notice that you're only replying to the people who agree with you. You're stuck in an echo chamber. Engage with the people who disagree with you.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[serviscope_minor]

You know what I think is funny? That after all these years the only thing you trust is information that's pre-vetted. Well that, and you can't dispute anything.

It's better than trusting the craziest crap I can scrape up from the weirdest corners of the internet.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[RespekMyAthorati]

Or do you not feel that a false accusation of rape and rape are on the same level when it comes to destroying lives?

No, they are not on "the same level", because one is true (an actual rape) and one is false (the baseless accusation).
Lies can never be "on the same level" as truth.

Anyway, Title IX is not the problem: it is the incompetent and biased way universities employ it that is wrong.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[RespekMyAthorati]

plausible excuses that often look like mansplaining.

Only a pathetic, ignorant fool would use a term like "mansplaining".

Re:You can do that anyway...

[grasshoppa]

I appreciate an open mind, and you're absolutely right; a wage gap remains when controlled for age, hours worked, education level and job title. Throughout their 20s, women out earn men. It's only when 30s hit that the situation flips. So what changes?

What do you think are some factors in the equation?

Re:You can do that anyway...

[Cederic]

So where's the evidence that it's reduced sexual assaults? There's plenty of evidence that it's ruined more than very few men's lives.

Random search result immediately returns..
https://www.insidehighered.com...

Let alone when you start looking at shit like Emma Sulkowicz, who made an entire fucking career out of fucking over an innocent man.

Title IX is ostensibly a good thing. The "Dear Colleague" letter that threatened the funding for colleges that didn't use it to fuck over their male students is horrific and causing massive damage to men and their lives.

I don't want women to be assaulted. I don't think Title IX protects women at all and protecting women is not an excuse to destroy the education and prospects of men.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[david_thornley]

Only a pathetic, ignorant fool would use a term like "mansplaining"

I like the word. It's a quick one-word description of something that happens all too often, and I'm not aware of another such word. It's mildly humorous and pokes fun at a group I happen to be a member of, so I feel like I can use it with a much lower chance of giving offense.

I'm not pathetic, and I know what I'm doing when I use the word, so I'm not ignorant.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[david_thornley]

Interesting. I don't know enough about it to give a good analysis of the details, though.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[grasshoppa]

So how do you know that a wage gap exists?

Re:You can do that anyway...

[david_thornley]

I know because all the statistics I see tell me that women earn significantly less than men. That's a wage gap, OK? I don't know all the details and exactly what goes into it. Do you refuse to believe someone can talk intelligently about the Sun if they can't explain possible fusion paths?

Re:You can do that anyway...

[grasshoppa]

I know because all the statistics I see tell me that women earn significantly less than men. That's a wage gap, OK?

If all you're going off of is the conclusions of studies you haven't read and don't know the methodology used, then I'm sorry; you really can't discuss it intelligently. Or rather, it would be inappropriate for you to make declarative statements like "that's the wage gap" or "the wage gap exists".

The first step to knowledge is admitting your own ignorance. You start by asking questions, not by telling people what does or does not exist.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[Mashiki]

It's better than trusting the craziest crap I can scrape up from the weirdest corners of the internet.

You heard it here first folks. Facts are "crazy crap." Have to ask, what's life like in an ideological bubble so deep, that you have to hide from factual information because your ego is so fragile.

Re:You can do that anyway...

[david_thornley]

It's trivial to find the Wikipedia article, sufficiently trivial that I didn't think it necessary. It's simple to go from there to the cited sources. Since I wasn't going further than saying there's a pay gap, that's all the backing I need.

As a game reviewer once said, "I don't understand ballet, but when the ballerina falls on her ass I know that's a mistake."

Re:You can do that anyway...

[grasshoppa]

The second sentence on your wiki link:

The average woman's unadjusted annual salary has been cited as 78%[2] to 82%[3] of that of the average man's. However, after adjusting for choices made by male and female workers in college major, occupation, working hours, and parental leave, multiple studies find that pay rates between males and females varied by 5–6.6% or, females earning 94 cents to every dollar earned by their male counterparts. The remaining 6% of the gap has been speculated to originate from deficiency in salary negotiation skills and gender discrimination

I would imagine that would give anyone pause before making any declarative statements regarding the wage gap.

Call me crazy, but...

[slashdot_commentator]

... aren't students shelling out thousands of dollars in (science) education to be taught conventionally accepted knowledge by an expert in the scientific discipline's field? What would the bill accomplish besides having unqualified nincompoops devaluing the quality of education? There is a standard of conventional knowledge and research competence demonstrated by every PhD. Undergrads and outsiders have no business contesting facts in the science curriculum. Any legislator that votes for such a bill should be impeached. You may as well shutdown the university at that point; it will cease to be a credible, accredited undergraduate facility.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Derekloffin]

At a university level, I hope a teacher is competent enough in the subject they are teacher to handle any challenge and show why said individual is wrong. Hell, that happened all the time in my science classes. Not just science either, all of them. Ethics discussions were awesome, so much so I took two versions of it. At a university you're not just there to memorize stuff, you're their to develop a good methodology to thought itself. If you're just unquestioningly accepting everything a teacher tells you, you're in trouble.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[AthanasiusKircher]

Yes, you're right. The point is that there have been certain libertarian organizations pushing states to adopt "free speech laws" on public university campuses recently. The worrisome thing isn't the promotion of "free speech" (which obviously should be protected) -- it's that many of the libertarian groups lobbying for this as well as the state legislators proposing the bills don't actually realize the language they're writing is overly broad and could lead to all sorts of strange side effects, like whether professors actually get to say a student is ever "wrong" in pronouncing a belief in a classroom, or whether a college might be forced to expel a student just for standing up and arguing with a speaker more than once.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Jzanu]

Did the US suddenly switch to a taxpayer funded university education? If not, then you face backlash from service disruption, especially as those in class are paying a LOT to be there. They would be justified purely on time basis too, but the direct money paid for service is easier for courts to address when the service is denied for any reason.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[dwillden]

Nothing suddenly about it. Oh eventually most students pay the taxpayers back but very few students (or their families) are paying their own way, Grants, scholarships and Tax Deferred Student Loans are paying for the education. The loans are the biggest source of payment and they allow schools to charge ever increasing tuitions, knowing that the students will just take out more and bigger loans without care about how they are going to pay for them. (Then they spend the next twenty years griping about paying off the loans they took out to cover their education and their party trips to FLA for spring Break).

Personal responsibility or any care about the content of the "Education" received is long since lost. As long as they get their magic diploma and don't get offended at all they are happy to rack up the loans to pay off later.

Policy by idiots, for idiots

[Jzanu]

This is what religious theocracies do to enforce orthodoxy. What else is the result of subjecting education to a litmus test of belief? Nothing. Yet another sign of the failure of the US as a modern nation. It's successor can join Turkey as heir to a failed empire.

Re:Policy by idiots, for idiots

[Mashiki]

Guess that explains why so many universities in Europe have no-platforming plans, and block speakers for not having the right kind of thoughts. You know the feminist who doesn't have the right view on feminism. The gay man who doesn't have the right view on homosexuality. And it all started because they wanted to block "extremist speakers" instead of letting them have the stage and being proven otherwise.

Re:Policy by idiots, for idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that the 'Law of Gravity' is unconstitutional and should be repealed. All conservatives, especially those who are deeply religious should be free as birds to step off the tops of tall buildings and gently float down to the sidewalks below!

Re:Right wingers are the ones you should worry abo

[Mashiki]

So let's see if we can get this right. Milo and Coulter couldn't speak on college campuses because of violent left-wing protests. You attempt to use a single "republican student" which doesn't actually appear to be the case. But if you really want to try and pull that bullshit, let's look at the guy in WA state and the other in FL, who were both far-left supporters and went on shooting/stabbing sprees killing multiple people.

And people are upset at liberals shutting down free speech by the heavy use of violence and attacks against individuals, along with left-wing hate crimes. I can even look up here in Canada and find numerous examples of the political left assaulting and violating assaulting people for wrong-think. And left aligned environmentalist and feminist groups who burn things down, try to create environmental catastrophes(like blowing up pipelines), or simply disrupting talks when MRA's are speaking. And those repeated violent assaults against people on college campuses against people who are right-leaning, isn't just some fiction. The left are the violent party, much like how the left in the 1960's and 70's were the ones planting bombs and blowing them up all over the place.

As POTUS says

[Anonymous Coward]

Or as POTUS put it, when he tried to get right wing pundit Megyn Kelly boycotted and kicked off Fox:

        If crazy @megynkelly didn't cover me so much on her terrible show, her ratings would totally tank. She is so average in so many ways!
        — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 19, 2016

        Crazy @megynkelly says I don't (won't) go on her show and she still gets good ratings. But almost all of her shows are negative hits on me!
        — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 19, 2016

        Everybody should boycott the @megynkelly show. Never worth watching. Always a hit on Trump! She is sick, & the most overrated person on tv.
        — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 18, 2016

        Highly overrated & crazy @megynkelly is always complaining about Trump and yet she devotes her shows to me. Focus on others Megyn!
        — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 17, 2016

        Crazy @megynkelly is now complaining that @oreillyfactor did not defend her against me - yet her bad show is a total hit piece on me.Tough!
        — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 17, 2016

        Watching other networks and local news. Really good night! Crazy @megynkelly is unwatchable.
        — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 16, 2016

        Can't watch Crazy Megyn anymore. Talks about me at 43% but never mentions that there are four people in race. With two people, big & over!
        — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 16, 2016

What was her crime again? Oh right, she threw a few softball questions to Trump for him to bounce his replies off, and he hadn't prepared any replies, looked stupid, and he did that to recover face.

Hmm.. Are religious schools exempted?

[Cyberax]

Are religious schools exempted by this bill? What will happen if students start interrupting teachers with questions like: "But Jesus doesn't exist (and that's a fact), so why is this true?"

Re:Hmm.. Are religious schools exempted?

[Opportunist]

Jesus does exist, and just because he comes from Mexico and is only a gardener doesn't mean you shouldn't learn how to properly pronounce his name, damn racist!

Re:Hmm.. Are religious schools exempted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me fix that for you: "What will happen if students start interrupting teachers with questions like: "But God doesn't exist (and that's a fact), so why is this true?" Jesus did exist according to the available third-party sources. I don't get why that is brought up again and again as somebody had to start the "dangerous sect" as Tacitus put it.

Re:Hmm.. Are religious schools exempted?

[Tranzistors]

What will happen if students start interrupting teachers with questions like: "But Jesus doesn't exist (and that's a fact)[...]

Any person who teaches humanities should be at least familiar with presentism and its rebuttal, like incompatibility with relativity theory or the truthmaker objection.

Re:Hmm.. Are religious schools exempted?

[HornWumpus]

I have 'my own personal Jesus'. He does great work, but call him 'chewey'.

Re:Hmm.. Are religious schools exempted?

[Cyberax]

The first written mentions of Christians are from around year 110. There are no contemporary mentions in known sources.

Re:Hmm.. Are religious schools exempted?

[Anonymous Coward]

"But Jesus doesn't exist (and that's a fact), so why is this true?"

Jesus doesn't exist? Fact? That's a tough sell considering there is substantial evidence, both religious and secular, that Jesus was a real person. Not only Christian documentation, but also Jewish and Roman. There's substantially less evidence that Plato, Homer, or Aristotle really existed. Do you not believe they existed either?

Re:Hmm.. Are religious schools exempted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Make that about 100 if you add Josephus' written history. Inconveniently the Roman pacification operation probably destroyed any contemporary legal records from the temple of the then Jerusalem.

Re:Right wingers are the ones you should worry abo

[Anonymous Coward]

I would put black on white rape and murder stats against white on black rape and murder stats anyday. White people are victimized all the time, but only the random black on white gets really broadcast unless it's a little girl or something.

Even then, it's not spread like outrage by liberals:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2017/05/01/multiple-people-stabbed-ut-austin-campus

https://www.yahoo.com/news/arrest-of-black-teens-in-brutal-chicago-attack-sparks-hate-crime-debate-180845913.html

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/prosecutor-says-defendant-admits-raping-dismembering-nicole-angstadt/article_29d488d4-6557-11e6-a94c-8b7a1a6f6d21.html

Milo was sacked by Breitbart

[Anonymous Coward]

If you recall Milo was sacked by right-wing Breitbart for his "little boys can consent to sex with old men" comments.

Breitbart presumably did it because it has a lot of readers who are parents. Did the student protest him because he's right-wing or because he's a pedo?

Is being a pedo suddenly a right-wing thing? I didn't see Hannity or Tucker invite him onto their shows to talk about his warm wet love of kids. They have TV shows, they don't need to talk in the abstract about censorship, they can invite him on to talk to their audience of right wing mothers and fathers.

Re:Milo was sacked by Breitbart

[Mashiki]

If you recall Milo was sacked by right-wing Breitbart for his "little boys can consent to sex with old men" comments.

Correction: He quit. Second, he was talking about himself.

Did the student protest him because he's right-wing or because he's a pedo?

No they violently protested him, and called him everything from an alt-right neo-nazi, to an actual nazi. They rioted, they burned shit, they smashed public property and it was members of the left that did it. This happened way before that comment of his.

Is being a pedo suddenly a right-wing thing? I didn't see Hannity or Tucker invite him onto their shows to talk about his warm wet love of kids. They have TV shows, they don't need to talk in the abstract about censorship, they can invite him on to talk to their audience of right wing mothers and fathers.

No, it's purely a left-wing thing. Which of course why left-wing groups have heavily pushed normalizing pedophilia, and so did numerous same-sex organizations did the same. The green party in Germany heavily pushed a pro-pedophile stance. Also, you should go watch what he said. Because he was talking about himself, you know just like George Takei was talking about himself when he said exactly the same thing as Milo. But I sure don't remember the usual left-wing whine train coming out to attack him.

You should probably start getting your news from more then one source.

Re:Milo was sacked by Breitbart

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's purely a left-wing thing.
Your tribalism is showing. And it's really messing with your perception.

The green party in Germany ...
You had to go that far to find an example (and a made-up one at that)? Should tell you something about the strength of your case.

You should probably start getting your news from more then one source.
Sound advice. You should try it.

Re:Milo was sacked by Breitbart

[Anonymous Coward]

> Milo was sacked by right-wing Breitbart for his "little boys can consent to sex with old men" comments.

He was talking about how he felt after being raped as a child. Pretty disgusting of you to attack a rape victim like that.

Re:Milo was sacked by Breitbart

[ArylAkamov]

Show us a right wing news website promoting and/or normalizing pedos.
If you would like, I can dig up several left wing news websites doing exactly that. They may have decided to delete said articles when they started attacking Milo and banning people who mentioned them, but they have all been archived.

Re: Milo was sacked by Breitbart

[Anonymous Coward]

It is disgusting to attack a rape victim because of their political beliefs.

Re:Milo was sacked by Breitbart

[Anonymous Coward]

Show us a right wing news website promoting and/or normalizing pedos.

I can't

If you would like, I can dig up several left wing news websites doing exactly that.

Please do. I can't find those either.

Re:Milo was sacked by Breitbart

[sexconker]

Uh, most of Hollywood regarding Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, etc.?

Re:Milo was sacked by Breitbart

[Mashiki]

Your tribalism is showing. And it's really messing with your perception.

No, my tribalism isn't showing. This has been a purely left-wing thing, do you think groups like antifa and BAMN are right-wing? There are more members in those two groups in the US and Canada, then there actual KKK members. And the number of self-proclaimed KKK members is under 5000, some official crime stats put it under 2500. There are more BAMN members violently active in the state of California.

You had to go that far to find an example (and a made-up one at that)? Should tell you something about the strength of your case.

Yes, very made up so made up in fact that the party admit it happened. Just like Salon's so many pro-pedophile articles. Or the NYT which has several as well. Then there's groups like PIE(UK) which were heavily involved in politics in the 1980's trying to legalize it, including with the British Labour Party. And the famous one in north america of course is NAMBLA, and several of their splinter groups. One was very big in the Toronto politics scene and tried to legislate gay bath houses for underage boys and men.

Sound advice. You should try it.

Looks like I already, maybe you should simply stop reading CNN and WAPO.

Re: Milo was sacked by Breitbart

[Anonymous Coward]

It is disgusting to attack a rape victim because of their political beliefs.

Well, if you don't want to get raped and curb-stomped and all that shit, it's easy to avoid.

Just don't be a conservitard!

Look, it was real cute how you guys got Trump in and grabbed both houses of congress, but it's just a dying gasp. It means nothing. We'll get Trump tossed out and put Obama put back in, and we're going to shut down congress until some new Democrats can be put in and those so-called "Liberty Caucus" members and their buddies are jailed for whatever we decide to accuse them of with the help of the MSM and TLAs.

Enjoy it while you can. We on the Left are about to take your stolen lollipop away.

Re:Milo was sacked by Breitbart

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you're using something that happened in Germany in the 1980s to describe American students who were born in the 1990s? That's some grade A guilt-by-association bullshit right there.

Anyone who tries to argue about 'the left' and 'the right' with the broad brushes you're using here is basically full of it. What does a group in Toronto have to do with an argument about free speech in the US? Why are you assuming that everyone on 'the left' shares the same opinion on all issues? Should I assume that you share all of the same opinions as the Portland attacker since he was associated with some 'right wing' groups?

Re:Milo was sacked by Breitbart

[Anonymous Coward]

Should I assume that you share all of the same opinions as the Portland attacker since he was associated with some 'right wing' groups?

Yes, you should. That's what it's come down to. Right-wing authoritarian followers have been engaged in tribalism like GP as long as I can remember, and the left-wing engages in intellectual masturbation in response.

RWAs are not rational people. Altemeyer outlines this pretty well in The Authoritarians. You cannot respond to them rationally. It's probably best not to respond to them at all until they're in the legislature proposing laws, laws, more laws. For people who supposedly hate big government, their solution always seems to be big government.

Re:Milo was sacked by Breitbart

[tbannist]

It should be pointed out that while Woody Allen's behaviour may be gross, it's not paedophilia. He started a fling his girlfriend's adopted daughter, Soon Yi, when she was in her late teens. Paedophiles, by definition, are attracted to pre-pubescent children. Soon Yi was definitely not pre-pubescent when their sexual relationship began. It might still have been illegal, if she was below the age of consent, but it's not paedophilia, by definition.

The Roman Polanski case is a bit different. Until I read up on it, I didn't realize that Roman Polanski had actually served time for his crime, and undergone a psychiatric review, as had been agreed to in his plea bargain, and that he only fled the country when the judge presiding over the case decided to retro-actively revoke the plea bargain (after the time had been served) and sentence him to 50 additional years in prison and then told Polanski's lawyer what he was going to do. So he committed a crime, plead guilty, and admitted fault and then a judge decided to double cross him. Apparently, even the victim of his crime doesn't think Polanski has been treated fairly by the U.S. Lastly, the victim was thirteen at the time, and while that's clearly unacceptable abuse, it would not have been textbook paedophilia since she would have been pubescent at the time of the assault.

My simple point is that it not reasonable to distort the facts just to win a tenuous argument... Now do you have any actual examples?

Re:Milo was sacked by Breitbart

[Triklyn]

correction, it was well before the comment came to light, i believe he had made the comment prior to the riot though, it just wasn't picked up on.

Re:Milo was sacked by Breitbart

[Mashiki]

Correction: It wasn't. It was after the riot, when he was asked about his gay experiences.

Re:Milo was sacked by Breitbart

[Triklyn]

hrm, i thought i saw it as a few years old, truth be told never bothered to listen to the thing, i'm a first amendment absolutist, and a jester is always necessary.

correction: retracted then. apologies.

It's OK to hit a nazi

[Okian Warrior]

Oh boo hoo hoo, milo yogurt and ann coulter couldn't speak on a college campus because of protests. A republican student murdered another student for being black. If you're upset about liberals shutting down free speech but not the massive rise in right-wing hate crimes across the country, are you even fooling yourself? You hate liberals, you don't have a fucking reason other than they're not like you.

During the Milo riots, leftist rioters beat Milo attendees with flagpoles and fists. [MMA fighter] Jake Shields pulled a victim from a crowd of beaters and protected him from harm. When asked, the victim had no idea why he was being beaten. Some of the rioters had simply started calling him [the victim] a nazi, for apparently no reason, and the beatings began from there.

This is why the left keeps saying things about the right that aren't true. They say it because once you've established that someone is a nazi, or islamaphobe, or racist, or so on... once you've established that they are despicable then it's OK to attempt to murder them.

I suppose it's a form of virtue signalling, in the manner of "she's a witch! Burn her!" You are such a good and virtuous person that you actively stamp out evil. It starts by labelling the other person as something despicable.

I've *never* seen the right do that to the extent that the left has done, in the last several months. Apparently holding the bloody, severed head of the president is OK, knifing him to death as part of "Shakespeare in the park" is OK, and putting up disgusting nude statues of him in cities across the nation is considered OK.

The left says a lot of things about the right that simply aren't true, for a reason: it's to justify breaking laws and trampling rights. They want to get their way in any manner possible, and the ends justify any means.

The left says a lot of things about the right that simply aren't true.

Don't believe them.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Jzanu]

Try reading more history. And don't give a bullshit reply about the Nazi party being anything other than extreme right-wing because I'm German and I already know that is wrong.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently holding the bloody, severed head of the president is OK, knifing him to death as part of "Shakespeare in the park" is OK, and putting up disgusting nude statues of him in cities across the nation is considered OK.

Well, that depends on how much you value freedom of speech. :)

In practice, there are all kinds of restrictions on free speech: copyrights and trade secrets, libel and slander, harassment and intimidation, information classified as secret by the government - in theory because it affects "national security" but often in practice because it would embarrass the person who has the power to decide that the information is classified. :)

From where I am on the political spectrum, mainstream politicians like Trump and Hillary look very close together. So I see that there are elements of both the right and the left who are in favor of free speech when it suits them and not when it doesn't.

Having said that, the fundamental difference between the right and the left is that the right represents the interests of the rich and the powerful whereas the left represents the poor and the powerless. And, as a consequence, the methods that each side use to suppress the other side's free speech tend to be a bit different. Broadly speaking, the rich and powerful don't beat people with flagpoles and credit card knives because they have other more effective methods at their disposal - everything from mutually beneficial relationships with corrupt politicians (who control the police and military) to owning their own media companies. If you're able to make a compelling argument against taking healthcare away from millions of poor American children in order to provide tax cuts for a small number of the richest Americans, we're not likely to see you featured prominently on Fox News. :)

Of course, the rich and powerful do have support from poor people who they've convinced to support policies that are against the poor people's best interest. And it's not all that uncommon for such poor people do engage in isolated acts of violence. But, for the moment, the rich and powerful have more effective methods at their disposal so such incidents are not organized from the top down, per se.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[ArylAkamov]

Screaming about 'muh holocaust' is completely unrelated to what he said. It seems like you interpenetrated his comment about left wing protestors beating random people in the street as holocaust denial or some such nonsense. Or do you actually believe that everyone on the right is a 'literal nazi'?

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Jzanu]

Nazi sympathizers want to be Nazis. Dismissing or minimizing Nazi crimes is denial. You stupidity just comes from being retarded, hopefully. If you are an imitation Nazi you need to be jailed and forced into substantive mental health treatment.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[ArylAkamov]

No argument aside from 'everyone I don't like is a nazi' then. Have fun.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[phantomfive]

I don't think you even read the post you were responding to.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Jzanu]

No other response is necessary. If you act like a revisionist Nazi sympathizer in text communication then all evidence points to you being one. In that case you can fuck right off, just sleep well knowing few tolerate your brand of politics and you inevitably face a greater chance of death than most others who do not.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

boo hoo hoo!

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

No argument aside from 'everyone I don't like is a nazi' then. Have fun.

No other response is necessary.

Who are the fascists again?

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

So everyone on the right is equivalent to a death camp administrator or something and deserves to be beaten?

Are you really a nut or just play one on the internet?

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[AmiMoJo]

Using Brietbart and YouTube as your only sources just discredits your argument. I know, the evil mainstream media would never cover a juicy story like students violently beating each other, no interest in boring stuff like that.

Breitbart, known to fabricate stories and not print corrections when exposed, and YouTube which is unverifiable, doesn't lend your argument any credibility. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

I sincerely hope that your lessons about Nazi Germany weren't along the lines of "They bashed up anyone they disliked, so we don't like them, so it's okay to bash them ... or anyone else we dislike.".

And since you brought up your German background ... you will recall, from your history lessons, that the Nazis blamed Jews for all their problems, and hated them for being hard-working and wealthy, and for their academic achievement? Take a look at left-wing American policies - in particular, "affirmative action" - and you may see the resemblance.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you just present some information about concentration camps as if it were a counterargument? The only faction in modern society proposing to put people in camps are feminists.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

The GP's point, as far as I can tell, is that the Nazis were so evil that anyone accused of Nazism is evil; innocence is no defence.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Mashiki]

You can stop whenever you want. Most people already know that your version of proof only comes from cites that you personally sanction.

But just so you're happy, I hope you heard that can slap on your white armor and defend Zoe Quinn again as she's off harassing a game developer for having the wrong ideas. So to sum it up she's trying to make vicitimbux again. And it's your turn to be her personal hero. I just wanted to make it easy for you to white knight for her.

Re: It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

You weren't paying attention the last 8 years when we heard all kinds of things about "second amendment solutions" and there were fire arms targets sold with prominent liberal leaders as the target. Lest we forget the right wing talk radio hosts and their incitement to violence on countless occasions, the threats of civil war if Hillary were elected, and so forth. Liberals are small potatoes next to the lunatic right, who train militias and take over government buildings as a form of "protest."

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[AmiMoJo]

Mashiki, what is this obsession you have with Quinn? It's unhealthy and frankly creepy.

If you have a room in your house where the wall is covered in printed out tweets and newspaper clippings about her, plus one giant photo with blood and cum stains on it and some IKEA candles at the base, it's a sign that you need help. And also a fire hazard.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[wildstoo]

and putting up disgusting nude statues of him in cities across the nation is considered OK.

To be fair, they may have tried to make attractive nude statues of him, but discovered that it was an impossible task.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Mashiki]

You were the one who was white-knighting for her so hard I could see you shining across the Atlantic. I figured I'd just keep you up to date so you could go run to her defense, while claiming she doesn't harass anyone like you normally do.

Then again if you actually admitted that you were wrong, and she's a harasser I wouldn't turn around and rub your nose in it repeatedly. I'm doing this for fun.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[AmiMoJo]

Saying she has no time for developers involved in GamerGate, the harassment campaign that spent years making her life hell and dragging her name through the mud is harassment?

You need to stop reading KiA.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Drethon]

But you also need to be extremely careful with your definitions. Let us start with saying Nazi's are evil. Next if we say Nazi's eugenics programs were evil, seems like killing or sterilizing people with traits you don't like is pretty evil. So we say eugenics is evil?

But eugenics is the attempt to breed out undesirable traits in humans. Is this evil? What if we consider gene therapy a form of eugenics. Would a form of gene therapy that eliminates the gene that causes higher rates of cancer be evil? But isn't this just Nazi eugenics all over again?

Sure I'm going to extremes but stereotyping people or ideas as evil, without understanding the basis of the ideas or believes, leads to trouble. The Nazi isn't evil, the Nazi belief in superiority of race and generally being an asshat is the problem.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

you inevitably face a greater chance of death than most others who do not

From who?

Your little Antifa friends get punched in the face real nice, son.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Jzanu]

From those with actual military training and/or combat experience. Killing Russian invaders is what I spent the better part of 20 years for in the Bundeswehr. Partisans and nationalists in Ukraine are less skilled but more up to date with recency of combat experience. Goodnight you weak pitiful runt, you are lucky you are not just be a stain in your fathers jockstrap.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[ArmoredDragon]

What does right wing even mean?

Nazis were in favor of gun control, animal rights, and socialism. Are those typically considered right-wing concepts?

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

Using breitbart as a "source" for *anything* destroys your credibility

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[tbannist]

You were the one who was white-knighting for her so hard I could see you shining across the Atlantic. I figured I'd just keep you up to date so you could go run to her defense, while claiming she doesn't harass anyone like you normally do.

Dude, what you're doing here is creepy obsessive. Go outside, forget that Quinn ever existed and everybody will be happier, especially you.

Re: It's OK to hit a nazi

[KGIII]

No. You didn't.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Mashiki]

Remember when the FBI couldn't find any harassment from Gamergate? Me too. Remember when Quinn's little organization turned around and was harassing people and doxing them? Me too. Remember when all those SJW's(by their own definition) she supported tried doxing people too and one of the key people in her "anti-harassment" organization were caught being the ringleaders of it? Yep me too.

Seems to me you need to start growing up, in nearly 3 years and copious amounts of proof you're hanging onto that "harassment narrative" pretty hard.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Mashiki]

Dude, what you're doing here is creepy obsessive. Go outside, forget that Quinn ever existed and everybody will be happier, especially you.

Maybe a bit more spit shine on your armor for her? It won't help. But maybe you can go join Izzy Galvez who was at one time a big "anti-harassment" person all over the media just like her in harassing people. Remember that part where she decided to inject herself into this and decided to start harassing people.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[AmiMoJo]

Thing is, even if you were right about all that stuff, it wouldn't change the nature of GamerGate. It's all about her, nothing about 4chan/8chan/KiA and all the rest.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Mashiki]

Thing is, even if you were right about all that stuff, it wouldn't change the nature of GamerGate. It's all about her, nothing about 4chan/8chan/KiA and all the rest.

That's great! Glad you came right out and said that even with evidence proving otherwise you'd believe a lie because it fits your ideological agenda. Not only that, you're so invested into a lie that when proven otherwise you'll bury your head in the sand and try to shift the goal posts.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[david_thornley]

You do realize that your news comes fro Breitbart, don't you, that bastion of fake news? Find some reputable quotes.

Exactly where were you during the Obama administration, that you didn't see the things the right-wing folks were saying and picturing about Obama?

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[david_thornley]

Nazis were in favor of gun control, animal rights, and socialism.

Read some history. The socialism was purged out of the Nazi Party in the early 30s. All totalitarian regimes like to limit ownership of guns, and the Nazis loosened Weimar restrictions on people the Nazis like owning guns. So, what you've got for your argument is animal rights? Why do you think that's left-wing? Along with environmental concerns, animal welfare has been of interest to left and right, not necessarily simultaneously.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even watch the Youtube video he linked to?

Video footage of that particular incident, from multiple sources, is plentiful.

Not only that, but the attacker that is being exposed has been charged for it.

If you want to criticize Breitbart, or talk about how a single Youtube video from a single person does not make for a credible source and thereby encourage people to check sources and dig deeper to make sure they're getting all the facts ... great. I'm with you. But wait, that's not what you've done. You used the fact that you take issues with those sources to dismiss what the person has to say outright, instead of doing your own due diligence by checking those sources to see if they're correct or not. And in this case, turns out they were correct. So way to go, you've actually undermined the very argument that people should be careful to check and verify sources for accuracy.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[serviscope_minor]

Yes the Nazis loved socialists. That's why they stuck fed triangles on them and rounded them up in concentration camps.

There seems to be this thingn on Slashdot right wingers with Nazi= evil. Socialist= evil. Therefore Nazi= socialist, without any reference to the mountains of evidence to the contrary. Seriously it's hard to get more against socialism than putting socialists in Nazi concentration camps.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[AmiMoJo]

No, you don't get it. Even if the enemies of GamerGate are all the worst human beings imaginable, it doesn't excuse the actions of GamerGate.

Re: It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off

Re: It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

stupid faggot

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

No, modifying DNA is not that evil. Killing people who are already alive in order to remove defects in the population is definitely evil.

Of course, allowing DNA modification will lead to problems like China is having with the ratio of male to females and the like.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Rakarra]

Yes the Nazis loved socialists. That's why they stuck fed triangles on them and rounded them up in concentration camps.

Now now, the Nazis hated Communists, and I'm sure there are tons of left-leaning folks here willing to tell you how socialism =/= communism. It's the communists who they rounded up with the gays and the jews, likely because the Nazis were able to control elections, but they feared a russian-style communist revolution would sweep them out of power. For the 25-year history of the Nazi Party, they called themselves socialists, though they were socialist in the same way that today's China is a "people's republic."

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Rakarra]

Using Brietbart and YouTube as your only sources just discredits your argument. I know, the evil mainstream media would never cover a juicy story like students violently beating each other, no interest in boring stuff like that.

Breitbart, known to fabricate stories and not print corrections when exposed, and YouTube which is unverifiable, doesn't lend your argument any credibility. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Would you accept Berkeleyside then, the newspaper of the City of Berkeley? They have two good writeups of the riots of April 15:
Who exactly was it that turned Berkeley into a battlefield April 15? From the article:
On the Right: Rich Black, rally organizer. The Proud Boys, “Western chauvinists who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world.” Identity Evropa. Oath Keepers, a civilian militia.
On the Left: Antifascist Action aka "Antifa," came to "hold the space" at the park from the right-wing protesters, by force if necessary. The Oak Roots Collective, a new group affiliated with anarchists. By Any Means Necessary aka BAMN, which gets attention since several of its members are open and public as opposed to Antifa's sheer anonymity.

Then, a few days later, the police chief in another Berkeleyside article says that the demonstration and counter-demonstration were kept apart by fencing. That worked until three dozen 'antifa' scaled the fencing to confront the other demonstrators. Someone broke out a large amount of an irritant, maybe pepper spray, and the fighting began there.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Rakarra]

Dude, what you're doing here is creepy obsessive. Go outside, forget that Quinn ever existed and everybody will be happier, especially you.

Maybe a bit more spit shine on your armor for her? It won't help. But maybe you can go join Izzy Galvez who was at one time a big "anti-harassment" person all over the media just like her in harassing people. Remember that part where she decided to inject herself into this and decided to start harassing people.

Dude, as an outside observer, this is getting weird. Like everyone else, I was happy to forget Zoe Quinn existed.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[ArmoredDragon]

Read some history. The socialism was purged out of the Nazi Party in the early 30s

No it wasn't, idiot. What they purged was communism. Do you even know what Nazi is short for? Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, which in English means National Socialist Workers Party. Nazis practiced socialism for as long as they existed. Socialism means that the government owns the means of production. In other words, the government owns the factories and employs the workers. The Nazis allowed private enterprise as well, but all business owners were required to work for "the good of the people", and never for their own interest. What the "good of the people" meant varied by day (similar to how Nazi officials claimed that they get to decide who is a Jew and who isn't.)

All totalitarian regimes like to limit ownership of guns

No shit, Sherlock. By the way, doesn't this remind you of a certain American political party?

So, what you've got for your argument is animal rights? Why do you think that's left-wing? Along with environmental concerns, animal welfare has been of interest to left and right, not necessarily simultaneously.

First of all, the whole point of my post is to show just how meaningless terms like left and right are. Notice my first sentence? Honestly dude, you aren't very bright.

Anyways, let me name a few organizations, and you can tell me which way they lean according to your stupid uni-dimensional political "left-right" scale:

- PETA
- ALF
- ELF
- Animal Justice Project

Hint: Look at their campaign contributions.

Oh, and using your dumb left-right scale, tell me, which side do Vegans typically lie on?

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[AmiMoJo]

I have not reviewed that source, but I will say that at least it does appear to give a more balanced view. Fascists and Nazis on one side, anti-fascists on the other. That's the kind of detail that Breitbart, Heat Street and random YouTube edits tend to leave out.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is socialism in any form a right wing ideology? Nazi is shorthand for 'national socialist' is it not?

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Jzanu]

Read more you fucking idiot. Or are you really just another illiterate illegitimate bastard?

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Jzanu]

Read! It corrects your current stupidity.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Cederic]

Nazi sympathizers want to be Nazis.

Thing is, I haven't seen anybody in this entire fucking discussion sympathise with the Nazis.

You're throwing random accusations around and using those to justify violence against the people you're accusing. That doesn't make them a nazi, that makes you a cunt.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[serviscope_minor]

Socialism is not communism.

The Nazis hated communists and other socialists. The Red triangles were for socialists not just communists.

If they stuck socialists in concentration camps, then it really doesn't matter what they called themselves.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[david_thornley]

I'm correcting your history.

The name of the party (translated into English) was National Socialist German Workers' Party. That name dates from well before Hitler took power, back when there was a socialist wing of the party (it never had a communist wing). If you steel yourself to read through Mein Kampf, you will find a discussion on why, even when you change your party's ideology, you don't change the propaganda. In other words, Hitler explained in some detail why, when he got rid of the socialists, he didn't change the party name.

The Nazis, when in power, never practiced socialism. Industrialists were theoretically as bound to obey the Fuehrer as anyone else, but they in practice had a good deal of freedom, as long as they delivered the goods. The US War Production Board exerted more control over US industry than anyone (with the possible exception of Speer in 1944-5) had control over German industry. For example, the WPB would order one aircraft company to license-build aircraft from another company. This is especially noticeable with US Navy and Marine Corps aircraft, since the designation included the manufacturer (so the F4F became the FM, for example). Manufacturers in Germany built their own designs. I'd call the US and UK wartime economies more socialist than the German.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Jzanu]

That just means you are an illiterate retard. Check for the dismissal of Nazi crimes as described. That shows they are sympathizers who idolize the fools.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Cederic]

Well, I've only read the top comment in this thread and its replies, and I must be fucking illiterate because I don't see anybody dismissing nazi crimes.

I do see a number of people telling you that you're illiterate though.

I'm a diagnosed retard, the NHS put it in writing for me. Who's put it in writing that you're an illiterate cunt?

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Rakarra]

I have not reviewed that source, but I will say that at least it does appear to give a more balanced view. Fascists and Nazis on one side, anti-fascists on the other. That's the kind of detail that Breitbart, Heat Street and random YouTube edits tend to leave out.

It was someone actually trying to do investigative journalism, which I encourage until the inevitable budget cuts gut the journalism dept.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

The Nazis, when in power, never practiced socialism.

Ludwig von Mises disagrees with you, and has made a strong case that the Nazis did in fact practice a form of socialism, approaching the subject from an economics perspective. George Reisman has a good introductory article.

Industrialists were theoretically as bound to obey the Fuehrer as anyone else, but they in practice had a good deal of freedom, as long as they delivered the goods.

The exceptions where people did their own thing was largely a matter of the corruption inherent in any human system, and do not invalidate the basic Mises premise that the Nazi's were in fact practising socialism. If anything, we would expect a higher level of corruption in socialist states. Further, a lot of this resulted from Hitler setting people against one another as a means of maintaining control - also something we would expect in any real world socialist state.

Note that none of the current Western EU states are socialist from an economics perspective, so we can not consider them when examining the question of Nazi socialism.

I'd call the US and UK wartime economies more socialist than the German.

Indeed the US economy had been quite socialist at points during the pre-war years - which is why an otherwise minor depression was turned into the Great Depression, thanks to people like Hoover and FDR. But despite the regulation that the war production boards imposed, the heart and soul of the US system for building the materials needed for war was extremely capitalist - thanks to people like Bill Knudsen.

FDR made a lot of terrible mistakes - but he picked the right man here, despite strong disagreement from the rest of the New Deal crowd. Union men and socialists could not be expected to look fondly on the head of GM being asked to do a critically important government job, despite the fact that he agreed to do it for a dollar a year and entirely out of patriotism. The system that resulted was very different from how things worked in Nazi Germany - and very capitalist. See Arthur Herman's book Freedom's Forge for details.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because I'm going to read a link to a link to a jewish library. Sorry rabbi, your time is coming to an end. No more backstabbing commie faggots like you are needed.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool yiddish shill links faggot, I'll be sure to take those completely seriously. The day of the rope is approaching, and commie jew scum like you will be purged.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

faggot

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

stupid retard

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Mashiki]

Dude, as an outside observer, this is getting weird. Like everyone else, I was happy to forget Zoe Quinn existed.

So was I. It was a nice year wasn't it? Then she decided to try and inject herself right back into things by attacking a developer because he holds the wrong view point in her book.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Mashiki]

No, you don't get it. Even if the enemies of GamerGate are all the worst human beings imaginable, it doesn't excuse the actions of GamerGate.

So expecting sites not to lie. Expecting them not to collude. Expecting journalists not to get in bed literally and figuratively with the people their writing about and not disclosing it is bad. How does that work in your world? Are whistleblowers worse then ISIS too. Or are they just rapists? Because that's what gamergate's "ideological enemies" claimed remember.

So, thanks for continuing to come out and say that you don't believe in even the most basic of ethical standards.

Re:It's OK to hit a nazi

[Rakarra]

Oh, I thought this was about GamerGate, a time period when both sides collectively lost their mind.
I guess it's a credit that the media has gotten bored and moved on, since this is the first I heard of this.

Only in America...

[Anonymous Coward]

I tought this was the 21rst century, for fuck's sake.

There is an open war on science. This war is waged mainly by god-forsaken shitwhole countries.

And the U.S.

What you're paying for...

[Phydeaux]

with your tuition is a subject-matter expert to present information and be available for in-depth exploration of a particular subject. Most of the info in a college class can be found in a textbook or on-line, so you can get most of the info elsewhere if so desired. What you're really paying for is the expert at the front of the class being available to expand on said info. What do you, or the other paying students, get out of you confronting the prof? If you're going to be a nutter, like the current trend, and just start screaming white patriarchy about the info presented, you're wasting your money (or more likely, borrowed money) and the money and time of everyone around you. If you've got a valid question or challenge, great, because odds are the faculty member has an answer for you. If you're just there to start virtue-signaling, stop wasting everyone's time.

Coming

[PopeRatzo]

Math professor: You didn't solve that partial differential equation.

Conservative snowflake: I did too, libtard.

Wisconsin Republicans: Teach the controversy.

Re:Coming

[Anonymous Coward]

DISCLAIMER: I hate this bill and think it is really short-sighted and un-American.

Yeah, this bill isn't targeted at math class, and I see no reason why it would be a conservative student pulling this any more than a liberal (to use your labels). There are now whole majors teaching a pseudoscientific dogma as truth (*COUGH*gender studies*COUGH*). I think that students of either side of the isle should be loudly asking for the scientific proof for this shit, particularly if they are being taught as fact and truth in a classically liberal university.

Re:Coming

[Anonymous Coward]

Math professor: You didn't solve that partial differential equation.

SJW trained snowflake: You're white, I'm not. Telling me what to do is oppression! Check your privilege! etc

Wisconsin Democrats: zomg racism!

They can't regulate grades

[chromaexcursion]

every college in the state would lose accreditation if they did.
challenge a prof in class with BS - FAIL.
if it ever went to court it would be a disaster. If a school loses it's accreditation every degree it's granted is in question.

stupid laws, written by stupid people

Free speech by stopping free speech?

[gurps_npc]

So, in order to stop students (non-government) from 'stopping' (by that they mean speaking up so loudly the other side gives up), others from speaking, they want to prevent the schools from speaking their own mind.

All in the name of the "Free Speech". Yes, that sounds just about right for the Republican Party.

Students have the right to say anything they want and the school has the SAME right (unless it is a state school, then the state could determine what they say, as long as they don't interfere with what the students say.)

Free speech is not the right to make others listen to you, nor is it the right to hear only what you want. No one, not the students, not the schools, and not the government has the right to shut anyone (besides their employees) up, or make others listen to you.

Free speech is only the right to speak without the government interfering with your speech.

Re:Free speech by stopping free speech?

[moeinvt]

Note: this bill is about the UW system, not all schools.

How does this bill stop free speech? I don't understand the point about a "school" speaking it's mind. A "school" is an institution that has no "mind" and no fundamental rights. I see no issue with a policy requiring that the schools in the UW system take a neutral position on political issues.

If it's a government funded school, shouldn't everyone be guaranteed equal Rights to free expression on the campus? If a group of students shout down a speaker and/or engage in violent behavior to stop an event entirely, isn't the government complicit in interfering with free speech?

I totally disagree with the idea that a school can stifle the speech of its employees however. An employee of the school, such as a professor, who is a subject matter expert, should be completely free to speak, provided it's clear that he/she does not speak for the institution as a whole. If the bill requires professors to take neutral positions on issues, it's garbage. It would be absolutely ridiculous if professors couldn't write books and papers which touch on political issues.

Re:Free speech by stopping free speech?

[tbannist]

I totally disagree with the idea that a school can stifle the speech of its employees however. An employee of the school, such as a professor, who is a subject matter expert, should be completely free to speak, provided it's clear that he/she does not speak for the institution as a whole. If the bill requires professors to take neutral positions on issues, it's garbage. It would be absolutely ridiculous if professors couldn't write books and papers which touch on political issues.

That is the most likely intention of the authors of the bill.

Re:Free speech by stopping free speech?

[gurps_npc]

1) There is no 'mind' requirement in the First Amendment. It is not speaking your mind, it is speaking. SCOTUS has ruled that corporations have the right to free speech, so so do schools. Your understanding of the law is seriously flawed.

2) No. The school/government has no duty to help anyone speak. That is NOT part of the law. The school/government is however expressly PREVENTED from stopping speech, even if that speech itself may interfere with others right to speak.

3) I do agree that an employee may still have his own free speech, but the government/school has the right to require them make it clear that it is his personal speech, not that of the school/government. They do not have trust the employee, they can make him do any/all of the following are reasonable step:

A) Do not do it on employer owned ground, via employer printed books, or during employer owned time.
B) Expressly state this is not the opinion of your employers.
C) Not list your affiliation to your employer. (I.E. Professor Speaker, rather than Speaker, a Professor of UW)

Re:Free speech by stopping free speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

If "speaking up so loudly the other side gives up" includes violence the perpetrator should be fined, locked up, and never able to go back on that campus again.

Re:Free speech by stopping free speech?

[david_thornley]

I see no issue with a policy requiring that the schools in the UW system take a neutral position on political issues.

What's a "political issue"? Are we supposed to ban faculty from talking about climate change, comparative religion, effects of vaccination, or paleontology? All of those have been made into political issues.

If it's a government funded school, shouldn't everyone be guaranteed equal Rights to free expression on the campus? If a group of students shout down a speaker and/or engage in violent behavior to stop an event entirely, isn't the government complicit in interfering with free speech?

First, just because an institution gets some of its money from the government doesn't mean it's part of the government.

Second, there are very good reasons why everyone is not guaranteed equal rights to actual forums. Everybody can say what they want, but not necessarily in the facilities they prefer.

Third, students are normally not government employees, and they don't act at the behest of the government. If students interfere with other people speaking, that's a private matter (the law should be involved if it gets violent, but that's because of any violence rather than free speech).

Dumb Germans

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I'm sick of Germans always pointing themselves as experts because their ancestors did bad shit in the past and they studied it in a textbook like every other person alive in the west. We get it, you like flogging yourselves and crying out in shame and having everyone pay attention.

But no, not everything can be compared to the holocaust. And left wing Communism was easily multiple times worse when you group Stalin and Mao and the the dozens of murderous commie dictators together. Left wing and Right wing is a stupid dichotomy anyway.

Or in language you understand, verpiss dich.

Re:Dumb Germans

[Jzanu]

Legitimate comparisons are a special case in which history matters, no matter how much you may dislike it. I won't apologize to a nazi sympathizer either, so you can go fuck yourself in the ass with a rusty razor blade.

Re:Dumb Germans

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't apologize to a nazi sympathizer either

Yeah, I bet you see those EVERYWHERE, happens to correlate nicely with people who don't agree with your nonsense.

Re:Dumb Germans

[Jzanu]

Not often, but I have personally knocked out several Nazi sympathizers (they were skinhead gang members wearing regalia). And I will do it again anytime. Or shoot them with a gun if they attack someone within my sight but outside of my reach.

Re:Dumb Germans

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound more like a "nazi sympathizer" than the people you're pointing the finger at. Go fuck yourself.

Re:Dumb Germans

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure.

Re:Dumb Germans

[thesupraman]

I'm just wondering..

Since you enjoy violence as a way to silence other opinions... does your brown shirt fit well? You enjoy wearing it? You feel good and POWERFUL in it?

And, as you are, as you say, German, I am sure you understand that the 'problem' with the Nazi party was their totalitarian beliefs, rather than their left/right leaning, no? Or is that too confusing for you..

Re:Dumb Germans

[Anonymous Coward]

When Jzanu says "regalia", he doesn't mean swastikas and SS Runes, he means people wearing "Make America Great Again" hats and Trump shirts.

Re:Dumb Germans

[Jzanu]

I have no problem using lethal violence against those retards attacking people. If they want to feel strong by attacking the weak then they deserve to die painfully. You don't get to reshape the Nazi crimes to fit your revisionist pity party. You don't get pity. You just get shot when you act like a retard.

Re:Dumb Germans

[JaredOfEuropa]

Will you stand up for your fellow man with equal zeal if it's a case of, say, a peaceful right wing protester being attacked by masked "antifascists"? Hypothetically speaking of course, because we all know that this never happens in real life.

Re:Dumb Germans

[Jzanu]

Idiots acting must be punished. However, Ukraine is fighting Russia which is gearing up to invade Lithuania and the entire Baltic and Poland next. Those masked antifascists are my direct allies, and rather I will fight along side them. That is fighting against evil.

Re:Dumb Germans

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get pity. You just get shot when you act like a retard.

Did your German education inform you as to the last group of people that showed no pity and shot the mentally disabled?

Let that sink in.

Re: Dumb Germans

[Demena]

I am not German but English. Old enough to that rationing didn't end until I was 18 years old. However my mother was a 'war bride' so I have relative from both sides. You learn a lot from that. You can keep your 'dumb Germans' racism. He is not only correct where you are mistaken but he is also a better class of human being.

Re:Dumb Germans

[Mashiki]

Those masked antifascists are my direct allies, and rather I will fight along side them.

Thanks for letting everyone know exactly where you stand. You're not anti fascist, you are a fascist. You're wearing the mask, polishing your boots, stomping on someone's face for their political ideology violently doing so and seeing *nothing* wrong with that.

You are the extremist.

Re:Dumb Germans

[Jzanu]

God damn you are an idiot, learn to read paragraphs. Russia under Putin is evil and everywhere it is fought deserves reinforcement. Russia must be reformed and Putin must be killed.

Re: Dumb Germans

[Anonymous Coward]

That's cute. Yeah, well, I spent enough time in Germany myself and I like the people there.

It wasn't 'racism' since I'm attacking a mentality that only a subset of Germans have, but a loud subset who reside in English speaking forums. They think because they learn about it second hand 70 years after the War happened, they're automatically experts because they're in the same country and so their opinion is super important and informed.

And let me tell you; I'm an expert on the Revolution, Enlightenment, Civil War, Custer, and more importantly Indian death marches and ghettos, oh wait reservations, and Japanese Internment simply because I grew up in America and seen a documentary or two. So my opinion should carry extra weight because of my passport and my textbooks were super focused on these subjects (not).

That's the mentality I'm dealing with. With people who listen to the nightly self-flogging propraganda on TV and in school and think they know all about everything on the topic... and that makes their dumbass comparisons valid.

Just like Dumb Americans or Stupid Brits isn't automatically 'racist' - as if there was one race of them anyway. Nationalist if anything. Let go of your PC bullshit, if I was trying to be racist and an edgelord I woulda said "Dumb Krauts", ya half limey bastard kraut.

Now slur me something and we can be even.

Re:Dumb Germans

[SharpFang]

It's okay until you start pointing at random people, who may or may not have different point of view than you do, and label them nazi.

I'm definitely of a centrist view, considering both extremes very bad. Nevertheless, I've been labeled nazi, sexist, racist, and all despicable things, simply because I disagreed with one of the extremes.

I was labeled "SJW" at one occasion by the far-right too, but they were actually willing to listen when I explained my position.

Yeah, just personal experiences, not a general population study, but the far left I see is very numerous - and its views are extreme enough that it labels enough moderates / centrists as "nazi" that the sides seem proportional by size to them.

Nope, not everyone who voted Trump is a nazi. Really.

Re:Dumb Germans

[Mashiki]

Nice goosestepping. Make sure your boots are polished because you are everything you claim that you're fighting against.

Re:Dumb Germans

[Jzanu]

You are a sad stupid inept and powerless little boy who can not accomplish anything. Go away and hide in your stained pillow fort or something.

Re: Dumb Germans

[ArmoredDragon]

You can keep your 'dumb Germans' racism.

Germany isn't a race.

Re:Dumb Germans

[Mashiki]

Sounds like some hard projection there, must be hard living such a bitter life.

Re:Dumb Germans

[Triklyn]

well the problem right now is you've got a left that sees anyone right of them as a nazi. and they believe that dialogue is 'problematic' because it plays into the power-games of the 'patriarchy'.

Re:Dumb Germans

[Anonymous Coward]

Faggot

Re: Dumb Germans

[Demena]

What I am pointing out that many of these (at least the older ones) didn't learn from history books but current affairs. They lived through the war and the aftermath trying to sort fact from fiction. Dismissing those experiences entirely leaves you with biased information and attitudes.

Why would I cast a slur at you? I do not think you are looking at the full picture but there are no doubt facts that I am not seeing either. The point of discussion groups used to be that all participants would gain more knowledge not a competition for primacy. I do not know you, you do not even provide a handle for continuity. What you do or have done outside of this thread is unknown to me. I am not in a position to judge and even were I otherwise situated I would be reluctant to do so.

Fare well anonymous sir

Re: Dumb Germans

[Demena]

Nor is being muslim. The term race has no real meaning as you and I both know. Nevertheless, the term is used. Frequently and fluidly so. Where I live and where many people live discrimination on the basis of nationality is considered racism.

Enjoy freedom of speech

[AHuxley]

Accept funds from the US gov?
Let people invite the speakers they want, enjoy the topics covered, then ask questions.

Can't Spin This to Redeem the Left

[Kunedog]

I'm sick of these lefties fresh mouths.

Dunno what you're talking about, Anonymous Strawman. Nothing in this bill would prevent left-wingers from holding a corresponding, competing speech in response to a right-wing speaking event they don't like.

But you and I (and BeauHD) all know that we're really talking about the leftists' "fresh" fists, flagpoles, credit-card knives and bike locks. From TFS:

There have been some well-publicized incidents in which student groups or other protesters have interfered with scheduled appearances by right-wing speakers at U.S. universities.

That's a hell of a way to sugarcoat left-wing hooded mobs setting fires on campus and beating the attendees. Sam Harris did a decent job summarizing the horror of Social Justice run amok:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

snowflake ... he doesn't know right wing

[Anonymous Coward]

... cause he's still talking.

Re:Right wingers are the ones you should worry abo

[Anonymous Coward]

No loss. Smash-facing Trotsky snowflakes benefits the yeomanry. Hate-crimes are liberal BS --- here comes an iron bootheel to demonstrate that.

Fox and Friends can invite Milo on

[Anonymous Coward]

" Which of course why left-wing groups have heavily pushed normalizing pedophilia, and so did numerous same-sex organizations did the same."

You mean like Milo? The noted left winger you're defending? The guy who suggested it was normal for boys to have sex with older men? Like he said he did (as self claimed evidence why it was ok)? But he's a right-wing conservative pundit. Who did he have sex with when he was a kid? Mr Madeup Diddler??

There's a contradiction in your comments, that is really borne of partisan rhetoric. He was pushed, he didn't resign. Breitbart didn't refuse his resignation, they can hire him again, why not??

Fox and Friends are free to invite Milo on, and he can talk about his theories of the tightness of sphincters vs age, at length on their program. I'm sure their audience would absolutely love to hear his scientific theories.

But you want to make a complicated narrative about how its the left wing conspiracy censoring right wing kiddy diddlers and nazis. In order to do that you have to pretend Milo is a victim and not the kids he wants to fuck.

Re:Right wingers are the ones you should worry abo

[goose-incarnated]

You hate liberals, you don't have a fucking reason other than they're not like you.

Actually, rioting, setting things on fire and shutting down speech via violence is a good reason to hate a group of people. That they self-identify as liberals is purely coincidental.

Re:Right wingers are the ones you should worry abo

[piojo]

Can't we be upset about both?

You might have missed the story about Middlebury students donning ski-masks and trying to beat the hell of Charles Murray, sending another professor to the hospital and giving the body guards a seriously hard time getting Murray safely out of there. (This info is from an interview I heard with Murray, not this article.) Murray's crime was that he wrote a book that focused on societal inclusiveness of different races, attempting to reduce discrimination, which critics lied about (or at least misrepresented). Murray is the guy that publicized the fact that any differences that exist between racial groups basically don't matter, since they're dwarfed by inter-group differences. Basically, he's one of the good guys. And Middlebury students tried to kick his ass, and did hurt a professor that was protecting him. I'm unhappy about that. Aren't you?

Righties and Lefties?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apart from sounding like something a toddler (or a drunk chimney-sweeper) came up with and how stupid people dichotomize everything to help make sense of the world, this is a classic divide and conquer strategy. However, I don't think it's Russia or terrorism we need to worry about. Big Brother is becoming more than just allusion from a George Orwell novel. If you don't like what a person says then either provide an intelligent counter argument or leave. On the worst of days, colleges aren't like what they're portraying, so why the need for a bill? Laws don't allow, they take away. Things are always legal, all be it maybe a taboo, until a law is passed. This is an attack on free speech by people who aren't smart enough to come up with better solutions to problems; most of us just call it an education. If you don't like it, then don't go to college. Be a happy idiot in your ignorant niche and your one guide book. Whatever works for you.

Whoosh

[SuperKendall]

So what you are saying is you side with Trump?

That is, if you think a *tweet* is blocking free speech in any way, instead of expressing an opinion which is clearly free speech all by itself...

No speech is so dangerous that it should be disallowed. That does not protect the speaker from consequences, like a person yelling fire in a crowded theater if there is none...

Re:Whoosh

[serviscope_minor]

No speech is so dangerous that it should be disallowed.

It should be allowed not because it's not dangerous but because it's important. Speech is ultimately the most dangerous thing we have.

Re:Whoosh

[AmiMoJo]

There are two separate issues here. On the one hand, people should have the right to say what they like. The government should not limit them. But on the other hand, people should also have the right not to listen to them, and to bar them from their private property.

There are times when it is desirable to request and even enforce silence. The inauguration of the President of the United States is a good example. There are a lot of people who would have loved to exercise their right to free speech while Trump was trying to make his pledge and his speech, but for life to continue functioning there have to be some reasonable limits. It's really hard to specify precisely where those limits are, but life is messy like that.

This also strengthens the case for safe spaces. In order to give people the maximum freedom to say what they like in public, it is important that private spaces exist where we can hear what other people who can't shout quite as loud want to say. Speech should not be the privilege of those with loud voices, and while the government shouldn't get involved it's fine for individuals to want to create a space where they can listen to others.

Re:Whoosh

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with your argument is that these universities are taking my tax dollars to operate. They are NOT private property. Therefore, they cannot ban conservative speakers (I am not conservative, but I do not want to see students "educated" without hearing multiple perspectives). What has been happening from these college administrations and progressive delinquents is a travesty.

Sure, having a quiet place for speakers to present their views is desirable, but having an entire campus where an entire political class is not welcome is insane.

Re:Whoosh

[Grieviant]

Problem is the "private property" of a college campus doesn't belong to a small subset of entitled students who've decided their feelings are more important than someone else's right to speak. The default setting is that people are allowed to speak freely, and any listener is free to refute them after hearing them out. This doesn't strengthen any case for safe spaces, it's just another bullshit argument on your part driven by social justice ideology.

Re:Whoosh

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Censorship is disallowed not because there isn't dangerous speech. Rather it is disallowed because giving government that power lets those in power define dangerous speech as speech that threatens their power.

Jesus Freaks! Out in the Streets!

[Anonymous Coward]

  Handing tickets out for God!

Just a lame attempt....

[ogdenk]

This is just another lame attempt to allow people to squeeze "creation science" into courses at universities that receive public funds by saying that certain instructors can spout their personal "beliefs" as fact. To these people "evolution" and having your kids vaccinated are "controversial". I agree that people shouldn't be able to shut people like Milo down but this bill is utter bullshit.

like challenging your biology professor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because evolution "is just a theory", and the Bible offers alternative facts worth discussing in a biology class.

Re:Right wingers are the ones you should worry abo

[DNS-and-BIND]

It was a thing at the time to blame the riots on secret right-wingers who came to campus to make Berkeley look bad. LOL no. It as another thing to say that the students didn't support the riots. LOL no. Here's a bunch of op eds in the school newspaper from students condoning the Berkeley violence. They call it "self-defense". A direct quote: "Your free speech is raping and killing us."

Re: Right wingers are the ones you should worry ab

[Demena]

Nope. Fraud. Liberals do not do such things. This isn't a 'true scotsman' fallacy. It is an actual matter of definition.

Already here

[Anonymous Coward]

Invited speaker: Good evening, I'm here tonight to ...
Gender studies snowflake: MRA! RACIST! BAN THE NAZI!
Invited speaker: I'm really no such thing. Kindly allow me to explain ...
Gender studies snowflake: NOT IN MUH SAFE SPACE!
Invited speaker: You'll be given a chance later to challenge any of the points raised, and I encourage you ...
Gender studies snowflake: POINTS THAT MIGHT TRIGGER ME ARE FORBIDDEN!

Democrats: Nothing to see here, freedom of speech working as intended.

Re:Already here

[CrybabiesArePeople]

Boo hoo hoo!

Re:Right wingers are the ones you should worry abo

[phantomfive]

setting things on fire

I was with you until there.

Whoosh

[Anonymous Coward]

"No speech is so dangerous that it should be disallowed."

We're in full agreement. Obviously except Megyn Kelly right? She should be removed from TV. Fox should have removed her earlier, Trump should NOT have had to threaten to boycott their debate unless they sacked her.

I think Trump is the real victim here. Fox should apologize to Trump, perhaps some sort of loyalty pledge by Hannity?

She should never have brought up Trump's tweets calling women "dogs" and "fat pigs", that speech should have been censored. How could they let her say such a thing? That was locker room banter.

Poor Trump.

Thank god he has us to protect him. Well me, you Superkendall and Russia Today and Fox and Friends. True patriots, not like that Megyn.

Challenging is fine - not disrupting

[Chrisq]

Anyone should be able to challenge a Science professor. Since they are taking science the challenge should be dismissed straight away if it isn't in scientific terms. If someone want's to ask "how do we know that carbon dating is accurate?", or "could the rate of radio-active decay change with time" then that's fine?. It's the repeated disruptive claiming of disproven facts that should be prevented.

Re:Challenging is fine - not disrupting

[queazocotal]

At some point, legitimate questions by someone who is genuinely curious become, if asked by someone else, disruptive.
If you're asking repeated questions not to learn, but to debate anything you disagree with, you are often actively interrupting others learning experience.

Re:Challenging is fine - not disrupting

[david_thornley]

In my experience, scientists love to talk about their work and are delighted to answer halfway intelligent questions about it, as long as they get the impression that someone is listening to what they say.

Re:Challenging is fine - not disrupting

[SuricouRaven]

So, not creationist questions, then?

Re:Challenging is fine - not disrupting

[david_thornley]

Define "creationist question". Ask questions about iffy spots in evolution and you'll get answers. Ask why we don't see speciation in larger animals, and you'll likely get an answer (basically, it takes at least tens of thousands of years under ideal circumstances, so you'll have to be patient). Give the impression that you're not considering what the biologist is saying and you think the biologist has to be wrong for religious reasons, and you'll get a more or less polite brush-off.

Re:Challenging is fine - not disrupting

[SuricouRaven]

It's easy to make fun of creationists - but it's easy because, a lot of the time, they make it easy. I've seen a lot of creationist materials, and I don't mean from your local church - things by the big names in the field, the ones who command an audience and resources. Ham, pre-arrest Hovind, even Prager university has produced a few videos on the subject - though they mostly keep to politics, and stuck to old-earth. Their arguments are just repetative - it's the same long-discredited lines, over and over and over and over. Arguing with them is like slamming your head against a wall. Every impact hurts, but when you look up the wall has not changed in the slightest. Their views are not derived from rational arguments, and so cannot be shifted by arguments either.

Re:Right wingers are the ones you should worry abo

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's already been pointed out that right-wingers in masks infiltrate left-wing protests and incite violence to make it look like the left is doing the deed.

Maths Safe, Science Problematic

[Roger W Moore]

Maths should actually be safe from this because pure maths is abstract and has absolute proof on its side. Science is where the problems will be: Big Bang vs. Creationism, climate change, evolution etc. Even something as simple as special relativity seems to attract controversy of a kind from those with their own crazy theories to peddle.

Re:Maths Safe, Science Problematic

[Mashiki]

Sorry Math isn't safe, and the regressive left are trying to fuck that up too. No this article is not Poe's law in action. Liberals need to get their shit together because you've got a whole fucking pile of actual crazy on your side right now. You're where the right was in the 1990's "there's no problem."

Re:Maths Safe, Science Problematic

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello,

Math teacher: "At the origin, we find the 0. We select a second item and call it "one", or the "unit". From there we derive the rest by addition, multiplication and their inverses"...

Religious ignoramous: "NO! at the origin is GOD, the ALLMIGHTY. And there is none other than him!!!! DEATH TO THE BLASPHEMATOR!"

Cyrille

Re:Maths Safe, Science Problematic

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You haven't met some mathematicians...

Re:Maths Safe, Science Problematic

[Anonymous Coward]

A math proof is one that people agrees on. If you disagree, you have to explain your reasons. /math degree holder and professional

Re:Maths Safe, Science Problematic

[tbannist]

Sorry Math isn't safe, and the regressive left are trying to fuck that up too. No this article is not Poe's law in action. Liberals need to get their shit together because you've got a whole fucking pile of actual crazy on your side right now. You're where the right was in the 1990's "there's no problem."

Your comments tell me you either didn't fully read or didn't understand the blog post you linked to.

Re:Maths Safe, Science Problematic

[Mashiki]

Your comments tell me you either didn't fully read or didn't understand the blog post you linked to.

Yeah, that'd be the "white people fuck off." That's the height of far-leftist intellectual discourse isn't it? The same racism that they said they were fighting against in the 1950's and 1960's, but promote identity politics(see article) and promote segregation while they're at it.

Maybe you should look up that person and enjoy their bigotry and racism.

Re:Maths Safe, Science Problematic

[Anonymous Coward]

The root cause of what we're facing right now is postmodernist philosophy, notably ideas put forth by Derrida and Foucalt, French philosophers who came to prominence in the 1960s and 70s. Postmodernism rejects the idea that there is such a thing as "absolute proof." They believe that reality is subjective and that math itself is not only a human construct, but a product of western culture that has it's roots in ancient Greece. Therefore our mathematical theories from Pythagoras to Newton are the creation of white, western, colonial culture and those who would insist that they are "the" tools for knowing reality are being bigoted and prejudiced against cultures that don't believe in your version of reality. It is a direct assault on reason itself and every bit as irrational, scary and influential as the most religious zealots of the right-wing that were prominent 20 - 30 years ago.

Re:Maths Safe, Science Problematic

[blindseer]

Only the purest of math courses are safe, once one steps into any application of math then the problems begin.

I'm in a "big data" program at a liberal arts university. In my statistics class all the examples in the book where on global warming, gender bias, and whatever cause of the day was when it was printed. I took a statistics course before at a university that taught primarily engineering, and in that course the examples were things like mean time to fail for components, analysis of noise on a transmission line, weight/length/size variations in manufacturing. I have to wonder if the engineering students are still free of this nonsense or if their statistics books this year are like mine.

In my algorithms course we were discussing a classic problem called the "stable marriage problem" and every 15 minutes of lecture over three days the instructor felt the need to stop for a second and apologize that the algorithm does not allow for same sex pairings. To avoid this for a while he talked of pairing ice cream to cake for making a dessert. This was laughable because it required applying a preference of "mates" based on flavors of each and the ice cream "proposing" to the cake and the cake "rejecting" the pairing or not. He also had to explain that we could not simply put two flavors of ice cream on the same plate.

In a numerical analysis course a problem was to compute the trajectory of an "occupied" spacecraft and the pilot had to decide how to fire the thrusters. It wasn't a "manned" spacecraft, it was "occupied". We don't compute "man-hours" any more, it's "work-hours" or something. In a data analysis class the professor keeps apologizing that the medical examples given split people between "male" and "female" because I guess 52 genders were "discovered" from when the data was collected last semester and now.

It was refreshing to be free from this nonsense in math class until the professor thought she had to go on a 20 minute anti-war/anti-military rant. I'm not sure how she got from what was on the chalkboard to what her rant was about but I was not amused. I am a veteran, and I know that at least one other veteran was in the class. There had to be two or three ROTC students in class. Given that this class was being taught to students in engineering, computer science, physics, and math there is a high probability that a third or a half of the class will end up working in the "military industrial complex" she just ranted against. I held my mouth shut and I was surprised everyone else did too.

Of course out of math classes the political correctness is on a level that boggles the mind. A philosophical discussion on "love" had the instructor telling the class that love of an object is the same thing as love between a married couple. A car, dog, man, or woman are all "loved" in the same way. This is from a doctoral candidate that claims to be an expert on the English language and literature. It didn't bother me terribly at first because he's welcome to his opinion. When I voiced an opposing opinion I was told I was wrong, and that bothered me. I dropped the course shortly after that.

Re:Maths Safe, Science Problematic

[Anonymous Coward]

Maths should actually be safe from this because pure maths is abstract and has absolute proof on its side.

Wrong...

Manners?

[Anonymous Coward]

bills based on model legislation produced by the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank. Different bills introduce specific penalties for students who shout down the speech of others

Is there anyone who thinks bad manners is something that should be allowed?
As a European, I've always thought myself more of a leftist-libertarian on this spectrum, but seems we are ultra conservative, the bunch of us?

Re:Manners?

[Cederic]

Interesting challenge.

Shouting over someone to prevent them being heard is something I find reprehensible.
Telling someone they're a miserable ignorant cunt I find perfectly acceptable. I may disagree, the speaker may lose credibility, there may be ridicule for the lack of constructive argument, but that's a continuation of the discourse.

Both are bad manners, and it could be tricky to legislate to prevent one and not the other.

Re: Right wingers are the ones you should worry ab

[Mashiki]

You're right. Because in those leftist circles "liberals get the bullet too." The group you're talking about are progressives, social justice bullies, social justice warriors, and so on. They *do* those things. Antifa, BAMN, ELF, ALF, Sea Shepard Society, etc, etc, etc, are all violent left-wing groups.

Great. So students in Wisconsin universities...

[Anonymous Coward]

...can vote to declare that gravity does not exist ?

smoke screen

[Anonymous Coward]

The sponsors can and will dress it up to try and make it seem like a reasonable thing, that they're just reacting to the terrible behavior of some students at some universities, but the simple reality is they've got one goal with this kind of bill, getting creationism in the classroom.

Because their faith is so weak that the only way it can continue is if they deny all evidence to the contrary.

The problem is that faith means believing exactly when there is no reason to believe. If there were evidence in its favor, it wouldn't be faith, it would be just common sense.

True faith would be recognizing that evolutionary theory has good solid evidence in its favor AND that the bible is true.

What?

[SCVonSteroids]

That you would need a bill to allow anyone to challenge science is fucking ridiculous.

Protecting free speech?

[sjbe]

Different bills introduce specific penalties for students who shout down the speech of others and prevent college administrators from disinviting speakers, to give two examples

So we are protecting free speech by eliminating free speech? Something about that doesn't sound quite right.

Re:Protecting free speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this eliminating free speech in any way whatsoever?

Preventing another person from speaking is not exercising your Right to free speech, even if you're using your voice as the tool to disrupt the other speaker.

Why should college administrators have the power to arbitrarily dis-invite speakers when the students who invited the speaker complied with the college's rules regarding such events? Are you arguing that censorship is "free speech" because the censors are making a statement? That's insane.

Some people are suggesting that the bill eliminates free speech because it "requires University of Wisconsin System institutions to be neutral on 'controversies of the day' "

A university is not an individual and therefore has no individual right to free speech. There's nothing wrong with a bill prohibiting someone from making a political statement in the name of the university. If they, a professor or administrator, want to speak on a controversial issue, they can do it as an individual.

How That Might Look

[Greyfox]

Here's how that might look.

I like the idea of these bills

[Applehu Akbar]

You can't contradict facts that are produced by the scientific method, but any sort of social policy informed by these facts is politics, and as such should be as freely debatable as policy based on the usual made-up axioms ("college girls should remain chaste") that come from non-scientific sources.

What we need to know about the Wisconsin bill is whether it actually permits students to contradict scientific facts, or whether this headline is more Slashbolshevik scaremongering.

Conservative snowflake: who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's always a first, but thought it ironic that someone is using the term *conservative* to modify snowflake. Heh.

And here I was thinking snowflake was a derisive term applied to millennials.

Re: Right wingers are the ones you should worry ab

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong, because the groups you're not talking about are conservatives, bullies, warriors for Christ, "freedom fighters" and so on. They *do* those things. ACT-America, Christian Action Network, John Birch Society, Oath Keepers, Justice Foundation, Christian Exodus, Agenda21Today, AFN, GOOOH, NCAUNT, WTP, TURF, AOF...are all violent right-wing groups.

But you'll never speak of them, will you? You'll claim that it's a "purely" left-wing thing, you'll wave your hands over the KKK, but wait a second, they're not the only group, now are they? (The Right-wing isn't stupid, they know the KKK brand is tainted, so they stick on a new label.)

In fact, you'll go into hysterics when their conduct is documented and reported.

And it isn't even limited to the US.

Yet you are entirely and utterly silent.

No word at all from you.

Oh, and one of your video was a fake.

But hey, I'm sure you can rant over a cake.

Free speech on campus

[Baron_Yam]

If a student shouts down pretty much ANYONE speaking on campus, they should be kicked out for the term or permanently, depending on how tolerant the institution is feeling.

The point of such places is to expose you to ideas, not to make sure you only hear things you agree with. Kids who don't understand that are already too far behind in their education to help... if they ever figure it out, they can continue their education elsewhere.

Re:Free speech on campus

[tbannist]

a student shouts down pretty much ANYONE speaking on campus, they should be kicked out for the term or permanently, depending on how tolerant the institution is feeling.

Brilliant. So anyone who disagrees with me can be expelled because they were "shouting me down". How could this ever possibly backfire?

Re:Free speech on campus

[Baron_Yam]

Your way means the loudest, least civilized control information flow. How can that possibly backfire?

Re:Free speech on campus

[Anonymous Coward]

If a student shouts down pretty much ANYONE speaking on campus, they should be kicked out for the term or permanently, depending on how tolerant the institution is feeling.

No. There are already laws that cover disturbing the peace. Those laws can and should be applied in such cases, with reasonable judgement on the part of everyone enforcing the law. There is no need for new laws. Universities generally already have provisions for dealing with serious violations of the law, which generally means multiple violations in the case of minor offences. Hence we don't need new university regulations either.

There is simply nothing more that government can or should be doing here, aside from possibly increasing funding to the police so existing laws can be enforced - and making sure that a police presence exists when appropriate.

Further, creating unnecessary law generates artificial demand for the services of legal professionals - and since such people are always involved in the creation and enforcement of law, allowing the creation of new law to cover this issue could and should be considered to be in violation of the 9th Amendment right to ethical practice of law. In short, it's not only unneeded, it's illegal.

Re:Free speech on campus

[tbannist]

Contrary to the suppositions of drooling morons, criticizing a stupid idea doesn't mean I support the exact opposite of that idiocy.

Neither expelling students for being angry nor letting them run wild are good ideas. Are you capable of thinking of anything that lies between those two extremes?

And just because you obviously didn't understand the point, if you make a rule to expel anyone who "shouts down anyone else", anyone with actual malicious intent will simply organize a group to make complaints against the very same people this idea is supposed to protect. So not only will it not help the situation, it will make it much, much worse.

How is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

The trouble comes from this section of the bill: “That each institution shall strive to remain neutral, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day, and may not take action, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day in such a way as to require students or faculty to publicly express a given view of social policy.”

The way I read this, it says the institution can't force students or faculty to publicly express a particular view on controversial topics. In other words, students and faculty can publicly express any views they like without being pressured by the university. How is this "trouble" or in any way a bad thing?

Re:Right wingers are the ones you should worry abo

[Anonymous Coward]

Cliven Bundy, Ammon Bundy, and that wild'n'crazy leftist Timothy McVeigh.

Yep. It's only the left-wingers who get violent.

AC

Why stop at science?

[Hentai007]

The pyramids were built by Aliens, I saw a whole documentary about it on the history channel. THE HISTORY CHANNEL MR KELVIN, I THINK IT IS A LITTLE MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE THAN A HISTORY TEACHER SLASH FOOTBALL COACH IN PARAMUS, NJ

This whole so-called "holocaust" thing is still being debated by Historians, I read a rousing debate on the topic the other night in /pol

2 x 1 = 2? I call bullshit.

Defending free speech by people you hate

[jfdavis668]

Defending the right to free speech means defending that right even for people you despise and disagree with in every way. Because it is the only way to guarantee your right to speak to oppose them. Also remember, that your right to free speech can't be used to take away theirs. You can't go to some else's speech and scream at them to drown them out and call it your right to free speech. That is what is happening lately. Instead of using their right to speak to promote their opposing view, they use it as a weapon to shut down those they disagree with. Instead of letting them speak, they protest or riot with the intent of preventing the speech. This is not the way free speech works.

Only One Law Needed

[sycodon]

As usual the Politicians are making it harder than it needs to be.

Simply outlaw ALL speech codes. Period.

FSM to the Rescue! [Re:Just a lame attempt.... ]

[Tablizer]

Use their own weapons against them: Start teaching Satanism and Pastafarianism in science, history, etc. and watch their feathers ruffle.

Re:Right wingers are the ones you should worry abo

[Hognoxious]

Murray is the guy that publicized the fact that any differences that exist between racial groups basically don't matter, since they're dwarfed by inter-group differences.

How can something dwarf itself?

Misleading headline.

[Anonymous Coward]

Needs a redo.

Re:Right wingers are the ones you should worry abo

[blindseer]

Milo and Coulter couldn't speak on college campuses because of violent left-wing protests.

Not only that I read in the university paper an editorial praising this behavior. After Milo was denied access to campus after the administration got concerned over the potential for violence (at least that was the claim, I think it was just an excuse for them to ban Milo out of personal preference of the admins) the editorial board had a couple pieces on this. The one that most outraged me was some idiot calling this a win for speaking freely on college campuses. The argument was some nonsense about how people can't feel free to speak if we allow such hateful speakers on campus.

This newspaper editor actually thought that denying people the ability to speak was a win for speaking freely.

Then he thought it might be a good idea to write it down.

Then the editorial board for the newspaper approved it for printing.

The blindness to their own nonsense and hypocrisy must have spread far and wide on colleges across the nation.

Typical Slashdot flamewar

[SoftwareArtist]

No discussion about anything related to politics (or often even not related to politics) can get far on Slashdot without degenerating into insults and name calling and arguments about whether it's the left or the right that's totally evil and wants to suppress free speech.

This is a complicated issue. If you think it can be reduced to a simple liberals vs. conservatives, that means you don't understand it. There are real concerns about people who've had their free speech blocked, and there's a legitimate desire to do something about that. There also are real concerns that this bill could be abused to prevent universities from taking stands on climate change, evolution, or anything else someone doesn't want them to talk about. Free speech is both really important and really hard to get right, especially when protecting one person's freedom of speech has the effect of restricting someone else's freedom of speech.

Insults do nothing to promote thoughtful discussion. But if anyone cares to offer their own proposal for how to protect everyone's right to speak out, that would be valuable.

How about keep your comments to science.

[fish_in_the_c]

Speaking out on political issues is something that publically funded universities don't need to get involved in.
So here is how stem cell advocacy should go.

While there is great debate about the moral issues involved in stem cell research the university has a policy of remaining neutral on moral and political issues.

For the purpose of informing the public about the science involved we issue the following statement.

1) >
2)>

Wouldn't it be nice if 'scientist' actually restricted themselves to scientific statements when speaking as scientists and then offered their opinions on how to interpret the science as private citizens like everyone else?

Or another example: ( Global warming).
1) The data indicates the earths temperature from time a to b has risen x degrees.
2) If this trend continues there is an expected rise in sea level of X.
3) It is likely with 85% certainty according to model xyz that this will display NN portions of the population

Notice what is missing: No unproven speculation as to what effect this will have on the displaced population, no call for anyone to do anything about it, no judgment on weather or not destroying the planet is a good or a bad thing. Why, because although it may be commonly agreed that killing everyone on earth is a bad thing, that isn't science, it is morality.

Ignorance and dogma are as good as knowledge

[Anonymous Coward]

Because ignorance and dogma are as good as knowledge and education.

Re:Right wingers are the ones you should worry abo

[piojo]

Murray is the guy that publicized the fact that any differences that exist between racial groups basically don't matter, since they're dwarfed by inter-group differences.

How can something dwarf itself?

Grrrrr, my brain wasn't working properly. I even thought about the inter/intra difference before I wrote that! I'll give myself a 3-day cooling off period before the next time I try to write one of those words.

Fuck right-wingers

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck right-wingers

Why not just call it what it is? Rioting

[NicknameUnavailable]

Then throw them in federal prisons, it's the adult version of timeout.

Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

That we even need a bill for this

Bring Back Duels!

[tmjva]

At 30 paces (15 each).

Winner becomes the new (or remains the old) professor.  This would make it a real challenge.  And also solve the Tenure problem.

Recently obtained Term Life Insurance should be waived.  No attempt should be made to purposely lose to "cash in" and pay off student debt, fund charities or alma maters.