上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500

[–]heyway 267ポイント268ポイント  (83子コメント)

"Free speech zone" hahahahahahahaHAHAHHAhaHhaHAHAHahHAhahahaHAHhaHaHHAHAHAHAHHAahahhahahahahahahHAHHA

[–]gerrywastaken[S] 130ポイント131ポイント  (69子コメント)

Yeah, not living in the US I found it amazing that such a thing exists and people are OK with it.

[–]_rough23 74ポイント75ポイント  (22子コメント)

"Free speech zones" as you probably understand them are unconstitutional. I can't think of any unreasonable restrictions which weren't eventually struck down by a court.

The fact people are okay with them on campuses is frighting, indeed.

[–]Sarioth 21ポイント22ポイント  (1子コメント)

My university has a free speech zone, but just because it has one doesn't mean that the rest of the entire campus is a no speech zone. It simply means that it's a public space where anyone can come and say whatever whenever - meaning that if you want to have a demonstration there, you don't need a rally permit or something, where if you wanted to have a demonstration in the Stadium, well yeah, talk to our people first.

[–]xTheOOBx 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

The desire to regulate protest has some good intentions, you don't have the right to obstruct my ability to receive the education I'm paying for, but it keeps getting taking to extremes.

[–]_rough23 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sure, people can't stand in your way or obstruct your education. I totally agree. Those are reasonable restrictions.

[–]Sampsonite_Way_Off 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The campus I went to had a free speech zone. I'm not saying it was the right thing but it elevated a lot of headaches for people not wanting to be apart of the protest. It was in the central quad and it allowed people to go to class. Just as in the video it was only 2% of the campus but the campus was huge and the free speech zone was at the central hub where the normal protests took place anyways.

We have all seen the videos of students locking arms and not allowing a speaker in the building or locking arms in front of a controversial class. Having an area for protest was a good thing in my eyes.

It's good that you are upset that we are in the current war...I still need to get to my 2:00PM math anal. BTW I'm not a jackbooted cocksucker baby raper. I'm just not as passionate as you are at the moment since I have a quiz.

[–]Jonmad17 30ポイント31ポイント  (36子コメント)

Not living in Europe I find it amazing that most continental countries have laws banning racist and historical revisionist speech.

[–]RedAero[🍰] 11ポイント12ポイント  (32子コメント)

The only things that are banned are outright calls to violence, and denying the Holocaust and related stuff. AFAIK, anyway.

[–]Greekgirltheodora2 32ポイント33ポイント  (20子コメント)

Nope, you can be fined/jailed etc for "hate speech" in some places, like in France

Peoples houses have been raided by police because of blog posts etc

These rules more often than not only apply to White European people though more often than not who are male, if you're an Arab Muslim you can go on the street and chant about beheading infidels and nothing will happen to you.

Or if you're a Turkish Woman you can say things like "Kill all white men" and not lose your job in places like England. Because men and white people are immune to violence and prejudice.

[–]Rooster_with_roses 10ポイント11ポイント  (6子コメント)

Got sources for that?

[–]skatingmichael -1ポイント0ポイント  (8子コメント)

americans should really stop imagining europe as one country ... there are different laws in all the countries and someone is not gonna know everything there is to know about every country

[–]skatingmichael 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

you can say "i wish you would be killed", but not say "im gonna kill you"

[–]warpus 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Proceed over to the free speech zone sir. This way please."

"Free speech what? Go fuck yourself!"

"Sir, you'll be well within your right to tell me to go fuck myself once you're well inside the free speech zone."

"Well.. alright then"

steps into the zone

"GO FUCK YOURSELF!"

[–]floodster 14ポイント15ポイント  (3子コメント)

As a Swede living in the US, I find that free speech is much more common in the US when it comes to everyday conversation. People tend to accept other peoples opinions here even if they disagree, while in Swede (and probably the rest of Europe, at least Scandinavia) people ostracize people with differing opinions. It's probably a result of the homogeneous population.

[–]ToaTheBoa 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think Sweden is seen as somewhat extreme PC even in the rest of scandinavia.

[–]DrunkVelociraptor5 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

I have to ask, where are you from? Because a lot of places in Europe have strict speech laws.

[–]PleasantConversation 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can say whatever you want. Just stand in this lead lined sound proof box first.

[–]Jonmad17 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

Supreme court established that the state can't regulate the content of speech, but that you also can't have people disrupt traffic and filibusterer public events in the name of free speech. I don't like it, but it's not as Orwellian as people make it out to be.

[–]Storthos 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

My first experience on a college campus, there was a fundamentalist preacher standing in a courtyard shouting at people passing by, calling them whores and fornicators and whatnot.

I stopped to engage him, and students were getting upset at me ... for being outside the free speech zone...by about three feet.

That was 2007. I can only imagine what it's like now.

[–]reindeerflot1lla 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

As a student, I was actually glad for this. There were two places on campus that students (and more frequently, crazy old bible thumpers) could come and yell to their heart's content, while not disturbing or disrupting classes and people studying in the library. It's not that they're trying to restrict WHAT you say (at least, not at our school), but just putting you in a place that you can have that conversation without disrupting thousands of paying students in their studies.

[–]dimechimes 178ポイント179ポイント  (137子コメント)

"Prager University is not an accredited academic institution and does not offer certifications or diplomas."

Kind of shady.

[–]verybakedpotatoe 23ポイント24ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's a quasi-libertarian propaganda channel. It isn't always bad, and I found this video to be the best one of theirs I have seen so far, but they are not usually the most sincere videos.

I think the University angle is part of their attempt to legitimize some of their views as academically sensible when it is clearly some thinktank conjecture peppered with plausible theories.

[–]GrayM84 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The one about the cause of the civil war being about slavery was pretty good too. Link

[–]Renrue 34ポイント35ポイント  (6子コメント)

If you go to their website, they're pretty upfront about that, so it doesn't seem shady at all.

Prager University is an online resource promoting knowledge and clarity.

We are not an accredited academic institution. And we don't want to be.

All our courses are free.

They seem more akin to Khan Academy. On the other hand, they do seem religiously motivated, though that in itself doesn't mean it's bad.

[–]dimechimes 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, I pulled my statement from their website. I'll accept that they aren't lying about anything as much as they are trying to use the term university to bolster their brand.

[–]BobSacamano666 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Informally using the word "university" doesn't bother me. I think most people would understand that a youtube channel can't take the place of an actual school. What bothers me is that they are very obviously pushing a conservative agenda while claiming to be impartial and fact-based.

[–]Sanae_ 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yet they chose to have "University" in their name, to have a nice "first-impression" effect.

[–]witler 132ポイント133ポイント  (89子コメント)

If you need proof that this is a conservative YouTube channel, look no further than their philosophy video about religion. And their creationism video that claims we have no explanation for the diversity of life, as if they've never even heard of evolution/genetics.

You can also look at their government video, which argues that big government is bad, small government is good.

Then, they have a pro-military video, trying to justify the US's ridiculously large military budget.

They also have an anti-union video, and a video called How the Liberal University Hurts the Liberal Student.

Their videos claim they aren't political, yet somehow every single video makes a friendly case for conservative ideology--including creationism.

[–]Doesnt_Draw_Anything 63ポイント64ポイント  (13子コメント)

Ok, they are conservative? What's the point?

[–]glirkdient 29ポイント30ポイント  (4子コメント)

Their opinions don't matter if their overall view doesn't match yours!

[–]tomrhod 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

Because their perspective matters in how they present information. If other positions they take misrepresent facts to serve an agenda, it colors the ability to trust other content they're putting out. Even in this short video there were immediately obvious shades of this bias, such as highlighting conservative speakers as being disinvited, which seems geared to elicit sympathy for their position from a particular audience.

What information is left out can often be as important as what's included, and if the source for the info is serving the needs of a broader ideology, it reduces trust on this one issue.

[–]fourbet 16ポイント17ポイント  (4子コメント)

Conservatives are incapable of being correct about anything. If a conservative says 2+2 is 4 it's just an idiot redneck who is wrong.

This is one of the most obnoxious things about the current state of identity politics.

If FOX NEWS put out a report that said the sky is blue these guys would be complaining about the source.

Pro tip for anyone reading this: People who have ideologies that you generally disagree with or even abhor are still capable of raising solid arguments about specific issues and having reasonable points.

[–]WiglyWorm 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Absolutely. I'm as liberal as they come. I voted for Nader (well, more specifically, since I am from a swing state and wanted to avoid the spoiler effect, I participated in Nader Trader) in 2000, and I'm all in for Bernie Sanders this election cycle...

But you know what?

I have way more in common with my Libertarian voting, gun loving, laissez-faire capitalist friend than we have that divides us. Even when we seem diametrically opposed, I am able to listen to and learn from his opinions, and he listens to and learns from mine. Even if his opinion doesn't make me change my mind, it at least makes me believe in my opinion that much more.

Listening to -really listening to- other points of view, and allowing your preconceived notions to be challenged is one of the most important things you can do to grow as a person. Politically or otherwise.

Which... really... is the downfall of this ridiculous liberal mindset of shielding one's self from opinions which might make you uncomfortable. It does nothing but encourage groupthink, and increases the feelings of hostility between people who really should be allied.

The best thing the political establishment has ever done was divide us on a number of wedge issues while they both collaborate on policies that do not the common man's best interest. Divide et impera.

[–]north0 67ポイント68ポイント  (22子コメント)

If you need proof that this is a conservative YouTube channel,

What bearing does that have on the specific points they're making in this video?

Would the points be more credible if it were a liberal youtube channel? Isn't this the definition of an ad hominem attack?

[–]ddrddrddrddr 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think he's questioning the intentions behind the video. Instead of actually making a case for free speech for all, the video may be intending to complain about the shrinking platform for conservative speakers at typically liberal educational institutions. Not that it's right of course, just a matter of underlying intent.

[–]pitchingataint 11ポイント12ポイント  (10子コメント)

Also, all the people he mentioned who were disinvited as campus speakers just happened to be conservatives.

There are a lot of people who have been disinvited from speaking on campus who weren't conservative. If he wants to show how bad of a problem it is, maybe he should mention the disinvited guests who come from different background other than a politically conservative one.

[–]north0 3ポイント4ポイント  (8子コメント)

There are a lot of people who have been disinvited from speaking on campus who weren't conservative.

Can you name a few?

[–]Jonismack 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

https://www.thefire.org/list-of-campus-disinvitations-2000-2014/

I quickly skimmed trough the "Formaly disinvited" ones and saw Bill Ayers, Greg Mortenson and Tony Kusher. I really can't know the political afiliation of everyone on that list, but I guess those are a few good examples...

[–]xTheOOBx 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just because he obviously has an agenda doesn't mean what he's saying isn't a problem. The sky isn't falling like he says, but there is a worrying precedent being set, and things like trigger warnings can create a chilling effect.

To discount what he is saying would be an ad hominin attack.

[–]Bort39 40ポイント41ポイント  (7子コメント)

So what? Does it mean they are wrong because it is slightly conservative? No. That's just your own bias. The video the OP posted is pretty damn correct.

[–]Darrian 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

So what? Does it mean they are wrong because it is slightly conservative?

It means we should question their claims because they have an agenda. Also, slightly? C'mon. Let's at least be honest.

[–]RhinoMan2112 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's pretty hard to find much information these days from a source without an agenda. A liberal agenda is just as bad as a conservative one. It doesn't mean you should just ignore everything, but you should still question something whether it comes from a liberal or conservative outlet.

[–]SNCommand 9ポイント10ポイント  (22子コメント)

Nice job poisoning the well, argue the points in the video, not the source

[–]witler 21ポイント22ポイント  (3子コメント)

A clever use of statistics, cherry-picking, and wordplay can prove nearly any point. Pretending that the bias of the person doesn't matter will result in you believing in many conflicting ideas.

For example, his first point about how freedom from speech is harmful to democracy is not explained clearly. I mean, this IS part of freedom of speech. I don't have to listen to your speech if it is something that I don't like. And bringing up bill or rights, constitution is kind of irrelevant here. Why bring that up if this isn't government sanctioned?

Speech codes in university is a problem but this where I use your phrase here. He is also poisoning the well by bringing up these legitimate facts while blowing up other "threats" to freedom of speech such as trigger warnings and microaggressions way out of proportion. I agree that people abuse these concepts but they are no way threat to free speech. And he is using the wrong/biased definition for it too. You could read the unbiased definition of it from wikipedia

And finally I completely disagree with his last statement. Its kind of ironic how, by saying we don't need freedom from speech, he is against free speech too.

[–]SNCommand 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well now you're at least arguing against the points in the video and people can actually debate your points

I would say freedom from speech is definitely not freedom of speech, and you're not against freedom of speech if you're against freedom from speech

Freedom from speech is a negative freedom, you're creating rules to preemptively prevent a person from voicing his or her opinion, it's authoritarian plain and simple

The only truly safe space is private property as it's a freedom for a person to decide what's being said on your property, but of course that's where the Universities get the right to limit speech on their grounds, but I would say it's quite wrong when an institution that's supposed to breed debate and discussion is limiting the speech and opinions that can be expressed

[–]mwjk13 31ポイント32ポイント  (17子コメント)

Credibility of a source is vital in an argument...

[–]qaaiL 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

This needs to be higher.

They try to disguise their agenda behind a name and look.

[–]brainhack3r 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

They have a bunch of silly religion videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T_P14JjMcM

This one is pathetic.. It's filled with basically 5 easily discredited logical fallacies.

[–]dto7v3 24ポイント25ポイント  (8子コメント)

Prager "University" does right wing/conservative propaganda. Founded by this guy.

Regardless of the video, they have an agenda and they're betting on 7 out of 10 people watching to never second guess the "University" part. So if no one feels icky about agreeing with them yet, just look at their global warming video!

From the wiki page:

Prager also started a website called "Prager University", that offers five-minute videos on various subjects such as the Ten Commandments, minimum wage, the Middle East Crisis, Global Warming and happiness with a conservative perspective.

[–]triplehelix_ 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

a person can dislike an individual, dislike and disagree with the bulk of their perspectives, but see value and agree on a specific topic.

[–]GetLowwweee 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

They seem really shady, but I don't know why anyone should feel "icky" about agreeing with anybody on one point. It's like saying people should feel icky about liking art since Hitler loved it.

[–]sonofsmog 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

What's shady about it? What We Do is right on the website.

[–]goatsandbros 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I suppose then we'll have to talk about the ideas rather than from where they come. Shame, that.

[–]sfzen 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

"54% of public universities and 59% of private universities impose politically correct speech codes on their students. And thanks to recent Department of Education guidelines, 100% of colleges MAY adopt speech codes in the coming years."

In other news, 25% of the shirts I own are blue, and 10% of the pants I own are blue. Thanks to these trends, I may never buy another piece of non-blue clothing again, and Adolf Hitler may rise from the dead and run for the US presidency as a Democrat.

[–]MuadD1b 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's not wrong because of the loose language the Obama administration used regarding harassment college's are creating much stricter codes. Diane Rehm just did a show on it. Not everything is political.

[–]Doesnt_Draw_Anything 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

They also don't offer classes. They offer "courses" but those are just free videos.

[–]k1ckflip 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would love for people to actually argue the points discussed in this video instead of ad hominem all day every day. Interested to know exactly what is bullshit in this video

[–]Nic3GreenNachos 154ポイント155ポイント  (86子コメント)

The Constitution protect your speech from the government, but not others.

[–]fadingthought 23ポイント24ポイント  (3子コメント)

Public universities are state actors. This has gone to court many times.

[–]whataboutitdaddycool 157ポイント158ポイント  (34子コメント)

This is true, but I think that the video is more concerned with morality, not legality. I think he argues that universities should protect free speech for the same reason the government does (because out-of-control censorship tend to be more prejudicial to the most vulnerable groups, not the opposite). Besides, one could argue that universities that run on government money should be responsible to uphold a certain standard of free speech.

[–]exelion 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is true, but I think that the video is more concerned with morality, not legality

Then he should not have made a point of bringing up legality and the Constitution right off the bat.

[–]thansal 13ポイント14ポイント  (27子コメント)

The complaints listed are:

  1. Many colleges have Speech Codes. These vary around a lot, but most I have run into basically consists of "This is a place of learning, stay civil". Here's an example that FIRE thinks was handled poorly: Here. Personally? I'm fine rescinding a a job offer to some one that resorts to name calling on twitter. That said, I'm sure there's some that are overly restrictive and silly, but I couldn't find any good examples.

  2. Free Speech Zones and requiring permission to hold protests. Honestly, again, these aren't really issues for me. It allows people to hold protests and demonstrations against whatever it is they have issues with, and it also lets students not have to worry about classes and studying being interrupted. That said, any sort of approval process for demonstrations HAS to be pro-forma where the subject matter doesn't matter, just "Yes, the quad is free from 12-3 on Sunday, but at 4 Student Group B has it, so you have to be cleaned up and clear by then so they can start".

  3. "Uninviting" speakers. That would be people demonstrating their freedom of speech and expression, right? I mean, I agree, people SHOULDN'T do that, they should show up, listen to the person and have a real, proper debate. But it's still a demonstration of freedom of expression...

  4. "Trigger Warnings". I mean, fine, the tumblr crowd is silly, and the over use of the idea of triggers is fucking absurd, but it's not actually THAT bad of an idea. You know, if you want to go through life avoiding a topic, that's up to you, and some people have legit issues where they likely should be avoiding certain topics (A PTSD rape victim might like a fair warning before reading I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings).

[–]AGameofSausages 23ポイント24ポイント  (11子コメント)

"Uninviting" speakers. That would be people demonstrating their freedom of speech and expression, right?

How the fuck is preventing someone talking freedom of expression in any capacity? It's not, this is just mental gymnastics. If you don't want to hear someone speak then you express that by not listening to them speak. You simply don't be there when that person is speaking. That's where the expression comes in. Leveraging bureaucratic power to prevent some from speaking is not expression and it is not speech.

[–]YouTwistedWords 22ポイント23ポイント  (9子コメント)

Because those speakers are paid, and only a limited amount of funding is allocated to bring in speakers.

If my University was spending thousands of dollars to bring in someone to speak who I felt would contribute nothing of value, then yeah, I would want them disinvited and someone more important to be brought in instead.

It's also worth pointing out that prestige =/= worthy speaker. Condoleza Rice is listed in the video, and she's undoubtedly an important person, but maybe I feel like I already understand what she stands for (whether I am for or against it) and would rather have someone else attend.

I can express this by protesting. Hopefully you're ok with me doing that outside of a 'free speech zone'.

[–]north0 9ポイント10ポイント  (6子コメント)

If my University was spending thousands of dollars to bring in someone to speak who I felt would contribute nothing of value

In practice it seems "contributes nothing of value" more often than not translates to "does not reaffirm my worldview."

What you are saying makes sense and sounds plausible, but it seems like these disinvitations are more ideologically driven than financially.

[–]strengthof10interns 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

No Idea why people are initially downvoting this. It is a well thought out rebuttal. The video was very one-sided and I feel that they omitted certain details. Like the bit about handing out copies of the constitution was probably because the university has rules about distributing any materials on campus with their approval not because it was the constitution. If the guy had filled out the paperwork and checked with the administration, I'm sure they would have been happy to let him hand it out.

[–]thansal 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I mean, I'm not even really rebutting per say.

I just sorta don't like the video (and other things I've seen from FIRE). They seem to have a tendency of painting with a very broad brush. Any sort of speech code is bad as far as they care, and any amount of bureaucracy sounds bad when they say it.

Instead of listing out actual examples of poor policies and why said policies are a bad thing, they cherry pick events and hold them up as "OMG THEY HATE FREE SPEECH!", which is the sort of campaign I always dislike.

That's why I couched most of my statements as "What they are saying is kinda dumb, but what their goals might not actually be wrong".

[–]sir_throbbin_hood 19ポイント20ポイント  (5子コメント)

Public universities are an arm of the state governments and required to adhere to all the same constitutional limitations as other government entities.

[–]PleasantConversation 22ポイント23ポイント  (12子コメント)

State funded colleges have no such obligation? And even if it's legal for a private college to restrict ideas, is it right?

[–]The_Prince1513 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Public and Private Universities are either explicitly a part of the government, or so intertwined with government funding that they would not be able to exist without it, making them effectively part of the government. A University's actions should be considered government action.

[–]DeadlyVenomGames 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

And the concept of Free Speech is far older than the constitution and just because something isn't explicitly illegal, doesn't mean it's okay. I'm pretty tired of the First Amendment defense when discussing Free Speech. It is continuing the Americentric nature of talking about something that should be a universal right, the world over.

I apologize if that isn't what you were going for with this comment, but it is a common deflection when talking about non-governmental censorship.

[–]Nic3GreenNachos 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I get that it isn't right. I am in no way saying that limitation of speech period is okay. But that is the way it is, it protects you from the government.

The bigger thing is if things like trigger-warnings are mandatory or strongly encouraged and recommended. If they are required then that implies that there is a punishment for those to don't comply with the censorship. In that case it is worse and you should sue or get regulations on it.

But if recommended, then it isn't completely censorship. But that doesn't retract from my first statement.

[–]pdox 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

At the heart of political correctness is the threat of personal repercussions for the wrong kinds of speech. Expressing a non-PC idea is likely to cause you to lose your job, even if what you said has no relation to your work (companies will do anything to distance themselves from controversy or accusations of bias). By saying unpopular things, you risk becoming the target of online hate mobs, which will try to ruin your life by spreading your gaffe as far and wide as possible. The mob may start harassing your family and friends, forcing them to distance themselves from you.

The result is a chilling effect on the free expression of controversial ideas. Even though it is not a violation of the 1st amendment (because the government is not directly involved), political correctness is most certainly not in the spirit of freedom of speech.

[–]networklackey 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

It doesn't even protect you from the government thinking you're stupid... it just means they have to let you be stupid.

Free speech doesn't mean anyone has to listen.

[–]Nic3GreenNachos 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Free speech doesn't mean anyone has to listen.

Completely true. No disagreement there. But, uh, how does the "government" think someone is stupid? The government isn't an entity of itself.

[–]aidenpryde3025 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Public Universities have these codes, and therefore are part of the government, ie funded and run by the government... the employees are all State employees... I know, I work at one and am a State Employee. Therefore, it is patently against the Constitution for these public universities to do this.

[–]HailSatanLoveHaggis 109ポイント110ポイント  (84子コメント)

Decent video, but I always take everything Prager University does with a pinch of salt. They have been pretty deceitful in the past. Even still, the channel seems to be making a lot of headway on Reddit these days. Guess we all just love emotionally satisfying material that backs up their pre-established opinion (yes that includes me).

[–]fadingthought 38ポイント39ポイント  (4子コメント)

You should take everything with a grain of salt.

[–]EccentricWyvern 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

But too much sodium intake can lead to hypertension! D:

[–]Silvernostrils 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

so can thinking about heavy political topics,

I guess your comment is really meta

[–]tanksforthegold 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

and a dash of lemon juice

[–]Soaringeagle78 13ポイント14ポイント  (2子コメント)

They make headway on the main subs here because Reddit is obsessed with censorship and whatnot since the earlier parts of the summer when all of the sub banning, Ellen Pao stuff, etc happened and Reddit (or at least default subs) are willing to take whatever they can as evidence that the world of free speech is threatened, regardless of the source and how credible it may or may not be.

I do think that there definitely are cases where being too pc is happening, but not to the extent that Reddit likes to feel it is.

Imo, going back to what happened on Reddit, I don't see hate subs being banned as that much of a bad thing at all.

[–]TheParhelicCircle 15ポイント16ポイント  (1子コメント)

I do think that there definitely are cases where being too pc is happening, but not to the extent that Reddit likes to feel it is.

100% this and it's nice to hear someone else who agrees with me. Vocal minorities, like the people who get posted to /r/tumblrinaction, do, in some cases, take it too far but they ultimately hold no power. On the opposite end of the spectrum even a cursory glace at places like /r/kotakuinaction would make you think that there's some sort of SJW illuminate running American hell bent on killing all the straight white men.

Both sides are dumb if you ask me but thank god I'm a bisexual man so when the SJW do take over I'll be spared as long as I comply with their compulsory castration.

[–]gerrywastaken[S] 10ポイント11ポイント  (57子コメント)

Out of curiosity, do you have an example of their deceit in the past?

[–]Bardfinn1 39ポイント40ポイント  (0子コメント)

Their series on climate change and carbon dioxide is not backed by science, it's very anti-science, and it's pretty much straight industry propaganda.

[–]dotatoday 57ポイント58ポイント  (19子コメント)

The fact that they are not a real University or even an accredited institution is a big one. They just use the name Prager University to sound legitimate.

They are basically just a Youtube channel run by extreme conservatives.

[–]HailSatanLoveHaggis 35ポイント36ポイント  (29子コメント)

Their Greenpeace video. The presenter was a former member acting like they were fundamentalists who he left. In reality he was kicked out and is now on the fossil fuel payroll.

[–]gerrywastaken[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (7子コメント)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpBnJq19R60

I just checked out the video and what he says seems fairly reasonable.

and is now on the fossil fuel payroll

I think you have that wrong: "And there is no doubt that the most effective way to limit this risk is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels." http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/greenpeace-is-wrong--we-must-consider-nuclear-power/2007/12/09/1197135284092.html

I'm not saying the guy is on the right side of everything, he seems to be denying that climate change was caused by humans, but greenpeace is also pretty dillusional on some things:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/ http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/

See Tyson on the anti-gmo stance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ecT2CaL7NA

[–]axscvb 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

Patrick Moore is an ecologist who denies that humans cause climate change, and a corporate consultant through his firm Greenspirit Strategies. Moore has consulted for the Nuclear Energy Institute, and the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. He has worked for the mining industry, the logging industry, PVC manufacturers, the nuclear industry and has worked in defense of biotechnology.

He's the same guy that went on TV and said pesticide is safe to drink while working for Monsanto.

[–]modelrocketfan 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Good fact checking. Thanks

Greenpeace is f'ing retarded for wanting to get rid of nuclear power

[–]VRPDW 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Greenpeace is also a shit organization. Maybe this guy is just a piece of shit who floats wherever he's welcome.

[–]theskittz 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't understand how you are being downvoted for doing research. Way to go reddit.

[–]MyNameIsRobPaulson 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

Because he's missing the obvious glaring point and defending small points. Prager university videos are clever propaganda. They mix in enough truth to make it seem legit. Just enough poison so you don't notice it.

[–]triplehelix_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

opinion that differs from yours shouldn't be automatically labelled propaganda and poison.

[–]eyecomeanon 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

This video is a good example. Their section on "disinvitation" is deceitful by not mentioning that these speakers are paid large amounts of money by those colleges. It's not as simple as "hey, wanna come talk to our students for a while?" The colleges have to pay a "speaking fee" from the speaker. Besides which, universities are in a way a business. They have to cater to the educational desires of their students. If the students don't want their tuition going to people they think are ideologically wrong, that's their right as well.

[–]sonofsmog 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

In the case of public universities most of the money does not come from student tuition it comes from tax payers.

[–]shewontbesurprised 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Although I am wary of it because it may be a biased source, it does reflect a lot of what I saw when I went to university (I left last year), and what did seem like a big problem on campus. I knew there were dissenters who didn't agree, but to argue was to be called racist or homophobic or a variety of other words. I think although they are biased to a particular political viewpoint, their videos are generally quite factual.

[–]HawtSkhot 17ポイント18ポイント  (11子コメント)

"100% of colleges may adopt speech codes in the coming years."

That talking point made 0% sense, and I 100% think this dude is an idiot.

To put this into perspective, you could also say that 100% of colleges may fall victim to a dinosaur attack. Will it happen? Most likely not, but according to the logic and phrasing, it's a possibility.

[–]pspsony 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

He is pointing out that there seems to be no law or policy preventing schools form adopting speech codes. So no, not like saying dinosaurs might attack a school at all lol.

[–]aleksanderg 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

There is no law or policy preventing schools from being attacked by a dinosaur either. 100% of schools 'may' be attacked by a T-Rex in the future. God, Zombie-Hitler or Toothfairy 'may' be real too. He provided 0 evidence that it'll go that way. Statistics may even show that maybe the trend is actually decreasing. That point he made is completely useless.

[–]iaruoksid 75ポイント76ポイント  (51子コメント)

Far too many people on reddit seem to excuse anything with blaming the other person for being offended. You don't like my "joke"? You must be a stupid sjw! It doesn't matter that my joke was just "N*ggers dont have dads!", you're still a shill from srs! If you're an asshole contributing nothing to the conversation but hate and mockery, don't be surprised when people shut you down.

[–]sh33pUK 18ポイント19ポイント  (31子コメント)

the whole outrage against trigger warning thing that these people have is the part i don't get

it's literally just a content warning so people can prepare themselves if there are subjects they have difficulty with why is that so upsetting to people

[–]Sergnb 26ポイント27ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's one of those non issues that people read a couple deranged bloggers on tumblr talk about and then instantly assume every feminist or left leaning person thinks like that.

They cite trigger warnings as some kind of orwellian device to control thoughts when it is no more harmful than a "parental advisory" sticker on a record.

It strikes me as hilarious that the words trigger warning continue to trigger emotional responses on people by itself when it has done nothing wrong to nobody in the history of its use.

[–]BobSacamano666 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Exactly. I've literally never seen someone sincerely use the phrase "trigger warning" outside of Tumblr.

[–]Sergnb 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've seen it before but it was always pretty reasonable and the content was showcased in its entirety so I don't know what the hell people are on about when they say it is a thought policing method of brainwashing you. I am having trouble seeing how a "yo man, if you had some trauma in the pastthis may bring it up so watch out" could slippery slope into any kinds of censorship.

[–]HalloweenInHeaven 9ポイント10ポイント  (6子コメント)

One thing is that it devalues actual trigger warnings, which are for people with PTSD. You're not triggered if you find some offensive content, you're offended. The wording appropriates triggers, which are actually serious and need to be considered, from PTSD victims and uses it to victimize so that they can feel like they're in the morally correct position when they silence someone they disagree with..

[–]sh33pUK 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

tbh i dont really know enough about ptsd to judge whether certain things are considered tirrgers or whatever but how can u silence someone by warning people that their work contains something that might upset people

like if you put "this book has graphic depictions of violence" on whatever in your reading list it doesn't stop people reading the book or w/e just if someone's going to ptsd the FucK OUT if they read some real ultraviolence shit they get some early warning or whatever

[–]HalloweenInHeaven 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

It's because of the whole "you're being very triggering right now" thing that goes hand in hand with "check your privilege". Regardless of the origin of the phrase, it's used to silence people.

Also, there are things like posting trigger warnings to make someone look bad. IIRC, hen Christina Hoff Sommers went to Georgetown, college students put signs like "trigger warning: rape apologism" outside the room she was presenting in, to shame her for her opinion by calling her a rape apologist (which she isn't).

[–]sh33pUK 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

thats not really silencing tho is it it's just criticism. it might not be very nice or very constructive but it's not stopping someone saying something and they can listen to the criticism and decide whether they want to take it on board or not or whatever.

i dont know who that person is and that doesn't seem like a very nice thing to do to someone but i dont think it invalidates the use of warnings because some people misuse them.

[–]HalloweenInHeaven 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

The difference between a trigger warning and a content warning is that the former puts the responsibility on the content itself. The content is triggering. Whereas the second simply calls attention to the nature of the content and warns the individual to self censor how they see fit for themselves. "Triggering content" certainly has a negative connotation.

The fact that you call it "criticism" is really telling. The fact that some content can be offensive or "triggering" (using quotes because, as I said, that word should be reserved for people with PTSD) isn't something that it should be criticized for. It's one thing to call something out as being offensive and then go on to explain your other reasons for disagreeing. It's another thing entirely to say that simply the fact that something is offensive is reason enough to be against it.

[–]sh33pUK 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

ya idk if people with ptsd read a trigger warning and go "wow this thing doesn't set me off but they've used the word trigger im getting real riled up about it". other than ptsd people having the exclusive copyright to the word trigger im not actually seeing a difference between a trigger warning and a content warning.

i dont really nkow who you're arguing with here i dont think something being offensive and something being triggerring ar the same thing

i get that some peopole on the internet do or whatever but tbh if theyre the kind of people who worry about that sort of thing theyd probably be pretty open to changing their behaviour if someone said "look buddy-o-friend when yuo call something that you think is bad triggering yure sorta devauling ptsd sufferers". then maybe theyd go "oh yeah OOps i wasnt being thoughtful" or maybe theyd go "actually my bff jill has ptsd from this that or the other and she wants to do this course so itd be helpful to have heads up" or something. or maybe they'd just get angry about it and be dicks but that's not the end of the world

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122543/trigger-warning-myth

i quite like that article i just found i think that explanis stuf i think better than i CAN because FucK TyPING SHIT fuck

[–]gotasugardaddy 9ポイント10ポイント  (7子コメント)

Mainly because people on tumblr put it on random shit all the time

But even then, I think this video overstates this 'epidemic'. I've had professors that swear like sailors and even tell you that you will learn the information and they don't care if you feel uncomfortable about it

I guess thats the benefit of tenure

[–]ChocolatePopes 16ポイント17ポイント  (6子コメント)

Yeah tumblrinas can be annoying, but if that's the worst thing about them, then who cares?

Really I only see trigger warnings effective for people with PTSD & sexual and domestic abuse victims. But it's not like the material is being banned.

[–]MOAR_cake 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

People on Tumblr might be annoying, but the solution is to not fucking use Tumblr.

[–]lemonbox63 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

But where will I find people to be annoyed about? WHERE CAN I FIND OVERLY SENSITIVE PEOPLE TO BE OVERLY SENSITIVE ABOUT?

[–]Pancake_Lizard 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

But /r/tumblr is funny. It's a lot like Reddit - you make it your own.

[–]north0 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's just dumb. It makes people think their feelings are important. (They're not). It also has no basis in reality - avoidance is a symptom of PTSD and trigger warnings enable it.

[–]IAM_Deafharp_AMA 52ポイント53ポイント  (25子コメント)

Ahhh Prager University. The non-existant university that's really just a stream of youtube propaganda videos, such as this one where everything the Jews have done is good and all those shitty Arabs have done is bad.

The whole channel is so conservative (not that that's inherently bad) but also spreading untrue information that leads to hate and ignorance. It's why this video that has nothing to do with Islam uses 3 examples of how Islam is supressive. This channel has a really obvious agenda.

[–]AlbrechtVonRoon 9ポイント10ポイント  (9子コメント)

The whole channel is so conservative

I don't know, I just watched a video by them that said the Confederacy fought for slavery, and pretty much slavery alone, since it argued that all the other motivations for fighting didn't hld true. It would seem to me that most conservatives do what they can to defend the rationale behind secession has having extensive roots beyond slavery, with slavery being an open expression of the division, a flash point, rather than the end all of Southern independence.

EDIT: Ok, I am watching the video you linked and I see what you mean. I tend to be pro-Israel, but this video is a bit over the top.

[–]gerrywastaken[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (11子コメント)

I agree that video was beyond awful. However did you watch this one? I usually don't find myself agreeing with their videos, but this one was different. While it may have been anti-left agenda that lead to this video, they still have some good points.

[–]YouTwistedWords 4ポイント5ポイント  (9子コメント)

The thing is, it's not a matter of whether or not I can instantly find faulty logic or incorrect information in the video you linked. The source is so untrustworthy that I have no choice but to assume it's there, whether I can see it right away or not.

Because that's their goal. Their objective is to spread misinformation for political gain, and they do that by disguising it, often very well.

They have proven themselves to be a group that is perfectly comfortable outright fabricating information in order to further their agenda. Why would you ever listen to them at all?

I similarly would instantly discredit anything posted by Westboro Baptist Church, or by the Church of Scientology. That's not to say that every single thing they ever say is a lie, but if there's an ounce of truth to any of it, I'm sure we can find someone much more reputable to say it.

[–]IAM_Deafharp_AMA 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

It did make great points as well. Just wanted to tell others to take their videos with a grain of salt.

Thanks for posting.

[–]anthemlog 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm so glad I skipped out on college and all their stupid bullshit and just went straight to having a well paying job.

[–]cryptyq 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, you have a right to free speech. I have a right to ignore you.

Free speech zone? Is the university on US soil? smh

[–]JeebusLovesMurica 16ポイント17ポイント  (2子コメント)

They are extremely exaggerating the problem and twisting it a bit, but I can still get behind free speech and right to express opinions. Except knowing Prager, they absolutely have their own agenda with this and I'm sure there are times when they act on the other side of this for their own benefit/views

[–]buck54321 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Can you provide some evidence that what they've said is exaggerated or twisted?

[–]ThePornHubRedemption 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

No. They can't. Just denial.

[–]FNj 14ポイント15ポイント  (10子コメント)

Calling bullshit on that people cannot criticize religion in Europe. Maybe if you happen to be in Russia, Belarus maybe Serbia. Or Vatican, they may not like people asking the pope to blow them there, but pretty much everywhere else you can criticize religions and religious institutions as much as you please.

In some countries, especially Germany, you can get in trouble if you express sympathy to extreme right (nazis, fascists) so there are limits to political speech somewhere, which I don't like.

But you won't get in trouble for saying something mean about someone else. Unless you cause objective harm and you may be sued for defamation et c. Also you can get in trouble if you attempt to incite a lynch mob or something like that. But that is illegal in US as well AFAIK.

So yeah. The guy kinda missed the mark there.

[–]ScandinavianKing 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here in Norway we recently made blasphemy legal, so yeah.

[–]Simnedi 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

In the Netherlands there's laws against hurting people's feelings intentionally. You could say that openly disagreeing with islam in front of a muslim could fall under that and therefore get you in legal trouble. It wouldn't happen if it's a single case, but a politician that pretty much only advocates against islam has had several lawsuits against him. So far he's won, but only because they had to prove that he wasn't intentionally trying to insult a single person. These law suits were all about islam and not other comments he made.

Personally I think it's quite insane we have a law based around people's feelings. Our conservative party tried to get rid of that law but it got stopped because the opposition said they were afraid it'd allow holocaust denial.

[–]Hamuel 18ポイント19ポイント  (6子コメント)

This is sounds like anti-academic propaganda. Nothing but pointless fear mongering about college campuses.

[–]Warboss17 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

The fact this has as many downvotes as it does, bothers me

[–]whencowsfly 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm so fucking tired of having to be "politically correct" all the time. EVERYTHING people say these days is "offensive". Even while making this comment, I found myself about to say "I'm not racist, but..". I'm expecting a mass of downvotes. Reddit has developed a "politically correct" hivemind over the years.

[–]yaosio 15ポイント16ポイント  (4子コメント)

You have the right to freedom of speech as long as everybody agrees with you.

[–]silfo80 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

You have the right to freedom of speech but if I disagree with you I will use my freedom of speech. And then you can use yours again.

[–]lasershow15 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hold on there, silfo, you might be on to something!

[–]gnit2 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Its gonna be 1984 as hell in a few years.

[–]exploderator 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I already was 1984 as hell for the last few decades. We're verging on it being 19842 as hell.

[–]work_reddit_fun 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

This argument can be extended to those offended by those being offended. Yeah, you have the right to say whatever edgy shit you think makes you so cool. People also have a right to criticize it. Freedom of speech does't mean freedom from offended people.

[–]Cybrwolf 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Exactly! Except I welcome the chance to actually be offended, and I will always die to protect your right to possibly offend me!

Like if you were to say "I just fucked your mother, with a garden hose!" That may, or may not piss me off, but my choices should always be: 1. ignore your ignorant ass, or 2. say something back.

But never, NEVER should I try to shut you up!!!

[–]NeverEnufWTF 10ポイント11ポイント  (14子コメント)

Oh, that's from Prager "University". A website. Not an actual university. Started by a conservative radio host.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

[–]hawkens85 12ポイント13ポイント  (37子コメント)

Relevant article about Washington State where professors threaten bad grades and failing classes if students use banned words, such as "illegal alien," "male," or "female."

[–]sh33pUK 23ポイント24ポイント  (6子コメント)

ya idk about you but i don't think an article by a guy who's self-description is that he "exposes liberal bias" on a website that's apparently owned by an organisation that trains "conservative activists" is exactly a reasonable source.

[–]hawkens85 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

Thank you for attempting to discredit the source. Unfortunately, the syllabus for both classes are in the article, so I guess you can't discredit the source, since the source is quoting straight from the horse's mouth.

[–]sh33pUK 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

nah see now here's the thing right before i posted i also read the syllabuses just to see how far reacher mc reachyson was reaching with this shit

so here's the bit in question from the first syllabus since i CANT Be FUCked to go through the others

Gross generalizations, stereotypes, and derogatory /oppressive language are not acceptable. Use of racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, classist, or generally offensive language in class or submission of such mate rial will not be tolerated. (This include s “The Man,” “Colored People,” “Illegals/Illegal Aliens,” “Tranny” and so on or referring to women/men as females or males) If I see it or hear it, I will correct it in class since it can be a learning moment for many students. Repeated use of oppressive and hateful language will be handled accordingly including but not limited to removal from the class without attendance or participation points, failure of the assignment, and in extreme cases failure for the semester.

so straight off the bat the words 'male' and 'female' aren't banned, just using the words 'males' and 'females', probably because that's textbook PUA ways of referring to people without really acknowledging that they're actual people. if this were a biology class or something that'd probably be cool because you'd be talking about meat machines or something but in a class called "Women and Popular Culture" it's generally pretty backwards to try to use language that just abstracts the fact ur talking bout people.

next bit that's useful to talk about is that if you use the language like that you don't magically lose all your marks

If I see it or hear it, I will correct it in class since it can be a learning moment for many students.

that seems reasonable enough right? it's a sociology class (i assume who cares about this soft shit) so within sociology there are terms to refer to groups, and if you keep using incorrect terms you're going to get penalised

idk doesnt seem that unresonable to me

edit: o and if u want to talk about he illegal aliencs thing it's explained in one of the other syllabuses as

Not “illegal alien” or “illegals” but “undocumented” migrants/immigrants/persons. Note that the Associated Press (AP) has determined not to use it:The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term “illegal immigrant” or the use of “illegal” to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that “illegal” should describe only an action, such as living in or mmigrating to a country illegally. ’

[–]MotieMediator 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

First of all, in what world is "females or males" considered "offensive language"?

Second, did you keep reading?

Repeated use of oppressive and hateful language will be handled accordingly including but not limited to removal from the class without attendance or participation points, failure of the assignment, and in extreme cases failure for the semester.

How reasonable that is really depends on what she considers "oppressive or hateful" language. If she's including males or females, and there's no reason to say she's not since they were explicitly mentioned in the same paragraph, that's pretty insane.

[–]Calamity701 4ポイント5ポイント  (7子コメント)

"male," or "female."

What would the PC words be?

[–]Bananananana_Batman 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

People, person, individual or asshat.

[–]Calamity701 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

So there is no "male privilege" because the word is not PC?

Checkmate, tumlrists.

[–]YouTwistedWords 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Men and Women. Or if there's a wider age range, Boys and Girls.

I find it exceptionally hard to believe that you didn't know that.

[–]Calamity701 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Okay. Tbh, I thought they would have banned them too because they imply that men and women are not the same.

(Slightly joking, although some things I hear about political correctness in the US sounds like satire)

[–]olivicmic 3ポイント4ポイント  (21子コメント)

Oh this bullshit again. 2 teachers at one school, in "social science" type classes, and one of the 2 syllabi references the Asscoiated Press style guide's rules on using "illegal immigrants". And isn't the whole idea of going out of your intellectual comfort zones is learning under teachers who are expressing views different than your own?

[–]hawkens85 1ポイント2ポイント  (20子コメント)

Three teachers are named specifically. If I pay money for higher education, I would hope I wouldn't be failed for having an opinion that differs from the teacher.

[–]olivicmic 1ポイント2ポイント  (18子コメント)

Then don't register the class? Or don't go into Women's Studies? This doesn't seem like anyone is being forced or ripped off at all.

[–]hawkens85 5ポイント6ポイント  (17子コメント)

Granted, avoidance is a solution, but why should anyone be punished for thinking differently? Teachers should encourage students to learn different ideologies, not punish them for failing to adopt them as their own.

[–]MeEvilBob 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

So this is the liberal equivalent to those who feel that it's a violation of their rights to allow gays to marry.

A wise Redditor once said "If you don't believe in freedom of speech for those you disagree with, then you just plain don't believe in freedom of speech".

[–]BU_BA 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

ah shit the the tumblr machine is about to get cranked up

[–]lordcris 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

[Trigger warning] This isn't a video from MSNBC or Jon Stewart. Don't watch it.

[–]Cytokine-Storm 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

Tyrannical PC millennials and their authoritarian professor overlords...

[–]landsharkxx 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Colleges probably get their policies from Reddit.

[–]UseYourInternetVoice 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ultimately what the issue comes down to is this.

A group of humans are too intellectually weak to defend their own platforms and ideas in an actual way. Instead of having the willingness to do that, they censor ideas for threats of having you fired or the similar.

Here's the deal. People who are wrong censor the counterpoints. If I am correct in everything I have to say then that means I don't have to censor you.

  • Oh you believe that? Here's why you're incorrect....

  • Oh you don't vaccinate? Here's why that's dangerous....

  • Oh you don't believe in global warming? Well that's strange considering....

The current generation of humans is the lazies to have ever been groomed. We are people who want instant satisfaction in all things and take no pride in the work which goes along with the payoff. Intellect requires work. Everyone wants to feel smart and no one wants to put in the reading and the memorization. If you are too lazy to be intelligent...there's a word for that.

The ancient Greek Philosophers were the masters at this shit because they didn't stop a person from talking. Their method of disproving someone was to keep them talking until their thought processes circled back and didn't make sense anymore.

I want a society of stone temples of thought and reason where people stand and argue their ideas intellectually. The majority want a world where they can hit a block button and hide from the challenges of who you are as a person.

If you believe in censoring ideas rather than proving an idea to be wrong, you are an intellectually weak individual who doesn't genuinely value the dance of human reason. You are a psuedointellectual who writes and reads opinion pieces and never actually does the hard work of making yourself smarter/better.

"Someone think for me" is the motto of this generation. Because all we do is parrot the things other smart people say.

[–]inexplorata 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Reddit, where we love free speech until it makes us late for work.

[–]kroodos 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Sweden has become a PC HELL

[–]Orc_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I study in Norway and lost like a third of my friends for criticizing muslims, I just asked why were they fine allowing so many of them in if their influx was nearly parallel to crime increases...

[–]kroodos 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

well there has to be a point when you just stop caring about politics religion and culture.

[–]Gothars 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Since this "hateful" stamp was over Germany, I just want to mention that laws against hatespeech are nothing new in Germany. They go back into the 17th century and are specficially targeted against provocation of violence. I see no relation between them and this new "political correctness" bullshit.

[–]tehfly 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm pretty sure he defined "trigger warning" wrongly and that it's related to trauma, not "bad feelings".

[–]Laser_Disc_Hot_Dish 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm so fucking triggered!

[–]XFX_Samsung 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Man America is so fucked. Bunch of whiny twats being raised and first ones are alrdy starting to exit the college.

[–]Savvy_One 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

sigh I fucking hate people. These extremists are "triggering" me - can we make them shut up or go into the "I am a bitch" zone?

[–]lordcris 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Liberals are so anti-freedom, they are even against this video. This proves exactly their point.

[–]ISiupick 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

Political corectness is such bullshit. People act "offended" more and more by the dumbest things and it looks like they want to have reasons to complain and "protest" about. Fuck you and your trigger warnings, if you're such a bitch that you flip out when somebody says something you dont agree with or does not land perfectly with your point of view than stay home and don't listen to anyone.

[–]notjawn 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Really reddit start banning all the prager/FIRE propaganda or move it to /r/politics The people that are gung ho about them rarely do the research or look at policy to determine whether the statements they claim are facts and then just spit vitriol at anyone who disagrees and show them where the claims they make simply aren't true or have been manipulated to prove a point.

[–]Monagan -1ポイント0ポイント  (29子コメント)

I largely agree with the points made in the video about the necessity of enforcing the right to free speech instead of the right to not be offended, but I also believe that there should be some restrictions on free speech to prevent incitement of violence and other dangerous forms of speech. Also keep in mind that this video comes from Prager University, who also have videos on why 0$ is the right minimum wage and why we should love fossil fuels - not that that means this video is wrong, just that you should always keep in mind who is speaking to you.

[–]PleasantConversation 19ポイント20ポイント  (12子コメント)

restrictions on free speech to prevent incitement of violence

Yelling "fire" in a movie theater is one thing. But too often people talk about free speech restrictions in the abstract. In my opinion, allowing a bigot to hand out fliers is less dangerous than giving the government the ability to control what people can and cannot say, then hoping they don't use it to their advantage.

[–]Monagan 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Allowing a bigot hand out fliers is perfectly fine unless those fliers say "by the way the people who I find inferior are gathering later tonight at the following location and you definitely should grab some heavy or sharp utensils and get to work on that". There is a difference between saying something others find reprehensible and inciting violence against a group of people.

[–]_rough23 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It should not surprise you that an organization that cares a lot about freedom of speech is also libertarianish.

Nothing said in this video is unreliable because of that. As far as freedom of speech goes, plenty of other organizations that fight exclusively for speech rights could have produced the same video verbatim.

[–]r_e_k_r_u_l 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

People need to buy and read Greg Lukianoff's books