Hate speech fosters a hostile work environment and infringes on the rights of others to find their bliss.

Seriously, in all the "real" companies I have worked for (Symbol Technologies, Honeywell, IBM, etc.) we all take mandatory courses to avoid engendering a hostile work environment.

Sadly, it doesn't work. Because people are jerks.

Oh, totally, I just meant in out in random society. If your organization can be described as "having a job to do" then it shouldn't involve people who undermine it as a matter of tolerance.

After the Tay AI thing, I don't even have robot overlords to look forward to anymore. Now our only solace is an ELE.

Make sure to figure out what team the guy's on, and not whether his points are valid, m'kay?

Then when I hear some conservative automaton complaining about "leftwing crybaby talking points" I'll be sure to remind him that he can dismiss that out of hand because it's the other team, too.

It's something you and he can agree on.

10 Identify team
20 If own team, accept all ideas, goto 100
30 If other team, reject all ideas, goto 100
40 If neither team, define as other team, goto 100
50 print "hello, world"
100 fuck yourself

Not to hijack the thread, but...

10 Identify team
20 If own team, accept all ideas, goto 100
30 If other team, reject all ideas, goto 100
40 If neither team, define as other team, goto 100
50 print "hello, world"
100 fuck yourself

Meets the criteria of an actual dharma teaching. You know, for nerds, but still. Lines 10-40 define the human dualistic illusion of reality (samsara) and it's consequence in line 100 (suffering), while a negation of them allows one to reach line 50, the universe without mental bias (nirvana).

Sorry, carry on, dharmas popping up in writing is a hobby of mine, I look for them.

I don't know if I know dharma from shawarma, but line 50 being "how do I get here?" was meant to be part of the joke, yeah.

* "According to a study by my organization..."

pinocchiofacedowninapuddle.gif

yeah, that could be bullshit
or it may be legit
have you seen the study, etc?

Where's the study saying that you should be protected from ideas you don't like, because it's good for you to live in a political echo chamber??

Might rightwing crybaby talking points have at least some valid moorings of consequence? Or is it all just thrown out the window because of who spouts it?

'The Nazis had -some- good ideas'

Godwin's Law, and so quickly too.

Also stop pretending like you're not salivating about the thought of sucking this guy off because almost everything he says makes you rock hard.

Tired of you little semi-fascists acting like you're moderate just so the internet doesn't dogpile on you.

SolRo, you're making me intellectually uncomfortable. Please flag your responses with the appropriate trigger warnings and be considerate of the sensitivities of others.

According to a study by my organization, you have to be really goddamn self-entitled to think that someone choosing not to listen to you is the same as them restricting your right to speak.

You can talk all you goddamn want. No one is stopping you, or Condi Rice, from doing so. But the Condi example a perfect illustration of these people's ridiculous misunderstanding of what "Free Speech" is.

The Constitution does not require colleges to herd hundreds of uninterested students into an auditorium to hear someone drone on for ninety minutes about what a great idea the Iraq War was. Colleges are free to invite -or disinvite- anyone they damn well please. That is an exercise of THEIR free speech. And students are free to vocally object to any action their college takes; like, for example, if the school wants to give thousands of dollars of their tuition money to one of the most incompetent public officials of the last 50 years so she can run her mouth about how an August 2001 memo titled "Bin Laudin Determined to Attack in US" was not worth the trouble of reading. Objecting to that is an exercise of THE STUDENTS' free speech.

So what FIRE guy really wants is for the school, and the students, to have their speech silenced so that a person whose speech isn't being threatened in the least gets to blather at them. His idea of "speech being threatened" is really just the propagation of ideas other than his own. And he can't stand that, especially since it's clear that, at least among younger people, his ideas are fucking losing.

Sorry I didn't wrap all that up in a cutesy computer coding joke. If this were a Usenet board circa 1998 that would have been a real faux pas.

You might have a point if the colleges weren't accepting public money and weren't censoring the speech of students and speakers invited by students.

The term is "newsgroup" you insensitive cad.

Xeno, I might buy that if we were debating it as only a 1st amendment issue and not the destruction of one of the most important points of universities.

SolRo never ceases to amaze me, however, with his 0 shades of gray.

The most important point of universities is to force students to listen to right wing propaganda and washed up shock comedians?

.....or that everyone should engage with ideas that are challenging to them, without dismissing them out of hand due to knee-jerk reactions.

You over-simplify the fuck out of everything.

What happened to you? Did you spend a minute or two at the bottom of a pool as a toddler?

"You might have a point if the colleges weren't accepting public money and weren't censoring the speech of students and speakers invited by students."

So this new requirement you just invented that universities must allow all speakers to speak, without students being permitted even to protest ... please tell me how that can possibly work on any practical scale.

Nobody said anything about not letting students protest things they don't like, and nobody said colleges should allow anyone who wants to speak.

What I'm saying is that otherwise completely mundane discussions in institutions of higher learning being silenced to protect the unreasonable sensibilities of a few special snowflakes is kind of fucking sad.

Nobody is going to be forcing people to do anything except being at a school where someone they might not like is allowed to speak.

I have a radical challenging idea...how about you list the challenging ideas you think all college students should/will be exposed to if douchebags like these and you get their way?

I'll help you out by starting it, feel free to add;

- Fags are evil and will burn in hell
- Abortion is evil in any situation and rape victims are to blame
- Guns solve all problems and drunken college students should be allowed to conceal carry
- Trans people are sex criminals and should be beaten to death if they even look at the wrong bathroom
- There're no rape problems on college campuses, just a bunch of sluts changing their mind
- American #1, STOP CRITICIZING AMERICA!!!!

forgot;

- Israel can do no wrong, any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic

Why, asshole?
Will you change your mind if I drag out a bunch of examples?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS6IA93o79s

-Rhetoric is irrelevant and only stupid people use it.
-The more emotional the speaker, the less likely they are sane.
-Authority amplifies idiocy.
-Rhetoric when amplified by emotional authority allows one to control the stupid.

There's all sorts of shit you can learn by exposing yourself to awful people and the ways of awful people, which is why the government hides as much as possible.

Idea != (black || white)
Fclose(reasoning.exe);
Fopen(meinkempf, r);
Run retard.exe;

I shouldn't use retard as a pejorative or mince my words....

Soiro.exe

SolRo, stop making false correlations polarizing everything.

I am pro-choice. In favor of gay and trans rights. In favor of drug legalization. In favor of stricter gun control. For universal healthcare and education. For the right to unionize and greater labor rights. For the protection of immigrants and refugees. Aware of Israel's abuses of Palestinian citizens.

Still, I agree with virtually everything stated in this video. Your inane insistence on correlating anyone who has even the slightest concern regarding how easily any dissenting opinion can be silenced in certain liberal forums (such as Universities) with a Neo-Fascist intent on repressing "the wimmin and the coloured folks" is fucking stupid.

And Xenocide, I am half European/half Latin American. I live in Central America.

While I believe islamophobia is a knee-jerk reaction to a more complex problem, in Europe, it is, at the very least, a very real concern that needs to be understood and addressed properly when you have situations like the mass-harassment of women in Germany and serial rapes in Norway, without even mentioning the terrorist attacks. It's not something to be dismissed as it will only fester and grow into radical fascism.

ISIS is doing everything they can to incite said Islamophobia so that refugees will get treated like shit, further fanning the flames that gets them new recruits and support. Every refugee that finds a new home and adapts into a Western society is a failure for the Islamic State. This is something that needs to be understood by those who fear Islam and the refugees, but mocking their concerns does nothing to make them understand the issue further.

STRAWMAN STRAWMAN etc etc

Only one cunt? You lightweight.

I just blacked out and woke up having cast a vote for you.

I may be a Manchurian Kentuckian.

they are so evil for forcing you into said safe space...or wait, they aren't doing that.

Hooker's a good cop.

"try to protect other people from hearing ideas"

The original purpose of trigger warnings was to protect people with PTSD (including war veterans) from having traumatic flashbacks. I agree it's been corrupted to mean "warn me about the thing I don't like or have a phobia of or you're a BAD PERSON" but the original intention was good.

1 star for Nikon's self-rating.

I agree with the second paragraph. The first paragraph is kind of irrelevant since we're talking about institutions not individuals. The specific situation of a public university/college putting formal, binding speech guidelines FOR STUDENTS in place is getting in to a pretty ambiguous grey area, though.

On the other hand, university codes of conduct aren't a new thing, they've been around for a long time (and are generally poorly and selectively enforced, and probably don't do much good most of the time).

Personal anecdote: my (large, private) university threatened to kick me out for violating their student code of conduct. My violation was that the apartment below mine, in a privately owned, off campus apartment building, put their garbage out before 5pm on garbage day and got a ticket.Because I lived at the same street address (in a different unit, but the tickets don't specify unit of course) the university considered it criminal activity, and grounds for expulsion. I responded by completely ignoring them and after a couple of mailed warnings they dropped it and I graduated a couple years later with no issue.


Anyway, my issue with speech codes and things isn't about censorship o much as it's about them being like TSA checkpoints - a hassle for everyone involved that accomplishes essentially nothing other than giving the administration (or government, in the TSA case) something to point at to say they did their part so don't blame them. It's also an easy band-aid solution to a few symptoms of much bigger social issues.

JHM! Glad to see you dawg.

Time Warner blocked because it contains triggers.