Tennessee Free Speech Bill Signed Into Law

[sarahtasher]

Ah yes, liberals have a patent on the secrets to the universe. Makes you wonder why they are so afraid of debating in a controlled environment. If you have absolute truth... a debate should be pretty easy.

No the only way liberals can accomplish their goals is by demonizing everything right of center. By making demons out of all conservatives you are no longer obligated to engage the opposition. Because how could a demon have anything reasonable to say?

Honestly if you subscribe to propaganda and the rhetoric of either side and buy into the stereotypes that liberals care about people and conservatives only care about money you have zero place in any sort of political discussion.

Debate with Milo or with creationnists is an useless exercice. Their fans are persuaded that ''YOU ARE A CUCK'' is a rock solid argument.

[Draco-Onis]

Ah yes, liberals have a patent on the secrets to the universe. Makes you wonder why they are so afraid of debating in a controlled environment. If you have absolute truth... a debate should be pretty easy.

Debating nonsense only gives them a platform and venue, ever try to debate a flat earther? or someone who believes in lizard men? debating people who don't believe in facts and reality is a waste of time. It is important though to say that while these alt right people are the loudest they thankfully do not represent the majority of conservatives.

[I Push Buttons]

Looking forward to the shit fit people throw when the local chapter of "Kill all Niggers" shows up at the university and demands a venue where they spew racism about blacks and burn and lynch effigies of black people, and the school has to let them have a rally, despite everyone on the planet with a brain realizing they should be told where to shove their hate speech.

I don't think anyone believes those kinds of people should have a platform at universities.

The problem is the fringe left portrays EVERYONE who disagrees with them on any particular topic of being those kinds of people in an effort to de-platform them.

For example, I often argue against open borders... Instantly fringe leftists on here start accusing me of being an alt-right, neo Nazi, white supremacist, etc... Ignoring that I argue against open borders because I simultaneously argue in favor of an extremely robust welfare state and universal basic income, two things that are untenable with the free flow of unskilled immigrants from less developed countries.

[A dot Ham]

Debating nonsense only gives them a platform and venue, ever try to debate a flat earther? or someone who believes in lizard men? debating people who don't believe in facts and reality is a waste of time. It is important though to say that while these alt right people are the loudest they thankfully do not represent the majority of conservatives.

Except that in an effort to "not debate with alt right" the discussion with all conservatives has also been shut down. The fact that they don't represent you/us is irrelevant.

Debating things like the wage gap for example... oh yeah they fucking hate women. No no they don't.

Where does the wage gap exist? Do teachers have a wage gap? Does anyone who works with unions knowingly experience a wage gap or know of one? No. Because people (normal people) don't stand for that shit. I don't know a single self respecting women that would keep working her job knowing that a male coworker was making more than them, simply because they had a penis.

But we accept this as truth. Liberals certainly do. So why do we accept information we know not to be true. Statistics, and the false representation of statistics. The wage gap actually DOES exist. In the top 1% of Americans. Those making upwards of $200,000 a year or more (which is why they can skew statistics because the bulk of the money is in that 1%, and pretty much only in the private sector (because we have laws against that shit). So then why the fuck do 99% of Americans care about the goddamn wage gap when it doesn't effect them?

But you don't want to have conversations with people that think that way because... I mean clearly anyone who questions "the wage gap" hates women, probably hates blacks too, and if thats true you're probably white and male... and we can't have that.

You know where racism ACTUALLY exists. In other races. As a white male from California I have NEVER heard someone in my circles say or do anything remotely racist toward another person because they weren't white. I do know that our accounts payable (Mexican) has been disowned by her entire family because she married a black man. I went to schools that were probably 60% asian. While I was allowed to be friends with them, I can tell you that if any of my female friends wanted to date someone who wasn't ALSO asian... their parents cut them off financially and forced them out of that relationship. But that's not racism... that's just a cultural thing right?

But the great white male... he's the real devil... and he's always conservative.

[Draco-Onis]

Except that in an effort to "not debate with alt right" the discussion with all conservatives has also been shut down. The fact that they don't represent you/us is irrelevant.

I think this thread is very wrong because universities don't ban the alt right they actually do invite them. The problem is names like Milo bring a circus with them and the universities simply do not have the resources to cover an event like that especially when they make no money out of it. There are also no conservatives to debate the alt right has sucked the oxygen out of the room and traditional conservatives seem to have gone underground.

[Tinykong]

I don't think anyone believes those kinds of people should have a platform at universities.

Under this law, they will, and the university will lose funding if they refuse to host them.

[A dot Ham]

I think this thread is very wrong because universities don't ban the alt right they actually do invite them. The problem is names like Milo bring a circus with them and the universities simply do not have the resources to cover an event like that especially when they make no money out of it. There are also no conservatives to debate the alt right has sucked the oxygen out of the room and traditional conservatives seem to have gone underground.

When/where? Please cite. Because in the last what 2-3 years that this issue has really come to light... the only reason universities have to spend resources is because of those who actually show up in protest... and not those actually attending/speaking at the event.

[Draco-Onis]

When/where? Please cite. Because in the last what 2-3 years that this issue has really come to light... the only reason universities have to spend resources is because of those who actually show up in protest... and not those actually attending/speaking at the event.

You have only heard about it because those names do bring circus, headlines and attention. The universities have to hire security, barricade for these big names and it is simply not worth it. In some cases like David Horowitz they take out ads for the purpose of raising a ruckus. People overlook things like the security cost for Ben Shappiro speaking at 600K, some names like Milos can cost upward to 1 million dollars. There is zero reason for a college to shell out that kind of money from an event where they make nothing.

[A dot Ham]

You have only heard about it because those names do bring circus, headlines and attention. The universities have to hire security, barricade for these big names and it is simply not worth it. In some cases like David Horowitz they take out ads for the purpose of raising a ruckus. People overlook things like the security cost for Ben Shappiro speaking at 600K, some names like Milos can cost upward to 1 million dollars. There is zero reason for a college to shell out that kind of money from an event where they make nothing.

But again... that comes because of the liberal protesters.

A simple solution is make any speaker liberal or conservative pay for that, and have a minimum standard of security for ANY event.

Because if you had Obama, or Hilary show up for such an event... would anyone care about the costs then? Probably not.

The cost of security is constant and shouldn't matter where the speaker lands on the political spectrum.

[Draco-Onis]

But again... that comes because of the liberal protesters.

A simple solution is make any speaker liberal or conservative pay for that, and have a minimum standard of security for ANY event.

Because if you had Obama, or Hilary show up for such an event... would anyone care about the costs then? Probably not.

The cost of security is constant and shouldn't matter where the speaker lands on the political spectrum.

The cost of security is not a constant thing non controversial speakers do not require extra security aside from what they already have on hand. And it's not just liberal protesters their supporters also come to counter protest that is why there is a conflict. Obama, Hillary, Paul Ryan or any congressmen and head of state is worth the money because of their positions. Would you say a Milos has the same value as Obama speaking? Also these people come with secret service protection which lowers their cost.

[A dot Ham]

The cost of security is not a constant thing non controversial speakers do not require extra security aside from what they already have on hand. And it's not just liberal protesters their supporters also come to counter protest that is why there is a conflict. Obama, Hillary, Paul Ryan or any congressmen and head of state is worth the money because of their positions. Would you say a Milos has the same value as Obama speaking? Also these people come with secret service protection which lowers their cost.

That's why you establish a minimum standard. A worst case scenario. Then the cost is the same and we don't have this discussion about who you are or aren't discriminating against. Needed or not there will be... 200 officers on sight... or whatever.

[Draco-Onis]

That's why you establish a minimum standard. A worst case scenario. Then the cost is the same and we don't have this discussion about who you are or aren't discriminating against. Needed or not there will be... 200 officers on sight... or whatever.

I think I will have to agree with you the simple solution is that the speaker covers the costs or alternatively that they charge for these events to cover it.

[Katchii]

I'm not too familiar with US universities and have not read the exact specifics of the bill, but I don't believe universities (even those publicly funded) should be forced to give a platform to anyone. I work as a researcher in an Australian university and we certainly, to some degree, vet the people that come to speak.

Not all views and positions deserve a platform for debate. If someone wanted to come to a uni to talk to students about how vaccines cause autism, the university should not be forced to provide a platform for the dissemination of false (and potentially dangerous) information. Same situation for flat earth theory and a bunch of other views. Speaking at a university provides a certain degree of credibility for the speaker, and as such, the university should have some discretion in choosing appropriate speakers.

Agreed, 100000%

However, it can get pretty dicey regarding what subject matter and, by extension, which speakers are "good enough" to speak at the college. The issue we have now is ensuring that the criteria used to vet speakers for speaking at the university is transparent and not at all unfair or biased...which is going to be a challenge considering there are SO many people who cry offense at everything, and nothing, at universities now.

[Daelak]

Doesn't make them wrong.

It is objectively wrong. Immigration, broadly, whether undocumented or otherwise, is an immense competitive advantage we hold over the rest of the world. We should be coming up with more ways to get people in the country, because it makes up more productive, makes us more adaptable to change, and creates a system that drains talent away from other countries.

Public schooling and welfare are of the same vein. Having a robust, competitive schooling system will enable us to be the global hegemon into the 21st century, creating an atmosphere where the most productive, intelligent, successful people will want to live. Any other solution that seeks to curtail any of those programs, will only make us lose ground to rising democracies.

[Katchii]

That's why you establish a minimum standard. A worst case scenario. Then the cost is the same and we don't have this discussion about who you are or aren't discriminating against. Needed or not there will be... 200 officers on sight... or whatever.

While it evens the playing field, it seems completely unreasonable for some speakers or events where very minimal security would be required. It just raises the bar/ cost to levels that may eliminate some speakers from ever being able to come speak since they would certainly not be worth the additional cost.

There should definitely be a standard cost, but setting it at the worst case seems like overkill.

[Daelak]

Ah yes, liberals have a patent on the secrets to the universe. Makes you wonder why they are so afraid of debating in a controlled environment. If you have absolute truth... a debate should be pretty easy.

No the only way liberals can accomplish their goals is by demonizing everything right of center. By making demons out of all conservatives you are no longer obligated to engage the opposition. Because how could a demon have anything reasonable to say?

Honestly if you subscribe to propaganda and the rhetoric of either side and buy into the stereotypes that liberals care about people and conservatives only care about money you have zero place in any sort of political discussion.

Which is why you have to resort to hyperbole, like the most well-known of conservative speakers and influencers. There is no fear, because the objective reality is always there, staring you in the face. Look at Piketty's book for an in-depth, objective analysis of how the global modern economy and it's inexorable relationship with governments, and the most optimal way of empowering both public and private sectors. Look at the entire works of climate change, renewable energy, bio-tech. Look at where the most productive, wealthy, and highest quality of life places are in the world.

There are no demons. Conservatives have to deflect, discredit with no sourcing, and create their own worlds (see the advent of conservative think tanks in the 1950's and 60's to see where your ideology was borne from) to try to compete against objective reality.

[Katchii]

Which is why you have to resort to hyperbole, like the most well-known of conservative speakers and influencers. There is no fear, because the objective reality is always there, staring you in the face. Look at Piketty's book for an in-depth, objective analysis of how the global modern economy and it's inexorable relationship with governments, and the most optimal way of empowering both public and private sectors. Look at the entire works of climate change, renewable energy, bio-tech. Look at where the most productive, wealthy, and highest quality of life places are in the world.

There are no demons. Conservatives have to deflect, discredit with no sourcing, and create their own worlds (see the advent of conservative think tanks in the 1950's and 60's to see where your ideology was borne from) to try to compete against objective reality.

Just to put it out there, the vast majority don't give a shit about what some book says about what's going on in the real world or what the actual objective reality actually is. Our current president didn't get elected because of well educated people who understood the objective analysis of how the global modern economy relates to the government and the optimal ways to empower both the public and private sectors....he got elected by being an outspoken rich asshole who was opposing someone that wasn't very well liked to begin with and had already been in government and he villainized her in the eyes of the uneducated masses that voted for him.

So what you're saying is true, it seems conservatives have to make up stuff....and it apparently, and sadly, works because the masses are idiots.

[timberx]

Given the rest of his production, no, it wasn't.

It's right in your link.

The Christmas tweet was meant to be satirical, as white genocide is an “imaginary concept” used by the far right to scare white people, Ciccariello-Maher said.

[NineSpine]

Appealing to authority is valid when the authority is actually a legitimate (debatable) authority on the facts of the argument.

This is true.

You presenting yourself as that authority is not a legitimate authority.

This is false. The idea that an authority is not allowed to present themselves as an authority is absurd.

So if you're willing to post personal information to actually verify you are who you claim to be. We could actually establish your authority.

My claim is not incredible. It is that I went to school and participated in organizations that requested speakers. You are acting like I am claiming to have been present for the Kennedy assassination. No personal information I could possibly post would verify something so banal as being in organizations in college.

Except that I have presented equally shaky information (which could be verified if I supplied personal information) establishing myself as a counter authority to your own.

You haven't really established what you take issue with that I stated, so this is really a moot point, and below you admit that these decisions are made in private by administration, which is the whole thing I was claiming with my authority. What does this tell us? That all your boring crying about my authority was meaningless sophistry.

[QUPTE]Which is why I tried to redirect your comments to something worth debating (which you weren't having). The issue isn't about the bureaucracy (which if you are who you say you are , and I am who I say I am, we are both slaves to). But what happens behind closed doors. Which neither of us is really privy to. What we are privy to is the type of speaker(s) that actually do get approved and allowed to speak. From my perspective those are overwhelmingly liberal, and those that get denied are overwhelmingly conservative.[/QUOTE]

Actually, this isn't the issue. All of the situations you are crying about are when conservative speakers are de-platformed AFTER being approved by the administration of the school. If you have evidence that conservative speakers are being discriminated against by school administrations, present it, because "The administration allowed them but then were forced to rescind after massive protest by students" doesn't prove that claim at all. It in fact relies on that claim being wrong.

Your question:



Is meant to establish that the speaking event is a privilege not a right. To which I would respond with (given the obvious discrimination against conservative speakers) why is that a privilege only extended to liberal speakers?

Prove that it is.

All of that is irrelevant because the reasoning behind your question is flawed from the beginning. As a publicly funded institution there are funds allocated and budgeted for public speaking events. Security and other costs not related to the direct payment of the individual doing the actual speaking. These are costs the public institution willing and knowingly accepts. The issue I keep circling back to is who determines what is or isn't allowed or rather what content is or is not allowed. We both agree that takes place behind closed doors and isn't up for debate.

The administration makes that determination based on what has academic value. You keep insisting that this determination be made based on political alignment instead, essentially calling for the school to ignore academic value and instead base it on having equal time for specific political ideas. That's basically political correctness.

What does the constitution say about free speech?



Now I hope I don't need to break down the connection between a public university and congress to you, but suffice to say they are an extension of that and are (well established) bound by the constitution.

Whether it is a written policy that universities do not allow conservative guests, or a written policy/bylaw that gives authority to a specific person and their judgement Dean, President, Provost... etc. If they are discriminating they are breaking the law... plain and simple.

You still haven't demonstrated actual discrimination by the administration. You keep pretending that a paid platform at a university is analogous to a sidewalk or a public park. It isn't. The fact that the university is public does not mean that anyone is entitled to a paid speaking engagement. I already covered this, and you notably DID NOT address my argument: University speaking engagements are held for academic value, exactly like courses are provided. By your logic, since the school is public, they need to allow anyone who wants to teach a course to do so, using school resources, or else their freedom of speech is being violated.

[sarahtasher]

I still have to know what kind of value brings Milo-the-Troll to any value. I know that LULZ HE TRIGGARZ LIBURALS is a virtue in itself for some people, but amazingly enough ''squeak that people are CUCKS'' is on pair with ''your mom jokes'' as education go.