POLL: Is this in the best interests of our young people, or is it not?

[Coyote]

The dumbest thing about this discussion is that the OP thinks progressives don't want young people to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints.

Basically, young people at institutions of higher learning have made it known that they don't want to be associated with opportunistic charlatans like Ann Coulter.

They aren't afraid to hear what she says. They just don't want their institutions to lend credibility to it.

Get it? Will you ever get it?

That's a valid point. I'm not sure if I would put Coulter in that category...I can't stand her but she's not a total whacko.

In terms of diversity of opinion on college campus' - do you draw the line anywhere and...by what criteria?

For example - should we have speakers who...
Advocate for reducing the age of marriage and legalizing adult child relationships?
Neo Nazi's and White Supremicists?
Holocaust deniers?

It's true that giving them a platform legitimizes their message. But - if you're using that as a means of shutting down opposing opinions - then what? Is that what we want?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, great. Are you saying that no speakers should be allowed on campus?
.

He is saying only speakers whom he agrees with should be allowed to speak. Anywhere.

What happened to your love of the free market?

You should put the syringe down. You don't seem to understand what is going on around you.

What right do you have to be a paid speaker on a college campus?

Elaborate your answer.

As a College that accepts funding from the government, it becomes an extension of the government. By restricting or forbidden any speech they (or the students) disagree with, they are the government violating the Constitution.

Now, if you were even a modicum as smart as you think you are, you'd know that the Constitution protects us from the government violating our rights.

You're all for that, as long as it is speech you disagree with, correct.

There is no right to be hired to perform a speech.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The dumbest thing about this discussion is that the OP thinks progressives don't want young people to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints.

Basically, young people at institutions of higher learning have made it known that they don't want to be associated with opportunistic charlatans like Ann Coulter.

They aren't afraid to hear what she says. They just don't want to their institutions to lend credibility to it.

Get it? Will you ever get it?

So you disagree with my OP.

Thanks.

And of COURSE you Regressives "don't want young people to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints" if you don't like those viewpoints. You're liars and cowards.

I appreciate the input.
.

I think of our difference as more of how we define "young people". I associated the term primarily with grammar school youngsters and beginning high school students. I then associate young adults as more mature high school juniors and seniors and college age people.

No, I mean college-age kids, people who have reached a point of development at which they can make reasonably mature analyses and judgements.

Yeah, I wouldn't see much positive value in this for younger kids, although obviously everyone is different.
.

what's the value of a bigot like Ann Coulter speaking at Berkeley? Do you think that it's valuable to society if in some way some otherwise unbigoted student adopt her bigotry?

Kinda balances the political bigotry of the faculty -- dontchathink? If she's WRONG -- faculty/newspaper has a field day correcting her. If she's RIGHT ---- well THAT'S the paranoia aspect of all this. Why let Nazis march and speak if you're AFRAID they MIGHT be right? It's simply getting a MONOPOLY on political angles and thought. And the faculty HATES any "competition" or dissent.

You've got no reason NOT to hear it.. UNLESS --- you're paranoid and insecure in your beliefs. QED.

Ask a Conservative/Libertarian/Independent student about the consequences of confronting any of them..

I stand by my sigline.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The dumbest thing about this discussion is that the OP thinks progressives don't want young people to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints.

Basically, young people at institutions of higher learning have made it known that they don't want to be associated with opportunistic charlatans like Ann Coulter.

They aren't afraid to hear what she says. They just don't want to their institutions to lend credibility to it.

Get it? Will you ever get it?

So you disagree with my OP.

Thanks.

And of COURSE you Regressives "don't want young people to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints" if you don't like those viewpoints. You're liars and cowards.

I appreciate the input.
.

I voted yes, fool. I shut down your argument. You don't like it.

If THEY don't want to hear conflicting points of view -- that's their option to exercise. However, it BECOMES a problem when they will not ALLOW views that conflict with theirs to be heard by ANYONE. Essentially, politically polarizing the entire College experience. And it's the FACULTY that aids and abets this protest.

It's not about not wanting to hear it. Why can't you understand English?

 

[LoneLaugher]

The dumbest thing about this discussion is that the OP thinks progressives don't want young people to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints.

Basically, young people at institutions of higher learning have made it known that they don't want to be associated with opportunistic charlatans like Ann Coulter.

They aren't afraid to hear what she says. They just don't want their institutions to lend credibility to it.

Get it? Will you ever get it?

That's a valid point. I'm not sure if I would put Coulter in that category...I can't stand her but she's not a total whacko.

In terms of diversity of opinion on college campus' - do you draw the line anywhere and...by what criteria?

For example - should we have speakers who...
Advocate for reducing the age of marriage and legalizing adult child relationships?
Neo Nazi's and White Supremicists?
Holocaust deniers?

It's true that giving them a platform legitimizes their message. But - if you're using that as a means of shutting down opposing opinions - then what? Is that what we want?

Once again. I don't care if she speaks there or not. I'm not a student at the institution.

She has never been silenced.

And...She is an opportunist and a liar. That's what the issue is.

 

[flacaltenn]

The dumbest thing about this discussion is that the OP thinks progressives don't want young people to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints.

Basically, young people at institutions of higher learning have made it known that they don't want to be associated with opportunistic charlatans like Ann Coulter.

They aren't afraid to hear what she says. They just don't want to their institutions to lend credibility to it.

Get it? Will you ever get it?

So you disagree with my OP.

Thanks.

And of COURSE you Regressives "don't want young people to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints" if you don't like those viewpoints. You're liars and cowards.

I appreciate the input.
.

I voted yes, fool. I shut down your argument. You don't like it.

If THEY don't want to hear conflicting points of view -- that's their option to exercise. However, it BECOMES a problem when they will not ALLOW views that conflict with theirs to be heard by ANYONE. Essentially, politically polarizing the entire College experience. And it's the FACULTY that aids and abets this protest.

It's not about not wanting to hear it. Why can't yu yu understand English?

I told YOU it wasn't about "not wanting to hear it". It's about allowing others the courtesy and the liberty to hear it.

And I told you why. CONFIDENT people -- people trusting in their convictions and truths -- have NO PROBLEM with free speech. The paranoid and insecure -- DO have a problem with allowing others to hear opposing points of view.

 

[Coyote]

Our University had (gag) Milo Y.

He was so rude...and way out, the President and Dean apologized. But not for having it. They specifically said that the institution valued a diversity of opinion. That diversity was in allowing Milo to speak, AND allowing protesters to peacefully protest.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The dumbest thing about this discussion is that the OP thinks progressives don't want young people to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints.

Basically, young people at institutions of higher learning have made it known that they don't want to be associated with opportunistic charlatans like Ann Coulter.

They aren't afraid to hear what she says. They just don't want to their institutions to lend credibility to it.

Get it? Will you ever get it?

So you disagree with my OP.

Thanks.

And of COURSE you Regressives "don't want young people to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints" if you don't like those viewpoints. You're liars and cowards.

I appreciate the input.
.

I voted yes, fool. I shut down your argument. You don't like it.

If THEY don't want to hear conflicting points of view -- that's their option to exercise. However, it BECOMES a problem when they will not ALLOW views that conflict with theirs to be heard by ANYONE. Essentially, politically polarizing the entire College experience. And it's the FACULTY that aids and abets this protest.

It's not about not wanting to hear it. Why can't yu yu understand English?

I told YOU it wasn't about "not wanting to hear it". It's about allowing others the courtesy and the liberty to hear it.

And I told you why. CONFIDENT people -- people trusting in their convictions and truths -- have NO PROBLEM with free speech. The paranoid and insecure -- DO have a problem with allowing others to hear opposing points of view.

Bullshit. They don't want to be associated with her bullshit. They are not afraid of her message.

 

[flacaltenn]

The dumbest thing about this discussion is that the OP thinks progressives don't want young people to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints.

Basically, young people at institutions of higher learning have made it known that they don't want to be associated with opportunistic charlatans like Ann Coulter.

They aren't afraid to hear what she says. They just don't want their institutions to lend credibility to it.

Get it? Will you ever get it?

That's a valid point. I'm not sure if I would put Coulter in that category...I can't stand her but she's not a total whacko.

In terms of diversity of opinion on college campus' - do you draw the line anywhere and...by what criteria?

For example - should we have speakers who...
Advocate for reducing the age of marriage and legalizing adult child relationships?
Neo Nazi's and White Supremicists?
Holocaust deniers?

It's true that giving them a platform legitimizes their message. But - if you're using that as a means of shutting down opposing opinions - then what? Is that what we want?

I don't think giving them a platform "legitimizes their message". Their message needs to stand on its own merits. Maybe you hear them once and can dismiss them. Maybe you can't. Some people just don't want to be tested for their beliefs and convictions.. Others welcome it and encourage it..

 

[WaitingFor2020]

The dumbest thing about this discussion is that the OP thinks progressives don't want young people to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints.

Basically, young people at institutions of higher learning have made it known that they don't want to be associated with opportunistic charlatans like Ann Coulter.

They aren't afraid to hear what she says. They just don't want to their institutions to lend credibility to it.

Get it? Will you ever get it?

So you disagree with my OP.

Thanks.

And of COURSE you Regressives "don't want young people to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints" if you don't like those viewpoints. You're liars and cowards.

I appreciate the input.
.

I think of our difference as more of how we define "young people". I associated the term primarily with grammar school youngsters and beginning high school students. I then associate young adults as more mature high school juniors and seniors and college age people.

No, I mean college-age kids, people who have reached a point of development at which they can make reasonably mature analyses and judgements.

Yeah, I wouldn't see much positive value in this for younger kids, although obviously everyone is different.
.

what's the value of a bigot like Ann Coulter speaking at Berkeley? Do you think that it's valuable to society if in some way some otherwise unbigoted student adopt her bigotry?

The value is in seeing and hearing it for yourself, rather than having someone else filter it for you. I grew up in one of those "wacky", otherwise known as dysfunctional, households. Both of my parents were iconoclastic and thought it was good for me to hear and see something, process it and make up my own mind. They were fearless in the belief that their solid upraising of me and my siblings would prevail in the end and that differing ideas would only make us stronger and better defined. We were made to read three books a week and think. Today there's no thinking, kids live inside their damn iPhones. Ridiculous.

 

[flacaltenn]

So you disagree with my OP.

Thanks.

And of COURSE you Regressives "don't want young people to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints" if you don't like those viewpoints. You're liars and cowards.

I appreciate the input.
.

I voted yes, fool. I shut down your argument. You don't like it.

If THEY don't want to hear conflicting points of view -- that's their option to exercise. However, it BECOMES a problem when they will not ALLOW views that conflict with theirs to be heard by ANYONE. Essentially, politically polarizing the entire College experience. And it's the FACULTY that aids and abets this protest.

It's not about not wanting to hear it. Why can't yu yu understand English?

I told YOU it wasn't about "not wanting to hear it". It's about allowing others the courtesy and the liberty to hear it.

And I told you why. CONFIDENT people -- people trusting in their convictions and truths -- have NO PROBLEM with free speech. The paranoid and insecure -- DO have a problem with allowing others to hear opposing points of view.

Bullshit. They don't want to be associated with her bullshit. They are not afraid of her message.

Allowing others to hear it or not is NOT their call. They can protest from outside the hall. That's not associating themselves with it. OBVIOUSLY, her "message" makes them "uncomfortable". Because their fear has to be that OTHERS might learn something or agree in parts of what she says. Otherwise, there would be no downside. Let the "Illuminati" folks and the Holocaust deniers have their shots. How long does it take you to totally defeat their "message". Aint no sweat off anyone's back to refute and dismiss fuzzy, muddled, or hateful thinking.

If they are so GOOD at their convictions, letting free speech reign would be a WELCOMED thing. Even amusing at times. I think they are fearful, paranoid, and not very well equipped to refute the stuff they fear..

 

[WaitingFor2020]

I voted No. The OP question hit as arguing for argument sake. I think a firm foundation should first be established by parents for young people and save the debate clubs for high school students.

Okay, great. Are you saying that no speakers should be allowed on campus?
.

He is saying only speakers whom he agrees with should be allowed to speak. Anywhere.

Coulter was invited by a Republican group on campus. You probably wouldn't see this sort of controversy on a conservative campus,

because of such as the following:

Liberty U. Drops Democratic Club, Saying Views Conflict With Those of College

Liberty U. Drops Democratic Club, Saying Views Conflict With Those of College

By Anita Kumar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 23, 2009


RICHMOND, May 22 -- Liberty University will no longer recognize its campus Democratic club because, officials say, the national party's platform goes against the conservative Christian school's moral principles.


...and interestingly, you won't the RW bigot OP Mac posting threads about something like the above.

No kidding, perhaps you could also let us know how many of those conservative campuses have had violent protests.

If conservative = religious, a la Liberty University, those poor kids are robots. They were forced to pay a $10 fine for not attending Ted Cruz's campaign launch on their campus in 2015. Unbelievable. Hopefully some of those kids snapped out of it and transferred.

 

[Coyote]

The dumbest thing about this discussion is that the OP thinks progressives don't want young people to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints.

Basically, young people at institutions of higher learning have made it known that they don't want to be associated with opportunistic charlatans like Ann Coulter.

They aren't afraid to hear what she says. They just don't want their institutions to lend credibility to it.

Get it? Will you ever get it?

That's a valid point. I'm not sure if I would put Coulter in that category...I can't stand her but she's not a total whacko.

In terms of diversity of opinion on college campus' - do you draw the line anywhere and...by what criteria?

For example - should we have speakers who...
Advocate for reducing the age of marriage and legalizing adult child relationships?
Neo Nazi's and White Supremicists?
Holocaust deniers?

It's true that giving them a platform legitimizes their message. But - if you're using that as a means of shutting down opposing opinions - then what? Is that what we want?

I don't think giving them "legitimizes their message". Their message needs to stand on its own merits. Maybe you hear them once and can dismiss them. Maybe you can't. Some people just don't want to be tested for their beliefs and convictions.. Others welcome it and encourage it..

I think there is a fine line there.

I was originally going to say: Everyone has an equal platform in the public square. However, giving someone a platform in an institution can legitimize the message.

But then again, my university does just that, and it neither endorse nor discredits it.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

lol, Mac is outraged that some Berkeley students are intolerant of the Queen of Intolerance, Ann Coulter.

Read my sig line.

Oh -- you mean like aiding the Queen of Intolerance and her "basket of deplorables"?? C'mon -- you partisans are hopelessly mired in your own hypocrisies.. BOTH sides...

But the biggest hypocrite of all managed to win the election. (Want to bet that Trump doesn't go to Mar a Lago next weekend to play golf? That's just for starters.)

 

[WaitingFor2020]

The dumbest thing about this discussion is that the OP thinks progressives don't want young people to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints.

Basically, young people at institutions of higher learning have made it known that they don't want to be associated with opportunistic charlatans like Ann Coulter.

They aren't afraid to hear what she says. They just don't want their institutions to lend credibility to it.

Get it? Will you ever get it?

That's a valid point. I'm not sure if I would put Coulter in that category...I can't stand her but she's not a total whacko.

In terms of diversity of opinion on college campus' - do you draw the line anywhere and...by what criteria?

For example - should we have speakers who...
Advocate for reducing the age of marriage and legalizing adult child relationships?
Neo Nazi's and White Supremicists?
Holocaust deniers?

It's true that giving them a platform legitimizes their message. But - if you're using that as a means of shutting down opposing opinions - then what? Is that what we want?

I don't think giving them "legitimizes their message". Their message needs to stand on its own merits. Maybe you hear them once and can dismiss them. Maybe you can't. Some people just don't want to be tested for their beliefs and convictions.. Others welcome it and encourage it..

I think there is a fine line there.

I was originally going to say: Everyone has an equal platform in the public square. However, giving someone a platform in an institution can legitimize the message.

But then again, my university does just that, and it neither endorse nor discredits it.

Ann Coulter is not a wacko. She's a calculating media whore who has made a zillion dollars playing on the emotions of the evangelical far right.

 

[flacaltenn]

The dumbest thing about this discussion is that the OP thinks progressives don't want young people to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints.

Basically, young people at institutions of higher learning have made it known that they don't want to be associated with opportunistic charlatans like Ann Coulter.

They aren't afraid to hear what she says. They just don't want their institutions to lend credibility to it.

Get it? Will you ever get it?

That's a valid point. I'm not sure if I would put Coulter in that category...I can't stand her but she's not a total whacko.

In terms of diversity of opinion on college campus' - do you draw the line anywhere and...by what criteria?

For example - should we have speakers who...
Advocate for reducing the age of marriage and legalizing adult child relationships?
Neo Nazi's and White Supremicists?
Holocaust deniers?

It's true that giving them a platform legitimizes their message. But - if you're using that as a means of shutting down opposing opinions - then what? Is that what we want?

I don't think giving them "legitimizes their message". Their message needs to stand on its own merits. Maybe you hear them once and can dismiss them. Maybe you can't. Some people just don't want to be tested for their beliefs and convictions.. Others welcome it and encourage it..

I think there is a fine line there.

I was originally going to say: Everyone has an equal platform in the public square. However, giving someone a platform in an institution can legitimize the message.

But then again, my university does just that, and it neither endorse nor discredits it.

Of course. But the TALLEST platforms are given to leftist leaning faculty who decide what's to read and written. When it comes to engaging the OUTSIDE world, you're not gonna invite OBJECTIVE, unbiased people to speak. You're gonna challenge and test beliefs and convictions. HOPEFULLY -- from many directions and without the mindless EXCLUSION of one political ideology over another.

Perhaps you need to seriously consider the TOPICS that can be breached. But when it comes to straight up left and right political discourse -- that's FAR less controversial than REAL hate speech, advocacy for currently illegal projects and the like.

 

[Coyote]

The dumbest thing about this discussion is that the OP thinks progressives don't want young people to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints.

Basically, young people at institutions of higher learning have made it known that they don't want to be associated with opportunistic charlatans like Ann Coulter.

They aren't afraid to hear what she says. They just don't want their institutions to lend credibility to it.

Get it? Will you ever get it?

That's a valid point. I'm not sure if I would put Coulter in that category...I can't stand her but she's not a total whacko.

In terms of diversity of opinion on college campus' - do you draw the line anywhere and...by what criteria?

For example - should we have speakers who...
Advocate for reducing the age of marriage and legalizing adult child relationships?
Neo Nazi's and White Supremicists?
Holocaust deniers?

It's true that giving them a platform legitimizes their message. But - if you're using that as a means of shutting down opposing opinions - then what? Is that what we want?

I don't think giving them "legitimizes their message". Their message needs to stand on its own merits. Maybe you hear them once and can dismiss them. Maybe you can't. Some people just don't want to be tested for their beliefs and convictions.. Others welcome it and encourage it..

I think there is a fine line there.

I was originally going to say: Everyone has an equal platform in the public square. However, giving someone a platform in an institution can legitimize the message.

But then again, my university does just that, and it neither endorse nor discredits it.

Of course. But the TALLEST platforms are given to leftist leaning faculty who decide what's to read and written. When it comes to engaging the OUTSIDE world, you're not gonna invite OBJECTIVE, unbiased people to speak. You're gonna challenge and test beliefs and convictions. HOPEFULLY -- from many directions and without the mindless EXCLUSION of one political ideology over another.

Rather depends on the institution doesn't it? I agree on not excluding viewpoints based on political ideology. I hear endlessly that the leftwing institutions do this...but silence on the rightwing ones. They should all encourage diversity.

Perhaps you need to seriously consider the TOPICS that can be breached. But when it comes to straight up left and right political discourse -- that's FAR less controversial than REAL hate speech, advocacy for currently illegal projects and the like.

Not sure what you mean?

 

[flacaltenn]

The dumbest thing about this discussion is that the OP thinks progressives don't want young people to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints.

Basically, young people at institutions of higher learning have made it known that they don't want to be associated with opportunistic charlatans like Ann Coulter.

They aren't afraid to hear what she says. They just don't want their institutions to lend credibility to it.

Get it? Will you ever get it?

That's a valid point. I'm not sure if I would put Coulter in that category...I can't stand her but she's not a total whacko.

In terms of diversity of opinion on college campus' - do you draw the line anywhere and...by what criteria?

For example - should we have speakers who...
Advocate for reducing the age of marriage and legalizing adult child relationships?
Neo Nazi's and White Supremicists?
Holocaust deniers?

It's true that giving them a platform legitimizes their message. But - if you're using that as a means of shutting down opposing opinions - then what? Is that what we want?

I don't think giving them "legitimizes their message". Their message needs to stand on its own merits. Maybe you hear them once and can dismiss them. Maybe you can't. Some people just don't want to be tested for their beliefs and convictions.. Others welcome it and encourage it..

I think there is a fine line there.

I was originally going to say: Everyone has an equal platform in the public square. However, giving someone a platform in an institution can legitimize the message.

But then again, my university does just that, and it neither endorse nor discredits it.

Of course. But the TALLEST platforms are given to leftist leaning faculty who decide what's to read and written. When it comes to engaging the OUTSIDE world, you're not gonna invite OBJECTIVE, unbiased people to speak. You're gonna challenge and test beliefs and convictions. HOPEFULLY -- from many directions and without the mindless EXCLUSION of one political ideology over another.

Rather depends on the institution doesn't it? I agree on not excluding viewpoints based on political ideology. I hear endlessly that the leftwing institutions do this...but silence on the rightwing ones. They should all encourage diversity.

Perhaps you need to seriously consider the TOPICS that can be breached. But when it comes to straight up left and right political discourse -- that's FAR less controversial than REAL hate speech, advocacy for currently illegal projects and the like.

Not sure what you mean?

What I meant was -- you listed some volatile topics. Like age of consent, etc --- THOSE topics are far more nuanced than garden variety American politics. POLITICAL speakers ought to be in a minor league of concern compared to Nazis, eugenicists, bioethicists, and the Murray Bell Curve stuff. The illegal projects could be age of consent, drug policy, immigration policy, prostitution, advocacy of terrorism, etc.

And the speakers might be only be IDENTIFIED by their politics, and surprise you with their personal views on some of the "harder" issues. If you've already sorted them into a Dem/Rep basket of deplorables, you're depriving yourself of learning HOW they think and using that in future defense of YOUR principles.

People fear speech that they cant' or don't want to refute. Or speech from cultures that clash with what they are familiar with.

 

[Thinker101]

I voted No. The OP question hit as arguing for argument sake. I think a firm foundation should first be established by parents for young people and save the debate clubs for high school students.

Okay, great. Are you saying that no speakers should be allowed on campus?
.

He is saying only speakers whom he agrees with should be allowed to speak. Anywhere.

Coulter was invited by a Republican group on campus. You probably wouldn't see this sort of controversy on a conservative campus,

because of such as the following:

Liberty U. Drops Democratic Club, Saying Views Conflict With Those of College

Liberty U. Drops Democratic Club, Saying Views Conflict With Those of College

By Anita Kumar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 23, 2009


RICHMOND, May 22 -- Liberty University will no longer recognize its campus Democratic club because, officials say, the national party's platform goes against the conservative Christian school's moral principles.


...and interestingly, you won't the RW bigot OP Mac posting threads about something like the above.

No kidding, perhaps you could also let us know how many of those conservative campuses have had violent protests.

Perhaps you can tell us how this great nation was founded without violence.

Wow, responding to basically my question with a question. Just go away.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

What kind of idiot would vote no?

Only those that refuse to allow differing opinions?