Talk Elections

link - Brookings (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/)

The highlights of the highlights.
only 39% of college students think the 1st protects hate speech
62% of Dem students think it's ok to shout down a speaker they disagree with
19% of all students think it's ok to use violence to stop a speaker they don't agree with
62% of all students think every event on campus should have someone from the "other side" to argue their points

freaking disgusting

Boo-hoo.

The events would be the same on the other side. Just go look, not hard to find.

Yeah, that's pretty scary.

I don't understand this statement.

I saw this survey as well. It's not really the fault of Democrats or Republicans in this group for why this group has such illiberal views. For one illiberal view 60% of Democrats have on 1A, 40% of Republican youth hold the same view. For one illiberal view 60% of Republicans have, the Democratic kids hold it at a rate of 40%.

There is one thing I agree with such "illiberal" views. I think its something worth trying but I am not passionate about it. That view is that maybe there should be some sort of experimentation with "fairness doctrines" on college campuses.

Yeah, not surprised but conservatives want CNN and MSNBC shut down because of their content. They want all liberal protesters shot, etc. They don't believe in free speech either.

"both sides", right?

Yes, both sides do it, doesn't make it right at all. It's clear to see why it's worsening though since both sides want to suppress the other. Equally wrong.

I agree.  Boo-hoo to these worthless snowflake pieces of shlt.

Good!  Crush all opposition to the liberal agenda!!

For every anti-fa attack, it appears that there is a state legislature advocating state-sponsored terrorism against their political opponents. The result was the attack in Charlotteville.

"Get out the phuck out of the road!" is the new "Allahu Akbar!"

oh, sure.  Those guys are assholes too.  This is when it's good to be on the side that is 100% in agreement with liberal values.

The thing is that right-wing students have no power on college campuses.  They are clearly a small minority.  Even if they wanted to shut down leftist speech they would have no means of doing so.

Perhaps they will try and mimic their classmates on the left?


Do the people that defend this kind of thing (or handwave it away, or try to make fun of the people bringing it up as in the other thread) not see what this will lead to?

Wasn't Cora banned from here? Isn't that shutting down a speaker?

Stop making vanity threads. This is your third one today.

You must be a college student.

We're not the middle-aged man who spends all his time on a website arguing with those more than 20 years younger than himself.  Nothing better to do with that thing you call a life?

well, see, you don't understand the 1st Amendment (you think Cora getting banned here involves it somehow) and you want to stop people from saying things you don't like.  And with what the thread is about....kind of funny.  Doubly so if you actually are a college student.


(and the only things true in your rant was that I do enjoy triggering liberals and I'm a middle aged male, at least you didn't mention bowling shirts....not all stereotypes are accurate, especially ones made up in your mind)

right, 'cause young adults spending time on here arguing with people 20 years older than them is a great example of life living!

Once again I am reminded of the song lyrics

Two big teams are forming and they're both no fun
Now that the furies are loose

Please tell me how the first amendment applies to speakers getting disinvited from private universities.

See unless you hold that we must give special protection to people who hold erm 'controversial' viewpoints, disinviting speakers from private universities is not infringing on the first amendment anymore than banning Cora.

Also I don't support criminalizing hate speech.

Oh man, you are trying way too hard

Please show me where I've suggested private universities shouldn't be able to dis-invite speakers?  Keep in mind Berkeley is in California and has the Leonard Law.

Remember kids, it's only okay when those that agree with you pull the "Muh Both Sides Do It" card.

Only one of those questions pertains to the actual application of the First Amendment and its content, which was "Does the First Amendment protect hate speech?" On that question, the political divide between Democrats and Republicans is almost statistically insignificant (a mere 5%). I suspect the cause of this stems from ongoing debate concerning whether the First Amendment protects hate speech or not; there are some voices that support the perspective that it shouldn't. So, I suspect there is a confusion over should and does.

The other three questions do not concern themselves with the legal application of the First Amendment, but whether or not college students support an environment conducive to speech from potentially unsavory perspectives and voices. Why should a person such as Milo be allowed, not from a legal perspective, but rather from a social one, to speak freely and spew hate? Yes, it is perfectly acceptable to shout down such speakers and, in certain circumstances, violence may even be acceptable. Fascism should never be tolerated. Although we cannot suppress it legally, we can socially.

Milo is not a hateful person. Find an actual example.

Yeah... I'll stick with my example. Milo is a hateful, trashy little troll.

1. Are these results significantly different than the rest of the population?

2. Are these results significantly different than college students in the past?

I doubt the answer to either question is Yes.

Democrats on here are being really hypocritical. You know that if this was a poll on Republicans all of you would be freaking out and rightly so , but you should also be freaking out at this poll as well.

They also tried to block Ben Shapiro from coming

Ben Shapiro is Milo with a stick up his ass.

Why don't you leave that up to a qualified scientist, Harry.  Know your place!

Liberals, I want you to imagine if the world was different.  Imagine that the vast majority of college students and professors were Conservatives.

Imagine that a liberal speaker was being invited to a University.  Then, some Conservative students violently disrupted that speaker.  They justified their actions by saying that their opponents were Communist baby-murderers and don't have the right to free speech.

I don't think you'd like that very much.

Remember tyt is boycotting Harvard cause of Harvard disinviting Manning .

I don't believe in free speech for paedophiles.

This is the start of generation z. They've never lived without the internet, they've grown up in an extremely safe world - and many now view words as violent. I do not know how we can stop this nonsense.

TYT is trash, but calling Manning a traitor is disgusting.

She's not a traitor.

They are sheltered little snowflakes and they will be dealt with in a rough fashion in the real world. No one cares about your feelings. I don't care if you are black or gay or whatever.

"MUH FREEZE PEACH"
"MUH CONSTITOOSHUN!!!"
()

Try again. Defending free speech doesn't mean we shouldn't care about others' feelings. It means that sometimes, hurt feelings are a price that need to be paid for freedom.

Restricting speech will obviously end up with people like Eugene Debs going to prison for years because they dared to criticize the latest war.

Conservatives need to stop spreading the lie that the 1st amendment protects you from social consequence, or that it forces people to listen to you and provide you a platform.

Anyway, seeing as 'muh freeze peach' has become the newest rallying cry/deflection tactic of the far right it's no wonder we're seeing a backlash against the whole concept, as misguided as that is

It'd be cool if conservatives used the 1st amendment for anything other than defending racism or giving corporations unlimited power over the Democratic process.

You said it was disgusting and ran away. Not exactly a foolproof way to layout your position.

I'm still floored at the fact you're a middle aged man using this site. Wow.

After they've spent the first 18 years of their life in an institution that declares anything that offends someone to be "bullying", punishes any speech that "promotes drugs", and tells them how to dress, should we really be surprised?

yeah, haven't been back in the thread since ::)so, like the moron in the other thread, you are saying that it's uncool for old guys to talk politics on an online message board, but totally cool for teenagers and young adults?  'cause it seems like that's what you're saying.  You don't see the problems with this?  Two really obvious ones, probably a couple more I'm not seeing.

Only the first one has anything to do with the 1st Amendment, although yes, the majority are wrong.
The First Amendment protects shouting down a speaker you dislike just as much as it protects that speaker. Yes, it doesn't prohibit the hosting venue from having people doing that ejected from the premises...just as it doesn't prohibit the venue cancelling the speaker either. What a concept!
For the third bit...so the vast majority disagree?
And the final bit has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, since a university could implement such a policy like that. Of course it's just something that people will say they agree with without thinking it through heavily, do you really think that many think any speakers at LGBT events should always have a "counter"?

Thank Og it only takes "vast majorities" to make people dead and small groups and individuals never do ::)

1 in 5 think it's ok to initiate violence to further their political goals.  It was the part I found the most disturbing.  That is a huge problem, a lot of people are going to be hurt and killed because of this line of thinking....but whatever right?  They're just college kids, what have people in their late teens and early 20s ever done that was violent?

Dude, we get it, you get in trouble a lot at school for bullying others. Give it a rest.

First statistic, I'd like to see what the general population's number is. This is one of the few stats here that I suspect might, repeat might, be somewhere off the general population, but it wouldn't shock me if it was relatively close

Second statistic, yes, the First Amendment does in fact protect heckling. They understand the First Amendment just fine

81% of college students disagree that it's okay to use violence change stop a speaker they disagree with. I would be surprised if that number is far off the general population

For the final stat, it's commendable that students would prefer a given take between opposing viewpoints regardless of the subject. That is small L liberalism in a nutshell. It doesn't indicate that students believe it's okay to disrupt or shout down speakers if it's just one-sided. Also note they didn't indicate that they would feel any different about a liberal speaker having a conservative to offer a countervailing viewpoint.

Yep more unwarranted bitching by oldsters about college students and safe space BS

Pretty much, the true entitlement generation in a nutshell. When you see someone throwing a tantrum in public it's either a young child or a boomer who didn't get some type of "respect".

Yes Jedi.  I was on the train a while ago and this 60-something lady with long gray hair knocked over a young guys bike so she could sit down and proceeded to go on a rant about how he didn't have a right and she's a senior citizen and deserves some respect and why doesn't society respect seniors anymore...

Straight from the generation that pioneered disrespect for seniors.  Now that that generation is gone and the boomers are on top, they turn their sniveling faces to the youth.  Truly a sad, pathetic, dangerous, and destructive group of wrinkled up toddlers.

Ugh. Could you people quit bashing "baby boomers" already? Attacking an entire generation of people is pretty absurd; about as absurd as the hatred directed by many towards millennials. The problem isn't a generation of Americans, it's wealth; upper middle and upper class Americans are disproportionately older and White. Baby boomers constitute the vast majority of these socioeconomic classes. The problem isn't baby boomers, it's wealthy people who often have an awful sense of entitlement that they project onto others. There are many lower and working class baby boomers, and their attitudes and behaviors do not align with the stereotypes of their generation. Save your ire for where it belongs: aimed at the upper classes.

Yeah, it's clear to me that generation theory is largely bunkum, and we should not internalise its pseudoscience.

I don't know why people keep buying into a theory that essentially peddles a "narrative". That's all generation theory is; you have nice neat little boxes that explain why a generation did something and why they were different from another, no critical thinking required.

I would wager that the majority of what you believe and hold dear are simply theories that essentially peddle a "narrative"... a "narrative" that appeals to you.  That's what your world view is.. a series of nice, neat little boxes that explain others' behavior to you and justify your behavior towards others... with relatively little critical thinking required  ::)

unless them oldies post on a political based message boards right?  Then it's the funniest thing since dogs riding surfboards.  It'll floor ya!

Maybe I should have phrased it differently: if you look at generation theory, a lot of it is based on observing the actions that a small subset of people in a generation are responsible for, and then extrapolating a minority to represent the entire group. Then this is used to construct a narrative for the generation and fit them into a certain archetype. Strauss and Howe's theory revolves around this framework and argues that each generation fits into an archetype that repeats the same cycle every four generations.

The problem here is that it attempts to explain the actions of a generation through an almost teletelogical lense. Hence why I said "narrative".

Take a look at history once.  All it is is observing the actions of a small subset of people in a generation and then extrapolating that minority to represent the entire group.  This is then used to construct a narrative for that generation and fit them into a certain archetype.

That history might repeat itself in vaguely similar ways is hardly a new concept and dismissing it out of hand says more about your ability to think critically than mine.

If anything, it's more pathetic that young people are spending hours arguing online.

That is bad historical analysis and a trap that we should seek to avoid as much as possible. Different historical voices, whether they be from minorities, the working class, or just the less powerful, should receive more attention. Among historians, this is a growing trend, thankfully.

History may vaguely repeat itself, but how could you use a cycle to determine that millennials will be an archetypical "hero" generation? Or that generation Z will follow the "artist" archetype? Using a modern lense to lay out a set cycle of generational archetypes makes no logical sense.

I never brought Strauss and Howe into any of this.  I was complaining about my parents generation for, once again, demanding "do as I say, not as I do."  I was then bombarded by people yammering on about "pseudoscience generational theory"...

Slow down the fidget spinner... it's spinning your mind in circles!

Was I responding to you with my first post? Does profile say "Jacobin American"? Did I ever bombard you with anything?

Seriously, why the hell are you angry with me?

I'm not angry with you.  What on earth gave you that idea? 

But yes, I'm fairly certain you were responding to me given the past several posts in the thread.  And I was "bombarded" with 3 posts from 3 different posters in rapid succession... one asking me not to generalize, two speaking to "generational theory" being a big bag of bullsh**t. 

It's like a game of telephone when everyone has to pee really bad.

No it really isn't. I was just voicing approval of what crabcake wrote and added a little statement about how generational theory builds a narrative around past historical events. You then singled me out for some reason and then, much later, claim that I brought Strauss and Howe into this out of nowhere.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree... on what we're agreeing to disagree about I have no idea... but it's best if we just do it anyway.

Could be due to decades of disinvestment in public education by reactionary thugs in state legislatures around the country.

You take yourself way too seriously. That's why I find your posts rather funny.

I'll start caring just as soon as conservatives stop parroting the idea that colleges are socialist brainwashing centers, or whatever in the hell nonsense they believe as justification to slash education funding.

This is a pretty low comment.

I don't think that the second item is a violation of free speech. There is no right to be heard: the speaker speaks, the protesters shout over it. That isn't a free speech violation.

"When they go low, we go high :) "

No.  It was a particularly lazy but vicious personal attack using a grab-bag of bad internet memes.

     The title is kinda argument bait, though the trends are disturbing. The 1st Amendment does not have to do with college speakers in the strictest sense, but it does represent the principle that demands that public speakers should be allowed to speak freely without fearing or suffering acts of violence.

Very good post

The hysterical response to this junk poll rally makes you wonder why republicans only care about freedom of speech when it comes to hate speech

Ben Shapiro =/= hate speech.