College students don't understand the 1st Amendment, at all

[JA]

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?

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

[Badger]

link - Brookings

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

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

[MasterJedi]

link - Brookings

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

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".

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

[JA]

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.

[Devout Centrist]

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.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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 

[dead0man]

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.

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!

[Devout Centrist]

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  

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".

[Ban my account ffs!]

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 

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.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

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

[Devout Centrist]

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  

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.

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.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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 

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.

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!

[Devout Centrist]

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?

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

[Devout Centrist]

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.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

[Ebsy]

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

[Devout Centrist]

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.

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!

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

[Cactus Jack]

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.

[The Free North]

You must be a college student.

...

This is a pretty low comment.

[The Mikado]

link - Brookings

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

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.

[Devout Centrist]

You must be a college student.

...

This is a pretty low comment.

"When they go low, we go high "

[Ban my account ffs!]

You must be a college student.

...

This is a pretty low comment.

"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.