• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Free Speech Legislation in Wisconsin

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Doc Savage Fan said:
Offering students exposure to various mainstream political ideologies is an essential element of higher education imo. Those bigots who cannot tolerate such diversity of thought being made available to the broader student population should consider attending other "educational" institutions where viewpoints are more controlled to their liking.
Click to expand...

So, Milo & Coulter are now mainstream? Really?
 
YAFs-2017-Commencement-Speakers-Survey-4.png


Education or indoctrination?
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
YAFs-2017-Commencement-Speakers-Survey-4.png


Education or indoctrination?
Click to expand...

Are commencement speakers part of their educational experience or something? That's news to me.

What's weird is that you know the students graduating would overwhelmingly prefer liberal speakers as college students tend to be overwhelmingly liberal. Basically you're saying that the schools are biased because they are providing the students with speakers they would enjoy at a celebratory event and should instead invite speakers they wouldn't. I guess affirmative action is fine so long as it's based on political viewpoint and that viewpoint is conservative, huh? 😉

If conservatives want to be invited to speak at more commencements the answer is easy: become more appealing to college students instead of whining about how picked on you are.
 
What if we look at this from a different perspective. Would evil grant free speech to the good? It would not, I should think, so why should the good allow evil to speak? Would it be to differentiate between the two or that real certainty as to what the good is and that it exists provides real faith that in a fair or foul contest the truth will always win?

You learn in kindergarten that it's not nice to interrupt and that in a fair world you will get your turn. Why do we need laws to govern over what we have known since kindergarten? How on earth did colleges become filled with people who didn't learn kindergarten?

Perhaps what we need from colleges and university is 4 years of mandatory courses in civility and ethics and human relations.
 
fskimospy said:
Are commencement speakers part of their educational experience or something? That's news to me.

What's weird is that you know the students graduating would overwhelmingly prefer liberal speakers as college students tend to be overwhelmingly liberal. Basically you're saying that the schools are biased because they are providing the students with speakers they would enjoy at a celebratory event and should instead invite speakers they wouldn't. I guess affirmative action is fine so long as it's based on political viewpoint and that viewpoint is conservative, huh? 😉

If conservatives want to be invited to speak at more commencements the answer is easy: become more appealing to college students instead of whining about how picked on you are.
Click to expand...
The how of how such speakers are invited, as you point out here, seems to me to be an important point
 
Moonbeam said:
The how of how such speakers are invited, as you point out here, seems to me to be an important point
Click to expand...

I just don't get it. Apparently DSF thinks schools should invite speakers to their celebrations that they know will make their graduates unhappy in order to provide them with some sort of education on political balance after they've already graduated.

Every time I think we must have reached the end of whining conservative entitlement they find something new to whine about.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
YAFs-2017-Commencement-Speakers-Survey-4.png


Education or indoctrination?
Click to expand...

Education.

The notion that there needs to be a diversity of speakers assumes that those conservative speakers' views will be relevant to an academic environment.

Would you invite a climate change denier to give a speech to science students? No, because that person clearly doesn't understand science. Would you invite an anti-Muslim or anti-LGBT person to give a speech? No, because the odds are they'll demonize some of the students. And so on.

Colleges and universities, by definition, value the scientific method, non-discrimination and questioning authority. Many outspoken conservatives don't. This isn't to say there aren't conservatives that fit the bill (David Frum is an example), but why would you give the floor to someone who opposes everything your school is supposed to represent?
 
ivwshane said:
Of course the OP supports this! He's another #safespacebitch


The right thinks free speech means being free from criticism for something they've said.


Sounds like its time for some second amendment remedies.
Click to expand...

Bold for 100%

This is how these situations play out all the time:

Right wing guy says something stupid/racist/bigoted/all the above on social media or somewhere where it was captured on tape or video.
Wants the right to say whatever he wants and gets it. Police don't toss him in jail.
Same guy gets criticized for his opinion and cries foul.
Guy gets angry, how dare you exercise your free speech to criticize me!
America is too PC. Can't say what I want. Whaaa.
Guy gets fired. OMG Free Speech infringed!!!!!!! There is no free speech any more!!!

#MAGA

The end.
 
Commodus said:
Education.

The notion that there needs to be a diversity of speakers assumes that those conservative speakers' views will be relevant to an academic environment.

Would you invite a climate change denier to give a speech to science students? No, because that person clearly doesn't understand science. Would you invite an anti-Muslim or anti-LGBT person to give a speech? No, because the odds are they'll demonize some of the students. And so on.

Colleges and universities, by definition, value the scientific method, non-discrimination and questioning authority. Many outspoken conservatives don't. This isn't to say there aren't conservatives that fit the bill (David Frum is an example), but why would you give the floor to someone who opposes everything your school is supposed to represent?
Click to expand...

It's weird when I think about it, because colleges and universities we're created with the essential purpose of promoting and instilling critical thinking to their students. The students, in turn, must apply their understanding of critical thinking into many aspects of their education and, possibly, their personal beliefs. The whole idea of promoting a diversity of opinions and ideas is almost counter-intuitive to that aspect.

Colleges and universities with an ounce of credibility do not invite creationists or anti-evolutionists to deliver speeches on their campus. Why? Because they are anti-science. The same thing applies to climate change deniers, especially those with ties to corporations and lobbyists that are promoting anti-climate change. Those people, I reckon, are not there to promote critical thinking if all they're going to do is push a biased political agenda that runs counter-intuitive to what the college or university promotes.

With the probable exception of economics, politics can't really be completely measured or quantified through the scientific method alone. Nevertheless, a base line has to be set over what kind of politics a college or university is willing to tolerate. Ideologies like pure socialism, communism, totalitarianism, monarchies, oligarchies, and even anarchy are still taught and discussed even if most professors and university execs don't believe in them. If a professor personally has a libertarian-left ideology, it does not prevent him from promoting and debating conservative ideology.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
YAFs-2017-Commencement-Speakers-Survey-4.png


Education or indoctrination?
Click to expand...

Education.

There is nothing positive that Palin, Chachi, or Ted Nugent can say to college graduates that would be relevant. One is a serial quitter, one hasn't been relevant since the 70's, and the only worthwhile thing the last one did was stick his dick in Pam Anderson. Or maybe you can have O'Rielly tell them how to assault women for 20+ years?
 
Triloby said:
It's weird when I think about it, because colleges and universities we're created with the essential purpose of promoting and instilling critical thinking to their students. The students, in turn, must apply their understanding of critical thinking into many aspects of their education and, possibly, their personal beliefs. The whole idea of promoting a diversity of opinions and ideas is almost counter-intuitive to that aspect.

Colleges and universities with an ounce of credibility do not invite creationists or anti-evolutionists to deliver speeches on their campus. Why? Because they are anti-science. The same thing applies to climate change deniers, especially those with ties to corporations and lobbyists that are promoting anti-climate change. Those people, I reckon, are not there to promote critical thinking if all they're going to do is push a biased political agenda that runs counter-intuitive to what the college or university promotes.

With the probable exception of economics, politics can't really be completely measured or quantified through the scientific method alone. Nevertheless, a base line has to be set over what kind of politics a college or university is willing to tolerate. Ideologies like pure socialism, communism, totalitarianism, monarchies, oligarchies, and even anarchy are still taught and discussed even if most professors and university execs don't believe in them. If a professor personally has a libertarian-left ideology, it does not prevent him from promoting and debating conservative ideology.
Click to expand...

Do religious universities bring in atheists or anti religion groups like the church of Satan?
 
fskimospy said:
I just don't get it. Apparently DSF thinks schools should invite speakers to their celebrations that they know will make their graduates unhappy in order to provide them with some sort of education on political balance after they've already graduated.

Every time I think we must have reached the end of whining conservative entitlement they find something new to whine about.
Click to expand...
This, then, raises another question for me. Why don't the students protest the selection methodology and demand answers as to why authoritarians are being asked to speak? Does it have to do with funding, with licking political boots, why why why? What are the rules that determine who is to speak? When I was in kindergarten I didn't get to tell my parents guests what I thought of them or the mindless shit they talked about. I had toys to play with, universes to build.
 
Moonbeam said:
This, then, raises another question for me. Why don't the students protest the selection methodology and demand answers as to why authoritarians are being asked to speak? Does it have to do with funding, with licking political boots, why why why? What are the rules that determine who is to speak? When I was in kindergarten I didn't get to tell my parents guests what I thought of them or the mindless shit they talked about. I had toys to play with, universes to build.
Click to expand...

Most often, it's just because those processes aren't the most obvious things compared to the actual speeches. When your house is on fire, your first reaction is not "I should make a habit of inspecting electrical wiring more often," it's "oh crap, I need to call 911." It's harder to make yourself address the root cause of a problem, especially when speaker selection isn't always open to public input.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top