Are we going to admit Universities are producing thin-skinned people?

[cybercoma]

This is called a strawman. No one accepts your ridiculous suggestion that someone could be charged with a hate crime in Canada for simply supporting BDS. Any conclusions you draw from this absurd premise are equally absurd no matter how many times you repeat them.

It's not a strawman at all and cuts to the heart of the point in the OP: that anti-BDS folks are silenced. The government passed a law that literally classifies BDS as terrorism. That's proving the exact opposite of what you're arguing, namely that the government had literally tried to criminalize BDS thereby attempting to silence it.

This comes up time and time again with your posts, but I will say it yet again. You don't get to pick your reality. Presenting a fact (the govt passed a law to criminalizes BDS) that is directly applicable to the argument in the OP is not even remotely close to being a strawman, nor is the argument fallacious in any way. The govt literally wanted to silence BDS.

[Wilber]

I answered to MG above on the details.

The link you posted had nothing to do with passing a law.

[Moonlight Graham]

No Harper specifically added nationality to the list of discriminated groups and his government says a 'zero tolerance' towards BDS movements which they said is anti-Semitic and falls under hate-crimes.

Trudeau's motion basically set the stage to continue the status-quo above and as it stands at this moment in Canadian history, indeed, the law is set up in a way that BDS supporters could be charged with a hate crime.

Never before could a divestment against a COUNTRY been considered hate-crime. Now it can.

Well if it's law officially or not is irrelevant to your point, which I think is correct, in that the Harper gov and pro-Israel right-wingers (and some on the left too obviously) have sought to silence BDS supporters, so left-wingers aren't the only ones who seek to silence dissenting speech/views.

[Wilber]

People should have the right to try and organize boycotts if they choose, just as I have the right to ignore or take exception to them. I don't think trying to silence someone is a proper response to them trying to silence you. Both positions are wrong.

[eyeball]

...left-wingers aren't the only ones who seek to silence dissenting speech/views.

We're not even close to being the only ones in fact we're not even very good at it.

[Moonlight Graham]

We're not even close to being the only ones in fact we're not even very good at it.

Oh I disagree.

[eyeball]

Even the mighty Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of it's own crap, peacefully and debating it all the way. Unfortunately right-wingers are in charge of the place now so silencing debate is back and I doubt it will go out as gracefully.

The best effort the left seems to have at its disposal anywhere these days are, as you put it, cesspools of irrationality, which simply growing up will likely fix. I think it's pretty clear that moderate lefties have an easier time of it squelching their extremes than righties have cooling the jets of theirs. Again, because we're just not as good at maintaining the fiction that we know everything.

That said, the fiction in the thread's title and OP was almost ridiculously easy to put the boots to.

Edited April 6, 2016 by eyeball

[BC_chick]

People should have the right to try and organize boycotts if they choose, just as I have the right to ignore or take exception to them. I don't think trying to silence someone is a proper response to them trying to silence you. Both positions are wrong.

Perhaps, but one side has government passing motions against them and the other has students shushing, yet the OP accuses the former of being thin-skinned and stifling free speech.

That was my issue with this whole thread.

[Argus]

Perhaps, but one side has government passing motions against them and the other has students shushing, yet the OP accuses the former of being thin-skinned and stifling free speech.

I could, of course, be mistaken, but I bet you support the hate speech provisions of the criminal code and various human rights agencies.

[Boges]

My goal in making this thread wasn't to debate this BDS thing. It's that it appears these "Safe Spaces" that Universities create seem to shut down debate to opinions that aren't to the liking of the majority.

[GostHacked]

My goal in making this thread wasn't to debate this BDS thing. It's that it appears these "Safe Spaces" that Universities create seem to shut down debate to opinions that aren't to the liking of the majority.

That's kind of what I thought when I made my reply, but the BDS thing kind of derailed it.

[BC_chick]

My goal in making this thread wasn't to debate this BDS thing. It's that it appears these "Safe Spaces" that Universities create seem to shut down debate to opinions that aren't to the liking of the majority.

You picked a ridiculous title then because that pretty much goes for any setting.

Try going into an NRA gathering with a dissenting view and see how 'thin-skinned' they are.

Edited April 6, 2016 by BC_chick

[BC_chick]

That's kind of what I thought when I made my reply, but the BDS thing kind of derailed it.

It wasn't derailing. The student being censored was anti-BDS and there is a lot of political power behind the anti-BDS crowd.

It's very relevant to the discussion.

[Boges]

You picked a ridiculous title then because that pretty much goes for any setting.

Try going into an NRA gathering with a dissenting view and see how 'thin-skinned' they are.

So you're going to admit that Universities aren't great places for open debate then if you're going to make the NRA comparison.

[BC_chick]

So you're going to admit that Universities aren't great places for open debate then if you're going to make the NRA comparison.

I think you're making a generalized statement based on one story and titling it ridiculously.

[Boges]

I think you're making a generalized statement based on one story and titling it ridiculously.

I think the OP story is an anecdote of a trend.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12022041/How-political-correctness-rules-in-Americas-student-safe-spaces.html

Far from the bra-burning, devil-may-care attitudes at universities in the Sixties and Seventies, today’s generation of American students increasingly appears to yearn for a campus ruled by dogmatic political correctness, in which faculty members assume the role of parents more than purveyors of academic rigour.

The lexicon of college has changed: students now speak about “micro-aggressions”, “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces”.

The notion of the “safe space” first emerged to describe a place of refuge for people exposed to racial prejudice or sexism. But the phrase has changed meaning to the point where now it often implies protection from “exposure to ideas that make one uncomfortable”, according to Nadine Strossen, a prominent law professor and former head of the American Civil Liberties Union.

[Guest]

It is a problematic trend. On one hand I really like the activist spirit of the students working to shut down hateful messages, but they are going about it the wrong way. Rather than silencing the hateful and stupid, students should attend the talks and counter their arguments during the question period. Protest outside the venues and ridicule their bad ideas to any reporter or camera present.

[Wilber]

Perhaps, but one side has government passing motions against them and the other has students shushing, yet the OP accuses the former of being thin-skinned and stifling free speech.

That was my issue with this whole thread.

OK, I think Parliament should have stayed out of it as well. As long as people aren't promoting violence against others, they have a right to express themselves. If I want to promote a boycott against something, that's my right. It's your right to ignore or disagree with me.

[eyeball]

You picked a ridiculous title then because that pretty much goes for any setting.

The title along with the OP and the quoted snippet it contained were obviously for the point of slagging lefties and the assumption we all unquestioningly support silencing debate.

Not.

[Boges]

The title along with the OP and the quoted snippet it contained were obviously for the point of slagging lefties and the assumption we all unquestioningly support silencing debate.

Not.

That's extraordinarily presumptuous as I'm sure not all lefties are currently in University settings. But nice try.

Is this like the Muslim debate, if you criticize some, you're criticizing all?

[GostHacked]

You picked a ridiculous title then because that pretty much goes for any setting.

Try going into an NRA gathering with a dissenting view and see how 'thin-skinned' they are.

I think Boges made it clear. The BDS is a small part of the problem with 'thin skinned' people on campuses. The need for all these safe spaces for all groups, black, white, asian, femenists, LGBT's ect ect ect.

People say offensive things, you can be part of the problem or part of the solution and ignore the asshats. Trolling works in the real world too.

[GostHacked]

It wasn't derailing. The student being censored was anti-BDS and there is a lot of political power behind the anti-BDS crowd.

It's very relevant to the discussion.

But it's a small part of the whole problem.

[cybercoma]

I think Boges made it clear. The BDS is a small part of the problem with 'thin skinned' people on campuses. The need for all these safe spaces for all groups, black, white, asian, femenists, LGBT's ect ect ect.

People say offensive things, you can be part of the problem or part of the solution and ignore the asshats. Trolling works in the real world too.

You guys seem to be misunderstanding these safe spaces. You don't get to go to work and espouse racist, misogynistic, or bigoted ideals, Students work and live on campus a lot of the time. These safe spaces are not the entire campus, but typically group spaces that are supposed to be welcoming and accommodation to everyone who lives and works there. They're a response to environments that were so widespread they've made movies about them (see: School Ties).

How do you address those threatening environments without clear policies that harassment, intimidation, and hate-speech will not be tolerated? There's a difference between reasoned debate and people just spouting unsubstantiated bigoted opinions that threaten identifiable groups. And there's certain times and places on campus where students shouldn't be subjected to dealing with that kind of harassment.

[Bonam]

How do you address those threatening environments without clear policies that harassment, intimidation, and hate-speech will not be tolerated? There's a difference between reasoned debate and people just spouting unsubstantiated bigoted opinions that threaten identifiable groups. And there's certain times and places on campus where students shouldn't be subjected to dealing with that kind of harassment.

Anything that crosses the line into hate speech or harassment should be prosecuted as such, regardless of where on campus it happens. In classes and other official settings, any discussions should pertain to the topic at hand and should be kept under control by the professor/TA in charge. Outside of official settings, any speech that does not fit the definitions of hate speech and harassment should be allowed to the same extent that it would be allowed anywhere else that's not a university campus.

[eyeball]

That's extraordinarily presumptuous as I'm sure not all lefties are currently in University settings. But nice try.

Nice try at what? What you're sure of has nothing to do with what I said.

I repeat, in light of the thread title, the OP's focus on PC, lefties and the microaggression thread and with nary a word about BDS or righties it would take supernatural psychic powers to believe you meant something else. Stop imagining you're dealing with stupid people around here when you're talking about stupid people somewhere else.

Is this like the Muslim debate, if you criticize some, you're criticizing all?

When you blow it out there like you've done here it sure is.

Edited April 6, 2016 by eyeball