- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
NAMBLA could only hold such an event if the school allowed it. Comparing a pedophile support group that advocates illegal activities with the Federalist Society is rather speciousAren't we all in some cases? Or in the name of "free" speech" and not being hostile, NAMBLA can hold an event at an elementary school?
Just because we'd object that doesn't make us freaking Putin.
So...a scheduled event hosted by a private organization involving guest speakers and a specific format is different...how exactly?Well, given that those locations are private businesses, I would support management if the decided to remove the people who were doing things against their policies, ie being quiet in a movie, not disturbing the other clients. Just like Twitter removing posts or people disturbing its business.
Outside of Twitter or on the street or outside the movie theatre, be obnoxious just don’t expect that negative consequences won’t occur ( ie losing your job, losing friends etc)
He's been dead for years. His position at the event in question was to eliminate racial discrimination in elite universities' admissions process. Period.Professor Ernest is the one who believes that Black people are unable to compete with whites, due to their alleged "intellectual inferiority". He doesn't condemn racially based advantages, he openly advocates for them.
Funny....here all along I thought this was a discussion on the people DISRUPTING the group.
Ernest van den Haag, "Intelligence or Prejudice?," in National Review XVI, No. 48 (December 1, 1964) pp. 1059–63.Quotes.
NAMBLA could only hold such an event if the school allowed it. Comparing a pedophile support group that advocates illegal activities with the Federalist Society is rather specious
If management wanted to remove them, I would support management on that case. It seems management did not want to, they wanted a free speech space and allowed the protesters to exercise their free speechSo...a scheduled event hosted by a private organization involving guest speakers and a specific format is different...how exactly?
they don't support the far left collectivist nonsense he pines for ?How are they a hate group?
No...they had them removed, and then removed from the grounds when they continued. Which you considered a curtailment (more accurately...how did you put it..."why do you hate free speech?")If management wanted to remove them, I would support management on that case. It seems management did not want to, they wanted a free speech space and allowed the protesters to exercise their free speech
But Professor Ernest had no interest in eliminating racial discrimination. In fact he openly advocated racial discrimination against black people, due to their "intellectual inferiority."He's been dead for years. His position at the event in question was to eliminate racial discrimination in elite universities' admissions process. Period.
Do you get what was being discussed at the Federalist Society meeting at Yale? that there were representatives from two groups-two groups that often clash over many issues?I'm just saying that we all have our limits on "free speech" regarding groups holding events and that doesn't make any of us Putin or Hitler.
Something like this, they have their right to hold the event but how exactly can we be sure another group isn't going to use their rights and protest, even if it's disrupting?
What a ****ing pathetic and transparent attempt to deflect away from the point you got skewered on. Your post admits you got ****ing destroyed by your avoidance.
NOt relevant here. not an issue at the meeting I was discussing. The issue may have been "resolved: affirmative action should be eliminated" or something like that-it may well have been "resolved: affirmative action benefits society" I don't recall exactlyBut Professor Ernest had no interest in eliminating racial discrimination. In fact he openly advocated racial discrimination against black people, due to their "intellectual inferiority."
No...they had them removed, and then removed from the grounds when they continued. Which you considered a curtailment (more accurately...how did you put it..."why do you hate free speech?")
do you understand the difference between a scheduled discussion versus those trying to prevent others from discussing it?So you think all groups have the right to speak but not protestors crashing an event? In any situation?
Do you ever wonder then after this has come full circle...why you bothered to make your initial comment, since your position is, apparently, identical to mine?Management had them removed from a private space, perfectly fine in my opinion. I feel the same for Twitter bans, and YouTube bans
Do you get what was being discussed at the Federalist Society meeting at Yale? that there were representatives from two groups-two groups that often clash over many issues?
You don't think it's relevant when one of the people debating affirmative action believes that Black people are racially inferior, and openly advocates racial discrimination?NOt relevant here. not an issue at the meeting I was discussing. The issue may have been "resolved: affirmative action should be eliminated" or something like that-it may well have been "resolved: affirmative action benefits society" I don't recall exactly
I find it interesting that everyone thinks their right to free speech overrides everyone else right to free speech. IN the end they physically blocked and manhandled people exiting the room and there free speech ended and assault began and the law students must have known that. I would have arrested those who touched the people exiting the room and charged them and that would have been the end of their law careers.'Grow Up': Yale Law School Students Interrupt Event, Demand Right To Talk Over Speakers
Yale Law School's chapter of the Federalist Society invited two speakers to campus to discuss a recent Supreme Court case,…reason.com
We should probably just have a cancel culture section, because heres another example.
TLDR
Student group invites speakers to discuss a legal case
Other students disrupt it, claiming they have more freedom of speech than the speakers
After theyre ejected, they claim the speakers are intolerant and shouldnt be tolerated
After the police show up to stop their peaceful banging on the walls, harrasment, and blocking exits, they claim the police are harmful and should be ejected (by who?)
Which makes me wonder if they teach irony at Yale.
there should be no ability to disrupt the scheduled meetings of other students. and it is almost always leftwing activists who want to disrupt thingsYes, I get that. I get also that another group didn't like it and protested, disrupted, and removed.
There is always going to be groups holding events and groups protesting and disrupting, no? Unless you just want to lock down every event, as long as there is no violence I don't see the big deal. If it was the other way around and it was a 'conservative' group protesting and disrupting it'd be the same thing.
were you there? of course not-was there any mention of what Van Den Haag may have stated long after the debate? NO. I doubt any of the 15-20 picketers had any idea about the views you are discussing.You don't think it's relevant when one of the people debating affirmative action believes that Black people are racially inferior, and openly advocates racial discrimination?
If you defend all groups the right to speak, all groups would include the protestors and this wouldn't even be a big deal to you.
Do you ever wonder then after this has come full circle...why you bothered to make your initial comment, since your position is, apparently, identical to mine?
In fact his belief in the inherent inferiority of black people was already a matter of public record by that time, published in "Intelligence or Prejudice?," in National Review XVI, No. 48 (December 1, 1964) pp. 1059–63.were you there? of course not-was there any mention of what Van Den Haag may have stated long after the debate? NO. I doubt any of the 15-20 picketers had any idea about the views you are discussing.
there should be no ability to disrupt the scheduled meetings of other students. and it is almost always leftwing activists who want to disrupt things
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?