Understanding rights

[Lady tehMa]

It comes down to an increasing fragility of society, a demand to be kept "safe" from anything they might disagree with.

It's all a matter of balance. As a society we already accept some communal responsibility for our group safety, think smoking restrictions, alcohol and recreational drug restrictions, driving laws, even pornography. I get that there is some disagreement as to where lines get drawn, but keep in mind that often those who argue the loudest against some restrictions are those who would seek to abuse an environment free of restrictions.

We do need balance, but we also need to be able to express opinions freely. I may not like what another person has to say, but I'd rather they be permitted to say it than muzzle them. At least that way I'd at least know and would be aware. So, if for example, someone is saying racist things; do I like it? No. But I am glad to know that is how they think, as it allows me to assess their personality and whether or not I choose to be in contact with them or trust them in any way.

What concerns me is the trend in academia where people are demanding to be protected from dissenting opinions. Not only is that wrong, but it is also dangerous.

[fluffy]

What concerns me is the trend in academia where people are demanding to be protected from dissenting opinions. Not only is that wrong, but it is also dangerous.

It's been some time since I've frequented our halls of higher learning so I can't speak to that. My concern is people using the concept of free speech as a shield to spread hate and lies.

[YzzzR1]

What concerns me is the trend in academia where people are demanding to be protected from dissenting opinions. Not only is that wrong, but it is also dangerous.

It's been some time since I've frequented our halls of higher learning so I can't speak to that. My concern is people using the concept of free speech as a shield to spread hate and lies.

Like the woke/cancel culture proponents today?

[fluffy]

It's been some time since I've frequented our halls of higher learning so I can't speak to that. My concern is people using the concept of free speech as a shield to spread hate and lies.

Like the woke/cancel culture proponents today?

The principle is the same no matter who you vote for. This is not a partisan issue, it's one of ethics and what your true motivations are.

[Rejigger]

The principle is the same no matter who you vote for. This is not a partisan issue, it's one of ethics and what your true motivations are.

It shouldn't have anything to do with one's "true motivations". The woke are out to save the world, thinking they know what's best for everyone. If that's their motivation, it's irrelevant. They're still dictators ...and they're wrong.

~

[Drip_Torch]

It's all a matter of balance. As a society we already accept some communal responsibility for our group safety, think smoking restrictions, alcohol and recreational drug restrictions, driving laws, even pornography. I get that there is some disagreement as to where lines get drawn, but keep in mind that often those who argue the loudest against some restrictions are those who would seek to abuse an environment free of restrictions.

We do need balance, but we also need to be able to express opinions freely. I may not like what another person has to say, but I'd rather they be permitted to say it than muzzle them. At least that way I'd at least know and would be aware. So, if for example, someone is saying racist things; do I like it? No. But I am glad to know that is how they think, as it allows me to assess their personality and whether or not I choose to be in contact with them or trust them in any way.

What concerns me is the trend in academia where people are demanding to be protected from dissenting opinions. Not only is that wrong, but it is also dangerous.

It's your last point that I get lost on. I've been plugging away at a few different programs in the last few years and I just don't see this "trend in academia". Things have sure changed since I was a young guy studying Criminology. As far as I'm concerned that's all good and has enriched the learning environment profoundly. Granted, I'm in a couple of fairly specialized programs and my institutional "physical" attendance is somewhat limited, but I do really look forward to those times when I do attend in person classes. My more general program is with an international institution and entirely online.

I don't understand what it is I'm not aloud to say? As far as dissenting opinions go, I'm pretty sure I consistently offer my instructors and classes some of the more unique dissenting opinions they see in a year (anyone surprised? )and I seem to be getting encouraged to carry on.

What am I missing?

[fluffy]

It shouldn't have anything to do with one's "true motivations".

Of course it should. If you're out there intentionally spreading information you know to be false then you're abusing the right to free speech, and I wouldn't bat an eye if those rights were taken away from you.

[Ka-El]

If you're out there intentionally spreading information you know to be false then you're abusing the right to free speech, and I wouldn't bat an eye if those rights were taken away from you.

Especially when that disinformation is intended to promote and spread division and or hate. Freedoms and rights come with responsibility. They have to. The argument we should be able to say and do what we wish without any accountability or consequence is beyond childish.

[Lady tehMa]

It's your last point that I get lost on. I've been plugging away at a few different programs in the last few years and I just don't see this "trend in academia". Things have sure changed since I was a young guy studying Criminology. As far as I'm concerned that's all good and has enriched the learning environment profoundly. Granted, I'm in a couple of fairly specialized programs and my institutional "physical" attendance is somewhat limited, but I do really look forward to those times when I do attend in person classes. My more general program is with an international institution and is entirely online.

I don't understand what it is I'm not allowed to say? As far as dissenting opinions go, I'm pretty sure I consistently offer my instructors and classes some of the more unique dissenting opinions they see in a year (anyone surprised? )and I seem to be getting encouraged to carry on.

What am I missing?

Here is a great article about it
https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/track ... -education

For example, there's Jordan Peterson. I appreciate some of what he's written. Other people who don't like what he has to say have worked hard to make sure he is persona non grata in educational institutions which I believe is a mistake. Love him or hate him (or mildly approve), shutting down ideas is not the way to go. https://flipboard.com/@nationalpost/nat ... alpost.com

Cancel Culture is toxic. and it has spread from colleges/universities to the world at large.

[Thinktank]

My concern is people using the concept of free speech as a shield to spread hate and lies.

THAT WAS SO UGLY when Trudeau said unvaccinated, like myself who never got a flu in thirty two years and can't even remember the last time I got a cold - was a racist for not being vaccinated.

And when Alghabra said truckers, who wanted to be free to earn a living - were nazis.
and when five other fools SPREAD HATRED AND LIES - (including the creep, Singh) I agree with fluffy

THEY SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH HATE CRIMES.

Trudeau
Alghabra
Cannings
Singh
Farber
Saks

^ spreading hatred.

[The Green Barbarian]

When did confused regressives become such a whiney bunch .

I'm thinking around the time AOC was elected.

[69cutlass]

Woke is the new bigot. The definition speaks or itself.

[Drip_Torch]

It's your last point that I get lost on. I've been plugging away at a few different programs in the last few years and I just don't see this "trend in academia". Things have sure changed since I was a young guy studying Criminology. As far as I'm concerned that's all good and has enriched the learning environment profoundly. Granted, I'm in a couple of fairly specialized programs and my institutional "physical" attendance is somewhat limited, but I do really look forward to those times when I do attend in person classes. My more general program is with an international institution and is entirely online.

I don't understand what it is I'm not allowed to say? As far as dissenting opinions go, I'm pretty sure I consistently offer my instructors and classes some of the more unique dissenting opinions they see in a year (anyone surprised? )and I seem to be getting encouraged to carry on.

What am I missing?

Here is a great article about it
https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/track ... -education

For example, there's Jordan Peterson. I appreciate some of what he's written. Other people who don't like what he has to say have worked hard to make sure he is persona non grata in educational institutions which I believe is a mistake. Love him or hate him (or mildly approve), shutting down ideas is not the way to go. https://flipboard.com/@nationalpost/nat ... alpost.com

Cancel Culture is toxic. and it has spread from colleges/universities to the world at large.

Doh, got it. Thanks. My bad, reading last couple pages in the thread instead of starting at the OP. I'll be honest with you, it all just looks like code of conduct faux pas to me and I don't see quite the way you do. Appreciate the explanation all the same.

[fluffy]

Here is a great article about it
https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/track ... -education

While digging a bit into the author of the linked article I came across this:

Dear Mr. Bolotin: I Wish It Were Only That Bad

Take, for example, Bolotin’s description of “the ruling opinions of our own political society”: “These are, I think, a belief in equality and a belief in freedom. We are taught that we are all equal, and we are also taught that we have the right to a very great degree of freedom . . . ” He then claims that such “equality” has come to mean equality of outcomes, not equality of opportunity. This is true to an extent, but even the concept of equality is now out of style, to be replaced by its nefarious cousin, “equity.” That is, it’s no longer enough to insist on equal treatment, or even equal outcomes. We must rather handicap the “privileged” in favor of the “oppressed” in student admissions, faculty hiring, and classroom instruction, therefore creating artificial, unequal outcomes favoring allegedly oppressed groups. Equality, even equality of outcomes, is outdated and has been supplanted by a reparations-centered form of equity.

https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/ ... y-that-bad

The entire article, three pages of it, is an interesting read that offers some insight on what is going on, and while the author tends to paint with wide brush strokes he does bring the issue back to one with a familiar face, a lust for individual power.

[Lady tehMa]

Doh, got it. Thanks. My bad, reading last couple pages in the thread instead of starting at the OP. I'll be honest with you, it all just looks like code of conduct faux pas to me and I don't see quite the way you do. Appreciate the explanation all the same.

I appreciate your willingness to look at the data. :)