Current Events > John Stossel: Even liberals can't stand university's silencing of free speech

(+) Yeah! (+)

ForestLogic posted...

frozenshock posted...

What's with conservatives waging war on universities

John Stossel is literally not conservative.

The people who are sucking up this speech are conservative or was that not obviously included in the population that he was talking about?
---

Kineth posted...

ForestLogic posted...

frozenshock posted...

What's with conservatives waging war on universities

John Stossel is literally not conservative.

The people who are sucking up this speech are conservative or was that not obviously included in the population that he was talking about?

Plus it's important to remember that liberalism has a litmus test ever since the far-left SJW fascists decided to hijack it. Now if you don't shout loudly enough during the two minutes hate, you're the enemy.
---

Don't use my posts to preach your bullshit.
---

lol he's warned.

Noted conservatives Bill Maher and Chelsea Manning have been stopped from speaking by these colleges.

That said, no one is owed an invitation to speak at a college.
---

Kineth posted...

Don't use my posts to preach your bullshit.

Awww did your safe space run out of crayons?

Conservatives have long hated university because they completely misunderstand why young people are liberal. It's not because of brainwashing, but because they are better, more empathetic people than their parents.

The GOP hate university because they know that education is their enemy. Keeping voters uninformed is how they succeed.
---

Annihilated posted...

Lol, how about you say something of substance.
---

Kineth posted...

Don't use my posts to preach your bullshit.

Then don't tacitly encourage me with your open-ended posts which suggest that you mean something you now claim you don't.

PBusted posted...

lol he's warned.

And it was for something almost as ridiculous as the time I got warned for, and I quote the mod who upheld his original verdict, "Making somebody sound evil."

jumi posted...

Noted conservatives Bill Maher and Chelsea Manning have been stopped from speaking by these colleges.

That said, no one is owed an invitation to speak at a college.

Maher and Manning aside (and was Manning actually blocked?), given that most colleges receive federal funding, I'm pretty sure they aren't legally allowed to discriminate based on ideology
---

Zeus posted...

Kineth posted...

Don't use my posts to preach your bullshit.

Then don't tacitly encourage me with your open-ended posts which suggest that you mean something you now claim you don't.

Well, my post was a rhetorical question, not an open ended post, but that's a legit criticism so, fair point. I, however, think that your response ignored the actual point of my post.
---

Zeus posted...

Kineth posted...

Don't use my posts to preach your bullshit.

Then don't tacitly encourage me with your open-ended posts which suggest that you mean something you now claim you don't.

PBusted posted...

lol he's warned.

And it was for something almost as ridiculous as the time I got warned for, and I quote the mod who upheld his original verdict, "Making somebody sound evil."

jumi posted...

Noted conservatives Bill Maher and Chelsea Manning have been stopped from speaking by these colleges.

That said, no one is owed an invitation to speak at a college.

Maher and Manning aside (and was Manning actually blocked?), given that most colleges receive federal funding, I'm pretty sure they aren't legally allowed to discriminate based on ideology

Apparently it was for generalizing blacks. And since you were doing it in your very dispute I'm sure it's fair to say fair next.

I love liberals!!!!

Looks like Republicans are going to take even more seats in 2018!

Keep doubling down! You're making America Great Again!
---

PBusted posted...

Zeus posted...

PBusted posted...

lol he's warned.

And it was for something almost as ridiculous as the time I got warned for, and I quote the mod who upheld his original verdict, "Making somebody sound evil."

Apparently it was for generalizing blacks. And since you were doing it in your very dispute I'm sure it's fair to say fair next.

Actually, you're generalizing blacks by pretending that BLM represents all blacks which, by the way, was the mod's feelings on the subject. However, even if you removed the fact that I was specifically talking about BLM, my remark *still* couldn't be construed by any reasonable standard as a generalization because the statistics by trusted survey sources like Gallup and Pew Research back it up:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/175088/gallup-review-black-white-attitudes-toward-police.aspx

This underlying structural negativity toward the police among blacks has been starkly evident in the black community's reactions to the Missouri shooting death, as has been the case in each previous such incident that has received national attention.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/01/11/police-views-public-views/

Blacks are significantly more likely than whites to see their local police as mainly enforcers (39% vs. 26%) and less likely to see officers as both protectors and enforcers (43% vs. 57%).

And, of course, the fact that BLM is anti-police is the prevailing, mainstream belief and therefore uncontroversial to everybody except the social justice crowd:
About nine-in-ten officers (92%) say the protests were motivated by bias toward the police, including 68% who say this was a great deal of the reason behind the demonstrations. A smaller but still substantial 79% majority of the public agrees that prejudice against the police provided at least some of the impetus for the protests, including 41% who see this as a major motivation.

Conversely, the claim I was responding to -- which was an actual generalization and offensive (calling all cops racist and aggressive) -- was completely untouched. Just shows where the mods stand-- ie, on the very far-left.
---

oh look. another paragraph long multipoint appeal where the mod responds with a quick one sentence response

Zikten posted...

oh look. another paragraph long multipoint appeal where the mod responds with a quick one sentence response

tbh, I'm pretty sure they don't bother reading the appeals if they're longer than two sentences, which is probably why the responses rarely ever seems to address the objections.
---

Zeus posted...

tbh, I'm pretty sure they don't bother reading the appeals if they're longer than two sentences, which is probably why the responses rarely ever seems to address the objections.

makes the upholding unvalid then. it's like a judge that drags in a prisoner and claims to let the prisoner plead his case and then 5 seconds into the prisoner's speech, the judge says "whatever. 30 years in prison. get him out of here, guards!"

good old john stossel i love him

and yeah, i've always saw myself as really left leaning but these colleges are ridiculous
---

Zikten posted...

Zeus posted...

tbh, I'm pretty sure they don't bother reading the appeals if they're longer than two sentences, which is probably why the responses rarely ever seems to address the objections.

makes the upholding unvalid then. it's like a judge that drags in a prisoner and claims to let the prisoner plead his case and then 5 seconds into the prisoner's speech, the judge says "whatever. 30 years in prison. get him out of here, guards!"

You're operating from the premise that the system was designed to be fair. I'm not entirely sure that's the case, given the opaque nature of the system and seemingly arbitrary enforcement of rules which generally trend towards certain agendas. It's something I'm hoping will be improved when the moderation system is overhauled.
---

Zeus posted...

PBusted posted...

Zeus posted...

PBusted posted...

lol he's warned.

And it was for something almost as ridiculous as the time I got warned for, and I quote the mod who upheld his original verdict, "Making somebody sound evil."

Apparently it was for generalizing blacks. And since you were doing it in your very dispute I'm sure it's fair to say fair next.

Actually, you're generalizing blacks by pretending that BLM represents all blacks which, by the way, was the mod's feelings on the subject. However, even if you removed the fact that I was specifically talking about BLM, my remark *still* couldn't be construed by any reasonable standard as a generalization because the statistics by trusted survey sources like Gallup and Pew Research back it up:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/175088/gallup-review-black-white-attitudes-toward-police.aspx

This underlying structural negativity toward the police among blacks has been starkly evident in the black community's reactions to the Missouri shooting death, as has been the case in each previous such incident that has received national attention.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/01/11/police-views-public-views/

Blacks are significantly more likely than whites to see their local police as mainly enforcers (39% vs. 26%) and less likely to see officers as both protectors and enforcers (43% vs. 57%).

And, of course, the fact that BLM is anti-police is the prevailing, mainstream belief and therefore uncontroversial to everybody except the social justice crowd:
About nine-in-ten officers (92%) say the protests were motivated by bias toward the police, including 68% who say this was a great deal of the reason behind the demonstrations. A smaller but still substantial 79% majority of the public agrees that prejudice against the police provided at least some of the impetus for the protests, including 41% who see this as a major motivation.

Conversely, the claim I was responding to -- which was an actual generalization and offensive (calling all cops racist and aggressive) -- was completely untouched. Just shows where the mods stand-- ie, on the very far-left.

All of this is irrelevant since you in that very dispute said "many blacks are anti-cop" which is a racist generalization so undoubtedly you did one in your actual post too

PBusted posted...

Zeus posted...

PBusted posted...

Zeus posted...

PBusted posted...

lol he's warned.

And it was for something almost as ridiculous as the time I got warned for, and I quote the mod who upheld his original verdict, "Making somebody sound evil."

Apparently it was for generalizing blacks. And since you were doing it in your very dispute I'm sure it's fair to say fair next.

Actually, you're generalizing blacks by pretending that BLM represents all blacks which, by the way, was the mod's feelings on the subject. However, even if you removed the fact that I was specifically talking about BLM, my remark *still* couldn't be construed by any reasonable standard as a generalization because the statistics by trusted survey sources like Gallup and Pew Research back it up:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/175088/gallup-review-black-white-attitudes-toward-police.aspx

This underlying structural negativity toward the police among blacks has been starkly evident in the black community's reactions to the Missouri shooting death, as has been the case in each previous such incident that has received national attention.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/01/11/police-views-public-views/

Blacks are significantly more likely than whites to see their local police as mainly enforcers (39% vs. 26%) and less likely to see officers as both protectors and enforcers (43% vs. 57%).

And, of course, the fact that BLM is anti-police is the prevailing, mainstream belief and therefore uncontroversial to everybody except the social justice crowd:
About nine-in-ten officers (92%) say the protests were motivated by bias toward the police, including 68% who say this was a great deal of the reason behind the demonstrations. A smaller but still substantial 79% majority of the public agrees that prejudice against the police provided at least some of the impetus for the protests, including 41% who see this as a major motivation.

Conversely, the claim I was responding to -- which was an actual generalization and offensive (calling all cops racist and aggressive) -- was completely untouched. Just shows where the mods stand-- ie, on the very far-left.

All of this is irrelevant since you in that very dispute said "many blacks are anti-cop" which is a racist generalization so undoubtedly you did one in your actual post too

Which references back to the original comment that many blacks support BLM, which is an anti-cop movement.... However, clearly not all blacks are BLM supporters -- nor did I accuse all blacks of being so (nor would I, since erroneously accusing somebody of supporting BLM is an insult in itself given the group's history of violent protests) -- which is why it's not a generalization. Compare that to the comment I was replying to which implied that all cops are racists who beat up/murder people, ie an ACTUAL generalization.

Unless you're trying to argue that many blacks don't support BLM, at which point I'd encourage you to look at a BLM rally.
---

Zeus posted...

Which references back to the original comment that many blacks support BLM, which is an anti-cop movement

lol... You don't get it and what's worse is that part of the reason you don't get it is because you're so certain that you're right that there's no possibility of other reasonings being true.
---

Jon Stossel is not wrong you know, I mean the best example I'll have to say when it came to letting people you disagree with talk is what happened to Milo's career. His career wasn't taken down by silencing him, it was taken down because he was allowed to talk.
---

Zeus posted...

PBusted posted...

Zeus posted...

PBusted posted...

Zeus posted...

PBusted posted...

lol he's warned.

And it was for something almost as ridiculous as the time I got warned for, and I quote the mod who upheld his original verdict, "Making somebody sound evil."

Apparently it was for generalizing blacks. And since you were doing it in your very dispute I'm sure it's fair to say fair next.

Actually, you're generalizing blacks by pretending that BLM represents all blacks which, by the way, was the mod's feelings on the subject. However, even if you removed the fact that I was specifically talking about BLM, my remark *still* couldn't be construed by any reasonable standard as a generalization because the statistics by trusted survey sources like Gallup and Pew Research back it up:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/175088/gallup-review-black-white-attitudes-toward-police.aspx

This underlying structural negativity toward the police among blacks has been starkly evident in the black community's reactions to the Missouri shooting death, as has been the case in each previous such incident that has received national attention.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/01/11/police-views-public-views/

Blacks are significantly more likely than whites to see their local police as mainly enforcers (39% vs. 26%) and less likely to see officers as both protectors and enforcers (43% vs. 57%).

And, of course, the fact that BLM is anti-police is the prevailing, mainstream belief and therefore uncontroversial to everybody except the social justice crowd:
About nine-in-ten officers (92%) say the protests were motivated by bias toward the police, including 68% who say this was a great deal of the reason behind the demonstrations. A smaller but still substantial 79% majority of the public agrees that prejudice against the police provided at least some of the impetus for the protests, including 41% who see this as a major motivation.

Conversely, the claim I was responding to -- which was an actual generalization and offensive (calling all cops racist and aggressive) -- was completely untouched. Just shows where the mods stand-- ie, on the very far-left.

All of this is irrelevant since you in that very dispute said "many blacks are anti-cop" which is a racist generalization so undoubtedly you did one in your actual post too

Which references back to the original comment that many blacks support BLM, which is an anti-cop movement.... However, clearly not all blacks are BLM supporters -- nor did I accuse all blacks of being so (nor would I, since erroneously accusing somebody of supporting BLM is an insult in itself given the group's history of violent protests) -- which is why it's not a generalization

Unless you're trying to argue that many blacks don't support BLM, at which point I'd encourage you to look at a BLM rally.

Since many is subjective, when you follow up "many blacks" with a negative claim like anti-cop, it's a racist generalization, even if there are "statistics that prove it", which in your case you don't even have.
Again, many is subjective. If you're going to say most you're going to have to prove over 50% of black people support BLM. Or you can say "many white people support white supremacists because just look at a white supremacist rally".