Am I the only one who sees the glaring flaw in the "logic" here?

Apparenlty you have a different code of behavior for yourself. Typical of any who use partisanshithead labels.
It should come at no surprise that a left-winger is pushing for the return of the days of segregation. The left still loves slavery and they still love segregation.

Typical empty bullshit response of many who use partisanshithead labels.
 
I agree it's not a good idea. It insulates a person from outside view.
:clap::clap2::clap:
Ever since the advent of social media and cable television. We can now retreat into our own private Safe Spaces (i.e. Echo Chambers) where all our ideas receive affirmation and support and agreement with never a contrary opinion allowed to permeate the sacred space.
And to be honest - I don't even mind that. After all, we are free to live our lives as we wish (including in echo chambers and/or ignorant). But I do think it's a problem when universities are creating the safe spaces for them. How many times have universities blocked a certain speaker who had been invited? While they have the right to do that - it's not a healthy thing to do. If I were a parent looking at colleges, one of my first questions would be about their history of restricting speech. If they had any history of blocking speakers, I would let them know that they just lost my business.

These are public universities we are talking about - tax supported institutions. I don't think they do have the right to deny conservatives from speaking in them.

Ah. So free speech only applies to some. I disagree, they should all be held to the same standards.

The 1st Amendment is a restriction on government. It doesn't apply on private property. You have no freedom of speech in my house unless I grant it to you.
 
I agree it's not a good idea. It insulates a person from outside view.
:clap::clap2::clap:
Ever since the advent of social media and cable television. We can now retreat into our own private Safe Spaces (i.e. Echo Chambers) where all our ideas receive affirmation and support and agreement with never a contrary opinion allowed to permeate the sacred space.
And to be honest - I don't even mind that. After all, we are free to live our lives as we wish (including in echo chambers and/or ignorant). But I do think it's a problem when universities are creating the safe spaces for them. How many times have universities blocked a certain speaker who had been invited? While they have the right to do that - it's not a healthy thing to do. If I were a parent looking at colleges, one of my first questions would be about their history of restricting speech. If they had any history of blocking speakers, I would let them know that they just lost my business.

These are public universities we are talking about - tax supported institutions. I don't think they do have the right to deny conservatives from speaking in them.

Ah. So free speech only applies to some. I disagree, they should all be held to the same standards.

The 1st Amendment is a restriction on government. It doesn't apply on private property. You have no freedom of speech in my house unless I grant it to you.

Where talking in generalities here. Not amendments.
 
I agree it's not a good idea. It insulates a person from outside view.
:clap::clap2::clap:
Ever since the advent of social media and cable television. We can now retreat into our own private Safe Spaces (i.e. Echo Chambers) where all our ideas receive affirmation and support and agreement with never a contrary opinion allowed to permeate the sacred space.
And to be honest - I don't even mind that. After all, we are free to live our lives as we wish (including in echo chambers and/or ignorant). But I do think it's a problem when universities are creating the safe spaces for them. How many times have universities blocked a certain speaker who had been invited? While they have the right to do that - it's not a healthy thing to do. If I were a parent looking at colleges, one of my first questions would be about their history of restricting speech. If they had any history of blocking speakers, I would let them know that they just lost my business.

These are public universities we are talking about - tax supported institutions. I don't think they do have the right to deny conservatives from speaking in them.

Ah. So free speech only applies to some. I disagree, they should all be held to the same standards.

The 1st Amendment is a restriction on government. It doesn't apply on private property. You have no freedom of speech in my house unless I grant it to you.

Where talking in generalities here. Not amendments.
When did you assume you have a right to free speech on private property?
 
:clap::clap2::clap:
And to be honest - I don't even mind that. After all, we are free to live our lives as we wish (including in echo chambers and/or ignorant). But I do think it's a problem when universities are creating the safe spaces for them. How many times have universities blocked a certain speaker who had been invited? While they have the right to do that - it's not a healthy thing to do. If I were a parent looking at colleges, one of my first questions would be about their history of restricting speech. If they had any history of blocking speakers, I would let them know that they just lost my business.

These are public universities we are talking about - tax supported institutions. I don't think they do have the right to deny conservatives from speaking in them.

Ah. So free speech only applies to some. I disagree, they should all be held to the same standards.

The 1st Amendment is a restriction on government. It doesn't apply on private property. You have no freedom of speech in my house unless I grant it to you.

Where talking in generalities here. Not amendments.
When did you assume you have a right to free speech on private property?

I don't.

Why do you assume you have a right to unlimited free speech on public property? See, both of us can play stupid games.

Seems to me if you support the ideas of universities as institution that open minds to a variety of ideas, you'd apply that across the board. Nowhere in the topic is anyone (but you) making a distinction between public and private but rather discussing it in a broader sense.
 
These are public universities we are talking about - tax supported institutions. I don't think they do have the right to deny conservatives from speaking in them.

Ah. So free speech only applies to some. I disagree, they should all be held to the same standards.

The 1st Amendment is a restriction on government. It doesn't apply on private property. You have no freedom of speech in my house unless I grant it to you.

Where talking in generalities here. Not amendments.
When did you assume you have a right to free speech on private property?

I don't.

Why do you assume you have a right to unlimited free speech on public property? See, both of us can play stupid games.

Seems to me if you support the ideas of universities as institution that open minds to a variety of ideas, you'd apply that across the board. Nowhere in the topic is anyone (but you) making a distinction between public and private but rather discussing it in a broader sense.

Because it's public property. That means we all own it, which means the people who run it don't get to decide which ideas are acceptable and which aren't.

What's the "broader sense?" Free speech doesn't apply everywhere. You're trying to support that position at the same time you're denying it.
 
Ah. So free speech only applies to some. I disagree, they should all be held to the same standards.

The 1st Amendment is a restriction on government. It doesn't apply on private property. You have no freedom of speech in my house unless I grant it to you.

Where talking in generalities here. Not amendments.
When did you assume you have a right to free speech on private property?

I don't.

Why do you assume you have a right to unlimited free speech on public property? See, both of us can play stupid games.

Seems to me if you support the ideas of universities as institution that open minds to a variety of ideas, you'd apply that across the board. Nowhere in the topic is anyone (but you) making a distinction between public and private but rather discussing it in a broader sense.

Because it's public property. That means we all own it, which means the people who run it don't get to decide which ideas are acceptable and which aren't.

What's the "broader sense?" Free speech doesn't apply everywhere. You're trying to support that position at the same time you're denying it.

The broader sense is - safe spaces, protecting people from opinions they don't like.

This is what the OP is:

So Mr. Sean Ryan here of Columbia University is on to discuss (promote?) a couple of "safe spaces" that Columbia has set up for their African-American students and their homosexual students. Tucker Carlson of Fox News wisely points out that this is going back to the days of segregation - and defeats the argument that diversity is critical.

Here is where things get really bizarre - Sean Ryan states that these spaces are vital because "isolationism" has caused a host of serious issues for students - including suicide. Yet neither he nor Tucker Carlson saw the obvious flaw here: creating these spaces is causing the isolation. When you take a subset of people out of their community and place them in rooms with a small group of people exactly like them - you have isolated them from the rest of their community. :eusa_doh:
 
I wish I had a safe space, a "sanctuary" from either illegal aliens or whoever the hell is perpetrating all that mess on us.
 

Forum List

Back
Top