How are we going to stop the liberal war on free speech and conservative voices?

If colleges get ANY public funding it should be stripped of they persist with the nonsense. And Facebook needs to burn in hell but people are too stupid to give it up. Gotta tell ma & pa what I had for dinner yo. Beyond stupid. Social media is a poison even without the political bullshit. As for Hollywood I pirate every single movie they make, fuckem. Act like a douche I'll just steal your licensed material.

I disagree.

They should provide a fair assortment of diverse views. They don't HAVE to provide a platform for EVERY speaker. They shouldn't, for example, have to provide a platform for Neo-Nazi's. At this point though - I question whether they are providing enough diverse views - that is the purpose of college, regardless of whether public money is involved or not. And - keep in mind, protests are also free speech, as long as they are peaceful.

Colleges don't necessarily need to facilitate every speaker with campus space and funds, because obviously those things are in limited supply. They should NOT, however, be actively blocking speakers people want to hear.

And we're so far beyond "peaceful protests" at this point, we can't even see 'em from where we stand.

I think it depends. If the speaker is an agitator and requires high levels of security - should colleges have to support that? It's a fine line, but they absolutely support a diversity of voices.
The security wouldn't be needed if left wing nuts knew how to behave in public.

Or rightwing nuts...like the ones that ran over a woman at a demonstration. Inciting a riot is as much a crime as rioting.

Yes, but merely daring to be openly conservative is NOT "inciting a riot".
 
I disagree.

They should provide a fair assortment of diverse views. They don't HAVE to provide a platform for EVERY speaker. They shouldn't, for example, have to provide a platform for Neo-Nazi's. At this point though - I question whether they are providing enough diverse views - that is the purpose of college, regardless of whether public money is involved or not. And - keep in mind, protests are also free speech, as long as they are peaceful.

Colleges don't necessarily need to facilitate every speaker with campus space and funds, because obviously those things are in limited supply. They should NOT, however, be actively blocking speakers people want to hear.

And we're so far beyond "peaceful protests" at this point, we can't even see 'em from where we stand.

I think it depends. If the speaker is an agitator and requires high levels of security - should colleges have to support that? It's a fine line, but they absolutely support a diversity of voices.
The security wouldn't be needed if left wing nuts knew how to behave in public.

Or rightwing nuts...like the ones that ran over a woman at a demonstration. Inciting a riot is as much a crime as rioting.

Yes, but merely daring to be openly conservative is NOT "inciting a riot".

Of course not.

In the meantime...do conservative colleges invite flaming liberal speakers?
 
If colleges get ANY public funding it should be stripped of they persist with the nonsense. And Facebook needs to burn in hell but people are too stupid to give it up. Gotta tell ma & pa what I had for dinner yo. Beyond stupid. Social media is a poison even without the political bullshit. As for Hollywood I pirate every single movie they make, fuckem. Act like a douche I'll just steal your licensed material.

I disagree.

They should provide a fair assortment of diverse views. They don't HAVE to provide a platform for EVERY speaker. They shouldn't, for example, have to provide a platform for Neo-Nazi's. At this point though - I question whether they are providing enough diverse views - that is the purpose of college, regardless of whether public money is involved or not. And - keep in mind, protests are also free speech, as long as they are peaceful.

Colleges don't necessarily need to facilitate every speaker with campus space and funds, because obviously those things are in limited supply. They should NOT, however, be actively blocking speakers people want to hear.

And we're so far beyond "peaceful protests" at this point, we can't even see 'em from where we stand.

I think it depends. If the speaker is an agitator and requires high levels of security - should colleges have to support that? It's a fine line, but they absolutely support a diversity of voices.

How are we defining "agitator requiring high levels of security"? Because it seems to ME that currently means "anyone conservative that the leftist savages want to riot over." You'll excuse me if I don't think the heckler's veto - or the thug's veto - should be making the decisions.

I think it's hard to define that is why I feel it's a fine line. But for example - should colleges be required to provide a platform for white nationalists, neo-nazi's, black nationalists...? People who advocate religious/racial/ethnic violence for example? I'm not just talking about conservative voices - for example Ann Coulter, I would consider a conservative voice who I can't stand but who should be allowed to speak if invited, not an agitator. AND those who disagree should be allowed to protest - short of violence or preventing the speaker from speaking. Milo Y on the other hand strikes me as nothing but a self serving agitator who's aim is to piss off and anger people.

Excuse me, but any college that proudly welcomes the likes of Louis Farrakhan, for example, needs to have a big, heaping helping of shut-the-fuck-up if they want to piss and moan about racism and violence. Let me just put THAT out there right now.

Furthermore, you can dislike Milo's schtick all you want, but I'm not personally aware of him calling for violence, or really doing anything other than being obnoxious and provocative. Granted, I pay very little attention to the man, so if you have evidence otherwise, trot it out.

I don't think it's at all "hard to define", OR a "fine line". That's just a weasel way of saying, "I want to censor people I disagree with while still pretending I'm a good person."
 
Colleges don't necessarily need to facilitate every speaker with campus space and funds, because obviously those things are in limited supply. They should NOT, however, be actively blocking speakers people want to hear.

And we're so far beyond "peaceful protests" at this point, we can't even see 'em from where we stand.

I think it depends. If the speaker is an agitator and requires high levels of security - should colleges have to support that? It's a fine line, but they absolutely support a diversity of voices.
The security wouldn't be needed if left wing nuts knew how to behave in public.

Or rightwing nuts...like the ones that ran over a woman at a demonstration. Inciting a riot is as much a crime as rioting.

Yes, but merely daring to be openly conservative is NOT "inciting a riot".

Of course not.

In the meantime...do conservative colleges invite flaming liberal speakers?

I wasn't aware that there were any conservative colleges with groups of students WANTING to invite flaming liberal speakers. Conservative colleges, pretty much by definition, are private schools which are carefully chosen by like-minded students for that specific quality. Leftist colleges, on the other hand, are state institutions which aren't SUPPOSED to be leftist, and are attended by pretty much anyone needing a degree without an out-of-state tuition bill. They DO have large conservative student groups who routinely suffer censorship, suppression, and even oppression.

But hey, if you want to play the "it's okay because everyone does it" game, then please show me a conservative school which refused a request by a student group to host a leftist speaker.
 
Colleges don't necessarily need to facilitate every speaker with campus space and funds, because obviously those things are in limited supply. They should NOT, however, be actively blocking speakers people want to hear.

And we're so far beyond "peaceful protests" at this point, we can't even see 'em from where we stand.

I think it depends. If the speaker is an agitator and requires high levels of security - should colleges have to support that? It's a fine line, but they absolutely support a diversity of voices.
The security wouldn't be needed if left wing nuts knew how to behave in public.

Or rightwing nuts...like the ones that ran over a woman at a demonstration. Inciting a riot is as much a crime as rioting.

Yes, but merely daring to be openly conservative is NOT "inciting a riot".

Of course not.

In the meantime...do conservative colleges invite flaming liberal speakers?
Do they threaten opposing voices like Berkley......Protest and Riot......How dare you talk on my liberal campus.........

And yeah.......they do allow it without starting a Riot......

Seems your side has the problem.
 
If colleges get ANY public funding it should be stripped of they persist with the nonsense. And Facebook needs to burn in hell but people are too stupid to give it up. Gotta tell ma & pa what I had for dinner yo. Beyond stupid. Social media is a poison even without the political bullshit. As for Hollywood I pirate every single movie they make, fuckem. Act like a douche I'll just steal your licensed material.

I disagree.

They should provide a fair assortment of diverse views. They don't HAVE to provide a platform for EVERY speaker. They shouldn't, for example, have to provide a platform for Neo-Nazi's. At this point though - I question whether they are providing enough diverse views - that is the purpose of college, regardless of whether public money is involved or not. And - keep in mind, protests are also free speech, as long as they are peaceful.

Colleges don't necessarily need to facilitate every speaker with campus space and funds, because obviously those things are in limited supply. They should NOT, however, be actively blocking speakers people want to hear.

And we're so far beyond "peaceful protests" at this point, we can't even see 'em from where we stand.

I think it depends. If the speaker is an agitator and requires high levels of security - should colleges have to support that? It's a fine line, but they absolutely support a diversity of voices.
The security wouldn't be needed if left wing nuts knew how to behave in public.

Or rightwing nuts...like the ones that ran over a woman at a demonstration. Inciting a riot is as much a crime as rioting.
Again, examples of "right-wingers" making speeches on college campuses "inciting" violence are required.
 
From colleges to YouTube and now Diamond & Silk on Facebook.
Facebook to Diamond and Silk: Your content, brand ‘dangerous to the community’

Two conservative black women being targeted as a "danger to the community"

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices.

This shit has to be put to bed. Further segmenting our society & suppressing their voice is not the way you win a political debate.
Challenge them, argue with them, present them with an opposing view but to just outright silence them?

Just proves to me that the left are increasingly alarmed that their grasp on the media & their ability to force the conversation in a certain direction are under threat. They are clearly scared to death of free speech.
You are mis-diagnosing the problem. It's not that the conservative perspective is excluded but that they aren't included by a majority of content seekers. You have to actually have an attractive product to gather popular support and low key bigotry is not that. I could sell the decent conservative ideas to a center-left person way better than how it is often packaged.

To fix this situation, you can start by removing the endless conspiracies, left hatewhining, and empty fantastic slogans.

I like a good conservative perspective and they are deffinitely needed in our government and society to bring balance and their good ideas, but I can only stomach so much empty complaining. If you can point me to a podcast or other publication that doesn't spend half the time ragging on the *insert negative adjective here* left but instead focuses on the policy differences, good ideas, and reasoning, I would listen to it every day. Ben Shapiro comes close but every episode he seems to either run off multiple times on contrived left bashing tangents or dive soo deep into some mundane aspect of a controversy to try to manufacture a step hold for a fundamental assault on the left that I fall asleep. It gets old and it becomes a waste of time to listen during that. He does initially offer fair and fact based synopsis on the issues and seems to often have good logical reasons for what he pushes. He is capable of being critical of polticians or trends on the right, which is problematic on the left for sure. That's why i pick his product when I want to know what the educated right thinks about some issue and why.

Aspects of fiscal conservatism should be part of all leanings. Why tf are we still pulling a deficit? Why are big businesses favored and allowed to build legal barriers to entrance shrouded in misdirection? Why is our military industrial complex the biggest corporate hand out in the world? Basically throwing money away to conniving noncompetitive salesmen. There's common ground to be had there.
 
One would do well to realize that most righties don't have time to dedicate to social media - they have work, and if not work, they actually spend time with family. So yeah, social media panders to the left, because they're the "target audience."


That says nothing of actual votes, nor of whom's opinions are "right" or even "liked" by American's in general. American's in general across the board are sick and tired of PC politics and they don't like the radical progressive ideals being pushed by the "new" Democrat party which abandons all pretense of actual liberalism. The D's lied to us all, years and years ago when compromises were reached - now they demand "concessions," they show their true colors as wanna-be dictators. The average American knows damn well that "lighter is better" in a beer commercial is not fucking racist, the average American knows that not wanting to date a transgender isn't trans-phobic, the average American knows that wishing the president of the US dead is disgusting, but that's what the left has become. They will reap what they sow even if they win "this" battle, they will ultimately lose the war, and America - and then they will find out what happens when you allow politically biased opinions to drive who is "worthy" of expressing themselves freely and who is "worthy" of living at all.
 

Forum List

Back
Top