Annoying Orange executive order to bar research funds from anti free speech colleges

Author Topic: Annoying Orange executive order to bar research funds from anti free speech colleges  (Read 2782 times)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/02/politics/Annoying Orange-executive-order-colleges-free-speech/index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/Annoying Orange-order-protecting-campus-free-speech-is-right-response-to-berkeley-assault

Yes

YES
edit: wait
« Last Edit: March 03, 2019, 06:32:59 PM by YouKnowWhoAgain »


I wonder how colleges will enforce 'free speech' when it's mostly in the hands of their students on how they react.

>when ur opinions are so bad the government has to force other people to listen to them


>when ur opinions are so bad the government has to force other people to listen to them
This is a matthew level bad take

I wonder how colleges will enforce 'free speech' when it's mostly in the hands of their students on how they react.
As am I, I’m guessing it’s reffering to colleges that intentionally disalow speakers because of their side of the political spectrum IE Ben Shapiro at GCU.
I will say in my experence with observing campus protesters(who are all incredibly stupid regardless of political stance) the right wing nutjobs become a much bigger issue because the people they’re targeting simply cannot and will not ignore them. It’s like reacting to an obvious troll. They always get the reaction they want
« Last Edit: March 03, 2019, 09:11:21 PM by Grimlock² »

>when ur opinions are so bad the government has to force other people to listen to them

What's it like wearing your diaper on your head

As am I, I’m guessing it’s reffering to colleges that intentionally disalow speakers because of their side of the political spectrum IE Ben Shapiro at GCU.
I will say in my experence with observing campus protesters(who are all incredibly stupid regardless of political stance) the right wing nutjobs become a much bigger issue because the people they’re targeting simply cannot and will not ignore them. It’s like reacting to an obvious troll. They always get the reaction they want
seeing these more level-headed logical posts from you lately is pretty rad, and make me more interested in hearing your opinion on things.

OT: i don't really know how to react to this, because the number of liberties organizations are given is either too few or too many. this can see be seen as a good thing or a bad thing, dependent on what the institution/organization is barring.

EDIT: also this is likely to create a new spotlight on social media and news outlets that blocks/bans right/left wing nutjobs.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2019, 10:05:50 PM by Ceist »

Well if you take government money you should be beholden to certain things.

Government money is taxpayer money, and taxpayers shouldn't pay for institutions that don't uphold basic American principles such as Freedom of Speech

I don't think any social media takes government grants, so that's another issue entirely.

As am I, I’m guessing it’s reffering to colleges that intentionally disalow speakers because of their side of the political spectrum IE Ben Shapiro at GCU.
I will say in my experence with observing campus protesters(who are all incredibly stupid regardless of political stance) the right wing nutjobs become a much bigger issue because the people they’re targeting simply cannot and will not ignore them. It’s like reacting to an obvious troll. They always get the reaction they want

"You're opinions offend me, and that's your fault."
This is a loving brainlet argument.

Almost as much of a brainlet argument as "I'm going to frame my opinion in an antagonistic manner and direct it at people who disagree with me to instigate an argument unsolicited just to stick it to them." But I guess that your free speech eh?

Almost as much of a brainlet argument as "I'm going to frame my opinion in an antagonistic manner and direct it at people who disagree with me to instigate an argument unsolicited just to stick it to them." But I guess that your free speech eh?

Arguments are not VIOLENCE. It's free speech yes. And they get to do ti themselves on their side all the damn time, but if the opposition doesn't get to then it will result in issues in the long term. These conversations need to be had, because otherwise both sides will stagnate and become extreme.

More than anything else, if you don't want to converse, you don't have to.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2019, 11:16:30 PM by Master Matthew² »

>Neither Williams nor the man suspected of punching him are students at UC Berkeley.

way to tie schools into this >.>

Arguments are not VIOLENCE.

I mean sure, but arguments can lead to violence. If you wanna talk politics and the other dude gets heated over differing opinions, you disengage that person. They aren't worth the time. You dont get in their face and keep pushing the argument. Obviously they aren't there to have a constructive disagreement and neither is the other person in that situation. They are both stuffty people. Don't be a stuffty person.

It would be like walking into a biker bar and saying "Motorcycles are got girls." What would you expect to happen? Them to look at the statistics and try and determine if motorcycles are for girls or not? Or beat the stuff out of you? Sadly, they would probably beat you to an inch of your life but you are also to blame for walking into their bar and saying what you did.

It's not rocket science to have political decency. This is what happens when a two party system gets this polarized, and we aren't helping.

These conversations need to be had, because otherwise both sides will stagnate and become extreme.
Also, the sides don't become more extreme with stagnation, they become more extreme with activity. The more "to their guns" the sides become, the more the split widens.
I agree the conversations must be had, but not like this
« Last Edit: March 04, 2019, 12:19:11 AM by Mr.Noßody »