FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
Hey, I agree with that too!
Forum for free speech (re:Rockford College Commencement)
- Thread starter ouizy
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Hey, I agree with that too!
OP
OP
ouizy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars,
I am perplexed.
I think maybe something was lost in the translation of my post. I was being sarcastic in that directly under your name and above your avatar it says "New Yorker." It is pretty much common knowledge here in New York that the term African-American is used and not Afro-American. That is why I was being sarcastic.
That's all.
As far as your $300.00 donation is concerned, you have lost me. I have no idea what you are talking about, why I should donate anything, or how any of the philanthropic things I do in my life are any of your business.
This thread is not about insulting people, and should not be - it is about the appropriateness of an institution forcing someone's ideas down other's throats, and how they react.
I am perplexed.
I think maybe something was lost in the translation of my post. I was being sarcastic in that directly under your name and above your avatar it says "New Yorker." It is pretty much common knowledge here in New York that the term African-American is used and not Afro-American. That is why I was being sarcastic.
That's all.
As far as your $300.00 donation is concerned, you have lost me. I have no idea what you are talking about, why I should donate anything, or how any of the philanthropic things I do in my life are any of your business.
This thread is not about insulting people, and should not be - it is about the appropriateness of an institution forcing someone's ideas down other's throats, and how they react.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
ouizy said:
I agree that?s none of my business.
But there?s is a good reason: it would be the right thing to do. It is a good thing to help people who are starving or children who got AIDS. It is a concrete thing to do. A change you make. So, why shouldn?t you donate?
Give it a thought
80sU2isBest
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2000
- Messages
- 4,970
I don't get it - where did this come from?whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
I agree that?s none of my business.
But there?s is a good reason: it would be the right thing to do. It is a good thing to help people who are starving or children who got AIDS. It is a concrete thing to do. A change you make. So, why shouldn?t you donate?
Give it a thought
And how do you know whether ouizy donates or not?
Fizzing,
No one is comparing the KKK to any other group or organization. But it is a fact that their political beliefs, and I underline beliefs, are protected to the same degree any belief or opinion is. Because of that, you cannot have a different standard for what is appropriate between a KKK speaker or pro or anti war speaker. When it comes to beliefs, opinions and the right to speak ones mind, the KKK speaker, Pro War Speaker and anti-war speaker are equal. So either students should have to remain silent through all three or they have the right to get up and shout at all three. No matter how extreme the KKK leader is, their right to their political belief and their freedom of speech is equal to that of the Pro or Anti War speaker. Certainly, any member of the KKK that has been involved in criminal action should be locked up as should any in the pro or anti war crowd should be if they engaged in criminal action. But it is not a crime to simply have an opinion and talk about it.
No one is comparing the KKK to any other group or organization. But it is a fact that their political beliefs, and I underline beliefs, are protected to the same degree any belief or opinion is. Because of that, you cannot have a different standard for what is appropriate between a KKK speaker or pro or anti war speaker. When it comes to beliefs, opinions and the right to speak ones mind, the KKK speaker, Pro War Speaker and anti-war speaker are equal. So either students should have to remain silent through all three or they have the right to get up and shout at all three. No matter how extreme the KKK leader is, their right to their political belief and their freedom of speech is equal to that of the Pro or Anti War speaker. Certainly, any member of the KKK that has been involved in criminal action should be locked up as should any in the pro or anti war crowd should be if they engaged in criminal action. But it is not a crime to simply have an opinion and talk about it.
OP
OP
ouizy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
STING2 said:
I have to agree with this.
As far as the donation thing, I will drop that here. I donate my thoughts to Interference, anything else is my own business.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
I'm not saying the KKK have less of a right to hold their opinions than a person with a less extreme political opinion. I am saying that while I disagree with a pro or anti war speaker being invited to address a graduation, I would disagree even more vehemently if a member of the KKK were to speak. I personally would not boo or heckle a person giving a speech about the war, regardless of whether I agreed or disagreed with them because I do not believe those opinions are offensive or dangerous. I do, however, believe that the opinions of the KKK or any other white superemacist are extremely offensive to all decent people, and can lead to a dangerous rise in racism and racist violence. Therefore I would be entirely comfortable with walking out of a speech given by a member of the KKK - I wouldn't want to sit and listen to their disgusting lies.
Fizzing,
I understand that is what you would do and I would actually probably do the same. But if it is ok for others to boo or heckle a KKK member in this setting, then you would have to admit its ok to do the same to a pro war or anti war speaker. Or of course if its never ok to boo or heckle an anti war speaker or pro war speaker in this setting, then the same holds true for the KKK speaker.
I understand that is what you would do and I would actually probably do the same. But if it is ok for others to boo or heckle a KKK member in this setting, then you would have to admit its ok to do the same to a pro war or anti war speaker. Or of course if its never ok to boo or heckle an anti war speaker or pro war speaker in this setting, then the same holds true for the KKK speaker.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
ouizy said:
Fine.
It would have been a good idea to donate.
I am really sorry that you don?t.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
STING2 said:
No, I don't agree with that. I would walk out of a speech given by the KKK because I think their views are so extreme and so offensive that no decent person should be made to listen to them, much less agree with them. I think the views of white supremacist organisations and race-hate groups are a danger to everyone in society. I think their opinions go beyond expressing a simple political opinion and into the realm of causing racist violence. I wouldn't sit and listen to a KKK speaker.
On the other hand, I would listen to a person speaking about the war, even if I disagreed with them for the simple reason that while I personally might find their views wrong, I don't think those views are extremely offensive in the way the views of the KKK are extremely offensive.
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
Hiphop, Ouizy chooses to not discuss waht he does with his money or anything in his personal life. He never said he doesn't donate and whether he does or not is not our concern. Yes they are good causes, and thankyou for posting info about them - I'm sure others appreciate the information too. They are however, like many other things in this thread, not relevant to the topic.
Like for the African American error, hopefully that has been cleared up to everyone's satisfaction now?
Like for the African American error, hopefully that has been cleared up to everyone's satisfaction now?
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Angela Harlem said:
Angela, I understand what you are saying. I never said ouizy doesn?t donate at all. For that cause, apparently he chose not to.
You may be right to say that this is none of my business, but anyway, it is my concern - fine maybe not yours, but mine - because I am concerned; not about ouizy in particular, but about the issue.
I don?t care a bit if those issues are relevant to this thread or not. In my opinion, issues like donating are too important to make a decision based on relevancy for a forum thread. Indeed, generally they are so relevant that they are relevant everywhere.
They would also be relevant at a graduation ceremony, for example. I think instead of speaking of war and presenting a personal opinion about it, this above mentioned Chris should maybe - apart from telling the students about the graduation and education and congratulating them - have focused on other things, like the upper class tradition of caring and helping and funding.
I also do care about the differences between Afro American or African American. Anyhow, I think the so called American political correctness often misses out that there are more important things to focus upon. If every American citizen who can afford to would donate 300 $, guess what changes could be made, instead of focusing on things like "its correct to express sth like that or in those words". So what I am talking about, is practical, everyday-life correctness instead of correctness of expressions. Real, practical political correctness means to lower the unjust and cynical discrepancy between rich and poor on our planet.
As to the KKK thing, to any intelligent person it should be totally logical that there are differences when you take history of organizations into account. What is allowed to be expressed by American laws or not, does not play a role from an ethical standpoint, which also must include historical facts. If an ethical standpoint ignores history, it is not worth a lot.
80sU2isBest
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2000
- Messages
- 4,970
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
hiphop, you did say ouizy doesn't donate. you said:
"It would have been a good idea to donate. I am really sorry that you don?t."
I hope you understand why it made a few of us upset that you were jumping on ouizy's back about this. You are in no position to know whether or not ouizy donates, and even if you somehow knew he doesn't, you are still in no position to judge him for not donating. One thing some liberals often say about conservatives is that they are "shoving their own morality down other people's throats". Well, that is exactly what you're doing here. The morality issue here just happens to be donations.
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
I suspect Hiphop's sentance was misstyped. Mistyped? Whatever the word is or isn't lol.
As for what you guys both said, there is a difference between the issues and someone's personal position and actions on those issues. The issues themselves are very important and should be if not already, a concern of everyone. As for this only being an internet forum, yes it is ONLY a forum, and for that reason, we like to keep things on track as much as possible, which you know and understand. I only really said what I did as this thread had veered off. What information you posted though like you said is terribly important. Important enough for its own thread. It may be seen as nitpicking, trying to get content in threads neat and tidy, but in this case the stuff you are talking about deserves more attention than what it may get in here, this thread. I'd be interested for one, if you started a thread about all the things you've brought up.
Anyways, I'm not trying to get your back up or anything Hiphop, there is a bigger picture and its not for our personal lives to be questioned on here. But that said, you've clarified what you meant and we can hopefully leave this alone now and start again if anyone wants to dedicate a thread to the issues alone.
Thanks guys.
As for what you guys both said, there is a difference between the issues and someone's personal position and actions on those issues. The issues themselves are very important and should be if not already, a concern of everyone. As for this only being an internet forum, yes it is ONLY a forum, and for that reason, we like to keep things on track as much as possible, which you know and understand. I only really said what I did as this thread had veered off. What information you posted though like you said is terribly important. Important enough for its own thread. It may be seen as nitpicking, trying to get content in threads neat and tidy, but in this case the stuff you are talking about deserves more attention than what it may get in here, this thread. I'd be interested for one, if you started a thread about all the things you've brought up.
Anyways, I'm not trying to get your back up or anything Hiphop, there is a bigger picture and its not for our personal lives to be questioned on here. But that said, you've clarified what you meant and we can hopefully leave this alone now and start again if anyone wants to dedicate a thread to the issues alone.
Thanks guys.
Fizzing,
"No, I don't agree with that. I would walk out of a speech given by the KKK because I think their views are so extreme and so offensive that no decent person should be made to listen to them, much less agree with them. I think the views of white supremacist organisations and race-hate groups are a danger to everyone in society. I think their opinions go beyond expressing a simple political opinion and into the realm of causing racist violence. I wouldn't sit and listen to a KKK speaker."
"On the other hand, I would listen to a person speaking about the war, even if I disagreed with them for the simple reason that while I personally might find their views wrong, I don't think those views are extremely offensive in the way the views of the KKK are extremely offensive."
Based on what you have said here, I would have to conclude that you believe that having a certain opinion or belief could be a danger to society. I'm not talking about actions here except for perhaps expressing that opinion in a peaceful way.
I believe that simply having an opinion or belief is not in of itself, a danger to society. Acting on those opinions or beliefs could be a danger to society depending on what they are. Since I believe that an opinion or belief is not in of itself a danger to society, I believe that those expressing those beliefs deserve the same rights as anyone else expressing their belief and should be treated in the same way. When your talking only about belief and opinion, how can you have two different standards?
This is why I feel that with a political speach at a graduation ceremony, the treatment of the speaker, whether its a KKK speaker, Pro War Speaker, or Anti War Speaker, should be the same. Interrupting or interfering with the KKK speaker is just as bad or good as doing the same to the Anti War or Pro War Speaker. If the Pro or Anti War speaker has the right to speak without being disrupted in any way, then the KKK Speaker has that right as well.
If it was inappropriate for the students to yell and heckle Chris Hedges, then it would also be inappropriate for them to yell and heckle the KKK speaker. Otherwise, you are going down the road of restricting free speach, freedom of thought and opinion. If one group can recieve unequal treatment because of their beliefs and opinions, anyone potentially at some point could suffer the same discrimination and restriction for simply having an opinion or belief.
"No, I don't agree with that. I would walk out of a speech given by the KKK because I think their views are so extreme and so offensive that no decent person should be made to listen to them, much less agree with them. I think the views of white supremacist organisations and race-hate groups are a danger to everyone in society. I think their opinions go beyond expressing a simple political opinion and into the realm of causing racist violence. I wouldn't sit and listen to a KKK speaker."
"On the other hand, I would listen to a person speaking about the war, even if I disagreed with them for the simple reason that while I personally might find their views wrong, I don't think those views are extremely offensive in the way the views of the KKK are extremely offensive."
Based on what you have said here, I would have to conclude that you believe that having a certain opinion or belief could be a danger to society. I'm not talking about actions here except for perhaps expressing that opinion in a peaceful way.
I believe that simply having an opinion or belief is not in of itself, a danger to society. Acting on those opinions or beliefs could be a danger to society depending on what they are. Since I believe that an opinion or belief is not in of itself a danger to society, I believe that those expressing those beliefs deserve the same rights as anyone else expressing their belief and should be treated in the same way. When your talking only about belief and opinion, how can you have two different standards?
This is why I feel that with a political speach at a graduation ceremony, the treatment of the speaker, whether its a KKK speaker, Pro War Speaker, or Anti War Speaker, should be the same. Interrupting or interfering with the KKK speaker is just as bad or good as doing the same to the Anti War or Pro War Speaker. If the Pro or Anti War speaker has the right to speak without being disrupted in any way, then the KKK Speaker has that right as well.
If it was inappropriate for the students to yell and heckle Chris Hedges, then it would also be inappropriate for them to yell and heckle the KKK speaker. Otherwise, you are going down the road of restricting free speach, freedom of thought and opinion. If one group can recieve unequal treatment because of their beliefs and opinions, anyone potentially at some point could suffer the same discrimination and restriction for simply having an opinion or belief.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
I think the KKK are dangerous because they incite racism. I don't support them being allowed to speak on a college campus because I believe that black students on the campus have the right to live their lives without fear of racist attack.
I don't think an indivdual speaking about the war poses the same threat to students, so I while I don't think it is appropriate to allow such a speaker to address a graduation, I wouldn't oppose it for the same reasons I would oppose a KKK speaker.
I don't think an indivdual speaking about the war poses the same threat to students, so I while I don't think it is appropriate to allow such a speaker to address a graduation, I wouldn't oppose it for the same reasons I would oppose a KKK speaker.
Fizzing,
"I think the KKK are dangerous because they incite racism. I don't support them being allowed to speak on a college campus because I believe that black students on the campus have the right to live their lives without fear of racist attack."
"I don't think an indivdual speaking about the war poses the same threat to students, so I while I don't think it is appropriate to allow such a speaker to address a graduation, I wouldn't oppose it for the same reasons I would oppose a KKK speaker."
That means that you believe that having a belief or opinion in of itself can be dangerous, even if the person never in anyway acted out that belief. This is something liberals usually accuse conservatives of. I believe persons talking about racism or war pose no threat to anyone as long as they are simply stating beliefs and opinions and not engaging in any sort of action beyond that.
Political and controversial beliefs can be expressed providing it is the correct setting. The Graduation ceremony was not one. But in area's where political beliefs are allowed to be expressed, I can't see how you can restrict someone else's free speach or decide that one political belief is or is not deserving of certain types of behavior. All political beliefs here in the USA are treated equally in both the freedom to express and the reactions and behavior to that expression.
"I think the KKK are dangerous because they incite racism. I don't support them being allowed to speak on a college campus because I believe that black students on the campus have the right to live their lives without fear of racist attack."
"I don't think an indivdual speaking about the war poses the same threat to students, so I while I don't think it is appropriate to allow such a speaker to address a graduation, I wouldn't oppose it for the same reasons I would oppose a KKK speaker."
That means that you believe that having a belief or opinion in of itself can be dangerous, even if the person never in anyway acted out that belief. This is something liberals usually accuse conservatives of. I believe persons talking about racism or war pose no threat to anyone as long as they are simply stating beliefs and opinions and not engaging in any sort of action beyond that.
Political and controversial beliefs can be expressed providing it is the correct setting. The Graduation ceremony was not one. But in area's where political beliefs are allowed to be expressed, I can't see how you can restrict someone else's free speach or decide that one political belief is or is not deserving of certain types of behavior. All political beliefs here in the USA are treated equally in both the freedom to express and the reactions and behavior to that expression.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
If Rumsfeld had spoken at West Point or some other military school I would not expect the students to turn their backs or be disrespectful.
Sting,
I think you are off with all this KKK talk. Sure it would be legal for a Klansman or Neo-Nazi to speak. But, any official that invited him would be out of a job.
Not supporting the Administration?s foreign policy is no where close in offensiveness, as having a Klansman speak.
A better comparison might have been a speaker opposing Clinton?s ?Interventionist? War in Bosnia in the 90s. There were many that did oppose that war.
Sting,
I think you are off with all this KKK talk. Sure it would be legal for a Klansman or Neo-Nazi to speak. But, any official that invited him would be out of a job.
Not supporting the Administration?s foreign policy is no where close in offensiveness, as having a Klansman speak.
A better comparison might have been a speaker opposing Clinton?s ?Interventionist? War in Bosnia in the 90s. There were many that did oppose that war.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
80sU2isBest said:
Nope, I don?t understand. Stop to make assumptions and to discredit me, 80s.
What you are quoting is exactly what I said. It ain?t any form of jumping on someone?s back. I also am not judging. I am pointing out it would have been and would still be a good idea, and that I am sorry ouizy apparently (in his own words) did not donate for that cause. What?s the problem. If the problem is that I didn?t add "for this cause", you can f***ing imagine what I meant. After all, it is totally logical that I don?t know whether he donates 20,000 $ per year to Greenpeace or not.
You, on the other hand, keep mixing into things that aren?t your business at all. You may be concerned, like I am about certain issues, but I replied to ouizy personally and to Angela because she?s a mod, and I am just replying to you now because I want to set the record straight. Stop blaming me for jumping on someone?s back when I don?t. If ouizy felt like I was jumping his back, he himself might as well explain how come, and I may choose to reply.
Another comment from you about this will remain unanswered by me.
Anyhow, I?ll get you a medal for playing the psychotherapist.
Angela: ok by me. Maybe I will post about donating another time.
While we are dicussing, just today another thousands of people have died of AIDS and famine. In my opinion, everyone should get involved. In my opinion, this is a Christian duty.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
If a KKK speaker could be allowed to speak, a Nazi could also be allowed to speak. He could praise Hitler and his policies of putting the jews into concentraition camps. After all, that?s just an opinion. Doesn?t pose a threat to anyone. Just talking. Free speech.
In my opinion, history counts.
In my opinion, history counts.
80sU2isBest
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2000
- Messages
- 4,970
hiphop, it seemed to me that you were jumping his case about it based on the wya you worded some of it. That is why I jumped to his defense, because quite frankly, it upset me that you just kept hammering at him about it, and seemed to eb making teh assumption that he doesn't donate.
However, if I am wrong about your motives and intent, i am very sorry to have jumped your case, the very thing i accused you of doing to him.
However, if I am wrong about your motives and intent, i am very sorry to have jumped your case, the very thing i accused you of doing to him.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Fine. Shakehands, peace, later, dear old chap
Deep,
"Not supporting the Administration?s foreign policy is no where close in offensiveness, as having a Klansman speak."
I've already said I totally agree with that. I've also said that is not the point at all. This is not about a comparison between a KKK person and an anti-war person, its about equality when it comes to free speach and opinion.
"I think you are off with all this KKK talk. Sure it would be legal for a Klansman or Neo-Nazi to speak. But, any official that invited him would be out of a job."
Not necessarily. It depends on the institution and the setting.
"A better comparison might have been a speaker opposing Clinton?s ?Interventionist? War in Bosnia in the 90s. There were many that did oppose that war."
Again, my point is not about a comparison between the level of offensiveness between speakers. Its about double standards for speach and opinion that is supposed to be protected equally, regardless of the level of offensiveness, provided the setting it takes place in is appropriate.
"Not supporting the Administration?s foreign policy is no where close in offensiveness, as having a Klansman speak."
I've already said I totally agree with that. I've also said that is not the point at all. This is not about a comparison between a KKK person and an anti-war person, its about equality when it comes to free speach and opinion.
"I think you are off with all this KKK talk. Sure it would be legal for a Klansman or Neo-Nazi to speak. But, any official that invited him would be out of a job."
Not necessarily. It depends on the institution and the setting.
"A better comparison might have been a speaker opposing Clinton?s ?Interventionist? War in Bosnia in the 90s. There were many that did oppose that war."
Again, my point is not about a comparison between the level of offensiveness between speakers. Its about double standards for speach and opinion that is supposed to be protected equally, regardless of the level of offensiveness, provided the setting it takes place in is appropriate.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
STING2 said:
I think that a person expressing racist views can be dangerous. A university in the UK allowed a member of the BNP (British National Party - extreme right, holocaust deniers, support forced "repatriation" of all black people from the UK) to speak on campus last year. In the next few days there was an increase in racism - Muslim women were shouted at for wearing the hijab on campus and called "traitors," black students had racist comments made toward them and one student found a racist poster had been placed on the door to his room in a residence hall. Each of those events happened within days of the BNP speaker addressing a meeting, and in the previous months there had not been a huge number of racist incidents such as those above. The BNP cause racism - they legitimise it - they say to people "it's okay to hate Muslims, it's okay to shout at Black people" and so people go out and do that.
Take another example: the British press is extremely racist with regard to asylum seekers. They claim that "millions" of asylum seekers enter Britain each year, when in fact the number is closeor to 90,000. They also claim asylum seekers are given free mobile phones and housed in nice areas of the country, when in reality asylum seekers live on ?36 per week (about $60) and are housed in accomodation British families have refused to take. In the last year two asylum seekers have been murdered because racist whip up such hatred against asylum seekers that people are willing to resort to extreme violence against them.
One final example - in Oldham (a town in the north of the UK) last year, the police released some misleading figures about racist violence. They later admitted that their claim that white people were more likely to be victims of a racist attack than black people were entirely false. That didn't stop an increase in racist attacks against black people though - the release of that information incited racism against the black community.
I think racists are a threat. I think the BNP having won council seats in towns across the UK poses a threat to black communities in those areas. There has been a rise in racism in Burnley in the last year, after three BNP councillors were elected. I think people expressing racist views are dangerous - they incite violence and hatred.
Okay then - you say that if political beliefs are permitted to be expressed then that must apply to all political beliefs, including extremists such as the KKK. How about this example - imagine a class studying 1960s US history. The lecturer decides to invite a person who supported the Vietnam war to speak - that's a politcal view, it's probably fairly controversial. So would it also be acceptable for that lecturer to invite people to speak who would speak in favour of segregation? Would it be okay to ask someone to speak and say that they believe black people to be inferior to white people? After all - both would be political views. According to your logic, if one political views is acceptable than all are acceptable - so how could you oppose someone who is pro-segregation speaking, even if they would be telling black students in that class that they had no right to be at this white university?
Fizzing,
Its obvious that you believe that people who hold certain political beliefs should be stripped of their rights and put in jail, simply because of their opinion or belief. If simply having a belief or an opinion is that dangerous, than I suppose such action would be warrented. Of course, many a dictator has been able to come to power in various countries using such tactics, making political belief or opinion, and the expression of those beliefs and opinions a crime.
If a lecturer at a University wants to invite various speakers of political beliefs to come and talk then I think that is fine. I'm sure some University's offer classes where they study various political beliefs, even racists ones. Having a controversial speaker come in and speak would be one study aid in understanding the political beliefs of a group or individual. Of course, I think it would be appropriate for the Proffessor to mention that such controversial speakers would be coming to speak to the class through out the semester so as to give students who don't wish to deal with that the opportunity to switch to a different class. Do to the controversial subject matter, the students would have to right to know at the start of the term who would be coming to speak through out the term. Simply having a person come to speak that has racist views does not mean the proffessor or anyone in the class actually has any racists views at all.
When I was a child, I used to be angered when I would hear the KKK would be having a rally in town or marching. I'd be like lets get a baseball bat and a BB gun and show those hoods we don't want them around. It was actually African Americans though that convinced me that was wrong and that the KKK had every right to march because holding a political belief or opinion was not a crime and freedom of political belief and opinion is one of the most cherished values of our society.
Its obvious that you believe that people who hold certain political beliefs should be stripped of their rights and put in jail, simply because of their opinion or belief. If simply having a belief or an opinion is that dangerous, than I suppose such action would be warrented. Of course, many a dictator has been able to come to power in various countries using such tactics, making political belief or opinion, and the expression of those beliefs and opinions a crime.
If a lecturer at a University wants to invite various speakers of political beliefs to come and talk then I think that is fine. I'm sure some University's offer classes where they study various political beliefs, even racists ones. Having a controversial speaker come in and speak would be one study aid in understanding the political beliefs of a group or individual. Of course, I think it would be appropriate for the Proffessor to mention that such controversial speakers would be coming to speak to the class through out the semester so as to give students who don't wish to deal with that the opportunity to switch to a different class. Do to the controversial subject matter, the students would have to right to know at the start of the term who would be coming to speak through out the term. Simply having a person come to speak that has racist views does not mean the proffessor or anyone in the class actually has any racists views at all.
When I was a child, I used to be angered when I would hear the KKK would be having a rally in town or marching. I'd be like lets get a baseball bat and a BB gun and show those hoods we don't want them around. It was actually African Americans though that convinced me that was wrong and that the KKK had every right to march because holding a political belief or opinion was not a crime and freedom of political belief and opinion is one of the most cherished values of our society.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
STING,
Please don't exaggerate my views - I don't want anyone "stripped of their rights and put in jail" because I don't like what they think. All I have said is that I believe that racists should not be given a platform to speak on a university campus, when they will use that platform to incite racism against black people. You say they must have freedom of speech, but what about the freedom of black people to go about their lives without fear of racist attack?
Personally I would be disgusted if a university lecturer invited a member of the KKK to address a lecture. So what if students were warned in advance? Would that make the speaker any less offensive? Would it be okay for them to talk about the superiority of the white race so long as black students knew not to turn up to that week's lecture? On a more pragmatic level, you suggest that students who don't like racism could switch to a different class, but what if that class was compulsory for some students?
I don't think an organisation which have murdered black people, which have burned down black people's homes, which have created a climate of terror for decades, have any business addressing a group of students. I would be disgusted at any lecturer who thought allowing a white supremacist to address a class was appropriate.
Please don't exaggerate my views - I don't want anyone "stripped of their rights and put in jail" because I don't like what they think. All I have said is that I believe that racists should not be given a platform to speak on a university campus, when they will use that platform to incite racism against black people. You say they must have freedom of speech, but what about the freedom of black people to go about their lives without fear of racist attack?
Personally I would be disgusted if a university lecturer invited a member of the KKK to address a lecture. So what if students were warned in advance? Would that make the speaker any less offensive? Would it be okay for them to talk about the superiority of the white race so long as black students knew not to turn up to that week's lecture? On a more pragmatic level, you suggest that students who don't like racism could switch to a different class, but what if that class was compulsory for some students?
I don't think an organisation which have murdered black people, which have burned down black people's homes, which have created a climate of terror for decades, have any business addressing a group of students. I would be disgusted at any lecturer who thought allowing a white supremacist to address a class was appropriate.
Fizzing,
"You say they must have freedom of speech, but what about the freedom of black people to go about their lives without fear of racist attack?"
Your missing the point. There is a difference between speeking ones beliefs and attacking someone physically. Also, there cannot be a double standard when it comes to free speech.
I don't think a class that would involve such political controversy would be compulsory for students. If the students want to take the class for what ever the reason, its fine.
I find it strange that you would attempt to bar certain political beliefs and opinions from a Campus. I think a Campus is in fact the place where any beliefs and opinions can be expressed, then examined and debated.
"I don't think an organisation which have murdered black people, which have burned down black people's homes, which have created a climate of terror for decades, have any business addressing a group of students. I would be disgusted at any lecturer who thought allowing a white supremacist to address a class was appropriate."
If the person speaking has committed any crimes that you have mentioned then they should be in jail. But I'm talking about law abiding citizens who simply have a controversial and extremist opinion.
Your trying to ban political beliefs and opinions in a general campus setting. To me that is totally against what a University is for. Given the appropriate setting on campus and prior knowledge of the type of discussion, any political belief or opinion, no matter how controversial should be allowed to be heard, discussed and debated.
Students have the opportunity to learn for more from that process than if you simply banned certain political beliefs and opinions. Students become much more sensitive to the problems that minorities face when confronted with such controversial opinions and topics.
Allowing all political beliefs and opinions a forum for expression at the University helps students to learn about things and people that may not have been aware of before or been sensitive to. Many people here in the United States want to end affirmative action for minority's because they believe that racism does not really exists anymore. One way students and other people to learn that is false is by allowing such political belief and opinion to be expressed in the proper setting on a campus. It would show them that racism is actually still very strong in society and that affirmative action is still very vital to combat it.
Finally, banning political belief and opinion on a campus is a slippery slope. Once one thing is banned, no matter the difference in degree of the level of offensiveness, the door has been opened to banning other less offensive political belief and opinion.
"You say they must have freedom of speech, but what about the freedom of black people to go about their lives without fear of racist attack?"
Your missing the point. There is a difference between speeking ones beliefs and attacking someone physically. Also, there cannot be a double standard when it comes to free speech.
I don't think a class that would involve such political controversy would be compulsory for students. If the students want to take the class for what ever the reason, its fine.
I find it strange that you would attempt to bar certain political beliefs and opinions from a Campus. I think a Campus is in fact the place where any beliefs and opinions can be expressed, then examined and debated.
"I don't think an organisation which have murdered black people, which have burned down black people's homes, which have created a climate of terror for decades, have any business addressing a group of students. I would be disgusted at any lecturer who thought allowing a white supremacist to address a class was appropriate."
If the person speaking has committed any crimes that you have mentioned then they should be in jail. But I'm talking about law abiding citizens who simply have a controversial and extremist opinion.
Your trying to ban political beliefs and opinions in a general campus setting. To me that is totally against what a University is for. Given the appropriate setting on campus and prior knowledge of the type of discussion, any political belief or opinion, no matter how controversial should be allowed to be heard, discussed and debated.
Students have the opportunity to learn for more from that process than if you simply banned certain political beliefs and opinions. Students become much more sensitive to the problems that minorities face when confronted with such controversial opinions and topics.
Allowing all political beliefs and opinions a forum for expression at the University helps students to learn about things and people that may not have been aware of before or been sensitive to. Many people here in the United States want to end affirmative action for minority's because they believe that racism does not really exists anymore. One way students and other people to learn that is false is by allowing such political belief and opinion to be expressed in the proper setting on a campus. It would show them that racism is actually still very strong in society and that affirmative action is still very vital to combat it.
Finally, banning political belief and opinion on a campus is a slippery slope. Once one thing is banned, no matter the difference in degree of the level of offensiveness, the door has been opened to banning other less offensive political belief and opinion.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
STING,
As I said a few posts back, I oppose the KKK/the BNP/other extreme racist groups speaking on university campuses because there is a corresponding rise in racism when such individuals speak on campus. While I respect freedom of speech, I also believe that black students have a right to go about their business on campus without being subject to racist harrassment. I do not believe Muslim women should be put in a situation where they are verbally attacked for wearing the hijab simply because some people would like to listen to a white supremacist speak on campus. I know of one university campus where a group of racists decided to hold their meeting in the meeting room next to a meeting of the university's Jewish society - and thoughtfully decided to hand out leaflets claiming the holocaust never happened and was all a Jewish conspiracy. Why should those students have to tolerate that?
Yes a university is a place for learning about political views other than one's own. However, in my opinion it should also be a place which is diverse, inclusive and tolerant and where there is no place for racism or any other form of bigotry.
As I said a few posts back, I oppose the KKK/the BNP/other extreme racist groups speaking on university campuses because there is a corresponding rise in racism when such individuals speak on campus. While I respect freedom of speech, I also believe that black students have a right to go about their business on campus without being subject to racist harrassment. I do not believe Muslim women should be put in a situation where they are verbally attacked for wearing the hijab simply because some people would like to listen to a white supremacist speak on campus. I know of one university campus where a group of racists decided to hold their meeting in the meeting room next to a meeting of the university's Jewish society - and thoughtfully decided to hand out leaflets claiming the holocaust never happened and was all a Jewish conspiracy. Why should those students have to tolerate that?
Yes a university is a place for learning about political views other than one's own. However, in my opinion it should also be a place which is diverse, inclusive and tolerant and where there is no place for racism or any other form of bigotry.
Fizzing,
"I know of one university campus where a group of racists decided to hold their meeting in the meeting room next to a meeting of the university's Jewish society - and thoughtfully decided to hand out leaflets claiming the holocaust never happened and was all a Jewish conspiracy. Why should those students have to tolerate that?"
Because diversity, freedom of belief and political opinion are very important. As soon as you start to restrict one persons freedoms in this regard, you start down the road of restricting others freedoms. You have to show toleration for views that may be offensive to you, provided that those views are expressed in the proper setting and do not break the law by engaging in certain activities.
I've never seen anything that would suggest that there is definitely a rise in violent action towards minorities when the KKK have a march or hold a rally here in the USA. Most of the violent action that does occur is actually against the KKK itself. The KKK have to march with a large Police escort, or potentially be mobbed. As much as I find their views distasteful and sick, it is their opinion and belief. Simply having a belief or an opinion is not a crime.
The way to counter racist view points is not censorship. The way to counter it is education and counter rally's and marches.
"I know of one university campus where a group of racists decided to hold their meeting in the meeting room next to a meeting of the university's Jewish society - and thoughtfully decided to hand out leaflets claiming the holocaust never happened and was all a Jewish conspiracy. Why should those students have to tolerate that?"
Because diversity, freedom of belief and political opinion are very important. As soon as you start to restrict one persons freedoms in this regard, you start down the road of restricting others freedoms. You have to show toleration for views that may be offensive to you, provided that those views are expressed in the proper setting and do not break the law by engaging in certain activities.
I've never seen anything that would suggest that there is definitely a rise in violent action towards minorities when the KKK have a march or hold a rally here in the USA. Most of the violent action that does occur is actually against the KKK itself. The KKK have to march with a large Police escort, or potentially be mobbed. As much as I find their views distasteful and sick, it is their opinion and belief. Simply having a belief or an opinion is not a crime.
The way to counter racist view points is not censorship. The way to counter it is education and counter rally's and marches.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
