Leftists are the ones being censored, not rightists
The right-wing media has been pushing this narrative for years that crazy college liberals/SJW's are victimizing helpless conservatives by censoring them.
The reality is very different.
The Free Speech Project’s researchers have cataloged more than 90 incidents since 2016 that fit their criteria for a person’s free speech rights being threatened. Of those 90, about two-thirds took place on college campuses. These incidents range from a speaker being disinvited to a faculty member being fired over allegedly offensive comments to a student-run play being canceled over concerns it would offend.
... What Ungar is suggesting here is that the “campus free speech” crisis is somewhat manufactured. Conservative student groups invite speakers famous for offensive and racially charged speech — all of the above speakers fit that bill — in a deliberate attempt to provoke the campus left. In other words, they’re trolling. When students react by protesting or disrupting the event, the conservatives use it as proof that there’s real intolerance for conservative ideas.The other key thing that emerges from the Georgetown data, according to Ungar, is that these protests and disruptions don’t just target the right. “Our data also include many incidents, generally less well-publicized, where lower-profile scholars, speakers, or students who could be considered to be on the left have been silenced or shut down,” he writes.
Examples include Princeton professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor’s commencement speech being canceled after receiving death threats for criticizing President Donald Trump and the president of Sonoma State University apologizing for allowing a black student to read a poem critical of police violence at commencement.
Jeffrey Sachs, a political scientist at Canada’s Acadia University, put together a database of all incidents where a professor was dismissed for political speech in the United States between 2015 and 2017. Sachs’s results, published by the left-libertarian Niskanen Center, actually found that left-wing professors were more likely to be dismissed for their speech than conservative ones.
...
The highest single-year spike, from 21 in 2015 to 42 in 2016, is mostly the work of one provocateur launching an intentionally inflammatory college tour.“11 of the 42 disinvitations were for a single speaker: Breitbart editor and right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos,” FIRE’s Alex Morey writes. “His controversial ‘Dangerous Faggot Tour’ traveled to colleges across the country this year and seemed to prompt a new report of attempted censorship in some form or another each week.”
There was a study from a few years ago that showed liberals were more likely to attempt to disinvite, but that could include nothing more than a couple people writing a few letters.
Conservative censorship is often much more serious and extreme.
The most recent case involves professor Olga Perez Stable Cox at Orange Coast College in California. An anonymous student in her human sexuality class secretly recorded Cox discussing her political views. She referred to Donald Trump as a “white supremacist,” his running mate Mike Pence “as one of the most anti-gay humans in this country” and their election as an “act of terrorism.”Her words were clearly liberal — and hyperbolic, although perhaps not as hyperbolic as they initially seemed: In the days since her “act of terrorism” talk ripped across the Internet, she has received terroristic death threats herself. Cox has since fled the state.
Meanwhile, the Orange Coast College Republicans — the group that disseminated the gotcha video — is campaigning for her firing. The group’s president said that expunging commentary such as hers from campus is necessary to ensure the college’s commitment to “diversity, equity and inclusivity.”
I have to admit that I respect the Republicans for using the liberal's own words against them. I just don't respect anything else about them.
In a similar vein, the conservative group Turning Point USA recently published a “Professor Watchlist,” a catalogue of what it thinks are dangerous and “anti-American” professors who deserve public shaming for allegedly trying to “advance a radical agenda in lecture halls.” (Among those “radical agenda” items: advocating gun control, calling Ted Cruz’s infamous “New York values” statement anti-Semitic.) The watchlist homepage of course includes a disclaimer that Turning Point will “continue to fight for free speech and the right for professors to say whatever they wish.”It’s tempting to attribute this right-wing weaponization of “free speech” rhetoric to cynicism. More likely it’s cognitive dissonance.
...
They’re apparently unaware that conservative students are also requesting “trigger warnings” (typically about nudity, sex and gay themes), according to a faculty survey released by the National Coalition Against Censorship. They also don’t seem to know that Republican undergrads are about as likely as their Democratic classmates to say that colleges should be able to restrict campus speech that expresses “political views that are upsetting or offensive to certain groups,” according to a Knight Foundation survey.Beyond campus, Republicans more broadly are almost twice as likely as Democrats to support book bans.
Republicans have created an alternative reality with this conservatives-being-censored narrative.
Not a fictional reality, like the War On Christmas or Obama's birth certificate.
Instead, this alternative reality is a mirror opposite of reality, like the Liberal Media, our foreign wars are just, or Trump cares about the white working class.
Comments
Two words. Football Kneeling.
Considering the amount of ink spilled in favor of that form of censorship, the sad truth is that far too many people are in favor of shutting up their political opponents because they FEAR that their own position is weak.
And that is the point at which you no longer are talking Politics. Now you're talking Heresy, and they kill people for that.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3aml8qcNsk]
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
The right-wing have sold sewage for 40 years
and in the process they've even managed to get centrists to pass it off as Bubblin' Crude, Texas Tea, etc.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
Heh, who would have thought ? /s
https://www.euronews.com/live
That was not nice. Sorry. /nt
https://www.euronews.com/live
I'm not certain the 'left' has anything worth censoring
Hey, the reason everyone reads your posts, gjohnsit, is because you have interesting insights that fall outside 'respectable Progressive' thinking. Is the fact that a voice like yours is not heard on the cable money shows another evidence of 'censorship?'
Climate change is a scientific, engineering, and economic problem. It is NOT a political problem so ignore the politicians.
I go back to who is the left.
Was listening to Joe Rogan talking with Jimmy Dore. They both criticized "the left". We apparently criticize "the left" even though we think we are it. DailyKos thinks it is "the left" and not one of us would agree with that. Universities "used" to be left with U of M leading the way. Today, U of M is corporate centrist all the way. $$$$$$$$$$$$$ is its only driving principle.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
One problem is that "the left," and "liberals" are used
as though both were synonyms for simply "Democrats." They are not.
Roots.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Oh no, not trolling.
"Conservative student groups invite speakers famous for offensive and racially charged speech — all of the above speakers fit that bill — in a deliberate attempt to provoke the campus left. In other words, they’re trolling."
So who decides what is trolling? And if people find someone's speech so offensive, why do they attend the event?
One is either for free speech or against free speech.
Not questioning the data you've provided, but to me, the dems are great at shutting down speech with accusations of whatever ism they come up with. I really don't see similar suppression efforts coming from people on the right. "Well, you're just racist." End of discussion.
OT, but even years before I started paying attention to Hannity, Tucker, Ingraham, I noticed how bad progressives were at arguing their case when they were debating the opposition. Bernie is one of the few politicians on the progressive side who can clearly state his position and address the points made by the other side.
Now, when I watch Fox, the dems/left/progressives do little more than a gish gallop - you're ism, you're ism, you're ism. You're this or you're that, and because you're this or that, I'm not going to address anything you say, and on and on. They refuse to address the issues at hand. I really don't get it, because their are plenty of progressive arguments to be made. Maybe it all ties in with the way dems simply don't want to do much of anything anymore other than represent money.
dfarrah
you watch Fox (News)
Or maybe it ties in with the quality of progressive that Fox allows on its "news" channel.
Watching Fox News will rot your brain. If you want to kill your brain cells, I recommend tequila instead.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Fox news isn't going
The dem/liberal/progressive guests have plenty of time to make their points, so it isn't a matter about what is 'allowed.' The d/l/p group would rather go on and on about isms instead of dealing with facts and policies (and this is an over generalization, I know, but it does happen frequently).
If Bernie were to go onto Tucker or Ingraham to discuss some policy in detail, I would bet they would agree on much.
The simple fact is, Tucker and Ingraham make very cogent, reasonable arguments, and they ask very good questions. Hannity is more ideologic. But they all express concerns similar to those seen on this website. Tucker and Ingraham have questioned our military expenditures and overseas adventures. All three have talked about the wages and how they haven't increased in decades. They object to their corporate run parties, just like we do, and they talk about corporate greed and the shrinking middle class. Ingraham has long been concerned over the trade deficit and how it impacts US workers (but I've only watched recently, so I take her word that she has long been concerned).
There is considerable overlap between that side and our side; too many people refuse to recognize the overlap. They are too busy dismissing each other. Tucker, Hannity, and Ingraham regularly slam "the left," just like you slam Fox, never realizing the overlap that exists.
dfarrah
Perhaps I'm guilty of hasty generalizations.
After all, my last major bout of Fox News watching was while Roger Ailes was alive, sinnin', and running the joint. Your comment shows that things may well have changed since his departure:
I still suspect Fox of cherrypicking the "liberal/progressive" voices it allows on air. And it isn't cherrypicking what they say, but who they put on to represent the "left". After all, there are a lot of milquetoaste incrementalist centrists out there to choose from.
And, while I'm at it: I applaud your intestinal fortitude, being willing and able to watch Fox News and focus on those "overlaps". The areas of clear disagreement tend to drive me away; hence my remark.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
"ism's" vs paychecks
The 2016 primary race forced me to examine myself in a way I'd never expected. I found myself being asked questions about Bernie Sanders by a surprising number of co-workers, co-workers who were decidedly "on the right." This occurred in south Texas and south Louisiana. These people coming to me were nearly all registered Republicans - Fox watchers every one. They considered themselves conservatives. A number of them figured out that the only reason they identified as "conservatives" was because someone (usually Fox, or Rush, etc.) had told them they were. And no wonder - no one else was even trying to talk to them until Sanders. Bernie woke something up in them. Of course, most went back to being good little "conservatives" once they saw how Hillary stole the primary from Sanders. I imagine every last one of them voted for Trump in the end.
The thing is, until these folks came to me with questions - and I hate to admit this - I had pretty much written them all off. That was one a hell of a mistake. It was clear that they had many of the same fears, same hopes, could see the same sell-out by our politicians as me. They didn't want the endless wars, the paychecks that don't keep up, the out-of-reach higher education for their children, the impossible medical bills, the wall-to-wall corruption.
So, yes, in the end they all went for Trump. They had no choice. Talk of "ism's" doesn't put food on the table or pay the rent. I can see that quite clearly now. But now, I am listening to them, when before I didn't. I certainly can't offer them any hope with the Democratic Party. I will say that, due to Sanders, a number of these co-workers now understand why FDR was elected to four terms. Sadly, they will all probably vote for Trump again, since it appears they once again will have no choice. And once again, I won't blame them.
IMO, these day, anyone left or right, who is going against the
Establishment narrative is being censored. (It's the message of No Labels, an organization begun by a Bushie and heavily populated by Clintonites, and those who believe its tenets, that the left of the Democratic Party and the right of the Republican Party are both evil--and equally evil at that.)
I once read that media got the reputation of being "liberal" (when that word still meant something) because of its coverage of the civil rights movement, especially after Selma. And, inasmuch as Democrats controlled the South in those days, I'm guessing that the ones spitting out the word "liberals" then were not Republicans, but Southern Democrats--Democrats who believed in populist economics--with the tacit assumption that only whites would benefit from it.
Dixiecraps
Whence our poor country inherited all things Clinton......
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Clinton was raised to 18 under Jim Crow by grandparents
who had spent their lives under Jim Crow. I've seen too many Clinton Gore campaign buttons emblazoned with the Confederate flag to believe Bubba was not impacted by his upbringing.
As Governor, he led Arkansas Confederacy month and made Robert E. Lee's birthday a state holiday. It's one thing to have done that in 1865 and quite another to have done so more than a century later.
There was more on this in my series about Hillary, which I left off writing in 2016 or so, including her incredibly racist comment about Gandhi. And her tone deaf comparison of being a US Democratic Senator during a Republican majority with slaving on a plantation. And even Obama once said that "CPT" stands for Jokes White People Shouldn't Make.
As to your polls "Garbage In, Garbage Out." I don't trust Vox
either. But more to the point, IMHO you either believe in free speech or you don't. "Non-platforming" is a thin excuse for violence and not what the founders envisioned.
There needs to be more dialog, not less.
chuck utzman
TULSI 2020