Protesters smear fake blood on faces at blogger Milo Yiannopoulos' Rutgers talk

[Psychic Missile]

They are problems because people are trying to use it as an excuse to silence all opposition and prevent speech they disapprove of from being spoken.

That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with "it", that means there is something wrong with the people using "it".

[Psychic Missile]

The problem is there are so many people claiming to have triggers out there that there is no way anyone could accomodate them all, and many of them are just being crybabies or using it as a passive aggressive way to shut opposing views down. The legitimate trauma cases get lost in the soup of left-wing whiners. The responsibility of avoiding triggers is with the person who has the trauma, not with the public. With physical handicaps, it is reasonable to have SOME public accommodations, like handicap parking and wheelchair access. But even there you can't accommodate every handicap. You can't accomodate blind drivers for example (not until we get self driving cars anyway). With mental trauma or illnesses it is even harder to accommodate them. How do you accommodate someone with various phobias for example? Or with bipolar disorder? How do you even know someone has a "trigger" unless you are a mind reader or they tell you? And how do you know they are telling the truth and not just using it as a way to shut down your opinion? And what is a reasonable trigger? What if someone is triggered by talking about republicans? do you have to avoid mentioning republicans in a political science class? Or what about spiders? avoid mentioning spiders in a biology class?

You seem to think that it is desired for people to prevent themselves from triggering others. This is not the case. This is supposed to be a just a minor thing that's relevant once in a while, but you seemed to have turned it into something that influences every aspect of modern life. Why?

Whomever they WANT to invite. If nobody shows up, then they won't be invited again, right?

So you have no problem with a university inviting a member of a white supremacy group so he can speak about the superiority of the white race and the need to bring back slavery?

[Psychic Missile]

What can I say, I have seen these people claim to have PTSD because somebody had the audacity to disagree with them over the internet. We are also talking about University students here so I don't imagine that many of them have served in the army and gone on tour in order to suffer from PTSD legitimately.

You mean you've seen an image or two of a post on tumblr by someone who may or may not be operating a parody account? You also speak as if professional diagnosis doesn't exist.

[Darth Ovious]

You mean you've seen an image or two of a post on tumblr by someone who may or may not be operating a parody account? You also speak as if professional diagnosis doesn't exist.

Nope I have seen people seriously claim it. Also you speak as if it's normal for whole groups of people at a university to claim to have this professional diagnosis. These talks aren't being cancelled because one person is coming forward and saying they have PTSD. They are being cancelled because multiple students are coming forward and claiming it using very sketchy reasoning.

An article from the Guardian newspaper, which coincidently is a left wing newspaper over here printed this article.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-speech-rhodes

In terms of falsely claiming PTSD then we have this

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/wo...iles-veterans/

[Sparko]

You seem to think that it is desired for people to prevent themselves from triggering others. This is not the case. This is supposed to be a just a minor thing that's relevant once in a while, but you seemed to have turned it into something that influences every aspect of modern life. Why?

try that again. in english.

So you have no problem with a university inviting a member of a white supremacy group so he can speak about the superiority of the white race and the need to bring back slavery?

I would disagree with the message but not that the university had a right to allow him to speak. That is their business. The only time I would think it should be stopped is if they were inviting speakers that incite violence.

do you have a problem with speakers at colleges giving speeches on Black Lives Matter, or Down with Cops?

[lilpixieofterror]

That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with "it", that means there is something wrong with the people using "it".

And again, PM. Your excuse making is quite amusing, if you were not serious. See, the problem with any reasonable dealing with PTSD is that reasonable things have long been hijacked by people just seeking excuse to silence anything they don't like. Even at that, it is the job of all of us individuals to know our own limits and to make sure we exercise self control and understand our own limits (this isn't just for those with mental illness either, but applies to everybody). I'm not a huge fan of horror movies, in fact, my movie selections tend to be more positive sort of stories. It also reflects in my game type choices since I rarely care for shooter type games and prefer ones that others might think of as 'kid games'. That being said, I wouldn't take my time trying to prevent other types of media from existing nor stopping those who don't mind horror movies or shooter games from enjoying them. No different than this situation, if you don't care for the speaker, exercise your right to not attend (I sure would have). That's what freedom of speech is all about PM. The rights and freedom to do all others to do things you might not care for.

[Teallaura]

The First Amendment does not allow you to demand and receive an auditorium and a time slot from a university. Who a university hosts for a lecture is within their discretion.

So you agree that the protest was wholly in the wrong because the speaker was an invited guest of the university/host group.
The protesters, not the speaker, violate your premise here.

And the First Amendment actually DOES protect those things - if a university rents its venues it has no right to discriminate based on view point.

I do not agree with the interruption in all respects, although I am sympathetic towards it. The problem is the university allowing Milo to speak in the first place.

Then write a letter of protest - but the disruption is clearly oppression in action - why do you support that at all?

Do you think a veteran asking a professor to let him know if material might trigger his PTSD should be expelled?

No - and that has what to do with the price of tea in China?

[Meta Knight]

And the First Amendment actually DOES protect those things - if a university rents its venues it has no right to discriminate based on view point.

And even if you're one of those people who insists that it's only government intervention stopped by the First Amendment, I have to say it again: this is Rutgers University. The State University of New Jersey. Which means that by that metric they are obligated to let him speak.

[Psychic Missile]

Nope I have seen people seriously claim it. Also you speak as if it's normal for whole groups of people at a university to claim to have this professional diagnosis. These talks aren't being cancelled because one person is coming forward and saying they have PTSD. They are being cancelled because multiple students are coming forward and claiming it using very sketchy reasoning.

An article from the Guardian newspaper, which coincidently is a left wing newspaper over here printed this article.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-speech-rhodes

In terms of falsely claiming PTSD then we have this

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/wo...iles-veterans/

It is not normal for "whole groups of people" to have PTSD. I imagine it would come up as often as someone needing more time for tests or needing wheelchair access or any other use of reasonable accommodation.

[Psychic Missile]

try that again. in english.

Okay, earlier in the thread this request made sense because I made a typo, but here I meant exactly what I said. You seem to think that I and people on my side want others to police their own actions to avoid triggering people. That's not true. All that really needs to happen is very minor and not worth making a fuss about. Yet you write as if letting students know a novel features a rape will result in the breakdown of the entire university system.

I would disagree with the message but not that the university had a right to allow him to speak. That is their business. The only time I would think it should be stopped is if they were inviting speakers that incite violence.

I'm not disagreeing that universities have that right, I'm arguing that universities ought not to invite people like that.

do you have a problem with speakers at colleges giving speeches on Black Lives Matter, or Down with Cops?[/QUOTE]

[Psychic Missile]

And again, PM. Your excuse making is quite amusing, if you were not serious. See, the problem with any reasonable dealing with PTSD is that reasonable things have long been hijacked by people just seeking excuse to silence anything they don't like. Even at that, it is the job of all of us individuals to know our own limits and to make sure we exercise self control and understand our own limits (this isn't just for those with mental illness either, but applies to everybody). I'm not a huge fan of horror movies, in fact, my movie selections tend to be more positive sort of stories. It also reflects in my game type choices since I rarely care for shooter type games and prefer ones that others might think of as 'kid games'. That being said, I wouldn't take my time trying to prevent other types of media from existing nor stopping those who don't mind horror movies or shooter games from enjoying them. No different than this situation, if you don't care for the speaker, exercise your right to not attend (I sure would have). That's what freedom of speech is all about PM. The rights and freedom to do all others to do things you might not care for.

The issue is that universities are not compelled to allow anyone to speak. They get to make a choice. And when that choice results in inviting a known buffoon to spread hate speech, I don't see the problem with people getting upset and wanting that university to adopt better criteria.

[Psychic Missile]

So you agree that the protest was wholly in the wrong because the speaker was an invited guest of the university/host group.
The protesters, not the speaker, violate your premise here.

And the First Amendment actually DOES protect those things - if a university rents its venues it has no right to discriminate based on view point.

Then write a letter of protest - but the disruption is clearly oppression in action - why do you support that at all?

I do disagree with the method of protest. I don't think interrupting the speaker or smearing blood were smart ideas. I agree with their opinion that he shouldn't have been allowed to speak.

The university wasn't renting its venue. Milo was invited to speak by a club. I am not aware of any law or ruling that prohibits colleges from having final say in whether an invited speaker is approved or not,

No - and that has what to do with the price of tea in China?

That's the viewpoint Milo expressed that exacerbated the controversy.

[Sparko]

The issue is that universities are not compelled to allow anyone to speak. They get to make a choice. And when that choice results in inviting a known buffoon to spread hate speech, I don't see the problem with people getting upset and wanting that university to adopt better criteria.

Characterizing his lecture as "hate speech" is the problem in a nutshell, PM. It is a passive aggressive way to denigrate him and try to shut down free speech under the guise of "he is too hateful. We need to protect innocent ears" - The innocent ears could have stayed home, or asked for equal time to counter his speech, or any other number of responses besides trying to label him as some sort of trigger-word-terrorist hate-spouting bigot.

Telling someone that they need to actually be tolerant and not just mouth the words while being intolerant, is not hate-speech. Telling people to stop being crybabies and be responsible for taking care of their own problems instead of laying the responsibility on others to protect them from trigger words -- is not hate speech.

[lilpixieofterror]

The issue is that universities are not compelled to allow anyone to speak. They get to make a choice. And when that choice results in inviting a known buffoon to spread hate speech, I don't see the problem with people getting upset and wanting that university to adopt better criteria.

It's a public university, paid by public funds. Are you saying that a public university, which is paid by my tax dollars, shouldn't have to hold up to the same rules as any other group, which is paid by public funds, has to? Perhaps they should stop accepting public money, if they don't want to be held up by those rules. Likewise, as Sparko already said, you're being passive aggressive in trying to shut down any speech you don't agree with. It's rather simple, if you don't like the speaker or what he has to say; don't go. Isn't that what your group tell conservatives about porn or art they disapprove of? Funny how when the shoe is on the other foot, that logic doesn't work anymore, eh?

[Teallaura]

Then feel free to use the Online Etymology Dictionary.

The explanation that male homosexuals were called faggots because they were burned at the stake as punishment is an etymological urban legend. Burning sometimes was a punishment meted out to homosexuals in Christian Europe (on the suggestion of the Biblical fate of Sodom and Gomorrah), but in England, where parliament had made homosexuality a capital offense in 1533, hanging was the method prescribed. Use of faggot in connection with public executions had long been obscure English historical trivia by the time the word began to be used for "male homosexual" in 20th century American slang, whereas the contemptuous slang word for "woman" (in common with the other possible sources or influences listed here) was in active use early 20c., by D.H. Lawrence and James Joyce, among others.

Etymology doesn't always determine usage, which is the more natural base for meaning. There are any number of words, including "gay" itself, with meanings that are well understood yet contrary to their origins. The gay community, in America, at least, sees "faggot" as a reference to burning gays.

In the UK, it's still a cigarette.

Um, that makes no sense at all - a human body is NOT that easy to incinerate so while faggots (in the bundle of sticks sense) might well have been involved in beginning the fire they certainly wouldn't have been the actual fuel - nor do depictions from the period show faggots in use. All the depictions I've seen show logs, not faggots.

I've only seen depictions of faggots being used in ovens - which is the traditional use (bakers use a LOT of wood and anything bigger than kindling is a pain in a black oven unless it's huge).