Cancel Culture
- Thread starter Buchan
- Start date
Shapiro makes more money thanks to idiots that try to stop him, that's a really stupid paradox
and i also don't agree with most of what he says, but i think free speech is fundamental to make a society better
and the guys trying to stop him from speaking reminds me of some of the worst days this world saw
"When somebody tells me to 'stop being so sensitive', you know what? I feel a little like a nose being lectured by a fart. I am not the problem." - Hannah Gadsby
yes, that might be the case with some characters
what about anonymous scholars or professors that are harassed for having a different opinion on what to wear as a costume on thanks giving?
Did you listen to the security guard in the video ?
Putting aside the fact the likes of Shaprio don't give a shit about free speech or censorship('Free Speech" Conservatives never talk about the actual censorship of the Palestinian movement for example).
The reason Shaprio wasn't allowed into the lecture was because the university is privately owned and the owners didn't want him on site(Maybe due to his political views or that he looks like an extra from Willy Wonka). To quote the Texan philosopher "And that's the bottom line cause stone cold said so".
Now if you don't like this then buddy you've got an issue with private property and maybe a more democratic outlook is needed although oddly enough I don't think that would interest Shapiro.
Last edited:
you understand that i'm not a shapiro advocate, just someone that thinks a university should be open for discussion and that only a judge has the right to say that a speech is illegal and only after it has been said?
It only works this way for celebrities though who already have a platform. It's doesn't work this way for ordinary people.
Ok but you know the reason why he wasn't allowed into the campus and the lecture was because it's private property. He wasn't cancelled but denied access to private owned building.
Agree with you that university should be an open discussion(Which mean they would need to publicly owned, although really I would get rid of them). Disagree with the judge part.
Wasn't he invited to be a speaker? I thought I heard that from the conversation.
The judge part i take it from the Argentinian constitution. It copies most of the American one. It says that every Argentinian has the right to publicly express his opinion without prior censorship, meaning that only after he said something, a judge may rule it's against the law. You are free to say whatever you want, but not free of the consequences
And let's be honest the reason that Shapiro wasnt allowed in the university was that the authorities doesnt want him to speak there
The excuse was that is private property
What would you think if the "private property" excuse was given to deny access to Biden, Kamala Harris or Sanders?
Mostly likely but the safety officers said - "Bottom line it's private property ok and the proper procedures weren't filled out".
Basically it's not you're university so feck off or we will call the police.
Depends on what they talk about. 32 state legislatures in the United States have passed bills penalising organisations or individuals who support boycotts of Israel or of products from the occupied territories.
Boris in the UK wants to do the same here
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...l-boycott-ban-bds-queens-speech-a9253651.html
Would a university be so kind to it's students in stopping them hearing a Joe Biden or Harris speech ?
In all honestly I would have the exact same line and it would be all the more reason to push for this
as i said, that was just the excuse
the reason is here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../depaul-university-has-a-double-thug-problem/
I'm sure the right rallied to Norman Finkelstein's defense when he was denied tenure at DePaul university for expressing his views
i dont get it, and it may be my fault, but if Biden or Harris or Sanders were denied entrance to the university you would:
accept is a private property but also say that university should be an open discussion(Which mean they would need to publicly owned, although really I would get rid of them).
for what i read it's from sooner, something with Milo Gianopulous
edit, i seem to have missunderstood what you said
sorry
edit 2: Alan Dershowitz a rightie?
Richard Dawkins was no-platformed recently for his views on religion by a university. I'm surprised whoever invited to speak was unaware that he's probably the world most famous and vocal critic of religion.
http://www.universitytimes.ie/2020/...be-moving-ahead-with-richard-dawkins-address/
http://www.universitytimes.ie/2020/...be-moving-ahead-with-richard-dawkins-address/
that's so absurd, so stupid
those schools would have burnt copernico
Yeah it does sound pretty confusing tbf.
I would just use Biden, Harris or Sanders getting denied entrance as way to criticise the system rather one particular university. The problem isn't individual universities or individual actors but the power private property has over free speech.
Ideally I would like to get rid of universities because as a socialist I viewed them as nothing more than institutions holding up class society(Biden might be the first modern US president not from Harvard or Yale). But this seems like a bit of a pipe dream, so the more "realistic" alternative should be having as many publicly owned universities as possible.
It reminds of this speech. While I disagree that some parts of it such as offense in itself is good, I agree with the notion that sometimes controversial views can sometimes contain truth that the orthodoxy finds offensive, but that these views need to debated, examined and scrutinized in order to know whether these views contain worthwhile truth within them and whether the ideas are any good.
This whole thing about right-wing voices being deplatformed at Universities is just a set-up. Right-wing groups and think tanks pay for the likes of Shapiro and Charles Murray to go and speak at some campus knowing full-well what will happen.
Either the Uni will turn it down or the students will protest, because many University students don't like these people or their views - especially the racist ones.
And then the media can print their stories about their culture war against “political correctness”, “wokeness” and “identity politics” and how the left is shutting down free speech.
The entire thing is just a massive grift to stoke up this culture war and people on the right lap it up.
ok, i wont dispute that about Shapiro, but cancel culture doesn't apply only to him or his likes
and even if some students don't agree with him or his ideas, what gives them the right to stop him from speaking?
and also I wont dispute is a "massive grift to stoke up this culture war and people on the right lap it up"
but still, if they are spot on, they are spot on
let's see what happens when someone from the far left tries to speak in some of their venues
i agree with most of what you say
BTW, Trump went to Harvard or Yale?????
that`s a new low for the Ivy Leaguei'll watch it later
thank you
they have the right to protest things like they don't like, its called freedom of speech
protest? of course, but not to impede, as they do
well, they are getting force fed views they find abhorrent.. like I said these think tanks know exactly what they are doing, and they get the reaction they want
they are not sending the likes of fecking Charles Murray to speak on a campus in good faith
I obviously agree that impeding is going too far
My bad Biden would be the first president to have not gone to a Ivy Leage university since Reagan.BTW, Trump went to Harvard or Yale?????
Although Bush Jr did go to Yale.
i'm still shocked that Trump went to a prestigious university
Wikipedia says that he went to Wharton school
well, we agree
Thought the same but Wharton is the business school of the University of Pennsylvania(Pennsyvania is an ivy league).
Can't imagine he did a lot of studying.
Last edited:
that's a safe bet
You should probably know in advance that the guy speaking in that video is a festering arsehole. I’m exercising my own freedom of speech to point this out.
Not exactly the most eloquent bit on free speech I've seen, but in the last two minutes there he is bang on. Can tell the ones on the other side are absolutely seething.
He’s such a loathsome turd. And nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is. Him and Shapiro are cut from the same cloth. Complete inadequates, with the charisma of a wet fart. Mind-blowing that anyone could be impressed by them.
No doubt he's managed to get a bunch of young men to believe he's some super intellectual worth of monthly Patreon donations or something.
Koch brothers money obviously does not go far enough.
I don’t agree with any of his views about climate change, same sex marriage, racism, etc. that you posted. But what he said in the vid is, IMHO, spot on.