The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Is the left eating itself?

Just for the sake of argument, let's say that our democracy really is about to be destroyed by teenagers with airhorns. To solve the problem, I propose a new structure for universities to adopt when student organizations invite political pundits to speak on their campus:

- Deny the student org or the invited guest the ability to accept direct donations on behalf of any cause. Orgs found accepting donations related to guest appearances would be denied future guest visitation permits.
- Enforce an admission fee, price set by student body vote, may be selectively increased but not decreased by sponsoring organization
- Require 100% of proceeds above administrative costs to be allocated based on vote of the entire student body.


I think the teenagers with airhorns will accept this compromise because they know that the student body agrees with them, and the proceeds for an unimpeded event will directly benefit their interests.
I think the orgs inviting Milos and such will reject this, because they don't actually stand to benefit - their cause was never that of actual speech, but of promotion.

If "teenagers with airhorns" was the entirety of the problem, then I would agree that your skepticism is justified. However, I see this issue widespread and metastasized. Just today I learned that editor at a well-know magazine was ousted after publishing essay by Jian Ghomeshi. Jian Ghomeshi was a Canadian radio broadcaster who was charged and found not guilty of sexual assault. Before that, I read about Jian's lawyer was being protested by students after getting invited to deliver unrelated talk. This is how unbelievably censorious the regressive left is. Deplatform. Unperson. Violently Attack.

I don't have to look hard for more examples, as they happen almost daily. Reducing this phenomenon to "teenagers with airhoorns" is not unlike calling WW2 a border skirmish between Poland and Germany.



I think adopting University of Chicago Statement of Principles of Free Expression is by far more effective. Your solution presuppose convoluted causes, when simple and direct attribution - censorious thugs seeking political power - is simpler explanation without need for further and deeper analysis.



Do you believe that "Milos and such" deserve freedom of speech?

The issue with denying a platform, in this example to fascists or white supremacist, goes back to the slippery slope argument. I know you disagree with this but I really hope you will try to play devil's advocate with yourself. Ultimately, who makes the decision about whose platform should be denied? The only reasonable answer is: society consensus. To this I would ask, if enough of society can agree that a thing is bad enough we should deny it a platform, why should be be worried about it having a platform in the first place? It's obvious that enough people agree that it is bad, and those reasonable people will have no trouble both rejecting the offensive position and educating their peers/children to do the same. I would argue that allowing deplorables to air their view gives us reasonable folk ammunition to use in ensuring their way of thinking is roundly rejected.

In a vacuum chamber you'd be right, but in our society an individual's speech is given weight based on the amount of wealth or celebrity they have access to, not the level of rationality behind their opinions.

I can't disagree with that, but that's an issue with society, not with the individual speaking. What you're suggesting sounds like "society can't be trusted to.." so some authority must step in and intervene. If I'm misunderstanding you please let me know.

Well, when someone who is accused by 20 different women of sexual violence and somehow manages to avoid criminal conviction comes to your magazine with a whiney essay about how humiliated he's been, perhaps you should first consider the social and professional repercussions of giving that man platform before just accepting the essay due to the man's celebrity.

Perhaps it's fine if the students at a hyper leftist college don't wish to be complicit in platforming a racist.

These people are free to have speech, but society should also be free to dictate the platforms they are confined to based on ethical considerations.

rhaikh, if I accuse you of sexual violence against me, and maybe get Derid or Brutal to back me up, does that mere accusation automatically makes you a sexual predator? Should we then proceed to deplatform you, because you are now viewed as a horrible and irredeemable unperson? If you try to defend yourself by questioning my motives or honesty, how is that not a victim-blaming and your attempts to re-traumatize me? How would you reconcile your attempts to defend yourself with you advocating always trusting the victim?

Your hypothetical bullshit trolling is, as usual, unworthy of response, because it takes this argument out of the reality of the situation. It's as if you are allergic to reality... intellectually agoraphobic

What I want to know is, are you demonstrating moral bankruptcy by taking this position against this man's 24 accusers, or are you going to claim being uninformed of the accusations against the guy prior to bringing him up to attempt to score a political point? Do you believe Trump's 19 accusers are all lying also?

After repeatedly trying to slime everyone disagreeing with you with ridiculous and outrageous accusations, you have negative moral authority to even broach the subject of moral standing. At this point getting shamed by you is a sign of good character and sound judgment.

The question that I asked exposes severe flaw in your reasoning that you chose to dodge and it is relevant for this conversation. It is relevant because bullshit artists that advocate these standards are unlikely to apply these insane standards to themselves. My point is that YOU will quickly discover reason and logic once YOU are on the receiving end of a baseless sexual misconduct accusation. This is because "Trust the victim" is obviously unworkable standard for any kind of prosecution, and it doesn't matter if it is one or 1000s of accusers.



Address the question. Is mere accusation against you sufficient to label you a sexual predator?