By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EpicRandy on 05 April 2022
Edit Thread
TonsofPuppies said:
EpicRandy said:

I don't want to derail this thread so I won't reply further than this post.

- There's a big difference between refusing to hear someone else speak (not listening) and refusing to allow that person to speak at all or refusing to allow other people (who willingly want to do so) listen to that person speak.
Nothing in my previous post says otherwise, not allowing someone on a stage does not equal not allowing them speak speak at all and also does not prevent anyone from listening to them they'll just have to do so through other medium and in the case of Shapiro believe me there are plenty... unfortunately. 

- If they've chosen to do so, antifa (or another other group of activists) have no right to shut down that speech.
That's were we disagree. They have all the right to voice their opposition or even protest the decision, that's is also called free speech or right to protest. If the college/ university reverse course due to the voiced opposition then there's nothing wrong with this.

- they do not own the stage, to use your wording.
They do not own the stage they own their voice which they used successfully to the extend that the campus reversed decision to allow Shapiro on stage. Free speech is what ultimately denied Shapiro the stage. 

We actually don't disagree here. If an activist group complains to the university and voices their opposition to a proposed speaker and THE UNIVERSITY chooses to cancel that speaker, then that is their decision. Not that I'd agree with that decision, of course, but in that instance, my criticism would be against the university for caving to student pressure rather than the activists themselves.

Having said that, what you (and I) just described is very different than the university choosing to host the speaker anyway (despite complaints from far-left activists) and then those activists using intimidation, suppression and/or threats of violence to shut down that speaker after they have been given a platform. If you agree with the use of this tactic, I find that quite disappointing and sad, though it wouldn't surprise me these days.

I don't agree with those tactics and I'm not aware of any being used in related case. If they were used than it's a matter of case by case as to wheter or not they are isolated incident or used in a widespread manner and individual should be dealt with case by case. If you want to blame Antifa, you would have to proove that the ultimate decision was taken because of those incidents and not because of the overwhelming opposition alone, and also that the individual were actualy Antifa member. For all that I know Antifa, and even though I don't deny their existence, is more of a name drop scaregoat used by the right to discredit any opposition more than anything else.

If you want to continue this discussion. Please do so in the us politics thread as I believe it is more appropriate for this and I read it often so I will reply there.