That's right. It can be a political win for you when people don't let you speak. The audience wants to hear both sides. Anyone who acts censoriously comes off as afraid of words, as if words are violence. And that's the exact argument that many (but not all) protesters today are using, that words are violence. We can instead draw a distinction between words and violence in order to encourage civil discourse. When you don't do that, the majority naturally suppresses minority views.
> A kid name Xander, who I respected very much, said something very interesting. Paraphrasing: "All politicians should be challenged." So he agreed with the action, despite being a Bernie fan.
What happened with Bernie [1] was not as bad as other cases where violence occurred, but preventing a speaker from talking is still against free speech principles.
> I can't speak to what's happening in higher ed. And I really don't, truly don't care. All that drama is just performance art.
You don't think those protesters are genuinely expressing themselves?
I can understand how it's hard for some of them to see why blocking speakers is not a good idea. It is a bit similar to what the likes of MLK Jr. and John Lewis supported, direct action by standing in the way, as was done at the lunch counters. But I don't think either of those civil rights defenders would have supported the current movements that seek to displace speakers. They wanted their ideological opponents to speak so that they could respond with reason and win more followers.
Nonviolent direct action, in itself, is not a bad thing, but it's problematic when you use that method to prevent someone from speaking. Words are not violence, so speech should be acceptable. If it's not, then we need more speech to discover where the disconnect is. Free speech is an old idea, not a new one, and it's been proven to work. It takes some effort to understand, and I would argue that such challenging issues are the very ones worth taking the time to learn.
That's right. It can be a political win for you when people don't let you speak. The audience wants to hear both sides. Anyone who acts censoriously comes off as afraid of words, as if words are violence. And that's the exact argument that many (but not all) protesters today are using, that words are violence. We can instead draw a distinction between words and violence in order to encourage civil discourse. When you don't do that, the majority naturally suppresses minority views.
> A kid name Xander, who I respected very much, said something very interesting. Paraphrasing: "All politicians should be challenged." So he agreed with the action, despite being a Bernie fan.
What happened with Bernie [1] was not as bad as other cases where violence occurred, but preventing a speaker from talking is still against free speech principles.
> I can't speak to what's happening in higher ed. And I really don't, truly don't care. All that drama is just performance art.
You don't think those protesters are genuinely expressing themselves?
I can understand how it's hard for some of them to see why blocking speakers is not a good idea. It is a bit similar to what the likes of MLK Jr. and John Lewis supported, direct action by standing in the way, as was done at the lunch counters. But I don't think either of those civil rights defenders would have supported the current movements that seek to displace speakers. They wanted their ideological opponents to speak so that they could respond with reason and win more followers.
Nonviolent direct action, in itself, is not a bad thing, but it's problematic when you use that method to prevent someone from speaking. Words are not violence, so speech should be acceptable. If it's not, then we need more speech to discover where the disconnect is. Free speech is an old idea, not a new one, and it's been proven to work. It takes some effort to understand, and I would argue that such challenging issues are the very ones worth taking the time to learn.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWOuCfdJYMM