In an academic version of the debate raging over “TERFS” and figures like J.K. Rowling, Wellesley College President Paula A. Johnson is being condemned as “transphobic” after she opposed a referendum to admit trans male students at the all-women school. While the school previously admitted trans women, Johnson is drawing the line on admitting “nonbinary” or trans male applicants. The students, however, approved the referendum.
The college has long billed itself as a place for “women who will make a difference in the world” with graduates like Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright. However, the referendum would admit all transgender and nonbinary students.
That was too far for Johnson who wrote:
Wellesley was founded on the then-radical idea that educating women of all socioeconomic backgrounds leads to progress for everyone. As a college and community, we continue to challenge the norms and power structures that too often leave women, and others of marginalized identities, behind. We are not a “historically women’s college,” a term that only applies to women’s colleges that have made the decision to enroll men. We have chosen a different path, one that aligns with peer institutions including Barnard, Smith, and Bryn Mawr colleges.
What does Wellesley mean by “a women’s college”? In accordance with our admission policy, Wellesley admits applicants who identify and live consistently as women, regardless of the gender they were assigned at birth…
The reaction was the Rowling treatment. The student newspaper led the condemnation of Johnson:
We disapprove of and entirely disagree with President Johnson’s email. As journalists, we understand the power of rhetoric to do good or harm. The need for newspapers to take stances on their editorial standards is more important than ever, as demonstrated by the harm caused by The New York Times’ anti-trans pivot. In the past year, the Times has published “more than 15,000 words’ worth of front-page stories asking whether care and support for young trans people might be going too far or too fast.”…
College administration and the Board of Trustees have once again monopolized conversations about Wellesley’s community and future, conversations that should be led by students, who make up the majority of the College community. We also want to remind the Wellesley community that President Johnson is the spokesperson for the Board of Trustees, which must be held equally responsible for the College’s transphobic rhetoric.
Wellesley student editors previously opposed certain speech deemed harmful and intolerable. The Wellesley News published a column entitled “Free Speech Is Not Violated At Wellesley.” The editors heralded the Wellesley students who refuse to respect the free speech rights of those deemed to be hateful. Simply defining such people as unworthy of free speech protections then allowed the editors to become actual advocates of mob action to silence them:
“Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech. The founding fathers put free speech in the Constitution as a way to protect the disenfranchised and to protect individual citizens from the power of the government.”
So speech deemed as “undermining the existence and rights of others” is all that is needed to relieve the conscience of these students and allow them to indulge in their desire to forcibly silence those with whom they disagree. There is no attempt, of course, to define what constitutes speech that “undermines.” If those people still insist on being heard, the editors declared that “hostility may be warranted.”
Johnson now finds herself on the wrong side of the academic mob. For years, academics have allowed a culture of orthodoxy to take hold on our campuses, including attacks on free speech values. Many administrators and faculty have remained silent as conservative, libertarian, or dissenting faculty have been investigated and even fired. This is why French journalist Jacques Mallet du Pan famously observed during the French Revolution that “like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children.”
Last days of the Roman Empire
How about this – I am growing transphobiaphobic in that I have a growing fear of the delusional crowd that wants to demand that I call a man a woman or a woman a man. If they are that out of touch with reality there is no limit to their craziness. I fear to be around such nutjobs as they ARE NOT working with a full deck and should not be any position of responsibility that touches another human’s life. I fear to live beside them.
“But Turley does this too.”
High-minded, civilized people articulate ideas and arguments. Small-minded people sling ad hominem attacks.
Turley is not hilariously absurd.
Sam, John Say,
I can think of a few who are.
Sam, since you can’t face the reality that Turley indeed does what he criticizes others of doing it only shows a willingness to remain ignorant of the facts.
Transgender spectrum (e.g. homosexual), political congruence (“=”), Levine’s personal affirmation, Obama’s parade, and albinophobic symbols and rhetoric. Individuals of male sex in female’s clothing (e.g. trans/social). Genderfication to reduce women to the sum of their sex-correlated attributes.
You are incorrect. You do not get it.
Facts do not matter, this is not about chromosomes, or clothes, or attributes.
It is about words.
The Student news wants Wellesley to admit anyone who does nto call themselves a straight white male.
It is irrelevant what they are.
The students want to admit those who identify as a woman or binary. Their own school policy allows those who consistently act and identify as a woman to apply to the university. It’s stated directly in their policy. The dispute is only about words being used. The referendum confirmed what the majority of the students want.
I am mostly too busy laughing at you and Wellesley to care about the argument.
Frankly the argument does not matter. You are absurd. The students are absurd.
That is obvious and no argument is necescary.
Regardless, while I do not care who Wellesley admits, you have the FACTS wrong.
You cited the policy – that BARS people who do not identify and live as a woman.
This fight is the students efforts to get a person that does NOT live and identify as a woman admitted.
The Students are challenging the policy. They are not demanding it be enforced.
I think the policy is stupid. I think the whole mess is absurd.
But Wellesley can make its admission choices as it pleases, it can change its policies as it pleases.
Students have a voice. They do NOT have control. It is NOT their school, they do not own it.
They DO have control over themselves. If they do not like the policies of the school – they can go elsewhere.
Buyers have a vote in what sellors do. The ballot that is counted for that vote are in Dollars.
That is how things work outside of government.
I could give a $hit what the student body votes.
Wellesley will respond if students go elsewhere.
It will respond if they leave because this student is not admitted.
It will respond if they leave if this student is admitted.
It is fairly important that the students vote is in dollars
Because many of those dollars – Votes, do not come from the students.
They come from parents, from benefactors and donors.
You do know that the person seeking admission does NOT identify or live as a woman ?
You’d think after Wellesley produced the likes of Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright it would be deemed too toxic for decent people to attend. Let them implode–the world will be better off.
Did these administrators really think the feral mob they unleashed wouldn’t turn against them some day. These mobs are never satisfied, and now they’re out of control. We will face the same incendiary situation when blacks realize they’re not getting $5million each, as Democrats have been promising them. It’ll be another George Floyd riot scene, and these pampered and deluded students will be right beside them.
“History repeats itself first as tragedy then as a farce”
Karl Marx
“Simply defining such people as unworthy of free speech protections then allowed the editors to become actual advocates of mob action to silence them:
“Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech.…”
But Turley does this too. In his civility rules clearly says that he will delete openly racist comments. Why? He seems those who post those kinds of comments unworthy of free speech protections by deleting their comments. He’s effectively shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights or others, literally. It’s his policy to do exactly what the Wellesley college students are saying. The only distinction is he shuts down openly racist comments which ARE hateful. How is their view that transphobic comments or rhetoric should be shut down any different than Turley’s own insistence that he will delete openly racist comments? Because both are deemed hate speech and as a free speech absolutist Turley shouldn’t be deleting openly racist comments since they are also protected speech no matter how offensive it is. That is the hypocrisy of Turley’s position in regards to free speech.
No one is laughing at the absurdity of Turley’s rules for civility.
“Never attempt to murder a man who is committing suicide”.
Woodrow Wilson
You go Girl !?
John Say,
“No one is laughing at the absurdity of Turley’s rules for civility.”
You are correct.
I would say that based off the numbers when the good professor takes the time to mention the popularity of Res ipsa loquitur, the numbers of people from other countries reading this blog, would agree with you.
Likely they are reading what the good professor posts, and either are laughing at us. Or watching in wonder at the abject stupidity that is infecting our society. How could such a great country descend into this kind of insanity?
John B. Say, so you disagree with Turley on his stance regarding this issue?
Clearly he is being hypocritical if he is criticizing the students for claiming that they deem unworthy those who spout hate speech including racist rhetoric when his own rules of civility clearly state he will delete openly racist comments.
He’s doing exactly what he is criticizing them of. He’s shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others. Openly racist comments are protected speech. Why would he delete those comments if they are protected speech?
This just goes to show you that intelligent life has not yet manifested itself on earth. And remember these are the people who will also be advancing the concept of AI in our every day life. I always wondered why the science fiction writers always wrote about the AI’s running amok and annihilating humanity. Now I understand. Any intelligence based on clear logic would regard a great deal of humanity as insane and would wish to prevent it’s spread or just put us out of our misery.
GEB,
Only the most die hard science fiction author could write something as dystopian as this. And even then, I would say they would be hard pressed to come up with this level of insanity.
“College administration and the Board of Trustees have once again monopolized conversations about Wellesley’s community and future, conversations that *should be led by students* . . .” (emphasis added)
In other words: I am a 20-something know-nothing with zero experience in education. And I demand wider powers!
When the incompetent rule the roost, you’re culture’s in trouble.
20 something ?
This is the kind of nonsense my kids grew out of before they were seven.
“Lord of the Flies”, meet “1984”. “1984”, “Lord of the Flies”.
Good luck (not really), the rest of us will be waaay over there.
Well I would have to disagree somewhat with Svelaz on this. It is not “their” school. The school takes their money to teach them but the people paying the fees don’t own the institution. The University is usually owned by a trust or foundation that is founded by donations, gifts and such. I think the school administration is right to get an overview of student desires by listening to the vote of the referendum but they have no obligation to act on it. A dialogue and discussion of direction might be in order without demonstrations and screaming. They do answer to a Board and the Board has to listen to Alumni and others who actually fund the school. What good is it to change the whole direction of a school and then lose the alumini support which may in turn lose you the college. If it’s a public university, I think the tax payers own those. As pointed out above, the students are free to vote with their feet and go elsewhere or that may be their parents decision since likely the parents are really paying the bills. I went to a private university long ago but they did not care what I thought but they did deliver on the education part. I did not own that university as a student (they made that very clear) and neither do I as alumni since I don’t contribute a cent to them.
Frankly I don’t see why a Women’s college would want to admit men. Leave the ladies alone and let them interact with men when they wish, individually. If they want men in the college then go to another college.
Those students may not “own” the school. But they ARE the school’s customers. If the majority want something changed they have every right to demand that change because they are paying the school for a service. If they want to allow trans men in their school which they are paying for they certainly can ask and as you say they can also vote with their feet and go somewhere else.
Your mind is all F’d up. Students come for an education and therefore have the choice of courses to fill the degree they desire.
S. Meyer, they PAY for those courses. They pay for what they want. If enough students demand a new type of course and enough are willing to pay for it any school should be able to accommodate the demand.
Colleges and universities often offer courses that are in demand by students. Conversely they also drop courses that are not in enough demand to justify keeping them.
So?
The school is not “owned” by anyone. It’s a non-profit. To demonstrate the point, if you were dead set on buying it, and you had unlimited funds, who would you write the check to?
This is part of the problem. The trustees can virtue signal all they want, and it has no affect on anyone’s wallet. They can destroy the place with impunity, and score social points at the same time.
It is so hard to keep up. Let me get this straight, a person born male (previously known as a man) can go to the school if he now claims to be a woman, but a person born a female (previously known as a woman) can’t go to the school because she now claims to be a man? Do I have this right? So the actual woman is banned while the actual man is allowed in…to the all female school?
And the progressive females, who once believed in women’s rights, are the ones cheering it on. How do we explain that?
The only thing I can come up with is that immediate kudos they get for virtue signaling outweigh the long-term negative effects on women’s rights, which they will not be at Wellesley to have to deal with. Perhaps someone else can come up with a better explanation.
Pretty much.
These issues are not based on logic so don’t look for it. How do I know? Look at how language is being distorted; something one wouldn’t do if trying to persuade someone using logic. The students used common language of the left: “gender they were assigned at birth.” Sex is the biology of the person down to their DNA. Gender is a social construction used to discuss roles typical to men and women. Reasonable people can disagree about the proper gender roles of men and women, but a person’s sex is fixed, not “assigned at birth;” It’s “assigned” at conception.
I think that’s right.
The students voted to make an exception to allow for trans males to enroll. It’s their choice. However vote was non-binding. This is their official policy,
“Its current application policy states that trans men cannot apply to the school, but trans women and those who were born female and identify as non-binary are eligible for admission, according to the website.”
…”Wellesley does not accept applications from men. Those assigned female at birth who identify as men are not eligible for admission.”
In 2015, the college changed its admission policy to consider “any applicant who lives as a woman and consistently identifies as a woman” for admission to the school.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3900652-wellesley-college-students-vote-to-admit-trans-men-and-nonbinary-applicants/
This doesn’t’ seem to be the dispute that Turley is making it out of be.
You have it wrong. Welsey students make up new rules as they please.
What you can be sure of is that if you identify as a straight white male, you can not go to Welsey.
Anything else ? Depends on the News paper editorial staffs mood on that day.
What is really hllarious is the degree of self righteousness in this comedy of the absurd.
“You have it wrong. Welsey students make up new rules as they please.”
Nope. It has been school policy since 2015 which I posted above. Any applicant who lives as a woman and consistently identifies as a woman. The students are not making up rules as they please. They are reinforcing their existing policies. “Any” applicant means just that any applicant that consistently identifies as a woman meaning a male who now identifies as a woman can apply even the non-binary who clearly and consistently live as women.
Even Johnson’s one memo agreed with the student’s
“As a college and community, we continue to challenge the norms and power structures that too often leave women, and OTHERS OF MARGINALIZED IDENTITIES, BEHIND. We are not a “historically women’s college,” a term that only applies to women’s colleges that have made the decision to enroll men. We have chosen a different path, one that aligns with peer institutions including Barnard, Smith, and Bryn Mawr colleges.
What does Wellesley mean by “a women’s college”? In accordance with our admission policy, Wellesley admits applicants who identify and live consistently as women, regardless of the gender they were assigned at birth…”
That part of the statement clearly meant those who identify as binary. The only condition that allows them to qualify is that they are consistent in living as a female.
Long hillarious diatribe denying the obvious.
Students are seeking to admit someone who does NOT meet the college policy.
You seem to have missed that.
“trans male is a term used to refer to someone who was assigned female at birth but whose gender identity is male.”
I would note the absurdity of the language.
Almost no one is assigned a gender at birth.
A person has a sex, that is a consequence of the chromosomes that created them.
It is not assigned. If you got different chromosomes you would be an entirely different person.
Your sex – like your hair and eye color is a FACT, and Attribute of the chromosomes that joined to create you.
You did not exist prior to those chromosomes joining. Therefore there was never some sexless creature waiting to have a sex assigned.
There is a miniscule number of people with more than two sex chromosomes.
For most of human existance – Gender was just another name for Sex, until left wing nuts decided the immutable is actually a choice.
Again
I DO NOT CARE.
Shoot heroin,
Blow your brains out.
Identify as a furby.
So long as the direct consequences of your choices are limited to you – you are free to make whatever bad choices you wish.
I am not challenging your right to call yourself whatever you want, just as I am free to call you whatever I want.
But I am laughing at your complete absurdity.
At the mess you are making.
And trying to keep from choking as you expect anyone to take you seriously.
“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.”
It is not ad hominem to call you an idiot.
It is an obvious statement of fact.
Howl at the moon.
You really do not seem to get how little I care about the tangled web of illogic you have wrapped yourself in .
Pretend if you wish that women, trans women, and trans men are all women.
You might as well include men while you are at it.
Arent we all women ?
Don’t we get to choose from moment to moment ?
I am taking great joy at poking fun as you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
You go for it Girl ! ?
John Say,
Simply awesome take down.
Simply awesome.
I have not enjoyed a Turley Post this much in a long time.
I am not bothered by the mess are Wellesey. I am enjoying it.
If you chose to attend Wellesey – you are getting your just deserts.
I have no sympathy for Johnson – she opened this can of worms.
Again, I think this whole mess is just delightful.
I could argue till I am blue in the face and not have done a better job of exposing the idiocy of the left than Wellesey is doing all by themselves.
There is no need to ask “What is a women ?” or argue about it.
Wellesey College is proving two things concurrently – the absurdity of their own values.
And the fact that the left can not even agree on those values.
And Svelaz, is just making a fool of himself.
He does not need my help.
Regardless, as I have said repeatedly
Cheer up, everything will work out.
There will be no civil war – the left will murder itself one way or the other.
This is just one small but fun example of own goal.
What gives you the right to identify Svelaz’s pronouns as “he” and “himself”. Have they declared thus and I missed it?
I beleive Svelaz’s pronouns are howling/mad
I would go with absurd/fool.
John Say,
Actually, I just read what billionaire investor Carl Icahn said in a interview on CNBC:
“The system is breaking down, and we absolutely have a major problem in our economy today,”
“We’ve been on a, you know, spending spree and, you know, the rising tide the tide lifts all ships, but a lot of people in our economy are not doing well obviously, you know, the net worth of the median household is nothing basically and you you just look at what is going on, I think Powell really has to raise interest rates sooner or later.”
“If you look in history, every hegemony has been destroyed by inflation or almost everyone. I mean, just go back to Rome. That’s what happens and one of our major problems I think in this economy right now, is is there is no leadership on the corporate level, you know, forget politically and I’m not going to get into politics, but I think you do feel that in Washington, nobody knows what’s really going on.”
If the man is right, and I would give him more benefit of doubt more so than the yahoos in DC, we just might be looking at a real economic disaster this year. Looking at the numbers of people getting laid off from big tech companies (note, many got severance packages, so they do not qualify for unemployment, yet), inflation eating into the lower economic and even middle class, Moody’s Investors Service just downgraded the entire banking system from “stable” to “negative.”
The “system is breaking down,” kind of economic disaster, we may not have civil war. But might have real social strife.
I would absolutely listen to Icahn before anyone in DC.
I would take economic advice from my Dog before anyone in DC.
I still have Svelaz arguing that socializing education makes it cheaper.
It has never anywhere ever been true that socializing anything makes it on net cost less.
It can not. That violates the laws of supply and demand.
Subsidizing anything always makes its net cost increase.
I am criticizing Svelaz – but his complete economic illiteracy is the norm today.
We have idiots in power who are clueless and believe nonsense.
Respectfully regarding Icahn. US Inflation is a problem – it is painful. It is not however bad enough to be an existential threat.
I am far more concerned about the global economy. The problems are not the same everywhere – China faces potentially devastating deflation.
But I can not recall a time in my life where the most significant economies in the world faced such large problems concurrently.
The “good news” is that The US will likely be the least harmed. But no one should be comforted because everywhere else will be worse.
Myriads of dangerous countries have inflation and are approaching default. These are places where economic problems – food problems will lead to conflict – even war.
Powell is damned whatever he does – I am not sure the real scale of the banking problem right now – ferreting out the truth is hard.
BUT High Fed interest rates, mean High prices for Treasuries, and that plus many other factors mean a Tsunami of cash headed to the US.
It also means Cash rushing away from low return investments – which appears to the the major problem with banks.
Cash rushing to the US overwhelms the Feds efforts to bring interest rates under control – requiring higher rates still. Further sucking money away from investments with low return.
Bailing out Banks – which it appears Biden has committed to will create even more inflationary pressure.
Not to mention moral hazard. I did not address the moral hazard of socializing anything with Svelaz – but subsiudies and socialization always increase moral hazard. Svelaz probably does not even know what that is. But most fundamentally moral hazard means more people will make poor decisions.
Technically it is just the risk that more people will make bad decisions, but the law of large numbers means that over a large enough populations risk = certainty.
I responded addressing broadly the economy – but “the system breaking down” goes well beyond just the economy.
We have massive destabalization pretty much everywhere.
I am laughing at Wellesey and as Svelaz’s attempts to defend what is going on there.
It is not my problems, and it matters little overall if Wellesey eats itself.
But the problems at Wellesey are everywhere in most everything.
This is not about gender nonsense.
It is about undermining lots of core values all at once.
I am not republican. Conservatism is technically not an ideology, it is fundimentally just practical risk mitigation.
It is recognition of the fact that most change FAILS – that is not a problem when change occurs inside a free market where everyone does not move in the same direction all at once, and where there is a good ballance between risk taking and risk avoidance so that no matter what happens everything does not fail at once.
But too much change all at once will ALWAYS bring catastrophy, and too much change outside the free markets is all the worse.
Conservatism is the wisdom and experience that changing too much too fast is guaranteed to bring about disaster.
Wellesey does not matter.
But the left is trying to change everything everywhere all at once – and there is absolutely no possibility at all that ends well.
Inflation is a common theme to the collapse of great civilizations.
Another common theme – often frames as licentiousness, is really more like what we see now – everything changing everywhere all at once.
That is destabalizing. It means there is no firm ground. Nothing we can trust.
A working world, country, society requires the proper balance between chaos and order.
The magic of free markets is that they self regulate for exactly that. There will always be risk takers and always those who build bomb shelters.
And with freedom we will always get the right balance.
In this country right now – we do not have that. We are heavily tilted towards anarchy, and that will not end well.
It is really really important to remember that Most change FAILS.
That is not a reason to avoid change. It is a reason to take care to make changes carefully, and to assure that risks are not societal.
One of the other things that those on the left do not grasp is that government can be ponderous, corrupt, even authoritarian – and we can manage.
But significant government failure is disaster.
Government is not supposed to be the leading edge for change.
IBM can fail – the world will not end.
Significant federal government failure is complete disaster.
Interesting – so that dude represents the males who get to attend Wellesley with a whole shipload of coeds under the guise of “I identify as female,” right?
Yet another invented “crisis” for the woke left although in this case, as in pretty much all others, once the students can identify YOUR speech as hate speech, they can justify any censorship they choose. And after graduating from college, they will take this Soviet-style censorship agenda into government and the corporate world as true communist believers. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
Well I will say again that in my opinion this kind of thing will send the Ivy League and other expensive private colleges the way of the dinosaur. Good riddance.
Never … murder a man who is committing suicide
Turley expects civility on his blog and he will delete or shut down uncivil or racist comments. Which is strange since racists comments are hateful in their intent. Turley does the same thing he criticizes Wellesley college of doing. Shutting down hate speech. Directly from his civility rule, “We will delete personal threats and openly racist comments.”. As a free speech absolutist he shouldn’t be deleting openly racist comments since it IS hateful speech which according to Turley is protected speech.
If Wellesley students say they can shut down hateful speech they are only doing what Turley already does in his own blog. Openly racist comments ARE protected speech. It’s hateful. Why does HE get to delete it and not Wellesley college students at their college which they pay for?
Svelaz complains about Turley censoring…in about 200 comments a day? Great analytical thinking from our resident Democrat operative.
Hullbobby, you don’t see that as hypocritical at all? That Turley will delete openly racist comments. Why would he do that? It is protected speech. It’s certainly offensive and hateful. So why delete it? Can you think of an excuse as to why Turley would not be a hypocrite for deleting openly racist comments?
If you equate saying that a person with testicles shouldn’t be power lifting against women with using the N word then you are either obtuse, a moron or a Democrat operative trying to make a lame argument against a guy who OWNS THE BLOG. You see fool, the kids at Stanford don’t OWN THEIR SCHOOL. It also receives federal funds…unlike our good professor. Put the shovel down, the hole is deep enough.
That is not what I’m saying at all. Turley is criticizing the student’s claim that they should be able to shut down hateful rhetoric because it’s hateful or transphobic. He deems that anti-free speech and as part of the greater movement for anti-free speech. Problem is Turley is in the same boat as these students according to his own rules of civility where he explicitly states he WILL delete openly racist comments. Openly racist comments are naturally hateful, offensive and seek to deny the rights of others. He deletes these kinds of comments despite the fact that they are protected speech. He’s engaging in anti-free speech by deleting such comments on his blog.
He claims to be a free speech absolutist which means even openly racist comments should be allowed. Even when they are clearly offensive and disgusting. Students at Wellesley believe transphobic rhetoric is just as offensive as racist comments and they believe that shutting down such rhetoric, like Turley does with openly racist comments, is not anti-free speech. If Turley clearly admits he will delete openly racists comments isn’t he anti-free speech too?
You are correct – Welsey is perfectly free to make itself into the worlds laughing stock.
The woke idiots at Welsey and particularly their student news paper should be punished
by getting the college they want – so long as the rest of us do not have to go there.
Agreed. And a better question than “who will be blamed?” is “who cares?”. Why do so-called conservatives insist on trying to save women when feminists are responsible for the current situation? Leave them be. Women “voted” for this…let it play itself out…and don’t get in the way. Enjoy it.
For the most part I agree.
Where I would differ is that the rest of us have the right to sit on the outside laughing, and saying I told you so.
I would further note that what you are arguing would be true much more broadly – EXCEPT, that the left goes beyond freedom and screing themselves to trying to force themselves on all of us.
I do not care if you are gay, trans. or whatever. Live your life as you please. So long as you do not act to harm others.
But do not try to teach racism in schools, and do not try to sexualize children.
I do not beleive people with penises belong in women’s sports. But that is a women’s issue, and aside from laughing and pointing out the folloy, women can fix that on their own/
But people with penises do not belong in women’s school locker rooms.
Sex education must be limited to age appropriate material, and focused on safe sexual activity – not a how to guide.
If it can not be limited to that – it should not be taught in public schools.
Frankly there is pretty good evidence it should not be taught in public schools period.
Sex education has done nothing at all to thwart the problems it was introduced to create.
There is no evidence that teens given sex education are less likely to get pregnant before they are ready, less likely to get STD’s
or in any way better prepared for the world than previously.
The purpose of public education was NEVER Sex education. Schools that can not teach students to read, should not be teaching about Sex.
Nor do schools (or government) have any role at all in sexual identity.
Schools can stop bullying of ANYONE without interfering with Parents rights.
WE have an explosion of teens – particularly left leaning females suffering from epidemic levels of anxiety and depression.
This is NOT Gender dysphoria and does NOT need gender affirming therapies that should result in massive malpractice awards.
England pioneered this nonsense and have already realized they screwed up and shut it down – but not before mutilating for life a generation of girls.
There is way to much we do not know about Gender Dysphoria – Psychology as a whole is a very primative science and there are very very few mental health issues we can effectively treat.
Oddly Anxiety and Depression are the MOST TREATABLE mental health issues – while there are drugs that work to avoid crisis and suicide. Treatment – including full recovery is accomplished with a very high rate of success – unheard of in the field of Pschology through CBT – Cognative Behavioral therapy.
Which in it simplest form is teaching people to dismiss distorted thinking.
The reason we have an epidemic of anxiety and depression is because we have an epidemic of end of the world Malthusian thinking on the left.
The cause of anxiety and depression is a false dark world view.
There is a fundimental distinction between Turley’s civility code and whatever is going on at Welsey.
You cited the former.
No one has a clue who Welsey students want admitted and who they do not – or even what is hate speech today or will be tomorow.
Based on the nonsense from the Student news paper – my guess is that they think everyone except those who identify as straight white males should be admitted.
Aparently you can go to Welsey if you are a straight white male – so long as you do not “identify” as a straight white mail.
Regardless, it is a wonderful day! The left is parodying itself – and is not even smart enough to realize it.
This is a Saturday night live skit come to real life.
Thank you Welsey student news for giving me a great belly laugh.
John Say,
I disagree.
Not a SNL skit. Well, maybe back in the day when SNL was good.
More like a Rod Serling The Twilight Zone episode.
Twilight zone is fine for me.
Regardless, this is quite good.
I really feel no desire to add anything to what Students or Svelaz is doing to themselves.
Honestly – how do you attack what these students are saying ?
You can’t. It does not make sense.
It is absurd.
There is no need to do anything beyond shine the light on it.
John Say,
Unfortunately, this level of absurdity does not seem to relent as one matures.
As you pointed out in another comment, your children outgrew that kind of behavior at seven years of age.
These students are not maturing. Quite the opposite. They not only embrace juvenile behavior but try to force it on everyone else. And when we refuse to acquiesce to their immature demands, they throw a tantrum.
What is truly frighting is the level of this absurdity has also infected some corporations (take Silvergate and SVB for example), institutions, government, military and of course, academia.
Again, I would like to think we could have a civil divorce, but they will not stand for that.
I fear a real shooting civil war is on the horizon. If WWIII does not kick off before then.
We can learn from logic, we can learn from history, or we can learn from experience – failure.
But we WILL learn.
It is my hope that we get past this theater of the absurd quickly.
But we will get past it.
I doubt we will have a shooting war.
A civil war of the type in 1860.
I would suggest something more like The collapse of East Germany.
One of the other “wars” we are having right now is over J6.
Why ? Because J6 was an unbeleivably massive threat.
The left jumps up and down stomping their feet “insurrection, insurrection, insurrection”
Which begs the question “What is an insurection ?” and what is wrong with an insurection ?
If sufficient number of people showed up outside the capitol on J6 – congress would not have certified the election.
What is that number ? I do not know. Is that an insurrection ? That is a question of labels.
You can call it insurrection. But if it is peaceful and law abiding it is not crime.
It is very dangerous – TO GOVERNMENT when large numbers of people show their displeasure.
Regardless the left is terified of J6 – why ?
Because the civil rights marches worked,
Because Ghandi worked,
Because the 1968 riots worked.
Because the George Floyd riots worked.
Because whether they are peaceful or not – large protests change government.
Why the “weaponization of government” against J6 protestors ?
Because it could have worked, and because they are terrified it will happen again. And the real goal
is to assure that it does not.
That middle aged people are terrorized into staying at home – and preferably not voting.
The objective of the J6 committee was to terrify people who might have joined on J6.
The claims of violence, the false naratives – while useful are really a tangent.
The important thing is arresting people, jailing them – for long periods, and leaving many more in fear of jail.
And more still persuaded not to join in anything remotely like that.
The fight over J6 is the fight against the lefts efforts to instill fear in those who would protest.
There is not going to be a civil war.
But one way or the other there is absolutely going to be a collapse of left wing governance.
There is a very simple way to avoid a “civil war” to reduce political conflict.
Where there is not super majority support
Government may not act.
It is that simple.
Whatever your cause – no one is preventing you from acting on your own.
No one is preventing you from inspiring others to act.
No one is preventing you from building the super-majority agreement necessary for government to act.
The complex structure of our govenrment was intended to make it so that government could not act without super majorities.
But that has failed. And that is the root of our bitter division.
“These students are not maturing. Quite the opposite. They not only embrace juvenile behavior but try to force it on everyone else. And when we refuse to acquiesce to their immature demands, they throw a tantrum.”
All true. But there will be no safe space for them to hide after they’ve pushed the wrong people for far for too long. Sadly, they will never understand they’ve brought the wrath of the so-called ‘normals’ onto themselves. They’ll even have the nerve to look shocked and act surprised while they’re running around crying, as no one comes to save their hilariously sheltered lives.
Elsewhere I linked several times to recent articles/work by Prof Haidt – and apparently someone else linked to Bari Weis reporting on this.
The efforts of the left to protect themselves from offense, have made them MORE fragile, more anxious, and more depressed.
They have broken themselves.
“They have broken themselves.”
…then blame everyone else. It’s the blaming others that will lead to their eventual demise but they’ll never comprehend that reality.
I am not looking to let them off the hook.
Nor do I have any intention of acting prior to THEIR accepting they need help.
The first step in EVERY program is to admit that you need help. Nothing is possible before that.
After words – this is actually quite easy to deal with.
The most effective treatment for anxiety and depression is CBT – Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
The core of which is to:
Recognize cognitive distortions – false negative thinking
And to actively reprogram your thoughts to undistorted thinking.
If you do this consistently long enough the depression and anxiety lifts
and a beneficial side effect is that you more accurately see the world.
“Aparently you can go to Welsey if you are a straight white male – so long as you do not “identify” as a straight white mail.”
No, that is not what they are saying all. They are NOT straight. Being binary is not being straight. As long as they live consistently as a woman regardless of their previous sexual identity they should be allowed to apply. Both the students and school policy agree on that. The dispute is only on one use of the term.
Turley went on to criticize students for claiming that shutting down hate speech is not anti-free speech when he engages in the same thing. He admits he will shut down openly racist comments which is protected speech. It’s hateful speech. He gets to shut it down because he doesn’t like it. Students get to shut down what they deem hateful speech because they don’t like it, but that is anti-free speech and Turley’s isn’t? Students are private individuals at a private school. Turley is a private individual as well. According to his own criticism he is just as guilty as they are in being against free speech.
For some reason it is incredibly important to you that you are right over something were you are sjust absurd.
““Aparently you can go to Welsey if you are a straight white male – so long as you do not “identify” as a straight white mail.”
No, that is not what they are saying all.”
That is really pretty much what they are saying.
The only group being excluded from Welsey – ignoring those who identify as penguins, is people who identify as straight whit males.
Or have I missed something ? Has LGBTQ+….. language changed such that Trans Males and Trans Females Both identify as female ?
“They are NOT straight. Being binary is not being straight.”
Being Binary IS being straight, You can not even keep your own lingo straight.
“As long as they live consistently as a woman regardless of their previous sexual identity they should be allowed to apply.”
So straight cross dressors can apply.
“Both the students and school policy agree on that. The dispute is only on one use of the term.”
Trans Males do not live as women. If they did they would be straight women. Binary.
“Turley went on to criticize students for claiming that shutting down hate speech is not anti-free speech when he engages in the same thing.”
Ignoring the missing negative.
Shutting down Hate speech is censorship.
This is called LOGIC.
An Apple is an Apple,
“He admits he will shut down openly racist comments which is protected speech.”
No he has a policy that prohibits openly racist remarks – one that he clearly does not follow.
“It’s hateful speech.”
All you are doing is pointing out the problem with the phrase “hate speech”.
Turley allegedly bars Overtly racist speech.
Only those on the left pretend that Hate Speech has a meaning – beyond – Speech I do not like.
Turley has made it clear exactly what he prohibts – though in fact he has allowed lots of openly racist speech.
Those on the left deliberately use “Hate Speech” so that they can bar any speech they do not like.
Wellesey has a speech code. That code bar Harassing Speech targeting a protected class.
That is not the same as hateful speech. At Wellesey – you can say whatever hateful thing you wish about someone who is not in a protected class.
You can also say whatever non-harrassing thing you wish about people who are in a protected class.
At Wellesey saying Trans Males are female – which is what the students are trying to do, would be prohibited. While saying Trans Females are female would be protected.
The students are actually in violation of the schools speech code.
It is not Johnson that is spewing hate speech, but the student body.
These are YOUR Rules. It is YOUR Absurd world.
Don;t complain to me because your ensnared in your own web of illogical nonsense.
And do not try to worm your way out by language games making a false equivalence to Turley.
“He gets to shut it down because he doesn’t like it.”
Neither Turley nor I are trying to shut down anything.
Just pointing out that these students and YOU have trapped yourselves in a web of your own weaving.
“Students get to shut down what they deem hateful speech because they don’t like it,”
Nope. While Wellesey’s speech code prevents speech that it should not, it is still not “what they deem hateful”
Wellesey’s speech code bars ONLY speech that contains TWO elements:
It is speech regarding a protected class.
And it is speech that is actual harassment.
“but that is anti-free speech and Turley’s isn’t?”
In logic when you introduce a contradiction in your premises
you can prove anything.
Your argument regarding Turley is fallacious because its premises contradict.
“Students are private individuals at a private school. Turley is a private individual as well. According to his own criticism he is just as guilty as they are in being against free speech.”
Nope.
I will yell at you if you say “nee”.
I will behead you if you say “nee”.
Which of these is “anti-free speech” ?
“Aparently you can go to Welsey if you are a straight white male – so long as you do not “identify” as a straight white mail.”
No, that is not what they are saying all.”
That is really pretty much what they are saying.
Or have I missed something ?’
Yes. You are missing a lot.
They are NOT saying they can’t go to Wellesley if they are straight male. They are saying that those who identify as female, those who were once male can apply IF they consistently live as a woman and consistently identify as a woman. That is literally in their policy.
“Being Binary IS being straight, You can not even keep your own lingo straight.”
Not its’s not. Binary only means male or female. Not being straight. A binary individual can be gay or lesbian. That’s not being straight.
Non-binary is also being straight, but identify as a different gender. For example a trans male can be attracted to a a binary female or vice versa. The whole concept of sexual orientation and gender identity is far much more complicated than the simple concept we all know as “normal”.
“As long as they live consistently as a woman regardless of their previous sexual identity they should be allowed to apply.”
So straight cross dressors can apply.”
If they consistently identify and live as a woman they can. A cross dresser can be a transgenders individual. Those who dress in drag are a different issue.
“He admits he will shut down openly racist comments which is protected speech.”
No he has a policy that prohibits openly racist remarks – one that he clearly does not follow.”
Prohibiting openly racist remarks IS censorship. Openly racist remarks are protected speech. Deleting those comments IS censorship.
“It’s hateful speech.”
All you are doing is pointing out the problem with the phrase “hate speech”.
Turley allegedly bars Overtly racist speech.”
Openly racist speech IS hateful speech. That’s not in dispute. He doesn’t’ allegedly bar such speech he explicitly states he will delete such speech. Overtly racist speech IS protected speech. Turley is willing to censor it because he doesn’t agree with it despite calling himself a free speech absolutist. It’s contrary to his stated claim.
“Turley has made it clear exactly what he prohibts – though in fact he has allowed lots of openly racist speech.
Those on the left deliberately use “Hate Speech” so that they can bar any speech they do not like.”
Turley does not like openly racist speech. It’s hate speech according to the left. Yet Turley censors it. Why? Saying he “prohibits” it is just another word for censorship. As a free speech absolutist why would he censor, prohibit, or delete such speech? It’s certainly offensive and wrong, BUT it’s still someone else’s free speech right to make openly racist comments or rhetoric. Turley believes he has a right to censor it despite calling himself a free speech absolutist.
“Nope. While Wellesey’s speech code prevents speech that it should not, it is still not “what they deem hateful”
Wellesey’s speech code bars ONLY speech that contains TWO elements:
It is speech regarding a protected class.
And it is speech that is actual harassment.”
No, their speech code also deems racist speech as hate speech. Just as Turley deems openly racist speech not worthy of being allowed to be spoken on his blog. They can shut down such speech just as Turley can on his blog. There is little difference between the two approaches.
“Students are private individuals at a private school. Turley is a private individual as well. According to his own criticism he is just as guilty as they are in being against free speech.”
Nope.”
He is just as guilty. That you can’t articulate why he isn’t is telling.
“They are NOT saying they can’t go to Wellesley if they are straight male. They are saying that those who identify as female, those who were once male can apply IF they consistently live as a woman and consistently identify as a woman. That is literally in their policy.”
And Trans Males violate that policy.
Have you actually read any of this ?
Are you familiar with the FACTS.
I am not going to debate YOUR mangling your own left wing nut terminology with you.
Are you really so dense that you can not understand that YOU are thoroughly tangled in your own Web ?
Change the definitions however you please – you can not fix this.
What is so absolutely beautiful about the Wellesey nonsense is that there is no way out.
This is left wing nuts at war with other left wing nuts over absolute nonsense.
You may be fighting with logic and the world over what is a woman.
But now you are fighting with yourselves over what is binary or non-binary, or Trans Male or living as a female, or ….
Absolutely you can as those of you on the left change definitions to undermine my arguments.
But in this case you have made such a mess that doing so wrecks your OWN arguments.
The students voted for what THEY wanted. It’s their school and they are the ones paying the school. They get to decide if they want to accept trans students or not. Ironically their mission statement includes,
“As a college and community, we continue to challenge the norms and power structures that too often leave women, and AND OTHERS OF MARGINALIZED IDENTITIES, behind.”
“The editors heralded the Wellesley students who refuse to respect the free speech rights of those deemed to be hateful.”
Nobody is required to respect the free speech rights of those they deem hateful. The only certainty is that the rights of those who are hateful still have freedom to express it. That doesn’t mean they are protected from criticism or condemnation. Or are required to be respected by others who disagree.
“Wellesley students are generally correct in their attempts to differentiate what is viable discourse from what is just hate speech. Wellesley is certainly not a place for racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia or any other type of discriminatory speech. Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech. The founding fathers put free speech in the Constitution as a way to protect the disenfranchised and to protect individual citizens from the power of the government. The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging.”
What they are saying is they know there is a distinction one that Turley often neglects and they are right.
Free speech is not a free for all. How do we know? Because even on this blog racist, and overly offensive speech is not allowed. The civility rules make that quite clear. If Wesley college has the same expectations why is it anti-free speech when Turley’s own blog does the same thing. Because clearly this blog is NOT a free for all when it comes to free speech.
they are the ones paying the school. They get to decide if they want to accept trans students or not.
They are the customer, not the owner. The customer gets to take their business elsewhere. I can’t set the return policy for Target.
Yes they are customers and as a customers they are paying for the service which they can demand if they are paying for it. The school is there to cater to the customer’s needs. Not the other way around.
Yes they are customers and as a customers they are paying for the service which they can demand if they are paying for it.
You are creeping into the common law area of ‘fitness of merchantability’. That a service provides that service. A car wash, washes your car.
Wellesley is providing college degrees to females. They are meeting the basic if the service. Trans women are not females.
Iowan2,
“Trans women are not females”
What does it matter to you if they are not? How does it affect you? If the school chooses to accept by how they identify why does it matter to you? You do realize that is part of what personal liberty and freedom is, right? They are not forcing you to identify as female or male. So why are you so concerned about it? Why are you so invested in what they are choosing?
What does it matter to you if they are not? How does it affect you?
I have exactly the same standing as you do.
Iowan2, standing for what? You’re the one complaining, not I.
That doesn’t answer the question. How does it affect you whether someone identifies as male of female?
How does my opinion affect to you? (that’s in essence my first response, you’re not bright enough to understand)
“It’s their school and they are the ones paying the school”
Wrong, it is not their school. They are transitory customers.
“leave women, and AND OTHERS OF MARGINALIZED IDENTITIES”
That means all women have marginalized identities? It’s really not hard to prove a point when you can simply make up words…which is why they do it. Like this” Wellesley students are generally correct in their attempts to differentiate what is viable discourse from what is just hate speech.”
Clown show. Frankly, Wellesley was lost a long time ago, but the parasites never stop until the entire host is destroyed…and then they die too, such is a parasite.
The left of today reminds me of professional soccer a little while back. Remember Neymar rolling across the pitch screaming in agony as the replay showed he wasn’t touched, that’s exactly what is going on with the left – profit via victimhood, wonder where it learned that?
https://babylonbee.com/news/entire-professional-soccer-team-dead-after-team-bus-goes-over-slight-speedbump
That’s 2 comments by Svelaz out of the first 9 submitted.
Great job Hullbobby, we can count on you to know how to count properly.
“The students voted for what THEY wanted. It’s their school and they are the ones paying the school. They get to decide if they want to accept trans students or not. Ironically their mission statement includes,” A popular misconception. It is not THEIR school. However the current student body chooses to act to influence the direction of the institution in the context of their times they are, and remain first and foremost, consumers of a service. They are merely ‘guests’ at the table, and they are transitory. The student body does not reserve the right to turn the institution inside out and upside down during their brief tenure, for what they believe is cause in the moment, and decide what the menu should be.The school remains and reserves the right to decide what is in its best interests. Today’s menu may not necessarily suit nor serve tomorrow’s appetite.
I think this is a wonderful “own goal”.
We should all celebrate as the bat$hit crazy demonstrate how looney they are.
I think Sun Tzu says never to interfere when you enemy proceeds to make mistakes.
As to your arguments – schools are not democracies.
They are places that young often nit wit adults get educated.
No Students ate no paying. Their parents are paying – and if Biden has his way all the rest of us are paying.
But if you really want to have college entirely paid for by students with no help from parents and no government guaranteed loans
that eventually become gifts – then Go for it.
Students at Welsey can decide that they only welcome furbies if that is their choice.
Regardless, if as you claim – students run the asylum – do not come back to the rest of us when these people graduate less well educated,
that the started.
But mostly I am just having fun – watching idiot left wing nuts like you self immolate.
Who is it that Welsey will not accept ? From what I can tell, only White men who identify as White Men.
“No Students ate no paying. Their parents are paying – and if Biden has his way all the rest of us are paying.”
Some parents pay. Most students pay by taking out loans which is the most common form of financing higher education.
We should all be paying. It’s more cost effective for everyone meaning much lower tuition costs and little to no debt upon graduating which allows those graduates to contribute to the next batch of graduates. That’s how it was for most grandparents and great grandparents.
Without the guarantee of parents – most students do not get loans.
Regardless, to the extent that actual students are actually paying their own way – they are using their own money, or they have borrowed money that NO ONE ELSE has guaranteed – i.e. their parents – or the govenrment.
Then they have a legitimate voice, and they can VOTE, by taking their money elsewhere.
In the 70’s I paid my way through college with money I earned when I was younger, as well as during the summers.
My Wife used money she earned as a child, money from summer jobs, and money from work while at school.
As a result while at College we had no time or interest in this type of B$.
It was our money we were spending and our concern was the Value the college was delivering.
“We should all be paying. It’s more cost effective for everyone meaning much lower tuition costs and little to no debt upon graduating ”
Nope. That is actually the LEAST effective way.
Socializing costs makes them MORE expensive – not less – ALWAYS.
This is basic economics.
You are litterally arguing for massive moral hazzard.
“which allows those graduates to contribute to the next batch of graduates. That’s how it was for most grandparents and great grandparents.”
Nope.
Do I really have to demonstrate that ?
Is it necescary to refute in detail every single stupid thing you say ?
“Socializing costs makes them MORE expensive – not less – ALWAYS.
This is basic economics.”
No it doesn’t . YOU benefitted from that model. In the 70’s university or college tuition was lower and cheaper because the percentage of state funding to higher education was larger. It was cheaper for you. Than it is for students of today. States have constantly cut spending on higher education and have forced universities and colleges to raise tuition to compensate. That’s why student loans are more common today than they were when you went to college. Plenty of data back that up.
You can try to refute it if you want. But you will still be wrong.
https://archives.upenn.edu/exhibits/penn-history/tuition/tuition-1970-1979/
“No it doesn’t . YOU benefitted from that model. In the 70’s university or college tuition was lower and cheaper because the percentage of state funding to higher education was larger. It was cheaper for you. Than it is for students of today. States have constantly cut spending on higher education and have forced universities and colleges to raise tuition to compensate. That’s why student loans are more common today than they were when you went to college. Plenty of data back that up.”
We have been through this before. Your WRONG. In fact your own Claims prove you are wrong.
Yes, College cost less in the past. All education cost less in the past.
That said, Government education spending has INCREASED not decreased.
I provided you about half a dozen graphs last time you raised this idiotic claim showing Federal funding, state funding. Funding of private colleges funding of public colleges. costs, increases in subsidized loans. In real dollars, in nominal dollars as percentages.
By every single measure – Government pays MORE not less of college today than in the past,
Government subsidies have increased not decreased and college costs have increased.
Further this pattern is not just rtue of college education – but everything – if government subsidizes it – the cost rises.
This should not surprise first it flows obviously from the law of supply and demand. If you subsidize what someone will pay. they will be willing to pay more for the same thing.
Next it also flows directly from the inefficiency of government.
I would note government inefficiency is a feature not a flaw. We do not want the efficient use of force.
But the fact that government is force in addition to the fact that govenrment is inefficient is just two more reasons we do nto want government to do things that can be done without government.
Why are you trying to relitigate an argument you lost BADLY.
Nothing has changed.
I was never obligated to provide you with links, sources, etc to refute an argument as stupid as you are making – but I did.
Lots of them.
When you repeat an argument that has been refuted
Either you are lying
or you never bother to look at the sources – which is odd, I linked jpg’s of graphs. You did not need to follow links only open your eyes.
Or you are too stupid to read a graph.
Regardless. you were given proof many many ways that you were wrong.
But as always left wing nuts keep returning with the same garbage over and over.
Where is the USSR today ?
What is the standard of living in Cuba, Venezeula ?
This nonsense has been tried over and over.
It has failed every time.
Just one facet of your nonsense.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2017/02/22/how-unlimited-student-loans-drive-up-tuition/?sh=4570801452b6
“Nobody is required to respect the free speech rights of those they deem hateful. The only certainty is that the rights of those who are hateful still have freedom to express it. That doesn’t mean they are protected from criticism or condemnation. Or are required to be respected by others who disagree.”
Amen! I completely agree – none of us OWE respect to anyone else.
But we absolutely do OWE them the right to speak – as well as owning those who wish to listen the right to listen.
Rant, Rail, Criticise – great – all for it.
The problem is that is NOT what those of you on the left beleive.
How do we know ?
Because you go beyond criticizing.
You take over by force the speaking events of others and deprive them of the right to speak.
You censor through government.
You censor in everyway that you can, in every venue you can, in every institution you can.
Silencing others is not criticism.
Wow. A miracle? Interesting.
“The problem is that is NOT what those of you on the left beleive.”
False. I as a lefty just posted what I believe and you agreed.
Grouping the left as one homogenous group is your biggest flaw with your criticisms.
Yes we/they go beyond criticism, we also mock, ridicule, condemn, and push back. None of which infringe on the right to free speech.
“You take over by force the speaking events of others and deprive them of the right to speak.”
That’s called a protest. Protesting is a form of free speech. Being louder than the speaker is a deprivation of the right to speak. The right to speak is not infringed. The right to be heard is a different issue. When people who are NOT the government shout down another is not prohibited or against the 1st amendment. It’s certainly rude, obnoxious, and uncivil there’s no denying that. The 1st amendment does NOT prevent individuals from infringing on another’s speech as long as they are not government officials or agencies. That is an unfortunate truth. When debaters talk over each other in a heated exchange they are not depriving the other of the right to speak. They are being inconsiderate and that is not unconstitutional or illegal. It’s just simply rude and obnoxious.
“You censor through government.”
False. The right does this as well and with more frequency than you would care to admit.
“You censor in everyway that you can, in every venue you can, in every institution you can.”
False. The right conflates criticism as censorship all the time. Because they can’t handle criticism and pushback. The only way to deal with it is to play victim and cry censorship.
“Silencing others is not criticism”
No it’s not. Those who choose to silence themselves because of criticism have only themselves to blame, not the critics. Those who get criticized often claim they are being silenced because they can’t handle the criticism and often choose to play victim rather than make their argument. When they have no argument they cry censorship.
““The problem is that is NOT what those of you on the left beleive.”
False. I as a lefty just posted what I believe and you agreed.”
I did not say it is not what you said.
I said it is NOT what those of you on the left beleive.
Which you have made clear repeatedly today.
“Grouping the left as one homogenous group is your biggest flaw with your criticisms.”
If only that were actually true.
“Yes we/they go beyond criticism, we also mock, ridicule, condemn, and push back. None of which infringe on the right to free speech.”
Correct even though you are usually stupid when you do so.
Regardless, actual free speech includes the right to be wrong.
““You take over by force the speaking events of others and deprive them of the right to speak.”
That’s called a protest.”
Nope.
“Protesting is a form of free speech.”
Yes
“Being louder than the speaker is a deprivation of the right to speak.”
That is correct, But I suspect it is not what you intended to say.
“The right to speak is not infringed.”
You just said it was. While I think you only accidentally said the correct thing.
You were still correct.
“The right to be heard is a different issue.”
You do not have the right to be heard. But you do not have the right to thwart anothers right to listen.
When you shout down speakers – it is not just the right of the speaker you are infringing, but those who came to hear that speaker.
“When people who are NOT the government shout down another is not prohibited or against the 1st amendment.”
Correct. It is just usually immoral.
“It’s certainly rude, obnoxious, and uncivil there’s no denying that.”
If it is those things, it is certainly immoral.
“The 1st amendment does NOT prevent individuals from infringing on another’s speech as long as they are not government officials or agencies.”
Not exactly. Infringement is a very broad term.
If I shoot you – I am infringing on your rights – including your free speech rights.
We have already addressed shouting down speakers at public forums – that is a violation of rights and usually a crime.
“That is an unfortunate truth.”
We have actually spent thousands of years working all this out.
And you are ignorant of that.
If you go to an organized speech event and you shout down the speaker – you will or should be arrested for disorderly conduct.
That arrest is perfectly legitimate and does not violate your free speech rights.
Conversely if you march outside non-violently in public space that is available to pedestrians and you do not interfere with the rights of others – such as by blocking access – that is protected by the first amendment.
You are constantly making stupid arguments – as if the issues you are raising were never thought of by anyone before, and not worked out by the constitution and law.
Far smarter people than I worked though all of this before I was born.
And their work was reviewed and reconsidered by equally smart people for centuries.
I am atleast smart enough to recognize they came up with a framework that actually works.
You are so stupid that you think you can just start over making things up as you please.
“When debaters talk over each other in a heated exchange they are not depriving the other of the right to speak.”
They are an in a properly moderated debate they are penalized for it.
Just to be clear – there is a difference between a right and a constitutional right.
Free speech is both. The Constitution protects the right from infringement by government.
But the natural right to free speech is normally protected by the rules of our institutions, and sometimes our laws.
As an example – you can be arrested for disorderly conduct for shouting down a speaker at a public event.
That is not a violation of the first amendment. YOUR disorderly conduct is infringing on the free speech rights of someone else.
It is unlikely that a participant in a debate will be arrested for disorderly conduct for speaking over his opponent.
But he likely will be censured by the moderate, and may even lose the debate.
He was violating the free speech rights of another.
“They are being inconsiderate and that is not unconstitutional or illegal. It’s just simply rude and obnoxious.”
Some things are just inconsiderate.
Some are rude.
Some are obnoxious.
Some are unconstitutional,
and some are illegal.
Each of these is independent.
Nor are the totality of consequences possible for interfering with the rights of another – even if you are doing so by speaking.
I would hope that you are not such a moron, that you think you can not be thrown out of a theater for disruptive speech.
I would hope that you understand that whn your speech violates the actual rights of others – such as their right to speak or the right of others to hear the speaker, or the right of others to silence in some cases – that it is even possible you could be jailed for rude, obnoxious and inconsiderate speech.
There are instances you can, and those you can not. We have spent centuries working that all out – and done a pretty good job.
Your not going to step in and make new rules up with any hope of something that works.
““You censor through government.”
False. The right does this as well and with more frequency than you would care to admit.”
The statement is false because the right also censors ? That is called an admission.
With respect to the right actually censoring.
Raise real examples and I will oppose them
And please lets not raise the false School Trope.
K-12 schools are not a public free speech forum for teachers or librarians.
They are employed to Teach the curriculum that parents, voters, the sate determines.
If they want to teach something different, they are free to start their own schools.
Regardless, I am not debating whether the right censors. When they actually do. I will call them out.
““You censor in everyway that you can, in every venue you can, in every institution you can.”
False. The right conflates criticism as censorship all the time. Because they can’t handle criticism and pushback. The only way to deal with it is to play victim and cry censorship.”
When you silence someone – that is not criticism, that is not pushback – that is censorship.
And you do so through government.
I do not give a $chiff WHO you censor. Though most of your censorship is political.
Regardless, you have censored the truth about Covid – maybe the basis is political. Maybe it was just stupidity.
I would further note the Victims of YOUR censorship are Not Republicans, they are the people, the country.
They are the people who did not hear the Truth about the Biden’s, or Covid, or J6, or all the myriads of other truths you have tried to keep hidden.
They are the people suffering from inflation, war, anxiety and depression as we face the potential of recession or global nuclear conflict.
The people who will have to pay for student loans they did not take out.
The people who will have to pay for the profligate spending of the left.
The people who have lost 4500/year since your geriatic demented moron took office.
But for your lies, your censorship we might have the truth, and we would not have most of the mess we currently have.
This is not about wrapping oneself in the mantle of victim. This is about YOU screwing over the country.
And gaining the power to do so by violating all of our rights.
The right to hear “misinformation” – because when the left says misinformation – they mean Truth they do not like.
Can I sue FB for censoring the Truth to my harm and that of the country ?
““Silencing others is not criticism”
No it’s not. Those who choose to silence themselves because of criticism have only themselves to blame, not the critics.”
What mythic people are you talking about ?
The people YOU Silenced, did not silence themselves.
Regardless, your statement is still false. While there is a difference between heckling someone into silence and censoring them.
When YOU silence others by shouting them down – YOU are responsible if what you silenced was the truth.
You do not seem to grasp that the harm of silencing is NOT primarily to the speaker – it is those who might listen.
Silencing those who spoke truth about Covid – did little harm to the speakers.
But great harm to the rest of us.
There is no Republican or Democrat right to win an election.
But the Voters have the right to hear whatever is to be said about candidates and to decide if that is true themselves.
When you deprive them that right, you delegitimize the government that results.
We elect bad government quite frequently – but when we do so based on our own choices, presented with all known information.
that is our problem. When we are lied to and the liars silence those telling the truth – it is THEIR fault.
“Those who get criticized often claim they are being silenced because they can’t handle the criticism and often choose to play victim rather than make their argument. When they have no argument they cry censorship.”
All well and good.
Too bad it has nothing to do with anything we are dealing with.
“Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech.”
Shutting down rhetoric – is NOT criticizing. It is a violation of the free speech rights of others.
AS YOU said above – you do not owe others respect, buy you owe them the right to speak.
“Shutting down Rhetoric” is just word games for censoring.
“Shutting down rhetoric – is NOT criticizing. It is a violation of the free speech rights of others.
AS YOU said above – you do not owe others respect, buy you owe them the right to speak.
“Shutting down Rhetoric” is just word games for censoring.”
Which is exactly what Turley does. He explicitly says in his civility rules that he WILL delete openly racist comments. He will shut down that kind of rhetoric or commentary. According to your own rationale and Turley’s. It is a violation of the free speech rights of others. He does not owe them any respect, but clearly he won’t grant them the right to speak if they are making openly racist comments. When it comes to openly racist commentary or rhetoric he IS anti-free speech. As you said, “Shutting down Rhetoric” is just word games for censoring”.
Turley openly censors others free speech because openly racist comments or rhetoric will not be tolerated on the blog. Despite the fact that it is protected speech and it’s offensive. As a free speech absolutists Turley shouldn’t be deleting such comments even if they are openly racist and he finds it offensive. That is the hypocrisy of his position as a free speech absolutist.
Do you know what a catagory error is ?
You post is a giant one.
Are you going to claim that because Turley filters Spam and child porn that he is a hypocrite ?
John, Turley is not filtering spam when he is explicitly saying he will delete openly racist comments. He’s literally saying he will censor that kind of speech. According to Turley’s own criticisms he’s engaging in the very thing he claims is anti-free speech.
Deleting openly racist comments which are protected speech is censorship. He will shut down comments or threads that are openly racist. As a free speech absolutist he is being a hypocrite.
He is in no position to criticize others of censorship when he willingly will delete racist speech because he doesn’t like it.
Clearly you are trying to avoid the basic fact that Turley is indeed being a hypocrite. Deleting openly racist comments IS censorship.
This is not about Turley censoring actual racism – which I have seen no evidence has actually occured.
In fact this is about the opposite. This is about left wing nuts such as yourself deciding that everything that you do not like is racist.
Grow up – it isn’t.
You are going to have to live in a world where people say things you do not like.
I linked previously an Article/Study by Prof. Haidt – I think someone else linked Bari Weis doing a story on it.
One of Haidt observations – backed up by data is that efforts to protect people from hurtful offensive things makes them more anxious, more depressed, more fragile – not less.
Those of you on the left are making yourselves weak. Sick.
This rot is tedious and stupid.
Turley does not allow child porn on this site.
Does that means he is a hypocrite ?
The choice is not between no censorship at all and censoring anything that annoys you.
I constantly say Government is FORCE. I do not say Force can never be used.
But that it can rarely be used – only when necessary and justified.
Some government is a necessity – most is not.
Are you opposed to Turley censoring Child Porn ?
I will bet we can not get a single person to argue against the censorship of Child porn.
I would bet that we could get universal agreement that Turley should censor Spam.
I would also bet that given a very narrow defintion of Openly racist – and Turley appears to be using a very narrow one.
That no one would object to Turley censoring “Openly racist” content.
At the same time those on the left here constantly make race based arguments – and those are “openly racist”
And they are being allowed.
I have seen plenty of racist and uncivil speech on this blog – you engage in it all the time.
I am perfectly happy to give Welsey students exactly what they deserve – my laughter.
If they really wish to self destruct – I am not going to stop them or you from self owning.
Have fun and don’t pay attention to the fact that the whole world is rolling on the floor laughing at you.
This is great fun!
Please, please, we want More!!!!
“I have seen plenty of racist and uncivil speech on this blog – you engage in it all the time.”
False. I don’t engage in racist speech al the time. What you call “racist” is criticism of actual racists. It’s the same excuse racists use when they are being criticized for being racist. The criticism of their racist views is…racism. It’s merely a deflection for being called out or being ridiculed for the obvious truth.
. What you call “racist” is criticism of actual racists
If a black person and a white person say the same thing, You criticize the white person. You treat the person different because of the color of there skin. ie, racist.
Iowan2. It really depends on what is being said and in what context. Your example is way too simplistic and devoid of any context or specific saying.
How about providing a more specific example?
If as you claim the context matters – then the speech is protected, and it is not likely racist. In fact it with near certainty is not racist.
While a speaker is not entitled to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they are racist before they can be accused,
If you accuse someone of racism – as those on the left do constantly – that is defamatory, and the burden of proof is on you and it is high.
If you need lots of context and information aside from the plain text of the remark to attempt to prove your point – you have already lost.
Accusations of moral failure are not nuanced and contextual. Just as nuclear weapons are not nuanced or surgical.
Racism is making decisions based on race.
False criticism of others for racism where race was not a part of the argument is openly racist.
“Racism is making decisions based on race.”
That’s one aspect. Racism involves more than just making decisions. It also involves making backhanded insults, intentional use of stereotypes to impugn someone of a different racial background. It doesn’t have involve color either. It can involve derogatory comments about looks and features specific to a race. It’s not always as simplistic as your example. Thereby lies the bigger problem. Those who are on the receiving end of racism know all the subtle digs, implied meanings and carefully worded intentional insults.
“False criticism of others for racism where race was not a part of the argument is openly racist.”
Lol! No it’s not. False criticism is just that, false criticism. For criticism to be racist one would have to be making derogatory insults involving a person’s racial attributes. Only racists cry racism because they are called out for being racist.
“Racism is making decisions based on race.”
That’s one aspect.”
First that is not the entirety of what I said.
Including the rest – that is Racism
Beyond that you have done an excellent job of demonstrating that in left wing nut world everything is racist.
Regardless, with respect to the rest of what YOU call racism – it is protected speech, get over it.
False criticism of others for racism where race was not a part of the argument is openly racist.
Still true.
As you note – it is also false criticism – Duh.
You do not seem to be able to cope with the fact that something can be two things at once.
Raising Race as an issue – False criticism of Racism, where race is not a factor or an issue, is racism.
“Racism involves more than just making decisions. … It’s not always as simplistic as your example.”
That might be true for the simplistic personality, but for one who thinks a bit deeper, there is a realization that your examples are based on decisions. One has to look at why you fail to realize that and then check all your comments to see how simple and distorted they are.
“Racism is making decisions based on race.” is an excellent definition.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/video-black-grade-school-kids-beat-up-white-kids-who-wont-say-black-lives-matter
“The students voted for what THEY wanted. It’s their school and they are the ones paying the school. They get to decide if they want to accept trans students or not. Ironically their mission statement includes,”
You got what you want. Crazy people might think you are smart, because that is how you wish to be known. You are not because you didn’t develop the skills such as critical thinking skills. Wanting to be and actually being are two separate things.
Anonymous, what the heck are you talking about? Do you understand what you are reading?
“You got what you want. Crazy people might think you are smart, because that is how you wish to be known.”
When did I say that’s what I want? You are one very confused fella. The acronym ATS certainly applies to you.
So Johnson said, “Wellesley admits applicants who identify and live consistently as women, regardless of the gender they were assigned at birth.” (Showing again that trans rights and women’s rights are irreconcilable.)
So Wellesley already admits trans women, the definition of which I understand to be persons who were born male but identify as female. This whole kerfuffle, then, is about non-binary people (whatever that means)? Wow.
And this type of student mealy-mouthed “we have the right to silence anyone we ‘deem’ hateful” business is getting old. Students these days must be even brattier than when I was in college, which is really depressing.
The bend in the twig which has been caused by this woke ideology, will be with us for generations. Much like the sin of the golden calf. In the book of Exodus, these generations will be obliged to wander in the desert, until they are all spent.
I am honestly shocked by that decision. I agree, but it is completely shocking. Common sense prevails.
College students are transitory, spending but four years at the institution. They are also young, immature, and tend to be influenced by peers and social fads more than older adults. The administrators, by contrast, are adult professionals who are charged with considering the long-term goals of the college, in keeping with its history and mission. While the students are free to express their views, in the end it is the administrators who make the final decision. Any student who is unhappy with that is free to transfer to a different college such as Vassar, which was once a women’s college and is now co-ed.
“They are also young, immature, and tend to be influenced by peers and social fads more than older adults.”
And therein is the reason ideological authoritarians target education systems when they take power. Mao, Mussolini, Lenin, and Hitler saw the value of brainwashing at an early age. No different today, not in the USA, Canada, or the UK.
Exactly right. Which is why, sadly, cultural marxism is winning in America and devouring her youth.
In that context is taken the incident at the Stanford School of Law the other day. If the pillars of justice are to be undermined by this lot going forward, what does the future hold for the survival of this Constitutional Republic?
When Khrushchev banged his shoe on the podium at the United Nations in 1960 he pronounced “we will bury you”. At the time people thought he meant militarily, I have concluded he meant ideologically. Evidently he was right.