Wisconsin Speech Bill Might Allow Students To Challenge Science Professors (arstechnica.com) 438
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: There have been some well-publicized incidents in which student groups or other protesters have interfered with scheduled appearances by right-wing speakers at U.S. universities. In response, a number of states have considered "campus free speech" bills based on model legislation produced by the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank. Different bills introduce specific penalties for students who shout down the speech of others and prevent college administrators from disinviting speakers, to give two examples. One such bill is being debated in Wisconsin. Faculty and university officials in the state are concerned about what else might be prevented by the bill's overly vague language, according to the local Cap Times. As often happens with bills relevant to science education, the debate has also elicited some rather bizarre comments from the bill's sponsors. The trouble comes from this section of the bill: "That each institution shall strive to remain neutral, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day, and may not take action, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day in such a way as to require students or faculty to publicly express a given view of social policy." While the bills' scope is focused on public events involving invited speakers, there are a couple key questions here. University officials want to know how far this requirement "to remain neutral" extends. For example, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has spoken out against proposed bans on stem cell research on campus. Would the university run afoul of this law if it did so again?
Could cause more harm than good. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you disagree with that? Since when do Universities get exempted from the First Amendment? Note that that also has some things to say about the government's right to interfere with who you associate with.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you disagree with that? Since when do Universities get exempted from the First Amendment? Note that that also has some things to say about the government's right to interfere with who you associate with.
I think we're talking about public universities here, so they are primarily funded by the government. I do think governments should keep an arm's length, as universities are traditionally bastions of free speech, but if government funded universities become too lopsided, allowing only one ideology to be promoted, I can see why government might want to intervene in some way. But my original post is arguing that this could do more harm than good.
Re: (Score:3)
Violence is the refuge of people who understand that their ideas don't have any merit, so they must use physical force to intimidate anyone who might oppose them.
Somehow I doubt that your statement is ever true. People just don't work the way you think they do. Your statement, however, is appallingly arrogant and condescending. Do you understand that normal people have these things called emotions? Do you understand the normal people often act on their emotions without thinking through the consequences? Do you understand that this type of behaviour is particularly common among people between the ages of 15 and 23?
The sad state of affairs is that Ann Coulter is a
Re: (Score:2)
Right now the radical right is the ones doing the screaming, but in my experience college administration usually just tries to control the smart ass students who want to do publicity stunts, left or right.
Re:Could cause more harm than good. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Right now the radical right is the ones doing the screaming,"
You should watch some videos from Berkeley, when Milo Yiannopoulos was to give a speech.
Nope, it wasn't the radical rights screaming, using fists, and setting the campus on fire.
I'd say some publicity stunts like some nutcases giving a speech to an empty lecture hall is a small price for stopping that sort of behavior.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Right now the radical right is the ones doing the screaming
Sorry that's the left in berkely. [zombietime.com] Same with the bike lock attacker [eastbaytimes.com] Nice collection of weapons pulled off antifa members who were looking to attack people at pro-trump/free speech rally. [officer.com] And I can really keep going, because there's not only dozens of cases like this but hundreds in the last 2 years.
Antifa are leftists of marxist/mao kind. BAMN are of the same kind, you also need to toss in their little cult camps. And people on the right didn't start responding until the left started going "OH NO, they'r
Re:Could cause more harm than good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice collection of weapons pulled off antifa members who were looking to attack people at pro-trump/free speech rally. http://www.officer.com/news/12... [officer.com]
Holy shit!! I think I saw the rusty hatchet stolen from my shed in there. Any chance I can get it back?
And what the hell is that at the bottom of the image? Is that a a gate hinge bolted to a shin guard? That's gotta hurt.
This also demonstrates that no government can disarm the public, people will improvise. You can take their guns and knives but then they'll just fashion their own. Part of the reason why the speakers and attendees to these speeches get their ass kicked so often is that the venue is "weapons free" but the area to and from is not. The police disarmed one group but not the other. Would these hooligans be so bold to bring a sack full of bricks if they thought the attendees might shoot back?
I know someone is thinking, "but at least the hooligans didn't have a gun." What makes you think the hooligans could buy a gun? These students are likely often high on drugs (prescribed or not), likely with previous criminal records, or a protection order out on them. They couldn't pass a background check to buy a firearm.
Another common reply to my comment, "Do you really think it justified to use a gun against someone swinging a sack of bricks?" Yes. Wait, let me make myself clear... HELL YES!! Swinging a sack of bricks, putting a plastic bag over someone's head, hitting them with a pipe wrench, or a bike lock, is deadly force. Deadly force should be met with deadly force. That includes the use of a firearm in defense of lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This bill penalises unive
Re:Could cause more harm than good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree with the motivation for discouraging universities from disinviting invited speakers, penalizing the practice may discourage universities from inviting even potentially controversial speakers in the first place, and so the effect of the law might be the exact opposite of what is intended: allowing a diversity of opinions and ideas to be expressed.
That wouldn't affect the intent of the law at all. In fact it would only enhance it. The intention of the law is to rile up the political right base and give them justifications for why they need to be in power. If colleges stop inviting controversial speakers it is just another thing to add to their stump speeches.
How dare you (Score:5, Interesting)
impinge on my right to free speech by using yours!
How can this possibly get past the SCOTUS?
As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in his famous Whitney v. California opinion in 1927, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
Whoosh (Score:2, Interesting)
So what you are saying is you side with Trump?
That is, if you think a *tweet* is blocking free speech in any way, instead of expressing an opinion which is clearly free speech all by itself...
No speech is so dangerous that it should be disallowed. That does not protect the speaker from consequences, like a person yelling fire in a crowded theater if there is none...
Re: (Score:3)
No speech is so dangerous that it should be disallowed.
It should be allowed not because it's not dangerous but because it's important. Speech is ultimately the most dangerous thing we have.
Re: (Score:3)
There are two separate issues here. On the one hand, people should have the right to say what they like. The government should not limit them. But on the other hand, people should also have the right not to listen to them, and to bar them from their private property.
There are times when it is desirable to request and even enforce silence. The inauguration of the President of the United States is a good example. There are a lot of people who would have loved to exercise their right to free speech while Trump
You can do that anyway... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was that kind of nerd in class that would read the whole book at the start of the semester, then just sort of enjoy asking leading questions during the year, perhaps once or twice per class period. As long as it was a fair exploration of the topic, ~90% of teachers enjoyed the light challenge - especially the history teachers. I enjoyed finding out where I was wrong, or some detail that connected the subjects we were covering in some larger way.
There were also more religiously reactive students who would play the special-pleading game, trying to weaponize their belief lest others learn to believe in any other way. The answer there is usually increasing degrees of "you might very well be correct, and if you can find an international standards body recognized completely outside of your religious organization in [insert field], I'd suggest you contact [organization who sets school policy], and get the curriculus updated. Until then, this is what's going to be on the test."
I can't see that changing much, and if students decide to raise a stink, it would be fair for a teacher to offer to let the student test out of the class immediately, giving them the remaining homework/tests in one lump, and saving everyone a bit of time, since the student is unwilling to learn directly from the teacher.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't see that changing much, and if students decide to raise a stink, it would be fair for a teacher to offer to let the student test out of the class immediately, giving them the remaining homework/tests in one lump, and saving everyone a bit of time, since the student is unwilling to learn directly from the teacher.
Have you even *been* on college campuses today? The term "inmates are in charge of the asylum" is frighteningly accurate. Students only need claim professors and/or curriculum "triggered"
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Have you even *been* on college campuses today? The term "inmates are in charge of the asylum" is frighteningly accurate. Students only need claim professors and/or curriculum "triggered" them via a series of "micro aggressions" and BAM! Headache for one and all. Well, not the students, who may retire to a "safe space", complete with crayons and comfy chairs..
Yes.
I've never seen that happen. Ever.
Re: (Score:3)
Either you're a liar or an idiot [bing.com]. I'm not sure which, but there's a reason why The FIRE [thefire.org] exists and there have been multiple court cases on this across the US. Here's an example from my own back yard. [carleton.ca] And the "micro aggression" crowd going after people for "cultural appropriation" [nationalpost.com] and yoga mats. Now we can get into the UK [theguardian.com] the US [dailysignal.com], and some more of the US [telegraph.co.uk]. And one can really keep going. FYI west coast universities, and universities in Southern Ontario are the worst in North America right now for this garb
Re: (Score:3)
Is this actually true? I don't live in the US but when I survey US media for information about this I see a few isolated cases with incomplete information that is hard to judge, and a lot of alt-right blogs screaming about it as if it's some kind of epidemic.
Are teaching staff getting fired or sanctioned en-masse due to student complaints? Is there any reliable evidence for this? I don't mean links to a few stories or blogs, I mean evidence of it happening regularly to large numbers of staff.
Re: (Score:2)
feminist dogma like the wage gap
Far worse than any censorship that takes places is people like you trying to poison the well. It makes debate almost impossible, both because listeners become prejudiced against ideas they are told are dogmatic and because it often forces the people debating to address all these random issues rather than the one at hand.
Call me crazy, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
... aren't students shelling out thousands of dollars in (science) education to be taught conventionally accepted knowledge by an expert in the scientific discipline's field? What would the bill accomplish besides having unqualified nincompoops devaluing the quality of education? There is a standard of conventional knowledge and research competence demonstrated by every PhD. Undergrads and outsiders have no business contesting facts in the science curriculum. Any legislator that votes for such a bill should be impeached. You may as well shutdown the university at that point; it will cease to be a credible, accredited undergraduate facility.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Policy by idiots, for idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Guess that explains why so many universities in Europe have no-platforming plans, and block speakers for not having the right kind of thoughts. You know the feminist who doesn't have the right view on feminism. The gay man who doesn't have the right view on homosexuality. And it all started because they wanted to block "extremist speakers" instead of letting them have the stage and being proven otherwise.
Hmm.. Are religious schools exempted? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus does exist, and just because he comes from Mexico and is only a gardener doesn't mean you shouldn't learn how to properly pronounce his name, damn racist!
Coming (Score:5, Insightful)
Math professor: You didn't solve that partial differential equation.
Conservative snowflake: I did too, libtard.
Wisconsin Republicans: Teach the controversy.
Maths Safe, Science Problematic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry Math isn't safe, and the regressive left are trying to fuck that up too. No this article is not Poe's law in action. [ams.org] Liberals need to get their shit together because you've got a whole fucking pile of actual crazy on your side right now. You're where the right was in the 1990's "there's no problem."
Re: (Score:2)
They can't regulate grades (Score:2)
challenge a prof in class with BS - FAIL.
if it ever went to court it would be a disaster. If a school loses it's accreditation every degree it's granted is in question.
stupid laws, written by stupid people
Free speech by stopping free speech? (Score:2)
So, in order to stop students (non-government) from 'stopping' (by that they mean speaking up so loudly the other side gives up), others from speaking, they want to prevent the schools from speaking their own mind.
All in the name of the "Free Speech". Yes, that sounds just about right for the Republican Party.
Students have the right to say anything they want and the school has the SAME right (unless it is a state school, then the state could determine what they say, as long as they don't interfere with wha
Enjoy freedom of speech (Score:2)
Let people invite the speakers they want, enjoy the topics covered, then ask questions.
Just a lame attempt.... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just another lame attempt to allow people to squeeze "creation science" into courses at universities that receive public funds by saying that certain instructors can spout their personal "beliefs" as fact. To these people "evolution" and having your kids vaccinated are "controversial". I agree that people shouldn't be able to shut people like Milo down but this bill is utter bullshit.
Challenging is fine - not disrupting (Score:2)
What? (Score:2)
That you would need a bill to allow anyone to challenge science is fucking ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So let's see if we can get this right. Milo and Coulter couldn't speak on college campuses because of violent left-wing protests. You attempt to use a single "republican student" which doesn't actually appear to be the case. But if you really want to try and pull that bullshit, let's look at the guy in WA state and the other in FL, who were both far-left supporters and went on shooting/stabbing sprees killing multiple people.
And people are upset at liberals shutting down free speech by the heavy use of v
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you recall Milo was sacked by right-wing Breitbart for his "little boys can consent to sex with old men" comments.
Correction: He quit. Second, he was talking about himself.
Did the student protest him because he's right-wing or because he's a pedo?
No they violently protested him, and called him everything from an alt-right neo-nazi, to an actual nazi. They rioted, they burned shit, they smashed public property and it was members of the left that did it. This happened way before that comment of his.
Is being a pedo suddenly a right-wing thing? I didn't see Hannity or Tucker invite him onto their shows to talk about his warm wet love of kids. They have TV shows, they don't need to talk in the abstract about censorship, they can invite him on to talk to their audience of right wing mothers and fathers.
No, it's purely a left-wing thing. Which of course why left-wing groups have heavily pushed normalizing pedophilia, and so did numerous same-sex organizations did the same. The green party in G
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, most of Hollywood regarding Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, etc.?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your tribalism is showing. And it's really messing with your perception.
No, my tribalism isn't showing. This has been a purely left-wing thing, do you think groups like antifa and BAMN are right-wing? There are more members in those two groups in the US and Canada, then there actual KKK members. And the number of self-proclaimed KKK members is under 5000, some official crime stats put it under 2500. There are more BAMN members violently active in the state of California.
You had to go that far to find an example (and a made-up one at that)? Should tell you something about the strength of your case.
Yes, very made up [newrepublic.com] so made up in fact that the party admit it happened. Just like Salon's [archive.is] so many [archive.is] pro- [archive.is]
It's OK to hit a nazi (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh boo hoo hoo, milo yogurt and ann coulter couldn't speak on a college campus because of protests. A republican student murdered another student for being black. [cnn.com] If you're upset about liberals shutting down free speech but not the massive rise in right-wing hate crimes across the country, are you even fooling yourself? You hate liberals, you don't have a fucking reason other than they're not like you.
During the Milo riots, leftist rioters beat Milo attendees with flagpoles and fists [breitbart.com]. [MMA fighter] Jake Shields pulled a victim from a crowd of beaters [breitbart.com] and protected him from harm. When asked, the victim had no idea why he was being beaten. Some of the rioters had simply started calling him [the victim] a nazi, for apparently no reason, and the beatings began from there.
This is why the left keeps saying things about the right that aren't true. They say it because once you've established that someone is a na
Re:It's OK to hit a nazi (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But you also need to be extremely careful with your definitions. Let us start with saying Nazi's are evil. Next if we say Nazi's eugenics programs were evil, seems like killing or sterilizing people with traits you don't like is pretty evil. So we say eugenics is evil?
But eugenics is the attempt to breed out undesirable traits in humans. Is this evil? What if we consider gene therapy a form of eugenics. Would a form of gene therapy that eliminates the gene that causes higher rates of cancer be evil?
Re: (Score:3)
What does right wing even mean?
Nazis were in favor of gun control, animal rights, and socialism. Are those typically considered right-wing concepts?
Re: Dumb Germans (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just wondering..
Since you enjoy violence as a way to silence other opinions... does your brown shirt fit well? You enjoy wearing it? You feel good and POWERFUL in it?
And, as you are, as you say, German, I am sure you understand that the 'problem' with the Nazi party was their totalitarian beliefs, rather than their left/right leaning, no? Or is that too confusing for you..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those masked antifascists are my direct allies, and rather I will fight along side them.
Thanks for letting everyone know exactly where you stand. You're not anti fascist, you are a fascist. You're wearing the mask, polishing your boots, stomping on someone's face for their political ideology violently doing so and seeing *nothing* wrong with that.
You are the extremist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice goosestepping. Make sure your boots are polished because you are everything you claim that you're fighting against.
Re: (Score:2)
It's okay until you start pointing at random people, who may or may not have different point of view than you do, and label them nazi.
I'm definitely of a centrist view, considering both extremes very bad. Nevertheless, I've been labeled nazi, sexist, racist, and all despicable things, simply because I disagreed with one of the extremes.
I was labeled "SJW" at one occasion by the far-right too, but they were actually willing to listen when I explained my position.
Yeah, just personal experiences, not a general
Re: (Score:2)
and putting up disgusting nude statues of him in cities across the nation is considered OK.
To be fair, they may have tried to make attractive nude statues of him, but discovered that it was an impossible task.
Re: (Score:2)
Mashiki, what is this obsession you have with Quinn? It's unhealthy and frankly creepy.
If you have a room in your house where the wall is covered in printed out tweets and newspaper clippings about her, plus one giant photo with blood and cum stains on it and some IKEA candles at the base, it's a sign that you need help. And also a fire hazard.
Re: (Score:2)
You were the one who was white-knighting for her so hard I could see you shining across the Atlantic. I figured I'd just keep you up to date so you could go run to her defense, while claiming she doesn't harass anyone like you normally do.
Then again if you actually admitted that you were wrong, and she's a harasser I wouldn't turn around and rub your nose in it repeatedly. I'm doing this for fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying she has no time for developers involved in GamerGate, the harassment campaign that spent years making her life hell and dragging her name through the mud is harassment?
You need to stop reading KiA.
Re: (Score:2)
You hate liberals, you don't have a fucking reason other than they're not like you.
Actually, rioting, setting things on fire and shutting down speech via violence is a good reason to hate a group of people. That they self-identify as liberals is purely coincidental.
Re: Right wingers are the ones you should worry ab (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. Because in those leftist circles "liberals get the bullet too." The group you're talking about are progressives, social justice bullies, social justice warriors, and so on. They *do* those things. Antifa, BAMN, ELF, ALF, Sea Shepard Society, etc, etc, etc, are all violent left-wing groups.
Re: (Score:2)
setting things on fire
I was with you until there. [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:3)
Can't we be upset about both?
You might have missed the story about Middlebury students donning ski-masks and trying to beat the hell of Charles Murray [nytimes.com], sending another professor to the hospital and giving the body guards a seriously hard time getting Murray safely out of there. (This info is from an interview I heard with Murray, not this article.) Murray's crime was that he wrote a book that focused on societal inclusiveness of different races, attempting to reduce discrimination, which critics lied about
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sick of these lefties fresh mouths.
I think the lefties' behavior tarnishes their own cause, but I am skeptical of the righties' effort to ensure free speech by restricting speech.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Restricting it how?
TFS makes it sound as though challenging science professors is a bad thing. So long as it isn't disruptive to the class, it shouldn't be discouraged. Science is often all about challenging long-held beliefs, even when those beliefs are held by tenured scientists.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Science is about challenging belief with evidence, particularly procedurally documented and experimentally generated evidence. In other cases it is observationally generated or synthesized by review of existing literature. All are valid. Disagreeing for the sake of disagreement, objecting for the sake of grandstanding, and claiming belief in the face of contrary evidence are poor imitations and must be called out as a deluded faker.
And while most science should be based on observed behavior, or at least proven formulas, everything has human interpretation involved. Given a hundred scientists, there should at least be two (usually more) interpretations of a set of data and the minority should never be rejected just because it is the minority. All opinions should be accepted or rejected based on careful consideration.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
All opinions should be accepted or rejected based on careful consideration.
The problem we have now is that after the science community has carefully considered a particular "interpretation" and has rejected it, a large portion of our populace ignores this.
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem scientists have is a lack of a public voice over their own research. How many times have we watched two pundits on the television 'debate' anthropogenic global warming? I don't know about you, but I quite frankly don't trust Tucker Carlson NOR Rachel Maddow to really present the science in any kind of accurate way. That goes for any 'political' issue, not just AGW. By the time it gets to the mass public airwaves, any study is long separated from those who wrote it, and it is subject to the biased interpretations of partisan hacks who aren't trained to know what they are talking about, or even recognize what the study's purpose might have been.
Example: Suppose I test out a new numerical algorithm for oceanic climate modeling. I want to look at diffusion rates across ocean strata, and explore the effect this has on the overall result o the simulation, namely atmospheric transport, temperature, carbon content and the like. Suppose I run a bunch of cases, each with a somewhat different approach to this problem, and publish the results compared to historical data and with projections from each. Suppose one of those simulations shows dramatic and irreversible warming at the surface within the next ten years, and another shows a more or less stable surface environment for the next 50 years. Does it matter which one, I the author, think is correct? Or if I think both of these are extreme cases that are unlikely to be true, but are merely demonstrating the bounds of potential outcomes by varying a single parameter? Does it matter that my primary point may have simply been that some unknown factor could have dramatic effects on the path of global climate, and that we need to further study and understand this effect? Or does it only matter that I produced some computer simulations that people can argue about out of context on the TV? And nobody will bother to invite me on to explain these results because, well, that doesn't benefit any of the talking heads that make those decisions.
TL;DR: Scientists need to better interface with the public. Easier said than done, but I believe that is the crux of the problem.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Which opens the door to infinite evil. Do we have evidence that behaving sinfully won't end up with us cast posthumously into a pit of eternal fire? Well, no, partly because we have no evidence of life after death, pits of eternal fire, and no objective definition of sin. So this means that ANY presentation can be interrupted simply by asserting that thus and such are sinful, etc. Can you prove that it is NOT? Of course not. There simply in no evidence that it is.
Your example of a zombie apocalypse is well taken. Do we have the slightest shred of evidence that zombies or anything zombie-like is really possible? Not just heavily drugged or brain-damaged individuals deliberately harmed by slavers or practicers of voudoin, but actual living dead brain-eating zombies? Well, no, although rabies as a disease does have related effects and might have been part of the origin of zombie legend. So what the heck! Sure, the zombie apocalypse could be unleashed by mutant rabies, GMO foods, stem cells, a disease transported to Earth by meteors or space aliens, biowarfare gone awry, the deliberate act of a vengeful deity, the deliberate act of an evil supernatural demon, prions (a mutant mad cow disease), a new "safe" designer recreational drug anybody can make at home out of clorox and pepto-bismol that has a zombie side effect one year after it is ingested, pods from outer space, slugs that attach to your spinal column from outer space, nanites intended to cure brain cancer, or a mutation of the common cold. Maybe half of these possibilities have formed the basis in whole or in part of science fiction novels over the decades (mutant rabies, alien diseases, pods, and slugs, biowarfare gone awry...)
So, should we allow scientific talks on how stem cells are being used to cure nerve deafness in humans and parkinson's disease to be interrupted at will by whack jobs that want to claim, without evidence, that the individuals cured MIGHT turn into zombies, so all research into stem cells must instantly cease? Seriously? Or, because stem cells are making an end run around the "intelligent design" of the human body by a supernatural deity they are therefore sinful (no need for evidence or a firm definition of sin, remember, it is whatever you want it to be or allege that it is and nobody can prove you wrong) and will cause not the zombie apocalypse but the biblical apocalypse unless we gather up all of the researchers and burn them alive at the stake as a manner of atonement and banish all of their works and threaten all human with torture and death if they ever use the words "stem cells" again? Can you prove that this won't happen (well, except by ignoring the idiots and curing nerve deafness and Parkinson's anyway with no breaking of the seals or unleashing of the four horsemen etc)?
Lack of evidence is not positive evidence of lack. It is, however, something that can legitimately be used to state that lack is more likely the longer evidence is looked for and not found. We cannot positively assert that there are no pink unicorns living somewhere on Earth simply because one has never been seen, captured, found (with or without color) in the fossil record), but we can say that -- given the existing observational evidence -- it is pretty unlikely that any exist and are just lurking somewhere in deepest darkest Africa or Tibet or in a special volcanic cave in the middle of Antarctica. If you assert invisible pink unicorns (whatever color "invisible pink" ends up being) you make it even harder to disprove, as now you can literally look everywhere on Earth and just because you can't see them doesn't mean that they aren't there, because they are invisible! Does this mean that we have to now allow La La Loopsie/My Little Pony followers to disrupt scientific presentations of evolutionary biology?
Note well that I'm not certain legislation is the answer to stuff like this, but providing the idiots with an escort off campus and leaving them there with instructions not to come back (students or not) seems pretty reasonable.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Challenging them with science, yes. But this bill isn't about science, it's about politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Normally in the 100 level classes you get students from other majors who need to fill out their required course. They don't think like scientist they think they can BS their way by impassioned speach.
Normally I would say you can just kick the student out of class for being disruptive.
But there has been a large growth of discourse towards heckling and egging people to become violent (on both sides) that is preventing the execution of expressing the ideas in an environment to do so.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
This has nothing to do with challenging science. You would actually have to know something about science to challenge it. This is about trying for force false equivalence. "Scientists claim the earth is spherical, but some non-scientists disagree". That kind of crap comes from the right wing every day. It is called the doubt machine. Sow doubt that cigarettes cause cancer, doubt that humans are altering the biosphere or climate, Sow doubt that evolution is a well documented fact. It is all about preventing positive action that might hurt a political agenda or corporate bottom line.
When you can't win the argument, just pass a law. Bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
STEM profs aren't fragile snowflakes. They don't have to be protected by morons like you. They will eviscerate the student in question in short order. The disruption will be trivial. Total non issue here.
Re: (Score:3)
That's bullshit. The anti-vax crap is on both sides of the political spectrum. The current President (a far right-winger) has spouted anti-vax BS, and there's been a bunch of it among religious groups who've then had outbreaks.
https://www.omicsonline.org/op... [omicsonline.org]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
http://scienceblogs.com/insole... [scienceblogs.com]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/e... [forbes.com]
But it's not just religious idiots who've latched onto the anti-vax hysteria, it's also some elements on the left, namely the loony ones who are also i
Re: (Score:3)
The anti-vax crap is on both sides of the political spectrum.
Sure. But there is a difference. The leftists believe vaccines are a corporate conspiracy, while the rightists believe vaccines are a government conspiracy.
The current President (a far right-winger)
Trump's views may be stupid and incoherent, but they are not "far-right", and many of them are not "right" at all. For instance, his views on trade are leftist.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I am skeptical of the righties' effort to ensure free speech by restricting speech.
Shouting down those who disagree with you so they can't be heard, pulling fire alarms in the buildings where they're trying to speak, and threatening violence against anyone who supports them isn't "free speech." It's fascism.
A citizen should have every right to speak freely, but they should never be allowed to silence their opposition through violence and activities designed specifically to deny their opposition a venue to speak or to be heard. It's your right to speak, but it's not your right to stop me f
Re: (Score:3)
Are these laws necessary? Seems like triggering a fire alarm or refusing to leave/be quiet on private property is already in violation of several laws. This proposal seems to go way, way beyond that into removing people's right to speak.
In fact it sounds very much like what the anti-SJWs claim to be fighting against - silencing people by claiming that their speech is somehow "bad" and must be restricted.
Re: (Score:3)
It is the politically correct shunning that they are trying to stop, the bill in itself shows how bad things are, weather it becomes law or not.
No, it only shows how bad politicians want to make things seem so they can rile up their base and win elections. It's no different than us spending so much time worrying about terrorism and immigration. Without these bogeymen the US political right has no platform capable of winning elections.
Re: (Score:3)
They're as much the "flagship left social sciences" as the religious nutjobs acting as if creationism had any scientific merit being the "flagship right" scientists. BOTH of them make the normal and sane people on either side of the political spectrum cringe and wish that those idiots wouldn't tarnish the name "conservative" and "liberal".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but denying them the opportunity to speak is not cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Speak all you want, but be prepared for a rebuttal.
The first amendment does not shield you from someone else executing his first amendment right.
Re: (Score:2)
Good. The ignorant must be called out and even mocked when they attempt a decision based on their beliefs while real facts are available.
What effect do you suppose that has? Does it spread knowledge? Does it encourage dialogue?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Discussion isn't an end in itself... Meaningless spittle from twats with a poor understanding of something doesn't add value and wastes time as well as every other resource.
I agree. But that is a good description of 99% of calling out and shaming. Most of it is not even genuine--people that want to feel they are part of something don't take the time to understand the issues, and lack the humility to recognize situations where they can't understand the issues. For example, calling out an author of a book you haven't read, or calling someone a sexist after reading their online post which you haven't understood at the level of every nuance.
To be fair, I don't know exactly what yo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Without being challenged, viewpoints degenerate, echo chambers amplify the noise until it overwhelms the signal.
Read up about feminist glaciology, how carbon fiber is sexist, or why snow should be removed from back roads first, leaving main arteries for later (hint: gender discrimination).
This is the kind of fruit of "science" borne from silencing the opposing views. This is the environment that happily swallows "penis is responsible for global warming" as a valid scientific conclusion - because it got so e
Re: (Score:2)
You should catch up with the news. Armed mobs setting fire to the campus to prevent a speaker of the opposing views from speaking. That's how "questioning the authority" currently looks like, and what the bill tries to curb. It's the title that is biased - yes, the bill might be overly broad, and overreaching, but it's not about "questioning the authority", it's about stopping armed thugs from strong-arming their view points through beating and arson.
Re: (Score:3)
Shooting people dead because you "think" (read: believe) they're wrong and evil is how rightwingers make their speech free.
Yeah, left-wingers prefer stabbing [dallasnews.com].
Given the damage to the city infrastructure, and the fact the peaceful protesters didn't even try to stop the rioters... yeah, the facts are that a lot of people got their property broken. Keep denying and downplaying that, instead of getting your shit together and actually doing something about it.
Also:
"PS those were bussed in external rioters." - an
Re: (Score:3)
the peaceful protesters didn't even try to stop the rioters
And how exactly would they do that?
Re: (Score:2)