My fellow liberals have lost their D@mn minds!

[Ultralight]

They literally shut down Milo's speech.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/14/us/milo-yiannopoulos-uc-davis-speech-canceled/

I went to the Milo speech at OSU. While I found much of it offensive, I did agree with a few of his points. Nonetheless the dip chits at UC-Davis prevented him from speaking his mind.

I had hope that the election of Trump would teach liberals to respect free speech, course-correct, and start doing some Kung Fu freestyle speech of their own. But no...

[creaker]

I really don't understand why this was scheduled for this venue - not a good place for it. I suppose we could also say not inviting the KKK to speak at events this coming Monday is also disrespecting free speech.

[iris lilies]

I really don't understand why this was scheduled for this venue - not a good place for it. I suppose we could also say not inviting the KKK to speak at events this coming Monday is also disrespecting free speech.
What venue do you mean? I didnt see a specific place in the article posted, just that it took place at the University of CA/Davis. Surely you dont mean college Republicans there should never bait the beast,it is their failt for brining in a speaker, they should be meek, mild. Quiet. You know, kinda like women who rile up their men and abuse follows? Yeah.

No.

[Alan]

From a big picture perspective, I enjoy hearing about things like this. Liberal orthodoxy has enjoyed a favored place in academia and entertainment, enabling it to appear to dominate culture. But it doesn't, and as long as the Democratic Party prostrates itself at the altar of liberalism, the more Republicanism spreads in the halls of government.

Keep it up guys. :thankyou:

[catherine]

I have to say that I, too, am tired of the rigidness of the liberal mindset these days. Rutgers wanted Condoleezza Rice to speak at the 2014 graduation ceremony and there was so much backlash and ridiculousness--calling her a war criminal etc.--that she backed out.

[creaker]

What venue do you mean? I didnt see a specific place in the article posted, just that it took place at the University of CA/Davis. Surely you dont mean college Republicans there should never bait the beast,it is their failt for brining in a speaker, they should be meek, mild. Quiet. You know, kinda like women who rile up their men and abuse follows? Yeah.

No.

Conceeded - knee jerk reaction. Actually I would be curious what they would have had to say, although I expect I really would not have liked it. I haven't heard good things about either of them. If one is going to believe academia a bastion of "liberalism", it makes this kind of thing sound like an invasion.

Maybe liberals should be as flexible and open to the various opinions and actions of others as conservatives are.

Added: poked around Breitbart for around half an hour, listened to Milo podcast. Ironically, one of the comments he made to questions afterwards was that how it hasn't worked and conservatives can't just sit on the sidelines being polite anymore.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Although I would not have banned or protested it, I also wouldn't want to waste my time going to an event to hear what idiots have to say just because they are celebrities. Not when there is so much actually intellectually stimulating stuff in the world. And that's all this Milo guy is, a celebrity of sorts, he's just ... celebrity culture really, famous for being famous, and controversial, and self-promoting.

It wouldn't be my example of liberals losing their mind, the Russia/Trump hysteria would be.


I had hope that the election of Trump would teach liberals to respect free speech, course-correct, and start doing some Kung Fu freestyle speech of their own. But no...

but would this even be a rational evaluation if they did? I mean you can say free speech is all well and good and that's fine as a principled stance ("I disagree with everything you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it").

But what exactly does that have to do with the election of Trump anyway? Exactly nothing at all IMO. Look you can't win over any actual racists that support Trump by better speech, you can tiptoe around racial issues all you want and pretend none exists, and you won't win them over when someone is actually running on a racist platform. You can't get un-enthused Dem voters come to the polls for Hillary Clinton over free speech (you'd have to run a better candidate - Dem suppression of Bernie Sanders may have been a bad idea - but at the least run someone with less baggage than Hillary). You can't get straight ticket Republicans to vote Dem over free speech. You can't get anyone but Hillary voters for vote for Hillary with free speech. You can't EVEN win over those who supported Trump because they were unhappy about the state of the economy with free speech, you'd need to offer actual job or stimulus programs or something which is stuff people care about a lot more at the end of the day anyway than they do over college speech (sorry but it's true - peoples lives are spent in making a living and jobs, paying bills and worrying about paying bills etc.).

Meanwhile Trump made plenty of use of free speech to advance his own agenda. He was off on birther nonsense for years and years before he ever ran for President, that's how he had a certain political following that would vote for him (yea he was also just generally a celebrity, but that was not building a *political* following). He got massive free media coverage early on in his campaign etc.. He didn't get more media coverage because what he said all made oh so much more sense, and he just had superior ideas, he got it precisely because what he said was often so far beyond the pale.

[Ultralight]

I have to say that I, too, am tired of the rigidness of the liberal mindset these days. Rutgers wanted Condoleezza Rice to speak at the 2014 graduation ceremony and there was so much backlash and ridiculousness--calling her a war criminal etc.--that she backed out.

Protesting is fine and worthwhile. But literally preventing someone from speaking is a whole other issue.

If she backed out because she got criticized, then that is on her.

[Ultralight]

Conceeded - knee jerk reaction. Actually I would be curious what they would have had to say, although I expect I really would not have liked it. I haven't heard good things about either of them. If one is going to believe academia a bastion of "liberalism", it makes this kind of thing sound like an invasion.

Maybe liberals should be as flexible and open to the various opinions and actions of others as conservatives are.

Added: poked around Breitbart for around half an hour, listened to Milo podcast. Ironically, one of the comments he made to questions afterwards was that how it hasn't worked and conservatives can't just sit on the sidelines being polite anymore.

I don't really think that conservatives are open minded. I am probably not going to change Alan's mind or LDAHL's mind. But I am sure they would not prevent me from speaking my mind. Now, if right-wingers ran all the major universities, perhaps they would be as draconian. I don't know. What I think is that across the political spectrum we need to all agree that free speech is paramount and not negotiable. These liberals on campus should challenge Milo to a debate! Or challenge his proxies on campus to a debates!

[Chicken lady]

Or just not show up. Hold a competing event with more to offer...

the opposite of love isn't' hate, it's indifference.

the klu klux klan marched in my town 20+ years ago. Local students lined the streets with their backs turned and protest signs. Very noble. Also publicity generating. Now, imagine they had marched down streets that were basically empty except for a few random folk going about business that couldn't wait for the streets to be reopened to cars.

[LDAHL]

Milo owes his career to the sort of people he can provoke to violent freak-outs. The sort of people who don't see the problem with adopting fascist tactics against people they regard as fascists.

This species of idiocy spans the political spectrum, but seems to be at it's worst among the left on college campuses, at least for the past few years. I'm not sure why that should be the case.

[Ultralight]

Milo owes his career to the sort of people he can provoke to violent freak-outs. The sort of people who don't see the problem with adopting fascist tactics against people they regard as fascists.



Oh yeah, Milo is a trigger king for sure.

[LDAHL]

Oh yeah, Milo is a trigger king for sure.

Why is it, do you think, that students as a group seem so ripe for triggering? And I realize I'm probably being unfair here to people just trying to get a degree and have no interest in political hysterics. Is it gutless administrations unwilling to stand up to such tactics? Is it witless faculty who like to play at revolution? Has our education system in general given up on critical thinking? Or have our general standards of civility and decorum declined tht badly?

[Zoe Girl]

This whole topic gives me deep thoughts, and I am not sure where they are going. There is something to being more sensitive, aware and socially conscious. There is something to be said for choosing what you want, instead of taking whatever is the standard. We see these colleges and students as being too sensitive or fragile to have certain ideas or speakers, what if we opened our minds to the myriad reasons that a group of students may react, say no, etc. What if they are using their critical thinking skills to evaluate the speaker before they come. There is so much information out there that they may already know a lot. Plus the university is spending a LOT of money to speakers and sports and other things that they will end up paying in their student loans. This is not 100% thought out, it is a way of saying that whatever we all agree on has another story to it.

[Ultralight]

Why is it, do you think, that students as a group seem so ripe for triggering? And I realize I'm probably being unfair here to people just trying to get a degree and have no interest in political hysterics. Is it gutless administrations unwilling to stand up to such tactics? Is it witless faculty who like to play at revolution? Has our education system in general given up on critical thinking? Or have our general standards of civility and decorum declined tht badly?

Good Question. Here is what I think... and I want to be clear: I am merely thinking "out loud" for the moment.

It comes from a certain sense of entitlement, in part. Many liberal students are used to getting what they want, used to being coddled. When Billary lost people in my classes kept talking about how happy they were "knowing" there was going to be a female president. Then the next morning they could not believe what reality had given them. People in my classes asked: "What do we tell our children?" And my answer (though it was so radioactive that I did not say it then) is that sometimes -- even oftentimes -- the bad guys win. And for this reason we need to toughen up so we can metaphorically grapple them into submission at some point.

I also think that it comes from living in a dang bubble. When a cult leader recruits some folks, the first thing he does is removes them from the rest of society (mentally and physically). So they then live in his bubble. Another point is that somewhere along the lines people at universities got this belief that words and ideas can be conflated with violence. "Your ideas hurt me!"

But something I have been wondering about lately is the issue of toughness and stoicism. I think that in the US there was a time when toughness and stoicism among men was valued. Women found it attractive. The population in general thought it was admirable. But now toughness is seen as a form of toxic masculinity. Someone once asked Johnny Cash this: "Are you a hawk or a dove?" He said: "I am a dove, but with claws!" This is how I always felt, and I value toughness. In my class on Saturday we were asked to explain our best qualities and skills. When asked I just said: "Grit."

What I am getting at is that everyone thinks they have PTSD and it can be triggered any time by anything upsetting or controversial. But I think some toughness and stoicism can help remedy this.

I also think identity politics is a big issue. Like, as a more issues-based liberal I am considered a god dang heretic.

[Zoe Girl]

Yup, walk softly and carry a big stick!

Maybe everyone else in my age range went to college and it was fine, so they can see that it was all okay. It wasn't okay for me. It was exciting, the learning was amazing, and it was a constant issue to be heard and seen and do what I wanted. It took over a year for me to even attempt to speak in class, and then I did it rarely and badly for another year. I finally learned to talk, but I had to leave math and sciences to get that voice. I basically blame myself, that I didn't have more toughness. But I had toughness, and I didn't have power or value.

BTW, it is not an elite liberal thing to ask 'what do I tell my children?', I hear it from my families, in my community there are people who are affluent and many who are not. And they sat with me and cried, how they could explain to their daughters about what happened. And we got to that place of talking about how sometimes bad guys win, sometimes you have to fight. But I wasn't talking to the same people, I was talking to people who have been fighting for respect and decent jobs and opportunities for generations. I also heard it from the affluent families, how do they look their friends in the face and how do they take action next.

[Ultralight]

This whole topic gives me deep thoughts, and I am not sure where they are going. There is something to being more sensitive, aware and socially conscious. There is something to be said for choosing what you want, instead of taking whatever is the standard. We see these colleges and students as being too sensitive or fragile to have certain ideas or speakers, what if we opened our minds to the myriad reasons that a group of students may react, say no, etc. What if they are using their critical thinking skills to evaluate the speaker before they come. There is so much information out there that they may already know a lot. Plus the university is spending a LOT of money to speakers and sports and other things that they will end up paying in their student loans. This is not 100% thought out, it is a way of saying that whatever we all agree on has another story to it.
Milo came to OSU and charged $0. The university charged him a security fee, so we had to pay $5 to get in. And at the last minute OSU tried to double the cost of security though he and his team were able to negotiate it back to only $5 per person.

These students might be sensitive. But I don't think being tough and being sensitive are necessarily mutually exclusive. I think of it like a form of mindfulness. I feel pain when I see others in pain. It is almost as if I see the world through the eyes of others and feel with the hearts of others because my sense of empathy is great. I am mindful of this. But I am also grizzled as hell so I can endure and power through -- and it takes endurance and will-to-power to change society.

Think about the endurance it will take to get through the next 8 years of Trump. Think about the endurance it took to end slavery when the idea of abolition looked like the tiniest most fringe element idea when it started.

I suggested to my colleagues that we debate the right-wingers on campus. The liberals' informal spokesperson said he would not be willing to do that unless everyone felt safe, especially from name-calling.

And I just thought: Are you kidding me? Creating social change means being unsafe, it means taking on risk. Did the coal miners of West Virginia take on risk when they struck the companies for fair pay and the 8 hour day? Did Rosa Parks not agree to hold her ground on that bus because she first insisted on being "safe?" Did Martin Luther King only march in the Civil Rights Movement once he realized he was safe all the time? No! That kind of safety is impossible.

And I was just suggesting a sustained dialog -- something like Firing Line (granted, maybe not the best example to pitch the idea to liberals). But still, I think a sustained dialog is way, way better than silencing others, curbing free speech, or worse -- some kind of violence.

[Zoe Girl]

I am glad it wasn't going to cost them anything, that is an important factor in all of this.

I am for sustained dialog, and community. I agree about being safe, it is not going to be safe for awhile for a lot of people. I was with a group on Saturday, an organization I do mindfulness work with. One man was talking about the Buddhist encouragement to stay in the present in the context of politics. I did answer that the people I know who are promoting that most are the ones who are at the lowest risk. The conversation didn't take off but another one did with him. He was saying how it is important for his daughter to spend time and hear from relatives that are religiously and politically conservative. I shared my story of being raised without hearing a racist joke, with having my father make it clear to his own mother that if she ever used the n-word around his children she would not see us. How that gave me strength to stand up in the times I have needed to against racism and religious intolerance rather than making me a wilting flower. I knew I had my family behind me, and that gave me strength. So how do we work with a dominant culture that is hurting people, by listening sensitively to them? Maybe not, I saw a great meme. It had a picture of a punk show in the background and said something like "we (the punks) did not get the nazi's out of our shows by listening to them, we took pipes and beat them until they left'. That is why I am not a hippy, I am a punk and I will stand up. Is there a chance some of these kids are doing that instead of our perception that they are just not willing to engage in critical thought.

[LDAHL]

Good Question. Here is what I think... and I want to be clear: I am merely thinking "out loud" for the moment.

It comes from a certain sense of entitlement, in part. Many liberal students are used to getting what they want, used to being coddled. When Billary lost people in my classes kept talking about how happy they were "knowing" there was going to be a female president. Then the next morning they could not believe what reality had given them. People in my classes asked: "What do we tell our children?" And my answer (though it was so radioactive that I did not say it then) is that sometimes -- even oftentimes -- the bad guys win. And for this reason we need to toughen up so we can metaphorically grapple them into submission at some point.

I also think that it comes from living in a dang bubble. When a cult leader recruits some folks, the first thing he does is removes them from the rest of society (mentally and physically). So they then live in his bubble. Another point is that somewhere along the lines people at universities got this belief that words and ideas can be conflated with violence. "Your ideas hurt me!"

But something I have been wondering about lately is the issue of toughness and stoicism. I think that in the US there was a time when toughness and stoicism among men was valued. Women found it attractive. The population in general thought it was admirable. But now toughness is seen as a form of toxic masculinity. Someone once asked Johnny Cash this: "Are you a hawk or a dove?" He said: "I am a dove, but with claws!" This is how I always felt, and I value toughness. In my class on Saturday we were asked to explain our best qualities and skills. When asked I just said: "Grit."

What I am getting at is that everyone thinks they have PTSD and it can be triggered any time by anything upsetting or controversial. But I think some toughness and stoicism can help remedy this.

I also think identity politics is a big issue. Like, as a more issues-based liberal I am considered a god dang heretic.

I like your entitlement theory. There may be something to be said for taking a few lumps and a few defeats early in life. You can face the inevitable disappointments with an attitude of “I’ve been beaten up by tougher guys than you”. Melting at the thought of people or ideas who make you feel “unsafe” or disrespected may be more difficult if life has punched you in the face a few times. Perhaps learning early that you are not in fact the cherished center of a benevolent universe is the best way to prepare yourself for real life, where you simply can’t make the bad stuff go away by shouting it down.

[LDAHL]

I saw a great meme. It had a picture of a punk show in the background and said something like "we (the punks) did not get the nazi's out of our shows by listening to them, we took pipes and beat them until they left'. That is why I am not a hippy, I am a punk and I will stand up. Is there a chance some of these kids are doing that instead of our perception that they are just not willing to engage in critical thought.

Beating people with pipes because you disagree with them is certainly a much-used alternative to critical thought. Intolerance in the name of tolerance has a long and storied history.

[Alan]

Think about the endurance it will take to get through the next 8 years of Trump.
Yes, he hasn't even taken the oath of office yet but we must think about how difficult these past few months have been for liberals across the board. Rioting, whining, crying, wailing, moaning, threatening performers, blocking traffic, disrupting events and keeping your tantrum going is very tiring.

Since you're part of their tribe, how about helping them out, offer to buy one or two of them a drink and tell them to cheer up. :D

[Ultralight]

Yes, he hasn't even taken the oath of office yet but we must think about how difficult these past few months have been for liberals across the board. Rioting, whining, crying, wailing, moaning, threatening performers, blocking traffic, disrupting events and keeping your tantrum going is very tiring.

Since you're part of their tribe, how about helping them out, offer to buy one or two of them a drink and tell them to cheer up. :D

What I tell them is to get outside the bubble and get their god dang act together. And that is why we'll likely have 8 years of Trump. It'll take that long for the Liberals to get it together! Right now my fellows are simply doubling down on the dumb chit they have been doing.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I'm not really very empathetic. Mostly I find it difficult to feel for other people EVEN WHEN I know them well (no I don't need to be more tough in that regard, if anything it might be progress to be less so! And I think that's probably true of lots of people! They need to be less tough in that regard). If I take empathetic positons (say worry about how a sweatshop worker making my clothes in the 3rd world is treated), that's mostly not about feelings but what I think is right and fair and sometimes out of shared interest. (although it would be pretty indirect there) It's not that hard to understand. Eh, I'm a T (Meyers briggs) :~).

[LDAHL]

What I tell them is to get outside the bubble and get their god dang act together. And that is why we'll likely have 8 years of Trump. It'll take that long for the Liberals to get it together! Right now my fellows are simply doubling down on the dumb chit they have been doing.

I​ don't know about that. I see him more as a Jimmy Carter, annoying people to the point where they turn him out. I don't even think it's inconceivable that he could lose the GOP nomination in 2020.

[bae]

I don't even think it's inconceivable that he could lose the GOP nomination in 2020.

I didn't think it was conceivable held get the 2016 nomination. I'm pretty sure the Party Overlords were similarly amazed, and I don't see him getting much support from the party machinery.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I do tend to regard the whole Trump reaction as having gone over to hysteria unless one has a personal stake in it, where it's only normal to be more concerned about that. Trump is quite likely to be a very bad President. However this is on a continuum of general bad presidents we get regardless!!! His sheer incompetence, ignorance, and bad temperament alone maybe makes him more scary but is seldom even the focus of protest. Though not so obviously unfit for the job, there was much about Obama that was bad and there probably would have been more so about Hillary than Obama (remember the war in Libya was more her idea than his). Trump might be particularly bad, but it is a continuum. So at what point in the continuum does it trigger such reactions? I don't know. It makes it all very hard to understand, even if you think the outrage meter should be MORE easily triggered (by Obama's bad policies as well for instance) than if you think it shouldn't be triggered at all, also if you think it should be triggered by different things (say starting a war).

Protest tactics are protest tactics and aren't the problem, people only say they are when they don't agree with the aim of the protest - fine I don't agree with all protest aims either of course (but blocking traffic and so on are just protest tactics, actual violence would be another matter but fear of it is ITSELF hysteria, as there usually is very little even though there are lots of unsubstantiated accusations). I don't even think principled opposition to all protest tactics is what is going on, I just think it's people don't agree with the protests.

[pinkytoe]

Anyone read the CNN opinion piece on Trump and "gaslighting?" It offers another perspective on how he will operate and makes some sense of his actions thus far. Things that wouldn't have been tolerated if done by other candidates.

[LDAHL]

I didn't think it was conceivable held get the 2016 nomination. I'm pretty sure the Party Overlords were similarly amazed, and I don't see him getting much support from the party machinery.

True enough. 2016 was a lesson in humility for me. I was thinking it would be Rubio, Walker or Bush. When the New York Times began running "investigative reports" on Rubio's wife's parking tickets, I took that as a sign of who I should support.

I still think it's possible that Trump could become such a Jonah to the GOP that they heave him over the side in 2020. He's almost certain to disappoint his supporters, and he's insulted everybody else.

[Zoe Girl]

Anyone read the CNN opinion piece on Trump and "gaslighting?" It offers another perspective on how he will operate and makes some sense of his actions thus far. Things that wouldn't have been tolerated if done by other candidates.

Anyone who has been gaslighted in real life sees this and feels it. It is not about conservative politics which I can live with, what can I say.

[ApatheticNoMore]

It is not about conservative politics which I can live with, what can I say.

to me it's all about policy, nothing else matters so much. Yea with trump like I said he's also unsuited for the job as well which IS a real problem, we seldom get them that inexperienced and that unlikely to learn on the job either, but as for being dislikable: Bill Clinton was a jerk to a lot of women, and Nixon was just generally an unsavory human being all around (but on policy the main problem with Nixon was Vietnam and it was a policy over multiple administrations).

[Zoe Girl]

[QUOTE=ApatheticNoMore;261244]to me it's all about policy, nothing else matters so much.

I can separate my personal reactions to his style and gaslighting, lying and generally being a horrible human being. Policy, who the f** knows. He can't stay on one topic longer than a tweet to know what he is actually going to do and what is another bunch of BS. So it is perfectly set up, people opposed to these policies can run around preparing for all the eventual work only to have the ground shift again. We end up scattered and ineffective.

[ApatheticNoMore]

So it is perfectly set up, people opposed to these policies can run around preparing for all the eventual work only to have the ground shift again. We end up scattered and ineffective.

maybe, but wouldn't much actual policy tend to go through either appointees (which are opposed, that's sensible opposition, that's not the "liberals have lost their D@mn minds") or legislation? Sure there are executive orders but is that really most policy? Black ops foreign policy has always been that. And yes military involvement has been started with too little debate, and that's not new (seemed a lot of that under Obama). Some policies meanwhile take years of negotiation (Obama with the now failed I guess TPP)

Sanders is a good example of sticking to policy, he's campaigning against cuts to Medicare and Social Security. Now whether the Republicans are actually serious about these cuts may be doubtful to begin with (it's Paul Ryan's talking point mostly), but you know where Sanders stands at least.

It's hard for me to see general opposition to Trump being more effective than actual policy positions (say one opposes deportation for instance - ok then that - it might help to admit that plenty of this went on under Obama as well but ... after that starting point one could certainly oppose more under Trump). And it's hard to see opposition to Trump being the main point at all if one's actual position is that lots of Republicans would appoint many of the same people (dislike Tillerson the Exxon CEO as secretary of state? but the W administration was also full of oil folks ... sure oppose his appointment but maybe it's not just Trump).

[iris lilies]

....There is something to be said for choosing what you want, instead of taking whatever is the standard.
What does this even mean? Everyone chooses a point of view or a political position (if thats what you are talking about) and there are just as many people,who accept the "standard" thought put out by the liberal mainstream as by what you obviously consider "standard" mainstream thought.


We see these colleges and students as being too sensitive or fragile to have certain ideas or speakers...

No, they present themselves as being triggered. I don't know how they feel, they tell us how they feel. And, they seem to feel and act up like two year olds. They act like toddlers with feelings bigger than they can control


..,.what if we opened our minds to the myriad reasons that a group of students may react, say no, etc. What if they are using their critical thinking skills to evaluate the speaker before they come. There is so much information out there that they may already know a lot. Plus the university is spending a LOT of money to speakers and sports and other things that they will end up paying...

Of course students may evaluate positions of a speaker and decide they dont like what the speaker has to say. Certainly!

What they may not do, and you seem to have missed the point, is that they may not physically disrupt free speech. There are plenty of ways to show one does not endorse ideas, such as making arguments against, showing ip for a peaceful protest, and even, possibly the most effective, ignoring the speaker alltogether. Interfering with Milo's freedom of speech is silly at best, dangerous for our society at worst. Who is being silenced in this Univ of Calif incident? As long as it isnt your side, is that ok?

[Zoe Girl]

We have done a pretty good job of silencing many voices over the years. Yes, young people are saying what they want and don't want. They always have one way or another. I guess I don't see the difference between the media ignoring some stories and promoting others and students saying what they do and don't want on their campus. You can disagree of course, and that is another voice. Speakers get rejected all the time, But none of us go to school there after all.

[Ultralight]

We have done a pretty good job of silencing many voices over the years. Yes, young people are saying what they want and don't want. They always have one way or another. I guess I don't see the difference between the media ignoring some stories and promoting others and students saying what they do and don't want on their campus. You can disagree of course, and that is another voice. Speakers get rejected all the time, But none of us go to school there after all.

Bad idealert. !Splat!

[ApatheticNoMore]

I guess I don't see the difference between the media ignoring some stories and promoting others and students saying what they do and don't want on their campus.

maybe it's some left over idealism. Maybe people expect the media to be biased (and not surprisingly often in favor of their ownership companies, Disney and GE and so on), profit making, corrupt - yet still expect academia to be pure and not in it for profit (not entirely true of course, but it still is partly public supported - I mean in the UC system it still is certainly).

Definitely free speech doesn't mean the most reasonable speech will win, some speech has a lot more money behind it for one thing (I have no idea about this Milo guy and who funds him, I kind of lose patience with him just because it feels like gladly suffering fools, but I'd just ignore him pretty much). If people really true believe that Trump and Milo and so on represent fascism then they will fight it like fighting fascism. I think Trump mostly represents someone unqualified for the job who will likely have bad policies but ...


But none of us go to school there after all.

but our taxes again may also pay for those schools (mine do of course) so that makes one a stakeholder as well, doesn't it?

[LDAHL]

We have done a pretty good job of silencing many voices over the years. Yes, young people are saying what they want and don't want. They always have one way or another. I guess I don't see the difference between the media ignoring some stories and promoting others and students saying what they do and don't want on their campus. You can disagree of course, and that is another voice. Speakers get rejected all the time, But none of us go to school there after all.

There's a difference between making editorial decisions about which story to cover and physically preventing someone from speaking. That's not young people saying what they want or don't want. That's a group of young people deciding what all the young people aren't allowed to hear.

[ApatheticNoMore]

maybe what trump will really be is a great controversial distraction for people while congressional Republicans pass most of the real legislation (he will have a veto of course). Well hard to say how it will play out, as they have the lead and are already passing things through congress and Trump isn't even sworn in yet.

[LDAHL]

maybe what trump will really be is a great controversial distraction for people while congressional Republicans pass most of the real legislation

That would be the most favorable scenario.

[iris lilies]

That would be the most favorable scenario.
And if they let him take credit for it, tey will keep him happy.

[LDAHL]

And if they let him take credit for it, tey will keep him happy.

Sort of like having a royal family?

The Trumps could serve a ceremonial and entertainment function while the legislature attends to business.