Hacker News Reader

> Ultimate arbiter? Nobody. Please tell me, who do you think is the ultimate arbiter? Do you think one individual in the crowd was the ultimate arbiter? What is their name?

Ah, got it, silencing voices is ok as long as it's done by a crowd. Out of morbid curiosity, what happens when that crowd becomes a majority and they continue silencing minorities?

> If a crowd of people were that crazy about getting me to not speak at their college, I would happily leave and find another place, and write a Medium post about my views, not crying that people don't like me and don't want to hear them.

Is this an immediate self-contradiction? It seems like an immediate self-contradiction.

> Why are the preferences of the speaker and those who invited them more important than those of the protestor?

Nobody's rights are violated by letting someone talk.

> Out of morbid curiosity, what happens when that crowd becomes a majority and they continue silencing minorities?

I hope those minorities find ways to express themselves. If they can get to their local public library and write a post on Medium, maybe they can change the world. Or be shunned by it.

> Is this an immediate self-contradiction? It seems like an immediate self-contradiction.

I just looked over it, and I don't see how writing a medium post or looking for a new venue are contradicting anything. Do you mean that "crying that people don't like me" contradicts writing a post on Medium? Because I actually wrote "write a Medium post about my views" - the post wouldn't be a whining piece, rather, it's what I would have liked to have said at the university.

I'm gonna need an explanation on how I contradicted myself

> Nobody's rights are violated by letting someone talk.

I feel like this sentence might be contradicting your views. Do you feel like the rights of Mac Donald were not violated by her allowing protestors to protest?

> I hope those minorities find ways to express themselves. If they can get to their local public library and write a post on Medium, maybe they can change the world. Or be shunned by it.

So your solution is an eternal cicle in which a group of people will always be silenced and forced to specific ways to express their views, slowly gain traction, become accepted, start silencing and forcing other groups into using specific ways to express their views, rinse and repeat?

That's literally not progress.

> I just looked over it, and I don't see how writing a medium post or looking for a new venue are contradicting anything. Do you mean that "crying that people don't like me" contradicts writing a post on Medium? Because I actually wrote "write a Medium post about my views" - the post wouldn't be a whining piece, rather, it's what I would have liked to have said at the university.

Ah, so it was a self-contradiction. Thanks.

> I feel like this sentence might be contradicting your views. Do you feel like the rights of Mac Donald were not violated by her allowing protestors to protest?

No, they were, the problem is that they weren't merely talking; they literally barricaded the building and expressed intent of violence if the talk were to be given. But I know exactly why you pretending that giving a talk and doing everything they did is the same. Your mind wouldn't be able to accommodate the alternative as it would force you to rethink it.

Cheers.

> If a crowd of people were that crazy about getting me to not speak at their college, I would happily leave and find another place, and write a Medium post about my views, not crying that people don't like me and don't want to hear them

And when they violently protest your speeches in other public spaces? Where do you go?

The issue here isn't that you are OK with finding another place to speak. You're free to do whatever makes you happy.

The issue is that the places which should be open to public discourse are not. The places which have rules about acceptable behavior are applying those rules... selectively. The places which are supposed to be bastions of learning and questioning, have instead rigidly enforced "good think" ideas.

That's upsetting to a wide range of the population.

> The issue is that the places which should be open to public discourse are not. The places which have rules about acceptable behavior are applying those rules... selectively.

I like this quote. Let's talk about that word you used - "selectively". Should the protestors have been selectively told to shut up? Are you in favor of arbitrarily saying whoever is on a podium is the only one who can speak and that everyone else must shut up and agree with them?

> Should the protestors have been selectively told to shut up?

Leading questions are not a good argument.

> Are you in favor of arbitrarily saying whoever is on a podium is the only one who can speak and that everyone else must shut up and agree with them?

Your best argument is a ridiculous straw man? That must be so embarrassing...

For my real opinions see other comments I've made in this thread.

> Leading questions are not a good argument.

Good point. How about this: why are you in favor of Mac Donald saying everything she wanted to, but against protestors saying all they want to? You are selectively arguing in favor of some people's speech, and arguing that others (the protestors) shouldn't have expressed themselves, and then accusing me of selectively allowing the protestors and not Mac Donald. I'm cool with Mac Donald having said all she said, even though I (at least mostly) disagree with her. I'm also fine with protestors booing her. How am I being more selective than you?

> Your best argument is a ridiculous straw man?

That in and of itself is a strawman argument. My comment clearly pointed out that it's unfair to shut up everyone in the audience and only allow one person to speak, but you're looking at it in its weakest form. Meanwhile, I took what I felt like was the strongest part of your argument, and showed why I thought it was flawed. How "embarrassing"

> why are you in favor of Mac Donald saying everything she wanted to, but against protestors saying all they want to?

Why do you insist on asking leading questions which assume nefarious intent?

If you could quote my comments to show that's my position, you would. But you can't, because it's not my position.

> That in and of itself is a strawman argument.

That's just an embarrassing response.

> I took what I felt like was the strongest part of your argument

i.e. you didn't read or understand my argument. Instead, you straw-manned me with a ludicrous misinterpretation of it.

Again, go read the rest of my comments to see what I'm against.

> My comment clearly pointed out that it's unfair to shut up everyone in the audience and only allow one person to speak,

Then you're entirely missing the point of an invited speaker. When the invitee gives the talk, everyone in the audience does need to sit down, and shut the f%ck up. That's what polite social discourse is.

When there's time for questions, the audience can ask questions.

My argument (to re-iterate in hopefully simple enough language) is that violent suppression of free speech in the name of openness... is wrong.

If the protestors act peaceably, follow the law, and allow the audience and speaker to have their free speech, then I don't really give a shit what the protestors say or do.

The line is violent suppression of other peoples speech.

Now, is that clear? Or will you continue to ask leading questions which assume I have some kind of nefarious intent?

The right to protest is not equivalent to the right to shutdown other people's speaking or listening rights. The protestors cross the line when they resort to using intimidation, physical obstruction, threats of violence, and/or actual violence. In most municipalities, such violations would be addressed quickly by the police. However, universities (and increasingly large left-leaning cities) have tolerated protestors use of intimidation and obstruction. One could argue why but I suspect it's a variety of practical as well as ideological reasons.

>If a crowd of people were that crazy about getting me to not speak at their college, I would happily leave and find another place, and write a Medium post about my views, not crying that people don't like me and don't want to hear them.

That is not really a fair characterization of the situation. Some people at the university wanted to hear what the speaker had to say. That is why the speaker was invited to the campus. Other people didn't want the speaker to speak at the university. So they created a civic disturbance, including some amount of violence, to prevent the speaker from being able to speak.

It is not accurate to say that the students at the university didn't want the speaker there. Some students at the university didn't want the speaker there. Other students did want the speaker there. Many didn't care, probably.

So what happens if you think through your argument with the idea that different people at the university have different opinions?