Noam Chomsky Versus Free Speech

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Noam Chomsky Versus Free Speech

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Unfortunately PC is just another religion and its followers are as impossible to reason with as any other religious nut-jobs because their religion causes the same brain damage and wiring malfunctions as all religions do. Their god is the god of 'objective offensivism'. Sadly they are unable to recognise themselves, believing that only they know what is morally sound and the 'correct' way to behave and think (sound familiar?).
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Noam Chomsky Versus Free Speech

Post by Skip »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Jul 22, 2017 7:36 pm So 'offensive' is an objective term then? Interesting. Ripping off someone's scarf is actually assault and covered by actual laws.
Which 'offensive' terms does this campus take exception to?
I have no idea. The video clip is unspecific. You make up "what ifs"; Science Fan makes up "what ifs"; Teller makes up "what ifs". We don't actually know what's been said by whom, or how the rule was worded, or what the consequences are of breaking these rules, or who complained about what. Just a bunch of "what ifs" being condemned, second- or third-hand, by people who have nothing at stake.

My take is: It doesn't come under the legal system. An educational institution has the right to make its own rules regarding student interaction in dorms, in common rooms, in classrooms, in the library, in the cafeteria and on the quads; to define what kinds of speech, dress and demeanour are appropriate on its premises.
If somebody finds that offensive, they can' "suck it up" or attend a different school. I don't see why boors should always rule everywhere in all matters, just because there is an amendment about dissenting political opinion on public platforms.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Noam Chomsky Versus Free Speech

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Just as every religion has the right to make up its own rules. That doesn't make them exempt from ridicule, or mean you can't point out their nauseating hypocrisy. And of course we must have strict rules about what we are permitted to do/wear/say/think etc. etc. in every facet of our lives. After all, we are all just overgrown unruly children who must be kept in line by those all-knowing paragons of moral perfection. Btw, do these campuses in question get any Govt. funding at all? What about student loans and allowances?
Call me old-fashioned, but I think of schools and universities as places of learning, not hot-beds of social engineering. It would seem that some 'students' have too much time on their hands, and are too fat and lazy to protest about the real problems in the world. It's so much easier to feign 'outrage' at an imagined offence or hurt feeling, than risk bodily harm or becoming a pariah by taking action against the very real harm being done to those they profess to care about so much. It's also laughable that they cite Hitler as an example of why free speech shouldn't exist. Hitler was the law. He could say anything he liked. It's everyone else who couldn't. He is in fact an excellent of an example of why we must have free speech and why we need to fight as hard to keep it as we did to gain it, and not let it be eroded bit by bit until there's nothing left of it. PC definition of free speech: 'Say anything except everything we say you can't say'. No wonder they get called Nazis and fascists.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Noam Chomsky Versus Free Speech

Post by Skip »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:11 pm.. Btw, do these campuses in question get any Govt. funding at all?
Probably. From the taxes paid by the parents of both the offensive students and the sensitive ones. They both have students loans, and both pay school fees. But only the rude ones should have any rights: their rights are protected by law and very loud spokes-persons. Any institution that attempts to protect the right of sensitive students, girls and minorities is attacked.
Well, that's not old-fashioned, that's very modern: there used to be far more stringent regulations on student life. There even, in a long-forgotten past, used to be a degree of decorum and civility in universities.
But "freedom of speech" gives universal license to be assholish.
Assholity is not a religion; it's a fad; it will pass, except in the people for whom it's an obsession.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Noam Chomsky Versus Free Speech

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

See what I mean about religion destroying a person's ability to reason or comprehend simple language? I wonder what the definition for 'arseholeness' is. How is 'sensitivity' measured? What is being said here is that 'arseholeness' shouldn't be allowed free speech, whereas 'goodliness' should, and that some 'groups' of people are more 'sensitive' than others (and of course we all know that 'sensitivity' is a collective personality trait rather than one that applies to individuals, therefore special laws, rather than the ones already in place that apply to the general population, must be created specifically for those 'especially sensitive' groups). Unfortunately what you or I consider to be 'goodliness' and 'arseholeness' might be polar opposites.
Hmm, so there used to be 'decorum and civility' in universities? You mean people managed to do that all on their own, without the morally-superior thought police around to tell them what they were allowed to say and think? I'm sure there have always been rude people, I've encountered them myself on occasion, but stifling and repressing everyone just because of them is simply bullshit. Dangerous bullshit.
Wyman
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: Noam Chomsky Versus Free Speech

Post by Wyman »

Science Fan wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:28 pm On their TV series Bullshit!, Penn and Teller, two libertarian magicians, comedians, once discussed the topic of speech bans on college campuses. The video can probably be watched for free on You Tube. On this specific topic of politically-correct speech codes that ban free-speech on college campuses, they interviewed Noam Chomsky. This is the same Noam Chomsky who signed a petition that specifically stated the Holocaust was a hoax, and Chomsky defended his action by claiming it was in support of freedom of speech. So, one would think that if Chomsky supports deniers' rights to free speech that he would also support free speech in general on college campuses, and be against politically correct speech codes. One would be wrong in thinking this. Chomsky specifically defended the speech bans on college campuses by claiming that the college campuses were a student's home and just as one can not speak freely in another person's home, one should not be allowed to speak freely on a college campus.

Chomsky's argument is entirely disingenuous. While a student may be able to ban free-speech within his own private dorm room, the larger college campus is not the student's home.

If free speech cannot be allowed on a college campus, then what will become of a college education? It seems to me that one of the most important places to preserve free speech is on a college campus. I realize that many people here have gone out of their way to hold up Chomsky as some intellectual beacon we should bow down to, but, the reality is that he's not admirable.

It's a real shame that Noam Chomsky is such a favorite of so many people. The fact he is in support of banning freedom of speech in favor of political correctness makes him an anti-intellectual in my opinion. Calling Noam Chomsky a public intellectual is a perfect example of an Emperor who has no clothes.

I'll play the devil's advocate for a minute - I don't like PC codes or Chomsky particularly, but I am a lawyer (meaning, I may be an asshole, but I know something about the law). Private institutions, including private colleges - just like country clubs, fraternities and other private enterprises - can chose dress codes, speech codes - any codes except those that violate the civil rights act and related legislation (not the Constitution) protecting certain vulnerable groups.

So Noam can join his little private club of touchy feeliness where no one hurts another member's feelings, as long as they all agree on the rules up front. And they can call it their 'home' and blah, blah, blah.

The situation is of course different with publicly funded universities because the government cannot do what private clubs do.

Therefore, every student that possibly can, should sue the hell out of every public university whenever their free speech or rights of assembly are stomped on by self righteous pricks like Chomsky. Only then - when expenditures from litigation reaches critical mass - will things change.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Noam Chomsky Versus Free Speech

Post by Gary Childress »

I'm not sure how Chomsky fits into the "political correctness" thing. I've never heard him take much concern over "micro-aggressions" or "tansgender rights" or anything. It's not his vocabulary. Stuff like that seems to be the parlance of literature departments and such, not so much philosophy or science departments (at least that I've seen). Looking at the Penn and Teller transcript mentioned in the OP. It sort of looks like it may be voice overs or something and not an actual interview with Chomsky. But it's hard for me to tell without seeing the actual video.

My own opinion on "micro-aggressions", "cultural appropriation" and some of the other terms I've seen floating around is a little mixed. PC culture is a little annoying I suppose, but there are far more serious things to worry about in life than being up in arms over PC culture. If being mean to others is that important, then there is probably ample opportunity still available in this world to be so (the Internet being the best place to start).
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Noam Chomsky Versus Free Speech

Post by Gary Childress »

Skip wrote: Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:01 pmMy take is: It doesn't come under the legal system. An educational institution has the right to make its own rules regarding student interaction in dorms, in common rooms, in classrooms, in the library, in the cafeteria and on the quads; to define what kinds of speech, dress and demeanour are appropriate on its premises.
If somebody finds that offensive, they can' "suck it up" or attend a different school. I don't see why boors should always rule everywhere in all matters, just because there is an amendment about dissenting political opinion on public platforms.
Agree with Skip on this. I think I rather ought to stick up for the bullied than for the bullies.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Noam Chomsky Versus Free Speech

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:00 am
Skip wrote: Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:01 pmMy take is: It doesn't come under the legal system. An educational institution has the right to make its own rules regarding student interaction in dorms, in common rooms, in classrooms, in the library, in the cafeteria and on the quads; to define what kinds of speech, dress and demeanour are appropriate on its premises.
If somebody finds that offensive, they can' "suck it up" or attend a different school. I don't see why boors should always rule everywhere in all matters, just because there is an amendment about dissenting political opinion on public platforms.
Agree with Skip on this. I think I rather ought to stick up for the bullied than for the bullies.
Who's bullying who?
Wyman
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: Noam Chomsky Versus Free Speech

Post by Wyman »

I agree with VT (may be first time) - who's getting bullied?
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Noam Chomsky Versus Free Speech

Post by Gary Childress »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:38 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:00 am
Skip wrote: Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:01 pmMy take is: It doesn't come under the legal system. An educational institution has the right to make its own rules regarding student interaction in dorms, in common rooms, in classrooms, in the library, in the cafeteria and on the quads; to define what kinds of speech, dress and demeanour are appropriate on its premises.
If somebody finds that offensive, they can' "suck it up" or attend a different school. I don't see why boors should always rule everywhere in all matters, just because there is an amendment about dissenting political opinion on public platforms.
Agree with Skip on this. I think I rather ought to stick up for the bullied than for the bullies.
Who's bullying who?
I thought PC was mostly about treating each other with dignity. When I was in college in the late 1980s there was quite a bit of mean spirited behavior, pecking on minorities, gays or the handicapped. I took some online classes from a public university a couple years ago and they basically made the stipulation that we not insult one another and treat each other with dignity. I don't see much wrong with that. I didn't find it too difficult to abide by those rules.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Noam Chomsky Versus Free Speech

Post by Skip »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:38 am
Who's bullying who?
I think the aim is to keep any students from bullying any other students.
This - having to spell out what's inappropriate behaviour - is a recent development. In the olden days, it could be safely assumed that young people who made it into university already possessed a nodding acquaintance with the social graces. Now, they're barely house-broken by 18 - and if you look at Penn at Teller, or the anti-PC stand-up comics, maybe never. Indeed, there is a very popular movement to do away with all social restraint and constraint in the name of freedom.
This, of course, means everyone should be allowed to express their negative, pejorative, hostile thoughts at anyone, anywhere. Except, not everyone has those thoughts or wants to make hurtful remarks. Too bad, if they're too fat and lazy to go around insulting people, they don't deserve freedom of speech. It's license for the bigots and misogynists, the rude and aggressive, to abuse other people verbally. In theory, it stops there: none of them intend to escalate their freedom of expression to physical acts - but so far, American society has not borne out such a theory. (The law might punish them, after the harm was done; no compensation for the victims, because --- well, if they didn't like it, why did they choose to be victims?)

A university is a place of learning, not social engineering. Social engineering is the proper domain of.... ? street gangs... ? legislature... ? Wall street.... ? Newsmax.... ? SCOTUS...? Hollywood....
Certainly not academia.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Noam Chomsky Versus Free Speech

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Skip wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:29 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:38 am
Who's bullying who?
I think the aim is to keep any students from bullying any other students.
This - having to spell out what's inappropriate behaviour - is a recent development. In the olden days, it could be safely assumed that young people who made it into university already possessed a nodding acquaintance with the social graces. Now, they're barely house-broken by 18 - and if you look at Penn at Teller, or the anti-PC stand-up comics, maybe never. Indeed, there is a very popular movement to do away with all social restraint and constraint in the name of freedom.
This, of course, means everyone should be allowed to express their negative, pejorative, hostile thoughts at anyone, anywhere. Except, not everyone has those thoughts or wants to make hurtful remarks. Too bad, if they're too fat and lazy to go around insulting people, they don't deserve freedom of speech. It's license for the bigots and misogynists, the rude and aggressive, to abuse other people verbally. In theory, it stops there: none of them intend to escalate their freedom of expression to physical acts - but so far, American society has not borne out such a theory. (The law might punish them, after the harm was done; no compensation for the victims, because --- well, if they didn't like it, why did they choose to be victims?)

A university is a place of learning, not social engineering. Social engineering is the proper domain of.... ? street gangs... ? legislature... ? Wall street.... ? Newsmax.... ? SCOTUS...? Hollywood....
Certainly not academia.

You make no sense at all. PC has NOTHING to do with manners or social graces. The PC are often the rudest and most insulting and offensive arseholes around. They aren't even remotely sincere. I can't work out what their motive is exactly, but after talking to many of them privately, and hearing how diametrically opposed their private and public 'faces' are, I would say it's more about being 'in' with a group (mob), and perhaps a small amount of shame over their scummy real selves. As I keep pointing out, PC is a religion like any other. Hypocrisy is the inseparable siamese twin of religion.
Penn and Teller are showmen. I can't say I'm a huge fan, but Penn just happens to say a lot of things that are true. If something is true then it just is. Politics, 'niceness' and agendas don't come into the equation. Something doesn't cease to be true just because it doesn't suit your particular agenda.
Do you clowns actually believe that you are nicer and more caring than anyone else? I doubt it somehow. You are just another group of fascists who demand YOUR way, or suffer the consequences. You have even fucked up the language. You are all so desperate to paint everyone else as a 'racist' or a 'bigot' (no doubt a transparent 'deflectionary' tactic) that both words now have essentially no meaning. That's what happens when you over-use and abuse powerful and useful words. And I don't suppose your obnoxious 'barely-housebroken' youth would be the result of anything to do with PC idiocy now would it?

Stephen Pinker captures the concept of PC really well here. I suppose PC is essentially about people who are too stupid to know where to draw the line because of their lack of sincerity. They desperately want a 'cause', are too stupid and lazy to find real ones, so they just invent their own.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Noam Chomsky Versus Free Speech

Post by Skip »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:20 pm You make no sense at all.
I rarely do. But it's worth waiting for.
PC has NOTHING to do with manners or social graces. The PC are often the rudest and most insulting and offensive arseholes around.
I don't know who these are.
If something is true then it just is.
If
Politics, 'niceness' and agendas don't come into the equation. Something doesn't cease to be true just because it doesn't suit your particular agenda. Do you clowns actually believe that you are nicer and more caring than anyone else? I doubt it somehow. You are just another group of fascists who demand YOUR way or suffer the consequences. You have even fucked up the language. You are all so desperate to paint everyone else as a 'racist' or a 'bigot' (no doubt a transparent 'deflectionary' tactic) that both words now have essentially no meaning. That's what happens when you over-use and abuse powerful and useful words.
Well, that's us analyzed right out of the water - whoever we are.
And I don't suppose your obnoxious 'barely-housebroken' youth would be the result of anything to do with Political Correctness now would it?
I don't know who made them. They're not mine. The young I raised were quite well-behaved when I tossed them out of the nest; it wouldn't occur to them to disrupt other people's studies or dinners or work environment just to feel the power.
The flag-waving anti-PC brigade is much like the Christian right: quick to yell "Help, help, they're persecuting me!" whenever someone deprives them of their accustomed prey. And yet, prey keeps growing thinner on the ground as it learns to fight back.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Noam Chomsky Versus Free Speech

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

You blundered in before I could add the Pinker link. Ironically it might have been you who posted it originally, or perhaps flashdangerpants. I get you two mixed up for some reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNWcDXE5POU
Post Reply