University of Nebraska Lincoln introduces new 'non-negotiable respect' policy

And as predicted, it will silence the left as well.

and a little ambivalent.

Does this policy really silence people? Or simply require that they express themselves with civility? Like saying "I disagree with Trump and think he is responsible for the rise of hate in the U.S." instead of saying "I hate that orange fucker and the people he support; they are all psychopathic idiots."

I don't want anyone silenced. At the same time, I don't condone hate speech. What is the solution?

What if that very idea is a major tenant of your faith/ideology?

Also, hate speech may be raw, but it should never be illegal in the land of the free.

It's not disrespectful to say that something is blasphemy. The way it's said may be what makes it "hate" speech or not.

I don't think that we as a nation agree on what constitutes hate speech, which is why this is so complicated.

Strong language or passionate expression is not hate speech, imo. For me, hate speech is speech that harms others, or incites harm to others.

Several decades back, in a political science class, my professor told us: "Your rights end at the tip of your nose. You don't have the right to interfere with anyone else's rights." That's an interesting take, but not wholly correct. We should always be debating that gray area: where are our boundaries?

Rejecting the 1st amendment is scary. We know the right wing hates it. If enough on the left stops defending it we are in trouble.

The older I get the more I realize leftist and liberal are absolutely not synonyms.

I hate to break it to you, but the social justice crowd doesn't define the entirety of liberalism or the left, just the ones who took Marxist class conflict theory and adopted it to racial and gender identity conflict. Liberalism and Marxism are inherently incompatible with each other; the former understands that better ideas win when presented in open debate and seeks to guarantee equality of opportunity so that people can succeed or fail based on their individual merit, while the latter believes the answer to differing opinions is to eradicate them by judging those who hold them to be immoral or flawed and purging them from public life and enforcing a system of equality of outcome.

The two cannot exist together, because while the former tolerates the existence of the latter, the latter is out to destroy the former. Which is why I'm a liberal, and not a Marxist.

Thank you!

of legitimate dissent in any organized society cannot be ignored, it is a logical fallacy to conclude from that fact that all dissent is legitimate.

The claim that falsehood is weeded out in a marketplace of ideas assumes that everyone has a factual knowledge base adequate to evaluate the value of the speech of a charlatan. They do not.

Truth is not simply whatever garners the most support among consumers. Someone has to draw lines.

{See how easy that was?}

of what passes as fact in a world where truth is determined by public opinion.

You spew flotsam without any support in fact or cogent argument and declare victory. All you have done is illustrate the intellectual and moral wasteland that is unlimited speech.

Do you also think that people like Snowden spread knowledge simply by spreading information?

A red herring inside a non-sequitur wrapped in a false dichotomy.



This is ironic since I was obviously mimicking the tactics of the Crybaby Veto. What you're effectively saying is you want a censorship regime that would silence those who would use the tactics of censorship to silence people.

Silencing the silencers -- silently...I guess.

Moneyed interests could convince the government that PFOA is perfectly safe and those who disagree are peddling lies/misthruths and can be legally punished.

Many people think the inflation rate is bullshit, but the ministry of truth could smash those doubts down hard.

Beware the yolk of Totalitarianism - it burdens all.

of the difference between truth and opinion is not totalitarianism.

The right and the left these days seem to exist in completely different realities. We might think that such policies will bring the RW down from "Bullshit Mountain", but they can be just as easily used to chain us to the top of it.

The totalitarianism comes in when the government makes the decision for us.

Don't say anything that anyone will take personally.

for speech we don't like. If I complained to my boss about political statements made by some of my co-workers he would tell me to deal with it or find a job where I work alone. It's part of life.

I see a lot of right-wing sites frothing about it, but I can't find it. All I see are some remarks from the chancellor.

And it seems that he's referring to this statement on the university website:

http://diversity.unl.edu/our-core-values-beliefs

Doesn't take much to feed the RW froth-machine...


Edit to add the text of the relevant statement:

I can summarize a culture of respect even more succinctly: no bullying or dehumanizations.

I do acknowledge there are gray areas hence the need for ongoing, respectful, INCLUSIVE dialogue.

I'm realizing the word "inclusive" freaks certain people out.

Thanks for sharing this; easy to see how this will be a viral click bait story, facts be damned.

Each of those bullet points describes principles that members of a productive academic community should strive to adhere to as they interact with one another and explore new ideas...

I've been told that not favoring declaring specific public areas as safe spaces entitled to exclude people makes me opposed to rape victims feeling unsafe. It's only a small step to declare me as bullying or dehumanizing someone.

Those demanding the power to silence people have proven they cannot be trusted with that power.

That isn't a dirty word to me, btw. In a perfect world there'd be no need for labels or generalizations, but in order to communicate I haven't found a way to avoid it. Of course the disclaimer that labels and generalizations don't apply to EVERYONE in a group should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway.

Anyway, there are various worldviews that are predominant now; I don't know how long they've been in place but it's most evident to me with the advent of the Internet and the contrast between the views has become glaringly stark with the growth of social media.

(I'm in the middle of grieving, so I don't have the focus or energy to reply to the various comments here as I truly want to do; this is a great discussion, one that's vitally important, imho. I'll bookmark it and come back to it in a couple of weeks.)

I definitely hear you and others regarding the slippery slope and how so much in this human social experience is subjective. What is painful/hurtful/offensive to one person doesn't even register on another person's radar.

Yet what I and many others have experienced re: stalking, doxxing, etc. in the online realm (which overflows into physical daily life and isn't restricted to the online space...it all blurs together now anyway) is unacceptable. The general online culture is toxic and violent. There is very little civility, and it gets downright nasty, violent and threatening. Certain groups have experienced this more than others (women and, most especially women of color).

I ask if you feel you lean toward libertarianism because that is a vibe (sorry, can't think of perfect words right now) and worldview that is prevalent online. I actually feel that perspective is baked into the Internet, if you will, because -- and this is simply a fact -- the vast majority of online real estate was built by younger, white men with a more "hands off," libertarian approach to life.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH YOUNGER, WHITE MEN. That isn't a diss. And I fully recognize that even young, white men -- with or without socioeconomic advantages -- can feel attacked and bullied by individuals or groups of people. The experience of institutional, systemic racism and bigotry, however, isn't as prevalent in the history of this country for white men.

It's just that each of us as a group lives a certain experience (in general) than people who identify and are identified with other groups. That experience greatly influences our perspective on things and indeed our worldview.

I take a triage approach: I want to address and try to prevent the existing, most dangerous forms of bullying (physical violence and hate which so easily incites physical violence). There is a spectrum to bullying and, yes, it can be subjective.

But to have the discussions about what is or isn't acceptable to an institution or a society needs to happen within a culture of respect. When there are zero boundaries -- on both ends of the spectrum, btw -- it creates more toxicity.

I'm rambling...sorry...but I just don't see where the actual guidelines, to which I responded here, should be problematic for anyone.

Like I said above though, I'm going to come back to all of it because this is very important to me.

who simply ask for people to think about the effects of their words.

to see such a prevalent alt-right contingent here, but I know it isn't new. Still, it disturbs me every time I pop in here and see it so clearly.

Especially if you think there's a "prevalent alt-right contingent" at DU.

I think you just mean "group of people who disagree with me."

what alt-right means, thank you very much.

A label is created; whether that label be "alt right" or some other and then the charge is laid: No proper thinking person would defend the alt-right.

As soon as reservation or disagreement about that declaration is raised the dissenter is then labeled alt-right.

It's already being played out up and down the thread and that's why this pernicious -- and, frankly, dishonest -- assault on free speech should be opposed.

Covers freedom to be as asshole.

Or I would have to shut up way too often.

In conservative Nebraska, you think a Pro-Life position isn't going to be label as hate speech?

There's a wide variety of student organizations represented.

http://involved.unl.edu/Alphabetical%20list%20organizations%202012.pdf

Of course if the advocacy consists of yelling "baby-killer" and "misogynist" back and forth it would likely violate this policy.

I was going to actually post something more substantive, but I can't be serious after seeing that name on the list.

Actuarial Science Club.

I though I was on a PROGRESSIVE web site? I feel like I'm in Reddit with the usual suspects whining about "SJWs" censoring them.

from a bunch of hypersensitive crybabies who can't handle opinions different from their own.

Please tell me why these people can't just behave like normal adults and simply debate ideas they find offensive, or why you think the power you're in favor of handing authorities to punish people for extremely vague speech-related offenses will never be turned and wielded against you.

Funny how you are so quick to defend the hate speech and bullying of reactionaries even when that so-called "free speech" causes marginalized groups to be terrified into silence. Your idea of "freedom" in reality is just allowing the assholes and fuckwads of the world shit up the place and terrorize women, POC, and LGBT folks.

But honestly, do you really think someone who white-knights for Islam has any business telling someone else he hates women and LGBT folks?

about "rw talking points", that's what discussion forums are for or did u forget that in your little temper tantrum?

If you think that's right-wing, then you are clueless on just what right-wing really is.

Everybody has something that they deem to be offensive. This kind of policy could end up getting way out of hand.

the fools who called the student president the N word, or the student who refused to call a professor with a PhD doctor because he claimed her achievments were a function of affirmative action?

We have yet to see how the standards that MU adopted will fare. After spring and summers semesters and thus far this fall semester, better than your post wishes to impose.

And the university is $30 million in the hole?

Yeah, I can see how they're much better off in the hands of people who think freedom of the press is optional and are completely comfortable fabricating hate crimes on campus to advance their agenda.



Which came after the protesters had forced Wolfe out of his position and occurred nearly a hundred miles away. So again, worked out real well.

Even before the protests, incidents where students were being jackasses typically ended with the students being expelled or disciplined in some way. They were not a part of "systemic white supremacy" at the university like the protests made them out to be.

congratulations on joining them in demonizing it.

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/special_section/welcome_back/mu-changes-bathroom-labels-to-promote-gender-inclusivity/article_9dc1b3f2-5800-11e6-b5d5-abfa2879080b.html

that came directly from the general assembly and were justified with your talking points.

But he didn't, of course.

Nor does saying something in a speech constitute imposing a new policy. But that's the daily mail for you.

Oh, never mind, it doesn't.

The next-to-last is less so, in keeping with the original source (although your snippet actually makes that a bit clearer than in the original source, where I suspect obfuscation was by design).

He/she has an obvious agenda of portraying progressives as "totalitarian cultural marxists".

Your default mode seems to involve screaming "RW RW GAMERGATE GAMERGATE" without actually discussing any points brought up. The OP has absolutely nothing to do with GamerGate; you're just using the negative connotations of it to poison the well so you don't have to actually address any of the points.

Get with the times.

Can our great Republic survive this assault on our precious freedoms? Can our great universities survive this assault?

it's those who support the policy who are pouring into the thread with loud, ugly calls of "RW!" and "alt-right!" and "terrorizing!" in order to stop discussion, not advance it.

We wouldn't want anyone to be triggered...

It prepared me for the real world, where people are equally as obnoxious. These are not children - they're adults! Policies like this are infantile and encourage the annoying "extended adolescence" problem our society is suffering from.

What's worse? 1000 people simmering with hatred for you and being forced to be nice to your face under threat of some authority, or knowing who your real enemies are and acting accordingly?