University’s Student Government Bans Offensive Speech

University’s Student Government Bans Offensive Speech

www.thecollegefix.com...

The student government at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln has passed a resolution that bans offensive speech.

“Certain derogatory terms diminish the broadly inclusive and welcoming quality of our campus,” states the resolution, approved by the student government Nov. 13. “We pledge to remove derogatory terms from our vocabulary (that may or may not be purposely directed as offensive) in regard to a person’s gender, age, disability, genetic information, race, color, religion, pregnancy status, marital status, veteran’s status, national or ethnic origin, gender identity or expression, place of residence, political affiliation, or sexual orientation.”

The resolution does not spell out specific words that could be deemed derogatory, defined by Merriam-Webster as expressing a low opinion or showing a lack of respect for something or someone.

Student President Eric Reznicek, in an email to The College Fix, said the resolution’s passage does not equate to a “ban of speech.”

“There was no ban of speech, rather, an encouragement to use more inclusive language and to encourage not using potentially offensive vocabulary,” Reznicek stated.

So it's not a "ban" on speech, just a rule that says you can't say some things and they want to "encourage" inclusive language.

It only bans "offensive" speech.

I can't stand certain words.
I despise Westboro Baptist Church.

But I will fight tooth and nail to insure that ugly words, gross despicable words, and ugly speeches made by the lunatics at Westboro Baptist are free to say.

I hate where this is going. Any restriction on speech is too much.

Now any post the contradicts my personal views I will consider "offensive" and ask that they be removed and those posts "banned" because I find them offensive.

Only people who agree with me and use appropriate wording, will be allowed to "say" anything on this thread.

*wink*

reply to post by beezzer


Absurd.

Offensive speech? Who determines what's offensive, the ACLU?!

What a joke.

~Tenth

tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer

 

Absurd.

Offensive speech? Who determines what's offensive, the ACLU?!

What a joke.

~Tenth

Truth! Offensive is in the eye of the beholder.

I am sorry Beezer Clause but I find I don't have enough descriptive words in my vocabulary that are totally neutral and inoffensive to give an honest opinion here.

Maybe I should just feel mildly nonplussed and defer to the wisdom of the kids who just reinvented censorship for the millionth time in history.

reply to post by badgerprints


But it is censorship meant to bring about "inclusion".



Words come from thoughts. Words are a verbal expression of our thoughts.

Is it too outlandish to state that with a control of what we say, they are trying to control how we think?

So, following their logic here, if I complained that my stiff, achy arthritic joints make me feel like a geezer some days, that would be offensive speech?

Well poop on them. Some days, my joints do make me feel like a geezer. And no thin-skinned delicate little petal is going to prevent me from saying it. I can see this "initiative" losing steam & commitment after a few weeks. You know, when people realize it's total over-reaching micro-managing BS and go back to the usual slangs and such. If some people are mindful enough to not say something that could be construed as offense around someone who would see it that way, congrats. Otherwise, imposing that kind of thing as a blanket policy just garners resentment.

reply to post by badgerprints

Maybe I should just feel mildly nonplussed and defer to the wisdom of the kids who just reinvented censorship for the millionth time in history.

The sad part?

Probably the same kids who go to protests for OWS against "The Man", and cry foul over NSA spying and human rights abuses etc etc.

Yet perfectly happy establishing Draconian style censorship of speech in an environment that should encourage the exact opposite.

~Tenth

reply to post by Nyiah


I hope that it loses steam. But the fact that it is even enacted worries me.

And it should be inclusive, remember that.

instead of arthritic, geezer, it should be "joint-disadvantaged, and youthfully challenged".

reply to post by tothetenthpower


AIPAC..ADL

reply to post by beezzer

Soon enough, you'll be seeing these around:


PC is one of the worst things to have happened to the modern world.
I don't intentionally say "offensive" things, but the whole "don't want sound mean, tip toe around words" PC crap, the way parents are supposed to coddle their kids into some PC bot...It's nauseating.

I'm not a politician, I don't care if how I speak isn't PC. I really could not care less what people think of that.

PC is simply a form of thought/speech control.

Oh goody, goody! No longer will our students and staff be forced to hear words and ideas they might find mildly disturbing.

I can't wait to hear how this works out for history presentations:

"Reconstruction in the US is the title of my speech, ahem. In 1865 the DELETED forces defeated the DELETED forces bringing an end to the absence of peace. The newly-freed DELETED formed themselves in bands for mutual protection from the roving bands of DELETED who were trying to preserve the old order of power in the DELETED.
Upset at the DELETED DELETED and new laws that allowed DELETED people the right to vote, former soldiers of the DELETED began first in Tennessee by DELETED judges and preventing DELETED from reaching polling stations."

The End.

The only truly politically-correct speech will be that never uttered.

beezzer
reply to post by badgerprints

 

But it is censorship meant to bring about "inclusion".



Words come from thoughts. Words are a verbal expression of our thoughts.

Is it too outlandish to state that with a control of what we say, they are trying to control how we think?

If I could reach into your brain and remove every word that could be construed as racist, ageist, sexist ....and so forth. Would it make you a better person?

Would it suddenly cause you to only speak in an inclusive manner?

As a matter of fact. Rabbits and Santa Clause are offensive to me. Would you please change your avatar so I feel more included?

Or should we all get together and make you?

(Of course this is argumentative, an illustration. I think every bunny should have a Santa Hat.)

tothetenthpower
reply to post by badgerprints

 

Maybe I should just feel mildly nonplussed and defer to the wisdom of the kids who just reinvented censorship for the millionth time in history.

The sad part?

Probably the same kids who go to protests for OWS against "The Man", and cry foul over NSA spying and human rights abuses etc etc.

Yet perfectly happy establishing Draconian style censorship of speech in an environment that should encourage the exact opposite.

~Tenth

When I was in university, it was cutting edge, pushing the envelope, being "edgy". We were breaking convention, pushing the limits. And I was in the college-republicans for heavens sake!

Now?

It's a breeding ground for the ruling class. (and that goes for either party)

badgerprints


As a matter of fact. Rabbits and Santa Clause are offensive to me. Would you please change your avatar so I feel more included?

Apologies.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


That is the critical question here. Who decides what is offensive? I'm of the opinion that you either have freedom of speech or you don't. There's no middle ground. The whole "your free to say what you want, but have to accept the consequences" argument is a cop-out. If there are consequences, then where's the freedom part? There are a few exceptions I suppose, such as slander and libel- but even then that can be a subjective call.

Offensiveness should not be an reason to curtail speech as that manner of thinking is a slippery slope. If we cannot protect offensive or unpopular points of view or ideas, how are we ever going to protect the more "acceptable" means of expression? Political correctness, a disease of both the far left and far right, is going too far. The madness needs to stop.

Student government resolutions do not have the force of law. Technically, they are simply spouting rthetoric that cannot be enforced. However, the trend is clear. It's still repressive.

beezzer

badgerprints


As a matter of fact. Rabbits and Santa Clause are offensive to me. Would you please change your avatar so I feel more included?

Apologies.

Much better.
I feel totally unoffended now.
Loved and included.

I'd thank you for simply being polite, but since you were being offensive and we had the moral imperative to force you, I'll just be slightly mollified and hold an underlying grudge against you for having the temerity to put a Santa Hat on a crying rabbit in the first place.
It's for the betterment of society you know.

(Still being illustrative. I already miss the lacramose coney in the Yuletide chapeau.)

beezzer

kaylaluv
Gee, I wonder why ATS doesn't allow "offensive" language? Why do they remove posts that talk about how Hitler was a hero, and was right to do what he did? Why do they remove posts that bash the victims of Sandy Hook, etc.? Oppressing our freedom of speech, Shame on you, ATS!!!!!!!!!

Private club vs state university.

You're FOR this?

Look at the reasons behind it, Beezer. WHY does ATS not allow certain language? What is their reasoning behind their rules? What if I wanted to call you a certain name for someone who is not totally white? Do you think ATS would ding me for that? Why would they do that? Maybe because it would be ..... offensive?? What if you wanted to call me a certain 4-letter word reserved for females, starting with the letter C, and ending in the letters NT?

I think the student government has the same reasonings for their rule as ATS has for theirs. There is no reason to say hurtful, nasty things to each other when discussing ideas, issues, events, etc.