Harvard writer: Free speech threatens liberalism and must be destroyed

She got to say these things because of free speech. If free speech is taken away so is hers. I don't think she would like that.

reply to post by beezzer


Another example of an intolerant individual claiming to be a progressive thinker.

Apparently Harvard is educating the next generation of tyrants.

She is so sure of her position that she cannot countenance an open discussion.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

ZeussusZ
She got to say these things because of free speech. If free speech is taken away so is hers. I don't think she would like that.

She thinks she's above the common people. She also doesn't think any new rules wouldn't apply to her.

Remember...she's *special*...

Des

RickyD
Some days I wish there was a free america hit squad this type of thing could be reported to. You know an organization of wet work guys loyal to our constitution that you could report violations to that could exterminate those in opposition to our way of life. Sometimes my fantasies make me hopeful for the day when...

ETA: I know not only is this harsh but some would say against the very free speach I wish to protect. Let me be clear I don't mind any speach save for the kind that pushes for limiting the very right used to utter the words of disrespect to our constitution.

edit on 24-2-2014 by RickyD because: (no reason given)

You would kill a student for writing an opinion piece in the school paper? I thought differing views and opinions was one of the things that made America great?

reply to post by Zcustosmorum


Sieg Heil!!

Sieg Heil!!

Sieg Heil!!

ketsuko

TheConspiracyPages
I don't think she deserves to be singled out for any particular scorn or animus. From my experience she's just a typical
"progressive" Actually, it's sort of refreshing to have one just come out and say it rather than trying to pretend they're open to a two way conversation.

This is the truth.

For a long time, people on the right (or conservative) side of the argument just assumed that the opposite numbers were mistaken or had differing views on how to make this country great. We thought that if we just talked long enough and discussed things, we could hammer it out.

What we missed is that they were playing for keeps and somewhere along the way, they changed the dialogue. It went from a simple disagreement to a struggle of good v. evil with us playing the evil.

Text

Your last line says it all---for these people, who do not acknowledge a power higher than themselves---they are the gods and they believe in one another so anyone who has a different view has to be evil because THEY KNOW they are the good guys. Take a good look sometime at the programs produced by past "progressive" or "liberal Democrat" administrations---experimentation on unsuspecting humans has been their hallmark---and I might add, they didn't test this crap on THEIR children or relatives. After all, we have Slick to thank for the epidemic of Hep C and AIDS caused by his policy to collect and sell blood from prisoners in Arkansas. Such nice folks.

I know who's going to be up for presidential election in a decade or so. This young lady is a future leader of the proud and free USofA. MERICA's hard work at corrupting the minds of the naive is starting to take hold in wonderful ways.


I really hoping she's just trolling on a intellectual and journalistic level.
Sarcastiball?

Well I'm glad she has put this out in the open.

Now we know her stance when she runs for office.

If this Harvard University student got her way, free speech on campus would be abolished and professors with dissenting views fired, because radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy and the First Amendment is a barrier preventing modern colleges from fulfilling their proper role as indoctrination camps.

Obviously she is an "indoctrinated" victim !!!

[ is she friends with Elizabeth Warren ? ]

reply to post by Elton


It is, but I have little doubt that if a law were put on the table that allowed for the internment and eradication of all who espoused those viewpoints with which she disagreed, she'd be right there helping with the roundup.

ketsuko
reply to post by Elton

 

It is, but I have little doubt that if a law were put on the table that allowed for the internment and eradication of all who espoused those viewpoints with which she disagreed, she'd be right there helping with the roundup.

So we kill her first... I do not like your logic.

Again, people have different ideas and opinions I suggest that those that disagree with yours are not automatically the enemy and they need not be silenced (by violence or other means). If her ideas are crazy nobody will listen to them (honestly I have never, ever been swayed by something I read in a school newspaper).

reply to post by Elton


No my premise was that I advocate the killing of traitors...hence those who openly speak of circumventing our constitution and revoking freedoms from people because of differing views. You can argue your views and push them all day but when your a person of influence trying to circumvent one of our most basic rights just because other people oppose your views yes it is traitorous and I only wish we were able to put them down by any means necessary.

reply to post by Elton


I didn't advocate killing her. I only pointed out that she likely wouldn't stop at killing those who held unsavory viewpoints.

She has every right to speak, but you understand that she WILL NOT return the favor to you if put in the position to safe guard your right because she is convinced that your viewpoint isn't just wrong but EVIL. In that position, your viewpoint has no legitimate seat at the table. The only possible positions that should be allowed are all variations of her own preferred viewpoints. THAT is her free speech.

I'm not sure what sort of dialogue you hope to have or enjoy in the same space with such a creature.

reply to post by ketsuko

For a long time, people on the right (or conservative) side of the argument just assumed that the opposite numbers were mistaken or had differing views on how to make this country great. We thought that if we just talked long enough and discussed things, we could hammer it out.

What we missed is that they were playing for keeps and somewhere along the way, they changed the dialogue. It went from a simple disagreement to a struggle of good v. evil with us playing the evil.

I think a lot of conservatives were blind sided. But in a very real way, it is our own fault for allowing things to progress to the level the have. We have our weaknesses.

Conservatives should have understood this was a battle for the hearts and minds of the people. I think as a whole we focused too much on "practical" things and not enough on maintaining a solid theoretical framework for why we believe what we believe and defending it. Specifically, we virtually surrendered the universities and academia without a fight; a battle we could have won, and that was a huge mistake. Conservatives should have sent more of their children off to be professors and less to be MBA's.

"It's the economy stupid" while coined by Carville for Clinton, was and to a certain extant remains the battle cry of conservatives and the republican party. But that's not where the real battle is being fought or lost.

If we don't know where the fight is and what it's about then we've got a very slim chance of winning.

This is nothing new. Free speech is restricted in all the colleges in California. And there you can face jail time for breaking it.

reply to post by buster2010


Universities used to be the bastion of free speech.

I find it disturbing that universities are now condemning it.

reply to post by beezzer


Funny, I feel that liberalism threatens free speech and that liberalism should be destroyed.

Auricom
reply to post by beezzer

 

Funny, I feel that liberalism threatens free speech and that liberalism should be destroyed.

We should never ignore or destroy liberalism.

If we do, we may end up repeating it!

Liberalism is, in my opinion, only a a few steps away from libertarianism. Liberals do not pose a threat. Progressive ideology disguised as liberalism is where we need to look.

Again, just my opinion.

reply to post by beezzer


A figure of speech. Or rather, a figure of angry speech. I've noticed a lot of double standards coming from this camp. "It's OK if we say it, but not you". Or, "We're allowed to speak our minds, you need to keep quiet". Quelling freedom of speech only strengthens my assumption that the "modern liberals" are nothing more than fascists bent on "their way or the high way".

And it ruffles my jimmies to the max.

**Edit**

sheepslayer247
Progressive ideology disguised as liberalism is where we need to look.

THIS! This is what I was trying to refer to when I mentioned "modern liberals". They're no more liberals than I am an alien from Xarnar.

beezzer

“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?” asked Korn in her column.

For a second, I thought this was the rock band. No, I don't support getting rid of free speech in favor of "liberalism" whatsoever. That is a terrible idea, there always need to be critics and opponents of every idea, for starters. In addition to that, I think it is very important that people are allowed to speak freely about their views and interact in an honest matter, something that is impossible without free speech.

It should not be that hard to show that something like civil rights or even human rights are a benefit to society even with free speech in place.

I am a strange person because I am adamantly against conservative movements based on harming people - I think it goes against the spirit of the Lord and harms society - however, I am also against the "liberal" movements stifling free speech.

This definitely brings up some issues for me though, when conservatives start using their "free speech" to justify things like denying services to homosexuals without realizing that it affects their quality of life. Or gay marriage, where conservatives use their "free speech" to deny homosexuals the right to be perceived as equals -

I'm saying that having the two viewpoints at the same time causes me headaches, but I think they are both positive views - although I think things in general are getting way too messy.