Gonzaga University blocks Ben Shapiro speech, citing ‘Jesuit’ values

[Ender]

I am not sure what you men by biased and distorted. Perhaps you mean that itdoes pay enough attention to some good content that he might produce. But how much bad content, which was liberally quoted and dissected, does he have to produce to taint his reputation?

I shouldn’t have said biased; of course he’s biased, as is Shapiro and everyone else who has an opinion. I stand by the criticism of his distorting the views of those he mentioned. Here is the very first paragraph from the reference you cited:

It’s easy to laugh, as some of us do, at the phrase “conservative intellectual.” When the most prominent public spokesmen for the right’s ideas include Milo Yiannopoulos, Charles Murray, and Dinesh D’Souza, one might conclude that the movement does not have anything serious to offer beyond “Feminism is cancer,” “Black people are dumb,” and “Democrats are Nazis.” (Those are, as I understand it, the central intellectual contributions of Yiannopoulos, Murray, and D’Souza, respectively.)

I know a little about D’Souza, and virtually nothing about Yiannopolous, but I am a bit familiar with Murray, and his characterization of Murray’s writings and speeches is the kind of distorted, hateful invention that is used to justify attacking him and those who would listen to him.

It is the kind of “attack the speaker so we don’t have to respond to his comments” approach the left consistently uses to dismiss statements they cannot rationally refute. Murray has done several statistical analyses the results of which reflect poorly on certain sections of black culture, and for having the effrontery to expose the facts of the matter he is attacked as a bigot. The validity of his analysis is not seriously attacked, only his right to present it.

 

[tomarin]

I am delighted that National Review upholds editorial standards, but Shapiro’s talks go astray, IMO.

Can you give an example, just out of curiosity?

 

[JonNC]

Conservatives do not form protest marches to abridge free speech. They have their own preferred way to do it, they get on school boards and ban certain books. They get control of museums and ban certain works of art. They like to operate top-down instead of bottom-up. They are less visible that way.

There is some truth to this, though those who term themselves conservative then seek to ban typically don’t ban political speech. They tend to want to ban other things: Harry Potter as an example, or things that are vulgar or anti-Christian.
That is reprehensible, too.

But progressives are not exempt here.
“To Kill a Mockingbird “, “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”, and now that subversive movie, “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer”.

 

[tomarin]

There is some truth to this, though those who term themselves conservative then seek to ban typically don’t ban political speech. They tend to want to ban other things: Harry Potter as an example, or things that are vulgar or anti-Christian.
That is reprehensible, too.

But progressives are not exempt here.
“To Kill a Mockingbird “, “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”, and now that subversive movie, “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer”.

Is this last one considered ‘anti-dentite’?

 

[Cathoholic]

The lesson here is if you have public tantrums like Antifa has, disrupt talks, destroy things, and cause chaos . . . . You will get “rewarded” by the effectual disinviting of high-caliber conservative speakers to university environments under the pretexts liberals caused themselves and now invoke.

And to top it off, liberals who ALSO refer to people THEY disagree with as “morons” in their speeches, sometimes propagate the “F-Trump” movement from their University speaking platforms, and cause their own safety concerns (one area University had a state epidemiologist speak here. The audience started hissing and booing when the epidemiologist brought out disease issues associated with homo-sexual relations- students who ignore these numbers due to their political-incorrect nature, have at least potential damgers there), get many unrestricted University speaking engagements.

 

[dvdjs]

Can you give an example, just out of curiosity?

Already did. In his Berkeley speech he talked about opponents as morons. That does it for me,

 

[dvdjs]

I shouldn’t have said biased; of course he’s biased, as is Shapiro and everyone else who has an opinion.

Having an opinion or reaching a conclusion is not bias.

Bias: an inclination of temperament or outlook especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice

his characterization of Murray’s writings and speeches is the kind of distorted, hateful invention that is used to justify attacking him and those who would listen to him.

I think that the argument is pithy and as such is not extensive enough. But if you reduced Murray to a few words what would you say his point is?

It is the kind of “attack the speaker so we don’t have to respond to his comments” approach the left consistently uses to dismiss statements they cannot rationally refute

I think that this pithy remark does not capture the extensive content of the article. The author goes into considerable detail about the shortcomings of the logic, the rhetoric, and the absence of reflection in Shapriro’s work.

 

[dvdjs]

And to top it off, liberals who ALSO refer to people THEY disagree with as “morons” in their speeches, sometimes propagate the “F-Trump” movement from their University speaking platforms

While these things may happen, they would not be welcome at any of the universities that I know.

 

[tomarin]

Already did. In his Berkeley speech he talked about opponents as morons. That does it for me,

And you think that’s a good reason for him to be not allowed to speak at a university?

 

[dvdjs]

And you think that’s a good reason for him to be not allowed to speak at a university?

Yes. That type of rhetoric doesn’t really belong anywhere, but most of all it does not belong at an institution of higher learning.

 

[JonNC]

tomarin:

Can you give an example, just out of curiosity?

Already did. In his Berkeley speech he talked about opponents as morons. That does it for me,

Compared to all the names conservatives have been called for decades, “moron” seems mild.

 

[JonNC]

tomarin:

And you think that’s a good reason for him to be not allowed to speak at a university?

Yes. That type of rhetoric doesn’t really belong anywhere, but most of all it does not belong at an institution of higher learning.

Do you think college professors should lose their jobs when they use similar or worse names about conservatives?

 

[Cathoholic]

dvdjs . . . .

While these things may happen, they would not be welcome at any of the universities that I know.

Maybe the universities you have watched talks at, are a lot more conservative than the universities I have attended talks from.

Many of these things (like the name-calling by politically liberal lecturers) ARE frequent occurrences.

Not only is this frequent from university guest speakers, we see it from the disproportionately “liberal” university faculty too.

 

[Cathoholic]

As I said earlier . . .

The lesson here is if you have public tantrums like Antifa has, disrupt talks, destroy things, and cause chaos . . . . You will get “rewarded” by the effectual disinviting of high-caliber conservative speakers to university environments under the very violent pretexts you’ve caused.

Liberals have made this a self-fulfilling “prophecy” by their actions. And because of that, they “reward” themselves by putting an end to the conversation by not allowing the students to have it.

.

This is the same motif liberals at Google, Facebook, and others use too (don’t allow the conversation) with their disproportionate banning (that is MY opinion anyway).

They use different “excuses” to destroy the exchange of ideas, but the result is the same.

SILENCE opposing opinions.

The REASON WHY they do this, is liberal ideas are a failure. Progressivism is self-destructive.

And their ideas cannot compete.

Yet they are not willing to submit to reality.

So they invent their OWN REALITY, and demonize any who oppose it.

Look no further than the invented “reality” of “Seventy Genders” (or whatever the number is today), and how people are treated that oppose such non-sense to see this exemplified.

Sexual-deviancy is particularly illustrative of this paradigm.

 

[dvdjs]

Compared to all the names conservatives have been called for decades, “moron” seems mild.

If you read the link, you would realize that “moron” was a mild part of what Shapiro said. But it is enough. That is not the way that universities want people talking about one another.

 

[dvdjs]

Do you think college professors should lose their jobs when they use similar or worse names about conservatives?

I think that in most circumstance this is not a firing offense for a tenured professor, although it could be a criterion for tenure. It may also be a firing offense for contingent faculty. In any case, sanctions would apply independent of whether the object of name calling were conservative, liberal, or …

 

[dvdjs]

Many of these things (like the name-calling by politically liberal lecturers) ARE frequent occurrences.

Not only is this frequent from university guest speakers, we see it from the disproportionately “liberal” university faculty too.

I would like to see data behind conclusions about frequency and proportion.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Compared to all the names conservatives have been called for decades, “moron” seems mild.

If you read the link, you would realize that “moron” was a mild part of what Shapiro said. But it is enough. THat is not the way that universities want people talking about one another.

Then there are countless professors who should be gone from universities, the vast majority of which are progressives that call conservatives all manner of names. They should start with their own.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Do you think college professors should lose their jobs when they use similar or worse names about conservatives?

I think that in most circumstance this is not a firing offense for a tenured professor, although it could be a criterion for tenure. It may also be a firing offense for contingent faculty. In any case, sanctions would apply independent of whether the object of name calling were conservative, liberal, or …

So, it isn’t okay for a guest speaker, but a tenured professor has Carte Blanche? If they don’t want that in their campuses, start with their employees.

 

[Ender]

I think that the argument is pithy and as such is not extensive enough. But if you reduced Murray to a few words what would you say his point is?

The concern here is not for me to define Murray’s works, but to show the author’s description and point out how absurd it is.

The author goes into considerable detail about the shortcomings of the logic, the rhetoric, and the absence of reflection in Shapriro’s work.

Even if this was true it would be totally irrelevant to the topic of whether Shapiro should have been allowed to speak. I consider virtually everything that comes from MSM to exhibit shortcomings in logic, rhetoric, and an with absence of reflection, but it would never occur to me to try to have their comments banned even if such a thing was possible.