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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cathoholic said:
His “shortcoming” is he is conservative and effective.
Click to expand...
That is a convenient perspective for some I suppose, but is it one infromed by actual evidence of the decision making process at Gonzaga or elsewhere?
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
JonNC:
That is not the way that universities want people talking about one another.
Click to expand...
This is simple. Consider bad behavior in your family. There are remedies short of disowning the offender. But in the case of a visitor inclined to the same behavior? There is no need to invite them
Click to expand...
So, bad behavior on campus is really okay. It just depends on who is behaving badly.
Again, that seems inconsistent with:
That is not the way that universities want people talking about one another.
Click to expand...
 
JonNC said:
The first sentence is then contradicted by the following, particularly putting him in a category with Milo.
Click to expand...
No at all. Shapiro is a rhetorical flame thrower. That may reveal something about his ethos, but it hasn’t a thing to do with his intelligence intelligence. Milo is wildly provocative but, at least from what i have heard of them both I think Milo has more cogency than Shapiro.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
Cathoholic:
His “shortcoming” is he is conservative and effective.
Click to expand...
That is a convenient perspective for some I suppose, but is it one infromed by actual evidence of the decision making process at Gonzaga or elsewhere?
Click to expand...
The decision making process at Gonzaga is purely political. That’s okay. It’s a private school. They can do that.
But to claim that their decision is based on scholarship, or concern vulnerable members of the community (without stating how Shapiro presents a threat) lacks credibility.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
JonNC:
The first sentence is then contradicted by the following, particularly putting him in a category with Milo.
Click to expand...
No at all. Shapiro is a rhetorical flame thrower. That may reveal something about his ethos, but it hasn’t a thing to do with his intelligence intelligence. Milo is wildly provocative but, at least from what i have heard of them both I think Milo has more cogency than Shapiro.
Click to expand...
Complete nonsense, but we all have our views.
 
JonNC said:
Complete nonsense, but we all have our views.
Click to expand...
I suppose that we do.
From the article I linked, discussing Shapiro’s Berkeley speech:
… toward the beginning, he addressed Antifa protesters, whom he called “communist pieces of garbage”: “You guys are so stupid… you can all go to h***, you pathetic, lying, stupid jackas.” According to the Times , there is a wide gulf between Trump/Yiannopoulos-style vulgar conservatism and Shapiro-style Logical conservatism, but I just am not sure that I see in “Go to h, you communist piece of garbage” the kind of “polemical brilliance” that Shapiro is reputed to demonstrate. The rest of the speech, when it got beyond making Botox jokes about Nancy Pelosi, was strong on insults (“pusillanimous cowards,” “hard-Left morons,” “uncivilized barbarians”) and light on actual argumentation and substantive factual claims.
Click to expand...
My fear is that after decades of Limbaugh, this type of rhetoric is considered “really okay”.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs . . .
You might point them out.
Click to expand...
No. I have pointed enough out.

At this point people can interiorize my ideas, your ideas, observe what THEY SEE occur in the university environment, and draw their own conclusions.

I am confident that for the most part, the readers will draw the correct conclusion.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs to JonNC . . .
Who do you know in administration at Gonzaga that allows you to post so definitively on the matter?
Click to expand...
This has the false built-in presupposition that the only effective way for JonNC to draw correct conclusions is if he “knows” someone etc.

(Then the remarks about how personal anectodatal experience is insufficient generally follow if he DID know someone . . . or theoretically if he referred to an exposed internal Gonzaga administration email saying such, etc. that gets discounted too. In other words, it doesn’t seem to matter.)

It ignores the fact that you can draw accurate conclusions from their actions.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
40.png
JonNC:
So, bad behavior on campus is really okay.
Click to expand...
Why not stick to something approximating what I said?
If something were “really okay” I would not be discussing remedies for it.
Click to expand...
It is exactly what you said. You said,
That is not the way that universities want people talking about one another.
Click to expand...
Then:
Consider bad behavior in your family. There are remedies short of disowning the offender.
Click to expand...
As if employees resemble family members. If speaking ill of individuals is wrong, it’s wrong.

My approach is different. If someone’s speech is worthy of condemnation, all the more reason to let them speak, and heap condemnation on the words spoken.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
JonNC:
Complete nonsense, but we all have our views.
Click to expand...
I suppose that we do.
From the article I linked, discussing Shapiro’s Berkeley speech:
… toward the beginning, he addressed Antifa protesters, whom he called “communist pieces of garbage”: “You guys are so stupid… you can all go to h***, you pathetic, lying, stupid jackas.” According to the Times , there is a wide gulf between Trump/Yiannopoulos-style vulgar conservatism and Shapiro-style Logical conservatism, but I just am not sure that I see in “Go to h, you communist piece of garbage” the kind of “polemical brilliance” that Shapiro is reputed to demonstrate. The rest of the speech, when it got beyond making Botox jokes about Nancy Pelosi, was strong on insults (“pusillanimous cowards,” “hard-Left morons,” “uncivilized barbarians”) and light on actual argumentation and substantive factual claims.
Click to expand...
My fear is that after decades of Limbaugh, this type of rhetoric is considered “really okay”.
Click to expand...
Maybe this is what happens when conservatives put up with decades of being called racist, fascist, homophobic, sexist, and now the obnoxious term “white privileged” by members of the very party that’s history is these.
You’re seeing conservatives finally giving back what we’ve been taking for a long time.
As for the fascistic Antifa crowd, they are quite deserving.
 
dvdjs . . .
You cannot know the rationale or motivations from this single outcome.
Click to expand...
You cannot know the rationale or motivations from this single adminisrator either . . . yet you asked for that.
Who do you know in administration at Gonzaga . . .
Click to expand...
If you want to think this is all about a “single outcome” and not an ongoing pattern of events, you are free to keep telling that to yourself and anyone who will listen.

But I will tell them the opposite.

I will tell them this is based on serial occurrences. I will tell them to observe this paradigm for themselves . . . And draw their own conclusions.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs . . . .
I have asked for no such thing.
Click to expand...
Yes you did.

I will let the readers read the thread and draw their own conclusions regarding THAT too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top