Liberal intolerance is on the rise on America’s college campuses | Hacker News Reader

Liberal intolerance is on the rise on America’s college campuses

washingtonpost.com

39 pointsfrostmatthew18 comments

What's new? While liberals proclaim themselves to be more tolerant than conservatives, my experience finds that when they are confronted by views that they disagree with, liberals can be the most intolerant people on the planet.

The title says they're liberal, but then the first sentence says they're illiberal. The American political vernacular is truly a tragedy, and this consistent butchering of "liberal" to mean anything besides what is now in the U.S. called "classical liberal" is unfortunately starting to spread outside of its former confines as a US-only definition.

Then again, neither are American conservatives anything like Burkean conservatives.

This article headline is so loosely based on its contents. It basically suggests freshman in college continue to not be okay with hate speech and it's slightly on the rise since 1992. It's not really controversial at all and yet the headline suggests it's full of WTFs.

The key technique at play here, which you're helping illustrate:

1. Say something uncontroversial ("no hate speech please")

2. Believe something tendentious ("Condolezza Rice coming here is hate speech.")

3. Keep claiming that there's no problem or controversy at all and declaim that anyone who disagrees is a bigot who loves hate speech.

The story provides specific examples of hate speech speakers, such as secretary of state, IMF directors, and the prime minister of India. Its important to note that until recently, "hate speech" meant the Klan and such, that definition has dramatically changed.

The actual meaning of "hate speech" has not changed.

Yeah, I liked the article but am not a fan of the title. Very inflammatory. Can we get a title change?

thats against hn policy i think. or atleast frowned upon.

Dang changes headlines all the time when they're inaccurate or unrepresentative of the content or contentious.

Yes, but at the same time, this is from the newspaper whose headline today was "Supreme Court Conservative Dismayed Liberals". Physician, heal thyself... https://twitter.com/NKingofDC/status/698927468883943424

AKA SJWs.

The same people that inflict "white women are the problem" diversity seminars on unfortunate companies like GitHub.[1]

1. http://mynym.blogspot.com/2016/02/github-states-white-women-...

Yeah man it's definitely those spooky SJWs who think colleges should prohibit racist/sexist speech. I'm sure if you asked an average person they wouldn't respond similarly.

Honestly surprised it's only 43% of people think colleges have the right to ban extreme speakers.

Did you read the article?

feminism critic Suzanne Venker, former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde and Narendra Modi, now the Indian prime minister.

I can understand that some people don't share views of these speakers, but to call them extreme and ban them? To me this is strange.

The wording and implication of these questions have very different meaning to me today than they did in the 1980-1990s, I can only imagine the 1960s..

Now it is entirely clear to me that if a high profile speaker comes, it is not that they are merely being reimbursed for travel expenses with a few extravagances, nice dinners.. maybe a meaningless honorary certificate.

Being politically controversial and then cashing in on the speech circuit is now an openly discussed career plan. Paying for the high profile but educationally useless speeches is one way that even average colleges are moving from public/educational spaces into transaction centers for prestige and accolades.

If you rephrase the question to be clear that no one is being payed for their presence, then I could care less who shows up to speak of their own volition.

But all of those choices are now in a bundled product where you must pay the 4 year sticker price, so what you don't like will need to be handled by their ever growing PR-agency, oops I really meant to say administration..

The problem is that campus SJWs declare any view other than their own racist, sexist views to be racist, sexist hate speech. It has always been dishonest but now is reaching the level of delusion that turns into vicious psychosis.

I think the title was a little bit of a misnomer. I think what we're seeing is a belligerent student body, that has been coddled and pacify their entire lives. Universities are starting to wake up to this, and they're starting to fight back against a spoiled generation. Others may politicize this and say that the liberal policies of free expression of students is facing a turnaround towards a more conservative stance on student demands. Perhaps I am in the minority, but I believe university is where you go to have your thoughts and opinions challenged by those you disagree with.

I hope that university is a place where you go to examine your own thoughts and opinions after getting better about rigor and evidence. If that process involves constructive discussions, fine.

There's no particular value just being inundated with hostile disagreement. For example, just to have someone repeat political slogans at you contradicting your opinion about abortion is not necessarily helping anything.

William Blake said the last thing to expect of Public Records is for them to be true. I'd argue the last place to expect to find freedom of speech is a university campus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com