So only certain people should have free speech? Who determines who is a grifter? You? The angry mob?
Your comments is anecdotal proof of what the article tries to convey.
Your comments is anecdotal proof of what the article tries to convey.
Who determines who is a grifter?
What about facts? Reality? The guy own's admission when he is boosting about how manipulative he is and when he admit fueling controversies for his own profit?
That "you cannot judge anything because 'who has decided that'" argument is very weak.
You are saying that Milo is not a grifter. But who determines who is not-a-grifter? You? The angry mob?
"Water is wet". "Who determines that? You? The angry mob?" "This guy is bad, he kills kitten". "Who determines that? You? The angry mob?" ...
It's basically "alternative facts" where YOU determines what is true or not based on what suits you.
If you are not on board on that, you are not on board with free speech at all.
Besides that, your counter-argument falls short because the one that is suggesting something have the burden of proof. If you say he is a grifter, the burden of proof is up to you. If I say water is wet, the burden of proof is up to me. Also even if you think he is a grifter, I may perhaps not agree and thus someones opinion either have to be valued higher OR we just let everyone speak and host events like we do with free speech. If you do not like the guy, don't attend his event.
Why is that so hard?
Since someone paying tuition perhaps feels the same way of someone you like, no one would be allowed on the campus in the long run with the logic that grifters should be cancelled.
But yes I do believe in some processes, you can host an event on the campus as well to tell everyone how he is wrong.
I won't read any book recommended by people like you, sorry.
Great, so I can basically stunlock you from reading any author by just mentioning them? In that case, I highly recommend you read The Lean Startup by Eric Ries, Zero to One by Peter Thiel, Founder's Dilemmas by Noam Wasserman....
Seriously, what kind of statement is that, you think you so fundamentally disagree with my values that you will purposefully echo-chamber yourself from anything even seemingly aligned with me? Do you have any idea who Hannah Arendt even is? She's an absurdly well respected Jewish philosopher that fled Nazi Germany by the skin of her teeth. She is frequently cited.
You just did the equivalent of "well some gross lefty recommended I read Sun Tzu's Art of War, I dunno who this Sun Tzu guy is but I don't trust him if he gets recommended by people like THAT!"
I'm honestly flabbergasted at your comment. You're basically proving that speech alone isn't enough, if people like you will put your fingers in your ears and say "la la la, I can't hear you!" Between the two of us, apparently only one is afraid of rigorously challenging their viewpoints!
Seriously, the irony could kill me. She's famous for her covering of the Eichmann trial, a nazi bureaucrat tried for crimes against humanity. She noted that he wasn't a monster, just a person whose morality was clouded by a devotion to bureaucracy and systems. If it's a process, it must be right. Hence "the banality of evil," a term she coined.
> But yes I do believe in some processes, you can host an event on the campus as well to tell everyone how he is wrong.
And his "supporters" (he has few to none) can organize a counter-protest. What's wrong with that? What inherent authority does he have? His message is all he can offer, and it's up to people to challenge it or support it. It's the 2000s, it's not like we can't possibly know what he has to say unless a college gives him a podium. Hell, he can soapbox it in the park if he wants.
> If you were protesting in the hallway outside trying to convince people of your opinion, that is just fine but don't prohibit other people from speaking their minds.
Have you ever actually seen a protest against a speaker? 99% of the time, it involves standing up, shouting your piece, and then being escorted out. Sometimes people shout things back. Oh well, what's the big deal? I find the idea of sitting quietly while someone says something stupid through a microphone, then signing up to give my own talk in 3 months so I can say my own stupid replies through the same microphone, absurd. No human society can survive with that level of bureaucracy throttling the free flow of ideas.
In my experience, the only people that fear free exchange of ideas are people whose ideas depend on deeply entrenched systems to enforce their ideology. Their ideas simply don't withstand fluid scrutiny.