One of the things most noticeable about Trump rallies is the amount of pissed off Bernie and Hillary supporters who attend them for the sole purpose of causing trouble. We often hear about “violence” occurring at these rallies, and the media usually blames Trump and his supporters for it, even though it’s the protesters who almost always start it. You would think that if these people hated Trump so much, they wouldn’t bother going to see him speak, but they do so anyway because they are determined to silence him by acting up, and to intimidate anyone who supports him with their violent behaviour.
Why am I bringing this up? Well, simply to show the double standards that exist on the left. They’re perfectly OK with seeing some of their own using violence and intimidation to silence their ideological opponents, but when someone on the right simply uses facts and statistics to shut down their flawed arguments (no violent methods at all), they suddenly act as if they themselves are victims of violence and intimidation, and are outraged. They demand protection from the “hate” (ie. facts and logic), while at the same time being fully supportive of those who use genuine violence and hate against their own enemies.
Today, I’ve found a brief example of an insight into the thought patterns of these people.
To the editor:
Our department is committed to the principle of free speech.
Watch how they completely contradict this right away.
We wish, therefore, to go on record as opposing in the strongest possible terms the invitation that has been issued to Milo Yiannopoulos, who has tried to silence the free speech of others by drowning it out with abusive, hate-filled rhetoric.
“We are committed to the principle of free speech. However, this Milo guy has said mean words that hurt our feelings. Because unlike him, we don’t have any actual facts or statistics to back up any of the claims that we make, we’re simply incapable of having an honest and open discussion with him. Therefore, we’re going to ignore the facts and evidence in his arguments, accuse him of being abusive and hate-filled, and call for him to be silenced. But seriously, we’re totally on board with free speech, just free speech that we approve of.”
That’s literally what’s happening right now. They say that Milo silences the speech of others, but he isn’t doing it through abuse, or “hate”. He’s doing it through logical arguments and facts that his opponents aren’t intelligent or informed enough to argue against, which therefore leaves them unable to respond.
He doesn’t silence these people with hate or abuse. He doesn’t need to. They’re just fucking idiots who embarrass themselves whenever they try to defend their flawed ideologies. This is why they want to deny him a platform. They can’t win in a debate, so they have to silence him instead.
In an educational context, there is nothing to be learned from his presence except a negative lesson—that the most deliberately offensive and divisive voices are rewarded with attention they do not deserve. That is not what UD should be teaching.
Remember when universities where a place for fostering intellectual debate and discussion? A place where anyone could feel free to present an idea or argument, and others in turn had the freedom to either agree with it, or disagree and present their own counter idea instead. A place where young minds would be challenged so that might think outside the box for a change.
The whole point of education is to expand your mind by being exposed to new ideas and opinions. Today’s university students would rather be given an echo chamber to confirm what they already believe, rather than having their current worldviews challenged.
The Department of Women and Gender Studies
The department of future unemployables and professional victims.