I think we do absolutes in the absence of wise leadership. We ask for free speech absolutism because generation of generation we don’t trust wisdom and leadership in university professors and staff anymore.
What University of Austin is being asked to do is to prove, by first principles, wise leadership. There’s nothing wrong with this university saying “no” or putting on guardrails. I’ve read disputes about UATX not doing x, y, and z things. But in my opinion it’s more important that the things they choose to do are done well.
Being told “no” is also what inspires students to think and create. “No” is the embodiment of scarce resources and what every student is looking for when they are training their mind.
“Guard rails”? Hard no. In fact hell no, unless the good doctor is okay with ceding guard rail definition authority to the KKK. I suspect that even he would drop need for guard rails if they had control.
Really really helpful!!! Needed discussion, Professor Boghossian! I like specificity how you pull out the details, intricacies. To learn. Not just for the sake of an argument, conversation.
OBTW, I just LOVE the use of “nuance” by the left. It means those in disagreement are just too stupid to understand our betters, those with degrees but no education.
Nothing is “nuanced” when setting “guardrails.” They’re limits to ensure speech is not free.
This, of course (it’s from academia), is complete horseshit.
“Guardrails.” Please.
Speech is “free” or it’s not. It’s binary. Just like gender and sex.
“Guardrails.” Who sets them? Who chose that person? Why? Based on what criteria? Who chose those criteria? Who chose those who chose those criteria? It’s idiocy all the way down.
For those keeping score at home, remember: guardrails, like laws, like riots, like assassinating cops and CEOs, etc., only apply to the adults. They never seem to get applied to BLM, Antifa, congressional Democrats……
“Guardrails”. What would be a hard yes for their necessity, beside abiding by the law?
I think we do absolutes in the absence of wise leadership. We ask for free speech absolutism because generation of generation we don’t trust wisdom and leadership in university professors and staff anymore.
What University of Austin is being asked to do is to prove, by first principles, wise leadership. There’s nothing wrong with this university saying “no” or putting on guardrails. I’ve read disputes about UATX not doing x, y, and z things. But in my opinion it’s more important that the things they choose to do are done well.
Being told “no” is also what inspires students to think and create. “No” is the embodiment of scarce resources and what every student is looking for when they are training their mind.
“Guard rails”? Hard no. In fact hell no, unless the good doctor is okay with ceding guard rail definition authority to the KKK. I suspect that even he would drop need for guard rails if they had control.
Don't we already have them for slander and libel?
Really really helpful!!! Needed discussion, Professor Boghossian! I like specificity how you pull out the details, intricacies. To learn. Not just for the sake of an argument, conversation.
OBTW, I just LOVE the use of “nuance” by the left. It means those in disagreement are just too stupid to understand our betters, those with degrees but no education.
Nothing is “nuanced” when setting “guardrails.” They’re limits to ensure speech is not free.
This, of course (it’s from academia), is complete horseshit.
“Guardrails.” Please.
Speech is “free” or it’s not. It’s binary. Just like gender and sex.
“Guardrails.” Who sets them? Who chose that person? Why? Based on what criteria? Who chose those criteria? Who chose those who chose those criteria? It’s idiocy all the way down.
For those keeping score at home, remember: guardrails, like laws, like riots, like assassinating cops and CEOs, etc., only apply to the adults. They never seem to get applied to BLM, Antifa, congressional Democrats……
Don't we already have them for slander and libel?