Over half of college students favor speech restrictions.

[Anti Federalist]

Kids.

Love the cashless society, embrace the tracking and surveillance as "cool" and think the First Amendment is outdated.

Assholes.

No wonder they are going nuts for Bernie.



New Poll: Most Students Favor Mandatory Trigger Warnings, Speech Codes

https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/26/new-poll-most-students-favor-mandatory-t

First Amendment is outdated, students say

Robby Soave|Oct. 26, 2015

A depressing new poll demonstrates the extent to which open contempt for free expression has become the default position of college students: a slim majority of surveyed students support regulating permissible speech on campus, and 63 percent believe trigger warnings should be mandatory.

That’s according to a forthcoming survey in New Criterion’s November issue, The Wall Street Journal reports:

To put some numbers behind that perception, The William F. Buckley Jr. Program at Yale recently commissioned a survey from McLaughlin & Associates about attitudes towards free speech on campus. Some 800 students at a variety of colleges across the country were surveyed. The results, though not surprising, are nevertheless alarming. By a margin of 51 percent to 36 percent, students favor their school having speech codes to regulate speech for students and faculty. Sixty-three percent favor requiring professors to employ “trigger warnings” to alert students to material that might be discomfiting. One-third of the students polled could not identify the First Amendment as the part of the Constitution that dealt with free speech. Thirty-five percent said that the First Amendment does not protect “hate speech,” while 30 percent of self-identified liberal students say the First Amendment is outdated.

We should be clear about what these results mean. It is not merely the case that most students like trigger warnings and think responsible faculty ought to include them. No, students think trigger warnings should be mandatory. Their concerns about the emotional needs—real or perceived—of their classmates comes first; the faculty’s free speech rights come second.

Given the rest of the results, it’s worth wondering whether students’ plainly awful views on this subject are born of pure ignorance. It seems to me this oddly popular, patently false idea that hateful speech is an illegal category of expression might inform students' views on speech codes and trigger warnings.

It also seems clear that many young people—particularly liberal young people—see the First Amendment as an obstacle to be overcome, rather than a fundamental bulwark that safeguards their own rights. This is a significant social change; the ‘60s leftists, for instance, properly understood that advocates of radical ideas had to fight for unfettered expression for all in order to guarantee that their own views would be shielded from repression. But perhaps campus leftists can no longer imagine a world where their ideas are broadly vulnerable to censorship—they see the First Amendment as something that only racist, bigoted conservatives need.

Freedom of speech is not just one of many important freedoms, but a precondition for being able to recognize and articulate all others. Put another way, it’s the First Amendment for a reason. The fact that college students don’t think they need the sort of protection it offers—and in fact view it as a hindrance—is reason for great dismay.

[TheTexan]

The first amendment is like 300 years old, I don't think they even had the word N*gg** back then

[nobody's_hero]

I could probably google it, but what the fuck is a 'trigger warning'?

I keep thinking of a modern 1911 with too many safeties.

[Spikender]

I just don't understand my generation. Maybe it's because I don't live near rich neighborhoods and have never went to a big University, but it's hard for me to believe that people my age are this fucking retarded.


I could probably google it, but what the fuck is a 'trigger warning'?

I keep thinking of a modern 1911 with too many safeties.

It's essentially a warning that something you're about to read/watch contains words/scenes/actions that may "trigger" a person. Think of triggering as PTSD; a past trauma that a person had, such as rape, is triggered when someone talks about it and they get all emotionally distraught.

The fact that I know this saddens me deeply.

[cajuncocoa]

WE. ARE. DOOMED.

[cajuncocoa]

I could probably google it, but what the fuck is a 'trigger warning'?



It's essentially a warning that something you're about to read/watch contains words/scenes/actions that may "trigger" a person. Think of triggering as PTSD; a past trauma that a person had, such as rape, is triggered when someone talks about it and they get all emotionally distraught.

The fact that I know this saddens me deeply.I'm sorry you feel that way, Spikender...but PTSD is real, and not just for returning military vets. Triggers are real, too. And yes, they can cause a reaction that gets one "all emotionally distraught."

That said, and as in everything else in life, instead of asking the whole world to do MY bidding, if something triggers a negative emotional response in me, I LEAVE. As in put the book down, click off the web page, walk out of the movie, change the channel. I don't expect the entire world and/or entertainment industry to cater to my emotional needs.

[XNavyNuke]

And two thirds of college students graduate indebted. No reason to back talk the masser. They shall reap what they sow.

XNN

[tod evans]

"Trigger" my ass!

This is a PC way of saying either personal issues or societies programming make one uptight....

Not that long ago men strived to be unaffected by such nonsense and women who were, were coddled for being weak..

Today these idiots expect everybody to tip-toe around potential touchy subjects and feel vindicated complaining about the injustice when they get offended...

Fuck em'!

If something or someone offends them then it's up to them as an individual to address the situation then and there, person to person, this crying about the whole of societies behavior is infantile......

[phill4paul]

Talk of speech restriction is a "trigger" for me. So...checkmate? :p

[Spikender]

I'm sorry you feel that way, Spikender...but PTSD is real, and not just for returning military vets. Triggers are real, too. And yes, they can cause a reaction that gets one "all emotionally distraught."

That said, and as in everything else in life, instead of asking the whole world to do MY bidding, if something triggers a negative emotional response in me, I LEAVE. As in put the book down, click off the web page, walk out of the movie, change the channel. I don't expect the entire world and/or entertainment industry to cater to my emotional needs.

That's the healthy way of dealing with past trauma. You misunderstand my point of view on it. I dislike the "trigger warning" culture because it's just another way of silencing free speech. That's what it's being used for. It also has to do with the way I was raised. Believe me, I've had fucked up shit happen in front of/to me and I just learn to cope with it because I was raised to never let anything get to me. I understand that everyone is different when it comes to this. I've also seen a lot of this campus liberal youth make a trigger warning for literally everything, as if the smallest bit of distress in life is a traumatic experience. I say there are real events in people's lives that are messed up and I hope people find their own ways of dealing with them, but me accidentally seeing someone naked or getting an unwanted hug is not a "traumatic experience". They're only traumatic experiences to sheltered rich college kids who want to be a victim but lack any real victimization.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

But... But Randy Paul told me that the college crowd loved liburrrtee!!1!1

Seriously, I'm not surprised at all.

[mac_hine]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55p82ciE-5A

[mac_hine]

At a recent feminist conference in London, the attendees were advised NOT to clap their hands. Clapping, it seems, could trigger anxiety in the speakers and the participants. So instead, the audience was urged to express approval with something called “feminist jazz hands.” So far, Jazz Hands have not caught on in the United States, but trigger warnings have become de rigueur on many college campuses. Well, what exactly are trigger warnings and are they something we should welcome? AEI Scholar Christina Hoff Sommers gives you the facts.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC7Ii1I8wx0

Tom Dilorenzo hilariously explains "safe zones" on college campuses. (17:23)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS3ttzqTBqA&t=17m23s

[tod evans]

From Drudge;


Feminist groups want schools to be required to monitor social media

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6921

Last week, 72 women's and civil rights groups requested that the DOE require schools to monitor social media to protect students from threatening and offensive comments.
Yik Yak and other anonymous apps, according to the groups, are an emerging Title IX issue.

A coalition of interest groups wants the U.S. Department of Education to require colleges to monitor social media and protect students from threatening and offensive comments.

The request was made last week by 72 women’s and civil rights groups, who claimed that harassment and threats on anonymous apps like Yik Yak are an emerging Title IX issue, according to Inside Higher Ed.

“Students on college campuses throughout the country have with increasing frequency used anonymous social media applications, such as Yik Yak, to target women students, students of color, and sexual minorities with harassment, threats, and other forms of intimidation with impunity,” the coalition said in a press release. “Earlier this year, students at the University of Mary Washington (UMW), for example, were threatened through Yik Yak with rape and murder after they spoke out against rape culture.”

The groups complain that the typical response to such incidents by university administrators has been “to disclaim responsibility for harassment and threats that occur on that platform” because the site is anonymous and accessible without using university servers.

In the UMW case, Feminists United on Campus (FUC) and Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF), both members of the coalition requesting federal intervention, filed a Title IX suit against the school, charging administrators with a “systemic failure to protect students from a sexually hostile school environment, from sex-based cyber assaults, and from threats of physical and sexual violence.”

University President Richard Hurley responded in June with a letter calling the allegations “irresponsible” and contending that the First Amendment prevents public institutions from taking the sort of actions the groups demanded.

“Although I understand that FUC may be upset that UMW has not ceded to its demands to ban Yik Yak from campus, it is important to understand that as a public university, UMW is obligated to comply with all federal laws—not just Title IX,” Hurley explained. “The First Amendment prohibits prior restraints on speech, and banning Yik Yak is tantamount to a content-based prohibition on speech.”

Despite Hurley’s reasoning, the groups announced in the press release last week that the DOE’s Office of Civil Rights has decided to investigate their complaint, though no timetable has yet been given for the process.

At the same time, they also want OCR to “issue clear guidance concerning anonymous social media,” including “information about what steps educational institutions must take to determine whether unlawful harassment is occurring on these platforms, without forcing victims themselves to police these platforms, and a clear path that educational institutions must follow to identify and prosecute anonymous harassers.”

Yet some experts say that not only would such a requirement raise First Amendment concerns, it would also be difficult, if not impossible, to implement.

“To require universities to police anonymous speech online sets them up for failure, even setting aside the First Amendment implications, which I think are substantial,” Will Creeley, vice president of legal and public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), told Inside Higher Ed.

Creeley noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the right to anonymous speech, adding that while the court allows exceptions for threatening and defamatory statements, “making that determination is beyond the competency of colleges.”

“Universities are in a very difficult place,” agreed technology and legal issues consultant Tracy Mitrano. “They are interested in being sure their campus is a safe place to women and minorities, but they are being asked to control things out of their control.”

[phill4paul]

From Drudge;


Feminist groups want schools to be required to monitor social media

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6921

Last week, 72 women's and civil rights groups requested that the DOE require schools to monitor social media to protect students from threatening and offensive comments.
Yik Yak and other anonymous apps, according to the groups, are an emerging Title IX issue.

A coalition of interest groups wants the U.S. Department of Education to require colleges to monitor social media and protect students from threatening and offensive comments.

The request was made last week by 72 women’s and civil rights groups, who claimed that harassment and threats on anonymous apps like Yik Yak are an emerging Title IX issue, according to Inside Higher Ed.

“Students on college campuses throughout the country have with increasing frequency used anonymous social media applications, such as Yik Yak, to target women students, students of color, and sexual minorities with harassment, threats, and other forms of intimidation with impunity,” the coalition said in a press release. “Earlier this year, students at the University of Mary Washington (UMW), for example, were threatened through Yik Yak with rape and murder after they spoke out against rape culture.”

The groups complain that the typical response to such incidents by university administrators has been “to disclaim responsibility for harassment and threats that occur on that platform” because the site is anonymous and accessible without using university servers.

In the UMW case, Feminists United on Campus (FUC) and Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF), both members of the coalition requesting federal intervention, filed a Title IX suit against the school, charging administrators with a “systemic failure to protect students from a sexually hostile school environment, from sex-based cyber assaults, and from threats of physical and sexual violence.”

University President Richard Hurley responded in June with a letter calling the allegations “irresponsible” and contending that the First Amendment prevents public institutions from taking the sort of actions the groups demanded.

“Although I understand that FUC may be upset that UMW has not ceded to its demands to ban Yik Yak from campus, it is important to understand that as a public university, UMW is obligated to comply with all federal laws—not just Title IX,” Hurley explained. “The First Amendment prohibits prior restraints on speech, and banning Yik Yak is tantamount to a content-based prohibition on speech.”

Despite Hurley’s reasoning, the groups announced in the press release last week that the DOE’s Office of Civil Rights has decided to investigate their complaint, though no timetable has yet been given for the process.

At the same time, they also want OCR to “issue clear guidance concerning anonymous social media,” including “information about what steps educational institutions must take to determine whether unlawful harassment is occurring on these platforms, without forcing victims themselves to police these platforms, and a clear path that educational institutions must follow to identify and prosecute anonymous harassers.”

Yet some experts say that not only would such a requirement raise First Amendment concerns, it would also be difficult, if not impossible, to implement.

“To require universities to police anonymous speech online sets them up for failure, even setting aside the First Amendment implications, which I think are substantial,” Will Creeley, vice president of legal and public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), told Inside Higher Ed.

Creeley noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the right to anonymous speech, adding that while the court allows exceptions for threatening and defamatory statements, “making that determination is beyond the competency of colleges.”

“Universities are in a very difficult place,” agreed technology and legal issues consultant Tracy Mitrano. “They are interested in being sure their campus is a safe place to women and minorities, but they are being asked to control things out of their control.”

FUC' UMw

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

From Drudge;


Feminist groups want schools to be required to monitor social media

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6921

Last week, 72 women's and civil rights groups requested that the DOE require schools to monitor social media to protect students from threatening and offensive comments.
Yik Yak and other anonymous apps, according to the groups, are an emerging Title IX issue.

A coalition of interest groups wants the U.S. Department of Education to require colleges to monitor social media and protect students from threatening and offensive comments.

The request was made last week by 72 women’s and civil rights groups, who claimed that harassment and threats on anonymous apps like Yik Yak are an emerging Title IX issue, according to Inside Higher Ed.

“Students on college campuses throughout the country have with increasing frequency used anonymous social media applications, such as Yik Yak, to target women students, students of color, and sexual minorities with harassment, threats, and other forms of intimidation with impunity,” the coalition said in a press release. “Earlier this year, students at the University of Mary Washington (UMW), for example, were threatened through Yik Yak with rape and murder after they spoke out against rape culture.”

The groups complain that the typical response to such incidents by university administrators has been “to disclaim responsibility for harassment and threats that occur on that platform” because the site is anonymous and accessible without using university servers.

In the UMW case, Feminists United on Campus (FUC) and Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF), both members of the coalition requesting federal intervention, filed a Title IX suit against the school, charging administrators with a “systemic failure to protect students from a sexually hostile school environment, from sex-based cyber assaults, and from threats of physical and sexual violence.”

University President Richard Hurley responded in June with a letter calling the allegations “irresponsible” and contending that the First Amendment prevents public institutions from taking the sort of actions the groups demanded.

“Although I understand that FUC may be upset that UMW has not ceded to its demands to ban Yik Yak from campus, it is important to understand that as a public university, UMW is obligated to comply with all federal laws—not just Title IX,” Hurley explained. “The First Amendment prohibits prior restraints on speech, and banning Yik Yak is tantamount to a content-based prohibition on speech.”

Despite Hurley’s reasoning, the groups announced in the press release last week that the DOE’s Office of Civil Rights has decided to investigate their complaint, though no timetable has yet been given for the process.

At the same time, they also want OCR to “issue clear guidance concerning anonymous social media,” including “information about what steps educational institutions must take to determine whether unlawful harassment is occurring on these platforms, without forcing victims themselves to police these platforms, and a clear path that educational institutions must follow to identify and prosecute anonymous harassers.”

Yet some experts say that not only would such a requirement raise First Amendment concerns, it would also be difficult, if not impossible, to implement.

“To require universities to police anonymous speech online sets them up for failure, even setting aside the First Amendment implications, which I think are substantial,” Will Creeley, vice president of legal and public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), told Inside Higher Ed.

Creeley noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the right to anonymous speech, adding that while the court allows exceptions for threatening and defamatory statements, “making that determination is beyond the competency of colleges.”

“Universities are in a very difficult place,” agreed technology and legal issues consultant Tracy Mitrano. “They are interested in being sure their campus is a safe place to women and minorities, but they are being asked to control things out of their control.”
It begins. The SJWs move from enforcing a culture of self-censorship to actual legal control of speech through a federal department. It was only a matter of time.

[Brian4Liberty]

I have never heard a person talk about trigger warnings in real life, or advocate them. I have the feeling that if that does happen, they will have just pulled my trigger.

[cajuncocoa]

I have never heard a person talk about trigger warnings in real life, or advocate them. I have the feeling that if that does happen, they will have just pulled my trigger.You've never spoken to me in real life, and I don't usually discuss such things on RPF. They're real, and I have a few. But as I said, I don't expect the whole world to stop spinning because of a personal trauma that applies only to me (see post #6.) It's on me to remove myself from a situation that's problematic (while re-learning how to cope), not the other way around.

[cajuncocoa]

"Trigger" my ass!

This is a PC way of saying either personal issues or societies programming make one uptight....

Not that long ago men strived to be unaffected by such nonsense and women who were, were coddled for being weak..

Today these idiots expect everybody to tip-toe around potential touchy subjects and feel vindicated complaining about the injustice when they get offended...

Fuck em'!

If something or someone offends them then it's up to them as an individual to address the situation then and there, person to person, this crying about the whole of societies behavior is infantile......
I'm going to go out on a limb and say there might be some truth in your post here. I suspect that what's really going on is not a real concern for an individual's emotional distress in a certain situation, but rather a way of controlling speech for some politically correct agenda.

That said, triggers are real...but (see post #6.)

[RonPaulIsGreat]

The stage is set all we need now is an american Hitlary, whoops I meant Hitler my bad.

[Ronin Truth]

Make 'em repeat middle school social studies civics class.

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

[Pericles]

Not surprising as most of them are incapable of uttering a coherent thought.

[phill4paul]

C'mon. Let's just admit it. All hope is lost. We few 300 are matched by Xerxes. There is an end in our future. Glorious yet futile.I don't think there will be another age that harkens back to conscientious objection to over rule.

[timosman]

We few 300 are matched by Xerxes.

Bad analogy. How can you mistake a sheep for Xerxes ?

[Spikender]

Bad analogy. How can you mistake a sheep for Xerxes ?

Xerxes is not the sheep, he's just the herder. He's got his professors, the Immortals, to poke and prod along the sheepish young college students.

[Crashland]

The Coddling of the American Mind

In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health.


http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

[timosman]

The Coddling of the American Mind

In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health.


http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

Already posted http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?480651-The-Coddling-of-the-American-Mind

[Pericles]

C'mon. Let's just admit it. All hope is lost. We few 300 are matched by Xerxes. There is an end in our future. Glorious yet futile.I don't think there will be another age that harkens back to conscientious objection to over rule.

On a tangent that is one of the reasons I have been away for a couple of months. IRL I accepted a position with one of the Texas independece organizations. I was working on a plan to restore some measure of liberty for those who want it as an immediat goal in order to defend ourselves from the horde represented in this thread. I figured nobody was going to read a 100 page operation plan, so I turned it into a novel which was released yesterday.

It is good to be back.

[Anti Federalist]

On a tangent that is one of the reasons I have been away for a couple of months. IRL I accepted a position with one of the Texas independece organizations. I was working on a plan to restore some measure of liberty for those who want it as an immediat goal in order to defend ourselves from the horde represented in this thread. I figured nobody was going to read a 100 page operation plan, so I turned it into a novel which was released yesterday.

It is good to be back.

Good to see you.

Link to the novel?

[Pericles]

Good to see you.

Link to the novel?

http://www.amazon.com/We-Defy-Tale-Near-Future-ebook/dp/B01761FAGO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1446000202&sr=8-1&keywords=we+defy

Paperback should be out any day now. Think of it as 200 pages of civil disobedience, and 50 pages of disobedience that is uncivil in an insurgency mode how to. All wrapped in what Brits would call a "ripping yarn".

[phill4paul]

Bad analogy. How can you mistake a sheep for Xerxes ?

I have no idea of your point. Please elucidate.

[Paulbot99]

http://www.amazon.com/We-Defy-Tale-Near-Future-ebook/dp/B01761FAGO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1446000202&sr=8-1&keywords=we+defy

Paperback should be out any day now. Think of it as 200 pages of civil disobedience, and 50 pages of disobedience that is uncivil in an insurgency mode how to. All wrapped in what Brits would call a "ripping yarn".

I love the sample, but I'm afraid that it will only appeal to people like us. The explanation of communism in the beginning had my attention, but it won't catch everyone's as the sheeple will most likely get bored and close the book. I hope I'm wrong, of course. I definitely will buy it at some point, when I have the money.

[ds21089]

https://youtu.be/sXQkXXBqj_U

The creators of South Park have been talking about this very subject practically all season. Political correctness and the limiting of free speech is getting out of control

Cart.mn/Safe-Space if you wanna see full ep.

[timosman]

I have no idea of your point. Please elucidate.

I simply do not like the defeatist attitude. Portraying as Xerxes the opponent who does not know their head from their ass is a bit too much for me. ;)

[timosman]

I love the sample, but I'm afraid that it will only appeal to people like us. The explanation of communism in the beginning had my attention, but it won't catch everyone's as the sheeple will most likely get bored and close the book. I hope I'm wrong, of course. I definitely will buy it at some point, when I have the money.

That's the problem with the "liberty". You can not afford a $9.99 purchase from Amazon while trying to convince people at the same time to join the liberty movement. Anybody plugged into the matrix will laugh in your face. Maybe you should skip lunch tomorrow? :confused:

[Anti Federalist]

I simply do not like the defeatist attitude. Portraying as Xerxes the opponent who does not know their head from their ass is a bit too much for me. ;)

I'm not going to put words in phill's mouth, but I'm pretty sure he was not likening 150,000 battle hardened Persians to our opposition.

Only pointing out the numerical difference between those who desire liberty and the rest of the moiling mob.

[alucard13mm]

Is it me or are headed to the next dark ages where free speech will be frowned and even punishable with jail or death? Anyone notice and freedom of speech has been under attack by all these groups? We have feminists, pussies and manginas wanting to censor sexist, mysogynistic and portrayal of sexy pretty fit ladies. We have muslims saying you cant draw muhammed or risk getting hurt. We have fat people wanting to ban shit that make them feel bad and push for a new standard of beauty because of their fat asses.

[Cleaner44]

How long until these idiots grow up and run for office somewhere?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

[Pericles]

I love the sample, but I'm afraid that it will only appeal to people like us. The explanation of communism in the beginning had my attention, but it won't catch everyone's as the sheeple will most likely get bored and close the book. I hope I'm wrong, of course. I definitely will buy it at some point, when I have the money.

If it didn't appeal to people like us, I would have a serious problem. One of the points from the first chapter is that the "sheeple" are not going to be appealed to and awoken. Therefore, work on a plan that takes that into account.

I have derailed this thread enough - how about discussion of the book over in the book section?

[nobody's_hero]

https://youtu.be/sXQkXXBqj_U

The creators of South Park have been talking about this very subject practically all season. Political correctness and the limiting of free speech is getting out of control

Cart.mn/Safe-Space if you wanna see full ep.

That episode was awesome.

[Anti Federalist]

https://youtu.be/sXQkXXBqj_U

The creators of South Park have been talking about this very subject practically all season. Political correctness and the limiting of free speech is getting out of control

Cart.mn/Safe-Space if you wanna see full ep.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWEwu-E6EWw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq-G4HATiC8

[cajuncocoa]

Upon further review, I'm surprised they're getting away with calling these "trigger" warnings on a college campus...."triggers" being associated with guns and all.

[Chomp]

Muslims and **** want to subvert the 1st Amendment. We know this for sure.

[Jingles]

I generally hate the majority of my generation.

But also, I kind of hate the majority of every generation.

[DGambler]

This story triggers bad feelings about all the evil shit the government does to us.

[Champ]

Never thought this would be one of the larger battles my generation had to fight, but alas..

We're already in the midst of it as we speak. Speech nazis and language guardians, disguised as feminists and very very "caring" people, are trying their best to ruin our basic rights through activism like this.

[alucard13mm]

Never thought this would be one of the larger battles my generation had to fight, but alas..

We're already in the midst of it as we speak. Speech nazis and language guardians, disguised as feminists and very very "caring" people, are trying their best to ruin our basic rights through activism like this.

Yeah... they piss me off. Better off letting them die since they are real enemies of liberty and western ideologies. We are headed to a new dark age. The internet will be regulated so the last free medium will be destroyed. Did you know some feminists tried to ask the UN to censor the internet? Block mean messages about feminism.

Id never be friends, love or even talk to a feminazi and manginas.

[Ronin Truth]

So just tell them all to just STFU.

[Acala]

I don't know why y'all are laying this on college students. Never in any of your lifetimes has the majority of the population at large either understood or been in support of the First Amendment, or the Fourth Amendment for that matter. For proof all you need do is go back to the last time flag burning was in the news. Flag burning is certainly far more important speech than calling someone a nasty name, but a large majority wants to make it illegal. College students are no worse than the population at large AND they have a better excuse for being ignorant - they are very young.

[Ronin Truth]

The Fourth Turning will provide a thorough generational correction for a lot of the societal ills.

[Rudeman]

I thought the SJW were just an online/tumblr thing. I get certain words can be very offensive because of the intent behind them but where SJWs take it too far is when they attack/get offended over words like "female" and lecture you to use "woman" instead (this happened to me once). I'm sorry if the certain word/phrase offends you but there's a big difference between saying something innocent like that and calling someone a derogatory term with malicious intent.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't know why y'all are laying this on college students. Never in any of your lifetimes has the majority of the population at large either understood or been in support of the First Amendment, or the Fourth Amendment for that matter. For proof all you need do is go back to the last time flag burning was in the news. Flag burning is certainly far more important speech than calling someone a nasty name, but a large majority wants to make it illegal. College students are no worse than the population at large AND they have a better excuse for being ignorant - they are very young.

Because that's who was polled.

And it's a disturbing trend.

I could see numbers like that amongst the older "law and order" crowd, but that's pretty unsettling in college age kids.

[Anti Federalist]

Pffft, what the hell was that broad's problem?



I thought the SJW were just an online/tumblr thing. I get certain words can be very offensive because of the intent behind them but where SJWs take it too far is when they attack/get offended over words like "female" and lecture you to use "woman" instead (this happened to me once). I'm sorry if the certain word/phrase offends you but there's a big difference between saying something innocent like that and calling someone a derogatory term with malicious intent.

[Acala]

Because that's who was polled.

So you are being directed by what "scientists" choose to research, what the surveys extract as data (Hello, Frank!), and what the media chooses to report. Tsk tsk.


And it's a disturbing trend.

My direct observation, as a participant in Students for Liberty events and, of course, Ron Paul ralleys, is that college-age people now are BY FAR better informed about liberty and more active in promoting it than they were in my college days. Additionally, college-age people are even more malleable than the population at large, so their opinion today is a very weak predictor of what their opinion will be a year from now. Hell, I had a subscription to the Socialist Worker's Party rag when I was a freshman. then I found the Libertarians. Anyway, I would be hesitant to draw any conclusions about trends from this.

Also, where in the article did it show this was a trend? Wasn't it a single survey?

[Anti Federalist]

So you are being directed by what "scientists" choose to research, what the surveys extract as data (Hello, Frank!), and what the media chooses to report. Tsk tsk.

My direct observation, as a participant in Students for Liberty events and, of course, Ron Paul ralleys, is that college-age people now are BY FAR better informed about liberty and more active in promoting it than they were in my college days. Additionally, college-age people are even more malleable than the population at large, so their opinion today is a very weak predictor of what their opinion will be a year from now. Hell, I had a subscription to the Socialist Worker's Party rag when I was a freshman. then I found the Libertarians. Anyway, I would be hesitant to draw any conclusions about trends from this.

Also, where in the article did it show this was a trend? Wasn't it a single survey?

My direct observations contradict this.

Your mileage may vary.