[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, that must be it. I'm on site where I am consistently outnumbered by people whose political and social ideologies are largely to the right of mine. I've never had any of my assumptions challenged. Ah well, still a better schtick than one that would get me permabanned and then immediately outed under a new username .

Yeah, see, this tactic appears to be the refrain from people who disagree with me rather than rebutting what I've actually said. Usually because they can't. It's kind of a dick move.

Anyway, the problem is that you appear to be so sure that you're right about everything and have the morally unimpeachable position on every issue that you don't need to self-examine. Aptly discussed, on this very topic, by Dave Rubin here, which I should have just posted before.

I'm not talking about the generally ignorant and uneducated, I'm talking about unabashed bigots.

Okay. So am I, then. If I'm in a confrontation of ideas in front of a hundred people with the heir apparent to Fred Phelps, I may not change his mind but hopefully I can convince the hundred people that he's wrong.

No, but when you're talking harm and marginalization, it's generally more prudent to ask the people being harmed and marginalized, and the phenomenological approach to some of these issues would seem to be the most appropriate.

No, it isn't, really.

A right to free speech doesn't entail the right to an audience. There's plenty of precedent for telling someone "You're allowed to say that, you're just not allowed to say it here."

Sure, in some contexts. You shouldn't loudly declaim the deceased as a terrible person at his own funeral. You shouldn't decry Israeli military action in a synagogue during Shabbat. But what you've just typed, that should not be said in a university context. "Get out because I disagree" is not an appropriate response. It shouldn't be said anywhere where ideas are up for discussion and someone's made an earnest and honest attempt to express a view.