Trump outrage of the day

[MDM]

Appears Ivanka's case hasn't been added, but one can use Disinvitation Database - FIRE to test various hypotheses on who is doing what regarding speakers on campus.

And what hypothesis are we testing? "Leftist Elitist Intellectuals who are brainwashing your kids in college are successfully using cancel culture to Viewpoint Discriminate against Conservatives"? Or maybe "Conservatives regularly say things so vile that no one wants to pay to hear them speak"?

Remind me again what Ivanka Trump has done that should make us care about her opinions on things? Is "being Donald Trump's daughter" all it takes these days?

You may test whatever you want.

I suspect that the more extreme your hypothesis, the less support you will find within the actual data, but you are welcome to try.

[sherr]

Appears Ivanka's case hasn't been added, but one can use Disinvitation Database - FIRE to test various hypotheses on who is doing what regarding speakers on campus.

And what hypothesis are we testing? "Leftist Elitist Intellectuals who are brainwashing your kids in college are successfully using cancel culture to Viewpoint Discriminate against Conservatives"? Or maybe "Conservatives regularly say things so vile that no one wants to pay to hear them speak"?

Remind me again what Ivanka Trump has done that should make us care about her opinions on things? Is "being Donald Trump's daughter" all it takes these days?

You may test whatever you want.

I suspect that the more extreme your hypothesis, the less support you will find within the actual data, but you are welcome to try.

The point was that you can't test "whatever you want", because looking at raw numbers of how many speakers get dis-invited doesn't tell you anything about how justified those dis-invitations were.

I'm still more shocked that Ivanka got invited to speak anywhere than I am shocked about her speech getting cancelled.

[MDM]

The point was that you can't test "whatever you want", because looking at raw numbers of how many speakers get dis-invited doesn't tell you anything about how justified those dis-invitations were.

"Justified" is subjective.  One might guess that all the disinvitations "from the right" seem justified to those on the right, while all the disinvitations "from the left" seem justified to those on the left.  It's a reasonably safe bet that supporters of the disinvitees believe those actions were not justified.

[bacchi]

Remind me again what Ivanka Trump has done that should make us care about her opinions on things? Is "being Donald Trump's daughter" all it takes these days?

She's great at encouraging new graduates to be born in a wealthy family with massive privileges.

[sherr]

The point was that you can't test "whatever you want", because looking at raw numbers of how many speakers get dis-invited doesn't tell you anything about how justified those dis-invitations were.

"Justified" is subjective.  One might guess that all the disinvitations "from the right" seem justified to those on the right, while all the disinvitations "from the left" seem justified to those on the left.  It's a reasonably safe bet that supporters of the disinvitees believe those actions were not justified.

Sure... and this is part of my point. You can't blindly "test" any useful "hypothesis" against this database.

It's also a reasonably safe bet that there are fewer supporters of the disinvitees than there are non-supporters, or else they would not have been disinvited.

[MDM]

The point was that you can't test "whatever you want", because looking at raw numbers of how many speakers get dis-invited doesn't tell you anything about how justified those dis-invitations were.

"Justified" is subjective.  One might guess that all the disinvitations "from the right" seem justified to those on the right, while all the disinvitations "from the left" seem justified to those on the left.  It's a reasonably safe bet that supporters of the disinvitees believe those actions were not justified.

Sure... and this is part of my point. You can't blindly "test" any useful "hypothesis" against this database.

Sure you can:
1) Only conservatives get disinvited.
2) Only liberals get disinvited.
3) More conservatives than liberals get disinvited.
4) More liberals than conservatives get disinvited.

It's also a reasonably safe bet that there are fewer supporters of the disinvitees than there are non-supporters, or else they would not have been disinvited.

Because minorities shouldn't be heard?

[OtherJen]

The point was that you can't test "whatever you want", because looking at raw numbers of how many speakers get dis-invited doesn't tell you anything about how justified those dis-invitations were.

"Justified" is subjective.  One might guess that all the disinvitations "from the right" seem justified to those on the right, while all the disinvitations "from the left" seem justified to those on the left.  It's a reasonably safe bet that supporters of the disinvitees believe those actions were not justified.

Sure... and this is part of my point. You can't blindly "test" any useful "hypothesis" against this database.

Sure you can:
1) Only conservatives get disinvited.
2) Only liberals get disinvited.
3) More conservatives than liberals get disinvited.
4) More liberals than conservatives get disinvited.

It's also a reasonably safe bet that there are fewer supporters of the disinvitees than there are non-supporters, or else they would not have been disinvited.

Because minorities shouldn't be heard?

I assume that I am reading this wrong and that you didn't just argue that Ivanka Trump is a minority.

[sherr]

]It's also a reasonably safe bet that there are fewer supporters of the disinvitees than there are non-supporters, or else they would not have been disinvited.

Because minorities shouldn't be heard?

Yup, that's certainly an accurate and honest framing of what I said. And "fact checking me is a violation of my free speech" too.

If one person wants David Duke to come speak at a University should they pay him a $400k speaking fee?

No conservative's "right to free speech" is being violated here, nor are there any minorities that are being silenced. Any organization, including universities, are perfectly free to decide who they want to associate with. And yes, they can and probably should allocate their budget in a way that serves the largest number of their students. And yes, if a large number of those students decide that they don't like a decision that was made then they can and probably should listen to them and readjust, even if a small number of students disagree (although really we have no real idea of the student support either way in this case).

And yes, I think that this instance and all similar complaints are largely faux-victimhood whining by Republicans. No one is required to pay to hear you speak! That's not what "free speech" is!

[Davnasty]

The point was that you can't test "whatever you want", because looking at raw numbers of how many speakers get dis-invited doesn't tell you anything about how justified those dis-invitations were.

"Justified" is subjective.  One might guess that all the disinvitations "from the right" seem justified to those on the right, while all the disinvitations "from the left" seem justified to those on the left.  It's a reasonably safe bet that supporters of the disinvitees believe those actions were not justified.

Sure... and this is part of my point. You can't blindly "test" any useful "hypothesis" against this database.

Sure you can:
1) Only conservatives get disinvited.
2) Only liberals get disinvited.
3) More conservatives than liberals get disinvited.
4) More liberals than conservatives get disinvited.

They said "useful" hypotheses. How is that useful without knowing the underlying reason for each dis-invitation?

Clearly Ivanka was conservative when they invited her which suggests her conservatism was not the reason they changed their minds. Maybe it had something to do with her involvement and support of attacking peaceful protesters with tear gas?

I hope violent force against citizens exercising their first amendment rights isn't a conservative/liberal issue.

[OtherJen]

]It's also a reasonably safe bet that there are fewer supporters of the disinvitees than there are non-supporters, or else they would not have been disinvited.

Because minorities shouldn't be heard?

Yup, that's certainly an accurate and honest framing of what I said. And "fact checking me is a violation of my free speech" too.

If one person wants David Duke to come speak at a University should they pay him a $400k speaking fee?

No conservative's "right to free speech" is being violated here, nor are there any minorities that are being silenced. Any organization, including universities, are perfectly free to decide who they want to associate with. And yes, they can and probably should allocate their budget in a way that serves the largest number of their students. And yes, if a large number of those students decide that they don't like a decision that was made then they can and probably should listen to them and readjust, even if a small number of students disagree (although really we have no real idea of the student support either way in this case).

And yes, I think that this instance and all similar complaints are largely faux-victimhood whining by Republicans. No one is required to pay to hear you speak! That's not what "free speech" is!

Thank you. Free speech means that you have the right to say whatever you want (outside of creating immediate danger). It doesn't mean that everyone must give you their platform to speak. Freedom of speech is an essential right. Getting paid to speak is not.

[partgypsy]

It also doesn't get into the fact of, who is not invited to speak in the first place? My suspicion is that: large universities as well as liberal arts colleges are more likely to invite in the first place a variety of speakers, both conservative, mainstream and also b) liberal, minorities, people from other countries or political backgrounds or otherwise traditionally under-represented viewpoints. Conservative colleges or universities (and conservative or neo conservative institutions) are less likely to invite type b speakers in the first place. Hence you never get to the point they get dis invited and so don't show up in the statistics.

I guess the disinvitation stats does show how controversial that particular speaker is, for that audience. That's about it. 

[MDM]

It's also a reasonably safe bet that there are fewer supporters of the disinvitees than there are non-supporters, or else they would not have been disinvited.

Because minorities shouldn't be heard?

I assume that I am reading this wrong and that you didn't just argue that Ivanka Trump is a minority.

Your assumption is correct: the "minority" statement was not about Ivanka, it was about "there are fewer supporters of the disinvitees...".  Pretty much by definition if "there are fewer" of something then that something is in the minority.

[MDM]

And yes, I think that this instance and all similar complaints are largely faux-victimhood whining by Republicans. No one is required to pay to hear you speak! That's not what "free speech" is!

If one bothers to look at that database, one will find plenty of examples where a speaker was disinvited "from the right".  Given that, the hypothesis that "all similar complaints are largely faux-victimhood whining by Republicans" is disprovable.

Unless "all similar" is defined as "disinvited from the left". ;)

In that case, should we say complaints about "disinvited from the right" are largely faux-victimhood whining by Democrats?

[sherr]

And yes, I think that this instance and all similar complaints are largely faux-victimhood whining by Republicans. No one is required to pay to hear you speak! That's not what "free speech" is!

If one bothers to look at that database, one will find plenty of examples where a speaker was disinvited "from the right".  Given that, the hypothesis that "all similar complaints are largely faux-victimhood whining by Republicans" is disprovable.

Unless "all similar" is defined as "disinvited from the left". ;)

In that case, should we say complaints about "disinvited from the right" are largely faux-victimhood whining by Democrats?

Please provide a link for me of a Democrat playing the fake victim and whining about how their "right to free speech" is being violated because they got dis-invited from speaking.

[MDM]

And yes, I think that this instance and all similar complaints are largely faux-victimhood whining by Republicans. No one is required to pay to hear you speak! That's not what "free speech" is!

If one bothers to look at that database, one will find plenty of examples where a speaker was disinvited "from the right".  Given that, the hypothesis that "all similar complaints are largely faux-victimhood whining by Republicans" is disprovable.

Unless "all similar" is defined as "disinvited from the left". ;)

In that case, should we say complaints about "disinvited from the right" are largely faux-victimhood whining by Democrats?

Please provide a link for me of a Democrat playing the fake victim and whining about how their "right to free speech" is being violated because they got dis-invited from speaking.

Good to see we agree (I think?) that not all disinvites come from the same direction.  As has been noted, the questions of "why" someone was disinvited, and why invited in the first place, would take more study.

See Mark Osler, Board of Contributors: Snowflakes even falling in Baylor Chapel | Board Of Contributors | wacotrib.com for an example of "disinvitation from the right".  Don't know if "At Baylor, it seems that the fragile snowflakes needing a “safe space” free from divergent voices aren’t in the student body — they are in the administration and on the board of regents" fits your definition of "whining".

[Davnasty]

And yes, I think that this instance and all similar complaints are largely faux-victimhood whining by Republicans. No one is required to pay to hear you speak! That's not what "free speech" is!

If one bothers to look at that database, one will find plenty of examples where a speaker was disinvited "from the right".  Given that, the hypothesis that "all similar complaints are largely faux-victimhood whining by Republicans" is disprovable.

Unless "all similar" is defined as "disinvited from the left". ;)

In that case, should we say complaints about "disinvited from the right" are largely faux-victimhood whining by Democrats?

Please provide a link for me of a Democrat playing the fake victim and whining about how their "right to free speech" is being violated because they got dis-invited from speaking.

Good to see we agree (I think?) that not all disinvites come from the same direction.  As has been noted, the questions of "why" someone was disinvited, and why invited in the first place, would take more study.

See Mark Osler, Board of Contributors: Snowflakes even falling in Baylor Chapel | Board Of Contributors | wacotrib.com for an example of "disinvitation from the right".  Don't know if "At Baylor, it seems that the fragile snowflakes needing a “safe space” free from divergent voices aren’t in the student body — they are in the administration and on the board of regents" fits your definition of "whining about how their "right to free speech" is being violated".

I added the bolded back in to give the complete thought you were quoting.

And no, it does not. Not even close.

[MDM]

And no, it does not. Not even close.

Good to know.  Republican comments about Democrat "snowflakes" are equally non-whining?

[sherr]

And yes, I think that this instance and all similar complaints are largely faux-victimhood whining by Republicans. No one is required to pay to hear you speak! That's not what "free speech" is!

If one bothers to look at that database, one will find plenty of examples where a speaker was disinvited "from the right".  Given that, the hypothesis that "all similar complaints are largely faux-victimhood whining by Republicans" is disprovable.

Unless "all similar" is defined as "disinvited from the left". ;)

In that case, should we say complaints about "disinvited from the right" are largely faux-victimhood whining by Democrats?

Please provide a link for me of a Democrat playing the fake victim and whining about how their "right to free speech" is being violated because they got dis-invited from speaking.

Good to see we agree (I think?) that not all disinvites come from the same direction.  As has been noted, the questions of "why" someone was disinvited, and why invited in the first place, would take more study.

See Mark Osler, Board of Contributors: Snowflakes even falling in Baylor Chapel | Board Of Contributors | wacotrib.com for an example of "disinvitation from the right".  Don't know if "At Baylor, it seems that the fragile snowflakes needing a “safe space” free from divergent voices aren’t in the student body — they are in the administration and on the board of regents" fits your definition of "whining".

It does, thanks for actually finding one. I wouldn't have even known how to start looking.

On the other hand I've never heard of "Mark Osler", and Wikipedia doesn't seem to know if he is a Democrat, nor does he ever claim in that article that his rights were violated just that he thinks it was a bad decision. But I have definitely heard of Ivanka Trump, Milo Yiannopoulos, Steve Bannon, Ann Coulter, etc etc etc.

Shall we just agree that all faux-victimhood whining that equates being dis-invited with having your "freedom of speech" violated is pathetic, and that it seems to come vastly disproportionately from Republicans?

[Davnasty]

And no, it does not. Not even close.

Good to know.  Republican comments about Democrat "snowflakes" are equally non-whining?

Read again. I did not say he wasn't whining, I said he was not "whining about how [his] right to free speech is being violated".

Which is the type of example sherr had asked for.

Whether it qualifies as whining or not is subjective so I'm not going to comment on that. Arguing that one's free speech has been violated is objective and Ivanka/many others on the right have been objectively wrong when they said it.

[sherr]

And no, it does not. Not even close.

Good to know.  Republican comments about Democrat "snowflakes" are equally non-whining?

Read again. I did not say he wasn't whining, I said he was not "whining about how [his] right to free speech is being violated".

Which is the type of example sherr had asked for.

Whether it qualifies as whining or not is subjective so I'm not going to comment on that. Arguing that one's free speech has been violated is objective and Ivanka/many others on the right have been objectively wrong when they said it.

He knows. Read over MDM's contributions over the last couple of pages again. They're all dishonest mischaracterizations of what was said in an attempt to create a "gotcha". At some point it can't be accidental anymore.

[MDM]

He knows. Read over MDM's contributions over the last couple of pages again. They're all dishonest mischaracterizations of what was said in an attempt to create a "gotcha". At some point it can't be accidental anymore.

What I find most interesting is that a posted a link to a database that could be used to forestall any claims that "only conservatives get disinvited," yet many have ignored that.

In case anyone missed it, the original post was

Appears Ivanka's case hasn't been added, but one can use Disinvitation Database - FIRE to test various hypotheses on who is doing what regarding speakers on campus.

If that offended anyone, well, so be it. 

In general, I find extremists on both sides more or less equally offensive.

[Kris]

And no, it does not. Not even close.

Good to know.  Republican comments about Democrat "snowflakes" are equally non-whining?

Read again. I did not say he wasn't whining, I said he was not "whining about how [his] right to free speech is being violated".

Which is the type of example sherr had asked for.

Whether it qualifies as whining or not is subjective so I'm not going to comment on that. Arguing that one's free speech has been violated is objective and Ivanka/many others on the right have been objectively wrong when they said it.

He knows. Read over MDM's contributions over the last couple of pages again. They're all dishonest mischaracterizations of what was said in an attempt to create a "gotcha". At some point it can't be accidental anymore.

Conservative bias masquerading as bland, complacent both-siderism.

It’s not just the last couple of pages. It’s a characteristic of pretty much every post on a political topic MDM has ever made.

[MDM]

In general, I find extremists on both sides more or less equally offensive.

Conservative bias masquerading as bland, complacent both-siderism.
It’s not just the last couple of pages. It’s a characteristic of pretty much every post on a political topic MDM has ever made.

If it offends you that there are many equivalences in the extremism from both sides, well, so be it.

Increasing the ability to recognize positives in "the other side" and shortcomings in "my side" would be helpful toward meaningful discussion.  Of course, that's just my opinion....

[JLee]

In general, I find extremists on both sides more or less equally offensive.

Conservative bias masquerading as bland, complacent both-siderism.
It’s not just the last couple of pages. It’s a characteristic of pretty much every post on a political topic MDM has ever made.

If it offends you that there are many equivalences in the extremism from both sides, well, so be it.

Increasing the ability to recognize positives in "the other side" and shortcomings in "my side" would be helpful toward meaningful discussion.  Of course, that's just my opinion....

Easy enough - we can start off here.

[GuitarStv]

Appears Ivanka's case hasn't been added, but one can use Disinvitation Database - FIRE to test various hypotheses on who is doing what regarding speakers on campus.

I was interested to see what the data you linked showed.

It lists 448 disinvitation attempts that occurred.  272 were identified as 'From the Left', 127 were identified as 'From the Right'.  49 were identified as 'N/A'.  But that lists all 'disinvitation attempts'.  When we look at the successful 'disinvitations' we find 112 'from the left', 70 'from the right', and 28 'N/A'.

Was your intention to demonstrate that left leaning opinions are being suppressed on university campuses more than right leaning opinions are?

[nereo]

All that I will add to this discussion is that an inappropriate action or re-action isn’t lessened if it occurs “on the other side” as well.  I won’t hazard a guess or opinion whether it occurs more to right-wing or left-wing individuals.  This seems beyond the point.

I’ve always had the opinion that being a guest speaker is an honor for the speaker.  It is not their ‘right’ or something they are entitled to.  Ergo, s/he does not have solid grounds to be upset when plans change and their contributions are no longer requested. 

[MDM]

Easy enough - we can start off here.

Seemed "whining" in general was the main point, as conservatives often call liberals "snowflakes."  This was an example of a liberal calling conservatives "snowflakes."  In other words, it goes both ways.

[Davnasty]

Easy enough - we can start off here.

Seemed "whining" in general was the main point, as conservatives often call liberals "snowflakes."  This was an example of a liberal calling conservatives "snowflakes."  In other words, it goes both ways.

It wasn't.

nereo was the first to bring it up and gave specific reasons why Ivanka's complaints were incorrect.

[Kris]

In general, I find extremists on both sides more or less equally offensive.

Conservative bias masquerading as bland, complacent both-siderism.
It’s not just the last couple of pages. It’s a characteristic of pretty much every post on a political topic MDM has ever made.

If it offends you that there are many equivalences in the extremism from both sides, well, so be it.

Increasing the ability to recognize positives in "the other side" and shortcomings in "my side" would be helpful toward meaningful discussion.  Of course, that's just my opinion....

It hardly offends me. It’s just I have never seen you do anything but claim that both sides are the same, while indirectly implying that the left side is worse.

It’s disingenuous, and yeah, arguing in bad faith is pretty sad.

[MDM]

All that I will add to this discussion is that an inappropriate action or re-action isn’t lessened if it occurs “on the other side” as well.

Quite true.

I’ve always had the opinion that being a guest speaker is an honor for the speaker.  It is not their ‘right’ or something they are entitled to.  Ergo, s/he does not have solid grounds to be upset when plans change and their contributions are no longer requested.

The underlying theme in many of these disinvitations is intolerance of opposing views. 

It's true that the Constitution only restricts Congress to "...make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." and that private businesses may decide who will speak about what.  And one can easily put forward examples that 99+% of the country would agree are inappropriate for one to say at a college or anywhere. 

The tougher calls are when opinions run, say, 60/40 or so, as to whether the topic and opinion are appropriate.  In those cases, hearing both sides becomes important, lest the majority stifle the minority.

[MDM]

Easy enough - we can start off here.

Seemed "whining" in general was the main point, as conservatives often call liberals "snowflakes."  This was an example of a liberal calling conservatives "snowflakes."  In other words, it goes both ways.

It wasn't.

nereo was the first to bring it up and gave specific reasons why Ivanka's complaints were incorrect.

That may be your opinion.  The person to whom I was responding was sherr.

[MDM]

Appears Ivanka's case hasn't been added, but one can use Disinvitation Database - FIRE to test various hypotheses on who is doing what regarding speakers on campus.

I was interested to see what the data you linked showed.

It lists 448 disinvitation attempts that occurred.  272 were identified as 'From the Left', 127 were identified as 'From the Right'.  49 were identified as 'N/A'.  But that lists all 'disinvitation attempts'.  When we look at the successful 'disinvitations' we find 112 'from the left', 70 'from the right', and 28 'N/A'.

Was your intention to demonstrate that left leaning opinions are being suppressed on university campuses more than right leaning opinions are?

My intention was to provide people a place to see some data before making unsupported statements.  Again, even though it seems to bother Kris, whether those statements would be made from a liberal or conservative viewpoint.

What you did (i.e., actually look at the database, and use some of the tools it provides) is all one could ask - thanks!

[MDM]

It hardly offends me. It’s just I have never seen you do anything but claim that both sides are the same, while indirectly implying that the left side is worse.

It’s disingenuous, and yeah, arguing in bad faith is pretty sad.

See my response to GuitarStv just previous to this.

[OtherJen]

All that I will add to this discussion is that an inappropriate action or re-action isn’t lessened if it occurs “on the other side” as well.

Quite true.

I’ve always had the opinion that being a guest speaker is an honor for the speaker.  It is not their ‘right’ or something they are entitled to.  Ergo, s/he does not have solid grounds to be upset when plans change and their contributions are no longer requested.

The underlying theme in many of these disinvitations is intolerance of opposing views. 

It's true that the Constitution only restricts Congress to "...make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." and that private businesses may decide who will speak about what.  And one can easily put forward examples that 99+% of the country would agree are inappropriate for one to say at a college or anywhere. 

The tougher calls are when opinions run, say, 60/40 or so, as to whether the topic and opinion are appropriate.  In those cases, hearing both sides becomes important, lest the majority stifle the minority.

Ivanka Trump's essential 1a right to free speech has not been infringed. She can say whatever she damn well pleases. She doesn't have the right to use someone else's platform to do so without their permission, and the other entity doesn't have to honor a non-legally binding invitation.

I feel like we're once again running into the difference between "essential rights" and "the right to do whatever I want, wherever I want, however I want." This issue also cropped up a lot in my state over the last 2 months. It does suggest a rather limited understanding of legal rights.

[Davnasty]

Easy enough - we can start off here.

Seemed "whining" in general was the main point, as conservatives often call liberals "snowflakes."  This was an example of a liberal calling conservatives "snowflakes."  In other words, it goes both ways.

It wasn't.

nereo was the first to bring it up and gave specific reasons why Ivanka's complaints were incorrect.

That may be your opinion.  The person to whom I was responding was sherr.

So you read this:

"Please provide a link for me of a Democrat playing the fake victim and whining about how their "right to free speech" is being violated"

...and thought the whining was the main point?

If you really are arguing in good faith, I apologize, but based on what I've read that is not my conclusion.

I'll also add that the database you brought to the discussion is interesting.

[GuitarStv]

It was interesting to see how much the right appears to be out of touch with reality on this issue as well.  I never hear about censorship of the left on campuses, yet it occurs at a significantly higher rate according to MDMs data.  I guess people on the left at just more stoic about it.

[Travis]

All that I will add to this discussion is that an inappropriate action or re-action isn’t lessened if it occurs “on the other side” as well.

Quite true.

I’ve always had the opinion that being a guest speaker is an honor for the speaker.  It is not their ‘right’ or something they are entitled to.  Ergo, s/he does not have solid grounds to be upset when plans change and their contributions are no longer requested.

The underlying theme in many of these disinvitations is intolerance of opposing views. 

It's true that the Constitution only restricts Congress to "...make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." and that private businesses may decide who will speak about what.  And one can easily put forward examples that 99+% of the country would agree are inappropriate for one to say at a college or anywhere. 

The tougher calls are when opinions run, say, 60/40 or so, as to whether the topic and opinion are appropriate.  In those cases, hearing both sides becomes important, lest the majority stifle the minority.

Are you arguing that was the case with Ivanka?

She's complaining that free speech was blocked by disinviting her while across the country people are being shot and beaten in the streets for peacefully protesting. She works for a president who not only makes no distinction between vandals and these protesters, but has encouraged the police to be more violent in the past and wanted to send people like me in to crush the protests because he didn't think the police this week were being violent enough.

[MDM]

So you read this:

"Please provide a link for me of a Democrat playing the fake victim and whining about how their "right to free speech" is being violated"

...and thought the whining was the main point?

If you really are arguing in good faith, I apologize, but based on what I've read that is not my conclusion.

I'll also add that the database you brought to the discussion is interesting.

True, instead of "whining" or "right to free speech" it could also have been "playing the fake victim." 

If you assume, instead of an exhaustive search of the pertinent literature, I responded to sherr's request by filtering that database for [disinvitation=yes and "it came"=from the right (or filter to that effect)], and picked a recent one at random, that would be a good assumption.  Perhaps it was the "snowflake" term that led me to focus on "whining."

I don't think that either sherr's request or my reply are especially noteworthy.

[Davnasty]

It was interesting to see how much the right appears to be out of touch with reality on this issue as well.  I never hear about censorship of the left on campuses, yet it occurs at a significantly higher rate according to MDMs data.  I guess people on the left at just more stoic about it.

I think you're reading this backwards. "From the Left" means the university is left of the speaker.

From the database user's guide:

A more useful way to classify disinvitation attempts on the basis of politics, therefore, is as coming “from the left of the speaker” or “from the right of the speaker,” rather than an assessment based on the speaker’s more general political orientation.

ETA: Nvm, you've got it right. I read your first comment on this backwards.

so confused :) Just kidding, I've got it now. Probably.

[MDM]

It was interesting to see how much the right appears to be out of touch with reality on this issue as well.  I never hear about censorship of the left on campuses, yet it occurs at a significantly higher rate according to MDMs data. 

Bingo!

If all those jumping on me would stop to consider "who would be most likely to make an unsupported statement about this Ivanka issue?"....

[GuitarStv]

It was interesting to see how much the right appears to be out of touch with reality on this issue as well.  I never hear about censorship of the left on campuses, yet it occurs at a significantly higher rate according to MDMs data.  I guess people on the left at just more stoic about it.

I think you're reading this backwards. "From the Left" means the university is left of the speaker.

From the database user's guide:

A more useful way to classify disinvitation attempts on the basis of politics, therefore, is as coming “from the left of the speaker” or “from the right of the speaker,” rather than an assessment based on the speaker’s more general political orientation.

You're right.  That was my mistake, I thought the classification 'from the left' referred to the political orientation of the speaker.

[Pizzabrewer]

Ivanka’s speech:

https://youtu.be/z4ebSsN19tg


She’s lived through so much hardship and sacrifice.

[LennStar]

It's true that the Constitution only restricts Congress to "...make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." and that private businesses may decide who will speak about what.  And one can easily put forward examples that 99+% of the country would agree are inappropriate for one to say at a college or anywhere. 

The tougher calls are when opinions run, say, 60/40 or so, as to whether the topic and opinion are appropriate.  In those cases, hearing both sides becomes important, lest the majority stifle the minority.

The approvement or disapprovement rate of a "free speech" is totally, completely, absolutely unimportant when deciding if it is appropriate. And it is also unimportant for the question if hearing them is important - from the point of information.

It may politically important to hear Flat Earthers if 40% believe the Earth it flat, but it does not change that saying that is simply a lie and as such unimportant to hear. 

[marty998]

Ivanka’s speech:

https://youtu.be/z4ebSsN19tg


She’s lived through so much hardship and sacrifice.

Do you have a transcript? I can't bring myself to watch it. Tried googling but could only find the news reports of the speech, not the speech itself.

Not really sure how she can relate to any of the students... or offer any meaningful guidance or advice.

[talltexan]

I appreciate the effort to make these questions data driven (thank you for this database, @MDM ), but is left-right really the correct axis?

I thought Universities typically censor speakers for saying things that might endanger students (Doxxing critics, like Milo Yiannopoulis, or insulting them via hate speech or microaggressions, like Anne Coulter). Isn't there some other way of better measuring these tendencies than our traditional liberal-conservative matrix?

In the case of Ivanka Trump, the policies she favors tend to be pretty far left (I think of paid parental leave, or criminal justice reform as examples), but there's also her association with an administration that openly solicits trademarks from foreign governments for her ownership, which I don't think Democrats or Republicans would have thought okay pre-2016. It's not that she's a conservative voice, it's that she plays this brazenly corrupt role within the current administration.

[Kris]

I appreciate the effort to make these questions data driven (thank you for this database, @MDM ), but is left-right really the correct axis?

I thought Universities typically censor speakers for saying things that might endanger students (Doxxing critics, like Milo Yiannopoulis, or insulting them via hate speech or microaggressions, like Anne Coulter). Isn't there some other way of better measuring these tendencies than our traditional liberal-conservative matrix?

In the case of Ivanka Trump, the policies she favors tend to be pretty far left (I think of paid parental leave, or criminal justice reform as examples), but there's also her association with an administration that openly solicits trademarks from foreign governments for her ownership, which I don't think Democrats or Republicans would have thought okay pre-2016. It's not that she's a conservative voice, it's that she plays this brazenly corrupt role within the current administration.

Yes, exactly. Which is why trying to put it on a liberal vs. conservative axis and pretending that counting the numbers of “uninvites” reveals bias is disingenuous.

[former player]

In the case of Ivanka Trump, the policies she favors tend to be pretty far left (I think of paid parental leave, or criminal justice reform as examples)

To this British and formerly also European citizen the idea of paid parental leave as "pretty far left" was a real double-take.  In the UK we've had paid maternity leave for decades and paid paternity leave first came in under a Conservative (technically coalition) government in 2011, with shared paid parental leave starting in 2015, also under the Conservatives.

USA politics is sometimes seriously out of whack with today's world.  As I believe you are just discovering as respects racism.

[LennStar]

the policies she favors tend to be pretty far left (I think of paid parental leave, or criminal justice reform as examples),

Ouch! I always get a sort of brain freeze when someone says those are far left politics.

Anyway, while that disinvitation thing is certainly interesting if you look at the single cases, using it as a statistic to back up anything is so full of holes I don't even know where to start.

[nereo]

I appreciate the effort to make these questions data driven (thank you for this database, @MDM ), but is left-right really the correct axis?

I thought Universities typically censor speakers for saying things that might endanger students (Doxxing critics, like Milo Yiannopoulis, or insulting them via hate speech or microaggressions, like Anne Coulter). Isn't there some other way of better measuring these tendencies than our traditional liberal-conservative matrix?

I think most Universities want the graduation ceremony to be pomp and circumstance, for the students and for their parents.  They often seek out famous people to give a commencement speech, but they want the speech itself to be apolitical and pretty vanilla, focusing on how the graduates are the future and agents of change, etc.

Speakers ought to realize this, and act accordingly.  As with any other large private ceremony, the speaker is supposed to i) keep it positive and ii) focus on the reason for the ceremony (the graduates).  Their speech should not upset a good portion of the audience. This can be challenging for people who’s normal routine is to be very political (i.e. politicians) or edgy (e.g. comedians), but most are able to do it well, though a few cannot or will not follow social decorum and the results are typically disastrous. 

Ultimately, though, being asked to speak is a privilege conferred by the people holding the event.  Like a private wedding or a funeral its a certain honor to be asked, yet if circumstances arise where a proposed speaker’s presence might detract from the event, the speaker should not be overly angry that s/he got bumped.  The event is not about them, and their message (via their speech or their presence) should not overshadow the reason for the event. 

[MDM]

It's true that the Constitution only restricts Congress to "...make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." and that private businesses may decide who will speak about what.  And one can easily put forward examples that 99+% of the country would agree are inappropriate for one to say at a college or anywhere. 

The tougher calls are when opinions run, say, 60/40 or so, as to whether the topic and opinion are appropriate.  In those cases, hearing both sides becomes important, lest the majority stifle the minority.

The approvement or disapprovement rate of a "free speech" is totally, completely, absolutely unimportant when deciding if it is appropriate. And it is also unimportant for the question if hearing them is important - from the point of information.

It may politically important to hear Flat Earthers if 40% believe the Earth it flat, but it does not change that saying that is simply a lie and as such unimportant to hear.

A flat earth speech would be one of those "99+% of the country would agree are inappropriate" examples.