Re: [Trisquel-users] EU: All your internet are belong to us

[dguthrie]

The second video is featured on the so-called "Prager University". It is  
about as reputable an 'educational institution' as Trump University, a  
pathetic commercial entity offering "business education", which is known to  
bully people into blowing all their money on worthless courses in real estate  
to get rich quick. TrumpU takes after Trump himself, it seems.
"PragerU" is run by the far-right talk-show host Dennis Prager (or at least  
is tarnished with his name), a man who likes to peddle the narrative that  
there is an attack on religious freedom, i.e. the freedom to oppress others.  
This view is exacerbated by campaigns by secular organisations to reduce the  
state funding of religion.
The video takes a similar line. It says that there are efforts to ban speech  
that is considered "hurtful" and "hateful", and the video specifially  
mentions the efforts to prevent "freedom of religion".
This is the most utter crap. For a start, it ignores the history of Europe,  
where religion (the dominant force being Christianity) has been part of the  
general oppression of freedom of expression for centuries. Look at Spain,  
with the Spanish Inquisition (and the Catholic Church's alliance with  
Franco's Fascists), and Nazi Germany's pact with the Catholic Church to  
protect itself. Look more generally at the denial of women's reproductive  
rights and rights to schooling. It is just the most stupid argument.  
"Sensitivity-based censorship" is presented with absolutely no evidence  
whatsoever. There are efforts to separate the Church and State further in  
many European countries, but religious leaders enjoy little fear of  
oppression and censorship at the hands of the state. There is healthy debate  
about the role of religion in modern times, and religious leaders are  
welcomed to express their views in throughout the media. Religion is largely  
respected, and it is declining. However, this represents Christianity, as the  
dominant religion. Islam is not widespread (although it has a wide presence)  
and in recent months has seen backlash and attacks by far-right thugs. We  
should of course not that this does not mean an attack on freedom of  
religion! People are still allowed to express themselves freely. I think that  
the emphasis on "criticism of religion" is perhaps support for Marine Le Pen  
(in the video, the words "criticism of religion" are put over France) who  
frames anti-Muslim rhetoric as "criticism of religion". There's something  
insidious about that whole video...
Now it attacks 'Political Correctness'! It's such a load of crap. This leads  
back to the issues of freedom of speech in general vs. the moderation on  
non-public forums. It's all a load of double-standards anyway. American TV  
won't allow swearing (they say 'darn it' far too much) but they are happy to  
show graphic images of dead people in far-off lands. They frame accusations  
of a general criminality among black people as polite 'analysis' of events,  
and blame illegal immigrants for undercutting the American wages.
They talk about the 'political correctness' at American colleges and  
universities, but this is generally about the supposed "suppression" of  
activities that are nationalist. That video gives several examples but does  
not give us the full story, or even links to news articles about them.
The video says that "few conservative speakers are invited to speak at  
colleges, lest they be 'disinvited' later". This is, again, a theme of this  
comment thread. There is not an attack on free speech. The conservative  
speakers could go to speak wherever will take them, voice their opinion on  
the internet, or in the conservative mass media. It is not an attack on free  
speech to no-platform someone.
As for trigger warnings, I think they can sometimes be used to the extreme,  
but often they are reasonable. For example, the comic book 'Tintin in the  
Congo' was only recently translated into English. As Tintin books are  
generally read by children, a warning was written saying that it reflected  
the society in Belgium at the time, which was supportive of the brutal  
dictatorship in Central Africa, and as a result some of the material in the  
book is shocking by today's standards. What if that warning was not included?  
It might upset some children that African people are portrayed in the fashion  
they are in the book.  The example of the trigger warning in the Great Gatsby  
perhaps goes a little too far but perhaps a note in the preface about it  
reflecting mysoginistic attitudes of the time would not be unreasonable. To  
be honest though, the fact that so much mysoginy still exists, which the  
video completely brushes over, would make it seem not particularly shocking  
in my opinion. I think there is a certain irony that the video is attacking  
trigger warnings when these are reasonable under freedom of speech... if that  
is, indeed what the video cares about, rather than the freedom of its target  
audience, a bunch of neocons.
Campuses are not teaching students to "police what they say", rather to be  
more accomodating to people of different backgrounds. It is remarkably hard  
to do this as we all have biases that we do not notice, but it is, if  
anything, good to teach students to be more accepting of people who are  
different. Perhaps it would create a more harmonious society. Considering the  
divisions that still exist in America this is commendable, rather than  
something to be attacked. Students can still say what they like but now they  
know that freedom of speech means responsibilities. They have to consider  
other students' rights.
"Our society needs candor, and it needs freedom of speech, not freedom from  
speech". Of course we need to be open! Nobody is attacking that. You can be  
honest about your beliefs but recognise that you can change. Or not, that's  
what freedom of speech is. But being sincere in your beliefs is not  
incompatible with moderating hateful speech in non-public spaces. You can  
voice your opinions wherever you want, just not in places you are a guest in,  
and duly bound to abide by the rules.
Done. I sincerely regret watching the video. Watch a critique of another  
video from so-called PragerU: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdEMK5GoO9g
You don't even need to be leftwing to see the so-called PragerU has no  
credibility.