Worrisome Event At Law School

[RAyMO]

15 minutes ago, and then said:

OR... listening politely, taking notes and formulating questions that would embarrass the hell out of the speaker without any resort to yelling or namecalling.  THAT'S the old-school way of taking down an opponent.

I see that too - but to be honest if I know a guys philosophy is fixed - unlikely to be altered by anything I say - due to differences in background and world experiences - why would I bother go to listen in the first place.

He will never come to agree with me and I will never come to agree with him - so just leave it at that. Perhaps to an extent my view is based on a lifetime experience in Northern Ireland where two opposing ideologies clash regularly and never a inch is yielded by either. You can debate till you're blue in the face, but in my experience merely agreeing to disagree is the best outcome that can be achieved. In fact the whole Good Friday agreement is, IMO, based on such a concept (a codified Agreement to Disagree), which to be clear has been mighty beneficial to us since it was established (again IMO).

ETA even in that paragraph I have to use the 'IMO' since I am well aware in NI there are those that believe it is an agreement penned by the devil himself - they can think that if they wish - nothing I will say will change their mind.

Edited April 22, 2018 by RAyMO

[Space Commander Travis]

6 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

I see that too - but to be honest if I know a guys philosophy is fixed - unlikely to be altered by anything I say - due to differences in background and world experiences - why would I bother go to listen in the first place.

It might be interesting to hear someone else's world view and world experiences? Besides, we're all assuming that he is rabidly rightwing, all because, apparently, he wanted to talk about freedom of expression. Is there anything on the record of anything he might have spoken about before (other than great strings of assumptions) that might reinforce that view?

[RAyMO]

2 minutes ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

It might be interesting to hear someone else's world view and world experiences?

It would be and it often is - my point was more general than the specific instance - I know nothing of the speaker so my comments aren't directed in anyway at him. They are more of a general statement - not to go to a situation to engender conflict.

By all means if you wish to enter into honest debate then do so - but if your purpose is to force your opposing views on someone else - then stay at home - it rarely works to anyone's benefit. 

[darkmoonlady]

1 hour ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

ah, so this is all part of the conspiracy, get himself shouted down by some leftwing students, make him a martyr to his ultra-rightwing colleagues, and before you know it he'll, well, he might have his own channel on youtube from which he can campaign for immigrants and persons of colour to be rounded up and deported! he's almost as devious as America's Donald Trump! 

Isn't it brilliant what one can extrapolate of a person's motivations and psychology merely from a potted biography on wikipedia! 

No actually his bio on his Prof page at the school,

Josh is an Associate Professor of Law at the South Texas College of Law Houston who specializes in constitutional law, the United States Supreme Court, and the intersection of law and technology. Josh is the author of the critically acclaimed Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare.

Josh was selected by Forbes Magazine for the “30 Under 30” in Law and Policy. Josh has testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the constitutionality of executive action on immigration. He is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. Josh is the founder and President of the Harlan Institute, the founder of FantasySCOTUS, the Internet’s Premier Supreme Court Fantasy League, and blogs at JoshBlackman.com. Josh leads the cutting edge of legal analytics as Director of Judicial Research at LexPredict. Josh is the author of over two dozen law review articles, and his commentary has appeared in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today, L.A. Times, and other national publications.

And you know, his recent appearance on Fox News. Might have been a tip off. 

https://youtu.be/6kAG2362zpg

[+and-then]

49 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

It would be and it often is - my point was more general than the specific instance - I know nothing of the speaker so my comments aren't directed in anyway at him. They are more of a general statement - not to go to a situation to engender conflict.

By all means if you wish to enter into honest debate then do so - but if your purpose is to force your opposing views on someone else - then stay at home - it rarely works to anyone's benefit. 

I disagree.  I have found that even if I am diametrically opposed to another's viewpoint, I still can find something in the presentation that rings true.  Opinions can be changed incrementally, you know?  Civil discourse is the mark of a civilized culture.  Between adults, respect often begets respect.  It's worth an attempt, anyway.

[darkmoonlady]

Oh and his Youtube channel which funnily enough proves my point. Because he already is doing what I said. 

 

[RAyMO]

48 minutes ago, and then said:

I disagree.  I have found that even if I am diametrically opposed to another's viewpoint, I still can find something in the presentation that rings true.  Opinions can be changed incrementally, you know?  Civil discourse is the mark of a civilized culture.  Between adults, respect often begets respect.  It's worth an attempt, anyway.

But that to an extent is the point I am making - you attend with the mind of someone who will debate, who will accept new information, and who will accept the speakers right to hold views opposing yours. You attend probably in full knowledge that you will not accept the others viewpoint, and that you will argue your viewpoint in a adult manner - What you are not doing is going to engender conflict. 

ETA the key phrase in my earlier post was 'force your views'

Edited April 22, 2018 by RAyMO

[Space Commander Travis]

55 minutes ago, darkmoonlady said:

No actually his bio on his Prof page at the school,

Josh is an Associate Professor of Law at the South Texas College of Law Houston who specializes in constitutional law, the United States Supreme Court, and the intersection of law and technology. Josh is the author of the critically acclaimed Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare.

Josh was selected by Forbes Magazine for the “30 Under 30” in Law and Policy. Josh has testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the constitutionality of executive action on immigration. He is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. Josh is the founder and President of the Harlan Institute, the founder of FantasySCOTUS, the Internet’s Premier Supreme Court Fantasy League, and blogs at JoshBlackman.com. Josh leads the cutting edge of legal analytics as Director of Judicial Research at LexPredict. Josh is the author of over two dozen law review articles, and his commentary has appeared in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today, L.A. Times, and other national publications.

And you know, his recent appearance on Fox News. Might have been a tip off. 

https://youtu.be/6kAG2362zpg

Yes, that's on his biog page, but how does that prove that he's a racist bigot who just wants to plot a devious course to celebrity so he can spout his objectionable views? 

[Kismit]

57 minutes ago, darkmoonlady said:

Oh and his Youtube channel which funnily enough proves my point. Because he already is doing what I said. 

 

I don't see anything wrong with the opinions in this. They are as valid as any other.

However I see two people joking about removing the right of thier opposition to an opinion. 

Electronic communication....it's a term that sounds so underhanded and spy like. Only, this is electronic communication, texting, facebook cellphone calls. But it sounds so sneaky. Surely the sound of sneakiness should be proof enough that there is something underhanded going on. Or does deliberatly  making something sound dodgy mean that the interview is designed to make the watchee feel like a conspiracy is happening.

I need to know more.

 

 

[darkmoonlady]

18 minutes ago, Kismit said:

I don't see anything wrong with the opinions in this. They are as valid as any other.

However I see two people joking about removing the right of thier opposition to an opinion. 

Electronic communication....it's a term that sounds so underhanded and spy like. Only, this is electronic communication, texting, facebook cellphone calls. But it sounds so sneaky. Surely the sound of sneakiness should be proof enough that there is something underhanded going on. Or does deliberatly  making something sound dodgy mean that the interview is designed to make the watchee feel like a conspiracy is happening.

I need to know more.

 

 

It wasn't about that, what I said earlier was, controversial speeches for this guy get him attention, which I said leads to spots as a talking head on Fox. Which really he already is. Having him speak at the school for him is just great, he gets attention, protests and ends up Fox again. Which I think is his goal. His reason detre, he wants to be ON Fox, not so much defend free speech. 

[Kismit]

3 minutes ago, darkmoonlady said:

It wasn't about that, what I said earlier was, controversial speeches for this guy get him attention, which I said leads to spots as a talking head on Fox. Which really he already is. Having him speak at the school for him is just great, he gets attention, protests and ends up Fox again. Which I think is his goal. His reason detre, he wants to be ON Fox, not so much defend free speech. 

I can see your point. I have seen the tactic used before. But I haven't seen anything I would class as controversial. Granted, I haven't looked, however in my own personal experience people who talk or work in tertiary education facilities sometimes also talk on news programs.

My old boss Proffessor Jim Mann is an example of this. 

So one news clip is not enough, for my own skeptisicsm, to completely proove this.

 

[ExpandMyMind]

12 hours ago, Michelle said:

Every post you make belies these claims you keep making about being non-partisan. I don't think I'm the only person who sees that. You've already shown your true character.

You don't have to support the Dems to know the Reps are worse. 

[Farmer77]

10 hours ago, skliss said:

why do you immediately think that? what's wrong with free speech? 

Nothing is wrong with free speech but as I explained the reality is "free speech" rallies are the cover racist organizations have used for decades for their events. Its done intentionally so the more intelligent among them can then play the victim when their racist rants are interrupted. 

Like I said above I don't think this professor is a racist or bigoted but I do think he chose the topic hoping for the outcome he received. 

[Lilly]

There are a few things we have to keep in mind. First, CUNY Law School invited Professor Blackman to speak. It was CUNY that suggested the Professor move the focus of his talk (originally Constitutional Law) to a more "popular" topic. Professor Blackman's talk was not canceled. I'm pretty sure that CUNY was aptly aware that Professor Blackman was a conservative leaning Professor. Keep in mind, that the Professor had spoken at several Law Schools (on various subjects), CUNY knew who Professor Blackman was and they chose to invite him. 

Quite frankly, I'm just not seeing any hidden agenda on Professor Blackman's part there. 

As to listening to those one doesn't agree with, we're talking about Law School students here. It seems to me that in order to be prepared for their chosen career these young people really need to be able to employ this particular skill. Once again, I think about The Supreme Court of the United States. When a justice delivers a dissenting opinion do the other justices just walk out of the room and refuse to listen? Do the other justices attempt to shut him/her down by shouting him down or crowding him at the podium? 

 

 

[Space Commander Travis]

24 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

You don't have to support the Dems to know the Reps are worse. 

ner ner ner ner ner, yours are worse.. Pokes tongue out. 

[Lilly]

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

 

Like I said above I don't think this professor is a racist or bigoted but I do think he chose the topic hoping for the outcome he received. 

The original topic for the talk was Constitutional Law. It was CUNY that suggested Professor Blackman choose a "more popular topic" then CUNY supported the choice of freedom of expression for the talk. Also, if we've concluded that Professor Blackman isn't a racist/bigot and we know that CUNY invited him (knowing exactly who he was) why do you keep bringing that up? 

[Lilly]

4 hours ago, and then said:

OR... listening politely, taking notes and formulating questions that would embarrass the hell out of the speaker without any resort to yelling or namecalling.  THAT'S the old-school way of taking down an opponent.

Now this is what Law School students should be learning to do. 

[Farmer77]

6 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Also, if we've concluded that Professor Blackman isn't a racist/bigot and we know that CUNY invited him (knowing exactly who he was) why do you keep bringing that up? 

 Because it adds perspective. This guy being a provocateur who made a conscious decision to cause an uproar places the conversation in a whole different light than "poor conservatives cant talk". 

 

[ExpandMyMind]

9 minutes ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

ner ner ner ner ner, yours are worse.. Pokes tongue out. 

Well, I highly doubt the Democrats would have allowed the recent tax break bill to pass - a bill that will inevitably lead to another massive, worldwide financial crisis. That alone is enough reason to favour them over Republicans. 

And you missed the point. There is no 'yours is worse' because there is no sitting on either side of the fence. You can just as easily look on from across the road at two ******* neighbours fighting and decide who is the bigger. Sort of like being able to look at Assad and ISIS and judge ISIS to be worse.

[Lilly]

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

 Because it adds perspective. This guy being a provocateur who made a conscious decision to cause an uproar places the conversation in a whole different light than "poor conservatives cant talk". 

 

What? Did you watch the video? "The guy" was a Professor who was invited to speak by the Law School. Professor Blackman stood quietly at the podium as the students did their thing and then he went ahead and gave his talk. Not exactly a "provocateur". 

I would also like to politely request that any off topic discussion be moved to a more appropriate thread (there are plenty of choices for this in the Politics forum). 

[Farmer77]

Just now, Lilly said:

What? Did you watch the video? "The guy" was a Professor who was invited to speak by the Law School. Professor Blackman stood quietly at the podium as the students did their thing and then he went ahead and gave his talk. 

The topic choice is what I'm referring to. Like I said initially "free speech" speeches, rallies etc have in recent history been used by racists to spread their garbage.  Its an intelligent strategy in that it gives them legal cover but also in that it gives them the political tool of being the victim when their vile speech is interrupted. 

My take is this professor most likely chose this topic knowing the likelihood of this response was high. Its a great way to score political points for your side while getting your name in the news.  

That in no way justifies the response but it does place the whole thing in a different light. 

 

[Lilly]

8 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

 

My take is this professor most likely chose this topic knowing the likelihood of this response was high. Its a great way to score political points for your side while getting your name in the news.  

My point is that originally Professor Blackman chose the topic of Constitutional Law. It was CUNY that urged Professor Blackman to choose another topic that would be "of more interest" to their students. The light here is placed upon CUNY I'd say. 

[skliss]

4 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Nothing is wrong with free speech but as I explained the reality is "free speech" rallies are the cover racist organizations have used for decades for their events. Its done intentionally so the more intelligent among them can then play the victim when their racist rants are interrupted. 

Like I said above I don't think this professor is a racist or bigoted but I do think he chose the topic hoping for the outcome he received. 

I think your whole premise is skewed. Right now, with all these college kids who have no idea what free speech is or what other people's rights are, is a perfect time to talk about it. I don't think anyone has high-jacked talking about free speech, that seems very biased on your part. In fact this professor said that this free speech lecture was well received at other colleges where he's given it. Are there some idiots out there who spout "free speech" to excuse their hate, sure, but I think it's overboard to think it goes further than a few yobos in a group of yobos. 

[skliss]

5 hours ago, darkmoonlady said:

It wasn't about that, what I said earlier was, controversial speeches for this guy get him attention, which I said leads to spots as a talking head on Fox. Which really he already is. Having him speak at the school for him is just great, he gets attention, protests and ends up Fox again. Which I think is his goal. His reason detre, he wants to be ON Fox, not so much defend free speech. 

How do you know? Are you personally aquainted with the guy? That's a whole lotta assumption going on.

[skliss]

3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

The topic choice is what I'm referring to. Like I said initially "free speech" speeches, rallies etc have in recent history been used by racists to spread their garbage.  Its an intelligent strategy in that it gives them legal cover but also in that it gives them the political tool of being the victim when their vile speech is interrupted. 

My take is this professor most likely chose this topic knowing the likelihood of this response was high. Its a great way to score political points for your side while getting your name in the news.  

That in no way justifies the response but it does place the whole thing in a different light. 

 

What's sad is the assumption that free speech is a controversial topic. It just shows how far down the rabbit hole we've gone if people are ready to scream down the idea of a discussion about free speech. I know the reasons you think it would happen, but for all you know these kids are being taught free speech is bad...and that's horrendous! More speeches should be given on this topic until they understand it's everyones right, not just theirs.