I disagree completely. Obviously, you're not a woman who has worked in IT (or other male-dominated fields). As a women, you are constantly treated like you are incompetent or stupid or incompatible of doing your job. And believe me - when you are treated that way day in and day out at work - it's no fun. You begin to not want to go to work. You start to doubt yourself. Then there's the male supervisors who demand quid pro quo. That never happened to me personally - but it's common.
If a man was treated half as bad by women as women are treated by men, you wouldn't be arguing that it's OK for men to call women demeaning names at work or to harass them at work or to try to block women from STEM university courses.
Rhetorically deceptive. You define "freedom" as meaning only "freedom from formal punishment by government through legal procedures," and then claim that any speech that is punished by other means, however censorious, cruel, oppressive, or irrational, is still entirely free. But that isn't the only meaning of freedom. According to you, anyone who for merely expressing an opinion is subjected to social ostracism, online abuse short of actionable threats, loss of employment, or anonymous slander is still "free."
It is true that they are not suffering from a loss of freedom imposed by government, but they are still rather unfree. It's a terrifying situation for normal people.
Your comments that all the Stanford prof has to do is go drive somewhere is rather silly. Universities historically were places where diverse and dissenting views were encouraged. In philosophy classes and other liberal arts classes, professors would encourage robust debate, and they would use texts that challenged received ideas.
Now such ideas and such texts are de facto forbidden. The fact that only the major universities proscribe and punish free speech and that the John Deer dealership welcomes dissent is irrelevant. The universities are supposed to protect the life of the mind, not surrender it to vendors of farm equipment.
It's not just a matter of "changing norms," also. People were not thrown out of their jobs or college in 1978 for expressing dissenting viewpoints.
Now they are.
Perhaps the most salient point within your context is your claim that the universities that do this are "private." Eh, not really. They receive billions of dollars in government funding. Why should they be allowed to censor dissenting views when they receive everyone's money?
I agree with you that they should be allowed to do this if they really don't take government funds, like Grove City College or Bob Jones University. But if they are going to live on the public, they have to accept the right of the public to dissent.
"That threat clearly comes from the MAGA right, which has been willing to overturn a free and fair election and threatens to do that and worse again in the future.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the left use the COVID scare as an excuse to change the voting laws, thereby improving their chances of winning the 2020 elections, as well as those in the future?
Yes, where to draw the line. I appreciate the ideas, but disagree that this is a problem. Mr. Fukuyama should just move to a red state where he'll feel more comfortable. That is, if he doesn't mind that he can be fired without cause and that his area of expertise is dropped from the curricula by the right-wing businessmen that have taken over school administration.
I disagree completely. Obviously, you're not a woman who has worked in IT (or other male-dominated fields). As a women, you are constantly treated like you are incompetent or stupid or incompatible of doing your job. And believe me - when you are treated that way day in and day out at work - it's no fun. You begin to not want to go to work. You start to doubt yourself. Then there's the male supervisors who demand quid pro quo. That never happened to me personally - but it's common.
If a man was treated half as bad by women as women are treated by men, you wouldn't be arguing that it's OK for men to call women demeaning names at work or to harass them at work or to try to block women from STEM university courses.
I am now going to unsub from you.
Rhetorically deceptive. You define "freedom" as meaning only "freedom from formal punishment by government through legal procedures," and then claim that any speech that is punished by other means, however censorious, cruel, oppressive, or irrational, is still entirely free. But that isn't the only meaning of freedom. According to you, anyone who for merely expressing an opinion is subjected to social ostracism, online abuse short of actionable threats, loss of employment, or anonymous slander is still "free."
It is true that they are not suffering from a loss of freedom imposed by government, but they are still rather unfree. It's a terrifying situation for normal people.
Your comments that all the Stanford prof has to do is go drive somewhere is rather silly. Universities historically were places where diverse and dissenting views were encouraged. In philosophy classes and other liberal arts classes, professors would encourage robust debate, and they would use texts that challenged received ideas.
Now such ideas and such texts are de facto forbidden. The fact that only the major universities proscribe and punish free speech and that the John Deer dealership welcomes dissent is irrelevant. The universities are supposed to protect the life of the mind, not surrender it to vendors of farm equipment.
It's not just a matter of "changing norms," also. People were not thrown out of their jobs or college in 1978 for expressing dissenting viewpoints.
Now they are.
Perhaps the most salient point within your context is your claim that the universities that do this are "private." Eh, not really. They receive billions of dollars in government funding. Why should they be allowed to censor dissenting views when they receive everyone's money?
I agree with you that they should be allowed to do this if they really don't take government funds, like Grove City College or Bob Jones University. But if they are going to live on the public, they have to accept the right of the public to dissent.
"That threat clearly comes from the MAGA right, which has been willing to overturn a free and fair election and threatens to do that and worse again in the future.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the left use the COVID scare as an excuse to change the voting laws, thereby improving their chances of winning the 2020 elections, as well as those in the future?
Yes, where to draw the line. I appreciate the ideas, but disagree that this is a problem. Mr. Fukuyama should just move to a red state where he'll feel more comfortable. That is, if he doesn't mind that he can be fired without cause and that his area of expertise is dropped from the curricula by the right-wing businessmen that have taken over school administration.