You know, so no one gets offended.

http://theappalachianonline.com/2015/03 ... med-event/

How about no. This isn't a high school. Just don't host juvenile and moronic events like "Thug Life." A good leader would have spotted that push back coming the second the idea was introduced.

Yosef10 wrote:How about no. This isn't a high school. Just don't host juvenile and moronic events like "Thug Life." A good leader would have spotted that push back coming the second the idea was introduced.

Exactly, it's not high school. If a group wants to express themselves in a rude or offensive way we don't need I kangaroo court to censor them. If you don't like what a group does, don't join them.

Besides, who does this offend? Thugs?

Is this what you had in mind?

No one was censored. This wasn't a "kangaroo court."

A group had a party that some other students found offensive, so that group of students held a discussion about it. Free speech all 'round.

appchicago wrote:No one was censored. This wasn't a "kangaroo court."

A group had a party that some other students found offensive, so that group of students held a discussion about it. Free speech all 'round.

You're right, everyone was within their rights. Both group's mission was to shame the other. The discussion was held to scold the Young Life group, ie, censor.

That's not what censorship is.

More surprising this came from an on campus religious organization

A mistake that was reasonably handled by a group of young adults in a manner benefiting all sides involved, which is way more mature than the OP here has acted.

appchicago wrote:That's not what censorship is.

How is this not an attempt at censorship?

The inability to distinguish between "scolding" and "censoring" is at the heart of most misguided First Amendment complaints.

T-Dog wrote:A mistake that was reasonably handled by a group of young adults in a manner benefiting all sides involved, which is way more mature than the OP here has acted.

A personal attack launched from the security of one's computer screen accusing another of immaturity. Congrats Champ! Pot->Kettle

EastHallApp wrote:The inability to distinguish between "scolding" and "censoring" is at the heart of most misguided First Amendment complaints.

I'm not making a First Amendment complaint. I'm making a point about the sensitivity level of these college students.

HeffnerIV wrote:

appchicago wrote:That's not what censorship is.

How is this not an attempt at censorship?

Censorship is the prohibition or suppression of free speech, usually by a government or other authority. That isn't what happened here. One group of students had a party, and another group of students talked about it.

If you can't have a discussion about propriety and cultural appropriation on a college campus, where should that discussion take place?

HeffnerIV wrote:

EastHallApp wrote:The inability to distinguish between "scolding" and "censoring" is at the heart of most misguided First Amendment complaints.

I'm not making a First Amendment complaint. I'm making a point about the sensitivity level of these college students.

Fair enough. But then censorship doesn't factor into the discussion.

HeffnerIV wrote:

appchicago wrote:No one was censored. This wasn't a "kangaroo court."

A group had a party that some other students found offensive, so that group of students held a discussion about it. Free speech all 'round.

You're right, everyone was within their rights. Both group's mission was to shame the other. The discussion was held to scold the Young Life group, ie, censor.

You've got a very expansive definition of the word censorship if it includes passing moral judgment on the actions of other groups. If we take that definition of censorship then we can argue that you are attempting to censor the offended groups by scolding or shaming them for holding a "kangaroo court." I think its better to go with the normal understanding of censorship: prohibiting speech.

Its possible the offended students had not just a right, but a moral duty to say something. And that we all have a duty to call out things that we think are wrong, or that have a corrosive effect on society. We're going to disagree with each others about what is actually wrong, but that's OK. Its simply part of an open exchange of ideas.

appchicago wrote:

HeffnerIV wrote:

appchicago wrote:That's not what censorship is.

How is this not an attempt at censorship?

Censorship is the prohibition or suppression of free speech, usually by a government or other authority. That isn't what happened here. One group of students had a party, and another group of students talked about it.

If you can't have a discussion about propriety and cultural appropriation on a college campus, where should that discussion take place?

Yes, censorship is usually administered by a governing body. But the fact that the government (even though the discussion leaders were representatives of university sanctioned groups and the event was held on campus) wasn't the censoring party in this case doesn't change the definition of the word.

Again, I'm not arguing for/against the meeting's appropriateness. I'm simply commenting on the sensitivity level of the administrating group.

And yes, I'm also appalled that this was facilitated by a "Christian" group.

HeffnerIV wrote:You know, so no one gets offended.

http://theappalachianonline.com/2015/03 ... med-event/

United States of the Offended. SMH!

EastHallApp wrote:

HeffnerIV wrote:

EastHallApp wrote:The inability to distinguish between "scolding" and "censoring" is at the heart of most misguided First Amendment complaints.

I'm not making a First Amendment complaint. I'm making a point about the sensitivity level of these college students.

Fair enough. But then censorship doesn't factor into the discussion.

How so? The word censorship/censor is not used in the First Amendment once, to my recollection. Do you not believe that the mission of the discussion was to stop/silence young life from their actions through shame?

wataugan03 wrote:

HeffnerIV wrote:

appchicago wrote:No one was censored. This wasn't a "kangaroo court."

A group had a party that some other students found offensive, so that group of students held a discussion about it. Free speech all 'round.

You're right, everyone was within their rights. Both group's mission was to shame the other. The discussion was held to scold the Young Life group, ie, censor.

You've got a very expansive definition of the word censorship if it includes passing moral judgment on the actions of other groups. If we take that definition of censorship then we can argue that you are attempting to censor the offended groups by scolding or shaming them for holding a "kangaroo court." I think its better to go with the normal understanding of censorship: prohibiting speech.

Its possible the offended students had not just a right, but a moral duty to say something. And that we all have a duty to call out things that we think are wrong, or that have a corrosive effect on society. We're going to disagree with each others about what is actually wrong, but that's OK. Its simply part of an open exchange of ideas.

See above. My definition of the word comes from the copy/pasted text I shared. Those aren't my words. Your second point is fair.

I don't think we can use the "normal understanding" of words, however. It would simply deem words meaningless if they had floating interpretations. The definition specifically states 'suppression', not "prohibition." I argue that this "discussion" was intended to suppress expression.