There is a huge difference between seeing public funding cut and disinviting speakers, banning people from social media, literally deleting their texts, revoking membership in academic associations over wrongthink and so on.

They can continue their research on these topics through third party funds and no one is gonna stop them from doing that. Neither is anyone gonna stop them from publishing these ideas in academic papers or as a private citizen. The only thing that's proposed here is that public funding does not go to the teaching of ideas whose dissemination the legislature considers to be against public interest.

The difference is 'censoring' versus 'not propping up'.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 29 2021 11:24pm

You are really intent on doubling down on stupid aren't you?

If somebody is disinvited they can continue to speak about those topics elsewhere. Nobody is going to stop them from doing that. Neither is anybody going to stop them from publishing these ideas in newspapers as a private citizen.

You are cherry picking. This is such an insanely obvious example it's really sad you are trying to defend it.

The examples are not working out like you claim they do.The gist of liberal cancel culture on campuses is to stir shit up to get unwanted speakers to be disinvited everywhere where their ideas would find a meaningful audience. Dito for the whole 'deplatforming' concept. Cruz's bill is not doing the same for scholars who research and public on systemic racism and all that. Likewise, no one is proposing to revoke the membership in academic associations over these scholars' support for woke ideas, or to put pressure on newspapers and websites which publish their ideas. The only thing that's proposed here is that a particular thesis is not force-fed to unsuspecting students by teachers or professors in classes which are funded by the taxpayer.


----------


What's really sad is that you cannot discern 'censorship of certain ideas' and 'refusing public financial support for certain ideas'.

Let's take a look at a different example to make this distinction clearer: after January 6th, all social media companies banned Trump. When he threatened to keep spreading his message on an alternative platform, Parler, Google and Amazon abused their market power to deplatform the entirety of Parler in order to quell a potential "right-wing social media platform". Google/Amazon essentially said "even if you pay your server bills, we're gonna cut you off anyway because we don't like the things that are said on your platform". That's censorship.

The "withdraw funding" equivalent in that context would have been if Parler was a money-losing pet project owned by Google or Amazon and them telling their subsidiary "if you host Trump, we will stop shouldering your server bills that you cannot pay yourself, but we'll happily sell you to a different company and keep hosting your content as long as you can pay for it".

When the government stops giving money they otherwise would give because of speech, that is the government actively punishing specific speech. It's the same with private workers having money removed from the companies they work for because the worker engaged in BDS.

This is not only cancel culture, it's a far more egregious violation of free speech because it's the government actively taking a stand against a specific type of speech. This would actually be an order of magnitude worse than cancelling a speaker or a private business firing somebody because it is the federal government.

Not only that, it's the government actively standing against speech that is absolutely and uncontrovertably true. That as well should be an absolutely massive red flag. This isn't a matter of opinion any more than the holocaust happening is a matter of opinion.



I don't think you appreciate how much worse this would be for free speech compared to getting somebody fired for a tweet. This would be the government actively enforcing "acceptable speech" to all federally funded institutions even when that speech is uncontrovertably true.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jun 30 2021 12:11am

First lets point out how the constitution is racist to begin with?

Oh ya know. Probably something to do with that whole 3/5ths compromise thing. Yeah, probably that.

If you don't understand how the constitution is racist, and you're an American, then you're kind of an idiot. The original constitution enshrined slavery on racial grounds and had a specific compromise on how many people those slaves counted as for voting purposes, while not giving them the right to vote. How could anybody walk away from that document and not think it's racist? It's literally spelled out in the text.

and this isn't some accidental thing. The inferiority of Africans as a central tenant of American slavery and a fundamental assumption of the eventual confederacy.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jun 30 2021 01:07am

13th Amendment exists

Doesn't erase the history and development of the document.

The original constitution did not use slaves/slavery and it avoided the subject. It had several provisions relating to "unfree" persons. Slavery existed there is no denying that but it has no implication of race.

Its the purple haired cucks who study critical race theory intentionally drawing conclusions to indoctrinate the marxist propaganda and try to strip away the foundations of America.

They can study it all they want and have their private circle jerks around their beloved communism all they like its just they don't deserve taxpayers (federal) money for funding. Which this bill is all about.
If you want to fund anti American propaganda great go ahead but leave me out.