Post: #1

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...inorities/

"American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data on free speech and media across the globe."

"In the U.S., our findings also show a racial divide on this question, with non-whites more likely (38%) to support government prevention of such speech than non-Hispanic whites (23%)."

"Furthermore, Americans who have a high school degree or less are more likely than those with at least a college degree to say that speech offensive to minority groups should be able to be restricted (a 9-percentage-point difference)."

"In Europe, where long-simmering racial tensions are of a different nature, compounded by the recent flow of migrants from North Africa and the Middle East, people are more willing than Americans to accept government controls on speech against minorities. A median of 49% across the six EU nations surveyed say this compared with 28% of Americans."

Post: #2

Many Millenials are minorities themselves so I'm not surprised. Every study focusing on white Millenials is aghast at how they think the same as their parents.

As for Europe I bet it's the older generation more than the younger as the young seem more keen to vote for anti-immigrant parties (but it depends on the country too).

Also, clever propaganda with "long simmering racial tensions" in Europe when it's all recent immigration.

Post: #3

According to the survey those who are of the Millennial generation era in Germany and Spain are actually more likely to be in favor of free speech then their Anglo (US and UK) counterparts

"In contrast with American Millennials, those ages 18 to 34 in Germany and Spain are more likely to say people should be able to say things offensive to minorities compared with those ages 35 and older. On the other hand, in the UK, the younger generation follows the lead of American Millennials by being less open to this form of freedom of speech and more willing to allow government restrictions. There are no significant age differences in France, Italy and Poland on this question."

Perhaps the backlash against PCness is more far along in Europe (though I have to add that the poll also mentioned there wasn't significant differences between age groups in their opinions on free speech in France, Italy, or Poland) then in the Anglosphere? If you look at the migrant thread there's indications of a lot of simmering tension despite the work of the establishment to keep it controlled.

Post: #4

There'a recent study I read about in Reason Magazine that did research about why this young generation want third party (government/schools etc) intervention, it was interesting.

Basically comes down to two things: Parents coddled these children which inhibited their ability to sort out their own disputes, leading this gen to always seek a 'referee'; And we have reached such a high level of equality in our society that now people see even the slightest perceived 'inequality' as a grave insult, assuming the role of victim.

http://www.academia.edu/10541921/Microag...l_Cultures

Quote:In "Microaggression and Moral Cultures," the California State University, Los Angeles sociologist Bradley Campbell and the West Virginia University sociologist Jason Manning identify a "culture of victimhood" that they distinguish from the "honor cultures" and "dignity cultures" of the past. In a victimhood culture, they write, "individuals and groups display high sensitivity to slight, have a tendency to handle conflicts through complaints to third parties, and seek to cultivate an image of being victims who deserve assistance."

Insightfully complementing their analysis is a new study by the St. Lawrence University economist Steven Horwitz, titled "Cooperation Over Coercion: The Importance of Unsupervised Childhood Play for Democracy and Liberalism." Horwitz makes the case that overprotective childrearing is undermining the "ability to engage in group problem solving and settle disputes without the intervention of outsiders,"

The authors argue that people seek the moral status of victim in situations where social stratification is low, cultural diversity is high, and authorities are referees. These three conditions pervade the modern American university, so it not surprising that the microaggression victimhood phenomenon is most intense in academia. Google Trends finds that headlines featuring microaggression started a steep rise in 2012.

As social status becomes more equal, they argue, people become more sensitive to any slights perceived as aiming to increase the level of inequality in a relationship. In addition, as cultural diversity increases, any attempts seen as trying to reduce it or diminish its importance are deemed as a morally deviant form of domination. As the New York University moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt has astutely observed, "As progress is made toward a more equal and humane society, it takes a smaller and smaller offense to trigger a high level of outrage. The goalposts shift, allowing participants to maintain a constant level of anger and constant level of perceived victimization."

Those experiencing what they think are microaggressions seek third-party redress of their grievances by assuming the pose of victim. "People portray themselves as oppressed by the powerful—as damaged, disadvantaged, and needy," write Campbell and Manning. The process heralds the emergence of a culture of victimhood that is distinct from earlier honor and dignity cultures. This is nothing less than demoralizing and polarizing.

In honor cultures, men maintain their honor by responding to insults, slights, and violations of rights by self-help violence. "Cultures of honor tend to arise in places where legal authority is weak or non-existent, and where a reputation for toughness is perhaps the only effective deterrent against predation or attack," write Campbell and Manning. They note that honor cultures still exist in the Arab world and among street gangs in Western societies.

During the 19th century, most Western societies began the moral transition toward dignity cultures in which all citizens are legally endowed with equal rights. Dignity does not depend upon reputation but exists as unalienable rights that do not depend on what other people think of one's bravery. Having a thick skin and shrugging off slights become virtues because they help maintain social peace. The aphorism that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” is practically the motto of dignity cultures.

Horwitz makes a strong case that unsupervised and unstructured play among children teaches them private, noncoercive ways to resolve conflicts and generate cooperation, lessons that are very important to how they conduct themselves when they become adults. Supervised play, by contrast, trains children to expect adults to step in to adjudicate disputes and apply coercion. Horwitz fears this is flipping the social default setting from "figure out how to solve this conflict on your own" to "invoke force and/or third parties whenever conflict arises." He suggests that the recent upsurge in conflicts around sexual consent on campus may arise in part because so many young adults never acquired the social skills developed through unstructured play, such as "ensuring that all involved continue to consent to the rules and to the game being played."

This extreme sensitivity to the slightest perceived inequality is also evident in the reaction to Roosh in Canada- these women see mens ability to seduce them and gain satisfaction from them as an "increase in the level of inequality in a relationship", which is "deemed as a morally deviant form of domination"

Post: #5

I'm surprised it's that low.

Post: #6

Millennials okay with limiting speech if it offends minorities

My impression is there's plenty on this website that feel the same way about "race."

Post: #7

(11-24-2015 01:59 AM)extracube Wrote:  Millennials okay with limiting speech if it offends minorities

My impression is there's plenty on this website that feel the same way about "race."

Post: #8

I'm an older millennial. Women can't solve their own problems, thereby permanently biasing any study.

Post: #9

This thread looks like the right one to post this video from Stefan, quite interesting one, in line with a bit of what has been said here lately.

Post: #10

In other words, those 40% will be the first on the chopping block if a civil war starts.

Post: #11

It's already limited against minorities. Use a word like paki, chink or nigger towards a minority and that's 'hate speech' and a 'hate crime'

Post: #12

Post: #13

I had a law class, the professor projected a paragraph from the first amendment (Though he didn't tell us that is where it was from) and had us read it. Then eh asked by a show of hands if we felt this was wrong. And a huge majority raised tgeir hands.

Post: #14

They're quickly earning the title:

The Frailest Generation

G

Post: #15

This a pretty damn scary precedent.

A minority female Millennial, who is a high school dropout, and a registered democrat.

Every mans greatest fear and every politicians greatest useful idiot.

At least it shows people with bachelors are a bit more educated enough to realize free speech is important.


All because of feelings, difference of opinion, and a highly polarized political spectrum.

Post: #16

We hate conflict, truth, and facts. Generation is so soft.

In many ways, its an amazing opportunity to advanced in life because the mentality runs so deep. In other aspects, its depressing and makes everything feel futile because this generation is being led and gleefully going down a path to a point of no return.

All I know is that the world has a cruel way of revealing truths no matter how hard someone wants to suppress them.

Post: #17

Ironic that Rand Paul has such a large block of support among College aged millennials... This is his latest email - ought to send the 40% against free speech into screaming fits:

In the wake of the devastating terrorist attacks in Paris and Beirut, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and those who lost loved ones. Working together with our allies and friends, we have to step up our fight against terrorism.

If our existing strategy of drone strikes, proxy wars, and toppled governments isn’t the answer, what is?

As a doctor, I know that attacking symptoms isn’t the same thing as finding a cure. I’m also mindful of what the Cold War official and nuclear strategist Paul Nitze said: “One of the most dangerous forms of human error is forgetting what one is trying to achieve.” If we are to eradicate ISIS once and for all, it’s time to take a hard look at what is fueling its growth: money.

ISIS’s reserve of an estimated $2 billion makes it the world’s most well-financed terrorist organization. Airstrikes have impacted ISIS’s oil trade, but there’s one form of funding we can put an immediate stop to: donations from citizens, purported nonprofit groups, and governments or private sources in Gulf nations including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment paid for by American taxpayers are in ISIS’s hands.

This unholy circle of death needs to be shut down once and for all!

We must make sure our defense spending matches our priorities. We do not become stronger by adding more debt to finance military actions that lack a strategy.

I’m fed up with my opponents like Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton who would rather send our sons and daughters to war than turn off the spigot of blood money flowing from these so-called allies. It’s morally outrageous and puts this country at serious risk. I will continue to stand strong against reckless policies that make this country less safe.

Our focus should be at home. We can start with immgration policies. For years, I have called for limitations on admitting foreigners who want to come from countries consumed with hate for America, and I have called for reinstating a program of special scrutiny for anyone coming here from countries that have hotbeds of radical jihadism.

In fact, Marco Rubio blocked my “Trust but Verify” amendment that would have allowed this country to develop an effective screening process that would’ve made America safer. We should be prioritizing securing our borders and bolstering our law enforcement. The tragedy in Paris is unfortunately why we need to be extraordinarily cautious in who we allow to immigrate, visit or study in this country.

These kind of outrageous decisions to block conservative amendments put our country at risk, and how will we fight back under a President Clinton or President Rubio? War?

We already know the risks of sending our sons and daughters to fight in Iraq and Syria. We’ve seen how easily short-term victories on the ground can give way to unintended catastrophes over the long term. It’s time for a smarter strategy—one that requires a bold display of courage not from our soldiers, but from our political leaders.

I will keep fighting for smart policies that keep this country safe.

Will you stand with me today?

In liberty,
Rand Paul

Post: #18

This is actually surprising. I would have assumed all the PC indoctrination in college would make people with bachelor's more likely to support limiting offensive speech. I guess this goes to show that social justice warriors are a small minority, although an extremely loud and obnoxious one.

Post: #19

One of the first casualties of diversity/multiculturalism is free speech. The distrust among the various tribes leads to hurt feelings and agitation about what can and cannot be said or thought.

Post: #20

It's funny how Millennials can be so sensitive to the slightest provocation and then turn around and scream and snarl at their perceived enemies with the fervor of an Evangelical who just found a silhouette of the devil on the surface of their grilled cheese sandwich.

Post: #21

(11-24-2015 01:04 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  There'a recent study I read about in Reason Magazine that did research about why this young generation want third party (government/schools etc) intervention, it was interesting.

Basically comes down to two things: Parents coddled these children which inhibited their ability to sort out their own disputes, leading this gen to always seek a 'referee'; And we have reached such a high level of equality in our society that now people see even the slightest perceived 'inequality' as a grave insult, assuming the role of victim.

http://www.academia.edu/10541921/Microag...l_Cultures

This extreme sensitivity to the slightest perceived inequality is also evident in the reaction to Roosh in Canada- these women see mens ability to seduce them and gain satisfaction from them as an "increase in the level of inequality in a relationship", which is "deemed as a morally deviant form of domination"

This paper was fascinating, the one thing that popped into my mind that wasn't addressed though is the base adaptive reason for the moral culture shift. Honor cultures predominate in hunter-gatherer and herdsman societies, since nomadic people inherently lack centralized authority figures. The development of agriculture and the subsequent settlement of population in towns and cities began the shift towards what the paper describes as dignity culture, once again necessitated by the technology level: you need people to defer to the legal system in order to keep a dense population from killing each other.

What I argue is that while a shift from traditional dignity-based western culture to victim culture is disturbing enough on it's own, it's also the consequence of a shift in food-collecting technology level. From herding to agriculture we've now come to a food collecting system that apparently gives a adaptive advantage to whiny little cunts. Perhaps the ubiquity of food available via modern technology has actually caused us to regress to an r-selected grazing species similar to bonobos, totally divorced from the need to work to procure food. I have no idea if this is the case, but if this theory holds then I'd guess the social behavior of bonobos would mirror the social behavior of college students, simply replacing the screeching vocalizations and throwing of feces with...er whatever bonobos do.

Post: #22

Post: #23

Millennials, women, democrats, non-whites and the less educated - these are the same people in favor of fewer freedoms across the board.

Ironically, they think all of this government intervention makes them freer. A slave to the government but free from the white patriarchy.

Post: #24

This is only partially related to the discussion at hand, but I think it's very important.

I came across an opinion piece on a blog by a guy named Jonathan Haidt, which not only took the baby millennials (i.e. millennials not yet in college) to task, but their teachers as well. It's called "The Yale Problem Begins in High School."

I was very surprised find this guy is a professor at New York University -- a place not known for conservative views, to put it mildly. If NYU is starting to worry about the effect SJW-ism is having, things must really be "problematic," to use a favorite SJW expression.

Anyway, while this blog piece doesn't directly address the subject of this post, it does offer an answer to why millennials are this way: It's their school teachers, who denigrate any diversity of viewpoints.

This is not the way school was when I went there. But there were a lot of differences then, mainly that there was no Title 9, and we had male teachers who didn't have to leave their balls at home each day.

Here is the link, and the whole things is worth reading.

Sample paragraph:

"Last summer I had a conversation with some boys who attend one of the nation’s top prep schools, in New England. They reported the same thing: as white males, they are constantly on eggshells, afraid to speak up on any remotely controversial topic lest they be sent to the “equality police” (that was their term for the multicultural center). I probed to see if their fear extended beyond the classroom. I asked them what they would do if there was a new student at their school, from, say Yemen. Would they feel free to ask the student questions about his or her country? No, they said, it’s too risky, a question could be perceived as offensive."

Post: #25

Related:




http://takimag.com/article/land_of_1000_...z3sX9uBbG1

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...nd/399356/

Here's SJW site Cracked take on it.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-reasons-fr...ure_module