Yale snowflake claims "We support free speech"--but quickly adds "But some speech is too dangerous"

Most Americans probably believe students at Yale, Harvard, Stanford and other "elite" u's are at least somewhat rational and logical, and big supporters of the Constitution and our system of checks and balances, et cetera.

Well you might think that. But actually that's not even close to the truth.

Based on what gets published in the studen newspaper, and supported by the screaming student groups, you get stuff like this piece of self-contradictory garbage below, from the Yale Daily News.  The author is an angry apparent female (though the newest member of the Supreme Court can't be sure) named Hyerim Bianca Nam.  Here's Bianca's article, edited to remove padding:

We say we're creatures of logic, that we embrace rational discussion as the best way to solve conflicts. 

Inspiring start, right?  But as you'll soon see, her "logic" is...unusual. "Special," like she is.  Bianca claims to support "rational discussion," but quickly reveals her real values and agenda in her own words below:

Especially in the United States--because we all support freedom of speech--we’ve made it a point of pride to always make space for listening to ideas, no matter how different they might be from our own.

No, you don't.  You claim you "always make space for listening to ideas" because that fools readers into thinking you're telling the truth.  But you're lying--and either too stupid and indoctrinated to realize it, or doing it deliberately.

We invite the opportunity to have a respectful, logical conversation.  But some arguments aren’t worth engaging with, and are dangerous for even existing. 

Wow, that didn't take long, eh?  "We support free speech, BUT...some arguments are dangerous for even existing," eh?  If the arguments you hate are so flawed, it should be easy for someone as faabulously smaht as you to calmly, rationally show the fallacies in such arguments, eh?  But rather than win the debate, you refuse to debate--claiming that "some arguments are dangerous for even existing."  Clever bullshit.

You're welcome to make the second claim if you like, but if you do (and you did) you can't simultaneously claim you "invite conversation" and support free speech.  Because you just said you don't--using the cunning emotional play that "some arguments are dangerous."

Last year I was angered by seeing a table on campus for a pro-life student group.  The students in the club were inviting passersby to debate abortion. They were polite, spoke calmly and had relaxed, open smiles.

Their smug civility was infuriating, their invitations to debate, inflammatory. I could barely seethe out my opinion about the misogyny of holding such a debate at all.

I regret talking with them.  The discussion never should have been entertained, because simply allowing a “logical, respectful” debate on abortion is a threat to human rights that should never be debated.  Yale should never have allowed a so-called "pro-life" group to have a table on campus.  

Interesting:  You began your poorly-reasoned, self-contradicting piece by claiming you totally supported "free speech."  But you've just said speech you don't like shouldn't be permitted.  Total contradiction.

Hard to decide which should embarrass you more: your brazen, obvious hypocrisy, or the fact that you'd submit your piece for publication seemingly without having detected the obvious contradiction between your pious bleating about "free speech" and "reasoned debate" and your diametrically-opposed conclusion that speech you don't like shouldn't be permitted.  Have to say you're typical of your group.

This article is not specifically about abortion rights, but about my experience that led me to realize the futility of logical debate.  That would include conversations in the common room when someone shares harmful opinions and invites discussion.

I’m telling you, it’s not worth it. And at some point that you have to disengage. The burden is not on us to talk our mouths dry and educate others.  It’s an insult to our personhood, experience and rights to have to hold some of these “debates.” 

No one is forcing you to debate, bitch.  But what you're demanding is that the only speech and views to be allowed are the ones you support.  You want to ban others, using the pretext that it's an insult to YOU to be forced to debate issues you want to ban from discussion.

Starting to see your hypocrisy yet, bitch?  Nah, didn't think so.  Instead you brazenly claim the moral high ground--"Ooooh, we Yalies totally support free speech!"--while actually doing the opposite.  And to neatly wrap this up, here's you're closing 'graf:

We can’t all be saviors. Some people are only interested in pulling us below the surface of the water. Let go of the line of thinking. Abort the conversation.

You imply that your hypocritical refusal to allow speech you don't like--despite falsely, piously claiming to support free speech--actually makes you and your comrades "saviors."

What you actually are, more than anything, is a totally typical representative of the American Left, screaming snowflakes who constantly lie and refuse to debate, while screaming that the other side is insulting you by seeking to debate issues.   Hmmm....

Source.

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2023/04/11/nam-abort-the-conversation/