Again, it is semantics. The agreement was that they were doing the show in partnership with a student group and it was open to the public with no other restrictions. The student group was then removed as sponsor, the college restricted access to students only after tickets were sold and required an opening speech from someone with no association with the event. I believe they also said they would require all questions to be pre-screened. For all intents and purposes they forced the cancellation by adding all the changes.

Think of it like this - you booked a wedding for 200 people with a band, food vendor and cake vendor. Five days before the wedding, the venue calls to tell you the guest limit is changed to 50 people only, you cannot have a band or your own food vendor but they will provide a DJ and food from their own vendor, take it or leave it. Of course you are going to walk away. Technically you cancelled but for all intents the venue put in so many restrictions it forced your hand. It is no different.

Oh, does that podcast lie like you do? Is that why it "gets blocked and reported?" Ho ho, so much for the tolerant left AMIRITE?!?!?1!!

"Semantics" as a response to "YOU LIED" is a valid response for this loser because truth does not matter - service to the agenda matters.

In this case, the OP is getting the "I got cancelled!" tale OP desired. It'll get fed back to the podcast, the podcast might mention OP, and then OP will get a dopamine rush of social acceptance (and make a Randy Marsh-ian mess of his keyboard). It's all very sad when you understand the 'point' of these posts: validation and attention for a starveling.

OP ignores the law because OP isn't incelligent enough to even know what Masterpiece is or why "their side" wanted it. And it's garbage law. But it is the law and it makes this whole whiny spectacle even more pathetic. Even if what OP lies about were true, it'd still be what OP's allies wanted.

Fuck liars. Or something semantically similar.

Or perhaps they're tired of this attention seeking bullshit. You don't see Planned Parenthood complaining that the Catholic Church won't host their lecture series on safe sex and abortion access. College's have widely taken the position that they respect the science around this issue and will provide a campus where people are free from harassment and belittlement. Just because they aren't welcoming people into their homes to attack people who live there (yes colleges are literally homes for their students) they aren't saying the conversation can't be had, they're just saying 'this isn't going to be your forum today.'

I'm sorry, is your position that colleges are coddled playpens or do you believe that every member of faculty at a prestigious university knows best? Pick a lane buddy.

This person isn't new to the game and has been repeated corrected by many people in their field.

Yes. Well there are 666 floors of fright - they are not always going to be winners.

Look at then occasional fucknut in some election that touts his MIT or Wharton degree. Every once in a while madness takes it’s toll…

In both history and political science you are not writing your opinion. You are creating a fact based argument, something which is very different from an opinion and needs to show a full grasp of the arguments others have made in the readings. If you approach it from the angle of writing your opinion you are going to end up with a badly written assignment. I'm sorry that this was not made clear to you, but it's an important distinction.

I strongly disagree that college is a waste, but will agree that there are other options and that it shouldn't serve as the roadblock to employment that it currently does. However, for the careers you outlined both teaching and engineering are going to require a base knowledge that is best learned in the classroom before real world experience makes the needed impact. If you've ever worked with an engineer you would know that they don't have the time to cover 101 topics with every new hire because they never learned it in school.

There are many issues with universities and colleges that need to be addressed and our path from school to work needs to be cleaned up. There is so much space here for compromise. But unfortunately the arguments around what happens at institutes of higher education are too often made from a position of ignorance or bad faith which prevents us from even being able to start discussing how we could re-imagine it's relationship to society & work. People need to put in the minimal effort needed to understand how and why colleges are an invaluable resource before they can start to dismantle why they're also kinda fucked up. Like the papers you wrote in college and did poorly on, it should start with understanding the position you are against.

The original poster is saying that the rules changed to such an extent they could not be met. Like changing the definition of a Recession to say you are not in a Recession.

>Demanding that others not hear the message of the opposing viewpoint isn't protesting.

Sure it is. Enforcing a ban, for example by physically attacking people trying to attend, would cross the line from protesting to assault.

While I find it massively obnoxious that rightwing religious nutjobs conduct perpetual protests at abortion clinics, demanding that women not get abortions, I recognize that it is their right to conduct such protests. Wouldn't you agree?

Sure, Dartmouth as a private institution can allow or bar anyone from discussing anything, but if one is going to claim that 'liberals' are 'cancelling' viewpoints by expressing contrary viewpoints then a reminder that all expressions are equally protected seems appropriate.

Show many any evidence that Dartmouth should fear rioters. There is still none. You are trying to walk on water and claiming that because there's a surface it's solid.