xyzzyz

Although not quite the archetypical example of what people think of when hearing "student-led revolution", since you already mention Afghanistan, it's worth pointing out that "Taliban" literally means "students".

There are still shares when the company is private. If you don’t want there to be shares, you must not have partners, take investment, or use equity based compensation for employees. Not exactly conducive to building a successful company.

Yes, students engage in other wrong behaviors too. Not sure what your point is.

Sure, it's not always students who invite someone, but that doesn't really affect much: students are not a uniform body, and even if they were, while university administration might want to choose someone they'll like, they also might want to choose someone who'll challenge them, and provide diverse perspective to counter such homogeneity -- as I understand it, diversity is an important value to university administrators.

Ultimately, the problem with deplatforming is not about mere complaining. Students complain all the time about everything. The problem rather is about public disturbance, heckling, and intimidation. That's what the student activists are regularly engaged in.

You used the word "campus", because you didn't want to say that the students wanted to hear someone speak. You didn't want to say that, because it's clearly false: students are the ones who invited the deplatformed speakers in the first place. Sure, some other students didn't want them to be able to speak, but then we are just talking about differing opinions and a right of a minority students to hear voices that the majority wants deplatformed. By using the word "campus", you attempted to imply a presence of a non-existent consensus.

There's also a second reason why you used the word "campus": because when anyone speaks on a campus, the inanimate campus always hears it. If you said that the "students campuses don't want to hear someone speak", the obvious retort is that nobody is making them do it, they just don't have to attend. Of course, what is actually happening there is not that the majority of students don't want to hear those speakers, instead they don't want the speakers to be able to speak, and they don't want the minority to be able to listen. That's why deplatforming is so pernicious and evil, and why people like to play language games to minimize the illiberalism on campuses.

Billionaires didn't pay any more taxes between 1930s and 1980s than they do now. Moreover, during Reagan presidency, total government tax revenues as percentage of GDP were *higher* than between 1930 and 1980.

You are simply illustrating rayiner's point: you don't understand the financial side of running the government, you have no knowledge of actual figures, neither current nor historical, but believe that taxing rich guys even more will solve all the problems we have.

How can a "campus" not want to hear someone speak? Can you explain how that works?

By this logic, 25% of Americans don’t have democracy today.

Yeah, no wonder she married her Apollo boss who promoted her into the famed software lead position.

You are misremembering something you read. Software written in 1950s already had error handling in it.

They also separately give algorithm for Fourier transform over complex number faster than O(n log n)

In practice, most atheists in western world are following Christian morality, and are passing Christian morality to their children, even if the Christianity itself is abandoned.

There are fewer anti police riots in UK, because UK is much more effective at catching and prosecuting rioters than US. In US, rioters enjoy extreme leniency. Only a tiny fraction of 2020 rioters have faced any justice at all.

As for police killings, you are comparing an event that’s extremely unlikely to happen with an event that’s multiple orders of magnitude more likely. Speech offense prosecutions in UK are more common today than political prosecutions were in post Kruschev Soviet Union. The only reason UK has fewer political prisoners than Soviet Union had is that the sentences are shorter and typically non-custodial.

Yes, because profitable enterprises are able to grow faster than unprofitable ones. If you think something is good, and want more of it, making it profitable is conducive to your goals.

In a world as of a couple years ago, when nobody called CO2 “air pollutant”.