Milo Yiannopoulos hat auch an der Universität von Pittsburgh einen Vortrag gehalten, hier ist das Video dazu:
Wie üblich hatten sich einige Protestanten eingefunden, die Folgendes schilderten:
More than 15 students expressed their concerns at the meeting, focusing on issues of diversity and inclusion at Pitt, particularly in terms of race and sexual identity.
Marcus Robinson, president of Pitt’s Rainbow Alliance, said after leaving the lecture on Monday, he felt unsafe on campus for the first time.
“So many of us shared in our pain. I felt I was in danger, and I felt so many people in that room were in danger. This event erased the great things we’ve done,” Robinson said. “For the first time, I’m disappointed to be at Pitt.”
Robinson suggested that the University should have provided counselors in a neighboring room to help students who felt “invalidated” or “traumatized” by the event.
Other students suggested that the Board research the speakers before it makes an allocations decision or warn students if the speaker will contain content that could be racist or violent or focus on rape and sexual assault. In response to the lecture, students expressed interest in holding a committee to discuss how to prevent future issues.
Board member Lia Petrose said one solution would have been to form a coalition of leaders from student groups before the event to discuss potential concerns, in light of protests at other universities in response to visits from Yiannopoulos.
While SGB focused on the issue of championing free speech in its release, students argued the lecture was “hate speech” and should not follow the same rights.
“This is more than hurt feelings, this is about real violence. We know that the violence against marginalized groups happens every day in this country. That so many people walked out of that [event] feeling in literal physical danger is not alright,” Claire Matway, a social work and urban studies major, said.
Tim Nerozzi, the president of College Republicans and a junior at Pitt, said SGB did not pay Yiannopoulos to speak at Pitt but did fund his hotel and part of his travel expenses.
“I’m not here to rain on your parade. We put a trigger warning on our fliers for the event. We never claimed it would be a family friendly or a politically correct lecture,” Nerozzi said.
Nerozzi, who is an opinions columnist at The Pitt News, said while he understands it is a “messy issue” and does not agree with all of Yiannopoulos’ values, he does believe in the free speech ideal.
“I do realize that some people were genuinely hurt, and I’m not going to ignore that,” Nerozzi said. “But free speech should not trump safety. We need to see the school work around that.”
In response to student comments, Harun said, with teary eyes, said the best way to make an impact on campus was to begin conversations like this with the Board.
Wenn man sich das Video von Milo ansieht, dann kann man eigentlich nur zu dem Ergebnis kommen, dass man erheblich fanatisiert und indoktriniert sein muss, um hier seelische Zusammenbrüche zu erleiden.
Dazu auch noch mal die Schilderung von einer anderen Rede, von McElroy:
Student volunteers put up posters advertising that a “safe space” would be available for anyone who found the debate too upsetting. The safe space, Ms. Byron explained, was intended to give people who might find comments “troubling” or “triggering,” a place to recuperate. The room was equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies, as well as students and staff members trained to deal with trauma. Emma Hall, a junior, rape survivor and “sexual assault peer educator” who helped set up the room and worked in it during the debate,estimates that a couple of dozen people used it. At one point she went to the lecture hall — it was packed — but after a while, she had to return to the safe space. “I was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against my dearly and closely held beliefs,” Ms. Hall said.
Anscheinend erleben diese Personen eine unglaubliche Belastung, wenn sie andere Meinungen hören. Dies wäre mit einer Gehirnwäsche, wie sie in Sekten oder anderen Religionsgemeinschaften mit starken Tabus sicherlich zu erklären, aber nicht damit, dass man in einer Universität eine andere Meinung anhört.
Diese unglaubliche Infantilisierung, diese Unduldsamkeit gegenüber anderen Auffassung, dieses beständige Arbeiten mit Tabus und Denkverboten statt Argumenten passt wirklich nur noch zu seiner Sekte. Und wie diese ist das dortige Denken gefährlich, weil das eigene Denken anscheinend ausgeschaltet wird.