Opening Minds on Campus

[bernorange 8348]

Quote

...

When in 1759, On the Mind was burnt by the public hangman in company with Voltaire’s poem On Natural Law, though he had soundly hated (and roundly abused) Helvétius’ masterpiece, he fought for its right to live, tooth and nail, up hill and down dale, on the essentially Voltairean principle: “I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.”

...

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/

[hpslugga 4044]

22 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Yes, but I also read what you wrote.

"I think the idea that shouting down people with views you don't share or attacking them personally is horrendous.  I do not feel threatened by opposing views and don't understand why others do."

It seems like you don't want an aggressive response when it comes to your viewpoint.  "Shouting down" someone isn't the same as shutting them up.  If you think your view has merit, shout back.  If everyone seems to be shouting down your views, perhaps you should actually take a hard look at your views and first, make sure that you truly believe them, and second, understand why those "shouting you down" feel the way they do.  What you want is for people to be required to sit and listen to your viewpoint.  You want a safe space.  However, when you say something like "a woman's place is in the home and the kitchen," most women, and many men, are gonna tell you to "fuck off." 

The article itself is fine.

100% this. Politics isn't a part of a person's little ghetto/cult. When you articulate publicly just about any view, you're going to have to deal with public opinion, to the extent anyone is listening to/reading you. If you cannot handle the negative feedback, you should retreat to your cult/ghetto and stop pretending like you have anything to say publicly. Yeah, Milo can speak and I think even the most left-of-center should go listen to him, but the tradeoff is that Milo has to suffer their questions/comments to the extent that they're valid against his insipid horseshit. If the speaker sets up a filter to where he only gets positive feedback directed at him/her, fuck them. They don't belong. They've proven themselves to be soft, numbskulled, indoctrinated buffoons that can certainly read canned talking points, but they cannot defend them. If you can't defend what you're saying, what the hell are you trying to do? 

[Caddox 952]

15 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

100% this. Politics isn't a part of a person's little ghetto/cult. When you articulate publicly just about any view, you're going to have to deal with public opinion, to the extent anyone is listening to/reading you. If you cannot handle the negative feedback, you should retreat to your cult/ghetto and stop pretending like you have anything to say publicly. Yeah, Milo can speak and I think even the most left-of-center should go listen to him, but the tradeoff is that Milo has to suffer their questions/comments to the extent that they're valid against his insipid horseshit. If the speaker sets up a filter to where he only gets positive feedback directed at him/her, fuck them. They don't belong. They've proven themselves to be soft, numbskulled, indoctrinated buffoons that can certainly read canned talking points, but they cannot defend them. If you can't defend what you're saying, what the hell are you trying to do? 

I agree with all of this, but you have to actually debate that person. You can’t use violence or force to prevent the person’s ideas from getting out there. If they’re bad ideas that will come out in the discussion.

Milo is a perfect example. He’s a self promoting provocateur. Well kids need to know what that is, and why he is doing that. Once they know why he is there it will properly frame the conversation. But turning him into some symbol of hatred is making him something he isn’t and creates curiosity behind what he is saying that isn’t really consistent with why he is saying it. 

[Brian Fantana 6668]

48 minutes ago, Caddox said:

When a country becomes too polarized violence follows. Universities are a good indicator for where we are in that process. If you can’t have an open conversation there we are in trouble (and we are.) 

This is especially true in the humanities which have basically lost any conservative (or even neutral) voice. Keep in mind I’m not saying they should be predominantly conservative. I’m saying students are now overwhelmingly “taught” by biased professors who seek to influence their students with their own politics. 

Thats not the way it’s supposed to work and we are just beginning to see that play out now.

On the flip side of that coin, you can't just "teach the facts" to students, when what is fact and what is "alternative fact" is heavily politicized by one large group of people.

[hpslugga 4044]

16 minutes ago, Caddox said:

I agree with all of this, but you have to actually debate that person. You can’t use violence or force to prevent the person’s ideas from getting out there. If they’re bad ideas that will come out in the discussion.

Milo is a perfect example. He’s a self promoting provocateur. Well kids need to know what that is, and why he is doing that. Once they know why he is there it will properly frame the conversation. But turning him into some symbol of hatred is making him something he isn’t and creates curiosity behind what he is saying that isn’t really consistent with why he is saying it. 

I don't disagree with any of this, except for the part about Milo. Milo isn't a provocateur. Milo is a troll. A provocateur is someone who inspires or, provokes (SWIDT?) a discussion on an issue that isn't often discussed. A troll is someone who just says shit to piss people off/push their buttons. Milo does the latter. He even admits to being self loathing due to his gayness. But yeah, I agree that the answer to deal with even a troll (much less a provocateur) isn't to beat their ass.

[Caddox 952]

4 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

I don't disagree with any of this, except for the part about Milo. Milo isn't a provocateur. Milo is a troll. A provocateur is someone who inspires or, provokes (SWIDT?) a discussion on an issue that isn't often discussed. A troll is someone who just says shit to piss people off/push their buttons. Milo does the latter. He even admits to being self loathing due to his gayness. But yeah, I agree that the answer to deal with even a troll (much less a provocateur) isn't to beat their ass.

Sure troll may be more accurate for the demographic we are talking about. However, they need to know "trolling" is nothing new, it's just become a more common phenomenon due to the internet. The worst thing you can do is engage a troll in serious conversation. But if kids don't really know what Milo is up to, thats all they're going to do. 

[bernorange 8348]

50 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

...  If you cannot handle the negative feedback, ...

There is a difference between negative feedback and censorship.

[seven 1366]

Republicans would probably get "shouted down" less often if they stopped being gross racists, jmho

[hpslugga 4044]

24 minutes ago, bernorange said:

There is a difference between negative feedback and censorship.

And certain people don't know what that difference is. For example, and I'm not at all sorry if I trigger a few people with this, but if one wants to argue (since we're talking about him) that Milo getting disinvited to speak at Berkeley was a violation of his 1st Amendment rights/protections, one has already lost the argument. It's very well to talk about the differences between negative feedback and censorship, but I'm not even going to pretend to pay attention to anyone who makes the distinction based on which political ideology the speaker is representing. 

[TahoeHorn 107]

Shouting down occurs on both sides.  For example I hear anger at evolution.

If I had a kid they'd lear what scientists have to say about evolution and what Christian fundamentalists have to say about creationism.  You don't have to believe anything.

Across the board, I believe in understanding the views of various parties in controversial topics.   I don't support being forced to listen to anybody.  I'll pick an advocate who is polite (reading versus listening accomplishes this) and knowledgeable.

If you can't listen to, or read about, a position you find objectionable you have a problem.  If you can't be polite while doing so you have a problem.

If you can't spend a day watching Fox and a day watching MSNBC without getting upset you have a problem.

There are some ideas which should not be permitted to be expressed.  Our laws do an excellent job of defining what these are.  If your personal behavior deviates very far from the law in what kind of speech you think should be permitted you have a problem. 

Again, there is a BIG difference between speech that is allowed to willing recipients and speech that is foisted upon the unwilling.  Almost no speech qualifies for the latter.

[Amobie 58]

53 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

On the flip side of that coin, you can't just "teach the facts" to students, when what is fact and what is "alternative fact" is heavily politicized by one large group of people.

The theory of relativity supports this observation.  

[bernorange 8348]

Censorship isn't limited to govco/1st amendment.  Moderators on a discussion forum can censor members.  Crowdsourcing is a form of censorship.  Shouting loudly at a public venue to disrupt a speaker's ability to communicate is censorship.  Some forms of censorship are more odious than others.  But let's be clear that the Antifa cheerleaders are quite content with the most odious forms of censorship.

[hpslugga 4044]

6 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Shouting down occurs on both sides.  For example I hear anger at evolution.

If I had a kid they'd lear what scientists have to say about evolution and what Christian fundamentalists have to say about creationism.  You don't have to believe anything.

That's a terrible example. There's scientific evidence that supports evolution. No such evidence exists for creationism. Those are not "two competing theories" and it's not a matter of "belief" either. One is a fact and one isn't. They cannot both be right. What you're talking about is opinion, which are things like "blue is the best color" and "steak tastes better than lobster." There's no right or wrong answer to those. Evolution? Yes, there's a right and a wrong answer. I know that hurts people's personal feelings, but personal feelings do not change facts. It's the same as the Flat Earth Theory. Those are not two competing "theories." The Flat Earth is a flat out fraud. Period.

6 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Across the board, I believe in understanding the views of various parties in controversial topics

I would agree to a limited extent. When people propose views that have no basis in reality, there's no reason to "understand" shit about them. I'm not going to try to understand a person who things that NASA is an organization that's dedicated to the suppression of the "fact" that the Earth is propped up in outer space by 1,001 giant space turtles.

6 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

   I don't support being forced to listen to anybody.  I'll pick an advocate who is polite (reading versus listening accomplishes this) and knowledgeable.

What does "polite" have to do with it? The only thing that matters is "is what this person saying true or false?" There's an old proverb that says of a pathological liar "he would rather climb the tallest tree in the forest and tell a lie than to stand on the ground and tell the truth." This is somewhat related. I'd rather listen to the rudest motherfucker on Planet Earth speak accurately than to the politest motherfucker on Planet Earth tell lies and fairy tales.

6 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

There are some ideas which should not be permitted to be expressed.  Our laws do an excellent job of defining what these are.  If your personal behavior deviates very far from the law in what kind of speech you think should be permitted you have a problem. 

You're talking about two different things. Behavior and expression of ideas are in no way the same.

[bad_teammate 13132]

15 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Some forms of censorship are more odious than others.  But let's be clear that the Antifa cheerleaders are quite content with the most odious forms of censorship.

Define: Odious means of censorship

[TahoeHorn 107]

14 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

That's a terrible example. There's scientific evidence that supports evolution. No such evidence exists for creationism. Those are not "two competing theories" and it's not a matter of "belief" either. One is a fact and one isn't. They cannot both be right. What you're talking about is opinion, which are things like "blue is the best color" and "steak tastes better than lobster." There's no right or wrong answer to those. Evolution? Yes, there's a right and a wrong answer. I know that hurts people's personal feelings, but personal feelings do not change facts. It's the same as the Flat Earth Theory. Those are not two competing "theories." The Flat Earth is a flat out fraud. Period.

I...

You missed the point.

I do not believe that one should take the position, as you are, that one should only be allowed to present, or listen to, "facts".  For example, many of the positions of the Black Lives Matter group are demonstrably false.  But they believe these positions.  They are a relevant part of society, just like Christian fundamentalists are.  Just because I don't believe that Michael Brown had his hands up, or that the Earth is 6,000 years old doesn't mean that it isn't important for me to know what these folks think.   And if I had a kid I wouldn't shield him from these thoughts.  I tell his ass to read about it and understand these folks better.  

Edited March 27, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[SKJ 1305]

3 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

 For example, many of the positions of the Black Lives Matter group are demonstrably false.  

Please, gimme a few (more than 4)...

 

3 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

 Just because I don't believe that Michael Brown had his hands up, 

What makes you believe this?

[Lurch 5921]

On 3/26/2018 at 2:10 PM, TahoeHorn said:

- I don't know what stormfront is.

I find this incredibly hard to believe. I’m not suggesting you agree with them, but it seems near impossible that someone engaged in political discussion as much as you is somehow unaware of them.

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 hours ago, Lurch said:

I find this incredibly hard to believe. I’m not suggesting you agree with them, but it seems near impossible that someone engaged in political discussion as much as you is somehow unaware of them.

You don't understand my political discussions off this board.  I talk about who will man the phone bank for the special election, what the poll watchers are seeing, and who will get the media to look at our cake for our celebration of the club's 400th consecutive monthly meeting.

If I talk politics it's fairly polite and among Republicans.   If it's with elected officials it's a carefully crafted pitch on a topic I think I can have an impact on.  For example I implored a few representatives who understand the need to convert our retirement system from defined benefit to defined contribution.  We didn't discuss the issue.  We discussed who was backing it, who was opposing it and what had to be done to make it a higher priority.

I would never discuss something like Nazi advocacy groups off this board.  Shit like that is not real life to me.   Only nuts like it or think it's a big problem.  There are hundreds of nutty groups.

I do read a lot about politics but I don't read the talk radio kind of crap.  Anything I do along those lines is here.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

I'm not sure this news below actually fits in this topic, but it's close enough and it is also very very important due to the rise of fascism in this country. Not the left wing fascism that Fox and Friends blather on about, but the attack on the liberal institution in academia. You all know about it, two pages of talk above, and the recent political speeches that talk about taking back education from the left, the dark money funding Campus Reform--these are all signs that there may be some changes coming and it doesn't bode well if they are changes against open ideas. Elise Stefanik most likely wants Harvard to remove her because victimhood has traction. Interesting isn't it? She is an elected official, promoting a lie, and refuses to step down when asked. That gives her and the education reformers traction and ammo. It's been getting ugly for awhile (I follow Campus Reform because of many friends in academia) but it's going to get worse I'm afraid. The blacklists of history for the intelligentsia return.

 

In addition, I see this issue as different from what Tahoe is trying to defend up thread.

 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

Don't worry, if it's reprehensible, Tahoe probably supports that too.  Unless he wants to come back and correct the record and tell us he's learned some lessons.