Serious question, though: in this world of online echo chambers, is embarrassing them even possible? Pre internet, a group could be controlled by being socially outcast, but now they really can't. Social backlash only matters with political or economic consequences.
-
-
-
Yes. You can always show people up for what they really are and show how their arguments don't work. Even if the absolute die-hards are not affected by this, those inclined towards their views but not absolutely committed will be.
-
I'm not sure I think most people care about whether their arguments work. I think they care more about their status within their self-chosen tribe. But I may be wrong.
-
And that's what can be addressed. They want to present themselves as virtuous and reasonable but this can be challenged and seen to be challenged.
-
It strikes me that there's such fundamental distrust between tribes, though, that any critique, no matter how good, gets thrown out as "those people not getting it" or "having their own impure political agendas." Modern discourse starts from an impasse.
-
I don't find this to be so. I find that very few people are totally committed to a tribe and most can be reached if you know how to do it. I wrote a thing on this but Areo is undergoing a facelift at the moment so I can't link it.
-
I defer to your experience, then. I largely live in an ivory tower (although not the traditional one) with people who have signed on to have their ideas changed. My experience outside is limited to those so stubborn they can't be persuaded.
-
I think ideas subtly shift from watching. If you see ideas you once respected made to look unethical and unreasonable, you might move away from those ideas even if its just a little. Modify them. Qualify them. Even trying to rationalise them involves some qualification
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
IMO we underestimate how poorly we are able to refute bad ideas w/out training. Disgust sensitivity is easily triggered, but that doesn't always lead to good rebuttals w/out focused contemplation. We don't need to tackle ALL bad ideas in University, but those relevant to culture
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This very interesting to observe from outside the West. The 'Free speech absolutism is flawed' critique is also invoked surprisingly frequently here when I've argued for more free speech.
-
Personally I think it's an indication of being terrorised.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So who should a university not host? It doesn’t seem necessary to give every idea or speaker equal footing. I don’t see the value in hosting a Richard Spencer debate on campus. A certain amount of credibility should be required.
-
The problem is leading thinkers and academics have been deemed not credible by students and faculty that have zero credibility. When Haidt and Spencer are grouped together it should be obvious this approach is flawed.
-
Certainly the execution is flawed (though I haven’t seen Haidt and Spencer grouped together), doesn’t mean the principle isn’t sound. Root out the zero-credibility faculty and reduce student power.
-
It IS a strong indication the principle isn't sound. The inability to ably confront and argue bad ideas leads to faculty and students viewing anything beyond their own 'experience' or teaching as bad.
-
Sure, but it’s not clear students can’t confront Richard Spencer’s ideas without him being invited to speak on campus.
-
That SHOULD be clear, but it isn't. Otherwise there would be no need for constant demands for safe spaces and censorship. Physical presence isn't the affront. Ideas are. Ex: Lindsey Shepherd and video of Peterson.
-
Right so then how does hosting the debate solve the issue? Students will no platform it and don’t want to hear the ideas. They can’t be forced to engage with the ideas. The problem is with student’s and faculties closed-mindedness, not the university refusing to host speakers.
-
No kidding? Faculty that 'learned' to avoid reason in university are now teaching it? Wow. How would you address closed mindedness? Exposure to differing ideas (again, physical presence irrelevant), learning to critique seem perfectly reasonable.
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This fails for the same reason that everyone proposing actual communism fails: they imagine themselves (or like-minded friends) in the saddle.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.