You can only tackle threats to free speech while you still have free speech. At what point does it constitute a crisis? Opinions differ. She doesn't want to be tagged right now because working but you should look up Helen Pluckrose's work on this. (She did surveys & got numbers).
-
-
OK. I just don't think genocide and someone getting forced out of their job are the same things.
-
No, it can;t be the same thing. Or it wouldnt make sense. This is how analogies work. Otherwise you'd just be saying one thing is as bad itself.
-
OK. Not a good analogy. Muslims in India have historically been subject to tremendous systemic oppression. That is not at all true for Professors with controversial ideas. Quite the opposite.
-
Note that the analogy is not on the historical oppression of Muslims in India with western Professors. . It is on the argument that bad things aren't that bad if they don't happen all the time. If an argument doesn't work if applied to something else, it doesn't work.
-
It doesn't work. Try something else: If one bad apple rots the entire barrel, so too is this true for oranges.
-
That isn't how analogies working for ethical arguments work. Do you think bad things should still be addressed if they happen often but not constantly or not? If your answer is 'Yes, when its murder, not when its unfair dismissal or censorship' you cannot think the latter v bad.
-
If you don't think unfair dismissal and censorship are bad, do you think this consistently. eg, if its OK to sack or no-platform someone for saying rape culture does not exist, is it also OK to sack or no-platform someone for saying rape culture does exist?
-
It really depends. As we agreed earlier, the point would have to be delivered in a way consistent with the educational mission of the university.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.