4 ms·

Funny that you should mention flat earthers - when Galileo published his works proposed a heliocentric system, he was tried for heresy. I'm sure at the time, t

by yomly 10y ago

Funny that you should mention flat earthers - when Galileo published his works proposed a heliocentric system, he was tried for heresy. I'm sure at the time, the Church were confident they were right about the matter and therefore had no qualms in suppressing Galileo's claims. Freedom of information and opinion is what drives progress. Should conservative opinions be wrong, then there is no fear in giving them a platform - they can be publicly debunked, to the downfall of their message. Given that they are feared, suggests that the jury is still out on whether their opinions are categorically wrong, or even whether the opposing opinion is categorically right. In this case, it will be free discussion which will enable us as a society to converge on the correct path.

welanes 10y ago
> Given that they are feared, suggests that the jury is still out on whether their opinions are categorically wrong, or even whether the opposing opinion is categorically right. In this case, it will be free discussion which will enable us as a society to converge on the correct path. Spot on.
popmystack 10y ago
That's simply not how discourse works on a national scale. There are many things that can be given a platform but aren't because it'd be a waste of time. No one is afraid to give these things a platform, it's just pointless. Artificial platforming for the sake of having every imaginable view point with or without merit on the table would be a disaster. No one is stopping people from having these opinions, speaking about them, or teaching those perspectives. Claiming that this is a cause of freedom of information and somehow making this analogous to Galileo (it's not, not even in the slightest) is absurdly silly. If you are looking to defend rational discourse and freedom of thought, well, you're not doing that -- leveling out everything on a no-questions-asked baseline is ignorant and becomes borderline satire of unbiased rational thought at that point.
- welanes 10y ago
  > No one is stopping people from having these opinions, speaking about them, or teaching those perspectives. You may not have been paying attention, but unfortunately that's not the case. https://www.thefire.org/list-of-campus-disinvitations-2000-2014/ https://www.thefire.org/list-of-campus-disinvitations-2000-2... http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/whats-new-about-no-platform-mania/17526 http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/whats-new-about... http://www.mediaite.com/online/university-president-shuts-down-conservative-journalists-speech-citing-free-exchange-of-ideas/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/university-president-shuts-do... And I can link to many more examples if you wish. It's moved from "your opinion is incorrect but I respect your right to speak it" to "I don't agree with what you say so I'm denying your right to express it". Now do you understand the problem? It's quite incredible, actually.
  - popmystack 10y ago
    You linked to extremely far out there sites as your sources, and two of the stories were debunked the day they came out. Please do provide more examples.
    - welanes 10y ago
      'extremely far out there'? thefire.org - An org dedicated to freedom of speech on campus, founded by University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Charles Kors and Boston civil liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate. Spiked - a 15 year old UK publication with staff from the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator. Mediaite - a popular and left-leaning online news source that aggregates mainstream news sources. Come off it. A browse through the links above are ample for anyone concerned about the truth.
      - popmystack 10y ago
        Anyone concerned about the truth would have investigated those articles with recent information and found them to be thoroughly debunked as hyperbolic claims with a good bit of nuance to them. But you didn't, because you're not. You linked to "credible" sources, with some weird standard of credibility which I'm not even sure you believe yourself.

by yomly 10y ago

welanes 10y ago

> Given that they are feared, suggests that the jury is still out on whether their opinions are categorically wrong, or even whether the opposing opinion is categorically right. In this case, it will be free discussion which will enable us as a society to converge on the correct path. Spot on.

popmystack 10y ago

That's simply not how discourse works on a national scale. There are many things that can be given a platform but aren't because it'd be a waste of time. No one is afraid to give these things a platform, it's just pointless. Artificial platforming for the sake of having every imaginable view point with or without merit on the table would be a disaster. No one is stopping people from having these opinions, speaking about them, or teaching those perspectives. Claiming that this is a cause of freedom of information and somehow making this analogous to Galileo (it's not, not even in the slightest) is absurdly silly. If you are looking to defend rational discourse and freedom of thought, well, you're not doing that -- leveling out everything on a no-questions-asked baseline is ignorant and becomes borderline satire of unbiased rational thought at that point.

welanes 10y ago
> No one is stopping people from having these opinions, speaking about them, or teaching those perspectives. You may not have been paying attention, but unfortunately that's not the case. https://www.thefire.org/list-of-campus-disinvitations-2000-2014/ https://www.thefire.org/list-of-campus-disinvitations-2000-2... http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/whats-new-about-no-platform-mania/17526 http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/whats-new-about... http://www.mediaite.com/online/university-president-shuts-down-conservative-journalists-speech-citing-free-exchange-of-ideas/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/university-president-shuts-do... And I can link to many more examples if you wish. It's moved from "your opinion is incorrect but I respect your right to speak it" to "I don't agree with what you say so I'm denying your right to express it". Now do you understand the problem? It's quite incredible, actually.
- popmystack 10y ago
  You linked to extremely far out there sites as your sources, and two of the stories were debunked the day they came out. Please do provide more examples.
  - welanes 10y ago
    'extremely far out there'? thefire.org - An org dedicated to freedom of speech on campus, founded by University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Charles Kors and Boston civil liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate. Spiked - a 15 year old UK publication with staff from the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator. Mediaite - a popular and left-leaning online news source that aggregates mainstream news sources. Come off it. A browse through the links above are ample for anyone concerned about the truth.
    - popmystack 10y ago
      Anyone concerned about the truth would have investigated those articles with recent information and found them to be thoroughly debunked as hyperbolic claims with a good bit of nuance to them. But you didn't, because you're not. You linked to "credible" sources, with some weird standard of credibility which I'm not even sure you believe yourself.