4 ms·

Personally I think the backlash against colleges is just starting. Diversity of opinion should be encouraged, not stomped out because you feel "challenged". Wi

Personally I think the backlash against colleges is just starting. Diversity of opinion should be encouraged, not stomped out because you feel "challenged". With diversity of opinions comes unsavoury or misguided opinions. Then debate occurs and some people might change their minds, but either way both sides growing in the process. Shaming and other ad hominem attacks are lazy, even the ancient Greeks understood this. > why should I stand there and smile politely while someone comes to my campus and launches a propaganda campaign and recruiting drive for ideas that challenge my way of life It's a bit self-centred, no? And also ironic, that campuses are so dominated by left ideologies that different ideas have to come from outside, and then are rejected by the uniform group think on campus. Safe spaces are disingenuous and counterproductive for preparing students for the real world. After college, nobody will protect you, unless you live at your parents. Especially if you've travelled, you know this. If you don't push the boundaries, you don't grow.

didibus 10y ago
> Then debate occurs and some people might change their minds, but either way both sides growing in the process. I'm not sure this is what would happen. What's the line between debate and propaganda? What if one opinion benefits the speaker, then it's not even about learning, or changing your opinion. I might very well know that what I'm saying is not the optimal solution, or might even be counter productive to the debated goal, yet if it benefits me, I can continue to furiously argue and convince everyone I can, without a chance for anyone to change my mind, unless somehow, changing my mind would start to benefit me more. I've learned in my personal life that it is worthless to engage a debate with someone who is not receptive and open minded. If the people involved value something else then the debated outcome, they have hidden agendas, and no debate can happen, all of it becomes a manipulative scheme, and a big waste of time to the people actually looking to have a debate. If I ran a University, I'd be ashamed to allow speakers who carry hidden agendas, and are not motivated by the true outcome of the debate to come speak at my school. That to me, is the line between debate and propaganda.
- guitarbill 10y ago
  I think it's quite dangerous to assume most humans don't potentially have hidden agendas - and it's even easier to overlook if you happen to agree with them. As for debate vs propaganda. Especially if the other person isn't willing to change their opinion, you've learn something. And those people usually have extremely interesting back stories. Engaging with humans instead of ideologies is far more rewarding.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
bobdole1234 10y ago
I think you've missed the point of safe spaces. These are places for people to figure out who they are outside of that "protection" that parents and the rest have put over these people their whole lives until this point. The reason people go a little crazy in college is because they're forced to confront the idea they've never had the autonomy to be themselves before. They're exposed to people who lead lives that they had no idea were a possibility, let alone something they might want to become. And the reason the left is practically universal in higher education the same reason why the left side of the spectrum is represented pretty much universally across every other government in the developed world: Education forces you to consider things larger than yourself and your little tribe. You want the students in the "real world" to consider things the same way you do, but when they reject your opinions, it's not because they're brainwashed. It's because you've not presented an effective argument. When they show up in masses to shout down your ideology, I'm curious why you don't question your approach. But no, it's the children that are wrong, isn't it Principal?
- guitarbill 10y ago
  > It's because you've not presented an effective argument. Um, no, in fact one of the points you might learn from talking to different people is that most of them are irrational in some way or another. It's part of the human condition. > And the reason the left is practically universal in higher education the same reason why the left side of the spectrum is represented pretty much universally across every other government in the developed world: Education forces you to consider things larger than yourself and your little tribe. I don't buy this for a second. Like the article says, many of the staff are openly left, and have been since the 70s. And look, you assume I'm right leaning. I've always considered myself left or maybe centrist. But since college, that has definitely weakened, as I've travelled and worked with people of all political orientations. So yeah, the kids are wrong, and I am/was one of them - but it's not their fault. I'm agreeing with the article.
  - bobdole1234 10y ago
    You don't buy that education forces you to consider things outside yourself and your tribe? Even after you say you used to believe it, but as you've left education, it speaks to you less and less?
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
I don't think you should conflate diversity of opinions with allowing incitement to murder or violence. Come on: plenty of countries have anti-incitement legislation, so it's not impossible to draw a distinction between having an idea and trying to kill someone. Personally, I'm with the poster above. The kinds of people now billing themselves as (let's quote him) a "Dangerous Faggot" are promoting an ideology of hatred and extermination. You are welcome to read their books and their websites: that's what's there. They want a war to separate the pure from the unclean, and having lost branches off my family tree in the Holocaust, I don't want them spreading their ideology while also holding state power. We've all seen the Blues Brothers scene about the neo-Nazi parade, and we all know that our society tolerates even those horrifyingly murderous differences of opinion. However, when you're the ally of a sitting government, the standard really should be higher. I held controversial events and helped bring in controversial speakers when I was in undergrad. I worked with the College Republicans, God help me, on some of those. People staged walk-outs and protests about events I helped to put on. However, I wasn't anything like a neo-Nazi, and I was not paid to be a fellow-traveler of the sitting government at the time.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > The kinds of people now billing themselves as (let's quote him) a "Dangerous Faggot" are promoting an ideology of hatred and extermination Can you clarify? I've seen plenty hate directed at Milo. > in the Holocaust > neo-Nazi parade Still talking about Milo? "Don't conflate diversity of opinions with allowing incitement to murder or violence" you said, but this seems exactly what you are doing by comparing Milo to a murderous, violent regime.

didibus 10y ago

> Then debate occurs and some people might change their minds, but either way both sides growing in the process. I'm not sure this is what would happen. What's the line between debate and propaganda? What if one opinion benefits the speaker, then it's not even about learning, or changing your opinion. I might very well know that what I'm saying is not the optimal solution, or might even be counter productive to the debated goal, yet if it benefits me, I can continue to furiously argue and convince everyone I can, without a chance for anyone to change my mind, unless somehow, changing my mind would start to benefit me more. I've learned in my personal life that it is worthless to engage a debate with someone who is not receptive and open minded. If the people involved value something else then the debated outcome, they have hidden agendas, and no debate can happen, all of it becomes a manipulative scheme, and a big waste of time to the people actually looking to have a debate. If I ran a University, I'd be ashamed to allow speakers who carry hidden agendas, and are not motivated by the true outcome of the debate to come speak at my school. That to me, is the line between debate and propaganda.

guitarbill 10y ago
I think it's quite dangerous to assume most humans don't potentially have hidden agendas - and it's even easier to overlook if you happen to agree with them. As for debate vs propaganda. Especially if the other person isn't willing to change their opinion, you've learn something. And those people usually have extremely interesting back stories. Engaging with humans instead of ideologies is far more rewarding.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

bobdole1234 10y ago

I think you've missed the point of safe spaces. These are places for people to figure out who they are outside of that "protection" that parents and the rest have put over these people their whole lives until this point. The reason people go a little crazy in college is because they're forced to confront the idea they've never had the autonomy to be themselves before. They're exposed to people who lead lives that they had no idea were a possibility, let alone something they might want to become. And the reason the left is practically universal in higher education the same reason why the left side of the spectrum is represented pretty much universally across every other government in the developed world: Education forces you to consider things larger than yourself and your little tribe. You want the students in the "real world" to consider things the same way you do, but when they reject your opinions, it's not because they're brainwashed. It's because you've not presented an effective argument. When they show up in masses to shout down your ideology, I'm curious why you don't question your approach. But no, it's the children that are wrong, isn't it Principal?

guitarbill 10y ago
> It's because you've not presented an effective argument. Um, no, in fact one of the points you might learn from talking to different people is that most of them are irrational in some way or another. It's part of the human condition. > And the reason the left is practically universal in higher education the same reason why the left side of the spectrum is represented pretty much universally across every other government in the developed world: Education forces you to consider things larger than yourself and your little tribe. I don't buy this for a second. Like the article says, many of the staff are openly left, and have been since the 70s. And look, you assume I'm right leaning. I've always considered myself left or maybe centrist. But since college, that has definitely weakened, as I've travelled and worked with people of all political orientations. So yeah, the kids are wrong, and I am/was one of them - but it's not their fault. I'm agreeing with the article.
- bobdole1234 10y ago
  You don't buy that education forces you to consider things outside yourself and your tribe? Even after you say you used to believe it, but as you've left education, it speaks to you less and less?

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

I don't think you should conflate diversity of opinions with allowing incitement to murder or violence. Come on: plenty of countries have anti-incitement legislation, so it's not impossible to draw a distinction between having an idea and trying to kill someone. Personally, I'm with the poster above. The kinds of people now billing themselves as (let's quote him) a "Dangerous Faggot" are promoting an ideology of hatred and extermination. You are welcome to read their books and their websites: that's what's there. They want a war to separate the pure from the unclean, and having lost branches off my family tree in the Holocaust, I don't want them spreading their ideology while also holding state power. We've all seen the Blues Brothers scene about the neo-Nazi parade, and we all know that our society tolerates even those horrifyingly murderous differences of opinion. However, when you're the ally of a sitting government, the standard really should be higher. I held controversial events and helped bring in controversial speakers when I was in undergrad. I worked with the College Republicans, God help me, on some of those. People staged walk-outs and protests about events I helped to put on. However, I wasn't anything like a neo-Nazi, and I was not paid to be a fellow-traveler of the sitting government at the time.

Chris2048 10y ago
> The kinds of people now billing themselves as (let's quote him) a "Dangerous Faggot" are promoting an ideology of hatred and extermination Can you clarify? I've seen plenty hate directed at Milo. > in the Holocaust > neo-Nazi parade Still talking about Milo? "Don't conflate diversity of opinions with allowing incitement to murder or violence" you said, but this seems exactly what you are doing by comparing Milo to a murderous, violent regime.