5 ms·

How would you establish a definition for "worthy"? I'm almost certain your definition would differ from someone else's. It's for that reason that I don't think

How would you establish a definition for "worthy"? I'm almost certain your definition would differ from someone else's. It's for that reason that I don't think we should prevent anyone from speaking. The only solution is more speech. Also: Universities are doing a pretty poor job of bringing in certain kinds of speakers. If you want change, make it.

BatFastard 10y ago
I would posit that Trump is not a worthy opponent. He does not use facts and reason for his arguments. He uses bullying and lies, that makes him "unworthy" in my eyes.
- jokipoki 10y ago
  .
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    If you get flagged for deliberate trolling, that's not proving the point of the article. Trump refuses facts. It doesn't matter whether you think he got to the right or wrong viewpoint, he is objectively not a worthy debater. He does not explain why you should think something, back it up with true statements, and meaningfully respond to counterpoints and criticism. I don't care what you voted, but you have not named a 'worthy opponent' for didibus.
    - jokipoki 10y ago
      .
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- tomp 10y ago
  But in terms of political discourse, that's about as "worthy" as it gets. People have been trained by different (mainstream) politicians over the years that lies are the new normal, facts don't matter, promises are empty, etc. It's no wonder that eventually an extremist would succeed with a much more blatant version if those basic strategies.
therpe1 10y ago
"More speech" is stupid when you're speaking with people who have abandoned the Western rationalist tradition. The "debate" on evolution, climate change, whether it's really necessary to exterminate the impostor Jews and enslave the rest of the Untermenschen -- these are not debates in any meaningful sense of the word. The people who hold such positions aren't going to provide any kind of rational justification and they're certainly not going to back that up with valid scientific data. Most importantly any such "debate" is not going to produce new knowledge. > How would you establish a definition for "worthy"? I'm almost certain your definition would differ from someone else's. Fortunately we live in a democracy and universities tend to be very democratic solution. There's a strong argument for having this debate and resolving it... democratically. (I will also note that, to some extent, I always find these calls for "all speech" to be pretty funny on Hacker News, a site that is stridently moderated by both users and mods alike. Everybody wants more speech until they don't.)
didibus 10y ago
At the very least, you can't be a demagogue, that is someone who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power. This goes for all sides btw. Ideally too, especially if you're to speak at a well respected university, I'd like you to have some credentials, a book, research, a strong presence in existing circles related to the problems you'll address, etc. Something that indicates you've spent a good amount of time (like above the 90th percentile) thinking this through by yourself first, and by a few others.

BatFastard 10y ago

I would posit that Trump is not a worthy opponent. He does not use facts and reason for his arguments. He uses bullying and lies, that makes him "unworthy" in my eyes.

jokipoki 10y ago
.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  If you get flagged for deliberate trolling, that's not proving the point of the article. Trump refuses facts. It doesn't matter whether you think he got to the right or wrong viewpoint, he is objectively not a worthy debater. He does not explain why you should think something, back it up with true statements, and meaningfully respond to counterpoints and criticism. I don't care what you voted, but you have not named a 'worthy opponent' for didibus.
  - jokipoki 10y ago
    .
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
tomp 10y ago
But in terms of political discourse, that's about as "worthy" as it gets. People have been trained by different (mainstream) politicians over the years that lies are the new normal, facts don't matter, promises are empty, etc. It's no wonder that eventually an extremist would succeed with a much more blatant version if those basic strategies.

therpe1 10y ago

"More speech" is stupid when you're speaking with people who have abandoned the Western rationalist tradition. The "debate" on evolution, climate change, whether it's really necessary to exterminate the impostor Jews and enslave the rest of the Untermenschen -- these are not debates in any meaningful sense of the word. The people who hold such positions aren't going to provide any kind of rational justification and they're certainly not going to back that up with valid scientific data. Most importantly any such "debate" is not going to produce new knowledge. > How would you establish a definition for "worthy"? I'm almost certain your definition would differ from someone else's. Fortunately we live in a democracy and universities tend to be very democratic solution. There's a strong argument for having this debate and resolving it... democratically. (I will also note that, to some extent, I always find these calls for "all speech" to be pretty funny on Hacker News, a site that is stridently moderated by both users and mods alike. Everybody wants more speech until they don't.)

didibus 10y ago

At the very least, you can't be a demagogue, that is someone who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power. This goes for all sides btw. Ideally too, especially if you're to speak at a well respected university, I'd like you to have some credentials, a book, research, a strong presence in existing circles related to the problems you'll address, etc. Something that indicates you've spent a good amount of time (like above the 90th percentile) thinking this through by yourself first, and by a few others.