5 ms·
> What happens when we give these people (alt right, bigots, etc) platforms is they get followers. Who are you to draw that line? This argument hinges on the b
by matt_wulfeck 10y ago
> What happens when we give these people (alt right, bigots, etc) platforms is they get followers.
Who are you to draw that line? This argument hinges on the belief that people attending these universities are not capable of critical and rational thought and should therefore be treated like children via a curated and censored list of speakers.
If you do believe that, then I hope you see that censorship does nothing but perpetuate a cycle of intellectual infantilism.
Have some faith in the truth. If it is true, then it will stand on its own, and if it is false it will eventually be exposed. For that to happen there must be debate.
- marricks 10y agoI took his article as a statement against university protests against speakers, Milo most recently comes to mind. Many faculty and students were against him speaking and protested. While my opinion on it certainly does not matter, I think those staff and students do have a say and should matter. We cannot and should not say voices of protest should be ignored so hateful speakers get a platform. You may have faith in "rationality" winning out but I really don't. People really fall victim easily to blaming outside groups and get stirred up by hate speech.
- striking 10y agoFalling prey to hateful speech is not an affliction, it's a symptom of one. Rationality is postponed when people are unhappy.
- marricks 10y agoThat sounds like even more of a reason for universities to take the lead in protest and standing up against bigots, other wise that anger and desire for change can get eaten up by bigots.