3 ms·

That may work in theory, but it depends on people being rational actors when they aren't. This being politics, it's driven a lot more by emotions and what's fas

by jrs95 10y ago

That may work in theory, but it depends on people being rational actors when they aren't. This being politics, it's driven a lot more by emotions and what's fashionable than it is reason, which ought to be the primary domain of a university. And the boundaries of what is or isn't acceptable is being determined by people who as a group have significant biases. That is detrimental to an open debate and exchange of ideas. I would much rather have a system where even the most offensive people are encouraged to speak, and there can be a debate over their bad ideas. Right now, speakers who have already been invited are being shut down with violent protests which are met with little to no disciplinary action from the school.

jakelazaroff 10y ago
> I would much rather have a system where even the most offensive people are encouraged to speak, and there can be a debate over their bad ideas. Why on earth should we bother to entertain clearly bad ideas? If you're espousing white nationalism or transphobia or something, I don't want you speaking anywhere near anyone you might convince. End of story. "But who says what ideas are clearly bad?" We all do! Neil Gaiman has a great essay called "Why Defend Freedom of Icky Speech?"[1] in which he says: > The Law is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel. It's a club. If there is something you consider indefensible, and there is something you consider defensible, and the same laws can take them both out, you are going to find yourself defending the indefensible. The difference here is that my opinion is a scalpel. Everyone's is! There's no obligation for me to treat Milo Yiannopolous and Geraldo Rivera the same, even though they both have political opinions that fall far to the right of mine. One of them is indefensible, and it's not at all hypocritical or unrealistic for me (and millions of other people) to try to take only that one out. [1] http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html?m=1 http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-...
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > clearly bad ideas That's the problem - there isn't an objective definition of what counts as a "bad idea". The patriot, rebel, atheist, religious fundamentalist, Marxist, market fundamentalist, civil rights activist, and white nationalist each have very different ideas about which ideas are "bad". > I don't want you speaking anywhere near anyone you might convince. I'm sure the religious fundamentalist has a similar opinion about any rhetoric that advocates for legal abortions, teaching evolution, or separation of church and state. Should they be allowed to suppress speakers that advocate "clearly bad ideas"? > One of them is indefensible Without a clear and narrow definition - "I know it when I see it" doesn't count - of the types of speech that are "indefensible", that's just an opinion.
- krapp 10y ago
  >Why on earth should we bother to entertain clearly bad ideas? The problem is not entertaining the bad ideas, but failing to continue to defend the good ones, once the bad ideas have been forced out of the realm of public debate. You entertain bad ideas for the same reason the body entertains disease and inoculation - to build up and maintain immunity. >If you're espousing white nationalism or transphobia or something, I don't want you speaking anywhere near anyone you might convince. End of story. And guess what? While you feel safe and secure that white nationalists and transphobes can't speak openly, they'll not only continue to speak covertly, and continue to convince people of their beliefs, but will do so where you cannot see them and despite your refusal to publicly rebuke them. And the fact that the "system" denies them the freedom to express their beliefs only convinces them that those beliefs are true, and gives them a common bond and identity, and turns them into a culture. We fought an entire war against Nazis and white supremacists - literally threw millions of bullets at them and burned their cities to the ground. It stopped the Nazi armies and the Nazi state, but the Nazi ideas came back after a few generations, if one can even say they ever left. Society can't assume that subsequent generations will hold the axioms of the past to be true - they must be reproved, over and over.

by jrs95 10y ago

jakelazaroff 10y ago

> I would much rather have a system where even the most offensive people are encouraged to speak, and there can be a debate over their bad ideas. Why on earth should we bother to entertain clearly bad ideas? If you're espousing white nationalism or transphobia or something, I don't want you speaking anywhere near anyone you might convince. End of story. "But who says what ideas are clearly bad?" We all do! Neil Gaiman has a great essay called "Why Defend Freedom of Icky Speech?"[1] in which he says: > The Law is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel. It's a club. If there is something you consider indefensible, and there is something you consider defensible, and the same laws can take them both out, you are going to find yourself defending the indefensible. The difference here is that my opinion is a scalpel. Everyone's is! There's no obligation for me to treat Milo Yiannopolous and Geraldo Rivera the same, even though they both have political opinions that fall far to the right of mine. One of them is indefensible, and it's not at all hypocritical or unrealistic for me (and millions of other people) to try to take only that one out. [1] http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html?m=1 http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-...

pdkl95 10y ago
> clearly bad ideas That's the problem - there isn't an objective definition of what counts as a "bad idea". The patriot, rebel, atheist, religious fundamentalist, Marxist, market fundamentalist, civil rights activist, and white nationalist each have very different ideas about which ideas are "bad". > I don't want you speaking anywhere near anyone you might convince. I'm sure the religious fundamentalist has a similar opinion about any rhetoric that advocates for legal abortions, teaching evolution, or separation of church and state. Should they be allowed to suppress speakers that advocate "clearly bad ideas"? > One of them is indefensible Without a clear and narrow definition - "I know it when I see it" doesn't count - of the types of speech that are "indefensible", that's just an opinion.
krapp 10y ago
>Why on earth should we bother to entertain clearly bad ideas? The problem is not entertaining the bad ideas, but failing to continue to defend the good ones, once the bad ideas have been forced out of the realm of public debate. You entertain bad ideas for the same reason the body entertains disease and inoculation - to build up and maintain immunity. >If you're espousing white nationalism or transphobia or something, I don't want you speaking anywhere near anyone you might convince. End of story. And guess what? While you feel safe and secure that white nationalists and transphobes can't speak openly, they'll not only continue to speak covertly, and continue to convince people of their beliefs, but will do so where you cannot see them and despite your refusal to publicly rebuke them. And the fact that the "system" denies them the freedom to express their beliefs only convinces them that those beliefs are true, and gives them a common bond and identity, and turns them into a culture. We fought an entire war against Nazis and white supremacists - literally threw millions of bullets at them and burned their cities to the ground. It stopped the Nazi armies and the Nazi state, but the Nazi ideas came back after a few generations, if one can even say they ever left. Society can't assume that subsequent generations will hold the axioms of the past to be true - they must be reproved, over and over.