7 ms·

One of the benefits of a college setting would be the gathering together of young intelligent people and exposing them not only to new ideas but how to evaluate

by mikece 6y ago

One of the benefits of a college setting would be the gathering together of young intelligent people and exposing them not only to new ideas but how to evaluate, value, and compare ideas for their relative worth. I wonder how much open and free debate of ideas even exists anymore, having given way to the inculcation and indoctrination of "correct ideas." I have long believed that the best way to eradicate racism is to allow racists and anti-racists to have open Lincoln-Douglas style debates on college campuses: allow racists to explain their ideas and positions and the tenability of their position will be exposed for the naked fear and hatred that it is. While not quite as crucial as the previous idea, debates of ideas, languages, operating systems, etc can and should happen as part of a CS curriculum. Regardless of the field we end up in, the need to be able to state one's position and defend it against a counter-proposal is something common to all fields (not just law).

chadlavi 6y ago
> allow racists to explain their ideas and positions and the tenability of their position will be exposed for the naked fear and hatred that it is People are pretty susceptible to passionate speech by charismatic figures; much more susceptible, in fact, than they are to facts. This just seems like an opportunity for racists to win hearts and minds. And anyway, there's tons of open and free debate on college campuses (at least, there was, when they existed in The Before Times), but generally it's debate about methodologies, not ideas. Everyone's more or less on the right (which is to say, left) side of history, they just have different ideas about, how to, for example, dismantle systemic racism, or end homelessness. Though probably the more frequent topics for debate are more along the lines of beer pong strategy.
- bcgraham 6y ago
  > People are pretty susceptible to passionate speech by charismatic figures; much more susceptible, in fact, than they are to facts. This just seems like an opportunity for racists to win hearts and minds. The unstated assumption of this premise is that some people (never us, always others) cannot be trusted to make good decisions, and thus need to have their decisions made for them, for their own good. It advocates for human subjugation.
  - chadlavi 6y ago
    Saying it's a bad idea to invite racists to speak publicly about their racist ideologies on university campuses is human subjugation? ok pal.
    - celliopia 6y ago
      The OP was endorsing debates of ideas, not one-sided passionate speeches. In fact the example of a Lincoln-Douglas format was suggested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas_debates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas_debate...
  - bachmeier 6y ago
    "The unstated assumption of this premise is that some people (never us, always others) cannot be trusted to make good decisions, and thus need to have their decisions made for them, for their own good." You can make good decisions if you have full information and you put a lot of time into it. I hope you're aware that not all racists are dedicated to the search for truth. Sometimes they tell partial truths, mislead, and lie.
GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
The “debate” on racism was lost a long time ago. I would hope it’s well understood it’s a net negative for society. I don’t think debating it over and over again as if there’s merit to racist ideas is remotely a good idea. It’s like letting the flat earthers continue to teach science classes even though we know the earth is round.
- grenoire 6y ago
  I think understanding the history of racism why it's attractive to the masses is a great start in continuing healthy discourse over the politics and economics of the matter. You might think that there is no merit, but you can only convince others to rid themselves of racist ideas if you understand where they are coming from.
  - mikece 6y ago
    "What is the dignity of a human being?" and "Who is a human being?" are the two questions that fundamentally undermine a racist. It's quite possible that many racists hold their opinions out of ignorance rather than malice so an open debate is an opportunity for meeting someone in dialogue and remedying their ignorance. Those who are exposed to the truth and reject it pass over into malice and those people are their own worst enemy: leaving them in their self-inflicted echo chamber of rage is the worst possible fate that could befall them. It's not what I hope for racists, but I do pity those who end up in such a state.
  - GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
    > but you can only convince others to rid themselves of racist ideas if you understand where they are coming from. Absolutely disagree, the appeal of racism is well understood, it's only effect on society is to subjugate people, separate along racial lines. > healthy discourse over the politics and economics of the matter. "healthy discourse" implies that there is some kind of equivalency between racist and anti-racist, to believe that is to be willfully ignorant of situation and power structures which exist in the US today.
- mikece 6y ago
pjc50 6y ago
> eradicate racism is to allow racists and anti-racists to have open Lincoln-Douglas style debates on college campuses: allow racists to explain their ideas Allow people to point at one of the nonwhite people in the audience and say, "I don't think this person belongs in the country, who's with me?" Because that's what it is: for one side, it's a debate with no stakes, but for the other it's their exclusion from the university and all the things that are subject to gatekeeping by getting a degree. Potentially for being allowed to live in peace, or live in the country at all. Letting that kind of speech be platformed is just a more subtle way of hanging a "whites only" sign on your university.
- michaelt 6y ago
  Do you think there's any way universities can analyse living racist ideas, like a virologist analyses a deadly disease, handling it in an isolated lab and only through thick gloves?
  - pjc50 6y ago
    They can and they do .. but it has to be done in the third person and not by advocates. Effectively this is what "post-colonial studies" is about. The opportunity existed to put statues of racists behind glass, for example, away from their positions of public prominence and celebration. I don't think too many people would object to the university of Oxford having a statue of Cecil Rhodes that they kept in a cupboard.
weston 6y ago
You’re making the incorrect assumption that racists are arguing in good faith and are willing to change their minds after a well thought out intellectual, level-headed discussion. But history has shown us this almost never happens. The majority of them are basing their hatred on emotion and not rationality. Instead, racists use their platforms to intimidate at-risk minority groups and intimidate them into silence. White supremacists are actively trying to silence those they disagree with, often with violence, not trying to have an intellectually honest and open discussion. Read about Karl Popper and The Paradox of Tolerance.
- growlist 6y ago
  I assume you include anti-white racism? Because there seems to be a lot of it about at the moment.
  - weston 6y ago
    There’s no such thing as anti-white racism. Racism is prejudice or discrimination backed by institutional, structural power. Therefore, a black person prejudiced against white people (as an example) is meaningless because black Americans have historically had very little power in the United States. Racism by white americans has historically been backed up by the power of every institution in the United States, which often has meant state-sponsored violence against people of color.
    - asciident 6y ago
      I think most people recognize that this is the "new definition" of racism, or sometimes people refer to it as structural racism. But when people use the term racism, they usually mean the standard dictionary definition, which is about being prejudice against someone because of their race. It's probably better if people used "structural racism" to define what you mean here. Similar to how "sex" retained the original definition of sex, and "gender" was used for the social construct. If people tried to say "There is no such thing as being born with a binary sex, because sex is a social construct" then it would be equally confusing.

by mikece 6y ago

chadlavi 6y ago

> allow racists to explain their ideas and positions and the tenability of their position will be exposed for the naked fear and hatred that it is People are pretty susceptible to passionate speech by charismatic figures; much more susceptible, in fact, than they are to facts. This just seems like an opportunity for racists to win hearts and minds. And anyway, there's tons of open and free debate on college campuses (at least, there was, when they existed in The Before Times), but generally it's debate about methodologies, not ideas. Everyone's more or less on the right (which is to say, left) side of history, they just have different ideas about, how to, for example, dismantle systemic racism, or end homelessness. Though probably the more frequent topics for debate are more along the lines of beer pong strategy.

bcgraham 6y ago
> People are pretty susceptible to passionate speech by charismatic figures; much more susceptible, in fact, than they are to facts. This just seems like an opportunity for racists to win hearts and minds. The unstated assumption of this premise is that some people (never us, always others) cannot be trusted to make good decisions, and thus need to have their decisions made for them, for their own good. It advocates for human subjugation.
- chadlavi 6y ago
  Saying it's a bad idea to invite racists to speak publicly about their racist ideologies on university campuses is human subjugation? ok pal.
  - celliopia 6y ago
    The OP was endorsing debates of ideas, not one-sided passionate speeches. In fact the example of a Lincoln-Douglas format was suggested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas_debates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas_debate...
- bachmeier 6y ago
  "The unstated assumption of this premise is that some people (never us, always others) cannot be trusted to make good decisions, and thus need to have their decisions made for them, for their own good." You can make good decisions if you have full information and you put a lot of time into it. I hope you're aware that not all racists are dedicated to the search for truth. Sometimes they tell partial truths, mislead, and lie.

GaryNumanVevo 6y ago

The “debate” on racism was lost a long time ago. I would hope it’s well understood it’s a net negative for society. I don’t think debating it over and over again as if there’s merit to racist ideas is remotely a good idea. It’s like letting the flat earthers continue to teach science classes even though we know the earth is round.

grenoire 6y ago
I think understanding the history of racism why it's attractive to the masses is a great start in continuing healthy discourse over the politics and economics of the matter. You might think that there is no merit, but you can only convince others to rid themselves of racist ideas if you understand where they are coming from.
- mikece 6y ago
  "What is the dignity of a human being?" and "Who is a human being?" are the two questions that fundamentally undermine a racist. It's quite possible that many racists hold their opinions out of ignorance rather than malice so an open debate is an opportunity for meeting someone in dialogue and remedying their ignorance. Those who are exposed to the truth and reject it pass over into malice and those people are their own worst enemy: leaving them in their self-inflicted echo chamber of rage is the worst possible fate that could befall them. It's not what I hope for racists, but I do pity those who end up in such a state.
- GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
  > but you can only convince others to rid themselves of racist ideas if you understand where they are coming from. Absolutely disagree, the appeal of racism is well understood, it's only effect on society is to subjugate people, separate along racial lines. > healthy discourse over the politics and economics of the matter. "healthy discourse" implies that there is some kind of equivalency between racist and anti-racist, to believe that is to be willfully ignorant of situation and power structures which exist in the US today.
mikece 6y ago

pjc50 6y ago

> eradicate racism is to allow racists and anti-racists to have open Lincoln-Douglas style debates on college campuses: allow racists to explain their ideas Allow people to point at one of the nonwhite people in the audience and say, "I don't think this person belongs in the country, who's with me?" Because that's what it is: for one side, it's a debate with no stakes, but for the other it's their exclusion from the university and all the things that are subject to gatekeeping by getting a degree. Potentially for being allowed to live in peace, or live in the country at all. Letting that kind of speech be platformed is just a more subtle way of hanging a "whites only" sign on your university.

michaelt 6y ago
Do you think there's any way universities can analyse living racist ideas, like a virologist analyses a deadly disease, handling it in an isolated lab and only through thick gloves?
- pjc50 6y ago
  They can and they do .. but it has to be done in the third person and not by advocates. Effectively this is what "post-colonial studies" is about. The opportunity existed to put statues of racists behind glass, for example, away from their positions of public prominence and celebration. I don't think too many people would object to the university of Oxford having a statue of Cecil Rhodes that they kept in a cupboard.

weston 6y ago

You’re making the incorrect assumption that racists are arguing in good faith and are willing to change their minds after a well thought out intellectual, level-headed discussion. But history has shown us this almost never happens. The majority of them are basing their hatred on emotion and not rationality. Instead, racists use their platforms to intimidate at-risk minority groups and intimidate them into silence. White supremacists are actively trying to silence those they disagree with, often with violence, not trying to have an intellectually honest and open discussion. Read about Karl Popper and The Paradox of Tolerance.

growlist 6y ago
I assume you include anti-white racism? Because there seems to be a lot of it about at the moment.
- weston 6y ago
  There’s no such thing as anti-white racism. Racism is prejudice or discrimination backed by institutional, structural power. Therefore, a black person prejudiced against white people (as an example) is meaningless because black Americans have historically had very little power in the United States. Racism by white americans has historically been backed up by the power of every institution in the United States, which often has meant state-sponsored violence against people of color.
  - asciident 6y ago
    I think most people recognize that this is the "new definition" of racism, or sometimes people refer to it as structural racism. But when people use the term racism, they usually mean the standard dictionary definition, which is about being prejudice against someone because of their race. It's probably better if people used "structural racism" to define what you mean here. Similar to how "sex" retained the original definition of sex, and "gender" was used for the social construct. If people tried to say "There is no such thing as being born with a binary sex, because sex is a social construct" then it would be equally confusing.