2 ms·

As a sort of counterpoint, I think it might be worth it to watch a classic of the 'free debate' genre, Buckley vs Baldwin[1], that happened in the sixties in Ca

As a sort of counterpoint, I think it might be worth it to watch a classic of the 'free debate' genre, Buckley vs Baldwin[1], that happened in the sixties in Cambridge. It pitted a black civil rights activist against the young Buckley, later a stalwart of American conservatism. I don't know if it's my bias speaking, but I felt that in the debate, Buckley comes across as a bully, with very little argumentative meat, who doesn't really respond to Baldwin's points. For what its worth, I didn't really like Baldwin's delivery either, but at least I felt there were substantive points there that were worth addressing. In a way, this is probably the best one can hope for when you stage this kind of event - Buckley is, at least, well educated, but I can't help but think the debate might have been far more interesting if it was Baldwin vs Malcolm X - because ultimately the problem with the Buckleys of the world is that they defend institutions that were not built on ideals, but rather economics, and as such the defenses themselves are generally sophistic and without anything really interesting in them. If I was a student, I would probably agitate to exclude a Buckley, and instead reach for a Malcolm, and I expect somebody would accuse me of being anti-free-speech, since the debate that would result would no longer span a societal divide, and both parties in the debate would be on 'one side' of the broader social issue. However, from an intellectual standpoint, it just sometimes is the case that interesting positions aren't evenly distributed across the terrain of popular feeling and political rhetoric, and a lot of people are simply defending things that are convenient or traditional but have no moral basis. So inviting those people is a waste of time - they're just (at best) going to come up with clever excuses for whatever already exists, or whatever they would want regardless. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tek9h3a5wQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tek9h3a5wQ

mensetmanusman 5y ago
Instead of agitating for exclusion, agitate for more inclusion, e.g. demand both. People living lives of ‘or’ forget that ‘and’ exists.
- telchar 5y ago
  Blindly applying your advice (which was offered without qualification - so that's how I'll respond) opens the door for all sorts of concern trolling and contextless talking point repetition. That often-paid messaging serves a purpose to drown out nuanced and insightful debate with low-information content to defend a status quo or to run interference for an unpopular position to gather support without significant rhetorical challenge. We see that plenty online and in broadcast media, and is like that Buckley is described as doing but these days often more rote and mindless. Allowing that sort of thing to mix with good debate waters down discussion. It turns people off to opposing viewpoints too, since they're so inundated with rhetorical noise that they need to dismiss most rhetoric out of hand due to the poor SNR. I don't think your position is a very good one.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Instead of agitating for exclusion, agitate for more inclusion, e.g. demand both. People living lives of ‘or’ forget that ‘and’ exists.

telchar 5y ago
Blindly applying your advice (which was offered without qualification - so that's how I'll respond) opens the door for all sorts of concern trolling and contextless talking point repetition. That often-paid messaging serves a purpose to drown out nuanced and insightful debate with low-information content to defend a status quo or to run interference for an unpopular position to gather support without significant rhetorical challenge. We see that plenty online and in broadcast media, and is like that Buckley is described as doing but these days often more rote and mindless. Allowing that sort of thing to mix with good debate waters down discussion. It turns people off to opposing viewpoints too, since they're so inundated with rhetorical noise that they need to dismiss most rhetoric out of hand due to the poor SNR. I don't think your position is a very good one.