7 ms·

I'm sort of curious. All the talk about Universities shutting down debate and any sort of ideas that lie outside of the accepted left-wing doctrine. Is there an

I'm sort of curious. All the talk about Universities shutting down debate and any sort of ideas that lie outside of the accepted left-wing doctrine. Is there anyone here on HN that supports this notion? That supports the suppression of contradictory ideas? That would protest if some horrible right-winger came to give a talk on your campus? Would love to actually hear from one of these individuals who would actually protest, actively try to stop a dissenting opinion from being spoken on campus. Is there just one of you here?

_moof 4y ago
Just want to point out that there are ways to protest that do not prevent the other person from speaking. Standing silently in the back of the room with signs, for example. I would wholeheartedly support such a protest.
- matt-attack 4y ago
  Well that’s just more speech which is of course welcomed. What’s happening on campuses is quite different.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- atoav 4y ago
  Maybe this is a US thing, but during 8 years of studying (media science among other things) I never once have seen an occasion where I would've seen use in protest. Sure there are people with differing opinions and political backgrounds, but in the end there is a minimum bar of merit people have to cross. It is not like we are inviting edgy "controversial" youtubers who cite papers they only have read the titles from to construct theories that have been falsified half a century ago without any interest in the actual field. Even if you study philosophy (like I did as well) the debates are typically extremely focused on the subjects at hand. So what you won't see is some guy from a political party trying to shoehorn what they already belive into a theory of everything held together by good will and hand waving. This is just not worthy of any discussion at all and would drag down the level of debate. Of course that could depend of the field you are studying in, but you are either interested in the truth or you are interested in making a political point. Both at once is rarely the case.
atoav 4y ago
I am working as an educator at an art university. In my perception the shutting down of debate is not at all an issue. Some seem to imagine that students have nothing else to discuss than "woke" issues, but they are actually studying in a certain field and "woke issues" might play different (usually very minor) roles their fields. Our university typically invites people based on the merits in their field (and whether what they can contribute fits into the existing curriculae), not based on their political orientation. In the US where you have two parties this might be more pressing maybe? My experience as a former student in theatre, film and media science is however that it is rare to have actual good rightwing scholars in that specific field, but this also translates to the arts. Good scholars have to be devoted to the fields primarily and not to a political cause. Inviting someone just because of their politics is not something that is done, unless their work is good. The topics people deal with are in themself not unchallenging or "woke", e.g. Film students would also look at films of Nazi filmmakers, soviet propaganda films, other filmic movements, etc. So certainly not a diet that you would show to people if you want to avoid opening their perspective. So my take on this is that there is enough different perspective here. Sure this university tries to avoid inviting trolls, political activists (from all sides!) and downright destructive people (from all sides!) — but that doesn't hurt the debate, it helps it.
idontwantthis 4y ago
I’ll raise my hand. There’s no benefit in tolerating intolerance. If fascists take power they’ll come for the enlightened centrists too. Try telling the gestapo “While, I respect your right to your opinions, I must ask you to unhand my wife and leave my home. “
- john_the_writer 4y ago
  So be intolerant to intolerance? Is that a recursive function? Feels like it.
  - idontwantthis 4y ago
    We had a war about it. It was a pretty big deal.
  - captainbland 4y ago
    To read more on this concept, look up "paradox of tolerance".
  - matt-attack 4y ago
    Fuck yes be tolerant of intolerance. You don’t have to agree with it, but you can’t stop people speaking their minds. Even if those thoughts are repugnant. Free speech only matters for the repugnant stuff. The phrase wouldn’t even exist if people only talked about rainbows and lollipops. Study this case and try to see why the ACLU fought for it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_...
- skissane 4y ago
  But who is a fascist? Few people will openly profess being one; many more will be accused (by somebody somewhere) of being a fascist even though they insist they are not. So, are you saying we should be intolerant only of self-professed fascists? Or also people who are labelled as fascists even if they claim not to be? But if the later – since anyone can levy the accusation, who will be given the power to decide which accusations of "fascism" are sufficiently proven to justify intolerance, and which ought to be dismissed? And how do you ensure that whoever is granted this power will not abuse it?
morelisp 4y ago
The latest flashpoint for this kind of protest was e.g. Milo Yiannopolous coming to universities to give a "talk" that was little more than a hit-list of trans students on campus. Even when they're not so viscerally violent, they resemble political rallies far more than academic discussion. In reality universities have never been the kind of place conservatives are now claiming they used to be. At most the shift is that speaker choices are now becoming more student-driven rather than admin-driven (but there was also a not-too-distant point where they became more admin-driven than lecturer-driven). That might be worth criticizing, but that's not the criticism being leveled. And isn't it weird how "Speech First, Inc" has a lot to say about DEI programs or whatever "CRT" refers to this week but nothing to say about anti-BDS policies or Don't Say Gay bills? "Free speech", or specifically its current cultural manifestation in the US, is also the kind of foundational issue universities should re-examine, isn't it? America has some of the broadest free speech laws in the world, but it's not clear they're materially more informed, receptive, or accurate than e.g. Germany or France.
AA-BA-94-2A-56 4y ago
It is inevitable that to progress ideas need to be built upon ideas. In order to make progress in any area of science or technology, you can't investigate every axiom in the chain. You need to implicitly trust that a lot of those ideas are true, especially if there is an academic consensus. In my experience the people who mostly have their views shut down are people who derail high level (conversations about ideas built upon lots of levels of ideas) with questions about lower levels of ideas. One (strange) example may be; in a debate regarding the best way to colonise Mars, a third person questioning the existence of space. It's not helpful to question the existence of something that has been proven over and over again. It's wasting everyone's time. But it makes a good hot take for the media to represent like it is somehow an equal and opposite opinion. So the third person, who questions the basics that scientists have been agreeing on for a long time, uses cheap arguments to derail the conversation. They get rewarded for it with media time, and people that want to confirm their anti-establishment biases. This is the person that is most likely to get their views censored; and then the most likely to complain that wokeism is going too far and censoring debate. I apologise for the Australian slang but-- Mate, nobody is censoring real debate; they're censoring shit-takes.
- matt-attack 4y ago
  Unfortunately this may sound right but I believe you’re mistaken. Great example btw re Mars. But here’s a counter example that may prove my point: A lecture is being had about the proper methods for dealing with runaway slaves. There is hot debate about how many slashes should be given vs how much food is withheld vs other forms of punishment. A lone protester in the back of the room has the nerve to call into question the morality of slavery to begin with. Has the nerve to derail the discussion into whether or not slavery should even exist. Questions out widely held axioms. To me the most enlightening quote is: No social progress has ever been made that wasn’t at first widely rejected by the majority. Think about that. It means how can ever expect to make progress if dissenting ideas (even one’s that question fundamental axioms!) are not permitted to be discussed.

_moof 4y ago

Just want to point out that there are ways to protest that do not prevent the other person from speaking. Standing silently in the back of the room with signs, for example. I would wholeheartedly support such a protest.

matt-attack 4y ago
Well that’s just more speech which is of course welcomed. What’s happening on campuses is quite different.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
atoav 4y ago
Maybe this is a US thing, but during 8 years of studying (media science among other things) I never once have seen an occasion where I would've seen use in protest. Sure there are people with differing opinions and political backgrounds, but in the end there is a minimum bar of merit people have to cross. It is not like we are inviting edgy "controversial" youtubers who cite papers they only have read the titles from to construct theories that have been falsified half a century ago without any interest in the actual field. Even if you study philosophy (like I did as well) the debates are typically extremely focused on the subjects at hand. So what you won't see is some guy from a political party trying to shoehorn what they already belive into a theory of everything held together by good will and hand waving. This is just not worthy of any discussion at all and would drag down the level of debate. Of course that could depend of the field you are studying in, but you are either interested in the truth or you are interested in making a political point. Both at once is rarely the case.

atoav 4y ago

I am working as an educator at an art university. In my perception the shutting down of debate is not at all an issue. Some seem to imagine that students have nothing else to discuss than "woke" issues, but they are actually studying in a certain field and "woke issues" might play different (usually very minor) roles their fields. Our university typically invites people based on the merits in their field (and whether what they can contribute fits into the existing curriculae), not based on their political orientation. In the US where you have two parties this might be more pressing maybe? My experience as a former student in theatre, film and media science is however that it is rare to have actual good rightwing scholars in that specific field, but this also translates to the arts. Good scholars have to be devoted to the fields primarily and not to a political cause. Inviting someone just because of their politics is not something that is done, unless their work is good. The topics people deal with are in themself not unchallenging or "woke", e.g. Film students would also look at films of Nazi filmmakers, soviet propaganda films, other filmic movements, etc. So certainly not a diet that you would show to people if you want to avoid opening their perspective. So my take on this is that there is enough different perspective here. Sure this university tries to avoid inviting trolls, political activists (from all sides!) and downright destructive people (from all sides!) — but that doesn't hurt the debate, it helps it.

idontwantthis 4y ago

I’ll raise my hand. There’s no benefit in tolerating intolerance. If fascists take power they’ll come for the enlightened centrists too. Try telling the gestapo “While, I respect your right to your opinions, I must ask you to unhand my wife and leave my home. “

john_the_writer 4y ago
So be intolerant to intolerance? Is that a recursive function? Feels like it.
- idontwantthis 4y ago
  We had a war about it. It was a pretty big deal.
- captainbland 4y ago
  To read more on this concept, look up "paradox of tolerance".
- matt-attack 4y ago
  Fuck yes be tolerant of intolerance. You don’t have to agree with it, but you can’t stop people speaking their minds. Even if those thoughts are repugnant. Free speech only matters for the repugnant stuff. The phrase wouldn’t even exist if people only talked about rainbows and lollipops. Study this case and try to see why the ACLU fought for it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_...
skissane 4y ago
But who is a fascist? Few people will openly profess being one; many more will be accused (by somebody somewhere) of being a fascist even though they insist they are not. So, are you saying we should be intolerant only of self-professed fascists? Or also people who are labelled as fascists even if they claim not to be? But if the later – since anyone can levy the accusation, who will be given the power to decide which accusations of "fascism" are sufficiently proven to justify intolerance, and which ought to be dismissed? And how do you ensure that whoever is granted this power will not abuse it?

morelisp 4y ago

The latest flashpoint for this kind of protest was e.g. Milo Yiannopolous coming to universities to give a "talk" that was little more than a hit-list of trans students on campus. Even when they're not so viscerally violent, they resemble political rallies far more than academic discussion. In reality universities have never been the kind of place conservatives are now claiming they used to be. At most the shift is that speaker choices are now becoming more student-driven rather than admin-driven (but there was also a not-too-distant point where they became more admin-driven than lecturer-driven). That might be worth criticizing, but that's not the criticism being leveled. And isn't it weird how "Speech First, Inc" has a lot to say about DEI programs or whatever "CRT" refers to this week but nothing to say about anti-BDS policies or Don't Say Gay bills? "Free speech", or specifically its current cultural manifestation in the US, is also the kind of foundational issue universities should re-examine, isn't it? America has some of the broadest free speech laws in the world, but it's not clear they're materially more informed, receptive, or accurate than e.g. Germany or France.

AA-BA-94-2A-56 4y ago

It is inevitable that to progress ideas need to be built upon ideas. In order to make progress in any area of science or technology, you can't investigate every axiom in the chain. You need to implicitly trust that a lot of those ideas are true, especially if there is an academic consensus. In my experience the people who mostly have their views shut down are people who derail high level (conversations about ideas built upon lots of levels of ideas) with questions about lower levels of ideas. One (strange) example may be; in a debate regarding the best way to colonise Mars, a third person questioning the existence of space. It's not helpful to question the existence of something that has been proven over and over again. It's wasting everyone's time. But it makes a good hot take for the media to represent like it is somehow an equal and opposite opinion. So the third person, who questions the basics that scientists have been agreeing on for a long time, uses cheap arguments to derail the conversation. They get rewarded for it with media time, and people that want to confirm their anti-establishment biases. This is the person that is most likely to get their views censored; and then the most likely to complain that wokeism is going too far and censoring debate. I apologise for the Australian slang but-- Mate, nobody is censoring real debate; they're censoring shit-takes.

matt-attack 4y ago
Unfortunately this may sound right but I believe you’re mistaken. Great example btw re Mars. But here’s a counter example that may prove my point: A lecture is being had about the proper methods for dealing with runaway slaves. There is hot debate about how many slashes should be given vs how much food is withheld vs other forms of punishment. A lone protester in the back of the room has the nerve to call into question the morality of slavery to begin with. Has the nerve to derail the discussion into whether or not slavery should even exist. Questions out widely held axioms. To me the most enlightening quote is: No social progress has ever been made that wasn’t at first widely rejected by the majority. Think about that. It means how can ever expect to make progress if dissenting ideas (even one’s that question fundamental axioms!) are not permitted to be discussed.