3 ms·
Yes. It's that exact sentiment that doesn't serve to bridge minds and instead divides them.
by kelseyfrog 4y ago
Yes. It's that exact sentiment that doesn't serve to bridge minds and instead divides them.
- briandear 4y agoIf people don’t like what me being said, why do they continue to listen? Calls to ban or censor speech because of a disagreement with the ideas is consistent with fascism. Are opponents so insecure in their own arguments that instead of defending their position, they feel obliged to silence the opposition? If you don’t like what’s being sold in the marketplace of ideas, that doesn’t give you the right to burn the shops.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoAgain, speculating that this comes from some sort of insecurity on the part of students does nothing but drive a deeper wedge. I really encourage more empathy than this.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoAgain, empathy for which students? The ones who invited the speaker and were obstructed, or the students who did the obstruction? Should they both try to understand and build bridges respectfully, or is that burden only on one group?
- kelseyfrog 4y agoI'm troubled that this is posed as a choice between empathizing with one at the expense of the other. I sincerely don't believe that you see this as a zero sum game.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI don't, but it seems to me that you are picking one side to empathize with. Students who want to hear a lecture should instead empathize with the people disrupted it. The people disrupting it have no burden to listen, learn, or engage with ideas they disagree with
- gotoeleven 4y ago[flagged]
- kelseyfrog 4y agoRidiculing opponents shuts down the possibility of a meeting of minds. I don't believe this is how you solve conflict in your own life and it isn't how this conflict will be solved either.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]