6 ms·

and who will decide what is the "center" there? and isnt it unfair and not impartial to protect the center by censoring left and right? no one should be modera

and who will decide what is the "center" there? and isnt it unfair and not impartial to protect the center by censoring left and right? no one should be moderated

lazyeye 4y ago
Maybe it would be better framed as the majority censoring the minority. And unfortunately academia is clearly dominated by left-wing ideology right now.
- flangola7 4y ago
  Maybe left wing ideology is just more accurate and holds up better under academic scrutiny.
  - trafficante 4y ago
    > Maybe left wing ideology is just more accurate and holds up better under academic scrutiny Paraphrasing a Colbert quote (“reality has a well-known liberal bias”) is oddly apropos, given the thread topic. The Colbert Report actively sought out guests/topics with unorthodox views and used speech (in the form of satire) to indirectly mock or support. And it worked as both a moderator of extremism as well as a way to humorously expose issues embedded in society. And while it was certainly a “liberal” oriented show, they went out of their way to showcase conservatives with interesting ideas (eg: Ron Paul, who was essentially blackballed from other media at the time) and touched on topics like the Snowden leaks that would be absolutely verboten on Colbert’s sad and pathetic Late Night Show. “I am very moral therefore I am the arbiter of speech” is what the left used to rail against. “Canceling” used to mean “Jon Stewart went on Crossfire and exposed the show for the society-destroying rage bait it always was”. What happened? (Yes Trump, but it has to be more than just him)
  - lazyeye 4y ago
    Of course that's the obvious argument but another perspective might be that left-wing ideology thrives in an environment where people are not directly accountable for anything, and it's all funded by other people. Also, you'd have to be pretty blind to history, to argue that "left wing ideology holds up better to academic scrutiny"...whatever that means exactly.
  - Georgelemental 4y ago
    Ideology is not just about empirical facts, it's about moral ends as well. Why would those of left-wing academics be more "accurate" than those of anyone else? In fact, academics (like all other groups) should be expected to have unique class interests, that conflict with the interests of other groups in society.
  - revelio 4y ago
    Academics don't scrutinize left wing ideology so "academic scrutiny" is pretty meaningless for claiming it's accurate.
    - flangola7 4y ago
      > Academics don't scrutinize left wing ideology I don't know where you got the idea I said that. Universities examine all ideologies.

and who will decide what is the "center" there? and isnt it unfair and not impartial to protect the center by censoring left and right? no one should be moderated

lazyeye 4y ago

Maybe it would be better framed as the majority censoring the minority. And unfortunately academia is clearly dominated by left-wing ideology right now.

flangola7 4y ago
Maybe left wing ideology is just more accurate and holds up better under academic scrutiny.
- trafficante 4y ago
  > Maybe left wing ideology is just more accurate and holds up better under academic scrutiny Paraphrasing a Colbert quote (“reality has a well-known liberal bias”) is oddly apropos, given the thread topic. The Colbert Report actively sought out guests/topics with unorthodox views and used speech (in the form of satire) to indirectly mock or support. And it worked as both a moderator of extremism as well as a way to humorously expose issues embedded in society. And while it was certainly a “liberal” oriented show, they went out of their way to showcase conservatives with interesting ideas (eg: Ron Paul, who was essentially blackballed from other media at the time) and touched on topics like the Snowden leaks that would be absolutely verboten on Colbert’s sad and pathetic Late Night Show. “I am very moral therefore I am the arbiter of speech” is what the left used to rail against. “Canceling” used to mean “Jon Stewart went on Crossfire and exposed the show for the society-destroying rage bait it always was”. What happened? (Yes Trump, but it has to be more than just him)
- lazyeye 4y ago
  Of course that's the obvious argument but another perspective might be that left-wing ideology thrives in an environment where people are not directly accountable for anything, and it's all funded by other people. Also, you'd have to be pretty blind to history, to argue that "left wing ideology holds up better to academic scrutiny"...whatever that means exactly.
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  Ideology is not just about empirical facts, it's about moral ends as well. Why would those of left-wing academics be more "accurate" than those of anyone else? In fact, academics (like all other groups) should be expected to have unique class interests, that conflict with the interests of other groups in society.
- revelio 4y ago
  Academics don't scrutinize left wing ideology so "academic scrutiny" is pretty meaningless for claiming it's accurate.
  - flangola7 4y ago
    > Academics don't scrutinize left wing ideology I don't know where you got the idea I said that. Universities examine all ideologies.