2 ms·

> It's wrong to equate people abandoning free speech with people not wanting to host people with specific stances at a venue. I agree. There's a problem, thou

> It's wrong to equate people abandoning free speech with people not wanting to host people with specific stances at a venue. I agree. There's a problem, though, when the venue is a university. Universities are where the search for truth should be the foremost objective. Dogmatic politics should not govern what is true or not true—that is born out by evidence, discussion, and persuasion. Consequently, we need opposing viewpoints at universities. If someone says something that you think is wrong then you should refute it, not silence it. If your position truly is more correct, then it will win in a contest of argument, testing, and persuasion. The problem we're having is a growing imbalance in viewpoints present on campus. People are afraid of speaking their mind because of disproportionate wrath and consequences for exploring ideas deemed "taboo" by popular movements that are so certain they're right. I just finished reading The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth by Jonathan Rauch, and I recommend it to everyone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Rauch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Rauch

finite_depth 3y ago
[dead]
saghm 3y ago
> Universities are where the search for truth should be the foremost objective. Dogmatic politics should not govern what is true or not true—that is born out by evidence, discussion, and persuasion. So why aren't the people who are angry at Harvard students for "cancelling" views equally outraged at the lack of pro-choice and LGBT views at Christian universities? If we're trying to avoid getting stuck due to dogma and search for the truth, I'd like to be given the opportunity to make the argument that claiming that any sort of social policy should be based on the belief that the omnipotent being who created the universe thousands of years ago told some people to write some stuff down lacks evidence, is unpersuasive, and impossible to have any reasonable discussion about.

finite_depth 3y ago

[dead]

saghm 3y ago

> Universities are where the search for truth should be the foremost objective. Dogmatic politics should not govern what is true or not true—that is born out by evidence, discussion, and persuasion. So why aren't the people who are angry at Harvard students for "cancelling" views equally outraged at the lack of pro-choice and LGBT views at Christian universities? If we're trying to avoid getting stuck due to dogma and search for the truth, I'd like to be given the opportunity to make the argument that claiming that any sort of social policy should be based on the belief that the omnipotent being who created the universe thousands of years ago told some people to write some stuff down lacks evidence, is unpersuasive, and impossible to have any reasonable discussion about.