3 ms·

> The premise here is that the status quo beliefs are knowledge, ideas that disagree are 'activism' This is not the premise at all; I don't think anyone signin

by arp242 3y ago

> The premise here is that the status quo beliefs are knowledge, ideas that disagree are 'activism' This is not the premise at all; I don't think anyone signing this letter thinks that and it's an extreme interpretation – I have no idea how that is your take-away. The letter specifically calls for a broad inclusion of viewpoints. Recently (in Netherlands, not US) there was a case where a course description told students to stay away if they can't deal with the "fact" that Israel is an apartheid state. Of course there is nothing wrong with treating all sorts of different aspects of "Israel" and "apartheid state", but once you start describing these things as "facts" that "some people can't deal with" who should "stay away" then you're not starting any discussions or challenging anything: it's activism. And not even very good or effective activism at that. This is the type of thing people object to. There's been tons of incidents over the last few years (this just happens to be fresh in my memory). I don't know what specific incidents there have been at Yale, but I'm guessing they're of roughly the same shape as this.

wolverine876 3y ago
It's the students (and faculty) that cricitize Israel that are kicked off campus and suppressed. The idea that we need to protect the rights of the powerful majority to live without challenge is a brazen misuse of civil rights, which are there to protect the minority from the majority.
- arp242 3y ago
  > The idea that we need to protect the rights of the powerful majority to live without challenge is a brazen misuse of civil rights No one is argueing this. Certainly I didn't argue this, and I'm not reading it anywhere in this letter either. This conversation is turning unpleasant because for the second time now you're taking extremist interpretations of everything.
almatabata 3y ago
> I don't know what specific incidents there have been at Yale, but I'm guessing they're of roughly the same shape as this. There was a case where a professor at Yale was apparently pressured into resigning because of a mail she sent about halloween costumes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/11/on-the-front-lines-of-the-fight-for-free-speech-at-yale/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/1...
bitwize 3y ago
[flagged]
- prepend 3y ago
  This is your opinion. And people disagree with you. Presenting opinion as objective facts is counterproductive, no matter how strongly you believe something and think it is just. I’m not sure what your approach is to just say it’s a fact and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and their character is wrong. It seems like it will be hard to convince people because this is such an illogical stance. I think it will make people disagree with your position just because of strict logic if you are wrong on this, then it seems more likely that your other positions will be wrong.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    But we can't reduce everything to equal opinion, an extreme relativism. There's also the conflict between truth and norms - sometimes the norms haven't caught up with the truth. Here are examples, without commenting on Israel and Gaza. Think of climate change: should denialists be given time in a science class? It's a controversial issue; many believe the denialists; but factually it's wrong. Think of Galileo teaching astronomy, when very few believed him. Should he have tolerated factually wrong opinions? It would be hard not to, but it would be a lie and waste of time.
    - prepend 3y ago
      > Should he have tolerated factually wrong opinions? I think this is the crux. What was Galileo’s goal? I think it was to increase truth and help people. So I think he would need to find ways to engage with and convince people who had factually wrong opinions. It’s certainly ineffective to just not talk to people who don’t agree with you. And imagine how stupid people would have seemed if they posted something in the syllabus that said “Don’t even think of registering if you don’t agree with the fact of a geocentric universe.” I think the point is that there are certainly facts, but we need to have temperance and some level of tolerance to allow for convincing people, and learning for ourselves.

by arp242 3y ago

wolverine876 3y ago

It's the students (and faculty) that cricitize Israel that are kicked off campus and suppressed. The idea that we need to protect the rights of the powerful majority to live without challenge is a brazen misuse of civil rights, which are there to protect the minority from the majority.

arp242 3y ago
> The idea that we need to protect the rights of the powerful majority to live without challenge is a brazen misuse of civil rights No one is argueing this. Certainly I didn't argue this, and I'm not reading it anywhere in this letter either. This conversation is turning unpleasant because for the second time now you're taking extremist interpretations of everything.

almatabata 3y ago

> I don't know what specific incidents there have been at Yale, but I'm guessing they're of roughly the same shape as this. There was a case where a professor at Yale was apparently pressured into resigning because of a mail she sent about halloween costumes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/11/on-the-front-lines-of-the-fight-for-free-speech-at-yale/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/1...

bitwize 3y ago

[flagged]

prepend 3y ago
This is your opinion. And people disagree with you. Presenting opinion as objective facts is counterproductive, no matter how strongly you believe something and think it is just. I’m not sure what your approach is to just say it’s a fact and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and their character is wrong. It seems like it will be hard to convince people because this is such an illogical stance. I think it will make people disagree with your position just because of strict logic if you are wrong on this, then it seems more likely that your other positions will be wrong.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  But we can't reduce everything to equal opinion, an extreme relativism. There's also the conflict between truth and norms - sometimes the norms haven't caught up with the truth. Here are examples, without commenting on Israel and Gaza. Think of climate change: should denialists be given time in a science class? It's a controversial issue; many believe the denialists; but factually it's wrong. Think of Galileo teaching astronomy, when very few believed him. Should he have tolerated factually wrong opinions? It would be hard not to, but it would be a lie and waste of time.
  - prepend 3y ago
    > Should he have tolerated factually wrong opinions? I think this is the crux. What was Galileo’s goal? I think it was to increase truth and help people. So I think he would need to find ways to engage with and convince people who had factually wrong opinions. It’s certainly ineffective to just not talk to people who don’t agree with you. And imagine how stupid people would have seemed if they posted something in the syllabus that said “Don’t even think of registering if you don’t agree with the fact of a geocentric universe.” I think the point is that there are certainly facts, but we need to have temperance and some level of tolerance to allow for convincing people, and learning for ourselves.