The free marketplace of ideas and the power of controversy

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

JackOf8lades is a moron and I'm kinda sick of dealing with him.

Then just ignore him, drop the need to reply to every little thing rather than stooping down to someone else's level.

Sometimes when I get a dumb reply back I just read it, and then just shrug and come back a few days later or a few hours later and pick up where the thread left off. I got so bored of arguing every little thing and having these huge drawn out arguments, now I just come into threads and post snippets and leave.

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

Why should they not? That judging in itself.

I'm talking about within the context of a free marketplace of ideas in regards to the op and the article.

I'm saying judging ideas based on literal truth and obstinately applying those judgments to other groups of people who disagree is counter-productive to the idea itself, which is the 'why should they not'.

A free marketplace also mean competition, to fight each other in a bloody battle. Freedom does not mean no violence. To have freedom is to have the power to do what you wish, think or feel, it often run in conflict with other people's freedom. The bitter road to freedom is often pathed by the lives of the brave and courageous and suffering of many. I see Freedom as a constant struggle, not something you already have.

I didn't read the entire article. It's mostly garbage.

Whether or not some people think they "discredit" some ideas is irrelevant to it's marketable potential. I define viability in the marketplace of ideas as having the potential to go mainstream. So the marketplace of ideas isn't static. And the potential to go mainstream really depends on which country/region you're talking about. What's viable in the marketplace of ideas in California, might not be marketable in other states, or even "the entire country" as a whole.

Controversy is something that's drummed up by the media, and if ideas are truly bad ideas, then they probably won't have any marketable potential with or without controversy being associated with those ideas. Now if ideas that do have marketable potential are given controversy, it actually works against the ones who'd make those ideas controversial.

For example, the far left is calling Trump a Fascist and a Nazi. They're pulling out all the stops trying to make Trump as controversial as possible, as well as his political views, and those of his supporters. But the reality is, Trump's message is more than viable in the market of ideas, yet it's being treated like it isn't, or shouldn't be. People don't care what the far left deems to be controversial in the USA. They're the ones who's ideas aren't viable in the marketplace, so they seek to drag everyone else down to their level.

The left tries to control the marketplace of ideas, and sometimes they're successful at doing this, and sometimes they're not. In the USA, it's completely backfired on them. Anyone who's intelligent should be perceptive enough to see when there is a system of control in place designed to funnel things into a certain direction.

Sorry I'm late to the party. I'm going to start with a response solely to the opening post.

The false equivalence I see the author making is that opposing a speaker's ideas means opposing that speaker from speaking. I believe the best way to oppose a speaker's ideas is to allow them to speak, then address the ideas. If I lobbied for BPC to get banned from this website, that would shut him (them?) up, but it wouldn't address the ideas. A person is not the ideas they favor; opposing a person is not opposing their arguments.

I don't think colleges should be opposing, violently nor non-violently, Milo's attempts to speak on college campuses. I also don't think they should simply allow Milo to speak on college campuses, by himself, to a room of ideological allies. I think they should invite Milo to debates. I think they should put him up against someone who they think has a reasonable chance of demolishing his argument. And I think they should forbid Milo — and themselves — from posting an abridged version of the debate on YouTube.

I'm pretty confident Milo would agree to such terms. He's participated in such debates previously.

The article contends that such speakers profit from the controversy their discredited arguments garner. Really? They've already been discredited? Well then, shouldn't be much more than formality to pull those discrediting arguments from out of storage and lay waste to such pretenders, should it? What more could one then ask for but a debate to finally put the right-wing provocateurs to rest?

But the Left doesn't want to use arguments. For whatever reason, they don't want to appeal to your reason to convince you that their opponent's arguments are false. They'd rather you simply accept their falsity on faith.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

JackOf8lades is a moron and I'm kinda sick of dealing with him.

You can't deal whit me you mean like a typical liberal you cannot deal whit opposing vieuws and arguments thats why you need to insult me cause you got nothing else.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Sorry I'm late to the party. I'm going to start with a response solely to the opening post.

The false equivalence I see the author making is that opposing a speaker's ideas means opposing that speaker from speaking. I believe the best way to oppose a speaker's ideas is to allow them to speak, then address the ideas. If I lobbied for BPC to get banned from this website, that would shut him (them?) up, but it wouldn't address the ideas. A person is not the ideas they favor; opposing a person is not opposing their arguments.

I don't think colleges should be opposing, violently nor non-violently, Milo's attempts to speak on college campuses. I also don't think they should simply allow Milo to speak on college campuses, by himself, to a room of ideological allies. I think they should invite Milo to debates. I think they should put him up against someone who they think has a reasonable chance of demolishing his argument. And I think they should forbid Milo — and themselves — from posting an abridged version of the debate on YouTube.

I'm pretty confident Milo would agree to such terms. He's participated in such debates previously.

The article contends that such speakers profit from the controversy their discredited arguments garner. Really? They've already been discredited? Well then, shouldn't be much more than formality to pull those discrediting arguments from out of storage and lay waste to such pretenders, should it? What more could one then ask for but a debate to finally put the right-wing provocateurs to rest?

But the Left doesn't want to use arguments. For whatever reason, they don't want to appeal to your reason to convince you that their opponent's arguments are false. They'd rather you simply accept their falsity on faith.

What, exactly, is worthy of debate about Milo's ideas? What "debate" is worth having there? Shall we debate about whether or not gender dysphoria is a thing that exists, or whether or not transgender individuals deserve to be treated with basic human dignity? Shall we debate whether or not Gamergate was a force for good? Shall we, perhaps, debate whether or not it is a good idea to host a gay pride parade in a Muslim ghetto, not for the sake of showing off gay pride, but for the sake of pissing off the residents there? Perhaps we should debate a notorious cyberbully on the subject of whether or not cyberbullying actually exists. Or whether hate crimes exist.

Perhaps you'd also like it if we invited Kent Hovind to debate whether the earth is 6,000 years old and whether or not dinosaurs were all vegetarians in the garden of eden. That would be a productive, intelligent debate worth having, wouldn't it? And while we're at it, let's invite David Duke to share his views on African-Americans. After all, it is a valid position to take, one that is entirely worthy of reasoned discussion, and not outright dismissal, and any debate that takes place will necessarily be an honest exchange of ideas between two people both willing and able to have such a discussion.



This assumes two things that are both patently false.

First, it assumes that any given debate can be productive. This is false. If someone with an honest interest in the truth debates a liar with an interest in propaganda, the result is often a complete disaster. Particularly if the person with an honest interest in debate isn't aware that their opponent is a dishonest propagandist - and if they were aware of that, why would they agree to the debate in the first place (here's looking at you, Bill Nye)? And even if the party portraying the blatantly false ideas is coming at it honestly and earnestly, the debate still inherently sends the message that these are two ideas that are both similarly worthy of consideration. It implies that there is a debate worth having. Often, this simply isn't the case, and this simply elevates ideas that are crap. Some ideas are just wrong, and the people who hold those ideas should not be debated, as debate implies that the idea is worthy of consideration. They should instead be educated. As Richard Dawkins put it when asked why he doesn't debate creationists, "That'd look great on your CV, not so good on mine."

Secondly, it assumes that in any given debate, the party with the truth on their side wins. This is, again, patently false. Go back and watch some of Duane Gish's old debates. The man's ideas are incredibly stupid and wrong, and we know that they are stupid and wrong. But the crowd doesn't know that, and while Gish is able to throw out dozens of individual claims, all of which seem compelling, within the span of a few minutes, debunking those nonsense claims takes far longer than his opponent has. Gish came away from a lot of those debates looking like he won, because he was willing and able to lie, and calling him on his lies is a difficult thing to do within the format. This despite the fact that the position he was defending was that the earth was 6,000 years old and there was a worldwide flood within the last 5,000 years, with every species of animal on the planet repopulating from a mere two individuals.

That kind of "debate" helps nobody. There should be some standards to what people a university invites to speak. We can argue about whether or not this applies to Milo, but there certainly are quite a few people at universities around the country who seem to think that there is nothing of value to be had by inviting Milo, any more than there is value in inviting David Duke or Sye Ten Bruggencate.

Related to the article in the OP, here's a similar one published by Slate. Some relevant excerpts:

"What, exactly, is worthy of debate about Milo's ideas? What "debate" is worth having there?"

Not for you to decide.

"Shall we debate about whether or not gender dysphoria is a thing that exists"

Well yes its an important topic that should be discussed before ppl start chopping of bodyparts.

"or whether or not transgender individuals deserve to be treated with basic human dignity?"

Who says they should't be?( getting realy tired of these sleazy leftwing tactics btw)

"Shall we debate whether or not Gamergate was a force for good?"
Sure why not?

"Shall we, perhaps, debate whether or not it is a good idea to host a gay pride parade in a Muslim ghetto, not for the sake of showing off gay pride, but for the sake of pissing off the residents there?"

So its ok to be homophoob if you are muslim? thats what i am reading here at least.

"Perhaps we should debate a notorious cyberbully on the subject of whether or not cyberbullying actually exists. Or whether hate crimes exist."

Disagreeing whit someone is not a hate crime no matter how much your side wants it to be.

"First, it assumes that any given debate can be productive. This is false."

Totaly agree debating whit indoctrinated close minded leftist often seems pointless.


"If someone with an honest interest in the truth debates a liar with an interest in propaganda, the result is often a complete disaster."

Sees no irony in this statement whatsoever.

So another wall of gibberish were you think you and you alone can judge whatever a debate is worth having or not thank god we live in a world were this is not the case.

"

jackof8lades wrote:

"or whether or not transgender individuals deserve to be treated with basic human dignity?"

Who says they should't be?

Milo does. Otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up. And that's not a productive or reasonable debate to have, any more than one should "debate" David Duke on his views about black people. And I'm not the only person who thinks so. Milo has been disinvited from over a dozen universities in the last year alone, because of people who rightfully pointed out that his views belong on 4chan, rather than a university lecture hall.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

jackof8lades wrote:

"or whether or not transgender individuals deserve to be treated with basic human dignity?"

Who says they should't be?

Milo does. Otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up. And that's not a productive or reasonable debate to have, any more than one should "debate" David Duke on his views about black people. And I'm not the only person who thinks so. Milo has been disinvited from over a dozen universities in the last year alone, because of people who rightfully pointed out that his views belong on 4chan, rather than a university lecture hall.

Free speech isn't free publicity. I would ignore Milo and university should not invite people they think are attention-seeking speakers that offer little. He is more trouble than he is worth. You can't get me to debate in something, I am not even remotely interested. Don't give attention to something that isn't worthy.

I think Universities should hold the stand that Education should be free of political influence. If the right accuse the left of indoctrinating their students with left wing politics, all the more the right shouldn't be extending its reach trying to influence students to right wing politics. It should be free or it should not. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Then again, Think of it this way, beauty in the eye of the beholder. You would think it is probably worth debating about Naruto if you are a Naruto fan.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

even if the party portraying the blatantly false ideas is coming at it honestly and earnestly, the debate still inherently sends the message that these are two ideas that are both similarly worthy of consideration.

This is a surprisingly self-centered view.

For considerable portions of the population, most of Milo's ideas are not blatantly false. Accidentally false, or deceptively false, perhaps... blatantly false, clearly not to those who agree. The ones that are blatantly false are trolling, because there's little other reason to say things you know that others know aren't true. And, okay, there is some of that. But most of it isn't that.

Obviously some people think those ideas are worthy of consideration. Evidence: they are voluntarily considering them.

The falsity of such ideas is only blatant to you, and those who agree with you. To believe otherwise is to ignore reality — not necessarily the reality that you're wrong, but necessarily the reality that some people think that you are.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Some ideas are just wrong, and the people who hold those ideas should not be debated, as debate implies that the idea is worthy of consideration. They should instead be educated. As Richard Dawkins put it when asked why he doesn't debate creationists, "That'd look great on your CV, not so good on mine."

That's strange. I always thought a debate was a pretty solid tool for education. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, though; I wonder if public schools even believe in the Socratic method anymore.

So what do you mean, then, by education? Scientific experimentation? Rote memorization? Faith? Skepticism?

I don't think you've thought enough about Dawkins' statement there. He's saying that the result of any debate he has would not be educational. He is not interested in changing minds; that isn't the sort of thing he is interested in garnering a reputation of doing. If not to educate, then what? To affirm... and reaffirm... and reaffirm. Dawkins wants a reputation of saying things to atheists that atheists enjoy hearing, and to best ensure that he doesn't want to sully himself by interacting with The Other. He is not merely a circle-jerk artist — to be fair, so is Milo, for the most part (perhaps more literally?) — but a circle-jerk artist to the exclusion of all else.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Secondly, it assumes that in any given debate, the party with the truth on their side wins. This is, again, patently false.

"

But this moment in American politics and American life proves that the victory of reason cannot always be assured. The purveyors of logic, of facts dutifully checked and delivered to the public, lost big league in November. The cost has been an erosion of our national character that we will be powerless to stop unless we fight prejudice wherever it lies.

There is but one choice here: words or swords. Use reason, make your argument, engage in debate, win over the minds of those who willingly admit defeat... or bully them into acquiescence. When one's side claims reason is not a dependable ally, that its opponents must be silenced because no argument can defeat them, that one must fight... at that point, it behooves one to take a good, long look at one's side, and revaluate if one's loyalty has been earned.

"

In his 2015 essay “Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say,” Chait scolded student activists for writing off their white, privileged opponents as irreconcilable enemies. “Politics in a democracy is still based on getting people to agree with you, not making them afraid to disagree,” he wrote. But in a post responding to the “deplorables” fracas a year later, Chait’s views on the utility of discourse and engagement appeared to have undergone a mysterious transformation. “Trump enjoys a hard-core support that lies beyond persuasion, utterly immune to even the starkest factual evidence,” he wrote.

He was wrong the second time. No person is immune to factual evidence. Their thoughts might be, but the troublesome nature of reality is that, sufficiently ignored, it eventually takes its toll among the bodies, after which the ignorant have no thoughts whatsoever.

"

should we side with those who insist that the bigoted must traipse unhindered through our halls of learning? Or should we dare to disagree?

Indeed, you should disagree if such a situation were to transpire. But in order to disagree, one requires an argument. A fist is not an argument — especially not when used to compel the silence of another.