The free marketplace of ideas and the power of controversy

"

deathflower wrote:

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.

The difficulty here comes when certain things are labeled "political" when they really aren't. Climate change is a great example. There are pundits who would call it "left-wing politics" to teach that the earth is warming, humans are responsible, and the consequences will be extremely costly in lives and treasure. Or to teach that binary sex or gender is scientifically unsound and potentially harmful. Or to teach that evolution is a thing. Similarly, the idea that trans individuals shouldn't be harassed and treated like shit shouldn't be a political idea, but...

Ofc. leftists want to shut down "outdated" ideas they disagree with, while at the same time still peddle socialism & communism - two utterly failed ideas, 100% empirically proven to not work and cause only death & starvation :)

But yeah, witch hunt Milo, in your Cheguevara T-shirts screaming "resist capitalism"!, while your daddy is covering the credit card :))

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

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.

You're right, Milo has some supporters. Some people think his material is worth considering as valid. Some people also think Ken Ham raises interesting, noteworthy points, Rob Schneider makes good movies, and Andrew Wakefield is not a terrible fucking person. The point here is that universities, places of higher learning, should have some standards, and not just let any idiot with backwards or nonsensical ideas peddle their wares there. That's in no small part the argument of the Slate piece, and I can't help but agree.

"

"

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.

Dawkins is right. Do you think geologists should debate flat-earthers? All that accomplishes is falsely implying to people that the flat earth movement has ideas worthy of debate in the first place. They don't. There's nothing worth debating there.

And again, I recommend looking back to the old debates of Duane Gish. These people are masterful bullshit artists. They present simple, false ideas which take a fraction of the time to prop up that they do to knock down, requiring that their debate opponents not address their claims in order to make any headway. A debate can be educational, but both parties have to be entering the debate with the goal of it actually being such for it to make any sense. And as said, sometimes, the person with the truth on their side loses, because the person who doesn't is just really good at lying. And when there's no debate worth having - when the debate is between an idea which is completely false, and an idea which is demonstrably true - it doesn't matter that the antivaxxers or the young earth creationists or the abusive, transphobic bigots think they're right. That doesn't automatically make them worthy of a platform.

We can quibble about whether or not Milo or Murray or Duke actually is right, and whether they fall into that category, but once we establish that their ideas are wrong and harmful, then the correct way to deal with them is to marginalize them as much as possible, not provide them free publicity and standing with a debate, particularly after they've given a speech and been offered a podium to stand alone, unopposed, for a few hours.

"

"

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.

Again, I am taking my cues from the creationist movement, and the response to them. It's a good response. No swords. No violence. Just some curation. Getting places of higher learning to not endlessly rehash bad, disproven, or dangerous ideas, and stop inviting people who hold those ideas. That shouldn't be difficult or unreasonable.

As the article in the OP points out, that Milo's ideas are extremely unpopular is apparent by the fact that he accounts for 14 out of 46 of last year's college disinvitations. Students don't want that shit on campus. Good. Maybe we can keep the trash out of our institutions of higher learning. Not with violence, just with some basic quality control. Like, letting Milo Yiannopolous speak at your university is akin to letting The Slaughtering Grounds get put up on your storefront. You don't need violence to not let that happen, you just need some basic curation and quality control, which a decent university should have anyways. Let him run his shit at the comedy club down the street, although I suppose they'd probably want someone who's actually funny and insightful, rather than just the kind of bigot you get when you cross Prager U with /pol/ and /b/.

Or, to put it another way, is what CPAC did censorship? No? Okay, good, let's just all do that.

"

"

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.

Well, I don't know what to say to the last election. I spent a decent amount of time last year on Christianforums, usually hopping between the evolution forum to argue with YECs and the politics forum to argue with Trump supporters. I honestly could not tell you which group had less penetrable ideologies or were open to more criticism of their ideas, but I could tell you which group was more harmful.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Getting places of higher learning to not endlessly rehash bad, disproven, or dangerous ideas, and stop inviting people who hold those ideas. That shouldn't be difficult or unreasonable.

But why do you want to ban Berni Sanders and his cohort peddling the dangerous and disproved idea of socialism? What has the poor old loon done to you? :(

----
It's pretty obvious what your and your article wants: shut down free speech because you consider ideas opposing your ideology to be false. You even go so far to consider the violent response of the "progressive" left, as some sort of proof Milo's ideas failed at the marketplace of ideas, ignoring that there are people who want to hear him speak - they are just being obstructed by the tolerant left.

Just remember that violence goes both ways. Some day your message will be shut down and silenced, and it will be easy to find excuses why this is a good thing.

"

morbo wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Getting places of higher learning to not endlessly rehash bad, disproven, or dangerous ideas, and stop inviting people who hold those ideas. That shouldn't be difficult or unreasonable.

But why do you want to ban Berni Sanders and his cohort peddling the dangerous and disproved idea of socialism? What has the poor old loon done to you? :(

Bernie Sanders's ideas amount to a rehash of the phenomenally successful social democratic platforms of Europe. None of his ideas are untested or unproven. They've shown their value and success in multiple countries. The problem here is one of definition - you're appealing to the failed communistic regimes of the eastern bloc, and Sanders is appealing to the successful social welfare programs of western europe. FWIW I think your definition is more "correct", and is usually what people are thinking of when they say "socialism", but it's clearly not what Sanders thinks of or supports.

"

It's pretty obvious what your and your article wants: shut down free speech because you consider ideas opposing your ideology to be false.

Did CPAC shut down free speech when they rescinded Milo's invitation? Because I'm not asking for anything more than that.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Do you think geologists should debate flat-earthers?

Sure, why not.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

once we establish that their ideas are wrong and harmful, then the correct way to deal with them is to marginalize them as much as possible

Wrong. I think your ideas here are wrong and dangerous, but I'm not trying to marginalize your words, I'm literally repeating them within a post of my own, then disagreeing with them, then laughing. This is the way it should be. This is good. So, what, you're saying I should ignore you instead? Well, then, if you reply to this, you're​ a hypocrite.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Or, to put it another way, is what CPAC did censorship? No? Okay, good, let's just all do that.

No, it wasn't censorship. But 1. CPAC isn't funded with taxpayer money the way universities are, and 2. even then, CPAC is precisely the type of circle-jerk I'm advocating against in terms of moving things forward. Not ethically wrong, but strategically wrong.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Bernie Sanders's ideas amount to a rehash of the phenomenally successful social democratic platforms of Europe.

Hahahaha good joke 9/10

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

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.

Not in the way you envision. You debate in a control environment with judges. You have a time limit and people will lash out at you brutally, point out your mistakes and destroy your lies. You don't usually get the topic you want. In many debates, you actually have to prove ideas that you think are probably wrong right or ideas that you think is right wrong. That is education.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

The difficulty here comes when certain things are labeled "political" when they really aren't. Climate change is a great example. There are pundits who would call it "left-wing politics" to teach that the earth is warming, humans are responsible, and the consequences will be extremely costly in lives and treasure. Or to teach that binary sex or gender is scientifically unsound and potentially harmful. Or to teach that evolution is a thing. Similarly, the idea that trans individuals shouldn't be harassed and treated like shit shouldn't be a political idea, but...

Just say it isn't. Let it be so. If people whine about it, that their problem.

I don't think any scientist worth his salt would argue Climate change is a hoax. They do disagree on how serious it is and its impact. Evolution is a thing? It is a pretty convincing theory though. Their lost if they don't appreciate it or understand it. More plausible than Flat Earth theory I would say. Are trans not granted protection from harassment? Whether people think it should or shouldn't doesn't matter, what matter is they are or they are not.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Do you think geologists should debate flat-earthers?

Sure, why not.

They have no obligation to do so unless you pay them. You do realize they usually have to take their personal time to do so. I would think they have better things to do. Dawkins can choose not to debate creationists, it is his personal time. It is his rights.

All h̶u̶m̶a̶n̶s̶ Ideas are created equal except some h̶u̶m̶a̶n Ideas are more equal than others. You can disagree but you have to support many shitty ideas or our ideas have the same value as your.

In a way, It is true. We wish to silence, destroy or assimilate opposing ideas. Ideas are driven to extinction with disuse, cultural assimilation or prosecution.

How should we destroy f̶l̶a̶t̶-̶e̶a̶r̶t̶h̶e̶r̶s̶ Flat Earth theory?

"

deathflower wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Do you think geologists should debate flat-earthers?

Sure, why not.

They have no obligation to do so unless you pay them. You do realize they usually have to take their personal time to do so. I would think they have better things to do. Dawkins can choose not to debate creationists, it is his personal time. It is his rights.

I'm aware of the difference between "should" and "must." Are you?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Do you think geologists should debate flat-earthers?

Sure, why not.

Because there not a debate worth having. Even if a large portion of the student body believes in the flat earth model, there is still not a debate worth having.

"

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

once we establish that their ideas are wrong and harmful, then the correct way to deal with them is to marginalize them as much as possible

Wrong. I think your ideas here are wrong and dangerous, but I'm not trying to marginalize your words, I'm literally repeating them within a post of my own, then disagreeing with them, then laughing. This is the way it should be. This is good. So, what, you're saying I should ignore you instead? Well, then, if you reply to this, you're​ a hypocrite.

I'd say this is in fact a debate worth having. You're welcome to disagree and stop responding if you prefer, but I value your opinion and think most of the points you make are at least thought-provoking.

"

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Or, to put it another way, is what CPAC did censorship? No? Okay, good, let's just all do that.

No, it wasn't censorship. But 1. CPAC isn't funded with taxpayer money the way universities are, and 2. even then, CPAC is precisely the type of circle-jerk I'm advocating against in terms of moving things forward. Not ethically wrong, but strategically wrong.

The point of universities is education. Education is not well-served by rehashing ancient, debunked ideas.

"

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Bernie Sanders's ideas amount to a rehash of the phenomenally successful social democratic platforms of Europe.

Hahahaha good joke 9/10

Not sure what's so funny about this. That Sanders's ideas are mostly practiced in Europe? That's pretty trivially true. That the programs were successful in Europe? Well, there's a ton of data on various aspects of that, but perhaps it's most telling that even the hard-right, anti-immigrant populist movements consider those a third rail not worth touching.

"

deathflower wrote:

How should we destroy f̶l̶a̶t̶-̶e̶a̶r̶t̶h̶e̶r̶s̶ Flat Earth theory?

With fire and great prejudice.

Oh wait, you meant the theory, not the practitioners. Um... Answer remains the same? :V

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Sure, why not.

They have no obligation to do so unless you pay them. You do realize they usually have to take their personal time to do so. I would think they have better things to do. Dawkins can choose not to debate creationists, it is his personal time. It is his rights.

I'm aware of the difference between "should" and "must." Are you?

You asked I replied. I support Dawkins reasoning that he should not give publicity to creationists. If the question is "How should we destroy ̶c̶r̶e̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ creationism?" There is more than one way to skin a cat. You disagree with his methodology. Let them fade into oblivion. Let them be forgotten. It is an mean to an end.