Without any hard evidence ... it makes perfect sense. — I like sushi
Person X states that if a man or woman brings allegations of rape six months or a year after the alleged event, that person should be ignored. — frank
To me, it is ridiculous that any university ever tolerated a complaint of a girl coming in six months or a year after an event. If a real rape was committed go frigging report it...
Your paraphrasing is utterly disingenuous. — Isaac
I was discussing a principle. If a man or woman is raped and delays in coming forward, whether it's to a university, a church, a psychologist, a doctor, or what have you, those accusations should not be ignored simply because there was a delay. — frank
I'm not sure I get the relevance to the topic here. — Isaac
Should she be fired for that? No, in my view. And she hasn't been. — Baden
the university not tolerating a late complaint is consistent with them ignoring it, and the video makes clear Paglia's lack of sympathy for, not to mention mockery of, assault victims who don't immediately report. — Baden
the video makes clear Paglia's lack of sympathy for, not to mention mockery of, assault victims who don't immediately report. — Baden
Well then you need to ask about some basic principles, not provide an extremely emotional story about one specific case. — Isaac
Reporting rape late and to the wrong authority makes it far less likely that the perpetrator will be caught, which is a neglect of one's duty to others. Being a victim oneself does not absolve one of one's moral duty to others. You may not agree with that position, and therefore disagree with the strategy of displaying a lack of sympathy for those who neglect this perceived duty, but it is disingenuous to add weight to your argument by trying to demonise those who think differently. — Isaac
As far as politics is concerned, neither qualification nor fame are more likely to make what I have to say more interesting or right, but qualification or fame just happen to be the university's criteria for offering a platform. If they extend that criteria to include, for want of a better word, 'political correctness', how is that any different? — Isaac
The same goes for YouTube, Facebook etc. We don't all have an equal platform in these places either. Those with more money, fame, charm or even just dumb luck have a platform that others don't. Again, how is adding 'political correctness' to that list any more arbitrary? — Isaac
But is there suddenly a dearth of whacky, objectionable, and generally fucked-up ideas out there? Has the volume on reactionary voices been turned so far down that we can no longer hear the anti-immigrant, homophobic, Islamophobic, sexist trumpets blowing? Or is the fear for a dystopic future where public figures are not allowed to be assholes and therefore we all forget how to think?
I don't see it. From the evidence of the thread I see:
1) The curmudgeonly unfortunately-not-yet-mummified Scruton losing one of his sidelines as a government advisor for some ill-judged use of language with the accusations against him appearing to be at least partly trumped up.
2) Camille Paglia being unsuccessfully assailed by some students exercising their free speech rights to try to punish her use of her ivory tower to fire thoughtless missives against sexual assault victims.
3) Major talking turd Alex Jones falling foul of social media company guidelines that, like our guidelines, result in the banning of minor talking turds on a regular basis.
The ideological warfare seems to be getting along fine and fears of peace seem greatly exaggerated. — Baden
Likewise, I'd never heard of Scruton before seeing this thread. The British government didn't eliminate his audience, it only removed itself from his company, making its sentiments clear. How is that a bad thing? — frank
I'm not on facebook or twitter. I'm really only interested in the principles involved. I think we tried the completely uncensored internet. That resulted in the landscape being flooded with misinformation. If the goal is to protect democracy, we should at least make an effort to reduce misinformation, even if there is always more on the horizon. — frank
I don't propose being ruthless about it. We don't have to turn into China over it. BTW, have you heard about China's Muslim concentration camps? — frank
I do apologize for the excesses of my rhetoric... — VagabondSpectre
It's not really a bad thing so far as I can tell, but we're approaching the line. — VagabondSpectre
e should be careful not to liberally decide that certain political views amount to misinformation (disentangling the two is often difficult). — VagabondSpectre
I'm trying my best to not become the thing that I am criticizing, so please don't interpret anything I've written as a criticism of yourself. I too fancy myself a man of ideas, and really that's the inherent value I'm trying to promote. — VagabondSpectre
I'm trying my best to not become the thing that I am criticizing, so please don't interpret anything I've written as a criticism of yourself. I too fancy myself a man of ideas, and really that's the inherent value I'm trying to promote. — VagabondSpectre
In future, try being completely clear and straightforward like me. :halo: — Baden
Can I take credit for this? Pretty please. — fdrake
I value your perspective, and I appreciate the need for caution. — frank
Well, at least we can laugh about it. Out there in the real world there is somewhat of a loss of a sense of the absurd, and of humour, and an embrace of a feeling of threat on both sides. So we wear the ritual masks lest we be turned to stone by the sight of our own shadows posing as ophidian foes. Whereas what's underneath is likely a wormery of confused righteousness rather than a snarling serpent aimed at our souls. — Baden
it's actually revoking the use of a platform by someone who ostensibly already has access to it (a subtle but important distinction) — VagabondSpectre
The damage there is that a bunch of students really wanted to hear Shapiros ideas, and so by shutting down the event, they interfered with the free speech of their fellow students who have every right to decide who they want to invite as a speaker at their private events. — VagabondSpectre
you think about it, trying to institute a political correctness rule would just send us down the road of always kowtowing to the loudest source of outrage. What is and is not politically correct is contested, and constantly changes. Do you really want to put corporations and professional victims in that driver seat? — VagabondSpectre
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.