The trouble is we're not starting from a blank slate, so to give people an equal right to speak from where they are now, is not equality of opportunity, it's re-inforcement of the status quo. — Isaac

I don’t see this as a problem really? We’re all different with different opportunities taken and missed, so it ends up with some people more able - and willing - to get their ideas out there into the public domain.

The ‘status quo’ is a realm of open exchange. As long as people are not inhibited by the law to express different ideas we shouldn’t be overly worried. I don’t think it makes sense to protest speakers and stop others hearing what they have to say simply because they are deemed as x or y. If people strongly oppose these people then they should go and listen to them and challenge them instead of expecting them to simply disappear because they have opinions and views that clash.

I simply think this is all a matter of youthful exuberance and part of establishing a sense of political positioning in an ever complex and dynamic sociopolitical life - universities have been full for protesters and hipsters since they were established.

The ‘status quo’ is a realm of open exchange. — I like sushi

No. The status quo is absolutely not a realm of open exchange. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of hurdles one has to overcome in order to get one's idea into the public realm for discussion, many of them relate directly to the idea itself. If we say that one pressure group should reign in their attempts to control the public debating space, we are, by default, lending weight to those other pressure groups who tactics we are not likewise seeking to shackle.

I don’t really see the negative point here? I believe that literally everyone who wishes to be heard should be heard simply because they believe what they have to say matters. Eventually paradigms shifts and it is, from my perspective, a little naive to assume such shifts could happen overnight without any seriously negative repercussions.

If we say that one pressure group should reign in their attempts to control the public debating space, we are, by default, lending weight to those other pressure groups who tactics we are not likewise seeking to shackle.

What I am saying is people voice their opinions and undermine others all the time. They are nasty and backstabbing, and something encouraging and open. Overall the noise heard is a general expression of people on the fringes hollering (with varying degrees of justification) and this leads, and has led, to some people being shut down on various public platforms.

So, as to the above quote, saying that everyone has the right to listen to who they want to listen to is nothing like playing an “us” versus “them” game.

The worry is that small minorities of people effect the larger sphere to push their views for their own personal benefit at the expense of the vast majority who either don’ t care, or who are cajoled into believing something is being said by someone when it is not - hence the kind of mess we see in this thread about the call for people to be “sacked” for expressing views on difficult topics (which is actually part and parcel of their job being professors and intellectuals).

Note: Anyone saying “absolutely not” rings alarms bells for me. I generally take “absolutely” to mean “absolutely” in intellectual discussion rather than a use of rhetoric to enhance a point - for now I’ll generously assume the later. That is to say I am NOT saying it is completely free nor that it has problems; I think a constant rebalancing IS what the status quo is today more than at any other time in human history as we’re not (at least in western society) massively inhibited by Law and Order as to what we can and cannot say.

I didn't say you said that. You misread the word 'both' as referring to you and Isaac rather than two things Isaac did and thus misinterpreted me as saying I said you said I misinterpreted Paglia. Funny that.

You're both suggesting I misinterpreted Paglia and that I disagree with the interpretation I didn't make, which is a rather confused argumentative strategy. — Baden

Nope. “You’re both,” consider both myself and Isaac were tagged in that post can only mean BOTH of us NOT both of the things he said.

I didn’t misread. You miswrote and then misread our own writing. I guess you meant to write “You both” and either the autocorrect kicked in or your brain decided to tell your fingers to do something else. It happens :) As I’ve stated elsewhere I’m not a massive fan of proofreading because I’m trying to train my brain to be more precise first time around.

I’ve made a couple of posts recently where I missed the “not” which I hope people managed to read around given the larger context of what I was saying.

AMENDED: Haha! Okay! Gotcha! XD just realised! Someone invent a better system of communicating please! My mistake. It is kind of funny that I still didn’t notice ... sorry I didn’t spot the double meaning behind the ‘You’re’. Is there a way to avoid that confusion without adding an explanation in parenthesis? Mmm ...?

A bit like the difference between “I helped my uncle jack off a donkey” and “I helped my uncle Jack off a donkey.” Haha!

:lol:

I should have written to avoid ambiguity: "You're suggesting that I both... "

I’m not a massive fan of proofreading... — I like sushi

Neither am I, but it's another hat I wear (though apparently the fit is a bit loose). :)

I believe that literally everyone who wishes to be heard should be heard simply because they believe what they have to say matters. — I like sushi

I agree, with one important caveat. Where there is a widely accepted body of knowledge which relates to a position, I don't think a person unaware of that lore need necessarily be given an equal platform.

So, as to the above quote, saying that everyone has the right to listen to who they want to listen to is nothing like playing an “us” versus “them” game. — I like sushi

Yes, but opposition to de-platforming is not saying that everyone has the right to listen. It's saying that one, and only one, method of restricting what people listen to should be stopped. That obviously gives greater weight to all the dozens of other methods for controlling what people can listen to which we have left unfettered.

Those wishing to listen to 'politically incorrect' views are now unhindered. Those who wish to listen to moderate, uncontroversial views are still just as hindered (uncontroversial views cannot get a platform because of the commercialisation of ideas). Those wishing to listen to the views of the poor or marginalised are just as hindered (poor people cannot afford the kind of promotion needed to get a platform). Those wishing to hear from average 'ordinary folk' are just as hindered (ordinary people are not normally charismatic enough to carve out a space in today's media). I could go on...

The worry is that small minorities of people effect the larger sphere to push their views for their own personal benefit at the expense of the vast majority who either don’ t care, or who are cajoled into believing something is being said by someone when it is not — I like sushi

But this happens in most fields all the time. How many people are actually involved in awarding a Nobel prize? And what disproportionate effect does being a 'Nobel-prize-winning' whatever have on one's ability to be heard. Have not a very small minority just effected the larger sphere? What is the total size of the group who collectively edit all the academic journals (clue - it's way smaller than you think) yet how much of an effect does being a 'published academic' have on one's ability to get a platform, or indeed even a job?

Hundreds of small minority groups are using whatever tactics they can to push their own agendas. Either close them all down, or let them fight it out adversarially, but don't shut one down and leave the others in an attempt at equality.

I’ve never considered ‘ambiguity’ as a kind of mythical beast to avoid before ... I guess the Greeks did though with the Chimera. For some reason the beast ‘ambiguity’ sounds more fluffy :)

But free-speech (in terms of having a platform like the one Ben Shapiro had) is interfered with in this way all the time. I don't have enough money to do what Shapiro does, is the economy interfering with my free speech? The trouble is we're not starting from a blank slate, so to give people an equal right to speak from where they are now, is not equality of opportunity, it's re-inforcement of the status quo. How is the effect on freedom to speak of the protesting students materially any different to the effect on the freedom to speak of the revenue-based format of the global media? How is it materially any different to the qualifications/fame barrier of columnists for major newspapers? — Isaac

This is probably one of the few sensible things said in this thread so far. The middling liberal approach taken by many in this thread looks at issues of ‘deplatforming’ and so on as though politics and power only ever intervene after the fact, as though the ground of speech were a priori neutral and only then ‘interfered’ with from the outside, per accidens. But this is naïvety at best, utter stupidity at worst - anyone who isn’t a complete idiot knows that only some are ever given a platform to begin with - are ‘platformed’. The rest - the majority - simply shout into the void.

It is simply political infantilism to believe that everyone has a platform - is born with one, as it were - and that harm only comes from 'taking it away’. As if some stupid toy. Platforms are rare, hard-fought over, and mercilessly defended and attacked. Those who complain about ‘deplatforming’ usually have nothing to say about platforming to begin with, because they are so utterly insensible to the play of power everywhere at work long before some wanker has their stupid ‘say’ on a lectern somewhere. Their defence of ‘free speech’ is nothing but a defence of the arrangement of power just as it is - the status quo, all the while denying that power has any role to play expect on the side of those who argue for ‘deplatforming’. It’s hypocrisy unnamed.

Liberal shills have nothing to say about the structural, socio-economic conditions that precipitated the situations they are decrying. They'll bark your ear off about 'deplatforming' and remain deafeningly, fatally silent about the far more significant, far more pervasive issue of platforming. Their politics is reactive, as reactive as any they blab about with their reams of words.

Crap! I missed a “n’t” out!

Sorry Isaac, I meant:

“I believe that literally everyone who wishes to be heard shouldn’t be heard simply because they believe what they have to say matters.”

Those wishing to listen to 'politically incorrect' views are now unhindered. Those who wish to listen to moderate, uncontroversial views are still just as hindered (uncontroversial views cannot get a platform because of the commercialisation of ideas). — Isaac

There is an obvious problem there. You assume everyone agrees on what is or isn’t PC. You seem to be appealing to a democratic choice yet against a democratic choice at the same time? How should people decide who they want to listen to? Should we avoid talks by people because a minority of people get annoyed or cater to the general consensus (which is generally that most university students aren’t political activists looking to undermine anyone and everyone who comes to speak at their university).

I’ve no issue with groups of people protesting. I get worried when such protests effect the attitudes on the people running the university due to legal machinations and fear fo possible lawsuits. That is part and parcel of what Paglia was saying (in that and other articles/talks). That is universities shouldn’t be expected to police students. It is a facility to facilitate not an institution for telling people how to behave and abide by the law and order of the state.

Hundreds of small minority groups are using whatever tactics they can to push their own agendas. Either close them all down, or let them fight it out adversarially, but don't shut one down and leave the others in an attempt at equality. — Isaac

Why shut them down? Are they taking part in illegal activities? If not leave them be. More often than not it is just a simple case of a few individuals making a lot of noise about nothing and effectively (more often than not) actually undermining the very cause they insist they are fighting for - this, as I said, is something as old as universities themselves. Most people venture out into the world and have their views shattered by the reality of societal forces to some degree or another. Those that never admit they were previously naive to some extend are just demagogues in the making (in the modern sense of ‘demagogue’)

There is an obvious problem there. You assume everyone agrees on what is or isn’t PC. — I like sushi

I'm not seeing the link there. All I'm saying is that if de-platforming attempts like those in response to Shapiro were somehow stopped, then such people (I'm just calling them 'politically incorrect' for shorthand) would now be able to speak, the people who want to listen to him can do so unhindered. But many, many other voices remain unheard because of the socio-economic system we currently have. There is no default position we can return to if only those nasty protesters are dissuaded from their tactics. To oppose the tactics of the protestors is to implicitly support the tactics of the establishment that exists without them, they're both trying to control the debating space.

I’ve no issue with groups of people protesting. I get worried when such protests effect the attitudes on the people running the university due to legal machinations and fear fo possible lawsuits. That is part and parcel of what Paglia was saying (in that and other articles/talks). That is universities shouldn’t be expected to police students. It is a facility to facilitate not an institution for telling people how to behave and abide by the law and order of the state. — I like sushi

The attitudes of the people running the university are already affected by a hundred interest groups exerting their influence in whatever way they can. Why shouldn't the protestors be one of them?

Universities absolutely tell people how to behave, that is the net effect of the entire humanities and arts departments and a huge part of the hard sciences. Every institution, every pressure group, even the structure of society itself is telling people how to behave. There is no default position. So why pick one group trying to do it and say they shouldn't?

I’m only willing to split hairs so much on this topic.

If people want to stop others from speaking they can do so. There will be a lash back and things will push in the other direction. Rinse and repeat. The danger is one position pushing too far - I don’t see that happening much just yet. The telling sign is when the average student starts caring about the issues a small group are pushing for or against.

There does seem to be a growing impression of hypersensitivity. I think this is okay too because if we’re to become more sensitive then we’ll become sensitive to being overly sensitive. Social media is just a magnifying lens of what has always existed in educational institutions and I would argue that today there is more freedom of speech within universities than there was 50 or more years ago even if we are (and I’m not saying we are!) experiencing a little dip.

The gist of this entire thread is about the vacuous assessment of academics whose job it is to cover fringe topics and deal with uncomfortable issues. Shapiro isn’t a professor, so it is a side issue to the wants and needs and of the students - the ‘protests’ for and against will level out and no doubt some professors will stick their oar in and voice their views on matters of who should and shouldn’t speak on university campuses. My view is that if they are stopped from speaking on campus that by no means leaves them open to criticism so I’d rather they spoke on campuses so students (who are there because they’re smart) can question them directly in an environment of intellectual discourse. The alternative is they take their talk elsewhere under what I imagine would be a less intellectually demanding environment.

I very much doubt I have anything more to say on this topic.

You're both suggesting I misinterpreted Paglia and that I disagree with the interpretation I didn't make, which is a rather confused argumentative strategy. And the charge that I demonised her is trumped up. I demand that you be fired. Or I be fired. Or, well, someone better suffer anyway... — Baden

Apologies for not responding this earlier. My intention was not to confuse matters thus, but only to re-emphasise the significant difference between what Paglia actually said (the university should not tolerate them) and what frank paraphrased (they should be ignored - without any qualifier as to who is doing the ignoring). I thought your statement that Frank's interpretation was accurate covered up this important distinction.

The 'demonising' comment was not aimed at you, but at her detractors. Apologies if that was not clear. Rest assured my script writers have been fired, as have those responsible for hiring them.

My comments will now be continued at great expense in a completely different style... cue llamas.

(sorry, probably very niche monty python joke)

the whole problem is ideas integral to these politics violate ethics and objective description of society. We need to abandon them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But how do we convince our political opposition to abandon their unethical beliefs? Half the time they too feel that the other side holds unethical and inaccurate beliefs. Assuming the conflict will tend to be symmetrical, if I endorse the use of force against the other side then I'm also endorsing the use of it against my own side.

“Pull the other one!”

This is probably one of the few sensible things said in this thread so far. The middling liberal approach taken by many in this thread looks at issues of ‘deplatforming’ and so on as though politics and power only ever intervene after the fact, as though the ground of speech were a priori neutral and only then ‘interfered’ with from the outside, per accidens. But this is naïvety at best, utter stupidity at worst - anyone who isn’t a complete idiot knows that only some are ever given a platform to begin with - are ‘platformed’. The rest - the majority - simply shout into the void.

It is simply political infantilism to believe that everyone has a platform - is born with one, as it were - and that harm only comes from 'taking it away’. As if some stupid toy. Platforms are rare, hard-fought over, and mercilessly defended and attacked. Those who complain about ‘deplatforming’ usually have nothing to say about platforming to begin with, because they are so utterly insensible to the play of power everywhere at work long before some wanker has their stupid ‘say’ on a lectern somewhere. Their defence of ‘free speech’ is nothing but a defence of the arrangement of power just as it is - the status quo, all the while denying that power has any role to play expect on the side of those who argue for ‘deplatforming’. It’s hypocrisy unnamed. — StreetlightX

Only "their" defence of free speech? I guess you mean either the defence of free speech for the views you don't like; or, which for you comes to the same thing, the defence of free speech for all views. I guess you mean that, say, my defence of free speech is also a "defence of the arrangement of power just as it is", only maybe I don't know it.

But there is disagreement over what that arrangement of power is, and disagreement over what is a defence of the status quo and what is not. For example, I'm a quasi- or ex- or crypto-leftist, and I believe that neoliberal capitalism and the present cultural orthodoxy that passes for leftism are more than merely compatible: they are two sides of the same coin. And that's despite the existence of bogeymen like the Kochs. The point is not to argue here for that thesis, but to try and show that your moral and intellectual high ground isn't necessarily so high, i.e., that there's a debate to be had, one that you assume has been had already.

Liberal shills have nothing to say about the structural, socio-economic conditions that precipitated that the situations they are decrying. They'll bark your ear off about 'deplatforming' and remain deafeningly, fatally silent about the far more significant, far more pervasive issue of platforming. Their politics is reactive, as reactive as any they blab about with their reams of words. — StreetlightX

Is anyone who defends free speech without compromise, or who complains about deplatforming, a "liberal shill"? What about the people who do so while also having things to say about the "structural, socio-economic conditions that precipitated that the situations they are decrying"?

Like most of your stuff about actually existing politics, your post is impatient, polemical, authoritarian, and--in common with most philosophers when they talk about the real world--disappointingly second-hand and mainstream-ideological. But if you're taking sides in a battle, on behalf of a party, then I guess that's appropriate. I mean, even accepting your stuff about power, from that point if you don't accept that there is a debate to be had about who holds the power in the first place, then it just comes down to who can shout the loudest, who can use the power of the state for their own ends (and who can lament the deplorableness of the common people in the class war of the Left against the working class).

Your post is really just an argument in favour of ad hominem. Do not look to the argument, you say, look to the person--and their power, identity, etc. As such it is close to being fallacious if interpreted as rational, though perhaps useful or understandable if interpreted as bloodthirsty polemic or Leninist revolutionary propaganda. It doesn't come close to being thoughtful or philosophical.

But free-speech (in terms of having a platform like the one Ben Shapiro had) is interfered with in this way all the time. I don't have enough money to do what Shapiro does, is the economy interfering with my free speech? The trouble is we're not starting from a blank slate, so to give people an equal right to speak from where they are now, is not equality of opportunity, it's re-inforcement of the status quo. How is the effect on freedom to speak of the protesting students materially any different to the effect on the freedom to speak of the revenue-based format of the global media? How is it materially any different to the qualifications/fame barrier of columnists for major newspapers? — Isaac

While it's true that we don't all have the means to platform ourselves, and it's also true in a capitalist system those with more wealth will always be able to purchase more influence or exposure (a tangential issue), democracy was never intended to give every individual equal speaking time at a podium (though whomsoever wants to step on a soap-box is free to do so, for all the good it might do). Representative democracy requires that we choose representatives, both formally and informally. Ben Shapiro happens to have made a career out of being an informal representative (a well followed pundit), and though at this point he has more privilege and opportunity than most anyone else, it is a privilege freely given to him by his supporters.

Regarding the question of protesting a Shapiro speaking event, I'm all for it, but where's the sense in shutting it down with force and disruption? It's true that the wealthy and privileged have a pre-existing advantage, but does that mean we should resort to force?

I just want to clarify that "platforms" and "de-platforming" are so poorly defined that we can easily over-generalize. We're all platformed or not platformed in dozens of relevant ways, and my objections to "de-platforming" run along very particular lines (e.g: de-platforming through harassment or force and de-platforming based on misleading emotional appeals (it's not so much the emotional appeal as it is the misleading part, and the fact that these are what tend to lead to unjust harassment and force)).

I think with cases like these, people seem to mix two ideas. The first is the principle that human society works best with a free exchange of ideas. This is something I'm entirely supportive of. But this has nothing to do with the Shapiro affair. The reason why people wanted to hear him speak is because they'd already heard his ideas and wanted to rally behind him. They didn't randomly invite the guy in the spirit of widening their concepts. The reason why the protesters wanted to prevent his speech is because they too had already heard his ideas and didn't want their university to be associated with them (among a host of other incentives no doubt). None of the conflict was to do with hearing his ideas for the first time, that has already happened,and was fully facilitated (in fact encouraged) by the way our idea-discussing platforms are already arranged to favour people like Shapiro (wealthy, charismatic, controversial) and disfavour many whose ideas might be just as useful. — Isaac

Ultimately it's not for me (or any individual, save our elected officials, for better or for worse) to decide whose ideas (policies) are useful for the lot of us. I take as much issue with Shapiro as you do, and as much of a sycophantic echo-chamber as I'm sure the event would have been, there's no good reason they should not be allowed to hold it (and where opposing it by force just backfires spectacularly). Isn't any partisan political event by definition a re-hashing of ideas that most everyone there has already heard? Is there a useful point to them beyond promoting intra-party cohesion? If not, why shouldn't the economically disadvantaged among Trumps constituents disrupt left wing events? If they're just ideas everyone has already heard then why not? I'm being facetious, but from the other side (Shapiro fans), condoning forceful disruption against him would be taken as firm evidence of Shapiro's already privileged narrative. Why take the bait?

The media makes it difficult for those who are not wealthy, charismatic and controversial to have their ideas heard. Academic institutions make it difficult for those who are not wealthy (again!) and well-read to have their ideas heard. The liberal protest movement might make it difficult for those who are not 'politically correct' to have their ideas heard. I'm still not seeing the 'important' difference. — Isaac

It's the long-term chilling effect of how we motivate and sanction individuals and our institutions. Positive reinforcement is like inviting/paying Shapiro to speak at an event, and withholding positive reinforcement would be akin to a boycott or a dis-invitation (a de-platforming). Negative reinforcement then amounts to the use of force (force as in taking disruptive action beyond traditional protest and boycott, which can include dis-invitation by extortion (e.g: a group of unruly protestors issue threats to have an event canceled)).

So what do we get when we normalize that kind of negative reinforcement as a standard sanction against political opponents? We drive pundits like Shapiro onto fringe media platforms (much like Alex Jones, where they may all yet live), or worse we give them the attention the thrive on; but we might also create a similar predicament for our own beloved radicals. Regular individuals with no substantial platform gain nothing, and if they've got radical ideas of their own, they would have a large incentive to remain politically silent (because applying negative sanctions en masse against an average individual (someone who doesn't have Shapiro's resources) can be life ruining). The crucial difference is when our opposition goes from civil to less than civil.

To me, it's a bit like the adversarial system in law. No one really likes it as it feels wrong to be trying as hard as one can to let a potential criminal go free, rather than just find out the 'truth'. But the other side are trying as hard as they can to put them away. So the adversarial system is the best we have. Similarly each pressure group is going to be trying as hard as they can to allow/promote only the ideas they see as 'worthy' of discussion. If we single out one group and ask them not to try as hard as they can, to refrain from some action they think might work, we're tipping the balance in favour of the other pressures whom we have not similarly bound. — Isaac

I'm actually a fan of the adversarial system, not for its short term precision, but for its long term accuracy (its ability to derive and establish superior precedent in case law over time. Some might say legislative superiority just waxes and wanes according to the values of the time, but I personally believe in legal ethical progress). For that system to work, both sides need a somewhat even playing field, but both sides must also agree to abide by a certain code of conduct and procedural standards that are designed to protect fairness. And compared to those standards, the landscape of political discourse is an unregulated free-for-all, where the conflicts spill violently out of court-room and into the streets. Letting Shapiro confer with his clients, so to speak, is an essential part of a functional version of an adversarial political system.

Only "their" defence of free speech? I guess you mean either the defence of free speech for the views you don't like; or, which for you comes to the same thing, the defence of free speech for all views. — jamalrob

But I don't mean this: I meant the defence of free speech on the grounds of protecting it from machinations of power as though access to the 'marketplace of ideas' were not already gate-kept to the nth degree. It's that specific argument for the defence of free speech that I was attacking as being naive and hypocritical. The point is simply that it is prejudicial, that it sees power only where it wants to, and not where it largely lies. Mistaking trees for forests and all that. If an attack on an argument is an ad hominem then I suppose I've been using that word wrong for a long time.

And I'm not sure what to make of your complaint that I don't believe there is a debate to be had over 'who holds power': my whole point is that this debate is explicitly not being had, and that it should be. Have I read you wrong, or you me?

Have I read you wrong, or you me? — StreetlightX

Not sure. Let me think about that.

Ben Shapiro happens to have made a career out of being an informal representative (a well followed pundit), and though at this point he has more privilege and opportunity than most anyone else, it is a privilege freely given to him by his supporters. — VagabondSpectre

I really don't think that is the way things work, but it would take quite some investment in the social psychology literature to even review the arguments, let alone convince you. Suffice to say my faith in the independent decision-making ability of most people has been significantly eroded.

I'm of the opinion that people like Shapiro are enabled by institutions and his widespread acceptance is nothing more than an entirely predicable consequence of that enabling. The idea that he has somehow 'emerged' as the representative of a group of people who have long harboured his views but until now had no voice is just not swinging it for me.

where's the sense in shutting it down with force and disruption? It's true that the wealthy and privileged have a pre-existing advantage, but does that mean we should resort to force? — VagabondSpectre

Sometimes, yes. I'm not really sure why you are drawing such a line at physical force, perhaps you could expand on that? Why is it OK, for example, for media companies to use their wealth to distribute platforms to those controversial enough to make revenue (denying platforms to the mundane), but its not OK for students to use their physical mass to deny platforms to the likes of the Shapiro? What is it about physical mass as a tool that singles it out as reprehensible?

Isn't any partisan political event by definition a re-hashing of ideas that most everyone there has already heard? Is there a useful point to them beyond promoting intra-party cohesion? — VagabondSpectre

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. It has virtually nothing to do with free-speech in the sense most people seem to use the term (we must listen to and rationally argue against ideas for the sake of our collective intellect). There's no debating going on here. No one is listening to the arguments with a rational mind, neither for nor against. It's language being used entirely as rhetoric just to stir up a movement in a particular political direction. To say we should use language to oppose it is to give the 'discussion' a legitimacy it does not deserve.

These events are no more than rallies, a show of force.

For that system to work, both sides need a somewhat even playing field, but both sides must also agree to abide by a certain code of conduct and procedural standards that are designed to protect fairness. — VagabondSpectre

Agreed, but this seems another regularly implied state of affairs which I just don't recognise. "If we use physical force to de-platform, then they will too". Where is this idea coming from that they're waiting to see what we do to decide what tactics are acceptable? They (by whom I mean whomever one considers opposed to them) are going to use whatever tactics they can to shut down ideas that don't meet their requirements. Not necessarily even ideologically, I don't think the media, for example, are motivated by anything but the fact that controversy sells. But the point is, they won't hold back.

I guess to some extent the issues are different for different sides in a debate. If you're arguing against someone who has money, they're not going to use physical force against you (why would they) but you might need to against them. Your resources are obviously not going to be the same as theirs.

So yes, an even playing field and fair rules of engagement are very important to any adversarial system, but I think what we too often take for granted the playing field and rules we currently have which are neither even nor fair. They are stacked massively in favour of the institutions of the status quo.

I have watched various talks she’s given and read some of her articles here and there enough to understand her general position - which hold weight. — I like sushi

I appreciate that. The issue I brought forward was the basis of some of the protest against her, and it wasn't a free speech issue because if taken seriously, it would endanger the community. I understand that you disagree, but there's no fruitful discussion down that trail as far as I can see.

I think a better tactic for you would have been to drop the rape reporting issue and bring up an idea of hers that, though controversial, is an idea that warrants discussion, research, policy alteration, etc.

“Tactic”? Nah, I’m not here to partake in some obscure pat-a-cake debate.

You misrepresented what she said based on a clip under 2 mins long from an interview that was 30+ mins long. I pointed that out, you evaded and switched tack quickly rather than hold your hands up and say “Oops! My bad.”

It is not an issue of me “disagreeing” you simply conveyed what she said very poorly. You were duped by the aim of the protestors and added to it. Isaac spotted this too.

I quoted a student who expressed the same concerns, so mine isn't the minority view. Yours is.

Why are you talking rubbish? Are all students up in arms or just a few idiots with a perverse agenda? It is clear enough what she meant so perhaps you should watch the entire interview or continue to make a fool of yourself by badly paraphrasing from a 2 min clip.

This isn’t a debate. It is me telling you that you’re wrong and you apparently failing to see that. So I’ll just stop there unless you plan on posting other crass misrepresentations of someone else.

Goodness, sushi. Why the head explosion?

Point is that if a person takes a platform, he or she has a responsibility to choose words carefully. If a person cannot take that responsibility seriously and avoid saying things that could potentially put people in danger, there is a problem.

I agree that conflict is crucial. We read to expose ourselves to other perspectives. The point is to be surprised, challenged, offended, and thereby illuminated. We enjoy becoming something that is less like the typical flipper-clapper, the default position of a human brought up this way as opposed to that way.

The Atlantic published another article on Camille Paglia paid for by the Koch Brothers. Just incredible.

This illustrates a subtle strategy for some right wingers who have counted on being protested and/or uninvited at college campus and leveraging that by writing articles (or being the subject of them) about how the Left is silencing them, and the articles of course receive many more clicks and public discussion than some measly campus speech. Milo Yiannopoulos did this frequently.

Ma'am I do not agree with your views but I will gladly give my life for you to publish them on a national magazine

The Atlantic published another article on Camille Paglia paid for by the Koch Brothers. Just incredible. — Maw

Koch Brothers paying for articles about Camille Paglia?

An article mentioning among other things Paglia and you are saying the Koch Brothers are vouching for Paglia??? This is as silly as the Soros hysteria on the right.

This illustrates a subtle strategy for some right wingers who have counted on being protested and/or uninvited at college campus and leveraging that by writing articles — Maw

Oh brother, this is starting to sound as delusional as some Alex Jones following Trump supporter.

Yeah, obviously it has been the white supremacist alt-right that has lured the innocent students to protest/deplatform people at campuses in order to get more clicks. :joke: