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
The ‘status quo’ is a realm of open exchange. — I like sushi
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.
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
I’m not a massive fan of proofreading... — I like sushi
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
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
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 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
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
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
There is an obvious problem there. You assume everyone agrees on what is or isn’t PC. — I like sushi
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
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
the whole problem is ideas integral to these politics violate ethics and objective description of society. We need to abandon them. — TheWillowOfDarkness
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
Koch Brothers paying for articles about Camille Paglia?The Atlantic published another article on Camille Paglia paid for by the Koch Brothers. Just incredible. — Maw
Oh brother, this is starting to sound as delusional as some Alex Jones following Trump supporter.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
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.