Cbd Gummies Tiger Woods (Fake Exposed)...
Film, Media & TV9 mins ago
True Socialism Always Ends With The Stasi
64 Answers
An article well worth the read.
It would be interesting to get some direct responses to the points raised by Daniel Finkelstein from our resident Socialists.
PLEASE: No name calling, no slanging or 'ists'.
https:/
It would be interesting to get some direct responses to the points raised by Daniel Finkelstein from our resident Socialists.
PLEASE: No name calling, no slanging or 'ists'.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"I don't know what you mean by " comments pages on papers, etc" "
Most online papers now offer the facility for readers to post comments (surely you must have seen that?!)
Often on articles that don't reallyl have a lot to say for themselves let alone invite anyone else to chip in
We've never had more opportunities to express ourselves. And there consequently also has never been more opportunity to give and take offence. Complaining about people complaining tho strikes me as spectacularly missing the point - and in a sense is a contradiction.
I may have mentioned this before but a certain writer recently caused a storm by casually complaining, quite freely, on twitter that she'd overheard two airline employees engaging, quite freely, in a "transphobic" conversation. This drew an outraged article from an irish Times columnist, who in turn complained, quite freely, that this writer was trying to censor free speech.
This article was shared on Facebook, quite freely, by a fellow writer who invited comments from his friends. They all complained, quite freely, that such imagined censorship was a disgrace. Somehow, amidst all that socal media, the irony was lost on all of them it seems.
Most online papers now offer the facility for readers to post comments (surely you must have seen that?!)
Often on articles that don't reallyl have a lot to say for themselves let alone invite anyone else to chip in
We've never had more opportunities to express ourselves. And there consequently also has never been more opportunity to give and take offence. Complaining about people complaining tho strikes me as spectacularly missing the point - and in a sense is a contradiction.
I may have mentioned this before but a certain writer recently caused a storm by casually complaining, quite freely, on twitter that she'd overheard two airline employees engaging, quite freely, in a "transphobic" conversation. This drew an outraged article from an irish Times columnist, who in turn complained, quite freely, that this writer was trying to censor free speech.
This article was shared on Facebook, quite freely, by a fellow writer who invited comments from his friends. They all complained, quite freely, that such imagined censorship was a disgrace. Somehow, amidst all that socal media, the irony was lost on all of them it seems.
ichi; Yes, I sometimes read comments, but they all, including those on social media, are mainly done under the cloak of anonymity, the list of speakers disinvited from speaking in our universities is a long one and getting longer every month, - you've no doubt heard of safe spaces and the snowflake generation.
So you can say what you want as long as you hide.
So you can say what you want as long as you hide.
"So you can say what you want as long as you hide."
I'm more inclined to suggest that a better way of putting it is that "you can say what you want as long as you are prepared to face criticism". There was a time when people had the freedom to say whatever they liked with total impunity, to the point of dismissing the intellectual capacity of anyone who was different from them, while the people who were the victims of such criticism had no real right of reply. Now, the freedom to say what you like has been extended to a great many more people; and the protection from criticism has gone down, as rightly it should.
I don't think we are, by any stretch of the imagination, at the perfect balance yet, but it is true that so many people complain freely about how their freedom of speech has been taken away, and don't seem to notice the obvious contradiction there.
I'm more inclined to suggest that a better way of putting it is that "you can say what you want as long as you are prepared to face criticism". There was a time when people had the freedom to say whatever they liked with total impunity, to the point of dismissing the intellectual capacity of anyone who was different from them, while the people who were the victims of such criticism had no real right of reply. Now, the freedom to say what you like has been extended to a great many more people; and the protection from criticism has gone down, as rightly it should.
I don't think we are, by any stretch of the imagination, at the perfect balance yet, but it is true that so many people complain freely about how their freedom of speech has been taken away, and don't seem to notice the obvious contradiction there.
jim //I'm more inclined to suggest that a better way of putting it is that "you can say what you want as long as you are prepared to face criticism". //
Anonymous criticism on the internet is rather worthless, barring the likes of Germaine Greer, who is prepared to face criticism face-on, from speaking at a university is disallowing freedom of speech.
The same applies to Hamad Abdel-samad who is critical of Islam or Gert Wilders, or .... What are these students today afraid of?
Anonymous criticism on the internet is rather worthless, barring the likes of Germaine Greer, who is prepared to face criticism face-on, from speaking at a university is disallowing freedom of speech.
The same applies to Hamad Abdel-samad who is critical of Islam or Gert Wilders, or .... What are these students today afraid of?
We're probably moving into an entirely separate topic that deserves its own thread (or would have, had it not been covered myriad times already), but nevertheless, freedom of speech isn't in itself threatened because someone chooses not to listen -- nor is it threatened when you are denied that freedom in a very specific setting. Universities have the freedom to invite whomever they so wish to speak at events they organise, and equivalently have the freedom to disinvite people they don't want to speak at said events.
The philosophy behind "no platforming" does worry me, and I wonder if it is counterproductive in the long run -- but still, you can't simultaneously defend freedom of speech while demanding an absolute right to exercise it unconditionally at any place of your choosing, because this tramples over other freedoms. Germaine Greer, Geert Wilders, whoever else has recently been disinvited from university events -- they still had the freedom to express their views. Just not in a particular setting, is all.
The philosophy behind "no platforming" does worry me, and I wonder if it is counterproductive in the long run -- but still, you can't simultaneously defend freedom of speech while demanding an absolute right to exercise it unconditionally at any place of your choosing, because this tramples over other freedoms. Germaine Greer, Geert Wilders, whoever else has recently been disinvited from university events -- they still had the freedom to express their views. Just not in a particular setting, is all.
I had a really long answer here, but I've decided to replace it with a slightly shorter one: universities should be free to set their own rules on what they debate, not have those rules decided for them.
Universities shouldn't be obliged to waste their time debating theories and ideas that have long-since been debunked -- in which case, the idea that "all opinions and ideas" should be continuously and rigorously challenged is dead in the water. For some specific issues that have led to "no-platforming", I am not sure we are at this point yet, but we're getting closer.
Universities shouldn't be obliged to waste their time debating theories and ideas that have long-since been debunked -- in which case, the idea that "all opinions and ideas" should be continuously and rigorously challenged is dead in the water. For some specific issues that have led to "no-platforming", I am not sure we are at this point yet, but we're getting closer.
I'm not quite sure how you can possibly equate what I said to fascism, without being deliberately provocative. After all, what I said amounted to saying that "universities should be free to set their own agenda" -- which is, surely, the exact opposite of fascism.
So, how about you actually not throw out that term and explain to me why I'm wrong?
It's worth pointing out that I had in mind, for example, debunked scientific theories. If someone comes along to a university wishing to explain his reasoning behind the idea that the Earth is flat, I don't see why that university has to pretend that the idea is worth any form of reasoned, open debate whatsoever. It's been thoroughly debunked and isn't worth anyone's time to go over why, again.
Social policy is, perhaps, a bit more nuanced -- but the principle behind my post is certainly not fascist. What a pathetic way to respond.
So, how about you actually not throw out that term and explain to me why I'm wrong?
It's worth pointing out that I had in mind, for example, debunked scientific theories. If someone comes along to a university wishing to explain his reasoning behind the idea that the Earth is flat, I don't see why that university has to pretend that the idea is worth any form of reasoned, open debate whatsoever. It's been thoroughly debunked and isn't worth anyone's time to go over why, again.
Social policy is, perhaps, a bit more nuanced -- but the principle behind my post is certainly not fascist. What a pathetic way to respond.
Khandro, you can't claim to be in favour of open debate at the same time as calling someone who disagrees with you a fascist. That's hypocritical.
Also, you should read what I wrote better. I did not say that universities *cannot* debate issues that can be regarded as already settled. I said that they *should* not. There is a difference. In my proposal, any university should be free to debate and discuss whatever they so choose; and, therefore, any university should be free *not* to debate matters if they don't see it worth their time.
There is no comparison in what I am saying to fascism. None at all.
Also, you should read what I wrote better. I did not say that universities *cannot* debate issues that can be regarded as already settled. I said that they *should* not. There is a difference. In my proposal, any university should be free to debate and discuss whatever they so choose; and, therefore, any university should be free *not* to debate matters if they don't see it worth their time.
There is no comparison in what I am saying to fascism. None at all.
jim; Please see the third question in the FAQs
https:/
https:/
I prefer to define winning as including the idea of not throwing out ad hominem attacks, unlike some morons here (deliberate irony klaxon).
But, seriously, I would like to think that my record on AB includes many examples when I have shown a willingness to engage with people who disagree with me. So I'm not sure what point you are making, or trying to, with your last sequence of posts.
But, seriously, I would like to think that my record on AB includes many examples when I have shown a willingness to engage with people who disagree with me. So I'm not sure what point you are making, or trying to, with your last sequence of posts.
Maybe so, but it seems that debating with someone who seems so determined to suggest that you never debate with people you disagree with has the merit of showing him to be wrong by definition. Even if you don't see that the very existence of this conversation proves you wrong, Khandro, I hope that everyone else does.
Latest Posts
Society & Culture15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Society & Culture47 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles63 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.