Has political correctness actually gone mad?

Shamwow said:
I think it's also silly that there's a news story about one person getting annoyed over it but people seem to lap this shit up.
Click to expand...
This threads on 99 pages. The Neogaf thread is basically a version of the RAWK thread where posts of people being offended are quoted. It is what it is...

People like to talk about (and sometimes be offended by ironically) people being offended. I don't get it either tbh...
 
afrocentricity said:
Your post is wishy washy. Give examples.

Someone saying 'blackface isn't offensive' is a different point of view. They can say it but people sensitive to it are going to pull them up on it. Are you arguing that the sensitive person is being unreasonable? Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can't get pulled up on what you say does it? It just means you're free to say it.

Never mind the fact that of all the things to fight over why would the right to offend be one of them?
Click to expand...

Here's an example from you a few days ago : I'm fine with PC. The fringe on either side of the debate can stfu tho.

What you're effectively saying there is I'm OK with PC, but I don't want to hear alternative views. Which kinda backs up my point.
 
afrocentricity said:
This threads on 99 pages. The Neogaf thread is basically a version of the RAWK thread where posts of people being offended are quoted. It is what it is...

People like to talk about (and sometimes be offended by ironically) people being offended. I don't get it either tbh...
Click to expand...
Go to the Man Utd Forum on this site. You have people being offended by someone else's opinion. Then other people being offended by the people being offended by someone else's opinion. Then people being offended by people being offended by someone else's opinion. That's what this whole site seems to be about these days.

In truth I think that that is the internet these days.
 
It's also why the rabidly anti-PC people make me laugh as they clearly like complaining and feeling marginalised just as much as the (often hypothetical) people they complain about.
 
redman5 said:
Here's an example from you a few days ago : I'm fine with PC. The fringe on either side of the debate can stfu tho.

What you're effectively saying there is I'm OK with PC, but I don't want to hear alternative views. Which kinda backs up my point.
Click to expand...
Fringe. Do I have to keep spelling things out?

Fully Fledged said:
In truth I think that that is the internet these days.
Click to expand...
Bingo.
 
Minimalist said:
That’s an incredibly simple view of things.

For a start the ‘non platforming’ is such a small issue. Even if it’s not always the best way to deal with cnuts like Shapiro or Milo, it’s still within the rights of these university’s to do so. But again, it gets a lot of noise from a small amount of people (most people at university couldn’t give a feck about this shite).

If you think that anyone has the right to a platform to spout their opinion or give a talk, you’re wrong. That’s nothing to do with free speech.
Click to expand...

It might be simplistic but it's all I've got time for I'm afraid. I could spend 24/7 on this thread & still not have enough time to say all I want to say.

& non-platforming might be a small issue, but it gives an insight into the minds of people who's ideology of debate means not listening to what other people have to say. That would suggests that they are strong on opinion, but lack the strength to back it up. & if you disagree with the likes of Milo & Shapiro then surely giving them a platform to speak gives you the ideal platform to counter their claims & opinions.
 
redman5 said:
It might be simplistic but it's all I've got time for I'm afraid. I could spend 24/7 on this thread & still not have enough time to say all I want to say.

& non-platforming might be a small issue, but it gives an insight into the minds of people who's ideology of debate means not listening to what other people have to say. That would suggests that they are strong on opinion, but lack the strength to back it up. & if you disagree with the likes of Milo & Shapiro then surely giving them a platform to speak gives you the ideal platform to counter their claims & opinions.
Click to expand...
Well before you disappear you could try and come up with a better example to flesh out your post to me.
 
redman5 said:
It might be simplistic but it's all I've got time for I'm afraid. I could spend 24/7 on this thread & still not have enough time to say all I want to say.

& non-platforming might be a small issue, but it gives an insight into the minds of people who's ideology of debate means not listening to what other people have to say. That would suggests that they are strong on opinion, but lack the strength to back it up. & if you disagree with the likes of Milo & Shapiro then surely giving them a platform to speak gives you the ideal platform to counter their claims & opinions.
Click to expand...

It gets a bit tiring to keep offering the platform to people that you know are wrong. Should universities have to offer platforms to creationists? I mean if you have enough conviction in evolution then you should give opposing views a platform to speak right? Except they're full of shit, debate in highly disingenuous or even dishonest ways and all in all it's a waste of time - universities should have the right to make that call.
 
redman5 said:
No it's pretty clear to me. There's certain people you don't want to listen to.
Click to expand...
Yes fringe people with fringe opinions, is that even controversial? Why should I entertain them? Do you? :confused:
 
Shamwow said:
It gets a bit tiring to keep offering the platform to people that you know are wrong. Should universities have to offer platforms to creationists? I mean if you have enough conviction in evolution then you should give opposing views a platform to speak right? Except they're full of shit, debate in highly disingenuous or even dishonest ways and all in all it's a waste of time - universities should have the right to make that call.
Click to expand...

How do you know they're wrong ? Is it fact, or just your opinion ?
 
Shamwow said:
It gets a bit tiring to keep offering the platform to people that you know are wrong. Should universities have to offer platforms to creationists? I mean if you have enough conviction in evolution then you should give opposing views a platform to speak right? Except they're full of shit, debate in highly disingenuous or even dishonest ways and all in all it's a waste of time - universities should have the right to make that call.
Click to expand...
When someone just lies, invents positions to argue against, and just discounts factual arguments they disagree with. You have to wonder whats the point in giving them a platform? It's tricky and I'm not sure where I stand on it as a whole. It's more case by case for me, unless they are inciting violence and hate.

redman5 said:
Would you class me as having a fringe opinion ? & if so, why ?
Click to expand...
Opinion on what? I don't know you and haven't been following your posts. Tbf you yourself should know if you have a fringe opinion (if you know what the word means) you don't need me to tell you. But sure, give an example...

redman5 said:
I could spend 24/7 on this thread & still not have enough time to say all I want to say.
Click to expand...
Whats the concise version of what you are trying to say?


As for the noplatform debate. These places/people/services/etc have a right to choose who they give a platform to right?
 
Last edited:
Shamwow said:
You could use the example I gave you..?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the social sciences are not as verifiable as the actual sciences. There's little that could be at the same level of discredit as creationism (as much as I might wish new keynesianism economics were).

The issue isn't that a clown like Milo doesn't get to his 1000th debate, more that a real academic with actual work that might not be pleasing gets "no-platformed".
 
Regarding non platforming it's not a huge issue, but imo it's still not the right way to handle things, especially not at a university.

Instead of ignoring twats like Milo, Steven Crowder etc they should just invite them and meet them in open debate. Not accepting them to speak or just shout at them if they do does ore harm than good
 
MTF said:
Unfortunately the social sciences are not as verifiable as the actual sciences. There's little that could be at the same level of discredit as creationism (as much as I might wish new keynesianism economics were).

The issue isn't that a clown like Milo doesn't get to his 1000th debate, more that a real academic with actual work that might not be pleasing gets "no-platformed".
Click to expand...

Is this happening? I haven't seen examples with real academics with actual work getting no-platformed in any sort of meaningful debate.

Creationism is an extreme example but when it's anything where it's people who are bringing nothing new to the table but just want a new audience to spew their tired old opinions that have been debated over and over again already then I still think it's important that universities have the right to no platform them for sure. And I trust universities to make the right decision in the vast majority of cases.
 
MTF said:
Unfortunately the social sciences are not as verifiable as the actual sciences. There's little that could be at the same level of discredit as creationism (as much as I might wish new keynesianism economics were).

The issue isn't that a clown like Milo doesn't get to his 1000th debate, more that a real academic with actual work that might not be pleasing gets "no-platformed".
Click to expand...

I've been planning a *long* post on this*, but this is one of the subtle issues when it comes to these campus free-speech debates. Milo-types are funded from outside (other than security which the univ is legally obligated to pay) to speak on stuff about which they have zero academic expertise. This is not a threat to academic discourse, because the rallies where he is carried on a throne by a chanting throng aren't academic discussions.

*Screenshot of about a quarter of the links so far :p
 
Shamwow said:
Is this happening? I haven't seen examples with real academics with actual work getting no-platformed in any sort of meaningful debate.

Creationism is an extreme example but when it's anything where it's people who are bringing nothing new to the table but just want a new audience to spew their tired old opinions that have been debated over and over again already then I still think it's important that universities have the right to no platform them for sure. And I trust universities to make the right decision in the vast majority of cases.
Click to expand...

There was the Charles Murray incident at Middlebury, and I'm not in university myself but have a few people on the academic track on FB. On a few occasions I've seen them circulate petitions to no-platform people that were going to attend their universities. I didn't follow if they succeeded or not, but it is to me a questionable attitude for someone who calls themselves an academic.

Of course in the world people will hold minority opinions of all kinds and we have better uses of our time than fretting over those, or exaggerating their relevance. But this wasn't so much a part of university culture just a decade ago when I was there.

And one issue is that this isn't usually the university department putting on a conference and coming to the conclusion that Milo would be a worthy speaker. More a student body (usually conservative) that chooses to invite someone. Its also not fair to allow a student body to exist, and then start vetoing their guest speakers. The most adequate response in my opinion is to just to ignore the whole thing, like I did when new keynesian economists were speaking :p (I know, I'm repetitive... and I'm suggesting what most students already do).
 
MTF said:
Its also not fair to allow a student body to exist, and then start vetoing their guest speakers.
Click to expand...
They can do what they like it's their prerogative. Where do you personally draw the line then if anywhere? Somebody preaching hate? Inciting violence?
 
MTF said:
There was the Charles Murray incident at Middlebury, and I'm not in university myself but have a few people on the academic track on FB. On a few occasions I've seen them circulate petitions to no-platform people that were going to attend their universities. I didn't follow if they succeeded or not, but it is to me a questionable attitude for someone who calls themselves an academic.

Of course in the world people will hold minority opinions of all kinds and we have better uses of our time than fretting over those, or exaggerating their relevance. But this wasn't so much a part of university culture just a decade ago when I was there.

And one issue is that this isn't usually the university department putting on a conference and coming to the conclusion that Milo would be a worthy speaker. More a student body (usually conservative) that chooses to invite someone. Its also not fair to allow a student body to exist, and then start vetoing their guest speakers. The most adequate response in my opinion is to just to ignore the whole thing, like I did when new keynesian economists were speaking :p (I know, I'm repetitive... and I'm suggesting what most students already do).
Click to expand...

What does that mean?

Speaking as an academic (of sorts - not a lecturer) - nothing infuriates people in that area more than arseholes who pretend to be experts in fields they have no qualifications for.

EDIT: Wait a minute - did you mean Charles Murray or Douglas Murray (I assumed the latter)
 
afrocentricity said:
They can do what they like it's their prerogative. Where do you personally draw the line then if anywhere? Somebody preaching hate? Inciting violence?
Click to expand...
Probably only if there guest is known to incite violence at other speaking occasion, if it were up to me.

Minimalist said:
What does that mean?

Speaking as an academic (of sorts - not a lecturer) - nothing infuriates people in that area more than arseholes who pretend to be experts in fields they have no qualifications for.
Click to expand...
Well, the cases I've seen were politically motivated, not a matter of qualification. For example someone who was anti-immigration for an immigration debate. My point is that an academic shouldn't be an activist, and while that doesn't include listening/reading any fool who has anything to say about your subject matter, it probably should include reading/debating other academics that disagree with you (and don't think I'm unrealistic about the frequency of this, I know research and teaching take up most available time).
 
MTF said:
You need to study an issue without knowing which answer you want when you begin.
Click to expand...
Still don't follow... You seem to be talking in absolutes when things are more nuanced than that.
 
MTF said:
You need to study an issue without knowing which answer you want when you begin.
Click to expand...

With that, plus his actual field (pol sci) vs his chosen topic (race/IQ), Charles Murray would run afoul of your rules...
 
MTF said:
You need to study an issue without knowing which answer you want when you begin.

He's an activist on subjects that he's not an academic in... it don't know if that makes him innocent or more guilty :lol:.

(He's actually innocent, by my standard)
Click to expand...

To be fair, Chomsky has had that criticism for years and it doesn't really work with him. He's bothered to do his homework on matters even if Linguistics was his area and while he's got his slant on things - you can't accuse him of not knowing what he's talking about when it comes to the facts. Most just disagree about how he interprets things (i.e. The US has acted as a terrorist state). He puts out long essays on these matters which detail his arguments.

Bit different than some attention-seeking, troll going on a 'Dangerous Faggot Tour' just to wind people up.
 
berbatrick said:
With that, plus his actual field (pol sci) vs his chosen topic (race/IQ), Charles Murray would run afoul of your rules...
Click to expand...
No, my point wasn't about lanes. That's why Chomsky is "ok" (I'm the arbiter of all things now), because his violation would have been to set out with some political view and built a whole linguistic theory to prove it (would that even be possible?).

Its similar to what we discussed in the Shapiro thread of the difference between an expert and just a political commentator. If you know what the person is going to say before they open their mouth / write a paper on a subject that's new to them because of any vocal politics of theirs, then its not of that much value.

And not that social scientists are creatures immune to politics, or that they should stay out of it. My point is just that it is in the spirit of the profession to be open to finding evidence/arguments that contradict what you might have thought before.

Minimalist said:
To be fair, Chomsky has had that criticism for years and it doesn't really work with him. He's bothered to do his homework on matters even if Linguistics was his area and while he's got his slant on things - you can't accuse him of not knowing what he's talking about when it comes to the facts. Most just disagree about how he interprets things (i.e. The US has acted as a terrorist state). He puts out long essays on these matters which detail his arguments.

Bit different than some attention-seeking, troll going on a 'Dangerous Faggot Tour' just to wind people up.
Click to expand...
Like above, I'm never thinking of him when arguing this. His linguistics aren't political, and his politics are his right (I disagree, but he's neither uninformed nor disingenuous).

Paul Krugman would be a closer example, whose best days as an academic economist are probably behind him (in part natural, because they do their hardest work when they're young and hungry). These days on any given subject I can probably guess what Krugman's opinion is.
 
MTF said:
Probably only if there guest is known to incite violence at other speaking occasion, if it were up to me.


Well, the cases I've seen were politically motivated, not a matter of qualification. For example someone who was anti-immigration for an immigration debate. My point is that an academic shouldn't be an activist, and while that doesn't include listening/reading any fool who has anything to say about your subject matter, it probably should include reading/debating other academics that disagree with you (and don't think I'm unrealistic about the frequency of this, I know research and teaching take up most available time).
Click to expand...

I find it baffling you think academics don't do this.
 


Lol I think this guy is now more indistinguishable from parody than Peter Sweden.
 
berbatrick said:


Lol I think this guy is now more indistinguishable from parody than Peter Sweden.
Click to expand...
I tried to think hard but I mainly just saw women in bikinis... Am I supposed to be intrigued that google had one woman that wasn't skinny?

Unrelated - if you have anymore decent suggestions for youtube vids to check out I have a lot of time on my hands, at present, and you haven't failed me yet. My inbox is yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.