advertisement


Open letter denouncing the "restriction of debate".

DimitryZ said:
Thats why all of us should be free to express our opinions.

There is no reason that I am required to stop talking so you can be heard, if your opinion offends me.

Again freedom of speech laws limit the state, not individuals. Very simple concept.
Click to expand...
I’ll leave it. I don’t particularly get your point.

What you seem to be saying is, on the one hand everyone should be able to speak but on the other hand, if you disagree with them you don’t want to listen to them and it’s fine to shut them down.

I can’t agree, but then this may not be what you’re saying anyway.

I’m moving on.
 
AndyU said:
Who is to decide that they are silenced? Or fired?
Click to expand...
I did not say that anyone is to be silenced even if there are laws in many countries to punish those who say what they believe in the wrong way.
Fired - that is a matter for whoever employs them if they are in breach of contract.
 
Brian said:
I’ll leave it. I don’t particularly get your point.

What you seem to be saying is, on the one hand everyone should be able to speak but on the other hand, if you disagree with them you don’t want to listen to them and it’s fine to shut them down.

I can’t agree, but then this may not be what you’re saying anyway.

I’m moving on.
Click to expand...
You are free to do so.

By "shutting them down" you seem to mean that I can speak against them. That is indeed my right.

By "not shutting them down" you seem to imply that I must subjugate my right of free speech in favor of others'. That is certainly not correct.

What I find amazing is so many people are so confused what the right of free speech actually means. It absolutely doesn't mean an obligation to extend curtesy, favor and a large megaphone to your opponents.

The laws on free speech apply to the government, not private citizens. This really must be understood. You are not legally required to extend free speech rights to anyone in your own private domain - home or business.

You may wish to allow religious zealots, racists or underage sex proponents to come into your house for a civil debate on the merits of their viewpoints, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

It is only the state that can't stop them from doing this on the public street.
 
clivem2 said:
My points were about being effective, not about rights.
Click to expand...
Your assessment of your own effectiveness is far more flexible than the legal definition of free speech.

The letter in question asks the little people to provide more defference to the smart and learned signatories, who are not used to the rude shouts from the crowd.

My reading of the letter is that they were asking for more tolerance in the name of the three great virtues - free inquiry, respectful debate and high salaries for the *great* thinkers.
 
Cheese said:
I believe you can make it much easier than that, @DimitryZ . Rather than losing your time and energy shouting down people who don't agree with you, why don't you just fire a round at them. Disagreers shut up forever, problem solved.

I thought that World had gone a bit further than that. But in any case you're trolling.
Click to expand...
Blimey, that's an incredibly steep slippery slope you've got there. With a straw man sliding down it too.
 
it's ironic to witness an intellectually flaccid thread like this in the decade-long wake of certain people either being cancelled out of pfm or simply withdrawing in disgust/boredom.

i am not allowed to say what i want to say on the topic, but even a regular, sports-loving pleb from yonkers with almost zero culture is able to get about 90% of it spot on, which is approximately 80 points higher than anything posted here so far...




note: the point @Joe Hutch made about removing one's signature on the basis of who else signed it is the sole positive exception.
 
vuk said:
it's ironic to witness such an intellectually flaccid thread like this in the decade-long wake of certain people either being cancelled out of pfm or simply withdrawing in disgust/boredom.

i am not allowed to say what i want to say on the topic, but even a regular, sports-loving pleb from yonkers with almost zero culture is able to get about 90% of it spot on, which is approximately 80 points higher than anything posted here so far...




note: the point @Joe Hutch made about removing one's signature on the basis of who else signed it is the sole positive exception.
Click to expand...
Kyle is from Yonkers, but he has a degree in PolySci and heads up an important sounding political organization. I am not sure why you say he is uncultured...because he doesn't quote Rimbaud? As for his speach pattern - having grown up in Queens, which is far more uncouth than Yonkers, I can say we all speak that way. So I say you are being elitist, Serbian-Canadian sir :)

As for the substance - I agree that people in Academia shouldn't be fired for being controversial - that's part of their job description. At the same time, they shouldn't strive to be assholes - if their students have sensitivities, they should take note of that because their tuition pays their salaries.

I do have a soft spot for Chomsky - when I was at the Institute we exchanged a series of letters and he was genuinely helpful in shaping my understanding of the Middle East. He took time to communicate with an undegraduate - and even in the 1985 he was pretty big deal. We briefly reconnected recently via email and he was very gracious.

As for Rowling, not so much.
 
@DimitryZ

yet again. you are being let down by your failure to lurk for a while and get to understand things in a (word-of-the day) "nuanced" manner. kyle is my bro, dude.

DimitryZ said:
people in Academia ... if their students have sensitivities, they should take note of that because their tuition pays their salaries.
Click to expand...

the argument you are making here is right in line with betsy devos and trump (to the extent he really cares or understands). it's totally at odds with my view or chomsky's of the purpose of education -- to be honest though, i also had a really bad view (partly into mid-life) until i was exposed to a perspective like this:

 
vuk said:
@DimitryZ

yet again. you are being let down by your failure to lurk for a while and get to understand things in a (word-of-the day) "nuanced" manner. kyle is my bro, dude.
Click to expand...
I don't follow you on the forum, dude.

But I grew up in a similar milieu as Kyle.

You sure you don't want to move stateside? You could teach at BU as long as you promise to treat the students nice :) You could be photographing in Boston - I can introduce you to all the homeless spots - and show you the cool bars and jazz clubs.
 
DimitryZ said:
Thats why all of us should be free to express our opinions.

There is no reason that I am required to stop talking so you can be heard, if your opinion offends me.

Again freedom of speech laws limit the state, not individuals. Very simple concept.
Click to expand...

What's your opinion on the Facebook/free speech debate?
 
Maybe cancel culture comes from the inestimable Donald Trump. Trump has called for tv hosts and magazine editors and journalists to be fired, demanded boycotts of Glenfiddich whiskey, Rolling Stone magazine, HBO, opinion polls, whole newspapers and tv channels, department stores, all Apple products, NFL players and Harley Davidson, to name but a few.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07...t-cancel-culture-but-embraced-it-in-the-past/

It is the logic of someone who is deranged.
 
DimitryZ said:
You are free to do so.

By "shutting them down" you seem to mean that I can speak against them. That is indeed my right.

By "not shutting them down" you seem to imply that I must subjugate my right of free speech in favor of others'. That is certainly not correct.

What I find amazing is so many people are so confused what the right of free speech actually means. It absolutely doesn't mean an obligation to extend curtesy, favor and a large megaphone to your opponents.

The laws on free speech apply to the government, not private citizens. This really must be understood. You are not legally required to extend free speech rights to anyone in your own private domain - home or business.

You may wish to allow religious zealots, racists or underage sex proponents to come into your house for a civil debate on the merits of their viewpoints, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

It is only the state that can't stop them from doing this on the public street.
Click to expand...

No, that isn’t what I mean but I don’t plan to explain. I think I said what I mean.
 
Maybe cancel culture comes from the inestimable Donald Trump. Trump has called for tv hosts and magazine editors and journalists to be fired, demanded boycotts of Glenfiddich whiskey, Rolling Stone magazine, HBO, opinion polls, whole newspapers and tv channels, department stores, all Apple products, NFL players and Harley Davidson, to name but a few.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07...t-cancel-culture-but-embraced-it-in-the-past/

It is the logic of someone who is deranged.

Sadly it began long before Trump adopted the tactic. Fran Cowling no platformed Peter Tatchell and called him a racist and transphobe in 2016. Fran who? I hear you ask. A nobody whose mouth is bigger than her brain sadly attacking a man who has spent practically all his adult life defending LGBT rights.
 
SteveT said:
Maybe cancel culture comes from the inestimable Donald Trump. Trump has called for tv hosts and magazine editors and journalists to be fired, demanded boycotts of Glenfiddich whiskey, Rolling Stone magazine, HBO, opinion polls, whole newspapers and tv channels, department stores, all Apple products, NFL players and Harley Davidson, to name but a few.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07...t-cancel-culture-but-embraced-it-in-the-past/

It is the logic of someone who is deranged.

Sadly it began long before Trump adopted the tactic. Fran Cowling no platformed Peter Tatchell and called him a racist and transphobe in 2016. Fran who? I hear you ask. A nobody whose mouth is bigger than her brain sadly attacking a man who has spent practically all his adult life defending LGBT rights.
Click to expand...

Right enough, it’s ugly whoever does it. Thing is that in the past, or with Trump, at least you know who is behind the attempts to cancel someone, but with Twitter many players are hiding behind pseudonyms, or may even be bots, and so are not themselves accountable. Maybe it is Twitter and Facebook that should be cancelled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top