The Political & Philosophy Thread

[Einherjar86]

People on all sides of the political spectrum are clamoring to restrict the Internet and there's never been a time when free speech hasn't been at some kind of risk, so I don't really share your "meh there's no real problem to worry about mentality."

This is true, I acknowledge. I shouldn't have said there's no real problem; I only mean there's less of a problem than free speech enthusiasts claim.

As far as net neutrality goes, it's going to be censorship by corporate interests.

It's just that most on the left don't view "hate speech" laws and "don't say mean words" policies as an attack on free speech, let's be honest here. The days are basically over when free speech was a strong left-wing principle because gone are the days in the west when right-wing/religious morality was a threat to freedom of speech via blasphemy laws etc.

Well, we live in a moment when people are rightfully questioning the nuances and complexities of what "free speech" means. It's not black and white and it can lead to some fairly confusing scenarios. For instance, racial slurs arouse a greater degree of discomfort and suspicion (and those are euphemisms--they can arouse anxiety and real fear) in their targets, and it's completely rational for a person of color to be physically threatened in the presence of hate speech. It's worth considering what kinds of speech are socially acceptable and taking measures to regulate it.

Obviously, this leads to terrors in the other direction, i.e. that speech becomes severely, incommensurately limited. There needs to be a discourse about language, which is where we are now, despite legal actions being taken. Hopefully this is a perpetual state and not a short-lived period.

Also, saying "you're not being censored because you have these other platforms" is a basicbitch point to make and that's not really how censorship is defined. After all, if you're completely censored online you still have the printing press bruh.

Just like certain people are qualified or certified to perform particular tasks, so should speakers--especially on college campuses--have some kind of credentials. It shouldn't just be open to anyone who happens to garner an online following.

 

[CiG]

As far as net neutrality goes, it's going to be censorship by corporate interests.

Not necessarily, there have been many instances of corporations teaming with governments in order to restrict the Internet in different ways. But at the same time, as someone from a country without a written constitution which enshrines basic rights like free speech, I don't shrug off my worries because the corporations are doing it. That makes me worried just as much as state censorship in some cases. As Trump told us all, he knows how politicians operate because he has bribed his fair share of them throughout his career.

Larger U.S.-based social media organizations and their constant co-mingling with foreign governments is pretty fucking worrying alone.

Well, we live in a moment when people are rightfully questioning the nuances and complexities of what "free speech" means. It's not black and white and it can lead to some fairly confusing scenarios. For instance, racial slurs arouse a greater degree of discomfort and suspicion (and those are euphemisms--they can arouse anxiety and real fear) in their targets, and it's completely rational for a person of color to be physically threatened in the presence of hate speech. It's worth considering what kinds of speech are socially acceptable and taking measures to regulate it.

I was corrected here by someone, I forget who, when I once said that people are getting away with anti-white slurs in places where they have hate speech laws. There are basically just as many reports on anti-white hate speech as any other race, so hate speech laws aren't a speech restriction just for minorities to think about, unless they're okay with never saying anything about white people.

Either way, I'm opposed 100% to any kind of hate speech law, including Holocaust denialism. It's fucking retarded and hiding behind the "oh but what about the minorities" line is so spineless and pathetic. The exact kind of leftist white guilt I despise with every bone in my body.

Just like certain people are qualified or certified to perform particular tasks, so should speakers--especially on college campuses--have some kind of credentials. It shouldn't just be open to anyone who happens to garner an online following.

I'm honestly less worried about campuses and higher education. I just can't make myself care about that whole world. There's a good reason most stand-up comics refuse to work campuses anymore, as far as I'm concerned it's largely a write off.

That said, I disagree that technocracy should dictate who gets to visit a campus and speak, it IMO should be a balance of experts and whoever students decide to invite with no official restrictions on either.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm fine with students inviting speakers and organizing events, as long as they're billed as such. But colleges do have an intellectual responsibility to students, and there need to be measures that guarantee some degree of substance or content that isn't merely provocateurish entertainment.

At any rate, I have to cut out for the day. Actual work to do.

 

[CiG]

and there need to be measures that guarantee some degree of substance or content that isn't merely provocateurish entertainment.

This is idiocy. Even the most base provocateur has some substance or content. Even Milo has something to say beyond fueling the outrage machine.

 

[Einherjar86]

Intellectual substance, I should specify.

And even if that's true (which I don't think it is), he definitely doesn't have enough substance to command a lectern for an hour. There's no significant reward to granting him a slot on a specifically academic platform that can't be achieved by other means, through other venues. Not just anyone should be given access to such events, just like not just anyone can make it into the NFL or captain a space shuttle. These roles should be reserved for those who've put in the work.

If a student body wants to organize an event and invite MY, then let them. But I don't think specifically academic events have some obligation to make room for every person with an opinion.

 

[Dak]

Milo's verbal ability is phenomenal. Unfortunately he's limited himself to mostly being a shockartist. That said, the fact that "elite" universities have plenty of non-rightish absurd events (like sex weeks) lacking intellectual substance which attract no similar derision makes outrage based on "intellectual substance" appear hollow.

 

[Einherjar86]

Milo's verbal ability is phenomenal. Unfortunately he's limited himself to mostly being a shockartist. That said, the fact that "elite" universities have plenty of non-rightish absurd events (like sex weeks) lacking intellectual substance which attract no similar derision makes outrage based on "intellectual substance" appear hollow.

You do know that Sex Week isn't just some seven-day rumpus during which students have orgies, right? Also, it was originally organized by students, but now is a university-led initiative on sexual health.

 

[CiG]

When it comes down to it it's really about whether they say the right things, not whether they have intellectual substance and expertise. You can see this by who gets protested and shut down, often with the involvement of complicit teachers. Horowitz, Shapiro, Hoff-Sommers, Saad, Coulter etc - these are all people who whether you like them or not command a degree of factual analysis and intellectual substance.

 

[Einherjar86]

When it comes down to it it's really about whether they say the right things, not whether they have intellectual substance and expertise.

Right, there's no means of qualifying anything, it's all just language, facts don't matter at all.

I can't convince you otherwise b/c you're resigned to this belief I think, but it's really sad to see people actually think this.

 

[CiG]

If Beyoncé spoke at a campus about anything other than maybe pop music, who would bother to protest her?

It seems blatantly clear that it's about who is liked more generally by the campus culture, not whether they bring facts and intellectual substance.

And even if that's true (which I don't think it is), he definitely doesn't have enough substance to command a lectern for an hour.

You don't think Milo has any intellectual substance. Spare me your condescension.

Edit: fyi you can convince me otherwise, you just simply haven't yet

 

[Einherjar86]

I really don't.

If Beyonce was invited to speak at a commencement, that's great. If she was invited to speak on a roundtable about the impact of gentrification on the shifting demographics of racial disparity, then she's not qualified (and she wouldn't be invited to speak on such a panel).

 

[CiG]

What comparison are you making? Has Milo been invited to roundtables on climate science? These people who in your view lack any intellectual substance tend to stick to their pet topics.

 

[CiG]

http://sexweekut.org/

This is pretty cringe and funny. There's an event called "Butt Stuff" lmao.

 

[Dak]

Srs academic stuff.

You do know that Sex Week isn't just some seven-day rumpus during which students have orgies, right? Also, it was originally organized by students, but now is a university-led initiative on sexual health.

If it were based on student sexual activities every week would be Sex Week, at least for some. And aren't student organizations inviting Shapiro and pals to the university? I haven't heard of a university inviting Milo.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not sure, maybe they are. I'm just saying I don't think universities have an obligation to host them for academic events.

What comparison are you making? Has Milo been invited to roundtables on climate science? These people who in your view lack any intellectual substance tend to stick to their pet topics.

I have no idea what Milo's pet topic would be. Ragging on academic culture, I presume. That's not a specialty, it's just masturbation.

 

[CiG]

I would say culture in general is his thing, specifically cultural criticism.

Masturbation is a matter of perspective, a lot of philosophical thinking is masturbation. The anointed love playing with themselves on other people's money. Virtue-signaling is the apex of touching oneself.

 

[Einherjar86]

I would say culture in general is his thing, specifically cultural criticism.

He's a cultural commentator. That's not the same as an academic critic. But I'm getting kinda tired of this, if that's alright.

 

[CiG]

[shrug]

 

[Storrsson]

Having been through academia, I can tell you that being an "academic critic" puts you several rungs below a "cultural critic in general".

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

edit: oh snap wrong thread