Hacker News Reader

Comment by shams93 | Hacker News Reader

This is not how we did things in the 90s we used to debate these speakers and knock down their ideas with rational discourse it's not that hard to deflate the arguments of the far right they're mostly based on a series of bad assumptions like assuming everyone has a deep fear of anyone who looks different than them. It's better to let them speak and then deflate their arguments to the bone in debate.

View on HN

That's what we did back in the 1860's too. There were all these people who wanted to build an economy based around the idea that some humans didn't really have rights and so we deflated their arguments with rational discourse.

Obviously I'm not comparing teachers of Western history to slave owners. But i am trying to point out that rational discourse alone doesn't yield a more egalitarian world.

You hit the nail on the head: the use of rational discourse and the use of logical arguments to plead a case, demanding those arguments follow the ideas of logic. That idea BY ITSELF is one of the core ideas that very much are "Western Civilization" and were hard-fought ideas even inside the West (even in ancient Greece, just read the circle arguments in ancient Greece). Even the idea of a university itself is very much a Western tradition that is not exactly common.

But this rational discourse is quite a unique property of Western Christian civilization, and it's Greek philosophy heritage.

So when those students say that Plato, rational argument itself (and frankly the existence of the university concept itself in the first place) are against their religion/ideology ... they're probably right.

But let's also move one piece of total shite out of this world : there has never been any large scale human society that was egalitarian, and frankly most societies were FAR worse than the West has ever been. Especially islamic civilization is bad in that regard.

However when it comes to speakers advocating racism, race is not even real, there is only one human race with ethnic variations we don't allow people to come to medical schools to advocate using voodoo doll to cure cancer why should racists be speaking on college campuses?

Race is real. It's obvious when you look around. The major continental races show up on any k-clustered human genomic analysis. And any competent forensic anthropologist can identity race from skeletal remains.

We should treat people with equal dignity. Race should not be a factor in individual decisions. Left doesn't stop there, though. They go further, insisting that race is not only irrelevant, but unreal. They step beyond fairness and into propaganda and lies. It's why the left is now on the retreat in every institution of power.

I'm not the only one who's sick of having to parrot lies. By alienating people like me, people who would ordinarily be sympathetic to the left's causes, the left is guaranteeing a conservative backlash of biblical scope.

The vast majority of the people accused of being racists aren't actually racists. But even if they were, it's not your place to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't.

Perhaps, but then you run into the problem of defining racism. It can be obvious, but you can also have situations like the one in yale where the english curriculum was "Colonized"[1] by the fact it had too many white male writers. Would someone who advocates for teaching the traditionally accepted cannon of english literature be racist. According to some definitions, yes. Further, some are willing to call the fundamentals of math racist[2]. Racism can be subtle as well as obvious, and to define the parameters of acceptable speech based on subjective understanding of that subtlety seems that it would likely lead to abuse.

[1]http://college.usatoday.com/2016/06/10/yale-undergraduates-a...

[2]www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5018223/Professor-says-math-perpetuates-white-privilege.html

[1] is fake news. [2] is a single professor from a low-tier university with the article intended to incite outrage and divide through inducing fear in the reader, which is what you felt.

Please be more careful where you are sourcing your brain food.

My view on the freedom of expression is well known, so I'll try to avoid being verbose.

Does the institution receive funding from the government?

If so, can it legally prohibit lawful speech?

SCOTUS has pretty much decided that it can not. In time, this will be a more settled matter. America is still young, comparatively speaking. We will be okay so long as we remember it's a constant effort and not a final state.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com