Agree that professors don’t indoctrinate kids into leftism, classes are obviously self selection. IDK why the right ever embraced this conspiracy theory
Too often complaints of “self-censorship” boil down to “my classmates disagree with me, and I don’t like it.”
This is true because a lot of the power in the right wing goes to bad-faith showboats like Hannity, Tucker, Charlie Kirk, etc.
The problem is that this:
“ In no way do I, nor anyone else for that matter, believe that people speaking in good faith should be ostracized.”
is NOT how a lot of the strident left behaves. They go after and ruthlessly bully the proverbial moderates you mention (who are just sitting in the MSC or trying to use a public group chat) and people who are explicitly saying they want to understand other’s thoughts, like Shannon.
By and large while I wouldn’t say you straw man (again, a lot of the anti PC crowd are just rightwing PCers) but you certainly do not steelman. The proper observation is not that progressives disagreeing is inherently silencing. It’s that a vocal subset of progressives 1) overperceives bIgOtRy where it isn’t there and 2) under that banner defames and degrades innocuous people. This isn’t “discussion “ either
In other words you have the right to a radar but if you’re radar is oversensitive your average claim is more spurious. And spurious charges of XYZ-phobia are intensely harmful.
Again to reiterate you correctly note that a lot of the anti cancel culture movement is just opportunist conservatism, but you unwittingly fall for the fallacy of concluding there’s no legitimate argument to be made there
I think your point in the second half of the post confirms Emma Camp's point. You say "Students have an obligation to ... respond swiftly and harshly to ... seemingly racist positions." As the number of things which are "seemingly racist" expands this becomes more and more restrictive.
College wokes are able to find racism in almost anything:
Therefore, college wokes are able to find reasons to "respond swiftly and harshly" to almost anything. Rebutting someone's arguments is always fine. But this attitude that
1. Racism must always be silenced combined with
2. Racism is pervasive in everything
lead to closed-mindedness and over-zealous punishment of speech.
"Believing learning comes through debate yet complaining when the opposition speaks is mere hypocrisy. " A great takeaway. That being said, lets not neglect to turn this point towards all parties equally. What about the students trying to stop Mike Pence from speaking? If professors have a claim to not be debated with but rather listened to in the classroom (as you said), ought not a former vice president be owed a similar level of deference due to his own ethos? Can we really be so confident that any speaker does not have knowledge to give without allowing them to speak? Seems to me that this is not a problem exclusive to one side of the aisle, and your idea of a good faith moderate seems wildly out of touch if Mike Pence wouldnt qualify
Agree that professors don’t indoctrinate kids into leftism, classes are obviously self selection. IDK why the right ever embraced this conspiracy theory
Too often complaints of “self-censorship” boil down to “my classmates disagree with me, and I don’t like it.”
This is true because a lot of the power in the right wing goes to bad-faith showboats like Hannity, Tucker, Charlie Kirk, etc.
The problem is that this:
“ In no way do I, nor anyone else for that matter, believe that people speaking in good faith should be ostracized.”
is NOT how a lot of the strident left behaves. They go after and ruthlessly bully the proverbial moderates you mention (who are just sitting in the MSC or trying to use a public group chat) and people who are explicitly saying they want to understand other’s thoughts, like Shannon.
By and large while I wouldn’t say you straw man (again, a lot of the anti PC crowd are just rightwing PCers) but you certainly do not steelman. The proper observation is not that progressives disagreeing is inherently silencing. It’s that a vocal subset of progressives 1) overperceives bIgOtRy where it isn’t there and 2) under that banner defames and degrades innocuous people. This isn’t “discussion “ either
In other words you have the right to a radar but if you’re radar is oversensitive your average claim is more spurious. And spurious charges of XYZ-phobia are intensely harmful.
Again to reiterate you correctly note that a lot of the anti cancel culture movement is just opportunist conservatism, but you unwittingly fall for the fallacy of concluding there’s no legitimate argument to be made there
I think your point in the second half of the post confirms Emma Camp's point. You say "Students have an obligation to ... respond swiftly and harshly to ... seemingly racist positions." As the number of things which are "seemingly racist" expands this becomes more and more restrictive.
College wokes are able to find racism in almost anything:
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2021/09/14/teacher-claims-that-making-sure-students-follow-directions-is-rooted-in-white-supremacy-video/
https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a35334981/cycling-and-the-power-of-white-privilege/
https://redstate.com/mike_miller/2021/04/22/wokification-alert-students-at-ucla-claim-automatic-soap-dispensers-are-racist-n367103
Therefore, college wokes are able to find reasons to "respond swiftly and harshly" to almost anything. Rebutting someone's arguments is always fine. But this attitude that
1. Racism must always be silenced combined with
2. Racism is pervasive in everything
lead to closed-mindedness and over-zealous punishment of speech.
"Believing learning comes through debate yet complaining when the opposition speaks is mere hypocrisy. " A great takeaway. That being said, lets not neglect to turn this point towards all parties equally. What about the students trying to stop Mike Pence from speaking? If professors have a claim to not be debated with but rather listened to in the classroom (as you said), ought not a former vice president be owed a similar level of deference due to his own ethos? Can we really be so confident that any speaker does not have knowledge to give without allowing them to speak? Seems to me that this is not a problem exclusive to one side of the aisle, and your idea of a good faith moderate seems wildly out of touch if Mike Pence wouldnt qualify