Politics: J'accuse!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No, the problem was the way in which they disagreed with him. Accusations of racism are conversation stoppers, not debate starters. And, if tolerated, do not permit more speech and/or discussion.

Let's put it this way, I certainly thought twice before opening my mouth again in that class. Practically speaking I was left with a choice - does my desire to make this particular point and add to the market place of ideas outweigh the fallout that will likely result? In most cases it did, but there were times where I censored myself.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No, the problem was the way in which they disagreed with him. Accusations of racism are conversation stoppers, not debate starters. And, if tolerated, do not permit more speech and/or discussion.

Again with the passive tense. Suppose I call Not Me a racist. Will that shut her up? Empirically, no. Club didn't say that as soon as someone called him a racist, all conversation stopped and everyone filed out of the room to the next class, never to speak of the entire subject again. He was heard. Other people disagreed.

And accusations of racism sometimes have something to them. (eta: Not a comment on what Club said.)

eta:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Let's put it this way, I certainly thought twice before opening my mouth again in that class. Practically speaking I was left with a choice - does my desire to make this particular point and add to the market place of ideas outweigh the fallout that will likely result? In most cases it did, but there were times where I censored myself.

I thought twice before opening my mouth in class, always with the same sort of analysis: Does my desire to make a particular point and add to the marketplace of ideas outweigh the consequences? I'll be saying something that others may not find interesting, or, worse yet, they may think it's stupid and think less of me. Sometimes I kep quiet ('censored myself'). What's the difference.

The difference, it seems to me, is that people feel very strongly and differently about race (and a limited handful of other issues, but let's stick with race for the moment), and speech often happens in contexts where it is difficult to explore this fully. There isn't enough time for everyone to say everything. But where's the suppression? And does anyone doubt that the only (out) gay or lesbian at my school didn't feel the same way sometimes?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I didn't really address PC.

Of course I think that debate should exist. In fact, if everyone HAD been brought up in Berkley, I would say that college should slant toward what we presently call traditional, conservative thought. Not chilled or suppressed. Just different. The debate should absolutely be there. I'm focusing more on well-roundedness, not PC or politics. Even if you don't "buy" what the other person is selling, knowing it gives you better support for your own beliefs. Most people are raised under a conservative value system. Nothing wrong with that. By being exposed to alternative ways of thinking, one can either reject the alternative and solidify his reasoning for his beliefs, or have the opportunity to change them. But at least the choice is there.

This is beneficial, so long as we strip out the idea that all ideas are equal and that there is no objective truth.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Let's put it this way, I certainly thought twice before opening my mouth again in that class. Practically speaking I was left with a choice - does my desire to make this particular point and add to the market place of ideas outweigh the fallout that will likely result? In most cases it did, but there were times where I censored myself.

BTW, I think you were me in law school too.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The Nazis had new ideas, this isn't about "letting new ideas out." To the contrary, it is more about stifiling consideration of whether left wing "new ideas" are bogus. It certainly isn't about considering new ideas if you are censuring people. Unless you mean "considering new ideas that democrats or greens came up with," and if that's what you mean then you've won notme's arguments for her.

Example:
Islam is fucked towards women because husbands beat their wives.

Potential response #1 You are a stupid fucking racist
Potential response #2 The Koran doesn't say a husband can beat his wife, plus to blame Islam ignores the very parallel behavior in Brazil, plus wives are beated up half to death in America every X seconds.

The first is the type of behavior that people have a problem with, and it doesn't advance fuck-all. the second is consideration of an idea,

and I'm not trying to restart last week's fight about me. sidd thought I was a troll and was responding in kind.

Okay, I guess my point WAS about letting new ideas out. Based on my assumption that most people were/are raised with conservative values, which I think is correct. No stifling of any ideas. Except yours.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Club didn't say that as soon as someone called him a racist, all conversation stopped and everyone filed out of the room to the next class, never to speak of the entire subject again. He was heard. Other people disagreed.

I was heard, but there was a self-censor effect from that day forward.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop And accusations of racism sometimes have something to them.

I hope this wasn't directed at me.

As I edited to make clear above, emphatically no. -- T.S.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The Nazis had new ideas, this isn't about "letting new ideas out." To the contrary, it is more about stifiling consideration of whether left wing "new ideas" are bogus. It certainly isn't about considering new ideas if you are censuring people. Unless you mean "considering new ideas that democrats or greens came up with," and if that's what you mean then you've won notme's arguments for her.

Example:
Islam is fucked towards women because husbands beat their wives.

Potential response #1 You are a stupid fucking racist
Potential response #2 The Koran doesn't say a husband can beat his wife, plus to blame Islam ignores the very parallel behavior in Brazil, plus wives are beated up half to death in America every X seconds.

The first is the type of behavior that people have a problem with, and it doesn't advance fuck-all. the second is consideration of an idea

I agree with you (I know, mark it down in your diary). However I also agree with Ty in that PC-style arguments can and do come from all sides right now. For example, right here on this very board (and in our country in general), people who disagree with the war in Iraq (or who even try to explain the position of countries other than the US) have been blindly labeled as anti-American or supportive of terrorists. How is that different and less stifling to continued debate than calling someone a racist out of hand instead of having the debate with tem as to why they believe what they do? Or, put another way, were the Dixie Chicks subjected to PC sentiment over their statements about President Bush? Did 9/11 change the PC (used in the broader sense) landscape in our country?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

On 1, bull. shit. my dad was a professor at one of the preeminent universities in the nation (or so it considers itself). The department in which he had tenure came to be dominated by those of a certain viewpoint and approach to the subject. After gaining critical mass they essentially refused to tenure anyone without similar viewpoints, further entrenching their views.

FWIW, it works both ways. A friend of mine is on tenure track in a social sciences department at Texas A&M. She's terrified that she's too liberal thinking to make the cut.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Giving someone tenure is not the same as suppressing the views of everyone else.

Of course it is, as long as tenure is not available in unlimited quantities. And it's not. A grant of tenure to one person fills that spot, making it unavailable to the one not selected. More and more, and more and more openly, tenure grant votes fall along political lines, and, more and more, expression of contrarian views is, in fact, surpressed because of this. Suppression isn't only done at gunpoint.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I have never objected to the presentation of "liberal" viewpoints. I have objected solely to the out-of-hand rejection of "conservative/traditional" viewpoints that occurs with alarming frequency at many of the leading institutions of higher learning.

And if the nuts at the conservative religious schools do it, shame on them. And that's why I would never consider sending a child to one of those places, because they try to indoctrinate as much as anyone. But I'm not so worried about third-rate institutions as I am about the Berkeleys, Stanfords, Harvards and Yales of the world.

With Berkeley, I assume you know what you're getting yourself in to when you apply. And I don't want conservative though stifled either. Heck, unlike this administartion, I'm fiscally conservative.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Suppose I call Not Me a racist. Will that shut her up? Empirically, no.

Go out to lunch with him and it might.

Let's ask club for the facts, though. After the outrage died down, did the professor say "well, Mr. club, that's an interesting viewpoint that it seems your classmates do not share and, perhaps, believe reflects latent racism." "Ms. PC, would you take up the cause for your fellow classmates and articulate why it reflects only racism, and not a reasoned approach to statutory interpretation?"

I very much doubt it, and, having been in a remarkably similar situation, can say that if the Prof. did, it's a rare one.

(and, uh, I know the passive voice and the past tense have similar endings, but they are different. although I'll tolerate your confusion on the issue more than clubbie's classmates and professor tolerated the accusations of racism)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Of course it is, as long as tenure is not available in unlimited quantities. And it's not. A grant of tenure to one person fills that spot, making it unavailable to the one not selected. More and more, and more and more openly, tenure grant votes fall along political lines, and, more and more, expression of contrarian views is, in fact, surpressed because of this. Suppression isn't only done at gunpoint.

So I take it you think poor people are suppressed when the government declines to fund legal services more, or places limits on what LSCs can do?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Based on my assumption that most people were/are raised with conservative values, which I think is correct.

Lordy, are you ever off-base.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

eta:


I thought twice before opening my mouth in class, always with the same sort of analysis: Does my desire to make a particular point and add to the marketplace of ideas outweigh the consequences? I'll be saying something that others may not find interesting, or, worse yet, they may think it's stupid and think less of me

stupidity censorship is viewpoint neutral.

And, based on law school, I agree that there should be more of it.

But, I don't think I once heard someone respond to a stupid point with "are you stupid?" or "stupidface." Rather, the response, if the comment was not so stupid as to warrant no response at all, was instead to have someone offer the obvious rejoinder that explained why the stupid viewpoint was, in fact, stupid.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bilmore
Lordy, are you ever off-base.

Okay. I could be wrong. Maybe it's b/c I'm from the midwest. Doesn't the majority of the country believe in a Christian god?