Do we have to listen to stupid arguments?

[Hesse Darmstadt]

I don't know, she may not look like she knows what she's doing, but she's made it this far with constant negative attention.

Trump basically just started.

I really hope you're right, and Trump loses.

Hes not going to lose though. The American people are not going to put a crook into the White House.

[Jumalariik]

Why I do declare I think XKCD handled this already.

(Image)

I think that argument only goes so far. If somebody expresses a belief that homosexuality or transgenderism is bad, in my neck of the woods they will experience repercussions. One has to be excessively diplomatic to the point of not saying that it is a bad thing. Maybe for you it's different.
It's also very self serving as an argument. Should universities not be open markets of ideas? I mean maybe it's not good to say "nigger" in a college, but it's not bad to state an opinion. The fact that stating an opinion in a place of learning can be dangerous is just ridiculous. You should have the right to state an opinion diplomatically in the appropriate time regardless of said opinion.

[Cannot think of a name]

Why I do declare I think XKCD handled this already.

(Image)

I think that argument only goes so far. If somebody expresses a belief that homosexuality or transgenderism is bad, in my neck of the woods they will experience repercussions. One has to be excessively diplomatic to the point of not saying that it is a bad thing. Maybe for you it's different.
It's also very self serving as an argument. Should universities not be open markets of ideas? I mean maybe it's not good to say "nigger" in a college, but it's not bad to state an opinion. The fact that stating an opinion in a place of learning can be dangerous is just ridiculous. You should have the right to state an opinion diplomatically in the appropriate time regardless of said opinion.

At the cost of what? I mean, as long as we keep things nice and abstract we can certainly be high minded about a 'market place of ideas', but when the idea for sale is that those with darker skin or different sexualities aren't worthy of the marketplace, or are lesser people...maybe the university has already decided. People of every background and orientation are accepted. Do they still get to say that if they're also giving their limited platforms over to people who will say that they shouldn't be? That they're wrong? Is that really a marketplace of ideas if the idea is that you have to constantly defend your right to be a basic human being deserving at least a baseline amount of human dignity to be who you are and love who you want?

In the end the school in question has shopped at the marketplace of ideas and made certain purchases already. That education is paramount, that people should have access to it and feel unthreatened in the pursuit. Just like in any marketplace, there just isn't enough room for everyone's tent. Maybe it's just a decision to let a more marketable idea take up that spot instead of one that tries to demean or diminish other members of the market.

[Major-Tom]

We don't have to, but if we disagree with an opposing argument, we should listen if it has merit. That is a fundamental problem in today's world, if someone has a differing opinion with evidence to back it up, we often get away with name calling and shoving the issue aside.

[Major-Tom]

I wouldn't go that far. Hillary is a manipulative politician, Trump is just better at it than her, and he's mostly been in real estate so far.

I don't know, she may not look like she knows what she's doing, but she's made it this far with constant negative attention.

Trump basically just started.

Oh yeah, she definitely knows how to avoid valid criticism, but how long can she hold out?

[Jetan]

I'll give almost anyone and/or anything the benefit of doubt... once. So yeah, if you're capable of actually properly arguing for your position, no matter how idiotic, sure I'll listen to your bullshit. If your argument consists of any combination of including but not limited to "well I heard it was like this from someone who heard it from their cousins ex", "muh righs", "muh religion", "but it's icky", "check your priviledge shitlord" etc. well, that was your one time.

[Annorax]

Voting for Trump because he is nonPC is one reason. Another is the perception, right or not, that the people of America are put 2nd to the desires of people from other countries. The American government has the duty to put its people before all others and Trump I believe would undoubtedly correct that. Clinton would further both of these ideas, PC thuggery and America last. However the PC policing runs both ways because for the time being saying something racist, as an example, will lead you to being shunned but what's to say one day arguing against that will get you shunned? Or more realistically what's to say a few decades from now standing up for gay rights and the right to an abortion won't get you ostracized? Careful what you wish for you just might get it.

[Cannot think of a name]

Or more realistically what's to say a few decades from now standing up for gay rights and the right to an abortion won't get you ostracized?

Been there, done that. Decades ago.

[Freedom in Unition]

Personally I figure people who rail against "political correctness" are just assholes who got told off for being an asshole.

That can be true, but there are also people who say no more than a joke that may offend someone and it's considered not politically correct and they're considered bigots.

[Jumalariik]

I think that argument only goes so far. If somebody expresses a belief that homosexuality or transgenderism is bad, in my neck of the woods they will experience repercussions. One has to be excessively diplomatic to the point of not saying that it is a bad thing. Maybe for you it's different.
It's also very self serving as an argument. Should universities not be open markets of ideas? I mean maybe it's not good to say "nigger" in a college, but it's not bad to state an opinion. The fact that stating an opinion in a place of learning can be dangerous is just ridiculous. You should have the right to state an opinion diplomatically in the appropriate time regardless of said opinion.

At the cost of what? I mean, as long as we keep things nice and abstract we can certainly be high minded about a 'market place of ideas', but when the idea for sale is that those with darker skin or different sexualities aren't worthy of the marketplace, or are lesser people...maybe the university has already decided. People of every background and orientation are accepted. Do they still get to say that if they're also giving their limited platforms over to people who will say that they shouldn't be? That they're wrong? Is that really a marketplace of ideas if the idea is that you have to constantly defend your right to be a basic human being deserving at least a baseline amount of human dignity to be who you are and love who you want?

In the end the school in question has shopped at the marketplace of ideas and made certain purchases already. That education is paramount, that people should have access to it and feel unthreatened in the pursuit. Just like in any marketplace, there just isn't enough room for everyone's tent. Maybe it's just a decision to let a more marketable idea take up that spot instead of one that tries to demean or diminish other members of the market.

Are you saying that a university should uphold certain dogmas for their own sake? By not being PC one is saying "institutions should have all opinions expressible." I understand for a religion, one cannot be scientific. On the other hand, if we speak of ideas in an intellectual place such as a university, ideas should be able to stand up to scrutiny.
Take your example. Somebody says in a class "I think blacks and gays shouldn't be able to say stuff in class." This opinion either cannot stand up to scrutiny and thus has no influence, or it's logical and it would influence discussion. By saying certain opinions are dangerous, we are saying those opinions have some way of beguiling people, that on some level they can infect the mind. They are thus on some level legitimate. That way of looking at doctrine is like that in a Church. Certain doctrines, such as Arianism, may be on some level logical. Debating them is not the easiest thing in the world and uneducated people can be swayed by it. Therefore, it is important to prevent it from being taught. A church is not a lab. A seminary may be, but a church is not.
On the other hand, the task of a university is to increase education by creating new knowledge. (not passing from Holy Revelation) Because of this, it must have a lot more free thought. An opinion either can be easily debated or it should be taken as a legitimate thought. The idea that some races are above others is easy to defeat. If you can't see a logical reason that black and white people are equal, why do you say it's a bad thing to think they aren't?

[Cannot think of a name]

At the cost of what? I mean, as long as we keep things nice and abstract we can certainly be high minded about a 'market place of ideas', but when the idea for sale is that those with darker skin or different sexualities aren't worthy of the marketplace, or are lesser people...maybe the university has already decided. People of every background and orientation are accepted. Do they still get to say that if they're also giving their limited platforms over to people who will say that they shouldn't be? That they're wrong? Is that really a marketplace of ideas if the idea is that you have to constantly defend your right to be a basic human being deserving at least a baseline amount of human dignity to be who you are and love who you want?

In the end the school in question has shopped at the marketplace of ideas and made certain purchases already. That education is paramount, that people should have access to it and feel unthreatened in the pursuit. Just like in any marketplace, there just isn't enough room for everyone's tent. Maybe it's just a decision to let a more marketable idea take up that spot instead of one that tries to demean or diminish other members of the market.

Are you saying that a university should uphold certain dogmas for their own sake? By not being PC one is saying "institutions should have all opinions expressible." I understand for a religion, one cannot be scientific. On the other hand, if we speak of ideas in an intellectual place such as a university, ideas should be able to stand up to scrutiny.
Take your example. Somebody says in a class "I think blacks and gays shouldn't be able to say stuff in class." This opinion either cannot stand up to scrutiny and thus has no influence, or it's logical and it would influence discussion. By saying certain opinions are dangerous, we are saying those opinions have some way of beguiling people, that on some level they can infect the mind. They are thus on some level legitimate. That way of looking at doctrine is like that in a Church. Certain doctrines, such as Arianism, may be on some level logical. Debating them is not the easiest thing in the world and uneducated people can be swayed by it. Therefore, it is important to prevent it from being taught. A church is not a lab. A seminary may be, but a church is not.
On the other hand, the task of a university is to increase education by creating new knowledge. (not passing from Holy Revelation) Because of this, it must have a lot more free thought. An opinion either can be easily debated or it should be taken as a legitimate thought. The idea that some races are above others is easy to defeat. If you can't see a logical reason that black and white people are equal, why do you say it's a bad thing to think they aren't?

If the idea is easily defeated then why are we bothering with at a forum for higher learning? Do I have to entertain in my limited venue the idea that square pegs fit better in square holes simply because it is easily proven or disproven? It's not about "dangerous ideas," that's that old romanticism again that encourages one to take this in the abstract to seem like a champion of big ideas while advocating in reality for very small ones. The university had this argument. Men brought in skulls and measuring devices and "studies" and ultimately the university found those arguments wanting and decided anyone who wants an education gets one. If you want to advocate for limiting the student body that the school has accepted you continue to be free to do so but its not a great injustice to not use the very limited space at the university that everyone pays for to belittle or demean them on the flimsy premise that they are easily defeated.

[Jumalariik]

Are you saying that a university should uphold certain dogmas for their own sake? By not being PC one is saying "institutions should have all opinions expressible." I understand for a religion, one cannot be scientific. On the other hand, if we speak of ideas in an intellectual place such as a university, ideas should be able to stand up to scrutiny.
Take your example. Somebody says in a class "I think blacks and gays shouldn't be able to say stuff in class." This opinion either cannot stand up to scrutiny and thus has no influence, or it's logical and it would influence discussion. By saying certain opinions are dangerous, we are saying those opinions have some way of beguiling people, that on some level they can infect the mind. They are thus on some level legitimate. That way of looking at doctrine is like that in a Church. Certain doctrines, such as Arianism, may be on some level logical. Debating them is not the easiest thing in the world and uneducated people can be swayed by it. Therefore, it is important to prevent it from being taught. A church is not a lab. A seminary may be, but a church is not.
On the other hand, the task of a university is to increase education by creating new knowledge. (not passing from Holy Revelation) Because of this, it must have a lot more free thought. An opinion either can be easily debated or it should be taken as a legitimate thought. The idea that some races are above others is easy to defeat. If you can't see a logical reason that black and white people are equal, why do you say it's a bad thing to think they aren't?

If the idea is easily defeated then why are we bothering with at a forum for higher learning? Do I have to entertain in my limited venue the idea that square pegs fit better in square holes simply because it is easily proven or disproven? It's not about "dangerous ideas," that's that old romanticism again that encourages one to take this in the abstract to seem like a champion of big ideas while advocating in reality for very small ones. The university had this argument. Men brought in skulls and measuring devices and "studies" and ultimately the university found those arguments wanting and decided anyone who wants an education gets one. If you want to advocate for limiting the student body that the school has accepted you continue to be free to do so but its not a great injustice to not use the very limited space at the university that everyone pays for to belittle or demean them on the flimsy premise that they are easily defeated.

Tell me... if education's not the point of university, what's the point of it?

[Cannot think of a name]

If the idea is easily defeated then why are we bothering with at a forum for higher learning? Do I have to entertain in my limited venue the idea that square pegs fit better in square holes simply because it is easily proven or disproven? It's not about "dangerous ideas," that's that old romanticism again that encourages one to take this in the abstract to seem like a champion of big ideas while advocating in reality for very small ones. The university had this argument. Men brought in skulls and measuring devices and "studies" and ultimately the university found those arguments wanting and decided anyone who wants an education gets one. If you want to advocate for limiting the student body that the school has accepted you continue to be free to do so but its not a great injustice to not use the very limited space at the university that everyone pays for to belittle or demean them on the flimsy premise that they are easily defeated.

Tell me... if education's not the point of university, what's the point of it?

First you tell me, what?

[Jumalariik]

Tell me... if education's not the point of university, what's the point of it?

First you tell me, what?

University or college is to educate people to suit them to more intellect or skill requiring vocations.

[Cannot think of a name]

First you tell me, what?

University or college is to educate people to suit them to more intellect or skill requiring vocations.

You going somewhere with this?

[Jumalariik]

University or college is to educate people to suit them to more intellect or skill requiring vocations.

You going somewhere with this?

You were arguing that some things are too basic to be taught. If I'm ignorant that all races are basically equal and argue against that, the job of the university would be to educate me or to give scrutiny to the idea.

[Cannot think of a name]

You going somewhere with this?

You were arguing that some things are too basic to be taught. If I'm ignorant that all races are basically equal and argue against that, the job of the university would be to educate me or to give scrutiny to the idea.

Does the university have an obligation to hold a seminar on two plus two equaling four or can the university have at least a modicum of a "you must be this tall to ride this ride"? It's a limited space, how dumb down does it have to go before we get to say we're wasting the schools resources and if you believe in easily disproven ideas you are not ready for the university's space and we're going to reserve it for people who advance ideas not regress them.

You're operating an an inane all or nothing idea which is stupid as hell if you think about for even a second. They don't give time to flat earthers or spontaneous generation advocates either. In fact, that an idea is easily disproven is all the reason in the world to deny that person a stage. It's an institute of learning, not the first level of Mario. They are making decisions based on the soundness of the argument, so I'm not wasting time that could be spent learning something beating an already popped piñata

[Jumalariik]

You were arguing that some things are too basic to be taught. If I'm ignorant that all races are basically equal and argue against that, the job of the university would be to educate me or to give scrutiny to the idea.

Does the university have an obligation to hold a seminar on two plus two equaling four or can the university have at least a modicum of a "you must be this tall to ride this ride"? It's a limited space, how dumb down does it have to go before we get to say we're wasting the schools resources and if you believe in easily disproven ideas you are not ready for the university's space and we're going to reserve it for people who advance ideas not regress them.

You're operating an an inane all or nothing idea which is stupid as hell if you think about for even a second. They don't give time to flat earthers or spontaneous generation advocates either. In fact, that an idea is easily disproven is all the reason in the world to deny that person a stage. It's an institute of learning, not the first level of Mario. They are making decisions based on the soundness of the argument, so I'm not wasting time that could be spent learning something beating an already popped piñata

Right. The reason that you don't learn in university that 2+2=4 is that nobody would ask to learn that. They already know it. There is a difference though between 2+2=4 and a scientific question of the equality of the races. (you know there is. You know that arguments can be made based off of data for racial differences in iq at least) There are certain premises with which you must start any argument or systematic worldview. One of those is basic math. Not because it's obviously true, but because it is so basic and simple. From basic math comes all other math. If you want to take Geometry 101 or something you need to know 2+2=4. To take Geometry 101 or History 101 for that matter you don't need to know that all races are equal.

[Shonburg]

First you tell me, what?

University or college is to educate people to suit them to more intellect or skill requiring vocations.

I believe university should teach you how to think critically and debate properly first and teach skills second.

[Jumalariik]

University or college is to educate people to suit them to more intellect or skill requiring vocations.

I believe university should teach you how to think critically and debate properly first and teach skills second.

I would not disagree. It's unfortunate that Classical Education is not taught to much. It's funny how you see so many really intelligent and educated people who don't know some very basic factoids. It's not against them, and I'm not the most educated person ever, but I do think that a good education teaches one to have a more developed and refined worldview.

[Jumalariik]

I really hope you're right, and Trump loses.

Hes not going to lose though. The American people are not going to put a crook into the White House.

They've done it before.

[Cannot think of a name]

Does the university have an obligation to hold a seminar on two plus two equaling four or can the university have at least a modicum of a "you must be this tall to ride this ride"? It's a limited space, how dumb down does it have to go before we get to say we're wasting the schools resources and if you believe in easily disproven ideas you are not ready for the university's space and we're going to reserve it for people who advance ideas not regress them.

You're operating an an inane all or nothing idea which is stupid as hell if you think about for even a second. They don't give time to flat earthers or spontaneous generation advocates either. In fact, that an idea is easily disproven is all the reason in the world to deny that person a stage. It's an institute of learning, not the first level of Mario. They are making decisions based on the soundness of the argument, so I'm not wasting time that could be spent learning something beating an already popped piñata

Right. The reason that you don't learn in university that 2+2=4 is that nobody would ask to learn that. They already know it. There is a difference though between 2+2=4 and a scientific question of the equality of the races. (you know there is. You know that arguments can be made based off of data for racial differences in iq at least) There are certain premises with which you must start any argument or systematic worldview. One of those is basic math. Not because it's obviously true, but because it is so basic and simple. From basic math comes all other math. If you want to take Geometry 101 or something you need to know 2+2=4. To take Geometry 101 or History 101 for that matter you don't need to know that all races are equal.

By filtering for supported ideas the university can teach things like hyperbole as a rhetorical tool so that its students don't get bogged down in a non existent detail and lose the thread of the argument.

[Mushet]

I don't listen to stupid arguments nearly as often as I read them, usually on here, but I do that by choice.

[Zoice]

I don't know, she may not look like she knows what she's doing, but she's made it this far with constant negative attention.

Trump basically just started.

Oh yeah, she definitely knows how to avoid valid criticism, but how long can she hold out?

She's not as good at avoiding it as Trump, no matter how thoroughly his BS is disproven he keeps on keeping on. Maybe she should lie more, like him. Seems to work.

[Finaglia]

I read a lengthy interview with a self-described young, wealthy and educated prospective Trump voter today. This guy's argument for voting Trump seemed to be more or less entirely that Trump is not PC. The voter feels that we live in culture in which views he considers "not politically correct" cannot be expressed. Voting Hillary would, in his view, further this climate, while voting Trump would maybe change it, just because Trump is an example of someone who breaks PC taboos all the time.

But when you look at the guy's specific examples, and the hundreds (if not thousands) of complaints against political correctness, SJWs and so on brought by people on the internet, most don't really seem to be about actively being prevented from stating ones opinion. Such cases exist, to be sure (e.g. denying someone a university stage, or trying to prevent a Trump rally via protests), and they make good explicit events to point at. But my sense is that what this guy (and others) wouldn't suggest that PC-culture is only about such cases of actively denying someone's ability to say something non-PC. Rather, it is about the sense that there is now some sort of social pressure to conform, that saying something non-PC can get you socially ostracised. Like, you can still say whatever you want. But people might not engage with your argument or with you in the way you hoped for, and instead will judge you for that opinion according to their own values. In the words of the Trump voter: "Disagreement gets you labeled fascist, racist, bigoted, etc. It can provoke a reaction so intense that you’re suddenly an unperson to an acquaintance or friend. There is no saying “Hey, I disagree with you,” it's just instant shunning. Say things online, and they'll try to find out who you are and potentially even get you fired for it."

So according to this guy, PC culture is oppressive because people don't respect his opinions, listen to them and treat them on what he considers to be their merits. So I suppose, in his ideal world, any opinion would be fairly discussed. In his ideal world, if you think and say that Mexicans are rapists, then people shouldn't label you or shun you or stop being your friend because of that. People wouldn't be judged for their opinions.

To those of you who consider yourselves to be against "PC culture", against "SJWs" or who sympathise with this guy's lament - how far would this go? Do all of us have a duty to take any opinion or argument seriously? Even if that argument is really stupid, or has nothing to do with facts? Would someone be part of the PC police, or be a social justice warrior, if they decided not to interact with you anymore because of some opinion you held?

Do we listen to stupid arguments? Yes, and then we refute them in light of truth and reason. But there is the rub, for post-moderns as they have been taught there is no (objective) truth only facts, and opinion can never be factual--ergo those with whom you disagree are stoopid. But there are those who are beyond reason. They can only be used as object lessons of their folly--satirized, lampooned or mocked.

I feel sorry for this guy. He has a degree, yet it is obvious that he was not required to learn logic and show a proficiency in reasoning before allowed to leave the 6th grade. Had he taken it in college or at university it was probably just for a semester or two instead of being entwined in the curricula as a proper Classical education would. Like most victims of the modern public school system, he has the aptitude but was never given the tools make mature and responsible (responsive) syllogisms or proper argument. Just because one cannot articulate the argument does not invalidate it. Also, it is the Atlantic, so he probably was having an informal conversation without reference notes, 3x5 cards, and a teleprompter to make him sound officious and erudite.

This guy's opinion seems to be that enough is enough. He supports Trump because Cultural Marxism is oppressive and he just wants to live in a free country. I tend to agree.

The GOP has always been a coalition of disparate groups, mainly regional that are always realigning themselves. It is pitted against the national GOP apparatus metaphorically trying to herd cats. The Beltway Establishment remains willfully ignorant that an authoritarian top down command structure rubs most of us the wrong way--we tend to be Federalists, definitely not Centrists (centrally controlled), and not necessarily Nationalists.

This election cycle is about the Liberty Wing, Disestablishment Intellectual Right, Constitutionalists (both Christian and Secularist), and Anti-Establishment Conservative elements of the GOP at regional levels realigning and distancing themselves from the anti-intellectual Conservatives who have sided with or become indistinguishable from Neo-Conservatives and Progressives (what few are left--no pun intended) of the Establishment. Trump is the catalyst to break the back of the DC establishment for those aforementioned. We have taken a calculated risk on a former Reform Party candidate, and know full well he is not Conservative, but a Populist.

As a metaphor, the GOP Barn's paint is faded and cracked. The planks are still holding but the frame is in danger of leaning over. The manure is hip deep in the stalls and Snowball has been sold to the butcher. The timbers are rotted and the Establishment rats control the hayloft. Trump is the torch. It is cheaper for the farmer to burn down the barn and rebuild, than it is to keep propping up the support beams and feeding the rats.