Do we have to listen to stupid arguments?

[Dakini]

I think he has a point, and some of the punishments are beyond mere ostracization. Kids have been kicked out of public university because they said the N word at a private off campus event and were secretly recorded doing so.

Nine times out of ten when anecdotes like this are given context they're not as 'innocent' as they seem. Which is why they're often just given as passing references and not linked to sources. Hopefully people just read the short mention and go, "Why, that's terrible!" without perhaps finding out that the person in question was leading a song about how 'niggers' would never be let into a particular school group or something like that. Depending on which anecdote you're pulling.

As far as we know, he could be referring to that time a fraternity branch was shut down for singing a racist song about how they plan on never allowing black people to join (and none of its members were expelled from school).

edit to add: In case you don't want to click the link or watch the video, the song not only uses the n-word, but says that lynching black men is preferable to admitting them into the fraternity. Also, the school didn't shut down the branch, the fraternity itself cut them off because they don't want to be associated with that shit.

[The Patriotic States]

Of course we don't have to listen to stupid arguments, but we should defend their right to say stupid shit.

[Gravlen]

Why I do declare I think XKCD handled this already.

(Image)

I hate this goddamned comic because it has hopelessly entangled freedom of speech and the first amendment. This makes sense if you look at freedom of speech as a thing that's just sort of there, or perhaps as an obstacle to be overcome. If you believe free speech is a good thing, that it's genuinely good for people to speak freely then it doesn't matter what forces are restraining that speech. I am not saying that people shouldn't be judged, I'm saying that the environment of people suffering serious consequences for expressing unpopular opinions, particularly online, is a bad thing and I think it makes us fundamentally shittier people.

When you shut down stupid arguments with intimidation or to some extent outright dismissal then you are asserting the authority of your own position based solely on the fact that the voices on your side are the loudest. That is not the way anybody should want to be right. You should try to be right by having well reasoned ideas that survive the scrutiny and skepticism that comes with an open marketplace of ideas. You should shut down stupid ideas by letting them stand in the light and collapse under their own flawed premises. We should let racists, homophobes, and other assorted bigots say their whole spiel without fear that they'll be fired, boycotted, or threatened. Let's give them the chance to say their whole spiel and see if they survive Q&A.

I agree that threats shouldn't happen (and should be punished) but apart from that you're being silly. Anyone who decides to make their opinions known in the public sphere should be prepared to face the consequences.

If you work as a judge, but say publicly that black people don't deserve the full protection of the law but should be arbitrarily locked up to protect society, I honestly think you should be fired because you've just said that you can't be impartial and can't do your job. If you own a business, and you say that you spend your profits trying to remove rights from homosexuals, why should I simply accept that and keep giving you my money? Why shouldn't I be able to use my right to free speech and call for a boycott, or simply take my business elsewhere?

On a very basic level, if you say something stupid I reserve the right to treat you as if you just said something stupid.

Freedom of speech / expression doesn't shield you from negative consequences. It never has, and it's never been the intention.

[Germanic Scyths]

I believe people are genuinely free to express their opinions. Whether I listen to it or not is a different thing. You never need to actually listen to a person for that matter, sometimes letting someone gabble off is a good thing too.

[Jumalariik]

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)

Race is not a meaningful concept scientifically speaking so asking whether the races are equal is not a scientific question. Don't act like it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ ... ted_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
Science does not allow for race perhaps, but studies show differences between races. One could argue (and be wrong) that races have different qualities or something and have data to back it up.

[West Cedarbrook]

Everyone has a right to my opinion.

[The Lone Alliance]

The problem is that pretending to muffle those 'stupid arguments' does absolutely nothing to stop those arguments.

This entire election season proves it.

[Gravlen]

The problem is that pretending to muffle those 'stupid arguments' does absolutely nothing to stop those arguments.

This entire election season proves it.

Has any stupid arguments been muffled this election season? My perception is that the stupid arguments have been amplified, not muffled (and hardly even questioned).

[Risottia]

Of course we don't have to listen to stupid arguments, but we should defend their right to say stupid shit.

They can say their stupid shit in the privacy of their homes. They don't have the right to expose others to stupid speech.

[Cannot think of a name]

Race is not a meaningful concept scientifically speaking so asking whether the races are equal is not a scientific question. Don't act like it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ ... ted_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
Science does not allow for race perhaps, but studies show differences between races. One could argue (and be wrong) that races have different qualities or something and have data to back it up.

Now see, you're not going to get on a college campus and say this (well, maybe, there are some loose college campuses out there) and you're going to think, "Why, that's censorship! Why are you afraid of my ideas? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE!?"

But none of that is happening. A straight up fucking scientist (seriously, Dakini is a scientist, like Ph.D does science scientist) just told you in no uncertain terms that scientifically speaking race is not a meaningful concept.

Science. They sorted this shit. Peers reviewed it, they looked into it, it's meaningless.

Now, you want someone to be able to come on and take these cultural studies and attempt to prove, even if they're easily dismissed, that race has a bearing even though they know it doesn't because, like the scientist just said, it's not a meaningful concept. Why? Why give someone you know is wrong valuable space when you can invite someone who is right. Someone who is not arguing an outdated concept that also just happens to alienate the paying student body. Because the people with the outdated easily dismissed concept feel like they are being oppressed by not being able to advocate for oppression based on ideas that have no merit?

What a waste of time. There's no need for it. That stage can be used for some dude who figured out how nano technology can make butt wiping a thing of the past. Lets hear from that guy instead of some dude who doesn't know how to read a study, understand biology, or how to factor in sociological pressures into standardized tests and measures.

The fact of the matter is I only have so much time here on this earth and I don't feel like wasting it having someone try and convince me despite all other compelling and concrete evidence that the world is flat. Shit is round and I'm better off listening to arguments from people who are with the program.

[Dakini]

Race is not a meaningful concept scientifically speaking so asking whether the races are equal is not a scientific question. Don't act like it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ ... ted_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
Science does not allow for race perhaps, but studies show differences between races. One could argue (and be wrong) that races have different qualities or something and have data to back it up.

1. Not science. You said it was science. Scientifically, there is more difference within "races" than there is between them. Race is a meaningless concept scientifically speaking. Race is a social construct, not a scientifically meaningful thing. It's like money, basically.
2. All of that shit is related to racism, basically. That's the short version anyway.

[Dakini]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ ... ted_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
Science does not allow for race perhaps, but studies show differences between races. One could argue (and be wrong) that races have different qualities or something and have data to back it up.

Now see, you're not going to get on a college campus and say this (well, maybe, there are some loose college campuses out there) and you're going to think, "Why, that's censorship! Why are you afraid of my ideas? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE!?"

But none of that is happening. A straight up fucking scientist (seriously, Dakini is a scientist, like Ph.D does science scientist) just told you in no uncertain terms that scientifically speaking race is not a meaningful concept.

Science. They sorted this shit. Peers reviewed it, they looked into it, it's meaningless.

Now, you want someone to be able to come on and take these cultural studies and attempt to prove, even if they're easily dismissed, that race has a bearing even though they know it doesn't because, like the scientist just said, it's not a meaningful concept. Why? Why give someone you know is wrong valuable space when you can invite someone who is right. Someone who is not arguing an outdated concept that also just happens to alienate the paying student body. Because the people with the outdated easily dismissed concept feel like they are being oppressed by not being able to advocate for oppression based on ideas that have no merit?

What a waste of time. There's no need for it. That stage can be used for some dude who figured out how nano technology can make butt wiping a thing of the past. Lets hear from that guy instead of some dude who doesn't know how to read a study, understand biology, or how to factor in sociological pressures into standardized tests and measures.

The fact of the matter is I only have so much time here on this earth and I don't feel like wasting it having someone try and convince me despite all other compelling and concrete evidence that the world is flat. Shit is round and I'm better off listening to arguments from people who are with the program.

I'm also pretty sure that some of the issues Jumalariik mentioned are discussed in universities too. Not in the context of "why are different races better?", but in the context of "why do these apparent differences exist?". I know that in undergraduate, I took a philosophy of science course and we learned about the old-timey racism that went into shit like people biasing their measurements of skulls from different races (e.g. they would pack the skulls from white people much tighter than those of black people so they could say how white people have larger cranial capacities and are therefore smarter) or make IQ tests that were racist/culturally biased and so on. Obviously that wasn't all we covered, but it was part of it.

I would be surprised if there aren't social sciences course discussing racial bias in policing or the racial biases in hiring which lead to lower incomes among people of colour, which lead to children growing up with fewer resources which lead to lower IQs (IQ is more strongly correlated with wealth in the USA than anything else and iirc, this is less true in other parts of the world).*

Nobody is asking whether the different races are equal (at least in the sense of individual possibility etc) because there's really no reason they shouldn't be. Even if they were inherently unequal (which would be strange since there's absolutely no genetic or physical reason this should be so), it would be impossible to examine because the world is pretty racist and this affects any measurement one could make.


*And note that I don't think that IQ is actually a very meaningful measurement of the nebulous questionably-defined quality called "intelligence". It's mostly a measure of how well one can take IQ tests, which is why one can study for IQ tests to improve one's score, just like any test.

[Jumalariik]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ ... ted_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
Science does not allow for race perhaps, but studies show differences between races. One could argue (and be wrong) that races have different qualities or something and have data to back it up.

Now see, you're not going to get on a college campus and say this (well, maybe, there are some loose college campuses out there) and you're going to think, "Why, that's censorship! Why are you afraid of my ideas? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE!?"

But none of that is happening. A straight up fucking scientist (seriously, Dakini is a scientist, like Ph.D does science scientist) just told you in no uncertain terms that scientifically speaking race is not a meaningful concept.

Science. They sorted this shit. Peers reviewed it, they looked into it, it's meaningless.

Now, you want someone to be able to come on and take these cultural studies and attempt to prove, even if they're easily dismissed, that race has a bearing even though they know it doesn't because, like the scientist just said, it's not a meaningful concept. Why? Why give someone you know is wrong valuable space when you can invite someone who is right. Someone who is not arguing an outdated concept that also just happens to alienate the paying student body. Because the people with the outdated easily dismissed concept feel like they are being oppressed by not being able to advocate for oppression based on ideas that have no merit?

What a waste of time. There's no need for it. That stage can be used for some dude who figured out how nano technology can make butt wiping a thing of the past. Lets hear from that guy instead of some dude who doesn't know how to read a study, understand biology, or how to factor in sociological pressures into standardized tests and measures.

The fact of the matter is I only have so much time here on this earth and I don't feel like wasting it having someone try and convince me despite all other compelling and concrete evidence that the world is flat. Shit is round and I'm better off listening to arguments from people who are with the program.

Well, to Dakini, I'm sorry I didn't call you Dr.


I should have said, I was not necessarily talking about science. Races are not inherently a scientific issue, and can just relate to certain characteristics. Bottom line is, I gave data that could be used to say "average people with white skin are smarter than average people with black skin and are less criminal." This would be defendable (though not inherently correct)

Now, you are making it seem like science is the only thing to study. I have perfect respect for science, but science does not explain everything. People are trying to remove philosophy as a study from universities. People have already removed religion as a major from public colleges, meaning that if I want to study religion, I need to pay more. I forgot though. The point of college is to take an 18 year old and send them immediately into research. It's not as though personal betterment is a part of university... If somebody is very intelligent but racist, should they not be educated on why races are equal? I college not also about personal growth on a deeper level? If it's not, then you simply want an impoverished life and society. What good is it if we can wipe our asses with a computer if we have no magical spark in our lives driven by the humanities? Why not simply be chimps on a tree?

[Jumalariik]

Now see, you're not going to get on a college campus and say this (well, maybe, there are some loose college campuses out there) and you're going to think, "Why, that's censorship! Why are you afraid of my ideas? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE!?"

But none of that is happening. A straight up fucking scientist (seriously, Dakini is a scientist, like Ph.D does science scientist) just told you in no uncertain terms that scientifically speaking race is not a meaningful concept.

Science. They sorted this shit. Peers reviewed it, they looked into it, it's meaningless.

Now, you want someone to be able to come on and take these cultural studies and attempt to prove, even if they're easily dismissed, that race has a bearing even though they know it doesn't because, like the scientist just said, it's not a meaningful concept. Why? Why give someone you know is wrong valuable space when you can invite someone who is right. Someone who is not arguing an outdated concept that also just happens to alienate the paying student body. Because the people with the outdated easily dismissed concept feel like they are being oppressed by not being able to advocate for oppression based on ideas that have no merit?

What a waste of time. There's no need for it. That stage can be used for some dude who figured out how nano technology can make butt wiping a thing of the past. Lets hear from that guy instead of some dude who doesn't know how to read a study, understand biology, or how to factor in sociological pressures into standardized tests and measures.

The fact of the matter is I only have so much time here on this earth and I don't feel like wasting it having someone try and convince me despite all other compelling and concrete evidence that the world is flat. Shit is round and I'm better off listening to arguments from people who are with the program.

I'm also pretty sure that some of the issues Jumalariik mentioned are discussed in universities too. Not in the context of "why are different races better?", but in the context of "why do these apparent differences exist?". I know that in undergraduate, I took a philosophy of science course and we learned about the old-timey racism that went into shit like people biasing their measurements of skulls from different races (e.g. they would pack the skulls from white people much tighter than those of black people so they could say how white people have larger cranial capacities and are therefore smarter) or make IQ tests that were racist/culturally biased and so on. Obviously that wasn't all we covered, but it was part of it.

I would be surprised if there aren't social sciences course discussing racial bias in policing or the racial biases in hiring which lead to lower incomes among people of colour, which lead to children growing up with fewer resources which lead to lower IQs (IQ is more strongly correlated with wealth in the USA than anything else and iirc, this is less true in other parts of the world).*

Nobody is asking whether the different races are equal (at least in the sense of individual possibility etc) because there's really no reason they shouldn't be. Even if they were inherently unequal (which would be strange since there's absolutely no genetic or physical reason this should be so), it would be impossible to examine because the world is pretty racist and this affects any measurement one could make.


*And note that I don't think that IQ is actually a very meaningful measurement of the nebulous questionably-defined quality called "intelligence". It's mostly a measure of how well one can take IQ tests, which is why one can study for IQ tests to improve one's score, just like any test.

Dr. I respect your opinion. I certainly see what you're saying. (I think that Can't think of Name is supporting a very impoverished view of education) I do think that he wants only STEM to be studied, or he is not expressing his views well.

[Fartsniffage]

I'm also pretty sure that some of the issues Jumalariik mentioned are discussed in universities too. Not in the context of "why are different races better?", but in the context of "why do these apparent differences exist?". I know that in undergraduate, I took a philosophy of science course and we learned about the old-timey racism that went into shit like people biasing their measurements of skulls from different races (e.g. they would pack the skulls from white people much tighter than those of black people so they could say how white people have larger cranial capacities and are therefore smarter) or make IQ tests that were racist/culturally biased and so on. Obviously that wasn't all we covered, but it was part of it.

I would be surprised if there aren't social sciences course discussing racial bias in policing or the racial biases in hiring which lead to lower incomes among people of colour, which lead to children growing up with fewer resources which lead to lower IQs (IQ is more strongly correlated with wealth in the USA than anything else and iirc, this is less true in other parts of the world).*

Nobody is asking whether the different races are equal (at least in the sense of individual possibility etc) because there's really no reason they shouldn't be. Even if they were inherently unequal (which would be strange since there's absolutely no genetic or physical reason this should be so), it would be impossible to examine because the world is pretty racist and this affects any measurement one could make.


*And note that I don't think that IQ is actually a very meaningful measurement of the nebulous questionably-defined quality called "intelligence". It's mostly a measure of how well one can take IQ tests, which is why one can study for IQ tests to improve one's score, just like any test.

Dr. I respect your opinion. I certainly see what you're saying. (I think that Can't think of Name is supporting a very impoverished view of education) I do think that he wants only STEM to be studied, or he is not expressing his views well.

CtoaN the movie maker and musician only wants STEM fields to be studied in higher education? It is to laugh.....

[Jumalariik]

Dr. I respect your opinion. I certainly see what you're saying. (I think that Can't think of Name is supporting a very impoverished view of education) I do think that he wants only STEM to be studied, or he is not expressing his views well.

CtoaN the movie maker and musician only wants STEM fields to be studied in higher education? It is to laugh.....

Well, with due respect, I don't know him, and in our conversation, everything seemed to be "we could be advancing science." I guess I don't know him as well as you do.

[Fartsniffage]

CtoaN the movie maker and musician only wants STEM fields to be studied in higher education? It is to laugh.....

Well, with due respect, I don't know him, and in our conversation, everything seemed to be "we could be advancing science." I guess I don't know him as well as you do.

I think you misunderstood him. I read it as that we shouldn't be wasting time on junk science and concentrating on things that are actually true so far as our current knowledge allows us to say. So bullshit about race can be safely ignored unless one has discovered something groundbreaking.

[Jumalariik]

Well, with due respect, I don't know him, and in our conversation, everything seemed to be "we could be advancing science." I guess I don't know him as well as you do.

I think you misunderstood him. I read it as that we shouldn't be wasting time on junk science and concentrating on things that are actually true so far as our current knowledge allows us to say. So bullshit about race can be safely ignored unless one has discovered something groundbreaking.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying for me.

[Cannot think of a name]

Now see, you're not going to get on a college campus and say this (well, maybe, there are some loose college campuses out there) and you're going to think, "Why, that's censorship! Why are you afraid of my ideas? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE!?"

But none of that is happening. A straight up fucking scientist (seriously, Dakini is a scientist, like Ph.D does science scientist) just told you in no uncertain terms that scientifically speaking race is not a meaningful concept.

Science. They sorted this shit. Peers reviewed it, they looked into it, it's meaningless.

Now, you want someone to be able to come on and take these cultural studies and attempt to prove, even if they're easily dismissed, that race has a bearing even though they know it doesn't because, like the scientist just said, it's not a meaningful concept. Why? Why give someone you know is wrong valuable space when you can invite someone who is right. Someone who is not arguing an outdated concept that also just happens to alienate the paying student body. Because the people with the outdated easily dismissed concept feel like they are being oppressed by not being able to advocate for oppression based on ideas that have no merit?

What a waste of time. There's no need for it. That stage can be used for some dude who figured out how nano technology can make butt wiping a thing of the past. Lets hear from that guy instead of some dude who doesn't know how to read a study, understand biology, or how to factor in sociological pressures into standardized tests and measures.

The fact of the matter is I only have so much time here on this earth and I don't feel like wasting it having someone try and convince me despite all other compelling and concrete evidence that the world is flat. Shit is round and I'm better off listening to arguments from people who are with the program.

Well, to Dakini, I'm sorry I didn't call you Dr.


I should have said, I was not necessarily talking about science. Races are not inherently a scientific issue,

Or at all, as Dakini points out.

and can just relate to certain characteristics.

Are you presenting an academic idea or going to demonstrate the different ways in which black and white people walk?

Bottom line is, I gave data that could be used to say "average people with white skin are smarter than average people with black skin and are less criminal." This would be defendable (though not inherently correct)

Your idea will not be given a stage because it is just reading data. Having a study does not make you lecturer material. You did, like, a third of the job. You're not done yet. This is not censorship or being afraid of ideas, it's telling you to come back when you have actually formed an idea.

Now, you are making it seem like science is the only thing to study.

I'm doing what now?

I have perfect respect for science,

ehhhhhh...

but science does not explain everything.

This is usually a set up to some grade a bullshit. If you were wondering why your ideas never get heard...

People are trying to remove philosophy as a study from universities.

Who?

People have already removed religion as a major from public colleges,

Pretty sure you can still get degrees in religious studies even in public schools. You can't have a seminary where they make you a priest, but that's not the same thing. I mean, I didn't go to college that long ago and I took a few religious studies courses.

meaning that if I want to study religion, I need to pay more.

I think churches that do that are starting to lose their exempt status. And have Tom Cruise as members.

I forgot though. The point of college is to take an 18 year old and send them immediately into research.

What?

It's not as though personal betterment is a part of university... If somebody is very intelligent but racist, should they not be educated on why races are equal?

Sure. Not sure why I have to give them a lecture hall to spout shit we know is wrong to do that, though.

I college not also about personal growth on a deeper level?

Honestly, like most things, it's what you make it. But I'm not sure where we're going with all of this.

If it's not, then you simply want an impoverished life and society.

Oh, I get it now. We're backing away from what we're actually talking about again to make it sound more high minded because when we're specific it sounds as stupid as it is. I get it now. But I kind of feel like we're past this already so...no. Stop it. Transparent. Everyone sees what you're doing.

What good is it if we can wipe our asses with a computer if we have no magical spark in our lives driven by the humanities?

Oh man...

Why not simply be chimps on a tree?

Not gonna lie, except for all the territory loss and poaching and Ronald Reagan movies, that seems like a pretty sweet life.

[Cannot think of a name]

Ha, thread got funnier while I was typing...

[Dakini]

I'm also pretty sure that some of the issues Jumalariik mentioned are discussed in universities too. Not in the context of "why are different races better?", but in the context of "why do these apparent differences exist?". I know that in undergraduate, I took a philosophy of science course and we learned about the old-timey racism that went into shit like people biasing their measurements of skulls from different races (e.g. they would pack the skulls from white people much tighter than those of black people so they could say how white people have larger cranial capacities and are therefore smarter) or make IQ tests that were racist/culturally biased and so on. Obviously that wasn't all we covered, but it was part of it.

I would be surprised if there aren't social sciences course discussing racial bias in policing or the racial biases in hiring which lead to lower incomes among people of colour, which lead to children growing up with fewer resources which lead to lower IQs (IQ is more strongly correlated with wealth in the USA than anything else and iirc, this is less true in other parts of the world).*

Nobody is asking whether the different races are equal (at least in the sense of individual possibility etc) because there's really no reason they shouldn't be. Even if they were inherently unequal (which would be strange since there's absolutely no genetic or physical reason this should be so), it would be impossible to examine because the world is pretty racist and this affects any measurement one could make.


*And note that I don't think that IQ is actually a very meaningful measurement of the nebulous questionably-defined quality called "intelligence". It's mostly a measure of how well one can take IQ tests, which is why one can study for IQ tests to improve one's score, just like any test.

Dr. I respect your opinion. I certainly see what you're saying. (I think that Can't think of Name is supporting a very impoverished view of education) I do think that he wants only STEM to be studied, or he is not expressing his views well.

Uh, he's expressing his views just fine and that's definitely not what he said.

He was pointing out how, in response to me telling you that race isn't scientifically meaningful, you decided you had to trot out the argument that black people are inferior.

[The Lone Alliance]

The problem is that pretending to muffle those 'stupid arguments' does absolutely nothing to stop those arguments.

This entire election season proves it.

Has any stupid arguments been muffled this election season? My perception is that the stupid arguments have been amplified, not muffled (and hardly even questioned).

The entire election has been the system of muffling getting ruined.

[Jumalariik]

Well, to Dakini, I'm sorry I didn't call you Dr.


I should have said, I was not necessarily talking about science. Races are not inherently a scientific issue,

Or at all, as Dakini points out.

and can just relate to certain characteristics.

Are you presenting an academic idea or going to demonstrate the different ways in which black and white people walk?

Bottom line is, I gave data that could be used to say "average people with white skin are smarter than average people with black skin and are less criminal." This would be defendable (though not inherently correct)

Your idea will not be given a stage because it is just reading data. Having a study does not make you lecturer material. You did, like, a third of the job. You're not done yet. This is not censorship or being afraid of ideas, it's telling you to come back when you have actually formed an idea.

Now, you are making it seem like science is the only thing to study.

I'm doing what now?

I have perfect respect for science,

ehhhhhh...

but science does not explain everything.

This is usually a set up to some grade a bullshit. If you were wondering why your ideas never get heard...

People are trying to remove philosophy as a study from universities.

Who?

People have already removed religion as a major from public colleges,

Pretty sure you can still get degrees in religious studies even in public schools. You can't have a seminary where they make you a priest, but that's not the same thing. I mean, I didn't go to college that long ago and I took a few religious studies courses.

meaning that if I want to study religion, I need to pay more.

I think churches that do that are starting to lose their exempt status. And have Tom Cruise as members.

I forgot though. The point of college is to take an 18 year old and send them immediately into research.

What?

It's not as though personal betterment is a part of university... If somebody is very intelligent but racist, should they not be educated on why races are equal?

Sure. Not sure why I have to give them a lecture hall to spout shit we know is wrong to do that, though.

I college not also about personal growth on a deeper level?

Honestly, like most things, it's what you make it. But I'm not sure where we're going with all of this.

If it's not, then you simply want an impoverished life and society.

Oh, I get it now. We're backing away from what we're actually talking about again to make it sound more high minded because when we're specific it sounds as stupid as it is. I get it now. But I kind of feel like we're past this already so...no. Stop it. Transparent. Everyone sees what you're doing.

What good is it if we can wipe our asses with a computer if we have no magical spark in our lives driven by the humanities?

Oh man...

Why not simply be chimps on a tree?

Not gonna lie, except for all the territory loss and poaching and Ronald Reagan movies, that seems like a pretty sweet life.

Look, we're getting into specifics for no reason. I'm simply saying that if you are a student at a college, you should be able to express any opinion at the appropriate time so long as it is presented in a relatively diplomatic tone. You got us bogged down in details, let's just go to that. If somebody's in a school, they are there to learn and to have dialogue. If somebody says something bigoted, so long as he can defend the idea, he has the right to say it. Of course, if the discussion moves away from a topic and one derails, that's a different story. Something like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu1_ujUrfSg is not ok. Milo was simply stating opinions and those yelling at him were taking his freedom of speech. He wasn't calling anybody a "nigger" or anything. (keep in mind I dislike Milo, he's showy, arrogant, degenerate)
In a university setting, it's not appropriate to try to silence opinions unless the prevent others from having them.

[Jumalariik]

Dr. I respect your opinion. I certainly see what you're saying. (I think that Can't think of Name is supporting a very impoverished view of education) I do think that he wants only STEM to be studied, or he is not expressing his views well.

Uh, he's expressing his views just fine and that's definitely not what he said.

He was pointing out how, in response to me telling you that race isn't scientifically meaningful, you decided you had to trot out the argument that black people are inferior.

Actually he brought up the black inferiority thing. He was using it as an example of things people should not say in a university setting. With due respect Doctor, (Can't think of a name said you have a PhD so I will call you doctor unless this is not the case) I was not arguing that blacks are inferior, but instead saying that as an opinion, it is arguable to some degree that it should not be censored if said diplomatically. Perhaps my communication skill is bad as I took 2 exams and did a paper today, but that is what I was trying to say.

[Cannot think of a name]

Or at all, as Dakini points out.

Are you presenting an academic idea or going to demonstrate the different ways in which black and white people walk?

Your idea will not be given a stage because it is just reading data. Having a study does not make you lecturer material. You did, like, a third of the job. You're not done yet. This is not censorship or being afraid of ideas, it's telling you to come back when you have actually formed an idea.

I'm doing what now?

ehhhhhh...

This is usually a set up to some grade a bullshit. If you were wondering why your ideas never get heard...

Who?

Pretty sure you can still get degrees in religious studies even in public schools. You can't have a seminary where they make you a priest, but that's not the same thing. I mean, I didn't go to college that long ago and I took a few religious studies courses.

I think churches that do that are starting to lose their exempt status. And have Tom Cruise as members.

What?

Sure. Not sure why I have to give them a lecture hall to spout shit we know is wrong to do that, though.

Honestly, like most things, it's what you make it. But I'm not sure where we're going with all of this.

Oh, I get it now. We're backing away from what we're actually talking about again to make it sound more high minded because when we're specific it sounds as stupid as it is. I get it now. But I kind of feel like we're past this already so...no. Stop it. Transparent. Everyone sees what you're doing.

Oh man...

Not gonna lie, except for all the territory loss and poaching and Ronald Reagan movies, that seems like a pretty sweet life.

Look, we're getting into specifics for no reason.

Sure there's a reason. Because once you're clear what we're actually talking about the whole tone changes. And you know that. That's why we keep stepping back.

I'm simply saying that if you are a student at a college, you should be able to express any opinion at the appropriate time so long as it is presented in a relatively diplomatic tone.

What, by prefacing something racist by saying "I'm not a racist, but..."?

You got us bogged down in details,

Well, look, you can't tell the difference between hyperbole and an example so I'll say, my bad. I was using more tools in the drawer than we were all familiar with.

let's just go to that. If somebody's in a school, they are there to learn and to have dialogue.

Let's be clear, though, there is a definite pecking order in those two concepts. I live downtown, if I just want to hear two idiots spout meaningless shit to each other I can do that shit for free. If I'm lucky, one of them will be dressed like a robot. If I'm at a college, I demand more of my discourse.

If somebody says something bigoted, so long as he can defend the idea, he has the right to say it.

This is where you keep getting weird..."so long as he can defend the idea"...Look, given half a mocha and a bowl of weed I can defend the idea that unicorns are dicks or that Skeletor is the true hero of the Masters of the Universe. I rode a bus with a lady who 'defended' the idea that there were alligators in the San Francisco Bay. Now, I'm totally right-unicorns would be dicks and Skeletor is the true hero of The Masters of the Universe, but alligator lady was wrong. She had an opinion, her opinion was wrong on so, so many levels. But she defended it vigorously. On a crowded bus, this was hilarious. I got my $1.50 worth. In an academic setting, that shit would have pissed me the fuck off, because now she's wasting my time because she...honestly, the amount of things she has to get wrong before she lands on 'alligators in the San Francisco Bay' is fucking staggering. If I'm in a zoology class (lets give crazy bus lady a chance to at least have her rant be relevant) I'm going to be pissed that this college level course is being held up by someone who needs to have known some of this shit before the first day of class.

And that's just someone being dumb, she's not belittling the alligator americans who are there in that class to learn and who have fought as hard or harder to earn that seat in that class. She's not creating an environment where those alligator americans have to worry that something might happen to them, or that the institution they fought to attend will regard them as second rate because Alligators in the San Francisco Bay Lady could come up with three shitty, stupid reasons that she thought there were alligators in the San Francisco Bay. She's just being wrong. And wasting my time, the professors time, the whole classes time. There's no need for it. You have the goddamn internet, there's some shit you can look up before you get there. And if you really, really feel the need to be heard you can start an account on some half assed nation building site.

Of course, if the discussion moves away from a topic and one derails, that's a different story. Something like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu1_ujUrfSg is not ok.

I don't know who this is, what this is about, or what's going on.

Milo was simply stating opinions

Yeah...that's not a thing. No one who is 'simply stating opinions' ever actually has to go, "I was simply stating opinions."

and those yelling at him were taking his freedom of speech.

Looks like they were using theirs louder.

He wasn't calling anybody a "nigger" or anything. (keep in mind I dislike Milo, he's showy, arrogant, degenerate)

Again, I don't know who that is. But if your best defense is "I didn't call them a nigger...", well...

In a university setting, it's not appropriate to try to silence opinions unless the prevent others from having them.

This sentence hurts my brain. Disagreeing is not silencing an opinion, it's saying your opinion is stupid and you should reconsider. If you cannot handle your shit being challenged you are not ready for higher education.