Sorry for the late reply.
The ones swayed by argument or debate are not the sycophants. You have to get to them before they become sycophants, which can be done by (as I previously explained) not no-platforming everyone and everything that disagrees with you.
1. University administrators are not fair? But student activists are? What? Seriously, what? University administrators are accountable, activists are not. This is a ridiculous argument.
2. University and staff are notorious for their political agendas? Unlike student activists? What?
I would also like to get a source on this "notoriety" for pushing political agendas and abuse as I have never ever ever ever seen that, and I work at a university. I have never heard of it, from either student or faculty sources, and I have never seen it. For notoriety, it's very quiet.
Diverse? What in the what? Do you have any idea what a university employee composition looks like? It's the most international and diverse group in the world (excluding perhaps the UN)! Not only are these people actually diverse (from many different cultures and backgrounds) instead of that idiotic "diverse means non-white cis-male", but they are also highly competent in their fields. Hell, I just returned from the seminar of an invited speaker (selected by the university staff from the same field), and with 40 attendants we had representatives of around 20 countries, with differing ideologies and political views while the student activists spit and cry on anyone that has a different ideological or political stance. Which group is diverse again?
Second, there is no "large and diverse" group from the student side. There is a small and vocal group of mentally fragile activists that make a lot of noise. Furthermore, since they are all of the same ideological and political view, it seems that they aren't all that "diverse".
Third, ofcourse the power should be consolidated in the university staff. Students are young and incompetent, so why would you give them power? Should the babies in daycare steer the organisation? Should the prisoners determine the rules of the prison? There's a reason the university staff run the university and get paid for doing so.
The university staff are never without oversight from their colleagues. Why should the students provide this oversight? They have not the competence nor the insight nor the presence to do so, while the university staff does.
Also, why would you think that the university staff all have the same opinion? Unlike the no-platformers, university staff tolerate differing views (in most cases) as it's something required to create a solid education and a good university.
Hell, it could even be resolved by doing it the other way around (with someone like Julie as the punching bag) as it would show just how different the argument goes when the speaking skills weigh in the opposite direction.
You are trying to ban the other side of the argument with no-platforming, leading to the exact same situation (though you won't care since it's your view that will be the only one allowed expression). Also, there really is no need for the hyperbole unless you also post your Patreon account.ThatOtherGirl said:Ok, and what "badstuff" would that be? Please, tell me what I am attempting to institutionalize. That trans people are human?
I really don't know how to interpret 'literally impossible'. Is it different from just 'impossible'? It suggests that 'impossible' is in fact not 'impossible', which would make it contradictory.It is literally impossible. She does not provide arguments, she provides attractive lies.
The people that just want lies because they agree with their opinion already are lost from the very beginning, there was never any debate or argument or fact that could convince them. Only time and the resulting maturity will do that (hopefully).You can be right all you want against her, but a lot of people are going to buy into her attractive lies no matter how irrational. You can point out the inconsistencies in her positions, and people will still listen to her. You can provide iron clad evidence to the contrary and these people will still insist that her position is correct.
The ones swayed by argument or debate are not the sycophants. You have to get to them before they become sycophants, which can be done by (as I previously explained) not no-platforming everyone and everything that disagrees with you.
You mean, almost like his followers are sycophants after being told they're shit and do not deserve to have their grievances aired? Gee, that sounds familiar by now. Donald Trump is the result of telling a lot of americans that their concerns are irrelevant and should be no-platformed (not the university kind ofcourse, more metaphorical here). If there wasn't so much polarisation then Trump would never have become so popular.Donald Trump is doing so well because he is by far the most effective orator of the republican party, probably of all the candidates. Donald Trump has been attacked and countered at every possible turn and he comes out on top every time because to a not insignificant amount of people reason matters less than charisma and the tone in which he speaks matters more to than what he says.
I'll just refer to previous arguments (both the 'some are sycophants' and 'don't tell them their concerns are shit and not worth explaining').The same is true of Julie Bindel. She has managed to hold onto and even develop political power over years and years of people countering her lies with reason at every turn because her supporters don't care. It is only recently in the last few years that people have finally managed to start making headway against people like her.
Two things.Ok, here is the fundamental problem with what you purpose. University administrators are not going to provide you with a fair and balanced schedule. University officials and staff are notorious for abusing their positions to push their political agendas on the student body.
1. University administrators are not fair? But student activists are? What? Seriously, what? University administrators are accountable, activists are not. This is a ridiculous argument.
2. University and staff are notorious for their political agendas? Unlike student activists? What?
I would also like to get a source on this "notoriety" for pushing political agendas and abuse as I have never ever ever ever seen that, and I work at a university. I have never heard of it, from either student or faculty sources, and I have never seen it. For notoriety, it's very quiet.
That is correct, I'm only ensuring that there is discourse.If you take away no platforming you are not ensuring fair discourse.
There are so many things wrong here.You are simply consolidating political power from the large and diverse group to the small and like minded group.
Diverse? What in the what? Do you have any idea what a university employee composition looks like? It's the most international and diverse group in the world (excluding perhaps the UN)! Not only are these people actually diverse (from many different cultures and backgrounds) instead of that idiotic "diverse means non-white cis-male", but they are also highly competent in their fields. Hell, I just returned from the seminar of an invited speaker (selected by the university staff from the same field), and with 40 attendants we had representatives of around 20 countries, with differing ideologies and political views while the student activists spit and cry on anyone that has a different ideological or political stance. Which group is diverse again?
Second, there is no "large and diverse" group from the student side. There is a small and vocal group of mentally fragile activists that make a lot of noise. Furthermore, since they are all of the same ideological and political view, it seems that they aren't all that "diverse".
Third, ofcourse the power should be consolidated in the university staff. Students are young and incompetent, so why would you give them power? Should the babies in daycare steer the organisation? Should the prisoners determine the rules of the prison? There's a reason the university staff run the university and get paid for doing so.
The students shouldn't be influencing the selection of speaking candidates, since they aren't competent enough to make such decisions over the expertise of the staff.You eliminate one of the major ways students can influence the selection of speaking candidates. When the university authorities are without oversight who do you think gets deemed "important enough" to speak on political topics? The speakers that agree with them.
The university staff are never without oversight from their colleagues. Why should the students provide this oversight? They have not the competence nor the insight nor the presence to do so, while the university staff does.
Also, why would you think that the university staff all have the same opinion? Unlike the no-platformers, university staff tolerate differing views (in most cases) as it's something required to create a solid education and a good university.
And despite how that sucks for Milo (and for those that like him), it's his fight to lose. If the attendants are smart enough they will see that this was a setup from the beginning. There is no "always the perfect way" here, but allowing everyone is much better than allowing the pre-approved opinion only. What if Julie Bindel had been the punching bag and your alltime fav speaker was the ringer? Would it be an OK debate then?And they could even pretend to be creating a fair minded speaking schedule. Julie Bindel vs Milo Yiannopoulos was never meant to be a fair and rational debate. They were pairing off a woman who has dedicated her life to developing skills as an orator, who has managed to build world wide political influence purely on the back of her ability to deliver convincing rhetoric in the face of constant opposition, against a man that barely managed to save face in an internet slap fight. They were never interested in a rational debate on censorship as it pertains to feminism. Despite my previous comments about university authorities being dumb asses, they are actually pretty smart. They know what they are doing. They know that if you want a rational debate you don't bring Julie Bindel into the room.
No, and that could be combatted with a new debate with fair participants that could both represent mainstream views and discuss moderate ideas. That way students would have learned of Julie Bindel's lies, her demagogue talents, how easy it is to get caught up in attractive lies, the real issues as described by moderates, and how to perhaps diffuse/assuage them (and also something about how glorious Milo's hair looks). Now students have only learned that if you scream long enough you get what you want without thinking.Their goal was to have Milo be a political punching bag for one of the most successful orators in the world. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book, find someone you think is incompetent willing to argue a point you don't like and bring in a heavy hitter to destroy them, reason and logic be damned. That is not my idea of arranging fair political discourse.
Hell, it could even be resolved by doing it the other way around (with someone like Julie as the punching bag) as it would show just how different the argument goes when the speaking skills weigh in the opposite direction.
Not at all, you need only trust that over time it will even out and the attendants will be better people because they get to experience the whole spectrum of ideas and form their own, rigorously ironed, opinions in the end.If university authorities could be trusted to create a fair schedule full of rational and reasonable speakers then your idea would have merit. I do not believe for a single second that this is the case.