Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Okay guys I get it I should have added /s
Hey love is colourblind and I love my brown sauce on my breakfast.
I think it's also silly that there's a news story about one person getting annoyed over it but people seem to lap this shit up.
Pretty disgusting to be fair. And for breakfast?!
I used to have a cooked breakfast at 9.00am on one shift. That was starting at 4.30, so I ready for it. Should be brown sauce though.
See someone else who knows there breakfast.
This threads on 99 pages. The Neogaf thread is basically a version of the RAWK thread where posts of people being offended are quoted. It is what it is...
People like to talk about (and sometimes be offended by ironically) people being offended. I don't get it either tbh...
Here's an example from you a few days ago : I'm fine with PC. The fringe on either side of the debate can stfu tho.
What you're effectively saying there is I'm OK with PC, but I don't want to hear alternative views. Which kinda backs up my point.
Go to the Man Utd Forum on this site. You have people being offended by someone else's opinion. Then other people being offended by the people being offended by someone else's opinion. Then people being offended by people being offended by someone else's opinion. That's what this whole site seems to be about these days.
In truth I think that that is the internet these days.
It's also why the rabidly anti-PC people make me laugh as they clearly like complaining and feeling marginalised just as much as the (often hypothetical) people they complain about.
It might be simplistic but it's all I've got time for I'm afraid. I could spend 24/7 on this thread & still not have enough time to say all I want to say.
& non-platforming might be a small issue, but it gives an insight into the minds of people who's ideology of debate means not listening to what other people have to say. That would suggests that they are strong on opinion, but lack the strength to back it up. & if you disagree with the likes of Milo & Shapiro then surely giving them a platform to speak gives you the ideal platform to counter their claims & opinions.
A lot of political correctness is just treating people with respect.
Well before you disappear you could try and come up with a better example to flesh out your post to me.
It gets a bit tiring to keep offering the platform to people that you know are wrong. Should universities have to offer platforms to creationists? I mean if you have enough conviction in evolution then you should give opposing views a platform to speak right? Except they're full of shit, debate in highly disingenuous or even dishonest ways and all in all it's a waste of time - universities should have the right to make that call.
No it's pretty clear to me. There's certain people you don't want to listen to.
Well feck me if that isn't the worst crime in the world.
Yes fringe people with fringe opinions, is that even controversial? Why should I entertain them? Do you?
How do you know they're wrong ? Is it fact, or just your opinion ?
Yes fringe people with fringe opinions, is that even controversial? Why should I entertain them? Do you?
Would you class me as having a fringe opinion ? & if so, why ?
When someone just lies, invents positions to argue against, and just discounts factual arguments they disagree with. You have to wonder whats the point in giving them a platform? It's tricky and I'm not sure where I stand on it as a whole. It's more case by case for me, unless they are inciting violence and hate.
Opinion on what? I don't know you and haven't been following your posts. Tbf you yourself should know if you have a fringe opinion (if you know what the word means) you don't need me to tell you. But sure, give an example...
Whats the concise version of what you are trying to say?
As for the noplatform debate. These places/people/services/etc have a right to choose who they give a platform to right?
Last edited:
You could use the example I gave you..?
Unfortunately the social sciences are not as verifiable as the actual sciences. There's little that could be at the same level of discredit as creationism (as much as I might wish new keynesianism economics were).
The issue isn't that a clown like Milo doesn't get to his 1000th debate, more that a real academic with actual work that might not be pleasing gets "no-platformed".
Regarding non platforming it's not a huge issue, but imo it's still not the right way to handle things, especially not at a university.
Instead of ignoring twats like Milo, Steven Crowder etc they should just invite them and meet them in open debate. Not accepting them to speak or just shout at them if they do does ore harm than good
Instead of ignoring twats like Milo, Steven Crowder etc they should just invite them and meet them in open debate. Not accepting them to speak or just shout at them if they do does ore harm than good
Just think. how would I feel if that was me/mine.
Empathy? Nah don't be a **** bro.
Aren't the two the same?
While I don't follow any religion religiously that was one of the things I took from JC, 'do on to others as you would have them do unto you.' Just think for a second before you open your mouth.
Is this happening? I haven't seen examples with real academics with actual work getting no-platformed in any sort of meaningful debate.
Creationism is an extreme example but when it's anything where it's people who are bringing nothing new to the table but just want a new audience to spew their tired old opinions that have been debated over and over again already then I still think it's important that universities have the right to no platform them for sure. And I trust universities to make the right decision in the vast majority of cases.
I've been planning a *long* post on this*, but this is one of the subtle issues when it comes to these campus free-speech debates. Milo-types are funded from outside (other than security which the univ is legally obligated to pay) to speak on stuff about which they have zero academic expertise. This is not a threat to academic discourse, because the rallies where he is carried on a throne by a chanting throng aren't academic discussions.
*Screenshot of about a quarter of the links so far
There was the Charles Murray incident at Middlebury, and I'm not in university myself but have a few people on the academic track on FB. On a few occasions I've seen them circulate petitions to no-platform people that were going to attend their universities. I didn't follow if they succeeded or not, but it is to me a questionable attitude for someone who calls themselves an academic.
Of course in the world people will hold minority opinions of all kinds and we have better uses of our time than fretting over those, or exaggerating their relevance. But this wasn't so much a part of university culture just a decade ago when I was there.
And one issue is that this isn't usually the university department putting on a conference and coming to the conclusion that Milo would be a worthy speaker. More a student body (usually conservative) that chooses to invite someone. Its also not fair to allow a student body to exist, and then start vetoing their guest speakers. The most adequate response in my opinion is to just to ignore the whole thing, like I did when new keynesian economists were speaking
(I know, I'm repetitive... and I'm suggesting what most students already do).They can do what they like it's their prerogative. Where do you personally draw the line then if anywhere? Somebody preaching hate? Inciting violence?
I'm gonna report Eton for not letting me preaching my anti-aristocratic agenda at their assemblies.
There was the Charles Murray incident at Middlebury, and I'm not in university myself but have a few people on the academic track on FB. On a few occasions I've seen them circulate petitions to no-platform people that were going to attend their universities. I didn't follow if they succeeded or not, but it is to me a questionable attitude for someone who calls themselves an academic.
Of course in the world people will hold minority opinions of all kinds and we have better uses of our time than fretting over those, or exaggerating their relevance. But this wasn't so much a part of university culture just a decade ago when I was there.
And one issue is that this isn't usually the university department putting on a conference and coming to the conclusion that Milo would be a worthy speaker. More a student body (usually conservative) that chooses to invite someone. Its also not fair to allow a student body to exist, and then start vetoing their guest speakers. The most adequate response in my opinion is to just to ignore the whole thing, like I did when new keynesian economists were speaking
What does that mean?
Speaking as an academic (of sorts - not a lecturer) - nothing infuriates people in that area more than arseholes who pretend to be experts in fields they have no qualifications for.
EDIT: Wait a minute - did you mean Charles Murray or Douglas Murray (I assumed the latter)
Probably only if there guest is known to incite violence at other speaking occasion, if it were up to me.
Well, the cases I've seen were politically motivated, not a matter of qualification. For example someone who was anti-immigration for an immigration debate. My point is that an academic shouldn't be an activist, and while that doesn't include listening/reading any fool who has anything to say about your subject matter, it probably should include reading/debating other academics that disagree with you (and don't think I'm unrealistic about the frequency of this, I know research and teaching take up most available time).
Explain...
Noam Chomsky would like a word.
You need to study an issue without knowing which answer you want when you begin.
He's an activist on subjects that he's not an academic in... it don't know if that makes him innocent or more guilty
.(He's actually innocent, by my standard)
Still don't follow... You seem to be talking in absolutes when things are more nuanced than that.