"The problem is you run the risk of censoring viewpoints simply because you don't agree with them, and then hiding it under the guise of "well we think it's too controversial and it makes others afraid." "
The issue is not about whether its too controversial rather:
>Is it completely unfounded and aimed at dehumanising one's identity?
For example, my position is that: it is fine for experts to discuss where being gay is a product of nature or nurture. However, it is not fine for an anti gay activist to come on stage to talk about why we need to get rid of gay people.
So it is the same subject with the same degree of controversy. However, one is conducted within a proper academic framework. The other is just nonsense propaganda.
It's not about whether it makes others afraid. Rather if you are just challenging their identity as an individual, this will make certain groups of students feel uncomfortable and make them feel unsafe on campus.
A university known to platform racist/homophobes/etc is probably not going to receive many people of color, lgbt students applying to study there. Therefore, not only is the university platforming propagandists, they are also discouraging potential students and thus they stand to lose a quite substantial revenue.
"Just because I say "same-sex attraction" is not right, that does not make it "hate speech". It's a differing viewpoint. No more than me saying "People should not run red lights" is not hate speech against people who do run red lights."
You can believe same-sex attraction is not right but you should not be allowed to deliver a speech on a university campus to deliver that message. Firstly, you probably don't have the expertise to say that and secondly, there is nothing academically interesting to discuss there. You are only pushing a harmful narrative towards a minority group.
You are free to have the opinion no matter how wrong it is, you are free to say it in a public space but a university should not have to platform you for you to say it to an audience of students.
"So often speech is labeled as too harmful and hateful, when in actuality it's just a viewpoint that people don't like. And all too often university heads are t"
Telling gay people they are sinners/wrong/disgusting/etc... is harmful and hateful
>Harmful because it induces fear in them and encourages homophobes to bully and harrass them
>Hateful because that speech literally dehumanises them.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit debate. Per the site's voting policy, full-forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the forfeiting side.
************************************************************************
No worries. I was confused cause I agree with what you were saying but I thought you were trying to refute me
Sorry. I didn't mean to tag you. Refusing to platform a view like Milo's is a conscientious thing to do.
I was trying to just throw that information out there for the benefit of humanity.
There is a huge difference between Galileo saying the Sun is at the center of our galaxy and Milo Yiannopoulos doxxing a transgender student because Milo did not like what the latter had to say
If you read what I have said on this subject so far you will notice one thing: I never said we should censor unpopular or controversial opinion at all. So you are preaching to the choir here
Censoring unpopular or controversial topics is one of the reasons the Dark Ages lasted so long.
It depends on the context of why you are saying it. If you are making a sociological study, then sure. The same way it's also okay for someone to say, white males have had historically held a position of privilege that they benefit of to this day. Assuming both are factually correct, those are just facts. But if you are saying this with the intention of making prescriptive statements(Therefore we should kick black people out, White people should not be allowed on campus), then I disagree.
People still do say these things: If you look into the Evergreen scandal where Bret Weinstein stood up against the fact that white people were told to stay home and not come to campus, I oppose these students who said that. I side with Bret on this. These students should not have been given a platform and they should have been arrested for what they did later.
However, if instead these students said they wanted to make a socioogical discussion on white privilege and oppression of black people, I would support that.
People like Richard Spencer may not directly say they want black people kicked out, they are indeed obtuse with their language. But by looking at the bigger picture of all that they said, it is easy to see what their intentions are.
I don't think anyone prominent is saying all Muslims are terrorists etc. If I wanted to say Blacks were more likely to commit crime, would that be OK to say?
I am fine with ideologies/political views being discussed among actual experts, I just am not fine with someone being given a platform just to dehumanize people. If Richard Dawkins were to come to my university to dehumanise all religious people("all Muslims are terrorists", "All Catholics are pedophiles", "Jews are taking over the World",etc...) ,I would oppose him being given a platform. If he were to come just to discuss why he hates religions(Islam/ Judaism/ Christianity/etc... is dumb/violent/retarded/etc...), then I would support that. As I said, I am even fine with people being given a platform to criticise atheism.
If someone wanted to make a speech saying that being straight was the only real sexuality, he has the right to say this. If I were a priest, would I have sense in censoring Richard Dawkins from making a speech at a college campus? Historically, the right used your logic to censor people. Now it's the left that does it.
You may be unconformable with black panther calling for the enslavement of white people. If you are, then you can debate with them about their idea or you can simply leave the room. Censoring them undermines free speech.
I am referring to refusing people like Milo Yiannopoulos for eg, a stage to deliver a speech on university grounds
Technically, refusing to publish or allow certain views to be spoken or written on a college campus isn't a violation of free speech. It's like saying, "you can say what you want, but you can't do it here."
Another example is removing a person from the room for interrupting court proceedings.
Guess allowing their voices to be heard on campus.
What do you mean by platform?