|>>|| No. 413366
>Whether that is because you fail to grasp how to string together a coherent argument or because your position is simply illogical is anyone's guess.
It's because I enjoy arguing in bad faith and almost never change my positions (in the short term) on the basis of argument beyond a small amendment to the position held before. I do however lie about reality to make my positions appear stronger than they might otherwise look, if I think I can get away with it. especially on the internet. (either outright, huge lies about documented historical events not happening*, or smaller disingenuous moves like using data from foreign countries and handwaving why we can assume the UK is the same - while knowing it isn't.)
If I can do it, anyone else can do it. Certainly, those in power do it. All political parties do it. Hell, I'd assume it's almost a natural part of our worldview.
>Anyway you seem to have missed the otherlads argument that restricting debates to what authority considers legitimate stifles society
A pretty irrelevant point to universities. Angry students aren't the overriding authority in society.
>and is not something you would be cheering if the shoe were on the other foot
I probably wouldn't care. "Ah, we'll allow you to talk but not take you seriously" is a strategy that works perfectly fine against moderate and sensible ideas. It's only when you have bastards that appeal to people's stupidity, or risk offending someone, that there's any reason to question using the strategy. There's no need to censor the powerless. Would public discourse in the UK be significantly different if Paul Krugman saying "austerity is bad" was censored rather than just blithely ignored or shuffled to the back of a Guardian column to die? How many people know or care to begin with?
>Furthermore simply pushing things out of view is not going to address the pressures themselves and even emboldens them as every idiot with a whistle seems to have done with Yiannopoulos.
He just seems like an irrelevant twat tbh, even within the context of Trump's rise to power. All the "dangerous" ideas UK-side (i.e. aligning with Brexit/Drunken Racists) were in plain sight and in the broadly tolerated mainstream of discourse (even in the US, Trump basically said what was previously dogwhistled). They were looked down on as rot, but they were present. The reason people didn't think we'd vote leave wasn't because Tories were being no-platformed at universities, nor the refusal to have an honest debate on the merits of the EU (on the contrary, we had the "Let's get a token Drunken Racistsper onto Question Time to poke people" approach), so much as it was down to a general technocratic approach to politics. (i.e. "the polls say we'll win and they were 'right' in Scotland") Similar story with Hilary. What would more debate have done? Perhaps increased the number of people voting for Trump/Brexit until it was a large enough (likely) majority for opinion polls to pick up?
Something about the Scottish Independence referendum run-up being a genuine national debate and not really doing very much goes here. I'm not sure whether to defend it as "how a debate should be done" or note that it's the one example of such a recent debate where the "anti-status-quo" side played somewhat nice [i.e. not racist, publishing a big book to set out their vision - if short on detail of how to achieve it**.] and their reward was falling short of victory, while the pro-status-quo side was rewarded with a new status quo where all Scotland can do is talk about their constitutional position.
Going to tie this up by being purposefully incendiary and say: In conclusion what we really ought to do is make newspapers publish corrections in the same size and prominence as their original lies. Frontpage headline bullshit? Enjoy your frontpage headline "sorry, that thing about Bananas was bullshit."
*not the holocaust nor anything of that magnitude, for reference.
**in contrast to say, leaving the EU which could be anything you wanted it to be. From free trade to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 to a new social democratic consensus, someone would argue for it. (Many of them to whom I'm sympathetic, lest my overall approach read as being arrogantly pro-EU.)
can you tell i'm procrastinating doing actual work?
what you mean is that i'm right and you're just afraid to engage in an open and honest debate, guardian reading plastic coffee cup thingy holding macbook owning kent labour students attending "is there a discount" asking studentlad.