Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlySports
it's kind of sad. the university should invite everyone and the students learn about all views good and bad
|
Quoted for the profound simplicity.
In court on occasion it is extremely difficult to sit and listen to one of my opponents speaking at length about something while misrepresenting the law or the facts of the case. Or sometimes they are not doing either of those things but just urging an outcome I seriously disagree with.
But I don't get to yell loud and stop them from speaking.
Poor advocates interrupt to complain to the judge or make faces or sigh out loud during the submissions.
The best advocates sit quietly and
listen intently. You try to both limit your outward showing of emotion and control and channel your visceral responses into an objective and fact based devastating reply. The shorter and more pointed the better.
People can be made to change their minds in this format. Watching an ideology or an argument fail to withstand scrutiny in a fair war of words makes it harder to believe in.
Making your opponents go home after having shouted them down fighting like the world would end if their words were spoken out loud only serves to cement in their minds how correct they already knew they were. Oh, and you martyr them in the process.
The 'liberal' schools and their students should be actively seeking conservative far-right-speakers to come to engage in debate. If their views are so wrong then it really ought to be easy to demonstrate.
If hateful and bigoted internet views are too prevalent in today's society I suggest we need more open debates against them at universities and any other 'legitimate' stage (isn't the legitimacy of the stage dependent on it being one of free exchange and debate of ideas not one censored by the current majority world view?).
Less public debate means the hate-filled bigots will stay in their bubble and develop more extreme views. They will not go home and talk themselves out of their internet-fueled ideologies. If you publicly debate them you at least have a chance to make that happen.
And as an aside, I find it pretty odd that university professors would complain about being on the front-lines of fact-checking and dispelling objectively wrong theories to help shape minds through responsible discourse. What did they hope to be able to do when they became professors? It is sort of like a NHLer complaining about being in the Stanley Cup Final because of how annoying it is that the other team tries to score on like EVERY shift. Do you have a more important job to do in your chosen profession?