I basically agree with you about Students Union censorship being a contradiction in terms. But I'm curious...
What do you think about so-called "library censorship", such as we always hear about when Right To Read Week rolls around, and we are asked to be outraged about the list of books that have been banned or challenged at public libraries?
Do you think the library has the same right as a Students Union to decide it doesn't want to promote certain ideas, IOW saying "Nah, we don't wanna keep this book on our shelves, and if you absolutely have to read it, you can go to Amazon"?
I know there is the argument that libraries have a duty to offer as wide a variety of opinions and viewpoints as possible, though I think most people who pay lip service to that idea would still draw the line somewhere.
Viable in terms of healthy for the country as a whole. If personal gain over the general gain is considered OK, then I suppose viable arguments can be made.
See, this is what I was talking about earlier on this thread. People go on about how there's no rational or viable or whatever argument to support Trump/Tories/Brexit/etc, but it turns out that's that's because they've already decided that any argument that supports those things is not rational or viable.
To put it another way, you're defining an argument's viability or rationality not by its own merits or even by the exercise of logic, but by whether it results in an answer you like or not. And because a lot of people here agree with you you get to pretend that that's a fair approach to debate.
It's the very definition of an echo chamber.
The arguments typically made pretend they are good for the group as a whole. So, I suppose if you include the proud racists, xenophobes and uber-capitalists, you could get a viable argument.
I'm broadly in agreement with the comments made on this thread by Baptist Trainfan, Barnabas62 and Eutychus.
I do think we have lost some of the breadth and depth that there used to be aboard Ship, but at the same time I don't recognise all the accusations I hear - from former Shipmates and Lurkers - that it has become a completely monochrome echo chamber. I think it has lost some of its spring and summer foliage or, if it was a bird, it's shed some of the brighter feathers it wore during the mating season.
I admire the resilience and thick-skinned nature of some of the more conservative posters, even if I don't share their politics or theology.
I have challenged what I've taken to be somewhat myopic and binary views by some of the posters on the Left, at times, even though that's put me at risk of being accused of siding with the Right. Some of you guys really need to get out a bit more when the lock down lifts and knock around with people who aren't always on the same page as yourselves ...
As far as theology goes, then the Ship is never going to be a steady ride for Inerrantists and the like. I do admire some of those who stuck it for so long despite being unreconstructed fundies or dispensationalists or so woodenly literal that their next job was going to be with the Forestry Commission.
I find Donald Trump to be in a category all of his own - not because of his "policies" - several people have already pointed out that his populist bigoted schtick is the natural culmination of the trajectory of the Republican party in recent times - but because of the way that he more or less continuously spews random idiocies, and then pretends never to have said any such thing.
It's the same nonsense behind the alleged "free speech crisis" at universities.
You mean the one that started because some Student Unions were literally banning the expression of certain points of view? Or does free speech not apply to opinions with which you disagree?
I think this quite neatly encapsulates some of our differences. It is a fact that the National Union of Students, and many of its constituent organizations have (by the normal democratic processes of those organizations) adopted a "no platform" policy towards a number of organizations that they consider racist or fascist, or generally to have political opinions that they consider to be beyond the pale. This includes banning the BNP and EDL (English racists), as well as Hizb-ut-Tahrir and some of their fellow travellers (Islamist terrorist supporters). On a smaller scale, people deemed sexist or transphobic have also been banned by some groups.
Just because someone supports free speech doesn't mean that they have to facilitate the speech of someone they disagree with, though. A Trump-supporting bar owner doesn't oppose free speech because he won't tune the TV in his bar to "fake news" CNN, and his liberal counterpart down the street doesn't oppose free speech by banning Fox News from his bar.
But student unions are in a slightly peculiar position. In many universities, all student societies are organized under the umbrella of the students union, which also controls student-accessible meeting spaces and so on. The students union therefore controls a bunch of community spaces and support facilities / funding, provided for the student community as a whole.
This means that a student union isn't in quite the same position as a private property owner - they are more in the position of a trustee of a community space.
Student Unions decided on their "no platform" policy by normal democratic means. Student politics may tend towards the radical end of the spectrum (people who can be bothered to get involved in student politics don't tend to be normal people with middle-of-the-road views ) but the candidates are elected democratically by the normal procedure of anyone who can be bothered to vote choosing the person their mate drinks with.
So the question, with respect to student unions, is really to what extent should the democratically elected representatives of the community be able to limit the use of community property by members of the community with minority views. And then going beyond that rather tame question, what happens when those minority views are directly challenging the existence of other members of the community (which is essentially what the banned speakers from the racist, transphobic, or anti-gay organizations were doing).
I don't think @Arethosemyfeet's claim that it's just like this website or some other private organization having an editorial policy holds water, because student unions are an effective monopoly with control of community property, so I think they have more obligations to support free speech than owners of random websites, or even the mass market press.
But the bans have all been targeted in defense of minority groups of students, who don't need rhetoric attacking their very existence following them into their homes. You'll note that nobody is banning radical libertarian groups from organizing, or the young conservatives, or any other political group that is opposed to the typical leftist student leadership - they're only banning the presentation of a particular set of ideas that oppose the existence of other students.
I think there's a discussion to be had about "no platform" - I don't think it's automatically OK (which is Arethosemyfeet's claim) and I don't think it's obviously bad. I think in general, the use of "no platform" has been rather narrowly targeted, which argues in favour of the idea that it is being applied responsibly.
I don't worry that much about the Ship's anti-Trump sentiment, because that seems to be shared pretty much across the board by reasonable people.
The problem is that easily becomes recursive. No reasonable people support those things. How do you define a reasonable person? Well, it means someone who doesn't support those things of course.
To put this another way, a wide range of intelligent people who generally agree on little else in matters of politics seem to be able to agree that Trump is a bad thing. I'm in favour of encouraging robust debates in matters of politics, but everyone has a pale, and Trump has worked pretty hard to put himself beyond that pale for a wide variety of people.
I know there is the argument that libraries have a duty to offer as wide a variety of opinions and viewpoints as possible
There used to be a similar argument about universities.
No there didn't. Most universities ruthlessly suppress heliocentrism, astrology, phrenology, and a whole similar range of "opinions and viewpoints". Most people consider it a university's job to convey accurate information, not "as wide a variety . . . as possible".
I know there is the argument that libraries have a duty to offer as wide a variety of opinions and viewpoints as possible
There used to be a similar argument about universities.
No there didn't. Most universities ruthlessly suppress heliocentrism, astrology, phrenology, and a whole similar range of "opinions and viewpoints". Most people consider it a university's job to convey accurate information, not "as wide a variety . . . as possible".
Well, they rightfully suppress such ideas from being taught in the classroom by paid employees of the university. But I think the main controversy emerges when you get into the uni's obligation, or lack thereof, to provide non-classroom venues for ideas generally considered considered inaccurate.
If a religious club on campus wants to book a lecture hall with its own funds to host a young-earth creationist, there are those who would argue that the administration has no right to block them, since the university should be commited to the free exchange of ideas.
OTOH, it could be argued that, as a place of learning, the school has a duty, not to promote the disseminaton of dangerous anti-scientific crap.
No there didn't. Most universities ruthlessly suppress heliocentrism, astrology, phrenology, and a whole similar range of "opinions and viewpoints". Most people consider it a university's job to convey accurate information, not "as wide a variety . . . as possible".
Well, they rightfully suppress such ideas from being taught in the classroom by paid employees of the university.
It also suppresses student expression of those ideas as well. If your answers on your infectious disease exam are all about re-balancing the patient's humors you're probably not going to graduate med school.
Similarly, you can't pass your geology exam if you give answers that you learned at the creationist lecture even if it wasn't a university-sponsored event.
I thought the other point that some views, say, anti-gay, or anti-women, are a direct threat to some students, and some student unions want to protect them. Sorry, if someone has already mentioned this.
A university professor was on a radio show a few months ago, who stated that when it comes to college speech issues, the public discourse conflates academic freedom and civic freedom of speech. This conflation is problematic, and he stated that university premises are not considered legally the same as public space.
Academic freedom entails the promotion of diverse points of view within commonly held methods of test-ability and examination of evidence. So, the astronomy department can certainly prohibit speakers who argue for a flat earth and the medical department can certainly ban anti-vaxxers. Those flat earth arguments and anti-vaccine arguments have been throughly and demonstratively refuted, that to allow them to be promoted within an academic setting would be to give them unwarranted legitimacy.
Many many eons ago, I was a teaching assistant for political science in my university, and the tricky thing in evaluating essays was to carefully evaluate people's arguments fairly without falling into the trap of judging people who I disagreed with politically more harshly than those whose opinions I was amendable to.
The basic criteria according to my supervisor was that if the student defended their premises with sound logic and argument, that even if we disagreed with their conclusions, we were obligated to recognize and reward that.
Among some conservative polemicists, there is this myth that conservative students are punished harshly in academia. That myth is not true in my experience, I know of a few political conservatives in political science who graduated with top honors, they might have felt uncomfortable because the university, especially in humanities and social sciences, were further to the left politically than they were, but they were never penalized simply for holding differing opinions. They were evaluated fairly based on the strength of their arguments, which is how it should be.
Among some conservative polemicists, there is this myth that conservative students are punished harshly in academia.
This is known as "working the refs"; gaining more favorable treatment by persistent claims of bias, causing the accused to treat you more favorably to refute such claims.
That myth is not true in my experience, I know of a few political conservatives in political science who graduated with top honors, they might have felt uncomfortable because the university, especially in humanities and social sciences, were further to the left politically than they were, but they were never penalized simply for holding differing opinions.
Are law schools (humanities) or economics departments (social sciences) notably left-leaning institutions? Characterizing those departments as "further to the left politically" often relies on a selective definition of "humanities and social sciences".
Just as general impressions, as I have no statistical basis for what I'm about to say, in a sort of before/after comparison. I was on the Ship (as The Blessed Pangolin) and then for a number of personal reasons took shore leave for about four or five years, from 2012. When I came back on board I noticed that the general complexion of the crew was less diverse politically, certainly, and perhaps theologically. The Orthodox and RC presence was much more apparent, and vocal. Although I'm a middle-to high on the candle Anglican, I really miss that contribution, however much I found a couple of those individuals now gone personally difficult. Politically, we live in very different times, and that drives both the direction and tenor of the conversation. As someone on the left, I find the generally liberal leanings on the Ship not very challenging. I recall a much more cut-and-thrust atmosphere which mostly confined itself to issues. We still have disagreements, mostly civil, but it seems to lack its former vigour. (Perhaps I'm engaging in a bit of Golden Age-ism.) On the question of gender and sexuality, as a mostly-gay man, I find the Ship a pretty safe place, but even though Fair Haven (does it even exist anymore?) mostly outlived its usefulness, there are issues that fall under its bailiwick that I would not feel comfortable addressing on the open deck, both in terms of exposing myself (ha!) and unnecessarily discomfiting other shipmates. As one example I recall a brief but interesting discussion of the theological implications of BDSM.
So, I do fear that the Ship might be drifting toward Bubble Bay.
I lived in Lisbon in 1978/9, so not long after the"Carnation Revolution" which toppled the Fascist "Estado Novo" set up by Salazar and liberated the African colonies that had been suffering terribly. It's not hard to understand why, at that time, the Socialist Party was considered by many to be somewhat right-wing (although there were more conservative options on offer) while the Communist Party was only slightly to the left of centre.
One of my lecturers at the University, while not defending colonialism (and Portugal had a particularly bad record in this) did have the temerity to suggest that the "discoverers" such as Vasco da Gama were indeed brave people, and that colonialism might have conferred some benefits to the countries in the Empire. Of course these ideas were Not Allowed at the time and she was howled down by the class. Living in a former colony just a few years later, the constant cry was, "If only the Portuguese were still here ...", though rose-tinted spectacles can certainly impair clear retrospective vision!
@Marvin the Martian - there are some perfectly cogent arguments for leaving the European Union, one of which I am actually sympathetic towards. I've just not heard anyone make them here: they've been the usual crypto-racist, anti-immigrant, neo-nationalist and/or revisionist historical tripe that gets wheeled out in lieu of cogent thinking.
Isn't that kind of the point being made on this thread? You don't hear cogent arguments here because there are very few conservatives and/or Brexiteers because the Ship does not encourage their presence.
I find Donald Trump to be in a category all of his own - not because of his "policies" - several people have already pointed out that his populist bigoted schtick is the natural culmination of the trajectory of the Republican party in recent times - but because of the way that he more or less continuously spews random idiocies, and then pretends never to have said any such thing.
One thing that (from outside) makes me nervous of a lot of anti-Trump social media posts is a sense that they are playing into his hand. ISTM Trump deliberately winds up liberals, so that they will post 'Republicans are all redneck morons' or similar - he can then tell any wavering supporters: 'See, this is what liberals think of you!', and shore up his support that way.
IOW, whereas conventional conservative politicians tend just to ignore people who are never going to vote for them, Trump has found a way of weaponising them.
Isn't that kind of the point being made on this thread? You don't hear cogent arguments here because there are very few conservatives and/or Brexiteers because the Ship does not encourage their presence.
As far as I know the Ship does not actively recruit commenters beyond an informal word-of-mouth network. What exactly does "encourage" mean in this context? Go easy on the new guy if they say something fascistic? I'm not sure exactly why political conservatives are such delicate flowers that they need special encouragement from the rest of us. Given the typical conservative contempt for "safe spaces" this idea that conservatives need special encouragement to function in an online community is particularly rich.
One thing that (from outside) makes me nervous of a lot of anti-Trump social media posts is a sense that they are playing into his hand. ISTM Trump deliberately winds up liberals, so that they will post 'Republicans are all redneck morons' or similar - he can then tell any wavering supporters: 'See, this is what liberals think of you!', and shore up his support that way.
IOW, whereas conventional conservative politicians tend just to ignore people who are never going to vote for them, Trump has found a way of weaponising them.
This is not new. Running against "pointy-headed intellectuals" or "coastal elites" or Jews "(((cosmopolitan urbanites)))" has been a staple of the American right for decades, and it never really mattered much what real Americans on the actual left did or said. The intended audience for such things has always simply taken it on faith. Trump's political rivals could act with perfect civility and he'd still portray them as thinking all Republicans are redneck morons. And his base would believe him.
Before recently, wasn't critique of the European Union a left-wing argument because the EU was a capitalist free trade institution?
This goes back to Benn, who influenced many Labour members, probably including Corbyn. I expect Benn's stuff is still available online.
And many of us still agree with some of that critique, it's just that the UK is nowhere near risking being constrained in a leftward direction by the EU, and leaving it under the aegis of the far right is the equivalent of flipping the restaurant table because you don't like the wine.
Perhaps the pounding of the waves has flattened out the high and low points, so that those who come here have mellowed.
Perhaps some have left because they were not taken seriously, ignored, or felt as if they were looked down upon because of their views.
The cut and thrust of the ship has diminished noticeably. Hell is hardly needed. It might only take one controversial and confident new member to stir everything up again though.
I have recently seen posts that have been labelled as demonising those who disagree (in Hell), and agreed with the poster pointing out the demonisation. There can be a lot of intolerance to opposing points of view, when it really is a point of view, not a "truth universally known".
It can also be really difficult to be arguing a case against a lot of others, and I'm not surprised people leave rather than continue to post on the Ship, typed as someone who has walked away for months after one of those spats.
As a reflection, earlier, trying to check and delete the hundreds of emails asking for support through challenging times, I tripped over a personal email from around 2012/2013 sent to another Shipmate who's now left the Ship, reflecting that the thoughtful serious RC posters had mostly left then, after enduring many attacks on the RC church following the publication of the RC abuse scandals and that it must have been difficult to be attacked every time they posted. Those attacks weren't so much from the established Shipmates, but this was shortly after the demise of the Richard Dawkins boards, which was followed by an influx of atheist Shipmates, many of whom rubbished anything to do with faith and Roman Catholicism particularly. It was also one of my periodic "had enough of the Ship times" because it didn't feel as if much could be discussed.
We say we are a a Magazine of Christian unrest. Do we consistently base our posting on our understanding of faith and how that faith informs our actions, acknowledging that "faith" may mean different things to us? Or do we post based on bias?
For example if I post something negative of Trump, do I do so because I find him personally manipulative and fabricating? Or do I do so because my faith says I must oppose his action? And then do I use the respectful language that my faith says is important in dealing with others, even those I disagree with?
Curiosity, your point about Dawkins' followers turning up here is interesting. I used to visit it, although I,'m not an atheist. But it had 60 000 members, and a lot of sciencey stuff. Did they really come here and make trouble? I think New Atheism is a speck of dust in Dawkins' eye now.
Most universities ruthlessly suppress heliocentrism, astrology, phrenology, and a whole similar range of "opinions and viewpoints". Most people consider it a university's job to convey accurate information, not "as wide a variety . . . as possible".
Google "University Astrology Society" and I bet you'll get a whole bunch of hits. I doubt many universities or student unions would have any problem with their students setting up a flat earth society or a phrenology society either. Why would they?
Universities are far more than just the courses being taught.
Most universities ruthlessly suppress heliocentrism, astrology, phrenology, and a whole similar range of "opinions and viewpoints". Most people consider it a university's job to convey accurate information, not "as wide a variety . . . as possible".
Google "University Astrology Society" and I bet you'll get a whole bunch of hits. I doubt many universities or student unions would have any problem with their students setting up a flat earth society or a phrenology society either. Why would they?
Universities are far more than just the courses being taught.
True, but failing someone in a course or withholding their degree are the most extreme actions a university can take against its student and they seem willing to use this extreme power to ruthlessly limit debate and suppress ideas.
Most universities ruthlessly suppress heliocentrism, astrology, phrenology, and a whole similar range of "opinions and viewpoints". Most people consider it a university's job to convey accurate information, not "as wide a variety . . . as possible".
Google "University Astrology Society" and I bet you'll get a whole bunch of hits. I doubt many universities or student unions would have any problem with their students setting up a flat earth society or a phrenology society either. Why would they?
Universities are far more than just the courses being taught.
A joke flat earth society, sure. A genuine flat earth society? I'd want to ask some very serious questions about who they think is covering it up, and when it turns out to be The Jews All Along then kick them out. I remember at university the Women's Officer was concerned about the planned Anime and Manga Society because she'd got Manga conflated with Hentai in her head and thought it was all about tentacle rape porn. Not many years after I graduated the Evangelical Christian Union got themselves in bother over their refusal to allow female leaders and speakers.
True, but failing someone in a course or withholding their degree are the most extreme actions a university can take against its student and they seem willing to use this extreme power to ruthlessly limit debate and suppress ideas.
Evidence? And by that, I mean evidence that universities habitually fail people for holding unpopular ideas.
There is a significant difference between someone failing a geology course because they spewed their young-Earth creationist claptrap all over the exam paper, and someone failing a geology course because they volunteer at a creationist museum at the weekends.
Most universities ruthlessly suppress heliocentrism, astrology, phrenology, and a whole similar range of "opinions and viewpoints". Most people consider it a university's job to convey accurate information, not "as wide a variety . . . as possible".
Google "University Astrology Society" and I bet you'll get a whole bunch of hits.
3 hits. Two of them for the same society. Would you like to reconsider your argument, or are you going to just pretend this never happened?
True, but failing someone in a course or withholding their degree are the most extreme actions a university can take against its student and they seem willing to use this extreme power to ruthlessly limit debate and suppress ideas.
Evidence? And by that, I mean evidence that universities habitually fail people for holding unpopular ideas.
There is a significant difference between someone failing a geology course because they spewed their young-Earth creationist claptrap all over the exam paper, and someone failing a geology course because they volunteer at a creationist museum at the weekends.
I'm pretty sure that "spew[ ing ] . . . young-Earth creationist claptrap all over the exam paper" is what people do when they hold young-Earth creationist ideas. Demanding young Earth creationists stifle their beliefs while doing academic work sure sounds like a reasonable definition of suppressing an idea.
I suppose you could argue that young Earth creationists can "pass" as believers in deep time, but that also sounds like repressing an idea.
Here at Washington State University, a neo-nazi group has taken over the Young Republicans of the university. The Young Republicans is a recognized organization in the Student Union. During the 2016 campaign, they threw up a (ply-wood) wall that divided the mall in front of the Student Union. It drew a large and angry crowd that completely denounced their actions. What happened? They came out saying it was proof that their views were not welcomed on campus.
The deal of it is, as a recognized organization of the Student Union, they are entitled to remuneration of their activities through student fees. The Union cannot discipline them or withdraw funding because of the freedom of speech clause in our Constitution.|
This is much the same tactic young neo naxi groups have used across the US to get a foothold on campus.
Used to be the Young Republicans were much like Mitt Romney types on campus. No more. And that is sad.
True, but failing someone in a course or withholding their degree are the most extreme actions a university can take against its student and they seem willing to use this extreme power to ruthlessly limit debate and suppress ideas.
Evidence? And by that, I mean evidence that universities habitually fail people for holding unpopular ideas.
There is a significant difference between someone failing a geology course because they spewed their young-Earth creationist claptrap all over the exam paper, and someone failing a geology course because they volunteer at a creationist museum at the weekends.
I'm pretty sure that "spew[ ing ] . . . young-Earth creationist claptrap all over the exam paper" is what people do when they hold young-Earth creationist ideas. Demanding young Earth creationists stifle their beliefs while doing academic work sure sounds like a reasonable definition of suppressing an idea.
I suppose you could argue that young Earth creationists can "pass" as believers in deep time, but that also sounds like repressing an idea.
I knew a few YECs in the CU while I was at university. In their cases, what they put on their exam papers would be irrelevant as they weren't doing earth sciences. It takes some skill to insert YEC ideas into a law exam, or maths, French, or even physics. If they were studying geology and had been taught about the production of sedimentary rocks as deposited gradually over long periods of time then they're not going to get good marks if they insist on their formation during a few days of catastrophic global flood - if smart they could possibly answer the question (correctly according to the scientific community) by bracketing it with a statement that this is the best explanation science gives in the absence of belief in divine revelation, if they've demonstrated an understanding of their lectures and can apply what they've learnt in solving the exam problem, though that would take a lot of effort (some lecturers may even give them credit for the effort taken to do so).
I'm pretty sure that "spew[ ing ] . . . young-Earth creationist claptrap all over the exam paper" is what people do when they hold young-Earth creationist ideas. Demanding young Earth creationists stifle their beliefs while doing academic work sure sounds like a reasonable definition of suppressing an idea.
A geology course (like any other taught university science course) teaches the commonly accepted scientific state of belief in a particular field, and that is what is examined. The exam tests how well you have understood and can apply the material presented. You may well hold a deeply-held belief in the caloric theory of heat or phlogiston, but you won't get the right answer if you try to use them in a computation. If your answers on your anatomy exam are all about chakras, you won't get many marks either. If you don't want to study commonly-accepted geology, don't take a course in it.
Most of what undergraduates do is not "academic work" as commonly defined - it is learning the background required to be able to do academic work.
If someone wanted to argue in favour of young-Earth creationism in an undergraduate geological research paper, their grade would probably depend on how well they used standard geological tools and methods to defend their case. And given that the standard YEC response to each and every one of the standard geological dating methods is basically to chant "la la la" whilst blocking one's ears with one's fingers, interspersed with the occasional "ahah! Here's a small discrepancy, therefore the whole house of cards comes falling down" then I find it unlikely that such an attempt would attract much credit.
I suppose you could argue that young Earth creationists can "pass" as believers in deep time, but that also sounds like repressing an idea.
I'd argue that if you're an young Earth creationist, taking a course in conventional geology might not be what you want to do.
If someone wanted to argue in favour of young-Earth creationism in an undergraduate geological research paper, their grade would probably depend on how well they used standard geological tools and methods to defend their case. And given that the standard YEC response to each and every one of the standard geological dating methods is basically to chant "la la la" whilst blocking one's ears with one's fingers, interspersed with the occasional "ahah! Here's a small discrepancy, therefore the whole house of cards comes falling down" then I find it unlikely that such an attempt would attract much credit.
Now, now. You'll be scaring away those poor wee YECs and creating a bubble and how terrible that would be.
One of the things that the Ship has always been good at, and one of the things that keeps me here, is that we don't let opinions go unchallenged. Purgatory, our premium discussion space, has always been characterised as a place for robust debate where all views are welcome so long as you're prepared to have them challenged.
I think the issue is how this dynamic cashes out in practice. There's a difference between (a) Purgatory is a place where a wide range of reasoned opinions are represented and encouraged, and (b) Purgatory is place where we pretty much all agree on everything but feel free to express an opposing view if you think you can justify it to us (which you will never be able to do because we have already made up our minds).
I think the dynamic we want is (a), but I also think there are instances where we have ventured a little too close to (b). (And, obviously, I'm not talking about Youth Earth Creationism.)
Isn't that kind of the point being made on this thread? You don't hear cogent arguments here because there are very few conservatives and/or Brexiteers because the Ship does not encourage their presence.
As far as I know the Ship does not actively recruit commenters beyond an informal word-of-mouth network. What exactly does "encourage" mean in this context? Go easy on the new guy if they say something fascistic? I'm not sure exactly why political conservatives are such delicate flowers that they need special encouragement from the rest of us.
Most people are delicate flowers who would prefer not to be the only one espousing their idea in the face of other people sweepingly asserting that their idea is stupid. It just so happens that in the context of the Ship, this is more likely to happen to conservatives than liberals.
Free speech tends to be a recurring topic in Purgatory. And the centre of gravity - the median position on this - has shifted noticeably leftward over time.
I blame identity politics.
- - - - -
Where is the Ship headed ?
Into old age, of course. Most groups that are primarily social grow old with the original members, without succeeding in passing the baton to an equally-enthusiastic younger generation.
Alternatively, there's an argument that the most likely destination is agnosticism. As more and more of us find arguing for our political convictions more satisfying than arguing for Christianity. Or perhaps harder to distinguish from our Christianity.
Ah. "Identity Politics". Taken over from "Political Correctness" as a label applied by the right to anyone displaying a tendency to give a shit about oppressed groups as if doing so were somehow a bad thing.
Curiosity, your point about Dawkins' followers turning up here is interesting. I used to visit it, although I,'m not an atheist. But it had 60 000 members, and a lot of sciencey stuff. Did they really come here and make trouble? I think New Atheism is a speck of dust in Dawkins' eye now.
A few came over for a while and were hurting about what had happened on the website. They entered into some discussions and from memory got both sympathy and respect. I'm not sure if any stayed around.
From memory again I think there were some positive and surprised reactions to the discussions in the long running Death of Darwinism Dead Horse thread (within which there were many highly critical posts re YEC and Intelligent Design arguments.)
No there didn't. Most universities ruthlessly suppress heliocentrism, astrology, phrenology, and a whole similar range of "opinions and viewpoints". Most people consider it a university's job to convey accurate information, not "as wide a variety . . . as possible".
Well, they rightfully suppress such ideas from being taught in the classroom by paid employees of the university.
It also suppresses student expression of those ideas as well. If your answers on your infectious disease exam are all about re-balancing the patient's humors you're probably not going to graduate med school.
Similarly, you can't pass your geology exam if you give answers that you learned at the creationist lecture even if it wasn't a university-sponsored event.
Yes, by "being taught", I meant in a formal classroom context generally. You can't teach it, you can't accept it as a correct answer on an exam etc.
But I was wondering about outside of a classroom context. Does the school have the right to ban the creationist lecture from taking place in a room that has been privately booked?
Free speech tends to be a recurring topic in Purgatory. And the centre of gravity - the median position on this - has shifted noticeably leftward over time.
I blame identity politics.
- - - - -
Where is the Ship headed ?
Into old age, of course. Most groups that are primarily social grow old with the original members, without succeeding in passing the baton to an equally-enthusiastic younger generation.
Alternatively, there's an argument that the most likely destination is agnosticism. As more and more of us find arguing for our political convictions more satisfying than arguing for Christianity. Or perhaps harder to distinguish from our Christianity.
I like that second comment. I suspect there is truth to the idea that we are sailing into old age. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
I do find it more fun to discuss politics than faith, but I have also found myself dipping my toe into Kergymania over the last month. It makes for a good change. When my wife was an active shipmate, she spent a deal of her time on the social pages, especially the southern shores thread. I spend time in the support threads on occasion. The ship isn't just purgatory and hell.
Comments
I basically agree with you about Students Union censorship being a contradiction in terms. But I'm curious...
What do you think about so-called "library censorship", such as we always hear about when Right To Read Week rolls around, and we are asked to be outraged about the list of books that have been banned or challenged at public libraries?
Do you think the library has the same right as a Students Union to decide it doesn't want to promote certain ideas, IOW saying "Nah, we don't wanna keep this book on our shelves, and if you absolutely have to read it, you can go to Amazon"?
I know there is the argument that libraries have a duty to offer as wide a variety of opinions and viewpoints as possible, though I think most people who pay lip service to that idea would still draw the line somewhere.
There used to be a similar argument about universities.
I do think we have lost some of the breadth and depth that there used to be aboard Ship, but at the same time I don't recognise all the accusations I hear - from former Shipmates and Lurkers - that it has become a completely monochrome echo chamber. I think it has lost some of its spring and summer foliage or, if it was a bird, it's shed some of the brighter feathers it wore during the mating season.
I admire the resilience and thick-skinned nature of some of the more conservative posters, even if I don't share their politics or theology.
I have challenged what I've taken to be somewhat myopic and binary views by some of the posters on the Left, at times, even though that's put me at risk of being accused of siding with the Right. Some of you guys really need to get out a bit more when the lock down lifts and knock around with people who aren't always on the same page as yourselves ...
As far as theology goes, then the Ship is never going to be a steady ride for Inerrantists and the like. I do admire some of those who stuck it for so long despite being unreconstructed fundies or dispensationalists or so woodenly literal that their next job was going to be with the Forestry Commission.
Which in turn depends on how you define the group itself.
I think this quite neatly encapsulates some of our differences. It is a fact that the National Union of Students, and many of its constituent organizations have (by the normal democratic processes of those organizations) adopted a "no platform" policy towards a number of organizations that they consider racist or fascist, or generally to have political opinions that they consider to be beyond the pale. This includes banning the BNP and EDL (English racists), as well as Hizb-ut-Tahrir and some of their fellow travellers (Islamist terrorist supporters). On a smaller scale, people deemed sexist or transphobic have also been banned by some groups.
Just because someone supports free speech doesn't mean that they have to facilitate the speech of someone they disagree with, though. A Trump-supporting bar owner doesn't oppose free speech because he won't tune the TV in his bar to "fake news" CNN, and his liberal counterpart down the street doesn't oppose free speech by banning Fox News from his bar.
But student unions are in a slightly peculiar position. In many universities, all student societies are organized under the umbrella of the students union, which also controls student-accessible meeting spaces and so on. The students union therefore controls a bunch of community spaces and support facilities / funding, provided for the student community as a whole.
This means that a student union isn't in quite the same position as a private property owner - they are more in the position of a trustee of a community space.
Student Unions decided on their "no platform" policy by normal democratic means. Student politics may tend towards the radical end of the spectrum (people who can be bothered to get involved in student politics don't tend to be normal people with middle-of-the-road views
So the question, with respect to student unions, is really to what extent should the democratically elected representatives of the community be able to limit the use of community property by members of the community with minority views. And then going beyond that rather tame question, what happens when those minority views are directly challenging the existence of other members of the community (which is essentially what the banned speakers from the racist, transphobic, or anti-gay organizations were doing).
I don't think @Arethosemyfeet's claim that it's just like this website or some other private organization having an editorial policy holds water, because student unions are an effective monopoly with control of community property, so I think they have more obligations to support free speech than owners of random websites, or even the mass market press.
But the bans have all been targeted in defense of minority groups of students, who don't need rhetoric attacking their very existence following them into their homes. You'll note that nobody is banning radical libertarian groups from organizing, or the young conservatives, or any other political group that is opposed to the typical leftist student leadership - they're only banning the presentation of a particular set of ideas that oppose the existence of other students.
I think there's a discussion to be had about "no platform" - I don't think it's automatically OK (which is Arethosemyfeet's claim) and I don't think it's obviously bad. I think in general, the use of "no platform" has been rather narrowly targeted, which argues in favour of the idea that it is being applied responsibly.
To put this another way, a wide range of intelligent people who generally agree on little else in matters of politics seem to be able to agree that Trump is a bad thing. I'm in favour of encouraging robust debates in matters of politics, but everyone has a pale, and Trump has worked pretty hard to put himself beyond that pale for a wide variety of people.
No there didn't. Most universities ruthlessly suppress heliocentrism, astrology, phrenology, and a whole similar range of "opinions and viewpoints". Most people consider it a university's job to convey accurate information, not "as wide a variety . . . as possible".
Well, they rightfully suppress such ideas from being taught in the classroom by paid employees of the university. But I think the main controversy emerges when you get into the uni's obligation, or lack thereof, to provide non-classroom venues for ideas generally considered considered inaccurate.
If a religious club on campus wants to book a lecture hall with its own funds to host a young-earth creationist, there are those who would argue that the administration has no right to block them, since the university should be commited to the free exchange of ideas.
OTOH, it could be argued that, as a place of learning, the school has a duty, not to promote the disseminaton of dangerous anti-scientific crap.
It also suppresses student expression of those ideas as well. If your answers on your infectious disease exam are all about re-balancing the patient's humors you're probably not going to graduate med school.
Similarly, you can't pass your geology exam if you give answers that you learned at the creationist lecture even if it wasn't a university-sponsored event.
Academic freedom entails the promotion of diverse points of view within commonly held methods of test-ability and examination of evidence. So, the astronomy department can certainly prohibit speakers who argue for a flat earth and the medical department can certainly ban anti-vaxxers. Those flat earth arguments and anti-vaccine arguments have been throughly and demonstratively refuted, that to allow them to be promoted within an academic setting would be to give them unwarranted legitimacy.
The basic criteria according to my supervisor was that if the student defended their premises with sound logic and argument, that even if we disagreed with their conclusions, we were obligated to recognize and reward that.
Among some conservative polemicists, there is this myth that conservative students are punished harshly in academia. That myth is not true in my experience, I know of a few political conservatives in political science who graduated with top honors, they might have felt uncomfortable because the university, especially in humanities and social sciences, were further to the left politically than they were, but they were never penalized simply for holding differing opinions. They were evaluated fairly based on the strength of their arguments, which is how it should be.
This is known as "working the refs"; gaining more favorable treatment by persistent claims of bias, causing the accused to treat you more favorably to refute such claims.
Are law schools (humanities) or economics departments (social sciences) notably left-leaning institutions? Characterizing those departments as "further to the left politically" often relies on a selective definition of "humanities and social sciences".
So, I do fear that the Ship might be drifting toward Bubble Bay.
One of my lecturers at the University, while not defending colonialism (and Portugal had a particularly bad record in this) did have the temerity to suggest that the "discoverers" such as Vasco da Gama were indeed brave people, and that colonialism might have conferred some benefits to the countries in the Empire. Of course these ideas were Not Allowed at the time and she was howled down by the class. Living in a former colony just a few years later, the constant cry was, "If only the Portuguese were still here ...", though rose-tinted spectacles can certainly impair clear retrospective vision!
Isn't that kind of the point being made on this thread? You don't hear cogent arguments here because there are very few conservatives and/or Brexiteers because the Ship does not encourage their presence.
This goes back to Benn, who influenced many Labour members, probably including Corbyn. I expect Benn's stuff is still available online.
One thing that (from outside) makes me nervous of a lot of anti-Trump social media posts is a sense that they are playing into his hand. ISTM Trump deliberately winds up liberals, so that they will post 'Republicans are all redneck morons' or similar - he can then tell any wavering supporters: 'See, this is what liberals think of you!', and shore up his support that way.
IOW, whereas conventional conservative politicians tend just to ignore people who are never going to vote for them, Trump has found a way of weaponising them.
As far as I know the Ship does not actively recruit commenters beyond an informal word-of-mouth network. What exactly does "encourage" mean in this context? Go easy on the new guy if they say something fascistic? I'm not sure exactly why political conservatives are such delicate flowers that they need special encouragement from the rest of us. Given the typical conservative contempt for "safe spaces" this idea that conservatives need special encouragement to function in an online community is particularly rich.
This is not new. Running against "pointy-headed intellectuals" or "coastal elites" or Jews "(((cosmopolitan urbanites)))" has been a staple of the American right for decades, and it never really mattered much what real Americans on the actual left did or said. The intended audience for such things has always simply taken it on faith. Trump's political rivals could act with perfect civility and he'd still portray them as thinking all Republicans are redneck morons. And his base would believe him.
And many of us still agree with some of that critique, it's just that the UK is nowhere near risking being constrained in a leftward direction by the EU, and leaving it under the aegis of the far right is the equivalent of flipping the restaurant table because you don't like the wine.
Perhaps some have left because they were not taken seriously, ignored, or felt as if they were looked down upon because of their views.
The cut and thrust of the ship has diminished noticeably. Hell is hardly needed. It might only take one controversial and confident new member to stir everything up again though.
It can also be really difficult to be arguing a case against a lot of others, and I'm not surprised people leave rather than continue to post on the Ship, typed as someone who has walked away for months after one of those spats.
As a reflection, earlier, trying to check and delete the hundreds of emails asking for support through challenging times, I tripped over a personal email from around 2012/2013 sent to another Shipmate who's now left the Ship, reflecting that the thoughtful serious RC posters had mostly left then, after enduring many attacks on the RC church following the publication of the RC abuse scandals and that it must have been difficult to be attacked every time they posted. Those attacks weren't so much from the established Shipmates, but this was shortly after the demise of the Richard Dawkins boards, which was followed by an influx of atheist Shipmates, many of whom rubbished anything to do with faith and Roman Catholicism particularly. It was also one of my periodic "had enough of the Ship times" because it didn't feel as if much could be discussed.
The EU is either a capitalist free trade institution or an enormous left-wing statist behemoth, depending on where you stand.
For example if I post something negative of Trump, do I do so because I find him personally manipulative and fabricating? Or do I do so because my faith says I must oppose his action? And then do I use the respectful language that my faith says is important in dealing with others, even those I disagree with?
Google "University Astrology Society" and I bet you'll get a whole bunch of hits. I doubt many universities or student unions would have any problem with their students setting up a flat earth society or a phrenology society either. Why would they?
Universities are far more than just the courses being taught.
True, but failing someone in a course or withholding their degree are the most extreme actions a university can take against its student and they seem willing to use this extreme power to ruthlessly limit debate and suppress ideas.
A joke flat earth society, sure. A genuine flat earth society? I'd want to ask some very serious questions about who they think is covering it up, and when it turns out to be The Jews All Along then kick them out. I remember at university the Women's Officer was concerned about the planned Anime and Manga Society because she'd got Manga conflated with Hentai in her head and thought it was all about tentacle rape porn. Not many years after I graduated the Evangelical Christian Union got themselves in bother over their refusal to allow female leaders and speakers.
Evidence? And by that, I mean evidence that universities habitually fail people for holding unpopular ideas.
There is a significant difference between someone failing a geology course because they spewed their young-Earth creationist claptrap all over the exam paper, and someone failing a geology course because they volunteer at a creationist museum at the weekends.
3 hits. Two of them for the same society. Would you like to reconsider your argument, or are you going to just pretend this never happened?
I'm pretty sure that "spew[ ing ] . . . young-Earth creationist claptrap all over the exam paper" is what people do when they hold young-Earth creationist ideas. Demanding young Earth creationists stifle their beliefs while doing academic work sure sounds like a reasonable definition of suppressing an idea.
I suppose you could argue that young Earth creationists can "pass" as believers in deep time, but that also sounds like repressing an idea.
The deal of it is, as a recognized organization of the Student Union, they are entitled to remuneration of their activities through student fees. The Union cannot discipline them or withdraw funding because of the freedom of speech clause in our Constitution.|
This is much the same tactic young neo naxi groups have used across the US to get a foothold on campus.
Used to be the Young Republicans were much like Mitt Romney types on campus. No more. And that is sad.
A geology course (like any other taught university science course) teaches the commonly accepted scientific state of belief in a particular field, and that is what is examined. The exam tests how well you have understood and can apply the material presented. You may well hold a deeply-held belief in the caloric theory of heat or phlogiston, but you won't get the right answer if you try to use them in a computation. If your answers on your anatomy exam are all about chakras, you won't get many marks either. If you don't want to study commonly-accepted geology, don't take a course in it.
Most of what undergraduates do is not "academic work" as commonly defined - it is learning the background required to be able to do academic work.
If someone wanted to argue in favour of young-Earth creationism in an undergraduate geological research paper, their grade would probably depend on how well they used standard geological tools and methods to defend their case. And given that the standard YEC response to each and every one of the standard geological dating methods is basically to chant "la la la" whilst blocking one's ears with one's fingers, interspersed with the occasional "ahah! Here's a small discrepancy, therefore the whole house of cards comes falling down" then I find it unlikely that such an attempt would attract much credit.
I'd argue that if you're an young Earth creationist, taking a course in conventional geology might not be what you want to do.
Now, now. You'll be scaring away those poor wee YECs and creating a bubble and how terrible that would be.
Could you point to some of the specific stories that are leading you to this claim?
I think the issue is how this dynamic cashes out in practice. There's a difference between (a) Purgatory is a place where a wide range of reasoned opinions are represented and encouraged, and (b) Purgatory is place where we pretty much all agree on everything but feel free to express an opposing view if you think you can justify it to us (which you will never be able to do because we have already made up our minds).
I think the dynamic we want is (a), but I also think there are instances where we have ventured a little too close to (b). (And, obviously, I'm not talking about Youth Earth Creationism.)
Most people are delicate flowers who would prefer not to be the only one espousing their idea in the face of other people sweepingly asserting that their idea is stupid. It just so happens that in the context of the Ship, this is more likely to happen to conservatives than liberals.
I blame identity politics.
- - - - -
Where is the Ship headed ?
Into old age, of course. Most groups that are primarily social grow old with the original members, without succeeding in passing the baton to an equally-enthusiastic younger generation.
Alternatively, there's an argument that the most likely destination is agnosticism. As more and more of us find arguing for our political convictions more satisfying than arguing for Christianity. Or perhaps harder to distinguish from our Christianity.
A few came over for a while and were hurting about what had happened on the website. They entered into some discussions and from memory got both sympathy and respect. I'm not sure if any stayed around.
From memory again I think there were some positive and surprised reactions to the discussions in the long running Death of Darwinism Dead Horse thread (within which there were many highly critical posts re YEC and Intelligent Design arguments.)
Rather, the duty of a university is to educate its students to recognise what is dangerous anti-scientific crap, why it is, and how to deal with it.
Yes, by "being taught", I meant in a formal classroom context generally. You can't teach it, you can't accept it as a correct answer on an exam etc.
But I was wondering about outside of a classroom context. Does the school have the right to ban the creationist lecture from taking place in a room that has been privately booked?
I like that second comment. I suspect there is truth to the idea that we are sailing into old age. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
I do find it more fun to discuss politics than faith, but I have also found myself dipping my toe into Kergymania over the last month. It makes for a good change. When my wife was an active shipmate, she spent a deal of her time on the social pages, especially the southern shores thread. I spend time in the support threads on occasion. The ship isn't just purgatory and hell.
Okay, but how does that apply to someone promoting anti-scientific crap on the campus, but without the support of the university or its faculty?
Should they be able to stop an anti-vax student from handing out pamphlets explaining why vaccination is bad?