9 Likes
That seems to the common problem these days. Any debate, however reasonable, before the “facts” are convincingly established will lead to nowhere.
2 Likes
Actually anyone who has ever gone deep in philosophy, political theory, economics and so many other subjects will recognize there are no facts only competing theories. Sadly those who believe in their “facts” often have to frame the debate within their framework or they need to shut things down and call foul.
Nothing like a great debate among open minde people from opposite ends of any subject. They inform each other and can get to breakthrough thinking.
Very rare these days to have someone state their case without attacking the opposite position. IMO, the best thinkers are listeners who take pieces from many sides and can accept nuanced thinking and multiple approaches.
I am not equating conservative views with being Nazi’s an pro-slavery, that’s a straw man and you know it.
But where is the line? Is it ok to have a “both sides” debate that gays can be fired or lose their kids for being gay? Is it ok to have a “both sides” debate about women needing to be subservient to their husband?
And to answer your question, I am so arrogant that I feel anyone who believes the election was stolen, is using alternate facts.
If you believe the machines switched votes, you used “alternate facts.”
When Lindsay Graham says he can’t find ANY evidence of dead voters or other fraud, and you believe otherwise, you believe in “alternate facts.”
When you believe that antifa was leading the attempt to overthrow a valid election, and that the fact that a sitting president encouraging a mob had nothing to do with it, you believe in “alternate facts.”
When you have to prove your point by using a “study” from an organization that started less than a year ago that is so blatantly in search of one POV that it creates an acronym for liberal values called “WEIRD” then you believe in “alternate facts.”
I’m getting attacked here because I pointed out that this “study” is nothing but a political hack job.
8 Likes
This can be used to justify literally anything. Is the holocaust only a competing theory now?
Some things are over the line, and there is nothing wrong with calling them out.
4 Likes
No one is justifying any holocaust or other human event.
Your argument doesn’t meet mine. There are only competing theories. The theory it appears you are proposing is that if you don’t like something or assume it to not be a fact, that you have the right to shut it down. If that’s not your assumption please explain how you will deal with someone who has an opinion that you find morally repulsive or lacking. And use the examples in my opinion philosophy, political theory or econ if you can.
And there are only competing theories in many humanities areas. In science we know that h2o is water and it can be proven using various scientific methods. How will you prove that something is a fact or not? Some things are facts which are morally reprehensible and can be proven with documentation. Conclusions drawn are often opinions. Confusing facts and opinion leads many to the simplistic assumption that anything they don’t agree with should not stand in the public square.
2 Likes
I think you believe you are being “attacked” is due to the issue that you are confusing your opinions with being facts and saying that people who don’t share your opinion have “alternate facts” So you are essentially saying that there is your opinion and no other.
I’ve seen this so much online. Why not just strengthen YOUR opinion and convince people that your line of thinking is correct? That’s how discourse used to work.
4 Likes
Whatever happened to just “agreeing to disagree?” Works for me.
1 Like
Per my reading of the article, it was pointing out that there is an imbalance between liberals and conservatives in academia, with liberal viewpoints being significantly over-represented. I feel this forum suffers from this same type of representation as shown by the first comment after the article which was this:
“So you mean there’s hope for the future? 
(Sorry, couldn’t resist)”.
Your response to the article IMO did equate conservatives to those who are pro-slavery, think the earth is flat (ie must be ignorant) etc etc, because who else are we talking about here? The entire article was about conservatives not having an equal voice in academia and that is what the thread is about - therefore that is who you are talking about.
I also found it telling that a moderator’s note to “be nice” and “not be provocative” was only given after my comment and not after the numerous other obviously “pro-liberal viewpoint” comments that came before it. I feel this illustrates the dangers the article is trying to highlight whereby “group-think” leads to students feeling that everyone does & must think as they do. If someone dares to raise their voice in a slight dissenting manner they are “not nice”, yet the liberal views on this thread (and website in general) which IMO do at times cross the line of insulting someone’s intelligence/ questioning their moral character go past without comment. This is what leads conservative students to self-edit during class discussions & worry the wrong comment could jeopardize their grade etc. I say this as a conservative and also as an URM, this is the SAME bias many liberals say they are against but actually perpetuate in their actions.
5 Likes
That sums it up nicely. Who determines “reality” and “actual” facts. That’s the crux of the issue. Debate is setting up facts against each other. When people debate there isn’t a pre-determined set of facts both parties agree to use. They use the information that supports their view point. It’s up to the other side to point out discrepancies or unsupported statements.
1 Like
That’s not what is happening on this thread. Instead, you have folks who are saying if I don’t agree with you then your facts are “alternate facts” and I have the right to shut you down from a moral standing.
Agreeing to disagree is easy. Agreeing to let other people with other opinions speak seems to be a stretch/impossibility for some.
3 Likes
Is there a straw man emoji? I don’t agree with your characterization of what “other people” are saying,
3 Likes
I’m trying hard to answer this without stepping over the CC politics or debate line, which is pretty difficult. I’m also not getting drawn into you completely reframing the debate, and then insisting I meet you on your terms and framing.
3 points I want to make:
First point:
You are not saying that the holocaust is justified. You are saying whether or not it can be justified is a competing theory because it cannot be a fact. Maybe some of the historical facts can be documented, but it is just a “competing theory” that the holocaust wasn’t a good thing. It is a “competing theory” that it shouldn’t be attempted again. As you said, there are only competing theories. One competing theory may be better than another, but using your logic you cannot make a factual statement that the holocaust was a bad idea. That is just one opinion and a competing theory.
I disagree. There are morally repulsive opinions or theories that just need to be shut down. There is no place for a logical argument about whether or not the Holacaust was bad. It was bad. There is no place for a logical argument about whether slavery is ok. It is not ok. Calling everything “competing theories” is a way to justify any action, no matter how reprehensible. Some things are just wrong. Full stop.
Second point:
One of the problems that we have probably always had but has been accelerated the last 4 years to the point it may not be able to be contained is that people in politics are just making up difficult to disprove facts. 99% of the election “controversy” is explained this way. If something happened, it is much easier to prove than it is to prove that something didn’t happen. But false accusations of fraud are thrown out, and the burden is being placed on those who don’t believe the false accusations to prove they didn’t happen.
If I said I ate a bagel for breakfast, I could probably prove that. It is much harder for me to prove a negative, that I didn’t eat a bagel. Likewise if someone is trying to prove voter fraud, they should come up with the evidence. Instead it is being placed on everyone else to prove it didn’t happen. I don’t know how you are supposed to prove that. It isn’t possible, other than by showing the complete lack of evidence that it is true.
We should not give equal weight to these “facts”.
Third point:
My original point was that this is not a real study but a political hack job which is for some reason being posted on CC. I’m not taking the time to do this right because I don’t have time, but if I came with an acronym like Conservative Republicans who are Elected and Educated about Your issues (CREEPY), and then started talking about their CREEPY values, no one would take me seriously. But apparently this study talking about WEIRD values is taken as a legitimate academic study.
12 Likes
That is the very definition of “straw man.” There were 4 intervening posts and his post is not listed as a direct response to yours.
Regardless, the thread remains open by the most tenuously of threads. Let’s all move on from equating to Nazi Germany as well as from defining “debate.”
Of course facts exist!
There are X number of homeless people in Y area. Fact
There are X number of people living below the poverty line in Y area. Fact
There are X numbers of homicides by gun in Y area. Fact
I could go on.
Competing theories come in with how to fix those problems, or if they even need to be fixed (vs not spending money on any of them or restricting freedoms, etc).
Competing theories start off as just a hypothesis - “I think this could work,” and many of those are tried. Results from each trial are fact, though can have * next to certain figures where there’s uncertainty. Usually one can find a pattern either supporting the idea or not when one looks at several trials.
This will provide more data for competing theories.
It’s mainly when one makes up “facts” with no data that those folks should be dismissed, not those with various hypotheses or theories for fixing real data.
The problem right now, is the two are mixing more than they seem to have in the past, so it’s difficult to differentiate. Some are effectively trying to say there are no homeless, poor, or gun homicides. (Not really for those examples, but similar with other topics.)
2 Likes
I don’t think many would refute this. Many, however, would be upset if instead of dismissing someone’s thought, you banned them in the public square.
If I were in charge of a school of any sort, I wouldn’t want someone teaching that poverty/homelessness/gun homicides didn’t exist when one can look around and see that they do. As an employer, I wouldn’t want an employee openly saying such things either. Both scenarios would reflect on me and my product.
Discussing ways to fix problems should be 100% fine.
5 Likes
I don’t think anyone said or agrees
I didn’t see anyone in this thread mention any of these things. It still comes down to free speech. Are you willing to let other people have opinions that you don’t share? Are you able to let their opinions be heard esp. if you think they are morally wrong? How do you share the public square if no one agrees?
These are questions which many people today have to say No, I can’t share the public square, no I can’t allow an opinion I find morally wrong to be heard and so on.
There are always going to be topics on which no one agrees. In the educational setting we used to talk about them. First, we’d address the issue, then we’d talk about both sides, people would raise different facts that they knew or found, then people would air opinions on what the various solutions were. Worked for hundreds of years.
Did something change? How did we get to the point where everyone gets to decide what the other side hears?
3 Likes
These First Amendment arguments always boil down to how you define “the public square”. Ninety-nine per cent of the time the contestants are not talking about a street corner or public park; most of the time, they are talking about a privately-run space that has become highly regarded over time. University audiences are a prime example. Is it so unreasonable to say university resources (including funds in many cases) should be spent in a way that reflects the school’s values?
Most definitely it is. Who gets to decide the schools value’s? What recourse do the students have. The only way to go is free speech. Let the arguments stand and let people decide what they want to believe and what arguments don’t make sense to them.
I want to be able to hear what anyone has to say. I can take it or leave it. I’ll take the good with the bad. This is ultimately better IMO than having someone “curate” what I should hear. That’s essentially part of the problem. Some folks actually think that they can curate the discussion.
4 Likes