Here's another. The number one, in the mathematical sense, remains the same value, regardless of the time or galaxy that you discuss the number 'one'. Mind you, I'm not describing the 'one' as tied to a physical quality like temperature, mass, heat transfer etc.
I'm sort of curious. All the talk about Universities shutting down debate and any sort of ideas that lie outside of the accepted left-wing doctrine. Is there anyone here on HN that supports this notion? That supports the suppression of contradictory ideas? That would protest if some horrible right-winger came to give a talk on your campus? Would love to actually hear from one of these individuals who would actually protest, actively try to stop a dissenting opinion from being spoken on campus.
The latest flashpoint for this kind of protest was e.g. Milo Yiannopolous coming to universities to give a "talk" that was little more than a hit-list of trans students on campus. Even when they're not so viscerally violent, they resemble political rallies far more than academic discussion.
In reality universities have never been the kind of place conservatives are now claiming they used to be. At most the shift is that speaker choices are now becoming more student-driven rather than admin-driven (but there was also a not-too-distant point where they became more admin-driven than lecturer-driven). That might be worth criticizing, but that's not the criticism being leveled.
And isn't it weird how "Speech First, Inc" has a lot to say about DEI programs or whatever "CRT" refers to this week but nothing to say about anti-BDS policies or Don't Say Gay bills?
"Free speech", or specifically its current cultural manifestation in the US, is also the kind of foundational issue universities should re-examine, isn't it? America has some of the broadest free speech laws in the world, but it's not clear they're materially more informed, receptive, or accurate than e.g. Germany or France.
Just want to point out that there are ways to protest that do not prevent the other person from speaking. Standing silently in the back of the room with signs, for example. I would wholeheartedly support such a protest.
It is inevitable that to progress ideas need to be built upon ideas. In order to make progress in any area of science or technology, you can't investigate every axiom in the chain. You need to implicitly trust that a lot of those ideas are true, especially if there is an academic consensus.
In my experience the people who mostly have their views shut down are people who derail high level (conversations about ideas built upon lots of levels of ideas) with questions about lower levels of ideas.
One (strange) example may be; in a debate regarding the best way to colonise Mars, a third person questioning the existence of space.
It's not helpful to question the existence of something that has been proven over and over again. It's wasting everyone's time. But it makes a good hot take for the media to represent like it is somehow an equal and opposite opinion.
So the third person, who questions the basics that scientists have been agreeing on for a long time, uses cheap arguments to derail the conversation. They get rewarded for it with media time, and people that want to confirm their anti-establishment biases.
This is the person that is most likely to get their views censored; and then the most likely to complain that wokeism is going too far and censoring debate.
I apologise for the Australian slang but-- Mate, nobody is censoring real debate; they're censoring shit-takes.
I am working as an educator at an art university. In my perception the shutting down of debate is not at all an issue. Some seem to imagine that students have nothing else to discuss than "woke" issues, but they are actually studying in a certain field and "woke issues" might play different (usually very minor) roles their fields.
Our university typically invites people based on the merits in their field (and whether what they can contribute fits into the existing curriculae), not based on their political orientation. In the US where you have two parties this might be more pressing maybe?
My experience as a former student in theatre, film and media science is however that it is rare to have actual good rightwing scholars in that specific field, but this also translates to the arts. Good scholars have to be devoted to the fields primarily and not to a political cause. Inviting someone just because of their politics is not something that is done, unless their work is good.
The topics people deal with are in themself not unchallenging or "woke", e.g. Film students would also look at films of Nazi filmmakers, soviet propaganda films, other filmic movements, etc. So certainly not a diet that you would show to people if you want to avoid opening their perspective.
So my take on this is that there is enough different perspective here. Sure this university tries to avoid inviting trolls, political activists (from all sides!) and downright destructive people (from all sides!) — but that doesn't hurt the debate, it helps it.
Society has never had "academic institutions that pursue truth over any other concern" and thankfully never will. This mythologizing of universities past feels acceptable to liberals because it flatters their current values, but is ultimately a boring "good old days" reactionary turn.
If you are the last woman alive, and there is one man alive, you must produce children. Contradict me, assuming you are not the alien species that tried to wipe us out.
This completely misses the point of your hypothetical, but if you only have two humans left your descendants will inevitably die out due to inbreeding. Two individuals isn't enough genetic diversity to sustain a species.
There are people who unironically belong to this movement who would urge this woman not to mate. I don't agree with their arguments, but I believe that they should not be beyond debate. I'm not smart enough to identify their values as inferior on some absolute scale, and given their values their arguments may well be sound.
If there are only two humans left, then it’s already too late. We need a breeding population of around 50, or we will suffer genetic collapse (the actual number is much higher, to be able to actually evolve, but you need at least that much to avoid catastrophic genetic drift). https://moscow.sci-hub.st/1832/d4805799591a7b5e7843531b9aeb0...
[+] [-] _moof|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] powerbroker|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaymaths|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robbedpeter|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matt-attack|3 years ago|reply
Is there just one of you here?
[+] [-] idontwantthis|3 years ago|reply
There’s no benefit in tolerating intolerance. If fascists take power they’ll come for the enlightened centrists too.
Try telling the gestapo “While, I respect your right to your opinions, I must ask you to unhand my wife and leave my home. “
[+] [-] morelisp|3 years ago|reply
In reality universities have never been the kind of place conservatives are now claiming they used to be. At most the shift is that speaker choices are now becoming more student-driven rather than admin-driven (but there was also a not-too-distant point where they became more admin-driven than lecturer-driven). That might be worth criticizing, but that's not the criticism being leveled.
And isn't it weird how "Speech First, Inc" has a lot to say about DEI programs or whatever "CRT" refers to this week but nothing to say about anti-BDS policies or Don't Say Gay bills?
"Free speech", or specifically its current cultural manifestation in the US, is also the kind of foundational issue universities should re-examine, isn't it? America has some of the broadest free speech laws in the world, but it's not clear they're materially more informed, receptive, or accurate than e.g. Germany or France.
[+] [-] _moof|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AA-BA-94-2A-56|3 years ago|reply
In my experience the people who mostly have their views shut down are people who derail high level (conversations about ideas built upon lots of levels of ideas) with questions about lower levels of ideas.
One (strange) example may be; in a debate regarding the best way to colonise Mars, a third person questioning the existence of space.
It's not helpful to question the existence of something that has been proven over and over again. It's wasting everyone's time. But it makes a good hot take for the media to represent like it is somehow an equal and opposite opinion.
So the third person, who questions the basics that scientists have been agreeing on for a long time, uses cheap arguments to derail the conversation. They get rewarded for it with media time, and people that want to confirm their anti-establishment biases.
This is the person that is most likely to get their views censored; and then the most likely to complain that wokeism is going too far and censoring debate.
I apologise for the Australian slang but-- Mate, nobody is censoring real debate; they're censoring shit-takes.
[+] [-] atoav|3 years ago|reply
Our university typically invites people based on the merits in their field (and whether what they can contribute fits into the existing curriculae), not based on their political orientation. In the US where you have two parties this might be more pressing maybe?
My experience as a former student in theatre, film and media science is however that it is rare to have actual good rightwing scholars in that specific field, but this also translates to the arts. Good scholars have to be devoted to the fields primarily and not to a political cause. Inviting someone just because of their politics is not something that is done, unless their work is good.
The topics people deal with are in themself not unchallenging or "woke", e.g. Film students would also look at films of Nazi filmmakers, soviet propaganda films, other filmic movements, etc. So certainly not a diet that you would show to people if you want to avoid opening their perspective.
So my take on this is that there is enough different perspective here. Sure this university tries to avoid inviting trolls, political activists (from all sides!) and downright destructive people (from all sides!) — but that doesn't hurt the debate, it helps it.
[+] [-] morelisp|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] powerbroker|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] solveit|3 years ago|reply
See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population
[+] [-] hirundo|3 years ago|reply
There are people who unironically belong to this movement who would urge this woman not to mate. I don't agree with their arguments, but I believe that they should not be beyond debate. I'm not smart enough to identify their values as inferior on some absolute scale, and given their values their arguments may well be sound.
[+] [-] notriddle|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimmydef|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] KerrAvon|3 years ago|reply