“I don’t think you get to decide what counts as debate.”
Alice McLachlan, feminist and professor of philosophy, sides with the mob.
“I don’t think you get to decide what counts as debate.”
Alice McLachlan, feminist and professor of philosophy, sides with the mob.
There’s an error trying to access your page, David.
Error 522 Ray ID: 12d137b1ac38016a
Typepad has been up and down like a hooker’s drawers. Apparently they’re working on it.
Among the well-known consequences of the politicization of the Academy is the demise of academic standards. As non-academic social and political goals, like inclusivity and equality, supplant the goals of truth, knowledge and understanding in our universities, we get “affirmative action” cases like McLachlan. Because the social engineers can’t get their way via rationality, they get it via anti-rationality, which is much better. Why are they allowed to do so? Because it works.
Among McLachlan’s infantile mistakes:
(1) She mis-defines free speech narrowly, as freedom from government interference. Thus defined, the tactics of the Shut Up! crowd could not violate anyone’s rights to free speech, because that crowd ain’t the government—at least, not yet! See what an easy victory that is? You define away your opponent’s objection? And who can argue with definitions, right? This is a tactic of the intellectual scoundrel.
(2) She falsely attributes to her opponent, Fiamengo, the view that free speech entails freedom from consequences, and then argues against that straw man. Scoundrel, again. To learn how not to commit the straw man fallacy, McLachlan should take a first year Critical Reasoning course. Then, take it again, until it takes.
(3) The key to McLachlan’s position, and therefore to the position of the Shut Up! movement, is the view that, as she puts it, there is no difference between ideas and persons. What can this possible mean? No one can possibly tell you, since the claim beggars understanding. Yet it is a fundamental tenet of postmodernism that persons are nothing but their beliefs, desires, and so on. If so, criticism of one’s beliefs, etc., is therefore criticism of the person—an attack on the person. To say of someone’s belief that it is false, is to say, in effect, that that someone “Has no value”, as she puts it. Thus, criticism is forbidden, because … equality! Unless, of course, it is criticism of someone who does not enjoy the elevated status of belonging to some margin or other.
There’s a delicious moment when Rachel, the “community organizer” attempts to “answer” a question from the moderator about the use of the “I’m offended” move to silence debate. Her answer is that, well, yes, sometimes it’s just easier to shut people up. In her and their world, that’s justification enough. Intellectual giant.
Just as there is no point arguing with someone who is mentally ill, there is really no point in arguing with the committed irrationalists: they will say anything, and, as McLachlan confesses, they will do anything to win.
We shall reap the whirlwind.
It was observed by somebody:
Never argue with a fool/idiot…..you have tto lower yourself to their level and then they beat you with experience.
Link working again.
I can’t get on to the site yet but I have to agree with your contention nick that people have great difficulty separating ideas from the people holding the ideas. You need look no farther than the near racist comments Kate receives whenever she posts something about Muslims which in a very perverse way works to the advantage of the Muslim belief system. By attacking the individual holding an idea rather than the idea itself the attacker paints himself in a most unflattering light while the vile ideology gets away without a scratch.
The problem is these morons seem to think that education is intelligence. Does it not feel like about 475 AD? The barbarians are truly at the gate. As Captain Capitalism says, enjoy the decline!
I also cannot connect to the link, but if I am understanding it correctly and although not having any schooling in analyzing what this woman is saying, I would suggest that the thought process you describe was the very hypothesis of the mind and people control of the Soviet Union. In other words, you have no right to any ideas that contradict Marxist thought, and also have no right to exist any longer.
North America has its own modern day kulaks.
Joe and Ken, et al.,
You can watch the video on YouTube here, but do go to David’s excellent site for the comments and his replies.
She’s playing up to her audience. Here’s what her students think of her:
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1001822
Hence, Kate’s famous catchphrase, “The children are our future…”
As I said over at my place, McLachlan’s dishonesty is hard to miss. Around 5:30, regarding Fiamengo’s thwarted lecture and discussion, she says: “What I saw warmed me. I saw people who cared very much about gender issues… vigorously, whole-heartedly and determinedly engaging with each other.” Yes, the feminist protestors cared so much they made disagreement impossible and then applauded themselves for having thwarted a discussion that others had travelled to take part in. The only voices heard were the protestors’ own.
And the person excusing such behaviour, championing it, is a professor of philosophy, a supposed intellectual. An intellectual who thinks that shrieking, disruption and banging on tables – until the invited speaker and audience give up and leave – is a legitimate and admirable form of “debate.” Apparently Ms McLachlan “cares a lot about free speech.” Just not for people who might dare to disagree with her.
McLachlan doesn’t seem at all concerned that the protestors’ tactics show utter contempt not only for Fiamengo but for those watching online and everyone else present, some of whom had driven for over an hour to get to the lecture and were then kept waiting another hour by the protestors, before both the lecture and planned discussion had to be abandoned.
What McLachlan is defending is malignant narcissism pretending to be virtue.
Pulling fire alarms?
Does this McLachlan wear a brown shirt with a Sam Brown belt?
That was the SA debating style.
No more no less.
Even the Nazi and Communist parties had “intellectual” professors. The term intellectual does not necessary deserve respect.
It’s rather difficult to hold a debate when there are two sides to a story, but they are both yours. A debate is a exchange of ideas. We understand that simple premise yet a professor and a community organizer dismiss the logic in that. I have always maintained that a good education has no bearing on intelligence and 33 minutes of video just confirmed it once again. Two more well educated morons with tunnel vision. They not only influence children but they may even breed. In a sane world they would be working at 7-11, not meaning any disrespect for 7-11 as they might not qualify.
If this is the same Alice MacLachlan that I’m thinking of, she has long had (and, if it’s the same person, still has) serious “father issues”, for which the rest of the world must be content to suffer.
Back in the day, when my German was more fluent, I had the job of interrogating a fella who made it over the wall…alive…he wuz a Voppo at check-point Charlie….all he had ta do wuz drop his weapon and run…..
He told me why DDR police always went in 3’s….
One to read…
One to write….
One to keep an eye on the two intellectuals….