In defence of Trump

[scombrid]

So far your suggestion is that he only dates people equally famous as him. Must suck to be a famous comedian then since nearly all comedians are men.

Why do you limit him to comedians?

 

[Patooka]

So far your suggestion is that he only dates people equally famous as him. Must suck to be a famous comedian then since nearly all comedians are men.

Why do you limit him to comedians?

John Oliver is married to a combat medic FYI.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Non sequitur. He has peers. Surely he has interests besides standup comedy. He just needs to avoid subordinates/non-consent situations. I am a biologist. I haven't had sex with a biologist since graduate school. I have never called an intern into my office to watch me masturbate. I am married to a veterinarian. Old saying back home was don't shit where you eat and don't fuck where you work.

That's easy for you to say. You're not a super star everybody recognizes wherever you go. Since he's a super star there will be a power imbalance whoever he is dating. We have a celebrity culture. At the time of #MeToo Louis CK was the single most famous comedian in the world. If he doesn't shit where he eats it'd be no eating for him, or shitting.

A non-consent situation is known as rape, and none of the women who accused him of anything accused him of rape. The only one who said he did things without consent was the woman who accused him of masturbating while talking on the phone with her. I have no idea how she can know this is what he was doing. He has not admitted to this one, but has admitted the other ones.

I maintain that you hold him up to impossible standards.

We also find our partners in unlikely situations. Nobody goes out of their way to go to new places just to get laid. As a world famous comedian he has very little free time. He'll only meet people in professional circles. This isn't much of a speculation. Just look at the amount of stuff he makes. Comedy is hard work. With your standards he'd never get laid.

So people with odd kinks or turn ons shouldn't be allowed to have sex,

Another non sequitur. Nothing I have written implies such.

I think you have.

You call what he did "having sex"? That is an odd definition of "having sex".

nor ask women for consent? Remember that he asked all these women and they all consented.

Because natural power balances exist you must recognize when consent may be coerced and avoid the situation. Since he didn't engage in the behavior with his peers but only with his subordinates I'd bet that he was well aware of the power dynamic involved.

I'm not so sure he did. Louis CK spent decades grinding away at shitty low end comedy clubs for pennies getting respect from nobody. He's not a hot guy. Why would he have had any idea how to behave towards women being a high status hot shot? Where was he supposed to learn the new dynamic other than through trial and error? When somebody shoots to fame it takes a while to adjust. We all need to be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them. That's as true for famous comedians as student frat boys. Or we have impossible standards that benefit nobody.

Everybody needs to learn how to behave towards the opposite sex. We get trained by our lovers. We learn step-by-step making smaller or bigger mistakes along the way. We learn that one woman loved when we did something while another thinks the same thing is horrendous and traumatizing. It's trial and error. That's how the world works and should work.

Everybody has made questionable things that they later regretted. Me included. I'm sure you have as well. Lucky for us we're not famous.

But only if he has a kind of sex you approve of?

This consent thing shouldn't be so hard. No wonder you people love Trump so much.

He did have consent from these women. None of the women have said anything about there not being consent. So what's your point?

Who exactly is my people? Libruhl leftys like me are rarely accused of loving Trump.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

DrZoidberg - option B is what you saw at the capitol. That was a racist mob. What do you think would have happened if they got hold of AOC for example? You think the left is over-reacting?

What you don't see is this stuff is inevitable if you just let it slide indefinitely.

Sure some voices are shrill, but to single them out because it's unfair to (not sure who) is just going to keep the status quo going, and the status quo almost went completely off the rails in the last few years.

"Cancel culture" is one of the dumbest timelines of the last 2 years. Trump enabled this nonsense and empowered a misogynistic and racist demographic in US society and what you are denouncing is the pushback.

People are right to pushback.

This pushback isn't happening in a vacuum. There are reasons people are upset. When a country elects a man who grabs-em-by-the-pussy because he's going to build a wall to keep the murderous brown people out, you are going to hear some people's opinion, and yes, some of it might even be angry.

This is black and white thinking. The fact that Trump is an awful human being doesn't make the liberals perfect little angels. No I don't think AFA is as bad as the MAGA/QAnnons. That's not my point.

You have a point? Because I see it more as a false equivalence mixed with a terrible understanding of American politics and culture.

Americans want to take down confederate statues erected in the 1950s as a result of a growing civil rights movement, and "cancel culture" starts being paraded by the right-wing, much like trying to show respect and understanding to all people was then called "PC" because the right-wing wanted to call people with Downs "retards" still.

Your posting on American issues are often context deaf.

 

[TomC]

[MENTION=65]DrZoidberg[/MENTION];

Your posting on American issues are often context deaf.

I think you're a good hearted person, trying to make sense of U.S. culture and political problems.

But still...

Tom

 

[DrZoidberg]

DrZoidberg - option B is what you saw at the capitol. That was a racist mob. What do you think would have happened if they got hold of AOC for example? You think the left is over-reacting?

What you don't see is this stuff is inevitable if you just let it slide indefinitely.

Sure some voices are shrill, but to single them out because it's unfair to (not sure who) is just going to keep the status quo going, and the status quo almost went completely off the rails in the last few years.

"Cancel culture" is one of the dumbest timelines of the last 2 years. Trump enabled this nonsense and empowered a misogynistic and racist demographic in US society and what you are denouncing is the pushback.

People are right to pushback.

This pushback isn't happening in a vacuum. There are reasons people are upset. When a country elects a man who grabs-em-by-the-pussy because he's going to build a wall to keep the murderous brown people out, you are going to hear some people's opinion, and yes, some of it might even be angry.

This is black and white thinking. The fact that Trump is an awful human being doesn't make the liberals perfect little angels. No I don't think AFA is as bad as the MAGA/QAnnons. That's not my point.

You have a point? Because I see it more as a false equivalence mixed with a terrible understanding of American politics and culture.

Americans want to take down confederate statues erected in the 1950s as a result of a growing civil rights movement, and "cancel culture" starts being paraded by the right-wing, much like trying to show respect and understanding to all people was then called "PC" because the right-wing wanted to call people with Downs "retards" still.

Your posting on American issues are often context deaf.

I don't think cancel culture has much to do with the statues being removed. It came from academia. Students didn't want lectures by people they thought were offensive. Which in a university is absurd, because they whole point of them being their is to have their beliefs challenged. From there it spread. Cancel culture is a real thing. It's also getting worse and worse. It's now crazier than ever. No, it's not just something paraded by the right-wing.

From academia it spread to normal life, and trying to cancel any speaker, public intellectual, entertainer or anybody with an audience.

I have a friend who was dragged into a major drama. He was a professor of psychology at Lund in Sweden. He was accused of being "heteronormative" in a course. He defended himself with that being heterosexual is the norm and it's simply not practical to take every conceivable queer perspective in every course. It's good enough, for that course, to use what's overwhelmingly the most normal as the norm. Which is what the word means. It was a course in group dynamics. Since he refused to back down it ended with him getting fired. Since I know this guy I got a front row seat in how this unfolded. People outside academia has no fucking clue how bad it is. It's insane now. This is a pattern in the world. No, this isn't anecdotal. There's similar stories everywhere. The problem is that students chose schools and schools are worried students won't come if they don't play along with this bullshit.

A friend who is a teacher in a high school got into trouble. In his school a lesbian teacher was hailed because she had a "norm critical" relationship. He pointed out they probably weren't in a relationship because they wanted to question norms, but rather they probably were in a relationship because they actually loved each other. Since this was a much too advanced concept for the students the understand it lead to a disciplinary hearing. Sweden is insane now. To a degree people outside of academia can't comprehend. This is serious, because ideas typically spread from academia and into society. It's a maoist moral purity movement. The people I know in academia in USA say it's worse in USA than in Sweden.

But sure, I have a Swedish/Danish perspective. Hearing perspectives from people around the globe, isn't that the point of this forum?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think cancel culture has much to do with the statues being removed.

Except "cancel culture" like "PC" are right-wing BS hyperbolic exaggerations of what is actually happening.

It came from academia. Students didn't want lectures by people they thought were offensive. Which in a university is absurd, because they whole point of them being their is to have their beliefs challenged. From there it spread. Cancel culture is a real thing. It's also getting worse and worse. It's now crazier than ever. No, it's not just something paraded by the right-wing.

We'll note that in the quote above, you start with an unsupported supposition. Then you snowball it into a gargantuan conclusion about what is actually happening... but isn't actually happening.

From academia it spread to normal life, and trying to cancel any speaker, public intellectual, entertainer or anybody with an audience.

Again... protesting against Milo Yiannopoulos (SJW troll) or Richard Spencer (supremacist) or Ann Coulter (propaganda queen) speaking at college campuses isn't exactly the same as stopping any number of actual conservative speakers. Things have gotten so bad in America, that if you don't let trolls speak at college campuses, you are accused of being against free speech.

I have a friend who was dragged into a major drama. He was a professor of psychology at Lund in Sweden. He was accused of being "heteronormative" in a course. He defended himself with that being heterosexual is the norm and it's simply not practical to take every conceivable queer perspective in every course. It's good enough, for that course, to use what's overwhelmingly the most normal as the norm. Which is what the word means. It was a course in group dynamics. Since he refused to back down it ended with him getting fired. Since I know this guy I got a front row seat in how this unfolded. People outside academia has no fucking clue how bad it is. It's insane now. This is a pattern in the world. No, this isn't anecdotal.

Actually it is anecdotal, if you don't present any other cases. You can't just say "There's similar stories everywhere." but not actually support the claim.

But sure, I have a Swedish/Danish perspective. Hearing perspectives from people around the globe, isn't that the point of this forum?

The point of my post was, your posts are context deaf on American history, culture, and current events. IE, you continually show you have no idea what you are talking about or understand the context of certain events and their significance.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Except "cancel culture" like "PC" are right-wing BS hyperbolic exaggerations of what is actually happening.
We'll note that in the quote above, you start with an unsupported supposition. Then you snowball it into a gargantuan conclusion about what is actually happening... but isn't actually happening.

I think that's naive.

From academia it spread to normal life, and trying to cancel any speaker, public intellectual, entertainer or anybody with an audience.

Again... protesting against Milo Yiannopoulos (SJW troll) or Richard Spencer (supremacist) or Ann Coulter (propaganda queen) speaking at college campuses isn't exactly the same as stopping any number of actual conservative speakers. Things have gotten so bad in America, that if you don't let trolls speak at college campuses, you are accused of being against free speech.

And then you should be accused of being against free speech. It would be an accurate accusation. I don't think you are with the good guys here.

I completely agree on your labelling of Milo, Spencer and Coulter. I think all three are horrible people. But the moment anybody tries to prevent them from speaking, I'm on their side. Especially when it's on a college campus. I don't give a fuck what heinous opinions they have, I'm willing to take a bullet to defend their free speech.

 

[TomC]

The point of my post was, your posts are context deaf on American history, culture, and current events. IE, you continually show you have no idea what you are talking about or understand the context of certain events and their significance.

To be fair,
American citizens commonly show similar lack of understanding. At least DrZ has the excuse of living in a foreign land.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

But sure, I have a Swedish/Danish perspective. Hearing perspectives from people around the globe, isn't that the point of this forum?

The problem isn’t you having a different perspective, it’s that your posts come across, with intent or not, as authoritative on the American perspective. And those of us actually raised and living in America are finding your perspectives unrepresentative of our experiences.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think that's naive.

That's nice.

Again... protesting against Milo Yiannopoulos (SJW troll) or Richard Spencer (supremacist) or Ann Coulter (propaganda queen) speaking at college campuses isn't exactly the same as stopping any number of actual conservative speakers. Things have gotten so bad in America, that if you don't let trolls speak at college campuses, you are accused of being against free speech.

And then you should be accused of being against free speech. It would be an accurate accusation. I don't think you are with the good guys here.

You seem to be mistaken here. There is a difference between free speech and free venue to speak.Those three people aren't in jail for the bullshit they say and propagate. That is the free speech part of the Bill of Rights.

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing a venue to blather such bullshit. IE, schools shouldn't be forced to allow such people to speak because they allow others to speak there. Forcing schools to let such people talk provides their message with a legitimacy. They are free to speak elsewhere.

 

[blastula]

Here's J.C. Pearse making a similar observation to Weinstein.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZGayFkjku8

Seriously? JP Sears is another conspiracy theorist loon. Is that the best you can come up with?

No he isn't. He's a New Age hippie poking fun at himself and at stuff in his own community. He's a cool hippie

I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you haven't heard his podcast, where he gets more into his views, but then I watched the video, and it's utter horseshit. Tell me any valid point he makes in there that goes to whatever you're arguing for.

I also watched another video that's even worse,

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/xH9XWNz0GW4[/YOUTUBE]

It's so stupid, chockful of insurrection trutherism, election trutherism and covid trutherism. He's a right wing nutjob period. He was even doing the easily debunked "it was antifa" lie. Wtf, DrZ. You talked about a need for conservative intellectuals, and this brainlet is who you promote.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And then you should be accused of being against free speech. It would be an accurate accusation. I don't think you are with the good guys here.

You seem to be mistaken here. There is a difference between free speech and free venue to speak.Those three people aren't in jail for the bullshit they say and propagate. That is the free speech part of the Bill of Rights.

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing a venue to blather such bullshit. IE, schools shouldn't be forced to allow such people to speak because they allow others to speak there. Forcing schools to let such people talk provides their message with a legitimacy. They are free to speak elsewhere.

Who's to decide what messages are legitimate? A school is about helping people figure that out for themselves. I strongly disagree with you.

These people protesting weren't going to go to the lecture anyway. So why are they piping up? They come across as these moral majority religious lunatics picketing outside movies they find immoral, or those pro-life morons outside abortion clinics. How about letting other people run their own lives. They don't need your help. I've seen Milo Yanopolis videos. I didn't take any damage. I've read Mein Kampf. I'm still not a Nazi.

You're not the good guy here.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No he isn't. He's a New Age hippie poking fun at himself and at stuff in his own community. He's a cool hippie

I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you haven't heard his podcast, where he gets more into his views, but then I watched the video, and it's utter horseshit. Tell me any valid point he makes in there that goes to whatever you're arguing for.

I also watched another video that's even worse,

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/xH9XWNz0GW4[/YOUTUBE]

It's so stupid, chockful of insurrection trutherism, election trutherism and covid trutherism. He's a right wing nutjob period. He was even doing the easily debunked "it was antifa" lie. Wtf, DrZ. You talked about a need for conservative intellectuals, and this brainlet is who you promote.

I haven't heard his podcast. I've only seen the comedy videos. I would never say he's an intellectual. He's just a jokester. He's funny though. I do not promote him as an intellectual. Anyhoo, I didn't know he had a podcast. All I know is from his videos. So I can't really speak about his opinions apart from the videos. But he is a hippie. That's obvious and I dislike hippie culture in general.

From the video here I agree with him that the left is fed a false story about how perfect and impeccable anybody on the left is and how bad everybody on the right is. And the left doesn't seem to spend any time thinking that's a problem. Since mainstream news is increasingly leftist. It's a huge problem. I agree that the right does the same thing. Nobody benefits from a situation where everybody is deluded about their own side. Which is the situation now. So he has a point there and I believe was the punchline of this joke.

Here's an example. Take any feminist conference. They typically have plenty of speakers on who are extreme. While she was alive Andrea Dworkin was invited to so many conferences as a speaker she did nothing else with her time. She was a lunatic. There's no mechanism within the left to sort out loons on our own side. We spend all our efforts attacking the other side. The right does the same thing. That was perfectly fine in the 80'ies. But the mainstream press today is increasingly leftist which means we on the left aren't getting the rights viewpoints and criticism. It's very hard for us to be informed about the problems on our own side. That's dangerous. That's a situation that will lead to increased extremism. On both sides. It'll lead to a destablisation of the whole system. Which is exactly what has been the trend the last 20 years.

 

[bigfield]

And then you should be accused of being against free speech. It would be an accurate accusation. I don't think you are with the good guys here.

You seem to be mistaken here. There is a difference between free speech and free venue to speak.Those three people aren't in jail for the bullshit they say and propagate. That is the free speech part of the Bill of Rights.

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing a venue to blather such bullshit. IE, schools shouldn't be forced to allow such people to speak because they allow others to speak there. Forcing schools to let such people talk provides their message with a legitimacy. They are free to speak elsewhere.

Who's to decide what messages are legitimate? A school is about helping people figure that out for themselves. I strongly disagree with you.

These people protesting weren't going to go to the lecture anyway. So why are they piping up? They come across as these moral majority religious lunatics picketing outside movies they find immoral, or those pro-life morons outside abortion clinics. How about letting other people run their own lives. They don't need your help. I've seen Milo Yanopolis videos. I didn't take any damage. I've read Mein Kampf. I'm still not a Nazi.

You're not the good guy here.

I've noticed a theme in your posts: you seem to think colleges/universities should provide an open forum.

I feel like I've read a fair bit about how universities operate - and I've attended a couple of universities myself - but I've never gotten the impression that any of them actually provide the kind of platform that you expect. I've noticed some related activities: some students get involved in student politics and will stage demonstrations and other events and some university students have clubs that organise speakers. But there doesn't seem to be a tradition of letting out university venues indiscriminately for the sake of providing an open forum. Rather the general rule seems to be this: if some student club wants to host a speaker, they are free to use their own meeting hall or rent out the function room at the local pub, and the university has no say in it. It seems to me that university faculty and administrators have always been choosy about whom they offer a platform, and I can't see how they could function otherwise.

 

[bigfield]

Here's an example. Take any feminist conference. They typically have plenty of speakers on who are extreme. While she was alive Andrea Dworkin was invited to so many conferences as a speaker she did nothing else with her time. She was a lunatic. There's no mechanism within the left to sort out loons on our own side. We spend all our efforts attacking the other side. The right does the same thing. That was perfectly fine in the 80'ies. But the mainstream press today is increasingly leftist which means we on the left aren't getting the rights viewpoints and criticism. It's very hard for us to be informed about the problems on our own side. That's dangerous. That's a situation that will lead to increased extremism. On both sides. It'll lead to a destablisation of the whole system. Which is exactly what has been the trend the last 20 years.

If a political party has terrible ideas and they refuse to listen to good reasons why their policies are unappealing to people, then they will simply fade into obscurity, or remain on the margins where they have no influence. If they have a strong desire to gain popular support and form or join government then they have a strong incentive to get out of their echo chamber and actually figure out how to make effective policy.

A party that is beholden to fringe ideas will remain on the fringe. A political movement that can't sell its ideas will just fall away and be replace by another one that can.

I think this is most evident in two-party political systems. I'm most familiar with Australian politics, but the US serves as a example, as the two parties have dramatically changed their political alignment over their course of their history. In a two party system, each party has a strong incentive to offer a broad platform with wide appeal, otherwise they are doomed to spend eternity in opposition.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Who's to decide what messages are legitimate? A school is about helping people figure that out for themselves. I strongly disagree with you.

These people protesting weren't going to go to the lecture anyway. So why are they piping up? They come across as these moral majority religious lunatics picketing outside movies they find immoral, or those pro-life morons outside abortion clinics. How about letting other people run their own lives. They don't need your help. I've seen Milo Yanopolis videos. I didn't take any damage. I've read Mein Kampf. I'm still not a Nazi.

You're not the good guy here.

I've noticed a theme in your posts: you seem to think colleges/universities should provide an open forum.

I feel like I've read a fair bit about how universities operate - and I've attended a couple of universities myself - but I've never gotten the impression that any of them actually provide the kind of platform that you expect. I've noticed some related activities: some students get involved in student politics and will stage demonstrations and other events and some university students have clubs that organise speakers. But there doesn't seem to be a tradition of letting out university venues indiscriminately for the sake of providing an open forum. Rather the general rule seems to be this: if some student club wants to host a speaker, they are free to use their own meeting hall or rent out the function room at the local pub, and the university has no say in it. It seems to me that university faculty and administrators have always been choosy about whom they offer a platform, and I can't see how they could function otherwise.

Its not an open forum. Professors should be free to invite whoever they want. That's actually important. They should feel free to invite speakers no matter how controversial.

Students are free to be as offended as they want to be, but don't get to decide who is speaking. But that has changed now.

Students today have figured out that they have the universities by the balls. Without their attendence the university gets no money. And they're using this to apply pressure. So universities are reactive and obedient today. There's a continual process of spineless professors staying and intellectually honest professors being bullied out of a job. That's not a good trend.

It's the Dunning-Kruger paradox. These students, like all teenagers, think they have it all figured out. The job of universities is to take their delusions and smash them. Since the students increasingly are opposed to this their delusions aren't being smashed as they used to be. Universities are increasingly turning into propaganda camps that only re-enforce what the student already believed when enrolling. Which is an exact parallel of what Christian universities have been doing. They produce nothing but brainwashed idiots who are ill equipped for the modern world. So let's not emulate them.

Gender studies is an excellent example of a discipline that's fucked up. It started out as a perspective to hold when doing post-modern litterature critique. Within that domain it's an excellent tool. But it's been lifted out of that context and is now being treated as studies on gender generally. Which is false. It's never been. So students of gender studies come out of the school, dumber than when they went in. That's not good. Again, completely analogues to what is happening in the evangelical Christian universities.

It is a trend. It's a very bad trend and it's gaining speed.

If things continue like this what will happen is that the progressive left will keep getting increasingly extreme, the working class voters will elect somebody like Trump who will do away with all this nonsense. Oh, wait... it's happened already. Why the working classes? If education makes you dumber, the uneducated will be the more sensible ones. I see a divergent path where the left gets increasingly extreme, the right gets increasingly extreme as a reaction and it will keep going until there are irreconcilable differences.

 

[bigfield]

Who's to decide what messages are legitimate? A school is about helping people figure that out for themselves. I strongly disagree with you.

These people protesting weren't going to go to the lecture anyway. So why are they piping up? They come across as these moral majority religious lunatics picketing outside movies they find immoral, or those pro-life morons outside abortion clinics. How about letting other people run their own lives. They don't need your help. I've seen Milo Yanopolis videos. I didn't take any damage. I've read Mein Kampf. I'm still not a Nazi.

You're not the good guy here.

I've noticed a theme in your posts: you seem to think colleges/universities should provide an open forum.

I feel like I've read a fair bit about how universities operate - and I've attended a couple of universities myself - but I've never gotten the impression that any of them actually provide the kind of platform that you expect. I've noticed some related activities: some students get involved in student politics and will stage demonstrations and other events and some university students have clubs that organise speakers. But there doesn't seem to be a tradition of letting out university venues indiscriminately for the sake of providing an open forum. Rather the general rule seems to be this: if some student club wants to host a speaker, they are free to use their own meeting hall or rent out the function room at the local pub, and the university has no say in it. It seems to me that university faculty and administrators have always been choosy about whom they offer a platform, and I can't see how they could function otherwise.

Its not an open forum. Professors should be free to invite whoever they want. That's actually important. They should feel free to invite speakers no matter how controversial.

Students are free to be as offended as they want to be, but don't get to decide who is speaking.

Students today have figured out that they have the universities by the balls.

That's capitalism for you. For-profit universities don't want to threaten their income.

I disagree that professors should feel free to invite whomever they want. The administration is ultimately responsible for what goes on at the university, should exercise some control over who is teaching what on their campus. and should uphold some kind of standards.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Its not an open forum. Professors should be free to invite whoever they want. That's actually important. They should feel free to invite speakers no matter how controversial.

Students are free to be as offended as they want to be, but don't get to decide who is speaking.

Students today have figured out that they have the universities by the balls.

That's capitalism for you. For-profit universities don't want to threaten their income.

I disagree that professors should feel free to invite whomever they want. The administration is ultimately responsible for what goes on at the university, should exercise some control over who is teaching what on their campus. and should uphold some kind of standards.

So they hire a leading expert in a field and then people who are less experts in that field tell the expert how to do their job. What could possibly go wrong? Why not just fire the expert and just have a poll where students get to vote on what they want to be true?

NO! The administration should back the fuck off and not tell the professor how to do their job. That's a very important factor in keeping universities relevant.

And it's not a minor thing. Universities are increasingly becoming irrelevant. Skills are increasingly taught via on-line courses. But these are very specialized courses that don't give students a well rounded generally scientific training. But they do make the universities to lose income, which impacts teaching. This is not the time to fuck around with the standards of the education.

 

[bigfield]

The job of universities is to take their delusions and smash them. Since the students increasingly are opposed to this their delusions aren't being smashed as they used to be. Universities are increasingly turning into propaganda camps that only re-enforce what the student already believed when enrolling. Which is an exact parallel of what Christian universities have been doing. They produce nothing but brainwashed idiots who are ill equipped for the modern world. So let's not emulate them.

I'm finding it difficult to think of instance where universities have ever smashed delusions. I've taken courses, and watched other courses online, which have taught me things I didn't know before and disabused me of some simplistic ideas, but that's about it. I would say it has broadened the worldview I'd already formed during high school, rather than destroy and rebuild it.

I have to say I'm totally uninterested in gender studies as an example. How does this problem affect more credible academic fields? How does deplatforming right-wing provocateurs affect academic standards in, say, history, political science, or biochemistry? Whose intellectual growth is being stunted? I need someone to join the dots, here.

Its not an open forum. Professors should be free to invite whoever they want. That's actually important. They should feel free to invite speakers no matter how controversial.

Students are free to be as offended as they want to be, but don't get to decide who is speaking.

Students today have figured out that they have the universities by the balls.

That's capitalism for you. For-profit universities don't want to threaten their income.

I disagree that professors should feel free to invite whomever they want. The administration is ultimately responsible for what goes on at the university, should exercise some control over who is teaching what on their campus. and should uphold some kind of standards.

So they hire a leading expert in a field and then people who are less experts in that field tell the expert how to do their job. What could possibly go wrong? Why not just fire the expert and just have a poll where students get to vote on what they want to be true?

NO! The administration should back the fuck off and not tell the professor how to do their job. That's a very important factor in keeping universities relevant.

And it's not a minor thing. Universities are increasingly becoming irrelevant. Skills are increasingly taught via on-line courses. But these are very specialized courses that don't give students a well rounded generally scientific training. But they do make the universities to lose income, which impacts teaching. This is not the time to fuck around with the standards of the education.

I think it's a good idea to sit back and let your people do their jobs. But they still work for you; you are responsible for getting the best out of them, and you are responsible if they underperform. A hands-off management approach does not mean that you can abdicate responsibility.

I don't think administrators should tell professors "how to do their job". But they sure as shit should step in when a professor does their job badly. If university administrators can figure out that a professor is an expert in their field, then they can also figure out whether or not the professor is doing a good job, whether that be teaching people or doing research.

If I were a university administrator and one of my professors invited Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard Spencer, or Ann Coulter to give a guest lecture, I'd want a pretty compelling explanation as to why.