Comment by feoren
5 days ago
Is this an example of "one strawman deserves another"? You know that when GP talked about "presenting a viewpoint", he didn't mean "as an example of a bad idea that nobody should believe". He meant he wants alt-right talking points parroted to everyone because he's upset that reality has a liberal bias. You know this. You also know that I'm not suggesting outlawing the discussion of slavery in its historical context, but simply saying that universities have no obligation to make a case for failed and abhorrent ideas in the name of "diverse viewpoints". Why are you pretending like you don't know this already?
Your First Comment: "That's true. Universities no longer present the viewpoint that black people are inferior to whites and deserve to be slaves."
Your Later Comment: "You also know that I'm not suggesting outlawing the discussion of slavery in its historical context, but simply saying that universities have no obligation to make a case for failed and abhorrent ideas in the name of "diverse viewpoints"."
I am not American, Republican or even politically right. I am not your enemy. Please try and take the most respectful interpretation of what I am saying.
Your first and second comments I quoted above contradict each other.
The straw man I was referencing in your original post is how you pointed to the worst examples of "right" values. I indulged the examples you shared by stating even in those cases those ideas need to be explored fully in order to understand why they failed, so they are not repeated. I understand you are not advocating for these discussions to be outlawed, and I agree! I also don't advocate for these discussions to be forcefully imposed! However I do think that schools have evolved their curriculums to such an extent that many of these ideas are not adequately analyzed or represented within the programs offered, and the consequence is that it makes society weaker and more susceptible to the ideas resurfacing.
Also, I honestly don't know who GP is that you are referring to. I also don't know who you are, what you believe, or what you meant beyond the words you wrote in that one comment. I am not pretending anything. Just trying to point out how avoiding discussing certain ideas (by deliberately excluding them from curriculums), just because those ideas are "bad", is a problem that will have big long-term consequences, including the resurgence of those "bad" ideas (because the education system didn't inoculate people against them).
In your original comment that I responded to, it sounded like you were saying universities shouldn't discuss these ideas (including their subjective historical-context-dependent merits or correlated beliefs) at all. Now it sounds like you are saying that's not your stance. That's fine, you clarified your stance.
It's not helpful to assume that I should have known this was your stance all along and that I am pretending not to.
> I am not American, Republican or even politically right. I am not your enemy.
It's telling that intelligent discussions with people on the left are almost impossible without such disclaimers