You guys know the drill. Two great minds squaring off on social justice and related topics. Here’s a nice long part 2 out of 3! If you’d like to hear part 3 early, you can always hop on over to Patreon and subscribe!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (38.9MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Hey, I just started listening today, and this appears to be a Thomas and the Bible episode! I think you may have had a mixup. It’s wrong on iTunes, as well.
Thank you, should be fixed now.
The problem, as always, is trying to do Twitter philosophy. Almost need a podcast if Twitter has been a majority positive or negative for the atheist movement…I have to check, I think Thomas might have talked about that in the past.
What’s scary about Eli’s rant at about 58:00 that it’s a university’s job to “filter” information. The rub is who gets to be the filter? Do we get to elect the filters? Are they appointed by a board of regents? Is it a political spoils job? Who supplies and operates the “filter” is a pretty big question.
It seemed when James clarified that classroom (forget the damn word) I’ll incorrectly use “itinerary” is specific and can and should be filtered and was specifically decided to be filtered, that Eli attempted a few times to blur that line between allowing unfiltered Speakers to speak and then the filters in place in classroom settings. Listen carefully for him to attempt to blur that specification and James continuing to clarify it.
It’s an important distinction that Eli seemed to prefer to blur.
James’ opinion reminds me of some people I know who are white upper middle class equating their upbringing with that of a black child in the intercity and saying they both had same opportunities for education, social mobility, etc. The privilege I receive as a white male even though I grew up in a trailer raised by my aunt, allows me to sluff off denigration because it is so infrequent that it does not have a real impact. if you are ostracized and treated a certain way you start to believe it.
I do believe victimhood is a real problem, but victims do exist. Often times when seeking equality the minority can over reach but that does not make the intent for equality any less wrong. There is a right way and a wrong way to conduct yourself. That is why I support the Martin Luther King’s of the world rather than lash out at the Malcom X’s.
OK Eli. I’ve decided that your speech is problematic and denies my humanity because you’re you. Please wait while I contact the party and get you deplatformed from speaking at any universities until the party can inspect you for wrong-think.
eli should just admit that his position is dogmatic and can’t be defended rationally.
I love this discussion! I think Eli has some great and valid things to say, even if he isn’t making them in the best way all the time. I think his Terryology analogy is actually very on point and really drives home why we shouldn’t condemn a position for it’s worst adherents.
With that being said, James is totally right that we shouldn’t be going around deplatforming speakers we don’t want to hear. Who gets to decide what information the students are allowed to hear?
I think people aren’t cutting Eli enough slack. He is defending a very unfavorable opinion against someone far more qualified. So far I’ve been very surprised at how much I’m learning from the discussion on both sides. One of the most fruitful episodes you’ve ever had I’d say Thomas!
Oh I agree, we are here complaining about Eli and all but I probably agree with him on 95% of everything.
I mean he is very interesting to listen to and I’ve very much enjoyed him as a guest in the past.
I can’t help but think as more and more of the discussion continues that listening back to previous episodes of Eli I may disagree a little more with his opinions on previous episodes.
It is great that this topic is finally being discussed at length between two parties.
I’m terrible with analogies and this might be hyperbole but I’ll try and make a point here regarding designated “Safe Spaces” on campuses for adults.
Eli has explained he has a lot of experiences with Safe Spaces, as he even worked in them in the past a lot. But I couldn’t help thinking that because you worked in them and helped people gain shelter when people are feeling hurt, that shouldn’t imply that you have a better understanding of there place in University settings.
An analogy might be being the pastor of a church and being a counsellor to people with problems. Except this pastor couches all his support in believing in god and knowing your place in the family and “being a good wife”, “Good” being whatever the church says.
So everyone involved including the pastor thinks these counselling sessions are important and the results of fruitful but it takes an outsider who doesn’t even agree with the premise to begin with to explain why the counselling sessions are not helpful.
So when I hear Eli say he has a lot of experience with safe spaces, that does not imply to me that he has developed a better understanding of whether we should have them in the first place.
So I agree people need to be able to get away from hurtful language or topics that brings back emotions that you don’t want to face (maybe ever or just at that moment, because maybe facing them eventually will help you overcome a problem) but perhaps that is not the universities place to set those up?
The definitive explanation or argument against censorship, of any kind, is made by Christopher Hitchens during a debate about a proposed censorship law in Canada. I normally agree with Eli’s opinions, but not what he said about “filtering” speakers at a university. Watch this to convince yourself that any form of censorship is bad.
https://youtu.be/jyoOfRog1EM
Cheers!