How Political Correctness Limits the Free Exchange of Ideas on Campus

How Political Correctness Limits the Free Exchange of Ideas on Campus

Views: 228

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The conservatives typically stifle more speech than the liberals though.

Those who are hard wired to perceive a dissenting opinion as an actual attack are the most likely to stifle another opinion historically...and conservatives's brains ARE statistically at least, hard wired to perceive dissenting opinions as actual attacks.

So, both sides (Liberal and conservative) engage in confirmation bias-based activities...and while there might be science behind some opinions and not others...the opinions tend to be along party lines regardless of evidence.

68% of the Republican Primary exit polled in NH said they think that Muslims should be barred from entering the country for example.

If Trump had not made that the party line, I doubt it would have been that high.

And so forth.

So both sides blather on about stuff they typically don't really know anything about...parroting the party lines.


And, for the record - As long as recorded history goes back, people have been saying that the younger generation is ruined/will be the death of civilization/going to hell in a hand basket, etc.

IE: The older generations ALWAYS see the younger generations as having lost the important values, work ethic, bravery, integrity, honesty, etc.

The other consistent observation throughout recorded history is that the weather is particularly unpredictable lately.


The conservatives typically stifle more speech than the liberals though.

Maybe in the world at large. Not on college campuses where typically leftists do their best to keep anything contrary to their beliefs from being presented.

All this is true, Conservatives are a bigger danger to free speech, but it just cuts me up more that my own people of the left act in this way. 

I hate doctrinaire thinking. If a "thinker" can't perceive the weaknesses of his chosen party or political philosophy than he is empty. A tool.

Yeah, its way too common.

Intelligent people who question themselves objectively typically know the flaws in their own position at least...the parts that don't add up per se, but are not refuted per se either.

I have opinions for example that cross party lines, so that no matter which group I am hanging with, I will tend to be a dissenting opinion, albeit a different one, at both groups.

I also tend to simply say I don't HAVE an opinion on things for which I have not formed one.

That way, I don't argue for things I have no clue about.  If, after research, I form an opinion, fine, but I try to remember what its based upon in case I find evidence that counters my basis, etc.

Way back for example, I thought global climate change, back when it wan't called that, was simply part of the natural cycles of climate, ice ages, etc....and not man made.

After a lot of research, I decided that, instead, it was man made, with man adding to the natural cycles.

Isotope identification of the carbon in the atmosphere for example added a facet to the data that I weighed heavily...and flipped me, as definitive.

Gun control, on the other hand, I came to realize, was simply a political football, and no real reforms of merit were enacted, merely window dressing to look like something was being done.

And so forth.



© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service