Free Speech on Campus, Part III

The news reports that UCI students want the university to cancel a speech by Breitbart's Milo Yiannopoulos. Now, I, for one, have no interest in Breitbart other than idle curiosity. The Breitbart website says little that is worthwhile. At the same time, I think that students should let the speaker speak. If you don't like the guy, skip the speech. Problem solved. 

Also, do students have so little confidence in their classmates? I assume that most college students could listen to Yiannopoulos, disagree with him, and move on. Frankly, part of the alt-right's secret is that mainstream people don't even believe that they are saying the things that they say. Don't suppress them. Bring them out into the open! Let them talk! Let them fall apart all by themselves. If they have something worthwhile to say, listen. Don't turn them into martyrs. 

At the same time, it is a real shame that the conservative movement is now reduced to this level. Can't the right wingers find better speakers to represent their viewpoint? 

Earlier posts about free speech on campus:

http://harpine.blogspot.com/2016/06/free-speech-on-college-campuses-time.html

http://harpine.blogspot.com/2016/05/freedom-of-speech-on-college-campuses.html

Follow-up: Really Big Conspiracies Don't Stay Secret Very Long

Interesting, although horrifying, post from ww2today.com leads to a follow-up about conspiracy speeches. This is important right now, as the 2016 presidential campaign has fueled quite a few bizarre conspiracy theories.

The biggest, most awful conspiracy in history was the Nazi Holocaust. The German government went to great effort to cover up evidence of the atrocities. All the same, before too long, enough people had seen horrible things that ordinary Germans knew what was happening. Eyewitness testimony was circulating widely.

One of many lessons to draw: if a conspiracy is big, it doesn't stay secret, and people know.

This doesn't mean that we don't need to worry about conspiracies. Real people do conspire to do evil things. It does, however, mean that the world is not run by huge conspiracies. Real conspiracies are never perfect, and, the bigger the conspiracy, the less perfect the conspiracy will be. Truth has a funny way of coming out.

This is one reason that suspicion, minor anomalies, or unanswered questions are not enough to prove a conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists need to produce present affirmative proof.

Clinton and Trump at the Al Smith Dinner: Two More Reasons to Avoid Roasts

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump appeared together at the Al Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. This charity event has, for reasons best left unexplained, deterioriated into a roast. This sad state of affairs brings to mind my earlier post "Against Roasts: Never Give Them, Never Attend Them, the Case of Ann Coulter." The Clinton-Trump exchange was, if anything, even worse than Coulter's situation.

Roasts pretend to be good fun, but they tend to deteriorate into lose-lose situations. Speakers at a roast target the roastee, but the speaker also appears rude and shallow. In this case, most (although not all) pundits think that Trump was much cruder than Clinton, but what's the point of that? I'd prefer that neither would speak crudely.

Here's how someone like Hillary Clinton could handle a situation like this: Trump spoke first. He was rude and obnoxious. He insulted his supporters, his enemies, and his ever-so-loyal wife in good measure. Clinton's response should have been automatic. She should have tossed her prepared speech into basket #13 and responded instead with a polite, gracious speech praising Al Smith (who was, after all, a Democrat). She could have devoted the speech to the Al Smith Foundation's good work. Instead, she gave a speech that, although much funnier than Trump's, contained altogether too many nasty barbs.

If you want to prove that you are better than other people, it's important to act better than other people.

So, to repeat my advice: never roast anyone, and never allow yourself to be roasted.
Q. E. D.

The October 19 Clinton-Trump Debate: What about the Format?

The presidential debates, between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, including the October 19 debate, suppressed serious discussion of issues. The speeches were limited to two minutes each. Important national issues require more than two minutes. For example, moderator Chris Wallace asked an important question about the federal debt. This issue, much in the news for several years, involves complex matters: tax collections, fiscal stimulus, government spending, Medicare, and Social Security, just for a start. Different economists have much different opinions. To discuss that issue in two minutes is impossible.

I have no idea whether either candidate is capable discussing economics (or any other issue) intelligently and thoroughly, but we will never know from the debates. The format encouraged the candidates to talk in sound bites and catch phrases. They repeated standard talking points, but there was no chance to explain their reasons.

Catch phrases are no substitute for sound governance.

Speeches about Conspiracies: How Can We Tell Whether a Conspiracy Is Real?

Recently, quite a few political speeches have touted various conspiracy theories. The system is rigged; the vote is rigged; Satan is influencing our politics; the government plans to implement martial law, and so forth.

A conspiracy occurs when people work in secret for evil purposes. There's a real intellectual problem here. Evil people do conduct conspiracies, and the public does need to uncover them. At the same time, a perfect conspiracy would be, well, secret, so how do we know about it? Unlike other things that people talk about in speeches, that no evidence supports a conspiracy theory seems like no refutation. After all, a really good conspiracy is unknown, right? Cue the X-Files theme.

Conspiracy theories have been around for a long time. Most of them turn out to be false:

How do we tell which conspiracies are real? There is no need for us to dwell in existential despair. Argumentation and debate theory gives us ways to evaluate conspiracy theories.

1. You can never expect any proof to be perfect. Human knowledge and wisdom are never perfect. This means, first of all, that you don't need perfect evidence to prove a conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists don't need to prove a conspiracy beyond a doubt. They only need to prove it with probability.

2. Conspiracy speakers do, however, need to give proof. Richard Whately showed centuries ago that the burden of proof lies with the side that speaks against accepted belief. Most conspiracy theories arise from unanswered questions and minor inconsistencies. It is not legitimate for conspiracy theorists to ignore their burden of proof. Minor inconsistencies and unanswered questions prove nothing, and mean little. Conspiracy theorists need affirmative evidence to prove their points. Without proof, they don't have an argument.

3. Since proof can't ever be perfect, however, the government and mainstream media can't be held to perfection, either. Conspiracy theories arise when media or government reports contain errors or inconsistencies, or give rise to questions. Unfortunately, all of our communication contains errors and inconsistencies. That proves only that people are human. In particular, minor errors don't mean much. When the authorities quickly correct their errors, the errors mean nothing.

4. Questions aren't proof. The Kennedy assassination, for example, gave rise to questions. Big deal. Every big event gives rise to questions. If the questions are important, then the answer is to investigate further. But the questions by themselves don't prove a thing. If the investigation leads only to more questions, that is not the same as proof. Now, the Watergate affair led to questions, which led to investigations, which ultimately led to proof.

5. If the conspiracy speaker's questions are answered, the conspiracy theories should go away. If, instead, conspiracy speakers ignore answers they don't like, they are guilty of bad faith.

6. Sometimes, faced with unanswered questions, we can just say that we don't know. That's better than jumping to conclusions.

7. Finally, really big, really secret conspiracies are pretty rare. Massive conspiracies are impossible. Someone will talk. People want to tell their stories, and big conspiracies just don't stay secret very long.

People who listen to conspiracy speeches need to engage in critical thinking and apply the tests above.

PS: see my follow-up. 

Bob Dylan versus Twitter

Well, sure, these days, Nobel Prize winner Bob Dylan is all over Twitter.

Still, what a difference an era makes. Bob Dylan helped to shape the Sixties with songs, many of them beautifully written. Songs like "Blowin' in the Wind," "Masters of War," and "Chimes of Freedom" helped to express people's concerns, fears, and hopes. Many of Dylan's songs were much too long to fit on a 45 rpm record; they were sometimes condensed for recording.



Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

Today, however, song has mostly vanished from the political arena. Political rallies simply take hit songs off the play lists and blare them out to the crowd over shrill sound systems. Instead, this campaign is being waged on Twitter. It's easy to shout out a quick thought in 140 characters, but no one can explain and defend a position that way. Political issues are complicated, and the new media don't make much room for complicated things.

Speeches and debates are our natural ways to work out political differences. I don't mean show debates with two-minute questions that feature gratuitous insults. I mean actual, reasoned debates. We need to speak; we need to listen; we need to be open to some degree of rationality. And, as Dylan reminds us, songs express our deepest emotions.

Political Rhetoric, Then and Now

It's not the same.

I'm not saying that political discourse has ever been good. But we've been reduced to sound bites, Twitter posts, 30-second political ads, and Twitter posts.

Dwight Eisenhower complained that no one could talk properly about a national issue in a five-minute media event. This fall, political candidates are expected to expound their points during the CPD presidential debates in 2-minute speeches. This is completely ridiculous. That one of the two major candidates is unable to hold a continuous thought for 2 minutes isn't the point. Our nation, and the world, face important, difficult questions. A 140-character Twitter post cannot answer them. A 2-minute speech cannot answer them.

The public will not always understand complex issues, but it is our responsibility as voters to make an effort. Slinging insults, slogans, and talking points do not do the job.

As the world grows more complex, we as a people need to develop more tolerance for complexity. We need to stop demanding quick, easy answers. The world isn't a 140-character place.