Fascists must not be given a platform (and don't be fooled, white supremacy and fascism are intimately linked in America). Agree with the sentiment that public radio and public spaces in general...
Fascists must not be given a platform (and don't be fooled, white supremacy and fascism are intimately linked in America). Agree with the sentiment that public radio and public spaces in general should be open to all views, even those that reprehensible, but the absolutist version of this position naively underestimates the dangers of enabling fascists to spread their ideology. Fascism is insidious and it creeps into the public discourse through methods just like this. It is 100% certain that there are people who listened to this and were emboldened, they are now going to be more willing to publicly support fascism, spread fascist ideas, and attempt to normalize fascism in the public discourse. This is the example of a boiling frog situation, the rise of fascist regimes is always preceded by people making the same arguments I'm seeing here, that people will reject the fascists views as outlandish, that the ideology is simply too fringe to ever have mass appeal, and that good honest discussion is the best way of stopping fascism and upholding vaules like free speech.
This is not only wrong, it's dangerous. Don't fall for it.
Fascists cannot be allowed a platform to build fascism.
Fascists are not here in good faith.
By "debating" fascists you only embolden them and legitimize their views.
You will never rationally convince a fascist to stop being a fascist.
This type of lazy and backwards thinking is a part of the reason why it grows. In fact, the way to stop the spread of white supremacy and fascism is to calmly and rationally have a discussion....
By "debating" fascists you only embolden them and legitimize their views.
You will never rationally convince a fascist to stop being a fascist.
This type of lazy and backwards thinking is a part of the reason why it grows. In fact, the way to stop the spread of white supremacy and fascism is to calmly and rationally have a discussion. Screaming at people or attacking them only pushes them away and further towards their extremist views. Talking to others like an equal is how you are able to get them to listen.
Here are just a few examples of how you can rationally change people's minds.
You’re wrong, I understand where you’re coming from but historic analysis of fascism shows that you will never solve the issue through debate—in part because fascists don’t care about the truth,...
You’re wrong, I understand where you’re coming from but historic analysis of fascism shows that you will never solve the issue through debate—in part because fascists don’t care about the truth, they don’t value it like you do. Do not mistake fascism as a force that can be reasoned with, they’ve made up their mind and you are their enemy. You help them immensely by not recognizing that and treating them like fellow citizens you just disagree with.
I’m on mobile right now so I can’t grab a source easily but the guy who “befriended” the KKK got played, the klan used him for good press and continued their activities under reduced suspicion. I will also link some sources explaining why liberalism (in the sense that describes the values you are supporting) is especially succeptible to fascism because fascism exploits liberalism’s values to grow unchecked and unnoticed until it’s too late to avoid violent conflicts.
I’ve seen it work in person. I know ex white supremicists that have changed their hearts. Violence and anger only beget violence and anger. Education is the key. You may not be able to change them...
I’ve seen it work in person. I know ex white supremicists that have changed their hearts. Violence and anger only beget violence and anger. Education is the key. You may not be able to change them all, but I assure you that there are some that can be brought to the light. I don’t agree with giving them a platform to spew their hate, but if you are able to understand why someone was able to be radicalized, then you can make strides to helping them get better.
When I used to be active on reddit, I used to rationalize with some. However, there is zero chance of rationalizing in a comment thread just as going against the leftist jerk is a moot point. In a...
When I used to be active on reddit, I used to rationalize with some. However, there is zero chance of rationalizing in a comment thread just as going against the leftist jerk is a moot point. In a one on one setting with someone who is willing to have an actual discussion everything changes, especially if that discussion is calm and face to face.
While they hold ignorant and dumb views, it’s important to remember that they are still human and the rejection and isolation is probably already a big factor in why they radicalized anyways.
I've seen ex white supremacists that changed because of violence. Someone in my family was just like that. We all tried so hard to convince him not to follow the path he was going but when he was...
I've seen ex white supremacists that changed because of violence. Someone in my family was just like that. We all tried so hard to convince him not to follow the path he was going but when he was beaten up by a group of people he quickly stopped talking about it and over time changed for the better and now actively campaigns against hate.
Maybe it takes a "good cop / bad cop" routine to combat fascism? An aggressive response to fascism on one hand and the opportunity for forgiveness for their wrongs on the other.
That’s what scares me most about social media in today’s world. People want to forgive those who they like meanwhile they call for the heads of those they don’t.
and the opportunity for forgiveness for their wrongs on the other.
That’s what scares me most about social media in today’s world. People want to forgive those who they like meanwhile they call for the heads of those they don’t.
I listened to the interview itself. For starters, there's no way that interview was "equal" in any way. That interviewer's agenda was very clear - and it was against Mr Kessler and his views. I'm...
For starters, there's no way that interview was "equal" in any way. That interviewer's agenda was very clear - and it was against Mr Kessler and his views. I'm pretty sure that Ms King would not treat her other interview subjects in an equal manner to how she treated Mr Kessler. At one point, she laughed at him. At another point, she used sarcasm on him. That's not providing an equal platform.
Additionally, she did not present Mr Kessler's views without any context or without adding her own commentary. Ms King stated up front that points in the interview were racist. Halfway through the interview, she inserted some commentary about a book that Mr Kessler referred to. This, along with her laughter and sarcasm, showed what she thinks of Mr Kessler's views. He was not given an equal platform in any way.
As for the question in your title, of course National Public Radio should present all points of view - even the ones you don't like.
I agree with your observations on the interview itself. Should they be a megaphone for anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, actual nazis or flat earthers? Obviously not. Should they have real...
I agree with your observations on the interview itself.
As for the question in your title, of course National Public Radio should present all points of view - even the ones you don't like.
Should they be a megaphone for anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, actual nazis or flat earthers? Obviously not.
Should they have real experts tear them down and show why those views are bunk? That's the only time those views should be given time, to show that they're junk. The false equivalence in a discussion or debate between a doctor and an anti-vaxxer? No way.
I agree about the teardowns, but they have to be done carefully to avoid the appearance of being staged show trials where the interviewer is hectoring, badgering or bullying the interviewee. As...
I agree about the teardowns, but they have to be done carefully to avoid the appearance of being staged show trials where the interviewer is hectoring, badgering or bullying the interviewee.
As Cathy Newman's interview of Jordan Peterson on UK Channel 4 demonstrated, media-savvy scumbags are perfectly capable of sitting there sounding like the calm, rational explainers of everything, while they're being hounded. They can then turn around and play martyr regardless of how odious their actual words were. Events like this are used to prove that "liberal media are out to silence those fighting for us white people".
You would think that a decent interviewer would be well prepared with research and recorded material to simultaneously counter everything and provide historical perspective (even if it's repetitive of what the audience should know), without needlessly interjecting personalized animus.
Unfortunately, most interviews of white supremacists and fascists are presented as if the interviewer expects the freakshow nature of these people to be self-evident, when all that's being done is giving them broad audiences who can see that the interviewer is at a loss to properly demolish their ideology.
They weren't exactly a megaphone for this alt-right representative, so why do you think they'd be a megaphone for anyone else they disagree with? Presenting a point of view is not the same as...
They weren't exactly a megaphone for this alt-right representative, so why do you think they'd be a megaphone for anyone else they disagree with?
Presenting a point of view is not the same as endorsing it. It is possible to place the opinions of guest speakers within a broader context (hopefully, a bit more professionally than Ms King managed to do). For example, one might have a panel discussion about vaccination, with various representatives - including an anti-vaxxer. That way, when she speaks up, there's a paediatrician or an epidemiologist present to point out the flaws in her arguments.
It's easy to debunk people who are factually incorrect, like anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers.
As for the others... you're basically just asking for censorship of opinions you disagree with. That's not healthy. All voices should be heard. Again, you can present them in context, but you shouldn't silence them.
Unfortunately, this isn't as true as it seems. There are a few common techniques people can use to make an invalid argument seem legitimate, and they are often significantly harder to dismiss than...
It's easy to debunk people who are factually incorrect, like anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers.
Unfortunately, this isn't as true as it seems. There are a few common techniques people can use to make an invalid argument seem legitimate, and they are often significantly harder to dismiss than they are to initiate.
By repeatedly mentioning obscure or minor statistics, they force the interviewer to either call them out and ask for a source—repeatedly, every time they say something, and then verify it on air—which grinds any conversation to a halt and makes the interviewer sound like they are avoiding a debate.
By working around a central point by making tangential remarks but never outright stating it, they force the interviewer to either respond to the implied point (in which case they can simply say that they "never said that" or that they're "misrepresenting their point") or let it stand, in which case some percentage of the audience will believe that the implied point has been accepted.
By making vague or obscure claims that seem potentially plausible and then citing a large body of work such as a book, they suggest that they are arguing from a position of authority—not only because their arguments are cited, but because they have presumably read the entire text they are citing from. This essentially halts any chance at refutation, unless the interviewer has already read the same work, as there is no chance that they will read through an entire book on air. Furthermore, the claim might not even be supported by the cited source, but very few people will bother to look through such a large source to verify the information.
It is easy to argue in bad faith. Public debate is not conducive to anything but posturing, as should be obvious to anyone who has watched a political debate. Effectively arguing in real time against even a completely unfounded idea requires an immense amount of knowledge about the field, and if ideas are presented on air and not refuted immediately they will influence the opinions of some viewers.
If you doubt my claims about how difficult it is to argue against even blatantly false ideas, look into the legal history of Holocaust denial. Deniers question a huge number of minute details which may seem odd to laymen about architecture or similar things, and it takes an incredible amount of research to disprove every single one of those claims. If even one is left unanswered, however, you get people who think that "well, if they got that wrong, what else might be?" The fetishization of "logical thought" and excessive skepticism provides plenty of footholds for propaganda.
I did not listen to the interview, but from your description, didn't they give him the same platform on which to speak? I don't think toy have to pretend to agree with someone to give them a...
I did not listen to the interview, but from your description, didn't they give him the same platform on which to speak? I don't think toy have to pretend to agree with someone to give them a platform. He was allowed to broadcast his views on NPR . That was the platform, right? Or am i misunderstanding things?
Yes, he was allowed to broadcast his views on NPR's platform. However, he was not given equal treatment as any other person. I'm pretty sure that Ms King would not have laughed at, or been...
Yes, he was allowed to broadcast his views on NPR's platform. However, he was not given equal treatment as any other person. I'm pretty sure that Ms King would not have laughed at, or been sarcastic to, anyone she agreed with. She made sure that we listeners knew she thought Mr Kesslers's ideas were rubbish. She was not impartial. She did not treat him equally.
Mr Kessler was given a platform, but Ms King undermined it.
He has a different opinion to me. That's a difference of opinion. If he was here in Australia, he'd be legally restricted in what he could say: it's illegal here to incite violence against people...
He has a different opinion to me. That's a difference of opinion.
If he was here in Australia, he'd be legally restricted in what he could say: it's illegal here to incite violence against people on the basis of their race. But, in the USA, I believe there is no such restriction. This opinion is therefore permitted there.
White supremacists do not deserve an equal platform. We've tried tolerance and engaging rationally - that didn't work they've spread their ideologies far and wide. The counter-movement is on now...
White supremacists do not deserve an equal platform.
We've tried tolerance and engaging rationally - that didn't work they've spread their ideologies far and wide. The counter-movement is on now though, thankfully, white supremacists should be mocked and laughed at at every opportunity. NPR should never have put this American Terrorist on the air.
Here is the thing; not all ideas are created equal. The media should be promoting the ideas that are based on facts and promote peace and well-being. The worst thing the media can do is give...
Here is the thing; not all ideas are created equal. The media should be promoting the ideas that are based on facts and promote peace and well-being. The worst thing the media can do is give bigots a megaphone to spread their ideas - it literally makes the world a worse place.
NPR is good because they bring up these ideas and try to make you understand how people could believe them, and then tear them down so you understand how idiotic they are.
This was a direct quote from the interview. Obviously this isn't okay, but when talking about the grander scale of things, what are everyone's thoughts about having public broadcasting giving...
There is enormous variation between individuals, but the IQ testing is pretty clear that it seems like Ashekenazi Jews rate the highest in intelligence, then Asians, then white people, then, uh, Hispanic people and black people. There’s enormous variation, but as a matter of science, IQ testing is pretty clear.
This was a direct quote from the interview. Obviously this isn't okay, but when talking about the grander scale of things, what are everyone's thoughts about having public broadcasting giving everyone a platform regardless of ideology?
Are his views that far removed from Harvard admissions'? They decided Jewish and Asian students were doing too well and consequently artificially limited the number of them allowed in. Certainly,...
Are his views that far removed from Harvard admissions'? They decided Jewish and Asian students were doing too well and consequently artificially limited the number of them allowed in. Certainly, consistently rating Asian-Americans as less likeable, courageous, and kind seems racist.
Oh, does Harvard believe that the government is propagating an anti-white genocide?: This is exactly the problem with giving this shithead a platform. He gets to sound reasonable / even play the...
governments of the West are waging a campaign of slow extermination against their own core populations. It is white genocide.
This is exactly the problem with giving this shithead a platform. He gets to sound reasonable / even play the victim to hide the dispicable things he actually espouses in order to draw people in.
For my taste, that a racist might have that sort of view is much less surprising and notable than the idea that any of his views might be compatible with an Ivy League instituion's.
For my taste, that a racist might have that sort of view is much less surprising and notable than the idea that any of his views might be compatible with an Ivy League instituion's.
It is not scientific racism to discuss or study the difference in average IQ between human phenotypes and the heredity of these differences. The scientific consensus IS that the average IQ varies...
It is not scientific racism to discuss or study the difference in average IQ between human phenotypes and the heredity of these differences. The scientific consensus IS that the average IQ varies from race to race.
Landrace might be a better term. There's genetic traits in all animals so obviously they adapt over time. If some groups have different levels of smarts then that's just Darwin at work. I mean we...
Landrace might be a better term. There's genetic traits in all animals so obviously they adapt over time. If some groups have different levels of smarts then that's just Darwin at work. I mean we used to have other species of humans that are now extinct. But I guess that's all something that was made up too to, you know, catalog animals and plants. If this is offensive I appologize. I am simply a heartless bastard who likes to read a bit about evolution and plant gardens.
Extinction does not imply a lack of intelligence. There are lots of ways for one species to drive other species to extinction without necessarily being smarter than them. For example, an...
If some groups have different levels of smarts then that's just Darwin at work. I mean we used to have other species of humans that are now extinct.
Extinction does not imply a lack of intelligence. There are lots of ways for one species to drive other species to extinction without necessarily being smarter than them.
For example, an aggressive tribe of warlike hunters could likely eliminate a peaceful tribe of artistic philosophers without ever understanding anything about philosophy or art.
Another way is to destroy the environment. A tribe might know how to manage what resources what they take from the land and the plants and animals on that land, so that the resources replenish themselves as fast as they're used (the whole "living in balance with nature" stereotype). A new tribe might move in and just hunt animals to extinction and denude the land of plants. The tribe that was there before, which might have lived there for thousands of years, suddenly finds itself without food and dies off.
What are you talking about? I maintain that this is a scientific consensus, I am not backtracking at all. Of course, I believe that statement is correct. What I'm saying is that if you don't like...
And now you're backpedaling pretty fast. Do you still believe that statement is accurate?
What are you talking about? I maintain that this is a scientific consensus, I am not backtracking at all. Of course, I believe that statement is correct. What I'm saying is that if you don't like the word race, talking about phenotypes or people sharing the same ancestry is pretty much the same anyways and I don't care about the terminology.
I don't believe in ranking individuals, so I don't believe in ranking populations. I'm not saying that this don't matter, I'm saying that I don't care about it. The terminology debate is more...
So you don't care about the terms used - the important point is that blacks are inferior to whites. Is that accurate?
I don't believe in ranking individuals, so I don't believe in ranking populations.
Funny how in one breath you're claiming to understand the current scientific research on the topic and in the next claiming that the exact scientific terms used don't matter.
I'm not saying that this don't matter, I'm saying that I don't care about it. The terminology debate is more commentary on science than science. The people actually working in the field use phenotypes because it's not PC to use race and almost nobody care enough about the word race to defend its use. I'm sure it's significant from a political point of view, but I don't care. Phenotype means the same thing anyway.
No, it's stating a fact about the average IQ of different human phenotypes. Again it's the scientific consensus in the field of study of intelligence and heredity that is that the average IQ of...
Again, the statement you're defending as "scientific consensus" is pretty blatant about trying to rank populations
No, it's stating a fact about the average IQ of different human phenotypes. Again it's the scientific consensus in the field of study of intelligence and heredity that is that the average IQ of people of European phenotype is higher than the average IQ of people of Sub-Saharan phenotype.
Best of luck in all your future white supremacist apologia.
I disagree that I'm making any white supremacist apologia. I don't consider white people to be superior to any other population, mostly because I don't believe in the "superiority" and "inferiority" of people and populations.
I support it, because NPR is publically funded everyone should be allowed in, and it's up to the public to decide what to listen to. Honestly NPR is the only US hosted news and podcasts I care about
I support it, because NPR is publically funded everyone should be allowed in, and it's up to the public to decide what to listen to. Honestly NPR is the only US hosted news and podcasts I care about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding "While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the...
I support it, because NPR is publically funded everyone should be allowed in, and it's up to the public to decide what to listen to. Honestly NPR is the only US hosted news and podcasts I care about
"While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately2%of NPR's overall revenues."
I suggest that they ask their sources of income what content they wish to allow, and under what limits.
Personally, I am a sustaining member (ie, I pay monthly until I stop it) of my local station, and I would only want anti-vaxxers (or similar) to be given airtime so that the host and guests could broadcast just how stupid, unsafe, and dangerous their positions are.
NPR usually makes sure to make a statement if someone, say an anti-vaxxer makes any "scientific" claims to rival any unfounded claim. That format is impartial and factual, and I like it.
NPR usually makes sure to make a statement if someone, say an anti-vaxxer makes any "scientific" claims to rival any unfounded claim. That format is impartial and factual, and I like it.
I don't think this is about letting everyone have a say so much as finding someone to jeer at. Maybe it beats all the weepy voiced ladys talking about peace and democracy when it comes to...
I don't think this is about letting everyone have a say so much as finding someone to jeer at. Maybe it beats all the weepy voiced ladys talking about peace and democracy when it comes to listeners, I don't know.
Actually if they're going to be antagonistic then no, they should just stick to their own brand before this turns into Jerry Springer.
Fascists must not be given a platform (and don't be fooled, white supremacy and fascism are intimately linked in America). Agree with the sentiment that public radio and public spaces in general should be open to all views, even those that reprehensible, but the absolutist version of this position naively underestimates the dangers of enabling fascists to spread their ideology. Fascism is insidious and it creeps into the public discourse through methods just like this. It is 100% certain that there are people who listened to this and were emboldened, they are now going to be more willing to publicly support fascism, spread fascist ideas, and attempt to normalize fascism in the public discourse. This is the example of a boiling frog situation, the rise of fascist regimes is always preceded by people making the same arguments I'm seeing here, that people will reject the fascists views as outlandish, that the ideology is simply too fringe to ever have mass appeal, and that good honest discussion is the best way of stopping fascism and upholding vaules like free speech.
This is not only wrong, it's dangerous. Don't fall for it.
Fascists cannot be allowed a platform to build fascism.
Fascists are not here in good faith.
By "debating" fascists you only embolden them and legitimize their views.
You will never rationally convince a fascist to stop being a fascist.
This type of lazy and backwards thinking is a part of the reason why it grows. In fact, the way to stop the spread of white supremacy and fascism is to calmly and rationally have a discussion. Screaming at people or attacking them only pushes them away and further towards their extremist views. Talking to others like an equal is how you are able to get them to listen.
Here are just a few examples of how you can rationally change people's minds.
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/06/555934000/the-man-who-helped-change-a-neo-nazi-s-mind
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kkk-klu-klux-klan-members-leave-black-man-racism-friends-convince-persuade-chicago-daryl-davis-a7489596.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=njXZUH5hv0w
You’re wrong, I understand where you’re coming from but historic analysis of fascism shows that you will never solve the issue through debate—in part because fascists don’t care about the truth, they don’t value it like you do. Do not mistake fascism as a force that can be reasoned with, they’ve made up their mind and you are their enemy. You help them immensely by not recognizing that and treating them like fellow citizens you just disagree with.
I’m on mobile right now so I can’t grab a source easily but the guy who “befriended” the KKK got played, the klan used him for good press and continued their activities under reduced suspicion. I will also link some sources explaining why liberalism (in the sense that describes the values you are supporting) is especially succeptible to fascism because fascism exploits liberalism’s values to grow unchecked and unnoticed until it’s too late to avoid violent conflicts.
I’ve seen it work in person. I know ex white supremicists that have changed their hearts. Violence and anger only beget violence and anger. Education is the key. You may not be able to change them all, but I assure you that there are some that can be brought to the light. I don’t agree with giving them a platform to spew their hate, but if you are able to understand why someone was able to be radicalized, then you can make strides to helping them get better.
When I used to be active on reddit, I used to rationalize with some. However, there is zero chance of rationalizing in a comment thread just as going against the leftist jerk is a moot point. In a one on one setting with someone who is willing to have an actual discussion everything changes, especially if that discussion is calm and face to face.
While they hold ignorant and dumb views, it’s important to remember that they are still human and the rejection and isolation is probably already a big factor in why they radicalized anyways.
I've seen ex white supremacists that changed because of violence. Someone in my family was just like that. We all tried so hard to convince him not to follow the path he was going but when he was beaten up by a group of people he quickly stopped talking about it and over time changed for the better and now actively campaigns against hate.
Maybe it takes a "good cop / bad cop" routine to combat fascism? An aggressive response to fascism on one hand and the opportunity for forgiveness for their wrongs on the other.
That’s what scares me most about social media in today’s world. People want to forgive those who they like meanwhile they call for the heads of those they don’t.
I listened to the interview itself.
For starters, there's no way that interview was "equal" in any way. That interviewer's agenda was very clear - and it was against Mr Kessler and his views. I'm pretty sure that Ms King would not treat her other interview subjects in an equal manner to how she treated Mr Kessler. At one point, she laughed at him. At another point, she used sarcasm on him. That's not providing an equal platform.
Additionally, she did not present Mr Kessler's views without any context or without adding her own commentary. Ms King stated up front that points in the interview were racist. Halfway through the interview, she inserted some commentary about a book that Mr Kessler referred to. This, along with her laughter and sarcasm, showed what she thinks of Mr Kessler's views. He was not given an equal platform in any way.
As for the question in your title, of course National Public Radio should present all points of view - even the ones you don't like.
EDIT: Corrected the names.
I agree with your observations on the interview itself.
Should they be a megaphone for anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, actual nazis or flat earthers? Obviously not.
Should they have real experts tear them down and show why those views are bunk? That's the only time those views should be given time, to show that they're junk. The false equivalence in a discussion or debate between a doctor and an anti-vaxxer? No way.
I agree about the teardowns, but they have to be done carefully to avoid the appearance of being staged show trials where the interviewer is hectoring, badgering or bullying the interviewee.
As Cathy Newman's interview of Jordan Peterson on UK Channel 4 demonstrated, media-savvy scumbags are perfectly capable of sitting there sounding like the calm, rational explainers of everything, while they're being hounded. They can then turn around and play martyr regardless of how odious their actual words were. Events like this are used to prove that "liberal media are out to silence those fighting for us white people".
You would think that a decent interviewer would be well prepared with research and recorded material to simultaneously counter everything and provide historical perspective (even if it's repetitive of what the audience should know), without needlessly interjecting personalized animus.
Unfortunately, most interviews of white supremacists and fascists are presented as if the interviewer expects the freakshow nature of these people to be self-evident, when all that's being done is giving them broad audiences who can see that the interviewer is at a loss to properly demolish their ideology.
They weren't exactly a megaphone for this alt-right representative, so why do you think they'd be a megaphone for anyone else they disagree with?
Presenting a point of view is not the same as endorsing it. It is possible to place the opinions of guest speakers within a broader context (hopefully, a bit more professionally than Ms King managed to do). For example, one might have a panel discussion about vaccination, with various representatives - including an anti-vaxxer. That way, when she speaks up, there's a paediatrician or an epidemiologist present to point out the flaws in her arguments.
It's easy to debunk people who are factually incorrect, like anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers.
As for the others... you're basically just asking for censorship of opinions you disagree with. That's not healthy. All voices should be heard. Again, you can present them in context, but you shouldn't silence them.
Unfortunately, this isn't as true as it seems. There are a few common techniques people can use to make an invalid argument seem legitimate, and they are often significantly harder to dismiss than they are to initiate.
It is easy to argue in bad faith. Public debate is not conducive to anything but posturing, as should be obvious to anyone who has watched a political debate. Effectively arguing in real time against even a completely unfounded idea requires an immense amount of knowledge about the field, and if ideas are presented on air and not refuted immediately they will influence the opinions of some viewers.
If you doubt my claims about how difficult it is to argue against even blatantly false ideas, look into the legal history of Holocaust denial. Deniers question a huge number of minute details which may seem odd to laymen about architecture or similar things, and it takes an incredible amount of research to disprove every single one of those claims. If even one is left unanswered, however, you get people who think that "well, if they got that wrong, what else might be?" The fetishization of "logical thought" and excessive skepticism provides plenty of footholds for propaganda.
I did not listen to the interview, but from your description, didn't they give him the same platform on which to speak? I don't think toy have to pretend to agree with someone to give them a platform. He was allowed to broadcast his views on NPR . That was the platform, right? Or am i misunderstanding things?
Yes, he was allowed to broadcast his views on NPR's platform. However, he was not given equal treatment as any other person. I'm pretty sure that Ms King would not have laughed at, or been sarcastic to, anyone she agreed with. She made sure that we listeners knew she thought Mr Kesslers's ideas were rubbish. She was not impartial. She did not treat him equally.
Mr Kessler was given a platform, but Ms King undermined it.
To frame his extremist views as a simple difference of opinion is more than generous.
He has a different opinion to me. That's a difference of opinion.
If he was here in Australia, he'd be legally restricted in what he could say: it's illegal here to incite violence against people on the basis of their race. But, in the USA, I believe there is no such restriction. This opinion is therefore permitted there.
Looks like you accidently flipped the names there
White supremacists do not deserve an equal platform.
We've tried tolerance and engaging rationally - that didn't work they've spread their ideologies far and wide. The counter-movement is on now though, thankfully, white supremacists should be mocked and laughed at at every opportunity. NPR should never have put this American Terrorist on the air.
Here is the thing; not all ideas are created equal. The media should be promoting the ideas that are based on facts and promote peace and well-being. The worst thing the media can do is give bigots a megaphone to spread their ideas - it literally makes the world a worse place.
NPR is good because they bring up these ideas and try to make you understand how people could believe them, and then tear them down so you understand how idiotic they are.
This was a direct quote from the interview. Obviously this isn't okay, but when talking about the grander scale of things, what are everyone's thoughts about having public broadcasting giving everyone a platform regardless of ideology?
Are his views that far removed from Harvard admissions'? They decided Jewish and Asian students were doing too well and consequently artificially limited the number of them allowed in. Certainly, consistently rating Asian-Americans as less likeable, courageous, and kind seems racist.
Oh, does Harvard believe that the government is propagating an anti-white genocide?:
This is exactly the problem with giving this shithead a platform. He gets to sound reasonable / even play the victim to hide the dispicable things he actually espouses in order to draw people in.
For my taste, that a racist might have that sort of view is much less surprising and notable than the idea that any of his views might be compatible with an Ivy League instituion's.
What do you mean? That's pretty much the scientific consensus.
It is not scientific racism to discuss or study the difference in average IQ between human phenotypes and the heredity of these differences. The scientific consensus IS that the average IQ varies from race to race.
Why it matters:
Landrace might be a better term. There's genetic traits in all animals so obviously they adapt over time. If some groups have different levels of smarts then that's just Darwin at work. I mean we used to have other species of humans that are now extinct. But I guess that's all something that was made up too to, you know, catalog animals and plants. If this is offensive I appologize. I am simply a heartless bastard who likes to read a bit about evolution and plant gardens.
Extinction does not imply a lack of intelligence. There are lots of ways for one species to drive other species to extinction without necessarily being smarter than them.
For example, an aggressive tribe of warlike hunters could likely eliminate a peaceful tribe of artistic philosophers without ever understanding anything about philosophy or art.
Another way is to destroy the environment. A tribe might know how to manage what resources what they take from the land and the plants and animals on that land, so that the resources replenish themselves as fast as they're used (the whole "living in balance with nature" stereotype). A new tribe might move in and just hunt animals to extinction and denude the land of plants. The tribe that was there before, which might have lived there for thousands of years, suddenly finds itself without food and dies off.
It doesn't take smarts to kill off other species.
It's playing with words. Phenotypes if you will or populations sharing the same ancestry. I don't really care about terminology.
What are you talking about? I maintain that this is a scientific consensus, I am not backtracking at all. Of course, I believe that statement is correct. What I'm saying is that if you don't like the word race, talking about phenotypes or people sharing the same ancestry is pretty much the same anyways and I don't care about the terminology.
I don't believe in ranking individuals, so I don't believe in ranking populations.
I'm not saying that this don't matter, I'm saying that I don't care about it. The terminology debate is more commentary on science than science. The people actually working in the field use phenotypes because it's not PC to use race and almost nobody care enough about the word race to defend its use. I'm sure it's significant from a political point of view, but I don't care. Phenotype means the same thing anyway.
No, it's stating a fact about the average IQ of different human phenotypes. Again it's the scientific consensus in the field of study of intelligence and heredity that is that the average IQ of people of European phenotype is higher than the average IQ of people of Sub-Saharan phenotype.
I disagree that I'm making any white supremacist apologia. I don't consider white people to be superior to any other population, mostly because I don't believe in the "superiority" and "inferiority" of people and populations.
I support it, because NPR is publically funded everyone should be allowed in, and it's up to the public to decide what to listen to. Honestly NPR is the only US hosted news and podcasts I care about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding
"While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR's overall revenues."
I suggest that they ask their sources of income what content they wish to allow, and under what limits.
Personally, I am a sustaining member (ie, I pay monthly until I stop it) of my local station, and I would only want anti-vaxxers (or similar) to be given airtime so that the host and guests could broadcast just how stupid, unsafe, and dangerous their positions are.
NPR usually makes sure to make a statement if someone, say an anti-vaxxer makes any "scientific" claims to rival any unfounded claim. That format is impartial and factual, and I like it.
I don't think this is about letting everyone have a say so much as finding someone to jeer at. Maybe it beats all the weepy voiced ladys talking about peace and democracy when it comes to listeners, I don't know.
Actually if they're going to be antagonistic then no, they should just stick to their own brand before this turns into Jerry Springer.