Are we stifling debate to remain PC?

[hums_student]

Here’s a debate prompt for everyone - has political correctness gone too far and is debate and discussion being suppressed for the sake of "not offending people" - even if they are simply people from different sides coming together to discuss their own opinions?

Should discussion be stopped when non politically correct arguments are introduced?

What comes first in a debate - making sure that everyone gets a say regardless of stance, or making sure that nobody gets hurt?

Would love for everyone to contribute, as long as you do so in a civil manner

[Yertle the Turtle]

Here’s a debate prompt for everyone - has political correctness gone too far and is debate and discussion being suppressed for the sake of "not offending people" - even if they are simply people from different sides coming together to discuss their own opinions?

Should discussion be stopped when non politically correct arguments are introduced?

What comes first in a debate - making sure that everyone gets a say regardless of stance, or making sure that nobody gets hurt?

Would love for everyone to contribute, as long as you do so in a civil manner

First and foremost I would say yes. The PC culture of today is based around enforced mutual tolerance, and tolerance has no room for what I would consider to be healthy debate. By telling everyone that their opinion matters, you have blocked any criticism from an external source, in other words, no one is allowed to express a difference of opinion. However, there is one thing coming out even more than this issue, and that is that you are allowed to speak your mind if it is a PC statement, while you are instantly shouted down if you argue against it. I personally argue too much, and a lot of this might be considered un-PC, therefore you may take what I say with a pinch of salt, but I do think that the PC culture does cause serious issues with the concept of freedom of speech. Speech is free, so long as you speak within certain guidelines laid down by certain groups of people. That is where I see the issue coming through. In terms of the question as to what should come first in a debate, I think that you left one out: that truth is the aim. Is it more important to give everyone a say, or make sure that no one gets hurt, or make sure that the truth wins? I would always opt for truth, though this should always be achieved by giving people a chance to speak and be understood. However, in any argument there is opportunity for someone to get hurt. By the very action of having debate, some people will get hurt, and I believe this to be healthy in some ways. We should never avoid getting hurt if it is going to bring us back stronger, and that is the point of argument: to improve yourself and your understanding of the world. If our opinions are never challenged because that would be un-PC then we will never stop believing that the earth is in the shape of a rectangular hyperbola.

[hums_student]

I really agree with the points you raised above, in that with a heavily enforced culture of political correctness, there is no longer room for healthy debate as all argument would be rather one-sided.

Good point about truth being the most important thing in a debate - my way of thinking was that usually a debate would be centred around opinions where the truth can be rather arbitrary (for example, is uni or TAFE better? It’s a valid debate topic but there is no universally correct answer). But I guess if you’re in a debate with say, a flat-earther, then yes the truth would definitely come first.

While I’m here I thought I might as well bring in a new point related to this - should there be restrictions in online debates around controversial / sensitive topics? And especially on AN, should discussions be forcibly stopped when they are considered non-PC?

Yes, I am referring to the locking of the ‘transgenderism debate’ thread. Doesn’t it go against the point of ‘rants and debates’?

[DBA-144]

I really agree with the points you raised above, in that with a heavily enforced culture of political correctness, there is no longer room for healthy debate as all argument would be rather one-sided.

Good point about truth being the most important thing in a debate - my way of thinking was that usually a debate would be centred around opinions where the truth can be rather arbitrary (for example, is uni or TAFE better? It’s a valid debate topic but there is no universally correct answer). But I guess if you’re in a debate with say, a flat-earther, then yes the truth would definitely come first.

While I’m here I thought I might as well bring in a new point related to this - should there be restrictions in online debates around controversial / sensitive topics? And especially on AN, should discussions be forcibly stopped when they are considered non-PC?

Yes, I am referring to the locking of the ‘transgenderism debate’ thread. Doesn’t it go against the point of ‘rants and debates’?

AN has some other things to be considering when faced with the fact that there is some potentially discriminating and hurtful content in conjunction with the fact that anonymity can lead to people voicing there opinions they normally would not, even in a 'normal' debate.

[Calebark]

Yes, I am referring to the locking of the ‘transgenderism debate’ thread. Doesn’t it go against the point of ‘rants and debates’?

The thread was locked to avoid personal attacks -- which had already started. 'Rants & Debates' still has to abide by the forum rules.

[Lear]

Are you saying rules against personal attacks are politically correct....?

I believe that AN has a responsibility, especially as an educational forum (with some very young kids here), to ensure people are treated in a proper manner and they can comfortably approach and make use of the resources available.

Doing so has nothing to with political correctness and everything to do with respect.

ETA: The comment above me was deleted so, to give some context, it was about forum rules starting to become PC.

[Aaron]

Imagine the shitstorm if we had no rules and let all those R&D threads go, rather than intervene.

That's all i'm going to say...

[hums_student]

I'm not saying rules against personal attacks aren't necessary - however in the case of personal attacks, shouldn't action be taken against the individual responsible rather than shutting down an entire debate?

[Professor Polonsky]

Hi.

Almost universally, complaints about "PC culture" and "thought police" are unfounded, and are a dummy-spit by people when their feelings aren't sufficiently coddled in an argument that they are losing. The simple fact on the matter is that on culturally significant issues such as climate change, diversity, LGBTI rights, (internationally) abortion and so forth, there is usually a side arguing out both respect and conformity to facts, and one arguing out of a bigoted, emotional response.

The rise of far-right provacateurs such as Milo, Jordan Peterson, Gavin McInnes and, yes, Donald Trump is testament to the fact that when you're White and right-wing, you can say anything irrespective of factual accuracy.

One thing that is important when "debates" do occur is that they are factually accurate. The other is that when you are member of shared communal spaces, such as this one, you are cognisant of the fact that the people you are sharing this space with likely have a lived experience that includes persecution, harassment and/or oppression they were subjected to on the basis of some characteristic that is the subject of your "debate".

Someone being shouted down if they say "teh gays are unnatural", "abortion is murder" or "transgenderism [sic] is a delusion" is being so because, yes, (a) they are factually incorrect; but (b) they have breached their obligation as someone sharing that communal space.

The same thing exactly occurred in the "transgenderism" thread. Someone was uninformed, unwilling to learn and spouted nonsense. They were repeatedly being informed that is the case. I don't particularly care for the thread being locked, but what I said -- that their arguments from an ignorant position do not deserve a response -- is not something that should be particularly controversial.

None of this is about "freedom of speech", which relates to your right to spout nonsense (or other speech, but since this thread is in the business of defending nonsense) in public, not anything else. Essentially, it's up to society to decide what speech it deems so harmful or dangerous that it should not be allowed. This is a whole other topic, that has nothing to do with "PC culture" and much more to do with democracy defending itself against those that would do harm to it. The two topics are not strongly linked.

[hums_student]

^Well you brought up a lot of points there which I’ll try to respond below. Before I start though I thought I should establish the fact that I’m a straight white male and I hope that my sexual orientation, skin colour, and gender doesn’t invalidate my opinions and arguments in any way

... are a dummy-spit by people when their feelings aren't sufficiently coddled in an argument that they are losing.

I would argue that it’s usually the other way around and that many people use political correctness as a ‘shield’ when their beliefs are challenged.

...on culturally significant issues such as climate change, diversity, LGBTI rights, (internationally) abortion and so forth, there is usually a side arguing out bothrespect and conformity to facts, and one arguing out of a bigoted, emotional response.

I agree that these are important issues in our society - however one, these issues are debatable and therefore there is no “universal set of facts” that clearly spells out what’s right or wrong; and two, both sides are capable of being respectful or bigoted and emotional in debate, and it is biased and quite frankly wrong to say that there is the “respectful side” and the “bigoted side”.

The rise of far-right provacateurs such as Milo, Jordan Peterson, Gavin McInnes and, yes, Donald Trump is testament to the fact that when you're White and right-wing, you can say anything irrespective of factual accuracy.

This is unrelated to the topic. But anyway - plenty of people from both the left and the right have made outrageous claims without factual accuracy. Again, it is biased and emotional to simply label it as something belonging to “white people” or “right wingers”.

One thing that is important when "debates" do occur is that they are factually accurate.

Good point. However, what if the debate is centred around a topic that is arbitrary in terms of what is right and wrong?

... people you are sharing this space with likely have a lived experience that includes persecution, harassment and/or oppression they were subjected to on the basis of some characteristic that is the subject of your "debate".

I agree with the point raised - but again in cases where one’s arguments come off as personal attacks, they should be dealt with individually rather than shutting down the entire debate, effectively leaving no room for discussion.

Someone being shouted down if they say "teh gays are unnatural", "abortion is murder" or "transgenderism [sic] is a delusion" is being so because, yes, (a) they are factually incorrect; but (b) they have breached their obligation as someone sharing that communal space.

Again, this is not what this thread is about, however I would personally disagree with your statement on the fact that “abortion is not murder” - and I do have a personal anecdote, just like what you said above, that some people have personal experiences with topics that are being discussed. I personally believe that it is factually incorrect to say that abortion is not murder.

Due to my personal experience, does that grant me the right to label your statement “abortion is murder is factually incorrect” as a personal attack?

Someone was uninformed, unwilling to learn and spouted nonsense.

Again this could be said about both sides of the debate.

Essentially, it's up to society to decide what speech it deems so harmful or dangerous that it should not be allowed.

I thought you just said that it should be up to whether or not a statement was factually correct??
Society as a whole mostly make decisions based on emotion.

Would love to hear your response, and any opinions anyone else have.

[jamonwindeyer]

I think it is important to remember that ATAR Notes is, first and foremost, an educational forum for young adults. This isn't debate night on ABC.

I'm a huge fan of critical thought and debate, but that isn't the primary purpose of this forum existing. There are plenty of avenues for hard hitting debate - The primary concern for the leadership team on this site is the safety and wellbeing of its users. We will not apologise for prioritising that. As soon as the posts in a debate (which remember, come up in the sidebar, they are easily visible to those who aren't participating) become something which could reasonably cause distress to certain individuals, the debate needs to end. Given time over again, I'd still lock that thread, and I'd probably lock it way sooner.

If you scroll through the Rants/Debates board, this was the first thread we've locked in over six months. We don't stop discussion often; this wasn't about PC. This was about appropriateness for the context of an educational forum, and making sure everyone can log on to our site and have a bit of a chat/get some help with their homework without seeing an aspect of their identity up for debate.

If anyone has any specific issues with how the leadership team handled things, please message Nick or myself