A perfect example of hysteria and lack of intellectualism in the public sphere

University campuses should foster equality, opportunity, learning, diverse thought, rationalisation and promote civil discourse. It should be the centre of free speech. Physical violence, intolerance to speech, sexism, racism and discrimination should have no space in a university. Also, people should be able to listen to anyone speak and ask questions civilly. As students, you can protest but that should not be at the expense of listening to ideas. Lawrence Krauss’s lecture of physics has nothing to do with him sexual harassment complaints. Art, speech, debate, poetry or any form of communication can be offensive but students should be able to listen to them and critique the material and not the person. When students are not able to do it, then adults have to intervene and fix it. Protests should stay outside the halls where the speeches are given. Once the speaker starts, the students have to listen. Adults working in the university and the administrators should ensure this happens. Christopher Hitchens gave his speech on ‘God is not great’ book at the Google Talks. One of the response moved him but more importantly, no religious person threw a stone at him.

Dave Rubin started the speech by talking about the situation we are in being better than our grandparents. He already had a bunch of protestors shouting. It is easy to say one needs to understand the audience but that was a clear example of someone who is not a public speaker doing this. Dave Rubin was unable to capture the audience to start and had an expression of condescension when they started shouting. An alternate way to handle this is to acknowledge the issues facing people today. Even after the emancipation of slaves almost 15 decades back, there are issues of discrimination though not systemic. The law enforcement agencies sometimes end up not protecting people at the same level. Not all people can handle personal attacks and hatred at the same level. There is an explosion of information more than ever in the human history. We haven’t evolved to understand and constructively process this. If you want a healthy debate where people should listen to you, you have to pick the right words which will get through to everyone. A person was abused the day before is not going feel pleasant when you tell them your life is better than your grandfather.

Dave immediately moved on to talking about the perils of identity politics. I agree with the pugnacity of identity politics but share the idea of Sam Harris that the impact is relative. Also, I do not think labelling people, especially students is a prudent idea. However, the entire section highlighted the hypocrisy of Dave Rubin. Immediately after bashing identity politics, he asked the audience how many of them identify themselves as classical liberal or conservative etc. I felt like it wasn’t that Dave didn’t like identity politics. He just didn’t like the current segregation. He was fine with the segregation of classical liberal or conservative or socialist etc. This is either intellectual dishonesty or intellectual laziness. I can’t make my mind on which but it is bad either way.

Stereotypes are dangerous, especially if you are propagating something which has been used as a tool to run a class warfare for years. Dave Rubin told the students who were calling themselves conservatives, that they will study well, work hard, overcome obstacles, have fancy cars and property. Then he told the libertarians that they will smoke a lot of pot and argue about driver licence. He then went on to explain classical liberalism through the lens of the federal government. There is an underlying problem here. This argument that conservatives work hard, implying the others don’t is the very basis of most of the horrible conservative policies. He went on to also say that Political Right is the centre of free speech now. This is interesting considering the right has one of its thinnest-skinned presidents ever. The political right wants the power to abuse but not receive. This stereotype by Dave is a dangerous one and again I want to give him the benefit of doubt. He probably was doing this in a lighter vein.

I like to believe I am a free speech absolutist. It can’t be limited even if you consider a speech hateful. Government or Individual cannot prosecute other for speech or thought. I also believe there is a way to communicate that to the audience. While I agree with Dave on the importance of free speech, I definitely feel he did a poor job in explaining it. The way I would start the conversation is by acknowledging how free speech is important for the dissenting voices. I would like to give Dave a lot of credit here. It is definitely hard to express your points properly when people are yelling at you in the public. At one point, a student actually asked a question which answered why Dave doesn’t want Government policing speech. I just wish Dave provided a justification instead of talking about the beauty of it. It is also important for Dave to talk about how free speech solves the problem for the people.

This is arguably the biggest problem I have with public discourse today. Everyone, from Dave Rubin to Brendan O’Neill, from Bill Maher to Glenn Greenwald from Cenk Uygur to Jordan Peterson, I see a pattern of confirmation bias and logical fallacies. As an observer, I find the below problem when they articulate. However, the biggest issue I see is working backwards from my preferred answer. Dave thinks conservative economics and individualism is the best possible solution, so he framed the questions in a way that it leads to that answer. Anything in the periphery can change his opinion but the core. I don’t want to ridicule anyone who does this as I see this as a pattern. The best speakers seem to be the ones who can induce the confirmation bias in the listeners to make them ignore fallacies. An example of the same was the below points.

This is a problem I see with many people now irrespective of their political beliefs. While I support the need to get rid of the victim complex, I increasingly see that as a tool to bash genuine victims. Also, do not judge cases based on your view of the organisation supporting the victims of those cases. Let me give you an example. Slavery has been abolished in the US for over 100 years now. Black Americans have the same rights as the white Americans or brown Americans. For the purposes of law, the colour of one’s skin is irrelevant. To talk about systemic racism doesn’t make sense anymore. However, that doesn’t mean there are acts of racism or bias in the society or individuals. If I get attacked because of my race, then it is an act of racism. If I get attacked because of my religion, it is an act of religious intolerance. In some instances, people can see patterns. I acknowledge the pattern can be misleading but that doesn’t discredit their existence. In a college where multiple people have been abused for the race or ethnicity, it is not a question of the students playing victims. They are victims. To say that your great grandfathers were slaves, so thank for your current situation is not an answer. If your starting position is government should not legislate against this, then suggest an alternative to these students. Otherwise, you are not part of the solution, you are the new problem. Hatred is not easy to deal. It is funny when the same people asking students to deal with the hatred are the ones defending Trump voters from the hatred of the liberals. I am not for reducing free speech to handle hatred but we also need a way to make people deal with it.

What I found particularly annoying with students was their unwillingness to listen to anything bad. Dave Rubin is not going to physically assault anyone or call names. He has a particular opinion which you might not agree but universities are places to listen to multiple voices. The supporters and opposers of Vietnam war studied in the same university in the 1960s. You might have a person from Israel and a person from Palestine in your office. What’s more, the Israeli person could have lost a family member in the Holocaust and the Palestine person could have lost her/his in the Israeli bombing. Shelly, Keats and Shakespeare might have said or written about something you don’t like. Einstein or Newton could have done something you find reprehensible. The University is a place where you learn history, have a civil discourse, understand history and respect other’s rights like they respect yours. Everyone has the right to exist, morality changes with time, speech is the only civil way to share ideas and one cannot be prosecuted for thought crime. It is important to learn to live decently and above all dissent decently.