I agree that the focus of expression at a university should be inquiry, but were I looking for an example of expression that, while protected, is definitely not about inquiry, I'd go to people shouting "By Any Means Necessary!" while explicitly refusing to engage anyone in discussion.
Instead, your guest takes the opportunity to mention the overreach of the Trump administration (to which I stipulate) and implies that until that came along, the culture was fine and we just have to "reclaim" it. He sounds like the presidents at their hearings.
In another recent example from an earlier podcast, the panel discussed Trump's mistake in alienating Modi. The story is that he insisted Modi recommend him for the Peace Prize by stating that he stopped the fighting between India and Pakistan, and then got angry when Modi demurred. Now, that seems entirely plausible to me, but when your people say "It was reported by the New York Times," I have to think: This is the paper that recently splashed the picture of a starving Gazan child on Page One when it ๐ธ๐ป๐ฒ๐ that it wasn't a starving Gazan child. Not only that, but it reported on starvation when it ๐ธ๐ป๐ฒ๐ that its people ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐น๐ฑ๐ป'๐ ๐ณ๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ an actual starving child to photograph. And I have to wonder why your people aren't asking themselves, "Why on Earth should I believe anything it reports?" Do they think that the 'Times dug around for alternative explanations or looked for reasons why the story maybe ๐๐ฎ๐๐ป'๐ plausible? Or did it, more likely, latch on to a story that makes its staff, owners and readers happy and just leave things at that?
I enjoyed the discussion, but like most of your discussions, I'd enjoy it more if your people could keep their politics out of it. Take the following:
๐ ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ง๐ฐ๐ค๐ถ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฆ๐น๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ด๐ฆ๐ณ๐ท๐ช๐ค๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ช๐ณ๐บ. ๐ ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฏ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข๐ต ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ค๐ข๐จ๐ฐ ๐ค๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฎ ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฆ ๐๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ช๐ณ๐บ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐น๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ. ๐๐ฏ ๐ข ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ช๐ต๐บ, ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ง๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ข๐ญ ๐ท๐ข๐ญ๐ถ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ด ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ช๐ณ๐บ. ๐๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ข๐ฏ๐ต ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ๐ฏ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ธ๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ช๐ณ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐ต๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ง๐ช๐จ๐ถ๐ณ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฅ๐ฐ ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ช๐ต. ๐๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ช๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ง๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ. ๐๐ต ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ช๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด ๐จ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ, ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ต ๐ช๐ต ๐ช๐ด ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ญ๐ช๐ฎ๐ช๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฎ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ง๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ. ๐๐ฆ ๐ด๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ณ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ง๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฎ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ง๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ข๐ญ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ณ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ช๐ณ๐บ.
๐๐ฆ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ต ๐ข ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐บ ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ซ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ค๐ต๐ถ๐ณ๐ฆ, ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ค๐ข๐ถ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ณ๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ต ๐ธ๐ข๐ด ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ด๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ข ๐ฐ๐ง ๐จ๐ฆ๐ต๐ต๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฃ๐ข๐ค๐ฌ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ง๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ค๐ฉ ๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ค๐ข๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ด. ๐๐ถ๐ต ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ณ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฑ ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ช๐ฏ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ธ๐ข๐ด ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ค๐ฉ๐ข๐ณ๐จ๐ฆ, ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐บ ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ข๐ค๐ต๐ถ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐บ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ช๐ต๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต, ๐ข๐ด ๐๐๐๐ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐จ ๐๐ถ๐ฌ๐ช๐ข๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ง๐ง ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ช๐ณ๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ. ๐๐ฐ ๐ช๐ต ๐ช๐ด ๐ถ๐ฑ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ถ๐ด. ๐๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ค๐ญ๐ข๐ช๐ฎ ๐ข ๐ค๐ถ๐ญ๐ต๐ถ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ ๐ด๐ต๐ถ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ด ๐ค๐ข๐ฏ ๐ต๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฆ๐ข๐ค๐ฉ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ, ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ง๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ฐ๐ณ๐ด ๐ค๐ข๐ฏ ๐ต๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฆ๐ข๐ค๐ฉ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ธ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ฑ๐ช๐ณ๐ช๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ณ๐บ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ฑ ๐ฆ๐ข๐ค๐ฉ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ถ๐จ๐ฉ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ง๐ถ๐ญ ๐ข๐ณ๐จ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ด๐ช๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ญ๐บ ๐บ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข๐ต ๐ฆ๐ข๐ค๐ฉ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ด๐ค๐ฐ๐ณ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ด ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ท๐ช๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต.
I agree that the focus of expression at a university should be inquiry, but were I looking for an example of expression that, while protected, is definitely not about inquiry, I'd go to people shouting "By Any Means Necessary!" while explicitly refusing to engage anyone in discussion.
Instead, your guest takes the opportunity to mention the overreach of the Trump administration (to which I stipulate) and implies that until that came along, the culture was fine and we just have to "reclaim" it. He sounds like the presidents at their hearings.
In another recent example from an earlier podcast, the panel discussed Trump's mistake in alienating Modi. The story is that he insisted Modi recommend him for the Peace Prize by stating that he stopped the fighting between India and Pakistan, and then got angry when Modi demurred. Now, that seems entirely plausible to me, but when your people say "It was reported by the New York Times," I have to think: This is the paper that recently splashed the picture of a starving Gazan child on Page One when it ๐ธ๐ป๐ฒ๐ that it wasn't a starving Gazan child. Not only that, but it reported on starvation when it ๐ธ๐ป๐ฒ๐ that its people ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐น๐ฑ๐ป'๐ ๐ณ๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ an actual starving child to photograph. And I have to wonder why your people aren't asking themselves, "Why on Earth should I believe anything it reports?" Do they think that the 'Times dug around for alternative explanations or looked for reasons why the story maybe ๐๐ฎ๐๐ป'๐ plausible? Or did it, more likely, latch on to a story that makes its staff, owners and readers happy and just leave things at that?