> your ideology is currently winning the power struggle by censoring/deplatforming dissenting views.
Can you be more specific about which views precisely are being censored/deplatformed en mass, which, in your opinion, gained more mainstream dissemination and/or respect in the past?
When people attack the freedom of speech in the name of the freedom of speech, what they want is their fringe speech to be treated with the same respect as more mainstream kinds of speech. That is not freedom of speech, nor has it ever been the norm. Freedom of speech includes the freedom of various institutions to relegate some speech to the fringe.
> universities already teach many crackpot theories - the social “science” fields are full of them (https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studi...). But they don’t teach the alternative viewpoint to those crackpot theories.
That those theories are crackpot is the opinion of a group of people who are not researchers in any relevant field, based on a "study" that, itself, meets no criteria for scientific research, but you are free to believe what you like and even say it -- see, no one is censoring you. The point is that universities are free to choose what to teach and what to "censor" as that is freedom of speech. It is not freedom of speech to demand the same level of academic/publishing respect to be afforded to all views.
BTW, my characterisation of Quillette as a platform for pseudoscience is accurate and based purely on scientific rigour. It is perfectly reasonable for respectable publications to avoid that content, and yet those who seek it or disseminate it are not censored.
Can you be more specific about which views precisely are being censored/deplatformed en mass, which, in your opinion, gained more mainstream dissemination and/or respect in the past?
When people attack the freedom of speech in the name of the freedom of speech, what they want is their fringe speech to be treated with the same respect as more mainstream kinds of speech. That is not freedom of speech, nor has it ever been the norm. Freedom of speech includes the freedom of various institutions to relegate some speech to the fringe.
> universities already teach many crackpot theories - the social “science” fields are full of them (https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studi...). But they don’t teach the alternative viewpoint to those crackpot theories.
That those theories are crackpot is the opinion of a group of people who are not researchers in any relevant field, based on a "study" that, itself, meets no criteria for scientific research, but you are free to believe what you like and even say it -- see, no one is censoring you. The point is that universities are free to choose what to teach and what to "censor" as that is freedom of speech. It is not freedom of speech to demand the same level of academic/publishing respect to be afforded to all views.
BTW, my characterisation of Quillette as a platform for pseudoscience is accurate and based purely on scientific rigour. It is perfectly reasonable for respectable publications to avoid that content, and yet those who seek it or disseminate it are not censored.