Yes.

Ad hominem attacks have no place in a university classroom. There are much better ways to make an argument. Learning them has proved invaluable to me over the course of my university career.

I'm not advocating calling the person cranking out the dumbassed ideas a dumbass. But by the same token I won't do the false-polite "well I hear what you're saying and I respect that but perhaps you would consider. . ."

i really don't see where the problem lay here. personally, i have no respect at all for conservative thinking, but at the same time i think of the folk who hold these positions as a curious lifeform and am curious about how they can possibly function in the world and think this nonsense. contrary to what seaver argued above, this doesn't follow from any "hatred" of anything--it follows from shabby premises being fed into one-dimensional logical machines and producing predictable results over and over. the logic itself typically follows without violating many rules like moving from a to b without bumping into things--the problems follow from the way premises are framed. and my contempt for conservatism follows in large part from the fact that, almost inevitably (note: almost) folk who hold these positions cannot defend their premises. so it's a cookie-cutter approach to thinking.
let's not act as though contemporary american conservatism is a coherent political worldview. the fact that people can invest in a framework says nothing about it's coherence.
i mean, look around.
geez.


but i wouldn't say as much that bluntly in 3-space simply because basic courtesy to others precludes it.
i can, however, be provoked--like anyone---particularly after a few beverages.
but that's not a great idea, so i try not to consume that many beverages any more.

anyway, thats not the issue in walter's post--it seems to me that the real problem followed from a fellow student having basic factual material wrong and allowing an in all likelihood semi-formulated political disposition to fill in the blanks. the subtext is that walter opposed the political disposition but decided (or defaulted--who can say in this sort of situation) into going after the factual material. i suspect that the teacher was playing social form police. i've taught alot, and in such situations, that's the position you find yourself pushed into adopting. it's a pain in the ass to have to do it. you'd prefer to think that folk knew the basic rules. but everyone gets testy from time to time, and everyone knows it---so i wouldn't take it too seriously, what was said.

anyway, i would assume that political disagreement explains the aggressiveness of the approach.
i would also assume that had a parallel kind of fuck up happened with someone who's political dispositions were more symmetrical with his that the whole incident would not have happened.

Screw his beliefs. You only need to respect them when he keeps them to himself. This is a political science class, not some religious tolerance class. He was spewing out misinformation. You shouldn't have to be the one that did it but seeing as how the professor didn't say anything. I don't think you were in the wrong.

I think I am probably saying again what everyone else has said.

But attack the idea, not the person.

Walter did not attack the person, he attacked the idiocy of the words coming out of his mouth. He didn't call the kid stupid, he called his statement stupid (which it was).

The veracity of Walter's statement justifies his having made it.

I think if the best someone can do is "thats a stupid thing to say, only a stupid person would say it" you have a pretty weak case.

In my own personal opinion, one of the big problems we have in the world today is everyone is too damn nice. There was a time, when a person acting like an idiot was dealt with as an idiot, and they either wised up, or got run out of town. However, now a person can act like an idiot and whenever someone speaks up against them, that person is chastised and ostracized until they back down, thus leaving the idiot to feel that they have the right of things.

If only we could smack people in the back of the head for their idiocy, much like Gibbs does on NCIS, the world would be a much nicer place to live in.

I don't think the consensus was for the OP to be nice but tactful and respond appropriately for the situation.

The bottom line is if you want to be influential, there are better ways than others for going about communicating something.

Well, I am in agreement. Lending too much credit to an un-creditable position goes too far. Him just not saying dumbass is good enough. He can pretty much tear up the logic of the other person's statement and make him look like a dumbass without ever having to say it. But no, you definitely don't need to play up your "respect" of the other person either.

---------- Post added at 12:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------

You really think people are too nice? Really? I don't see it at all that way. From the "media" to the guy on the street all I see daily is people being very disrespectful of each other. The loudest and meanest are ones who have no reality based facts to back up their stances, just vile rhetoric. I think we are living under a mythology that there really is a PC police, without any evidence of it actually occuring.

See I didn't call anyone or their ideas dumb.

[QUOTE=
You really think people are too nice? Really? I don't see it at all that way. From the "media" to the guy on the street all I see daily is people being very disrespectful of each other. The loudest and meanest are ones who have no reality based facts to back up their stances, just vile rhetoric. I think we are living under a mythology that there really is a PC police, without any evidence of it actually occurring.

See I didn't call anyone or their ideas dumb.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps nice was not the best word. My intent was to say that years ago, if you were being a complete idiot, and speaking offensive stuff (such as Bush is responsible for terrorism in the world,) then someone would come along and correct you in a satisfyingly capital way. Nowadays, in the environment of pro-bono lawsuits and multi-million dollar tort awards, fear has taken over, and if you even look at someone cross-eyed you end up in court spending thousands to defend yourself. Therefore, the days of smacking someone upside the head for acting like an idiot are firmly and definitively over. As such, our society is quickly devolving.

Just because you have freedom of speech does not mean you should say whatever lunacy is in your head.

See, even though I used the word idiot, I never actually called anyone any names either, nor did I personally attack any specific beliefs. I am proud of me.

I agree with this, but I have to say that freedom of speech actually does mean I can say whatever lunacy is in my head. And you can hurt my feelings however you want (with words, that is) by correcting me.

To the OP, you should have been more cordial or perhaps even curt if not polite in addressing the statements. It helps for exercise. You don't have to respect his beliefs, just respect him, even though he deemed himself unworthy of your respect. This is because your lack of disrespect in the matter made you, in turn, less respectable.

The difference comes in the wording. I said should, you said can. Absolutely you CAN say whatever you feel like saying (with a few caveats) but that doesnt mean you SHOULD say it.

It is kinda like the bathroom book my mom has in her bathroom says...

"never miss a good opportunity to shut your mouth"

of course, that is the same book that says...

"never squat with your spurs on"

As others have pointed out, your opening sentence was out of line.

Dude, yeah.. but.. it's all backwards.

Used to, you could count on someone to not be full of crap. You could expect that the person who spoke loudly, and with great confidence probably knew, and believed what he was talking about.

It's not so, these days. From the start of your social life to the end, you'll encounter all kinds of people who do not do because they can, they do because they're "supposed to."

If you're "Supposed to know things" so you "read newspaper titles" and you're "supposed to have an opinion" on world affairs.. you get -

Bush sucks
Terrorism
related
bad
obama
yay!

That is failure. That needs to be labeled failure. People need to know that they are failing when they establish a baseless belief on something totally circumstantial.

Instead, we need to look at terrorism as a development of a mind identical to our own, and try to understand how someone COULD feel "right" about destroying something we believe to be so beautiful, and fix it! The best way to end terrorism is to give the terrorists something about the country to love. Terrorists aren't terrorists, they're people just like you and I. Albeit their minds are stuck on some whacky thought chains, but these things can be remedied I think.



Furthermore, this is not to suggest that it is all because we are "supposed to" A lot of times you'll encounter a person who does not KNOW what to believe, but poses the same question other people you're "supposed to believe" have posed to gauge their responses to it, and compare it to ones self.

In an instance where someone speaking is not vocal or confident, expell what you believe if you wish for someone else to have a chance to grapple with your idea as well. That is your opportunity.

When you get the feeling that the person speaking doesn't really believe what he's saying, and in some cases it might sound like more of a question than a statement. Hit em hard at that point for best results, but if you're mean about it, you gotta be real good at wordcraft to have that person not instead be offended by what you say.

Your professor was wrong. What the other student stated was not a belief, but an incorrect opinion.

Aside from that, respecting other people's beliefs is simply a matter of being courteous and not telling them that your god will smite them for following a false god. It's just never a nice thing to tell people they're going to burn in hell or whatever punishment is doled out for non-believing heathens.

Wha-wha-wha... my feelings!

I pull a Sobchak all the time in my criminal justice classes. I'm glad I do. Being polite to college kids is a great way to not get your point across.

As was stated above, Walter's retort attacked the bullshit statement, not the future genius spouting it. A little polish via blunt force.

...

There is so much courtesy thrown around in academia that content suffers. I see it all the time here at Big Name School.

That piece of paper everybody has hanging on their wall doesn't mean dick unless you have the Oomph! to prove it.

Ergh.

^^ Channelling Gregory House?

Who? And no, I'm channeling Old Man Crompsin.

This was the stupidest thing I've read all day. You really need to get your head out of your ass...

VS.

I am not sure you read what people have been saying throughout this thread. Nobody is defending Walter's ability (or right) to tear down the guy in his class for his statements. It's all in how you do it that matters... especially in an academic setting.

Is this different from what you're thinking?

If I'd been the professor, I would have promptly clarified that the next person who makes a completely baseless and uneducated statement as fact will fail this class.

^^-- Seriously, this is what I get from what this entire thread is about. The professor is the key ingredient here. He is the "most knowledgeable" person in the classroom for a reason.. To teach what he knows. I would assume a political science professor would be just as pissed as I am that, not only are random, baseless statements made just about every class period, but also they are encouraged by the professor, as if to say.. "Good job, I liked the way you said American."

Isn't it that the kind of behavior that would lead a kid like the one in question to say what he said? Never really having an interest in the subject of course, TV is far more important, but his degree plan requires him to have that class apparently, and that's what the professor expects.

How many people do you personally know who have been sued for anything like this? I know it feels like this is true, but it's pretty rare that people are sued for speaking their minds, unless they are speaking libel, which is actionable. So, while we are in an atmosphere that feels like we're expected to be PC, the reality is ( from my perspective ) that we are really more aggressive than ever. I don't think there has ever been a time that literally smacking someone upside the head for his opinion was really acceptable....

You don't have to respect their ideas or beliefs, but you should respect their right to have them.

The professor as the class mediator is the key in this situation. What you have to understand about professors is that they are not teachers per se. First and foremost they are researchers that publish their research. Second they "teach" classes. Most (all?) have less training as teachers than Primary and Secondary teachers.

This is not to excuse his behaviour but rather to understand the context that not all Tertiary professors are very good at teaching.

A good professor would not have shut either party in the OP discussion down but should have opened the discussion up. He was right to correct Walter's tone of response but should have encouraged a debate on the topic if it was relevant to the course.

One thought: Any time you're arguing politics or religion, you very probably aren't going to reason someone out of a position that reason didn't get them into. It's almost a waste of time to argue with some people - either Bush is the reason for all our woes... or Obama... or Clinton... or some race or belief or whatever. A "debate" with someone intent on scapegoating someone/thing will work out according to the prejudices of the audience. But while being polite, rational and even-handed may not prevail on your opponent, keep in mind that there is an audience. Sure, some of them may be indifferent, or prejudiced one way or the other, but your position can look pretty good when the opponent is waving his/her hands, sweating, losing temper, et c. Being calm and self-assured in the face of dispute looks like you have confidence in your position. Freaking out can be a display of weakness. Besides, verbal attack is classier when it's genteel. I've always liked "That's an interesting position, but it doesn't appear you're clear on the concept/facts"

In my opinion, everyone should have to do at least a little study of rhetoric and logic, especially logical fallacies. It's good to understand the mechanisms of logical argument and reasoning, and I never experienced a single thing in public school to promote that. Interestingly, in University I was pushed towards rhetoric and logic by several professors, including one political scientist with whom I strongly disagree on almost everything. We disagreed strongly, but always respectfully - and luckily he had the integrity to grade me on my performance and not on my position.

So what would drive a person to instantly condemn someone's position? Are they afraid of it? Is there a human competency issue here?

NOTE: We can already observe how one will instantly support someone's position. From Obama, we can deduce that the inspiration of the masses can/will occur when you have an ultra-sweet voice, an unusually vague message, and a cooperative national news network complete with jaw-dropping special effects to really draw the audience in.

People keep going on and on about feelings, being nice, etc. And it has nothing to do with that. As some have mentioned, it has everything to do with persuasion.

There is nothing more sophomoric than intellectual chest thumping, especially at the undergraduate level.

I've taught a few times. And I say this not to claim I am a great teacher, but to say that I've heard and read some pretty stupid things being said out loud by supposedly smart kids. Teach anything for some period of time and you will be constantly amazed at how stupid some can be. However, I would never say that whatever they said was stupid, for a couple of reasons:
- They'd kill me in class evaluations, and nowadays you can't have a career teaching without stellar evaluations.
- The kid would tune me out and/or shy away from discussions, etc. therefore being obviously less susceptible to trying to understand what I have to say.

Now, you may ask "and what does that have to do with me and my opinions? I don't care about the kid."

Well, it's simple: any employment in the sciences, especially social sciences, is about persuading someone else. This class was in political science. Political scientists in all likelihood will end up working as either academics themselves, or in political campaigns, or in governments analyzing policy, or in think tanks. All of them require the ability to engage others (often of differing opinions) and be persuasive.

So while being correct is important, learning how to discuss and present arguments is also at least as important. Heck, in graduate school most of what you are learning is how to persuade your peers that your work is correct. Being right is of no use if you can't convince anyone of it, so like it or not form is as important as content.

Think of it as signal-to-noise ratio. Keeping the "noise" down is as important as having a good signal.

This has been making me irate today--in Maricopa Co, Arizona, four boys raped an 8-year-old girl. This is bad enough, of course, but now her father says he doesn't want her back BECAUSE SHE HAS BROUGHT SHAME ON THE FAMILY. They are from Liberia, in West Africa and apoparently, it's a "shame-based" culture. The girl is now in Child Protective Services. As I see it, this issue is somewhat more important than an academic debate. Should we be "culturally sensitive" and try to reconcile her with the family? Or should we just place her in a loving adoptive home and be done with it? I'm weary of "political correctness" and wonder why we SHOULD "have" to respect their opinions.

If you KNOW they're wrong, there's no reason to have any respect for their belief. But always get your facts right first.

I agree, and it applies even outside of graduate school.

He that complies against his will,
Is of his own opinion still;
Which he may adhere to, yet disown,
For reasons to himself best known.

-Samuel Butler, Hudibras