Why academic freedom is not the same as free speech | Michael Bérubé | TEDxPSU

Am I free to say, "that I don't like the manner at which he speaks, although he's making sense and also shows a high level intellectuality ".

Michael and Jennifer's book is really good. I highly recommend it.

I like what he has to say. It makes complete sense. He is using his academic standing for a good purpose. I don't see anything wrong with his point. But I do think that professors tend to be so intelligent that these conspiracy theories tend to make sense to some of them. I believe in a couple of so-called conspiracy theories, such as that there is life somewhere else out there in the universe. Also, I think he talks like that because he was nervous, and he likely has a certain wave at which his lectures go, which I've always found so comforting to hear different professor's lecture cadence. Thank you.

The X makes him look like hes wearing a dracula costume in the Thumbnail 😝

I thought Dracula was giving a ted talk from the thumbnail 😂

He's so exasperated 😂. Blessed are the truth tellers.

Although I get that there should be certain limits to freedom of speech, I don’t know if I particularly agree with this concept of “competency.” Competency is such a subjective measure that really seems to be better defined (as it’s being used in this case) as the adherence to a homogenization of ideas and beliefs. If you don’t share a common prejudice, does that immediately qualify you as incompetent? Who then also gets to determine what is considered “competent” and not “conspiracy?” It may seem “obvious” to us but, relative to the cultural context, “obvious” may be more of a byproduct of a wide constellation of factors. Analogous to the genetic benefits of diversity, so too are there benefits in diverse thoughts and ideologies. Using phrenology as an example adds to my very point. This was a common prejudice believed at the time because the technology and culture naturally precipitated into that belief. It was only through challenging ideas and the advancement of technology that led us to ultimately reject that idea by large. Framing this conversation with pandering comments and gestures towards those that are considered “flat-earthers” and conspiracy theorists also seems to be antagonistic and not the best environment to facilitate further discussion and reformation of ideas. I’m sort of disappointed by this one. :P

I hope he explains academic freedom.

This is fascinating and a really interesting perspective. I’ve been thinking about how evolution was accepted, but how even today it’s controversial? Interesting.

Good job❤❤

Is he nervous?

To be fair about covid, they did suspiciously change the definition of the word "vaccine ". That alone set off my reluctance. I grew up knowing I didn't have to worry about getting some diseases ( polio, smallpox, etc.) because I had a real vaccine, not just a shot.

basically this guy's entire point can be boiled down to an appeal to consensus-- it's a pretty good way to mitigate the damage disastrously misguided or malicious individuals can do, but it offers no hope against a corrupt consensus (like we have had with covid, climate change etc)

He looks like Dracula in the thumbnail

Dracula is speaking. Be quiet.

I love Joe Rogan and ivermectin does work

High treason

So, Mr. Berube wants to avoid arguing logically with people he disagrees with. Even worse, he does not want university students to learn to recognize how facts can be manipulated to tell stories that the student may (or may not) disagree with. Then he dares to call Mr. Stein a troll as if he were not the same.

Is he talking about Jordan Peterson?🤔

The right to be wrong and proliferate mis or dis information :/