# Universities should not be "safe spaces"



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

It's a bit tiresome that poor university students can't stand being upset by being forced to listen to Germaine Greer or look at a statue of Cecil Rhodes, so they have to demand for people to be uninvited, banned, or turned away.
What's happened to academic argument?
Fortunately, I read this week about students who are correctly fighting back against this nonsense, and a diversity of views might one day be regular on university campuses again. There is a long way to go though.
It is of great irony that universities represent some of the biggest threats to free expression in the UK.
Is there any valid reason for "safe spaces" at all?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 29, 2016)

Oh Daffydd


----------



## brogdale (Jan 29, 2016)

You've got a distinctly tory agenda.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 29, 2016)

What are you on about?


----------



## Teenage Cthulhu (Jan 29, 2016)

A safe place is nothing more than a means of control.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 29, 2016)

PC gorrrrn maaad is what it is.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2016)

yeah anyone should have the right to enter any meeting ever. Just the other day I crashed a womens rape survivor group to loudly discuss male victims of  rape and its links to institutions of the state. Oh no, wait, I didn't cos I'm not a self absorbed twat who thinks the sun revolves around him


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah anyone should have the right to enter any meeting ever. Just the other day I crashed a womens rape survivor group to loudly discuss male victims of  rape and its links to institutions of the state. Oh no, wait, I didn't cos I'm not a self absorbed twat who thinks the sun revolves around him



Yes, that's exactly what I said. 
So are you for or against 'safe spaces' and uninviting Germaine Greer because you disagree with her?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2016)

Why are we for Cecil Rhodes' statute exactly? All the arguments in favour of it are idiotic.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I said.
> So are you for or against 'safe spaces' and uninviting Germaine Greer because you disagree with her?


its a bind isn't it? on the face of it we would like everyone to simply follow the 'don't be a twat' rule and by and large people do. Yet there is clearly a need for spaces where people can recount experiences and discuss matters without feeling uncomfortable or not able to speak. So where do we come down on this? For, I'd say. The Greers of this world aren't exactly lacking in other platforms are they? She should contact oxford SU they love inviting the most edgy person they can think of that week to regale them with hilarious tales of the vichy regime


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Why are we for Cecil Rhodes' statute exactly? All the arguments in favour of it are idiotic.


that should be righteously DA'd with sledgehammers


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> that should be righteously DA'd with sledgehammers



We don't like that piece of history, so we destroy it/ remove it? Bloody hell. Not very liberal.
Reminds me of ISIS.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 29, 2016)

kinda sums up my thoughts


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> its a bind isn't it? on the face of it we would like everyone to simply follow the 'don't be a twat' rule and by and large people do. Yet there is clearly a need for spaces where people can recount experiences and discuss matters without feeling uncomfortable or not able to speak. So where do we come down on this? For, I'd say. The Greers of this world aren't exactly lacking in other platforms are they? She should contact oxford SU they love inviting the most edgy person they can think of that week to regale them with hilarious tales of the vichy regime


Oxford SU has uninvited people as well.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> We don't like that piece of history, so we destroy it/ remove it? Bloody hell. Not very liberal.



Are you going to go to Poland and tell them off for getting rid of statues of Lenin, are you against the removal of Francoist statues in Spain?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I said.
> So are you for or against 'safe spaces' and uninviting Germaine Greer because you disagree with her?



Do you even know what a safe space _is_, you fucking bellend?


----------



## Voley (Jan 29, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> kinda sums up my thoughts


Yep. He's right on this,though:



MarkyMarrk said:


> It's a bit tiresome


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2016)

Then again he probably approves of the outcome of the Spanish Civil War.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Do you even know what a safe space _is_, you fucking bellend?


Yes, it's where we don't let someone who disagrees with something that is liberal speak, because liberals or "a minority" (like me) might be offended.
As a liberal, I object to safe spaces.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Yes, it's where we don't let someone who disagrees with something that is liberal speak, because liberals or "a minority" (like me) might be offended.
> As a liberal, I object to safe spaces.



That's a no then.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> That's a no then.


Why don't you tell us about how it's where "hate-speech" is not tolerated and every minority can be protected.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

It's not like anyone was being forced to listen to Greer - who I can't stand anyway.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> We don't like that piece of history, so we destroy it/ remove it? Bloody hell. Not very liberal.
> Reminds me of ISIS.


never claimed to be liberal, not in the way you mean it anyway.

And yes, I'd see a statue of rhodes fucked right off out of it. Stick it in a room at the imperial war museum if you must but assuming its fine and dandy to have that cunt staring out over people is daft. Shades of the confederate flegism there. I assume you are in possesion of some knowledge regarding brit african imperialism and apartheid? Then why would you consider such a figure appropriate to be on a campus? One of the most depressing things about visiting london (other than the cost and ultra-sharp rich/poor division in nieghbourhoods. Srs, turn two streets and its from rich town to poortown) is all them statues of dead arseholes who did various shit for the empire. You are pretty woefully ignorant mark. I fear for your rent slaves.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> never claimed to be liberal, not in the way you mean it anyway.
> 
> And yes, I'd see a statue of rhodes fucked right off out of it. Stick it in a room at the imperial war museum if you must but assuming its fine and dandy to have that cunt staring out over people is daft. Shades of the confederate flegism there. I assume you are in possesion of some knowledge regarding brit african imperialism and apartheid? Then why would you consider such a figure appropriate to be on a campus? One of the most depressing things about visiting london (other than the cost and ultra-sharp rich/poor division in nieghbourhoods. Srs, turn two streets and its from rich town to poortown) is all them statues of dead arseholes who did various shit for the empire. You are pretty woefully ignorant mark. I fear for your rent slaves.



_neighbourhoods_

So you want to hide the history because you don't like it? Diddums.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Why don't you tell us about how it's where "hate-speech" is not tolerated and every minority can be protected.



What the flying fuck are you waffling on about? Have you been at the drink?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Yes, it's where we don't let someone who disagrees with something that is liberal speak, because liberals or "a minority" (like me) might be offended.
> As a liberal, I object to safe spaces.


You are a seriously confused chappie. 
.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> _neighbourhoods_
> 
> So you want to hide the history because you don't like it? Diddums.





J Ed said:


> Are you going to go to Poland and tell them off for getting rid of statues of Lenin, are you against the removal of Francoist statues in Spain?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

To be fair, there are only ad hominems in reply and very little defence of safe spaces, so I'm assuming that most people agree.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2016)

Lets put up some Hitler statues just outside parliament, after all we cannot hide history just because we don't like it


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Lets put up some Hitler statues just outside parliament, after all we cannot hide history just because we don't like it


Yes, putting up statues that aren't there is exactly the same as tearing one down that's been there a long time because we invent that it really offends someone, somewhere.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 29, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> What the flying fuck are you waffling on about? Have you been at the drink?


No, he got burned by facts in another thread, and quick as a flash launched this tory shite.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> To be fair, there are only ad hominems in reply and very little defence of safe spaces, so I'm assuming that most people agree.



A refuge for victims of domestic violence is a safe space. A therapy group for rape survivors is a safe space. A shelter for those fleeing persecution is a safe space. Whatever you think you understood from reading the Daily Express or Breitbart, you are just showing yourself up as a boring, ignorant wind-up merchant. I can't be arsed getting wound up at this time in the evening, so will bid you good night.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> _neighbourhoods_
> 
> So you want to hide the history because you don't like it? Diddums.


hide nothing. Celebrate it through statuary? come off it. You like the british empire marky boy? think it was great and cecil was a gent? no no no you arse. Not having a dirty great statue of henry kissenger on the lawn doesn't mean I or anyone ignore it. Hide it. People who know the legacy of rhodes keep a sharp fucking eye on the history and the legacy. But I'm sure you're right and having a statue of a racist apartheid cunt is just fine for a uni. Like that time I done a waxwork of hitler and plonked it in the middle of a jewish faith school. You wank.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> hide nothing. Celebrate it through statuary? come off it. You like the british empire marky boy? think it was great and cecil was a gent? no no no you arse. Not having a dirty great statue of henry kissenger on the lawn doesn't mean I or anyone ignore it. Hide it. People who know the legacy of rhodes keep a sharp fucking eye on the history and the legacy. But I'm sure you're right and having a statue of a racist apartheid cunt is just fine for a uni. Like that time I done a waxwork of hitler and plonked it in the middle of a jewish faith school. You wank.


No, I just see no reason to remove a statue because it's suddenly decided that it offends some people.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> A refuge for victims of domestic violence is a safe space. A therapy group for rape survivors is a safe space. A shelter for those feeling persecution is a safe space. Whatever you think you understood from reading the Daily Express or Breitbart, you are just showing yourself up as a boring, ignorant wind-up merchant. I can't be arsed getting wound up at this time in the evening, so will bid you good night.


So why are universities now being called 'safe spaces', or are you ignoring the actual thread?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Yes, putting up statues that aren't there is exactly the same as tearing one down that's been there a long time because we invent that it really offends someone, somewhere.



Do you condemn the removal of statues of Lenin in Poland and Franco statutes in Spain or not?


----------



## toggle (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> _neighbourhoods_
> 
> So you want to hide the history because you don't like it? Diddums.



removing a statue isn't hiding the history.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Do you condemn the removal of statues of Lenin in Poland and Franco statutes in Spain or not?



Can you stick to the topic please?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> It's not like anyone was being forced to listen to Greer - who I can't stand anyway.


Germaine the Greer was quite relaxed about being boycotted. She had apparently seen it all over the years  She is very good on Shakespeare by the way the subject she taught at university.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Germaine the Greer was quite relaxed about being boycotted. She had apparently seen it all over the years  She is very good on Shakespeare by the way the subject she taught at university.


She wasn't boycotted. She was uninvited.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 29, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Oh Daffydd



Not sharp enough.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> No, I just see no reason to remove a statue because it's suddenly decided that it offends some people.


you think people just suddenly decided cecil rhodes was an objectionable figure for a statue. Man you are proper out there. You should look up Frankie Fields MP. You'd love his patter


----------



## toggle (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> No, I just see no reason to remove a statue because it's suddenly decided that it offends some people.



i don't think peole have just suddenly decided rhodes was a cunt and shouldn't be celebrated with public statuary. that's been known for some time


----------



## toggle (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Can you stick to the topic please?



in other words, don't ask questions whose answers don't support your agenda


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

I think some people suddenly decided that they would be offended on behalf of some other people and wanted to cleanse the area of any mention of any history which the decided offended some other people.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

toggle said:


> in other words, don't ask questions whose answers don't support your agenda


No, in exactly those words "stick to the topic".


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 29, 2016)

Haven't these students heard of direct action? Take a sledgehammer to it if yer don't like it. 

"Please sirs take it down you meanies"

Fuck off.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 29, 2016)

I have to say I have mixed feeling about that Rhodes statue. I think it might be best staying up with a different inscription: this man was a monster, a true product of the establishment. Behold the cunt.
But I also don't think history will be destroyed or whitewashed by tearing it down either.
It's not as if we've forgotten all about Lenin, Stalin or Saddam Hussein.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Can you stick to the topic please?



Ah so it's alright to get rid of forrin baddies but good old English colonial racist imperialists are fine.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Reminds me of ISIS.



Stick to the topic.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Stick to the topic.


It was on topic.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Ah so it's alright to get rid of forrin baddies but good old English colonial racist imperialists are fine.


No, that's not what I said.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> We don't like that piece of history, so we destroy it/ remove it? Bloody hell. Not very liberal.
> Reminds me of ISIS.



Or the American army, or anti-Soviet protesters, or Spanish Republicans....


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Or the American army, or anti-Soviet protesters, or Spanish Republicans....


What has this got to do with universities banning things that might offend people on behalf of people who might be offended?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2016)

Does anyone know who this statue is of? I do not know because we have gotten rid of the statue so all knowledge of the history related to it has been lost to the sands of time


----------



## Teenage Cthulhu (Jan 29, 2016)

It seems to me that people object to the poster rather than the post.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 29, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I have to say I have mixed feeling about that Rhodes statue. I think it might be best staying up with a different inscription: this man was a monster, a true product of the establishment. Behold the cunt.
> But I also don't think history will be destroyed or whitewashed by tearing it down either.
> It's not as if we've forgotten all about Lenin, Stalin or Saddam Hussein.



If the students had any decency they'd organise with the townie activists who had some element of daring and the ability to use tools.

But they won't. They just want to be pathetic twats squeeling their demands.

It should be taken down but not by the uni but by direct action if only to fuck off the Telegraph and the Times.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

Teenage Cthulhu said:


> It seems to me that people object to the poster rather than the post.


It seems this is the way round here.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> If the students had any decency they'd organise with the townie activists who had some element of daring and the ability to use tools.
> 
> But they won't. They just want to be pathetic twats squeeling their demands.
> 
> It should be taken down but not by the uni but by direct action if only to fuck off the Telegraph and the Times.


I'm not sure I agree, but it wouldn't be as pathetic as the current situation we have.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> What has this got to do with universities banning things that might offend people on behalf of people who might be offended?



You brought up Rhodes must fall at Oxford, you seem relaxed enough with getting rid of statues of other tyrants but are yourself apparently offended at the idea that the same principle might be applied to Rhodes.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> You brought up Rhodes must fall at Oxford, you seem relaxed enough with getting rid of statues of other tyrants but are yourself apparently offended at the idea that the same principle might be applied to Rhodes.


I'm talking about universities and the 'safe spaces' movement.


----------



## toggle (Jan 29, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> No, in exactly those words "stick to the topic".



i think those questions are perfectly on topic. they go straight to the point on who deserves to be celebrated through public statuary. the people who pout up statues to celebrate their glorious achievements were prepared to ignore the death tolls because it suited their agendas to do so - helped them maintain their own power and legitimise their own roles in atrocity. 

so, is it just other people's cunts who no longer deserve statues, or do we accept that we are no longer the society that accepts that rhodes so called achievements in making himself rich and nicking other people's land were worth the cost?


----------



## toggle (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm talking about universities and the 'safe spaces' movement.



you raised the issue of statues, now don't want to talk about it?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

I don't care about the statue. I care about the reasoning behind removing it. The idea that we have to whiten everything, clean it and check it for offence, including a statue that no-one gave a shit about before.


----------



## toggle (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> It was on topic.



bollocks


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

toggle said:


> bollocks


Pleasant.


----------



## toggle (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I don't care about the statue. I care about the reasoning behind removing it. The idea that we have to whiten everything, clean it and check it for offence, including a statue that no-one gave a shit about before.



the reasoning behind it is not offering reverence to murderous cunts


----------



## toggle (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Pleasant.



i'm delightful.

everyone knows that


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

Good article here on "safe spaces" at university and the movement to fight them: Meet the students fighting campus censorship


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

toggle said:


> the reasoning behind it is not offering reverence to murderous cunts


That's really not the reason behind it. But maybe you're one of those so precious you're offended by it.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I don't care about the statue. I care about the reasoning behind removing it. The idea that we have to whiten everything, clean it and check it for offence, including a statue that no-one gave a shit about before.



So you only want to talk about reasons that you yourself have ascribed to others based on what you reckon. Sound basis for a discussion.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> That's really not the reason behind it. But maybe you're one of those so precious you're offended by it.



Ad hom attacks eh?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 30, 2016)

It's 'safer' spaces not 'safe'.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Ad hom attacks eh?


You _are_ that precious.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

J Ed said:


> So you only want to talk about reasons that you yourself have ascribed to others based on what you reckon. Sound basis for a discussion.


The published reasons, not those I decided.


----------



## toggle (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> That's really not the reason behind it. But maybe you're one of those so precious you're offended by it.



oh, so i'm precious as well as delightful. you're doing great today.

there's a difference between being offended and finding something to be offensive. rhodes actions were offensive. therefore continuing to claim that his actions were something deserving of respect and commemoration is offensive.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

Is free speech in British universities under threat?


----------



## toggle (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> You _are_ that precious.




odd, 

you launch into personal attacks but get all touchy at the word bollocks?

double standards much?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> You _are_ that precious.



And you _are_ that hypocrite.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> The published reasons, not those I decided.



Did the Rhodes must fall movement actually say 'we want this statue removed solely because it offends us?' that seems truly unlikely to me


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Did the Rhodes must fall movement actually say 'we want this statue removed solely because it offends us?' that seems truly unlikely to me


"“It is disgusting that I as a person who comes from South Africa, where Rhodes committed all these crimes, have to walk past this,”"


----------



## toggle (Jan 30, 2016)

how much do you actually know about the number of people who died in rhodes quest for money and power MarkyMarrk ?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

“Those who mock the idea of safe space are most likely the same people who are able to take safety for granted. That’s what makes discussions of safety and safe space so difficult. We are talking about privilege. As with everything else in life, there is no equality when it comes to safety.”


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

“Sometimes the only way you can ensure safe spaces remain safe is through no-platform policies.”


----------



## toggle (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> "“It is disgusting that I as a person who comes from South Africa, where Rhodes committed all these crimes, have to walk past this,”"



selective and sourceless quotes.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

The veteran feminist and provocateur Germaine Greer, the journalist Milo Yiannopoulos, the feminist and campaigner Julie Bindel, the comedians Dapper Laughs and Kate Smurthwaite – contentious, sometimes offensive, sometimes funny, but none of them a goose-stepping neo-Nazi. Yet all have either been banned, disinvited or had events cancelled at British universities.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> "“It is disgusting that I as a person who comes from South Africa, where Rhodes committed all these crimes, have to walk past this,”"



That sentence conveys a lot more than mere offence.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

Smurthwaite was informed a few days before she was due to play a gig last year at Goldsmiths College in south London that “there is a likeliness that the ‘safe space’ policy we abide by could be breached”. Apparently members of Goldsmiths Feminist Society decided that Smurthwaite’s views on prostitution, which were not in her show, were “whorephobic” and planned to picket the performance.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I don't care about the statue. I care about the reasoning behind removing it. The idea that we have to whiten everything, clean it and check it for offence, including a statue that no-one gave a shit about before.


MarkyMarrk you are appallingly ignorant about the issues here. The fact that there is increasing awareness of the offensive background to British imperialism seems to have passed you by. I apologise if you are in your late eighties and not in touch with the modern more enlightened age. Things have moved on since your prime. 
.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

Namazie had been invited to Goldsmiths by the college’s Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society (Ash) to speak on the subject of blasphemy and apostasy in the age of Isis. Recognising the sensitivity of the subject, Ash informed Goldsmiths Islamic Society (Isoc) of the Namazie event. In reply Ash received an email from the head of the Isoc: “We feel having her present will be a violation to our safe space,” it read, “a policy which Goldsmiths SU adheres to strictly, and my society feels that all she will do is incite hatred and bigotry, at a very sensitive time for Muslims in the light of a huge rise in Islamophobic attacks.”


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

There is a video of what took place on YouTube. Namazie is heckled and subject to a prolonged campaign of disruption by a group of students from the Isoc. They shout out, get up and sit down, walk around the room, laugh when she refers to Bangladeshi bloggers being hacked to death, and at one stage shut down her overhead projector when it displays a [British webcomic] Jesus and Mo cartoon.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

OK, so the majority of people on here think universities should be safe spaces. I'm disappointed.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> OK, so the majority of people on here think universities should be safe spaces. I'm disappointed.



Several of the examples, particularly the ones related to Namazie, have been roundly condemned on here multiple times.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Several of the examples, particularly the ones related to Namazie, have been roundly condemned on here multiple times.


So why are you defending universities being safe spaces?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

You only want them to ban the speakers you disagree with.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2016)

Recent links to articles from Spiked, and from Andrew Anthony. 

Give yourself away why don't you, MarkyMarrk ...


----------



## J Ed (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> So why are you defending universities being safe spaces?



I'm not


----------



## toggle (Jan 30, 2016)

did you read that article to the bottom yet?


> It would be an exaggeration to suggest that free speech and open debate are in crisis at British universities. There is a perfectly legitimate debate underway at Oriel and perhaps the outcome will be the removal of Rhodes’s limestone effigy, which would not be a defeat for free speech.



seems the author doesn't agree with you.


bit of an own goal there


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> Recent links to articles from Spiked, and from Andrew Anthony.
> Give yourself away why don't you, MarkyMarrk ...



I don't know who Andrew Anthony is off the top of my head. But what's up with Spiked?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2016)

Teenage Cthulhu said:


> It seems to me that people object to the poster rather than the post.




Do you mean the original post? That, and all subsequent ones, were argued stupendously badly, tbf 

To be even fairer, OP MarkyMarrk isn't doing himself any favours anyway.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I don't know who Andrew Anthony is off the top of my head. But what's up with Spiked?




AA wrote the Guardian/Observer article you linked to. On one of those posts of yours on the previous page 

As for Spiked, do please investigate for yourself.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2016)

Good trolls know how to subtly press posters' buttons. MarkyMarrk seems to be frantically playing whack-a-mole with them...


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> AA wrote the Guardian/Observer article you linked to.
> 
> As for Spiked, do please investigate for yourself.


I think it's an excellent article.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2016)

Which one?


----------



## toggle (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I think it's an excellent article.



an article that disagrees with you?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

The Guardian one.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2016)

Bedtime for me though! Better things to do in Bristol tomorrow


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2016)

toggle said:


> an article that disagrees with you?



(The things is, he think it supports him  )

Right! I'm off


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2016)

Its interesting that one of the key protagonists in the 'Rhodes Must Fall', was one of the key student activists in the tuitions fees campaign, intersectionalists/identity politics triumphant?


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> AA wrote the Guardian/Observer article you linked to. On one of those posts of yours on the previous page
> 
> As for Spiked, do please investigate for yourself.



Andrew Anthony is a former working class leftist and writer who like another, Tim Lott, says he has given up on the left.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2016)

treelover said:


> Andrew Anthony is a former working class leftist and writer who like another, Tim Lott, says he has given up on the left.



He's as anti left as they come, I did know that .... right, I really am heading off!


----------



## Athos (Jan 30, 2016)

As it happens,  I think the whole 'safe spaces'  is abused by a tiny but vocal minority who seek to rely on it as cover for stifling legitimate debate. But, I'm more suspicious of the motives of anyone who's start a thread on the subject. So, in summary: fuck off.


----------



## toggle (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> The Guardian one.




it's conclusions disagree with you


----------



## toggle (Jan 30, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> (The things is, he think it supports him  )
> 
> Right! I'm off



probably didn't read to the end of it.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

It's bizarre that you all appear to believe that you have to agree with an article to think it is excellent.

Explains why many of you are in favour of "safe spaces".


----------



## Teenage Cthulhu (Jan 30, 2016)

Athos said:


> As it happens,  I think the whole 'safe spaces'  is abused by a tiny but vocal minority who seek to rely on it as cover for stifling legitimate debate. But, I'm more suspicious of the motives of anyone who's start a thread on the subject. So, in summary: fuck off.



It seems to be largely a Goldsmiths thing, would I be right in assuming that?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 30, 2016)

Athos said:


> As it happens,  I think the whole 'safe spaces'  is abused by a tiny but vocal minority who seek to rely on it as cover for stifling legitimate debate. But, I'm more suspicious of the motives of anyone who's start a thread on the subject. So, in summary: fuck off.


there's that, I suppose it can tie into the way intersectional bells use the language of anti-oppression to shut people down. Been over this many times on here I think we have. Not sure why my cant went yoda there.
But by and large there's nothing harmful in safe spaces ideas. And there is every reason why a statue of_ cecil fucking rhodes_ should be destroyed. Or at least moved somewhere where you have to see it out of choice rather than having him gazing over your studies 'them blecks gotta lot better since I died, near human now' etc


----------



## toggle (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> It's bizarre that you all appear to believe that you have to agree with an article to think it is excellent.
> 
> Explains why many of you are in favour of "safe spaces".



i think that your claims that an article is excellent when it concludes that you're talking shite is quite bizarre


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 30, 2016)

So if you disagree with a piece of history you should destroy it? 

Really is equivalent to Isis


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 30, 2016)

I have also touted the option of sticking it in the imperial war museum so I don't think I need to stop shaving and move to raqqa just yet


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> So if you disagree with a piece of history you should destroy it?
> 
> Really is equivalent to Isis



 

If you thinking removing a statue from a university and putting it somewhere is the same as mass rape, beheadings of people on film, burning people alive, and so on you have serious problems mate.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 30, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> If you thinking removing a statue from a university and putting it somewhere is the same as mass rape, beheadings of people on film, burning people alive, and so on you have serious problems mate.



Froggy, I love you.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 30, 2016)

Meanwhile, a free yoga class at UOttawa, for students with disabilities, was cancelled for a time, because of cultural appropriation issues.

Yoga instructor surprised replacement unaware of ‘cultural appropriation brouhaha’


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 30, 2016)

This story is fuck all to do with safe spaces, however much crackpot student liberals or tedious misanthropic kippers misuse the concept.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 30, 2016)

This tightly tied in with intersectionalism. Point scoring little herberts trying to be the scum that rises to the top. 
If I throw the most shit, then I am thus more righteous. If I chuck the shit first then I can claim hipster liberal points and rise up the intersectional class system...and people will look to me as a leader/guru of the oppressed.

Absolute bollocks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Why are we for Cecil Rhodes' statute exactly? All the arguments in favour of it are idiotic.


bollocks. they should keep the statue for the simple reason they need reminding who they work for, the sort of people who've funded their colleges and the sort of people so many of them will go on to be.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2016)

i haven't heard these students demanding the rhodes estate in hackney change its name.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2016)

Say what you will, this whole dispute has successfully propelled the issue of Oxbridge discrimination/lack of inclusivity into the media spot-light. Well done to the students that have effected some discomfort for the colleges and forced their reactionary supporters into the public gaze.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 30, 2016)

If we just get on with demolishing Oxford Uni then we could stop the liberal concern over a statue.

(its not going to happen anyway because privileged rich donors are already threatening to withdraw money to them over it - which I think says more tbh)


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 30, 2016)

As for 'safer spaces' particularly on university campuses, a lot of it has been properly exaggerated by right-wing media and commentators for their own ends (like our disingenuous and utterly incapable of proper discussion prick of an OP here) - 'safer spaces' for support groups/political organising have and will always exist on campus (as in wider society), and I don't really see any great erosion of 'academic freedom' on campus despite a few highly reported cases (which tend to get blown up on the internet, twitter especially by the worst exponents of identity politics/intersectionalism). 

FWIW, I think trying to 'no platform' the likes of Greer or Bindel if I don't have much positive to say about them is pretty ridiculous really, whilst there are invitations at times of speakers with some very dubious past history of enacting hate speech, etc. and I think that needs to be opposed.


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> If we just get on with demolishing Oxford Uni then we could stop the liberal concern over a statue.
> 
> (its not going to happen anyway because privileged rich donors are already threatening to withdraw money to them over it - which I think says more tbh)


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> *FWIW, I think trying to 'no platform' the likes of Greer or Bindel if I don't have much positive to say about them is pretty ridiculous really*, whilst there are invitations at times of speakers with some very dubious past history of enacting hate speech, etc. and I think that needs to be opposed.



On one level I suppose these private businesses ('universities') have a right to invite who they choose to work for them (speak/lecture), the consumers ('students') have the right to reject the product.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 30, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> As for 'safer spaces' particularly on university campuses, a lot of it has been properly exaggerated by right-wing media and commentators for their own ends (like our disingenuous and utterly incapable of proper discussion prick of an OP here) - 'safer spaces' for support groups/political organising have and will always exist on campus (as in wider society), and I don't really see any great erosion of 'academic freedom' on campus despite a few highly reported cases (which tend to get blown up on the internet, twitter especially by the worst exponents of identity politics/intersectionalism).
> 
> FWIW, I think trying to 'no platform' the likes of Greer or Bindel if I don't have much positive to say about them is pretty ridiculous really, whilst there are invitations at times of speakers with some very dubious past history of enacting hate speech, etc. and I think that needs to be opposed.



It would be wrong to dismiss these discussions entirely though, 'safe spaces' rhetoric has been and I am sure will continue to be used by reactionaries in alliance with liberals and 'leftists' to suppress the politics of those they dislike as has been shown repeatedly in the case of Namazie.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 30, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Meanwhile, a free yoga class at UOttawa, for students with disabilities, was cancelled for a time, because of cultural appropriation issues.
> 
> Yoga instructor surprised replacement unaware of ‘cultural appropriation brouhaha’



If this can be used to bring 'Professor' Green's career to a crashing halt, then heck, I'm all for it.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Yes, putting up statues that aren't there is exactly the same as tearing one down that's been there a long time because we invent that it really offends someone, somewhere.



So they shouldn't have removed or renamed all those plaques, conference rooms  and hospital wards named after jimmy saville?


----------



## mk12 (Jan 30, 2016)

Hospitals shouldn't be safe spaces.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 30, 2016)

I don't think there's any danger of the statue upsetting anyone in the safe space given it can't speak. Maybe what is actually needed is MORE statues, not less? I think a bust of Germain Greer would add a fabulous touch to the foyer.


----------



## Teenage Cthulhu (Jan 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i haven't heard these students demanding the rhodes estate in hackney change its name.



Too busy watching Zulu.


----------



## campanula (Jan 30, 2016)

Generally, I like to keep offensive statues and other such artefacts, up front and obvious - airbrushing or removing does nothing while re-appropriating the discourse around such figures is, ultimately of more use than removal from the public gaze. For this reason alone, I simply could not agree that banning Trump and his turgid shit was either helpful or useful.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 30, 2016)

There is quite a difference between banning someone whose sole rationale is intolerance and provoking conflict and someone like Germaine Greer whose life has been squarely pro the downtrodden, or genuinely in pursuit of the truth, but happens to have gone a little off kilter recently. The worst that could likely happen listening to her for her opponents is their own views get reaffirmed.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 30, 2016)

The bust is a brilliant idea. That way Greer actually gets to be present at the university on a permanent basis yet unable to inflict her views on impressionable students. Much as the statue of Rhodes can't step off its pedestal and occupy colonies anymore.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 30, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I don't think there's any danger of the statue upsetting anyone in the safe space given it can't speak. Maybe what is actually needed is MORE statues, not less? I think a bust of Germain Greer would add a fabulous touch to the foyer.



Add a Hitler and a Pol Pot too


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 30, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Add a Hitler and a Pol Pot too



Could turn the canteen into a chamber of horrors which could help lower tuition fees.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 30, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> If this can be used to bring 'Professor' Green's career to a crashing halt, then heck, I'm all for it.


you what fam?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 30, 2016)

Need an acknowledge or dislike button. Can't possibly stick a 'like' on that.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I said.
> So are you for or against 'safe spaces' and uninviting Germaine Greer because you disagree with her?


I'm all for hermetically-sealed spaces. Germ free, sterile environments that smell of bleach and disinfectant.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 30, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> Recent links to articles from Spiked, and from Andrew Anthony.
> 
> Give yourself away why don't you, MarkyMarrk ...


It's funny you should say that. I was thinking exactly the same thing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Oh Daffydd



Watch out, watch out, there's a Humphreys about.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Yes, putting up statues that aren't there is exactly the same as tearing one down that's been there a long time because we invent that it really offends someone, somewhere.



Maybe you could make a real difference to our lives rather by contacting the BBC and telling them they should be replaying Jim'll Fix It, all the Top Of The Pops programmes and It's A Knockout. 
These culturally iconic programmes from the 1970's are never on telly simply because the men in them are now deemed to be a bit dodgy!
Why should we be denied these repeats because we invent that it really offends someone, somewhere?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Not sharp enough.



Half a decade of teaching middle class East Anglian teenagers might be claimed to dull the sharpest knife.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> So if you disagree with a piece of history you should destroy it?
> 
> Really is equivalent to Isis



A statue of a person is not a "piece of history". It's a representation of an idealised form of that person and their "achievements". Among Rhodes' achievements were causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of black Africans. Destroying the statue wouldn't destroy history - in this case Rhodes' "legacy" - it would destroy a representation of his deeds as somehow being heroic. History would still be well aware of what Rhodes did, with or without that idealised representation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> This story is fuck all to do with safe spaces, however much crackpot student liberals or tedious misanthropic kippers misuse the concept.



Yup.
A "safe space", in the original formulation, means a *protected space* for survivors of particular emotional and physical traumas, a space from which certain individuals or ideologies are prohibited.
The liberal formulation tends to be one of projecting the concept as an over-arching net that prohibits things that *might* be offensive, on the grounds that they *might* be offensive. Used in such a way, the concept becomes meaningless - it doesn't generate a "safe space", it generates proscription of *potential* threats.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2016)

campanula said:


> Generally, I like to keep offensive statues and other such artefacts, up front and obvious - airbrushing or removing does nothing while re-appropriating the discourse around such figures is, ultimately of more use than removal from the public gaze. For this reason alone, I simply could not agree that banning Trump and his turgid shit was either helpful or useful.



I'm a big fan of retaining effigies to gob on.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 30, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> . It's a representation of an idealised form of that person and their "achievements".



There's a counterargument to be made that some of these statues etc should be retained for just that reason: as a visible reminder that there once was a time when someone like Rhodes was in fact idealized, and idolized. It's a reminder of negative aspects of the past, and a reminder that people must remain vigilant to prevent any sort of re-encroachment of those negative aspects.

Rather than attempt to sanitize the past - remember it and recognize it for what it was: so it doesn't get repeated.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 30, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There's a counterargument to be made that some of these statues etc should be retained for just that reason: as a visible reminder that there once was a time when someone like Rhodes was in fact idealized, and idolized. It's a reminder of negative aspects of the past, and a reminder that people must remain vigilant to prevent any sort of re-encroachment of those negative aspects.
> 
> Rather than attempt to sanitize the past - remember it and recognize it for what it was: so it doesn't get repeated.


thats why he belongs in the Imperial War Museum rather than eyeballing students in a place of honour in a prestigous uni


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 30, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> thats why he belongs in the Imperial War Museum rather than eyeballing students in a place of honour in a prestigous uni



It reminds me of the Baltic countries, and other Warsaw Pact countries pulling down most of the statues of Lenin after the collapse of of the Soviet Union. Fair enough that 10,000 per country aren't needed - but the Soviet occupation was a fact in the history of those countries. Imo there's a benefit to keeping some public reminders of both good and bad aspects of the past. I don't think a museum's good enough: not enough people go.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 30, 2016)

It isn't the past that's being sanitised—it's the present. The negative aspects of the present where colleges are _still_ happy to celebrate evil people as great men, even given the perspective of time.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 30, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It reminds me of the Baltic countries, and other Warsaw Pact countries pulling down most of the statues of Lenin after the collapse of of the Soviet Union. Fair enough that 10,000 per country aren't needed - but the Soviet occupation was a fact in the history of those countries. Imo there's a benefit to keeping some public reminders of both good and bad aspects of the past. I don't think a museum's good enough: not enough people go.


You probably wouldn't know but the Imperial War Museum is a massive draw, tourists and natives. Its not some pokey forgotten space. And while theres still someone drawing breath who calls the country Rhodesia, as my aunt did the other week, it won't be forgotten. I do take your general point, I just don't think in this case rhodes should be where he is. I mean in effigy anyway. Where he actually is is probably hell and I'm ok with that decision

Imperial War Museum is perfect for it actually. Far too often its britains cleaner wars getting the display treatment. Conquests and land grabs and the servants of empire who operated the project belong there as well


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 30, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> thats why he belongs in the Imperial War Museum rather than eyeballing students in a place of honour in a prestigous uni


Or they could sell it, maybe to one of the rich alumni who've said they'll pull their donations. Bit like dealing in nazi memorabilia perhaps.


----------



## Lurdan (Jan 30, 2016)

Given that the function of Oxbridge colleges is to turn out the next crop of cunts in charge what''s the point of demanding that they only honour those alumni who didn't get their hands too dirty ? They all benefited from the actions of the ones that did.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 30, 2016)

Lurdan said:


> Given that the function of Oxbridge colleges is to turn out the next crop of cunts in charge what''s the point of demanding that they only honour those alumni who didn't get their hands too dirty ? They all benefited from the actions of the ones that did.


maybe someone should give the bust a makeover with makeup. give him some red red lippy and all that. IT'd be funnier than a simple signal of opprobrium. You could deface it then do the communique. Or kidnap the bust and demand all sorts of ludicrous ransoms. A thousand jammy dodgers delivered by men dressed as nuns or whatever


----------



## toggle (Jan 30, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> A statue of a person is not a "piece of history". It's a representation of an idealised form of that person and their "achievements". Among Rhodes' achievements were causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of black Africans. Destroying the statue wouldn't destroy history - in this case Rhodes' "legacy" - it would destroy a representation of his deeds as somehow being heroic. History would still be well aware of what Rhodes did, with or without that idealised representation.



oh, rhodes was a cunt of the highest order. a successful one as well - very very good at getting people to do what he wanted. he wanted a war and he managed to lie and push all the right buttons to get one. 

came accross a lot of this looking at the local history and the attempts to manipulate elections here. gawds he was a cunt


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 30, 2016)

On the subject of uninviting people, anyone can say whatever the fuck they want (within the bounds of the law, hate speech and all that) but I don't have to invite them into my front room and listen to them. You might have the right to say what you want, you don't have the right to be listened to. And in someone like Greer or whoever else's case, the "be listened to" means you don't have the right to be invited wherever you want to be invited to if the people in charge of the inviting don't, quite simply, want to invite you. No one is stopping her from standing in the street outside saying whatever she wants. No one is stopping her from having all her well paid gigs on telly or writing her books or her articles or all the other places she has unbelievable access to far and above the people she denigrates.


----------



## Silvio (Jan 30, 2016)

Left wing students are all cuddly and tolerant when you agree with them. but is you dare utter common sense Christian based conservative beliefs, they turn all Fascist and ban you from their elitist meetings...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2016)

Mods.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 30, 2016)




----------



## stethoscope (Jan 30, 2016)

Silvio said:


> Left wing students are all cuddly and tolerant when you agree with them. but is you dare utter common sense Christian based conservative beliefs, they turn all Fascist and ban you from their elitist meetings...


0/10.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2016)

Silvio said:


> Left wing students are all cuddly and tolerant when you agree with them. but is you dare utter common sense Christian based conservative beliefs, they turn all Fascist and ban you from their elitist meetings...


how many l/w students have cuddled you recently?


----------



## Silvio (Jan 30, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Mods.


See what I mean? As soon as you see someone with a different opinion you can't take it and run like a baby to the adults to ban the evil wrongdoer...


----------



## Silvio (Jan 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> how many l/w students have cuddled you recently?


Seeing as they rarely wash themselves, not many..


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> A statue of a person is not a "piece of history". It's a representation of an idealised form of that person and their "achievements". Among Rhodes' achievements were causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of black Africans. Destroying the statue wouldn't destroy history - in this case Rhodes' "legacy" - it would destroy a representation of his deeds as somehow being heroic. History would still be well aware of what Rhodes did, with or without that idealised representation.


tbh i am sure rhodes had the help of lots of other people who'd been to oxford.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2016)

Silvio said:


> Seeing as they rarely wash themselves, not many..


so why do you want to cuddle them?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2016)

Silvio said:


> See what I mean? As soon as you see someone with a different opinion you can't take it and run like a baby to the adults to ban the evil wrongdoer...


I see exactly what you mean.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 30, 2016)

as opposed to losing an argument so hard and so gracelessly you recon getting a sock puppet in will grant you victory


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2016)

Must be boring on the coach back up the A2.


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> On the subject of uninviting people, anyone can say whatever the fuck they want (within the bounds of the law, hate speech and all that) but I don't have to invite them into my front room and listen to them. You might have the right to say what you want, you don't have the right to be listened to. And in someone like Greer or whoever else's case, the "be listened to" means you don't have the right to be invited wherever you want to be invited to if the people in charge of the inviting don't, quite simply, want to invite you. No one is stopping her from standing in the street outside saying whatever she wants. No one is stopping her from having all her well paid gigs on telly or writing her books or her articles or all the other places she has unbelievable access to far and above the people she denigrates.



I agree with some of this, but I don't think the parallel between inviting someone to speak at a uni and in your front room really works. It's one thing to say a university can/should contain some "safe spaces", it's another to say the whole university should be a "safe space" where no one whose presence might offend someone should be allowed to speak.

It's not simply about the right of the speaker to speak, it's also about the rights of those doing the inviting to hear them speak. Giving the university authorities the formalised power to exclude people on such basis is more likely to lead to the exclusion of those whose rights to speak we would support, IMO.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Or they could sell it, maybe to one of the rich alumni who've said they'll pull their donations. Bit like dealing in nazi memorabilia perhaps.



Perhaps even to a former Rhodes Scholar.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 30, 2016)

A lot of "uncomfortable truths" types tonight. (Well, two; the last one had two accounts.)

FTR "Silvio" also tried to post some other stuff which was snagged before even getting there.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 30, 2016)

andysays said:


> I agree with some of this, but I don't think the parallel between inviting someone to speak at a uni and in your front room really works. It's one thing to say a university can/should contain some "safe spaces", it's another to say the whole university should be a "safe space" where no one whose presence might offend someone should be allowed to speak.
> 
> It's not simply about the right of the speaker to speak, it's also about the rights of those doing the inviting to hear them speak. Giving the university authorities the formalised power to exclude people on such basis is more likely to lead to the exclusion of those whose rights to speak we would support, IMO.



It's usually just the students in charge of the SU, or the Women's Society, or the whatever it is though, isn't it? It's not the VC saying "this university no longer allows X to speak here." It's absolutely within the rights of the students organising an event to turn around and say, "actually no, we don't want to invite that person." Otherwise what you're saying is any old cunt can write to the LGBT society and say "I demand you invite me to talk at your next meeting so I can tell you all how you're going to hell." All they are doing is choosing who they want to speak to them. They've been doing that since forever. It's only when some people with profiles like Greer get upset about it that it becomes an issue, and becomes morphed into something it isn't.

And yes, some of these 'dis-invitations' have stemmed from some outrage or another, but that's the nature of trying to navigate and negotiate a whole bunch of different people's opinions and views on any given matter. You either give one view priority or another. The general climate atm seems to be that people are working out how to allow people to speak while allowing others to be heard. While there's a lot of stuff about safe spaces and triggers and what have you, there's a pretty nasty push back that tries to ensure people can be as offensive and awful as possible in the name of free speech. That, in fact, _encourages_ offence and awfulness, as a way of saying, "ner-ner to you precious types, we can say what we want." What's so positive about that?

It's a big old mess, but it's not helped by simply planting your flag in the camp of "protect freedom of speech" without looking at what happens to the freedom of speech of those being shat on in the process. And frankly, talking about 'freedom of speech' seems to be a pretty recent phenomenon we've imported from America as a way to ensure cunts can be cunts. There's something important at the heart of it, of course, but it's lost in the furor and lots of people are shat on as a result.


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's usually just the students in charge of the SU, or the Women's Society, or the whatever it is though, isn't it? It's not the VC saying "this university no longer allows X to speak here." It's absolutely within the rights of the students organising an event to turn around and say, "actually no, we don't want to invite that person." Otherwise what you're saying is any old cunt can write to the LGBT society and say "I demand you invite me to talk at your next meeting so I can tell you all how you're going to hell." All they are doing is choosing who they want to speak to them. They've been doing that since forever. It's only when some people with profiles like Greer get upset about it that it becomes an issue, and becomes morphed into something it isn't.
> 
> And yes, some of these 'dis-invitations' have stemmed from some outrage or another, but that's the nature of trying to navigate and negotiate a whole bunch of different people's opinions and views on any given matter. You either give one view priority or another. The general climate atm seems to be that people are working out how to allow people to speak while allowing others to be heard. While there's a lot of stuff about safe spaces and triggers and what have you, there's a pretty nasty push back that tries to ensure people can be as offensive and awful as possible in the name of free speech. That, in fact, _encourages_ offence and awfulness, as a way of saying, "ner-ner to you precious types, we can say what we want." What's so positive about that?
> 
> It's a big old mess, but it's not helped by simply planting your flag in the camp of "protect freedom of speech" without looking at what happens to the freedom of speech of those being shat on in the process. And frankly, talking about 'freedom of speech' seems to be a pretty recent phenomenon we've imported from America as a way to ensure cunts can be cunts. There's something important at the heart of it, of course, but it's lost in the furor and lots of people are shat on as a result.



"The students" are not a monolithic body.

The danger (as I see it) is that one group of students can and will prevent another group from inviting who they want.

The same rule that the LGBT society uses today to prevent someone they don't like from speaking to the <insert name of reactionary religious right group here> will be used tomorrow by the RRRG to prevent the LGBT inviting who they want to invite.

See the recent attempts to prevent Maryam Namazie speaking at Goldsmiths, which began with the Islamic Soc saying they found her offensive etc. The fact they failed this time doesn't mean they won't succeed in future if the idea of safe spaces where people must be protected from being offended gains further support.

There are other better ways of protesting things we don't like than asking that the authorities are given the power to ban them.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 30, 2016)

although I did snigger at the fuckwit in charge of the islamist nutjob society turning  out to be homophobic 
Maybe the lgbt soc will learn from that the feminists wont though


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 30, 2016)

andysays said:


> "The students" are not a monolithic body.
> 
> The danger (as I see it) is that one group of students can and will prevent another group from inviting who they want.
> 
> ...



How do you even do something like you're suggesting though? Because what you're saying is that anyone and everyone should be invited to speak wherever the hell they want to speak regardless of what they'll say (as long as it's not illegal) and regardless of those they want to speak to. That's never been how it works in practice, and it's only these blown up outrage cases that have brought these questions up.

So what you're saying is that someone like Paul Elam can write to some FemSoc and say, "I want you to invite me to your next meeting so I can tell you that you're all a bunch of feminazis and that you deserve to be treated like shit, get back in the kitchen, harridans" and the FemSoc must say, "yes, okay," because otherwise it's a slippery slope?

I understand your concern about it being used to stop legitimate debate and to silence the disenfranchised, but insisting that any old cunt be allowed to come and be a cunt to people who themselves are marginalised by that cunt and others like them is silencing the disenfranchised by taking their choice away from them, yes?

In this argument, it's the rights of the powerful who are being defended, the rights of those who already have a platform by nature of their place in society. 

It's not a zero sum game whereby not inviting someone means the debates around the subject never happen. It means they won't happen in that instance because that specific group of people have a reason for not wanting to hear them in that setting.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 30, 2016)

The framing of this whole thing as, well, a thing in itself—some sort of movement, an underlying change—is disingenous in the first place. There is always argument and pressure and influence going back and forward about speakers and events; there always has been and will be. Recently, some student groups have won, or got close to winning. Spiked and the Telegraph and the Guardian and all of them portray this as a dangerous cultural shift _because they lost_.


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> How do you even do something like you're suggesting though? Because what you're saying is that anyone and everyone should be invited to speak wherever the hell they want to speak regardless of what they'll say (as long as it's not illegal) and regardless of those they want to speak to. That's never been how it works in practice, and it's only these blown up outrage cases that have brought these questions up.
> 
> So what you're saying is that someone like Paul Elam can write to some FemSoc and say, "I want you to invite me to your next meeting so I can tell you that you're all a bunch of feminazis and that you deserve to be treated like shit, get back in the kitchen, harridans" and the FemSoc must say, "yes, okay," because otherwise it's a slippery slope?
> 
> ...



No, I'm not saying what you seem to think I'm saying.

I'm not saying (absolutely no-one is saying, as far as I can see*) that any group or the students as whole should be forced to invite someone they don't want to (or that they shouldn't be able to withdraw an invitation if they themselves change their mind rather than being pressurised by someone else).

I'm saying it's up to each group to decide who they want to invite, and that no-one else should be able to over-ride their wishes/rights to invite and listen to whoever they want.

And I'm baffled, TBH, that you've interpreted my posts as meaning anything other than that.

ETA * maybe someone in Spiked or somewhere *is* saying that, but hopefully it's apparent that I'm not arguing from the same position as that *at all*


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 30, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The framing of this whole thing as, well, a thing in itself—some sort of movement, an underlying change—is disingenous in the first place. There is always argument and pressure and influence going back and forward about speakers and events; there always has been and will be. Recently, some student groups have won, or got close to winning. Spiked and the Telegraph and the Guardian and all of them portray this as a dangerous cultural shift _because they lost_.



Exactly. This shit happens at conferences, with the science society, the chess society, every society... it's people deciding who they want to invite and who they don't. It's only news because oooh, topics of the moment, feminists, gay people, identity politics, religion. All the hot-button topics that people who make their living from shit-posting in newspaper magazines like.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 30, 2016)

andysays said:


> No, I'm not saying what you seem to think I'm saying.
> 
> I'm not saying (absolutely no-one is saying, as far as I can see) that any group or the students as whole should be forced to invite someone they don't want to (or that they shouldn't be able to withdraw an invitation if they themselves change their mind rather than being pressurised by someone else).
> 
> ...



Then maybe you're only talking about one specific case, and perhaps thinking that all the various cases that have been talked about recently follow the same pattern. But they are simply cases where the people in charge of putting together a talk or an event have decided that they don't want X to come and talk for various reasons. Which is precisely 'no group or students as a whole should be forced to invite someone they don't want to.' But the way some who have commentated in the press and elsewhere about it have described it is that those students shouldn't be allowed to choose to not invite someone because, freedom, etc. The focus is on the speaker and their rights to speak where they want and at whomever they want, rather than on those who are choosing whether they want to be spoken to.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 30, 2016)

I think the confusion is two ways, andy.

You said in reply to one of my posts: 
"It's not simply about the right of the speaker to speak, it's also about the rights of those doing the inviting to hear them speak. Giving the university authorities the formalised power to exclude people on such basis is more likely to lead to the exclusion of those whose rights to speak we would support, IMO."

After I'd already said it was individual groups of students, heads of the Women's Soc or whatever, deciding not to invite someone. Unless there have been a lot more high profile cases than I've seen, most of this has stemmed from groups of students deciding they don't want Greer or whoever to talk to them because they don't like what Greer or whoever have said in the past on a certain subject. I'm not aware of any of these high profile cases being about a VC putting out a statement that Greer et al shall now be banned from coming onto university grounds. And neither have I argued in favour of that.


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Then maybe you're only talking about one specific case, and perhaps thinking that all the various cases that have been talked about recently follow the same pattern. But they are simply cases where the people in charge of putting together a talk or an event have decided that they don't want X to come and talk for various reasons. Which is precisely 'no group or students as a whole should be forced to invite someone they don't want to.' But the way some who have commentated in the press and elsewhere about it have described it is that those students shouldn't be allowed to choose to not invite someone because, freedom, etc.



I'm trying to avoid focusing any specific case (although I mentioned one as an example).

What I'm trying to argue is that however attractive the idea of establishinging universities (or other areas) as so-called safe spaces where no potentially-offensive-to-anyone debate is allowed, it will ultimately come back to bite you on the arse.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 30, 2016)

andysays said:


> What I'm trying to argue is that however attractive the idea of establishinging universities (or other areas) as so-called safe spaces where no potentially-offensive-to-anyone debate is allowed, it will ultimately come back to bite you on the arse.


But that idea doesn't exist and never has. It's really quite vague reactionary parody.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 30, 2016)

Neither is it being argued for.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> But that idea doesn't exist and never has. It's really quite vague reactionary parody.


yeh but andysays don't let that get in the way of your argument, such as it is


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I think the confusion is two ways, andy.
> 
> You said in reply to one of my posts:
> "It's not simply about the right of the speaker to speak, it's also about the rights of those doing the inviting to hear them speak. Giving the university authorities the formalised power to exclude people on such basis is more likely to lead to the exclusion of those whose rights to speak we would support, IMO."
> ...



It may well be two ways 

I realise that the Greer business is part of what has given this issue prominence, but I'm not actually talking about her case. TBH, I don't know the full details of that case and I'm not especially interested in it.

Anyway, I hope now that we've both clarified things, we're not quite as far apart as we first thought.


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> But that idea doesn't exist and never has. It's really quite vague reactionary parody.



So what about the actions of the Islamic Soc at Goldsmiths I mentioned above? Are you saying that never happened?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 30, 2016)

andysays said:


> So what about the actions of the Islamic Soc at Goldsmiths I mentioned above?


What about them is about "the idea of establishinging universities (or other areas) as so-called safe spaces where no potentially-offensive-to-anyone debate is allowed"? There are groups and factions trying to exert political pressure regarding speakers. There's no overall campaign and it's certainly nothing in the slightest to do with "safe spaces".


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> What about them is about "the idea of establishinging universities (or other areas) as so-called safe spaces where no potentially-offensive-to-anyone debate is allowed"? There are groups and factions trying to exert political pressure regarding speakers. There's no overall campaign and it's certainly nothing in the slightest to do with "safe spaces".



OK, maybe the use of "safe spaces" on this thread is wrong, and I'm wrong for continuing to use it, but what the Islamic Soc did was absolutely to use the idea of protection from being offended to seek to prevent another society from inviting the speaker they wanted to invite.

And that is, it seems to me, an inevitable consequence of framing what's it's OK to debate around ideas of offensiveness.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 30, 2016)

There are a couple of articles that people might be interested in, about something that occurred on university campuses in the Sixties, starting with Berkeley. It was called 'The Free Speech Movement'.

The Berkeley Free Speech Movement

Berkeley's Fight For Free Speech Fired Up Student Protest Movement

One quote from the second article:



> Back in Sproul Plaza, Hollander Savio reflects on what was accomplished 50 years ago.
> 
> "We gave youth in America a sense that political and social action is something that you can and should be involved in and you have power," she says.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 30, 2016)

All hail Johnny Canuck3  Long time no read. That is all


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 30, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> All hail Johnny Canuck3  Long time no read. That is all



Hi. Nice to see your voice.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 30, 2016)

At a time when the culture wars are raging as strong as ever, it's quite the in-thing to imagine these awful student types (haven't students always been the fall guy, this is nothing new) as trying to create fluffy little utopias where no one says a mean thing and everyone can just hug it out. But like fridgey says, it's a reactionary parody that serves the 'ooh, pc gorn mad' crowd quite well.

And the old guard never likes new terminology, so they see things like 'spaces' (be them safe or otherwise) and 'triggers' being bandied around and get all uptight about it. When in reality, for the most part, what is happening is people are trying to work out how to make sure people who otherwise are treated like shit for being who they are (and I don't just mean have mean words shouted at them, but suffer structural oppression) get to have a say in some small way, and get to stand up against that oppression, even if it's just one dis-invited speaker at a time. It's not the only, nor the best, way to oppose power, but neither should it be laughed off or stigmatised because it involves dreadful students and other young, naive people wanting for there to be a 'space' where someone disenfranchised can not have to deal with the same old shit for an hour or two, and maybe get to discuss some things on their own terms.

In terms of the media (some of the uninvited speakers have been media types), they're all upset at the moment anyway. They're like gamergaters upset that the womenz are coming and stealing their video games. They don't like it that their roles as opinion-formers and 'official commentators' are eroding because of a plurality of opinion. It's why people who might previously have been seen as all progressive and shit are coming out so strongly for the establishment, because they're a part of it and their roles are at risk. They're clinging on for dear life and doubling down at any given opportunity.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 30, 2016)

andysays said:


> OK, maybe the use of "safe spaces" on this thread is wrong, and I'm wrong for continuing to use it, but what the Islamic Soc did was absolutely to use the idea of protection from being offended to seek to prevent another society from inviting the speaker they wanted to invite.
> 
> And that is, it seems to me, an inevitable consequence of framing what's it's OK to debate around ideas of offensiveness.


Their claimed reason was that they said she was an Islamophobe, and that "Islamophobic views like those propagated by Namazie create a climate of hatred and bigotry towards Muslim students". (They do actually make reference to the uni being a "safe space" in the FB post with this in:



but that's ancillary to their actual objection, justifying why "creat(ing) a climate of hatred and bigotry towards Muslim students" is wrong.)

One might well (and should IMO) disagree with this, but it's neither them saying simply "offence" was the issue nor anyone else agreeing with that.

I'd like to reiterate that this whole idea of a student culture where the most minor bit of offence means shutting everything down is a reactionary fantasy.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

I do like this article, though I don't agree with all of it. In particular, I like the way that it outlines how white people are labelling Oxford as institutionally racist. A small number also did this on behalf of us at Cambridge.

Rhodes mustn’t fall - Spectator Life

I wonder if labelling _whole universities _as safe spaces (some points about people being able to invite who they like and uninvite who they like are obvious truisms and miss the point, as do a lot of people on the thread a few pages back) are just people who are not minorities trying to act on our behalf. 
It's a no thanks from me.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

comrade spurski said:


> Maybe you could make a real difference to our lives rather by contacting the BBC and telling them they should be replaying Jim'll Fix It, all the Top Of The Pops programmes and It's A Knockout.
> These culturally iconic programmes from the 1970's are never on telly simply because the men in them are now deemed to be a bit dodgy!
> Why should we be denied these repeats because we invent that it really offends someone, somewhere?


Lazy comparisons like this are not helpful to the debate. There's half a dozen of them on this thread designed to shut down debate.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Lazy comparisons like this are not helpful to the debate. There's half a dozen of them on this thread designed to shut down debate.


Lazy answer...must try harder if you are seriously trying to engage in a debate


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

I agree. You need to.

Meanwhile, I expect people to attack the author rather than the piece here - "_the most striking thing about safe spaces is how unsafe they are_"

Brendan O’Neill - The violence of the Safe Space


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 31, 2016)

How about you offer your own opinions and arguments, not through the lens of the likes of O'Neill or random copy and pastes from the internet?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I do like this article, though I don't agree with all of it. In particular, I like the way that it outlines how white people are labelling Oxford as institutionally racist. A small number also did this on behalf of us at Cambridge.
> 
> Rhodes mustn’t fall - Spectator Life
> 
> ...


i do wonder why you care so much about events in institutions you profess not to wish to support.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> How about you offer your own opinions and arguments, not through the lens of the likes of O'Neill or random copy and pastes from the internet?


because we'd see the emperor's new opinion


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> How about you offer your own opinions and arguments, not through the lens of the likes of O'Neill or random copy and pastes from the internet?


It's a good article that adds to the debate. Why would I just copy it if I agree?

Why don't you engage in the debate rather than try to take some meta-view on how others do, and hence drag them into it? I'm sure there's another thread for that.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> It's a good article that adds to the debate. Why would I just copy it if I agree?
> 
> Why don't you engage in the debate rather than try to take some meta-view on how others do, and hence drag them into it? I'm sure there's another thread for that.



Pardon? I've repeatedly attempted to engage with you here and on other threads, offered my own positions/thoughts about stuff, and you've frankly given shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> It's a good article that adds to the debate. Why would I just copy it if I agree?
> 
> Why don't you engage in the debate rather than try to take some meta-view on how others do, and hence drag them into it? I'm sure there's another thread for that.


what do you think it adds to the debate?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Pardon? I've repeatedly attempted to engage with you here and on other threads, offered my own positions/thoughts about stuff, and you've frankly given shit.


I started the thread with my opinion. The clue is in the title. Unless you have some power over what people post, stop trying to police it.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I started the thread with my opinion. The clue is in the title. Unless you have some power over what people post, stop trying to police it.



Policing now?! 

_Who are the real fascists!11!!!_


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I started the thread with my opinion. The clue is in the title. Unless you have some power over what people post, stop trying to police it.


it would be nice if you had a clue toryboy


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 31, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There are a couple of articles that people might be interested in, about something that occurred on university campuses in the Sixties, starting with Berkeley. It was called 'The Free Speech Movement'.
> 
> The Berkeley Free Speech Movement
> 
> ...



It was middle class kids. 'Youth of America' is rather stretching it.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Policing now?!
> 
> _Who are the real fascists!11!!!_


Another way to avoid debate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Another way to avoid debate.


you wouldn't know debate if it ripped off your nose and made you eat it


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)

We've had comparisons to ISIS and the Nazis. What's next? Fred West or something? 

'you want to bury freedom of speech like Fred West buried the bodies in his garden'


----------



## isvicthere? (Jan 31, 2016)

toggle said:


> removing a statue isn't hiding the history.



Not sure about that toggle. Since they pulled down his statue in Baghdad, everybody's completely forgotten about a bloke once known as Saddam.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> We've had comparisons to ISIS and the Nazis. What's next? Fred West or something?
> 
> 'you want to bury freedom of speech like Fred West buried the bodies in his garden'


thought fred west most famousfor sadistic rapes and murders so not sure he's best comparison


----------



## isvicthere? (Jan 31, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Does anyone know who this statue is of? I do not know because we have gotten rid of the statue so all knowledge of the history related to it has been lost to the sands of time



Tommy Cooper? Jimi Hendrix? Georgie Best? No, I'm lost...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> How do you even do something like you're suggesting though? Because what you're saying is that anyone and everyone should be invited to speak wherever the hell they want to speak regardless of what they'll say (as long as it's not illegal) and regardless of those they want to speak to. That's never been how it works in practice, and it's only these blown up outrage cases that have brought these questions up.
> 
> So what you're saying is that someone like Paul Elam can write to some FemSoc and say, "I want you to invite me to your next meeting so I can tell you that you're all a bunch of feminazis and that you deserve to be treated like shit, get back in the kitchen, harridans" and the FemSoc must say, "yes, okay," because otherwise it's a slippery slope?
> 
> ...



To me, the idea of a "no 'no platforms' "policy is actually appealing, though only because it leaves space to dismantle the offender's "arguments" and reveal them for what they are.
And of course, any granting of a hearing should contractually have to be reciprocated, so if Pastor Fuckwit of the Church of Universal Cuntitude wants to come and have a go at the queers, he has to allow the queers onto his pulpit.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)

'The left is cannibalising history, like Jeffrey Dahmer and Dennis Nielsen cannibalised their victims. EXACTLY EQUIVALENT'


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> thought fred west most famousfor sadistic rapes and murders so not sure he's best comparison



ISIS and Hitler aren't great comparisons either


----------



## J Ed (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> 'The left is cannibalising history, like Jeffrey Dahmer and Dennis Nielsen cannibalised their victims. EXACTLY EQUIVALENT'



Ironically of course the whole episode, regardless of outcome, has increased historical literacy. How many of those who are constantly on the lookout for someone being offended by something so that they in turn can enjoy being offended by that offence were even aware of who Rhodes was?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> We've had comparisons to ISIS and the Nazis. What's next? Fred West or something?
> 
> 'you want to bury freedom of speech like Fred West buried the bodies in his garden'


No such comparison to the nazis. You've dreamt it.
Destroying statues you don't like is just like ISIS. That doesn't mean I think they're like them in any other way. However, you could try to say I said that if you wanted to shut down debate.
Oh, you did. You made up that i said something I didn't.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> ISIS and Hitler aren't great comparisons either


Where have I mentioned Hitler?
Oh, you made that up as well.

I notice you love posting about 'fash' and 'daesh' and sad faces. Perhaps that's why you see things that aren't there.

I suppose that's what comes of posing trying to get likes.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Ironically of course the whole episode, regardless of outcome, has increased historical literacy. How many of those who are constantly on the lookout for someone being offended by something so that they in turn can enjoy being offended by that offence were even aware of who Rhodes was?


actually the debate it has stoked is welcome.


----------



## isvicthere? (Jan 31, 2016)

The op reminds me of a recent dismal family lunch, in which my stepdad complained, "You're not even allowed to say 'paki' any more."


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Where have I mentioned Hitler?
> Oh, you made that up as well.
> 
> I notice you love posting about 'fash' and 'daesh' and sad faces. Perhaps that's why you see things that aren't there.
> ...


at least no one can accuse you of posing to get likes.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I do like this article, though I don't agree with all of it. In particular, I like the way that it outlines how white people are labelling Oxford as institutionally racist. A small number also did this on behalf of us at Cambridge.



You went to Cambridge?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 31, 2016)

isvicthere? said:


> The op reminds me of a recent dismal family lunch, in which my stepdad complained, "You're not even allowed to say 'paki' any more."



Did he do a sad face whilst saying it? If so, he was probably just posing to get likes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> You went to Cambridge?


how sad it is to see the decline of a once-great university which numbers aleister crowley among its alumni.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)

'The university's history has been dismembered by the left, a bit like what Dennis Nielsen did with everyone he killed'


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> You went to Cambridge?


Again, personal attacks ahead of argument. You can go on ignore as well.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Again, personal attacks ahead of argument. You can go on ignore as well.


State school?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Again, personal attacks ahead of argument. You can go on ignore as well.


----------



## chilango (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Again, personal attacks ahead of argument. You can go on ignore as well.



Jeez. You're a tedious prick aren't you?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 31, 2016)

So if we all engage in a personal attack on him, MarkyMarrk will put everyone on ignore. Sounds like a perfect solution to this particular troll problem.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> No such comparison to the nazis. You've dreamt it.
> Destroying statues you don't like is just like ISIS. That doesn't mean I think they're like them in any other way. However, you could try to say I said that if you wanted to shut down debate.
> Oh, you did. You made up that i said something I didn't.



Who said they are going to destroy it? They'll put it in a museum out of sight somewhere.

You might as well say that destroying any statue or building is like ISIS. guess what, there are some companies dedicated to knocking old buildings down, doing extensions on walls etc. Lock em all up I say. Bloody Terrorists.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Who said they are going to destroy it? They'll put it in a museum out of sight somewhere.
> 
> You might as well say that destroying any statue or building is like ISIS. guess what, there are some companies dedicated to knocking old buildings down, doing extensions on walls etc. Lock em all up I say. Bloody Terrorists.



"Destroy it" are the words used that you quoted. Can you not check that yourself?

Aside from that, Yes, just the same. Exactly the same. That's exactly the argument I was making, in response to others talking of destroying a piece of history.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> "Destroy it" are the words used that you quoted. Can you not check that yourself?
> 
> Yes, just the same. Exactly the same. That's exactly the argument I was making.



But there is no suggestion the rhodes statue is going to be destroyed


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> But there is no suggestion the rhodes statue is going to be destroyed



OK. But there was in this thread. And you quoted 'destroy it' and then said that wasn't like ISIS. Then said 'there was no mention of 'destroy it'.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> But there is no suggestion the rhodes statue is going to be destroyed





DotCommunist said:


> And there is every reason why a statue of_ cecil fucking rhodes_ should be destroyed.



Oops.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> "Destroy it" are the words used that you quoted. Can you not check that yourself?
> 
> Aside from that, Yes, just the same. Exactly the same. That's exactly the argument I was making, in response to others talking of destroying a piece of history.


State school?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)

If i move into a house and get rid of some garden gnomes, porcelain dogs etc is that like ISIS as i threw away some old statues? If a pub comes under new management and the owner buys some new chairs and a new carpet as he hates the old decor should we be calling in the anti terror squads


----------



## chilango (Jan 31, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> So if we all engage in a personal attack on him, MarkyMarrk will put everyone on ignore. Sounds like a perfect solution to this particular troll problem.



Shhhh! Don't give away the plan!


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 31, 2016)

should =/= will

e.g. You should fuck off, but we all know you won't.

ETA: response to MarkyMarrk 's last post


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> If i move into a house and get rid of some garden gnomes, porcelain dogs etc is that like ISIS as i threw away some old statues? If a pub comes under new management and the owner buys some new chairs and a new carpet as he hates the old decor should we be calling in the anti terror squads



Yes, that's the same as the argument being made. 
Really, stop embarrassing yourself now.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Oops.



Is this what is actually going to happen? Dotty's not an official spokesperson for the campaign you know


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Is this what is actually going to happen? Dotty's not an official spokesperson for the campaign you know



That's it. That's your explanation for talking about porcelain dogs and the like? That no-one's mentioned destroying but now someone has it's about 'will'.

To explain: I said that destroying a piece of history you disagree with reminds me of ISIS. Later, I said it's 'just like ISIS'. You see they destroy pieces of history they don't like. That's common knowledge and pretty obvious.

You started on some random story about rapes and smileys and porcelain dogs. Congrats, you got in with the crowd. I can see on other threads you're raking up others' history doing the same.

It's pathetic though.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)




----------



## brogdale (Jan 31, 2016)

OK, so we're hearing from a public school educated, Cambridge graduate. From Hampstead?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> If i move into a house and get rid of some garden gnomes, porcelain dogs etc is that like ISIS as i threw away some old statues?



Rococo Haram.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


>


As I said, pathetic.


----------



## NoXion (Jan 31, 2016)

I agree with DotCommunist , it belongs in the Imperial War Museum.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> If i move into a house and get rid of some garden gnomes, porcelain dogs etc is that like ISIS as i threw away some old statues? If a pub comes under new management and the owner buys some new chairs and a new carpet as he hates the old decor should we be calling in the anti terror squads


for anti-terror read death


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

brogdale said:


> OK, so we're hearing from a public school educated, Cambridge graduate. From Hampstead?


kensington/chelsea more like


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

NoXion said:


> I agree with DotCommunist , it belongs in the Imperial War Museum.


I'm not even that opposed to this, as long as it's not 'to create a safe space' and because an artefact is said to be maliciously inhibiting some people's spaces. 
Anyway, it's been decided it is staying, so it's staying.


----------



## toggle (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> That's it. That's your explanation for talking about porcelain dogs and the like? That no-one's mentioned destroying but now someone has it's about 'will'.
> 
> To explain: I said that destroying a piece of history you disagree with reminds me of ISIS. Later, I said it's 'just like ISIS'. You see they destroy pieces of history they don't like. That's common knowledge and pretty obvious.
> 
> ...



you are yet to explain how removing a statue is destroying history?

actually, you're yet to explain how veneration of rhodes is in fact history. what did he do to deserve veneration? he was a cunt, even by the standards of colonial business leaders.

i reckon removing the statue is removing outdated colonialist propeganda. nothing to do with history.

oh yeah, need i mention that at the time of the boer conflict, a great many of the working classes recognised that the calls for patriotism in this conflict were encouraging them to go fight for the rights of rich men to get richer. i'd put up a statue to the miners who threw out political candidates who were backed by rhodes, who saw through the bullshit for what it was. 

or emily hobhouse, who exposed the human cost of rhodes war. 

and recognise that veneration of murderous money grabbing cunts was all about protecting the rights of murderous money grabbing cunts to consider themselves our betters and have other peope run about and die to make them wealthy. that's the history of colonising.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> As I said, pathetic.



Again, personal attacks ahead of argument. Just like ISIS do.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 31, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> kensington/chelsea more like


Probably Bromley.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Again, personal attacks ahead of argument. Just like ISIS do.


I'm sure you think that's clever. But it exposes you.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 31, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> To me, the idea of a "no 'no platforms' "policy is actually appealing, though only because it leaves space to dismantle the offender's "arguments" and reveal them for what they are.
> And of course, any granting of a hearing should contractually have to be reciprocated, so if Pastor Fuckwit of the Church of Universal Cuntitude wants to come and have a go at the queers, he has to allow the queers onto his pulpit.



While I agree on some level, on another it's saying people must invite people to speak even if they don't want to. It gives all the power to the people who want to go and spread their bile. Again, we're back to someone like Elam writing to a FemSoc and saying, "I'm going to come and speak at your next meeting and tell you that you're all cunts, I'll be bringing my mates." 

I see absolutely nothing wrong at all with a group of people being able to say, "no, I don't want you to come and speak at my event." This happens all the bloomin' time, but it's only when it's about certain hot-button issues that it starts getting the 'ooh, free speech' thing thrown around, which most of the time is disingenuous. They're not trying to stop that person from being able to speak, just not speak to them in a certain room on a certain day against their wishes when they'd rather be talking about something else.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> That's it. That's your explanation for talking about porcelain dogs and the like? That no-one's mentioned destroying but now someone has it's about 'will'.
> 
> To explain: I said that destroying a piece of history you disagree with reminds me of ISIS. Later, I said it's 'just like ISIS'. You see they destroy pieces of history they don't like. That's common knowledge and pretty obvious.
> 
> ...


oh fuck off you tedious cunt


----------



## two sheds (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm sure you think that's clever. But it exposes you.



Again, personal attacks ahead of argument. 

Just like ISIS.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> While I agree on some level, on another it's saying people must invite people to speak even if they don't want to. It gives all the power to the people who want to go and spread their bile. Again, we're back to someone like Elam writing to a FemSoc and saying, "I'm going to come and speak at your next meeting and tell you that you're all cunts, I'll be bringing my mates."
> 
> I see absolutely nothing wrong at all with a group of people being able to say, "no, I don't want you to come and speak at my event." This happens all the bloomin' time, but it's only when it's about certain hot-button issues that it starts getting the 'ooh, free speech' thing thrown around, which most of the time is disingenuous. They're not trying to stop that person from being able to speak, just not speak to them in a certain room on a certain day against their wishes when they'd rather be talking about something else.



This is not what's happening. What's happening is a society or a union invites someone, and a small group of university students decide they don't like the person, usually because of something they've said in the past. They therefore invoke the right of an oppressed minority to a 'safe space' in order that the invitation will be withdrawn, the event cancelled, or sometimes, it is physically broken up by those who want a 'safe space'.

I'd rather hear the argument, even if it's racist. I don't want a university to be a 'safe space' (it wasn't much of an issue when I was there).

No-one is saying 'invite people you don't want to' to anyone. Well, they might be, but not in the cases I'm aware of. Imposing on a group that they have to invite someone they don't want to is equally illiberal.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 31, 2016)

No one would be stopping you from contacting the speaker to set up your own alternative event somewhere else. It isn't censorship. It isn't an attack on free speech. It's a group of people listening to some objections and deciding what to do about it, which in some cases means asking the speaker to not attend after all.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm sure you think that's clever. But it exposes you.



You made a grossly inappropriate comparison ffs.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> No one would be stopping you from contacting the speaker to set up your own alternative event somewhere else. It isn't censorship. It isn't an attack on free speech. It's a group of people listening to some objections and deciding what to do about it, which in some cases means asking the speaker to not attend after all.



And I'm criticising their decisions.


----------



## toggle (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm sure you think that's clever. But it exposes you.



he paralleled what you did. 

how is it a bad thing for him to do, but ok for you?

you fucking hypocrite.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 31, 2016)

Can we stop using the phrase safe space now, please?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> You made a grossly inappropriate comparison ffs.


What, that one group destroying artefacts is like another group destroying artefacts?
Are you just angry I didn't call them 'Daesh'? We had a Labour group memo about that in about November. I agreed with them, but I just forget.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> What, that one group destroying artefacts is like another group destroying artefacts?



I guess the next time my mum takes some old shit from her house to the Dump she should be sent to Guantanamo.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 31, 2016)

The comparison between Isis's destruction of ancient artifacts and a campaign to remove statues of Rhodes from various campuses is specious. The sites that Isis have vandalised provide unique traces of human history, some of which have survived for over 3,000 years. Comparing this to the choice about whether or not to remove a statue of someone who died just over a century ago from a particular location is the cultural equivalent of hording. Where do we draw the line? Should the world's art colleges archive every piece of student artwork for posterity? Are Penguin allowed to pulp books that have been overprinted? Are we allowed to throw copies of Daily Mail in the recycling bin. Will future generations have to preserve the cows of Milton Keynes for Millennia to come, irrespective of their own values, tastes or preferences?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> I guess the next time my mum takes some old shit from her house to the Dump she should be sent to Guantanamo.



Yes, that's exactly the same. You've tried this line. It's just shit and it's a pathetic playing to the crowd - which is something I'm noticing you do a lot.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> We had a Labour group memo about that in about November.



So as well as being Oxbridge he is also a member of the Labour party. Go figure.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> What, that one group destroying artefacts is like another group destroying artefacts?
> Are you just angry I didn't call them 'Daesh'? We had a Labour group memo about that in about November. I agreed with them, but I just forget.



 no it's offensive because you are trivialising what they are doing. It's like someone comparing their mum to Hitler because she made them tidy their room and Hitler also went around telling people what to do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> What, that one group destroying artefacts is like another group destroying artefacts?
> Are you just angry I didn't call them 'Daesh'? We had a Labour group memo about that in about November. I agreed with them, but I just forget.


you should consult a doctor at your earliest opportunity if you continue having problems with your memory


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> The comparison between Isis's destruction of ancient artifacts and a campaign to remove statues of Rhodes from various campuses is specious. The sites that Isis have vandalised provide unique traces of human history, some of which have survived for over 3,000 years. Comparing this to the choice about whether or not to remove a statue of someone who died just over a century ago from a particular location is the cultural equivalent of hording. Where do we draw the line? Should the world's art colleges archive every piece of student artwork for posterity? Are Penguin allowed to pulp books that have been overprinted? Are we allowed to throw copies of Daily Mail in the recycling bin. Will future generations have to preserve the cows of Milton Keynes for Millennia to come, irrespective of their own values, tastes or preferences?



"destroy" was what was said. Nonetheless, I recognise the first part of your post as a good argument. I agree it wasn't the best comparison. I'm just not giving in to those who want to gang up. Thanks. I partly accept what you say.


----------



## toggle (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> What, that one group destroying artefacts is like another group destroying artefacts?
> Are you just angry I didn't call them 'Daesh'? We had a Labour group memo about that in about November. I agreed with them, but I just forget.




#ahhhhhhhh.

there you go frogwoman. we now know another shit game this twat is playing. 

his responses are rational considerations of information, yours are emotional responses. he dosen't agree with you, therefore your responses must be female anger, to, at best be discounted, but usually to be ridiculed.

so not just a hypocrite, but a sexist hypocrite.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> The comparison between Isis's destruction of ancient artifacts and a campaign to remove statues of Rhodes from various campuses is specious. The sites that Isis have vandalised provide unique traces of human history, some of which have survived for over 3,000 years. Comparing this to the choice about whether or not to remove a statue of someone who died just over a century ago from a particular location is the cultural equivalent of hording. Where do we draw the line? Should the world's art colleges archive every piece of student artwork for posterity? Are Penguin allowed to pulp books that have been overprinted? Are we allowed to throw copies of Daily Mail in the recycling bin. Will future generations have to preserve the cows of Milton Keynes for Millennia to come, irrespective of their own values, tastes or preferences?



Exactly.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> no it's offensive because you are trivialising what they are doing. It's like someone comparing their mum to Hitler because she made them tidy their room and Hitler also went around telling people what to do.


Yes. That's exactly what I was doing. You've now brought Hitler up twice (and wrongly claimed I did with no retraction).


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

In an effort to defend 'safe spaces' the most ridiculous distractions are OK, it appears.


----------



## toggle (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> "destroy" was what was said. Nonetheless, I recognise the first part of your post as a good argument. I agree it wasn't the best comparison. I'm just not giving in to those who want to gang up. Thanks. I partly accept what you say.




the usual response of a deliberate contrarian. i must disagree, cause i must be allowed to claim a moral and ethical high ground. i can then engage in name calling from my ivory tower.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Yes. That's exactly what I was doing. You've now brought Hitler up twice (and wrongly claimed I did with no retraction).


are you sure your memory not playing tricks on you?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)

You are the one making stupid comparisons to ISIS and fascists ffs. Can't you see this is offensive.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> You are the one making stupid comparisons to ISIS and fascists ffs. Can't you see this is offensive.


No, I said destroying a statue because you disagree with it - which is what was proposed - reminds me of ISIS. 

There is no 'and fascists' though you appear obsessed with 'fash' (sad face). Stop making this up.


----------



## toggle (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> In an effort to defend 'safe spaces' the most ridiculous distractions are OK, it appears.



in an effort to deny safe spaces, the most ridiculous comparisons and accusations are ok, it appears. 

but these are only ok, until someone turns your own tactics on you. 

then ti's unacceptable.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> No, I said destroying a statue because you disagree with it - which is what was proposed - reminds me of ISIS.
> 
> There is no 'and fascists' though you appear obsessed with 'fash' (sad face). Stop making this up.



You said it was equivalent to isis not just that it reminds you of it. Can you not see how fucked up of a statement that is.


----------



## toggle (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> No, I said destroying a statue because you disagree with it - which is what was proposed - reminds me of ISIS.
> 
> There is no 'and fascists' though you appear obsessed with 'fash' (sad face). Stop making this up.




ah froggy. you're now obsessed.

an obsessed, angry female.

anyone would think this twat is just picking on the woman with opinions. 

do you have a problem when women disagree with you mark?


----------



## toggle (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> You said it was equivalent to isis not just that it reminds you of it. Can you not see how fucked up of a statement that is.




tbh, i don't think he's capable of that level of consideration.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> You said it was equivalent to isis not just that it reminds you of it. Can you not see how fucked up of a statement that is.



No, I didn't use the word 'equivalent'. And where's the "and fascists"?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> No, I said destroying a statue because you disagree with it - which is what was proposed - reminds me of ISIS.
> 
> There is no 'and fascists' though you appear obsessed with 'fash' (sad face). Stop making this up.


you ignorant little man. you know nothing of the long history of defacing and destroying art. it didn't start with isis, you know.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)

ISIS also hate smoking, if one of your mates gives up smoking are you going to call them a terrorist?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> No, I didn't use the word 'equivalent'. And where's the "and fascists"?


you fucking pedantic plonker


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> So if you disagree with a piece of history you should destroy it?
> 
> Really is equivalent to Isis



This is what you said. 

You did use the word equivalent.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

Can we go back to the thread rather than make things up?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> ISIS also hate smoking, if one of your mates gives up smoking are you going to call them a terrorist?


he'll never do that cos he has no mates.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> This is what you said.
> 
> You did use the word equivalent.


Ah yes, my apologies. In this case I'm mistaken. At least it's clear. I'm referring to ideological opposition to history and trying to destroy it. Which exposes your efforts to belittle the actions and reduce them to 'smoking'.

Now, "and fascists" or "Hitler" while you're making accusations.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> And I'm criticising their decisions.



lol

So you're saying they should not be able to make their own decisions about the events they organise. Right. Thanks for being honest.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Can we go back to the thread rather than make things up?


we can. you can't, you are unable to stop yourself lying.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> lol
> 
> So you're saying they should not be able to make their own decisions about the events they organise. Right. Thanks for being honest.



I'm saying that uninviting someone on the basis of a 'safe space' is a cowardly move, yes.
I really don't want white people deciding what makes me uncomfortable as a black man.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Ah yes, my apologies. In this case I'm mistaken. At least it's clear. I'm referring to ideological opposition to history and trying to destroy it. Which exposes your efforts to belittle the actions and reduce them to 'smoking'.
> 
> Now, "and fascists" or "Hitler" while you're making accusations.


not much of an apology you lying piece of shit


----------



## toggle (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Can we go back to the thread rather than make things up?



are you the only one allowed to make things up?

like the sexist bullshit you made up about froggy to try to dismiss her arguments?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> While I agree on some level, on another it's saying people must invite people to speak even if they don't want to. It gives all the power to the people who want to go and spread their bile. Again, we're back to someone like Elam writing to a FemSoc and saying, "I'm going to come and speak at your next meeting and tell you that you're all cunts, I'll be bringing my mates."



I'm not talking about "must", I'm talking about there being an *absolute* understanding that *IF* you demand to come here and spout offensive bollocks, then you can only do so if _quid pro quo_ is available.


> I see absolutely nothing wrong at all with a group of people being able to say, "no, I don't want you to come and speak at my event." This happens all the bloomin' time, but it's only when it's about certain hot-button issues that it starts getting the 'ooh, free speech' thing thrown around, which most of the time is disingenuous. They're not trying to stop that person from being able to speak, just not speak to them in a certain room on a certain day against their wishes when they'd rather be talking about something else.



Of course it's disingenuous. Most of the cockwombles who deploy "free speech" arguments, do so by proceeding from a misunderstanding of what the term means. For many it's almost a given that they assume that it means they have the right to be offensive, regardless of the effects of their offensiveness - it doesn't mean that. It merely means that they have as much right to air their opinions, as I have to punch them on the nose for airing them, or as the law has to prosecute them. Challenging opinions isn't by its' nature "racist","homophobic", "sexist", "Islamophobic" etc. What *does* comprise those descriptors are replies that use trope, falsehood, "received wisdom" (whether from holy writ or elsewhere) or insult to make their case. Maryam Namazie was no more Islamophobic in her lecture than I would be going to synagogue and drawing the attention of the congregation to some of the institutional fuckwittery that Judaism has been involved in.

Apologies for the rantage.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 31, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you fucking pedantic plonker



Coming from Pickman's model. Ouch!


----------



## toggle (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Ah yes, my apologies. In this case I'm mistaken. At least it's clear. I'm referring to ideological opposition to history and trying to destroy it. Which exposes your efforts to belittle the actions and reduce them to 'smoking'.
> 
> Now, "and fascists" or "Hitler" while you're making accusations.



again, you fail to say how the veneration of rhodes has anything to do with the history of rhodes actions?


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> ... I'm just not giving in to those who want to gang up...



Yeah, you and Phil Anselmo. Rhodes would be proud of the stand you are taking.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Oops.



That's not a suggestion, that's an opinion - an opinion that the opinion-holder has no power to enforce.
Get a grip.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

I can't work out if I agree or disagree with VP there, but given our history, I'll assume disagree.

This is tongue in cheek for the record.


----------



## toggle (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I can't work out if I agree or disagree with VP there, but given our history, I'll assume disagree.
> 
> This is tongue in cheek for the record.




so you don't understand the argument?

i'm guessing that's a clue as to why you spout such a huge amount of simplistic bullshit.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)

My apologies I didn't read the whole of the thread, Stethoscope mentioned fascists and there was a load of bollocks about 'policing' the point still stands that it's fucking ridiculous to compare Oxford University debating getting rid of a statue to fucking ISIS. It is totally trivialising everything else ISIS do ffs. And most of your posts have taken the same, hysterical tone.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 31, 2016)

...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Ironically of course the whole episode, regardless of outcome, has increased historical literacy. How many of those who are constantly on the lookout for someone being offended by something so that they in turn can enjoy being offended by that offence were even aware of who Rhodes was?



Probably not as many under-40s as over-40s, as we got all the Rhodesia crap in the news throughout the '70s and into the '80s.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)

Imagine if you were about to be beheaded by ISIS. 'yeah well it could be worse mate, you could be at Oxford University where they are pulling down a statue'


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Coming from Pickman's model. Ouch!


yes, i have watched today's crop of pedants come through and i am to markymarrk as ray reardon to stephen hendry or ronnie o'sullivan


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> No such comparison to the nazis. You've dreamt it.
> Destroying statues you don't like is just like ISIS. That doesn't mean I think they're like them in any other way. However, you could try to say I said that if you wanted to shut down debate.
> Oh, you did. You made up that i said something I didn't.



People aren't trying to shut down debate. They'retrying to get you to stop talking crap, and actually backup your claims and opinions with something more substantive than flatulence.
ISIS don't destroy religious statuary because they don't like it. They destroy it because they understand the power of iconography, and want to deny that power to other faiths or branches of faith.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> You went to Cambridge?



Supposedly.
Hard to believe, given his lack of critical thinking, and his parlous debating skills.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2016)

isvicthere? said:


> The op reminds me of a recent dismal family lunch, in which my stepdad complained, "You're not even allowed to say 'paki' any more."



They get all upset when you say "nothing's stopping you,except the fear of getting a chinning from the next Pakistani person you say it to. You've brought it on yourself!"


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 31, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> his lack of critical thinking, and his parlous debating skills...



...is what convinces me most that it may be true.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Supposedly.
> Hard to believe, given his lack of critical thinking, and his parlous debating skills.


i think he was only there for the day


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2016)

Can't say anything any more


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Who said they are going to destroy it? They'll put it in a museum out of sight somewhere.
> 
> You might as well say that destroying any statue or building is like ISIS. guess what, there are some companies dedicated to knocking old buildings down, doing extensions on walls etc. Lock em all up I say. Bloody Terrorists.



My grandad (who lost his dad in WW1) reckoned there should have been a statue of General Kitchener in every town square.

So every male had something to lean against when they had a piss.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> My grandad (who lost his dad in WW1) reckoned there should have been a statue of General Kitchener in every town square.
> 
> So every male had something to lean against when they had a piss.


i'd be more of an asquith, lloyd george, french or haig man.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Can't say anything any more


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2016)

brogdale said:


> OK, so we're hearing from a public school educated, Cambridge graduate. From Hampstead?



From webfoot country most recently, apparently.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 31, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not talking about "must", I'm talking about there being an *absolute* understanding that *IF* you demand to come here and spout offensive bollocks, then you can only do so if _quid pro quo_ is available.



I agree, again. That if an invitation goes one way, it should extend in the other direction as well. I'm still mildly unsure of your stance, but I *think* we agree that - using my unrealistic example again - *if* Elam were to write to a FemSoc and insist to be invited to a meeting to spout shit, the FemSoc is within its rights to say no thanks. But of course if the FemSoc said, sure why not, then Elam must reciprocate. But I'm still a leeeeeeettle bit uncertain about whether you think they should be able to say no thanks. Sorry if it's just me being dense. I find arguments hard to read sometimes (and harder still to reply to).


----------



## toggle (Jan 31, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd be more of an asquith, lloyd george, french or haig man.



it's quite hard to reconcile lloyd george as the bloke who started his career as an anti war protestor


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> And I'm criticising their decisions.



Criticism implies critique - something you don't engage in.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

toggle said:


> it's quite hard to reconcile lloyd george as the bloke who started his career as an anti war protestor


yeh but once you've killed your first few thousand people there's nothing to it


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> From webfoot country most recently, apparently.


tbh there's something innsmouth about yer man


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2016)

toggle said:


> again, you fail to say how the veneration of rhodes has anything to do with the history of rhodes actions?



It's not as though cases can't be easily made, pro and anti.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 31, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> From webfoot country most recently, apparently.


East of Ipswich?


----------



## bimble (Jan 31, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I find arguments hard to read sometimes (and harder still to reply to).



Your posts on this thread have really helped me get my head round this whole overblown story. After watching that Namazie Goldsmiths video and reading a couple of opinion pieces on how all students are now cotton-wool wrapped crybabies etc the obvious thing to do was feel outraged and shout Free Speech but yep, thanks for pointing out that maybe it's not that simple & maybe this isn't really the big story it's been puffed up to be anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> My apologies I didn't read the whole of the thread, Stethoscope mentioned fascists and there was a load of bollocks about 'policing' the point still stands that it's fucking ridiculous to compare Oxford University debating getting rid of a statue to fucking ISIS. It is totally trivialising everything else ISIS do ffs. And most of your posts have taken the same, hysterical tone.


Removing the statue of Rhodes from where it currently is, does no harm whatsoever to Rhodes' place in history - that's still secure - whether you love or loathe him - regardless of whether an icon on a pedestal gets shifted from a forecourt to a museum. There is no impulse to erase Rhodes' legacy. 
By contrast, what ISIS are doing is about deleting the legacy of the flow of culture and religion in the Islamic Crescent - the same as what the Taliban were and are engaged in - remove the cultural artefacts and make it difficult for stories and songs to be transmitted, and you can effectively form a monoculture. Remove Shia, Sufism etc, and you remove any strands of Islam that dissent from your own. Here, a comparison to Hitler *is* apposite: Hitler knew that if you removed those cultural artefacts that showed a "non-Aryan" culture to be dynamic, artistic, creative, then you were already halfway to erasing that culture _per se_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2016)

brogdale said:


> East of Ipswich?



That's the fella.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh there's something innsmouth about yer man



Given that most of what he writes is more nonsensical than "*Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn", *I suspect that you're right.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 31, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Will future generations have to preserve the cows of Milton Keynes for Millennia to come, irrespective of their own values, tastes or preferences?



they will if I have any say in it


----------



## bimble (Jan 31, 2016)

Haven't read the entire thread so maybe someone else has already brought this up (sorry if so) but..
Talking about removing statues & the politics of offence at campuses, this was an interesting story year before last:

A lifelike sculpture of sleepwalking man in his underpants was installed at Wellesley College campus (all women college) and led to over 1,000 students signing a petition demanding it be removed because it was “a source of apprehension, fear, and triggering thoughts regarding sexual assault for some members of our campus community.”

What happened next is it stayed and got vandalised , had paint thrown at it and stuff, which I reckon was better than if they'd succeeded in getting the authorities to remove it out of sight. The petition comments do have the words 'safe space' in quite a lot.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/arts/design/at-wellesley-debate-over-a-statue-in-briefs.html


----------



## two sheds (Jan 31, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh but once you've killed your first few thousand people there's nothing to it



Reminds me of ISIS.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Reminds me of ISIS.


isis have nothing on french or haig or asquith or lloyd george


----------



## two sheds (Jan 31, 2016)

They should have more statues of them in our universities is what I say.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I agree, again. That if an invitation goes one way, it should extend in the other direction as well. I'm still mildly unsure of your stance, but I *think* we agree that - using my unrealistic example again - *if* Elam were to write to a FemSoc and insist to be invited to a meeting to spout shit, the FemSoc is within its rights to say no thanks. But of course if the FemSoc said, sure why not, then Elam must reciprocate. But I'm still a leeeeeeettle bit uncertain about whether you think they should be able to say no thanks. Sorry if it's just me being dense. I find arguments hard to read sometimes (and harder still to reply to).



Yep, you should be able to decline. A platform doesn't have to be given,just because it's been requested. Neither do reasons for declining need to be given - although IME uni societies can't help themselves when it comes to issuing self-important press releases, so we do generally find out the reasons for declining, un-inviting etc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2016)

two sheds said:


> They should have more statues of them in our universities is what I say.



If only so we can tip the bastard things over.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I really don't want white people deciding what makes me uncomfortable as a black man.


When I pointed out this is how privilege worked on your other thread which you were railing against, you did the fingers in your ears act.


----------



## Lurdan (Jan 31, 2016)

I'm afraid I don't get the argument about tucking the statue of this particular cunt away in a museum. Is that so we can then carry on in happy ignorance of the obnoxious views and actions of the unknown cunts on all the other pedestals ? 

And exactly how is having this cunt on a pedestal at an Oxbridge college 'honouring' him ? All higher education has a function within capitalist society but this isn't any old college - it's one of the elite colleges part of whose function is to produce future members of the ruling class. (And not just 'ours'). Are we supposed to be proud of it ? Is it an 'honour' to go there ? Even if the endowments he left hadn't helped fund this institution (and through the Rhodes Scholarships weren't still helping to perpetuate the UK's 'soft power') his presence there would still be entirely appropriate. He was a product of that institution and the values he embodied still underlie the actions of our ruling class today, even if they don't express themselves in the same way.

I don't say this because I give a fuck about what actually happens to this particular statue but because in the absence of any serious challenge to their existence I'm struggling to see how the manner in which the institutions of class rule are decorated or re-branded has any relevance outside the ranks of those most directly benefiting from them. 

And supporting the idea that the statue goes into a museum, inevitably as part of an official narrative about how much better things are (perhaps with a couple of lines in the guide book about how some people think he might have been a 'bad apple'), frankly seems a bit daft.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 31, 2016)

wether you or I like it or (and I don't), a posh uni is considered a place of honour for a bust to be. Imperial War Museum makes sense because he is a product of empire and one of its leading war makers. Of course they'll be soft soap on his legacy but then what do you expect. Its a state museum.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> When I pointed out this is how privilege worked on your other thread which you were railing against, you did the fingers in your ears act.


u
la la la


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 31, 2016)

Something that happened at a Canadian university, back in 2002:



> Former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu cancelled a speech at Concordia University in Montreal after several hundred demonstrators managed to get into a university building.
> 
> The demonstrators, who called Netanyahu anti-Palestinian and a terrorist, threw chairs and newspaper boxes at police, who were trying to evacuate the building where Netanyahu was supposed to speak.
> 
> ...



Montreal protesters force cancellation of Netanyahu speech

Were the anti-Netanyahu demonstrators justified in what they did? Was the result achieved, a desirable result?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Something that happened at a Canadian university, back in 2002:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No and no (or yes from their perspective).


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 31, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Something that happened at a Canadian university, back in 2002:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yes and yes. The canadian state may be cool with the murderous fucker - but enough people weren't to force him to fuck off. Good. To be invited to speak somewhere prestigious confers acceptability and legitamacy - and the actions of the protestors signaled that a significant number of people seriously object to him being recognised in such a way.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> yes and yes. The canadian state may be cool with the murderous fucker - but enough people weren't to force him to fuck off. Good. To be invited to speak somewhere prestigious confers acceptability and legitamacy - and the actions of the protestors signaled that a significant number of people seriously object to him being recognised in such a way.


So you only get to speak if you have enough people who agree with you guarding you?
And you can stop people speaking if you have enough hard people to attack them?
Such practices usually mean the left are silenced. I'm guessing it's not ok then.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> So you only get to speak if you have enough people who agree with you guarding you?
> And you can stop people speaking if you have enough hard people to attack them?
> Such practices usually mean the left are silenced. I'm guessing it's not ok then.



Institutionalised authority - i.e.the state -  implicitly has the "hard people" in place - i.e. the police and the army. On occasions people will challenge that authority by physically putting their bodies in the way. Authority then has to choose weather to use violence to assert its power - or concede. 
There is no equivalance between the exercise of state power and popular mass action - unless you're a liberal fuckwit.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Institutionalised authority - i.e.the state -  implicitly has the "hard people" in place - i.e. the police and the army. On occasions people will challenge that authority by physically putting their bodies in the way. Authority then has to choose weather to use violence to assert its power - or concede.
> There is no equivalance between the exercise of state power and popular mass action - unless you're a liberal fuckwit.



So the far right attacking a multicultural meeting is fine? And the police protecting that meeting are not fine?

I suspect this is more about, it's fine if you agree, and not if you don't.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 31, 2016)

Would the answer be different if the student Zionist faction had managed to get a scheduled talk at Concordia by Mahmoud Abbas cancelled?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Would the answer be different if the student Zionist faction had managed to get a scheduled talk at Concordia by Mahmoud Abbas cancelled?


Not from me.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> So the far right attacking a multicultural meeting is fine? And the police protecting that meeting are not fine?
> 
> I suspect this is more about, it's fine if you agree, and not if you don't.


where do you stand on 'no platform for fascists' mark? The sort of thing we saw in Dover the other day for example


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 31, 2016)

Not all speech is equivalent. We make decisions as a society what is acceptable and what is not. It's a constant war, a battle backwards and forwards, always in negotiation of some sort, because that's all it can be. We have largely decided that shouting poofter at gay people walking down the street is unacceptable. People can still do it, but they'll face the consequences (ridicule, being shouted at, a kicking, depending on who they do it to). Some of those consequences may be justified, some may not. But that's what happens when people have different opinions, and the 'norms' are fought for and fought over. Sometimes this includes those in power having more sway over what is deemed acceptable, and sometimes we might largely agree, other times we might vehemently disagree. And it will be fought over, by different people in different ways.

What you're advocating is that all speech is at all times equal (it never can be), and that the only people whose speech should be curtailed is those who try to fight against something they disagree with. 

It's following the very ridiculous reactionary line that people must be tolerant of people who are intolerant, otherwise they are being intolerant and that's not fair. Oh dear.


----------



## Lurdan (Jan 31, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> wether you or I like it or (and I don't), a posh uni is considered a place of honour for a bust to be. Imperial War Museum makes sense because he is a product of empire and one of its leading war makers. Of course they'll be soft soap on his legacy but then what do you expect. Its a state museum.


I'd say the time to consign Rhodes to the Imperial War Museum is when war and imperialism have also become museum pieces, not when this country is still engaging in and servicing both activities, but I appreciate that's just another symptom of being a grumpy old scrote.

I still don't see why we should be supporting demands that the authorities 'do something' as opposed to finding ways to make use of the statues existence. Perhaps challenge the illusions people have about Oxbridge at the same time. The fact that a world without pedestals doesn't seem to be on the horizon doesn't mean we have to perpetually resign ourselves to choosing the least worst of whatever bad options we're offered. At the very least we can refuse to play along.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> where do you stand on 'no platform for fascists' mark? The sort of thing we saw in Dover the other day for example


Why do you answer a question with another question?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> What you're advocating is that all speech is at all times equal (it never can be), and that the only people whose speech should be curtailed is those who try to fight against something they disagree with.



No, I'm not.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 31, 2016)

There was discussion in this thread about an invited speaker being dis-invited, after objection was raised.

I'm not sure if you will agree, but the existence of pro-Palestinian, and Zionist factions at a university [ and especially a university like Concordia, which is in Montreal: a city with a large Jewish population] doesn't seem surprising, and is arguably part of the spirit of intellectual and academic debate upon which universities are founded.

If one group [in this case, the Zionist student faction] invite a speaker to come and address them, is it acceptable that the invited speaker be prevented from appearing, because of violent protests carried out by the opposing faction?

As I say, it can cut either way: the speaker could be a Zionist, or a member of Fatah.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 31, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Why do you answer a question with another question?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 31, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's following the very ridiculous reactionary line that people must be tolerant of people who are intolerant,.




Imo, tolerating the right of people who disagree with us to speak, is different from tolerating the things they are saying.

We have the right to loudly, continuously and vociferously disagree with them.

I disagree with the racists, the homophobes, the bigots, the fascists; but I'm not afraid of the things they say.

I'm not afraid because imo, the things they say are based on shaky foundations - logically, philosophically, and morally. In the forum of open debate, they will lose, because what they believe, is indefensible crap. And the best way to show it for the indefensible crap that it is, is for them to say it - and then for us to attack their ideas, defeat them, prove them to be wrong.

Imo, stifling their right to air their views, falls down in two aspects. First, it's impossible to completely stifle communication: their message will get out, but it will spread surreptitiously, to those of like mind, in conditions where the counterpoint will not be presented.

Second, attempting to stifle ideas, gives them a cachet and a power that they don't deserve. Imo, attempting to stifle an idea gives the message that the idea is dangerous, that if it 'gets out there', it will spread and take hold. That it will win the day.

Imo, the best course is for those of us who believe otherwise, to have the courage of our convictions; to believe that what we think is right and is strong enough to carry the day. It's arguable that that's what a democracy is about: it's about the testing of our ideas and values; with those ideas and values becoming stronger for that testing - or we alter our ideas and values if, in the testing, they are found to be wanting.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 31, 2016)

I agree with that, Johnny. 

I still think people should be able to argue to not host a speaker somewhere. I don't believe there should be one hard and fast rule regarding where and when people be able to speak to other people. I believe people should be allowed to protest against a speaker, because that _is_ part of the debate. Sometimes it's the only recourse they have, if the event itself would exclude their voices.

There are the lofty ideals we can try to live up to, and then there are the individual instances and what it means in practice. Theory and practice don't always align as we'd like them to.

In particular though, where you say "stifling their right to air their views" - this is a problem with these types of debates. Disinviting someone, or protesting their presence at a particular event, doesn't stifle their right to air their views. Locking them in prison for speaking would. There are important and interesting discussions to be had about this subject, but when it falls into language about stopping people from speaking at all it's not actually being truthful about what is happening.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 1, 2016)

The discussion can be had on different levels, and I agree that there are individual instances. The discussion began in the context of speakers at a university.

Imo, universities are a special case. To me, one of the foundation principles of the idea of a university, is academic and intellectual freedom; both of which should be nurtured and promoted in the university environment. As an adjunct to that, I think it's incumbent upon universities, along with the imparting of learning via course work, to teach students to think for themselves - and then to encourage them to do it.

One of the mechanisms helping to bring that goal about, is the presentation of widely divergent opinions.

When I first read the title of this thread, I assumed it was about the provision of physical safety on campuses, ie a recognition of widespread sexual assault etc occurring at higher learning institutions.

Because in no way, in my opinion, should universities be 'safe spaces', intellectually speaking. It goes back to the question of idea and value formation. To me, a belief isn't worth a damn if it hasn't been forged in the fire of debate, point and countepoint, and the deep personal analysis that comes about as a result. And that process requires the introduction of divergent thought.

One of the most valuable societal contributions that a university can make, is the creation of 'thinkers'. It's hard to do that in an intellectually 'safe' environment.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 1, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The discussion can be had on different levels, and I agree that there are individual instances. The discussion began in the context of speakers at a university.
> 
> Imo, universities are a special case. To me, one of the foundation principles of the idea of a university, is academic and intellectual freedom; both of which should be nurtured and promoted in the university environment. As an adjunct to that, I think it's incumbent upon universities, along with the imparting of learning via course work, to teach students to think for themselves - and then to encourage them to do it.
> 
> ...


Brilliant.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 1, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The discussion can be had on different levels, and I agree that there are individual instances. The discussion began in the context of speakers at a university.
> 
> Imo, universities are a special case. To me, one of the foundation principles of the idea of a university, is academic and intellectual freedom; both of which should be nurtured and promoted in the university environment. As an adjunct to that, I think it's incumbent upon universities, along with the imparting of learning via course work, to teach students to think for themselves - and then to encourage them to do it.
> 
> ...



Again, we don't disagree. However, there is a difference between the university as an institution, and the individual societies and groups of students organising events for their members. While they exist under the umbrella of the university and its name, they are their own entities. They surely have the right to decide who they want to invite to speak to them, and the right to decide what subjects they want to talk about, and who they want to cater for? Since you're going back to what this thread began with, that's the context. It's individual societies, the students themselves, deciding whether they want X to come and speak to them. Whether we agree with their reasoning or not, it is part of their 'becoming thinkers' that they go through the process of deciding this in the first place. No views are stifled. The people they don't invite to speak can still speak, just not in that room at that time to that group of people if they don't want them to. The views aren't stifled. If anything, it raises debate around the issues because it ends up being pontificated over by journos for so many weeks afterwards.

And let's not forget, while your reasons may be flawless (and I believe you), context is everything, and so often these arguments are used as a way not to ensure plurality of ideas and speech, but as a way to ensure the powerful can continue to exert their power while denying those without power the right to speak out against them. Sometimes protesting the invitation of a particular speaker is the only outlet someone may have (if, for example, they wouldn't be allowed into the event that speaker will be attending, although that is of course not the only instance this may be applicable). In that case, the protest becomes the 'counterpoint', the way of getting across one side of an argument, the way of putting forth a different opinion to the orthodoxy. Not allowing people to protest or speak out against the inclusion of someone on a speaking programme surely only creates an 'intellectually safe environment' for the speaker, to the detriment of dissenting voices.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 1, 2016)

And of course we can go around in circles. "But you must allow the speaker to speak, or it stops debate and stifles critical thinking." "But not allowing people to dissent and speak out against a speaker silences the right to dissent." And on we go.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Feb 1, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Brilliant.



It's a shame you're too thick to have been able to express these points yourself. You may have avoided a lot of flak from people for being a tedious, sub-Daily Mail commenting troll. Oh hang on, you've got me on ignore, haven't you? Oh well.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 1, 2016)

Think individual socs should be free to invite whoever no matter how "offensive" they are as long as said speaker is not actually breaking the law.
 Others are of course free to protest but thats protest not shut down the right of the speaker to be heard.


----------



## Athos (Feb 1, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The discussion can be had on different levels, and I agree that there are individual instances. The discussion began in the context of speakers at a university.
> 
> Imo, universities are a special case. To me, one of the foundation principles of the idea of a university, is academic and intellectual freedom; both of which should be nurtured and promoted in the university environment. As an adjunct to that, I think it's incumbent upon universities, along with the imparting of learning via course work, to teach students to think for themselves - and then to encourage them to do it.
> 
> ...



At one time, I shared your view.

But,  notwithstanding that, as I acknowledged above, there are instances where 'no platforming' is used to stifle what is, in my opinion, legitimate debate (especially a lot of this 'triggering' stuff), I see no reason to fetishise liberal values of, say, academic freedom over the right of the Palestinian people to safety and security.

Your idea that, however abhorrent particular views may be, they ought to share parity of freedom of expression, overlooks the harm implicit in allowing some views to be expressed (which is independent of the logical value of those arguments) e.g. the normalisation and legitimisation of Israel's conduct that's conferred by such invitations.

Yes, there is the argument that, if we silence the right how can we complain when they silence us?  But that presupposes class struggle is like a game of cricket, where the participants undertake to be bound by the same rules, and with some neutral and benign referee, in the form of the state.  In reality the right will not reciprocate any freedoms we allow it.  And, nine times out of ten, the state's interests lie in silencing the left, not protecting it.

Historically, the rise of fascism has been predicated on, first, a freedom for fascists to openly express their ideology on the streets, followed by a takeover of them, and the repression of dissenting opinion.  So, we need to defend ourselves, by carrying the fight to the right, where necessary; 'no platforming' is one weapon in that fight.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 1, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'm not afraid because imo, the things they say are based on shaky foundations - logically, philosophically, and morally. In the forum of open debate, they will lose, because what they believe, is indefensible crap. And the best way to show it for the indefensible crap that it is, is for them to say it - and then for us to attack their ideas, defeat them, prove them to be wrong.


The trouble with this is that,  unfortunately, the test of logical strength in the fires of debate is not the only outcome of significance.

The popularity of an idea doesn't necessarily have to be rooted in cold logic. Being given a public profile and a platform and oxygen for spouting your particular brand of shit is inevitably worth something, propaganda 101. Whether what you say makes any sense is distinctly secondary to a lot of people. Witness for instance conspiracy theorists, or for that matter any smartly dressed, adept orator. So ironically, if you want a logical approach to whether you grant airtime to people, you might need to factor in the idiots and manipulators.

The trouble with _that_, of course, is that denying someone a platform also has value to them - again, credibility and publicity, the suppression of the truth etc. So no easy answer.

Edit: oh, turns out that's what Athos just said


----------



## BigMoaner (Feb 1, 2016)

"see no reason to fetishise liberal values of, say, academic freedom over the right of the Palestinian people to safety and security."

Really?  I'd say academic freedom is a value of greater importance than all the current wars in the world.  Lose that and they'd be far greater, far more brutal wars to come!


----------



## Athos (Feb 1, 2016)

BigMoaner said:


> "see no reason to fetishise liberal values of, say, academic freedom over the right of the Palestinian people to safety and security."
> 
> Really?  I'd say academic freedom is a value of greater importance than all the current wars in the world.  Lose that and they'd be far greater, far more brutal wars to come!


Like all our 'freedoms' under capitalism, it is in the hands of others - principally the state - to take it away. In the meantime, it will be used as an instrument. And that won't change whether or not we give freedom to those who'd seek to deny it to us.


----------



## bimble (Feb 1, 2016)

BigMoaner said:


> "see no reason to fetishise liberal values of, say, academic freedom over the right of the Palestinian people to safety and security."



So.. are you / were you a supporter of the various campaigns to boycott Israeli academics ?


----------



## BigMoaner (Feb 1, 2016)

bimble said:


> So.. are you / were you a supporter of the various campaigns to boycott Israeli academics ?


No. Didn't know there was one. You?


----------



## bimble (Feb 1, 2016)

BigMoaner said:


> No. Didn't know there was one. You?


Me no, I didn't sign that petition when it was going around my Uni. The idea seemed to be that if you stop talking to people, isolate them, somehow their ideas will align more with yours, which didn't make sense to me.

Academic boycott of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BigMoaner (Feb 1, 2016)

bimble said:


> Me no, I didn't sign that petition when it was going around my Uni. The idea seemed to be that if you stop talking to them, isolate them, somehow their ideas will align more with yours, which didn't make sense to me.
> 
> Academic boycott of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Prob make em worse


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2016)

BigMoaner said:


> Prob make em worse


talking to them doesn't seem to have done their ideas any good...


----------



## mauvais (Feb 1, 2016)

bimble said:


> The idea seemed to be that if you stop talking to people, isolate them, somehow their ideas will align more with yours, which didn't make sense to me.


Is it? I see it as a device against people using a privileged, comfortable & well entrenched position in academia in order to punch downwards. Not to change their view. I mean it's not like people under siege in Gaza are free to turn up to the debate and make their case.

Not that I particularly agree with the boycott, but it makes a kind of sense.


----------



## bimble (Feb 1, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Is it? I see it as a device against people using a privileged, comfortable & well entrenched position in academia in order to punch downwards. Not to change their view. I mean it's not like people under siege in Gaza are free to turn up to the debate and make their case.
> 
> Not that I particularly agree with the boycott, but it makes a kind of sense.


The campaigns were about boycotting all Israeli academics from participating in any exchange of ideas (like you know, attending conferences on physics or geology or whatever). It didn't single out particular people (dodgy historians etc) it was about 'no platforming' anyone who worked within an Israeli university.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2016)

bimble said:


> The campaigns were about boycotting all Israeli academics from participating in any exchange of ideas (like you know, attending conferences on physics or geology or whatever). It didn't single out particular people (dodgy historians etc) it was about 'no platforming' anyone who worked within an Israeli university.


oh noes  how dreadful


----------



## bimble (Feb 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> oh noes  how dreadful


I just think .. it's a really crap way of trying to change anything.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2016)

bimble said:


> I just think .. it's a really crap way of trying to change anything.


do you have an interest to declare?


----------



## bimble (Feb 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> do you have an interest to declare?


Don't think so. I'm very not a Zionist, I assure you. But have been there and they don't need any help in becoming more isolationist and inward-looking, or with stifling debate, they're doing great on that front.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2016)

bimble said:


> Don't think so. I'm very not a Zionist, I assure you. But have been there and they don't need any help in becoming more isolationist and inward-looking they're doing great on that front.


yeh. well, just as i wouldn't buy zionist produce i wouldn't want any contact with their universities as such intercourse legitimises them, whether through a conference or by use of a library management system like aleph.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Feb 1, 2016)

I find it very revealing that no body seemed to bat an eyelid when the likes of Finkelstein, Chomsky, Said and others were hounded off campus, received death threats, required police protection and so on whenever they spoke about Israel and American power in the latter half of last century. Now a few university societies have chosen to revoke invitations to speakers speaking against people who are in that society, and let's be clear it's not just speakers with opposing views it's speakers pretty much saying that people within that society shouldn't exist in a way the speaker deems fit. Now that's happening it's 'ooh look at this generation they stifle free speech' do they fuck, there's plenty of other platforms to speak on.

I would be concerned if it was a university itself doing this but it's not it's a society itself within the university, a society set up by students.


----------



## bimble (Feb 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. well, just as i wouldn't buy zionist produce i wouldn't want any contact with their universities as such intercourse legitimises them, whether through a conference or by use of a library management system like aleph.


You're happy to have a shin in your avatar though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2016)

bimble said:


> You're happy to have a shin in your avatar though.


yes. i am not anti-semitic, i am anti-zionist. when last i checked the enochian chess board did not emanate  from the zionist entity.


----------



## Athos (Feb 1, 2016)

bimble said:


> Me no, I didn't sign that petition when it was going around my Uni. The idea seemed to be that if you stop talking to people, isolate them, somehow their ideas will align more with yours, which didn't make sense to me.
> 
> Academic boycott of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Would you have supported the one in respect of apartheid South Africa? Do you think it did any good?


----------



## bimble (Feb 1, 2016)

Athos said:


> Would you have supported the one in respect of apartheid South Africa? Do you think it did any good?


I don't know. Apparently in that case "The African National Congress.. has published extensive documentation to support their assertion that the boycott campaign was, indeed, instrumental in ending apartheid."
Maybe I'm being cynical but in the case of Israel I can't imagine how a similar change could even be hoped for, let alone by cutting off all communication with the academics & universities.
There's very little left I think of any opposition movement in Israel now after the demonstrations were crushed & pretty much outlawed a couple of years ago but what there is does tend to be connected with students / academics .


----------



## Athos (Feb 1, 2016)

bimble said:


> I don't know. Apparently in that case "The African National Congress.. has published extensive documentation to support their assertion that the boycott campaign was, indeed, instrumental in ending apartheid."
> Maybe I'm being cynical but in the case of Israel I can't imagine how a similar change could even be hoped for, let alone by cutting off all communication with the academics & universities.
> There's very little left I think of any opposition movement in Israel now after the demonstrations were crushed & pretty much outlawed a couple of years ago but what there is does tend to be connected with students / academics .


The fact that there's little resistance from within is all the more reason to bring pressure to bear from without. Particularly given the past successes of such measures i.e. SA.  Yes, it'd be an uphill struggle, but it was with apartheid, and that's no reason not to try.  Also, it should be noted that the academic boycott ought not to be a standalone measure, but part of a wider programme, including sports teams and bands refusing to play there, people not going there on holiday, consumers rejecting Israeli goods, etc., etc..


----------



## likesfish (Feb 1, 2016)

At the  moment israelis are free to come and go and its legal for them to do so a boycott is perefectly legal to organise but if people object to it you can argue and protest but you cant stop them speaking.
  If we are to have rule of law it means people get a right to speak no matter how offensive you or whoever find it.
 Otherwise we just end up with an echo chamber where the loudest voices get heard.
See the bullying of various athesit societys for apprantly offensive t shirts or a pineapple


----------



## Athos (Feb 1, 2016)

likesfish said:


> At the  moment israelis are free to come and go and its legal for them to do so a boycott is perefectly legal to organise but if people object to it you can argue and protest but you cant stop them speaking.
> If we are to have rule of law it means people get a right to speak no matter how offensive you or whoever find it.
> Otherwise we just end up with an echo chamber where the loudest voices get heard.
> See the bullying of various athesit societys for apprantly offensive t shirts or a pineapple



The rule of law. Who's law? Made by and for whom? You think the law exists outside of and above social relations?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2016)

likesfish said:


> At the  moment israelis are free to come and go and its legal for them to do so a boycott is perefectly legal to organise but if people object to it you can argue and protest but you cant stop them speaking.
> If we are to have rule of law it means people get a right to speak no matter how offensive you or whoever find it.
> Otherwise we just end up with an echo chamber where the loudest voices get heard.
> See the bullying of various athesit societys for apprantly offensive t shirts or a pineapple


(((5t3IIa)))


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 1, 2016)

Athos said:


> In reality the right will not reciprocate any freedoms we allow it.  And, nine times out of ten, the state's interests lie in silencing the left, not protecting it.
> 
> .



I agree that that is true. 

But don't we fight against them because we're different from them? And if and when we have the upper hand, what does it say about us if we take on some of their characteristics; and begin employing some of their tactics?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 1, 2016)

Athos said:


> Historically, the rise of fascism has been predicated on, first, a freedom for fascists to openly express their ideology on the streets, followed by a takeover of them, and the repression of dissenting opinion.  So, we need to defend ourselves, by carrying the fight to the right, where necessary; 'no platforming' is one weapon in that fight.



There's an interesting discussion to be had about this [and I have to get to work ]; but thinking about the growth of German fascism in the Twenties and Thirties - as you know, communism was a potent political force for a time as well - and the choice of many people; and even when fascism became ascendant, it's arguable that what the people of Germany had in mind, wasn't what they got - ie the absolute dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. The fascists pushed the public in a certain direction, via subterfuge and deceit, like the burning of the Reichstag, and blaming it on a patsy labelled a communist.

What I'm trying to say is it's not certain - to me at least - that fascism became dominant in Germany because the ideology itself was the most appealing to the people. In other words, the Nazis didn't win the people over via force of argument; they did it via the employment of subterfuge and dirty tricks.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 1, 2016)

bimble said:


> You're happy to have a shin in your avatar though.



What does a letter of the Hebrew alphabet have to do with Zionism?


----------



## bimble (Feb 1, 2016)

purenarcotic said:


> What does a letter of the Hebrew alphabet have to do with Zionism?


Yes yes I do know. Silly comment i apologise profusely.


----------



## bimble (Feb 1, 2016)

Athos said:


> The fact that there's little resistance from within is all the more reason to bring pressure to bear from without. Particularly given the past successes of such measures i.e. SA.  Yes, it'd be an uphill struggle, but it was with apartheid, and that's no reason not to try.  Also, it should be noted that the academic boycott ought not to be a standalone measure, but part of a wider programme, including sports teams and bands refusing to play there, people not going there on holiday, consumers rejecting Israeli goods, etc., etc..



Chomsky talking about this just today, drawing out why the parallels with SA don't really work (not the regime the boycott). 
Noam Chomsky opposes cultural boycott of Israel


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yes yes I do know. Silly comment i apologise profusely.


this is becoming a habit


----------



## Athos (Feb 1, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I agree that that is true.
> 
> But don't we fight against them because we're different from them? And if and when we have the upper hand, what does it say about us if we take on some of their characteristics; and begin employing some of their tactics?


We fight against them because of class antagonism.  Using some of their tactics against them doesn't say much about us, so long as those tactics are consistent with our strategy, objectives and aim.


----------



## Athos (Feb 1, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There's an interesting discussion to be had about this [and I have to get to work ]; but thinking about the growth of German fascism in the Twenties and Thirties - as you know, communism was a potent political force for a time as well - and the choice of many people; and even when fascism became ascendant, it's arguable that what the people of Germany had in mind, wasn't what they got - ie the absolute dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. The fascists pushed the public in a certain direction, via subterfuge and deceit, like the burning of the Reichstag, and blaming it on a patsy labelled a communist.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is it's not certain - to me at least - that fascism became dominant in Germany because the ideology itself was the most appealing to the people. In other words, the Nazis didn't win the people over via force of argument; they did it via the employment of subterfuge and dirty tricks.


What they did seize control of the streets, to the exclusion of others. And that's why we ought to beat them to the punch, rather than extend to them the freedom to do the same, ever again.


----------



## Odrade (Feb 1, 2016)

There is an important distinction between "no platform" on grounds of fascism and on grounds of "safe space". The argument that underlies this tactic as it pertains to fascism is to define the spaces of legitimate political debate within democracy, and that democracies cannot tolerate opponents that does not accept the legitimacy of democracy, and it´s institutions. This is not a foolproof argument in any way, but it is very different, and in my opinion, much stronger than the argument for safe space - that one cannot tolerate an opponent whose position in some way does not recognize an identity or dissents from a strongly held belief within the group doing the no platforming. 

I think both tactics are legitimate in some forms, but the no platforming in relation to safe spaces, should, as I see it, only be used in somewhat limited spaces. Not a University, as such, and definitely not the public sphere as a whole, but within a specific political group/ interest group.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 2, 2016)

That nobody sane would expect a pua/mra  speaker to be given time of day at a feminist confrence.
Although an Mra advocate should be at least be allowed to be heard and then mocked at a university.


----------



## Hug (Feb 3, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There's an interesting discussion to be had about this [and I have to get to work ]; but thinking about the growth of German fascism in the Twenties and Thirties - as you know, communism was a potent political force for a time as well - and the choice of many people; and even when fascism became ascendant, it's arguable that what the people of Germany had in mind, wasn't what they got - ie the absolute dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. The fascists pushed the public in a certain direction, via subterfuge and deceit, like the burning of the Reichstag, and blaming it on a patsy labelled a communist.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is it's not certain - to me at least - that fascism became dominant in Germany because the ideology itself was the most appealing to the people. In other words, the Nazis didn't win the people over via force of argument; they did it via the employment of subterfuge and dirty tricks.



The key to the success of fascism was that Germany was a ruin. Both communists and fascists offered very similar things, collectivism, civic pride, the main difference was that the fascists were more open to alliances with capitalists so ironically were less scary


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 4, 2016)

This is beyond parody:
Student anti-ban society faces threat of being banned


----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This is beyond parody:
> Student anti-ban society faces threat of being banned


The notion of a 'student society' founded by a commercial magazine is certainly beyond parody.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This is beyond parody:
> Student anti-ban society faces threat of being banned


no it isn't.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> The campaigns were about boycotting all Israeli academics from participating in any exchange of ideas (like you know, attending conferences on physics or geology or whatever). It didn't single out particular people (dodgy historians etc) it was about 'no platforming' anyone who worked within an Israeli university.


Why don't you read your own links 






			
				Wikipedia link above said:
			
		

> On 22 April 2005, the Council of Association of University Teachers (AUT) voted to boycott two Israeli universities: University of Haifa and Bar-Ilan University. The motions[28] to AUT Council were prompted by the call for a boycott from nearly 60 Palestinian academics and others.[29] The AUT Council voted to boycott Bar-Ilan because it runs courses at colleges in the West Bank (referring to Ariel College) and "is thus directly involved with the occupation of Palestinian territories contrary to United Nations resolutions". It boycotted Haifa because it was alleged that the university had wrongly disciplined a lecturer.


Some of the motions have been for all Israeli universities but others have been targeted.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 5, 2016)

I'd agree with the targeted ones the general one not so much


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 6, 2016)

kids are proper whiny and sensitive these days init.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 6, 2016)

tribal_princess said:


> kids are proper whiny and sensitive these days init.


Spot on.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Feb 13, 2016)

Peter Tatchell: snubbed by students for free speech stance


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 13, 2016)

...and...

I bet you thought that link was a killer blow.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Feb 13, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> ...and...
> 
> I bet you thought that link was a killer blow.



It's a link on topic, perhaps of interest to anyone who has contributed to this thread.  I know better than to give my opinion in controversial threads!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 13, 2016)

Well, what is it that you think it offers here?


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Feb 13, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well, what is it that you think it offers here?



You think it's irrelevant to what's being discussed?  Read the story and I think it's pretty obvious how it relates to the topic.  It's a story about a student taking the hump and not contributing to a debate if they have to share a stage with Tatchell.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 13, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> You think it's irrelevant to what's being discussed?  Read the story and I think it's pretty obvious how it relates to the topic.  It's a story about a student taking the hump and not contributing to a debate if they have to share a stage with Tatchell.


And what conclusion do you draw from that relating to this thread?


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Feb 13, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> And what conclusion do you draw from that relating to this thread?



I think the student is a silly ass, if that answers your question at all.  I don't know Tatchell's opinions in detail, _on everything_ but I guarantee you he will have done more to tackle injustice than this jumped up student will ever do.

She doesn't need to agree with him but the me or him thing is pathetic imo.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 13, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> I think the student is a silly ass, if that answers your question at all.  I don't know Tatchell's opinions in detail, _on everything_ but I guarantee you he will have done more to tackle injustice than this jumped up student will ever do.
> 
> She doesn't need to agree with him but the me or him thing is pathetic imo.


And what does that say with regards to this thread?


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Feb 13, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> And what does that say with regards to this thread?



Not sure what you're getting at tbh, but the article relates (very obviously) to what the OP is wanting to discuss.  Or do you think it doesn't?   Anyway, I'm off to my pit.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 13, 2016)

Fran Cowling isn't fit to lick Peter Tatchell's boot heels, let alone share a stage with him.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 13, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Not sure what you're getting at tbh, but the article relates (very obviously) to what the OP is wanting to discuss.  Or do you think it doesn't?   Anyway, I'm off to my pit.


Just something like "this article says X, which means Y about universities and safe spaces". I wasn't asking a lot here I thought.


----------



## captainmission (Feb 14, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> I think the student is a silly ass, if that answers your question at all.  I don't know Tatchell's opinions in detail, _on everything_ but I guarantee you he will have done more to tackle injustice than this jumped up student will ever do.
> 
> She doesn't need to agree with him but the me or him thing is pathetic imo.



So you don't like her exercising her free speech by not attending? Should she be legally compelled to attend?


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Feb 14, 2016)

captainmission said:


> So you don't like her exercising her free speech by not attending? Should she be legally compelled to attend?



I wouldn't force her to attend, but at the same time I think I think it pretty bizarre that someone who holds such a position (in a university, where ideas are meant to be discussed) would refuse to take part in a debate.  From the article, there's maybe two or three points they disagree on - I suspect they agree on much more.  Is this woman only willing to share a stage with clones of herself?


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Feb 14, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Just something like "this article says X, which means Y about universities and safe spaces". I wasn't asking a lot here I thought.



The article is just one story, which speaks for itself if you read it.  I'm not going to draw any wider conclusions from it.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2016)

Its an attitude nobody can be offensive  ever make one wrong move and you effectively a nazi.
 #studentpoliticsmostimportantthingevah.


----------



## captainmission (Feb 14, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> I wouldn't force her to attend, but at the same time I think I think it pretty bizarre that someone who holds such a position (in a university, where ideas are meant to be discussed) would refuse to take part in a debate.  From the article, there's maybe two or three points they disagree on - I suspect they agree on much more.  Is this woman only willing to share a stage with clones of herself?



You think it's bizarre she won't share a stage with someone she considers to incite transphobic violence and hold racist opinions? Darn this woman! Why is she allowed to hold different opinions from you?



Johnny Vodka said:


> The article is just one story, which speaks for itself if you read it.  I'm not going to draw any wider conclusions from it.



I think you already have Johnny, that's why you posted it here. But please do expand (on a forum, where ideas are meant to be discussed).


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Feb 14, 2016)

captainmission said:


> You think it's bizarre she won't share a stage with someone she considers to incite transphobic violence and hold racist opinions?


What I find bizarre/worrying is that there is apparently no room for reasonable disagreement in the realm of identity politics. Tatchell's position on the bakery case and freedom of speech in general is well thought out, but this NUS bod won't be seen in public near him simply because she doesn't agree. There is no middle ground between 'True ally' and 'Worse than Hitler'.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Feb 14, 2016)

captainmission said:


> You think it's bizarre she won't share a stage with someone she considers to incite transphobic violence and hold racist opinions? Darn this woman! Why is she allowed to hold different opinions from you?



What are these racist and transphobic opinions that virtually no-one else seems to be talking about?  Frankly, I think she should probably do the decent thing and step down if taking part in debate might be considered a reasonable expectation as part of her job.  A debate with someone you 100% agree with isn't really a debate...


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2016)

nor is engaging in debate with someone who holds utterly opposing views and will use debate platform in the adversarial sense rather than the honest dialectic.


----------



## captainmission (Feb 14, 2016)

MAD-T-REX said:


> What I find bizarre/worrying is that there is apparently no room for reasonable disagreement in the realm of identity politics. Tatchell's position on the bakery case and freedom of speech in general is well thought out, but this NUS bod won't be seen in public near him simply because she doesn't agree. There is no middle ground between 'True ally' and 'Worse than Hitler'.



So you find her speech worrying? How about offensive?  From what I've gathered from the article Peter Tatchell's stance on the bakery case played no part in her reasoning. She believes (however incorrect she may be in those beliefs) that Tatchell is a racist and supports actions that incite violence against trans people. I'd imagine as such, she doesn't believe she share that much common ground with Tatchell. Should she not be able to make that call herself? If not who should? 

On the line of 'True ally' and 'Worse than Hitler' where does she stand? What action should be taken against her for expressing a unpopular opinion? Naming and shaming in national newspapers- and the inevitbale online misogyny and death and rape threats that will follow?  Loosing her job like Johnny suggests?


----------



## captainmission (Feb 14, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> What are these racist and transphobic opinions that virtually no-one else seems to be talking about?  Frankly, I think she should probably do the decent thing and step down if taking part in debate might be considered a reasonable expectation as part of her job.  A debate with someone you 100% agree with isn't really a debate...



So you're saying this is really an issue of employment law rather than freedom of speech?


----------



## Greasy Boiler (Feb 14, 2016)

I don't necessarily agree with some of this stuff but student unions should be left to work it out themselves - way too much outside finger wagging going on. 

I mean, the national news media is pretty fucking 'safe-space' for lickspittle neo-liberals but that seems ok.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Feb 14, 2016)

captainmission said:


> She believes (however incorrect she may be in those beliefs) that Tatchell is a racist and supports actions that incite violence against trans people. I'd imagine as such, she doesn't believe she share that much common ground with Tatchell. Should she not be able to make that call herself? If not who should?


It's entirely her call and she has every right to refuse to share a stage with anyone for any reason. The rest of us are free to criticise the reasoning that led to her deciding not to share a stage with Tatchell, which was apparently just that he supports debating and humiliating actual bigots instead of taking the no platform approach. Branding someone a racist - a label second in toxicity only to paedophile - for holding such a position is obviously absurd.



> What action should be taken against her for expressing a unpopular opinion? Naming and shaming in national newspapers- and the inevitbale online misogyny and death and rape threats that will follow?  Loosing her job like Johnny suggests?


Whether any action should be taken against her should be left to the NUS and/or its members. My sympathy is limited by the fact that she smeared Tatchell to a third party; it would be even more limited if she was asked to speak because she was an NUS officer and responded to the event's organisers in that capacity. There are consequences to saying something at/through work that is extremely derogatory about another person without real justification.


----------



## kingfisher (Feb 15, 2016)

UNIVERSITIES SHOULD BE SAFE SPACES for those people that have had the "tap on the shoulder" from the secret services and have told them, sorry  no thanks jog on , im not fascinated and awed by the secret soceity bollocks, BUYT YOU DONT HEAR OF IT DO YOU!!!!!!! - they get em in school now , i think we should teach a particularly lessonsome JOHN LE CARRE on the GCSE SYLLABUS - #studentsnotspooks


----------



## likesfish (Feb 15, 2016)

Peters apparently racist because
- criticising Islam in relation to homosexuality and preventing homophobic Muslim clerics from speaking at universities
- involving himself in issues relating to homophobia against black people in order to make himself look good, ala white knighting.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> Chomsky talking about this just today, drawing out why the parallels with SA don't really work (not the regime the boycott).
> Noam Chomsky opposes cultural boycott of Israel


He uses the same arguments, though, that those opposed to the SA boycotts used. And yeah, why not boycott the USA too? Academics refusing to deal with US universities would do huge damage to the US and could be very powerful tool. I don't quite get Chomsky on this one - on the one hand he calls dodging the draft to Vietnam by going into exile a heroic act, but on the other hand, he himself refuses to go into exile or advocate action against the US. There is something uncomfortably self-serving about his position.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He uses the same arguments, though, that those opposed to the SA boycotts used. And yeah, why not boycott the USA too? Academics refusing to deal with US universities would do huge damage to the US and could be very powerful tool. I don't quite get Chomsky on this one - on the one hand he calls dodging the draft to Vietnam by going into exile a heroic act, but on the other hand, he himself refuses to go into exile or advocate action against the US. There is something uncomfortably self-serving about his position.



In what way does he personally benefit from his position on BDS?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He uses the same arguments, though, that those opposed to the SA boycotts used. And yeah, why not boycott the USA too? Academics refusing to deal with US universities would do huge damage to the US and could be very powerful tool. I don't quite get Chomsky on this one - on the one hand he calls dodging the draft to Vietnam by going into exile a heroic act, but on the other hand, he himself refuses to go into exile or advocate action against the US. There is something uncomfortably self-serving about his position.


you're having a laugh


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2016)

J Ed said:


> In what way does he personally benefit from his position on BDS?


By not reaching the logical conclusion that he ought to leave the US?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you're having a laugh


No I'm not. It's never going to happen, but the USA is the biggest centre for many academic disciplines, particularly the sciences.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> By not reaching the logical conclusion that he ought to leave the US?


yes, let's all leave countries in which we disagree with the government.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> By not reaching the logical conclusion that he ought to leave the US?



Surely your argument should be that the actual logical conclusion would be that his university should be boycotted by non-American academics


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No I'm not. It's never going to happen, but the USA is the biggest centre for many academic disciplines, particularly the sciences.


yes, well spotted. and british academics refusing to deal with them will really undermine them, i suppose.


----------



## gosub (Feb 15, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> I think the student is a silly ass, if that answers your question at all.  I don't know Tatchell's opinions in detail, _on everything_ but I guarantee you he will have done more to tackle injustice than this jumped up student will ever do.
> 
> She doesn't need to agree with him but the me or him thing is pathetic imo.



Depressing thing is, probably be in Parliament in 10-15 years.   


eta.  Nope: surprisingly doing a Chemistry PhD.	 pulled her twitter feed though, presumably getting some flak (either that or out of sympathy with Stephen Fry)


----------



## bimble (Feb 15, 2016)

I found this bit of writing helpful, on why lumping in this latest outrage re Tatchell doesn't help if you want to think about the whole no platforming thing:

"The kneejerk astonishment that puts Cowling’s witless individual decision in the same league as forcing anyone whose views you disagree with to stay silent shares the worst characteristics of that intolerant world view...  In opposing that sort of nonsense, we must be terribly careful not to replicate its mistakes."
Labelling Peter Tatchell as a racist isn’t no-platforming. It’s just ignorance | Archie Bland


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Feb 15, 2016)

captainmission said:


> So you're saying this is really an issue of employment law rather than freedom of speech?



Not really.  I'm not calling for her to be sacked.  I don't know what's expected of her in her role.  However, it doesn't sound unrealistic that someone in that role in a university might be expected to take part in debates - and the nature of debate is that you may have to debate with someone of opposing views.  Maybe she should sit aside and let someone in who is willing to do so?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 15, 2016)

It is actually amusing to see the far left suddenly become animated over this issue now that it has involved Tatchell. I maintain that universities should welcome debate, including debate that is uncomfortable. One cannot be forced into being in the room, nor debating with the person, but those that choose to should be able to.

This is a great piece in the Spectator on the latest: Peter Tatchell has discovered just how cowardly the NUS can be | Coffee House


----------



## kingfisher (Feb 15, 2016)

the nature of it is that spies run the political soceitys of these universities. maybe 2010 too powerful as this all started at the most militant ones then, soas, ucl, goldsmiths. its a current taken from the green side (remember mark kennedy greeny entryist cop) of the stuff, safer spaces, consensus democracy - exposing kennedy et al (with the permission the mi5 he was workin with in that climate camp etc lot) - no copper , no spycop could get to the students, itsz a pivcot back towards mi5 running it, the reason no one on this board will give this any succour. because message boards are run by the secret services, the majority of the posters. before social media facebook came about , remember chatrooms, there were more, more sexual balance, more sensible spy/naive (on spies) informed punter /mug ratio. but since everyone migrated to social media ( WHICH MAY COME UNDER DIFFERENT AEGIS/MONITORING) the ratio is all out of whack. STUDENTS NOT SPOOKS, where are all the students that turn down the tap on the shoulder? eh probably told they will be harrassed the rest of their life, not worth bothering with. sorry i digress


----------



## bimble (Feb 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This is a great piece in the Spectator on the latest: Peter Tatchell has discovered just how cowardly the NUS can be | Coffee House



I read that too, before the thing I linked to above.
One difference between them is.. that the spectator rant is shit, it does exactly the stupid kneejerk thing of lumping everyone you disagree with together and shouting 'idiots' in an outraged voice at them all. which is.. not that helpful.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Feb 15, 2016)

kingfisher said:


> ...message boards are run by the secret services



I've always suspected this. editor you've been rumbled.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> It is actually amusing to see the far left suddenly become animated over this issue now that it has involved Tatchell. I maintain that universities should welcome debate, including debate that is uncomfortable. One cannot be forced into being in the room, nor debating with the person, but those that choose to should be able to.
> 
> This is a great piece in the Spectator on the latest: Peter Tatchell has discovered just how cowardly the NUS can be | Coffee House


there is never anything great in the spectator


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 15, 2016)

whiny little shits.


----------



## kingfisher (Feb 15, 2016)

i see all the spies , or all the spyscribers obliging the online typed omerta, because you know, you know your not hiding, GCHQ is the allowed spook service to talk about, it impacted the Gen Pub more than protesters (ha!) but i see you people, like the commentators, obliging the narrative? but why would they do this? why would they wreck! its spies and you arent allowed to talk about spies. its obvious these students are spies! ask em, tweet em, all the twitterati are speis (or observe the omerta, because they would feel the consquences) - eh ,


----------



## kingfisher (Feb 15, 2016)

i stormed the NUS off the stage when they avoided parliment square and went to lambeth park and ruined all the grass a few years ago


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 15, 2016)

Greasy Boiler said:


> I don't necessarily agree with some of this stuff but student unions should be left to work it out themselves - way too much outside finger wagging going on.
> 
> I mean, the national news media is pretty fucking 'safe-space' for lickspittle neo-liberals but that seems ok.



Bingo.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Feb 15, 2016)

Ah, so we're not allowed opinions now on the operations of the NUS?  I'll remind some folks of this next time some students wind up those who always perceive themselves to be in the right. 

Also, she's used some fairly derogatory terms to describe Tatchell in this, so not really surprising people should be defending him/his cause.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2016)

Greasy Boiler said:


> I don't necessarily agree with some of this stuff but student unions should be left to work it out themselves - way too much outside finger wagging going on.
> 
> I mean, the national news media is pretty fucking 'safe-space' for lickspittle neo-liberals but that seems ok.


I agree with this too, although the idea of safe spaces, which appears to have been imported from the US, is imo a potentially very fraught one. I can see why it's done, but as soon as it's formalised as a policy, it is open to abuse from many different sides, sometimes from those who shout loudest - ironically enough.

I feel decidedly old saying this, but the young people running various uni things will get stuff wrong, but if they're anything like I was when I was that age, they won't listen to the likes of me anyway. What do I know?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> I read that too, before the thing I linked to above.
> One difference between them is.. that the spectator rant is shit, it does exactly the stupid kneejerk thing of lumping everyone you disagree with together and shouting 'idiots' in an outraged voice at them all. which is.. not that helpful.



TBF, "stupid kneejerk" reactions appear to be MarkyMarrk 's _modus operandi_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> there is never anything great in the spectator



Hasn't been since Jeffrey Bernard became permanently unwell.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2016)

I support tatchell because of his consistent racist views. Thank you for talking for us Peter. And the other one.


----------



## captainmission (Feb 15, 2016)

MAD-T-REX said:


> It's entirely her call and she has every right to refuse to share a stage with anyone for any reason. The rest of us are free to criticise the reasoning that led to her deciding not to share a stage with Tatchell, which was apparently just that he supports debating and humiliating actual bigots instead of taking the no platform approach. Branding someone a racist - a label second in toxicity only to paedophile - for holding such a position is obviously absurd.
> 
> 
> Whether any action should be taken against her should be left to the NUS and/or its members. My sympathy is limited by the fact that she smeared Tatchell to a third party; it would be even more limited if she was asked to speak because she was an NUS officer and responded to the event's organisers in that capacity. There are consequences to saying something at/through work that is extremely derogatory about another person without real justification.



Well we don't know why she branded him a racist because we haven't heard from Fran Crowling - the claims were made in a private email between her and the event organiser. They only came to public attention after Tatchell contacted a national newspaper to reveal them. As is his right to do so, but again we're in a situation where notable public figure, with regular appearance in print and on paper, is claiming they're the subject to a witch hunt whilst a woman is demonised in the media and driven off social media by online misogyny.

I can understand having limited sympathy for her. Her claims that Tatchell is a racist and incites transphobic violence may be as questionable as they first appear, inspired by holier than thou one-upmanship. But there's the wider issues why the press is so obsessed with going ons of student feminist and LGBT groups and online misogyny which is a far greater threat to freedom of speech.


----------



## captainmission (Feb 15, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Not really.  I'm not calling for her to be sacked.  I don't know what's expected of her in her role.  However, it doesn't sound unrealistic that someone in that role in a university might be expected to take part in debates - and the nature of debate is that you may have to debate with someone of opposing views.  *Maybe she should sit aside and let someone in who is willing to do so?*



Is this you announcing your candidacy johnny?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2016)

captainmission said:


> Well we don't know why she branded him a racist because we haven't heard from Fran Crowling - the claims were made in a private email between her and the event organiser. They only came to public attention after Tatchell contacted a national newspaper to reveal them. As is his right to do so, but again we're in a situation where notable public figure, with regular appearance in print and on paper, is claiming they're the subject to a witch hunt whilst a woman is demonised in the media and driven off social media by online misogyny.
> 
> I can understand having limited sympathy for her. Her claims that Tatchell is a racist and incites transphobic violence may be as questionable as they first appear, inspired by holier than thou one-upmanship. But there's the wider issues why the press is so obsessed with going ons of student feminist and LGBT groups and online misogyny which is a far greater threat to freedom of speech.


What does the wider issue have to do with if it's a personal issue?

As if these back stabbing careerist NUS people that you were all def going to boycott a few years back would be in any way dodgy and self serving.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Feb 15, 2016)

captainmission said:


> Is this you announcing your candidacy johnny?



As awesome as that would be, no.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2016)

captainmission said:


> I can understand having limited sympathy for her. Her claims that Tatchell is a racist and incites transphobic violence may be as questionable as they first appear, inspired by holier than thou one-upmanship. But there's the wider issues why the press is so obsessed with going ons of student feminist and LGBT groups and online misogyny which is a far greater threat to freedom of speech.


The press isn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2016)

Of course who would want to stand on a platform with someone they think is a racist (apart from the spgb). But what stops you investigating and then coming to an informed conclusion as to whether he is a racist rather than just wanting to keep your mates happy?  Isn't that a good thing to do? Isn't anything else selling your mates out in fact?

Obv tecuchter and other time wasters need not reply


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 15, 2016)

captainmission said:


> Well we don't know why she branded him a racist because we haven't heard from Fran Crowling - the claims were made in a private email between her and the event organiser. They only came to public attention after Tatchell contacted a national newspaper to reveal them. As is his right to do so, but again we're in a situation where notable public figure, with regular appearance in print and on paper, is claiming they're the subject to a witch hunt whilst a woman is demonised in the media and driven off social media by online misogyny.
> 
> I can understand having limited sympathy for her. Her claims that Tatchell is a racist and incites transphobic violence may be as questionable as they first appear, inspired by holier than thou one-upmanship. But there's the wider issues why the press is so obsessed with going ons of student feminist and LGBT groups and online misogyny which is a far greater threat to freedom of speech.


have you ever accused someone of racism inspired by some sort of oneupmanship?4


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2016)

Greasy Boiler said:


> I don't necessarily agree with some of this stuff but student unions should be left to work it out themselves - way too much outside finger wagging going on.
> 
> I mean, the national news media is pretty fucking 'safe-space' for lickspittle neo-liberals but that seems ok.


Posh idiots  never run the NUS and then take that experience into national policy?


----------



## captainmission (Feb 15, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What does the wider issue have to do with if it's a personal issue?
> 
> As if these back stabbing careerist NUS people that you were all def going to boycott a few years back would be in any way dodgy and self serving.



Who was it I was going to boycott? Are you sure you're not mistaking me for some one else?



butchersapron said:


> The press isn't.



Indeed, i meant online misogyny is the greater threat.



> Of course who would want to stand on a platform with someone they think is a racist (apart from the spgb). But what stops you investigating and then coming to an informed conclusion as to whether he is a racist rather than just wanting to keep your mates happy? Isn't that a good thing to do? Isn't anything else selling your mates out in fact?



I don't think that Peter Tatchell is a racist. I can only surmise as to why Fran Cowling claims he is. Who are my mates? Who am I trying to keep happy?


----------



## captainmission (Feb 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> have you ever accused someone of racism inspired by some sort of oneupmanship?4



Not to my knowledge? Have you?


----------



## Greasy Boiler (Feb 15, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Posh idiots  never run the NUS and then take that experience into national policy?



and?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2016)

captainmission said:


> Who was it I was going to boycott? Are you sure you're not mistaking me for some one else?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


People - by not saying that this person should research if peter tatchell is a racist and then acting accordingly. Not demanding that they do that as a start is disgusting.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2016)

Greasy Boiler said:


> and?


That challenging their arguments and the positions that they're built on is a good thing to do.


----------



## Greasy Boiler (Feb 15, 2016)

Veers way too easily into "those damn kids" territory from where I'm sitting.

but whatever - I'm not really that interested.


----------



## captainmission (Feb 15, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> People - by not saying that this person should research if peter tatchell is a racist and then acting accordingly. Not demanding that they do that as a start is disgusting.



Which person? The NUS officer?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2016)

Greasy Boiler said:


> Veers way too easily into "those damn kids" territory from where I'm sitting.
> 
> but whatever - I'm not really that interested.


Clearly.  Thanks though,


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2016)

captainmission said:


> Which person? The NUS officer?


You, the NUS officer, anyone who offers the argument that they've been told this person is a racist - anyone, and everyone should act like i've suggested.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2016)

Greasy Boiler said:


> and?


Why do you bother btw? What do you get out of it?


----------



## Greasy Boiler (Feb 16, 2016)

A slight erection.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 16, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> It is actually amusing to see the far left suddenly become animated over this issue now that it has involved Tatchell. I maintain that universities should welcome debate, including debate that is uncomfortable. One cannot be forced into being in the room, nor debating with the person, but those that choose to should be able to.
> 
> This is a great piece in the Spectator on the latest: Peter Tatchell has discovered just how cowardly the NUS can be | Coffee House


Ah, the amorphous 'far left'. What is it with you? You're obsessed in a sort of McCarthyite way when it comes to the 'far left'. Even those who aren't 'far left' are labelled as such by you. 

Yes, universities should welcome debate but answer me this: would you share a platform with fash? You probably would. You seem like the sort of person who would willingly give them space to articulate their views while denying the 'left' a space.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 16, 2016)

tbf when an LGBT and a Feminist society team up to support a mob of islamists bullying a woman surprisingly they will get worldwide attention just not positive.
  extra lols when the chair of said islamist society surprising no turns out to hate gays


----------



## kingfisher (Feb 16, 2016)

likesfish said:


> tbf when an LGBT and a Feminist society team up to support a mob of islamists bullying a woman surprisingly they will get worldwide attention just not positive.
> extra lols when the chair of said islamist society surprising no turns out to hate gays


SECRET SERVICE OBVIOUSLY - they recruit at 15/16 now, get told which soceitys to join, BECAUSE WE WERE SO POWERFUL IN 2010 - my fanzine wants an interview with edward woolard- MORE JOHN LE CARRE AT KEY STAGE 3


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Feb 19, 2016)

Interview with Peter Tatchell...

Peter Tatchell: ‘Attacks from the left are incredibly painful’


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Interview with Peter Tatchell...
> 
> Peter Tatchell: ‘Attacks from the left are incredibly painful’


That's a weird interview. She really can't get over the fact that he's not rich.

But is that right - he was no-platformed for signing that, along, presumably, with everyone else on the list? Wow.


----------



## Mation (Feb 19, 2016)

Has this been resolved? It's from 2007.

"African LGBTI Human Rights Defenders Warn Public against Participation in Campaigns Concerning LGBTI Issues in Africa Led by Peter Tatchell and Outrage!"



> As Human Rights Defenders from across Africa, we strongly discourage the public from taking part in any LGBTI campaigns or calls to action concerning Africa that are led by Peter Tatchell or Outrage!
> 
> Collaboration across continents is both important and valuable.  We are willing to work with those who respect our advice and expertise regarding our continent.
> 
> However, Outrage! has been acting in contempt and disregard of the wishes and lives of African Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex (LGBTI) Human Rights Defenders.  We have made every attempt to address this matter with Outrage!, personally, and they have refused to listen.  We now take this matter to the public, requesting you not to take part in any of Peter Tatchell or Outrage!'s campaigns regarding Africa, as they are not factually-based and are harmful to African activists.



I don't know enough about this at all, but saw someone post this link in response to Tatchell's post on Facebook about the Telegraph piece the other day Apologies if it's (the wrong sort of) unhelpful.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2016)

Mation said:


> Has this been resolved? It's from 2007.
> 
> "African LGBTI Human Rights Defenders Warn Public against Participation in Campaigns Concerning LGBTI Issues in Africa Led by Peter Tatchell and Outrage!"
> 
> ...


The groups writing that were defender of state actions, seeking to become inside bodies - i.e to be funded by various states as the gay-friendly face of shitty regimes. The bureaucracies. The bought. The project officers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2016)

Mation said:


> Has this been resolved? It's from 2007.
> 
> "African LGBTI Human Rights Defenders Warn Public against Participation in Campaigns Concerning LGBTI Issues in Africa Led by Peter Tatchell and Outrage!"
> 
> ...


Fucking hell. That is one hell of a list of signatories to such a damning letter. 

Still no reason to no-platform him, but maybe a reason to have a great big argument with him.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a weird interview. She really can't get over the fact that he's not rich.


She's spent her whole life (best private school then oxbridge) being rich. It's how she sees the world. Although to be fair, it's not her puzzled at why he isn't rich. It's her projecting her bafflement onto others and into the past.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fucking hell. That is one hell of a list of signatories to such a damning letter.
> 
> Still no reason to no-platform him, but maybe a reason to have a great big argument with him.


Damming? It just says don't talk about out homophobic govts lest it might re-activate a dead bill (it didn't).


----------



## Mation (Feb 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The groups writing that were defender of state actions, seeking to become inside bodies - i.e to be funded by various states as the gay-friendly face of shitty regimes. The bureaucracies. The bought. The project officers.


Eep. Thanks - I'll read up more.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Damming? It just says don't talk about out homophobic govts lest it might re-activate a dead bill (it didn't).


Calling it neo-colonialism is damning, I would have thought. It's telling him to get lost.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Calling it neo-colonialism is damning, I would have thought. It's telling him to get lost.


It's the language of all post-colonial states. Esp those seeking to justify themselves on progressive grounds. It the langauge we hear today to justify assad It's meaningless without context. (And MR btw are today exactly those anti-imperialist boosters of assad).


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Calling it neo-colonialism is damning, I would have thought. It's telling him to get lost.


And his various campaigns were hectoring and badly planned  - these opened the gap for these sort of people to claim he was some modern day cecil rhodes, whilst leaving their own complicity unquestioned.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> And his various campaigns were hectoring and badly planned  - these opened the gap for these sort of people to claim he was some modern day cecil rhodes, whilst leaving their own complicity unquestioned.


Yeah, hectoring is his method. And I'm sure he'd defend that - I hope he would defend it as it's clearly calculated. I looked up a random selection of the signatories. There's a Christian group on there, but also others that don't _appear_ to be affiliated. They put up a good front. 

But to be a gay rights group in Uganda, for instance, like Spectrum Uganda, even if you're a compromised group, takes courage. And could an uncompromised group even exist without its leaders being sent to jail? 

Also, Mugabe is a hero to many. I dunno if it is wise to do what Tatchell does, tbh. It might be - he might be right - you have to attack what is there. And on the other hand, he might not be the right person to lead this. 

But again, none of this is reason to brand him racist or to no-platform him.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2016)

surely the irony of all this is that the same student union would probably invite David Cameron like a shot, apartheid jolly and al.


----------



## Lurdan (Feb 20, 2016)

It's not obligatory to share a platform with Tatchell or anyone else. And it's certainly not obligatory to pick sides in this nonsense.

Far from having been no platformed, Tatchell has just spent the last week using this woman's emails in order to successfully *create a platform* from which to generate publicity for his "brand". The arguments in the emails may indeed be very silly (have they actually been reprinted anywhere?) but if Tatchell hadn't been using them as a marketing opportunity we wouldn't even know they existed. The fruits of his enterprise ? The opportunity to write crap like this for the Telegraph.


> Free speech and enlightenment values are under attack in our universities.


Pass the sick bag.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 20, 2016)

tbf tatchell has earned his stripes 
 calling him a racist or transphobic is likely to piss him off.
  which isn't going to end well


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 22, 2016)

Academics and activists condemn ‘bully’ Peter Tatchell in open letter



> Over a hundred public figures have signed a letter criticising the tactics of gay rights activist Peter Tatchell – after he was embroiled in a row.
> 
> Mr Tatchell spoke out last week after an NUS LGBT+ officer refused to share a platform with himat an event, claiming he has “racist” and “transphobic” beliefs.
> 
> ...



The letter is published in full in the article. It contains the various things people are taking him to task over. I recommend reading it.

The point about him being out of order for the way he handled this: we see this time and time again where there's a person who enjoys a degree of public recognition and has 'a platform' already in the media and elsewhere because of their status, and they use that platform to go after a person who doesn't enjoy the same cultural and social power. A specific version of it is 'dogpiling' on twitter: a person, such as Tatchell, or Dawkins who does this a lot, will be 'offended' by someone who is 'offended' by them, and reply to them in such a way that shows their twitter handle to all of their followers, knowing full well that all of those followers will now dogpile in on the person in question. If you can't see how out of order and abusive that is, I suggest you think about it for a while longer, maybe read about some examples of it.

---

For those not familiar with twitter: when you reply to someone it automatically takes the format of @personstwittername and the message is typed afterwards... only those people following both the replier and the person being replied to will see that message, unless they go digging. However, when using these dogpiling techniques, they will move the @personstwittername to later in the reply, which means every single person who follows the replier will see that message, regardless of whether they follow the person being replied to or not. In other words, if a tweet begins with @personstwittername it will be less visible than a tweet that starts with any other character. This is why people often start a tweet .@personstwittername, because the . makes the tweet visible to all, without having to restructure the whole sentence.

For example:

"@personstwittername thanks for your reply I think you're full of shit"
".@personstwittername thanks for your reply I think you're full of shit"
"thanks for your reply, @personstwittername I think you're full of shit"

The final 2 are understood to be aggressive, a way of ensuring everyone who follows you can see what you're saying to @personstwittername. There are other ways to do it as well, now the 'quote tweet' function lets you add a full message above a tweet you are retweeting - this is often used to the same ends. Many well known people on twitter know their followers are loyal and will pile in on demand, and this is a way of mustering an army to fight for you without asking for one. The people on the receiving end are often regular people who happened to voice an opinion the well known person didn't like. Sometimes they're abusive themselves, often times they're not. Either way, the power imbalance is very obvious.

That's just twitter, of course. But unless you look at all the ways this happens you're ignoring half the story when discussing these powerful speakers getting into arguments with students and others.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 22, 2016)

My apologies to all the people I accidentally alerted by using @ names that were theirs


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2016)

> The letter also questions his “alignment” with anti-trans activists in signing a free speech letter criticising the trans movement last year.



I've read that letter - it's linked to in an article upthread, and this is not an accurate description of it at all. At no point does the letter criticise the trans movement or align its signatories with anti-trans activists. This just isn't true.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 22, 2016)

Do you have the link?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Do you have the link?


Here


----------



## andysays (Feb 22, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Academics and activists condemn ‘bully’ Peter Tatchell in open letter...





> Over a hundred public figures have signed a letter criticising the tactics of gay rights activist Peter Tatchell



I guess I must be the only one who can see the irony in people with a "degree of public recognition and a platform already in the media and elsewhere because of their status" all using that platform and status to "dogpile" on to someone they're accusing of doing the very same thing, then...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2016)

andysays said:


> I guess I must be the only one who can see the irony in people with a "degree of public recognition and a platform already in the media and elsewhere because of their status" all using that platform and status to "dogpile" on to someone they're accusing of doing the very same thing, then...


Tatchell can handle that - he doesn't need protecting and I'm sure he'd be the first to say so. However, mischaracterising that letter and attacking him for signing it is pretty low, and makes me suspicious of everything else in there - what else has been mischaracterised that I can't check?


----------



## andysays (Feb 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Tatchell can handle that - he doesn't need protecting and I'm sure he'd be the first to say so. However, mischaracterising that letter and attacking him for signing it is pretty low, and makes me suspicious of everything else in there - what else has been mischaracterised that I can't check?



I'm sure Tatchell can handle it, I was just pointing out the rank hypocrisy of a bunch of "public figures" all ganging up to accuse him of using his public platform to bully someone else, as if that's real issue and not the dishonest accusations of racism and transphobia which the NUS woman made but won't back up and which they're now at least tacitly supporting.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 22, 2016)

Public figures disagreeing with public figures - versus public figures using their platform to disagree with someone who isn't a public figure.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've read that letter - it's linked to in an article upthread, and this is not an accurate description of it at all. At no point does the letter criticise the trans movement or align its signatories with anti-trans activists. This just isn't true.



Thanks for the link. It's my understanding that it's the context of this letter that positions it potentially as being aligned with anti-trans activists. Of course, we're all free to see and/or ignore the contexts that we want.


----------



## andysays (Feb 22, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Public figures disagreeing with public figures - versus public figures using their platform to disagree with someone who isn't a public figure.



According to the PN article you linked to, Fran Cowling is a National Union of Students representative on LGBT issues. In my book that makes her a public figure, and she's clearly enough of a public figure that 

she was going to be sharing a platform with Tatchell, and 

her refusal to do so has become a significant story


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Thanks for the link. It's my understanding that it's the context of this letter that positions it potentially as being aligned with anti-trans activists. Of course, we're all free to see and/or ignore the contexts that we want.


As I understand it the context is Greer and others being refused a platform. There was a lengthy thread about Greer on here, on which lots of people including me roundly criticised Greer for being a wilful fuckwit, but that letter is very carefully worded not to criticise the trans movement and doesn't align itself with anyone. It's a letter that someone who thinks Greer was bang out of order might still sign.

You don't have to agree with them, but to brand any of the signatories to that letter as 'aligned with anti-trans activists' is entirely unfounded and unfair. And to do so against a veteran gay rights activist is a pretty disgraceful slur, I think.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 22, 2016)

The letter makes quite specific reference to Bindell, who has been pretty seriously anti trans over a long period, so it is kind of aligned with anti trans activists. I wouldn't have signed it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The letter makes quite specific reference to Bindell, who has been pretty seriously anti trans over a long period, so it is kind of aligned with anti trans activists. I wouldn't have signed it.


How does that make them aligned? It is saying that certain people should not be no-platformed and that they are not a threat to safe spaces. It is very specific in saying that it is not a statement of support for the positions of any of the people mentioned. It also doesn't criticise 'the trans movement'. It really doesn't. The closest it comes is to criticise the no-platforming of those criticising the trans movement. There's a massive difference.

I don't think I would have signed it either, tbh, as it is far too polite to Germaine Greer about her ignorant position, referencing her feminism as some kind of mitigating factor. But that doesn't mean I think those that did are in any way now aligned with anti-trans activists. There's nothing in there that says that.

ETA: In fact I wouldn't have signed it as I'm not sure I agree with its basic premise.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 22, 2016)

"But today it is being used to prevent the expression of feminist arguments critical of the sex industry and of some demands made by trans activists. The feminists who hold these views have never advocated or engaged in violence against any group of people. Yet it is argued that the mere presence of anyone said to hold those views is a threat to a protected minority group’s safety."

1) Prevent expression of feminist arguments - no it's not. Preventing expression would be to make such things illegal. It would be to ensure the speaker was unable to express those views anywhere. This is dishonest. 

2) some demands made by trans activists - this is part of the context; this is the 'criticising trans activists' that they talk about: by framing it as 'demands' it automatically suggests some kind of holding hostage, being unreasonable, uncivil, hysterical, whatever. We can get into what these 'demands' are, but it would be a long, drawn out discussion involving all the context you can shake a stick at, and would generally boil down to 'please respect my gender identity.'

3) the mere presence - that's a pretty confrontational turn of phrase

4) a threat to a protected minority group's safety - not sure what they're going for here with 'protected', and while you can argue that legally they are protected I think it's no coincidence that it's language often used by people who bash minorities of all types; and of course bringing up the idea of safety in this context as if to pooh-pooh the idea that there's any way a person could be made unsafe by the 'mere' expression of a few views by powerful people.

But back to point number 1: the open letter I linked to earlier makes a good case about why such cries about expression being prevented are utter bullshit. This is important.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> "But today it is being used to prevent the expression of feminist arguments critical of the sex industry and of some demands made by trans activists. The feminists who hold these views have never advocated or engaged in violence against any group of people. Yet it is argued that the mere presence of anyone said to hold those views is a threat to a protected minority group’s safety."
> 
> 1) Prevent expression of feminist arguments - no it's not. Preventing expression would be to make such things illegal. It would be to ensure the speaker was unable to express those views anywhere. This is dishonest.
> 
> ...



That's a good critique, and I agree with a lot of it. I agree that the language of that paragraph is confrontational in a way that is not unbiased. I also agree with you about the word 'demands'. A more neutral 'positions' would have sufficed.

I'm still very uneasy about anyone who signed that being attacked for it, though. They are not endorsing any of the positions of the people whose right to be heard they are defending - the original piece you linked to strongly implied otherwise.

In perhaps an analogous situation, another Greer, Bonnie, decided a few years back to share a stage with Nick Griffin. You might criticise her or not for doing that, but she clearly wasn't aligning herself with the BNP by doing so.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 22, 2016)

andysays said:


> as if that's real issue and not the dishonest accusations of racism and transphobia which the NUS woman made but won't back up and which they're now at least tacitly supporting.



they seem to be saying that if they decide you are too privileged then you have no right to defend yourself against libellous or defamatory allegations.  I wonder how they'd feel if someone was emailing their own colleagues with untrue and potentially reputation destroying smears about them.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 22, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Public figures disagreeing with public figures - versus public figures using their platform to disagree with someone who isn't a public figure.



its not about a disagreement though, its about a lie.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 22, 2016)

NUS: You're racist
PT: No I'm not
NUS: Yes you are
PT: You can't say that
NUS: Just said it
NUS: Racist
PT: Why am I a racist?
NUS: Not telling
PT: Wheres the evidence I'm a racist
NUS: Not telling
PT: Have you got any evidence I'm a racist
NUS: Not telling
NUS: Racist

PT (to everyone else) They called me a fucking racist
NUS: Oppressor!!! (and racist)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How does that make them aligned?


If it weren't for the Bindell ref I could have believed it as a reaction to some recent news stories; not necessarily a good reaction but not necessarily with a deeper agenda. Bringing Bindell into it, along with the focus on trans activism in general, makes me think that this is very much an aligned piece.


----------



## kingfisher (Feb 22, 2016)

ITS THE ESPIONAGE STUPID


----------



## kingfisher (Feb 22, 2016)

safer spaces goin hand in hand with consensus jizz hands no platforming - THEY ARE NTO ALL SPIES, the prime movers, perhaps, but they allow some in , so they can crystallize around , this person seeing people getting no platformed, ejected,deemed verboten on a regular basis due to rules they sort of understand but sometimes it seems arbitrary, keeps the populace of the (student occupation, protest camp, uni society) worried, constantly trying to please the manufactured atmosphere as they dont see why tatchells racist, so hell they better be the best intersectionalist they can be, lest they be ejected - fairly difficult to tell difference betwen spy and those love bombed by spies. all comes from occupy and that, after ucl occupation 2010 appeared, ya know after wed smashed, then occupy they sent people with this jazz hands and the spaces to the most radical unis, bring in this shit, with kids recruited at 16 , the secret service is no more repres3entative (in its agents ) and we know its LGBTSupervb, that rainbow flag, but IS THIS ENTRYISM WORTH IT? seriously , the reason i know your all spies (apart from the few they may crystalize around) is that theres no SPY CHAT - like see these policies that say NO SPIES, for example NICK LOWLES, couldnt he be no platformed on the grounds he works for/with secret services? BUT THAT WOULD BE A TAD hypocritical for a latest student security apparatchiks wouldnt it? seriously guyz talk abou spyz


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2016)

smokedout said:


> they seem to be saying that if they decide you are too privileged then you have no right to defend yourself against libellous or defamatory allegations.  I wonder how they'd feel if someone was emailing their own colleagues with untrue and potentially reputation destroying smears about them.


I'm guessing Tatchell is probably chuckling at the idea that he's now one of the privileged in British society. How far things have come.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 22, 2016)

yep, a soon to be a pensioner gay man with brain damage who lives in a council flat. dripping with privilege.


----------



## Obediah Marsh (Feb 23, 2016)

There's a new generation running these things now. People like Greer and Tatchell mean well but they now need to stand aside and not try to tell the kids how to think and what to do. That won't work.


----------



## Nylock (Feb 24, 2016)

...Is "Kingfisher" for real or someone's sock-puppet?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 24, 2016)

Nylock said:


> ...Is "Kingfisher" for real or someone's sock-puppet?


Dunno. I still haven't been able to make it through that post.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 24, 2016)

A University of Houston presentation to faculty now that students are legally allowed to carry guns to classes.

Now _that's_ a danger to free speech and open intellectual debate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 24, 2016)

Wow.

Still, no problem. If one student pulls out a gun, surely there'll be another one there who'll shoot them dead for you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2016)

Obediah Marsh said:


> There's a new generation running these things now. People like Greer and Tatchell mean well but they now need to stand aside and not try to tell the kids how to think and what to do. That won't work.


the road to hell is paved with good intentions


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2016)

kingfisher said:


> safer spaces goin hand in hand with consensus jizz hands no platforming - THEY ARE NTO ALL SPIES, the prime movers, perhaps, but they allow some in , so they can crystallize around , this person seeing people getting no platformed, ejected,deemed verboten on a regular basis due to rules they sort of understand but sometimes it seems arbitrary, keeps the populace of the (student occupation, protest camp, uni society) worried, constantly trying to please the manufactured atmosphere as they dont see why tatchells racist, so hell they better be the best intersectionalist they can be, lest they be ejected - fairly difficult to tell difference betwen spy and those love bombed by spies. all comes from occupy and that, after ucl occupation 2010 appeared, ya know after wed smashed, then occupy they sent people with this jazz hands and the spaces to the most radical unis, bring in this shit, with kids recruited at 16 , the secret service is no more repres3entative (in its agents ) and we know its LGBTSupervb, that rainbow flag, but IS THIS ENTRYISM WORTH IT? seriously , the reason i know your all spies (apart from the few they may crystalize around) is that theres no SPY CHAT - like see these policies that say NO SPIES, for example NICK LOWLES, couldnt he be no platformed on the grounds he works for/with secret services? BUT THAT WOULD BE A TAD hypocritical for a latest student security apparatchiks wouldnt it? seriously guyz talk abou spyz


you don't half post some shit


----------



## Buckaroo (Feb 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you don't half post some shit



The other half is shit as well.


----------



## kingfisher (Feb 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you don't half post some shit


whys that then cause i dont use bourgois paragraphs yeah they dont let me on the deep politics forum cause of that aswell, but eh, someones gotta say it innit?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2016)

kingfisher said:


> whys that then cause i dont use bourgois paragraphs yeah they dont let me on the deep politics forum cause of that aswell, but eh, someones gotta say it innit?


no it is because the views you express are utter bollocks and where not lies, based on lies and so erroneous.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2016)

kingfisher said:


> whys that then cause i dont use bourgois paragraphs yeah they dont let me on the deep politics forum cause of that aswell, but eh, someones gotta say it innit?


just to take one point i saw jazz hands in use at a ucl occupation about 15 years ago.


----------



## kingfisher (Feb 24, 2016)

WHEN I USED TO LURK THESE FORUMS I RESPECTED YOU - i cant post the bit i want to fine, some occupy intranet stuff, but yeagh- never go with the spy diagnoissis cock up cock up cock up cock up cock up cock up cock up conspiracy>? nah - your a spook bruv (or in the second tier where you dont talk about it ) when forums/message boards were only game in town, i bet there was a lot less spooky spies as a ratio but then the women and men tripped over to facebook and twitter (which both imo have different people bossing them) - why do you think the post 2010 (you know the ones that didnt go jail in riots went to novara media et al mediocre dave marbles etc block me - cuz whats so offensive about asking people relationship with the security industry??? spycops spycops spycops - what about just regular spies guys. VERBOTEN VERBOTEN


----------



## Buckaroo (Feb 24, 2016)

kingfisher said:


> WHEN I USED TO LURK THESE FORUMS I RESPECTED YOU - i cant post the bit i want to fine, some occupy intranet stuff, but yeagh- never go with the spy diagnoissis cock up cock up cock up cock up cock up cock up cock up conspiracy>? nah - your a spook bruv (or in the second tier where you dont talk about it ) when forums/message boards were only game in town, i bet there was a lot less spooky spies as a ratio but then the women and men tripped over to facebook and twitter (which both imo have different people bossing them) - why do you think the post 2010 (you know the ones that didnt go jail in riots went to novara media et al mediocre dave marbles etc block me - cuz whats so offensive about asking people relationship with the security industry??? spycops spycops spycops - what about just regular spies guys. VERBOTEN VERBOTEN



Yep, now you are talking shit but that's cool, nice one


----------



## kingfisher (Feb 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> just to take one point i saw jazz hands in use at a ucl occupation about 15 years ago.



right yeahg jazz hands in concert with intersectional in concert with safe spaces in concert with bloody child spooks ill gather =- you know about seeds for change catalyst all these firms popping up - yes your right - about 15 year ago selling their "facilitation " services to activist groups , dodgy dodgy dodgy dodgy


----------



## kingfisher (Feb 24, 2016)

THESE KIDS that are doing it that WAY - cant tell you where they learned it - at occupy it was from spain (or whatever fucked up place keep it lit jay said, some bollocks) the last round of students said it was the free university of amsterdam , theres not the continuity back to earth first, and all the facilitators, bloody mi5 bloody tavistock


----------



## Buckaroo (Feb 24, 2016)

kingfisher said:


> THESE KIDS that are doing it that WAY - cant tell you where they learned it - at occupy it was from spain (or whatever fucked up place keep it lit jay said, some bollocks) the last round of students said it was the free university of amsterdam , theres not the continuity back to earth first, and all the facilitators, bloody mi5 bloody tavistock



GO TO BED! SLEEP SLEEP SLEEP Sleep sleep sleep....


----------



## kingfisher (Feb 24, 2016)

haha yeah nah 24 hours up its like drugs innit, gotta get my gf off some violent disorder charges innit - playing all sides against the middle - public order intelligence- reckoning i organized scumoween - they had the wink from box 500 to get my bloody dictaphone (with the diplomatic protection squad chap saying hed "like to shoot me")  long thing, but i rock up give em a list of 6 marks - (CoL police, Met police asset, Met police informant, ACPO lone wolf, MI5 F branch) take the lovely emma for a pint in spoons - or sam smiths rather - it is charing x - bobs your uncle,


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2016)

kingfisher said:


> THESE KIDS that are doing it that WAY - cant tell you where they learned it - at occupy it was from spain (or whatever fucked up place keep it lit jay said, some bollocks) the last round of students said it was the free university of amsterdam , theres not the continuity back to earth first, and all the facilitators, bloody mi5 bloody tavistock



Just because the state infiltrates bulletin boards, unions, protest movements, doesn't mean that people who disagree with you are "state".
You state intelligence wanker!


----------



## kingfisher (Feb 24, 2016)

if it percolated up from this bulletin board - "your KGB" " your MI6" etc etc , into proper journalism (no #spycops there, why would a journo be a (yuck) copper, but a spy... perhaps, green orwell lewis and the rest) - and then politics, CORBYN , yo so timid cuz you took caviar with the ambassadar - I PERSONALLY KNOW from the barnet housing struggle, that monsier Corbyn (J) had a mexican spy dig his garden and hang a door for him, though when i was talking to corbyn (P) he was all like - yeahh climate camp was fuckin state, lets smash it all up in the pitchford enquiry_ = -------- there is a distinct LACK of a non jokey (but when you know what its about thats all it can be) jaccusations on this board. like when you get these foreingers who say they are activists but cant name their own domestic and foreign intelligence services - do me a bloody favour. but yes, the NORMATIVE things is that the spooks gain primacy and discourage talk about whos a spook as VULGAR etc causing division etc, but safe guys for making me feel welcome, i feel it has to be said, and as the editor hasnt removed it yet or anything, thats cool in it - AS THE PIECE OF PAPER dropped on my table in wetherspoons overm y ruddles today said "you will be mad ........ or you will be dead" - either or really who gives a fig


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2016)

kingfisher said:


> WHEN I USED TO LURK THESE FORUMS I RESPECTED YOU - i cant post the bit i want to fine, some occupy intranet stuff, but yeagh- never go with the spy diagnoissis cock up cock up cock up cock up cock up cock up cock up conspiracy>? nah - your a spook bruv (or in the second tier where you dont talk about it ) when forums/message boards were only game in town, i bet there was a lot less spooky spies as a ratio but then the women and men tripped over to facebook and twitter (which both imo have different people bossing them) - why do you think the post 2010 (you know the ones that didnt go jail in riots went to novara media et al mediocre dave marbles etc block me - cuz whats so offensive about asking people relationship with the security industry??? spycops spycops spycops - what about just regular spies guys. VERBOTEN VERBOTEN


first i was afraid i was petrified, wondrin how i'd get along without you lurkin by my side. your mi5's best fucking friend, bigging them up. they aren't omnipotent, they're not everywhere. and learn to write a proper fucking sentence.


----------



## bluescreen (Feb 25, 2016)

Crikey, Pickman's, that's your cover blown old chap, what?


----------



## likesfish (Feb 25, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> View attachment 83875
> 
> A University of Houston presentation to faculty now that students are legally allowed to carry guns to classes.
> 
> Now _that's_ a danger to free speech and open intellectual debate.



As distinct  from before when they couldnt LEGALLY carry guns on campus. Its the states declaring somewhere a gun free zone without a big fuck off fence and armed guards at the entrances is about as useful as a nerf dildo.
 It might stop the odd accidental  shooting when some clutz drops their gun.
  But a wannabe spree shooter isnt going to be put off by the fact its illegal to carry a gun.


----------



## Obediah Marsh (Feb 25, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> first i was afraid i was petrified, wondrin how i'd get along without you lurkin by my side. your mi5's best fucking friend, bigging them up. they aren't omnipotent, they're not everywhere. and learn to write a proper fucking sentence.


TBH, if MI5 aren't routinely stealing your odd socks then you're not making a difference. Only bona fide threats to national security get targeted by the sock snatch squads.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2016)

Obediah Marsh said:


> TBH, if MI5 aren't routinely stealing your odd socks then you're not making a difference. Only bona fide threats to national security get targeted by the sock snatch squads.


they've nicked my socks  and my sandals


----------



## Falcon (Mar 24, 2016)

Frank Furtadi (emeritus Professor of Sociology at University of Kent) wrote a recent article on this. He argues that the concept of the 'safe space' emerges from the intersection of two themes. One is the 'infantilisation' of students - the belief that undergraduates are biologically mature but emotionally fragile - for which he cuts them some slack:


> It would be too easy to blame students for the infantilisation of campus life. But their preoccupation with feelings and emotions is the direct outcome of the kind of child rearing and schooling they received as children. Inadvertently, the socialisation of young people has led to the cultivating of their sense of vulnerability. The value of safety now enjoys an almost sacred status outside the academy, so it is not surprising that higher education has internalised the preoccupations of wider society.



The second is the co-option of the language of 'micro-aggression' - which contains the convenient notion that it is my perception, not your intention, that uniquely determines whether you have been aggressive toward me - to support what he memorably labels "the performance of outrage":


> The idea of safe spaces emerged with the women’s movement, which sought to create an environment in which women could cultivate their collective strength. In recent years, the notion of safe space has become part of a strategy that aims to shield students from ideas and influences that might make them feel uncomfortable. When they call for creation of a safe space, students are demanding the creation of a kind of moral quarantine.



As a result:


> In the 1960s and 1970s, radical students boasted of their power to change the world and often adopted lifestyles that are now characterised as risky and dangerous. Today, student protestors project a very different image, drawing attention to their status as victims and flaunting their sensitivity to offence. They frequently use therapeutic language and, most importantly, talk constantly about themselves and their feelings.



The solution?


> Feeling exposed, insecure and, yes, uncomfortable is part of the intellectual adventure we undertake in the quest for knowledge. Academics, therefore, should stop treating undergraduates as if they are children who need protection from difficult or controversial views, while students should stop playing the offence card and grow up.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 24, 2016)

I stopped reading at Frank Furtadi because I knew that you meant Furedi.

Furedi compared the debate surrounding the removal of the Rhodes statue within a democracy to ISIS destroying temples in Syria, he is an idiot and a hypocrite. He clearly believes that bastions of class power in Britain should be protected as safe spaces for the architecture of support for colonialism regardless of the value of argumentation to the contrary.

Actually I lied, I did keep reading because currently I have a bit of a fascination with the way in which this kind of politics is being weaponised by both factions of neoliberalism, centre-right and centre-left.



> There was a time when campus radicals revelled in their status as militants and revolutionaries. In the 1960s and 1970s, radical students boasted of their power to change the world and often adopted lifestyles that are now characterised as risky and dangerous. Today, student protestors project a very different image, drawing attention to their status as victims and flaunting their sensitivity to offence. They frequently use therapeutic language and, most importantly, talk constantly about themselves and their feelings.



OK, so how does Furedi feel about student militancy then? Does he support students occupying the offices of Vice Chancellors and beating them up? No of course he doesn't, his constituency now is right-wingers, he is a rent-a-gob for the right-wing press to bash people on the left both real, and more likely, imagined.

None of this is to say that the kind of politics he is referring to isn't stupid, it is incredibly stupid and it is gaining (some) ground, especially in parties (and their milieus) which used to have actual Social Democratic politics. Look at the media assault on the Scottish Nationalists during the Indie campaign, and now Corbyn and Sanders. In some ways we can see that neoliberals are replacing what was left of Social Democracy with denunciations of those to their left of sexism and racism or whatever else while their ideological counterparts on the right use those denunciations (and counter-denunciations) in order to nutpick anyone to their left.

It's a pretty effective symbiotic relationship, and since those positions reinforce each other it means that they can conceivably continue to weaponise identity politics to attack class politics indefinitely.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 24, 2016)

Honestly I used to think that this stuff would start on twitter and tumblr while occasionally spilling out into the media but neoliberal institutions have fully adopted it. These politics are being used, weaponised to attack the working-class and class politics that threaten neoliberalism and are in evidence from The Labour Party to Teach for America.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 24, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Honestly I used to think that this stuff would start on twitter and tumblr while occasionally spilling out into the media but neoliberal institutions have fully adopted it. These politics are being used weaponised to attack the working-class and class politics that threaten neoliberalism are in evidence from The Labour Party to Teach for America.


Correct. 
(Neo-liberal) consolidator states can legislate to accommodate some of the demands that might emerge from the convenient diversion of Id politics at little/no cost to capital.


----------



## Falcon (Mar 24, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I stopped reading at Frank Furtadi because I knew that you meant Furedi.
> 
> Furedi compared the debate surrounding the removal of the Rhodes statue within a democracy to ISIS destroying temples in Syria, he is an idiot and a hypocrite. He clearly believes that bastions of class power in Britain should be protected a safe spaces for the architecture of support for colonialism regardless of the value of argumentation to the contrary.


Apologies for mangling the name - the perils of typing into an auto-correcting iPad on the Edinburgh Sleeper without my glasses, I'm afraid.

To be clear, he didn't make that comparison in the piece to which I linked. In the piece to which you refer, Furedi does ask why a student leader of the Oxford anti-statue campaign wants to abolish the statue of Rhodes, but not the Rhodes scholarship which funded his ability to enjoy the privileges of an elite institution. So it's a bit difficult to argue that, in this matter, students are uniquely principled and Furedi is uniquely unprincipled (or principled in a way to which you object).


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2016)

J Ed said:


> .
> 
> Furedi compared the debate surrounding the removal of the Rhodes statue within a democracy to ISIS destroying temples in Syria, he is an idiot and a hypocrite. He clearly believes that bastions of class power in Britain should be protected as safe spaces for the architecture of support for colonialism regardless of the value of argumentation to the contrary.


i am not sure i've really seen any valuable arguments for removing these statues. i think there are more - and better - arguments in favour of keeping them.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 24, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Correct.
> (Neo-liberal) consolidator states can legislate to accommodate some of the demands that might emerge from the convenient diversion of Id politics at little/no cost to capital.



It reminds me a bit of the trend of massive corporations giving their low paid staff incredibly important sounding but meaningless job titles.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i am not sure i've really seen any valuable arguments for removing these statues. i think there are more - and better - arguments in favour of keeping them.



I don't think that they should be destroyed, just removed and put somewhere more appropriate like a museum.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I don't think that they should be destroyed, just removed and put somewhere more appropriate like a museum.


by no means. i think they should be left where they are. in fact i think it is very important they are left where they are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It reminds me a bit of the trend of massive corporations giving their low paid staff incredibly important but meaningless sounding job titles.


surely "incredibly important sounding but meaningless"


----------



## J Ed (Mar 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> surely "incredibly important sounding but meaningless"



yes


----------



## brogdale (Mar 24, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I don't think that they should be destroyed, just removed and put somewhere more appropriate like a museum.


It is in a sort of museum.


----------



## andysays (Mar 24, 2016)

brogdale said:


> It is in a sort of museum.



With large elements of a theme park where students pay for a three-year "Oxford experience"


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 24, 2016)

I'd say this sort of thing is a bigger threat to freedom on campus than a few eejits acting the maggot:

Anger as Fossil Free TCD meeting removed from Berkeley Library space


----------



## J Ed (Mar 24, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> I'd say this sort of thing is a bigger threat to freedom on campus than a few eejits acting the maggot:
> 
> Anger as Fossil Free TCD meeting removed from Berkeley Library space



Also proposals to make BDS illegal in the UK, though Furedi is actually against that to give him a bit of credit


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 4, 2016)

Student accused of violating university 'safe space' by raising her hand

As ludicrous as this situation seems to be with this person threatened with being thrown out of a meeting because supposedly raising a hand violated some 'safe space' rule (given we don't know what else might have happened in that meeting), wait, what's this shit?




			
				Telegraph said:
			
		

> “I totally do believe in safe space and the principles behind it,” she told the _Telegraph_. “It’s supposed to enhance free speech and not shut it down, and give everyone a chance to feel like they can contribute.
> 
> “Safe space is essential for us to have a debate where everyone can speak, but it can’t become a tool for the hard left to use when they disagree with people.”



A 'tool for the hard left'?? What the actual fuck?!


----------



## treelover (Apr 4, 2016)

It looks like the worse excesses of the direct action movement are going mainstream, what were basically positive ideas for communication and allowing other voices to be heard are now being transformed into ridiculous and undemocratic mechanisms to stifle free speech, etc.

the 'hard left' have never used these new tools


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 4, 2016)

Just read this on the katie Hopkins thread 





> Recently on some daft TV prog Hopkins was rude to some fat people. One of them stormed off in high dudgeon to phone the police in the belief that Hopkins had committed a "hate crime". This is where we have got to: people believe that comments they find offensive are criminal.



Is this, along with the Safe spaces (I'm offended) thing a product of a growing modern superficial mentality nourished by a lack of perspective and real struggles. Is society producing a 21st century generation of wimps?


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 5, 2016)

If guns are there, people use them.


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> Just read this on the katie Hopkins thread
> 
> Is this, along with the Safe spaces (I'm offended) thing a product of a growing modern superficial mentality nourished by a lack of perspective and real struggles. Is society producing a 21st century generation of wimps?


No.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 5, 2016)

treelover said:


> the 'hard left' have never used these new tools



They preferred the old ones shouting point of order and trying to stich everything up in pre meetings .

Its a tool box while you can do useful things with a set of tools.
 You can also run around  like a maniac hitting and stabbing people with said set of tools. Guess which approach students are going to take?
  Especailly as ms hands in the air is appranlty pro israel so officly worse than hitler these days


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 5, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> No.



Then what is it a product of? To me it looks like gimmick politics coming from a pampered class/generation who haven't been involved in real struggle. 

Why are Safe spaces (ie, stopping other groups hosting speakers),microagression, and now cultural appropriation becoming almost everyday words?

Why now and not before?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 5, 2016)

there's lots of reasons and valid crits of them but you are on your 'der failure of the left' thing again. And you put me on ignore cos I clocked your dodginess so fuck you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> Is society producing a 21st century generation of wimps?


it produced you.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 5, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> it produced you.



No, I'm 20th century.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> No, I'm 20th century.


embodying all the most wimpish aspects of that age. and many of those from the present century.


----------



## toggle (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> Just read this on the katie Hopkins thread
> 
> Is this, along with the Safe spaces (I'm offended) thing a product of a growing modern superficial mentality nourished by a lack of perspective and real struggles. Is society producing a 21st century generation of wimps?




you're starting to sound awefully like the sort of cunt who considers subjecting others to vile behavior to be 'character building', or some other such justification if it being good for the victim


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 5, 2016)

toggle said:


> you're starting to sound awefully like the sort of cunt who considers subjecting others to vile behavior to be 'character building', or some other such justification if it being good for the victim



That is a Strawman argument, sort of twisting it round to see it from a mirror perspective that is out of context. I'm talking about cases like, Greer and to some extent Tatchel, as that is similar.

From the 70's onwards there was an understandable no platform policy for nazis and holocaust deniers, but nowadays we see examples of attempts to banish speakers way beyond that limit.

Do you or others agree that student group A have the right to stop student group B from inviting a speaker on grounds, which do not include incitation to hatred or violent agression against people?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> From the 70's onwards there was an understandable no platform policy for nazis and holocaust deniers, but nowadays we see examples of attempts to banish speakers way beyond that limit.


i don't know what you consider to be 'way beyond' holocaust denial. what i've noticed is a countervailing tendency, for bans to be demanded about anything in the slightest bit against some people's views, no matter how trivial.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 5, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't know what you consider to be 'way beyond' holocaust denial. what i've noticed is a countervailing tendency, for bans to be demanded about anything in the slightest bit against some people's views, no matter how trivial.



By way beyond I mean what you have stated, bans to be demanded about anything in the slightest bit against some people's views, no matter how trivial. Maybe it should read way before.

My earlier questions were about whether this reflects the changing times we live in, a sort of process of decadence due to lack of perspective that a worthwhile historical struggle would bring.

When there is struggle, ie 1968, there is more debate, more perspective which builds awareness. Nowadays we are seeing a tendency (by some rightous types) to shun debate, to stifle it and even to hound people for questioning the logic of events, meetings and so on.


----------



## toggle (Apr 5, 2016)

no debate? so no one is talking about any of the situations that have involved calls for bans? no one is discussing the speakers and their views?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 5, 2016)

toggle said:


> no debate? so no one is talking about any of the situations that have involved calls for bans? no one is discussing the speakers and their views?


no one


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> By way beyond I mean what you have stated, bans to be demanded about anything in the slightest bit against some people's views, no matter how trivial. Maybe it should read way before.
> 
> My earlier questions were about whether this reflects the changing times we live in, a sort of process of decadence due to lack of perspective that a worthwhile historical struggle would bring.
> 
> When there is struggle, ie 1968, there is more debate, more perspective which builds awareness. Nowadays we are seeing a tendency (by some rightous types) to shun debate, to stifle it and even to hound people for questioning the logic of events, meetings and so on.


yes. so there is the desire for debate on the one hand and, on the other, a desire to stifle that debate.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 5, 2016)

I see what you mean, no, not no one. However, there is this growing tendency.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 5, 2016)

Where is this growing tendency coming from? What is fueling it?


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 5, 2016)

toggle said:


> no debate? so no one is talking about any of the situations that have involved calls for bans? no one is discussing the speakers and their views?



You didn't read my post. I said we are seeing a tendency (by some rightous types) to shun debate,


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> You didn't read my post. I said we are seeing a tendency (by some rightous types) to shun debate,


tbh that tendency has always been there. We're only 30 years on from clause 28, 40 years on from the last use of the blasphemy law, 50 years on from the end of the Lord Chamberlain as censor.

This is part of what today's struggle looks like, but there has always been struggle.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 5, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbh that tendency has always been there. We're only 30 years on from clause 28, 40 years on from the last use of the blasphemy law, 50 years on from the end of the Lord Chamberlain as censor.
> 
> This is part of what today's struggle looks like, but there has always been struggle.



Interesting, but the acts you mention are coming from the State, whereas the tendency to claim offence and try to ban debates, speakers is coming from groups within student melieu on campus.

It's sort of like Mary Whitehouse, but coming from what should be a more open and tolerant collective


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> Interesting, but the acts you mention are coming from the State, whereas the tendency to claim offence and try to ban debates, speakers is coming from groups within student melieu on campus.
> 
> It's sort of like Mary Whitehouse, but coming from what should be a more open and tolerant collective


In fact, the second act I listed - the use of the blasphemy law - was a private prosecution from none other than Mary Whitehouse.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 5, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In fact, the second act I listed - the use of the blasphemy law - was a private prosecution from none other than Mary Whitehouse.



Hopefully, we won't be seeing any attempts to enable acts by groups on campus for example, to ban the likes of Greer or shun Tatchell. Whitehouse represented conservative reaction, something that is more established and expected from that end of the political spectrum. They are always throwing tantrums. The opposite, the university groupings involved in recent calls for bans, however, are a cause for concern and I wonder what is fuelling them.

In Spain there are reactionary groups on the right who try to ban things all the time. People laugh. A group called christian lawyers tried to take a poetess to court for changing a prayer to include the word vagina.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> Hopefully, we won't be seeing any attempts to enable acts by groups on campus for example, to ban the likes of Greer or shun Tatchell. Whitehouse represented conservative reaction, something that is more established and expected from that end of the political spectrum. They are always throwing tantrums. The opposite, the university groupings involved in recent calls for bans, however, are a cause for concern and I wonder what is fuelling them.
> 
> In Spain there are reactionary groups on the right who try to ban things all the time. People laugh. A group called christian lawyers tried to take a poetess to court for changing a prayer to include the word vagina.


Not saying it's not a cause for concern, merely noting that twas ever thus, basically, and this isn't some kind of sign of contemporary moral decay.


----------



## andysays (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> ...Is society producing a 21st century generation of wimps?...





Anudder Oik said:


> ...gimmick politics coming from a pampered class/generation who haven't been involved in real struggle...





Anudder Oik said:


> ...a sort of process of decadence due to lack of perspective that a worthwhile historical struggle would bring...



And you're accusing others of strawman arguments


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 5, 2016)

andysays said:


> And you're accusing others of strawman arguments



They are questions ffs. If you like you can give an opinion on the issue of the thread.


----------



## andysays (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> They are questions ffs. If you like you can give an opinion on the issue of the thread.



Are you a completely disengenuous cunt?

(that's a question too, FFS)


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 5, 2016)

andysays said:


> Are you a completely disengenuous cunt?
> 
> (that's a question too, FFS)


more rhetorical than anything else i suppose


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> Then what is it a product of? To me it looks like gimmick politics coming from a pampered class/generation who haven't been involved in real struggle.
> 
> Why are Safe spaces (ie, stopping other groups hosting speakers),microagression, and now cultural appropriation becoming almost everyday words?
> 
> Why now and not before?



Dunno how old you are, but if you're under 40, then you wouldn't have seen most of this crap going on way back in the '80s. The term "safe spaces" wasn't bandied about, but the idea did the rounds, along with all the rest of the identity politics crap that surfaced then. If you're older than 40, then you must have been sleeping or tripping through the '80s!
The newest incarnation is the same old same old - ideologues attempting to shut down any viewpoint that differs from their own by - ironically enough - accusing others of appropriating culture and shutting down debate, by appropriating social science ideas about culture and shutting down debate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 5, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> there's lots of reasons and valid crits of them but you are on your 'der failure of the left' thing again. And you put me on ignore cos I clocked your dodginess so fuck you.



It's nowt to do with leftism, though. Anyone branding this sad misappropriation of intersectional analysis into identity politics as "left", doesn't have even a tenuous grip on what the term "left" encompasses. What it *doesn't* encompass is the sort of intellectual totalitarianism these muddle-heads engage in.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 5, 2016)

toggle said:


> you're starting to sound awefully like the sort of cunt who considers subjecting others to vile behavior to be 'character building', or some other such justification if it being good for the victim



Sounds like a description of a total cunt, or a corporal. In fact, I think the two might be interchangeable!


----------



## toggle (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> You didn't read my post. I said we are seeing a tendency (by some rightous types) to shun debate,


 
don't assume that someone didn't read your posts because they disagree with you. 

and i think that the attention that is given to this issue creates more debate


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> I see what you mean, no, not no one. However, there is this growing tendency.



You're conflating growth and volume, I believe. These tendencies are as confined as they ever were - to academe and the professions, and to interest groups - they merely get more coverage now.


----------



## toggle (Apr 5, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. so there is the desire for debate on the one hand and, on the other, a desire to stifle that debate.



i think that there is also a tendency for people who are a wanna be commentariat/politico/campaigner to use this kind of incident to get attention


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 5, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Dunno how old you are, but if you're under 40, then you wouldn't have seen most of this crap going on way back in the '80s. The term "safe spaces" wasn't bandied about, but the idea did the rounds, along with all the rest of the identity politics crap that surfaced then. If you're older than 40, then you must have been sleeping or tripping through the '80s!
> The newest incarnation is the same old same old - ideologues attempting to shut down any viewpoint that differs from their own by - ironically enough - accusing others of appropriating culture and shutting down debate, by appropriating social science ideas about culture and shutting down debate.



That has set the record straight for me, I can see it in perspective now. These sort of things are fads, which wax and wane in intensity and later morph and reappear under a different name. Offended is a fashion word nowadays. When did that start? Anyway, it makes for good comedy.


----------



## toggle (Apr 5, 2016)

people wot witter on about H&S probably haven't worked somewhere that ti's blatantly ignored. it wasn't called common sense, it was called exploitation and people injured and killed. what the fuck is right about that

and people wot witter on about going somewhere else if they are offended have never been the victim of bullying, harassment and abuse. 'he called me an idiot' yeah - is that all you see?. now try dealing with someone posting up your address alongside threats to stick a knife up your cunt and hundreds egging on more of that shit. want to try calling that just words? 

just more tired and boring tropes. 

not really surprised you find it funny though


----------



## likesfish (Apr 5, 2016)

The problem is those are legit  reasons its when health and safety is used as an excuse or anti harresment policy is used to shut down debate  its a tool set.
   A nail gun is a useful construction tool.

In the hands of an idiot though


----------



## toggle (Apr 5, 2016)

likesfish said:


> The problem is those are legit  reasons its when health and safety is used as an excuse or anti harresment policy is used to shut down debate  its a tool set.
> A nail gun is a useful construction tool.
> 
> In the hands of an idiot though




hence the definite need for debate about how rules/policies are applied. not a misrepresentation of the policy to justify a belief that the existence of limitations are a bad thing.

we're are seeing stuff ni find quite bizarre, but we're also seeing an extension of the right to call for someone to be refused a platform based on the rights of minorities. Anudder Oik mentioned above the acceptability of refusing a platform to far right extremists. not so much of a problem cause of the number who found them hugely offensive. we move on to no platform to racists, pro rape campaigners, misogynists and trans misogynists. the more we move into protecting people who are more marginalised, whose voice is heard less, the more likely we are to get calls of censorship.

Germaine Greer on trans women: I could call myself a Cocker Spaniel

greer is really working the parallels with the comments that gay marriage would lead to people marrying dogs. she is part of a problemn that leads to all sorts of problems for transfolk, part of a continuum - sniggers and 'tranny' jokes, comparisons to animals, leading to people getting murdered. but we still question whether ti's acceptable to deny a platform to someone who dosen't lack a whole fucking variety of places to spout their shit. someone in a very privileged position who uses their privilege to deny basic rights to a marginalised group.

what's the problem with no platforming that? no platforms were started off to refuse an audience to those who abused, or justified the abuse of others. we're just adding transfolk to the list of people it's not ok to abuse, or justify abuse of. complaints about that say a lot more about whether the complainer can see beyond the groups they personally find offensive and empathise with the need to extend protection to people who are a bit more 'other' than the people they already protect.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 5, 2016)

But geer and tachell have a history of not being complete dicks so no platforming somebody who has a history of not being a dick seems a bit meh


----------



## J Ed (Apr 5, 2016)

toggle said:


> people wot witter on about H&S probably haven't worked somewhere that ti's blatantly ignored. it wasn't called common sense, it was called exploitation and people injured and killed. what the fuck is right about that
> 
> and people wot witter on about going somewhere else if they are offended have never been the victim of bullying, harassment and abuse. 'he called me an idiot' yeah - is that all you see?. now try dealing with someone posting up your address alongside threats to stick a knife up your cunt and hundreds egging on more of that shit. want to try calling that just words?
> 
> ...



Well said


----------



## toggle (Apr 5, 2016)

likesfish said:


> But geer and tachell have a history of not being complete dicks so no platforming somebody who has a history of not being a dick seems a bit meh



tatchell is the one that confused me. i don't know the issues and history there as well as I do greer. 


and greer has got a history of this kind of twatery

_“There is a witness to the transsexual’s script, a witness who is never consulted. She is the person who built the transsexual’s body of her own flesh and brought it up as her son or daughter, the transsexual’s worst enemy, his/her mother. Whatever else it is gender reassignment is an exorcism of the mother. When a man decides to spend his life impersonating his mother (like Norman Bates in Psycho) it is as if he murders her and gets away with it, proving at a stroke that there was nothing to her.”_

_from 1999._


she's also claimed that attempting to make fgm illegal was an attack on cultural identity. and that it was nothing to do with men controling women's bodies. it was a female led practice and commonly freely chosen and self decoration.



she's a professional controversialist. and while she's not always as wrong as often as a stopped clock, she will intentionally court positions that get a load of attention for herself. never mind whether there's any consistency. and never mind what kind of shit she stands alongside saying it. never mind the woman who needs to be cut open so the hole left is big enough to fit a penis through and never mind how many die from the procedure or later in childbirth because cutting out a woman's clitoris and sewing her up to keep her faithful is cultural, right? lets ignore that. cause culture. 


so cause she's done some non twatty stuff, how much of a free pass does she get on the saying shit to make people notice her? how much does she get to claim to be a speaker for women as downtrodden, while sticking the boot into those who are less privilaged than her, for attention ? it's the sort of shit that gets feminism labelled as a white (also read middle class, cis, us/western european, etc) woman only club. and that can get to fuck.


----------



## toggle (Apr 5, 2016)

i don't normally go to the torygraph for quotes, but this sums up how i feel about her quite nicely. s



> It’s easier to shrug off remarks made by old, out of touch men than it is of old, out of touch women, simply because there are more of them. Outspoken women, who can command a public platform, are so rare that we feel like we must protect them even if we’re cringing with embarrassment. Women have been silenced throughout history and we understandably don’t want to be party to that.
> 
> *But God, it’s a shame when a once vibrant, exciting voice starts to sound an awful lot like the people she wanted to replace. From revolutionary to oppressor, it’s a well-trodden journey.*
> 
> ...



Germaine Greer is a dinosaur - powerless against a new feminist movement

and i'd ref one of greer's arguments in support of that, that  can be summed up as transwomen aren't feminine enough.

Germaine Greer's Feminine Mistake | Advocate.com


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 5, 2016)

You are obviously far more informed on the Greer case than I and I can see how her wierd opinions leave one stunned, adnd maybe there's more to it than the part you have posted.

However, I can't imagine anyone going out and attacking trans people after hearing her, which was the motive behind no platforming nazis, as they did lead to attacks and deaths.

Because of this I think Greer should be taken on in public in open debate and her mad opinions/rantings shown up. Would it not be an opportunity for more rational voices to be heard?


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 5, 2016)

toggle said:


> i don't normally go to the torygraph for quotes, but this sums up how i feel about her quite nicely. s
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A powerless dinosaur, not an instigator of murder. The No platform doesn't fit.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 5, 2016)

You misunderstand how power works.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 5, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> You misunderstand how power works.



But her ideas need to be taken on. What other arguments are there for no platforming her? It feels wrong. 21st centrury feminists need to have someone on the panel to point things out. When two people get into a heated argument in public, it is not them that counts but the people listening on the sidelines or in the public.

If I were a feminist at Cardiff uni, I wouldn't have called for no platform, I would have gone all out to get a good speaker on the panel to discuss with her (if poss), then focus on the people listening. The following week's feminist meeting (without Tv celebrities) would be packed.

Who is Kaite Welsh in the telegraph?


----------



## toggle (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> You are obviously far more informed on the Greer case than I and I can see how her wierd opinions leave one stunned, adnd maybe there's more to it than the part you have posted.
> 
> However, I can't imagine anyone going out and attacking trans people after hearing her, which was the motive behind no platforming nazis, as they did lead to attacks and deaths.
> 
> Because of this I think Greer should be taken on in public in open debate and her mad opinions/rantings shown up. Would it not be an opportunity for more rational voices to be heard?



she's been spouting this transphobic shit for at least 17 years (so there is more- there's just a limit to what I want to wade through) while the majority of the feminist movement moves steadily further away from her position.  - including some that once spouted some very odd stuff about transpeople. Gloria Steinman for example.

Steinem: We Must Put Rights of Transgender Community First



> "if the shoe doesn't fit, must we change the foot?"
> 
> 
> That question has been called transphobic by many in the years since she asked it, but Steinem said Wednesday that the Internet has been misquoting and browbeating her wrongly. Steinem now explains that she wrote that question in response to stories she'd heard about gays and lesbians undergoing sex changes to respond to society's bias against their sexual orientation—not the deep sense of belonging trans people feel in the gender they weren't born into.
> ...




You have someone who presents themselves as an educated academic, speaker for others spouting shit that is intentionally inflamatory. now maybee no one is heading out for a night of 'tranny-bashing' after hearing her talk, but she is part of the problem. and her attention grabbing style, turning transfolk into some kind of bad joke, actively encourages the parts of society that put transpeole at risk. and gives justification to those who should be providing protection.


----------



## toggle (Apr 5, 2016)

and i don't doubt her words have been heard by those who claim to be feminist women and use them in part justification for physical attacks and threats on transfolk and those who support transfolk


----------



## toggle (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> But her ideas need to be taken on. What other arguments are there for no platforming her? It feels wrong. 21st centrury feminists need to have someone on the panel to point things out. When two people get into a heated argument in public, it is not them that counts but the people listening on the sidelines or in the public.
> 
> If I were a feminist at Cardiff uni, I wouldn't have called for no platform, I would have gone all out to get a good speaker on the panel to discuss with her (if poss), then focus on the people listening. The following week's feminist meeting (without Tv celebrities) would be packed.



her ideas can be attacked without her presence. it's not as though she's go so few places to voice them that they are hard to find.


and i reckon i'll take a miss on asking you for advice on how to be a feminist organiser. i'd rather not resort to greer's tactics of attacking the marginalised for attention. cause for me, being a feminist comes with some principles that are more important than getting bums on seats.

thanks for taking the time to mansplain though. always appreciated.

oh, and here's greer issuing threats



> She warned that Ms Wallace would be "kneecapped" if she approached her mother, Peggy Greer, for comments. Ms Wallace described how the professor "went to some lengths to sabotage ... an honest and well-intentioned project" with threats and vilification



Germaine smacks her sisters

and the article is a nice example of what greer will do to promote a new book.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 5, 2016)

toggle said:


> her ideas can be attacked without her presence. it's not as though she's go so few places to voice them that they are hard to find.
> 
> 
> and i reckon i'll take a miss on asking you for advice on how to be a feminist organiser. i'd rather not resort to greer's tactics of attacking the marginalised for attention. cause for me, being a feminist comes with some principles that are more important than getting bums on seats.
> ...



There is nothing condescending about what I said, so no need to patronize me.

The fact that she has other places to go still doesn't justify the no platforming.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 5, 2016)

And you know, sometimes people are _tired_. A student debate or a lecture isn't the only place a trans person, for example, is going to hear or have heard questions against their very existence. They might well, depending on their circumstances, hear it every single day. They might be arguing and defending themselves against abusive parents every single day. They might be dreading the walk home from work where they get shouted abuse, every single day. They might be dreading having to use the public bathroom where they were assaulted that one time, but have nowhere else to take a piss. Sometimes they might just decide, "no, not today, and not someone who has a very high profile platform and who is very well versed in how to speak publicly and persuasively... not today."

Whereas, on the other end of the bargain, Greer - or whomever it may be - will pootle off and do a different gig somewhere else, maybe it'll be a paid gig. Certainly it will be one of many to come.

I know who I'll give the benefit of the doubt to.

(Disclaimer - I'm not suggesting the person who called to disinvite Greer from wherever was a) trans or b) had those motivations - I'm giving a reason as to why someone might choose to 'no platform' - or as I like to call it "decide who they want to talk to.")


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> If I were a feminist at Cardiff uni, I wouldn't have called for no platform, I would have gone all out to get a good speaker on the panel to discuss with her (if poss), then focus on the people listening. The following week's feminist meeting (without Tv celebrities) would be packed.



Exactly.  That would be the correct feminist line to take.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> There is nothing condescending about what I said, so no need to patronize me.
> 
> The fact that she has other places to go still doesn't justify the no platforming.



Yes it does. You're misunderstanding power again.

Greer has a platform. A national, nay an international, platform. A platform that gives her money for her opinions. Being denied space on one stage will not stop her voice from being heard. Au contraire, it's actually enabled her to get more of a voice for the disgusting views she espouses.

A student asking that she not speak at x event doesn't have a platform like that. No one will listen to them. You only have to spend 5 minutes looking at the absolute disdain thrown at anyone who is a student purely because the label 'student' brings with it such images of sub-human worthlessness, and you see how there's a power imbalance. But not only that. Where do the trans people who are attacked, beaten, and murdered lie in this power relationship? What's their relationship to the media? Where's their relationship to the gender norms that enable capitalism and patriarchy to flourish? 

You presume a level playing field. There isn't one.


----------



## toggle (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> There is nothing condescending about what I said, so no need to patronize me.
> 
> The fact that she has other places to go still doesn't justify the no platforming.



so you see nothing wrong in telling feminists that you can do feminism better than them?

not me that's being patronising.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 5, 2016)

toggle said:


> so you see nothing wrong in telling feminists that you can do feminism better than them?



Are women born better feminists then? Thought that was greer's position in the first place.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 5, 2016)

I wonder if it has something to do with the ability to speak on social media now?

It gives the illusion of a level playing field, of equal access, without putting into context the rest of society. It assumes everyone only exists in the ether. 

But this is a refrain that's heard everywhere, in all sorts of situations.

We shall protect the rights of the powerful to say what they want, to do what they want, no matter to whom they are doing it. Because we must ensure we don't play favourites. We must ensure we encourage debate. We must ensure all are given the same right to speak.

But the powerful are doing it from up there. The weak are down there. In order to fight back, the weak have to do it uphill, while the powerful keep pushing them down. 

But when asked to let the weak climb up first so they are at least on an equal footing, no. That would be suppressing the powerful's right to keep speaking over them in the meantime.

And so it goes on.


----------



## toggle (Apr 5, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Yes it does. You're misunderstanding power again.
> 
> Greer has a platform. A national, nay an international, platform. A platform that gives her money for her opinions. Being denied space on one stage will not stop her voice from being heard. Au contraire, it's actually enabled her to get more of a voice for the disgusting views she espouses.
> 
> ...



not only that, but looking at the number of people who go with the line that we should respect greer as part of feminism's history. they will find themself being put in their place by people who think anyone who didn't live through the second wave needs to shut up and listen to their betters. 

if a transwoman did get their voice heard in their community by attacking her positions, i think they would be ducking a lot of shit for a while. particularly if someone wants to play the kind of games terfs use to abuse transwomen. there's a trans poster on these boards who has been victimised by terfs, who have tried to insinuate that they only transitioned to avoid charges of child abuse. make yourself noticed, and you had better be prepared to face the possibility of threat. be a transwoman and you will get the threats from feminism's arsehole as well as the usual freakshow threats all women face.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 5, 2016)

Bob has 3 apples.
Jenny has 0 apples.
Someone brings in a basket full of apples.
Bob takes 1 apple.
Jenny takes 4 apples.
Bob gets upset.
"That's not fair," says Bob. "You took more apples than me."
"You had more apples to begin with," replies Jenny.
"I thought you wanted equality?" Bob takes 3 more apples. "Now we've each taken the same. Now we're even."


----------



## toggle (Apr 5, 2016)

goldenecitrone said:


> Are women born better feminists then? Thought that was greer's position in the first place.



did i mention the gender of the feminists?

nope, you did.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> You are obviously far more informed on the Greer case than I and I can see how her wierd opinions leave one stunned, adnd maybe there's more to it than the part you have posted.
> 
> However, I can't imagine anyone going out and attacking trans people after hearing her, which was the motive behind no platforming nazis, as they did lead to attacks and deaths.
> 
> Because of this I think Greer should be taken on in public in open debate and her mad opinions/rantings shown up. Would it not be an opportunity for more rational voices to be heard?


You can't but I can and I will not debate with people who deny I exist or who persist in adding to the hatred towards us.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 5, 2016)

toggle said:


> and i don't doubt her words have been heard by those who claim to be feminist women and use them in part justification for physical attacks and threats on transfolk and those who support transfolk


I had my first transphobic attack for 6 months within a week of Greer's comments being reported all over the popular media - I have no doubt there is a correlation. And to be honest I think the burden of proof is on those who say there isn't a correlation because the language used by Greer and co is remarkably similar to the thugs who hang around outside my front door.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 5, 2016)

whiny shits.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 5, 2016)

toggle said:


> hence the definite need for debate about how rules/policies are applied. not a misrepresentation of the policy to justify a belief that the existence of limitations are a bad thing.
> 
> we're are seeing stuff ni find quite bizarre, but we're also seeing an extension of the right to call for someone to be refused a platform based on the rights of minorities. Anudder Oik mentioned above the acceptability of refusing a platform to far right extremists. not so much of a problem cause of the number who found them hugely offensive. we move on to no platform to racists, pro rape campaigners, misogynists and trans misogynists. the more we move into protecting people who are more marginalised, whose voice is heard less, the more likely we are to get calls of censorship.
> 
> ...



for standing up and saying "I am a woman" I was very nearly no-platformed - I know that certain individuals within trans excluding feminism were organising to get me deselected and have smeared in the local press. And of course I only had one platform and that was a temporary one - which would disappear the day i wasn't elected.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 5, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> whiny shits.



Who? The trans people being beaten up?

Yeah. A thicker skin will stop the bruises


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 5, 2016)

lol you got no idea
the whiny kids.


----------



## toggle (Apr 5, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> I had my first transphobic attack for 6 months within a week of Greer's comments being reported all over the popular media - I have no doubt there is a correlation. And to be honest I think the burden of proof is on those who say there isn't a correlation because the language used by Greer and co is remarkably similar to the thugs who hang around outside my front door.



ffs. 

i can't say i'm supprised though. the way she expresses herself is deeply unpleasent, but i can see how it appeals to the kind of person who does that shit to see it in print and have a confidence boost to their beliefs. 

and it's intentionally inflamatory. more notice for her that way.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 5, 2016)

some people might just be struggling with their own shit. it's fear of unknown. I went on a militant tip a while back, without going into reasons why, is easily done, the world lies to you and you lie to yourself.


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> But her ideas need to be taken on. What other arguments are there for no platforming her? It feels wrong. 21st centrury feminists need to have someone on the panel to point things out. When two people get into a heated argument in public, it is not them that counts but the people listening on the sidelines or in the public.
> 
> If I were a feminist at Cardiff uni, I wouldn't have called for no platform, I would have gone all out to get a good speaker on the panel to discuss with her (if poss), then focus on the people listening. The following week's feminist meeting (without Tv celebrities) would be packed.
> 
> Who is Kaite Welsh in the telegraph?



But it was a lecture, not a debate.  And the subject was not trans issues.  So there would be no scope for anyone to take on her views on that topic.  As such, the only tool available to show how abhorrent they thought her views to be was a strategy of 'no platform.'


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 5, 2016)

so dont turn up. job done.


dunno why yer even talking about her. it's feeding shit.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 5, 2016)

goldenecitrone said:


> Are women born better feminists then?



No.  But they can become better feminists if they practice.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 5, 2016)

Athos said:


> But it was a lecture, not a debate.  And the subject was not trans issues.  So there would be no scope for anyone to take on her views on that topic.  As such, the only tool available to show how abhorrent they thought her views to be was a strategy of 'no platform.'



She gave the lecture anyway.


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> She gave the lecture anyway.



I know. But the 'no platforming' was useful in drawing wider attention to those of her views with which her opponents disagree.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 5, 2016)

Makes me sad, people who have taken shit giving shit to others who have to take shit.
It's like solidarity has become a dirty word.

I was passing a protest today and someone yelled the word "solidarity", it felt like a word from another time and place, something people would giggle at behind their hands.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 5, 2016)

Athos said:


> I know. But the 'no platforming' was useful in drawing wider attention to those of her views with which her opponents disagree.



I agree with you.


----------



## toggle (Apr 6, 2016)

8ball said:


> Makes me sad, people who have taken shit giving shit to others who have to take shit.
> It's like solidarity has become a dirty word.
> 
> I was passing a protest today and someone yelled the word "solidarity", it felt like a word from another time and place, something people would giggle at behind their hands.



absolutely.

I say this loads, but firstly, I don't think we will achieve anything that has any meaning if we do it by shitting all over people who have it even worse. And secondly, i think that it's by hearing trans voices that we will start to understand a lot more about our own and society's relationship with gender. we need each other. to learn from each other and to know that we don't stand alone. and we need to put more into supporting the people at greatest risk of harm.

but it's all about the identity politics now. hate on each other more than what oppresses us all, cause we're supposed to compete for resources and at the behest of spokespeople who bask in the attention. it's labelled as intersectional, but it's all about promoting the shit that actual intersectionalism was supposed to fix. and it all fucking infuriates me.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 6, 2016)

toggle said:


> but it's all about the identity politics now. hate on each other more than what oppresses us all, cause we're supposed to compete for resources and at the behest of spokespeople who bask in the attention. it's labelled as intersectional, but it's all about promoting the shit that actual intersectionalism was supposed to fix. and it all fucking infuriates me.



If you wanted to destroy a group or social movement you would inject this ideology into it. Note: I do not think that is actually what has happened at all and somehow that is even more depressing.


----------



## toggle (Apr 6, 2016)

J Ed said:


> If you wanted to destroy a group or social movement you would inject this ideology into it. Note: I do not think that is actually what has happened at all and somehow that is even more depressing.



i think the potential for divide has happened through competition for resources, through attacks on the social centers where a wide variety of groups came in contact with each other and shared resources and broke down the divides. plus, providing funding to groupos involved in social justice work tends to come with an expectation of proving results. the need to provide evidence changes the ethos of groups through bringing in professional staff and encourages a move towards social care and away from activism. 

then comes giving attention to spokespeople, particularly anyone who could be encouraged to complain if funding went to anyone considered 'less deserving'. which at the least, makes really good press. wind different sections of the community up into a good group hate.


----------



## Athos (Apr 6, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> I had my first transphobic attack for 6 months within a week of Greer's comments being reported all over the popular media - I have no doubt there is a correlation. And to be honest I think the burden of proof is on those who say there isn't a correlation because the language used by Greer and co is remarkably similar to the thugs who hang around outside my front door.



Whilst I utterly condemn any transphobic attacks you have suffered, I'm not sure how you can be sure the two things are linked; the timing of one incident doesn't even demonstrate correlation, never mind causation.

Similarly, the fact that some of the terminology used is the same isn't enough to conclude that physical attacks are motivated by Greer's ideas.  Neither group may believe you're a woman, but is it really likely that the sort of thugs who assault trans people are ardent adherents of an obscure trend in radical feminism?

And the idea that the onus of proof should require anyone exercising freedom of speech to prove the negative is a dangerous one. You could just as easily ask every Muslim to prove that they're not a terrorist, simply because some terrorists use some of the same phrases.

Whilst I would not hesitate to 'no platform' those to whom there is a demonstrable link to hate crime, I think the obvious social value of free and open public discourse (and the obvious danger of restrictions on the same) mean it's a tactic that we ought to think about very carefully before enjoying too often.  I certainly think the bar should be much higher than offence or upset.  After all, many of us here hold views that much of wider society might consider unpopular or offensive.

Of course, I understand the counter-argument that 'no platforming' doesn't ammount to stifling free speech, particularly in the case of someone like Greer, who had lots of other platforms. But, what about those who have unpopular opinions but lack her profile? And it's obvious that the practical effect of such measures is to limit the scope of what can be considered legitimate debate. This has the further consequence of forcing such discourse onto social media where it has quickly become vicious and poisonous. I would much prefer to see a proper debate between the best thinkers in the trans inclusionary and exclusionary trends in feminism (accepting, of course, that feminism doesn't exist principally for my benefit).


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 6, 2016)

toggle said:


> i think the potential for divide has happened through competition for resources, through attacks on the social centers where a wide variety of groups came in contact with each other and shared resources and broke down the divides. plus, providing funding to groupos involved in social justice work tends to come with an expectation of proving results. the need to provide evidence changes the ethos of groups through bringing in professional staff and encourages a move towards social care and away from activism.
> 
> then comes giving attention to spokespeople, particularly anyone who could be encouraged to complain if funding went to anyone considered 'less deserving'. which at the least, makes really good press. wind different sections of the community up into a good group hate.


I feel this is certainly true for LGBT - where trans people are forced to work with people, sometimes, who are actively campaigning to prevent us from gaining rights, but at best, do not understand, probably do not want to understand us, and are frantically trying to jam us into a box that makes sense from an LGB perspective. 
In the Green Party trans people are regularly talked over by gay men - particularly Tatchell supporters of a certain age. I've lost count of the number of times I've been called a homophobe in repsonse to calling out trans misogyny within LGBT, which is bizarre as I also indentify as LGB.


----------



## toggle (Apr 7, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> I feel this is certainly true for LGBT - where trans people are forced to work with people, sometimes, who are actively campaigning to prevent us from gaining rights, but at best, do not understand, probably do not want to understand us, and are frantically trying to jam us into a box that makes sense from an LGB perspective.
> In the Green Party trans people are regularly talked over by gay men - particularly Tatchell supporters of a certain age. I've lost count of the number of times I've been called a homophobe in repsonse to calling out trans misogyny within LGBT, which is bizarre as I also indentify as LGB.



political lesbianism end of the radfems? i do not own enough facepalms. and that's speaking as a bi woman who could have been as happy becoming 'womyn identified' as i am living a life in which most people will read me as straight. they have no more place trying to define what goes on in my bedroom than the conservative moral majority types. i'd say fuck them, but nah. never found bigotry that attractive.

and yeah, there's a big part of me that says welcome to being identified as a woman. being silenced by men of a certain age. being silenced by men. that's the cake we all get served, the eww trans is icing on that though, another weapon to attack a woman. who needs to learn her place. cause no one knew she was a woman who needed that lesson before transition.


----------



## toggle (Apr 7, 2016)

Athos said:


> Whilst I utterly condemn any transphobic attacks you have suffered, I'm not sure how you can be sure the two things are linked; the timing of one incident doesn't even demonstrate correlation, never mind causation.
> 
> Similarly, the fact that some of the terminology used is the same isn't enough to conclude that physical attacks are motivated by Greer's ideas.  Neither group may believe you're a woman, but is it really likely that the sort of thugs who assault trans people are ardent adherents of an obscure trend in radical feminism?
> 
> ...



tbh, i think weve moved beyond the pooint where such a debate has any particular value. a lot of younger feminists see the unapologetic terfs as an embarassing dinosaur. they see us as having betrayed feminism. terfs being the remnant of the political lesbianism, womyn identified womyn, seperatist feminism, SCUM style of feminism. we can understand why such approaches were taken, but we also see that we've needed to move on into doing more than rejecting woman defined by femininity and traditiona gender roles. at the least, we now talk about how defined gender roles affect men and whether the reluctance to consider how patriarchy/toxic or alpha masculinity has and continues to damage men was a primary factor in creating problems like MRA groups. we also are examining how much feminism has been about m/c white women and how we can move fowards to be a more inclusive group.

there is not going to be a common ground because there's too much dismissal on both sides. and open debate risks giving a false balance. giving time and space to an opposing view can give an impression that this view has equal validity and support. it's like bringing flat earthers in to a debate on teaching comparative religion in schools.

and there is a link between terfism and hate crimes. a history of physical attack on trans people and their supporters. arseholes like brennan have stooped as far as to engage in and encourage harassment and abuse of trans identified children. that is hate mail campaigns and public incitement of others to engage in the harassment and abuse of a trans identified child, which was carried out in conjunction with religious extremist organisations and led to public death threats against the child. this campaign was based on the bigotry of one parent at the child's school and false allegations against the child.

sometimes transfolk still confuse the fuck out me, even after having spent quite some time looking for answers. but i refuse to respond to that by giving an equal platform to people who want to abuse them.

the next point to make is that the terfs try to make out that they represent a true feminism. that others have moved away from their position. there have been trans positive feminists from the second wave. Dworkin was trans positive. Mackinnon is trans positive. steinman has become trans positive. terfs do not have the position of representatives of our feminist foremothers that they claim. there have always been trans and pro trans activists involved in feminism.

and it has gone further than words. there have been incidents of violence towards transwomen. threats to plant bombs in feminist orgs that support the rights of transwomen, threats to injure and kill transwomen and their suporters. it's not just words. and it's not without influence.

while they are a minority within feminism, their views get held up as Representative of feminism and of women when someone wants a soundbite, or an authority to justify their prejudice. the level of influence given to janice raymond is astounding and has been used to justify refusal of medical treatment to transfolk, and refusal of basic human rights. because they promote a position that is accepted by religious conservatives, terfs get a high profile position. far more so than trans positive activists who have more support among their feminist peers.

inside feminism, it feels like the battle has been mostway won and that the only reason anyone still cosndiers it a battle is because of the influence on feminism of right wing religious conservatism in supporting terfs. nah, the debate has happened, and the terfs have lost. they just don't know they are dead yet. well, at least dead withuin the community they claim to speak for.


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2016)

toggle said:


> tbh, i think weve moved beyond the pooint where such a debate has any particular value. a lot of younger feminists see the unapologetic terfs as an embarassing dinosaur. they see us as having betrayed feminism. terfs being the remnant of the political lesbianism, womyn identified womyn, seperatist feminism, SCUM style of feminism. we can understand why such approaches were taken, but we also see that we've needed to move on into doing more than rejecting woman defined by femininity and traditiona gender roles. at the least, we now talk about how defined gender roles affect men and whether the reluctance to consider how patriarchy/toxic or alpha masculinity has and continues to damage men was a primary factor in creating problems like MRA groups. we also are examining how much feminism has been about m/c white women and how we can move fowards to be a more inclusive group.
> 
> there is not going to be a common ground because there's too much dismissal on both sides. and open debate risks giving a false balance. giving time and space to an opposing view can give an impression that this view has equal validity and support. it's like bringing flat earthers in to a debate on teaching comparative religion in schools.
> 
> ...



Whilst I agree with many of your premises, I don't agree with your conclusion.

I accept that TERFs are a minority within feminism, and that their attempts to portray themselves as 'keeps of the flame' are disingenous, since there has been support for trans women from prominent feminists from early within the movement.

I'm less convinced that the dabate has been had, and is no longer relevant.  Whilst they are a minority, there's a considerable number of women for whom this remains a significant issue (which will only increase as more and more trans women enter places they've not been before).  And, in any event, it's hard to se how the fundamental question of what it means to be a woman can ever be considered to have been dealt with once and for all.

I guess it's partly a question of whether feminism ought to seek to at least hear the views of all women, even those that are unpopular (which, as a man, isn't really a  matter for me).  I have doubts about any movement which seeks to silence the views of those it seeks to represent (accepting of course that's exactly what TERFs try to do).  And, beyond that, just in terms of bringing TERFism to an end, I'm not sure that trying to ignore them, rather than taking them on, is the most effective tactic.

Of course, I take your point that the somewhat value of debate has to be balanced against the very concrete issues of the safety of trans women.  But I think this is to some extent a false dichotomy.  Whilst many of the more vocal TERFs might encourage the sort of appaling attacks you mention, that's not an inevitibility for anyone who questions the definition of womanhood (and an attempt to characterise them all this way is one of the more egregious tactics of some in the trans lobby).  So, whilst I can understand 'no platforming', say, Brennan (I too would be reluctant to share a platform with those who encourage the abuse of trans people), I'm less convinced that the argument holds true for someone like Greer.  (Not that I find her 'professional contravertialist' schtick very persuasive.)  This is something that can be addressed by the way any such debate is configured.  Similarly, the disporportionate appearance of the place of TERF thought in feminsm could be addressed by e.g. the composition debate panels.

I think your point about the failure to find common ground is a good one.  But I'm not sure the best way to address that is to continue with the _status quo_, where two groups talk past one another, in increasingly bitter and poisonous terms (which isn't helped by the fact that the discussion has been sidelined to social media, the nature of which doesn't seem to help).  

I agree that the influence of other interests - you mentioned the religious right - is significant.To my mind, this is another example of the weakness of a lot of identity politics - the failure to see the bigger picture.


----------



## toggle (Apr 7, 2016)

I guess you missed the discussion. not having it over again. a pointless exercise. 

they are a nasty, bitter group of bullies on social media and you think that's going to be fixed through giving them more attention? seriously? you cant see how giving them more space to speak gives them more perception of relevance and more of a platform from which to engage in abuse?  do you recomend to everyone that they deal with abusers and bullies by encouraging them? or just women? cause we is so naturally good at the cooperationz that we can have a nice freindly discusion about it all? because we're too like wominz to be that antagonistic? do we invite far right women, religious extermist women, mra supporting women to the table as well? that would be a nice entertaining circus for you. 


the fundamental questions of what it means to be a woman need to happen with the inclusion of trans voices. not with the inclusion of people who abuse them.  that's where we're going to get the really interesting discussions. and the bit where we can get the moving fowards done in a worthwhile manner.


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2016)

toggle said:


> I guess you missed the discussion. not having it over again. a pointless exercise.
> 
> they are a nasty, bitter group of bullies on social media and you think that's going to be fixed through giving them more attention? seriously? you cant see how giving them more space to speak gives them more perception of relevance and more of a platform from which to engage in abuse?  do you recomend to everyone that they deal with abusers and bullies by encouraging them? or just women? cause we is so naturally good at the cooperationz that we can have a nice freindly discusion about it all? because we're too like wominz to be that antagonistic? do we invite far right women, religious extermist women, mra supporting women to the table as well? that would be a nice entertaining circus for you.
> 
> ...



I've not missed the discussion.  However, there are more and more women coming to it everyday.  But we can agree to differ about whether or not it would be pointless to discuss further.

My point was that by consigning it to social media, the 'discussion' is hijacked by the sort of bullies and abusers we both abhor.  But that I can conceive of a way to enter a more useful dialogue with those feminists who don't necessarily accept that trans women are women, but who do not engage in the sorts of behaviour mentioned.  I absolutely don't encourage people to give a platform to those who would abuse them; I said that previously.

I haven't suggested that you should invite anyone to the table; in fact, I explicitly recognised that it's not my place to dictate to feminists (or women generally).  It's disingenous of you to suggest that I did, and especially to imply that I'd like to see that for some sort of 'circus.'  But, in terms of whether we should debate against those who hold views we find offensive: I've done it, and, generally, I find that proffering counter-arguments is more fruitful than ignoring them.

I've not said that the discussion about what it means to be a woman ought not to include transwomen.  Rather, I've said it might not be helpful to exclude those non-abusive women who question what it means to be a woman (or the practical consequences of treating as a woman anyone who claims to be one).  I don't see that it's not possible to accommodate both in the discussion, albeit, it'd be hard to accommodate both points of view when deciding practical issues, in which instance, where that tension cannot be resolved, I would favour a trans-inclusive approach.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 8, 2016)

Been talking to people recently about Safe spaces, cultural appropriation, micro-agression and triggers, and one thing is for sure is that although some of these concepts are not new they are now growing in adherents enough for them to be noticed on a regular basis. I am told that Tumblr is full of it. In Spain, there is general derision and laughter when they hear of attempts at unis (in UK and US) to create an atmosphere where young people don't have to listen to or even contemplate different opinions. That's not what university is about.

I asked earlier on the thread whether the growing question of safe spaces wasn't somehow related to a general decadence appearing in moden times, and that idea has been reflected by people I have spoken to. One person said it was likely a product of over-protective parenting and that this is creating a generation of thin-skinned, over-sensitive and I think, stupid people incapable of coping with life, democracy, free speech, etc, and who need to go running to authority figures for protection.

Take this list of triggers from an article in the Guardian. It reads like some kind of paranoic list from an orwellian society.



> Trigger warnings in online spaces, though, have expanded widely and become more intricate, detailed, specific and obscure. Trigger warnings, and their cousin the "content note", are now included for a whole slew of potentially offensive or upsetting content, including but not limited to: misogyny, the death penalty, calories in a food item, terrorism, drunk driving, how much a person weighs, racism, gun violence, Stand Your Ground laws, drones, homophobia, PTSD, slavery, victim-blaming, abuse, swearing, child abuse, self-injury, suicide, talk of drug use, descriptions of medical procedures, corpses, skulls, skeletons, needles, discussion of "isms," neuroatypical shaming, slurs (including "stupid" or "dumb"), kidnapping, dental trauma, discussions of sex (even consensual), death or dying, spiders, insects, snakes, vomit, pregnancy, childbirth, blood, scarification, Nazi paraphernalia, slimy things, holes and ...



We've gone too far with 'trigger warnings' | Jill Filipovic

To me it feels that a wedge is being driven into society that has the potential to stifle critical thought and that it is being dressed up as something progressive and necessary. It is not only idiotic but has the potential to divert progressive politics, activism, and rebelliousness even further down the already slippery slope of oblivion by muting out entire contexts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> It is not only idiotic but has the potential to divert progressive politics, activism, and rebelliousness even further down the already slippery slope of oblivion by muting out entire contexts.


i think what you're saying is it is downright reactionary


----------



## Obediah Marsh (Apr 8, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> I asked earlier on the thread whether the growing question of safe spaces wasn't somehow related to a general decadence appearing in moden times, and that idea has been reflected by people I have spoken to. One person said it was likely a product of over-protective parenting and that this is creating a generation of thin-skinned, over-sensitive and I think, stupid people incapable of coping with life, democracy, free speech, etc, and who need to go running to authority figures for protection.


The world is a more frightening place than it used to be though, mainly because of the internet. There's some pretty sick/depraved stuff out there, freely accessible to anyone with a computer. People who came to the internet as fully-developed adults can have no idea what exposure to this kind of stuff is having on kids.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Apr 8, 2016)

Obediah Marsh said:


> People who came to the internet as fully-developed adults can have no idea what exposure to this kind of stuff is having on kids.



Substitute "internet" for "porn mags" and you have the same uninformed yada-yada folks were peddling 40 years ago. 

Yawn.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 8, 2016)

Obediah Marsh said:


> The world is a more frightening place than it used to be though, mainly because of the internet. There's some pretty sick/depraved stuff out there, freely accessible to anyone with a computer. People who came to the internet as fully-developed adults can have no idea what exposure to this kind of stuff is having on kids.



I dunno, if the general attitudes and voting patterns of young people in the UK, US, Spain, France etc are any indication of the effect the internet has had on them I am not so worried, I am more worried about whether they will have a planet to rescue by the time they have a chance to change it.


----------



## Obediah Marsh (Apr 8, 2016)

Art Vandelay said:


> Substitute "internet" for "porn mags" and you have the same uninformed yada-yada folks were peddling 40 years ago.
> 
> Yawn.


70s porn mags were very very mild compared to this stuff. And I wasn't just thinking about porn but also all the violence/execution/shock imagery. Outside of warzone/natural disaster scenarios I don't think a society has ever had this much exposure to casual sex and violence. It's a big social experiment and I don't know how it's going to end.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 8, 2016)

Obediah Marsh said:


> The world is a more frightening place than it used to be though, *mainly because of the internet*. There's some pretty sick/depraved stuff out there, freely accessible to anyone with a computer. People who came to the internet as fully-developed adults can have no idea what exposure to this kind of stuff is having on kids.



There _is_ some scary and horrible shit out there, but bits of what you say, such as where I have bolded, make you appear extremely silly.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 8, 2016)

Obediah Marsh said:


> 70s porn mags were very very mild compared to this stuff. And I wasn't just thinking about porn but also all the violence/execution/shock imagery. Outside of warzone/natural disaster scenarios I don't think a society has ever had this much exposure to casual sex and violence. It's a big social experiment and I don't know how it's going to end.


Have you read 70s porn mags, with their ads for date rape drugs? 70s porn films, with rape being treated as a titillating plot element in a way that would get you shut down nowadays, blatant racism? Not that the 80s and 90s were much better. And we can't divorce that from sexual culture generally because it's part of it; porn is not some outlier. We are still struggling to move on from this shit.


----------



## Obediah Marsh (Apr 8, 2016)

Well, the reason I brought up this subject is because I know a girl/woman with an intense (almost debilitating) phobia, because of something her asshole brother showed her on a computer when she was younger. I wonder how many of these 'triggered' people have had similar experiences?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 8, 2016)

Obediah Marsh said:


> Well, the reason I brought up this subject is because I know a girl/woman with an intense (almost debilitating) phobia, because of something her asshole brother showed her on a computer when she was younger. I wonder how many of these 'triggered' people have had similar experiences?


The point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't say that things nowadays are somehow worse. If anything, at least people are more aware nowadays and trying to ameliorate them, even in the face of being called "soft" continually by the commentariat.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Apr 8, 2016)

Obediah Marsh said:


> It's a big social experiment and I don't know how it's going to end.



My prediction: better for it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2016)

Obediah Marsh said:


> 70s porn mags were very very mild compared to this stuff. And I wasn't just thinking about porn but also all the violence/execution/shock imagery. Outside of warzone/natural disaster scenarios I don't think a society has ever had this much exposure to casual sex and violence. It's a big social experiment and I don't know how it's going to end.


in tears


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2016)

Art Vandelay said:


> My prediction: better for it.


better together


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 8, 2016)

Art Vandelay said:


> My prediction: better for it.


You are in fact banned and thus aren't allowed to post on this topic or any other.


----------



## toggle (Apr 8, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Have you read 70s porn mags, with their ads for date rape drugs? 70s porn films, with rape being treated as a titillating plot element in a way that would get you shut down nowadays, blatant racism? Not that the 80s and 90s were much better. And we can't divorce that from sexual culture generally because it's part of it; porn is not some outlier. We are still struggling to move on from this shit.



nods. always bemusing when someone tries to claim that the damage from objectification and rape culture are caused by internet porn. as though there was no bad shit before the internet. and as though we can't find a much less (intentionally) convoluted path by considering internet porn a product of a society that has many underlying issues with the concept of treating women as actual proper people. it's almost like they want to make the most visible aspects of objectification go away without having to make the underlying problems of objectification and discrimination go away.


----------



## NoXion (Apr 8, 2016)

I'm always suspicious of claims that we live in an age of moral decay or that kids these days are worse than in previous generations. That sort of tabloidesque moral panic narrative has a long pedigree. Perhaps as long as the conceit that one is living in the End Times or Final Days or whatever.


----------



## The Pale King (Apr 9, 2016)

Yes, but isn't a lot of porn not really about sex - the sex is in the service of the eroticization of power/hierarchy. The number of tv shows, from police drama to fantasy to whatever, which feature scenes of (sexual) torture these days is pretty remarkable. The scenario of the utterly powerless object of power and the lascivious dominator is hegemonic. Since torture became state practice the culture industry has quickly responded, porn at the forefront of that as one would expect. The recent leaks about naked CIA detainee photos, Abu Ghraib and others, show how this erotic dynamic plays out on the ground. Smashing. Pounding. Destroying. Fucking.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 9, 2016)

war, rape and murder was so much more civilised before the internet


----------



## likesfish (Apr 9, 2016)

Theres some ancient Greek quoted about claiming the youth of today are lazy and degenerate so its been going for over 2000 years.
Horror comics
Video nastys
Dungeons and dragons
Computer games
Rave music
Chat lines
The internet
Legal highs
Nitrous oxide

Rinse and repeat


----------



## Obediah Marsh (Apr 9, 2016)

Nothing to do with Christianity I assure you. I just think we should cut kids some slack over this trigger business, since they're exposed to some pretty alarming stuff nowadays.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 9, 2016)

there is some kind of personal responsibility in regards to triggers tho imo, you need to work on things yourself so it doesn't happen as often or as badly etc, I have pretty bad PTSD, but I also know I cant expect the entire world to mollycoddle me and be sensitive to the fact shit affects me. You need to do something proactive about things so the triggers lessen and with that it holds less power over you. life is fucking hard no one is gonna do fuck all for you - except provide a 'safe space' which will hinder your own progress.

it's almost as if theres enough people to go 'there there it'll be ok' instead of right well then you need to deal with this before it eats up your life.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 9, 2016)

I understand the point about the internet. Without moralising or doing the whole panic thing, while there were plenty of awful things around in the past the internet puts it in your face 24/7. The things themselves haven't necessarily got worse, but access has got easier, or rather more difficult to avoid.

The thing about porn mags in hedges... is it seriously not obvious what the difference is between that and the proliferation of porn online? I'm not making a moral judgment here, btw - just a quantitative point. Same for anything. You had to seek things out before the internet, if you even knew they existed in the first place. And if you didn't want to see them, you didn't have to. But now if you're living a lot of your social life online it's a lot harder to control what you see and when - without simply not going online at all.

Think about bullying. The stuff that went on in school and after school like it did in our day still goes on. What's different is it continues online as well now. And it's evolved because of that. So someone gets the same taunting and shunning and possibly physical violence at school, and then gets hate campaigns and smearing online in ways that can go viral and attract the attention of people who don't even know that person... hundreds, sometimes even thousands of people dog piling in on someone. And often times the way people act online is different to the way they act in person, so the bullying can be more vicious, doxxing, calls for rape and death threats, stealing of photos and using them in disturbing ways, contacting family members, etc.

Our thinking is still largely stuck back in when online didn't exist. The way we expect people to deal with things that hurt them hasn't evolved in the way our use of technology has. "In my day we just did X..." is all well and good when you grew up to develop certain strategies based on the circumstances and environment of the time, but particularly of tweens and teens today, who've lived their whole lives online in a way we can't possibly begin to understand, their strategies will by necessity be different and _need_ to be different. Whether safe spaces or trigger warnings is the right way to go about things I don't know, time will tell what happens - but regardless, sitting there and saying "kids these days, pfft, when I was a kid..." is twattish and makes no attempt to honestly try to understand what on earth it must be like to grow up entirely online with so much constant sensory information that it will most definitely have an effect on how social skills and coping mechanisms develop.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 9, 2016)

you gotta wonder why kids are living online, could it be their freedoms are restricted by overcaring schools and paedo fearing parents? they could even be indoctrinated into spending all their time online cus it's what their parents do, same as ones who cant socialise cus their only friend has been the telly.

it's not the healthiest thing in the world no ones teaching them that, it's all go online and do xxxxx from everywhere.

just like if you sit on here your whole life for hours a day you aint gonna grow.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 9, 2016)

Well, it's easy to blame x y and z for why kids go online, but we can't ignore the fact that a lot of school work is integrated with an online component now. And our entertainment, everything on telly comes with a hashtag, a website to browse for extra info or related games. Phones have it all in your pocket wherever you are. Games to play on the bus home, facebook and snapchat and whatsapp so you can keep chatting to your mates and having a laugh even while you're sat in your room doing your homework. And kids _do_ still go out and meet up with their mates. The ones who were always going to do that anyway. The ones who were always going to be loners and stay at home now just have more opportunity to feel a bit more connected and engage in things that amuse and interest them. 

The internet brings a lot of great possibilities. It also brings a lot of problems. Blanket statements about it being bad or good don't really help because it's both of those things at different times in different ways depending on the person and depending on the context.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 9, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Well, it's easy to blame x y and z for why kids go online, but we can't ignore the fact that a lot of school work is integrated with an online component now.


so let's blame it on the homework?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 9, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> you gotta wonder why kids are living online, could it be their freedoms are restricted by overcaring schools and paedo fearing parents? they could even be indoctrinated into spending all their time online cus it's what their parents do, same as ones who cant socialise cus their only friend has been the telly.
> 
> it's not the healthiest thing in the world no ones teaching them that, it's all go online and do xxxxx from everywhere.
> 
> just like if you sit on here your whole life for hours a day you aint gonna grow.


not true! when i started posting here i had a 30 waist and now it's 34


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 9, 2016)

I don't go out much. I didn't before the internet, I don't since the internet.

Before the internet, I'd read books, I'd watch telly, whatever. After the internet, I read books, I sometimes watch telly, and I have debates about politics and I laugh at stupid jokes and I make friends and I make enemies and I learn about stuff and I despair at people and I discover new interests and I get fed up of old ones and... and... and...


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 9, 2016)

thats what I meant. by 'from everywhere'. the ones who were always gonna be loners are being stunted.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 9, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Theres some ancient Greek quoted about claiming the youth of today are lazy and degenerate so its been going for over 2000 years.
> Horror comics
> Video nastys
> Dungeons and dragons
> ...


"the youth of today" are always lazy and degenerate. we were. they are. their kids will be.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 9, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't go out much. I didn't before the internet, I don't since the internet.
> 
> Before the internet, I'd read books, I'd watch telly, whatever. After the internet, I read books, I sometimes watch telly, and I have debates about politics and I laugh at stupid jokes and I make friends and I make enemies and I learn about stuff and I despair at people and I discover new interests and I get fed up of old ones and... and... and...



yeh but you already said yer old it isn't relevant to how kids now grow up you basically said that yourself


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 9, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> thats what I meant. by 'from everywhere'. the ones who were always gonna be loners are being stunted.


i blame the parents, smoking and the like.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 9, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> thats what I meant. by 'from everywhere'. the ones who were always gonna be loners are being stunted.



Weren't they going to be anyway?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 9, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> yeh but you already said yer old



Yeah. My point being that it's not just the internet to blame if people don't get out much and socialise. It happened before the internet, it happens now there's the internet.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 9, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> "the youth of today" are always lazy and degenerate. we were. they are. their kids will be.



I still fucking am


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 9, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> I still fucking am


you're still lazy and degenerate, or you're still the youth of today?


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 9, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Weren't they going to be anyway?



not if they put the books down and get some friends who dont go to hogwarts.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 9, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you're still lazy and degenerate, or you're still the youth of today?




both, still.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 9, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i blame the parents, smoking and the like.




fuckin right my dad was on 40 a day  #champion


----------



## NoXion (Apr 9, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> not if they put the books down and get some friends who dont go to hogwarts.



You've got it backwards. Bookishness doesn't cause introversion, introversion causes bookishness. I know because I was that kind of kid.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 9, 2016)

NoXion said:


> You've got it backwards. Bookishness doesn't cause introversion, introversion causes bookishness. I know because I was that kind of kid.


and extrapolating from your experience offers a universal truth.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 9, 2016)

thats why you gotta put it down and challenge yourself to make friends.

also... look at where we are, arent we all????


----------



## NoXion (Apr 9, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> and extrapolating from your experience offers a universal truth.



Since personality comes before learning to read it seems obvious to me.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 9, 2016)

Introversion is about being overwhelmed with too much sensory information. Hence why going out and socialising is often exhausting. It's not about not wanting to do it. It's not about being shy. It's not about not enjoying being with friends. It's not about being a miserable loser. It's simply about experiencing things in a different way to extroverts. 

I have a good time when I socialise with people. But it's exhausting. The very thought of it is exhausting. Sometimes I can't face it. It's been this way since I was a kid. It's the same whether I'm working full time, whether I've been a student who went out to the union every other day, whether I stay at home and don't have much contact. Sometimes I'm better able to cope with it, sometimes less able. Introverts get treated like sad twats who if only they'd pull themselves together and go out more would be able to live a long and fulfilling life of joy and awesomeness. But that's because extroverts simply can't understand what it feels like, and think it must be some kind of personal failing. It's just another way of being. One that you learn to live with, one that you learn to accommodate. Which is difficult, since most of life is geared around not being an introvert. But sometimes, even just thinking about going out is overwhelming. I get exhausted when my mum comes round for a cup of coffee. I need time alone. 38 years of doing all sorts of different things including periods where I would go out quite a lot, and it hasn't changed the fundamental truth about how I experience things. 

As for why some people are introverts and others aren't, I have no idea. My earliest memories of being at school or otherwise with other kids are full of being overwhelmed by the whole thing.

I described it the other day as a bit like feeling I'm in a bell jar. When I'm out and about. There's this glass case around me, so I'm both in my environment but disconnected from it as well. And because it's a sealed glass case everything is kind of echoey and magnified. There's a sense of urgency to everything, but also a sense of being somewhat dulled. I don't panic, I'm not agoraphobic, not scared of interacting with people, and while I was shy as a kid I'm not anymore. But there's always something a bit _off_ about everything. That's all out there and I'm in here. And I'm aware of it. It's just my state of being. And it's tiring. 

Anyway, that's largely off-topic. My original point was that it's stupid to blame 'the internet' for people being loners or being introverts or not going out much, because people have always been like that. You can have a discussion about the ways in which changes in technology and society might aid or hinder certain behaviours, and indeed some people might find it easy to fall into complacency because the internet provides them with a semblance of being involved in life without some of the problems of engaging outdoors - just as some people might find having entire communities at their fingertips very helpful in feeling worthwhile and feeling less lonely. But the internet didn't create introversion or loneliness. Perhaps there is something about the way our society is structured that induces it. But that's a huge topic that would cover all sorts of things, from the basics of capitalism and consumer entertainment and patriarchal structures of society and family and we could dig into it forever.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 9, 2016)

Well, tonight our evening has been ruined by transphobes. We were going to have a  BBQ on the balcony but instead a group of 15 lads have decided to gather outside our house to intimidate me. They shouted to my bf that he was a fucking nonce and 
were shouting tranny at me. 

Now anyone who thinks I should have to talk to or listen to people like Greer who use the same language and make this sort of abuse intellectually acceptable is not a fucking ally. I will not talk to people who want me to be abused.


----------



## toggle (Apr 9, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> thats what I meant. by 'from everywhere'. the ones who were always gonna be loners are being stunted.



always gonna be loners. how in the hell is the internet stopping them from, presumably growing through socialising, when they werent going to be doing any socailising?

so the choice ins't between them going out to socialise with mates or using the net to chat and play online games, its between spending time on their own or using the net to chat and play online games. reckon the latter is happier.


----------



## Humberto (Apr 9, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Well, tonight our evening has been ruined by transphobes. We were going to have a  BBQ on the balcony but instead a group of 15 lads have decided to gather outside our house to intimidate me. They shouted to my bf that he was a fucking nonce and
> were shouting tranny at me.
> 
> Now anyone who thinks I should have to talk to or listen to people like Greer who use the same language and make this sort of abuse intellectually acceptable is not a fucking ally. I will not talk to people who want me to be abused.



Fucking hell. They sound like animals. Shameful shit.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 9, 2016)

I well dont care enough about this


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 9, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Well, tonight our evening has been ruined by transphobes. We were going to have a  BBQ on the balcony but instead a group of 15 lads have decided to gather outside our house to intimidate me. They shouted to my bf that he was a fucking nonce and
> were shouting tranny at me.


 
 

not sure whether to recommend use of a hose pipe, or having a quiet word with the law in case things escalate.  (there is probably an LGBT liaison bit of the plods - may be more central than local nick)


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 9, 2016)

I'm really sorry that happened, AuntiStella. 



> make this sort of abuse intellectually acceptable



This is important, and it's what was being missed in an earlier discussion about it. No, Greer making a statement might not be directly linked to any particular instance of abuse, but it adds to the legitimacy of it. It helps fuel and enable it.

This isn't just a situation where we're all people with the same levels of power having a disagreement about something. People are having their lives ruined, sometimes to the point of physical injury and even death. If that isn't factored into things somehow, if we don't take responsibility for the outcomes, then who the fuck does this freedom of speech and no no-platforming actually benefit?


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 9, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> not sure whether to recommend use of a hose pipe, or having a quiet word with the law in case things escalate.  (there is probably an LGBT liaison bit of the plods - may be more central than local nick)


Last time I checked LGBT Liaison there wasn't one. Well, there was a post but noone in the post. We've phoned the police and it's quieter now but it won't stop. This sort of.stuff happens regualrly and I end up feeling extremely.threatened when I'm just walking to my car and back. 
Police coming round tomorrow so we can make a statement - we also have some of it on video.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 9, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> I well dont care enough about this


OK. Good. So I can safely ignore you. Arsehole!


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 9, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Last time I checked LGBT Liaison there wasn't one. Well, there was a post but noone in the post. We've phoned the police and it's quieter now but it won't stop. This sort of.stuff happens regualrly and I end up feeling extremely.threatened when I'm just walking to my car and back.
> Police coming round tomorrow so we can make a statement - we also have some of it on video.


 




pengaleng said:


> I well dont care enough about this


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 9, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Since personality comes before learning to read it seems obvious to me.



Like many things we deem "obvious", they're usually only "obvious" because we haven't thought about them. The bookishness/introversion issue is a case in point, as it's >< as opposed to unidirectional, as you appear to be claiming.

Oh, and any psychologist will tell you that personality, like identity, comes before, during and after learning to read, in that it never stops developing.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 9, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> I well dont care enough about this



As fascinating as that is, you could always have kept it to yourself. 

Part of growing up means accepting that world won't always be sensitive to you. Another part is learning when it's right to have a just wee bit of sensitivity and respect for others.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 10, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


>




what? I ignore people if some shits gone on. dont be fucking putting shade on me for whatever yous are talking about.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 10, 2016)

MadeInBedlam said:


> As fascinating as that is, you could always have kept it to yourself.
> 
> Part of growing up means accepting that world won't always be sensitive to you. Another part is learning when it's right to have a just wee bit of sensitivity and respect for others.



dunno what anyones on about now. but whatever.

something happened to that stella? I dont see their posts.

*I* was on about kids being sensitive and whiny about life in seemingly every aspect of it.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 10, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> something happened to that stella? I dont see their posts.


 
your 'i well don't care' post came after a post responding to one earlier from from stella in which she reported an incident involving getting abuse / intimidation from a crowd of youths this evening.

which did come across somewhat insensitive, to say the least...

i guess (now) you were responding to a previous post?


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 10, 2016)

well what do you want me to do? I cant help that various people do my nut atm and how things come across cus I dont even know wtf this is now, like you're vexing cus I got someone on ignore and you attributed something i said to that, that aint my fault.


----------



## Humberto (Apr 10, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> your 'i well don't care' post came after a post responding to one earlier from from stella in which she reported an incident involving getting abuse / intimidation from a crowd of youths this evening.
> 
> which did come across somewhat insensitive, to say the least...
> 
> i guess (now) you were responding to a previous post?



I'm not arguing but I took it to mean 'damn thats horrible. Its made me realise'

rather than 'I couldn't give a fuck'


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 10, 2016)

what????????


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 10, 2016)

you lot are doing my nut. I'm gonna go smoke some more weed.


----------



## Humberto (Apr 10, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> what????????



Your comment meant that you should give _more _of a fuck. Not that you didn't give a fuck.


----------



## Humberto (Apr 10, 2016)

Anyway, moving on...


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 10, 2016)

Humberto said:


> Your comment meant that you should give _more _of a fuck. Not that you didn't give a fuck.



I should give more of a fuck about some shit I dont really know about a nextgirl on the internet I got on ignore. fair enough.

I have got my own shit to deal with. caring about people on a forum I dont even know and cant see is a bit beyond my capabilities atm seeing as I'm a drug addict and mental. godverdomme.

no fuckers sensitive about that are they. case in fucking point.


----------



## Humberto (Apr 10, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> I should give more of a fuck about some shit I dont really know about a nextgirl on the internet I got on ignore. fair enough.
> 
> I have got my own shit to deal with. caring about people on a forum I dont even know and cant see is a bit beyond my capabilities atm seeing as I'm a drug addict and mental. godverdomme.
> 
> no fuckers sensitive about that are they. case in fucking point.



don't be a touchy nark


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 10, 2016)

before we reach the stage of



i realise now that pengaleng 's post about 'not caring' that i (and others) reacted to was not intended as a response to the post that appeared immediately above it in the thread.

which means most of the last 15 or so posts could probably do with ignoring...

i'm going to bed.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 10, 2016)

Humberto said:


> don't be a touchy nark



hummer, yer on my list now so dont waste your time.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 10, 2016)

Last week various right wing media had a field day reporting how students at Emory university in the USA, had felt *oppressed* and *traumatized* after having to run the guantlet on campus of hundreds of pro Trump slogans, written everywhere in chalk. They saw it as an "incident"

At first it looked like a hoax story but here is a statement made by the students themselves.



> On Monday, March 21st, 2016, students on Emory University’s campus were met with an overwhelming number of pro-Donald Trump messages, which were chalked onto buildings, walkways, brick and concrete around campus.  The messages included, but were not limited to: “Vote Trump 2016”, “Build a Wall”, and “Accept the Inevitable Trump 2016.”  Prior to the Georgia Primaries, posters and chalkings also appeared on campus in favor of various candidates including Donald Trump.  However, in this situation, permission was granted from the University, and posters were placed in an observant manner.  On the 21st of March, the intense presence of pro-Trump statements and/or rhetoric could be seen in every direction students walked. Most notably, in the Dobbs University Center--where the Black Student Union, Centro Latino, and main dining hall are located--the phrase “Vote Trump 2016” was deliberately placed on 58 steps.  This means, Black and Brown students saw these messages on their way to class, meals, and their places of fellowship.



Statement about Trump Events by Black and Brown Emory University Students

The question is if they are right to react this way to chalked electoral graffiti?


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'm really sorry that happened, AuntiStella.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In whose eyes does it add legitimacy? And how does it fuel it?

Do you really think these scumbags say to themselves 'it must be ok to abuse this woman, because Germane Greer  questions her conception if gender', or that the general public think 'because an academic disputes the nature of womanhood, these thugs were ok to intimidate someone'? To me, that sounds ridiculously far-fetched, and just an excuse to silence a legitimate opinion (albeit one I don't agree with) by falsely conflating it with abuse.

Everything possible should be done to tackle the abusers; that's how to address the imbalance, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater by retreating from the idea of freedom of speech for opinions with which we disagree.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> In whose eyes does it add legitimacy? And how does it fuel it?
> 
> Do you really think these scumbags say to themselves 'it must be ok to abuse this woman, because Germane Greer  questions her conception if gender', or that the general public think 'because an academic disputes the nature of womanhood, these thugs were ok to intimidate someone'? To me, that sounds ridiculously far-fetched, and just an excuse to silence a legitimate opinion (albeit one I don't agree with) by falsely conflating it with abuse.
> 
> Everything possible should be done to tackle the abusers; that's how to address the imbalance, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater by retreating from the idea of freedom of speech for opinions with which we disagree.



so you don't think there is any connection at all between rhetoric and subsequent action? 

is this just in relation to transfolk, or in all cases?


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> Last week various right wing media had a field day reporting how students at Emory university in the USA, had felt *oppressed* and *traumatized* after having to run the guantlet on campus of hundreds of pro Trump slogans, written everywhere in chalk. They saw it as an "incident"
> 
> At first it looked like a hoax story but here is a statement made by the students themselves.
> 
> ...



are you aware of the strings of violent incidents that are linked to trump's events? and the extremist positions that he upholds?
he denies any connection between his rhetoric and the behavior of people who have listened to it as well Athos.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> so you don't think there is any connection at all between rhetoric and subsequent action?
> 
> is this just in relation to transfolk, or in all cases?



Of course there can be a connection. But, it seems unlikely that there is one in this case; I'd be amazed if these thugs were inspired by a feminist academic.  But, I'm open to any evidence you may have to the contrary? Or even just speculation on the process whereby Greer's views about what it means to be a woman resulted in (or even contributed towards) informing the actions of those involved in this horrible incident.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> are you aware of the strings of violent incidents that are linked to trump's events? and the extremist positions that he upholds?
> he denies any connection between his rhetoric and the behavior of people who have listened to it as well Athos.



Trump supporters may have done those things; you think the blokes in question in Stella's incident were Greer supporters? And do you see a qualitative equivalence between his statements and hers? And what ought the result to be - should Trump be silenced?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

Are you being willfully ignorant?

This isn't about whether they roll up to Greer's lectures. It's about things feeding into an overall atmosphere. You've got your paid speakers at the top, spewing hate and giving legitimacy to various ideas. Then you've got the people who report on it. Then you've got the people who read those reports. Then you've got the people they talk to, the people who comment on telly about it, and so on. 

You're a clever person. You understand how ideas proliferate. You accept it's how things work in some cases but not this? Because you don't want it to work like that in this case? You have a 'feeling' it doesn't? 

Ideas don't spring up out of the ground from nowhere. People don't pop out of the womb being anti-trans or anything else. Where do you think those ideas come from? How does information filter through society? How are opinions formed? Where does racism come from, for example? Have a think about homophobia, and how various policies and media interventions might have helped shore up certain standpoints through the decades.

Why is it different for trans issues? Because you 'feel' it is?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> Do you really think these scumbags say to themselves 'it must be ok to abuse this woman, because Germane Greer questions her conception if gender',


 
while reported figures for 'hate crimes' need to be treated with some caution (will vary according both to minorities' willingness to report such incidents to police / police willingness to record as such) there is certainly a lot of anecdotal evidence out there that when politicians and public figures make public comments which are hostile towards a minority group, then verbal / physical attacks on that minority at street level do go up.

e.g. the 'scrounger' rhetoric towards disabled people.

whether this particular bunch heard / read any of germaine greer's comments, i couldn't say.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

Imagine a bowl of water. The water is bile. Hate-filled bile aimed at whatever group is targeted today.

Some bigoted cunts are stood over this side of the bowl. Dipping their fingers in. Over the other side, there's someone they've never heard of, who pours a bit more bile water into the bowl from their own jug of specially branded hate. 

The bigoted cunts stood the other side probably don't even notice that particular jug of water going in, but the bile water level has risen, and they can splash around in it a bit more, flick it at people a bit more easily.

Fucking astonishing I'm having to explain this. It should be rudimentary fucking understanding about how this shit works.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Imagine a bowl of water. The water is bile. Hate-filled bile aimed at whatever group is targeted today.
> 
> Some bigoted cunts are stood over this side of the bowl. Dipping their fingers in. Over the other side, there's someone they've never heard of, who pours a bit more bile water into the bowl from their own jug of specially branded hate.
> 
> ...



Quite apart from the failed attempt to patronise me in the final paragraph, that analogy is very weak. As it stands, there's no evidence for this supposed link between the transphobic street thugs and a female academic. The idea that I should be required to explain the dangers of abandoning the principle of free speech on a non-existent premis is truly astonishing.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> whether this particular bunch heard / read any of germaine greer's comments, i couldn't say.



No, but I could make a fair guess.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> Of course there can be a connection. But, it seems unlikely that there is one in this case; I'd be amazed if these thugs were inspired by a feminist academic.  But, I'm open to any evidence you may have to the contrary? Or even just speculation on the process whereby Greer's views about what it means to be a woman resulted in (or even contributed towards) informing the actions of those involved in this horrible incident.






Puddy_Tat said:


> while reported figures for 'hate crimes' need to be treated with some caution (will vary according both to minorities' willingness to report such incidents to police / police willingness to record as such) there is certainly a lot of anecdotal evidence out there that when politicians and public figures make public comments which are hostile towards a minority group, then verbal / physical attacks on that minority at street level do go up.
> 
> e.g. the 'scrounger' rhetoric towards disabled people.
> 
> whether this particular bunch heard / read any of germaine greer's comments, i couldn't say.



i'd suspect a fair number of people who engage in anti trans abuse have seen some of greer's more inflamatory comments in the press. or heard them discussed by people who did. people who abuse others are emboldened by a rhetoric that tells them that they have support from anyone brave enough to speak.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> Quite apart from the failed attempt to patronise me in the final paragraph, that analogy is very weak. As it stands, there's no evidence for this supposed link between the transphobic street thugs and a female academic. The idea that I should be required to explain the dangers of abandoning the principle of free speech on a non-existent premis is truly astonishing.



Quite apart from any arguments for or against no platforming, you're consistently and willfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting how the flow of information and ideas circulate. And, going on previous comments, only for this particular issue because 'feelings'.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Are you being willfully ignorant?
> 
> This isn't about whether they roll up to Greer's lectures. It's about things feeding into an overall atmosphere. You've got your paid speakers at the top, spewing hate and giving legitimacy to various ideas. Then you've got the people who report on it. Then you've got the people who read those reports. Then you've got the people they talk to, the people who comment on telly about it, and so on.
> 
> ...



Do you really think a woman holding a belief that womanhood is defined by something other than a trans woman's feeling is the same as 'spewing hate'  (the premis for the rest of that post)?


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Quite apart from any arguments for or against no platforming, you're consistently and willfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting how the flow of information and ideas circulate. And, going on previous comments, only for this particular issue because 'feelings'.



No, I understand how ideas circulate. But I don't accept that there's sufficient evidence to make the link between Greer's comments and these blokes actions to found a move away from an important principle of value to all of us.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Are you being willfully ignorant?
> 
> This isn't about whether they roll up to Greer's lectures. It's about things feeding into an overall atmosphere. You've got your paid speakers at the top, spewing hate and giving legitimacy to various ideas. Then you've got the people who report on it. Then you've got the people who read those reports. Then you've got the people they talk to, the people who comment on telly about it, and so on.
> 
> ...



Again, you're dishonestly conflating two different things i.e. the abuse of trans people, and a conception of gender that is at odds with that to which trans people (and you and I) subscribe.  The existence of contrary opinions isn't abuse, and the fact that some abusers hold that opinion does not mean that all those who hold that opinion are abusers.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Quite apart from any arguments for or against no platforming, you're consistently and willfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting how the flow of information and ideas circulate. And, going on previous comments, only for this particular issue because 'feelings'.



i'd also note the attempt to give her the authority of being an academic. as though it's just a perfectly normal thing for a member of the acadame to be using national media as an outlet to abuse minorities - to compare transpeople to dogs.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> i'd also note the attempt to give her the authority of being an academic. as though it's just a perfectly normal thing for a member of the acadame to be using national media as an outlet to abuse minorities - to compare transpeople to dogs.


That's completely dishonest. She didn't liken trans people to dogs; she made the point that, if she called herself a dog it wouldn't make her one i.e. there is something to womanhood beyond just saying you're a woman. I disagree with her views, but at least don't try to portray them so something they're not.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> Again, you're dishonestly conflating two different things i.e. the abuse of trans people, and a conception of gender that is at odds with that to which trans people (and you and I) subscribe.  The existence of contrary opinions isn't abuse, and the fact that some abusers hold that opinion does not mean that all those who hold that opinion are abusers.




is the greer whose lecture was protested against a different greer from the one that compares transwomen to dogs?


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> is the greer whose lecture was protested against a different greer from the one that compares transwomen to dogs?


This really is beneath you. She made the point that a man could not become a woman by saying so, anymore than he could become a dog by saying so. As wrongheaded as that it, it's not the same as likening trans women to dogs.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> That's completely dishonest. She didn't liken trans people to dogs; she made the point that, if she called herself a dog it wouldn't make her one i.e. there is something to womanhood beyond just saying you're a woman. I disagree with her views, but at least don't try to portray them so something they're not.



oh, that's me told. of course it isn't a deliberately offensive attention seeking comparison. because athos said so.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> This really is beneath you. She made the point that a man could not become a woman by saying so, anymore than he could become a dog by saying so. As wrongheaded as that it, it's not the same as likening trans women to dogs.



i'm really starting to understand exactly why stella finds you so damn offensive.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> oh, that's me told. of course it isn't a deliberately offensive attention seeking comparison. because athos said so.



Whereas it is because you say so?

Anyway, it's beside the point, we agree that she's an attention-seeker, but even if you're right that she was being deliberately offensive, so what?  Ought we to try to silence those who offend us?


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> i'm really starting to understand exactly why stella finds you so damn offensive.



And, like her, you're resorting to playing the man rather than the ball, having run out of arguments.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

You can keep saying I support trans people all you like, but your actions belie you.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> You can keep saying I support trans people all you like, but your actions belie you.



If by 'actions' you mean the idea that I don't think it's right (as a matter of principle and of tactics) to attempt to silence women for simply having a different conception of gender to you and I, then I can live with your inaccurate assessment of my motives.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

and when she did do the talk

Transphobia Doesn't Exist, According To Germaine Greer



> *Germaine Greer Tells Cambridge University Students: Transphobia Doesn't Exist*
> 
> 
> Germaine Greer faced the wrath of angry students after claiming transphobia doesn't exist during a highly-contested talk at Cambridge University.
> ...


so, women who disagree with her are idiots



> Her anger at gender stereotyping was initially directed at the "hoards of feminist journalists" who were "too stupid" to understand wider issues. Greer also criticised the Everyday Sexism campaign, saying it made misogyny sexy.


unable to tell the difference between popular and sexy



> CUSU's Women Campaign opposed Greer's appearance at the Union, saying: "Greer does not represent feminism, and she does not represent us."
> 
> 
> Transphobia soon became a target of Greer's speech: "Women are 51% of the world’s population and [I’ve been told] I’ve got to worry about transphobia".
> ...


treats anti trans violence as a joke



> Greer's opinions of transgender people are well known - in her book _The Whole Woman_, Greer described trans women as "men who believe that they are women and have had themselves castrated".
> 
> According to Greer, the actions of transgender people are counteracting today's attempts to defeat stereotypes about women. She insists you cannot be a woman because you "want" to be: "There’s a hardship about being a woman...I always wanted to be a Jew, but I can’t be."
> 
> Never one to steer clear of controversy, Greer called gender polarity "a delusion, it's a form of body dysmorphia". She called the surgery needed for the transitioning process "unethical" because of the dependence on medication it inevitably creates.


so does transplant surgery. it also saves lives. but  don't see greer claiming we shouldn't do organ transplants



> As students responded angrily to her comments, Greer felt the need to defend herself in the debate, insisting transgender people are "the ones throwing stuff at me".


nope, they are the ones facing actual physical violence, not you

got to love seeing someone who claims to be a trans ally defending this as academic debate. shit jokes about abuse of transpeople aren't academic debate. 

and that isn't anyhting i recognize as feminism either. wonder if she wants to tell any jokes about dv while she's up there. or rape jokes?


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> You can keep saying I support trans people all you like, but your actions belie you.



absolutely. 

i support transpeople, and i will defend the rights of people to abuse them until my dying breath.

erm...

i suppose it must make some sense somewere


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

I just can't get over this whole "what one nationally recognised individual says will have absolutely no effect on culture or society" bullshit.

It's so disingenuous.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> are you aware of the strings of violent incidents that are linked to trump's events? and the extremist positions that he upholds?
> he denies any connection between his rhetoric and the behavior of people who have listened to it as well Athos.



I'm aware that there have been incidents involving anti Trump protestors *inside* Trump rallies, which is not the same as attacks by Trump supporters on randoms riled up by his speeches in the days after a political meeting. 

Whatever is going on I don't think it is logical for students to say they feel "traumatized" by seeing Trump's name written in chalk?

From what I can gather, it is this very type of over-sensitive reaction/safe space mindset which is helping fuel Trump.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> absolutely.
> 
> i support transpeople, and i will defend the rights of people to abuse them until my dying breath.
> 
> ...



Oh, come on. Seriously? What abuse have I defended? I've said I disagree with Greer, but you can't seriously characterise her childish and crass contents as abuse. To conflate it with real abuse is a dishonest tactic, and undermines the seriousness of real abuse.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

"Real abuse."

Why don't you ask the people on the receiving end of it if it seems like "real abuse" to them?

Since when did you become arbiter of what things actually cause harm to trans people?


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> and when she did do the talk
> 
> Transphobia Doesn't Exist, According To Germaine Greer
> 
> ...



Yeah, she's a fool. But, underneath the attention-seeking, she's making a serious point (and one with which a sizeable minority of women agree). I'd be reluctant to set a precedent of seeking to silence her (because it's wrong, and a poor tactic), in the way I might for genuine hate speech.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 10, 2016)

Greer talks shit but that's free speech shit. Welcome to democracy. Get over it.

The connection with attacks cannot be proved.

750 posts on a thread about safe spaces and hardly anything said about the theme. The first 150 posts were attacks on the person who started the thread ffs.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I just can't get over this whole "what one nationally recognised individual says will have absolutely no effect on culture or society" bullshit.
> 
> It's so disingenuous.



Dishonest use of quotation marks. Classy.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

And if we want to talk about purely violence as "real abuse" - as I've explained earlier, creating an atmosphere of tolerance and legitimacy towards hatred and bigotry enables "real abuse."

We see it time and time again in relation to all sorts of hatred and minorities.

As one example already described on this thread, with language around disabled people leading to rises in attacks against disabled people.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

And as I made clear earlier, I'm not talking about this in terms of stopping that speech, but in terms of understanding and taking responsibility for the consequences of that speech.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> And if we want to talk about purely violence as "real abuse" - as I've explained earlier, creating an atmosphere of tolerance and legitimacy towards hatred and bigotry enables "real abuse."
> 
> We see it time and time again in relation to all sorts of hatred and minorities.
> 
> As one example already described on this thread, with language around disabled people leading to rises in attacks against disabled people.



rape humour as heard by rapists


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> Dishonest use of quotation marks. Classy.


 i think ti's a fair precis of your bullshit.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> "Real abuse."
> 
> Why don't you ask the people on the receiving end of it if it seems like "real abuse" to them?
> 
> Since when did you become arbiter of what things actually cause harm to trans people?



Well, there has to be a sensible cut off, doesn't there - a point at which the harm must be addressed. Having your feelings hurt by opinions with which you disagree is at one extreme, being the victim of a violent crime inspired by hate speech is at the other. We disagree about the proper place on that spectrum at which we should abandon the principle of free speech. Your position seems to focus on the specific issues faced by trans people; I'm mindful of the wider consequences of censorship (and would seek to tackle the specific issue in other ways). But we've probably reached a point where we're unlikely to agree.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> i think ti's a fair precis of your bullshit.



Then you've not understood it.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 10, 2016)

having to question your own beliefs sometimes leads people to say stupid shit, no one holds space for this though. When I saw her interview she read as lost and grasping. she wont apologise (not the type), but she will probably stfu or die.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 10, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> Greer talks shit but that's free speech shit. Welcome to democracy. Get over it.
> 
> The connection with attacks cannot be proved.
> 
> 750 posts on a thread about safe spaces and hardly anything said about the theme. The first 150 posts were attacks on the person who started the thread ffs.


Read as: Trans woman shut up and go away, your oppression isnt worth my time or energy.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> Quite apart from the failed attempt to patronise me in the final paragraph, that analogy is very weak. As it stands, there's no evidence for this supposed link between the transphobic street thugs and a female academic. The idea that I should be required to explain the dangers of abandoning the principle of free speech on a non-existent premis is truly astonishing.



Greer's comments broaden the space in which transphobic abuse becomes socially acceptable, it helps give those who want to take abuse of trans people further a sea to swim in - if Owen Jones and the like are the left of capital, then Greer is the left of transphobia, setting the boundaries of the anti-trans discourse.

You cannot show that self-styled academic holocaust deniers like Nick Kollerstrom, or coded anti-semites like David Icke directly cause anti-semitic violence either, but you can recognise that (in these cases) pseudo-intellectualised jusification of anti-semitism is part of the dynamic in society that allows more virulent stuff to propogate.

But you know this of course.

And who said anything about abandoning freedom of speech?  Why the straw man?  You're like the racists who go on about Muslims wanting to ban Christmas.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> Greer talks shit but that's free speech shit. Welcome to democracy. Get over it.
> 
> The connection with attacks cannot be proved.
> 
> 750 posts on a thread about safe spaces and hardly anything said about the theme. The first 150 posts were attacks on the person who started the thread ffs.



Talk about this then: Why Fears About Free Speech on College Campus Are Misguided


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> Then you've not understood it.



it's not like you're actually saying anything new. it's th same thing i've been hearing directed at myself and other feminists for years. 



pengaleng said:


> having to question your own beliefs sometimes leads people to say stupid shit, no one holds space for this though. When I saw her interview she read as lost and grasping. she wont apologise (not the type), but she will probably stfu or die.



the more she spouts this stuff, the more she comes accross as someone who just can't handle the fact that other people are doing stuff that is now being seen as more relavent than her.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Greer's comments broaden the space in which transphobic abuse becomes socially acceptable, it helps give those who want to take abuse of trans people further a sea to swim in - if Owen Jones and the like are the left of capital, then Greer is the left of transphobia, setting the boundaries of the anti-trans discourse.
> 
> You cannot show that self-styled academic holocaust deniers like Nick Kollerstrom, or coded anti-semites like David Icke directly cause anti-semitic violence either, but you can recognise that (in these cases) pseudo-intellectualised jusification of anti-semitism is part of the dynamic in society that allows more virulent stuff to propogate.
> 
> ...



It's the logical end point of 'no platforming.'


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

"Slippery slope."


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> it's not like you're actually saying anything new. it's th same thing i've been hearing directed at myself and other feminists for years.
> 
> 
> 
> the more she spouts this stuff, the more she comes accross as someone who just can't handle the fact that other people are doing stuff that is now being seen as more relavent than her.



Plus the fact, as has been said before, she's all about controversy. It pays her wages.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Plus the fact, as has been said before, she's all about controversy. It pays her wages.



hence broadening into attacks on campaigns like everyday sexism. it's wrong because ti's not about her.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 10, 2016)

personally I think it's a reaction to ultimately having to question herself deeply cus that how the denial comes across, but then wtf do I know init... it's a lot more than money and relevance.

it makes her visibly uncomfortable and that is all about herself.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 10, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> having to question your own beliefs sometimes leads people to say stupid shit, no one holds space for this though. When I saw her interview she read as lost and grasping. she wont apologise (not the type), *but she will probably stfu or die.*




or come out (lol)

am riding my buzz, no shade, germayyyyne.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 10, 2016)

is stella alright btw? I think they ignored me in response (unresponded pm asking if she's alright), is alright tho I can deal with it, I gotta go up the hozzy to get me piss checked 

lol 'germayyyne' thats gonna get me into some serious shit when I crack up in waiting rooms. bloody hell. is that bad form joking about her coming out? it seems a fitting response atm (infected piss funny)  

(jesus i am so high i will stfu )


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> is stella alright btw? I think they ignored me in response (unresponded pm asking if she's alright), is alright tho I can deal with it, I gotta go up the hozzy to get me piss checked
> 
> lol 'germayyyne' thats gonna get me into some serious shit when I crack up in waiting rooms. bloody hell. is that bad form joking about her coming out? it seems a fitting response atm (infected piss funny)
> 
> (jesus i am so high i will stfu )


good luck at the hospital


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> is stella alright btw? I think they ignored me in response (unresponded pm asking if she's alright), is alright tho I can deal with it, I gotta go up the hozzy to get me piss checked
> 
> lol 'germayyyne' thats gonna get me into some serious shit when I crack up in waiting rooms. bloody hell. is that bad form joking about her coming out? it seems a fitting response atm (infected piss funny)
> 
> (jesus i am so high i will stfu )



AuntiStella, you ok hun?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

Maybe she's decided to have a breather from this thread. Even if just for an afternoon. I can't say I'd blame her.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> while reported figures for 'hate crimes' need to be treated with some caution (will vary according both to minorities' willingness to report such incidents to police / police willingness to record as such) there is certainly a lot of anecdotal evidence out there that when politicians and public figures make public comments which are hostile towards a minority group, then verbal / physical attacks on that minority at street level do go up.
> 
> e.g. the 'scrounger' rhetoric towards disabled people.
> 
> whether this particular bunch heard / read any of germaine greer's comments, i couldn't say.



IMO whether they've heard her comments is immaterial. What matters is that words have consequences, and people in public life need to "own" what they say, and the ramifications of what they say. Germaine Greer relies on her history as a _provocateur_ to give her a free pass on what she says, just as politicians rely on their politics to give them a free pass. The result - inevitably - is that the sentiments aired lead to adverse consequences on those least able to defend themselves from those consequences, whether that's AuntiStella , a refugee, or a local wheelchair user.
This isn't to claim that shitheads key to the actual utterances of public figures, but when the message is sustained, it does "trickle down" to those who fear difference, and like to alleviate their fears with physical violence.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> It's the logical end point of 'no platforming.'



did no platforming nazis lead to the abandonment of free speech?  The abandonment of free speech is your front door getting kicked in because you're neighbour mentioned you said something critical of the party, or newspaper offices getting raided and journalists jailed for running the wrong story.  No platforming is about saying, in fact enforcing, that you can't say this shit here - that if your intention is to do little more than stir up hatred and violence in this community/university/workplace then you will be physically prevented from doing so.

This is not what happened to Greer, she spoke at the university.  It has not happened to anyone in recent years except fash.  Protests are not no platforming, neither are hashtags.  Deciding you dont want to invite a speaker to your event is not no platforming.  Arguing with someone or calling them names on the internet is not no platforming.  This is all that has happened.

I do think there's a troubling emergence of very narrow identity politics emerging, I think the policing of language that is often impenetrable to outsiders is sometimes being used to shut down debate. I even think that how transsexuality, gender essentialism and feminism both clash and complement each other are worth exploring.  That can be done without constant comments that do little more than seek to mock, denigrate and invalidate trans experiences.  That's what Greer has done.  As such I can fully understand why some student unions may not want her to speak at their events.  To fall into the current Daily Telegraph narrative of over-sensitive and censorious leftie students is lazy, there are several dynamics at play - one of which is the commentariat reacting with fury that they are not the only voice at the table anymore.  Greer's anger at this has been more than evident.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> IMO whether they've heard her comments is immaterial. What matters is that words have consequences, and people in public life need to "own" what they say, and the ramifications of what they say. Germaine Greer relies on her history as a _provocateur_ to give her a free pass on what she says, just as politicians rely on their politics to give them a free pass. The result - inevitably - is that the sentiments aired lead to adverse consequences on those least able to defend themselves from those consequences, whether that's AuntiStella , a refugee, or a local wheelchair user.
> This isn't to claim that shitheads key to the actual utterances of public figures, but when the message is sustained, it does "trickle down" to those who fear difference, and like to alleviate their fears with physical violence.



This is precisely what I've been trying to argue.

To suggest every utterance exists in its own hermetically sealed bubble is ridiculous. 

And any discussion about free speech must by necessity include a discussion about the responsibilities that come with free speech.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Maybe she's decided to have a breather from this thread. Even if just for an afternoon. I can't say I'd blame her.


she's found something better, and i hope more fun, to do


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> This is precisely what I've been trying to argue.
> 
> To suggest every utterance exists in its own hermetically sealed bubble is ridiculous.
> 
> And any discussion about free speech must by necessity include a discussion about the responsibilities that come with free speech.



Equally, is anyone arguing that free speech is responsibility-free?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> Equally, is anyone arguing that free speech is responsibility-free?



You've been arguing that there are no links between what Greer says and any kind of transphobia that might be displayed by others.

So...


----------



## J Ed (Apr 10, 2016)

smokedout said:


> one of which is the commentariat reacting with fury that they are not the only voice at the table anymore.



I am a lot more concerned with how people are extrapolating the mostly inconsequential if annoying stuff that students do in universities than I am with said stuff. Safe spaces, white people as microaggressions etc has become a staple of reactionary thought across the Western world, to an extent that I was completely unaware of until recently. This is their new identity politics now that young conservatives aren't that bothered about gay people or abortion anymore.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> I'm aware that there have been incidents involving anti Trump protestors *inside* Trump rallies, which is not the same as attacks by Trump supporters on randoms riled up by his speeches in the days after a political meeting.
> 
> Whatever is going on I don't think it is logical for students to say they feel "traumatized" by seeing Trump's name written in chalk?
> 
> From what I can gather, it is this very type of over-sensitive reaction/safe space mindset which is helping fuel Trump.



I think that there's a big issue around what "traumatised" means in this context.
In my younger days I spoke to people who'd survived Stalin's _holodomor_. Even before Stalin's policies caused a couple of million Ukrainians to die, hearing or seeing his name provoked a reaction - not trauma, but unease associated with what they understood Stalin to represent. 
I'm not claiming that Trump is an incipient Stalin, or that he'll ever enact political decisions with such murderous ramifications, but given what Trump is *taken* to represent, I can totally understand people feeling unease at seeing his name on posters/chalked on walls. To them, the name represents a regression of what it means to be American into something akin to 1950s attitudes,with women and non-whites put firmly "in their place".


----------



## 8115 (Apr 10, 2016)

I think writing "build a wall" at least is offensive.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

smokedout said:


> did no platforming nazis lead to the abandonment of free speech?  The abandonment of free speech is your front door getting kicked in because you're neighbour mentioned you said something critical of the party, or newspaper offices getting raided and journalists jailed for running the wrong story.  No platforming is about saying, in fact enforcing, that you can't say this shit here - that if your intention is to do little more than stir up hatred and violence in this community/university/workplace then you will be physically prevented from doing so.
> 
> This is not what happened to Greer, she spoke at the university.  It has not happened to anyone in recent years except fash.  Protests are not no platforming, neither are hashtags.  Deciding you dont want to invite a speaker to your event is not no platforming.  Arguing with someone or calling them names on the internet is not no platforming.  This is all that has happened.
> 
> I do think there's a troubling emergence of very narrow identity politics emerging, I think the policing of language that is often impenetrable to outsiders is sometimes being used to shut down debate. I even think that how transsexuality, gender essentialism and feminism both clash and complement each other are worth exploring.  That can be done without constant comments that do little more than seek to mock, denigrate and invalidate trans experiences.  That's what Greer has done.  As such I can fully understand why some student unions may not want her to speak at their events.  To fall into the current Daily Telegraph narrative of over-sensitive and censorious leftie students is lazy, there are several dynamics at play - one of which is the commentariat reacting with fury that they are not the only voice at the table anymore.  Greer's anger at this has been more than evident.



I agree with most of what you say.  But, as much as I disagree with her, I'm not sure Greer quite crosses the line into the sort of hate speech that ought to silenced, given what you say about the important issues worthy of exploration.  I take your point that her not being welcome to speak is not the same as the Stasi kicking your door in, but, if not a denial of the right to free speech, it's a creeping infringement on the practivcal expression of that right.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> You've been arguing that there are no links between what Greer says and any kind of transphobia that might be displayed by others.
> 
> So...



No, I haven't.  I doubted (in the absence of any evidence) the claimed link between Greer's comments and the thugs that ruined Auntistella's barbeque.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> Oh, come on. Seriously? What abuse have I defended? I've said I disagree with Greer, but you can't seriously characterise her childish and crass contents as abuse. To conflate it with real abuse is a dishonest tactic, and undermines the seriousness of real abuse.



Abuse is a spectrum. *You* (or I) don't get to set some arbitrary line on what is or isn't abuse, and frankly - given the masses of evidence that different severities of mental and physical abuse can have varying severities of effect across samples - we need to acknowledge that abuse is abuse is abuse. It's not about whether you classify it as real, it's about the effects it has on the recipient.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Abuse is a spectrum. *You* (or I) don't get to set some arbitrary line on what is or isn't abuse, and frankly - given the masses of evidence that different severities of mental and physical abuse can have varying severities of effect across samples - we need to acknowledge that abuse is abuse is abuse. It's not about whether you classify it as real, it's about the effects it has on the recipient.



Some truth in that, but, in practical terms, how does that translate to what people can/should say; how do you balance those very individualistic and subjective harms with the issue of free sppech?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> Some truth in that, but, in practical terms, how does that translate to what people can/should say; how do you balance those very individualistic and subjective harms with the issue of free sppech?



By understanding that there is no free speech - that no speech is free of consequence - and by taking responsibility for any consequences. Simple self-governance. If the majority of people exercised this small amount of self-control, those who didn't would stand out in stark relief as cunts.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> By understanding that there is no free speech - that no speech is free of consequence - and by taking responsibility for any consequences. Simple self-governance. If the majority of people exercised this small amount of self-control, those who didn't would stand out in stark relief as cunts.



Which is a different argument to 'no platforming.'


----------



## smokedout (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> I agree with most of what you say.  But, as much as I disagree with her, I'm not sure Greer quite crosses the line into the sort of hate speech that ought to silenced, given what you say about the important issues worthy of exploration.



really?



> The transsexual is identified as such solely on his/her own script, which can be as learned as any sex-typed behaviour and as editorialized as autobiographies usually are. The lack of insight that MTF transsexuals usually show about the extent of their acceptance as females should be an indication that their behaviour is less rational than it seems. There is a witness to the transsexual's script, a witness who is never consulted. She is the person who built the transsexual's body of her own flesh and brought it up as her son or daughter, the transsexual's worst enemy, his/her mother. * Whatever else it is gender reassignment is an exorcism of the mother. *When a man decides to spend his life impersonating his mother (like Norman Bates in Psycho) it is as if he murders her and gets away with it, proving at a stroke that there was nothing to her. His intentions are no more honourable than any female impersonator's; his achievement is to gag all those who would call his bluff. When he forces his way into the few private spaces women may enjoy and shouts down their objections, and bombards the women who will not accept him with threats and hate mail, he does as rapists have always done."



irrational, mother hating, dishonourable rapists?  so what would you consider crosssing the line?


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

smokedout said:


> really?
> 
> 
> 
> irrational, mother hating, dishonourable rapists?  so what would you consider crosssing the line?



I think that statement is truly bonkers.  But I don't think it amounts to hate speech that ough to be silenced, no.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

smokedout said:


> really?
> 
> 
> 
> irrational, mother hating, dishonourable rapists?  so what would you consider crosssing the line?



I've read that passage before. It's just so solidly full of hate. It's difficult to read.

I feel like I'm reading a tract against "the negro who considers himself human" - it's on that level.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> I think that statement is truly bonkers.  But I don't think it amounts to hate speech that ough to be silenced, no.



And no fucker is trying to take away her right to spew her bile. That would require laws to stop her saying it. They're exercising their right to not have her come and say it to their faces when they don't want her to. The rest of the time, they're replying to her screeds and showing her up to be the cunt that she is.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> And no fucker is trying to take away her right to spew her bile. That would require laws to stop her saying it. They're exercising their right to not have her come and say it to their faces when they don't want her to. The rest of the time, they're replying to her screeds and showing her up to be the cunt that she is.



The right to free speech exists _de facto_, not just _de jure_.  If they don't want to hear it, they don't have to go to hear her speak; it's a bit disingenous to say that they're simply protecting themselves from hearing it - they're trying to stop others hearing her, too.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

People get disinvited, knocked off the rosta, shifted around, and otherwise bumped from speaking engagement to speaking engagement depending on their audience and other factors all the time. We're only giving a shit about this because evil students make for good headlines, and because anything that can sensationalise trans issues seems to be flavour of the month.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> I think that statement is truly bonkers.  But I don't think it amounts to hate speech that ough to be silenced, no.



if someone wanted to trawl universities saying gay men are irrational, mother hating, dishonourable rapists would that be just fine as well?  she is not being silenced, she is not being prosecuted (and she might be if she said that about gay men), she is being politically challenged, criticised and not invited places, that's all.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 10, 2016)

and she has a huge fucking platform.  she gets to say things in the national press, she goes on question time, she has books published.  all thats happening is some people are saying no thanks, not here.  that you can equate this to an attack on free speech only furthers suspicians you have another agenda.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 10, 2016)

you would mock the shit your saying if it was the EDL coming out with it


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

smokedout said:


> if someone wanted to trawl universities saying gay men are irrational, mother hating, dishonourable rapists would that be just fine as well?  she is not being silenced, she is not being prosecuted (and she might be if she said that about gay men), she is being politically challenged, criticised and not invited places, that's all.



Two things: first, she didn't say they are rapists, rather that, in some respects, they behave in the same way rapists always have; secondly, I' not "fine with it" - I've said I disagree with her, many times.

She's not being challenged, at all; take her on, debate the issues - that's a challenge.  Trying to force institutions to withdraw invitations so that others may not hear her views is not challenge.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

smokedout said:


> you would mock the shit your saying if it was the EDL coming out with it



I think I'd probably debate with some of the EDL, as opposed to say, BNP.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

smokedout said:


> and she has a huge fucking platform.  she gets to say things in the national press, she goes on question time, she has books published.  all thats happening is some people are saying no thanks, not here.  that you can equate this to an attack on free speech only furthers suspicians you have another agenda.



This has been said time and time again. Apparently the breadth of her actual platform means nothing if she can't be invited to every place at any time to speak to every person regardless of their own wishes.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> This has been said time and time again. Apparently the breadth of her actual platform means nothing if she can't be invited to every place at any time to speak to every person regardless of their own wishes.



"Their own wishes."  Who are 'they'?  Does it include those who wanted to hear her?  The easiest thing for those who don't want to hear her is not to go and listen!


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

smokedout said:


> you would mock the shit your saying if it was the EDL coming out with it



defo.


anyone that can be presented as a speaker for radical politics, who spews hatred against a more derided group, will be picked up by the right wing press. because they can be used to show that even radicals hate that group. the press get to use her to play the moral majority card, she uses them to get publicity. and more platforms on which to, quite literally, make funnies about transphobic abuse.

cause that's what's bgeing defended here. the right to a platform of someone who makes jokes about people being abused, sacked, beaten, murdered for who they are. yet somehow she is still able to get support from people who would never consider a platfrom for people who made jokes about many other marginalised groups, let alone jokes about abuse of them.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> Two things: first, she didn't say they are rapists, rather that, in some respects, they behave in the same way rapists always have; secondly, I' not "fine with it" - I've said I disagree with her, many times.
> 
> She's not being challenged, at all; take her on, debate the issues - that's a challenge.  Trying to force institutions to withdraw invitations so that others may not hear her views is not challenge.



How the fuck do you challenge her? If she's giving a lecture, it's not an equal debate with her at one podium and a speaker in defence of trans people at another. To what extent do you believe a full and fair and equal debate can be had about the issues in that situation?

She has the power. You keep ignoring that. She has the power. She has the platform. Most trans people don't. Sometimes the only way you can exercise your right to challenge someone is by calling for them to be taken to task in other ways, by picketing a talk they give, by writing to your student union to ask them to think again about inviting her, by getting angry online. Most people don't have the platform or power she enjoys.

Stop assuming it's a level playing field.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> "Their own wishes."  Who are 'they'?  Does it include those who wanted to hear her?  The easiest thing for those who don't want to hear her is not to go and listen!



And thus she goes unchallenged. See my previous post for context.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 10, 2016)

good news tho, I aint infected, apparently it's all in me head. everyone have a gin


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> defo.
> 
> 
> anyone that can be presented as a speaker for radical politics, who spews hatred against a more derided group, will be picked up by the right wing press. because they can be used to show that even radicals hate that group. the press get to use her to play the moral majority card, she uses them to get publicity. and more platforms on which to, quite literally, make funnies about transphobic abuse.
> ...



Has she made jokes about trans women being murdered?  Serious question.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> good news tho, I aint infected, apparently it's all in me head. everyone have a gin


must be a tonic for you


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> Has she made jokes about trans women being murdered?  Serious question.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> must be a tonic for you



ahh haaaaa ! #Alan


----------



## smokedout (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> She's not being challenged, at all; take her on, debate the issues - that's a challenge.  Trying to force institutions to withdraw invitations so that others may not hear her views is not challenge.



you sound like Richard Littlejohn whining from the pages of the UK's best selling newspaper that he's being silenced because he wasn't allowed a stall at the Doncaster Anarchist Bookfair.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> How the fuck do you challenge her? If she's giving a lecture, it's not an equal debate with her at one podium and a speaker in defence of trans people at another. To what extent do you believe a full and fair and equal debate can be had about the issues in that situation?
> 
> She has the power. You keep ignoring that. She has the power. She has the platform. Most trans people don't. Sometimes the only way you can exercise your right to challenge someone is by calling for them to be taken to task in other ways, by picketing a talk they give, by writing to your student union to ask them to think again about inviting her, by getting angry online. Most people don't have the platform or power she enjoys.
> 
> Stop assuming it's a level playing field.



In the context of that one lecture, I accept that the oppoerunities are limited.  But there are other opportunities.  The most powerful would be to challenge her to debate, and demolish some of her shit.  But trying to stop her being heard is a poor tactic, and dangerous precedent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> ahh haaaaa ! #Alan


#hansen


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


>



Well, has she?


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> #hansen



no. :|


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> Has she made jokes about trans women being murdered?  Serious question.



omfg. 

you replied to to post where i quoted her making jokes about transphobia.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> omfg.
> 
> you replied to to post where i quoted her making jokes about transphobia.



About trans people being murdered?  Didn't see any such jokes.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

jesus christ


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> jesus christ




i'm starting to feel the need for a bad ally bullshit bingo card. 

'educate me'
'you're offended because you don't understand me'
'everyone has a voice'
'if you don't like it, then just fix the problem'

i need more about the refusal to accept structural privilage and that an indirect comparison is still a comparison.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> jesus christ



What?  Are you trying to say that her comment about transphobia/arachnaphobia is a joke about trans women being murdered?  Again, that's a bit misleading, isn't it.  Clearly, the point she was trying to make is that transphobia is not on her radar; that's clear from the context about her focus on 51% of the world's population.  Yeah, it was crass, but it wasn't a joke about trans women being murdered, by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

"I like to stay neutral." That has to be on there somewhere.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 10, 2016)

have the Allies cracked the code yet?


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> i'm starting to feel the need for a bad ally bullshit bingo card.
> 
> 'educate me'
> 'you're offended because you don't understand me'
> ...





Vintage Paw said:


> "I like to stay neutral." That has to be on there somewhere.



Nothing wrong with the first three, _per se_.

I've not said anything approaching the fourth.

With regard to the fifth, I've made it clear that I'm not neutral.

But don't let facts stand in the way of your fun.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> "I like to stay neutral." That has to be on there somewhere.



i'm sure he's accused AuntiStella  of being too sensitive as well.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

reckon that habit of critiquing others has to be included.

as well as the sulkyness when criticised


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> i'm sure he's accused AuntiStella  of being too sensitive as well.



Have I?


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 10, 2016)

sulking aint cute, bruh lol


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> reckon that habit of critiquing others has to be included.



Irony alert!


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2016)

Disingenuous points only from this point forwards, people!


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

and 'i just don't see what you see'


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> sulking aint cute, bruh lol



I ain't cute.  But I don't sulk; I brood.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

8ball said:


> Disingenuous points only from this point forwards, people!



That ship has long-since sailed.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> and 'i just don't see what you see'



Thank God.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 10, 2016)

smokedout said:


> you sound like Richard Littlejohn whining from the pages of the UK's best selling newspaper that he's being silenced because he wasn't allowed a stall at the Doncaster Anarchist Bookfair.


Very similar argument that John Gaunt used against me when he rubbished my challenge to his language  on Twitter.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> About trans people being murdered?  Didn't see any such jokes.


Of course being murdered is the only bad thing that could ever happen to us


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> I ain't cute.  But I don't sulk; I brood.


Sorry, I don't accept your lived experience, to me you sulk.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Of course being murdered is the only bad thing that could ever happen to us



I didn't say that, did I?  I was responding to the claim that Greer had made jokes about trans women being murdered; it appears that she has not.  It was another example of a misleading spin being put on things.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Sorry, I don't accept your lived experience, to me you sulk.



You are, of course, entitled to hold and express that view.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> AuntiStella, you ok hun?


Sorry, just seen this. Have decided to have a nice calm day in Canterbury today and not even think about this shit. Then I had to meet with a police officer to make a statement about last night.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Sorry, just seen this. Have decided to have a nice calm day in Canterbury today and not even think about this shit. Then I had to meet with a police officer to make a statement about last night.



liked that you had a nice day. 

and i hope that reporting it wasn't too shit.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> You are, of course, entitled to hold and express that view.





grants permission to disagree with them.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> grants permission to disagree with them.



It was an observation, not a license.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 10, 2016)

toggle said:


> liked that you had a nice day.
> 
> and i hope that reporting it wasn't too shit.


They sent a very understanding cop which makes a change from the usual. She was extremely keen to get something going to challenge the behaviour of these yobs. So I have hope again.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> I didn't say that, did I?  I was responding to the claim that Greer had made jokes about trans women being murdered; it appears that she has not.  It was another example of a misleading spin being put on things.


So you use that as another stick to hit trans people with....


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> They sent a very understanding cop which makes a change from the usual. She was extremely keen to get something going to challenge the behaviour of these yobs. So I have hope again.



I'm not caught up on whatever happened (and please don't feel like you have to repeat anything on my account) but I'm glad it looks like its being handled properly.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> So you use that as another stick to hit trans people with....


Err... no.  I've not hit trans people with anything. I pointed out that the claim that she made jokes about trans women being murdered (which had been cited in support of 'no platforming') isn't true.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> I ain't cute.  But I don't sulk; I brood.




oooooh I like that word, sexy.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

It was that or smoulder.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 10, 2016)

another sexy word


----------



## smokedout (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> Err... no.  I've not hit trans people with anything. I pointed out that the claim that she made jokes about trans women being murdered (which had been cited in support of 'no platforming') isn't true.



what was said was "the right to a platform of someone who makes jokes about people being abused, sacked, beaten, murdered for who they are"

the people being people being abused, sacked, beaten, murdered are victims of transphobia.  Greer has been dismissive and glib about transphobia, even when questioned directly about transgender people being murdered.  as such the above statement is not an unfair analysis.  to misrepresent it as you have shows its you that's spinning.  the question is why?


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 10, 2016)

a queen called 'Germayne Queer' (you're welcome) really needs to be a thing, hopefully someones done it as a sarcastic act 

(if you dunno, mayne is how they say man in scarface (top film))


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

smokedout said:


> what was said was "the right to a platform of someone who makes jokes about people being abused, sacked, beaten, murdered for who they are"
> 
> the people being people being abused, sacked, beaten, murdered are victims of transphobia.  Greer has been dismissive and glib about transphobia, even when questioned directly about transgender people being murdered.  as such the above statement is not an unfair analysis.  to misrepresent it as you have shows its you that's spinning.  the question is why?


In my opinion, being glib about transphobia is not the same as making a joke about someone being murdered for who they are. If you think otherwise, we can agree to disagree.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 10, 2016)

an analogy, someone asks a pro-Israeli government politician about the deaths of Palestinians at the hands of the IDF.  The politician responds with a glib comment intended to get a laugh and then claims that Palestinians don't exist anyway.  This could, correctly, be analysed as them mocking or dismissing or joking about the deaths of Palestinians.  That's what Greer did when questioned about violent attacks on transgender people.  To pick holes in how someone deciphers or interprets that is acting as an apologist for what she said.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

smokedout said:


> an analogy, someone asks a pro-Israeli government politician about the deaths of Palestinians at the hands of the IDF.  The politician responds with a glib comment intended to get a laugh and then claims that Palestinians don't exist anyway.  This could, correctly, be analysed as them mocking or dismissing or joking about the deaths of Palestinians.  That's what Greer did when questioned about violent attacks on transgender people.  To pick holes in how someone deciphers or interprets that is acting as an apologist for what she said.


No. I've already said I think her comments and views are bonkers, and that I disagree with her. So not apologising for them. But interpreting them differently from you.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 10, 2016)

so how do you interpret them?  what do you think Greer meant?


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

smokedout said:


> so how do you interpret them?  what do you think Greer meant?


As glibness, rather than laughing at the murder of trans people. Crass, certainly, but not what was claimed.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 10, 2016)

Joking is what was claimed, and not directly about trans people being murdered but about transphobia, with examples of what transphobia is and how it manifests.  Why you choose to pick holes in that when your only objection is you'd have said glib rather than jokey suggests another agenda, as I've said.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Joking is what was claimed, and not directly about trans people being murdered but about transphobia, with examples of what transphobia is and how it manifests.  Why you choose to pick holes in that when your only objection is you'd have said glib rather than jokey suggests another agenda, as I've said.


Yes, you've questioned my agenda.  I don't know whether that's because you have genuine doubts, or as an unsuccessful tactic to discourage contrary opinion. But I've made my position clear, and the reasons for it.  No doubt some will continue to attempt to smear me as a transphobe, simply because I'm not so keen to prevent people from hearing views with which I disagree. But I can take that; I've no right to expect this place to respect my feelings - that's part of adult debate.


----------



## Athos (Apr 10, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Joking is what was claimed, and not directly about trans people being murdered but about transphobia, with examples of what transphobia is and how it manifests.


No, the claim specifically referred to jokes about murder, not transphobia and manifestations thereof.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 10, 2016)

I quoted it above, "makes jokes about people being abused, sacked, beaten, murdered for who they are".  In other word makes jokes about transphobia, because what's described is what transphobia is as Greer had just had explained to her before she made those 'glib' comments.  So why so picky?

This is boring now, but accusing people of spin over minor semantics or different interpretations of tone, whilst wildly exagerrating what happened and making hyperbolic claims about the abandonment of free speech, is really pretty revealing.  That's all.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> No, the claim specifically referred to jokes about murder, not transphobia and manifestations thereof.



thats a very interesting interpretation.




toggle said:


> anyone that can be presented as a speaker for radical politics, who spews hatred against a more derided group, will be picked up by the right wing press. because they can be used to show that even radicals hate that group. the press get to use her to play the moral majority card, she uses them to get publicity. and more platforms on which to, quite literally, make funnies about transphobic abuse.
> 
> cause that's what's bgeing defended here. the right to a platform of someone who makes jokes about people being abused, sacked, beaten, murdered for who they are. yet somehow she is still able to get support from people who would never consider a platfrom for people who made jokes about many other marginalised groups, let alone jokes about abuse of them.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes, you've questioned my agenda.  I don't know whether that's because you have genuine doubts, or as an unsuccessful tactic to discourage contrary opinion. But I've made my position clear, and the reasons for it.  No doubt some will continue to attempt to smear me as a transphobe, simply because I'm not so keen to prevent people from hearing views with which I disagree. But I can take that; I've no right to expect this place to respect my feelings - that's part of adult debate.




if you don't like being called a transphobe, then you might want to stop defending transphobes and stop the nitpicking, tone policing, misrepresenting and general asshattery aimed at transpeople and their allies. 

or in clearer terms, if you don't like being called a transphobe, stop acting like one.


----------



## keybored (Apr 10, 2016)

Athos said:


> No, the claim specifically referred to jokes about murder, not transphobia and manifestations thereof.


inb4 mansplaining


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 10, 2016)

One last time, I'll translate for you, Athos:



> someone who makes jokes about people being abused, sacked, beaten, murdered for who they are



Greer is someone who makes jokes about trans people. Trans people are abused, sacked, beaten, and murdered for who they are.

I can rephrase toggle's words ever so slightly if you're still struggling:

"someone who makes jokes about people who are being abused, sacked, beaten, murdered every day for who they are"


----------



## toggle (Apr 11, 2016)

or perhaps -

she made a joke about transphobia.

transphobia can result in people being abused, sacked, beated or murdered because of who they are. 

transphobia isn't funny. 

what kind of fucknugget makes jokes about transphobia

what kind of fucknugget makes jokes about transphobia and thinks they can still be respected in any way shape or form when they claim to be engaged in a revolutionary struggle for 'self-definition and self-determination' ?


----------



## toggle (Apr 11, 2016)

www.galop.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Galop-submission-Trans-Inquiry.pdf

from the submission by a lgbt support organisation to the house of commons committee on women and equality


> 7.1 Trans* people can experience high levels of abuse in their daily lives. In 2014, 12% of trans* people in the UK faced transphobic violence and 37% face transphobic harassment, the second highest figures surveyed in an EU country 2. Our experience tells us:
> ? Trans* people whose gender expression challenges binary ideas about what men and women ‘should be like’ or who are more easily identifiable as trans* face high levels of daily transphobia.
> ? Trans* people who are ‘outed’ can be at high risk of transphobic hate crime. ? There is significant under-reporting as it is common for individuals to minimise more everyday experiences of abuse due to factors including:
> o Concern that reporting every incident would take too long; o Previous poor experiences of reporting; o Feeling that the police cannot or are unwilling to do anything about it; o Being unaware that what they have experienced is an offence.





> 7.2 From Galop’s casework with trans* victims of hate crime, discrimination and abuse, issues routinely presented include:
> ? Many trans* people feeling unsafe using public transport so they either will not use it or will limit use to the times of day that feel safer.
> ? Clients facing transphobic violence in particular neighbourhoods and geographical areas.
> ? Trans* clients having to give up secure accommodation (and becoming homeless or entering emergency accommodation) because their neighbourhood is too dangerous for them.
> ...





> 7.4 Very few transphobic hate crimes are reported to police: In 2013/14, 555 incidents were recorded across England and Wales.4 Whilst a welcomed increase in reporting on previous years, we know from our work it does not accurately reflect the extent of the problem. For instance, the Metropolitan Police generally record around 50 transphobic offences annually. Galop is aware of individual trans* people who experience 50 transphobic offences themselves each year. Despite isolated examples, few support services for people who experience crime have made gains on becoming accessible to trans* people.





> 7.6 Another problem some trans* people face is having their reaction to transphobic abuse inappropriately identified as offending behaviour when reporting crime and being arrested by attending officers when they should be receiving assistance. For example, a trans* woman who walked into a police station to report rape was herself arrested and held in a cell because she appeared to be behaving ‘strangely’. She was later threatened with a visit from police when she chose to disengage.






> 8.2 From Galop’s work supporting trans* victims through the criminal justice system issues presented include: ? Trans* people appear to face a disproportionate amount of stop and account/search by police officers. No data exists on this issue either from police or academic sources, but within our casework service our trans* clients appear to face higher levels of stop and account/search than our cis-gender (non-trans*) clients. We recommend further examination of this issue.
> ? Police do not ask about gender identity as a matter of course. ? Police can misunderstand why some trans* people choose not to live all the time in their gender expression of choice and can be poor at understanding non-binary identities.
> ? Clients reporting difficulties dealing with disrespect and discrimination from front- line staff. Including 101 call operators, civilian staff, and local response officers.
> ? Judges and courts sending trans* people to the prison of their birth gender. ? Many clients coming forward to tell us about historical incidents of police transphobia and poor treatment in the criminal justice system.
> ...



anyone find that funny?

greer does.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

toggle said:


> if you don't like being called a transphobe, then you might want to stop defending transphobes and stop the nitpicking, tone policing, misrepresenting and general asshattery aimed at transpeople and their allies.
> 
> or in clearer terms, if you don't like being called a transphobe, stop acting like one.


Do what we say, or we'll call you names.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> One last time, I'll translate for you, Athos:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, that's more accurate.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

toggle said:


> or perhaps -
> 
> she made a joke about transphobia.
> 
> ...



Yes, she's a fucknugget. That's never been the question, though.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> Do what we say, or we'll call you names.


if that's your interpretation (or spin) of transgender people calling out bigotry against them then there's no hope for you.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> Err... no.  I've not hit trans people with anything. I pointed out that the claim that she made jokes about trans women being murdered (which had been cited in support of 'no platforming') isn't true.


and its been pointed out to you that noone said that. So you created a straw man argument and then claimed that those arguing pro trans were lying.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> Which is a different argument to 'no platforming.'



Sure, but we need to be aware that "no platform" is another idea that can't actually be realised. Like "free speech", it's an ideal some strive for, but - as I've been explaining not-so-patiently to Swappies and their ilk for over 30 years - "No Platform" actually draws attention to whoever you use it on, generally in a way unhelpful to your aims. I'm not a believer in it. I favour analysing what people say, and hoisting them on whatever petards there are in what they say. All "no platform" does is displace.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> And no fucker is trying to take away her right to spew her bile. That would require laws to stop her saying it. They're exercising their right to not have her come and say it to their faces when they don't want her to. *The rest of the time, they're replying to her screeds and showing her up to be the cunt that she is.*



IMO it's by far the best strategy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 11, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sure, but we need to be aware that "no platform" is another idea that can't actually be realised. Like "free speech", it's an ideal some strive for, but - as I've been explaining not-so-patiently to Swappies and their ilk for over 30 years - "No Platform" actually draws attention to whoever you use it on, generally in a way unhelpful to your aims. I'm not a believer in it. I favour analysing what people say, and hoisting them on whatever petards there are in what they say. All "no platform" does is displace.


In this case, I would have thought the more Greer opens her gob, the more she discredits herself. And it is all too easy to dismantle her arguments.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sure, but we need to be aware that "no platform" is another idea that can't actually be realised. Like "free speech", it's an ideal some strive for, but - as I've been explaining not-so-patiently to Swappies and their ilk for over 30 years - "No Platform" actually draws attention to whoever you use it on, generally in a way unhelpful to your aims. I'm not a believer in it. I favour analysing what people say, and hoisting them on whatever petards there are in what they say. All "no platform" does is displace.



No platform allows allows people to have meaningful debates in the absence of trolls and bigots. If there was a debate on Newsnight for example about transgender issues, you can bet they'd invite someone like Greer on to be "controversial". I expect many trans people invited to participate would refuse saying they didn't want to share a platform with her. A far batter debate could be had with people like her left out. 

Racist trolls are frequently banned from urban - sure we could engage with them all and try and show them up for what they are, but it would get very tiresome and detract from actual debates between the rest of us.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> No platform allows allows people to have meaningful debates in the absence of trolls and bigots. If there was a debate on Newsnight for example about transgender issues, you can bet they'd invite someone like Greer on to be "controversial". I expect many trans people invited to participate would refuse saying they didn't want to share a platform with her. A far batter debate could be had with people like her left out.
> 
> Racist trolls are frequently banned from urban - sure we could engage with them all and try and show them up for what they are, but it would get very tiresome and detract from actual debates between the rest of us.


spot on - all my attempts so far to reason with bigots just leads to me being trolled by more bigots. Not to say what that does to my mental health and the fact that some of them use the fact that a trans woman has spoken to them reasonably to give them some level of credibility.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> In the context of that one lecture, I accept that the oppoerunities are limited.  But there are other opportunities.  The most powerful would be to challenge her to debate, and demolish some of her shit.  But trying to stop her being heard is a poor tactic, and dangerous precedent.



The problem with challenge is that it would require someone of similar status to Greer to do the challenging, in order for the challenge to have any likelihood of embedding in the public consciousness in the way that Greer's remarks have. Trans folk don't have a champion or ally of that public and intellectual calibre willing to make a public challenge.
Yet.

"No platform" is in no way a "dangerous precedent", though. It's too old and too porous to be effective, and the only danger is to the no-platformers, around looking childish.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 11, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In this case, I would have thought the more Greer opens her gob, the more she discredits herself. And it is all too easy to dismantle her arguments.


dismantling arguments is a lot easier when you don't have a mob outside your door calling your partner a "nonce" and a "tranny fucker".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> No platform allows allows people to have meaningful debates in the absence of trolls and bigots. If there was a debate on Newsnight for example about transgender issues, you can bet they'd invite someone like Greer on to be "controversial". I expect many trans people invited to participate would refuse saying they didn't want to share a platform with her. A far batter debate could be had with people like her left out.
> 
> Racist trolls are frequently banned from urban - sure we could engage with them all and try and show them up for what they are, but it would get very tiresome and detract from actual debates between the rest of us.


That's slightly different from banning, though, isn't it? Of course, nobody should be obliged to share a stage with someone they consider to be a hateful bigot. Professional contrarians such as Greer might be quite put out if they turned up at a talk about transgender and there were nobody there except an echo chamber - that's not what she wants at all, and she'd be forced to acknowledge what she is in front of her audience of Jim Davidson fans.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> It was an observation, not a license.



It's a public observation that you should have considered might be read as a licence by some prejudiced people. Your "right" to free speech does not grant you freedom from having to consider the impact of what you say. Neither does mine. It's why I don't call for the people trying to demolish my home to be burned at the stake. I may call them wankers, but I challenge them on their arguments, as I don't want to be responsible - even indirectly - for someone being assaulted or torched.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> a queen called 'Germayne Queer' (you're welcome) really needs to be a thing, hopefully someones done it as a sarcastic act
> 
> (if you dunno, mayne is how they say man in scarface (top film))



Given that Greer cultivates a look that she's described as "dragged through a hedge", I'm not sure you could find any self-respecting drag artiste willing to scruffy themselves up/de-glam themselves that much!


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 11, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Given that Greer cultivates a look that she's described as "dragged through a hedge", I'm not sure you could find any self-respecting drag artiste willing to scruffy themselves up/de-glam themselves that much!


the dragged through the hedge look is more associated with trans women tbh - I think I have it off to a tee.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 11, 2016)

Somewhere in these 870 or more posts on this thread someone claimed that the current growing interest in safe spaces, triggers, micro-aggression etc.., were nothing new and not worth talking about, yet, we are seeing more and more of it everyday. Apparently even Obama has felt the need to speak up against the encroachment of the phenonenom. 

This extract from a magazine called Forbes: 

Trigger Warning: Obama Criticizes The Language Police On College Campuses



> Stifling the debate on campus
> 
> Under the guise of trying to protect students from speech that they may find uncomfortable or offensive, there is a growing trend of rules and policies being put into place on college campuses that stifle debate, conversation, and learning.
> 
> ...



This weekend a 16 year old family member showed me comments made by kids in an online multiplayer game he was playing (lots of bangs and explosions), in which, even some of the other players from the USA were taking the piss out of safe spaces.

Apart from giving the Trump camp some comedy gold to boost their morale, I fear that if this whole idea of protecting students from offending ideas continues on its logical course we will see a situation where it is impossible to debate and even organize without continual hampering. The result will be the censorship of just about everything inthe public domain by the public. I can imagine a worst case scenario where half the people attending a public meeting on police brutality feel they need to walk out to protect their personal sensitivities. It's all bollox.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 11, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> dismantling arguments is a lot easier when you don't have a mob outside your door calling your partner a "nonce" and a "tranny fucker".


It's vile what has happened to you, and should certainly be criminal to do such things. 

However, my idea about free speech may be a little different from yours. For me, the US gets it wrong when the likes of Westboro Church are allowed to picket funerals or abortion clinics. That's harassment and people should have the right to go about their business without it. However, I would defend even these people's right to publish their ideas about what is right or wrong. It is freedom of ideas, rather than speech per se, that is the issue here for me, and so long as there is no incitement to criminal action on those ideas, I think it is dangerous to wish to have them censored, however hateful and stupid they are (and Greer's ideas are certainly both of these). Even in the absurd piece quoted earlier, hateful and stupid as it is, doesn't, imo, cross the line into something other than the expression of an ignorant idea.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> and its been pointed out to you that noone said that. So you created a straw man argument and then claimed that those arguing pro trans were lying.


But they did say that!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> No platform allows allows people to have meaningful debates in the absence of trolls and bigots. If there was a debate on Newsnight for example about transgender issues, you can bet they'd invite someone like Greer on to be "controversial". I expect many trans people invited to participate would refuse saying they didn't want to share a platform with her. A far batter debate could be had with people like her left out.
> 
> Racist trolls are frequently banned from urban - sure we could engage with them all and try and show them up for what they are, but it would get very tiresome and detract from actual debates between the rest of us.



My point is that "no platform" isn't a solution. It can't be because it entrenches ideas, rather than subjects them to the rigour of debate. My nan reckoned that "back in the day", when Mosley was spewing his shit, and his supporters were impersonating Hitler's brownshirts, the most popular course of action against them was to fight, but the most *usual* was public ridicule of their ideas. A well-placed handbill (my nan was a notorious bill-sticker), or a bit of journalism sympathetic to anti-fascism boosted "the cause" much more than stopping Mosley or (more usually) one of his lieutenants from speaking.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The problem with challenge is that it would require someone of similar status to Greer to do the challenging, in order for the challenge to have any likelihood of embedding in the public consciousness in the way that Greer's remarks have. Trans folk don't have a champion or ally of that public and intellectual calibre willing to make a public challenge.
> Yet.
> 
> "No platform" is in no way a "dangerous precedent", though. It's too old and too porous to be effective, and the only danger is to the no-platformers, around looking childish.


It's been pointed out earlier on this thread that there are (and always have been) prominent feminists with pro-trans views.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> It's been pointed out earlier on this thread that there are (and always have been) prominent feminists with pro-trans views.



None of whom have the status, volume or visibility of Greer.

Next!


----------



## toggle (Apr 11, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> the dragged through the hedge look is more associated with trans women tbh - I think I have it off to a tee.



the piccy i saw of you resembles that a lot less than what i see in the mirror


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 11, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> My point is that "no platform" isn't a solution. It can't be because it entrenches ideas, rather than subjects them to the rigour of debate. My nan reckoned that "back in the day", when Mosley was spewing his shit, and his supporters were impersonating Hitler's brownshirts, the most popular course of action against them was to fight, but the most *usual* was public ridicule of their ideas. A well-placed handbill (my nan was a notorious bill-sticker), or a bit of journalism sympathetic to anti-fascism boosted "the cause" much more than stopping Mosley or (more usually) one of his lieutenants from speaking.


transgender is not an idea that needs to be subjected to the rigour of debate - if anything its something that sits in the field of scientific research and should stay there. Science is pretty rigorous as I'm sure you know.
Least of all though are we able to debate with a woman, and her supporters, who seems delighted to use the language of bigotry that would be illegal if it came of out the mouth of someone heckling us on the street.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 11, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> spot on - all my attempts so far to reason with bigots just leads to me being trolled by more bigots. Not to say what that does to my mental health and the fact that some of them use the fact that a trans woman has spoken to them reasonably to give them some level of credibility.


I think that reasoning with bigots is of very limited use, given that most bigots don't get to that place from any kind of rational reasoning in the first place.

Since the trans issue's come up, I'll use that as an example. I went on a diversity thing that was presented by a trans woman a few years ago, and really struggled with the discomfort that her somewhat mixed gender signals were sending; more recently, a musician friend and colleague has transitioned to male, and I experience a (smaller, since I know him better) sense of the same thing.

I'm smart enough - and hopefully educated enough in such things - to recognise what my discomfort is, there, and own it rather than turning it all into some kind of "t'ain't natural, shouldn't be allowed" thinking, which is exactly what some people I know who are completely intolerant of trans/queer/etc issues do. I think it's because, to them, the discomfort is not just about the fact that things they've always taken for granted are being challenged, but because it is interpreted by them as "just wrong".

And I don't think you can usually change that thinking by arguing with it - if anything, that just makes them retrench and adopt their position ever more strongly - to do otherwise feels annihilating to them and their understanding of what's what in the world of gender.

So I usually cop out by saying "well, there is another way of looking at it, but I can see you're not interested, so let's leave it there", and hopefully leave them with a feeling that they've somehow disadvantaged themselves by taking the position they have.

On a more encouraging note, and probably off-topic for this thread, when Sam came out as a man, he fully expected there to be some nastiness in the small, rural Welsh community he lives in. Not a bit of it - perhaps because he's a lot more than just his gender, people were able to look past the whole transitioning thing and carry on pretty much as before. We all fuck up on the pronouns fairly continually, and most conversations around him are punctuated with "shehe" , but it's impressive to see how much effort people put in to being inclusive and non-judgmental about him (as an aside, his partner, whom he met while still a gay woman, points out with some amusemnt that she suddenly finds herself in a relationship with a straight man, making her a straight woman )


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 11, 2016)

toggle said:


> the piccy i saw of you resembles that a lot less than what i see in the mirror


I wouldn't let a pic of me that showed my 'through a hedge' qualities ever appear in public.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 11, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's vile what has happened to you, and should certainly be criminal to do such things.
> 
> However, my idea about free speech may be a little different from yours. For me, the US gets it wrong when the likes of Westboro Church are allowed to picket funerals or abortion clinics. That's harassment and people should have the right to go about their business without it. However, I would defend even these people's right to publish their ideas about what is right or wrong. It is freedom of ideas, rather than speech per se, that is the issue here for me, and so long as there is no incitement to criminal action on those ideas, I think it is dangerous to wish to have them censored, however hateful and stupid they are (and Greer's ideas are certainly both of these). Even in the absurd piece quoted earlier, hateful and stupid as it is, doesn't, imo, cross the line into something other than the expression of an ignorant idea.


i and many other trans people see it as purely hate speech.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 11, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> i and many other trans people see it as purely hate speech.


Yep. I do too. But it is not an incitement to a hateful act - it's not saying 'go out and beat up a trans woman'. That's why I think our ideas about this are different. And I'm very uneasy about the direction UK law has taken in this regard.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> transgender is not an idea that needs to be subjected to the rigour of debate - if anything its something that sits in the field of scientific research and should stay there. Science is pretty rigorous as I'm sure you know.



All ideas - and all science - require subjection to debate. Science doesn't get taken seriously unless you put your work out for people to critique.
As for rigourousness, lets not kid ourselves that rigour is foolproof, or proof against the machinations of biased parties. Power relations are *always* in play, so it's entirely-possible for ideas on transgender similar to Greer's to inform a scientific analysis of transgender. The scientific method is only as good as the people deploying the method, sadly.



> Least of all though are we able to debate with a woman, and her supporters, who seems delighted to use the language of bigotry that would be illegal if it came of out the mouth of someone heckling us on the street.



And there's the rub. Anyone who might want to accuse Greer of hate crime, is unlikely to be attending one of her speaking events in the first place.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 11, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> All ideas - and all science - require subjection to debate. Science doesn't get taken seriously unless you put your work out for people to critique.
> As for rigourousness, lets not kid ourselves that rigour is foolproof, or proof against the machinations of biased parties. Power relations are *always* in play, so it's entirely-possible for ideas on transgender similar to Greer's to inform a scientific analysis of transgender. The scientific method is only as good as the people deploying the method, sadly.



I really don;t agree with you there. I see science doing pretty well without the interventions of trans hating "feminists".

eta - or for that matter climate change deniers or creationists.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 11, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> it's not saying 'go out and beat up a trans woman'.


She doesn't need to say it - when whatever she says is reported in the tabloids and on the BBC/ ITV, etc. there are plenty of violent and abusive men in the world who will see it as reinforcement and justification for their behaviour.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> All ideas - and all science - require subjection to debate. Science doesn't get taken seriously unless you put your work out for people to critique.
> As for rigourousness, lets not kid ourselves that rigour is foolproof, or proof against the machinations of biased parties. Power relations are *always* in play, so it's entirely-possible for ideas on transgender similar to Greer's to inform a scientific analysis of transgender. The scientific method is only as good as the people deploying the method, sadly.
> 
> And there's the rub. Anyone who might want to accuse Greer of hate crime, is unlikely to be attending one of her speaking events in the first place.



Imagine a debate featuring recent arrivals to this country about the merits of immigration, but that was spent arguing with a racist on the panel about whether black people are genetically predisposed to criminality.

Should debates about global capitalism include anti-Jewish conspiracists? Should every debate about the housing crisis feature a freemen-of-the-land proponent? Should debates about preventive healthcare include anti-vaccine campaigners?

Perhaps there are times and places to debate these sort of people, and they shouldn't invariably be given a place in every discussion about the subject?


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Imagine a debate featuring recent arrivals to this country about the merits of immigration, but that was spent arguing with a racist on the panel about whether black people are genetically predisposed to criminality.
> 
> Should debates about global capitalism include anti-Jewish conspiracists? Should every debate about the housing crisis feature a freemen-of-the-land proponent? Should debates about preventive healthcare include anti-vaccine campaigners?
> 
> Perhaps there are times and places to debate these sort of people, and they shouldn't invariably be given a place in every discussion about the subject?



The examples you have given are of objective facts, where the bullshit is capable of being scientifically disproved.  That's quite different from what is essentially a philosophical question about the definition of a woman. A question which is of central importance to feminism, and the answer to which has a practical impact on women's lives.  I take a trans-inclusive line, but I cannot assert that I'm right as a matter of fact (albeit I believe that's a morally correct position), in the same way as I could assert that I'm correct that the earth is not flat.


----------



## toggle (Apr 11, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> None of whom have the status, volume or visibility of Greer.
> 
> Next!



true. 

those who have the credentials don't tend to engage in the same kind of self publicity. but i'd probably still suggest judith butler


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 11, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> And there's the rub. Anyone who might want to accuse Greer of hate crime, is unlikely to be attending one of her speaking events in the first place.



So you've been suggesting that we should have a debate where one side will be mostly absent.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> transgender is not an idea that needs to be subjected to the rigour of debate - if anything its something that sits in the field of scientific research and should stay there. Science is pretty rigorous as I'm sure you know.
> Least of all though are we able to debate with a woman, and her supporters, who seems delighted to use the language of bigotry that would be illegal if it came of out the mouth of someone heckling us on the street.



Surely the question of 'what is a woman' is as much a philosophical as scientific one?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> So you've been suggesting that we should have a debate where one side will be mostly absent.



No, I've not been suggesting that.
Well done in drawing that conclusion from what I wrote, though!


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> Surely the question of what is a woman is a much a philosophical as scientific one?



What does it mean to be mixed-race? Let's have a debate and invite a racial pursit along who believes intermarriage is traitorous


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> What does it mean to be mixed-race? Let's have a debate and invite a racial pursit along who believes intermarriage is traitorous


That's a fatuous comparison, as I suspect you realise. One is a moral position, the other is a definitional question. 

Do you deny that the definition of womanhood is a philosophical question, as kissed to one of objective, scientific fact?


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> That's a fatuous comparison, as I suspect you realise. One is a moral position, the other is a definitional question.
> 
> Do you deny that the definition of womanhood is a philosophical question, as kissed to one of objective, scientific fact?



It's not about whether this is a worthwhile debate or not, it's about who you invite along every time you debate it.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> It's not about whether this is a worthwhile debate or not, it's about who you invite along every time you debate it.



So would you allow people who question whether trans women are women to take part in a debate about what a woman is?


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> So would you allow people who question whether trans women are women to take part in a debate about what a woman is?



If I hosted such a debate, no I wouldn't, as those sort of people often don't seem capable of reasoned discussion.

However other debate organisers might think differently and be happy to invite people who question whether trans women are women along. 
But surely it would be the right of other people not to get involved in that case?


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> If I hosted such a debate, no I wouldn't, as those sort of people often don't seem capable of reasoned discussion.
> 
> However other debate organisers might think differently and be happy to invite people who question whether trans women are women along.
> But surely it would be the right of other people not to get involved in that case?



Yes, it would be right for them to abstain. But would they be entitled to attempt to pressure others out of hosting the debate.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes, it would be right for them to abstain. But would they be entitled to attempt to pressure others out of hosting the debate.



If they were connected to the host in some way, for example being a student at a university, then yes, absolutely. Why should they have to put up with sub-standard debates featuring the same old default reactionary trolls?


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> If they were connected to the host in some way, for example being a student at a university, then yes, absolutely. Why should they have to put up with sub-standard debates featuring the same old default reactionary trolls?


What about not attending? And if they're not connected?


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> What about not attending? And if they're not connected?



If there was a private debate behind closed doors that the wider public had no knowledge of, then sure. I don't think it would be reasonable for unconnected members of the public to "no platform" Greer when she's ranting away to her family after having Christmas dinner at home.


----------



## kavenism (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> So would you allow people who question whether trans women are women to take part in a debate about what a woman is?




Surely if they don’t need to question whether trans-women are women they would believe that some women are indeed trans-women and would have little need to attend a debate about what a woman is? Perhaps such a person would better spend their time at a debate about what women who are not trans-women are?


Every time I dip into this thread it’s like watching a pack of dogs chasing their tails.

I recall a certain German thinkers comment that only Liberals have debating partners. Everyone else has friends and enemies.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> If there was a private debate behind closed doors that the wider public had no knowledge of, then sure. I don't think it would be reasonable for unconnected members of the public to "no platform" Greer when she's ranting away to her family after having Christmas dinner at home.


Hang on, you mentioned them having a connection. Are you now saying that's not necessary?


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

kavenism said:


> Surely if they don’t need to question whether trans-women are women they would believe that some women are indeed trans-women and would have little need to attend a debate about what a woman is? Perhaps such a person would better spend their time at a debate about what women who are not trans-women are?
> 
> 
> Every time I dip into this thread it’s like watching a pack of dogs chasing their tails.
> ...


Maybe the audience is undecided, and wants to hear both sides?


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> If there was a private debate behind closed doors that the wider public had no knowledge of, then sure. I don't think it would be reasonable for unconnected members of the public to "no platform" Greer when she's ranting away to her family after having Christmas dinner at home.



So what if it's open to the public, and some women want to hear what she has to say? Instead of not listening, are those who don't like her views entitled to pressure the host into cancelling?


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> Hang on, you mentioned them having a connection. Are you now saying that's not necessary?



No. Everyone has a connection to a debate on the BBC for example, because it's a public institution broadcasting to the population. 

Likewise in any public debate that features a participant actively denigrating a group of people, then that group of people have an interest in that debate because it directly affects them and peoples' attitude to them that they experience in their daily lives.

Do you have a specific instance in mind?


----------



## toggle (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> Maybe the audience is undecided, and wants to hear both sides?



and where would we find this audience of hypotheticals who have an interest, but no opinion?


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> So what if it's open to the public, and some women want to hear what she has to say? Instead of not listening, are those who don't like her views entitled to pressure the host into cancelling?



Do black people have a right to protest against Trump?


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> No. Everyone has a connection to a debate on the BBC for example, because it's a public institution broadcasting to the population.
> 
> Likewise in any public debate that features a participant actively denigrating a group of people, then that group of people have an interest in that debate because it directly affects them and peoples' attitude to them that they experience in their daily lives.
> 
> Do you have a specific instance in mind?


A private institution hosting a debate that's open to the public? What then?


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Do black people have a right to protest against Trump?


To protest against his view, yes. To prevent those who want to hear him from doing so,  though?  What do you think?


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

toggle said:


> and where would we find this audience of hypotheticals who have an interest, but no opinion?


Not everyone has a fixed opinion; some people keep an open mind on lots of issues.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> To protest against his view, yes. To prevent those who want to hear him from doing so,  though?  What do you think?



No one is talking about "preventing anyone from hearing" Greer etc are they? It's about "not letting them repeat their same old opinions yet again in our debate here, let's hear some other views for a change that aren't featured in numerous books and newspaper columns"


----------



## toggle (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> Not everyone has a fixed opinion; some people keep an open mind on lots of issues.



not having a fixed opinion =/= no opinion. 

so where do we find people with, as you initially stated, 'no opinion'?


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

toggle said:


> not having a fixed opinion =/= no opinion.
> 
> so where do we find people with, as you initially stated, 'no opinion'?



I didn't state 'no opinion'; I said 'undecided.' That means to lack a fixed opinion, doesn't it?


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> No one is talking about "preventing anyone from hearing" Greer etc are they? It's about "not letting them repeat their same old opinions yet again in our debate here, let's hear some other views for a change that aren't featured in numerous books and newspaper columns"


Anyone trying to prevent her speaking is trying to prevent others from hearing her, on that occasion.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> Anyone trying to prevent her speaking is trying to prevent others from hearing her, on that occasion.



Yeah sure, and the debate organisers are "trying to prevent" everyone from hearing every single person who they didn't invite.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Yeah sure, and the debate organisers are "trying to prevent" everyone from hearing every single person who they didn't invite.



Sorry, are you saying that those who are trying to prevent her from speaking aren't trying to prevent others hearing her on that occasion? 

And do you really not appreciate the difference between not inviting someone and actively seeking to have an invitee disinvited notwithstanding that others want to hear her?


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> Sorry, are you saying that those who are trying to prevent her from speaking aren't trying to prevent others hearing her on that occasion?
> 
> And do you really not appreciate the difference between not inviting someone and actively seeking to have an invitee disinvited notwithstanding that others want to hear her?



No one is stopping her from being heard, just like no one on this website is stopping David Icke from being heard. Sure they might ban him from posting here, and then they would be stopping him from being heard _on that occasion_ but surely you can see that's a very different thing.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 11, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> IMO it's by far the best strategy.



One of the points being that not all formats allow for that to happen. Sometimes protesting a speaking engagement is the only way to engage. Again, different levels of power and access, etc etc etc.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> No one is stopping her from being heard, just like no one on this website is stopping David Icke from being heard. Sure they might ban him from posting here, and then they would be stopping him from being heard _on that occasion_ but surely you can see that's a very different thing.


So, they are stopping her being heard on that occasion. And what if other people want to hear her on that occasion? Who decides whom others can hear at any given time, and on what criteria?


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> One of the points being that not all formats allow for that to happen. Sometimes protesting a speaking engagement is the only way to engage. Again, different levels of power and access, etc etc etc.


Protesting, yes. But we're talking about more than expressing disagreement, aren't we?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 11, 2016)

Protesting takes different forms.

Presumably most protest wants to achieve something.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> hide nothing. Celebrate it through statuary? come off it. You like the british empire marky boy? think it was great and cecil was a gent? no no no you arse. Not having a dirty great statue of henry kissenger on the lawn doesn't mean I or anyone ignore it. Hide it. People who know the legacy of rhodes keep a sharp fucking eye on the history and the legacy. But I'm sure you're right and having a statue of a racist apartheid cunt is just fine for a uni. Like that time I done a waxwork of hitler and plonked it in the middle of a jewish faith school. You wank.



By the standards of his time, Rhodes was a colossus.

I just about ended myself laughing, when I read the words of the chap who wanted this abhorrent statue removed. The chap was there on a Rhodes Scholarship. I thought it was immensely hypocritical. I hate Rhodes, I'll take his money though.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Protesting takes different forms.
> 
> Presumably most protest wants to achieve something.


Yes, and I understand the importance of winning the particular argument against TERFs. But I disagree that, tactically, this is best acheived by such forms of protest. And I disagree that the legitimising of efforts to limit the practical expression of freedom of speech are necessary or helpful to anyone in the long run.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Protesting takes different forms.
> 
> Presumably most protest wants to achieve something.


Yes, and I understand the importance of winning the particular argument against TERFs. But I disagree that, tactically, this is best acheived by such forms of protest. And I disagree that legitimising efforts to limit the practical expression of freedom of speech are necessary or helpful to anyone in the long run.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes, and I understand the importance of winning the particular argument against TERFs. But I disagree that, tactically, this is best acheived by such forms of protest. And I disagree that the legitimising of efforts to limit the practical expression of freedom of speech are necessary or helpful to anyone in the long run.



Why don't you leave the tactics to those who are protesting?


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Why don't you leave the tactics to those who are protesting?



Because they impact on all of us. Not that I have done anything to stop them, anyway.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> Because they impact on all of us. Not that I have done anything to stop them, anyway.



How would stopping Greer speak at a debate about trans people impact you exactly?


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> How would stopping Greer speak at a debate about trans people impact you exactly?


The legitimisation of the idea that those who disagree with someone can undermine the practical expression of their right to free speech affects all of us.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> The legitimisation of the idea that those who disagree with someone can undermine the practical expression of their right to free speech affects all of us.



As has been pointed out to you numerous times, Greer et al are free to speak, and often get significant coverage of their views in national media.

If Jehovah's Witnesses come to your door and you decline to invite them in and listen to them for an hour, are you no-platforming them and denying them a right to free speech?


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> The legitimisation of the idea that those who disagree with someone can undermine the practical expression of their right to free speech affects all of us.



Not to mention the infantilisation of society, whereby people need to be protected from hearing opinions with which they disagree, and the consequent paralysing effect on practical action.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> As has been pointed out to you numerous times, Greer et al are free to speak, and often get significant coverage of their views in national media.
> 
> If Jehovah's Witnesses come to your door and you decline to invite them in and listen to them for an hour, are you no-platforming them and denying them a right to free speech?



Terrible analogy. I don't want to hear them, and so choose not to (by closing the door, which would be analagous to not attending her lecture). But if my neighbour did want to hear them, but I prevented them visiting her (analagous to closing down the lecture), then yes, I would be undermining the practical expression of their right to free speech.

Who do you think should decide (in practical terms) which people others are allowed to hear and when? And on what criteria?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> Not to mention the *infantilisation of society*, whereby people need to be protected from hearing opinions with which they disagree, and the consequent paralysing effect on practical action.



Been reading Mr Fry today?


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Been reading Mr Fry today?


Great point, well made.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> Who do you think should decide (in practical terms) which people others are allowed to hear and when? And on what criteria?



Obviously there are all sorts of situations where people are invited to talk in debates. It seems a perfectly legitimate exercise in "free speech" for others to question the choice of participants and lobby the organisers to choose people using different criteria.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Obviously there are all sorts of situations where people are invited to talk in debates. It seems a perfectly legitimate exercise in "free speech" for others to question the choice of participants and lobby the organisers to choose people using different criteria.



We're going round in circles.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> We're going round in circles.



Because you're arguing against something that isn't happening.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Because you're arguing against something that isn't happening.



OK, if it makes you feel better to think that.


----------



## Coolfonz (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> The legitimisation of the idea that those who disagree with someone can undermine the practical expression of their right to free speech affects all of us.



Like for example major corporations owned by banks and funds owning huge sectors of the global media and its distribution. Or do you mean some bollocks about students?


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

Coolfonz said:


> Like for example major corporations owned by banks and funds owning huge sectors of the global media and its distribution. Or do you mean some bollocks about students?



Yeah, that's another example to which I object.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> The legitimisation of the idea that those who disagree with someone can undermine the practical expression of their right to free speech affects all of us.



Sorry this is just fucking bullshit. At Cardiff the university's LGBT society started a petition asking she not be invited to give a lecture on women's rights because they felt her views were misogynist.  They started a petition and handed out some leaflets.  Earlier in the year Cambridge LGBT society boycott a speech  by Greer - as in they didn't go.  What the fuck do you expect LGBT societies at universities to do?  Do they not have a right to object?  Do they have to turn up so ensure Greers free fucking speech is upheld.  Do we all have to listen to her, wherever we go, in case her rights are affected.   This was the mildest form of protest possible by a few people at a couple of speeches with a relatively small audience.  It happens all the time when controversial speakers are invited to universities, it happens all the time when politicians give speeches, I've been at protests myself aiming to disrupt or prevent speeches given by the workfare industry.  Should we not protest against mens rights activists anymore, or fascists, or tories anymore in case their right to free speech is affected.  Or is it only when people are transphobic that you diggedly insist even the mildest protest against their views is unacceptable.  You don't care about fucking free speech and action for trans people at all, you want to stop them protesting against transphobia in the way they want to protest.  Because you support them you say.  You're a liar.

Just by the way after these events Greer went on Newsnight and spoke in the national media to justify her views.  The practical expression of her right to free speech and her considerable platform was unaffected.  I'm not aware of any members of the LGBT societues being given chance to air their views in the national press on this scale, or at all in fact.


----------



## Coolfonz (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yeah, that's another example to which I object.



A much larger and more important one, imo.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

smokedout said:


> ...
> Do they not have a right to object?


Yes.



smokedout said:


> Do they have to turn up so ensure Greers free fucking speech is upheld.


No.



smokedout said:


> Do we all have to listen to her, wherever we go, in case her rights are affected.


No.



smokedout said:


> ...
> Or is it only when people are transphobic that you diggedly insist even the mildest protest against their views is unacceptable.
> ...


I've not said that. Rather that they have no right to prevail in their atempts to dictate to others, and to warn of the possible consequences of the increasing use of such tactics, against such targets.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

Coolfonz said:


> A much larger and more important one, imo.



I agree.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 11, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> No.
> ...



Well I'm sure everyone is very grateful for your support.  What next, turning up at a Black Lives Matters protest and telling them they musn't disrupt Trump's conventions, going to meetings in Whitechapel insisting to the Bngladeshi community that the EDL must be allowed to speak there, calling for Mens Rights Activists to be allowed to post on the F Word, who are you going to help next?


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Well I'm sure everyone is very grateful for your support.  What next, turning up at a Black Lives Matters protest and telling them they musn't disrupt Trump's conventions, going to meetings in Whitechapel insisting to the Bngladeshi community that the EDL must be allowed to speak there, calling for Mens Rights Activists to be allowed to post on the F Word, who are you going to help next?


----------



## smokedout (Apr 11, 2016)

oh sorry they're different aren't they.  they aren't trans people so your free speech rules don't apply.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

smokedout said:


> oh sorry they're different aren't they.  they aren't trans people so your free speech rules don't apply.


Oh no, I've been found out.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 11, 2016)

big joke ain't it transphobia.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

smokedout said:


> big joke ain't it transphobia.



Yeah, 'cos that's what I've argued throughout.  

If this dishonest bullshit is all you've got, what's the point?


----------



## smokedout (Apr 11, 2016)

Well perhaps you can answer the question, do you oppose the scenarios I offered above, do you think you should be the one to tell those communities how to respond?  If Iain Duncan Smith wants to turn up in my local community centre and give a speech am I not allowed to do anything?  No petitions, no boycotts?

Seems to me there's two secnarios playing out - one you think transphobic abuse gets a free pass and should be treated differently, and two you have some bourgeois attachment to universities, presumably because you went to one, and think that they should be special places where the elite can safely debate controversial veiws that us plebs wouldn't understand.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Well perhaps you can answer the question, do you oppose the scenarios I offered above, do you think you should be the one to tell those communities how to respond?  If Iain Duncan Smith wants to turn up in my local community centre and give a speech am I not allowed to do anything?  No petitions, no boycotts?
> 
> Seems to me there's two secnarios playing out - one you think transphobic abuse gets a free pass and should be treated differently, and two you have some bourgeois attachment to universities, presumably because you went to one, and think that they should be special places where the elite can safely debate controversial veiws that us plebs wouldn't understand.



I've never said transphobic abuse should get a free pass; quite the opposite, I've said those ideas should be challanged.

Now we're going round and round.  And worse, you're intent on misrepresenting what I've said.  It's dishonest, and makes the discussion pointless, and I've got better things to do, sorry.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 11, 2016)

Not going round and round, I asked you a question, you've chosen not to answer.  Thats up to you and your agenda.


----------



## Athos (Apr 11, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Not going round and round, I asked you a question, you've chosen not to answer.  Thats up to you and your agenda.





Athos said:


> ... you're intent on misrepresenting what I've said.  It's dishonest, and makes the discussion pointless, and I've got better things to do, sorry.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 11, 2016)

bingo


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 11, 2016)

So, the EDl organizing to intimidate an ethnic community would now be the same as an aged feminist with controversial opinions actually being invited to speak on campus. wow, never thought of that somehow.

I hate it when people scream "agenda" when they can't cope with an opposing opinion. It stinks of paranoia or dishonesty.

The essence of what this thread should be about is concern over the rise of unnecessary Safe spaces (for over protected uni-brats), which have a potential to stifle debate and stunt intellectual growth, not only of the people who use them but fellow students who would be richer for debating. Nothing to do with organized racist invadsions of communities. Concern for free speech on campus is not tantamount to being phobic of anything. Something that is gleemingly obvious to everyone with 2 ounces of common sense.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 11, 2016)

What do people think of Trigger warnings being added to books on courses?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 11, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> What do people think of Trigger warnings being added to books on courses?



Much the same as I think about content warnings on the back of films or when the newsreader says "the following report contains images some viewers might find disturbing."

That is, I have no problem with it.


----------



## campanula (Apr 11, 2016)

You surely can't put trigger warnings on books..or anything else - trigger warnings for what? Everything? I have a phobia of bees and wasps (tragic for a gardener) and honestly can't bear to look at even an illustration of one, never mind a realistic photo - makes me quite gaspy and breathless but even so...how can everyone be protected from everything and is being offended worse than being frightened? And how are levels of upset, anguish, panic measured.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 11, 2016)

Yeah I mean how can we possible evaluate the content of things and display some public guide. We definitely haven't been doing that with movies nor do we put books into age based categories and of course there's no watershed on TV either.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 11, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> So, the EDl organizing to intimidate an ethnic community would now be the same as an aged feminist with controversial opinions actually being invited to speak on campus. wow, never thought of that somehow.



Didn't say organising to intimidate, said want to speak.  There are three possible positions, one is that people have the right to speak anywhere and should never be opposed or protested against, another that there is a line, concerning who is speaking, where they are speaking and how any protest takes place.  I want to know where that line is.

The third option is that people have the right to speak and people have the right to protest against that, or try and persuade whoever is organising the speech not to include them, or persuade people not to attend.  That seems fine to me, in fact it seems like genuine free speech.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 11, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> Concern for free speech on campus is not tantamount to being phobic of anything. Something that is gleemingly obvious to everyone with 2 ounces of common sense.



I don't give a fuck about on campus by the way.  I see no difference between on campus and my local library.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 11, 2016)

campanula said:


> You surely can't put trigger warnings on books..or anything else - trigger warnings for what? Everything? I have a phobia of bees and wasps (tragic for a gardener) and honestly can't bear to look at even an illustration of one, never mind a realistic photo - makes me quite gaspy and breathless but even so...how can everyone be protected from everything and is being offended worse than being frightened? And how are levels of upset, anguish, panic measured.



Good job it's something that's not actually happening outside of the shrieks and clutching of commentariat pearls.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 12, 2016)

Athos said:


> The legitimisation of the idea that those who disagree with someone can undermine the practical expression of their right to free speech affects all of us.


I will say this over and over. I don;t expect a response and I'm not going to argue with Athos. But the reason trans people don;t want Greer to talk about TRANS ISSUES is because she's not trans, she's a bigot, she speaks with absolutely no evidence; doesn't even pretend to be evidenced and seems to take great delight in trolling us. Also she's all over the frigging media; she effectively talks all over us with her far greater reach in the media; she inspires hatred in the communities we have to live in; her pointless trolling adds nothing to the debate trans people *would like to be having*; she effectively ensures that trans women (in particular) feel unable to engage with feminism. She is creating fear and isolation in our community. 

Athos doesn't believe us because, apparently he's an ally. I don;t know whether to laugh or cry!


----------



## toggle (Apr 12, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> By the standards of his time, Rhodes was a colossus.
> 
> I just about ended myself laughing, when I read the words of the chap who wanted this abhorrent statue removed. The chap was there on a Rhodes Scholarship. I thought it was immensely hypocritical. I hate Rhodes, I'll take his money though.



take back a bit of what rhodes stole? good for him.


----------



## toggle (Apr 12, 2016)

Sasaferrato 

why should we respect someone whose actions started a war, for no better reason than their own increaced wealth?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 12, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Yeah I mean how can we possible evaluate the content of things and display some public guide. We definitely haven't been doing that with movies nor do we put books into age based categories and of course there's no watershed on TV either.


There's too much of that, imo. You get half the plot sometimes before a thing has even started. I sometimes wonder how much of it is being done out of genuine concern, and how much out of a desire to cover backs and head off complaints.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 12, 2016)

toggle said:


> Sasaferrato
> 
> why should we respect someone whose actions started a war, for no better reason than their own increaced wealth?



I didn't say we should respect him. I said, by the standards of his time, he was an exceptional man, which he was.


----------



## Athos (Apr 12, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I didn't say we should respect him. I said, by the standards of his time, he was an exceptional man, which he was.



That's a fairly fatous point, given the marked absence of statues commemorating equally significant people e.g. Hitler or Stalin.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 12, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Didn't say organising to intimidate, said want to speak.  There are three possible positions, one is that people have the right to speak anywhere and should never be opposed or protested against, another that there is a line, concerning who is speaking, where they are speaking and how any protest takes place.  I want to know where that line is.
> 
> The third option is that people have the right to speak and people have the right to protest against that, or try and persuade whoever is organising the speech not to include them, or persuade people not to attend.  That seems fine to me, in fact it seems like genuine free speech.



Option 3 please.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 12, 2016)

Athos said:


> That's a fairly fatous point, given the marked absence of statues commemorating equally significant people e.g. Hitler or Stalin.



There are still statues of Stalin, I think. You can hardly class Rhodes in the same league as Stalin and Hitler though.


----------



## Athos (Apr 12, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> There are still statues of Stalin, I think. You can hardly class Rhodes in the same league as Stalin and Hitler though.



It's a while since I visited Oxford, but I don't recall any Stalin statues.


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 12, 2016)

Timothy Garton Ash's patrician tones of sweet reason attempt to summarise the debate for Radio 4 listeners, while picking a side. I'm Offended, Free Speech - BBC Radio 4​


----------



## J Ed (Apr 12, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> By the standards of his time, Rhodes was a colossus.
> 
> I just about ended myself laughing, when I read the words of the chap who wanted this abhorrent statue removed. The chap was there on a Rhodes Scholarship. I thought it was immensely hypocritical. I hate Rhodes, I'll take his money though.



Do you also solemnly lament statues of Lenin being toppled by the ungrateful know-nothings who hate history and spit in the face of everything the USSR did for them?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Do you also solemnly lament toppled statues of Lenin by the ungrateful know-nothings who hate history and spit in the face of everything the USSR did for them?



They should definitely have not knocked over that statue of Saddam and hit it with their shoes. They should have stood and looked at it and remembered that he was a great man in his time.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 12, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> They should definitely have not knocked over that statue of Saddam and hit it with their shoes. They should have stood and looked at it and remembered that he was a great man in his time.



Yes, those ungrateful kids were happy enough to study in Iraqi taxpayer funded schools, they aren't allowed to have an opinion, the hypocrites.


----------



## toggle (Apr 12, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I didn't say we should respect him. I said, by the standards of his time, he was an exceptional man, which he was.


exceptionally greedy does not deserve statues


----------



## toggle (Apr 12, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> There are still statues of Stalin, I think. You can hardly class Rhodes in the same league as Stalin and Hitler though.



oh, do we just judge the inhumanity of arseholes prepared to start wars on the numbers dead? 

just as a ballpark, how many graves are we talking about before we no longer sneer at people who condem them, like you did at the student complaining about the statue?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 12, 2016)

toggle said:


> exceptionally greedy does not deserve statues



Some people like to see chestnuts roasting over an open fire.
I like to see Tory nuts roasting over an open fire.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Do you also solemnly lament statues of Lenin being toppled by the ungrateful know-nothings who hate history and spit in the face of everything the USSR did for them?



Lenin was quite against statues himself, saying something like you have to understand ideas and not convert leaders in idols. He would have toppled his own statues if he had lived to see them.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 12, 2016)

Triggers on books for if a book contains worms or vomit or untold trivial shit from an ever lengthening list. No thanks. People who are traumatized by such things need to seek help so that the whole mindset at unis doesn't get bogged down in permanent worry.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 12, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> Triggers on books for if a book contains worms or vomit or untold trivial shit from an ever lengthening list. No thanks. People who are traumatized by such things need to seek help so that the whole mindset at unis doesn't get bogged down in permanent worry.



How widespread do you think this is?


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> How widespread do you think this is?



By the ample coverage in various media of this whole set of concepts ie; Safe spaces, cultural appropriation, triggers and micro-aggression, I'd say it is not something isolated to only a few individuals at one or two unis but a growing tendency, a bit like the revolting and cheesy erruption of the cupcake trend that sprouted up in your face everywhere a couple of years back.

I fear that this is something more widespread than previous outbreaks because a whole generation of kids have grown up in an overprotected environment and are finding it hard to cope with the hazards of everyday life.

If it's a media invention, then it's a dangerous one as it is, imo, fueling the likes of Trump, who thrive on the ingrained rejection this type of PC stuff has amongst his potential voters.


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 12, 2016)

Anybody reading Zoology, Biology, Eng Lit (or any other Lit), Film Studies, Gender Studies, Media Studies, Peace Studies, History, Classics or Theology is bound to come up against some pretty disturbing shit, and they probably know that before they start. (Yeah, I've probably missed something out.) Is the use of TWs widespread? It seems to be spreading in the US. On Trigger Warnings | AAUP 
It would be interesting to have input from some academic students and staff rather than people like me who have only an internet acquaintance with the phenomenon.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 12, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> If it's a media invention, then it's a dangerous one as it is, imo, fueling the likes of Trump, who thrive on the ingrained rejection this type of PC stuff has amongst his potential voters.



You are right here. The average student will never hear about any of this, or if they do they will only hear about it from right-wing newspapers or right-wingers, a tiny handful of voices have been amplified a thousand fold so that they can become a staple of a new right-wing identity politics.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 12, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Is the use of TWs widespread?



Only in the right-wing media


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Only in the right-wing media


That's reassuring.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 12, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Anybody reading Zoology, Biology, Eng Lit (or any other Lit), Film Studies, Gender Studies, Media Studies, Peace Studies, History, Classics or Theology is bound to come up against some pretty disturbing shit, and they probably know that before they start. (Yeah, I've probably missed something out.) Is the use of TWs widespread? It seems to be spreading in the US. On Trigger Warnings | AAUP
> It would be interesting to have input from some academic students and staff rather than people like me who have only an internet acquaintance with the phenomenon.



Him indoors lectures sociology.

To my knowledge he hasn't been approached to include trigger warnings on anything.

When teaching about certain gender and sexuality topics, he has told people at the beginning of the class stuff like "there will be topics some people might find uncomfortable; just because you might be comfortable with your sexuality and gender doesn't mean your neighbour is" etc. I'm massively paraphrasing so have likely got the tone wrong.

The idea is simply to not be a dick and encourage others not to be dicks either. Hardly a terrible thing, I'd say.


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 12, 2016)

Thanks, VP. Nothing to get in a flap about if that's all a TW is.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Only in the right-wing media



Also in the Guardian and the BBC

No Stephen Fry, survivors of child sex abuse don't need to 'grow up'

The comments below article are interesting.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 13, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Thanks, VP. Nothing to get in a flap about if that's all a TW is.



Trigger and content warnings can come in all sorts of different forms.

We encounter them all the time.

As has already been said, the ratings and warnings on the back of films or video games are content warnings. When a newsreader says "the following report contains images some viewers might find upsetting" that's a content/trigger warning. When they say "the following report contains flash photography" that's a warning. Saying at the beginning of a lecture "there are going to be some heavy topics covered in this session" is a content warning. Writing that on the module document is a content warning. Adding specifics about some of the issues raised is a more targeted version akin to a rating for a film. Accommodations are made for ex-soldiers who suffer from PTSD, to avoid triggering them. People going through certain types of counselling and therapy will be asked to make a list of what triggers them, so they can work towards dealing with that.

None of it is aimed at infantilising people. None of it is aimed at molly-coddling people. We do it, in all sorts of situations, because we believe in people being able to make informed choices and being able to prepare themselves if they need to.

The reason we're seeing so much furor over this now is complex.

Firstly, it has to do with how people always look down on students, because that's apparently what they deserve, generation after generation. That's nothing new. In part that's because older generations simply despise the young. Students are a grouping of young people that are easy to target and paint with a broad brush. That they are also often pursuing something that is by many seen as decadent rather than vocational or materially worthwhile makes them an even softer target.

We're also seeing a surge in concern over 'free speech' in lots of places. Most of it completely mistakes - willfully or otherwise - what free speech actually means, and usually divorces it from any discussion of responsibility and consequence. But as the pearl clutching reaches fever pitch, particularly amongst the commentariat, all sorts of erroneous things are thrown out there about sensitive little students who are threatening to bring down the very structure of academe and indeed western civilisation itself! with their babyish calls for a trigger warning about images of spiders on the front of every book they're asked to read.

Throw into this mix the rise of social media, where young people - traditionally more 'right on' and politically active in one form or another than older generations - suddenly have the ability to be heard in ways they've never previously been able, and add it to how the commentariat are becoming increasingly irrelevant and hating every second of having their authority questioned, and you get a situation where one of the things many young people are concerned with - ensuring everyone's voice is heard and people are accommodated - is spun as some great unravelling of everything we've always held dear (except when we haven't).

You can apply the above to all sorts of things that make headlines now, not just trigger warnings.

When you get Fry coming out and spouting incredibly crass and disgusting shit in defence of the right to upset everyone and against the right of anyone to ever say "I'd rather you didn't" it makes for great headlines and for the commentariat to say "look, the ever so intelligent Mr Fry thinks it's awful, so it must be" without actually thinking about the ways he himself would really rather people didn't if it upsets him.

tl;dr trigger and content warnings have been around for ages; people get snotty about students; don't be a dick to each other


----------



## Athos (Apr 13, 2016)

I don't really see the problem with trigger warnings _per se_. Whilst I'd find their over-use in respect of trivial issues e.g. spiders irritating, I'm not sure how much that's happening in real life - more a stick for the right (including mainstream media) to ridicule students/the left. And, if trigger warnings help people with PTSD or survivors of sexual abuse (whose experiences Fry was wrong to mock), then that's a good thing.

But, they don't exist in a vacuum; they're the benign end of a continuum. And there is a definite creep from the idea that 'I have a right to be warned of anything that might upset me, so that I can leave the conversation' towards 'you ought not to say anything that might upset me.' Typically, that's the position taken by entitled people, who've been molly-coddled and are used to getting their own way. I know that's happening, because I've experienced it.  And it bothers me for two reasons.

First, as a matter of principle; I know some on this thread have a very formal conception of the right to free speech, but I think it's a mistake to overlook that fact that the chilling of debate is an encroachment on the practical expression of that right.

And, secondly, because the paralysis that such ideas cause within the sphere in which they're gaining traction - the left. I've seen plans to do stuff bogged down to the point of being abandoned by some really trivial bullshit. Which, in my opinion is a reflection on the state of what now passes for 'the left.' Increasingly, it's becoming the preserve of student politics poseurs -  I don't recognise the idea that this generation of students are more genuinely progressive than their predecessors -  who are more interested in bickering with would-be allies; intersectionalists more interested in challenging comrades' choice of words than capitalism; and, middle class people who want to see more women and gay people in boardrooms, trying to freeze out working class people who want to see the end of bosses. But I guess it's hard to take on a serious subject when your entire 'analysis' must fit within a tweet.


----------



## BigTom (Apr 13, 2016)

Two really good posts there.

Personally (wrt clinical depression and probably ptsd) I have found trigger warnings useful so I'm ready when I read/see/hear something that I'd going to trigger particular emotional reaction.
What I find missing from current trigger warning stuff is real discussion of why avoidance is bad and why it is/can be important and necessary to expose yourself to stuff in order to recover and have working coping strategies


----------



## 8ball (Apr 13, 2016)

Anudder Oik said:


> Also in the Guardian and the BBC
> 
> No Stephen Fry, survivors of child sex abuse don't need to 'grow up'
> 
> The comments below article are interesting.



Since we're sort of on the subject of platforms, I thought this one made a few interesting points, or maybe just put some sensible points forward in a good way:

No one would listen to Stephen Fry if he was poor | Paris Lees

I kind of agree with both 'sides' of this argument on varying points re: the original assertion about universities:  there should be space for adversarial exploration of ideas, but there should also be spaces where everyone can feel comfortable.  It feels like a common sense point, but it seems all manner of reasonable arguments can be poisoned by agendas.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Him indoors lectures sociology.
> 
> To my knowledge he hasn't been approached to include trigger warnings on anything.
> 
> ...



When I did my psych and criminology masters, there was the same sort of general warning, but all the postgrads knew what they were getting into, by dint of the subject matter, so the warning was kind of _pro forma_.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> When I did my psych and criminology masters, there was the same sort of general warning, but all the postgrads knew what they were getting into, by dint of the subject matter, so the warning was kind of _pro forma_.



Yeah, you know it's going to be coming. 

Not a subject I could have dealt with as a student.


----------



## Metal Malcolm (Apr 13, 2016)

I saw this written as a response to the responses to Fry. I thought it was a fairly good, albeit shouty, summary of some of the opposing opinions.

Stephen Fry is right about trigger warnings – he’s especially right about self-pity


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2016)

8ball said:


> Yeah, you know it's going to be coming.
> 
> Not a subject I could have dealt with as a student.



I'm agnostic on specific trigger warnings, but don't see why general ones shouldn't be applied, because there *will* always be a few people who under-estimate the appallingness of some of the material they'll have to study. I had several sleepless nights after reading some CSA case studies, not because they "triggered" me with regard to my own experience of being sexually abused as a child - but because it forcefully drove home to me how *prevalent* CSA still is, and how appallingly badly-policed it still is.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 13, 2016)

Metal Malcolm said:


> I saw this written as a response to the responses to Fry. I thought it was a fairly good, albeit shouty, summary of some of the opposing opinions.
> 
> Stephen Fry is right about trigger warnings – he’s especially right about self-pity



The second comment is also good.  I think on some level Fry was kind of talking to himself, but he could have said it without, effectively, punching downwards from his privileged position.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm agnostic on specific trigger warnings, but don't see why general ones shouldn't be applied, because there *will* always be a few people who under-estimate the appallingness of some of the material they'll have to study. I had several sleepless nights after reading some CSA case studies, not because they "triggered" me with regard to my own experience of being sexually abused as a child - but because it forcefully drove home to me how *prevalent* CSA still is, and how appallingly badly-policed it still is.



I think also there is the problem that you can sail through several warnings and not be really affected and then something hits you because the guard gets dropped, or something completely unrelated (that you wouldn't think would be a problem) can chime with a memory left untouched and buried for years.  I'm talking generally, not about this particular area of study - I'm well out of that.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm agnostic on specific trigger warnings, but don't see why general ones shouldn't be applied, because there *will* always be a few people who under-estimate the appallingness of some of the material they'll have to study. I had several sleepless nights after reading some CSA case studies, not because they "triggered" me with regard to my own experience of being sexually abused as a child - but because it forcefully drove home to me how *prevalent* CSA still is, and how appallingly badly-policed it still is.


I've noticed my mood plummets and I go really dark when I see pictures of mutilated bodies - human or animal - so have had to unfollow Twitter accounts that share those. I mean I know shit like that happens but if I let it affect me like it does then I'll be no use to anyone!

also - i actually pass out at the sight of blood. Had to get a particularly bloody safety poster taken down at work once. After some analysis I've traced it to an event when i was about 4 or 5 when i saw a woman killed by a bus. I still remember it clearly.


----------



## Athos (Apr 13, 2016)

What a thread; from feminist philosophy to buses.  'I'll get you Judith Butler.'


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> I don't really see the problem with trigger warnings _per se_. Whilst I'd find their over-use in respect of trivial issues e.g. spiders irritating, I'm not sure how much that's happening in real life -



It isn't. I used spiders as an absurd example of the sort of thing the commentariat appear to seem certain is going to be happening all over the place but isn't.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 13, 2016)

Athos said:


> I don't recognise the idea that this generation of students are more genuinely progressive than their predecessors



I didn't say they were. I said that students are generally considered more 'right on' and so on than older generations. That is true of every generation of students, whether the reality fits the stereotype or not.


----------



## Athos (Apr 13, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It isn't. I used spiders as an absurd example that the commentariat appear to seem certain is going to be happening all over the place but isn't.



I know; I was agreeing with you!


----------



## Athos (Apr 13, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I didn't say they were. I said that students are generally considered more 'right on' and so on than older generations. That is true of every generation of students, whether the reality fits the stereotype or not.



And I didn't say you did say they were.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> I've noticed my mood plummets and I go really dark when I see pictures of mutilated bodies - human or animal - so have had to unfollow Twitter accounts that share those. I mean I know shit like that happens but if I let it affect me like it does then I'll be no use to anyone!



Different people react in different ways - we all deal with stuff in ways that work for us. For some people that's avoiding - very sensibly - triggers. For me, once I was treated for what I now know was PTSD, I deliberately *don't* avoid my triggers - something my shrink called "desensitisation". it's not something I'd recommend unless you've got a lot of spare time and patience, but it made life easier than trying to avoid triggers. I'd never have been able to pursue my interest in deviant psychology, if I hadn't learned to set aside my personal reactions to reading about abuse that echoed my own experience. 



> also - i actually pass out at the sight of blood. Had to get a particularly bloody safety poster taken down at work once. After some analysis I've traced it to an event when i was about 4 or 5 when i saw a woman killed by a bus. I still remember it clearly.



Blood phobia is actually quite rational, both psychologically and physiologically - if you faint after seeing your own blood, for example, the act of fainting lowers blood pressure, slowing blood-loss.

Now, fear of needles - NOT something I understand!


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Now, fear of needles - NOT something I understand!


 I get one in my arse every three months so it's just as well I don't understand it either.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 14, 2016)

Interesting article (a follow up to one he did yesterday) on trigger warnings and whether they can be detrimental to mental health: Trigger Warnings as an Impediment to Healing and Mental Health

Long story short: only a person's mental health adviser/therapist/counsellor or the person themselves should be deciding whether exposure therapy is right for someone, not a bunch of people on the internet or on a university ethics board, and in the event that they do decide it's the right thing it is usually conducted with the patient knowing what is coming... with what you might call a "content warning."

In other words: "pfft, I don't think it's good for people to be shielded from the things they find uncomfortable" is irresponsible and not your call.


----------



## Humberto (Apr 14, 2016)

Maybe trans women need more prominence to counter the likes of Greer. Probably too obvious a point but in terms of numbers they are at a disadvantage already compared to others who have been marginalised over the years. 

Those guys who attacked AuntiStella and her boyfriend, I just feel it should be bigger news or at least taken more seriously and treated more urgently. Hope you don't mind me saying that AuntiStella. I just reckon it will be treated as a minor disturbance rather something more serious.

At the moment I fear that advancing trans women's issues is treated along the lines of 'they are just bleeding heart, pc brigade types' when it is not them who have to put up with being attacked. I think most commentators just have no empathy and are dense. They have the power to highlight the issue but choose not to.


----------



## Pugnax (Apr 14, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Interesting article (a follow up to one he did yesterday) on trigger warnings and whether they can be detrimental to mental health: Trigger Warnings as an Impediment to Healing and Mental Health
> 
> Long story short: only a person's mental health adviser/therapist/counsellor or the person themselves should be deciding whether exposure therapy is right for someone, not a bunch of people on the internet or on a university ethics board, and in the event that they do decide it's the right thing it is usually conducted with the patient knowing what is coming... with what you might call a "content warning."
> 
> In other words: "pfft, I don't think it's good for people to be shielded from the things they find uncomfortable" is irresponsible and not your call.



Yeah, it's definitely not as simple as 'exposure therapy is a thing so nobody should avoid anything'. When I tried CBT for OCD (where exposure was probably the main part of the process), the therapist didn't go at the right speed and I thnk it actually set me back quite a way. This is from somebody who was very professional, extremely empathetic and who I trusted a lot. It was just tto overwhelming and luckily he recognised that and cancelled the sessions. I was better off avoiding my triggers until I could identify them more clearly and, probably more importantly, have more control over my emotional response when I did encounter them. It's worth bearing in mnd that many mental health problems don't happen in a vacuum, and sometimes one is the lesser of two evils. I've had/have (  ) addiction problems, so it's no good having constant, forced exposure to OCD triggers if I just transfer that pain into a far more destrucive side of my personality that's got far more potential for disaster. I'm sure this is true for many people (not necessarily addiction, but maybe self harm etc)

Havnig said that, I don't necessarily want trigger warnings for all aspects of what sets me off, it wouldn't be feasable or helpful for me. What I do want is to be around people that are open and accepting to mental health issues and the (mostly private) steps people have to take to get and stay well. It just feels like the snide way people talk about trigger warnings (especially regarding universities, which hopefully is mostly just a good old fashioned student bashing rather than genuine regressive thinking about mental health) can only help to foster an atmosphere where genuine dismissivness and cruelty towards these issues are the norm.

I can feel it happening somewhat at work. People still do the classic 'oh I'm so OCD about tidying' thing which, fine, is slightly irritating but has never bothered me that much. Nobody does it maliciously and I think if I ever said anything they would be legitimately embaressed and apologetic. What does bother me is what seems to be the growing group of people who (ignoring the slightly more subtle side) worship South Park and have vocally jumped on the "haha the PC brigade... free speech... lol triggered" bandwagon. There's no way I'd feel comfortable saying anything in the atmosphere that creates.


----------



## Pugnax (Apr 14, 2016)

This is all coming from a white, middle class, 25 yo male that's probably in the one of the groups that get's taken most seriously in the world. It's downright dangerous for many minorities.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 14, 2016)

Humberto said:


> Maybe trans women need more prominence to counter the likes of Greer. Probably too obvious a point but in terms of numbers they are at a disadvantage already compared to others who have been marginalised over the years.
> 
> Those guys who attacked AuntiStella and her boyfriend, I just feel it should be bigger news or at least taken more seriously and treated more urgently. Hope you don't mind me saying that AuntiStella. I just reckon it will be treated as a minor disturbance rather something more serious.



It's being treated as antisocial disorder yes. I have no idea what consititues a hate crime in the minds of Bromley Police. I'll probably have to get beaten up while being called a "tranny". Beseieging someone in their own home is just not enough hate!


----------



## gosub (Apr 14, 2016)

If they were built under Scottish PFI, they probably aren't safe spaces.


----------



## Athos (Apr 14, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> It's being treated as antisocial disorder yes. I have no idea what consititues a hate crime in the minds of Bromley Police. I'll probably have to get beaten up while being called a "tranny". Beseieging someone in their own home is just not enough hate!


Call the station and ask to speak to the Duty Inspector. Tell them you're unhappy because you consider yourself to have been the victim of a hate crime, and ask for it to be recorded and investigated as such. Don't let them fob you of with the idea that this isn't a crime; ask them why there isn't a strong_ prima facie_ case for a breach under s.4, 4A or 5 Public Order Act 1986, with the discrimination being an aggravating feature.  If needs be, remind them of their duty under the Equality Act.


----------



## treelover (Apr 25, 2016)

Just read that when Katie Hopkins spoke at Brunel recently, a considerable number of(I presume progressive students) turned their backs, then walked out, thing is the debate was on 'welfarism' so lots of nominally left wing people decided that welfare issues, people committing suicide as a consequence of sanctions, etc, were not that important, that other 'concerns' were more salient and their contribution lost to the debate.

identity politics, top trumps, the hierarchy of oppression in action and 
 made explicit.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> Just read that when Katie Hopkins spoke at Brunel recently, a considerable number of(I presume progressive students) turned their backs, then walked out, thing is the debate was on 'welfarism' so lots of nominally left wing people decided that welfare issues, people committing suicide as a consequence of sanctions, etc, were not that important, that other 'concerns' were more salient and their contribution lost to the debate.
> 
> identity politics, top trumps, the hierarchy of oppression in action and
> made explicit.


What possible gains were there to be made by debating with or or listening to katie hopkins speak at a university? If anything you could argue that their reaction showed a refusal to allow such issues to be trivialised and centred around the self-serving pronouncements of someone like that. This would have nothing to do with identity politics and any of the other things you insist everything is always, or should always be about. You really need to stop doing this.


----------



## treelover (Apr 25, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> As has been pointed out to you numerous times, Greer et al are free to speak, and often get significant coverage of their views in national media.
> 
> If Jehovah's Witnesses come to your door and you decline to invite them in and listen to them for an hour, are you no-platforming them and denying them a right to free speech?




as someone said on the Free Speech debate on Victoria Derbyshire, the NUS, universities are not your own front door, etc.


----------



## treelover (Apr 25, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What possible gains were there to be made by debating or lstening katie hopkins speak at a university? If anything you could argue that their reaction showed a refusal to allow such issues to be trivialised and centred around the self-serving pronouncements of someone like that. This would have nothing to do with identity politics and any of the other things you insist everything is always, or should always be about. You really need to stop doing this.




She was one of a number of speakers at an event which in academia is very rarely debated and I don't really care anymore what you think, we all have different perspectives, etc.


----------



## treelover (Apr 25, 2016)

J Ed said:


> You are right here. The average student will never hear about any of this, or if they do they will only hear about it from right-wing newspapers or right-wingers, a tiny handful of voices have been amplified a thousand fold so that they can become a staple of a new right-wing identity politics.



The poll commissioned by the BBC/Victoria Derbyshire Show shows that 2/3's of the 1000 polled support the NUS No Platforming policy, thats quite significant


----------



## treelover (Apr 25, 2016)

Athos said:


> I don't really see the problem with trigger warnings _per se_. Whilst I'd find their over-use in respect of trivial issues e.g. spiders irritating, I'm not sure how much that's happening in real life - more a stick for the right (including mainstream media) to ridicule students/the left. And, if trigger warnings help people with PTSD or survivors of sexual abuse (whose experiences Fry was wrong to mock), then that's a good thing.
> 
> But, they don't exist in a vacuum; they're the benign end of a continuum. And there is a definite creep from the idea that 'I have a right to be warned of anything that might upset me, so that I can leave the conversation' towards 'you ought not to say anything that might upset me.' Typically, that's the position taken by entitled people, who've been molly-coddled and are used to getting their own way. I know that's happening, because I've experienced it.  And it bothers me for two reasons.
> 
> ...



In my experience working class males, especially those with 'physicality' heavy physiques, are very often cold shouldered, sidelined in milieus like NUS, activism, etc.


----------



## rioted (Apr 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> ...when Katie Hopkins spoke at Brunel recently...


Is "Katie Hopkins" trigger warning enough, or was her name followed by a whole long list?


----------



## Tom A (Apr 25, 2016)

The Tab - No-platforming people could be ‘illegal’


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> In my experience working class males, especially those with 'physicality' heavy physiques, are very often cold shouldered, sidelined in milieus like NUS, activism, etc.


what experience of the nus have you had?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> In my experience working class males, especially those with 'physicality' heavy physiques...



Am I the only one here who has no idea what this means?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 25, 2016)

8ball said:


> Am I the only one here who has no idea what this means?


I have an image of Ray Winstone in my head.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 25, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have an image of Ray Winstone in my head.



Google sez:


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 25, 2016)

BoJo has been disinvited from giving a talk at a uni because of his comments about Obama.

Cue cries of it being no-platforming. Which it isn't.

It does no one any favours to keep being disingenuous about what no-platforming and the crushing of free speech actually are.

Half the time, people crying about no-platforming or free speech are jumping on the outrage bandwagon they keep being so outraged about.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 25, 2016)

The whole thing is bullshit.


----------



## IC3D (Apr 25, 2016)

Don't think anyone deserves a safe space unless they can break in and change the locks first. Kids tut.


----------



## treelover (Apr 25, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> what experience of the nus have you had?



For goodness sake i have posted my NUS history on here a few times.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> For goodness sake i have posted my NUS history on here a few times.


Yeh. What "nus sabbatical" were you? President? Vp welfare? Or were you simply a sabbatical at a college? Must say the nus has continued its decline since the days you "were nus".


----------



## Northumbrian (Jul 4, 2018)

The Citizen should have the right to be free from physical violence on campus...

Safe Spaces, No Platforming and all those methods of suppressing thought, speech, expression and discussion should be stopped.

Those who support such things in universities who work there should be fined and forced out

We are not living in a police state


----------



## Toast Rider (Jul 4, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> BoJo has been disinvited from giving a talk at a uni because of his comments about Obama.
> 
> Cue cries of it being no-platforming. Which it isn't.
> 
> ...


he should have gone to the Oxford Union; there isn't a dodgy right wing blowhard with shit hair they won't talk to


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2018)

e2a cba


----------



## Toast Rider (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> The Citizen should have the right to be free from physical violence on campus...
> 
> Safe Spaces, No Platforming and all those methods of suppressing thought, speech, expression and discussion should be stopped.
> 
> ...


Wouldn't the presence of such a place, free from physical violence, be a safe space by definition?

Or have I misunderstood you


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jul 4, 2018)

Bumpity Bump 



Northumbrian said:


> The Citizen should have the right to be free from physical violence on campus...
> 
> Safe Spaces, No Platforming and all those methods of suppressing thought, speech, expression and discussion should be stopped.
> 
> ...


----------



## Northumbrian (Jul 4, 2018)

The Safe Spaces thing has nothing to do with preventing violence it is often used to stop people discussing issues I was reading a story about a autistic student at De Montfort University in Leicester who was subjected to intimidation and being prevented from accessing his own student union because of the No Platform Policy.. 

I thought if that is how universities treat disabled students then something is seriously wrong


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> The Citizen should have the right to be free from physical violence on campus...
> 
> Safe Spaces, No Platforming and all those methods of suppressing thought, speech, expression and discussion should be stopped.
> 
> ...


what about people who aren't citizens, i suppose it's ok to twat them on campus or off


----------



## Northumbrian (Jul 4, 2018)

If they live in the UK they are citizens and afforded the same rights as anybody else


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> If they live in the UK they are citizens and afforded the same rights as anybody else


no they aren't.


----------



## Northumbrian (Jul 4, 2018)

in law they might not be but that doesnt mean we should treat them with any less respect


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> in law they might not be but that doesnt mean we should treat them with any less respect


it means we charge them for treating them, unless their home country has a reciprocal agreement for health care


----------



## chilango (Jul 4, 2018)

Yes. Banning people from campuses should be banned from campuses.

And if people try to force people out of university spaces well, yes, we should force those people out of university spaces.

Cracking stuff Northumbrian.


----------



## Northumbrian (Jul 4, 2018)

well if people will not defend the freedom of speech then they should be removed from their rather lucrative jobs in these universities.. 

Without compensation


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> The Citizen should have the right to be free from physical violence on campus...
> 
> Safe Spaces, No Platforming and all those methods of suppressing thought, speech, expression and discussion should be stopped.
> 
> ...



Quite.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> The Safe Spaces thing has nothing to do with preventing violence it is often used to stop people discussing issues I was reading a story about a autistic student at De Montfort University in Leicester who was subjected to intimidation and being prevented from accessing his own student union because of the No Platform Policy..
> 
> I thought if that is how universities treat disabled students then something is seriously wrong


bollocks
where did you read this? link?


----------



## Northumbrian (Jul 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> it means we charge them for treating them, unless their home country has a reciprocal agreement for health care



Do you think that we should charge people I would like to read your viewpoint on that issue


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> well if people will not defend the freedom of speech then they should be removed from their rather lucrative jobs in these universities..
> 
> Without compensation


the only people who have rather lucrative jobs in universities are the fat pig managers


----------



## Santino (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> I was reading a story about a autistic student at De Montfort University in Leicester who was subjected to intimidation and being prevented from accessing his own student union because of the No Platform Policy..


Where did you read this?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> Do you think that we should charge people I would like to read your viewpoint on that issue


no


----------



## chilango (Jul 4, 2018)

Since when has there been "freedom of speech" on university campuses?

When was the last time Northumbrian or Sasaferrato spent time on a campus?

What nonsense.


----------



## Northumbrian (Jul 4, 2018)

Well neither do I actually 

As for the university managers they are often the ones tolerating rogue groups of students enforcing the no platforming and curtailment of freedom of academic discussion practices on campus..

Free Thought is slowly disappearing from Universities these days because of groups of mainly middle class students who are becoming The Enemy Within...

Who are often not interested in tackling poverty, or getting involved in poverty campaigning and simply like to remain on campuses stopping freedom of discussion...


----------



## Northumbrian (Jul 4, 2018)

chilango said:


> Since when has there been "freedom of speech" on university campuses?
> 
> When was the last time Northumbrian or Sasaferrato spent time on a campus?
> 
> What nonsense.



Well is it not time that freedom of speech was returned to these campuses once and for all

Clear out the deadwood of university management and any lecturers who will not do what is necessary to maintain freedom of discussion...

Its time to get tough with these people


----------



## andysays (Jul 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> what about people who aren't citizens, i suppose it's ok to twat them on campus or off



Not just citizens but 'The Citizen'. 

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say that anyone who capitalises the word citizen in this way is quite possibly something of a loon...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> Well is it not time that freedom of speech was returned to these campuses once and for all
> 
> Clear out the deadwood of university management and any lecturers who will not do what is necessary to maintain freedom of discussion...
> 
> Its time to get tough with these vermin


have you ever tried to discuss anything in a lecture? it's that sort of behaviour that would get you ejected.


----------



## chilango (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> Well is it not time that freedom of speech was returned to these campuses once and for all
> 
> Clear out the deadwood of university management and any lecturers who will not do what is necessary to maintain freedom of discussion...
> 
> Its time to get tough with these vermin



Returned?

When were universities ever bastions of some golden age of free speech?


----------



## Northumbrian (Jul 4, 2018)

Well unfortunately the working class autistic fellow who was subjected to no platform left university with a 4th class degree..

And never received the help with reading and writing that he ought to have he published it on a blog but the name escapes me It was a few years ago that I read it...


----------



## chilango (Jul 4, 2018)

I repeat. Northumbrian, when was the last time you spent any time on a University campus?


----------



## Northumbrian (Jul 4, 2018)

About a year ago handing out leaflets about political meetings


----------



## Northumbrian (Jul 4, 2018)

Well if Universities arent bastions of free speech so why dont we gradually reduce the number of them... 

And use the money for something useful..


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> Well if Universities arent bastions of free speech so why dont we gradually reduce the number of them...
> 
> And use the money for something useful..


universities do other things. like research.


----------



## Santino (Jul 4, 2018)

Santino said:


> Where did you read this?


Northumbrian


----------



## belboid (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> Well unfortunately the working class autistic fellow who was subjected to no platform left university with a 4th class degree..


I thought you said he went to Leicester? Only oxbridge gave fourth class degrees.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> Well unfortunately the working class autistic fellow who was subjected to no platform left university with a 4th class degree..
> 
> And never received the help with reading and writing that he ought to have he published it on a blog but the name escapes me It was a few years ago that I read it...


liar


----------



## ddraig (Jul 4, 2018)

there's a safer spaces document at something I help out with
it just says people shouldn't be racist, sexist, transphobic etc 
and people from groups that are affected by the above have the right to be and feel safe
what's the issue with that? 

what do you want to say that you think you can't say Northumbrian


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> Well neither do I actually
> 
> As for the university managers they are often the ones tolerating rogue groups of students enforcing the no platforming and curtailment of freedom of academic discussion practices on campus..
> 
> ...



That isn't my experience of university campus life.   Which particular universities are you talking about, Northumbrian?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> Well unfortunately the working class autistic fellow who was subjected to no platform left university with a 4th class degree..
> 
> And never received the help with reading and writing that he ought to have he published it on a blog but the name escapes me It was a few years ago that I read it...



Perhaps you could post a link.  Thanks.


----------



## Mrs D (Jul 4, 2018)

My nephew was in his physics lecture last week on Low Dimensional Semiconductors and he tried to make a point about how the Albanians are always begging in gangs on his train and how we should send them all back, but he was told to stop!!! Free speech is dead!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Perhaps you could post a link.  Thanks.


Wouldn't trust him to post a letter


----------



## chilango (Jul 4, 2018)

chilango said:


> I repeat. Northumbrian, when was the last time you spent any time on a University campus?



The reason I ask is because I don't recognise either your view of universities as bastions of free speech nor as places where "no platforming" and intimidation go on.

But then I've only spent c.12 years studying at 6 of them (ongoing btw).

...and have spent time at/visited dozens more in about half a dozen countries or more.

....and live about 5 minutes walk from a major campus.

But y'know....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> About a year ago handing out leaflets about political meetings


Ah right
What sort of political meetings?


----------



## Northumbrian (Jul 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Ah right
> What sort of political meetings?[/QUOTE
> 
> assorted gathering of leftwingers


----------



## Northumbrian (Jul 4, 2018)

chilango said:


> The reason I ask is because I don't recognise either your view of universities as bastions of free speech nor as places where "no platforming" and intimidation go on.
> 
> But then I've only spent c.12 years studying at 6 of them (ongoing btw).
> 
> ...





belboid said:


> I thought you said he went to Leicester? Only oxbridge gave fourth class degrees.



they used to be called 4th class degrees but were renamed ordinary pass degrees De Montfort University a former polytechnic if my memory serves me correct


----------



## ddraig (Jul 4, 2018)

ddraig said:


> there's a safer spaces document at something I help out with
> it just says people shouldn't be racist, sexist, transphobic etc
> and people from groups that are affected by the above have the right to be and feel safe
> what's the issue with that?
> ...


Northumbrian


----------



## Northumbrian (Jul 4, 2018)

Well I believe that people should be able to say what they want but if they resort to violence then they should be stopped...


----------



## Mrs D (Jul 4, 2018)

Judging from the random PM I received for no reason it’s something right wing.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> Well I believe that people should be able to say what they want but if they resort to violence then they should be stopped...


Anything they want at all? nothing is too offensive or inflammatory for you?


----------



## ddraig (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> Well I believe that people should be able to say what they want but if they resort to violence then they should be stopped...


What do you want to say that you feel you are stopped from saying currently?


----------



## krink (Jul 4, 2018)

chilango said:


> But then I've only spent c.12 years studying at 6 of them (ongoing btw).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> Well I believe that people should be able to say what they want but if they resort to violence then they should be stopped...


...by...?


----------



## chilango (Jul 4, 2018)

krink said:


>





In my defence, the majority p/t whilst working.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 4, 2018)

Mrs D said:


> Judging from the random PM I received for no reason it’s something right wing.


Nice avatar plus first post promoting the English Democrats.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 4, 2018)

Free speech would probably be more valued if absolute bell ends werent claiming to be its Champions .
 Hopkins has nothing of value to say to anyone and failed the first test of moral courage its a pity the army didnt dishonurably discharge her.


----------



## Nylock (Jul 5, 2018)

Northumbrian said:


> The Safe Spaces thing has nothing to do with preventing violence it is often used to stop people discussing issues I was reading a story about a autistic student at De Montfort University in Leicester who was subjected to intimidation and being prevented from accessing his own student union because of the No Platform Policy..
> 
> I thought if that is how universities treat disabled students then something is seriously wrong


What was he 'no platformed' for? What was his issue that he wished to discuss? Proof or stfu. Post the link. If it's on something you read on paper, you should be able to remember what publication it was since the story itself clearly made such an impact on you.



Northumbrian said:


> Well unfortunately the working class autistic fellow who was subjected to no platform left university with a 4th class degree..
> 
> And never received the help with reading and writing that he ought to have he published it on a blog but the name escapes me It was a few years ago that I read it...


Then you should be able to remember at least what year this occurred in. They got a 4th-class degree -in what subject? If you're going to weigh in on this topic, half-remembered 'anecdata' and whiffy assertions is not going to get you very far....


----------

