Jump to content

organizedkaos

Members
  • Content Count

    1,211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Excellent

About organizedkaos

  • Rank
    Mid Carder
  • Birthday 02/21/1985
  1. OK. I'd like to make the world better for everyone who chooses not to be an arsehole rather than make the world better purely for the arseholes. (Also apologies for editing my previous post, I don't feel the meaning of it changed but it's probs not OK to go back and change posts in such a quick fire convo. Either way, I think we've reached an impasse here)
  2. This is the problem. You're equating how people chose to be vs. how people are. Germaine Greer chooses to loudly espouse shitty opinions about trans people. Trans people are trans people. If you create an equivalence between their existences and rights (or telling one to "stop it") you're equating how people are with bad behaviour. I don't think (hope) you're doing that intentionally but that's kinda how these conversations end up. As others have said, tolerating intolerance becomes intolerance
  3. Maybe at a trans majority university. Or, for a less facetious (and probably equally unlikely) example; universities once we've overcome the diversity issue. That's the point. The positives of her speaking (single alternative viewpoint gained) are massively outweighed by the negative (potentially multitudes of viewpoints lost). By focusing on her right to speak you mitigate so many others who feel they don't have a right to speak. The debate should be "how can we make everyone feel part of society" not "do the intolerant have a right to be intolerant?".
  4. But what's more useful to understanding differing thoughts and ideas? Germaine Greer's constrasting viewpoint about trans people. Trans people's contrasting perspectives/viewpoints on a multitude of subjects. I'm not saying they're completely mutually exclusive and I realise it can sound condescending to suggest that Germaine Greer speaking means all trans students leave the university but right now there are plenty people who don't feel like universities support/want them because of who they are. Surely it's far more important to the ideas of learning institutions that we cultivating and encouraging diversity (and what they add to the learning of others) over someone who's main differing opinion is suppression of diversity By suggesting university is exactly where she should be allowed to speak it feels you're really not considering the voices she silences by speaking. In her case it reiterates the idea that trans people are some sort of curio, the subject of a singular debate rather than people who can contribute to all the debates.
  5. Was discussing the university thing the other day. Firstly I'm certain there are times people have gone a little overboard with suggesting certain people shouldn't speak in universities. However one thing I've noticed whenever people start talking about "students should hear from a variety of opinions/backgrounds" is half the time it's encouraging speakers who wish to silence the variety of backgrounds and cultures that already exist (but exist in small numbers) in the university. It kinda suggests everyone studying at the university is fairly similar and thus need all their ideas of alternate viewpoints to come from outside. If you are a Muslim student, or a trans student or someone who belongs to any other marginalised group and the university books Milo Yiannopoulos or someone who equates all followers of Islam to extremists (actual attempted speaker at my local one recently) it further creates an environment where your very right to exist seems to be up for debate. If you're already feeling pretty othered that's not exactly conducive to adding your opinion and perspective to seminars/lectures/etc Universities are already pretty overrun with certain groups of people, yet we mostly discuss whether or not some external voices (voices that tend to be more white men) should be part of the learning experience rather than first considering how to cultivate the diversity within (and I'm pretty sure step 1 isn't "DEBATE THE ALT RIGHT") Dunno if that quite makes sense, still figuring it out. Just felt like an omission when these conversations occur when discussing universities
  6. Really excited to see this as only just found out it's based on a one man show I saw a few years back (the show was hillarious and the guy performing it was fantastic - he'd be doing a conversation jumping between gurned up raver and policeman like it was nothing).
×
×
  • Create New...