Freedom of Speech/Inclusion/Tolerance etc.

[organizedkaos]

29 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

Agreed if that is all universities are booking. If it is majority alt-right speakers then absolutely there is a lack of balance and an agenda there that needs questioning.

However banning someone like Germaine Greer, for example, because she made a statement that trans-women are not 'real women' because they have had the benefit of male privilege at some point in their life - you can absolutely hate that she said that and yes, no doubt the trans community are rightly sick of being told what they are and are not by people who think they know better, but at the same time should those who may have been offended by what Greer said and want to discuss it directly with her not have the choice to do so? Even those who did agree with her? Again - not talking about 'promoting hate' or illegal activity, but someone who is clearly intelligent and made a very controversial and contentious statement about trans women. I would argue a university is EXACTLY the type of place Germaine Greer SHOULD be allowed to speak at because of the amount of contrasting views and opinions that would be provided. 
 

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.

Edited May 29, 2019 by organizedkaos
Punctuation

[Snitsky's back acne]

Just now, Keith Houchen said:

Can you give an example where deplatforming hasn't worked?  No it won't change their views but I don't think anything will

Define 'worked' - has it stopped the speaker from having a particular platform at a certain time? Sure.
Has it made them stop being a hateful prick? Likely not. 

I've already provided an example where someone's views HAVE changed as a result of engaging with them [a result I would say is more beneficial, and permanent, than banishing a bigoted twat into obscurity] etc. so saying that you don't think anything will change their views is clearly not correct in all cases.

Just to clarify, I have also repeatedly mentioned, and agree, that it doesn't work with everyone and should not be the course of action to take with everyone.

10 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

OK, but where does the debate extend, and what's the proposed outcome? 

Example: misogynist speaker publicly espouses the curtailment of women's rights. Says that women shouldn't have the vote, shouldn't have maternity leave, etc. Everything short of advocating physical violence against women, which means he can't be arrested. What he's arguing for is accepted as wrong, by and large, by society now. Why should he be given any kind of platform?

Compare to someone advocating the legalisation of paedophilia. He's not arguing that people should go out and rape children right now, he's calling for legalisation so that so that adults can rape children in future and not have it called rape. But we know what he's arguing for is accepted as wrong by almost the whole of society now. And the curtailment of women's rights is just as illegal as paedophilia is. 

So: why give either figure a platform? Why is it that we accept that certain things should be ring-fenced, with no scope for debate, yet people still argue for things such as racism and misogyny?

As I said earlier, I don't know where the debate ends or extends to but the proposed outcome is change, as naive a concept as that may genuinely appear to be.

Do we genuinely want to make the world a better place and have less bigotry, homophobia etc. which can only be achieved by education and confronting already ingrained hatred/changing belief systems etc. or do we just want to give the appearance of the world being a better place, in which case we whitewash all the nasty elements and pretend they don't exist anymore because they don't have a platform and we can't currently see/hear them?
 

[Snitsky's back acne]

10 minutes ago, organizedkaos said:

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.

Genuine question - where should she be allowed to speak? Or should she not be allowed to speak at all because we don't like what she is saying?
 

[Carbomb]

11 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

As I said earlier, I don't know where the debate ends or extends to but the proposed outcome is change, as naive a concept as that may genuinely appear to be.

Do we genuinely want to make the world a better place and have less bigotry, homophobia etc. which can only be achieved by education and confronting already ingrained hatred/changing belief systems etc. or do we just want to give the appearance of the world being a better place, in which case we whitewash all the nasty elements and pretend they don't exist anymore because they don't have a platform and we can't currently see/hear them?
 

Again: we already do the same with things we largely condemn as wrong, like murder, etc., by teaching this to kids when they're young. We don't murderers, rapists, etc., on TV to try and justify it.

By giving bigots platforms, we're saying that there's an argument to be had, which there isn't. Just how long are we supposed to entertain these people for before we finally say "OK, enough talk - like murder and theft, this is now something you just don't do"?

Because I'm pretty sure we reached that point years ago, and now it feels like we're being dragged back.

Edited May 29, 2019 by Carbomb

[Snitsky's back acne]

Just now, Carbomb said:

Again: we already do the same with things we largely condemn as wrong, like murder, etc., by teaching this to kids when they're young. We don't murderers, rapists, etc., on TV to try and justify it.

By giving bigots platforms, we're saying that there's an argument to be had, which there isn't. Just how long are we supposed to entertain these people for before we finally say "OK, enough talk - like murder and theft, this is now something you just don't do"?

We don't put murders and rapists on TV to try and justify it but we do, and have, put murderers and rapists on TV who DO try and justify it.

Also we are equating physical acts [murder, rape] with words, and that's not to say that words can't hurt or don't have influence, but they are two very different things.
Saying you will kill someone and actually killing them [the words vs the physical act] cannot be held to the same standards, surely?
 

[organizedkaos]

2 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

Genuine question - where should she be allowed to speak? Or should she not be allowed to speak at all because we don't like what she is saying?
 

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?". 

[Keith Houchen]

23 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

Define 'worked' - has it stopped the speaker from having a particular platform at a certain time? Sure.
Has it made them stop being a hateful prick? Likely not. 

I've already provided an example where someone's views HAVE changed as a result of engaging with them [a result I would say is more beneficial, and permanent, than banishing a bigoted twat into obscurity] etc. so saying that you don't think anything will change their views is clearly not correct in all cases.

And in the instance you gave, which platform were they given to espouse their views?

[Snitsky's back acne]

1 minute ago, organizedkaos said:

  The debate should be "how can we make everyone feel part of society" not "do the intolerant have a right to be intolerant?". 

There's that word 'everyone' again. This is not about 'everyone', is it? If it were, it would be about Germaine Greer and all the intolerant people too.
 

[Snitsky's back acne]

1 minute ago, Keith Houchen said:

And in the instance you gave, which platform were they given to espouse their views?

Read the article and get back to me. 

[organizedkaos]

2 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

There's that word 'everyone' again. This is not about 'everyone', is it? If it were, it would be about Germaine Greer and all the intolerant people too.
 

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

 

Edited May 29, 2019 by organizedkaos

[Snitsky's back acne]

Just now, organizedkaos said:

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.

That's not an equal right to exist.

 

I agree with you - but then that's not 'everyone', is it? It's 'everyone who chooses not to be an arsehole'. 

 

[organizedkaos]

1 minute ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

I agree with you - but then that's not 'everyone', is it? It's 'everyone who chooses not to be an arsehole'. 

 

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)

[Carbomb]

12 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

We don't put murders and rapists on TV to try and justify it but we do, and have, put murderers and rapists on TV who DO try and justify it.

Also we are equating physical acts [murder, rape] with words, and that's not to say that words can't hurt or don't have influence, but they are two very different things.
Saying you will kill someone and actually killing them [the words vs the physical act] cannot be held to the same standards, surely?
 

1st paragraph: If you're talking about documentaries, we don't treat said murderers and rapists as though they're the legitimate side of a debate, though, do we? They're rightly portrayed as criminals and therefore evil people whom good (or at least non-evil) people caught.

2nd paragraph: They're both illegal. They've been criminalised for a reason. With that in mind, such people should not, cannot be given a platform.

But I can see why the extremity of that comparison might be considered troubling, so let's scale it back a little: what about fraudsters and conmen? They've never physically hurt anyone, but what they do is damaging and therefore illegal. Should they be given a platform to justify what they do, or to campaign to legalise fraud?

 

[Snitsky's back acne]

1 minute ago, organizedkaos said:

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.

Me too - although if we didn't have arseholes who would we get mad at!?  

 

[Keith Houchen]

11 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

Read the article and get back to me. 

Yeah, read it, he was part of a documentary, right?  There are countless documentaries on the subject on Netflix and Youtube, which are mentioned in that very article as one of the factors in radicalising Dylan Roof and other white supremacist terrorists.  So if the platform wasn't there, I'd argue there might just be at least one less mass killing of black people.

He said that he watched the doc and thought he looked stupid, I know it's all hypothetical but he could've watched the finished cut and reached that conclusion if the doc wasn't shown on Netflix, so I'd say he didn't change because of not being deplatformed, he changed because he looked like a bellend.  But that's how radicalising works, isn't it?  Tell people who are disenfranchised, see no hope etc, that the reason they're being held back is because of a group and they start to feel like they belong.