Support NeoGAF

[tomtom94]

And yet no one seems to be able to actually grasp my point, everyone keeps either talking past or arguing things I am not arguing. Go figure.

I tried arguing a couple of pages ago that "not talking about trans issues" is not actually a defence, and you ignored me.

I tried arguing that free speech means that people on both sides would have the right to protest, and you ignored me.

All you seem to do is jump on new people in the thread, claim "this is bad", and then keep going round in circles.

 

[Metrotab]

I mean honestly, we don't know either way.

I don't know what you mean with this.

If she gave the lecture, we would have had the information. But because people petitioned to cancel it, and she felt unwelcome, she didn't do it. Now we don't.

 

[danm999]

I don't know what you mean with this.

If she gave the lecture, we would have had the information. But because people petitioned to cancel it, and she felt unwelcome, she didn't do it. Now we don't.

That's essentially what I mean too.

 

[Jonm1010]

You know if multiple people are mistaking your point you either: don't have one, or need to convey it a lot better.

There are a lot more options then an either or fallacy.

 

[freeofgreed]

Then college students should be prepared to either stomach the lecture and challenge it in the Q+A, protest it reasonably, or ignore it.

Claiming that she shouldn't be allowed is silly.

That said, Greer caved so easy, she was probably looking for a way out.

What is the "proper way" to protest? I see nothing wrong with how they did it. Also people in this thread don't seem to know that people in the UK do not have freedom of speech. Atleast not in the sense that we in America have. A lot of things that fly over here will get someone in a lot of hot water in the UK.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

I feel like he is appealing to a concept no one would disagree with to comment on a particular circumstance that's a bit more complex than that (because money of course).

Of course one doesn't disagree with the concept universities being places open to challenge everyone's mind, but does it apply here, and on every case?

 

[Metrotab]

What is the "proper way" to protest? I see nothing wrong with how they did it. Also people in this thread don't seem to know that people in the UK do not have freedom of speech. Atleast not in the sense that we in America have. A lot of things that fly over here will get someone in a lot of hot water in the UK.

Flyers, leaflets, a counter-lecture.

Petitioning to cancel it is not a proper way to protest it in the context of a university lecture (although they have the right do so, ofcourse).

Petitioning for the university to not pay for it (but still let it happen) would have been an acceptable alternative. If the petition succeeded, then Greer would still have had the opportunity to give her lecture on her own costs.

 

[freeofgreed]

There are a lot more options then an either or fallacy.

Fine then dude. Continue to argue yourself in circles, ignoring valid points people have made, then complain about how nobody understands your view.

 

[Jonm1010]

I tried arguing a couple of pages ago that "not talking about trans issues" is not actually a defence, and you ignored me.

I tried arguing that free speech means that people on both sides would have the right to protest, and you ignored me.

All you seem to do is jump on new people in the thread, claim "this is bad", and then keep going round in circles.

Why would I get into an argument - about something I am not arguing - and take the opposite position just because you want me to?

I continue to not respond to you because you are arguing straw men.

Fine then dude. Continue to argue yourself in circles, ignoring valid points people have made, then complain about how nobody understands your view.

If the points pertained to what I was actually saying I would value them. Or at least respect them more.

Whats crazy is my opinion isnt even one that I have meant to frame in the definitive. Merely one that I find troubling for various reasons that I expressed where they came from.

 

[Apt101]

She sounds awful. And I agree with Dawkins. Nice and simple.

My feelings as well. She sounds like a twat. But university isn't there to coddle people, one of its functions is to challenge. So if you have a problem with this person engage them.

On a side note, as an atheist, I also think Dawkins is a bit of a cunt, but that's another discussion. It doesn't stop me from listening to him and (trying) to engage on social media when I feel it's appropriate.

 

[partyphone]

not giving a platform to a bigot isn't coddling. it's not giving a platform to a bigot.

and the entire reason the students were protesting was because of this woman's views.

 

[freeofgreed]

ITT:

Students protesting a bigot? Fuck that let's limit their rights!

Bigot who spews hatred? Fuck that don't nobody dare fuck with her rights!!!!

Flyers, leaflets, a counter-lecture.

Petitioning to cancel it is not a proper way to protest it in the context of a university lecture (although they have the right do so, ofcourse).

Petitioning for the university to not pay for it (but still let it happen) would have been an acceptable alternative. If the petition succeeded, then Greer would still have had the opportunity to give her lecture on her own costs.

So basically let's limit the students right to protest so that they can't limit this woman's right to speech?

 

[danm999]

Flyers, leaflets, a counter-lecture.

Petitioning to cancel it is not a proper way to protest it in the context of a university lecture (although they have the right do so, ofcourse).

Petitioning for the university to not pay for it (but still let it happen) would have been an acceptable alternative. If the petition succeeded, then Greer would still have had the opportunity to give her lecture on her own costs.

I'm gonna be honest.

I'm not surprised they went with the protecting the mental health of trans students angle over the money angle in their protest.

 

[tomtom94]

Why would I get into an argument - about something I am not arguing - and take the opposite position just because you want me to?

I continue to not respond to you because you are arguing straw men.

You literally did this to somebody else earlier in the thread. I called you out on it and you told me that I was not entitled to a conversation.

You constantly bring up the fact that "she was not going to talk about trans issues" as a defence. When I make arguments against that, you claim that is a strawman.

You asked someone if they would be okay with anti-climate change scientists protesting a speaker. When I made a defence of this, you claimed it was a strawman.

You are ignoring people who want to contextualise the debate and framing it as a strawman. You are doing exactly what you accuse your opponents of doing. The only reason I am still talking to you is because I hope that I can at least make you realise you are arguing in bad faith.

 

[Apt101]

not giving a platform to a bigot isn't coddling. it's not giving a platform to a bigot.

and the entire reason the students were protesting was because of this woman's views.

There are always going to be bigots. And despite their bigotry, some may actually have something unrelated worth saying. Sticking one's head in the sand and denying everyone they disagree with a voice isn't going to solve anything.

Also no one is trying to deny these students their right to protest. They can't, it's their right. But a person is free to speak to their actions and message.

 

[Hellwarden]

What is the "proper way" to protest? I see nothing wrong with how they did it.

They called for a ban on her speaking. That gave her an out. She never talked.

And now because she never gave her speech, Greer's opinions were never challenged. She was just quieted in some regards. If anything, it may give her and her supporters some more fuel for their bullshit.

And I can already hear the quotes saying she has plenty of other areas to speak.

Well, I hope her views are challenged there. But they probably won't be.

 

[Metrotab]

ITT:

Students protesting a bigot? Fuck that let's limit their rights!

Bigot who spews hatred? Fuck that don't nobody dare fuck with her rights!!!!





So basically let's limit the students right to protest so that they can't limit this woman's right to speech?

Did you read my post?

I'm gonna be honest.

I'm not surprised they went with the protecting the mental health of trans students angle over the money angle in their protest.

It's a non-mandatory lecture, completely optional.

 

[Toxi]

I think this is the attitude academics are actually afraid of. I've never met anyone who really has a problem with students protesting speakers, but a lot of people have a problem with administrations, and here I admit the situation is supposedly better in the UK, increasingly favoring students over faculty. The college is not the only reason for a University to exist.

The academy is not a product, you aren't buying pre-professional training or a degree. This weird commercial atmosphere that is so common in the US, and apparently moving over the pond, is really proving to be detrimental to the academy. For lay Americans it's a big part of the reason you're paying so much. It's also the reason why the US has this downright disgusting situation with adjuncts.

Even if colleges in the UK aren't extorting students to the degree that American schools do, this shit ain't free.

 

[Littlefang]

It's not like the students are getting their fee fees hurt because Greer has a controversial opinion. The students are angry because her opinion is actively calling for discrimination against transgender people and they don't think that the university (that they pay to go to) should provide a platform for her opinion. At the very least, people should be able to expect not to be discriminated against at their university.

 

[danm999]

It's a non-mandatory lecture, completely optional.

I doubt trans students would take much consolation from knowing their school was giving someone a platform who called them "ghastly parodies" simply because they didn't attend.

 

[freeofgreed]

They called for a ban on her speaking. That gave her an out. She never talked.

And now because she never gave her speech, Greer's opinions were never challenged. She was just quieted in some regards.

And I can already hear the quotes saying she has plenty of other areas to speak.

Well, I hope her views are challenged there. But they probably won't be.

This is fucking ridiculous. How were her views not challenged? The very act of her being protest is challenging her views. Do you think all the protests during the civil rights era weren't challenging the notion of white supremacy just because they didn't allow clan leaders to speak at their marches?

Also people really are over emphasing how important these lectures are. I doubt even if she did give the lecture that she would've been challenged anyways. Also this isn't the first time she's in the news either, this woman is constantly being criticized for what she said about trans people. I don't see how you can conceivably think she isn't being challenged just because she didn't give a dumb 1 hour lecture.

 

[Metrotab]

It's not like the students are getting their fee fees hurt because Greer has a controversial opinion. The students are angry because her opinion is actively calling for discrimination against transgender people and they don't think that the university (that they pay to go to) should provide a platform for her opinion. At the very least, people should be able to expect not to be discriminated against at their university.

She was not invited to become part of the faculty. She would have no opportunity to discriminate anyone on that campus.

 

[Jonm1010]

Flyers, leaflets, a counter-lecture.

Petitioning to cancel it is not a proper way to protest it in the context of a university lecture (although they have the right do so, ofcourse).

Petitioning for the university to not pay for it (but still let it happen) would have been an acceptable alternative. If the petition succeeded, then Greer would still have had the opportunity to give her lecture on her own costs.

I'm not even sure I feel 100% good about the bolded. Should the pressures of the student body be determining university curriculum or agenda? If so is a 2500 person petition in a school of 26,000 where that line should be acceptable? I guess I am going a step further and speculating on the logical endpoint of this sort of normalized behavior. She pulled out but from a lot of people in this thread it seems like they would of been completely fine if those 2500 signatures had been enough to pressure the university to cancel her. To which I find that a bit worrisome. Or in your case pressuring them not to pay her(was it ever made clear she was getting paid?).

 

[Hellwarden]

This is fucking ridiculous. How were her views not challenged? The very act of her being protest is challenging her views. Do you think all the protests during the civil rights era weren't challenging the notion of white supremacy just because they didn't allow clan leaders to speak at their marches?

Was her core argument damage in any regard? No, it escaped completely unharmed. The people who support her will probably support her more now.

And college is a little different from civil right marches. College is an area for speech, even ugly speech.

 

[HariKari]

Also people really are over emphasing how important these lectures are.

Both ways. Her giving a lecture isn't an endorsement of her views by the university. There's a difference between confronting and engaging with someone that has terrible views vs simply trying to omit them from society. It's the latter that is lazy and what Dawkins is against. I happen to agree.

 

[Jonm1010]

You literally did this to somebody else earlier in the thread. I called you out on it and you told me that I was not entitled to a conversation.

You constantly bring up the fact that "she was not going to talk about trans issues" as a defence. When I make arguments against that, you claim that is a strawman.

You asked someone if they would be okay with anti-climate change scientists protesting a speaker. When I made a defence of this, you claimed it was a strawman.

You are ignoring people who want to contextualise the debate and framing it as a strawman. You are doing exactly what you accuse your opponents of doing. The only reason I am still talking to you is because I hope that I can at least make you realise you are arguing in bad faith.

I think you need to go back and revisit the dialogue tree. Try and re-read what I actually said this time.

 

[Metrotab]

I doubt trans students would take much consolation from knowing their school was giving someone a platform who called them "ghastly parodies" simply because they didn't attend.

College students are adults. I can completely respect and accept that a trans student wouldn't want to listen to this woman. But I cannot agree if this trans student would want to deny me, another college student, the opportunity to listen to this woman.

 

[twobear]

Except that nobody is demanding that she has no platform (although Im sure many of them would sign up for that). She has plenty of platforms. They are demanding that they dont have to pay for the platform that she stands on.

If she was scheduling a discussion and footing the bill, then I'd side with her. But there is nothing wrong with demanding that the University doesnt give your money to people you vehemently disagree with.

sure. they have every right to demand whatever they want.

 

[ScatheZombie]

Why should trans people have a portion on their tuition go into her pocket?

As many other people have echoed, not in support of Greer but in support of Dawkins, your tuition is payment for an education. That education includes having to listen to people who have differing, often terrible, opinions and learning to recognize why someone has that opinion and ways to deal with others who share their opinion.

And instead of doing that, we're moving more and more towards immediate vilification and avoidance rather than acknowledgement and confrontation.

Avoiding the confrontation entirely solves nothing. If anything, everyone just doubles down on their own opinions, reinforced by the opposing sides unwillingness to engage or eagerness to insult without debate. And having a confrontation of ideas generally doesn't change the opinion of either of those engaged in the debate ... but it does influence the opinions of those watching and listening to it.

For example, calling for a ban - that was ultimately effective - against Greer has actually made outside observers sympathetic to her, rather than transgender individuals. Whereas, letting her speak, but then taking her to task about her comments, would have done the exact opposite.

 

[freeofgreed]

Was her core argument damage in any regard? No, it escaped completely unharmed. The people who support her will probably support her more now.

And college is a little different from civil right marches. College is an area for speech, even ugly speech.

Um no it wasn't. I think the fact that she herself chose not to come and all the media attention that shed light on her views to some people who probably weren't aware of it more than challenged her.

Both ways. Her giving a lecture isn't an endorsement of her views by the university. There's a difference between confronting and engaging with someone that has terrible views vs simply trying to omit them from society. It's the latter that is lazy and what Dawkins is against. I happen to agree.

It absolutely is. the school is the one that picks and chooses which speakers to come and speak. So any speakers they choose are definitely an endorsement.

 

[Opto]

As many other people have echoed, not in support of Greer but in support of Dawkins, your tuition is payment for an education. That education includes having to listen to people who have differing, often terrible, opinions and learning to recognize why someone has that opinion and ways to deal with others who share their opinion.

And instead of doing that, we're moving more and more towards immediate vilification and avoidance rather than acknowledgement and confrontation.

Avoiding the confrontation entirely solves nothing. If anything, everyone just doubles down on their own opinions, reinforced by the opposing sides unwillingness to engage or eagerness to insult without debate. And having a confrontation of ideas generally doesn't change the opinion of either of those engaged in the debate ... but it does influence the opinions of those watching and listening to it.

For example, calling for a ban - that was ultimately effective - against Greer has actually made outside observers sympathetic to her, rather than transgender individuals. Whereas, letting her speak, but then taking her to task about her comments, would have done the exact opposite.

I don't think that's true at all.

If Greer is given sympathy from people because of their principle of "free speech" over their empathy to trans people, then those people are assholes.

 

[Metrotab]

I'm not even sure I feel 100% good about the bolded. Should the pressures of the student body be determining university curriculum or agenda? If so is a 2500 person petition in a school of 26,000 where that line should be acceptable? I guess I am going a step further and speculating on the logical endpoint of this sort of normalized behavior. She pulled out but from a lot of people in this thread it seems like they would of been completely fine if those 2500 signatures had been enough to pressure the university to cancel her. To which I find that a bit worrisome. Or in your case pressuring them not to pay her(was it ever made clear she was getting paid?).

I can sense a kernel of truth here, but I'm too uninformed to debate about this. I don't know how university funding works, how they allocate resources etc.

 

[HariKari]

It absolutely is. the school is the one that picks and chooses which speakers to come and speak. So any speakers they choose are definitely an endorsement.

No. A university is a neutral place. A place where these sorts of views are to be heard, dissected, and ultimately confronted. Creating an imaginary safe space that isn't reflective of the real world is an endorsement of being intellectually lazy by the university. It's denying an actual education, is what it is.

 

[tomtom94]

I think you need to go back and revisit the dialogue tree. Try and re-read what I actually said this time.

There is no dialogue tree because every time I call you out you ignore me. I don't know how I can make this any clearer.

I have put forward two counter-arguments to arguments that you have made in this thread, and you have ignored them, then claimed that I was creating a strawman to justify your decision.

Here, let me find you examples of things you have said, and my responses to you, which you claimed were a strawman:

She does but that is separate from whether lobbying for a ban because of feelings toward an unrelated opinion is the right thing to do or not.

All we can go by is what has been reported, which is that the lecture did not involve trans issues.

The entire protest was centered around banning her from the university from giving a speech on a topic that had no bearing on the issue of contention. Essentially petitioning her to be banned due to a red herring.

Im curious if you would be ok if the shoe we're on the other foot? What if a university cancelled a speech on climate change because some anti-global warming students berated the university to keep them away?

Or a speaker about gun control? Economic inequality? Prison reform?

The fact that she wasn't speaking on the issue of trans gender identity is kind of another important context here.

You mean students using their freedom of speech?

But if the talk is about feminism (which I assume it is, unless she's suddenly branched out into motoring or something) then her views on trans issues are relevant, even if only by omission. If she believes that the only way one can fight for women is by understanding women's experiences (and the only way to do that is to be born biologically female) then that will affect her talk.

It's the same way that if you're a creationist and you're talking about, I dunno, chemistry or something. If you believe that every element came from God that will change how you view things.

I don't see how my arguments are a strawman at all. I think that they are a valid counter-argument to your point, which I feel I represented fairly.

 

[Cocaloch]

Even if colleges in the UK aren't extorting students to the degree that American schools do, this shit ain't free.

I actually went to that exact page earlier because I was a bit curious about the situation in Wales. That being said its not just exploitation of students, most universities exploit their own junior faculty just as much, but changing attitudes about what it is that universities should be doing that are the issue.

Administrations are in the business of making money after all....

 

[acrid]

I'm not an atheist, so I don't keep up with them, but I thought Richard Dawkins died a few years ago. Who was the famed atheist that passed away a few years back?

 

[danm999]

College students are adults. I can completely respect and accept that a trans student wouldn't want to listen to this woman. But I cannot agree if this trans student would want to deny me, another college student, the opportunity to listen to this woman.

I guess I look at this incident, or the US Presidential candidates joking about how they should pretend they're trans to spy on young girls in the locker room, or all the comedies of the past few decades which code trans people as deviant tricksters, or dozens of other incidents too depressing to name.

Then I look at the way trans people are vilified in public and private. I look at the absolutely shocking rates of suicide for young LGBT people compared to the general population and I just think the culture is fucking broken. Telling them to ignore it while the rest of us have these detached cold academic reactions just doesn't seem to be working. Hasn't for a while. People protesting and saying "we aren't ok with this, and we aren't ok with you saying it; we don't want anything to do with you" seems a fine thing to me.

The letthemfight.gif attitude just doesn't seem to be working to me. I don't agree with forcibly silencing people like Greer or Huckabee through imprisonment or intimidation but I will never condemn someone trans or otherwise for protesting to deny these people whatever platform they can.

 

[Meicyn]

It absolutely is. the school is the one that picks and chooses which speakers to come and speak. So any speakers they choose are definitely an endorsement.

So when Columbia University invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak, it was an endorsement of his views? When Liberty University (lol) invited Bernie Sanders to speak, it was an endorsement of his views?

 

[Lowmelody]

I don't agree with giving a platform to hate speech. The bile this woman spews is no different from questioning the evolutionary status of [insert race]. I don't accept the latter as a valid subject for fucking "debate" any more than the former.

The only thing occurring with these types of "talks" is sanctioned and powerful false equivalence that places pure hatred and ignorance on the same level of the victims of said hate and ignorance. As if " trans women are “some kind of ghastly parody”" is an idea that could do anything but hurt others.

Giving such bigotry a platform to directly speak to people only increases the number who share and repeat such tripe. Any body who agrees with her was already a piece of shit whom long ago abandoned any rational thought and the idea that people can "debate" them is naive to the nth degree, hate doesn't a shit about facts. There is no meaningful debate here, the bigots will take in what she is saying and the rational people will dismiss it. However that leaves out those who haven't given the subject much thought or perhaps don't have much exposure to the issue. When exposed to a "respected speaker" at their college, at least a fraction of the uninitiated are going to give this shit the benefit of the doubt and side with her. Those convinced by the rational people could have very well been found such edification in an actual classroom without paying some loser to the school to preach and justify hate.

The only possible outcome is that more students will walk out agreeing with her than went in. That's a net loss for the school and humanity at large.

 

[Metrotab]

I'm not an atheist, so I don't keep up with them, but I thought Richard Dawkins died a few years ago. Who was the famed atheist that passed away a few years back?

Hitchens?

 

[freeofgreed]

No. A university is a neutral place. A place where these sorts of views are to be heard, dissected, and ultimately confronted. Creating an imaginary safe space that isn't reflective of the real world is an endorsement of being intellectually lazy by the university. It's denying an actual education, is what it is.

Well I completely disagree there's a reason why you don't see your average joe being given a space to speak at a university. Universities pick speakers that they think will bring educational value to it's students. Therefore whoever they do chose to bring is someone whose opinions they value aka an endorsement.

 

[acrid]

Hitchens?

Ah, yes, that's the one. Not sure why I got them confused.

 

[tomtom94]

So when Columbia University invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak, it was an endorsement of his views? When Liberty University (lol) invited Bernie Sanders to speak, it was an endorsement of his views?

It's an endorsement that their views are worth hearing, yes, since they could just as easily (if not more easily) invited one of 6 billion other people in the world.

 

[freeofgreed]

So when Columbia University invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak, it was an endorsement of his views? When Liberty University (lol) invited Bernie Sanders to speak, it was an endorsement of his views?

Yes. See my previous post.

 

[y2dvd]

I have a feeling she have been physically threatened of violence and is why she choose not to speak and overlooking this and simply saying she's a coward is disingenuous. Anyways, I don't agree with her view and Dawkins is on the money.

 

[tomtom94]

I have a feeling she have been physically threatened of violence and is why she choose not to speak and overlooking this and simply saying she's a coward is disingenuous. Anyways, I don't agree with her view and Dawkins is on the money.

Dawkins believes in no-platforming creationists. Is he wrong to do so?

 

[Opto]

BTWs I don't think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should have been given the podium. Dude is vile

 

[Doc Holliday]

Has anyone's racist views ever been changed by protest/hostility/antagonism?

From my experience engaging people with ignorant views with respect, even if you're not getting it, is more productive than just anger.

Maybe if she was allowed to talk and maybe even get into a discussion with a transgendered student her views might change. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but it seems to work for me

 

[marrec]

Dawkin's remains an uncaring shithead...............

Buuuuuuut.

You can protest the ideas that Greer represents but I can't get behind trying to bar her from speaking them in what is basically a public forum. So while I wouldn't say "go home and hug a teddy" I wouldn't say "let's keep her from speaking" either.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuut.

She was the one that chose not to speak, so in the end it's kinda on her right?

 

[Jonm1010]

Um no it wasn't. I think the fact that she herself chose not to come and all the media attention that shed light on her views to some people who probably weren't aware of it more than challenged her.



It absolutely is. the school is the one that picks and chooses which speakers to come and speak. So any speakers they choose are definitely an endorsement.

The lecture was on Women and Power Historically and there was no indication she was going to speak on trans issues. Maybe she was, maybe not. But the protest was because of views she had that the students were not even certain were going to be discussed. The entire rationale was because they didn't like this particular opinion and so wanted her to not have the ability to speak on anything.

Which is a reason I take some issue with this(amongst others I listed). Which is partly why I made the Palestinian analogy and brought up the LSU incident.

Furthermore bringing on a lecturer does not mean a university endorses any and certainly not all opinions the speaker holds.