Support NeoGAF

[Opto]

Dawkins is right, and OP calling him "Dick Dorkins" makes you seem like a five year old drooling illiterate who honestly does not merit a voice.

So you want the OP to be... censored ?

 

[Cheech]

[Edit: For those thinking it's appropriate to give Greer a platform at a university, would you have a similar response to David Duke being given forum in the same venue?

Oh come on. One of these is not like the other.

One of the main benefits to attending a university is exposure to different thoughts and ideas, no matter how divisive. She isn't promoting the hatred of trans women, just the idea that she doesn't think they are "women" in the biological sense. I'd say that this would be similar to having a pro-life speaker on campus arguing that a fetus is a human being.

Dawkins is absolutely right. A university is not a safe haven for thought in the sense an elementary school is. You're SUPPOSED to challenge yourself and others there. Somebody like David Duke would put it way past the line, as he sells blind, pure hate.

 

[Azih]

This assumes bigotry is up for debate or reasoned analysis.

Shining a spotlight on it works far better than shouting at it.

Edit: And what I'm saying is that you should certainly shout at it but not to the point that you shut down their ability to speak and hang themselves with their own damn rope.

There's this really great documentary 'Discordia' about similar incidents at the University of Concordia in Montreal. Student leaders protested and managed to get an event that had Nehtanyahu as a speaker cancelled. One of the leaders met with Noam Chomsky about it and Chomsky straight up told him that shutting down debate was the worst thing the student union could have done as far as Chomsky was concerned.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

This assumes bigotry is up for debate or reasoned analysis.

It assumes that someone giving a talk on women and power in the 20th century shouldn't be prevented from offering that info because of abhorrent views on a tangentially related subject. If Greer is loathed, by all means hold a protest outside the talk, hold a counter-informational discussion on trans issues perhaps, but preemptively shutting her down in the name of safe space paternalism is the opposite of how a college environment should function.

 

[aeolist]

Oh come on. One of these is not like the other.

One of the main benefits to attending a university is exposure to different thoughts and ideas, no matter how divisive. She isn't promoting the hatred of trans women, just the idea that she doesn't think they are "women" in the biological sense. I'd say that this would be similar to having a pro-life speaker on campus arguing that a fetus is a human being.

Dawkins is absolutely right. A university is not a safe haven for thought in the sense an elementary school is. You're SUPPOSED to challenge yourself and others there. Somebody like David Duke would put it way past the line, as he sells blind, pure hate.

that's a matter of perspective. i'm sure if you asked duke he would say that he isn't promoting the hatred of non-whites, just the idea that he doesn't think they are "people" in the biological sense.

greer's views are openly bigoted to an oppressed minority. the comparison is totally apt.

 

[jurgen]

that's a matter of perspective. i'm sure if you asked duke he would say that he isn't promoting the hatred of non-whites, just the idea that he doesn't think they are "people" in the biological sense.

greer's views are openly bigoted to an oppressed minority. the comparison is totally apt.

So you're equating Greer's actions and views to that of a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan?

 

[aeolist]

So you're equating Greer's actions and views to that of a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan?

they're both bigots. her views are transphobic in the same way his are racist.

i'm not accusing her of lynching anyone, if that's what you're saying.

 

[shamanick]

So you want the OP to be... censored ?

Seems like a lot folks in this thread have a real hard time discerning the difference between criticism and censorship. It's depressing to see so many so-called "progressives" argue for stifling debate.

 

[Cheech]

So you're equating Greer's actions and views to that of a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan?

This is problematic.

It's also problematic with this view that the push for complete equality should preclude any kind of debate about gender differences or identity. Eliminating this type of challenging discussion because some perceive it as offensive is counterproductive to eventual understanding and acceptance.

 

[Hex]

So you want the OP to be... censored ?

Well played Good Opto, well played.

 

[SkeptiMism]

I agree. I don't see the issue here since she made the choice to cancel.

I've argued for the students being very justified to protest her in earlier pages, but I do think it's good to understand her reasoning here too. It's not that she didn't want to be argued against, but it's because she's an old woman and she didn't want to deal with the possibility of things being thrown at her, like has happened before when there was strong opposition.

 

[A Link to the Past]

This is problematic.

It's also problematic with this view that the push for complete equality should preclude any kind of debate about gender differences or identity. Eliminating this type of challenging discussion because some perceive it as offensive is counterproductive to eventual understanding and acceptance.

There's as much cause to have a debate with TERFs about what gender means as there is to have a debate with white supremacists about race realism. People like Greer aren't open to the idea that they might be wrong. No matter how much scientific observations are found that tell us more about gender, people like Greer are looking to continue to perceive trans women as men.

Seems like a lot folks in this thread have a real hard time discerning the difference between criticism and censorship. It's depressing to see so many so-called "progressives" argue for stifling debate.

People who think that there's value to debating the humanity of a people should be mindful of ending up on the wrong side of history.

 

[Erin S Kittens]

Dawkins is right, and OP calling him "Dick Dorkins" makes you seem like a five year old drooling illiterate who honestly does not merit a voice.

Dick Dorkins is a long-time, widespread nickname for Dawkins, typically brought out when he displays his ignorance on issues such as race and gender. Were I illiterate, I wouldn't have chosen a name that had time-honored written tradition.

Oh come now. Greer is a bigot and a transphobe but she's not denying anyone's humanity here. And I sincerely hope that you don't think stifling debate is the right side of history.

Tfw my community's personhood is decided to be a matter of debate by people who aren't affected one way or another.

 

[Azih]

There's as much cause to have a debate with TERFs about what gender means as there is to have a debate with white supremacists about race realism. People like Greer aren't open to the idea that they might be wrong. No matter how much scientific observations are found that tell us more about gender, people like Greer are looking to continue to perceive trans women as men.



People who think that there's value to debating the humanity of a people should be mindful of ending up on the wrong side of history.

I sincerely hope that you don't think stifling debate is the right side of history.

Edit: Edited out first part of the sentence. I can see how Greer denying people a part of their identity is denying their humanity.

 

[daycru]

Dick Dorkins is a long-time, widespread nickname for Dawkins, typically brought out when he displays his ignorance on issues such as race and gender. Were I illiterate, I wouldn't have chosen a name that had time-honored written tradition.

Nice gendered slur.

 

[Erin S Kittens]

Nice gendered slur.

Point it out for me?

I sincerely hope that you don't think stifling debate is the right side of history.

Unless you have evidence that shows that her speech was going to be a debate setting, and that trans people were going to get to stand on the other side of that, this line of thinking ("stifling debate") is intellectually dishonest.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Oh come now. Greer is a bigot and a transphobe but she's not denying anyone's humanity here. And I sincerely hope that you don't think stifling debate is the right side of history.

I spent like a minute trying to reply to this, and I finally came up with something.

You're so incredibly privileged apparently that you have no proper understanding on this topic. If you're disappointed that I think that we shouldn't have a debate over whether black people deserve to be equal, then I don't care. Because right now, I don't rightly know if you're actually arguing that "stifling debate, no matter how horrific and disgusting, is bad" or that "debating whether trans women are real women isn't as bad as that example". Either way, I entirely don't care if you disagree, because I don't subscribe to the idea of debating a person's humanity (and yes, having a debate over whether someone is their gender is exactly a debate about someone's humanity).

 

[Azih]

Edited My statement before you posted your response. A Link to the Snitch.

Unless you have evidence that shows that her speech was going to be a debate setting, and that trans people were going to get to stand on the other side of that, this line of thinking ("stifling debate") is intellectually dishonest.

Stifling debate means far more than just a narrow understanding of "stopping a formal debate from occurring". Greer's contribution to the topic of the talk (which wasn't even about trans issues) could have existed but now doesn't and that's a shame.

 

[A Link to the Past]

You need to clarify. Are you saying that all debates have value, that to stifle one debate, ever, is to be on the wrong side of history?

 

[Erin S Kittens]

Stifling debate means far more than just a narrow understanding of "stopping a formal debate from occurring". Greer's contribution to the topic of the talk (which wasn't even about trans issues) no longer exists and that's a shame.

As I said in a prior post, if you don't think trans issues are feminist issues, necessary to a discussion of women and power in today's world (the subject of the talk), and if you don't think Greer would make it a part of her speech, you don't know Greer and you don't know TERFs.

Of course, if you were familiar with them (like someone who's suffered material harm due to the lasting effects of their "work" would be), I'd be horrified that you'd be defending their right to a platform.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

Dick Dorkins is a long-time, widespread nickname for Dawkins, typically brought out when he displays his ignorance on issues such as race and gender. Were I illiterate, I wouldn't have chosen a name that had time-honored written tradition.

There are a lot of dumb, long-lived, widespread things out there that are best just left out of intelligence discussions. Such as Dick Dorkins. His point still stands that using it doesn't make one look good.

 

[Erin S Kittens]

There are a lot of dumb, long-lived, widespread things out there that are best just left out of intelligence discussions. Such as Dick Dorkins. His point still stands that using it doesn't make one look good.

Casual ableism doesn't look good either, but he couldn't make his point without it.

 

[Azih]

Trans issues are feminist issues, as are race issues, and ethnic issues, and class issues and many others. That has nothing to do with my contention that Greer's invitation should have been protested but not petitioned to be banned. I'm not defending her as a person here. I am not defending any of her ideas. I am defending her invitation to speak at a university. Where she can be challenged and her comments then dissected and analyzed and shown to be harmful and destructive if that is what they are. (So yes, I am defending her getting a platform). I'm an identifiable minority myself who is materially hurt by some of the shit Richard Dawkins spews. I don't want to deny him his platform because of it (especially twitter, man shows himself as a moron so often there that it helps undercut the harmful things he says)

Link: I am saying that speech has value and in this instance speaking against the petition to ban Greer from Cardiff is in no way being on the wrong side of history.

Edit: Of course there are limits to free speech. Every society recognizes that. But those limits should be defined by laws and not by mob rule.

 

[Erin S Kittens]

Trans issues are feminist issues, as are race issues, and ethnic issues, and class issues and many others. That has nothing to do with my contention that Greer's invitation should have been protested but not petitioned to be banned. I'm not defending her as a person here. I am not defending any of her ideas. I am defending her invitation to speak at a university. Where she can be challenged and her comments then dissected and analyzed and shown to be harmful and destructive if that is what they are.

Link: I am saying that speech has value and in this instance speaking against the petition to ban Greer from Cardiff is in no way being on the wrong side of history.

Edit: Of course there are limits to free speech. Every society recognizes that. But those limits should be defined by laws and not by mob rule.

Ah, the old Lawful stance. I suppose that you're fine with UK hate speech laws being mostly comprehensive, but currently skipping over gender? Kind of like when race wasn't a protected class in the US. Of course, those laws won't change if people don't take a stand and make it known that such hate speech is unacceptable... y'know, like the protesters did.

 

[Azih]

Ah, the old Lawful stance. I suppose that you're fine with UK hate speech laws being mostly comprehensive, but currently skipping over gender? Kind of like when race wasn't a protected class in the US. Of course, those laws won't change if people don't take a stand and make it known that such hate speech is unacceptable... y'know, like the protesters did.

Like I said. I support protests. I don't support the ban on Greer speaking at Cardiff.

 

[shamanick]

People who think that there's value to debating the humanity of a people should be mindful of ending up on the wrong side of history.

Ominous, vague threats about being on the "wrong side of history" are also an excellent method of stifling speech.

 

[Erin S Kittens]

Like I said. I support protests. I don't support the ban on Greer speaking at Cardiff.

It sounds like, in a roundabout way, you'd rather have hate speech than hate speech laws. Or, does your stance only apply to people who are currently considered protected classes under the jurisdiction in which it occurs? If the latter, how do you suggest a marginalized community make it known that speaking out against their very humanity should be considered hate speech, if not making a fuss about those who use every available platform to speak their hate?

 

[A Link to the Past]

She wasn't banned, and people are entitled to try and get people banned for having a history of hate speech.

 

[Azih]

It sounds like, in a roundabout way, you'd rather have hate speech than hate speech laws.

Nope. Not what I said at all. How do you get that when I repeatedly make clear that there is nothing wrong at all with Greer getting protested and challenged? I said there was something wrong with a petition calling for her to be banned.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Nope. Not what I said at all. How do you get that when I repeatedly make clear that there is nothing wrong at all with Greer getting protested and challenged? I said there was something wrong with a petition calling for her to be banned.

People would do the same, again, if a noted white supremacist was going to speak on race at a University. And our society is pretty (relatively) neat because of it.

 

[Erin S Kittens]

Nope. Not what I said at all. How do you get that when I repeatedly make clear that there is nothing wrong at all with Greer getting protested and challenged? I said there was something wrong with a petition calling for her to be banned.

You said that you agree with hate speech laws--as long as they're on the books. Gender protection from hate speech is coming to the UK, and is already effectively treated as a protected class in employment, housing, etc. So, in principle, you agree with someone whose hate speech targets a currently-protected class being banned from speaking at Cardiff. Logically, the only reasonable explanation is that you think trans people should be subject to hate speech at every turn (as if we weren't already) without attempting to curtail it until the laws themselves change--which, they will, and already have in many jurisdictions.

 

[Azih]

People would do the same, again, if a noted white supremacist was going to speak on race at a University. And our society is pretty (relatively) neat because of it.

And I would say the same thing there. Protest; Don't petition to ban. Don't prevent the supremacist from speaking.

You said that you agree with hate speech laws--as long as they're on the books.

I said I don't agree with mob rule determining who can speak and who can't.

If you take a look at the Hate speech laws in the UK you can see in the Selected Cases section that what does or does not constitute Hate speech is muddy. Is calling homosexuality a sin hate speech? The Crown doesn't think so apparently. It does consider someone holding a sign telling people to "Stop Homosexuality" a violation of the law though. What side of that divide does Germaine 'Trans women aren't women' Greer fall on? I have no idea but I don't want her to be banned by mob. Especially when she could give her talk without mentioning trans issues at all. Pointing out the hypocrisy of that (as well as her probably not mentioning poor or identifiable minority women either) is more than fair game but that's far from petitioning her to be banned outright.

And protesting her based on her past comments, comments that she has not rescinded and stands by, on trans women is something that I have not condemned either so I don't know where you're getting the idea that I want "trans people subject to hate speech at every turn".

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

It sounds like, in a roundabout way, you'd rather have hate speech than hate speech laws. Or, does your stance only apply to people who are currently considered protected classes under the jurisdiction in which it occurs? If the latter, how do you suggest a marginalized community make it known that speaking out against their very humanity should be considered hate speech, if not making a fuss about those who use every available platform to speak their hate?

I would rather have hate speech than hate speech laws. I am also against hate crime laws. I believe, philosophically, that the American protection of all speech, even the loathsome kind, is the most ethical position.

 

[East Lake]

Those of you bringing up other people like the Clintons, Coulter and Kissinger, you do realise they would get protested if booked to speak at most British universities (not that they would be able to afford their speaker fees)? They wouldn't be welcome either. You're bringing your American values on free speech into a discussion about another country that would not allow the WBC to exist as it does. Freedom of speech is not freedom from being protested against and nobody is entitled to be paid for theirs.

I'm pretty sure Vladislav Surkov, someone who encourages and controls far right wing hate groups in Russia has given one or more talks in British universities with no fanfare. Look him up, he's not a very nice guy!

 

[A Link to the Past]

So hate speech = good

Petitioning that hate speech be banned from a University = bad

Freedom of speech is a government thing. You are not entitled to say whatever you want, wherever you want.

 

[Azih]

You're being reductive and raising straw men Link.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

So hate speech = good

Petitioning that hate speech be banned from a University = bad

Freedom of speech is a government thing. You are not entitled to say whatever you want, wherever you want.

Between this and Ben Carson, I think we are quickly learning that STEM majors don't necessarily make good politicians. Horrible reasoning skills.

 

[A Link to the Past]

"I would rather have hate speech than hate speech laws. I am also against hate crime laws. I believe, philosophically, that the American protection of all speech, even the loathsome kind, is the most ethical position."

Unless strawman now means "replying directly, exclusively, to things people already said", then I am absolutely not raising any strawmen. Being against hate speech laws while being against private citizens petitioning to ban hate speech from a certain place is explicitly what was said. To me, these are values that a person can only truly have if they have never had to suffer the consequences of a society that permits hate speech. If you think that it is bad for people to fight against hate speech, then that's your deal. It isn't going to help you when society moves on, and you're left holding onto archaic ideals. The very notion of having a debate over the humanity of a person disgusts me, and yes, Greer's comments on the subject are no less than dehumanization.

That said, how the hell do "hate crime laws" have to do with speech?

 

[ElFly]

It's my contention that her bigoted bullshit is an extremely small part of her overall contribution, and the idea that she might utter something offensive during the course of her talk does not negate the potential intellectual benefits of the rest of the talk, nor the benefits others might derive from their own intellectual response to whatever she might say, positive or negative.

I disagree.I don't know how trans women are irrelevant to the talk of women in power during the 20th century. And thus her transphobia does hurt her credibility on the very subject she was going to talk about. That's a group of women that have been excluded from power and the reasons why are interesting.

Why do you keep thinking trans women and women in power are two separate, distinct subjects.

I say this, btw, despite thinking virtually all second-wave radical feminist authors I've read were mostly dopes, and assuming that Greer is likely similarly flawed. But I don't think intellectual freedom should be delimited by others' sensitivities, especially in college, where the goal of creating a safe space is utterly contrary to the real value colleges potentially offer, which is the development of intellectual muscularity and inner strength of character by being steeped in the ideas, good and bad, of both history and the present moment.

Again, this assumes that Greer's transphobia has some value and is rare. Transphobia is cheap and you can get it for free on real life, the internet and probably that college itself if you talk to the right students. There is no sense in bringing a transphobic speaker to a college (e: to speak about women) because it is not going to give the students any new point of view that they haven't seen already.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

So hate speech = good

Petitioning that hate speech be banned from a University = bad

Freedom of speech is a government thing. You are not entitled to say whatever you want, wherever you want.

Freedom of speech is a law, but it's a law that comes with it an implicit responsibility to fight ideas on the ideative plane, rather than trying to stamp them out by fiat.

I'd also disagree that scientifically ignorant speech, like saying trans women are just damaged men, is tantamount to hate speech, because one does not have to hate nor desire the persecution of a group to have incorrect ideas about them, but that's another issue entirely.

 

[esms]

I would rather have hate speech than hate speech laws. I am also against hate crime laws. I believe, philosophically, that the American protection of all speech, even the loathsome kind, is the most ethical position.

I'm against hate speech restrictions as well, but how do hate crime laws fit into that?

 

[A Link to the Past]

Freedom of speech is a law, but it's a law that comes with it an implicit responsibility to fight ideas on the ideative plane, rather than trying to stamp them out by fiat.

I'd also disagree that scientifically ignorant speech, like saying trans women are just damaged men, is tantamount to hate speech, because one does not have to hate nor desire the persecution of a group to have incorrect ideas about them, but that's another issue entirely.

So basically, you would also say that it isn't hate speech to say "I think that black people are genetically and mentally inferior to white people" as long as you don't say it in a hateful way.

No, that's hate speech, and with as much respect as I can muster, I don't think you are a good source on what is hate speech.

 

[Cybit]

Interesting view point.

I would say that this could be a good thread on its own, if we are going to allow bigoted views to take a platform for the sake of combating it, who should provide said platform?

Historically universities would be that place.

Freedom of speech is a law, but it's a law that comes with it an implicit responsibility to fight ideas on the ideative plane, rather than trying to stamp them out by fiat.

I'd also disagree that scientifically ignorant speech, like saying trans women are just damaged men, is tantamount to hate speech, because one does not have to hate nor desire the persecution of a group to have incorrect ideas about them, but that's another issue entirely.

Where climate change denial and anti-vax and anti-GMO talk fit into that is also an interesting thought process. All of these would qualify as scientifically ignorant speech, and anti-GMO is one that is generally considered left of center.

Fundamentally this argument comes down to a question -

Does dissent impede progress in the short term and/or long term?

The answer you believe (and why you believe it) will probably show where you stand on these kinds of issues.

 

[ElFly]

The main difference between the Dawkins letter about Ben Stein and the Greer situation is that a commencement speech is obligatory.

If your main concern is "students should be exposed to differing ideas in college", the fact that the speech is not optional is secondary and actually pretty benign for your objectives.

So Dawkins is actually being hypocritical, even if the situations are different.

Historically universities would be that place.



Where climate change denial and anti-vax and anti-GMO talk fit into that is also an interesting thought process. All of these would qualify as scientifically ignorant speech, and anti-GMO is one that is generally considered left of center.

Fundamentally this argument comes down to a question -

Does dissent impede progress in the short term and/or long term?

The answer you believe (and why you believe it) will probably show where you stand on these kinds of issues.

The difference is that global warming deniers do not normally insult and offend the GW proponents.

Well. Normally.

That's not the case here, Greer is intentionally offensive.

 

[Azih]

The sticking point for me is who gets to decide what speech should be allowed and what speech shouldn't?

 

[A Link to the Past]

The sticking point for me is who gets to decide what speech should be allowed and what speech shouldn't?

A question you likely wouldn't be asking if you were in a group that would be lucky to be treated as a second-class citizen.

 

[Nairume]

I would rather have hate speech than hate speech laws. I am also against hate crime laws.

What about laws preventing businesses from denying service based on race?

 

[Azih]

A question you likely wouldn't be asking if you were in a group that would be lucky to be treated as a second-class citizen.

I am. You seem to be forgetting that these kinds of protests could be used by a privileged majority against a disadvantaged minority not just vice versa. It cuts both ways.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I am.

May I ask which group that is?

 

[Lafiel]

I would rather have hate speech than hate speech laws. I am also against hate crime laws. I believe, philosophically, that the American protection of all speech, even the loathsome kind, is the most ethical position.

You seem to be ignoring the existence of "power" differences in this analysis. We don't live in this perfect "liberal" world where everyone is on the same playing field.