Support NeoGAF

[besada]

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

In the case of paid speakers, the answer is whoever is paying the bill. No one has a right to come speak at a college campus. Colleges are already deciding who gets to speak and who doesn't, simply by inviting and paying some people and not inviting or paying others.

So, in this case, the question ought to be who decided to invite Greer, did they have buy in from anyone else, and how responsive the college should be to the people funding them.

 

[Azih]

May I ask which group that is?

Brown skin Muslim with a Muslim name (defending Dawkins in this thread makes my skin crawl but I'm not defending the man I'm just defending what he said in this case). I can't judge this with any objectivity of course but I freely admit that being trans is almost definitely far worse in current society than being Muslim is. (Niqabis and Hijabis might be far closer in persecution though. I'm male)

 

[A Link to the Past]

It definitely cannot be said that being Muslim does not carry a major stigma in many parts of the world, but trans people are very much going through a very deep problem with being treated like people. There is a pretty similar connection between the othering that is done to trans people as it is done to Muslims though.

 

[ElFly]

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.

The fact that a certain kind of protest can be used by the a majority in a position of power does not make that kind of protest invalid or bad.

Kim Davis claims to be practicing civil disobedience, but that doesn't cast Rosa Parks's defiance in bad light. Of course it could be said that people like Kim Davis are no longer in power.

Besides, if the people in power at college decide that they don't like a certain speaker, they will simply not invite they. They will not bother with the whole petition for the speaker not to come.

 

[Zero²]

I wonder what goes through Greer's head when she say those things, and if she might change those views someday.
As long as she isnt totally crazy, I guess having her talk could be good, more as to start debating why her opinion is wrong than anything. Then again, I understand why the protested against her if arguing was impossible...
It's not easy, but I'd rather try to show to these people why they are wrong and try changing their ideas by debating, than just dont allowing them to talk and think everything is ok.

 

[Reishiki]

I wonder what goes through Greer's head when she say those things, and if she might change those views someday.

She's 74.

 

[East Lake]

The fact that a certain kind of protest can be used by the a majority in a position of power does not make that kind of protest invalid or bad.

Kim Davis claims to be practicing civil disobedience, but that doesn't cast Rosa Parks's defiance in bad light. Of course it could be said that people like Kim Davis are no longer in power.

Besides, if the people in power at college decide that they don't like a certain speaker, they will simply not invite they. They will not bother with the whole petition for the speaker not to come.

I don't know if focusing on how protests work broadly is that applicable. If someone were to take the position that they don't want Greer to be paid for speaking there I think that's fairly understandable, but I don't think cutting her out because of hate speech actually achieves much.

One reason is that this tactic can be and has been abused by people who are on the wrong side of a moral argument, something people for this in here don't seem to give much weight. Another is that it is sort of narrowly applied. If I spent the time I'm absolutely certain I could turn up tons of people who ought to be boycotted but aren't. Another is that even if the right people were blocked from speaking there is a value in knowing how they think and knowing their arguments, and students should be exposed to this stuff to know how to counter it when their preferred method of dissent isn't a viable option after they graduate.

 

[Zero²]

She's 74.

Ugh, that answers my question. I dont even want to think on her arguments to still think this way even at such old age, I can already guess the level of shit.
Well, then the students cant be blamed. I wonder why the College even invited her? Just to make an old woman show how bigoted old people can be?

 

[aeolist]

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

this part i don't get

what's the point of a protest if not to pressure for change? and what change could they possibly be protesting for other than the school revoking greer's invitation?

the mere presence of an organized group of people standing around talking about how much they dislike greer and the things she's said in the context of this invitation to speak 100% implies that they don't want her there and that they are trying to make the event not happen. your statement seems contradictory to me.

 

[Curufinwe]

Article from a lecturer at another university:

Becca Reilly-Cooper
@boodleoops
Political philosopher. Increasingly radical feminist. Rape Crisis volunteer. Raging pomophobe. Half victim, half accomplice, like everyone else.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-a...ack-on-germaine-greer-shows-identity-politics

As with so many of the current high-profile no-platforming cases, Greer is being ostracised and shunned, cast out of our moral community and declared beyond redemption, simply for the crime of believing the wrong things, of holding the wrong thoughts in her head, of defining concepts in ways that run counter to those of the newly-established doctrine of gender identity. It is not sufficient to behave towards trans women in a certain way, to respect their preferred pronouns and to support their right to receive the medical treatment they need. You must also really and truly believe that they are women. And if you cannot be made to hold this subjective mental state in your head, that is sufficient to justify silencing you, in the name of protecting the believers.

 

[Reishiki]

Article from a lecturer at another university:

Becca Reilly-Cooper
@boodleoops
Political philosopher. Increasingly radical feminist. Rape Crisis volunteer. Raging pomophobe. Half victim, half accomplice, like everyone else.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-a...ack-on-germaine-greer-shows-identity-politics

And thus, the left continues to cannibalize itself while the suicides pile up.

 

[Erin S Kittens]

Article from a lecturer at another university:

Becca Reilly-Cooper
@boodleoops
Political philosopher. Increasingly radical feminist. Rape Crisis volunteer. Raging pomophobe. Half victim, half accomplice, like everyone else.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-a...ack-on-germaine-greer-shows-identity-politics

Congrats on posting TERF propaganda, I guess.

 

[EmiPrime]

Article from a lecturer at another university:

Becca Reilly-Cooper
@boodleoops
Political philosopher. Increasingly radical feminist. Rape Crisis volunteer. Raging pomophobe. Half victim, half accomplice, like everyone else.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-a...ack-on-germaine-greer-shows-identity-politics

Have you got any more hate speech you'd like to share? Given you post that article without comment I can only assume that you agree with it.

 

[Jonm1010]

While I am not sure I agree with a few of the premises and arguments that article lays out I am not sure the three responders actually read that article. At least i have a hard time concluding you did.

It's basically an article taking apart the definition of hate speech and exploring Greer's statements to see if it constitutes as such. Then taking on a broader critique of modern liberal social justice activism. Which seems to be her larger criticism.

The author seems to have some core disagreements with Greer but also argues that what Greer has said doesn't actually fall under the category of hate speech as it is usually classified.

Also interesting if people had actually read that is that Cardiff has apparently rescheduled her talk for next month after the university rejected the petition.

 

[Azih]

this part i don't get

what's the point of a protest if not to pressure for change? and what change could they possibly be protesting for other than the school revoking greer's invitation?

Disagreeing with someone, even strongly, is a world away from demanding that they not be allowed to speak. Demonstrating to show her ideas are harmful and bigoted is not the same as demonstrating to prevent her from speaking. The change should be to create a world where her ideas on trans issues are discredited not to create a world in which she is muzzled.

 

[Erin S Kittens]

While I am not sure I agree with a few of the premises and arguments that article lays out I am not sure the three responders actually read that article. At least i have a hard time concluding you did.

It's basically an article taking apart the definition of hate speech and exploring Greer's statements to see if it constitutes as such. Then taking on a broader critique of modern liberal social justice activism. Which seems to be her larger criticism.

The author seems to have some core disagreements with Greer but also argues that what Greer has said doesn't actually fall under the category of hate speech as it is usually classified.

Also interesting if people had actually read that is that Cardiff has apparently rescheduled her talk for next month after the university rejected the petition.

Not only did I read it, but I'm familiar with her prior "work". If stating that she's a TERF is your reasoning for thinking I hadn't read the article, perhaps you haven't done due diligence.

 

[Jonm1010]

Not only did I read it, but I'm familiar with her prior "work". If stating that she's a TERF is your reasoning for thinking I hadn't read the article, perhaps you haven't done due diligence.

Then for someone who is not as well versed perhaps you could enlighten the board with why her entire piece is rubbish instead of just labeling it propaganda and moving on. Could you add some substance for the rest of us as to what the flaws are in her piece and the flaws in previous works that have led you to dismiss her work and the entiriety of her argument so quickly?

I am genuinely interested.

 

[Reishiki]

While I am not sure I agree with a few of the premises and arguments that article lays out I am not sure the three responders actually read that article. At least i have a hard time concluding you did.

For what it's worth, I did read the article.

 

[Rudimental]

Article from a lecturer at another university:

Becca Reilly-Cooper
@boodleoops
Political philosopher. Increasingly radical feminist. Rape Crisis volunteer. Raging pomophobe. Half victim, half accomplice, like everyone else.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-a...ack-on-germaine-greer-shows-identity-politics

Great article. Reminds me in some ways of Taguieff's excellent book on racism and anti-racism: The Force of Prejudice. We are often lulled into thinking that, say, being anti-transphobic just is trying to get rid of a particular negative ideology, but in fact it means adopting an ideological position of our own, one that can itself be deeply problematic unless we tread carefully.

 

[tiredheadcrab]

He is right. I dont agree with this person either in the slightest. But students need to learn how to deal with morons in the real world. Debating even the dumbest people is something we need to all learn as it helps us grow.

 

[A Link to the Past]

He is right. I dont agree with this person either in the slightest. But students need to learn how to deal with morons in the real world. Debating even the dumbest people is something we need to all learn as it helps us grow.

Speech, not debate.

Further, nothing she could say there would be any different from what people Say about and to trans people daily.

 

[Azih]

Speech, not debate.

Any speech, lecture, talk, or whatever is a part of a larger debate.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Any speech, lecture, talk, or whatever is a part of a larger debate.

If debate is allowed by the speaker.

 

[The Technomancer]

Article from a lecturer at another university:

Becca Reilly-Cooper
@boodleoops
Political philosopher. Increasingly radical feminist. Rape Crisis volunteer. Raging pomophobe. Half victim, half accomplice, like everyone else.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-a...ack-on-germaine-greer-shows-identity-politics

Er what? Is this really trying to defend Greer's comments as not contributing to a larger culture of transphobia that very often includes violence?

Like, of the angles you could use to come to Greer's defense that feels like sort of a weird one

 

[partyphone]

protests are also part of the larger debate. we don't have to tolerate bigots.

 

[tiredheadcrab]

Speech, not debate.

Further, nothing she could say there would be any different from what people Say about and to trans people daily.

I think learning to debate and shutting down hate speech by confronting it is a good way to learn in college.

 

[The Technomancer]

I think learning to debate and shutting down hate speech by confronting it is a good way to learn in college.

Confronting it by...protesting it, perhaps?

If we're expanding the definition of "debate" here to include speech in a general sense (which I'm fine with), was not the students protest their voice in the "debate" just like her speech is hers?

 

[charlequin]

Er what? Is this really trying to defend Greer's comments as not contributing to a larger culture of transphobia that very often includes violence?

Rebecca Reilly-Cooper is a fairly outspoken TERF so her agenda in writing this is specifically to downplay the societal consequences of anti-trans commentary.

 

[jurgen]

If debate is allowed by the speaker.

I disagree. Debate exists in a context larger than that of just the speaking event.

 

[Risette]

I disagree. Debate exists in a context larger than that of just the speaking event.

like... student protests voicing disagreement with the speaker?

 

[ampere]

TERF... learned a new acronym. How is this a thing

Is it fundamentally a denial of the science that being transgender is a real human condition?

 

[A Link to the Past]

Yeah. I think that the protesters have proven to be perfectly capable in responding to this kind of rhetoric.

TERF... learned a new acronym. How is this a thing

Is it fundamentally a denial of the science that being transgender is a real human condition?

This is one part, it's also feminists who feel that men are trying to invade their space by trying to pretend to be women (basically, male privilege).

 

[jurgen]

like... student protests voicing disagreement with the speaker?

That's totally fine but to call for them to be silenced is another thing, especially in the realm of learning and challenging ideas.

 

[A Link to the Past]

That's totally fine but to call for them to be silenced is another thing, especially in the realm of learning and challenging ideas.

They're silencing these ideas because, after listening to them and understanding them beyond a level that the ideas even deserve, they realized that they have no purpose or value and only spread harm.

Maybe we should also have a Nazi speaker who explains why white people are the master race, because if we don't we won't learn things

 

[Krev]

Ugh, that answers my question. I dont even want to think on her arguments to still think this way even at such old age, I can already guess the level of shit.
Well, then the students cant be blamed. I wonder why the College even invited her? Just to make an old woman show how bigoted old people can be?

Because she's a significant academic figure of the past 50 years.

The talk she was to give didn't have anything to do with trans issues.

 

[Risette]

That's totally fine but to call for them to be silenced is another thing, especially in the realm of learning and challenging ideas.

calling for them to be silenced is fine. nobody's forcing anybody to agree with the students who are protesting.

 

[East Lake]

They're silencing these ideas because, after listening to them and understanding them beyond a level that the ideas even deserve, they realized that they have no purpose or value and only spread harm.

Maybe we should also have a Nazi speaker who explains why white people are the master race, because if we don't we won't learn things

You could also have fascists who protest people on the right side of the argument. Pick your poison.

 

[A Link to the Past]

You could also have fascists who protest people on the right side of the argument. Pick your poison.

This argument was already effortlessly debunked. Kim Davis refused to do her job because she regarded a law as unjust. By your logic - and this only needs to use your logic - conscientious objection is always bad because it might be used for bad.

It's a shit argument. We have been seeing people protest white supremacists for decades and your slippery slope never happened.

 

[East Lake]

I don't know how going from Nazis, to Kim Davis, to white supremacists, which are three different things debunked anything. Moreover you know that it's not only Nazis who use this tactic right? Jewish people use it as well. Blows your mind doesn't it!

 

[A Link to the Past]

Okay, would you please demonstrate to me that there is even a reasonable use of protesting by fascists in order to silence people at Universities?

That's literally the bare minimum amount of evidence for your argument to have any value. As it is, you have the same argument of "what if gays start marrying, and then we start marrying our dogs and children?" Both are without basis.

 

[East Lake]

You brought up Nazi speakers in universities as a hypothetical, so I don't know why know your turning the burden to me to prove it's not some weird tangent. What I'm saying is bad people use this to their advantage, and that protesting is not an inherently good thing "because it's debate" or it's "people gathering together" or something, and thus worth applauding.

If you want an example look up someone I already mentioned in the thread. Norman Finkelstein. He's a jewish guy who has had plenty of speeches canceled because people don't like what he has to say about Israel's attacks on Palestine.

 

[CLEEK]

You brought up Nazi speakers in universities as a hypothetical, so I don't know why know your turning the burden to me to prove it's not some weird tangent. What I'm saying is bad people use this to their advantage, and that protesting is not an inherently good thing "because it's debate" or it's "people gathering together" or something, and thus worth applauding.

Exactly. If you support the ability of your ideological in-group being able to veto public appearances / speech, don't be surprised when a group that holds opposing ideology, e.g. The American Family Association, does the same thing. And even uses the same terms/rhetoric. "This person is an anti-Christian bigot". "Their views oppress our religious beliefs".

 

[A Link to the Past]

I brought up Nazis to show how silly the hyper-libertarian response of "allow any person to speak at a University! Prove them wrong!" (because apparently bigots go to University because they want their minds to be changed).

Regardless, your argument is the lowest. You are literally arguing nothing more than slippery slope. What you provide is no more powerful than the argument that every form of protest is bad because it's utilized by bad people. Any form of protest can be used to do bad things. The solution cannot be to silence good protest, and that's not even acknowledging the issue that silencing the protests go against the bullshit "all speech, free speech!" mantra.

So answer this: should all forms of protest be stopped? I mean, you ever see those anti-Muslim protests, or anti-refugee, or anti-gay, or anti-black? It's terrible. Despite its value as used by marginalized people against more powerful people who seek to dehumanize them, it needs to be stopped because it may be used.

Seriously, if your argument against these protests is "it can be used to do bad things", then you have no argument.

 

[East Lake]

I brought up Nazis to show how silly the hyper-libertarian response of "allow any person to speak at a University! Prove them wrong!" (because apparently bigots go to University because they want their minds to be changed).

Regardless, your argument is the lowest. You are literally arguing nothing more than slippery slope. What you provide is no more powerful than the argument that every form of protest is bad because it's utilized by bad people. Any form of protest can be used to do bad things. The solution cannot be to silence good protest, and that's not even acknowledging the issue that silencing the protests go against the bullshit "all speech, free speech!" mantra.

So answer this: should all forms of protest be stopped? I mean, you ever see those anti-Muslim protests, or anti-refugee, or anti-gay, or anti-black? It's terrible. Despite its value as used by marginalized people against more powerful people who seek to dehumanize them, it needs to be stopped because it may be used.

Seriously, if your argument against these protests is "it can be used to do bad things", then you have no argument.

You're going a bit off the deep end here. You can't even legitimately call it a slippery slope anymore. I provided a concrete example! It's of a jewish guy who had family in the holocaust and is routinely called a holocaust denier and an anti-semite to get his events pulled. Nazis are more relevant than you thought!

Here's something else to think about. Holocaust denial is banned in a few countries but not here. I don't know about you, but by now you'd think we'd be overrun by the third reich in this country with all these platforms the bigots have to spread it!

My position is that basically this type of protest is potentially dangerous, certainly counterintuitive, and handicaps students who go into the real world where they actually have to debate.

 

[CLEEK]

Link, you either support the basic tenant of free speech - eloquently put in the quote "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - or you don't.

The recent Popehat blog that touched on this highlights the stupidity of people who think their "morally just" silencing of free speech will never be used against them.

First, you censorious Guardians of Feels on the Left: if you thought that the norms you created wouldn't be used against your "own side," you're fools. It is apparently your theory that the law is sexist, racist, and every other -ist, driven by privilege and wealth, and that free speech norms serve to protect rich white guys — yet somehow exceptions to free speech norm will be imposed in an egalitarian, progressive way. That is almost indescribably moronic. Go sit in the corner and think about what you have done.

You don't combat ignorance through silence. You combat it with debate, education and facts. If you resort to, and champion, revoking freedom of speech of the people you disagree with, the same can happen to you.

 

[The Technomancer]

No authority said she couldn't speak. Even if the university proper had remanded their invitation that would have just been them saying that she couldn't speak in an official capacity at that place and time. And that's not even what happened, she cancelled (and later reinstated) of her own violation in response to protests that were their own form of speech.

A right to free speech is not a right to any one particular platform.

 

[A Link to the Past]

There is no point in our history where people didn't use this for bad things. When we die, we will not have seen an end to people using this for bad things. If this protest didn't happen, the protest would have been used against Finkelstein as well. Further, both of you have a warped understanding of free speech. You talk of the harm of wanting people to be silenced, but then your solution is to silence people who have concrete reasons why that person should be silenced. What is happening is a tool most readily available to the most powerful and privileged is being utilized by marginalized people. It happens day-in day-out, and it's never going to stop. So no, I am not willing to entertain the idea of marginalized people giving up what little power they have because powerful people do the same thing. These are not related events - Finkelstein is protested because a powerful group took issue with what he said. What indicates to you that it's anything other than that? Fascists will not stop using it if the lower rung of society stops, because most fascists do not care. You seriously need to spend more time understanding free speech and what it actually means. Speech has consequences. If you want to say something, you can't complain when you get shit for it. Even if it means that people hold you to that shit. Why is it acceptable to present abhorrent information in the form of a speech, but the Israelis who protest Finkelstein aren't protected? Surely, having horrible, shitty viewpoints should be protected for people on both sides of a contentious issue. Why can vile viewpoints be presented, but not vile objections? It's a double standard. And as Technomancer so eloquently said, free speech is not relevant to this situation at all. You're viewing it as an idealistic thing, not as a legal matter.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

The point that has not been substantively addressed, at all, is that Greer's talk was on women's place in politics in the 20th Century. There is nothing in the title of the talk that promises comprehensiveness, making "the exclusion of trans women" a not particularly compelling reason why she should not be allowed to give the talk, and while at least one person says that she'll almost certainly say anti-trans things during the talk, despite it not being germane to the topic - a claim that is pure speculation, by the way - it has not been explained how, exactly, this would render moot other potentially enlightening commentary on the subject she might offer, nor why the protest has to be centered around outright excluding her, rather than simply, y'know, creating awareness of her views and then letting other adults make the decision of whether or not the speaker having uttered such views and/or the possibility that they might subtly or overtly creep their way into the talk is enough to persuade them not to listen to her.

I'm all for protesting her if you think her views merit protesting, but there's a difference between fighting ideas with ideas and fighting ideas using the mechanism of power to try and stamp them out from the top-down. That may not be a technical violation of freedom of speech (though if the university is public, it might be), but it's certainly a violation of the principle inherent in free speech, which is that ideas deserve to be stamped out by other ideas, not by fiat. And the idea that one set of bad opinions necessarily renders worthless all other opinions a person might tender is pretty much diametrically opposed to the classical and valuable role of higher education as the crucible ideas, good, bad, odd, and indifferent, of the past and present.

 

[East Lake]

There is no point in our history where people didn't use this for bad things. When we die, we will not have seen an end to people using this for bad things. If this protest didn't happen, the protest would have been used against Finkelstein as well. Further, both of you have a warped understanding of free speech. You talk of the harm of wanting people to be silenced, but then your solution is to silence people who have concrete reasons why that person should be silenced. What is happening is a tool most readily available to the most powerful and privileged is being utilized by marginalized people. It happens day-in day-out, and it's never going to stop. So no, I am not willing to entertain the idea of marginalized people giving up what little power they have because powerful people do the same thing. These are not related events - Finkelstein is protested because a powerful group took issue with what he said. What indicates to you that it's anything other than that? Fascists will not stop using it if the lower rung of society stops, because most fascists do not care. You seriously need to spend more time understanding free speech and what it actually means. Speech has consequences. If you want to say something, you can't complain when you get shit for it. Even if it means that people hold you to that shit. Why is it acceptable to present abhorrent information in the form of a speech, but the Israelis who protest Finkelstein aren't protected? Surely, having horrible, shitty viewpoints should be protected for people on both sides of a contentious issue. Why can vile viewpoints be presented, but not vile objections? It's a double standard. And as Technomancer so eloquently said, free speech is not relevant to this situation at all. You're viewing it as an idealistic thing, not as a legal matter.

If it's basically a non-issue like technomancer said because she could hold an event elsewhere or blog about it, then basically all your arguments get tossed out the window. You can't on one hand put this on some pedestal where the marginalized are holding up some sort of serious stand against bigots and on the other hand say oh well it's really not a big deal she has options.

I think you inadvertently admitted this is a problem as well where you basically said, well horrible powerful people silence groups they don't like so why shouldn't we? A great standard to live up to. Maybe you've misworded it but I don't think you've quite grasped the Finkelstein situation and you should probably spend time reading about it. He also, despite having been protested plenty of times (not always by the powerful) has specifically said this is not something he thinks is valid because it kills debate on serious issues.

 

[Erin S Kittens]

The point that has not been substantively addressed, at all, is that Greer's talk was on women's place in politics in the 20th Century. There is nothing in the title of the talk that promises comprehensiveness, making "the exclusion of trans women" a not particularly compelling reason why she should not be allowed to give the talk, and while at least one person says that she'll almost certainly say anti-trans things during the talk, despite it not being germane to the topic - a claim that is pure speculation, by the way - it has not been explained how, exactly, this would render moot other potentially enlightening commentary on the subject she might offer, nor why the protest has to be centered around outright excluding her, rather than simply, y'know, creating awareness of her views and then letting other adults make the decision of whether or not the speaker having uttered such views and/or the possibility that they might subtly or overtly creep their way into the talk is enough to persuade them not to listen to her.

I'm all for protesting her if you think her views merit protesting, but there's a difference between fighting ideas with ideas and fighting ideas using the mechanism of power to try and stamp them out from the top-down. That may not be a technical violation of freedom of speech (though if the university is public, it might be), but it's certainly a violation of the principle inherent in free speech, which is that ideas deserve to be stamped out by other ideas, not by fiat. And the idea that one set of bad opinions necessarily renders worthless all other opinions a person might tender is pretty much diametrically opposed to the classical and valuable role of higher education as the crucible ideas, good, bad, odd, and indifferent, of the past and present.

How is it not germane to the topic?