Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
But did Casey invent the clock?!?
Richard Dawkins tells students upset by Germaine Greer to go home and hug a teddy
- Thread starter Erin S Kittens
- Start date
- Status
It's no wonder that when a person with such views howls "Freedom of speech violation!" it actually just means that they want the right to spew their reprehensible opinions only while silencing any other voices or criticism. Too bad many people want to play devils advocate for such people.
So in other words, it's pointless to have a debate with her because she just hand waves counterarguments, pretends that she didn't say something, and eventually attacks the person for debating her views. She doesn't want a debate, she doesn't want to be challenged, she just wants a platform to spew her ideology.
If she can silence people's criticism of her views on trans women and people who wants to debate her about these views, to the point of attacking their very person, then it's only fair that these students can protest her from having a lecture in their school because of her trans-misogyny.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Seems to be spot-on, really. Plus the points about her being silenced when she goes on big TV channels to repeat her BS is just... lol, fuck off Greer.
Shai-Tan
Banned
I agree with Dawkins. Here's a talk from Steven Pinker about free speech on campus:
https://vimeo.com/140533641
I don't know enough about this person to know whether or not it is wise for them to be invited to talk but I've seen enough instances of people trying to impose their view through shouting down speakers who have a valid point out view. This instance is at least about the content of the talk. I've seen many protests that seek to punish speakers who simply have the wrong politics when discussing topics that aren't even related.
edit: apparently "I dont really know what I think of it. It strikes me as a bit of a put-up job really because I am not even going to talk about the issue that they are on about." I don't know how likely discussion would flow into that issue but suspiciously like one of those instances of trying to punish someone for having the wrong views
https://vimeo.com/140533641
I don't know enough about this person to know whether or not it is wise for them to be invited to talk but I've seen enough instances of people trying to impose their view through shouting down speakers who have a valid point out view. This instance is at least about the content of the talk. I've seen many protests that seek to punish speakers who simply have the wrong politics when discussing topics that aren't even related.
edit: apparently "I dont really know what I think of it. It strikes me as a bit of a put-up job really because I am not even going to talk about the issue that they are on about." I don't know how likely discussion would flow into that issue but suspiciously like one of those instances of trying to punish someone for having the wrong views
This ain't an idea, it's a prejudice built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. We don't have dudes who flunked high school math giving lectures on mathematics and we don't need people who don't understand basic issues in gender identity talking about gender issues.
This isn't some safe space bullshit, this is a bunch of university students not wanting to provide a pulpit -- much less money -- to an idiot.
Just a friendly reminder of this OP-ED from the last page for the people who didn't bother to look.
Erin: That article seems to have three points 1. that Greer is transphobic (which I have no argument with at all) and 2. Greer is exaggerating what happened in Cardiff as a publicity stunt (I have no real opinion one way or the other on that) and 3. A sort of defense of the logic of 'no-platforming' which I completely disagree with.
Will the "you should challenge bad ideas, go debate her!" crowd admit they were wrong? Probably not given they kept being told that you don't get to do that after academic talks and that Greer doesn't want a debate and usually responds with ad hominem but here we have a personal account of that.
UncleSporky
Member
Can't you just do the opposite of what she did?
Shout down her point of view with countless counter-academic-talks with no debate afterward. Flood the academic talk market.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
Lets be real. They would, and some probably did as it was originally happening. When it mattered.
excelsiorlef
Member
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
I agree with that.
Kenshin001
Member
The only idiots are those who keep insisting Greer intended to go on an anti trans rant. She was going to make a speech on women and feminism in the 20h century. She wrote a seminal text on the subject that had a huge impact and has campaigned for women's rights for decades. I think she has a good grasp on women's issues.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
This is an open question because I am unsure myself, but how do we decide what positions to no-platform? Intuitively, I feel like it would have been right to no-platform Greer if she was going to talk about trans issues. Others do not. There would probably be some speaker that I personally would be uncomfortable no-platforming who others would quite like to. Outside of our intuitions, which will obviously disagree at points, what metric do we use to determine whether someone's platform is distasteful but acceptable to hear vs. morally abhorrent and suitable for no-platforming? I worry that I find it right to no-platform Greer simply because I disagree with her, and am just trying to find ways of rationalizing my potentially unjust intuitions.
80s Bad Guy
Banned
As this thread is still going I'll just agree with this. Hatred and bigotry don't deserve a stage, even to be shouted down.
UncleSporky
Member
The trouble is when people have different definitions of these things, and they believe that your platform doesn't deserve a stage, even to be shouted down. I mean, this has gone on for ages, when the standard social viewpoint refused to give a stage to the other guys. If social norms had persisted and succeeded at preventing that alternate viewpoint gaining traction, we wouldn't be where we are today.
Both viewpoints are not equally valid or correct, but both should be allowed to speak. You don't want to be shouted down when it turns out the majority thinks that you're on the wrong side someday.
Shai-Tan
Banned
First, her talk isn't regarding that topic; second, it's an irrelevant comparison considering she was invited to discuss her books and academic work.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/nov/01/germaine-greer-angry-outspoken-feminist-lioness
I do think they might be grounds to prevent her from talking if she wasn't sufficiently respectful of differences of opinion through hateful language but I don't think she should be excluded for thinking disagreeable thoughts about gender that aren't politically correct. I do, however, think there is more leeway to shut down discussion irrelevant to the talk - there is no obligation to discuss a topic simply because it's brought up in question and answer. In an ideal world there would be dialogue and respectful disagreement but there are guilty parties on both sides of that (insults, shouting down, throwing objects, etc)
I have no allegiance to any of her ideas which seem grounded in a kind of marxism and postmodernism that seem to have died everywhere other than academic feminist discourse. it's a matter of principle even if it means tolerating people who are on the wrong side of history in some of their beliefs.
CloverCarr
Banned
You think that Germaine Greer is to feminism, as George Zimmerman is to racism?
Is this upside-down town?
- Status