TheKaeptain
Banned
He starts it with saying those that disagree can argue with Green.
Richard Dawkins tells students upset by Germaine Greer to go home and hug a teddy
- Thread starter Erin S Kittens
- Start date
- Status
He starts it with saying those that disagree can argue with Green.
Just to push this a little bit into ridiculous territory for the sake of the point, what about something like "artificial intelligence's shouldn't be treated like regular people" - would that be worth debate? Or less wild example, non-citizens don't deserve equal treatment to citizens?
Neoriceisgood
Member
Is he suggesting people heckle her talk? Hanging out with a certain crowd must be rubbing off on him.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Greer's comments are disgusting but Dawkins has a point. Feed her to hounds. See how long she lasts.
What, and watch everything he believes get ripped apart? I'd love to see that, personally.
What, and watch everything he believes get ripped apart? I'd love to see that, personally.
It should absolutely be challenged. Because while the actual people involved know perfectly the answer, a whole lot of the population doesn't - and hearing a robust debate about it should clear it up.
What i'm saying is, there's a lot of people who hold the same horrible view in that university. I'd hope they'd get something out of the uproar involved.
Vincent Alexander
Member
Yes. It is.
Consider a genius physicist who could lecture about concepts that very few others could lecture about.
He's also pretty hateful to x-ethnicity. Serious question - should he talk at a university about physics?
What if they don't want to give her a platform to do that?
You know, protesting or opposing giving something a platform is also a tenant of freedom of speech that the students are exercising here.
Rest
All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
Dawkins is right. This lady sounds like first class jackass, but she's still entitled to have her opinions, and still has the right to discuss them. Anyone who doesn't want to hear should stay away, they don't have the right to silence her. Silencing people whose opinions you don't like is not what a free and equal society is about; there's no place for that.
Unless the assembly involves an on-stage debate, she'll last as long as she's given time to speak.
Buddha Beam
Banned
1. Still doesn't make it their roof. Just because I stay in a hotel doesn't mean I can tell them who can and can't hold conferences or whatever in their ballroom.
2. Yep. That's exactly what I said. Exactly. Wasnt purposefully vague for a reason at all.
No, I don't. You're advocating for rejecting people based on a single thing you personally object to, in the process throwing out all the possible good that an individual might possess.
People might hold dickish opinions, but that doesn't really make them bad or worthless people. Once you start throwing people out of your clubhouse over the first spat that occurs, you're inevitably going to get yours sooner or later.
Yes. Dawkins is absolutely right. Let the the morons speak, and let us ridicule them appropriately.
This culture of silencing people at universities may otherwise lead to collateral damage, when legitimate controversial opinions are silenced in the same way. Like it happened to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
| Praxis |
Banned
He isn't suggesting that at all. The floor would be opened for questions from the audience. That's how debates usually work in a civilised society.
Vincent Alexander
Member
I agree and think you're spot on. I'm fine with people protesting and trying to block a speaker at a university. But I also hope they wouldn't win such a protest.
Yeah. I'd be upset if the university canceled it (unless there was legitimate fear for people's safety). But her deciding to pull? I can live with that. They expressed freedom of speech by starting a petition. She backed out of own free will. Can't hate that.
I can't believe you compared a prominent and influential liberation feminist in Germaine Greer to the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The answer is quite obviously: no I would not have the same response and I would struggle to take seriously anyone minded to ask the question.
That's like saying a robust debate with the KKK will make viewers stop being racist.
Not that there actually would have been a robust debate in this instance.
Neoriceisgood
Member
Aren't the Q&A parts of a guest speaker usually:
Person asks question.
speaker answers.
next person in line is up.
-
I don't see how that in any way equates a proper debate, especially when the speaker's usually actually quite skilled at public speaking & the ones asking questions are just students.
I feel as though you're naive if you think this supposed debate would have made a huge difference, if even her transphobia was brought up.
uncelestial
Member
Honestly, I don't get the point of chastising the students for protesting. Why can't they? Those are horrible things to say.
partyphone
Banned
Neoriceisgood
Member
If you've paid any attention to Richard Dawkins in recent times, it's basically his new hobby.
Thanks, I was looking for this.
Yeah, it's a bit strange to see people who think a speaker at a student assembly is "having a debate".
Crumpet Trumpet
Banned
DontBeThatGuy
Member
She wouldn't show up because of protesting? I dunno, she kind of sounds like the gutless chump to me.
To use a real example, do people think it would be good for universities and students to prevent James Watson from speaking about DNA based on his history of racist viewpoints?
AHA-Lambda
Member
This. I'm amazed so many here excuse this and agree with Dawkins.
Fine, yes, if you don't agree with someone go and debate absolutely but we all know that with individuals of such bigoted persuasion you'll get absolutely nowhere to begin with.
Citadelofmythoughts
Banned
Why? Why does every ignorant slob deserve an audience?
I agree with Dawkins too, but it's a fine line. You don't want to legitimise absurd views either, otherwise are you obliged to let every crackpot have the floor? The tricky question becomes whether Greer's views are absurd enough to warrant censorship. Where is that line drawn? Who decides?
1. Well the students did and that worked.
2. If the vagueness of your principles can't hold up when applied to specific situations, that's not my problem.
This is from 6 years ago - I wonder if confronted with this, whether or not he would defend it or say that it was the correct action. If the latter, it would be extremely hypocritical.
At most, it means that Dawkin's is a hypocrite - but if a smoker says that smoking is bad, it doesn't mean that it's suddenly good.
Team Alucard
Banned
rekt
If I was still in college, I'd rather an offensive speaker come so I can go and act an ass than have them turned down just to go speak to a likely more receptive audience.
Well, that's a commencement address... But, whatever. #rekt
Well, that's a commencement address... But, whatever. #rekt
According to 90% of this thread, yes.
metalslimer
Member
Lol Dawkins being exposed as the hypocritical piece of shit that he is
You know I had a feeling he had done something that would make him a huge ass hypocrite, but damn, if that isn't a smoking gun.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Luckily, we have an internet. Speaking at an university was useful in the past, to reach people. Now, there are other means. Hell, she can speak for free. But paying her, with the students money? That's what I'm against. If her speech is so valid, she can do it for free.
As soon as she becomes paid, she becomes an employee. Or a contractor. Good for them on protesting. Exercising their rights to freedom of speech. Hell, they have more rights than that. They are technically the employer.
I don't see how a commencement address and a honorary degree are comparable to a single lecture. The former has much more stringent requirements. Dawkins was right to complain there.
JeffGoldblum.gif
There is a significant different between a despicable opinion and flat-out lying and deception. Ben Stein falls into the latter category. He purposefully deceived people when he was making his film, and he is deliberately lying in order to push an agenda. He is not interested in having an honest conversation. But universities are places for having conversations and criticizing all sorts of opinions, not for giving deliberate and dishonest liars a platform.
- Status