Richard Dawkins tells students upset by Germaine Greer to go home and hug a teddy
- Thread starter Erin S Kittens
- Start date
- Status
theepicoftyler
Member
I think the two scenarios are different. This is him protesting the awarding of some honorary something or other, less him asking he not be allowed to speak. He's actually inviting the University of Vermont to hear both sides and determine whether or not he's worth of the honors being awarded to him.
Not to seem like a double Dawkins defender in this thread.
Crumpet Trumpet
Banned
neither is a case of free speech
Everyone calling Dawkins a hypocrite apparently doesn't understand, or want to understand, the difference in context between this and supporting someone's right to speak.
Greer was going to be there for an open discussion/debate. This would allow people to question and argue with her if they so choose, as he suggests. It's also not mandatory for people to show up to the talk if they don't want to.
This letter was him complaining about someone giving a commencement speech, essentially having free reign to say whatever the fuck he wants without anyone questioning him. You HAVE to go to this, you don't have the choice. On top of giving them an honorary degree, which WOULD be a direct endorsement by the University, rather than the "implicit" endorsement people were trying to argue for Greer.
There is a difference.
They are mad that someone contested their bigoted ideas and used a horrible double standard to attempt to look victimized. They are just mad that the university wasn't a safer space.
uncelestial
Member
Sure, but I feel like there's a lot of people who agree with him, even in this thread.
The students are exercising their free speech and protesting. What's the harm? That's not needing to "hug a teddy," that's being pissed off at bullshit. I marched against W's Iraq War when I was that age and I'm proud of it.
Similarly I fully support his chastising letter to the University of Vermont re: inviting the creationist. He can make those protests too. Especially inviting that jerkoff to be a commencement speaker, jeez.
Anybody can protest anything they want, how is that hard to understand?
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
We have movement. I've localized it to the base of the goal posts.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Seriously. What the hell are people even talking about here. People protested, rightfully so, and she decided not to show her face. Boo hoo.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah. I assumed there would be some kind of interaction given Dawkins' comment about arguing.
Well yes, this Greer situation isn't a case of free speech since she voluntarily withdrew, but Dawkins general point appears to be allowing of speech even if you disagree and not preventing any dissenting opinions from appearing.
The letter above does not contradict his opinion, as it's a case of not wanting Stein to be honored.
JesseEwiak
Member
And it's not mandatory Greer gets paid for showing up.
Vincent Alexander
Member
A debate shouldn't always have the goal of convincing the other person they're wrong and you're right. As long as one of the two comes out with a wider view of the world then good has happened.
OKay. Time to play the devil a bit more, but a commencement speech seems a bit different, no? Greer is an issue of censorship. Is it censorship to ask for this university to pull an invite to Ben Stein though? You don't have discussions in a commencement speech. The crowd doesn't have a QA session at the end. Debate isn't had. I know I'm walking a fine line, but come on. Someone argue because I genuinely want to know if I'm crazy.
*LATER*
OKay...glad to see I'm not only one who sees a difference.
She's entitled to have opinions and to discuss them.
She's not fucking entitled to be paid for it..
She also withdrew herself anyways, nobody actually stopped her.
I dont think you know what "silencing" means.
Also, at the "engage in debate " guys: what debate was going to take place exactly? A speaker going to speak about stuff and answering a couple of questions is not a debate. Thats not how debates work.
I think there is some clarification that Dawkin's needs to make on this. He obviously made clear his opinion that Ben Stein -shouldn't- get an honorary degree or make a commencement speech. And in this case, he made clear that he thinks that students should - rather than protest to try and remove a speaker, engage speakers they disagree with. For the sake of consistency, he needs to square this. If his opinion has changed in the last 6 years (it might have) it would be good to know. If he thinks that this specific case is different, he should explain why. In the end, my opinion is that protesting isn't wrong, but it's better to challenge than to try and prevent bad opinions from being spoken.
Neoriceisgood
Member
I think people just love grandpa D calling students crybabies.
Looks like someone needs to go home and hug a teddy bear.
He's old as hell. Six years isn't a long time for him. If he doesn't defend it, it's only because of what he said today.
SolicitorPirate
Member
Yeah, no, Dawkins. I'm pretty tired of morons and bigots been given podiums to preach their rubbish.
Please kindly point to where I am supposed to have moved goalposts. Or have you just waited for an opportunity to drop a knee-jerk attack regardless of what people actually argue?
A commencement speech is very different from a lecture. This isn't showing any inconsistency at all.
The irony of attacking a Dawkins statement from 6 years ago and not the point he is making is almost too much.
Dawkins is a cunt but if you're not willing to debate a point and try to silence it instead... well, good luck with that but you might want to check how that has worked in history before you attempt it. Let her speak and let people tear her beliefs apart. Can't be worse than the current great divide where two sides refuse to debate each other and nothing actually changes.
Dawkins is a cunt but if you're not willing to debate a point and try to silence it instead... well, good luck with that but you might want to check how that has worked in history before you attempt it. Let her speak and let people tear her beliefs apart. Can't be worse than the current great divide where two sides refuse to debate each other and nothing actually changes.
uncelestial
Member
I didn't sleep all that great today but I must confess that I can't resolve the "they" pronoun in this case. People who agree with Dawkins, or the student protestors?
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
But the #rekt train has started. It's too late to back out. Context doesn't matter.
*eyeroll*
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Also, you're aren't changing this woman's mind, so miss me with that debate shit. She would be getting paid though (and AGAIN, SHE CANCELLED)
Sounds like every university talk that I've been to. And no, the short "Q&A" at the end does not count.
A commencement speech + honorary degree is very different than a speaker on campus. First of all, people are expected to go to a graduation ceremony. Obviously. Second of all, it isn't a debate or talk where students can ask questions. And the university itself is honoring the man.
What about the free speech of students? They didn't want her to come and they didn't want their tuition fee money to go towards a known bigot.
Neoriceisgood
Member
I'm still confused where the notion that this is some sort of grand old open debate on Greer's views.
Wasn't she basically gonna give a one sided lecture with a Q&A at the end of it?
I know right? Where are people getting the idea that this would be some sort of epic battle of ideas?
Wasn't she basically gonna give a one sided lecture with a Q&A at the end of it?
I know right? Where are people getting the idea that this would be some sort of epic battle of ideas?
It's so kawaii, isn't it?
Vincent Alexander
Member
Again---that isn't the point. There would be a huge room full of people. Of differing opinions. Everyone seems so focused on convincing Greer she is wrong. But what if by speaking up you convince other people in the room? And hell, you don't even have to convince them completely. As long as someone leaves thinking a bit differently of the world then great. Making someone change their whole thought process and beliefs is not the goal.
The interaction at a student assembly is not meaningful. This should be obvious to anyone who's gone to a student assembly.
stufte
Member
It's not about directly challenging her words, but to add counterpoint to them for the benefit of the people in attendance. You may not be able to change her mind, but it's entirely possible to inform those who came to the lecture uninformed.
It's not about changing her mind. It's about changing the audiences mind. I've debated enough times with people on GAF about topics and maybe have changed their minds SOMETIMES. But plenty have messaged me over the years and told me the stuff I said about X or Y have helped to form their current opinion.
Sorry, I was referring to Dawkins and Greer. Dawkins is right in what he says but he fails to realize that it ultimately applies to both parties.
Operations
Member
University of Columbia allowed friggin Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to give a speech, despite Iran's views of women and homosexuals and denying the Holocaust.
Sorry, but Dawkins is in the right here, no ifs or buts.
Sorry, but Dawkins is in the right here, no ifs or buts.
80s Bad Guy
Banned
The belief that ignorance deserves a platform or to be engaged in intelligent debate is moronic. That just validates it in a way.
CambriaRising
Member
I wonder if people would still be on Dawkin's side if it were someone from the westboro baptist church speaking instead. Hmm
Crumpet Trumpet
Banned
the protestors are way over dignifying shitty opinions with a "debate". people showed up, expressed their ~free speech~ and criticized her fuckery. and she backed out. apparently the debate space wasn't safe enough for greer. haha
Research. Talking to the people involved. Stage debates aren't really about finding the truth, just look at any debate and how a bunch of errors are listed after it's ended.
So we also need to invite people who think Israel and the US orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and people who think that racial segregation is a good thing? Pay these idiots money and invite them into our universities because debate is oh so important?
Screw that nonsense.
Team Alucard
Banned
I think we all know the answer to that.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Well, apparently she didn't actually wanna be challenged in the end, because she cancelled the damn gig. Sad, one less forum for an asshole to be publicly heard.
But what compels research? If no one feels that their opinion is being challenged, why research anything?
AHA-Lambda
Member
This.
There's a difference between a former word leader and a random hater.
Personally, I would have loved to see a debate between somebody from Westboro Church and somebody the likes of Christopher Hitchens.
Broadcast that shit on national television. It would have been educational and glorious.
Oh god. It would be straight up murder.
- Status