Support NeoGAF

[stufte]

I wonder if people would still be on Dawkin's side if it were someone from the westboro baptist church speaking instead. Hmm

I think it'd be fascinating, considering the most we get out of them is chanting hate speech. If it were an actual lecture or debate, why the fuck not?

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

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.

Man, SHE cancelled the gig HERSELF. She was not asked to not show up by the university, but a little protesting that happens all the damn time stifled her will to be shitty publicly.

 

[Opto]

But what compels research? If no one feels that their opinion is being challenged, why research anything?

I am talking specifically about stage/conference debates, not the more abstract kind. This woman's opinions are already out there

 

[danm999]

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.

I gotta imagine any thread on GAF that started with an OP calling trans woman "ghastly parodies" wouldn't last long though, would it?

 

[PhoenixDark]

I have no problem with Dawkins' position. Those who want to censor the views that appear on college campuses are borderline fascists who need to be confronted. If you don't like the speaker, don't go. And until people stop paying tuition or hurt the bottom line, I wouldn't cater to these people.

 

[Henkka]

I agree with Dawkins' point to a degree, but I dunno... How far do we go with this "Universities should grant a podium to all views" business? Dawkins would obviously object to a young-earth creationist. I don't think an outright racist should be allowed a podium.

Are TERFs as offensive and wrong as racists and creationists? I dunno. Guess it depends on your views on transgenderism.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

The belief that ignorance deserves a platform or to be engaged in intelligent debate is moronic. That just validates it in a way.

I don't think Greer is a secret genius, but if we went back in time and censored everyone with "ignorant" views who knows what the hell kind of antiquated world we'd be living in now.

I wonder if people would still be on Dawkin's side if it were someone from the westboro baptist church speaking instead. Hmm

To answer your question: yes. I would find that shit fascinating.

 

[KarmaCow]

Well she cancelled it herself, so it looks like everyone won here. Students got what they wanted, Dawkins got to make a point about something, Greer gets to continue having her views unchallenged, and the university didn't have to do anything.

 

[Game-Biz]

I wonder if people would still be on Dawkin's side if it were someone from the westboro baptist church speaking instead. Hmm

?? Dawkins has debated many ignorant, hate-filled people in the past, publicly.

Edit: misunderstood you post the first time. Honestly to answer your question I would welcome it.

 

[Jebusman]

I wonder if people would still be on Dawkin's side if it were someone from the westboro baptist church speaking instead. Hmm

Yup. Because allowing them to speak isn't saying "I believe they might be right". It's giving an open platform for people to confront and debate these views, for an audience that might not have personal experience with the problems they are presenting, and a chance for them to learn WHY it was wrong.

That seems to be the issue here. People are content with just handing you a list of opinions that are wrong, but they aren't giving people the opportunity to learn why. And it's going to ill prepare them in the future when they confront people like this who are skillful in their hatred. Socially manipulative people who know how the game works, and could likely convince more people to join their twisted views. If my only argument is "TRANSPHOBIA IS BAD BECAUSE I SAID SO", you aren't going to solve the problem of it existing in the first place.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I have no problem with Dawkins' position. Those who want to censor the views that appear on college campuses are borderline fascists who need to be confronted. If you don't like the speaker, don't go. And until people stop paying tuition or hurt the bottom line, I wouldn't cater to these people.

Are they also the real racists?

 

[Delusibeta]

The Second Law of the Internet: people will drag up dumb shit you've posted from years ago and use it as evidence that you haven't changed from the day you posted aforementioned dumb shit.

 

[Meicyn]

I wonder if people would still be on Dawkin's side if it were someone from the westboro baptist church speaking instead. Hmm

I would, actually. Shirley Phelps-Roper believes that I will burn in hell for liking dudes, but that doesn't change the fact that if she wants to talk about a subject, I'm all for it. She could even use the word 'faggot' as much as she likes during her presentation.

Know your enemy, as they say.

 

[uncelestial]

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.

Ah gotcha. Totally agree. Sucks when your homegirl is protested against, but it also sucks when people try to erase people's gender identity, so, that's how that goes.

 

[krioto]

If you've paid any attention to Richard Dawkins in recent times, it's basically his new hobby.



Thanks, I was looking for this.

There is an important distinction here - protesters against Greer do not like her 'opinion', which they are free to debate against, but not silence.

Dawkins is protesting against the spread of misinformation and fallacies - it is different, but you've seemingly proved your point against Dawkins, so carry on.

 

[shintoki]

Didn't Obama basically say the same thing? The issue with PC isn't people whining about not being able to say something, but rather the fear of having different view points... even if they are wrong in an educational setting.

 

[MUnited83]

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)

That and people clearly dont fucking know what a debate is. She coming to speak about stuff a then having a bit of Q&A IS NOT A DEBATE, not even close.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

The Second Law of the Internet: people will drag up dumb shit you've posted from years ago and use it as evidence that you haven't changed from the day you posted aforementioned dumb shit.

Yeah...a bit of downer compared to good ole' Rule 34.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

There is an important distinction here - protesters against Greer do not like her 'opinion', which they are free to debate against, but not silence.

Dawkins is protesting against the spread of misinformation and fallacies - it is different, but you've seemingly proved your point against Dawkins, so carry on.

Greer silenced herself.

 

[Servbot24]

I mean.... technically Dawkins is right

But you don't go to university to argue with actual pyschopaths. You go there to learn, and sometimes argue, with your peers.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

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.

Being right in a debate means squat when you're a horrible ass debater though. I remember when the YT atheist wonderboy thunderf00t actually got in "Debates" with Ray Comfort & the Westboro Baptitst women.

Yeah if you already agree with someone you might see their pov, but TWBC or a clown like Ray Comfort can easily "win" a debate by the opposition simply being ill-prepared or horrible speakers.

Hitchens just happens to be a good debater, random students most likely wouldn't be.

Spoiler

Not that there'd be a debate, at most a Q&A section.

 

[krioto]

Greer silenced herself.

which is neither here nor there, and not the point.

 

[Bronx-Man]

I have no problem with Dawkins' position. Those who want to censor the views that appear on college campuses are borderline fascists who need to be confronted. If you don't like the speaker, don't go. And until people stop paying tuition or hurt the bottom line, I wouldn't cater to these people.

It's not a "view", it's hate speech pure and simple. Because you know goddamn well if someone like George Zimmerman was invited to give a speech on race relations, you wouldn't post all this about "borderline facism".

 

[Metrotab]

I gotta imagine any thread on GAF that started with an OP calling trans woman "ghastly parodies" wouldn't last long though, would it?

NeoGAF is not a university.

Again, universities is a place for educated (young) men and women to continue their education, and become well-formed citizens in the process. Those who want to should be able to responsibly approach hateful and oppressive content in a controlled environment.

I think it's rather cynical to think we should actively shield college students from wrong opinions. Why else develop critical thinking?

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

which is neither here nor there, and not the point.

Right.

 

[Archaix]

There is an important distinction here - protesters against Greer do not like her 'opinion', which they are free to debate against, but not silence.

Dawkins is protesting against the spread of misinformation and fallacies - it is different, but you've seemingly proved your point against Dawkins, so carry on.

But they aren't free to debate against it. This is not a debate, it's a lecture. There may be a Q&A period but the person being paid to speak is still in an implied position of authority and being given legitimacy by the school paying for them to be there. If it was a debate and they were bringing people from opposing sides to discuss the topic, that's something else entirely. But that was not the case here, nor in the vast majority of paid public speaking events at schools.

 

[Lamel]

Yeah a university doesn't need to be an intellectual "safe space", but the protesters have their right to protest as well.

 

[sohois]

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.

They certainly do have the right of protest, but I think the general issue in these situations is that Universities seem to buckle to these protests far beyond would be reasonable. There are undoubtedly people who would have wanted to hear her speech - why else would she be invited in the first place? - and when a speaker is withdrawn they are losing that opportunity.

Now, some people will say "Who cares if some transphobes can't hear a speaker" but I suppose I should remind people in this instance she was not speaking on this issue whatsoever, it was a feminist speech. What is more, in these cases there are many ways for protesters to protest without demanding speakers not be invited, whilst those who want to go to the speech do not have such an option.

On an unrelated note, many people are bringing up money in this case. Do we know that she was actually getting paid to speak? Generally didn't see that mentioned in the article

 

[Operations]

Man, SHE cancelled the gig HERSELF. She was not asked to not show up by the university, but a little protesting that happens all the damn time stifled her will to be shitty publicly.

So? I'm aware of that. My point is for those not in support of Dawkin's comments.

 

[Jebusman]

But they aren't free to debate against it. This is not a debate, it's a lecture. There may be a Q&A period but the person being paid to speak is still in an implied position of authority and being given legitimacy by the school paying for them to be there. If it was a debate and they were bringing people from opposing sides to discuss the topic, that's something else entirely. But that was not the case here, nor in the vast majority of paid public speaking events at schools.

What is stopping a student, or group of students, from interrupting her midspeech to confront her views.

Or, dare I use the word, "protest" her speech while it's happening.

I mean we're fine with student protests, so it shouldn't be much of a stretch.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

but you've seemingly proved your point against Dawkins, so carry on.

No idea what you're trying to say here, but it sounds patronizing.

 

[tomtom94]

Wow, the anti-no platform jerk on GAF is strong enough that people are actually willing to defend TERFs. Amazing.

EDIT: and Dawkins is a hypocritical twat who claims to be justified by science but tends to ignore it when it suits him, a good example being earlier when he pulled out the "if you define a woman by chromosomes" bullcrap.

 

[Tain]

I think it's rather cynical to think we should actively shield college students from wrong opinions. Why else develop critical thinking?

how about the university does this in a way where they don't fund these stances

 

[JesseEwiak]

NeoGAF is not a university.

Again, universities is a place for educated (young) men and women to continue their education, and become well-formed citizens in the process. Those who want to should be able to responsibly approach hateful and oppressive content in a controlled environment.

I think it's rather cynical to think we should actively shield college students from wrong opinions. Why else develop critical thinking?

So, do actually Nazi's need to show up to history class or can professors continue to put forth their views?

 

[EmiPrime]

There is an important distinction here - protesters against Greer do not like her 'opinion', which they are free to debate against, but not silence.

Dawkins is protesting against the spread of misinformation and fallacies - it is different, but you've seemingly proved your point against Dawkins, so carry on.

Greer has published about a dozen books and has made countless appearances on British TV since the 70s to present.

She is not being silenced.

 

[ElTorro]

How far do we go with this "Universities should grant a podium to all views" business?

Universities don't have to grant everybody a podium.

They (meaning usually professors, or student groups) can invite and not invite whoever they want. I doubt, for instance, that a reputable biology department would invite Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind, because this guy has literally nothing sane to contribute on any issue.

But if a student group invites somebody who has a legitimate controversial opinion, or even just a stupid bigoted opinion that some group at the university, for whatever reason, still deems valuable in some sense, I would prefer to just not go to that talk, or to go to that talk and challenge the idiot, instead of trying to sabotage the invitation in the first place.

I prefer that for two reasons: (1) protesting against invitations of idiots just gives the idiots the means to paint themselves as persecuted martyrs and (2) there is always the risk of collateral damage when certain groups manage to sabotage an invitation of a controversial speaker with a legitimately debatable opinion. I gave the example of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

NeoGAF is not a university.

Again, universities is a place for educated (young) men and women to continue their education, and become well-formed citizens in the process. Those who want to should be able to responsibly approach hateful and oppressive content in a controlled environment.

I think it's rather cynical to think we should actively shield college students from wrong opinions. Why else develop critical thinking?

The protesters already knew her opinion, and chose to protest her gig at the school they attend, which is not a bad thing. The option whether to attend, give a talk and have some shitty Q&A was up to Greer, and she CHOSE not to. Her choice.

Why is anyone upset about this.

 

[krioto]

But they aren't free to debate against it. This is not a debate, it's a lecture. There may be a Q&A period but the person being paid to speak is still in an implied position of authority and being given legitimacy by the school paying for them to be there. If it was a debate and they were bringing people from opposing sides to discuss the topic, that's something else entirely. But that was not the case here, nor in the vast majority of paid public speaking events at schools.

It was not actually even a lecture on trans-women/men, but rather Women & Power: The Lessons of the 20th Century, but protesters do not like some of her other opinions, so wish to silence any of her views.

Greer is one of the primary proponents of feminism, and as another poster has mentioned, has published countless books, articles etc - I think her views on this are probably worth hearing

 

[Archaix]

What is stopping a student, or group of students, from interrupting her midspeech to confront her views.

Or, dare I use the word, "protest" her speech while it's happening.

I mean we're fine with student protests, so it shouldn't be much of a stretch.

Campus security would be stopping them, for one. One side of this "Debate" would be ejected for speaking during the scheduled event's time.

 

[80s Bad Guy]

I don't think Greer is a secret genius, but if we went back in time and censored everyone with "ignorant" views who knows what the hell kind of antiquated world we'd be living in now.

Its a fair point, but in no world does ignorant deserve to be in quotes.

 

[uncelestial]

Personally, I would have loved to see a debate between somebody from Westboro Church and somebody the likes of Christopher Hitchens.

I don't see Dawkins going to bat for Westboro given that they're bible literalists and exactly the kind of creationist idiots he has protested about before.

But I think your larger point is, maybe people who are like "you tell 'em, Dawkins!" need to examine why they feel like trans issues are some kind of touchy feely thing that the protesting students should just "get over" like they don't even matter. I do know the kind of "playing victim" thing that people do; people misuse the vernacular of intersectionality to manipulative ends all the time. But what Greer said was fucked up. Everyone has the right to call bullshit on dehumanizing speech; Dawkins would be better off if he tried to avoid it, once in awhile. As an atheist and science-loving liberal, I would appreciate Dawkins being a little more Bill Nye and a little less Christopher Hitchens. To much of the world, he and Bill Maher are like the face of politicized science discussions and that kinda makes me cringe.

 

[stufte]

So, do actually Nazi's need to show up to history class or can professors continue to put forth their views?

And we've reached prime Godwin, folks.

 

[danm999]

NeoGAF is not a university.

The comparison is not mine.

Again, universities is a place for educated (young) men and women to continue their education, and become well-formed citizens in the process. Those who want to should be able to responsibly approach hateful and oppressive content in a controlled environment.

I think it's rather cynical to think we should college students from wrong opinions. Why else develop critical thinking?

Part of being well formed citizens isn't the right and ability to protest and refuse to give things they don't agree with a platform?

We (as in the people in this thread) aren't shielding them from anything. They've looked at Greer's words and exercised those critical thinking skills you mentioned to decide they don't want their organisation to hire her to speak.

 

[partyphone]

NeoGAF is not a university.

Again, universities is a place for educated (young) men and women to continue their education, and become well-formed citizens in the process. Those who want to should be able to responsibly approach hateful and oppressive content in a controlled environment.

I think it's rather cynical to think we should actively shield college students from wrong opinions. Why else develop critical thinking?

why is giving a platform to bigots so valuable? her shitty fucking awful opinions are commonplace. you don't need to elevate her shittiness to confront it.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

Wow, the anti-no platform jerk on GAF is strong enough that people are actually willing to defend TERFs. Amazing.

Are you really lumping everyone into one group and claiming we're defending Greer? If you'd read everything discussed, you'd see that clearly isn't the case. Even a little.

While I don't agree with Greer, I can see where she's coming from.

Well fuck. I take it back. A bit.

Its a fair point, but in no world does ignorant deserve to be in quotes.

Maybe quotes wasn't right, but it was done more because I'm not sure how I would define ignorance---not that I don't think Greer is ignorant herself.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Well,she seems awful, but Dawkins is probably right.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

While I don't agree with Greer, I can see where she's coming from.

 

[NobleXenon]

Why is "free speech" painted by these people as "one way". I didn't see any votes or binding petitions to legally block her from saying repeatably stupid things. She can still go there and say dumb shit, but she voluntarily withdrew?

Seems like spouting "political correctness" every time you don't get your way is the new "state's rights".

 

[Opto]

Are universities really these temples of becoming better people through exposure? I just took a lot of math and science classes and some gen eds. It's actually the time out of class that made me the person I am, and I maybe went to three conference things? One was about Harry Potter

 

[krioto]

No idea what you're trying to say here, but it sounds patronizing.

Terribly sorry, but you seem to have missed the actual point I was making:

There is an important distinction here - protesters against Greer do not like her 'opinion', which they are free to debate against, but not silence - an opinion not actually part of the lecture she was to deliver.

Dawkins is protesting against the spread of misinformation and fallacies - it is different