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.
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.
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.
While I don't agree with Greer, I can see where she's coming from.
Only one I went to that was pretty good was guy from XXX Church debating Ron Jeremy about porn. Wish we had Harry Potter ones at my school....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
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
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 - and when a speaker is withdrawn they are losing that opportunity.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
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.
how about the university does this in a way where they don't fund these stances
So, do actually Nazi's need to show up to history class or can professors continue to put forth their views?
how about the university does this in a way where they don't fund these stances
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.
As far as I know, Nazi's no longer exist, certainly not in an intellectual sphere. But showing Goebbels' propaganda or something could be an equivalent action of this manner.
Only one I went to that was pretty good was guy from XXX Church debating Ron Jeremy about porn. Wish we had Harry Potter ones at my school....
I said nothing about good points. I'm saying I get her rationale, a man regardless if he's trans, will never biologically know how it feels to be a women. Of course there's better ways of approaching this topic, I an neither trans nor female, and do not condone hate speech.Hate speech isn't exactly something you can go "Eh, they have a few good points about this" on.
That'd be fascinating, because I'm re-reading Harry Potter right now and it is hard to not think "This slavery shit is kind of fucked up..." as you get into the later books.It wasn't that grand an event, but someone did make a good analysis of the house elves and slavery
Something I brought up earlier is that when I was in college, I was part of a student organization that voted on bringing speakers to our campus. Anytime we had speakers, most were because students had voted for it. I know not all universities are the same, but I'm curious if Greer was propositioned by the university themselves or a student body.No kidding. I pay my university to teach me shit, not so I can listen to idiots rant for 2 hours.
I'm saying I get her rationale, a man regardless if he's trans, will never biologically know how it feels to be a women.
There are no shortage of venues to hear and read what Greer has to say. So that doesn't hold up.
So should David Duke be invited as long as he's just there to talk about pottery?
Speakers who come to talk at universities are typically paid out of a student union budget if organised by a society or by the university itself or by an organisation that is hosting a talk on university premises.
Never does Dawkins say the students don't have the right to protest.Disagree with Dawkins. Greer cancelled on her own accord. You can't say that Greer has the right to freedom of speech while simultaneously saying the students don't have the right to protest. Maybe if it was the school directly who stopped her from speaking that'd be one thing, but how things turned out here, I'm completely okay with.
“Those who think it’s nonsense are entitled to stay away. Or come and argue. They should not censor views they think are nonsense.
Sorry to sidetrack a bit more, but:
That'd be fascinating, because I'm re-reading Harry Potter right now and it is hard to not think "This slavery shit is kind of fucked up..." as you get into the later books.
Something I brought up earlier is that when I was in college, I was part of a student organization that voted on bringing speakers to our campus. Anytime we had speakers, most were because students had voted for it. I know not all universities are the same, but I'm curious if Greer was propositioned by the university themselves or a student body.
Im curious if you would be ok if the shoe we're on the other foot? What if a university cancelled a speech on climate change because some anti-global warming students berated the university to keep them away?
Or a speaker about gun control? Economic inequality? Prison reform?
Never does Dawkins say the students don't have the right to protest.
Im curious if you would be ok if the shoe we're on the other foot? What if a university cancelled a speech on climate change because some anti-global warming students berated the university to keep them away?
Or a speaker about gun control? Economic inequality? Prison reform?
The fact that she wasn't speaking on the issue of trans gender identity is kind of another important context here.
Never does Dawkins say the students don't have the right to protest.
Disagree with Dawkins. Greer cancelled on her own accord. You can't say that Greer has the right to freedom of speech while simultaneously saying the students don't have the right to protest. Maybe if it was the school directly who stopped her from speaking that'd be one thing, but how things turned out here, I'm completely okay with.
I'm inclined to agree. With how frequently trans people are still mocked and bullied, universities don't need to pay people to contribute to that hostility.
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.
he's obviously referring to the protesters though even if he didn't say it directly otherwise this whole situation wouldn't make sense.
Yeah...I mean, you're both right the more I ponder it. I still side with Dawkins on the one side, but I also think he didn't fully think about the fact that protesting is a form of free speech.But it seems to indicate they can only argue when she's already there. "Only protest in this manner" which is rather ridiculous.
I think it's shitty, but if say, some random hardcore Mormon university didn't want a former Planned Parenthood President to speak using university funds, fine. It's their money.
I said nothing about good points. I'm saying I get her rationale, a man regardless if he's trans, will never biologically know how it feels to be a women. Of course there's better ways of approaching this topic, I an neither trans nor female, and do not condone hate speech.
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.
What I am not ok with is this growing movement to try and bully people that we have disagreements with as a substitute for actually deconstructing and defeating their position through dialogue and proper argument.
If it is true that she wasn't even speaking on trans issues this is even more of an issue.
They don't have to stay home, or come and argue, they can exercise their right to protest to their hearts desires and Greer can decide whether not to punk out or not, which she most certainly did.
Why is anyone even upset about this.
Im curious if you would be ok if the shoe we're on the other foot? What if a university cancelled a speech on climate change because some anti-global warming students berated the university to keep them away?
Or a speaker about gun control? Economic inequality? Prison reform?
The fact that she wasn't speaking on the issue of trans gender identity is kind of another important context here.
But the framing would be different. If a teacher showed Nazi propaganda, they wouldn't be framing it so that you actually take it seriously. You would watch it know that it is propaganda and that it is bad.
This would be the same as the university telling all students about the speaker beforehand and telling them about her statements so they know beforehand.
How is it bullying? They were protesting her visit. You're a hypocrite if you thing it's okay for someone to say whatever they want, but don't don't think it's okay for someone to have the right to protest.
Im speaking more generally on how people growingly handle viewpoints they disagree with but from my understanding their main focus of "protest" was petitioning the school to ban her.
The likelihood of a cabal of anti global warming (or any other far right position) nuts among the student population conspiring among each other and being elected to represent students at a British university and then (assuming they hid this opinion) for them to not be ousted from their positions once they show their hand is really unlikely. It's a pointless hypothetical to consider. A small group of students are not going to achieve that, they'd get laughed out of any UGM vote on the matter.
But we aren't talking about a shitty mormon private university. This is a respected public university in Wales. The sort of institution where ideally students develop critical thinking, challenge ideas and pre-conceived notions and develop their own worldview and outlook.
Im speaking more generally on how people growingly handle viewpoints they disagree with but from my understanding their main focus of "protest" was petitioning the school to ban her.
The likelihood of a cabal of anti global warming (or any other far right position) nuts among the student population conspiring among each other and being elected to represent students at a British university and then (assuming they hid this opinion) for them to not be ousted from their positions once they show their hand is really unlikely. It's a pointless hypothetical to consider. A small group of students are not going to achieve that, they'd get laughed out of any UGM vote on the matter.
I reiterate, if you're not willing to debate a person's opinion, then you only serve to give their point credence. Don't even have to debate them most of the time, just let them talk and they destroy their own beliefs and quickly become irrelevant. Hearing a person from something like Westboro speak about why they believe homosexuals will burn destroyed their reputation more than silencing them ever could have. I don't like the idea of giving them money but it's a small price to have to destroy their values. And yes, I'm aware, some people are going to be all for it, but you're never going to change their opinion, it's the people in the middle you have to focus on. The major problem (and difference) here is Greer is respected because of things she's done outside of her drivel about transgender people; in fact, since the transgender thing came she seems less relevant (as least I don't hear about her such anyone, call on if this is anecdotal but she used to be everywhere it seemed). Part of university is growing into an adult and adults are meant to be able to deal with opposing views, even if they find them repugnant. They are always going to exist and sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending they're not there is a horrible and counter-productive attitude to dealing with it as a whole.
I wouldn't want my university to waste a crapload of money to bring someone to spread their hate speech either.
