Richard Dawkins tells students upset by Germaine Greer to ‘go home and hug a teddy’

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

it makes sense when you think about it. gaming is an expensive hobby so it's dominated by privileged white dudes(myself included) and we tend to be shitty libertarian free speech absolutists when we're in our late teens and early twenties. it's predictably sad.
 
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.

Someone on this page claimed disinviting speakers is "borderline fascism", the two comments after your post both support Dawkins, and I've seen lots of people say Dawkins is somehow justified even though he's previously argued in favour of no-platforming creationists (which I would agree with, but it shows he's clearly got a double standard)
 
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.

Because as we know, non-straight white cis males have it so good in society they need to be reminded large percentages of the population thinks of them as lesser human beings every so often. Ya' know, shock 'em out of their "safe space."
 
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
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

Don't you know, if you're not allowed to speak at an university you're pretty much banned from free speech castle.
 
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

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.
 
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.

Yeah. She's like the OG internet troll. The only time I hear her name is when it coincides with her saying something "outrageous". That's how she sells books and gets attention. Same as that dickhead Glen Beck.

And I agree with Dawkins here.
 
how about the university does this in a way where they don't fund these stances

Payment and invitations are another matter. I don't know enough how these guest lectures work to give an informed opinion.

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

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.
 
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.

Well reasoned. I agree with this.
 
As usual Dawkins is totally right in the abstract and rather terrible in the practical application. This was not the hill to die on in the fight for free discussion of complex and highly personal ideas.
 
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.

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.
 
Hate speech isn't exactly something you can go "Eh, they have a few good points about this" on.
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.
 
Sorry to sidetrack a bit more, but:
It wasn't that grand an event, but someone did make a good analysis of the house elves and slavery
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.
No kidding. I pay my university to teach me shit, not so I can listen to idiots rant for 2 hours.
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
A lot of people in this thread seem to fail to appreciate the distinction between allowing people a platform, and being compelled to give them one. If Greer did eventually speak at Cardiff, they would not then be forced to invite KKK leaders and Westboro church members because 'anything goes'. It's still entirely up to the university who to invite.

In this and many other cases, the speaker has clearly been invited because there is a great deal they can contribute on a specific subject - in Greer's case she has been a very influential feminist voice for decades.

I would certainly be against a Westboro speech, not because I do not want it to be allowed but because it would be a colossal waste of university resources. Such a person would likely have nothing meaningful to contribute. However, I would also be perfectly open to hearing reasons why they should be invited and willing to change my mind.

Anecdotally, I haven't read of a single situation where speakers have been forced out because of their lack of qualification. In every case it seems that students either object to controversial ideas in which they may well be far from a majority, or object to obviously wrong, but completely unrelated views.
 
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.
Never does Dawkins say the students don't have the right to protest.

“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.

to wrap it back around, the conference was just a series of presentation with no "debate" moments. So I really don't think the debate people say would have happened, would have happened.
 
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?

You mean students using their freedom of speech?
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

And killed. And take their own lives. Or can't get health care because there are doctors who won't treat them or take them seriously.

There are opinions and then there's hate speech. I don't think universities should pay for the latter.
 
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.

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 much anyone, call outif 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.
 
he's obviously referring to the protesters though even if he didn't say it directly otherwise this whole situation wouldn't make sense.
But it seems to indicate they can only argue when she's already there. "Only protest in this manner" which is rather ridiculous.
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.
 
WTH do some people here think universities are? A public lecture is not a Jerry Springer episode, and public debates are not science. Fuck Greer, fuck Dawkins, and keep that sophistry shit in high school with the idiots where it belongs.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

I see what you're getting at, but that's not really her point. She's not making some candid observation that trans women cannot get the full biological experience of being a female (although they can get very close), she's saying that because of that, a trans woman is actually a man just masquerading as a woman in an effort to take advantage of the situation and are thus insidiously manipulative or delusional. Which isn't true by any definition.
 
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.

They have the right to protest, ofcourse. I just don't agree with the protest, and they're trying to disallow other students to engage with or to listen to Greer in this particular manner.

I probably would agree with the protest if they talked about her being paid for it, but it seems the focus is on the actual performative act of lecturing.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

Because something something outrage culture something something pc police.
 
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.

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 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.

Why can't Greer be framed in a responsible manner by local professors? Browsing the Wikipedia page, she seems to be a succesful author, so there must be tons of content to be able to give the correct idea on how to approach her by gender studies experts.
 
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.
 
I had zero clue Germaine Greer was that well known outside of Australia but I'm not particularly surprised by her comments. She's always struck me as saying incredibly stupid shit for attention moreso than helping any major cause.

If it was a talk she was invited to though then just skip the talk or challenge her viewpoint during question time. Her appearances on Q&A over here are hilarious and show that you don't have to support what she's saying to be in the audience.
 
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.

Who cares about the likelihood, would you be OK with a global warming scientist being forced to stop a lecture because of the actions of global warming deniers protesting?
 
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.

Yes, you totally can't think critically or challenge any ideas unless part of your tuition money is given to loathsome people.
 
How can you be an outspoken feminist author with controversial viewpoints and still can get thrown off your game by some young folk protesting at the university they attend?

She clearly lacks heart, be mad at that.
 
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.

Which didn't even work so I'm not seeing the problem here. And protesting has always been considered one of the best methods of dissention, not sure why suddenly people think it's a bad thing.
 
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.

Thats not answering my question now is it? If we are ok with students petitioning to ban this lady from speaking about non-trans issues because of anti-trans beliefs are you going to be ok if and when some fascist wing gets 2500 signatures because a environmental scientist that came to speak about the wetlands feels pressured not to speak because those students hate him because of global warming beliefs?

Or how about a more realistic one, a political scientist that gets pressured from protestors appealing the university to ban a person that has pro or anti-palestenian viewpoints there merely to talk about African foreign policy?
 
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.

You give someone a platform, you give them legitimacy that they don't deserve.

Greer wasn't even going to be there to talk about trans issues and how can you debate someone whose position is essentially a series of ad hominems? It's a waste of time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom