I don't get it. Free Speech Under Threat At University? (Added Extra)

[Tsun Tzu]

Boy, I thought that was pretty obviously a joke, too, what with how overexaggerated it was and all.

Guess it doesn't pay to take chances on the internet.

Dude.

Not even close. That was one of the poeyist statements I've seen on here recently, simply because it's...well, similar things have been said before. Earnestly.

But I get ya. Hard to joke nowadays, which is a problem the Onion seems to be having a lot more often in these weirdass times.

Do I believe that the only problem is that there are a lot of racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic jerks who have used the internet to find large groups of like-minded people to bandy about with and sink deeper and deeper into their pits of bigotry and confirmation bias?

No.

But I certainly believe that's a pretty darn big problem that needs to be addressed.

Well, yeah. Like-minded folks are going to congregate. It happens all the time.


Sometimes the people doing the congregating are going to be shitty. Other times they're not.

Rough with the smooth though, ya know?

And...do you mean white people exclusively here? Just asking for clarification on this point, as it seems like it'd be an unfair assessment if that were the case.

What part is confusing you exactly? It was apparently comprehensible to the person I replied to, and no one else struggled with it. I'm happy to help you through the big words here, even as I am a newbie. Or, you can teach me how to use the little words. I'm willing to adapt.

Aw, baby.

Don't be like that, baby.

You're (probably) bright enough to get what I meant there and are (hopefully) capable of recognizing it as the (failed) attempt at humor that it was.

No need go mixin' sodium with your chloride.

To clarify: I was agreeing with the sentiment by making out like I didn't understand the point you were expressing, due to the fact that what you outlined is so normalized and expected around here.

Better?

 

[P. K. Qu'est Que Ce]

What part is confusing you exactly? It was apparently comprehensible to the person I replied to, and no one else struggled with it. I'm happy to help you through the big words here, even as I am a newbie. Or, you can teach me how to use the little words. I'm willing to adapt.

Aw, baby.

Don't be like that, baby.

You're (probably) bright enough to get what I meant there and are (hopefully) capable of recognizing it as the (failed) attempt at humor that it was.

No need go mixin' sodium with your chloride.

To clarify: I was agreeing with the sentiment by making out like I didn't understand the point you were expressing, due to the fact that what you outlined is so normalized and expected around here.

Better?

All caught up, and some creepy overcompensation in the mix? Tremendous. I'm glad that I don't need to walk you through it though, since by the time you interjected with your world weariness, I had already been talking to the person in question for a page, with none of the consternation you seem to be experiencing. I guess it's the burden of being a critic of, rather than a participant in a conversation, right? I'm sure that it's terribly weighty for you.

 

[shrekfan246]

Boy, I thought that was pretty obviously a joke, too, what with how overexaggerated it was and all.

Guess it doesn't pay to take chances on the internet.

Dude.

Not even close. That was one of the poeyist statements I've seen on here recently, simply because it's...well, similar things have been said before. Earnestly.

But I get ya. Hard to joke nowadays, which is a problem the Onion seems to be having a lot more often in these weirdass times.

I know I haven't been posting nearly as much in the past year, but surely you've seen enough of my posts to know my dry exaggerations.

Though, I suppose not everyone remembers every random internet user they get into prolonged arguments with, and most of my extensive posting did happen before September 2014.

Do I believe that the only problem is that there are a lot of racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic jerks who have used the internet to find large groups of like-minded people to bandy about with and sink deeper and deeper into their pits of bigotry and confirmation bias?

No.

But I certainly believe that's a pretty darn big problem that needs to be addressed.

Well, yeah. Like-minded folks are going to congregate. It happens all the time.


Sometimes the people doing the congregating are going to be shitty. Other times they're not.

Rough with the smooth though, ya know?

Your laissez-faire attitude is admirable, and a few years ago I held the same sort of position. Unfortunately, I don't think "ignore the trolls" (allowing for the fact that any given person in question may not, in fact, be a "troll") is really a tenable option anymore, and I've been getting the growing impression that it was a really damaging idea in the first place.

Terrible people getting together to talk about terrible things tend to have a habit of spurring each other on to actually doing terrible things, or at least inspiring others with similar opinions who may happen upon their terrible discussions.

And...do you mean white people exclusively here? Just asking for clarification on this point, as it seems like it'd be an unfair assessment if that were the case.

White people don't have a monopoly on being awful, and I don't believe I was implying as such anywhere. "They're bad too" is incredibly, supremely unhelpful, however, so if anyone is going to start launching into a tirade about that then I'm happy to inform them that how I feel is as follows:

 

[P. K. Qu'est Que Ce]

Spoiler

So it's not about the substance, just the semantics, and about semantics between people who know they already disagree? Lovely. It's soooooo shocking that nothing has progressed in four pages of "discussion".

How about just letting the semantic bullshit drop, and we talk about whether or not this case of "X" is appropriate? Harmful? Helpful? Uncertain? Maybe talk to each other like people.

Certainly.

Personally I believe (for lack of better words) it's better to let the idiot speak and allow the individuals, in this case the students of the university, form an opinion themselves over what is right and what is wrong. For example, while I believe Westboro Baptist Church is an extremist hate mob I don't believe they should be banned from speaking at a university, hearing them speak may be sobering to the minor to moderate homophobic audience. I understand that NUS does not want to give a platform for a group to spread their bias and propaganda, but instead of guarding the students from such speeches I believe it is better to teach students to think logically and question what they're being told, outside of a university students will inevitably hear the bias and propaganda from extremist groups and without the NUS all they can rely on is their own ability to filter and think logically.

And at the end of the day I also just don't like organizations holding this much power, even if democratically elected I don't want a group creating their blacklist of organizations and individuals they believe shouldn't be allowed to speak at their events.

So let the idiots speak, no one is stopping them. Are you further saying that students should be forced to spend their collective money to hire those idiots to speak? That's the issue in this thread, so that's what I'm curious about, as regards your opinion on it.

The union should hire those they feel listening to will benefit the student populations, I have no issue with the unions deciding not to hire a group (say for example an anime group in South Dakota) if they feel it has no benefit to the students. I do have issue with the university not hiring a group on the grounds of disagreement in ideology or speech, and creating hard-line blacklists that do not take into account situation and circumstance, as well as pressuring member unions to cancel events because blacklisted individuals were involved.

It's not just the hiring to speak, it's the prevention of use of facilities and speaking with union organization members that I also take issue with.

So you want to restrict the freedom of students to lobby other students or speak, to preserve the right of other students to use collective money to hire people to speak? Or do you just object to those students' speech, and prefer they shut up? The university is listening to their students, and nothing is stopping one group from being louder or more influential than any other, except numbers and commitment.

That sounds like a good real world lesson for everyone, and it's how a minority of outraged religious maniacs can keep the rest of us from swearing and seeing tits on TV.

I object to the NUS creating a blacklist of organizations and people preventing them from speaking at functions, at facilities run by the NUS and affiliated unions, and with members of affiliated unions, I have read the reasons given for creating the blacklist and I feel it doesn't warrant the gross display of censorship.

I'm not purposing we restrict the freedom of the students, although I wish the universities had taken steps to prevent such acts, I'm simply judging the acts of a student organization.

Wait, you wish the university had taken steps to restrict the freedom of students, but you don't propose that, and you're only judging them? Ok, I'll pretend that you didn't just vacillate between extremes in the space of a sentence.

Even democratically elected groups can preform acts I find distasteful, I'd never advocate we restrict their freedom to prevent these acts, but the admonishment of their acts gets the point across.

I'd also like to say it's not that the NUS isn't hiring everyone they disagree with, it's the act of creating a list of banned organization and individuals with ideologies they disagree with that I disapprove of, especially when the reasons given to blacklist certain individuals is suspect.

So you just don't like lists, and find them distasteful, to the point that you wish the university acted in the face of a democratically elected group. *boggle*

 

[Vahir]

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I know I haven't been posting nearly as much in the past year, but surely you've seen enough of my posts to know my dry exaggerations.

Though, I suppose not everyone remembers every random internet user they get into prolonged arguments with, and most of my extensive posting did happen before September 2014.

Aw, no. I remember ya.

You're generally pretty amicable and I've engaged with ya a few times before. It's just that statement was normal enough both hereabouts and in the world at large to pass for something sincere is all.

Your laissez-faire attitude is admirable, and a few years ago I held the same sort of position. Unfortunately, I don't think "ignore the trolls" (allowing for the fact that any given person in question may not, in fact, be a "troll") is really a tenable option anymore, and I've been getting the growing impression that it was a really damaging idea in the first place.

Terrible people getting together to talk about terrible things tend to have a habit of spurring each other on to actually doing terrible things, or at least inspiring others with similar opinions who may happen upon their terrible discussions.

Ya see, I actually agree with this to some extent. Awful ideas and people stewing together can result in some pretty bad things, but I'm not on board with somehow preventing folks from talking about them based on the potential for bad stuff to happen.

I'm also sure that we agree, for the most part, on what constitutes "terrible things," yet I'm also sure we diverge a bit on that front too. I consider plenty of things the hyper left does to be terrible and I find the folks doing it to be equally terrible. The same goes for their equivalent on the other side of the aisle and legit racists/sexists/etc.

Sorry if ya actually agree with that sentiment. I seem to be assuming a few things here.

But-

White people don't have a monopoly on being awful, and I don't believe I was implying as such anywhere. "They're bad too" is incredibly, supremely unhelpful, however, so if anyone is going to start launching into a tirade about that then I'm happy to inform them that how I feel is as follows:

Well, the implication was brought by the "cis hetero white guys" bit. Seemed to just be singling them out for being awful is all. Likely just me over-analyzing it. No worries.

We're going a bit off topic here though. Also, good song.

All caught up, and some creepy overcompensation in the mix? Tremendous. I'm glad that I don't need to walk you through it though, since by the time you interjected with your world weariness, I had already been talking to the person in question for a page, with none of the consternation you seem to be experiencing. I guess it's the burden of being a critic of, rather than a participant in a conversation, right? I'm sure that it's terribly weighty for you.

I take it back. You're obviously not new here, whatever your join date may say.

You've got the passive aggression, condescending attitude, and indirect insults down pat.

Keep it up and you'll become a regular for sure. I'm rooting for ya!

 

[shrekfan246]

I know I haven't been posting nearly as much in the past year, but surely you've seen enough of my posts to know my dry exaggerations.

Though, I suppose not everyone remembers every random internet user they get into prolonged arguments with, and most of my extensive posting did happen before September 2014.

Aw, no. I remember ya.

You're generally pretty amicable and I've engaged with ya a few times before. It's just that statement was normal enough both hereabouts and in the world at large to pass for something sincere is all.

I'd say "normal" is probably an overstatement. Or I'd hope so, at least.

I like to think my use of hyperbole was generally better than that employed by people who think Dark Souls was the worst port ever released on the PC, though.

Actually, is it hyperbole if the person saying it totally believes what they're saying?

Ya see, I actually agree with this to some extent. Awful ideas and people stewing together can result in some pretty bad things, but I'm not on board with somehow preventing folks from talking about them based on the potential for bad stuff to happen.

It's a dirty can of worms, but in the wake of all of the hate-stirring that's been happening on the internet and the actual terrorism it has caused in the past ~three-four years in particular, I really feel like it's time some preventative measures were looked at.

Don't get me wrong, it's very easy to take a stance like that and turn it into "The FBI can hack your iPhone at any time, without any reason", and that's terrifying. I generally try to leave it to people who are savvier than I am to actually figure this stuff out.

Well, the implication was brought by the "cis hetero white guys" bit. Seemed to just be singling them out for being awful is all. Likely just me over-analyzing it. No worries.

I feel like all I need to do here is link to the "White Guy Defense Force" Critical Miss.

The effect of the joke gets both amplified and tempered by the fact that using it usually makes white guys go hyper-defensive.

We're going a bit off topic here though. Also, good song.

You know I'm

 

[NiPah]

Spoiler

Spoiler

So it's not about the substance, just the semantics, and about semantics between people who know they already disagree? Lovely. It's soooooo shocking that nothing has progressed in four pages of "discussion".

How about just letting the semantic bullshit drop, and we talk about whether or not this case of "X" is appropriate? Harmful? Helpful? Uncertain? Maybe talk to each other like people.

Certainly.

Personally I believe (for lack of better words) it's better to let the idiot speak and allow the individuals, in this case the students of the university, form an opinion themselves over what is right and what is wrong. For example, while I believe Westboro Baptist Church is an extremist hate mob I don't believe they should be banned from speaking at a university, hearing them speak may be sobering to the minor to moderate homophobic audience. I understand that NUS does not want to give a platform for a group to spread their bias and propaganda, but instead of guarding the students from such speeches I believe it is better to teach students to think logically and question what they're being told, outside of a university students will inevitably hear the bias and propaganda from extremist groups and without the NUS all they can rely on is their own ability to filter and think logically.

And at the end of the day I also just don't like organizations holding this much power, even if democratically elected I don't want a group creating their blacklist of organizations and individuals they believe shouldn't be allowed to speak at their events.

So let the idiots speak, no one is stopping them. Are you further saying that students should be forced to spend their collective money to hire those idiots to speak? That's the issue in this thread, so that's what I'm curious about, as regards your opinion on it.

The union should hire those they feel listening to will benefit the student populations, I have no issue with the unions deciding not to hire a group (say for example an anime group in South Dakota) if they feel it has no benefit to the students. I do have issue with the university not hiring a group on the grounds of disagreement in ideology or speech, and creating hard-line blacklists that do not take into account situation and circumstance, as well as pressuring member unions to cancel events because blacklisted individuals were involved.

It's not just the hiring to speak, it's the prevention of use of facilities and speaking with union organization members that I also take issue with.

So you want to restrict the freedom of students to lobby other students or speak, to preserve the right of other students to use collective money to hire people to speak? Or do you just object to those students' speech, and prefer they shut up? The university is listening to their students, and nothing is stopping one group from being louder or more influential than any other, except numbers and commitment.

That sounds like a good real world lesson for everyone, and it's how a minority of outraged religious maniacs can keep the rest of us from swearing and seeing tits on TV.

I object to the NUS creating a blacklist of organizations and people preventing them from speaking at functions, at facilities run by the NUS and affiliated unions, and with members of affiliated unions, I have read the reasons given for creating the blacklist and I feel it doesn't warrant the gross display of censorship.

I'm not purposing we restrict the freedom of the students, although I wish the universities had taken steps to prevent such acts, I'm simply judging the acts of a student organization.

Wait, you wish the university had taken steps to restrict the freedom of students, but you don't propose that, and you're only judging them? Ok, I'll pretend that you didn't just vacillate between extremes in the space of a sentence.

No you're right, that last sentence was dumb.
I'm caught in the middle, on the one hand I want students to have as much freedom as possible in situations like this, on the other hand I find the creation of a blacklist quite abhorrent, to the level where I do wish the university would have stepped in and prevented it's creation. I'm sort of in the middle on the subject, which lead to said vacillation.

Spoiler

Even democratically elected groups can preform acts I find distasteful, I'd never advocate we restrict their freedom to prevent these acts, but the admonishment of their acts gets the point across.

I'd also like to say it's not that the NUS isn't hiring everyone they disagree with, it's the act of creating a list of banned organization and individuals with ideologies they disagree with that I disapprove of, especially when the reasons given to blacklist certain individuals is suspect.

So you just don't like lists, and find them distasteful, to the point that you wish the university acted in the face of a democratically elected group. *boggle*[/quote]

No a list is fine, it's the blacklisting of groups and individuals I take issue with, in the general sense lists can be quite useful.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I'd say "normal" is probably an overstatement. Or I'd hope so, at least.

I like to think my use of hyperbole was generally better than that employed by people who think Dark Souls was the worst port ever released on the PC, though.

Actually, is it hyperbole if the person saying it totally believes what they're saying?

I think it may just be a case of too much internet.

Some people are nuts, man, even if/when I agree with their underlying sentiment.

It's a dirty can of worms, but in the wake of all of the hate-stirring that's been happening on the internet and the actual terrorism it has caused in the past ~three-four years in particular, I really feel like it's time some preventative measures were looked at.

Don't get me wrong, it's very easy to take a stance like that and turn it into "The FBI can hack your iPhone at any time, without any reason", and that's terrifying. I generally try to leave it to people who are savvier than I am to actually figure this stuff out.

So, you're saying the slope is stupidly slippery, shrek?

That's the main reason I can't get behind stuff like that...I mean, sure, it's all well and good when stuff ya consider to be awful is taken care of, but those sorts of things have a way of circling back on ya. Hard. Like a boomerang of comeuppance.

I feel like all I need to do here is link to the "White Guy Defense Force" Critical Miss.

The effect of the joke gets both amplified and tempered by the fact that using it usually makes white guys go hyper-defensive.

Aw, c'mooooon! I'd almost forgotten about that comic.

I'd argue that making a similar statement about any race would result in a bout of defensiveness though.

You know I'm

a

 

[wulf3n]

We needn't be so afraid of bad opinions that we must silence them.

No, but we can refrain from giving them a platform at a university, which is what is being discussed.

If someone sets up a talk on the horror of vaccines counter it by organising another one that goes through the facts.

Facts have yet to stop the anti-vaccination movement so far, though. Giving them a platform is irresponsible.

I think it's irresponsible not to give them a platform. As you said before stopping people from speaking at a University won't stop them speaking. Is it better that they spread their opinion away from discerning eyes where they can't be countered?

Yes there will always be those that won't accept reality regardless of the evidence shown to them, but they're not the ones we need to be concerned with. It's the undecided that carry weight, and we really shouldn't want the former from having exclusive access to the latter.

Straight and cisgender people have been welcome to every LGBT safe space I've ever been to. What isn't welcome is saying "all 'yall faggots deserve to burn in hell for all eternity!"

I'm actually curious as to where you're getting your idea of safe spaces from. Have you ever been in, say, and LGBT safe space?

I mean, like ThatOtherGirl, I can't preclude that such a "safe space" exists, but the idea that this is anywhere near the norm is grossly misinformed.

In my experience this practically never happens. I am sure it does happen, but I have never observed it.

Also, literal and permanent safe spaces tend to be off the beaten path in a place that no one would ever go to except if they are specifically trying to find the safe space for some reason. There is an LGBT safe space at the university I attend. The only reason anyone would ever come to this corner of the building is to go to the small room where we can sit and hopefully be guaranteed to not be harassed. People have been kind enough to donate a few things, a couple old couches, a table, a couple chairs, a microwave, two old macs and a printer (but we don't get enough funding for ink and paper, so we try not to use it in case we need to print something important). There is a small storage room we have re purposed as a changing room so we can change, pray, or have a private discussion. There is a single stall unisex bathroom down the hall - the only one within a mile. The room is about large enough for maybe 10 people to hang out in at a time.

I wouldn't mind if someone straight-cis stopped by, and I would never know if they did because we don't ask people to explain themselves. We assume everyone there is on the LGBT spectrum somewhere, or at least investigating, but we literally would never know unless they decided to declare themselves. I just question why they would go there, literally everything in this room is second rate and superior versions of them can be found 1 floor down. So it seems a bit disingenuous when people tell me that this safe space is actually an exclusion zone when it neither excludes nor offers anything of value to anyone besides us.

I can count the number of places I regularly visit where I can just sit and relax as myself on one hand. Actually, let me enumerate them for you: My home, the home of a couple friends, and this small room. This small room being the only public place among that list.

I'd have a real problem with someone coming to my little shitty corner of the world specifically to get in my face and then claiming that we are the ones being oppressive.

I should clarify, I wasn't trying to suggest the example I gave was the norm, I should've have worded my post better.

Firstly If we're talking safe space in the sense of safe from physical violence, harassment, and persecution that shouldn't require the distinction "safe spaces", that should just be everywhere.

As for the discussion on safe spaces there appear to be at least two different interpretations people use, and rarely at the same time.

The first as far as I can tell refers to, for lack of a better word, groups and clubs. These have been around since long before the "safe space" was the word of the day. And I agree, for all intents and purposes these aren't places for those who oppose the ideas the group is for.

The second, which is what I assume most people who criticise safe spaces are referring to, is people trying to create an atmosphere where some can put forward opinions in public forums and not have those opinions challenged, while simultaneously trying to stop others from speaking alternate opinions by whatever means necessary.

Again I'm not suggesting the latter is the norm, that said it does happen and should be challenged when it does, like the missouri university example I linked.

edit: I just googled what the definition of special interest group is and that is not what i was trying to say :/

 

[Fallow]

Honestly, that is not far from what is happening in some cases.

There may well be a case or two where that occurs yes, but is it frequent enough to warrant anything other than a shrug?

Here is a question: Would you be willing to no-platform someone who has a history of using public speaking places like this to declare their view that black people as mentally ill, sexually deviant, and that they are dangerous to women? A person that regularly stereotypes all black people based on the actions of one or two people, using these examples as proof of views that marginalized black people?

Nope, if someone thought them important enough to invite, and I am not forced to attend, why would I even care? All I have to do to "protect myself from harmful views" is nothing. That's right, I don't even need to lift my arms to avoid this triggering trauma.

The article in particular mentions Julie Bindel, who is a trans exclusionary feminist who has made a point in the past to champion views that attack trans people, especially trans women, as are mentally ill, sexually deviant, and dangerous to cis women, all stereotypes that cause real damage to trans people around the world.

Oh noes, I'm so weak willed that whenever someone speaks I must immediately and completely agree with them on everything! If only I could form my own opinions as every adult on the planet is capable of doing! Curse my weak-willed brain, why can't someone with a strong moral compass just ban everything that isn't part of the "right" perspective?

I've listened to a few KKK people. Strangely enough I haven't murdered any black people. I've listened to nazis (haven't murdered any jews), I've listened to communists (haven't murdered any royals), I've listened to modern feminists (haven't murdered any white males), I've listened to conservatives, progressives, liberals, libertarians, Milo (haven't turned gay either), my parents (haven't turned into a father or a mother yet), and my brother (I've turned into a brother!). The Jack Thompson debacle showed that violent videogames do not make anyone violent, the more recent Sarkenstein debacle showed that "sexist" games do not turn people sexist, and ofcourse the now distant tabletop RPG debacle showed that tabletop RPGs do not turn people into satanists (similar things hold for rap-music, death metal, dancing, Elvis' gyrating butt, and everything else). Why would Julie Bindel be the exception to all of this?


Have you wondered why book burning is negative and is associated with the worst kind of people? Because if your only way to win is to suppress the voice of the opposition then your arguments are pretty shit. When your reasoning is sound, you don't need to hide from opposing arguments. There's a reason the theory of evolution has completely dominated the "theory" of intelligent design, there's no need to hide anyone from the views of the intelligent design community. Likewise, there is no need to hide anyone from the views of the neo-nazis, the KKK, the whatever crazies. And the university is the premiere place to get those exposures.


Oh, and "cause real harm to trans people"? Unless this Julie Bindel can shout at 180db I very much doubt her words can cause 'real harm'. In fact, your description of her

"feminist who has made a point in the past to champion views that attack trans people, especially trans women, as are mentally ill, sexually deviant, and dangerous to cis women, all stereotypes that cause real damage to trans people around the world.

matches a lot of the modern feminists online as they talk about men, and would be a pretty friendly descriptor for everyone employed at the Mary Sue or Salon. If this counts as "hate speech" then we'll need to shut down more than half the internet. Or does it only count against the "right" people?
People disagree, sometimes vehemently. Unless they attempt to incite violence, it's no biggie. This is called real life, and it's a good thing to get used to. Dust it off and move on.

Just look at the bathroom bills the republican party has blanket endorsed across the country - they are predicated on the idea that trans women are sexually deviant, dangerous men looking to abuse women.

Yes, because congress acts morally and intelligently in every other situation. Only when trans people are involved does the mental retardation set in. How about forcing raped males to pay child support to their assailant if she gets pregnant? No trans people needed for that to happen.

She has compared trans men to a woman sticking a vacuum hose down their pants. She has openly mocked transgender women as "men in dresses", describing them as "a man wanting to get into nightclubs free on Ladies' Nights". She makes stereotypes about the appearances of trans women and of trans men, of how we act and dress which are both unfounded and offensive.

I did that once when I was young, thought it would be a practice run for when I got my first BJ. I cannot stress this enough. DO NOT DO THAT. It was not a good idea.

I have also been mocked in lots of ways. Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's not. Again, dust yourself off and move on. Being offended doesn't mean anything other than you being offended, it does not provide you with any extra privileges or rights. Not everyone needs to like you, and noone is obliged to hear only things that mention you positively.

Mocking transgenders bring nothing at all to the debate or presentation or whatever, so it's unlikely anyone would hire her as a speaker for that, and if she does stuff on her personal time (while keeping it separate from her work), it's not our business.

And all that was in just one of the articles she has written about trans people. Her views are provably anti scientific, bigoted, and harmful to trans people.

Pointless hyperbole. Bigoted means "I don't like what you say but I don't have any arguments to refute you" these days. If she's anti-scientific that would impact her speaker roles negatively, and I can certainly buy it given her position. Furthermore, it's a word not used to death so it still carries some weight. And ofcourse "harmful to trans people" is just an appeal to emotion and the whole "harmful, unsafe, triggering" schtick means nothing anymore.

And it doesn't stop there, her views on bisexual people are just as offensive, describing it as "a fashionable trend", describing bisexual individuals as hedonists, and as a manufactured sexuality that exists to pressure lesbians to conform to heterosexual norms.

So you disagree? If so, just say it. You don't need to throw in all these personal attacks in lieu of arguments. Offensive means that you don't like it. For instance, I find it offensive that Pluto is no longer a planet. That doesn't change reality, nor the reasoning.

She stereotypes both groups based on behavior of single members of those groups, and sees them as people defined by "odd sexual practices", and has openly expressed her disgust at both groups.

As do we all unfortunately, and quite often too. This is a problem with the human brain and the desire to find patterns and groupings, not with Julie Bindel specifically. She should know better if she works as a speaker, but idiots abound in many places.

I don't see much difference between a man getting up on a stage to tell everyone that black people are gang banger rapists and a woman getting up on a stage to tell everyone that trans people are sexually deviant threats to women.

This part is just funny, because it's something that is actually taught in mandatory courses at university in some places these days (except that it's all men are rapists, and all men are sexually deviant threats to women), and these courses were forced upon the world by the same student bodies that no-platform speakers such as Julie Bindel. Horseshoe, eh?

 

[NiPah]

Free speech under threat! From the students. Who made a democratic choice about how to spend money. Huh?

Wait, I get it! This is an ironic commentary. The free speech under threat is actually that of those students, from people who want to control how they spend their money from outside because of an ideological and political agenda. I get it now. Clever.

When that democratic choice is to ban organizations and individuals due to differences in ideology IE the textbook example of censorship yes people tend to take notice and judge the choice poorly. Also the ban also falls under people speaking for free as they're banned from using and union controlled facility and or speaking with any Union member.

 

[Mikeybb]

(snipped but all very significant and worth reading)

I guess disappointment is the reaction when the dumb or hateful finds a foothold, rather than surprise.
My main point was how some use any form of suppression as a kind of legitimization of their stance, be it due to the composition of the people opposing them or some nebulous specter of prejudice they can point vaguely off toward.
Denying them this validation seems important, but I do now wonder in what way that could be done without offering another validation of a different kind.

Sidenote, I've never met a person who didn't think Trump wasn't anything other than an insane man underneath a hilarious wig.
I guess an ocean between you and a thing can offer a great amount of insulation from a far scarier truth.
Anyway.
I just prefer to hope that the majority of people, silent and moderate as they may be during most debates, when offered the opportunity to influence events are the kind who recognize evil for what it is.
This said, I am aware that such hope is so dangerously close to willful naivety these days I needed to hang a lampshade on it in previous posts...

Finally, I did not know about the scar or the story pertaining to it.
Do not wish to pry.
Just hope my part in this thread hasn't been a contributing factor to any discomfort.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

This part is just funny, because it's something that is actually taught in mandatory courses at university in some places these days (except that it's all men are rapists, and all men are sexually deviant threats to women), and these courses were forced upon the world by the same student bodies that no-platform speakers such as Julie Bindel. Horseshoe, eh?

I'm cutting down your post so it doesn't take up a bunch of space. I read all of it, but I only have a couple short things to say:

Have you actually bothered to figure out who Julie Bindel is? Go get informed. Julie Bindel, author of "Why I hate men", who recently stated in an interview that she would put all men in a segregated camp to keep them away from women and who hopes heterosexuality doesn't survive the feminist movement because it is a tool of the patriarchy that oppresses women.

She is the type of person who got those things into place. She told attractive lies that manipulated people into institutionalizing hatred. People funded her by giving her columns to write and thousands of dollars for speaking opportunities and she used the influence she gained to spread her ideas of hate and ignorance against everyone and now you are seeing the result. Those things you are complaining about? That is what we are trying to change. That is what we are trying to prevent.

 

[Areloch]

Free speech under threat! From the students. Who made a democratic choice about how to spend money. Huh?

Wait, I get it! This is an ironic commentary. The free speech under threat is actually that of those students, from people who want to control how they spend their money from outside because of an ideological and political agenda. I get it now. Clever.

When that democratic choice is to ban organizations and individuals due to differences in ideology IE the textbook example of censorship yes people tend to take notice and judge the choice poorly. Also the ban also falls under people speaking for free as they're banned from using and union controlled facility and or speaking with any Union member.

Well then I have news for you! The desire to impose your will on others, despite their democratic objections, is the soul of authoritarianism. Apparently you can be so offended by the seeming, you're willing to set fire to the substance too. "These people freely chose something I disagree with, quick, stop them!" is just so unfortunate and predictable. Then again, if you know you don't have numbers on your side, or popular opinion, or anything else, try for an end run right?

So we'd all be totally cool with, for example, if the democratic majority decided that they didn't want to pay for any speakers on LGBT rights? I think most of us would agree that's actually kind of crappy, yes?

Unfortunately that means that it applies both ways, to subjects and presenters we like AND dislike, and just handwaving to the democratic majority isn't always the best justification. That's why this whole thing is so complicated.

 

[NiPah]

Free speech under threat! From the students. Who made a democratic choice about how to spend money. Huh?

Wait, I get it! This is an ironic commentary. The free speech under threat is actually that of those students, from people who want to control how they spend their money from outside because of an ideological and political agenda. I get it now. Clever.

When that democratic choice is to ban organizations and individuals due to differences in ideology IE the textbook example of censorship yes people tend to take notice and judge the choice poorly. Also the ban also falls under people speaking for free as they're banned from using and union controlled facility and or speaking with any Union member.

Well then I have news for you! The desire to impose your will on others, despite their democratic objections, is the soul of authoritarianism. Apparently you can be so offended by the seeming, you're willing to set fire to the substance too. "These people freely chose something I disagree with, quick, stop them!" is just so unfortunate and predictable. Then again, if you know you don't have numbers on your side, or popular opinion, or anything else, try for an end run right?

Huh? You're reading a bit too much into me saying they'll be judged poorly.
To answer your question I am in favor of authoritarianism in certain situations, I have a hard time justifying this as one of them, but if I'm morally opposed to something I'd attempt to impose my will if I cared enough. An example of this would be if a state voted to make it illegal in all circumstances to have an abortion, or make gay marriage illegal, I'd be opposed to the ruling.

But again, a this point I'm just thinking negatively of the NUS, I disagree with something they did, I'm not writing in to have the universities fire them, I just disagree with censorship and find their actions appalling.

 

[Areloch]

Hm, I'm wondering if quoting derped out, I didn't spot this at first. Sorry Pluvia.

Anywho, I feel that the mentions of the KKK and the like are intentionally swinging the extreme to enact a gut response, but sure, that's fair, no doubt there's at least one person out there that'd like to invite the local KKK chapter to speak somewhere.

So if we go with that, I'd stick to what I've said already. As long as they're not there to spread actual hate-speech or incite violence, then no-platforming them for purely political/ideological reasons is wrong.

Like, say, they came in to give a presentation about white American history and how the US is what it is today because of white people and the sort. That's not "here's how you too can better lynch 'dem niggers", which would be obviously brushing up into hate-speech and incitement, which we've agreed is wrong.

So if their presentation has merit and they're not there to spread harm, then merely existing as the KKK strikes me as an insufficient reason to block them from presenting.

Then you're failing to understand what it feels like for people to go somewhere, like a university in this case, that's openly giving hate speakers their platform. Could you imagine going somewhere and studying and then that same place inviting people that hate you to come and speak about how terrible you are? Sure they might do it nicely, they might not talk about how terrible you are (might not even mention you) instead they might just spread the 'positive' message of how much better everyone else is.

Like even in your example there, talking about white American history and how the US is what it is today because of white people, that would be borderline historical revisionism. Adjusted for inflation the slave trade in the US contributed billions, if not trillions, to the economy. Then there was of course the American Civil War, Lincoln, segregation, etc. I mean ignoring that would be pretty offensive to the history department of the Uni alone tbh.

But anyway I know the KKK's not your point and I don't exactly expect you to defend them, getting off track. To go back to the first paragraph, pretty sure the woman mentioned in the OP has her entire philosophy around hating trans people. This I can't really cover, I don't know enough about her, so you'll have to continue that with the people that do.

See, but that's the thing. It strikes me as incredibly unreasonable to block someone's discussion due to political stances they hold when they aren't even talking on those stances.

Your first paragraph, for example, where you highlight that they may not even be talking about the offended group, but talking about other groups. Can you say that's objectively wrong to do?

Lets flip it on it's head and use Black Lives Matter as it's opposite. I've seen a remarkable amount of hate for white people come out of that, but is that sufficient justification for blocking a BLM group from giving a presentation about how awesome the black people in American history were?

If we're going off the same run of logic, then BLM's presentation is talking about how much better black people are than white people and we shouldn't give them a platform because they have a tendency to be anti-white elsewhere. While I can agree that the racists that exist in BLM are pretty awful, that doesn't strike me as being sufficient reason to block them when they're not talking about how all white people are terrible and should die.

Obviously, as you say, I'm not defending the KKK or anything like that, but I'd much prefer them to be able to talk the same amount of trash as everyone else than a sanitized place where only "correct" messages are spread, dictated by the majority moral of the day. Because history has shown that moralistic gatekeeping is far worse for humanity than letting the occasional douchenozzle rant in public spaces.