You decided to raise the issue on a public forum, and the person in question has no right of reply. I believe that you’re out of order.
Mentioning someone is banned is far from out of order.
Mentioning someone is banned is far from out of order.
I can only guess at your motivation for raising the issue, but it strikes me as poor form. Still, as you claim to see nothing wrong with your behaviour then there seems little point in discussing it further.
mefty
Member
What rot, all the examples I have heard about, Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel, specifically involve invitations being withdrawn because of pressure put on the organisers or venue owners etc.
Interesting examples. Germaine Greer was never "no platformed". This just didn't happen. There was a move to uninvite her from an event but it came to nothing- she cancelled herself one month because she didn't want to face protests, and then appeared the next month and gave her talk. So it was more "platforming", except for people with an axe to grind
Julie Bindel was uninvited by the NUS after responses from its members. There's nothing untoward or unusual in that- their job when it comes to events is literally to bring people in who their members want to see
Aside- if these really are all the examples you've heard about, you might want to ask yourself exactly why that is.
But you misunderstand the point, and I'm not quite sure how, considering the rest of my post. "No platforming" isn't a thing, because it's just "not being welcome" with a bit of doublespeak attached to make it seem like it's significant. I wonder what the equivalent nonsense term would be for forcing organisations to host speakers when they don't want to?
Was this an anti Greggs vegan sausage roll protest?
But you misunderstand the point, and I’m not quite sure how, considering the rest of my post. “No platforming” isn’t a thing, because it’s just “not being welcome” with a bit of doublespeak attached to make it seem like it’s significant.
And for everyone who feels like they have been no platformed they are welcome to head out and speak, just grab a mic and hit a good street corner
http://www.speakerscornertrust.org/guidance/guidance-notes/conducting-events/speakers-corner-code-of-conduct/
This one is good, just follow the rules which sound mostly like Rule One
Please don’t use offensive language
Please respect alternative opinions
Please show courtesy to other speakers and members of the public
If others are waiting, please limit your time to a maximum of 10 minutes
Show respect, get respect, turn up to be deliberately inflammatory and that breaks rule one.
Was this an anti Greggs vegan sausage roll protest?
Nah it was very misunderstood, it was pro brexit (usual RW crap but they held it outside greggs at the wrong time so the message got lost - no need to worry about this lot being de-platformed they would probably have been mistaken for the cleaners)
Julie Bindel was uninvited by the NUS after responses from its members.
She was refused a platform for her views, the NUS statement is quite clear.
Good for them.
Northwind
I think the issue I, and others take, is that the platform is removed because a vocal minority want censorship of views they disagree with. Often the censorship seems to come from threats of violence. A protestor's veto?
It's no wonder younger generations are quite so delicate when they resort to such measures to ensure they never hear an opposing viewpoint and where universities, rather than being places to examine various views, disallow certain speakers because protestors threaten their safety and have trigger warnings before lectures.
Can you imagine the uproar if a black lesbian was stopped from coming to speak because of "security concerns"? Would you be angry? I would.
EDIT not worth it your minds are closed anyway.
I think the issue I, and others take, is that the platform is removed because a vocal minority want censorship of views they disagree with
Censorship would be to remove their views and lock them up in a lot of countries. They are still free to speak, blog and upload content etc.
It’s no wonder younger generations are quite so delicate when they resort to such measures to ensure they never hear an opposing viewpoint
True or just a myth? A lot of young people are some of the most open minded, rejecting years of labelling and dividing that has gone on. Promoting space where people can be respected rather than hated for being diverse and not conforming to the tight stereotypes that have existed and been used to marginalise and demonise people.
Whenever people mention snowflakes and people offended by everything I think more of piers Morgan and Donald trump than the kids of today.
A protester's veto?
Alternatively, you could say that those people have also exercised their free speech rights to decide they don't want to give space to those with intolerant views? Free speech is not without consequence.
It’s no wonder younger generations are quite so delicate
They're not far from it if they're happy to speak out against hatred rather than just ignore it.
Meanwhile elsewhere on Singletrack the gender 'wars' continue:
https://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/interview-sam-pilgrim-i-dont-ride-with-girls/
A simple principle of fairness.
I'm not asking you to set out an entire ethical philosophical framework, but that's a bit of a glib answer.
It’s no wonder younger generations are quite so delicate
Using student politics as representative of young people in general is naive at best, but more likely deliberately disingenuous.
A significant proportion of student politicians have always been ****s and probably always will be.
one less reason to spend time on this site.
Sounds like a win-win situation.
😀
I’m not asking you to set out an entire ethical philosophical framework, but that’s a bit of a glib answer.
I'll try and cope with your dissatisfaction.
And for everyone who feels like they have been no platformed they are welcome to head out and speak, just grab a mic and hit a good street corner
In our current culture of polarised politics, I think some of the examples presented of "no platforming" given in this thread are unhealthy for the wider political debate in this country. So I find myself in agreement with makecoldplayhistiry, it is undeniable that political debate in this country has become more toxic. It might feel clever to be facetious, but I don't think that attitude is warranted in this case - some of the posters are confused about what freedom of speech is but some of your attacks on them miss the fact that a valid point is being or could made.
The title of this thread though is obviously divisive bollocks.
I tend to gravitate to the righter on ends of most arguments, I think. Though for what zero it's worth, my only take on the some feminists Vs some trans and fellow travellers folk thing is that whilst in day to day life you'd have to look pretty hard to find any practical issue, there is one if you look hard and it's interesting. Hey ho. But the language on that NUS statement is close to parody: "...as such we are concerned for the safety of our students on the topic of this event." Safety??
There may be a valid point somewhere but if people who have a history of hate and views that a majority find offensive why should they be invited to speak? They can be studied and examined from their you tubes etc. without needing to have them there in person.
Is the solution to a toxic debate to invite more people spouting hate or less?
I don't think Germaine Greer or Julie Bindel have a history of spouting hate speech. And yes, Greer was no platformed - if you feel too threatened to turn up to an event because of a minority of true believers then that is a stifling of debate through violence.
Looks like the OP got his wish.
mefty
Member
She was refused a platform for her views, the NUS statement is quite clear.
Absolutely. You say that like we're disagreeing? Her views are what made her unwelcome, but why is that significant? Why should the NUS welcome someone with unwelcome views? People seem to think they have some sort of duty to be widely representative or to host all opinions, but it's just not true- their job is to put on events for their students.
raybanwomble
Member
And yes, Greer was no platformed – if you feel too threatened to turn up to an event because of a minority of true believers then that is a stifling of debate through violence.
Oh come on. There was no threat of violence, and she herself never claimed to feel threatened, she just said she didn't feel like facing protests. You're just making things up.
(I for one think it's disgraceful that she no-platformed the protest, she should have been forced to attend so that they could protest at her. Why does she think she has the right not to be offended or faced with conflicting views, the big snowflake?)
(I for one also think it's disgraceful that people can protest at an event, this sort of free speech is suppressing our free speech and should be banned so that free speech is never again challenged by free speech and so that unpopular views can have a safe space and never have to face different unpopular views)
makecoldplayhistory
MemberCan you imagine the uproar if a black lesbian was stopped from coming to speak because of “security concerns”? Would you be angry? I would.
Last September, a black, lesbian, gay rights activists (68-year old Linda Bellos) was not stopped from speaking, but found themselves in court for words spoken at a women's rights meeting.
Linda had spoken at a live streamed event, and was captured on camera saying “But I play football and I box, and if any one of those b******s comes near me I will take off my glasses and thump them.”
In context, Linda's comments were a response to earlier violence directed towards feminists, notably the assault on Maria Maria MacLachlan at Speaker's Corner by activist Tara Wolf. Wolf admitted before attending the rally she had posted on a Facebook event page: 'I want to **** up some TERFS they are no better than FASH. (Fascists).'
Linda was interviewed under caution but no charges were filed. A private prosecution was later bought by transgender rights campaigner Giuliana Kendal. The grounds for the case were that " transgender persons watching the speech online could have felt threatened or alarmed by Miss Bellos’ remarks"
Are you actually a bot OP?
I think the law says you have to tell us if you are. Or is that if you're a cop?
In 1984 there was no debate.
The Spandau Ballet versus Duran Duran , who is best, debate may have been on the wane, but it was still a debate.
Oh come on. There was no threat of violence
That is a remarkably naive viewpoint, she regularly gets threats and the activists protesting against her are heavily associated with making threats against people they disagree with.
technicallyinept
Exactly. She was allowed to speak and even threatened violence.
However, the white guy was deplatformed because [i]he[/i] couldn't be protected.
Nick
"Alternatively, you could say that those people have also exercised their free speech rights to decide they don’t want to give space to those with intolerant views? "
No, because it isn't their space. They used the threat of violence to control the Uni's space. There's a difference between me deciding to not have Fox News on my TV but then ensuring (with threats) that you don't have it on your TV either.
makecoldplayhistory
Member
Exactly. She was allowed to speak and even threatened violence
A pensioner saying they'd defend themselves against thugs (in their twenties) is threatening violence?
A pensioner who boxes threatened to punch people who cam near her.
their job is to put on events for their students.
It wasn't their event, it was one of the University Societies.
raybanwomble
Member
That is a remarkably naive viewpoint
I'm sorry if my statement of fact seems naive to you, while your making shit up is apparently more nuanced and mature. There was no threat of violence.
makecoldplayhistory
"No, because it isn’t their space. They used the threat of violence to control the Uni’s space"
They're the students of the university- it is their space, and the NUS is their organisation. The uni and the NUS have no obligation or requirement to give consideration to anyone else but their students. When they invite an outside speaker, it's for their students not for the speaker.
Drac
Subscriber
A pensioner who boxes threatened to punch people who cam near her
****s sake, she's hardly Tyson Fury! And I'm damned well sure 'came near me' means 'came at me'. No women are going around beating people up!
A rather more real thread of violence can be found in the 'hilarious' banter between a couple of twitter pals (who shall remain nameless). They joked about visiting a church then having a round of golf. The church is the workplace of the husband of feminist who has had death threads made against her. One of them has a conviction for assaulting someone with a golf club.
Northwind, Germaine Greer has repeatedly mentioned the threats made against her and other feminist activists.
The Guardian thinks the debate is toxic as well.
Maybe you guys don't think the debate is toxic, because shock horror, you're men. Just like some of you, shock horror, don't get the racism minorities recieve because you're white.
Only misogynists would try to tar Germaine Greer with the hate speech label.
There’s a gender war? Not in my house there isn’t. Mrs Funk knows her place.
**** sake, she’s hardly Tyson Fury! And I’m damned well sure ‘came near me’ means ‘came at me’. No women are going around beating people up!
No, Tyson gets knocked out. How sure as that's what she said. Really? You think women aren't capable if violence.
Drac
Subscriber
No, Tyson gets knocked out. How sure as that’s what she said. Really? You think women aren’t capable if violence.
Of course I don't think women aren't capable of violence.
Coincidentally, misrepresentation of crime statistics is one of the things women are concerned about.
No women are going around beating people up!
?
Drac
Subscriber
?
Well, there's these 'women' I suppose.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/crime-caught-camera/tube-horror-women-man-attack-leicester-square/
As it happens, after much consideration, I turned down an invite to appear on stage with Linda at an event on 3rd Feb.
Was I denying her “rights of expression” or was I concerned that being identified as having different views to her put me at risk of hateful comments from some of her followers?
I rather think it was the latter.
Rachel
Hmm, Greer has form for anti-trans harassment, for example outing trans folk who were just quietly trying to go about their lives. I know of a fair few women who would be misogynists under your definition. Maybe as a man it's not really your place to be defining what is and isn't misogynistic. Just a thought...
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
I though this chart was a joke but it's actually used by the charity Mermaids.
Anyone link me up with the "Freedom of Platform act 2019" please? 😆
Hmm, Greer has form for anti-trans harassment, for example outing trans folk who were just quietly trying to go about their lives.
Source of that accusation?
In regards to your retort on misogyny - it is well known that it pretty rampant in the trans community.
However, I am horrified by the number of trans women threatening extreme, misogynistic violence. I see, almost daily, violent threats on social media aimed at women demonised as TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists). Last September a 60-year-old woman in London was punched by a six-foot-tall trans woman (pictured above) more than three decades younger. The woman, Maria MacLachlan, was there simply to attend a meeting to discuss the self-identification proposals.
So, yes, I do suspect that any man who flippantly dismisses out of hand the concerns of many women are misogynistic. Greers and other womens concerns are a product and in the context of decades of having to put up with shitty men, as opposed to outright baseless prejudice.
