Page 1 of 1 [ 14 posts ] 


Challenge Bigots or No Platform?
No Platform 6%  6%  [ 1 ]
Challenge Bigots 94%  94%  [ 15 ]
Total votes : 16

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

15 Feb 2016, 6:23 pm

Your choice

Peter Tatchell is a tireless civil rights campaigner especially LGBT, well known in politics since the 80s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Tatchell

Recently SJWs were asking for him to be No Platformed. Simply becuase he signed a letter in support of allowing Germaine Greer to speak.

He disagrees with Germaine Greer.
He has consistently stood up for trans rights.
He think the best way to deal views like her is to challenge them and win the argument.

He was on Newsnight arguing against the practice of "No Platforming".



Last edited by 0_equals_true on 15 Feb 2016, 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,920
Location: The outskirts

15 Feb 2016, 7:08 pm

My concerns with 'challenge them'.

1. Society is not free of biases or preconceptions or received opinion, and ideas (particularly when held by those considered 'bigots') are not abstract vacuum-packed things but indicative of a desired social change. The very act of considering an idea fit for disussion can endow it with a weight it ought not to have.

2. How often does anyone change their mind? Is a bigot likely to do so?

3. What happens when a 'challenge' comes from a popular base, such that the bigot only gets to build up their fantasy of being a martyr for the truth, the one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind sheeple?

4. A 'challenge' assumes some common ground somewhere, from which the opinions have diverged. That may not be the case (to continue the imagery, the bigot may well have scorched this ground).

I think there needs to be an equivalent of, where one is sat next to someone who says something stupid and bigoted, and one just gives them a pitying, wry look, sighs, and pointedly turns one's back.

I'm on the fence on this one. I mostly lean to 'challenge them', but I don't think no-platforming is an absurd or terrible thing, either.


_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.

You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.


wilburforce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,940

15 Feb 2016, 7:23 pm

Hopper wrote:
My concerns with 'challenge them'.

1. Society is not free of biases or preconceptions or received opinion, and ideas (particularly when held by those considered 'bigots') are not abstract vacuum-packed things but indicative of a desired social change. The very act of considering an idea fit for disussion can endow it with a weight it ought not to have.

2. How often does anyone change their mind? Is a bigot likely to do so?

3. What happens when a 'challenge' comes from a popular base, such that the bigot only gets to build up their fantasy of being a martyr for the truth, the one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind sheeple?

4. A 'challenge' assumes some common ground somewhere, from which the opinions have diverged. That may not be the case (to continue the imagery, the bigot may well have scorched this ground).

I think there needs to be an equivalent of, where one is sat next to someone who says something stupid and bigoted, and one just gives them a pitying, wry look, sighs, and pointedly turns one's back.

I'm on the fence on this one. I mostly lean to 'challenge them', but I don't think no-platforming is an absurd or terrible thing, either.


I'm on the fence as well in regards to this issue. If they are advocating violence then I don't think they should be given a platform--but discussing the roots of bigotry and how to enlighten people and make them more open-minded and compassionate is important.


_________________
"Ego non immanis, sed mea immanis telum." ~ Ares, God of War

(Note to Moderators: my warning number is wrong on my profile but apparently can't be fixed so I will note here that it is actually 2, not 3--the warning issued to me on Aug 20 2016 was a mistake but I've been told it can't be removed.)


slenkar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,146
Location: here

15 Feb 2016, 8:08 pm

Opponents of the speaker should be allowed to hand out leaflets with their arguments and peacefully protest,

But should not be allowed to block anyone from entering the building or drown out the speaker.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

15 Feb 2016, 10:12 pm

Ignoring people doesn't make them go away, that is just sticking your head in the sand and being obstructionist which gives them very little reason to be civil with you.

Germaine Greer is one of the most famous feminists of all time and certainly no friend of mine, I do find it a bit amusing that she so quickly is castigated into the fiery pit of bigotry tho because she(a near 80 year old woman) doesn't believe in transgendered women are actually women which to me really is pretty weak to be considered hate speech. I don't think of myself as any part bigoted towards trans people but some might call me that because I don't completely accept these solemn sacred commandments handed down from tumblr.

People shouldn't be afraid to debate or have their opinions criticized but there is no cognitive dissonance on my part, I don't have to try to convince myself of what I believe to be right. Arguing for what I believe is right is easy to me, now maybe people will disagree with me but I don't hold it personally either since I can take what I dish out. When debating something I like to look towards the middle ground and the common interest we both have, you can't just declare segments of the population non-people because they disagree with on something.



Trogluddite
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2016
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075
Location: Yorkshire, UK

16 Feb 2016, 3:04 pm

Just a quick point regarding bigots seeing themselves as martyrs. My impression of this is that being denied a platform is seen as a form of martyrdom just as much as being challenged, so I would say it's about evens on that particular score.

Largely, I'm of the "let the fool speak" opinion - all other things being equal, enemies that are out in the open are easier to fight than those that have been driven underground. But I do take the well made point that society is not a "level playing field" where opposing opinions are necessarily given the same due consideration.


_________________
When you are fighting an invisible monster, first throw a bucket of paint over it.


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

16 Feb 2016, 4:20 pm

I'm pretty strongly in favor of the market place of ideas, and if anything am likely to investigate a suppressed idea on general principle.

Really, the only people I actually want to shut up are the stupid people who happen to agree with me on a point or two (glares at Ted Nugent), they can wipe out years of careful persuasion with one dumb outburst. Still, better to just repudiate and move on.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

16 Feb 2016, 7:13 pm

This is what I have to say to the fence sitters:

1. The UK government's investigation into its own anti-extremism program "Prevent" found that Universities were too scared to be seen as stereotypical towards minorities, and this had posed a barrier when it came to taking on extremism in universities. If these unsavory views are not aired in public the are pushed underground, which means they are further unchallenged. I walked in on one of these extremist groups attempting to indoctrinate a hallmate, when I was in university. Even if the extremists aren't going to talk publicly, if those vulnerable to being indoctrinated are airing their views, and other bigots are, then these ideas can be challenged.

2. Often the standard of what is considered too harmful to be aired is way too subjective and draconian. We cannot prevent people from being offended, or distressed. That happens in their own brain. SJWs don't seem to realise their policies like safe spaces and trigger warnings, which have nothing to do clinical advice on mental health, go against the very principle of right like freedom of movement, and expression. Undermining what civil rights movement fought so hard for.

3. It doesn't matter if you can't always convince the bigot to change, the point is to convince those that could follow them. Interestingly the Quilliam Society managed to convince Tommy Robinson of the EDL to change his views and resign. So it can happen.

4. No platforming makes more martyrs, it a status symbol for bigots.

5. For common ground see 3. It is about breaking down their arguments, providing the alternate narrative. There is usually some common ground amongst people. Just becuase some people may be entrenched, doesn't mean all those in attendance are.

6. Hopper, who are you to decide whether an idea is fit for discussion? Who appointed you the gate keeper of ideas?

7. The concept of ideas being too dangerous to be talked about, is itself dangerous.

8. It isn't about them having it all their own way. The point of public talks is to have discourse between differing positions.



Last edited by 0_equals_true on 16 Feb 2016, 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MindBlind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 May 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,341

16 Feb 2016, 7:43 pm

Hopper wrote:
My concerns with 'challenge them'.

1. Society is not free of biases or preconceptions or received opinion, and ideas (particularly when held by those considered 'bigots') are not abstract vacuum-packed things but indicative of a desired social change. The very act of considering an idea fit for disussion can endow it with a weight it ought not to have.

2. How often does anyone change their mind? Is a bigot likely to do so?

3. What happens when a 'challenge' comes from a popular base, such that the bigot only gets to build up their fantasy of being a martyr for the truth, the one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind sheeple?

4. A 'challenge' assumes some common ground somewhere, from which the opinions have diverged. That may not be the case (to continue the imagery, the bigot may well have scorched this ground).

I think there needs to be an equivalent of, where one is sat next to someone who says something stupid and bigoted, and one just gives them a pitying, wry look, sighs, and pointedly turns one's back.

I'm on the fence on this one. I mostly lean to 'challenge them', but I don't think no-platforming is an absurd or terrible thing, either.


1. All ideas are fit for discussion. Even the bad ones. If we can't let bad ideas be spoken, then what is stopping someone else from preventing a good idea from being heard? The only ethical way to deal with free speech is that either everything is fair game or none of it is. It is not up to us to decide what values people must have and what people are okay or not okay to listen to. We are all autonomous beings and we are responsible for our own behaviour and values. All we have any right to do is present our case and show hard evidence so that people realise that our perspectives hold more weight.

2. That is a very misanthropic perspective. People can change their minds and often do. The reason bigotry happens is because of psuedospeciation, which is when people are unable to identify with or empathise with people they deem to be outside of their in-group. Many bigots have learned that they can identify with the subjects of their bigotry when they can see them as individuals and not as an abstraction. I believe that people have a powerful capacity for compassion and empathy and that doesn't suddenly go away just because people are allowed to voice their hateful opinions. We can cultivate a culture of compassion by using our own platform as an olive branch to would-be converts.

3. Not letting bigots speak is what gives them a martyr complex. If they act like martyrs even when they were given a chance to speak, the world will see them for what they truly are. The best form of refutation is when they refute themselves.

4. No it doesn't. It assumes that no idea is sacred and that anybody who publicly voices their opinion must face whatever scrutiny comes their way. The same applies to ourselves - we cannot assume that we know what is best for others and what isn't. That is why we all deserve to have our ideas held up to scrutiny which can only happen in a free market of ideas.



Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,920
Location: The outskirts

16 Feb 2016, 8:05 pm

1. Nothing to say here.

2. My position is too subtle to try and draw out when I'm as tired as I am, but I am not against the ideas behind 'safe spaces', though I may disagree with the notion itself. I'm not sure.

3. I'm pretty sure Robinson has come out with odious stuff since his step down. I'm a bit more cynical there than you - I think he was a rat deserting a sinking ship.

4. That's a fair point. But I'm also wary of someone being given a platform and a consensus forming against them such that they can start to seem almost bullied - that too can be a boon to martyrdom.

5. In my experience, most people are entrenched in their views.

6. Well, I decide what I think is an idea fit for discussion. I think there are some things that are just givens in a civilised society, and that is quite right, though I am sympathetic to the notion that one of the features of a liberal democracy is its constant self-criticism.

And society decides what it thinks are ideas fit for discussion. There are ideas we don't even think to discuss. I might draw this out tomorrow.

7. Yet it may sometimes be right.

8. Again, I am a little more cynical. I question the good faith of some participants.


_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.

You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Feb 2016, 9:11 pm

I'm all for letting bigots speak. How else can they be publicly repudiated? Plus, take away their right to speak, and suddenly the people promoting hate are the underdog, and there's nothing Americans love more than an underdog.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

17 Feb 2016, 10:19 am

Whilst they should be allowed to speak, in some situations giving someone a specific platform can increase their credibility. For example, Marine Le Pen's website boasts about a talk she gave at Cambridge University, where she lost a debate. But Greer's not going to gain any credibility by allowing her to talk, so I don't see any harm in that.

At universities without an international reputation, I don't think any significant harm comes from letting anyone talk.



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,472
Location: Houston, Texas

17 Feb 2016, 6:08 pm

I support their right to speak, even if I disagree with their views.

Plus different people are going to have their own definition of bigotry.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

17 Feb 2016, 6:20 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Whilst they should be allowed to speak, in some situations giving someone a specific platform can increase their credibility. For example, Marine Le Pen's website boasts about a talk she gave at Cambridge University, where she lost a debate. But Greer's not going to gain any credibility by allowing her to talk, so I don't see any harm in that.


Le Pen is not going to gain credibility with those that disagree with her, Greer could with those that do. You can't stop people borrowing credibility. This is not limited to talks, in fact is far easier borrow credibility through a closed system than an open one. Such tactic can be exposed more easily in a public forum. You are doing it now and the fact that you know about it means it stands out.

Why is letting someone talk in Oxbridge more detrimental than any other university? These universities have hosted all sort talkers from controversial to tame.

What will damage their reputations is if they are so lily-livered that they only do the safe talks. Therefore they get very little intellectual return.