"So, you're saying" interview.
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I see this line a lot - understandably. Is it not quite mature to consider other points of view and then stand against them? And even in the 'safe space' world, is it not quite mature to realise you are unable to think logically, rather than emotionally, on certain topics, and shy thus shy away from them? Unless emotion is in itself, immature. I think it probably is a rather mature thing to do.
Whereas to casually dismiss complex issues, using soundbitey slogan-like statements, might be less mature?
Apologies if I've misunderstood the meaning of your post. It's, as I said, a line I've seen many times before and so I guess I'm arguing against those who usually use that line and if I've subsequently gotten myself away from what you were actually trying to suggest then that is my fault.
It is commonly agreed upon that the shift from a reciprocal economy to a redistributive economy during the agricultural revolution was central in the formation of social hierarchies as we know them and can be seen as an (un)wanted byproduct of that, but these hierarchies are mostly measured by the disparity in wealth and power.
If you look at other social animals like wolves or chimpanzees, there are no such thing as wealth or certainly political power that separates them, but they still follow a strict social hierarchy and i think that's the point: Even if you remove factors such as wealth or the access to desirable resources there would still be jostling for status and resources in any group of social animal.
No doubt that human society is structured in a way that reinforces social hierarchies, but there is also an innate desire in us to elevate ourselves and exercise power over other regardless of material resources
Standing against opinions is fine, encouraged even. It's the 'I don't agree with it and therefore it needs to be banned' stance that becomes problematic to me.
Why? Because all voices need to be heard? Because shutting people down only helps their cause?
Because it's just that, an opinion. What makes the subjective view of one person more important than that of those who agree with it?
I can't stand the X Factor, but I don't want it banned. I just don't watch it.
You're just being silly there.
Nothing does. However, I would suggest students have a right to offer an opinion on who speaks at their university. I would find it hard to argue it is a triumph of free speech to suggest they should be stopped from doing so.
If Jim Davidson was booked for my work Christmas party, I dare say I'd mention I wasn't entirely impressed.
Are students not free to oppose who speaks at their university?
Isn’t that also part of free speech?
The problem is, there’s this idea that university students are opposing every single speaker, and limiting opposing views on campus and blah blah blah.
That couldn’t be further from the truth.
What actually happens is, anytime a group of students attempt to stop someone from speaking - usually someone with extreme views on both sides of the spectrum - it gets written about.
Why? Because it attracts the ‘millennials are snowflakes who aren’t ready for the real world’ gang like a moth to the flame.
In reality, there are thousands of people who speak at university’s and such every single week, we only hear about the small few who are well within their right to oppose some speakers.
Isn’t that also part of free speech?
The problem is, there’s this idea that university students are opposing every single speaker, and limiting opposing views on campus and blah blah blah.
That couldn’t be further from the truth.
What actually happens is, anytime a group of students attempt to stop someone from speaking - usually someone with extreme views on both sides of the spectrum - it gets written about.
Why? Because it attracts the ‘millennials are snowflakes who aren’t ready for the real world’ gang like a moth to the flame.
In reality, there are thousands of people who speak at university’s and such every single week, we only hear about the small few who are well within their right to oppose some speakers.
She's utterly possessed by her agenda and tries to put awful words in his mouth after almost every point he makes. Unluckily for her he's wise to it. In a turn of events that surprises absolutely nobody, her follow up tactic to being exposed idealogically is to double down on the victim card siting online abuse. That attitude is a plague on our society and that's why this interview has gone so viral I think more people are getting fed up with it.
Well to be fair, universities or any other organization are free to invite or not invite whoever they want, so i don't really think its an issue of free speech as many have claimed. And i certainly think scum like Richard Spencer and his ilk does not deserve a big platform to spew their venom, but somewhere in there you have to draw a line.
People protesting upcoming speakers is in itself not an issue as they in turn are just exercising their right to free speech, but if you keep going down that road it eventually ends in censorship and propaganda and that is not where we want to go. People are different and where as someone might find a certain view disagreeable, others may find it totally unacceptable.
The point is that we should try to reverse this trend where people ,organizations and media only present a biased and one sided view of the world to their audience and do better to strive for diversity of not only people, but also diversity of ideas. If a university becomes an echo chamber in terms of political standing it loses one of its key features as an institution
You’re conflating two issues here.
You’ve already agreed that people at universities are exercising their right to free speech by opposing who speaks at their universities.
Side note: it would be interesting to see if there’s any stats on how many people speak at universities either in the U.K. or the US on a yearly basis, and how many of those are subject to protest, and from those protests how many have their invitation rescinded - because I truly believe that it can’t be more than 10%.
Your second issue is that of propaganda and censorship - which, seems like a big leap to me.
It’s not like the universities are banning access to material from said speaker, or limiting web traffic or such.
If anything a protest would probably cause a lot of students who either hadn’t heard of the speaker or didn’t care about them to research them and their views to find out why groups are protesting their invitiation.
How is that akin to presenting a biased or censored view? Especially when they’re exercising their right to free speech.
They should be allowed to protest whoever they like, I just don't think the universities caving in to pressure is the way to go. I think a lot of it comes down to a case by case thing though. I don't know about the exact stats involved. If there was some slightly controversial speaker booked to speak and a small minority protested, I wouldn't like to see the universities cave in to that. If it's a nazi skinhead and 95% of students were against it then I see the logic. It would be interesting to see how many of those that were non-platformed were done so because of a small group shouting loudly.
Right. There was a shift within Homo sapiens, without a corresponding genetic shift. If JP is arguing that hierarchy is innate to all animals starting from lobsters, then that implies it is genetic, and he is wrong.Innate needs a very high burden of proof: he has to prove its universal or that some species lost hierarchy because they lost some genes, and explain the hunter-gatherer vs agriculture difference in this context. Given that (AFAIK) these genes haven't been found, he has a long long way to go,
(Edited)
Last edited:
What i meant is that universities etc are within their right to invite or not invite who they want, but that does not necessarily mean it's an optimal solution.
The issue is when fairly moderate speakers are being deplatformed and accused of hate speech or curriculum is being protested because a loud minority of students finds it offensive or problematic. Regarding censorship, we are not at that level yet, but it seems we are heading that way and it's not a healthy development imo.
It's not just Universities, most media also has become increasingly biased in their reporting in one direction or the other and whit how people consume media these days, it leads to people only being exposed to one (often biased) viewpoint instead of a balanced one and this goes for both sides of the political spectrum
Of course you can oppose but the limit stops at physically stopping someone from speaking. There is also difference between no-platforming and protesting against someone speaking. I understand the need of the former but if it gets legitimised then it is impossible to ensure that it will always be used against 'right' people. I know from my own country's example that as soon as you start banning things, it is a slippery slope towards free-for-all of banning any and everything that offended someone.
I agree that the notion of college students being coddled is a bit overblown now but that is true for everything in current times. Just the canada scandal over a single Peterson video being shown in a class room shows that this is a debate worth holding and not dismiss as a inconsequential issue. Professors and students in that instance thought that even a neutral, comment free viewing of a debate over need of gender neutral pro-nouns and related topics was not correct. (Side note, while I support the TA in that case without any reservations, she is quickly devolving into an unpleasant personality on social media).
How do you know that she is not receiving online abuse from trolls? There is documented evidence of alt-right targeting females online when they disagree with them.
I watched the whole interview and she goes overboard at times, but it is a standard grilling interview where you try to push the interviewee to explain any controversial opinion they may have by doubling down on even a single offhand thing they may have said.
Actually thought it was quite refreshing. Personally I don’t think he said much that was illogical and she tried to press him for more, even if it was a bit ham fisted. He remained unflustered and answered everything to the best of his ability which is rare to see in mainstream media these days. I’d like to see certain politicians get stronger questioning instead of letting them waste oxygen with falsehoods and punchlines.
The follow up articles from the spectator and guardian are the worst part of the exchange.
Really surprised (not really surprised) that this is considered a controversial interview.
Regarding the university speakers, no doubt it’s a very small but loud minority that throw their toys out the pram when somebody with opposing views is on campus. It would be interesting to know on what scale the uni’s just don’t bother booking somebody at all for fear of the bad publicity
The follow up articles from the spectator and guardian are the worst part of the exchange.
Really surprised (not really surprised) that this is considered a controversial interview.
Regarding the university speakers, no doubt it’s a very small but loud minority that throw their toys out the pram when somebody with opposing views is on campus. It would be interesting to know on what scale the uni’s just don’t bother booking somebody at all for fear of the bad publicity
On one hand you’re saying they’re well within their right to invite who they want, but on the other hand you’re saying fairly moderate speakers are being deplatformed - isn’t that a realistic possibility under any form of free speech? Or am I missing something.
I don’t think universities are at risk of any type of censorship personally, I don’t see how that would even be possible - but we can agree to disagree on that.
Media on the other hand has always served certain political affiliations depending on the organisation - so that’s not new at all, it’s just on a large scale and more in your face, because the internet.
But this is why I asked if there’s any statistics on not platforming - because thousands of people speak at universities across the world every single week, and maybe a handful (from what I can see, could be wrong) are no platformed in the same time frame - so is it really a big issue at this point?
@2 Girls 1 Midfield
I'd really recommend reading that article I posted: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/01/why-do-those-college-students-hate-free-speech-so-much
@crappycraperson for you too. Nathan Robinson is always fun to read anyway. There is also this one, but I haven't started it myself: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/02/what-does-free-speech-require
About my defence that "the right is bad too": you may think that the left should make a case that it is better, but I don't it can right now. I think the left needs to make a more basic defence first. Maybe I have been poisoned by reading a lot of right-wing stuff online but I think they have successfully portrayed the left as dangerous censorship-fascists. Countering that type of image means we should explain how un/common incidents are, how it is not that the left alone indulges in censorship or needs safe spaces*, and censorship in the (much bigger) world beyond campuses.
Briefly(!):
I think the issue of some talks being shut down on college campuses is a very small part of free speech in general (in the US/UK context).
There are many govt violations of free speech even in the US, in fact, the current liberal understanding of the 1st amendment evolved only as the genuine leftist threat was destroyed in the US (with many things including laws criminalising speech). There are still major govt-issued threats to free speech (which I will list sometime later).
More than the govt is the complete power the pvt sector has over speech in the workplace - and outside it. This is a brilliant brilliant article on employer power in general, including speech. If you don't read the other 2, do read this one!
On to campuses and other places where there have been fights - I think it is important assert that both sides have indulged in this, and more importantly, only the right has killed for this (during the past year, 2 shooting happened outside some speaking events, both by right-wingers). Outside campuses, there is a huge demand for censorship by conservatives (the NFL protests for example). I think the issue of talks on college campuses is not equivalent to a university inviting a faculty for a talk - often these are political student groups inviting people with no academic value (Milo). Sometimes it is a political group that books a university hall and the 1st amendment compels the univ to accept this (Richard Spencer in florida). The ability to invite these speakers or book these halls is based not on academic merit or interest but money.
Which brings me to another issue with "free" speech. The US SC has accepted that money is a form of speech. In that case, what is the meaning of free speech of someone who has no money? What matters then is the platform and reach, but this is not constitutionally protected.
I think people worried about freedoms being curtailed, etc would be looking much more at these issues if their worries were genuine. I do not think the campus cases, which have galvanised the entire right-wing from Tucker Carlson to Milo to Dave Rubin to Jordan Peterson to Sargon and all their lesser clones, have much impact on society.
These are all disorganised thoughts right now, I'm going to make a *long* post sometime later. (And then quit this thread forever).
*anecdote: I am a TA this semester, and we had to give kind-of a trigger warning for our students. It is a class about evolution and we were having a skype session with someone who isn't just atheist but anti-religion. Apparently religious people are known to get very upset with him. So we have to emphasise that we aren't attacking their beliefs/faith, etc.
And another anecdote, this one will irritate Jordan Peterson, TAs were requested to put this in their intro emails - "Ahead of tomorrow/first lab/next meeting, please let me know if you have prefered gender pronouns that you'd like me to use"
I'd really recommend reading that article I posted: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/01/why-do-those-college-students-hate-free-speech-so-much
@crappycraperson for you too. Nathan Robinson is always fun to read anyway. There is also this one, but I haven't started it myself: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/02/what-does-free-speech-require
About my defence that "the right is bad too": you may think that the left should make a case that it is better, but I don't it can right now. I think the left needs to make a more basic defence first. Maybe I have been poisoned by reading a lot of right-wing stuff online but I think they have successfully portrayed the left as dangerous censorship-fascists. Countering that type of image means we should explain how un/common incidents are, how it is not that the left alone indulges in censorship or needs safe spaces*, and censorship in the (much bigger) world beyond campuses.
Briefly(!):
I think the issue of some talks being shut down on college campuses is a very small part of free speech in general (in the US/UK context).
There are many govt violations of free speech even in the US, in fact, the current liberal understanding of the 1st amendment evolved only as the genuine leftist threat was destroyed in the US (with many things including laws criminalising speech). There are still major govt-issued threats to free speech (which I will list sometime later).
More than the govt is the complete power the pvt sector has over speech in the workplace - and outside it. This is a brilliant brilliant article on employer power in general, including speech. If you don't read the other 2, do read this one!
On to campuses and other places where there have been fights - I think it is important assert that both sides have indulged in this, and more importantly, only the right has killed for this (during the past year, 2 shooting happened outside some speaking events, both by right-wingers). Outside campuses, there is a huge demand for censorship by conservatives (the NFL protests for example). I think the issue of talks on college campuses is not equivalent to a university inviting a faculty for a talk - often these are political student groups inviting people with no academic value (Milo). Sometimes it is a political group that books a university hall and the 1st amendment compels the univ to accept this (Richard Spencer in florida). The ability to invite these speakers or book these halls is based not on academic merit or interest but money.
Which brings me to another issue with "free" speech. The US SC has accepted that money is a form of speech. In that case, what is the meaning of free speech of someone who has no money? What matters then is the platform and reach, but this is not constitutionally protected.
I think people worried about freedoms being curtailed, etc would be looking much more at these issues if their worries were genuine. I do not think the campus cases, which have galvanised the entire right-wing from Tucker Carlson to Milo to Dave Rubin to Jordan Peterson to Sargon and all their lesser clones, have much impact on society.
These are all disorganised thoughts right now, I'm going to make a *long* post sometime later. (And then quit this thread forever).
*anecdote: I am a TA this semester, and we had to give kind-of a trigger warning for our students. It is a class about evolution and we were having a skype session with someone who isn't just atheist but anti-religion. Apparently religious people are known to get very upset with him. So we have to emphasise that we aren't attacking their beliefs/faith, etc.
And another anecdote, this one will irritate Jordan Peterson, TAs were requested to put this in their intro emails - "Ahead of tomorrow/first lab/next meeting, please let me know if you have prefered gender pronouns that you'd like me to use"
Last edited:
I have seen hundreds of replies to her tweets and didn't see anything that untoward. The great majority were just critical of her actions. The video has been viewed almost 2 million times last time I checked and that is going to attract attention to her. It's a par for the course online that a extremely low percent of people abuse others for unknown reasons and it applies to literally anyone in the spotlight, nothing to do with the 'alt right' as you put it. That label is pure disingenuous nonsense. You should know better.
This is the same Cathy Newman who claimed a man ushered her out of a Mosque resulting in said Mosque receiving actual abuse then got proved lying by the CCTV which showed that nothing of the sort happened at all. Guess what she did after being found out.. oh she has to leave Twitter because of all the abuse.. she is a journalist who plays fast and loose with the truth for her own gain, I can't thing of many things that are more corrupt than that.
@Dominos I actually saw that one live. Probably wasn't the worst of Kay Burley but I did enjoy her final comment.
Couldn't they have chosen a zoologist or something to go against him, I don't want to side with bloody PETA.
It was tricky to side with anyone involved.
I don't think it was a car crash as such. She was moderating it in an arguably brusque way, but you had two ideologically opposed guests and I'm not sure she was expecting him to be as obstreperous as he was. She was right to shut down his terrorist funding right cos it was potentially libellous.
Yeah, an exceedingly rare display of humour and self-awareness from her.
Oh and this. Offensive racist T-shirt hoohah #381. 'Slavery gets shit done'.
Oh and mugs and other shit. A whole range.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/5388424/amazon-t-shirt-row-slavery-racism/
Oh and mugs and other shit. A whole range.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/5388424/amazon-t-shirt-row-slavery-racism/
fecking hell. In what universe is pro-slavery less offensive than the word shit?
Our universe, the shithole universe.
Fair point.I think it adds credibility to the simulated universe theory. The devs are testing how puritanical white supremacy plays out.
While miraculously managing to misquote him in every single question. For all that she listened to what he was actually saying she may as well have been totally deaf.
Train wreck of an interview from her point of view, he made a complete mockery of her. Should stick to interviewing Milos if she wants to keep up the pretence of intelligence.
I already said that gross generalisation of college students perpetuated by right wing websites is unfounded. But that itself does not affect the take on a particular college incident. Whether it is a pressing issue is separate from criticism of any one particular incident of no-platforming.
I actually read the article the other day itself. I think my original point still stands. It essentially argues that selective incidents have been over blown by right wing media, whilst ignoring similar or worse incidents by right, and compared to the sheer number of colleges in US, it is not a big issue. I think I mostly buy that the right wing media has overblown and created a hysteria around liberal college students shutting down speech. But than in itself does not change my opinion on such cases, let's take the Reed college one where the protesting students trying to shut down an actual run of the middl course from happening was definitely a bridge too far. (On top of it, there were sources quoting actual students who confessed to being afraid to air their opinion on a few subjects given the possibility of social backlash by supposedly progressive students in the campus.) In a non polarised environment, such cases deserve good coverage in the media but the problem in current age US is that alt-right latches on to any such incident to further fuel and justify their propaganda. So I understand your point about it being about taking your side in terms of right vs left. The other points about actual history of freedom of speech in US with respect to workplace restrictions, SC rulings etc is a larger and different debate all-together.
First, I don't know about the Mosque incident or her history so can't comment. She may as well be lying but my point was there is no certain way of knowing either way. Given her employers have also released a statement corroborating it, I am inclined to believe there was at least some online abuse/threats.
On 'alt-right' if you are thinking I am clubbing your or all the folks criticising her in that group, then that's not true. But it can not be denied that Peterson does have a following which includes a lot of vile folks from alt-right. (I actually defended him in a thread which was clubbing him with Shapiro so I don't necessarily believe that he holds similar vile views even if I myself might disagree with most of .his conservative musings). One generalisation I am happy to make is of Breitbart and its loyal readers and I have to rethink my stance on issue twice if it is the same as one in brietbart.
So on that basis, your solution is that students should be allowed to protest anyone they like, but nobody should be no-platformed - even hate speech?
It depends on your definition of hate speech. Any direct call or incitement of violence should be censured as per my opinion either before or after the fact. Even people like Milo publicly shaming individuals cross the line. But mere offence is not enough to no-platform someone. So I oppose attempts to stop likes of Maher, Peterson (whom I disagree with 95% of the time) or even Shapiro (who I find vile) from speaking.
Oh and this. Offensive racist T-shirt hoohah #381. 'Slavery gets shit done'.
Oh and mugs and other shit. A whole range.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/5388424/amazon-t-shirt-row-slavery-racism/
Not to mention that its factually inaccurate as there is increasing evidence that the pyramids were not actually built by slaves at all.
Okay now I understand your position better now, that makes sense and I would probably agree to a certain extent.
I guess, from my perspective I don't really care whether someone is no-platformed, and I don't understand why others do to the point where its debated in the same realm as political correctness gone too far.
Protests at universities in particular have a long history way back from Civil Rights, Anti-War, Feminism etc.
Student activism is part of society, I don't think what groups of students do in university is any reflection on how they will grow up in society because everyone is different and we all grow and change as life goes on.
Whether groups of students don't want the likes of Milo, or Shapiro to be at their school is quite frankly their prerogative - and considering no-platforming is still a very rare thing in the grand scheme of things - I don't understand what the fuss is about.
It seems like faux outrage from generation x, and just another thing to hark on at millennials, but hey, i'm a millennial too so i'm probably biased.
No outrage here from a gen x. I'm also of the opinion it's blown out of proportion...
