Has political correctness actually gone mad?

[Bobcat]

I haven't watched the interview either but I am familiar with Peterson. I've listened to him on a few different podcasts. Very smart and interesting bloke, with some goofy ideas (mainly related to religion/spirituality) but a lot of very sensible ideas too. He's a bit fecking depressing if you listen to him too much, mind you. He does polarise opinion, of course, and the alt-right seem to have taken him on as some sort of figure-head for their movement. So he's damned by association.

That's a very good piece. Far too many interesting exchanges like the interview described in the article end up being nothing more than click-bait, tit for tat nonsense, once they're put through the ringer of social media. We should have more open and honest exchange of ideas, not less.

Yeah, i actually did a bit of digging too find out what this was about. As far as i know he likes the alt-right as little as he does the extreme left, but is still seen as some kind of leader by them in the "culture wars". Truth be told, the alt-right will cling onto anyone who criticizes the left and, since they are few and far between them who is either not a bigoted arse or a total loony (Stefan Molyneux comes to mind) a seemingly clever bloke like Peterson will obviously seem like an attractive target to claim

*Apart from the biological issues, I think he is also very guilty of this: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/131/Naturalistic-Fallacy

Yeah, i can understand his point, but it seems like a classical case of Maslow's hammer, him being a clinical psychologist and all. Reminded me a bit of Jared Diamonds Guns, germs and steel, who is a very good read, but is very colored by his background as an anthropologist and becomes a tad to deterministic. Hell, i think any academic discipline often gets to eager to explain the world by their own frame of reference.

It gets super tricky when you start with the nature vs nurture discussion since it's often very hard to measure which takes precedence and especially when looking back at something like a hunter-gatherer society the best you can do is make a qualified guess. No there is no doubt that for example the agricultural revolution and the division of labor reinforced social hierarchies, but i would be wary to claim they outright created them.

There have been plenty of examples both through history and present of pastoral nomadic tribes or hunter/gatherer tribes that has created quite complex social structures. I am by no means any expert on the field, but i do find it fascinating

 

[Ubik]

It's like a parody of reductive reasoning. Lobsters did it before we had trees, so you fill in the blanks.

 

[2 man midfield]

Pointing out Islam (and other religions for that matter) is homophobic isn't racist. It's an idea, an ideology. Islam isn't a race, people choose to subscribe to it. There's definitely a few morons though who think that all Muslims are brown people and all brown people are Muslims, therefore they're one and the same.

 

[van der star]

Pointing out Islam (and other religions for that matter) is homophobic isn't racist. It's an idea, an ideology. Islam isn't a race, people choose to subscribe to it. There's definitely a few morons though who think that all Muslims are brown people and all brown people are Muslims, therefore they're one and the same.

That's the thing though, even Islam isn't inherently homophobic. It all comes down to your personal interpretation of the scriptures and the teachings you choose to believe. Exactly the same as Christianity, and, I'm assuming, some other religions too.

 

[2 man midfield]

That's the thing though, even Islam isn't inherently homophobic. It all comes down to your personal interpretation of the scriptures and the teachings you choose to believe. Exactly the same as Christianity, and, I'm assuming, some other religions too.

There's definitely a lot of them that are more than accepting of gay people and adhere to the rest of Islam just fine. It sounds like it's just the texts that go off on the gays, women and non believers. Some people manage to leave that stuff out, others don't I guess.

 

[afrocentricity]

Bit like the Christian bible....

You 2 are both right tho which is why I don't like generalisations.

 

[Member 5225]

It's shit like this that winds me up, leaves me flabbergasted.
The sheer audacity:

 

[Wibble]

It's shit like this that winds me up, leaves me flabbergasted.
The sheer audacity:

Why? I might not agree with some Uni's decisions about who to invite to speak and who not to but they have the right to invite who they like. Free speak doesn't mean the right to speak anywhere you choose even when the owners of a particular place don't want you there.

 

[Member 5225]

Why? I might not agree with some Uni's decisions about who to invite to speak and who not to but they have the right to invite who they like. Free speak doesn't mean the right to speak anywhere you choose even when the owners of a particular place don't want you there.

Did you watch it? The banning of certain newspapers, people and ideas (i.e. Conservatives on social media) - I think that's rather draconian, especially for a University where I think every single random and even extreme view should be heard. Might be extreme to someone, might not be to someone else. Heck I guess even thinking about women getting equal rights and blacks being on par with whites was regarded as extreme once upon a time...

 

[SteveJ]

In reference to post #4154:

Am I being a humourless, elitist twat for thinking the following 'poem' (by an award-winning poet) is just awful? Should all who consider themselves writers, poets, musicians be heard or read?:

Spoiler

Bums

People talking every day about
The topic of the year
Is it fun to shake about or just a thing for us to jeer at
Have I seen the videos?
Do I think that they’re ok?
People asking me about bums
Everyday
Anaconda bums from Nikki Minaj
Kim Kardashian’s new photoshoot
Is it racist, is it class?
JLo’s and Iggy’s latest dance
Pretending to be lesbians
Female bums,
oiled and greased,
more striptease for MTV
Is J-Lo’s bum too old? we cry
Is Iggy’s bum too white?
But J-Lo’s 43 they say
As we slag her off all night
Then Meghan Trainer steps up and it’s all about the bass again
And the beats are so damn good and the lyrics stick inside your head
Conversations starts again
Fleshy bits are better
Her mum says men don’t like it thin
Questions, comments flooding in
Is it all about the bass, is it all about the bass?
Can Miley Cryus twerk
Has that girl got no damn taste?
Everyday I get the same discussions bouncing in my face
Is it female liberation to dance the way you want
Or is it corporate US making money selling women’s bodies
Is it wrong?
Is it positive for girls with bigger bums>
Is it just a bit of fun
Is it fair?
Isss itttt faiiiiirrr?
And truthfully my answer is I just don’t fecking care.
It’s a bum.
I have one.
My mum does too.
Sits on hers 60 hours a week
A nurses bum with aching cheeks
My mum has a flat bum, bonier than me
My daughter says her bum is the best bit of her body
Cos it’s soft
My gran has got a bum
It sits alone a lot
My friend has got a doctor’s bum that never ever stops
Before my granddad died he had a bum
Ghandi did as well
There’s a bum between the legs of the president of Brazil
That woman, running a massive fecking country over there
Most people’s bum have hair on
Though we don’t like to admit it
The first women into space covered her bum with a padded spacesuit
When Rosa parks sat on a bus her bum refused to move for bums more light
And she was taken with all the other bums who marched for civil rights
Happy people have bums
Depressed people do as well
If you do not wipe your bum, your bum will really smell
You use you bum to run
You also use your bum to sit
Having a slightly smaller bum does not make you a skinny bitch
Having a slightly larger bum does not make you a big booty ho
Last weekend 40,000 bums sat on seats waiting for a goal from the England Women’s football team who used their butt muscles to kick and pass
The Williams sisters use their bums to move from side to side very fast
So when you ask me what I think of female bums, I like them, I think they’re great
I wish there were more of them in parliament, businesses and sports games
And men’s bums too, in case you wonder, I like them just the same
Like a personal piece of fat for everyone to sit on when you’re drained
Saves you carrying a cushion or a pillow in your bag
And if your bum is fit and healthy
It’s the best you’ll ever have

Related article:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...-attacking-amateur-work-by-young-female-poets

 

[Charlie Foley]

I thought Cathy Newman was really shocking in that interview. I don't pretend to be an expert on what Peterson discusses at all, there are times I find him very impressive and times I find him quite frustrating. But Newman was really poor, I don't understand the "she was asking him tough questions which is good" line because the questions she asked, or her constant "so you're saying," just showed her up to be not listening to him, not understanding him (even points that weren't so difficult to understand!) or just trying to push her own narrative. Peterson gave an interview since where he said it felt like she was trying to interview the villain she hoped she could portray him as (paraphrasing there).

The sad thing nowadays is that we treat public figures like that like a sports team. "they're on my side so they're right!" Twitter or YouTube comments are a cesspit of people saying "look at this video of X, he totally owns Y!" And X may be really intelligent and articulate. And X's followers seem to try and live their online persona at least vicariously through X. "X is smart and I like X, I'm so much smarter than everyone who agrees with Y!"

So you'll get people who really don't compare to Peterson intellectually treating his intelligence or articulation, where he displays those traits, as their own. You'll also get people who disagree with him siding with Newman just as she's the one going against Peterson. What's really unfortunate with that is that there are perfectly legitimate arguments (as far as I can see!) to make against Peterson's beliefs. Some have been expressed in this thread! I appreciate that would make it more a debate, but as she tried to hit him with counterpoints it went down that road a bit anyway. But, I don't really see what's so impressive about an interviewer spending 30 minutes repeating "so what you're saying is " and then not even coming close to what he said. It's how I feel talking to one acquaintance of mine, incredibly frustrating. And I think it actually weakens her cause/argument, as seen in much of the negative reaction.

 

[Charlie Foley]

In reference to post #4154:

Am I being a humourless, elitist twat for thinking the following 'poem' (by an award-winning poet) is just awful? Should all who consider themselves writers, poets, musicians be heard or read?:

Spoiler

Bums

People talking every day about
The topic of the year
Is it fun to shake about or just a thing for us to jeer at
Have I seen the videos?
Do I think that they’re ok?
People asking me about bums
Everyday
Anaconda bums from Nikki Minaj
Kim Kardashian’s new photoshoot
Is it racist, is it class?
JLo’s and Iggy’s latest dance
Pretending to be lesbians
Female bums,
oiled and greased,
more striptease for MTV
Is J-Lo’s bum too old? we cry
Is Iggy’s bum too white?
But J-Lo’s 43 they say
As we slag her off all night
Then Meghan Trainer steps up and it’s all about the bass again
And the beats are so damn good and the lyrics stick inside your head
Conversations starts again
Fleshy bits are better
Her mum says men don’t like it thin
Questions, comments flooding in
Is it all about the bass, is it all about the bass?
Can Miley Cryus twerk
Has that girl got no damn taste?
Everyday I get the same discussions bouncing in my face
Is it female liberation to dance the way you want
Or is it corporate US making money selling women’s bodies
Is it wrong?
Is it positive for girls with bigger bums>
Is it just a bit of fun
Is it fair?
Isss itttt faiiiiirrr?
And truthfully my answer is I just don’t fecking care.
It’s a bum.
I have one.
My mum does too.
Sits on hers 60 hours a week
A nurses bum with aching cheeks
My mum has a flat bum, bonier than me
My daughter says her bum is the best bit of her body
Cos it’s soft
My gran has got a bum
It sits alone a lot
My friend has got a doctor’s bum that never ever stops
Before my granddad died he had a bum
Ghandi did as well
There’s a bum between the legs of the president of Brazil
That woman, running a massive fecking country over there
Most people’s bum have hair on
Though we don’t like to admit it
The first women into space covered her bum with a padded spacesuit
When Rosa parks sat on a bus her bum refused to move for bums more light
And she was taken with all the other bums who marched for civil rights
Happy people have bums
Depressed people do as well
If you do not wipe your bum, your bum will really smell
You use you bum to run
You also use your bum to sit
Having a slightly smaller bum does not make you a skinny bitch
Having a slightly larger bum does not make you a big booty ho
Last weekend 40,000 bums sat on seats waiting for a goal from the England Women’s football team who used their butt muscles to kick and pass
The Williams sisters use their bums to move from side to side very fast
So when you ask me what I think of female bums, I like them, I think they’re great
I wish there were more of them in parliament, businesses and sports games
And men’s bums too, in case you wonder, I like them just the same
Like a personal piece of fat for everyone to sit on when you’re drained
Saves you carrying a cushion or a pillow in your bag
And if your bum is fit and healthy
It’s the best you’ll ever have

Related article:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...-attacking-amateur-work-by-young-female-poets

That's shit

 

[Bobcat]

In reference to post #4154:

Am I being a humourless, elitist twat for thinking the following 'poem' (by an award-winning poet) is just awful? Should all who consider themselves writers, poets, musicians be heard or read?:

Spoiler

Bums

People talking every day about
The topic of the year
Is it fun to shake about or just a thing for us to jeer at
Have I seen the videos?
Do I think that they’re ok?
People asking me about bums
Everyday
Anaconda bums from Nikki Minaj
Kim Kardashian’s new photoshoot
Is it racist, is it class?
JLo’s and Iggy’s latest dance
Pretending to be lesbians
Female bums,
oiled and greased,
more striptease for MTV
Is J-Lo’s bum too old? we cry
Is Iggy’s bum too white?
But J-Lo’s 43 they say
As we slag her off all night
Then Meghan Trainer steps up and it’s all about the bass again
And the beats are so damn good and the lyrics stick inside your head
Conversations starts again
Fleshy bits are better
Her mum says men don’t like it thin
Questions, comments flooding in
Is it all about the bass, is it all about the bass?
Can Miley Cryus twerk
Has that girl got no damn taste?
Everyday I get the same discussions bouncing in my face
Is it female liberation to dance the way you want
Or is it corporate US making money selling women’s bodies
Is it wrong?
Is it positive for girls with bigger bums>
Is it just a bit of fun
Is it fair?
Isss itttt faiiiiirrr?
And truthfully my answer is I just don’t fecking care.
It’s a bum.
I have one.
My mum does too.
Sits on hers 60 hours a week
A nurses bum with aching cheeks
My mum has a flat bum, bonier than me
My daughter says her bum is the best bit of her body
Cos it’s soft
My gran has got a bum
It sits alone a lot
My friend has got a doctor’s bum that never ever stops
Before my granddad died he had a bum
Ghandi did as well
There’s a bum between the legs of the president of Brazil
That woman, running a massive fecking country over there
Most people’s bum have hair on
Though we don’t like to admit it
The first women into space covered her bum with a padded spacesuit
When Rosa parks sat on a bus her bum refused to move for bums more light
And she was taken with all the other bums who marched for civil rights
Happy people have bums
Depressed people do as well
If you do not wipe your bum, your bum will really smell
You use you bum to run
You also use your bum to sit
Having a slightly smaller bum does not make you a skinny bitch
Having a slightly larger bum does not make you a big booty ho
Last weekend 40,000 bums sat on seats waiting for a goal from the England Women’s football team who used their butt muscles to kick and pass
The Williams sisters use their bums to move from side to side very fast
So when you ask me what I think of female bums, I like them, I think they’re great
I wish there were more of them in parliament, businesses and sports games
And men’s bums too, in case you wonder, I like them just the same
Like a personal piece of fat for everyone to sit on when you’re drained
Saves you carrying a cushion or a pillow in your bag
And if your bum is fit and healthy
It’s the best you’ll ever have

Related article:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...-attacking-amateur-work-by-young-female-poets

That looks like slam poetry, which is more of a performing art really, it does not really translate well into paper as classical forms would do. Regarding the article, Watts is free too criticize these up and coming female poets if she wants, that's fine

Personally i think it's incredibly refreshing too see poems that are a social commentary rather than some post-modern drivel that is so full of metaphor and symbols that even after careful analysis, it hardly makes sense

 

[BennyBlanco]

So this video has been going pretty viral the past day or two, probably due to how much of a shit show it was on her part. It seems to have backfired tremendously on the host. I think it's a very interesting video, and if you watch it, check out his Twitter page afterwards to see how the Guardian chooses to cover it, it's total parody just like the host herself.

Late to the party but thanks for posting. Can't stand C4 "interviews" at the best of times but that is something else.

 

[Adebesi]

I usually like Cathy Newman, I've never seen her give an interview like that before.

 

[Wibble]

Did you watch it? The banning of certain newspapers, people and ideas (i.e. Conservatives on social media) - I think that's rather draconian, especially for a University where I think every single random and even extreme view should be heard. Might be extreme to someone, might not be to someone else. Heck I guess even thinking about women getting equal rights and blacks being on par with whites was regarded as extreme once upon a time...

I don't think giving a platform to everyone is an absolute duty of a University. Personally I'd tend towards free speech but you shouldn't give platforms to people with vile views.

 

[Adebesi]

When I was at school / Uni there used to be truisms like "I don't like what you say but Ill fight for your right to say it" and "the best ways to fight bad ideas is to debate them in public."

I think we were right then.

And I do think it's particularly egregious to censor non violent speech at a Uni, in particular, where the whole point is supposed to be the exchange and challenging of ideas.

 

[2 man midfield]

I don't think giving a platform to everyone is an absolute duty of a University. Personally I'd tend towards free speech but you shouldn't give platforms to people with vile views.

Your definition of vile might be hugely different from someone else's.

 

[Steven Seagull]

I would allow basically anything. In fact I would have thought booking as many disagreeable people as possible would be beneficial to students. It would help them hone their arguments against such people and decide for themselves. Inciting violence is obviously off the table.

 

[Javi]

I thought Cathy Newman was really shocking in that interview. I don't pretend to be an expert on what Peterson discusses at all, there are times I find him very impressive and times I find him quite frustrating. But Newman was really poor, I don't understand the "she was asking him tough questions which is good" line because the questions she asked, or her constant "so you're saying," just showed her up to be not listening to him, not understanding him (even points that weren't so difficult to understand!) or just trying to push her own narrative. Peterson gave an interview since where he said it felt like she was trying to interview the villain she hoped she could portray him as (paraphrasing there).

The sad thing nowadays is that we treat public figures like that like a sports team. "they're on my side so they're right!" Twitter or YouTube comments are a cesspit of people saying "look at this video of X, he totally owns Y!" And X may be really intelligent and articulate. And X's followers seem to try and live their online persona at least vicariously through X. "X is smart and I like X, I'm so much smarter than everyone who agrees with Y!"

So you'll get people who really don't compare to Peterson intellectually treating his intelligence or articulation, where he displays those traits, as their own. You'll also get people who disagree with him siding with Newman just as she's the one going against Peterson. What's really unfortunate with that is that there are perfectly legitimate arguments (as far as I can see!) to make against Peterson's beliefs. Some have been expressed in this thread! I appreciate that would make it more a debate, but as she tried to hit him with counterpoints it went down that road a bit anyway. But, I don't really see what's so impressive about an interviewer spending 30 minutes repeating "so what you're saying is " and then not even coming close to what he said. It's how I feel talking to one acquaintance of mine, incredibly frustrating. And I think it actually weakens her cause/argument, as seen in much of the negative reaction.

Agreed. Lots of strawmen being used there.

On the other end I thought that you could see quite well when Peterson left his academic territory when he compared the transgender activists with Mao because they have the same philosophy which imo is a poor statement as in way to unprecise and potentially dangerous. He was going from this laid back, science based (from what one can observe by the interview) argumentative guy to a complete parody of it in a matter of seconds.

 

[Oscie]

I would allow basically anything. In fact I would have thought booking as many disagreeable people as possible would be beneficial to students. It would help them hone their arguments against such people and decide for themselves. Inciting violence is obviously off the table.

Which is fine, but many who hold your view (not necessarily yourself included) wouldn't agree that Islamist extremist should also be allowed to address universities on the proviso that their stay the right side of the incitement of violence rule. There exists both the benefit of allowing students to hone their arguments against those promoting hatred of the west/black people/women/homosexuals/the disabled but also the risk of indoctrinating students into hatred of those groups.

Does something only become unacceptable if it explicitly incites violence? Should the intelligence services be okay with mosques or events at universities with guest speakers being held where preachers are whipping up anti-British/anti-western sentiment if those engaging in such activity are not directly inciting violence or would you say it's good that these young Muslims are exposed to such extreme views so that they had an opportunity to hone their conscientious objections to them?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Which is fine, but many who hold your view (not necessarily yourself included) wouldn't agree that Islamist extremist should also be allowed to address universities on the proviso that their stay the right side of the incitement of violence rule. There exists both the benefit of allowing students to hone their arguments against those promoting hatred of the west/black people/women/homosexuals/the disabled but also the risk of indoctrinating students into hatred of those groups.

Does something only become unacceptable if it explicitly incites violence? Should the intelligence services be okay with mosques or events at universities with guest speakers being held where preachers are whipping up anti-British/anti-western sentiment if those engaging in such activity are not directly inciting violence or would you say it's good that these young Muslims are exposed to such extreme views so that they had an opportunity to hone their conscientious objections to them?

The genie is out of the bottle, though. They're going to be exposed to those view, online or in person, whether or not the views are challenged and held up to scrutiny as part of a debate in a public forum. Personally, I would find the absence of any kind of public challenge/debate far more of a worry than the possibility that some students may be exposed to them for the first time in this context.

The idea that you can "protect" naive and vulnerable students from exposure to ideas that might warp their fragile minds by no platforming controversial speakers is - apart from anything else - incredibly patronising and paternalistic. Which is one of the many ironies this issue throws up, considering how the people behind no platforming tend to regard paternalism as a Very. Bad. Thing. in any other context.

 

[Silva]

The idea that you can "protect" naive and vulnerable students from exposure to ideas that might warp their fragile minds by no platforming controversial speakers is - apart from anything else - incredibly patronising and paternalistic. Which is one of the many ironies this issue throws up, considering how the people behind no platforming tend to regard paternalism as a Very. Bad. Thing. in any other context.

Students tend to be ahead of the curve on no-platforming though. Someone isn't being told they're not welcomed because some middle manager is deciding they shouldn't be associated with the university, it's because the students have decided they don't want to listen to them.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Students tend to be ahead of the curve on no-platforming though. Someone isn't being told they're not welcomed because some middle manager is deciding they shouldn't be associated with the university, it's because the students have decided they don't want to listen to them.

Which students? All of them? Or just the ones that shout the loudest?

Some animals are more equal than others, evidently.

 

[Silva]

Which students? All of them?

The ones who have power to invite/disinvite people to events.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The ones who have power to invite/disinvite people to events.

Well, exactly.

 

[Silva]

Well, exactly.

It's pretty easy to start a society at a university. If a student or group of students want to do something, i.e start a society that invites homophobic speakers, they usually can.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

My previous comment comes across as pretty glib but it's disingenuous to ignore the fact that - a lot of the time - people get no-platformed because a small minority of students kick up an almighty fuss and the powers that be (whether student or faculty) get brow-beaten into backing down, for the sake of avoiding any further controversy.

So the rest of the student body have somebody else deciding what sort of ideas they should and shouldn't be exposed to. And that's clearly a patronising and paternalistic approach, irrespective of the semantics behind the decision-making process.

 

[Oscie]

The genie is out of the bottle, though. They're going to be exposed to those view, online or in person, whether or not the views are challenged and held up to scrutiny as part of a debate in a public forum. Personally, I would find the absence of any kind of public challenge/debate far more of a worry than the possibility that some students may be exposed to them for the first time in this context.

The idea that you can "protect" naive and vulnerable students from exposure to ideas that might warp their fragile minds by no platforming controversial speakers is - apart from anything else - incredibly patronising and paternalistic. Which is one of the many ironies this issue throws up, considering how the people behind no platforming tend to regard paternalism as a Very. Bad. Thing. in any other context.

I think you're right and I've never been convinced that censorship has ever done anything other than give succour to what it is you're trying to censor. Yet on the flip side I think lack of some kind of subjective filtering does lead to an over-representation of extremist views, which can be dangerous. As much as I'd want my child to know of these other views and to (hopefully) see how misguided they are through logic, argument and reasoning, I'd also not be keen on my child being indoctrinated into a world where racism and other forms of bigotry were simply just opposing views. Would this not desensitise young people.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I think you're right and I've never been convinced that censorship has ever done anything other than give succour to what it is you're trying to censor. Yet on the flip side I think lack of some kind of subjective filtering does lead to an over-representation of extremist views, which can be dangerous. As much as I'd want my child to know of these other views and to (hopefully) see how misguided they are through logic, argument and reasoning, I'd also not be keen on my child being indoctrinated into a world where racism and other forms of bigotry were simply just opposing views. Would this not desensitise young people.

That's a very good point and I'd be in the same boat as you on this one. It's hard to know where to draw the line.

 

[SteveJ]

That looks like slam poetry, which is more of a performing art really, it does not really translate well into paper as classical forms would do. Regarding the article, Watts is free too criticize these up and coming female poets if she wants, that's fine

Personally i think it's incredibly refreshing too see poems that are a social commentary rather than some post-modern drivel that is so full of metaphor and symbols that even after careful analysis, it hardly makes sense

Yeah, it's rather ironic that, in truth, so many people in the literary business have been guilty of donning the emperor's new clothes when they fit...and when that guise attracts customers. After all, everyone involved writes or publishes with a paying readership in mind.

 

[Grylte]

Why do people consider being negative against a religion, especially Islam, racist?
Sure, most religions are geographical (or how to say it), but there are muslims, christians, etc of all races.

 

[Adebesi]

The genie is out of the bottle, though. They're going to be exposed to those view, online or in person, whether or not the views are challenged and held up to scrutiny as part of a debate in a public forum. Personally, I would find the absence of any kind of public challenge/debate far more of a worry than the possibility that some students may be exposed to them for the first time in this context.

The idea that you can "protect" naive and vulnerable students from exposure to ideas that might warp their fragile minds by no platforming controversial speakers is - apart from anything else - incredibly patronising and paternalistic. Which is one of the many ironies this issue throws up, considering how the people behind no platforming tend to regard paternalism as a Very. Bad. Thing. in any other context.

It should really be called parentalism.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Why do people consider being negative against a religion, especially Islam, racist?
Sure, most religions are geographical (or how to say it), but there are muslims, christians, etc of all races.

I agree with your broader point as those that make the distinction between Islam and Muslims shouldn't be considered racist at all. But do you consider being negative towards Judaism as racist? Because the long held belief is anti-semitism = racist.

 

[Adebesi]

I agree with your broader point as those that make the distinction between Islam and Muslims shouldn't be considered racist at all. But do you consider being negative towards Judaism as racist? Because the long held belief is anti-semitism = racist.

Judaism has always been a bit of an anomaly in that respect. The "Jews" are a race in a way that Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc are not.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Judaism has always been a bit of an anomaly in that respect. The "Jews" are a race in a way that Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc are not.

To get your perspective, in what way?

 

[Adebesi]

To get your perspective, in what way?

Im not on firm ground here at all, its just what I remember being taught. If I remember correctly it has to do with the fact that the Jewish people originally came from a specific place (Israel) and then were dispersed around the world. So its messy. Someone who converted to Judaism would not change race, they would be taking on a religion. But there is a Jewish race in the sense that Judaism is passed down the maternal line - you are Jewish if you mother is Jewish. You can be an atheist Jew.

As I said this is not something I know much about, but that is what I remember being taught.

 

[2cents]

I agree with your broader point as those that make the distinction between Islam and Muslims shouldn't be considered racist at all. But do you consider being negative towards Judaism as racist? Because the long held belief is anti-semitism = racist.

I don't think anti-semitism has much to do with criticism of Judaism as a belief system. It's the view that the Jewish people embody, as a collective, certain essential characteristics which drive their collective action. So pretty much standard racism. I find the little I understand of Judaism as a religion to be completely wacky, don't think that makes me an anti-semite.

 

[2cents]

Im not on firm ground here at all, its just what I remember being taught. If I remember correctly it has to do with the fact that the Jewish people originally came from a specific place (Israel) and then were dispersed around the world. So its messy. Someone who converted to Judaism would not change race, they would be taking on a religion. But there is a Jewish race in the sense that Judaism is passed down the maternal line - you are Jewish if you mother is Jewish. You can be an atheist Jew.

As I said this is not something I know much about, but that is what I remember being taught.

It's a tricky one, my understanding is that while it is generally accepted that most Jews have some kind of descent going back to the Middle East circa 1,000 - 500 BC or something like that, there have been some waves of conversions over the centuries, and a lot more intermarriage than has been traditionally recognized. I seem to remember reading that with Ashkenazi Jews

I really doubt many people would consider these three Israeli politicians to be of the same race, but I'm not sure everyone agrees what exactly they mean by 'race':

 

[Wibble]

Your definition of vile might be hugely different from someone else's.

True but most of the sort of people who I'm talking about are so beyond the pale that their own mothers think they are cnuts.

Of course Uni's sometimes get it wrong but it is their venue to get it wrong. They aren't stopping anyone from expousing an opinion, just not validating it with a platform.