Feminist mob attempt to shut down talk on equality for males - MOD NOTE POST 10

Maguined

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's obvious I said that, in the context of "What exactly happened, coming up to this talk/event?" - not about debating things in general on Boards.

Posters are jumping to the conclusion (based on insufficient evidence) that the protesters were making threats of non-peaceful protest, and I really don't see the point of debating over potential 'what-if's, where posters are just trying to rationalize that conclusion, based on zero evidence.

The college cancelling the debate, and cancelling it based on security concerns, does not show any evidence that the protesters were threatening non-peaceful protest; nothing people have posted, shows any evidence of that.

Can you say what you would consider evidence?

When the college says it was cancelled due to security and welfare concerns when one side of the debate wanted it to happen and the other side said it wanted it to be cancelled and publically supported a disruptive protest how can you say there is no evidence that the threat of a disruptive protest is not likely to be the cause of security and welfare concerns?

This threat of a disruptie protest is the only current evidence as to why it would be cancelled. There might be a different reason but there is no evidence for a different reason, there is only evidence for the disruptive protest.

Lemming

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The only thing 'naive' is making assumptions, to jump to your desired conclusions, without the facts to back it; basic lack of logical thinking, which is coming from posters who display a past history of having a "feminists are bad" confirmation bias.

KB, modern feminism is being driven from the ivory-tower/echo-chamber batsh*t lunacy coming from American campuses. That madness is already being imported into the UK; as can be seen by the rise in militancy on-campus towards anthing "not liked", and some rather questionable bill proposals and statements regards gender preferential treatment under law.

Given the events in campuses such as UoT within the last two years where feminist groups actively engaged in anti-social & threatening behaviour to both other people and law enforcement in attempting to shut down talks that they "didn't like", the fact that a UK campus has cancelled a talk on grounds of security costs (which btw ... is what UoT has cited several times in subsequent cancellations) indicats a very real threat of similar behaviour was anticipated by people far more in the know than you or I.

KomradeBishop

Maguined wrote: »

Can you say what you would consider evidence?

When the college says it was cancelled due to security and welfare concerns when one side of the debate wanted it to happen and the other side said it wanted it to be cancelled and publically supported a disruptive protest how can you say there is no evidence that the threat of a disruptive protest is not likely to be the cause of security and welfare concerns?

This threat of a disruptie protest is the only current evidence as to why it would be cancelled. There might be a different reason but there is no evidence for a different reason, there is only evidence for the disruptive protest.

We're going in circles here: 'Disruptive' includes peaceful protest.

There is no evidence showing that the 'disruptive' protest, was going to be non-peaceful, and thus a security concern for that reason.

If you want to say that the protest was going to be non-peaceful and thus was a security concern, you are jumping to a conclusion which you have no evidence for.

KomradeBishop

Lemming wrote: »

KB, modern feminism is being driven from the ivory-tower/echo-chamber batsh*t lunacy coming from American campuses. That madness is already being imported into the UK; as can be seen by the rise in militancy on-campus towards anthing "not liked", and some rather questionable bill proposals and statements regards gender preferential treatment under law.

Given the events in campuses such as UoT within the last two years where feminist groups actively engaged in anti-social & threatening behaviour to both other people and law enforcement in attempting to shut down talks that they "didn't like", the fact that a UK campus has cancelled a talk on grounds of security costs (which btw ... is what UoT has cited several times in subsequent cancellations) indicats a very real threat of similar behaviour was anticipated by people far more in the know than you or I.

You're making even more assumptions about the universities decision, that you just don't know; equally possible, is that they would consider posting security at any potential conflicting protests on campus, which would mean that 'security cost' as a factor, doesn't say anything about the actual protestors.

The only intelligent thing to say about this whole thing, is "I don't know" - we just don't know one way or the other, so speculating about it is only going to feed into peoples confirmation-bias here.

KomradeBishop

The possibility that people are discounting here: A 'disruptive' yet peaceful protest being planned, that the university nonetheless decided it needed security for, and thus cancelled the talk on cost grounds.

Given what we do know, that seems the most plausible really. If there were any threats of non-peaceful protest made, there's not really any reason the university wouldn't disclose that - and making the leap from that, to assuming that it means no threat of non-peaceful protest existed, is equally as credible as the claim that threat of a non-peaceful protest was made (in both cases, there is no solid evidence either way).

source

KomradeBishop wrote: »

We're going in circles here: 'Disruptive' includes peaceful protest.

There is no evidence showing that the 'disruptive' protest, was going to be non-peaceful, and thus a security concern for that reason.

If you want to say that the protest was going to be non-peaceful and thus was a security concern, you are jumping to a conclusion which you have no evidence for.

Actually your entire point hinges on the fact that a disruptive protest can be a peaceful protest. In fact the opposite is true.

For a protest to be classed as peaceful, it must remain lawful ie it must operate in accordance with the laws of the state it is being held in.

Stopping traffic, disrupting the free passage of people and holding people against their will are all illegal, as is using threatening, abusive and insulting words and behaviour. Once this line is crossed a protest cannot be called peaceful As the participants have engaged in an illegal activity. Something a lot of protest organisers seem to convienently forget.

KomradeBishop

Not really. Civil disobedience - by definition breaking the law - is often done peacefully.

source

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Not really. Civil disobedience - by definition breaking the law - is often done peacefully.

In an Irish context, this is what the Citizeninformation.ie has to say about the right to protest (made up from the right to freedom of expression, and the right to free assembly)

Freedom of expression
You have a right to freely express your convictions and opinions. However, the Constitution asserts that the State should try to make sure that the radio, the press and the cinema are not used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State. It also states that it is an offence to publish or utter blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter.

There are some limitations on your freedom of expression. For example, the Censorship of Publications Acts and the Censorship of Films Acts allow censorship of publications like books, films and DVDs.

Freedom of assembly
You have a right to assemble or meet peacefully and without weapons. This right is limited by legislation to protect public order and morality. The law prevents or controls meetings that are calculated or designed to cause a riot or breach of the peace.

There are other limitations on your freedom of assembly. You cannot meet on private property without the consent of the owner - that is trespass. Parades and processions are not illegal but it is a public nuisance to obstruct a highway. You may not hold a procession or meeting within half a mile of the Oireachtas when it has been prohibited by the Gardaí or you have been asked to disperse.

While you might assert that it may be done peacefully, i would assert that by breaking the law in conducting a protest, you are operating outside your rights as laid down by the constitution. By that very fact you are no longer protesting peacefully and are no longer covered by your combined rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

KomradeBishop

Nothing in that legislation defines civil disobedience as being not-peaceful.

Maguined

KomradeBishop wrote: »

We're going in circles here: 'Disruptive' includes peaceful protest.

There is no evidence showing that the 'disruptive' protest, was going to be non-peaceful, and thus a security concern for that reason.

If you want to say that the protest was going to be non-peaceful and thus was a security concern, you are jumping to a conclusion which you have no evidence for.

Where did I say it was not going to be peaceful? You are the one going around in circles while jumping to conclusions and making assumptions. I said we know for a fact the protestors were calling for a disruptive protest. We know for a fact the debate was cancelled due to safety and well being concerns.

I think it is fairly logical to propose as it is the only evidence we currently have that the threat of a disruptful protest was the reason the debate was cancelled. There is also the possibility that there is a different reason and that reason is not being disclosed, but we have no evidence for this theory.

KomradeBishop

What exact conclusions/assumptions have I put forward? I've explicitly said we don't have enough information to argue either way.

If there's no claim by you, that the protest - 'disruptive' or not - was not going to be peaceful, then the protesters can be considered as simply exercising their freedom of speech/expression, as they have a right to (unless further information comes to light, showing that they were indeed going to be non-peaceful).

These students are fully entitled to hold a peaceful disruptive protest if they like - if this causes the university to cancel an event, any potential fault for that lies with the university, not the protests exercising their rights.

Maguined

KomradeBishop wrote: »

What exact conclusions/assumptions have I put forward? I've explicitly said we don't have enough information to argue either way.

If there's no claim by you, that the protest - 'disruptive' or not - was not going to be peaceful, then the protesters can be considered as simply exercising their freedom of speech/expression, as they have a right to (unless further information comes to light, showing that they were indeed going to be non-peaceful).

These students are fully entitled to hold a peaceful disruptive protest if they like - if this causes the university to cancel an event, any potential fault for that lies with the university, not the protests exercising their rights.

You said there was no evidence as to why the debate was cancelled. There is evidence in the statement from the college that it was cancelled due to safety and wellbeing concerns. There is evidence as to what could be the cause as the protestors publically said they wanted a disruptive protest. It is not conclusive evidence but it is evidence and I believe in the absence of any other evidence it is not illogical to see the threat of a disruptive protest as being the most likely reason it was cancelled.

Are you sure a disruptive protest is legal and within their rights? I cannot find anything conclusive on the definition of a disruptive protest specifically within the UK but what inconclusive bits I have found is that I am not convinced it is legal. Disruptive protest to me implies they would be disrupting/preventing those that wish to attend the debate from doing so which would surely violate the lawful attendence of those wishing to enter the debate. A non-disruptive protest would be to highlight their disagreement with the debate but not be preventing those that wished to enter the debate from taking part in the lawful activity.

As I said I have found nothing conclusive on this but you seemed pretty confident that a protest could be disruptive while also being peacefull and lawful so hopefully you can clarify for me?

KomradeBishop

The threat of a disruptive protest, does not mean the threat of a non-peaceful protest; if the protest was going to be peaceful, the protesters had every right to exercise their freedom of speech/expression, and it would then only make sense to take issue with the university over the cancellation, not the protesters.

You don't know what 'disruptive' means in this situation, because it has not been specified - it could have been as simple as protesting loudly in the debating hall, while the speakers are trying to debate - seems a very likely tactic, in the circumstances, violating no laws and being perfectly within their free speech/expression rights.

tritium

Maguined wrote: »

You said there was no evidence as to why the debate was cancelled. There is evidence in the statement from the college that it was cancelled due to safety and wellbeing concerns. There is evidence as to what could be the cause as the protestors publically said they wanted a disruptive protest. It is not conclusive evidence but it is evidence and I believe in the absence of any other evidence it is not illogical to see the threat of a disruptive protest as being the most likely reason it was cancelled.

Its an interesting point. Certainly the college would have to weigh up what 'disruptive' might mean. In other protests, e.g. in Toronto, fire alarms were set off, people were harassed, there was some very confontational stuff (the videos have appeared on this forum). Given that the college would have a duty of care its incomprehensible this wouldn't weigh on their decision. If someone gets trampled in the panic when a fire alarm goes off who gets sued? If violent scuffles break out who's reputation is tarnished most on the news? Difficult to blame the college when you consider it that way.

iptba

Woman’s group blasts plan for Men’s Rights Society at Staffordshire University

February 16

http://staffslive.co.uk/2015/02/womans-group-blasts-plan-mens-rights-society-staffordshire-university/

If there are groups for women, I don't see why there shouldn't be groups for men.

“The statement written in the forum for the Men’s Rights Society was very male-centric and there was no mention of women.

:rolleyes: What a disgrace.

Seriously?

iptba wrote: »

If there are groups for women, I don't see why there shouldn't be groups for men.

Clearly if they're not toeing the party line they must be silenced; that's the well documented face of feminism in universities these days it seems.

Very strange that society centred on men would be focused on the topic at hand.

jackofalltrades

Wow! that's a serious amount of Fail for just one person.
Here's a few choice quotes from that article.

“The statement written in the forum for the Men’s Rights Society was very male-centric and there was no mention of women.

The original submission which can be found here mentions women five times and the first two sentences are solely discussing women.

“He was trying to raise the rights of men and lower the rights of females.

Nowhere does it say that.

“It also talked about ‘the myth of the rape culture’, which is a very dangerous area to talk about.

He didn't discuss "rape culture" at all.

“I strongly believe in equality and I will fight for it no matter the sexual orientation or race of the individual.

She obviously doesn't believe in equality based on gender, even though she infers that men are treated unfairly in the family courts.

Check out the Women's Network inflammatory and misleading poster against the creation of the society here.

Well done to Vajra Dhatu for trying to setup this society.

iptba

(From Canada)

John Carpay: Universities are buying ‘peace’ by condoning mob censorship

John Carpay, National Post | March 10, 2015 3:57 PM ET

Disruptive protesters, who silence their opponents by making it impossible for the public to hear or see a controversial message, claim that they are merely using their own free expression rights. But even a Kindergarten student can tell the difference between making her own painting, and placing a sheet of paper on top of the painting of the girl sitting beside her. University students who cannot grasp this simple distinction have likely been educated beyond their intelligence. Put simply, preventing someone else from communicating her opinion is not the same as expressing your own.

continues at: http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/10/john-carpay-universities-are-buying-peace-by-condoning-mob-censorship/

NachoBusiness

All examples on the thread so far of feminists attempting to shut down debate to prevent others from expressing opposing viewpoints are more than legitimate but have to say I am very surprised that the Argentinian 'National Women's Encounter' gathering from 2013 hasn't been mentioned so far, given that it is without question the worst example of what is being discussed here, that I am aware of at least.

Actually, almost everyone I mention it to has never heard of it, so perhaps my presumption that they must have done is way off. I am still baffled at why the international media did not report what occurred. Basically what happened was that this feminist group are renowned for causing destruction in whichever part of South America that they gather in each year and in 2013 they decided that the San Juan, Argentina was where they would gather that year. They then preceded to make threats against the local cathedral there and given that over 20,000 feminists had attended the event the year before and caused mayhem, priests formed a circle around the cathedral. In response the feminists beat them, spat on them, sexually assaulted them, spray painted them and performed sex acts in front of them for hours. The footage has to be seen to be believed.

I would post a video of the events here but they are so explicit that even with a NSFW disclaimer, they wouldn't be suitable to post tbh. They can easily be found by searching YouTube for 'Feminists' and 'Argentina' anyway. As you watch them though, ask yourself why the world's media chose to not report the events, as I really could not imagine a gathering of thousands of men in a public place, treating a group of women in such a despicable and disgusting way, and the international media turning a blind eye to it.

Pawwed Rig

It has been discussed here at some point and the video posted. Really was a vile spectacle.

iptba

(Not short piece looking at the issue in general)

Contributing Op-Ed Writer

In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html

But a safe-space mentality has begun infiltrating classrooms, he said, making both professors and students loath to say anything that might hurt someone’s feelings. “I don’t see how you can have a therapeutic space that’s also an intellectual space,” he said..

--

The confusion is telling, though. It shows that while keeping college-level discussions “safe” may feel good to the hypersensitive, it’s bad for them and for everyone else. People ought to go to college to sharpen their wits and broaden their field of vision. Shield them from unfamiliar ideas, and they’ll never learn the discipline of seeing the world as other people see it. They’ll be unprepared for the social and intellectual headwinds that will hit them as soon as they step off the campuses whose climates they have so carefully controlled. What will they do when they hear opinions they’ve learned to shrink from? If they want to change the world, how will they learn to persuade people to join them?

Mentions examples such as:

So when she heard last fall that a student group had organized a debate about campus sexual assault between Jessica Valenti, the founder of feministing.com, and Wendy McElroy, a libertarian, and that Ms. McElroy was likely to criticize the term “rape culture,” Ms. Byron was alarmed.

At Oxford University’s Christ Church college in November, the college censors (a “censor” being more or less the Oxford equivalent of an undergraduate dean) canceled a debate on abortion after campus feminists threatened to disrupt it because both would-be debaters were men. “I’m relieved the censors have made this decision,” said the treasurer of Christ Church’s student union, who had pressed for the cancellation. “It clearly makes the most sense for the safety — both physical and mental — of the students who live and work in Christ Church.”

random1337

White heterosexual males are the only unprotected 'class' left in society.

Slander women = Misogynist
Slander gays = Homophobic
Slander an ethnic minority = Racist
Slander Jews = Anti-Semitic
Slander a straight white man = ???

There is support groups & campaigns for everyone else - gays, women, immigrants, etc but if you were to setup one exclusively for white males there would be uproar and public shaming in the media. For example WASP societies are now a thing of the past as they are frowned upon - "neo-nazis". Welcome to the new world order brethren, soon it will be mandatory for us to attend apology parades for all the oppression we supposedly are guilty of throughout history. YES to EQUALITY.

mister gullible

random1337 wrote: »

White heterosexual males are the only unprotected 'class' left in society.

:rolleyes:

dinny_byrne

random1337 wrote: »

White heterosexual males are the only unprotected 'class' left in society.

Slander women = Misogynist
Slander gays = Homophobic
Slander an ethnic minority = Racist
Slander Jews = Anti-Semitic
Slander a straight white man = ???

There is support groups & campaigns for everyone else - gays, women, immigrants, etc but if you were to setup one exclusively for white males there would be uproar and public shaming in the media. For example WASP societies are now a thing of the past as they are frowned upon - "neo-nazis". Welcome to the new world order brethren, soon it will be mandatory for us to attend apology parades for all the oppression we supposedly are guilty of throughout history. YES to EQUALITY.

the entire premise of politically correct ( and feminist ) culture is built upon the notion that straight white men are responsible for all the ills of the world and have been throughout history


this despite the fact that a white straight man in galway circa 1843 had fcuk all privelledge going on

Jesus.

Wibbs

Indeed Candie, post from banned individual deleted for being daft. Daft to the point of highlarious, but daft.