Petition to ban Germaine Greer from upcoming lecture

pmasterson95

Universities are a haven for PC fanatics and hyper feminism

Mark Tapley

I would have thought if you find somebodies views objectionable you would welcome the chance to challenge them.
I'm not sure I like the sound of this homogenised society some people seem to be aiming for. Everybody thinking the same and attending self satisfied lectures that challenge nothing.

speedboatchase

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Universities are a haven for PC fanatics and hyper feminism

And always has been, but these days the lunatics seem to be running the asylum, deciding who visits a uni and whether textbooks should contain warnings or be banned altogether.

tritium

Not sure why those comments would provoke ire, if that's all he said then he's spot on

Mother Brain

speedboatchase wrote: »

And always has been, but these days the lunatics seem to be running the asylum, deciding who visits a uni and whether textbooks should contain warnings or be banned altogether.

Perhaps it has something to do with the burden of fees being paid by students again?

If you are being asked to fork out tens of thousands of pounds for your education there probably comes a time where you believe you have the right to dictate to your liking certain aspects of university life.

What they're demanding, for whatever reason is ridiculous though of course.

One eyed Jack

On this occasion, Dawkins is spot on. I don't usually agree with a lot of what he says on twitter, and I find him to be a ferocious wind-up merchant for attention sake, but on this occasion, he's absolutely right.

I hate this idea of Universities becoming places where they strive for "safe spaces" over knowledge. Christ, Universities are supposed to be challenging, not compromising and pandering to idiots.

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

On this occasion, Dawkins is spot on. I don't usually agree with a lot of what he says on twitter, and I find him to be a ferocious wind-up merchant for attention sake, but on this occasion, he's absolutely right.

I hate this idea of Universities becoming places where they strive for "safe spaces" over knowledge. Christ, Universities are supposed to be challenging, not compromising and pandering to idiots.

The thing is you put a bunch of 18-22 year olds living on campus like summer sleep away camp with access to drugs and alcohol, and a complete lid off from parental controls what the bleep do they expect to happen?

No of course it's not a guarantee of safety .

You cannot fully live and also protect yourself.

jank

volchitsa wrote: »

The limit I would set is somewhere around incitement to violence. Or possibly, incitement to hatred, I don't quite know yet.

But on the principle of it, yes he's correct. I have nothing against "safe spaces" for that matter, even at university - but they should be limited and designated. Not the whole flipping place.

The problem we see though is that things that are said, that do not toe a certain 'line' are classed as 'hateful' so are fair game to be shut down.

Example, Germanine Greer has been classed by people with vested interests as a person who 'holds hateful views against trans people', so by the no hate speech logic, she should have no platform at all.

When people get to dictate what is and what is not hate speech for their own ideological aims then we are in trouble.

Peregrinus

Well, it's probably worth pointing out that - true to form - Dawkin's comments about "safe spaces" are very much a straw man. The people calling for the cancellation of Greer's talk have not said anything at all about "safe spaces". Nor is their objection that her views are "nonsense", or that they disagree with her views. Their objection is that her views are misogynistic, that she denies the existence of transphobia, that her views are hateful views towards marginalised and vulnerable groups, that views like Greer's contribute to the high levels of stigma, hatred and violence towards trans people, that affording her a platform endorses her views.

I don't agree with their position or their call, but I see no evidence that Dawkins is even aware of what their position is. if Dawkins wants to challenge their position a pretty basic requirement is that he should challenge their position, and not some quite different and imaginary position of his own devising.

(But, of course, he has form here.)

Fillet Mignon

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it's probably worth pointing out that - true to form - Dawkin's comments about "safe spaces" are very much a straw man. The people calling for the cancellation of Greer's talk have not said anything at all about "safe spaces". Nor is their objection that her views are "nonsense", or that they disagree with her views. Their objection is that her views are misogynistic, that she denies the existence of transphobia, that her views are hateful views towards marginalised and vulnerable groups, that views like Greer's contribute to the high levels of stigma, hatred and violence towards trans people, that affording her a platform endorses her views.

I don't agree with their position or their call, but I see no evidence that Dawkins is even aware of what their position is. if Dawkins wants to challenge their position a pretty basic requirement is that he should challenge their position, and not some quite different and imaginary position of his own devising.

(But, of course, he has form here.)

You seem to have a hateful attitude to Richard Dawkins, he gave his opinion, maybe it's right or wrong, why the hate for a man cleary giving his honest opinion?

Badly Drunk Boy

Mother Brain wrote: »

Perhaps it has something to do with the burden of fees being paid by students again?

If you are being asked to fork out tens of thousands of pounds for your education there probably comes a time where you believe you have the right to dictate to your liking certain aspects of university life.

What they're demanding, for whatever reason is ridiculous though of course.

No, you have the right to a good education, not the right to deny ideas you don't agree with to other people who have also to pay the tens of thousands.

Peregrinus

Fillet Mignon wrote: »

You seem to have a hateful attitude to Richard Dawkins, he gave his opinion, maybe it's right or wrong, why the hate for a man cleary giving his honest opinion?

A man's opinion may be honest, but ill-founded and unjustified. Pointing out that it's ill-founded and unjustified is hardly "hateful".

jank

Well what they actually said was

Universities should prioritise the voices of the most vulnerable on their campuses, not invite speakers who seek to further marginalise them.
We urge Cardiff University to cancel this event.

By default they are promoting the 'safe space' argument that many of the no-platform people advocate. The words safe space may not have been directly used but certainly it was enfirmed.

volchitsa

jank wrote: »

The problem we see though is that things that are said, that do not toe a certain 'line' are classed as 'hateful' so are fair game to be shut down.

Example, Germanine Greer has been classed by people with vested interests as a person who 'holds hateful views against trans people', so by the no hate speech logic, she should have no platform at all.

When people get to dictate what is and what is not hate speech for their own ideological aims then we are in trouble.

Yes well that is why I said incitement to violence, because Im not sure that incitement to hatred could be defined without crossing a barrier I don't want to cross, into straightforward censorship of of ideas.

I'd be interested in seeing if someone could come up with a definition of incitement to hatred that avoided that pitfall. If not, then "violence" only.

One eyed Jack

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it's probably worth pointing out that - true to form - Dawkin's comments about "safe spaces" are very much a straw man.

I think that was more meant as a general comment though regarding the very idea of these "safe spaces" in Universities as a nonsense. Isn't that what societies and clubs are for?

zeffabelli

Thus is utter resistance to adulthood, protected bubble where you don't have to learn to grit out people who don't like you or what you think or say.

College should be that transitional rehearsal space for the real world where no one gives a hoot how you feel and you have to carry on anyway.

HIB

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes well that is why I said incitement to violence, because Im not sure that incitement to hatred could be defined without crossing a barrier I don't want to cross, into straightforward censorship of of ideas.

I'd be interested in seeing if someone could come up with a definition of incitement to hatred that avoided that pitfall. If not, then "violence" only.

We actually do have incitement to hatred laws.http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1989/act/19/enacted/en/print#sec1
I completely agree with you though. They are far too broad in their scope. It is actually illegal to say something which could be found insulting, and is likely to 'stir up' (I find it amusing that this is apparently a valid legal term) hatred of a particular group on account of their race, religion, sexuality etc.
Thankfully the law seems to be honored more in the breach than the observance, or half the boardsies in after hours, the atheist forum and a few others would be behind bars at this stage.

stunmer

Can someone post some quotes from Germaine Greer which is incitement to hatred or incitement to violence?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it's probably worth pointing out that - true to form - Dawkin's comments about "safe spaces" are very much a straw man. The people calling for the cancellation of Greer's talk have not said anything at all about "safe spaces". Nor is their objection that her views are "nonsense", or that they disagree with her views. Their objection is that her views are misogynistic, that she denies the existence of transphobia, that her views are hateful views towards marginalised and vulnerable groups, that views like Greer's contribute to the high levels of stigma, hatred and violence towards trans people, that affording her a platform endorses her views.

I don't agree with their position or their call, but I see no evidence that Dawkins is even aware of what their position is. if Dawkins wants to challenge their position a pretty basic requirement is that he should challenge their position, and not some quite different and imaginary position of his own devising.

(But, of course, he has form here.)

the basic principle is that societies etc should be free to invite whoever they want to speaking events, if people get a person banned its because they are coming from the the PC left. Using "safe space" is just an attempt to use it as a derogatory term which is fine.

Fillet Mignon

Peregrinus wrote: »

A man's opinion may be honest, but ill-founded and unjustified. Pointing out that it's ill-founded and unjustified is hardly "hateful".

I'd wager you have strong negative emotions towards the man.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Think Dawkins will get the same backlash Joe Rogan got last year over saying how transgendered fighters shouldn't be allowed fight in MMA.

The Guardian (which I like a lot of the time) sum up the argument perfectly in their headline...But this debate is more about bigotry than science. :eek:

Yes Dawkins likes to stir the pot but he puts himself out there, and will debate his position with anyone. The narrative now seems to be 'feelings over logic', Dawkins has spent his life knowing the difference between X and Y chromosones so if people want to explain to him that life isn't that simple then it is up to those people to debate him (and I for one would enjoy watching those debates on YouTube).

Rogan made his comments because he has been watching MMA all his life, and he said that it looks like 'a man fighting a woman'. It is then up to people to debate those points with him and not instantly shout him down as a bigot.

It's like some of the media and Universities are waltzing into a weird sort of thought police world without really understanding what's behind any of it.

Peregrinus

Fillet Mignon wrote: »

I'd wager you have strong negative emotions towards the man.

Not at all. I really like those of his books that I have read, and I admire him as a communicator. I just think Twitter is not his medium; he shoots off his mouth in embarrassings ways that don't do his reputation any good. I think he should stick to the books, and leave the tweeting to Stephen Fry.

Ave Sodalis

Some of the comments on here are truly bizarre...

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

the basic principle is that societies etc should be free to invite whoever they want to speaking events, if people get a person banned its because they are coming from the the PC left. Using "safe space" is just an attempt to use it as a derogatory term which is fine.

I'm not sympathetic to the call being made in this case. But it's worth pointing that it's not a case of a student society inviting her, and then people calling on the university to ban her. Rather, the university itself has invited her, and people are calling on the university to withdraw its invitation. Nobody has called for a prohibition on student societies hosting her, or a prohibition on her speaking on campus, or anything like that (so far as I know).

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not sympathetic to the call being made in this case. But it's worth pointing that it's not a case of a student society inviting her, and then people calling on the university to ban her. Rather, the university itself has invited her, and people are calling on the university to withdraw its invitation. Nobody has called for a prohibition on student societies hosting her, or a prohibition on her speaking on campus, or anything like that (so far as I know).

I doesnt change the proposition though and as such it doesnt mean that the university is endorsing her views any more than a university inviting a communist to speak would mean that the university supports communism.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

I doesnt change the proposition though and as such it doesnt mean that the university is endorsing her views any more than a university inviting a communist to speak would mean that the university supports communism.

I agree. But it does mean that they are not calling for Greer to be banned or silenced or barred from campus or anything of the kind. They are just calling - mistakenly, in my view - for the university not to invite her itself.

Stranger Danger

sup_dude wrote: »

Some of the comments on here are truly bizarre...

You've obviously a very low 'bizarre-threshold'.

Ave Sodalis

Stranger Danger wrote:

You've obviously a very low 'bizarre-threshold'.

Not particularly. I'm just finding some posts verging on a tad hysterical, and some contradictory, and some clearly having an agenda. The thread seems quite a mess.

Boom_Bap

Threads merged.

Peregrinus

sup_dude wrote: »

Not particularly. I'm just finding some posts verging on a tad hysterical, and some contradictory, and some clearly having an agenda. The thread seems quite a mess.

You haven't spent much time in After Hours, have you?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree. But it does mean that they are not calling for Greer to be banned or silenced or barred from campus or anything of the kind. They are just calling - mistakenly, in my view - for the university not to invite her itself.

That's a bit pedantic? It means the same thing in the end. I could understand calling to not invite for example a creationist to a conference on evolution as it would just be time wasting , but I doubt that's the principle in play here

Ave Sodalis

Peregrinus wrote:

You haven't spent much time in After Hours, have you?

Probably too much time to be honest.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

That's a bit pedantic? It means the same thing in the end. I could understand calling to not invite for example a creationist to a conference on evolution as it would just be time wasting , but I doubt that's the principle in play here

Well, they do claim that by inviting her the University endorses, or appears to endorse, her views. The claim is nonsense, IMO, but it's not a claim that would have any relevance to an invitation by a student society. We might conjecture that if a society invited her they would call for the university to ban her, but we can't condemn someone for what we speculate that they might, hypothetically, do.

newport2

Peregrinus wrote: »

A man's opinion may be honest, but ill-founded and unjustified. Pointing out that it's ill-founded and unjustified is hardly "hateful".

So can a woman's, ie Germaine Greer's. Doesn't make is hateful either as the people calling for her not to be invited are implying it is.

Peregrinus

newport2 wrote: »

So can a woman's, ie Germaine Greer's. Doesn't make is hateful either as the people calling for her not to be invited are implying it is.

Well, of course an opinion can be both honestly-held and hateful, though I don't say that Greer's views fall into this category. And, to pick nits, the objectors aren't implying that her view is hateful; they say explicitly that it is.

The Corinthian

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree. But it does mean that they are not calling for Greer to be banned or silenced or barred from campus or anything of the kind. They are just calling - mistakenly, in my view - for the university not to invite her itself.

LOL. Because were she invited by a student society, rather than the university, no one would have objections? Sorry Peregrinus, but you are relying a bit too much on pedantry there.

orubiru

silverharp wrote: »

That's a bit pedantic? It means the same thing in the end. I could understand calling to not invite for example a creationist to a conference on evolution as it would just be time wasting , but I doubt that's the principle in play here

While I agree with you in general I would go as far as to kind of disagree with that last comment.

If the organizers of the evolution conference think they'd quite like to have some creationist views represented then they should be allowed to invite a creationist of their choosing.

Now maybe one of these creationists could have expressed genuinely awful views on race and gender but the only solution for people who don't like that is to refuse to attend, surely?

Demanding that you be the one to decide who the organizers of an event invite to that event must come under the definition of "entitlement".

Funnily enough, having those demands met surely comes under the definition of "privilege"?

However, a paying customer has the privilege of not having to buy a product or use a service if they have a personal problem with somebody involved. In the same way, the students themselves have the privilege of not being forced to listen to or agree with Greer's views.

For those who started this petition, surely their winning situation would be that Germaine Greer goes there and finds herself talking to an empty lecture hall because nobody feels her views are valid or relevant?

hatrickpatrick

I would agree with the above. The concept of "safe spaces" may have had some noble intentions, but in practise it has been used by cultural fascists to justify the creation of echo chambers where no dissent is allowed. Those cultural fascists, having experienced this online, now want to extend the concept into the real world - hence the campaign against the satellite t-shirt guy, the campaign to ban Blurred Lines, the campaign to shame Taylor Swift over her Wildest Dreams video, this campaign, the campaign to ban page 3 and lads' mags... I could go on and on and on.

Point is, it's not just a stupid concept but also an extremely dangerous one. Democracy relies upon dissent being allowed and encouraged, and this new brand of so-called "liberals" (they're anything but liberal in my book) want to upend that paradigm and create a society in which dissent is discouraged and blocked using every means available.

efb

I don't think a talk by Germaine Greer and the awful blurred lines song are comparable

ohnonotgmail

efb wrote: »

I don't think a talk by Germaine Greer and the awful blurred lines song are comparable

oh i dont know, both would be awfully painful to listen to.

oceanid

efb wrote: »

I don't think a talk by Germaine Greer and the awful blurred lines song are comparable

I didn't read it as comparing them. He was talking about cultural fascism more generally.
Noise pollution is an issue of course and I'd agree on that, but this is about people being free to speak, to listen to other people speak etc.

hatrickpatrick

efb wrote: »

I don't think a talk by Germaine Greer and the awful blurred lines song are comparable

Both are being lobbied by "liberals" to be banned, restricted or censored because they're "offensive", which I'm arguing is itself a toxic position to take.

steddyeddy

efb wrote: »

RichardDawkins: A university is not a "safe space". If you need a safe space, leave, go home, hug your teddy & suck your thumb until ready for university.

He's dead right. I had so many of my conceptions blown out of the water by education.

efb

Handicapped Mong Boy wrote: »

Fair enough like, no one wants to see a pair of gays shiftin when they're trying to have a meal.

German Greer and her missus???

efb

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Both are being lobbied by "liberals" to be banned, restricted or censored because they're "offensive", which I'm arguing is itself a toxic position to take.

Now there is no merit to Blurred Lines that I can see, Greer opens up an interesting debate

efb

It reminds me of the Pride that tried to ban cis gender drag queens... I think you'll find it was Drag Queens that led the fight at Stonewall, not insecure trans.

hatrickpatrick

efb wrote: »

Now there is no merit to Blurred Lines that I can see, Greer opens up an interesting debate

It doesn't matter if speech has merit or not, it should never be restricted just because somebody finds it offensive.

alcaline

efb wrote: »

It reminds me of the Pride that tried to ban cis gender drag queens... I think you'll find it was Drag Queens that led the fight at Stonewall, not insecure trans.

Drag Queens were the cannon fodder, now that the battle has been won they are not needed anymore.

efb

alcaline wrote: »

Drag Queens were the cannon fodder, now that the battle has been won they are not needed anymore.

A drag queen was the forefront to our equal marriage campaign

efb

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It doesn't matter if speech has merit or not, it should never be restricted just because somebody finds it offensive.

It wa a pop song not a speech