Racism Part two

[blandy]

14 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

But not at Cambridge University, eh  it is their decision and and right to support the comments by Dr Gopal but do not proclaim yourself up as the Bastian of free speech and then deny it to somebody you had invited to speak at the University because they don’t like what he says. 

It's interesting, because the things are not the same, but I think you have a point. An employee said something that upset racists, and the Police and the Uni both agreed that she had a the right to say them, had said nothing illegal and that ultimately she'd triggered some racists who then threatened to do all sorts and showered her with venomous, vile abuse. She spoke in favour of equality, however unusually expressed.

The Petersen thing, they were going to give him a run as a visiting lecturer, but decided not to when some students complained. Thus preventing students from, when "benefiting" from his "wisdom". They objected because he would have spoken and argued against against one view, one take, of equality. I'd kind of hope that students at one of the World's best Unis would be able to make up their own minds, rather than be prevented from hearing him. The only caveat is that giving classes as a lecturer isn't something skipped in the way that an evening talk would be, perhaps.

In the first case with the Doctor the Uni was quite right. In the second one, I'm not so sure. They do seem to have bottled allowing Peterson to speak to students, because the students didn't want to hear him. I think that was a mistake, even though I think Petersen's a numpty who was, briefly, popular amongst a segment of society.

But it's now't to do with racism, so off topic.

[Follyfoot]

3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

They haven't

Why was he stripped his fellowship then, Being in the wrong dorm at 3 am with a bottle of champagne and a cigar with his reputation

Edited June 26, 2020 by Follyfoot

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, Follyfoot said:

Why was he stripped his fellowship then, Being in the wrong dorm at 3 am with a bottle of champagne and a cigar with his reputation

Rescinding the fellowship is not denying him free speech. 

[bickster]

10 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cambridge University

 

@Cambridge_Uni

·

24 Jun

 

The University defends the right of its academics to express their own lawful opinions which others might find controversial 

 

Was this the case with Noah Carl? 

So there you have it, that's why it allows Dr Gopal to say what she believes, the other person who was "No-platformed" even though they weren't wasn't a member of staff. Simples

[Follyfoot]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

Rescinding the fellowship is not denying him free speech. 

It is within the walls of Cambridge

Edited June 26, 2020 by Follyfoot

[bickster]

1 minute ago, Follyfoot said:

It is within the walls of Cambridge University

Fixed that for you but I doubt you'll understand the very big difference

[Follyfoot]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

So there you have it, that's why it allows Dr Gopal to say what she believes, the other person who was "No-platformed" even though they weren't wasn't a member of staff. Simples

Carl Noah was staff

[Stevo985]

Just now, Follyfoot said:

It is within the walls of Cambridge

No. It isn't.

[Follyfoot]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Fixed that for you but I doubt you'll understand the very big difference

I would never express your inability to understand something based on my own perceived beliefs

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

Carl Noah was staff

You realise inciting racial hatred is actually a crime? You also realise that much of his work is discredited and based on pseudo-science?

[bickster]

1 minute ago, Follyfoot said:

I would never express your inability to understand something based on my own perceived beliefs

So you believe that Cambridge University is the entire city? It's your right, it doesn't make it correct though

[blandy]

35 minutes ago, bickster said:

It's very much an ultra right of the Tory Party meme, this "No platforming at Universities" thing.

Quite frankly its bollocks and a rallying call for arseholes with few braincells

You can't have freedom of speech if you don't allow institutions the freedom to not allow people of their choice not to speak. Freedoms have to work in all directions otherwise its not a freedom

I wouldn't view myself as ultra right tory   but I think no-platforming can be taken too far. It's one thing to (as the law does) ban hate speech and stuff like that. It's another to prevent people who don't hold the same view as some students from being able to speak to different students. Boycott it if you don't want to listen to Germaine Greer, or whoever. But preventing students who are supposedly there to learn and evaluate different arguments and worldview and stuff seems like the wrong road to go down to me. What happened to being exposed to different ideas and forming your own set of values? It'll lead to a narrow, student led, set of approved opinions and everything else being if not silenced, then muted to a degree. I mean we chunter away on here about all kinds of stuff, but we let people speak about whatever, as long as they stay within the law and treat others the way they'd want to be treated. We snigger when people write "but you can't say that on here" because they just did "say that" on here. Identity politics and the latest fad for whatever view on whatever subject is bobbins. tolerance isn't enhanced by intolerance of different views, as long as fairly and legally argued. Liars, racists, and crooks - sure, bar them and their lies and racism and bigotry and anti-semitism, but beyond that Uni's should be for learning not preventing learning.

[Follyfoot]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

So you believe that Cambridge University is the entire city? It's your right, it doesn't make it correct though

Yes surrounded by walls and they pour oil over anyone from Oxford who tries to climb them. Thank you for putting university in but it is what I meant as you know

Edited June 26, 2020 by Follyfoot

[blandy]

11 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Rescinding the fellowship is not denying him free speech. 

Also [pedant alert] they didn't rescind his fellowship. He requested one, they initially invited him to come over and get a temporary one, then rescinded the invite. He was never actually a fellow, was he?

[Follyfoot]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

You realise inciting racial hatred is actually a crime? You also realise that much of his work is discredited and based on pseudo-science?

Yes I do, has he ever been charged with inciting racial hatred? This brings us back to what the row was all about in the first place, the perceived comments of Dr Gopal with regard to race

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

Yes surrounded by walls and they pour oil over anyone from Oxford who tries to climb them. Thank you for putting university in but it is what I meant as you know

How would I know? Sorry but if you can't communicate effectively, it isn't my problem.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

This brings us back to what the row was all about in the first place, the perceived comments of Dr Gopal with regard to race

Where's the political bias you talked of?

2 hours ago, Follyfoot said:

To avoid confusion, the same support of free speech given by the University in support of Dr Gopal has not been consistent in the past whilst dealing with other 'academics' who have made comments 'which others might find controversial'  suggesting a potential political bias

Your argument seems to have changed. An employee said something in support of racial equality. The employer supported her. Good right?

The same employer potted an employee for "legitimising racial stereotypes" - so they were, like the Doctor, against racism on that one. It's not really political (in my view) to be anti-racism. That's just being a decent, normal human.

Peterson  - you might have a point to an extent, but again, I'm not seeing it as Political, more (at worst) unwisely acceding to requests from some of their students not to invite him.

[bickster]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

I wouldn't view myself as ultra right tory   but I think no-platforming can be taken too far. It's one thing to (as the law does) ban hate speech and stuff like that. It's another to prevent people who don't hold the same view as some students from being able to speak to different students. Boycott it if you don't want to listen to Germaine Greer, or whoever. But preventing students who are supposedly there to learn and evaluate different arguments and worldview and stuff seems like the wrong road to go down to me. What happened to being exposed to different ideas and forming your own set of values? It'll lead to a narrow, student led, set of approved opinions and everything else being if not silenced, then muted to a degree. I mean we chunter away on here about all kinds of stuff, but we let people speak about whatever, as long as they stay within the law and treat others the way they'd want to be treated. We snigger when people write "but you can't say that on here" because they just did "say that" on here. Identity politics and the latest fad for whatever view on whatever subject is bobbins. tolerance isn't enhanced by intolerance of different views, as long as fairly and legally argued. Liars, racists, and crooks - sure, bar them and their lies and racism and bigotry and anti-semitism, but beyond that Uni's should be for learning not preventing learning.

Whilst I fully get the whole Evelyn Beatrice Hall thing (for it was her not Voltaire) and have used the ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ quote myself many times, there's a basic misunderstanding here. You should have the right to say whatever you want (you don't in the UK) but that freedom of expression has to be a two way street. Denying someone your platform, is not deying them a platform. University Students aren't limited to learning stuff in their own institution, they too can go and find a different source of information outside their institution.

If someone is in my house and says something i don't agree with and I disagree ith them strongly enough to ask them to leave, I'm going to do just that

[bickster]

15 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

Yes I do, has he ever been charged with inciting racial hatred? This brings us back to what the row was all about in the first place, the perceived comments of Dr Gopal with regard to race

We are allowed to make our own judgements of other people's quotes and actions, we all do it, every minute of every day. I know of plenty of racists, that incite racial hatred but don't have a conviction for it. It doesn't mean I'll allow them to associate with me.

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

Denying someone your platform, is not deying them a platform. University Students aren't limited to learning stuff in their own institution, they too can go and find a different source of information outside their institution.

The difficulty with that is a Uni is specifically there to educate the students, to provide them with different views and information. Sure they can go and get additional knowledge or experience outside Uni, but the Uni is paid to provide them with that, NOT to let them decide who gives them the talks - if they don't want to listen - stay away, don't prevent free speech at an establishment where the purpose is to provide it (within limits). The rest of your post is fair comment.