You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Does anyone else feel we’re on a slippery slope to 1984?
No, these are complicated issues, but people are having vigorous debates about them. In 1984 there was no debate.
I don’t think mods should be discussing people who have no right of reply.
And what do you base that on? They'd have had a right of reply if they hadn't transgressed in whatever way they did.
I don’t think mods should be discussing people who have no right of reply.
Then you'll notice that it hasn't been discussed simply mentioned he's banned, just like Mr Woppit is banned.
First they came for Junkjard, now Woppit... actually Junkyard wasn't first. Is he still banned or has he just decided not to come back? I miss him, sob *reaches for Kleenex, can't find one, clears nose all the same*. Now Woppit, sniff *wipes snot off mouse with sleeve*, OK so he's not Buddy Rich but he's the closest STW is ever going to get...*wipes eyes* I get so lonely sometimes... .
gonefishin
Member
People who cite freedom speech as a defence should probably learn what it actually means first. Freedom of speech means that the government won’t arrest you for saying things. That’s it. That’s literally all it means. Freedom of speech doesn’t guarantee you an audience, it doesn’t guarantee you a platform, it doesn’t guarantee that people will listen it just means that you won’t end up in prison.
This, aye. "No platforming" isn't a thing. It's like complaining about "no partying" when you don't get invited to anything because you're a ****, or, I dunno, "involuntary celibacy" when you're ranting about how much you hate women. Or "no foruming" because you got kicked off singletrack. You don't have a right to go to someone else's thing and spoil it
If you and your ideas are so vital, you will find a platform or build your own. If nobody else lets you on their platform, your ideas are shit.
Then you’ll notice that it hasn’t been discussed simply mentioned he’s banned, just like Mr Woppit is banned.
You decided to raise the issue on a public forum, and the person in question has no right of reply. I believe that you're out of order.
And what do you base that on? They’d have had a right of reply if they hadn’t transgressed in whatever way they did.
A simple principle of fairness.
“No platforming” isn’t a thing.
Garbage.
You don’t have a right to go to someone else’s thing and spoil it
It doesn't stop there. The baying mob will even come after the place and people who dare host their own thing in an effort to shut them down.
If you and your ideas are so vital, you will find a platform or build your own.
As above.
It doesn’t stop there. The baying mob will even come after the place and people who dare host their own thing in an effort to shut them down.
They seem to manage
GeeTee has been banned? Gosh, only ever saw evidence of him being sinned against rather than sinning, one less reason to spend time on this site.
This, aye. “No platforming” isn’t a thing. It’s like complaining about “no partying” when you don’t get invited to anything because you’re a ****, or, I dunno, “involuntary celibacy” when you’re ranting about how much you hate women.
What rot, all the examples I have heard about, Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel, specifically involve invitations being withdrawn because of pressure put on the organisers or venue owners etc.
You decided to raise the issue on a public forum, and the person in question has no right of reply. I believe that you’re out of order.
Mentioning someone is banned is far from out of order.
Mentioning someone is banned is far from out of order.
I can only guess at your motivation for raising the issue, but it strikes me as poor form. Still, as you claim to see nothing wrong with your behaviour then there seems little point in discussing it further.
mefty
Member
What rot, all the examples I have heard about, Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel, specifically involve invitations being withdrawn because of pressure put on the organisers or venue owners etc.
Interesting examples. Germaine Greer was never "no platformed". This just didn't happen. There was a move to uninvite her from an event but it came to nothing- she cancelled herself one month because she didn't want to face protests, and then appeared the next month and gave her talk. So it was more "platforming", except for people with an axe to grind
Julie Bindel was uninvited by the NUS after responses from its members. There's nothing untoward or unusual in that- their job when it comes to events is literally to bring people in who their members want to see
Aside- if these really are all the examples you've heard about, you might want to ask yourself exactly why that is.
But you misunderstand the point, and I'm not quite sure how, considering the rest of my post. "No platforming" isn't a thing, because it's just "not being welcome" with a bit of doublespeak attached to make it seem like it's significant. I wonder what the equivalent nonsense term would be for forcing organisations to host speakers when they don't want to?
Was this an anti Greggs vegan sausage roll protest?
But you misunderstand the point, and I’m not quite sure how, considering the rest of my post. “No platforming” isn’t a thing, because it’s just “not being welcome” with a bit of doublespeak attached to make it seem like it’s significant.
And for everyone who feels like they have been no platformed they are welcome to head out and speak, just grab a mic and hit a good street corner
http://www.speakerscornertrust.org/guidance/guidance-notes/conducting-events/speakers-corner-code-of-conduct/
This one is good, just follow the rules which sound mostly like Rule One
Please don’t use offensive language
Please respect alternative opinions
Please show courtesy to other speakers and members of the public
If others are waiting, please limit your time to a maximum of 10 minutes
Show respect, get respect, turn up to be deliberately inflammatory and that breaks rule one.
Was this an anti Greggs vegan sausage roll protest?
Nah it was very misunderstood, it was pro brexit (usual RW crap but they held it outside greggs at the wrong time so the message got lost - no need to worry about this lot being de-platformed they would probably have been mistaken for the cleaners)
Julie Bindel was uninvited by the NUS after responses from its members.
She was refused a platform for her views, the NUS statement is quite clear.
Good for them.
Northwind
I think the issue I, and others take, is that the platform is removed because a vocal minority want censorship of views they disagree with. Often the censorship seems to come from threats of violence. A protestor's veto?
It's no wonder younger generations are quite so delicate when they resort to such measures to ensure they never hear an opposing viewpoint and where universities, rather than being places to examine various views, disallow certain speakers because protestors threaten their safety and have trigger warnings before lectures.
Can you imagine the uproar if a black lesbian was stopped from coming to speak because of "security concerns"? Would you be angry? I would.
EDIT not worth it your minds are closed anyway.
I think the issue I, and others take, is that the platform is removed because a vocal minority want censorship of views they disagree with
Censorship would be to remove their views and lock them up in a lot of countries. They are still free to speak, blog and upload content etc.
It’s no wonder younger generations are quite so delicate when they resort to such measures to ensure they never hear an opposing viewpoint
True or just a myth? A lot of young people are some of the most open minded, rejecting years of labelling and dividing that has gone on. Promoting space where people can be respected rather than hated for being diverse and not conforming to the tight stereotypes that have existed and been used to marginalise and demonise people.
Whenever people mention snowflakes and people offended by everything I think more of piers Morgan and Donald trump than the kids of today.
A protester's veto?
Alternatively, you could say that those people have also exercised their free speech rights to decide they don't want to give space to those with intolerant views? Free speech is not without consequence.
It’s no wonder younger generations are quite so delicate
They're not far from it if they're happy to speak out against hatred rather than just ignore it.
Meanwhile elsewhere on Singletrack the gender 'wars' continue:
https://singletrackmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/interview-sam-pilgrim-i-dont-ride-with-girls/
A simple principle of fairness.
I'm not asking you to set out an entire ethical philosophical framework, but that's a bit of a glib answer.
It’s no wonder younger generations are quite so delicate
Using student politics as representative of young people in general is naive at best, but more likely deliberately disingenuous.
A significant proportion of student politicians have always been ****s and probably always will be.
one less reason to spend time on this site.
Sounds like a win-win situation.
😀
I’m not asking you to set out an entire ethical philosophical framework, but that’s a bit of a glib answer.
I'll try and cope with your dissatisfaction.
And for everyone who feels like they have been no platformed they are welcome to head out and speak, just grab a mic and hit a good street corner
In our current culture of polarised politics, I think some of the examples presented of "no platforming" given in this thread are unhealthy for the wider political debate in this country. So I find myself in agreement with makecoldplayhistiry, it is undeniable that political debate in this country has become more toxic. It might feel clever to be facetious, but I don't think that attitude is warranted in this case - some of the posters are confused about what freedom of speech is but some of your attacks on them miss the fact that a valid point is being or could made.
The title of this thread though is obviously divisive bollocks.
I tend to gravitate to the righter on ends of most arguments, I think. Though for what zero it's worth, my only take on the some feminists Vs some trans and fellow travellers folk thing is that whilst in day to day life you'd have to look pretty hard to find any practical issue, there is one if you look hard and it's interesting. Hey ho. But the language on that NUS statement is close to parody: "...as such we are concerned for the safety of our students on the topic of this event." Safety??
There may be a valid point somewhere but if people who have a history of hate and views that a majority find offensive why should they be invited to speak? They can be studied and examined from their you tubes etc. without needing to have them there in person.
Is the solution to a toxic debate to invite more people spouting hate or less?
I don't think Germaine Greer or Julie Bindel have a history of spouting hate speech. And yes, Greer was no platformed - if you feel too threatened to turn up to an event because of a minority of true believers then that is a stifling of debate through violence.
Looks like the OP got his wish.
mefty
Member
She was refused a platform for her views, the NUS statement is quite clear.
Absolutely. You say that like we're disagreeing? Her views are what made her unwelcome, but why is that significant? Why should the NUS welcome someone with unwelcome views? People seem to think they have some sort of duty to be widely representative or to host all opinions, but it's just not true- their job is to put on events for their students.
raybanwomble
Member
And yes, Greer was no platformed – if you feel too threatened to turn up to an event because of a minority of true believers then that is a stifling of debate through violence.
Oh come on. There was no threat of violence, and she herself never claimed to feel threatened, she just said she didn't feel like facing protests. You're just making things up.
(I for one think it's disgraceful that she no-platformed the protest, she should have been forced to attend so that they could protest at her. Why does she think she has the right not to be offended or faced with conflicting views, the big snowflake?)
(I for one also think it's disgraceful that people can protest at an event, this sort of free speech is suppressing our free speech and should be banned so that free speech is never again challenged by free speech and so that unpopular views can have a safe space and never have to face different unpopular views)
makecoldplayhistory
MemberCan you imagine the uproar if a black lesbian was stopped from coming to speak because of “security concerns”? Would you be angry? I would.
Last September, a black, lesbian, gay rights activists (68-year old Linda Bellos) was not stopped from speaking, but found themselves in court for words spoken at a women's rights meeting.
Linda had spoken at a live streamed event, and was captured on camera saying “But I play football and I box, and if any one of those b******s comes near me I will take off my glasses and thump them.”
In context, Linda's comments were a response to earlier violence directed towards feminists, notably the assault on Maria Maria MacLachlan at Speaker's Corner by activist Tara Wolf. Wolf admitted before attending the rally she had posted on a Facebook event page: 'I want to **** up some TERFS they are no better than FASH. (Fascists).'
Linda was interviewed under caution but no charges were filed. A private prosecution was later bought by transgender rights campaigner Giuliana Kendal. The grounds for the case were that " transgender persons watching the speech online could have felt threatened or alarmed by Miss Bellos’ remarks"
Are you actually a bot OP?
I think the law says you have to tell us if you are. Or is that if you're a cop?
In 1984 there was no debate.
The Spandau Ballet versus Duran Duran , who is best, debate may have been on the wane, but it was still a debate.
Oh come on. There was no threat of violence
That is a remarkably naive viewpoint, she regularly gets threats and the activists protesting against her are heavily associated with making threats against people they disagree with.
technicallyinept
Exactly. She was allowed to speak and even threatened violence.
However, the white guy was deplatformed because [i]he[/i] couldn't be protected.
Nick
"Alternatively, you could say that those people have also exercised their free speech rights to decide they don’t want to give space to those with intolerant views? "
No, because it isn't their space. They used the threat of violence to control the Uni's space. There's a difference between me deciding to not have Fox News on my TV but then ensuring (with threats) that you don't have it on your TV either.
makecoldplayhistory
Member
Exactly. She was allowed to speak and even threatened violence
A pensioner saying they'd defend themselves against thugs (in their twenties) is threatening violence?
A pensioner who boxes threatened to punch people who cam near her.
their job is to put on events for their students.
It wasn't their event, it was one of the University Societies.
raybanwomble
Member
That is a remarkably naive viewpoint
I'm sorry if my statement of fact seems naive to you, while your making shit up is apparently more nuanced and mature. There was no threat of violence.
makecoldplayhistory
"No, because it isn’t their space. They used the threat of violence to control the Uni’s space"
They're the students of the university- it is their space, and the NUS is their organisation. The uni and the NUS have no obligation or requirement to give consideration to anyone else but their students. When they invite an outside speaker, it's for their students not for the speaker.
Drac
Subscriber
A pensioner who boxes threatened to punch people who cam near her
****s sake, she's hardly Tyson Fury! And I'm damned well sure 'came near me' means 'came at me'. No women are going around beating people up!
A rather more real thread of violence can be found in the 'hilarious' banter between a couple of twitter pals (who shall remain nameless). They joked about visiting a church then having a round of golf. The church is the workplace of the husband of feminist who has had death threads made against her. One of them has a conviction for assaulting someone with a golf club.
Northwind, Germaine Greer has repeatedly mentioned the threats made against her and other feminist activists.
The Guardian thinks the debate is toxic as well.
Maybe you guys don't think the debate is toxic, because shock horror, you're men. Just like some of you, shock horror, don't get the racism minorities recieve because you're white.
Only misogynists would try to tar Germaine Greer with the hate speech label.
There’s a gender war? Not in my house there isn’t. Mrs Funk knows her place.
**** sake, she’s hardly Tyson Fury! And I’m damned well sure ‘came near me’ means ‘came at me’. No women are going around beating people up!
No, Tyson gets knocked out. How sure as that's what she said. Really? You think women aren't capable if violence.
Drac
Subscriber
No, Tyson gets knocked out. How sure as that’s what she said. Really? You think women aren’t capable if violence.
Of course I don't think women aren't capable of violence.
Coincidentally, misrepresentation of crime statistics is one of the things women are concerned about.
No women are going around beating people up!
?
Drac
Subscriber
?
Well, there's these 'women' I suppose.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/crime-caught-camera/tube-horror-women-man-attack-leicester-square/
As it happens, after much consideration, I turned down an invite to appear on stage with Linda at an event on 3rd Feb.
Was I denying her “rights of expression” or was I concerned that being identified as having different views to her put me at risk of hateful comments from some of her followers?
I rather think it was the latter.
Rachel
Hmm, Greer has form for anti-trans harassment, for example outing trans folk who were just quietly trying to go about their lives. I know of a fair few women who would be misogynists under your definition. Maybe as a man it's not really your place to be defining what is and isn't misogynistic. Just a thought...
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
I though this chart was a joke but it's actually used by the charity Mermaids.
Anyone link me up with the "Freedom of Platform act 2019" please? 😆
Hmm, Greer has form for anti-trans harassment, for example outing trans folk who were just quietly trying to go about their lives.
Source of that accusation?
In regards to your retort on misogyny - it is well known that it pretty rampant in the trans community.
However, I am horrified by the number of trans women threatening extreme, misogynistic violence. I see, almost daily, violent threats on social media aimed at women demonised as TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists). Last September a 60-year-old woman in London was punched by a six-foot-tall trans woman (pictured above) more than three decades younger. The woman, Maria MacLachlan, was there simply to attend a meeting to discuss the self-identification proposals.
So, yes, I do suspect that any man who flippantly dismisses out of hand the concerns of many women are misogynistic. Greers and other womens concerns are a product and in the context of decades of having to put up with shitty men, as opposed to outright baseless prejudice.
Erm - how do you know what charts Mermaids use, rene59?
Twitter censorship again
A user is suspended until they delete their tweet (referencing misleading murder figures) quoted by Jeremy Vine.
This user said 'fortunately very, very few trans people murdered in this country'
https://twitter.com/PilgrimTucker/status/1095681379143241729
The (horrifying) murder figures for trans Brazilian sex workers are regularly bandied about as though the refer to the UK.
Similarly, questionable suicide figures are frequently shared, despite condemnation from The Samaritans.
Erm – how do you know what charts Mermaids use, rene59?
According to this in the spectator it has been used. (No idea on the truth of it though)
According to this in the spectator
🙄
The mermaids chart in action
https://twitter.com/MichaelConroy68/status/952235320665362433
Erm – how do you know what charts Mermaids use, rene59?
Erm - why wouldn't I, allthegear?
Rolleyeyes followed by the same chart in use, including mermaids logo
Just because you don’t like the source it doesn’t make it false. 👍
Twitter censorship again
A user is suspended until they delete their tweet (referencing misleading murder figures) quoted by Jeremy Vine.
This user said ‘fortunately very, very few trans people murdered in this country’
If your going to post the tweet, at least quote what it says... they said more than you quote and the tone of what was in the rest of the tweet is quite different to the last line.
I have no idea about Greer’s attitude to trans people, but she does have some very odd attitudes to other things; she was on a programme about the exhibition Amazing Bodies (IIRC), which displayed anatomical models for use by medical students. All of the displays were artificial, using materials like silk, wax, etc, but she started ranting about how it was disgusting, pornographic, it should be banned...
I saw the exhibition, and I saw her rant on telly, and all I could think was, ‘daft old bat, has she been drinking?’ Nothing she said made any sense at all.
Mad as a bag of owls.
Is the US still tolerant?
Well, 60 years or so ago they segregated people on the basis of race so they’ve certainly been going in the right direction over the last century or so.
I certainly don’t have any objections to their 1st amendment.
You may not, but it seems that many in America do, the incumbent POTUS for starters. His continual attacks on the press and media in general are having a severe impact on freedom of speech. Or hadn’t you noticed the reports in the press, in particular the direct attack on a BBC reporter at a dTrump rally by a bloke wearing a MAGA hat?
Then there’s the demonising of anti-Fascist groups, and their labelling by the FBI as terrorist groups when they confront the likes of the KKK, who are ‘very fine people’, according to Agent Orange.
I get a lot of American news feeds through Flipboard, and what they show is that America is still a Confederate country at heart, and has a layer of intolerance that hasn’t diminished in the last century or so.
Germaine Greer was critical of the #MeToo movement, which made her very unpopular with a lot of women
If your going to post the tweet, at least quote what it says… they said more than you quote and the tone of what was in the rest of the tweet is quite different to the last line.
If you are going to criticise the non posting of a tweet, could you not have posted it yourself (I don’t use twitter so have no idea what it says)
Neal, can you not see the preview of the link on this thread? I've noticed this forum now showing clickable previews like facebook does when you paste a link.
The full text reads
"Very sorry, but you are factually incorrect. In the UK between 2008 and 2017 there were more trans identified males who killed other people, than there were trans people murdered. Fortunately there are very, very few people murdered in this country"
neal
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/silencing-of-free-speech-gender-wars/page/4/?bbp_reply_to=10486004&_wpnonce=4bb54df478#new-post
In this post, just up the page, you can read it without being on twitter.
Cool. Cheers 👍
I still dont get why technically is posting all this guff??
Are you a russian troll?
Indeed.
Can the site devs hurry up with that "ignore user" function please?
Well to me that Tweet will be the Twitter auto filters picking up on keywords creating a false negative rather than a block for pointing out Jeremy Vine is wrong.
Indeed.
Can the site devs hurry up with that “ignore user” function please?
You don't have to open every thread.
This thread was started in good faith. You may choose to choose to think otherwise.
You might also feel the thread started about me is hilarious banter. I might feel it's bullying but, I'm an adult, not a cry baby, so I'm ignoring it.
A few posters seem to agree that proper debate is not happening.
Well to me that Tweet will be the Twitter auto filters picking up on keywords creating a false negative rather than a block for pointing out Jeremy Vine is wrong.
and I reckon with a little practice you could trigger those more frequently, but that is a deeper question about motivations for some people
this was linked here last week I think
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p06y74zp/altright-age-of-rage
Some interesting tactics going on there, quite a few people cleverly playing a part out there.
Source of that accusation?
Rachael Perman was outed, nationally, as a result of Greer.
Legitimate concerns are not the same as outright transphobia. Yeah there are people that don't know how to accept challenge and respond appropriately but that's hardly unique to this debate. Just pick any multiple page topic on here to see that in action.
One thing I do find amusing is the amount of otherwise right wing or misogynistic guys that are suddenly champions of feminism when it comes to "concerns" regarding trans rights. I suppose it's a bit like them not liking brown people unless they are killing the brown people they like even less. Not that I'm implying everyone with such concerns fits that picture but there is certainly a Venn diagram overlap there.
I have seen no articles that accuse Greer of outing Rachael Perman.
From what I gather, she objected to Permanently appointment at a time when women were and still are finding it difficult to get appointed to more senior positions due in part to poor support for motherhood.
You might also feel the thread started about me is hilarious banter. I might feel it’s bullying
What was that about free speech?
Just sling yer hook you weasel.
I have seen no articles that accuse Greer of outing Rachael Perman.
it can't be?
Pete Hegseth denies existence of germs, saying: ‘I can’t see them, therefore they’re not real’
🙂
What was that about free speech?
Just sling yer hook you weasel.
I said I was was ignoring it, so your response is to have a go at me?