Ah. "Identity Politics". Taken over from "Political Correctness" as a label applied by the right to anyone displaying a tendency to give a shit about oppressed groups as if doing so were somehow a bad thing.
Before recently, wasn't critique of the European Union a left-wing argument because the EU was a capitalist free trade institution?
The EU is either a capitalist free trade institution or an enormous left-wing statist behemoth, depending on where you stand.
These days, I think it breaks down to the centre vs. the poles. Moderate left and moderate right are pro-Europe, far left and far right, anti.
Though personally, I think the "Lexiteers" are delusional if they think that a de-europized UK will be more progressive. From what I can tell, their entire argument seems to rest on the eurozone forbidding deficits beyond a certain size, which makes Keynesian policies difficult to implememt. Setting aside the fact that Britain was never in the zone to begin with, it strains credulity to believe that people like Nigel Farage were pushing for Brexit so that they could usher in deficit-financed social democracy.
OTOH, it could be argued that, as a place of learning, the school has a duty, not to promote the disseminaton of dangerous anti-scientific crap.
Rather, the duty of a university is to educate its students to recognise what is dangerous anti-scientific crap, why it is, and how to deal with it.
Okay, but how does that apply to someone promoting anti-scientific crap on the campus, but without the support of the university or its faculty?
Should they be able to stop an anti-vax student from handing out pamphlets explaining why vaccination is bad?
I suppose a couple of answers. AFAIK, none of the universities here would have the power to take that sort of action in the absence of some legislation barring the activity. At a more basic level, I'd say that they should not - just as they tolerate publicity for political opinions ranging across the board.
If someone wanted to argue in favour of young-Earth creationism in an undergraduate geological research paper, their grade would probably depend on how well they used standard geological tools and methods to defend their case. And given that the standard YEC response to each and every one of the standard geological dating methods is basically to chant "la la la" whilst blocking one's ears with one's fingers, interspersed with the occasional "ahah! Here's a small discrepancy, therefore the whole house of cards comes falling down" then I find it unlikely that such an attempt would attract much credit.
Now, now. You'll be scaring away those poor wee YECs and creating a bubble and how terrible that would be.
Which is another way of saying, 'It's alright to create a bubble, as long as it's My Bubble ...'
I think there've been some big changes since the Ship changed colours. The overall tone of regular posters seems less liberal, and more dogmatic. Perhaps this has been a result of polarising in the UK centred first in Brexit and then the election 6 months ago. Then there was an attempted mutiny which must have taken a fair deal of attention by TPTB.
Over the years, many Aust posters seem to have dropped off with Simon Toad, Orfeo and I being the only regular posters. Others pay shipboard visits from time to time, but Athrawes is the only one from Queensland and Rexory from WA. Good to see Mr Curly occasionally, but little sign of Rowen. Still Huia and Zappa as regulars from NZ and Galloping Granny calling by.
If someone wanted to argue in favour of young-Earth creationism in an undergraduate geological research paper, their grade would probably depend on how well they used standard geological tools and methods to defend their case. And given that the standard YEC response to each and every one of the standard geological dating methods is basically to chant "la la la" whilst blocking one's ears with one's fingers, interspersed with the occasional "ahah! Here's a small discrepancy, therefore the whole house of cards comes falling down" then I find it unlikely that such an attempt would attract much credit.
Now, now. You'll be scaring away those poor wee YECs and creating a bubble and how terrible that would be.
Which is another way of saying, 'It's alright to create a bubble, as long as it's My Bubble ...'
Quite. If it's acceptable to dismiss YECs in such a manner for an opinion that, on its own, is largely harmless why is it a problem to be similarly contemptuous of other fallacious and far more damaging ideologies?
I came back after many years away and found myself in this new Ship, which certainly seems more political than I remember the old Ship being. But it is possibly that I simply ignored the politics that was there, as I do now. I recall valuable exchanges on how to pray the Divine Office, which I was trying to do then - what version of the Psalms to use, and whether just to read or to chant etc.
Even after 45 years in Australia, I still feel myself to be British, and this year looks likely to be the first in which I have not been able to travel back and visit family. So to some extent, the Ship gives me that nostalgia fix, and keeps me in touch with the way people are coping with this enforced isolation. But it does seem less Christian than it used to be.
Most universities ruthlessly suppress heliocentrism, astrology, phrenology, and a whole similar range of "opinions and viewpoints". Most people consider it a university's job to convey accurate information, not "as wide a variety . . . as possible".
Google "University Astrology Society" and I bet you'll get a whole bunch of hits. I doubt many universities or student unions would have any problem with their students setting up a flat earth society or a phrenology society either. Why would they?
Universities are far more than just the courses being taught.
True, but failing someone in a course or withholding their degree are the most extreme actions a university can take against its student and they seem willing to use this extreme power to ruthlessly limit debate and suppress ideas.
Can you really not see the difference between course assessments that are (obviously) based on the material being taught and student societies that have nothing at all to do with those courses?
Nobody fails a degree purely because of membership in a student society.
OTOH, it could be argued that, as a place of learning, the school has a duty, not to promote the disseminaton of dangerous anti-scientific crap.
Rather, the duty of a university is to educate its students to recognise what is dangerous anti-scientific crap, why it is, and how to deal with it.
Okay, but how does that apply to someone promoting anti-scientific crap on the campus, but without the support of the university or its faculty?
Should they be able to stop an anti-vax student from handing out pamphlets explaining why vaccination is bad?
I suppose a couple of answers. AFAIK, none of the universities here would have the power to take that sort of action in the absence of some legislation barring the activity. At a more basic level, I'd say that they should not - just as they tolerate publicity for political opinions ranging across the board.
If a group of students (or staff) organise an event for promoting anti-vax views then I can't see that being banned, but likewise there would be nothing to stop other students or staff simultaneously explaining why vaccination is vital and safe. Assuming, of course, neither group resort to violence or acts of extreme provocation.
If the event planned includes inviting representatives of organisations known for hate speech and promoting violence towards others (eg: BNP or EDL) then there seems to be a strong basis for stopping those events happening, because there's a real risk that someone on that platform would say something that breaks the law and that legal fallout will hit the university.
In my time at university I've only known one occasion when a group was moved on by security, and one other time when a group was banned from using student union buildings for reasons other than promoting illegal activities such as hate speech or advocating violence.
One occasion was when a group from outside the university (ie: not students or staff) set themselves up outside the union building to rather loudly proclaim a very odd version of evangelical Christianity which included condemning most students to hell for allowing LGBT groups in the union, for wearing ear-rings, for couples holding hands and basically everything else - which provoked an equally loud counter event from the Socialist Workers (they seemed to get there first, and had a megaphone!) and the majority of the CU taking members of this group aside to remonstrate with them (without a megaphone). Thing lasted about 15 mins before security moved them on, but as I said these were not students and there was no particular reason for the university authorities to permit them to be on campus.
The other occasion, the Conservative Students Group invited a senior member of the party to address them - there was nothing wrong with that, any more than there was with the members of the Labour group who gathered near the entrance to express their views. The problem was that the Conservative group had a small number of paid up members, and hence didn't have a lot of money (the way our union was organised was that student society budgets were the sum of membership fees plus some union money that was proportional to the number of members), the expenses this senior Tory requested was more than the student group had and the president of the student group was also treasurer of another unrelated student society and he "borrowed" what was needed to cover the meeting from that account. That resulted in the Conservative group being dissolved and banned from using union buildings (they did continue as a non-union affiliated group using a room in the local Conservative Association building) for the rest of the year - they restarted the following academic year on the proviso that the previous president not be a committee member. There was also a clarification on union policy sent to all societies - that it was permissible to pay speakers a reasonable fee to cover expenses and time, but that if this was going to exceed available union funds the society should either reconsider holding the meeting or charge admission to cover the costs.
Yes - the actions you set out are designed to control breaches of the peace rather than censorship. And an outside body has no claim on university/union property.
As an aside, there is a distinction (at least in some universities) between the Union, which provides a range of places to eat, reading rooms etc and the Students' Representative Council which is the political body and publishes the student newspaper. In theory, as I'm a life member of the Union, I can still vote in elections to the Board. As I'm no longer a student, I can't vote in elections to the SRC.
In relation to internet forums, I think a lot have declined. I assume that many people are going on fb and Catflap and Jizzmonkey and all the other exciting websites. I suppose they are more visual and exciting!
Most universities ruthlessly suppress heliocentrism, astrology, phrenology, and a whole similar range of "opinions and viewpoints".
(Did you mean heliocentrism?) I don't know. A student probably wouldn't get a pass for arguing in favour of astrology or intelligent design, but if they showed signs of having engaged with the material they'd do better than someone who just wrote, 'we know evolution is true because of all the evidence and anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant or stupid'.
Anyone who is conservative - even with a small 'C' - is automatically wrong. The personal vitriol directed at anyone who dares to see some good in any action of the current, or any previous, Conservative government, is horrible. Moreover, the blithe assertion that anyone who is less than enthusiastic about either the Labour Party or any of it's policies, is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984, as is the automatic denigration of Tony Blair.
To answer @Robert Armin's original question : IMO the Ship has already become politically monochrome.
This post reminds me of one of those well-paid columnists in the right-wing press who complain that nobody is allowed to express the opinions that the columnist expresses in their column every week.
(It is true that more posters than not lean left, and some posters do exhibit the attitude you're describing. But there are regular posters who don't lean left, and not all the posters who lean left exhibit that attitude.)
There is a right not to be thought a horrible or stupid or ignorant person, and a right to not have a particular set of political opinions dismissed as horrible or stupid or ignorant out of hand. They're just not inalienable rights. If all the arguments put forward in favour of Trump or Brexit are stupid ignorant and horrible then they lose the right not to be thought stupid ignorant and horrible until such time as they come up with arguments that aren't stupid or ignorant or horrible.
(Even Giles Fraser gets a bit Protestant Truth Society when he's advocating Lexit.)
A student probably wouldn't get a pass for arguing in favour of astrology or intelligent design, but if they showed signs of having engaged with the material they'd do better than someone who just wrote, 'we know evolution is true because of all the evidence and anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant or stupid'.
It's a good job no one is saying that, then.
The evidence for evolution is multi-disciplinary, from geology, biology, zoology, medicine - and we now understand how it is mitigated through genetics.
Someone can refuse to consider the evidence, and be neither ignorant or stupid, instead defending a worldview which may be the only thing that stands between them and oblivion.
Perhaps we can be a bit kinder to those folk. But to the Hams and Gishes of this world? Charlatans.
If all you want from your online experience is somewhere to post what you think without necessarily having to defend it then FB/Twitter would be more suitable than a forum like this, FB/Twitter aren't designed to allow extended discussion. I think that means we're self-selecting for those people who want to have extended discussion of ideas rather than a more hit-and-run style of posting
To return to Alan's comment above; the internet has moved on in terms of how debate is carried out and what form it takes -- ignoring what younger people use anyway, as FB attracts an older audience and hardly anyone (percentage wise) is on twitter.
There are lots of subreddits - but discussion there tends to be fairly ephemeral owing to the nature of the platform - certainly in comparison with some of the longer running threads here. Similarly some of the news orientated blogs.
There are a few message boards of a religious conservative bent that appear to have reasonable levels of traffic -- though some of those either want subscription to some statement of faith or deem anything outside a particular statement of faith dead horsed, so I'm not sure to what extent their audience are really looking for 'unrest'.
Ah. "Identity Politics". Taken over from "Political Correctness" as a label applied by the right to anyone displaying a tendency to give a shit about oppressed groups as if doing so were somehow a bad thing.
I think this post exemplifies the phenomenon.
You could have disagreed with me - suggested that changes in view on free speech have a different cause.
Or you could have agreed, while pointing out that identity politics is only seen as a thing by those who are against it. Which is a valid observation that people on both sides of the House could agree (or disagree) with.
The suggestion that all decent human beings are for it is not only untrue, but seeks to make views that differ from one's own socially unacceptable. Which is what leads to a monochrome Ship.
It is all about whether you can hold your corner in an argument. I think I'm personally responsible for the way I respond to criticism of my ideas and opinions. And I benefit personally from having those challenged. I can learn.
Historically it bothered me when Catholic Shipmates found that discussions of all kinds tended to drag in the assertion that the authority of the Catholic Church was damaged by covering up child abuse by priests. The implication was that Catholic doctrines had nothing to say on any moral issue because of flawed authority on a very important issue.. I thought that was off the specific point of a discussion, even if it had some general validity. Said so as a Host at the time. Still believe it to be true. And a number of Catholics walked away, not because they wanted to defend the indefensible, but because they got fed up with that happening.
I belong to the school which believes that arguments are worth examining on their merits, regardless of source. I think that is a Purgatory value. Criticism of the validity of an argument because of its source is 'playing the man, not the ball'.
We allow 'that argument is stupid'. That assertion is best given with reasons. We don't allow 'you are stupid'. And particularly the argument, for example, that you must be stupid because you belong to any particular group. It may be that is true. And for some extremist groups I think it is very likely to be true. But free discussion can test that by the quality of the argument. We do not need to presume anything.
Ah. "Identity Politics". Taken over from "Political Correctness" as a label applied by the right to anyone displaying a tendency to give a shit about oppressed groups as if doing so were somehow a bad thing.
I think this post exemplifies the phenomenon.
You could have disagreed with me - suggested that changes in view on free speech have a different cause.
Or you could have agreed, while pointing out that identity politics is only seen as a thing by those who are against it. Which is a valid observation that people on both sides of the House could agree (or disagree) with.
The suggestion that all decent human beings are for it is not only untrue, but seeks to make views that differ from one's own socially unacceptable. Which is what leads to a monochrome Ship.
I suppose the question is whether we should be tolerant of intolerance. To which my answer would be "no". Complaining about "identity politics" is a dog-whistle for racism, sexism, homophobia and/or transphobia and should be treated as such. And before someone tells me Christians are supposed to be polite all the time:
"whited sepulchres"
"brood of vipers"
"get thee behind me Satan".
Ah. "Identity Politics". Taken over from "Political Correctness" as a label applied by the right to anyone displaying a tendency to give a shit about oppressed groups as if doing so were somehow a bad thing.
I think this post exemplifies the phenomenon.
You could have disagreed with me - suggested that changes in view on free speech have a different cause.
Or you could have agreed, while pointing out that identity politics is only seen as a thing by those who are against it. Which is a valid observation that people on both sides of the House could agree (or disagree) with.
The suggestion that all decent human beings are for it is not only untrue, but seeks to make views that differ from one's own socially unacceptable. Which is what leads to a monochrome Ship.
I gave you my observations. "Identity Politics" is a label that is applied, always in a derogatory manner, on those who express any empathy with oppressed groups, or members of those groups themselves who speak out. It is therefore much like "Political Correctness" before it.
I'm further bemused why your virtually content free "I blame identity politics" is fine but my similarly abrupt assessment of how the term is used is somehow symptomatic of how awful we terrible lefties are.
Oh dear. I feel like a brand new undergrad who has wandered by accident into the tenured professors’ lounge during a particularly energetic discussion. I was intrigued by Robert Armin’s original question, “Where is the Ship heading?” and am baffled by how it has, in little more than 48 hours, turned into the current posts which seem to be more about academic freedom (or so it seems to me). So, shore leave for me for the nonce, until the seas grow calm.
The stuff about universities is all just a proxy for people trying to argue in favour of banning (or otherwise suppressing, because apparently everybody preventing something as private individuals is perfectly fine so long as the government doesn't legally ban it) the expression of opinions and views of which they disapprove, and those who disagree with them about that.
It's relevant to the thread topic because it's fairly obvious that people who think it's OK to ban or otherwise block the expression of opinion and views of which they disapprove will, if they become a majority in a place, make that place very uncomfortable for those of whom they disapprove. Which is what seems to be happening, slowly, to the Ship.
I predict that at least one of the replies to this post will be along the lines of how that's perfectly fine because those views are Bad and Wrong and Evil and should be completely eradicated from everywhere. Never once wondering what happens if they end up in the minority at some point after they've eroded all the protections around freedom of speech.
If someone wanted to argue in favour of young-Earth creationism in an undergraduate geological research paper, their grade would probably depend on how well they used standard geological tools and methods to defend their case. And given that the standard YEC response to each and every one of the standard geological dating methods is basically to chant "la la la" whilst blocking one's ears with one's fingers, interspersed with the occasional "ahah! Here's a small discrepancy, therefore the whole house of cards comes falling down" then I find it unlikely that such an attempt would attract much credit.
Now, now. You'll be scaring away those poor wee YECs and creating a bubble and how terrible that would be.
Which is another way of saying, 'It's alright to create a bubble, as long as it's My Bubble ...'
Quite. If it's acceptable to dismiss YECs in such a manner for an opinion that, on its own, is largely harmless why is it a problem to be similarly contemptuous of other fallacious and far more damaging ideologies?
It is not harmless. It most often comes in a package with denying science and that has real world consequence. YEC is about control, and that should be alarming to non-fundy Christians as well.
I came back after many years away and found myself in this new Ship, which certainly seems more political than I remember the old Ship being. But it is possibly that I simply ignored the politics that was there, as I do now. I recall valuable exchanges on how to pray the Divine Office, which I was trying to do then - what version of the Psalms to use, and whether just to read or to chant etc.
Even after 45 years in Australia, I still feel myself to be British, and this year looks likely to be the first in which I have not been able to travel back and visit family. So to some extent, the Ship gives me that nostalgia fix, and keeps me in touch with the way people are coping with this enforced isolation. But it does seem less Christian than it used to be.
I think politics is more to the for these days, but in large part because of three, very big issues: Brexit, Trump and the general intolerant shift to right that is gripping the word recently.
The stuff about universities is all just a proxy for people trying to argue in favour of banning
Which particular stories did you have in mind when you made your original claim?
I think it's fairly widely known and accepted - even on this thread - that "no-platforming" and "safe spaces" are common in student unions. Which are just newspeak for banning opinions of which those student unions disapprove.
King’s College has hired “safe space marshals” to police controversial speaker events on campus, it has emerged.
The university’s students' union employs the £12-an-hour officials to patrol meetings where there is a potential for audience members to be offended.
While on duty at an event, the marshals are expected to hand out leaflets detailing the students' union's Safe Space policy, and put up posters reminding students that “This is a Safe Space”.
They must be ready to take “immediate action” if anyone expresses opinions that breech the Safe Space policy.
The stuff about universities is all just a proxy for people trying to argue in favour of banning (or otherwise suppressing, because apparently everybody preventing something as private individuals is perfectly fine so long as the government doesn't legally ban it) the expression of opinions and views of which they disapprove, and those who disagree with them about that.
It's relevant to the thread topic because it's fairly obvious that people who think it's OK to ban or otherwise block the expression of opinion and views of which they disapprove will, if they become a majority in a place, make that place very uncomfortable for those of whom they disapprove. Which is what seems to be happening, slowly, to the Ship.
I predict that at least one of the replies to this post will be along the lines of how that's perfectly fine because those views are Bad and Wrong and Evil and should be completely eradicated from everywhere. Never once wondering what happens if they end up in the minority at some point after they've eroded all the protections around freedom of speech.
This would be laudable, except you think that too. Your threshold for the range of views and opinions might be calibrated differently, but it's non-zero.
All we're doing is arguing about where the dial is set.
(eta)
If we allowed racism and homophobia on the Ship (bearing in mind some shipmates don't think we crack down on that hard enough), do you think we'd have any non-white or gay shipmates left? I prefer their company to racists and homophobes, frankly.
Oh dear. I feel like a brand new undergrad who has wandered by accident into the tenured professors’ lounge during a particularly energetic discussion. I was intrigued by Robert Armin’s original question, “Where is the Ship heading?” and am baffled by how it has, in little more than 48 hours, turned into the current posts which seem to be more about academic freedom (or so it seems to me). So, shore leave for me for the nonce, until the seas grow calm.
OK. Personally I think it is not about academic freedom. but posting freedoms and responsibilities. Always has been.
Ah. Thank you Marvin! I was attracted to the Ship many years ago by its reasoned and polite ways of honoring differing opinions. Disagreements back then seemed respectful and difference of opinion was accepted: no one had to be 'right'. A Lurker for many years I signed up to come aboard. How now can we return to honoring each other while politely disagreeing with the speech?
If someone wanted to argue in favour of young-Earth creationism in an undergraduate geological research paper, their grade would probably depend on how well they used standard geological tools and methods to defend their case. And given that the standard YEC response to each and every one of the standard geological dating methods is basically to chant "la la la" whilst blocking one's ears with one's fingers, interspersed with the occasional "ahah! Here's a small discrepancy, therefore the whole house of cards comes falling down" then I find it unlikely that such an attempt would attract much credit.
Now, now. You'll be scaring away those poor wee YECs and creating a bubble and how terrible that would be.
Which is another way of saying, 'It's alright to create a bubble, as long as it's My Bubble ...'
Quite. If it's acceptable to dismiss YECs in such a manner for an opinion that, on its own, is largely harmless why is it a problem to be similarly contemptuous of other fallacious and far more damaging ideologies?
It is not harmless. It most often comes in a package with denying science and that has real world consequence.
So your view is that the opinion is not harmless on its own because of other stuff that some people who hold it also say?
Also, if we're going to ban opinions because of what they might lead to then shall we also ban the political theories of Marx because historically they have most often come in a package with Soviet-style Communism? Thought not.
YEC is about control, and that should be alarming to non-fundy Christians as well.
In what way is only allowing the expression of acceptable opinions not about control?
Also, no one is seriously considering banning discussions of YEC here. Quite the reverse, since we now allow it on Purgatory, rather than sequestering it away in Dead Horses.
If we want to talk about banning, let's talk about the things we currently do ban, not the things we don't.
If someone wanted to argue in favour of young-Earth creationism in an undergraduate geological research paper, their grade would probably depend on how well they used standard geological tools and methods to defend their case. And given that the standard YEC response to each and every one of the standard geological dating methods is basically to chant "la la la" whilst blocking one's ears with one's fingers, interspersed with the occasional "ahah! Here's a small discrepancy, therefore the whole house of cards comes falling down" then I find it unlikely that such an attempt would attract much credit.
Now, now. You'll be scaring away those poor wee YECs and creating a bubble and how terrible that would be.
Which is another way of saying, 'It's alright to create a bubble, as long as it's My Bubble ...'
Quite. If it's acceptable to dismiss YECs in such a manner for an opinion that, on its own, is largely harmless why is it a problem to be similarly contemptuous of other fallacious and far more damaging ideologies?
It is not harmless. It most often comes in a package with denying science and that has real world consequence.
So your view is that the opinion is not harmless on its own because of other stuff that some people who hold it also say?
Also, if we're going to ban opinions because of what they might lead to then shall we also ban the political theories of Marx because historically they have most often come in a package with Soviet-style Communism? Thought not.
YEC is about control, and that should be alarming to non-fundy Christians as well.
In what way is only allowing the expression of acceptable opinions not about control?
Did I say ban? I don't think I said ban. I reread what I wrote and I don't see the word ban, Nor do I see it in the posts to which is was replying. I don't see the word ban until you wrote it.
Now, if you want to reply to what I actually said...
This would be laudable, except you think that too. Your threshold for the range of views and opinions might be calibrated differently, but it's non-zero.
Your evidence for that being?
I'm of the "I hate what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" school of thought.
If we allowed racism and homophobia on the Ship (bearing in mind some shipmates don't think we crack down on that hard enough), do you think we'd have any non-white or gay shipmates left? I prefer their company to racists and homophobes, frankly.
It's perfectly understandable to prefer the company of those you like, but that's how echo chambers (or whatever stripe) form.
Also, no one is seriously considering banning discussions of YEC here. Quite the reverse, since we now allow it on Purgatory, rather than sequestering it away in Dead Horses.
If we want to talk about banning, let's talk about the things we currently do ban, not the things we don't.
It may not be literally banning, but it's certainly creating a Hostile Environment (to borrow a phrase from the May government) with the intention of achieving the same thing through different means.
Sorry - do I get you right? We should allow racism on the Ship?
All the way up to where it becomes illegal under UK incitement to racial hatred legislation, or do you also consider that flawed and believe the UK generally and the Ship specifically should allow everything up to and including racially motivated incitement to genocide?
The stuff about universities is all just a proxy for people trying to argue in favour of banning
Which particular stories did you have in mind when you made your original claim?
I think it's fairly widely known and accepted - even on this thread - that "no-platforming" and "safe spaces" are common in student unions. Which are just newspeak for banning opinions of which those student unions disapprove.
Again that's not 'banning opinions' is it ? What is being 'policed' is the expression of certain opinions in certain places -- and it arises largely out of various speakers using campus events to either incite violence against certain groups and/or (at least in the case of Milo) out people. Do you have any evidence that they've actually 'banned opinions' ?
If you have issues with that, presumably you have far greater issues with Prevent legislation or various examples of corporate censorship.
The stuff about universities is all just a proxy for people trying to argue in favour of banning
Which particular stories did you have in mind when you made your original claim?
I think it's fairly widely known and accepted - even on this thread - that "no-platforming" and "safe spaces" are common in student unions. Which are just newspeak for banning opinions of which those student unions disapprove.
That's not true though, is it? I already explained in this thread how no platforming works and the explanation for it. And it's more than disapproval, it's about protecting their members from abuse which is surely one of the primary functions of any union, student or otherwise.
The purpose of a safe space, meanwhile, is actually to allow for a free and frank discussion, so that people other than middle class white straight cis men can feel confident to express their views without their very existence being threatened and challenged.
It is perhaps illustrative to consider places that don't restrict the broadcast of opinions that are beyond the pail. I don't know if any of you have ever wandered into the seedier side of the internet, perhaps to 4chan, or into the youtube comments section, you discover that without regulation any public or pseudo-public space becomes predominantly a place of abuse, conspiracy theories and white supremacism.
Sorry - do I get you right? We should allow racism on the Ship?
Depends what you mean by that. Racial insults and trolling would be prohibited along with any other personal insults and trolling. But should we allow critical discussion of differences between races and cultures? The pros of Empire? The cons of immigration? Support for dress codes in schools and offices? Whether it's OK for white people to wear kimonos?
A simple "we don't allow racism here" could be used to prohibit any of the above, and more.
Doc Tor: If we allowed racism and homophobia on the Ship (bearing in mind some shipmates don't think we crack down on that hard enough), do you think we'd have any non-white or gay shipmates left? I prefer their company to racists and homophobes, frankly.
I think you missed out transphobes along with "Trotskyite wreckers."
What I would like to know is who is dishing out the labels.
It's not a question of whose company I prefer, but whether I'm prepared to engage in these columns with those I disagree. That's one reason why I'm against calling shipmates to Hell.
Nor is free speech about the sensitivities of listeners. If your feelings are upset, tough luck, give as good as you take, but your sensibilities don't give you or me the right of censorship.
The purpose of a safe space, meanwhile, is actually to allow for a free and frank discussion
You can't "allow for a free and frank discussion" by saying that certain subjects cannot be discussed. That's a contradiction in terms that is more than worthy of comparisons to 1984.
Sorry - do I get you right? We should allow racism on the Ship?
Depends what you mean by that. Racial insults and trolling would be prohibited along with any other personal insults and trolling. But should we allow critical discussion of differences between races and cultures? The pros of Empire? The cons of immigration? Support for dress codes in schools and offices? Whether it's OK for white people to wear kimonos?
A simple "we don't allow racism here" could be used to prohibit any of the above, and more.
Well, perhaps you might want to address the paragraph in my post you didn't quote.
Sorry - do I get you right? We should allow racism on the Ship?
Depends what you mean by that. Racial insults and trolling would be prohibited along with any other personal insults and trolling. But should we allow critical discussion of differences between races and cultures? The pros of Empire? The cons of immigration? Support for dress codes in schools and offices? Whether it's OK for white people to wear kimonos?
A simple "we don't allow racism here" could be used to prohibit any of the above, and more.
Well, perhaps you might want to address the paragraph in my post you didn't quote.
I ignored it because we on the Ship have to follow the law whether we like it or not. The rest we have control over.
Sorry - do I get you right? We should allow racism on the Ship?
Depends what you mean by that. Racial insults and trolling would be prohibited along with any other personal insults and trolling. But should we allow critical discussion of differences between races and cultures? The pros of Empire? The cons of immigration? Support for dress codes in schools and offices? Whether it's OK for white people to wear kimonos?
A simple "we don't allow racism here" could be used to prohibit any of the above, and more.
Well, perhaps you might want to address the paragraph in my post you didn't quote.
I ignored it because we on the Ship have to follow the law whether we like it or not. The rest we have control over.
Well, I did ask whether you thought the law was wrong as well, and whether we as a country should allow neo-Nazis to express their views.
I think there is something rather legalistic about framing the discussion in terms of rights.
Yes, I have the right to emit posts that consist solely of 'Your opinion is stupid and the Tories are evil', and no, nobody's free speech is infringed by my doing so - but that doesn't mean that it's good or healthy for the Ship as a community or a place of unrest.
Comments
These days, I think it breaks down to the centre vs. the poles. Moderate left and moderate right are pro-Europe, far left and far right, anti.
Though personally, I think the "Lexiteers" are delusional if they think that a de-europized UK will be more progressive. From what I can tell, their entire argument seems to rest on the eurozone forbidding deficits beyond a certain size, which makes Keynesian policies difficult to implememt. Setting aside the fact that Britain was never in the zone to begin with, it strains credulity to believe that people like Nigel Farage were pushing for Brexit so that they could usher in deficit-financed social democracy.
I suppose a couple of answers. AFAIK, none of the universities here would have the power to take that sort of action in the absence of some legislation barring the activity. At a more basic level, I'd say that they should not - just as they tolerate publicity for political opinions ranging across the board.
Which is another way of saying, 'It's alright to create a bubble, as long as it's My Bubble ...'
Over the years, many Aust posters seem to have dropped off with Simon Toad, Orfeo and I being the only regular posters. Others pay shipboard visits from time to time, but Athrawes is the only one from Queensland and Rexory from WA. Good to see Mr Curly occasionally, but little sign of Rowen. Still Huia and Zappa as regulars from NZ and Galloping Granny calling by.
Quite. If it's acceptable to dismiss YECs in such a manner for an opinion that, on its own, is largely harmless why is it a problem to be similarly contemptuous of other fallacious and far more damaging ideologies?
Even after 45 years in Australia, I still feel myself to be British, and this year looks likely to be the first in which I have not been able to travel back and visit family. So to some extent, the Ship gives me that nostalgia fix, and keeps me in touch with the way people are coping with this enforced isolation. But it does seem less Christian than it used to be.
Can you really not see the difference between course assessments that are (obviously) based on the material being taught and student societies that have nothing at all to do with those courses?
Nobody fails a degree purely because of membership in a student society.
If the event planned includes inviting representatives of organisations known for hate speech and promoting violence towards others (eg: BNP or EDL) then there seems to be a strong basis for stopping those events happening, because there's a real risk that someone on that platform would say something that breaks the law and that legal fallout will hit the university.
In my time at university I've only known one occasion when a group was moved on by security, and one other time when a group was banned from using student union buildings for reasons other than promoting illegal activities such as hate speech or advocating violence.
One occasion was when a group from outside the university (ie: not students or staff) set themselves up outside the union building to rather loudly proclaim a very odd version of evangelical Christianity which included condemning most students to hell for allowing LGBT groups in the union, for wearing ear-rings, for couples holding hands and basically everything else - which provoked an equally loud counter event from the Socialist Workers (they seemed to get there first, and had a megaphone!) and the majority of the CU taking members of this group aside to remonstrate with them (without a megaphone). Thing lasted about 15 mins before security moved them on, but as I said these were not students and there was no particular reason for the university authorities to permit them to be on campus.
The other occasion, the Conservative Students Group invited a senior member of the party to address them - there was nothing wrong with that, any more than there was with the members of the Labour group who gathered near the entrance to express their views. The problem was that the Conservative group had a small number of paid up members, and hence didn't have a lot of money (the way our union was organised was that student society budgets were the sum of membership fees plus some union money that was proportional to the number of members), the expenses this senior Tory requested was more than the student group had and the president of the student group was also treasurer of another unrelated student society and he "borrowed" what was needed to cover the meeting from that account. That resulted in the Conservative group being dissolved and banned from using union buildings (they did continue as a non-union affiliated group using a room in the local Conservative Association building) for the rest of the year - they restarted the following academic year on the proviso that the previous president not be a committee member. There was also a clarification on union policy sent to all societies - that it was permissible to pay speakers a reasonable fee to cover expenses and time, but that if this was going to exceed available union funds the society should either reconsider holding the meeting or charge admission to cover the costs.
As an aside, there is a distinction (at least in some universities) between the Union, which provides a range of places to eat, reading rooms etc and the Students' Representative Council which is the political body and publishes the student newspaper. In theory, as I'm a life member of the Union, I can still vote in elections to the Board. As I'm no longer a student, I can't vote in elections to the SRC.
(It is true that more posters than not lean left, and some posters do exhibit the attitude you're describing. But there are regular posters who don't lean left, and not all the posters who lean left exhibit that attitude.)
There is a right not to be thought a horrible or stupid or ignorant person, and a right to not have a particular set of political opinions dismissed as horrible or stupid or ignorant out of hand. They're just not inalienable rights. If all the arguments put forward in favour of Trump or Brexit are stupid ignorant and horrible then they lose the right not to be thought stupid ignorant and horrible until such time as they come up with arguments that aren't stupid or ignorant or horrible.
(Even Giles Fraser gets a bit Protestant Truth Society when he's advocating Lexit.)
It's a good job no one is saying that, then.
The evidence for evolution is multi-disciplinary, from geology, biology, zoology, medicine - and we now understand how it is mitigated through genetics.
Someone can refuse to consider the evidence, and be neither ignorant or stupid, instead defending a worldview which may be the only thing that stands between them and oblivion.
Perhaps we can be a bit kinder to those folk. But to the Hams and Gishes of this world? Charlatans.
To return to Alan's comment above; the internet has moved on in terms of how debate is carried out and what form it takes -- ignoring what younger people use anyway, as FB attracts an older audience and hardly anyone (percentage wise) is on twitter.
There are lots of subreddits - but discussion there tends to be fairly ephemeral owing to the nature of the platform - certainly in comparison with some of the longer running threads here. Similarly some of the news orientated blogs.
There are a few message boards of a religious conservative bent that appear to have reasonable levels of traffic -- though some of those either want subscription to some statement of faith or deem anything outside a particular statement of faith dead horsed, so I'm not sure to what extent their audience are really looking for 'unrest'.
I think this post exemplifies the phenomenon.
You could have disagreed with me - suggested that changes in view on free speech have a different cause.
Or you could have agreed, while pointing out that identity politics is only seen as a thing by those who are against it. Which is a valid observation that people on both sides of the House could agree (or disagree) with.
The suggestion that all decent human beings are for it is not only untrue, but seeks to make views that differ from one's own socially unacceptable. Which is what leads to a monochrome Ship.
Historically it bothered me when Catholic Shipmates found that discussions of all kinds tended to drag in the assertion that the authority of the Catholic Church was damaged by covering up child abuse by priests. The implication was that Catholic doctrines had nothing to say on any moral issue because of flawed authority on a very important issue.. I thought that was off the specific point of a discussion, even if it had some general validity. Said so as a Host at the time. Still believe it to be true. And a number of Catholics walked away, not because they wanted to defend the indefensible, but because they got fed up with that happening.
I belong to the school which believes that arguments are worth examining on their merits, regardless of source. I think that is a Purgatory value. Criticism of the validity of an argument because of its source is 'playing the man, not the ball'.
We allow 'that argument is stupid'. That assertion is best given with reasons. We don't allow 'you are stupid'. And particularly the argument, for example, that you must be stupid because you belong to any particular group. It may be that is true. And for some extremist groups I think it is very likely to be true. But free discussion can test that by the quality of the argument. We do not need to presume anything.
I suppose the question is whether we should be tolerant of intolerance. To which my answer would be "no". Complaining about "identity politics" is a dog-whistle for racism, sexism, homophobia and/or transphobia and should be treated as such. And before someone tells me Christians are supposed to be polite all the time:
"whited sepulchres"
"brood of vipers"
"get thee behind me Satan".
I gave you my observations. "Identity Politics" is a label that is applied, always in a derogatory manner, on those who express any empathy with oppressed groups, or members of those groups themselves who speak out. It is therefore much like "Political Correctness" before it.
I'm further bemused why your virtually content free "I blame identity politics" is fine but my similarly abrupt assessment of how the term is used is somehow symptomatic of how awful we terrible lefties are.
It's relevant to the thread topic because it's fairly obvious that people who think it's OK to ban or otherwise block the expression of opinion and views of which they disapprove will, if they become a majority in a place, make that place very uncomfortable for those of whom they disapprove. Which is what seems to be happening, slowly, to the Ship.
I predict that at least one of the replies to this post will be along the lines of how that's perfectly fine because those views are Bad and Wrong and Evil and should be completely eradicated from everywhere. Never once wondering what happens if they end up in the minority at some point after they've eroded all the protections around freedom of speech.
Which particular stories did you have in mind when you made your original claim?
I think it's fairly widely known and accepted - even on this thread - that "no-platforming" and "safe spaces" are common in student unions. Which are just newspeak for banning opinions of which those student unions disapprove.
Here's one example.
This would be laudable, except you think that too. Your threshold for the range of views and opinions might be calibrated differently, but it's non-zero.
All we're doing is arguing about where the dial is set.
(eta)
If we allowed racism and homophobia on the Ship (bearing in mind some shipmates don't think we crack down on that hard enough), do you think we'd have any non-white or gay shipmates left? I prefer their company to racists and homophobes, frankly.
OK. Personally I think it is not about academic freedom. but posting freedoms and responsibilities. Always has been.
So your view is that the opinion is not harmless on its own because of other stuff that some people who hold it also say?
Also, if we're going to ban opinions because of what they might lead to then shall we also ban the political theories of Marx because historically they have most often come in a package with Soviet-style Communism? Thought not.
In what way is only allowing the expression of acceptable opinions not about control?
If we want to talk about banning, let's talk about the things we currently do ban, not the things we don't.
Now, if you want to reply to what I actually said...
Your evidence for that being?
I'm of the "I hate what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" school of thought.
It's perfectly understandable to prefer the company of those you like, but that's how echo chambers (or whatever stripe) form.
It may not be literally banning, but it's certainly creating a Hostile Environment (to borrow a phrase from the May government) with the intention of achieving the same thing through different means.
All the way up to where it becomes illegal under UK incitement to racial hatred legislation, or do you also consider that flawed and believe the UK generally and the Ship specifically should allow everything up to and including racially motivated incitement to genocide?
Again that's not 'banning opinions' is it ? What is being 'policed' is the expression of certain opinions in certain places -- and it arises largely out of various speakers using campus events to either incite violence against certain groups and/or (at least in the case of Milo) out people. Do you have any evidence that they've actually 'banned opinions' ?
If you have issues with that, presumably you have far greater issues with Prevent legislation or various examples of corporate censorship.
That's not true though, is it? I already explained in this thread how no platforming works and the explanation for it. And it's more than disapproval, it's about protecting their members from abuse which is surely one of the primary functions of any union, student or otherwise.
The purpose of a safe space, meanwhile, is actually to allow for a free and frank discussion, so that people other than middle class white straight cis men can feel confident to express their views without their very existence being threatened and challenged.
It is perhaps illustrative to consider places that don't restrict the broadcast of opinions that are beyond the pail. I don't know if any of you have ever wandered into the seedier side of the internet, perhaps to 4chan, or into the youtube comments section, you discover that without regulation any public or pseudo-public space becomes predominantly a place of abuse, conspiracy theories and white supremacism.
There is always a line.
Depends what you mean by that. Racial insults and trolling would be prohibited along with any other personal insults and trolling. But should we allow critical discussion of differences between races and cultures? The pros of Empire? The cons of immigration? Support for dress codes in schools and offices? Whether it's OK for white people to wear kimonos?
A simple "we don't allow racism here" could be used to prohibit any of the above, and more.
I think you missed out transphobes along with "Trotskyite wreckers."
What I would like to know is who is dishing out the labels.
It's not a question of whose company I prefer, but whether I'm prepared to engage in these columns with those I disagree. That's one reason why I'm against calling shipmates to Hell.
Nor is free speech about the sensitivities of listeners. If your feelings are upset, tough luck, give as good as you take, but your sensibilities don't give you or me the right of censorship.
Yes, I do.
And yet it's student unions you raise as an example, rather than actual government censorship.
You can't "allow for a free and frank discussion" by saying that certain subjects cannot be discussed. That's a contradiction in terms that is more than worthy of comparisons to 1984.
Well, perhaps you might want to address the paragraph in my post you didn't quote.
At least we'd know who they are, which would greatly help in efforts to prevent them actually doing anything more than preaching.
If you ban the open expression of such ideas then the first you know of them is when the bomb goes off.
So you were opposed to that Choudary bloke being jailed for his preaching?
I ignored it because we on the Ship have to follow the law whether we like it or not. The rest we have control over.
Yes, due to the similarity in issues between that example and this thread.
Well, I did ask whether you thought the law was wrong as well, and whether we as a country should allow neo-Nazis to express their views.
Yes, I have the right to emit posts that consist solely of 'Your opinion is stupid and the Tories are evil', and no, nobody's free speech is infringed by my doing so - but that doesn't mean that it's good or healthy for the Ship as a community or a place of unrest.