Things the Right get right

[firefinga]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-you-whos-the-special-snowflake-a6884026.html this is pretty good at cutting through quite a lot of the bullshit/hypocrisy around the issue of no-platforming.

"Let us remember when we speak of “free speech” that those arguments presume everyone’s voice has an equal voice in society."

The concept of "free speech" means you and everybody else is allowed to talk about whatever you want (as long as you don't violate specific laws), which is the "equal" part. No body (neither the special snowflake types nor the right wingers) have the ultimate right to speak or publish wherever they please. It's not that difficult to understand.

 

[droid]

So you support the concept of no platforming?

 

[firefinga]

So you support the concept of no platforming?

I don't support it, bc I think it's conceding self defeat. But if a certain groupd doesn't want a specific person to appear on a panel or whatever it's their right to exclude the person in question.

 

[droid]

What about in its original form as applied to fascism?

 

[firefinga]

What about in its original form as applied to fascism?

What do you mean by that? Are you referring to the civil war like situations in the 1920s or 1930s? To be honest, don't really get this question.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Admitting metaphorically conflating structural oppression with violence is an odd move given your previous stance, but I wasn't setting the bar quite that high funnily enough. Can you actually answer the question?

If you bar someone from taking part in a debate, you have silenced their voice in the context of that specific debate. (Please stop me if I'm going too fast for you here.) As I made clear already, that's obviously not the same thing as declaring a fatwa on them and having their books burnt by order of the state, or however you decide to interpret the idea of 'silencing' someone.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Rupert Murdoch and his minions 'no-platform' progressive thinkers every day of the week, and the hateful stuff they commission reaches millions.

So The Sun doesn't have op-ed pieces by feminists and LGBT activists and anti-racism campaigners? That constitutes 'no-platforming' - a notably right-wing paper mysteriously not publishing material by left-wing writers? Fucking hell.

 

[droid]

What do you mean by that? Are you referring to the civil war like situations in the 1920s or 1930s? To be honest, don't really get this question.

No Platforming comes from post war anti-fascist groups and was developed as a strategy to (often violently) prevent fascist groups from marching, speaking in public and spreading their ideas through the media.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I've never heard of even the touchiest and most paranoid right-wing hacks complain they're getting 'no-platformed' because, oddly enough, their writing isn't getting published in The Guardian and New Statesman.

 

[firefinga]

No Platforming comes from post war anti-fascist groups and was developed as a strategy to (often violently) prevent fascist groups from marching, speaking in public and spreading their ideas through the media.

It's a thin line bc fascists are per definition militants thus violence prone but likely I wouldn't support this either, bc this often gives the said groups a "borrowed importance". The spreading via media thing you won't be able to prevent in this age and day anymore anyways, thanx to youtube and social media.

 

[luka]

Tea you've misunderstood the Reasonable Man. Tje Reasonable Man is not unreasonable it refers to a)a rhetorical stance and b) an unexamined and therefore complacent, self-image.

 

[comelately]

If you bar someone from taking part in a debate, you have silenced their voice in the context of that specific debate. (Please stop me if I'm going too fast for you here.)

You do jump from argument to argument pretty fast, as Luka has pointed out, but even this is technically wrong - their voice was never in that particular debate to begin with, so it hasn't been silenced per se. This may seem pedantic....ok it is quite pedantic, but when you're going to make mountains of someone using the term bombard metaphorically then I think it's reasonable and useful to point out your own use of violent metaphors to describe non-violent acts, and that it's actually much more dishonest and craven than what you complained of. It's now been clearly demonstrated, so thanks for that.

At the risk of committing whatboutery, I do have to wonder exactly at the priorities of people who get worried about people being "no-platformed" (essentially, to be read 'no access to our platform' by student societies). You deny denying there is a problem, but I don't see you, or anyone else really, coming up with any other alternative solution - generally that's the thing to do when criticising a proposed solution. If you think there is no solution, and that we're stuck with the problem, then at least come out and say that. As is, you're really just embodying that kind of handwaving rhetorical games that illustrates the need for this kind of 'negative curation' all too well.

I've never heard of even the touchiest and most paranoid right-wing hacks complain they're getting 'no-platformed' because, oddly enough, their writing isn't getting published in The Guardian and New Statesman.

But there has been a wider attack on the perceived liberal bias within the BBC, the news media in the US (lamestream media, often with a sprinkling of antisemitism), and indeed within universities/colleges (we've referenced Allan Bloom in this thread) over a long period of time.

More recently there has been upset over Twitter bannings (Milo), and changes to Youtube paid account conditions (basically going to be harder for Alt-Right to monetise their accounts as I understand it). They complain about lots of stuff (I refer you to the quote regarding perpetual victimhood earlier in the thread), and they complain about this no-platforming business in universities obviously.

 

[Benny Bunter]

TEA - The entire reasoning behind no-platforming is supposedly to make the whole university a safe space at all times

Comelately - Supposedly? According to whom exactly?

The deputy president of the National Union of Students (NUS), Richard Brooks, however, defended the policy. He said: “Students’ unions are often the only place where students can be themselves, a place where they can think about things and challenge ideas and thoughts in a safe environment. Sometimes the only way you can ensure those safe spaces remain safe is through no-platform policies.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/13/banning-shouting-down-speakers-universities-risk

Brooks later tried to gaslight Bindel on twitter, claiming that she had never been no-platformed at all, despite the clear evidence that an NUS LGBT conference voted to do exactly that and passed a motion that actually said "Julie Bindel is vile".

And there are numerous other examples of how no platforming is used and justified in this way. I honestly don't think this is really about safe spaces and free speech. Its more about the pathetic, watery, spineless application of identity politics from people who'd rather tar dissenting opinions as 'hate speech' than have an honest debate about it.

 

[Benny Bunter]

It's a thin line bc fascists are per definition militants thus violence prone but likely I wouldn't support this either, bc this often gives the said groups a "borrowed importance". The spreading via media thing you won't be able to prevent in this age and day anymore anyways, thanx to youtube and social media.

Thought this article by Sarah Ditum was good related to this

...no platform has been more or less abandoned by the anti-fascist movement. That wasn’t because of a sudden conversion to the benefits of free speech, and it wasn’t even close to to universally welcomed, but it was probably inevitable. There are two reasons for this, one political and one technical. Firstly, British far-right and anti-immigration parties started to enjoy electoral success in the early 21st century, making it difficult to justify refusing them a platform: once BNP leader Nick Griffin became Nick Griffin MEP, the case for keeping him off Question Time became at the very least tenuous.

Secondly, blogging and social media meant that a platform was no longer something that could be withheld: anyone with any views can now hold forth so long as they have an internet connection and a Twitter login. For Hope Not Hate’s Lowles, no platform has to be reinvented, from a policy of radical non-engagement to one of equally radical popular engagement by which campaigners can “deny fascists, organised racists and other haters the freedom to spread their poison within communities unchallenged.”

Whether that will be sufficient intervention to stem the necrotic spread of British racism is uncertain, and the aftermath of Griffin’s 2009 Question Time appearance offers ambivalent lessons. After a fleeting and insignificant bump in the polls, it seemed that cheerleaders for the power of scrutiny would be vindicated: Griffin’s twitchy, evasive performance was seen as a disaster within the BNP, and exacerbated the divisions that led to the party’s collapse, explains Daniel Trilling, author of Bloody Nasty People: The Rise of Britain’s Far Right.

But long term, the outcome was less wholesome. “It contributed to the shifting rightwards of the debate on immigration,” says Trilling. We live in the era of the Go Home Van, in a time when less-than-alarmist reports on the effects of immigration are deemed so politically sensitive they have to be suppressed. Even if Griffin lost Question Time, we can’t pretend that anti-racism won the war.

http://www.newstatesman.com/sarah-d...out-attacking-individuals-deemed-disagreeable

 

[Benny Bunter]

so basically, my position is that the argument for no platforming in universities is often applied in bad faith, and it isn't very effective at fighting fascism etc in this day and age even when applied in good faith. As a tactic its being misdirected, used against individuals rather than fascist groups. The free speech thing is just a diversion really.

And regarding safe spaces, if Bindel is to be believed, there were several women at the NUS meeting where they made the decision to NP her who expressed a desire to hear the debate, but were shouted down by the men (like Richard Brooks). Institutionalised sexism in action, as per usual.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Tea you've misunderstood the Reasonable Man. Tje Reasonable Man is not unreasonable it refers to a)a rhetorical stance and b) an unexamined and therefore complacent, self-image.

But that's just a fancy way of saying "I disagree with you", and is something I could just as well say back at you. You phrase your assertions a bit differently from me but you have your positions and you stick to them, just like I do.

 

[luka]

You're impervious to words. It's like oil and water.

 

[luka]

You don't have positions you have emotional reactions to stories in the media which are designed to provoke emotional reactions. Primary school teacher in Kidderminster bans baa baa black sheep. Pc gone mental. Your brain can't go beyond basic harrumphing and world gone madding.

 

[luka]

I've made one very simple, very modest argument, consistently, and you've yet to engage with it in any substantive way. Instead you've identified safe spaces as spaces designed to lock out people like you. But anyone trying to lock out a Reasonable Man must, by definition, be unreasonable. It's a threat to free speech. It's an emotional response, exactly the response the stories you read are designed to trigger.

 

[comelately]

Brooks later tried to gaslight Bindel on twitter, claiming that she had never been no-platformed at all, despite the clear evidence that an NUS LGBT conference voted to do exactly that and passed a motion that actually said "Julie Bindel is vile".

And there are numerous other examples of how no platforming is used and justified in this way. I honestly don't think this is really about safe spaces and free speech. Its more about the pathetic, watery, spineless application of identity politics from people who'd rather tar dissenting opinions as 'hate speech' than have an honest debate about it.

I didn't mean to imply that there are infact no examples of "no platforming (being) used and justified in this way", but I think it is much better form to point out the specifics rather than indulge in dishonest lost performatives and universal quantifiers like "The *entire* reasoning behind no-platforming is *supposedly* to make the whole university a safe space at all times", and statements like "I honestly don't think *this* is really about safe spaces and free speech" aren't that much better. I don't really see a lot of evidence on any side that people are particularly interested in having "honest debates", though I think it would be good to understand what people think honest debating actually looks like.