Be Excellent To Each Other

To be clear, Tatchell wasn't denied a platform to speak. He had a fellow speaker refuse to speak alongside him, which is a very different thing. That's surely been going on since as long as public speaking has existed and doesn't feel to me like a ridiculous way to express your severe disagreement with someone's position.

true, but you can hardly put your point across if you are not there.

Also:
...we both know that somewhere, someone who reads the Daily Mail has used this exact sentence to defend their use of, say, "poofter" or "nigger" or some similar slur. I know you're not on that side of that line. Any maybe we live in a special golden age where the conflict between free expression of ideas and people not using language to hurt others because they're dicks is perfectly in balance. But that seems unlikely, to me.

Oh come now Doc. As it says in the very piece you've quoted, refusing to appear unless someone else is barred is closing down debate whichever way you slice it.There's not much point turning up to a debate if all your fellow speakers have flounced; it also *is* ridiculous to even refuse to share a platform with a man who has inarguably been a champion and campaigner for these very same minority groups, and has risked life and limb so to do.



Well yeah, I'm not on that side of the line, not by a million miles - and nor is hardly anyone else, least of all Peter Tatchell FFS. That's the point.

Look, you know where I'm coming from in all of this; I'm not trying to piss anyone off here but I make no bones about how utterly ridiculous I find most of this, and I'm sorry but that isn't because I'm some straight white dude who doesn't give a stuff about minorities/minority concerns, nor does it make me a bad person - but simply an utterly bemused and increasingly bewildered member of the human race. I think a lot of these people need to step back from their browsers and re-engage with actual *people*.

In the end though he did speak at the event. So the story here, unless there was widespread outrage at this outcome, seems to be one person having an extreme reaction to someone else.

So, public bodies are going to be prevented from considering ethics in their suppliers when awarding contracts for products or services

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 74006.html

I struggle a bit with this. It's very plainly aimed at Israel, and improving relations with a nation that has an extremely dubious human rights record by banning boycotts. This is a bad thing. On the other hand, this legislation would also seem to forbid a strongly religious council from, for example, refusing to contract with a supplier who strongly and publicly supports gay rights. I'm not sure what to think.

Sure, but the difference is: if we're invited to speak, and you speak and I flounce, it's *my* side of the argument that's not presented, most likely to my detriment. If I force you not to speak, it's *your* side that no-one has heard. Those are very different outcomes.

Yes, I get that, but what if the person flouncing (on pain of someone not being allowed to speak) is key to the debate, e.g. the Chair or organiser, or what some or all other participants do the same? The debate itself is crippled or doesn't happen at all, so the (desired) end result is the same, it is a de facto barring.

I'm not saying people should be forced to speak at debates or anywhere else against their will, but equally I feel that criticism may well be due and anything that stifles debate is not a good thing in my book at least.

"Does your dad buy Jaffa oranges?"

"Yes"

"He's buying nukes for israel bro, he's a jew"

Yes, I agree that could be problematic but only if it happened en masse and there is little evidence of that (that I am aware of, at least.) It's not like Greer or Tatchell or anyone else the NUS has taken a dislike to is having difficulty promulgating their ideas right now, nor are they likely to anytime soon, so I don't see cause for grave concern. I think the NUS is probably being foolish, but the young often grow out of foolishness.

Well, unless you're prepared to go as far as "my belief in free speech is so great that I don't believe you have the freedom not to speak" then I don't see a neat answer here. Some speakers will continue to attempt to hold venues hostage, and they may or may not succeed. People will judge the speakers on their merits and make the call about who they think is being the bigger dick -- and maybe, sometimes, "no-platforming" will seem like a reasonable thing to have done. There are doubtless people who we are, on the whole, better off just ignoring. Not everyone is a special snowflake who deserves equal attention.

I guess I have more confidence in the free economic market of ideas than you do. I don't see this recent hype about "no-platforming" as a significant stifling force. I merely think it's a bit silly when taken to extremes, but then again, what isn't?

No, personally, I definitely think there is an observable trend at play; an increasing intolerance and "othering"; this clamour among certain quarters to be more left wing/right on than others etc., and your OP tends to lend some credence to this. For me, it's all very McCarthyite I must say.

I'm inclined to agree with Cavesterooni. It could be on the increase but it could just be getting more coverage. It sits uncomfortably with me, in the main.

I think it sits uncomfortably with me because someone's beliefs and principles are negatively impacting another person.

Did you just quote yourself?

Yes. Otherwise if I were to edit so done might not pick up the later bit. I do it often. Sometimes I disagree with myself.

I think this sort of thing might be true at university debating clubs or whatever the fuck but in the press or places like Facebook i.e. as far as most actual people are concerned, I've heard more people spouting more shitty horrible views lately than at any time I can really remember.

That's just trolling/trolls though, surely? (your final point obv.)

I suppose from my side of things, I don't normally bother thinking about the likes of Twitter/Facebook and peoples' antics there (and purposely stay away). Trolls gonna be trolls, twitter gonna be twitter what do you expect etc., whereas I am much more concerned when mainstream, more cerebral places of debate and vigorous discussion are potentially compromised? If university campuses can't be hotbeds of contentious, vigorous and yes, controversial platforms for debate (and all the potential for offence this entails) then for me at least, these are sad, misguided times. You can throw the baby out with the bathwater, yeah?

One person's troll is another person's 'voice of reason', though.

My followers are all bots so I can spout as much bollocks as I want without a soul in the world reading it.

Yeah, very true.

I wonder if the left's rushing to judgement and sometimes OTT stuff that we're discussing is linked to a belief that the right (not all the right, just like not all the left) are getting more extreme and more blunt and blatant in their prejudices.

As an example, the American elections have a Republican front runner who is openly racist and his supporters love it. You get huge ratings by being anti-choice, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

It seems logical that there would be a backlash to this.

And there's always a backlash to the backlash, etc.

Yes, but this is a back lash against the "left" for not being "left enough" within the personal scales of the people involved.

This is why the left will never defeat the right. The right just don't give a fuck who they offend and just get their nasty shit done. The left is far too fractured and prone to infighting.

\o

Politics and life aren't a war of left versus right. On both sides the massive, massive problem the world has is people being tribalist and fleeing the centre. The centre's where shit gets done and sexy stuff happens.

All right Tony Blair

Yeah, it's just like beards were a backlash against metrosexuality

I agree with that generally - that's why I vote for and joined a centre-left party (Labour, for all its many deep flaws) rather than an extreme party (Greens). And why I think Corbyn will be the Tories' secret weapon in keeping them in power.

You mean shaving, right? Beards are a backlash against dragging sharp bits of metal over your face every morning. I mean, it's insane. If you tried explaining it to hairless aliens, they'd think you were mental.

'Every morning I remove natural hair from my face with a sharp piece of metal'
'What? Don't you cut yourself?'
'All the time!'
'Doesn't it hurt?'
'Of course it does! Then we splash some special liquid on our faces that makes it hurt so much more!'
'Why do you do this?'
'To look pretty'
'These people are insane. Let's nuke this stupid planet and go home'

If you have a female partner, would you find it equally bonkers were she to shave her legs/underarms, etc?

Agreed. Hairy is the new erm... not hairy.

Well, of course... you can't even see those bits, most of the time.

Shaving is nowhere near as mental as ironing. Fuck ironing.

Hell yeah. I haven't ironed anything in years.

Some people iron pretty much everything, spend like half an hour or more a day doing it. Entire years of their lives. Ridiculous.

And they put the clothes on... and boom! Wrinkles.

I don't iron anything unless it's immediately going to be placed on my person that day or following morning.

Heh. Mrs C irons *everything*; shirts (with starched collars), T-shirts, jeans, hankies, gym vests, sheets, pillow cases, eiderdowns, steam-presses jackets... even my boxers lol. She's a domestic goddess. The iron itself is some bloody massive professional affair and has its own remote water tank with goose-necked feed pipe, the steam jets are immense.

I never used to iron cock-all when I was a bachelor, but I've got no issues with someone else doing it for me. In fact, I really quite like it.

I only iron my work shirts, coz they look proper messy if you don't.

I wear a jumper

and tshirts

What is ironing? Occasionally a shirt. Otherwise nowt.

And splashing after shave on, especially after a cut? No.

Heh. Again, Mrs C *insists* I wear aftershave (not Brut or Hi Karate but some "Jo Malone" stuff she got me for Xmas, I smell like a tart's handbag but she loves it bless 'er)

Must be a 1970s vibe.

Now I have a lovely image of your boudoir and routine. All a bit Christian Bale in American Hustle (without the combover, mind).

Yeah, not so much "combover" as "pass the Mister Sheen", unfortunately...

I ironed precisely once after becoming single. Now the nice lady at the launderette does it for me.

That's expensive stuff. My missus loves it.

Yeah I know mate, tell me about it! (edit: the bit where you said it's expensive, not that your missus loves it also, just to clarify likes )
Personally I think it smells like bloody perfume(!) but what can I say. The lady loves all that shite so I just do it without questioning, it's the easiest way.