Nick Griffen

languagenerd

I hate Nick Griffin and his opinions, but I didn't mind him coming to the college. It wasn't like he was being given a free reign to spout propaganda and rally up recruits - it was a debate, people were going to argue against his points and (probably) defeat him.

Tears in Rain

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

*shrugs* How about reading their justification for such intolerance of intolerance?

This was the point of view I held until a few days ago on the matter, but at this stage I'm fairly convinced I was wrong. Consider for instance Popper, who was famous for stating that (paraphrasing) a tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance. Yet even he writes:

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

Can we counter the arguments of Nick Griffin and the BNP with rational argument? Considering that they're prepared to enter into a formal debate at a university suggests that we can, i.e. they seem to be providing us with an opportunity for 'rational argument', they are not 'denouncing all argument', they are not forbidding their followers to listen to rational argument etc.

if we are convinced of the validity of our ideals and the virtues of our rational, humanistic and tolerant values, (note: I assume a priori that these are values which those opposing the debate hold), then surely we should have no fear of being made fools of in a debate with the intolerant, but rather it is they who would be made fools of, provided of course that we are represented by a competent speaker. And I have a little doubt that a speaker of even modest competence is capable of dismantling their (the BNP) arguments effectively. This of course would involve not resorting to petty things like silly ad hominem attacks or name calling, which I have seen in some interactions with him, and which only serve to make our side seem silly and incapable of any sort of rational argument.

So what of those who suggest that the best path to follow, when dealing with those we consider to be intolerant, is to refuse them a platform?

Now, a problem arises then if we consider that if we are to suppress all expressions of intolerance, there is the difficulty in ascertaining whether a given expression is suitably 'intolerant'. As anyone who's used the internet knows, accusations of fascism are endemic, and it's all too easy to suppress debate by calling the opposing party 'racist', 'fascist', 'sexist' and so forth. If as a society we allow so easily the suppression of offending speech, we run the danger of, on the one hand, suppressing legitimate but controversial debate, which would undoubtedly have a negative effect on the progress of science and culture. For instance, look at, say, B.F. Skinner and James Watson, two scientists who tend to get labeled as fascistic or racist/sexist for their views on behavioral conditioning and eugenics respectively. Should they be denied a platform because some consider their views intolerant? Or rather are the interests of society served by holding a lively debate on the merits of their respective proposals?

On the other hand, and possibly more seriously, it allows for those who wish to maintain the status quo, for personal rather than altruistic reasons, damage legitimate opposition by leveling false accusations of bigotry against their opponents. In past days it was an all too easy thing for men in power to discredit an opponent by calling him mad, or an atheist, or a corrupter of morals, regardless of the actual validity of the claims. Consider for instance the undoing of men such as Socrates and Spinoza. While today we might believe we are above such injustices, I suggest that in what might be termed the 'faux-tolerant society', we are all to easily manipulated into rejecting legitimate opposing points of view because we have been led to believe the holders of that point of view, rightly or wrongly, to hold in addition intolerant points of view. For example, look at someone like Assange, who lost a great deal of credibility in the eyes of many because he was revealed, or made out, to be misogynistic or sexist.

This isn't to suppose for a minute that I doubt the extreme unpleasantness of people like Nick Griffin. I find him a horrible and racist bigot. But I don't think we can curb his right to free speech without also doing much damage by curbing the speech of others. And for those who say we legitimise their arguments by giving them a platform, what of those who would say by refusing to engage them in debate we appear to legitimise their claims that we are incapable of refuting their positions, that we are too frightened to debate with them, that we are ossified by refusing to consider alternative points of view?

Essentially, I feel that the view of those who argue in favour of a "no platform" position to do more harm than good, where we define good as to perpetuate the sort of open society which promotes the free exchange of ideas without the persecution of others, i.e. believe the idea that some ideas are too dangerous to be expressed, even in a framework where they can be easily refuted, itself to be a dangerous idea (though of course I accept its right, so to speak, to be argued for or against ), and symptomatic of the type of thinking that leads to the sort of oppressive closed societies of the sort that we are trying to avoid. Consider for instance the poets and artists banned from Plato's Republic, or the artistic and literary censorship in the USSR.

Finally, the question then arises of what to do if the BNP decides to change tack and actively attempt to stifle debate, actively start attacking and persecuting minorities, journalists? When essentially they start acting like the Nazi party did in the 20's? This then is when they start to 'answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols', and this is the type of intolerance that Popper talks about when he talks about the right of the tolerant not to tolerate intolerant behaviour, not merely the expression of intolerant ideas in public forums. And thus, I don't oppose Nick Griffin coming to Trinity to talk.

PurpleFistMixer

Tears in Rain wrote: »

wall of text

Very good post. You should really write for the Pirate Party website. >.> I agree with the points and personally don't object to Nick Griffin coming to talk. I just take issue with people taking issue with things they know little about (or are willfully ignorant of).

Lawliet

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

I just take issue with people taking issue with things they know little about (or are willfully ignorant of).

I realize that this is the internet, where everyone loves telling people to shut up when they don't what they're talking about, and it's true that I'm far from an expert on the subject, but you don't have to be one to see the problem with using censorship to stop intolerance.