'No-platforming' at Trinity College.

Gervais08

purifol0 wrote: »

I'm not a member of the hist but if I were I'd feel pretty shortchanged that instead of world famous Dawkins I'm getting...Ebun Joseph.

Basically instead of robust intellectual debate it's a racist with an agenda. Yes Ebun is a racist, she wants discrimination on grounds of the colour of your skin and she wants it mandated in the education sector!

They haven’t really invited her in Richard Dawkins’ stead have they ???

StinkyMunkey

Freedom of speech is overrated, if you have nothing nice to say then don't bother. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.

There are plenty of places for all you freedom of speech lovers to have circle jerks without inflicting it on those who don't wanna hear it.

If you wanna listen to this numpty so much invite him over for tea and biscuits.

Rubberchikken

I though a major part of being in college was exposure to all opinions and the opportunity to learn to listen to ones that differ from yours and enable educated arguments.

If not allowing someone to address a society simply because some don't agree with the speaker or feel that some members may be upset by the topic then heaven help the future.

mouldybiscuits

Snickers Man wrote: »

This is ridiculous. I personally don't like Dawkins. I think some of his ideas are downright dangerous. But not so dangerous that he shouldn't be allowed to promote them and to have them questioned and challenged in a leading university.

Who do they propose to invite in his place?

Caitlyn Jenner lol

Tombo2001

biko wrote: »

I am all for suppressing unpleasant speech.
I mean, we can't go have people with differing views influence other people that are easily influenced.
No, we want those other people to listen to us instead, cause we know better don't we?
But we shouldn't call it "suppression", let's call it "protection".
Much more pleasant to the ears, and that's important to us.

I'm all for honest debate.

But I'm not on for a shouting match that is just an outlet for people's aggression, narcissism and prejudice.

Thats how we end up with the Trump vs Biden debate the other night, and all the anti immigrant, anti traveller and misogynistic threads around this parish.

karlitob

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I'm all for honest debate.

But I'm not on for a shouting match that is just an outlet for people's aggression, narcissism and prejudice.

Thats how we end up with the Trump vs Biden debate the other night, and all the anti immigrant, anti traveller and misogynistic threads around this parish.

Except you’re not for honest debate.

I’ve yet to see a Dawkins debate that was a shouting match and all the other blah blah that you mentioned.

TomTomTim

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Ah yes, the quintessential liberal.....except just different to the type of liberal we like to sneer at.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

So often there is a herd view on Boards that seems to be predominantly male, but who knows - as its anonymous.

There certainly is on this thread - poor old Richard......those damn liberals.

I would love to know the gender balance of the people on this thread who feel The Hist should give this guy a platform, given his victim blaming proclamations on sexual assault.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I didnt take anything from the thread.

I just said it would be interesting to know the gender balance of the people on this thread, given the prevailing view here that he should be offerred a platform on the one hand, and his track record of commentary on sexual assault on the other.

Jxsus in a Bucket. You fellas seem a bit touchy.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Very well said, however thoroughly wasted on this lot as they are so closed minded.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Very benign of you, its gas how you give the benefit of the doubt when it suits.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Only the 65000 posts before you came up with that idea......slow out of the blocks.

(Of course, no one has ever had a post deleted for questioning a Mod, now have they.......much like our friend above, ye'll do it when it suits you).

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Lots of people coming on here defending the guy and at the same time asking "well what does he actually say on this"....

Not my job to inform you.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

@Amirani

Yes they did......

Tombo2001 wrote: »

This thread is the same as the sexual harrassment thread, the racism thread, the anti immigrant thread, the anti traveller thread....

The same punters rounding on people and cheering each other on until everyone but them leaves the conversation.

Just another day on boards.ie


FFS.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I'm all for honest debate.

But I'm not on for a shouting match that is just an outlet for people's aggression, narcissism and prejudice.

Thats how we end up with the Trump vs Biden debate the other night, and all the anti immigrant, anti traveller and misogynistic threads around this parish.

Show me one thing in these posts that could even be considered "honest debate"?

gozunda

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Freedom of speech is overrated, if you have nothing nice to say then don't bother. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.

There are plenty of places for all you freedom of speech lovers to have circle jerks without inflicting it on those who don't wanna hear it.

If you wanna listen to this numpty so much invite him over for tea and biscuits.

Ah I see you did the old Platitude 104 Module. To get a pass there you will need to also do 111 Generality Studies as well. :pac:

StinkyMunkey

gozunda wrote: »

Ah I see you did the old Platitude 104 Module. To get a pass there you will need to also do 111 Generality Studies as well. :pac:

I did the common sense module and got a first.

TomTomTim

TomTomTim wrote: »

Show me one thing in these posts that could even be considered "honest debate"?

We really should get your post placed as a sticky. Considering how often this comes up.

gozunda

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Freedom of speech is overrated, if you have nothing nice to say then don't bother. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should...

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

I did the common sense module and got a first.

I somehow doubt that you got a first ...

TheBlackPill

I think its high time the students set up a debating club/society outside the aegis of the university. Having the university affiliation hamstrings the society's as they are beholden to a code of conduct, and the uni can block access to speakers too. Basically any uni affiliated society cannot freely tell woke rubbish to take the high road.

the purple tin

TheBlackPill wrote: »

I think its high time the students set up a debating club/society outside the aegis of the university. Having the university affiliation hamstrings the society's as they are beholden to a code of conduct, and the uni can block access to speakers too. Basically any uni affiliated society cannot freely tell woke rubbish to take the high road.

The Auditor of the Hist: Brid. Is she a student who got elected to that post or is she a paid employee of the college? How does it work?

TheBlackPill

the purple tin wrote: »

The Auditor of the Hist: Brid. Is she a student who got elected to that post or is she a paid employee of the college? How does it work?

Suspect she is student elected to the post. However all college affiliated societies that are active on campus are members of a college body overseeing them including disciplinary issues and some funding. I fondly remember the iron stomach competition(cannot recall which society) which was stopped because of university pressure. "Contestants, you have heard of sour cream and onion crisps, well now here we have a bucket of sour cream and onions"

ohnonotgmail

the purple tin wrote: »

The Auditor of the Hist: Brid. Is she a student who got elected to that post or is she a paid employee of the college? How does it work?

definitely not an employee of the college

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

Well, this news was quite cringeworthy. Inviting Dawkins not knowing he critcized Islam is like inviting Freddie Mercury do do a talk on campness and then finding out "oh, he's in a rock and roll band." It's just shows how poor Bríd was with her basic research. I would be very embarrassed if I were her right now.

And Dawkins is pretty consistent with his critcism of religion. Islam just happens to be one of the religions he critques. But it's all based on principles of them being anti-scienfitic and harmful in some form or another to education.

It's amazing when one critcises Islam, it means they are "critcising all Muslims." But when you criticise Scientology or Caltholicism you are criticising the institution not every Scientologist or catholic. Why is that? Double standard are astonishing.

As for the tweets. Whether you agree or not with them, doeesn't negate his work and contributions to science. We need intellectual and challenging discourse and opposing views to sharpen our own and to challenge our own ideas and views. Otherwise how to we grow and evolve?

Those that can't see that are intellecutally bereft of any logic or reasoning.

Imagine, disinviting someone because some people might feel uncomfortable. How about the people that might benefit from his years of expertise and scienfitic wisdom. People being uncomfortable trumps other people's chance at learning.

Hotblack Desiato

Snickers Man wrote: »

I know this is a huge issue now, the right to "die with dignity" but it's a moral minefield. Especially if somebody ELSE gets a say in whether or not you deserve to continue living or not. I just feel that his attitude to it is a little flippant. And it's an issue about which we cannot afford to be flippant. Especially in an era of socialised medicine. Public health budgets could be the deciding factor in the not too distant future, if we treat this in a blasé fashion.

'Socialised medicine', are you in the US or something? Developed countries call it a 'health system'.

That above is a completely ridiculous conclusion to jump to based on what he was asked and his answer. I'm sure many other people would say something similar if asked. It doesn't mean they have any particular position on euthanasia, and so what if they did?

We're going to have a debate on euthanasia / assisted dying in this country whether you like it or not, and it's about bloody time tbh. Too many people have suffered too much unnecessarily and against their expressed wishes. But "catholic country" eh? :rolleyes:

The other, and more worrying one, is his answer to "What are we going to evolve into"?

And again an utterly ridiculous overreach which bears practically no relation to what he was asked and his answer.

He questioned whether the human brain is going to continue to get bigger as it did in the past - it's a fact that between technology and reduced fertility in developed/wealthier cohorts of society the selective pressure which drove evolution in that direction in the past isn't there any more.

So he gave his answer, as an evolutionary biologist. He's not a social scientist, or a philosopher, or a politician. He gave a factual answer to a question, you invented a scenario based on that answer and proceeded to lose your shít over it.

The fact is, the only people really speaking up against this sort of thing are the Churches. It is the one area of modern society where they could make a real comeback. Because they talk more assured sense on this subject than the diffident "science led" academics.

That's just your opinion though and one I certainly wouldn't share. First thing you need to ask in relation to any RCC policy - "Folow the money".

He hasn't come out and blatantly advocated eugenics (although he came pretty close with his tweets, which he tried to disown, about it being immoral to continue with a pregnancy if a scan revealed that the child was likely to have Downs Syndrome)

He actually said it would not be immoral to abort in those circumstances, and a great many people agree with him, including me.

Nothing whatsoever to do with eugenics and this is very reminiscent of the disgraceful and exploitative lies of the No side from two years ago.

Eugenics is about the elimination of certain inherited traits, Downs Syndrome is not inherited so has nothing whatsoever to do with eugenics.

That's all. Let him come and present and answer questions. The issue isn't going to go away just because some wimpy student thinks the safe space is more important than the debating chamber.

Let him, but let those debating with him be honest enough not to misrepresent what he says or take issue with something he did not say.

Hotblack Desiato

Glinda wrote: »

Various things, but one that comes immediately to mind was that if a woman wants to be able to testify and put a man in jail (in the context of rape in particular) then she shoudn't get drunk.

Is he wrong though? It's an unpalatable fact that when it comes down to one person's word against another, the testimony of someone who was drunk to the point of blacking out is pretty much useless in court.

Twitter isn't known for nuance, or its ability to flesh out a complex issue. You and the rest saw something you could pounce on, and did, and even filled in the contextual blanks with the worst things you could imagine. Congratulations.

Which of course is in danger of falling down the same rabbit hole (of debating the precise content, instead of looking at the context, namely that he doesn't apply this standard to other crimes, or to victims other than women.

Wow, I didn't realise his entire world view was set out in a single 140-character tweet. Who knew? :rolleyes:

It's the patterns thing again - not so much the isolated content of what you say on one occasion, but the fact that you repeatedly and exclusively apply it to certain crimes, or to certain types of people (inevitably women or other marginalised groups of victims).

Well you need to provide evidence of this assertion, don't you?

So far all you got is one tweet stripped of context, which he subsequently apologised for.

circadian

Ah that was a silly move. If she believed strongly enough in her views then they'd be able to stand up in a debate against Dawkins.

Also, people banging in about the left are way off the mark. Don't make this a binary political issue. There's something else at play here and I feel it's more a social element rather than political.

I remember getting elected to the student council, many moons ago, standing with Socialist Students. We had robust debate within the group about the manifesto and we agreed on all points bar one. I refused outright to run on the idea of banning BNP members from speaking at the union. They still fired up my posters with that on it so I left.

It felt like I was screaming into the void. I'm open to my ideals being challenged. I'm also open to defending them.

There is something at a social level about avoiding arguments and conflict. Can't quite put my finger on it.

Hotblack Desiato

I'd be reluctant to give a platform to actual nazi-type organisations such as the BNP however. I'd be deeply uncomfortable with it (ah, that word again! I wouldn't attend but I wouldn't try to stop it, either.)

The BBC wrestled with that very question a few years ago, and had the party leader on Question Time where in the opinion of most he proceeded to make a complete fool of himself, but these days it's so easy to edit a video to misrepresent / decontextualise what was asked and what was said and what others said, then triumphantly stick it up on YouTube for your drooling followers, that merely allowing the likes of him onto a TV show in the first place could be a bad move.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

As for the tweets. Whether you agree or not with them, doeesn't negate his work and contributions to science. We need intellectual and challenging discourse and opposing views to sharpen our own and to challenge our own ideas and views. Otherwise how to we grow and evolve?

Those that can't see that are intellecutally bereft of any logic or reasoning.

Imagine, disinviting someone because some people might feel uncomfortable. How about the people that might benefit from his years of expertise and scienfitic wisdom. People being uncomfortable trumps other people's chance at learning.

Exactly. In China, with my university students, there is a similar atmosphere regarding all manner of topics. Not just the obvious political aspects, but a lot which would be considered ethical or moralistic. As such, they're still like children. It's something that a lot of foreign lecturers remark about... that Chinese university students are like teenagers rather than adults, because they've never been encouraged to question "things". Since so much is frowned upon for conversation. Which feeds into their lack of critical thinking, and tend to be overly emotional when they reach an argument they're not even remotely prepared for.

I see the same happening here where everyone is supposedly sensitive, and any discomfort must be avoided. It's creepy. Students need to be exposed to all manner of ideas and concepts, regardless of whether we agree on them or not, because it helps shape their ability to reason. To grasp ideas they can't accept and learn to formulate logical/rational arguments to counter those ideas. This push to provide a safe environment, by hiding that which is "uncomfortable" robs them of so much.

Makes me rather fearful for the future, tbh. Oh sure, most will learn these skills themselves outside of university, but many won't...

circadian

circadian wrote: »

Also, people banging in about the left are way off the mark. Don't make this a binary political issue. There's something else at play here and I feel it's more a social element rather than political.
.

The "left" is a social movement as much as it's a political 'side'. They're not necessarily the same thing. Many people who advocate "leftist" ideals, have no interest in politics.

the purple tin

An interesting piece on the issue
https://www.theburkean.ie/articles/2020/09/28/richard-dawkins-the-hists-cultural-revolution?unapproved=4938&moderation-hash=d19d0b7d85327c6a1453fa8a9f431d3e#comment-4938

Snickers Man

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

'Socialised medicine', are you in the US or something? Developed countries call it a 'health system'.

Call it what you like. I'm all in favour of public provision of health care. But it comes with a caveat that you should NEVER delegate all decision making, especially on matters of great moral controversy, solely to a state bureaucracy. There must always be freedom to dissent from their decisions, which, inevitably are driven ultimately by budgeting.

That, I think, is a perfectly reasonable point of view entirely compatible with a state-backed health service. If you think it makes me sound like a rabid supporter of the Tea Party/Trumpite tendency in the USA, then you are being as guilty of all the overreach and exaggeration that you are accusing me, unfairly I would say, of harbouring towards Professor Dawkins.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That above is a completely ridiculous conclusion to jump to based on what he was asked and his answer. I'm sure many other people would say something similar if asked. It doesn't mean they have any particular position on euthanasia, and so what if they did?

All I said was, it provokes some questions in my mind. Which I would like to see put to him and to hear him answer. Surely that is the whole purpose of free speech? To tease out positions on complex topics by reasoned discussion and proper debate?

Maybe you don't think so. I get the very strong impression that if this discussion were in a live setting with an audience you would be one of those easily outraged self-righteous prigs whose answer to any question they are suspicious of would be "Tut. Humph" and a roll of the eyes.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

:rolleyes:

There you go.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We're going to have a debate on euthanasia / assisted dying in this country whether you like it or not, and it's about bloody time tbh.

Where did you infer that I would be hostile to such a debate? I am not. I welcome it. But a debate means that you pay attention to, even if you don't agree with, alternative points of view. I think I know what your answer would be to a lot of perfectly reasonable, valid and important objections to your position that might be raised.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

:rolleyes:

There you go again.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

He questioned whether the human brain is going to continue to get bigger as it did in the past - it's a fact that between technology and reduced fertility in developed/wealthier cohorts of society the selective pressure which drove evolution in that direction in the past isn't there any more.

So he gave his answer, as an evolutionary biologist. He's not a social scientist, or a philosopher, or a politician. He gave a factual answer to a question, you invented a scenario based on that answer and proceeded to lose your shít over it.

If by "lose your **** over it" you mean that I think there are important moral considerations that arise from scientific discovery then guilty as charged. But that is WHY we need to have debates, and proper debates, about topics that are raised by people like professor Dawkins. I don't deny the validity of his scientific insights, or his prowess as an academic, or even his core observation that there is no evidence for a God, or at least for any of the interpretations of God that are currently held by mainstream faiths throughout the world.

There have been (as he is fond of pointing out) many earlier "Gods" whose existence is no longer suspected, such as Thor, Jupiter, Zeus, Ra, etc etc etc

Simply put: once you get rid of God, you are still left with the fearful, paranoid, megalomaniac, self righteous, conceited, arrogant and let's face it extremely violent species who created him. Or her. Or them.

That's us.

We need to keep ourselves in check.

keano_afc

Snickers Man wrote: »

This is ridiculous. I personally don't like Dawkins. I think some of his ideas are downright dangerous. But not so dangerous that he shouldn't be allowed to promote them and to have them questioned and challenged in a leading university.

Who do they propose to invite in his place?

Panti or Blindboy, probably.

Hotblack Desiato

Snickers Man wrote: »

Call it what you like. I'm all in favour of public provision of health care. But it comes with a caveat that you should NEVER delegate all decision making, especially on matters of great moral controversy, solely to a state bureaucracy.

You are raising baseless fears, nobody is suggesting this and it would not be supported by the public.

All I said was, it provokes some questions in my mind. Which I would like to see put to him and to hear him answer. Surely that is the whole purpose of free speech? To tease out positions on complex topics by reasoned discussion and proper debate?

But that's not what you are doing here. He is not here to debate you. What you are doing is misrepresenting what he said and saying it "raises questions" about his position which are not reasonable based on what he did say.

Maybe you don't think so. I get the very strong impression that if this discussion were in a live setting with an audience you would be one of those easily outraged self-righteous prigs whose answer to any question they are suspicious of would be "Tut. Humph" and a roll of the eyes.

Ad hominem.

There you go.

There you go again.

That's strange, there was only one :rolleyes: in the post you replied to, and you also stripped it of context, which was that opposition to euthanasia in Ireland is intimately tied up with the "this is a catholic country" thing - which I find entirely ridiculous and no basis for any decision on morality or public policy.

If by "lose your **** over it" you mean that I think there are important moral considerations that arise from scientific discovery then guilty as charged. But that is WHY we need to have debates, and proper debates, about topics that are raised by people like professor Dawkins.

Despite your misrepresentation he did not say anything that could reasonably be construed as support for eugenics.

Eric Cartman

keano_afc wrote: »

Panti or Blindboy, probably.

the usual safe left options.

excludedbin

Gotta love the sneering contempt for anyone left wing but if you dare criticise a right winger then you're fair game for any and all vituperation.

Eric Cartman

excludedbin wrote: »

Gotta love the sneering contempt for anyone left wing but if you dare criticise a right winger then you're fair game for any and all vituperation.

I dont think its sneering contempt, more that theres a constant platform and audience for anyone or any idea on the left in society and university and that same left works overtime to make sure that any view they disagree with is routinely silenced and de platformed to not allow anyone make up their own minds.

The saddest part is they've now cancelled Richard Dawkins, a man who would never have been considered right/far right a few years ago, but now his views on islam are considered problematic because muslims are the new sacred cow of the left.

Mad_maxx

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I dont think its sneering contempt, more that theres a constant platform and audience for anyone or any idea on the left in society and university and that same left works overtime to make sure that any view they disagree with is routinely silenced and de platformed to not allow anyone make up their own minds.

The saddest part is they've now cancelled Richard Dawkins, a man who would never have been considered right/far right a few years ago, but now his views on islam are considered problematic because muslims are the new sacred cow of the left.

For some reason, the left can never associate Muslims with far right, this despite far more examples of fascist behaviour from that corner this past two decades