Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

'No-platforming' at Trinity College.

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,172 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    growleaves wrote: »
    It's the reasoning that people object to.

    It was the students who wanted to have Richard Dawkins over. I don't rate Dawkins at all.

    These students then decided to disqualify their own speaker after discovering one-off statements he made they consider impolite.

    The implication is a heavily corralled, politicised intellectual culture - rather than a commitment to learning and openness.

    People with interesting ideas will, in time, go outside of and around rigid institutions. Academia will be a training ground for dull bureaucrats.




    No. It's the same thing. People will simply justify it internally because it fits their own view. The students can invite, or disinvite, whomever they want to. I don't care who they invite and don't invite as long as they are allowed to make their own decisions, free from external influences and pressures.



    They shouldn't be pressured into not inviting someone they actually want to invite and they shouldn't be pressured into inviting someone they actually don't want to invite.


  • Options
    #93
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    The irony is that some people on here are insisting that the students should have Dawkins over

    Demanding that they should have a specific person over is the same as demanding that they should not have a specific person over.

    Let the students decide for themselves. It's their choice

    I don't think so. The society had already asked him to speak. Then some of those apparently easily offended got upset about being uncomfortable or wtte.

    I think the majority of people are saying he shouldn't be deplatformed as a consequence of those who choose to be outraged or otherwise.

    And suggestions that invited speakers should not be muzzled is not in any way the same as "demanding that they should not have a specific person over"

    No one is pressuring the students btw. The comments here seem to be mainly discussing the implications of the shuting down of invited speakers and whether that is a good model for a historical society within an academic institution.

    There's a big difference tbh


  • Options
    #94
    growleaves
    Registered Users Posts: 7,724 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    No. It's the same thing. People will simply justify it internally because it fits their own view. The students can invite, or disinvite, whomever they want to. I don't care who they invite and don't invite as long as they are allowed to make their own decisions, free from external influences and pressures.



    They shouldn't be pressured into not inviting someone they actually want to invite and they shouldn't be pressured into inviting someone they actually don't want to invite.

    I'm not pressuring anyone into anything.

    I'm just noting that turning universities into no-think zones will eventually mean that interesting and intelligent people will go outside the university system.

    It happened before the eighteenth century with things like the invisible college and it will happen again.

    Maybe its for the best.


  • Options
    #95
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,172 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    gozunda wrote: »
    I don't think so. The society had already asked him to speak. Then some of those apparently easily offended got upset about being uncomfortable or wtte.

    I think the majority of people are saying he shouldn't be deplatformed as a consequence of those who choose to be outraged.

    No one is pressuring the students btw. The comments here seem to be mainly discussing the implications of the shuting down of invited speakers and whether that is a good model for a historical society within an academic institution.

    There's a big difference tbh




    The difference is that it appears to be the students that decided to dis-invite him. Not the college or the government or anyone else.



    There are loads of societies in the college. If one makes stupid decisions that the students don't like then they it will suffer the consequences of that. As long as it is the students who are making the decisions then I don't care what they do (as long as it is reasonably legal!)


  • Options
    #96
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,172 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    growleaves wrote: »
    I'm not pressuring anyone into anything.

    I'm just noting that turning universities into no-think zones will eventually mean that interesting and intelligent people will go outside the university system.

    It happened before the eighteenth century with things like the invisible college and it will happen again.

    Maybe its for the best.


    It's one society in one university. No need to over-react. There are plenty more.



    The door is now open for one of the rival socs to invite your man in now if they want. Big publicity there for them if they do! And if they do, more power to them. It's their choice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    growleaves
    Registered Users Posts: 7,724 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    It's one society in one university. No need to over-react. There are plenty more.

    Nah mate, "cancelling" is a trend across academia and no one is resisting that trend.


  • Options
    #98
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,172 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    growleaves wrote: »
    Nah mate, "cancelling" is a trend across academia and no one is resisting that trend.




    "In my day" blah blah blah.......





    Let them do their own thing and learn their own way. That's a large part of what university is for. If you're an old git from 25 years ago then you are irrelevant.


  • Options
    #99
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    The difference is that it appears to be the students that decided to dis-invite him. Not the college or the government or anyone else.

    Indeed. He was already invited to speak And not as you claimed "that some people on here are insisting that the students should have Dawkins over" which is not a fair reflection of the discussion tbf.

    No mention was made of the college or anyone else being responsible btw
    Donald Trump wrote: »
    There are loads of societies in the college. If one makes stupid decisions that the students don't like then they it will suffer the consequences of that. As long as it is the students who are making the decisions then I don't care what they do (as long as it is reasonably legal!)

    And thats an opinion. Fair enough. It does not mean that what a supposed august and learned society is doing - is either a good idea or setting a good precedence by sticking their fingers in their ears, their heads in the sand all the while singing lalala or wtte ...


  • Options
    #100
    growleaves
    Registered Users Posts: 7,724 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    "In my day" blah blah blah.......

    ????

    Like I said, if the university system wants to render itself irrelevant its no bother to me. It may even be for the best ultimately.

    Individuals with something to contribute can go outside of the university system, creating their own informal institutions if they have to.


  • Options
    #101
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,172 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    gozunda wrote: »
    Indeed. He wss already invited to speak And not as you claimed "that some people on here are insisting that the students should have Dawkins over" which is not a fair reflection of the discussion tbf.

    No mention was made of the college or anyobe else being responsible btw

    Donald Trump wrote: »
    There are loads of societies in the college. If one makes stupid decisions that the students don't like then they it will suffer the consequences of that. As long as it is the students who are making the decisions then I don't care what they do (as long as it is reasonably legal!)

    And thats an opinion. Fair enough. It does not mean that what a supposed august and learned society is doing - is either a good idea or setting a good precedence by sticking their fingers in their ears, their heads in the sand all the while singing lalala or wtte ...




    If the Hist elected an eejit to be in charge of them for a year then it is no different to a party electing an eejit to be it's leader. Let it suffer the consequences. It will take a hit and then will recover in a few years. It has been around for a long long time and will continue to be after the current students have been replaced with new ones.


    If I was a student running one of the other similar societies then, as I said, I'd be jumping at the chance to usurp them. It's not the college who are banning him nor the government. If there is appetite to see him, let them have the free shot on goal. It would get huge publicity now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    normanoffside wrote: »
    Is a debating society about debate?
    Isn't the whole point about debate being able to critique an opposing argument and win out with reason and logic?

    It seems the purpose of a debate now is two people stand in a room and constantly agree with each other on pre approved topics.


  • Options
    #103
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    If the Hist elected an eejit to be in charge of them for a year then it is no different to a party electing an eejit to be it's leader. Let it suffer the consequences. It will take a hit and then will recover in a few years. It has been around for a long long time and will continue to be after the current students have been replaced with new ones.


    If I was a student running one of the other similar societies then, as I said, I'd be jumping at the chance to usurp them. It's not the college who are banning him nor the government. If there is appetite to see him, let them have the free shot on goal. It would get huge publicity now.



    Fine. Still doesn't mean that others can't discuss the eejitary or otherwise of that decision.


  • Options
    #104
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,172 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    growleaves wrote: »
    ????

    Like I said, if the university system wants to render itself irrelevant its no bother to me. It may even be for the best ultimately.

    Individuals with something to contribute can go outside of the university system, creating their own informal institutions if they have to.




    The "university system" should provide a framework for the students. After that it should not get involved.



    Do you think that the "university system" should get involved in deciding who the students should and should not be listening to? I don't. Even for the lecturers, that is down to the individual schools really and not the "university system" overall.


  • Options
    #105
    Glinda
    Registered Users Posts: 223 ✭✭Glinda


    Blinkered insistence on treating every utterance as though it was a legitimate attempt to engage in good faith debate on a particular issue, and therefore somehow protected and sacred as a form of free expression, is nonsense. We have to be a little more sophisticated and see the patterns in things.

    We only have to look at the 'outrage shopping' behaviour of our own right-wing mob - pivoting and pirouetting their campaign from being pro-life to anti gay, to anti immigration to free speech, to anti 'paedophile' to anti vaxx and anti-mask and anti lockdown. And we're all supposed to ignore the track record of their leadership and treat each engagement as though it were genuinely about whatever 'issue' they are squalling and shrieking about on this precise occasion. It's clear to anyone who has done a minimum of reflection that they are campaining in pursuit of one thing only: a bigger following, and a wider platform. That's their aim, and that's their endgame, and nobody is under any obligation to give them what they want.

    Richard Dawkins is in a slightly different category, but there's no obligation on any student society or other group to platform his views, or entertain him as their guest if they don't want to, or if they don't want his wider views (which they don't agree with) given legitimacy or access to a wider audience because of the reach of their platform.

    So well done the Hist. The time for dealing with bad actors, who are raising populist issues in bad faith so as to appeal to the worst of our instincts, by politely debating them on the content of their latest concocted outrage 'issue' is long past. Good faith engagement on any issue, on the basis of trying to solve a problem, that's legitimate. Fomenting division and hate in pursuit of your own profile, you can take a hike. No sympathy.


  • Options
    #106
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,172 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    gozunda wrote: »
    Fine. Still doesn't mean that others can't discuss the eejitary or otherwise of that decision.




    It is not a decision that I would have made. I just think it was theirs to make.



    If I was on the committee of the Phil, I'd have already extended an invite to your man. And if there was a thread on here about people moaning that he shouldn't have been invited I'd be saying the same thing - it's their choice and nobody should be telling them who they can and can't invite or dis-invite


  • Options
    #107
    growleaves
    Registered Users Posts: 7,724 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    The "university system" should provide a framework for the students. After that it should not get involved.



    Do you think that the "university system" should get involved in deciding who the students should and should not be listening to? I don't. Even for the lecturers, that is down to the individual schools really and not the "university system" overall.

    I don't think they should get directly involved no.

    In a more general sense they can't not be involved if the culture of academia is being frozen into an autocratic shape that shuns people that have fallen afoul of some micro-tripwire of speech and thought.

    A lecturer who spoke up to defend their colleague Professor Dawkins wouldn't be interfering in students' rights.


  • Options
    #108
    growleaves
    Registered Users Posts: 7,724 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Glinda wrote: »
    Blinkered insistence on treating every utterance as though it was a legitimate attempt to engage in good faith debate on a particular issue, and therefore somehow protected and sacred as a form of free expression, is nonsense. We have to be a little more sophisticated and see the patterns in things.

    We only have to look at the 'outrage shopping' behaviour of our own right-wing mob - pivoting and pirouetting their campaign from being pro-life to anti gay, to anti immigration to free speech, to anti 'paedophile' to anti vaxx and anti-mask and anti lockdown. And we're all supposed to ignore the track record of their leadership and treat each engagement as though it were genuinely about whatever 'issue' they are squalling and shrieking about on this precise occasion. It's clear to anyone who has done a minimum of reflection that they are campaining in pursuit of one thing only: a bigger following, and a wider platform. That's their aim, and that's their endgame, and nobody is under any obligation to give them what they want.

    Richard Dawkins is in a slightly different category, but there's no obligation on any student society or other group to platform his views, or entertain him as their guest if they don't want to, or if they don't want his wider views (which they don't agree with) given legitimacy or access to a wider audience because of the reach of their platform.

    So well done the Hist. The time for dealing with bad actors, who are raising populist issues in bad faith so as to appeal to the worst of our instincts, by politely debating them on the content of their latest concocted outrage 'issue' is long past. Good faith engagement on any issue, on the basis of trying to solve a problem, that's legitimate. Fomenting division and hate in pursuit of your own profile, you can take a hike. No sympathy.

    A political faction who have gone in a single generation from a Voltairean defence of free speech to an insistence on micro-regulation of speech with criminal punishments should not be assumed to be acting 'in good faith' themselves.


  • Options
    #109
    karlitob
    Registered Users Posts: 2,588 ✭✭✭karlitob


    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?

    Interested (genuinely) in which ideas you think are dangerous.


  • Options
    #110
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Glinda wrote: »
    Blinkered insistence on treating every utterance as though it was a legitimate attempt to engage in good faith debate on a particular issue, and therefore somehow protected and sacred as a form of free expression, is nonsense. We have to be a little more sophisticated and see the patterns in things.

    We only have to look at the 'outrage shopping' behaviour of our own right-wing mob - pivoting and pirouetting their campaign from being pro-life to anti gay, to anti immigration to free speech, to anti 'paedophile' to anti vaxx and anti-mask and anti lockdown. And we're all supposed to ignore the track record of their leadership and treat each engagement as though it were genuinely about whatever 'issue' they are squalling and shrieking about on this precise occasion. It's clear to anyone who has done a minimum of reflection that they are campaining in pursuit of one thing only: a bigger following, and a wider platform. That's their aim, and that's their endgame, and nobody is under any obligation to give them what they want.

    Richard Dawkins is in a slightly different category, but there's no obligation on any student society or other group to platform his views, or entertain him as their guest if they don't want to, or if they don't want his wider views (which they don't agree with) given legitimacy or access to a wider audience because of the reach of their platform.

    So well done the Hist. The time for dealing with bad actors, who are raising populist issues in bad faith so as to appeal to the worst of our instincts, by politely debating them on the content of their latest concocted outrage 'issue' is long past. Good faith engagement on any issue, on the basis of trying to solve a problem, that's legitimate. Fomenting division and hate in pursuit of your own profile, you can take a hike. No sympathy.

    Jeez that's some Olympic standard conflating and assumption going on there.

    Who is this singular right wing mob who are "pivoting and pirouetting"? Dont know about yourself- most people I know well have fairly consistent beliefs across a range of issues.

    I'm also somewhat confused - is it the "leadership" of the Hist who are "squalling and shrieking" or someone else?

    I'd say a genuine willingness to listen to all points of view even those you may vehemently dislike is a much better marker of a healthy mind and discourse. And of course there's no need to politely debate anything if you still have concerns after the fact. Ask the questions and point out where you think they are wrong but leave off with the witchunting of burn them" or send them to siberia or whatever.

    But hey maybe that's just me ...


  • Options
    #111
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    It is not a decision that I would have made. I just think it was theirs to make.

    If I was on the committee of the Phil, I'd have already extended an invite to your man. And if there was a thread on here about people moaning that he shouldn't have been invited I'd be saying the same thing - it's their choice and nobody should be telling them who they can and can't invite or dis-invite

    But thats the point - no one is telling them what to do. Some are criticising them for that. And imo thats fair enough.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Glinda
    Registered Users Posts: 223 ✭✭Glinda


    gozunda wrote: »
    Jeez that's some Olympic standard conflating and assumption going on there.

    Who is this singular right wing mob who are "pivoting and pirouetting"? Dont know about yourself- most people I know well have fairly consistent beliefs across a range of issues.

    I'm also somewhat confused - is it the "leadership" of the Hist who are "squalling and shrieking" or someone else?

    I'd say a genuine willingness to listen to all points of view even those you may vehemently dislike is a much better marker of a healthy mind and discourse. And of course there's no need to politely debate anything if you still have concerns after the fact. Ask the questions and point out where you think they are wrong but leave off with the witchunting of burn them" or send them to siberia or whatever.

    But hey maybe that's just me ...

    There is no reason to engage in a debate with someone who is merely using a painful issue (whatever that may be) to cause outrage, distress and division, in order to further their 'us and them' narrative (and usually for personal gain) without any actual genuine attempt to resolve any problem or reach any solution.

    We need to stop being distracted by the shouting and look at the patterns. The leadership cohort on of the 'issues' have a huge overlap. We need to look at the 'who' as well as the 'what'. They are just shopping for followers. That's not a genuine debate and we don't have to pretend it is, just to be polite.

    Trying to insist all these issues are debated on their merits, regardless of who is raising them and what their goal is in doing so, even when the real debate is not about those specific issues at all, is a form of gaslighting. Like I said, its a slightly more sophisticated concept than treating every instance as a singular occurence though.


  • Options
    #113
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,238 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Are you seriously comparing Richard Dawkins to nazis?

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #114
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,238 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    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.

    :rolleyes:
    He made a somewhat ill-advised tweet which has been rather creatively misinterpreted.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #115
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,523 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Glinda wrote: »
    Blinkered insistence on treating every utterance as though it was a legitimate attempt to engage in good faith debate on a particular issue, and therefore somehow protected and sacred as a form of free expression, is nonsense. We have to be a little more sophisticated and see the patterns in things.

    We only have to look at the 'outrage shopping' behaviour of our own right-wing mob - pivoting and pirouetting their campaign from being pro-life to anti gay, to anti immigration to free speech, to anti 'paedophile' to anti vaxx and anti-mask and anti lockdown. And we're all supposed to ignore the track record of their leadership and treat each engagement as though it were genuinely about whatever 'issue' they are squalling and shrieking about on this precise occasion. It's clear to anyone who has done a minimum of reflection that they are campaining in pursuit of one thing only: a bigger following, and a wider platform. That's their aim, and that's their endgame, and nobody is under any obligation to give them what they want.

    Richard Dawkins is in a slightly different category, but there's no obligation on any student society or other group to platform his views, or entertain him as their guest if they don't want to, or if they don't want his wider views (which they don't agree with) given legitimacy or access to a wider audience because of the reach of their platform.

    So well done the Hist. The time for dealing with bad actors, who are raising populist issues in bad faith so as to appeal to the worst of our instincts, by politely debating them on the content of their latest concocted outrage 'issue' is long past. Good faith engagement on any issue, on the basis of trying to solve a problem, that's legitimate. Fomenting division and hate in pursuit of your own profile, you can take a hike. No sympathy.

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


  • Options
    #116
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,523 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    :rolleyes:
    He made a somewhat ill-advised tweet which has been rather creatively misinterpreted.

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


  • Options
    #117
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,276 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    :rolleyes:
    He made a somewhat ill-advised tweet which has been rather creatively misinterpreted.
    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Very benign of you.

    can anybody point to what he actually said?


  • Options
    #118
    Glinda
    Registered Users Posts: 223 ✭✭Glinda


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Are you seriously comparing Richard Dawkins to nazis?
    If you're asking me, no, there's been no mention of nazis.

    What I'm pointing out, albeit it using a more extreme example, is the folly of accepting a social norm that dictates that any refusal engage in polite and reasoned debate on the issues with, or even provide a public platform to someone you don't agree with, is immoral. Sometimes it's entirely appropriate, and often that's because the platform is wider than the issues, the debate is a dogwhistle, and you're just being manipulated because of your own good manners.

    I also have strong views about people victim-blaming in sexual assaults, so have particularly little time for any apologists in that arena, But that's a different discussion.


  • Options
    #119
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    I have asked that some posters in this thread be banned from boards and their posts deleted as I am uncomfortable with them having views that differs from mine.











    Am I doing it right, Hist?


  • Options
    #120
    TomTomTim
    Registered Users Posts: 2,838 ✭✭✭TomTomTim


    biko wrote: »
    I have asked that some posters in this thread be banned from boards and their posts deleted as I am uncomfortable with them having views that differs from mine.











    Am I doing it right, Hist?

    You'd love the feedback forum:P

    “The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”- ― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?

    Don't care, as long as it's a trans woman of colour that's the main thing


Advertisement