nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

jank

Remember the time Universities was bastion of free speech and where vigorous debate was encouraged? Well that as so last century. Welcome to 21st century Britain where left wing group think is official university policy, sensitivity courses are 'mandatory' in an effort to screen out 'pre-rape' criminals, page 3 or a pop song can damage students mental wellbeing and where denying people a platform to speak is welcomed.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

One of the censorious students actually boasted about her role in shutting down the debate, wearing her intolerance like a badge of honour in an Independent article in which she argued that, ‘The idea that in a free society absolutely everything should be open to debate has a detrimental effect on marginalised groups.’

Their eyes glazed with moral certainty, they explained to me at length that culture warps minds and shapes behaviour and that is why it is right for students to strive to keep such wicked, misogynistic stuff as the Sun newspaper and sexist pop music off campus. ‘We have the right to feel comfortable,’ they all said, like a mantra. One — a bloke — said that the compulsory sexual consent classes recently introduced for freshers at Cambridge, to teach what is and what isn’t rape, were a great idea because they might weed out ‘pre-rapists’: men who haven’t raped anyone but might. The others nodded. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Pre-rapists! Had any of them read Philip K. Dick’s dystopian novella about a wicked world that hunts down and punishes pre-criminals, I asked? None had.

Barely a week goes by without reports of something ‘offensive’ being banned by students. Robin Thicke’s rude pop ditty ‘Blurred Lines’ has been banned in more than 20 universities. Student officials at Balliol College, Oxford, justified their ban as a means of ‘prioritising the wellbeing of our students’. Apparently a three-minute pop song can harm students’ health. More than 30 student unions have banned the Sun, on the basis that Page Three could turn all those pre-rapists into actual rapists. Radical feminist students once burned their bras — now they insist that models put bras on. The union at UCL banned the Nietzsche Society on the grounds that its existence threatened ‘the safety of the UCL student body’.

Last month, the rugby club at the London School of Economics was disbanded for a year after its members handed out leaflets advising rugby lads to avoid ‘mingers’ (ugly girls) and ‘homosexual debauchery’. Under pressure from LSE bigwigs, the club publicly recanted its ‘inexcusably offensive’ behaviour and declared that its members have ‘a lot to learn about the pernicious effects of banter’. They’re being made to take part in equality and diversity training. At British unis in 2014, you don’t just get education — you also get re-education, Soviet style

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

fisgon

jank wrote: »

Where did I assume this? Posting something does not mean I am projecting.

Many many things are posted in A&A that have nothing to do with atheism or religion but we still debate other things, like this one. This has been given the OK by the mods.

Actually not "many" threads that have nothing to do with atheism or religion are posted, in fact I can't find any on the first page of A&A. This is the only one.
You still haven't explained why you have posted it here.

Maybe I can help you out. The OP is clearly an attempt at point-scoring, a kind of "look, you guys are bonkers too". Except you have missed your mark, as you are equating "left-wing" with "atheist", which is not in any way coherent. You seem to be trying to score points against atheists, or at least what you seem to think atheists are, by referencing an opinion piece that has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism or religion.

If I am wrong, then maybe you can be clear about why this thread is in A&A.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think both the left-wing silliness and the right-wing silliness threads are misconceived. They should be replaced with a single thread on silliness in public policy, whether right, left or less easily classified, but which is demonstrably related to religion, or attitudes to religion.

Bear in mind that the threads have evolved over the years - hazards was/is for regular peeps clobbering themselves one way or another with religion. Fruitcakes was originally for religiously-inspired silliness from the republican side in the 2012 US presidential election. After the election, the thread title changed to Republican fruitcakes, as there were few if any reports from religious silliness from the Democratic party. Then after that, the thread expanded to cover international right-wing fruitcakes in the widest sense as there were fruitcakes from outside the US too. There is a recent "Religion and the Law" which is for all those stories about religious people creating, and trying to create, laws to benefit themselves and their religious beliefs. The threads do make sense when viewed in terms of where they came from.

And, as above, and elsewhere ad meam nauseam, I don't think the terms "left" and "right" contribute to any useful debate anyway - if any distinction is to be made, the liberal/authoritarian divide seems more meaningful and more likely to lead to a useful debate. The discussions I've seen using the terms "left" and "right" tend to erode into a slagging match before much time has passed.

jank

fisgon wrote: »

Again, I have to ask, why is this assumption that Atheist = left-wing going unchallenged? Atheists can be anything, conservative, liberal, communist, free-marketeers, etc. The OP seems to be assuming that all atheists here will somehow be on the side of the student extremism (if indeed that is what is happening), but there is no mention of atheism or religion in the piece at all.

Seems like a strange assumption to make. Again, what is the relevance of this story to A&A or to religion or non-believers in general?

Where did I assume this? Posting something does not mean I am projecting.

Many many things are posted in A&A that have nothing to do with atheism or religion but we still debate other things, like this one. This has been given the OK by the mods.

Turtwig

pH wrote: »

The article must be considered in the context of which it is written. We're getting at best a second hand account of events that occurred with all the efforts in the world to make it sound as nasty and as a terrible as possible.

So you don't find the concept of generalising this rapeyness to "a lot of men" disgusting? So you're also happy that a lot of black men don't understand the concept of no meaning no, and also traveller men, muslim men and jewish men?

I hate the word disgust. I do find it strongly disagreeable. No to the second question.

As long as we're not dealing with the specific individuals that actually commit sex crimes, but we're happy to generalize to a "lot of men", I'm sure you'd support the idea of having awareness programs for muslims not to suicide bomb and also black people not to steal, I'm sure you'd agree that a "lot" of black people steal?

Now you've just gone and done what this journalist did. Maybe my opinions lie somewhere along the less extreme end of spectrum?

I'm all in favour of an education program for all sexes that explores the concept of consensual sex. The generalisation was reportedly made by one guy by the way. It's not actually clear where the term 'pre-rapists' originates. Conceptually from him, the author of the article, or from the actual education that was given to people. The latter I'd object with. The former two couldn't really care less.

Or are men the current acceptable hate group, where it's totes OK to harass, mock, "re-educate", castigate and belittle all men, and none of this is exactly the same thing as blacks, jews, muslims and women have been fighting for for years?

I'm sure some people hate men, as do others hate women. I hate neither.

robindch

fisgon wrote: »

Again, I have to ask, why is this assumption that Atheist = left-wing going unchallenged?

It's not being ignored

Part of the problem appears to be that people who self-describe as "right-wing" or "conservative", and sometimes "religious", appear believe that people who don't share their views can be described with disjunctive terms like "left-wing" and "liberal" (in the strange, restrictive sense of the term common in the US).

In all of this, there appears to be little interest in reaching any common, realistic understanding of who people are, what they do, how they believe society should be structured, and much more interest in constructing terms to refer to people, the better to be able to reform the complex reality of a three-dimensional person with complex opinions as two-dimensional cutouts, cardboard if possible, the better to be able to poke holes.

Peregrinus

fisgon wrote: »

Again, I have to ask, why is this assumption that Atheist = left-wing going unchallenged? Atheists can be anything, conservative, liberal, communist, free-marketeers, etc. The OP seems to be assuming that all atheists here will somehow be on the side of the student extremism (if indeed that is what is happening), but there is no mention of atheism or religion in the piece at all.

Seems like a strange assumption to make. Again, what is the relevance of this story to A&A or to religion or non-believers in general?

I think that's the point that Jank is making. Over on the long-established right-wing loonies thread there are plenty of instances of people drawing attention to right-wing silliness that seems wholly unrelated to religion, perpetrated by people whose own religious stance is either unknown or irrelevant. Nobody ever seems to comment on the fact that the silliness being laughed at has nothing to do with religion.

Laughing at stupid white people is good clean fun for all the family; I like to feel superior as much as the next guy. But the hosting of such a thread on the A&A board, with no expectation that posters will link the silliness to religion, plays to a certain stereotype of atheists as inherently liberal and moderate, and theists as inherently reactionary and conservative. These stereotypes are of course crude generalisations, and atheists who should be promoting scepticism and critical awareness should be more interested in challenging them than in affirming them.

I think both the left-wing silliness and the right-wing silliness threads are misconceived. They should be replaced with a single thread on silliness in public policy, whether right, left or less easily classified, but which is demonstrably related to religion, or attitudes to religion.

shruikan2553

I'm a student myself so see this kind of crap now and again. Thankfully in Ireland it isnt as bad as other places but there can still be elements of it. What you'll find is the people pushing for these things tend to be the only people who cares, hundreds if not thousands of students couldnt care less and just try to avoid their petty rants. I have seen the kind of crap idiots like this do, they try to get in charge of societies just to push their own agenda. Get someone on their side into power and then use that connection to get the opinion of less than 50 people put forward as an idea.

What people also need to realise is there are rules for societies and clubs, they are seen as representing the college or university and what they do can have an affect on how people see the university. If they allowed a KKK society then the college would be afraid of being seen as a racist place but if such a thing was stopped you have people like the writer of the article going "ohhh, no free speech eh? Oppressing people just because they have a different viewpoint?".

The whole consent thing is stupid and incredibly condescending. "Now shruikan, I see you managed to get into college but you are probably a bit thick, and youre a man so we better remind you that rape is bad"

fisgon

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Edit: @jank, if this is the level of left-wing "delusionalism" you were getting so het up about not having a thread for, why bother? As can be shown from others willing to potentially nuke their IQ levels by reading the speccie, the article succeeds in only painting the right wing in a bad light, by selectively picking evidence and quote mining in order to mendaciously paint their opponents as kill-joys. I'd have thought you'd have gone with a real problem that the left has, like for example the support many left-wingers inexplicably show for Russia over the Ukraine crisis, or showed for Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups after 11/9 (not opposition to the Iraq invasion, that was completely correct and moral).

Again, I have to ask, why is this assumption that Atheist = left-wing going unchallenged? Atheists can be anything, conservative, liberal, communist, free-marketeers, etc. The OP seems to be assuming that all atheists here will somehow be on the side of the student extremism (if indeed that is what is happening), but there is no mention of atheism or religion in the piece at all.

Seems like a strange assumption to make. Again, what is the relevance of this story to A&A or to religion or non-believers in general?

Turtwig wrote: »

Tbh that article reads like a whiny emotional tirade.

A lot of men don't understand the concept of no meaning no. I guess those would be the "pre rapists" a stupid term maybe but I don't understand why having such awareness drives is a bad thing?

So you don't find the concept of generalising this rapeyness to "a lot of men" disgusting? So you're also happy that a lot of black men don't understand the concept of no meaning no, and also traveller men, muslim men and jewish men?

As long as we're not dealing with the specific individuals that actually commit sex crimes, but we're happy to generalize to a "lot of men", I'm sure you'd support the idea of having awareness programs for muslims not to suicide bomb and also black people not to steal, I'm sure you'd agree that a "lot" of black people steal?

Or are men the current acceptable hate group, where it's totes OK to harass, mock, "re-educate", castigate and belittle all men, and none of this is exactly the same thing as blacks, jews, muslims and women have been fighting for for years?

[Deleted User]

Really enjoyed the thread title.

Also agreed with some of the article. The worry about the 'political compass' is that just like on the planet, you can head West and end up East.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqPcjm-X5GQ

PopePalpatine

Penn wrote: »

I wasn't specifically linking "taking other people's feelings into account" or mental wellbeing with the Blurred Lines song. I was speaking more generally.

We need not care for the "feelings" of "special snowflakes", Rand be praised!

jank

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I'm sorry but I'm not going to wade through any delusionist propoganda written in the speccie. That magazine is the soi-disant intellectual rightists version of the Daily Heil

Well if you are not going to read it why comment?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Edit: @jank, if this is the level of left-wing "delusionalism" you were getting so het up about not having a thread for, why bother? As can be shown from others willing to potentially nuke their IQ levels by reading the speccie, the article succeeds in only painting the right wing in a bad light, by selectively picking evidence and quote mining in order to mendaciously paint their opponents as kill-joys. I'd have thought you'd have gone with a real problem that the left has, like for example the support many left-wingers inexplicably show for Russia over the Ukraine crisis, or showed for Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups after 11/9 (not opposition to the Iraq invasion, that was completely correct and moral).

Oh, don't worry. There is plenty of more material to cover.

Penn

jank wrote: »

Taking feelings into account is something most people do everyday when dealing with people face to face in their daily lives. Banning a pop song from a campus because it may 'interfere' with a students mental wellbeing is just plain ol authoritarianism.

I wasn't specifically linking "taking other people's feelings into account" or mental wellbeing with the Blurred Lines song. I was speaking more generally.

Brian Shanahan

jank wrote: »

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

I'm sorry but I'm not going to wade through any delusionist propoganda written in the speccie. That magazine is the soi-disant intellectual rightists version of the Daily Heil

@Ray, I've read in a number of places (not least in the Graun's Life & Style and Education sections) that these are a considered a very valuable inclusion to the curriculum both by instructors and students (after they've done the course). When you consider the state of sexual education in the UK, which can range from the worst of fundie excesses to very good depending on how bolshie the principal is in the secondary you send the kids to, but is on average only slightly better than Ireland's, these are probably a necessary item.

Edit: @jank, if this is the level of left-wing "delusionalism" you were getting so het up about not having a thread for, why bother? As can be shown from others willing to potentially nuke their IQ levels by reading the speccie, the article succeeds in only painting the right wing in a bad light, by selectively picking evidence and quote mining in order to mendaciously paint their opponents as kill-joys. I'd have thought you'd have gone with a real problem that the left has, like for example the support many left-wingers inexplicably show for Russia over the Ukraine crisis, or showed for Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups after 11/9 (not opposition to the Iraq invasion, that was completely correct and moral).

jank

Penn wrote: »

"Extreme" anything is wrong, just like the weather being "too hot" or "too cold". If it's "too" anything, it's objectionable.

That being said, the article in the OP reads more like "I have to take other people's feelings into account when I say or do something? What is this? Nazi Germany?!" rather than making a coherent, salient point about whether some of the measures to promote tolerance and prevent offense have gone "too" far.

Taking feelings into account is something most people do everyday when dealing with people face to face in their daily lives. Banning a pop song from a campus because it may 'interfere' with a students mental wellbeing is just plain ol authoritarianism.

Links234

Posted this before about the whole Blurred Lines being "banned" thing...

Can I just point out that in no meaningful way has Blurred Lines been banned? Because really, has anyone's ability to purchase the song been taken away? Or has their ability to listen to the song been curtailed? Just read some of the links you provided, and the so-called "ban" amounts to little more than removing it from a playlist:

Derby and the University of the West of Scotland follow Leeds and Edinburgh and remove 'degrading' song from playlists in student bars

UCLU women's officer Beth Sutton tweeted: "UCLU have just passed motion to not play blurred lines in union spaces & events. Solidarity with all survivors!"

A student union deciding that they're not going to play it at their events is the big bad nasty real world impact that extremist feminism has brought about? Despite sensationalist use of the word banned, the song hasn't actually been banned or censored at all, nobody has been stopped from buying the song or listening to the song. Saying that Blurred Lines has been banned would be like if I rang up a radio station and asked them to play Hammer Smashed Face by Cannibal Corpse, and they said erm, no we're not going to play that and me throwing a tantrum saying they've banned Hammer Smashed Face!

The whole article reads like right-winger circlejerking about "liberal fascists"

RayM

One — a bloke — said that the compulsory sexual consent classes recently introduced for freshers at Cambridge, to teach what is and what isn’t rape, were a great idea because they might weed out ‘pre-rapists’: men who haven’t raped anyone but might. The others nodded. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

I'd personally find that quite patronising and unnecessary... but then, I'm not a clueless seventeen-year-old undergraduate, fresh out of secondary school, having received only the most rudimentary sex education - most of which involved being told to stop sniggering whenever the word 'vagina' was uttered. It's aimed towards educating those who might not fully understand the concepts of consent and boundaries.

Penn

robindch wrote: »

Far as I can make out, this seems to be an instance of what I suppose you could call "extreme feminism" which I think most people here find objectionable. Though I should say that the article, insofar as I read it, appears to be an opinion piece and not a piece of factual journalism documenting some instance of religious silliness.

"Extreme" anything is wrong, just like the weather being "too hot" or "too cold". If it's "too" anything, it's objectionable.

That being said, the article in the OP reads more like "I have to take other people's feelings into account when I say or do something? What is this? Nazi Germany?!" rather than making a coherent, salient point about whether some of the measures to promote tolerance and prevent offense have gone "too" far.

Tabnabs

ScienceNerd wrote: »

This seems like a clear case of twats getting pulled up on being twats.

That's just a token of what they are accused of doing:

Allegations

As well as the practices detailed within the booklet and the current investigation, the LSE’s student union has allegedly reported they’ve previously received four complaints made against the men’s rugby club dating back to 2010, these allegations include:

‘Blacking up’, dressing as Guantanamo Bay detainees and imitating prayers as Muslim students exited Friday prayers.

Taking part in Nazi themed drinking games on tour, leading to a Jewish student’s nose being broken.

Causing significant damage to university property.

Running naked through the university and urinating on university buildings.

http://www.artefactmagazine.com/2014/10/23/lse-rugby-team-disbanded-for-offensive-leaflets/

GLaDOS

Last month, the rugby club at the London School of Economics was disbanded for a year after its members handed out leaflets advising rugby lads to avoid ‘mingers’ (ugly girls) and ‘homosexual debauchery’. Under pressure from LSE bigwigs, the club publicly recanted its ‘inexcusably offensive’ behaviour and declared that its members have ‘a lot to learn about the pernicious effects of banter’. They’re being made to take part in equality and diversity training. At British unis in 2014, you don’t just get education — you also get re-education, Soviet style

This seems like a clear case of twats getting pulled up on being twats.

robindch

jank wrote: »

Welcome to 21st century Britain where left wing group think is official university policy

Far as I can make out, this seems to be an instance of what I suppose you could call "extreme feminism" which I think most people here find objectionable. Though I should say that the article, insofar as I read it, appears to be an opinion piece and not a piece of factual journalism documenting some instance of religious silliness.

fisgon

Just wondering why this is in the Atheism and Agnosticism forum? Maybe it is just my impression, or is the OP expecting some kind of defence by atheists of the students' tactics and attitudes?

Firstly I think it is obvious that the writer of the piece does have a very clear agenda. He went looking for certain phenomena, and found what he was looking for.

Secondly, I have no doubt that some of the intolerance and PC taken too far is happening on British campuses, it has been on some American campuses for years now. There is a kind of conformity, that is not liberalism at all, in certain universities, an unquestioning acceptance of dogma that is almost religious among certain student bodies.

Again, I find it interesting that the OP has put this here, in A&A. I have no problem with it being posted, I just think it is amusing that there seems to be an assumption by the OP that we are all liberals, that we would all be on the side of intolerant students. If this is not the case, then why is it here? There is nothing in the story about religion or atheism. It seems to be some kind of answer to the "Republican fruit cakes" thread, but that is mainly about religious Republicans and so is more relevant.

magicbastarder

i got as far as the second quote box, and with the first line - 'Their eyes glazed with moral certainty' - i quit reading. sounds like the journalist is on his own little campaign.

MrPudding

Turtwig wrote: »

Tbh that article reads like a whiny emotional tirade.

A lot of men don't understand the concept of no meaning no. I guess those would be the "pre rapists" a stupid term maybe but I don't understand why having such awareness drives is a bad thing?

Yeah, I think the pre-rapist term is unhelpful, but I would support helping people to realise just now easy it is to get on the wrong side of current consent rules.

I distinctly remember, when I was much younger, guy saying 'I pulled a drunk bird last night' or even 'go for the drunk ones, easier to get a shag'. Whether one approved or not, and this is not the place for that discussion, pulling 'drunk birds' and having sex with them is pretty risky now, and just how risky might not be apparently to horny 18 year old students.

For what it's worth, whilst I am relatively happy with this consent training, I do agree with some of the other points in the OP. There does seem to be a trend, or at least a risk of a trend, of people trying so hard to be liberal and PC the effect is one of conservatism and intolerance, or tolerance of that which should not be tolerated. Perhaps an example of one of my favourite sayings 'go far enough to the left and you will meet someone coming round from the right.'

MrP

Peregrinus

Adolescents are notoriously conformist. There is nothing new in this. They think of themselves as radical, independent, etc because they reject the expectations or demands of parents and authority figures, but in fact the real pressure is to conform to the expectations or demands of their peers. And they generally do conform, and demand conformity from their peers.

But so what? This applies to the right and the left equally.

Absolam

National service will sort them out. Digging a few ditches in the Sudan never did anyone any harm.

jank

It seems that young university types who would think themselves as liberal are actually quite conservative. Banning the Sun newspaper, pop songs and books that does not fit their moral compass or outlook. It sounds like the 1950's only with extra bandwidth.

I would certainly be against mandatory sensitivity training brain washing as portrayed here.

Absolam

Well, I'd certainly be dubious of anyone who said ‘The idea that in a free society absolutely everything should be open to debate has a detrimental effect on marginalised groups.’
It's sounds like fascist tactics from hippies... the mind boggles. Maybe I just need some coffee.

Turtwig

Tbh that article reads like a whiny emotional tirade.

A lot of men don't understand the concept of no meaning no. I guess those would be the "pre rapists" a stupid term maybe but I don't understand why having such awareness drives is a bad thing?