'No-platforming' at Trinity College.

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.

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

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

I suppose many here don't like François-Marie Arouet, one of the great philosophers.
99% will have to google that name because they didn't pay attention in class.
50% will still not get the connection.

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.

karlitob wrote: »

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

OK. Well here's an appearance he made on the Late LAte a few years ago.


The points of interest, for me anyway, are the answers he made to questions at 6:40 and 13:20.

The first he was asked about his attitude to his own death. He said that he doesn't fear death but he fears dying. And that he should be allowed to end it all like going to hospital to get his appendix out. Off to sleep, not feeling a thing.

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.


The other, and more worrying one, is his answer to "What are we going to evolve into"? To give him his due, he answered truthfully that nobody has any possible idea. We might be extinct in a million year's time anyway; that is the fate of most species, after all.

But then he goes down the path of saying that if our brains are to continue to evolve in complexity, as humans' have done so far, then it must be the case that the more intelligent among us have more children than the less intelligent. And there is no evidence that this is the case. If anything the reverse is true.

Now, I must declare that he does not exactly say "So what we've got to do is sterilise the numpties and encourage the best, brightest and most beautiful to procreate like billyo" but it's not a major step to considering just that. After all, many societies and not just the ones that Mr Godwin is concerned about, had legislation in the past to permit just this sort of social engineering. Call it human husbandry, call it eugenics, call it "purifying the gene pool".

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.

In summary, he's an eminent scientist of world renown, he's a willing debater, he's also pretty sure of himself. 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) but he needs to be confronted and challenged, if only to clarify the implications of what he suggested in this country not so long ago.

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.

Glinda wrote: »

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.

So thats Richard Dawkins then? Tbf much of that could also be leveled at Dawkins Hist replacement speaker Ebun Joseph

It certainly won't be genuine debate if people don't listen and react accordingly with support / objection and / or intelligent questions. And as for the excuse that such discourse just might make them uncomfortable - all I'll say is god bless their cotton socks.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

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

More ad hom? Considering you've discussed absolutely nothing on this thread - means you've just failed the module entirely...

And back to all those willing to actually discuss the topic at hand - irrespective of their take on it ....

Snickers Man wrote: »

OK. Well here's an appearance he made on the Late LAte a few years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsipiNkAMds

The points of interest, for me anyway, are the answers he made to questions at 6:40 and 13:20.

The first he was asked about his attitude to his own death. He said that he doesn't fear death but he fears dying. And that he should be allowed to end it all like going to hospital to get his appendix out. Off to sleep, not feeling a thing.

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.


The other, and more worrying one, is his answer to "What are we going to evolve into"? To give him his due, he answered truthfully that nobody has any possible idea. We might be extinct in a million year's time anyway; that is the fate of most species, after all.

But then he goes down the path of saying that if our brains are to continue to evolve in complexity, as humans' have done so far, then it must be the case that the more intelligent among us have more children than the less intelligent. And there is no evidence that this is the case. If anything the reverse is true.

Now, I must declare that he does not exactly say "So what we've got to do is sterilise the numpties and encourage the best, brightest and most beautiful to procreate like billyo" but it's not a major step to considering just that. After all, many societies and not just the ones that Mr Godwin is concerned about, had legislation in the past to permit just this sort of social engineering. Call it human husbandry, call it eugenics, call it "purifying the gene pool".

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.

In summary, he's an eminent scientist of world renown, he's a willing debater, he's also pretty sure of himself. 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) but he needs to be confronted and challenged, if only to clarify the implications of what he suggested in this country not so long ago.

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.

Jaysus - that’s some answer and a lot of leaps.

I’ve seen that video so many times at this stage and I have to say I didn’t get any of what you said from that.

Firstly, the concept and debate around assisted suicide is certainly not one of his ‘ideas’. It’s been around since humans have been around - Euthanasia means ‘good death’. Clearly, it is not a widespread practice in any shape or form around the world. So understanding this particular person perspective on such a topic - one that he didn’t invent - is hardly going to herald in an era of mass assisted suicide. As for his flippancy about it - well while you might not like that - I would hardly call it ‘dangerous’.



Laws around Eugenics were first introduced by the Americans and then the Brits if memory serves. So these are not his ideas. On the presumption that he does advocate abortion in the event of Down syndrome - well it’s clear that abortion is available in nearly every country in the world and occurs in vast numbers. The only issue really is whether a parent can find out that information before their country allows abortion. My point here is whether you agree with it or disagree with it - abortion is a reality and his position on that particular topic will not lead to more abortions. Hardly dangerous.


I’m against the abortion of children diagnosed with Down’s syndrome. I say that from my ivory tower of never being in that position. His perspective on the immortality of continuing a pregnancy of a person with downs is fascinating. I see my position as moral. To have my position challenged like that is exciting to me and has really made me reflect on what I previously presumed about myself and what I define as my ‘morals’. Hardly dangerous.


Finally, I think you’re putting words that you want him to say in his mouth. He makes no such assertion, nor alludes to, sterilisation. That’s all your work.

What is clear is that rates of childbirth is falling in wealthy societies and developed countries, and in socioeconomically disadvantages areas within those societies. The population pyramids in those countries don’t paint a promising picture for the future - particularly in the way our societies are structured....those at the bottom of for those at the too. It’s hard to see how a many who knows that would say - abort all the numpties. Sure there’d be no-one left to make babies.

karlitob wrote: »

Jaysus - that’s some answer and a lot of leaps.

I’ve seen that video so many times at this stage and I have to say I didn’t get any of what you said from that.

Firstly, the concept and debate around assisted suicide is certainly not one of his ‘ideas’.

OK Maybe I shouldn't have said his "idea". Maybe I should have said his "position".
But now I think YOU'RE nitpicking

karlitob wrote: »

So understanding this particular person perspective on such a topic - one that he didn’t invent - is hardly going to herald in an era of mass assisted suicide.

Now who's leaping? I don't imply that he's some sort of Jim Jones like guru who's going to take all his disciples out to a jungle clearing and serve them up a bucket of Kool Aid. But as a leading intellectual, and he's certainly that, his statements and positions on any matters are bound to be influential.

karlitob wrote: »

Laws around Eugenics were first introduced by the Americans and then the Brits if memory serves. So these are not his ideas.

Finally, I think you’re putting words that you want him to say in his mouth. He makes no such assertion, nor alludes to, sterilisation. That’s all your work.

What is clear is that rates of childbirth is falling in wealthy societies and developed countries, and in socioeconomically disadvantages areas within those societies.

It’s hard to see how a many who knows that would say - abort all the numpties. Sure there’d be no-one left to make babies.

It was never my intention to say, or suggest, that these were concepts he initiated. Of course he didn't.

His comments amount to what I believe the young people today call "Dog Whistles". And the issue is not fundamentally an intranational one (ie get all the clever rich people in, say, Dublin 4 to boost their numbers but don't let the gurriers from Ballymun or Finglas do so.) It's really a North v South (in a global sense) issue.

According to the CIA World Factbook (don't be discouraged; actually the most reliable source for this sort of statistic), the top 14 countries in the world in terms of birthrate are all in Africa. Ireland,which has the highest birthrate, and by a distance, in the EU is ranked in 144th place globally!!!

There are plenty of people on the "Alt Right" or even the traditional hard right who point to the trend of migration from south to north (which is very evident) and see instead of a natural migration of people from countries with large populations but poor economies (ie Africa) to those with dwindling indigenous populations but strong economies (Europe, USA) a nefarious Great Replacement plot by some hidden puppet masters just to keep the "Ordinary People" in penury.

I stress, Dawkins is NOT one of these loonies (which include our dear friend Gemma O'Doherty) but statements such as those he made on the Late Late could be used in support of scaremongers telling us we're all about to be swamped by foreign primitives.

I was at pains to point out in my post to which you are replying that he did NOT say we should artificially redress the imbalance between the birthrates of wealthy, educated "bright" people and those from lower down the intellectual scale.

If he HAD, I would be in favour of blocking an advocate of such bestial policies from speaking at an Irish University, but as I clearly stated, as a genuine intellectual of world renown, I think he should be invited, heard and questioned.

He needs to clarify some of his statements, in my view.