Forum:No Platforming

This all began with an AfD...

"We're saying it's hypocritical for Richard Dawkins to think that what's happening to Greer is wrong when he did the same thing to Stein and thought himself righteous about it." And you're wrong. Dawkins was not organizing to prevent Stein from speaking at any time at the university. He took exception only to honoring Stein with the commencement address before a captive audience. At no point did he imply Stein should be disallowed a platform to speak at all at the university.---Mona- (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, Namazie can't be properly considered Islamophobic Queexchthonic murmurings 12:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Namazie has said "Shouldn't we have the right to be critical of Islam - especially given its practices, its record?...Targeting a belief, religion or Islam is actually fair play and legitimate given the world that we live in....Islamism, indoctrinates children – often violently", assuming this is a transcript of her talk in 2011.—Ryulong (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You can say the same thing about Catholicism, or Buddhism in Burma. It wouldn't make the statement Catholophobic or buddhophobic. Note also that in that extract she differentiates between Islam (the religion) and Islamism (the political movement). The quote reads to me simply to say that we shouldn't give a free pass to repellent practices simply because they're rooted in religion. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the quoted statement and struggling to find anything to disagree with. Tallulah (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in that quote I could disagree with. Sub Islam* with Christian* and the quote still makes sense.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is because when atheism or secularism focuses on a single minority religion (which Islam doesn't really count considering there are billions of adherents, but when it comes to America and Europe the adherents are the minorities) it's considered a form of bigotry.—Ryulong (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Namazie has a huge focus on majority-Muslim countries (she even went back to Bangladesh despite death threats), so by your own definition she doesn't count. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * She lives in Europe now does she not?—Ryulong (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * After she fled for her life, yes. In those circumstances, I think it's entirely reasonable to give a little side-eye to the people who wanted to kill you for religious reasons. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I read her family left during the revolution but I do not recall reading that her family members were all atheists/secularists. And as usual the issue here lies with right wing fundamentalists in the religion rather than the religion itself. Much of the Muslim world (Indonesia still has the highest population in the world) aren't fundamentalists like the various fundamentalist regimes in the Middle East.—Ryulong (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * this has nothing to do with this snarl word. Hipocrite (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * She used to go back to Bangladesh to speak and campaign, the last time there had to be an emergency fundraiser to get her out of the country before she was killed. She's as qualified as anyone can be to talk about the intersection of Islam and violence, particularly with respect to apostasy. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And I am aware Bangladesh is particularly unforgiving when it comes to atheists. That is a fair point to raise, as would be the (my iPad isn't letting me type the word I want) the ayatollah put out against Salman Rushdie. So perhaps I was wrong in this hasty searching, but it would appear people consider some things she has said as bigoted otherwise she wouldn't have been "no platformed".—Ryulong (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If the article stays, I have plenty to add about "no platforming" from Zionists. As well as from garden variety reactionaries.---Mona- (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So... Aneris has now voted both to keep and delete it? Typhoon (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh, all part of her inanity parade and attention-seeking. It doesn't alter the results, so we could just let it be.---Mona- (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have voted against it now since it turned into iliterate, anti-democratic rubbish of people who apparently don't understand that universities are mostly public; that putting pressure on it goes against academic freedom; that speakers do not demand an audience, but are invited which is then rescinded by using the public as a leverage (which then other people might use as well to get them re-invited); that universities aren't there to confirm views everyone already has, but are meant for also intellectual argument and not to provide a coddly home. And finally, that there are good and legitimate ways and reasons of protest (e.g. anti-science, anti-intellectualism, anti-democrats etc have no business there) but nonetheless preventing an audience from hearing or attending (sabotaging an event with noise, fire alarm plulling etc) is always an anti-pluralistic, anti-intellectual method. Yes, this goes against Article 19, Human Rights. The article however reads like a kindergarten version claiming "newspapers are not obligated to publish every, or any, letter-to-the-editor they receive", yeah as if this was about random person demanding a stage unsolcited. So much for "inanity parade" /facepalm. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Baaaaaaaaw. These people aren't being banned from standing on a soapbox in the quad. They're having their unique speeches in auditoriums hosted by student groups protested to be cancelled. There has never been any instances of "no platforming" where any sort of sabotage has actually happened and it's certainly not present in any of the examples you pulled out of your ass. You didn't even attempt to include that infamous story of some A Voice for Men conference getting disrupted by a protestor pulling a fire alarm. News flash Frau Aneris, you can't decide that this form of protest is fine when it comes to one group of people but completely verboten for anyone else. If Richard Dawkins is allowed to demand Ben Stein's speech be cancelled because Ben Stein is a backwards thinking anti-science crackpot, then transgender students should be allowed to demand Germaine Greer's speech be cancelled (which it conveniently wasn't) because she's a backwards thinking anti-transgender crackpot. There's no Human Rights violation in withdrawing someone's invitation to a private event just because it's happening in what you seem to consider a public space. Germaine Greer is allowed to say whatever the fuck she wants in every other venue available to her, so why does this one speech in Cardiff matter in the long run? Same with Maryam Namazie at Warwick or Hirsi Ali at Brandeis or whatever. People don't want them there and that has no impact on their overall freedom of speech for private entities to not want to provide these people an audience.—Ryulong (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm obviously opposed to identitarians, so no need to yet again try to bring them up as if I was supporting their ideas. I also find it disoncerting that people like you and Typhoon are given free reign when you obviously don't understand why Ben Stein and his creationism has no business at an academic institution, which is what Richard Dawkins cited. Creationism and their promoters have no place at a university and cannot be honoured there, and this is not because of feelings or opinions, but because of facts. This does not apply to different academics who have disagreements somewhere. Yes, also Anita Sarkeesian, your idol, is allowed to speak. Banning her, making bomb threats or other such schenanigans are absolutely wrong, and are likewise anti-pluralistic and I oppose this in the very same way. If she was no platformed, you can add her case as well. You're the expert there. I am only miffed when people go about these things in a disingenious selective manner. I also wrote a few times now that protest, within parameters outlined above, is perfectly fine. Finally, a quick google-run. From the Grauniad."'Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of Universities UK, said recent attempts to ban Germaine Greer from appearing to speak at Cardiff University were part of a “worrying trend” “What we are beginning to witness on campuses is a more coordinated attempt by special interest groups to ensure that invited speakers with whom they disagree are shouted down and prevented from speaking.”" — Aneris ✻ (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Typhoon and I aren't saying Ben Stein should have had his talk. We're saying it's hypocritical for Richard Dawkins to think that what's happening to Greer is wrong when he did the same thing to Stein and thought himself righteous about it. Creationism has no place in modern society. Denial of transgender people's identities doesn't either. Stop accusing me of white knighting for Sarkeesian. And you can keep posting those garbage "the lib millennials are coddled babies" think pieces all you want. It doesn't keep you or them from being total fucking idiots as per that Julia Serano piece, regardless of what you think about post-modernism in your Chomsky wanking.—Ryulong (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, that same article you link to makes this very important distinction: “These campaigns are always framed in terms of the freedom of speech of those who are speaking or appearing,” [Richard Brooks, deputy president of the National Union of Students,] said. “However, we have a duty to protect the freedom of speech and safety of people from minority groups who feel threatened and make sure student unions remain a safe space.” So Aneris, are you prescribing some sort of Orwellian situation where some people's speech (the invited speaker) is more protected than others (the student body) rather than allowing people to democratically protest and push for a cancellation of an event? Which by the way is nothing like one lone wolf asshole saying he's going to murder people if Anita Sarkeesian talks about video games.—Ryulong (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The page as it stands now is anti-missional censorship apology, dedicated entirely to rank nonsense about how organizing pressure groups to prevent invited speakers from speaking isn't really censorship. The current text is something we're better off without. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not so, not at all. I will yield to no one in my fierce opposition to censorship, especially at public universities. "No platforming" may be wrong per se, or it may be a bad idea in any given instance, but it is not censorship. The groups organizing the no platforming can only operate by consensus of their voluntary association. That is just not censorship.---Mona- (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ^+1 — Aneris ✻ (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Students saying they think someone is a crank isn't censorship apologism.—Ryulong (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's all they were doing, no. The typical incident actually involves threats of disruption and other sorts of bullying, and isn't different from phoning in a shooting hoax to stop Anita Sarkeesian from speaking.  Your attitude will depend on which side you're on.  It shouldn't be that way, but human weakness can't help but need concessions.  It also   handwaves away the fact that people are allowed differences of opinion, including differences of opinion about who's a "crank" and what is "hate speech".  In these cases typically one group wants a speaker and another attempts to prevent the speaker from being heard.  And, of course, if no-platforming isn't a form of authoritarianism and censorship, and justifications of the practice aren't censorship apology, then how is this missional?  - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 23:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: I do not agree with Ryulong. "No platforming" is pernicious. But as much as I dislike the practice, the people doing it have the right to, and it isn't censorship. (And, yes, of course I am appalled by Greer's longstanding position on trans people.)---Mona- (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not even "no platforming". It's protesting someone's speech and wanting someone else to talk instead. They're not outright banning anyone unlike the far-right xenophobic and Islamist groups. The claims of "no platforming" are coming from the people who are being protested as a snarl word to get people to their side. And as far as anyone was aware with Sarkeesian, that wasn't a hoax but a threat. In the end, this isn't missional unless it's pointed out as a snarl word used to attack the freedom of speech of one group of people in order to empower the freedom of speech of another. It's encapsulated here in the contexts of Missouri and Yale, but Aneris's intended examples is the same reactionary outrage in a different context (transphobic feminists).—Ryulong (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)