Forum:No Platforming

This all began with an AfD...

No platforming | Result: No consensus

• I'm closing and locking this AfD as it's just got derailed into arguing about particular cases, rather than sticking to "should this article exist or not" and I've had enough. Bicycle^wheel 09:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

No platforming (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Delete: As the original creator, please DELETE. Aneris ✻ (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
2. Off-mission, as it's not even tangentially related to any of our mission subjects. It's also a relatively recent phenomenon to make a fuss about it, so it strikes me as too minor tobother with. Plus, as it stands, it is monumentally badly-written: "Therefore, no platforming typically violates Article 19 of the Universal Human Rights (freedom of expression, and freedom to receive information without interference)" I mean, come on. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
3. This is a new reactionary snarl word when people with exteme right-wing views (of which Aneris's examples are wingnut Islamophobes and TERFs, as well as an oblique reference I bet to Christina Hoff Sommers) have their planned university talks protested to where the talks are cancelled at the request of the students who aren't redpilelrs. It's more "political correctness gone mad" and "coddled liberal safe spaces".—Ryulong (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   It doesn't matter if she's floridly wrong about something; a world in which people aren't interested in what Germaine Greer has to say is one that would seem to have lost its sense of history. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 16:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   People don't like her because she incites hate against the transgender community.—Ryulong (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   I very much doubt Greer "incites hate" against anyone. The god Google has revealed to me that the "no platforming thing" seems largely confined to the UK and Oz. It's mostly about feminists whose views on transgendered people are disapproved of, near as I can tell.---Mona- (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   I've read of it being used in the context of denying racists a platform (eg this article from 2014). It's not just something that sprang up around this Germaine Greer story. Bicycle^wheel 23:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   Having finished doing bizarre things with Bicycle Wheel's comment and then rectifying it, I now add: Yes, I did see a few articles about "no platforming" racists. But the top results were almost all about how it's spreading to feminists who hold views on trans people that many find unacceptable.---Mona- (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   It's because women like Greer are assholes and behind the times. "No platforming" is just an extension of the "outrage" against safe spaces and the like.—Ryulong (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

   Generally, I take a dim view of the "safe space" phenomenon, especially on campus. That said, I don't have a quarrel with refusing to host Greer. No one is entitled to a hosted venue.---Mona- (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

   Apparently her talk wasn't even cancelled. It was just petitioned to be cancelled.—Ryulong (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

   People don't like her because she incites hate against the transgender community. So she's wrong about something. She's an old time feminist, so I probably think she's wrong about more than just that. On the other hand, she wrote an important book and participated in a major social movement at a key point in its history, and led an interesting life back in the day. These things merit abiding respect and interest, at least for me, even if she's badly wrong about something. I don't agree with her about trans people. But I think a lot of the unease at what she says -- just like the Rachel Dolezal incident -- is because she uncomfortably reminds everybody that identity politics necessarily raises issues of authentication and authenticity that become nastier the closer you look at them. That's an inherent problem with identity politics. What I don't get is why it becomes acceptable to seek to drive her from the podium just because she does not tick all the boxes of approved opinions. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

   Greer's talk wasn't ultimately cancelled. The relevance she brings to the table now is questionable when she denies the gender of women because of how they were born.—Ryulong (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

   No, her talk wasn't cancelled; it's still somewhat troubling that anyone would want to. And relevance is overrated. And I find her opinion plausible, if wrong. My personal conclusion is that the state of being transgendered appears to be bred in the bone; human sexualities are complicated biochemical phenomena. I agree with Greer that sexualities are a biological fact; it's just somewhat more complicated than she imagines. What's really telling about the Greer incident is that she thinks that, despite what the Big Book of Cant says about cis/male/het privilege, the supposedly undesirable category of "woman" is something that needs policing to exclude interlopers. This too suggests the presence of heretical nuances, and is the most interesting thing about the whole argument.
   
   And this is beside the major point, which is that lobbying to withdraw an invited speaker on the basis of their unpopular opinions is beyond the pale. The window of allowable opinions seems dangerously small. It seems faintly ridiculous to label Greer a 'reactionary'. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

   TERFs are considered to be bigots for advocating against transgender rights. Greer is a TERF. Therefore, Greer is a bigot (towards the transgender community). Simply because she was a seminal feminist author doesn't mean she isn't a horrible person when it comes to transgender people. The rest of your comment seems to be the "I'm too old to understand these coddled liberal hippie teenagers" type of response to these sitations.—Ryulong (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

4. Delete or change it to be something other than ramblings. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 12:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
5. https://xkcd.com/1357/ Typhoon (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
6. Delete. Nothing here salvagable about the snarl word. Hipocrite (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
7. Delete: Examples and wording sound the BS alarm of the false equivalencing between "We don't want your hate speech at our venue" and "IT'S A CONSPIRACY TO SILENCE ME!!!!11!!". ScepticWombat (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   To say I hold an opinion about keep-or-delete would be lie. But if it is kept, couldn't a buncha reasonable people just do the editing the current tripe screams for? If this "no platforming" is a thing with reactionaries shouldn't we cover that? I dunno. As I say, it's hard for me to really care.---Mona- (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   If the examples used are typical of the use of the word and we keep the article, then "no platforming" is apparently a snarl word used whenever some wingnut, TERF or whatever doesn't get invited or gets "uninvited" due to an outcry from the regular attendees of whatever forum/venue it is that rejected said wingnut/TERF/whatever; thus any kept article should reflect that. PS. I would not be surprised at all to see examples of moonbats or their supporters using the same claims as they tend to have similar persecution complexes.

   Yes, I have heard the argument that "We shouldn't give X a platform for her/his views", but the subtext here is actually "a(nother) platform", since it's absurd to claim that the "uninviting" of the examples mentioned means that they'll have no platform at all, simply that they won't get this particular platform.

   Hell, I'll happily admit that I've made the same argument when a certain Dutch Trump lookalike was invited to the Danish "People's Meeting" (a sort of democracy and debating festival where "the people", the politicians, the lobbyists and the media can hobnob and drink beer together); first off, Mr. Crazy hairdo has jack shit to do with Danish politics, secondly, his wingnuttery shouldn't be given the implicit approval such an appearance carries, and third, I resent my tax money being spent on the heavy police protection necessary to protect this douche bag who had no business showing up in the first place. The icing on the cake was that he wasn't event the most wingnutty foreign guest: a member of freaking Golden Dawn was offered a speaking slot too, as well as a charming French dude who was too wingnutty for Front National, oh, and a bona fide Italian fascist too... (Un)Surprisingly, the latter three were all invited by a minuscule far right Danish political party called "The Party of the Danes" which apparently got a free hand to invite all kinds of crazy wingnuts, despite not having managed to win a single seat at any level of political office in Denmark, not even on local councils. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

   Well, I changed my vote cuz with you and other sensible people now editing the page it's turning into something useful. And, when I googled Motte and Bailey, RW came up on the first page of results. So, we could make a difference here.---Mona- (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

   Eh, this is about no platforming, so what has motte and baily got to do with it? ScepticWombat (talk) 04:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

   OMG. I swear, I've not taken any mood-altering chemicals. I'm simply so exhausted my brain is dead. Time for me to sorta just creep outta here....---Mona- (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

8. Not an improvement on a red link - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
9. Delete, if only to encourage Ruylong to get out of the basement for a while. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
10. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Hahaha, what a story Anonymous user} 05:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeing that Ryo is now editing it and takes this to be another of "his" pages, I say delete to avoid endless bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Geez, Bubbe. That's harsh.—Ryulong (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It's hilarious to hear this from someone who started such a huge drama the moment he edited stuff related to Israel. Typhoon (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The name "Mona" is female, and I am female. In any event, I didn't found any of the I/P articles (except for Steven Salaita) and my point of view is the majority one among interested editors. The ruckus was not caused by my, but rather, primarily by two people who are currently blocked. While I may substantively often agree on an issue with Ryo (tho when I do not, I really do not), he is very unreasonable. Dealing with those "other two" as often as I do is far, far more than enough for me.--[User:-Mona-|-Mona-]] (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Changed my vote; please see my reason in Keep.---Mona- (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep but improve/rewrite. This is basically the same as Cordon sanitaire, which is a common tactic to exclude some of the populist and nutty parties out of the political debate. I would also support moving it to Cordon sanitaire, as this is the more common term AFAIK. The SJ stuff can be a section in this. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   The SJ stuff is just right wingnuttery considering his examples of people who were no-platformed are atheist Islamophobes (Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maryam Namazie) and TERFs (Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel).—Ryulong (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   ? I don't see the wingnuttery here. It's mostly (though not entirely) a neutral description. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   It's only reactionaries who get "no platformed". Ali and Namazie spread anti-Islamic sentiment, Greer and Bindel are infamously opposed to transgender rights, Milo Yiannopoulos was going to talk with Bindel and he's the biggest right wing personality out there right now. Most of his sources concern the TERFs being "no platformed" outside of the two instances of Ali (who we have an article on that goes into detail about her wingnuttery) and Namazie (who apparently gets a pass for her anti-Islamic sentiment because she's an atheist like Richard Dawkins does every so often).—Ryulong (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   I fail to see how your reply answered the question. So what if it only happens to cranks? Doesn't mean we can't have a page about it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   Because as it stands it only affects cranks and is only a complaint from cranks and the page only describes the cranks' point of view on the subject because it was written by an unrepentant crank.—Ryulong (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   Cordon sanitaire would be a good article, but it might as well be a ground-up rewrite. The only salvageable parts would be the examples and their references, and even then we'd need to expand them to include some older examples.Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   All of his examples are just TERFs (and Milo Yiannopoulos considering he was going to speak with Bindel) or Islamophobic people being uninvited from speaking at campuses.—Ryulong (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   So? The examples are still valid, no? Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   His examples are of progressive people deciding they don't want to give reactionaries audiences. I didnt know that reactionary snarl words without being explicitly defined as such were on mission.—Ryulong (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   Cordon sanitaire would appear to be about something entirely different: the refusal to consider coalition governments with a political party based on its history or ideology, something that only comes up in Westminster style parliaments. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 16:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   Actually, no, it's broader than that. Although it does seem to refer to specific action by the political establishment rather than by private bodies, no it's still not the same thing. On the other hand, that makes 'no platforming' an even more pathetic complaint, as it then means nothing more than preventing groups institutions from exercising autonomy. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   It seems to me that it's effectively the same concept/idea; have two pages seems unnecessary to me, it's a choice between "No platforming" with a section on "Cordon sanitaire", or "Cordon sanitaire" with a section on "no platforming"... Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

2. Keep. An increasingly prevalent form of authoritarian bullying. Please, not that asinine XKCD cartoon again. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 13:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   Nothing asinine about laughing at a popular behaviour among easily angered reactionaries. Typhoon (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

3. Obviously a contentious issue, rightly or not. It would be remiss not to cover it. The present article is weak & one-sided so will need a fair amount of work. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   It's weak and one sided because it only affects reactionaries.—Ryulong (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   Is it? It seems like feminists & LGBT campaigners have said quite a lot about silencing techniques over the years. Plus haven't Gamergaters been pressuring event organisers & media to deny a platform to Sarkeesian & other critics? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   Thanks Ryulong, for exposing your authoritatian thinking so frankly. Of course the situation is that the ideology that does this isn't the "good people" who block some cretins. Some no-platformed were new atheist ex-muslims, and it's precisely unimportant who someone is. This is where Ryulong and gang expose themselves as anti-democrats and anti-pluralists. They're even against the universial human rights (which is not surprising to me). If someone wants to attend an event, they can do so without interference, whether our thoughtpolice here believe they know better what's good for everyone or not. Other people in the article list may be cretins, but I only have superficial understanding about the intra-SJW-wars (which also ripped FTB apart), there are surely experts on the TERF war. I merely reported on what is true and recorded recent instances I found and went for primary sources when I could find them, not whether I like some people. So, what's broken RW, that you have a bunch of anti-science, anti-democratic, creepy thoughtpolice people stalking around who revert and flak everything that is critical of their postmodern identitity politics intersectionality racism, then claim there was "nothing" because they themselves scrub everything squeaky clean? How can you maintain your stated SPOV goals. Has science lost the science war against postmodernist ideologues somewhere and I haven't received the update? I'm fine with that, but then please. Do everyone a favour and stop lying about your alleged SPOV. In case with SJWs, there is usually only a false balance. They are a fairly unique anti-democratic lot. Aneris ✻ (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   Do you ever listen to yourself, Aneris? We could write essays on all the buzzwords that you just used in your rant. Typhoon (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   The article was rewritten and now begins with "No platforming is a snarl word used by n[e]o-reactionaries". You can see it in real time. The mere act of naming the practice, which obviously and evidently exist, is already making someone by definition "right wing". Maryam Namazie was removed, presumably, because she's one of the more liked people on the list. This is just crazy, just as your continued denial. Aneris ✻ (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   You realize you're complaining that people weren't given a platform to spread what people considered hate speech and bigotry right? Just because that bigotry comes from the left and to people on the left doesn't mean it's political correctness gone mad or "intra-SJW wars".—Ryulong (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

4. Could do with a hefty rewrite, but "no platform" is a longstanding position within the left (see here for example) and warrants examination. When decent people like Maryam Namazie get lumped in with white nationalists, something's gone wrong with the idea. Tallulah (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   It might be because her stance is singularly focused on a single religion that isn't Christianity. We call out Richard Dawkins on his Islamophobic statements. Why is Namazie different?—Ryulong (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   She is an ex-Muslim. She was brought up in Iran. When it comes to Islam, she knows what she's talking about. I don't keep up with Dawkins so I can't comment on his views. Tallulah (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   Most atheists are ex-whatever religion their parents were. All I know about her is what Wikipedia has and that a search engine brought up enough results with regards to her name and the term "Islamophobia". Perhaps someone should write a better page about her locally so I can be better educated on her point of view.—Ryulong (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

5. Keep, but yes it needs improvement. Rename to Cordon sanitaire, widen scope and include historical perspective. This is by no means a current issue only. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
6. I'm astonished by the editing process. It now lists only two names of TERFs. Gone are the other sourced recent cases, like in fascist propaganda, just remove and hide what doesn't work and spin a new story. How is this acceptable for a halfway sane, rational, person? Amazing. The project is fucked. You can't do anything about it at this point, since every inclusion of information that is not liked by authoritarians is reverted and flakked immediately. And there is no sound reason either, since Namazie and others were evidently no-platformed. Kiss the SPOV goodbye already. Aneris ✻ (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   You weren't even snarky when writing this shit so how can you even be incensed that your grand vision of pointing out battles in the SJW wars is going unnoticed?—Ryulong (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   Also I see the entry on Hirsi Ali was not "not platform" but "we're not giving her an honorary degree" and you neglected to post the full title of the footnote on Namazie. You do love being disingenuous, don't you?—Ryulong (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   Also Namazie got her platform back apparently.—Ryulong (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   Aneris, your continuous intentional misusing of words like 'fascism' and 'authoritarians' is not making you look sane at all. Typhoon (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   Altemayer, The Authoritarians, The New Totalitarians Are Here, Fascism at Yale, Entartete Kunst and so on and so on. You can also have a detailled critique. It's obviousy a highly dubious practice to hide half of the cases, leave the few persona non gratas, then rewrite the story that only bad people were no platformed. Splendid. So it's basically correct what I wrote the whole time. Aneris ✻ (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   Yes, keep telling yourself how you're correct while you call everyone and their dog a fascist and authoritarian. Typhoon (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   I very much doubt, Aneris, that you understand Altemeyer's fine book. While he does document some strain of Authoritarianism coming from the left, his work overwhelmingly exposes that the trait is very largely found on the right.---Mona- (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   The parts that talk about the left are the only parts that matter to Aneris. Typhoon (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

   Damn, that Fascism at Yale opinion piece is either a facepalmingly inept analysis or an example of how pathetically perfidious sniping between Ivy League institutions can be (or possibly both...). That someone able to get into Harvard Law School is, apparently in all seriousness, equating spitting on someone with fascism illustrates a stupendous lack of understanding of ideologies, let alone a sense of historical proportions. Sure, spitting on someone you disagree with isn't a proper way of discourse or communication, but labelling it fascism shows that the one doing the labelling is either ignorant about fascism's content and lineage, or, possibly, the extent to which, in some circles of U.S. public discourse, "fascism" has joined "Nazism", "communism" and "socialism" as essentially terms devoid of content beyond being derogatory slurs against one's opponents. One wonders what Mr. Barlow would do if confronted with an actual fascist, having already emptied "fascism" of its prior ideological and historical content... ScepticWombat (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

7. I believe that free speech does require, to some extent, a platform. It's as possible to functionally silence people by preventing people from listening as preventing people from speaking. This article should present the use of silencing by authoritarian governments, the massive number of instances from the right, and the significantly smaller number of instances from the left. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

   The issue is that "no platforming" is just "We don't want you to talk at our school now" and not at all like the concept of cordon sanitaire. It's the actions of private entities to decide that they don't want a particular guest speaker and not a government imposing mass censorship. Unless "no platforming" in the sense that Aneris intended it to be about says it's complete bullshit based on the concept of freedom of speech being misinterpreted as right to an audience to hear them (as has been the result of heavy editing by myself and Hipocrite) then the page should go.—Ryulong (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

   The problem is that the fame of the examples used clearly illustrates that they do have a platform and the ire is simply that they're rejected from some particular platforms whose regular attendees find them distasteful and don't want their platform to help spread the views expressed by, say, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I'd agree with the hairy feline tuber if: A) The platform rejecting these people was the only platform available, or, B) All platforms uniformly rejected these people. Since neither is the case in any of the examples used, I'd say the XKCD cartoon and its conclusions wholly applies here. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

   If I had to dig up some slightly better examples of "no platforming", it might be the selective reporting documented in Oreskes & Conway's Merchants of Doubt (2011) in which, for instance, free rein was given by the Wall Street Journal to well-known expert for hire, Frederick Seitz, to accuse Benjamin D. Santer and the IPCC of fraud or at least unwarranted alarmism, while the responses to (read: debunkings of) Seitz's accusations by actual climate scientists involved with drafting the IPCC report were either rejected out of hand or heavily edited to remove their most salient points (pp. 208-211). ScepticWombat (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

8. KOMF 03:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
9. The attitude that many people have nowadays - that if I don't like what you have to say, I should do my upmost to prevent you from saying it - is very concerning. It is the attitude, that if I don't agree with your opinions, rather than rationally addressing/deconstructing your arguments for them, I'm going to stand outside your function (or inside if security will let me) screaming. It fits in with point 3 of the mission statement ("Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism"), since it is a form of authoritarianism - a mostly powerless one, but help us if these people ever get real power. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
10. Zack is right. As long as this article isn't hijacked as raving about teh evul SJWs it should stay. The topic is missional and pertains to a serious issue in the UK and apparently also in Australia. Certain sectors are bound to pick it up in the U.S. as well. And there's no reason the editors here would let a hijacking occur.---Mona- (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

A buncha smart editors are now having at the article. Also, when I google it our entry comes up on the 1st page, and we do want to be famous, amirite? Having now caused the entire wiki to assume I'm drunk to the point of incoherence, I shall take my leave. G'nite.---Mona- (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Goat

• Moved to Forum:No Platforming

• Ryulong, Namazie can't be properly considered Islamophobic Queex_{chthonic 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. Queex_{chthonic 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. Queex_{chthonic 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. Queex_{chthonic 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)

  Who cares? 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. Queex_{chthonic 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: <blockqote>“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)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"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)

• 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)