Talk:No platform/Archive1

A pox on your AFD

This redirect violates your audience's right to us as your megaphone. I get it, I do. /s WalkerWalkerWalker 06:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

✻ Well, The practice described in the article has that name, has a history, and its use expanded in recent times. I also sourced a few recent cases, which document rather easily how the name is used and what exactly it described, with sources from Guardian to New York Times. It has absolutely nothing to do with radio or TV shows, or evengalicals as you claim with your redirect. What looks like comical incompetence on your part, could also be taken as a methodical flak, as is typical for social justice warrior ideologues such as yourself, who tried to shut me up early on. The trick is to be a pain in the ass, deny and obstruct, revert and play all sorts of games that have nothing to do with substance, but all to do with exerting power, or trying to gain or keep prerogative of interpretation. Postmodernist eels through and through. Aneris ✻ (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

http://www.zooplus.nl/shop/honden/spel_sport/hondenfluitjes —Ryulong (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, Ryulong spammed links like these four times over my talk page (I left two instances). He's only posts here as a SJW bully that he is (together with PacWalker and few others). Aneris ✻ (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

—Ryulong (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me be explicit: there is no right to have anyone else publicize you, publish you, or give you a platform - such would be antithetical to free speech, as it compels speech on their part. WalkerWalkerWalker 08:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This is because you have no clue what you are talking about. You simply parrot a thought terminating cliché as if this answers complicated questions around the concept of freedom of speech. For the record, moderated places or "special interest" spaces always existed long before SJW came up with their "safe space" idea which are actually ideological spheres. So already right there, the SJW ideology is complete bollocks where some soundbites are used to kill any inquiry. And SJWs have no right to decide for other people what they can attend or what they can hear. If organizers want to invite person X, and an audience want to see X, you have absolutely no justification whatsoever to sabotage that. This is brownshirt style fascism. Aneris ✻ (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's time for us to create a drinking game for your comments. Typhoon (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm too young to play... ;( SockTheory 09:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

—Aneris ✻ (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to try to mock people you have to do it right. No one has blown any dogwhistles but you.—Ryulong (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, you did. Repeatedly. You kept it all vague enough so that nobody would notice it of course. That's the point of a dog whistle, I presume. Aneris ✻ (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Saying you're posting dog whistles by posting links to places to buy dog whistles is not in itself a dog whistle.—Ryulong (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD

I've restored this page. This is not an endorsement of the page as such, but if you want a page deleted, we have an AfD process for that so that we can have a proper discussion about it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing links here, guyz.

Needs incoming links. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The only ones would be Aneris's whining about SJWs on talk pages.—Ryulong (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No. Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Panic?

It's much better than it was. Would be nice if there was something about the moral panic surrounding no-platforming, whereby those who have been denied an invitation to talk like to turn it into a vast social problem that cuts at the heart of democracy of whatever nonsense they're trying this week. Seems like it would fit in the Freeze Peach section, but I can't think of a way to segue into it. TBH, I think that over-reaction is better RW-fodder than the no platforming itself. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Freeze Peach Hogwash

I am intrigued that this illiterate idea is always regurgitated onto the pages. First off, let's try to prevent goalpost moving, which is inevitable whenever "freeze speech" is used seriously. It is a dogwhistle of a bigot, anti-democratic ideologue. Let's sort this out: You can petition and write letters. You can also picket before the venue, or paint your face blue in protest if you feel like it. This is an ordinary process, and fine. What you cannot do is prevent an audience from attending or hearing a speaker by whatever means, be it drowning the event in megaphone noise and chants, pulling fire alarms, blocking the entrances and so forth. People who do this are clearly outside the democratic spectrum. "Freeze Peach" entails a fallacy of the Hollow Man (Aikin & Casey, 2011), which is argueing against a position that doesn't even exist. How so? Because none of the people listed in the article demanded an audience. The process is typically always the same. Someone is invited, they are meant to appear and an announcement is made. Then the no-platformers show up, and the event is cancelled (or made impossible to conduct). How is this like sending unsolicited letters to a newspaper and demand they are printed? What really happens is that there is some mutual agreement, a contract in a general sense that is then contested by a third party. Because of this inane mischaracterisation we have this embarassing bollocks on our page. There is also a complication that is probably flying far above the heads of the nitwit ideologues and bullshit artists, which is the Tyranny of the Majorty concept of JS Mill (John Stuart Mill, On Liberty)

“”“Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them […] There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.”

That means, it becomes a discussion who decides who is invited, the students, or someone else who does so also against a majority rule, which leads to questions about whether campus is a "home" or an "intellectual space". Of course the people who protest this want it to be a home. Stay home then, when you don't like the speakers. The article should steer back into democratic and pluralistic territory and if you must, sort out "bad protesting" (of the fire-alarm-megaphone-noise variety) from the "good one" (writing letters, or peaceful protesting). Aneris ✻ (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The people who are no platformed did not 'demand' an audience initially. But once disinvited, them or their supporters do 'demand' that platform back, against common sense. "What you cannot do is prevent an audience from attending or hearing a speaker by whatever means, be it drowning the event in megaphone noise and chants, pulling fire alarms, blocking the entrances and so forth." What relevance does that have to this article at all? Considering that you tried to claim that no platforming was some kind of violation of UN rules on human rights, it's clear that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 14:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Someone needs to link that xkcd comic again because Aneris is falling into the right wing nut case trap of assuming "freedom of speech" means anything but "The government can't arrest you for criticizing it" and not at all to do with "Anyone is free to say anything they want with no restrictions and are guaranteed an audience to listen to them regardless of what they want to say".—Ryulong (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

How does any of this address anything? We could be argueing about fnords and be more productive. For starters, when I make a contract of sorts, and then cancel it, it is a different situation when the other person demands that it be adhered to. Oh, and it's even more of a different situation when a third party pressures one party of the contract makers to cancel the contract, using public opinion as a leverage (hence the other side is technically countering this by public opinion, too, but anti-democratic ideologues phrase it as "demand" or entitlement suddenly). Aneris ✻ (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Addendum notice how the nitwit Ryulong can't produce a single a rational thought and relies on worn out memes and accusations. Aneris ✻ (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

As opposed to how the nitwit Aneris is waging a never ending internet war against real and imagined SJWs, and has now brought his embarrassing crusade to RationalWiki? Typhoon (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to concur that twisting reasonable concepts into nonsense terms like "freeze peach" or "muh soggy knees" is a surefire way of killing intelligent discourse. Tallulah (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, what the hell?

I'm a medical doctor with a very successful career. I put years of hard work into pursuing my dreams of helping people. And, you know what? After all these years, I still enjoy platforming (though go-karts have been taking up some time for me, I barely get any golf in). This so-called "Rational"Wiki thinks it can just put up an article titled "No Platforming"? Give me a break. You guys are clearly seeing everything in 2D, here. ~Dr. Mario Gay, MD (It's-a-me!) 13:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Postmodernist Rot = Evolution

The postmodernist rot is now equating their particular gender nonsense of whatever variety with the theory of evolution, by claiming in the article "Lees also raised the issue Richard Dawkins' support of Greer for being threatened with no platforming, when Dawkins himself advocated that Ben Stein be denied a platform years earlier". What happened, according to the link is that Richard Dawkins wrote a letter to the UVM Vermont to protest Ben Stein, and cites as a reason his creationism. Aside, that organized protest is equated with a letter written by Dawkins, it also claims now that the cases were comparable in content. Postmodernist nonsense, whether of the Greer variety, nor their opponents have by far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far not the same standing as the TOE and its mountain of evidence. Can't believe how far this decay has been allowed here. Aneris ✻ (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"Postmodernist rot; this decay being allowed here" Where do you come up with this stuff? And how long until you start using words like "degenerate art"? Typhoon (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me help you with this:

Degenerate Art, the, translated from German "Entartete Kunst" is taking works of art, cutting them up and arranging them deliberately grotesquely, and out of context with the intent to outrage public opinion against art and artists who made it, like what Anita Sarkeesian does, evidently.

Relevance in this context? Aneris ✻ (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It's relevant because you give the vibe of a crazy political ideologue by calling movements, philosophies and different thinking as "rot, decay" and your other favorite smears ('SJW' being your most popular). This is the same shit Nazis did, and Neo-nazis today also use that hysterical wording you so love. You look like a lunatic, so don't be surprised if 'The Faction' on this wiki will laugh at you. Typhoon (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have my doubts that the Nazi had problems with postmodernism. You're off a few decades. You can make yourself useful and point me to scientific papers that solidify the gender positions that are in dispute. It won't be the mountainrange of evidence, the TOE has, that's an unrealistic standard, but maybe there is at least a hill of evidence. Show it. Aneris ✻ (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

In the short time in which I have noticed your edits Aneris, you have become the most cliched editor imaginable. It is almost as if you deliberately mangle sentences to incorporate your favourite buzz terms.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This could be due to the fact that you don't know that this 3rd wave stuff is evidently in the postmodernist tradition. I could google that for you, but I guess you can do it yourself. You might also like to consult the literature, read up on feminist sites to get an idea, and round it off with Sokal & Bricmont (1997). The context here is explicitly about an intra-feminist conflict between so-called TERFs and whoever the other side is named. Aneris ✻ (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Righty-ho.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Aneris, in other places and contexts I've cited Sokal and Bricmont approvingly, and also laughed and played with the Po-Mo Generator. The bottom line remains, however: No one is entitled to a hosted platform. That's it. It's not a free speech issue. It may be a bad idea to deny a platform to Greer -- I personally think university students should be exposed to all manner of controversial speakers. (This can be superb tool for professors to apply lessons in critical thinking.) But this is not a free speech crisis. As long as Greer is free to appear at a public university there is no free speech problem in being denied a particular host(s).---Mona- (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona, appreciated, but I am not argueing about this here. This point is about equating evolution with some ideological dispute Greer has with her opponents (which is a pomo minefield). It doesn't make Richard Dawkins a hypocrite when he steps up with many others and says that this shouldn't be no platformed, even when he wrote years earlier that Vermont shouldn't give a stage to Creationists. One thing is a dispute within different sides of some obscure academical fairytale study, where one side tries to kick out the other. The other dispute is about fully established fields of natural science versions Biblical nonsense that tries to desperately get a academical stage (at all). How does that make Dawkins hypocritical? <snark>Also, Dawkins had one opinion in 2009, years earlier, and now is 2015 you people are totally disingenious!11!!!one!11eleven! (/Sarkeesian Defense ;D)</snark> Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

And I presume you're the one who decides what is and isn't an "obscure academical fairytale study"? Typhoon (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I rest my case. Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree there are salient distinctions between Dawkins and this Greer opposition. Dawkins was opposing Stein's choice as a commencement speaker given that he's a science charlatan. Stein was and is till free to speak at the University of Vermont; he simply ought not be honored as a commencement speaker. But I don't understand why you are so riled up about no platforming Greer over her position on trans people. Near as I can tell, that has fuck-all to do with po-mo anything.---Mona- (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't care at all about Greer. And you need not pretend I was so that you don't appear too cozy with me. At no point did I ever defend her. I know little and what I know is indefensible to me. She was also already listed in article 1.0 which I wrote, along with holocaust deniers and fascists, but also with Namazie and other recent cases that I found, hence my article was a balanced overview of a phenomenon. However the rational wiki isn't a rational project anymore, and it has absolutely nothing to do with SPOV or being against authoritarians. It's a platform for ideologues now which you can tell when you look at the edits made by e.g. Ryulong, who edits in a few more invectives just to run home the point that he doesn't like someone, as typical for these posturers and poseurs who do little but produce anti-knowledge and obscurantism. The RW can simply says so, and write it on the sleeve. But I guess it doesn't do for the same obscurantist reason why some stalk me and even undo edits that document their own ideology in a straight manner (e.g. prejudice plus power).— Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Aneris, you are getting paranoid if you think anything I write is driven by not wanting to "appear to cozy with you." I agree with you that Ryulong is insufferable, even tho I agree with his substantive positions 75% of the time (but when I don't, I really don't). Probably a majority here find Ryu's behavior, at best, difficult. I guess I was just put off by your invocation of Sokal, post-modernism & etc because I don't know what that has to do with the specific argument in the no platforming article. I haven't seen what it is Typhoon objects to in your Racism article edits, and maybe I'd disagree. I'll take a look.---Mona- (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not paranoid. It's been the method since day one to suggest I'm this or that, even when I write plainly on the can what is true about me. I might react too allergic to that now, but I don't think my reactions are entirly unwarranted. Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

When your "reactions" are to engage in the exact behavior you're bitching about and espouse conspiracies that not only those arguing with you but everyone on the site are ethically-compromised ideologues, yeah, they're entirely fucking unwarranted. Take a gotdamn hint and stop assuming everyone else in the world is working together to oppress you.KrytenKoro (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ok yea Aneris I'm usually the first one to point and laugh at Ryu's insufferable attitude but over the past week or so you've slowly started climbing up the insanity scale with how insistent and biased you are, m8. I thought you were p. chill in like the first discussion between you and DragonDragon but jesus man you need to step away from RW for a bit. Go outside abd take a walk and calm down. It does wonders, trust me. 65.78.150.19 (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That is significantly more concise than Aneris's "but these things are different because of [a subjective parameter!]" Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 09:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, I had skipped over the first half. "He's a science charlatan" is a pretty bad idea for a "difference" that just amounts to "but he is really, really wrong! Waah!" The philosophy is not sound. Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 09:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

...And the part I agreed with is wrong. Not only is what Mona said about the intended effect being different factually inaccurate, but Dawkins clearly laid down the reasoning behind his letter... And his words apply to the Greer situation. So, out of the two good arguments, one is false and the other is "but that was years ago." Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 10:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Aneris and Mona, Richard Dawkins was advocating for Ben Stein to be uninvited from an event just like Germaine Greer was in the past month. Dawkins did not want UVM to give Stein a platform because of his views on creationism. LGBT students and their allies did not want Cardiff University to give Greer a platform because of her views on transgender women. Dawkins defense of Greer directly contradicts his point of view when it comes to denying religious idealogues. Your argument, Aneris, basically hinges on the fact that you believe Dawkins is justified in protesting Stein because Stein denies the scientific evidence about the theory of evolution, but transgender students aren't justified in protesting Greer (and Bindel too) who denies a primary aspect of their identities. And you also see fit to compare this to the arguments made against you with your insistence that RationalWiki "correct" information on Anita Sarkeesian because she said she wasn't a fan of video games in 2010, but has since gone on record multiple times to explain what she meant because you and every other anti-feminist libertarian Gamergater believes they can use that strawman to completely discredit her over dubious grounds. If Richard Dawkins has gone on record as to why he now believes that anyone should be able to speak at any time and that he now disagrees with his decision to send an email to UVM demanding that Ben Stein be removed from their commencement speakers, then by all means provide that, and then it's not hypocritical of him to support Greer (which he apparently only learned about by watching her complain on national television which definitely means her free speech wasn't stifled) following his own actions to demand no platform for Stein.—Ryulong (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Muddled definition

Our lead says no platforming is a disinvitation. But the National Union of Students policy is actually one of prohibiting the speaking invitations of listed individuals or groups in the first place. Which is it?---Mona- (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to the anti-knowledge producers here (I now rotate names, since its predictably always the same gang). — Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Now, what, in your view, is "no platforming?" Is it a withdrawing an invitation, or a prohibition on invitations?---Mona- (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No platforming is withdrawing a platform that was granted to a speaker by using a drummed up tyranny of the majority (see above), and specifically preventing an audience from hearing. See also above about the Freeze Peach point. Keep in mind that universities tend to be public. Aneris ✻ (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

If that's all there is to "no platforming" then it isn't always wrong. Majorities can be wrong, but to call this a "tyranny" is, at best, hyperbolic. Moreover, outrage over a commencement speaker is frequently entirely justified. Dawkins objecting to a science charlatan like Ben Stein being given that honor is entirely justified. Ditto for the honorary degree Brandeis was about to bestow on Hirsi Ali. And yes, I am aware that these are generally public universities; free speech law and academic freedom are areas of expertise for me. Altho, really only in the U.S. where our protections are far more robust; the UK is, in my view, slding down a very dangerous anti-free speech slope.---Mona- (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Freedom of speech only protects people from their governments should they wish to criticize it. This protection has nothing to do with university groups expressing distaste in planned speakers. These aren't people standing on a soapbox in the quad speaking their mind to whoever passes by during the day. These are people that someone has decided has something important to teach the students and was asked to speak in a professional setting. People protesting Greer for her anti-transgender stance or Hirsi Ali for her anti-Islam stance or Stein for believing in creationism aren't stifling their free speech in the same way that the People's Republic of China deals with Ai Weiwei or Myanmar with Aung San Suu Kyi (or arguably how some people want to treat Edward Snowden).—Ryulong (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Which would be the bottom of the barrel then, a cute strawman. Aneris ✻ (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

How cute. You learned a new word.—Ryulong (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

"Freedom of speech only protects people from their governments should they wish to criticize it." No, not exactly. It protects people from the government, but not just for speech that criticizes the government. Any opinion, statement or concept may be published absent some very narrow exceptions. And even there, none of those exception apply to mere opinions.---Mona- (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The concept of freedom of speech is that the government can't arrest you for what you say except in the narrow band of what constitutes hate speech and inciting people to violence. However, that says nothing about whether or not someone can have their private invitation to speak somewhere revoked which is what no platforming and Aneris's libertarian idiocracy concept of freedom of speech entails.—Ryulong (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"The concept of freedom of speech is that the government can't arrest you for what you say except in the narrow band of what constitutes hate speech and inciting people to violence." Not in my country, the United States. Here, no "hate speech" is prohibited or sanctioned by the government with fine or prison. Moreover, any incitement to violence must be of the imminent variety. In this particular area, America gets it close to exactly right.---Mona- (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Fine. You can't be arrested for using every racial slur in the book. But the point still stands is that the government can't arrest people for what they say but Aneris's whole thesis on why all of this is bad is that it implies that other people must listen to what is said when they don't want to.—Ryulong (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

/facepalm. You are not even wrong. Aneris ✻ (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to do, though? All of your edits have been to attack liberals and just spout the usual libertarian "brogressive" idiocy as every other "I'm better than everyone else on the Internet" I've come across. You've gone on rants about Yale and Missouri. You've tried to weasel in the usual bullshit straw arguments against Anita Sarkeesian. You've put so much time and energy into bitching that this article was changed from something that lambasted SJWs for daring to silence individuals into one that justfies and rationalizes what they did. Like what's the point? Why are you taking it upon yourself to be that guy? The more you participate here, the more you're ticking off every checkbox on this piece (which I meant to link to earlier because it covers this "no platforming" issue exactly as you're complaining about it).—Ryulong (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not even established that I'm a "guy". I use this purposefully as a litmus test for othering (you fell for it). Your ideology are also not liberal and my criticism is essentially Chomskyan] (pay attention to when he says how postmodernism destroys activist work). To make it more comical, people here always dispute the postmodernist influence, yet the author you cite is of course a postmodernist, making unfalsifiable claims, and who is fond of e.g. Judith Butler and listed, of course as a postmodern feminist. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Using "that guy" isn't insisting you're a man. It's insisting that you're an insufferable libertarian asshole with your head so far up your ass that anything that remotely suggests that marginalized people have rights that shouldn't be superceded by someone who insists that their right to free speech trumps everything else. And you yammer on and on about "post-modernist" this and "Entartete Kunst" that. Don't you ever fucking get tired of it? What is the fucking point?—Ryulong (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean like the "libertarian" etc Barack Obama?. You're an anti-democrat and your othering tactics only persuade imbeciles. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No I'm anti-bullshit and you're off the charts right now.—Ryulong (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, please desist from the fuckwittery where my Dawkins material is concerned. Not that you'd understand, but this is a matter of principle and principled distinctions. Dawkins was entirely justified on opposing giving Stein the honor of a commencement address, just as were the Brandeis students who succeeded in preventing Ayaan Hirsi Ali from appearing to receive an honorary degree and make remarks in that context. Just because I don't think "no platforming" is a violation of freedom of speech doesn't mean I think it's good idea in most instances. By contrast, I am very certain that Ben Stein, Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Condoleezza Rice are among the last people a university should be honoring in any manner at all. But, I would not "no platform" them.---Mona- (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's the thing. Paris Lees is using Dawkins' support of Greer to show his hypocrisy when he did the same thing to Stein. She's not saying he was wrong for that. She's saying he's wrong now for supporting Greer on the basis of her freedom of speech being taken away. Your footnote is trash.—Ryulong (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

FFS, read what Dawkins says here. He's asking UVM to withdraw the invitation to Ben Stein to talk at the 2009 commencement. He is not simply asking that they not give him an honorary degree. From what I understand with Aneris's garbage description as to how this article started, that's the concept of "no platforming". It is not a permanent blanket ban like NUS's policy suggests. It's a call to cancel a speech because hosting that person and allowing them to talk tacitly endorses their views. Dawkins called out Stein on his belief in creationism in his call for his speech to be cancelled. The Muslim students at Brandeis called out Ayaan Hirsi Ali for her extreme Islamophobia. Transgender students and other LGBT activists called for Greer's speech to be cancelled but failed because apparently the current sociopolitical climate still marginalizes the transgender community.—Ryulong (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably relevant. Assuming it even gets read.KrytenKoro (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes Ryu, Richard Dawkins' actual letter to the UVM does, in fact, repay reading. In that letter you will see a first sentence declaring: "I am dismayed to learn that the University of Vermont has invited Ben Stein to give the Commencement Address, and to receive an Honorary Degree." It also says this: "What kind of a signal do you think you will send to the world about the University of Vermont, if you honour this man?" And this: "See the film for yourself and then consider whether you do not have a duty, to your university (whose reputation is in danger of being besmirched), to your graduating students (whose big day is in danger of being sullied), and to the other recipients of Honorary Degrees (who would have to shake hands with this odious liar), to withdraw your invitation." Both are honors, and the letter is all about why honoring Stein with these two events is appalling. That's what makes it relevantly distinct from "no platforming" Greer. I'll be first in line to hurl shit at Dawkins when he (often) merits it, but he does not merit it here. Certainly not if the charge is hypocrisy.---Mona- (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You keep missing the fucking point. Richard Dawkins doesn't want Ben Stein to speak at the University of Vermont, particularly at the commencement ceremony which coincides with Stein being awarded the honorary degree. Just because Dawkins is protesting the honorary degree on top of the speech doesn't mean he's not being hypocritical when attacking those protesting Germaine Greer.—Ryulong (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

"Richard Dawkins doesn't want Ben Stein to speak at the University of Vermont" If you mean per se, he never said that. He did not say that no campus group at UVM or any other university should ever invite Ben Stein to speak. If and when he does I will totally support you in arguing he is an utter hypocrite. But he's not. No more than I am in favoring Brandeis rescinding an honorary degree with attendant speech by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but I do not support no platforming, including her.---Mona- (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop moving the fucking goalposts. He didn't want Stein to speak at that one event just like university students didn't want Germaine Greer to speak at that one event. The existence of the honorary degree for Stein does not change the fact that Richard Dawkins acted hypocritically in favor of Germaine Greer.—Ryulong (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Ryu, I'm fixing your statement for you: "He didn't want Stein to be endorsed by UVM with an honorary degree and the honor of being commencement speaker." My, but you do have difficulty with processing data you dislike. As a result, you write stupid shit.---Mona- (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

First line: private?

This happens at public venues too, if not more often (ie college campuses). Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The nature of the event is private rather than the setting. These people were invited to stand in front of a lecture hall and talk. Not show up in the middle of campus and just scream at passers by.—Ryulong (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Considering universities and colleges as 'public' is also a uniquely US thing. In the UK, it's private property. A lot of the cited examples were in the UK, so... Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

So, uh...

Article's looking sort of passable now, but, uh... Why call it "no platform" if they have a platform anyways? Shouldn't it be "platform count not increasing?" (no, not a serious proposal) On a more constructive note, the article isn't mentioning that enough. Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 15:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Barack Obama on campus protests

The article continues to flount its ignorance (or boasts with its anti-pluralistic attitude) in the "freedom of speech" section, and continues to present a dumbed-down version of what is going on. Barack Obama in an interview uploaded Nov 15, 2015... — Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck are you on Aneris?—Ryulong (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh this is just a video of Obama going "I don't believe in safe spaces". What's the point?—Ryulong (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

"Effectiveness" section.

This entire section needs to be cut. It's an argument that pretends that any two ideas are equally worthy of the same platform. It's an argument that creationists and climate change denialists would love. In any other topic, we wouldn't allow it. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 00:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

See my more detailed reply below, but in brief, you're right that we shouldn't give the same platform (that would be balance fallacy), but at the same time providing no platform strikes me as counter-productive. Someone has to put forth refutations to nonsense. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

But the whole purpose is to flood platforms with bigoted and unscientific nonsense. If we spend all our time refuting claims that are made to be as disingenuously irrefutable as possible, e.g intelligent design, we'll never get anything done. These people just want platforms to jam the discussion with their nonsense. It's like giving flat earthers a platform in modern day. Some ideas just don't deserve the time and energy to refute. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"flood platforms" and "spend all our time refuting" seem like grand exaggerations. And while you may think that "Some ideas just don't deserve the time and energy to refute" (perhaps rightly so), many other people are convinced by these ideas. "No platforming" is not going to change these people's minds. (Of course, the format of the event matters; letting some of these people speak freely would also be a mistake).

My viewpoint is just a viewpoint. If you feel that no platforming (or a cordon sanitaire) is an effective way to educate the public about these matters then I'm interested to hear why, and invite you to expand the effectiveness section. I see no problem in a page explaining two (or more) viewpoints at the same time. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because people believe them doesn't mean that they are worth our time, Carpetsmoker. I'm not going to entertain anyone who thinks gay people deserve to be murdered, for example. There are many people who are just set in their ways and won't be able to be convinced, no matter what. Preventing these people from spreading their dogma is a good way to ensure that others don't fall victim to it. There is no benefit to giving these people a platform, and it's ludicrous to pretend that these ideas aren't contested. The mere act of protesting them is contesting them. And if the protesters didn't have a solid argument as to why the people should not speak, they would not be refused entry.

The battle, Carpetsmoker, has been happening. But it's happening in a way that is refusing to legitimize the bigoted and unsicentific ideas these people are trying to promote. What is your issue with that, in particular? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hah. So I thought we were having a nice discussion about this, but now we've devolved in a thinly veiled person attack. "Why is it that you're defending bigots and unscientific people, Carpetsmoker?". My "issue", as I think I've explained sufficiently clearly, is that I don't think that it's effective, and may even be counter-productive.

"Gay people deserve to be murdered" is a very very extreme example. Very very few people feel this way and almost all (or all?) targets of "no platforming" have been spectacularly more moderate than this. No one needs to "no platformed" advocates of murdering people, as this is already illegal and likely to get you arrested.

"The mere act of protesting them is contesting them" -> Sorry, but no amount of protesting will change my mind on any topic. Reason and arguments will, though.

"many people who are just set in their ways and won't be able to be convinced" -> True enough, and there are also many people who are not, and are willing to be convinced by arguments.

"Preventing these people from spreading their dogma is a good way to ensure that others don't fall victim to it." -> Even without the internet this wouldn't be true. There are many examples in history of religions or languages being repressed by far more drastic measures. Didn't work then, doesn't work now.

"ludicrous to pretend that these ideas aren't contested" -> Every opinion is contested somewhere, it's a matter of getting the refutation to people in a way that they're willing to listen to it.

Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It's only a thinly veiled attack if you want it to be, Carpetsmoker. Here's the thing, r.e debate and arguments changing peoples minds:

You're not the type of person we're talking about here, are you? It's more than a little disingenuous to base your entire argument around how you'd react to reason and debate, when the topic is not, in fact, you yourself.

It's also disingenuous to pretend that what's happening here is "repression of ideas". These people spread their bigoted nonsense through the media all the time. But if they do it at a college or a respectable public institution? That legitimizes it. And I don't think these are ideas that deserve to be legitimized in any way, shape, or form. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

We're talking about ordinary people here, like you and me, who hear something about holocaust denial somewhere and believe it. Many of these people can be convinced. I know, because I've done this more than once. No, not all can be convinced (I've also failed to convince some of these people), but that's not a good reason to not try. As I said in an earlier comment, feel free to add your viewpoint to the article. But I see no reason to completely remove my particular viewpoint (as you've stated in your first comment), as I think it's not an unreasonable one (I am slightly biased here of course) Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

My point is that you can try to debate them in such a way that does not legitimize the viewpoint by giving it a respected public platform. How many times do I have to say this before you understand that? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. So what constitutes a "respected public platform" and what would be a good way to enter a debate? Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

We've been talking about it this whole time and you only now ask me what a "respected public platform" is? If you couldn't get past this basic facet of our debate until now, why didn't you ask me this before? I'd figured something like this would be clear in the context we're talking about.

Also, it's not my responsibility to figure out what a "good way to enter a debate" is. That's a very different discussion. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Right. First you state that your point is that "there are other ways to enter a discussion", and when pressed on what those might be, you simply state that it's "not your responsibility" to answer this and that it's a different discussion ...? Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Because it isn't my responsibility. But a respectable institution clearly is not the place to entertain bigots. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"But a respectable institution is not the place to entertain bigots." Yes it is, if it is a university. Every idea should be allowed to be openly aired and explored at any respectable institution of tertiary education. That is it's raison d'etre. ---Mona- (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

So, are you for creationism being taught in schools, if every idea is equal in a place of learning? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 04:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither of us can add our viewpoints to the article because Paravant has unilaterally sysop protected it for a week. It's just you and Mona who are free to do whatever.—Ryulong (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I thought that was lifted. It is now (see below) Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Protection

Well I was in the middle of a major rewrite until Mona reverted everything and Paravant protected the page (predictable from you) because Carpetsmoker's vast changes to this article to include the political concept of cordon sanitaire is bullshit. As Kitsunelaine points out above, bringing these things up for debate is ridiculous. Yes it works in political contexts. But if Richard Dawkins doesn't want to bother debating Ben Stein or other creationists then Jews shouldn't have to debate anti-Semites, and so on. Below is the rewritten version of the lede I had been writing until Mona's reverts and Paravant's protection.

No platform is the practice of of preventing someone—either through policy or through protest—from speaking. The term is mostly used to refer to rescinding an invitation to someone asked to speak at an event (such as a guest lecture at a college). The concept apparently originates from a policy used by the British National Union of Students to prevent far-right wing racists from giving speeches on UK college campuses. The concept is also similar to the political action of cordon sanitaire, where a politician or political party is either unconditionally excluded from coalitions or other forms or cooperation, or even completely ignored. "No platform" is typically used for social issues, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, holocaust denial, and so forth.

Critics (and targets) of no platforming believe the action is one of censorship and infringement of their right to freedom of speech, which is bullshit. Obviously their right to free speech has been already given to them, considering that people are already aware of their views and they're being protested for those views. What is instead happening is that protesters are demanding that the person's privilege of having an audience be revoked, and in many times the protests' goals aren't to institute a ban but rather bring light to the speakers' views that they find issue with. Another criticism is that banning the person from speaking prevents the chance to refute their points, which is still bullshit. Jews shouldn't have to refute anti-semitism, like evolutionary biologists shouldn't have to refute creationism. And the LGBT community shouldn't have to refute homophobia and transphobia just like climatologists shouldn't have to refute global warming deniers. Certain things can be debated. Bigotry and science denialism don't deserve that treatment.

So does this work to cover both aspects?—Ryulong (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

And also, it can't be an edit war after two edits Paravant.—Ryulong (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I know all sides well enough to know it would become one child.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit. Lift the protection so actual progress can be made instead of Carpetsmoker's incredibly disingenuous additions.—Ryulong (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You have to learn how to ask nicely. My job as a mod is to resolve conflict, and when possible, head it off in the first place, so no.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want people to ask you nicely, maybe don't call them children? Something something throwing stones in glass houses. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 00:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

And maybe I'd ask nicely if it wasn't you doing this at every step of the way Paravant. Good job protecting the page for 2 days so neither Kitsunelaine nor I can edit it meanwhile everyone else involved in this so-called edit war is free to do whatever the fuck they want.—Ryulong (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

,The answer remains no.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As if going "please unprotect the page so we can edit it" would have resulted in a yes. I'm tired of this shit Paravant. It's always you. It's always this disproportionate retribution.—Ryulong (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

At least give me sysop so I can edit it. My edits have been pretty non-disruptive, productive, and beneficial to the page itself. That isn't to say that Ryulong's haven't, but your beef is with him, not me. The only thing I've done that would constitute "edit warring" would be removing a section once because it was disingenuous, and even then, that doesn't really count. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 00:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

And also you haven't bothered to actually address the content concerns I put forward and are instead perpetuating this petty dispute you have with me over what is apparently both Gamergate and My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic.—Ryulong (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It should be telling that you bring that up more than me. The answer remains no--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It's because you're trying to avoid it and instead insist that the disproportionate use of your moderator and sysop tools against me has any actual foundation in trying to uphold the policies of this website when it instead stems from the petty personal dispute between us. There's no point in protecting this page other than it's me providing conflicting edits. There was no point in fully protecting List of Gamergate claims when I was copying over a citation other than it was me. It's blatantly obvious. Unprotect the page. Stop being like this. Treat me fairly for once. Because right now it's a repeat of every other time you've decided to police my actions on this website. You refuse to acknowledge anything but my complaints about you and ignore my actual attempts to discuss the content of the page for the sake of being slighted two months ago. Judge my proposed changes. Unprotect the page so I can impliment them. Stop this nonsense.—Ryulong (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

See that's the problem. What you say becomes less true every time you say it. Also, people disagree with your version, so no, I won't let you edit war over it. Grow the fuck up and get used to being oppossed--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't even have a chance to add the changes I proposed above to the article so how can you be certain it would be so fervently opposed? It's your bullshit treatment of me, Carpetsmoker's mistaken insistence that these protests have anything to do with cordon sanitaire, and Mona's ignorance of our intentions. Now address the actual proposal I have above instead of deflecting.—Ryulong (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"if Richard Dawkins doesn't want to bother debating Ben Stein or other creationists then Jews shouldn't have to debate anti-Semites, and so on."

Dawkins does debate creationists, just not often. When he does, he does so to convince the viewers (not the creationists). See this reflection on his interview with Wendy Wright for example. In the end, someone has to offer refutations to this sort of nonsense. What you're alluding to is the balance fallacy, and you're 100% correct in pointing out that not all opinions are created equal. Yet, at the same time providing no platform at all is the other extreme (and may be counter-productive). This otherwise good observation is a great reason to expand those sections, not remove them. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"Carpetsmoker's vast changes to this article to include the political concept of cordon sanitaire is bullshit"

Why? It's the same basic idea, isn't it? Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Carpetsmoker's edits are both accurate and insightful. Moreover, from what I've seen of him, he's more reasonable and fact-based than Ryu is. I agree with his edits; I copy-edited them (and most of the rest of the article) to improve the prose. That combination is superior to the proposed edits.---Mona- (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because you say it is doesn't make it so. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

True. It's so because it's true.---Mona- (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This is literally what christians do with the bible. "It says it's from god, erego, it's from god". The text does not prove the text. Please try to come up with a better argument. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That is what some Xtians do, but it is not akin to my position. My assessments are true not because I said it, but because the assessments are true. You appear to believe I'm making empirical claims; I'm not. It is my judgment that Ryu is often very unreasonable, that Carpetsmoker is reasonable, and that the combination of Carpetsmoker's text with my editing are superior product to Ryu and your edits. You disagree with my judgment. Alas, so be it.---Mona- (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You're doing a great job in convincing me of this, Mona. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Your judgement is shit.—Ryulong (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly the way I'd put it, but I can't say I don't agree. :P - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Pot meet kettle--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If you're not going to contribute to the discussion, please don't post here. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, your protection is still wholy unwarranted. Lift it.—Ryulong (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not at all the same because it's not actually refusing people a platform. It's a protest to highlight someone's backwards views with the threat of denying them an audience in a particular place because their platform exists everywhere else. It's all together a poorly named concept but that's Aneris's fault for focusing too much on British media and their reaction to unknowingly supporting transphobic feminists. As it stands, the article should differentiate between "no platform" and "cordon sanitaire" more explicitly, as "no platform" is a social protest and "cordon sanitaire" is political posturing. That's what my proposed changes intend to convey as well as alluding to the balance fallacy (which I hadn't properly put into words in my proposal).—Ryulong (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, your edit makes this distinction less obvious, not more. As I see it, many of the arguments relating to no platforming and cordon sanitaire are the same, both in favour and against them. The only major difference I can think of is that in cordon sanitaire we're dealing with democraticly elected officials, which makes the free speech discussion even more hairy... Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, Carpetsmoker, there's perhaps a big difference between dealing with science deniers like creationists or climate change deniers and dealing with bigots. Andrew Schlafy saying "The Earth was created on October 23, 4004 BCE" is different from Germaine Greer saying "You're not a woman just because you chopped your cock off and started wearing a dress".—Ryulong (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This is false:"Germaine Greer's stances on their gender identities tacitly endorsed by their university. " Universities are a hotbed of various speakers invited by many different student and faculty groups. The College Republicans, Campus Crusade for Christ, or any number of other groups are entirely free to bring Ben Stein to speak at UVM. To do so is not to have the university "tacitly endorse" him. Awarding him an honorary degree, however, is a bold endorsement. Brandeis was correct to rescind the honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Contrary to the neocons and New Atheists who shrieked about free speech in that instance, no one undermined free speech. The university made clear Ali was still free to speak at Brandeis; they simply declined to endorse her with an honor. I would utterly oppose no platforming Hirsi Ali.---Mona- (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop bringing up the honorary degree bullshit as a justification for the other groups' actions with regards to those other speakers.—Ryulong (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) But in both debates the goal is changing people's minds, I think? So in that sense it's the same. I'm not familiar with Greer, but as you explain her views, it doesn't strike me as overwhelmingly morally apprehensive (unlike, for example, neo-Nazis), so what we're left with is "is no platforming effective in changing people's minds?" I don't think so, but as I explained in the section above this one, feel free to expand the section and add a different viewpoint. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that people shouldn't have to debate hate speech. That's indeed a balance fallacy. And you don't find it overwhelmingly morally apprehensive because as far as it can be assumed you aren't transgender. A feminist of Germaine Greer's stature disenfranchising a whole set of women simply because they were born phenotypically male is bigoted as much as any neo-Nazi or UKIP member.—Ryulong (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I would personally use 'overwhelmingly morally apprehensive' for the likes of neo-Nazism, paedophile advocacy, and such. I hope we can both agree that Greer (and UKIP) are significantly lesser evils even though you mention Greeg and neo-Nazism in one breath. Is Greeg advocating the systematic eradication of all trans people? No? Then please accept it's a lesser evil. Neo-Nazism, paedophile advocacy, etc. need very little refuting because it's overwhelmingly morally apprehensive to almost everyone (so here no platforming may work as intended, although I'm not exactly sure about it yet), but Greeg isn't. In fact, her arguments may "ring true" to a great number of (non-trans) people. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This from Ryu is truly awful: "Certain things can be debated. Bigotry and science denialism don't deserve that treatment." Your argument is deeply illiberal and assumes that you and those you agree with are so wise you can and should determine what ideas may and may not be heard at a university. What chutzpah. No mere ideas should be disallowed from being presented, debated and explored at a university, of all places. That is true whether the idea is that climate change is a hoax, that the Holocaust did not occur, that illicit drugs are good for people, that violent revolution is the way to go, or anything else that does not directly and imminently incite a crime. ---Mona- (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

These balance fallacies shouldn't be honored with a debate because it isn't a debate. That's the whole point of the "no platform". If people don't want these people to have platforms, then that's their decision. If people want to protest Germaine Greer's stance on transgender people they should be able to do that without Greer complaining to the Guardian, the BBC, the Independent, etc., that she's being oppressed by the liberal millennials because she doesn't think people can transition to the gender that their mind is telling them they should be.—Ryulong (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"because it isn't a debate" Don't care how you characterize Idea X. X is an idea, and no idea should be banned from being aired at a university.---Mona- (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No two ideas are equal, Mona. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You aren't proving that by denying the right to debate them. If people aren't out there in a public forum proving its wrong, you give them the advantage.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"No two ideas are equal" And, water is wet. Next.---Mona- (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is denying the right to debate itself. Just the location said debate takes place in. This is clearly evident in how none of this is being ignored by the media or internet commentators such as ourselves. Your argument is, unfortunately, flawed. You don't need a college debate to prove something true or false. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

And Paravant has extended the page protection to a full week which is still bullshit. If I was reprimanded for revdelling something that I thought was genuinely libelous, then Paravant is definitely abusing sysop tools when there's no possible threat of disruption stemming from any of this.—Ryulong (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Other than perhaps Kitsunelaine's removal of an entire section, I don't really see any problematic behaviour here, so I'll remove the protection. Please, Ryulong, use this as an opportunity to show that we can trust you. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The removal wasn't problematic. Since the edit has been contested, I've done the correct thing in opening up a debate on the page's talk page. There is nothing problematic in regards to what I've done. Thank you for lifting the page protection, though I suspect Paravant will reinstate it. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If I see you fight , yes. One revert.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Like you've needed an excuse before. Though I appreciate the attempt here, at the very least. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm being more than accommodating to people who cannot fathom opposition besides for personal reason--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Carpetsmoker put time into some good and substantive edits. I in turn put time into copy-editing his edits and most of the rest. The page actually began to be worth reading, to be intellectually respectable. Edits that undermine this work -- unless a clear majority feels otherwise -- I'm not likely to retain. Certainly nothing advocated and defended by Ryu and Kitsunelaine here in talk is sound in my estimation. They may try to persuade me and others, but they are far from having yet done so in my case.---Mona- (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think Ryulong's edits are that bad (by which I mean the edits after my first edit on 2015-11-28T14:28:48‎ UTC, which lead up to the protection). I understand some people are tired of Ryulong for several reasons, but when looking at purely his edits here, they're not that bad. I think that if someone else made those edits, they would still be here without controversy. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Something we agree upon! Hi-five, Carpetsmoker! - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's true I see Ryu and Kitsunelaine as tag-teaming. My greatest disgust is with the latter's reversion of your entire section.---Mona- (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I'm here of my own accord. I've been coming to this page on and off over the past week or two and contributing to it. Though I guess because I agree with Ryu's decisions and don't partake in the deep seated loathing of him going on here, that means I'm a part of some cabal or something? I still think that entire section should be deleted. Or at least rewritten to be much less disingenuous than it is right now. As it stands, it is not a worthwhile addition to the page. I even suggested it should be rewritten before being added again when I deleted it. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 04:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

IT's not even tag teaming when we're not even contributing the same content.—Ryulong (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh damn, I hadn't even thought about that. Haha, yeah, we've both been pretty separate in what we're doing to the page. I don't see how anyone could see it as tag teaming. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 04:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You two are on the same ideological page and clearly chummy. Both of you are profoundly wrong.---Mona- (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

sweatie (: You're the one who refuses to understand anything we've said.—Ryulong (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh no. Two people agree with each other. They might even... *gasp*... ENJOY EACH OTHER'S COMPANY. What's next-- friendly debates? Concessions when someone doesn't know something or was wrong? People who disagree with one another working it out? The horror! - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The role of the university

In First Amendment case law, the Supreme Court of the United States establishes the public university as a traditional forum for the unfettered and free exchange of ideas. The High Court is especially hostile to any attempt by the government, including the university itself, to limit speech on campus. Or, as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has put it:

The protections for free speech set forth in the First Amendment are most certainly clearly established rights within our society and apply with particular rigor in the college and university setting, in light of the importance of allowing for the free exchange of ideas on campus.

The reasoning behind this legal doctrine is why I totally oppose no platforming. Quite literally, the university campus is the last place where any ideas should be prohibited from being heard. Young minds are best served by being exposed to a wide panoply of views, including the extremely noxious, and observing how others deal with such ideas. The larger world will not protect them from unpleasant or vile views, and part of a liberal education absolutely should include understanding how such opinions are rebutted and undermined. For, the Internet and other fora where vicious and stupid propositions are rampant are not going anywhere and an educated person learns how to confront, process and rhetorically defeat them.---Mona- (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

...that said, the article appears to be pretty much devoid of US-American cases. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I can fix that! However, I do realize that American law doesn't apply beyond the U.S. and it's territories. But this is one of the few areas where I co-sign close to the entire American approach to an issue. And where I don't it's generally because the High Court has violated it's own free speech doctrines, but in those instances the Court has usually in due course reversed itself. In any event, I felt it would be productive to set forth exactly where I land on this issue, which is quite opposite Ryu and Kristaline (sp?)---Mona- (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I respect the hard version of US-American free speech thinking (ie free-speech absolutism), though I don't subscribe to it (...perhaps a result of living most of my life in a country with hate-speech laws). But go ahead and edit to your heart's content. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

-Mona-, the issue here is one that's almost entirely British in origin because that's the only place "no platforming" ever comes up. In the United States, the current brouhaha is over "safe spaces". Also, your insistence that "this is all wrong" is one that is an absolutist view of freedom of speech that doesn't take into account that it concerns "The government can't control what you say" (unlike how a Missouri state legislator prevented a graduate student at Mizzou from studying abortion) rather than "You don't have the right to scream 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theater". In every case that this article would discuss, it concerns the "movie theater" example. It is a private entity deciding not to host a particular person or people protesting that particular person's scheduled appearance at a privately held event, even if you consider American universities to unilaterally be public spaces. A guest lecture is not the same as standing on a pulpit in the middle of a football field.—Ryulong (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Ryu speaks nonsense by writing: >>"You don't have the right to scream 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theater". In every case that this article would discuss, it concerns the "movie theater" example.<< 1. No, Greer's statements are nothing like the crowded theater example; they are opinions, not communication of a dangerously false fact claim that can be foreseen to cause an immediate stampede. 2. The "fire in a theater" bullshit has long ago been debunked and abandoned by the courts and legal scholars. Lawyer Ken White has written the classic evisceration of this idiocy: Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough. The notion is from Oliver Wendell Holmes upholding WWI-era convictions of progressive anti-war activists who spoke out against conscription. Holmes came to deeply regret his bullshit and spent subsequent years on the High Court trying to rein in his unfortunate statement and the holding that meant prison for socialists and other leftists like Eugene Debs. Finally, you are a fucking moron if you do not understand what a public university is, and I'm not into providing remediation at that level of stupid.---Mona- (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Greer's statements incite hatred and violence against towards transgender women. And frankly, it's you who doesn't fucking understand what is meant by public university, Mona. A public university is just one that is financially backed by the state. A lecture hall at the local community college or at a major state college like Missouri or a SUNY school is just as private a space as a movie theater or a web forum or a lecture hall at a private university (one that receives its funding through private means rather than taxes).—Ryulong (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"Greer's statements incite hatred and violence against towards transgender women." That's utter bullshit. And totally rejected in the United States by anyone serious, and not just the courts. Greer's statements do not cause anyone to go out and assault trans people. Some redneck assholes assault trans people, but the notion that they would attend a fucking lecture at a university by Germaine Greer before committing those crimes is beyond preposterous. (I suppose saying Israel is an apartheid state of racists causes violence against Jewish students? pffft) And this is literally absurd: "A lecture hall at the local community college or at a major state college like Missouri or a SUNY school is just as private a space as a movie theater or a web forum or a lecture hall at a private university" I can't remediate your fundamental stupidity. (I don't mean that as a personal insult; your deficit in thinking is honestly breathtaking. You and Avenger are twins separated at birth.)---Mona- (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as a trans person, agressively downplaying trans violence ("redneck assholes"? Fuck off. It's more than that and you know it) and the effect of hate rhetoric is disgusting. Do I need to bring up trans mortality rates? Do I need to show you how often this shit drives trans people to suicide? How so many trans people don't make it past their mid 20's? Fuck off with this nonsense, Mona. You seriously don't have the right. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 22:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

And -Mona-, you should know that criticizing the Israeli government is inherently different from neo-Nazi rhetoric. And you're the one who fundamentally doesn't understand what the "public" in "public university" means. A public university's student union can decide whatever they want and it's not a violation of anyone's freedom of speech.—Ryulong (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Kitsunelaine, get over yourself. I knew trans people likely before you were born. They're often murdered in "bad" parts of town and generally by low-rent assholes -- not by people attending lectures at fucking universities. And you know what? I do, in fact, have the right to stand up for free speech, and I always will do so. It's among the reasons women, gays, trans people and so many others have made the progress that they have. Whether it's the right or left, or anything else, no one has the right to dictate what opinions and ideas other citizens may speak or write, or who should be allowed a public platform. Among the people who have no right to do any of that are transsexuals, including you.---Mona- (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Get your head out of your ass Mona. There is nothing about this concept of "no platform" that comes close to the shit you're complaining about. It's to ban someone from speaking at a single venue or event because the protesters don't want their opinions validated by being given an audience to air them. It's never a public platform. If Evangelical Christians can go to Salem, Massachusetts, on Halloween to preach that the Devil is going to take all the visitors' souls to Hell then Germaine Greer can stand in front of Number One London and preach all she wants about how she thinks transgender women shouldn't be considered women. There's nothing in any understanding of "freedom of speech" that says that Cardiff University has to host her in a special lecture hall in order for people to hear her.—Ryulong (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Holy fucking shit, Mona. "I have trans friends! That means I know more than an actually transgender person and can dismiss them and everything they say because I, the cis person, am literally infallible! I'm just gonna go over here and stick up for TERFs, as if I'm not being a part of the problem." Jesus fucking christ. You dont' give two shits about transgender people, and that's pretty fucking evident from what you're saying here. Stop pretending. Also, "Gays" and "Transexuals"? Fucking really? Could you even get more transparent about how little of a shit you give for the LGBT community? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

God, teh stoopid is strong in this Ryu. To the extent I substantively answer you it will be only for the edification of others. I wrote the free speech section of the "no platforming" article, including virtually all the analysis about why free speech is not violated by the action. As I've made clear, I oppose no platforming for the same policy reasons I support free speech especially at universities; I do not claim it violates the U.S. Constitution. Now, don't you have a stack of Reader's Digests or something else at your level to occupy yourself with?---Mona- (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Kitsunelaine, you also incapable of reasoned thought and linear argument, and suffer from a severe reading comprehension deficit. Adieu to both of you.---Mona- (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Fuck off, Mona. I haven't got the time to try and reason with bigots. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

So "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" even when that shit is reprehensible? Fuck off Mona.—Ryulong (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

She hasn't even said she disapproves. Given her language directed at me, I'm willing to bet she's a TERF herself. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kitsunelaine and Ryulong, Greer's views on that matter are apparently appalling and believe that such rhetoric can be harmful. However, there is still a confusion about the freedom of speech and no platforming matter. Please consider the following points already made in detail somewhere above:

• Inviting a speaker is a form of contract or agreement. It's not an open mic. It is not like sending in unsolicited letters to the editor. It has virtually nothing to do with that situation.
• Using the public to disinvite or re-invite a speaker are both identical methods of public pressure. It is false to use double standards.
• It is not the purpose of universities to invite only speakers who say agreeable things or only present fully estabished ideas. What goes is determined by law, and what reasonably fits into the uni.
• The leadership of a uni has no obligation to invite only people the students will like.
• (SPOV): You cannot no-platform someone because they (say) adhere to a rival literary theory or a different set of ideas in sociology, unless these are clearly, and unambigiously unscientific hogwash. These aren't hard sciences and thus the reason for no-platform can likewise be not as "hard".
• (SPOV) Ben Stein, Creationism is so far outside of established science that even with plenty of leeway, these things have no place at a uni. Categorically. Why is apparent to everyone with some minimal knowledge about the subject matter.
• (Pluralism) Everyone can petition, write letters or picket and do all sorts of peaceful protest. This is fine. It is also fine to organize a counter-protest in the same vain.
• (Pluralism) Once an event takes place, protestors can never sabotage the event or hinder the audience from hearing.
• (Pluralism) Freedom of speech is a highly valued good with some carefully delineated exceptions which are determined by law, not by feelings or opinions.
• YMMV: I don't think someone should be disinvited for "personal is the political" reasons, or because they have expressed views in an unrelated area that are considered dubious. A creationist can be asked to leave Jesus at home, but can still present something on chemistry, for example.

The article doesn't have to take a position what kind of views exactly are "okay" to no platform, and shouldn't. It should point out that there are good forms (pluralistic), and bad forms of protest (anti-pluralistic), with the only reasonable critera wide enough that the views expressed (A) cannot be against the law, and (B) should be adequate to the institution, which should be at the discretion of the administration (they cannot just invite random people, and are themselves accountable). (4th attempt to comment, conflict, without taking most recent comments into account) — Aneris ✻ (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm agreeing with you here, Aneris. The YMMV bit is a little off to me though. From what I understand (because I'm not a British student union member) is that the protest is to highlight what they've said on something partially but not fully related to what they're going to discuss in general. Greer's transphobic views tie into her feminist ideology, but that wasn't a subject she was going to discuss. Same for Ben Stein at UVM (AFAIK).—Ryulong (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Ryu's right. All of that is pretty reasonable. I would also like to add that it's important to achnowledge the venue's free speech as well, as a large part of the matter is about organizations not wanting to support, or imply they support, the speaker's views, which I personally think is a legitimate action to take, but should always be judged on a case by case basis. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)