John Cleese and Andrew Graham Dixon

It was probably unintentional but does that mean he should have the right to do it? Yes, he should have the right. You don't have to agree with him. You have the right to be offended if you wish. But he has the same rights as you have: the right to hold a different opinion and express it.

From the final paragraph in the abovementioned Freedom of Speech article:

They need to learn that enforcing “respect” in discourse cannot be harmonized with Cambridge’s free speech policy, for if you give someone offense with your words, they can and will claim that you’re not respecting them.

But saying that “you don’t respect me” is no more of an argument than “I’m offended”, and doesn’t belong in any regulations about free speech.

People will be offended about all sorts of things. Nobody would be able to say anything if we shouldn't have the right to say anything that might offend someone somewhere.

Laws exist to prevent people saying things that might cause harm, by inciting hatred or violence. They do not exist to protect people from being offended. If they did there would be a TV and radio blackout, cinemas and theatres would close and there would be no social media.

He also attributed Hitler's views to his lack of success as a watercolour painter and his treatment of Jews as a consequence of their support for modern art. Which effectively is antisemitic. Is it?

IMO it's a explanation, just one of several, of his antisemitism but is not in itself antisemetic.

He said afterwards My point was that evil ideas in the sphere of art can have untold and even atrocious consequences in the rest of life.
Really! Nothing to do with the economy, racism or any other theories?
He also attributed Hitler's views to his lack of success as a watercolour painter, and his treatment of Jews as a consequence of their support for modern art.
Which effectively is anti-semitic. Not all Jews have the same opinions about things and attributing such views to them is antisemitic. If he had said all Jews were bankers he would have been roundly condemned, but because he was speaking about art it's OK? No it isn't.
If you choose you can say he was trying to make a point, but he made it badly and he offended people. There can't be any doubt about that. It was probably unintentional but does that mean he should have the right to do it?

It was Hitler's 'taste' that resulted in some works of art being destroyed Glorianny or ironically being saved by the evil Goering to form his own private art collection.

Cambridge University is currently discussing free speech, the lack of it and it's consequences. This article addresses how the implied chilling of speech that might offend others (lack of “respect”) impacts tolerance, understanding others viewpoints and, most importantly, freedom of speech. While debate and discussion may be robust and challenging, all speakers have a right to be heard when exercising their right to free speech within the law.

The whole article is here. I do hope that vs does return to this discussion and reads the full article because it explains, in simple terms, how cancel culture negatively affects open discussion of our history, our present and our future.

whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/06/17/cambridge-university-tries-once-again-to-enforce-respect-in-its-free-speech-regulations/

He was sticking to what he knows, which is art.

He wasn't making jokes or trying to be funny.

If you think his "performance" was trivialising deaths, you have completely misunderstood what he said, the meaning of his argument, and what's being said on this thread. Is nobody to mention Hitler any more? You are accusing him of things like contributing to the rise of anti-Semitism which is just an unacceptable thing to do.

It's like living in 1984 some days.

Galaxy

Who judges that then glorianny? You cant explore difficult ideas without offending. It's not possible.

Of course you can. It is in any case ridiculous to use Hitler in a discussion about good and bad taste. Does anyone seriously imagine it was taste that led to the deaths of so many people or the closing down of what was the most open and permissive society in Europe? AGD isn't a comedian, he isn't a writer of comedy scripts. He is an art historian and should stick to what he knows. I'm not sure he should be no-platformed, but I am certain if I had been sitting in that debate and my family had been massacred by the Nazis I would regard his performance as trivialising their deaths and I would have complained loudly. We should remember that many of those who escaped from Germany are still tracing their family and finding out their fate and this necessarily impacts on the younger generation. It also resonates with the rise of anti-semitism in the UK which AGD seems to be regrettably unaware of. Of course he needed to apologise but he is a clever person and should have more sensitivity.

VioletSky read the thread over again. Doodledog's post is an excellent summary of this thread and is representative of how we all read it. Somehow you've missed the key points.

I forgot to mention the flounces :grin:

I'll come back if the discussion becomes more reasonable

VioletSky

Galaxy

and who gets to decide which are wrong VS? Who is clever enough moral enough to decide on what constitutes wrong opinions.

If you read back, that is not what i said..

This is why we cant have nice discussions

You started by saying:
Or maybe they are passionate about a better future where we dont use events or people involved in horrific genocide as a punchline for a joke.

which turned out to be b*****ks, as there was no punchline involving horrific genocide.

Then you moved onto:
No venue, social media platform, or even someones living room owes anyone space to use speech others find offensive.

doubling down to suggest (I think, as the syntax is difficult) that someone deemed offensive should not be given space in the actual or virtual world, including in private houses.

and when you were backtracking about who should make the decisions about who and what is offensive:

. . . it is no ones place to decide what others find offensive and no ones place to decide who venues and platforms host.

I think we can be forgiven for being unsure what you actually said. It seems to me that you saw an opportunity to show how 'tolerant' and 'inclusive' you are, and pounced, but gradually realised that you had misjudged and tried to wriggle. You accused us of thinking things about young people that most of us do not, shifted your position and got passive aggressive, suggesting that we are picking on you, and patronising us saying that it is our fault that 'we can't have nice discussions'.

You got it wrong in the first place, probably as you didn't watch the video or know the full story. It happens - we've all made ourselves look a bit daft online at times. Why not just own it and stop digging?

A minor point. What does offend me is the use of words from an historical context, now deemed offensive, but represented by the use of asterisks, as though that somehow makes them acceptable, (and quite confusing, when the correct number of asterisks are not used.) Also used when posters want to swear.

I do that all the time. I know that some swear words etc. offend people, so I use asterisks instead. I consider it polite, others may consider it offensive. Asterisks are one of the symbols GN uses to format text, so sometimes the GN site gets confused and thinks the *s mean bold.

Next time I'll just say f* ?

I spent four years at art school listening to many lectures on art history and I've watched and enjoyed many of AGD's television programmes. I have no idea what the students were complaining about. He was repeating well known facts, he was portraying Hitler as the frustrated failure of a painter that he was. Have you seen his sad little watercolours? He wasn't telling jokes, this was Hitler's view of the art world.

Andrew Graham Dixon was responding to the proposition: 'This house believes there is no such thing as good taste', not giving a lecture or a talk. I am assuming there were other speakers who defended or attacked the proposition, followed by a debate from the floor.
The members of the Cambridge Debating Society undoubtedly have high intellectual ability, therefore would be able to destroy the speaker's performance through their arguments if they found it to be offensive. Surely that is the purpose of debate.

A minor point. What does offend me is the use of words from an historical context, now deemed offensive, but represented by the use of asterisks, as though that somehow makes them acceptable, (and quite confusing, when the correct number of asterisks are not used.) Also used when posters want to swear.

Spot on Doodledog.

VioletSky who says or should say what is 'wrong'?

We can choose what we want to listen too, but we don't have the right to prevent others from listening to something that we disapprove of, or disagree with. Isn't that what constitutes freedom of speech?

There are broken families even when there is love. Parents separate and divorce and that family unit is broken as a result, but that doesn't mean there is no love. Parents continue to love and be there for their children, even if they no longer love one another.

It's good to see that common sense prevailed and Cambridge rescinded the ban.

Galaxy

and who gets to decide which are wrong VS? Who is clever enough moral enough to decide on what constitutes wrong opinions.

If you read back, that is not what i said..

This is why we cant have nice discussions

It happened because some brave faculty members and some brave students campaigned for it to happen. No one has to listen to others opinions (that strategy is working well!) so I assume those students who didnt want to hear it didnt go, always an option. I disagree with Peterson on many things, I can cope with listening to him though and sometimes learn things.

Cambridge changed their mind on Peterson he spoke there a few months ago, it went well I gather.

and who gets to decide which are wrong VS? Who is clever enough moral enough to decide on what constitutes wrong opinions.

Erm, i was talking about thepeople on this "blacklist". I giess i am wrong and it does exist but i can understand why

Geemaine Greer, trans issues
Jenny Murray, trans issues
Amber Rudd, Windrush
Jordan Peterson, off the top of my head, "broken families" hate that term, no family is broken if there is love, gay parents, Me Too movement.

No one has to listen to others opinions.

Especially the ones about ourselves that are wrong

Nailed it!

or e) decide that some people's opinions aren't worth listening to, but argue against them anyway.