John Cleese and Andrew Graham Dixon

I don't think you are fully understanding what is being said here VioletSky.

Callistemon21

I'm

Are you saying that no-one should be allowed to mock Hitler anywhere, even in a living room?

Why should Hitler's reputation be ignored? Why should his image be protected?

Wow...

I cannot believe you are asking me this.

This discussion is no longer for me.

The deciders. I like that.

Me too. I'd hope to be more like Guy Montag in Fahrenheit 451. It's alarming that, as far back as 1953, Ray Bradbury could see a future where literature, artwork and verbal discourse that was considered to be offensive must be cancelled, outlawed and burnt.

delicate flowers" of the younger geneeation (sic) who are also always purlt (sic) drinking, littering and generally being offensive in parks accordng to gransnet.. Massive generalisation there; particularly as most GNetters have grandchildren/great grandchildren and know that to be a untrue. Again, this is the problem with a lack of critical thinking.........

I found his performance offensive

I wouldn't use those words personally in a quote, thats just the truth.

I have only defended others right to be offended

I have only defended others right to host people

I haven't suggested that historical words have no place, especially those that have taught society important lessons

It was a terrible impression...

I do wonder if he had simply quoted rather than parodied if the result might have hit differently to those watching.

But not sure what else to say really

I quite like some of the younger generation and their attempts to be more inclusive and i dont think that makes them "delicate flowers", conviction is strength and quite a few of us fought for what mattered to us at that age, some of us are still fighting on some fronts.

Genuinely got nothing else

BlueBelle

I ve never heard of Andrew Graham Davis so can’t comment on him but I cannot abide John Cleese I think he’s a nasty piece of work
What has impersonating Hitler got to do with a talk on art even if they were talking about his art why would you impersonating him apart from a cheap laugh !!!

You might know Andrew Graham Dixon from the programmes that he did with Giorgio Locatelli. They travelled around Italy looking at, architecture and talking about food, with Locatelli cooking.

Sorry, the quote facility did not work.
My questions were to Violetsky

I'm

Are you saying that no-one should be allowed to mock Hitler anywhere, even in a living room?

Why should Hitler's reputation be ignored? Why should his image be protected?

Galaxy

He most likely apologised out of fear.
I was at a university open day recently. The head of department got his words tangled up and accidentally used an offensive word. It was obviously an error. He was absolutely mortified and well theres no other way to put it terrified. It was horrendous to witness.

Sadly, I can well believe it, Galaxy. It's really worrying that things have come to this in what was for so long a country which prided itself on freedom of speech.

I am also worried about what we will lose in the backlash that I can't help but hope will come soon. Will there a be a return to the genuinely offensive speech of the 70s and before, when racist, sexist and homophobic language was mainstream? I fear that the baby (a move towards more considerate speech and an understanding that words matter) will be thrown out with the bathwater of knee-jerk, reactionary responses to trends in autocratic ways of thinking.

The deciders. I like that.
So who would we be comfortable with being the deciders.

It's not about young people 'not winning'. Who are they supposed to be fighting?

You may not be the one who should be questioned about this incident, but you are the one to leap to the defence of those who would silence anyone saying things with which they would disagree, so it's fair to question you about why you think that should happen.

You have said:
No venue, social media platform, or even someones living room owes anyone space to use speech others find offensive.

and also:

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

These statements appear to contradict one another. Which did you mean?

Who are The Deciders, who get to decide what the rest of us should hear? Universities are seats of learning, and should be the places where ideas are developed, discussed and contested. If young people are 'protected' from things that The Deciders don't think are appropriate, how are they going to decide for themselves what they think?

I cannot speak for all of Gransnet, and I wouldn't generalise about us as a group - I see us as a very disparate group of women - but I don't think that young people are always drinking, littering and being offensive in parks. Equally, I don't see them as 'delicate little flowers' who need to be told what to think or listen to by others, so I'm not sure about that contradiction either.

This is the problem with cancel culture isn't it; instant knee jerk outrage without having the intellectual intelligence to see that hitler was being mocked and derided. Critical thinking and reasoned discussion from all sides is apparently becoming beyond some students ability.

I am not a spokesperson to be questioned about it all and have no responsibility for the decision.

I don't think anyone is saying that you're "spokesperson" vs, or that you have any "responsibility for the decision"; others are simply challenging/disagreeing with your viewpoint; which is the whole point of a discussion surely? And if we can't voice agreement/disagreement; that is cancel culture which is exactly what this discussion is all about!

He most likely apologised out of fear.
I was at a university open day recently. The head of department got his words tangled up and accidentally used an offensive word. It was obviously an error. He was absolutely mortified and well theres no other way to put it terrified. It was horrendous to witness.

Again. Eh?

He himself apologised saying that those words are "inherently offensive" even to make a point.

I think that was the right thing to do.

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

John Cleese withdrew himself

So, that's that really.

I dont know what else I'm expected to say, I am not a spokesperson to be questioned about it all and have no responsibility for the decision.
Perhaps it would be a better idea to confront the "delicate flowers" of the younger geneeation who are also always purlt drinking, littering and generally being offensive in parks accordng to gransnet...

Young people cant win lately lol

VioletSky

Have you watched it volver?

Some terms did not need repeating to make that point.

At the end of the day though, no one is entitled to a platform for their individual liberty to express themselves.

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

So it isn't going to change any time soon

Of course I've watched it. I don't pass judgement on things I haven't watched.

None of us have the right not to be offended. He used a word that was used to describe people in the early 20th century. It really wasn't that offensive in context.

You will never talk about anything important again then violet. It is impossible to address difficult ideas without offense.

Hear hear Smileless2012

I agree Doodledog. Another example of blanket silencing. Why shouldn't he be allowed to speak at other universities? Why deny those who want to listen to what he has to say the opportunity to do so.

The more delicate ones need not attend.

Eh?

Have you watched it volver?

Some terms did not need repeating to make that point.

At the end of the day though, no one is entitled to a platform for their individual liberty to express themselves.

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

So it isn't going to change any time soon

Yes he was mocking Hitler. Quite a good thing I would have thought.

First things first - the Hitler "impression" wasn't a joke. He was taking part in a debate about the existence of good taste and was showing how Hitler complained about his own art being dismissed and blamed the establishment for preferring what was then called degenerate art. It was the kind of language Hitler used. Graham Davis wasn't marching around with an arm in the air and his finger under his nose in a mock-moustache

If the people went to a debate about the existence of good taste, what were they expecting?

If we are going to start being offended by people showing how bad things were the past, we're on a hiding to nothing.

This article explains and shows a video of the offensive terms (I would not repeat) quoted and used in a debate about "good taste".

Because it is missing from the OP

www.insider.com/cambridge-university-sorry-for-speakers-adolf-hitler-impersonation-2021-11

I ve never heard of Andrew Graham Davis so can’t comment on him but I cannot abide John Cleese I think he’s a nasty piece of work
What has impersonating Hitler got to do with a talk on art even if they were talking about his art why would you impersonating him apart from a cheap laugh !!!

I think you are right Doodledog