John Cleese and Andrew Graham Dixon

Oh so now only people who carry weight in academic circles should be listened to. I have been really clear that there should be as few as restrictions on speech as possible and my reasons why. Could you answer why you think it will always be the 'good guys' making thses decisions.

Callistemon21

I think it's called a fauxpology ?

Oh the irony ?

Always happy to amuse DD after all what's better than a good laugh
"Faux"is very popular now for all sorts of things.

Any one going to explain what they regard as permissible restrictions on free speech and what is unacceptable? And why others can't have different standards?

Galaxy many people have large followings, doesn't mean the things they say carry any weight in academic circles. It is interesting that the person to host the Cambridge meeting was Kier Bradwell much maligned on this thread. JP undoubtedly attracts some people, however I suspect much of it is personal, based on his speech and presentation. After all anyone who knows anything about nutrition would regard his meat-only diet advice as plainly crackers.

I think it's called a fauxpology ?

Just popped back to say sorry if you were offended Iam64. I'm not really certain what being offended on the part of another person is classed as. But I apologise.

??
Just popped back to say that I'm sure that Iam will be delighted to know that you are sorry for offending her by your nasty comments to me ?.

I'm not really certain what using an apology to one person to have a thinly-veiled dig at another person is classed as, but I am amused.

Have you seen the attendance for his tours and his figures for podcasts. I dont agree with much he says but I wouldnt be daft enough to pretend that no one is listening to what he says or taking him seriously. Crikey.

No they didnt want a laugh. I have listened carefully to the students and faculty members who went through a difficult time consuming process to achieve it. Or do those students not count.

That doesn't really answer the questions though does it? I think JP is widely known now as an opportunist whose theories have more holes in them than Swiss cheese. Perhaps they just wanted a laugh.

I think the fewer restrictions we have on speech the better as historically it is generally minorities who are most impacted by it. Those who want restrictions seem to be of the view that it will always be the good guys imposing the boundaries, good luck with that.

Young people in Cambridge have decided recently that they dont want more restrictions on free speech, that's what the Peterson decision was about. So presumably I am really down with the kids.

Just popped back to say sorry if you were offended Iam64. I'm not really certain what being offended on the part of another person is classed as. But I apologise.

As far as the discussion on not being offensive during debates there are a number of subjects already handled sensitively and which even have legal restrictions about the language you use. So you cannot refer to black people in racist terms, and you cannot deny the holocaust happened. Do those of you who believe that debate is restricted by boundaries want to give up these restrictions and have a complete free-for-all. Or is it simply the latest restrictions that younger people want to introduce that are your concerns. And if that is so how are your views any less out dated than those who once thought using terms we now ban was OK?

And if it's applied to debating societies, where will it end?

Not just debating societies

I realise that
But it is a debating society and the decisions they made which we are debating

Not just debating societies. There are many subjects where critical analysis is required for example history, English literature and the social sciences. If students are only going to be required to access material which they agree with, how will they ever learn to analyse the arguments on both sides and produce a coherent argument to support what they do agree with?

And that is the whole point of debate - to challenge the speaker on his / her assumptions, as much as he / she is challenging you on yours!

One of the very reasons for the very existence of a debating society, one might think!

I disagree completely with Peterson on numerous things, I can cope with listening to him though. I also know that on his specific fields of expertise he will know much more than me. It takes a particular level of arrogance to say I have nothing to learn from this particular person.

Galaxy

This is the point I was making at the beginning if you are speaking to an audience of more than one on complex subjects you are going to offend someone. I think the evidence is that the complainers are a very small minority, so for example when Jordan Peterson was 'allowed' to speak at Cambridge the speech was very well attended so obviously many students did want to hear him.

Absolutely - I got your point.

I think with high-profile intellectuals, like Peterson, you often find that you can be in agreement with them on some things - but not others.

And that is the whole point of debate - to challenge the speaker on his / her assumptions, as much as he / she is challenging you on yours!

And if the speaker makes himself 'clear' in a manner in which you disapprove - you can challenge him on that too... you can tell someone their style of delivery offends you! And why it does! What you can't do is be offended and then decide on everyone else's behalf that they should be offended too.

Great post Dickens.

As I posted earlier, when studying particularly at degree level, there's a lot of information available about what will be studied. Students can see if any part of the course they're considering, covers material that they may find to distressing to deal with, and that should enable them to make an informed decision whether or not the course is for them.

If not, then choose another course and allow those who want to study a particular course in its entirety to do so, with out being denied the opportunity to hear speakers simply because some may find the content upsetting.

Perfectly put, Dickens.

This is the point I was making at the beginning if you are speaking to an audience of more than one on complex subjects you are going to offend someone. I think the evidence is that the complainers are a very small minority, so for example when Jordan Peterson was 'allowed' to speak at Cambridge the speech was very well attended so obviously many students did want to hear him.

Glorianny

I don't think referring to subjects in a considerate and understanding way using language acceptable to all is diluting anything and someone who can't mange to do that needs perhaps to examine why. If the views to be presented do deal with issues that might in some way disturb a section of society then that would need to be tackled in a sensitive way. Many such subjects are and all should be.

How can you ever present a subject using language that is acceptable to all? It just isn't possible. Everyone, including those with MH problems, has their own idea of what is 'acceptable' and what is acceptable to one might not be acceptable to another.

How can you sanitise a subject / issue to that extent?

I understand that some people's mental health is fragile, and there is no reason not to take that into account. However, University is traditionally an institution where ideas, assumptions - as well as facts and science - are examined and challenged... in the lecture halls and debating rooms, if you dilute the terminology and language to such an extent - for fear of offending someone, then you will change the whole ethos and so much will be lost in the drive for diplomacy that they will no longer be a seat of learning.

And no one individual has the right to decide for others what he thinks they should be allowed to hear. If the whole auditorium rises to its feet to protest, there might be a case to answer, but a handful - or even fewer people - saying they find something offensive and calling for no-platforming on that basis is wrong.

Democracy usually accepts the majority 'vote' and if the majority are not offended, then the majority rules. That's the reality.

Galaxy I hope you looked at this research examined the questions and the size of the study if there was allowance made for differing factors like the time of day, was it in Covid and anything else that might influence those results. If you haven't I wouldn't bother posting it. Its value will be questioned.

Do you not question what you read in the papers? One of the things that students learn from hearing views other than their own is how to balance one set of assumptions against another, and not to stay entrenched in their one-track way of thinking.

This shifting of topic and moving of goalposts is all getting more familiar as the thread progresses, as some of us will probably have noticed?

Thanks, Iam. I'm losing the will to live now, and have made my point so often that my head is spinning. I don't expect anyone to agree, but coming back with insults and more twisting of my words doesn't move the discussion forward at all, and is pointless, so I'm going to leave it there.

Glorianny

I do wonder Doodledog if pretending to be cleverer or more erudite than others makes you feel better. Who knows perhaps it does. I could go through this thread and pick out how your statements have shifted since the first one on Mental Health issues. But I can't be bothered. It is obvious to me that whatever I say you are going to try and belittle me in some way. If that makes you happy so be it. I said I was out before and returned because you post such tosh. Best to ignore you I think.

I found these comments, directed at Doodledog offensive. I feel they added nothing to an interesting discussion.

That doesn’t mean I believe you should be no platformed Glorianny. It did make me wonder whether you feel you’ve evolved further in compassion and intellectual understanding than those of us who you seem to believe are stuck in the 70’s.
Accusing people who don’t share your views of not understanding the detail, the extent of the issues could be seen as patronising

I don't mind being questioned

Galaxy

Oh interesting data just released from a study of a sample of university students, 11 % think speakers from the Tory party should be prevented from speaking, 5 % think speakers from the labour party should be prevented from speaking and 5 % think speakers from the socialist worker party should be banned.

Galaxy I hope you looked at this research examined the questions and the size of the study if there was allowance made for differing factors like the time of day, was it in Covid and anything else that might influence those results. If you haven't I wouldn't bother posting it. Its value will be questioned.