John Cleese and Andrew Graham Dixon

Just a phase, it will be something else soon. It is what students do, it’s part of the growing up process.

Andrew Graham-Dixon is a wonderful writer and broadcaster. I have several of his books and think he is first rate in his field. The idea that he should be no platformed because of a minor jest is ridiculous. The intolerance of other people’s opinions by certain groups is staggering and bodes ill for the future. The so called liberal left are more akin to Stalinism. Students are supposed to go to University to get an education, not to rewrite history or refuse to read or listen to anyone they don’t agree with.
We’ll have mass book burnings next. First they put the books on the bonfire, then the authors whose opinions/actions they don’t agree with follow them. They do it now before a book is even published by threatening boycotts if something they don’t agree with is published. Society is being shaped and manipulated by the ignorant.
Heaven help us all.

How ridiculous. Are Cambridge students big fans of Hitler and didn’t like seeing him mocked or something? I hope they never discover YouTube, the poor little darlings will have the vapours.

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.

Humour is one of the most effective ways of challenging dangerous ideologies.

I don't think that this behaviour is from the 'so-called liberal left' at all. No-platforming and cancellation are strategies used by groups with a particular world view who also espouse slogans such as 'No Debate', have misogynistic tendencies and refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees.

Much more akin to alt right than the liberal left, IMO.

I agree Doodledog.

I think you are right Doodledog

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 !!!

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

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.

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

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

Eh?

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.

Hear hear Smileless2012

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

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.

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

Again. Eh?

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.

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!

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.

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