FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > No platforming
No platforming
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
"It's about time those snowflakes got a life "You sound like an ultra right wing fascist Nazi who should be no platformed! | |||
"It's about time those snowflakes got a life
You sound like an ultra right wing fascist Nazi who should be no platformed! ". Kabooooooooom  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
  | |||
"Ha brilliant In reality it's about those generation snowflakes who just can't hear opposing ideas without melting" Quality trolling. Should I have to invite you round my house to talk bollocks because of your right to freeze peach? | |||
"Ha brilliant In reality it's about those generation snowflakes who just can't hear opposing ideas without meltingQuality trolling. Should I have to invite you round my house to talk bollocks because of your right to freeze peach?" . You know you want to!.  | |||
| |||
"So to clarify!. University's are going to be bound by law to stop no platforming certain individuals from giving their opinion!, that doesn't mean your going to be forced to listen, you still have the right not to turn up, or turn up and argue the toss" could you give the clarifying another go please? | |||
"So to clarify!. University's are going to be bound by law to stop no platform ing certain individuals from giving betheir opinion!, that doesn't mean your going to be forced to listen, you still have the right not to turn up, or turn up and argue the toss could you give the clarifying another go please?" . Ok, should snowflakes be bound by law to listen to shit that makes them cry to turn them into more rounded individuals capable of making it in the real world | |||
| |||
"So to clarify!. University's are going to be bound by law to stop no platform ing certain individuals from giving betheir opinion!, that doesn't mean your going to be forced to listen, you still have the right not to turn up, or turn up and argue the toss could you give the clarifying another go please?. Ok, should snowflakes be bound by law to listen to shit that makes them cry to turn them into more rounded individuals capable of making it in the real world" Nope! | |||
| |||
| |||
"Personally I think snowflake is probably the most insulting term possible. Young adults say 17 to 21 years old roughly are driven by hormones at the same time as accepting responsibility and being bombarded by new ideas, good and bad. They always have done and said stupid things, but until recently those moments never left the small group you did them with, so nobody judged it. Now your stupid naive tweets, posts etc. can come back at you in a job interview 20 years down the road. Only job you are qualified for is US President. " . Oh I didn't know the snowflake word was insulting to them?. I'll use it more from now on | |||
"Personally I think snowflake is probably the most insulting term possible. Young adults say 17 to 21 years old roughly are driven by hormones at the same time as accepting responsibility and being bombarded by new ideas, good and bad. They always have done and said stupid things, but until recently those moments never left the small group you did them with, so nobody judged it. Now your stupid naive tweets, posts etc. can come back at you in a job interview 20 years down the road. Only job you are qualified for is US President. "  | |||
"So to clarify!. University's are going to be bound by law to stop no platform ing certain individuals from giving betheir opinion!, that doesn't mean your going to be forced to listen, you still have the right not to turn up, or turn up and argue the toss could you give the clarifying another go please?. Ok, should snowflakes be bound by law to listen to shit that makes them cry to turn them into more rounded individuals capable of making it in the real world" Instead of talking bollocks give me one example of where no platforming has happened, and why it shouldn't have happened. | |||
"Personally I think snowflake is probably the most insulting term possible. Young adults say 17 to 21 years old roughly are driven by hormones at the same time as accepting responsibility and being bombarded by new ideas, good and bad. They always have done and said stupid things, but until recently those moments never left the small group you did them with, so nobody judged it. Now your stupid naive tweets, posts etc. can come back at you in a job interview 20 years down the road. Only job you are qualified for is US President. . Oh I didn't know the snowflake word was insulting to them?. I'll use it more from now on "I might love you. Fleetingly.. but it's on the rise. | |||
"Right wing leaning people tend to be more fearful and angry - snowflakes - than others. " And they're alway bleating about how PC has "gone mad," which they've thought ever since they gave women the vote. Will whine about students not inviting ignorant bigots to speak at their union but send a paedo down their kids' scout hut to talk about something and suddenly they're not so keen on free speech. | |||
"So to clarify!. University's are going to be bound by law to stop no platform ing certain individuals from giving betheir opinion!, that doesn't mean your going to be forced to listen, you still have the right not to turn up, or turn up and argue the toss could you give the clarifying another go please?. Ok, should snowflakes be bound by law to listen to shit that makes them cry to turn them into more rounded individuals capable of making it in the real worldInstead of talking bollocks give me one example of where no platforming has happened, and why it shouldn't have happened." . I'm quite keen on blaspheming myself and despite it being legal to do so, it's banned in some universities but that's ok they banned nick lowles the director of hope not hate as well for being "Islamaphobic".
And Peter tachell for being anti transgender.... It's the 21 century version of fingers in your ears going la la la la la la la la | |||
" And Peter tachell for being anti transgender...." He wasn't 'no platformed'. One person objected to him speaking, and that made the news, but he spoke as planned. A trivial incident. But as happens with 'PC gone mad!' issues, the right kicks up a fuss when it more often than not isn't really a big deal at all. | |||
" And Peter tachell for being anti transgender.... He wasn't 'no platformed'. One person objected to him speaking, and that made the news, but he spoke as planned. A trivial incident. But as happens with 'PC gone mad!' issues, the right kicks up a fuss when it more often than not isn't really a big deal at all. " . Peter tachell isn't even close to being on the "right" and yet he's also a voice for university freedom and free speech!. Personally I've got past the left v right nonsense and don't see issues like this in that way | |||
" And Peter tachell for being anti transgender.... He wasn't 'no platformed'. One person objected to him speaking, and that made the news, but he spoke as planned. A trivial incident. But as happens with 'PC gone mad!' issues, the right kicks up a fuss when it more often than not isn't really a big deal at all. . Peter tachell isn't even close to being on the "right" and yet he's also a voice for university freedom and free speech!. Personally I've got past the left v right nonsense and don't see issues like this in that way" Except it's not a free speech issue. If I don't get invited to speak at a university, I'm not having my free speech suppressed. And as for 'University freedom', the NUS has confirmed that the only people who they officially 'no platform' are people like the BNP and radical Islamists. So what's happened in these cases is that individuals have protested against speakers. Which is very much part of 'university freedom' and free speech. You can't stop individuals expressing their opinions. And sure, you're past the left/right divide. That's why you call people 'snowflakes'. Classic sign of neutrality, that | |||
" And Peter tachell for being anti transgender.... He wasn't 'no platformed'. One person objected to him speaking, and that made the news, but he spoke as planned. A trivial incident. But as happens with 'PC gone mad!' issues, the right kicks up a fuss when it more often than not isn't really a big deal at all. . Peter tachell isn't even close to being on the "right" and yet he's also a voice for university freedom and free speech!. Personally I've got past the left v right nonsense and don't see issues like this in that way Except it's not a free speech issue. If I don't get invited to speak at a university, I'm not having my free speech suppressed. And as for 'University freedom', the NUS has confirmed that the only people who they officially 'no platform' are people like the BNP and radical Islamists. So what's happened in these cases is that individuals have protested against speakers. Which is very much part of 'university freedom' and free speech. You can't stop individuals expressing their opinions. And sure, you're past the left/right divide. That's why you call people 'snowflakes'. Classic sign of neutrality, that ". Snowflakes are snowflakes be they left or right leaning, it's a term used for those wishing to repress the Voice of opinion they don't like and has no bias attached to it other than the one being attached to it by the observer!. Protesting speakers or giving opposing views is the very essence of debate, no platforming speakers is the very essence of totalitarianism | |||
" And Peter tachell for being anti transgender.... He wasn't 'no platformed'. One person objected to him speaking, and that made the news, but he spoke as planned. A trivial incident. But as happens with 'PC gone mad!' issues, the right kicks up a fuss when it more often than not isn't really a big deal at all. . Peter tachell isn't even close to being on the "right" and yet he's also a voice for university freedom and free speech!. Personally I've got past the left v right nonsense and don't see issues like this in that way Except it's not a free speech issue. If I don't get invited to speak at a university, I'm not having my free speech suppressed. And as for 'University freedom', the NUS has confirmed that the only people who they officially 'no platform' are people like the BNP and radical Islamists. So what's happened in these cases is that individuals have protested against speakers. Which is very much part of 'university freedom' and free speech. You can't stop individuals expressing their opinions. And sure, you're past the left/right divide. That's why you call people 'snowflakes'. Classic sign of neutrality, that .
Snowflakes are snowflakes be they left or right leaning, it's a term used for those wishing to repress the Voice of opinion they don't like and has no bias attached to it other than the one being attached to it by the observer!.
Protesting speakers or giving opposing views is the very essence of debate, no platforming speakers is the very essence of totalitarianism"No it's not, You don't have the right to come into my home to talk bollocks, so why should students unions be forced to give a platform to trolls like Germaine Greer? There's a huge element of privilege to this argument - if a student walks to the front of the room during a lecture so he can give his opinion, then calls the lecturer a snowflake for not letting him do it, he'll be expelled out of hand. Don't believe me? Try it yourself. Phone a university and demand they let you give a lecture on freedom of speech, or snowflakes, or anything else you feel strongly about. They'll tell you to fuck off, albeit in more diplomatic language. Only the privileged get a platform, and only bigots get no platformed. | |||
 | |||
" And Peter tachell for being anti transgender.... He wasn't 'no platformed'. One person objected to him speaking, and that made the news, but he spoke as planned. A trivial incident. But as happens with 'PC gone mad!' issues, the right kicks up a fuss when it more often than not isn't really a big deal at all. . Peter tachell isn't even close to being on the "right" and yet he's also a voice for university freedom and free speech!. Personally I've got past the left v right nonsense and don't see issues like this in that way Except it's not a free speech issue. If I don't get invited to speak at a university, I'm not having my free speech suppressed. And as for 'University freedom', the NUS has confirmed that the only people who they officially 'no platform' are people like the BNP and radical Islamists. So what's happened in these cases is that individuals have protested against speakers. Which is very much part of 'university freedom' and free speech. You can't stop individuals expressing their opinions. And sure, you're past the left/right divide. That's why you call people 'snowflakes'. Classic sign of neutrality, that .
Snowflakes are snowflakes be they left or right leaning, it's a term used for those wishing to repress the Voice of opinion they don't like and has no bias attached to it other than the one being attached to it by the observer!.
Protesting speakers or giving opposing views is the very essence of debate, no platforming speakers is the very essence of totalitarianismNo it's not, You don't have the right to come into my home to talk bollocks, so why should students unions be forced to give a platform to trolls like Germaine Greer?
There's a huge element of privilege to this argument - if a student walks to the front of the room during a lecture so he can give his opinion, then calls the lecturer a snowflake for not letting him do it, he'll be expelled out of hand.
Don't believe me? Try it yourself. Phone a university and demand they let you give a lecture on freedom of speech, or snowflakes, or anything else you feel strongly about. They'll tell you to fuck off, albeit in more diplomatic language. Only the privileged get a platform, and only bigots get no platformed.". A university isn't a home though and last time I looked nobody giving a speech forces you to turn up, you don't like greer or what she says, don't turn up and let somebody who does listen to her and then disagree with her in debate | |||
" And Peter tachell for being anti transgender.... He wasn't 'no platformed'. One person objected to him speaking, and that made the news, but he spoke as planned. A trivial incident. But as happens with 'PC gone mad!' issues, the right kicks up a fuss when it more often than not isn't really a big deal at all. . Peter tachell isn't even close to being on the "right" and yet he's also a voice for university freedom and free speech!. Personally I've got past the left v right nonsense and don't see issues like this in that way Except it's not a free speech issue. If I don't get invited to speak at a university, I'm not having my free speech suppressed. And as for 'University freedom', the NUS has confirmed that the only people who they officially 'no platform' are people like the BNP and radical Islamists. So what's happened in these cases is that individuals have protested against speakers. Which is very much part of 'university freedom' and free speech. You can't stop individuals expressing their opinions. And sure, you're past the left/right divide. That's why you call people 'snowflakes'. Classic sign of neutrality, that .
Snowflakes are snowflakes be they left or right leaning, it's a term used for those wishing to repress the Voice of opinion they don't like and has no bias attached to it other than the one being attached to it by the observer!.
Protesting speakers or giving opposing views is the very essence of debate, no platforming speakers is the very essence of totalitarianismNo it's not, You don't have the right to come into my home to talk bollocks, so why should students unions be forced to give a platform to trolls like Germaine Greer?
There's a huge element of privilege to this argument - if a student walks to the front of the room during a lecture so he can give his opinion, then calls the lecturer a snowflake for not letting him do it, he'll be expelled out of hand.
Don't believe me? Try it yourself. Phone a university and demand they let you give a lecture on freedom of speech, or snowflakes, or anything else you feel strongly about. They'll tell you to fuck off, albeit in more diplomatic language. Only the privileged get a platform, and only bigots get no platformed..
A university isn't a home though and last time I looked nobody giving a speech forces you to turn up, you don't like greer or what she says, don't turn up and let somebody who does listen to her and then disagree with her in debate"Good swerve there, ducking the entire last paragraph. The reason why, much earlier, I challenged anyone on your side of the debate to name the places where people had been no platformed is because you're so badly informed. Germain Greer's lecture in Cardiff (not a debate - like you, she carefully chose which points she answered, and which she didn't)was not part of an academic course, subject to peer review and assessment, but a celebrity address of significance mainly to the university PR department. Greer demands the right to pontificate without going through the normal academic processes of peer review and publication, and ill informed antagonists like you queue up to defend her right to be as ill-informed as you. Rows about whether celebrity criminals like Julian Assange or idiot self publicists like Greer or Yiannapoulis should be allowed to address student societies or invited audiences have nothing to do with academic discourse. | |||
" And Peter tachell for being anti transgender.... He wasn't 'no platformed'. One person objected to him speaking, and that made the news, but he spoke as planned. A trivial incident. But as happens with 'PC gone mad!' issues, the right kicks up a fuss when it more often than not isn't really a big deal at all. . Peter tachell isn't even close to being on the "right" and yet he's also a voice for university freedom and free speech!. Personally I've got past the left v right nonsense and don't see issues like this in that way Except it's not a free speech issue. If I don't get invited to speak at a university, I'm not having my free speech suppressed. And as for 'University freedom', the NUS has confirmed that the only people who they officially 'no platform' are people like the BNP and radical Islamists. So what's happened in these cases is that individuals have protested against speakers. Which is very much part of 'university freedom' and free speech. You can't stop individuals expressing their opinions. And sure, you're past the left/right divide. That's why you call people 'snowflakes'. Classic sign of neutrality, that .
Snowflakes are snowflakes be they left or right leaning, it's a term used for those wishing to repress the Voice of opinion they don't like and has no bias attached to it other than the one being attached to it by the observer!.
Protesting speakers or giving opposing views is the very essence of debate, no platforming speakers is the very essence of totalitarianismNo it's not, You don't have the right to come into my home to talk bollocks, so why should students unions be forced to give a platform to trolls like Germaine Greer?
There's a huge element of privilege to this argument - if a student walks to the front of the room during a lecture so he can give his opinion, then calls the lecturer a snowflake for not letting him do it, he'll be expelled out of hand.
Don't believe me? Try it yourself. Phone a university and demand they let you give a lecture on freedom of speech, or snowflakes, or anything else you feel strongly about. They'll tell you to fuck off, albeit in more diplomatic language. Only the privileged get a platform, and only bigots get no platformed..
A university isn't a home though and last time I looked nobody giving a speech forces you to turn up, you don't like greer or what she says, don't turn up and let somebody who does listen to her and then disagree with her in debateGood swerve there, ducking the entire last paragraph.
The reason why, much earlier, I challenged anyone on your side of the debate to name the places where people had been no platformed is because you're so badly informed. Germain Greer's lecture in Cardiff (not a debate - like you, she carefully chose which points she answered, and which she didn't)was not part of an academic course, subject to peer review and assessment, but a celebrity address of significance mainly to the university PR department. Greer demands the right to pontificate without going through the normal academic processes of peer review and publication, and ill informed antagonists like you queue up to defend her right to be as ill-informed as you.
Rows about whether celebrity criminals like Julian Assange or idiot self publicists like Greer or Yiannapoulis should be allowed to address student societies or invited audiences have nothing to do with academic discourse.". You seem very angry, have you considered therapy? | |||
" And Peter tachell for being anti transgender.... He wasn't 'no platformed'. One person objected to him speaking, and that made the news, but he spoke as planned. A trivial incident. But as happens with 'PC gone mad!' issues, the right kicks up a fuss when it more often than not isn't really a big deal at all. . Peter tachell isn't even close to being on the "right" and yet he's also a voice for university freedom and free speech!. Personally I've got past the left v right nonsense and don't see issues like this in that way Except it's not a free speech issue. If I don't get invited to speak at a university, I'm not having my free speech suppressed. And as for 'University freedom', the NUS has confirmed that the only people who they officially 'no platform' are people like the BNP and radical Islamists. So what's happened in these cases is that individuals have protested against speakers. Which is very much part of 'university freedom' and free speech. You can't stop individuals expressing their opinions. And sure, you're past the left/right divide. That's why you call people 'snowflakes'. Classic sign of neutrality, that .
Snowflakes are snowflakes be they left or right leaning, it's a term used for those wishing to repress the Voice of opinion they don't like and has no bias attached to it other than the one being attached to it by the observer!.
Protesting speakers or giving opposing views is the very essence of debate, no platforming speakers is the very essence of totalitarianismNo it's not, You don't have the right to come into my home to talk bollocks, so why should students unions be forced to give a platform to trolls like Germaine Greer?
There's a huge element of privilege to this argument - if a student walks to the front of the room during a lecture so he can give his opinion, then calls the lecturer a snowflake for not letting him do it, he'll be expelled out of hand.
Don't believe me? Try it yourself. Phone a university and demand they let you give a lecture on freedom of speech, or snowflakes, or anything else you feel strongly about. They'll tell you to fuck off, albeit in more diplomatic language. Only the privileged get a platform, and only bigots get no platformed..
A university isn't a home though and last time I looked nobody giving a speech forces you to turn up, you don't like greer or what she says, don't turn up and let somebody who does listen to her and then disagree with her in debateGood swerve there, ducking the entire last paragraph.
The reason why, much earlier, I challenged anyone on your side of the debate to name the places where people had been no platformed is because you're so badly informed. Germain Greer's lecture in Cardiff (not a debate - like you, she carefully chose which points she answered, and which she didn't)was not part of an academic course, subject to peer review and assessment, but a celebrity address of significance mainly to the university PR department. Greer demands the right to pontificate without going through the normal academic processes of peer review and publication, and ill informed antagonists like you queue up to defend her right to be as ill-informed as you.
Rows about whether celebrity criminals like Julian Assange or idiot self publicists like Greer or Yiannapoulis should be allowed to address student societies or invited audiences have nothing to do with academic discourse..
You seem very angry, have you considered therapy?"Again, not an attempt to engage in debate or to answer the substantive points. You're mistaking rhetorical force, the theatrical use of emphasis, for a loss of emotional control. Once again, like so many people who bleat about debate, you haven't the first clue about how it's done properly. Like so many of the new wave of free speech activists what you really want is not genuine debate but an unchallenged platform for your favourite ideologues. | |||
" And Peter tachell for being anti transgender.... He wasn't 'no platformed'. One person objected to him speaking, and that made the news, but he spoke as planned. A trivial incident. But as happens with 'PC gone mad!' issues, the right kicks up a fuss when it more often than not isn't really a big deal at all. . Peter tachell isn't even close to being on the "right" and yet he's also a voice for university freedom and free speech!. Personally I've got past the left v right nonsense and don't see issues like this in that way Except it's not a free speech issue. If I don't get invited to speak at a university, I'm not having my free speech suppressed. And as for 'University freedom', the NUS has confirmed that the only people who they officially 'no platform' are people like the BNP and radical Islamists. So what's happened in these cases is that individuals have protested against speakers. Which is very much part of 'university freedom' and free speech. You can't stop individuals expressing their opinions. And sure, you're past the left/right divide. That's why you call people 'snowflakes'. Classic sign of neutrality, that .
Snowflakes are snowflakes be they left or right leaning, it's a term used for those wishing to repress the Voice of opinion they don't like and has no bias attached to it other than the one being attached to it by the observer!.
Protesting speakers or giving opposing views is the very essence of debate, no platforming speakers is the very essence of totalitarianismNo it's not, You don't have the right to come into my home to talk bollocks, so why should students unions be forced to give a platform to trolls like Germaine Greer?
There's a huge element of privilege to this argument - if a student walks to the front of the room during a lecture so he can give his opinion, then calls the lecturer a snowflake for not letting him do it, he'll be expelled out of hand.
Don't believe me? Try it yourself. Phone a university and demand they let you give a lecture on freedom of speech, or snowflakes, or anything else you feel strongly about. They'll tell you to fuck off, albeit in more diplomatic language. Only the privileged get a platform, and only bigots get no platformed..
A university isn't a home though and last time I looked nobody giving a speech forces you to turn up, you don't like greer or what she says, don't turn up and let somebody who does listen to her and then disagree with her in debateGood swerve there, ducking the entire last paragraph.
The reason why, much earlier, I challenged anyone on your side of the debate to name the places where people had been no platformed is because you're so badly informed. Germain Greer's lecture in Cardiff (not a debate - like you, she carefully chose which points she answered, and which she didn't)was not part of an academic course, subject to peer review and assessment, but a celebrity address of significance mainly to the university PR department. Greer demands the right to pontificate without going through the normal academic processes of peer review and publication, and ill informed antagonists like you queue up to defend her right to be as ill-informed as you.
Rows about whether celebrity criminals like Julian Assange or idiot self publicists like Greer or Yiannapoulis should be allowed to address student societies or invited audiences have nothing to do with academic discourse..
You seem very angry, have you considered therapy?Again, not an attempt to engage in debate or to answer the substantive points. You're mistaking rhetorical force, the theatrical use of emphasis, for a loss of emotional control. Once again, like so many people who bleat about debate, you haven't the first clue about how it's done properly. Like so many of the new wave of free speech activists what you really want is not genuine debate but an unchallenged platform for your favourite ideologues.". I wasn't trying to deflect anything but your choice of words and apparent knowledge of me without actually knowing me seems very bitter and angry, this is an underlying trend of no platformers it seems. Debate comes from opinion, Greer gives her opinion, students listen, students disagree, students debate. Those that feel so strongly about Greer (like yourself) are free not to turn up, if nobody turns up Greer will be no platformed. Those that don't feel like you can turn up and listen, like most people they'll probably disagree with some bits she says and agree on others but hopefully as we all do, try to learn something from it | |||
