advertisement


Owen Jones packs in social media

DonQuixote99 said:
Tier 1 hipsters like to flout existing norms. If they have another word, every knows it means 'nazi.'

Most have only a vague idea what Nazis were, of course, but even a vague Nazi identity is too much if you ask me.
Click to expand...

since the big beard trend began, i always wondered if part of it was not a deliberate, provocative evocation of the terrorist grooming aesthetic. yet, these same people are the ones tossing their lattes in protest over the muslim travel bans/restrictions.



vuk.
 
Mikeandvan said:
Well anyway, if you want to ignore a very obvious and worrying trend amongst undergraduates, and in society as a whole that's your problem.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it a 'very obvious and worrying trend' so much as 'a few highlighted instances of where undergraduates have been a bit young, idealistic, naive and foolish, as undergraduates have been wont to do for decades, certainly since I was one, thirty-odd years ago and no doubt for a generation before that'.

But that's a bit long-winded, I admit, so go with yours if it makes it easier for you.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I wouldn't call it a 'very obvious and worrying trend' so much as 'a few highlighted instances of where undergraduates have been a bit young, idealistic, naive and foolish, as undergraduates have been wont to do for decades, certainly since I was one, thirty-odd years ago and no doubt for a generation before that'.

But that's a bit long-winded, I admit, so go with yours if it makes it easier for you.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the 'analysis' Sue. If you want to talk about generational differences between students, then the University of California is a rather pertinent example. In the mid 60s it was the centre of a pivotal free speech movement, specifically that students be allowed political activity on campus. Forward to 2017, Milo Yiannopoulos' visit is shut down by protesting students, one of whom carries a banner' '**** Free Speech', and other shouting 'free speech is not hate speech'. Is that a clear enough example for you?
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I wouldn't call it a 'very obvious and worrying trend' so much as 'a few highlighted instances of where undergraduates have been a bit young, idealistic, naive and foolish, as undergraduates have been wont to do for decades, certainly since I was one, thirty-odd years ago and no doubt for a generation before that'.

But that's a bit long-winded, I admit, so go with yours if it makes it easier for you.
Click to expand...

i don;t think either of these descriptions are correct. this is not some new, emerging trend, but a culmination of several decades of a particular type of thinking (rooted in terrible french "philosophy") that has taken over most of the humanities at university. the only forgivable product is slavoj zizek, who doesn't quite fit the mould.

it was in full swing during the 1980s and people like allan bloom and camille paglia were warning against it (and doing very well with book sales). i don't agree with their positions entirely (especially not paglia's libertarian inclinations), but these are are ideas that have been drowned out almost entirely. note i don't count the right's opposition to so-called "liberalism" at all, because it seems based mainly on things that are not ideas.


vuk.
 
Awful makes awful. The protesters are immoderate, as is Milo Yiannopoulos.

In your view, does a university have a duty to host any speaker, no matter how racist, abusive, insulting, and threatening?
 
DonQuixote99 said:
In your view, does a university have a duty to host any speaker, no matter how racist, abusive, insulting, and threatening?
Click to expand...

i don't think a university should discriminate on the basis of the social politeness of what a speaker has to say, but it definitely should hold the person up to high academic standards -- this means you can;t just invite a loudmouth celebrity, but someone who either has academic or literary credentials of some kind. in essence, the same sort of rules as would apply to faculty -- you don't let anyone teach courses.

important to note that i'm talking about talks and guest lectures, not about what students are allowed to ask in class or write in their papers (if they even do that anymore).


vuk.
 
Joe P said:
A 16-year-old Canadian girl took down Milo's ass using his own shit against his ass.
Click to expand...

i just hope he stays away for ever. on the few occasions i had the misfortune of watching a clip of him, he managed to surpass bill o'reilly on the blood-boiler scale.: in on case he was arguing against believing climate change scientists.



vuk.
 
Paul R said:
Should any adults be shielded from any speech by their betters?

Anyway, on the 'snowflakes',

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...g-student-resilience-serious-problem-colleges

et al.

Paul
Click to expand...

Not the question. And you incite resentment completely unfairly by framing this as an effort of 'betters' to condescendingly shield people. I've certainly expressed no such attitudes. I don't consider myself 'better' than you, in any overall sense. I've got my good and bad points just like anyone. How about you--do you consider yourself my better?

The question was whether the university has an obligation to host anyone, or whether they have the right to exclude very nasty people. Keep in mind that 'adults' who so wish are quite free to seek out the nasty people elsewhere....
 
I know little about Milo aside from he seems to be a Katie Hopkins-style paid troll/gobshite who similarly seems to spout the most obnoxious and bigoted things imaginable for money or internet clicks. Such people seem very popular with the hard right at present. Life is far too short for such shite so I don't read/watch them.
 
He was dumped tout suite, Hopkins will go the same way once Dacre and whoever else realise she can't be pimped for money any longer.
 
vuk said:
important to note that i'm talking about talks and guest lectures, not about what students are allowed to ask in class or write in their papers (if they even do that anymore).
Click to expand...
The issue in Universities has been one group of students inviting speakers that other groups of students think they shouldn't hear. I don't think Milo is yet course work.

Paul
 
Tony L said:
ISuch people seem very popular with the hard right at present..
Click to expand...

notice remarkably how that same right is not taking advantage of the recent scandal to do one of their favourite nasty things: connect homosexuality to pedophilia. poster boy on a plate right there. maybe bill o'reilly can explain that one for me. "milo was never really one of us"


vuk.
 
Paul R said:
The issue in Universities has been one group of students inviting speakers that other groups of students think they shouldn't hear. I don't think Milo is yet course work.
Click to expand...

i understand that. if it is on campus grounds, it should be held to academic standards and approved by faculty member or committee. if they want to rent a pub, they can do what they like.

vuk.
 
DonQuixote99 said:
The question was whether the university has an obligation to host anyone, or whether they have the right to exclude very nasty people. Keep in mind that 'adults' who so wish are quite free to seek out the nasty people elsewhere....
Click to expand...
Which avoids the issue, since, Milo for example, is not 'very nasty people' in the context of actually nastiness. On more serious speakers is Maryam Namazie very nasty? What about Germaine Greer? If the Oxford Union could find an actual racist articulate enough to make a case, why shouldn't they debate what we mostly take for granted? Going back to first principles is occasionally worth it.

The equivalent of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King_and_Country_debate probably wouldn't happen nowadays, one side or the other would be too objectionable.

Paul
 
Paul R said:
Which avoids the issue, since, Milo for example, is not 'very nasty people' in the context of actually nastiness. On more serious speakers is Maryam Namazie very nasty? What about Germaine Greer?

Paul
Click to expand...

I used subjective shorthand. Imagine there was a person you and I agreed was 'too awful.' Must the university host them nonetheless?
 
Paul R said:
The issue in Universities has been one group of students inviting speakers that other groups of students think they shouldn't hear. I don't think Milo is yet course work.
Click to expand...

I suspect there is an aspect of panto-like trolling here. Probably with some rather nasty undercurrents given the rise of "alt-right" rebranding of fascism.

PS I'm still firmly of the 1970s-80s Rock Against Racism/anti-apartheid mindset that fascists should be met with flying bricks and bottles on the streets if neccessary so may not be the right one to ask about this stuff! I have zero tolerance of the far right, they made any point they had to make at Auschwitz etc 20 years before I was born and they do not ever deserve a platform to make it again. As such blocking shit like Milo Yiannopoulos, Kurt Vilders etc from speaking in intelligent places is perfectly valid IMHO.
 
I think if at all possible, then yes. Free speech means ugly gets to talk. And make itself plain.

Some years ago the BNP had some minor electoral success in the UK and their leader appeared on the BBC's Question Time. Very controversial, pretty awful, now reduced to meaninglessness, at least partially by national exposure.

Paul
 
Tony L said:
As such blocking shit like Milo Yiannopoulos, Kurt Vilders etc from speaking in intelligent places is perfectly valid IMHO.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree.

But then I remember from University the lefties hissing and shouting 'fascist' at any expression they disagreed with. It seems nothing much has changed in 35 years of left wing failures.

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top