advertisement


Open letter denouncing the "restriction of debate".

Cheese said:
Good on you Tony, and I am certain you will try your best not to upset them. Still, personal attacks against you - for merely being a non-female - will certainly increase. I wish you great fun moderating that bunch.
Click to expand...

I am certain you would describe many if not all of my ex-girlfriends as ‘radical feminists’! You need to remember I have lived in the counterculture pretty much all my adult life. The areas that scare the crap out of me are straight-laced mainstream conservatism and the 9-5 corporate rat race. I feel infinitely more comfortable in a gay bar or ‘radical feminist’ squat party or whatever than a football pub. In fact I’d refuse to go in the latter.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Unless I'm mistaken, I think JKR was challenging the use of the term 'people who menstruate', not using it herself. My recollection is that she replied to a Tweet which used that term, by saying something like "ie, women" or something to that effect. I'm not sure she intentionally wanted to marginalise Trans women who had never menstruated, so much as lampoon the clumsiness of the term. That's how I read the original exchange, anyway. It seems to have blown up out of all proportion. I imagine (though we'll never know) that a more measured response, along the lines that 'in this day and age there are women who have never menstruated, please don't sideline them, they're already marginalised enough' would have made the point far more constructively and probably invited a far more enlightening debate without repelling people like me who fear to enter this territory. As Kris says, upthread, the black and white mentality is unhelpful here. It also suggests, to me, that the people holding those positions lack intellectual depth.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply SPT, made me think.
 
Joe Hutch said:
When I was at a conference That Manchester many years ago, a group of us (one woman, three blokes) were all set to go out drinking. Unfortunately, the woman felt ill, so I nobly escorted her back to the hotel, not being much of a drinker anyway. The two other blokes, both old-school Cockney geezers, went from pub to pub, and ended up in one in which all the customers seemed to be female. It quickly dawned on the two blokes that the other customers were, in fact, all transvestites. They weren't made to feel uncomfortable, but decided to leave anyway. As one of the blokes told me 'Bob wanted to scarper straight away, but I said I wouldn't go until I'd finished my pint'.
Click to expand...
Similar happened to me in Lille. I was there on business on a Sunday night, anyone who has spent time in France knows that getting served anywhere in provincial France on a Sunday is nearly impossible. I found a bar, named "Vice Versa" which should have given me a clue, but I wanted a drink. I looked in and saw 2 attractive women at the bar, selective vision stopped me seeing everyone else. In I went and asked for "Une blanche SVP", at which point I noticed the barman was wearing a pink T shirt with "Pride Paris" written on it. OK, heigh ho. I got my drink and went over to stand at the bar, near one of the women I'd seen on the way in. Had a look round. OK. This is deep into the scene. One bloke had a leather cap and a poodle for Christ's sake. Ri-i-i-i-ight. The woman said "Bonsoir" so I returned the greeting and we started a conversation. I established that she was there with her male friend, who worked there some nights. After a while I essayed "Euh...am I right that this bar is for...a certain part of the population?" and when she replied "Yes, you're right" I said "Oh well, I'd better drink up then" to which her friend said, reasonably enough "Take your time, nobody's going to jump on you" so I stayed and had a chat. It was a nice bar, once you'd got over the leather caps and the poodles.
 
Tony L said:
You need to remember I have lived in the counterculture pretty much all my adult life.
Click to expand...
I respect that, Tony, not everyone manages to maintain that course. But bear in mind that being a dull centrist is about to be THE counterculture of the day, man! :confused:
 
Thorn said:
There's a world of difference between expressing a view about something and hate speech. Unfortunately, all too often when a view is expressed, rather than arguing against that view, those on the other side respond with a stream of hatred. JKR has given her views on many things. Frequently the right wing attacks her for those views. On this occasion, a section of the left is attacking her. I would rather they sought to change her mind rather than demonising her.
Similarly with so many things that crop up in these pages. Let's discuss our differences, not attack the other side.
Click to expand...
What world do you live in?

Nobody owes you polite discourse.

People are forever confusing freedom of speech (an actual law or constitutional provision that forbids THE GOVERNMENT from denying you the right of self-expression), with a right to be listened to (an imaginary "right" that others are REQUIRED to listen to you politely, provide venues for you expression and to refrain from demonstrating their anger at your position).

I don't know why people are so thoroughly confused on this issue. I do know that the complaint is most often made by older, well-known conservative personalities seeking access to liberal venues. They get upset that the hoi paloi organize to stop their event. They mistakenly (but I think knowingly) cry that their "free speech" is being denied. Nothing of the kind! Their assumed privilige of defferential listening is being denied by the actual free speech rights of the others.
 
I believe you can make it much easier than that, @DimitryZ . Rather than losing your time and energy shouting down people who don't agree with you, why don't you just fire a round at them. Disagreers shut up forever, problem solved.

I thought that World had gone a bit further than that. But in any case you're trolling.
 
Cheese said:
I believe you can make it much easier than that, @DimitryZ . Rather than losing your time and energy shouting down people who don't agree with you, why don't you just fire a round at them. Disagreers shut up forever, problem solved.

I thought that World had gone a bit further than that. But in any case you're trolling.
Click to expand...
Not at all.

Are you one of those people who actually think others owe you defference and are required to suspend their freedoms in your favor?

Where do people possibly get these ideas? It's like a cruel hoax perpetrated on the unwitting public.

Again, slowly:

One has no right not to be shunned, shamed, ostracized or shouted down by those who dissagree with you. Their actions in no way violate your right of free speech, which applies entirely to the state.

Marketplace of ideas doesn't mean polite and doesn't follow classic rules of debate. The height was probably reached during the public debates on the adoption of the American Constitution in 1787-88, which, stunningly from todays viewpoint, were 88 essays, published as anonymous editorials by the founding fathers in the leading papers.

It has been steep downhill ever since, lately greatly accelerated by the democratization of public discourse by the Internet. We can clutch our pearls and reach for our smelling salts, but it won't help.
 
DimitryZ said:
Not at all.

Are you one of those people who actually think others owe you defference and are required to suspend their freedoms in your favor?

Where do people possibly get these ideas?
Click to expand...
With experience you’ll work out that having a go at people head-on only satisfies your immediate mood and hardens your opponent’s resolve.
 
clivem2 said:
With experience you’ll work out that having a go at people head-on only satisfies your immediate mood and hardens your opponent’s resolve.
Click to expand...
You are welcome to come stateside, pick any redneck location and spend a lifetime in polite arguments with the locals.

It will read well in your obituary.
 
AndyU said:
Who is to decide that they are silenced? Or fired?
Click to expand...
Others decide that they don't want to be silent when they hear hate speech.

As for firing, high profile figures (like the Serbian soccer star) have clauses in their contract that allows their termination for unseemly behavior.

In large companies, if someone keeps screeming about Hitler in the cafeteria, they will be fired. Workplace is for working.
 
DimitryZ said:
You are welcome to come stateside, pick any redneck location and spend a lifetime in polite arguments with the locals.

It will read well in your obituary.
Click to expand...
I’ve spent a lot of time in the US. It’s not about being polite, it’s about not simply satisfying your own anger and indignation which only makes you feel better and doesn’t further your cause (quite the reverse). Shouting and bawling at at people inflames situations. Either be subtle in your approach or keep quiet and humour them.
 
clivem2 said:
I’ve spent a lot of time in the US. It’s not about being polite, it’s about not simply satisfying your own anger and indignation which only makes you feel better and doesn’t further your cause (quite the reverse). Shouting and bawling at at people inflames situations. Either be subtle in your approach or keep quiet and humour them.
Click to expand...
You are definitely not subtle...so
 
DimitryZ said:
You are definitely not subtle...so
Click to expand...
I said it’s not about being polite. I’ve explained my point of view in a way that you may have at least in part taken in. That’s about as much as I can hope for. It’s far more productive than being aggressive.
 
DimitryZ said:
Others decide that they don't want to be silent when they hear hate speech.

As for firing, high profile figures (like the Serbian soccer star) have clauses in their contract that allows their termination for unseemly behavior.

In large companies, if someone keeps screeming about Hitler in the cafeteria, they will be fired. Workplace is for working.
Click to expand...
Is there universal agreement on what constitutes hate speech? Why do these random ‘others’ have the right to judge people, attempt to close someone down, or have them fired?

What offends you may not offend literally millions of ‘others’.
 
Brian said:
Is there universal agreement on what constitutes hate speech? Why do these random ‘others’ have the right to judge people, attempt to close someone down, or have them fired?

What offends you may not offend literally millions of ‘others’.
Click to expand...
Thats why all of us should be free to express our opinions.

There is no reason that I am required to stop talking so you can be heard, if your opinion offends me.

Again freedom of speech laws limit the state, not individuals. Very simple concept.
 
Joe Hutch said:
When I was at a conference That Manchester many years ago, a group of us (one woman, three blokes) were all set to go out drinking. Unfortunately, the woman felt ill, so I nobly escorted her back to the hotel, not being much of a drinker anyway. The two other blokes, both old-school Cockney geezers, went from pub to pub, and ended up in one in which all the customers seemed to be female. It quickly dawned on the two blokes that the other customers were, in fact, all transvestites. They weren't made to feel uncomfortable, but decided to leave anyway. As one of the blokes told me 'Bob wanted to scarper straight away, but I said I wouldn't go until I'd finished my pint'.
Click to expand...

I had a similar experience in the Castro district of San Francisco one halloween many years ago. I was with my wife, and we were both in fancy dress, bar hopping and enjoying the atmosphere. We went to a few bars and in one my wife said "Thank goodness, there's other women in here". I told her "I think you need to look a little closer". Fabulous evening out - met some very interesting people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top