|
Spangly A posted:Claiming an issue that actually effects thousands of people every year Actually abortion does the opposite of that 
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Pray tell us this secret, so that we too may know everything 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
People saying the loving editor of Spiked has relevant opinions on abortion smh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 10:14
|
|
|
The best thing about mobile posting is that with the Awful app putting someone on ignore effectively hellbans them; you don't see that they posted and can't read their posts even if linked to them. The only time I even remember Malcolm XML exists is when somebody quotes him with a rebuttal to whatever asinine poo poo he's holding forth about. It is a happy existence 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
Let's not get into a circle Jerk over who has who on ignore. To change the topic. Let's grant police all the powers they want. They definitely won't abuse them. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31105678
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
Look, if someone does commit a crime and they're not already in the database, how will you find out who they are? Doesn't make sense
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:Let's not get into a circle Jerk over who has who on ignore. Haha that piece of poo poo. "We're just ahead of the game  "
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
Isn't this free speech article less to do with the specific policy of No Platforming and more with people's supine indulgence of that obnoxious loudmouth in Oxford who threw her toys out of the pram because she wasn't asked to ventilate her Incredibly Important Opinions at an abortion debate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
Watch out he's got a thesaurus
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
Reminder that the "debate" in Oxford (organised by an anti-abortion group, with anti-abortion speakers) didn't happen because they failed to book a room
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 10:47
|
|
|
Why do some in this thread struggle so hard with no-platforming? You have no god-given right to be listened to and there's nothing anti-intellectual about telling people to gently caress off. It's not like people don't somehow already know the arguments that will be presented; they have plenty of a platform in other areas of society.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
You can understand no platforming and still act against it, hoping to change it in one or all instances. See for example a few hundred thousand people when Greens were effectively no platformed by the televised debates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Reminder that the "debate" in Oxford (organised by an anti-abortion group, with anti-abortion speakers) didn't happen because they failed to book a room Not their fault, they thought someone said they were booking a womb and they didn't want to interfere. E: I just heard that Francis "The Mad Axeman" Maude is standing down. Some good news, at least. Jedit fucked around with this message at 11:29 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
mfcrocker posted:Why do some in this thread struggle so hard with no-platforming? You have no god-given right to be listened to and there's nothing anti-intellectual about telling people to gently caress off. Because no-platforming stifles debate based on the particular prejudices of the most vocal? It's something that was (validly) historically used only in limited circumstances and seems to be cropping up more and more these days. There are a number of commentators in this thread who are literally walking examples of what that Spectator article on the last page was referring to. Debates about topics like abortion, or religion, or sexuality were an integral part of student life back when I was at university. It's really eerie to see people literally arguing that men shouldn't be giving a platform to discuss abortion because they don't have any right to discuss the topic. Spangly just gave an example about Page 3 - I can remember my JCR having a lively debate about whether the Sun should be included in the newspapers available in the common room. You know what, we were all the better for the debate, we had a discussion about free speech and women's rights, and then we went ahead and decided that the union shouldn't be buying the Sun after all, because we weren't shits. Our fragile little minds weren't warped by having a debate on the topic. It's really, really weird to see that all of the student debates I remember taking place suddenly have off limit topics 10 or 15 years later. I've no idea who that internet clown is and certainly don't want to defend his beliefs, but that Spectator article had some valid points buried away in there about freedom of debate. Prince John fucked around with this message at 11:31 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 11:28
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Reminder that the "debate" in Oxford (organised by an anti-abortion group, with anti-abortion speakers) didn't happen because they failed to book a room That you are outraged that debates have people both supporting and - horror of horrors! - opposing your own preference says a lot about you. "Failed to book a room" is also some truly stunning doublespeak. You conveniently omit that they weren't able to book a room because the college withdrew their permission to use one that had already been arranged due to threats of "disruption". I know that you wanted to pretend that those dastardly Incorrect scum were just incompetents that didn't understand a diary, but next time try something that can't be debunked in ten seconds on the student paper. kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
quote:No one is ‘pro-rape’. So surely everyone will cheer a war on rape. Not so fast. Probably my favourite "I'm not racist but-" ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:That you are outraged that debates have people both supporting and - horror of horrors! - opposing your own preference says a lot about you. That I oppose anti-abortion groups? I'm glad you think it says something about me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 11:44
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think a lot of the people ITT think the Greens are fruit-loops as well. As you start attracting support people start pointing out things that don't add up, and you need to actually transform your grab-bag of policies into an actual political platform. If we had some variant of a PR system then that process would probably happen more quickly, which is why Greens in other parts of Europe are taken perfectly seriously as parties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 11:46
|
|
Zephro posted:It's just a side-effect of FPTP. If you're not Labour or the Tories you presently have no chance of getting into office anyway. Your first task is to try to collect votes. Since you won't get in, your policy proposals don't need to be particularly coherent or thought-through (see Farage describing UKIP's election manifesto as "bilge" or whatever word he used). Yeah. I'm not intrinsically anti-FPTP, but it's obviously now a completely useless and haggard electoral system. It doesn't do the one thing it claims to be good at in the UK anymore, so it's toast. I don't like AV or AV+ though, so I'm really hoping for a better version of PR when we inevitably but slowly gets round to it.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 11:48
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Yeah. I'm not intrinsically anti-FPTP, but it's obviously now a completely useless and haggard electoral system. It doesn't do the one thing it claims to be good at in the UK anymore, so it's toast. I don't like AV or AV+ though, so I'm really hoping for a better version of PR when we inevitably but slowly gets round to it. Yeah nobody likes AV which is why we were offered it to bury the issue until 2021. Ain't no party/coalition gonna change the electoral system that let them win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 11:55
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:That I oppose anti-abortion groups? I'm glad you think it says something about me. Anti-abortion groups don't merit having their opinions stifled, though. Ask yourself which is better: to allow these groups to talk then counter their bad opinions, or to stop them talking and have people wonder if maybe you're afraid to debate them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I think it's important to remember that No Platform is a union only thing. It seems pretty reasonable to me in the context of university unions, I think it is clearly more important that students feel safe at university than that there be complete extracurricular freedom of politics and views on campus. If you hold views that can't be promoted under a No Platform policy nobody is stopping you expressing them off campus. It'd be a little trickier in the context of actual study or research. Academic freedom is one of the most important principles of any university, trying to limit debate in that arena would be much more dangerous. But as far as I know nobody is proposing that. There is a reasonable limit to "feeling safe", if the concept of people discussing something you are emotionally invested in makes you feel unsafe, that is an issue on your part, not theirs. The debate structure exists to give everybody a voice if they want it. If you think the debate isn't very good, start your own or join one in progress. You can't argue against all forms of dissenting opinion by saying it makes you feel bad that people have them and are expressing them in the appropriate manner, in a public institution which arguably exists for the purposes of arguing about ideas. We rightly expect people in an academic setting to develop the necessary emotional detachment to debate their points civilly, the space is offered to you to voice your opinion if you want it, but saying that you don't and therefore nobody else can either doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:00
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:You shouldn't have to file anything if you no longer live there, and you certainly shouldn't pay tax, even if you have a good income. Plenty of US ex-pats still benefit from the support of the state. Their extensive network of embassies for example. VISA programmes. Or knowing they'll be there to get you out of North Korean jails. I can't have any sympathy with them asking for a small contribution to pay for it all. Can always give up the passport etc if you feel like it. Nobody has ever been taken by surprise by the IRS in this. Yes I would be happy for the UK to do the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
One of the weirdest things about No Platform is that media feminism has come out against it because the NUS Women's Campaign no platform Julie Bindel. Given that she's threatened to shoot me in the past, I couldn't care less that she can't get any speaking gigs. Now every time that a media feminist can't get a gig, they complain about the men (read: trans women and allies) and the pimps (read: sex workers and allies) on campus stifling their frozen peaches.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:19
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Given that she's threatened to shoot me in the past, Sorry, but I have to ask - why?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
You'll be missing one of the best comedic characters since Stewart Lee. The way he nails the typical wankbag student and all his wonderfully childish ideas shows amazing talent. I'm awaiting the spectacular finale where the character is set upon by TB badgers, barely escapes with his life only to catch fire for no reason and die in a ditch. His remains unidentifiable, his Hungarian friend somehow finds the will to go on with her life. She becomes a banker and later gets a job in Wallstreet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Sorry, but I have to ask - why? Because I'm a vocal advocate for sex worker rights. After sex work policy I helped write got past Lib Dem conference, she asked where she could get a sawed-off shotgun for a man hating feminist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Because I'm a vocal advocate for sex worker rights. After sex work policy I helped write got past Lib Dem conference, she asked where she could get a sawed-off shotgun for a man hating feminist. I wonder how she realigned sex worker rights with man-hating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
Presumably sex worker rights = pro sex work = pro exploitation of women. Actually wait that doesn't make sense for man-hating, now I'm confused as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
^-- Doesn't explain the feminist bit really, I'm pretty sure SWERFs still identify as such. Based on her past behaviour, I'd have expected her to go for 'feminist hating man' 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:That I oppose anti-abortion groups? I'm glad you think it says something about me. It was more your being appalled that debates turn out to have two sides - anti-abortion speakers attend an abortion debate, whatever next? You should block every debate, there's a chance that hateful pro-lifers might condense out of the mists. You'll protest that I'm getting the wrong end of the stick, but your misrepresentation of why the original debate was banned gives your real thoughts on that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Because I'm a vocal advocate for sex worker rights. After sex work policy I helped write got past Lib Dem conference, she asked where she could get a sawed-off shotgun for a man hating feminist. Weird, thank you! Her wikipedia page is very contradictory depending on what niche area you're looking at. Pro-feminism in some parts and really intolerant in others. What an odd person.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:52
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Weird, thank you! Her wikipedia page is very contradictory depending on what niche area you're looking at. Pro-feminism in some parts and really intolerant in others. What an odd person. Welcome to second-wave feminism. Equal rights, but only for white, straight, middle class women!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Weird, thank you! Her wikipedia page is very contradictory depending on what niche area you're looking at. Pro-feminism in some parts and really intolerant in others. What an odd person. A good example of the modern liberal. Superficially left wing as she likes other people and wants everything to be nice and equal apart for those people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Welcome to second-wave feminism. Equal rights, but only for white, straight, middle class women! That's not 100% fair. Some of them also support political lesbianism. I've never understood the brand of feminism that actively wishes harm upon sex workers for 'selling out' or 'collaborating'. It's had an unfortunate consequence of making some of the women I know in associated industries virulently anti-feminist, when in theory at least they should benefit most from feminism. I can't say I blame their reaction if vocal representatives of (certain types of authoritarian) feminism are outright threatening to murder them though. e: vvv If you're the fetus, you could argue that the issue takes place in a vacuum 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:We rightly expect people in an academic setting to develop the necessary emotional detachment to debate their points civilly And how, exactly, does one 'emotionally detach' oneself from the issue of abortion?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:03
|
|
josh04 posted:And how, exactly, does one 'emotionally detach' oneself from the issue of abortion? The same way you do from any other controversial issue - unsuccessfully and with great difficulty. It doesn't mean it isn't worth giving it a go.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
josh04 posted:And how, exactly, does one 'emotionally detach' oneself from the issue of abortion? well let be real here if you're an academic the issue of abortion is probably all academic to you anyway NERD
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Sorry, but I have to ask - why? Really?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
Can someone repost the link to that blog which show rogoff and reinhart was a load of bollocks. I'm on my phone so can search my post history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:13
|
|