Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Cambridge students cancel theme party over 'cultural appropriation' fears watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Ridicule is an absolutely awful way of making someone change their perspective. It's much more likely to make them even more confident in their own beliefs and it's a very petty strategy that requires no intelligence or maturity to pull off. If you think ridicule is an effective debating strategy then I think you need a bit of a lesson in persuasion...
    Ridicule isn't about winning hearts and minds. It is about calling out ****wits for being ****wits.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm going to check out king's college London safe spaces and see what they're like. I'm glad my uni has safe spaces for vunerable students who have been affected by cultural appropriation
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    I'm going to check out king's college London safe spaces and see what they're like. I'm glad my uni has safe spaces for vunerable students who have been affected by cultural appropriation
    Good for you, my uni never needed safe spaces for the permanently offended.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    How dare anybody wear clothing from outside their own culture. People must ONLY dress according to their ethnicity. Fun, sharing, and wearing anything 'foreign' is prohibited. Every time a white Brit wears a sombrero, a Mexican cries. Even if a Mexican sold it to you on vacation, you must not wear it. Got it?
    The corollary is that Mexicans must wear huge sombreros exclusively and at all times, Frenchmen stripy shirts with beret and string of garlic, etc.

    A single breasted two button navy suit is not ethnic Mexican dress. Nor are blue jeans.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Ridicule isn't about winning hearts and minds. It is about calling out ****wits for being ****wits.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I love the idea it all has to be a 'debate' rather then throwing proverbial 'rotten tomatoes' at stupid idiots
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Ridicule is a perfect way to highlight the stupidity of these people

    It's a tried and tested method (which is why some are so against it)
    I'm not sure. These people are serious and dangerous, and closer to power than their opponents.

    Ridicule is a good weapon for the powerful to use against the powerless. Here I think it might miss the point. If it is OK for an Anglo to wear a sombrero why isn't it OK for an Anglo to wear blackface? If you think it is OK, you are making a serious point and can't just make fun of the other side. If you think those cases are entirely different, why? The jokes are an attempt to dodge this point - banning sombreros seems "obviously" silly, unlike banning blackface, but it's not explained why.

    If you are powerful, you don't have to explain why you are squashing someone, but since these far left movements tend to get their way at the moment, if you want to start beating them in the future then you have to persuade people who aren't persuaded now, so you have to explain why they are wrong.

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Yet the student body has elected these wowsers to represent it. How can this be if nobody agrees with what they do and say? Are there no sane candidates to vote for?
    Two problems.

    First, decisions are made by those who show up. These people may be a small faction but they're bigger than any other faction. The doesn't care/non-voter population may be much bigger but wins no representation.

    Second, they are just taking accepted principles and extending them to the logical conclusion. The Western student left isn't dissident radical, it's ultra-orthodox, i.e. it believes in the state ideology more than the state does.

    If you believe that it should be illegal to read The River War out loud you have no grounds for thinking it should be legal for an Anglo to wear a foreign hat. Both things are illegal on grounds that they upset non-Anglos, after all. If on the other hand you think it shouldn't be illegal to read The River War out loud then you are not opposing a group of dissident "wowsers", you are opposing the law of the land supported by a national consensus.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    I'm going to check out king's college London safe spaces and see what they're like. I'm glad my uni has safe spaces for vunerable students who have been affected by cultural appropriation
    On balance, I'm glad too. It makes it a little less likely that i'll ever bump into anyone of that sort.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Good for you, my uni never needed safe spaces for the permanently offended.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I feel like every uni is going to create safe spaces for their students in the near future.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I'm not sure. These people are serious and dangerous, and closer to power than their opponents.

    Ridicule is a good weapon for the powerful to use against the powerless. Here I think it might miss the point. If it is OK for an Anglo to wear a sombrero why isn't it OK for an Anglo to wear blackface? If you think it is OK, you are making a serious point and can't just make fun of the other side. If you think those cases are entirely different, why? The jokes are an attempt to dodge this point - banning sombreros seems "obviously" silly, unlike banning blackface, but it's not explained why.

    If you are powerful, you don't have to explain why you are squashing someone, but since these far left movements tend to get their way at the moment, if you want to start beating them in the future then you have to persuade people who aren't persuaded now, so you have to explain why they are wrong.


    Two problems.

    First, decisions are made by those who show up. These people may be a small faction but they're bigger than any other faction. The doesn't care/non-voter population may be much bigger but wins no representation.

    Second, they are just taking accepted principles and extending them to the logical conclusion. The Western student left isn't dissident radical, it's ultra-orthodox, i.e. it believes in the state ideology more than the state does.

    If you believe that it should be illegal to [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614834/Arrested-quoting-Winston-Churchill-European-election-candidate-accused-religious-racial-harassment-repeats-wartime-prime-ministers-words-Islam-campaign-speech.html]read The River War out loud
    you have no grounds for thinking it should be legal for an Anglo to wear a foreign hat. Both things are illegal on grounds that they upset others, after all. If on the other hand you think it shouldn't be illegal to read The River War out loud then you are not opposing a group of dissident "wowsers", you are opposing the law of the land supported by a national consensus.[/QUOTE]

    I'd argue it's the other way round it's a good tool for the powerless to use against the powerful (here I'm thinking of the long and proud history of political cartoons for example) but I do understand where you are coming form

    But yes the biggest issue is the first one you mentioned decisions are made by those who turn up (for example the UCL BDS being decided by just 18 students(
    http://david-collier.com/?p=1863)) and it seem those who 'care' are allowed to be the most vocal
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Safe spaces

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    If on the other hand you think it shouldn't be illegal to read The River War out loud then you are not opposing a group of dissident "wowsers", you are opposing the law of the land supported by a national consensus.
    Do you really think that what Churchill wrote is an incitement to hatred? I don't. Reading it is not, therefore, illegal and he will not be charged. If he is charged he should pursue an aggressive defence that ridicules the police for arresting him on those grounds without any real thought and will be found not guilty.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    I'd argue it's the other way round it's a good tool for the powerless to use against the powerful (here I'm thinking of the long and proud history of political cartoons for example) but I do understand where you are coming form

    But yes the biggest issue is the first one you mentioned decisions are made by those who turn up (for example the UCL BDS being decided by just 18 students(
    http://david-collier.com/?p=1863)) and it seem those who 'care' are allowed to be the most vocal
    Can you give an example of a famous political cartoon in which the truth is spoken to power?

    Generally powerful groups simply outlaw ridicule of themselves, as it is almost illegal to ridicule muslims in the UK, and to a lesser extent to ridicule the left.

    Even if they don't, weak groups need to be persuasive and ridicule preaches to the choir. People don't laugh at political humour when they don't agree with the politics. Listen to the comedy on Radio 4. It is either non-political, or orthodox social democrat. Why? Because Radio 4 has few right wing listeners.

    Ridicule is what you subject an already-defeated enemy to, the point not being to persuade anyone of anything, or even to weaken them further, but just to make them unattractive to people on your side, to reduce defections.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Ridicule is what you subject an already-defeated enemy to, the point not being to persuade anyone of anything, or even to weaken them further, but just to make them unattractive to people on your side, to reduce defections.
    I cannot agree. People who ban fancy dress parties deserve ridicule, and they certainly are not defeated.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Can you give an example of a famous political cartoon in which the truth is spoken to power?

    Generally powerful groups simply outlaw ridicule of themselves, as it is almost illegal to ridicule muslims in the UK, and to a lesser extent to ridicule the left.

    Even if they don't, weak groups need to be persuasive and ridicule preaches to the choir. People don't laugh at political humour when they don't agree with the politics. Listen to the comedy on Radio 4. It is either non-political, or orthodox social democrat. Why? Because Radio 4 has few right wing listeners.

    Ridicule is what you subject an already-defeated enemy to, the point not being to persuade anyone of anything, or even to weaken them further, but just to make them unattractive to people on your side, to reduce defections.
    We're talking about being mocked not about 'truth'

    But I suggest you look at the old Punch cartoons for examples of how the 'people' deal and ridicule people in power

    But agree with good Bloke when he says 'I cannot agree. People who ban fancy dress parties deserve ridicule, and they certainly are not defeated.' as they are the one with the power

    and I wouldn't use the lack of ridiculing Islam or muslims as comparable given the tendency for members of that group to react with extreme violence when challenged (something I've always said needs to be ridiculed even more but can't blame people for not wanting their throat cut for making a few Jokes)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Do you really think that what Churchill wrote is an incitement to hatred? I don't. Reading it is not, therefore, illegal and he will not be charged. If he is charged he should pursue an aggressive defence that ridicules the police for arresting him on those grounds without any real thought and will be found not guilty.
    What does it matter - his speech was stopped and he was removed by the police. That is speaking power to truth. The policemen who did this will not suffer any consequences from it. If he goes back, he will not be protected from re-arrest. Others who might have in mind to do something similar are deterred.

    The police did not do this thoughtlessly and the fact you believe they did is an impediment to effective action. If he had been reading Karl Marx they would not have done it. This response on the part of the police was entirely dependent on the content of the speech, right wing speech being less legal than left wing speech. Even when right wing speech is quoting from the Nobel Prize-winning body of work of a decorated war hero, former PM and Knight of the Bath, and left wing speech quoting someone who wanted to destroy the British state, and inspired a century of mass murder, repression, and political terror.

    If you think that is a problem, as I do, it isn't sufficient to laugh at people who want to ban whites wearing dreadlocks or English-speakers wearing sombreros. Someone who suggested in 1950 that you could be arrested for reading Churchill's books in public would have been considered risible too.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    We're talking about being mocked not about 'truth'

    But I suggest you look at the old Punch cartoons for examples of how the 'people' deal and ridicule people in power
    Or Gilray's work. He constantly attacked those in power, as do modern political cartoonists.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I cannot agree. People who ban fancy dress parties deserve ridicule, and they certainly are not defeated.
    My point is that you will not find ridicule to be an effective tactic.

    If society's response is ridicule then in 50 years there will be laws against white English speakers wearing ethnically incongruous clothing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Or Gilray's work. He constantly attacked those in power, as do modern political cartoonists.
    We need a modern day Gilray to be honest(closet I can think of is Jesus and Mo)

    Strange in how trying to go forward we seem to have gone backwards instead
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    If you think that is a problem, as I do, it isn't sufficient to laugh at people who want to ban whites wearing dreadlocks or English-speakers wearing sombreros. Someone who suggested in 1950 that you could be arrested for reading Churchill's books in public would have been considered risible too.
    I understand. But mockery (and ignoring their message - I must look out that old sombrero from the loft) is the most many of us can realistically contribute unless we enter politics - and it is a start!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    My point is that you will not find ridicule to be an effective tactic.

    If society's response is ridicule then in 50 years there will be laws against white English speakers wearing ethnically incongruous clothing.
    Then those who say (as Plagioclase did above) that these people are essentially harmless and can be ignored are utterly wrong.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.