QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#81
Report 2 weeks ago
#81
(Original post by harrysbar)
A recent poll shows that 49% of Britons believe they are less free to say what they think than five years ago
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#82
Report 2 weeks ago
#82
(Original post by harrysbar)
I would expect unis to be fined for encouraging speeches from any fundamentalists with an anti free speech agenda regardless of their religious/political backgrounds.
But the new policy is to encourage the platforming of different views, not de-platforming.
Sounds like someone hasn't thought this through.
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#83
Report 2 weeks ago
#83
(Original post by UnclePete)
I agree. Frankly I think it's all got rather silly.
I work with many coloured colleagues both African and Asian, we have a new neighbour, a special needs teacher of older teenagers in London -a demanding job at the best of times -whose family originate from Ghana, and the colour of their skin is not even something I either care, worry or think about. All that bothers me is that they are good neighbours and competent colleagues which they are. This may upset some of the get on the bandwagon Woke contingent, but my experience is they can be just as racialist amongst themselves.
You cannot rewrite history. Learn from its positive and negative aspects and build on that .
Indeed, some of my best friends are black and I enjoy a curry as much as the next man as well.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#84
Report 2 weeks ago
#84
(Original post by harrysbar)
Unis should encourage a wide range of ideas and free speech including those not "state approved" such as criticism of Boris and co, but the line has to be drawn at extremism as that is a danger to society.
Who decides which views are "a danger to society"?
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#85
Report 2 weeks ago
#85
(Original post by harrysbar)
I am different to the Woke brigade as I don't object to people having an opinion that isn't politically correct as long as they express it politely and in a way that isn't actually dangerous to anyone.
Who decides what is "politely and in a way that isn't actually dangerous to anyone".
You?
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#86
Report 2 weeks ago
#86
(Original post by DSilva)
The only thing more annoying than woke people are those who incessantly go on about and complain about woke people.
It seems that there are now more people offended by the idea of other people being offended, than there were people offended in the first place.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#87
Report 2 weeks ago
#87
(Original post by Napp)
Where exactly is this 'pro capitalist propaganda'? Merely being from a capitalist source (the basis of our society) does not ipso facto make it propaganda..
So schools should be allowed to use sources from pro capitalist organisations but not anti capitalist organisations? You can't possibly claim that's justified and then claim to also support free speech.

As you say, pupils should be exposed to views from all sides and allowed to make their own views. That's what you call free speech. Yet now the govt are saying they cannot use sources from organisations which oppose the current economic system.

Anti capitalism and communism are not the same thing. Plenty of anti capitalists like Yanis Varafoukis are not in the least bit communist, yet their views apparently should not get a hearing in schools simply because they oppose the current economic system?

As to the other question, because one is useful for society and the other is positively, at best, unhelpful and at worst harmful to their education. Outside of teaching the failings of communism at any rate.

Surely everyone should be able to make their own mind up on whether they support capitalism or not and not have the govt decide they are not allowed to see sources from anti capitalist organisations. It's a clear affront to freedom of speech.


Have they signed up to his union? No. Then their problems are there own. Please stop with these faulty examples though. You and i both know theyre facetious.
Freedom of speech is a zero sum game. You either support it or you don't. If you support freedom fo speech for only members of your union or those you share polticial beliefs for while staying silent when the freedom of speech of your opponents is curtailed, then you don't support freedom of speech at all.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#88
Report 2 weeks ago
#88
(Original post by harrysbar)
No it isn't the very definition of a curtailment on free speech as it's predominantly the woke brigade trying to silence people from expressing their opinion, which is why the goverment have decided that the more extreme examples should be reined in. It's healthy to question someone else for having an opinion you disagree with but it's not healthy to villainize them in the way that the woke brigade increasingly do as this could be seen as just another form of bullying.
Ah so you're another one who supports freedom of speech unless people are saying things you disagree with.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#89
Report 2 weeks ago
#89
(Original post by Napp)
No it isnt... and you know it isnt. In this context being 'woke' is the silencing of opinions/thoughts they dont agree with, ordering a university to not ban people from speaking is ipso facto not curtailing free speech.

In terms of universities undermining the social fabric of the country though? Why would you support that? Or is this your support for universities peddling the CCP line? Either way it seems this needs explaining to you. There is a difference between univsersities teaching the history and policies of the UK warts and all (right and proper), this is not the same as a university giving an airbrushed version of the topics that seeks to present the nation as worse than Hitler - it is self evident that this is not eaching as opposed to indoctrinating malleable young minds. It would seem completely proper to stop such behaviour. Or would you be perfectly happy to see the promotion of right wing ideas in universities and the eradication of any leftwing point of view (this being what the policy seeks to address).

This does all lead to one simple question though, do you think students are smart enough to be able to make their own decisions on a balanced curriculum or that theyre too dimwitted and need to be spoon fed Maoist, translobby and black nationalist propaganda? (these seeming to be the big three at issue).
Universities and their unions are private institutions and the state should have absolutely no involvement in deciding what they can and can't teach, beyond prohibiting anything that incites violence.

You can't claim to support free speech while also saying universities shouldn't be allowed to be too critical of the UK because it 'ruins the social fabric'.

The state intervening to decide which opinions are and aren't acceptable is rather authoritarian in nature, and the type of thing you'd expect in a communist outpost.

I think the idea that the UK is worse than Hitler is absolutely proposterois, ridiculous and totally without merit. Nonetheless if someone decides they want to make that argument, free speech dictates they should be able to and others should be able to rebut it in full.

You also seem to be saying students should be able to make up their own minds, while at the same time arguing that certain views should not be taught because those students will be brainwahsed. That's a direct contradiction.

I think students should be exposed to views from all sides, including those that are very patriotic and those that are very critical.
Last edited by DSilva; 2 weeks ago
1
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#90
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#90
(Original post by QE2)
Who decides what is "politely and in a way that isn't actually dangerous to anyone".
You?
yes I have been appointed as the government's Free Speech Champion

(Original post by QE2)
It seems that there are now more people offended by the idea of other people being offended, than there were people offended in the first place.
That point has already been raised and is based on not very much "it seems".
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#91
Report 2 weeks ago
#91
(Original post by harrysbar)
yes I have been appointed as the government's Free Speech Champion


That point has already been raised and is based on not very much "it seems".
So you claim to support free speech while also supporting fining universities who are 'too critical' of the UK.

Amazing how the Tories are able to clamp down on free speech while convincing you that they're protecting it.
0
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#92
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#92
(Original post by DSilva)
So you claim to support free speech while also supporting fining universities who are 'too critical' of the UK.
I do support free speech and it's not all about fining unis for being "too critical" of the UK it's about lots of other things too - the example I gave early on was the bullying JK Rowling got online for a joke she made. I support the fact that people were free to disagree with her comment but to call her transphobic was a step too far. Same as if someone makes a joke about Islam that doesn't make them Islamophobic in my opinion.

Some common sense needs to be applied - was the comment/speech designed to cause serious offence? If not, then there is no reason to over react just because someone's feelings got hurt.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#93
Report 2 weeks ago
#93
(Original post by harrysbar)
I do support free speech and it's not all about fining unis for being "too critical" of the UK it's about lots of other things too - the example I gave early on was the bullying JK Rowling got online for a joke she made. I support the fact that people were free to disagree with her comment but to call her transphobic was a step too far. Same as if someone makes a joke about Islam that doesn't make them Islamophobic in my opinion.

Some common sense needs to be applied - was the comment/speech designed to cause serious offence? If not, then there is no reason to over react just because someone's feelings got hurt.
So why do you support the govt fining unis for being too criticial of the UK?

Do you support the UK govt banning schools using sources from anti capitalist organisations?

How about people getting offended because one hospital decided to use the term 'chestfeeding' in relation to trans men?

You simply cannot be genuine in your support for free speech if you support the above.
Last edited by DSilva; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#94
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#94
(Original post by DSilva)
So why do you support the govt fining unis for being too criticial of the UK?

Do you support the UK govt banning schools using sources from anti capitalist organisations?

How about people getting offended because one hospital decided to use the term 'chestfeeding' in relation to trans men?

You simply cannot be genuine in your support for free speech if you support the above.
I don't see why people should have got offended with the hospital using the term chestfeeding, but I think it was more that people disagreed with the idea of changing the terminology for all patients and spending public money on changing all the literature, rather than just using appropriate language when dealing with this one patient in the sensitive way you would hope any NHS employees would use.

I don't support the govt fining unis for being critical of the UK but what do you mean by "too critical" - could you give an example of a thing you assume I would endorse a uni being fined over and I will tell you if you're right.

And what do you mean by your second sentence - again can you give an example of the Uk govt banning schools using sources from anti capitalist organisations and I will tell you if I support it? Though I have to say, this debate seems to be becoming rather more personal than the general debate it was designed to be.
Last edited by harrysbar; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#95
Report 2 weeks ago
#95
(Original post by harrysbar)
I don't see why people should have got offended with the hospital using the term chestfeeding, but I think it was more that people disagreed with the idea of changing the terminology for all patients and spending public money on changing all the literature, rather than just using appropriate language when dealing with this one patient in the sensitive way you would hope any NHS employees would use.

It wasn't changing the terminology for all patients. It changed it only in relation to trans men (less than 1%). The term breastfeeding will be used for all cis women.

Yet there seemed to be mass outrage at that. What's the problem with it? I hardly think it would have cost a lot of money to change the wording on some leaflets.


I don't support the govt fining unis for being critical of the UK but what do you mean by "too critical" - could you give an example of a thing you assume I would endorse a uni being fined over and I will tell you if you're right.

So if the state considers a uni is being too 'anti British' it can fine them. Is that what you want?

And what do you mean by your second sentence - again can you give an example of the Uk govt banning schools using sources from anti capitalist organisations and I will tell you if I support it? Though I have to say, this debate seems to be becoming rather more personal than the general debate it was designed to be.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...al-in-teaching
0
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#96
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#96
(Original post by DSilva)
It wasn't changing the terminology for all patients. It changed it only in relation to trans men (less than 1%). The term breastfeeding will be used for all cis women.

Yet there seemed to be mass outrage at that. What's the problem with it? I hardly think it would have cost a lot of money to change the wording on some leaflets.
The idea was to change terminology in many different situations and the outrage was because the NHS is paid for out of taxpayers money so people thought it was a waste of their money

https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/10/brigh...sive-14055419/
0
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#97
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#97
Do I support the UK govt banning schools using sources from anti capitalist organisations?

This link refers to organisations with “a publicly stated desire to abolish or overthrow democracy, capitalism, or to end free and fair elections”; opposition to freedom of speech; the use of racist, including antisemitic, language; the endorsement of illegal activity" so no I don't support that source being used in school. Do you?
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#98
Report 2 weeks ago
#98
(Original post by harrysbar)
The idea was to change terminology in many different situations and the outrage was because the NHS is paid for out of taxpayers money so people thought it was a waste of their money

https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/10/brigh...sive-14055419/
It was in one hospital in relation to trans men. Excuse my cynacism, but I hardly think people's concern was genuinely about the miniscule costs of changing 'breastfeeding' to 'chestfeeding' on a handful of leaflets.

You say you're opposed to offence culture, but this is a prime example of it. People becoming outraged and offended over absolutely nothing.
Last edited by DSilva; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#99
Report 2 weeks ago
#99
(Original post by harrysbar)
Do I support the UK govt banning schools using sources from anti capitalist organisations?

This link refers to organisations with “a publicly stated desire to abolish or overthrow democracy, capitalism, or to end free and fair elections”; opposition to freedom of speech; the use of racist, including antisemitic, language; the endorsement of illegal activity" so no I don't support that source being used in school. Do you?
So sources from organisations that oppose the current economic system should be banned?

Obvisoily of said sources promoted violence, or were racist or discriminatory in nature they shouldn't be allowed. But merely opposing an economic system and arguing in favour of another one absolutely should not be banned at all.

If you allow sources from organisations which support capitalism but don't allow sources from organisations that oppose it, then you don't support free speech at all.
Last edited by DSilva; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#100
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#100
(Original post by DSilva)
It was in one hospital in relation to trans men. Excuse my cynacism, but I hardly think people's concern was genuinely about the miniscule costs of changing 'breastfeeding' to 'chestfeeding' on a handful of leaflets.

You say you're opposed to offence culture, but this is a prime example of it. People becoming outraged and offended over absolutely nothing.
You seem keen on deciding for other people what they are really concerned about which is not what they have said. I don't know that anyone was offended or even "outraged" - no doubt the media exagerrated it as they do but I think it sounds like people thought it was a waste of public money, which I happen to agree with.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Which of these would you use to help with making uni decisions?

Webinars (58)
13.55%
Virtual campus tours/open days (98)
22.9%
Live streaming events (39)
9.11%
Online AMAs/guest lectures (40)
9.35%
A uni comparison tool (98)
22.9%
An in-person event when available (95)
22.2%

Watched Threads

View All