Skip to content

Fleetwood / Joey Barton

12357

Comments

  • Platforming racists is more of a risk than no-platforming them.

  • @Chris said:
    Platforming racists is more of a risk than no-platforming them.

    I’m not sure I disagree entirely but surely it depends on the platform given? Is there not a significant difference between allowing a racist to speak unchallenged and from a position of power and threat and asking said racist to produce evidence for their views in front of an audience who have the freedom and time to ask questions and produce evidence of their own from a position of their power? I went to a school that promoted strong but well moderated debating which I always thought was a good thing. Some subjects were very contentious, such as ending foreign aid, banning abortion, the return of the death penalty, no welfare payments to parents who had more than two children and the like. I learned a lot from hearing these views put to the test. If we only hear from and engage with those who have similar views to our own, might we lose the ability to argue effectively with those we disagree with?

  • People like Milo thrive on publicity and social media platforms like Twitter are doing exactly the right thing when they ban them and deny them the opportunity to spread their message to a wide audience.

  • I like the post above talking about reasoned debate, if a person's views hold up to scrutiny and debate great, if not they are shown to be an arse. However I feel it is crucial to have the debate, if some power determines that some subjects are off limits then where does the line get drawn?

    Free speech, an interesting concept that I think most on the gasroom would support but that does mean that in a society where free speech is allowable and cherished that we often are subjected to views that we might find abhorrent.

    As Hall once said I detest what you say but I will defend your right to say it.

    Do we ban everything and potentially end up, in some Orwellian nightmare of censorship or allow people to say what they want and have to live in a world where we hear opposite or disgusting points of view....?

    .......wasn't this supposed to be a football forum............?

  • @Chris said:
    People like Milo thrive on publicity and social media platforms like Twitter are doing exactly the right thing when they ban them and deny them the opportunity to spread their message to a wide audience.

    By way of example, could you specify exactly what views espoused by Milo society is too fragile to hear, Chris?

  • You can look them up yourself if you really want to.

    I don’t think society is too fragile to hear his views, just as I don’t think society is too fragile to survive it being more difficult to hear his views. On balance it is better the fewer people who hear what he has to say. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be allowed to say what he does (although he does come pretty close to the line sometimes), but there’s no reason why any sensible newspaper or tv channel or unversity should give him the oxygen of publicity.

    There’s no advantage to rational debate with these kind of people. What has been gained if you invite Alex Jones go on TV claiming that the murder of schoolchildren in America was a government conspiracy? It’s clearly ridiculous and false and offensive, and doesn’t deserve to be engaged with. The outcome is more people hear his stupid ideas, and some small percentage of those people believe them.

    Somewhere around 40% of Americans still support Trump despite everything.

  • edited April 2019

    I'm reasonably familiar with his oeuvre and his history, @Chris . I seem to have managed to listen to him and either agree or disagree without feeling the need to be hidden from his thoughts in future. But I'd be interested to hear from you about what, specifically, it is that you don't think bears hearing about to the extent that you don't think his words should be made public by anyone.

    You do see the essential contradiction of your second paragraph, don't you - I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to speak but, really, it is wrong that anyone should consider doing anything to help other people hear or read his words! Further, if you're so concerned for it to be clear that Alex Jones's wholly misguided conspiracy theory about Sandy Hook is indeed mistaken, would it not be important that it is given a proper airing, thus to be considered and rationally contradicted by people who can be seen by us to know better, rather than having it hidden away and known only by reputation by the fragile, impressionable minds you are keen to protect? (And were you aware that he has backed down on the theory now anyway, having realised his error from, you know, interacting outside his echo chamber?)

    Re: your last paragraph. Are you actually saying that people whose ideas you dislike should not be allowed to speak publically in case too many others (wrongly in your mind) end up agreeing with them? Is it that Trump's ideas were given too much publicity or was it the case that those seeking to establish their deficiency did a poor job of persuading the tens of millions of people whose opinion mattered? And, finally, has it yet occurred to you, as it has done since the election to me, that one of the reasons for Trump's popularity in the election was that he was seen as an antidote to the censorious, politically correct culture prevalent among Washington types, of whom Clinton was an archetypal example - the sort of people who would rather shout or shut down someone expressing ideas that offended, or might offend, someone's sensibilities rather than examine whether there was any merit to what they were saying and present their own, possibly superior, reasoning on the matter?

    I haven't addressed your suggestion that it's better for some ideas not to allowed to be put out there. Which ideas? Why not yours, for example?

  • Chris, I think we probably share similar distain for all the people you have mentioned and their views.

    My worry about no platforming is, who gets the right to decide what content is no platformed?

    You seem like a reasonable, conscientious and well intentioned person, but why are your views on what content is acceptable or unacceptable the benchmark for what is no platformed and what isn’t?

    And what happens when no platforming is co-opted by people with more sinister intentions?

  • edited April 2019

    @OxfordBlue said:
    Chris, I think we probably share similar distain for all the people you have mentioned and their views.

    My worry about no platforming is, who gets the right to decide what content is no platformed?

    You seem like a reasonable, conscientious and well intentioned person, but why are your views on what content is acceptable or unacceptable the benchmark for what is no platformed and what isn’t?

    And what happens when no platforming is co-opted by people with more sinister intentions?

    cf. Scruton, Roger, for example.

  • @OxfordBlue said:
    Chris, I think we probably share similar distain for all the people you have mentioned and their views.

    My worry about no platforming is, who gets the right to decide what content is no platformed?

    You seem like a reasonable, conscientious and well intentioned person, but why are your views on what content is acceptable or unacceptable the benchmark for what is no platformed and what isn’t?

    And what happens when no platforming is co-opted by people with more sinister intentions?

    cf. Scruton, Roger.

  • Such a brilliant example, it needed to be said twice.

  • We have a clear precedent of what happens when we, on the basis of balance, give a platform to a clever political operator with questionable and racist views. Most people hear what they want to hear, they don’t put the effort into trying to see the merit in alternative views.

    People do have the right to say what they believe but that doesn’t guarantee them the right to say them publicly. A reasonable society can make judgements about what is acceptable to be talked about openly and what isn’t, in the same way a reasonable society makes judgements about what is acceptable to wear in public (ie some clothes!).

    Starving extremists of the oxygen of publicity is a perfectly sensible approach for a rational society to take.

  • Like @OxfordBlue , I have no time for these people’s views, but I defend their right to hold and express them. You will never oppress these views by hiding them from view - that merely gives some legitimacy - you beat these views by exposing them to light

  • @bookertease said:
    We have a clear precedent of what happens when we, on the basis of balance, give a platform to a clever political operator with questionable and racist views. Most people hear what they want to hear, they don’t put the effort into trying to see the merit in alternative views.

    People do have the right to say what they believe but that doesn’t guarantee them the right to say them publicly. A reasonable society can make judgements about what is acceptable to be talked about openly and what isn’t, in the same way a reasonable society makes judgements about what is acceptable to wear in public (ie some clothes!).

    Starving extremists of the oxygen of publicity is a perfectly sensible approach for a rational society to take.

    I find your views to be extreme, @bookertease, and will be asking the Gasroom comintern to have you cut off from the right to contribute here at our next meeting.

    You see how this works?

  • @DevC said:
    Like @OxfordBlue , I have no time for these people’s views, but I defend their right to hold and express them. You will never oppress these views by hiding them from view - that merely gives some legitimacy - you beat these views by exposing them to light

    Hard to be sure of the good ideas unless you hear all of the ideas.

  • I’m not going to repeat Milo’s bullshit here.

    It has occurred to me that Trump may be the reaction to ‘PC culture’, but I have rejected it as unlikely to be true. He’s just a cartoonish version of a certain type politician that has always existed - positing ‘the other’ as the reason for the ills of the masses instead of massive inequality that benefits the ruling class - with less shame about being caught lying than most. My comment about Trump was to show the futility of rational argument. It’s not about being right, it’s about who can shout the loudest.

    Nearly everyone knows the Sandy Hook stuff is lies without the need for sunlight or arguments. Having him be debated on the BBC would only legitimise what he is saying and spread it unnecessarily. He’s only backed down because he is being sued for millions, not because of rational argument.

    These people are free to spout their rubbish on a street corner, but newspapers are under no obligation to publish them. TV channels don’t need to cover them. They don’t need to be invited to debates. Who decides this? The owners of the organisations / publications. That is very definitely an issue in itself, but not one which impacts on whether ‘no platforming’ is a good thing. What happens when no platforming is co-opted by people with sinister intentions? It has been throughout history and will continue to do so.

  • @Chris said:
    I’m not going to repeat Milo’s bullshit here.

    It has occurred to me that Trump may be the reaction to ‘PC culture’, but I have rejected it as unlikely to be true. He’s just a cartoonish version of a certain type politician that has always existed - positing ‘the other’ as the reason for the ills of the masses instead of massive inequality that benefits the ruling class - with less shame about being caught lying than most. My comment about Trump was to show the futility of rational argument. It’s not about being right, it’s about who can shout the loudest.

    Nearly everyone knows the Sandy Hook stuff is lies without the need for sunlight or arguments. Having him be debated on the BBC would only legitimise what he is saying and spread it unnecessarily. He’s only backed down because he is being sued for millions, not because of rational argument.

    These people are free to spout their rubbish on a street corner, but newspapers are under no obligation to publish them. TV channels don’t need to cover them. They don’t need to be invited to debates. Who decides this? The owners of the organisations / publications. That is very definitely an issue in itself, but not one which impacts on whether ‘no platforming’ is a good thing. What happens when no platforming is co-opted by people with sinister intentions? It has been throughout history and will continue to do so.

    I have to insist, @Chris. You don't just get to say that a person's views are so wrong and dangerous to society that they should be prevented from publishing them without citing specific examples. We're big boys - don't fear for us.

  • I have to insist that I can and I have.

  • edited April 2019

    PS. The "people who decide this" aren't you, apparently. Should they be told they are not allowed to publish certain people? Might you provide a list of the proscribed individuals? I can provide one, too, if you like but it could be tricky as mine would probably have different names on it and then what would we do?...

  • Yes I do. But the Gasroom being reasonable would disagree with you and let me stay.

    If I was to call you and everyone else on here a £&£;&& $$<< every time I came on here the Gasroom may take a different view.

    Personally I think that is okay.

    One of the things I like about this country is that our laws are frequently put to the test of reasonability by the person on the Clapham omnibus.

    As a society I do think it is okay to say to someone, sorry, your views are so abhorrent to us that we do not welcome you saying them publicly (as in a platform rather than a soapbox in the park, which is fine in my view)

  • edited April 2019

    @HCblue

    If I were the editor of a national newspaper, I wouldn’t give a column to someone even relatively uncontroversial (say Jeremy Clarkson) if I found their views objectionable.

    But if I were home office minster I would definitely not ban the publication of the writings of Jeremy Clarkson, as satisfying as that might be. There is a clear and substantive difference between no platforming and censorship.

    No platforming is merely part of the editorial process. Publishing outlets (be they social media, newspapers, tv or whatever) have the right to set their own policies, and are very much not obliged to just let anyone say what they want. No platforming is just that. It’s not a new thing, it’s just a new name for something that has always happened.

  • It is an interesting debate and I think most of us here are in broad agreement about the principles of free speech.

    Just one train of thought that has come to mind.

    As an organiser of a debate I choose to invite someone with known extremist views. This person then attends and uses language to incite religious hatred (an offence under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006) and is arrested. Am I culpable I’m allowing that offence to be committed, knowing what that person is liable to say?

  • What is moderate to one person is extreme to another (one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter and all that). The problem with the Twitter age is that there's no longer any sense of nuance (or often any intelligence) to debate. So someone saying "we need to discuss trans women in female sport" is shouted down with as much venom as someone saying "Muslims should be exterminated."

    The other thing about us all sitting here discussing freedom of speech is, I'd guess (though correct me if I've got you wrong), we're mostly or all straight white men and thus don't really experience the sharp end (or consequent actions) of some of the views expressed by some individuals. Easy for me to say "let Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson speak and we'll show him he's wrong," but I'm not the one who's going to have a brick chucked through my window or be spat on in the street by some nutter who believes them.

  • Free speech doesn't actually exist beyond a point though does it?
    You can't say anything and get away with it. There's laws about hate crimes and suchlike.

    What a lot of these extremists do, is have a patter that sounds eminently reasonable on the face of it (say, Tommy Robinson - who could disagree that having so many known people who download extremist material living in the UK isn't bad for instance?), but it's a cloak for a much more sinister viewpoint and band of followers.

  • @bookertease said:
    It is an interesting debate and I think most of us here are in broad agreement about the principles of free speech.

    Just one train of thought that has come to mind.

    As an organiser of a debate I choose to invite someone with known extremist views. This person then attends and uses language to incite religious hatred (an offence under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006) and is arrested. Am I culpable I’m allowing that offence to be committed, knowing what that person is liable to say?

    Not as far as I can see, @bookertease. The Act in fact merely amends the Public Order Act 1986 to include new provisions in re racial hatred. It does mention that bodies corporate might be guilty but the Act only specifies the using of words etc. and not anything to do with enabling such to take place. Which makes sense if you think about it.

  • edited April 2019

    @Chris said:
    I have to insist that I can and I have.

    Well you'll understand that it is hard to ascribe any value to your position on Milo, then.

  • @bookertease said:
    Yes I do. But the Gasroom being reasonable would disagree with you and let me stay.

    If I was to call you and everyone else on here a £&£;&& $$<< every time I came on here the Gasroom may take a different view.

    Personally I think that is okay.

    One of the things I like about this country is that our laws are frequently put to the test of reasonability by the person on the Clapham omnibus.

    As a society I do think it is okay to say to someone, sorry, your views are so abhorrent to us that we do not welcome you saying them publicly (as in a platform rather than a soapbox in the park, which is fine in my view)

    You're assuming that everyone else will share your idea of what is reasonable and that bad actors will not be able wrongly to persuade the others to use the power of censorship to prevent you speaking.

  • @Chris said:
    @HCblue

    If I were the editor of a national newspaper, I wouldn’t give a column to someone even relatively uncontroversial (say Jeremy Clarkson) if I found their views objectionable.

    But if I were home office minister I would definitely not ban the publication of the writings of Jeremy Clarkson, as satisfying as that might be. There is a clear and substantive difference between no platforming and censorship.

    No platforming is merely part of the editorial process. Publishing outlets (be they social media, newspapers, tv or whatever) have the right to set their own policies, and are very much not obliged to just let anyone say what they want. No platforming is just that. It’s not a new thing, it’s just a new name for something that has always happened.

    Thanks. Grateful for your clarification of your position. I like the editor/ minister analogy.

    Of course a publishing controller need not publish anything he wishes not to - it's his right. But he should certainly be extremely careful in his choices if they are based on distaste or disapproval of certain ideas.

  • Be careful @hcblue your @devc style demand for evidence is starting to show! I can see the argument for free speech and for no-platforming. But we know that the media loves controversy and tries to be neutral (in most cases) so, for example, 99% of scientists say we have a serious problem with climate change but then you have to have a dissenting voice for balance so we have Clarkson saying it's all rubbish drive your cars fast and eat as many animals as you can. If you want to drive your car fast and eat things you know who to believe. We all know that Robinson farage silly Bozzer and Jacob Rees commodities trader say some risible things that do not stand up to scrutiny but a sizeable trumpian audience lap it up. Thus the millionaire frog faced fraud will soon be back in Europe on the gravy train he purports to despise. I agree that jokes and language have become a minefield and that common sense is sometimes sadly lacking in the rush to condemn but to give unquestioning mainstream attention to some of these wingnuts is to be avoided if possible. I like to see oh Tommy Tommy being made to squirm as he tries to explain himself but giving airtime to the unreconstructed murderous (usually of women) national action or Britain first does appeal.me. And on that bombshell here's to beating Walsall .

  • Oh and the idea that a sizeable amount of people are not intelligent enough to discern what is truth and what is carefully constructed racist claptrap can be witnessed almost every day.???

Sign In or Register to comment.