Attacks in Paris + Belgium

[blade1889]

Reading back through this I feel we're at a stage now where we're saying extremes are bad. The extreme left, the extreme right and the extremists.

Which, well, yeah.

The point I was trying to make earlier is yes Islam has an issue with extremists but the way to go forward is not singling out Muslims for any special measures. All you do from that is widen the gap the extremists thrive off. Lets be reight, we're winning the battle on Christian extremism by accentuating the tolerance and that, in my opinion, is the only way forwards with any religion...and for that you need to be tolerant towards those religions yourself and not big up the BS that they all contain to say that one religion is beyond 'help' or worse than another. Especially as the vast majority of Muslims living in the UK have shown we can all coinhabit and benefit from one another. As said earlier we haven't won the battle with any religion, they all still have some 'hate preach' to varying degrees but it is getting better.

And as much as we can talk about the extreme left throwing around the racist label at more reasonable people we have the right labeling all left (and quite often central) people as 'namby pamby liberals'. Its a term I've had thrown at me and I've gotta be honest I find it amusing.

As a general rule I hate labels and haven't thrown the R bomb around myself recently. Either people aren't and it doesn't help to label them as such (I agree with SUTSS, it helps shut down the debate and that is not good. Telling someone they're wrong and to shut up is a poor debating point) or they are and they wear it as a badge of pride.

 

[Renegade]

Harris et al aren't immune from criticism though are they? I am allowed to point out his torture apology, dodgy ideas on gun control and racial profiling ? Or is this shutting down debate ?
I think what is going on here is people are mistaking people having a different point of view with shutting down debate.

I was listening to some of his work to ascertain if he was a bastard or not. I'm struggling to find any evidence that he is. I don't agree that guns should be legal, but the reasons he gives for their potential use seem pretty reasonable. At the very least arguable and all of his ideas on this issue seem to be coming from the right place. His argument on gun control is in the context of the USA - he emphasises anyone with a permit to hold a gun should be well-trained and guns could be used for mothers protecting their children for an intruder, people on a flight being able to take down a terrorist, a well trained-teacher being able to hold a gun in America to avoid another Sandy Hook. I don't believe that people should be holding guns, but the arguments he makes for these particular cases aren't abhorrent.

He believes that outlawing guns would not work in America because of the ingrained gun culture, but accepts that in places where gun culture is not ingrained (such as the UK), that having no guns at all might work. So it's not like he's some second-amendment toting hick.

http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun-revisited

Can't really comment on the other stuff, but going off what I know so far, it seems possible that those ideas could be misrepresented too. Anyway, this argument is kind of getting a little centred on one man. The pertinent views in his book with Nawaz (again, a devout Muslim reformer, what would he have to gain from siding with some anti-Islamic charlatan?) where he looks at all sides of the debate are not irrelevant to the global problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz

Maybe I'm being duped. Let's move on.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

I was listening to some of his work to ascertain if he was a bastard or not. I'm struggling to find any evidence that he is. I don't agree that guns should be legal, but the reasons he gives for their potential use seem pretty reasonable. At the very least arguable and all of his ideas on this issue seem to be coming from the right place. His argument on gun control is in the context of the USA - he emphasises anyone with a permit to hold a gun should be well-trained and guns could be used for mothers protecting their children for an intruder, people on a flight being able to take down a terrorist, a well trained-teacher being able to hold a gun in America to avoid another Sandy Hook. I don't believe that people should be holding guns, but the arguments he makes for these particular cases aren't abhorrent.

if u r allowing guns on a flight u don't really need terrorists anymore

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Lets be reight, we're winning the battle on Christian extremism by accentuating the tolerance and that, in my opinion, is the only way forwards with any religion...and for that you need to be tolerant towards those religions yourself and not big up the BS that they all contain to say that one religion is beyond 'help' or worse than another.

I could not disagree more. We're winning the battle with Christianity because it's open to ridicule and contempt and in a battle of ideas is found wanting. We do not have the same freedom to take Islam apart because cries of 'islamophobe' will ring out around our ears as soon as we do.

 

[Renegade]

if u r allowing guns on a flight u don't really need terrorists anymore

Listen to the podcast, he contextualises it better than my inadequate summary. Not just anyone is going to be holding the gun.

 

[SUTSS]

So it's ok to dismiss people's ideas as wishy washy or regressive but it's shutting down debate to call someone a fascist?
It must be a hard life having all the major media outlets agreeing with you, a sympathetic right wing government and a battalion of academics. If it wasn't for those pesky regressives shutting down debate everything would be fine.

Being called a fascist and being called wishy washy don't really carry the same weight with them though do they? Although I would agree that labels are clumsy at best as they take away individuality.

But you are doing exactly what I've said people are doing. You're pushing people into the right wing. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a Tory or a Tory sympathiser.

 

[Aber gas]

I was listening to some of his work to ascertain if he was a bastard or not. I'm struggling to find any evidence that he is. I don't agree that guns should be legal, but the reasons he gives for their potential use seem pretty reasonable. At the very least arguable and all of his ideas on this issue seem to be coming from the right place. His argument on gun control is in the context of the USA - he emphasises anyone with a permit to hold a gun should be well-trained and guns could be used for mothers protecting their children for an intruder, people on a flight being able to take down a terrorist, a well trained-teacher being able to hold a gun in America to avoid another Sandy Hook. I don't believe that people should be holding guns, but the arguments he makes for these particular cases aren't abhorrent.

He believes that outlawing guns would not work in America because of the ingrained gun culture, but accepts that in places where gun culture is not ingrained (such as the UK), that having no guns at all might work. So it's not like he's some second-amendment toting hick.

http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun-revisited

Can't really comment on the other stuff, but going off what I know so far, it seems possible that those ideas could be misrepresented too. Anyway, this argument is kind of getting a little centred on one man. The pertinent views in his book with Nawaz (again, a devout Muslim reformer, what would he have to gain from siding with some anti-Islamic charlatan?) where he looks at all sides of the debate are not irrelevant to the global problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz

Maybe I'm being duped. Let's move on.

Ok , one last point on this. I don't think you're being duped, if you agree with the man that's fine but people are allowed to disagree with him and yeah call him a fascist if that's how they interpret his work. He's clever enough to stand by his work and ideas but just to say that people who disagree with him are misrepresenting him or don't understand him is a form of shutting down debate in itself.
This all been most civilised so far, most refreshing.

 

[blade1889]

I could not disagree more. We're winning the battle with Christianity because it's open to ridicule and contempt and in a battle of ideas is found wanting. We do not have the same freedom to take Islam apart because cries of 'islamophobe' will ring out around out ears as soon as we do.

Really? In my experience the more you ridicule (another form of shutting down the debate imo) the more you push someone in the opposite direction. Open to debate, yes, with both sides respecting the starting point of the other.

Opening the debate with tolerance and 'getting along with the other side' is far more productive in my view and experience than ridiculing the opposition.

I would argue the ridiculing comes later once you've sparred and worked out you can both get along. Also worth noting the ridiculing comes from 'your own kind' (I know that's awful phrasing), I imagine if we had Muslims ridiculing Christians and raising the awfulness the bible contains we would not have progressed and arguably pushed more people to the extremes of Christianity. Again, because of the widening of the us Vs them it creates.

 

[Aber gas]

Being called a fascist and being called wishy washy don't really carry the same weight with them though do they? Although I would agree that labels are clumsy at best as they take away individuality.

But you are doing exactly what I've said people are doing. You're pushing people into the right wing. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a Tory or a Tory sympathiser.

I'm not doing that at all, I'm pointing out that your view isn't some voice in the darkness and that your ideas are fairly mainstream so I don't really understand the bleating about the debate being shut down by " regressives"

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Listen to the podcast, he contextualises it better than my inadequate summary. Not just anyone is going to be holding the gun.

chicago school economists like friedman espoused a similar viewpoint around economics. if there is economic unrest or poverty that is due to state interference, requiring the selling of more assets. the sub-prime crisis? needs even less government oversight. the medicine is harsh so u need to force it down. similar view to this. it's insanity to suggest the u.s. needs more guns

gimme a link to the podcast tho

 

[SUTSS]

Really? In my experience the more you ridicule (another form of shutting down the debate imo) the more you push someone in the opposite direction. Open to debate, yes, with both sides respecting the starting point of the other.

Opening the debate with tolerance and 'getting along with the other side' is far more productive in my view and experience than ridiculing the opposition.

I would argue the ridiculing comes later once you've sparred and worked out you can both get along. Also worth noting the ridiculing comes from 'your own kind' (I know that's awful phrasing), I imagine if we had Muslims ridiculing Christians and raising the shitness the bible contains we would not have progressed and arguably pushed more people to the extremes of Christianity. Again, because of the widening of the us Vs them it creates.

I think it really depends on the individual. I was a Christian and it was really ridicule that led me to explore the ideas of Christianity and realise what a crock of shit it all was.

I'm not doing that at all, I'm pointing out that your view isn't some voice in the darkness and that your ideas are fairly mainstream so I don't really understand the bleating about the debate being shut down by " regressives"

Just look at what is happening to universities. Speech codes as to not offend anyone, not allowing ideas to be discussed that might be 'problematic', shouting down anyone who doesn't conform to the holier than thou rhetoric that consumes parts of the left. Look at Maryam Namazie being shouted down by the Islamic society and then the Feminist society backing the Islamic society rather than someone who actually does a lot for women's rights because you just can't say anything about Islam without getting these people's backs up. Look at Ben Affleck screaming racist at Sam Harris on Bill Maher's show. Look at the constant misrepresentation of Sam Harris by Cenk Uygur.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone, no one has said that. But there is something wrong with screaming racist at anyone who disagrees and making people on the left out to be the same as people on the far right. The only people who gain from this are the far right and I think we both agree that the resurgence of far right politics in Europe is something that needs to be stopped.

 

[Aber gas]

I think it really depends on the individual. I was a Christian and it was really ridicule that led me to explore the ideas of Christianity and realise what a crock of shit it all was.



Just look at what is happening to universities. Speech codes as to not offend anyone, not allowing ideas to be discussed that might be 'problematic', shouting down anyone who doesn't conform to the holier than thou rhetoric that consumes parts of the left. Look at Maryam Namazie being shouted down by the Islamic society and then the Feminist society backing the Islamic society rather than someone who actually does a lot for women's rights because you just can't say anything about Islam without getting these people's backs up. Look at Ben Affleck screaming racist at Sam Harris on Bill Maher's show. Look at the constant misrepresentation of Sam Harris by Cenk Uygur.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone, no one has said that. But there is something wrong with screaming racist at anyone who disagrees and making people on the left out to be the same as people on the far right. The only people who gain from this are the far right and I think we both agree that the resurgence of far right politics in Europe is something that needs to be stopped.

But look what is happening in the media, the language is provocative " Islamic gangs " "mad mullah" faith school of "death" . Corbyn is condemned for engaging with Islamic leaders, any form of understanding is dismissed as regressive or bleeding heart by the "something must be done " brigade and people who oppose this are dismissed by being accused of shutting down debate.
I understand what you and others are saying with regards to Harris et al and I'm being contrary to make a point but to say that the debate is being censored by a left wing minority I think is false and owes more to Internet moral panics and sensationalism than any truth.
Ps I wasn't aware of universities banning problematic issues, seems ridiculous when my wife ( primary school teacher) is encouraged to address these issues with little ' uns . Bonkers

 

[Renegade]

chicago school economists like friedman espoused a similar viewpoint around economics. if there is economic unrest or poverty that is due to state interference, requiring the selling of more assets. the sub-prime crisis? needs even less government oversight. the medicine is harsh so u need to force it down. similar view to this. it's insanity to suggest the u.s. needs more guns

gimme a link to the podcast tho

I had linked it above, here it is again:

http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun-revisited

Harris doesn't argue for more guns, he is actually arguing for a form of gun control (it is in this sense that he has been misrepresented), just not as strict as we have in the UK. Limiting gun possession to those who have been extremely well vetted and then well-trained. Again, as I said above, I don't agree with his views that guns should be possessed by civilians in any circumstance, I was just showing that his views on gun control aren't coming from some right-wing agenda that seems to follow him around like a bad fart.

-----

On the points above, I really think our view of what the "mainstream" is is decided by our social circles. I'm just out of the University atmosphere that SUTSS describes and maybe that is distorting our view of what people as a whole really believe.

 

[sl1k]

http://harvardpolitics.com/harvard/sam-harris-maajid-nawaz-illusion-knowledge/

American historian Daniel Boorstin once wrote, “The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance—it is the illusion of knowledge.” In this case, it’s not quite the obstacle to discovery, but it is the obstacle to real, significant progress. Because what Harris and Nawaz brought to the John F. Kennedy, Jr. Forum last Monday was exactly that: an illusion of knowledge. An illusion that their dialogue was a groundbreaking first, which pushed the words of hundreds of thousands of actual Muslim scholars under the rug. An illusion that their positions actually benefit Muslim communities and that they as such could speak for them, which is not corroborated by their reputations among and reception by these very communities. But most of all, Harris and Nawaz brought an illusion that Islam is inherently problematic and requires Western-style religious reform to truly be palatable, an assumption which ignores any and all religious, historical, or sociopolitical context.

These illusions of knowledge combine to create an intellectual space which seems significant, but really is not. Because of the surety with which Harris and Nawaz present these illusions, the average listener would find themselves intrigued by the argument they make, if not convinced. But like an optical illusion, if the listener were to think a little bit harder, the reality of the situation would appear—that this dialogue is nothing more than an entirely decontextualized echo chamber of conventional neoconservative and anti-Islamic thought.

It’s not groundbreaking, it’s not based in fact, and it’s not what it claims to be. Ultimately, it’s simply illusory. The IOP can do better.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

i was at an interesting talk a few months back with julie bindel and peter hitchens both arguing the same point, that we are developing into a society that is censoring itself. both had been black-listed from universities, bindel for her views on the t part of lbgtq and hitchens for, well, being a nobsocket. it is worrying though, the most abhorrent views are best combated by listening to them. let's take c*** in chief trump. we were talking about not issuing him a visa should he come over here. fact is both sides of the spectrum would slaughter him in any debate or conversation over here. he'd be satired to shit and would be laughed back onto the plane. truly abhorrent speech should be heard, it's self-destructive and funny as shit. who can forget muslamic ray guns i mean

edit: rene we've had trained american soldiers go on rampages before. no amount of vetting could be enough. we need the minimum amount of guns in this world. i mean police kill how many unarmed civilians in the u.s. and get away with it? it's madness to add more

 

[blade1889]

.
Ps I wasn't aware of universities banning problematic issues, seems ridiculous when my wife ( primary school teacher) is encouraged to address these issues with little ' uns . Bonkers

Its ridiculous, we've had it at Manchester University banning someone who once said something that could be construed as anti-LGBT or victim blaming. Far better to debate the issues than shut them out which University Unions are doing at the moment.

Dont get it really, the Universities think it gives publicity to their views and subsequently more people will believe them. Well yes they are getting more publicity but if they're clearly wrong views they'll be destroyed in a debate instead of building an 'underground' following.

Edit: Just read Ians views, I think Bindel was blacklisted by Manchester Uni.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

think it was, yeah. wasn't even that controversial a view. she was arguing gender was a social construct, so transgenderism wasn't a true issue, more of a psychological-fallacy arisen from a binary, patriarchial world

 

[Aber gas]

Its ridiculous, we've had it at Manchester University banning someone who once said something that could be construed as anti-LGBT or victim blaming. Far better to debate the issues than shut them out which University Unions are doing at the moment.

Dont get it really, the Universities think it gives publicity to their views and subsequently more people will believe them. Well yes they are getting more publicity but if they're clearly wrong views they'll be destroyed in a debate instead of building an 'underground' following.

Edit: Just read Ians views, I think Bindel was blacklisted by Manchester Uni.

It's daft and gives people with shitty politics the pariah status they crave. Although I can totally understand unis not wanting some characters in their establishment

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

concurrently, the most abhorrent of views are the easiest to discredit

 

[blade1889]

think it was, yeah. wasn't even that controversial a view. she was arguing gender was a social construct, so transgenderism wasn't a true issue, more of a psychological-fallacy arisen from a binary, patriarchial world

That sounds familiar. Had lots of people on my fb sharing articles about her praising the University.

I can understand 'safe spaces' but it has gone OTT now and actively works against what they were originally set-up for imo.

 

[Aber gas]

That sounds familiar. Had lots of people on my fb sharing articles about her praising the University.

I can understand 'safe spaces' but it has gone OTT now and actively works against what they were originally set-up for imo.

Are universities still politicised places generally ? I never had the chance to go even though I would have liked to but I have friends who attended who said it was a very active place for politics.
Apologies everyone, I've taken this way off topic.

 

[blade1889]

Are universities still politicised places generally ? I never had the chance to go even though I would have liked to but I have friends who attended who said it was a very active place for politics.
Apologies everyone, I've taken this way off topic.

Yes definitely, in general University students are very active liberally. Id argue probably the most active of any group. They think I'm right-wing and even if our politics dont match up I think we can agree I'm not right-wing

There are lots of marches, protests and demo's, at least once a week a guy from the Socialist party will be outside the union having a debate and handing out flyers to an event.

As a couple of examples Reclaim The Night has now become massive in Manchester as was set up by University Students wrt rape. And at pride you'll find big student followings. I think you quite often find that Uni students are shifted to the left from the general population and as a result you get a lot of shouting down and shutting out from the far-left that would be debated elsewhere.

That being said Universities are still a large cause of positive change, one that's being pushed at Manchester University at the moment is non-gendered toilets which some will probably laugh and scoff at but imo is a good example of positive change. Promoting acceptance of one group without damaging another.

 

[Renegade]

http://harvardpolitics.com/harvard/sam-harris-maajid-nawaz-illusion-knowledge/

Very interesting read, certainly calls into question some of the legitimacy of Nawaz as a reformer. Very hard to know what to make of it however, as it is laced with ad-hominem attacks (some definitely unfair vs Harris - running theme here, him being put alongside far-right politicians that he actively condemns). Coming from an atheist's perspective it is still hard to buy into the "re-forming reform" section of the article. As Sohan Dsouza states in the comments section pretty succinctly:

Sorry, but legal punishment for fornication, apostasy, homosexuality, and other non-crimes are part of mainstream religious law, and supported by canonical scripture. All the major schools of jurisprudence agree on these points. Mumbling about how "it's complex" or pointing to people who identify as Muslim (which anyone can do, since there is no Pope who can excommunicate them) and interpret the scripture in radical opposition doesn't change that. Reality-denying apologists like you are part of the problem, because you refuse to admit that there is a clear and reasonable basis for horribly oppressive mandates in scripture; it's only now and in secular Muslim-minority societies that admitting this has become politically inconvenient, whereas this sort of barbarism has been de rigueur for centuries in the Islamic world, practically uncontested.

It was on these points that their book resonated with me. I'll definitely be a bit more scrupulous when reading books on religion (and Islam in particular) in the future. It seems an impossibly diverse topic. And you have to live with it - good luck to you my good man.

Thanks for sharing, think I needed a tip in the other direction.

 

[SUTSS]

But look what is happening in the media, the language is provocative " Islamic gangs " "mad mullah" faith school of "death" . Corbyn is condemned for engaging with Islamic leaders, any form of understanding is dismissed as regressive or bleeding heart by the "something must be done " brigade and people who oppose this are dismissed by being accused of shutting down debate.
I understand what you and others are saying with regards to Harris et al and I'm being contrary to make a point but to say that the debate is being censored by a left wing minority I think is false and owes more to Internet moral panics and sensationalism than any truth.
Ps I wasn't aware of universities banning problematic issues, seems ridiculous when my wife ( primary school teacher) is encouraged to address these issues with little ' uns . Bonkers

Sure. As I said earlier I think the lack of a left argument of this allows the right to exaggerate without much opposition.

Corbyn has shared a platform with some pretty unsavory characters but that's a different discussion. There is certainly parts of the press that are out to get him, but I think they would be for any Labour leader.

I think this all comes from a good place. There are quite clearly issues with the treatment of muslims from some sections of society but I think not allowing criticism of Islam, not admitting that there is a problem in Islam and trying to prevent anything that is offensive to muslims is counter productive in helping this.

 

[mnb089mnb]

Should be remembered that the Prime Minister of our country thinks that people who don't want to bomb Syria are "terrorist sympathisers".

 

[sl1k]

Very interesting read, certainly calls into question some of the legitimacy of Nawaz as a reformer. Very hard to know what to make of it however, as it is laced with ad-hominem attacks (some definitely unfair vs Harris - running theme here, him being put alongside far-right politicians that he actively condemns).

Yeah I wouldn't pay too much attention to the article's political annotations, but it (rightly) pulls them up on their credibility in the context of this supposed conversation and therefore its' legitimacy. Nawaz may say the things that people on the other side want to hear but he's basically saying Islam's only way of reconciliation with modern society is through some sort of un-islamification process. Not progressive and just not gonna happen.

Coming from an atheist's perspective it is still hard to buy into the "re-forming reform" section of the article. As Sohan Dsouza states in the comments section pretty succinctly:

"Sorry, but legal punishment for fornication, apostasy, homosexuality, and other non-crimes are part of mainstream religious law, and supported by canonical scripture. All the major schools of jurisprudence agree on these points. Mumbling about how "it's complex" or pointing to people who identify as Muslim (which anyone can do, since there is no Pope who can excommunicate them) and interpret the scripture in radical opposition doesn't change that. Reality-denying apologists like you are part of the problem, because you refuse to admit that there is a clear and reasonable basis for horribly oppressive mandates in scripture; it's only now and in secular Muslim-minority societies that admitting this has become politically inconvenient, whereas this sort of barbarism has been de rigueur for centuries in the Islamic world, practically uncontested."

It was on these points that their book resonated with me. I'll definitely be a bit more scrupulous when reading books on religion (and Islam in particular) in the future. It seems an impossibly diverse topic. And you have to live with it - good luck to you my good man.

Thanks for sharing, think I needed a tip in the other direction.

In regards to the legal punishments, none of it is actually in the Quran itself so there's plenty of space to maneuver within the jurisprudential structure without leaving the fold of Islam. It is indeed an incredibly difficult topic when really by this day and age it shouldn't be. Unfortunately Islamic theology stagnated through more than a hundred years of cultural Taqlid (blind following) and a lack of Ijtihad (Independent reasoning).

Thanks mate, will need all the luck we can get

 

[SUTSS]

Yeah I wouldn't pay too much attention to the article's political annotations, but it (rightly) pulls them up on their credibility in the context of this supposed conversation and therefore its' legitimacy. Nawaz may say the things that people on the other side want to hear but he's basically saying Islam's only way of reconciliation with modern society is through some sort of un-islamification process. Not progressive and just not gonna happen.



In regards to the legal punishments, none of it is actually in the Quran itself so there's plenty of space to maneuver within the jurisprudential structure without leaving the fold of Islam. It is indeed an incredibly difficult topic when really by this day and age it shouldn't be. Unfortunately Islamic theology stagnated through more than a hundred years of cultural Taqlid (blind following) and a lack of Ijtihad (Independent reasoning).

Thanks mate, will need all the luck we can get

I haven't read Nawaz's book but on the general topic of reforming Islam I don't think it is particularly practical to expect a version of the Christian reformation in Islam. The politics of the religions and the regions are very different and I think it is therefore quite naive to think that the Islamic world will suddenly become similar to Europe. Not to mention that people seem to forget just how bloody the reformation was. I think we are seeing a sort of civil war in Islam that will lead to big changes but I don't think talking about it like it's the same as the reformation is particularly true.

 

[blade1889]

Some of the barbaric aspects of reforming the church have only been progressing relatively recently and haven't involved bloody battles. Dont see why Islam should be any different. That's not saying it wont be difficult or happen overnight cos that would be daft.

 

[silkyman]

Yes definitely, in general University students are very active liberally. Id argue probably the most active of any group. They think I'm right-wing and even if our politics dont match up I think we can agree I'm not right-wing

There are lots of marches, protests and demo's, at least once a week a guy from the Socialist party will be outside the union having a debate and handing out flyers to an event.

As a couple of examples Reclaim The Night has now become massive in Manchester as was set up by University Students wrt rape. And at pride you'll find big student followings. I think you quite often find that Uni students are shifted to the left from the general population and as a result you get a lot of shouting down and shutting out from the far-left that would be debated elsewhere.

That being said Universities are still a large cause of positive change, one that's being pushed at Manchester University at the moment is non-gendered toilets which some will probably laugh and scoff at but imo is a good example of positive change. Promoting acceptance of one group without damaging another.

That stuff must have skipped Staffordshire Uni in the late 90s. No one seemed to give a shit. My mum, who was at Uni in the 60s used to bemoan the fact that students 'these days' don't protest against anything.

The 90s were pretty ace. Some half arsed IRA terrorism aside there wasn't much wrong for youngsters in the uk. Between the end of the Cold War in 1989 and the start on the war on terror in 2001, life was pretty good.

 

[blade1889]

That stuff must have skipped Staffordshire Uni in the late 90s. No one seemed to give a shit. My mum, who was at Uni in the 60s used to bemoan the fact that students 'these days' don't protest against anything.

The 90s were pretty ace. Some half arsed IRA terrorism aside there wasn't much wrong for youngsters in the uk. Between the end of the Cold War in 1989 and the start on the war on terror in 2001, life was pretty good.

What a time to be alive!

Some of it can get on my tits, we had some people suggesting we should get the University to change the colour of their pens from purple (the Universities colours) because it isn't a gender neutral colour. Theres so much wrong with that beside the complete pettiness and the fact it doesn't affect anyone in a negative way and detracts from serious issues, thankfully the campaign was suggested to a friend (who helps organise some campaigns) when I wasn't around.

But at the same time it is good to be around fresh minds that think about things in different ways.