Attacks in Paris + Belgium

[Alty]

In my third year at Liverpool, Dolowitz basically went around the lecture hall pointing out all minorities and saying along the lines of "you'd be fucked over in the states" during one American Politics lecture. Didn't go down well with quite a few people. A lot of precious folk didn't enjoy many of his 'non-pc' methods to be fair - even less risqué things than that.

Seems to me like people are so keen to appear clean-cut, morally infallible and so far removed from anything remotely controversial these days which leaves them blinkered from reality sometimes.

Dolowitz once called me a racist in front of the entire class

He said that research had shown that in America, when people are asked to think of a poor person, they tend to visualise an African American man. He then asked us, after the count of three, to say what we thought Brits would imagine.

So he counts to three...and I'm the only one honest/keen (stupid?) enough to blurt out an answer. "Muslim". Cue him pointing and telling my class mates to note the racist

The answer is Bangladeshi woman, btw. So I wasn't a million miles off!

He later revisited this accusation when I said I thought it was possible there were minor physiological differences between races and cited 100m runners as evidence. And therefore I was even more of a racist.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Did you catch Sam Harris' recent podcast in which he interviewed a university lecturer? The poor bloke went through months of hassle for having the temerity to include a video in one of his lectures that actually challenged a student's world view.

I think these are quite worrying times. People genuinely seem to believe they have a right not to be offended. Doesn't bode well for rational discourse.

99% of these stories are actually bullshit when you drill down into them.

This "student censorship" thing is a moral panic perpetuated by people who can't hack any criticism of their shitty views (hi Julie Bindel). People who use platforms in national newspapers to decry attacks on "freedom of speech" with no sense of irony. It's almost like they're mistaking "free speech" for "uncritically listen to my views".

Also, Sam Harris recently spiked a podcast where he invited on a critic to debate and came off the worse, so who's the free-speech hating Stalinist eh eh eh.

 

[Alty]

EDIT: This makes him sound more of a nutter than he is. He just liked to push the boundaries.

 

[Alty]

99% of these stories are actually bullshit when you drill down into them.

This "student censorship" thing is a moral panic perpetuated by people who can't hack any criticism of their shitty views (hi Julie Bindel). People who use platforms in national newspapers to decry attacks on "freedom of speech" with no sense of irony. It's almost like they're mistaking "free speech" for "uncritically listen to my views".

Also, Sam Harris recently spiked a podcast where he invited on a critic to debate and came off the worse, so who's the free-speech hating Stalinist eh eh eh.

Which one? Not the one with that Yale grad? Harris said he didn't release that because it was awful, then after loads of pressure he agreed to do so. And having listened to it, it would have been better unreleased. The other bloke refused to answer any questions, preferring to obfuscate and derail at every opportunity. He genuinely argued like a petulant child. It was a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

EDIT: This makes him sound more of a nutter than he is. He just liked to push the boundaries.

this is not how u edit

 

[Magic]

Dolowitz once called me a racist in front of the entire class[emoji38]
He said that research had shown that in America, when people are asked to think of a poor person, they tend to visualise an African American man. He then asked us, after the count of three, to say what we thought Brits would imagine.

So he counts to three...and I'm the only one honest/keen (stupid?) enough to blurt out an answer. "Muslim". Cue him pointing and telling my class mates to note the racist[emoji38]
The answer is Bangladeshi woman, btw. So I wasn't a million miles off!

He later revisited this accusation when I said I thought it was possible there were minor physiological differences between races and cited 100m runners as evidence. And therefore I was even more of a racist.

I hope you ensured you were sat next to ethnic minorities for the remainder of the module.

Sent from my HTC Desire EYE using Tapatalk

 

[blade1889]

99% of these stories are actually bullshit when you drill down into them.

This "student censorship" thing is a moral panic perpetuated by people who can't hack any criticism of their shitty views (hi Julie Bindel). People who use platforms in national newspapers to decry attacks on "freedom of speech" with no sense of irony. It's almost like they're mistaking "free speech" for "uncritically listen to my views".

Also, Sam Harris recently spiked a podcast where he invited on a critic to debate and came off the worse, so who's the free-speech hating Stalinist eh eh eh.

Theres criticizing views and theres censoring. The first is how we progress and reliant on the latter not occurring.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

I hope you ensured you were sat next to ethnic minorities for the remainder of the module.

Sent from my HTC Desire EYE using Tapatalk

ooh look at me i have a fancy phone fuck off

 

[Magic]

ooh look at me i have a fancy phone fuck off

It's actually shite. Surprised it can even identify what it fucking is.

 

[Stevencc]

Desire EYE.

Sounds sexy.

 

[Renegade]

This link has transcripts of Haidt's video and apology. https://sternoppy.com/2014/02/20/on...phobic-comments-an-open-letter-to-dean-henry/

I'm assuming this is what you're on about Renegade? Although the transcript reads slightly differently to what you said about homosexuality being disgusting.

At first I was expecting him to be like my teachers at school who would say "there are gay people, we accept that but don't advise it" or words similar to that.

Instead its a guy who advocates gay rights but finds homosexual sex (the actual act as opposed to homosexuality) repulsive. Well...what really is the issue? I wouldn't expect straight men to want to watch gay male sex and I would find expect them to be repulsed by it to an extent...the same way I have gay friends who the mere mentioning of a vagina to and they'll screw up their faces and put their fingers in their ears.

I do find outrage at things like that not just irritating but damaging. Turning such a valid fight that still needs fighting all over the world into fights that don't need to be fought only changes peoples perceptions to 'well if that's all you've got to complain about you ain't got much to fight for any more'. The fight for equality doesn't mean heterosexual people now need to be ok with watching two men have sex.

Edit: Only skim-read the blog post (but read the transcripts it links) at first. But have just been back over it...the argument against Haidt that I can understand would be a student who's possibly already in a bad place at the time with regards to their sexuality hearing a lecturer say something like that. That would only compound whatever bad feelings they have at the time, especially as someone in that place is even less likely to see the intentions behind his comments but focus on the negative 'image' they've already been focusing on/come accustomed to hearing (if that makes sense...I know what I'm trying to say but don't know how to word it).

I didn't read in depth about the incident, probably slightly misquoting, but Haidt pretty much admitted that he apologised just so that he could get on with his job. He now refuses to cite risque examples when he lectures at certain Universities, because challenging the students' minds in these institutions isn't worth the hassle of your career being sidelined by a (false) scandal.

If you know his work, you know it's an absurd claim.

Which one? Not the one with that Yale grad? Harris said he didn't release that because it was awful, then after loads of pressure he agreed to do so. And having listened to it, it would have been better unreleased. The other bloke refused to answer any questions, preferring to obfuscate and derail at every opportunity. He genuinely argued like a petulant child. It was a waste of everyone's time.

Omer Aziz, who embarrassed himself on that podcast. I was amazed Harris was able stay in any way composed against a guy who was completely set out to defame him (though he does lose it a few times, hilarious hearing him accentuate "fucking", so ruffled). Before he published the podcast in full, Aziz claimed that in the podcast "Harris dehumanizes Muslims to such an extreme degree that it verges upon bloodlust". Any sane person who listened to the full podcast (which I wouldn't advise, it's just Aziz derailing the conversation over and over again with unsubstantiated attacks on Harris, it's a fucking horrible listen) could hear that wasn't the case at all. The guy was very smart, but also petulant and had a clear agenda to attack the host. Felt like a guy trying to get his 15 minutes of fame. The conversation didn't reflect particularly well on either I thought, but definitely not on Aziz.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

What people need to understand is that there are people in the world today, self-proclaimed experts in the fields of islamophobia, homophobia, sexism and the like, who's very careers hinge on the perception of widespread intolerance and bigotry. This is why no matter how much progress we make, no matter how many dragons they slay, they always need to discover more and more in order to justify their existence. If that means painting Sam Harris as a fascist, then so be it.

i find trigger warnings a bit awkward and weird but i don't see why people get so annoyed by them. warning someone that a media contains scenes of a rape, for example, is, in effect, a trigger warning isn't it?

Bounds of reason. There's trying to prevent someone from re-living a harrowing experience, and then there's trying to coddle someone from the reality that the world is full of gendered stuff, or that insensitive Halloween costumes exist. It's good to try and make people more aware of others and what they're going through, but not if it results in everyone being less resilient in the process. I have no idea how some of these whiny bitches (OMG sexist misogynist hate speech) are going to cope in the real world.

 

[blade1889]

I didn't read in depth about the incident, probably slightly misquoting, but Haidt pretty much admitted that he apologised just so that he could get on with his job. He now refuses to cite risque examples when he lectures at certain Universities, because challenging the students' minds in these institutions isn't worth the hassle of your career being sidelined by a (false) scandal.

If you know his work, you know it's an absurd claim.



Omer Aziz, who embarrassed himself on that podcast. I was amazed Harris was able stay in any way composed against a guy who was completely set out to defame him (though he does lose it a few times, hilarious hearing him accentuate "fucking", so ruffled). Before he published the podcast in full, Aziz claimed that in the podcast "Harris dehumanizes Muslims to such an extreme degree that it verges upon bloodlust". Any sane person who listened to the full podcast (which I wouldn't advise, it's just Aziz derailing the conversation over and over again with unsubstantiated attacks on Harris, it's a fucking horrible listen) could hear that wasn't the case at all. The guy was very smart, but also petulant and had a clear agenda to attack the host. Felt like a guy trying to get his 15 minutes of fame. The conversation didn't reflect particularly well on either I thought, but definitely not on Aziz.

Yeah I'm not disagreeing with your point, sorry if it came across as a semantics argument...just my interpretation of the points

 

[Jockney]

What people need to understand is that there are people in the world today, self-proclaimed experts in the fields of islamophobia, homophobia, sexism and the like, who's very careers hinge on the perception of widespread intolerance and bigotry. This is why no matter how much progress we make, no matter how many dragons they slay, they always need to discover more and more in order to justify their existence. If that means painting Sam Harris as a fascist, then so be it.

Of course. People like that exist everywhere. But this is vague and disingenuous. Who and how?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

How what?

ps. I probably shouldn't have added the gay rights folk in with that, because they've actually been remarkably sensible compared to radical feminists and the like.

 

[Jockney]

How what?

Who are the 'self-proclaimed experts' and what is the artifice they've constructed.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Anita Sarkeesian and Reza Aslan are the first to come to mind, probably among the worst offenders, but these sorts of people don't represent a minority among gender and ethnic studies speakers. They are the majority in the new identity politics industry. The narrative of the racist, sexist, islamophobic, transphobic White Power Structure pervading every facet of society is the dominant one in today's universities. Manspreading, 'New Atheists', mansplaining, microaggressions, safe spaces, stare rape... it only ever gets more and more and extreme, and it will continue to until it becomes so absurd it collapses in on itself.

 

[silkyman]

Sexist Air Conditioning anyone?

 

[Jockney]

Anita Sarkeesian and Reza Aslan are the first to come to mind, probably among the worst offenders, but these sorts of people don't represent a minority among gender and ethnic studies speakers. They are the majority in the new identity politics industry. The narrative of the racist, sexist, islamophobic, transphobic White Power Structure pervading every facet of society is the dominant one in today's universities. Manspreading, 'New Atheists', mansplaining, microaggressions, safe spaces, stare rape... it only ever gets more and more and extreme, and it will continue to until it becomes so absurd it collapses in on itself.

Don't have time to go into depth at the moment but marxist theory has been prevalent, some might say dominant, in the humanities since the 1960s and as far back as the 30s and 40s.

that you seize upon sarkeesian as being the problem, not the legion of misogynistic mouthbreathers (the minority i still hope, though they shout awful loud) who want to keep the vg community and industry from progressing at the same rate as other media is telling though. what is your problem with sarkeesian, exactly? she started a conversation with her femfreq videos and made the community that much more of an inclusive place. i don't agree with all her arguments, but she's countering the dominant, mainstream discourse about representation and the commodification issues of the industry.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

i say we should just throw in the towel on this whole feminist experiment it's too damn complicated

 

[Womble98]

I didn't realise quite how much this kind of stuff actually exists until I started uni, and there are so many people talking absolute crap about mansplaining and all that.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Yeah, I really enjoyed their conversation, that'd be Jonathan Haidt (I referenced him earlier in the thread). He was called out as a homophobe by one of his students for coming up with an example that challenged their belief on morality. He was discussing the morality of someone who advocates gay rights publically but that person never shares that they believe homosexuality to be disgusting. The student then put 2 + 2 together and came up with 5, because he thought that Haidt was claiming the homosexuality was disgusting. Basically he was triggered by a morality scenario with fictional character.

I found it extra baffling because I've just finished two of his books (The Righteous Mind and The Happiness Hypothesis) after a recommendation by Captain Scumbag (many thanks) and if you've even read a chapter of either you can see that his style of teaching is riddled with this type of example. He is just trying to challenge our stances on morality, whilst also showing that generally we've already made up our minds on whether something is moral before justifying our reasons. Another common example he gives in his books and that podcast:

Imagine that a brother and sister sleep together once. No one else knows, no harm befalls either one, and both feel it brought them closer as siblings. They both use contraceptives ensuring there is no chance of any offspring. Is this immoral?

Most people still answer yes, even though they have no good reason that it actually is immoral, nothing bad came from the scenario. Haidt was doing something similar with the homosexuality example. And some fucking idiot who attends his lecture knowing who he is, the topics he writes about and the examples he gives using fictional characters somehow thought he was being homophobic. Leading to months of turmoil and public criticism.

What. A. c***. These people need to be exposed as damaging to education and debate. This is where social justice gets out of line.


The "cloud" to "butt" one is amazing.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus/apmlngnhgbnjpajelfkmabhkfapgnoai?hl=en

This link has transcripts of Haidt's video and apology. https://sternoppy.com/2014/02/20/on...phobic-comments-an-open-letter-to-dean-henry/

I'm assuming this is what you're on about Renegade? Although the transcript reads slightly differently to what you said about homosexuality being disgusting.

At first I was expecting him to be like my teachers at school who would say "there are gay people, we accept that but don't advise it" or words similar to that.

Instead its a guy who advocates gay rights but finds homosexual sex (the actual act as opposed to homosexuality) repulsive. Well...what really is the issue? I wouldn't expect straight men to want to watch gay male sex and I would find expect them to be repulsed by it to an extent...the same way I have gay friends who the mere mentioning of a vagina to and they'll screw up their faces and put their fingers in their ears.

I do find outrage at things like that not just irritating but damaging. Turning such a valid fight that still needs fighting all over the world into fights that don't need to be fought only changes peoples perceptions to 'well if that's all you've got to complain about you ain't got much to fight for any more'. The fight for equality doesn't mean heterosexual people now need to be ok with watching two men have sex.

Edit: Only skim-read the blog post (but read the transcripts it links) at first. But have just been back over it...the argument against Haidt that I can understand would be a student who's possibly already in a bad place at the time with regards to their sexuality hearing a lecturer say something like that. That would only compound whatever bad feelings they have at the time, especially as someone in that place is even less likely to see the intentions behind his comments but focus on the negative 'image' they've already been focusing on/come accustomed to hearing (if that makes sense...I know what I'm trying to say but don't know how to word it).

Hmm, having had a look at this, I really don't think it's as innocuous as it's being made out to be. It seems as though he introduced a video in which one of the participants used gay sex as an example of something they found repulsive in order to illustrate a point. The people who objected to this did not necessarily do so because they're delicate little flowers who failed to appreciate the nuanced argument this intellectual giant was attempting to make (I daresay that they've experienced much worse in their time). They probably objected because they rightly viewed it as being a bit #problematic. For one thing, this is a classic homophobe get out clause; the "hate the sin, love the sinner" attitude of the Church, for instance, who have consistently opposed any advancement in gay rights. This preoccupation with sexual acts (which, when it comes to homosexuality, still seems to inspire a strange mixture of amusement and revulsion) is something I can't help but view as rather hostile (how far can people really approve of gay relationships, I wonder, if they're that preoccupied with what you might be doing in the bedroom). It seems a perfectly reasonable thing to object to in my view. I don't know, perhaps I'm missing something here, because I've only seem a couple of pretty articulate, thoughtful responses, and no abuse or hounding. I certainly don't think yer Haidt fella deserves to be labelled a homophobe but I absolutely fail to believe that he can't see why some people might consider this to be entirely inappropriate.

 

[Aber gas]

Is the no platform really such a threat to debate ? Outside of uni politics and tumblr/ twitter does it really have a significant effect ?
For me it just seems a easy way to dismiss a conflicting view. Challenge homophobic/ racist/ misogynist/ ableist language and behaviour- shutting down debate. Disagree with Sam Harris - shutting down debate.

 

[blade1889]

Hmm, having had a look at this, I really don't think it's as innocuous as it's being made out to be. It seems as though he introduced a video in which one of the participants used gay sex as an example of something they found repulsive in order to illustrate a point. The people who objected to this did not necessarily do so because they're delicate little flowers who failed to appreciate the nuanced argument this intellectual giant was attempting to make (I daresay that they've experienced much worse in their time). They probably objected because they rightly viewed it as being a bit #problematic. For one thing, this is a classic homophobe get out clause; the "hate the sin, love the sinner" attitude of the Church, for instance, who have consistently opposed any advancement in gay rights. This preoccupation with sexual acts (which, when it comes to homosexuality, still seems to inspire a strange mixture of amusement and revulsion) is something I can't help but view as rather hostile (how far can people really approve of gay relationships, I wonder, if they're that preoccupied with what you might be doing in the bedroom). It seems a perfectly reasonable thing to object to in my view. I don't know, perhaps I'm missing something here, because I've only seem a couple of pretty articulate, thoughtful responses, and no abuse or hounding. I certainly don't think yer Haidt fella deserves to be labelled a homophobe but I absolutely fail to believe that he can't see why some people might consider this to be entirely inappropriate.

Have you seen the video? Cos tbf I'm not sure a transcript necessarily tells a whole story...and I couldn't find one in a quick bit of googling.

I do find it very different to the churches attitudes tbh. The transcript makes reference to sex and witnessing it (which obviously no one is asking him to do)...in my experience the church has a far bigger issue in just outright saying gay people shouldn't act on their feelings and should seek help to stop them having those feelings. As opposed to this guy that's saying hes repulsed by sex/watching it but not having any objection to gay people doing it, hes not discouraging the act or gay people from being together. I get that it ends up a blurred line but to me there is a clear distinction of saying 'dont do it/get help' to 'i dont wanna watch it' (I guess the use of 'repulsive' not doing him many favours). I know gay guys who are overtly 'repulsed' by the idea of straight sex, but that doesn't mean they're heterophobic, so I 'get' when the roles are reversed in that situation.

On the preoccupation with gay sex I do think context is needed. I do feel theres a difference between the Ugandan health ministers fixation with 'anal cancer' and his constant mentioning of anal sex (in Frys documentary a couple of years ago) and Biedt's video. One is furthering a political agenda with trying to appeal to peoples biblical disapproval and squeamishness whereas the other is using it to provoke some thought in students that probably haven't thought of it before...my interpretation of the transcript is him appealing to a student body that are largely liberal but still wouldn't want to watch gay porn. If I'm speaking to a friend in real life I dont find their 'intrigue' to be negative but I know plenty of people that do find the 'top/bottom' conversations as something that needs to stop...and again if they're pulling 'repulsed' faces at the same time I'm not fussed and really don't take issue with that, and can vouch in those cases they're not closet homophobes.

No idea what peoples reactions/hounding was...just going off the original post on this one. Just adding my thoughts on why I dont really see it as an issue.

 

[blade1889]

Is the no platform really such a threat to debate ? Outside of uni politics and tumblr/ twitter does it really have a significant effect ?
For me it just seems a easy way to dismiss a conflicting view. Challenge homophobic/ racist/ misogynist/ ableist language and behaviour- shutting down debate. Disagree with Sam Harris - shutting down debate.

Challenging views ain't shutting down debate though, its providing a reason and discussing those views and why they should change, without challenging anything and just shutting out counter arguments we'd never move forwards. And I do believe the only way we're going to keep progressing is debating ideas with people we don't necessarily want to, I dont think just shutting people out is going to bring about an end to these views.

The main problem to me is that no platforming people is happening more and more (as far as I can tell, maybe I just notice it more) and we're going to be churning people out of uni who think just telling someone they're wrong and to stfu is the right way to do things. In effect all we're teaching people to do is ignore the views we don't agree with, whether those views are extreme or not. Putting a correlation together from personal experience (that I know I'm repeating a bit), one of my friends at uni is very pro no-platforming people and was the one that just walked away as soon as I told her I was a Tory, she only wants to live in the echo chamber that Universities are now creating and talking about opposing views with the people who hold them is clearly not on her agenda, instead she wanted to find a green party supporter to talk to to reinforce her being correct to herself. Now her doing that hasn't stopped me being Tory, and neither has debate (admittedly) but through discussions my views on things and politics have changed, if those discussions never happened then nor would the changes. So yeah, I do think it's an issue that we are going to be creating vast swathes of postgrads that wont make the huge positive differences and changes they can, purely because they cant debate or tolerate being exposed to alternative views.

 

[Aber gas]

Challenging views ain't shutting down debate though, its providing a reason and discussing those views and why they should change, without challenging anything and just shutting out counter arguments we'd never move forwards. And I do believe the only way we're going to keep progressing is debating ideas with people we don't necessarily want to, I dont think just shutting people out is going to bring about an end to these views.

The main problem to me is that no platforming people is happening more and more (as far as I can tell, maybe I just notice it more) and we're going to be churning people out of uni who think just telling someone they're wrong and to stfu is the right way to do things. In effect all we're teaching people to do is ignore the views we don't agree with, whether those views are extreme or not. Putting a correlation together from personal experience (that I know I'm repeating a bit), one of my friends at uni is very pro no-platforming people and was the one that just walked away as soon as I told her I was a Tory, she only wants to live in the echo chamber that Universities are now creating and talking about opposing views with the people who hold them is clearly not on her agenda, instead she wanted to find a green party supporter to talk to to reinforce her being correct to herself. Now her doing that hasn't stopped me being Tory, and neither has debate (admittedly) but through discussions my views on things and politics have changed, if those discussions never happened then nor would the changes. So yeah, I do think it's an issue that we are going to be creating vast swathes of postgrads that wont make the huge positive differences and changes they can, purely because they cant debate or tolerate being exposed to alternative views.

That's fine blades and I agree with you to an extent but imo there is definetly a culture of using no platform as a way of dismissing alternative opinions. Challenging shitty personal politics is seen as shutting down debate. The " you can't say anything these days " argument" . It also seems very selective as in calling Sam Harris a raging fascist is seen as shutting down debate whilst calling Dianne Abbott a "fat racist mess " is fair game.

 

[blade1889]

That's fine blades and I agree with you to an extent but imo there is definetly a culture of using no platform as a way of dismissing alternative opinions. Challenging shitty personal politics is seen as shutting down debate. The " you can't say anything these days " argument" . It also seems very selective as in calling Sam Harris a raging fascist is seen as shutting down debate whilst calling Dianne Abbott a "fat racist mess " is fair game.

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding the bolded bit...but are we not making the same point here?haha

I guess the 'shutting down' as opposed to challenging personal politics comes from how it happens. Shouting 'racist' at a UKIP supporter may be accurate but it probably does shut down any further debate...and may well be a badge they wear with pride anyway...and whilst debate obviously wont change everyone's views, it will change some. Throwing labels around is just a lazy get out imo (accurate or not).

Yeah you're totally right that we are hypocritical in what we thinks ok and what we don't, and it all comes from a personal stance dont it!? Align yourself more closely with Harris or Abbott and I dare say you see tagging the other with a label as fairer game than labeling the one you support.

 

[Aber gas]

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding the bolded bit...but are we not making the same point here?haha

I guess the 'shutting down' as opposed to challenging personal politics comes from how it happens. Shouting 'racist' at a UKIP supporter may be accurate but it probably does shut down any further debate...and may well be a badge they wear with pride anyway...and whilst debate obviously wont change everyone's views, it will change some. Throwing labels around is just a lazy get out imo (accurate or not).

Yeah you're totally right that we are hypocritical in what we thinks ok and what we don't, and it all comes from a personal stance dont it!? Align yourself more closely with Harris or Abbott and I dare say you see tagging the other with a label as fairer game than labeling the one you support.

I think both are OK although I don't agree with either. It just seems strange to me that challenging offensive language and behaviour is seen as "pc" ( like its wrong) or shutting down debate. People can challenge shitty views without it shutting down debate.
I actually agree with you about people being able to air their views and disagree with the no platform position but it's apparent to me that it's being used to dismiss views and valid protest.

 

[blade1889]

I think both are OK although I don't agree with either. It just seems strange to me that challenging offensive language and behaviour is seen as "pc" ( like its wrong) or shutting down debate. People can challenge shitty views without it shutting down debate.
I actually agree with you about people being able to air their views and disagree with the no platform position but it's apparent to me that it's being used to dismiss views and valid protest.

I swear we're just making the same points

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Don't have time to go into depth at the moment but marxist theory has been prevalent, some might say dominant, in the humanities since the 1960s and as far back as the 30s and 40s.

That was back when Marxist thought still believably held the answers to inequality in totality. We hadn't properly challenged discrimination back then, so had every reason to believe that that alone was the answer, with no reason to reach for crazier and crazier theories to back it up. The problem is that in the aftermath of the Second World War social scientists were terrified to look to culture or biology for further explanations, for fear of repeating the mistakes of the past, so we end up with academics doing insane mental gymnastics to try and explain why a Western world without much overt systematic sexism/homophobia/racism still has such disparity. That's not to say that doesn't exist within our culture or institutions at all of course, but it's patently obvious that it doesn't tell the whole story in my view.

that you seize upon sarkeesian as being the problem, not the legion of misogynistic mouthbreathers (the minority i still hope, though they shout awful loud) who want to keep the vg community and industry from progressing at the same rate as other media is telling though. what is your problem with sarkeesian, exactly? she started a conversation with her femfreq videos and made the community that much more of an inclusive place. i don't agree with all her arguments, but she's countering the dominant, mainstream discourse about representation and the commodification issues of the industry.

She's a fraud. She was never a gamer and she's not representing any real segment of the gaming community. In fact it's female gamers that have probably attacked her most vociferously. What she has done is found a niche in which to set her stall and become the self-appointed gender relations expert on. In lieu of a genuinely oppressed female community, she's appealed to the radical feminist community instead with tales of Mario reinforcing male sexual entitlement (because the goal is to rescue the princess) and MMOs objectifying women (because of sexy armour that female gamers want too).

And I completely rejection the assertion that the video gaming industry is lagging behind other media. I can't think of a more egalitarian medium out there. I'm not sure who you mean by misogynistic mouthbreathers. Sexist gamers? If so, who cares? They have no platform or influence.