I’m half American and read the NY Times every morning, so I know that the term ‘fascist’ is being increasingly used by mainstream US press and politicians (and now Biden) to describe the anti-democratic values and policies advocated by the new wave of GOP wannabe politicians. Many moderate Republican politicians are looking at how to strategically distance themselves from Trump’s lies and intimidations. If you left the US forty-two years ago, it’s naive to assume that the Republican party has not changed in that time.
Do you believe the last election was ‘stolen’? I’m not expecting a reply because you’ve posted that you’re leaving SF, but for me that question is the litmus test.
Fair comment would be the observation that the SF membership - at least those who post regularly - has a left wing bias, I don’t think anyone would disagree with that.
Actually I disagree, would that they would only ’ flounce off’. Unfortunately in the US, and to an increasing degree in the UK, the solution is to change the law and make a contentious action illegal.
Frankly, I think you decision is irrational and rash. There are 46 categories here, one of which is “politics”, within which you seemed to have zeroed in on one thread by which to judge the whole forum.
It is but there’s a difference between “those loonie lefties” and “you loonie lefties”
Normally I would feel that the loss of a member - new or established - diminishes the site, but in this case our esteemed friend did not show much sign of wanting to participate as an individual. It looked more like he wanted to parachute in, tell us what we could, or could not discuss per his preference and force upon us the benefit of his wisdom pertaining to France and French matters.
‘Cancel culture’ is a rightist propaganda invention Porridge - don’t fall for it.
There was a fascinating insight into it in a recent report on an event at Durham University, reported as one of these mythical ‘cancel’ episodes in the right-wing media.
An extreme right-wing college principal had invited another extremist to speak at a formal dinner. Many students walked out, both before the culture-warrior started speaking and during the speech. As some did so, the angry college principal shouted: “At South College, we value freedom of speech. Pathetic.”
This is typical of the distortion. Nobody constrained in any way the speaker’s ‘freedom of speech’ - indeed, the attempted constraint was precisely the opposite: criticising (and note also insulting) the students that decided to exercise their own freedom of expression.
Note also the fundamental basis of the disagreement in power and privilege: the right-wing speaker given a platform (as they typically are in the UK media, etc) but those denied any prominent voice condemned when they peacefully express their own views.
Look into any supposed real example of ‘cancel culture’ on the left - I mean what really happened, not the Daily Mail version - and this is what you find. Incredible, isn’t it? Not only does the right try to suppress others’ freedom, it presents - sees - that very oppression as a defence of freedom!
But then it’s not so surprising if you know your history - on the right, freedom to oppress others has always been the central meaning of their ‘freedom’.
Oh and by the way - I don’t know what you’re referring to in Scotland, but my guess is you’re guilty of a similar distortion - presenting the curtailing of the personal harassment of women entering abortion clinics as an attack on protest or free speech. It isn’t - it’s common humanity.
Well, we can agree it’s a term used by the Right, but the idea of stopping debate by no-platforming (which is what I was talking about) is alive and well among the Left, as I demonstrated in a post last August: What exactly is Right or Left Wing? - #96 by Porridge
You’re right, of course.
I have said elsewhere that I wouldn’t be part of an activity like that - I think it’s unkind - but isn’t free speech often that?
Geof, you wouldn’t accept as evidence a claim in New Socialist that "the policy of no-platforming organisations and speakers “has lasted for 45 years, and … it is still important now.” 45 Years On: The History and Continuing Importance of ‘No Platform’ // New Socialist then and - well, I suppose at least you’re consistent in refusing to believe the evidence!
But this example if just like my ‘Durham’ example Porridge. Exercising your freedom of expression by walking out on an objectionable speaker, or a student body voting not to have a racist speak in their building, or a newspaper not printing political views it opposes, or website owners removing the accounts of abusive posters… All might be described as ‘no platforming’ - if, that is, you are a propagandist intent on propagating a culture war. Are you?
In fact all these things are perfectly normal, aren’t they? Does anybody expect The Daily Mail to give space to communists? Conservative & Unionist Clubs to invite anarchist speakers? Churches to give a platform to atheists? Of course they don’t ! It’s all nonsense - just the culture warriors trying to politicise the perfectly ordinary - just to divide the likes of us against each other.
Don’t fall for it !
They could be, but generally that’s not how the term “no-platforming” is used. I’m using it to describe the situation where, for example, a debating society refuses to allow someone with whose views it disagrees to speak.
That’s the difference between what a debating society should do - promote free speech, essentially - and campaigning organisations like the Tories, or churches, or humanists (or football clubs, for that matter). The latters’ purpose is not debate, so of course they don’t invite people with different views to speak.
(I know a bit about the South College incident, as it happens. The Principal has form for that sort of thing. It came after (accurate) reports in the press of the University giving training sessions to student sex workers, albeit - they said - to ensure the sex worker could be safe in their profession: Durham University defends student sex work training - BBC News. One of the first things the speaker made reference to was this story.
The visiting speaker was Rod Liddle. To describe him as an “extremist”, as you did, is just the sort of distortion practised by the Daily Mail!)
Rod Liddle is an extremist. The crucial distortion in your own account of the sex workers training is that it was training for Durham students forced into sex work to make ends meet by the higher education policies propagated by the Spectator and Murdoch media that Liddle writes clickbait for.
The crucial terms missing from your idea of what ‘debating societies’ ‘should’ do, and other forums presumably shouldn’t, are power and privilege.
Why. in principle, draw this distinction between say The Daily Mail and the Oxford Union?
If you really believe in an open ‘public sphere’, why not open up these other forums to all views?
Or is it that the privileged owners of the media, the church and other exclusive clubs and institutions want to reserve their freedom to preach without any dissenting views ? - just as people like Liddle, Farage, Morgan, assert their own freedom to spout racist etc nonsense, but when the little people decry their bigotry on social media they throw their ‘cancel culture’ tantrums (revealing in the process, by the way, who the real ‘snowflakes’ are in this discussion (which is easy enough to do anyway just by, say, making the mildest possible criticism of the queen in the comments on some online Tory rag - try it !).
But you’re right, of course, that the concept ‘no-platforming’ is only applied selectively by those that hold power and privilege. Trouble is, your thinking stops at that point, instead of going on to ask why it is only applied selectively.
