I was very surprised to read this - my own experience (and the evidence I’m aware of - eg. the huge majority in the UK against brexit among the young) is that younger people are generally far more questioning, independent-minded and understanding than older generations - and, naturally, more concerned about climate/ecological breakdown.
As Marijkeh says - maybe time for us older generations to listen more carefully to the young?
1 Like
If only that were true. You just have to look at the way the young flock to ‘influencers’ that infest social media to see that they are so far removed from being independent-minded. What us ‘oldies’ are guilty of is exploiting this naivety for financial gain.
2 Likes
I always think people who share my views are "questioning, independent-minded and understanding "!
2 Likes
But where’s the evidence?
Tim mentions social media ‘influencers’, but these are very diverse, generally quite a-political, and followed by all ages. Some indeed are specifically concerned with youthful pursuits - but I see no evidence in the fact that some young people like to, say, watch really skilled gamers play, that they have ‘swallowed current orthodoxy whole’.
But there is evidence that young people are generally more questioning, independent-minded and understanding than older generations (apart from my personal observation of my kids’ friends, etc). The brexit vote is objective evidence, isn’t it? This was a clear case of a rational evidence-based case versus deliberate mythologising and deception: around three-quarters of young people saw through it; a similar percentage of elderly people ‘swallowed’ the lies.
Which was five years ago. Where were these enlightened and questioning young voters in December 2019 when Brexit was about to become a reality?
1 Like
Voting against the Tories in similar numbers, actually.
More on-topic - fascinating interview with Paul Mason here…
Includes a spectacularly existentialist definition of fascism as ‘the mobilisation of people’s fear of freedom’.
They’re not just afraid of other people becoming free. Deep down, they fear their own freedom, too.
Straight out of Sartre!
That exactly sums up most of my former in-laws, very few of whom could be described as young. I’d say many older people suffer from sclerosis of the mind.
2 Likes
Sartre again: some people - many people - allow life’s inevitable disappointments - sometimes tragedies - to distort their youthful dreams and optimism into a grotesque, embittered shadow of what it might have been, resentful of all change, cynical about youthful optimism, and (as Mason paraphrases) fearful of any freedom - or in Sartre’s more poetic formulation ‘longing to be the stone’.
The answer is to try everyday to be the person you always dreamed of being.
1 Like
I think you’re right. Perhaps that is (at least partly) because it is often so much more difficult for older people to get out and have discussions.
Which makes it all the more sad to see places where young people might become exposed to new ideas and have the opportunity to discuss them, like universities, being rebranded as “safe spaces” where the orthodoxy is never challenged.
Yes, I’m not sure that is as much the case in France as in English-speaking countries but no doubt we will catch up 
1 Like
I think this is a myth of the murdoch/tabloid brigade - typical ‘culture war’ tactics: take a couple of isolated incidents, distort them, blow them up into big issues, make up a label like ‘cancel culture’ and dominate the ‘news agenda’ with it. Young people - who are generally more educated now than previous generations - see through this better than the old.
I’m a regular visiting lecturer at a number of universities, and talk regularly with academic staff and students (in the UK and elsewhere - I’m also involved in a masters degree programme in Talinn); the truth is that right-wing media personalities whose voices we are always hearing are the ones complaining about being ‘cancelled’ - whereas in reality there is (almost) never any such issue; and the real ‘snowflakes’ are not those good people trying to be sensitive to discrimination, but the intolerant right-wingers who are up in arms at the merest hint of anybody actually telling the truth about their myths and icons.
Do you have specific examples regarding no-platforming?
And also who are the really interesting right-wing thinkers that should be invited? It would be good to rise above a kind of Question Time level of debate.
I generally don’t follow any of the debates that have got people so worked up. I thought Germain Greer was no-platforned but it turned out she wasn’t in the end as I just looked it up.
I did another masters course a bit later in life. The big difference I found (in the UK) was around the idea of the student as a consumer as opposed to being just a student, there for an education. I don’t think the massive fees increase and placing universities under the umbrella of Industry has done education any favours.
That said I did my course as a part-time student and really enjoyed it and met so many interesting people. Yes there may be some issues but are there not always in any sector?
1 Like
It’s one of France’s great treasures: the willingness to discuss difficult topics and, perhaps, a suspicion of the orthodoxy.
1 Like
I just googled ‘“invitation to speak” withdrawn’ and ‘no-platform university UK’. You will find plenty of results for the former; the latter produces a sort of history of the subject - at least for me - and you can see how the topic developed (with, generally, the Right and far-Right being the “victims” of it). You can perhaps also understand, against that backdrop, how (a) it’s less common now - because “everyone knows not to issue such invitations” (as I would express it) and (b) why it’s such a profitable topic for the Right!
Geof, the Right is clearly stoking this fire (eg the suggestion that people needed to protect statues immediately after the Clawson statue incident), but it doesn’t mean it’s not happening, of course: the Right uses culture wars for its own ends.
As does the Left.
Generally, we would hear of no-platforming only when an invitation is withdrawn. If an invitation is not issued, that’s unlikely to make the news.
A quick search, though, pulls up names like Amber Rudd, Steve Bannon, Linda Bellos … Not much of it since 2019 for obvious reasons.
I was, however, dismayed to read some Left opinions on the subject.
“it’s always important to contest the presence of the far right” (2017, re an invitation to Tommy Robinson: the “Socialist Party” very pleased with itself for “preventing far Right hate speech”, https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/24818/01-03-2017/york-university-socialists-prevent-far-right-hate-speech)
Cambridge NUS has a list of organisations which it no-platforms on the basis that “We are not censoring free speech; we are protecting groups of students on campus who have as much of a right to be there as any other student from groups that wish to harm us physically and mentally because of our identity.” (Student groups clash with government over ‘no-platforming’ crackdown | Varsity)
And the Union of Jewish Students campaigns manager Liron Velleman said: “No platform policies for those who continue to threaten or incite violence continue to be an important tool against fascism used by NUS, students’ unions and student groups.” (Student groups clash with government over ‘no-platforming’ crackdown | Varsity)
A few isolated incidents may have been blown up to suit the Right, but 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
Indeed there are many media stories on ‘cancel culture’ - supporting my point that the aim is to impose culture war on the news agenda. Look more closely into the actual details behind those stories and you will generally find there’s little to them. Tweak the search a little - to, say, ‘cancel culture myth’, and you will find hundreds of repudiations of those same stories. Try it!
Incidentally, the ‘left opinions’ you offer are not all from left-wing organisations at all - the Union of Jewish Students for example is definitely right-wing (they have tried to no-platform Chris Williamson!).
But the really crucial point here is the distinction between free speech and hate speech. Your quotes all refer to ‘groups that wish to harm us physically’, ‘those who continue to threaten or incite violence’, etc. This is an obvious point of both established law and common sense - well reflected in this forum, where all views and discussion are uncensored, but abuse, threats, etc, are not allowed. There is nothing political about this - it’s just good old-fashioned politeness and decency - but in-so-far-as it has a political dimension, the point is that hate speech actually prevents free speech.
In this difficult territory, worth perhaps turning to some really insightful writers, like David Olusoga or Nesrine Malik…
2 Likes
I think there’s a difference between “no platforming” and “deplatforming”…
This is Dr Zelenko whose early treatment protocols saved many lives…I’ve watched many interviews by him…I don’t know what the Union of Jewish students would make of this…???
Oh @Geof_Cox Geof Geof you naughty chap! I give you sources like the Socialist Party and New Socialist, the latter confirming that no-platforming has worked well for 45 years, yet you criticise the Union of Jewish Students, because it’s right-wing!
It seems to me that what we can see is an endemic and systematic refusal to engage with people whose views might make students uncomfortable, and it’s no longer only a Left thing.
Cancel culture is a different thing, of course, and we mustn’t conflate the two ideas.
As for the Nesrine Malijk article - I think you may have been misled by the subtitle “Those decried as ‘online mobs’ are mostly people who’ve never been able to influence conversations about their own fates”. That is not at all what she says (see paras 4-5).
Moreover, she seems to be saying that Twitter mobs are an acceptable facet of freedom of social media, because some people have no other means of making allegations about abuse, “certain marginalised voices” (whatever that means - she’s a mistress of waffle, that’s clear! Does the Guardian pays her by the word?) would otherwise not be heard …
But this is helping build up a picture of what the Left-wing includes.
It’s weird when you write one thing and somebody reads something else, isn’t it?
You said your links were ‘left opinions’, I point out that some might actually be regarded as ‘right opinions’ - just a simple factual correction, which you read as if I’d said they were all right-wing! And that this was a ‘criitcism’ of Jsoc, rather than just a straightforward statement of fact.
Nesrine Malik (who is a man, by the way) presents I think a balanced, not a left view - that’s why I linked it.
What is true is that there have always been protests against and boycotts of some writers and speakers, mainly by the right (who generally have more power to prevent discussion). The murdoch/tabloid brigade are among the worst offenders. The current UK government has explicitly tried to suppress discussion of ‘capitalism’ in schools, the British Empire in museums, etc, etc. This is a normal part of political life - mainly propagated - throughout history - by the powerful and wealthy. Nothing new or newsworthy there - unless you’re trying to generate a culture war. But one of Malik’s points is that the reason it’s all over the media now is that social media have empowered some people that have always previously been denied a voice - and this makes the powerful and wealthy very worried.
And what of the main point I made: the crucial distinction between free speech and hate speech ?
The problem is that stating biological facts is considered “hate speech” by The Perpetually Offended on social media.
1 Like