Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

War on Woke: Conservative Cultural Campaigning

You would, though, surely? Say I rock up to a geology class and say "hello, I'm a flat earther, I demand that I be allowed to speak so we can debate my controversial opinions", would you insist that I should be given time and space, or would you recognise that as being a waste of everyone's time?

Well, it is their time, and that of any audience. I would probably attend a local talk by someone who thinks the earth is flat, just to hear their 'evidence'.

It is never acceptable when someone is prevented from speaking (within the law).

Shutting down discussion is the stuff of tyranny, and in the case of tertiary education, this tyranny is hard left. That is indisputable.
 
Can you outline the legal basis for removing charitable status on the basis of political viewpoints? Or would you not agree that it is absolutely unconscionable that politics of one stripe is encouraged, whilst opposing political view is silenced?
Would quite like an answer to this Sasaferrato

I thought you would be grateful of the opportunity to defend your ideas.
 
Anti-vaxxers will be looking on with interest, and they're the sort who would follow through on any court case.

That is an interesting one.

I cannot help but feel that an average reading age in the UK of nine years, is a major part of the anti-vax problem. If people cannot understand the literature regarding vaccination, then they are prone to fall prey to those who express their anti-vax view in words of one syllable.

' The average reading age of the UK population is 9 years – that is, they have achieved the reading ability normally expected of a 9 year old. The Guardian has a reading age of 14 and the Sun has a reading age of 8. '

.

A reading age of nine is an appalling reflection on those paid to educate our children.

This is from 2012.


"Britain has up to eight million adults who are functionally illiterate, a report out today revealed. The World Literacy Foundation said one in five of the UK population are so poor at reading and writing they struggle to read a medicine label or use a chequebook".

"Figures show it costs the UK economy £81bn a year".



I know that after some research, HMRC reset all documents to a reading age of 12.
 
Would that be the same Guardian that waged an ongoing campaign against Corbyn throughout his time as leader?

Now peddling anecdotes that are entirely at odds with the general direction of travel and failing to mention it? Well I never.

I don't write the Guardian, I read it.

On this occasion, they got it wrong. To me, it was an 'oh' moment, something that is of neither importance or particular interest. :)

The Guardian in general may have been opposed to Corbyn, but Owen Jones appeared to have an orgasm every time he mentioned Corbyn.
 
That is an interesting one.

I cannot help but feel that an average reading age in the UK of nine years, is a major part of the anti-vax problem. If people cannot understand the literature regarding vaccination, then they are prone to fall prey to those who express their anti-vax view in words of one syllable.

' The average reading age of the UK population is 9 years – that is, they have achieved the reading ability normally expected of a 9 year old. The Guardian has a reading age of 14 and the Sun has a reading age of 8. '

.

A reading age of nine is an appalling reflection on those paid to educate our children.

This is from 2012.


"Britain has up to eight million adults who are functionally illiterate, a report out today revealed. The World Literacy Foundation said one in five of the UK population are so poor at reading and writing they struggle to read a medicine label or use a chequebook".

"Figures show it costs the UK economy £81bn a year".



I know that after some research, HMRC reset all documents to a reading age of 12.
If you read the link from FullFact which you posted, it says these figures are dated and unreliable.
 
I absolutely agree on the government with regard to refusing to let people speak.

It is absolutely unconscionable that politics of one stripe is encouraged, whilst opposing political view is silenced.

What are the left afraid of? Are they afraid that when their bullshit views are challenged, they will be exposed for what they are?

The left wing bias inherent in tertiary education is a disgrace. It is more than time that this is addressed.

Some Marxist fuckwit in the NUS decides that they don't agree with a potential speaker, so 'cancels' them. In no way can this be judges as being equitable.

If the NUS has any charitable status, this needs to be removed, they are not a charity, they are a hard left cesspit.

You know this pretty much a made up scare, right?

That it almost never happens?
 
Everyone misrepresents what the "other side" are concerned with, so everyone gets to be super outraged about the "other side".
Perfect online politics in echo chambers.

Outrage about outrage. Not an original thought in sight.
 
I absolutely agree on the government with regard to refusing to let people speak.

It is absolutely unconscionable that politics of one stripe is encouraged, whilst opposing political view is silenced.

What are the left afraid of? Are they afraid that when their bullshit views are challenged, they will be exposed for what they are?

The left wing bias inherent in tertiary education is a disgrace. It is more than time that this is addressed.

Some Marxist fuckwit in the NUS decides that they don't agree with a potential speaker, so 'cancels' them. In no way can this be judges as being equitable.

If the NUS has any charitable status, this needs to be removed, they are not a charity, they are a hard left cesspit.

I always remember when a teacher I knew wanted to invite a Holocaust survivor to speak at the school he worked at and one of the Tory governers said he didn't have a problem with it providing there was someone there with an opposing view. Is this the sort of thing you are on about?
 
I always remember when a teacher I knew wanted to invite a Holocaust survivor to speak at the school he worked at and one of the Tory governers said he didn't have a problem with it providing there was someone there with an opposing view. Is this the sort of thing you are on about?
School governorship has always been such a massive cunt magnet.
 
Everyone misrepresents what the "other side" are concerned with, so everyone gets to be super outraged about the "other side".
Perfect online politics in echo chambers.

Outrage about outrage. Not an original thought in sight.
But the right misrepresents power relationships not just ideas. It treats insurgent ideas as being those of the elite, and dominant ideas as underdogs under threat from powerful and sinister forces. That's the main sneakiness in their argument. The government, Telegraph, Spectator, Daily Mail and those who agree with them are all being bullied by students, apparently. And what do we do with bullies? We stand up to them. By using the full force of the state, backed by a chorus of the majority of the media. That's the danger in this debate.
 
Absolutely. Within the law of course.

If 99% don't want to listen, then they won't go and hear the speaker. Surely an empty hall is a much more eloquent comment than refusing to let someone speak?

On the other hand, should a holocaust denier be allowed to hold a holocaust denial event for the local holocaust denial society? Even if only half a dozen people show up, is it even something that should be allowed on campus? Should it be allowed along with protests against it? That would seem to be the 'real deal' free speech, but the potential for violence would be massive and I'm not sure free speech is necessarily worth that. Obviously if the HolDenSoc want to meet at someone's house that's entirely up to them, but the question is should it be allowed in a public space?

Maybe the issue is around opinion vs truth. If someone has objectionable views and presents them only as opinion, for me that's less of a problem than someone presenting demonstrable untruth as truth, eg antivaxers, or holocaust deniers. I believe racism is based on obvious lies but someone else would call it a matter of opinion. A lot of people hide behind that little phrase and it's very difficult to deal with.

Ideally anyone should be free to say what they want, and be free to deal with the consequences in terms of pushback. The problem is, who else might suffer the consequences of that speech? Does incitement always sound like incitement? What I especially don't like though is when someone claims Free Speech for themselves but denies it to people who shout them down. Either you believe in it, or you don't.

Anyway I'm not sure where I am now, this is rather a mess of half-feelings and misunderstanding. But as I say to my son, you have one mouth and two ears, so listen double and talk half.
 
2019 is hardly dated.
Fullfact.org said:
As it happens we were able to trace the source of Becky's claim back to an OECD report called Literacy in the Information Age, which does include the one in five stat.

However there are a number of problems with the figure used in the context that it was this morning.

Firstly, it wasn't one that was revealed 'today'. Far from it, this research actually dates from 1996.
There's a joke about reading comprehension to be made somewhere here, I'm sure of it.
 
Here's a straight forward question for you Sasaferrato ...

Do you think students should be exposed to "extremist" views/ideas?
One person's extremism is another persons common sense so that is a very dangerous road to start going down, As for whether students should be 'exposed' to views/ideas that other people don't approve of. Well students (university at least) are adults and they are supposed to be intelligent adults at that so they should be allowed to make their own minds up.
 
Back
Top Bottom