Free speech and opinion- not tolerated today?

alan280170

Not cold enough yet.

krish

could be used to clean their windows (with dilute vinegar   soap), or their silver (probably have a few spoons)

nabby

How can they be pigeon-holed as being left liberal when such a ban is the antithesis of being liberal? Another meaningless label attached to a group for the sake of stereotyping them.

And who has said that students aren't allowed to read or hear about political views from all sides? Oh yes, the Government, with their laws on "hate speech" and "hate literature". Funny I don't see anyone on the right, liberal or conservative, criticising them for genuinely stopping debate in universities and educational establishments.

Finally, who is teaching our students not to look beyond the Guardian?

Member 581642

When did liberal with a small l or Large L equal left anyway

Cliff

I think they would characterize themselves as being open and liberal.
However, as you say, what the union is doing is the antithesis of being liberal and open.

Cliff

For students who would say they are liberal should think about the meaning of the word.
Clearly these students didn't study Latin.

Member 581642

Maybe they dont, maybe they firstly think of themselves as Anti-something or other first, liberal 2nd , 3rd or 4th.

Toko Black

There is a general misrepresentation both of individuals and groups, usually by themselves and their supposed diametrically opposed opponent groups and individuals of what they position their beliefs and ideology as and what their actual actions and beliefs really are.
It's neither specifically a left or right issue, although it is depicted by those opposing groups as essentially anyone that isn't part of one group is either in the other or at least 'sucking up to'/'brainwashed' by them.

From everything I have seen, heard and read about and coming from either group is indicative of Authoritarianism.
They both want to control and dictate the 'moral truth', what is right or wrong, good or bad.
Both ignore and/or attempt to shut down legitimate criticism and scientific evidence contrary to their beliefs by almost identical methods:

1) Any criticism or evidence that contradicts them is a part of an establishment, secular, patriarchal, atheist, corporate, lefty, right wing culture/plot to silence and oppress them.  

2) If you don't agree with them but fall into a demographic or group they believe should, then you are a cuck or have internalised the prejudice yourself. Demographic groups that they believe may not support them are demonised, lacking morals, privileged or part of the establishment.

3) Organise demonstrations, campaigns of letter/email/phone calling to theaters, cinemas, councils, MP's etc to ban/boycott any film, book, speaker or other group they feel either opposes their view or reduce their control over an issue.

4) Create their own media, news aggregation, community sites and information sources to proved 'approved' ideas and talking points as well as providing catch phrase crib sheets on what to say and do when approached by 'negative opinions'.

5) Produce misleading/erroneous/false content, information and statistics to continually flood the news, internet and other media to establish a narrative, dilute the pool of credible information and create a false sense of what is fact, theory, evidence or knowledge.

They then claim to be not prejudiced and denounce prejudice as wrong - then act in prejudiced ways safe in the knowledge that they can simply stand there with a straight face and deadly serious refering critics to the fact that they 'said' they weren't prejudiced and denounced it.
They also change the definition of what is and what is not prejudice and what it does and doesn't apply to.

People then have to tread on eggshells for fear of upsetting either group and becoming a target of their ire or being socially austrocised by which ever side the average of their own social group of friends and aquaintances appears to gravitate towards.
Many people get sucked into the polarisation because it's portrayed as very black and white, good and bad, and they don't want to feel like they are part of the problem, slowly buying into one side or the others arguments. Sometimes it's just for an easy life and it just becomes the norm.
That leads to people who aren't really that caught up in those beliefs feeling the need to condemn legitimate critics because it 'seems like the right thing' and 'what I should do' as a cultural expectation.
At first it's usually only those most easily influenced, gullible or wanting to belong that start to gravitate to one group or the others position.
However, the more people that do appear to support one side or the other makes it ever harder for those in the middle to remain true to their own convictions, especially when people they respect or care about have apparently chosen a side.

It's a constant pattern throughout human history - polarising ideological beliefs wanting to control moral truths, claiming oppression while oppressing everyone else for their own good.

Any belief or ideology that wants to define and control the moral truth is a reasonably safe bet to be complete nonsense ... history is littered with the examples.
... Except of course these beliefs and ideologies do everything in their power to control, depict and re-imagine history, along with contemporary events in ways that only their own sanitised versions are acceptable.
Religious indoctrination, safe spaces, blasphemy, hate speech, anti-christian/anti-muslim, misogyny, creationism, anti-harassment and rape-culture awareness lessons.

Cliff

And recently the Government's counter- extremism unit intervened and barred a speaker from his former grammar school.
He is a provocative Donald Trump supporter. Will the counter extremism unit be interviewing the President before he has tea with the Queen?

Milo Yiannopoulos, is now a 32-year-old  British journalist
'A total of 220 sixth formers had signed up for the event with the consent of their parents. But on Friday the Department for Education’s counter-extremism task force contacted the school after receiving a complaint from a member of the public.'

I am steering away from the content and his political leanings as this thread is more about the right to speak rather than what you have to say. (of course you have to be within the law)

Now the Government are stepping in with censorship. By the way, they use the modern term 'Concerns' . This is a new word used by the state when they can't or don't want to be specific.  'Concerns' gives government departments the basis for acting without evidence or a reason that would stand scrutiny.

Donald Trump supporter Milo Yiannopoulos barred from speaking at former school after government intervened

rancidpunk

I'm only surprised it took the DoE to intervene before deciding to cancel, the school should never have entertained him in the first place. It's hard to avoid the content when it's both puerile and extreme, and doesn't serve any good being delivered from an educational platform. Leave him to social media where he belongs.