Has political correctness actually gone mad?

Not sure if this is the right thread really as it's more intimidatory suppression of speech, but it's a very real and uncomfortable example of how disgusting the trend is. Starts properly around 12 mins in.

 
Not sure if this is the right thread really as it's more intimidatory suppression of speech, but it's a very real and uncomfortable example of how disgusting the trend is. Starts properly around 12 mins in.



It's becoming pretty common for certain university groups to ban or interrupt speeches, debates etc. I know Germaine Greer was banned from some university talk for being anti-trans people. Its a reoccurring and worrying trend.
 
Not sure if this is the right thread really as it's more intimidatory suppression of speech, but it's a very real and uncomfortable example of how disgusting the trend is. Starts properly around 12 mins in.


Goldsmiths, the same university who had a sexist and racist Bahar Mustafa as their diversity officer. Not surprised this has happened here.
 
CVXnaKIUAAAI80i.jpg


These people are morons.
 
I'm quite confused what the Q stands for?
Questioning, I think. There's also a version with an I in it (intersex I think?). I personally just think they're playing a long game at making new scrabble words.
 
Not sure if this is the right thread really as it's more intimidatory suppression of speech, but it's a very real and uncomfortable example of how disgusting the trend is. Starts properly around 12 mins in.



Some ISOCs in British universities are beyond appalling, my university's one were filled with bigoted cnuts, not to mention the shit I got for a being an ex Muslim. A lot of them do some fantastic charity work but some of the London based ones seem to be beyond reprehensible.
 
Not sure if this is the right thread really as it's more intimidatory suppression of speech, but it's a very real and uncomfortable example of how disgusting the trend is. Starts properly around 12 mins in.



"islamist thugs".
Not at all biased labelling!
 
How would you describe them?

I didn't watch it all, but heard one woman speaker say "I haven't read the Qu'ran but"

I'd probably take issue with someone thinking they can slate something without the knowledge about it too.
 
How would you describe them?

rapscallions

I did also think that labelling was a tad hyperbolic, I don't think they showed thuggish behaviour but rather very immature behaviour. It's what I would expect from a 14 year old who is being made to sit in a boring Maths class. These guys went with the intention of being disruptive because they did not like the ideas being put forward and instead of listening and waiting till the end to debate, they acted like ignorant kids.
 
I didn't watch it all, but heard one woman speaker say "I haven't read the Qu'ran but"

I'd probably take issue with someone thinking they can slate something without the knowledge about it too.
You think they can attempt to intimidate a speaker because someone else hasn't read the Qu'ran?
 
You think they can attempt to intimidate a speaker because someone else hasn't read the Qu'ran?

if they're trying to slate ideas in it without understanding it, I'd say yes

ps have a word with yourself, they're kids, not "thugs", and I don't think they were "Intimidating" anyone.

Your life must be pure drama the way you carry on
 
rapscallions

I did also think that labelling was a tad hyperbolic, I don't think they showed thuggish behaviour but rather very immature behaviour. It's what I would expect from a 14 year old who is being made to sit in a boring Maths class. These guys went with the intention of being disruptive because they did not like the ideas being put forward and instead of listening and waiting till the end to debate, they acted like ignorant kids.
Too longwinded, how about a compromise of "dickweeds"?
 
if they're trying to slate ideas in it without understanding it, I'd say yes

Disrupting a speech in that way is therefore a good example of hypocrisy because they are slating her ideas without attempting to fully understand. They should wait to the end to ask questions and make criticisms if that's all they want to do.
 
Disrupting a speech in that way is therefore a good example of hypocrisy because they are slating her ideas without attempting to fully understand. They should wait to the end to ask questions and make criticisms if that's all they want to do.
Yes ideally that would be the way the world works. Ideally people would construe their arguments in a non vulgar mature manner. And ideally people would be able to debate and discourse in a manner which benefits all parties. Whether it's an online forum or a lecture hall, it's a far cry from this ideal.
 
The woman has read the Koran, but she read it after leaving the religion. Apparently that precludes her giving an opinion.
 
Yes ideally that would be the way the world works. Ideally people would construe their arguments in a non vulgar mature manner. And ideally people would be able to debate and discourse in a manner which benefits all parties. Whether it's an online forum or a lecture hall, it's a far cry from this ideal.

What's your point?
 
That I admire your idealism.

It's not fecking idealism it's just common sense. You go to a speech with a question and answers session at the end. If you think she's talking shit then you wait until that slot to make your criticism. Disrupting the speech is "trying to slate an idea without understanding it" that you just slated.

If a bunch of atheists disrupted an ISOC speech in that way I'm sure you'd be just as understanding.
 
:rolleyes: A gun gesture with a hand constitutes as a death threat?

Actually good post this is the overly PC thread.
:nervous: Emojis as arguments eh?

You can't do that do anything like that during a protest. The argument "just kidding" doesn't work when you're actively trying to make serious points.
 
:nervous: Emojis as arguments eh?

You can't do that do anything like that during a protest. The argument "just kidding" doesn't work when you're actively trying to make serious points.
No. It's overly sensitive nonsense. Making a hand gun gesture isn't a death threat ffs. Saying 'I will kill you' or anything along those lines is a death threat. Picking up a real gun and pointing it at someone too. Shaping your hand like a gun is nothing of the sort. Jeez.
 
It's not fecking idealism it's just common sense. You go to a speech with a question and answers session at the end. If you think she's talking shit then you wait until that slot to make your criticism. Disrupting the speech is "trying to slate an idea without understanding it" that you just slated.

If a bunch of atheists disrupted an ISOC speech in that way I'm sure you'd be just as understanding.
Why are you getting so angry? I wasn't being sarcastic earlier.

I've been to many Society organised lectures religious and non religious, political and apolitical. Some went smoothly, some were chaotic. One of them was cancelled as the police and anti Iranian protesters showed up.

It's idealistic to assume / expect everyone to be able to conduct themselves in the right manner.
 
No. It's overly sensitive nonsense. Making a hand gun gesture isn't a death threat ffs. Saying 'I will kill you' or anything along those lines is a death threat. Picking up a real gun and pointing it at someone too. Shaping your hand like a gun is nothing of the sort. Jeez.
The majority of people use body language as a means of communication. Unless you're on the autistic spectrum you must realise this.
 
Why are you getting so angry? I wasn't being sarcastic earlier.

I've been to many Society organised lectures religious and non religious, political and apolitical. Some went smoothly, some were chaotic. One of them was cancelled as the police and anti Iranian protesters showed up.

It's idealistic to assume / expect everyone to be able to conduct themselves in the right manner.

Assuming people will act properly may be idealistic but expecting that of them if they attend your event is not idealistic.
 
The majority of people use body language as a means of communication. Unless you're on the autistic spectrum you must realise this.
Yes and you must realise that without a word being spoken, it's a bloody big jump from intimidation / immaturity to a death threat. He might have taken it as a death threat, but that just tells me he's an overly sensitive PC moron more than anything. This reminds me of when you argued that if a man approaches a girl he doesn't know, it's a form of sexual harassment. It's absolute nonsense.
 
Yes and you must realise that without a word being spoken, it's a bloody big jump from intimidation / immaturity to a death threat. He might have taken it as a death threat, but that just tells me he's an overly sensitive PC moron more than anything. This reminds me of when you argued that if a man approaches a girl he doesn't know, it's a form of sexual harassment. It's absolute nonsense.
Context being here of course is a protest. If one of BLM protestors did a gun gesture at Sanders during their now famous protest it would be treated as a death threat.

And way to remove all context and nuance from my argument in a completely unrelated thread. Great way to demonstrate you understand how communication works.
 
The bit in the video starting 1:11:00 really gets my goat.