Iran

[Charl91]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

But it's not imagerinery, it's only that if you aren't paying attention.

 

We live in a country now where people like Julie Bindell and Germaine Greer are "no platformed" from academic institutions because of that woke left, ignoring that could have appalling ramifications long term for free speech.

 

I think this exactly proves my point.

 

We live in a world where the President of the biggest country in the world can openly and shamelessly lie directly to the electorate on a daily basis, and have it called "alternate facts".

 

We have our current Prime Minister who also is very liberal with the meaning of the word "truth", refuses to be interviewed, and who has reportedly banned his own ministers from going on the today program, tacitly stating that it's either favourable coverage or no coverage.

 

We have media which in no way can be said to be disinterested, and who at this point don't even pretend to try and portray political stories in a way which actually reflects reality (and that goes across the spectrum, I include the left-wing papers in this).

 

And yet, you genuinely think the biggest problem for free speech is the fact that a couple of hundred students (and that's probably being very generous) at a few universities voted to stop one or two people from speaking?  

 

I don't generally agree with the idea of no-platforming, but the idea that this issue would even register as a problem in comparison to the actual, genuine problems we face shows that the right-wing media has done it's job. It's blown up what is essentially a non-issue (how many people do you believe were involved in these votes for no-platforming?) and turned it into a fear story against 'liberals''.

 

So I did a bit of digging, and couldn't find the numbers for the votes on no-platforming, but I did find this, which probably gives you a rough estimate of the sort of numbers that tend to be involved in these kind of votes (and coincides with my own experience of this sort of thing).

 

"The Oxford Union voted by a huge margin (224 to 49) not to support no-platforming and accorded a standing ovation to the case against."

 

That's normally a good ball-park for the kind of figures we're looking at. If you were imagining that tens of thousands of students were voting to no-platform, then you can rest easy at night again. Most students, even though they tend do be left wing, don't tend to get involved in this kind of thing - they have far better things to do with their time. What you are talking about is the far left of an already left-wing institution. They are only representative of the average left wing person in the same way that a National Front member is representative of your average right wing person - it's a tiny, tiny, subsection of the elecorate.

 

So, as I said: The media have done a very good job at whipping up a frenzy about nothing, while the real problems go unchecked. 

 

(I won't even get into the comparisons with Corbyn and Trump. I understand criticism of Corbyn, but they are universes apart. They're not comparable. All I can say is, imagine if Corbyn was accused of doing even 5% of what Trump has done - the Sun would have headlines for decades. )

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Charl91 said:

 

I think this exactly proves my point.

 

We live in a world where the President of the biggest country in the world can openly and shamelessly lie directly to the electorate on a daily basis, and have it called "alternate facts".

 

We have our current Prime Minister who also is very liberal with the meaning of the word "truth", refuses to be interviewed, and who has reportedly banned his own ministers from going on the today program, tacitly stating that it's either favourable coverage or no coverage.

 

We have media which in no way can be said to be disinterested, and who at this point don't even pretend to try and portray political stories in a way which actually reflects reality (and that goes across the spectrum, I include the left-wing papers in this).

 

And yet, you genuinely think the biggest problem for free speech is the fact that a couple of hundred students (and that's probably being very generous) at a few universities voted to stop one or two people from speaking?  

 

I don't generally agree with the idea of no-platforming, but the idea that this issue would even register as a problem in comparison to the actual, genuine problems we face shows that the right-wing media has done it's job. It's blown up what is essentially a non-issue (how many people do you believe were involved in these votes for no-platforming?) and turned it into a fear story against 'liberals''.

 

So I did a bit of digging, and couldn't find the numbers for the votes on no-platforming, but I did find this, which probably gives you a rough estimate of the sort of numbers that tend to be involved in these kind of votes (and coincides with my own experience of this sort of thing).

 

"The Oxford Union voted by a huge margin (224 to 49) not to support no-platforming and accorded a standing ovation to the case against."

 

That's normally a good ball-park for the kind of figures we're looking at. If you were imagining that tens of thousands of students were voting to no-platform, then you can rest easy at night again. Most students, even though they tend do be left wing, don't tend to get involved in this kind of thing - they have far better things to do with their time. What you are talking about is the far left of an already left-wing institution. They are only representative of the average left wing person in the same way that a National Front member is representative of your average right wing person - it's a tiny, tiny, subsection of the elecorate.

 

So, as I said: The media have done a very good job at whipping up a frenzy about nothing, while the real problems go unchecked. 

 

(I won't even get into the comparisons with Corbyn and Trump. I understand criticism of Corbyn, but they are universes apart. They're not comparable. All I can say is, imagine if Corbyn was accused of doing even 5% of what Trump has done - the Sun would have headlines for decades. )

Believe me if Trump had met 5% of the bigots, antisemites, holocaust deniers and despots Corbyn had over the years he wouldn't get near the presidency - it's still a stain on our nation he got so close to being our PM in 2017 and those who campaigned for him should wear it as a badge of shame for sometime.

 

First of all I never said it was "the biggest problem" - dont criticise others for lies and being liberal with the truth and manipulate my words. That vote at the Oxford Union is wonderful, but that's a small sample and not really relevant to how the issue is often being implemented. 

 

Its often the problem though that despite votes like that these small minorities do have far more influence than the numbers should give them.

 

Here's a prime example of it - https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/cambridge-university-rescinds-jordan-peterson-invitation

 

Now would that really have been rescinded without that small majority? Of course not - but it was and it still stands today. Our universities have backed down through pressure and/or threat of violence intimidation and that should not be happening in this country.

 

One incident of no platforming is too many.

[LiberalFox]

 

(Not aimed at anyone in particular just seemed apt)

[leicsmac]

The last bit of conversation (off topic but interesting) has reminded me of how often a fair few folks out in the world approach the point of social deprivation but then rather miss it completely.

 

Like...

 

"Poor white men are alienated, prevented from getting mental health care, and treated like absolute failures!"
"Yasss now you get it."
"Clearly the problem is feminists, gays, black people, and immigrants!"
".....I'm sorry, say again?"

 

(I mean, who exactly has the power behind this social deprivation?)

 

NB. This might seem a little strawmannish from a UK perspective, but hey.

 

[Guest MattP]

The widespread protests are really something else watching the videos, that's real bravery.

 

Not for the first time, the Western media might just completely have mis-read the situation in Iran.

 

The NYT editorial last week said the country was united after the assassination - that really does not look the case at all.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

The widespread protests are really something else watching the videos, that's real bravery.

 

Not for the first time, the Western media might just completely have mis-read the situation in Iran.

 

The NYT editorial last week said the country was united after the assassination - that really does not look the case at all.

I hope you're right - for a long time the Iranian government and the Iranian people haven't really had much in common and it would be nice if things changed over there to reflect that.

[Guest Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

The widespread protests are really something else watching the videos, that's real bravery.

 

Not for the first time, the Western media might just completely have mis-read the situation in Iran.

 

The NYT editorial last week said the country was united after the assassination - that really does not look the case at all.

Cos understanding Iran takes much more effort, time, and study than Western journos are willing to put in for something that rears its head only periodically. Add that to the fact the media wants sensationalism and some parts want to project their anti-Trump, anti-imperialism, anti-US agenda at every opportunity, especially when they have ready-made Iranian propaganda to use so you get rubbish coverage. The good coverage is those that work in Middle East institutes that get asked to write a piece. 

 

Tbf to the NYT, the editorial (haven't read it) was presumably done before Iran admitted to shooting down the plane (still can only be described as crashed in Corbyn land tho). That seems to have changed things big time in Iran, the brief unity has gone and the protesters are back. Should be careful in reading too much into the protests, they're hardly a new thing and it's probably largely the same people.