If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
They way I see it is, let them debate. We live in a country of free speech after all. Nick Griffin and David Irving are only going to make themselves look like a couple of racist tossers, let them get on with it.
:thumb:
Why not? Would would you want to deny either of them the right to speak?
I don't.
A truly free society is one in which all opinions are given the right to be aired.
If you are so confident in your own views then you can argue against anything you disgaree with. By denying someone their right you are suggesting that your own argument is too weak to stand up to debate.
Remember the first step of any revolution and totalitarian state is to deny dissent. That is all that these two offer - dissent from the percieved wisdom.
You should all be aware that Griffin and Irving already enjoy full freedom of speech in this country. They are allowed to peddle their filth without any legal consequences. But giving them a platform at the Oxford Union not only gives them priceless exposure and free publicity, but also in a way legitimates their views to a degree, and suggests they have valid and worthy points of view instead of being the lying racist/fascist/Nazi cunts they are.
A very fucking stupid decision to invite them. And some of you are deluded if you think constructive debate is either going to see them the error of their ways or expose them and their arguments as rubbish. You simply cannot convince some people of something, no matter how overwhelming the evidence or devastating the argument, and by giving the likes of Griffin a platform to speak from you are only going to win him more converts- regardless of how well his point of views were countered.
Fuck those cunts.
I still want to know what was actually said, but I guess the notion of giving Griffin any opportunity to condemn himself from his own mouth is too much to ask...
I'm afraid that you, Budda, are another one of those Lefties who uses distraction tactics for your own reasons. I've repeatedly described the BNP as thugs, fascists, criminals and far worse, and you know it. So why you even made the frankly ridicilous comment above is something I cannot understand. We agree on the central point, so why you insist on trying to create synthetic arguments is a mystery.
The fact that he tried to sue them just shows the hypocracy of the man. Anyone who believes in freedom of speech would never sue someone for using their own free choice to stock an item or not. A book store chain in America refused to sell Christopher Hitchen's latest book for fear of attack from muslim extremists, and Christopher Hitchens simply said "fair enough, and I'll never do another book signing at one of your stores, and I encourage everyone who believes in free speech to boycott this bookstore." A boycott to get a book put on the shelves is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. A boycott to silence publications you don't agree with isn't.
Dude, you've just dressed up the fact you don't want Nick Griffin to have freedom of speech in a rather verbose manner.
Who the Oxford debating society invites to speak is their business. I was more pissed of with the students outside protesting and trying to deny me my right to hear these people speak.
Yes, because I share a lot of values with Christopher Hitchens, and therefore probably would agree with him. I wouldn't boycott it just because he told me to though, I would boycott it because I agreed with his reasons for doing so. Unless it was Amazon.
I'd certainly seriously consider it. Any bookshop who decided to ban Hitchens' books isn't worth their salt, and can frankly go eat a dick as far as i'm concerned.
Depends on the reason - if he asked because he reckoned he wasn't getting enough of a cut of profits, probably not. If he aked us to boycott a store because they'd bowed to religous extremists, I'd certainly consider it.
I'd be concerned and wary of any bookshop which banned any book.
If speaking at the Oxford Union was the only way in which a person could express his opinion publicly in this country, it'd be a different matter. But there are virtually countless other ways to do so.
So you're happy for him to have free speech as long as it's at time and place that you agree with?
Griffin already expresses his freedom of speech fully on interviews, articles, books, websites, leaflets, manifestos or political broadcasts amongst other things. More platforms and exposure than 99.99% of people in the country ever get to. So let's not pretend that by demanding certain people don't get invitations to certain venerable institutions such people are suddenly denied to express themselves.
Can I get invited to express my views on a variety of subjects at the Oxford Union? If my request for an invitation is declined, would I be the victim of an outrageous attack on freedom of speech then?
Institutions that you think should know better, in your opinion. I'm of the opposite opinion that by giving these people reputable platforms you don't allow them to make martyrs of themselves; their opinions can be heard and rebuked in a fair and intellectual environment.
Again, you're happy for them to use only your pre-approved pulpits.
This is fallacious argument. The issue isn't that they weren't invited. If they invited you to speak about free speech i wouldn't agree with your opinions on it, but i sure as hell reserve the right to hear them.
Either you're for total free speech in any and all forums, regardless of how unsavoury you may find the material, or you're for censorship of opinions you don't agree with. You can't have it both ways.
Well of course. Because by inviting such scum to certain pulpits you are in a way legitimising their views, by giving the message they are part of mainstream society. But they are not. They are outside society and outside civilisation.
It is not a fallacious argument. I wouldn't be invited to speak to the Oxford Union because it wouldn't be appropriate. And it wouldn't be appropriate because I am not a historian, politician, man or letters or public figure in any way.
So there are rules in existence as to who should be allowed to speak at the Oxford Union and who shouldn't. They are to do with with what is appropriate and what isn't, not with censoring freedom of speech. And many people appear to think inviting a discredited and disgraced Nazi apologist and a shameless fascist and racist thug was not appropriate in the slightest.
The average pisshead sleeping on a park bench would give you a more accurate account of WWII than David Irving- fact. Can we have a few tramps speaking at Oxford Uni?
But you come across as whole-heartedly against immigration, given that is the stance that the BNP has I thought you would at least agree with them on that issue. I should also point out that I have never accused you of racism, I’ve certainly said that I think your views on law and order have sometimes come across as barbaric but that’s another issue
Again this interesting use of the term ‘leftie’ I’m not strictly sure by what standards you are judging me, but I am more a liberal than I am to the left, I am certainly not a socialist. And I don’t think they are distraction tactics, you have expressed very similar views on both law and order and immigration as the BNP.
Now you're resorting to nonsensical hyperbole. Honestly, you're a better debater than that.
They are a 'legitimate' party. I suspect also - though i haven't watched the debate and can't be sure - they expounded legitimate claims during the debate. While i appreciate they hold a minority view, it's ridiculous to claim they're 'outside of society' when they're patently not.
Who the Oxford Union decide to have at their debates is entirely their own business. If they felt that NG and DI would provide, if nothing else, an interesting debate then it's their prerogative to hold it. If you're worried that credulous people are likely to be take-up some of odious views held by either party, then we're on a totally different subject, and i suggest you go join the queue to ban violent computers and films as well.
I think he is making the point that what this has done is infact just given them a platform. It has been dressed up as a 'debate' but in reality all that has happened, is that both sides have been allowed to spout their views, and both sides have gone home believing that they won the argument. Nobody's views have changed. It's the same thing with the question and answer session the Iranian president had in the U.S.
I don't see how this negates my original point. I'd be interested in hearing these people speak first-hand, rather than hearing second-hand accounts of their views. Also, how often do you think that a public debate happens and either side goes home having changed their mind? Is it not worth Dawkins debating a theist because he's very unlikely to change his mind? Of course not.
mmm, make no mistake I think they should be allowed to spout off, but I doubt anybody's views changed at the end of it: I doubt any of them went in with the intention of giving an inch to the other.
I doubt any of theirs' changed either.
Their views are outside any society that calls itself civilised. I know not many people agree but I personally believe by inviting them into the mainstream you legitimise their views and present them as valid- when they're not.
So far as video games and films don't promote violence or hatred towards other races or nationalities I don't see why they should. Different argument, different subject matter.
I know I'm in the minority and we're never going to agree as I have found that out in past discussions on the subject. But I see fascists, racists and Nazis as quite different to anything and anyone else and far more repugnant and dangerous than any other ideology, and when it comes to them total freedom of speech takes secondary place AFAIAC.
Dude, what you seem to be saying now is, essentially, that people hold differing views to you, and even after what you'd consider to be a reasoned debate, they'd still not agree with you. You're asserting people are credulous and easily led - which really isn't a revelation, nor your place to manage. You actually appear to be advocating a form of fascism; there are your views and the views you'll let people hear, and then there are the views that people aren't allowed to hear.
I'll grant you the BNP doesn't hold what i'd call civilised views, but i think you more damage and bolster their cause by side-lining them and not addressing the real issues which they've bastardised in order to turn to their favour.
If you've played any computer games recently they're largely about gang mentality - whether it be GTA, Crackdown or whatever. I think the comparison stands.
I think we agree on plenty of issues. I just don't think this is one of them.