Messages

The point is that to learn and develop there has to be genuine dialogue and fair engagement with ideas. If a society hosted someone like Ibram X. Kendi or Robin DiAngelo, people whose ideas are IMO causing real social harm by way of divisiveness and resentment, I would go and listen to them and seek to learn something from the experience. Butler too. Maybe they would be more nuanced than expected, or maybe they would be as bad as their reputations suggest. Either way, something learned.

If it was someone who had expessed completely unacceptable views, like Peter Tatchell or Anjem Choudary, I might object or protest on the basis of what they had said, or, y'know, just not go.

Here, the total privileging of feelings, the mere possibility of hypothetical discomfort from the presence of someone at a debating society, led to the cancellation of an invite to a noted scholar (whatever one may think of Dawkins). That is not going to lead to students learning anything positive. Quite the opposite, in fact.

It is a capitulation to emotionalism, and pure intellectual and moral cowardice.

His views on Islam and sexual assault were explicitly referenced in the society's statement. You would have had to go to a primary source to get that though, sorry.

I didn't see any statements on the society's pages. Apparently there is one on the auditor's personal Instagram page, but that seems to be private right now.

All you're doing is posting right wing tabloid opinion pieces.

Something a bit more highbrow so:

Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in "anti-intellectual times", posted a while back.

A couple of responses to Butler's drivel:
Unherd.com - The intellectual shabbiness of Judith Butler
Feminist Current - Judith Butler resurfaces to remind the world she is a fraud
The Guardian - Feminists like me aren't anti-trans – we just can't discard the idea of 'sex'

Schweizer Monat - How «woke» activism took over universities and descended into street riots - haven't read this yet, but it's by Heather Heying, so it should be interesting.

I disagree. 'Shutting down' anyone for debate because of the possibility of offence is anti-intellectual and stifles the capacity for individuals to make up their own minds. There are dozens of so-called 'intellectuals' and 'academics' whom I find loathsome and of limited, if any, merit, but who am I or anyone else to 'cancel them'? Whether it's (In my opinion) morons from Mike Isaacson to deluded anti-historians like Irving, let them speak. They'll stimulate debate either way.

Stalin would have approved if the smelly auld cunt was still around.

Surely the society that booked him are within their rights to cancel that invitation? What's lamentable, as I said at the outset, is that they gave such a predictable reason rather than taking the opportunity to state, "Upon closer inspection, we see that this man hasn't said anything of interest in over 10 years and as such doesn't meet our standards." Pity!

So you're in a roundabout way defending them but the point is they DID cancel him from what I've read. Maybe I'm wrong? If he's shite all well and good but they didn't book him or cancel him with any of that in mind. As such I don't get the roundabout defence of it. Is it wrong or is it right to cancel people because they hurt your feelings? Well maybe it is at times, but not for the fannypad reasons these arseholes give these days. I could get why cancelling some guy pedalling hate speech might be cancelled, but now, people who are clearly not of that ilk are getting labelled with it. What needs to happen is for these people to start suing the fuck out of groups that start throwing labels like racism at them. As it is these pricks are given a  rein.

Is it wrong or is it right to cancel people because they hurt your feelings?

That's really the most interesting question that could be asked here, if you think about it "beyond" the surface. There's a much more interesting conversation to be had that goes past the same old knee-jerk reactions of "Cancel!" "OMG those snowflakes cancelled!" Personally, I don't think "cancelling" people helps in encouraging the public towards better thinking, not at all. But then I think that Dawkins has been truly awful over the last 10 to 15 years for the same reason; he arms assholes with pithy logical quips but doesn't do anything to provide the intelligence needed to contextualize them. That's not better thinking, that's idiots with splatter guns. Nor was he being invited to "debate", since in any case he's not too keen on debate himself, so there was no opportunity for this to be like a Buckley vs Chomsky, or Buckley vs Baldwin affair (Buckley got around back in the day!), or even Russell vs Copleston. In fact, I'd recommend having a read of that last debate and trying to imagine Dawkins being anywhere near capable of such a balance of poise and precision, if even he deigned it worthwhile to engage with his opponent. Dawkins has literally lost the plot; he's wantonly offensive and thinks he has intelligence on his side in doing so (see again his own blog defence above). So, yes, cancelling is "wrong" in the sense that it's bad for collective intelligence. But Dawkins is "wrong" for precisely the same reason. So two wrongs don't make a right, but it is worth, I think, noting that Dawkins would have brought nothing worth hearing, more offense than intelligence, with no real opponent in front of him as challenge to balance things out, unless he was going to buck an over 10 year trend, which at his age and rigidity of thought seems highly unlikely.

That they wasted an opportunity to lay all this out is regrettable; that too was a wasted opportunity for getting people to think more deeply. "We have cancelled Dawkins because we can't find trace of true intelligence in his communications in the last 10 years, only offensiveness. We're not interested in giving a platform to gratuitous offense, all the more so if it has lost any foothold in intelligence. What is there to be gained?"

It turns out that The Hist has been exposed as being "complicit in racism," as having "caused great harm, inflicted great harm," "platforming racist individuals," and even "perpetuated systemic racism towards" their own members. Cancel The Hist! Dawkins dodged a bullet there, nearly becoming associated these dreadful racists.

Well, actually they exposed themselves as having committed all that racism in a statement following the unfortunate death of some guy on another continent by cardiac arrest exacerbated by heavy drug intoxication. Guess their guilty consciences just got too much for them.

But can they really think they can even begin to make amends for their past crimes with such laughable gestures as replacing Dawkins with Dr Ebun Joseph, and expect the rest of the world to just shrug and let them continue on as The Hist with such an appalling legacy forever hanging over them? Burn it down, trample the ashes into the dirt, it is the only way to expunge the evil of the past.

Also, that tweet incident I posted his blog defence to, that's one of the reasons the Hist gave for cancelling. Y'all were up in arms before even being aware of what it contained! I'd imagine that's the case with most people knee-jerk going on about SJWs gone mad. Objectively, some of the things he's said about Islam are just as devoid of intelligence; just an asshole being a smart-arse. The guy has become an idiot; an offensive, blinkered idiot. That's what's getting lost here behind the reflex of reacting the same way to every circumstance rather than investigating case by case. If you had someone coming to a dinner party, invited by someone who was no longer coming, and then you read that rape / paedophile thing, wouldn't you consider asking them not to come?? I would. Who needs that shit?

Explicitly disinviting Dawkins for his views or past tweets would be one thing, but they didn't really do that. They did refer to "harmful statements" by him without specifying what they were (that I see), or exactly what kind of harm they supposedly caused. The society actually apologise for having caused "discomfort" and "distress" themselves with the invite. "The comfort of our membership is paramount" - Jesus wept.

I did like this from some lad on Facebook: "I am so glad you cancelled the invitation to Richard Dawkins. This is a man who has consisently attacked Christianity and the Bible. He has consistently called Christians stupid and deluded. At last, people are realising that anti-Christian hatred must not be given a platform."

Richard Dawkins Deplatforming & The Hist's Cultural Revolution

World's oldest student debate club disinvites Richard Dawkins to protect the 'comfort' of its members

The delicate flowers of Trinity's Historical Society have pathetically revoked an invitation to Richard Dawkins:

Spiked - Now they've No Platformed Richard Dawkins
TAC - Wokeness Comes For Dawkins

Latest on that story above: Teenager in custody charged with threats to kill two people

Ms Kardashian was "very anxious she be detained in a prison facility for females, as she identifies as a female," Ms Finan told the court.

^ what believing the "just be kind" voices has led to.

Any of you seen the story in the news yesterday about the gardai warning of a dangerous teenage girl being released in to the public, people have posted the court documents online and it turns out it's actually a biological male who identifies as a female, but the gardai and media never originally released that info. The whole trans debates going to get interesting...

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gardai-issue-alert-around-the-country-as-homicidal-teen-to-be-released-39558022.html

It's a horrifying, appalling story on every level. There's some background on this extremely dangerous and disturbed individual here, and more in the court report here (PDF). Some of the press stories mentioned reporting restrictions, but it still hard to understand the failure to report facts stated in court. As things stand in this country right now, this person's crimes are reported as a "woman's crimes" and, if detained again, they will be held in a women's prison just like this sexual offender.

But of course this kind of thing just "never happens" (and if it does you won't hear about it), and there are no problems at all stemming from Ireland's sneaked-through laws on self-ID.

I use to use adblock but it's gone to shit over the last few months showing adverts on youtube and even on websites like discogs.

In Firefox with Adblock? The Opera and Brave browsers have adblocking features built-in and they block ads on most sites. They don't have the same range of add-ons as Firefox though. There shouldn't be any ads visible on Discogs when logged in AFAIK.

I find NewPipe very good for YouTube on Android. Full-featured, lightweight (~20 MB), blocks ads, and it plays audio in the background or video in a popout window.

https://newpipe.schabi.org/

Those are class, love that style. The closing track,

The Beast Inside, is brilliant too.

Gorecki: Symphony 3, Op.36

(also known as 'The symphony of sorrowful strings')

And, as a bonus, there's a version with Beth Gibbons from Portishead!

Lisa Gerrard has just released a version too, arranged for her lower vocal register. I had a listen to it there, even streaming on a phone it sounds great. Another very worthwhile interpretation, along with Gibbons' one.

My favourite recording of that incredible symphony is the one on Naxos with Zofia Kilanowicz, though, far better (imo) than the most famous one with Dawn Upshaw.

This is a good tribute to the man and his music: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-homeric-life-neil-peart-1952-2020/

Chopin, nocturnes (various), Igor Stravinsky, the rites of Spring.

Chopin's Nocturnes are sublime. Loads of great interpretations around, Maria João Pires is one I can recommend.

Bach is one of the most incredible composers ever, his stuff is otherworldy. The Goldberg Variations on piano are a good starting point. Glenn Gould's first 1955 recording is virtousic, his 1981 version more considered and introspective. Both are quite idiosyncratic, though, and Gould's audible humming on the later one can be offputting. The best performer of Bach's keyboard works I've come across is Roslyn Tureck, she plays them (beautifully) at a slower pace than others which allows the composer's genius to come to the fore.

A modern composer to hear is the Estonian Arvo Pärt. I remember years ago reading Björk saying something like his music reminds us that there is another world, and it is true. The ECM label brought him to prominence in the West, and their first album of his, Tabula Rasa, is essential if you like his style. Here's Fratres for violin and piano:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gmgM_HgZmNc

Cult of Luna - A Dawn to Fear
Esoteric - A Pyrrhic Existence
Reido - Anātman
Sunn O))) - Life Metal / Pyroclasts
Tool - Fear Inoculum
Aria - Guest from the Realm of Shadows (live album)

Non-metal:
Adaptatsiya - Oruell
Big Thief - UFOF / Two Hands
Sharon Van Etten - Remind Me Tomorrow
Shannon Lay - August

The comments on the link I posted were actual Islamophobia though, in the sense that they were written by a Christian conservative who genuinely hates Islam for the simple reason that it's not Christianity qua "the gospel".

LifeSiteNews is obviously a Christian/Catholic site, and while the idea that the shooting is "being used to turn [NZ] into Islamic State" may seem overblown, the reaction of the NZ authorities has been excessive and even hysterical, and it is pretty clear that the atrocity is being used as justification to bring in some decidedly "illiberal" measures, particularly on speech. I see little to disagree with in the article itself.

The accusation of "Islamophobia" is another weapon in the Leftist armoury, along with "xenophobia", "misogyny", "homophobia", "transphobia", etc, being used to destroy the reputations of those who express concerns about where we are being taken. And the deconstruction/destruction of meaning ushered in by the "left" over the last couple of decades has left language and words very slippery, with accusations amenable to being ascribed any form depending on circumstances. Everything is about power now, not honest debate or meaning.

For anyone who hasn't seen it, here is the "Proud Islamophobe" t-shirt talked about above. Is there anything on that list that is not inherent to fundamentalist Islam? Is there anything on it that non-Muslims would agree with, or not be concerned about, or that would not cause them to be fearful of having people who hold such views in their country? And would any such "Islamophobia" be rational or irrational?

A bunch of their stuff is up on Bandcamp too, £2 a pop. Tape is the ideal medium for this kind of music though.