The PC and Perpetually Offended Brigade

[Emphyrio]

Not knowing anything about the Dawkins cancellation situation, is it safe to assume it's woke students cancelling the event cos they don't agree with his opinions? Like, is that the long and the short of it?

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Dawkins has himself "cancelled" the entire domain of Islamic scholarship, and explicitly so, let's not forget.

[Emphyrio]

Flamin' Allah!

[Pedrito]

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.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

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?"

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

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?

[Pedrito]

I'd agree with almost everything you say there. Why invite him in the first place though? It just seems like these societies/groups etc.want this attention. They enjoy the cancelling element of it. Honestly, I've always found Dawkins' arguments to be almost childish in their simplicity, I never got the hype with him. The tweets are dense. BUT, what is the reason for the cancelling? That's the key question. I would personally say he's not worth listening to in the first place, and, despite that, this event was set up with the express intention of later cancelling it. Maybe I'm way off the mark but it's far from an innocent mistake on someone's part.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

The reason for cancelling was apparently a handover of leadership in the Hist: previous chair invited him, current chair botched the cancelling. I imagine the two are from quite different sets within the Trinity student body!

[astfgyl]

A good solution to the whole thing would be if instead of him simply being disinvited and that being the end of it, he could be replaced by someone with a similar type of argument and let the actual debate continue, just without him as the face of it. That is of course dependent on there being that other someone handy at short notice.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

He wasn't being invited for a debate, just a talk.

[astfgyl]

Ah well that's a bit different then. Who was he replaced by? A debate would be a completely kettle of fish and I misunderstood from the outset what exactly he had been disinvited from.

I suppose as well that in this day and age with the way things are, he should have thought a lot harder about how to frame his arguments if he wants to be speaking at things.

[Eoin McLove]

He should get off the religious topic because it's played out and gong nowhere. He should get back to the science which is where he is impressive.

[kamen]

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

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

All you're doing is posting right wing tabloid opinion pieces. And they can't have done their research too well:

or 'The Hist' as they like to brand themselves now

It's been called the Hist, and their counterpart the Phil, for decades and decades!

[Caomhaoin]

As you consistently insist on reposting articles from a pseudo broadsheet with a tiresome leftist agenda, bit of the auld pot calling the kettle a person of colour there mon p'tit!