Community > Religion and Philosophy

No-Platforming

(1/5) > >>

Kanzenkankaku:
This was briefly touched upon in the Swiss Islamists fleeing to Turkey thread. Someone else said this would make for an interesting topic, so here we are.

I see it as not really being favorable, but understand that no group in particular is obligated to give platforms to anybody. And I especially don't like (as stated previously) when people use threats and violence to remove speakers that were already booked. I understand that a few people here probably disagree, since it's a controversial issue.

Svata:
Obligatory

SomeApe:
Sorry for joining the party late, had work to do and this took longer to write than I thought...

I copy this to here for completion's sake:


--- Quote from: SomeApe on May 02, 2017, 07:10:04 am ---
--- Quote from: SCarpelan on May 02, 2017, 06:45:52 am ---
--- Quote from: SomeApe on April 28, 2017, 09:40:43 am ---
--- Quote from: SCarpelan on April 28, 2017, 09:10:52 am ---Denying platform for Islamic fundamentalists? Well done.
--- End quote ---
Yup! At least one had some control over it, now they go to Erdogan's New Fundie Paradise where they can do whatever they want.


--- Quote from: SCarpelan on April 28, 2017, 09:10:52 am ---It's true that the social climate has a lot of islamophobia and unfortunately it makes it easy for them to play the victim here. Complaining about conservative values is obviously and hilariously hypocritical coming from religious fundies. This shit poisons the social climate even further: using progressive language in their propaganda discredits it and confuses the message it tries to convey separating the echo chambers from each other more.

--- End quote ---
Oh, no, they didn't complain about conservative values! They complained that their own conservative values are used as a reason to suspect them of terrorism.

--- End quote ---

Oops, sorry. The point is still accurate on using islamophobia as a weapon, though.

--- End quote ---

No need to apologise :) It's probably my bad translation that confused you.
I'm still not sure if your "Well done" was meant sarcastically or literally. I first thought you meant it sarcastically, hence my answer, but I'm not sure.
Don't get me wrong, of course it's good to stop fundies but lately I've been doubting the benefit of the "no-platform-policy". Sometimes it works, sometimes it backfires.
But maybe we should start another thread to discuss "no platform" if you're interested.

--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: SCarpelan on May 02, 2017, 09:51:20 am ---Yeah, text doesn't convey sarcasm - or lack of it - very well. In this case my approval is genuine.

If you are interested in discussion about denying platform, go ahead and start a thread. It might provide a bit of entertainment for certain people here who like to use Reverse Paragon as their chewtoy because FREE SPEECH. Personally, I generally support non-governmental actors refusing to offer platform for people who they think are spreading hate and preach for violence. I also tentatively support legal action against worst expressions of hate speech as long as the legal term is strictly defined and doesn't limit fact based criticism.

--- End quote ---

So, thanks to Kanzenkankaku for making the thread and here's my 2 cents:
I first heard of NoPlatforming among AntiFa. "Kein Fussbreit den Faschisten!" - "Not a foot's length to the fascists!" Here, I totally agree with NP. In some cases it's a no-brainer: If it's an illegal group we're talking about, then of course you give them NP. Because doing so would break the law and would get you into trouble. And those groups also can't go around, whining that they don't get their Free Speech because their group is illegal for a damn reason. So, I'm absolutely with the Left here and wouldn't rent my congress space (if I had one, that is) to Neonazis so they can make their rock concert there. (Recent event)

So, here's another recent event from the land where the chocolate and cheese flows:
Some weeks ago, a swiss artist with a degree in literature wanted to organize a debate in a theatre in Zurich. The title of the debate was "Die neue Avantgarde"-"The new avantgarde" It should have been about political jargon, like: what do different people mean when they say words like populism, liberal, or- yes, avantgarde. Invited were two speakers from either side of the political spectrum. Problem: on the right side: Marc Jongen, chief strategist and philosopher of the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). The AfD is a far-right party in Germany. (They may be far-right but you can't call every member a nazi, it's just not black-or-white like that.)

The different reactions from the Left ranged from "Hell no, we don't talk to Nazis, we punch their faces!" over "The left position is too weak. The debate should only be held when the speakers on the left gets changed" to "The debate should be held, but without Jongen". Some people were ok with it, some people said: "We can only lose this debate, so let's not have it" which, in my opinion, is the most idiotic reaction of them all. To make things even worse, it was an artist that often works at the same theatre who took the lead on the opposition by writing an open letter against the project shortly after it was announced. So, now, the theatre reacted by scheduling a "pre-event" a week before the actual event. It should have been a discussion, free for everyone, to discuss how the setup of the debate could be changed to make it acceptable for everyone or if it even should be held at all. Sadly, not just the debate itself but even this discussion had to be cancelled, due to threats from the ultra-left. As you can imagine, this was suberb PR for the Right and especially for the AfD. Oh, did I mention that the AfD is a german party which is not even eligible in Switzerland? So what the fuck was there to lose? The audience of this theatre is mostly Left, I don't think Jongen would have had it easy AT ALL!
Conclusion: The Left fought against themselves, while the Right laughed their asses off without having to do anything. Good job! (And this time, dear SCarpelan, it's meant sarcastically :) )

Lana Reverse:

--- Quote from: Svata on May 03, 2017, 02:54:32 am ---Obligatory

--- End quote ---

Gonna have to disagree with Randall there. The concept of free speech is not limited to the 1st Amendment.

Svata:

--- Quote from: Lana Reverse on May 04, 2017, 04:33:09 pm ---
--- Quote from: Svata on May 03, 2017, 02:54:32 am ---Obligatory

--- End quote ---

Gonna have to disagree with Randall there. The concept of free speech is not limited to the 1st Amendment.

--- End quote ---


Well, that is the extent of your RIGHTS. Anything more is a privilege.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page