And women. Why is it that you and Martini Enfield keep ignoring the women? Is it that you think the “non-binary” part is the better selling point for people who would be on your side?
Women don’t count, silly!
You call “bullshit” on blanket statements with regards to conservatives, Trump supporters, etc.? Or is the outrage selective?
It’s because I can see disappointment at there being no women in a line-up (again, I doubt it was intentional - the guy may not have known who was in a particular band or would be available from a band for an event) as being reasonable.
But as I’ve said, there’s so few “non-binary” people in Australia as for it to be statistically unlikely the organiser (or indeed most other people outside a university campus LGBTQI alliance) have ever encountered one.
For me, the “non-binary” thing is what moves it from a fair observation (“Mate, there’s no women in the line-up…”) to an SJW issue.
And that’s without getting into the unfortunate reality that if the genders were reversed, no-one would care about people being disappointed a pub gig line-up were all female.
And if that guest happens to be Richard Spencer, or Ken Ham, or Andrew Wakefield, or Peter Duesburg, or espouses some other horrifically wrong and dangerous viewpoint?
This is mildly oversimplified. It’s worth noting that many of those “left-wing disinvitations” were just one person - Milo Yiannopolous, the walking Breitbart comment section, who has about as many useful, valid, and intellectually interesting things to say as… Well, the Breitbart comment section, coincidentally. Sure, the left disinvited more people than the right, but a full quarter of all disinvitations were just one right-wing guy, and that one guy happens to be an abusive, dangerous neo-nazi troll with a history of personal harassment and nothing interesting to say. Milo Yiannopolous should not be speaking at colleges, no matter who wants him to speak there, and criticizing “the left” for disinviting him is disingenuous.
The critique was that there were no women or non-binary people. Or, to put it more succinctly: the actual criticism was that the entire lineup was cis men. Which is perfectly valid. If they were actually complaining, “Hey, there’s no non-binary people”, then yeah, that would be very silly, but they aren’t.
Well, to figure out why that is, first ask yourself, “Why is it a problem that the lineup is 100% cis men?” Then invert the question, and ask, “Why is it a problem that the lineup is 0% cis men?” It’s a bit like why turning Heimdall black is not a big deal, but turning Goku white is.
Depending on the situation, it could be “It’s not a problem that it’s 100% guys” and “It’s not a problem that it’s 0% guys”. Similarly, it could be “It’s a problem this discussion panel on women’s health is 100% guys because it’s not a male issue”, just as it’d be a problem if a discussion panel on “Better outcomes in male mental health” was 0% men because it’s a gender-specific issue and that gender isn’t being represented at all.
In the context of a concert I don’t think the gender makeup of the performers actually matters so I’m not really sure what point you’re making here.
I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here, sorry.
Doesn’t matter. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Yes, blanket statements are nearly always wrong. Whether or not I’ve noticed every single one doesn’t excuse your blanket statement.
So why doesn’t David Duke get invitations? Why doesn’t my racist coworker? Why don’t I get invitations? Are you saying that there’s no reasonable criteria by which a university should not invite someone to speak?
Well, isn’t it bizarre that in a half-dozen bands and probably a few dozen people, you’ve got not a single person who isn’t a guy? It’s like if you had an IT conference and somehow couldn’t find space for a single qualified woman to speak at it. Isn’t that a little… odd?
It’s about whitewashing in hollywood vs. giving “white” roles to non-white actors.
I don’t run a university. I’m not aware of all the things a university may or may not need to take into account before booking a guest. So for me to say there is no possible criteria by which a university should not invite a speaker is ridiculous. All I can say is that, right now, I can only think of one: that no-one on the campus actually wants to hear the speaker.
Why doesn’t David Duke get invitations? Presumably, because no-one gives a shit about what he thinks. His ideas have been examined and have been found wanting.
If, however, for whatever reason you care to conjecture, that process of examination were still ongoing and a student group invited him to give a lecture, the absolute worst thing other students could do is prevent him from speaking. Because that would just make other people more curious to hear what he had to say.
But in the real world, SJWs flip out over far more innocuous speakers than David Duke. Yes or no: Do you think the way the students treated Dr. Peterson in the video in my OP was either fair or productive? If not, why not?
No, not really. Surprising, yes. Unexpected, also. Bizarre… I don’t know, it sounds a bit sinister. It’d actually require effort to decide “No chicks” and I honestly don’t think that was the case there.
Sometimes there’s just more guys (or women) in a specific area/field and while the underlying causes for that might be worth looking into further, that doesn’t change the immediate fact the available pool for the area might be predominantly one gender for whatever reason.
Depends on the conference, the topic, the location, and other variables. On the face of it, yeah, I’d say it would be odd but I wouldn’t ascribe it to malice or a deliberate “No wimminz!” ploy by the organisers, absent other information; at least any more than I would for a primary school education conference with no men speaking at it, for example.
I still don’t have enough information to comment, I’m afraid.
…in 2016 the largest short film festival in the world had only one female finalist out of sixteen contestants. Do you think that “the gender makeup of the directors doesn’t actually matter?” Do you think that the pool of directors might be predominantly one gender for whatever reason, and that isn’t a problem?
Are people wrong to ask the question, “why was there only one female finalist?”
For a large university, that means that there is probably at least one student interested in nearly any hypothetical speaker. Since there are far more possible speakers than speaking slots, then universities must use some criteria to invite some and not others. What criteria is appropriate in your mind? Only interest among the students? That wouldn’t be enough. Some potential speakers would have about the same amount of interest among the students. How should the university choose between them? IMO, it’s entirely reasonable for universities to utilize some qualitative analysis in differentiating speakers, and a speaker who spouts fact-free bullshit, even if they might be somewhat popular to some students, should be less likely to be invited than a speaker whose presentation is reasonable and backed by research.
If, however, for whatever reason you care to conjecture, that process of examination were still ongoing and a student group invited him to give a lecture, the absolute worst thing other students could do is prevent him from speaking. Because that would just make other people more curious to hear what he had to say.
[/quote]
If they’re using violence, then I agree. But non-violent protests? Entirely reasonable, IMO. David Duke shouldn’t get help in spreading his hateful, fact-free bullshit. Universities shouldn’t aid him in that. They shouldn’t invite him in the first place, but if they do, they should disinvite him, and it would be entirely reasonable for students to peacefully advocate for this.
I can’t watch videos right now – if they were violent, it is counterproductive. If they were peaceful, then it might not have been (depending on the particulars).
That’s OK. It’s very easy to summarise. The protestors gathered in the room where Peterson was supposed to speak and yelled “TRANSPHOBIC PIECE OF SHIT!!”, “NO SPEECH FOR JORDAN PETERSON” and “SHAME ON YOU!!” over, and over, and over again. Through megaphones. For about twenty minutes. While also banging pots and pans together and blowing airhorns. Quite literally, they didn’t pause for a single second.
Not technically violence, so…are you ok with it? Was their conduct fair? Reasonable? If not, why not?
This is why I am not sad for disinvited people, whatever the practical approach might be. Some say that we should invite them, and hear them, and question them, but I highly doubt that I would be able to question them directly. If they’re not interested in hearing my side of an issue, I don’t feel the need to give them a pulpit to pronounce theirs.
[QUOTE=Rick Sanchez;20141985 So if all my kids objected to my inviting a speaker to my house, I probably wouldn’t invite him, because I’d have absolutely no reason to. If, however, some of my kids did want to hear the speaker and the rest of my kids didn’t, I’d turn to the ones who didn’t want to hear the speaker and say “Look, some of your brothers and sisters think they will learn something from this guest. It’s unfair to them for me to disinvite the guest just because you are offended by his views.”[/QUOTE]
“Kids, if you don’t want to hear Uncle Harry talk about what he did in the Vietnam war, you can go to your room.”
If the question had been “Why are there no women in the line-up?” that would have been legit, but since the person asked “Why are there no women or non-binary” that’s illegitimate?
That’s weird, since in your introduction of the article and story, you said:
Hmm.
Also, from the article:
“His posts received a combined 20 replies — most of which provided suggestions for why Mr Peadon should care about the lack of female talent on show.”
Hmm again.
The reason I keep coming back to the “raging” comment is that it’s an intensely dishonest way to categorize anything in that article, maybe aside from the fool organizer. Saying SJWs are raging, or hysterical, or frothing, or terrified or anything similar when what we actually see reported is none of those things is fake news. Saying it comes from “internet gaming culture” doesn’t take that away.
By this description, it sounds counterproductive. I’m not sure about “fair” and “reasonable” (quick googling didn’t say much of what Peterson actually advocated for) in this instance.