Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

For the first time since July Johnson is back on top in YouGov’s “Best PM” ratings – politicalbettin

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited February 16 in General
imageFor the first time since July Johnson is back on top in YouGov’s “Best PM” ratings – politicalbetting.com

One of the most extraordinary polling trends that hasn’t been commented on that much is seen in the above YouGov table of its best prime minister ratings.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • ClippPClippP Posts: 590
    edited February 16
    First. But it does seem to me that those who fail to give a preference are really saying "Neither". I would be in this group.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 52,262
    ClippP said:

    First

    First second.
  • isamisam Posts: 34,994
    edited February 16
    Boris' approval rating was in the 40s in yesterday's YouGov - the first time since August, and the same (41%) as it was in the first poll after he won the 2019 GE. Coincidentally the NS is exactly the same as well (-11%).

    So after the Brexit shambles and the pandemic chaos, he is as popular as when he won his majority. Pretty surprising I'd say



  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 10,018

    Alistair said:

    kinabalu said:

    There's a plan to force students at Uni to listen to gammons -

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55995979

    On the contrary, these are excellent first steps in dispelling the chilling effect of wokeism in our institutions. The preservation of liberty is what a Conservative government was born to do.

    Under the plans, universities would be legally required to actively promote free speech and the OfS would have the power to impose fines on institutions if they breach this condition.

    This would also extend to student unions, which would have to ensure that lawful free speech is secured for members and visiting speakers.

    Individuals would be able to seek compensation through the courts if they suffered loss from a breach of the free speech duties - like being expelled, dismissed or demoted - under a new legal measure.
    So, Universities are banned from teaching certain things but have to allow free speech.

    How does that work?
    Er, where exactly does it say that they're banned from teaching anything? What they're not allowed to do is to suppress the free speech of others.
    I'm fairly sure that any Chemistry department teaching the phlogiston theory as fact is not going to get a good rating from the university equivalent of OFSTEAD.
    FPT

    That's actually an interesting point - whether whoever formulates the proposed law actually remembers that sort of issue. Imagine being banned from Oxford for teaching creationism in the Dept of Zoology, or suing the Uni of Edinburgh for not being allowed to lecture on phlogiston in the Dept of Chemistry. Or homeopathy in the Dept of Medicine.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103
    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.
  • Animal_pbAnimal_pb Posts: 592
    Is this large a "not sure" opinion really believable, though? Is it possible we're seeing the return of the 'shy' voter in these stats? If so, which way are they biased?
  • isamisam Posts: 34,994
    edited February 16

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    "It's the most middle-class obsession ever."

    But you said it was the obsession of right-wingers! :)

  • Carnyx said:

    Alistair said:

    kinabalu said:

    There's a plan to force students at Uni to listen to gammons -

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55995979

    On the contrary, these are excellent first steps in dispelling the chilling effect of wokeism in our institutions. The preservation of liberty is what a Conservative government was born to do.

    Under the plans, universities would be legally required to actively promote free speech and the OfS would have the power to impose fines on institutions if they breach this condition.

    This would also extend to student unions, which would have to ensure that lawful free speech is secured for members and visiting speakers.

    Individuals would be able to seek compensation through the courts if they suffered loss from a breach of the free speech duties - like being expelled, dismissed or demoted - under a new legal measure.
    So, Universities are banned from teaching certain things but have to allow free speech.

    How does that work?
    Er, where exactly does it say that they're banned from teaching anything? What they're not allowed to do is to suppress the free speech of others.
    I'm fairly sure that any Chemistry department teaching the phlogiston theory as fact is not going to get a good rating from the university equivalent of OFSTEAD.
    FPT

    That's actually an interesting point - whether whoever formulates the proposed law actually remembers that sort of issue. Imagine being banned from Oxford for teaching creationism in the Dept of Zoology, or suing the Uni of Edinburgh for not being allowed to lecture on phlogiston in the Dept of Chemistry. Or homeopathy in the Dept of Medicine.
    There's a difference between the materials of a routine course and guest speakers etc

    If a guest speaker wanted to advocate for a modern theory based upon phlogiston (or indeed creationism or homeopathy) then should that be illegal or halted? I'd say no absolutely not, let them speak.

    Existing thought should always be able to be challenged, even if the challengers are wrong. Because sometimes they won't be and that's how we learn and progress.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 10,504
    isam said:

    Boris' approval rating was in the 40s in yesterday's YouGov - the first time since August, and the same (41%) as it was in the first poll after he won the 2019 GE. Coincidentally the NS is exactly the same as well (-11%).

    So after the Brexit shambles and the pandemic chaos, he is as popular as when he won his majority. Pretty surprising I'd say



    FPT.
    Almost every other world leader is similar. The only surprise would be if he wasn't.
  • isamisam Posts: 34,994
    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    Boris' approval rating was in the 40s in yesterday's YouGov - the first time since August, and the same (41%) as it was in the first poll after he won the 2019 GE. Coincidentally the NS is exactly the same as well (-11%).

    So after the Brexit shambles and the pandemic chaos, he is as popular as when he won his majority. Pretty surprising I'd say



    FPT.
    Almost every other world leader is similar. The only surprise would be if he wasn't.
    Well he wasn't for quite some time, as the graph shows
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103
    edited February 16
    isam said:

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    "It's the most middle-class obsession ever."

    But you said it was the obsession of right-wingers! :)

    Working class right-wingers certainly do not care about who speaks at universities.

    For what it is worth, I think the NUS is run by nutters and that the obsession with "safe spaces" and "no platforming" is equally as ridiculous.

    But to be THAT bothered about who speaks at universities that you advocate using valuable legislative time to actually make laws about it, Jesus Christ.

    It's pathetic.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 10,018

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    Not so sure. It's great fodder for the DM and Guido. Whose readers would - to agree with you - normally not give a shite for what sociologists teach in Unis, any more than they would care about the doctrines of Theravada Buddhism or the proton pump in mitochondria.
  • The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    Your first sentence is obviously untrue. If it were only the obsession of right-wingers who want free speech for all, then there would be free speech for all and that would be the end of the matter. There'd be no further issue, no war, no conflict.

    The only reason conflict could possibly exist is if there exists people who wish to deny the right to speak to others? If people exist who think that "No Platform" is appropriate. Do you deny that?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 38,768
    RobD said:

    ClippP said:

    First

    First second.
    The first second is the first loser.....
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 10,504
    Carnyx said:

    Alistair said:

    kinabalu said:

    There's a plan to force students at Uni to listen to gammons -

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55995979

    On the contrary, these are excellent first steps in dispelling the chilling effect of wokeism in our institutions. The preservation of liberty is what a Conservative government was born to do.

    Under the plans, universities would be legally required to actively promote free speech and the OfS would have the power to impose fines on institutions if they breach this condition.

    This would also extend to student unions, which would have to ensure that lawful free speech is secured for members and visiting speakers.

    Individuals would be able to seek compensation through the courts if they suffered loss from a breach of the free speech duties - like being expelled, dismissed or demoted - under a new legal measure.
    So, Universities are banned from teaching certain things but have to allow free speech.

    How does that work?
    Er, where exactly does it say that they're banned from teaching anything? What they're not allowed to do is to suppress the free speech of others.
    I'm fairly sure that any Chemistry department teaching the phlogiston theory as fact is not going to get a good rating from the university equivalent of OFSTEAD.
    FPT

    That's actually an interesting point - whether whoever formulates the proposed law actually remembers that sort of issue. Imagine being banned from Oxford for teaching creationism in the Dept of Zoology, or suing the Uni of Edinburgh for not being allowed to lecture on phlogiston in the Dept of Chemistry. Or homeopathy in the Dept of Medicine.
    Or indeed for being a doctor and refusing a vaccine.
    Some of those most forthright about "cancel culture" coincidentally see that as a case for summary dismissal and disbarring.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,156

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    +100. All these crusaders against "wokism" are essentially racists, sexists, homophobes and/or transphobes who are sad that most people don't tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia or transphobia any more.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 10,018

    Carnyx said:

    Alistair said:

    kinabalu said:

    There's a plan to force students at Uni to listen to gammons -

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55995979

    On the contrary, these are excellent first steps in dispelling the chilling effect of wokeism in our institutions. The preservation of liberty is what a Conservative government was born to do.

    Under the plans, universities would be legally required to actively promote free speech and the OfS would have the power to impose fines on institutions if they breach this condition.

    This would also extend to student unions, which would have to ensure that lawful free speech is secured for members and visiting speakers.

    Individuals would be able to seek compensation through the courts if they suffered loss from a breach of the free speech duties - like being expelled, dismissed or demoted - under a new legal measure.
    So, Universities are banned from teaching certain things but have to allow free speech.

    How does that work?
    Er, where exactly does it say that they're banned from teaching anything? What they're not allowed to do is to suppress the free speech of others.
    I'm fairly sure that any Chemistry department teaching the phlogiston theory as fact is not going to get a good rating from the university equivalent of OFSTEAD.
    FPT

    That's actually an interesting point - whether whoever formulates the proposed law actually remembers that sort of issue. Imagine being banned from Oxford for teaching creationism in the Dept of Zoology, or suing the Uni of Edinburgh for not being allowed to lecture on phlogiston in the Dept of Chemistry. Or homeopathy in the Dept of Medicine.
    There's a difference between the materials of a routine course and guest speakers etc

    If a guest speaker wanted to advocate for a modern theory based upon phlogiston (or indeed creationism or homeopathy) then should that be illegal or halted? I'd say no absolutely not, let them speak.

    Existing thought should always be able to be challenged, even if the challengers are wrong. Because sometimes they won't be and that's how we learn and progress.
    The trouble is that 99% of challengers are wrong - it's a tiny minority who are right. So why let them waste time when ther eis so much in the course? It's curious coming from a political party with a utilitarian philosophy too. If I were a student paying my costs I'd be pissed off at seeing 100 phlogiston and homoeopathy comedians for, say, every Mitchell with his proton pump hypothesis.

    Also - any decent uni teacher includes controversies and opposing theories andf makes the student attempt to assess them, anyway. Fior instance, why might homoeopathy have seemed to be successful when it was introduced?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    Your first sentence is obviously untrue. If it were only the obsession of right-wingers who want free speech for all, then there would be free speech for all and that would be the end of the matter. There'd be no further issue, no war, no conflict.

    The only reason conflict could possibly exist is if there exists people who wish to deny the right to speak to others? If people exist who think that "No Platform" is appropriate. Do you deny that?
    I've said on multiple times that Student Unions are generally run by nutters and that "no platforming" is never appropriate.

    But nobody cares because Student Unions are meaningless. This is about petty student political squabbles. 99%+ of students are not interested in any of this on both sides of the argument. They just want to get pissed, have lots of sex, get a 2:1, and get a job.

    As I said in the last thread, this is "Oxford Union" people growing up and thinking the "Oxford Union" is the entire world. It isn't.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 38,768
    The 7 day average of deaths per day is down to 621. We should get below 500 this week - I'm targeting sub-475 (just). Anything better than that will be a top result and very promising.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 29,998

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    It’s an obsession of bitter left-wingers, and has been for years.

    They’re now getting really upset at a little pushback against their aggressive cancel culture.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 39,354
    V interesting thread. Apologies if it has already been posted here:

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 10,018
    edited February 16
    dixiedean said:

    Carnyx said:

    Alistair said:

    kinabalu said:

    There's a plan to force students at Uni to listen to gammons -

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55995979

    On the contrary, these are excellent first steps in dispelling the chilling effect of wokeism in our institutions. The preservation of liberty is what a Conservative government was born to do.

    Under the plans, universities would be legally required to actively promote free speech and the OfS would have the power to impose fines on institutions if they breach this condition.

    This would also extend to student unions, which would have to ensure that lawful free speech is secured for members and visiting speakers.

    Individuals would be able to seek compensation through the courts if they suffered loss from a breach of the free speech duties - like being expelled, dismissed or demoted - under a new legal measure.
    So, Universities are banned from teaching certain things but have to allow free speech.

    How does that work?
    Er, where exactly does it say that they're banned from teaching anything? What they're not allowed to do is to suppress the free speech of others.
    I'm fairly sure that any Chemistry department teaching the phlogiston theory as fact is not going to get a good rating from the university equivalent of OFSTEAD.
    FPT

    That's actually an interesting point - whether whoever formulates the proposed law actually remembers that sort of issue. Imagine being banned from Oxford for teaching creationism in the Dept of Zoology, or suing the Uni of Edinburgh for not being allowed to lecture on phlogiston in the Dept of Chemistry. Or homeopathy in the Dept of Medicine.
    Or indeed for being a doctor and refusing a vaccine.
    Some of those most forthright about "cancel culture" coincidentally see that as a case for summary dismissal and disbarring.
    Quite.

    By the way - was there ever any discussion of one rather obvious reason for doctors, especially BAME ones, declining a vaccine - that they had already had the bug (being in a high risk part of a high risk job) and were happy to wait a little longer to see how the vaccines shook out? I tried to raise it but there was lots of stuff about juju and so on and I don't knoiw if my point was considered.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103
    Sandpit said:

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    It’s an obsession of bitter left-wingers, and has been for years.

    They’re now getting really upset at a little pushback against their aggressive cancel culture.
    Imagine being a grown up and getting upset about what less than 1% of students do in Student Unions. It's pathetic man.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 38,768
    Boris finally getting his mojo back. He seems to have been crushed by Covid, both nationally and personally. Hoping both worries are now behind him.
  • isamisam Posts: 34,994
    edited February 16
    rpjs said:

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    +100. All these crusaders against "wokism" are essentially racists, sexists, homophobes and/or transphobes who are sad that most people don't tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia or transphobia any more.
    It seems to me that what people, described as the "loony Left", were advocating via the ILEA/GLC in the eighties is now accepted as the norm by society at large. I would say though, maybe there is something in the human condition, evolutionary -wise, to be sceptical of alternatives to the status quo, and that scepticism might be a necessary good thing in the long term. It makes those proposing them tighten their arguments, and reconsider their position before pressing on maybe.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 10,504
    edited February 16
    Duplicate.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 10,504
    isam said:

    dixiedean said:

    isam said:

    Boris' approval rating was in the 40s in yesterday's YouGov - the first time since August, and the same (41%) as it was in the first poll after he won the 2019 GE. Coincidentally the NS is exactly the same as well (-11%).

    So after the Brexit shambles and the pandemic chaos, he is as popular as when he won his majority. Pretty surprising I'd say



    FPT.
    Almost every other world leader is similar. The only surprise would be if he wasn't.
    Well he wasn't for quite some time, as the graph shows
    Yep. My point is that it seems to be echoed around the world. Scott Morrison, Trudeau, Ardern, the CDU, Sanchez, even Macron. Different politics, different Covid responses, different outcomes.
    Yet they would all be re elected tomorrow, just like Johnson.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,026

    V interesting thread. Apologies if it has already been posted here:

    is a very important one.

    As both departments (even though they share buildings in places like Newcastle) have fundamental reasons why they won't trust the other department with their data.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103
    You can disagree with cancel culture, like I do, without getting yourself in a tizzy about the invisible enemy which are "student unions".

    Here's a spoiler for you: student unions are meaningless and irrelevant. Nobody cares about them other than you, weirdly. It's weird.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 2,534

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    Very interesting that Mr Gallowgate says "Nobody cares". But he cares enough to do this: to suggest that it is a concern (obsession) of right wingers only, when the allegation (rightly or wrongly) is that the obsession is shown by those more to the left or of wokeish persuasion who are no-platforming those they disagree with. Is Gallowgate saying it doesn't happen or that it happens but doesn't matter?

  • LeonLeon Posts: 2,474
    fpt for StuartinRomford

    "Anyone who wants to hear the thoughts of (say) Jordan B. Peterson can easily do so with a couple of clicks on the internet.

    Hardly anyone does, in the same way that hardly any uni students go and see him in person."



    *Hardly anyone* is an interesting definition of "millions of people"

    Here's one of Peterson's lectures on Bible history (not an obviously sexy subject)

    It has had...... 7.8 MILLION views.




    He is an extremely popular academic. One of the most high profile in the world. Your remarks are laughably stupid.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 3,645
    edited February 16

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    'The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.'

    If that's accurate, then one wonders how many of them merit a place at university at all, or whether their institution merits its title as one.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103
    algarkirk said:

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    Very interesting that Mr Gallowgate says "Nobody cares". But he cares enough to do this: to suggest that it is a concern (obsession) of right wingers only, when the allegation (rightly or wrongly) is that the obsession is shown by those more to the left or of wokeish persuasion who are no-platforming those they disagree with. Is Gallowgate saying it doesn't happen or that it happens but doesn't matter?

    I'm saying it happens at universities and that it doesn't matter because it's a tiny minority.

    Sure you can argue against "no platforming". I certainly do. I think "no platforming" is stupid.

    But if you start describing it in terms of the "loony left" and that they must be "crushed at universities" you're not actually tackling the issue you're simply igniting the culture war. Again.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    'The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.'

    If that's accurate, then one wonders how many of them merit a place at university at all, or whether their institution merits its title as one.
    What are you arguing? That "student unions" shouldn't exist?

    Well to 99% of students the "student union" is merely a place where there is a cheap bar. So what exactly are you arguing?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 2,474
    Or this interview of Jordan Peterson by Helen Lewis



    24 MILLION views.

    "Hardly anyone"
  • algarkirk said:

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    Very interesting that Mr Gallowgate says "Nobody cares". But he cares enough to do this: to suggest that it is a concern (obsession) of right wingers only, when the allegation (rightly or wrongly) is that the obsession is shown by those more to the left or of wokeish persuasion who are no-platforming those they disagree with. Is Gallowgate saying it doesn't happen or that it happens but doesn't matter?

    I'm saying it happens at universities and that it doesn't matter because it's a tiny minority.

    Sure you can argue against "no platforming". I certainly do. I think "no platforming" is stupid.

    But if you start describing it in terms of the "loony left" and that they must be "crushed at universities" you're not actually tackling the issue you're simply igniting the culture war. Again.
    You may think universities don't matter, that education doesn't matter.

    I disagree.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,026

    Sandpit said:

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    It’s an obsession of bitter left-wingers, and has been for years.

    They’re now getting really upset at a little pushback against their aggressive cancel culture.
    Imagine being a grown up and getting upset about what less than 1% of students do in Student Unions. It's pathetic man.
    Even going back 30 years the only way you could get people to attend any talk was via outright bribery.

    I think the only talk I ever attended that didn't have an embarrassingly small number of people attending was a Robin Cook talk and that was because all his son's mates went along...
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103

    algarkirk said:

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    Very interesting that Mr Gallowgate says "Nobody cares". But he cares enough to do this: to suggest that it is a concern (obsession) of right wingers only, when the allegation (rightly or wrongly) is that the obsession is shown by those more to the left or of wokeish persuasion who are no-platforming those they disagree with. Is Gallowgate saying it doesn't happen or that it happens but doesn't matter?

    I'm saying it happens at universities and that it doesn't matter because it's a tiny minority.

    Sure you can argue against "no platforming". I certainly do. I think "no platforming" is stupid.

    But if you start describing it in terms of the "loony left" and that they must be "crushed at universities" you're not actually tackling the issue you're simply igniting the culture war. Again.
    You may think universities don't matter, that education doesn't matter.

    I disagree.
    That's not what I said at all. Try reading my comment.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 10,018
    edited February 16
    eek said:

    V interesting thread. Apologies if it has already been posted here:

    is a very important one.

    As both departments (even though they share buildings in places like Newcastle) have fundamental reasons why they won't trust the other department with their data.

    Er, why the cat and dog impersonation, please? (I did read the thread and it doesn't say why.)

    But - as you say - very interesting. Thanks.
  • isamisam Posts: 34,994
    edited February 16
    Leon said:

    fpt for StuartinRomford

    "Anyone who wants to hear the thoughts of (say) Jordan B. Peterson can easily do so with a couple of clicks on the internet.

    Hardly anyone does, in the same way that hardly any uni students go and see him in person."

    *Hardly anyone* is an interesting definition of "millions of people"

    Here's one of Peterson's lectures on Bible history (not an obviously sexy subject)

    It has had...... 7.8 MILLION views.


    www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w

    He is an extremely popular academic. One of the most high profile in the world. Your remarks are laughably stupid.

    I thought that was a strange thing to say - he demonstrably has a very large audience

    "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos is a 2018 self-help book by Canadian clinical psychologist and psychology professor Jordan Peterson. It provides life advice through essays in abstract ethical principles, psychology, mythology, religion, and personal anecdotes.

    The book topped bestseller lists in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, and has sold over five million copies worldwide"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Rules_for_Life
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,392

    It is interesting to see that the Tory Party has dug a great big bear pit for the Labour Party with the creation of the new post of the Woke-finder General in Universities.

    I expect some Labour MPs will helpfully fall straight into the bear pit.

    My guess is that the Tories have no great interest in the University seats, almost all of which they don't hold (with the exception of NPxMP's Broxtowe).

    They do have a great deal of interest in provoking a Great Woke-Hunt.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 9,331
    Paper databases are more secure than computerised ones.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,026

    algarkirk said:

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    Very interesting that Mr Gallowgate says "Nobody cares". But he cares enough to do this: to suggest that it is a concern (obsession) of right wingers only, when the allegation (rightly or wrongly) is that the obsession is shown by those more to the left or of wokeish persuasion who are no-platforming those they disagree with. Is Gallowgate saying it doesn't happen or that it happens but doesn't matter?

    I'm saying it happens at universities and that it doesn't matter because it's a tiny minority.

    Sure you can argue against "no platforming". I certainly do. I think "no platforming" is stupid.

    But if you start describing it in terms of the "loony left" and that they must be "crushed at universities" you're not actually tackling the issue you're simply igniting the culture war. Again.
    You may think universities don't matter, that education doesn't matter.

    I disagree.
    I don't think you get the point - student union politics is of zero interesting to 99.999% of the students at university - and everyone else leaves the idiots to it treating them with the respect they deserve.
  • algarkirk said:

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    Very interesting that Mr Gallowgate says "Nobody cares". But he cares enough to do this: to suggest that it is a concern (obsession) of right wingers only, when the allegation (rightly or wrongly) is that the obsession is shown by those more to the left or of wokeish persuasion who are no-platforming those they disagree with. Is Gallowgate saying it doesn't happen or that it happens but doesn't matter?

    I'm saying it happens at universities and that it doesn't matter because it's a tiny minority.

    Sure you can argue against "no platforming". I certainly do. I think "no platforming" is stupid.

    But if you start describing it in terms of the "loony left" and that they must be "crushed at universities" you're not actually tackling the issue you're simply igniting the culture war. Again.
    You may think universities don't matter, that education doesn't matter.

    I disagree.
    That's not what I said at all. Try reading my comment.
    I did. You've managed to say half a dozen times "nobody cares" about student unions but its obviously not true.

    I cared about the student union in my day, I was an active member and I went to many guest lectures that were educational, informative or fun. As well as getting pissed. Its not only booze that matters.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 2,881
    Maybe we should do a poll of how many here attended a University debate. As stated on the last thread I only ever attended one and that was because the proposal was in support of the IRA and that was a bridge too far. The room was packed with like minded people. I suspect, but obviously don't know, that the average debate was somewhat more sparse.
  • It does appear that Boris has had a good start to 2021 now Cummings has gone, UVDL has lost the EU's high ground, and the vaccination programme has been a fantastic success

    Also Starmer seems to have gone backwards and at present is invisible
  • eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    Very interesting that Mr Gallowgate says "Nobody cares". But he cares enough to do this: to suggest that it is a concern (obsession) of right wingers only, when the allegation (rightly or wrongly) is that the obsession is shown by those more to the left or of wokeish persuasion who are no-platforming those they disagree with. Is Gallowgate saying it doesn't happen or that it happens but doesn't matter?

    I'm saying it happens at universities and that it doesn't matter because it's a tiny minority.

    Sure you can argue against "no platforming". I certainly do. I think "no platforming" is stupid.

    But if you start describing it in terms of the "loony left" and that they must be "crushed at universities" you're not actually tackling the issue you're simply igniting the culture war. Again.
    You may think universities don't matter, that education doesn't matter.

    I disagree.
    I don't think you get the point - student union politics is of zero interesting to 99.999% of the students at university - and everyone else leaves the idiots to it treating them with the respect they deserve.
    If you don't care then don't have a say and leave the debate for those who do care. 🤷🏻‍♂️
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 10,018
    edited February 16
    Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    V interesting thread. Apologies if it has already been posted here:

    is a very important one.

    As both departments (even though they share buildings in places like Newcastle) have fundamental reasons why they won't trust the other department with their data.

    Er, why the cat and dog impersonation, please? (I did read the thread and it doesn't say why.)

    But - as you say - very interesting. Thanks.
    PS This was also rather interresting and mentioned in the tweets - the problems of [edit] smart recycling bin meesaging (postcodes, of all things, being a killer issue - which is the opposite of what one would expect).

    https://www.tomforth.co.uk/binsandthelaw/
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103
    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,026
    edited February 16
    Andy_JS said:

    Paper databases are more secure than computerised ones.

    Probably not true and they aren't as accessible.

    For example, the Universal Credit system will log, validate and authorise every request to every single record except for some very minor exceptions (database DBAs who all hold high security clearance).

    For performance issues that was changed slightly to allow people access for 10 minutes after the initial authorization is given but that took 6 months of work and explicit ministerial approval.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 2,474
    isam said:

    Leon said:

    fpt for StuartinRomford

    "Anyone who wants to hear the thoughts of (say) Jordan B. Peterson can easily do so with a couple of clicks on the internet.

    Hardly anyone does, in the same way that hardly any uni students go and see him in person."

    *Hardly anyone* is an interesting definition of "millions of people"

    Here's one of Peterson's lectures on Bible history (not an obviously sexy subject)

    It has had...... 7.8 MILLION views.


    www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w

    He is an extremely popular academic. One of the most high profile in the world. Your remarks are laughably stupid.

    I thought that was a strange thing to say - he demonstrably has a very large audience

    "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos is a 2018 self-help book by Canadian clinical psychologist and psychology professor Jordan Peterson. It provides life advice through essays in abstract ethical principles, psychology, mythology, religion, and personal anecdotes.

    The book topped bestseller lists in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, and has sold over five million copies worldwide"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Rules_for_Life
    Yes, it was a cretinously erroneous comment. StuartinRomford clearly couldn't even be bothered to check.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103

    algarkirk said:

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    Very interesting that Mr Gallowgate says "Nobody cares". But he cares enough to do this: to suggest that it is a concern (obsession) of right wingers only, when the allegation (rightly or wrongly) is that the obsession is shown by those more to the left or of wokeish persuasion who are no-platforming those they disagree with. Is Gallowgate saying it doesn't happen or that it happens but doesn't matter?

    I'm saying it happens at universities and that it doesn't matter because it's a tiny minority.

    Sure you can argue against "no platforming". I certainly do. I think "no platforming" is stupid.

    But if you start describing it in terms of the "loony left" and that they must be "crushed at universities" you're not actually tackling the issue you're simply igniting the culture war. Again.
    You may think universities don't matter, that education doesn't matter.

    I disagree.
    That's not what I said at all. Try reading my comment.
    I did. You've managed to say half a dozen times "nobody cares" about student unions but its obviously not true.

    I cared about the student union in my day, I was an active member and I went to many guest lectures that were educational, informative or fun. As well as getting pissed. Its not only booze that matters.
    Yeah. You're the 1%.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 4,282


    It is interesting to see that the Tory Party has dug a great big bear pit for the Labour Party with the creation of the new post of the Woke-finder General in Universities.

    I expect some Labour MPs will helpfully fall straight into the bear pit.

    My guess is that the Tories have no great interest in the University seats, almost all of which they don't hold (with the exception of NPxMP's Broxtowe).

    They do have a great deal of interest in provoking a Great Woke-Hunt.

    I think most tories would be quite happy to leave things as they are. They don;t really care that much either.

    They are introducing these measures to avoid being outflanked on the right.
  • As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 2,474
    edited February 16

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Gallowgate is the same about trans issues. He tells us the only people that care about the subject are transphobic cranks. He then repeats this same statement in various evermore boring forms, about 390 times, in an evening, showing that, if nothing else he, Gallowgate, really REALLY cares
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.

    This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!

    It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,026

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    Very interesting that Mr Gallowgate says "Nobody cares". But he cares enough to do this: to suggest that it is a concern (obsession) of right wingers only, when the allegation (rightly or wrongly) is that the obsession is shown by those more to the left or of wokeish persuasion who are no-platforming those they disagree with. Is Gallowgate saying it doesn't happen or that it happens but doesn't matter?

    I'm saying it happens at universities and that it doesn't matter because it's a tiny minority.

    Sure you can argue against "no platforming". I certainly do. I think "no platforming" is stupid.

    But if you start describing it in terms of the "loony left" and that they must be "crushed at universities" you're not actually tackling the issue you're simply igniting the culture war. Again.
    You may think universities don't matter, that education doesn't matter.

    I disagree.
    I don't think you get the point - student union politics is of zero interesting to 99.999% of the students at university - and everyone else leaves the idiots to it treating them with the respect they deserve.
    If you don't care then don't have a say and leave the debate for those who do care. 🤷🏻‍♂️
    It's that 0.001% who care and play politics that you and the Government are complaining about.

    Everyone else is far more interested in getting the best degree they can and repaying the loans they've been forced to take.

    So the reality is that you (and the Government) are complaining about something that no one else cares 1 iota about.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103
    Leon said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Gallowgate is the same about trans issues. He tells us the only people that care about the subject are transphobic cranks. He then repeats this same statement in various evermore boring forms, about 390 times, in an evening, showing that, if nothing else he, Gallowgate, really REALLY cares
    I care about putting the fires out in the culture war. You however are very keen to fan them.
  • As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.

    This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!

    It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
    Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.

    If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 46,532
    Still heading in right direction:


  • LeonLeon Posts: 2,474

    Leon said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Gallowgate is the same about trans issues. He tells us the only people that care about the subject are transphobic cranks. He then repeats this same statement in various evermore boring forms, about 390 times, in an evening, showing that, if nothing else he, Gallowgate, really REALLY cares
    I care about putting the fires out in the culture war. You however are very keen to fan them.
    lol. I've been hard at work. I come on here to find that you lot have been banging on about this for hours, especially YOU
  • eekeek Posts: 11,026

    Leon said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Gallowgate is the same about trans issues. He tells us the only people that care about the subject are transphobic cranks. He then repeats this same statement in various evermore boring forms, about 390 times, in an evening, showing that, if nothing else he, Gallowgate, really REALLY cares
    I care about putting the fires out in the culture war. You however are very keen to fan them.
    The culture war is all that the Tories will have left to fight with so they need to stoke the flames as much as possible.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 2,534

    algarkirk said:

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    Very interesting that Mr Gallowgate says "Nobody cares". But he cares enough to do this: to suggest that it is a concern (obsession) of right wingers only, when the allegation (rightly or wrongly) is that the obsession is shown by those more to the left or of wokeish persuasion who are no-platforming those they disagree with. Is Gallowgate saying it doesn't happen or that it happens but doesn't matter?

    I'm saying it happens at universities and that it doesn't matter because it's a tiny minority.

    Sure you can argue against "no platforming". I certainly do. I think "no platforming" is stupid.

    But if you start describing it in terms of the "loony left" and that they must be "crushed at universities" you're not actually tackling the issue you're simply igniting the culture war. Again.
    Sadly the culture war bus has already left. There is already very little space to describe what a neutral, rational and considered analysis of this problem would look like when the simple act of wanting to protect freedom of speech within the law is regarded as a partisan position.

    Pleased to see that we are agreed that attacks on free speech are real. We disagree about its significance. Recent events in the USA suggest that freedom is a fragile plant, and that the time to deal carefully with fascistic mentalities is now, soon and always. Freedom is always a work in progress.

  • Leon said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Gallowgate is the same about trans issues. He tells us the only people that care about the subject are transphobic cranks. He then repeats this same statement in various evermore boring forms, about 390 times, in an evening, showing that, if nothing else he, Gallowgate, really REALLY cares
    I care about putting the fires out in the culture war. You however are very keen to fan them.
    If you want to put out the fires then you should support free speech. Let everyone speak for themselves and there's no culture war, just debate.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,392


    It is interesting to see that the Tory Party has dug a great big bear pit for the Labour Party with the creation of the new post of the Woke-finder General in Universities.

    I expect some Labour MPs will helpfully fall straight into the bear pit.

    My guess is that the Tories have no great interest in the University seats, almost all of which they don't hold (with the exception of NPxMP's Broxtowe).

    They do have a great deal of interest in provoking a Great Woke-Hunt.

    I think most tories would be quite happy to leave things as they are. They don;t really care that much either.

    They are introducing these measures to avoid being outflanked on the right.
    My guess is that the Tories would prefer to fight the next election over pronouns rather than poverty.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.

    This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!

    It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
    Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.

    If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
    Laughable.

    The Universities Minister should concentrate on things of real importance for example mental health provision, improving university standards, tuition fee reform. Literally anything is a more valuable use of time than this culture war nonsense.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 29,998

    Sandpit said:

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    It’s an obsession of bitter left-wingers, and has been for years.

    They’re now getting really upset at a little pushback against their aggressive cancel culture.
    Imagine being a grown up and getting upset about what less than 1% of students do in Student Unions. It's pathetic man.
    If that’s the word you wish to use to describe yourself, then I’ll happy say it’s pathetic.

    Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of democracy, it’s worth an awful lot of fighting over.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 10,504
    kjh said:

    Maybe we should do a poll of how many here attended a University debate. As stated on the last thread I only ever attended one and that was because the proposal was in support of the IRA and that was a bridge too far. The room was packed with like minded people. I suspect, but obviously don't know, that the average debate was somewhat more sparse.

    They are very popular at Oxbridge and the LSE.
    Most politicians went to those, and participated vigorously in them.
    Most normal people didn't and didn't.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,026

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.

    This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!

    It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
    Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.

    If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
    But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.

    Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.

    The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.

    It's the most middle-class obsession ever.

    It’s an obsession of bitter left-wingers, and has been for years.

    They’re now getting really upset at a little pushback against their aggressive cancel culture.
    Imagine being a grown up and getting upset about what less than 1% of students do in Student Unions. It's pathetic man.
    If that’s the word you wish to use to describe yourself, then I’ll happy say it’s pathetic.

    Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of democracy, it’s worth an awful lot of fighting over.
    This isn't "freedom of speech" Its old men crying that their old university student's union won't invite the man they "support" to come speak. Who cares?

    It's like crying "freedom of speech" when the teacher tells you off in the playground for bullying another student. It's juvenile.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 3,645
    Leon said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Gallowgate is the same about trans issues. He tells us the only people that care about the subject are transphobic cranks. He then repeats this same statement in various evermore boring forms, about 390 times, in an evening, showing that, if nothing else he, Gallowgate, really REALLY cares
    Yes, he spends inordinate amounts of time and energy telling us about why no one should ever care about these issues and how they don't matter at all ... without ever seeing the obvious discrepancy between his claims and his behaviour. An odd kind of aggressive apathy, if you will.
  • As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.

    This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!

    It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
    Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.

    If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
    Laughable.

    The Universities Minister should concentrate on things of real importance for example mental health provision, improving university standards, tuition fee reform. Literally anything is a more valuable use of time than this culture war nonsense.
    Freedom of speech is of real importance.

    That we even need to debate this, rather than reflexively saying "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is tragic.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 4,282


    It is interesting to see that the Tory Party has dug a great big bear pit for the Labour Party with the creation of the new post of the Woke-finder General in Universities.

    I expect some Labour MPs will helpfully fall straight into the bear pit.

    My guess is that the Tories have no great interest in the University seats, almost all of which they don't hold (with the exception of NPxMP's Broxtowe).

    They do have a great deal of interest in provoking a Great Woke-Hunt.

    I think most tories would be quite happy to leave things as they are. They don;t really care that much either.

    They are introducing these measures to avoid being outflanked on the right.
    My guess is that the Tories would prefer to fight the next election over pronouns rather than poverty.
    I don't know about the former, but an increase in the latter is now pretty much nailed on.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 13,996

    Leon said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Gallowgate is the same about trans issues. He tells us the only people that care about the subject are transphobic cranks. He then repeats this same statement in various evermore boring forms, about 390 times, in an evening, showing that, if nothing else he, Gallowgate, really REALLY cares
    I care about putting the fires out in the culture war. You however are very keen to fan them.
    That seems a little disingenuous - as was the comment from someone earlier that the Department of Education was incompetent (or something like it) because it was 'busy waging culture wars'. This complaint about 'getting into trivial culture wars' is exclusively applied to right wing politicians and media figures, and doesn't actually call for a 'ceasefire' or similar by both sides of the debate, it just asks one side to withdraw completely and 'leave the culture to us please'. As such, I don't see how it can be considered a valid criticism.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103

    Leon said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Gallowgate is the same about trans issues. He tells us the only people that care about the subject are transphobic cranks. He then repeats this same statement in various evermore boring forms, about 390 times, in an evening, showing that, if nothing else he, Gallowgate, really REALLY cares
    Yes, he spends inordinate amounts of time and energy telling us about why no one should ever care about these issues and how they don't matter at all ... without ever seeing the obvious discrepancy between his claims and his behaviour. An odd kind of aggressive apathy, if you will.
    I'm just educating you about the real world outside the Oxford Students Union debating society.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 50,313
    edited February 16
    eek said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.

    This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!

    It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
    Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.

    If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
    But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.

    Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
    There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.

    So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103

    Leon said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Gallowgate is the same about trans issues. He tells us the only people that care about the subject are transphobic cranks. He then repeats this same statement in various evermore boring forms, about 390 times, in an evening, showing that, if nothing else he, Gallowgate, really REALLY cares
    I care about putting the fires out in the culture war. You however are very keen to fan them.
    That seems a little disingenuous - as was the comment from someone earlier that the Department of Education was incompetent (or something like it) because it was 'busy waging culture wars'. This complaint about 'getting into trivial culture wars' is exclusively applied to right wing politicians and media figures, and doesn't actually call for a 'ceasefire' or similar by both sides of the debate, it just asks one side to withdraw completely and 'leave the culture to us please'. As such, I don't see how it can be considered a valid criticism.
    I regularly attack culture war-ism on both the left and the right so I don't believe that's fair.

    However I don't think its unreasonable to view an unreasonable amount of focus and fanfair on an issue that affects virtually nobody as anything other than banging the culture war drum.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,026

    eek said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.

    This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!

    It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
    Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.

    If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
    But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.

    Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
    There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.

    So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
    I have an serious issue with both this "culture war" and trans issues.

    Mainly I haven't got a clue what the actual issue is because it's not that people are barred from speaking (the only person I've seen pull that trick is the Home Secretary barring people who have been invited) it's more they are complaining that they haven't been invited (because no one wants to listen to them).

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103

    eek said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.

    This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!

    It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
    Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.

    If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
    But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.

    Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
    There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.

    So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
    This isn't about freedom of speech. This is about whining and bitterness and nothing else.
  • Incidentally despite being a rightwinger I'm pretty "woke": I fully supported gay marriage and advocated for equal protection under the law when I was a uni student two decades ago before civil partnerships were even introduced. I supported the BLM protests last year. I support the right of trans people to transition to their own identity they determine as their choice.

    But if anyone disagrees with me - I 100% respect their right to speak.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 21,833
    Carnyx said:

    dixiedean said:

    Carnyx said:

    Alistair said:

    kinabalu said:

    There's a plan to force students at Uni to listen to gammons -

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55995979

    On the contrary, these are excellent first steps in dispelling the chilling effect of wokeism in our institutions. The preservation of liberty is what a Conservative government was born to do.

    Under the plans, universities would be legally required to actively promote free speech and the OfS would have the power to impose fines on institutions if they breach this condition.

    This would also extend to student unions, which would have to ensure that lawful free speech is secured for members and visiting speakers.

    Individuals would be able to seek compensation through the courts if they suffered loss from a breach of the free speech duties - like being expelled, dismissed or demoted - under a new legal measure.
    So, Universities are banned from teaching certain things but have to allow free speech.

    How does that work?
    Er, where exactly does it say that they're banned from teaching anything? What they're not allowed to do is to suppress the free speech of others.
    I'm fairly sure that any Chemistry department teaching the phlogiston theory as fact is not going to get a good rating from the university equivalent of OFSTEAD.
    FPT

    That's actually an interesting point - whether whoever formulates the proposed law actually remembers that sort of issue. Imagine being banned from Oxford for teaching creationism in the Dept of Zoology, or suing the Uni of Edinburgh for not being allowed to lecture on phlogiston in the Dept of Chemistry. Or homeopathy in the Dept of Medicine.
    Or indeed for being a doctor and refusing a vaccine.
    Some of those most forthright about "cancel culture" coincidentally see that as a case for summary dismissal and disbarring.
    Quite.

    By the way - was there ever any discussion of one rather obvious reason for doctors, especially BAME ones, declining a vaccine - that they had already had the bug (being in a high risk part of a high risk job) and were happy to wait a little longer to see how the vaccines shook out? I tried to raise it but there was lots of stuff about juju and so on and I don't knoiw if my point was considered.
    Yes, that is one issue. Pregnant staff too, which is quite common in a young and majority female workforce.
  • Leon said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Gallowgate is the same about trans issues. He tells us the only people that care about the subject are transphobic cranks. He then repeats this same statement in various evermore boring forms, about 390 times, in an evening, showing that, if nothing else he, Gallowgate, really REALLY cares
    I care about putting the fires out in the culture war. You however are very keen to fan them.
    That seems a little disingenuous - as was the comment from someone earlier that the Department of Education was incompetent (or something like it) because it was 'busy waging culture wars'. This complaint about 'getting into trivial culture wars' is exclusively applied to right wing politicians and media figures, and doesn't actually call for a 'ceasefire' or similar by both sides of the debate, it just asks one side to withdraw completely and 'leave the culture to us please'. As such, I don't see how it can be considered a valid criticism.
    I regularly attack culture war-ism on both the left and the right so I don't believe that's fair.

    However I don't think its unreasonable to view an unreasonable amount of focus and fanfair on an issue that affects virtually nobody as anything other than banging the culture war drum.
    You're only moaning about the free speech defenders here, not the no platformers. So you've chosen a side and are partial.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,026

    Leon said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Gallowgate is the same about trans issues. He tells us the only people that care about the subject are transphobic cranks. He then repeats this same statement in various evermore boring forms, about 390 times, in an evening, showing that, if nothing else he, Gallowgate, really REALLY cares
    I care about putting the fires out in the culture war. You however are very keen to fan them.
    That seems a little disingenuous - as was the comment from someone earlier that the Department of Education was incompetent (or something like it) because it was 'busy waging culture wars'. This complaint about 'getting into trivial culture wars' is exclusively applied to right wing politicians and media figures, and doesn't actually call for a 'ceasefire' or similar by both sides of the debate, it just asks one side to withdraw completely and 'leave the culture to us please'. As such, I don't see how it can be considered a valid criticism.
    For me the culture war does seem to be a look Elephant argument when trying to distract from more pressing but more embarrassing problems that the Government needs to resolve.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 4,282

    eek said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.

    This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!

    It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
    Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.

    If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
    But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.

    Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
    There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.

    So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
    'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.

    What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103

    Incidentally despite being a rightwinger I'm pretty "woke": I fully supported gay marriage and advocated for equal protection under the law when I was a uni student two decades ago before civil partnerships were even introduced. I supported the BLM protests last year. I support the right of trans people to transition to their own identity they determine as their choice.

    But if anyone disagrees with me - I 100% respect their right to speak.

    And so do I. And so do most students. This is simply not an issue.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 13,996

    Leon said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Gallowgate is the same about trans issues. He tells us the only people that care about the subject are transphobic cranks. He then repeats this same statement in various evermore boring forms, about 390 times, in an evening, showing that, if nothing else he, Gallowgate, really REALLY cares
    I care about putting the fires out in the culture war. You however are very keen to fan them.
    That seems a little disingenuous - as was the comment from someone earlier that the Department of Education was incompetent (or something like it) because it was 'busy waging culture wars'. This complaint about 'getting into trivial culture wars' is exclusively applied to right wing politicians and media figures, and doesn't actually call for a 'ceasefire' or similar by both sides of the debate, it just asks one side to withdraw completely and 'leave the culture to us please'. As such, I don't see how it can be considered a valid criticism.
    I regularly attack culture war-ism on both the left and the right so I don't believe that's fair.

    However I don't think its unreasonable to view an unreasonable amount of focus and fanfair on an issue that affects virtually nobody as anything other than banging the culture war drum.
    OK, well I accept that and I withdraw it concerning you, but the general point still stands. I've also just noticed I've splite the infinitive in my post. Blech.
  • eek said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.

    This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!

    It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
    Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.

    If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
    But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.

    Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
    There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.

    So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
    'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.

    What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
    At a university it should do yes.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103

    Leon said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Gallowgate is the same about trans issues. He tells us the only people that care about the subject are transphobic cranks. He then repeats this same statement in various evermore boring forms, about 390 times, in an evening, showing that, if nothing else he, Gallowgate, really REALLY cares
    I care about putting the fires out in the culture war. You however are very keen to fan them.
    That seems a little disingenuous - as was the comment from someone earlier that the Department of Education was incompetent (or something like it) because it was 'busy waging culture wars'. This complaint about 'getting into trivial culture wars' is exclusively applied to right wing politicians and media figures, and doesn't actually call for a 'ceasefire' or similar by both sides of the debate, it just asks one side to withdraw completely and 'leave the culture to us please'. As such, I don't see how it can be considered a valid criticism.
    I regularly attack culture war-ism on both the left and the right so I don't believe that's fair.

    However I don't think its unreasonable to view an unreasonable amount of focus and fanfair on an issue that affects virtually nobody as anything other than banging the culture war drum.
    You're only moaning about the free speech defenders here, not the no platformers. So you've chosen a side and are partial.
    If you were arguing in support of "no platformers" I'd be attacking your argument with the same vigour.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 29,998

    eek said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.

    This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!

    It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
    Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.

    If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
    But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.

    Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
    There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.

    So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
    'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.

    What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
    This is what freedom of speech looks like:

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 29,998
    eek said:

    Leon said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Gallowgate is the same about trans issues. He tells us the only people that care about the subject are transphobic cranks. He then repeats this same statement in various evermore boring forms, about 390 times, in an evening, showing that, if nothing else he, Gallowgate, really REALLY cares
    I care about putting the fires out in the culture war. You however are very keen to fan them.
    That seems a little disingenuous - as was the comment from someone earlier that the Department of Education was incompetent (or something like it) because it was 'busy waging culture wars'. This complaint about 'getting into trivial culture wars' is exclusively applied to right wing politicians and media figures, and doesn't actually call for a 'ceasefire' or similar by both sides of the debate, it just asks one side to withdraw completely and 'leave the culture to us please'. As such, I don't see how it can be considered a valid criticism.
    For me the culture war does seem to be a look Elephant argument when trying to distract from more pressing but more embarrassing problems that the Government needs to resolve.
    Well perhaps those pushing it, who are almost all opposed to the current government, should reflect on your comments.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 3,645
    edited February 16

    Leon said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Gallowgate is the same about trans issues. He tells us the only people that care about the subject are transphobic cranks. He then repeats this same statement in various evermore boring forms, about 390 times, in an evening, showing that, if nothing else he, Gallowgate, really REALLY cares
    Yes, he spends inordinate amounts of time and energy telling us about why no one should ever care about these issues and how they don't matter at all ... without ever seeing the obvious discrepancy between his claims and his behaviour. An odd kind of aggressive apathy, if you will.
    I'm just educating you about the real world outside the Oxford Students Union debating society.
    And yet Boris, a former President of the Oxford Union (the debating society), won a larger share of the vote than any PM had for 40 years, so that hardly seems a fatal impediment to understanding the real world.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 4,282
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.

    This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!

    It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
    Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.

    If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
    But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.

    Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
    There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.

    So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
    'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.

    What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
    This is what freedom of speech looks like:

    Wow. And some people get triggered by Toby Young asking stupid questions about vaccines.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.

    This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!

    It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
    Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.

    If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
    But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.

    Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
    There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.

    So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
    'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.

    What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
    This is what freedom of speech looks like:

    You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.

    We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.

    You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.

    It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.

    This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 2,474

    Leon said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Gallowgate is the same about trans issues. He tells us the only people that care about the subject are transphobic cranks. He then repeats this same statement in various evermore boring forms, about 390 times, in an evening, showing that, if nothing else he, Gallowgate, really REALLY cares
    I care about putting the fires out in the culture war. You however are very keen to fan them.
    That seems a little disingenuous - as was the comment from someone earlier that the Department of Education was incompetent (or something like it) because it was 'busy waging culture wars'. This complaint about 'getting into trivial culture wars' is exclusively applied to right wing politicians and media figures, and doesn't actually call for a 'ceasefire' or similar by both sides of the debate, it just asks one side to withdraw completely and 'leave the culture to us please'. As such, I don't see how it can be considered a valid criticism.
    I regularly attack culture war-ism on both the left and the right so I don't believe that's fair.

    However I don't think its unreasonable to view an unreasonable amount of focus and fanfair on an issue that affects virtually nobody as anything other than banging the culture war drum.
    No one bangs it louder than you, you ludicrous twerp.

    It must be nice having breakfast in the Gallowgate household

    Gallowgate (marching down the stairs in tartan pyjamas): "I'm NOT HAVING LAMB'S TESTICLES FOR BREAKFAST!!"

    Mrs Gallowgate (quietly): "But we're having cornflakes, dear, no one mentioned lamb's testicles."

    Gallowgate: "THERE YOU GO AGAIN. BANGING ON ABOUT LAMB'S TESTICLES. STOP TALKING ABOUT LAMB'S TESTICLES FOR BREAKFAST. NO ONE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT A HOT, TASTY DISH OF LAMB'S TESTICLES. ESPECIALLY AT BREAKFAST."


    Mrs Gallowgate (edging to the door): "I might just, er, nip to the shop for bread."

    Gallowgate: "AH. SO WE CAN HAVE HOT, FRESH, TASTY, LAMB'S TESTICLES ON TOAST?"

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103

    Leon said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Gallowgate is the same about trans issues. He tells us the only people that care about the subject are transphobic cranks. He then repeats this same statement in various evermore boring forms, about 390 times, in an evening, showing that, if nothing else he, Gallowgate, really REALLY cares
    Yes, he spends inordinate amounts of time and energy telling us about why no one should ever care about these issues and how they don't matter at all ... without ever seeing the obvious discrepancy between his claims and his behaviour. An odd kind of aggressive apathy, if you will.
    I'm just educating you about the real world outside the Oxford Students Union debating society.
    And yet Boris, a former President of the Oxford Union (the debating society), won a larger share of the vote than any PM had for 40 years, so that hardly seems a fatal impediment to understanding the real world.
    It certainly doesn't get in the way of being Prime Minister, no.
  • Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.

    This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!

    It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
    Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.

    If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
    But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.

    Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
    There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.

    So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
    'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.

    What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
    This is what freedom of speech looks like:

    That was brilliant and properly exposed the fool.

    Although I dislike Warsi now as she has gone down her own extreme rabbit hole, all parties put up an A List against the fool and they demolished him in open debate.

    Support for the BNP cratered after that. Free speech works.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 2,630
    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    fpt for StuartinRomford

    "Anyone who wants to hear the thoughts of (say) Jordan B. Peterson can easily do so with a couple of clicks on the internet.

    Hardly anyone does, in the same way that hardly any uni students go and see him in person."

    *Hardly anyone* is an interesting definition of "millions of people"

    Here's one of Peterson's lectures on Bible history (not an obviously sexy subject)

    It has had...... 7.8 MILLION views.


    www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w

    He is an extremely popular academic. One of the most high profile in the world. Your remarks are laughably stupid.

    I thought that was a strange thing to say - he demonstrably has a very large audience

    "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos is a 2018 self-help book by Canadian clinical psychologist and psychology professor Jordan Peterson. It provides life advice through essays in abstract ethical principles, psychology, mythology, religion, and personal anecdotes.

    The book topped bestseller lists in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, and has sold over five million copies worldwide"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Rules_for_Life
    Yes, it was a cretinously erroneous comment. StuartinRomford clearly couldn't even be bothered to check.
    Can't be bothered to click the link to the wiki page on the book, but the title leaves me wondering why anyone would want an antidote to chaos. It is what makes life fun.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Gallowgate is the same about trans issues. He tells us the only people that care about the subject are transphobic cranks. He then repeats this same statement in various evermore boring forms, about 390 times, in an evening, showing that, if nothing else he, Gallowgate, really REALLY cares
    I care about putting the fires out in the culture war. You however are very keen to fan them.
    That seems a little disingenuous - as was the comment from someone earlier that the Department of Education was incompetent (or something like it) because it was 'busy waging culture wars'. This complaint about 'getting into trivial culture wars' is exclusively applied to right wing politicians and media figures, and doesn't actually call for a 'ceasefire' or similar by both sides of the debate, it just asks one side to withdraw completely and 'leave the culture to us please'. As such, I don't see how it can be considered a valid criticism.
    I regularly attack culture war-ism on both the left and the right so I don't believe that's fair.

    However I don't think its unreasonable to view an unreasonable amount of focus and fanfair on an issue that affects virtually nobody as anything other than banging the culture war drum.
    No one bangs it louder than you, you ludicrous twerp.

    It must be nice having breakfast in the Gallowgate household

    Gallowgate (marching down the stairs in tartan pyjamas): "I'm NOT HAVING LAMB'S TESTICLES FOR BREAKFAST!!"

    Mrs Gallowgate (quietly): "But we're having cornflakes, dear, no one mentioned lamb's testicles."

    Gallowgate: "THERE YOU GO AGAIN. BANGING ON ABOUT LAMB'S TESTICLES. STOP TALKING ABOUT LAMB'S TESTICLES FOR BREAKFAST. NO ONE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT A HOT, TASTY DISH OF LAMB'S TESTICLES. ESPECIALLY AT BREAKFAST."


    Mrs Gallowgate (edging to the door): "I might just, er, nip to the shop for bread."

    Gallowgate: "AH. SO WE CAN HAVE HOT, FRESH, TASTY, LAMB'S TESTICLES ON TOAST?"

    Your fiction is better than your non-fiction.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 29,998

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.

    This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!

    It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
    Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.

    If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
    But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.

    Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
    There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.

    So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
    'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.

    What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
    This is what freedom of speech looks like:

    You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.

    We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.

    You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.

    It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.

    This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
    Of course it’s a free speech issue.

    One side is in favour of freedom of speech.

    The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.

    Which side are you on?
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 3,645

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

    It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

    If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
    Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.

    This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!

    It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
    Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.

    If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
    But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.

    Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
    There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.

    So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
    'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.

    What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
    This is what freedom of speech looks like:

    You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.

    We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.

    You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.

    It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.

    This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
    Perhaps you could list some issues that you care about, so that we could spend hours of our time telling you that they're meaningless and no one cares about them?
Sign In or Register to comment.