feminist says freedom of speech is censorship (video) Oxford university debate

General_Urist · 2015-09-03T17:04:58+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Fiorbeth · 2015-09-03T17:26:23+00:00

Around 7:30 when she makes the claim that he said something and he said that he did not. The first thing she should have done is pull out a sheet with her list of sources and say that you wrote that statement on this day in this column and these are the exact words you wrote.

The fact that she basically told him to fuck off when he asked for her to source her argument really shows how downhill oxford must have gone, not being able to provide a source for a quote in a debate when requested is ridiculous and shows a real lack of any understanding of how debates work. If I had been running the debate I would have told her to leave the debate and not come back until she could provide said sources.

emperorhirohito · 2015-09-03T17:07:54+00:00

This is the standards of Oxford debating? This? This is pathetic mewling. The hypocritical and spiteful braying of the weak and the feeble. The type of person who cannot suffer those who have different opinions, who considers themselves an indisputable moral authority and yet one who demonstrates an utter disregard for the thoughts, opinions and rights of others. She stands in the company of the most privileged people on earth. She herself is privileged to such a ridiculous extent that she is blind to it. Complaining about one man having a newspaper column and how he should step down to allow others to fill his place while not seeing that her views are valued vastly above the views of others. She is the modern left par excellence.

If this is the level of debate in one of our ancient universities then god help British education and academia.

Magnum007 · 2015-09-03T17:06:32+00:00

FREEDOM OF SPEECH! (except if you're a male and/or white)

MrDoradus · 2015-09-03T17:16:16+00:00

I'm a white man and I have absolutely zero access to any platform for me to express myself publicly which this individual claims I have.

And please don't tell me she is a thriving, at least she's given quite a public platform to express her views, student of Oxford University. That would be quite sad.

rottingchrist · 2015-09-03T16:43:48+00:00

Freedom is slavery

IlleFacitFinem · 2015-09-03T17:52:35+00:00

What a shame that this crybaby wagglearms is allowed to stand in front of Oxford Laureates and cry foul and point fingers. Post-secondary education, especially graduate, is become more and more of a ridiculous thought.

Muffinizer1 · 2015-09-03T19:56:21+00:00

This guy's face says everything

Dirty_Delta · 2015-09-03T23:12:40+00:00

That 20 seconds of applause at 3:00 is very gratifying.

2015-09-03T18:28:22+00:00

I would quote some things she said to ridicule them, but literally everything she says is terrible. nothing makes sense, logically. saying someone's choices are inferior is not denying others the opportunity to engage in discourse, i don't even know what the fuck she's talking about, there are plenty fo newspaper collumsn with the views she espouses. just look at the guardian.

ThunderStormDelta · 2015-09-03T18:00:19+00:00

How does anyone take her seriously? She slips Gamergate in there like that will be an iron defence for every argument she has.

Surely she must be a master debater with that level of brilliant intellect. /s

Gstreetshit · 2015-09-03T19:25:03+00:00

Hahhahaha.

Literally, Free Speech is Censorship, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength

20rakah · 2015-09-03T20:25:11+00:00

I recommend watching the playlist from the start

2015-09-03T21:00:14+00:00

Peter Hitchins | Freedom of Speech and Right to Offend | Proposition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trRdlNTbe0k&index=3&list=PLOAFgXcJkZ2zeWTGHpR56tAphiqmTZxjK

Brendan O'Neill | Freedom of Speech and Right to Offend | Proposition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtWrljX9HRA&index=1&list=PLOAFgXcJkZ2zeWTGHpR56tAphiqmTZxjK

Lethn · 2015-09-03T17:23:28+00:00

By the way, that top comment made me laugh :D

2015-09-03T21:20:29+00:00

2:42 - Howling with Laughter.

thrway_1000 · 2015-09-03T18:22:24+00:00

Oxford Union Society’s “Freedom of Speech and Right to Offend” Debate

BioGenx2b · 2015-09-03T19:42:40+00:00

You can hear in another debate about the same segment where she interrupts the speaker and seems to suggest that speech shouldn't be free.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya2nUm6UqLM&feature=youtu.be&t=398

lifeiscooliguess · 2015-09-03T19:43:43+00:00

The Proposition side's reaction

noggadog · 2015-09-03T21:54:48+00:00

With those clothes and that accent she can fuck right off calling anyone else privileged.

2015-09-03T23:32:26+00:00

TL; DW

2015-09-04T00:10:54+00:00

After watching that video, it's like Macbeth said:

"And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

.

dangerousopinions · 2015-09-04T08:08:07+00:00

This is not in my limited experience, typical for Oxford Union debates. They're not always spectacular, but they're rarely rude and hysterical.

Here is a politician arguing a very unpopular position, doing so respectfully, and getting more than the limp wristed courtesy applause this yahoo received.

Edit: The linked video is a great speech by the way.

bhuddamonk · 2015-09-04T08:08:10+00:00

and that was the first speech from Miss Forever Alone 2015.

KarYotypeStereotype · 2015-09-04T11:48:58+00:00

I can't make it through more than a minute of this. She could be reciting Shakespeare and her petulant whine would still be too much for me.

wisty · 2015-09-04T12:00:55+00:00

Is anyone else getting a Dolores Umbridge vibe? https://youtu.be/qMHqxkRYt64?t=25s

Nanpa · 2015-09-04T16:12:37+00:00

Oxford student checking in here. This debate is from the Oxford Union, its not an official university thing. It is the little corrupt mini government type organisation within oxford where all our prime ministers go during their university years. To be honest its full of many posh pricks who are up their own arses and just do these debates to get their name known more so they get more votes in the union committee election.

lifeson106 · 2015-09-04T16:29:21+00:00

Damn, that bitch is ugly and annoying

TheLeftIncarnate · 2015-09-05T01:33:43+00:00

So can a proper discussion on the statement "(absolute) freedom of speech (can be) censorship" be had here? This isn't a prima facie untenable position. Imagine I'm the king and you are not. My Kingdom in principle has absolute freedom of speech, but the difference between me and you is that my free speech is in the newspapers and directs the society of my country, and yours happens on an upturned crate in an alley. And if your position were in any way subversive, I wouldn't even have to arrest you, I just can drown you out, or perhaps instigate violence against you. And you know this, so you won't say what you want to say for fear.

In this scenario, freedom of speech in practice means that only my speech is uncensored. Your's is literally censored by yourself because it's dangerous, and censored in a metaphorical sense because it's free speech that isn't ever heard. It's a meaningless thing to you. It's a dangerous thing to you, despite there being no law against this.

Now imagine a diffuse cultural norm instead that makes speech dangerous and pointless for you, and then imagine there's lots of you, just not with any power.

You can think this is all balderdash, or fallacious, or by some magic or real process not a problem, but you need to grasp the point first.

Oh and the only person who should debate was the first. Peter Hitches s funny but besides the point, the second speaker made only some sense, but was very passionate at least, the first lady had no coherent argument and the second lady clearly didn't prepare and was just rambling. And I then stopped doing myself harm and turned or off,so whoever spoke last was potentially a genius.

WaitingToBeBanned · 2015-09-09T12:24:30+00:00

This is comedy gold.

2015-10-14T05:13:17+00:00

Video is set to private now??

redditorriot · 2015-09-04T06:06:32+00:00

Came here to preempt what I was about to see with -"It's a debate, they have to take a particular side".

Then I watched it. And she clearly means what she says.

Does Oxford Uni know that they have a racist, sexist, authoritarian sociopath in their midst?

redditorriot · 2015-09-04T07:02:14+00:00

The closing speech by Ruvi Ziegler was appalling.

It boiled down to "This is what this international law (agreement) says" and "If it doesn't have any social value then speech that sets out to offend should be censored".

Basically, trolling should be criminalized.

Dangerous. Cunt.

Wargame4life · 2015-09-04T09:00:30+00:00

1) its not clear she is a feminist as its a debating society she might be forced to adopt this position.

2) her biggest stupidity is claiming freedom of speech/opinion is claiming "I am not muslim/gay but its fine to be one"

3) her shrill tone and inability to conduct an argument with any form of logical merit, passion is fine provided you have the intellectual clout to make it seem your passion is because your argument is so strong, when you argument is weak or even highly flawed your "Passion" just looks hysterical substitution because you know you don't have an argument.

Wargame4life · 2015-09-04T09:09:42+00:00

my personal favourite bit is her a "white privileged/wealthy woman" attacking "white privileged men" for having a power imbalance of voice so that their opinion or view cannot be countered by the "poor and minorities"

Yet she seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that she bringing that up as an argument as a non poor minority completely invalidates her argument. because she is openly confirming (and proving) that people can will and do champions others causes for the sense of justice and fairplay, so the power balance is meaningless, since those who subscribe to an idea or set of values is not defined by material or ethnic circumstance but by your core values.

or in simple terms, a "white man" arguing that "all white men hate black people and never help them" proves his own argument false.

likewise this woman's vocal opposition to policy proves her own argument about power imbalance false.

GenderNeutralLanguag · 2015-09-04T03:08:32+00:00

There is a point where "freedom of speech" does act as censorship. Just look at feminist activities. Pulling the fire alarm to stop someone from speaking is a form of speech. People standing up and shouting down a speaker is "free speech", it's also a form of censorship.

Hate speech, real hate speech, like the KKK threatening to murder "upidy niggers" stops people from speaking. This is "free speech" but acts as very strong censorship.

When it comes to debates like this, it's important to recognize the kernel of truth behind the avalanche of BS.

Shermanpk · 2015-09-03T23:32:30+00:00

This is very much not a fair assent of the positions of feminists. I think the best method is to read published works and examine the discussion points raised there.

Debates are unfair because (if you are good at least) you can manipulate your opposition into talking ridiculous positions by moving where the debate truly is concerned. Moreover the whole point of the debate is to make the argument against the other side rather than truly engaging.

As to thoe that have poo-pooed the Oxford debating you clearly haven't looked at the criteria debating is judged on. Moreover you often don't have agency over what side of the topic you are on.

Please let's not make this a hate sub. Why not focus on MENS issues and not concern ourselves with what feminists say, to be honest that is what attracted me to the notion of MRA in the first place.
Let's not get down in the mud.

falsehood · 2015-09-04T00:44:43+00:00

I think the logical point is valid, given some precepts.

Let's take the 1890s American South. In that era, when lynching was most prominent, let's say for the sake of the argument that there was a very popular British columnist read by many white southerners.

Let us also suppose that there were many white southerners with deep moral misgivings about lynching, with others feeling ambiguous about it. Specifically: there exists an environment where the words of the columnist impact the opinions of the populace. An abolitionist movement is taking hold, but it is fragile.

Let us then suppose that the columnist writes words in extreme support for lynching (mocking anyone who isn't racist), and that these words are being driven to the telegraph station to be sent, printed, and distributed to thousands of white southerner homes. The success of the abolitionist movement is threatened; in fact, a change in atmosphere may well make it more appropriate to firebomb the abolitionist newspaper offices.

Is it moral, in that instance, to block car in the street or through a court order, seek to prevent the transmissions of the words? Is that morally sound? If you are the telegraph operator, and you know that sending the words may well cause another lynching to happen, are you obligated to resign your office? If you know that the abolitionist newspapers may be harmed by the transmissions of these words, should you stop them if you can?

I am not saying that that is the case; however, I think the argument exists and is sound. The counter-argument is that the mechanisms for censorship are much more likely to be misused. I find that persuasive.

Title	feminist says freedom of speech is censorship (video) Oxford university debate
Author	beansandwich
Upvotes	209
Comments	126
Date	September 3, 2015 4:32 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3ji7s5/feminist_says_freedom_of_speech_is_censorship/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/feminist-says-freedom-of-speech-is-censorship.972072 https://theredarchive.com/post/972072

Comments