Yeah, sorry, I know the so-called radical feminist transphobia didn't originate with Greer, I thought I'd implied that in my comment. I meant that Bindel has a much clearer connection with Greer than with someone like Daly; Greer was pushing her anti-trans line in popular books and trying to be the Voice of Feminism in news media, whereas Daly and especially Raymond were much more coming from academia and for want of a better word specialist feminism.
Good point about not misusing the term fascist to mean just nasty people I don't like. I am classifying EDL that way because I severely doubt their cover story that they are just a bunch of concerned citizens who spontaneously formed a protest group because they were so outraged at al-Muhajiroun yelling at soldiers. I am almost certain there are specifically fascist groups pulling their strings. But that doesn't make them directly a fascist group themselves, and my shorthand was problematic for just the reasons you say.
No-platform as a tactic is definitely a blunt instrument. It doesn't make sense for media outlets, I don't think, it's more applicable to groups that are supposed to be acting in their interests of their members. I think it was the NUS who started the whole No-platform thing, right? In that case, one could well argue that they had more of an obligation to protect their black and minority ethnic students from hatred, than to the abstract principle of free speech.
The trouble is that sometimes the opposite of No-platform sometimes means that organizations have to keep giving time and energy and space to speakers who oppose everything they stand for, because otherwise it's "censorship". That's sort of obviously ridiculous, but it's amazing how often people seem to argue that way, when the org is devoted to improving the position of marginalized people, and the opposing speaker wants to take the current status quo and unbalance it even more towards the powerful group.
My usual glib phrasing is that people have the right to say whatever they like, but they don't have the right to an audience. They don't have the right to the attention of people who are going to be hurt by what they say, and they don't have the right to my attention or my money or my support either.
Miscellaneous. Eclectic. Random. Perhaps markedly literate, or at least suffering from the compulsion to read any text that presents itself, including cereal boxes.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-30 11:36 pm (UTC)Good point about not misusing the term fascist to mean just nasty people I don't like. I am classifying EDL that way because I severely doubt their cover story that they are just a bunch of concerned citizens who spontaneously formed a protest group because they were so outraged at al-Muhajiroun yelling at soldiers. I am almost certain there are specifically fascist groups pulling their strings. But that doesn't make them directly a fascist group themselves, and my shorthand was problematic for just the reasons you say.
No-platform as a tactic is definitely a blunt instrument. It doesn't make sense for media outlets, I don't think, it's more applicable to groups that are supposed to be acting in their interests of their members. I think it was the NUS who started the whole No-platform thing, right? In that case, one could well argue that they had more of an obligation to protect their black and minority ethnic students from hatred, than to the abstract principle of free speech.
The trouble is that sometimes the opposite of No-platform sometimes means that organizations have to keep giving time and energy and space to speakers who oppose everything they stand for, because otherwise it's "censorship". That's sort of obviously ridiculous, but it's amazing how often people seem to argue that way, when the org is devoted to improving the position of marginalized people, and the opposing speaker wants to take the current status quo and unbalance it even more towards the powerful group.
My usual glib phrasing is that people have the right to say whatever they like, but they don't have the right to an audience. They don't have the right to the attention of people who are going to be hurt by what they say, and they don't have the right to my attention or my money or my support either.