Jordan Peterson on Question Time next Thursday

The first leader of Pegida UK resigned after his first interview as it went so badly.

No platforming him would have actually helped him by not exposing his inability to debate. As it is, I can only remember the story and not his name.

Beverage? Should be never!

Ive beverage been a fan of no platforming. It annoyed me when people wouldn't share platforms with UKIP. Most of them were racist plonkers and allowing them to air their opinions shouldn't be a scary prospect unless you have no dealings with the general public and believe they need sheltering from people because they are easily led sheep. That sort of contempt by woke lefties makes people hate them and distrust them and be more likely to support people thought too dangerous and popular to speak

I didn't know that about Bindel and no platforming. I know it was a thing in the 8Os that has become the accepted norm among younger people I see / hear commenting.

I am also mostly in favour of free speech. I think the issue with managing 'free speech' versus 'harassment' online gets unnecessarily complicated (the difference between a pub conversation, an ill-mannered comment in a row and following someone round with a megaphone telling them how awful they are should not be that difficult to establish) - and I don't have a lot of time for those people complaining how 'silenced' they are all over the TV and national newspapers.
And I remain faintly amused by poor old Bindel getting no-platformed. She was such a fan of it when it only happened to other people.

Personally I think a poster on here has been using pretty hateful language about Peterson and anyone who has expressed any admiration or agreement with him.

Beyond thinking it says more about the poster in question than anyone else I'm happy to let her rant away.

I think I didn't count those as offensive language because she was using them as examples from what I recall. I think it's OTT to give warnings for stuff like that. To me language is only offensive if you are using it at someone in a negative way not just talking about it calmly and using the words as examples of how language has changed.

There were calls for David Irving to be ‘banned’ yet his Holocaust denying arguments were ripped apart in the academic world before being ripped apart again in the courts. Who listens to him now?

And didn't he previously have a reasonable reputation as a historian? (Wasn't he the person who identified the Hitler diaries were fake?) So he was damned by his own words.

Yes, sorry for lack of clarity.

oh, thank you TrashyTerf

@BernardBlacksWineIcelolly

I think that the "p" word was the derogatory word for "Pakistani"

Agree with that Pan.

It's very "non resilient" to be no platforming and banning folk. Oh and Twitter / YouTube is another part of this. Are they platforms or publishers?

Banning them makes conspiracy theorists look conspired against for a start.

Yes, I don’t agree with unlimited rights to eg racist speech or holocaust denial or homophobic speech. I would see the EDL banned for instance and same with Britain First. So I cannot get on board with a simple ‘free speech is always great’ agenda.

Well maybe we should have a bit more conviction with the strength of our arguments when dealing with the above morons instead of banning them. As far as I am concerned if you give these people enough rope they eventually hang themselves very publicly.

Some people wanted to ban Nick Griffin from appearing in Question Time for his racist views. What happened? He appeared and made a complete arse of himself on national tv before crawling back into obscurity.

There were calls for David Irving to be ‘banned’ yet his Holocaust denying arguments were ripped apart in the academic world before being ripped apart again in the courts. Who listens to him now?

As for your average run of the mill homophobic religious leader or bigot down the pub they are laughed at by mainstream society for the morons they are. Let them espouse their views and let us point and laugh at them.

Banning is not the answer

BabyItsAWideWorld
Peterson also asked who gets to define hate. If it's someone like Owen Jones then there will be a lot of hateful fascists out there to be 'crushed'.

2rebecca
At one point Diane Abbott used the N and P words (which is prissy of me but I'm not going to write the full versions).

He was right about the dangers of curtailing free speech.

We have a clear example: it is exactly what is allowing the trans ideology to take hold.

It's the trans issue, and then JP, that has made me realise that free speech is the fundamental principle that must be protected. My thinking on 'hate speech' has shifted because of this.

Dina Abbot,and the other women, haven't grasped this, with DA claiming 'hate' exists- well yes Diane, that's not what is being said, we know hate exists but do we ban hate?

and the other women banging on about the holocaust anniversary; well yes, so are you saying the way to avoid another fascist state is to control peoples speech and thinking?? Why might that be a bad idea??

Simplistic virtue signalling.

Agree Dimbleby spent far too long on knife crime, especially audience comments and not enough on later issues that are more relevant to non Londoners. People don't watch question time to listen to random audience members. There are talk radio stations if you just want to hear general public opinions on stuff. let the questioner say a couple of sentences and maybe an occasional audience comment but otherwise the panel is big enough (I think too big) for a range of opinions without needing extra voices.

What was the bad language? I'm sure at the beginning I got a "there is offensive language in this" warning but don't recall any swearing although I may just be immune to it

I always quite liked Diane Abbott but have heard too many of her remarks on This Week over the years to really agree with her much these days. She's not been well and she isn't the spark she was, However I think she spoke reasonably well last night. She does have knowledge of working class people which is getting rarer so she grates on me less than she otherwise would.

However the point about there being no true line between speech and action I do find a worrying argument leading to the " words are violence" mantra of activists nowadays.

She's forever looking for the answers on the ceiling tiles.

I really struggle to get past Dianne Abbots finger wagging roll her eyes towards the ceiling style of delivery.

DA also said something along the lines that Glasgow had shown the greatest improvements in knife crime in this country. Perhaps she should endeavour to be more precise in her speech.

I don't see the point of having Peterson here, which is likely to be a one off, and giving him almost no time to speak yet allowing Diane Abbott to drone on at length. It's not like we never see or hear her.

"Wish JBP had had more time to speak (as opposed to Diane Abbott saying she spoke to people who died at Grenfell)"

It was a slip. She meant the relatives of people who died at Grenfell. And she did correct herself.