Peter Andre on GB News

[Laughattheloons]

This has thrown me. I’ve just seen a TikTok about it. Obviously not a Peter fan but always just assumed he was a decent good guy. Clearly not. I can never ironic Mysterious Girl again

@Underthinker

But that just doesn’t work?? And the fact that it’s a common argument is perhaps because it has a point!
Ok, it’s social media - but it’s still an exclusion. And in this case it’s an exclusion of someone he doesn’t know - a group of trans activists. Blocking out voices, and voices that are not saying anything unlawful - is a direct contradiction of what he is advocating.
It’s an attempt to form an echo chamber, and free speech is not about echo chambers!!

@Underthinker

How would that play out in a classroom? A debate on transgender? If he was consciously or subconsciously blocking one side of an argument? That is NOT free speech!

Andrew Doyle is more than happy to debate with anybody. But he quite rightly will block anyone who has nothing to offer except vile abuse, usually from far left lunatics.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with forcing people to listen to anyone and everyone who wants to talk to them. Doyle can listen to those people or block them. He may talk to them on a different account or a different SM platform, he may prefer to debate them in real life, or to ignore them entirely. It's completely up to him and has zero impact on anyone's free speech.

I don’t know what you mean by in the classroom. Twitter isn't a school. Andrew Doyle isn't marshalling and adjudicating on the global debate on gender.

@MarjorieOsborne

But the example I gave was not anyone actually spouting vile abuse or who had even contacted him.

And what if I took offence to his comedic characters - had media presence and voiced my opinions believing his characters to portray ‘vile abuse’. Is that cancel culture?

@Underthinker

Ok : so free speech = listen to people and block them.

I’ll leave that there I think, I don’t think there is anything more to say!! 👍

You don't know if he'd had previous interactions with those people.

Ok : so free speech = listen to people and block them.

did you mean "= DON'T listen to people and block them?"

Either way that's a logical fallacy. Saying X does not preclude Y, is not the same as saying X==Y.

@Elber
And what if I took offence to his comedic characters - had media presence and voiced my opinions believing his characters to portray ‘vile abuse’. Is that cancel culture?

No that's just a bad review.

He is quite block happy which can be annoying. He's blocked me on one of my Twitter accounts which is annoying as I like him and have no idea why he's blocked me.

But there's no contradiction between his blocking people and his belief in Free Speech. It's something that's regularly brought up by his critics and so he has explained himself (no link because I can't remember where I read it).

Essentially, he doesn't want his timeline and alerts full of posts by people who have abused him or have written something he found irritating.

This doesn't conflict with his commitment to free speech because he doesn't troll them, encourage pile ons, complain about them, try to get their posts removed or try to get them banned.

Ok. Well all I can say is I disagree.

If you want to have a discussion about transgender views and:

1. you have a commentator who includes all voices, listens widely to different views, is not prone to blocking.

2. you have a commentator who blocks trans views, including the views of people he has never interacted with

I mean call me silly, but I’d expect a ‘free-er’ discussion from commentator 1.

Commentator 2 would be refusing to ‘listen’, engage with or consider views from an alternative perspective.

Which to me is more : I’m free to say whatever I want to say, but won’t engage with a view I disagree with. And will kick up a fuss about the ‘woke’ if they challenge MY views. Which is first class individualism.

The definition of the word free - to me - is openness and not an attempt to control the narrative or shut down what you don’t like.

He's controlling his twitter timeline, not his entire experience of the gender or any other debate.

He hosts a TV show where he will invite guests who he profoundly disagrees with. The idea that he is refusing to hear one side of the debate is silly.

I'm blocked and had never even heard of him, let alone interacted with him 😂
Seems lots of people are as well.
I'm definitely not an abusive account either, I'm a very real and very inoffensive person on there 😁

@Underthinker

But he clearly spends a lot of time on Twitter and considers it a useful platform. He has a lot of followers.

That sends a very strong message to his followers. His choices on there would be visible, questioned by others and reported.
E.g. CEO of a trans charity. Never interacted with AD - yet he has blocked me.

But if you equate blocking and shut downs with free speech, that’s fine - but I don’t!

E.g. CEO of a trans charity. Never interacted with AD - yet he has blocked me.

Susie Green? Perhaps he thought she just wasn't worth listening to after her TED talk laughing about how her husband hadn't wanted their gender non-conforming son to "grow up a poofter".

@Underthinker

I’m not saying I agree with her at all. But in a pursuit of free speech you’d need to hear it and say : I align with that/I don’t align with that.
Free speech isn’t about only listening to what you agree with and blocking what you don’t. Otherwise you can’t form a view that considers all sides of the argument.
I thought ‘being offended’ was part of the ‘woke agenda’. Yet why is offence now considered wrong or ‘ok in this situation to block’ in the case of AD free speech advocate?

For those of us who do like Andrew Doyle, here he is at Comedy Unleashed's Scottish Hate Crime Special.

I'm sure AD has heard all the TRA arguments many times. I don't believe he has refused to listen to any particular view. He has just chosen not to hear from some individuals.

I'm not sure why you're still clinging to the idea that free speech is to do with each person being forced to listen to every other person whether they like them or not.

But let's imagine for the sake of argument you were right - AD was a massive hypocrite and never actually personally believed in FOS. So what? It wouldn't mean his programmes on the topic were less good. Maybe David Attenborough secretly thinks blue whales are dicks. Who cares? Neither example undermines the wider ideas of marine conservation or freedom of speech.

Free speech isn’t about only listening to what you agree with and blocking what you don’t. Otherwise you can’t form a view that considers all sides of the argument.

@Elber Fundamentally here you are confusing the ideas of free speech and forming a balanced view on a subject.

Someone can believe passionately in free speech and yet never want to listen to a single opinion from another human being as long as they live, and those things are in no way contradictory.

Ah ok @Underthinker

Because I think it’s better for society, I’ll stick with news sources that provide balanced views on topics.

I’ll avoid GB News if it’s ethos on ‘free speech’ includes blocking views from certain other humans eternally.

In the interests of the Andrew Doyle/GB News style of ‘free speech’, I’m wondering if Mumsnet should have a function where you can just block all the posters you disagree with.

Then you could just live in your own bubble and never be challenged.

But it is contradictory. Fair enough for Jane and Joe Bloggs at home turning off right wing bigotry on the telly, but many institutions do have to listen to other people’s views no matter how much they may disagree with them.

Sure but AD's personal twitter account isn't such an institution IMO.

@Elber
Because I think it’s better for society, I’ll stick with news sources that provide balanced views on topics.

Great which one are you going with?

@Underthinker - but it’s still a representation of his core beliefs. He uses it as his megaphone. And with his many, many followers I wouldn’t say it’s simply for personal use. It’s a medium to express views and interact with others.

A range of news sources. And I wouldn’t necessarily avoid GB News, I’d listen with scepticism. Similar scepticism with Telegraph scientific articles.

But I don’t think it should be about : finding out who you disagree with and cancelling them. The left say the right do it, and the right say the left do it : using language like melts, snowflakes etc. It might give us a short lived feeling of self-validation, but in the long term? Is that the way to make a real difference?