This House believes in the right to offend @ Cambridge Union

[ScreamingMeMe]

Kathleen Stock did well here. Bit embarrassed for some of the students tbh.

You’ve put me off this now. I couldn’t take seriously anyone calling THEMself/ves a non-binary lesbian.

No idea how these people get into CB.

I wonder why no one could be persuaded to oppose the motion as a guest?

Oh sorry, I just read that this person is actually a non-binary bisexual. Goodness knows what this means and who gives a toss anyway?

My personal suspicion is that it means this is a terribly special person, who nonetheless, by the age of thirty will be employed in a highly paid role at the same rate at which male people are usually paid, and probably married to someone female.

What I noticed was that Kathleen and Arif were very respectful and listened to interruptions and addressed them. Kass dismissed one directed at him with a contemptuous glance. The chair should have done a better job at keeping people on topic. That's part of her role. Many years ago I was a member of the Cambridge Union and we relied on the chair and their helpers to keep things in order.

From twitter:

Talking about their 'fear of walking home because of what they wear'.

What a total arse Kass has made of himself when saying this - what the fuck do you think women have had to put up with for generations!

Kass looks 100% male and is wearing traditional male dress. I guess Kass must dress differently at other times or there is no way the above sentence makes any sense? I wonder why Kass chose to dress like a man in a context where males traditionally are treated preferentially.

Kass's comments on 'women in Iran' protesting is misgendering within his world view. How on earth would he know that those people who are oppressed in Iran because of having bodies which can make, or can be reasonable assumed to make, large gametes identify as women?

Rambling nonsense. I wondered if he was stoned? Or was he just overcome with anxiety or just struggles to explain this clearly as a matter of course?

Kathleen Stock does not oppose 'trans rights' and everyone who clapped to that has shown themselves to be more than a bit silly. I thought people who went to Cambridge were bright? Is this really all filled with actual students? That's a shocking indictment of current uni admission decisions.

Kass is just quoting things he doesn't agree with and not even bothering to give any reasons why they offend Kass so much. How is that an argument against 'the right to offend?'. Kass is really going to regret showing himself up like this when he grows up. I'm not sure it's ethical to let young people humiliate themselves like this in public. Perhaps that should be another issue they debate.

Does Kass not give a flying fuck that most of what he says here is highly, highly offensive to women (I mean the cunty type, you know, the type who could be legally raped by their husbands in my lifetime and the type that earn 85% of male earnings)???

God it is tedious when you give misogynists a platform.

Kass is really going to regret showing himself up like this when he grows up.

I may be cynical, but I suspect there will be no negative consequences and that Kass’s conscience will effortlessly brush aside any negative considerations during, what will almost certainly be a continuation of, a very privileged life.

IT’S SPUD-YOO-LIE-KAH!!!!

What Kass, you're badgered and harrassed whilst walking home from a night out wearing heels and a dress? (I'm hazarding a guess that's the kind of thing Kass is wearing when in the situations Kass mentions!)

Welcome to our world!

If only women could walk around doing and wearing whatever they fancied without getting harassed. It sometimes still happens to me now in middle age when I'm just out running wearing a pair of leggings and a T-shirt.

There was a bit where Kass looked like they were very angry and going to burst into tears when something the opposition said in the middle of their speech was applauded - I think that was very telling of the way Kass has possibly been brought up. Kass should be able to say and do and think whatever they like - but gets very upset when others do the same.

Never mind Kass's gender conforming appearance, what on earth was Kass's point in the debate? Kass did not apparently say a single thing in support of the right to offend, and indeed spent most of the speech complaining about being offended.

Kathleen Stock was definitely the grown up in the room. She sounded shaken, or nervous, or something. But she got her point across and made a good case.

Apart from her I was most impressed by the young man complaining about his time being wasted.

Kass was a raging idiot who turned it into an ad hominem attack against KS. Agree, the chair should have intervened. KS and Arif Ahmed were excellent. Really enjoyed listening to them. And the first audience point for abstentions was spot on. I thought speakers 2 and 3 against were ok and tried to address the issue, they were just outclassed.

Suspect many women didn't want to speak because it's a bloody dangerous topic for women to speak out on publicly. But yes, total manel attacking the lone woman.

I enjoyed the chap who said he was offended by those speaking against the proposition and that therefore they should not speak 😁

What I also note, and of course it is obvious, because Oxbridge, is the priviledge in the accents of ALL those speaking. The phrase "no clue about the real world" was never far from my mind in the listening I'm afraid.

Kathleen Stock is a warrior! Imagine having to stand up and speak after those personal attacks from previous speakers, the mob baying for your blood outside, an apparent consensus inside the room that you shouldn’t have been invited. She showed them an example of resilience and courage in the face of clear offensive speech and attempted social exclusion. I’d say she was properly stunning and brave.

As for the first two student speakers, seriously they didn’t seem to have a clue what they were talking about and as Arif said the speakers in opposition of the motion didn’t apparently have any arguments against what the speakers for the motion were actually saying so they just made stuff up to argue against instead. Good effort from the last guy though, Joshua was it?

Thanks for sharing this here @ScreamingMeMe I wouldn’t have seen it otherwise.

I now despair for the future of our country if these students are supposed to be our brightest and best, only one or two of them seemed to actually grasp the arguments being made at all. For example for most of them the difference between offensive speech and libel or incitement to violence was far beyond their capacity to comprehend.

I listened to it all. I was really trying to understand all the arguments and thought sone of the speakers very eloquent. I liked the two “ dandy” dresses students both pro free speech.
I was also bemused by the speaker at the end clearly posh and very well spoken and well educated whose argument essentially was there is free speech ( in my posh world) and we are basically such an excellent society that we are post free speech and no longer need to bother ourselves with it and move on from it. I hate the phrase white male privilege as I hate identity politics but that pov is such a good example of it. He has free speech and can never envisage it being taken away therefore it is not important anymore.
But I did think he was a good speaker and a good listen. Shame he was on the opposition side of debate!

I agree about the “dandies” sashagabadon. I agree with you on the last speaker too. I thought he was the best of the three but his arguments sort of sounded like he agreed with the house and when he tried to reason why we shouldn’t have the right to offend in I don’t the UK or Cambridge or whatever it all seemed to fall apart and as you say sounded like he was coming from a safe and secure position therefore not feeling the need to challenge any of the prevailing orthodoxies at present, the naïveté of youth or he was just found his best to make an argument which he didn’t really believe in which part of learning how to debate. I wish someone could have refuted his comments on Helen Joyce however.

Apart from Kathleen, Arif was also excellent and kudos to him for spelling out the campaign of harassment which Kathleen had endured. Speaking of which, another thing that the opposition didn’t seem to grasp, the distinction between harassment and offensive speech.

This, I suppose is the result of post modern “queering” of language, a confused youth for whom words no longer have concrete or distinct meanings. So that a statement of fact or belief can be construed as an act of violence where no physical violence is intended or enacted or even suggested.

I thought the woman from the floor raised a good point from the Opposition suggesting other Opps weren’t challenging the meaning of ‘rights’ (can offend, but not a right. Can go to Sainsburys, not a right, etc).

Really enjoyed Arif. Very eloquent and clear. I really appreciate speakers who can formulate clear, considered arguments without appeals to emotion or straw man arguments. I do feel like the last of the opposition did better than his counterparts.

Kiss really was a joke and showed an appalling lack of critical thinking and debate skills. By all means hold firm in your position, but it wasn’t clear if he actually had one on the topic. It looks like it just wanted a platform to rant and rave.

Posted this in another thread but think it got lost in one of those more complex/fiery exchanges that came straight after 😂

Think this thread might be better. Interesting for those who enjoy listening to stuff around free speech. Description under link

podcasts.apple.com/dk/podcast/the-we-hate-hate-speech-speech-with-helen-dale/id1602842758?i=1000585082793

This is a fascinating episode of Corinna Cohn and Nina Paley's podcast series, where they interview Helen Dale on the history of Hate Speech laws. The discussion covers a hugely broad field, and could actually be a good micro example of what we are discussing here, as Helen Dale is probably contentious in her views on feminism to many on this board. Yet there would still be lots to agree on. She bigs up Louise Perry. She seems to be an absolute polymath; law, classical history, anthropology, politics. Her insights into lobbying are fascinating (lots to say on trans rights lobbying).
Sooo enlightening/thought provoking on the topic of free speech, hate speech, freedom of association.
Highly recom

I really had this in mind as I listened to the Cambridge debate today.
Os seconding thanks to OP for posting. Right up my alley and wouldn't have found otherwise

You think it will take him 20 years? I would give him two years as an MPs intern intern , a couple of years as a special advisor, then a safe seat…….

There should be a law about speaking plain English among 20 somethings.

I think a few have swallows a butler tome.

Kathleen was v good. Switched the first one's main point on its head.

Not one considered the offence women feel.

Mini misogynists.

Apart from blue shirt guy who was scathing, "you're all wasting my time!"