Is it OK to book bands who sing about killing Tories?

[CaledonianGonzo]

Oh and milkshaking the fuck out of them, obviously.

[babyblade41]

I'd always like a reasonable debate, not necessarily to change another persons viewpoint as I think that rarely happens but to find some common ground...debate enough and there will be if both minds are open 

 

The problem is with extreme forms of anything , is just that ...extreme and will never be open to honest debate 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

See my last sentence.

so essentially: do nothing.  

[CaledonianGonzo]

Love too debate an open minded fascist who thinks minorities shouldn't exist.

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

so essentially: do nothing.  

Nah.  I don't think removing their ability to broadcast their message and have it treated like a reasonable position that's up for polite discussion and quid pro quo is 'nothing'.

[CaledonianGonzo]

13 minutes ago, Mardy said:

Man, I hate it when I have to upvote Calgon

I'll milkshake you in minute too, old fellow-me-lad.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Love too debate an open minded fascist who thinks minorities shouldn't exist.

or the version in this thread: love to dehumanise those I don't agree with.   

 

2 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Love too debate an open minded fascist who thinks minorities shouldn't exist.

Nah.  I don't think removing their ability to broadcast their message and have it treated like a reasonable position that's up for polite discussion and quid pro quo is 'nothing'.

I haven't see anyone here saying we should give promotion to views we object to.

Meanwhile, people hold those views, and ignoring them is how they got to their current prominence. 

[HotChipWillBreakYourLegs]

Putting Griffin on QT is promoting his view.  Having Farage all over the papers like a pissing puppy is promotion of his views.

Promoting their views is how they got their prominence. 

Edited June 4, 2019 by HotChipWillBreakYourLegs

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, HotChipWillBreakYourLegs said:

Putting Griffin on QT is promoting his view.  Having Farage all over the papers like a pissing puppy is promotion of his views.

Promoting their views is how they got their prominence. 

Griffin got prominence without TV promotion. He got to be on QT because he already had that prominence.

And once they have prominence, what do we do? Ignoring them hasn't worked, so they need to be challenged.

Ultimately, being on QT was what did for Griffin. The difference with Farage is that he's a bit smarter so doesn't say what he knows isn't actually popular, and doesn't get properly challenged.

 

[Scott129]

Farage was on Andrew Marr just before the EU elections. During the course of the interview Marr asked him about some disgusting comments he's made, the fact the Brexit Party didn't have a manifesto, his funding from Aaron Banks, his wish to privitise the NHS. Farage had no answer and made no attempt to answer just talking about "an establishment stitch-up"

The point is Marr undoubtedly "destroyed" Farage to any rational viewer. However Farage doesn't play to rationality and logic, he plays to raw emotion so the interview was a success to him. 

I don't know what the right response is but legitimising far-right figures and giving them air-time certainly hasn't worked. Also its not the far right figures on tv we need to debate and win over, it is ordinary people who of course we can debate and who we can win over by materially improving their lives

[CaledonianGonzo]

Nick Griffin on Question Time is always cited as an example of proper scrutiny eventually de-fanging the far right - the problem is all the other counter-examples. There's an epidemic of it at the moment.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

Farage was on Andrew Marr just before the EU elections. During the course of the interview Marr asked him about some disgusting comments he's made, the fact the Brexit Party didn't have a manifesto, his funding from Aaron Banks, his wish to privitise the NHS. Farage had no answer and made no attempt to answer just talking about "an establishment stitch-up"

The point is Marr undoubtedly "destroyed" Farage to any rational viewer. However Farage doesn't play to rationality and logic, he plays to raw emotion so the interview was a success to him. 

I don't know what the right response is but legitimising far-right figures and giving them air-time certainly hasn't worked. Also its not the far right figures on tv we need to debate and win over, it is ordinary people who of course we can debate and who we can win over by materially improving their lives

If that's the same interview as I saw, Marr asked him about stuff from 3 years ago - which didn't get asked of Farage back then - and Farage dodged it by saying it didn't apply to now.

And Marr asked him just about nothing about now. For instance, Farage wants no-deal and WTO terms, but nothing about how we'll be economically destroyed on WTO terms, and nothing about how we'll need a deal with the EU whatever and will be negotiating from a much weaker and very-desperate position.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Nick Griffin on Question Time is always cited as an example of proper scrutiny eventually de-fanging the far right - the problem is all the other counter-examples. There's an epidemic of it at the moment.

Griffin destroyed himself by saying what he thinks.

Farage doesn't say what he thinks and no one challenges him so it gets revealed. 

[gigpusher]

12 hours ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

The 'exposing the arguments' approach doesn't work, though. Through a combination of naivety and vanity the people who attempt it just wind up holding the door open for the far right.  It lets them set the rules of engagement and broadcast their arguments. It allows them to mainstream themselves. It gives them credibility. And you can't win a debate against someone acting in bad faith, who doesn't even care whether or not they've managed to convince you.

I absolutely agree that we should limit the ability of people with extreme views to have a bigger platform which I guess is the decision Glastonbury made with Killdren as I said I support freedom of speech but don't believe in hate speech. I believe you have a right to say it but will campaign for public platforms not to have people who spread hate speech on a platform. I wasn't suggesting that you have Tommy Robinson on Question time to debate just saying that the person who milkshaked him could have instead used words to expose his idiocy. A short clip of someone smartly taking someone down a peg or two would be more beneficial if only because they would realise that people aren't falling for their crap as easily. 

I do believe having them on mainstream platforms legitimises them which is why we should absolutely campaign either by boycotting companies who advertise or by stopping watching them. I also refuse to follow people on twitter who rely on my outrage for their publicity. Starve them of the oxygen of publicity and they will fade away much quicker. As Oscar Wilde said Only thing worse than being talked about is not be talked about. Ignore them and they'll go away might be a bit simplistic but it's clear that outrage at everything they say does only amplify the reach of their comments.  

[Scott129]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

If that's the same interview as I saw, Marr asked him about stuff from 3 years ago - which didn't get asked of Farage back then - and Farage dodged it by saying it didn't apply to now.

And Marr asked him just about nothing about now. For instance, Farage wants no-deal and WTO terms, but nothing about how we'll be economically destroyed on WTO terms, and nothing about how we'll need a deal with the EU whatever and will be negotiating from a much weaker and very-desperate position.

Yeah it very likely is. But even if Farage had been asked that it wouldn't have mattered, because Farage isn't trying to win the rational argument he's going for the emotional one. Hence the constant "why don't you believe in Britain" "we're a great nation" etc. 

You can point facts out about how bad WTO would be, or how migrants contribute more to society than they take etc but if someone's playing on emotion then it isnt going to work. You can certainly change ordinary people's minds but I dont think debating with Farage or other members of the far right work. I think its more just about the interviewer trying to inflate their ego by showing how good they are. 

[whitehorses]

1 hour ago, Scott129 said:

You can certainly change ordinary people's minds but I dont think debating with Farage or other members of the far right work. I think its more just about the interviewer trying to inflate their ego by showing how good they are. 

Then how do you defeat these ideas? Censorship? Milkshake? It’s hard to starve them of oxygen in a social media world. 

And who draws the line on what is, and isn’t, acceptable debate? More to the point, who do you trust to draw that line in a shifting political landscape. It won’t always be the “good” guys in power (not that it is now!) so there have to be some guiding principles about speech/debate. 

Edited June 4, 2019 by caballosblancos

[CaledonianGonzo]

18 minutes ago, caballosblancos said:

Then how do you defeat these ideas? Censorship? Milkshake? It’s hard to starve them of oxygen in a social media world. 

And who draws the line on what is, and isn’t, acceptable debate? More to the point, who do you trust to draw that line in a shifting political landscape. It won’t always be the “good” guys in power (not that it is now!) so there have to be some guiding principles about speech/debate. 

This has been widely shared, but one more time probably won't hurt 

[whitehorses]

@CaledonianGonzodo you agree with Popper on this? I think it’s a nice thought experiment, but ultimately it’s a straw man that suggests only some people, the baddies, are intolerant (rather than everyone). 

[CaledonianGonzo]

Just now, caballosblancos said:

@CaledonianGonzodo you agree with Popper on this? I think it’s a nice thought experiment, but ultimately it’s a straw man that suggests only some people, the baddies, are intolerant (rather than everyone). 

From my knowledge of the circumstances when he wrote it (1945), I think there were probably real world events that were factoring into his thinking.

[whitehorses]

@CaledonianGonzook, probably, but that’s not really an answer. 

 

[CaledonianGonzo]

In that case I'd say I agree in general but it's helpful to look at the context i.e. Killdren (or The Cure) playing inflammatory songs at Glastonbury is probably fine, Steve Bannon appearing on Andrew Marr probably isn't.

[whitehorses]

@CaledonianGonzoTotally agree about context. Maybe disagree about specifics, but I’d certainly like the chance to challenge Bannon! Thanks for chat. 

[frostypaw]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

do you think that far right supporters don't have reasons or arguments they find valid, then?  

Jeez.

Whether they find them valid doesn't make them valid.

Often all you have to do is walk them through their own reasoning to end up somewhere farcical and clearly prejudiced/racist/whatever.

Which is where it gets messy. Some simply hadn't done that and realise they've been misled and fed fear and terror. The others... they just don't care, they believe it with absolute religious fervour and they are lesser because God Said So End Of Argument.

It is essentially like a cult - indoctrination, desensitisation, demonisation of anything that could counter it and subscribing to a new 'truth' - and needs to be countered more like that than with reason, they're already inoculated against that. Is why the "hey how about actually meeting some muslims" process works quite well - they gotta get there by themselves, you can't really help from the outside.

[DeanoL]

Farage and their ilk are difficult. The problem is they don't believe what they say. They outright lie and that makes it really hard to beat them in reasoned debate. It's not Tory style "we actually believe this will be better for everyone". It's saying no, it's actually cold in hell, we all know that deep down, and it's a media conspiracy that keeps us all believing that it's hot. 

The milkshake thing was interesting because Farage has confronted so much honest debate head on, and come out of it looking good by just lying. "No deal will be a disaster" - "No, we will trade on WTO rules like everyone else, it'll be fine" - "But what will we put tariffs on? What will we not? How will that work out?" - "Now what you're doing there is just getting distracted by the details. The important thing is that we leave and WTO will be fine" etc.

He never runs from a debate because it's really easy to win one if you're willing to give yourself permission to outright lie. And yet, one person throws a milkshake at him and he runs and hides, ending the appearance early. Why? Because the image was damaged. Because it made him look silly. Because you can't lie your way out of that "actually, I think you'll find my suit is completely clean". That's an actual threat to him.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, frostypaw said:

Whether they find them valid doesn't make them valid.

Often all you have to do is walk them through their own reasoning to end up somewhere farcical and clearly prejudiced/racist/whatever.

Which is where it gets messy. Some simply hadn't done that and realise they've been misled and fed fear and terror. The others... they just don't care, they believe it with absolute religious fervour and they are lesser because God Said So End Of Argument.

It is essentially like a cult - indoctrination, desensitisation, demonisation of anything that could counter it and subscribing to a new 'truth' - and needs to be countered more like that than with reason, they're already inoculated against that. Is why the "hey how about actually meeting some muslims" process works quite well - they gotta get there by themselves, you can't really help from the outside.

As if to prove what I was getting at  

There's more than one kind of desensitisation and demonisation. 

[HotChipWillBreakYourLegs]

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

As if to prove what I was getting at  

There's more than one kind of desensitisation and demonisation. 

Do you allow people to be openly racist on here or would you ban their account?