-
@l_n_p said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
@catogrande said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
A noted academic has been forced out of her employment through cancel culture. Good that her employers were saying all the right things but the anonymous mob have got their way.
Stock is entitled to her views on sex and gender for sure but this has been coming for a while, she's pretty extreme if you look around a bit. No one "forced" her out, she put herself in an untenable situation.
How did she put herself "in an untenable situation"? She expressed an opinion - or perhaps academics should only express a proscribed set of opinions, on pain of abuse and death threats by masked mobs?
The University of Sussex fully supported her - so they didn’t cancel her.
Did they? They took bugger-all action against the masked mobs who intimidated her.
The University Union refused to call for her removal - so they didn’t cancel her.
The UCU pointedly refused to support her right to express an opinion.
The students that protested and issued the original complaint have no powers of employment - so they didn’t cancel her.
And the student campaign to get her sacked - which included smoke-bombs, masked mobs and death threats - was an irrelevance?
The cynic in me suspects she has a book coming out, or has decided she'll earn more on the talk circuit for a few years. She's an adult and definitely smart enough to know what she's doing.
Classic victim-blaming.
-
@majorrage said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
@victor-meldrew said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
@l_n_p said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
@victor-meldrew Did you read it though? The method and research looked pretty shoddy and below what you'd expect from the Beeb. A self-selected group of 80 people on Twitter, used to inflame culture wars.
Been following the story.
For the most part, the letter complained that the BBC published an article containing opinions/views that the trans lobby disagreed with, was supporting a campaign of anti-trans hatred, and was promoting anti-trans bigotry.
It was doing the first one, no doubt. The second and third points are arguable. They did leave themselves open though by publishing it after only surveying 80 people who elected to be surveyed.
But we keep being told that facts don't matter - it's people's feelings which are real and therefore the size of the survey is irrelevant. (irony klaxon)
Consistent theme though. The left basically own the BBC narrative and at any time it steps out of line they go completely mental and call it right-wing. It's quite pathetic.
Pathetic it is. You could almost take that letter, swap the trans-related words for QAnon or Incel terms, add in some quotes from right-wing nutters and use to accuse the BBC of promoting hatred for Anders Breivik.
-
@victor-meldrew said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
But we keep being told that facts don't matter - it's people's feelings which are real and therefore the size of the survey is irrelevant. (irony klaxon)
Harnessing your inner Sadiq there ... London stabbing's aren't as important as people talking about them on the internet.
-
@majorrage said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
@victor-meldrew said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
But we keep being told that facts don't matter - it's people's feelings which are real and therefore the size of the survey is irrelevant. (irony klaxon)
Harnessing your inner Sadiq there ... London stabbing's aren't as important as people talking about them on the internet.
True. The importance level also depends on the type of person doing the stabbing rather than the victim.
-
@victor-meldrew said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
@majorrage said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
@victor-meldrew said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
But we keep being told that facts don't matter - it's people's feelings which are real and therefore the size of the survey is irrelevant. (irony klaxon)
Harnessing your inner Sadiq there ... London stabbing's aren't as important as people talking about them on the internet.
True. The importance level also depends on the type of person doing the stabbing rather than the victim.
Yep. Family Guy absolutely nailed it here ...
-
I thought the University was very supportive and I'm not clear exactly what else they could have done. The UCU union less so.
Sex, (non-hateful) beliefs, and gender reassignment are all protected characteristics under the Equalities Act 2010 so maybe it would be an interesting case if Stock went to court to claim she were hounded out and had not been sufficiently supported.
-
@l_n_p said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
I thought the University was very supportive and I'm not clear exactly what else they could have done. The UCU union less so.
Well apart from allowing masked mobs to openly intimidate staff on their campus... I can't imagine their reaction being the same had it been a group of far-right students trying to get a black or left-wing professor sacked, can you?
Universities have form in turning a blind-eye to intimidation of certain groups for years. You only have to look at how anti-Semitism (including physical abuse of Jewish students) was tolerated for years at places like Oxford.
Sex, (non-hateful) beliefs, and gender reassignment are all protected characteristics under the Equalities Act 2010 so maybe it would be an interesting case if Stock went to court to claim she were hounded out and had not been sufficiently supported.
Why should she need to? All she did was express a perfectly reasonable opinion and state facts about biological sex.
-
@victor-meldrew said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
@l_n_p said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
I thought the University was very supportive and I'm not clear exactly what else they could have done. The UCU union less so.
Well apart from allowing masked mobs to openly intimidate staff on their campus... I can't imagine their reaction being the same had it been a group of far-right students trying to get a black or left-wing professor sacked, can you?
Universities have form in turning a blind-eye to intimidation of certain groups for years. You only have to look at how anti-Semitism (including physical abuse of Jewish students) was tolerated for years at places like Oxford.
Sex, (non-hateful) beliefs, and gender reassignment are all protected characteristics under the Equalities Act 2010 so maybe it would be an interesting case if Stock went to court to claim she were hounded out and had not been sufficiently supported.
Why should she need to? All she did was express a perfectly reasonable opinion and state facts about biological sex.
I don't condone any harassment and bullying, let alone death or other threats but this is complex and Stock has her own part in it which goes back a few years.
Sussex Uni's own “Code of Practice on Academic Titles” (CPAT) states that “academic title holders must not bring the university into disrepute,” which it further defines as follows:
"Those that demonstrate hostility towards, or could reasonably be expected to generate hostility in others towards, individuals or groups of individuals by reason of a protected characteristic (as defined in the Equality Act 2010)" ... which almost certainly includes trans students imo.
Afaik students oppose Stock’s leadership of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Alliance (LGBA), of which she is a trustee, and claim that her signature on the Women’s Declaration of Sex-Based Rights (WDSR) creates an atmosphere of non-safety for trans students on campus. No bearing on Stock’s research nor therefore her academic freedom.
So Stock can exercise her right to freedom of speech and do this gender critical stuff sure ... but she's an employee of Sussex Uni who have to follow their own CPAT, and as employers could face their own issues on whether they've balanced the rights of trans students versus Stock's right to express gender critical beliefs under the Equalities Act 2010.
Seems unreported but the Vice Chancellor of Sussex University will be moving to Birmingham Uni in early 2022 so he was already on the way out. Maybe this will provide the opportunity for everyone to step back, take a deep breath, and perhaps an independent inquiry to take place - but who knows?
-
@l_n_p said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
@victor-meldrew said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
@l_n_p said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
I thought the University was very supportive and I'm not clear exactly what else they could have done. The UCU union less so.
Well apart from allowing masked mobs to openly intimidate staff on their campus... I can't imagine their reaction being the same had it been a group of far-right students trying to get a black or left-wing professor sacked, can you?
Universities have form in turning a blind-eye to intimidation of certain groups for years. You only have to look at how anti-Semitism (including physical abuse of Jewish students) was tolerated for years at places like Oxford.
Sex, (non-hateful) beliefs, and gender reassignment are all protected characteristics under the Equalities Act 2010 so maybe it would be an interesting case if Stock went to court to claim she were hounded out and had not been sufficiently supported.
Why should she need to? All she did was express a perfectly reasonable opinion and state facts about biological sex.
I don't condone any harassment and bullying, let alone death or other threats but this is complex and Stock has her own part in it which goes back a few years.
Isn't it actually very, very simple? You either believe in the freedom to state scientific fact (in this case that your X & Y chromosomes determine your biological sex) without being subject to death threats, or you don't.
Sussex Uni's own “Code of Practice on Academic Titles” (CPAT) states that “academic title holders must not bring the university into disrepute,” which it further defines as follows:
"Those that demonstrate hostility towards, or could reasonably be expected to generate hostility in others towards, individuals or groups of individuals by reason of a protected characteristic (as defined in the Equality Act 2010)" ... which almost certainly includes trans students imo.
That's relevant only if if you believe Sussex Uni has the legal and moral right to sack an academic for stating scientific facts and if it believes those facts are capable of generating hostility. Really no different from sacking an historian, disproving holocaust-denier myths, as his/her work generates hostility from anti-Semites.
Afaik students oppose Stock’s leadership of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Alliance (LGBA), of which she is a trustee, and claim that her signature on the Women’s Declaration of Sex-Based Rights (WDSR) creates an atmosphere of non-safety for trans students on campus. No bearing on Stock’s research nor therefore her academic freedom.
Not sure that's right. The mob wanted her sacked as she believed biological sex was a scientific fact.
Totally incoherence from the first speaker who seemed to argue that Stock's research was fine, but publishing it was sexual harassment - a truly bizarre viewpoint which any half-decent interviewer would have challenged.
So Stock can exercise her right to freedom of speech and do this gender critical stuff sure ... but she's an employee of Sussex Uni who have to follow their own CPAT, and as employers could face their own issues on whether they've balanced the rights of trans students versus Stock's right to express gender critical beliefs under the Equalities Act 2010.
But Stock isn't expressing "gender critical beliefs", she's stating biological fact and a masked mob wanted her sacked for that. There's no more balance to be made between facts and trans students rights than there is between an astrophysics academic saying the world is round and flat-earth students who are offended by it.
Seems unreported but the Vice Chancellor of Sussex University will be moving to Birmingham Uni in early 2022 so he was already on the way out. Maybe this will provide the opportunity for everyone to step back, take a deep breath, and perhaps an independent inquiry to take place - but who knows?
Not sure I see the relevance. What is really needed is a police investigation into the death threats and intimidation and a high-level investigation into how the University management allowed masked mobs to operate freely on campus.
-
@l_n_p said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
@victor-meldrew Did you read it though? The method and research looked pretty shoddy and below what you'd expect from the Beeb. A self-selected group of 80 people on Twitter, used to inflame culture wars.
Did you? That’s not what they did.
-
@victor-meldrew ... I'll cut and paste as the formatting has gone wonky. We may agree more than you think but anyway:
Isn't it actually very, very simple? You either believe in the freedom to state scientific fact (in this case that your X & Y chromosomes determine your biological sex) without being subject to death threats, or you don't.
Stock has every right to say this as long as she says "biological sex". I'm not sure this is even disputed, I totally agree it's how the press is presenting it though.
That's relevant only if if you believe Sussex Uni has the legal and moral right to sack an academic for stating scientific facts and if it believes those facts are capable of generating hostility.
Sussex Uni has a legal obligation to uphold freedom of speech, plus equality laws which cover both Stock's views on sex and trans students on campus. My feeling is that LGBT+ students have long felt the university are not providing that balance and I have not seen the Sussex VC attempt to moderate the situation at all, quite the opposite. But that's part of his job. I know we'll disagree on this btw.
I think the party that has handled this badly, leading to the flashpoint is the University.
Not sure that's right. The mob wanted her sacked as she believed biological sex was a scientific fact.
I think we have to agree to disagree this was the main cause, okay?
I think it goes deeper and there is history on three sides - Stock, the University, and the LGBT+ community there. And that's what needs to come out in an independent investigation.
But Stock isn't expressing "gender critical beliefs", she's stating biological fact and a masked mob wanted her sacked for that. There's no more balance to be made between facts and trans students rights than there is between an astrophysics academic saying the world is round and flat-earth students who are offended by it.
Actually she's doing both - though I don't agree this is the main cause of the "mob" as you put it. There are (very-low bar)legal limitations in the UK on freedom of speech, and legal requirements on the employer i.e Sussex on equalities.
There's been a recent (2021) very relevant case on this which went up to the Employment Appeal Tribunal ... it's good background here.
What I do think is the students should have been protesting primarily to/about the University, as it is the University that is responsible for providing a safe environment for LBGT+. Also the University is the employer of Stock.
Not sure I see the relevance. What is really needed is a police investigation into the death threats and intimidation and a high-level investigation into how the University management allowed masked mobs to operate freely on campus.
If the threats to Stock were real and credible, I'm sure they should and will be followed up on by the police. The Sussex VC also mentioned student disciplinary action - both come down to what individuals did.
However, I don't think protesting in a balaclava (if peaceful) to preserve anonymity is illegal. Nor is setting off smoke flares. The optics may be bad indeed ... but strong protest is not yet illegal in the UK (yet). Priti is working it though, I'm sure.
What you and I might agree on 100% is an investigation is needed into the University management's handling of this and the prior history, starting top down with the VC. I think this will happen in some form, and I really hope it is independent of the Uni.
Stock will be fine, she's contributed but done nothing wrong individually in law I think.
Some students will be blamed, named and shamed. Maybe.
But the one party that won't come out this well (my strong gut feel) no matter what is Sussex University. -
Stock will be fine, she's contributed but done nothing wrong individually in law I think.
With all due respect, that's absolute nonsense and akin to saying Jewish students contributed to physical attacks on them for speaking out about anti-Semitism at Oxford University.
But let's not go around in circles - forget the optics, Uni obligations, employment law etc and boil it down to the facts: A group of students - unwilling to reveal their identify - disliked what another person, a professor, had said and unilaterally decided it made people feel unsafe. They then set off on a campaign of intimidation to get the person sacked, including death threats. They make clear they thought intimidation and threats of physical violence to silence someone else's opinions and views were perfectly acceptable - simply because they disagree with them. And they won.
I genuinely can't see any difference to communist East Germany, 1950's McCarthyism or Proposition 6 in California.
-
@victor-meldrew said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
Stock will be fine, she's contributed but done nothing wrong individually in law I think.
With all due respect, that's absolute nonsense and akin to saying Jewish students contributed to physical attacks on them for speaking out about anti-Semitism at Oxford University.
No problems, I know where you're coming from but you're interpreting it as my personal view on Stock.
It's not, it's simply based reading on following the Forstater case which dealt with whether a gender critical belief was "was a philosophical belief within the meaning of s.10 of the Equality Act 2010".
You may think it's a no brainer, and I might have too six months ago. Forstater lost on the first round, and only won on appeal recently. There's a series of "Grainger I-V" legal tests considered on freedom of speech law that the Appeal Tribunal used to over-rule the original ruling. And a lot of limitations too as I read it.
Anyway, don't take my word for it, I'm still learning. The UK case law is there.
I'm just waiting to see if Stock takes the Univesity or anyone to court or not.
-
As good a place as any I think
-
This is an interview today with Stock. It's unbelievable what she had to go through. Or is it?
Lets say her views were clearly racist, openly anti-semite or directly homophobic. Would this treatment / campaign then be appreciated? I think we'd all agree it might cross the line here or there, but a lecturer / educator sharing those view gets what they deserve.
So why it is different for transphobic comments? Well, as far the protestors are concerned, it's not. And thus why the campaign was as such. It's not because they are evil social justice turds (well they might be, but thats a separate argument), it's because they put Stocks views / work at exactly the same level as racist, bigoted & hate inducing literature. And again, thats their view which they are entitled to hold, right?
I've read up on some of Stocks views / comments and she's certainly not pandering to the woke brigade at all. I think she's been doing what any good decent philosopher should be doing. Challenging, thought provoking, discussing, disagreeing, opening up peoples minds. But where is failed is that her work belongs in the pre-twitter world. Where justice warriors are taught to expose and destroy people who hold different views to them, where cancel culture is the only way, where we are right and you are wrong! I've been going about the evils of twitter for years and my openly held view that it will cause the next war - I still think I'm right.
The trans debate is really toxic and there are no winners. Only losers all around. Of which the biggest losers, are in my view, trans people. Because I genuinely think they just want to get on with life. But the campaigners insist, absolutely insist, that they are front and centre as much as possible.
I do agree that what comes out looking the worst here is Sussex Uni. They've dealt with this poorly & despite some statements, the over arching optic is they have bended the knee to the mob. Who honestly, don't even look like they were the majority.
-
@mikethesnow said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
As good a place as any I think
Wow. Alan Jones is usually way off beam but here point for point he has got the Thunbergs and Sweden oh so wrong. Just placed the Aussie digital brat stereotype on them. I don't think they even have a car.
"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words"
When it is fairly clear she is referring to the Mamma Mia remakes.And "Turds" huh? Strong words for someone arrested in an underground public toilet in London and humiliated at on tv by Chopper Reid (great tv it was).
Oh well, if you have a strong moral soapbox to stand on..
What is incredible is that his entire credibility was shredded back in 1999 when it was revealed that he, and John Laws, had been paid to give favourable comment to companies including Qantas, Optus, Foxtel, Mirvac and major Australian banks, without disclosing this arrangement to listeners. The Australian Broadcasting Authority estimated the value of these arrangements at $18 million and found Laws, Jones, and their employer at the time, 2UE, to have committed 90 breaches of the industry code and five breaches of 2UE's license conditions.
-
I'm not sure why Australians would be telling anyone else off for C02 emissions per capita, 4 x Sweden's according to:
-
@nostrildamus TBF he's not rebutting as an Australian. He's rebutting as an older person & his point is correct. The youth today use up far more resources than the youth back in the day.
-
@majorrage said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
@nostrildamus TBF he's not rebutting as an Australian. He's rebutting as an older person & his point is correct. The youth today use up far more resources than the youth back in the day.
Only because we let them. It is not as if they appeared fully formed with credit from the womb and demanded they were driven to school. Parents should take some of the blame even if he isn't one.
And he is addressing a specific young person while he lives in that concrete monstrosity called the Toaster.
Sorry, he is a smart and wily debater, but I just can't stand him. -
@nostrildamus said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
@majorrage said in F off with the damn PC Brigade:
@nostrildamus TBF he's not rebutting as an Australian. He's rebutting as an older person & his point is correct. The youth today use up far more resources than the youth back in the day.
Only because we let them. It is not as if they appeared fully formed with credit from the womb and demanded they were driven to school. Parents should take some of the blame even if he isn't one.
And he is addressing a specific young person while he lives in that concrete monstrosity called the Toaster.
Sorry, he is a smart and wily debater, but I just can't stand him.He’s still more tolerable than Greta though
F off with the damn PC Brigade