His quotes ARE evidence.

Dawkins could have gone anywhere in the us and given a speech he saw fit. Nobody is guaranteed a platform.

@ wookie: So you really believe Richard Dawkins is a bigot? And see no merit or substance in his comments?

Bandit, when were you last on a campus/around a large amount of 18-22 year olds?

I live 5mins from a University

Hahahaha, why do you care if what he said is bigoted or not? It's irrelevant to your argument (whether or not he's bigoted doesn't matter for free speech purposes), it seems you just really want to defend bigots ON TOP OF being a Free Speech Warrior!

But in any case, he can give a speech anywhere he wants, just like I can. That doesn't mean someone else is obligated to give me a space in which I can speak. If Ben Shapiro refuses to have me on his show, he's not stifling my FREEZE PEACH. No one can stop me from going to a public space outside his studio to give my talk.

You're being oddly general here, when we're talking about a very specific incident. I told you what American conservatives did. Is that infringing on her free speech? Do you denounce them?

Alright i give.

There are two many on the pile anyway on ill jump off.

I mean, I think the secular left would agree to a lot of things - Mullah Omar was a bad man, all religious books contain some pretty heinous passages, adherents to those books hold all sorts of ideas that they disagree with etc. I don't think there's any disagreement that Saudi Arabia is a hideous regime or that Erdogan is a menace to democracy or that suicide bombing a bus is an atrocity.

The main faultline appears when the totality of Muslims seem to be collectively impugned for actions they had no part in (an internationally understood precept of what it is to be anti-semitic).

Another is when people insist to nonviolent Muslims that their creed is in fact violent and their peaceable interpretation wrong or merely a convenient mask. One particularly strong objection to this should be quite obvious. Namely that convincing a person they should be violent seems extraordinarily counterproductive when one's aim is to make them less so. It's also needlessly infantilizing and assumes a kind of insincerity. It's the left's contention that this assumption of stupidity/insincerity is also necessarily prejudicial.

All in all this seems to me to express the popular right wing reaction to Muslims as a group and it is this demonizing reaction that the left seeks to deflect. Now I agree that Dawkins isn't particularly engaged in the sort of rhetoric discussed above and that he generally seeks to temper his criticism of Islam by casting its followers in the role of victims. Nonetheless he's a public intellectual. In the era of Trump and of widening racial resentment and the rise of social media posting a without context 'Islam is the greatest force of evil in the world today' isn't going to be perceived as particularly helpful. That tweet's going to be across /theDonald faster than the bubonic plague, the consequences of that tweet prejudicial to the decent Muslim Dawkins elsewhere claims he's trying to protect. It's unsurprising that someone, somewhere should take exception to this and stop Dawkins speaking at their particular event or w/e. It's needlessly inciting and it's reasonable for that someone somewhere to state in no uncertain terms that it's unacceptable.

Living close to a university means you're frequently on campus/interacting with students?

Yeah, he seems pretty obviously prejudiced against Muslims, and while some of his points are fine, others are really prejudiced.

I also think that your claim that nonviolent Muslims are merely "nominal" Muslims to be highly prejudiced.

No, he can't give a speech anywhere he wants when he's removed from doing so.

I'm not being oddly general, I have a principled stance that applies across the board conservative or liberal unlike you.

So Ben Shapiro IS stifling my free speech because I can't go talk to people on his show? lol, wow, that's incredible

Yes you are. You have thus far refused to take a stance on the behavior of American conservatives towards Ilhan Omar, despite me clearly articulating to you what they did. It doesn't count to give a mealy mouthed "I oppose anyone who opposes free speech" without saying whether you're including them.

Dawkins has spent decades making comments about christianity and basically any religion he's asked about. It's an obvious double standard when the only reaction is to criticism of Islam. I'll certainly grant you that in the era of Trump his comments are more likely to be seen as inciteful but I'd expect anyone who knows his history and professional background to be able to tell the difference.

Just look at the number of posters ITT who are happy to label him a bigot, it's shocking and indicative of a wider problem.

Yes

No. You just can't follow.

I could do better, but I won't because I don't think you're honest.

You were invited on a show and then removed because of your political views?

No I haven't. Saying I oppose anyone who opposes free speech isn't mealy mouth, It covers literally everything I could possibly cover.

I'm responding to loads of people at once.

Uh, you are indeed giving strategy advice. My point remains: bringing up free speech in the context of giving strategy advice is a complete non-sequitur. It's a pointless and contentious detour/derail of your own points. As (actual) free speech is widely considered a "good", falsely accusing others of being against it can easily "shut down" your very own discussion by implying these others are "bad" and making them defensive.

If you are actually interested in having this discussion, isn't your own strategy very poor and counter-effective ??

Here in the real world, some peeps are going to want to engage with any particular topic, and some peeps are just never going to do that. Here in the real world, there is no shortage of peeps fully engaging with all the examples you have given... and there is no shortage of peeps who will never do that.

Giving advice that everyone on "the left" should always engage (or never engage) is gibberish. There is no high-command of "the left" which can dictate that everyone must engage -or- that everyone must not. You might as well give the advice that everyone on "the left" should sprout wings and fly to Jupiter.

Besides, I think pretty obviously a blended strategy, where some folks engage, and some folks do other things, is clearly superior to any "all or nothing" strategy (even if the latter were logically possible).

Except you have never really made it clear what you consider to be "free speech" so saying that tells us very little. If you think someone cancelling a booking because of something they said in the past that they consider to be bigoted is a violation of free speech then you have a very different definition to the vast majority of people.

Again, this is why framing this as a free speech issue is a very bad idea. What you care about is people being called bigots too liberally - how that effects their rights to free speech is somewhere between entirely irrelevant and only tangentially related.

Hahahahahaha, it's just the removed invitation that's a problem?

Like, according to you: if no one in the world will give me an invitation, my free speech rights haven't been violated, even though there's nowhere I can talk.

If Dawkins, who can and still does get speaking engagements all over the place, has one of those invitations rescinded, then his free speech rights have been stomped on? But not mine, when I have no voice at all?

Hahahahahahahaha

lol. You refuse to state if the behavior of American conservatives towards Ilhan Omar is opposing free speech, because you're being mealy-mouthed. Prove me wrong, chicken****.

I blame Dawkins and Mahr for teaching a generation of shut-in redditbros that "I'm a liberal becauz I hate Christians and Muslims" is a view that won't get you publicly mocked in polite society. Like, nah dude, you're not ****ing Voltaire, you're just a boring jerk.

If my stategy advise is that the left should be more willing to engage in good faith discussions and you agree with that then I don't see why you and I would be at odds.

It's definitely possible my argument has been misconstrued which has led to posters becoming needleesly defensive and therefore counter productive but I think I've made my point fairly clear, some posters have zero intention to actually represent it fairly though.

I really don't see how I could make it much clearer. I've now quoted it in 10 posts and elaborated on it ad nauseam. I think deplatforming speakers for having a different political view than you is anti free speech. Many of these speakers were actually invited by the University and it was student protests that had them removed. Maybe my definition is different though.

Everything you've posted has been an utter embarrassment. Take a look at yourself.

Lol at anyone responding to this coward after he flat out refused to answer why muslim immigration into Britain is bad.

I dunno. In 2009 Some Republican representative in Oklahoma brought a bill to the floor of the house attempting to censure the state university for inviting him - granted he still spoke.

I think the context is key. In the summer of 2017 Trump was in the middle of trying to institute his Muslim travel bans. Anti-Muslim attacks were 150% greater than in 2001 and 3x that of just two years previous. The radio station in question offered Dawkins an alternative forum in which to express his views, just not a sponsored book event that they felt was endorsing them.

I dunno man, trying to argue that no one has a right to go on a radio program, unless they received an invitation that later gets rescinded, is some pretty embarrassing mental gymnastics.

I'll be sure to bring this up at the next Leftist meeting (along with punch and pie.)