Let us begin by discussing what the term no platforming means. In its most simplest of terms, to no platform a speaker is to prevent him from having access to a stage or audience, thus preventing him from sharing his views. Without the ability to share his views, those opinions will not be impressed upon the audience.
Immediately it becomes clear why this is done, but with two interpretations depending on one's level of cynicism. If one is naive, then the argument in favour of no platforming is to save supple minds from being warped by heinous ideas (e.g., Holocaust denialism); conversely, the cynic says the act of no platforming is to stifle open discussion of topics. Both approaches do not address the central driving force behind the act.
If there is limited time to speak then one would ideally maximize that time with the best possible information. Now, let me invoke Wilkinson's Law and frame this in the most common venue for no platforming: the college campus. The soft and pliable minds of young students cannot properly analyze and critique terrible, monstrous, or intolerant ideas, so it is an act of compassion to prevent the airing of them. Well now, what of the time which would have otherwise been spent on sharing these terrible, monstrous, or intolerant ideas? Why, let us put in place the ideas which are not terrible, monstrous, or intolerant!
Now, let us reframe this slightly but placing no value on the ideas and just labeling them as simply ideas. Rather than "terrible, monstrous, or intolerant ideas" we now have "ideas". So we have the denial of time to one set of ideas and instead the sharing of another. The rejection of the first set was a based on the weakness and frailty of the youthful minds. These moral arbiters have instead utilized the time to espouse safe and positive ideologies... on these same weak and frail minds.
It ought to be clear by now what I'm aiming at, but in the event that it isn't, let me take one final crack at this. Social justice warriors are willing to "save" the minds of young students (i.e., their peers) from hearing horrendous ideas out of fear that those ideas will take root in their uncritical minds and instead will preach social justice to the very same sponge-like minds. No platforming is not about preventing "bad ideas" from being shared, but about monopolizing the time to spread the already established dogma; to entrench the ideology of social justice so as to choke out any possibility of even critical analysis of any non-social justice related issue, just as a well-seeded lawn prevents the growth of weeds.
Control plays an important part of this process, but again, it is not solely about control of the platform. It is predominately about the control of minds who would otherwise hear the no platformed views. Supple minds must be fed a particular set of ideas in order for them to "expand" down the narrow tunnel of social justice. By stifling the free speech on campus through the cowardly act of no platforming, these activist students have created a small box for their minds to live in. Moreover, they are ever vigilant in expanding this encompassing and intellectually suffocating box around the minds of their fellow collegians, eventually turning them into equally fearful and righteous students.
A glaring example of no platforming is not with a him but with a her. Ms. Germaine Greer, one of the most prolific voices in second-wave feminism, was attempted to be no platformed by the Cardiff Student Union's women's officer Rachel Melhuish via the do-nothing-activist hub change.org. The talk did take place on 18 November as scheduled, despite the petition and the slacktavist ramblings of a one Payton Quinn, who wrote four articles on why the act of no platforming is good via Huffington Post UK.
For context, Ms. Quinn (Mr.? I know there has been a transition, but I am entirely unaware of what the starting point was as compared to what the end point is) spends the articles complaining about being misgendered (see above), noting how freedom of speech and expression is established law in the United Kingdom, wholly misunderstanding the difference between hate speech and individual opinions (which, mind you, do not advocate intolerance or violence in this particular case), and ultimately arguing that there should be no freedom of speech where her/his (really, this is not done maliciously, I am truly ignorant of Quinn's gender situation) feelings or opinions may be harmed.
In Quinn's most recent article on the matter, there is a fantastic example of how not understanding that no platforming is tantamount to the erosion of free speech, lamenting the jab of one attendee who said, "No, I believe in free speech" as she rebuked the flyers on offer. The flyers were selections of Greer's writings on transwomen. Quinn had purchased tickets, but chose not to attend, creating the perfect irony: the act of no platforming prevents all from hearing the views of Greer, stripping them of choice. By exercising choice, Quinn was not exposed to the views of Greer while allowing others to.
So comes the Fallout shelter problem: the entire community tells you it is dangerous to leave, as the world outside is dangerous. Instead, it is best to stay in the dark, tight, small shelter and listen to the administrator, for he knows best. The mere act of pondering to leave is met with derision and scorn. It is best not to upset the collective... and to listen and believe.
Find me on Twitter: @nrokchi
No comments:
Post a Comment