"If they aren't willing to talk that's fine: the rest of us shouldn't listen."
That's totally sensible, but the problem - as James points out - is that *they* don't want other people to talk, and use social stigma and implied threats of violence as leverage. It's good that the Helen Lewis event is going ahead at a location TBA, but the fa…
"If they aren't willing to talk that's fine: the rest of us shouldn't listen."
That's totally sensible, but the problem - as James points out - is that *they* don't want other people to talk, and use social stigma and implied threats of violence as leverage. It's good that the Helen Lewis event is going ahead at a location TBA, but the fact that it had to go through one iteration is bad. I don't know what the simple answer is; "don't give in to implied threats" is hardly useful, and some of the protests are truly ugly even when they don't succeed.
My main point that I don't believe the censors can be reasoned with, because their views on what it's acceptable to debate are so far removed from concepts of open debate and normal public opinion. There is a cohort that has stretched definitions of harm and safety to such an extent that many commonly-held ideas are difficult to express.
I agree with what you said, and I don't claim to have a simple solution to the pressures affecting event organisers. The only thing I can suggest is a concerted effort to keep having these discussions until censors concede that they cannot shut this debate down.
"If they aren't willing to talk that's fine: the rest of us shouldn't listen."
That's totally sensible, but the problem - as James points out - is that *they* don't want other people to talk, and use social stigma and implied threats of violence as leverage. It's good that the Helen Lewis event is going ahead at a location TBA, but the fact that it had to go through one iteration is bad. I don't know what the simple answer is; "don't give in to implied threats" is hardly useful, and some of the protests are truly ugly even when they don't succeed.
My main point that I don't believe the censors can be reasoned with, because their views on what it's acceptable to debate are so far removed from concepts of open debate and normal public opinion. There is a cohort that has stretched definitions of harm and safety to such an extent that many commonly-held ideas are difficult to express.
I agree with what you said, and I don't claim to have a simple solution to the pressures affecting event organisers. The only thing I can suggest is a concerted effort to keep having these discussions until censors concede that they cannot shut this debate down.