Odessa Steps wrote:wizzywick wrote:
Moving on to what though? Why does everyone believe that the world is moving on to something better? I'm not upset. I'm merely expressing an opinion. Universities can and do stifle debate, they often don't allow people to speak in case it causes offence. Look at the silliness surrounding the removal of historic statues. Our history wasn't great, no country's was, but it's what made us who we are today and we should be celebrating the fact that we have moved on from the past and learned by our mistakes. Yet we should also remember the past because when we make those mistakes again, it's there to remind us.
I realise young people are our future, but that doesn't mean that we all have to be called intolerant just because we don't share their views. If that is the case, what a bonkers form of democracy we have become.
Removed historical statues are simply replaced with other historical statues... why should it be objectional historical twats who get the spot? Standing up and saying you don't want someone speaking is part of the discussion... it becomes part of the debate and protest has and always will be a valid part of a free democracy... why should the press use it's escessive influence to interfere in the running of Universities and it's students?
Statue issue asides, I don't understand your logic regarding the stopping of discussion as part of a protest. How can you protest about a discussion you haven't heard yet? Surely in a democracy it is only right that a person who has views you don't agree with should be allowed to say those views in public as part of a debate? Then once they've spoken, that is the time for protest isn't it? Because by stopping one side from speaking in the first place, you are therefore deciding that only one view must be adopted, so you are left with a strange democratic paradox.