Inspired by Ed:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.fastcompany.net%2Fmultisite_files%2Ffastcompany%2Fimagecache%2Fslideshow_large%2Fslideshow%2F2014%2F10%2F3037655-slide-s-3-social-justice-kitten.jpg&hash=f9cbcaf074c6031300518469778d9a0827cddd40)
QuoteSafe space or free speech? The crisis around debate at UK universities
The cancellation of comedian Kate Smurthwaite's Goldsmiths show after protests against her politics is indicative of a wider battle for the nature of student life – should university be a 'safe space' for all, or a place where anything can be debated?
Ian Dunt
Friday 6 February 2015 16.49 GMT
Even by the standards of student politics, it was a mess. Comedian Kate Smurthwaite was booked to do a gig at Goldsmiths, University of London on Monday evening when she noticed online reports of a picket by members of the feminist society. Their objections were not to her show, but her politics. Smurthwaite is a proponent of the Nordic model of sex work, a legal approach that criminalises punters but not sex workers themselves. For some students, that made her "whorephobic" and unfit to do a gig on campus.
"I told the society there might be a protest," Smurthwaite says. "The first thing they said was: 'Oh yeah, we knew.' The feminist society had held a debate about whether or not I should be able to perform."
The society voted 70-30 to allow it, but a minority decided to picket the event anyway. "I should have been happy it was won, but I was just shocked and upset," she says. "There's nothing I've said which is worthy of a debate on that sort of thing." Then the organisers liaised with security and decided the event should be cancelled.
Molly Coddle, a sex worker and campaigner who supported the picket, suggests there is a sense of entitlement in the anger of Smurthwaite's supporters. "They want really controversial speakers to come to campuses, over the heads of students who are hurt by that or disagree with their politics," she says. "It's students who aren't allowed to hold alternate events, or picket, or protest, or ask their university to disinvite the speaker."
Once you dig past the insults and accusations, the Smurthwaite story reveals something troubling about the culture on Britain's campuses. Whatever the precise reasons for the cancellation, the feminist society took a vote to picket someone because of a policy position unrelated to the content of the show itself. This is not like the antifascist "no platform" campaign of the 1980s and 90s. It is much broader and more nebulous. The potential for offence is trumping the right to free speech.
The row comes amid a growing sense of crisis around debate in British universities. In recent months, Oxford University cancelled a debate on abortion because protesters objected to the fact it was being held between two men; the Cambridge Union was asked (but refused) to withdraw its speaking invitation to Germaine Greer because of her views on transgender issues; officials at London Southbank took down a "flying spaghetti monster" poster because it might cause religious offence; UCL banned the Nietzsche Club after it put up posters saying "equality is a false God", and Dundee banned the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children from their freshers' fair. The Sun is banned on dozens of campuses because of Page 3. Robin Thicke's Blurred Lines song has also been banned by many student unions.
"There are two ways of looking at the challenges to free speech on college campuses – quantitative and qualitative – and it's getting worse on both counts," says Joanna Williams of Kent University's Enhancement of Learning and Teaching unit, who has written extensively about politics on campus. "Censorship powers are being used more often and against a wider variety of targets."
Whether they meant to or not, those who cancelled Smurthwaite's gig at Goldsmiths have waded into a row that speaks to a radically changing view of what student life should be about. The show-that-wasn't, by the way, was themed around freedom of speech.
At the heart of the new wave of censorship on British campuses is the "safe space" policy. Its origin can be traced back to US protests against military recruiters on campus in the 70s. From there sprung the no-platform agenda, which then morphed over the last few years into this latest incarnation. The idea behind safe space is that people of all identities are entitled to a tolerant environment to express who they are. It sounds commendable, but the implications are startling.
"No platform for fascists was clear-cut in terms of which groups were being targeted," Williams explains. "It was a particular political persuasion and a clear demand of what they weren't allowed to do. But in recent years, bans have extended out to cover more things – not just fascist groups, but also Ukip. And the nature of what is being banned has also been extended – to certain newspapers, or lads' mags, or student societies. Safe space is open to interpretation. It's all-encompassing."
Smurthwaite, for instance, was told that sex workers were included in the college's safe spaces policy and might be hurt by her presence. An organiser wrote: "I have to send you a passage about our 'safe space' policy outlining kinda what you can or can't say. Because our union is 'for' sex working ... it would probably be best to avoid that area of conversation."
It is hard to find someone who will defend safe spaces on the record. No one from the Goldsmiths feminist society would speak about it, nor would their student union. The president of the National Union of Students – a strong proponent of the policy – would not respond to calls. The best defence of the policy comes from Tim Squirrell, former president of the Cambridge Union.
"Safe space gets a bit of a bad rap," he says. "Most of the people involved in advocating these types of policies don't mind debate; they just they don't want to do so in their homes with strangers.
"Every time you invite someone like Germaine Greer on to campus, or someone who disagrees with the rights of sex workers to do their work, or a racist or a homophobe, you're not endorsing their views, but you're legitimating their views as something that's up for discussion. There's a place for that discussion, but the question of whether it should happen in people's homes is a difficult one. Greer doesn't think trans women are real women. These are not abstract issues. They affect real people.
"I know someone in the debating circuit who used to say to teams: 'If you think your case is offensive, you haven't found the right case to make. You should go back and find another one which doesn't appear prima facie to be offensive. There are ways of debating these things which aren't hurtful."
But according to many of those who work on campus or attend debates in them, safe space has become a direct threat to freedom of speech.
As the sun went down in Oxford on Thursday, balaclava-clad anti-fascist campaigners were attempting to scale the walls of the union to prevent a speech by the French far-right leader Marine Le Pen. Pointing out the gulf between their position and hers, they chanted: "This is free speech - that is a platform!"
It's nothing new, this: the Oxford and Cambridge Union have long been accused of provocation for their choices of speakers. Le Pen herself has spoken at the Cambridge Union as well. And the protesters were distinctly unimpressed. "I think it's bizarre, or just incredibly naive," said second-year student Will Searby, one of those to brave the freezing temperatures to express their anger. "Having one's views broadcast from a platform is not some kind of inalienable right."
Those attending the debate disagreed, putting the blame for any benefit to Le Pen squarely at the feet of those chanting outside. Said Henrique Laitenberger, a history student: "Instead of the Front National leader's views being laid bare, and their dissection at the union being prioritised, Le Pen will return to France yet again vindicated as a martyr of free speech, challenged by an illiberal mob."
Of course, Marine le Pen is a very long way indeed from Kate Smurthwaite. And even for those organising the protest against Le Pen, there is a sense that what was once a no-platform policy limited to fascists is now being used more widely.
"Generally I'm for a very narrow definition of no-platform," Weyman Bennett, joint secretary of Unite Against Fascism, says. "At the moment there's a danger of it being used against people you just don't like. There's a very serious argument that what people are doing now is banning people."
Julie Bindel knows the implications of safe spaces better than most. Her views on transgenderism, sex work and the Muslim veil have led to her being called transphobic, whorephobic and Islamophobic. She now finds it increasingly difficult to get on to college campuses at all.
"I've a quite high public profile in this world, so when I'm invited to an event, it'll draw interest in the crowd," she says. "The organiser or the board of the university or the venue will be lobbied until they can take no more of it. These idiots sit there behind their keyboards and do this."
She adds: "I was born into a very impoverished, working-class background. I never had a safe space in which to air my views. Before this whole lunacy started, I was constantly shouted at if I talked about violence against women or prostitution. We live in a toxic anti-feminist world. There's no such thing as a safe space. This is the work of privileged, moneyed, over-educated, pampered, middle-class liberal idiots."
Safe spaces is a direct corollary of the rise of identity politics. As the essentially economic argument between right and left died down, it was replaced by a culture war in which gender, sexuality and race were at the heart of the discussion. This was a much more personal form of politics. Suddenly, arguments on issues such as prostitution and transgenderism were being branded hate speech, and the identity of the person speaking became as important as the words they were saying. This was why the Oxford debate on abortion was cancelled – because both participants were men. It is also why Coddle objects so strongly to the way Smurthwaite and others debate sex work – because sex workers themselves are often not represented in the discussion.
Why were universities so ready to give in to demands for a restricted right of debate? The reasons are economic as well as political. Pickets and online campaigns often lead to the cancellation of events because of universities' fears of litigation, even on the basis of emotional harm. And where litigation is not a concern, there is a fear that protests might create a reputational risk.
"Universities don't want to be associated with views which aren't part of the moral consensus," Dennis Hayes, professor of education at the University of Derby and founder of Academics for Academic Freedom, says. "It's a very conservative climate. Universities used to be very conservative and now they've gone back to being conservative."
And then there's the cost. "When the union had a controversial speaker who was going to spark a protest, we had to spend between £3,000 and £5,000," Squirrell says. "You have to secure the building, get the requisite number of security guards and do bag searches." Controversy may be good publicity, but it isn't cheap.
This institutional caution is being reinforced by the new commercial relationship between students and universities. The introduction of tuition fees has meant that students increasingly see themselves as customers who are entitled to comfort while on campus.
"You develop a cosy relationship with the students," Hayes says. "You don't say anything controversial. They don't say anything controversial. And that's very nice. Everyone seems very concerned by safe space, so it's presented in a positive way. It's not presented as censorship. It's done compassionately. That broadly is the ethos."
For Hayes, the new culture is part of a therapeutic worldview that sees students as vulnerable young people.
"It's a far cry from the 60s, when students challenged lecturers for being bourgeois," he says. "When students used to first come to university for freshers' week, the first thing they saw were people arguing and debating. Now freshers' fairs have been stripped of politics. They're mostly about volunteering. When first-years come in, they're still quite feisty. But by the time they get to third year they've absorbed the culture."
Safe space is not all bad. It stands as a forceful counterpoint to another troubling trend in student life, in which jokes about rape and racist fancy-dress costumes are almost a badge of honour. To its credit, it is concerned with taking care of the most vulnerable people in a community. As Coddle puts it, they are "interrogating codes of conduct" and asking searching questions about who has a right to speak. Once that conversation is out in the open, it is easier to see how white, male voices are given precedence over everyone else.
But the policy is also dangerously vague, and speaks to a sense of emotional entitlement that is at odds with the reality of democratic society. The only way to properly abide by it would be to strip universities of all potentially offensive debate. There is a danger it will create a generation of university students who are unable to have their ideas challenged without invoking "offence".
There are already signs of it seeping into national political debate. Last August a debate on transgender identity on Newsnight fell apart when the programme was accused of questioning "whether or not trans people have a right to exist", something it plainly was not doing. Last September, activists blocked the road to the Barbican to protest about Exhibit B, a theatre-performance-come-art-installation featuring black actors in chains. The Barbican cancelled the event.
For Smurthwaite, the next obstacle is the Leicester comedy festival, where online campaigners are already trying to have her banned. For the rest of us, the danger is more distant, but just as troubling.
Additional reporting by Areeb Ullah
antifascism is the new fascism it seems. and it seems they'll succeed where fascists never did.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 10, 2015, 06:04:46 AM
antifascism is the new fascism it seems. and it seems they'll succeed where fascists never did.
Conquering Russia? :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2015, 06:05:55 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 10, 2015, 06:04:46 AM
antifascism is the new fascism it seems. and it seems they'll succeed where fascists never did.
Conquering Russia? :mellow:
nope, shutting everyone up
I'm an inspiration! :)
The cure for this is beatings. Good Brownshirt beatings.
First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Nazi.
If you actually read the article, it points out in a totally different direction.
Quote"Generally I'm for a very narrow definition of no-platform," Weyman Bennett, joint secretary of Unite Against Fascism, says. "At the moment there's a danger of it being used against people you just don't like. There's a very serious argument that what people are doing now is banning people."
Quote"This is the work of privileged, moneyed, over-educated, pampered, middle-class liberal idiots."
QuoteSafe spaces is a direct corollary of the rise of identity politics. As the essentially economic argument between right and left died down, it was replaced by a culture war in which gender, sexuality and race were at the heart of the discussion.
QuoteWhy were universities so ready to give in to demands for a restricted right of debate? The reasons are economic as well as political. Pickets and online campaigns often lead to the cancellation of events because of universities' fears of litigation, even on the basis of emotional harm. And where litigation is not a concern, there is a fear that protests might create a reputational risk.
"Universities don't want to be associated with views which aren't part of the moral consensus," Dennis Hayes, professor of education at the University of Derby and founder of Academics for Academic Freedom, says. "It's a very conservative climate. Universities used to be very conservative and now they've gone back to being conservative."
And then there's the cost. "When the union had a controversial speaker who was going to spark a protest, we had to spend between £3,000 and £5,000," Squirrell says. "You have to secure the building, get the requisite number of security guards and do bag searches." Controversy may be good publicity, but it isn't cheap.
This institutional caution is being reinforced by the new commercial relationship between students and universities. The introduction of tuition fees has meant that students increasingly see themselves as customers who are entitled to comfort while on campus.
For the record, this seems completely alien to me, maybe I'm too old school for this kind of stuff or I'm not sufficiently exposed to this new kind of identity politics, or it's not a thing over here, but it seems like the work of a bunch of busybodies with nothing better to do.
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 07:59:25 AM
First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Nazi.
I think there are two issues here.
One is whether we can/should restrict speech that some find offensive or objectionable - so racist, homophobic, blasphemous etc. So far I don't think there has ever been a society that has been fully free in that regard but that does not mean we should not try.
The other issue is more specific - should we restrict speech that advocates a form of government (especially brought in by force but not just that) that would remove freedom of speech. This is much more complex imo.
Quote"Universities don't want to be associated with views which aren't part of the moral consensus," Dennis Hayes, professor of education at the University of Derby and founder of Academics for Academic Freedom, says. "It's a very conservative climate. Universities used to be very conservative and now they've gone back to being conservative."
:hmm:
I wonder if they wanted to say they "used to be very liberal". It would almost certainly make more sense. :P
By the way, didn't someone posted a similar article a few weeks ago? I personally find it puzzling that universities - which generally have always been associated with unorthodox views - believe that "safe space" is something that is in any way desirable. It should be the opposite.
Quote from: The Larch on February 10, 2015, 08:22:14 AM
For the record, this seems completely alien to me, maybe I'm too old school for this kind of stuff or I'm not sufficiently exposed to this new kind of identity politics, or it's not a thing over here, but it seems like the work of a bunch of busybodies with nothing better to do.
This is the American Conservative's stereotype of intolerant left wing monsters. This is the stereotype of places like Cal Berkeley. I have a hard time believing this sort of thing is really universal across British Universities. I do like how it is being blamed on the Middle Class. Sometimes you get the impression that to the British every atrocity, left right and center, is in the hands of middling income earners. 'You are not in poverty nor are you amongst the elite? MONSTER!!!'
Quote from: The Larch on February 10, 2015, 08:22:14 AM
For the record, this seems completely alien to me, maybe I'm too old school for this kind of stuff or I'm not sufficiently exposed to this new kind of identity politics, or it's not a thing over here, but it seems like the work of a bunch of busybodies with nothing better to do.
I am feeling the same way, but I readily admit ignorance on these matters.
But I liked the part in the article about this just being universities going back to being conservative.
Leftist ideas, which were very important in braking a bunch of nasty habits of old, has been accepted as mainstream for so long now, that I consider it perfectly valid to call them as conservative ideas, at least in luckier nations.
And of course the old basic versions of these ideas often had to be forcefully pushed to overcome said old habits, so there is less opposition (yet) to those who are silencing people in the name of equality and tolerance.
Plus, I think societies just need sacred cows.
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 08:32:13 AM
Quote from: The Larch on February 10, 2015, 08:22:14 AM
For the record, this seems completely alien to me, maybe I'm too old school for this kind of stuff or I'm not sufficiently exposed to this new kind of identity politics, or it's not a thing over here, but it seems like the work of a bunch of busybodies with nothing better to do.
This is the American Conservative's stereotype of intolerant left wing monsters. This is the stereotype of places like Cal Berkeley. I have a hard time believing this sort of thing is really universal across British Universities. I do like how it is being blamed on the Middle Class. Sometimes you get the impression that to the British every atrocity, left right and center, is in the hands of middling income earners. 'You are not in poverty nor are you amongst the elite? MONSTER!!!'
There at least seems to be a weird fascination here with poverty. Like how the BBC was describing the Soho as a historically crime infested den of filth, and then progressed to crying over soon losing it to the rule of law.
I am more supportive of the idea that idiots need to be allowed to speak their bad ideas as loudly as possible, as publicly as possible. Bad ideas thrive much better in the shadows where they cannot be challenged or exposed for how stupid they are.
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 08:37:11 AM
I am more supportive of the idea that idiots need to be allowed to speak their bad ideas as loudly as possible, as publicly as possible. Bad ideas thrive much better in the shadows where they cannot be challenged or exposed for how stupid they are.
However, for this to work, you need to have a strong state, capable of enforcing citizens' rights. Without that, free speech can very quickly deteriorate into a mob rule, where those who have numbers and/or are loud enough can intimidate the rest, irrespective of laws.
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 08:32:13 AM
This is the American Conservative's stereotype of intolerant left wing monsters. This is the stereotype of places like Cal Berkeley. I have a hard time believing this sort of thing is really universal across British Universities. I do like how it is being blamed on the Middle Class. Sometimes you get the impression that to the British every atrocity, left right and center, is in the hands of middling income earners. 'You are not in poverty nor are you amongst the elite? MONSTER!!!'
My understanding is that in British English middle class means well off but not aristocratic.
Quote from: Martinus on February 10, 2015, 08:39:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 08:37:11 AM
I am more supportive of the idea that idiots need to be allowed to speak their bad ideas as loudly as possible, as publicly as possible. Bad ideas thrive much better in the shadows where they cannot be challenged or exposed for how stupid they are.
However, for this to work, you need to have a strong state, capable of enforcing citizens' rights. Without that, free speech can very quickly deteriorate into a mob rule, where those who have numbers and/or are loud enough can intimidate the rest, irrespective of laws.
Well I am talking about the context of the USA or the UK. Like I always want the KKK and the Nazis to do their stupid marches. I was glad the Lyndon Larouche nutcases were parading around Campus with their Obama = Hitler signs last year. In Rwanda parading around shouting 'Death to Tutsis' might be more problematic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2015, 08:42:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 08:32:13 AM
This is the American Conservative's stereotype of intolerant left wing monsters. This is the stereotype of places like Cal Berkeley. I have a hard time believing this sort of thing is really universal across British Universities. I do like how it is being blamed on the Middle Class. Sometimes you get the impression that to the British every atrocity, left right and center, is in the hands of middling income earners. 'You are not in poverty nor are you amongst the elite? MONSTER!!!'
My understanding is that in British English middle class means well off but not aristocratic.
So Bill Gates and Warren Buffet = Middle Class? Can any of the British posters confirm this?
I think that for every UK class related argument we really need the input of a local, as it's such a touchy, idiosincratic and cornerstone element of their politics, which makes it quite difficult to understand to non Brits.
Quote from: The Larch on February 10, 2015, 08:47:12 AM
I think that for every UK class related argument we really need the input of a local, as it's such a touchy, idiosincratic and cornerstone element of their politics, which makes it quite difficult to understand to non Brits.
:bowler:
Quote from: Martinus on February 10, 2015, 08:39:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 08:37:11 AM
I am more supportive of the idea that idiots need to be allowed to speak their bad ideas as loudly as possible, as publicly as possible. Bad ideas thrive much better in the shadows where they cannot be challenged or exposed for how stupid they are.
However, for this to work, you need to have a strong state, capable of enforcing citizens' rights. Without that, free speech can very quickly deteriorate into a mob rule, where those who have numbers and/or are loud enough can intimidate the rest, irrespective of laws.
Actually, you generally need the opposite; where you have a strong government to enforce the mob rule, you don't have freedom of speech (see, say, Russia). It is where the censors lack the power to control speech that you find free speech.
QuoteMolly Coddle, a sex worker and campaigner who supported the picket, suggests there is a sense of entitlement in the anger of Smurthwaite's supporters. "They want really controversial speakers to come to campuses, over the heads of students who are hurt by that or disagree with their politics," she says. "It's students who aren't allowed to hold alternate events, or picket, or protest, or ask their university to disinvite the speaker."
Molly Coddle? :lmfao:
Her trade name I would guess :)
Quote from: Malthus on February 10, 2015, 09:27:24 AM
Molly Coddle? :lmfao:
Lawyers have a way of wading through extraneous text to get to the most important points.
Quote from: Martinus on February 10, 2015, 08:39:15 AM
However, for this to work, you need to have a strong state, capable of enforcing citizens' rights. Without that, free speech can very quickly deteriorate into a mob rule, where those who have numbers and/or are loud enough can intimidate the rest, irrespective of laws.
You make that sound like something difficult to pull off. Pretty easy in the civilized Western World, actually.
It is worth saying this isn't a conservative jeremiad. Dunt is the political editor of the Erotic Review and pretty lefty.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 10, 2015, 09:29:32 AM
Her trade name I would guess :)
I'm finding it hard to believe, in context. "Mollycoddle", as you know, means basically "overprotective". An all too appropriate nick for someone supporting "safe spaces" over "free speech".
Hmm, well a "molly" is 18th century slang for a homosexual, also mollycoddling has associations with infantilising behaviour. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she provides "safe spaces" for many a tory MP during her business hours :P
Quote from: Tamas on February 10, 2015, 08:36:33 AM
There at least seems to be a weird fascination here with poverty. Like how the BBC was describing the Soho as a historically crime infested den of filth, and then progressed to crying over soon losing it to the rule of law.
My feelings on Soho are a bit like Schama's description of the opening ceremony:
QuoteIt's a version of Happy Britannia which, of course, never existed. There was grunting poverty in the villages, just as not everyone sucked into the maw of the Industrial Revolution was doomed to perish of cholera or stump the hillside alleys with terminal rickets. But that (you want to remind the objecting pedants) wasn't the point. A lovely tradition of the social pageant cum Christian mystery play has existed since the English Middle Ages, and that's what Danny Boy made over for the modern digital moment. It's history as written by the Social Democrat Fabian Society on which we drank deep when I was at school in the '50s and '60s, authored by Beatrice and Sidney Webb, G.D.H. Cole, R.H. Tawney, and the socialist romantic E.P Thompson, a history at once fiery and brotherly, full of laments for the dispossessed and uprooted but clear-eyed about the inevitability of the industrial age and the shameless rapacity of its plutocracy. Hey, anyone want to argue with that?
I don't think Soho was ever crime-ridden but it was a den of filth: brothels and leather bars and sex shops and newsagents with magazines titled 'Spank!' in brown paper bags. Now a lot of it's all expensive cafes selling sourdough sandwiches for £6.50 and a cappuccino for £3 to pricks who work in PR. And there are fewer and fewer of the old Soho characters. The old legends like Geoffrey Bernard have gone, though The Coach and Horses is still there and still good with still unfriendly staff. Or Soho Pam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soho_Pam
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9819550/Pamela-Jennings.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2013/02/penniless-exiles-soho
Though there's still a couple like the drunk barman in Trisha's who gives them impression of having been, at some point, profoundly damaged and is as likely to insult as serve you. Or the incongruously austere and posh priest from St Patrick's who still wears full cassock and occasional clerical hat.
It's inevitable and it's 'progress', but it's still sad.
Edit: Of course I'm too young to know of Soho in its seediest days. But I'll still be able to reminisce that I went to Madame Jojo's and was propositioned there :)
QuoteI think that for every UK class related argument we really need the input of a local, as it's such a touchy, idiosincratic and cornerstone element of their politics, which makes it quite difficult to understand to non Brits.
It's complicated.
The British class system has got so confusing that even the British no longer understand it. I certainly have no idea which class I belong to.
There is some of that sort of thing in North America: I recall some agonizing over the "disneyfication" of Times Square in NY, and a similar moment of angst about cleaning up Yonge Street here in Toronto.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 10, 2015, 12:22:33 PM
The British class system has got so confusing that even the British no longer understand it. I certainly have no idea which class I belong to.
According to this I'm:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22000973
QuoteEmergent service workers
This class group is financially insecure, scoring low for savings and house value, but high for social and cultural factors. According to the Great British Class Survey results, lots of people in this group:
Are young
Enjoy a cultured social life
Rent their home - almost 90%
Buzzfeed got me wrong, or maybe right:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/what-class-are-you-really#.ueP8001po
QuoteYou got: Lower Working Class
Life's not easy - it's a struggle to make ends meet, and sometimes it feels like society's out to get you (that's because it kind of is). But you know what? Screw anybody looking down on you. You're just trying to get on with your life, and you don't need fancy clothes or shiny cars to prove your worth. (A SHINY CAR WOULD BE NICE, THOUGH.)
Quote from: Malthus on February 10, 2015, 12:24:15 PM
There is some of that sort of thing in North America: I recall some agonizing over the "disneyfication" of Times Square in NY, and a similar moment of angst about cleaning up Yonge Street here in Toronto.
It's also the historic gay area. I feel that Soho and all who sail in her should have some sort of listed status.
Though I was overjoyed to recently see a newly opened sex shop - I mean who needs them now the internet exists.
QuoteEstablished middle class
This is the most gregarious and the second wealthiest of all the class groups. According to the Great British Class Survey results, lots of people in this group:
Enjoy a diverse range of cultural activities
Went to university
Are comfortably off, secure and established
Huh. I am neither comfortably off, secure, nor established but I guess the rest kind of fits presuming Languish counts as a diverse cultural activity. Though if this is really 25% of the UK population I think that covers the middling people I presumed this term applied to.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2015, 12:28:58 PM
According to this I'm:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22000973
QuoteEmergent service workers
Same.
Buzzfeed:
QuoteYou got: Aspirational Middle-Class
Yeah, you're pretty well off and you like the finer things in life - and you're okay with people knowing that. You're ambitious, you want to be able to afford the lifestyle you feel you deserve, and you're going to do your damnedest to make sure you achieve it. If you were a holiday, it would be to a slightly nicer destination than your neighbours.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ak.buzzfeed.com%2Fstatic%2F2014-03%2Ftmp%2Fwebdr08%2F6%2F11%2F938e7b354f06bac7d9da4e3d4063a4fa-0.jpg&hash=87c60825cfbd84b565629ddd625aa3aa7b4e7e40)
:lol:
I'm "established middle class" over at the BBC and "Just Plain Old Sort-Of Middle Class" over at Buzzfeed :hmm:
Buzzfeed:
QuoteYou got: Traditional Working Class
You've worked hard, you're doing okay, and frankly anybody who looks down on your because your job isn't a fancy one can shove it. You're the bedrock of the country, you live a good life, and you're proud of that. If you were a vehicle, you'd be a good old Transit Van. But a nice one, not one of those old clapped out ones.
I am the bedrock of the country :cool:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2015, 12:30:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 10, 2015, 12:24:15 PM
There is some of that sort of thing in North America: I recall some agonizing over the "disneyfication" of Times Square in NY, and a similar moment of angst about cleaning up Yonge Street here in Toronto.
It's also the historic gay area. I feel that Soho and all who sail in her should have some sort of listed status.
Though I was overjoyed to recently see a newly opened sex shop - I mean who needs them now the internet exists.
I had some time to spare last time I came to London so took a stroll down Eversholt street (back of Euston station). It was pleasingly seedy, a couple of sex shops, a "gentleman's" club with another being refurbished and (the jewel in the crown) a shop called Transformations (for all your transvestite needs). I'll have to take a look at the wider area some time, now that Soho has blue plaque status it wouldn't surprise me if its essence moves elesewhere.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2015, 12:30:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 10, 2015, 12:24:15 PM
There is some of that sort of thing in North America: I recall some agonizing over the "disneyfication" of Times Square in NY, and a similar moment of angst about cleaning up Yonge Street here in Toronto.
It's also the historic gay area. I feel that Soho and all who sail in her should have some sort of listed status.
Though I was overjoyed to recently see a newly opened sex shop - I mean who needs them now the internet exists.
Enjoy it while you can, in about ten to fifteen years Soho will be filled with precisely the same chain shops as everywhere else, ie another Covent Garden.
It's a shame, Soho is a lot of fun. Whenever I go out in the area I understand how it must feel for a women in a nightclub.
Quote from: Martinus on February 10, 2015, 08:22:33 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 07:59:25 AM
First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Nazi.
I think there are two issues here.
One is whether we can/should restrict speech that some find offensive or objectionable - so racist, homophobic, blasphemous etc. So far I don't think there has ever been a society that has been fully free in that regard but that does not mean we should not try.
The other issue is more specific - should we restrict speech that advocates a form of government (especially brought in by force but not just that) that would remove freedom of speech. This is much more complex imo.
I am for freedom of speech for all, including jew-haters, sefardic-haters and what-not.
However I draw the line when the haters call for violence.
My fellow jews, on the other hand, fear that tolerance of any form of anti-semitic speech will lead to an spread of anti-semitism and an eventual radicalization of the haters ending in anti-jew violence. Perhaps they are right. It might be argued that the way so many people around the world feel about Israel prove them right, validating their effort to suppress anti-semitism.
American jews seem to have been somewhat effective in this campaign by succesfully culturally painting anti-semites in a negative light. However the non-jewish left have used the same cultural weapon of the media and education system to pile up their ideological enemies in the same corner with anti-semites, therefore watering down the effect of the cultural campaign. I feel this is where we are today, when the natural repulse against political correctness seems to allow anti-semites to be cool again, as long as they camouflage anti-semitims with anti-zionism/anti-israelism.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 10, 2015, 12:22:33 PM
The British class system has got so confusing that even the British no longer understand it. I certainly have no idea which class I belong to.
I'm pretty clear that I'm upper-middle-middle, having pulled myself up by my bootstraps from lower-middle-middle. I'm very hopeful that my son might one day reach lower-upper-middle if he marries the
right bird appropriate young lady.
Quote from: Gups on February 10, 2015, 01:25:15 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 10, 2015, 12:22:33 PM
The British class system has got so confusing that even the British no longer understand it. I certainly have no idea which class I belong to.
I'm pretty clear that I'm upper-middle-middle, having pulled myself up by my bootstraps from lower-middle-middle. I'm very hopeful that my son might one day reach lower-upper-middle if he marries the right bird appropriate young lady.
Lower-upper-middle class. That is the dream.
Quote from: Siege on February 10, 2015, 01:16:58 PM
I feel this is where we are today, when the natural repulse against political correctness seems to allow anti-semites to be cool again, as long as they camouflage anti-semitims with anti-zionism/anti-israelism.
Yep. It really complicates things.
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 01:27:38 PM
Quote from: Gups on February 10, 2015, 01:25:15 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 10, 2015, 12:22:33 PM
The British class system has got so confusing that even the British no longer understand it. I certainly have no idea which class I belong to.
I'm pretty clear that I'm upper-middle-middle, having pulled myself up by my bootstraps from lower-middle-middle. I'm very hopeful that my son might one day reach lower-upper-middle if he marries the right bird appropriate young lady.
Lower-upper-middle class. That is the dream.
Fuck dat.
Upper - upper - upper. That is the dream.
It seems the fact that my friends include a nurse, a secretary and a CEO caused the test software to explode. :P
I got Established Middle Class.
According to the test I'm:
QuoteResult: the class group you most closely match is:
Elite
This is the wealthiest and most privileged group in the UK. According to the Great British Class Survey results, lots of people in this group:
Enjoy high cultural activities such as visiting museums and listening to classical music
Went to private school and elite universities
Socialise with people who do a wide variety of jobs
:unsure:
But on the pie chart comparison, I'm poorer than Elite in terms of assets - but I match it in terms of income. I guess Mono is right and I just waste too much money. :ph34r:
Nobody who was truly elite/upper class would be so vulgar as to mention it to anyone else.
No shit. Act like you've been there, Marti :P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 10, 2015, 12:22:33 PM
The British class system has got so confusing that even the British no longer understand it. I certainly have no idea which class I belong to.
Well there's what you think you are.
What other people think you are.
What the government thinks you are. :glare:
And now, thanks to Shielbh, there's what the BBC and Buzzfeed think you are...not that I belong to either of the classes they suggested.
[the BBC said "technical middle class" but my circumstances and the limited responses possible to the questions fudged that, I'm sure...I don't understand how Buzzfeed came up with me being "Upper Class" though! :lol:]
Same way it pegged me as lower working class?
Upper class suck.
They don't drink light beer or listen to heavy metal, let alone play civ 5.
Probably.
I suspect in my case it was the idiot "pick a festival" and "which of these is your favourite club" questions that got me.
Anyway, the tests are pointless. All that matters is how you identify yourself; I always self-identify as "Middle Class", no qualifiers. What more do I need? I'm not trying to sell myself something or make a political point etc. etc. etc.
But it means you are destroying Britain with your middle class ways.
QuoteResult: the class group you most closely match is:
Elite
This is the wealthiest and most privileged group in the UK. According to the Great British Class Survey results, lots of people in this group:
Enjoy high cultural activities such as visiting museums and listening to classical music
Went to private school and elite universities
Socialise with people who do a wide variety of jobs
They kind of got my educational background wrong... But I guess with social mobility being what it is these days that isn't very surprising.
Quote from: Siege on February 10, 2015, 01:48:10 PM
Upper class suck.
They don't drink light beer or listen to heavy metal, let alone play civ 5.
:hmm:
No.
No.
And No.
So maybe I do qualify under those guidelines. Or does playing CIV II, III and IV give me a pass on the third marker? :)
Quote from: Siege on February 10, 2015, 01:48:10 PM
Upper class suck.
They don't drink light beer or listen to heavy metal, let alone play civ 5.
I am listening to Iron Maiden right now.
I got "elite" according to the BBC as well, whereas the less-accurate, but not asking any questions about income or asset Buzzfeed, gave me Traditional Middle Class.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 10, 2015, 01:57:51 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 10, 2015, 01:48:10 PM
Upper class suck.
They don't drink light beer or listen to heavy metal, let alone play civ 5.
I am listening to Iron Maiden right now.
Your' mah man.
Rymth of the ancient mariner and Ghost of the navigator gives me the chills.
Besides, dividing the society in clases is a marxist trick to get us to fight each other instead of cooperating for the bettermen of the empire. Ehr, I mean the nation.
When righteous indignation reaches critical mass, this is the sort of chain reaction to be expected.
Quote from: mongers on February 10, 2015, 03:04:05 PM
When righteous indignation reaches critical mass, this is the sort of chain reaction to be expected.
Woah. An on-topic post.
Is there a reason you are feeling so persnickety today Valmy?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 10, 2015, 03:11:24 PM
Is there a reason you are feeling so persnickety today Valmy?
I thought I was just shooting the shit today. Huh.
After all it was me who unintentially derailed the thread.
Established Middle Class and Aspiring Middle Class. I sort of agree.
The question of how many people I know was a bit weird, since I could only check "artist" and "university lecturer", since I must know like 3423235245 of each (there's a significant overlap).
QuoteTechnical middle class
This is a small, distinctive and prosperous new class group. According to the Great British Class Survey results, lots of people in this group:
Mix socially with people similar to themselves
Work in research, science and technical fields
Enjoy emerging culture such as going to the gym and using social media
Ok, I am taking the buzzfeed test. Please help with supermarket brands. I shop at one called Alma, which delivers home, and has designer water, kaki fruit and kombucha. What would that be in UK terms? Waitrose?
Anyways, I got:
QuoteYou got: Aspirational Middle-Class
Yeah, you're pretty well off and you like the finer things in life - and you're okay with people knowing that. You're ambitious, you want to be able to afford the lifestyle you feel you deserve, and you're going to do your damnedest to make sure you achieve it. If you were a holiday, it would be to a slightly nicer destination than your neighbours.
Which I think is more accurate than the other test.
Designer water? WTF?
Quote from: mongers on February 10, 2015, 03:04:05 PM
When righteous indignation reaches critical mass, this is the sort of chain reaction to be expected.
"Righteous Indignation"? "Safe Space"!
It can only be..."Bucky. Captain Bucky O'Hare"... :w00t:
Quote from: The Larch on February 10, 2015, 04:08:01 PM
Designer water? WTF?
Overpriced shit with collagen:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpliki.portalspozywczy.pl%2Fi%2F04%2F25%2F19%2F042519_500.jpg&hash=d5ebb14ae83e172ce32ca217a033ee2e0e96185d)
I'm apparently middle-class. Established, too.
That is just wrong. I am barely scraping by.
Quote from: Martinus on February 10, 2015, 04:26:48 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 10, 2015, 04:08:01 PM
Designer water? WTF?
Overpriced shit with collagen:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpliki.portalspozywczy.pl%2Fi%2F04%2F25%2F19%2F042519_500.jpg&hash=d5ebb14ae83e172ce32ca217a033ee2e0e96185d)
Collagen in the water? What a scam.
Quote from: Norgy on February 10, 2015, 04:28:17 PM
I'm apparently middle-class. Established, too.
That is just wrong. I am barely scraping by.
Hasn't Norway been stockpiling billions to support their future pensioners? Maybe that alone gets you into the middle class.
Well, basically being born here is sort of a silver spoon in hand.
Compared to most of my mates, I am fairly low down the ladder. Lost a few years due to rampant alcoholism and that.
But I've picked myself up again, and things aren't as bad as they could've been.
A car, a flat that I own and a decent income isn't too bad.
QuoteYou got: Upper Class
You're pretty rich, you're pretty important, and you don't see why anybody should have a problem with that. Money's there to be spent, not talked about, and you don't see why you should be ashamed about living life the way you want to live it - or why everybody thinks you've got it easy. If you were a vehicle, you would be a luxury yacht, sailing on a sea of the oppressed masses.
I'm not rich, but I would like a yacht to sail over the oppressed masses.
BBC test pegs me as an Emergent Service Worker.
You'll soon be: Boris Johnson.
Quote from: Norgy on February 10, 2015, 05:56:32 PM
You'll soon be: Boris Johnson.
Yeah, when is he ever going to emerge and do some work?
Quote from: Warspite on February 10, 2015, 05:38:18 PM
BBC test pegs me as an Emergent Service Worker.
Same but with opposite Buzzfeed results. Of course the upper class and lower working class have a few things in common. Like not giving a fuck what other people think.
QuoteYeah, when is he ever going to emerge and do some work?
:o We have a cable car AND we're getting a garden bridge!
I got "New Affluent Workers". The description is so far wrong for me that I think I might have answered something incorrectly.
Quote from: dps on February 10, 2015, 08:31:32 PM
I got "New Affluent Workers". The description is so far wrong for me that I think I might have answered something incorrectly.
You're definitely buying the first round, moneybags :cheers:
I would go with buzzfeed being more accurate. Bbc gave me elite while buzzfeed gave me aspirational middle class.
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2015, 08:41:16 AM
I would go with buzzfeed being more accurate. Bbc gave me elite while buzzfeed gave me aspirational middle class.
Same on both counts.
The problem with the BBC test is translating incomes and savings from other countries into British ones.
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2015, 08:41:16 AM
I would go with buzzfeed being more accurate. Bbc gave me elite while buzzfeed gave me aspirational middle class.
As a member of the buzzfeed working class I look forward to murdering you in your bed when the revolution comes.
Quote from: The Larch on February 11, 2015, 08:52:43 AM
The problem with the BBC test is translating incomes and savings from other countries into British ones.
Well I used my hopefully soon to be British salary and my savings are but a pittance. :weep:
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2015, 08:55:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2015, 08:41:16 AM
I would go with buzzfeed being more accurate. Bbc gave me elite while buzzfeed gave me aspirational middle class.
As a member of the buzzfeed working class I look forward to murdering you in your bed when the revolution comes.
Just be quick about it! :hug:
Isn't Buzzfeed American? Why are they using British stuff?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2015, 09:15:23 AM
Isn't Buzzfeed American? Why are they using British stuff?
I believe they have offices in at least the UK, India and Australia now. They regularly feature content for locals of those areas.
Fucking Commies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2015, 09:17:30 AM
Fucking Commies.
:huh: Are there still commies around for them to fuck?
I got traditional/ established middle class for both. Sure.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2015, 09:15:23 AM
Isn't Buzzfeed American? Why are they using British stuff?
The clickbait business model is not limited to a given company's country of incorporation.