Celeste McGinley | We Should Support No Platforming (1/8) | Oxford Union

The speaker in this video is a competitive debater, and therefore the views expressed may not necessarily represent their beliefs.
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
The Motion: This House Supports No Platforming.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.

[@OxfordUnion]

Watch the full debate here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJ6conmgpq9ql9U

[@josephschissel8853]

Of course a noble University would be afraid of free speech. How utterly pathetic.

[@whattaboy209]

As Katie Hopkins said, "offense is not taken, it is given". The blatant truth. However, people who have been indoctrinated into their left-wing ideologue just cannot see logic, facts and truisms from hyper-emotional falsehoods. As KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov said, a demoralised group of people cannot see right from wrong, even if it is directly in front of your face. White guilt lefty's are demoralised. People should NOT be stopped from speaking because people are overly sensitive. The conformists who are anti-freedom of speech, are totalitarian; love diversity of ethnicity, but hate diversity of opinion. Bottom line: people on the left don't want free speech, because they are scared of people leaving their conformist thought-bubble, and know it is a real possibility on a free-speech platform. Thoughtcrime is now a thing. Orwellian.

[@tRicky198181]

Where, please tell, is the vote?

[@godbyelebenohnegott]

Messy The results are here: www.oxford-union.org/debate%20results The motion was defeated (free speech won). Thankfully.

[@Ni1234ckA]

THE IDIOTS OF OXORD UNION WERE RATHER INTERESTED TO WRITE:*The speaker in this video is a competitive debater, and therefore the views expressed may not necessarily represent their beliefs.* THAN TO MENTION THE NAME OF THE PERSONS DEBATING. AND IDIOTS ARE THE ELITE OF TOMORROW

[@miragefd]

Poor girl doesn't realize that the fact she's speaking is because of free speech.

[@n8style]

she's a competitive debater, she's not necessarily against de-platforming herself

[@miragefd]

Ceding authority to an entity to judge whether or not speech is appropriate and that people are too weak to hear a discussion and therefore must be protected appeared to be her main points. I'll give her an A for authenticity if she's just presenting for the far Left view and with a straight face in arguing through logical inconsistencies lol.

[@balkanhajduk]

She needs a brain and D

[@balkanhajduk]

@@windsurfer_LA ok.

[@JoshDavies111]

I wonder if she realizes she is a modern day book burner

[@stevie_1]

“Freedom for me, but not for thee” comes to mind.

[@Biostalker420]

She comes on like a transparent lawyer working a jury. I label you a sexist, lady. Now you're de-platformed. See the problem. There is no solution but free speech.

[@michaelsoftinc]

"The speaker in this video is a competitive debater, and therefore the views expressed may not necessarily represent their beliefs."

[@SBCBears]

Maybe you're a little bit stupid. It's a formal debate. The debaters are assigned a position on an issue and must argue for that position. It does not mean that they actually support that position. But, of course, you did not either read or comprehend the note or the spoken introduction.

[@Biostalker420]

@@SBCBears I'm sorry. If you argue for something you don't really believe in vs people who believe what their saying. You end up like her. A glitzy ditz.

[@Biostalker420]

@@Shamino1 She failed. Now you fail. I know what the purpose of debate club is. I'm evaluating both her performance AND her argument. All flash, no substance.

[@billrhoasts5456]

@@Shamino1 I understand what she was doing and why. The point is that she failed miserably at it.

[@SBCBears]

Should one be de-platformed for being stupid and taking up bandwidth?

[@konradurban3181]

Imagine if a male joked about a debater's hotness

[@helencoven]

I don’t think anyone would with this girl!😂🤣

[@zacharymcmillan2788]

Oh sweet lil Irish gal;I would do terrible things to you.😈

[@andystratford2111]

@@helencoven she would giggle to much 😂

[@andystratford2111]

@@zacharymcmillan2788 twat she is a scot 😠

[@MostCommentsAreFake-ud8by]

She actually joked he was ugly.

[@alphalobster8021]

Ludicrous, absurd, bizarre, irrational and cognitively dysfunctional is how I would describe no platform and those who advocate it.

[@lexingtonconcord8751]

Well said. They sicken me. Stooges for totalitarians.

[@nasx618]

But you still support their right to say what they have to say.

[@alphalobster8021]

@@nasx618 Yes, of course. She is still a fuckwit postmodernist though.

[@grandpied]

@@nasx618 Seems kind of silly that they have the right to say; they don't want people to have free speech. Apparently, they don't want the right to say; we shouldn't have the right to free speech. I only wish they could hear how stupid they sound.

[@theseustoo]

You forgot, hypocritical, exclusionistic, judgmental, closed-minded, autocratic and just plain stupid! To refuse to listen to what someone (ANYONE!) has to say only proves that you are scared of what they might actually say! It speaks more negatively about the de-platformers themselves, than about those they deplatform! ;)

[@mml4673]

"If Freedom means anything, it's being told what you don't want to Hear" George Orwell

[@josephmitchell5976]

M ML correction, “If Liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”

[@mml4673]

@@josephmitchell5976 Your right thanks, I stand corrected

[@josephmitchell5976]

M ML you’re welcome 😉

[@Ctajm]

Celeste, my dear, you still have the right not to listen, but not the right to censor.

[@neilvandeloo429]

Did she literally just argue that you cant let tommy robinson or steve bannon speak because they may present evidence that is difficult or impossible to rebut? So you cant have people speak who disagree with you because they might be right?

[@therealbigbarbs]

I think she was referring to the format of which they were invited to speak, as it does not allow for rebuttals or points of information.

[@rebeccajohnson3402]

@@therealbigbarbs Which is rather dumb as well. So if the platform does not allow dissenting views then the platform should not exist? Muslims should not speak at their mosques unless atheists are there and also allowed to speak? One should not raise money for the poor through speech unless another is there to say why money should not be raised for the poor?

[@therealbigbarbs]

@@rebeccajohnson3402 Rebecca Johnson a valid point, but in this format, rebuttals and constant points of information would potentially thwart the ability of the speaker to lay out the full case of their position without interruption. As a point of information, I don't support the motion being debated.

[@rebeccajohnson3402]

@@therealbigbarbs Informal disagreement is messy. It comes in all forms; interruptions, distractions, and rudeness from both sides. Formal debate is valuable and necessary, however it's not the way conversations work in every day life. To argue that we should hear disagreement in only one form, the form where the other side is always immediately presented, is to disregard and devalue the rest of discourse's reality. It's our responsibility as humans who have been given the gift of reason to seek the truth and to use as many means as possible in doing so. Sidenote: The emergence of the massive popularity of long form interviews/debates has revealed that we have been desperate to hear both sides for a very long time.

[@therealbigbarbs]

@@rebeccajohnson3402 I totally agree, long form interviews and discussions are certainly filling a void that has been missed for the best part of a generation. However, part of the reason they work, is that the utmost respect is given to listener. If a speaker is constantly interrupted, it is not only frustrating and potentially disrespectful to the speaker, but ultimately it is very disrespectful to the listener. Who wants to listen to somebody trying to articulate their views, whilst be interuppted all the time? As a listener, I find it extremely frustrating. When both sides have the opportunity to opine their positions fully, we the listener, are in a far better place to make our own minds up, based on the merits of both cases.

[@dimitriosglous4156]

Imagine if a males speaker remarked the “hotness” of a female debater

[@stellaboulton4664]

exactly - but Celeste is a very special person

[@mikehonk937]

I must remember her name so if she goes into politics I never vote for her.

[@lexingtonconcord8751]

Well said, haha!

[@aspergianheteroclite3014]

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.” - Noam Chomsky.

[@girlgirl4548]

My God, is this the level of "intellectual thought" that goes on these days in Oxford?

[@paulsweeney5477]

Sadly to say it seems so . Do you think it is middle school standard

[@RichieBenno]

Thanks for platforming Celeste McGinley so we get to see how bad her ideas are.

[@user-wg5ic7zo5y]

Now an estate agent.

[@sorokaye6067]

Yes, it's really important to hear what she has to say. Couldn't make sense of much of it and hopefully her mental health is better after being hear d

[@patbateman2088]

Okay, let's start with you

[@SuperstarPecanbar]

Come on, Bryce. There are a lot more important problems than Sri Lanka to worry about.

[@Dyson888]

How nice Celeste is actually so overcome with White Western guilt and sympathy for her enemies she feels the need to oppress those who have opinions that may burst her bubble.

[@stellaboulton4664]

kerchow!!

[@macgill6098]

Let me get this right! Dont invite a speaker because their views might be "difficult to rebutt or to argue back" and so "this alone justifies in refusing speakers a platform??!!!! Did she actually say that???? We are doomed!

[@brightlancer]

I come here to this debate to argue that some ideas are so difficult to debate that we should not allow speakers to express them. I come here to this debate to argue that if I don't want to hear a speaker, then none should be allowed to hear a speaker. I come here to this debate to argue against debate. Only fascists would vote Nay. Thank you.

[@sarahm6034]

"I come here to this debate to argue against debate" That is golden! Good job lmao

[@catsaresocute650]

I came here to argue that there are arguments that are too hard, too dangerus to hear and that those must therefore be restricted, in the name of tolerence. It's good in that it shows absurditdy.

[@silkee]

She's so ignorant and lives in a bubble. In 20 years her views will be completely reversed. We fought hard to let people not be persecuted for their views and she wants to reverse years of secularism. You can't legislate for being offended. However if she'd like to go for a drink to discuss this a little more then I'm completely free this Friday.

[@atcampbell123]

silkee If you read the description it says she is a competitive debater and doesn’t always argue the position she believes.

[@samreplete1842]

Hahaha 😁😂

[@isitsafe6166]

@@atcampbell123 well, that's what we're all hoping about the panel on her side , doubt it though

[@ekorusoy]

Watching some of these debates I realise how lucky I was to have been educated at university 30 years ago. I feel very sad about the state of young people’s education today.

[@millwallholdings]

I love that i voted for Brexit even more now and them being in Debt with no future. Loads where i live and i giggle inside when i see them walking about , Gives me a warm Glow

[@joefoley1480]

I was even more fortunate than you I left school at 16 60 years ago. So I didn't have to endure all the later fashionable propaganda

[@ronoq9001]

The fact she's speaking is because of free speech.

[@naturalsettings7098]

Whhaaaaaattt!?!? She is given the freedom to platform about not platforming?!?!? She obviously doesn't understand, someone please apply "brass, barrel, and a keen sense of crosshairs" to this misled creature.

[@tb4326]

Saying misled is to kind, these ideologies must be met with the weight it truly deserves. She is a sick brainwashed, protected and privileged youth that doe not understand humans, peace and real freedom.

[@naturalsettings7098]

@@tb4326 completely agree, but i have to ask, do you know what i meant by "brass, barrel, and a keen sense of crosshairs"?

[@stellaboulton4664]

@@naturalsettings7098 No - please explain - it sounds military

[@naturalsettings7098]

@@stellaboulton4664 brass= bullet are made from brass, barrel= of a rifle, crosshairs= are the aiming mechanism at the end of a barrel to sight a target with precision.

[@Jammil2477]

I applaud your ability to make an ass out of yourself and for everyone to see the absolute continuation of flaws in your argument. Bravo, absolutely bravo.

[@marcoalessandro2034]

she will cringe in a few years or ten upon reliving her mentality be watching

[@n8style]

she's a competitive debater

[@Jammil2477]

nabiddy badiddy my comment still stands...even more so if what you’ve said is true. At least have a cohesive argument for your position, even if not on board with it. As that’s one of the basic uni skills, to be able to show both sides of the argument, effectively, sincerely and with credibility.

[@FeralLogic]

All ideas should be allowed to be aired. Even the bad ones. If for no other reason than to have the dissected and discarded.

[@seabear3072]

To reiterate the description, she is a competitive debater, these views are not necessarily her own, but simply those of the devils advocate. So hold off on personal nastiness, focus on the debate

[@dirtyharold7164]

She's a shit competitive debater. How'd ya like them apple's?

[@c0rse]

Don't waste your time mate. Every single video has some really awful comments about the debaters, particularly if they're a woman. These videos attract some really troubled people.

[@Swift-mr5zi]

@@c0rse "especially how his face looks"

[@coyhutt8022]

Dirty Harold Succinct.

[@Zulanderr]

omg i cant imagine being tasked with arguing FOR no platforming........ kinda makes sense now as i dont think she seemed like she believed wot she was saying

[@mofa9745]

this young woman is speaking irrational BS.

[@KenNickels]

In a shape hugging cocktail dress. Incongruous from every level.

[@1ndomitus]

So, "We've determined your views & perspective are wrong, therefore, we will not allow you to debate our preconceptions that you would not agree with us." Now entering The New Dark Ages.

[@avian_barrister]

Only 1:50 in, but I can't help but thinking about how exclusive a platform the Oxford Union is.

[@sgu02nsc66]

Barry Boylan the British as opposed to...?

[@chriswayneevans]

Universities are supposed to showcase all manner of views and beliefs and allow students to make up their own minds, not to indoctrinate, which is effectively what she’s suggesting

[@homlesy1172]

BEST SOLUTION RIGHT HERE The ones that support no platforming, as soon as they go to speak! SHUT THEM DOWN say we are TAKING YOUR PLATFORM AWAY, then they see what it feels like to look in the MIRROR :)

[@websterbodybuilder]

I value freedom of speech now more than ever

[@girlygirly382]

What she said is : It is okay to speak as long as I agree you. She is a little dictator.

[@milton7763]

The speakers for the pro-‘no platforming’ side in this debate are just hilarious in their own contradictions and irony-packed statements. This lass starts her speech by saying how happy she is the debate was not cancelled due to those that wanted to prevent this platform…. “a resounding consensus and support….will far more effectively convey… than boycotting and not showing up at all” 😂😂😂😂😂

[@gladiatoranc]

People are slow to learn and quick to forget. History repeats itself... Round and round in circle we go, like a dog chasing its tail. (1 Corinthians 3:18) "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise."

[@Sewpot]

If Celeste is representative of Oxford students the God help us !

[@aspergianheteroclite3014]

People's mental health is deteriorating outside of the "oppressed" student cliques in Oxford.

[@pigknickers2975]

Why are they so thick now? I just don't get it. It's like there's fairly obvious thoughts about free speech that are just not occurring to them. Why are they so blind? I truly don't understand.

[@peps7721]

I know. I do put it down to the hot air arrogance of youth. Hopefully she will gather enough life experience to grow out of it at some stage.

[@benchapple1583]

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee. Celeste, unfortunately the algorithm has decided to 'no platform' you. You reap what you sow.

[@dna598]

It's like listening to a primary school presentation.

[@homlesy1172]

7:10 SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE STOOD UP AND SHOWN HER THE DOOR LISTENING TO THE CRAP SHE SPINS!

[@stevebrindle1724]

I have been a man of the left for 5 decades now and always included free speech as essential. If you do not like what a person has to say. don't listen, or present an alternative view for others to consider. As long as people do not call for the use of violence against others, what is the problem?

[@dimitriosglous4156]

So right wing mps are not allowed whereas left wing mps would be allowed???

[@sarahm6034]

Okay, I am a left-wing gen z and even I disagree with her. I agree that we should stand up to racism and fascism etc but I don't believe that no-platforming is the way to do this. 100 years ago, women would not have been given platforms to speak their opinions because they were considered inferior. LGBTs would have had no platform because they would have been living either in secret or in prison. This was clearly wrong. But from a philosophical point of view what is the difference between the right taking away platforms from the left and the left taking away platforms from the right. How can we justify right from wrong just from our own opinions which as individuals we obviously believe in? The best way to truly stand up to sexism or homophobia etc is to debate it. To make both sides of the argument heard and to showcase all of the facts so that people can make educated decisions as to where they stand themselves. No-platforming is a form of censorship, which makes it almost impossible for people to understand different views or perspectives. No-platforming to me is just a step towards ignorance and stupidity: people holding strong opinions on a subject where they only know what the generation before them wanted them to know.

[@kannabi]

It's crazy that she's making an argument against no platforming but doesn't even realise it

[@elrjames7799]

Celeste is probably speaking in the tradition of 'devil's advocate'.

[@scottcped]

THIS is an example of the level of intellect allowed into Oxford? Might as well be Stratford Community College.

[@uniquehandle1999]

This is crazy, you would have thought it would be the young adults who are in favour of free speech and the older folks pushing against it! Strange times.

[@rickybojangles162]

SHE was allowed into Oxford?! How?!

[@leewhite344]

I'm really enjoying watching Ann Widdecombe watch her lol. Look at her at around 2:49 😂😂

[@mattalley4330]

I would argue that attempting to silence people, in any way shape or form, inevitably does not end well.

[@RedSkyHorizon]

Absolute free speech gives us the opportunity to debate, ridicule and even change the minds of those who hold extreme views. I left school at 16 with no qualifications but even I know this.

[@norfernbaz2578]

Congrats to Celeste on get married the same day as taking part in this debate.

[@thedolphin5428]

Oh, I get it now (after several minutes of thinking). It's her wedding dress. Lol.

[@Sinsteel]

"Became adults in the 2010s" yeah I don't think they ever became adults, but it is hilariously familiar to watch every new crop of 18-22 year olds entirely sure they know better than anyone who's come before them.

[@wearesouls6783]

DO THEY PAY FOR THEIR EDUCATION IN ENGLAND? SHE SHOULD ASK FOR HER MONEY BACK.

[@dstott3604]

This offends me take it down and never let her on KZbin again

[@highlightning6693]

Although I probably shouldn't be I am still absolutely astonished that anyone in the west would stand for the abolition of free speech. It's just unthinkable.

[@RomanAugustus]

You would not have multi-colour skittles if she was in charge of production!

[@UncleBoratagain]

The right of 'freedom to listen' should exist surely? No one should be obliged to stay in a room, or not turn off the television or radio?

[@williampjohnston53]

The horrifying thing is that it was MY generation that indoctrinated her to think like this.

[@milton7763]

“We may be unable to rebut some of the arguments so we have to no platform” 🤦‍♂️

[@Inos74]

thank you very much for making your debates public available , very educational.

[@brubrushanghai]

Quite a poor argument (but grateful to Oxford Union for giving her a platform

[@paultaylor4647]

How anyone can oppose free speech is beyond me.We MUST always have free speech.

[@grizzlygrizzle]

She's smarter than the other two on her side, but it's a second-order cleverness. Her failure to grasp the fundamental hypocrisy of her position is a higher-order failure than the others' failure to grasp even the more superficial stupidities of their positions. This young lady might have a future in politics. God help us.

[@quigglyz]

I'm perfectly happy to use Celeste's own logic. I will deplatform her from my life.

[@swiftysmithuk]

I can only hope that Celeste was charged with the task of arguing such an untenable position. Because if so, I feel she did the best she could having been placed in support of no platforming.

[@WarrenLeggatt]

It was interesting hearing her mention Marie Le Penne in this. I am no fan of Marie but watched the Oxford talk she made because I wanted to better understand who she was in her own words. You know, the best way to understand someone and what they stand for. After watching I realised why they want no platform, it is because all the dumb questions they asked trying to trip her up and make her look bad only served the purpose of making Marie look the sane one. The no platform mob have such limited experience in challenging anyone that when they try they just look like petty children. This is meant to be oxford is it not, one of the top universities, that prepares you best to enter the real world and function within it.

[@streglof]

Nothing wrong with being a snowflake because "it is because you know the difference between right and wrong" does she know she's talking out loud?

[@marcoalessandro2034]

yes, it was an embarrassment for me to watch and listen here all on my lonesome...strange sense of empathy for the naive

[@pazma1]

Proponents of no platforming are making the mistake of assuming that it's people who are like minded with them who will be the deciders. What if someday the people with whom they disagree are deciding who speaks? They might just no platform homosexuals, Muslims, atheists etc. It's all well and good when it's those with whom you agree are the deciders. We have the society we have because disadvantaged people CAN speak. The proposition to no platform can easily be turned against those who need a platform the most.

[@giovannimoreno7468]

This woman forgot rationality and spanx

[@pigknickers2975]

hilarious

[@charlotte7568]

We don’t have protected free speech in this country and that’s dangerous.

[@y1521t21b5]

There is a delicious futility to proposing the motion: Any argument short of criminal violation is doomed to fail when held up against freedom of expression whereas any argument that invokes criminal violation is properly the purview of courts of law...

[@billbixby4431]

Bad times create strong people. Strong people create good times. Good times create weak people. Weak people create bad times. Bad times are here. These sensitive people don’t realize what they are doing to society by trying to destrengthen our society.

[@janeofthefamilytaylor7242]

Omg she's so out of touch with reality !

[@chanman2001]

You have the right to speak. But others have the right not to listen. You have the right not to listen. But others have the right to listen. You rights governing speech ends and begins with yourself.

[@00BillyTorontoBill]

By definition the Oxford Union debates DO NOT believe in de-platforming otherwise the debates would all be one sided. But, I guess its good to re-affirm core values every so often.

[@googletaqiyya184]

Limiting or reducing rights is a subject that should never be undertaken. Rights are fundamental to the human spirit and are off limit.

[@vgahren]

The idea of free speech is not an abstract concept simply because someone decided it is to make themselves feel better about themselves. It’s the hallmark of snowflakism. Referring to free speech as an ‘abstract concept’ puts it in the same category as one’s sense of fashion.

[@charlotte7568]

But why does only ONE side get to say what is right and wrong?

[@GeraldSmallbear]

Fair play to her, she articulated the case quite well until she got to the snowflake bit and inadvertently made the other side’s point for them.

[@englishrose78]

Well what has happened to our educational system to allow such crap to be deemed worthy of debate?

[@zaynevanbommel5983]

If only this young girl had some life experience pmsl

[@wall-e7179]

Apologies from Scotland

[@thinkercat2836]

I agree better have people debate all ideas, not let it go underground by banning which contributes to extremes at both ends politics - polarisation.

[@frankdillon7958]

She obviously got into oxford on a quota basis, ie feminist man hating lesbian, if these are our future movers and shakers God help us !

[@commodoreNZ]

"Student mental health is deteriorating"...clearly

[@yardh]

"there is no better place for discussion" - "only with those I agree with". That's 1.38 in. Can I really be bothered to listen to any more when she starts with such a huge contradiction?

[@zataha3]

She doesnt want them to speak because she knows she can't refute their arguments

[@pathacker4963]

Someone should have talked her out of that dress. Did she pick that dress for it's snowflakiness? Here in California we would call her a "valley girl". Students like this would have fed Socrates the hemlock for the sake of their positions. Today they demand moderators and censorship because they can't defend their own views. I am not sure what they will do when their parents and nannies die.

[@IRISHFELLA2010]

Blah blah blah

[@girlgirl4548]

The idiotic whooping! Yukk! Jazz-handing next?

[@ReinPetersen]

where would this madness end? what a truly scary dystopia you have described - god forbid this affront to intellecuality and freedom of thought

[@Roger-ws8rj]

I absolutely love this woman's accent, but I cant stand the words coming out of her mouth.

[@magicman5318]

Both were annoying...

[@ladycrystalr-u.s.a]

You're already in a blizzard princess.

[@SammyInnit]

The great irony of what she believes is that it's clear that her opinion is not of favour with the majority (all the OU videos of support for no platforming have been down voted at around 5:1) yet because she herself has not been deplatformed and still has the ability to address the house with her bad ideas.

[@SBCBears]

Maybe you're a little bit stupid. It's a formal debate. The debaters are assigned a position on an issue and must argue for that position. It does not mean that they actually support that position. But, of course, you did not either read or comprehend the note or the spoken introduction.

[@SammyInnit]

@@SBCBears maybe you just don't understand the irony of having an opposing position to freedom of speech. The grounds of the debate are irrelevant to the points being made. Regardless of if she herself does or doesn't directly personally believe in what she is saying, the irony remains, her ability to say it is because of the fact no one props up the opinion she's presenting. Maybe you're completely stupid.

[@valvlog4665]

4:00 "I've taken 3 days writing this speech" OMG. Seems to me she's perfect for a reality TV show - from the little I know about them.

[@thedolphin5428]

Yeah, and a later speaker, Ann Widdicombe, spent 50 years of life SINCE LEAVING OXFORD preparing her speech.

[@theseustoo]

Does such a moronic proposition really require a full debate? The answer is, quite simply, "NO!"

[@midnightshade32]

Why is it mostly young women pushing this no platforming bs, as well as their male simps and the extreme side of the alphabet people? Also I hope this no platforming lost. Can anyone answer that?

[@roastbeef1010]

I loved it when Katie and Ann looked at each other when the woman said “there’s nothing wrong with being a snowflake”

[@cthulhumythos2033]

If you think about it, snowflakes have their opinion too and free speech applies to them too. So yes there's nothing wrong with being a snowflake. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

[@leighparr7961]

@@cthulhumythos2033 What's your point? They're still snowflakes although snowflakes are individual and unique and individual, independent thought is the last thing these people want.