How to ask questions at a public debate

I watch quite a lot of public debates on the Internet and sometimes I attend them as an audience member too. At such debates there is usually a panel of distinguished guests. They have ten minutes or so each to speak on the given topic, then ten minutes to answer. Eventually the debate is opened up to the floor for questions. Questions. Did everybody get that?

Almost invariably at these events, soon after the roving mic reaches the first “questioner”, one has that sinking feeling. It is nearly always a rambling individual who takes a full minute or so to build up to their “point” then takes another five minutes minutes making it then sees fit to add an extended lecture about something totally irrelevant.

Sometimes they have no point at all to make, and simply need to be shut down by the moderator (if they are doing their job properly, which is not often enough). Almost always, the asking of the question is a painful, drawn-out process, full of ego, devoid of respect for the speakers (who have earned their places) and terminally, excruciatingly boring.

Not many things are boring to the reflective mind, so this is an achievement indeed. There is limited time for questions as such events, so these self-indulgent, uninvited lectures by ignoramuses are extremely selfish and unwelcome. You can feel the time running out as they speak, still not getting to their point. Other people even sometimes start booing and ask these questioners to shut up. They didn’t go there to hear them.

Please remember these simple rules in order not to be infuriating at public debates:

1. Be concise!!! Get to your point. A preamble giving context should not be more than 5 seconds long. Your question, following this, should ideally be only one moderate length sentence.
2. Have a point. Engage brain before raising hand. Think it through. Predict the likely answer. Don’t waste everybody’s time with something inane or off-topic.
3. Remember you are asking a question. This is NOT your platform to sound off with a long lecture to show people how knowledgeable you think you are on some given topic that may be loosely related to the discussion. People are not interested. Put that on your own site and they’ll go there if you’re that great. Show respect for the panel and ask a carefully considered question inviting them to teach you (or indeed to reveal that they have not considered an angle of the topic).

It is selfish and extremely annoying when ignorant members of an audience hog a microphone, failing to observe the simple rules above. Moderators should be strict and shut them down and move on, allowing more considerate and intelligent people to contribute instead. They’re usually there, they’re just not as pushy.

Geert Wilders coming to London again

Breaking news: Geert Wilders MP, currently being tried for speaking the truth in the Netherlands, has announced his intention to travel to the UK again to screen his short film Fitna.

Mr Wilders has again been invited by Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox and will travel to London to show the film in the House of Lords on 5th March.

Dr Goebbels describes propaganda

Joseph Goebbels understood propaganda. Here he describes propaganda methodology in a way that seems also to describe the policy of the government and the BBC here in the UK. For example, they are both devoted to the ideology of multiculturalism despite mounting evidence of its inherent problems, and both repeatedly tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, despite considerable evidence to the contrary.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

- Joseph Goebbels, Reichsminister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany

This is an extremely interesting quotation at this point in time, because right now the political, economic and military consequences of various leftist ideological “lies” are now indeed becoming undeniable. The topsy-turvy case of Geert Wilders being tried for speaking the truth in his own country. One law for Muslims, another for non-Muslims. High indigenous unemployment. People like Pat Condell scoring over 1 million hits on his videos (well, there is no-one else like Pat). Commenters on the BBC’s “Have Your Say” near-unanimously contradicting politically correct news articles. Judges saying they think the maximum sentences they can impose are ludicrously lenient. You can find links for all of these on my site. The lie’s coming undone in all sorts of directions.

I await now, of course, accusations of Nazism from brainwashed liberals, who fail to see that it is the Left who have embraced Dr Goebbels’ rules of propaganda to wholeheartedly, silencing any dissent from the from “allowed” PC views, and therefore in many cases silencing the speaking of truths.

JMW Turner: Pope’s Villa at Twickenham

Gym music

You notice all kinds of things at the gym. People sitting around doing nothing, sitting on machines so other people can’t use them, grunting loudly and inconsiderately because they can’t manage the weights they’re lifting, you get all types.

I get on very well with the staff, who are very friendly, and most people are okay – just the grunters become annoying. There are all shapes and sizes, too – it’s not all beautiful people at the gym – there are a few of those but it’s mostly people trying to get fit. One thing I would advise though: take your Walkman. I was chided for that today for showing my age – take your iPod.

The music in most gyms is, for the most part, limited to the most cretinous music in society: that with the most irritating melodies and which promotes the worst possible values, optimised to do the maximum damage to human relations and therefore to society itself.

I shall give you some examples from two songs I heard today in order to illustrate my point:

“Before I leave, brush my teeth with a bottle of Jack”

“Trying to get a little bit tipsy”

“Ain’t got a care in world, but got plenty of beer”

“And now, the dudes are lining up cause they hear we got swagger but we kick em to the curb unless they look like Mick Jagger”

“Police shut us down, down”

This song is by a female (I can’t say a lady) called Ke$ha (note the dollar sign which actually forms part of the name, denoting the importance of money while doing no work). It’s a goldmine of depravity with nothing even remotely intelligent to be found in any of the lyrics. This is generally much admired by the “fashionable” youth of today while being much loathed by any more intelligent people who have the misfortune of hearing it. To call the song irresponsible would be an understatement.

If it perhaps topped, however, by another music television favourite: “Bad Boys”, which goes as follows:

“Some people call them players
But I’m far from terrified
‘Cause somehow I’m drawn to danger
And have been all of my life”

“Yeah, the bad boys are always catching my eye
I said the bad boys are always spinning my mind
Even though I know they’re no good for me
It’s the risk I take for the chemistry”

“Addicted to them rougher fellas”

This is about as profound as these lyrics get.

After cases like this, you might find this song, as I do, extremely irresponsible to the point that there should perhaps even be legislation against it. Many young women will see such rubbish as vindication of their poor judgement. It is in fact both idiotic and disgusting at the same time.

The song is by a competition winner so far mainly known for her vastly inferior version of the song famously sung by Jeff Buckley, Hallelujah. She said that song “did nothing for her”.

So that’s the kind of music typically played in gyms, because they have music television on. It’s brainless, but aside from complaining to the management (which you could do) the best thing to do, of course, is to plug in your iPod and listen to something intelligent instead. Perhaps a podcast like this one.

Lifting dumbbells

I notice various things at the gym and one is that some people work out with dumbbells holding them like this:

How not to do it

They swing the weight up and down. This is better than nothing, of course, but it seems to me a bad idea, the reason being that the lifter is greatly assisted by the momentum of the weight.

How to do it

In the latter example the lifting is more difficult, thus more beneficial. It’s possible I could be wrong about this, and if so I would appreciate any comments below.

Douglas Murray: speaking truth

Douglas Murray, Director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, has been turning out some great articles for The Telegraph recently. They’re remarkable because they are bereft of political correctness and instead full of truth. I just commented under this one as follows:

“Great article, Douglas. Please keep it up. Few in the media even dare to speak up against the PC craziness that has taken over the country, so your voice is needed. It’s about time we said a resounding “No” to Islam and re-asserted our own values in the UK.

Also high time people stopped hating our allies the Americans and reminded themselves where the true threats to society lie: from the religion of peace and institutional political correctness.”

Geert Wilders’ opening speech

Here’s is Geert Wilders’ excellent opening speech at his disgraceful trial in the Netherlands:

Oops! The latest free Adobe Flash Player™ is required to view this content.

I believe this is a win/win situation for Wilders and whatever the outcome he will win more support.

I have written to the National Secular Society as follows:

“This week, the principle of freedom of speech while not inciting violence has gone on trial in the Netherlands, in the form of MP Geert Wilders being tried by his own government.

I want to note first of all that the start of this very significant trial has so far gone completely unreported by the BBC. (Of course, the Today Programme did instead run a feature on the “triumphs of Muslim science“. That’s “triumphs” of several hundred years ago, mind you. The bias of the BBC is embarrassingly transparent now).

It will be interesting to see how this trial proceeds. If Wilders is found guilty, then telling the truth, even while not inciting violence, will be seen to be illegal in the Netherlands. The Dutch government particularly disliked Wilders’ film Fitna, but in that film he hardly said anything at all, and merely quoted from the Qur’an.

This brings me onto my next point, which is that Islam itself is effectively also on trial. If Wilders can show with reference to his witnesses and to the text that the Qur’an is indeed hateful towards unbelievers, then Islam is guilty. Whether the court would ever honour such a finding, however, is of course another matter entirely.”

Ethnic profiling

Let’s imagine there was a killer at large, who it was known resembled me. I don’t identify with any particular religious or ethnic group, but let’s say I did, and it was known that this killer also belonged to my group. He looks like me, he’s killing in the name of my group. He’s bringing it a bad name.

Should I co-operate with the police in this matter? According to Andy Choudary, of course, no. But I surely should. There are so many reasons why I should:

1. I should want this killer caught, whatever group he is from.
2. I should want him to stop tarnishing the reputation of my group.
3. I should want myself eliminated from enquiries.

I should be the first person stepping up to help in any way I can, and I should understand, obviously, if the police are particularly interested in me rather than in little old ladies of a different ethnic group.

The major threat in terms of terrorism these days comes from Muslims. There are white Muslims and black Muslims, however it is fair to say that most Muslims are of Arab or Indian descent. The would-be killers are a scurge on the reputation of innocent Muslims; one would think they would want them rooted out as soon as possible. But are they so “innocent” while they deny, or remain silent about, the problem in their midst?

Is it reasonable of them to object to some degree of ethnic profiling at airports? I think not. This is only normal policing (profiling of any kind) but it faces great opposition from liberals of many backgrounds. It thereby risks lives.

Here is a very interesting article someone has sent me which explains that exactly this kind of politically correct thinking allowed September 11th to happen.

An evening with Theodore Dalrymple

On June 2, 2005, Theodore Dalrymple spoke at the Harvard Club in New York to celebrate the release of his book Our Culture, What’s Left Of It: The Mandarins and the Masses, published by Ivan R. Dee. This is one of the most well written and important books I have ever read.

By watching a series of videos, starting with the one below, we have the honour of experiencing the evening with Dalrymple as if we had been there. His eloquence is outstanding, as are his compassion and his good humour. Dalrymple is a man not only of great erudition but also of immense direct experience. When he speaks of the severe problems facing Britain in terms of social decay, and their causes, he knows exactly what he is talking about.

Even if the government isn’t listening, you can. Enjoy the talk!

(There is a fairly long introduction by his publisher first.)

Oops! The latest free Adobe Flash Player™ is required to view this content.

The vulgarity of Richard Dawkins’ forums

“Moral values are easily reversed: what was formally thought good becomes evil, and vice-versa. This has certainly happened in my own country, Britain, and moreover it has happened as a mass phenomenon which I think, if you visited Britain, you would see on the streets every day.”

- Theodore Dalrymple

I am very disappointed to have to write this article because I have had respect for Richard Dawkins since well before he became a high profile atheist. Ever since, actually, The Blind Watchmaker was published. I’ve supported his clear reasoning and atheism and continue to do so, but I have to say I’m appalled at the standard of debate he permits – and therefore allows to inevitably flourish – on his web forums.

If you take a look at this thread you’ll see what I mean. I suggest you read it all, and follow links providing evidence (which is certainly more than most “contributors” did).

Not only is there is a very low level of intellectual debate exhibited here, with frequent use of logical fallacies (for example the Argument from Tradition and the Argument from Authority) but there is also a distinct and unpleasant pack mentality of bullying and of glorifying the gratuitous use of foul language and general apathy. People here shout others down without evidence but with the fully sanctioned use of vulgarity, obscenity and profanity instead.

When such language is permitted (i.e. when almost no standards are required) scum inevitably rises to the surface and the intellectual level of debate plummets. That’s why it is not allowed in journals, in university departments or indeed on many web forums. Such low-level discussion very probably puts many capable contributors off having anything to do with the forums. It certainly puts me off (as it does other people whom I know and esteem).

It would be hard to ban intellectual inadequacy, I grant, but gratuitous use of foul language is not banned on Richard Dawkins’ forums. Since the forums are a public place, and such anti-social, uncultured behaviour is hardly typical of the man himself, I find this surprising.

The forum terms specify only that certain kinds of “hatred” are disallowed, as follows:

“Richarddawkins.net will not foster or support racist, homophobic or sexist bigotry. Therefore, you may not post hateful, abusive or disparaging content about people’s race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender.”

This suggests a distinct political correctness which potentially even restricts free evidence-based discussion – because the above issues are hardly cut and dried. It also implies that other kinds of abusive content are fine.  Contrast it, for example, with the terms found at Sam Harris’ forums. These do not restrict themselves to PC areas but are instead all-encompassing and non-specific:

“By registering at this site you agree not to post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, or that violate any laws.  We will permanently ban all users who do so.”

As such these are surely better terms (and far more succinct than those found at Richard Dawkins’ forums, which are several screens long going into other topics). Unfortunately these are not properly enforced at Sam Harris’ site, but at least they’re there should recourse be required.

Without quality control, debates will gravitate downwards. Forum posters who evidently have very little life outside the forum – extremely prolific “contributors” who have chosen names such as “Half_Cut”, “Fallible” and “Im_With_Stupid” for themselves – can barge out more occasional posters who do have lives, by insisting on very low standards in their clique. Other posters, rude, coarse individuals, the “voluntarily unemployed” are also free to unload streams of f-words for no good reason except that they feel it makes them look clever – and they will find themselves in majority company.

I have been told by a forum administrator that Richard Dawkins himself has no problem with the kind of excessive foul language (not to mention the low intellectual standard of debate and the apathy and nihilism) exhibited in the thread above, but I cannot help finding this very sad, and feeling this reflects very badly on him. I would certainly not allow this extremely low level of content on my site, and I doubt that he would have allowed such people in his lecture theatres. But on his personal website, setting the standard of debate, that’s fine. Surprising, to say the very least.

Geert Wilders’ trial goes unreported by BBC

Freedom of speech without inciting violence, is on trial in the Netherlands in a test case for Europe.

Geert Wilders’ trial began yesterday with this fine speech, yet this important trial has gone completely unreported on the BBC.

Since Mr Wilders is critical of Islam, this is, of course, hardly unsurprising, but it is shameful. We will have to have Pat Condell speak up, instead:

Oops! The latest free Adobe Flash Player™ is required to view this content.

George Orwell predicts political correctness

“The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, CRIMESTOP.

CRIMESTOP means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.

CRIMESTOP, in short, means protective stupidity… orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one’s own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body.”

- George Orwell, 1984

Gesticulation

The greater the degree of gesticulation, the lower the degree of linguistic competence and confidence.

Restricting freedom of speech

A good many liberals in the UK have been getting very worked up recently about two decisions:

1. The banning of minaret building in Switzerland
2. The banning of Islamist group Islam4UK

There’s been talk about these decisions possibly restricting freedom of speech for Muslims and I will discuss them here.

Minarets, first of all, are a cultural and political symbol of Islam. Even though they are critical of Islamic ideology, the Council of Ex-Muslims has expressed its disapproval of the minaret building ban. This surprised me because the Swiss have democratically decided they don’t want their country any further Islamicised, and this seems to me a very good thing. Furthermore, that decision has not actually curtailed anybody’s freedom of speech.

Turning to Anjem “Andy” Choudary and Islam4UK, many -  including the National Secular Society – have condemned the government’s decision to ban the group on grounds that this threatens freedom of speech in the UK. I would first like to point out that there is not in fact absolute freedom of speech in the UK: incitement to commit violence, glorification of terrorism, stirring up religious hatred and slander, for example, are all already crimes under UK law (Mr Choudary, with his relentless promotion of Islam, could arguably be tried under the first three of these).

Secondly I would like to point out that the banning of Islam4UK is largely a cynical political ploy by the Labour Party which does not in fact restrict Mr Choudary’s freedom of speech any further than it was restricted by law previously. The decision to ban the group merely sends a message of disapproval of Mr Choudary’s views, and the government has done this because it senses that the public disapproves of his views. (If it really wanted to take steps against the negative influence of Islam in the UK it would, for example, be banning ritual animal slaughter.)

Thirdly, and this is the main point: while liberals are very vocal in their defence of Mr Choudary’s freedom speech, they seem far less concerned about Geert Wilders, who is due to sit trial in the Netherlands next week for exercising his right to free speech and about people such as Sebastian Faulkes, who had to retract his reasonable comments about Islam for fear of being murdered.

Islam is openly proud of being intolerant of free speech (even in the form criticism or ridicule, never mind incitement to violence). Mr Choudary’s freedom of speech is actually protected by the police in the UK (if it were not he would no doubt keep his mouth shut for his own safety), yet he seeks to impose a rule which does not value freedom of any kind. It is towards Islamists that liberals should be directing their concerns right now.