Cancel culture

[sjc]

I think people often confuse free speech and inciting (racial, religious, etc) hatred similarly slander or libel. But the flip side to this is that there are laws against the latter and a Court system in place to prosecute those guilty of these crimes therefore cancel culture often seems like an attack on different opinions.

[Theroadlesstravelled]

2 hours ago, sjc said:

I think people often confuse free speech and inciting (racial, religious, etc) hatred similarly slander or libel. But the flip side to this is that there are laws against the latter and a Court system in place to prosecute those guilty of these crimes therefore cancel culture often seems like an attack on different opinions.

This sounds like the start of a Law and Order episode.

[sjc]

17 minutes ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

This sounds like the start of a Law and Order episode.

It was but it got cancelled......

[Dunning1874]

10 hours ago, anotherchance said:

 

If it stopped there, then I’d agree - it doesn’t though.

People are going off their head at JK Rowling, wanting boycotts of her books, giving her death threats and basically wanting her to be persona non grata because they disagree with her views on something. That’s a lot more than just “calling someone out” on something.

Yes, it’s a multi millionaire this time but imagine someone took a joke or throwaway remark you made on Facebook or Twitter years ago, removed all context and used it online as evidence of you being a bigot - then you get the abuse online, the death threats and the attempts to get you the sack from your job.

In a tolerant society, people get the opportunity to reflect on mistakes, apologise and better themselves as a result - there’s no incentive for them to improve themselves if they’re just cast aside.
 

 

 

8 hours ago, anotherchance said:

 

That sounds hellish - it shouldn’t be a left/right issue though.

I want a strong left, but I want it to be inclusive and not to reject anyone because they said the wrong thing once and got “cancelled” - there has to be room to f**k up, have the opportunity it’s to reflect, then learn from it and be accepted again.

 

I entirely agree that people have to get the opportunity to reflect on mistakes they've made and learn more about the issues at hand as part of a healthy discourse. The points about academics raised by JTS98 are certainly worth considering.

You're using the example of JK Rowling though. This didn't begin with Rowling making one comment and immediately having a braying mob demanding all Harry Potter books and merchandise be thrown on a pyre. She makes one comment, people respond respectfully with why they disagree and the facts supporting their argument, she makes another comment, the same thing happens, people point out why this contribution could be harmful.

You get months of doubling down while refusing to engage in good faith with honest disagreement until she's descending into a Linehan level spiral crossing the line into outright bigotry, leading people to a position best summarised as 'you've got no interest in engaging with facts or evidence so I've no interest in engaging with you'. When those people say f**k this, conclude she's a bigot, decide they won't support her work any more and tell her so, she then complains on the platform where she's speaking to tens of millions of people on a daily basis that her freedom of speech is being attacked.

That isn't someone not getting the opportunity to reflect or better themselves because of the braying mob wanting to instantly silence anyone who disagrees with them. That's someone with no interest in engaging in an issue in good faith, throwing vulnerable people under the bus then trying to shut down any criticism of their position by accusing those criticising of intolerance. It's the 'so much for the tolerant left' meme being played out in real life. All while using their influential platform to attack one of the most vulnerable groups of society and encourage hatred of them.

That's not someone having their freedom of speech undermined by "cancel culture", that's someone who wants freedom from the consequences of their speech. I should have the right to my freedom of speech but when someone disagrees with me they have no right to use theirs in response, and if any of you plebs dare to do so I will continue to use my social media account followed by millions, widely promoted radio or TV appearances or highly paid newspaper column to complain how disgusting it is that you've taken my freedom of speech away.

[Jacksgranda]

8 hours ago, tamthebam said:

It was Voltaire who said that .

He also said judge not someone on the answers they give but the questions they ask 

Did he?

[Sergeant Wilson]

43 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

The points raised by JTS98 are certainly worth considering.

 

Could someone check if Hell has frozen over?

[Broomhill Ultra]

Oh ffs let's not go down this route on this thread too.

Sorry I’ve not seen any other threads about it. Saying there could be risks around allowing any random man to legally say he’s a woman and is therefore a clearly mental idea shouldn’t amount to hate speech

[D Angelo Barksdale]

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

35 minutes ago, Broomhill Ultra said:

Sorry I’ve not seen any other threads about it. Saying there could be risks around allowing any random man to legally say he’s a woman and is therefore a clearly mental idea shouldn’t amount to hate speech

I'm afraid we don't often make laws based around the most outlandish and unlikely scenario that may result from them. Which is why, once again, we have to look at other countries where these laws have been introduced and say, has this increased instances of this happening? Otherwise you're asking us to give a massively oppressed group less dignity because of the Boogeyman 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Genuine Hibs Fan

[Ross.]

2 minutes ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

I'm afraid we don't often make laws based around the most outlandish and unlikely scenario that may result from them. Which is why, once again, we have to look at other countries where these laws have been introduced and say, has this increased instances of this happening? Otherwise you're asking us to give a massively oppressed group less dignity because of the Boogeyman 

The bolded bit may be true, but it is often the case that extremes are the reasoning behind many decisions being made in the first place. 99% of people don't break laws but they exist thanks to the 1%. Minority elements have often caused headaches to huge majorities.

One thing I would say on this subject is that the trans movement has to own that extreme and deal with the tiny minority who do come across as nothing more than misogynists with no boundaries who are using the trans movement as a vehicle to damage women, a bit like the gay community had to deal with and distance itself from organisations like PIE in the 70's and 80's when they tried to piggyback on the gay rights movement to advance their wants.

[Dunning1874]

24 minutes ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

This is a good one.

 

[Detournement]

12 hours ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

Damn, folk are actually losing their jobs for being bigots ?

That's a step too far, we should probably just stop calling out people for their shitty opinions. The last thing we want to do is make these people feel uncomfortable.

In the well known George Orwell book Animal Farm, 1984 was the amount of racists who lost their job due to cancel culture.

Spooky stuff.

When you hear about nonsense like that book White Fragility then you can see how this sort of mentality can go too far in America with their high levels of idiocy and No Fault dismissal.

 

[Detournement]

This guy got sacked for racism for tweeting a study by a black Princeton academic. 

The contradiction of having to appear to be anti racist whilst producing a racist society guarantees shit like this will increase. 

[Broomhill Ultra]

I'm afraid we don't often make laws based around the most outlandish and unlikely scenario that may result from them. Which is why, once again, we have to look at other countries where these laws have been introduced and say, has this increased instances of this happening? Otherwise you're asking us to give a massively oppressed group less dignity because of the Boogeyman 

Have I picked this up wrong or will it be an offence for a woman to ask a man if he is in a woman’s changing room if he ‘should’ be there?

[Broomhill Ultra]

I've been on lots of Uni tours over the past five years with my kids. Apart from Durham, the main UCL building and one Oxford college we visited all of the public loos had been remodeled or built to be gender-neutral and had been done tastefully.  This is also happening in newer bars and pubs.  Mind you, Soul in Aberdeen had separate areas for men and women to pee/shite but a common wash-room area a decade ago.
Where Aberdeen leads the rest of the UK will follow...

Absolutely no issue with any of that, as long as there are still urinals about as they reduce queuing for all genders and none. We could say they are for ‘stander uppers’.

[Sergeant Wilson]

19 minutes ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

Big fan of a start to a sentence like this being something I don't even bat an eyelid at anymore. Thank you, internet!

Re gender neutral toilets, one of the offices I work in has them - nearly had a heart attack the first time I walked into one without realising and saw several women at the sinks etc. Just a microsecond of sheer panic. Then obviously I remembered they were gender neutral toilets and got over myself because I am an adult. 

If they're in the trap next to you can you hear each other pishing and farting. It would cut down on potential office romances if you'd heard the object of your desires parking their breakfast.

[Miguel Sanchez]

19 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

If they're in the trap next to you can you hear each other pishing and farting. It would cut down on potential office romances if you'd heard the object of your desires parking their breakfast.

Careful with your terminology there, Sarge

[tamthebam]

4 hours ago, Jacksgranda said:

Did he?

no...

Spoiler

...Doddy! so THRRP to the lot of you!

 

[Broomhill Ultra]

Interesting (quite long) article that for me highlights how complex these issues are and that they can’t constructively be discussed somewhere like twitter with its mob culture.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/07/when-a-child-says-shes-trans/561749/

Thinking about what I’m actually trying to say here and I think people with right wing views online should be treated roughly speaking as in real life;

Farage type populists, obvious dog-whistle racisty but essentially democrats : they should be allowed to speak, argued with and the ludicrousness off their arguments exposed.

Tommy Robinson / KT Hopkins type bigots, further right but still trying to be respectable while really just wanting to be famous & cash in : they should be ridiculed and drowned out and exposed relentlessly for what they are. But still allowed to speak as long as they don’t tip over into outright inciting violence.

Britain First / National Action outright Fascists : Bricks, bottles and bans, drive them underground and make them go to door to door if they want to talk to normal people.

For folk like Linehan, Jk Rowling who may have one or two views you may disagree on but are clearly not monstrous people, then others should be allowed to make up their own minds on whether they still want to buy their stuff or identify as fans.

[NotThePars]

44 minutes ago, Broomhill Ultra said:

For folk like Linehan, Jk Rowling who may have one or two views you may disagree on but are clearly not monstrous people, then others should be allowed to make up their own minds on whether they still want to buy their stuff or identify as fans.

I would consider Linehan a swivel-eyed lunatic given a visit from the polis, openly admitting he lost tons of work, his wife's family slagging him off online and eventually his wife leaving him wasn't enough for him to stop his anti-trans crusade