Jump to content

Cancel culture


Recommended Posts

Dude, you're defending her pretty vociferously considering you don't even know what she said to cause the controversy.
If you're interested; this author does a pretty good job of breaking down the issue. If you aren't interested, well then, OK.
What JK Rowling gets wrong about trans people
He's not defending her at all.

He's attacking the fact that folk were crying 'bigot' based on a statement which was misguided, possible even factually incorrect.

Too many folk simply pick sides and then aim for the most blistering out hilarious line of attack to justify their decision.

No matter what is said the argument never really develops, because individuals are 'wiped' in terms of credibility if they ever make one mis-step.

The most important thing is to be seen to win the argument, whatever it takes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

He's attacking the fact that folk were crying 'bigot' based on a statement which was misguided, possible even factually incorrect.

But that's my point. It wasn't A statement singular. It was multiple, over a period of time. Statements that she must have known would have a seriously detrimental effect on the lives of the marginalised group to which she was referring. This wasn't just an innocent slip of the tongue.

Edited by Shotgun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's my point. It wasn't A statement singular. It was multiple, over a period of time. Statements that she must have known would have a seriously detrimental effect on the lives of the marginalised group to which she was referring. This wasn't just an innocent slip of the tongue.
But he wasn't talking about rowling on the whole, he was talking about the example quoted in this thread.

As quite a few posters pointed out, that quote wasn't in itself bigoted. It wasn't clever, but it wasn't bigoted.

Now you've shifted the goal posts and are still making the point that he's defending her... Which he's not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Now you've shifted the goal posts

I really don't think I'm the one who's doing that. But, as I know this is the type of Internet argument, which can go on an on until one or both of the parties die of boredom, I'm' going to stop. 🥂

Link to comment
Share on other sites



That last paragraph is not true although I understand how you can make that judgment if your exposure to the debate is filtered through the poisonous (often broadsheet led) media lens.
Your point about the way the debate is put across in the media is a valid one.

I'm not on any other social media (than this) and so my take on the trans debate has been shaped by what I've seen in the media (newsnight, guardian, and a few links from here). By in large, the debate has been framed in a way that doesn't reflect well on trans activists.

I know that's a bias in my view, and if i cared more I'd research it more fully.

My issue is that it is a topic that seems to receive so much more air-time than can be justified. In relative figures it doesn't affect huge numbers of people - but for a lot of people it's very high on their agenda. I've often wondered if this was intentional (the whole culture wars thing).

I'd much rather see these energies put into tracking the wealth disparity in our society - a topic which affects many millions of people and yet imo it doesn't seem to get enough coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Your point about the way the debate is put across in the media is a valid one.

I'm not on any other social media (than this) and so my take on the trans debate has been shaped by what I've seen in the media (newsnight, guardian, and a few links from here). By in large, the debate has been framed in a way that doesn't reflect well on trans activists.

I know that's a bias in my view, and if i cared more I'd research it more fully.

My issue is that it is a topic that seems to receive so much more air-time than can be justified. In relative figures it doesn't affect huge numbers of people - but for a lot of people it's very high on their agenda. I've often wondered if this was intentional (the whole culture wars thing).

I'd much rather see these energies put into tracking the wealth disparity in our society - a topic which affects many millions of people and yet imo it doesn't seem to get enough coverage.
 

It's clearly completely exhausting having to debate your existence on a daily basis with people that aren't engaging in good faith*. It was exhausting for black people, it was exhausting for gays, lesbians and especially now for trans people. And it is intentionally blown up beyond all due significance because the people that are against it know that if they can't win the argument then they just exhaust everyone that makes the mistake of taking an interest so that it becomes poisonous to even touch with a bargepole. Any government with a conscience here would just ram through the changes before it becomes a culture war and then those that desperately need the support provided by these legislations can still have them while your bigots spend all day getting mad about it online. The situation as it stands right now in Britain just pisses off everyone with no upside.

 

*By this I don't mean everyone that maybe voices a concern as I do understand how someone new to the discussion may have a warped understanding as it's a discussion rife with misinformation. I mean your thought leaders in the debate like Julie Bindel, Sarah Ditum, Graham Linehan etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your point about the way the debate is put across in the media is a valid one.

I'm not on any other social media (than this) and so my take on the trans debate has been shaped by what I've seen in the media (newsnight, guardian, and a few links from here). By in large, the debate has been framed in a way that doesn't reflect well on trans activists.

I know that's a bias in my view, and if i cared more I'd research it more fully.

My issue is that it is a topic that seems to receive so much more air-time than can be justified. In relative figures it doesn't affect huge numbers of people - but for a lot of people it's very high on their agenda. I've often wondered if this was intentional (the whole culture wars thing).

I'd much rather see these energies put into tracking the wealth disparity in our society - a topic which affects many millions of people and yet imo it doesn't seem to get enough coverage.

Not that I want to kick the Hornets nest here, but I agree. I have posted longer winded explanations in the past but tl;dr version....In a world where we still have rampant racism and homophobia, amongst other forms of discrimination, often as high up as at government level (hiya Donald and Boris) the right to select your own gender independently of your sex is low down my list of priorities.

The whole "but whit toilet will they use" is obviously rooted in ignorance and stupidity and should be educated out, but in general terms, I agree that the battle for gender identification is a bit ahead of where we are as society unfortunately.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From that bastion of loonyleftism, Bloomberg (source):

Quote

Could it be that increasingly diverse voices and rich conversations are a threat to their free speech — more accurately, the prerogative of famous and powerful people to speak at length on all sorts of things without interruption or disagreement? For instance, Rowling seems intent on tweeting her disapproval of transgender people. Certainly, a closer examination of the critics of cancel culture confirms the suspicion that many of these self-appointed defenders of free speech prefer monologue over dialogue. 

 

If those culpable for today’s abysmal moral and political climate sense anger and frustration against them among younger people, it is because they have never been held accountable.

bQshDtu.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NotThePars said:

Any government with a conscience here would just ram through the changes before it becomes a culture war and then those that desperately need the support provided by these legislations can still have them while your bigots spend all day getting mad about it online. The situation as it stands right now in Britain just pisses off everyone with no upside.

Yep. Same with gay marriage. It's an issue that means absolutely f**k all changes to the vast majority of the population. But actually means a fair bit to a small minority. It's basically just chance to be the good guys for free and it prevents giving a whole load of poisonous 'debate' oxygen.

I'm not suggesting governments just breeze through any old thing that sounds vaguely 'nice' at the drop of a hat but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't take very long to think about things and come to the conclusion that "No, gay marriage isn't going to lead to people marrying dogs and gender self id isn't going to lead to the women's toilets at Asda being infested with rapists".

Edited by Gordon EF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JTS98
6 hours ago, Shotgun said:

Dude, you're defending her pretty vociferously considering you don't even know what she said to cause the controversy.

If you're interested; this author does a pretty good job of breaking down the issue. If you aren't interested, well then, OK.

What JK Rowling gets wrong about trans people

I've read it, and I think that article is actually an excellent example of the point of the letter that gave birth to this thread.

It's impossible to read those tweets and think 'Here's a woman who hates trans people'. There's no evidence of that from the quotes provided so far, and ,as I've said before, I have no other exposure to JK Rowling's views.

It seems from that article that because her view differs from those who criticise her, they call her transphobic and a bigot. It seems to me that anybody who takes the view that 'trans women are not real women' is leaving themselves open to those accusations, yet it seems a fair point for people to raise as a discussion issue.

I don't have a strong view on trans things either way. I don't have a strong opinion on JK Rowling either way. She's not part of my life. But, based on what's been provided in this thread, it seems to me that she's being called a bigot just for having an opinion that some people don't like. I don't see anything bigoted there whatsoever.

Edited by JTS98
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, NotThePars said:

Bari Weiss has just cancelled herself from the New York Times over the slaggings she gets off Twitter. Big respect giving up half a million a year because you got too mad online.

 

Desperate to provoke a sacking by telling outright lies about internal NYT discussions and other employees as the right wing journalist grift circuit would allow her to live off complaining about being cancelled for years - the single easiest job on the planet - and when the NYT refuses to take the bait she self-cancels in the hope she'll still be able to do it anyway by claiming she was forced out. Some effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the repeated Rowling discussion, for anyone interested in learning more about the underlying issues but understandably has no interest in diving into a myriad of twitter threads and trying to find insightful comments among the thousands of replies, here's a charity's response to one of her blogs which takes quotes and shows in a measured way what the problem is with each of them:

https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/dear-jk-rowling/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JTS98 said:

I've read it, and I think that article is actually an excellent example of the point of the letter that gave birth to this thread.

It's impossible to read those tweets and think 'Here's a woman who hates trans people'. There's no evidence of that from the quotes provided so far, and ,as I've said before, I have no other exposure to JK Rowling's views.

It seems from that article that because her view differs from those who criticise her, they call her transphobic and a bigot. It seems to me that anybody who takes the view that 'trans women are not real women' is leaving themselves open to those accusations, yet it seems a fair point for people to raise as a discussion issue.

I don't have a strong view on trans things either way. I don't have a strong opinion on JK Rowling either way. She's not part of my life. But, based on what's been provided in this thread, it seems to me that she's being called a bigot just for having an opinion that some people don't like. I don't see anything bigoted there whatsoever.

If anything represents 'cancel culture', it's the idea put forward a couple of pages ago that 'centrist' views like yours, i.e. I don't know her, her tweets don't scream bigotry to me, therefore I won't brand her as one, are far more dangerous than just calling out suspected bigots as bigots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...