Cancel culture

[welshbairn]

9 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

lol have you ever read theorists?

Not since Beverage tbh, and then only for the introductions and final chapter summaries tbh, it was enough to scrape a Desmond. It's only in the last few years I've heard the term used ubiquitously though, often confusing the liberalism bit of the word with just being nice, instead of hands off rapacious fuckthepoorandthenbombthem capitalism.

[pandarilla]

Not since Beverage tbh, and then only for the introductions and final chapter summaries tbh, it was enough to scrape a Desmond. It's only in the last few years I've heard the term used ubiquitously though, often confusing the liberalism bit of the word with just being nice, instead of hands off rapacious fuckthepoorandthenbombthem capitalism.

I've never seen it used in any context other than a 'thatcherism gone mad - privatise and monetise everything' sense.

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

21 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Not since Beverage tbh, and then only for the introductions and final chapter summaries tbh, it was enough to scrape a Desmond. It's only in the last few years I've heard the term used ubiquitously though, often confusing the liberalism bit of the word with just being nice, instead of hands off rapacious fuckthepoorandthenbombthem capitalism.

I've never seen it used in any context other than a 'thatcherism gone mad - privatise and monetise everything' sense.

You haven't encountered the resurgent populist right then, a little for everyone with a pinch of hatred, neoliberalism for them is firmly fixed on the liberal part of the word, as in the neoliberal globalist elite, or Jews as they often mean.

[Broomhill Ultra]

I've been pumped full of drugs to stop my testosterone production for the last six months, I was just too manly for my own good. I'd be a bit wary of someone trying to chemically determine my gender or sex on a binary scale at the moment. Still getting rampantly heterosexualist dreams though, with full fulfilment without the collateral damage of sticky sheets as it happens.

Shania the Twain shall meet.

[tamthebam]

7 hours ago, Detournement said:

If you actual read the article it makes a throwaway claim that there are homosexual brain characteristics. Looking into that it seems to come from a single experiment into the sexual preferences of sheep from the University of Oregon.

 

A similar experiment happened at the University of Aberdeen.

 

 

 

At least that's what my solicitor told the jury...

[Guest JTS98]

Neoliberalism (as the term is currently used, it has changed over time, it's the kind of word that always will) isn't some mystery. It's the resurgence of old-style liberal ideas after what had been (in the west) a relatively socialisty time of it post-war.

The term is often mis-used, yes. But what neoliberalism actually is is not really up for much question.

Free markets. Privatisation. Individual liberty. Free trade. Small government. Deregulation.

Think the UK from Thatcher on and the USA from Carter and especially Reagan on. Australia since Hawke. The IMF since the 80s. Most EU policy.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

18 hours ago, pandarilla said:

Every day's a school day.

Some interesting stuff in there.

I can't see the 10% bit you're referring to, but certainly more people than i presumed.
And it appears a majority of those folk aren't trans. But still.

Like i said earlier, i knew about the debate around gender but always thought the chromosomes were clear cut (so to speak).

The 10% includes all sorts of weird stuff. Like... ye got a (male) mate who whenever he puts on weight it seems to turn into moobs rather than a belly? Good chance he started devolping the female bits for a weeeee bit longer than he should have in the womb.

Although, as ye say, the gender debate is separate from all this weird and interesting intersex and non-binary sex stuff that's being discovered it does lend creedence to the idea that gender identity can and will be defined by so many things we've yet to understand. Neural pathways, hormone receptors, feotal oxygen levels... f**k knows. There will be a biological reason for gender dysphoria just as there will be a biological reason for homosexuality. FWIW I'm very.. uneasy about the need or want to find out what these biological reasons are (does it actually matter? if we do find a trans "gene" will parents get the option to turn it off during a pregnancy? could we "cure" homosexuality if we find out the root of it?, etc).

I think although it's not directly related it can be used as a basis to make an argument from without, as Detournement claims, trying to use science to confuse people

[Dunning1874]

A lot of those who decry 'cancel culture' are the very same people who criticise universities for apparently being hotbeds of Marxism which don't tolerate dissent and attack free speech, so I think this is relevant here.

https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2020/jul/16/english-universities-must-prove-commitment-to-free-speech-for-bailouts?__twitter_impression=true

Making the government of the day - who coincidentally these free speech advocates happen to agree with - the arbiter of what universities can teach and enabling them to get rid of silly little bollocks like 'humanities courses' on the grounds of economic value is exactly what these brave defenders of free speech have been aiming for all along. Everyone who bought into their 'free speech on campus is under attack from the intolerant left' culture war because some students protested for some statues of racists to be taken down has laid the groundwork for this.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Dunning1874

[coprolite]

20 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Neoliberalism (as the term is currently used, it has changed over time, it's the kind of word that always will) isn't some mystery. It's the resurgence of old-style liberal ideas after what had been (in the west) a relatively socialisty time of it post-war.

The term is often mis-used, yes. But what neoliberalism actually is is not really up for much question.

Free markets. Privatisation. Individual liberty. Free trade. Small government. Deregulation.

Think the UK from Thatcher on and the USA from Carter and especially Reagan on. Australia since Hawke. The IMF since the 80s. Most EU policy.

Agree with your definition, as far as economics goes anyway. That is the main use but it has different, related, meanings in other disciplines. 

Thatcher/ Reagan/ IMF/EU only paid lip service to free markets and free trade though. 

Free trade meant free access to other markets for Us/uk/eu goods and access to cheap stuff that wasn't produced domestically while maintaining protectionist policies for domestic producers. 

The IMFs view of free trade was basically all about opening capital markets to exploitation. Look at thevway they used the south east asian currency crisis to force through harmful, one sided change in Indonesia for example. 

So while aspects of their policies are inspired/justified by neoliberalism i wouldn't say that they are exemplars. 

[Guest JTS98]

3 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Agree with your definition, as far as economics goes anyway. That is the main use but it has different, related, meanings in other disciplines. 

Thatcher/ Reagan/ IMF/EU only paid lip service to free markets and free trade though. 

Free trade meant free access to other markets for Us/uk/eu goods and access to cheap stuff that wasn't produced domestically while maintaining protectionist policies for domestic producers. 

The IMFs view of free trade was basically all about opening capital markets to exploitation. Look at thevway they used the south east asian currency crisis to force through harmful, one sided change in Indonesia for example. 

So while aspects of their policies are inspired/justified by neoliberalism i wouldn't say that they are exemplars. 

Depends what you're comparing them to.

Compared to the ideal of the neoliberal model, no, not really. But compared to what they replaced they were certainly  jump in that direction.

Of course, soon it'll mean something else. 'Neo', innit.

[NotThePars]

Aye I’m sure von Moses, Friedman and Hayek would still be looking on in horror at the unacceptable socialism being practiced in Anglo-America. I’m sure we’ll get there eventually though as the trajectory is only heading downwards, baby!

[coprolite]

36 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Depends what you're comparing them to.

Compared to the ideal of the neoliberal model, no, not really. But compared to what they replaced they were certainly  jump in that direction.

Of course, soon it'll mean something else. 'Neo', innit.

Agreed. In my view thatcher/reagan are to actual neoliberalism as Lenin's USSR  was to communism. 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

16 hours ago, NotThePars said:

I mean just because a term is weakly applied, poorly understood, or deployed in bad faith doesn't mean it's an "unidentifiable theory"

But if weak application, poor understanding or usage bad faith is common enough then it does become so ambiguous to be of limited if any use

Which is how we ended up with this

 

[pandarilla]

A lot of those who decry 'cancel culture' are the very same people who criticise universities for apparently being hotbeds of Marxism which don't tolerate dissent and attack free speech, so I think this is relevant here.
https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2020/jul/16/english-universities-must-prove-commitment-to-free-speech-for-bailouts?__twitter_impression=true
Making the government of the day - who coincidentally these free speech advocates happen to agree with - the arbiter of what universities can teach and enabling them to get rid of silly little bollocks like 'humanities courses' on the grounds of economic value is exactly what these brave defenders of free speech have been aiming for all along. Everyone who bought into their 'free speech on campus is under attack from the intolerant left' culture war because some students protested for some statues of racists to be taken down has laid the groundwork for this.

That doesn't apply to chomsky. There were folk from all over the political spectrum who signed that letter.

The whole no platforming thing in universities was clearly blown out of proportion by those on the right. But it did happen - and it was silly.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

1 hour ago, MixuFruit said:

I don't think you need to worry too much about a very precise definition unless you're an academic doing some kind of study. It's just a byword for 'how things tend to be now' in opposition to 'how things were before 1980' or 'what Corbynism wanted instead'.

At least in terms of understanding the motivations of people who like neoliberal policy outcomes.

In referrng to "people who like "neoliberal policy outcomes" you've introduced an awkward  logical circularity.

It's arguable that even people who identify as neoliberal are misusing the term in order to misappropriate the respectability of enlightenment era liberalism. But this might not be the right place to question self-identification or cultural appropriation

Edited July 17, 2020 by topcat(The most tip top)

[Ross.]

6 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Do people do that? Say they're neoliberals? Most folk tend to react quite angrily when described as such I've found.

In my experience they generally describe themselves as "Libertarian" and what they actually mean by that is that they are a selfish c**t and wish not to help the less fortunate in society improve their lot.

[NotThePars]

Do people do that? Say they're neoliberals? Most folk tend to react quite angrily when described as such I've found.

The Adam Smith Institute weirdos probably describe themselves as such.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

23 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Do people do that? Say they're neoliberals? Most folk tend to react quite angrily when described as such I've found.

It's usage in economics goes back almost 80 years . Although when I was studying economics (way back in the grunge era) it was more often called "laissez-faire policies" or "free market economics".

"Laissez-faire" is probably a bit too foreign and difficult to spell for anglophone twitter and  the plain English of "free market"is too obvious.

"Neoliberal" on the other hand is a bit more esoteric than "Free market" and can hopefully make the user sound like the kind of person that has read a book and the kind of person that's not thinking like the previous generation, for both it's advocates and critics it's dressing up old arguments as new ones. 

 

 

 

Disclaimer : There is a risk that this opinion may be somewhat tainted by middle aged cynicism, please consume carefully

Edited July 17, 2020 by topcat(The most tip top)

[topcat(The most tip top)]

8 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 

The Adam Smith Institute weirdos probably describe themselves as such.

 

The Adam Smith Institute is probably the textbook example of the  right attempting to wrap itself in the gowns of the Enlightenment. 

[Detournement]

3 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

In referrng to "people who like "neoliberal policy outcomes" you've introduced an awkward  logical circularity.

It's arguable that even people who identify as neoliberal are misusing the term in order to misappropriate the respectability of enlightenment era liberalism. But this might not be the right place to question self-identification or cultural appropriation

Respectability of enlightenment era liberalism? Slavery, child labour, the Opium trade and genocide in the new world. 

It's not respectable to anyone with a grasp of history.