Jump to content

Cancel culture


Recommended Posts

The argument "BuT yOU sHOuLd REaD bOTh SidES!!!111!" is a dreadful argument, by the way. I believe in equal rights for BAME people. Why would I need to read something by someone who doesn't to bolster my own viewpoint?

 

You use this weird 'aDd rANdoM cAPitTals' shtick quite a lot. I don't think it's as cutting edge as you think.
What’s your opinion on JK Rowling getting her lawyers on publications calling out her transphobia? That the left? 

I'm not sure. I'm going away for a few days so won't be checking in on here, but might look it up after that. I saw mixu posted a clip about them possibly questioning her suitability to be around children? Like i say, I'm not sure. I didn't watch the video.
You can't claim to truly understand the issue until you've taken the time to engage with the KKK and learn their point of view. Perhaps over a nice cross burning. These last few pages are genuinely nuts. The guy's meant to be teaching kids how to analyse sources for a living!

 

If you compare everything to the klan then then it tends to look a wee bit unhinged. Stop jumping to extremes to try and point score. It's not a good look.
Some people are not coming to this culture war shit fresh. Therefore you will get people (mea culpa) who have done all this shit for years who know the characters, know the tactics and have wasted too many hours and too much energy "debating" over the years. Thats why my reaction to a Spiked article is a simple f**k off. 

I'm sure it sounds rude or aggressive or arrogant but there it is. However, equally, f**k off with your play the man takes too. These people are not good faith actors. They put enough sugar on your shit sandwich to encourage you to take a bite.

Thats why saying "I don't agree with everything but they make good points" makes you folk sound naive. You are being played into sharing some really toxic, dangerous ideologies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The letter in question was about respecting free speech, and trying to create a more positive debate on Internet forums.

 

Do you think that's toxic and dangerous?

 

I think, as you partly acknowledge, that you've got in a wee bit too deep.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

You use this weird 'aDd rANdoM cAPitTals' shtick quite a lot. I don't think it's as cutting edge as you think. I'm not sure. I'm going away for a few days so won't be checking in on here, but might look it up after that. I saw mixu posted a clip about them possibly questioning her suitability to be around children? Like i say, I'm not sure. I didn't watch the video. If you compare everything to the klan then then it tends to look a wee bit unhinged. Stop jumping to extremes to try and point score. It's not a good look.  

The letter in question was about respecting free speech, and trying to create a more positive debate on Internet forums.

 

Do you think that's toxic and dangerous?

 

I think, as you partly acknowledge, that you've got in a wee bit too deep.

 

 

 

I can't believe I'm engaging with you here, but what are you trying to say? First of all, from the original letter, who has actually been "cancelled" and how does this restrict them? 

In terms of the article you presented, it is a bad faith distraction. Nothing more. Should I also be engaging with The Spectator and their Taki, Rod Liddle, Mary Wakefield or "In defence of the Wehrmacht" articles? The whole reason for these publications existence is to muddy debate and pull it further right in bad faith. It's "Thank You For Smoking" applied to political discourse.

Your centrist lets-all-be-reasonable schtick is a sort of reverse cancel culture where we lend equal weight to the most ludicrous voices with little credibility. In short, you are a massive part of the problem and a useful idiot for the Spiked narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pandarilla said:

You use this weird 'aDd rANdoM cAPitTals' shtick quite a lot. I don't think it's as cutting edge as you think.

I don't think I've ever cared about being cutting edge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JTS98

There is a tremendous irony in the mass rounding on Pandarilla for posting an on-topic article based on the publication it came from. Especially from people sticking the boot into him while proudly proclaiming they won't read the article in question.

Agree with the article, disagree with the article. But if you're going to comment on it or attack the poster, then at least have the intellectual honesty to fucking read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tbf there is far too much 'journalism' out there that is done with an agenda and there's certain outlets that you can earmark and not bother reading.

Spiked is one of those but I also avoid the likes of the Guardian as even though there's more I agree with, it is completely one-eyed stuff. Let's not get started on the National either....

That doesn't mean people shouldn't challenge themselves more on their own views.

"I believe in racial equality therefore I am right" is a fairly simplistic take and doesn't mean an element of 'cancel culture' doesn't exist or that everyone who suggests it's a thing is a right wing commentator with an agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JTS98
1 minute ago, ali_91 said:

This is anti-cancel culture in a nutshell.
 

It’s not free speech people want, it’s unchallenged speech. 

What are you talking about?

People are crticising an article while saying they won't read it. That's just silly.

Either you read the article and judge it on its merits, or you just ignore it. Criticising it while refusing to read it is not really a valid option.

I think some people on this thread are confused about what the validity of a 'source' is. The source of a text is important when dealing with things presented as facts. For example, if an article quoting never previously mentioned scientific studies proving the Srebrenica massacre never happened came from a Serb ultra-nationalist website, then that would indeed dilute the validity of the claims.

However, the article Pandarilla quoted is an opinion piece. An opinion stands alone and whether that piece was published in Spiked, or The Guardian, or a personal blog, or The Hamilton Advertiser makes no difference whatsoever. You read it and judge it on its merits.

Refusing to read an opinion piece because of who publishes it is to massively miss the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JTS98 said:

There is a tremendous irony in the mass rounding on Pandarilla for posting an on-topic article based on the publication it came from. Especially from people sticking the boot into him while proudly proclaiming they won't read the article in question.

Agree with the article, disagree with the article. But if you're going to comment on it or attack the poster, then at least have the intellectual honesty to fucking read it.

Aye, it's like those morons who don't believe the  Sandy Hook massacre was faked who can't even be bothered to watch Infowars. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe I'm engaging with you here, but what are you trying to say? First of all, from the original letter, who has actually been "cancelled" and how does this restrict them? 
In terms of the article you presented, it is a bad faith distraction. Nothing more. Should I also be engaging with The Spectator and their Taki, Rod Liddle, Mary Wakefield or "In defence of the Wehrmacht" articles? The whole reason for these publications existence is to muddy debate and pull it further right in bad faith. It's "Thank You For Smoking" applied to political discourse.
Your centrist lets-all-be-reasonable schtick is a sort of reverse cancel culture where we lend equal weight to the most ludicrous voices with little credibility. In short, you are a massive part of the problem and a useful idiot for the Spiked narrative.
Once again you've compared a fairly harmless letter to the nazis.

Do you really think everything has to end up in the extremes? Did you read the article?
This is anti-cancel culture in a nutshell.
 
It’s not free speech people want, it’s unchallenged speech. 
You don't seem able to debate the issue, and that's all I'm looking for. You're choosing to delegitimise something, without even reading it. The problem i have is that folk have chosen what it is that can be discussed, and what should be ridiculed beyond discussion. More and more things seem to get added to the' that discussion has been had and anyone who challenges it is a bigot' list.

All I'm seeing is digs, extreme analogies, and playing the man and not the ball posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JTS98
1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

Aye, it's like those morons who don't believe the  Sandy Hook massacre was faked who can't even be bothered to watch Infowars. 

It's not like that at all.

You're, as I mentioned in my last post, confusing sources for factual matters with the validity of an opinion piece.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

It's not like that at all.

You're, as I mentioned in my last post, confusing sources for factual matters with the validity of an opinion piece.

 

I read the piece, it's self justifying meaningless waffle. Spiked is staying on my don't bother reading list.

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

However, the article Pandarilla quoted is an opinion piece. An opinion stands alone and whether that piece was published in Spiked, or The Guardian, or a personal blog, or The Hamilton Advertiser makes no difference whatsoever. You read it and judge it on its merits.

I haven’t read the article, so I’m not wanting to get drawn into this too much, but this is utter nonsense. The publisher of the opinion piece very much does matter. Is it merely a coincidence that there’s so few opinion pieces praising the benefits of immigration in the Daily Mail, or calling for UK rule in the National? All of these sources will have their own agenda, and the opinions they publish will suit that agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tbf there is far too much 'journalism' out there that is done with an agenda and there's certain outlets that you can earmark and not bother reading.
Spiked is one of those but I also avoid the likes of the Guardian as even though there's more I agree with, it is completely one-eyed stuff. Let's not get started on the National either....
That doesn't mean people shouldn't challenge themselves more on their own views.
"I believe in racial equality therefore I am right" is a fairly simplistic take and doesn't mean an element of 'cancel culture' doesn't exist or that everyone who suggests it's a thing is a right wing commentator with an agenda.
I think this is pretty much it, in a nutshell.

I have the guardian app, but regularly find myself rolling my eyes at some of the content.

I've never considered buying the national, but i know a lot of good articles that come out of it (lesley riddoch (sp?) writes regularly does she not?).

I want power systems and authorities to be challenged - but for me there's something really disconcerting about this recent tactic of many of those on the left.

I'd prefer much greater energy put into finding a genuine economic alternative, especially during this historic crisis.

But they often prefer to fight battles on the Internet and magnify less relevant problems in the world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pandarilla said:

I think this is pretty much it, in a nutshell.

I have the guardian app, but regularly find myself rolling my eyes at some of the content.

I've never considered buying the national, but i know a lot of good articles that come out of it (lesley riddoch (sp?) writes regularly does she not?).

I want power systems and authorities to be challenged - but for me there's something really disconcerting about this recent tactic of many of those on the left.

I'd prefer much greater energy put into finding a genuine economic alternative, especially during this historic crisis.

But they often prefer to fight battles on the Internet and magnify less relevant problems in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JTS98
1 minute ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

I haven’t read the article, so I’m not wanting to get drawn into this too much, but this is utter nonsense. The publisher of the opinion piece very much does matter. Is it merely a coincidence that there’s so few opinion pieces praising the benefits of immigration in the Daily Mail, or calling for UK rule in the National? All of these sources will have their own agenda, and the opinions they publish will suit that agenda.

Yes, but an opinion presented as an opinion is separate from the body that publishes it.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that. An opinion piece by Barack Obama has the same validity whether it is published by the NYT, Pravda, The People's Daily, or the Daily Mail. It's an opinion openly presented as such. Who publishes it is irrelevant to the validity of the opinion.

You're treating it the same way as you would (rightly) treat things publications claim to be facts. This is an error.

The writer states in the article that she doesn't agree with a number of Spiked writers. If this had been published by The Guardian it would still be the same piece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven’t read the article, so I’m not wanting to get drawn into this too much, but this is utter nonsense. The publisher of the opinion piece very much does matter. Is it merely a coincidence that there’s so few opinion pieces praising the benefits of immigration in the Daily Mail, or calling for UK rule in the National? All of these sources will have their own agenda, and the opinions they publish will suit that agenda.
I agree it matters.

But follow your logic to its conclusion.

Do you think we can stop things like 'the mail' from existing? Is that what you're looking for?

Are you happy to separate yourself entirely from those who do read that shit? Is that the type of society you want to live in, where everyone does reads their own things and no-one connects on these issues?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JTS98
3 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

What's the champions of free speech both sides-er view on anti-vaxxers? Should we be listening to them or nah?

Again, you are confusing two separate kinds of source. A factual source and an opinion source.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JTS98
1 minute ago, MixuFruit said:

No it isn't.

Of course it is.

This opinion would be exactly the same regardless of who printed it.

It does not claim to be anything other than an opinion piece. The publisher is irrelevant in judging the piece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JTS98 said:

Again, you are confusing two separate kinds of source. A factual source and an opinion source.

 

These people are entitled to their opinion! If you choose to ignore them you're not acting in good faith and you are silencing them.

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...