Cancel culture

[Theroadlesstravelled]

They used to have lynch mobs back in the day but now instead of pitchforks and nooses they have venti soy white chocolate mochas and shared Spotify accounts.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

[Shandon Par]

48 minutes ago, beefybake said:

As I recall, Rowling has been the subject of physical abuse by men/or a partner.  And that's the underlying reason she's fearful of, for example, transgender people

using women's public lavatories.   Seems a valid reason for her to express that view on Twitter , or anywhere else she chooses to. 

The difference between red dotting and , for example, Twitter, is that here, everyone's 'anonymous'.

Eric Clapton didn't like black people as "one touched up his mrs". We all have a right to an opinion but we also have to be aware of the consequences of blurting out that opinion so maybe we all need to be tactful and frame debate in a way that prompts open discussion. Such as "what do you people think about this...?" or "what are the pros and cons of this opinion".

Is there that much difference on the anonymity front between here and twitter? If we could really be arsed we can find out who people are, and plenty have revealed who they are (and nobody cares). Anyone not famous is pretty anonymous on Twitter. I'm a total softy and wouldn't want to be overly-mean to anyone on here and would always want to try and treat people online as I would to their face. 

 

 

 

[velo army]

The inclusion of Chomsky as one of the signatories is the one who would have me taking it seriously and elevates it from the crybaby pish you hear from people who say awful stuff and then greet when nobody wants to talk to them.

J.K.Rowling can get very far to f**k though. Her comments on trans people have been nasty and quite frankly dangerous. Trans people are by far the most vulnerable of the socially vulnerable groups. HIghest suicide rate. highest rate of sexual assaults and other physical assault as well as homicide. Her comments were initially irresponsible given her profile, but have since descended into heartlessness and nastiness by doubling down on them quite strongly. She's had her arse handed to her quite rightly and if people stop buying her books or inviting her to things then aye, it's the consequence of her actions. 

There is an increasing absolutism and intellectual infantilisation afoot though both in social media spheres and at Universities, where middle class lefties* dominate and where a certain type of feminism and (ironically) paternalism reins. Labels such as "homophobe", "racist" and "transphobe" are thrown at people and are hard to shake off. The grounds for being so named are often spurious and the point seems to be to create an other to fight against. 

*folk who tend to focus on bourgeois feminism (not enough women in boardrooms etc) to the exclusion of poverty and economic inequality.

[D.A.F.C]

Forcing racists or nutters underground is probably the worst thing to do.
Let them say whatever they want unless its completely inflammatory nonsense like rushdi.
Not saying he deserved what happened.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, velo army said:

The inclusion of Chomsky as one of the signatories is the one who would have me taking it seriously and elevates it from the crybaby pish you hear from people who say awful stuff and then greet when nobody wants to talk to them.

J.K.Rowling can get very far to f**k though. Her comments on trans people have been nasty and quite frankly dangerous. Trans people are by far the most vulnerable of the socially vulnerable groups. HIghest suicide rate. highest rate of sexual assaults and other physical assault as well as homicide. Her comments were initially irresponsible given her profile, but have since descended into heartlessness and nastiness by doubling down on them quite strongly. She's had her arse handed to her quite rightly and if people stop buying her books or inviting her to things then aye, it's the consequence of her actions. 

There is an increasing absolutism and intellectual infantilisation afoot though both in social media spheres and at Universities, where middle class lefties* dominate and where a certain type of feminism and (ironically) paternalism reins. Labels such as "homophobe", "racist" and "transphobe" are thrown at people and are hard to shake off. The grounds for being so named are often spurious and the point seems to be to create an other to fight against. 

*folk who tend to focus on bourgeois feminism (not enough women in boardrooms etc) to the exclusion of poverty and economic inequality.

I think this post highlights an important distinction.

Someone like JK Rowling. Really? Who gives a f**k? She wrote some books that entertained kids and made her a fortune through movie rights. Regardless of what you think of trans rights, she's not an important person.

However, there are far bigger fish here intellectually.

Saladin Ambar has done some important work in multiple fields yet by simply presenting academic work has left himself open to attacks. Despite, on the face of it, being as 'right on' in many ways as it's possible to be.

Mia Bay is a hugely important scholar on the African American experience.

David Blight is, similarly. one of the most important scholars on the American experience.

Kamel Daoud had a fatwa imposed on him for questioning the position of God in Arabic culture.

George Packer is an important writer in the documentation of modern American history.

Fareed Zakaria is one of the most respected news voices of his time.

If you don't know who these people are, that's fair enough. People have different hobbies and interests. But writing off their objection on the basis of your own ignorance is a symptom of the issue they raise.

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

The thing about people who have been "cancelled" coming out with these statements while continuing to enjoy their extremely successful careers is it kind of shows it up for what it is. Folk who are used to being the most important person in the room being told to shut the f**k up for the first time in years and not liking it.

I think the distinction @JTS98 makes is important though, in academics it is much more worrying (although I'm sure, without having the study to hand, that the numbers regarding suppression of expression in US academia at least are pretty flaky, and that you are still more likely to lose a position for expressing leftish views).
 

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

The thing about people who have been "cancelled" coming out with these statements while continuing to enjoy their extremely successful careers is it kind of shows it up for what it is. Folk who are used to being the most important person in the room being told to shut the f**k up for the first time in years and not liking it.

I think the distinction @JTS98 makes is important though, in academics it is much more worrying (although I'm sure, without having the study to hand, that the numbers regarding suppression of expression in US academia at least are pretty flaky, and that you are still more likely to lose a position for expressing leftish views).
 

I don't think it matters whether you can lose your position (or speaking engagement) for leftist or rightist views.

The problem is that you can lose those things for having your views at all.

Nick Griffin should be free to speak at Glasgow University. It's in the public interest. Get the boy out talking and answering questions in a public forum. Let people decide on his views as he presents them. Don't ban him from presenting them.

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

Are we back to the absolute falsehood that fascism (or whatever abhorrent ideology) has ever been beaten by spirited debate in the "marketplace of ideas" then? 

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

Are we back to the absolute falsehood that fascism (or whatever abhorrent ideology) has ever been beaten by spirited debate in the "marketplace of ideas" then? 

Falsehood is beaten in the market of ideas all the time. The victory of fascism in successful democracies is non-existent.

The West as it stands in 2020 is not in a position where it has anything to fear from extremist ideology. People like capitalism (for better or worse) and people like thinking of themselves as tolerant.

Some ludicrous far-right speaker like Nick Griffin is best left to expose his own ideas. One of the great tv failings of this century is the pitchfork mob-like treatment of him on Question Time years ago. He should have been given a fair hearing and had hs ideas dismantled by reasoned inquisition. Instead, he got the chance to present himself as a martyr.

The same should go for anyone, really. Whatever the views, the best response is sober and fair questioning. That can only take place in an open forum.

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

2 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Falsehood is beaten in the market of ideas all the time. The victory of fascism in successful democracies is non-existent.

The West as it stands in 2020 is not in a position where it has anything to fear from extremist ideology. People like capitalism (for better or worse) and people like thinking of themselves as tolerant.

Some ludicrous far-right speaker like Nick Griffin is best left to expose his own ideas. One of the great tv failings of this century is the pitchfork mob-like treatment of him on Question Time years ago. He should have been given a fair hearing and had hs ideas dismantled by reasoned inquisition. Instead, he got the chance to present himself as a martyr.

The same should go for anyone, really. Whatever the views, the best response is sober and fair questioning. That can only take place in an open forum.

Sorry, didn't mean to bite so much before. I agree to a certain extent, and certainly in academia where the people engaging in it are expected to have a level of education (elitist as that might be). But I think when dealing with folk like Griffin and giving them an audience on mass media, the majority will be horrified but a significant group will be radicalised who may not have otherwise been.

[Guest JTS98]

4 minutes ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

Sorry, didn't mean to bite so much before. I agree to a certain extent, and certainly in academia where the people engaging in it are expected to have a level of education (elitist as that might be). But I think when dealing with folk like Griffin and giving them an audience on mass media, the majority will be horrified but a significant group will be radicalised who may not have otherwise been.

You're right that some people will be radicalised. But there's no stage of human history that has avoided radicalisation in some form or other. The best weapon against it is an informed population.

I think you're onto something with the point about education being elitist. With student fees being so scandalously high we are in danger of cutting out those most at risk of buying into extremism due to personal circumstances.

Despite what the government says, there is really very little reason (ideologically and ethically) for higher education to be so expensive. And, despite its ridicule by so many, it is very important.

[The Moonster]

I always remember JK Rowling sticking her oar into the independence debate and thinking "why the f**k does anyone care what she thinks?" but it seems that even 6 yers on she feels her opinions on any given subject are important and need space to be heard. She can f**k off, the union loving, trans hating c**t.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

2 hours ago, beefybake said:

As I recall, Rowling has been the subject of physical abuse by men/or a partner.  And that's the underlying reason she's fearful of, for example, transgender people

using women's public lavatories.   Seems a valid reason for her to express that view on Twitter , or anywhere else she chooses to. 

The difference between red dotting and , for example, Twitter, is that here, everyone's 'anonymous'.

So Rowling was the subject of abuse by a man so is fearful of women. What a numpty.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

52 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Falsehood is beaten in the market of ideas all the time.

As true as this may be my issue is the "market of ideas" does not trickle down to the general populace. If some far right knobhead like Yaxley-Lennon comes out and says "all these grooming gangs are Muslims and we need to get rid of Muslims to protect our kids" then you, me or, practically, anyone else can get the figures from the ONS or wherever and show that not all grooming gangs are Muslim, that most kids who are abused are abused by people close to them and the figures show that Muslims are no more or less likely to nonce it up than anyone else.

It only takes him 10 seconds to spew shite and takes the rest of us half an hour of research to prove him wrong. Folk lose interest in that time and have already connected dots in their head. Trump is a perfect example of this. He says something nonsensical and it sticks in the mind of supporters who don't look any further.

[Shotgun]

There was a time, not so very long ago, when being anti-Fascist was the default position for every decent human being. Now, anti-fascists are told they're "intolerant", "as bad as the Fascists", and "destroying our way of life". Not just in the cesspits of the Internet but in the mainstream media where vermin like Griffin, Farage and Yaxley-Lennon are given a regular platform to spew their hate. I remember during the last US election, the head of MSNBC saying "I don't know if Donald Trump is good for America but I know he's good for MSNBC." The other major news outlets thought the same because he was given endless air time to spread his venom, and as a result, win election. How many times has Farage been on Question Time? How many speaking engagements is Griffin entitled to? Why is Rowling's bigotry reported as news? 

Fascists are entitled to their opinions. Nobody is obligated to give them a safe place to spread them. Nobody is obligated to listen to them. Nobody is obligated to treat them with anything but contempt.

[Shotgun]

1 hour ago, JTS98 said:

Nick Griffin should be free to speak at Glasgow University. It's in the public interest. Get the boy out talking and answering questions in a public forum. Let people decide on his views as he presents them. Don't ban him from presenting them.

Is it though? Was it in the public interest for Moseley to be given a platform in the build up to WWII? How about during the war?

[GiGi]

5 hours ago, Shandon Par said:

Looking through the list, there's just one person I could say that I "follow" in terms of reading/listening to their stuff, and this letter won't have any impact on that.

Other platforms should learn from P&B and have their own 12 Ruel Street.

Been on P&B for 13 years and have no idea, please explain 12 Ruel Street.

[Shandon Par]

5 minutes ago, GiGi said:

Been on P&B for 13 years and have no idea, please explain 12 Ruel Street.

Would love to but about to dice with death and cycle home in the rain.

[Shandon Par]

In defence of JK Rowling, we have said “hello” a few times when I’ve seen her out on her horse and I’ve been running and would say that In her riding gear and sporting a beaming smile that I have been quite jealous of her horse.