Cancel Culture : Greg Gutfeld USA tweet , Owen Jones UK

[arista]

1282134331641794563


1281957010880307201


In Owens clip Toby does not speak

[Liam-]

Owen is correct

[Oliver_W]

It's easy to see both sides of the debate. Owen Jones and slimy and creepy which makes automatically taking the opposite view to him pretty easy :joker: but it's not clear cut either way.

Do some people lose jobs or platforms because of things they've said or done, possibly decades ago? Yup. Weirdos on Twitter dug up ancient tweets from James Gunn and the guy from the Flash, and they both lost jobs because of it.

It's pretty stupid to:
- go digging in people's twitter history
- punish people for typing words on a screen which aren't calling for violence
- and also to say those things in the first place.

To call it a "culture" is giving it more credit than it deserves, but there's definitely a ... movement? of people trying to remove people from the public eye for no good reason, simply because they have disagreeable views.

Using ScarJo, JK Rowling, and Jimmy Kimmel as examples that it doesn't exist is silly, as they're all immensly rich, popular, and good at what they do. Removing JK's work because of her views, and whatever ScarJo and Kimmel are meant to have done would do more harm than good.

Some rando on twitter taught his dog to raise its paw in the air and his life was ruined because of it. That's not proportionate retribution. An appropriate response would be ... nothing at all.

[user104658]

Using ScarJo, JK Rowling, and Jimmy Kimmel as examples that it doesn't exist is silly, as they're all immensly rich, popular, and good at what they do. .

I agree, using celebrities with loyal, established followings and careers as "proof" that mob justice doesn't ruin lives is one of the dumbest arguments currently circulating Twitter.

[Liam-]

I agree, using celebrities with loyal, established followings and careers as "proof" that mob justice doesn't ruin lives is one of the dumbest arguments currently circulating Twitter.

No it isn’t, because they’re the ones crying the loudest about being ‘cancelled’ or ‘silenced’ using the very publicly huge following they continue to have

[Tom4784]

There's good and bad sides to it. A lot of people who do get cancelled completely deserve it, if you're harrassing someone for being black and you're recorded on camera then you deserve to face societal backlash. If you make a poor taste joke ten years ago that obviously doesn't reflect who you are now, it's undeserved. Cancellation can be a bitter lesson to those that deserve it but for the latter it discourages personal growth and learning by saying that your past will always dictate your present.

Some people were bigots and they grew to know better so should they always be seen as bigots because that's who they were in the past? No, it's counter-productive as it discourages people to know better if they'll always be judged by their past deeds.

Overall I think cancellation isn't a bad thing, more often then not, it's aimed at the right people. I do tend to think that a lot of people who denounce it completely are part of the same 'PC gone mad' crowd who probably fear being cancelled themselves.

[user104658]

No it isn’t, because they’re the ones crying the loudest about being ‘cancelled’ or ‘silenced’ using the very publicly huge following they continue to haveYes it is, "mob justice didn't ruin this person's life or career, therefore it doesn't ruin lives or careers" is a demonstrably illogical, and thus dumb, argument.

"Lol look at this guy, complaining loudly about getting shot, saying I could have killed him, but Ummmm he's not dead he's right there shouting loudly so obviously he's NOT dead and so shooting people DOESN'T result in them dying, so what is he even on about lmao."

If you can see why the above statement is dumb, then you can understand why the argument that encouraging or engaging in mob justice doesn't end careers because it "didn't in these examples" is also dumb.

I'm going to continue referring to it as mob justice because it is mob justice, "cancel culture" is a shiny new term for something as old as civilisation... and I don't have a huge amount of time for that, either.

As for whether or not "some people deserve it"...? Probably, sure, there are plenty of awful people out there. Some people deserving it doesn't mean that it's a good idea though. That argument also falls apart like wet tissue paper under a little pressure.

I'm inherently uncomfortable with what is or isn't deserved, and what does or doesn't constitute justice, being decided by a small, vocal group of very angry, very unqualified, and often not-very-rational individuals.

[Liam-]

You can call it dumb all you want, but the fact is, free speech covers everything from people’s right to say offensive stuff, to people being allowed to criticise, ‘mob rule’ has never caused anyone to lose their job, if everyone who said something controversial lost their job, because they caused a public outrage, the unemployment queue would be enormous, people’s careers are effected if the people they work with or for no longer want to work with them, that is down to the person only.

Using the celebrities with the loudest voices saying they’ve been ‘cancelled’ or ‘silenced’ is perfectly reasonable, how can someone be silenced, if they’re spewing their opinions on very public forums and if they’re given slots in the media and on tv to share their opinions, those people benefit from controversy, take Laurence Fox, he’s probably benefited from being ‘cancelled’ the most, he’s talked about now by more people than during his entire career.

The right wing are purposefully highlighting something that isn’t as effective as people are lead to believe, because saying people are going after them because of ‘cancel culture’ is their way of distancing themselves from their controversial opinions and actions, anyone that disagrees with something they say or do, they’re automatically labelled as they loony left’ ‘the snowflakes’ ‘The mob’, it’s a tool to shut down debate and shun accountability, those people are the real deniers of free speech and people are buying into their bull.

[Braden]

What’s annoying about ‘cancel culture’ is that people define a person by the opinion they disagree with, and this is prevalent online because people don’t have the balls to actually debate. They’re quick to label people and categorise and that’s that. Then it has an annoying knock-on effect that if you stick up for them or agree, you’re cancelled by default as well.

There are people who won’t be happy until everyone is homogenised into thinking the same way, but the ironic thing is that those people go about it the worst way possible and ultimately fuels this us versus them effect that is plaguing modern society more and more.

[Niamh.]

Its also a myth that only right wing or right leaning people think cancel culture exists

[user104658]

You can call it dumb all you want, but the fact is, free speech covers everything from people’s right to say offensive stuff, to people being allowed to criticise, ‘mob rule’ has never caused anyone to lose their job, if everyone who said something controversial lost their job, because they caused a public outrage, the unemployment queue would be enormous, people’s careers are effected if the people they work with or for no longer want to work with them, that is down to the person only.

Using the celebrities with the loudest voices saying they’ve been ‘cancelled’ or ‘silenced’ is perfectly reasonable, how can someone be silenced, if they’re spewing their opinions on very public forums and if they’re given slots in the media and on tv to share their opinions, those people benefit from controversy, take Laurence Fox, he’s probably benefited from being ‘cancelled’ the most, he’s talked about now by more people than during his entire career.

The right wing are purposefully highlighting something that isn’t as effective as people are lead to believe, because saying people are going after them because of ‘cancel culture’ is their way of distancing themselves from their controversial opinions and actions, anyone that disagrees with something they say or do, they’re automatically labelled as they loony left’ ‘the snowflakes’ ‘The mob’, it’s a tool to shut down debate and shun accountability, those people are the real deniers of free speech and people are buying into their bull.I didn't say that the flipside of the coin is good or that people aren't disingenuous or that people don't use these things to their advantage. On the flipside, people absolutely do abuse the right to free speech and veer into hate speech and yes people do make false claims of persecution for their own benefit.

But I'm not going to go down the route of allowing those things to encourage me to ignore that people also use false or exaggerated outrage and crowd-sourced influence the promote and encourage a single-minded group think of "stuff that's correct". I find it frankly creepy as ****. "Oh of course you have a path out of this; convince us that you now think as we think, or if you don't, at least successfully pretend that you do".

It bothers me that 100+ people incapable of formulating a coherent argument of their own can now simply forcibly parrot various dumbed-down mantras against someone they disagree with, and that's supposedly a viable substitute for an intelligent and reasoned debate.

[user104658]

Its also a myth that only right wing or right leaning people think cancel culture existsThere are plenty of people who have openly and proudly weaponised it, or at the very least are attempting to. If "it doesn't work" - they are sorely disappointed that it doesn't - and are going to keep at it in the hopes that it will.

[Cherie]

What’s annoying about ‘cancel culture’ is that people define a person by the opinion they disagree with, and this is prevalent online because people don’t have the balls to actually debate. They’re quick to label people and categorise and that’s that. Then it has an annoying knock-on effect that if you stick up for them or agree, you’re cancelled by default as well.

There are people who won’t be happy until everyone is homogenised into thinking the same way, but the ironic thing is that those people go about it the worst way possible and ultimately fuels this us versus them effect that is plaguing modern society more and more.

In a nutshell Braden

[Braden]

In a nutshell Braden

I try my best, Cherie :p

[Marsh.]

Yeah, just because it's virtually impossible to financially ruin Rowling's career considering she's a bloody billionaire, doesn't take away from the attempt to completely ruin the reputations of people who offer opinions that go against the extreme activists. What about the people who aren't as financially stable as she is?

Edit - And I'm not referring to rent-a-gobs like Laurence Fox and Katie Hopkins who use hate speech for attention, but people who just dare to have another opinion and have it labelled as hate just because it doesn't align with the activists rules.

[Marsh.]

What’s annoying about ‘cancel culture’ is that people define a person by the opinion they disagree with, and this is prevalent online because people don’t have the balls to actually debate. They’re quick to label people and categorise and that’s that. Then it has an annoying knock-on effect that if you stick up for them or agree, you’re cancelled by default as well.

There are people who won’t be happy until everyone is homogenised into thinking the same way, but the ironic thing is that those people go about it the worst way possible and ultimately fuels this us versus them effect that is plaguing modern society more and more.

Yeah, it's kind of like in Big Brother when a three dimensional human being does or says something bad (not including actual disgusting stuff like racism etc) 3 weeks in as we all do at times and suddenly it's them "showing their true colours" and they're a horrible person because they had a bad day and snapped at someone. :laugh: So, no matter what they do or say from that point on people don't like them because they're not perfect, or they said something you don't agree with.

[Oliver_W]

Yeah, just because it's virtually impossible to financially ruin Rowling's career considering she's a bloody billionaire, doesn't take away from the attempt to completely ruin the reputations of people who offer opinions that go against the extreme activists. What about the people who aren't as financially stable as she is?

Edit - And I'm not referring to rent-a-gobs like Laurence Fox and Katie Hopkins who use hate speech for attention, but people who just dare to have another opinion and have it labelled as hate just because it doesn't align with the activists rules.

I still don't know who Laurence Fox is or what he's actually said :joker: but he should be allowed to say what he wants, until he calls for violence. If people don't like it, the best thing to do is starve the flame of oxygen and not whinge about some actor mouthing off.

Katie Hopkins is just vile.

I don't follow Posie Parker but to my knowledge she's never actually said anything bad or incendiary but she's been banned from almost all social media platforms. No platform should be forced to host anyone or anything, but there's no real reason for her to have been banned.

[Marsh.]

I still don't know who Laurence Fox is or what he's actually said :joker: but he should be allowed to say what he wants, until he calls for violence. If people don't like it, the best thing to do is starve the flame of oxygen and not whinge about some actor mouthing off.

Katie Hopkins is just vile.

I don't follow Posie Parker but to my knowledge she's never actually said anything bad or incendiary but she's been banned from almost all social media platforms. No platform should be forced to host anyone or anything, but there's no real reason for her to have been banned.

He's literally just a male Katie Hopkins.

[user104658]

Yeah, just because it's virtually impossible to financially ruin Rowling's career considering she's a bloody billionaire, doesn't take away from the attempt to completely ruin the reputations of people who offer opinions that go against the extreme activists. What about the people who aren't as financially stable as she is?Possibly the most disturbing thing for me is that actual established academics and sociologists with decades of experience are shouted down, threatened, or have mass emails sent to their faculty in attempts to get them fired... And not even always for posting in agreement - it can be for simply acknowledging that there's a discussion worth having. And pointing out that not many people actually get fired is pretty meaningless: the threat and the anxiety that comes with it is enough, and the mob KNOWS that. I'm also not accepting claims that "this doesn't happen" - I've seen it happen multiple times, and I've talked to dozens of academics who admit that they censor their views because they're worried about the backlash from certain groups. Again, those groups know that. They use that. It's a mess.

[Marsh.]

Possibly the most disturbing thing for me is that actual established academics and sociologists with decades of experience are shouted down, threatened, or have mass emails sent to their faculty in attempts to get them fired... And not even always for posting in agreement - it can be for simply acknowledging that there's a discussion worth having. And pointing out that not many people actually get fired is pretty meaningless: the threat and the anxiety that comes with it is enough, and the mob KNOWS that. I'm also not accepting claims that "this doesn't happen" - I've seen it happen multiple times, and I've talked to dozens of academics who admit that they censor their views because they're worried about the backlash from certain groups. Again, those groups know that. They use that. It's a mess.

I didn't actually think of that. Just the affect of the threat of it is enough. Stifling the free speech their all shouting about.

[Liam-]

So what’s the answer then, what do we do as a society when someone says something so obviously racist or generally bigoted, do we ignore it and let them go on their way? I’m never going to feel sorry for people like Katie Hopkins, Laurence Fox or David Starkey, people have the right to be offended by things they find offensive, people have the right to protest, people have the right to boycott things if they need the need to, someone causing offence to hundreds or thousands of people and facing the consequences of doing so, should be seen as what it is, rightful, where do we draw the line, should people live and let live if someone continues to claim the Holocaust was a hoax? Should we give people a pat on the back if they say slavery was a choice? Yes people are allowed their opinions, free speech is just that, free speech, it’s not free from consequences, the people who claim their being targeted by ‘cancel culture’ don’t like their opinions or their behaviour questioned, just because a lot of people voice their disapproval or the offence things have caused them, doesn’t make it ‘mob rule’ all that serves to do is disconnect people from their actions and give them an easy out, do people go crazy? Absolutely, are some people offended by everything? Yes, but that should not be used as a tool by people to abstain from responsibility, like it’s turning into

[Cherie]

I try my best, Cherie :p

:love:

[Marsh.]

So what’s the answer then, what do we do as a society when someone says something so obviously racist or generally bigoted, do we ignore it and let them go on their way? I’m never going to feel sorry for people like Katie Hopkins, Laurence Fox or David Starkey, people have the right to be offended by things they find offensive, people have the right to protest, people have the right to boycott things if they need the need to, someone causing offence to hundreds or thousands of people and facing the consequences of doing so, should be seen as what it is, rightful, where do we draw the line, should people live and let live if someone continues to claim the Holocaust was a hoax? Should we give people a pat on the back if they say slavery was a choice? Yes people are allowed their opinions, free speech is just that, free speech, it’s not free from consequences, the people who claim their being targeted by ‘cancel culture’ don’t like their opinions or their behaviour questioned, just because a lot of people voice their disapproval or the offence things have caused them, doesn’t make it ‘mob rule’ all that serves to do is disconnect people from their actions and give them an easy out, do people go crazy? Absolutely, are some people offended by everything? Yes, but that should not be used as a tool by people to abstain from responsibility, like it’s turning into

But having a different opinion, or engaging in a discussion that isn't just chanting the party line is not the same as the hate speech of Katie Hopkins. She's a rent-a-gob, this "culture" goes beyond people like that. Using the extreme examples of actual hate speech isn't addressing the problem of no discussion/nuance being allowed IMO.

I don't think anyone disagrees with hate speech being met with the disgust that it is.

[Liam-]

But having a different opinion, or engaging in a discussion that isn't just chanting the party line is not the same as the hate speech of Katie Hopkins. She's a rent-a-gob, this "culture" goes beyond people like that. Using the extreme examples of actual hate speech isn't addressing the problem of no discussion/nuance being allowed IMO.

I don't think anyone disagrees with hate speech being met with the disgust that it is.

Discussion and nuance are there, people are willing to have those discussions, but people who claim to be victims of this ‘culture’ don’t really want that, they want to have their opinion and not be challenged, so they put a spotlight on the most extreme cases of rebuttal and anger, which are admittedly a lot of the times, borderline psychotic, they can’t stand people thinking they’re wrong, that goes for people on both sides of the spectrum, it’s the typical trick of people who want to be in an echo chamber, they tell people that something not common in a pandemic so they can play on it.

[user104658]

Discussion and nuance are there, people are willing to have those discussions, but people who claim to be victims of this ‘culture’ don’t really want that, they want to have their opinion and not be challenged, so they put a spotlight on the most extreme cases of rebuttal and anger, which are admittedly a lot of the times, borderline psychotic, they can’t stand people thinking they’re wrong, that goes for people on both sides of the spectrum, it’s the typical trick of people who want to be in an echo chamber, they tell people that something not common in a pandemic so they can play on it.

To suggest that the people most embroiled in this culture are "willing to have those discussions" is flat out false - there are a large number of people who are not only unwilling to have the discussion, but are in fact so angry that anyone else wants there to be a discussion that they aggressively campaign to ensure that everyone is too scared to openly have those conversations.

I wouldn't even ATTEMPT to discuss the nuances of something like trans rights on Twitter under my own name. There's a reason I highly value the anonymity of smaller forums.

I've seen people attacked to breaking point for even suggesting that nuances exist or that there's a discussion to be had.

[Liam-]

To suggest that the people most embroiled in this culture are "willing to have those discussions" is flat out false - there are a large number of people who are not only unwilling to have the discussion, but are in fact so angry that anyone else wants there to be a discussion that they aggressively campaign to ensure that everyone is too scared to openly have those conversations.

I wouldn't even ATTEMPT to discuss the nuances of something like trans rights on Twitter under my own name. There's a reason I highly value the anonymity of smaller forums.

I've seen people attacked to breaking point for even suggesting that nuances exist or that there's a discussion to be had.

That’s not what I said was it? I said there are people who are willing to have discussions, but the people who are desperate to be seen as victims don’t converse with them, instead they play on the narrative that the only thing they’re getting is abuse, they choose to highlight the extremes rather than defend their points

[user104658]

That’s not what I said was it? I said there are people who are willing to have discussions, but the people who are desperate to be seen as victims don’t converse with them, instead they play on the narrative that the only thing they’re getting is abuse, they choose to highlight the extremes rather than defend their pointsAnd I pointed out that I fully understand being unwilling to engage in a conversation with those who are more moderate when there is a large, very vocal, very aggressive sub-group waiting to accuse and threaten anyone who fares, and I know that the group that is willing to converse will absolutely not call them out for it.

[Niamh.]

And I pointed out that I fully understand being unwilling to engage in a conversation with those who are more moderate when there is a large, very vocal, very aggressive sub-group waiting to accuse and threaten anyone who fares, and I know that the group that is willing to converse will absolutely not call them out for it.Look what happened when Evanna Lynch (Luna from HP) dared to suggest that the abuse JK Rowling was getting was too much and she was disagreeing with what JK Rowling had actually said on the trans topic. She ended up shutting down her Twitter account because of the abuse she got

[Marsh.]

Look what happened when Evanna Lynch (Luna from HP) dared to suggest that the abuse JK Rowling was getting was too much and she was disagreeing with what JK Rowling had actually said on the trans topic. She ended up shutting down her Twitter account because of the abuse she got

Not to mention the children's drawing competition on Rowling's feed being hijacked by "activists" posting nudes and calling for her to suck their "lady dicks". :umm2:

[Elliot]

Its also a myth that only right wing or right leaning people think cancel culture exists

A lot of people on the left agree cancel culture exists, just those people are also sick of the right using it as a tool to deflect and prevent criticism or challenging their bs rhetoric

[user104658]

A lot of people on the left agree cancel culture exists, just those people are also sick of the right using it as a tool to deflect and prevent criticism or challenging their bs rhetoricThat's happening too but really it's a separate issue. "I refuse to call out the people on my side who are being aggressive and threatening because other people are doing bad things toooOOOoooOOoo" sums up one of the biggest problems with the entitity of social media.

[Niamh.]

A lot of people on the left agree cancel culture exists, just those people are also sick of the right using it as a tool to deflect and prevent criticism or challenging their bs rhetoricI consider myself to be left leaning, I'd also consider TS to be left leaning

[James]

Some people from a couple of film podcasts I listen to had a (fairly balanced) discussion about this subject. I thought it was interesting and would share it here (about an hour long).

qgk_NOl2qNU

These are the cases that were mentioned of non-celebrities who got 'cancelled':

PR executive who go fired after a tweet - https://www.google.com/search?q=Justine+Sacco&oq=Justine+Sacco&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

and

'Husband-and-wife Yale professors resign in the wake of Halloween costume scandal' https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-peril-of-writing-a-provocative-email-at-yale/484418/ & https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3350471/Yale-teacher-resigns-offensive-Halloween-costume-email.html

This is about the book 'So You've Been Publicly Shamed' by Jon Ronson.


So You've Been Publicly Shamed is a 2015 book by British journalist Jon Ronson about online shaming and its historical antecedents. The book explores the re-emergence of public shaming as an Internet phenomenon, particularly on Twitter.....


From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You%27ve_Been_Publicly_Shamed

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/44/Soyouvebeenpubliclyshamed.jpg/220px-Soyouvebeenpubliclyshamed.jpg

[Niamh.]

I'm might have a listen to that on my way to work, thanks James

[Niamh.]

Some people from a couple of film podcasts I listen to had a (fairly balanced) discussion about this subject. I thought it was interesting and would share it here (about an hour long).

qgk_NOl2qNU

These are the cases that were mentioned of non-celebrities who got 'cancelled':

PR executive who go fired after a tweet - https://www.google.com/search?q=Justine+Sacco&oq=Justine+Sacco&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

and

'Husband-and-wife Yale professors resign in the wake of Halloween costume scandal' https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-peril-of-writing-a-provocative-email-at-yale/484418/ & https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3350471/Yale-teacher-resigns-offensive-Halloween-costume-email.html

This is about the book 'So You've Been Publicly Shamed' by Jon Ronson.



From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You%27ve_Been_Publicly_Shamed

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/44/Soyouvebeenpubliclyshamed.jpg/220px-Soyouvebeenpubliclyshamed.jpg

I'm just over half way through that video, I'll finish it on my way home from work. It's good, a few thoughts so far :

- I don't want to get into the rights or wrongs of JK Rowlings tweets but I have to agree with one of the guys when he points out about her(and not just her, it could apply to a lot of other people too) which has been a big problem of mine with "cancel culture" (or whatever you want to call it) He said that, this is one topic that she has a different opinion on to some people, particularly very "liberal" or left wing people however probably 80% of her other views are probably toeing the party line so to speak but you have a different opinion on one thing from the "approved opinions list" and suddenly you're far right and a villain. This whole left or right thing and nothing in between just seems bad to me for individuality and for good reasoned discussions in general. Can we agree on a lot of things but not on others and still get on with each other anymore?

- Then one of the other speakers who doesn't think cancel culture is a thing mentioned the extreme reactions on Twitter, he said that's not normal people "canceling" someone, that's just Trolls and while I kind of agree with him to a point, it seems to me that these trolls are almost taking over twitter and becoming acceptable and people don't really challenge them much and I feel like people actually think they're justified in some way? And if you say "hey, I don't agree with this person's opinion on this particular subject but she doesn't deserve death threats or rape threats etc etc" you're also cast out for not joining the pile on or saying that someone on your side has gone too far. So yeah you can say "oh yeah but that bad ones are trolls" but if people are allowing this big number of trolls to abuse and target people and even agree with them, isn't that still cancel culture?

- So far the biggest thing I've agreed with is Twitter is a hell hole and people should stop posting there :laugh:

[Livia]

It's easy to see both sides of the debate. Owen Jones and slimy and creepy which makes automatically taking the opposite view to him pretty easy :joker: but it's not clear cut either way.

Do some people lose jobs or platforms because of things they've said or done, possibly decades ago? Yup. Weirdos on Twitter dug up ancient tweets from James Gunn and the guy from the Flash, and they both lost jobs because of it.

It's pretty stupid to:
- go digging in people's twitter history
- punish people for typing words on a screen which aren't calling for violence
- and also to say those things in the first place.

To call it a "culture" is giving it more credit than it deserves, but there's definitely a ... movement? of people trying to remove people from the public eye for no good reason, simply because they have disagreeable views.

Using ScarJo, JK Rowling, and Jimmy Kimmel as examples that it doesn't exist is silly, as they're all immensly rich, popular, and good at what they do. Removing JK's work because of her views, and whatever ScarJo and Kimmel are meant to have done would do more harm than good.

Some rando on twitter taught his dog to raise its paw in the air and his life was ruined because of it. That's not proportionate retribution. An appropriate response would be ... nothing at all.

I agree with this in its entirety.

[Cherie]

I'm just over half way through that video, I'll finish it on my way home from work. It's good, a few thoughts so far :

- I don't want to get into the rights or wrongs of JK Rowlings tweets but I have to agree with one of the guys when he points out about her(and not just her, it could apply to a lot of other people too) which has been a big problem of mine with "cancel culture" (or whatever you want to call it) He said that, this is one topic that she has a different opinion on to some people, particularly very "liberal" or left wing people however probably 80% of her other views are probably toeing the party line so to speak but you have a different opinion on one thing from the "approved opinions list" and suddenly you're far right and a villain. This whole left or right thing and nothing in between just seems bad to me for individuality and for good reasoned discussions in general. Can we agree on a lot of things but not on others and still get on with each other anymore?

- Then one of the other speakers who doesn't think cancel culture is a thing mentioned the extreme reactions on Twitter, he said that's not normal people "canceling" someone, that's just Trolls and while I kind of agree with him to a point, it seems to me that these trolls are almost taking over twitter and becoming acceptable and people don't really challenge them much and I feel like people actually think they're justified in some way? And if you say "hey, I don't agree with this person's opinion on this particular subject but she doesn't deserve death threats or rape threats etc etc" you're also cast out for not joining the pile on or saying that someone on your side has gone too far. So yeah you can say "oh yeah but that bad ones are trolls" but if people are allowing this big number of trolls to abuse and target people and even agree with them, isn't that still cancel culture?

- So far the biggest thing I've agreed with is Twitter is a hell hole and people should stop posting there :laugh:

:clap1: if you say you are a centerist you are immediately shot down as if that stance has no value at all, and you must commit to left or right or be gone

[Oliver_W]

:clap1: if you say you are a centerist you are immediately shot down as if that stance has no value at all, and you must commit to left or right or be gone

I wouldn't call myself "centrist", I'm not anything really :laugh:

The only things "political" I actually care about are the environment and animals. Other things come and go, some of my opinions line up with the left and the right, but not enough to call myself either.

I'm just above your puny human politics :hmph:

[Niamh.]

:clap1: if you say you are a centerist you are immediately shot down as if that stance has no value at all, and you must commit to left or right or be gone

Well this is the thing, I'm certainly left leaning in general but you disagree with one of the left ideas and suddenly people are speaking to you like you're on the right side, like if you don't agree with one thing you therefore must not agree with any left ideas or opinions? That's a sheep culture more than anything else imo. People have differing opinions because of life experiences, culture, gender etc etc All these different perspectives should be valuable to discussions if everyone would try to listen

[Niamh.]

I wouldn't call myself "centrist", I'm not anything really :laugh:

The only things "political" I actually care about are the environment and animals. Other things come and go, some of my opinions line up with the left and the right, but not enough to call myself either.

I'm just above your puny human politics :hmph:

Yeah and you have a point there, putting labels on people isn't that helpful either, it takes the individuality out of life. No one really agrees with everyone in their "box" on everything - whether they say they do or not. That would be mental

[Liam-]

People make out like tribal politics is exclusive to the left when it definitely isn’t.

[bots]

Yeah and you have a point there, putting labels on people isn't that helpful either, it takes the individuality out of life. No one really agrees with everyone in their "box" on everything - whether they say they do or not. That would be mental

everything is polarised these days. Looking at brexit, the obvious solution for the country ws to have some reduced membership status, that reflects the myriad of views surrounding it, but it had to be boiled down to absolutes that a tiny minority will actually ever be happy with .... it's mental

[Niamh.]

People make out like tribal politics is exclusive to the left when it definitely isn’t.

I'm certainly not if you're referring to me, why would I? I'm certainly not anywhere close to being right, the only reason I'm mentioning the left here is because it applies more to this topic :shrug:

[Liam-]

I'm certainly not if you're referring to me, why would I? I'm certainly not anywhere close to being right, the only reason I'm mentioning the left here is because it applies more to this topic :shrug:

No I mean in general, whenever these sorts of things are mentioned the blame the majority of time is placed on the ‘left’ somehow the right, who are just as tribal seem to get away with it at all points

[Oliver_W]

No-one said the right is innocent of such things?

[Tom4784]

The problem with centrism is that a lot of right wing people pretend they're centre when they're obviously not and it weakens the stance because it just makes it look like a stance for right wingers who don't want to admit they are right wing.

There are few true centrists and a lot of people in denial.

[Tom4784]

Also I saw someone mention that JK Rowling has basically been cast as the villain when her other views are liberal and to that I say that the prime difference in behaviour between left and right is that the left hold other left leaning people accountable. The right has a culture of defending anything right leaning regardless. Just look at when you mention Right Wing terrorism is the vicinity of a right wing person and their first instinct is to bleat on about the left rather than denounce right wing terrorism because they see 'right wing' and automatically feel defensive.

It doesn't matter to the left if you present yourself as a liberal if you have views that are rooted in bigotry, you will be held accountable for those views. Standards like that apply to everyone, not just the 'other side' unlike the right that allows right wingers to get away with whatever as long as they are right leaning.

[Niamh.]

The problem with centrism is that a lot of right wing people pretend they're centre when they're obviously not and it weakens the stance because it just makes it look like a stance for right wingers who don't want to admit they are right wing.

There are few true centrists and a lot of people in denial.

I really strongly disagree with this statement, in fact I'd say the vast majority of people are centre-to slight leaning in one of the other directions. Most people don't have very strong opinions on political or social topics that don't affect them and just want to get on with their own lives

[Ammi]

...the video you posted, James, is interesting...all of them make good points...I’m very undecided about cancel culture just because it feels like another unnecessarily and unhelpful label when it does feel similar to trolling...one of the things that is interesting is the discussion they had about the college professor..(..and her husband..)..and how there were screams for her to be fired from her job because of the Halloween costume email she had sent..when she’d previously been a much beloved professor..?...how one opinion had changed everything and determined her whole future etc...?...when she had been praised so highly before...it would most certainly feel like a mob mentality...anyways..(trying to make a long story, short..:laugh:...)...their whole opinion and ‘debate‘ about that was on a very small bit of information...and they said that/two of them did...’this is all I know..’...and then looking at your link, which yeah is the DM, so I wouldn’t say a great source either...but however accurate, it still gives a ‘different story’ to the one that they were given...It provided something entirely different ...it could be that another source would give something different again, I don’t know...people portray and relay with ‘slants’ and I think that’s true as well...According to the DM article, the professor wasn’t ‘just advocating free speech and saying a ‘dress code’ would undermine that’...she was intimating (...according to the article and allegedly etc...)...that there should be ‘room for students to offend in their dress code..’.../...as in blackface if they wanted to blackface etc...

...it also says in the DM article ...

‘The email was one of several incidents on campus that prompted hundreds of students and faculty members to march in protest on November 9 over what they saw as racial insensitivity at the school.’

...and one of those incidents being an apparent allegation that a female student had been turned away from a fraternity party because she wasn’t white...so this could have been a whole series of events which led up to a highly charged situation and the result being the loss of jobs for the two professors...?...but I think that it would be quite unclear and uncertain whether ‘cancel culture’ could be applied at all with all of the factors we still don’t know but presumably the college board did know and made that decision...

...It is very interesting to look at how things are reported/relayed/portrayed etc and the ‘debate’ they provoke because of that...

[Niamh.]

Also I saw someone mention that JK Rowling has basically been cast as the villain when her other views are liberal and to that I say that the prime difference in behaviour between left and right is that the left hold other left leaning people accountable. The right has a culture of defending anything right leaning regardless. Just look at when you mention Right Wing terrorism is the vicinity of a right wing person and their first instinct is to bleat on about the left rather than denounce right wing terrorism because they see 'right wing' and automatically feel defensive.

It doesn't matter to the left if you present yourself as a liberal if you have views that are rooted in bigotry, you will be held accountable for those views. Standards like that apply to everyone, not just the 'other side' unlike the right that allows right wingers to get away with whatever as long as they are right leaning.

And that to me is exactly why I think putting people in boxes like that is bad. Why should JK Rowling be accountable to anyone for her own views?

[Tom4784]

And that to me is exactly why I think putting people in boxes like that is bad. Why should JK Rowling be accountable to anyone for her own views?

All opinions come with a consequence because free speech works both ways. JK can say what she wants and people are free to react to her views how they see fit (with obvious exceptions). If people choose to turn their backs on someone because they find their views reprehensible then that's their choice.

The problem with people who typically complain about 'cancel culture' is that they want to be able to say what they want without people responding to them negatively. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

[Niamh.]

All opinions come with a consequence because free speech works both ways. JK can say what she wants and people are free to react to her views how they see fit (with obvious exceptions). If people choose to turn their backs on someone because they find their views reprehensible then that's their choice.

Oh I'm not saying they don't come with consequences, that wasn't the point I was trying to make in my last post. What I meant was the phrasing "The left hold their own accountable" sounds to me like the left are some sort of organisation that only allow people to hold the views they approve of otherwise you're out on your ear and who is deciding which views are the "correct" ones. Why can't people sometimes share similar views and sometimes not?



The problem with people who typically complain about 'cancel culture' is that they want to be able to say what they want without people responding to them negatively. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

No not at all, certainly not from my point of view. I don't think my opinions in general are very out there or offensive, so certainly from a personal level, I find that to be untrue

[user104658]

All opinions come with a consequence because free speech works both ways. JK can say what she wants and people are free to react to her views how they see fit (with obvious exceptions). If people choose to turn their backs on someone because they find their views reprehensible then that's their choice.



That would be fine if it was all that's happening, but it isn't... The idea isn't just that they can turn their backs on someone they no longer like, it's that if other people don't ALSO turn their backs then they are complicit and must also be branded, shunned or "punished".

The issue isn't and never has been people's personal opinions on JK Rowling changing because of something she's said. That's just normal human interaction. It's the tribalism and group-think mentality of "... And YOU must agree and also change your opinion of her, or you are a TERF/TERF sympathiser!" that is a massive problem. And the hypocrisy of refusing to address the threats and violence coming from the same "Tribe". "The difference is that the left hold their own accountable" is an absolute JOKE if you take a look at that side of things. Justifying or ignoring threats of sexual violence "because its understandable that people are angry" whilst also insisting that "silence is violence" from people who don't subscribe to the same hive. Blaring mantras and *insisting* with veiled threats that others repeat their mantra "or else something"... Face the consequences... Bleh. Creepy. Cultish. I've personally had enough of it and to be quite honest, I think most people have. The bubble is going to burst quite soon and sadly some blameless people are going to be caught up in that.

[Tom4784]

Oh I'm not saying they don't come with consequences, that wasn't the point I was trying to make in my last post. What I meant was the phrasing "The left hold their own accountable" sounds to me like the left are some sort of organisation that only allow people to hold the views they approve of otherwise you're out on your ear and who is deciding which views are the "correct" ones. Why can't people sometimes share similar views and sometimes not?




No not at all, certainly not from my point of view. I don't think my opinions in general are very out there or offensive, so certainly from a personal level, I find that to be untrue

What I was trying to say with that comment is that they basically typically hold everyone to the same standard. There's consistency there.

People are allowed their opinions and others are free to react to them.

[Niamh.]

What I was trying to say with that comment is that they basically typically hold everyone to the same standard. There's consistency there.

People are allowed their opinions and others are free to react to them.

Absolutely agree with this, this is healthy and normal and has been happening since the dawn of time. It's the mob mentality that seems to come with it these days that i have an issue with - which does seem to be something that really grew and festered on Twitter but now seems to be seeping into the mainstream which I think is worrying

[user104658]

What I was trying to say with that comment is that they basically typically hold everyone to the same standard. There's consistency there.

Utter bull****. People's aggression and violence is overlooked until their opinion diverges from the accepted zeitgeist, at which point they are disowned and targeted ("held to account"). If their OPINIONS still fall within accepted range, their BEHAVIOUR is consistently overlooked and excused.





People are allowed their opinions and others are free to react to them.

... Not "free" - expected. People are expected to react, and their reaction is expected to match the consensus of the group. If it doesn't, they are wrong. If they refuse to comment or simply don't want to get involved, it is wrong.

Utter mess and intellectually indefensible as ANY brand of individualism. It is the death of individualism and critical thought.

[Scarlett.]

If you don't wanna be cancelled, don't be a dick.

It's that simple.

[user104658]

If you don't wanna be cancelled, don't be a dick.

It's that simple.Nothing is ever "that simple" as I'm sure you know, but allowing emotion to override any semblance of reasoned, considered argument is another (worryingly) accepted norm/standard.

All you're saying here is "say the right things and you don't need to worry". The irony is in how worrying that is.

[Ammi]

...either making or ignoring threats of sexual violence wouldn’t be a ‘left’ or ‘right’ thing though...it would be a very extreme stance and wouldn’t apply to either...

[Liam-]

The ones crying most about ‘cancel culture’ are the ones benefitting the most from it.

Dawn Butler has to shut her offices down because of the constant abuse and damage being caused to it, why isn’t that splashed over the media? Because it wouldn’t fit into the right wing narrative that they are the ones being silenced

[Ammi]

Nothing is ever "that simple" as I'm sure you know, but allowing emotion to override any semblance of reasoned, considered argument is another (worryingly) accepted norm/standard.

All you're saying here is "say the right things and you don't need to worry". The irony is in how worrying that is.

...hmmmm, I think it’s more that Scarlett is saying that people should self monitor and (..at times..)...have more thought in what they say and how it impacts others...

...(...that doesn’t justify pack mentality btw but I’m thinking it’s more pack mentality rather than another label of ‘cancel culture’...)...

[user104658]

...either making or ignoring threats of sexual violence wouldn’t be a ‘left’ or ‘right’ thing though...it would be a very extreme stance and wouldn’t apply to either...It isn't a left or right thing, the extreme language and expectation of homogenous opinion is completely non-partisan at this point. Tribalism by necessity requires multiple tribes and cancel-culture, because it inherently requires the influence and power of the mob, is tribal in nature.

[user104658]

...hmmmm, I think it’s more that Scarlett is saying that people should self monitor and (..at times..)...have more thought in what they say and how it impacts others...



It is demonstrably not true, though. People with well-reasoned and thought through opinions will find them self on the receiving end of an aggressive Twitter mob if the opinion happened to fall outwith their definition of acceptable thinking. No attempt at rational debate, no attempt to CHANGE the opinions they think are wrong, just a lazy "cancelling".

[Liam-]

JHB this week applauded hundreds of people losing their jobs because they worked for a paper she doesn’t like, yet cries foul when people on her side are questioned for their opinions and their actions, they pick and choose when they’re offended or when something is malicious, ‘cancel culture’ is yet another meaningless talking point made up by right wingers to portray themselves as victims of a society they actually have much more power over than the other side.

[Ammi]

It is demonstrably not true, though. People with well-reasoned and thought through opinions will find them self on the receiving end of an aggressive Twitter mob if the opinion happened to fall outwith their definition of acceptable thinking. No attempt at rational debate, no attempt to CHANGE the opinions they think are wrong, just a lazy "cancelling".

...they’re not necessarily ‘well reasoned’ though..:laugh:...when for instance, things are ‘thrown out’ out on Twitter and such the like social media...and even to the news media...?..they can also be thrown out with no well reasoning at all and simply for a reaction...unfortunately it’s an illusion of feeling some type of control and manipulation of media platforms or media etc....when once something is ‘thrown out there’ in such a way, all control becomes lost as the pack circles and strikes...but isn’t that the reaction that was anticipated in some cases.../..as opposed to ‘well reasoned’...

[user104658]

JHB this week applauded hundreds of people losing their jobs because they worked for a paper she doesn’t like, yet cries foul when people on her side are questioned for their opinions and their actions, they pick and choose when they’re offended or when something is malicious, ‘cancel culture’ is yet another meaningless talking point made up by right wingers to portray themselves as victims of a society they actually have much more power over than the other side.The attempt at a culture of cancellation is a (flawed) attempt to regain power and control for marginalised groups that has spiraled into extreme thinking and language. Are people often successfully cancelled? No. Are some people on the right constructing a victim narrative? Probably. Do proponents of cancellation WISH it did work, and are they still attempting to make it work? Yes and yes. And they are happy to ignore the toxic elements of the mob because the mob - as you say, being at a power disadvantage - relies heavily on having the numbers.

Its a bad tactic that's going to backfire spectacularly, and that relies on boiling every issue down to "its simples" no matter how complex they actually are.

[user104658]

...they’re not necessarily ‘well reasoned’ though..[emoji23]...when for instance, things are ‘thrown out’ out on Twitter and such the like social media...and even to the news media...?..they can also be thrown out with no well reasoning at all and simply for a reaction...unfortunately it’s an illusion of feeling some type of control and manipulation of media platforms or media etc....when once something is ‘thrown out there’ in such a way, all control becomes lost as the pack circles and strikes...but isn’t that the reaction that was anticipated in some cases.../..as opposed to ‘well reasoned’...They're certainly not ALWAYS well-reasoned. It's twitter - most things are not well reasoned. However things that are well reasoned are lumped in "as targets" for righteous anger, along with anyone who dares to point out the aggressive behaviour.

Since JK is the flavour of the month, she makes a good example. The first things she posted... Were there logical flaws in her argument? Yes. Was she spot on with the issues? Nope. Was she sharing a genuine concern for women's rights an welfare with misguided elements? Absolutely... Which is where discussion comes in, where you point out misconceptions and try to reach an understanding.

That is - very clearly - not what is happening. Anyone who is claiming that there ISN'T an increasingly militantly-observed set of opinions that are "right and wrong", again non-partisan, this applies to the outraged extremes of any ideology - is in my opinion being disingenuous.

[Oliver_W]

JK Rowling didn't even say anything that bad. Like, it's not nice to say transwomen aren't female, but ... they're not? Nothing she's said (that I know of) has been hateful, and certainly not warranting the disgusting comment and pictures replying to her tweets. The response she's been getting isn't what "consequences" should be.

[Liam-]

Sorry I just don’t buy it, one one hand we’re told to not believe that social media reflects true society and then on the other, we’re being told that angry people on social media are ruining society by trying to cancel everyone, it can’t and doesn’t work both ways.

Being ‘cancelled’ started as a joke that stans would use when someone they liked did something weird, it was never about ruining careers or livelihoods, it has been hijacked by bad faith actors desperate for a culture war to feed their narratives and egos, to the point now where people who do and say things deserving of disdain and criticism, absolve themselves of criticism, I mean there was a week last week that claimed R Kelly was a ‘victim’ of cancel culture :umm2:

We’re getting to the point where anyone can dodge fault by claiming they’re just being targeted by ‘deranged lefty mobs’

It’s dangerous precedent to start setting

[Niamh.]

JHB this week applauded hundreds of people losing their jobs because they worked for a paper she doesn’t like, yet cries foul when people on her side are questioned for their opinions and their actions, they pick and choose when they’re offended or when something is malicious, ‘cancel culture’ is yet another meaningless talking point made up by right wingers to portray themselves as victims of a society they actually have much more power over than the other side.

Plenty of people on the left believe in cancel culture though, even on this thread alone

[Ammi]

They're certainly not ALWAYS well-reasoned. It's twitter - most things are not well reasoned. However things that are well reasoned are lumped in "as targets" for righteous anger, along with anyone who dares to point out the aggressive behaviour.

Since JK is the flavour of the month, she makes a good example. The first things she posted... Were there logical flaws in her argument? Yes. Was she spot on with the issues? Nope. Was she sharing a genuine concern for women's rights an welfare with misguided elements? Absolutely... Which is where discussion comes in, where you point out misconceptions and try to reach an understanding.

That is - very clearly - not what is happening. Anyone who is claiming that there ISN'T an increasingly militantly-observed set of opinions that are "right and wrong", again non-partisan, this applies to the outraged extremes of any ideology - is in my opinion being disingenuous.

...was it JK Rawlings who was having threats of sexual violence...?...again though, those are very extreme and quite criminal and wouldn’t typically be applied to either ‘left’ or ‘right’, they’re deeply concerning ‘opinions’...

[Liam-]

Plenty of people on the left believe in cancel culture though, even on this thread alone

Okay? They’re entitled to believe in it if they wish

[user104658]

JK Rowling didn't even say anything that bad. Like, it's not nice to say transwomen aren't female, but ... they're not? Nothing she's said (that I know of) has been hateful, and certainly not warranting the disgusting comment and pictures replying to her tweets. The response she's been getting isn't what "consequences" should be.

At some point she's descended into being a bit petty, which is a shame, but there was nothing wrong with her actual articles. And that's not to say that I agree with everything she said but - and this is the part I think some people struggle with - not agreeing with every aspect of an article doesn't mean there was something wrong with it. That's where the dogged insistence on a consensus of thought and opinion comes in, and that's the part that concerns me. "Don't be a dick" too often comes with the caveat of "... And if you hold opinions contrary to mine, you're being a dick".

I also think the people sending porn and rape threats, the supposed transpeople telling her to suck their ****, are a SMALL and extreme percentage of the people who disagree with her BUT I think a much larger and more worrying proportion refuse to condemn the aggressive ones because, again, group cohesion is seen as vital to "maintaining a voice". Which is why I found the "we hold our own to account" part a bit hard to swallow.

[Niamh.]

Okay? They’re entitled to believe in it if they wish

Well I'm just saying, you're the one saying that cancel culture is a figment of the rights imagination when that's clearly not true.

*disclaimer - I'm not defending the right here at all

[Ammi]

..I do agree also with the debate on the vid that James posted, that JKR is not the best example in considering aspects of ‘cancel culture’ ...because she’ll never be ‘cancelled’...it’s not in a ‘pack or mob’ power to cause that for her...

[Niamh.]

At some point she's descended into being a bit petty, which is a shame, but there was nothing wrong with her actual articles. And that's not to say that I agree with everything she said but - and this is the part I think some people struggle with - not agreeing with every aspect of an article doesn't mean there was something wrong with it. That's where the dogged insistence on a consensus of thought and opinion comes in, and that's the part that concerns me. "Don't be a dick" too often comes with the caveat of "... And if you hold opinions contrary to mine, you're being a dick".

I also think the people sending porn and rape threats, the supposed transpeople telling her to suck their ****, are a SMALL and extreme percentage of the people who disagree with her BUT I think a much larger and more worrying proportion refuse to condemn the aggressive ones because, again, group cohesion is seen as vital to "maintaining a voice". Which is why I found the "we hold our own to account" part a bit hard to swallow.

It's a shame because what these trans activists are doing is almost proving why she's concerned and most of them probably aren't even trans people.

[user104658]

..I do agree also with the debate on the vid that James posted, that JKR is not the best example in considering aspects of ‘cancel culture’ ...because she’ll never be ‘cancelled’...it’s not in a ‘pack or mob’ power to cause that...I think it makes her an excellent example when used in a set of other examples; people expected it to work better than it did and when it was like firing a BB gun at a freight train, they became increasingly frustrated and aggressive.

Some people are FURIOUS that JK Rowling is not cancelled.

The argument that cancel culture doesn't exist because it doesn't often work is quite a flimsy one. The fact that it often fails is largely irrelevant.

[user104658]

It's a shame because what these trans activists are doing is almost proving why she's concerned and most of them probably aren't even trans people.That's why I think the extremes of trans activism are doing far more damage to trans acceptance right now than good. A lot of the Twitter accounts making threats or "wishes" of sexual violence are, at least in claim, transwomen... By "the rules" that has to be accepted because we're supposed to accept without reservation that self-ID is all that's required. They say they are women, so they are women.

Except that using threats, wishes or jokes about sexual violence as a shaming technique against women is a very psychologically male mindset. It's a thing that MEN do when they are angry. This is pretty well studied by psychological shaming researchers. So you have a group of biologically male transwomen engaging in male behaviours that come from male socialisation - male gendered behaviour - while insisting that they are women by gender. It turns the whole thing into a sham.

[Liam-]

Well I'm just saying, you're the one saying that cancel culture is a figment of the rights imagination when that's clearly not true.

*disclaimer - I'm not defending the right here at all

I didn’t say it’s in their imagination, what they’re doing is disproportionately highlighting a very small minority of angry, obsessed, abusive people and claiming they’re the targets of a pandemic like ‘culture’ when they themselves in fact, relish in the consequences and situations people they don’t like face, mob rule doesn’t get people fired, if an employer didn’t think they had done something to bring whatever they do into disrepute, or goes against what they believe in as a company or organisation, they wouldn’t be fired, by allocating intellectually dishonest and unproven power to a minority, they’re creating a loophole to avoid responsibility.

If people don’t agree with that it’s fine, I’m not gonna cancel them.

[Ammi]

I think it makes her an excellent example when used in a set of other examples; people expected it to work better than it did and when it was like firing a BB gun at a freight train, they became increasingly frustrated and aggressive.

Some people are FURIOUS that JK Rowling is not cancelled.

The argument that cancel culture doesn't exist because it doesn't often work is quite a flimsy one. The fact that it often fails is largely irrelevant.

...(...I think, honestly...)...that the ‘some people who are furious’ are a very, very small minority...who if their ‘views’ or ‘opinions’ or whatever incorporate ones of violent acts toward her or anyone else...are not people who we can look at as having any type of reasonable social reasoning...they’re abusive online trolls who should be dealt with by the police...and I honestly doubt also that their aggression is because they’ve experienced a ‘freight train’, it’s the way they would express themselves with whoever that person was...they’re very much a huge part of what goes to make social media in the modern day so toxic...because they don’t care who they throw their toxicity at...?...the Internet is a place that enables dehumanisation to them...

...anyways, as I said...I’m going to leave the specific JKR debate for others
but I was very interested in other examples in the debate that James posted because had actually been ‘cancelled’...or had they..?...hmmmmm...we rarely get ‘complete stories’ with no slanting is another issue...

[user104658]

I didn’t say it’s in their imagination, what they’re doing is disproportionately highlighting a very small minority of angry, obsessed, abusive people and claiming they’re the targets of a pandemic like ‘culture’ when they themselves in fact, relish in the consequences and situations people they don’t like face, mob rule doesn’t get people fired, if an employer didn’t think they had done something to bring whatever they do into disrepute, or goes against what they believe in as a company or organisation, they wouldn’t be fired, by allocating intellectually dishonest and unproven power to a minority, they’re creating a loophole to avoid responsibility.



If people don’t agree with that it’s fine, I’m not gonna cancel them.

I'd suggest reading a book called "So You've Been Publicly Shamed". Partly just because it's a very easy and engaging read but also because - whilst in my opinion it's not without its own flaws and I have some criticisms of the authors own behaviour - it is full of real-world examples of "successful cancelling" and the effects on people's lives and mental health. It's been going on for a lot longer than its had a name. It also talks about how damaging it can be to people even when it fails.

That doesn't mean that there aren't people exploiting the narrative to their own ends as well.

Both can be true. This is indeed part of the problem; refusal to accept that literally everything is grey.

[user104658]

...(...I think, honestly...)...that the ‘some people who are furious’ are a very, very small minority...who if their ‘views’ or ‘opinions’ or whatever incorporate ones of violent acts toward her or anyone else...are not people who we can look at as having any type of reasonable social reasoning...they’re abusive online trolls who should be dealt with by the police...and I honestly doubt also that their aggression is because they’ve experienced a ‘freight train’, it’s the way they would express themselves with whoever that person was...they’re very much a huge part of what goes to make social media in the modern day so toxic...because they don’t care who they throw their toxicity at...?...the Internet is a place that enables dehumanisation to them...



...anyways, as I said...I’m going to leave the specific JKR debate for others

but I was very interested in other examples in the debate that James posted because had actually been ‘cancelled’...or had they..?...hmmmmm...we rarely get ‘complete stories’ with no slanting is another issue...Again though I agree about it being a tiny minority - the problem is that people are willingly blinkered to that small, but very loud, minority because its singing from the same opinion-sheet.

Like I said above... People all too willing to jump on people and hold them to account for their OPINIONS, whilst refusing to hold others to account for their BEHAVIOUR.

[Niamh.]

That's why I think the extremes of trans activism are doing far more damage to trans acceptance right now than good. A lot of the Twitter accounts making threats or "wishes" of sexual violence are, at least in claim, transwomen... By "the rules" that has to be accepted because we're supposed to accept without reservation that self-ID is all that's required. They say they are women, so they are women.

Except that using threats, wishes or jokes about sexual violence as a shaming technique against women is a very psychologically male mindset. It's a thing that MEN do when they are angry. This is pretty well studied by psychological shaming researchers. So you have a group of biologically male transwomen engaging in male behaviours that come from male socialisation - male gendered behaviour - while insisting that they are women by gender. It turns the whole thing into a sham.

Exactly. And this is why the shutting down of any attempts at conversation about self ID, trans rights vs women's sex based rights etc is damaging to both women and trans women. Telling a group who are genuinely concerned about how their rights will be affected by new laws to shut up and start calling them names and threatening them if they don't is really only going to cause a bigger divide and so much bad blood

[Ammi]

Again though I agree about it being a tiny minority - the problem is that people are willingly blinkered to that small, but very loud, minority because its singing from the same opinion-sheet.

Like I said above... People all too willing to jump on people and hold them to account for their OPINIONS, whilst refusing to hold others to account for their BEHAVIOUR.

...well, we’re going to have to disagree that people are willingly blinkered that those type of extreme ‘views’, which is basically online abuse, I think that minority also would be people who hold similar extreme views themselves but are happy for others to take the mouthpiece more, maybe...

[user104658]

Exactly. And this is why the shutting down of any attempts at conversation about self ID, trans rights vs women's sex based rights etc is damaging to both women and trans women. Telling a group who are genuinely concerned about how their rights will be affected by new laws to shut up and start calling them names and threatening them if they don't is really only going to cause a bigger divide and so much bad bloodI think there are two groups of people genuinely worried about their future and rights and because there's such strong resistance around having actual vulnerable, open conversations about it it's spiraling into frustration and anger at an increasing pace. Any open conversation about this involves acknowledging that there is a difference between transwomen and biologically female women and that has become an unapproachable topic... I have no idea how any progress can be made at all from that point.

[user104658]

...well, we’re going to have to disagree that people are willingly blinkered that those type of extreme ‘views’, which is basically online abuse, I think that minority also would be people who hold similar extreme views themselves but are happy for others to take the mouthpiece more, maybe...I rarely see it condemned and when it is condemned, the people who dared to speak up often find themselves targeted next. Perhaps that's the issue. People aren't refusing to speak up because they agree with the extreme rhetoric, they're refusing to speak up because they themselves are scared of the extreme fringes of their own group. A worrying trend either way and highlighting one of the many pitfalls of relying on "strength in numbers" over individual strength of argument.

[Ammi]

I rarely see it condemned and when it is condemned, the people who dared to speak up often find themselves targeted next. Perhaps that's the issue. People aren't refusing to speak up because they agree with the extreme rhetoric, they're refusing to speak up because they themselves are scared of the extreme fringes of their own group. A worrying trend either way and highlighting one of the many pitfalls of relying on "strength in numbers" over individual strength of argument.

....with social media online abuse/pack mentality/bullying etc...as on here, the power would be in the reporting and that isn’t something that you or I would see, when done by others...i won’t assume that people are ‘willingly blinkered’ when they may rather be utilising their ‘best power’ and indeed their only power...

[Niamh.]

I think there are two groups of people genuinely worried about their future and rights and because there's such strong resistance around having actual vulnerable, open conversations about it it's spiraling into frustration and anger at an increasing pace. Any open conversation about this involves acknowledging that there is a difference between transwomen and biologically female women and that has become an unapproachable topic... I have no idea how any progress can be made at all from that point.

Yeah agree with that. This is where the sex vs gender thing becomes a problem too because womens sex based rights are based mostly around our biology rather than our thoughts and feelings, so although on the one hand I get why transwomen don't want to think that biology should be seen as an important factor in being a woman but the reality of it is that it plays a huge part when it comes to things like sport and certain sex segregated spaces

[Liam-]

Abusive trolls are everywhere, everyone gets them, footballers, singers, artists, actors, it’s not exclusive to people with opinions, trolls aren’t indicative of any type of specific culture other than anonymity based confidence to be offensive, I feel like it’s being lumped into a discussion to try and help a certain narrative

[Ammi]

...I don’t know whether this was one of the first that could have been described as ‘cancel culture’ if that label had existed then...but it’s the first I recall because of the tragedy of the outcome and because I think it showed the ‘power’ of social media pack mentality, in its earlier years, if you like...very dangerous even as a small social media infant...


The World Reacts to Royal Baby News (Dec. 3): Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, is hospitalized for a severe case of morning sickness. As soon as the news spreads that the world's favorite royal couple is expecting much speculation begins over the unborn child who will one day most likely ascend to the throne of England. During Kate Middleton's hospital stay, two Australian radio disc jockeys make a prank call to the hospital pretending to be Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles. The call is broadcast on the radio in Australia and later around the world. (Dec. 6): Kate Middleton is released from the hospital. She returns home to rest. The prank by the Australian D.J.'s turns tragic when Jacintha Saldanha, the nurse who took the call, commits suicide. The police announce her death as "being treated as unexplained." However, the two D.J.'s are blamed on social media.

[Elliot]

Abusive trolls are everywhere, everyone gets them, footballers, singers, artists, actors, it’s not exclusive to people with opinions, trolls aren’t indicative of any type of specific culture other than anonymity based confidence to be offensive, I feel like it’s being lumped into a discussion to try and help a certain narrative

I don’t like Owen Jones but he’s been physically assaulted for stating his opinions online, but it’s not an example of cancel culture because people don’t agree with him. Jk Rowling is an example of cancel culture because some people agree with her. It’s bs and it exposes people’s actual intentions when they cry ‘free speech’ and cancel culture’

[Elliot]

The right are so obsessed with the free market, is cancel culture not a direct product of it?

[user104658]

Abusive trolls are everywhere, everyone gets them, footballers, singers, artists, actors, it’s not exclusive to people with opinions, trolls aren’t indicative of any type of specific culture other than anonymity based confidence to be offensive, I feel like it’s being lumped into a discussion to try and help a certain narrative

The thing is though, I can see the issues quite clearly and I have no chips on the table whatsoever. I'm not female, I'm not trans, I'm not right-wing...I don't even HAVE a Twitter account... I have no agenda whatsoever other than the belief that if you close off issues from any discussion it will result in a mess of uneducated populism that doesn't reflect any reality. The trans debate is headed that way with its various mantras and expectation of consensus "transwomen are women", "silence is violence" and recently descending into some really questionable pseudoscientific biology. Are transwomen women? My only answer is "I don't know, because you won't let anyone do any proper psych work in that area".

And no, it's not just Twitter, there's currently a massive and very real issue with organisations like Mermaids and Stonewall refusing to let child mental health specialists work with young people, even with open and non-judgemental conversations, that do anything other than unquestioningly confirm. It's so far from responsible health practice that I don't even know where to start, but people have been harassed and, yes, forced out of their jobs for non-compliance. Its becoming a very real-world problem with massive ethical implications but no one is allowed to talk about it for fear of causing offence, and insane allegations that discussing it is akin to "murder".

Im afraid that I do have my own hard line "wrong think" thoughts I guess.

Anyone who tries to tell me that you "can't, shouldn't, or aren't allowed" to have an adademix debate or discussion about any topic is... Wrong.

[user104658]

As for how the above is related to "cancel culture" - the reason that academics and professionals are not having these discussions or doing this research is not that they are literally not allowed to do so. They simply won't do it because of the fear that doing so will lead to being targeted, doxxed or losing their livelihood. That is the effect of "cancel culture". Not people actually being cancelled, but social control using fear. People just won't go there in the first place.

[Scarlett.]

The thing is though, I can see the issues quite clearly and I have no chips on the table whatsoever. I'm not female, I'm not trans, I'm not right-wing...I don't even HAVE a Twitter account... I have no agenda whatsoever other than the belief that if you close off issues from any discussion it will result in a mess of uneducated populism that doesn't reflect any reality. The trans debate is headed that way with its various mantras and expectation of consensus "transwomen are women", "silence is violence" and recently descending into some really questionable pseudoscientific biology. Are transwomen women? My only answer is "I don't know, because you won't let anyone do any proper psych work in that area".

And no, it's not just Twitter, there's currently a massive and very real issue with organisations like Mermaids and Stonewall refusing to let child mental health specialists work with young people, even with open and non-judgemental conversations, that do anything other than unquestioningly confirm. It's so far from responsible health practice that I don't even know where to start, but people have been harassed and, yes, forced out of their jobs for non-compliance. Its becoming a very real-world problem with massive ethical implications but no one is allowed to talk about it for fear of causing offence, and insane allegations that discussing it is akin to "murder".

Im afraid that I do have my own hard line "wrong think" thoughts I guess.

Anyone who tries to tell me that you "can't, shouldn't, or aren't allowed" to have an adademix debate or discussion about any topic is... Wrong.

Because any conversations into trans issues quickly descend into transphobia and hate. Look on the comments section of ANYTHING to do with anything remotely about trans people and the comments will be full of fat pieces of gammon **** being transphobic and homophobic and just generally ****.

People get "cancelled" because they say something others disagree with, and stick to that. People who disagree no longer acknowledge them. It's basic free speech. JK can continue discussing trans issues, but it will just push people away.

Cancel culture basically boils down to "yeah, nah, I'm not listening to this bull**** any more, bye" which is just basic human interaction. Yeah, people who are cancelled may find they lose book deals or TV show appearances. But if I was a piece of **** on facebook, you can guarantee it would affect my job prospects too. These people are in the public eye 24/7 so of course the reaction to them being a piece of **** will be much greater.

In regards to trolls making threats against people who they disagree with, that's never okay, and I would never condone that.

[Liam-]

As for how the above is related to "cancel culture" - the reason that academics and professionals are not having these discussions or doing this research is not that they are literally not allowed to do so. They simply won't do it because of the fear that doing so will lead to being targeted, doxxed or losing their livelihood. That is the effect of "cancel culture". Not people actually being cancelled, but social control using fear. People just won't go there in the first place.

And there you have it, people are scared of something because bad faith actors are causing hysteria by amplifying a minority of voices that have no real effect, like you said, people aren’t actually being cancelled, but people are told people are being cancelled, that is the control that is happening, it’s a tactic old as time, it’s how we got Brexit, it’s how we got Trump and it’s how we got Johnson, minority cases are taken, exploited, amplified and distorted, misinformation is spread and fear ensues, it’s gas lighting 101, are there horrible abusive people out there? Of course there are, there always will be, but they’ll never be the majority and they’ll never really have any real power or influence

[user104658]

Because any conversations into trans issues quickly descend into transphobia and hate. Look on the comments section of ANYTHING to do with anything remotely about trans people and the comments will be full of fat pieces of gammon **** being transphobic and homophobic and just generally ****.

On the Internet, yes, I agree but how does that translate into blocking academics and mental health professionals from having important discussions and carrying out and sharing actual research? The situation in CAMHS at the moment is a disaster, and people are terrified to go there, because it can ruin careers, so I can't see this improving any time soon.



People get "cancelled" because they say something others disagree with, and stick to that. People who disagree no longer acknowledge them. It's basic free speech. JK can continue discussing trans issues, but it will just push people away.



Cancel culture basically boils down to "yeah, nah, I'm not listening to this bull**** any more, bye" which is just basic human interaction. Yeah, people who are cancelled may find they lose book deals or TV show appearances. But if I was a piece of **** on facebook, you can guarantee it would affect my job prospects too. These people are in the public eye 24/7 so of course the reaction to them being a piece of **** will be much greater.



In regards to trolls making threats against people who they disagree with, that's never okay, and I would never condone that.

Thats only half of the story, it would be absolutely fine if it WAS about individual decisions and people wanting nothing to do with it on their own consideration, but it extends thoroughly into the issue of group identity. Its not "I want nothing to do with Rowling any more", it's "I want nothing to do with her any more, we shouldn't want anything to do with her any more, and if you disagree, you're no longer one of us".

Group rejection is an IMMENSELY powerful social motivator and it leads to countless people being unable to express a counter-opinion on a topic that has had a group consensus clearly outlined.

Why anyone would think that's a good thing I really have NO idea.

[bots]

it's lord of the flies

[user104658]

And there you have it, people are scared of something because bad faith actors are causing hysteria by amplifying a minority of voices that have no real effect, like you said, people aren’t actually being cancelled, but people are told people are being cancelled, that is the control that is happening, it’s a tactic old as time, it’s how we got Brexit, it’s how we got Trump and it’s how we got Johnson, minority cases are taken, exploited, amplified and distorted, misinformation is spread and fear ensues, it’s gas lighting 101, are there horrible abusive people out there? Of course there are, there always will be, but they’ll never be the majority and they’ll never really have any real power or influencePeople are scared of it happening to them because it does happen and they have seen it happen. A number of high-profile academics have been ripped to shreds for discussing the wrong things. Just because you haven't seen it yourself doesn't mean it's imaginary... I have seen careers ruined for refusing to blindly reinforce public zeitgeist. Group-identity-power and anti-intellectualism are all too real. Repeatedly insisting that they're goblins under the bed isn't going to change that.

[The Slim Reaper]

As for how the above is related to "cancel culture" - the reason that academics and professionals are not having these discussions or doing this research is not that they are literally not allowed to do so. They simply won't do it because of the fear that doing so will lead to being targeted, doxxed or losing their livelihood. That is the effect of "cancel culture". Not people actually being cancelled, but social control using fear. People just won't go there in the first place.

I think you're generally right in this thread, although I have some minor disagreements, but that's quite the statement that you're going to need to back up.

[Scarlett.]

Thats only half of the story, it would be absolutely fine if it WAS about individual decisions and people wanting nothing to do with it on their own consideration, but it extends thoroughly into the issue of group identity. Its not "I want nothing to do with Rowling any more", it's "I want nothing to do with her any more, we shouldn't want anything to do with her any more, and if you disagree, you're no longer one of us".

Group rejection is an IMMENSELY powerful social motivator and it leads to countless people being unable to express a counter-opinion on a topic that has had a group consensus clearly outlined.

Why anyone would think that's a good thing I really have NO idea.

I've never personally seen anyone ousted because they still enjoy Harry Potter or something like that. :shrug:

[Liam-]

People are scared of it happening to them because it does happen and they have seen it happen. A number of high-profile academics have been ripped to shreds for discussing the wrong things. Just because you haven't seen it yourself doesn't mean it's imaginary... I have seen careers ruined for refusing to blindly reinforce public zeitgeist. Group-identity-power and anti-intellectualism are all too real. Repeatedly insisting that they're goblins under the bed isn't going to change that.

‘Ripped to shreds’ how?

I don’t believe any institutions actually punish people for having a difference of opinion, I just don’t, it would be grounds for wrongful dismissal for a start and whoever these ‘cancelled’ people say they’ve been cancelled for an opinion, there’s always something else that comes out that contradicts their stories.

[user104658]

I think you're generally right in this thread, although I have some minor disagreements, but that's quite the statement that you're going to need to back up.Is that because of the confusing double-negative or because there actually are some institutions that are expressly forbidding some topics? Usually when I see it, it's that some researchers will try to propose papers but with "warning: this is a minefield area, enter at your own risk" disclaimers attached to the proposal.

[user104658]

I've never personally seen anyone ousted because they still enjoy Harry Potter or something like that. :shrug:No, but I think that's because generally (thus far at least) people can separate an artist from their work, thankfully. I mean for example I love many Stephen King books but I wouldn't let the man babysit my kids, some of his stuff is very questionable.

So no I don't think people would be ousted for still liking Potter stuff. I do think people would be at risk of being ousted for saying "Well I don't totally agree with her but is there a wider discussion to be had here?". The issue of the potential, or even just the fear, of women's right being eroded due to carelessness in other areas is red hot. The anger surrounding it is very real. I don't really know why it has to be, but it is, and the fingers-in-ears refusal to go there and to reject people who are willing to go there is going to come to a head at some point.

Again the irony that I always sadly come to, is that I thi k it's inevitable that transpeople are the ones who will be worst affected when it does.

[The Slim Reaper]

Is that because of the confusing double-negative or because there actually are some institutions that are expressly forbidding some topics? Usually when I see it, it's that some researchers will try to propose papers but with "warning: this is a minefield area, enter at your own risk" disclaimers attached to the proposal.

The double negative I can cope with. I read some of my own posts sometimes and wonder what my old English teacher would think! Just some more info on academics not being allowed to do research.

[Liam-]

Is that because of the confusing double-negative or because there actually are some institutions that are expressly forbidding some topics? Usually when I see it, it's that some researchers will try to propose papers but with "warning: this is a minefield area, enter at your own risk" disclaimers attached to the proposal.

Telling people certain subjects are sensitive and they should take caution with how they go about it isn’t forbidding them from talking about it, it’s a very sensible approach to sensitive subjects, it’s common decency to be sensible and respectful when discussing nuanced things

[user104658]

Telling people certain subjects are sensitive and they should take caution with how they go about it isn’t forbidding them from talking about it, it’s a very sensible approach to sensitive subjects, it’s common decency to be sensible and respectful when discussing nuanced things

It's not caution about how they go about it, the proposal is an invitation to participate and the warning is that the premise of the paper is LIKELY to result in backlash, and that they should consider the risk level before agreeing to co-author.

[Liam-]

It's not caution about how they go about it, the proposal is an invitation to participate and the warning is that the premise of the paper is LIKELY to result in backlash, and that they should consider the risk level before agreeing to co-author.

Then the same thing stands, it’s a warning that it could cause backlash, so they know it’s a sensitive subject, that still doesn’t equate to certain subjects being forbidden, advised against because it could cause upset or controversy maybe, but not forbidden, that’s leaving it up to personal choice, that’s the exact opposite of being silenced or forbidden

[user104658]

The double negative I can cope with. I read some of my own posts sometimes and wonder what my old English teacher would think! Just some more info on academics not being allowed to do research.I think it was my double negative then - I was saying that they're NOT expressly forbidden by their employers, but choose not to engage anyway because of the risks of pressure groups putting a spotlight on them afterwards. I did actually read something recently about some new legislation designed to protect academic discourse. All a bit vague though, I don't even know if it's through or just an idea.

[user104658]

Then the same thing stands, it’s a warning that it could cause backlash, so they know it’s a sensitive subject, that still doesn’t equate to certain subjects being forbidden, advised against because it could cause upset or controversy maybe, but not forbidden, that’s leaving it up to personal choice, that’s the exact opposite of being silenced or forbiddenThe effect is the same though, the pressure of public shaming and the threat of a pile-on is as effective as legislation if not moreso. I'm not really talking about whether or not "cancellation attempts" should be allowed either... Just whether or not they're a good idea ethically and in terms of real progress.

[Liam-]

The effect is the same though, the pressure of public shaming and the threat of a pile-on is as effective as legislation if not moreso. I'm not really talking about whether or not "cancellation attempts" should be allowed either... Just whether or not they're a good idea ethically and in terms of real progress.

You can’t say that people are being ‘forbidden’ to discuss certain things by institutions if they’re not, they can talk about whatever they want to talk about, but they have to be aware that certain things are going to cause certain reactions and they should be ready for that, they’re scared of something that is being sensationalised by people acting with ulterior motives

[user104658]

You can’t say that people are being ‘forbidden’ to discuss certain things by institutions if they’re not, they can talk about whatever they want to talk about, but they have to be aware that certain things are going to cause certain reactions and they should be ready for that, they’re scared of something that is being sensationalised by people acting with ulterior motivesI didn't though, I said they're not forbidden, I am taking full responsibility for the confusion here though because I actually used the word "not" three times in one sentence [emoji23]. If anything deserves a public shaming it's this mess.


"The reason that academics and professionals are not having these discussions or doing this research is not that they are literally not allowed to do so."

[bots]

i think you needed to add a couple of wherefore's for clarity

[Ammi]

...(...I don’t think it’s about conversations being silenced or cancelled or etc...)...it’s more that social media is not and never has been the right platform to have them in because of the nature of the beast...and it’s the same for many topics, especially those that evoke more passionate opinions...

[Ammi]

...did Bots just cancel TS..?..

[user104658]

...(...I don’t think it’s about conversations being silenced or cancelled or etc...)...it’s more that social media is not and never has been the right platform to have them in because of the nature of the beast...and it’s the same for many topics, especially those that evoke more passionate opinions...

I won't disagree about that Ammi - I'm not a fan of Twitter or any other social media other than for a bit of fun. I love the Twitter memes when Love Island is on for example - one of the main reasons to watch the show in the first place :hehe:. But for serious topics? I think it's a disaster quite honestly and sadly, a disaster that sometimes spills out into reality a little.

Facebook if anything is even worse. Local pages are handy for finding a local gardener or finding out why there's a power cut... but even THOSE have been getting really toxic lately :umm2: (the local pages, not the gardeners).

Bin the whole thing, chalk it up as a horribly failed social experiment.

[Kizzy]

Cancel culture is indiscriminate, it can affect both left and right imo, the difference is the approach to the subject both approaches to say, trans rights will be 'cancelled' if not 100% in favour...but the reasoning and the explanation for any challenge is wildly different.

Look at the newsnight interview with Germaine Greer, I was in total agreement with her views there which of course makes me as 'cancelled' as her, being a left leaning person this is new territory, however as a principled person I accept it. I take ownership of my opinion.

As said the problem is now not only opinions that are challenged and 'cancelled' but academics and sociologists who cite studies and reference known facts as they don't fit in to the modern narrative as chanted by the social media mob. The sheer volume of discord that erupts following a controversial comment or point of reference is immense.

That to me has never been right, if 100,000 people felt a certain way and I didn't and I had peer reviewed study to back my theory nothing and nobody would sway me, in this instance cancel culture is a bastardisation of what it should be... a way of putting an end to predudice, lies and misinformation.

[GoldHeart]

He's literally just a male Katie Hopkins.

This !

[DouglasS]

What’s annoying about ‘cancel culture’ is that people define a person by the opinion they disagree with, and this is prevalent online because people don’t have the balls to actually debate. They’re quick to label people and categorise and that’s that. Then it has an annoying knock-on effect that if you stick up for them or agree, you’re cancelled by default as well.

There are people who won’t be happy until everyone is homogenised into thinking the same way, but the ironic thing is that those people go about it the worst way possible and ultimately fuels this us versus them effect that is plaguing modern society more and more.

So true. I have people on FB and Instagram that post stories saying they will delete anybody with differing political views or any criticism in response to certain topics... it’s ridiculous that people can’t accept differing views now... instead just throw a hissy fit

[Tom4784]

Utter bull****. People's aggression and violence is overlooked until their opinion diverges from the accepted zeitgeist, at which point they are disowned and targeted ("held to account"). If their OPINIONS still fall within accepted range, their BEHAVIOUR is consistently overlooked and excused.







... Not "free" - expected. People are expected to react, and their reaction is expected to match the consensus of the group. If it doesn't, they are wrong. If they refuse to comment or simply don't want to get involved, it is wrong.

Utter mess and intellectually indefensible as ANY brand of individualism. It is the death of individualism and critical thought.

The true utter bull**** is what you've decided to spew over your keyboard in response. It's just gullible reactionary crap and no amount of flowery language will change that.

Your argument is fraught with nonsensical hysteria and ignorance. There ain't no one getting cancelled for nothing, sometimes you get psychos like Amber Heard that mislead and paint themselves as victims but most of the time, people act on the words and actions of others.

There's a difference between an opinion and hatred which is why hate speech isn't covered by freedom of speech. If someone spews hatred, it's the right of others to decide if they don't want to support that person.

Honestly, you only have to look as far as the metoo movement to see that you're talking rubbish, there's plenty of people who spoke out in favour of Metoo only to be revealed to be abusers themselves and left wing people weren't like 'you might be an abuser but you say the right things so it's k'. No, they hung them out to dry just as much as other abusers.

Honestly, if you like sitting on the fence then sit on the fence, don't need to write all that to try to justify doing so.

[Tom4784]

The only 'academic' I can think of lately that's been cancelled is that racist historian and that was completely justified.

[Ammi]

I won't disagree about that Ammi - I'm not a fan of Twitter or any other social media other than for a bit of fun. I love the Twitter memes when Love Island is on for example - one of the main reasons to watch the show in the first place :hehe:. But for serious topics? I think it's a disaster quite honestly and sadly, a disaster that sometimes spills out into reality a little.

Facebook if anything is even worse. Local pages are handy for finding a local gardener or finding out why there's a power cut... but even THOSE have been getting really toxic lately :umm2: (the local pages, not the gardeners).

Bin the whole thing, chalk it up as a horribly failed social experiment.


...that’s why I don’t really buy into ‘cancel culture’, I don’t think...(...or labels in general tbh...)...because I don’t think it’s that any conversations/debates/discussions etc are being stopped so much as they will become non starters in the first place on any social media site that is more a place of reactive stuff...it’s always been that way, though...choosing the right platform for debate and opening the debate in the right way are key ‘ingredients’....and obviously, that’s especially applicable for subjects which are highly sensitive in their nature...

[user104658]

The true utter bull**** is what you've decided to spew over your keyboard in response. It's just gullible reactionary crap and no amount of flowery language will change that.



Your argument is fraught with nonsensical hysteria and ignorance. There ain't no one getting cancelled for nothing, sometimes you get psychos like Amber Heard that mislead and paint themselves as victims but most of the time, people act on the words and actions of others.



There's a difference between an opinion and hatred which is why hate speech isn't covered by freedom of speech. If someone spews hatred, it's the right of others to decide if they don't want to support that person.



Honestly, you only have to look as far as the metoo movement to see that you're talking rubbish, there's plenty of people who spoke out in favour of Metoo only to be revealed to be abusers themselves and left wing people weren't like 'you might be an abuser but you say the right things so it's k'. No, they hung them out to dry just as much as other abusers.



Honestly, if you like sitting on the fence then sit on the fence, don't need to write all that to try to justify doing so.

I'm not on the fence on this issue at all, I have no idea where you'd get that impression, but I can see that you're committed enough to the dogma to be incapable of having any debate on this issue (or any, recently?) that isn't set in concrete - and that isn't a debate at all. Ad hominem after ad hominem with zero scope for nuance. What on earth happened?

You say that no one gets cancelled for nothing - no one has said that they are. From the perspective of the people trying to do the cancelling. People are "cancelled" (or an attempt is made) for people not thinking as they think, or expressing the things they would like them to express, and because those people are so sure of their inherent "rightness" anyone who has a contrary opinion has "done wrong" from their perspective. That's half of my issue with it. My other half is that the whole thing relies on derpy mimicking from people who seemingly have little capacity for independent thought, in order to achieve a goal through "strength in numbers".

Finally, your suggestion that advocating for reasoned debate and intellectual rigour over aggressive single-minded partisan extremism constitutes "fence sitting and flowery language" is just several rungs below what I'm willing to engage with currently. I'm not going to any more.

[Oliver_W]

I think a lot of people are going a bit gaga with the various isolations and lockdowns, along with the mental health issues the pandemic is causing (hello!) so people having a shorter fuse than normal and less truck with things is to be expected.

A nice walk in the park and and a (socially distanced!) to friends and familys gardens might do a world of good :)

[Rob!]

The term “cancelled” is so Black Mirror.

[Niamh.]

The term “cancelled” is so Black Mirror.Hated in the Nation teas

[user104658]

I think a lot of people are going a bit gaga with the various isolations and lockdowns, along with the mental health issues the pandemic is causing (hello!) so people having a shorter fuse than normal and less truck with things is to be expected.

I don't know if its necessarily the same thing (a lot of this has been going on for a lot longer than Covid-19) but Covid cabin fever is definitely a very real thing. Honestly though I think a lot of it is just boredom and having less going on, so the things that are still going on seem amplified.

[arista]

Today on DAB Times Radio AM
Douglas Murray

1285132833590304769