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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

...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...

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

...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’...)...

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.

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".

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.

...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’...

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.

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.

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.

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

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

...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’...

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

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.

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 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...