Cancel Culture : Greg Gutfeld USA tweet , Owen Jones UK
 

In Owens clip Toby does not speak

Owen is correct

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, 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

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.

Yes 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

There 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.

In a nutshell Braden

I try my best, Cherie :p

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

:love:

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.

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.