[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

[Elliot]

Originally Posted by 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

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’

[user104658]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Scarlett.

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

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[Elliot]

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

[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.

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Liam-

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

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.

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

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.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

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.

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Liam-

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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 . 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 (the local pages, not the gardeners).

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

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 . 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 (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...

[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.

[Tom4784]

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