• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

Cancel Culture?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by rogerfederer View Post
    Does 'cancel culture' include no-platforming known racists, anti-semites and the like? The idea is to not give then a credible platform, such as within universities or on TV channels, as these avenues provide support for their opinions.

    Cancelling someone for a shallow past offense is over the top, but ensuring that people who are using inflammatory language, racism, homophobia and similar is a good way of explaining that society doesn't support those causes. They're still free to publish some of those views, within reason, on the internet or in publications, but the scope of uptake of those opinions is limited. Without this racism would be more rife than it is, although it's worse than it seems now, given that racism is structurally ingrained into core UK institutions.
    Well I'm happy that we have you to decide what's inflammatory, racist or homophobic.

    Do you agree with Jordan Peterson invitation to Cambridge being rescinded? Surely Universities should be a place to freely discuss all different type of views and arguments.

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by wattaj View Post
      Cancel Culture seems to be a thing at the moment. Isn't it really just a bunch of whiny gits whose intellectual argument is so weak, and whose emotional resilience is so fragile, that they'll scream and scream and scream until they get what they want? And isn't it all exacerbated by a reactionary corporate culture driven by 'Likes' rather than conviction?
      Yes. It is exactly that.
      Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by rogerfederer View Post
        Does 'cancel culture' include no-platforming known racists, anti-semites and the like? The idea is to not give then a credible platform, such as within universities or on TV channels, as these avenues provide support for their opinions.

        Cancelling someone for a shallow past offense is over the top, but ensuring that people who are using inflammatory language, racism, homophobia and similar is a good way of explaining that society doesn't support those causes. They're still free to publish some of those views, within reason, on the internet or in publications, but the scope of uptake of those opinions is limited. Without this racism would be more rife than it is, although it's worse than it seems now, given that racism is structurally ingrained into core UK institutions.

        What other solutions do we have apart from no-platforming? To conflate some daft Z-list celebrity being no-platformed to well known severe racists being no-platformed isn't really comparable. We should separate out the small time folk with stupid opinions from the known malignant individuals who try to make money and gain power from unacceptable opinions. Racism and homophobia are unacceptable opinions.

        We need to separate the severe no-no from the minor mistakes and cases when minor controversial opinions are blocked. The former are a stain on society, such as racists and neo-nazis. The original purpose of no-platforming (renamed 'cancel culture' by the right wing press, I have noticed) was to stop these dangerous ideas being spread as credible through reliable sources of news, internet, tv shows and in universities. Is it fair to stop neo-nazis, for example, having a podium to express their opinions on Question Time or at Oxford Talk open days? Yes, I think it's credible to stop that occurring. The difference is disallowing some minor uncontroversial thing to take place that a broad spectrum of people may be interested in, such as politics, where opinions are the source of much ire.
        Doesn't that rather underline my point? Is it not better to pose a strong, opposite argument in order to diminish a point of view that one finds distasteful? Surely cancelling, or no-performing, just shows the weakness, or unwillingness, of one's point of view?
        Last edited by wattaj; 8 July 2020, 13:11. Reason: Clarity.
        ---

        Former member of IPSE.


        ---
        Many a mickle makes a muckle.

        ---

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by rogerfederer View Post
          Does 'cancel culture' include no-platforming known racists, anti-semites and the like? The idea is to not give then a credible platform, such as within universities or on TV channels, as these avenues provide support for their opinions.

          Cancelling someone for a shallow past offense is over the top, but ensuring that people who are using inflammatory language, racism, homophobia and similar is a good way of explaining that society doesn't support those causes. They're still free to publish some of those views, within reason, on the internet or in publications, but the scope of uptake of those opinions is limited. Without this racism would be more rife than it is, although it's worse than it seems now, given that racism is structurally ingrained into core UK institutions.

          What other solutions do we have apart from no-platforming? To conflate some daft Z-list celebrity being no-platformed to well known severe racists being no-platformed isn't really comparable. We should separate out the small time folk with stupid opinions from the known malignant individuals who try to make money and gain power from unacceptable opinions. Racism and homophobia are unacceptable opinions.

          We need to separate the severe no-no from the minor mistakes and cases when minor controversial opinions are blocked. The former are a stain on society, such as racists and neo-nazis. The original purpose of no-platforming (renamed 'cancel culture' by the right wing press, I have noticed) was to stop these dangerous ideas being spread as credible through reliable sources of news, internet, tv shows and in universities. Is it fair to stop neo-nazis, for example, having a podium to express their opinions on Question Time or at Oxford Talk open days? Yes, I think it's credible to stop that occurring. The difference is disallowing some minor uncontroversial thing to take place that a broad spectrum of people may be interested in, such as politics, where opinions are the source of much ire.
          The extreme left do not care about minor mistakes, they have weaponized cancel culture to take down anyone that threatens their chances of winning in November. They still think they lost in 2016 because of 'fake news' and information that was freely shared in the run up to the 2016 election. They are not taking any chances this time around so it's de-platforming and cancelling all the way.

          This isn't about racism or sexism or any other 'ism' they have co opted.
          Whatever...

          Comment


            #15
            JK Rowling is is going to get chucked off twitter.

            It's going to be hilarious the fall out.

            Comment


              #16
              Whatever...

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by wattaj View Post
                Cancel Culture seems to be a thing at the moment. Isn't it really just a bunch of whiny gits whose intellectual argument is so weak, and whose emotional resilience is so fragile, that they'll scream and scream and scream until they get what they want? And isn't it all exacerbated by a reactionary corporate culture driven by 'Likes' rather than conviction?

                I don’t agree with this point. By denying it your complicit.

                #blacklivesmatter
                #MeToo
                #MoreWokeThanYou

                Admin please ban this poster
                What happens in General, stays in General.
                You know what they say about assumptions!

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by rogerfederer View Post
                  Does 'cancel culture' include no-platforming known racists, anti-semites and the like? The idea is to not give then a credible platform, such as within universities or on TV channels, as these avenues provide support for their opinions.

                  Cancelling someone for a shallow past offense is over the top, but ensuring that people who are using inflammatory language, racism, homophobia and similar is a good way of explaining that society doesn't support those causes. They're still free to publish some of those views, within reason, on the internet or in publications, but the scope of uptake of those opinions is limited. Without this racism would be more rife than it is, although it's worse than it seems now, given that racism is structurally ingrained into core UK institutions.

                  What other solutions do we have apart from no-platforming? To conflate some daft Z-list celebrity being no-platformed to well known severe racists being no-platformed isn't really comparable. We should separate out the small time folk with stupid opinions from the known malignant individuals who try to make money and gain power from unacceptable opinions. Racism and homophobia are unacceptable opinions.

                  We need to separate the severe no-no from the minor mistakes and cases when minor controversial opinions are blocked. The former are a stain on society, such as racists and ned-nazis. The original purpose of no-platforming (renamed 'cancel culture' by the right wing press, I have noticed) was to stop these dangerous ideas being spread as credible through reliable sources of news, internet, tv shows and in universities. Is it fair to stop neo-nazis, for example, having a podium to express their opinions on Question Time or at Oxford Talk open days? Yes, I think it's credible to stop that occurring. The difference is disallowing some minor uncontroversial thing to take place that a broad spectrum of people may be interested in, such as politics, where opinions are the source of much ire.
                  Who are these Neo Nazis of whom you speak? I can't recall any of them getting a platform from which to spout their views with the exception of, arguably, Nick Griffin.

                  Elsewhere, no-platforming seems like stifling of free speech - Germaine Greer? She's hardly going to make the peasants take to the streets with pitchforks is ahe....

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by Excursion UK View Post
                    Who are these Neo Nazis of whom you speak? I can't recall any of them getting a platform from which to spout their views with the exception of, arguably, Nick Griffin.

                    Elsewhere, no-platforming seems like stifling of free speech - Germaine Greer? She's hardly going to make the peasants take to the streets with pitchforks is ahe....

                    JK Rowling seems to be a prime case. at the risk of getting banned I agree with JK!

                    Someone who has transitioned to a woman is not a Biological woman(for many reasons e.g. medical statistics), however there is no reason why they can't join the sisterhood.

                    Same for someone who has transitioned to a man, they aren't going to suffer with prostate or testicular cancer so they need to be excluded from the statistics.

                    She said that and everyone is yelling at her.

                    plenty of other similar cases out there.
                    "If you didn't do anything that wasn't good for you it would be a very dull life. What are you gonna do? Everything that is pleasant in life is dangerous."

                    I want to see the hand of history on his collar.

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by rogerfederer View Post
                      Is it fair to stop neo-nazis, for example, having a podium to express their opinions on Question Time or at Oxford Talk open days? Yes, I think it's credible to stop that occurring. The difference is disallowing some minor uncontroversial thing to take place that a broad spectrum of people may be interested in, such as politics, where opinions are the source of much ire.

                      After Nick Griffin appeared on Question Time his entire party and message went down the toilet just as it was starting to gain ground again...

                      You can't hide that certain views exists. You need to bring them out of the shadows and shine light on them and make them look stupid. Much like we do with some of the posters on here talking about how face masks will save the world

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X