• 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.
  • FREE workshop: Preparing contractors for Autumn : Weds 29th Sep at 7.15pm. More details here.

Cancel Culture?

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

    #21
    Originally posted by woohoo View Post
    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    Do you agree with Jordan Peterson invitation to Cambridge being rescinded?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.
    If someone is well known for stating that being gay is wrong, they should be harmed in some way or whatever then that doesn't conform to the views of society. They can have a youtube channel and it can be moderated by the content host, but we wouldn't want or expect them to have a platform at a university to spout their bile. You live in a society that believes sexuality is fluid for some people and appears static for others, with some people attracting to the personality and mind of a person regardless of their born physical sex. There's a good reason church attendance is at record lows if you take a long term views. Their homophobia and anti-female rhetoric is beyond most people's comprehension and acceptable, they suffer accordingly.

    I don't agree with the removal of the Jordan Peterson invitation to Cambridge, but you seem unable to compare a serious offender, some who have faced jail time, compared to someone who is a researcher or has a background in examining the context of language and its use.

    As our expats in Germany will attest, there have been neo-nazis in Germany complaining about being no platformed after trying to get a platform using alternative names and identities. The worst possible outcome would be we never no-platform anybody and end up with a society in which certain parts of the society are unable to differentiate between poor quality and good quality information. It already exists now, but at a manageable low level. Can you imagine what would happen if nobody was ever no-platformed and people could always say whatever rubbish that came into their head? All sorts of tribal notions would emerge and society would breakdown.

    Ultimately people of minority grouping ended up verbally abused, ridiculed, beaten up and even killed for being who they knew they truly were. Rather than have a bunch of white middle aged men complain about political correctness, why not consider that it does have some benefit into a more formalised language of politeness and respect for those who are likely to face such abuse simply for being gay/black/<insert minority>.

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by rogerfederer View Post
      If someone is well known for stating that being gay is wrong, they should be harmed in some way or whatever then that doesn't conform to the views of society. They can have a youtube channel and it can be moderated by the content host, but we wouldn't want or expect them to have a platform at a university to spout their bile. You live in a society that believes sexuality is fluid for some people and appears static for others, with some people attracting to the personality and mind of a person regardless of their born physical sex. There's a good reason church attendance is at record lows if you take a long term views. Their homophobia and anti-female rhetoric is beyond most people's comprehension and acceptable, they suffer accordingly.

      I don't agree with the removal of the Jordan Peterson invitation to Cambridge, but you seem unable to compare a serious offender, some who have faced jail time, compared to someone who is a researcher or has a background in examining the context of language and its use.

      As our expats in Germany will attest, there have been neo-nazis in Germany complaining about being no platformed after trying to get a platform using alternative names and identities. The worst possible outcome would be we never no-platform anybody and end up with a society in which certain parts of the society are unable to differentiate between poor quality and good quality information. It already exists now, but at a manageable low level. Can you imagine what would happen if nobody was ever no-platformed and people could always say whatever rubbish that came into their head? All sorts of tribal notions would emerge and society would breakdown.

      Ultimately people of minority grouping ended up verbally abused, ridiculed, beaten up and even killed for being who they knew they truly were. Rather than have a bunch of white middle aged men complain about political correctness, why not consider that it does have some benefit into a more formalised language of politeness and respect for those who are likely to face such abuse simply for being gay/black/<insert minority>.
      Again, you further prove my point: "cancel culture" only supports those who are unable to argue their point sufficiently well to defeat that with which they do not agree.
      Last edited by wattaj; 9 July 2020, 09:34. Reason: Clarity.
      ---

      Former member of IPSE.


      ---
      Many a mickle makes a muckle.

      ---

      Comment


        #23
        Originally posted by dx4100 View Post
        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...
        He has reverted to his former "...it's the Jews" type.

        Now, that's a proper Neo Nazi, not JK Rowling, Germaine Greer et al.

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by rogerfederer View Post
          Can you imagine what would happen if nobody was ever no-platformed and people could always say whatever rubbish that came into their head?
          A UK contractor forum would be formed?

          Comment


            #25
            People who criticise those who critise should be severely criticised.
            I'm alright Jack

            Comment


              #26
              I'm not sure what is more entertaining, the criticism of outspoken public figures or the criticism of the critics of outspoken public figures.

              Surely if you provoke you will provoke the provoked.

              Let the entertainment continue.....

              I'm alright Jack

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by rogerfederer View Post
                Can you imagine what would happen if nobody was ever no-platformed and people could always say whatever rubbish that came into their head? All sorts of tribal notions would emerge and society would breakdown.
                There's plenty of examples of societal breakdown from moral absolutist fascism.

                Freedom of expression is a mechanism against this pompous moral absolutism.

                Hate speech is one thing, but the other posters are describing incredibly nuanced topics, which those with "the one true moral stance" are using to hound otherwise legitimate concerns and opinions.

                Comment


                  #28
                  If someone is well known for stating that being gay is wrong...Their homophobia and anti-female rhetoric is beyond most people's comprehension and acceptable, they suffer accordingly.
                  So you are in favour of banning Islam and it's followers? Would you stop a Muslim speaker/lecturer teaching at University because their religion calls for the death penalty for gays?

                  I don't agree with the removal of the Jordan Peterson invitation to Cambridge, but you seem unable to compare a serious offender, some who have faced jail time, compared to someone who is a researcher or has a background in examining the context of language and its use
                  I have no trouble telling the difference between a professor and a criminal. It's not me that's stopping a prominent thinker from expressing his ideas and arguments. It's people that feel they are offended by his views that can't tell the difference.

                  Rather than have a bunch of white middle aged men complain about political correctness
                  It's easy to blame the white guy and his outdated views, but look at the recent list of signatories complaining about cancel culture. Not all white men, are they? That's what happens when hurt feelings matter more than reasoned arguments.

                  why not consider that it does have some benefit into a more formalised language of politeness and respect for those who are likely to face such abuse simply for being gay/black/<insert minority>
                  Exactly, so now you can dictate language used when you determine it hurts someone's feelings.

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by woohoo View Post
                    So you are in favour of banning Islam and it's followers? Would you stop a Muslim speaker/lecturer teaching at University because their religion calls for the death penalty for gays?
                    We'd have to ban Christian and Jewish speakers as well, based on your same argument.
                    I'm perfect, in a very specific and limited way.
                    Hands... out infractions
                    Face... the music
                    Space... between the ears

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Originally posted by WTFH View Post
                      We'd have to ban Christian and Jewish speakers as well, based on your same argument.
                      I don't want to ban anyone (as long as they are not inciting violence), I think Christian/Jewish/Islam religions are as daft as each other. Though, I think some religions are more harmful than others.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X