• 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

    #31
    Originally posted by wattaj View Post
    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.
    This.

    IMO the state of free speech and what as acceptable and how this was moderated was fine before 2016. Now certain factions are attempting to silence their opposition in the hope of winning a presidential election in November because God forbid they try and win it on actual issues that the silent majority care about.

    Obviously nobody likes racism and sexism and prejudice and discrimination, that's been a thing for quite a while now. But making it the centre of your political campaign and then shaming, lecturing and threatening anyone who's not onside is not going to win any votes. That's not how hearts and minds work and politics is about winning hearts and minds.

    If your argument is 'agree with me or you're a nazi' then I'm voting for the other side. Which is a shame because I don't like the other side very much.
    Whatever...

    Comment


      #32
      Firstly, I don't want to ban anybody from their right to express an opinion, but it's the medium in which they broadcast that opinion that becomes controversial, depending on what they are saying. As someone who has directly spoken with neo-nazis in Germany the truly dangerous ones are the intelligent ones who are able to use whataboutism to change the conversation from the query to being about something else entirely. With the dumb ones it is easy to tell that they're just reciting things they've heard from someone else, but the intelligent ones know the way in which to use language to gain power advancement and, in many cases, money.

      We have a very complex set of laws in the UK that are effectively hierarchical terms and conditions covering freedom of speech. I don't agree with some of them, particularly surrounding the importance of context surrounding expression of viewpoints and opinions, as I believe that context is very important in communication. Context can be more difficult to ascertain in text, but in person is far easier. We should therefore recognise that over many decades laws have been developed to safeguard freedom of speech and also try to prevent hate speech and people being unacceptable. You and certain others don't seem to recognise the current laws currently in place and similarly don't recognise that those were developed over many years to try to accommodate freedom of speech rights whilst preventing pointless hate speech.

      Many well known people profiteer and pretend to have opinions for money, Jeremy Clarkson being the classic referenced example. <Insert purposefully offensive joke>, followed by "it's just a joke! Calm down!"

      Why are you ignoring that laws covering all this have been debated in many parliament sittings and it was a gradual process to create them? You write sometimes as if they don't exist and as if I'm controlling your speech or right to express opinions; you do have a controller of what can be broadcast and that's the laws of country in which you live. You have the right to express opinions, but if they contravene modern standards and the laws then you'll be banned from this forum. Ziganere is now banned again for such an indiscretion. Other people often are often purposefully offensive in life and then when, when they think they've gone too far, suffix their statement with 'it's just a joke!" - as if it's some sort of intelligent wit, when it really is just low barrel pointlessness that isn't really even funny to begin with.

      You have a parliament and representatives who help to contribute to a general definition of what is and isn't ok. Very few things are not ok, and those promoting them are no-platformed. I don't defend those wanting controversial viewpoints no-platformed, as that does go against free speech and the law protects for the right to state those opinions, such as pro-life anti-abortion groups.

      Religion is surrounded by a different set of laws in the UK to allow freedom of opinion, speech and interpretation of supposed holy texts to be broadcast on any medium.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Jog On View Post
        This.

        IMO the state of free speech and what as acceptable and how this was moderated was fine before 2016. Now certain factions are attempting to silence their opposition in the hope of winning a presidential election in November because God forbid they try and win it on actual issues that the silent majority care about.

        <snip>
        I agree to an extent, but the real issue is that the lot of those who are worse off in the USA haven't been helped by the Republicans this time round. It has been seen as a con job, with tax cuts for corporations and the very rich. It's their right to be conned and vote that way, however, and I obviously defend their right to do that. Most on this forum and contributing here are centre left, centrist or centre right. Nobody is extreme. Fear and paranoia seem to feed into the right wing and left wing thoughts, which is why hovering around the centre does seem sensible.

        Worth remembering that each country has their own interpretation of what constitutes right and left wing. In Norway all the parties are centre, centre left or left wing, but over there - in UK terms - the centrists are branded right wing.

        The main issue in the USA is that their politics has two teams, both of them what we in the UK would consider right wing. The other team may improve their near future a bit, but not enough to constitute major change. The bizarre situation there is compounded by evangelical religious people capitalising on their chosen interpretation of a holy text to throw in unusual attacks against non-whites, women who wish control of their own bodies and multi-culturalism in the USA.

        The ideal scenario would be everybody getting alone with one another, respecting viewpoints and not trying to force a prescriptive lifestyle on to others. The reason we have less of that in the UK is because we are pro-choice of lifestyle. When I hear those in the centre ground in the UK repeating this, it seems agreeable to me. When I hear the new alt-right crowd stating multiculturalism is wrong, women were better off at home and conspiracy theories, what I see is a prescriptive life being forced upon those who do want choice of their decisions in future.

        If we perpetuate a prescriptive life we have a more closed society with lesser choice for this affected minorities. Women aren't a minority in the UK but do have worse prospects as a result of structural inequalities and issues attaining equity. This is why I promote a centrist viewpoint, as a balance is the best we can hope for in a society that has two extreme sides both promoting their own prescription.
        Last edited by rogerfederer; 9 July 2020, 11:41.

        Comment


          #34
          Narrator: there is no law in the UK to protect freedom of speech.
          ---

          Former member of IPSE.


          ---
          Many a mickle makes a muckle.

          ---

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by woohoo View Post
            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.
            You have clearly not talked to some evangelical Christians.
            "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
              You have clearly not talked to some evangelical Christians.
              They are best avoided, imo...
              His heart is in the right place - shame we can't say the same about his brain...

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by Jog On View Post
                This.

                Now certain factions are attempting to silence their opposition in the hope of winning a presidential election in November because God forbid they try and win it on actual issues that the silent majority care about.
                You mean Trump

                Trump and his supporters are a bunch of cry babies, they like to silence the opposition with calls of "fake news" and attacking TV reporters but can't take it when they argue back.

                Is the majority silent or simply non-existent. His rallies looked pretty empty to me.
                Last edited by BlasterBates; 9 July 2020, 11:54.
                I'm alright Jack

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
                  You have clearly not talked to some evangelical Christians.
                  I did say more harmful. Probably tell I'm not a fan of religions and think most of them exist to control the weak minded and indoctrinated.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
                    You mean Trump

                    Trump and his supporters are a bunch of cry babies, they like to silence the opposition with calls of "fake news" and attacking TV reporters but can't take it when they argue back.

                    Is the majority silent or simply non-existent. His rallies looked pretty empty to me.
                    *looks in the brexit forum*

                    *laughs*

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by rogerfederer View Post

                      We should therefore recognise that over many decades laws have been developed to safeguard freedom of speech and also try to prevent hate speech and people being unacceptable.

                      You have a parliament and representatives who help to contribute to a general definition of what is and isn't ok. Very few things are not ok, and those promoting them are no-platformed. I don't defend those wanting controversial viewpoints no-platformed, as that does go against free speech and the law protects for the right to state those opinions, such as pro-life anti-abortion groups.
                      Originally posted by rogerfederer View Post

                      The ideal scenario would be everybody getting alone with one another, respecting viewpoints and not trying to force a prescriptive lifestyle on to others.
                      Both very sensible points. There is nothing wrong with existing and pre-2016 hate speech/free speech laws. The best party will win based on the hearts and minds of the majority.
                      Whatever...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X