Cancel culture

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
Woodchopper
After Pie
Posts: 2074
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Woodchopper » Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:06 am

secret squirrel wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:02 am
I think what is happening is that people whose views are essentially mainstream, and who in previous generations would have hardly ever experienced any push-back for them, have started experiencing criticism from more fringe groups. This feels new to them because previously they were always the ones doing the criticizing, or minority groups were just defensively self-censoring around them all the time. This new direction of criticism is an attempt to change what counts as 'mainstream'.
I agree with that.

I think that another difference compared to earlier decades that that there isn't so much of a mainstream anymore. Especially in the US there appears to be several disjointed communities each with its own media ecosystem. The people who watch Fox News aren't also watching CNN and getting both sides of the argument (and vice versa).

User avatar
sTeamTraen
Dorkwood
Posts: 1175
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:24 pm
Location: Palma de Mallorca, Spain

Re: Cancel culture

Post by sTeamTraen » Fri Sep 18, 2020 2:43 pm

secret squirrel wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:02 am
For me, the bottom line is this. I'm not interested in cultivating an atmosphere where the far right feel comfortable expressing their views. I want them to live in fear. I don't want to compromise or build a consensus with them. I know where they're coming from. They do not argue in good faith, and they are not going to be convinced by reasoned arguments. The only thing you achieve by debating them is raising their profile. You might say `well, the far right feel the same about your views' and of course they do. That's why I need to win.
I agree with this. I want the far right to f.ck off and die. I think there are opinions (e.g., outright racist bigotry) that don't deserve to be debated.

But at some level you need a definition of bigotry, and I don't think it can be defined by those who feel the strongest on the subject at hand. Otherwise we end up with none of our opponents' points being worth debating, more or less by definition. Without the possibility that our opponents may have a point that is at least worth debating, we declare ourselves to be right on every topic, which seems to me to be rather dangerous. Apart from anything else, this will make us feel silly 5 or 10 years down the line when we inevitably change our minds about whatever subject it is.

We see something similar with Brexit, where people who don't think it's a good idea are sometimes accused of literally treasonous behaviour. To the hard-core Brexiteers, any discussion of the subject is inherently unacceptable, as is any meta-discussion of that subject, and so on. The willothepeople has spoken, and cannot be contradicted, ever.

So while I think that it's good to have lines of principle that we don't want to cross or even debate (e.g., racism), I think we also need to acknowledge that on other topics we don't have all the answers, and neither do the people who are currently shouting the loudest. We have to be able to say "Well, I know that you think that X is a bigot for saying Y, but while I might not believe in Y myself, I think that holding position Y is at least within the sphere of reasonable discourse".
Something something hammer something something nail

raven
Fuzzable
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:58 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by raven » Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:52 pm

I agree with a lot of what secret squirrel said.

Specifically, that the internet amplifies fringe views because even the tiniest minority now has a platform, which is sometimes a bad thing (flatearthers on youtube) and sometimes a good thing (people with rare diseases finding each other and pooling experience). And also that mainstream views are getting more pushback from other viewpoints, which can also be a good thing if the pushing slowly shifts those 'majority' views to become more inclusive - which is what I was thinking of with the consensus comment. If you want to change things, the more moderate, middle-of-the-road people you can get to agree with you the better.

I don't think, even if you wanted to do such a thing, it's possible to build consensus with extreme views like those of the alt right, because their views are actively harmful and most people can see that. The danger with the alt right is, like the danger of any extreme position, not that a consensus will form around it, but it shifts the Overton window, the range of acceptable views. That's much harder to prevent, I think.

Although one of my concerns with cancel culture is that if it comes over as an over-reaction, it rubs that mass of ordinary people the wrong way, and they will then dig their heels in and stop listening to you when those are the very people you need to reach to change attitudes.
sTeamTraen wrote:"Well, I know that you think that X is a bigot for saying Y, but while I might not believe in Y myself, I think that holding position Y is at least within the sphere of reasonable discourse".
That's exactly how I feel about women raising concerns about how to allow transgender access to traditionally male-free spaces. To me, it's a non-issue. If all the bathrooms in the UK became unisex tomorrow, I wouldn't give a monkey's. But then, the only times I've been assaulted (very minorly) have been by women and it seems perfectly reasonable that women who have been seriously assaulted by men might feel differently, might want male-free spaces, and be worried about predatory men accessing them -- however unlikely it is, however little protection having male/female on a door actually gives you anyway. I don't think labelling that concern as, say, transphobic would be helpful, or necessarily accurate. Far better to counter it with reassurance and some evidence on true risks, surely.

secret squirrel
Fuzzable
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by secret squirrel » Wed Sep 23, 2020 2:18 am

I'd argue that concerns about bathrooms etc. are already "within the sphere of reasonable discourse", in that you will regularly encounter them in everyday life, and people publish opinion pieces voicing them in major newspapers. What happens is that there's a relatively small group of people who strongly disagree, and the internet gives them tools to make their voices heard, primarily through things like mean twitter posts. But this isn't restricted to trans activism, or any other 'woke' issue. It seems to be more of an internet thing than anything else. I'm not saying I like it, but framing it as 'cancel culture' and 'an attack on free speech' misses the mark in my view, and going down this road serves the interests of groups such as the far right.

Millennie Al
Fuzzable
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Millennie Al » Wed Sep 23, 2020 2:27 am

secret squirrel wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:02 am
If you want to win an argument, you need good rhetoric and propaganda. Being 'rational' or 'correct' is purely for your own edification.

For me, the bottom line is this. I'm not interested in cultivating an atmosphere where the far right feel comfortable expressing their views. I want them to live in fear. I don't want to compromise or build a consensus with them. I know where they're coming from. They do not argue in good faith, and they are not going to be convinced by reasoned arguments. The only thing you achieve by debating them is raising their profile. You might say `well, the far right feel the same about your views' and of course they do. That's why I need to win.
In that case, you're not interested in the truth winning - you're just interested in you winning. If your opponents take the same view, then winning ceases to have anything to do with truth - merely who is more powerful. History shows plenty of examples of people who were utterly convinced that they were right, and who imposed their views on others, but whose views turned out to be wrong.

You don't debate with people in the hope of convincing them - that's extremely rare. You debate with them so that when they make bogus arguments you are there to refute them, because however much you hope to suppress your opponent, they will keep up their arguments. If you suppress public argument they will simply add to their arguments that they are being unfairly oppressed by people who are scared of their arguments because they afraid of the truth.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

secret squirrel
Fuzzable
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by secret squirrel » Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:04 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 2:27 am
secret squirrel wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:02 am
If you want to win an argument, you need good rhetoric and propaganda. Being 'rational' or 'correct' is purely for your own edification.

For me, the bottom line is this. I'm not interested in cultivating an atmosphere where the far right feel comfortable expressing their views. I want them to live in fear. I don't want to compromise or build a consensus with them. I know where they're coming from. They do not argue in good faith, and they are not going to be convinced by reasoned arguments. The only thing you achieve by debating them is raising their profile. You might say `well, the far right feel the same about your views' and of course they do. That's why I need to win.
In that case, you're not interested in the truth winning - you're just interested in you winning. If your opponents take the same view, then winning ceases to have anything to do with truth - merely who is more powerful. History shows plenty of examples of people who were utterly convinced that they were right, and who imposed their views on others, but whose views turned out to be wrong.

You don't debate with people in the hope of convincing them - that's extremely rare. You debate with them so that when they make bogus arguments you are there to refute them, because however much you hope to suppress your opponent, they will keep up their arguments. If you suppress public argument they will simply add to their arguments that they are being unfairly oppressed by people who are scared of their arguments because they afraid of the truth.
If you want the 'truth' to win, you need good propaganda, but the converse is not true. In any case, whose views we now judge as wrong depends to a great extent on who 'won' in the end.

User avatar
discovolante
After Pie
Posts: 2063
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by discovolante » Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:26 am

This interview with Judith Butler touches on cancel culture, although mainly transphobia. Two nice, non controversial dinner party topics, yeah. https://www.newstatesman.com/internatio ... tual-times
don't get any big ideas, they're not gonna happen

raven
Fuzzable
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:58 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by raven » Wed Sep 23, 2020 1:46 pm

secret squirrel wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 2:18 am
I'd argue that concerns about bathrooms etc. are already "within the sphere of reasonable discourse", in that you will regularly encounter them in everyday life, and people publish opinion pieces voicing them in major newspapers. What happens is that there's a relatively small group of people who strongly disagree, and the internet gives them tools to make their voices heard, primarily through things like mean twitter posts. But this isn't restricted to trans activism, or any other 'woke' issue. It seems to be more of an internet thing than anything else. I'm not saying I like it, but framing it as 'cancel culture' and 'an attack on free speech' misses the mark in my view, and going down this road serves the interests of groups such as the far right.
Yes, but cancel culture - which I guess we're interpreting here fairly narrowly as boycotting products/artists or disinviting people from public debates? -- is just one aspect of the wider movement for social justice. There are other aspects that can be just as problematic, and in the same way. That they can be seen as too harsh, basically.

It's a hard line to draw, though. Too harsh might create a backlash that hurts the cause, but OTOH too mild and reasonable is much easier to filter out and ignore. I was thinking last night about how outspoken the gay rights movement had to be in the 80s just to get heard, and I get that it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. Sometimes you have to shout and scream to get things done.

EACLucifer
Catbabel
Posts: 939
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: Cancel culture

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Oct 29, 2020 4:16 pm

Seems like Marsha Blackburn using a hearing to whinge about Google still employing someone who was mean to her fits right here.

While Cancel Culture covers a range of scenarios, going after people's jobs over normal differences of opinion, or trying to drive people out of self-employment in order to gain clout as we see in the world of Young Adult publishing, are the most pernicious, and the former at least is at least as common on the right as the left.

User avatar
Vertigowooyay
Fuzzable
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:25 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Vertigowooyay » Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:57 pm

With the annual Fairytale Of New York controversy over which version to play on the radio, Laurence Fox has predictably piped up about it.

So this fair made my day today.
EA42835F-2113-4FF6-ABE1-709A48AA21C8.jpeg
EA42835F-2113-4FF6-ABE1-709A48AA21C8.jpeg (284.14 KiB) Viewed 417 times
Calm yourself Doctor NotTheNineO’ClockNews. We’re men of science. We fear no worldly terrors.

User avatar
Tessa K
Dorkwood
Posts: 1485
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
Location: Closer than you'd like

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Tessa K » Thu Nov 19, 2020 1:05 pm

Vertigowooyay wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:57 pm
With the annual Fairytale Of New York controversy over which version to play on the radio, Laurence Fox has predictably piped up about it.

So this fair made my day today.

EA42835F-2113-4FF6-ABE1-709A48AA21C8.jpeg
<Happy sigh >

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Light of Blast
Posts: 4289
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Bird on a Fire » Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:25 pm

YOU'RE A BUM, YOU'RE A PUNK
YOU'RE A rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb
LYING THERE ALMOST dead? rhubarb *looks around sheepishly*

They should make an official bowdlerised version where they just loop "you're a bum" for the entire verse.
THINK BIG AND UPEND THE SYSTEM

#ShowYourStripes

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2752
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Cancel culture

Post by dyqik » Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:45 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:25 pm
YOU'RE A BUM, YOU'RE A PUNK
YOU'RE A rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb
LYING THERE ALMOST dead? rhubarb *looks around sheepishly*

They should make an official bowdlerised version where they just loop "you're a bum" for the entire verse.
YOU'RE A HERRENVOLK BIGOT has been suggested.

User avatar
Cardinal Fang
Clardic Fug
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Cardinal Fang » Sat Nov 21, 2020 3:27 pm

Isn't the supposed "edited" version of Fairytale of New York one from like 1992 or something, when The Pogues sang it on Top Of The Pops

The world didn't end then

CF
Image

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2752
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Cancel culture

Post by dyqik » Sat Nov 21, 2020 3:44 pm

Cardinal Fang wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 3:27 pm
Isn't the supposed "edited" version of Fairytale of New York one from like 1992 or something, when The Pogues sang it on Top Of The Pops

The world didn't end then

CF
Yes, that's about right.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Light of Blast
Posts: 4289
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:33 pm

dyqik wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:45 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:25 pm
YOU'RE A BUM, YOU'RE A PUNK
YOU'RE A rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb
LYING THERE ALMOST dead? rhubarb *looks around sheepishly*

They should make an official bowdlerised version where they just loop "you're a bum" for the entire verse.
YOU'RE A HERRENVOLK BIGOT has been suggested.
I like that, it fits and everything. Now we just need Kirsty McColl to sing it, anyone heard from her lately?
THINK BIG AND UPEND THE SYSTEM

#ShowYourStripes

User avatar
tenchboy
Snowbonk
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:18 pm
Location: Down amongst the potamogeton.

Re: Cancel culture

Post by tenchboy » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:23 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:33 pm
dyqik wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:45 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:25 pm
YOU'RE A BUM, YOU'RE A PUNK
YOU'RE A rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb
LYING THERE ALMOST dead? rhubarb *looks around sheepishly*

They should make an official bowdlerised version where they just loop "you're a bum" for the entire verse.
YOU'RE A HERRENVOLK BIGOT has been suggested.
I like that, it fits and everything. Now we just need Kirsty McColl to sing it, anyone heard from her lately?
Ther's a lass works down the chip-shop swears she's Kirsty

User avatar
jimbob
After Pie
Posts: 1800
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Cancel culture

Post by jimbob » Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:44 pm

Tessa K wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 1:05 pm
Vertigowooyay wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:57 pm
With the annual Fairytale Of New York controversy over which version to play on the radio, Laurence Fox has predictably piped up about it.

So this fair made my day today.

EA42835F-2113-4FF6-ABE1-709A48AA21C8.jpeg
<Happy sigh >
My daughter informed me of it.

I was amused at the people saying "I liked your music, but you've just turned into lefties" Which I thought was at the level of not getting what Rage Against The Machine was about
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

Post Reply