Page 9 of 9

Re: Cancel culture

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:06 am
by Woodchopper
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).

Re: Cancel culture

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 2:43 pm
by sTeamTraen
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".

Re: Cancel culture

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:52 pm
by raven
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.

Re: Cancel culture

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 2:18 am
by secret squirrel
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.

Re: Cancel culture

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 2:27 am
by Millennie Al
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.

Re: Cancel culture

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:04 am
by secret squirrel
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.

Re: Cancel culture

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:26 am
by discovolante
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

Re: Cancel culture

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 1:46 pm
by raven
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.

Re: Cancel culture

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 4:16 pm
by EACLucifer
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.

Re: Cancel culture

Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:57 pm
by Vertigowooyay
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 484 times

Re: Cancel culture

Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2020 1:05 pm
by Tessa K
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 >

Re: Cancel culture

Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:25 pm
by Bird on a Fire
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.

Re: Cancel culture

Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:45 pm
by dyqik
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.

Re: Cancel culture

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

Re: Cancel culture

Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 3:44 pm
by dyqik
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.

Re: Cancel culture

Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:33 pm
by Bird on a Fire
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?

Re: Cancel culture

Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:23 pm
by tenchboy
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

Re: Cancel culture

Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:44 pm
by jimbob
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