Cancel culture

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
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
After Pie
Posts: 2553
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
Catbabel
Posts: 645
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
Snowbonk
Posts: 551
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
After Pie
Posts: 1621
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.

secret squirrel
Snowbonk
Posts: 551
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
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4084
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
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.

raven
Catbabel
Posts: 645
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.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

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
Snowbonk
Posts: 423
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 2609 times
Calm yourself Doctor NotTheNineO’ClockNews. We’re men of science. We fear no worldly terrors.

User avatar
Tessa K
Light of Blast
Posts: 4707
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
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

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.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
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
Snowbonk
Posts: 421
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
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
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
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

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?
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
tenchboy
After Pie
Posts: 1891
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
If you want me Steve, just Snapchat me yeah? You know how to Snapchap me doncha Steve? You just...

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
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

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 5180
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Gfamily » Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:04 pm

Promoting "a consumer backlash", how is this different to promoting cancel culture?
Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator which Neil is also chairman of, told BBC News that Kopparberg's boycott could lead to a consumer backlash
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-57483907
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
Tessa K
Light of Blast
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
Location: Closer than you'd like

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Tessa K » Thu Sep 09, 2021 1:54 pm

It's interesting that cancelling a 'hero' like Jimmy Savile is acceptable but cancelling a slaver like Colston isn't - ie revealing the whole truth not just the bits that current white men like.
“Too often, some universities seem more interested in pursuing a divisive agenda involving cancelling national heroes, debating about statues, anonymous reporting schemes for so-called micro-aggressions and politicising their curricula.”

Al Capone Junior
Clardic Fug
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Al Capone Junior » Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:09 pm

Cancelling Steven Pinker seems to be the ultimate in PC ridiculousness. Has he ever said something SO controversial that he should be included with Hitler et al in the cancel list? But you know he has been included in such a list.

Oops, he did have the unmitigated audacity to suggest once a long time ago that boys and girls might have some slight teensy weensy differences.

Ok, I stand corrected, burn the heretic. You get the gas, i will find some matches. :roll:

User avatar
basementer
Dorkwood
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm
Location: 8024, Aotearoa
Contact:

Re: Cancel culture

Post by basementer » Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:14 pm

Tessa K wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 1:54 pm
It's interesting that cancelling a 'hero' like Jimmy Savile is acceptable but cancelling a slaver like Colston isn't - ie revealing the whole truth not just the bits that current white men like.
“Too often, some universities seem more interested in pursuing a divisive agenda involving cancelling national heroes, debating about statues, anonymous reporting schemes for so-called micro-aggressions and politicising their curricula.”
I had to go searching to find out whose words those are. It's the Education Secretary: one report is here.
Money is just a substitute for luck anyway. - Tom Siddell

secret squirrel
Snowbonk
Posts: 551
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by secret squirrel » Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:37 pm

Al Capone Junior wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:09 pm
Cancelling Steven Pinker seems to be the ultimate in PC ridiculousness. Has he ever said something SO controversial that he should be included with Hitler et al in the cancel list? But you know he has been included in such a list.

Oops, he did have the unmitigated audacity to suggest once a long time ago that boys and girls might have some slight teensy weensy differences.

Ok, I stand corrected, burn the heretic. You get the gas, i will find some matches. :roll:
Pinker should be cancelled for his sh.t books alone.

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Cancel culture

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:38 pm

Al Capone Junior wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:09 pm
Cancelling Steven Pinker seems to be the ultimate in PC ridiculousness. Has he ever said something SO controversial that he should be included with Hitler et al in the cancel list? But you know he has been included in such a list.

Oops, he did have the unmitigated audacity to suggest once a long time ago that boys and girls might have some slight teensy weensy differences.

Ok, I stand corrected, burn the heretic. You get the gas, i will find some matches. :roll:
Well, he's repeatedly downplayed the systemic racism suffered by people of colour in the US, to an extent that a letter requesting his removal from the list of Linguistic Society of America fellows was signed by hundreds of academics.
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Cancel culture

Post by dyqik » Thu Sep 09, 2021 5:37 pm

Al Capone Junior wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:09 pm
Cancelling Steven Pinker seems to be the ultimate in PC ridiculousness. Has he ever said something SO controversial that he should be included with Hitler et al in the cancel list? But you know he has been included in such a list.

Oops, he did have the unmitigated audacity to suggest once a long time ago that boys and girls might have some slight teensy weensy differences.

Ok, I stand corrected, burn the heretic. You get the gas, i will find some matches. :roll:
Steven Pinker has not been cancelled in any way, shape or fashion

He's merely had some well deserved criticism, and hasn't had as much of a privileged free-ride as he was getting before. He's instead had to do a tiny bit of the work that everyone else not in his privileged position has to do every day to get anything.

Post Reply