Cancel Culture

[David Guiza]

'Cancel Culture' is a big topic at the moment, ranging from the pulling down of statues, both sanctioned and otherwise, and with the recent news regarding Little Britain, Bo-Selecta, Gone With the Wind etc. Do you take it on a case by case basis, or are you adamant that practically nothing should be cancelled?

 

I find that my interpretation varies dependent upon the genre. I am a huge fan of The Smiths in spite of the fact that I can't stand Morrissey, I love David Bowie in spite of certain allegations that surround him, I love John Lennon but am all too aware of his past, and I love the films of Woody Allen despite his past too. With the arts, be it film, music, literature etc, I find it quite straight forward to separate the artist from their work. I have no qualms in enjoying . There is a theory by Roland Barthes known as 'The Death of the Author'  -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author - which encapsulates my thoughts very well, and I think that is transferable to other art forms outside of literature too. 

 

I also find that I'm able to separate buildings from statues too. I love ancient Rome and consequently am all too aware of what happened in the Colosseum, for example, however I see that building as a gateway to the past. An incredible piece of architecture that gives life to a bygone era, and I certainly don't think that anybody has tried to condone what happened there. Statues on the other hand are a different beast, to me at least, I see them as a dedication to somebody's life and or work and only ever in a positive way. The phrase to put somebody on 'a pedestal' effectively means that you are saying they are perfect and without sin and that is literally what statues are, putting somebody on a literal pedestal. I do not subscribe to the belief that, with the correct context, they are there to educated, because that's clearly not what they are therefore and it's either naive or ignorant to think otherwise.

 

Whether or not a statue deserves to come down is another story altogether. There are two sides to every single person of any note in history, Churchill, Gandhi, Mother Teresa are all covered in controversies, and Stalin, Guevara and co all had positives to their legacies too, it's too easy to say X person is good or bad, human nature is not that simple. I don't agree with the vandalism of Churchill's statue and ultimately, in helping to overthrow the Nazis, he certainly deserves a statue and an enormous amount of recognition etc, but that shouldn't negate the countless historical wrongs.

 

With figures like Conston I do think it's a lot more straight forwards. No amount of philanthropy or charitable work can remove a persons role in slavery. Regardless of the fact that it was legal at the time (so was much/almost all of what Hitler did domestically) we have moved in the 400+ years since his death and putting him on a pedestal in the middle of a city is clearly an insult to both the victims of the slave trade and their ancestors and thus in circumstances like that I do think 'cancel culture' is completely justified. 

[Jon the Hat]

Cancel culture is a very bad thing. I am confident we will look back on this time as one where free speech and discusions of important topics were supressed in the name of not offending people.  I am of the view that everyone has the right to be heard, but no one has the right not to be offended.  This is a serious change in thought which is pretty pervasive in the younger generations, and I fear what happens when they take over the reigns in years to come.

 

[bovril]

I think there is something cultish about the wokeness movement, especially in the cancel culture aspect. Reminds me almost of religious fanatics.

 

At the same time times change and clearly it is unacceptable to have statues to slave traders.

 

Hopefully these things will be discussed and not left to the mob to decide. I doubt it though. 

[Jon the Hat]

3 minutes ago, bovril said:

I think there is something cultish about the wokeness movement, especially in the cancel culture aspect. Reminds me almost of religious fanatics.

 

At the same time times change and clearly it is unacceptable to have statues to slave traders.

 

Hopefully these things will be discussed and not left to the mob to decide. I doubt it though. 

The worry is that actual discussion is being shutdown with aggressive tactics;  Look at JK Rowling on sex vs Gender, she is reasonable but the response is hatefilled bile.  There may be things in her views which are genuinely upsetting people, but they are drowned out by nutters so the discussion isn't there.

[leicsmac]

Freedom of speech, just like every other freedom of expression and action, has always been paired with the most fundamental freedom - the freedom to take the consequences of that action.

 

I don't see how the present culture is too much different on that score and as such why folks would view it to be so and thus fear it.

[urban.spaceman]

I really loathe it. Regardless of who is being cancelled, whether they deserve it or not.

 

It's almost always a small but vocal angry mob of narrow minded people who oversimplify a carefully selected issue in order to find offence.

 

What's most amusing for me is when they come for their own - people who get 'cancelled' for something ludicrous despite their being vocal on another issue.

 

Don't give them an inch because they'll never be satisfied.

 

“Those who are determined to be ‘offended’ will discover a provocation somewhere. We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.”

- Christopher Hitchens

[David Guiza]

13 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Cancel culture is a very bad thing. I am confident we will look back on this time as one where free speech and discusions of important topics were supressed in the name of not offending people.  I am of the view that everyone has the right to be heard, but no one has the right not to be offended.  This is a serious change in thought which is pretty pervasive in the younger generations, and I fear what happens when they take over the reigns in years to come.

 

Is it as bad as it often made out though? When you consider something like comedy, for example, we are far more developed in terms of subject matter than we were a decade or so ago. There are notable exceptions but practically everything is fair game now. Back in 1993 there was a campaign to have Julian Clary removed for that fisting joke about Norman Lamont. Most wouldn't bat an eyelid at that nowadays. Sex is another subject that is clearly far more discussed and open in TV, film, media etc than ever before. Literature has changed so much too, far more things seemed to have been censored in the past than they are now.

 

There's undoubtedly a threat from 'woke' culture, but I don't think it's a real and genuine threat. I still see it as small, but very local, minority. You only need to look at domestic politics to see that Twitter is not representative of woke culture. We'd be in our first term of Corbynism if Twitter were to be believed.  

 

 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

The worry is that actual discussion is being shutdown with aggressive tactics;  Look at JK Rowling on sex vs Gender, she is reasonable but the response is hatefilled bile.  There may be things in her views which are genuinely upsetting people, but they are drowned out by nutters so the discussion isn't there.

That sounds like the discussion on climate change tbh.

 

Does some people going OTT about the message really totally invalidate the message itself by saying that discussing it is meaningless?

[Captain...]

Having a problem with "cancel culture" is weird, people are acting like things didn't get "cancelled" until we had a catchy name for it. 

 

Things have been "cancelled" due to public or private opinion for decades, it's no different to fans calling for a manager to be sacked. If public opinion is great enough things change good and bad. It's just we now have a more effective outlet for it in Twitter and Facebook than writing letters to an MP or complaining to the BBC.

[Stadt]

A university building in Liverpool has had its name changed because a group of students wrote to the university asking for the name to be changed. It was named after Gladstone but because his parents owned slaves it just had to be changed. You’re not even safe from what your ancestors did.

[Captain...]

2 minutes ago, Stadt said:

A university building in Liverpool has had its name changed because a group of students wrote to the university asking for the name to be changed. It was named after Gladstone but because his parents owned slaves it just had to be changed. You’re not even safe from what your ancestors did.

A bit more context:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/nov/24/gladstones-legacy-is-murky-my-university-shouldnt-glorify-it

[Jon the Hat]

 

2 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Having a problem with "cancel culture" is weird, people are acting like things didn't get "cancelled" until we had a catchy name for it. 

 

Things have been "cancelled" due to public or private opinion for decades, it's no different to fans calling for a manager to be sacked. If public opinion is great enough things change good and bad. It's just we now have a more effective outlet for it in Twitter and Facebook than writing letters to an MP or complaining to the BBC.

So often though it is threats and bullying not discussion and certainly not public opinion.  Organisations are scared to be tarred as something and react badly letting down individuals and the discussion.

[RonnieTodger]

Oh tits, I've just written something in the News thread which would've been more suitable for this

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Pretty much just a race to the bottom when you start going down this route. The goalposts move constantly and it's just a arms race of who can be the most offended at something else to be on the cutting edge. I wonder where we'll be with this stuff in 50 years time for example.

[Pliskin]

I think there is going to be a lot of animosity developing over the next few months. I’ve ready some outlandish statements from my peers, on both sides and it leaves you with a headache.....

 

I feel like I can’t say anything pro British culture or history at the moment, through fear of being hacked to pieces by my peers, so much so I’ve logged out of social media for a while, not because I won’t want to support the movement for black lives matter because I absolutely do, but I’m fed up of seeing I’ll educated rants from both sides, that are posted for nothing more than to start an argument.  
 

Culture and history is essential, what we need to do is carefully review what to change and where to change It, there no point charging around Britain red faced, salivating and tearing down everything, because it will lead to a stand off I feel, and potential civil unrest. I agree that there’s no place for the celebration of tyrants, but there’s a place for remembering what happened for educational purposes. Careful and rational decisions need to be made, to prevent the streets from descending into chaos! 

[Benguin]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Freedom of speech, just like every other freedom of expression and action, has always been paired with the most fundamental freedom - the freedom to take the consequences of that action.

 

I don't see how the present culture is too much different on that score and as such why folks would view it to be so and thus fear it.

With any culture/ideology, there are movements; with all movements there is a spectrum; with all spectrums there are extremes. Its very rarely the ideology/culture that is feared but rather the extremes.

 

I see dessimating statues or cancelling things as a sign that an ideology/culture is veering toward the extremes and therefore fear is bred from the notion that if dessimating statues for example is totally fine now, what's next? And then next after that? 

 

I think the mistake is to highlight the bone of contention or rather fear, is in a particular action (dessimating statues) and not in where the movement could go. 

[Innovindil]

14 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Having a problem with "cancel culture" is weird, people are acting like things didn't get "cancelled" until we had a catchy name for it. 

 

Things have been "cancelled" due to public or private opinion for decades, it's no different to fans calling for a manager to be sacked. If public opinion is great enough things change good and bad. It's just we now have a more effective outlet for it in Twitter and Facebook than writing letters to an MP or complaining to the BBC.

The trouble is the bar where "public opinion is great enough" has now been reduced to a level where small minorities are getting things cancelled. Hell, some adverts are pulled because they've had half a dozen complaints submitted by people that have somehow found offense. 

[Captain...]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

 

So often though it is threats and bullying not discussion and certainly not public opinion.  Organisations are scared to be tarred as something and react badly letting down individuals and the discussion.

That's on the organisation to judge their response. Organisations know in the world of Twitter your damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. 

 

I can guarantee every organisation that has posted on recent events has received positive and negative feedback.

 

The reality is we only tend to see the extreme views the rational debate and discussion goes on in the background. Take JK Rowling as a case in point, there were myriad responses of all shapes and sizes, including some very eloquent and heart warming posts. In another thread someone has a shared a picture of all the people calling her a vile names. That is only part of the picture but that gets traction and shared and creates a false narrative.

 

There is still the same anger and frustration as years ago and the same compassion and love and nuance and debate, we just consume it differently. People haven't changed platforms have and creating a name for it and declaring it dangerous almost seems like you want to cancel "cancel culture".

[RowlattsFox]

There will be a lot of tv programmes looking over their shoulders, thinking will they be next? Particularly programmes from the 70/80s onwards. I love Only Fools but there are lines and comments in that when I think, jesus you'd never be able to say that now. TV shows, films and stand-up comedians have used stereotyping for ever, using various different subjects, in my opinion there is a line where stereotyping is ok until it becomes overly offensive, but the line is getting shorter and shorter.

[CosbehFox]

 

2 minutes ago, Benguin said:

With any culture/ideology, there are movements; with all movements there is a spectrum; with all spectrums there are extremes. Its very rarely the ideology/culture that is feared but rather the extremes.

 

I see dessimating statues or cancelling things as a sign that an ideology/culture is veering toward the extremes and therefore fear is bred from the notion that if dessimating statues for example is totally fine now, what's next? And then next after that? 

 

I think the mistake is to highlight the bone of contention or rather fear, is in a particular action (dessimating statues) and not in where the movement could go. 

There's a balance within that as well though - Colston and slavers statues being removed is very different to TV shows being removed (you argue that Little Britain in its very nature was actually making the very salient point race and stereotype - and how bloody mad it is). Of course, everything has a nuance - social media and the modern culture doesn't allow nuance to be recognised. 

[Captain...]

Just now, Innovindil said:

The trouble is the bar where "public opinion is great enough" has now been reduced to a level where small minorities are getting things cancelled. Hell, some adverts are pulled because they've had half a dozen complaints submitted by people that have somehow found offense. 

Why would you persist with an advert that offends people, even a small number? Make better adverts.

 

Half a dozen complaints normally means hundreds/thousands of people are offended but most can't be arsed to actually complain.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Benguin said:

With any culture/ideology, there are movements; with all movements there is a spectrum; with all spectrums there are extremes. Its very rarely the ideology/culture that is feared but rather the extremes.

 

I see dessimating statues or cancelling things as a sign that an ideology/culture is veering toward the extremes and therefore fear is bred from the notion that if dessimating statues for example is totally fine now, what's next? And then next after that? 

 

I think the mistake is to highlight the bone of contention or rather fear, is in a particular action (dessimating statues) and not in where the movement could go. 

Well, yes. Tolkein did write Melkor as a being of "extremes", rather than light or dark, after all.

 

However, again, I can't say that I see things are moving towards any more extreme a point as they have at multiple times in the past, so I guess we have to disagree there.

 

It all seems a bit slippery slope fallacy to me.

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Captain... said:

Why would you persist with an advert that offends people, even a small number? Make better adverts.

 

Half a dozen complaints normally means hundreds/thousands of people are offended but most can't be arsed to actually complain.

We would need to be careful. People can regularly be offensive without reverting to any specific if any form of bigotry. If you remove the ability to accept all offense, then the world and people become very delicate and ill prepared for any struggle.

I am not framing this against BLM, that is a higher level discussion, the great question of our time in fact.

[spacemunky]

Sometimes I'm happy that I have no idea what some things are all about.

[Captain...]

1 minute ago, RowlattsFox said:

There will be a lot of tv programmes looking over their shoulders, thinking will they be next? Particularly programmes from the 70/80s onwards. I love Only Fools but there are lines and comments in that when I think, jesus you'd never be able to say that now. TV shows, films and stand-up comedians have used stereotyping for ever, using various different subjects, in my opinion there is a line where stereotyping is ok until it becomes overly offensive, but the line is getting shorter and shorter.

I think most people can watch a TV program through the lens of it's time. The problem with little Britain and Bo Selecta was that blackface was considered racist when they made it and it's embarrassing that it has taken this long for people to apologise for it.