Cancel Culture

[twoleftfeet]

7 minutes ago, bovril said:

The more I think about it, the gladder I am these statues are coming down. We need to rethink how we sell the image of the country round the world. It's not up to date. We could have a campaign or competition to choose non-military, non-political figures to celebrate in our towns and cities. Hopefully would help us get over the whole two-world-wars-and-one-world-cup bullshit that so many people are in thrall to. 

Wasn't the statue in Bristol about a merchant who made money and made donation to his City. It could be argued that the statue being built by the club in the future because of his links to the royal family and the treatment of people in Thailand is inappropriate, I however believe we are remembering the greatest chairman in our history. Rose coloured spectacles and all that.

[inckley fox]

There's a danger that the arguments get bogged down in what, exactly, a symbol symbolises, and how or if that symbol can ever be used.

 

Context is vital. For instance, it makes sense to remove swastika graffiti ahead of other forms of graffiti, but several front covers of Philip K Dick's 'Man in the High Tower' included a swastika in a way that was perfectly appropriate, and shouldn't be censored.

 

When blackface has been used to belittle black people, or to allow a white person to play an essentially black role, then just like other offensive portrayals of black people (e.g. 'Love Thy Neighbour') it makes sense not to broadcast it - but if blackface is used to poke fun at the use of blackface, or to make racial stereotypes seem absurd (think the white man in Brass Eye who blacks up, then immediately becomes a hardened criminal), then presumably that's a case of satire doing what satire needs to do. We're actually censoring something which ridicules racial stereotypes, and helps in the fight against it.

 

If a white person uses the 'n' word as part of their daily vocabulary, it makes sense to object to it, but if literature teachers are suspended for using the word when dealing with Toni Morrison or Steinbeck, that's inadvertently advocating for a 'softening' of the impact of the writer's language. Again, it becomes counter-productive.

 

There is a lot of unapologetic racism out there in symbols, institutions, and people. And a lot more people with obviously, and aggressively, racist beliefs who prefix everything with 'I'm not a racist but...' and need to be aware of what they're doing.

 

And, where possible, I'd say we should try to create a dialogue with these people, rather than condemning them, and give them the opportunity to evolve their views. If one of my students uses racist language (and it's not always white students, by the way) without realising that it's racist, I talk to them, I don't scream at them. If they don't see why they should change their behaviour then, yes, they're treated in the same way as someone who is deliberately racist.

 

On top of this, I'm not sure that we need to dedicate so much time to scouring the world for possible racism, or convincing people without any obviously-racist inclinations that they are, in actual fact, vile racists. In some respects, this runs the risk of failing to confront the real racism in society - or fracturing the fight against it - by picking on people who fundamentally agree that things need to change.

 

Real action on the race issue - be it addressing the economic issues, the in-your-face racism, the overtly racist symbolism, or setting far higher standards for public servants - could easily be stifled by people picking the wrong fights. In fact, sometimes it smacks of not wanting to face up to the big, scary skinhead who proudly despises foreigners (and I've also met these people working in schools, politics and the police, by the way) because it's easier to deal with the mild-mannered, well-meaning individual who won't put up a fight.

[WigstonWanderer]

30 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

Thought the presenter was a bit of a w@nker, reminded me of the right wing shock jocks we get here in Oz on Foxtel, but found myself agreeing with most of what Neil Oliver had to say. 

[David Guiza]

4 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

@Innovindil is right tho. Would you or whoever necessarily go to the museum? Too learn about this or that person?

Yes, but I love museums, galleries, National Trust, English Herritage properties etc. I think museums are invaluable learning aids, particularly to those who are less fortunate, and they're criminally underfunded too. 

 

I would propose that if somebody isn't going to go to a museum then they also aren't going to pay attention to a statue either. 

 

[inckley fox]

5 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Yes, but I love museums, galleries, National Trust, English Herritage properties etc. I think museums are invaluable learning aids, particularly to those who are less fortunate, and they're criminally underfunded too. 

 

I would propose that if somebody isn't going to go to a museum then they also aren't going to pay attention to a statue either. 

 

That's a great point. Perhaps, if leaving a statue where it is or plonking it in a museum amount to the same thing, the real challenge is to draw attention to it. So we come back to education, awareness, information.

[Tielemans63]

19 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

There's a danger that the arguments get bogged down in what, exactly, a symbol symbolises, and how or if that symbol can ever be used.

 

Context is vital. For instance, it makes sense to remove swastika graffiti ahead of other forms of graffiti, but several front covers of Philip K Dick's 'Man in the High Tower' included a swastika in a way that was perfectly appropriate, and shouldn't be censored.

 

When blackface has been used to belittle black people, or to allow a white person to play an essentially black role, then just like other offensive portrayals of black people (e.g. 'Love Thy Neighbour') it makes sense not to broadcast it - but if blackface is used to poke fun at the use of blackface, or to make racial stereotypes seem absurd (think the white man in Brass Eye who blacks up, then immediately becomes a hardened criminal), then presumably that's a case of satire doing what satire needs to do. We're actually censoring something which ridicules racial stereotypes, and helps in the fight against it.

 

If a white person uses the 'n' word as part of their daily vocabulary, it makes sense to object to it, but if literature teachers are suspended for using the word when dealing with Toni Morrison or Steinbeck, that's inadvertently advocating for a 'softening' of the impact of the writer's language. Again, it becomes counter-productive.

 

There is a lot of unapologetic racism out there in symbols, institutions, and people. And a lot more people with obviously, and aggressively, racist beliefs who prefix everything with 'I'm not a racist but...' and need to be aware of what they're doing.

 

And, where possible, I'd say we should try to create a dialogue with these people, rather than condemning them, and give them the opportunity to evolve their views. If one of my students uses racist language (and it's not always white students, by the way) without realising that it's racist, I talk to them, I don't scream at them. If they don't see why they should change their behaviour then, yes, they're treated in the same way as someone who is deliberately racist.

 

On top of this, I'm not sure that we need to dedicate so much time to scouring the world for possible racism, or convincing people without any obviously-racist inclinations that they are, in actual fact, vile racists. In some respects, this runs the risk of failing to confront the real racism in society - or fracturing the fight against it - by picking on people who fundamentally agree that things need to change.

 

Real action on the race issue - be it addressing the economic issues, the in-your-face racism, the overtly racist symbolism, or setting far higher standards for public servants - could easily be stifled by people picking the wrong fights. In fact, sometimes it smacks of not wanting to face up to the big, scary skinhead who proudly despises foreigners (and I've also met these people working in schools, politics and the police, by the way) because it's easier to deal with the mild-mannered, well-meaning individual who won't put up a fight.

Great post Inckley. You've put that far more eloquently than I would have done but I agree with everything you're saying. I'd give this post more than one rep point if I could. 

[urban.spaceman]

22 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

There's a danger that the arguments get bogged down in what, exactly, a symbol symbolises, and how or if that symbol can ever be used.

 

Context is vital. For instance, it makes sense to remove swastika graffiti ahead of other forms of graffiti, but several front covers of Philip K Dick's 'Man in the High Tower' included a swastika in a way that was perfectly appropriate, and shouldn't be censored.

 

When blackface has been used to belittle black people, or to allow a white person to play an essentially black role, then just like other offensive portrayals of black people (e.g. 'Love Thy Neighbour') it makes sense not to broadcast it - but if blackface is used to poke fun at the use of blackface, or to make racial stereotypes seem absurd (think the white man in Brass Eye who blacks up, then immediately becomes a hardened criminal), then presumably that's a case of satire doing what satire needs to do. We're actually censoring something which ridicules racial stereotypes, and helps in the fight against it.

 

If a white person uses the 'n' word as part of their daily vocabulary, it makes sense to object to it, but if literature teachers are suspended for using the word when dealing with Toni Morrison or Steinbeck, that's inadvertently advocating for a 'softening' of the impact of the writer's language. Again, it becomes counter-productive.

 

There is a lot of unapologetic racism out there in symbols, institutions, and people. And a lot more people with obviously, and aggressively, racist beliefs who prefix everything with 'I'm not a racist but...' and need to be aware of what they're doing.

 

And, where possible, I'd say we should try to create a dialogue with these people, rather than condemning them, and give them the opportunity to evolve their views. If one of my students uses racist language (and it's not always white students, by the way) without realising that it's racist, I talk to them, I don't scream at them. If they don't see why they should change their behaviour then, yes, they're treated in the same way as someone who is deliberately racist.

 

On top of this, I'm not sure that we need to dedicate so much time to scouring the world for possible racism, or convincing people without any obviously-racist inclinations that they are, in actual fact, vile racists. In some respects, this runs the risk of failing to confront the real racism in society - or fracturing the fight against it - by picking on people who fundamentally agree that things need to change.

 

Real action on the race issue - be it addressing the economic issues, the in-your-face racism, the overtly racist symbolism, or setting far higher standards for public servants - could easily be stifled by people picking the wrong fights. In fact, sometimes it smacks of not wanting to face up to the big, scary skinhead who proudly despises foreigners (and I've also met these people working in schools, politics and the police, by the way) because it's easier to deal with the mild-mannered, well-meaning individual who won't put up a fight.

Excellent post. I completely agree with everything you've said.

 

I would add to the bits that I've highlighted though: the extremists trawling through history for things to get offended by don't even want the conversation. They're offended and that means they're right, and if you don't agree with them you're a racist too. They've weaponised victimhood and are wielding it disproportionately, which to me is very, very frightening.

[LiberalFox]

Ultimately people need to take responsibility for their actions. Most people have prejudices or are ignorant on some issues but if they take responsibility for themselves then they will be fine. We need to move on from pointing out potential racism and other bigotries being treated as a serious accusation to a culture where people are willing to do better. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Excellent post. I completely agree with everything you've said.

 

I would add to the bits that I've highlighted though: the extremists trawling through history for things to get offended by don't even want the conversation. They're offended and that means they're right, and if you don't agree with them you're a racist too. They've weaponised victimhood and are wielding it disproportionately, which to me is very, very frightening.

I'm not entirely sure that such absolutists are limited to just one side of this debate.

 

Just as there are extremists looking to cancel everything that supposedly offends them, there are also extremists who enjoy the way things are now and likewise weaponise the power they have right now in order to exert it over others and wield it disproportionately. And they don't want the conversation either - they are right simply because they can use that might to prove that they are and if you stand up to them they will simply use that power to make your life a misery and remove you from the equation.

 

And some of them hold far, far more political or various other power than any Twitter mob looking to cancel something.

[BKLFox]

Why does no one mention the elephant in the room, what happened to George Floyd 'The Human Being' was disgusting of course it was but George Floyd 'The Man' was a wrong'un yet he is now hailed as an Angel Martyr...apologies if thats not Zen & doesn't fit the narrative but this is in the Here & Now & we can't get it right but we are willing to go back to the 1400's & correct what Christopher Columbus did, its nuts.

[WigstonWanderer]

5 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

Why does no one mention the elephant in the room, what happened to George Floyd 'The Human Being' was disgusting of course it was but George Floyd 'The Man' was a wrong'un yet he is now hailed as an Angel Martyr...apologies if thats not Zen & doesn't fit the narrative but this is in the Here & Now & we can't get it right but we are willing to go back to the 1400's & correct what Christopher Columbus did, its nuts.

What did he do?

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

What did he do?

Be black in front of some US cops.

 

That's enough, apparently.

[urban.spaceman]

32 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm not entirely sure that such absolutists are limited to just one side of this debate.

 

Just as there are extremists looking to cancel everything that supposedly offends them, there are also extremists who enjoy the way things are now and likewise weaponise the power they have right now in order to exert it over others and wield it disproportionately. And they don't want the conversation either - they are right simply because they can use that might to prove that they are and if you stand up to them they will simply use that power to make your life a misery and remove you from the equation.

 

And some of them hold far, far more political or various other power than any Twitter mob looking to cancel something.

100%. That's why those of us in the middle need to be louder!

[Sampson]

57 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Ultimately people need to take responsibility for their actions. Most people have prejudices or are ignorant on some issues but if they take responsibility for themselves then they will be fine. We need to move on from pointing out potential racism and other bigotries being treated as a serious accusation to a culture where people are willing to do better. 

I agree with you in principle, but that sadly isn't the culture of social media and that's the issue. And people get hounded, get their lives destroyed and death/losing job threats for simply making a mistake and saying the wrong thing, even if they earnestly apologise about it. 

 

That's the biggest problem most people have with "woke" social media culture - you're only one small mistake or slip-up away from being hounded, getting vile abuse, death threats or people trying to get you fired when you have a family to feed - even *if* you take responsibility. Everyone makes mistakes and changes their views over time and has things they're ignorant of, but you're not allowed that in public in 2020.

 

There's a good book on the subject "So You've Been Publically Shamed" by Jon Ronson (who is a Guardian journalist even so would traditiinally be more sympathetic to the other viewpoint) on the subject where he tries to prevent an even-handed take on the abuse people have gotten and how it's gone way further than just nasty tweets for people making a mistake on Twitter.

Edited 11 June 2020 by Sampson

[BKLFox]

17 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

What did he do?

 

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Be black in front of some US cops.

 

That's enough, apparently.

The guy has a past, a history of 1st degree felonies & serving 5 separate prison sentences spanning back to the early 90s. The latest he served was a 5yr stretch for being the ring leader in forcefully gaining entry to a pregant womens home with intent to rob, when she resisted he aimed his gun at her stomach when she screamed he pistol whipped her before going through the house for what the gang could take.

As i say he was a wrong'un but did not deserve to die they way he did, but we can't ignore the past when it doesn't fit the agenda...or can we?

[urban.spaceman]

21 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

What did he do?

From what I can tell a few arrests for theft and drug possession (the latter being a 'crime' for which African Americans are disproportionately targeted and criminalised for). The worst though is being part of an armed robbery of a pregnant woman's house back in 2007. That's a pretty shitty thing to do, but he served time for it in prison (5 years) and appears to have been rehabilitated. His crime on the day he died was being accused of using a counterfeit note to buy cigarettes. 

[LiberalFox]

13 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I agree with you in principle, but that sadly isn't the culture of social media and that's the issue. And people get hounded, get their lives destroyed and hounded for simply making a mistake and saying the wrong thing, even if they earnestly apologise about it. 

 

That's the biggest problem most people have with "woke" social media culture - you're only one small mistake or slip-up away from being hounded, getting vile abuse, death threats or people trying to get you fired when you have a family to feed - even *if* you take responsibility. Everyone makes mistakes and changes their views over time and has things they're ignorant of, but you're not allowed that in public in 2020.

 

There's a good book on the subject "So You've Been Publically Shamed" by Jon Ronson (who is a Guardian journalist even so would traditiinally be more sympathetic to the other viewpoint) on the subject where he tries to prevent an even-handed take on the abuse people have gotten and how it's gone way further than just nasty tweets for people making a mistake on Twitter.

I'm empathetic to this viewpoint but would like it actually explored a bit more. Also many public figures are hounded regardless of what they say or do just for who they are or what they represent. I don't like it when some member of the public is shamed for tweeting something and then it goes viral though I'm not sure what can be done about that. I find a lot of people have huge double standards too, if it's someone they like then they will defend them or be lenient and if it's someone they dislike then they will use fairly minor stuff as proof that person is awful.

[Pliskin]

18 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

There's a danger that the arguments get bogged down in what, exactly, a symbol symbolises, and how or if that symbol can ever be used.

 

Context is vital. For instance, it makes sense to remove swastika graffiti ahead of other forms of graffiti, but several front covers of Philip K Dick's 'Man in the High Tower' included a swastika in a way that was perfectly appropriate, and shouldn't be censored.

 

When blackface has been used to belittle black people, or to allow a white person to play an essentially black role, then just like other offensive portrayals of black people (e.g. 'Love Thy Neighbour') it makes sense not to broadcast it - but if blackface is used to poke fun at the use of blackface, or to make racial stereotypes seem absurd (think the white man in Brass Eye who blacks up, then immediately becomes a hardened criminal), then presumably that's a case of satire doing what satire needs to do. We're actually censoring something which ridicules racial stereotypes, and helps in the fight against it.

 

If a white person uses the 'n' word as part of their daily vocabulary, it makes sense to object to it, but if literature teachers are suspended for using the word when dealing with Toni Morrison or Steinbeck, that's inadvertently advocating for a 'softening' of the impact of the writer's language. Again, it becomes counter-productive.

 

There is a lot of unapologetic racism out there in symbols, institutions, and people. And a lot more people with obviously, and aggressively, racist beliefs who prefix everything with 'I'm not a racist but...' and need to be aware of what they're doing.

 

And, where possible, I'd say we should try to create a dialogue with these people, rather than condemning them, and give them the opportunity to evolve their views. If one of my students uses racist language (and it's not always white students, by the way) without realising that it's racist, I talk to them, I don't scream at them. If they don't see why they should change their behaviour then, yes, they're treated in the same way as someone who is deliberately racist.

 

On top of this, I'm not sure that we need to dedicate so much time to scouring the world for possible racism, or convincing people without any obviously-racist inclinations that they are, in actual fact, vile racists. In some respects, this runs the risk of failing to confront the real racism in society - or fracturing the fight against it - by picking on people who fundamentally agree that things need to change.

 

Real action on the race issue - be it addressing the economic issues, the in-your-face racism, the overtly racist symbolism, or setting far higher standards for public servants - could easily be stifled by people picking the wrong fights. In fact, sometimes it smacks of not wanting to face up to the big, scary skinhead who proudly despises foreigners (and I've also met these people working in schools, politics and the police, by the way) because it's easier to deal with the mild-mannered, well-meaning individual who won't put up a fight.

This is a great post. Agree with everything.

[Suzie the Fox]

I don't even know what cancel culture is..

 

 

 

(And at this point i'm too afraid to ask )

[Guest TamworthFoxes]

26 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

From what I can tell a few arrests for theft and drug possession (the latter being a 'crime' for which African Americans are disproportionately targeted and criminalised for). The worst though is being part of an armed robbery of a pregnant woman's house back in 2007. That's a pretty shitty thing to do, but he served time for it in prison (5 years) and appears to have been rehabilitated. His crime on the day he died was being accused of using a counterfeit note to buy cigarettes. 

This made me chuckle. The part where he appeared to have been rehabilitated!! 😂. He was committing a further crime (however minor). Were you his defence solicitor by any chance?!

[Sampson]

28 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I'm empathetic to this viewpoint but would like it actually explored a bit more. Also many public figures are hounded regardless of what they say or do just for who they are or what they represent. I don't like it when some member of the public is shamed for tweeting something and then it goes viral though I'm not sure what can be done about that. I find a lot of people have huge double standards too, if it's someone they like then they will defend them or be lenient and if it's someone they dislike then they will use fairly minor stuff as proof that person is awful.

Well one example in the book is of Justine Sacco, who was an ordinary woman who just used to make jokes while she travelled on twitter. At one point she just tweeted the below while waiting for an outbound plane, which was just an account to her friends etc. with 170twitter followers.

 

"Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding, I'm white!"

 

By the time she landed her tweet went viral, people found her employer and tweeted them demanding she got fired. She lost her job, got death threats, had random people she'd never met on Twitter tracking her flight with the hashtag #hasJustinelandedyet so they could gleefully take delight in seeing them moment in which they'd ruining some random person they'd never let's life. People in twitter went to the airport in Cape Town where she landed to harass her and take photos to publically shame when she landed. All just for some crusade to point score to show you're more woke than everyone else.

 

I mean she's a mother, with children to feed, who just made a throwaway joke - if anything, the joke was actually at western culture's "bubble" at ignoring what goes on in Africa. She's taken more than enough responsibility, but Twitter has been judge, jury and executioner who have ruined her life over it just to prove how woke they are.

 

Btw, John Ronson actually got attacked by the twitter mob himself for writing that book which was actually pretty even handed.he wrote an article about it in The Guardian here I'd recommend reading - https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2015/dec/20/social-media-twitter-online-shame

Edited 11 June 2020 by Sampson

[urban.spaceman]

16 minutes ago, TamworthFoxes said:

This made me chuckle. The part where he appeared to have been rehabilitated!! 😂. He was committing a further crime (however minor). Were you his defence solicitor by any chance?!

Rehabilitated in that he doesn't appear to have had any arrests since. 

 

Regarding the crime he was arrested for - how many people using counterfeit notes actually know they're using counterfeit notes? And why does such an offence require 4 police officers to be involved?

[Sir Shep]

7 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Rehabilitated in that he doesn't appear to have had any arrests since. 

 

Regarding the crime he was arrested for - how many people using counterfeit notes actually know they're using counterfeit notes? And why does such an offence require 4 police officers to be involved?

Well I’m guessing this will all come out when the court case arrives, then everyone should have a better idea on what actually happened. 

 

Just on a a side note having worked in retail, my brief at the time when dealing with counterfeit notes was to confiscate the note and give the customer a receipt. If you suspected that the customer was knowingly passing over a counterfeit note then yes you’d try and secure their face on CCTV and call the police but not detain them yourself. 

[Guest TamworthFoxes]

18 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Rehabilitated in that he doesn't appear to have had any arrests since. 

 

Regarding the crime he was arrested for - how many people using counterfeit notes actually know they're using counterfeit notes? And why does such an offence require 4 police officers to be involved?

It was the contrast between yours and @BKLFox slant and explanation of his pre cons which appeared in messages directly after each other. It reminded me of the prosecution and defence summing up. Just highlights the different slant on things the extreme end of both arguments can take with the same information.

[Strokes]

3 hours ago, bovril said:

The more I think about it, the gladder I am these statues are coming down. We need to rethink how we sell the image of the country round the world. It's not up to date. We could have a campaign or competition to choose non-military, non-political figures to celebrate in our towns and cities. Hopefully would help us get over the whole two-world-wars-and-one-world-cup bullshit that so many people are in thrall to. 

How is it we are not allowed to hold resentment or be proud of things that happened within a few generations but we are supposed to feel shame for something that happened nearly 200 years ago. Strange logic.