Cancel Culture

[los dedos]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

Ok, but let's say you want to watch Fawlty Towers with your kids (when you think they are age appropriate), would you be happy for them to watch an old white man using the N word for laughs?

Maybe I would explain to them that we are laughing AT the racist old white man . . Warren Mitchell ( Alf Garnett) used to tell a story how racist would come up to him and say how they would love it how he takes the piss out of foreigners. He would all always shout back "we were taking the piss out of people like you" which would shock them some what .

.

[Guest worth_the_wait]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

We seem to have gone the other way 4 letter type expletives, Where we had Mary Whitehouse complaining about Alf Garnet saying Bloody on TV, we now have a bombardment of the f word and its derivatives  and a fair number of c words as well in many TV programmes and movies.

 

Quite a lot of old people find the f*** and c*** words really offensive.

 

I think we should all try to be a bit more thoughtful. 

 

Or don't old people matter?

[Izzy]

1 minute ago, worth_the_wait said:

Quite a lot of old people find the f*** and c*** words really offensive.

 

I think we should all try to be a bit more thoughtful. 

 

Or don't old people matter?

#oldpeoplematter

[davieG]

30 minutes ago, worth_the_wait said:

Quite a lot of old people find the f*** and c*** words really offensive.

 

I think we should all try to be a bit more thoughtful. 

 

Or don't old people matter?

Well English is a very rich language with lots of adjectives and nouns that could be used I’m not sure why there is this need to use these words. They seem to be in comedies to get a laugh which is pretty poor.

 

My comment was more of an observation and as someone who tried to raise my kids not to swear but to make use of our language I always find it disappointing.

 

That’s not to say there aren’t circumstances where it could be justified and I’m not innocent but the overuse of them dilutes their impact. I guess that’s what happened to the use of bloody.

 

Must stop now as I feel like I’m preaching and I’m not just noting the change of language alongside the use of the n word and other similar ones.

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

#oldpeoplematter

They'd take the knee, but they might not get up again.

[Trav Le Bleu]

3 hours ago, Captain... said:

Ok, but let's say you want to watch Fawlty Towers with your kids (when you think they are age appropriate), would you be happy for them to watch an old white man using the N word for laughs?

The whole point is laughing at and laughing with.

 

It changes the whole perspective.

 

I'd be happy for my kids to know that someone who uses words like that is an object of ridicule... as I knew perfectly well when I watched it as a youngster, because my parents brought me up properly.

 

Maybe we should be more worried about how children are influenced by their parents, rather than getting annoyed about a 45 year old TV series most kids don't even know exists.

[Lionator]

I've just been watching South Park and it's grossly offensive in so many ways and it's bloody brilliant for it. Both with that and IASIP, I enjoy them because they're offensive, I'm not inspired by the characters, they're disgusting, degrading and downright inhumane and it's completely ok. 

[Dan]

16 hours ago, RowlattsFox said:

As usual it's turned into a competition in the media, celebrity and sports industries to show who cares the most. Whether that is celebrities making videos, TV companies removing episodes that no-one has asked them too and even football clubs plastering their shirts with messages. 

Yep. It's so fake.

[Pliskin]

I don’t know why there are some aspects that are bothering me so much, but I saw a post on social media of Churchill, doing his infamous “V” pose. There was a caption written on is with words to the effect of “if you want to start talking about history, let’s talk about this man, the most fascist, racist man alive (he’s actually dead but you know) responsible for the worst genocide known to mankind”.... this was a celebrity who posted this.... these completely absurd and inaccurate claims are particularly damaging, considering its celebrities who are posting such drivel. Pick up a book on him and read it.
 

When will people learn to do some research before they post? And not research that involves googling the answer they want. If they care to read a book on genocide’s (which isn’t a great read), then they will probably learn a few things.
 

Merely turning into a competition of who can make the most ridiculously tentative link to slavery and made up historical events.

Edited 13 June 2020 by Pliskin

[Pliskin]

6 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

Yep. It's so fake.

I think it’s because the various groups are targeting things to publicly attack and or humiliate, so all they’re doing is arse covering... let’s put some bollocks up about caring and they might not come for us next. It really it starting to become tedious, the actual message is fast becoming clouded in bullshit, and will only cause further issues. All I’ve seen over the last few days is people be it celebs or the general public post things so they don’t get branded a racist for not participating. I’m sorry to be cynical but posting something on social media is going to amount to the grand total of.... **** all.

[Nick]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/53014592

 

Interesting article on statues and representation.

[Bellend Sebastian]

It appears that I too have been cancelled in a very small way. One of my oldest friends, who admittedly due to geography I don't see much of these days, has unfollowed me on Twitter because he, like others, is dumping anyone that follows Graham Linehan because of his stuff about trans rights. I can't rule out that it's because of my shit tweets about pressure washers and fence treatments but surely that's not possible

[nnfox]

28 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

I don’t know why there are some aspects that are bothering me so much, but I saw a post on social media of Churchill, doing his infamous “V” pose. There was a caption written on is with words to the effect of “if you want to start talking about history, let’s talk about this man, the most fascist, racist man alive (he’s actually dead but you know) responsible for the worst genocide known to mankind”.... this was a celebrity who posted this.... these completely absurd and inaccurate claims are particularly damaging, considering its celebrities who are posting such drivel. Pick up a book on him and read it.
 

When will people learn to do some research before they post? And not research that involves googling the answer they want. If they care to read a book on genocide’s (which isn’t a great read), then they will probably learn a few things.
 

Merely turning into a competition of who can make the most ridiculously tentative link to slavery and made up historical events.

 

23 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

I think it’s because the various groups are targeting things to publicly attack and or humiliate, so all they’re doing is arse covering... let’s put some bollocks up about caring and they might not come for us next. It really it starting to become tedious, the actual message is fast becoming clouded in bullshit, and will only cause further issues. All I’ve seen over the last few days is people be it celebs or the general public post things so they don’t get branded a racist for not participating. I’m sorry to be cynical but posting something on social media is going to amount to the grand total of.... **** all.

I agree with both of these statements but it isn't just about people should be learning about something before they post (which they absolutely should) but the readers of it have to educate themselves as well and not just believe every headline they see - it's leading to a real dumbing down of our society.

 

What is the actual message?  What is it that needs to change - specifically?  In the US people are protesting about police brutality and seem to be campaigning to reform the police.  That's something specific that you can talk about and take action on.  What started off here as a show of support for that cause has now become something else and I don't know what it is!

[Pliskin]

1 minute ago, nnfox said:

 

I agree with both of these statements but it isn't just about people should be learning about something before they post (which they absolutely should) but the readers of it have to educate themselves as well and not just believe every headline they see - it's leading to a real dumbing down of our society.

 

What is the actual message?  What is it that needs to change - specifically?  In the US people are protesting about police brutality and seem to be campaigning to reform the police.  That's something specific that you can talk about and take action on.  What started off here as a show of support for that cause has now become something else and I don't know what it is!

You’re absolutely right. I’m fast becoming confused, because when you actually look into the British statistics surrounding black communities in Britain there are obvious concerns, as I said recently why do the statistics suggest that some ethnic groups including but not limited to the black community, stand a higher chance of being born into poverty, live in areas where crime rates are higher and are underrepresented across most platforms in this country, these are the points that need answering, instead, we find ourselves arguing about the 18th century and historical political figures that are long gone.. 

 

You make an excellent point in your first paragraph the readers must educate themselves too.... 100% correct, we are seeing a lot of confirmation bias going on in both the media, and the general population. They’re scouring the internet to dig up dirt on people, finding what confirms they want to see and disseminating it as evidence. Like many have said, you can dig up dirt on the cleanest of figures, doesn’t matter who they are they will probably have something in their life that is controversial.

[Spudulike]

Interesting BBC article about numbers of deaths in police custody most of which confirms other analysis....

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52890363

 

At risk of being accused of cherry picking to form an opinion, I found this surprising...

 

"So, over the last 10 years, a white individual who has been arrested was about 25% more likely to die in custody than a black individual who had been arrested."

[Fox92]

3 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/53014592

 

Interesting article on statues and representation.

Statues of Nelson Mandela mentioned on there. His links to Winnie, his wife who was central to kidnapping and killing people, offends me.

[Finnaldo]

1 hour ago, Spudulike said:

Interesting BBC article about numbers of deaths in police custody most of which confirms other analysis....

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52890363

 

At risk of being accused of cherry picking to form an opinion, I found this surprising...

 

"So, over the last 10 years, a white individual who has been arrested was about 25% more likely to die in custody than a black individual who had been arrested."

To go after the policing in this country is a bit bizarre, any issues are a lot less severe than America. 
 

As @Pliskin & @nnfox discussed, it’s the roots of crime, the issues around disadvantaged communities and in my opinion, certain societal outlooks and views that should be addressed. 

[Alf Bentley]

14 hours ago, Izzy said:

#oldpeoplematter

 

#butnotoldgingersevenifthey'regoingabitgrey 

[urban.spaceman]

Netflix have now removed all episodes It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia which have blackface in them.

 

For those not aware, the show is a satire about how American sitcoms are always about really wonderful people whose lives progress. In IASIP the characters are so awful and tone deaf, and get up to so much ridiculous stuff but they never face the consequences except their their lives just stagnate or get worse.

[Dr The Singh]

I watched the No Selects episode with Craig David and the Punjabi thing.

 

I thought it was funny, and didn't see why its offensive.  The Punjabi bit was odd but funny.

[DennisNedry]

A few thoughts that I'd like a lefty to counter (not on the wind up, genuinely would appreciate a reasoned response)...

 

- You can't judge historical figures through the morality of today. Was Colston a bad man because he was a slave trader? I don't know; that depends on whether you think morality transcends time and context. He acted in a way that was acceptable for his time. The ordinary, everyday views of a typical liberal-minded person in say, 1750, would make Trump look like a Guardianista on acid. Does that mean every human alive in 1750 was "evil"? *Note, I wouldn't 'celebrate' Colston in a public statue, I'd move it to a museum.

 

- Why are "we", in the West, being asked to condemn our history in a way that no other nation is being asked to? I'm not trying to belittle the evils of transatlantic slavery at all, but anybody with an interest in history knows that history is filled with horror, suffering, cruelty etc, committed by all races and nations from the beginning of recorded history up to today. There's an estimated 40 million slaves in the world today! I find the 'white people bad' narrative so simplistic, disingenuous and tiresome. I think we as Great Britain have a lot to be proud of in our past too, but that's another discussion.

 

- In terms of police statistics (in the UK) - why are the discrepancies in arrests, stop & search etc painted entirely as police prejudice? I'm sure this IS part of the problem, but then black people commit more crime, so it's hardly surprising they get arrested more often! Of course, poverty and inequality is a driver of this discrepancy that needs addressing, but so is 'black culture' - fatherless homes and a glorification of violence and anti-establishment feeling (fuk da police) being notable examples. Even Barack Obama acknowledges this, so why are so many in complete denial about it?

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, DennisNedry said:

A few thoughts that I'd like a lefty to counter (not on the wind up, genuinely would appreciate a reasoned response)...

 

- You can't judge historical figures through the morality of today. Was Colston a bad man because he was a slave trader? I don't know; that depends on whether you think morality transcends time and context. He acted in a way that was acceptable for his time. The ordinary, everyday views of a typical liberal-minded person in say, 1750, would make Trump look like a Guardianista on acid. Does that mean every human alive in 1750 was "evil"? *Note, I wouldn't 'celebrate' Colston in a public statue, I'd move it to a museum.

 

- Why are "we", in the West, being asked to condemn our history in a way that no other nation is being asked to? I'm not trying to belittle the evils of transatlantic slavery at all, but anybody with an interest in history knows that history is filled with horror, suffering, cruelty etc, committed by all races and nations from the beginning of recorded history up to today. There's an estimated 40 million slaves in the world today! I find the 'white people bad' narrative so simplistic, disingenuous and tiresome. I think we as Great Britain have a lot to be proud of in our past too, but that's another discussion.

 

- In terms of police statistics (in the UK) - why are the discrepancies in arrests, stop & search etc painted entirely as police prejudice? I'm sure this IS part of the problem, but then black people commit more crime, so it's hardly surprising they get arrested more often! Of course, poverty and inequality is a driver of this discrepancy that needs addressing, but so is 'black culture' - fatherless homes and a glorification of violence and anti-establishment feeling (fuk da police) being notable examples. Even Barack Obama acknowledges this, so why are so many in complete denial about it?

Some valid points.

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, DennisNedry said:

A few thoughts that I'd like a lefty to counter (not on the wind up, genuinely would appreciate a reasoned response)...

 

- You can't judge historical figures through the morality of today. Was Colston a bad man because he was a slave trader? I don't know; that depends on whether you think morality transcends time and context. He acted in a way that was acceptable for his time. The ordinary, everyday views of a typical liberal-minded person in say, 1750, would make Trump look like a Guardianista on acid. Does that mean every human alive in 1750 was "evil"? *Note, I wouldn't 'celebrate' Colston in a public statue, I'd move it to a museum.

 

I'll have a go at talking about these, then.

 

The first one, here, I've talked about in this thread before. Yes, some moral acts absolutely transcend time and context - killing of innocents is one and I would posit that their enslavement is likely another. I am sure that there were people way back when who knew that slavery was massively ethically wrong but were unable to act on the belief because the people that had power thought otherwise and the imbalance between haves and have-nots was much larger back then. I do remember reading, however, that rather than belief in the inherent inferiority of another race leading to slavery, it was the other way round - which does make a certain kind of sense.

 

So, yes, people can and should judge historical figures warts-and-all through the lens of today, as it shows how much we have progressed as a species. And FWIW, I'd ask an inverted question in return - why is it so important as to consider historical figures in a context only of the time? Is it some kind of "speak no ill of the dead" way of preserving their legacy, or something? Still haven't had a decent answer to that one.

 

NB. I'd put those statues in a museum too so I totally agree there.

 

28 minutes ago, DennisNedry said:

- Why are "we", in the West, being asked to condemn our history in a way that no other nation is being asked to? I'm not trying to belittle the evils of transatlantic slavery at all, but anybody with an interest in history knows that history is filled with horror, suffering, cruelty etc, committed by all races and nations from the beginning of recorded history up to today. There's an estimated 40 million slaves in the world today! I find the 'white people bad' narrative so simplistic, disingenuous and tiresome. I think we as Great Britain have a lot to be proud of in our past too, but that's another discussion.

 

Simple answer to that is you can't claim the moral high ground and then not hold yourself to a higher moral standard. It's more of an issue in the US than UK I think, but both of those Western nations do like to preach a certain exceptionalism, and with that comes an expectation that you've got to hold yourself to that exceptionalism - past and present.

 

Another answer might be that while modern slavery and other forms of it in the past are terrible, there has been no example of it where the cultural, economic and social effects have been so deep and far-reaching than the Transatlantic slave trade of the 17th and 18th Centuries. Look at the US today and tell me there isn't still a legacy of it that persists. Not so much of a problem in the UK, but have a look at Operation Legacy to see that there was at least some things that went on that were rather unsavoury as a legacy of Empire.

 

37 minutes ago, DennisNedry said:

- In terms of police statistics (in the UK) - why are the discrepancies in arrests, stop & search etc painted entirely as police prejudice? I'm sure this IS part of the problem, but then black people commit more crime, so it's hardly surprising they get arrested more often! Of course, poverty and inequality is a driver of this discrepancy that needs addressing, but so is 'black culture' - fatherless homes and a glorification of violence and anti-establishment feeling (fuk da police) being notable examples. Even Barack Obama acknowledges this, so why are so many in complete denial about it?

That all depends on where you think "black culture" (or at least this particular understanding of it that may or many not be accurate) comes from - is it from those selfsame inequality-based drivers that cause disaffected youths to seek crime because they seem to have little other choice, or is there some other cause that might be elaborated on here?

 

If it's the first, there doesn't seem to be much point in handwringing about other people handwringing about heavy-handedness from the fuzz based on race if there isn't also a solution to what drives all of that being presented as well - it's like people getting pissy at supposedly drastic measures to fight climate change while providing no viable solutions themselves - the problem isn't going to go away by just chatting about the symptoms rather than addressing the cause.

[Dr The Singh]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'll have a go at talking about these, then.

 

The first one, here, I've talked about in this thread before. Yes, some moral acts absolutely transcend time and context - killing of innocents is one and I would posit that their enslavement is likely another. I am sure that there were people way back when who knew that slavery was massively ethically wrong but were unable to act on the belief because the people that had power thought otherwise and the imbalance between haves and have-nots was much larger back then. I do remember reading, however, that rather than belief in the inherent inferiority of another race leading to slavery, it was the other way round - which does make a certain kind of sense.

 

So, yes, people can and should judge historical figures warts-and-all through the lens of today, as it shows how much we have progressed as a species. And FWIW, I'd ask an inverted question in return - why is it so important as to consider historical figures in a context only of the time? Is it some kind of "speak no ill of the dead" way of preserving their legacy, or something? Still haven't had a decent answer to that one.

 

NB. I'd put those statues in a museum too so I totally agree there.

 

Simple answer to that is you can't claim the moral high ground and then not hold yourself to a higher moral standard. It's more of an issue in the US than UK I think, but both of those Western nations do like to preach a certain exceptionalism, and with that comes an expectation that you've got to hold yourself to that exceptionalism - past and present.

 

Another answer might be that while modern slavery and other forms of it in the past are terrible, there has been no example of it where the cultural, economic and social effects have been so deep and far-reaching than the Transatlantic slave trade of the 17th and 18th Centuries. Look at the US today and tell me there isn't still a legacy of it that persists. Not so much of a problem in the UK, but have a look at Operation Legacy to see that there was at least some things that went on that were rather unsavoury as a legacy of Empire.

 

That all depends on where you think "black culture" (or at least this particular understanding of it that may or many not be accurate) comes from - is it from those selfsame inequality-based drivers that cause disaffected youths to seek crime because they seem to have little other choice, or is there some other cause that might be elaborated on here?

 

If it's the first, there doesn't seem to be much point in handwringing about other people handwringing about heavy-handedness from the fuzz based on race if there isn't also a solution to what drives all of that being presented as well - it's like people getting pissy at supposedly drastic measures to fight climate change while providing no viable solutions themselves - the problem isn't going to go away by just chatting about the symptoms rather than addressing the cause.

There is something on my mind what shocked me.  Considering south Asians, western Asians, Africans, Caribbeans are all immigrants.   The thing that stood out, and yes we could argue black migration in numbers happened to be earlier versus say the Indian subcontinent.  

 

If you look at the stats, yes all coloured immigrants have the challenge on getti g jobs etc.  The shocker was that people from the Indian subcontinent had better GCSE results and better education overall then the white population.  Thats including Pakistani and Bangladeshi who are the majority and below the white majority.  This is very critical, why has one immigration group who have come with nothing and are excelling versus another.

 

I didn't want to bring this up, this type of discussion requires some real deep reflection.

 

[LiberalFox]

15 minutes ago, DennisNedry said:

A few thoughts that I'd like a lefty to counter (not on the wind up, genuinely would appreciate a reasoned response)...

 

- You can't judge historical figures through the morality of today. Was Colston a bad man because he was a slave trader? I don't know; that depends on whether you think morality transcends time and context. He acted in a way that was acceptable for his time. The ordinary, everyday views of a typical liberal-minded person in say, 1750, would make Trump look like a Guardianista on acid. Does that mean every human alive in 1750 was "evil"? *Note, I wouldn't 'celebrate' Colston in a public statue, I'd move it to a museum.

 

- Why are "we", in the West, being asked to condemn our history in a way that no other nation is being asked to? I'm not trying to belittle the evils of transatlantic slavery at all, but anybody with an interest in history knows that history is filled with horror, suffering, cruelty etc, committed by all races and nations from the beginning of recorded history up to today. There's an estimated 40 million slaves in the world today! I find the 'white people bad' narrative so simplistic, disingenuous and tiresome. I think we as Great Britain have a lot to be proud of in our past too, but that's another discussion.

 

- In terms of police statistics (in the UK) - why are the discrepancies in arrests, stop & search etc painted entirely as police prejudice? I'm sure this IS part of the problem, but then black people commit more crime, so it's hardly surprising they get arrested more often! Of course, poverty and inequality is a driver of this discrepancy that needs addressing, but so is 'black culture' - fatherless homes and a glorification of violence and anti-establishment feeling (fuk da police) being notable examples. Even Barack Obama acknowledges this, so why are so many in complete denial about it?

I don't know if I count as a "lefty" but I'll answer from a liberal point of view.

 

1) I think that's where the statue is going to finish up. In my opinion it's not about judging people but acknowledging unequivocally that things people did or said or believed were wrong. Slavery was wrong, therefore it is inappropriate to commemorate a slave trader for the wealth they generated. Was Colston a bad person or an aristocrat who did bad things? In my opinion it's not actually relevant. I also think there's a big difference between someone like Colston who had a statue made due to the slave generated wealth he made and figures like Churchill who was a wartime leader who also held views that are wrong and was involved with policy that was wrong but is commemorated for his involvement in winning WWII.  

 

2) I don't think anyone should feel shame for what Britain did, just acknowledge that not all of our history is positive. I think there is a cultural divide in how liberals and people who don't identify as liberals interpret things. I think you can condemn acts associated with the British state without being anti-British. 

 

3) That's complicated. You really need to get black people more involved in policing matters and ask them what kind of policing they want. Simply acknowledging there's an issue is all the majority need to do. Also if people are able to tolerate views they disagree with or at least listen that is a huge help.