Cancel Culture

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Agreed it's nothing new. Like a lot of things it seems to have politically flipped though (same with things like Brexit and protectionism and anti-free trade movements which were always left-wing movement when I was younger but appear to be right-wing movements nowadays).

 

It was always the religious Conservatives back in the day who were getting things censored.

 

A Clockwork Orange was banned in the UK for decades for example for its depiction of rape after Stanley Kubrick got lots of letters and death threats from religious conservatives. If it happened today he probably would have got the same thing but it would have been through tweets from more left-wing people rather than letters from more right-wing people.

 

I've never been a fan of this kind of thing and agree that it's censorship by a minority and you should still be able to enjoy The Beatles or Led Zeppelin's music regardless of what sketch individuals John Lennon or Jimmy Page were as both would most likely be national hate figures had their heyday been around today.

 

But I also agree this isn't that different to what's been around before. People have always been denied platforms, it's unhealthy but it's always happened.

Precisely.

 

To use a rather extreme example, what would happen to a black man in the post-Reconstruction Era South who attempted to use a platform to say that Jim Crow laws weren't all that good for his race?

 

I think "cancelling" would be a mere euphemism for what would likely happen to him.

[Lionator]

A couple of people might remember but back at the start of the year I got accused by a work colleague of discrimination, they very much felt that I wanted an argument with them because of their race/faith, rather than because they weren't doing to task correctly. Even though we resolved the issue, it wasn't until I admitted some degree of guilt and it was genuinely terrifying that my job could be on the line for this, I could effectively be 'cancelled'.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Dahnsouff said:

Think someone mentioned it before, so apologies for referring without due acknowledgement, but this has not happened before, but it is a new norm. It is not in dispute that protesting has always rightly happened, but the audience such protests can now garner is way beyond what pre-social media protests could have dreamt of.

It is the platform, the reach, and not just to bring together like minded people, but also collect followers from unrelated causes or different ethical backgrounds.

The rallying point is now anger, the cause need not be so tightly defined as outrage has a power to inspire and it can spread very easily and quickly on the new platforms.

I'm sorry, but though it hasn't happened using this method before, it certainly has happened throughout history. Freedom of expression has always been at the sufferance of either authority or peer groups.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry, but though it hasn't happened using this method before, it certainly has happened throughout history. Freedom of expression has always been at the sufferance of either authority or peer groups.

My reference was specifically to the platform and its capability for inclusion in said protests, not protests in their entirety.

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, David Guiza said:

'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. 

Basically, revisionism then. 

 

1 hour ago, David Guiza said:

I love David Bowie in spite of certain allegations that surround him,

 

What in particular are you referring to? 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

My reference was specifically to the platform and its capability for inclusion in said protests, not protests in their entirety.

I get that. I just don't think the platform could possibly lead to any worse suppression of freedom of speech and expression that had happened before so I don't see how it lends some kind of special involvement to the protests or other current events.

[Sampson]

2 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Basically, revisionism then. 

 

 

What in particular are you referring to? 

I would imagine with Bowie it's about the rumours of his underage groupies and grooming 14 ot 15 year old girls have always dogged him. Not as much of an open secret as someone like Jimmy Page or Pete Townsend, but Bowie has always been caught up in those too (all allegedly of course).

[Captain...]

20 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

This advert was part of what I was originally referring to. This hasn't been banned yet is the most complained about in the UK. I want to know why these offended people are treated differently to other offended people. Will they always be treated differently? Or will tomorrow see the end of dancing chickens? What will the day after that bring? 

 

You're absolutely right though, things have always been banned. But I'm just worried it's getting out of hand. At this rate we're either going to end up with a whole world at a level of black and white boring, or everyone walking around in spasms waiting for their next outrage fix. 

I disagree I think the world is more full of colour and variety than ever. With multiple platforms available controversial and challenging work will always find a home somewhere. Viral advertising follows its own rules and is not beholden to advertising bodies in the same way as print and tv ads.

 

The mainstream might become blander but there is so much going on in subcultures that now have a platform that it is infiltrating the mainstream.

[Strokes]

If we are only putting people without flaws on pedestals, there will be no pedestals.

If someone has a direct link to slavery, I can understand why they would want a tribute removed but the manner in which this is happening is frightening and it’s setting a pretty dangerous precedent in my opinion.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I disagree I think the world is more full of colour and variety than ever. With multiple platforms available controversial and challenging work will always find a home somewhere. Viral advertising follows its own rules and is not beholden to advertising bodies in the same way as print and tv ads.

 

The mainstream might become blander but there is so much going on in subcultures that now have a platform that it is infiltrating the mainstream.

This is correct.

 

More people have access to more platforms and are able to find like-minded people and articulate their viewpoints in an easier fashion and be able to circumvent old authorities to do it far easier than at any point throughout history.

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I get that. I just don't think the platform could possibly lead to any worse suppression of freedom of speech and expression that had happened before so I don't see how it lends some kind of special involvement to the protests or other current events.

I was not referring to the platform as a source of suppression, or a block on free speech, more as a tool for good in large, but it does risk the cross pollution of protester to the detriment of their cause. If it was not clear, protesting is important for a democracy, but when it gets used by other from alternate causes with differing agendas, it risks being derailed.

We see this now with the BLM protests. This type of unwanted interloper via social media was what I was badly trying to convey.

[David Guiza]

4 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Basically, revisionism then. 

 

 

What in particular are you referring to? 

As @Sampson said, numerous links to women below the age of 16, some as young as 13. Even fairly 'clean' musicians like Brian May have some dodgy parts of their lives with the apartheid gig they played etc. Some artists manage to dodge the bullets of the press and others get both barbells it seems.  

[Pliskin]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

If we are only putting people without flaws on pedestals, there will be no pedestals.

If someone has a direct link to slavery, I can understand why they would want a tribute removed but the manner in which this is happening is frightening and it’s setting a pretty dangerous precedent in my opinion.

I agree with you. At the moment there's a toxic atmosphere building, there's been a eruption of anger that has spilled over recently. Like you say anyone who stands on a pedestal has definite shortcomings, usually you don't get to such positions without doing this, as political figures you're destined to make decisions to the determent of some members of society, particularly historical figures. At what point does this turn into hate towards every British monument with a controversial background? Tear it down? Because there's a lot of it around. 

[Aus Fox]

39 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

This advert was part of what I was originally referring to. This hasn't been banned yet is the most complained about in the UK. I want to know why these offended people are treated differently to other offended people. Will they always be treated differently? Or will tomorrow see the end of dancing chickens? What will the day after that bring? 

 

You're absolutely right though, things have always been banned. But I'm just worried it's getting out of hand. At this rate we're either going to end up with a whole world at a level of black and white boring, or everyone walking around in spasms waiting for their next outrage fix. 

It’s all about $$$, these companies do not give a flying feck about who is offended or what there issues are, they care about how there businesses are perceived and what affect it will have on their bottom line.

This May have been the most complained about ad in the UK, but of all of those complaining were vegans, the company would have weighed it up and decided these are not our target audience, these complaints won’t affect our bottom line, so we will chose to ignore.

Not too long ago no business in the world would have been seen publicly supporting BLM, why? Because they were scared of upsetting the core customers, now they will flippantly change by what they think most people want to hear them say.

We will cancel anything so the perception is our brand cares and our brand will look after you and keep you safe. 
As culture and popular opinion change so will big business.

[Pliskin]

13 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

As @Sampson said, numerous links to women below the age of 16, some as young as 13. Even fairly 'clean' musicians like Brian May have some dodgy parts of their lives with the apartheid gig they played etc. Some artists manage to dodge the bullets of the press and others get both barbells it seems.  

When you look at this, and then apply is to Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris.... You really have to scratch your eyes.... Despite the rumors Jimmy still ended up being royally decorated and still died a hero to many, until the dirt was officially sewn. How of how did he get away with what he did? And when you consider we're now dragging up the past of people who committed atrocities hundreds of years a ago, it is incredible people allowed it to happen.  

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

I was not referring to the platform as a source of suppression, or a block on free speech, more as a tool for good in large, but it does risk the cross pollution of protester to the detriment of their cause. If it was not clear, protesting is important for a democracy, but when it gets used by other from alternate causes with differing agendas, it risks being derailed.

We see this now with the BLM protests. This type of unwanted interloper via social media was what I was badly trying to convey.

Oh yes, what is happening now is a pretty salient example of that. The confusion and mixed messages are a gift for those who want to maintain the status quo.

 

I think that is a risk that sadly will always come with the territory, though.

[Captain...]

So what's interesting is we are now discussing the culture of protestors rather than the cause of the protests.

 

Cancel culture as a term was created to deflect from the fact that people are rightly getting pissed off with the injustices in the world and are now able to call people out on it. Now it can just be dismissed as cancel culture, like it's not real outrage, like they don't deserve to have an opinion.

 

Just dismiss it all as this new cancel culture "phenomenon".

[David Guiza]

8 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

When you look at this, and then apply is to Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris.... You really have to scratch your eyes.... Despite the rumors Jimmy still ended up being royally decorated and still died a hero to many, until the dirt was officially sewn. How of how did he get away with what he did? And when you consider we're now dragging up the past of people who committed atrocities hundreds of years a ago, it is incredible people allowed it to happen.  

I think it's very much part of society quite often being judge, jury and executioner. As soon as a news story comes up the public, on the whole, make their mind up as to whether they believe it or not. Cliff Richards was denounced a nonce as soon as any stories came out, even though they have later turned out to be false. I can't stand him or his music, but the treatment he received was appalling. Some seem to slip under the radar in terms of press and public persecution too, along with the ones I've already mentioned, Kirk Douglas died a hero fairly recently in spite of the various allegations of sexual assault etc. 

 

8 minutes ago, Captain... said:

So what's interesting is we are now discussing the culture of protestors rather than the cause of the protests.

 

Cancel culture as a term was created to deflect from the fact that people are rightly getting pissed off with the injustices in the world and are now able to call people out on it. Now it can just be dismissed as cancel culture, like it's not real outrage, like they don't deserve to have an opinion.

 

Just dismiss it all as this new cancel culture "phenomenon".

Absolutely. I find the term 'woke' has now reached a point where you can't disagree with anything to some people without being dismissed as a sensitive woke liberal, even if it is something of huge importance. The likes of Laurence Fox see themselves as some sort of martyrs for free speech, when they're doing as much to stifle debate as the ones they are seeking to condemn. I voiced my concern at the prospective Newcastle United owners on the basis of their human rights abuse, same as I did when we had to do a minutes applause for the deceased King of Thailand, and was just greeted by a barrage of insults and consequently gave up even trying. 

[inckley fox]

You've got to draw a line between people who represented something abhorrent, and people who represented something else, but weren't morally immaculate.

 

Maybe Lennon would be a hate figure nowadays. It's hard to name a cultural figure who wouldn't be, because their lives have been so thoroughly dissected. It would be insanity to erase them from history because they were imperfect. I know people across several countries who are of the 'statue-tipping' persuasion, and they're imperfect too, though they fail to see it. Some buy cocaine, which is bankrolling all sorts of social chaos. Some cheat on their partners. Some have very right-on views about one matter, but quite archaic views on another.

 

You can't go round annulling symbolism - because the whole world is charged with symbolism. Day-to-day language is charged with symbolism, and the etymology of many words shows up all sorts of racist, sexist, colonialist baggage.

 

A lot of the views of people I'd tend to agree with normally simply don't stand up. I read an article yesterday saying that statues are a mark of honour - but that isn't necessarily the case. Statues of the devil outside a church, or the one I saw in Wales recently of Richard III portrayed as a vicious goblin-like character weren't marks of honour, and the Colston statue doesn't need to be either.

 

So do you go round the country installing cautionary or educational plaques on these monuments which make people aware of the things these people represented? Is there a way of creating a counterpoint? I'd argue that's a lot better than setting off down the endless road of cleansing our history, and stripping our culture of any negative symbolism that it might be loaded with. Perhaps it would be better to adapt that Colston statue, to allow it to represent the modern world - maybe making it legal for people to graffiti it, and let that become the thing which defines these monuments, rather than hiding them away, which isn't really educating anyone about anything.

 

If you want people to understand that their country isn't 'a non-racist country', or however the PM put it, then I'd argue that the presence of statues of slave-traders (and even somewhat better people, like Churchill, Lennon, Bowie, Orwell, or even Keir Hardie, who held, at points in their lives, beliefs that we'd consider imbecilic today) is a healthy reminder of this. It's what we know about these symbols, and how they present themselves to people which is the issue.

 

If an observer is inclined to view a statue of Colston or Rhodes as a straight-up homage then (unlike a statue of Churchill, Lennon, Orwell, Hardie - who represented much more than their imperfections) that's incompatible with modern values. But if you know that it's a reminder of something abhorrent then it isn't. Where these monuments are displayed, that has to be visible.

 

But, while I harbour no affection for colonialists and racists, we have to be careful that we don't slip into censorship. It's great to see eyes being opened, and I appreciate that symbols could be moved, altered, presented differently, but I can imagine few things worse than the sort of cultural cleansing which could begin with a statue, then with a flag, then with the language, and end up with us not having much culture to talk about at all.

[David Guiza]

2 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

You've got to draw a line between people who represented something abhorrent, and people who represented something else, but weren't morally immaculate.

 

Maybe Lennon would be a hate figure nowadays. It's hard to name a cultural figure who wouldn't be, because their lives have been so thoroughly dissected. It would be insanity to erase them from history because they were imperfect. I know people across several countries who are of the 'statue-tipping' persuasion, and they're imperfect too, though they fail to see it. Some buy cocaine, which is bankrolling all sorts of social chaos. Some cheat on their partners. Some have very right-on views about one matter, but quite archaic views on another.

 

You can't go round annulling symbolism - because the whole world is charged with symbolism. Day-to-day language is charged with symbolism, and the etymology of many words shows up all sorts of racist, sexist, colonialist baggage.

 

A lot of the views of people I'd tend to agree with normally simply don't stand up. I read an article yesterday saying that statues are a mark of honour - but that isn't necessarily the case. Statues of the devil outside a church, or the one I saw in Wales recently of Richard III portrayed as a vicious goblin-like character weren't marks of honour, and the Colston statue doesn't need to be either.

 

So do you go round the country installing cautionary or educational plaques on these monuments which make people aware of the things these people represented? Is there a way of creating a counterpoint? I'd argue that's a lot better than setting off down the endless road of cleansing our history, and stripping our culture of any negative symbolism that it might be loaded with. Perhaps it would be better to adapt that Colston statue, to allow it to represent the modern world - maybe making it legal for people to graffiti it, and let that become the thing which defines these monuments, rather than hiding them away, which isn't really educating anyone about anything.

 

If you want people to understand that their country isn't 'a non-racist country', or however the PM put it, then I'd argue that the presence of statues of slave-traders (and even somewhat better people, like Churchill, Lennon, Bowie, Orwell, or even Keir Hardie, who held, at points in their lives, beliefs that we'd consider imbecilic today) is a healthy reminder of this. It's what we know about these symbols, and how they present themselves to people which is the issue.

 

If an observer is inclined to view a statue of Colston or Rhodes as a straight-up homage then (unlike a statue of Churchill, Lennon, Orwell, Hardie - who represented much more than their imperfections) that's incompatible with modern values. But if you know that it's a reminder of something abhorrent then it isn't. Where these monuments are displayed, that has to be visible.

 

But, while I harbour no affection for colonialists and racists, we have to be careful that we don't slip into censorship. It's great to see eyes being opened, and I appreciate that symbols could be moved, altered, presented differently, but I can imagine few things worse than the sort of cultural cleansing which could begin with a statue, then with a flag, then with the language, and end up with us not having much culture to talk about at all.

You make an interesting and valid point, but I would question the bit on bold. I agree that statues don't have to be a mark of honour if they are manipulated in such a way to make that clear, but there is a massive difference between the Colston statue and ones of the devil, for example. Were the Colston statue like the one of the devil at Coventry Cathedral, below, I'm sure it would have been far less controversial. 

 

 

[inckley fox]

1 minute ago, David Guiza said:

You make an interesting and valid point, but I would question the bit on bold. I agree that statues don't have to be a mark of honour if they are manipulated in such a way to make that clear, but there is a massive difference between the Colston statue and ones of the devil, for example. Were the Colston statue like the one of the devil at Coventry Cathedral, below, I'm sure it would have been far less controversial. 

Well, that's part of the point. If that Colston statue, in its presentation, has a similar impact on people to the statue of the devil, then it needn't symbolise the glory of colonialism, be it through legalised defacement or - my personal preference - information. I'd personally argue for these monuments to be accompanied by details which tell people the flip-side of the story, and arm them with the knowledge to draw their own conclusions. Red plaques instead of blue plaques. If one were put up for a monument in your town you'd take an interest, you'd form an opinion, and people who'd been walking past that statue for years would learn from it. And, based on my experiences in education, I'd say that prejudice and ignorance more often than not go hand in hand. What I'd argue is that we shouldn't substitute one form of ignorance for another.

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, 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.

It isn't possible to avoid affending everyone, and frankly we shouldn't be trying.  I find it offensive that you are offended by this, so please desist.

[foxy boxing]

Should we get rid of things that other groups may find offensive not just race and religion for example is the Venus de Milo and other such statues, relics offensive to disabled people

[WigstonWanderer]

3 hours 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. 

Reminds me of when the Taliban blew up the Bamiyan statues, presumably because they were offended by relics of a different religion.

 

Personally I would prefer that people were judged by the values of the period in which they lived, as was pretty much taken for granted until recently. They had, after all no hope of living up to 21st century values. By this standard, I believe slave traders can still be condemned, as I imagine that many people, even at the time would have been opposed to slavery.

 

It is certainly inappropriate IMO for slave traders to be glorified by statues, either now or when they were erected. I just hope it doesn’t go too far and we end up erasing all sorts of heritage.

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

A couple of people might remember but back at the start of the year I got accused by a work colleague of discrimination, they very much felt that I wanted an argument with them because of their race/faith, rather than because they weren't doing to task correctly. Even though we resolved the issue, it wasn't until I admitted some degree of guilt and it was genuinely terrifying that my job could be on the line for this, I could effectively be 'cancelled'.

That is legit terrifying. I'm sorry you went through that. This is something that really concerns me - while the fight against discrimination and prejudice is worthy and very necessary, there are still *some* people that will exploit and weaponise their 'victimhood' just because they can. It needs to be called out by everyone.