Cancel Culture ?

[martin_p]

You seem to be falling for it. Nothing what the right are calling "cancel culture" is new, and none of it is anything the right don't do every bit as often, and often far more violently than the left.

It's the new "snowflake". They are guilty of the exact thing they're criticising others for. It kind of like they're trying to signal how virtuous they are.

I’m not falling for anything, as I said it’s not new. But what is new is the power of social media to put pressure on people or organisations to act on perceived wrong doing. Back when I was at university there was little pressure on Barclays to do anything about whatever the students were getting upset about as there wasn’t really a way to get the message out beyond universities. The newspapers weren’t interested, neither was TV, so it was just student publications that carried the message and Barclays weren’t that interested in capturing the accounts of students who never had any money. But these days it’s not that hard to create a ‘Twitter storm’ about these things to create pressure and that’s where it’s different.

[NottsClaret]

If that's what qualifies as a good example of "cancel culture" from the left then I really don't think we have a problem. I mean come on. Gay and trans people are being driven to suicide by a society that tolerates hate towards them. Trans people are being tarnished as predatory just because they want to use the bathroom they're most comfortable using. Some are even being attacked and killed. But you expect me to think that the real problem with all this is that Network Rail took down a JK Rowling poster.

Couple of points. I'm on the left, always have been. And rather than use emotive language and get sucked into the arguments around transphobia and feminism, how about we just discuss whether cancel culture is a bad thing.

Seems like we've agreed on the Network Rail/JK Rowling thing being an example of it. Now let's say they take down posters advertising that ice cream Ben and Jerrys because their brand's support of refugees is 'problematic'. Is that an issue for you? Now they're trying to take away a voice you agree with, is that still ok?

Or is it just ok when we want to hush up a voice or argument we don't like to hear?

[walter the softy]

You seem to be falling for it. Nothing what the right are calling "cancel culture" is new, and none of it is anything the right don't do every bit as often, and often far more violently than the left.

It's the new "snowflake". They are guilty of the exact thing they're criticising others for. It kind of like they're trying to signal how virtuous they are.

The question is not whether the "left" or the "right" have the moral high ground or are more guilty of trying to silence people they disagree with, the question is whether such a thing as cancel culture exists and, if so, if it is a good or a bad thing.

To assume that people who are worried about cancel culture are in some way "falling for it" ("it" being presumably some alt-right plot) is, in my opinion, wrong. The JK Rowland poster being withdrawn is not in itself a big deal, true, but it is a good example of cancel culture entering into the public consciousness. As of yet, it is not so obvious in the UK but in the USA it is already well underway. There are better examples of this though, especially in academic or arts and culture circles.

The case of one of Harvey Weinstein's defence team being sacked from his position as a professor at Harvard is one such case. You can read up about the case quite easily without having to go on some bizarre right wing conspiracy website.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/h ... -weinstein

The question is not whether we find Harvey Weinstein abhorrent, the issue here is one of whether we respect a person having a right to be defended in a court of law. When that basic right is being threatened by cancel culture, I think it is something to worry about.

[Damo]

Another good example is the Miller v College of policing judgement from earlier this year.
The courts found in favour of Harry Miller, which was the correct decision in my opinion
https://tinyurl.com/y3wlo3r2

[HahaYeah]

Harry Miller on 'Triggernometry'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUuZMyq ... ex=90&t=9s

[PeterWilton]

Yes pal. Because thats the only example of cancel culture posted on this thread and not just a quick reply to your comment about JK Rowling.
You can go back to debating the best form or argument now, whatever that means. With your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears, shouting "la la la la la" in a loud voice

From your replies I don't believe you're interested in a serious conversation. I have no doubt there are other examples, but I expect if you want to have an actual conversation you would provide a representative example on which we could base a discussion,and you chose the representative example to be Network Rail taking down a poster.

I'm trying to have a conversation here but you're not taking it seriously while expecting the rest of us to take your complaint seriously.

[PeterWilton]

Couple of points. I'm on the left, always have been. And rather than use emotive language and get sucked into the arguments around transphobia and feminism, how about we just discuss whether cancel culture is a bad thing.

Seems like we've agreed on the Network Rail/JK Rowling thing being an example of it. Now let's say they take down posters advertising that ice cream Ben and Jerrys because their brand's support of refugees is 'problematic'. Is that an issue for you? Now they're trying to take away a voice you agree with, is that still ok?

Or is it just ok when we want to hush up a voice or argument we don't like to hear?

I'm happy to avoud the conversation on transphobia in this particular thread, but if JK Rowling facing fewer book sales because a boycott was organised by people who didn't want to give their money to a transphobr, and that is supposed to somehow be contrary to freedom of speech, then surely it matters that in this thread someone has on multiple occasions expressed transphobic sentiment and faced no consequences.

I'm not calling for consequences, (unless he tries to write a book, then I might point out his transphoboa so that good people can avoid accidentally funding such attitudes) I'm just pointing out how freedom of speech isn't being violated just because someone is less marketable because people don't want to fund their transphobia.

[PeterWilton]

Couple of points. I'm on the left, always have been. And rather than use emotive language and get sucked into the arguments around transphobia and feminism, how about we just discuss whether cancel culture is a bad thing.

Seems like we've agreed on the Network Rail/JK Rowling thing being an example of it. Now let's say they take down posters advertising that ice cream Ben and Jerrys because their brand's support of refugees is 'problematic'. Is that an issue for you? Now they're trying to take away a voice you agree with, is that still ok?

Or is it just ok when we want to hush up a voice or argument we don't like to hear?

What are you talking about? I don't agree. For the sake of conversation I'm accepting the premise, but I don't agree that cancel culture even exists, except as a weapon used by the right against the left to attempt to shame us into not organising against hate.

What the right call cancel culture from the left is the exact same actions they take except their actions become much more violent than a peaceful boycott of someone's books, possibly because their economic influence is far less than they imagine it to be, which no doubt is frustrating.

[PeterWilton]

I’m not falling for anything, as I said it’s not new. But what is new is the power of social media to put pressure on people or organisations to act on perceived wrong doing. Back when I was at university there was little pressure on Barclays to do anything about whatever the students were getting upset about as there wasn’t really a way to get the message out beyond universities. The newspapers weren’t interested, neither was TV, so it was just student publications that carried the message and Barclays weren’t that interested in capturing the accounts of students who never had any money. But these days it’s not that hard to create a ‘Twitter storm’ about these things to create pressure and that’s where it’s different.

What you describe isn't cancel culture. What you describe. Is what the right wing for decades have called capitalism, and the free market influence.

In the past it was hard to organise, which allowed barclays to get away with **** that they can't get away with now because it's easier to organised against them and apllly economic pressure.

Now they're complain about it because they don't like how we are deciding on what to spend our money. That's not cancel culture. That's capitalism. That's the free market they've been celebrating. I thought they liked capitalism? I wonder what alternative they'd prefer.

[Damo]

From your replies I don't believe you're interested in a serious conversation. I have no doubt there are other examples, but I expect if you want to have an actual conversation you would provide a representative example on which we could base a discussion,and you chose the representative example to be Network Rail taking down a poster.

I'm trying to have a conversation here but you're not taking it seriously while expecting the rest of us to take your complaint seriously.

Perhaps you should read the thread again and look for other examples of cancel culture. Seems strange that you want to "debating the best form of argument" when you have not read most of the conversation.
Also, if you read my comments, they weren't transphobic. I was describing the people that JK Rowling was tweeting about. Her argument is that she doesn't want transgender (male to female) people sharing women only spaces

[elwaclaret]

In what context is the phrase “there wouldn’t be so many damn blacks” acceptable, whatever the discussion.

Depends what he means by blacks.... for one, many people have been labelled blacks.... it does not necessarily refer to skin colour. Not seen the piece so cannot comment. I would like context.... full original context, not the reworked sound bites of a journalists cherry picked article.

It would take far more time than I am really willing to give this message board to form a reasonable academic position, with regard to any one line comment.

[NottsClaret]

I'm happy to avoud the conversation on transphobia in this particular thread, but if JK Rowling facing fewer book sales because a boycott was organised by people who didn't want to give their money to a transphobic..

Ah, what the hell. It’ll pass some time before football is back.

JK Rowling isn’t a transphobe, she’s a ballsy, left wing feminist who won’t be told by men what a woman is. Good on her.

[martin_p]

Depends what he means by blacks.... for one, many people have been labelled blacks.... it does not necessarily refer to skin colour. Not seen the piece so cannot comment. I would like context.... full original context, not the reworked sound bites of a journalists cherry picked article.

It would take far more time than I am really willing to give this message board to form a reasonable academic position, with regard to any one line comment.

It does refer to skin colour.

[Devils_Advocate]

Depends what he means by blacks.... for one, many people have been labelled blacks.... it does not necessarily refer to skin colour. Not seen the piece so cannot comment. I would like context.... full original context, not the reworked sound bites of a journalists cherry picked article.

It would take far more time than I am really willing to give this message board to form a reasonable academic position, with regard to any one line comment.

It wasnt a cherry picked article but part of a video interview that people watched and commented on. The interview was with Darren Grimes and the full hour interview will be on Youtube or you could just search for the 2-3 minute clips where he shares his racist views as there were a couple not just the damn blacks comment

[Spiral]

Thanks for posting further up, Damo. The way I see it is this: people have been run out of town for as long as there have been towns to run people out of. The modern incarnation of this - so-called cancel culture - is not in my view a new phenomena vis-a-vis human nature, politics, culture, patterns in societal behaviour, like it's sometimes presented as, but is in modern terms a consequence and matter of the scale of an old phenomena. Ron Atkinson, it could be argued, was 'cancelled' by ITV and suffered a blow to his reputation, but by the nature of social media at the time the mob (which existed with muted voice and not much bite, but existed invisibly no less) could not exert pressure the way it can now. Regardless of 'charges', such as they are, the principle of people being accountable and responsible for their own words and actions in public life is unchanged, and if anything it is reinforced; the means by which a person is held accountable for those words and actions is now given to almost every human on the planet. This is nothing if not democratisation of taste. We're all arbiters. This is what freedom looks like. If 'bad' taste is repelled, 'bad' taste has no option but to carve out a niche for itself. No taste is obliged or indulged and nor should it be. All that is offered is free entry into the public sphere and the guarantee that whatever enters the public sphere will be adjudicated in the public sphere. Viva the free market of ideas.

I think the attempt to frame what is called cancel culture as an oppressive force is borne in part of a resentment of the ability of groups of people to lock arms and impose themselves on the world. That desire to impose oneself on the world as an individual or as a group is again an impulse as old as our species itself. To argue that this group or that represent a threat to freedom for the incredible success it has in imposing itself on the world, within - and while abiding by - an existing legal framework, is incongruous with the principle of free speech, and is the rationale of dictators. The mob merely wins the argument on the day. If the mob were to be resisted by force where argument or an ability to muster opposing popular will fails, the mob would be having its rights to free speech violated (to the extent free speech exists within a legal framework), therefore if the mob is to be resisted in any way that can be considered moral, it is incumbent on those opposed to the mob to better articulate a reasoning for why this person or that is being treated 'unfairly', and use the tools and means available to all to impose themselves on the world.

[dsr]

I'm happy to avoud the conversation on transphobia in this particular thread, but if JK Rowling facing fewer book sales because a boycott was organised by people who didn't want to give their money to a transphobr, and that is supposed to somehow be contrary to freedom of speech, then surely it matters that in this thread someone has on multiple occasions expressed transphobic sentiment and faced no consequences.

I'm not calling for consequences, (unless he tries to write a book, then I might point out his transphoboa so that good people can avoid accidentally funding such attitudes) I'm just pointing out how freedom of speech isn't being violated just because someone is less marketable because people don't want to fund their transphobia.

The vast majority of people are transphobic. The vast, vast majority. The NHS maternity wards are riddled with it. Every time a baby is born, and the mother (sorry, parent who menstruates, or at least used to mestruate until 9 months ago) asks whether it's a boy or a girl, what is the only possible non-transphobic answer? It is to say "we don't know yet". Any doctor, nurse, midwife, or lay person that judges that baby based on its genitals is transphobic, just as JK Rowling apparently is.

And when the definition of transphobia is so moronically wide, then what are we supposed to do? When a mother talks about her son or daughter, when the child is clearly too young to have made its decision whether it is a boy or a girl, do we step in and tell her (or him) she (or he) is wrong?

The problem isn't scientific, it is linguistic. Obviously some humas have Y chromosomes and some do not. That is biological (and logical) fact. And since the year dot, society has called one lot "men" or its equivalent in many languages, and the other lot "women" or its equivalent. The transphobia fanatics are surely not trying to claim that there is no such thing as a Y chromosome; the Flat Earth Society may be on their side with that one, but no one else would. No, what the transphobia fanatics are after is changing the definition of "man" and "woman" to mean something different from having a Y chromosome or not; in which case, they would have a much better chance if they gave us new, better words for male and female. After all, when a mother asks the nurse what sex her baby is, does she really want to be told "it's a baby who is going to menstruate" or "it's a baby who won't"?

[AndrewJB]

The vast majority of people are transphobic. The vast, vast majority. The NHS maternity wards are riddled with it. Every time a baby is born, and the mother (sorry, parent who menstruates, or at least used to mestruate until 9 months ago) asks whether it's a boy or a girl, what is the only possible non-transphobic answer? It is to say "we don't know yet". Any doctor, nurse, midwife, or lay person that judges that baby based on its genitals is transphobic, just as JK Rowling apparently is.

And when the definition of transphobia is so moronically wide, then what are we supposed to do? When a mother talks about her son or daughter, when the child is clearly too young to have made its decision whether it is a boy or a girl, do we step in and tell her (or him) she (or he) is wrong?

The problem isn't scientific, it is linguistic. Obviously some humas have Y chromosomes and some do not. That is biological (and logical) fact. And since the year dot, society has called one lot "men" or its equivalent in many languages, and the other lot "women" or its equivalent. The transphobia fanatics are surely not trying to claim that there is no such thing as a Y chromosome; the Flat Earth Society may be on their side with that one, but no one else would. No, what the transphobia fanatics are after is changing the definition of "man" and "woman" to mean something different from having a Y chromosome or not; in which case, they would have a much better chance if they gave us new, better words for male and female. After all, when a mother asks the nurse what sex her baby is, does she really want to be told "it's a baby who is going to menstruate" or "it's a baby who won't"?

I think the vast majority of older people are trans-phobic, but that’s because they were taught to be so. Nowadays children are taught not to be hateful toward other people. And that’s surely a positive thing.

Unisex washrooms where the toilets are fully enclosed could solve the issue between trans people and JK Rowling. It would also lead to shorter wait times for women. Win win, except for slightly longer wait times for men.

[PeterWilton]

The vast majority of people are transphobic. The vast, vast majority. The NHS maternity wards are riddled with it. Every time a baby is born, and the mother (sorry, parent who menstruates, or at least used to mestruate until 9 months ago) asks whether it's a boy or a girl, what is the only possible non-transphobic answer? It is to say "we don't know yet". Any doctor, nurse, midwife, or lay person that judges that baby based on its genitals is transphobic, just as JK Rowling apparently is.

And when the definition of transphobia is so moronically wide, then what are we supposed to do? When a mother talks about her son or daughter, when the child is clearly too young to have made its decision whether it is a boy or a girl, do we step in and tell her (or him) she (or he) is wrong?

The problem isn't scientific, it is linguistic. Obviously some humas have Y chromosomes and some do not. That is biological (and logical) fact. And since the year dot, society has called one lot "men" or its equivalent in many languages, and the other lot "women" or its equivalent. The transphobia fanatics are surely not trying to claim that there is no such thing as a Y chromosome; the Flat Earth Society may be on their side with that one, but no one else would. No, what the transphobia fanatics are after is changing the definition of "man" and "woman" to mean something different from having a Y chromosome or not; in which case, they would have a much better chance if they gave us new, better words for male and female. After all, when a mother asks the nurse what sex her baby is, does she really want to be told "it's a baby who is going to menstruate" or "it's a baby who won't"?

I get the impression you don't read a lot of scientific literature. That's OK, not do I. But if I was going to state that transgender is a linguistic issue and not a scientific issue you can bet I'd have read some science first. So, assuming you are like me can you share some of the science you've read that tells you that being transgender is merely a linguistical choice?

And you've made yourself a nice little strawman there, I notice. What you did was declare the most absurd example of transphobia you could imagine to be actual transphobia, and then you called it moronic how absurdly wide the definition of transphobic is. You are literally the person expanding the definition of transphobia to a "moronically wide" definition in order to criticise the idea of transphobia for its "moronically wide" definition.

[Damo]

"Cancel culture doesn't exist" imploding turtle (account number 37)

[Bfcboyo]

"Cancel culture doesn't exist" imploding turtle (account number 37)

I agree he is close , he lurks amongst us after some sort of transformation not wanting to reveal himself fully. Come out come out wherever you are?

[evensteadiereddie]

All 4 bans via the easily offended usual whingers I suspect .


He's done an eye roll at me , ban him for life!

Aye, fancy the easily-offended usual whingers wanting your racist tripe removed. Outrageous !
You're lucky to still be allowed on here after 4 bans, I'd imagine.

[dsr]

I think the vast majority of older people are trans-phobic, but that’s because they were taught to be so. Nowadays children are taught not to be hateful toward other people. And that’s surely a positive thing.

Unisex washrooms where the toilets are fully enclosed could solve the issue between trans people and JK Rowling. It would also lead to shorter wait times for women. Win win, except for slightly longer wait times for men.

But what is the issue between trans people and JK Rowling? Is it that trans people do not accept that there is any difference between people with Y chromosomes and people without, or is it that they accept there is a difference but the words "men" and "women" are the wrong words?

And why do you confuse what JK Rowling said with transphobia? Do you genuinely believe that the JK Rowling's beliefs constitute hatred?

Incidentally, a firend has a daughter at a school where most of the toilets are unisex, and the girls won't use them if at all possible. They say the boys aren't clean enough. Which not only knocks a hole in your argument about unisex toilets, it also knocks a hole through the idea that children are taught "not to be hateful to other people".

[dsr]

I get the impression you don't read a lot of scientific literature. That's OK, not do I. But if I was going to state that transgender is a linguistic issue and not a scientific issue you can bet I'd have read some science first. So, assuming you are like me can you share some of the science you've read that tells you that being transgender is merely a linguistical choice?

And you've made yourself a nice little strawman there, I notice. What you did was declare the most absurd example of transphobia you could imagine to be actual transphobia, and then you called it moronic how absurdly wide the definition of transphobic is. You are literally the person expanding the definition of transphobia to a "moronically wide" definition in order to criticise the idea of transphobia for its "moronically wide" definition.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the point of the trans people is that they genuinely believe there is no difference between what have traditionally been known as men and what have traditionally been known as women, and all this stuff about chromosomes is scientific fallacy.

But I disagree. But if you point me to scientific evidence that says I am wrong and that humanity is not split between those with Y chromosomes and those without, then I'll take a look.

Question. If I say that people with Y chromosomes are male and people without Y chromosomes are female, am I transphobic?

[PeterWilton]

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the point of the trans people is that they genuinely believe there is no difference between what have traditionally been known as men and what have traditionally been known as women, and all this stuff about chromosomes is scientific fallacy.

But I disagree. But if you point me to scientific evidence that says I am wrong and that humanity is not split between those with Y chromosomes and those without, then I'll take a look.

Question. If I say that people with Y chromosomes are male and people without Y chromosomes are female, am I transphobic?

*sigh*
Another strawman.


And to answer your question, it depends. Are you talking about someone sex, or someone's gender? If sex, no. If gender, yes.

[NottsClaret]

What is someone’s gender? If we’re discounting the scientific facts and placing gender over sex, then I’m genuinely curious to hear what a women is without reverting to regressive stereotypes.

If a man wants to wear a dress, call himself Susan and put on make up that is of course absolutely fine. It doesn’t concern me at all. Makes the world a far more interesting place. Still a male though.

[AndrewJB]

But what is the issue between trans people and JK Rowling? Is it that trans people do not accept that there is any difference between people with Y chromosomes and people without, or is it that they accept there is a difference but the words "men" and "women" are the wrong words?

And why do you confuse what JK Rowling said with transphobia? Do you genuinely believe that the JK Rowling's beliefs constitute hatred?

Incidentally, a firend has a daughter at a school where most of the toilets are unisex, and the girls won't use them if at all possible. They say the boys aren't clean enough. Which not only knocks a hole in your argument about unisex toilets, it also knocks a hole through the idea that children are taught "not to be hateful to other people".

Rowling says she doesn’t want biological males who say they’re female using women’s toilets. It’s not about what trans people think.

As for unisex toilets, the school at which I’m a governor installed some last year. Because security cameras are installed outside, it’s possible to see which child used a cubicle, so therefore possible to identify someone who has left it in a mess. Because the students know this, they all take care to leave them clean. Also incidents of bathroom bullying are down to nil. It is the future.

[Bfcboyo]

Aye, fancy the easily-offended usual whingers wanting your racist tripe removed. Outrageous !
You're lucky to still be allowed on here after 4 bans, I'd imagine.

There was no racist tripe was there . Your making that bit up. I honestly don't know what the bans were for. I think one was when I was banned purposely for a break by using personal insults.

I think people were offended and singled me out as I had different views to them . A small clique of fascists on here that knee tremble at the tiny bit of power they have in their otherwise empty lives.

[PeterWilton]

What is someone’s gender? If we’re discounting the scientific facts and placing gender over sex, then I’m genuinely curious to hear what a women is without reverting to regressive stereotypes.

If a man wants to wear a dress, call himself Susan and put on make up that is of course absolutely fine. It doesn’t concern me at all. Makes the world a far more interesting place. Still a male though.

*sigh*... Again

Nobody is putting "gender over sex". They're just two different things. There is usually a correlation between them, but sometimes there isn't.

And yes. If a man cross dresses as a woman he's still a man. Well done. No one disputed that, but we'll done anyway in correctly identifying what a cross dresser is. That's not transgender though, is it?

[dsr]

*sigh*
Another strawman.


And to answer your question, it depends. Are you talking about someone sex, or someone's gender? If sex, no. If gender, yes.

And therein lies the problem. The question of "what is transphobia" is so nuanced that it depends on the technical difference in meaning between two words that mean almost the same. And the penalty for getting it "wrong" is to be pilloried on the court of public opinion as being the sort of person who beats up people for being in the wrong toilet.

Either transphobia is serious or it isn't. You can't expect people to treat transphobia as a serious issue if you define transphobia as disagreeing with the idea, especially if you then go on to tar all "transphobics" with the same brush.

[NottsClaret]

*sigh*... Again

Nobody is putting "gender over sex". They're just two different things. There is usually a correlation between them, but sometimes there isn't.

And yes. If a man cross dresses as a woman he's still a man. Well done. No one disputed that, but we'll done anyway in correctly identifying what a cross dresser is. That's not transgender though, is it?

I don't know. What is it?

I'm really clear what male is and what female is. And a man was an adult human male, a woman was an adult human female. It's not often I agree with dsr, but if that's changed, tell us how. Honestly, I'm genuinely intrigued and do want to understand.

If gender and sex are two different things, what is gender. How is being a woman different to being female. And remember, no regressive stereotypes allowed.

[PeterWilton]

And therein lies the problem. The question of "what is transphobia" is so nuanced that it depends on the technical difference in meaning between two words that mean almost the same. And the penalty for getting it "wrong" is to be pilloried on the court of public opinion as being the sort of person who beats up people for being in the wrong toilet.

Either transphobia is serious or it isn't. You can't expect people to treat transphobia as a serious issue if you define transphobia as disagreeing with the idea, especially if you then go on to tar all "transphobics" with the same brush.

Once again you're making an assertion that is not true, on which to base your argument.

Sex and gender do not mean "almost the same thing".

What idea are you talking about people disagreeing with?

[dsr]

Once again you're making an assertion that is not true, on which to base your argument.

Sex and gender do not mean "almost the same thing".

What idea are you talking about people disagreeing with?

Define sex and gender, then.

The idea that people disagree with is the idea than a person with Y chromosomes is a woman if that person believes that person to be a woman.

[PeterWilton]

Define sex and gender, then.

The idea that people disagree with is the idea than a person with Y chromosomes is a woman if that person believes that person to be a woman.

I don't need to define gender. The UK government already has a fairly good definition of it, which is based on the WHO's definition.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environm ... y%20behave

They can disagree all they like, but I've never seen a transphobe hold back on their transphobia pending the results of a genetic test to determine their victims chromosomal makeup.

[NottsClaret]

Thanks for the link. So gender is a social construct based on traditional stereotypes of what being masculine or feminine entails.

It’s regressive and I can see why many feminists see it as misogynistic and damaging. Seems bizarre that this is the woke or progressive position to take.

[evensteadiereddie]

There was no racist tripe was there . Your making that bit up. I honestly don't know what the bans were for. I think one was when I was banned purposely for a break by using personal insults.

I think people were offended and singled me out as I had different views to them . A small clique of fascists on here that knee tremble at the tiny bit of power they have in their otherwise empty lives.

Aye, whatever you say, pal.

[PeterWilton]

Thanks for the link. So gender is a social construct based on traditional stereotypes of what being masculine or feminine entails.

It’s regressive and I can see why many feminists see it as misogynistic and damaging. Seems bizarre that this is the woke or progressive position to take.

It seems like you're just searching for any argument to adopt that can justify your position, rather than adapting your position to fit the evidence, but OK.

Yes, if the social construct of gender wasn't a thing then there would be a lot less people killing themselves, or trying to kill themselves, because of their gender dysphoria. But it is a thing, and kids are killing themselves because of their gender dysphoria.

The fight against the existence of gender can wait a century or two. Right now we just want people to be treated equally, whatever their gender, and to stop people feeling like they need to kill themselves over their gender and how society treats them. If that's not woke enough for you then cancel me.

[RingoMcCartney]

I’m not far left. Calling me or anyone here that just makes you sound hysterical.

I and quite a few others have pointed out to you that the term “cultural Marxism” is anti-Semitic, and yet you persevere with it.

It’s both funny and sad how extreme rightwing terminology has been infiltrated into, and accepted by conservative discourse. “Blood and soil” is another example. Like how Golden Dawn have a symbol very similar to, but not quite a swastika (probably for legal reasons). It’s because the far right just can’t let go of the past. You see it in the US with people waving the Confederate flag, and you see it here with people wanting to scapegoat immigrants (im an immigrant by the way).

Someone less kind than me would point out your side lost in 1945, so just get over it.

Cultural Marxism is real and the cancerous cancel culture is symptomatic of it. The fact is more and more people are becoming aware of it and its corrosive effect its having on many aspects of life in this country. The Left know this and they're just using the same tired old tactics of attempting to silence voices and opinions they dont like by , once again, linking peoples increasing awareness and enlightenment to the Nazi's.

The Left -

Claim to LOVE diversity.

Yet HATE diversity of opinion

[NottsClaret]

It seems like you're just searching for any argument to adopt that can justify your position, rather than adapting your position to fit the evidence, but OK.

Yes, if the social construct of gender wasn't a thing then there would be a lot less people killing themselves, or trying to kill themselves, because of their gender dysphoria. But it is a thing, and kids are killing themselves because of their gender dysphoria.

The fight against the existence of gender can wait a century or two. Right now we just want people to be treated equally, whatever their gender, and to stop people feeling like they need to kill themselves over their gender and how society treats them. If that's not woke enough for you then cancel me.

Reign in the hyperbole a bit. You know it's an essentially flawed argument. The feminists have it right. 'Gender' is the problem, not the answer. There aren't hundreds of genders, there's none. We've invented them all to keep people - females mostly - in their place. What you're doing here is cementing that and shouting down and trying to silence an understandable and increasingly loud feminist opposition to it.

Telling young kids they're the 'wrong' gender, or worse, in the wrong body, it's frightening. Convincing them that because they like pink, or dresses, or make up that the only way to happiness is hacking their bodies up or sterilising them is pretty obscene. And trampling over hard won, centuries old battles for women's right to make a small number of males feel better about themselves is a very patriarchal standpoint. Ladies, pipe down with your concerns, the men have decided how it's going to be now.

[Bfcboyo]

Aye, whatever you say, pal.

Good lad.

[RingoMcCartney]

https://www.theburkean.ie/articles/2020 ... fa-project

"In December of last year a Twitter account was set-up. Titled “Irish Students Against Fascism”, it described itself as an aspiring antifascist organising hub to physically, socially and professionally harass individuals engaged with conservative or nationalist politics on campuses. 

The account boasted of an impending website dumping incriminating material relating to students on campus, particularly in Young Fine Gael, and invited individuals to contribute over private messaging.

What has been unknown until today was that, from the very onset, the page was operated by students involved with The Burkean. The account was set up with the intent of performing long term investigative work into antifascism in Ireland, as well as its insidious and often blatant links with civic society, journalism and politics. 

Put politely, antifascism is the euphemism given to the work done to destroy the lives of people with right leaning sympathies. While traditionally associated with left republicanism, it is these days more often than not linked to Ireland’s ubiquitous NGO complex, as well as well-funded activists heavily networked within the world of journalism, politics and the private sector. 

Many young people on the Irish Right have long claimed that there is institutional bias constantly working against them. However, it is only now that we can definitively say that this is not the case.

There is no institutional bias against young conservatives. There is an outright conspiracy against them. A conspiracy that starts at the lower levels of university life and leads all the way up, like a conveyor belt, to the NGO complex and the halls of the Oireachtas. Individuals brazenly abusing their positions of power trying to destroy their political opponents, with no fear of repercussions. It is with this series of exposés that these repercussions will finally start to materialise. "

Cancel Culture and Cultural Marxism clearly endemic in Ireland. And they've been rumbled!
If its happening there, you can bet your bottom dollar, its happening here on stilts.

[RingoMcCartney]

I found it hard to believe she said that in a serious manner so I looked it up and, as expected, she was making a joke about being a hero for resisting that "urge" in reply to someone else who joked about being a hero for similar reasons. This is probably why when you Google the quote no respectable news outlet reports it. Only fascist-leaning websites.

And I don't blame you for not understanding what she means when she said "white lives don't matter. As white lives." I didn't either until she explained it, and I agree with her. The whiteness of those lives doesn't matter. To white supremacists this is, of course, an outrage. How dare a lesser human claim that their superior race doesn't matter.

But let's say she really wasn't making a joke, and let's say she really was saying the lives of white people don't matter. So what? How can you be for free speech and against this mythical "cancel culture" and yet demand action be taken against this woman who has done nothing but use her freedom to speak?

It seems to me that you don't actually care about free speech, or even "cancel culture". It seems to me that people on the right only care about protecting the rights of people they agree with when they incorrectly accuse people they don't agree with of trying to restrict those right by exercising their right to freesom of speech to criticise people for their vies and organise boycotts against their economic and ideological interests.

If the left are violating their rights by criticising them then surely you are violating the left's rights by criticising them too. Or is it one rule for the left and another for the right?

You ask how I can be against free speech what she said?

Its notable that you completely choose to ignore the reaction by the Left to two other Professors. One refused to grant some students special privileges due to their skin colour and the second happened to use the n word, when directly quoting Martin Luther King. There was a rabid scramble by the left for them.to lose their jobs

Let's look at what she said, and she's got previous on this kind of racist stuff, remember. " Abolish Whiteness" ," "I'll say it again, white lives dont matter" (after already saying it previously) She Resists "Urges to Kneecap White Men Everyday.'"
The Left , and theyve done it this thread want to pass it off as irony or being wilfully misunderstood. Theres no mistaking pure racism.

If a white make lecturer had said " Abolish Blackness" ," "I'll say it again, black lives dont matter" (after already saying it previously) . He Resists "Urges to Kneecap Black women everyday.'" Thered be calls for his job, its be all over the BBC and Channel 4 "news" , and i think thered be a good chance of imprisonment. I know it. You know it. Doubt you're ever going to admit it.

It's one rule for those making the identity politics rules. The, Cherry Picking , hypocrisy riddled , Left.

[evensteadiereddie]

Wow.

[android]

I think something that would help this discussion along would be if the opponent of this "cancel culture" could perhaps give examples of cancel culture in action that they feel supports their argument about how bad this supposed culture is.

There are a few different posters who seem to be against "cancel culture" so hopefully one or two of them can give us some examples so that we can better understand what it is specifically that has them so upset.

Apologies if it has already been covered in this thread but the example of cancel culture that has most caught my attention is the treatment of Laurence Fox. I can't say it upset me (to be honest it was so absurd it made me laugh very much at least to begin with) but it was obviously very upsetting for Laurence Fox.

You probably know about his appearance on Question Time after which, amongst other things, he was called a "disgrace" to the industry by the actors union Equity. I believe his crime was objecting to being characterised as a white privileged male. I think he was ok with the privileged bit due to his education and relative wealth and so on and I'm sure he had no problem with man/male. But he strongly objects to people being judged by the colour of their skin. His view is skin does not matter and people should be assessed on their character regardless of skin colour. Basically a position that was considered anti-racist not so long ago.

I understand he threatened to sue Equity and received a begrudging apology on Twitter, which was subsequently deleted. Equity were lambasted for apologising by the likes of (surprise surprise) Maxine Peake (she had never been so disappointed in her union), which is probably why the apology was deleted.

Laurence Fox still breaths (to the disappointment of many it seems), has gained something of a reputation and he is still able to act. Maybe you would say he hasn't been cancelled. But his main job is acting. What chance do you think he has of receiving a call from the BBC for a part in one of its productions? I would say he has zero chance and the same chance with many other organisations. Yes, the mob wanted him cancelled and for what exactly?

[Erasmus]

Ringo, why are you still using the phrase 'cultural Marxism', when you don't know what Marxism is or how it relates to culture? Why not try to explain things in a proper way, where you have more of a grasp of what you are talking about?

[Spijed]

You ask how I can be against free speech what she said?

Its notable that you completely choose to ignore the reaction by the Left to two other Professors. One refused to grant some students special privileges due to their skin colour and the second happened to use the n word, when directly quoting Martin Luther King. There was a rabid scramble by the left for them.to lose their jobs

Let's look at what she said, and she's got previous on this kind of racist stuff, remember. " Abolish Whiteness" ," "I'll say it again, white lives dont matter" (after already saying it previously) She Resists "Urges to Kneecap White Men Everyday.'"
The Left , and theyve done it this thread want to pass it off as irony or being wilfully misunderstood. Theres no mistaking pure racism.

If a white make lecturer had said " Abolish Blackness" ," "I'll say it again, black lives dont matter" (after already saying it previously) . He Resists "Urges to Kneecap Black women everyday.'" Thered be calls for his job, its be all over the BBC and Channel 4 "news" , and i think thered be a good chance of imprisonment. I know it. You know it. Doubt you're ever going to admit it.

It's one rule for those making the identity politics rules. The, Cherry Picking , hypocrisy riddled , Left.

So Ringo, Danny Rose hasn't been unfairly targeted then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53641559

[PeterWilton]

Reign in the hyperbole a bit. You know it's an essentially flawed argument. The feminists have it right. 'Gender' is the problem, not the answer. There aren't hundreds of genders, there's none. We've invented them all to keep people - females mostly - in their place. What you're doing here is cementing that and shouting down and trying to silence an understandable and increasingly loud feminist opposition to it.

Telling young kids they're the 'wrong' gender, or worse, in the wrong body, it's frightening. Convincing them that because they like pink, or dresses, or make up that the only way to happiness is hacking their bodies up or sterilising them is pretty obscene. And trampling over hard won, centuries old battles for women's right to make a small number of males feel better about themselves is a very patriarchal standpoint. Ladies, pipe down with your concerns, the men have decided how it's going to be now.

What hyperbole? Are you unaware of how serious the suicide problem among transgender people? Of those surveyed about half have attempted suicide at least once. And that's just the ones whose attempts failed, obviously. That's not hyperbole.

And why do you think people are telling kids they're the wrong gender? That's a propaganda line touted by transphobic people used to trick otherwise good people, such as yourself, into repeating it and believing it without actually looking to see if it's even true. Where did you read or hear it?

[RingoMcCartney]

Ringo, why are you still using the phrase 'cultural Marxism', when you don't know what Marxism is or how it relates to culture? Why not try to explain things in a proper way, where you have more of a grasp of what you are talking about?

https://www.theburkean.ie/articles/2020 ... fa-project

"In December of last year a Twitter account was set-up. Titled “Irish Students Against Fascism”, it described itself as an aspiring antifascist organising hub to physically, socially and professionally harass individuals engaged with conservative or nationalist politics on campuses. 

The account boasted of an impending website dumping incriminating material relating to students on campus, particularly in Young Fine Gael, and invited individuals to contribute over private messaging.

What has been unknown until today was that, from the very onset, the page was operated by students involved with The Burkean. The account was set up with the intent of performing long term investigative work into antifascism in Ireland, as well as its insidious and often blatant links with civic society, journalism and politics. 

Put politely, antifascism is the euphemism given to the work done to destroy the lives of people with right leaning sympathies. While traditionally associated with left republicanism, it is these days more often than not linked to Ireland’s ubiquitous NGO complex, as well as well-funded activists heavily networked within the world of journalism, politics and the private sector. 

Many young people on the Irish Right have long claimed that there is institutional bias constantly working against them. However, it is only now that we can definitively say that this is not the case.

There is no institutional bias against young conservatives. There is an outright conspiracy against them. A conspiracy that starts at the lower levels of university life and leads all the way up, like a conveyor belt, to the NGO complex and the halls of the Oireachtas. Individuals brazenly abusing their positions of power trying to destroy their political opponents, with no fear of repercussions. It is with this series of exposés that these repercussions will finally start to materialise. "

Cancel Culture and Cultural Marxism clearly endemic in Ireland. And they've been rumbled!
If its happening there, you can bet your bottom dollar, its happening here , on stilts.

This is cancel culture.

This is cultural Marxism.

Given the demographics in Ireland, it's a safe bet, that none, that's none, one more time, none of those involved were Jewish. Consequently, it's quite clear that cultural Marxism, that aims to silence opinion, people and thought which it disagrees with, is not anti semitic. In fact, by attempting to link it with 1940s Germany, it's simply the Lefts tired old technique of attempting to silence opinion by lashing out and shouting nazi.

I'd have more respect for the Left if they could, for once , just admit, " yeah ok, we've been sussed, fair play."

[RingoMcCartney]

Apologies if it has already been covered in this thread but the example of cancel culture that has most caught my attention is the treatment of Laurence Fox. I can't say it upset me (to be honest it was so absurd it made me laugh very much at least to begin with) but it was obviously very upsetting for Laurence Fox.

You probably know about his appearance on Question Time after which, amongst other things, he was called a "disgrace" to the industry by the actors union Equity. I believe his crime was objecting to being characterised as a white privileged male. I think he was ok with the privileged bit due to his education and relative wealth and so on and I'm sure he had no problem with man/male. But he strongly objects to people being judged by the colour of their skin. His view is skin does not matter and people should be assessed on their character regardless of skin colour. Basically a position that was considered anti-racist not so long ago.

I understand he threatened to sue Equity and received a begrudging apology on Twitter, which was subsequently deleted. Equity were lambasted for apologising by the likes of (surprise surprise) Maxine Peake (she had never been so disappointed in her union), which is probably why the apology was deleted.

Laurence Fox still breaths (to the disappointment of many it seems), has gained something of a reputation and he is still able to act. Maybe you would say he hasn't been cancelled. But his main job is acting. What chance do you think he has of receiving a call from the BBC for a part in one of its productions? I would say he has zero chance and the same chance with many other organisations. Yes, the mob wanted him cancelled and for what exactly?

It's "progressive" to now judge people by their skin colour, and by what the ancestors of people with the same skin colour may have done.


They used to call that racism.....

[Swizzlestick]

I'd have more respect for the Left if they could, for once , just admit, " yeah ok, we've been sussed, fair play."

Why would the Left want respect from a bigot like you?

[PeterWilton]

Apologies if it has already been covered in this thread but the example of cancel culture that has most caught my attention is the treatment of Laurence Fox. I can't say it upset me (to be honest it was so absurd it made me laugh very much at least to begin with) but it was obviously very upsetting for Laurence Fox.

You probably know about his appearance on Question Time after which, amongst other things, he was called a "disgrace" to the industry by the actors union Equity. I believe his crime was objecting to being characterised as a white privileged male. I think he was ok with the privileged bit due to his education and relative wealth and so on and I'm sure he had no problem with man/male. But he strongly objects to people being judged by the colour of their skin. His view is skin does not matter and people should be assessed on their character regardless of skin colour. Basically a position that was considered anti-racist not so long ago.

I understand he threatened to sue Equity and received a begrudging apology on Twitter, which was subsequently deleted. Equity were lambasted for apologising by the likes of (surprise surprise) Maxine Peake (she had never been so disappointed in her union), which is probably why the apology was deleted.

Laurence Fox still breaths (to the disappointment of many it seems), has gained something of a reputation and he is still able to act. Maybe you would say he hasn't been cancelled. But his main job is acting. What chance do you think he has of receiving a call from the BBC for a part in one of its productions? I would say he has zero chance and the same chance with many other organisations. Yes, the mob wanted him cancelled and for what exactly?

There's a little more to it that that with Fox. He's also denied that Megan Markle was a victim of racism.

As for hoim being a white privileged male. That's got nothing to do with his wealth and everything to do with him winning the lottery by being born white and male, and if he was cancelled for denying the existence of white privilege or male privilege then I'd be more than comfortable with that.

But we live in a capitalist society, and if he made himself less marketable in an industry where being marketable is so important then he's the only one to blame, not anyone else.

Did he ever apologise for calling the audience member a racist? I googled it briefly but only found equity's apology.