Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Intellectuals weigh in on Cancel Culture

Options
1…910121415…23

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    Chris_Heilong
    Registered Users Posts: 4,973 ✭✭✭Chris_Heilong


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    The far right hate these companies and he'd be happy to see them banned. It seems to be a common theme here to demonise demographics that the far right hate like Muslims and liberals. That's why I used the term "far right".

    I just said it was a great idea to not have social media as things are more divisive now than in the past.

    I am someone from a mixed race marriage, I hate racism and inequality and view myself as center left which is also where I come on the political compass test.
    519346.jpg

    So no, not far right:D


  • Options
    #333
    Tired Gardener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Tired Gardener


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    That's it in a nutshell. It's only about free speech for them. They'd be happy to see socialists, liberals, activists and anyone else they disagree with silenced.

    Do I need to quote Noam Chomsky for a second time in this thread?

    I'm left leaning in favour of socialism, and I am against cancel culture, and support free speech for those who I disagree with.

    So no, I think your point is wrong here.


  • Options
    #334
    SlowMotion321
    Registered Users Posts: 415 ✭✭SlowMotion321


    Chris_Heilong wrote: »
    I just said it was a great idea to not have social media as things are more divisive now than in the past.

    I am someone from a mixed race marriage, I hate racism and inequality and view myself as center left which is also where I come on the political compass test.


    So no, not far right:D

    So from your avatar one half is Klingon, what's the other half?


  • Options
    #335
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Tired Gardener wrote: »
    Do I need to quote Noam Chomsky for a second time in this thread?

    I'm left leaning in favour of socialism, and I am against cancel culture, and support free speech for those who I disagree with.

    So no, I think your point is wrong here.

    I do favour free speech, but there is a bit of a catch 22 if you try to eradicate cancel culture.
    The people calling for boycotts or whatever under free speech have the right to do so.
    I personally fully support free speech, apart from blatant hate speech which can inspire violence.
    The downside is if someone calls for boycotts of JK Rowling's books because of her trans views, under free speech they're entitled to do so.
    So unless they're breaking actual laws there is no way to stop it.


  • Options
    #336
    Chris_Heilong
    Registered Users Posts: 4,973 ✭✭✭Chris_Heilong


    joe40 wrote: »
    I do favour free speech, but there is a bit of a catch 22 if you try to eradicate cancel culture.
    The people calling for boycotts or whatever under free speech have the right to do so.
    I personally fully support free speech, apart from blatant hate speech which can inspire violence.
    The downside is if someone calls for boycotts of JK Rowling's books because of her trans views, under free speech they're entitled to do so.
    So unless they're breaking actual laws there is no way to stop it.

    Free speech can be abused by an organised mob, be that the KKK or trans activists, the failing is not free speech itself but those that give into the mob. Also I feel it is still more important to have free speech regardless of any down sides for many reasons, If many Americans could not air their grievances about Trump they would feel trapped, Imagine someone getting into power you do not like and you would not be able to say anything about it which is what many countries around the world are going through right now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    Tired Gardener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Tired Gardener


    joe40 wrote: »
    I do favour free speech, but there is a bit of a catch 22 if you try to eradicate cancel culture.
    The people calling for boycotts or whatever under free speech have the right to do so.
    I personally fully support free speech, apart from blatant hate speech which can inspire violence.
    The downside is if someone calls for boycotts of JK Rowling's books because of her trans views, under free speech they're entitled to do so.
    So unless they're breaking actual laws there is no way to stop it.

    If it were limited to boycotts that would be fine, as that is very much a self contained thing. I boycott Israeli products due to their treatment of Palestinians, that doesn't stop people working for the companies I boycott, it just means that they don't get my money.

    However we are seeing people losing their jobs and speakers being no platformed. That is censorship. If I don't agree with someone, I'd rather make sure that I first know what it is they are saying, and secondly give them a place to air their views where they can be challenged.

    I understand that some views are pure hate, however forcing them underground doesn't mean that they have been eradicated. Out of sight doesn't mean out of mind. Better to have them in the open where we can all see them and react accordingly. People's views and opinions stand a better chance of being changed if they are engaged with.


  • Options
    #338
    JohnnyFlash
    Registered Users Posts: 7,055 ✭✭✭JohnnyFlash


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    That's it in a nutshell. It's only about free speech for them. They'd be happy to see socialists, liberals, activists and anyone else they disagree with silenced.

    ''There is nothing more corrupting than self-righteousness and nothing more intolerant than an ardent man who is convinced he is on the side of the angels.''


  • Options
    #339
    SlowMotion321
    Registered Users Posts: 415 ✭✭SlowMotion321


    Tired Gardener wrote: »
    If it were limited to boycotts that would be fine, as that is very much a self contained thing. I boycott Israeli products due to their treatment of Palestinians, that doesn't stop people working for the companies I boycott, it just means that they don't get my money.

    However we are seeing people losing their jobs and speakers being no platformed. That is censorship. If I don't agree with someone, I'd rather make sure that I first know what it is they are saying, and secondly give them a place to air their views where they can be challenged.

    I understand that some views are pure hate, however forcing them underground doesn't mean that they have been eradicated. Out of sight doesn't mean out of mind. Better to have them in the open where we can all see them and react accordingly. People's views and opinions stand a better chance of being changed if they are engaged with.

    Indeed i would rather have hateful opinions be given their (rightful) public platform, that way they can be dragged into the light and challenged and ridiculed, you can't lance a boil if you can't see it!


  • Options
    #340
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Tired Gardener wrote: »
    If it were limited to boycotts that would be fine, as that is very much a self contained thing. I boycott Israeli products due to their treatment of Palestinians, that doesn't stop people working for the companies I boycott, it just means that they don't get my money.

    However we are seeing people losing their jobs and speakers being no platformed. That is censorship. If I don't agree with someone, I'd rather make sure that I first know what it is they are saying, and secondly give them a place to air their views where they can be challenged.

    I understand that some views are pure hate, however forcing them underground doesn't mean that they have been eradicated. Out of sight doesn't mean out of mind. Better to have them in the open where we can all see them and react accordingly. People's views and opinions stand a better chance of being changed if they are engaged with.

    This is a very good point. Pushing them underground only breeds resentment.


  • Options
    #341
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    SlowMotion321 wrote: »
    Indeed i would rather have hateful opinions be given their (rightful) public platform, that way they can be dragged into the light and challenged and ridiculed, you can't lance a boil if you can't see it!

    I would 99% agree but there are some views that should not get the oxygen of publicity.
    Plus views are expressed via state broadcasters, or commercial entities both of which have other considerations apart from ensuring free speech.
    Twitter, Facebook or even boards are under no obligation to broadcast my views.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    SlowMotion321
    Registered Users Posts: 415 ✭✭SlowMotion321


    joe40 wrote: »
    I would 99% agree but there are some views that should not get the oxygen of publicity.
    Plus views are expressed via state broadcasters, or commercial entities both of which have other considerations apart from ensuring free speech.
    Twitter, Facebook or even boards are under no obligation to broadcast my views.

    True, but I would rather have them where I can see them!


  • Options
    #343
    Tired Gardener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Tired Gardener


    joe40 wrote: »
    I would 99% agree but there are some views that should not get the oxygen of publicity.
    Plus views are expressed via state broadcasters, or commercial entities both of which have other considerations apart from ensuring free speech.
    Twitter, Facebook or even boards are under no obligation to broadcast my views.

    Private platforms can enforce the rules as they see fit, without it being censorship. If I had a gardening forum, I would be within my rights to moderate against views expressed that I don't want to be associated with, or seen as endorsing. When anyone joins a private platform such as Boards, there is a bit about terms and conditions of user usage.

    Or to put it this way, if you came into my home and started mouthing off, I can tell you to leave and your freedom of speech has not been censored.


  • Options
    #344
    southstar
    Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭southstar


    Bonniedog wrote: »
    We do see "anti fascists" attacking the graves and memorials of actual anti fascists. The GIs who died defeating the actual Nazis not the makey up ones.

    Anyway, as a good leftie you will be taking the side of Massa Biden who thiks all the black folks is not really black unless they vote for an idiot like him. This was before they put him back in the basement with the Kool Aid.

    Anyway, the American left would support Charlie Manson if he was the Democrat candidate.



    Sounds like you've swigged back a fair bit of that Kool Aid yourself...fair play you must spend a lot of time trying to get supplies. Me I'm stuck with silly old Lucozade..still it doesn't lead to uninvited fretting and rage...and confusion about ones surroundings.
    As for Trump....I suspect with the passage of time people of all persuasions will look back and mark this mean self absorbed degenerate for what he is... morally bankrupt like much of this woke nonsense shenanigans he rants about


  • Options
    #345
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Us usual, the Jordan Peterson (passionate-about-trans-issues) Fan Club are confusing the right to free speech with an imagined right to speech free of consequences.

    Also, when it comes to people being fired from their jobs for saying the 'wrong' thing, who is it they have a problem with? Surely it's the employer here who is wielding unjustified power over the employee? You can't really blame 'the left' for capitalist-employee relations - they've been trying to re-balance that power differential for generations.

    Ye're all over the place lads.


  • Options
    #346
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,795 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    JohnnyFlash wrote: »
    ''There is nothing more corrupting than self-righteousness and nothing more intolerant than an ardent man who is convinced he is on the side of the angels.''

    Anything of your own to add or are you just going to dump quotes?

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #347
    wildeside
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭wildeside


    joe40 wrote: »
    I would 99% agree but there are some views that should not get the oxygen of publicity.
    Plus views are expressed via state broadcasters, or commercial entities both of which have other considerations apart from ensuring free speech.
    Twitter, Facebook or even boards are under no obligation to broadcast my views.

    In principle I agree with private companies being able to do what they want. But there's a circle to be squared. So much communication / debate in the 21st century is digital and on a select few digital platforms. It almost has to be a few by definition as too many platforms would serve no useful purpose (and result in even more echo in the chambers).

    So sure, by being banned from one particular platform is perfectly within that company's rights but what is the point of free speech if nobody can hear you? Do you only have a right to be heard if your views are 'correct'?

    It's a tough one I think...


  • Options
    #348
    statesaver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭statesaver


    Possibly dating a Trump supporter. Clown World.

    https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1280985010808340480


  • Options
    #349
    Invidious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 528 ✭✭✭Invidious


    Reminds me of how the IRA used to tar and feather Catholic girls who slept with British soldiers.


  • Options
    #350
    Tired Gardener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Tired Gardener


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    Us usual, the Jordan Peterson (passionate-about-trans-issues) Fan Club are confusing the right to free speech with an imagined right to speech free of consequences.

    Also, when it comes to people being fired from their jobs for saying the 'wrong' thing, who is it they have a problem with? Surely it's the employer here who is wielding unjustified power over the employee? You can't really blame 'the left' for capitalist-employee relations - they've been trying to re-balance that power differential for generations.

    Ye're all over the place lads.

    How about the Conor Daly case. His dad said the N word on a radio show back in the 80's. Conor was born in 1991, went on to have a very successful racing career. In 2018 he lost a sponsorship due to what his dad said back in the 80's... So he was penalised for something way out of his control. This to me is a massive problem, as it is projecting the sin of the father on to the child.

    I am an atheist, I find religion to be dogmatic, divisive, and against a lot of modern day sensibilities. However, as strongly as I feel against it, it would be wrong of me to deny someone their religious freedom. I am mature enough to understand and accept that even though I am deeply against something, for some it brings joy, comfort, and is a deep part of their identity.

    The same is true of freedom of speech.

    Universities should encourage discourse, the free flow of ideas, and challenge notions. Cancel culture stands opposed to those things


  • Options
    #351
    Bonniedog
    Registered Users Posts: 6,665 ✭✭✭Bonniedog


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    You can't really blame 'the left' for capitalist-employee relations - they've been trying to re-balance that power differential for generations.

    Is that why all the socialist countries banned trade unions :)

    The only successful working class revolution by the way was the one that overthrew the Polish socialists in the 1980s.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    briany
    Registered Users Posts: 13,579 ✭✭✭✭briany


    statesaver wrote: »
    Possibly dating a Trump supporter. Clown World.

    https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1280985010808340480

    I had a quick look at Twitter about this (I try to keep the looks as brief as possible). The profiles talking down this Jodie Comer are nothing profiles. They're people hiding behind avatars, if they're even real people with real opinions. And I wonder if this is true of much of so-called 'cancel culture'. I think the fact that there's nobody really out there putting their money where their mouth is is telling. Take this into the light of day, and it's a gaggle of extremists or pot-stirrers voicing a ridiculous sentiment, and nobody of any kind of even mind would take it too seriously.


  • Options
    #353
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Bonniedog wrote: »
    Is that why all the socialist countries banned trade unions :)

    Which kinda makes you wonder what exactly was 'socialist' about a country banning a workers' Union.

    You keep sinking your own battleships though, it's quite funny. :D


  • Options
    #354
    Bonniedog
    Registered Users Posts: 6,665 ✭✭✭Bonniedog


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    Which kinda makes you wonder what exactly was 'socialist' about a country banning a workers Union.

    You keep sinking your own battleships though, it's quite funny. :D


    Do you even know what socialism means?

    Here's a clue: it has nothing to do with lads who have todgers thinking they are women :)


  • Options
    #355
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    briany wrote: »
    I had a quick look at Twitter about this (I try to keep the looks as brief as possible). The profiles talking down this Jodie Comer are nothing profiles. They're people hiding behind avatars, if they're even real people with real opinions. And I wonder if this is true of much of so-called 'cancel culture'. I think the fact that there's nobody really out there putting their money where their mouth is is telling. Take this into the light of day, and it's a gaggle of extremists or pot-stirrers voicing a ridiculous sentiment, and nobody of any kind of even mind would take it too seriously.

    Hmmmm.....that gives me an idea.


    How about flooding social media with bogus cancel outrages...accusing all and sundry blue ticks of outlandish supposed historical indiscretions, bot accounts churning out constant false accusations. Drown the market, make a mockery of it, turn it into a meme.


  • Options
    #356
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Bonniedog wrote: »
    Do you even know what socialism means?

    I've a bit of an idea. Here's a clue, it's not crushing workers' movements, that's just brutal state authoritarianism. You're getting your views fed to you by cranks.
    Here's a clue: it has nothing to do with lads who have todgers thinking they are women :)

    What is it with trans issues that gets you lads so worked up? I have very little understanding of the whole trans thing and tbh I don't really care much about it because it has no affect on my life.


  • Options
    #357
    Tired Gardener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Tired Gardener


    briany wrote: »
    I had a quick look at Twitter about this (I try to keep the looks as brief as possible). The profiles talking down this Jodie Comer are nothing profiles. They're people hiding behind avatars, if they're even real people with real opinions. And I wonder if this is true of much of so-called 'cancel culture'. I think the fact that there's nobody really out there putting their money where their mouth is is telling. Take this into the light of day, and it's a gaggle of extremists or pot-stirrers voicing a ridiculous sentiment, and nobody of any kind of even mind would take it too seriously.

    I think you may be on to something there. However even if they are nothing profiles, the old saying about the squeaky wheel gets all the oil is still relevant. As we are seeing people getting canceled and no platformed as a result of all the noise on social media. Companies and organisations are siding themselves with what comes across as the most vocal opinions. I guess it is mainly to do with PR and fear of losing money from a negative image.


  • Options
    #358
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Tired Gardener wrote: »
    How about the Conor Daly case. His dad said the N word on a radio show back in the 80's. Conor was born in 1991, went on to have a very successful racing career. In 2018 he lost a sponsorship due to what his dad said back in the 80's... So he was penalised for something way out of his control. This to me is a massive problem, as it is projecting the sin of the father on to the child.

    It's bonkers alright. It's reminiscent of generational sin. How do we solve it though?

    Edit: Check this out, two years in the slammer for posting on twitter?

    519389.png

    https://twitter.com/lapinesque/status/1280744878356520961?s=20


  • Options
    #359
    Bonniedog
    Registered Users Posts: 6,665 ✭✭✭Bonniedog


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    I've a bit of an idea. Here's a clue, it's not crushing workers' movements, that's just brutal state authoritarianism. .


    All socialist states have been brutal and authoritarian. All have banned every form of potential opposition including independent trade unions.

    It is the only way in which socialist states have been able to survive until eventually being overthrown as they were in the Soviet Union and their dominions


  • Options
    #360
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Bonniedog wrote: »
    AllsocialiststateshavebeenbrutalandauthoritarianAllhavebannedeveryfor
    mofpotentialoppositionincludingindependenttradeunionsItistheonlyway
    inwhichsocialiststateshavebeenabletosurviveuntileventuallybeingov
    erthrownastheywereintheSovietUnionandtheirdominions

    The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes’. The fundamental structure of the state machinery is arranged to perpetuate answering to authority.

    That is literally from the Communist Manifesto and I only heard it for the first time last night on a podcast I was listening to.

    I was accused of 'Marxist thinking' by someone on boards last week and was wondering how the hell that happened as I didn't know much about Marxism.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    briany
    Registered Users Posts: 13,579 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Tired Gardener wrote: »
    I think you may be on to something there. However even if they are nothing profiles, the old saying about the squeaky wheel gets all the oil is still relevant. As we are seeing people getting canceled and no platformed as a result of all the noise on social media. Companies and organisations are siding themselves with what comes across as the most vocal opinions. I guess it is mainly to do with PR and fear of losing money from a negative image.

    I think a lot of companies would do well to take each Twitter outrage on a case-by-case basis and especially look at its long-term ramifications. If you acquiesce to every blowup, you could end up needlessly harming your own business all while Twitter moves on and forgets about your association to some scandal real or imagined.

    And there may be times when someone needs to be 'cancelled' because their actions were just too heinous to be defensible. But for other times, where there is two sides to the thing, the debate should be taken off Twitter at some point (where it is interminable), and pared down to a real conversation and exchange between two people, and see whose case holds the most water.


Advertisement