Cancel Culture

[Wolverine]

So why the UK? Why not Spain, Italy, Germany etc? Is it so hard to believe the uk might be rather attractive vs other countries. It isn’t purely about people who’s lives are in danger.

The UK takes a fraction of the overall number I believe. Many settle elsewhere.

Kind of bizarre to think they're risking their lives, their own kids' lives for less than minimum wage cleaning cars. What does this country have for these people e.g. in benefits etc that would make us irresistible for economic purposes?

I had a talk from a GP from Inclusion which is a specialist refugee and asylum seeker practice in inner-city Leicester and learnt plenty. Main reasons some (tiny percentage out of the whole lot) choose to come is because they have fam members here who may act as a support/community network, shared second/partially fluent language (English). Many are exploited too by false promises by traffickers/opportunists. Accomodation is shit here, money is shit, process is horrible. But desperation is a common thread throughout for all of them.

The sad part is that the xenophobic narrative around migration is dominated by hyperbole ("invasion", "crisis") and largely fact-free nonsense

 

[fergieisold]

The UK takes a fraction of the overall number I believe. Many settle elsewhere.

Kind of bizarre to think they're risking their lives, their own kids' lives for less than minimum wage cleaning cars. What does this country have for these people e.g. in benefits etc that would make us irresistible for economic purposes?

I had a talk from a GP from Inclusion which is a specialist refugee and asylum seeker practice in inner-city Leicester and learnt plenty. Main reasons some (tiny percentage out of the whole lot) choose to come is because they have fam members here who may act as a support/community network, shared second/partially fluent language (English). Many are exploited too by false promises by traffickers/opportunists. Accomodation is shit here, money is shit, process is horrible. But desperation is a common thread throughout for all of them.

The sad part is that the xenophobic narrative around migration is dominated by hyperbole ("invasion", "crisis") and largely fact-free nonsense

I guess they must have a very good image of the UK and potential life here. I know I’d be quite happy to risk a dinghy for a better life.

Agree with the crappy narrative...how many actually cross the channel by boat for example. An invasion of a handful of people striving for a better life.

 

[Denis' cuff]

Wouldn’t be anything to do with welfare being more accommodating in the uk?

Keep getting told by Australians they have the worlds best healthcare. They don’t. No dental and and you pay through the nose for any scans/tests as I’ve just found with my fil. Neighbour going broke with cancer treatment.

it’s a big pull to have your health looked after as opposed to being left in the arid/desert with no hope. Most European countries still require a substantial payment for basic testing, never mind treatment.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Wouldn’t be anything to do with welfare being more accommodating in the uk?

Keep getting told by Australians they have the worlds best healthcare. They don’t. No dental and and you pay through the nose for any scans/tests as I’ve just found with my fil. Neighbour going broke with cancer treatment.

it’s a big pull to have your health looked after as opposed to being left in the arid/desert with no hope. Most European countries still require a substantial payment for basic testing, never mind treatment.

Not compared to most other European countries, no.

 

[Tarrou]

I'm pretty sure most wouldn't risk the journey if they knew they'd be getting less money than France and no right to work

traffickers are probably lying to them to charge more

 

[Denis' cuff]

Not compared to most other European countries, no.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-40608253

 

[Synco]

The argument against so called cancel culture and the anti migrant sentiment come from the same end of the spectrum

They really don’t.

They certainly do. Examples here, here, and here (could go on and on). The argument also comes from the liberal part of the spectrum, which is mostly in denial about naming and framing it in similar ways to the right.

The only way to have a realistic discussion about this is to at least acknowledge this unwanted de facto coalition, and then see what to make of this. My explanation isn't very flattering, obviously. As usual, the right is much more aware of these commonalities than the liberals, and seeks to exploit them politically. Examples beyond Breitbart's plugging of Nick Cave here and here.

There's a lot of hysteria and selective perception about "cancel culture", which is only apt for what's essentially a right wing combat term. Likewise, I have to acknowledge that even minus the projections, the problem is also real, to an extent I can't fully grasp at this point of time. And the outcome of a certain social-media-amplified dynamic that involves people who understand themselves as progressive as much as anyone else. Including the "reasonable center", to be sure.

That's what I see as a reasonable framework for a discussion, "they really don't" is just denial.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

They certainly do. Examples here, here, and here (could go on and on). The argument also comes from the liberal part of the spectrum, which is mostly in denial about naming and framing it in similar ways to the right.

The only way to have a realistic discussion about this is to at least acknowledge this unwanted de facto coalition, and then see what to make of this. My explanation isn't very flattering, obviously. As usual, the right is much more aware of these commonalities than the liberals, and seeks to exploit them politically. Examples beyond Breitbart's plugging of Nick Cave here and here.

There's a lot of hysteria and selective perception about "cancel culture", which is only apt for what's essentially a right wing combat term. Likewise, I have to acknowledge that even minus the projections, the problem is also real, to an extent I can't fully grasp at this point of time. And the outcome of a certain social-media-amplified dynamic that involves people who understand themselves as progressive as much as anyone else. Including the "reasonable center", to be sure.

That's what I see as a reasonable framework for a discussion, "they really don't" is just denial.

It is denial. And I could have worded it better. Many critics of cancel culture come from the same end of the spectrum as anti migrant sentiment. Many do not. I would put Nick Cave in the latter category, hence I was bemused when @Vernon Philander seemed to want to lump him in with the right wingers getting angry about desperate people in rubber boats.

That’s a recurring theme in these online culture wars. X shares opinion with Y on specific issue, therefore moral compass of X is interchangeable with moral compass of Y. It’s a reductive, silly argument and comes up again and again when these things are discussed online.

 

[berbatrick]

 

[Smores]

In a similar vein to the B&J incident, angry definitely not racist flag taggers cancel their national trust membership.....because the NT dares mention slavery.



We've reached the point where an educational trust can't discuss historical facts about slavery without being called political and thus boycotted.

 

[Synco]

It is denial. And I could have worded it better. Many critics of cancel culture come from the same end of the spectrum as anti migrant sentiment. Many do not. I would put Nick Cave in the latter category, hence I was bemused when @Vernon Philander seemed to want to lump him in with the right wingers getting angry about desperate people in rubber boats.

Late reply, didn't post much besides football stuff lately.

I agree that this distinction has to be made (as much as I find Nick Cave's take esoteric), but just stopping at that makes it wrong in other ways:

That’s a recurring theme in these online culture wars. X shares opinion with Y on specific issue, therefore moral compass of X is interchangeable with moral compass of Y. It’s a reductive, silly argument and comes up again and again when these things are discussed online.

Yes, it can be reductive. But X not being Y doesn't mean their shared opinions have nothing in common. That's reductive in other ways. My last post was an attempt to show in which.

Main point is that self-understood liberal critics of "political correctness", "cancel culture", "wokeness", etc. are de facto using right wing buzzwords and advancing the connected right wing narratives. Breitbart and suchlike championing Nick Cave, Ricky Gervais, J.K. Rowling, and others for their anti-p.c. statements is a logical consequence, and should be reason enough for reflection. But as I said, the right understands this congruence perfectly well, while said liberals are usually naive or in denial about it.

Criticizing identitarianism on the left is fair of course (let's say today's stuff from Washington in the BLM thread), but the framing is actually essential. More than many people realize, and that certainly includes the liberal anti-"wokeness" crowd.


-------
(P.S.: yes, I know the etymology of "woke".)

 

[V.O.]

Main point is that self-understood liberal critics of "political correctness", "cancel culture", "wokeness", etc. are de facto using right wing buzzwords and advancing the connected right wing narratives. Breitbart and suchlike championing Nick Cave, Ricky Gervais, J.K. Rowling, and others for their anti-p.c. statements is a logical consequence, and should be reason enough for reflection. But as I said, the right understands this congruence perfectly well, while said liberals are usually naive or in denial about it.

Militant identity politics is inherently polarising and divisive and I'm sure it does a whole hell of a lot more to push people to the right than your unholy alliance of Breitbart and lefties who don't sufficiently check their privilege.

 

[Synco]

Militant identity politics is inherently polarising and divisive and I'm sure it does a whole hell of a lot more to push people to the right than your unholy alliance of Breitbart and lefties who don't sufficiently check their privilege.

Bottom line: You don't give a damn if your or anyone's political vocabulary has overlaps with that of the right. Your choice. You certainly have lots of company.

Also, "I wanted to be nice & tolerant, but the left pushed me to the right" doesn't fly. If people align themselves with a political camp, it's usually because it matches with their views in some way.

Finally, I've never uttered the line "check your privilege" in my life, and it bears no relation to the point I've made. Perhaps you ran on auto-pilot there a bit.

 

[V.O.]

Bottom line: You don't give a damn if your or anyone's political vocabulary has overlaps with that of the right. Your choice. You certainly have lots of company.

Erm... correct? Who gave the right wing a monopoly on talking about identity politics or political correctness?

I've never uttered the line "check your privilege" in my life

I never implied you had. That was just my daft glib way of grouping the people you mentioned who had made anti-PC/anti-ID pol statements.

Also, "I wanted to be nice & tolerant, but the left pushed me to the right" doesn't fly. If people align themselves with a political camp, it's usually because it matches with their views in some way.

I've already answered a very similar comment earlier on in the thread so I'll link to that post to save going over old ground:

.

 

[berbatrick]

 

[UweBein]

If that‘s supposed to be cancel culture it‘s positive.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

If that‘s supposed to be cancel culture it‘s positive.

Really? It could have been just a shit joke, with no offence meant or taken. You’d have to have been there to properly understand the context. Losing their job over a shit joke is harsh. You also wonder about the motivation of someone who gets someone fired and brags about it on Twitter.

 

[UweBein]

Really? It could have been just a shit joke, with no offence meant or taken. You’d have to have been there to properly understand the context. Losing their job over a shit joke is harsh. You also wonder about the motivation of someone who gets someone fired and brags about it on Twitter.

I find the joke quite offensive, to be frank. Personally, I don’t see any leeway there.
We are talking about a professor, ffs.

From my point of view, I have witnessed a lot of gross behaviour from people that had some sort of superiorty over others - it always went unpunished. I wished I had said something.Bragging about it is not entirely positive, but again it‘s not inherently bad.

One incident, 15 years ago, comes to my mind. A professor at Uni is handing a student their exam back with the words „a C, not bad for a Turkish guy“. Another incident, in high school, we were doing our end of school exams, a teacher comes in and says to a student „... oh Casper by the way you got an F in your English exam...“, while we were working on another exam...
Shit jokes like that happened all the time. No consequences whatsoever because it was effing normal - just the usual stuff.

If the pendulum swings a little too much to the other side, it might be harsh but it might be also necessary.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I find the joke quite offensive, to be frank. Personally, I don’t see any leeway there.
We are talking about a professor, ffs.

From my point of view, I have witnessed a lot of gross behaviour from people that had some sort of superiorty over others - it always went unpunished. I wished I had said something.Bragging about it is not entirely positive, but again it‘s not inherently bad.

One incident, 15 years ago, comes to my mind. A professor at Uni is handing a student their exam back with the words „a C, not bad for a Turkish guy“. Another incident, in high school, we were doing our end of school exams, a teacher comes in and says to a student „... oh Casper by the way you got an F in your English exam...“, while we were working on another exam...
Shit jokes like that happened all the time. No consequences whatsoever because it was effing normal - just the usual stuff.

If the pendulum swings a little too much to the other side, it might be harsh but it might be also necessary.

The Turkish comment seems to be the most clearly out of order but - as always - context is everything. If it was made in the context of ongoing light-hearted piss taking between the prof and student in question (and said with a smile on his face) then it would seem incredibly harsh for anyone to get fired as a result.

The Wuhan comment is similar. The fact the prof was evidently interested enough to find out about which region in China the student came from already sets them apart from actual racists, who assume Chinese people are an amorphous mass of 1 billion basically identical people. And if someone says they come from Wuhan there’s immediately an elephant in the room. So there’s bound to be a temptation to ease that tension with a silly joke. And it’s a shite state of affairs we find ourselves in when a single silly joke (with no bad intentions) can lose you your job.

Mind you, context cuts both ways. If this is a true story and somebody really did get sacked I’m willing to assume there’s more to this than just one crap joke. Hopefully there was a pattern of bad behaviour and this was the final straw. Or the ‘joke’ was said with malice and an intention to hurt. I’d like to think there’s still some common sense out there. Despite the impression to the contrary you get from spending any time on Twitter.

 

[Blodssvik]

There is nothing left wing or progressive about zero job security. It is the right wing dream ffs. A likely scenario is that he was a professor pushing for better working conditions, better pay etc and this was a bludgeon that could be used against him. That is how we in more progressive countries discovered decades ago why job security is important. Principles are held unequally and against people who are uncomfortable to the employer. Good luck trying to organise a union or whatever when someone is looking through your entré history of drunk social media postings.

 

[UweBein]

FYI, the prof did not actually get sacked. He was reassigned.

 

[UweBein]

The Turkish comment seems to be the most clearly out of order but - as always - context is everything. If it was made in the context of ongoing light-hearted piss taking between the prof and student in question (and said with a smile on his face) then it would seem incredibly harsh for anyone to get fired as a result.

...

Well it wasn’t... but it would not have been possible. Imagine the Turkish guy replying „Considering many of your ancestors were racists I am glad it is at least a C...“

In many situations there is no light-hearted joking between people who are on a different level... I understand that the prof might perceive it that way... but more often than not the student would have thought... „well, I can’t do much about it“

 

[berbatrick]

 

[berbatrick]

 

[Synco]

Erm... correct? Who gave the right wing a monopoly on talking about identity politics or political correctness?

Everybody can use these terms, obviously. The point of contention lies elsewhere and I think it's clear by now. The fact that right wingers and a portion of liberals & leftists share a certain vocabulary about (their ideas of) minority-focused activism has been uncontroversial. So the question is why that is, and what it implies. I understand there are two basic explanations competing here:

a) Terms like "political correctness", "cancel culture", "radical/militant identity politics", etc. are in themselves descriptive and neutral, and more explicit political context is given to them only in the next step.

b) The right can only use them as combat terms because they're inherently loaded in a way that advances their agenda.

I obviously think b) is true. This means these terms only appear as objective to some on the liberal and leftist sides of the spectrum because their biases and blind spots match with certain prejudices of the right. In this understanding, all these factions represent different variants of majority identitarianism in the mainstream.

I've already answered a very similar comment earlier on in the thread so I'll link to that post to save going over old ground:

That post is a good representation of the "radical identity politics vs white working class" narrative. Which also means I see the previously mentioned blind spots and popular myths at work there. Now that I've said that, I should probably explain my criticism in a more detailed reply, but I won't get that done soon.

I never implied you had. That was just my daft glib way of grouping the people you mentioned who had made anti-PC/anti-ID pol statements.

Well, it was part of a paraphrase of my position. Anyways, it's not important.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Jesus wept. Why would anyone want to teach these days? Do your best to write a thorough response to an email from an unhappy student and they post it on Twitter so they can cause a massive pile-on/ruin your career. Feck that.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Jesus wept. Why would anyone want to teach these days? Do your best to write a thoughtful response to an email from an unhappy student and they post it on Twitter so they can cause a massive pile-on/ruin your career. Feck that.

The response wasn't all that thoughtful towards the end. It was more of a "I'm the professor so shut up and if you don't like it feck off".

Not sure why it was posted online for the world to see, though. The student seems annoyed that their teacher isn't responding to them with what they would determine as a reasonable debate, and their response to that is to... Post it on Twitter and demonise their professor. Not quite sure how that adds up.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The response wasn't all that thoughtful towards the end. It was more of a "I'm the professor so shut up and if you don't like it feck off".

Not sure why it was posted online for the world to see, though. The student seems annoyed that their teacher isn't responding to them with what they would determine as a reasonable debate, and their response to that is to... Post it on Twitter and demonise their professor. Not quite sure how that adds up.

Yeah, I edited my post. The “if you don’t like it, you can feck off” closing paragraph makes it seem a little less thoughtful! Still, though, probably deals with emails moaning about the syllabus all the time. You can’t please everyone and you’re bound to get jaded by dealing with shit like this, again and again.

It’s also worth noting that we don’t see the email he’s responding to, the contents of which might explain the curt response. Details like that don’t matter for Twitter pile-ons though. One side of the story is all they ever need.

 

[Tarrou]

the ending was the best bit

 

[Gehrman]

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/08/31/facebooks-purge-of-left-wing-radicals/

 

[Mogget]

I'm sure the usual suspects, who love playing devil's advocate, will be in here decrying this. No?

 

[Gehrman]

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/09/01/we-need-to-end-cancel-culture/

 

[Synco]

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/09/01/we-need-to-end-cancel-culture/

Quote from the text:

Ironically, identitarians fail to appreciate that their ability to express themselves freely after years of various forms of racial and gender repression is a product of public arguments for greater tolerance and liberty.

Great minds such as William Wilberforce, Frederick Douglass and Olaudah Equiano publicly marshalled arguments against the morally unconscionable practice of making profit from enslaved black people.

Being a true 'free marketplace of ideas' advocate (he actually uses that phrase), the author systematically fails to realize the importance of power. So concerning Frederick Douglass, his tale of emancipation through argument & tolerance is missing something pretty big - the American Civil War.

In 1861 tensions over slavery erupted into civil war, which Douglass argued was about more than union and state's rights. He saw the conflict as the seismic event needed to end slavery in America. Douglass knew that this new freedom had to be won both on and off the battlefield. He recruited African Americans to fight in the Union army, including two of his sons, and he continued to write and speak against slavery, arguing for a higher purpose to the war. He met with Abraham Lincoln to advocate for African American troops and to encourage Lincoln to see the war as a chance to transform the war aims to include emancipation of the nation's four million slaves.

https://www.nps.gov/articles/frederick-douglass-and-civil-war.htm

So Douglass, who knew about power, opted for canceling Southern racism pretty hard. Here's a bit of war propaganda he participated in (from wikipedia):

Spoiler

 

[Gehrman]

Quote from the text:

Being a true 'free marketplace of ideas' advocate (he actually uses that phrase), the author systematically fails to realize the importance of power. So concerning Frederick Douglass, his tale of emancipation through argument & tolerance is missing something pretty big - the American Civil War.

So Douglass, who knew about power, opted for canceling Southern racism pretty hard. Here's a bit of war propaganda he participated in (from wikipedia):

Spoiler

Having read the article you linked, I still fail to see the contradiction.

 

[Synco]

Having read the article you linked, I still fail to see the contradiction.

The author describes liberation as the result of public dialogue (first sentence I quoted), and invokes Frederick Douglass as a historical example. I pointed out that this is a blatant misrepresentation of Douglass, citing the war he actively supported to strip slaveholders of their power.

 

[JPRouve]

That article is a bit confusing, I don't think that I have ever someone suggest that identitarians were the side that he described, if I'm not mistaken it's supposed to be the far right.

 

[Gehrman]

The author describes liberation as the result of public dialogue (first sentence I quoted), and invokes Frederick Douglass as a historical example. I pointed out that this is a blatant misrepresentation of Douglass, citing the war he actively supported to strip slaveholders of their power.

I don't' see the contradiction between supporting free speech and actively fighting a war to ending literal slavery.

 

[JPRouve]

I don't' see the contradiction between supporting free speech and actively fighting a war to ending literal slavery.

The entire article is a big contradiction and I'm not convinced by the writing as a whole but this part combined with what @Synco posted demonstrate a massive contradiction:

However, the logic of ‘cancel culture’ is not to engender respect for people but rather to demonise people on the basis of their moral and political views.

People are demonized on the basis of their moral and political views all the time, that's why Douglass endorsed a violent response. The entire article is weird and completely out of touch with reality and history.

 

[Synco]

I don't' see the contradiction between supporting free speech and actively fighting a war to ending literal slavery.

An essential part of the author's argument for "free speech" is making a broader point about how social progress historically came through argument and open dialogue. He uses Douglass as an example. But civil war is the absolute opposite of tolerance and dialogue in a society. It involves depriving the enemy of his most fundamental freedoms, and if necessary even his life. It's political oppression of the harshest kind (although it might still be justified, depending on circumstances).

 

[Gehrman]

An essential part of the author's argument for "free speech" is making a broader point about how social progress historically came through argument and open dialogue. He uses Douglass as an example. But civil war is the absolute opposite of tolerance and dialogue in a society. It involves depriving the enemy of his most fundamental freedoms, and if necessary even his life. It's political oppression of the harshest kind (although it might still be justified, depending on circumstances).

Well despite that I posted the article I am not essentially a free speech absolutelist. I think comparing present day cancel culture with the actual war to end legalized slavery is somewhat hyperbolic, but I catch the drift of what your saying and agree with some of it. My main take away from the article is this quote

" And what if an idea is false? Should it be stifled? Mill suggests it shouldn’t. For two reasons. First, there is no guarantee that a silenced opinion does not contain some true and valid propositions. And secondly, it is through debate that individuals are compelled to re-examine their values and opinions and to comprehend why they should or should not hold certain beliefs. Indeed, for Mill, it is not simply enough to be opinionated; one must understand the substance of one’s beliefs. Without the free exchange of ideas, that understanding becomes more difficult. "


An example of a bizarre incident of cancel culture.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/08/12/the-bbcs-bizarre-n-word-controversy/