Cancel culture

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Despite WB's 'they kill a lot of people' trope it is obvious that Sweden's mixed economy and its social 'safety net' is vastly superior to that of the UK.  Sweden and Swedes still have respect for engineering prowess - and not just in the old-fashioned metal-bashing industries.  In terms of IT development, electronics and of course, defence industries, they are showing themselves as a terrific country and use said wealth in a positive way.

^^^^ Say what you like about Eugenicists but they got results post

[Detournement]

Greenwald really pisses off the worst people. 

[pandarilla]

Despite WB's 'they kill a lot of people' trope it is obvious that Sweden's mixed economy and its social 'safety net' is vastly superior to that of the UK.  Sweden and Swedes still have respect for engineering prowess - and not just in the old-fashioned metal-bashing industries.  In terms of IT development, electronics and of course, defence industries, they are showing themselves as a terrific country and use said wealth in a positive way.
I find it hard to criticise Scandi countries.

This post doesn't sit comfortably with your views on Scottish independence.

Most yes voters i know would like to slowly move Scotland towards this kind of scandi system. For anyone in Scotland that believes in creating a better society (rather than just looking after themselves) - it seems a no brainer.

But your support for the union (which is actually a stronger type of nationalism) prevents you from acknowledging this.

Thomas Chatterton Williams, who wrote the letter, has now revealed that he was going to ask Glenn Greenwald to be a signatory... but didn't because some other signatories 'vetoed' his inclusion due to disagreeing with Greenwald on other issues [emoji38]
It's almost as if protecting everyone's right to free speech, including those you disagree with, isn't actually what this is about.

I think the chateau episode cemented this but that's a nice wee extra detail.

There's no doubt these cases don't reflect well on the letter.

But if we take that point to its logical conclusion then you can understand that they had to draw the line somewhere.

All sorts of c***s like tommy robinson would probably support this letter but if he was asked to be a signatory then it would be rightly ridiculed.

They had to find a balance and variety of people from all parts of the political spectrum who are respected by enough people, and not hated by too many.

[NotThePars]

36 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

They had to find a balance and variety of people from all parts of the political spectrum who are respected by enough people, and not hated by too many.

Bari Weiss is on the letter

[Guest JTS98]

6 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

Thomas Chatterton Williams, who wrote the letter, has now revealed that he was going to ask Glenn Greenwald to be a signatory... but didn't because some other signatories 'vetoed' his inclusion due to disagreeing with Greenwald on other issues

It's almost as if protecting everyone's right to free speech, including those you disagree with, isn't actually what this is about.

That's not what he said in the interview I saw. He just said some people said no. Implied that he didn't remember why. The interviewer asked whether it was because of his views.

Perhaps some thought he had some anti-free speech stuff in his locker that would be used against him? Although, I'd find that surprising.

Still, as far as I can see, Williams didn't say what you said he said. Unless you saw a different interview?

Don't know.

ETA: Took me two minutes to find a 2019 tweet from Glenn Greenwald questioning whether cancel culture exists. Might explain why some didn't want to ask him to sign a letter criticising cancel culture.

Edited July 18, 2020 by JTS98

[Detournement]

30 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

 

ETA: Took me two minutes to find a 2019 tweet from Glenn Greenwald questioning whether cancel culture exists. Might explain why some didn't want to ask him to sign a letter criticising cancel culture.

I think it's probably more to do with the dozens of tweets describing how Bari Weiss cancelled Joseph Massad for being an advocate of Palestinian rights.

In the time I went for a run and had lunch James Bloodworth called Greenwald a fascist and a brown shirt just to prove my point. Bloodworth has clearly been trained up to replace Nick Cohen when his alcoholism finally finishes him off.  

[Tutankhamen]

16 minutes ago, chocolateankles said:

I didn't, you probably can't give that many in one go so you have just made that up like a lot of the other pish you come out with  

Seriously mate, what is the issue?

I never even notice you before that riddie episode. You've never took part in any thread involving me. I've never posted anything against you before now. 

So what exactly is your problem with me?

Are you just attacking people on here at random?

[Theroadlesstravelled]

It’s like a who’s who of unknown American journalists.

[Tutankhamen]

12 hours ago, chocolateankles said:

I didn't, you probably can't give that many in one go so you have just made that up like a lot of the other pish you come out with  

I was offline for a couple for a few days and came back to 38 riddies from you.

I don't know you or have ever interacted with one of your posts.

So what exactly is your problem, mate?

[pandarilla]

I've not gone through the list of signatories (and I'm not going to) but I'd be pretty surprised if they had any such selection criteria over just emailing their pals & their pals pals tbh.

Chomsky and bush senior's speech-writer are just pals of a pal?

This was clearly a planned event, and folk gave it a fair bit of thought.

No doubt some signaturies paid more attention than others to the list of folk they were joining - but i go back to the point that finding anything you strongly disagree with in that letter is pretty challenging.

So, just to clarify, they decided to pick and choose who to give a platform to? 
 
Sounds awfully like #cancelculture to me. 

That's a helluva stretch.

You've built up this massive straw man that the debate is about anyone being able to challenge anyone else.

Go back and actually read the letter.

[Savage Henry]

On 18/07/2020 at 07:11, Dunning1874 said:

Thomas Chatterton Williams, who wrote the letter, has now revealed that he was going to ask Glenn Greenwald to be a signatory... but didn't because some other signatories 'vetoed' his inclusion due to disagreeing with Greenwald on other issues

It's almost as if protecting everyone's right to free speech, including those you disagree with, isn't actually what this is about.

In fairness, Glenn Greenwald has a fairly ropey reputation in journalism. Being Tucker Carlson’s, and Press TV’s token lefty of choice is but one reason for that.  

Edited July 19, 2020 by Savage Henry

[pandarilla]

So it’s fine to no platform people if the ones doing that are on the same side of the argument as you? Gotya. 

They set up the platform ffs. Your analogy is miles off.

That's not what this thing is about.

Their whole point is that the online reaction to certain opinions can be so extreme, and if we persist in having serious topics discussed in this manner then important voices will not be heard due to fear of the backlash.

They're not complaining about folk having a different opinion from them, or some folk having more of a platform than others. Stop building that straw man.

[pandarilla]

 
Thinks six degrees of Kevin Bacon means everyone actually knows Kevin Bacon type post.

Once again you're guilty of looking at who's on either side of a debate and then taking sides accordingly, rather than engaging in each topic on its merit.

[Bairnardo]

Schools should teach the very basics of debate/argument, and probably social media usage should form at least some part of children's education these days.

[Bairnardo]

6 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Laughing at the idea of someone our age teaching the kids of today about the myspace and the bebo and whatnot.

Huv you got the Bebo? Av got the Bebo

[pandarilla]

Because unlike you, astonishingly given what you do for a living, I think the tendencies and motivations of the people behind something are important pieces of context that shouldn't be ignored, compared to accepting it at face value.

I do think the motivations are massively important - but it's the only factor you seem to look at. You make a judgment entirely based on a simplified background of an author (if they've ever posted anything bad you seem to dismiss them out of hand).

This letter has united some pretty various extremes, and i think that matters. In many ways it nullifies their background.

You want to put them all on the same side, and that oversimplifies the situation.

[pandarilla]

OK. So what is the next step? They've said being rude on the internet is bad and should stop, what happens now? Where does all that energy go if people can't call Chomsky a c**t for defending a holocaust denier?

Firstly, the 'chomsky must be anti semitic because he defended a holocaust denier' line is massively missing the point of what actually happened. Chomsky has absolutely no time for the guy's views on the holocaust, none at all. He was just pointing out that linguistically, there's no justification for people being unable to ask questions of anything.

People have to be free to suggest stupid and wrong things. Taking away that freedom leads you to a dangerous place.



Secondly, i don't know where it goes next. Noone is saying there's an easy solution to this issue. The letter is pointing out that things have taken a slightly worrying turn in recent years. I very much agree with this.

We have to find a way to use social media and the Internet in a more positive way.

[Marshmallo]

1 hour ago, pandarilla said:

Their whole point is that the online reaction to certain opinions can be so extreme, and if we persist in having serious topics discussed in this manner then important voices will not be heard due to fear of the backlash

Depending on the subject matter what you term an "extreme" reaction can often be proportionate.

[NotThePars]

3 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

In fairness, Glenn Greenwald has a fairly ropey reputation in journalism. Being Tucker Carlson’s, and Press TV’s token lefty of choice is but one reason for that.  

Think this is really just down to some of the platforms he shares and his very clear dislike for liberal pundits. I don't think it's possible to question his credentials, he puts far more work in to investigative journalism than most of his detractors. Also that time he owned Bill Maher was very funny.

[pandarilla]

The point is Chomsky regularly gets pelters for this all the time and so is an unsurprising signatory to a letter asking for civility in the vaguest terms. He's free to say stupid stuff just as we're all free to call him an arsehole. That's the deal.
I could not disagree with you more on your last point. It's a freeing, exhilirating, equalising thing that's happened.

He gets pelters from folk that jump on to sides without looking into the details of the argument... Like you often do. That doesn't justify it, and instead just reflects badly on you.

And you and a few others have regularly minimised the effects of Internet pile-ons by comparing it in mild terms to 'being free to call him an arsehole'.

I'm guessing folk that do this have never experienced it.