8MileBU Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 3 hours ago, coprolite said: "qualified historian" We already knew that the Venn diagram of 'toothless ticket' and 'qualified historian fantasist' would form a perfect circle. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Waldo Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 14 hours ago, ali_91 said: There’s people on this thread who are disgusted that people call JK Rowling a c**t and encourage a boycott of her books because she’s transphobic, and yet will defend peoples right to deny that the holocaust happened to the hilt. Unreal. There are people on this thread who are saying it is not right call JK Rowling a c**t and encourage a boycott of her books because of their opinion that she is a transphobe, and will also say people have the right to deny the holocaust. And say the earth is flat, that Posh Spice is a great singer, a 600 year old man put two of every animal on his boat and Hearts should be in the top league next season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Waldo Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 It's all the internet's fault. In olden times someone would say something stupid and you'd think 'well there's a clown, I'll ignore him from now on. Maybe mention it to your pals.' Now you'll post on social media and it'll instantly snowball all over the world. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genuine Hibs Fan Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 1 minute ago, Mr Waldo said: There are people on this thread who are saying it is not right call JK Rowling a c**t and encourage a boycott of her books because of their opinion that she is a transphobe, and will also say people have the right to deny the holocaust. And say the earth is flat, that Posh Spice is a great singer, a 600 year old man put two of every animal on his boat and Hearts should be in the top league next season. If people believe someone is a transphobe (rightly or wrongly) why on earth is it a problem for them to boycott and encourage the boycotting of their works? Specifically, she's not going to starve or even lose a great deal of her income, she will continue to be given a platform to say whatever she wants, and perhaps a non-violent, non-offensive show of solidarity with trans people will make her consider how progressive her views really are and engage with the topic in a different way. If not, surely it's no skin off her nose. While I agree with the last sentence, you seem to be arguing about Rowling (and other cultural figures) that they not only have the right to say what they want (agreed) but that they have the right to be liked and not financially impacted regardless of their opinions, which is a weird take. People are free to hold and express whatever opinion they want (excepting hate speech/incitement to violence, for which there's a very good "shouting fire in a theatre" argument). How others then choose to express their opinions in response is absolutely up to them, and also an example of free speech. I'm far more concerned about kids getting nicked for jokes they made online, or that dickhead who taught his dug to Hitler salute being prosecuted , than I am about a multi millionaire's right to not be offended by the reaction to her massively amplified views. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 Once again you have made this up, people are disagreeing with your opinion that people should be free to deny the Holocaust on the grounds of ‘free speech,’ and so that ‘we can laugh at them.’ You seem to think it’s fine for you to say that whilst you find their opinion abhorrent, people can deny the Holocaust if they want to but when someone says ‘now wait just a minute buddy,’ then that’s them trying to silence you. You can have shit opinions, and we can call your opinions shit. That’s how debate works. Whilst the British legal system doesn’t have specific laws relating to holocaust denial, that doesn’t mean people are safe from criminal proceedings as there are other laws which it might fall under. The debate on here is not had in good faith, and too many posts on this thread have not been as reasonable as this one is. It's all about winning the specific argument at any cost, and then attempting to humiliate and belittle those with opposing views. It achieves nothing. It isn't even about laws and stuff it's about speaking engagements, chair positions, book deals etc etc. If someone's said something that society doesn't like and then as a result they lose all of those things, that's fine. There's a bunch of people with opinions out there and only so much money to give them a living telling the rest of us what they are, so it's normal and healthy for there to be a bit of churn.I think we need to be clear about what we're talking about.The two topics i have an issue with in terms of 'cancel culture' are those relating to the labour party and anti semitism, and to a lesser extent the trans debate.The holocaust stuff is on a whole different planet, and noone on here has suggested it's part of the same thing, certainly not me. The discussion was about whether it should be illegal to say that the holocaust didn't happen. (this debate began when discussing chomsky - who has been described as an anti-semite - which is quite frankly ridiculous).The real problem of anti semitism is amongst the far right, and yet there's a clear campaign to try and paint the left in with that too. Yes on the fringes of the far left there are some anti semites - but they're not the ones who are on the rise across Eastern Europe. It's a red herring for political purposes.But I'll go back to the point that online discussions generally can't be had in good faith, and the last few pages of this thread are a good example. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cb_diamond Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, coprolite said: "qualified historian" The bold VT studied History at Strathclyde and idolised the walking, talking #metoo magnet that was Richard "Dick" Finlay. That wouldn't qualify anyone as a Historian. Empty vessels influencing empty vessels comes to mind. Edited July 20, 2020 by cb_diamond 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbaxters Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 16 minutes ago, pandarilla said: The debate on here is not had in good faith, and too many posts on this thread have not been as reasonable as this one is. It's all about winning the specific argument at any cost, and then attempting to humiliate and belittle those with opposing views. It achieves nothing. I think we need to be clear about what we're talking about. The two topics i have an issue with in terms of 'cancel culture' are those relating to the labour party and anti semitism, and to a lesser extent the trans debate. The holocaust stuff is on a whole different planet, and noone on here has suggested it's part of the same thing, certainly not me. The discussion was about whether it should be illegal to say that the holocaust didn't happen. (this debate began when discussing chomsky - who has been described as an anti-semite - which is quite frankly ridiculous). The real problem of anti semitism is amongst the far right, and yet there's a clear campaign to try and paint the left in with that too. Yes on the fringes of the far left there are some anti semites - but they're not the ones who are on the rise across Eastern Europe. It's a red herring for political purposes. But I'll go back to the point that online discussions generally can't be had in good faith, and the last few pages of this thread are a good example. Being against what Israel are doing to the Palestinians does not equate to anti-semitism. This is what is being levelled at members of the Labour Party, not least Corbyn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Waldo Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 22 minutes ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said: If people believe someone is a transphobe (rightly or wrongly) why on earth is it a problem for them to boycott and encourage the boycotting of their works? Specifically, she's not going to starve or even lose a great deal of her income, she will continue to be given a platform to say whatever she wants, and perhaps a non-violent, non-offensive show of solidarity with trans people will make her consider how progressive her views really are and engage with the topic in a different way. If not, surely it's no skin off her nose. While I agree with the last sentence, you seem to be arguing about Rowling (and other cultural figures) that they not only have the right to say what they want (agreed) but that they have the right to be liked and not financially impacted regardless of their opinions, which is a weird take. People are free to hold and express whatever opinion they want (excepting hate speech/incitement to violence, for which there's a very good "shouting fire in a theatre" argument). How others then choose to express their opinions in response is absolutely up to them, and also an example of free speech. I'm far more concerned about kids getting nicked for jokes they made online, or that dickhead who taught his dug to Hitler salute being prosecuted , than I am about a multi millionaire's right to not be offended by the reaction to her massively amplified views. What I am trying to say (probably quite badly) is I believe that people can say what they want, as long as it is not against the law. But the perma-offended have a default setting to overstep the mark into a bullying culture that will stiffle debate. And, in my opinion, stifling debate is a large part of some recent political decisions this country has taken. If you had piled on and hounded me for my first sentence I'd probably have just left it but, if we can debate, I can formulate my thoughts better and make my position clearer next time. You still might not agree, but that is fine. Personally, I don't really care who the someone is, that guy getting jailed for a joke no worse than some of the stuff on this site and Scottish judge in the Hitler dog salute saying 'context doesn't matter' are, to me, potentially very scary reduction in people's freedoms, and there is not too much difference between, someone getting sacked for saying there are two genders, and a billionaire getting ostracised for the same thing. (Although her being able to accumulate so much wealth is a different argument.) 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 1 hour ago, Mr Waldo said: Hearts should be in the top league next season. They were relegated fair and square. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle_do_nicely Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 (edited) to jump in; something I have seen which seems to be a relatively new tactic (it's probably been about for a while but seems to be a new favourite) to mollify the impact of the Holocaust isn't outright denying that it happened, but quibbling over the numbers involved and alleging that the holocaust has been exaggerated to either a moderate or severe extent. The goal of it is still the same anti-semitic garbage as before (basically instead of the holocaust being completely made up to elicit sympathy for the Jews it's now just been exaggerated), but it's packaged in a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing argument that might not be as easy to identify as being outright dangerous. Basically that even if you're doing all you can to stop bad faith actors peddling nonsense, they'll try their hardest to rebrand it. Intelligent design strikes me as that in a religious context, afaik it's not a "dinosaurs roamed the land side by side with humans" thing which is patently ridiculous, it's more predicated on looking at holes in human understanding in evolution and just scribbling "God did it" in them. Edited July 20, 2020 by Thistle_do_nicely 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 46 minutes ago, cb_diamond said: The bold VT studied History at Strathclyde and idolised the walking, talking #metoo magnet that was Richard "Dick" Finlay. That wouldn't qualify anyone as a Historian. Empty vessels influencing empty vessels comes to mind. No, he's very clever. He said "meta-narrative". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 9 minutes ago, Thistle_do_nicely said: to jump in; something I have seen which seems to be a relatively new tactic (it's probably been about for a while but seems to be a new favourite) to mollify the impact of the Holocaust isn't outright denying that it happened, but quibbling over the numbers involved and alleging that the holocaust has been exaggerated to either a moderate or severe extent. The goal of it is still the same anti-semitic garbage as before (basically instead of the holocaust being completely made up to elicit sympathy for the Jews it's now just been exaggerated), but it's packaged in a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing argument that might not be as easy to identify as being outright dangerous. Basically that even if you're doing all you can to stop bad faith actors peddling nonsense, they'll try their hardest to rebrand it. Intelligent design strikes me as that in a religious context, afaik it's not a "dinosaurs roamed the land side by side with humans" thing which is patently ridiculous, it's more predicated on looking at holes in human understanding in evolution and just scribbling "God did it" in them. It's also mutated into denying the collaboration that went on in the occupied countries, venerating Nazi collaborators as anti-communist resisters, or insisting the real victims were a specific nationality and not Jewish people. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cb_diamond Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, coprolite said: No, he's very clever. He said "meta-narrative". To be fair he's a prime example of meta-narrative. In this case, repeating the same half dozen worn out phrases for the last decade and a half with predictably diminishing returns. Edited July 20, 2020 by cb_diamond 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 3 hours ago, 8MileBU said: We already knew that the Venn diagram of 'toothless ticket' and 'qualified historian fantasist' would form a perfect circle. I'm pretty sure that Neil Oliver's degree was in Archaeology as opposed to History 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanius Mullarkey Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 1 minute ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: I'm pretty sure that Neil Oliver's degree was in Archaeology as opposed to History He is indeed qualified to dig up old shite rather than talk about old shite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherchance Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 What I am trying to say (probably quite badly) is I believe that people can say what they want, as long as it is not against the law. But the perma-offended have a default setting to overstep the mark into a bullying culture that will stiffle debate. And, in my opinion, stifling debate is a large part of some recent political decisions this country has taken. If you had piled on and hounded me for my first sentence I'd probably have just left it but, if we can debate, I can formulate my thoughts better and make my position clearer next time. You still might not agree, but that is fine. Personally, I don't really care who the someone is, that guy getting jailed for a joke no worse than some of the stuff on this site and Scottish judge in the Hitler dog salute saying 'context doesn't matter' are, to me, potentially very scary reduction in people's freedoms, and there is not too much difference between, someone getting sacked for saying there are two genders, and a billionaire getting ostracised for the same thing. (Although her being able to accumulate so much wealth is a different argument.)All for things being called out when they are unquestionably blatantly racist and bigoted.It’s worrying when it veers into more general and subjective terms like “offensive” and “unacceptable” when people pile on or try to get others into shit for things which fall into more of a grey area, which is when things like intent come into play, and people start looking at offensive jokes etc.Who then becomes the moral arbiter? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 2 hours ago, Tynierose said: The thicko didn't even manage an honours. Although at least it was Glasgow as opposed to Strathclyde 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broomhill Ultra Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 That’s the rugby cancelled then. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 3 hours ago, Broomhill Ultra said: That’s the rugby cancelled then. Good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theroadlesstravelled Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 How can you be bullied on an anonymous website? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.