Cancel culture

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, MixuFruit said:

Is what an anti-vaxxer says fact or opinion?

That depends.

Someone writing an opinion piece on the issue is completely different to someone presenting what they claim to be factual evidence.

It's like the Srebrenica example I gave earlier. It is valid to look at patterns and sources when dealing with claims of fact, anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that, but an opinion piece presented as such is to be judged on its own merits.

[pandarilla]

What's the champions of free speech both sides-er view on anti-vaxxers? Should we be listening to them or nah?

We need to do something about the anti-vaxxers, as they're threatening us all with their pish. Is it not a growing problem? (genuinely don't know if it's on the rise but think it might be)

I don't think the left ridiculing them is working particularly well, as they seem to wear that with a badge of honour.

What? No he didn't he compared it to the Spectator.

He mentioned the wehrmacht, did he not? I thought that was a point relating to the nazis, but i didn't fully get the reference.

[Marshmallo]

Just now, pandarilla said:

We need to do something about the anti-vaxxers, as they're threatening us all with their pish. Is it not a growing problem? (genuinely don't know if it's on the rise but think it might be)

And people who are anti-trans rights, for example, aren't threatening us?

[pandarilla]

No. A media platform has an agenda. Spiked has an agenda antithetical to a healthy human race and planet. They publish things to serve that agenda. The hokum that the right come up with a lot about the plurality of their editorial philosophy is bollocks.

So what's your solution?

Are you happy with a society that engages less, and just does their own thing rebating political matters and other important issues?

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, MixuFruit said:

No. A media platform has an agenda. Spiked has an agenda antithetical to a healthy human race and planet. They publish things to serve that agenda. The hokum that the right come up with a lot about the plurality of their editorial philosophy is bollocks.

Of course it does. But dismissing an opinion piece because of the publisher is intellectually weak.

You either agree with it or you don't.

It is absurd to have so many posters rounding on another poster about an article they say they won't even read.

There are greenies flying all over this thread for people in a conversation saying basically "I've not read that but it's wrong".

That's madness.

[Guest JTS98]

6 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

These people are entitled to their opinion! If you choose to ignore them you're not acting in good faith and you are silencing them.

I'm not sure why you've quoted me here. Your reply makes no sense in the context of my post.

[pandarilla]

And people who are anti-trans rights, for example, aren't threatening us?

I think that the harm is being magnified massively, as much of the harm seems to come from Internet posts (no doubt some nutjobs have attacked trans people offline but i think a lot of it is online).

Do you think the targets and opponents of the trans activists genuinely want to harm trans people?

I think that debate needs to be handled with much less heat and much more light but instead everyone seems to be tooled up with a flame-thrower.

[pandarilla]

Regulation. You don't get to have a big media presence and put your ghouls on telly if nobody actually buys your product. What form that takes I don't know but Brendan O'Neill has the profile he has because of Koch money, not because he's a household name.

I like that idea. A better regulated media, less reliant on private funding, is definitely something we can agree on.

[Guest JTS98]

3 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

I've read the original letter. It's indemnifiably vague nonsense by legacy personalities who don't like that I can go on twitter and call them a c**t and want to go back to the 90s. 

I've got nothing to gain by reading a defence of that on fucking Spiked, I'd much rather spend my energy explaining first principles of why evil rich men fund certain media organisations that would fail if they had to rely on advertising and subscriptions like left wing ones do.

It is a first-hand account by a signatory to the letter that this thread is based on. Yet, you don't think it has any validity because of who funds the platform it was published by?

I don't see the logic in that as a position at all.

[pandarilla]

I've read the original letter. It's indemnifiably vague nonsense by legacy personalities who don't like that I can go on twitter and call them a c**t and want to go back to the 90s. 
I've got nothing to gain by reading a defence of that on fucking Spiked, I'd much rather spend my energy explaining first principles of why evil rich men fund certain media organisations that would fail if they had to rely on advertising and subscriptions like left wing ones do.

You're surely too nice to go round calling people on the Internet 'a c**t'...

[coprolite]

12 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

What's the champions of free speech both sides-er view on anti-vaxxers? Should we be listening to them or nah?

Good question.  Or rather two questions. Your second is a bit of a non-sequitir. 

Freedom of speech isn't about whether you should listen. It is about whether you should let other people speak. 

In answer to your first question, i think that although it is clearly incorrect and harmful, spreading anti vax ideas in itself fails the test of whether it causes direct harm. I think it benefits society to have a culture where the medical establishment can be questioned. 

In answer to your second question, it depends on what you want to gain. If you want an understanding of why people believe nonsense, then you should listen. If you want impartial medical advice then i'd suggest not. 

My understanding is that this "cancel" bollocks isn't strictly a freedom of speech issue. It is about whether it is right to gang up on people on the twitter and get them ostracised in real life because of their views. 

I don't think there's a one size fits all answer to that. Whether someone loses their job should be proportionate to the level of accountability you expect in that job and the nature of the job. 

If a head of a medical faculty lost their job for spreading antivax lies i think that would be justified. 

[pandarilla]

Once again, and I really don't like saying it, you're not familiar enough with today's media environment to understand what's going on.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/05/in-praise-of-the-wehrmacht/

That article is behind a firewall, unfortunately, as i keep getting blocked.

I get your point, though, the reference went over my head, and i don't disagree that I'm not 'familiar enough' with the twitter debates that dominate social media.

So consider me a neutral observer, dipping my toe...

I should be on the side of the left and yet the way the debate is being carried out makes me despair. If you can't win me round then you're absolutely fucked with anyone who's genuinely a centrist.

I think in recent years the left have 'jumped the shark' with social media campaigns (wait, did i use it right?)

[coprolite]

12 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Of course it does. But dismissing an opinion piece because of the publisher is intellectually weak.

You either agree with it or you don't.

 

I broadly agree with you in principle but in reality people just don't have the time to assess every viewpoint on its merits and a robust heuristic will be right 95% of the time. 

I haven't read a Dailly Mail in 30 years but i'd be fairly confident that it's not worth the effort. 

[welshbairn]

9 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Do you think the targets and opponents of the trans activists genuinely want to harm trans people?

Yes, they want us to think they're perverts who want to sneak into ladies toilets and rape them.

[pandarilla]

Even ignoring the platform of the article, the first sentence calls those who feel people should be held responsible for their words as ‘unhinged.’ 
 
So not only is the platform extremely dubious, but right from the get go the tone and faith of the article is there for everyone to see.
 
There is absolutely no need for anybody to read further to see that the letter is going to be as enlightening as a JTS post. 

Does it not say the reaction to the letter has been unhinged? That's very different.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I broadly agree with you in principle but in reality people just don't have the time to assess every viewpoint on its merits and a robust heuristic will be right 95% of the time. 

I haven't read a Dailly Mail in 30 years but i'd be fairly confident that it's not worth the effort. 

I don't have a problem with anyone not reading it. We can't read everything.

Back to my initial comment here, my point is that it is very poor form to round on Pandarilla's linking to the article while at the same time not reading it.

People can't have it both ways. If you want to comment, then read it.

[pandarilla]

Yes, they want us to think they're perverts who want to sneak into ladies toilets and rape them.

Do you genuinely think rowling thinks trans people are perverts?

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

 

Do you genuinely think rowling thinks trans people are perverts?

 

Yes. She finds the whole concept disturbing and frightening, and she wants us all to feel the same. Her denials and claims that she's nothing against trans people in general reminds me of Viz after they got hammered for their Thieving Gypsy b*****ds cartoon and replaced it with Nice Honest Gypsies, or Trump when he called Mexicans rapists, thieves and murderers, but he was sure some of them are really nice people.

Edited July 27, 2020 by welshbairn

[JMDP]

JTS98 still struggling from his lengthy breakdown on the Hearts thread, I see. The irony of him calling something intellectually weak is fantastic. Absolutely loving the completely good faith argument that the publication doesn't matter - I'll be publishing my next research paper or opinion piece in Combat 18's newsletter and look forward to the reaction it gets as the vehicle of publication doesn't matter, yeah?  

It isn't difficult gents, Mixu summed it up fairly well. The fact we are even talking about a "cancel culture" is wholly driven by these publications being taken seriously and the kind of journalism it spawns. The letter was self indulgent nonsense from a group of people that don't like their views challenged - a free speech for them but not others, wrapped up in a disguise of free speech for all. 

And Pandarilla, you really need to get a better grip on matters if you want to discuss them properly. The fact you think I was comparing it to the Nazis shows a complete ignorance and lack of understanding. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by JMDP

[Guest JTS98]

40 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

It's not like that at all.

You're, as I mentioned in my last post, confusing sources for factual matters with the validity of an opinion piece.

 

Hiya @virginton

I see you have a problem with this post (I've been missing your red dot sprees).

Surely as a 'qualified historian' you understand the different context of sources and the difference between claims of fact and an opinion?

Or maybe not, eh?

Happy dotting.