Cancel culture

[oneteaminglasgow]

3 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

 

Do you genuinely think rowling thinks trans people are perverts?

 

I don’t think it matters, she is pushing a narrative which helps cause massive rates of suicide amongst the trans community, among other issues.

I think that that should have some consequences for her, not just for the people she’s harming. 

[pandarilla]

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 in Combat 18's newsletter and look forward as it doesn't matter. 
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. 

I didn't get your 'other article' reference - and so I'm not allowed to take part on the discussion on a good faith basis?

Do i need to be educated up to your standard?

"this is the hymn sheet... Sing from it, or face social media humiliation!"

[Guest JTS98]

4 minutes ago, JMDP said:

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. 

Finally! A response instead of constant dotting. I was wondering if that was all you had to offer.

Your point about publishing a research paper is irrelevant in the context of an opinion piece. I'm not sure why so many people on this thread struggle with the distinction.

Anyway, my main point is that you shouldn't be criticising someone for linking to an article that you haven't read. That's basic common sense. Not to mention plain good manners.

[Guest JTS98]

4 minutes ago, ali_91 said:

This would be a fair point if people were telling him why the article was wrong and not merely pointing out the platform is a terrible one and anything written on it isn’t worth the time of day. 

 

They’re not, so it’s not though. 

My goodness.

We've got nowhere to go, really. If you apply that reasoning, you can simply dismiss almost anything you want by refusing to engage with it.

Edited July 27, 2020 by JTS98

[JMDP]

7 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

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

It isn't though - it is the kind of language designed to delegitamise an opponent's point of view rather than the substance. Owen Jones did a fantastic bit on TV about this regarding how he is accused of "hissy fits".

5 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

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.

What utter nonsense. I can comment that Spiked is a dangerous platform designed to drag the right to the centre and normalise extreme opinions. Your arguments holds zero water. 

[JMDP]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

Finally! A response instead of constant dotting. I was wondering if that was all you had to offer.

Your point about publishing a research paper is irrelevant in the context of an opinion piece. I'm not sure why so many people on this thread struggle with the distinction.

Anyway, my main point is that you shouldn't be criticising someone for linking to an article that you haven't read. That's basic common sense. Not to mention plain good manners.

You genuinely just don't seem bright enough to get this. 

[pandarilla]

This was a fun little burst of debate.

I got attacked a little bit less, which is always nice. I'm off for a few days so you'll need to find another centrist da to befriend.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, MixuFruit said:

jesus H.

This isn't a case of them printing 'birdsong is quite pleasant to listen to' and everyone with a soul saying no it isn't.

It's a case of someone saying 'you shouldn't react angrily to things you disagree with' on a platform thats whole purpose is to make disagreeable points of view palatable in the mainstream, to the detriment of all of us.

It's a case of a lot of posters piling in on one poster while not engaging with the thing they claim to be objectionable.

I'm happy calling that out as poor behaviour. Ignore it, or read and comment.

[craigkillie]

27 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

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.

Whether they genuinely want to or not, they absolutely do.

Trans people have it tough enough in life given that many of them have had to struggle for acceptance from family, friends and often most importantly from themselves. Imagine going through all that and then still spending basically every single day of your life seeing entitled millionaires and celebrities using their online platform to essentially claim that you are not really who you believe you are. Having to wake up every day defending your own right to exist and realising that a large proportion of society don't think you should.

If I was the victim of that I'd be coming to the party with all the fucking heat in the world, and wouldn't give the tiniest f**k if I hurt the feelings of poor JK Rowling or Graham Linehan.

Edited July 27, 2020 by craigkillie

[Guest JTS98]

4 minutes ago, JMDP said:

 

What utter nonsense. I can comment that Spiked is a dangerous platform designed to drag the right to the centre and normalise extreme opinions. Your arguments holds zero water. 

Debating society champ, imo. That's me telt!

[JMDP]

3 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

I didn't get your 'other article' reference - and so I'm not allowed to take part on the discussion on a good faith basis?

Do i need to be educated up to your standard?

"this is the hymn sheet... Sing from it, or face social media humiliation!"

What hysterical rubbish. Of course you are allowed to take part, however, much like the signatories of the original letter, you don't like your views being systematically picked apart as...

Just now, pandarilla said:

This was a fun little burst of debate.

I got attacked a little bit less, which is always nice. I'm off for a few days so you'll need to find another centrist da to befriend.

Quotes like this childish one show. By all means debate, but don't expect your view not to be challenged. 

Enjoy your break though. 

[Marshmallo]

24 minutes ago, coprolite said:

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. 

This is a good post.

What I would say is the pandarillas of the world are having a pop at people for not READING an article (ie listening to a point of view). Someone saying "I'm not reading a Spiked article" is not a curb on freedom of speech. People can write their whiny "I'm being cancelled" BS if they want. They have a platform to do so. If we choose not to listen to them then that's not the same as saying they have no right to say something.

[JMDP]

Just now, JTS98 said:

Debating society champ, imo. That's me telt!

But you can't disagree with me because you haven't fully engaged with my post. 

An utter lack of self awareness of your own argument here. Take some time, maybe do a bit of reading and I'm happy to discuss when you understand the arguments a bit better. 

[Guest JTS98]

3 minutes ago, JMDP said:

But you can't disagree with me because you haven't fully engaged with my post. 

An utter lack of self awareness of your own argument here. Take some time, maybe do a bit of reading and I'm happy to discuss when you understand the arguments a bit better. 

Since you've joined the conversation all I've seen is a personal attack on me having a 'breakdown' and a pretty rude post to Pandarilla accusing him of talking 'hysterical rubbish'.

And you dish out loads of red dots, which marks you down as pointless to engage with.

I get the impression you're not worth the hassle, to be honest. Cheerio.

Edited July 27, 2020 by JTS98

[JMDP]

Just now, JTS98 said:

Since you've joined the conversation all I've seen is a personal attack on me having a 'breakdown' and a pretty rude post to Pandarilla accusing him of talking 'hysterical rubbish'.

I get the impression you're not worth the hassle, to be honest. Cheerio.

Are you cancelling me? Poor behaviour, IMO. 

[Mr Waldo]

48 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?

IMO, we should listen to them, tell them they are wrong but, unless they are giving a professional opinion, not pile in and demand they are sacked from their job. 

[Dunning1874]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

Since you've joined the conversation all I've seen is a personal attack on me having a 'breakdown' and a pretty rude post to Pandarilla accusing him of talking 'hysterical rubbish'.

And you dish out loads of red dots, which marks you down as pointless to engage with.

I get the impression you're not worth the hassle, to be honest. Cheerio.

So based on your previous engagement with another poster you've decided their arguments aren't in good faith or conducive to a constructive debate so aren't worth engaging with.

This wouldn't be the exact thing you're criticising others for based on refusing to engage with Spiked, would it?

This is the 'cancel culture' myth in a nutshell.

[Dons_1988]

14 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Whether they genuinely want to or not, they absolutely do.

Trans people have it tough enough in life given that many of them have had to struggle for acceptance from family, friends and often most importantly from themselves. Imagine going through all that and then still spending basically every single day of your life seeing entitled millionaires and celebrities using their online platform to essentially claim that you are not really who you believe you are. Having to wake up every day defending your own right to exist and realising that a large proportion of society don't think you should.

If I was the victim of that I'd be coming to the party with all the fucking heat in the world, and wouldn't give the tiniest f**k if I hurt the feelings of poor JK Rowling or Graham Linehan.

This is murky waters though.

You're essentially saying that an interpretation of what was said is questioning trans people's existence and therefore her intentions don't matter. That's very, very subjective.

I agree that trans people must go through hell and back just trying to be accepted, and they deserve protecting but the above still makes me feel slightly uncomfortable.

 

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Dunning1874 said:

So based on your previous engagement with another poster you've decided their arguments aren't in good faith or conducive to a constructive debate so aren't worth engaging with.

This wouldn't be the exact thing you're criticising others for based on refusing to engage with Spiked, would it?

This is the 'cancel culture' myth in a nutshell.

Well, you've got your analogy a bit crossed there.

I decided that the poster in question was not worth engaging with after reading his posts.

People on this thread are decrying Pandarilla's link to an article they haven't read. It's not a piece that claims to present fact. It is an open opinion piece. As I said, not reading it is perfectly fair and I'm not a Spiked man myself. But criticising Pandarilla for posting it without reading it is very poor.

Read it, or wheesht.

[NotThePars]

This is silly.

Someone used the same argument on me to get me to read Jordan Peterson’s book and I’ve never been more owned in my entire life