Cancel culture

[NotThePars]

47 minutes ago, Broomhill Ultra said:

Farage type populists, obvious dog-whistle racisty but essentially democrats : they should be allowed to speak, argued with and the ludicrousness off their arguments exposed.
 

Also would counsel a bit of caution on this point given that giving Farage a big platform for over a decade didn't actually expose the ludicrousness of his argument and instead saw his minority issue become the defining political wedge of the last half-decade.

[Ross.]

Just now, NotThePars said:

Also would counsel a bit of caution on this point given that giving Farage a big platform for over a decade didn't actually expose the ludicrousness of his argument and instead saw his minority issue become the defining political wedge of the last half-decade.

I'd say that was more to do with editorial policy of the platforms letting him spout his message than anything else.

[Bonksy+HisChristianParade]

On the subject of gender neutral toilets I remember being out my bin in subclub one night and being bemused at the number of cubicles in the toilets and that there were no urinals, despite there having been urinals every other night I’d been in. After finishing my piss I exited my cubicle to see several girls washing their hands and that at the sinks. I think I got heckled as I hurriedly left the woman’s toilets - can’t really remember. But I had the fear after that and thought the bouncers were after me, especially the gimp that looked like Craig Levein.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Bonksy+HisChristianParade

[jimbaxters]

2 minutes ago, Bonksy+HisChristianParade said:

On the subject of gender neutral toilets I remember being out my bin in subclub one night and being bemused at the number of cubicles in the toilets and that there were no urinals, despite there having been urinals every other night I’d been in. After finishing my piss I exited my cubicle to see several girls washing their hands and that at the sinks. I think I got heckled as I hurriedly left the woman’s toilets - can’t really remember. But I had the fear after that and thought the bouncers were after me, especially the gimp that looked like Craig Levein.

What else were they washing?

[Bonksy+HisChristianParade]

Just now, jimbaxters said:

What else were they washing?

f**k knows, they were vague obscure objects to me at the time. Could have been anything.

[Gordon EF]

41 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

I would consider Linehan a swivel-eyed lunatic given a visit from the polis, openly admitting he lost tons of work, his wife's family slagging him off online and eventually his wife leaving him wasn't enough for him to stop his anti-trans crusade

Linehan's definitely an example of an absolute arse hole who's trying to drag the definition of "cancel culture" over himself as some kind of protection for being a dickhead.

if his behaviour on Twitter wasn't bad enough, the tear-stained rants at 3 in the morning on Mumsnet are a dead give away that he's a lunatic. 

[Ross.]

26 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

they put Nick Griffin on and he was made a laughing stock (fun fact, BNP vote actually went up afterwards) so thought the same would happen to Farage but it didn't and like any good centrist their response was to keep doing it.

Griffin was made a laughing stock because he was a fucking imbecile who looked like an urchin. Farage is very much the polished jobby that was created as a result and the same outcome was never likely. Having him in the public eye quite as often as he was simply legitimised him, and that was part of the plan for the pro Brexit types involved in editorial decision making.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Ross.

[Detournement]

Lol at the idea of no platforming leaving the EU. 

[pandarilla]

Also would counsel a bit of caution on this point given that giving Farage a big platform for over a decade didn't actually expose the ludicrousness of his argument and instead saw his minority issue become the defining political wedge of the last half-decade.

Lol at the idea of no platforming leaving the EU. 

Surely folk aren't suggesting no platforming farage?

Folk voted for brexit, and as much as I'd like a tightening up of the funding for political campaigns - ultimately you can't just pretend that those views don't exist.

The only alternative to them is to win the argument, again and again. Unless you're going to offer an alternative to democracy?

[NotThePars]

4 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Surely folk aren't suggesting no platforming farage?

Folk voted for brexit, and as much as I'd like a tightening up of the funding for political campaigns - ultimately you can't just pretend that those views don't exist.

The only alternative to them is to win the argument, again and again. Unless you're going to offer an alternative to democracy?

 

Doesn't polling generally show that it was a minority issue to most people outside of the Conservative Party for years until Farage was given a massive platform to drag it to the front of UK politics?

[pandarilla]

 
Doesn't polling generally show that it was a minority issue to most people outside of the Conservative Party for years until Farage was given a massive platform to drag it to the front of UK politics?

What are you suggesting, though?

If we hide these right wing views then they'll go away?

More than 50% of the voters decided they wanted to leave the uk. It exasperates me but what can we do?

The Internet and social media has massively dented the influence of the old media owners, which is a good thing.

[carpetmonster]

5 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

The Internet and social media has massively dented the influence of the old media owners, which is a good thing.
 

Is it tho? I’ve seen folks radicalise themselves online and will put the mainstream media thru every wringer to decide that it’s fake news but give the guy on YouTube with two pencils up each nostril credence at entirely face value. Yes, the internet means that we *can* scrutinize every source meticulously, but in reality most folks will readily accept being told what they think they want to hear, and bombast gets clicks. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by carpetmonster

[renton]

3 hours ago, NotThePars said:

Also would counsel a bit of caution on this point given that giving Farage a big platform for over a decade didn't actually expose the ludicrousness of his argument and instead saw his minority issue become the defining political wedge of the last half-decade.

I guess the problem with the classical position of letting the weight of the opposing argument decide the issue is that a lot of people don't base their view on the substance of the argument but on myriad other factors such as how much they identify with the person making the argument and how much that argument coincides with the person's existing biases.

I guess generally I'm still in favour of letting all platforms be heard, if only because I suspect that people who feel their opinions are being stymied will just retreat into further obstinacy. You need to afford people the grace to change their minds without the stigma of being told they were wrong and stupid, even if they were.

At the same time there have to be some limits on free speech, to the extent that Liberal democracy should accommodate any and all viewpoints up to the point where those views consume the democracy itself. Hence statutes on hate speech. It's a fine balance.

Ultimately lasting social change comes with bringing the majority with it, I suppose.

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by renton

[pandarilla]

Is it tho? I’ve seen folks radicalise themselves online and will put the mainstream media thru every wringer to decide that it’s fake news but give the guy on YouTube with two pencils up each nostril credence at entirely face value. Yes, the internet means that we *can* scrutinize every source meticulously, but in reality most folks will readily accept being told what they think they want to hear, and bombast gets clicks. 

I'm not necessarily saying the Internet and social media has been a good thing for society in general - i think the jury is still out on that.

But I'm hoping that it's damaged the old order of media ownership (that might not be the case but things have certainly opened up). The wealthy and powerful don't give up influence easily though, and it's depressing that the mail online has been one of the best to adapt.

[Shotgun]

There's a wide gap between hiding unsavoury views and actively promoting them. Has any other leader of a minority party been given the amount of air time that Farage received?

[NotThePars]

28 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

What are you suggesting, though?

 

I'm suggesting that the media play an active part in deciding which issues are the most worthy of discussion and they aren't merely reacting to public interest. I imagine if we'd devoted all the time spent giving Farage a platform to turn the EU into the wedge issue of the last half decade over to something like climate change then maybe that would be the main issue we'd be concerned with instead. 

20 minutes ago, renton said:

I guess the problem with the classical position of letting the weight of the opposing argument decide the issue is that a lot of people don't base their view on the substance of the argument but on myriad other factors such as how much they identify with the person making the argument and how much that argument coincides with the person's existing biases.

I guess generally I'm still in favour of letting all platforms be heard, if only because I suspect that people who feel their opinions are being stymied will just retreat into further obstinacy. You need to afford people the grace to change their minds without the stigma of being told they were wrong and stupid, even if they were.

At the same time there have to be some limits on free speech, to the extent that Liberal democracy should accommodate any and all viewpoints up to the point where those views consume the democracy itself. Hence statutes on hate speech. It's a fine balance.

Ultimately lasting social change comes with bringing the majority with it, I suppose.

 

I think an understated but major problem has been this perceived need to find 'balance' on topics which is how you end up with thicko professional contrarians like Brendan O' Neill, Tom Harwood and Darren Grimes being invited on every panel going to do nothing but hold the opposing view on a topic. Genuinely one of the better recent discussions I seen on Sky News recently was one involving MLK's son and one of the founders of Black Lives Matter to discuss the efficacy of the Minnesota riots because you had two people that were knowledgable and held their own nuanced opinions on the subject where there was a lot of broad agreement but differences on specifics.

 

[Detournement]

1 hour ago, NotThePars said:

 

Doesn't polling generally show that it was a minority issue to most people outside of the Conservative Party for years until Farage was given a massive platform to drag it to the front of UK politics?

I would guess it closely tracked support for Scottish independence. 

It definitely was never below 25%.

 

[Detournement]

It has never been a fringe belief 

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

14 minutes ago, Detournement said:

It has never been a fringe belief 

As soon as I read Get out/leave 

 

[D.A.F.C]

I'm not necessarily saying the Internet and social media has been a good thing for society in general - i think the jury is still out on that.

But I'm hoping that it's damaged the old order of media ownership (that might not be the case but things have certainly opened up). The wealthy and powerful don't give up influence easily though, and it's depressing that the mail online has been one of the best to adapt.

Most news channels have their own agenda and financial backers though.
I do agree that the bbc is biased against the snp, seems obvious as if we went independent they could lose clout and jobs in Scotland.
Channel four news seems the most balanced and honest over the last few years. The only channel that was fully covering covid in Italy and started questioning the herd immunity strategy and ripped the sage scientists a new one.