Intellectuals weigh in on Cancel Culture

ancapailldorcha

Bonniedog wrote: »

Trump is a War monger who is almost unique in not bringing America into a new war.

Not much of a war monger is he?

Not much of anything as far as I can tell. He's advocated injecting bleach as a cure for a viral pandemic so the fact that he can't plan out something as complicated as a war comes as no surprise.

Brian?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Definitely not. I'm a liberal centrist and remain bewildered as to why Irish culture warriors insist on using the American meaning of the term.

You lads are worse than Hitler. No commitment.

Brian?

MadYaker wrote: »

I don't get the trashing statues thing anyway. How is some statue of some guy that died hundreds of years ago oppressing people today? Just seems like mindless vandalism to me.

Taking down statues that were put up during the Jim Crowe era to remind black people of their place is fine with me.

These guys were traitors to the USA anyway, why anyone thinks they're worthy of celebration is beyond me. They started a civil war so they could keep owning people.

MadYaker

Brian? wrote: »

Taking down statues that were put up during the Jim Crowe era to remind black people of their place is fine with me.

These guys were traitors to the USA anyway, why anyone thinks they're worthy of celebration is beyond me. They started a civil war so they could keep owning people.

My take on it is that trashing the statues pisses off the snowflakes who get angry at everything. The statues were there for a long time until now and nobody was bothered by them so why not just leave them alone? The people tearing them down and the other people whinging about them being torn down probably weren't even aware of the statues existence a few weeks ago.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Taking down statues that were put up during the Jim Crowe era to remind black people of their place is fine with me.

These guys were traitors to the USA anyway, why anyone thinks they're worthy of celebration is beyond me. They started a civil war so they could keep owning people.

Ahh well, I don't buy into that propaganda either. The Union didn't seek the freeing of slaves until they felt the need to bolster their own ranks and hit the southern economy. The civil war was based on economics and political control, neither side being particularly pure about their motives. The war was more about politics than anything else. There's heaps of propaganda and revisionism on both sides.

I've no issue with taking down statues, as long as they're moved to less public places, such as museums. I do have issues with seeking to redesign history to suit agendas.

ChikiChiki

suicide_circus wrote: »

Both ends of the spectrum are problematic. The middle ground, where the vast majority of people reside, has lost ground to the extremists. Anti intellectualism, feelings over facts, witch hunts, divisive rhetoric.

It's ugly.

This is spot on. Both sides full of shouty noise making twats that would drain the life out of you if you dried to have a reasonable debate with them. That's why a lot of the time it's more hassle than it's worth as they would accuse you of being at the extreme end of the opposite viewpoint for even a slight difference in opinion.

MadYaker

MadYaker wrote: »

My take on it is that trashing the statues pisses off the snowflakes who get angry at everything. The statues were there for a long time until now and nobody was bothered by them so why not just leave them alone? The people tearing them down and the other people whinging about them being torn down probably weren't even aware of the statues existence a few weeks ago.

We weren't but locals were.

For a long time, there's been running fights on a local level in many places in the US about historical statues either relating to slavery or the civil war. One side has apparently won all of those debates though.

1800_Ladladlad

Author, Jenny Boylan had signed a letter denouncing cancel culture and then when the mob came to cancel her over it, she caved and is now down on one the knee, crying for forgiveness. The irony is that this all acts to legitimize the letter and its purpose. It just validates the f*cking absurdity of it all

https://twitter.com/JennyBoylan/status/1280646004136697863

CtevenSrowder

Brian? wrote: »

Am I the only one who's sick of the radical left being called "liberals"?

There was a simpler time when the radical left was entirely concerned with bringing down the entire capitalist system and replacing it with an egalitarian utopia. Now we're accused of all sorts.

"Cancel culture" is not a product of the radical left. It's a product of a massive corporations protecting their bottom lines. The complete opposite of what most on the left believe in.

The people who support "Cancel culture" are a very strange bunch to me. The seem to lurch from outrage to outrage. The same is true of the people on the right who oppose them, they're outraged by outrage. They see forced diversity and tokenism everywhere.

The left needs to get back to wearing duffel coats and plotting the downfall of the capitalist system.

It absolutely is a product radical left, it is something that emerged from universities and a certain political philosophy. It is unfortunate and unfair when 'the left' as a whole gets lumped in with these radicals, as many on the left oppose them (see Pinker, Rowling, Weinstein and co.), and there is a cancel culture on the right aswell, but it has far less influence.

It is in a sense a modern form of McCarthyism, however flipped and now it's those who are on the (hard) left side of the political spectrum carrying t out, as opposed to the hard right.

Tired Gardener

Regarding statues of political people, I still think that the best places for them is in a museum. That way they can be presented along with the information about who they are and what they did. Context is everything, a statue of a political figure stood in a square doesn't have the scope to address the who, why, and when.

Statues of musicians and artists are a different thing I think. Their art and music is readily available and speaks for itself.

briany

A tangential problem I have with all this is that certain people on the Right are using the idea of cancel culture as a way to prove the moral bankruptcy of the Left, and to try and use this to catapult popular thought not into a middle-ground position, but in fact clear over the fence to the other side, and that's equally wrong.

What also interests me is that when we talk of public shaming or cancel culture, there's a lot of talk about who is getting shamed and not enough about who is doing the shaming. Like, even take one case and ask what kind of prominent voices are leading the charge against a particular person. Right now, they seem to be almost faceless or anonymous, and that's not right because it allows certain people to paint them as the representatives of mainstream liberal/left/progressive thought, when they could actually be quite extreme people in their own right.

ancapailldorcha

I don't care for the term "cancel culture". I think that it's misleading and masks a more subtle but concerning problem with modern societies.

As a society, we've never had so much freedom on an individual level. The problem is that there are areas where these freedoms could be deemed to be in conflict with each other. While we all have the right to free speech, we seem unwilling to sit quietly and let someone else talk. We have to be talking all the time. We live in a world of 24-hour news cycles, complex issues being distilled down to 300-character (or whatever length) tweets and professional commentators masquerading as experts.

Hence the labels ronivek referred to earlier. Easy to skip over nuanced issues which would otherwise take valuable time to comprehend. This is just as well because the next outrage is never far away.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ahh well, I don't buy into that propaganda either. The Union didn't seek the freeing of slaves until they felt the need to bolster their own ranks and hit the southern economy. The civil war was based on economics and political control, neither side being particularly pure about their motives. The war was more about politics than anything else. There's heaps of propaganda and revisionism on both sides.

I've no issue with taking down statues, as long as they're moved to less public places, such as museums. I do have issues with seeking to redesign history to suit agendas.

Propaganda? The confederate leaders themselves said it was about the right to keep slaves. Every state secession announcement said it. The right to keep slaves was enshrined in the confederate constitution.

There were other factors involved. But the main one was slavery. It’s absolutely revisionist to say it wasn’t.

Brian?

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It absolutely is a product radical left, it is something that emerged from universities and a certain political philosophy. It is unfortunate and unfair when 'the left' as a whole gets lumped in with these radicals, as many on the left oppose them (see Pinker, Rowling, Weinstein and co.), and there is a cancel culture on the right aswell, but it has far less influence.

It is in a sense a modern form of McCarthyism, however flipped and now it's those who are on the (hard) left side of the political spectrum carrying t out, as opposed to the hard right.

What radical left is it from? Communist, no. Anarchists, no. Libertarian socialists, no.

I accept it may come from some people
who are on the political left. But definitely not the radical left. I would have got the memo.

Brian?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't care for the term "cancel culture". I think that it's misleading and masks a more subtle but concerning problem with modern societies.

As a society, we've never had so much freedom on an individual level. The problem is that there are areas where these freedoms could be deemed to be in conflict with each other. While we all have the right to free speech, we seem unwilling to sit quietly and let someone else talk. We have to be talking all the time. We live in a world of 24-hour news cycles, complex issues being distilled down to 300-character (or whatever length) tweets and professional commentators masquerading as experts.

Hence the labels ronivek referred to earlier. Easy to skip over nuanced issues which would otherwise take valuable time to comprehend. This is just as well because the next outrage is never far away.

It’s far easier to shout slogans, buzzwords and insults that it is to actually debate nuance.

No the term “radical left” and “liberal” are almost interchangeable. It’s ludicrous.

ancapailldorcha

Brian? wrote: »

It’s far easier to shout slogans, buzzwords and insults that it is to actually debate nuance.

No the term “radical left” and “liberal” are almost interchangeable. It’s ludicrous.

I don't disagree. The problem with ease is that we tend towards it. It's easier to eat a **** diet, refrain from exercise and become obese than it is to practice self-restraint and discipline for instance.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Propaganda? The confederate leaders themselves said it was about the right to keep slaves. Every state secession announcement said it. The right to keep slaves was enshrined in the confederate constitution.

There were other factors involved. But the main one was slavery. It’s absolutely revisionist to say it wasn’t.

Oh. I know that they did.... They also said it was related to the creation of new states and the value of votes for political power... the propaganda is that the reason for the Union to fight was the freedom of slaves. The righteous battle against the evil south. Most of that came after the war had already begun.

CtevenSrowder

We're talking America here. It's were this stuff started. It's not quite kicked off in Ireland yet, though I fear it might in the next few years. But maybe not.

Junkyard Tom

Bonniedog wrote: »

...

I'll, try again. Below is a response to you attributing responsibility to Marx/Marxism for Soviet Union gulags (and not the NHS )

Marx was critical of capitalism's unequal relationship between capitalist and worker. Do you really think Marxism calls for a system that was worse than capitalism for unequal distribution of power? A system where if workers don't meet targets dictated to them by a powerful cabal they could end up being worked to death in a Siberian labour camp?

Silentcorner

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

We're talking America here. It's were this stuff started. It's not quite kicked off in Ireland yet, though I fear it might in the next few years. But maybe not.

Don't kid yourself...we'll drown ourselves in it...we are not known for our self control.

What hasn't been mentioned is the current generation, there is a very vocal element of this generation who hold very extreme positions and are simultaneously emotionally brittle individuals incapable of debate or hearing alternate views....they are in a delayed maturity cycle...growing older but staying emotionally immature and even regressing in some cases.

Too many people taking very permanent positions on temporary emotions.

Brian?

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

We're talking America here. It's were this stuff started. It's not quite kicked off in Ireland yet, though I fear it might in the next few years. But maybe not.

The radical left is minuscule in America. Even the moderate left is pretty small. You think this tiny band of radicals is responsibly for so much upset?

Silentcorner

Brian? wrote: »

The radical left is minuscule in America. Even the moderate left is pretty small. You think this tiny band of radicals is responsibly for so much upset?

Brian...you're gas!!!

CtevenSrowder

Brian? wrote: »

It’s far easier to shout slogans, buzzwords and insults that it is to actually debate nuance.

No the term “radical left” and “liberal” are almost interchangeable. It’s ludicrous.

Jesus this will just go down the same road of the anti-fa thread were you will refuse to accept any evidence whatsoever. This whole 'cancel culture' stuff emerged from American Universities (humanities and social sciences in particular) which are overwhelmingly left-wing. The reason the term post-marxism is bandied about a lot is because the essence of Marxism (oppressor class, oppressed class) has been taken and is now not only applied to class, but race (white oppressor, black oppressed), sex (men oppressor, women oppressed), sexual orientation (straight oppressor, gay oppressed) etc. It is then applied again within these groups (white men oppressor, black men oppressed). A minority it is for sure. But it is a minority that have quite an influence, and it is a way of thinking that is difficult to argue against as it is devoid of logic, and the people who hold these views rarely seem to want genuine discussion. You almost instantaneously are fighting off accusations of racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia and other such buzzwords. It is totally unreasonable.
If you want an example of how this thinking is creeping into Ireland, take the current discussion surrounding Direct Provision in Ireland, and how some of those who want rid of it describe it as being 'racist'. And ofcourse, if you are opposed getting rid of DP, well then you are supporting a racist institution, and you can guess were the argument goes yourself.

It is not all left-wing people, in my opinion it is not even nearly a majority. Also I've never used the term liberal and I don't see why you are equating it with 'radical left'.

CtevenSrowder

Brian? wrote: »

The radical left is minuscule in America. Even the moderate left is pretty small. You think this tiny band of radicals is responsibly for so much upset?

Yes. Listen to the likes of Bret Weinstein, his brother Eric, Steven Pinker, James Lindsay, Peter Boghassian or Helen Pluckrose if you want the nuance that you crave, and an understanding of the issue that you are unlikely to get from boards. All of those people are left-wing (Eric I'm not sure).

Brian?

Silentcorner wrote: »

Brian...you're gas!!!

Why so?

Brian?

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Jesus this will just go down the same road of the anti-fa thread were you will refuse to accept any evidence whatsoever. This whole 'cancel culture' stuff emerged from American Universities (humanities and social sciences in particular) which are overwhelmingly left-wing. The reason the term post-marxism is bandied about a lot is because the essence of Marxism (oppressor class, oppressed class) has been taken and is now not only applied to class, but race (white oppressor, black oppressed), sex (men oppressor, women oppressed), sexual orientation (straight oppressor, gay oppressed) etc. It is then applied again within these groups (white men oppressor, black men oppressed). A minority it is for sure. But it is a minority that have quite an influence, and it is a way of thinking that is difficult to argue against as it is devoid of logic, and the people who hold these views rarely seem to want genuine discussion. You almost instantaneously are fighting off accusations of racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia and other such buzzwords. It is totally unreasonable.
If you want an example of how this thinking is creeping into Ireland, take the current discussion surrounding Direct Provision in Ireland, and how some of those who want rid of it describe it as being 'racist'. And ofcourse, if you are opposed getting rid of DP, well then you are supporting a racist institution, and you can guess were the argument goes yourself.

It is not all left-wing people, in my opinion it is not even nearly a majority. Also I've never used the term liberal and I don't see why you are equating it with 'radical left'.

Cancel culture comes from social progressives who are sometimes not very progressive. I know that. I don’t need any “proof” to tell me what I know.

The radical left are concerned with overthrowing the global capitalist system. Not getting people banned from twitter.

Both groups above are the minority on the left. I’m glad you acknowledge that.

Brian?

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Yes. Listen to the likes of Bret Weinstein, his brother Eric, Steven Pinker, James Lindsay, Peter Boghassian or Helen Pluckrose if you want the nuance that you crave, and an understanding of the issue that you are unlikely to get from boards. All of those people are left-wing (Eric I'm not sure).

I have a full understanding of the issue. I find it strange that you think I don’t. I want a discussion with nuance on boards though. They used to happen, but seem to be long gone.

Brian?

Silentcorner wrote: »

Don't kid yourself...we'll drown ourselves in it...we are not known for our self control.

What hasn't been mentioned is the current generation, there is a very vocal element of this generation who hold very extreme positions and are simultaneously emotionally brittle individuals incapable of debate or hearing alternate views....they are in a delayed maturity cycle...growing older but staying emotionally immature and even regressing in some cases.

Too many people taking very permanent positions on temporary emotions.

Ah here. This is pure nonsense. Every generation frets about the plight of the next generation. They’ll be grand. Young people usually are.

CtevenSrowder

Brian? wrote: »

I have a full understanding of the issue. I find it strange that you think I don’t. I want a discussion with nuance on boards though. They used to happen, but seem to be long gone.

What other nuance are you looking for exactly. Have I not given you nuance? I've acknowledged these people are a minority, I've differentiated them from the average run of the mill left-winger.

CtevenSrowder

Brian? wrote: »

Cancel culture comes from social progressives who are sometimes not very progressive. I know that. I don’t need any “proof” to tell me what I know.

The radical left are concerned with overthrowing the global capitalist system. Not getting people banned from twitter.

Both groups above are the minority on the left. I’m glad you acknowledge that.

No, it comes from radical social progressives. Hence why I used the term the 'radical' left. I'd have JK down as a social progressive, yet she is currently feeling the full force of these people. Likewise Brett Weinstein.