Nick Cave: 'cancel culture is bad religion run amuck'

One eyed Jack

Errashareesh wrote: »

This is a disturbing example for those of us who aren't into condoning racism or sexism or homophobia but disagree with lies and shutting down respectful discussion: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/18/judge-rules-against-charity-worker-who-lost-job-over-transgender-tweets

That’s not a disturbing example of anyone disagreeing with lies and shutting down respectful discussion?

Maya Forstater was pissed off because her former employers didn’t renew her contract after she had been warned multiple times that her behaviour was creating a hostile working environment for her co-workers. She didn’t seem to care for their opinions, but her employers have a duty of care towards all their employees, not just Maya Forstater, and certainly not when she continued to flout the numerous warnings she was given about her behaviour.

At the Employment Tribunal she was respectfully told her opinions didn’t qualify as protected beliefs worthy of protection in a democratic society.

Continuing to lie about why her contract wasn’t renewed is silly when the facts of the case are well known already.

One eyed Jack

Dean Rich Smokehouse wrote: »

Have to get back to basics in the education system start teaching kids

'Sticks and stones may break my bones
But words will never hurt me.:

&

Having a hard neck.

Holding people responsible for other people's feelings is crazy and far to subjective

More often than not though, it’s the people who claim to be champions of free speech are the worst for playing the victim when their bullshìt doesn’t fly.

Junkyard Tom

This is the salient point below.

ronivek wrote: »

Rather ironically the term also tends to be bandied about by conservatives and religious types who for the most part have been engaging in organised and consistent 'cancelling' for literal millennia.

Those who used to monopolise the power to do the cancelling are now finding themselves exposed to push-back (not always justified no doubt) and they are apoplectic.

Those moaning about cancel culture are all-too-often crying crocodile tears about facing consequences for behaviour.

ArnoldJRimmer

What really gets on my t!ts, not just on this subject, but on social media in general, is that there are only ever two options. If you hold or question a viewpoint on certain issues, you are automatically on one extreme or the other. There is no middle ground, no room for conversation, or even just accepting that you will never hold the same viewpoint and leave it at that without childish name calling

Lets take Trump. Instead of asking why so many American people voted for him in an election that he should have been nowhere near winning, every single Trump supporter was branded as a racist, brain dead monster. Which I imagine some of them are, but others stood to benefit financially from having a president who was that right wing, just simply vote for anything but Democrat, or may genuinely have thought he was a good candidate as he had the persona of a successful businessman. But a lot of people in the US are living in poverty or sh!t conditions, and were looking for anything that might remotely improve their lot in life. And shouting down at them is not gonna either help them or persuade them to change their viewpoint or vote

On the other side, there are people who fall exactly into the category Nick Cave describes, and are so like 1950s Catholic Church era Ireland that its scary. Thats not being over-dramatic, there is so much power out there that people need to apologise for sh!tty, but in the grand scale of things, harmless behaviour and tweets from ten years ago. But there are activists working on behalf of the less fortunate in the world, but hold relatively moderate views. They just want more support for the needy, a fairer distribution of wealth, and to ensure that minorities have a voice. But everyone is branded as 'insert moronic term,' and all they do is cry and moan, and want to give wasters money, and bring about the end of civilisation as we know it

Errashareesh

Could it not be accepted though that while yes there are people who just want to say hateful things not liking being called out on it, there are others who occupy a much more moderate ground and just disagree with views being shut down which are not hateful, they are just questioning?

Mr. Cave's 'Red Hand Files' are very good..

You can email him a question if you want..

Every few days I get an email where he answers a question from someone..

It's often quite profound..

One of the better emails I get generally..

Junkyard Tom

Errashareesh wrote: »

there are others who occupy a much more moderate ground and just disagree with views being shut down which are not hateful, they are just questioning?

Yeah but are those the ones who are being 'cancelled'?

Errashareesh

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yeah but are those the ones who are being 'cancelled'?

Well the trans debate is a prime example. The abuse JK Rowling got for saying biological sex can't be changed. Now yeah, she wasn't "cancelled" - as I said earlier, stupid term. But nothing she said was hateful. Debate - cool, but abuse?

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yeah but are those the ones who are being 'cancelled'?

So are you saying his shut down culture is ok?..

It's honestly quite alarming how quick some are to try to justify this..

Junkyard Tom

Errashareesh wrote: »

Well the trans debate is a prime example. The abuse JK Rowling got for saying biological sex can't be changed. Now yeah, she wasn't "cancelled" - as I said earlier, stupid term. But nothing she said was hateful. Debate - cool, but abuse?

Tbh I try to avoid the whole trans thing as I think it's a distraction from bigger issues, but yeah, people getting hate and death threats and stuff online? That's sick and cowardly regardless of the politics of its supposed origin.

Cancel culture though? Who has been cancelled from what? (not aiming that specifically at you fwiw.)

i_surge

Moral hypocrites using their twisted morality as a means to control and feel important. Dividing us into categories of good and bad, and entirely wrong in that judgement.

We have seen it all before. No thanks

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

So are you saying his shut down culture is ok?..

It's honestly quite alarming how quick some are to try to justify this..

Justify what exactly?

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Justify what exactly?

"Cancel culture"

Errashareesh

Another example: that woman in Central Park who called the police on an African American man who wasn't doing anything to her, and she made a point of race baiting on the call: she was a vindictive weapon for doing that. And stupid when he was filming. No sympathy for her when she was subsequently identified on social media. Wouldn't be one for joining a mob myself but it was her own doing.

However, when they started targeting her employer, that crossed the line for me. They harangued her employer into sacking her. They did sack her - and that's their choice. It's a standard business decision not to want to be associated with such behaviour. But they announced on Twitter that they had sacked her. Wtf? They were harassed so much that they felt the need to announce an internal HR decision on Twitter?! That's just ****ed up.

Clumsy as the "cancel" term is, I think it's shorthand for punishing people disproportionately.

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

"Cancel culture"

It depends.

Harvey Weinstein? Yes.

Someone who wrote something stupid on the internet when they were 17? No.

I guess there's a spectrum for this cancel culture, no?

Junkyard Tom

Errashareesh wrote: »

They harangued her employer into sacking her. They did sack her - and that's their choice. It's a standard business decision not to want to be associated with such behaviour.

Yes, I disagree with people losing their livelihood for what could be one instance of shitty behaviour but who is responsible here? That, surely, is the employer having too much power over the employee?

Errashareesh

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yes, I disagree with people losing their livelihood for what could be one instance of shitty behaviour but who is responsible here? That, surely, is the employer having too much power over the employee?

I think it's the mobs on social media having too much power over the business. Enough negative mentions and you're gonna be thinking losses.

i_surge

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

This is the salient point below.



Those who used to monopolise the power to do the cancelling are now finding themselves exposed to push-back (not always justified no doubt) and they are apoplectic.

Those moaning about cancel culture are all-too-often crying crocodile tears about facing consequences for behaviour.

These pithy memes are a cause celebrant justification for a horrible set of behaviours that are justified only in a very few cases. The cases that coincide with the normal route for justice usually. Typically, actual crimes like the Weinstein case.

The people doing this stuff are hoodwinked into feeling like heroes, and in their bubble they are. A big circle jerk mostly.

i_surge

Errashareesh wrote: »

I think it's the mobs on social media having too much power over the business. Enough negative mentions and you're gonna be thinking losses.

They are a very loud minority in wider society, enough businesses and reasonable people need to tell them to take a run and jump and not submit to their demands. Mock and counter shame their efforts at character assassination (lowest trick in the book btw).

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It depends.

Harvey Weinstein? Yes.

But like, should he not have had a chance to defend himself?..yeah, he was a scumbag, but a lot of those women profited from their arrangement, and knew what they were doing..just look at how they all thought he was great at the oscars and stuff..

This whole politics of the twitter mob hounding people is just dangerous..

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"Cancel culture"

I think Tom was just asking a question :pac:

It’s a fair point too - people with moderate opinions who question anything aren’t the targets of anyone’s ire. It’s the people who imagine they are above everyone else are often the targets of people’s ire - because they set themselves up for it and then try to play the victim when they know exactly what they’re doing and they imagine there should be no consequences for their behaviour.

George Hook was “only questioning” too when he mused whether or not victims of rape were in some way responsible for being raped. He was trying to be provocative and he knew it would provoke people. Then he tried to make out that he was the victim.

Richard Dawkins - constantly coming out with stupid shìt on social media (though he hasn’t been heard from in a while), same thing - says something he knows will provoke people, feigns innocence and claims he was bombarded with “fireballs of hatred” :pac:

Stephen Fry, Salman Rushdie, JK Rowling, each and every one of them knew exactly what they were saying, because they wanted to provoke a reaction, the complete opposite of any respectful debate or discussion. Nothing more than making snide remarks about other people, and when people react to being provoked, these people who see themselves as “intellectuals” try and play the “See? I told you they were unreasonable” bullshìt.

i_surge

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think Tom was just asking a question :pac:

It’s a fair point too - people with moderate opinions who question anything aren’t the targets of anyone’s ire. It’s the people who imagine they are above everyone else are often the targets of people’s ire - because they set themselves up for it and then try to play the victim when they know exactly what they’re doing and they imagine there should be no consequences for their behaviour.

George Hook was “only questioning” too when he mused whether or not victims of rape were in some way responsible for being raped. He was trying to be provocative and he knew it would provoke people. Then he tried to make out that he was the victim.

Richard Dawkins - constantly coming out with stupid shìt on social media (though he hasn’t been heard from in a while), same thing - says something he knows will provoke people, feigns innocence and claims he was bombarded with “fireballs of hatred” :pac:

Stephen Fry, Salman Rushdie, JK Rowling, each and every one of them knew exactly what they were saying, because they wanted to provoke a reaction, the complete opposite of any respectful debate or discussion. Nothing more than making snide remarks about other people, and when people react to being provoked, these people who see themselves as “intellectuals” try and play the “See? I told you they were unreasonable” bullshìt.

You picked some fairly innocent targets there. Public figures and intellectuals holding an opinion and being provocative is innocuous in the grand scheme of things.

One eyed Jack

i_surge wrote: »

You picked some fairly innocent targets there. Public figures and intellectuals holding an opinion and being provocative is innocuous in the grand scheme of things.

As is their being knocked off their pedestals really, just as insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Errashareesh

The problem though is that people who simply question things on Twitter ARE being attacked and risking their jobs.

Junkyard Tom

Errashareesh wrote: »

I think it's the mobs on social media having too much power over the business. Enough negative mentions and you're gonna be thinking losses.

I'm not sure how we stop online mobs. Don't you have to commit actual murder to get fired from certain jobs?

I think you might be making a case for stronger employment laws or better unions and those are hardly a problem caused by 'the left'.

i_surge

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As is their being knocked off their pedestals really, just as insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Not if you are them. Reputation and career damage are no joke for anyone.

You made snide remarks in the past hour, implying someone in favour of regulating prostitutuion can't get laid without paying for it. Would it be fair to have your life ruined over a colourful comment (harmless to all but the learned oversensitive) used to make your argument?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Stephen Fry, Salman Rushdie, JK Rowling, each and every one of them knew exactly what they were saying, because they wanted to provoke a reaction, the complete opposite of any respectful debate or discussion. Nothing more than making snide remarks about other people, and when people react to being provoked, these people who see themselves as “intellectuals” try and play the “See? I told you they were unreasonable” bullshìt.

Well..yes, and no..Rowling was reasonable in what she said, was she not?..
Rushdie..like..He was free to say what he said..but he knew people could want to kill him after it..like..don't be surprised if it happens then..
Like, that cartoon agency in France..they were being deliberately provocative..**** happened..It's like..'well, what did you expect..'
Words can have consequences..

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

But like, should he not have had a chance to defend himself?..yeah, he was a scumbag, but...

But fuck that. I've no interest in discussing whether HW was wronged or not, the fat piece of shit is rotting in a jail now where he belongs.

Errashareesh

It's not a matter of left or right (I'm mostly left leaning myself), just behaviour. Yes I agree though that there is certainly a case for more robust employee protections from disciplinary action via social media.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

But fuck that. I've no interest in discussing whether HW was wronged or not, the fat piece of shit is rotting in a jail now where he belongs.

Well, yeah..but like, there's the whole legal system on which civilization is founded..hopefully you never get on the wrong side of the twitterati..