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

Memnoch

Errashareesh wrote: »

JK Rowling didn't deny the reality of trans people one bit. Trans people change their gender certainly but biological sex cannot be changed. She was simply challenging this fallacy. And the abuse she got was outrageous. If someone says gender can't be changed, they are denying the reality of trans people. Saying that you can't go from having male sex organs to female ones is not.

As for the woman in Central Park, I said pretty much the same as you in terms of her behaviour and the reaction being her doing (but she didn't threaten to have the man killed). What I object to is the way people on social media dragged her employer into it though. They harangued her employer - which has nothing to do with the incident, to the point of the employer feeling forced to TWEET about an internal HR decision.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there like this woman who would not hesitate to use systemic racism against black people and other power imbalances to get the upper hand to suit themselves. If this incident makes them feel that there will be serious consequences for trying to threaten others in this way and thus stops them from going down that path then that is much better for society.

As to the JK Rowling issue, what you are saying is not so straightforward. But I really don't want to get into a long internal debate about definitions with respect trans people right now. There is plenty of literature out there about how her comments were delegitimizing and if you do not accept that to be the case then I doubt anything I say will change your mind.

i_surge

Memnoch wrote: »

In my view, it is not permissible for people to use police in this way to threaten someone that they are having a civil disagreement with.

Neither do I, a tell tale society where people just try to **** each other on the sly over rather than facing disagreements person to person.

Still a leap of the imagination to say she was going to have him killed.

Memnoch

i_surge wrote: »

You seem quite brainwashed to accept it that way. The word delegitimise was used earlier and this sums it up. It points out a very deep problem. I suffered some physical and emotional abuse from a very unstable ex, no harm done in the end but it still happened so that is certainly not what should be cancelled!

A deep problem. Hopefully most are starting to see through this.

I don't agree with your characterization. But I can see that this is a situation that is complex and nuanced. Unfortunately, societal systems are complex and always have a degree of unpredictability and variance. It's not a perfect world. And there is no perfect solution. Recognizing that there are systemic injustice and imbalance that need to be corrected does not make be brainwashed.

I'm sorry for what you faced. It is an issue I care deeply about.

i_surge

Memnoch wrote: »

I don't agree with your characterization. But I can see that this is a situation that is complex and nuanced. Unfortunately, societal systems are complex and always have a degree of unpredictability and variance. It's not a perfect world. And there is no perfect solution. Recognizing that there are systemic injustice and imbalance that need to be corrected does not make be brainwashed.

I'm sorry for what you faced. It is an issue I care deeply about.

Well your story can be summed up as the victim had the wrong gender. Says a lot about the audience for these things.

Memnoch

i_surge wrote: »

Neither do I, a tell tale society where people just try to **** each other on the sly over rather than facing disagreements person to person.

Still a leap of the imagination to say she was going to have him killed.

She might not have been able to get him killed but that was the implied threat.

That she, as a vulnerable white woman, was going to call the police and tell them that she was scared for her safety because of a dangerous black man.

Put yourself in the shoes of said black man and I think you would feel like that was a threat to have you killed.

Errashareesh

Memnoch wrote: »

As to the JK Rowling issue, what you are saying is not so straightforward. But I really don't want to get into a long internal debate about definitions with respect trans people right now. There is plenty of literature out there about how her comments were delegitimizing and if you do not accept that to be the case then I doubt anything I say will change your mind.

I know it's not straightforward, that's why I wrote this really long post setting out my stall regarding the matter: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114258273&postcount=3298

Respect should be a two-way street.

Memnoch

i_surge wrote: »

Well your story can be summed up as the victim had the wrong gender. Says a lot about the audience for these things.

Sort of, not really. I think the reality is much more complex and multifaceted than that. There is context, history and lived reality that cannot simply be discounted. That is the risk you take as an artist when you speak about thorny and controversial issues.

i_surge

Memnoch wrote: »

Sort of, not really. I think the reality is much more complex and multifaceted than that. There is context, history and lived reality that cannot simply be discounted. That is the risk you take as an artist when you speak about thorny and controversial issues.

No, human nature as it is, the lived reality is that both genders can be abusive. The balance falls one way but to actively discredit the other side is heinous and shows why these "for 1000 years women have suffered" arguments are damaging to the greater good. There is no reparation for the past that can be levied on an innocent present generation fairly.

i_surge

Memnoch wrote: »

Sort of, not really. I think the reality is much more complex and multifaceted than that. There is context, history and lived reality that cannot simply be discounted. That is the risk you take as an artist when you speak about thorny and controversial issues.

Context and history are the brainwashing influence I'm talking about. It is manipulative, as your story exemplifies.

Memnoch

Errashareesh wrote: »

I know it's not straightforward, that's why I wrote this really long post setting out my stall regarding the matter: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114258273&postcount=3298

Respect should be a two-way street.

Thank you for sharing.

Having a read of your post I accept that you are trying to take an honest look at a complex situation. The difficulty is that you are trying to segregate and separate issues that are inextricably intertwined.

You are quoting the previously accepted biological definition of the word “woman”. The issue is that the connotations around this are not purely biological but also psychological, emotional, societal etc.

You may not see it that way and may not want to see it that way but it does unfortunately lead to delegitimization and marginalization.

Ultimately, I think your stance is harmful to trans people. You may not want it to be and you may not want this to be said to you.

2u2me

Memnoch wrote: »

Ultimately, I think your stance is harmful to trans people. You may not want to be and you may not want this to be sent to you.

Could your short film about male abuse victims not be classified as harmful to women?

I've seen many feminists make that argument.

Memnoch

i_surge wrote: »

Context and history are the brainwashing influence I'm talking about. It is manipulative, as your story exemplifies.

No, it is recorded fact. You are currently railing against perceived system discrimination while simultaneously denying the impact of actual systemic discrimination that has been in situ for decades.

Memnoch

2u2me wrote: »

Could your short film about male abuse victims not be classified as harmful to women?

I've seen many feminists make that argument.

Yes, unfortunately. I knew that was a risk when I made it.

One eyed Jack

Errashareesh wrote: »

I know it's not straightforward, that's why I wrote this really long post setting out my stall regarding the matter: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114258273&postcount=3298

Respect should be a two-way street.

Respect IS a two-way street, as is the street where people demonstrate their lack of respect for other people. I don’t see why anyone should be respectful to people who want the freedom to insult people and call for a “debate”. That’s just inviting people to be mocked even more.

Errashareesh

Well I think the psychological, emotional and societal are covered by the term trans woman. And the recognition of self identification as being of the female gender.

But ignoring the biological is disrespectful and harmful to women - we deserve respect too.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Memnoch wrote: »

There are countless trans and gay kids that have committed suicide over the years because of this. They are vulnerable, struggling with her identity, isolated and marginalized. So her tweet is harmful and destructive and she deserves the criticism she got for that. I suspect that a lot of people who have an issue with her being repudiated are more likely coming from a place where they themselves have a fundamental problem with trans people and their very existence and acceptance in society.

Really? She deserved to receive death threats and rape threats, did she? GTFO. And nobody can ever point to exactly what was the hateful thing she said. Because acknowledging material reality isn't hateful and we are fucked if people think it is.

She also has hundreds of millions and no amount of Internet canceling is going to impact her life in any tangible way.

Missing the point. She might be insulated. Few people are in such in a comfortable position though. Others have already suffered for doing the same as her.

i_surge

Memnoch wrote: »

No, it is recorded fact. You are currently railing against perceived system discrimination while simultaneously denying the impact of actual systemic discrimination that has been in situ for decades.

You seem like a man of principle, like myself.

Equality is the goal, to that end, even 1" into looking for an edge or control over the opposite sex is to be avoided. We want a fair society with equal rights. access and recognition for all. Yes?

Your peers have taken a country mile by putting down your work which was especially legitimate because it is not spoken about enough (assuming that is why you made it) and bizarrely you decided to agree with them.

Memnoch

Errashareesh wrote: »

Well I think the psychological, emotional and societal are covered by the term trans woman. And the recognition of self identification as being of the female gender.

But ignoring the biological is disrespectful and harmful to women - we deserve respect too.

I am not a woman so I immediately feel out of place debating this with you.

My view is this. Saying that trans women who want to be identified as just women are women is not something that I feel will lead to tangible harm to cis (I only use the term to avoid confusion in this discussion) women. But saying that this cannot be the case can and has lead to tangible harm to a lot of innocent people who are already struggling enough.

Errashareesh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Respect IS a two-way street, as is the street where people demonstrate their lack of respect for other people. I don’t see why anyone should be respectful to people who want the freedom to insult people and call for a “debate”. That’s just inviting people to be mocked even more.

Good thing I didn't advocate that then.

2u2me

Memnoch wrote: »

Yes, unfortunately. I knew that was a risk when I made it.

Some things are an equal sum game, such as toilets around the world are currently available for two genders men and women. To change our norms we would have to radically alter toilets everywhere or the culture about how we use them.

Someone is going to miss out here, either women as a group or transwomen as a group. I don't think most people have issues with transmen using men's toilets.

Some things however are not zero sum; such as domestic abuse. All cases and evidence should be presented and the fact that feminists are rabid about controlling the narrative is evidence for me about how wrong this whole cancel culture lark is. Reporting that men can be victims too does not discount what female victims of domestic abuse experience in anyway.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Errashareesh wrote: »

Well I think the psychological, emotional and societal are covered by the term trans woman. And the recognition of self identification as being of the female gender.

But ignoring the biological is disrespectful and harmful to women - we deserve respect too.

Indeed. Well said.

Memnoch

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Really? She deserved to receive death threats and rape threats, did she? GTFO. And nobody can ever point to exactly what was the hateful thing she said. Because acknowledging material reality isn't hateful and we are fucked if people think it is.



Missing the point. She might be insulated. Few people are in such in a comfortable position though. Others have already suffered for doing the same as her.

Unfortunately, I don't really use Twitter all that much. I absolutely condemn any kind of death threats or any kind of threats of violence period.

But she absolutely deserves to be criticized and people have a right to do that just as she had a right to say what she felt.

Free speech works both ways.

Errashareesh

Memnoch wrote: »

I am not a woman so I immediately feel out of place debating this with you.

My view is this. Saying that trans women who want to be identified as just women are women is not something that I feel will lead to tangible harm to cis (I only use the term to avoid confusion in this discussion) women. But saying that this cannot be the case can and has lead to tangible harm to a lot of innocent people who are already struggling enough.

Yeah look, respectful debate is fine by me. And no, please don't feel out of place debating it with me because you're a man - I don't believe in that kinda thing. Everyone can have an opinion on anything.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Memnoch wrote: »

I am not a woman so I immediately feel out of place debating this with you.

My view is this. Saying that trans women who want to be identified as just women are women is not something that I feel will lead to tangible harm to cis (I only use the term to avoid confusion in this discussion) women. But saying that this cannot be the case can and has lead to tangible harm to a lot of innocent people who are already struggling enough.

So easy for you to say. You have so little to lose.

Memnoch

i_surge wrote: »

You seem like a man of principle, like myself.

Equality is the goal, to that end, even 1" into looking for an edge or control over the opposite sex is to be avoided. We want a fair society with equal rights. access and recognition for all. Yes?

Your peers have taken a country mile by putting down your work which was especially legitimate because it is not spoken about enough (assuming that is why you made it) and bizarrely you decided to agree with them.

I would like to consider myself a person of principle. I don't agree with my work being treated in this way however I understand the humanity of those involved on all sides or at least I try to.

It is an individual situation in something that is a systemic conversation. Unfortunately, systemic changes don't have a foolproof or hundred percent success rate in every individual situation.

Memnoch

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

So easy for you to say. You have so little to lose.

Fair enough. I'm happy for cis men to stay out of the conversation if we are ALL going to be doing that.

i_surge

Memnoch wrote: »

I would like to consider myself a person of principle. I don't agree with my work being treated in this way however I understand the humanity of those involved on all sides or at least I try to.

It is an individual situation in something that is a systemic conversation. Unfortunately, systemic changes don't have a foolproof or hundred percent success rate in every individual situation.

Which is why we shouldn't cheerlead for the two wrongs make a right approach. I'm honestly a little bit disgusted by that whole affair, on your behalf. Definition of a toxic culture.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Memnoch wrote: »

Unfortunately, I don't really use Twitter all that much. I absolutely condemn any kind of death threats or any kind of threats of violence period.

But she absolutely deserves to be criticized and people have a right to do that just as she had a right to say what she felt.

Free speech works both ways.

You said she deserved the criticism she got. What I described is a good chunk of the criticism she received. And when pushed, people struggle to say what she said that was transphobic. Because acknowledging biological reality is not hateful or transphobic.

She is well insulated. But tell me this, if you were a young researcher or journalist starting out and you wanted to write about the erosion of sex-based rights like she did, would you? In the current climate, would you feel you could do that? The established journalist Suzanne Moore was heavily criticised by a huge number of her colleagues at the Guardian for writing about that topic. Young journalists must look on that and think "better keep my mouth shut". It has a chilling effect. So to say "Oh, what's the problem? Rowling is loaded" is to totally miss the point IMO. I think Rowling recognises her charmed position and I have great admiration for her for sticking her neck out on this topic. She realises she has a platform and she is using it. And at this point, I don't think she will capitulate. Bloody good for her.

Memnoch

2u2me wrote: »

Some things are an equal sum game, such as toilets around the world are currently available for two genders men and women. To change our norms we would have to radically alter toilets everywhere or the culture about how we use them.

Someone is going to miss out here, either women as a group or transwomen as a group. I don't think most people have issues with transmen using men's toilets.

Some things however are not zero sum; such as domestic abuse. All cases and evidence should be presented and the fact that feminists are rabid about controlling the narrative is evidence for me about how wrong this whole cancel culture lark is. Reporting that men can be victims too does not discount what female victims of domestic abuse experience in anyway.

I don't agree. I think that the cases of men dressing up as women to go into women's toilets and try some nonsense are going to be a very, very, very extreme minority. However, trans women getting the crap kicked out of them and being assaulted in male bathrooms is a very real and tangible threat to the majority of them and something that happens on a regular basis.

It is precisely because society is the way it is that we need to give them the benefit of the doubt. But really this is a discussion for cis women to resolve among themselves and decide if they want to share their safe spaces with trans women on equal terms.

Right now, the debate seems to be in favor of protecting trans women.

Memnoch

i_surge wrote: »

Which is why we shouldn't cheerlead for the two wrongs make a right approach. I'm honestly a little bit disgusted by that whole affair, on your behalf. Definition of a toxic culture.

You keep saying this strawman. I don't think two wrongs make a right. But I think that if in correcting a MILLION wrongs, it has an unfortunate side effect of maybe a dozen or so other wrongs happening, then that is the reality of an imperfect world.

So I accept that my film isn't going to be treated entirely fairly in the current climate as the price to pay for women feeling safe in their workplaces.

Edit: being safe