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

Errashareesh

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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.

I write a bit myself. I wouldn't dare put my name to an article sharing my views. A few legal eagles in my family advise me I'm right to see it that way. How bloody grim and (albeit unintentionally - well mostly unintentionally) misogynistic is that state of affairs? That a woman feels too intimidated to publish a piece appealing for non sidelining of the female sex?

That's why I'm glad of here for the anonymity. It can drive you mad - the Covid conspiracy lunacy caused me to close my last account in April, but it's actually a very good resource.

2u2me

Memnoch wrote: »

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.

That's just scary, especially when the "feeling safe" has nothing to do with reality.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Memnoch wrote: »

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

I don't think men should stay out of the conversation. On any societal topic, I think everyone should be able to contribute. But I do think people should think things through before they weigh in and on this topic, understandably, I think men maybe have a bit of a blindspot. I'm not a rabid feminist. I have huge problems with the movement. But I do think there are things that men will never understand about being a woman, just like there are things I will never understand about being a man. Women are aware of how much stronger men are. We have to cope with becoming public property at an unbelievably young age (seriously, ask any women in your life what age they were when they received their first lewd comment from a man. The ages will disgust you. I was 11 personally. That is not in any way unusual). So I am fine with any man living how they want and in whatever way they imagine living as a woman means to them. I am not okay with that resulting in the erosion of protections women put in place to protect themselves from the minority of the male sex class who want to harm them. Transgender women are no more dangerous than other males but it would be silly to think that none of them are bad eggs.

Memnoch

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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.

I said she deserved criticism. I did not say that she deserved threats. It is you who are choosing to conflate the two. And just because she got threats doesn't mean that the criticism wasn't justified.

There are lots of ideas that were considered mainstream and acceptable that would now result in you being rejected by society.

For example that women were inferior or had smaller brains or that a husband could not be legally convicted of raping his wife. Or that Jews secretly control the world. Or that white people are a superior master race or that black people should sit in the back of the bus or the Irish people should not be allowed into some restaurants etc. etc. etc. What was that phrase - “No blacks, no dogs, no Irish”?

People might not want or like the idea of trans people being accepted and treated with equality, respect and dignity but that is the way society is going and those who wish to stick to antiquated ideology will inevitably find that their views are not acceptable. This is a standard part of social progress.

Memnoch

2u2me wrote: »

That's just scary, especially when the "feeling safe" has nothing to do with reality.

It absolutely does in my view.

2u2me

Memnoch wrote: »

It absolutely does in my view.

How does 'cancelling' your film lead to women actually being safer, and not just feeling safer?

One eyed Jack

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.

Not disagreeing with you, but the people who do disagree with you also make the same claim that they deserve respect too. It’s obvious that you’re trying to be respectful to other people who don’t share your opinions, whereas when it comes to JK or Maya Forstater, it was obvious that they were intentionally trying to wind people up and provoke a reaction.

They got as much support for their opinions as they did a backlash, but it will be the people who try to stay away from all that shìte and out of the limelight who will still have to put up with the taunting and humiliation.

To go back to the example used by the OP - the Catholic Church doctrines regard people who are homosexual as being intrinsically disordered, (they ain’t too keen on transgenderism either). I certainly wouldn’t be defending their stance, because I see it as dehumanising.

I’d say the same as you said of racists (I did recently), and after that I unsubscribed from the thread because frankly I couldn’t be arsed entertaining a “debate” about migrants which is what the thread had been turned into.

JK as far as I could see wants to promote an agenda of free speech, and as an incredibly intelligent woman she knows exactly what buttons to press, and who she can insult in order to provoke a reaction that will work to her advantage. I don’t imagine for a minute she actually gives a shìte about who she offends, because she knows she has the support of the vast majority of people in society anyway.

She wasn’t bringing anything new to the table worth debating or discussing. It’s not as though she doesn’t have access to the mainstream media and isn’t articulate enough to write whole books on the subject, but no, instead she chose the medium with the greatest audience and the hairiest trigger fingers. She chose it with purpose, and I don’t believe for a minute it was because she cared about women’s welfare. She cares a great deal about her own image though, enough that when she doesn’t like people saying things about her, she threatens legal action -


J.K. Rowling threatens legal action against Metro Vancouver transgender activist over tweets

Memnoch

2u2me wrote: »

How does 'cancelling' your film lead to women actually being safer, and not just feeling safer?

It's not a direct correlation. Just unfortunate collatoral damage. Yes it sucks "bigly" but I knew the risk when I made it. I still stand 100% behind it and am happy to defend it to anyone who has seen it.

Besides, many truly great artists aren't respected in their time.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Errashareesh wrote: »

I write a bit myself. I wouldn't dare put my name to an article sharing my views. A few legal eagles in my family advise me I'm right to see it that way. How bloody grim and (albeit unintentionally - well mostly unintentionally) misogynistic is that state of affairs? That a woman feels too intimidated to publish a piece appealing for non sidelining of the female sex?

That's why I'm glad of here for the anonymity. It can drive you mad - the Covid conspiracy lunacy caused me to close my last account in April, but it's actually a very good resource.

It's mental. The treatment of Suzanne Moore was sickening and the "offending" article was so measured. It was about balancing transgender rights and women's rights. It was eminently sensible. And you are right. It IS bloody grim and misogynistic (and that's not a word I throw around lightly). If a well reasoned article gets such a backlash, we are royally effed in the A.

I hope the tide turns and people like you feel that you can speak out and write on the topic. We need more of that.

This is a minefield and I'm sorry if I am repeating what has already been said, but isn't cancel culture ****ing mental?

Each different person has a plethora of beliefs. You will never agree with all of them. Some may be offensive, some may be dangerous. None deserve the vitriol or hatred they get these days.

It's mad though. The media and the famous people seem to be conduits and somehow impervious. Sure, they get a little bit of lackery, but a couple of months later they are back in the domain.

I hate an awful lot of beliefs. Genuinely hate them. But I'm glad they can be heard. It helps me decide who I associate myself with.

Too many people are too afraid to talk these days, as it seems the media and a vocal minority have shot down public discourse on a social level.

Reality is different though. On most "hot button" topics, people pretend to go with the cause-de-jour but reality more often than not wins out in the end.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Memnoch wrote: »

I said she deserved criticism. I did not say that she deserved threats. It is you who are choosing to conflate the two. And just because she got threats doesn't mean that the criticism wasn't justified.

There are lots of ideas that were considered mainstream and acceptable that would now result in you being rejected by society.

For example that women were inferior or had smaller brains or that a husband could not be legally convicted of raping his wife. Or that Jews secretly control the world. Or that white people are a superior master race or that black people should sit in the back of the bus or the Irish people should not be allowed into some restaurants etc. etc. etc. What was that phrase - “No blacks, no dogs, no Irish”?

People might not want or like the idea of trans people being accepted and treated with equality, respect and dignity but that is the way society is going and those who wish to stick to antiquated ideology will inevitably find that their views are not acceptable. This is a standard part of social progress.

This is hyperbole. Very few people don't want that. But refusing to acknowledge the clash with sex-based rights is not treating the female of the species with respect and dignity. Being accepted doesn't mean steamrolling over the rights of others.

Consider this: self ID was legal in Ireland before abortion (apart from the few exceptions). Whilst women did not yet have full rights, the rights we did have were being undermined.

Memnoch wrote: »

I said she deserved criticism. I did not say that she deserved threats. It is you who are choosing to conflate the two.

You said and I quote:

So her tweet is harmful and destructive and she deserves the criticism she got for that.

You did not differentiate on the criticism she received. And even the criticism that wasn't the most extreme was still complete overkill.

One eyed Jack

Errashareesh wrote: »

Good thing I didn't advocate that then.

I didn’t say you did?

You made the point that respect is a two way street as though people aren’t acutely already aware of the fact that respect is a two way street. I was making the point that so too is the street where people disrespect each other and if JK wants to be disrespectful, then she’s going to attract disrespect from people who are of the same mentality that she is - if she imagines she has the right to say whatever she likes about whoever she likes, then that same right she thinks she has extends to everyone in society, whether they have 14.5 million followers on social media or whether they have none.

Errashareesh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not disagreeing with you, but the people who do disagree with you also make the same claim that they deserve respect too. It’s obvious that you’re trying to be respectful to other people who don’t share your opinions, whereas when it comes to JK or Maya Forstater, it was obvious that they were intentionally trying to wind people up and provoke a reaction.

They got as much support for their opinions as they did a backlash, but it will be the people who try to stay away from all that shìte and out of the limelight who will still have to put up with the taunting and humiliation.

To go back to the example used by the OP - the Catholic Church doctrines regard people who are homosexual as being intrinsically disordered, (they ain’t too keen on transgenderism either). I certainly wouldn’t be defending their stance, because I see it as dehumanising.

I’d say the same as you said of racists (I did recently), and after that I unsubscribed from the thread because frankly I couldn’t be arsed entertaining a “debate” about migrants which is what the thread had been turned into.

JK as far as I could see wants to promote an agenda of free speech, and as an incredibly intelligent woman she knows exactly what buttons to press, and who she can insult in order to provoke a reaction that will work to her advantage. I don’t imagine for a minute she actually gives a shìte about who she offends, because she knows she has the support of the vast majority of people in society anyway.

She wasn’t bringing anything new to the table worth debating or discussing. It’s not as though she doesn’t have access to the mainstream media and isn’t articulate enough to write whole books on the subject, but no, instead she chose the medium with the greatest audience and the hairiest trigger fingers. She chose it with purpose, and I don’t believe for a minute it was because she cared about women’s welfare. She cares a great deal about her own image though, enough that when she doesn’t like people saying things about her, she threatens legal action -


J.K. Rowling threatens legal action against Metro Vancouver transgender activist over tweets

I cannot agree either Rowling or Forstater were just on a wind-up. They made valid points - the outrage was simply due to people not liking what they said. They are simply women who hold the views I do, and felt they needed to speak up for women - they are not advocating hatred of trans women for being trans women.

And I do respect the trans community, and ask that they do the same in relation to women (apart from women who are actually transphobic - refusing to redefine "woman" and pretend biological sex is subjective, is not same though).

And yet again, we are back on the trans issue and away from what nick cave said.

No opinion is worth "cancelling"

Opinions, even ****ty and egregious ones, should be encouraged.

Stifling and shutting down of opinions is disgraceful.

Errashareesh

Yeah but the trans issue is a prime example of what you're talking about.

One eyed Jack

Errashareesh wrote: »

I cannot agree either Rowling or Forstater were just on a wind-up. They made valid points - the outrage was simply due to people not liking what they said. They are simply women who hold the views I do, and felt they needed to speak up for women - they are not advocating hatred of trans women for being trans women.

It was the way in which they chose to make their points though, that drew the reaction they received. You’re making your points here which are essentially the same points, and you’re not drawing any anger because you’re not going out of your way to provoke people. Maya Forstater stated at the Equality Tribunal that she would refer to people how she wanted, and JK mocked an organisation who didn’t use their words. They both tried being clever about it, whereas at least you’re being honest about your opinions. I’d put them in the same bracket as Jessica Yanniv in terms of the people they claim to represent to be honest.

Errashareesh wrote: »

And I do respect the trans community, and ask that they do the same in relation to women (apart from women who are actually transphobic - refusing to redefine "woman" and pretend biological sex is subjective, is not same though).

I don’t doubt your sincerity, my own opinions on the politics of transgenderism would be a bit more nuanced, suffice to say I don’t think anyone regardless of their sex or gender has any right to make demands as to how anyone else should identify themselves. To the best of my knowledge anyway women aren’t being asked anything, because nobody needs their permission to identify themselves however they choose.

Of course there are people who find it upsetting that nobody asked them personally for their opinions before they chose to identify themselves as women, or men, or whatever the case may be. The whole point of the gender recognition act is that people who are transgender wouldn’t have to ask for JK Rowling or Maya Forstaters or anyone else’s opinions on how they should identify themselves.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

And yet again, we are back on the trans issue and away from what nick cave said.

No opinion is worth "cancelling"

Opinions, even ****ty and egregious ones, should be encouraged.

Stifling and shutting down of opinions is disgraceful.

I'm happy to talk about other examples but it's a very germane case in point of cancel culture currently.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And yet again, we are back on the trans issue and away from what nick cave said.

No opinion is worth "cancelling"

Opinions, even ****ty and egregious ones, should be encouraged.

Stifling and shutting down of opinions is disgraceful.

It’s not disgraceful, it’s necessary!

Otherwise you’d have to entertain every gobshìtes stupid questions and every brain fart that enters their heads. Nobody should feel obligated to entertain that sort of torture :pac:

Errashareesh

I'm fine with trans women identifying as female - or even with calling themselves women. Can't stop them. The line is the grossly disrespectful claim that trans women actually are women and that biology is an illusion.

Just blindly accepting that - because... reasons - is what's lacking in nuance.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Errashareesh wrote: »

I'm fine with trans women identifying as female - or even with calling themselves women. Can't stop them. The line is the grossly disrespectful claim that trans women actually are women and that biology is an illusion.

Just blindly accepting that - because... reasons - is what's lacking in nuance.

I'm okay with transgender women calling themselves women but not female because that has a very specific meaning as you say rooted in biology.

Errashareesh

Errashareesh wrote: »

Yeah but the trans issue is a prime example of what you're talking about.

It is.

And it is an example of an opinion that people should be free to espouse.

Do you think avid merrion/leigh Francis should have had to apologise for his depiction of black characters in bo selecta?

Should someone who is anti abortion feel apologetic for their beliefs?

Should a BLM supporter feel apologetic for the grief people have done on their name?

No.... Is the answer any rational human should have.

I have my beliefs. I won't apologise for them. But my beliefs are malleable when confronted with facts and evidence. I won't apologise for what I believe in. And I won't apologise for changing my beliefs based on new information.

Yet people want to "cancel" people or make people apologise for past behaviour.

Leigh Francis made his career out of lampooning celebrity. Yet because BLM is in fashion, he has apologised for that aspect. What about people such as Alec Baldwin lampooning Trump? Body shaming I'm sure you'd agree. His appearance is consistently a focus of ridicule. That's ok though?

It does seem that only one side of the spectrum is "game".

Ben Shapiro? "Feminine voice" "can't make his wife wet"

Trump "orange man, racist"

Boris Johnson "trump lite"

The list goes on and on. And yes, all those insults are fine in my belief, just once the counter argument is allowed and other beliefs or points of view are allowed equal respect/publicity then fine.

The culture at the moment only wants to allow one narrative and is desperately trying to hush any conversation that they (and only they) deem problematic

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not disgraceful, it’s necessary!

Otherwise you’d have to entertain every gobshìtes stupid questions and every brain fart that enters their heads. Nobody should feel obligated to entertain that sort of torture :pac:

There you go.

Anything you deem a stupid question or a brain fart should not be entertained.

I'm assuming you feel that your questions or your ideas are not included in that sweeping statement?

Probably your white male privilege talking there.

Errashareesh

Deleted User wrote: »

It is.

And it is an example of an opinion that people should be free to espouse.

Do you think avid merrion/leigh Francis should have had to apologise for his depiction of black characters in bo selecta?

Should someone who is anti abortion feel apologetic for their beliefs?

Should a BLM supporter feel apologetic for the grief people have done on their name?

No.... Is the answer any rational human should have.

I have my beliefs. I won't apologise for them. But my beliefs are malleable when confronted with facts and evidence. I won't apologise for what I believe in. And I won't apologise for changing my beliefs based on new information.

Yet people want to "cancel" people or make people apologise for past behaviour.

Leigh Francis made his career out of lampooning celebrity. Yet because BLM is in fashion, he has apologised for that aspect. What about people such as Alec Baldwin lampooning Trump? Body shaming I'm sure you'd agree. His appearance is consistently a focus of ridicule. That's ok though?

It does seem that only one side of the spectrum is "game".

Ben Shapiro? "Feminine voice" "can't make his wife wet"

Trump "orange man, racist"

Boris Johnson "trump lite"

The list goes on and on. And yes, all those insults are fine in my belief, just once the counter argument is allowed and other beliefs or points of view are allowed equal respect/publicity then fine.

The culture at the moment only wants to allow one narrative and is desperately trying to hush any conversation that they (and only they) deem problematic

Did you mean to direct this to me? I never disputed it.

Exactly what you refer to applies to people who question some aspects of trans rights ideology.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There you go.

Anything you deem a stupid question or a brain fart should not be entertained.

I'm assuming you feel that your questions or your ideas are not included in that sweeping statement?

Probably your white male privilege talking there.

Of course they are? I say stupid shìt ALL the time, and I’m often told I say stupid shìt, which is fair enough IMO. I don’t think anyone should be obligated to entertain ideas they regard as nonsense.

Not sure what the white male privilege thing is about tbh.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course they are? I say stupid shìt ALL the time, and I’m often told I say stupid shìt, which is fair enough IMO. I don’t think anyone should be obligated to entertain ideas they regard as nonsense.

Not sure what the white male privilege thing is about tbh.

People are free to disregard opinions.

Unfortunately, people now feel entitled to stifle and mute opinions they feel problematic.

That's what I take issue with.

One eyed Jack

Errashareesh wrote: »

I'm fine with trans women identifying as female - or even with calling themselves women. Can't stop them. The line is the grossly disrespectful claim that trans women actually are women and that biology is an illusion.

Just blindly accepting that - because... reasons - is what's lacking in nuance.

Nobody has to blindly accept anything, I certainly don’t. Often times I regard something as so stupid it’s not even worth entertaining. The idea of “trans women” is one of those ideas that IMO isn’t worth entertaining, so I don’t. I also wouldn’t go hounding someone who does use the term because that would only be legitimising the idea IMO, not something I’m at all keen to encourage. Same thing regarding biology - there are some ideas I consider so daft they’re just not worth entertaining.

I don’t think it’s disrespectful to women though, I don’t think it’s even aimed at women, it’s aimed at people who are easily provoked by stupid ideas and feel there needs to be a debate on the matter.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Often times I regard something as so stupid it’s not even worth entertaining. The idea of “trans women” is one of those ideas that IMO isn’t worth entertaining, so I don’t.

I don’t think it’s disrespectful to women though, I don’t think it’s even aimed at women, it’s aimed at people who are easily provoked by stupid ideas and feel there needs to be a debate on the matter.

Your posting history betrays your "not worth entertaining" ethos, and leaves you a little exposed as dishonest.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People are free to disregard opinions.

Unfortunately, people now feel entitled to stifle and mute opinions they feel problematic.

That's what I take issue with.

You hardly think it’s only now that’s happening? It’s been happening throughout history for as long as humans have existed. Martyrs nowadays aren’t all that different from martyrs throughout history, with the only difference being that martyrs were prepared to die for what they believed in, can’t really say the same of the people who portray themselves as victims nowadays.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Your posting history betrays your "not worth entertaining" ethos, and leaves you a little exposed as dishonest.

If you think my posting history betrays my “not worth entertaining” ethos, you can only imagine the amount of shìte I don’t actually entertain

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You hardly think it’s only now that’s happening? It’s been happening throughout history for as long as humans have existed. Martyrs nowadays aren’t all that different from martyrs throughout history, with the only difference being that martyrs were prepared to die for what they believed in, can’t really say the same of the people who portray themselves as victims nowadays.

That's a misrepresentation of my arguement. What I clearly meant was that anyone who now goes against "social media/popular" opinion is now expected to shut up or to suffer social consequences.

It is a relatively new thing for people of a certain age as social media and social standing via the internet has never been so prevalent.

You knew I meant that but somehow tried to discount it and equate it to actual human sacrifice. Killing yourself and retweeting are hugely different, I agree. Yet for some, social media castigation is as bad due to the reliance of "likes and shares".

But again, you know I wasn't equating the two with regards severity.

Funny how you say people "portray themselves as victims". Who is that exactly? Are you talking about Black Lives Matters by any chance?