Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Nick Cave: 'cancel culture is bad religion run amuck'
Options
Comments
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »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?
I wasn’t trying to misrepresent your argument at all. From what you’ve written above I can see now how I misread your argument when you said that “people now feel entitled to stifle and mute opinions they feel are problematic”. I read it as though you were suggesting people didn’t feel entitled to stifle and mute opinions they feel are problematic before now.
That’s why I don’t understand why you’re saying it’s a relatively new thing for people of a certain age as though anything has actually changed. Social media hasn’t changed anything, people were always expected to shut up or face social consequences like ostracising from their communities, or in some cases yes, even death by public lynch mob, it’s where the term comes from.
For those people who feel that being ostracised on social media is in any way comparable to death, I’d suggest they were lacking perspective and frankly being melodramatic. That kind of neurosis and paranoia isn’t all that prevalent in society either, much as someone like Milo Yiannopoulos (remember him?) would want people to believe it is, just because he’s now banned off every popular social media platform and relegated to Telegram where he refers to himself as a “social media refugee”.
He’s just one victimhood complex shy of qualifying as ‘politically homeless’ like that one Posie Parker, conjures up a certain mental image when one claims homelessness of any sort really, as opposed to the reality that social media companies are under no obligation to entertain their bullshìt.
When I speak of anyone who portrays themselves as a victim, I mean literally anyone who portrays themselves as a victim, when in reality they aren’t a victim, people just don’t want to have to entertain their bullshìt and have every right to demand that they be ostracised and denied access to any platform. That’s not any different to when those people are calling for people to be ostracised themselves. It’s just when it happens to them they seem to take issue with it and run off to Quilette to cry about it.
Don’t think I’ve ever said anything about BLM, don’t really care much for it tbh, so I just don’t entertain it.0 -
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, thank you for conceding that women should, theoretically, have the right to fix their own boundaries as to who can access the limited number of environments that are segregated on the basis of their users being of the female sex. I am not being sarcastic here; it is more than a lot of people, male and female, who engage passionately in this debate would concede is due to women and girls.
I feel that you, like most people who engage in this debate, are coming from a place of good intentions and compassion. But I must point out the glaring fallacy in the point you are making. You assert that transwomen are in danger in male spaces, thereby acknowledging that the threat to them is mainly one of male violence, but you immediately move to placing the onus on women to accommodate transwomen in their sex-segregated spaces. Without wishing to be provocative in my terminology, do you not see that this is not women's "problem" to solve? Transwomen are a subcategory of the male biological sex. There are other categories of males who may be vulnerable to violence from other males in certain environments, but none of those cohorts of men is demanding access to women's sex-segregated spaces.
The thing I find particularly frustrating is that those of us women who assert our right to hold firm on the boundaries that maintain our safety, privacy and dignity are dismissed as TERFs and c*nts - really, the two words are functionally synonymous - and even misandrists. What could be more misandrist than asserting, in effect, that men are so inherently violent and incapable of self-control that they, or at least significant numbers of them, represent a clear and permanent danger to the subcategory of males who are feminine-presenting (to varying degrees)? In fact, the vast majority of men are kind and decent and, although they might give a second look, they absolutely would not threaten or inflict any violence on a transwoman in a male space. Likewise, all kind and decent men - again, to be clear, the vast majority - understand why some women and girls might feel vulnerable and intimidated when they encounter biological males, regardless of presentation, in their spaces.0 -
Are you planning on having bouncers at every ladies toilet and changing rooms to enforce these restrictions? What kind of documentation would be required to allow access?CroatoanCat wrote: »Memnoch, thank you for conceding that women should, theoretically, have the right to fix their own boundaries as to who can access the limited number of environments that are segregated on the basis of their users being of the female sex. I am not being sarcastic here; it is more than a lot of people, male and female, who engage passionately in this debate would concede is due to women and girls.
I feel that you, like most people who engage in this debate, are coming from a place of good intentions and compassion. But I must point out the glaring fallacy in the point you are making. You assert that transwomen are in danger in male spaces, thereby acknowledging that the threat to them is mainly one of male violence, but you immediately move to placing the onus on women to accommodate transwomen in their sex-segregated spaces. Without wishing to be provocative in my terminology, do you not see that this is not women's "problem" to solve? Transwomen are a subcategory of the male biological sex. There are other categories of males who may be vulnerable to violence from other males in certain environments, but none of those cohorts of men is demanding access to women's sex-segregated spaces.
It's really a nonsense issue, that ignores the reality of violence against women carried out by men - ordinary men. That's the real threat to the safety of women that is being quietly hushed up to create the bogeyman (or bogeywoman) of transwomen.0 -
Re: CroatoanCat
I have to laugh. In all the times I have ever been in a male toilet area (in Europe, Russia, Asia), I've never felt threatened... There hasn't been any violence that wasn't brought in from outside the toilet area. Maybe two guys or a group who brought their issues into the toilet area to settle them, but I've never felt threatened by other users of a toilet area. (The US was the exception...)
I'm very tall, but I'm also very skinny and not strong. Most guys are far stronger than me.. but honestly, very few guys are ever that aggressive to be a problem. I've probably had more problems with aggressive women in male toilets, than the actual males themselves.
Male toilets aren't like female toilets. Men don't go there to socialise. They do their business, and get out fast, to continue whatever else they were doing outside. The Transgendered people talking about danger in male toilets are looking for trouble, that generally doesn't exist. Or they're going to places that specifically don't like transgendered people seeking to get a rise out of people. If they behave like other males, in doing their business, they're unlikely to have any problems.
The issue, though, is that like many "camp"/"expressive" gay men, they feel the need to advertise their situation to everyone, and expect a response... The expectation being acceptance, but life is not that simple. Anyway, waving your situation in front of other people, demanding "acceptance", is only going to increase the risk of negative reactions.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Re: CroatoanCat
I have to laugh. In all the times I have ever been in a male toilet area (in Europe, Russia, Asia), I've never felt threatened... There hasn't been any violence that wasn't brought in from outside the toilet area. Maybe two guys or a group who brought their issues into the toilet area to settle them, but I've never felt threatened by other users of a toilet area. (The US was the exception...)
I'm very tall, but I'm also very skinny and not strong. Most guys are far stronger than me.. but honestly, very few guys are ever that aggressive to be a problem. I've probably had more problems with aggressive women in male toilets, than the actual males themselves.
Male toilets aren't like female toilets. Men don't go there to socialise. They do their business, and get out fast, to continue whatever else they were doing outside. The Transgendered people talking about danger in male toilets are looking for trouble, that generally doesn't exist. Or they're going to places that specifically don't like transgendered people seeking to get a rise out of people. If they behave like other males, in doing their business, they're unlikely to have any problems.
The issue, though, is that like many "camp"/"expressive" gay men, they feel the need to advertise their situation to everyone, and expect a response... The expectation being acceptance, but life is not that simple. Anyway, waving your situation in front of other people, demanding "acceptance", is only going to increase the risk of negative reactions.
You've hit a lot of good points there, especially the type's who crave attention.
As the saying goes "you can't have it every way"
If someone wasn't interested in social media or the new SJWs and alt right then they would know no better and live their lives outside that bubble of insanity drama and theatre.
I'm intrigued by their behaviour both SJWs and the alt right and it's impact on society, but it only impacts themselves at the end of the day or people who are triggered from both sides of that divide. So what I'm saying is whether you're an SJW or Alt right you're just caught up in the bull**** that most of the population couldn't give a **** about in the first place.
Because these goon's will tell you to pick a side.
Myself and a few boardsies suggested Trump had the election in the bag a few years ago and I was lambasted by members in the political forum I even got a personal warning from a moderator because I was upsetting the decorum of the forum.
Funnily enough I was right.
And the republicans will romp home again whether it's Trump or someone else.
There's an old story about a tribe being indoctrinated into Christianity's by a preacher.
They then asked if they never knew about Christ would they be saved anyhow, the preacher said of course.
The tribal leaders then asked why did you tell me about it in the first place..
Same applies to the rubbish the alt right and SJWs argue about.
Most people don't care.
I know people from all walks of life and they steer clear of drama or martyrdom because they make the most of it.
I was at pride in Dublin there last year and I had a bunch of gay guys slagging me off about my rather flamboyant coloured Jean's they were red.
Funnily enough I turned around in my thick north Clare accent and suggested that they man up and come up with a better way to have banter, lets just say that didn't work out too well I was accused of being homophobic and I was a bisexual mam at pride FFS as I said you can't have it every way.
**** em I just gave back as good as I received lol
But the next phase of the knobs is going to be "yeah cancel culture is ****, I never liked it in the first place.
Even though they were in the thick of it.
Then it'll all go back to basics and be forgotten about, just like the whole Gretta Thornburg situation.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think 'cancel culture' is a bull**** term used by people uncomfortable with change, long needed change.
Each incident is taken on a case by case basis. You can't say 'we should stop doing X, because cancel culture'.
Using 'cancel culture' is like SJW or snowflake. It's ignorant and dismisses a conversation before it's started.
'Cancel culture' isn't a movement. The dam broke so we are seeing a lot of criticism on things and people. It's a lot because a lot of **** has been bubbling for generations.
People that open a tweet thread with 'we to need start a conversation about...' can eat a big bag of Gummy dicks, because you know damn well that the very last thing such people are interested in is a 'conversation'.0 -
The issue I have with the term cancel culture is the net of what defines it is insanely wide. The term appears to cover everything from losing your job due to some sort of backlash, to having your social media account suspended for violating TOS, to having a handful of anonymous people getting angry at you on twitter with no real-life consequence whatsoever. When I hear that someone has been "cancelled" the term doesn't inform me in the slightest about what's actually happened to them.0
-
The issue I have with the term cancel culture is the net of what defines it is insanely wide. The term appears to cover everything from losing your job due to some sort of backlash, to having your social media account suspended for violating TOS, to having a handful of anonymous people getting angry at you on twitter with no real-life consequence whatsoever. When I hear that someone has been "cancelled" the term doesn't inform me in the slightest about what's actually happened to them.
Lol better for them to be cancelled rather than gaining validation from the knobs that cancelled them.
I'm sure Jk Rowling isnt worried about a bunch of freaks not reading her books, or being a fan.
The stupid idiot's have already paid for the books in the first place, irony,own goal for the SJWs and slam dunk for Jk Rowling..0 -
-
Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »Gene Simmons doesn't follow his own advice though. He's a well-known conservative and a big supporter of Israel.
Is he vocal on those topics? Because if he isn’t, his personal politics doesn’t detract from his point.0 -
Advertisement
-
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »Is he vocal on those topics? Because if he isn’t, his personal politics doesn’t detract from his point.
Yes, he is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Simmons#Political_views0 -
Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »
It seems the last time he spoke publicly on politics was 2012 and he attended some political event in 2015, five years ago. I mean, he could well have realised that celebs should not weigh in on this stuff.0 -
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »It seems the last time he spoke publicly on politics was 2012 and he attended some political event in 2015, five years ago. I mean, he could well have realised that celebs should not weigh in on this stuff.
I doubt that. Here he is again in 2018.
https://loudwire.com/gene-simmons-predicts-landslide-victory-trump-2020/0 -
Fair nuff0
-
A lot of the time when people say celebrities shouldn't comment on politics, they're just annoyed that they don't agree with them. Look at how conservatives embraced Kanye West when he backed Trump.0
-
Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »A lot of the time when people say celebrities shouldn't comment on politics, they're just annoyed that they don't agree with them. Look at how conservatives embraced Kanye West when he backed Trump.
Hell, to an awful lot of Americans (and people outside the US) they viewed Trump as a celebrity too, as most people knew him from The Apprentice and appearing on other shows.0 -
"Cancel Culture" - shutting people down or threatening their livelihoods and careers because they have an opinion you don't like, or because the say things you don't like.
If it's ok today, then it was also ok in 1950s Ireland when other people were doing it. It's hypocritical to say it's only ok when it supports *your* positions. (I'm not aiming at anybody in particular here)0 -
Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »A lot of the time when people say celebrities shouldn't comment on politics, they're just annoyed that they don't agree with them. Look at how conservatives embraced Kanye West when he backed Trump.
Did they really embrace him that much?
I mean the reaction from all quarters to West's outbursts in recent years is increasingly sympathetic more than anything else as it becomes clear that he's dealing with serious mental health issues.
I think people find celebrities commenting on politics to be annoying because they tend to do so in a superficial, insincere and attention seeking way.
For instance it wasn't long ago that the prevalent position in Hollywood was that Roman Polanski should be pardoned for the rape of a 13 year old girl whom he had drugged, and various celebrities took up this worthy cause. Now I'm supposed to take them seriously when they get on their high-horse about Me-Too?
Or what are people to make of Leonardo Dicaprio flying around the world on his private jet to accept awards and accolades as a Climate-Change grandee?0 -
CrankyHaus wrote: »Did they really embrace him that much?
I mean the reaction from all quarters to West's outbursts in recent years is increasingly sympathetic more than anything else as it becomes clear that he's dealing with serious mental health issues.
I think people find celebrities commenting on politics to be annoying because they tend to do so in a superficial, insincere and attention seeking way.
For instance it wasn't long ago that the prevalent position in Hollywood was that Roman Polanski should be pardoned for the rape of a 13 year old girl whom he had drugged, and various celebrities took up this worthy cause. In fact from memory the only one who publicly disagreed was Whoopi Goldberg. Now I'm supposed to take them seriously when they get on their high-horse about Me-Too?
Or what are people to make of Leonardo Dicaprio flying around the world on his private jet to accept awards and accolades as a Climate-Change grandee?
Aaaaah, no. Whoopi said it wasn't "rape-rape".
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-whoopi-goldberg#:~:text=Hollywood%20has%20rallied%20behind%20Roman,wasn't%20rape%2Drape.0 -
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »Aaaaah, no. Whoopi said it wasn't "rape-rape".
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-whoopi-goldberg#:~:text=Hollywood%20has%20rallied%20behind%20Roman,wasn't%20rape%2Drape.
Cheers, must have remembered it wrong. Who did go against the "Free Polanski" consensus at the time? From memory it was a fairly fringe position.0 -
Advertisement
-
You've hit a lot of good points there, especially the type's who crave attention.
As the saying goes "you can't have it every way"
Sure you can. Just look at feminism, and the perception about women. Women can be considered "strong" but also "victims" in the same breath. Not going to go into detail on this, but the state of equality in western countries shows that women as a gender, can have it every way... which is inspiration for any other social/racial/gender group seeking similar benefits.If someone wasn't interested in social media or the new SJWs and alt right then they would know no better and live their lives outside that bubble of insanity drama and theatre.
I'm intrigued by their behaviour both SJWs and the alt right and it's impact on society, but it only impacts themselves at the end of the day or people who are triggered from both sides of that divide. So what I'm saying is whether you're an SJW or Alt right you're just caught up in the bull**** that most of the population couldn't give a **** about in the first place.
Because these goon's will tell you to pick a side.
Of course they will, because when you pick a side, you're justifying their existence, and every piece of extreme behavior they do in response. The Alt right, for the most part, had disappeared from Western society as being something unacceptable, and it had retreated into the sticks. The SJWs and those on the left, encourage the belief in the Alt right being everywhere, because it's their boogeyman, which justifies their behavior.
The Alt right would have died without the promotion and bitching of the SJWs.. and the pushing of everyone who disagreed into that "right" camp. It's impossible to be a centralist now...
The problem is US culture, and politics. It's managed to infect everyone with this nonsense, and it exists far beyond Social media now.Same applies to the rubbish the alt right and SJWs argue about.
Most people don't care.
Sure, however, social media is becoming far more invasive into normal living. The case of politicians using twitter, or the media presenting reports that they've gleaned from online, shows that this isn't going to go away. The voices of these moronic SJWs, feminists, race activists, etc are going to be heard, because they have an increasingly large platform to express them from...I know people from all walks of life and they steer clear of drama or martyrdom because they make the most of it.
I was at pride in Dublin there last year and I had a bunch of gay guys slagging me off about my rather flamboyant coloured Jean's they were red.
Funnily enough I turned around in my thick north Clare accent and suggested that they man up and come up with a better way to have banter, lets just say that didn't work out too well I was accused of being homophobic and I was a bisexual mam at pride FFS as I said you can't have it every way.
**** em I just gave back as good as I received lol
But the next phase of the knobs is going to be "yeah cancel culture is ****, I never liked it in the first place.
Even though they were in the thick of it.
Then it'll all go back to basics and be forgotten about, just like the whole Gretta Thornburg situation.
Yeah, I've been hit with the homophobia labels too.. and I'm also bisexual. Or I was. Going through some changes there. In any case, people feel the need to have crusades these days, and as part of that, they want to assume the role of the victim, while also getting the chance to be a passive aggressor. Pride was often like that in the past, and I stopped going because I found most Gay guys I met there to be rather... like Christ on the Cross, forever bleeding for our sins. Meh.0 -
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:
This sounds like a brain fart of itself. Who decides and how does that power not corrupt?
Personally I'm outraged and offended at the whole thing. Who can i cancel?0 -
This sounds like a brain fart of itself. Who decides and how does that power not corrupt?
Personally I'm outraged and offended at the whole thing. Who can i cancel?
You decide who you do and don’t want to listen to? Everyone decides for themselves who they do and don’t want to listen to. You can tell whoever you want that you don’t want to listen to them. The idea that people should have to listen to other people’s opinions or pay anyone else’s opinions any heed whatsoever, places an obligation on people to have to entertain ideas that to them are complete nonsense and aren’t worth entertaining. That gives idiots power they aren’t entitled to - right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, fine. Right to an audience? Nope.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »You decide who you do and don’t want to listen to? Everyone decides for themselves who they do and don’t want to listen to. You can tell whoever you want that you don’t want to listen to them. The idea that people should have to listen to other people’s opinions or pay anyone else’s opinions any heed whatsoever, places an obligation on people to have to entertain ideas that to them are complete nonsense and aren’t worth entertaining. That gives idiots power they aren’t entitled to - right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, fine. Right to an audience? Nope.
Let's just say some views are given disproportional airtime and column inches.0 -
Let's just say some views are given disproportional airtime and column inches.
That is and always has been the case.
When Haughey was riding the tax payer, buying an island and helicopter company...well let's just say could you imagine if Martin tried that today? Haughey was at it for many years. Do you think the papers didn't know?
The last election we'd IRA stories and opinion pieces as headline stories. No mention of the record breaking numbers of homeless children or the housing crisis. I don't care which party you support that was shameful 'journalism'.
So roll on to maybe being bias on the side of equality for black people or speaking out on sexism and suddenly we've a problem? Give me a ****ing break.
Always thought Nick Cave was an arsehole by the way. Seen him live twice puts on a great show.0 -
That is and always has been the case.
When Haughey was riding the tax payer, buying an island and helicopter company...well let's just say could you imagine if Martin tried that today? Haughey was at it for many years. Do you think the papers didn't know?
The last election we'd IRA stories and opinion pieces as headline stories. No mention of the record breaking numbers of homeless children or the housing crisis. I dobt care which party you support that was shameful 'journalism'.
So roll on to maybe being bias on the side of equality for black people or speaking out on sexism and suddenly we've a problem? Give me a ****ing break.
Well I was barely alive then.
It all comes down to two wrongs don't make a right, it isn't about the correctness of either side, it is a matter of principle.
A small bit of progress maybe?0 -
Well I was barely alive then.
It all comes down to two wrongs don't make a right, it isn't about the correctness of either side, it is a matter of principle.
A small bit of progress maybe?
its not two wrongs not making a right.
It's bias in the papers having always existed.
The only reason for the 'clever' closeted right winger dressed as a lefty to suddenly get irate is because the bias is working against their sensibilities currently.0 -
its not two wrongs not making a right.
It's bias in the papers having always existed.
The only reason for the 'clever' closeted right winger dressed as a lefty to suddenly get irate is because the bias is working against their sensibilities currently.
And what the sensibilities of those who don't pick sides? Or the sensibility that people shouldn't have their career/reputation ruined over what were quite innocently spoken words (in many cases).0 -
And what the sensibilities of those who don't pick sides? Or the sensibility that people shouldn't have their career/reputation ruined over what were quite innocently spoken words (in many cases).
There are no sides. Sides suggests there are people evenly split on every issue. We know or should know that's not the case. You can be racist but support same sex marriage for instance. You can be fiscally conservative but 'left' as regards equality and so on.
It's trendy to speak out on the myth of cancel culture, trendy if you try to be a contrarian and an outsider like Morrissey, another arsehole.
Individuals decide if they are done with a celebrity, public figure. There is no memo going around telling people to cancel anyone. It's more 'Person A is a dick and here's why' and individuals take it from there.
Complaining about BLM or cancel culture etc. is grand and all but we can never have enough equality and individuals will decide which public figures they are done with. 'Cancel culture' like 'snow flake' or 'SJW' is a dismissive term to try get people to ignore issues that may arise before they even look for themselves.0 -
Advertisement
-
They're trying to get Ellen DeGeneres cancelled now too lads ye'll be very upset to learn.
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement