Cancel Culture

[SasaS]

3 minutes ago, aRdja said:

It presented the both views including the arguments as to why she should not be cancelled. They probably apologised because they couldn’t afford not to. 

Sorry, but it does no such thing. Have you read the article? It is a thinly veiled hatchet job published in a semi-official educatinal context which only lists criticism of Rowling (even throwing in the line about not supporting BLM and going after trans people instead, which "some say") and places her in the context of wife beaters, anti-Semites and whatever Picasso was as an established fact. Even I would have no problem getting them to apologize, let alone lawyers Rowling can afford. If I ever their solicitor, I'd start sweating profusely as early as after reading the first paragraph of the article.

[aRdja]

16 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Sorry, but it does no such thing. Have you read the article? It is a thinly veiled hatchet job published in a semi-official educatinal context which only lists criticism of Rowling (even throwing in the line about not supporting BLM and going after trans people instead, which "some say") and places her in the context of wife beaters, anti-Semites and whatever Picasso was as an established fact. Even I would have no problem getting them to apologize, let alone lawyers Rowling can afford. If I ever their solicitor, I'd start sweating profusely as early as after reading the first paragraph of the article.

No need to apologise, it’s a good respectful discussion. Read from “Should we boycott Harry Potter?” They presented arguments why some would and some wouldn’t without making a case for for either. Again I’m happy for you to disagree on this, but to threaten to bankrupt this publication is beyond the pale IMO, especially from a self-proclaimed free speech defender.

[cloggypop]

I've been boycotting Harry Potter since it came out. 

[aRdja]

17 minutes ago, Colonel Kurtz said:

It has cost them £100,000s. There will be tearful recriminations when the lawyers bill comes in. Libelling billionaires is not the best idea they’ve ever had. 

Chomsky has commented on the big flaw in English libel laws before. Real apt.

 

How much do you see our civil liberties being impinged upon, especially with respect to freedom of the press?

 

Freedom of the press from state control is very high in the United States, much higher than any other place I know. So take, say, England. They recently had a government investigation of the BBC to see whether they’re too critical of the government – the Hutton Report. There was a lot of debate about it, but it was mostly about the content of the report, not about the fact that it took place. I don’t think that in the United States it would have been possible for such an inquiry to take place. The protest would have been too strong. I mean, what right does the government have to investigate whether somebody’s being too critical of it? But in England, it was acceptable. In fact, English libel laws are designed so they sharply constrain freedom of the press. In the British system, if I accuse you of libel, you have to prove that I’m wrong. In the American system, I have to prove that I’m right. That’s a substantial difference, and it has a highly intimidating effect. In fact, it’s been used by big media corporations to put small journals out of business. One journal had claimed to expose something that a big media corporation did, and their reaction was just to threaten them with a libel suit. A big corporation can command legal resources, and so on, that no small journal can possibly deal with, so the journal went out of business. That’s almost impossible in the United States.

 

[aRdja]

2 minutes ago, Colonel Kurtz said:

I don’t agree on two counts; it’s almost impossible to prove a negative. 

You are actually agreeing with him. 

[Dr Nowt]

8 hours ago, Audrey Witherspoon said:

Listened to it whilst on a long haul flight back after Madrid I think, I need to give it a relisten.

Yeah, we went to hear him speak at the festival of dangerous ideas a few years back.

He has a very easy to follow thought train if you’ve ever suffered anxiety, but then when you are pulling back go nah fuck that, he goes straight into it.

 

Amanda Knox is on this thing too and will be speaking in a bit.

 

Just about managed not to write a direct note to her yet. Won't hold out for much longer.

[Dr Nowt]

Just invited her for a coffee afterwards, but she said while that's very nice she's got an appointment to go to.

 

Might not ask her if she's killed anybody lately.

[SasaS]

3 hours ago, aRdja said:

No need to apologise, it’s a good respectful discussion. Read from “Should we boycott Harry Potter?” They presented arguments why some would and some wouldn’t without making a case for for either. Again I’m happy for you to disagree on this, but to threaten to bankrupt this publication is beyond the pale IMO, especially from a self-proclaimed free speech defender.

I didn't apologize, it's a figure of speech... the problem isn't in so much the part should we or should we not boycott, the problem is that they have used her along the lines of historical, presumably undisputed examples of "wrongness", which she still does not qualify for, because the jury is not even out yet, let alone back. It would be like saying can we still read people like Ezra Pound, Knut Hamsun, Martin Heidegger and now, JK Rowling.

[Rico1304]

3 hours ago, cloggypop said:

I've been boycotting Harry Potter since it came out. 

Is that because you have to pay for it? 

[Rico1304]

3 hours ago, aRdja said:

Chomsky has commented on the big flaw in English libel laws before. Real apt.

 

How much do you see our civil liberties being impinged upon, especially with respect to freedom of the press?

 

Freedom of the press from state control is very high in the United States, much higher than any other place I know. So take, say, England. They recently had a government investigation of the BBC to see whether they’re too critical of the government – the Hutton Report. There was a lot of debate about it, but it was mostly about the content of the report, not about the fact that it took place. I don’t think that in the United States it would have been possible for such an inquiry to take place. The protest would have been too strong. I mean, what right does the government have to investigate whether somebody’s being too critical of it? But in England, it was acceptable. In fact, English libel laws are designed so they sharply constrain freedom of the press. In the British system, if I accuse you of libel, you have to prove that I’m wrong. In the American system, I have to prove that I’m right. That’s a substantial difference, and it has a highly intimidating effect. In fact, it’s been used by big media corporations to put small journals out of business. One journal had claimed to expose something that a big media corporation did, and their reaction was just to threaten them with a libel suit. A big corporation can command legal resources, and so on, that no small journal can possibly deal with, so the journal went out of business. That’s almost impossible in the United States.

 

When did he write this? The courts have made it clear that the damage has to be ‘significant’. 

[Rico1304]

These are the type of people she’s NOT gone after, but Netflix have decided are ok to represent them. Tell me this is normal. 
 

 

[Duff Man]

#BoycottNetflix seems a bit... cancelly?

[Rico1304]

Just now, Duff Man said:

#BoycottNetflix seems a bit... cancelly?

Ha ha, that’s your takeaway from this? 

[Duff Man]

Nope, I'm not arsed about any of it. Not even the big scary push to cancel Netflix.

[Rico1304]

Just now, Duff Man said:

Nope, I'm not arsed about any of it.

Phew. 

[VladimirIlyich]

8 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

If I chose to go and paint "Get the Brist out of Ireland, Up the IRA" on the wall at the top of our street I couldn't turn around to people who complained at me about it by saying "Thats my opinion I'm entitled to it how dare you criticise me". I'd have to take the consequences.

 

If hold an opinion, I actively choose to go and showcase it knowing full well some will agree and some won't. I can't then cry when my Proddy Loyalist Milkman decides he doesn't want to deliver to me anymore. 

 

 

People would simply call you a dyslexic graffiti artist.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

7 hours ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

Paul and Ringo both married Jewish women. You should be okay.

Not sure about that - according to Centrist Twitter some of the worst anti-Semites are Jewish.  (Go figure.)

[Rico1304]

14 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Not sure about that - according to Centrist Twitter some of the worst anti-Semites are Jewish.  (Go figure.)

How do you sign up for that one? 

[Rico1304]

4 minutes ago, Colonel Kurtz said:

We should start a Beatles thread if we haven’t already. Apparently Paul Is not the nicest guy in the world despite the chirpy thumbs up image. Heather mills got £25m to sign a watertight non disclosure agreement. 

It’s almost like no people are perfect and worshipping them is fucking stupid. Almost as stupid as doubling down when their human frailties are pointed out. 

[Dr Nowt]

Getting a polite ‘Thanks but no thanks’ from a murderess. One for the memory banks.

 

 

 

 

Saw Ronson’s eyebrows raise up over his hairline as that messaged popped up and he started reading it.

[Gnasher]

6 hours ago, cloggypop said:

I've been boycotting Harry Potter since it came out. 

I just watched a Harry Potter film and found it really far fetched, youd never see a ginger kid with more than one mate in school.

[Dr Arthur De Sabre]

9 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

I think you'll find I can hold whatever viewpoint I want. I support Corby's stance on Palestine. I disagree with him being called an anti-semite because of his views but I agree its par for the cause. The Palestine thing isn't the main reason he gets backlash from Jews anyway. 

Yes you hold any viewpoint you want softlad that is why I noted cognitive dissonance.

However, in the real world, the argument used against pro-Palestinian supporters specifically in the Labour Party is that criticism of the Israeli state is anti-Semitic - this is why the IHRC (I think it was them) had their own set of rules drawn up.

you cannot shutdown debate.

what you can and should do, is ensure debate does not include hate speech or incite hatred on either side.

the JKR debate - where did the hate speech come from? Arguably the AntiTERF revolutionaries, this is the problem with the current gender wars and cancel culture, they are seeking to shutdown debate.

further cognitive dissonance?? Twatting on about forum police, yet basically advocating the removal of debate on critical issues.

 

[Gnasher]

41 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

People would simply call you a dyslexic graffiti artist.

I dated a dyslexic raver in the nineties, she used to get off her head on an F.

[Dr Arthur De Sabre]

8 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

I don't know if you're being deliberately ignorant to my point here mate but I am not saying she shouldn't have her opinion. What I'm saying is she can't complain that not everyone will react kindly. If people are spreading lies (They shouldn't) then unfortunately in this grim, social media world its par for the course. She isn't stupid. Its not like Katie Price doing it not realising the impact it will have. 

 

Again - JK Rowling was just an example to make my point. Rachel Riley posts inflammatory stuff all the time then threatens libel or reports people who disagree with her. If you throw a brick at a window, don't cry when the glass breaks. 

Fuck me, you do know your basically advocating a conservative response.

In your world Nelson Mandela died in the nick and no-one ever gets justice.

Rcahel Riley posts inflammatory stuff, easily disprovable bullshit.

JKR was standing up for her rights and others as a woman - she did it with thought and was not openly inflammatory, she explained she expected a backlash DUE TO THE CURRENT LEVELS OF DEBATE in that area, ie pile ons from dickheads, predominantly self regarding dickheads who are looking to jump on a cause rather than understand the situation and discuss solutions.

looks at is from this perspective JKR is a woman, the argument she puts forward is with regards to safe spaces for women, now as you are not a woman (either natal or trans) what the fuck has it got to do with you? Why do you get to suppress their conversation? Surely if you give a fuck about resolution rather than just shutting down argument, you should be looking to provide a healthy opportunity to debate the situation and provide options on solutions that best meet the needs of both parties.

bit like Israel / Palestinian maybe?? Ah no, shut that shit down, too inflammatory.

[aRdja]

3 hours ago, SasaS said:

I didn't apologize, it's a figure of speech... the problem isn't in so much the part should we or should we not boycott, the problem is that they have used her along the lines of historical, presumably undisputed examples of "wrongness", which she still does not qualify for, because the jury is not even out yet, let alone back. It would be like saying can we still read people like Ezra Pound, Knut Hamsun, Martin Heidegger and now, JK Rowling.

That’s the point the article is trying to elaborate off the back of Daniel Radcliffe’s blog post asking people not to boycott Harry Potter.
 

To all the people who now feel that their experience of the books has been tarnished or diminished, I am deeply sorry for the pain these comments have caused you. I really hope that you don’t entirely lose what was valuable in these stories to you. If these books taught you that love is the strongest force in the universe, capable of overcoming anything; if they taught you that strength is found in diversity, and that dogmatic ideas of pureness lead to the oppression of vulnerable groups; if you believe that a particular character is trans, nonbinary, or gender fluid, or that they are gay or bisexual; if you found anything in these stories that resonated with you and helped you at any time in your life — then that is between you and the book that you read, and it is sacred. And in my opinion nobody can touch that. It means to you what it means to you and I hope that these comments will not taint that too much.

 

The article isn’t saying let’s cancel JK Rowling, it’s reporting on a current event where some Harry Potter fans are seriously considering ‘cancelling’ JK Rowling because of her tweets saying Trans women aren’t women. It also explains that some of the most important artists or authors out there have chequered past, way worse than JK Rowling... there are the arguments to boycott, and there arguments to continue reading the book... make up your own mind.

 

Free speech defender: “Let’s put them out of business!!!!” Laughable.