Cancel Culture

[Rico1304]

7 minutes ago, mars said:

Sorry, just not getting "scared" or "worried" from those tweets; "angry" and "pissed off" are what I am sensing. 

 

More generally, is it fair to criticise someone's book because of views they have expressed online that have nothing or little to do with said book?

 

I don't think there is a general answer. If a forumite recommened a Jerry Pournelle (American sci-fi writer from the 80s) novel, I'd be inclined to point out Pournelle's extreme right politics and admiration for a white supremacist writer.

 

Personally I'll never read a Neil Oliver book because I have heard the nonsense he spouts (imho) on GB News. I would probably mention that if anyone on here recommended one of his books. That is probably unfair of me as I imagine his work on, say, ancient Britain is historically sound and well written.

 

Would I disparage the Harry Potter books because of J K Rowlings views on transgender issues - no. Would I buy another of her books knowing her views - no. 

Which of her views would prevent you from buying a book?  
 

Its also worth pointing out that the ‘problematic’ views are protected in law.  

[Section_31]

There's nothing wrong with taking a personal stance over someone's views if you don't agree with them, the issue becomes when mass pressure is applied to try and change theirs or someone else's behaviour. 

 

There's a huge difference between expressing disagreement with someone and altering your own buying behaviour, compared to making others follow in your footsteps under pain of succumbing to similar treatment if they don't follow suit. 

 

We've had instances in the past year where authors have actually gone back and rewritten already published books due to the furore, that's all kinds of wrong, Orwellian shit. 

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

There's nothing wrong with taking a personal stance over someone's views if you don't agree with them, the issue becomes when mass pressure is applied to try and change theirs or someone else's behaviour. 

 

There's a huge difference between expressing disagreement with someone and altering your own buying behaviour, compared to making others follow in your footsteps under pain of succumbing to similar treatment if they don't follow suit. 

 

We've had instances in the past year where authors have actually gone back and rewritten already published books due to the furore, that's all kinds of wrong, Orwellian shit. 

I was skipping through the channels last night after The Chase and Only Fools was on Gold. Stuck it on but hardly paid attention then Dads Army came on. It was only on in the background but twice I looked at my bird and said no chance that would be allowed these days. They weren't overly* offensive things but enough to make a writer question putting it on anything these days. 

 

*They could well be deemed offensive to some, although I don't know many Germans who watch Dads Army. 

[Section_31]

3 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

I was skipping through the channels last night after The Chase and Only Fools was on Gold. Stuck it on but hardly paid attention then Dads Army came on. It was only on in the background but twice I looked at my bird and said no chance that would be allowed these days. They weren't overly* offensive things but enough to make a writer question putting it on anything these days. 

 

*They could well be deemed offensive to some, although I don't know many Germans who watch Dads Army. 

 

To be fair there's lots of stuff which makes me uncomfortable in those old shows, and I'm no chai latte drinker. Was watching Only Fools and Horses once where Del made reference to a 'P*ki shop'. I nearly spat my drink out, I hate that word. He was always on about 'poofters' too which obviously doesn't sit well now.

 

I think we've made great strides in recent years, same with misogyny too,  but there is without a radical faction that takes it all too far and will fume about anything, but it's not just that, it's the relentless desire to destroy careers. 

 

What David Jason said and the writer wrote might shock me now, but I've no great desire to see his career ended now, nor that of anyone who sells his DVDs. 

[deiseach]

9 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

There's nothing wrong with taking a personal stance over someone's views if you don't agree with them, the issue becomes when mass pressure is applied to try and change theirs or someone else's behaviour. 

 

There's a huge difference between expressing disagreement with someone and altering your own buying behaviour, compared to making others follow in your footsteps under pain of succumbing to similar treatment if they don't follow suit. 

 

We've had instances in the past year where authors have actually gone back and rewritten already published books due to the furore, that's all kinds of wrong, Orwellian shit. 

Are you saying this is always a bad thing? 

[Creator Supreme]

9 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

I was skipping through the channels last night after The Chase and Only Fools was on Gold. Stuck it on but hardly paid attention then Dads Army came on. It was only on in the background but twice I looked at my bird and said no chance that would be allowed these days. They weren't overly* offensive things but enough to make a writer question putting it on anything these days. 

 

*They could well be deemed offensive to some, although I don't know many Germans who watch Dads Army. 

Brings to mind a story our Spanish Teacher told us years ago.

 

Our school had an exchange trip each year with a school in our twin town in Germany. As with every exchange the kids have a kid from the other school staying with them, and the teachers have a teacher or two staying with them.

 

The trips lasted a few weeks so they stayed over the weekend. On a Saturday night said Spanish Teacher is watching telly with her husband and the two German teachers staying with them, trying to be careful not to show any TV which may offend. What comes on TV?

 

Allo Allo. Teacher is mortified, so is her husband but it's too late to change channels.

 

Needless to say the two German teachers watched it, and pissed themselves laughing, especially at the Nazi's.

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Section_31 said:

 

To be fair there's lots of stuff which makes me uncomfortable in those old shows, and I'm no chai latte drinker. Was watching Only Fools and Horses once where Del made reference to a 'P*ki shop'. I nearly spat my drink out, I hate that word. He was always on about 'poofters' too which obviously doesn't sit well now.

 

I think we've made great strides in recent years, same with misogyny too,  but there is without a radical faction that takes it all too far and will fume about anything, but it's not just that, it's the relentless desire to destroy careers. 

 

What David Jason said and the writer wrote might shock me now, but I've no great desire to see his career ended now, nor that of anyone who sells his DVDs. 

 

 

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Creator Supreme said:

Brings to mind a story our Spanish Teacher told us years ago.

 

Our school had an exchange trip each year with a school in our twin town in Germany. As with every exchange the kids have a kid from the other school staying with them, and the teachers have a teacher to staying with them.

 

The trips lasted a few weeks so they stayed over the weekend. On a Saturday night said Spanish Teacher is watching telly with her husband and the two German teachers staying with them, trying to be careful not to show any TV which may offend. What comes on TV?

 

Allo Allo. Teacher is mortified, so is her husband but it's too late to change channels.

 

Needless to say the two German teachers watched it, and pissed themselves laughing, especially at the Nazi's.

Good eggs. 

 

Fawlty Towers - The Germans is arguably the funniest episode in any sitcom of all time ever, not a hope in hell it gets close to getting past the tv watchdog if it was written today. 

[Creator Supreme]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Good eggs.

They were, the German visitors were always sound, so was the Spanish Teacher, she was one of the few good teachers in that school.

[Section_31]

2 minutes ago, deiseach said:

Are you saying this is always a bad thing? 

Not always, it depends doesn't it?

 

If someone says all Jews and gypsies are evil, then they're fair game for a pile on, if someone says they personally don't believe men who self identify as women should be allowed in womens' changing rooms , is that in the same league? 

 

Say they then start not saying what they believe for fear of a pile on, that's self censorship born out of fear and it's a scary, slippery slope. 

 

The problem here isn't cancel culture as it's called, it's the increasingly widening window of what is and isn't acceptable, sometimes to a comedy degree. 

[deiseach]

1 minute ago, Section_31 said:

Not always, it depends doesn't it?

Yes, it does. 

[deiseach]

5 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Fawlty Towers - The Germans is arguably the funniest episode in any sitcom of all time ever, not a hope in hell it gets close to getting past the tv watchdog if it was written today. 

Al Murray's Pub Landlord would beg to differ.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

As ever, it's a question of moderation. We all draw the line somewhere.

 

I dare say many would have balked at calls not to say "p**i shop" on TV once, seeing it as "going too far".

 

There will be something we all accept today, that the next generation looks back at with horror. Tough to know what it will be, but whatever it is will be hard for us to accept.

[Rico1304]

34 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

As ever, it's a question of moderation. We all draw the line somewhere.

 

I dare say many would have balked at calls not to say "p**i shop" on TV once, seeing it as "going too far".

 

There will be something we all accept today, that the next generation looks back at with horror. Tough to know what it will be, but whatever it is will be hard for us to accept.

Meat eating or owning pets.  

[Babb'sBurstNad]

11 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Meat eating or owning pets.  

Too obvious. Plus, only sociopaths don't own a dog.

 

I'd go with killing insects and maybe transracialism.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

As ever, it's a question of moderation. We all draw the line somewhere.

 

I dare say many would have balked at calls not to say "p**i shop" on TV once, seeing it as "going too far".

 

There will be something we all accept today, that the next generation looks back at with horror. Tough to know what it will be, but whatever it is will be hard for us to accept.

Indeed. I think it's funny that people say "you couldn't do that now" about programmes made in the 90s, which was a time when pearl-clutchers were complaining that "you can't say anything on telly these days; it's PC gone mad".

[Bruce Spanner]

3 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

Too obvious. Plus, only sociopaths don't own a dog.

 

I'd go with killing insects and maybe transracialism.

 

High Heeled shoes and the fetishisation from both sides of the sexaul divide.

 

Fucking odd when you think about them objectively.

[Creator Supreme]

I think Baldism will be frowned upon the future.

 

In view of this, while I can get away with it: Pep Guardiola is a baldy cunt!

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 minute ago, Creator Supreme said:

I think Baldism will be frowned upon the future.

 

In view of this, while I can get away with it: Pep Guardiola is a baldy cunt!

Gingerism.

[Creator Supreme]

1 minute ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Gingerism.

And on that subject:

 

Ed Sheeran is a ginger cunt.

 

On the flip side - Isla Fisher is a flame haired goddess!

[Paulie Dangerously]

I don't read or buy David Walliams books because I think he's a bully prick who punches down on society from his ivory tower. I wouldn't encourage anyone to buy or read his shite either. However, if someone does then I also would not be jumping down their throats and accusing them of supporting or doing what Walliams does. 

 

That, to me, is the difference between rationally minded people and cancel cranks. It's having the cognitive ability to separate the person doing the act from the person talking about the act. 

 

 

[Paulie Dangerously]

4 minutes ago, Creator Supreme said:

I think Baldism will be frowned upon the future.

 

In view of this, while I can get away with it: Pep Guardiola is a baldy cunt!

That's problematic. 

[Rico1304]

Maureen Lipman on BBC website today saying comedy is at risk.  Russell Kane disagrees and says it’s all about hate speech and not promoting crime. Then explains he auto deletes all his tweets after 6

months as he’s worried about being cancelled. 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

12 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Gingerism.

Always wondered whether that exists in other societies. It seems a strangely anglo-centric phenomena. 

[cloggypop]

2 hours ago, mars said:

Sorry, just not getting "scared" or "worried" from those tweets; "angry" and "pissed off" are what I am sensing. 

 

More generally, is it fair to criticise someone's book because of views they have expressed online that have nothing or little to do with said book?

 

I don't think there is a general answer. If a forumite recommened a Jerry Pournelle (American sci-fi writer from the 80s) novel, I'd be inclined to point out Pournelle's extreme right politics and admiration for a white supremacist writer.

 

Personally I'll never read a Neil Oliver book because I have heard the nonsense he spouts (imho) on GB News. I would probably mention that if anyone on here recommended one of his books. That is probably unfair of me as I imagine his work on, say, ancient Britain is historically sound and well written.

 

Would I disparage the Harry Potter books because of J K Rowlings views on transgender issues - no. Would I buy another of her books knowing her views - no. 

Ha ha! You read Harry Potter.