Cancel Culture

[Section_31]

The thing with Rowling is I suspect most people who consider her views 'problematic' don't actually know what her views are or what in fact she's said. 

 

She's just been tarred with a brush and nine times out of ten these days, that's enough. 

 

There's a right side of the line and a wrong side, but the line keeps moving.

[RedKnight]

I never quite understand why the Twitter warriors go so vehemently after Rowling, calling her a TERF and suchlike. When did women like Germaine Greer become arseholes for sticking up for their own gender? It also seems to me that no one has a problem with women transitioning to men, which I think speaks for itself.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

7 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

The thing with Rowling is I suspect most people who consider her views 'problematic' don't actually know what her views are or what in fact she's said. 

 

She's just been tarred with a brush and nine times out of ten these days, that's enough. 

 

There's a right side of the line and a wrong side, but the line keeps moving.

 

Of the people I know who dislike Rowling, they know exactly what she's said, and base their dislike off of that.

 

But I think your point is sound, most of us don't have either the time or the inclination to gen up on the minutiae of what some bod on social media has or hasn't said, so we tend to just broadly align with those whose opinions on such matters we've come to respect.

[Rico1304]

9 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

 

Of the people I know who dislike Rowling, they know exactly what she's said, and base their dislike off of that.

 

But I think your point is sound, most of us don't have either the time or the inclination to gen up on the minutiae of what some bod on social media has or hasn't said, so we tend to just broadly align with those whose opinions on such matters we've come to respect.

You’re probably right.  Anything less that TWAW is heresy.  Despite it being, well, not true.  

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

Sometimes I get offended because there is nothing that offends me…..

[Section_31]

14 minutes ago, RedKnight said:

I never quite understand why the Twitter warriors go so vehemently after Rowling, calling her a TERF and suchlike. When did women like Germaine Greer become arseholes for sticking up for their own gender? It also seems to me that no one has a problem with women transitioning to men, which I think speaks for itself.

This is absolutely spot on.

 

If a tidy woman decided she was a bloke and walked into the men's changing rooms, I dare say most blokes and their young sons wouldn't have a problem with it. 

 

There's a factor that's often deliberately left out of the transgender debate when it comes to men identifying as women, which is that a lot of women are scared of, or at least wary of men, not because of their gender, but because of their physical ability to harm them if they so wish, along with a more predatory sexual sensibility.

 

Maybe it's deliberately overlooked, maybe it's not understood, which itself is telling, as there is no doubt more to being a woman than simply looking like one, but a lifetime of learned experiences, of feeling fear, of feeling overlooked, of being part of a culture and indeed a race that for so long has regarded you as second class.

[Bjornebye]

3 minutes ago, VERBAL DIARRHEA said:

Sometimes I get offended because there is nothing that offends me…..

Pig 

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Pig 

You swine porcine.

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, VERBAL DIARRHEA said:

You swine porcine.

Fuck off Wilbur 

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Fuck off Wilbur 

That’ll do.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

 

[VladimirIlyich]

3 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Opinions hey.  Funny how all these unfunny cunts are millionaires, from being, well funny. 

I don't dislike Baddiel here as I dont follow his career much,but judging a person on how wealthy they are is not always a good indicator of that person's moral compass.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

30 minutes ago, RedKnight said:

It also seems to me that no one has a problem with women transitioning to men, which I think speaks for itself.

Bigots have a problem with all trans people. What you don't get with trans men is wallopers wrapping their lack of human decency in a patronising veneer of faux-Feminism (because someone has to look after the little ladies, bless'em).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Teena

[Rico1304]

Just now, VladimirIlyich said:

I don't dislike Baddiel here as I dont follow his career much,but judging a person on how wealthy they are is not always a good indicator of that person's moral compass.

That’s not what o said.  I said we all dislike comedians who we deem not funny.  Despite that lots of them are millionaires on the back of being funny.  Take Mrs Briwns Boys.  I think that’s rubbish but he’s richer than god.  

[AngryOfTuebrook]

15 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

This is absolutely spot on.

 

If a tidy woman decided she was a bloke and walked into the men's changing rooms, I dare say most blokes and their young sons wouldn't have a problem with it. 

 

There's a factor that's often deliberately left out of the transgender debate when it comes to men identifying as women, which is that a lot of women are scared of, or at least wary of men, not because of their gender, but because of their physical ability to harm them if they so wish, along with a more predatory sexual sensibility.

 

Maybe it's deliberately overlooked, maybe it's not understood, which itself is telling, as there is no doubt more to being a woman than simply looking like one, but a lifetime of learned experiences, of feeling fear, of feeling overlooked, of being part of a culture and indeed a race that for so long has regarded you as second class.

And yet... opinion polls tend to show women as more supportive than men of trans women's rights.

[Total Longo]

1 hour ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Gingerism.

 

1 hour ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

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

Definitely not in Scotland.

[mars]

2 hours ago, deiseach said:

Are you saying this is always a bad thing? 

Good question.

 

1 hour ago, Paulie Dangerously said:

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. 

 

 

If you replace "Walliams" with "Irving" (the Holocaust denier) in the above, would you still feel comfortable with your post? I agree with what you are saying in general but I'd suggest there are some authors whose views you'd find abhorrent and whose work would therefore presents difficulties.

[deiseach]

1 hour ago, Paulie Dangerously said:

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. 

This was pretty much the line deployed over the years by the rugby and cricket fraternity in these islands in their eagerness to play South Africa. After all, playing or watching the Springboks/Proteas didn't mean you were in favour of apartheid.

[SasaS]

12 minutes ago, mars said:

Good question.

 

If you replace "Walliams" with "Irving" (the Holocaust denier) in the above, would you still feel comfortable with your post? I agree with what you are saying in general but I'd suggest there are some authors whose views you'd find abhorrent and whose work would therefore presents difficulties.

But you can't replace simply Walliams with Irving, that is the whole point.

[Mook]

24 minutes ago, Total Longo said:

 

Definitely not in Scotland.

I've seen some of the worst bullying at school (in Scotland) directed to people with ginger hair. In fact, if I'm being completely honest, I partook in it at times.

 

Poor bastards.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 hours ago, Section_31 said:

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. 

It long predates Orwell. For example, Dickens responded to criticism and toned down the anti-Semitism in Oliver Twist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fagin 

 

The world didn't come to an end. People keep writing stuff and getting it published.

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Rico1304 said:

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. 

Remember when the 2010 Equality Act killed workplace banter stone dead?

Great days.

[mars]

3 minutes ago, SasaS said:

But you can't replace simply Walliams with Irving, that is the whole point.

Then I've completely missed the point or haven't expressed myself clearly. I did say that in general I agreed with Paulie's post but personally there comes a point where someone's views (or actions) are so opposed to what I believe to be decent that I cannot divorce the work from the artist. An extreme example would be, say, Bill Cosby.

[RedKnight]

1 hour ago, Section_31 said:

This is absolutely spot on.

 

If a tidy woman decided she was a bloke and walked into the men's changing rooms, I dare say most blokes and their young sons wouldn't have a problem with it. 

 

There's a factor that's often deliberately left out of the transgender debate when it comes to men identifying as women, which is that a lot of women are scared of, or at least wary of men, not because of their gender, but because of their physical ability to harm them if they so wish, along with a more predatory sexual sensibility.

 

Maybe it's deliberately overlooked, maybe it's not understood, which itself is telling, as there is no doubt more to being a woman than simply looking like one, but a lifetime of learned experiences, of feeling fear, of feeling overlooked, of being part of a culture and indeed a race that for so long has regarded you as second class.

Which I've always assumed is where Rowling stands but Twitter is just full of people calling her a cunt and a TERF and honestly, I just can't think there's that many trans people in the world but there seems to be.

[RedKnight]

1 hour ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Bigots have a problem with all trans people. What you don't get with trans men is wallopers wrapping their lack of human decency in a patronising veneer of faux-Feminism (because someone has to look after the little ladies, bless'em).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Teena

 

I can only think those who vehemently oppose it have some unresolved issues of their own. For me, I couldn't give a shit who does what but I'd like more nuance in the debate than simply yelling at the Harry Potter author and constantly calling her a cunt.