Cancel Culture

[CapeRed]

 its fine to look back and say certain stuff is no longer acceptable. Pulling up tweets from people made 10 or 15 years ago and destroying them is IMO abhorrent. The world seems a much angrier and bitter place these days , driven by the right and left as well as mainstream media. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

4 minutes ago, RedKnight said:

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.

I think there's just loads of people on both sides of the debate who love feigning outrage and hurling abuse. The argument is too noisy for much level-headed consideration of legitimate concerns that people may have. It's all a bit toxic and (of course) if you mention that to anyone engaged in the slanging match, they'll tell you that the other side is to blame for the tone of the debate.

[Rico1304]

1 hour ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

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

Depends on the question asked. Supportive of their right to live how they want - yes (who wouldn’t). Supportive of their rights to enter womens sports single sex spaces etc - then not.  

[Rico1304]

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

But you term anyone who disagrees with you as a bigot.  JKRs last tweet was about a trans rapist, surely if a person rapes a woman we can set aside any claim they may have to be a woman herself?  But apparently not.   

[Paulie Dangerously]

47 minutes ago, deiseach said:

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.

 

Did it mean that they were in favour? 

 

49 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.

Would I feel comfortable that someone who read or bought a book about holocaust denial probably wasn't a holocaust denier? Yes, because that's just common sense. Just like if someone read Mein Kampf I wouldn't think they were a national socialist. 

[Oh Buoy]

Here is JKR's position on trans: 

 

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

[SasaS]

30 minutes ago, mars said:

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.

Irving's books are the tools with which he as a historian performs what you can consider objectionable, with Walliams, it is an ideological reading of his position, tone etc.  

[Paulie Dangerously]

I suppose the POV that @marsand @deiseachare putting forward is that if you don't condemn you condone. (Apologies if that's been misinterpreted by your posts)

 

For me, it's not that black and white. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

12 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

But you term anyone who disagrees with you as a bigot.  

No I don't. That's just a little fiction you tell yourself to avoid any debate. It's one of the reasons your obsession thread is so tedious.

[Rico1304]

Just now, AngryOfTuebrook said:

No I don't. That's just a little fiction you tell yourself to avoid any debate. It's one of the reasons your obsession thread is so tedious.

So is JKR a bigot? Is there anyone you can identify who disagrees but ISNT a bigot? 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

21 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Depends on the question asked. Supportive of their right to live how they want - yes (who wouldn’t). Supportive of their rights to enter womens sports single sex spaces etc - then not.  

Because going to the gym isn't part of living how they want. Obviously.

[deiseach]

9 minutes ago, Paulie Dangerously said:

Did it mean that they were in favour? 

Given the choice between supporting the regime or helping to 'cancel' it, they choose to support it. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Just now, Rico1304 said:

So is JKR a bigot? Is there anyone you can identify who disagrees but ISNT a bigot? 

I've never read any of Rowling's books, so it would be odd if I were to pay much attention to her tweets. Normal people don't obsess over this the way you (and your equivalent pearl-clutchers on the other side of the debate) do.

[Rico1304]

16 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I've never read any of Rowling's books, so it would be odd if I were to pay much attention to her tweets. Normal people don't obsess over this the way you (and your equivalent pearl-clutchers on the other side of the debate) do.

Said before I find it fascinating that otherwise intelligent people will tell me that women can now have dicks and can even switch back whenever they want.  And that any opposition is bigoted.  Then there’s all the times I’ve been told ‘that won’t happen’ and then it does.   
 

Plus, I’ve not got Palestine to worry about so plenty of free time.  

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Said before I find it fascinating that otherwise intelligent people will tell me that women can now have dicks and can even switch back whenever they want.  And that any opposition is bigoted.  Then there’s all the times I’ve been told ‘that won’t happen’ and then it does.   
 

Plus, I’ve not got Palestine to worry about so plenty of free time.  

Can you not keep this nonsense in the daft little playroom you've established in the other thread?

[Rico1304]

11 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Can you not keep this nonsense in the daft little playroom you've established in the other thread?

You mean the one you won’t go in?

[Babb'sBurstNad]

1 hour ago, RedKnight said:

 

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.

Unfortunately the nature of social media has distilled most nuanced arguments - even from Rowling herself - into pithy passive aggressive snipes at best, and at worst outright vulgar aggression.

 

Most people think they're right, and a select few hold that belief so passionately that they never truly engage with the opposing position. Discussions held in good faith are sadly few and far between.

[Total Longo]

1 hour ago, Mook said:

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.

Mook is cancelled!

[deiseach]

50 minutes ago, Paulie Dangerously said:

I suppose the POV that @marsand @deiseachare putting forward is that if you don't condemn you condone. (Apologies if that's been misinterpreted by your posts)

 

For me, it's not that black and white. 

Separating the person doing the act from the person talking about the act might work fine in the case of David Walliams, but it would not work so well in the case of David Irving. I would have thought that was the shades-of-grey point of view.

[Section_31]

48 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

Unfortunately the nature of social media has distilled most nuanced arguments - even from Rowling herself - into pithy passive aggressive snipes at best, and at worst outright vulgar aggression.

 

Most people think they're right, and a select few hold that belief so passionately that they never truly engage with the opposing position. Discussions held in good faith are sadly few and far between.

It's interesting in a sense. You wonder what drives some of it, and if it's similar to what drives people to join gangs, they're your crowd and they stick up for you against 'the baddies'.

[mars]

1 hour ago, Paulie Dangerously said:

 

Did it mean that they were in favour? 

 

Would I feel comfortable that someone who read or bought a book about holocaust denial probably wasn't a holocaust denier? Yes, because that's just common sense. Just like if someone read Mein Kampf I wouldn't think they were a national socialist. 

No, not a book about Holocaust denial, say a book he wrote about the English Civil War. Would you read that book (ignore the fact he is a poor historian for the moment)? If a friend was tempted to buy that book, would you say something? If someone recommends the book on this forum, would you condemn me if I said that I found his views on the Holocaust abhorrent and therefore his book on the Civil War would be "problematical" for me?

 

I'm not saying that it is always the case that if you don't condemn then you condone. I agree with you about Walliams. If you were reading Mein Kampf, I would assume it was to better understand history. If you've bought Tommy Robinson's autobiography, actually there I would have an issue. If it was research for your PhD on Arseholes, fair enough, but otherwise I'd happily see that book cancelled (worried now I have dictator potential - I seem to be wandering into the realms of censorship).

[Rico1304]

5 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

It's interesting in a sense. You wonder what drives some of it, and if it's similar to what drives people to join gangs, they're your crowd and they stick up for you against 'the baddies'.

The interesting thing is how her wealth, and obvious prospect of future films and books has protected her to a degree. The abuse has  been vile, the misrepresentation startling and the way the kids from the film have treated her is shit. On that note if I were her I’d do a Taylor Swift and remake all the films. But what all that has done is mean she’s likely to help people with no voice who were threatened with real cancellation.   

[Strontium]

2 hours ago, mars said:

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.

 

Probably struggling with the idea that Little Britain is on the same rung of badness as Holocaust denial and neo-Nazism, if I'm honest.

[Section_31]

2 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

The interesting thing is how her wealth, and obvious prospect of future films and books has protected her to a degree. The abuse has  been vile, the misrepresentation startling and the way the kids from the film have treated her is shit. On that note if I were her I’d do a Taylor Swift and remake all the films. But what all that has done is mean she’s likely to help people with no voice who were threatened with real cancellation.   

There's definitely a massive degree of jealousy involved. Someone was saying something like 'you live in an actual castle and you spend your days doing this shit?', like she's not allowed to because she's rich. 

 

Loads of people who dole out the abuse aren't just random plebs either, they're blue tick types but ones you've never heard of. Jasmine De La Funk, author of 'who me? That's my mum's dick' available on Kindle and author of the smashed avocado on toast podcast. 

[Gnasher]

1 hour ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I've never read any of Rowling's books, so it would be odd if I were to pay much attention to her tweets. Normal people don't obsess over this the way you (and your equivalent pearl-clutchers on the other side of the debate) do.

 

You're  lucky you havnt read any of her books Angry, I had the misfortune to read a few chapters of Harry Potter Goblins of fire a few years back;  pure far fetched fucking nonsense, you never ever used to see a Ginger kid with more than one mate in high school.