Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'm sure the usual suspects, who love playing devil's advocate, will be in here decrying this. No?
Cancel Culture
- Thread starter Buchan
- Start date
I'm sure the usual suspects, who love playing devil's advocate, will be in here decrying this. No?
Quote from the text:
Being a true 'free marketplace of ideas' advocate (he actually uses that phrase), the author systematically fails to realize the importance of power. So concerning Frederick Douglass, his tale of emancipation through argument & tolerance is missing something pretty big - the American Civil War.
So Douglass, who knew about power, opted for canceling Southern racism pretty hard. Here's a bit of war propaganda he participated in (from wikipedia):
Last edited:
Having read the article you linked, I still fail to see the contradiction.Quote from the text:
Being a true 'free marketplace of ideas' advocate (he actually uses that phrase), the author systematically fails to realize the importance of power. So concerning Frederick Douglass, his tale of emancipation through argument & tolerance is missing something pretty big - the American Civil War.
So Douglass, who knew about power, opted for canceling Southern racism pretty hard. Here's a bit of war propaganda he participated in (from wikipedia):
The author describes liberation as the result of public dialogue (first sentence I quoted), and invokes Frederick Douglass as a historical example. I pointed out that this is a blatant misrepresentation of Douglass, citing the war he actively supported to strip slaveholders of their power.
That article is a bit confusing, I don't think that I have ever someone suggest that identitarians were the side that he described, if I'm not mistaken it's supposed to be the far right.
I don't' see the contradiction between supporting free speech and actively fighting a war to ending literal slavery.
The entire article is a big contradiction and I'm not convinced by the writing as a whole but this part combined with what @Synco posted demonstrate a massive contradiction:
People are demonized on the basis of their moral and political views all the time, that's why Douglass endorsed a violent response. The entire article is weird and completely out of touch with reality and history.
An essential part of the author's argument for "free speech" is making a broader point about how social progress historically came through argument and open dialogue. He uses Douglass as an example. But civil war is the absolute opposite of tolerance and dialogue in a society. It involves depriving the enemy of his most fundamental freedoms, and if necessary even his life. It's political oppression of the harshest kind (although it might still be justified, depending on circumstances).
Well despite that I posted the article I am not essentially a free speech absolutelist. I think comparing present day cancel culture with the actual war to end legalized slavery is somewhat hyperbolic, but I catch the drift of what your saying and agree with some of it. My main take away from the article is this quote
" And what if an idea is false? Should it be stifled? Mill suggests it shouldn’t. For two reasons. First, there is no guarantee that a silenced opinion does not contain some true and valid propositions. And secondly, it is through debate that individuals are compelled to re-examine their values and opinions and to comprehend why they should or should not hold certain beliefs. Indeed, for Mill, it is not simply enough to be opinionated; one must understand the substance of one’s beliefs. Without the free exchange of ideas, that understanding becomes more difficult. "
An example of a bizarre incident of cancel culture.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/08/12/the-bbcs-bizarre-n-word-controversy/
Last edited:
It would be, but I haven't made that comparison myself (ignoring my general reservations about the term "cancel culture" for now). The author brings up Douglass, I merely said the historical narrative about social progress through peaceful dialogue and tolerance he tries to build doesn't fit the man's actual legacy.
But I also know the issue is complex. Douglass himself was a staunch liberal and advocate of freedom of speech, although I think it worked in a notably different way in his case.
I think this statement can be true in some situations, and false in others. It certainly doesn't work as an unconditional principle for society at large, because human attitudes are shaped by many other social factors than just the exchange of ideas. Which brings me to the point I made at the beginning: the (imo constitutive) blindness of this kind of liberalism for the reality of power in their own society, a reality that will often enough prevent the better argument from prevailing in practice.
Last edited:
What he really says is
" Great minds such as William Wilberforce, Frederick Douglass and Olaudah Equiano publicly marshalled arguments against the morally unconscionable practice of making profit from enslaved black people. The likes of John Stuart Mill and Mary Wollstonecraft contended that women are not naturally inferior to men, and instead what set the sexes apart was the educational and cultural climate that deprived women of the liberty to realise their potential. "
" All these ideas were unconventional and challenging in their time. If these authors and their writings had been ‘cancelled’ for going against the grain, we would not have made the kind of progress we have with regard to racial and gender equality."
I dont see him saying that in the case racial of equality and slavery in the US, progress came solely through free speech, but that without free speech if the case against slavery had been completely "opressed" or "cancelled" then that status quo maybe would not have changed or changed much slower. By challenging the status quo it led to a necessary evil which was the Civil war.
I don't believe being a free spech advocat means that you automatically become a complete pacifist. Of course I believe in nuance which is why I am not essentially a free speech absolutelist or total pacifist. If pre-WW2 Germany had a plato-style philosopher king pre WW2 who cancelled Hitlers mein kampf then WW2 probably wouldn't have happened and of course I couldn't comdemn that theoretical scenario.
Ah great more right wing media...
Bit random but can anyone think of any right wing (ish) comedians who are/were actually funny? John Cleese? (definitely in the “were funny” rather than “are funny” camp) Jeremy Clarkson can sometimes be funny, I guess?
Basically, I don’t think right wing politics are compatible with making people laugh for a living. Not sure why but that’s just the way it is.
Basically, I don’t think right wing politics are compatible with making people laugh for a living. Not sure why but that’s just the way it is.
Jeff Ross
Trump is the only funny conservative tbh
In fairness it's completely subjective, there's a ton of people who find old white guys complaining about things to be hilarious but there's a lot more people who find SNL or John Oliver to be something worth watching.
Both are of course awful.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
In fairness it's completely subjective, there's a ton of people who find old white guys complaining about things to be hilarious but there's a lot more people who find SNL or John Oliver to be something worth watching.
Both are of course awful.
Last edited:
Which old white guys?
John Cleese, Seinfeld, Dennis Miller etc etc
So much of mainstream stand up comedy is comedians complaining about about the difficulty of being a comedian. At least Rupert Pupkin had a few decent punch lines.
Were those all real? I assumed they were satire but then thought they may just be real.
I don't buy that the BBC's comedy is too far to the left, but too London-centric/metropolitan I do think is a fair point.
Wonder what the "worst offending shows" are. Whatever they are they don't have anything like the zealotry and lack of humour of stuff like C4's The Last Leg or Alternative Election Night.
Wonder what the "worst offending shows" are. Whatever they are they don't have anything like the zealotry and lack of humour of stuff like C4's The Last Leg or Alternative Election Night.
Never heard of Miller to be honest, never watched Seinfeld. Cleese was funny back in the day. But some old white guys are funny.
John Cleese, Seinfeld, Dennis Miller etc etc
So much of mainstream stand up comedy is comedians complaining about about the difficulty of being a comedian. At least Rupert Pupkin had a few decent punch lines.
It's hard to know what qualifies really. Maybe they're looking back to the glory days of Bernard Manning, or the postcard humour of Benny Hill - though I doubt it. I'm sure if asked they'd talk vaguely about British culture and family values - by which I guess they're talking about Eton and Boris.
If they're looking for interesting then something like: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b060fj66 has potential. It works great on the radio, with an audience that is probably quite leftwing in principle, but actually find itself wanting to add new laws, and police powers as it tries to react to the scenarios. Not rightwing as such, but often intriguing, and usually funny.
Which makes me think of other kinds of programming and "balance" there. Just about every BBC/ITV TV cop show series has a similar worldview. We might have to deal with the odd bad apple, but we know everyone else's heart is in the right place, and our heroes are hamstrung by budgets, paperwork and the legal system.
But yeah, I suspect they're talking about a couple of panel shows, like Have I Got News for You, where the only Brexiteers were people like Rees Mogg/Farage - amateur comedians at best.
Just remembered one guy who might get a job out of this:
Last edited:
Wonder if Joy Reid will be cancelled for basically saying Trump is acting like a muslim, encouraging his base to be violent.
What exactly is 'Left-Wing' BBC Comedy?
If its 'Left-Wing', it cannot be Comedy?
If its BBC, it cant be "Left -Wing'?
If its Comedy its suppose to make you laugh (or maybe giggle a bit!), if its the BBC, it makes you want to cry!
If its 'Left-Wing', it cannot be Comedy?
If its BBC, it cant be "Left -Wing'?
If its Comedy its suppose to make you laugh (or maybe giggle a bit!), if its the BBC, it makes you want to cry!
It's because you don't quote the next part (the one I referred to):
" Ironically, identitarians fail to appreciate that their ability to express themselves freely after years of various forms of racial and gender repression is a product of public arguments for greater tolerance and liberty. "
There it is in black and white. He says this without any reservation, he omits any other factor (including when he evokes Douglass), and he does so throughout the text.
But any regulation of speech means it's not free speech anymore. It is either 100% unregulated or not actually free. What we'd talk about then is only the degree to which speech should be regulated by the state or private platforms. (Which would also be the only realistic discussion, imo; free speech exists nowhere, and it probably never has.)
Have I Got News For You remains one of the funniest shows on tv after all these years, if they cut that I'll personally burn Broadcasting House to the ground.
Yeah i see your point and agree with it.
https://theweek.com/articles/935148...links&tum_medium=website&utm_campaign=twitter
Article about Facebook and its political impact. Sens to be arguing for the censorship of right wing conspiracy theories (which the Facebook hierarchy, including Bush, Trump, and DeVos supporters, has rejected).
Who exactly gives Facebook the power to decide what is a conspiracy theory and what's not? FB doesn't censor arguments debunking qanon or antifa supersoldier theories, so isn't it right that they battle it out in the open marketplace of ideas, with the better arguments winning?
Article about Facebook and its political impact. Sens to be arguing for the censorship of right wing conspiracy theories (which the Facebook hierarchy, including Bush, Trump, and DeVos supporters, has rejected).
Who exactly gives Facebook the power to decide what is a conspiracy theory and what's not? FB doesn't censor arguments debunking qanon or antifa supersoldier theories, so isn't it right that they battle it out in the open marketplace of ideas, with the better arguments winning?
It isn't her fault. Hackers made her do it.
What's a bit silly is that by bickering about what the author says, we didn't even get to the more interesting question: our own opinions about how public speech should(n't) be treated. I'll try to learn from it.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Is this cancel culture? It seems to be targeting a particular political philosophy. Also, the sub clauses indicate that reducing police funding is anarchism, so I wonder if the people who use the phrase cancel culture, like Donald Trump, will call out this political censorshi, by Donald Trump.
They openly call for censorship of politics they dislike
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
There is not a single person on the right I've seen who is remotely an honest broker about any of this. The 2 placess from where I've seen consistent free speech absolutism are Glenn Greenwald and the ACLU, who want Nazis and Commies to hold rallies and may the best ideas win.
Interestingly, both the ACLU and Greenwald support the Citizens United decision which strikes down limits on campaign spending by corporations on free speech grounds - that is, restricting that spending is a restriction of free speech. I have also never seen a liberal defender of absolute free speech grapple with the full implications of money = speech and corporations = people.
Last edited:
@berbatrick wins this thread so far, btw. Pays to take some time to read through his posts and the links in there.
Follow-up:
Rightwing comedians not funny enough for BBC shows, says insider - Source says producers have sought Conservative-leaning performers, but most ‘aren’t very good’.
From The Guardian.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
hope the free speech people are launching lawsuits