Random Irritations

[Arthur Wedge]

When I was a student we used to give groups with alternative views a platform so debate could happen.

Now anything not taking a certain position is likely to be "cancelled."

That's quite a difference, even if not officially statute.

What positions have been “cancelled” ?

The only thing that’s changed is people are more tolerant now to others

Nothing has been “cancelled” - people just understand ( well most sensible ones) that you can’t just go around saying whatever you want without any consequences

 

[Pin-seeker]

What positions have been “cancelled” ?

The only thing that’s changed is people are more tolerant now to others

Nothing has been “cancelled” - people just understand ( well most sensible ones) that you can’t just go around saying whatever you want without any consequences

But it’s gone too far.
People actually look for things to be offended by because they think it makes them look good.

 

[IanM]

What positions have been “cancelled” ?

The only thing that’s changed is people are more tolerant now to others

Nothing has been “cancelled” - people just understand ( well most sensible ones) that you can’t just go around saying whatever you want without any consequences

Possibly the most contradictory piece you've posted in either of your iterations on here.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Possibly the most contradictory piece you've posted in either of your iterations on here.

In what way ? What is it you think has been cancelled ?

It seems to be another new rhetoric that’s banded about “cancelled” without anyone actually provided any substance to it

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I'm sorry thats just nonsense, you're entitled whatever views you want , the issue comes when they're on the wrong side of acceptable. What's acceptable evolves overtime and will continue to.

What is the wrong side of acceptable and who decides

 

[GreiginFife]

In what way ? What is it you think has been cancelled ?

It seems to be another new rhetoric that’s banded about “cancelled” without anyone actually provided any substance to it

Cancel culture is a real thing. I'm not sure why you think it isn't. If you are looking at it as a literal definition of "cancel" then I think you've missed the point slightly.

Product and people being boycotted or having work removed or revoked due to views that they have expressed does happen (see Graham Linehan) and in the US, the Bud Light issue.

It's a by-product of consequences of doing/saying something that is not within societal norms. However, IMO, it's just another form of extremism (it exists on both sides of the divide) and should not be a mechanism to subjugate alternate views, we have laws for that.

Again, completely IMO, the main problem is that people think that they only need to have a left or right prism across their views and beliefs, and this is where it all goes runny. Nothing stable can be built just leaning completely left or completely right, society included. There has to be balance or the whole thing collapses. But left wing people don't want to think that they can believe anything right wing as being bigoted and right winger can't deal with thinking anything leftist without being a liberal.

It's ok to have views that go both ways as long as you try and stay away from the extreme ends. Extremism rarely works.

All my opinion, of course, feel free not to agree (and I'm sure many won't).

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Cancel culture is a real thing. I'm not sure why you think it isn't. If you are looking at it as a literal definition of "cancel" then I think you've missed the point slightly.

Product and people being boycotted or having work removed or revoked due to views that they have expressed does happen (see Graham Linehan) and in the US, the Bud Light issue.

It's a by-product of consequences of doing/saying something that is not within societal norms. However, IMO, it's just another form of extremism (it exists on both sides of the divide) and should not be a mechanism to subjugate alternate views, we have laws for that.

Again, completely IMO, the main problem is that people think that they only need to have a left or right prism across their views and beliefs, and this is where it all goes runny. Nothing stable can be built just leaning completely left or completely right, society included. There has to be balance or the whole thing collapses. But left wing people don't want to think that they can believe anything right wing as being bigoted and right winger can't deal with thinking anything leftist without being a liberal.

It's ok to have views that go both ways as long as you try and stay away from the extreme ends. Extremism rarely works.

All my opinion, of course, feel free not to agree (and I'm sure many won't).

Sorry yes was looking from the more “extreme” side where people are constantly complaining about being “cancelled” because they have the belief that they can’t say whatever they want - on both sides of the coin

The world changes as we go by each week - people that grew up in the 50’s 60’s 70’s etc of bygone years with the belief that the world was a better place because they could say or do whatever they wanted etc - no they couldn’t , people just didn’t speak up against people back then

These days people aren’t afraid to stand up to extremes views on either side of the spectrum , that doesn’t mean that there aren’t times where someone is just causing issues by looking to be offensive


Saw this you tube video and it was two people making speeches - one far right , the other from Islamic extremism- both were talking about the same thing - killing “infidels” but both saying they can’t say that without either looking inwards


Right now the ones screaming cancel culture and free speech is dead on social media etc are those that want to shout their extremes views - and then complaining about the consequences afterwards

Social media has done a lot of good by opening up the world- it’s also been used as a vehicle and a tool to create more hatred

 

[IanM]

That's too sensible Greg. 7 day ban. Go and stand in the corner.

 

[hambugerpete]

What is the wrong side of acceptable and who decides

Is this a joke question? I mean if you really dont know then probably the law is a good place to start.

 

[RichA]

Cancel culture is a real thing. I'm not sure why you think it isn't. If you are looking at it as a literal definition of "cancel" then I think you've missed the point slightly.

Product and people being boycotted or having work removed or revoked due to views that they have expressed does happen (see Graham Linehan) and in the US, the Bud Light issue.

It's a by-product of consequences of doing/saying something that is not within societal norms. However, IMO, it's just another form of extremism (it exists on both sides of the divide) and should not be a mechanism to subjugate alternate views, we have laws for that.

Again, completely IMO, the main problem is that people think that they only need to have a left or right prism across their views and beliefs, and this is where it all goes runny. Nothing stable can be built just leaning completely left or completely right, society included. There has to be balance or the whole thing collapses. But left wing people don't want to think that they can believe anything right wing as being bigoted and right winger can't deal with thinking anything leftist without being a liberal.

It's ok to have views that go both ways as long as you try and stay away from the extreme ends. Extremism rarely works.

All my opinion, of course, feel free not to agree (and I'm sure many won't).

Tricky though; so much subjectivity and nuance involved.
Nobody complained when Paula Vennells CBE was revoked.
Nobody is too concerned about the works of Saville, Glitter and Harris being disappeared.
But take down the statue of a man who made millions trading humans in the 17th century and some people speak like it's an assault on their freedoms.
The issues seem to arise when people on either side can't speak like reasonable adults to anyone who disagrees with them.

 

[SatchFan]

Free speech. Ha, ha. I just keep my mouth shut. Safest way.

 

[GreiginFife]

Tricky though; so much subjectivity and nuance involved.
Nobody complained when Paula Vennells CBE was revoked.
Nobody is too concerned about the works of Saville, Glitter and Harris being disappeared.
But take down the statue of a man who made millions trading humans in the 17th century and some people speak like it's an assault on their freedoms.
The issues seem to arise when people on either side can't speak like reasonable adults to anyone who disagrees with them.

As I said, it's opinion and therefore it does have nuance and subjectivity.

Your bottom line sums up what I said. That inability is borne out of extremism of views... i.e. if you don't agree with everything that I have said or believe everything I believe then you are the enemy.

Again, above someone saying "free speech. Ha Ha I just keep my mouth shut". It's just odd because that's also a tenet of free speech, the right not to say something if you know that it's going to lead to consequence. In fact, it's exercising the right perfectly, even without understanding that this is exactly what they are doing.

Anyhow, it's a subject that can roll on and on without either extreme factions agreeing and so I bow out of this discussion with my opinion noted for posterity.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

As I said, it's opinion and therefore it does have nuance and subjectivity.

Your bottom line sums up what I said. That inability is borne out of extremism of views... i.e. if you don't agree with everything that I have said or believe everything I believe then you are the enemy.

Again, above someone saying "free speech. Ha Ha I just keep my mouth shut". It's just odd because that's also a tenet of free speech, the right not to say something if you know that it's going to lead to consequence. In fact, it's exercising the right perfectly, even without understanding that this is exactly what they are doing.

Anyhow, it's a subject that can roll on and on without either extreme factions agreeing and so I bow out of this discussion with my opinion noted for posterity.

Your opinion is exactly how you would hope people to speak - it’s not insulting to anyone , it’s well mannered and is a perfect example of how free speech is

 

[bobmac]

As I said, it's opinion and therefore it does have nuance and subjectivity.

Your bottom line sums up what I said. That inability is borne out of extremism of views... i.e. if you don't agree with everything that I have said or believe everything I believe then you are the enemy.

Again, above someone saying "free speech. Ha Ha I just keep my mouth shut". It's just odd because that's also a tenet of free speech, the right not to say something if you know that it's going to lead to consequence. In fact, it's exercising the right perfectly, even without understanding that this is exactly what they are doing.

Anyhow, it's a subject that can roll on and on without either extreme factions agreeing and so I bow out of this discussion with my opinion noted for posterity.

Are you out?

My favourite radio broadcast.....
20.45, 18th April 1930

 

[GreiginFife]

Are you out?

My favourite radio broadcast.....
20.45, 18th April 1930

I'm out...

But then, in replying, have I just brought myself back in? Can I be out and continue to post without being back in?

Have I just ripped a hole in the in/out continuum that would rival the Higgs Boson particle going critical?

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Is this a joke question? I mean if you really dont know then probably the law is a good place to start.

You can argue well within the confines of the law.

You said "you're entitled whatever views you want , the issue comes when they're on the wrong side of acceptable. What's acceptable evolves overtime and will continue to" and my point is to some any point being made they will be on the wrong side of acceptable (to them) but within the law who has a right to decide what is right and wrong. Anyway not prepared to argue the toss further

 

[Beezerk]

You can argue well within the confines of the law.

You said "you're entitled whatever views you want , the issue comes when they're on the wrong side of acceptable. What's acceptable evolves overtime and will continue to" and my point is to some any point being made they will be on the wrong side of acceptable (to them) but within the law who has a right to decide what is right and wrong. Anyway not prepared to argue the toss further

Can’t believe you’ve bit Homer

 

[hambugerpete]

You can argue well within the confines of the law.

You said "you're entitled whatever views you want , the issue comes when they're on the wrong side of acceptable. What's acceptable evolves overtime and will continue to" and my point is to some any point being made they will be on the wrong side of acceptable (to them) but within the law who has a right to decide what is right and wrong. Anyway not prepared to argue the toss further

What are these views that so many seem to hold so dearly but they can no longer express due to erosion of free speech? Id genuinely like to know.

A lot of what people think was acceptable to say 40 years ago or whatever really wasn't.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Can’t believe you’ve bit Homer

Call it a community service.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

What are these views that so many seem to hold so dearly but they can no longer express due to erosion of free speech? Id genuinely like to know.

A lot of what people think was acceptable to say 40 years ago or whatever really wasn't.

There is a lot of stuff that used to be said within the confides of a golf club that can no longer be said

we had an issue with a couple of older members who grew up calling some people what you used to see on jam jars - they were genuinely shocked when it was pointed out to them very politely that it was no longer acceptable and if they continued to use the word they would be asked to leave