D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
Discuss. For its defence, 'Cancel culture' doesn't stifle debate, but it does challenge the old order | Billy Bragg
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
When we discuss cancel culture we should remember that works both way. For instance, Boris Johnson has cancelled tough questioning of his own behaviour historical and not so historical, cancelled interviews from anyone who is going to ask them questions, he’s cancelled voices of reason from within his own party with a purge of common sense MP’s at the last election leaving us with a cabinet that lack of common sense has cost something like 60K lives in a pandemic, they cancelled track and trace just when it was needed most etc etc etc.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
For the prosecution, A Letter on Justice and Open Debate | Harper's Magazine
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Wasn't Billy Bragg praising a publisher for sacking off an author this week?
And most people pontificating about cancel culture are doing so from high profile media platforms.
Wankers the Lot of them.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Im not bothered about the high profile cases, JKR has Fuck You Money and is uncancellable for example, but the smaller authors who need these book deals, the academics without tenure, the data analyst tweeting an interesting data analysis study, they shouldn’t be fired for fairly middle of the road views. It all comes down to stronger worker protections IMO. It shouldn’t be that easy to fire someone for a tweet or an opinion alone.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
When using a thesaurus to find an alternative word in an attempt to look intelligent always then use a dictionary to make sure the word you are using as substitute has the correct literal meaning to be a usable replacement in the sentence you’re writing. Basic primary school education. Your use of the word cerebral makes no literal sense in your sentence. Irony at it’s best, well done you.
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I think you’re confusing the word cerebrally with cerebral, if you’re not then your sentence makes no sense. Google it yourself, there’s several online dictionaries.
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
Well, this has got off to a good start.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
OK don't; I don't care. You're certainly consistent.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I agree.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
In response to Billy Bragg.
I’m surprised that Orwell is the writer whom Billy most admires, as he appeared to be as vehemently against socialism as Billy is for. Whilst I’ve read a lot of Orwell’s writing I’ve not read it all, so maybe the bits Billy loves come from the books I’ve missed. I’ll come back to Orwell later – several times.
I think that this all started with no-platforming: the gathering of the faithful to disrupt those they oppose from public speaking. There have been several cases over the past few years: Jacob Rees-Mogg is a perennial favourite. His talks are usually interrupted mid-flow with an invasion of sometimes violent but always loud protest. Amber Rudd was cancelled from speaking at the UN Women Oxford UK Society before she was even able to start. It seems that capitulation by event organisers is becoming the norm: a minority is able to control who and who is not permitted to exercise their right of free speech. It’s interesting, however, that the man many of the cancellers most admire, Jeremy Corbyn, once said that ‘you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree’ when defending his ‘friendship’ with Hamas – implying that he is for debate not censure. However he’s hardly been consistent on the matter, as he himself has refused to share a platform with many, including Tony Blair and David Cameron.
Rees-Mogg has attempted to engage his no-platformers in debate on many occasions, some of which are recorded and can be seen online. However I’ve never seen one of his denigrators seize the opportunity; they usually carry on shouting ‘No platform for racists’ etc. It’s almost as if they know they cannot better Rees-Mogg in debate so they do the next best thing: silence him. It’s hardly a great advertisement for their political opinions. It is a small number of people exercising control in a manner that some might call Orwellian.
Cancel culture has moved on since those heady liberal days on the 2010s. The modern trend is to pursue people to their employers and get them fired – presumably to deny them a livelihood at all. There have been multiple victories here too. Billy claims this ‘doesn’t stifle debate, but it does challenge the old order’. How can he possibly claim that not allowing people to speak doesn’t stifle debate? And how exactly does getting Chinese-American author Amelie Zhoa’s 2018 novel ‘Blood Heir’ pulled before it was even distributed ‘challenge the old order’? There have also been attempts to deny publication of JK Rowling’s new novel. Rowling wrote: ‘If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth’. How is that the making of an ‘inflammatory statement... for the reactionary right’, Billy?
It’s not just people in the public eye who are getting sacked. We may think that Jake Hepple’s ‘White Lives Matter Burnley!’ banner was clumsy and he may indeed be a racist. But he lost his job as a welder on the basis of that banner alone.
Cancel culture has also included the toppling of statues; I wouldn’t bring this up but Billy does so himself. I’ll make no comment about the merits or otherwise of the people whose statues have been attacked – that’s not the point. The point is that if a community votes to remove a statue then that’s democracy – but a minority taking action without the consent of a majority is back again to undemocratic control: we cannot beat you with words or persuade you to our opinion – so we’ll do it anyway. Or in other words ‘our opinions are more important than yours – so much so, in fact, that yours don’t count at all’. That’s not liberal; that’s reactionary and dictatorial: the very attributes that these people claim to oppose.
And what do they hope to achieve by trashing statues? Over time, I guess, they hope that society forgets these people. However I think that knowing and understanding history is one of the best ways to inform decisions of the future. There’s a theme here though, isn’t there? Do not permit any other voice as we cannot risk losing the argument... then we will control all. It rather sounds more reactionary to me than the people they wish to silence. And didn’t Orwell have something to say about deleting history?
‘Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.’
Billy ends with:
‘In response to this trend, a new generation has risen that prioritises accountability over free speech. To those whose liberal ideals are proving no defence against the rising tide of duplicitous authoritarianism, this has come as a shock. But when reason, respect and responsibility are all under threat, accountability offers us a better foundation on which to build a cohesive society, one where everyone feels that their voice is heard.’
Which is strange... because he hasn’t proven his opening statement that ‘'Cancel culture' doesn't stifle debate’ at all. And he appears to conclude that stifling debate is OK if it increases accountability. It seems to me that his heroes leading the charge are the most unaccountable of all.
I’m surprised that Orwell is the writer whom Billy most admires, as he appeared to be as vehemently against socialism as Billy is for. Whilst I’ve read a lot of Orwell’s writing I’ve not read it all, so maybe the bits Billy loves come from the books I’ve missed. I’ll come back to Orwell later – several times.
I think that this all started with no-platforming: the gathering of the faithful to disrupt those they oppose from public speaking. There have been several cases over the past few years: Jacob Rees-Mogg is a perennial favourite. His talks are usually interrupted mid-flow with an invasion of sometimes violent but always loud protest. Amber Rudd was cancelled from speaking at the UN Women Oxford UK Society before she was even able to start. It seems that capitulation by event organisers is becoming the norm: a minority is able to control who and who is not permitted to exercise their right of free speech. It’s interesting, however, that the man many of the cancellers most admire, Jeremy Corbyn, once said that ‘you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree’ when defending his ‘friendship’ with Hamas – implying that he is for debate not censure. However he’s hardly been consistent on the matter, as he himself has refused to share a platform with many, including Tony Blair and David Cameron.
Rees-Mogg has attempted to engage his no-platformers in debate on many occasions, some of which are recorded and can be seen online. However I’ve never seen one of his denigrators seize the opportunity; they usually carry on shouting ‘No platform for racists’ etc. It’s almost as if they know they cannot better Rees-Mogg in debate so they do the next best thing: silence him. It’s hardly a great advertisement for their political opinions. It is a small number of people exercising control in a manner that some might call Orwellian.
Cancel culture has moved on since those heady liberal days on the 2010s. The modern trend is to pursue people to their employers and get them fired – presumably to deny them a livelihood at all. There have been multiple victories here too. Billy claims this ‘doesn’t stifle debate, but it does challenge the old order’. How can he possibly claim that not allowing people to speak doesn’t stifle debate? And how exactly does getting Chinese-American author Amelie Zhoa’s 2018 novel ‘Blood Heir’ pulled before it was even distributed ‘challenge the old order’? There have also been attempts to deny publication of JK Rowling’s new novel. Rowling wrote: ‘If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth’. How is that the making of an ‘inflammatory statement... for the reactionary right’, Billy?
It’s not just people in the public eye who are getting sacked. We may think that Jake Hepple’s ‘White Lives Matter Burnley!’ banner was clumsy and he may indeed be a racist. But he lost his job as a welder on the basis of that banner alone.
Cancel culture has also included the toppling of statues; I wouldn’t bring this up but Billy does so himself. I’ll make no comment about the merits or otherwise of the people whose statues have been attacked – that’s not the point. The point is that if a community votes to remove a statue then that’s democracy – but a minority taking action without the consent of a majority is back again to undemocratic control: we cannot beat you with words or persuade you to our opinion – so we’ll do it anyway. Or in other words ‘our opinions are more important than yours – so much so, in fact, that yours don’t count at all’. That’s not liberal; that’s reactionary and dictatorial: the very attributes that these people claim to oppose.
And what do they hope to achieve by trashing statues? Over time, I guess, they hope that society forgets these people. However I think that knowing and understanding history is one of the best ways to inform decisions of the future. There’s a theme here though, isn’t there? Do not permit any other voice as we cannot risk losing the argument... then we will control all. It rather sounds more reactionary to me than the people they wish to silence. And didn’t Orwell have something to say about deleting history?
‘Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.’
Billy ends with:
‘In response to this trend, a new generation has risen that prioritises accountability over free speech. To those whose liberal ideals are proving no defence against the rising tide of duplicitous authoritarianism, this has come as a shock. But when reason, respect and responsibility are all under threat, accountability offers us a better foundation on which to build a cohesive society, one where everyone feels that their voice is heard.’
Which is strange... because he hasn’t proven his opening statement that ‘'Cancel culture' doesn't stifle debate’ at all. And he appears to conclude that stifling debate is OK if it increases accountability. It seems to me that his heroes leading the charge are the most unaccountable of all.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I don't think no platforming and cancel culture are the same thing.
It also appears to me you are suggesting cancel culture is a left wing thing when it's not.
Edit - not being a left wing thing relates to cancel culture, on balance, no platforming probably is.
i would also say that Corbyn refusing to share a platform with either Blair or Cameron is neither cancel culture or no platforming. It's just bottling out of a debate but it's not denying them their day.
As for anyone not being able to better Rees Mogg in a debate, the contradiction of his religious and political beliefs makes it hard to believe that anyone couldn't do so so anyone no platforming him needs a stern word with themselves.
Someones well "pallsyed" this up.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I tend to ignore a lot of this rubbish, I find it pretty laughable that you've got Times columnist after Times columnist writing about how they're being cancelled. It's all culture war stuff and both sides (if they actually exist as directly opposed groups) are rather ridiculous focusing on some of the issues they do.
Everybody is entitled to their opinions. They should only be entitled to air those opinions provided they are not full of or incite hatred.
Everybody is entitled to their opinions. They should only be entitled to air those opinions provided they are not full of or incite hatred.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Point of Order, Orwell is for socialism, against dictatorship.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
The issue here is who decides what hate is. Once there is a vague exception like that it can be interpreted any way the judge wants.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
I disagree. He cares about the plight of the poor but he repeatedly rejects socialism. I'll dig out the actual quotes later and replace them:
Road to Wigan Pier: Numerous quotes about how you'd think socialism should be the answer but it isn't. He mocks British socialists.
Down and Out in Paris and London: a quote about not supporting any political philosophy.
Keep the Aspidistra Flying: Main character rejects socialism. I think this is where he writes something like... people who support socialism ignore the huge hook hidden within the bait.
Animal Farm: The entire novel is a rejection of the implementation of Socialism in Russia.
1984 I'll accept as rejecting dictatorship... but I haven't read it for many many years and there may be something more specific in there.
The first two aren't even novels - the man is telling the reader what he thinks, no interpretation needed.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Oh, there's little in that Bragg article I disagree with btw. Not sure the points raised in it are v what we're excited to debate mind you, that article is how the oppressed now get a voice to hold the oppressors to account - that's no bad thing, although I'm not convinced it actually plays out in actuality.
On a specific sense, academic books should stand or fall in their arguments, not on the person behind them or what they became associated with. It's interesting that Nietzsche survives as a respected canon, despite Hitler's attempt to appropriate the meaning, but Marx is used as a perjorative, despite Stalin's attempt to appropriate the meaning. Academics, of course, don't let that happen with Marx.
But shunning books because of the author's views a la Starkey is not a new phenomenon. There is the case of Paul de Man...
On a specific sense, academic books should stand or fall in their arguments, not on the person behind them or what they became associated with. It's interesting that Nietzsche survives as a respected canon, despite Hitler's attempt to appropriate the meaning, but Marx is used as a perjorative, despite Stalin's attempt to appropriate the meaning. Academics, of course, don't let that happen with Marx.
But shunning books because of the author's views a la Starkey is not a new phenomenon. There is the case of Paul de Man...
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
He really doesn't. I won't take the time you use with Tony
but I'd suggest you haven't studied him in enough depth of you come to this conclusion. You do also stray often into using socialism as a lazy catch-all.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
he is quoted as saying he was a socialist. That doesn't mean he can't be critical of socialism or socialists.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
Just like Marx and Engels.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Hell, he even says it himself.
Why I Write | The Orwell Foundation
It's littered throughout his work. To say otherwise is a selective misunderstanding.
George Orwell said:
Why I Write | The Orwell Foundation
It's littered throughout his work. To say otherwise is a selective misunderstanding.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
Shoot, I forgot Homage to Catalonia. Yes, I agree that he fought for the Socialists. It's not entirely clear though if he supports socialism or rejects fascism. No time just now but I'll read that essay later.
But he really does reject socialism in those other books - his word not mine,
But he really does reject socialism in those other books - his word not mine,
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
If in doubt, Terry Eagleton is worth heading for. There's a Marxist critic who can play the ball, not the man and does sensitivity, subtlety, and wit.
Terry Eagleton · Reach-Me-Down Romantic: For and Against Orwell · LRB 19 June 2003
Terry Eagleton · Reach-Me-Down Romantic: For and Against Orwell · LRB 19 June 2003
Last edited by a moderator:
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
Just like my favourite poster!
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
thanks.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It depends on how you define terms. People on here have referred to Nordic countries and even New Zealand as socialist which is laughable and I assume it’s those types of countries he would be fond of
Control of means of production and no route out via a ballot box wasn’t what he supported. He was a bit of a macartharist wasn’t he?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Marx didn’t really support the capitalist model did he?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
He did
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Did he not believe in basic terms it was a necessary evolution into socialism that would eventually occur through means of revolution as the capitalist system fails the majority of the population?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
And the right love to point out they're not associated with Nazis and bigotry, while using socialism as a perjorative.
In itself that's exactly what Bragg is arguing is a positive - not allowing the entitled to spread dangerous ideas and ideology unchallenged.