[Misc] Nick Cave Compares Cancel Culture To 'Bad Religion'

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53768254

Got to say it does feel increasingly like the oppression of Newspeak of 1984 or the McCarthyism of the 50's. Not a healthy development. IMHO, like

 

[Bakero]

What are the "difficult ideas" that Cave thinks are being cancelled?

I looked at his blog and it's a bit vague. https://www.theredhandfiles.com/what-is-mercy-for-you/

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

More than a few alarm bells ringing now...

'JK Rowling joins 150 public figures warning over free speech'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53330105

 

[Acker79]

The phrase "political correctness gone mad" has become a parody of itself. Most modern uses of it are ironic, with people mocking typically right-wing people who complain about not being able to freely insult marginalised people. It's lost its power, and so "cancel culture" was born. A new buzz phrase that is so poorly defined, or if it has a clear definition it is largely ignored as people cry 'cancel culture' any time someone puts forward a counter argument to their position, or they get called out for bigotry, immoral and/or illegal behaviour, or face consequences for their own choices.

It won't be long before "cancel culture" becomes a punchline for some liberal comedian mocking the right wingers who spout it as inappropriately. (I'm put in mind of a Stewart Lee skit about the emptiness of PC complaints, where he mentions his mum confusing bureaucracy with political correctness).

 

[Guinness Boy]

The phrase "political correctness gone mad" has become a parody of itself. Most modern uses of it are ironic, with people mocking typically right-wing people who complain about not being able to free insult marginalised people. It's lost its power, and so "cancel culture" was born. A new buzz phrase that is so poorly defined, or if it has a clear definition it is largely ignored as people cry 'cancel culture' any time soeone puts forward a counter argument to their position, or they get called out for bigotry, immoral and/or illegal behaviour, or face consequences for their own choices.

It won't be long before "cancel culture" becomes a punchline for some liberal comedian mocking the right wingers how spout it as inappropriately. (I'm put in mind of a Stewart Lee skit about the emptiness of PC complaints, where he mentions his mum confusing bureaucracy with political correctness).

Post of the week

For proof, see the Bear Pit

 

[Peteinblack]

Tories cite 'cancel culture' to condemn universities which deny free speech, but can you imagine the Daily Mail apoplexy if a University invited someone as odious as Gerry Adams to give a talk on "Why murdering thousands of innocent people and British soldiers was OK to achieve the IRA's goal of a united Ireland' - there would be deafening demands to have the university closed down permanently.

The fact is that the Right are the ones most likely to demand that someone be sacked for their 'unacceptable' political views - the Daily Mail (and its readers - look at their spiteful online comments) is always demanding that someone or something be banned, and in the last year, 'liberals' like Gary Linekar and Chris Packham have been subjected to vicious Right-wing campaigns to have them sacked by the BBC because of their pro-EU or anti-Fox Hunting views.

The Mail has also demanded that 'pro-Remain' judges and senior civil servants be sacked.

And Labour MP Jo Cox was murdered by a self-confessed neo-Nazi for her pro-European, pro-immigration, views.

The complaints about 'political correctness' and 'cancel culture' are just the latest move in the Right's post-Brexit 'culture war' against liberals, universities and the BBC - the Right constantly need new 'enemies' to mobilise the masses against against, and divert people's attention and anger away from inequality, poverty, homelessness, COVID mishandling, and now, the cock-up over A-Levels.

 

[Acker79]

More than a few alarm bells ringing now...

'JK Rowling joins 150 public figures warning over free speech'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53330105

There was a thread discussing cancel culture a while back and that letter was brought up then (letter discussion starts here), and that letter has seen a good number of responses that make good arguments that the letter isn't as noble as it might first appear to be. From that thread:

I've been seeing a lot of this in my various twitter feeds, it's become quite the talking point following the harpers letter posted above by bakero. A letter that has faced a lot of push back, some of the writers have claimed they were misled, and various different accounts of what people were told they were signing appears to back that up. Several asked for their names to be removed. Many of the vague examples of cancel culture the letter gives have been analysed and largely dismissed. Many feel that the letter was simply an opportunity for some of the signees to whine about being called on their nonsense.

I liked this response to it: https://theobjective.substack.com/p/a-more-specific-letter-on-justice which argues a similar point, while also highlighting how wrong the harpers letter is.

This thread was also a good response: https://twitter.com/DavidLoySD/status/1280868674266521601
I defend freedom of speech for a living. I respect many signatories of this letter, but I think it's misguided in several important ways.

The First Amendment prohibits government from suffocating civil society by punishing speech because of its content or viewpoint. Without robust freedom of speech from governmental censorship, protest, dissent & social movements cannot long survive. But within civil society, individuals and organizations are free to define their own terms of debate. That’s not censorship. It’s society in action. Nothing in the First Amendment does or should ensure that outrageous speech will not result in social opprobrium. A civil society actor need not “tolerate” a viewpoint it abhors by providing a platform for it. One who espouses that viewpoint is free to seek another platform or build their own, but they have no right to compel another to host it.

The letter is long on rhetoric and short on citations, but to the extent I can identify an example from its parade of horribles, James Bennett is the “editor fired for running controversial pieces” such as the Tom Cotton op-ed. There are two problems with that frame. First, James Bennet wasn’t fired because Cotton’s piece was “controversial.” He was fired because he defaulted on basic journalistic standards by failing to read the piece or ensure rigorous fact checking and quality control. Second, it is within the purview of the New York Times to decide a major newspaper should not provide a platform for the henchman of a proto-authoritarian racist demagogue to incite the gunning down of protesters, and that any editor who disagrees may find other employment. Cotton can still publish elsewhere. Bennet can still edit or write elsewhere. Neither is silenced. But none of us is obligated to amplify or pay them.

When a white supremacist sits in the White House cheering on white supremacists & attacking the constitutional foundation of our republic, it is naïve to believe “exposure, argument, and persuasion” by themselves will win the day. Much as one might wish it were different, we do not live in a debating society. We live in a country permeated by systemic racism & threatened by proto-fascist demagogues & white supremacists. A major newspaper or other cultural institution cannot pretend to neutrality. It must choose whether it will use its power to defend the constitutional foundation of our republic or amplify those who would destroy it. I don’t want the government to have censorship powers, because that power would inevitably stifle protest & dissent. But the right to freedom of speech exercised by Tom Cotton gives me or the New York Times the power to refuse to amplify his message.

Also this twitter thread https://twitter.com/RottenInDenmark/status/1280506631671951363

It is still not clear to me what these people actually want?
This entire letter just sounds like prominent figures whining about people criticizing them online.
Like, what is their proposed solution to a widespread, inchoate "spirit of censoriousness"? It's like complaining about no one saying "excuse me" when they bump into you anymore.
This is such ["BS"]. Each of these examples is a subtweet of a real case, each of which is far more complicated than how it's being summarized here. Even presenting these in plural makes them seem simpler and more widespread than they are.
I could be wrong, but I'm reading this [comment about books being withdrawn for inauthenticity] as a reference to "American Dirt," which:
a) was not withdrawn
b) was the no. 1 book in America for many, many weeks
c) was a work of literature. Did the author expect it not to be reviewed?
I have no ****ing clue what this [comment about journalists not being allowed to discuss some subjects] is subtweeting but journalists have ... always been barred from writing about certain things?
I completely agree that online harassment has gotten out of control. But it's appalling that high-profile figures would single out harassment by SJW-types as if it exists in a category all on its own.
Should people send death threats to JK Rowling? No. Other than internet randos, no one is saying that's OK.
But if the real issue here is online harassment, why wouldn't you mention Leslie Jones and Anita Sarkeesian? Or Ijeoma Oluo getting ****ing swatted?
This entire project is aimed at people without any power. If the shittiness of online discourse really concerns you, then push platforms for better moderation. Get police to investigate threats.
But that is transparently not what this is about. It is first and foremost about defending the right of powerful people (James Bennet, JK Rowling, Tom ****ing Cotton?!) to state odious views in public while maintaining the fiction that they're not the villains.
Also notable how many of these signatories spent the last month scolding activists for the “strategic error” of using the slogan Defund the Police. These same people are now reinforcing one of the most important tropes of the far right.

I've seen some other twitter feeds (including a fun one where the author imagines going about his daily life discussing the letter with people who are struggling for healthcare, food, etc). And another about the mechanics of producing an open letter signed by a wide range of people and how the harpers letter fails in that process (it also makes a great point about the importance of who is signing it, and how what it says changes based on the names attached even if the text doesn't change), but I don't appear to have saved those anywhere.


I think an overriding feeling I'm getting from the various people I follow on twitter is that cancel culture has always been a thing, but has targeted the fringe, the voiceless. Now they have a voice and the ability to hold powerful people (or even 'privileged' people who maybe aren't considered to have power) to account, it's suddenly an issue.

[tweet]1284556646388293632[/tweet]

 

[Bakero]

There was a thread discussing cancel culture a while back and that letter was brought up then (letter discussion starts here), and that letter has seen a good number of responses that make good arguments that the letter isn't as noble as it might first appear to be. From that thread:



[tweet]1284556646388293632[/tweet]

Also several of the signatories later retracted their endorsement of the letter after finding out the other names on the list. Seems a bit cancelly to me.

In fact, one of them even ended up signing the counter letter. https://theobjective.substack.com/p/a-more-specific-letter-on-justice

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Also several of signatories later retracted their endorsement of the letter after finding out the other names on the list. Seems a bit cancelly to me.

Prob far more to do with the backlash from the Neo Sharia mustering their pitchforks and flaming torches - and denting sales of the signators

 

[The Clamp]

I have found eschewing phenomena such as BLM and cancel culture in favour of behaving like a decent person and doing unto others as I would have done unto me, makes life calm and pleasant for me and those around me.

 

[Acker79]

Prob far more to do with the backlash from the Neo Sharia mustering their pitchforks and flaming torches - and denting sales of the signators

Comments from some of the people who signed it and wanted their name removes include that different people were told different things, not being given a final draft, not knowing who else had signed it. That last one may sound like a weak argument but consider this:

Spence complains that "you can't say anything on north stand chat any more without anyone jumping on you" what sort of thing do you think he's being criticised for?

Dougie complains that "you can't say anything on north stand chat any more without anyone jumping on you" what sort of thing do you think he's being criticised for?

PrettyPinkFairy complains that "you can't say anything on north stand chat any more without anyone jumping on you" what sort of thing do you think he's being criticised for?

You see how the meaning of the exact same words change depending on who is saying them?