I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
All that people want is consistency. Starkey made a racist comment, so did another Cambridge professor. He got fired, she got promoted.
She should have been fired.
True but she wasn't. And so people conclude there is an agenda here.
I go back to the Nick Griffin question time example. The BNP had a clutch of councillors before he was given the oxygen of publicity.
He went on question time, was allowed to say what he wanted, and the BNP barely won a seat thereafter. The BNP collapsed. Why? because people saw Griffin for what he was.
This makes me think we should allow all speech. Anjem Choudhray, David Duke, Shemima Begum, Tommy Robinson, David Icke, whatever. Banning stuff gives it a fascination.
The more we hear from these people, the less traction they have, actually. But then allowing them a platform means trusting that ordinary people are actually pretty decent and won't be swayed.
We gave Farage a platform for years and we've ended up with Brexit, with people supporting something despite having no idea what the implications are, because his "immigrants are the problem", is a simple solution for many people. Even if it doesn't work.
Farage is on all the bloody time - giving him a platform has not stopped his moronic views from being shown for what they are.
It works sometimes what you said but not in all cases.
Griffin advocated things Nigel Farage would not have ever dreamed of supporting,
Paying ethnic minorities to 'repatriate' to other countries being one particularly unpleasant example.
Not disputing that, I'm just saying it doesn't work in all cases.
There's a lot of ruin in a nation. I've been hearing of the imminent demise/fall from glory/ignominy for the UK for over half a century....yet here we still are, muddling along.
Waving as every developed nation overtakes us.
[Citation Needed]
The UK grew faster in both absolute and per capita terms than the Eurozone in both the first and second decades of this century. So how are they overtaking us?
You seriously think UK has done better than most developed nations in the last 50 years, provide your citation to prove that fact if you like. It is very well known that UK has been declining since they lost the wealth that was being stolen from the empire.
If people are going to demand citations for another's view, shouldn't they provide one for their own?
Without commenting on the premise in this case, many things are 'well known' and yet not true.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
You don't really get this democracy/free speech thing do you. It was the public debate about anti-semitism and subsequent votes of the people that got rid of Corbyn and his acolytes. I'm glad the anti-semites started to shout out their views and so should you - it's given you a leader of relevance.
No need to be rude to me, thanks.
If we are to take the idea of debate/against no platforming to its conclusion, you would surely not support the anti-Semites being kicked out of Labour, right? They have a right to speak, they should not be no-platformed.
Yet that is pretty much exactly what kicking them out does.
And I support that.
The Labour Party is free to say they don't want antisemites as members or MPs.
The antisemites must be free to demonstrate their antisemitism or they will never be exposed in the first place for what they are.
Still today some on this site even now deny Corbyn is an antisemite for instance. Despite all the exposure he's had. Before his views were exposed though it was simply perceived by far more as a right-wing slur rather than accepted as true ... It was him and his followers speaking freely that exposed them for what they are. That showed their true colours.
And so why can't an employer say take the same view? Or you think they can?
Surely the Government should stay well out of universities. If they want to no platform people that's their business. You have the right to call that out but why should the Government be getting involved.
Not sure on that.
Universities are places of open debate - even by Constitution, surely?
Who do you consider is doing the no platforming and has the Right to prevent open debate because of their own opinions?
Do you mean for example SUs denying use of rooms to events because the speaker is 'unacceptable'? Or do you mean Universities giving in to letter-writing campaigns? Or threats of disruption / violence?
What about physical shouting down of speeches or physical interventions by crowds?
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
You don't really get this democracy/free speech thing do you. It was the public debate about anti-semitism and subsequent votes of the people that got rid of Corbyn and his acolytes. I'm glad the anti-semites started to shout out their views and so should you - it's given you a leader of relevance.
Exactly. What did for Nick Griffin was his appearance on Question Time, where we could hear what he had to say in his own words, and make up our own minds about him.
Universities are places where people should learn how to think, not learn what to think.
Prince Harry's popularity has plummeted according to a new Yougov poll, just 35% now see him as an asset to the nation, compared to 75% eight years ago. 38% now see him as a liability. 51% see Meghan as a liability and just 24% as an asset.
Amongst the royal family 81% see the Queen as an asset still, followed by 79% seeing Prince William as an asset and 76% seeing the Duchess of Cambridge as an asset.
54% see Prince Charles as an asset but only 4% see Prince Andrew as an asset now, 80% see him as a liability
Blimey. I think that’s pretty close to the joke response level (I forget what that is but it’s at least a couple of points). But who sees him as an asset right now?
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
Yes free speech covers the right to complain about things that offend you. That extends not just to those seeking cancellations but to those complaining about cancellations too. And in Mr Meeks case to those complaining about those complaining about cancellations. And in the case of those attacking Mr Meeks it extends to those complaining about those complaining about those complaining about cancellations.
And for those who attack those who attack Mr Meeks it extends to those complaining about those complaining about those complaining about those complaining about cancellations.
Its simple really isn't it?
It is. Freedom of speech under the law. We have it. To say we don't is an insult to those who really don't. The Toby Youngs of this world are being ineffably precious and entitled. I'd draw a comparison to people - often the same people - making out that mandatory masks in shops during a pandemic is a step along the "slippery slope" to loss of liberty. It's utterly pathetic.
It’s culture war. Both sides feed off each other. Toby Young needs Owen Jones who needs James Delingpole who needs Ash Sukar and so on and so on. Right now it gets a lot of attention. There may be less focus when the economy moves front and centre, which it will.
It doesn't get a lot of focus, out there in the real world off the internet no one cares. No one cares what Owen Jones thinks and no one cares what James Delingpole thinks. It's why newspapers are going bankrupt. A few of my wife's friends came over for dinner yesterday evening and it was a real eye opener that women in their late 20s and early 30s give so little fucks about this stuff, the subject of JK Rowling came up and all of them either didn't care or were broadly supportive of what she said. If, as Alastair is claiming, that the pressure groups are representative then they would all have been raging against her, yet they weren't, mostly they didn't care
I also agree with this. Although the Culture War stimulates me - and I am firmly on one side of it - I do think it's mainly digital and has far less salience in flesh & blood spaces. That said, it is helping the Right in elections and therefore for all its attractions I'd like to see the Left disengage a little, leave the Right swinging at thin air and thus falling over. I think we can do this because to the extent it's about social progress "victory" is assured. Electing Tory governments won't stop it. The values of the young and youngish will soon be mainstream.
Not so soon and bt then their values will have 'developed'.
Not on totemic matters such as minority rights. Young people who embraced gay rights and women's rights in the past did not unembrace them when they hit the big five oh.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
All that people want is consistency. Starkey made a racist comment, so did another Cambridge professor. He got fired, she got promoted.
She should have been fired.
True but she wasn't. And so people conclude there is an agenda here.
I go back to the Nick Griffin question time example. The BNP had a clutch of councillors before he was given the oxygen of publicity.
He went on question time, was allowed to say what he wanted, and the BNP barely won a seat thereafter. The BNP collapsed. Why? because people saw Griffin for what he was.
This makes me think we should allow all speech. Anjem Choudhray, David Duke, Shemima Begum, Tommy Robinson, David Icke, whatever. Banning stuff gives it a fascination.
The more we hear from these people, the less traction they have, actually. But then allowing them a platform means trusting that ordinary people are actually pretty decent and won't be swayed.
We gave Farage a platform for years and we've ended up with Brexit, with people supporting something despite having no idea what the implications are, because his "immigrants are the problem", is a simple solution for many people. Even if it doesn't work.
Farage is on all the bloody time - giving him a platform has not stopped his moronic views from being shown for what they are.
It works sometimes what you said but not in all cases.
If Brexit was just Farage and his like it would never have won.
Vote Leave deliberately tried to minimise Farage on TV (and he was successfully barred from all major TV debates bar one from ITV) precisely because they thought the more Farage was on TV the better for Remain not Leave.
That you think Brexit = Farage betrays your own ignorance.
Prince Harry's popularity has plummeted according to a new Yougov poll, just 35% now see him as an asset to the nation, compared to 75% eight years ago. 38% now see him as a liability. 51% see Meghan as a liability and just 24% as an asset.
Amongst the royal family 81% see the Queen as an asset still, followed by 79% seeing Prince William as an asset and 76% seeing the Duchess of Cambridge as an asset.
54% see Prince Charles as an asset but only 4% see Prince Andrew as an asset now, 80% see him as a liability
Blimey. I think that’s pretty close to the joke response level (I forget what that is but it’s at least a couple of points). But who sees him as an asset right now?
People who misunderstood the question, or have only just awoken from a coma?
An interesting article - but limited in its scope.
One set of “received opinions” is in the process of being replaced by another set. Both groups feel that anyone not subscribing to the new orthodoxy is beyond the pale and should not be allowed in some way to have a hearing. That applies just as much to those on the “woke progressive” side as it does to the Adam Boultons and Sarah Vines of this world.
(And, btw, when did she become an “eminent political journalist”? She mainly wrote about beauty products - and boy does she need them.)
There is always a rage to impose a conformity on what people should think and say and to use whatever means are available to prevent people from expressing different views to whatever is the fashionable or widely held view of the time. This comes from all parts of the political and cultural spectrum. That is the problem not the petulant reaction of some journalists to criticism.
I hesitate to criticise @AlistairM as he writes very fine headers but I would have liked him to address this issue.
Why the bitchy remark about Sarah Vine? That’s beneath you @Cyclefree
First, she is not an eminent political journalist. And second I was surprised to see her opining on beauty since she had, from what I saw of her, little sense of how to make herself look presentable. It’s like having a fat unfit person advising you on personal training.
The main thing that gets me about people like her and other national newspaper columnists is how they manage to get paid anything at all for their writing. Most of it is formulaic and dull.
The comment was “and boy does she need them”.
If a man had criticised a female journalist based on her looks then you would have rightly been outraged.
You made your point on her qualifications based on her background as a beauty writer
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
All that people want is consistency. Starkey made a racist comment, so did another Cambridge professor. He got fired, she got promoted.
She should have been fired.
True but she wasn't. And so people conclude there is an agenda here.
I go back to the Nick Griffin question time example. The BNP had a clutch of councillors before he was given the oxygen of publicity.
He went on question time, was allowed to say what he wanted, and the BNP barely won a seat thereafter. The BNP collapsed. Why? because people saw Griffin for what he was.
This makes me think we should allow all speech. Anjem Choudhray, David Duke, Shemima Begum, Tommy Robinson, David Icke, whatever. Banning stuff gives it a fascination.
The more we hear from these people, the less traction they have, actually. But then allowing them a platform means trusting that ordinary people are actually pretty decent and won't be swayed.
We gave Farage a platform for years and we've ended up with Brexit, with people supporting something despite having no idea what the implications are, because his "immigrants are the problem", is a simple solution for many people. Even if it doesn't work.
Farage is on all the bloody time - giving him a platform has not stopped his moronic views from being shown for what they are.
It works sometimes what you said but not in all cases.
If Brexit was just Farage and his like it would never have won.
Vote Leave deliberately tried to minimise Farage on TV (and he was successfully barred from all major TV debates bar one from ITV) precisely because they thought the more Farage was on TV the better for Remain not Leave.
That you think Brexit = Farage betrays your own ignorance.
I can only dream of being as ignorant as you. Of course you've often shown your stupidity on here. So from you I will take that as a compliment.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
You don't really get this democracy/free speech thing do you. It was the public debate about anti-semitism and subsequent votes of the people that got rid of Corbyn and his acolytes. I'm glad the anti-semites started to shout out their views and so should you - it's given you a leader of relevance.
Exactly. What did for Nick Griffin was his appearance on Question Time, where we could hear what he had to say in his own words, and make up our own minds about him.
I remember that occasion vividly. So much outrage that he should appear, as if millions of people were waiting to fall under his spell, which is so very insulting as it presumes either that millions shared his views and politics and were waiting to be unlocked, in which case the problem was not him at all, or that he was so persuasive many would get swayed.
As it was he didn't even get much latent sympathy for the rest of the panel tearing into him the entire time. Because he is an odious man.
While I agree with much of what the article says about Western decay, I also think that it reveals a total misunderstanding of the CPC's reality, which is that the only way for it to maintain its grip in China is to ratchet down on the domestic population and to become more assertive abroad. Increasing prosperity means increasing expectations - not only materially but in quality of life terms, too. That is a permanent battle for the CPC. It si no lomger enough to make sure that people do not go hungry. China's actions, like those of Putin in Russia, speak of a fundamental institutional weakness, not a strength.
Totally agree. Yes, the West is weak, but the Chinese Communist Party and Putin are weaker. Dunno if it got much coverage in English media, but there were street protests in the Russian far east yesterday.
I’m a great optimist when it comes to the long-term prospects for Russia and eg Iran, and how the West can work constructively together with them. I’m far less optimistic about China and North Korea and some other dictatorships.
The West needs to spend a lot more time trying to understand China. A lot of the policy mistakes we make are rooted in the superficiality of our current, rather superficial, knowledge base. I find it extraordinary, for example, that given all that has happened in Tibet we are shocked by what is happening now to the Ughers. Also, while China itself has been around for millennia, concepts of a single Chinese nation are very new and are founded on Western (particularly British) emasculation in the 19th century.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752 I wonder how this sort of story will impact the reparations movement, I remember a few weeks ago there was outrage at a Tory councillor commenting about the involvement of Africans in the slave trade. I assumed, like many, he was wrong. Maybe not.
The great majority of slaves taken by Europeans from Africa were sold to them by other Africans. Direct raids in which Europeans snatched people from coastal areas were not particularly common (in contrast with the North African or Barbary slave trade, in which Africans abducted large numbers of Europeans through pirate raids on coastal settlements and ships at sea.)
This is why historians talk about the Triangular Trade when discussing the history of slavery: Europeans (and Americans of European descent) sailed to Africa with ships loaded with trade goods, they bought African slaves from other Africans with the goods, carried the slaves off to work their plantations, and then shipped the goods from the plantations back to their population centres for sale. The value of the plantation goods vastly exceeded the price paid to purchase and feed the slaves, hence the massive profits generated.
People who talk about reparations tend not to mention either the Barbary trade or the sale of African slaves by other Africans. It suits them to simplify history and to portray pre-modern Africans uniformly as defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The African slaves were, of course, defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The many Africans who profited from taking and selling slaves, not so much.
Just because something is complex does not mean it isn't also simple. There are women who profit from and enable sex trafficking. Does this mean that the assertion "sex trafficking is a criminal industry based on the exploitation of women by men" is wrong or "misleading" or "simplistic"? No it does not. Indeed if someone doggedly maintains this, I would question their motives. Ditto here. So tell me - what are your motives?
Primarily to make a brief reply to a message in which surprise was expressed at the involvement of some Africans in the slave trade, summarising some historical facts. But yes, I'm also deeply sceptical about the reparations movement. All of the people who profited or suffered directly from the Triangular Trade have been dead for a very long time indeed. Therefore, quite where we are meant to begin in assessing who to distribute resources to by way of redress, and especially who to take them from, God alone knows.
There's a world of difference between reappraising history, action against discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity, and redistribution from the wealthy to the poor generally through taxation, and - what? Exacting recompense from countries and their populations for the behaviour of (some of their) ancestors? Race-based levies? I'm really not getting how demanding "reparations" for what happened between the 16th and 19th Centuries is meant to create progress. It is, after all, a term previously applied to vanquished populations being made to pay the price of their own defeat.
I'm not sure how far my ancestors in rural West Wales 'profited' much, if at all, from the Triangular Trade.
You may be surprised. There is a great link to where slaveowner compensation was paid, and whom to on here:
It can be searched by name or geography. Several people with my exact forename and surname were compensated. I dont think we were related, but it does give pause for thought.
And anyone should be impressed by this superb graphic, click on individual ships for details:
That’s a dangerous website (although useful). For example my mother’s family is included purely on the basis that her ancestor was helped to get his first job by his (much older) brother-in-law (who was compensated). They received no money from the slave trade nor from the brother-in-law’s estate.
Despite this the media occasionally writes stories along the lines “connected to” or “in the database of” which have the potential to be deeply damaging
I am not sure what you mean. The first link lists successful claims for compensation for freed slaves. If a name appears there, they were definitely paid as slaveholders.
No. The comment by my ancestor is “subsequent business partner of a claimant or beneficiary”. Arguably true (he was introduced to the firm of a contact of his brother in law as a junior partner) but forms the basis of inaccurate stories.
50% voted SNP in 2015 pre Brexit, just 37% voted SNP in 2017 and 45%in 2019 after Brexit, their voteshare goes up and down
Just 15% voted Scurrilous Compromised & Useless Party in 2015 pre Brexit, 29% voted SCUP in 2017 and 25% in 2019 after Brexit, their voteshare goes up and down, and they never come in first place.
On the flip side having a new common enemy will unite a lot of people that were previously not so united. For example I can't see why the UK and EU wouldn't be on the same page on China, it's basically the only policy area where the whole US is united, democrats have made very clear that they wouldn't reverse any of Trump's China policies and may go further on freezing Chinese companies out of the US supply chain.
I see China as a competitor rather than an enemy. China is competing on trade, investment and technology.
I feel Putin is more of an enemy. Putin is competing on military interventions and subversion. I see China as a state actor. Putin as a person.
China is a strong competitor on trade, investment and technology. Strong competition is good. And the close integration of the Chinese economy with the rest of the world is a guarantor of peace and of a rules based system. These are in China's interests as well as ours.
But we need to up our game. This is a good incentive for us to cooperate with our allies and partners in competing with China. But we need to distinguish between enemies and competitors. That's true in all walks of life.
China uses methods that are out with the accepted norms. IP theft is a real issue (although they don’t seem it as “theft” as they don’t really understand the concept of IP)
They understand IP very well, It is absolutely central to their plans. Companies like Huawei have built huge patent portfolios, for example, through R&D and through acquisition - and that gives them significant competitive advantage. It is actually far easier to enforce patents in China than it is in the US - as win rates testify. One of the big mistakes we make in the West is to think that the Chinese do not get it. They absolutely do. The issue is that in many instances - particularly with regards to trade secrets - they deliberately choose to flout IP laws or to make working in China contingent on sharing IP.
I was being more generous than you in the motives for their employment of IP theft as a business practice
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Here is an example of someone that was fired for saying "All Lives Matter" - not only that but all trace of them erased from the website
While I agree with much of what the article says about Western decay, I also think that it reveals a total misunderstanding of the CPC's reality, which is that the only way for it to maintain its grip in China is to ratchet down on the domestic population and to become more assertive abroad. Increasing prosperity means increasing expectations - not only materially but in quality of life terms, too. That is a permanent battle for the CPC. It si no lomger enough to make sure that people do not go hungry. China's actions, like those of Putin in Russia, speak of a fundamental institutional weakness, not a strength.
Totally agree. Yes, the West is weak, but the Chinese Communist Party and Putin are weaker. Dunno if it got much coverage in English media, but there were street protests in the Russian far east yesterday.
I’m a great optimist when it comes to the long-term prospects for Russia and eg Iran, and how the West can work constructively together with them. I’m far less optimistic about China and North Korea and some other dictatorships.
The West needs to spend a lot more time trying to understand China. A lot of the policy mistakes we make are rooted in the superficiality of our current, rather superficial, knowledge base. I find it extraordinary, for example, that given all that has happened in Tibet we are shocked by what is happening now to the Ughers. Also, while China itself has been around for millennia, concepts of a single Chinese nation are very new and are founded on Western (particularly British) emasculation in the 19th century.
I would suggest that you read deeper on China - Han exceptionalism applied to a One China ideal appeared long before the 19th Cent.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Prince Harry's popularity has plummeted according to a new Yougov poll, just 35% now see him as an asset to the nation, compared to 75% eight years ago. 38% now see him as a liability. 51% see Meghan as a liability and just 24% as an asset.
Amongst the royal family 81% see the Queen as an asset still, followed by 79% seeing Prince William as an asset and 76% seeing the Duchess of Cambridge as an asset.
54% see Prince Charles as an asset but only 4% see Prince Andrew as an asset now, 80% see him as a liability
Blimey. I think that’s pretty close to the joke response level (I forget what that is but it’s at least a couple of points). But who sees him as an asset right now?
People who misunderstood the question, or have only just awoken from a coma?
Put it another way - has anyone, ever, managed a 0% in this kind of poll?
While I agree with much of what the article says about Western decay, I also think that it reveals a total misunderstanding of the CPC's reality, which is that the only way for it to maintain its grip in China is to ratchet down on the domestic population and to become more assertive abroad. Increasing prosperity means increasing expectations - not only materially but in quality of life terms, too. That is a permanent battle for the CPC. It si no lomger enough to make sure that people do not go hungry. China's actions, like those of Putin in Russia, speak of a fundamental institutional weakness, not a strength.
Totally agree. Yes, the West is weak, but the Chinese Communist Party and Putin are weaker. Dunno if it got much coverage in English media, but there were street protests in the Russian far east yesterday.
I’m a great optimist when it comes to the long-term prospects for Russia and eg Iran, and how the West can work constructively together with them. I’m far less optimistic about China and North Korea and some other dictatorships.
The West needs to spend a lot more time trying to understand China. A lot of the policy mistakes we make are rooted in the superficiality of our current, rather superficial, knowledge base. I find it extraordinary, for example, that given all that has happened in Tibet we are shocked by what is happening now to the Ughers. Also, while China itself has been around for millennia, concepts of a single Chinese nation are very new and are founded on Western (particularly British) emasculation in the 19th century.
I think your main point is right, though I don't know that the single chinese nation bit are.
Prince Harry's popularity has plummeted according to a new Yougov poll, just 35% now see him as an asset to the nation, compared to 75% eight years ago. 38% now see him as a liability. 51% see Meghan as a liability and just 24% as an asset.
Amongst the royal family 81% see the Queen as an asset still, followed by 79% seeing Prince William as an asset and 76% seeing the Duchess of Cambridge as an asset.
54% see Prince Charles as an asset but only 4% see Prince Andrew as an asset now, 80% see him as a liability
Blimey. I think that’s pretty close to the joke response level (I forget what that is but it’s at least a couple of points). But who sees him as an asset right now?
The Scottish Liberal Democrats couldn’t even manage the joke response level in yesterday’s Opinium: they were measured to be at 0%. Not even asterisk territory.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752 I wonder how this sort of story will impact the reparations movement, I remember a few weeks ago there was outrage at a Tory councillor commenting about the involvement of Africans in the slave trade. I assumed, like many, he was wrong. Maybe not.
The great majority of slaves taken by Europeans from Africa were sold to them by other Africans. Direct raids in which Europeans snatched people from coastal areas were not particularly common (in contrast with the North African or Barbary slave trade, in which Africans abducted large numbers of Europeans through pirate raids on coastal settlements and ships at sea.)
This is why historians talk about the Triangular Trade when discussing the history of slavery: Europeans (and Americans of European descent) sailed to Africa with ships loaded with trade goods, they bought African slaves from other Africans with the goods, carried the slaves off to work their plantations, and then shipped the goods from the plantations back to their population centres for sale. The value of the plantation goods vastly exceeded the price paid to purchase and feed the slaves, hence the massive profits generated.
People who talk about reparations tend not to mention either the Barbary trade or the sale of African slaves by other Africans. It suits them to simplify history and to portray pre-modern Africans uniformly as defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The African slaves were, of course, defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The many Africans who profited from taking and selling slaves, not so much.
Just because something is complex does not mean it isn't also simple. There are women who profit from and enable sex trafficking. Does this mean that the assertion "sex trafficking is a criminal industry based on the exploitation of women by men" is wrong or "misleading" or "simplistic"? No it does not. Indeed if someone doggedly maintains this, I would question their motives. Ditto here. So tell me - what are your motives?
The difference in this case is that the Triangular Trade would not have existed without the supply of slaves provided by African warlords.
This is not to try and gloss over the traders individual culpability, but you shouldn’t ignore the wrong of the other parts of the chain
Context is fine but to be more interested in the context than the crime raises suspicion that the intention is to defect and obscure. This is when context becomes "context". We see it all the time. Crops up a lot in holocaust denial - where the denial is not outright denial but the nitpicking of detail and/or the downplaying of significance by reference to "grand historical sweep" and other victims and other genocides.
Yes free speech covers the right to complain about things that offend you. That extends not just to those seeking cancellations but to those complaining about cancellations too. And in Mr Meeks case to those complaining about those complaining about cancellations. And in the case of those attacking Mr Meeks it extends to those complaining about those complaining about those complaining about cancellations.
And for those who attack those who attack Mr Meeks it extends to those complaining about those complaining about those complaining about those complaining about cancellations.
Its simple really isn't it?
It is. Freedom of speech under the law. We have it. To say we don't is an insult to those who really don't. The Toby Youngs of this world are being ineffably precious and entitled. I'd draw a comparison to people - often the same people - making out that mandatory masks in shops during a pandemic is a step along the "slippery slope" to loss of liberty. It's utterly pathetic.
The problem is orchestrated coercion to silence people you disagree with by bombarding their employers with complaints, who then respond to the "reputational damage" by firing or silencing the person. It is not just the the commentariat that is the target.
It is a new weapon, using the power of twitter, in the old battle of ideas. As a new weapon it generates a defensive shield (eg the Free Speech Union) or a mirror shield (eg JKRowling et al using Twitter in defence).
As a liberal and follower of JS Mills, I intensely dislike societal coercion, even though I support community and dislike rugged individualism (I'm not a libertarian). I'm a left wing liberal.
However I'm finding myself liking comments by people on here who I usually disagree with, and growling at comments by eg @kinabalu who has an iron fist carefully concealed in his velvet glove.
It's not even all that carefully concealed...
WYSIWYG.
But seriously, I do think I take a more balanced view on things than you do.
Most sincerely. For some reason Hughie Green popped into my mind. You're probably too young to remember him?
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
You don't really get this democracy/free speech thing do you. It was the public debate about anti-semitism and subsequent votes of the people that got rid of Corbyn and his acolytes. I'm glad the anti-semites started to shout out their views and so should you - it's given you a leader of relevance.
Exactly. What did for Nick Griffin was his appearance on Question Time, where we could hear what he had to say in his own words, and make up our own minds about him.
Universities are places where people should learn how to think, not learn what to think.
Not that malformed, old chestnut. If QT 'did' for Griffin, why 7 months after that appearance did the BNP have its best ever GE result?
While I agree with much of what the article says about Western decay, I also think that it reveals a total misunderstanding of the CPC's reality, which is that the only way for it to maintain its grip in China is to ratchet down on the domestic population and to become more assertive abroad. Increasing prosperity means increasing expectations - not only materially but in quality of life terms, too. That is a permanent battle for the CPC. It si no lomger enough to make sure that people do not go hungry. China's actions, like those of Putin in Russia, speak of a fundamental institutional weakness, not a strength.
Totally agree. Yes, the West is weak, but the Chinese Communist Party and Putin are weaker. Dunno if it got much coverage in English media, but there were street protests in the Russian far east yesterday.
I’m a great optimist when it comes to the long-term prospects for Russia and eg Iran, and how the West can work constructively together with them. I’m far less optimistic about China and North Korea and some other dictatorships.
The West needs to spend a lot more time trying to understand China. A lot of the policy mistakes we make are rooted in the superficiality of our current, rather superficial, knowledge base. I find it extraordinary, for example, that given all that has happened in Tibet we are shocked by what is happening now to the Ughers. Also, while China itself has been around for millennia, concepts of a single Chinese nation are very new and are founded on Western (particularly British) emasculation in the 19th century.
I would suggest that you read deeper on China - Han exceptionalism applied to a One China ideal appeared long before the 19th Cent.
At the very top of Chinese society, yes. Chinese national identity (as opposed to cultural identity) as a mass concept is very new.
Prince Harry's popularity has plummeted according to a new Yougov poll, just 35% now see him as an asset to the nation, compared to 75% eight years ago. 38% now see him as a liability. 51% see Meghan as a liability and just 24% as an asset.
Amongst the royal family 81% see the Queen as an asset still, followed by 79% seeing Prince William as an asset and 76% seeing the Duchess of Cambridge as an asset.
54% see Prince Charles as an asset but only 4% see Prince Andrew as an asset now, 80% see him as a liability
Blimey. I think that’s pretty close to the joke response level (I forget what that is but it’s at least a couple of points). But who sees him as an asset right now?
People who misunderstood the question, or have only just awoken from a coma?
Put it another way - has anyone, ever, managed a 0% in this kind of poll?
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Hmmm....
What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of BLM? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of Momentum? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of the Labour Party? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of a Trade Union?
Surely the Government should stay well out of universities. If they want to no platform people that's their business. You have the right to call that out but why should the Government be getting involved.
Not sure on that.
Universities are places of open debate - even by Constitution, surely?
Who do you consider is doing the no platforming and has the Right to prevent open debate because of their own opinions?
Do you mean for example SUs denying use of rooms to events because the speaker is 'unacceptable'? Or do you mean Universities giving in to letter-writing campaigns? Or threats of disruption / violence?
What about physical shouting down of speeches or physical interventions by crowds?
Agree with @MattW. More to the point, if universities are happy to accept Government money and grants, then they can't moan if Governments start to decide they do not want to fund institutions that do not support the basic principles of civic life. If you want to have the right to decide to no platform people or firm them for your views, then the very least you can do is start funding yourself and stop feeding off the taxpayer.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
I would assume that would be illegal hate speech.
In the case of Starkey‘s comments it was entirely unconnected to his argument (which would have been the same if he’d deleted the word “damn”) but just revealed that he held some fairly unpleasant views.
Okay but in my view he was right to lose his job over those views, they're not right or fit in a modern society and they're definitely not suitable for somebody in his position. He deserved to be impacted for what he said. Do you not agree?
No I don’t.
If he had broken the law or he had developed a racist view of history then there would be a different discussion
As it was you are punishing someone for what they think. *shudders*
Yes his employer made a decision that his racist and objectionable views were not something they wanted to be seeing.
If I as a representative for my firm, said that all blacks deserve to die I'd get sacked and they'd be right to sack me. Doesn't fit in with their company culture or values, or what they want their employees to be like. When I was hired I accepted those values and in this situation I have broken them.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
You don't really get this democracy/free speech thing do you. It was the public debate about anti-semitism and subsequent votes of the people that got rid of Corbyn and his acolytes. I'm glad the anti-semites started to shout out their views and so should you - it's given you a leader of relevance.
Exactly. What did for Nick Griffin was his appearance on Question Time, where we could hear what he had to say in his own words, and make up our own minds about him.
Universities are places where people should learn how to think, not learn what to think.
Not that malformed, old chestnut. If QT 'did' for Griffin, why did 7 months after that appearance did the BNP have its best ever GE result?
Brief rise before a precipitous fall. What it is clear, though, is that seing him on TV did lead to the ruination of a generation and the outrage at his being given that platform was utterly hysterical.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Thanks, do you have any thoughts on my company's values, etc.?
I don't think companies have values. I think individuals have values.
If your employer happens to be a massive donor to the Tory party and posts approving things about Thatcher online does that mean you can't do your job for them as, say, a developer or a marketing manager? If you happen to hold left wing views?
How would you feel if your employer cancelled you as a result of your beliefs? Which hold no relevance to your job?
If the transition period ends in December and the UK ends up on WTO terms with no EU trade deal and then the SNP won a majority at Holyrood next year and Boris allowed indyref2 (I don't think he will but lets say he did) and Yes won, then Scotland would leave the UK while still being outside the single market. Even if it did rejoin the single market and rejoin the EU it would then also be hit by tariffs on exports sent over to England unless and until a trade deal was negotiated with the EU (though it would still need a trade deal with England even if it did not rejoin the EU and single market) and that would largely be on Westminster's terms and there would there would be no free movement from England to Scotland either, Scots would need to meet the points required from immigrants in the rest of the world to come to live in England.
There could even be passport checks at Berwick as the UK is not in Schengen and an independent Scotland would not automatically be in the CTA
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Hmmm....
What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of BLM? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of Momentum? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of the Labour Party? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of a Trade Union?
Please answer my point.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something overtly racist, or offensive to LGBTQ+ people, I would likely lose my job. Do you think that's reasonable, or not?
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
I do, but then again , in past times there were not internet sites to follow your every word. Tricky times. Frankly I think the judge is bonkers . These days, its not what you say, its not how you say it, its if its contrary to woke perceptions, you're in trouble. I am retired,I have never heard of Slack. Would she have been sacked if she had written it on a PB thread?. or sent to Room 101 for re-education?
While I agree with much of what the article says about Western decay, I also think that it reveals a total misunderstanding of the CPC's reality, which is that the only way for it to maintain its grip in China is to ratchet down on the domestic population and to become more assertive abroad. Increasing prosperity means increasing expectations - not only materially but in quality of life terms, too. That is a permanent battle for the CPC. It si no lomger enough to make sure that people do not go hungry. China's actions, like those of Putin in Russia, speak of a fundamental institutional weakness, not a strength.
Totally agree. Yes, the West is weak, but the Chinese Communist Party and Putin are weaker. Dunno if it got much coverage in English media, but there were street protests in the Russian far east yesterday.
I’m a great optimist when it comes to the long-term prospects for Russia and eg Iran, and how the West can work constructively together with them. I’m far less optimistic about China and North Korea and some other dictatorships.
The West needs to spend a lot more time trying to understand China. A lot of the policy mistakes we make are rooted in the superficiality of our current, rather superficial, knowledge base. I find it extraordinary, for example, that given all that has happened in Tibet we are shocked by what is happening now to the Ughers. Also, while China itself has been around for millennia, concepts of a single Chinese nation are very new and are founded on Western (particularly British) emasculation in the 19th century.
I think your main point is right, though I don't know that the single chinese nation bit are.
Concept was the wrong word. What I meant was that the idea of China as a nation state is pretty new.
It's those king of psephological insights that keep me coming back to PB.
In fairness anyone who professes a view that policy X or view Y will inevitabily happen in the future because support has been rising or whatever, is in effect forgetting that votes, and support, does indeed go up and down sometimes.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Thanks, do you have any thoughts on my company's values, etc.?
I don't think companies have values. I think individuals have values.
If your employer happens to be a massive donor to the Tory party and posts approving things about Thatcher online does that mean you can't do your job for them as, say, a developer or a marketing manager? If you happen to hold left wing views?
How would you feel if your employer cancelled you as a result of your beliefs? Which hold no relevance to your job?
We have a set of company values and a certain culture.
If I posted something racist, or offensive, it is likely I would lose my job because it's contrary to what our company (which I guess is an extension of what people would perceive to be their values) has as its values.
I don't think that's unreasonable, do you?
In the case you did disagree, you have every right to either not work there or to just get on and do your job. Just don't say anything.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
But then we're back to the statue debate. Part of the conservative case there was that if we removed statue A, then wouldn't we have to remove all the other statues as well, up to and including Churchill. Whereas it seems to be working out reasonably calmly; if you are famous for making money out of exploitation, that's bad; if you're famous for standing up to Hitler, that's good even if your overall record is more mixed.
Same thing here. If you have made a living out of offending people, then you may need to rethink your career plans. Nobody is saying you can't say stuff. Comment BTL like the rest of us. Just don't expect to automatically make a well-remunerated living out of it. And with the exception of the TERF wars, which are incomprehensibly mad, the line between "spiky but acceptable" and "beyond the pale" is usually pretty clear. The fact that a minority want to go further doesn't invalidate the case.
Basically, don't abuse the slippery slope argument. Because once you start doing that, when do you stop? (JOKE)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752 I wonder how this sort of story will impact the reparations movement, I remember a few weeks ago there was outrage at a Tory councillor commenting about the involvement of Africans in the slave trade. I assumed, like many, he was wrong. Maybe not.
The great majority of slaves taken by Europeans from Africa were sold to them by other Africans. Direct raids in which Europeans snatched people from coastal areas were not particularly common (in contrast with the North African or Barbary slave trade, in which Africans abducted large numbers of Europeans through pirate raids on coastal settlements and ships at sea.)
This is why historians talk about the Triangular Trade when discussing the history of slavery: Europeans (and Americans of European descent) sailed to Africa with ships loaded with trade goods, they bought African slaves from other Africans with the goods, carried the slaves off to work their plantations, and then shipped the goods from the plantations back to their population centres for sale. The value of the plantation goods vastly exceeded the price paid to purchase and feed the slaves, hence the massive profits generated.
People who talk about reparations tend not to mention either the Barbary trade or the sale of African slaves by other Africans. It suits them to simplify history and to portray pre-modern Africans uniformly as defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The African slaves were, of course, defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The many Africans who profited from taking and selling slaves, not so much.
Just because something is complex does not mean it isn't also simple. There are women who profit from and enable sex trafficking. Does this mean that the assertion "sex trafficking is a criminal industry based on the exploitation of women by men" is wrong or "misleading" or "simplistic"? No it does not. Indeed if someone doggedly maintains this, I would question their motives. Ditto here. So tell me - what are your motives?
The difference in this case is that the Triangular Trade would not have existed without the supply of slaves provided by African warlords.
This is not to try and gloss over the traders individual culpability, but you shouldn’t ignore the wrong of the other parts of the chain
Context is fine but to be more interested in the context than the crime raises suspicion that the intention is to defect and obscure. This is when context becomes "context". We see it all the time. Crops up a lot in holocaust denial - where the denial is not outright denial but the nitpicking of detail and/or the downplaying of significance by reference to "grand historical sweep" and other victims and other genocides.
No, actually that is not the case. What your argument is trying to do is say that, if you bring up the role of the African kingdoms in facilitating the slave trade, you are indulging in slavery denial. That is patently false and seeking to silence the covering of the facts by automatically labelling anyone who questions the accepted orthodoxy as a denier.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Thanks, do you have any thoughts on my company's values, etc.?
I don't think companies have values. I think individuals have values.
If your employer happens to be a massive donor to the Tory party and posts approving things about Thatcher online does that mean you can't do your job for them as, say, a developer or a marketing manager? If you happen to hold left wing views?
How would you feel if your employer cancelled you as a result of your beliefs? Which hold no relevance to your job?
If by cancelled, you mean fired, I think it would be reasonable as I agreed to a set of values when I joined and if my employer concluded I was contrary to those views, they wouldn't want me working there anymore. To me that's fair.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
Perfectly put. Cancel culture is a terrifically effective political weapon that makes public examples of a few of those with dissenting views by destroying their lives and then cows a much larger number into silence.
Well, until they get to the polling station, anyway. Then their silence is often eloquent...
And I still wonder if there is enough of this in the US to ensure that Trump gets re-elected. Much easier to agree with Trump but stay schtum, when the media consensus is that surely every right-thinking person must despise him?
If the coronavirus hadn't happened, I would certainly agree with that. The problem for Trump is that the US has failed to get the infection under control, and the economic shock for ordinary people is likely to be huge, with less and more temporary help than in other countries, so those hard facts will probably win out.
Plus Joe Biden is such a conservative Democrat - a moderate Republican, really - that he doesn't produce the fear factor that a lefty true believer would. You can tell he doesn't give two shits about the Woke cult just by looking at him!
More likely, a guy with dementia who has no idea what the Woke cult is.
We could still get to the start of September with Covid greatly on the wane in the US. It will have a legacy for sure, but with the economy then on the up, that might still give some weird sort of feel-good factor for Trump going into November.
To add, I don't think either candidate is suitable to be the next President. The shallowness of the Democrat field for 2020 has been startling, given the prize was to be the person who would take down Trump. And anyone relaxed about Trump's evident failings because he was a new guy who would "drain the swamp" has been savagely disappointed since 2016. The guy is a clown without an understanding of humour. His intellectual black hole is filled only by his ego and sense of certainty.
A honey badger would have greater moral concerns than Trump.
The economist John Maynard Keynes is often quoted as saying “When facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?”
It seems that when it comes to the subject of the fiscal transfers which result from UK-wide pooling & sharing, supporters of Scottish independence would answer: “I change the narrative to avoid having to change my mind, sir”.
On the flip side having a new common enemy will unite a lot of people that were previously not so united. For example I can't see why the UK and EU wouldn't be on the same page on China, it's basically the only policy area where the whole US is united, democrats have made very clear that they wouldn't reverse any of Trump's China policies and may go further on freezing Chinese companies out of the US supply chain.
I see China as a competitor rather than an enemy. China is competing on trade, investment and technology.
I feel Putin is more of an enemy. Putin is competing on military interventions and subversion. I see China as a state actor. Putin as a person.
China is a strong competitor on trade, investment and technology. Strong competition is good. And the close integration of the Chinese economy with the rest of the world is a guarantor of peace and of a rules based system. These are in China's interests as well as ours.
But we need to up our game. This is a good incentive for us to cooperate with our allies and partners in competing with China. But we need to distinguish between enemies and competitors. That's true in all walks of life.
China uses methods that are out with the accepted norms. IP theft is a real issue (although they don’t seem it as “theft” as they don’t really understand the concept of IP)
They understand IP very well, It is absolutely central to their plans. Companies like Huawei have built huge patent portfolios, for example, through R&D and through acquisition - and that gives them significant competitive advantage. It is actually far easier to enforce patents in China than it is in the US - as win rates testify. One of the big mistakes we make in the West is to think that the Chinese do not get it. They absolutely do. The issue is that in many instances - particularly with regards to trade secrets - they deliberately choose to flout IP laws or to make working in China contingent on sharing IP.
I was being more generous than you in the motives for their employment of IP theft as a business practice
The Chinese know exactly what they are doing with technology and IP: very strict patent laws, far looser ones on trade secrets. On counterfeiting and piracy the story is very similar to that of other developing nations- people steal IP to make a quick return, but as the economy develops and more businesses are invested in strong copyright and trademark protections, things improve.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Hmmm....
What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of BLM? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of Momentum? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of the Labour Party? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of a Trade Union?
Please answer my point.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something overtly racist, or offensive to LGBTQ+ people, I would likely lose my job. Do you think that's reasonable, or not?
In general, I would say that only the most extreme views should be cause for damaging someones life.
The problem comes with who defines the "racist" or "offensive to LGBTQ+ people" bit.
Should you loose your job if you announced KKKequese views? Should you loose your job if you announced that "cultural appropriation isn't a real thing"? Should you loose your job if you announced that "transitioning to a different sex is often problematic and causes regret"?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752 I wonder how this sort of story will impact the reparations movement, I remember a few weeks ago there was outrage at a Tory councillor commenting about the involvement of Africans in the slave trade. I assumed, like many, he was wrong. Maybe not.
The great majority of slaves taken by Europeans from Africa were sold to them by other Africans. Direct raids in which Europeans snatched people from coastal areas were not particularly common (in contrast with the North African or Barbary slave trade, in which Africans abducted large numbers of Europeans through pirate raids on coastal settlements and ships at sea.)
This is why historians talk about the Triangular Trade when discussing the history of slavery: Europeans (and Americans of European descent) sailed to Africa with ships loaded with trade goods, they bought African slaves from other Africans with the goods, carried the slaves off to work their plantations, and then shipped the goods from the plantations back to their population centres for sale. The value of the plantation goods vastly exceeded the price paid to purchase and feed the slaves, hence the massive profits generated.
People who talk about reparations tend not to mention either the Barbary trade or the sale of African slaves by other Africans. It suits them to simplify history and to portray pre-modern Africans uniformly as defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The African slaves were, of course, defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The many Africans who profited from taking and selling slaves, not so much.
Just because something is complex does not mean it isn't also simple. There are women who profit from and enable sex trafficking. Does this mean that the assertion "sex trafficking is a criminal industry based on the exploitation of women by men" is wrong or "misleading" or "simplistic"? No it does not. Indeed if someone doggedly maintains this, I would question their motives. Ditto here. So tell me - what are your motives?
The difference in this case is that the Triangular Trade would not have existed without the supply of slaves provided by African warlords.
This is not to try and gloss over the traders individual culpability, but you shouldn’t ignore the wrong of the other parts of the chain
Context is fine but to be more interested in the context than the crime raises suspicion that the intention is to defect and obscure. This is when context becomes "context". We see it all the time. Crops up a lot in holocaust denial - where the denial is not outright denial but the nitpicking of detail and/or the downplaying of significance by reference to "grand historical sweep" and other victims and other genocides.
No, actually that is not the case. What your argument is trying to do is say that, if you bring up the role of the African kingdoms in facilitating the slave trade, you are indulging in slavery denial. That is patently false and seeking to silence the covering of the facts by automatically labelling anyone who questions the accepted orthodoxy as a denier.
I think it is similar, in a way, to the Corbynites who are anti-Israel and the Corbynites who are anti-semites. Some are using legitimate criticisms to make non anti-semtitic points, while others are anti semites who also use some arguments that are legitimate and seek to pretend that they are the same as the former. Accordingly, it would be wrong to dismiss any of those who are bringing up the role of african kingdoms or historical contexts as seeking to obscure the issue, though there will be people who do that.
Prince Harry's popularity has plummeted according to a new Yougov poll, just 35% now see him as an asset to the nation, compared to 75% eight years ago. 38% now see him as a liability. 51% see Meghan as a liability and just 24% as an asset.
Amongst the royal family 81% see the Queen as an asset still, followed by 79% seeing Prince William as an asset and 76% seeing the Duchess of Cambridge as an asset.
54% see Prince Charles as an asset but only 4% see Prince Andrew as an asset now, 80% see him as a liability
Blimey. I think that’s pretty close to the joke response level (I forget what that is but it’s at least a couple of points). But who sees him as an asset right now?
People who misunderstood the question, or have only just awoken from a coma?
Put it another way - has anyone, ever, managed a 0% in this kind of poll?
I think about 2% of people replied in the positive to a US poll asking “have you ever been decapitated”
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Thanks, do you have any thoughts on my company's values, etc.?
I don't think companies have values. I think individuals have values.
If your employer happens to be a massive donor to the Tory party and posts approving things about Thatcher online does that mean you can't do your job for them as, say, a developer or a marketing manager? If you happen to hold left wing views?
How would you feel if your employer cancelled you as a result of your beliefs? Which hold no relevance to your job?
We have a set of company values and a certain culture.
If I posted something racist, or offensive, it is likely I would lose my job because it's contrary to what our company (which I guess is an extension of what people would perceive to be their values) has as its values.
I don't think that's unreasonable, do you?
In the case you did disagree, you have every right to either not work there or to just get on and do your job. Just don't say anything.
I'm talking about demonstrable facts, not opinions.
Do you believe that saying "women do not have penises" should be a firing offence?
"We have a set of company values and a certain culture" = p*ss off, we don't welcome people like you. It's a 21st century, establishment, "jobs for the boys" mentality that is just as damaging as the one that came before it.
Diversity of thought is as essential as diversity of colour, background, class, religion etc.
However it is the only form of diversity you appear to be arguing against.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
But then we're back to the statue debate. Part of the conservative case there was that if we removed statue A, then wouldn't we have to remove all the other statues as well, up to and including Churchill. Whereas it seems to be working out reasonably calmly; if you are famous for making money out of exploitation, that's bad; if you're famous for standing up to Hitler, that's good even if your overall record is more mixed.
Same thing here. If you have made a living out of offending people, then you may need to rethink your career plans. Nobody is saying you can't say stuff. Comment BTL like the rest of us. Just don't expect to automatically make a well-remunerated living out of it. And with the exception of the TERF wars, which are incomprehensibly mad, the line between "spiky but acceptable" and "beyond the pale" is usually pretty clear. The fact that a minority want to go further doesn't invalidate the case.
Basically, don't abuse the slippery slope argument. Because once you start doing that, when do you stop? (JOKE)
To be honest, though, a fair few of the demonstrators did want to take down the statue of Churchill and, undoubtedly, would have tried (and succeeded) if the y thought they could have got away with it.
It may be an unpalatable truth but I suspect the football thugs turning up at the Churchill statues may have dissuaded a fair few of the student-y types that it was not worthwhile trying their luck. The Mayor of Bristol made a similar point to the artist who put up the BLM statue in place of Edward Colston - he specifically referenced the defacing of the tombstone of the freed slave Scipio Africanus in Bristol as a sign of the possible counter-reaction you get when you start to take matters into your own hands.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752 I wonder how this sort of story will impact the reparations movement, I remember a few weeks ago there was outrage at a Tory councillor commenting about the involvement of Africans in the slave trade. I assumed, like many, he was wrong. Maybe not.
The great majority of slaves taken by Europeans from Africa were sold to them by other Africans. Direct raids in which Europeans snatched people from coastal areas were not particularly common (in contrast with the North African or Barbary slave trade, in which Africans abducted large numbers of Europeans through pirate raids on coastal settlements and ships at sea.)
This is why historians talk about the Triangular Trade when discussing the history of slavery: Europeans (and Americans of European descent) sailed to Africa with ships loaded with trade goods, they bought African slaves from other Africans with the goods, carried the slaves off to work their plantations, and then shipped the goods from the plantations back to their population centres for sale. The value of the plantation goods vastly exceeded the price paid to purchase and feed the slaves, hence the massive profits generated.
People who talk about reparations tend not to mention either the Barbary trade or the sale of African slaves by other Africans. It suits them to simplify history and to portray pre-modern Africans uniformly as defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The African slaves were, of course, defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The many Africans who profited from taking and selling slaves, not so much.
Just because something is complex does not mean it isn't also simple. There are women who profit from and enable sex trafficking. Does this mean that the assertion "sex trafficking is a criminal industry based on the exploitation of women by men" is wrong or "misleading" or "simplistic"? No it does not. Indeed if someone doggedly maintains this, I would question their motives. Ditto here. So tell me - what are your motives?
The difference in this case is that the Triangular Trade would not have existed without the supply of slaves provided by African warlords.
This is not to try and gloss over the traders individual culpability, but you shouldn’t ignore the wrong of the other parts of the chain
Context is fine but to be more interested in the context than the crime raises suspicion that the intention is to defect and obscure. This is when context becomes "context". We see it all the time. Crops up a lot in holocaust denial - where the denial is not outright denial but the nitpicking of detail and/or the downplaying of significance by reference to "grand historical sweep" and other victims and other genocides.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Hmmm....
What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of BLM? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of Momentum? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of the Labour Party? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of a Trade Union?
Please answer my point.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something overtly racist, or offensive to LGBTQ+ people, I would likely lose my job. Do you think that's reasonable, or not?
In general, I would say that only the most extreme views should be cause for damaging someones life.
The problem comes with who defines the "racist" or "offensive to LGBTQ+ people" bit.
Should you loose your job if you announced KKKequese views? Should you loose your job if you announced that "cultural appropriation isn't a real thing"? Should you loose your job if you announced that "transitioning to a different sex is often problematic and causes regret"?
I suspect its the people in the organisation/your colleagues that would decide. I'm fairly sure in our code of conduct, this laid out to be honest.
I think in every case it's likely you'd receive discipline if not sacking but I suspect it would depend on the context.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Hmmm....
What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of BLM? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of Momentum? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of the Labour Party? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of a Trade Union?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752 I wonder how this sort of story will impact the reparations movement, I remember a few weeks ago there was outrage at a Tory councillor commenting about the involvement of Africans in the slave trade. I assumed, like many, he was wrong. Maybe not.
The great majority of slaves taken by Europeans from Africa were sold to them by other Africans. Direct raids in which Europeans snatched people from coastal areas were not particularly common (in contrast with the North African or Barbary slave trade, in which Africans abducted large numbers of Europeans through pirate raids on coastal settlements and ships at sea.)
This is why historians talk about the Triangular Trade when discussing the history of slavery: Europeans (and Americans of European descent) sailed to Africa with ships loaded with trade goods, they bought African slaves from other Africans with the goods, carried the slaves off to work their plantations, and then shipped the goods from the plantations back to their population centres for sale. The value of the plantation goods vastly exceeded the price paid to purchase and feed the slaves, hence the massive profits generated.
People who talk about reparations tend not to mention either the Barbary trade or the sale of African slaves by other Africans. It suits them to simplify history and to portray pre-modern Africans uniformly as defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The African slaves were, of course, defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The many Africans who profited from taking and selling slaves, not so much.
Just because something is complex does not mean it isn't also simple. There are women who profit from and enable sex trafficking. Does this mean that the assertion "sex trafficking is a criminal industry based on the exploitation of women by men" is wrong or "misleading" or "simplistic"? No it does not. Indeed if someone doggedly maintains this, I would question their motives. Ditto here. So tell me - what are your motives?
The difference in this case is that the Triangular Trade would not have existed without the supply of slaves provided by African warlords.
This is not to try and gloss over the traders individual culpability, but you shouldn’t ignore the wrong of the other parts of the chain
Context is fine but to be more interested in the context than the crime raises suspicion that the intention is to defect and obscure. This is when context becomes "context". We see it all the time. Crops up a lot in holocaust denial - where the denial is not outright denial but the nitpicking of detail and/or the downplaying of significance by reference to "grand historical sweep" and other victims and other genocides.
No, actually that is not the case. What your argument is trying to do is say that, if you bring up the role of the African kingdoms in facilitating the slave trade, you are indulging in slavery denial. That is patently false and seeking to silence the covering of the facts by automatically labelling anyone who questions the accepted orthodoxy as a denier.
I think it is similar, in a way, to the Corbynites who are anti-Israel and the Corbynites who are anti-semites. Some are using legitimate criticisms to make non anti-semtitic points, while others are anti semites who also use some arguments that are legitimate and seek to pretend that they are the same as the former. Accordingly, it would be wrong to dismiss any of those who are bringing up the role of african kingdoms or historical contexts as seeking to obscure the issue, though there will be people who do that.
If the transition period ends in December and the UK ends up on WTO terms with no EU trade deal and then the SNP won a majority at Holyrood next year and Boris allowed indyref2 (I don't think he will but lets say he did) and Yes won, then Scotland would leave the UK while still being outside the single market. Even if it did rejoin the single market and rejoin the EU it would then also be hit by tariffs on exports sent over to England unless and until a trade deal was negotiated with the EU (though it would still need a trade deal with England even if it did not rejoin the EU and single market) and that would largely be on Westminster's terms and there would there would be no free movement from England to Scotland either, Scots would need to meet the points required from immigrants in the rest of the world to come to live in England.
There could even be passport checks at Berwick as the UK is not in Schengen and an independent Scotland would not automatically be in the CTA
Alastair, you often write very insightful thread headers, but this is not one of them. Maya Forstater lost her job for privately expressing some pretty middle of the road views on sex and gender. FWIW, she's not a member of the radical right but a Labour member.
Toby Young might be an easy target to go for because he says stupid things sometimes and he's pretty widely disliked outside his own part of the political spectrum, but he can't be treated as a representative of everyone worried about free speech being under threat.
If the transition period ends in December and the UK ends up on WTO terms with no EU trade deal and then the SNP won a majority at Holyrood next year and Boris allowed indyref2 (I don't think he will but lets say he did) and Yes won, then Scotland would leave the UK while still being outside the single market. Even if it did rejoin the single market and rejoin the EU it would then also be hit by tariffs on exports sent over to England unless and until a trade deal was negotiated with the EU (though it would still need a trade deal with England even if it did not rejoin the EU and single market) and that would largely be on Westminster's terms and there would there would be no free movement from England to Scotland either, Scots would need to meet the points required from immigrants in the rest of the world to come to live in England.
There could even be passport checks at Berwick as the UK is not in Schengen and an independent Scotland would not automatically be in the CTA
Feel the love Scots, feel the love.
HYUFD is the stick, others bring the carrot I suspect.
An interesting article - but limited in its scope.
One set of “received opinions” is in the process of being replaced by another set. Both groups feel that anyone not subscribing to the new orthodoxy is beyond the pale and should not be allowed in some way to have a hearing. That applies just as much to those on the “woke progressive” side as it does to the Adam Boultons and Sarah Vines of this world.
(And, btw, when did she become an “eminent political journalist”? She mainly wrote about beauty products - and boy does she need them.)
There is always a rage to impose a conformity on what people should think and say and to use whatever means are available to prevent people from expressing different views to whatever is the fashionable or widely held view of the time. This comes from all parts of the political and cultural spectrum. That is the problem not the petulant reaction of some journalists to criticism.
I hesitate to criticise @AlistairM as he writes very fine headers but I would have liked him to address this issue.
Why the bitchy remark about Sarah Vine? That’s beneath you @Cyclefree
First, she is not an eminent political journalist. And second I was surprised to see her opining on beauty since she had, from what I saw of her, little sense of how to make herself look presentable. It’s like having a fat unfit person advising you on personal training.
The main thing that gets me about people like her and other national newspaper columnists is how they manage to get paid anything at all for their writing. Most of it is formulaic and dull.
The comment was “and boy does she need them”.
If a man had criticised a female journalist based on her looks then you would have rightly been outraged.
You made your point on her qualifications based on her background as a beauty writer
I have made in the past bitchy comments about how both men and women in public life look and dress. And been criticised on here for this. I’m not outraged by men criticising women for their looks more by men who look awful criticising a woman for this - on the beams and motes principle.
I am, if you want to put it like that, an equal opportunities bitch.
More seriously I do think that if you are out in public you should make an effort to look decent, attractive if possible and not an eyesore, in much the same way that I think people should make an effort to keep their front gardens tidy and clean and attractive.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
I can see that if one is working for an organisation that is committed to a particular political, religious, ideological point of view, then it would be reasonable to expect employees to adhere to that viewpoint. And, for them to seek employment elsewhere if they wish to disagree publicly.
I would think that the number of commercial entities that have good reason to promote a particular world view would be pretty limited, and that their reasons for doing so are likely to be entirely self-serving (eg a company that does a lot of business in China might sack an employee who publicly criticised the new Hong Kong security law). I would not have a good deal of respect for such a company.
Though unlike the USSR where communist Eastern Europe was on the border with the West and had to be held back by NATO, China is on the other side of the world and has shown no sign of expanding territorially beyond Taiwan even with expanded influence in Africa
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Thanks, do you have any thoughts on my company's values, etc.?
I don't think companies have values. I think individuals have values.
If your employer happens to be a massive donor to the Tory party and posts approving things about Thatcher online does that mean you can't do your job for them as, say, a developer or a marketing manager? If you happen to hold left wing views?
How would you feel if your employer cancelled you as a result of your beliefs? Which hold no relevance to your job?
If by cancelled, you mean fired, I think it would be reasonable as I agreed to a set of values when I joined and if my employer concluded I was contrary to those views, they wouldn't want me working there anymore. To me that's fair.
So let's say my employer is a Christian employer with a strong belief in their Christian views and I am an atheist who believes in abortion and contraception etc. Would the employer be justified in firing me because I don't hold their values?
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Thanks, do you have any thoughts on my company's values, etc.?
I don't think companies have values. I think individuals have values.
If your employer happens to be a massive donor to the Tory party and posts approving things about Thatcher online does that mean you can't do your job for them as, say, a developer or a marketing manager? If you happen to hold left wing views?
How would you feel if your employer cancelled you as a result of your beliefs? Which hold no relevance to your job?
We have a set of company values and a certain culture.
If I posted something racist, or offensive, it is likely I would lose my job because it's contrary to what our company (which I guess is an extension of what people would perceive to be their values) has as its values.
I don't think that's unreasonable, do you?
In the case you did disagree, you have every right to either not work there or to just get on and do your job. Just don't say anything.
I'm talking about demonstrable facts, not opinions.
Do you believe that saying "women do not have penises" should be a firing offence?
"We have a set of company values and a certain culture" = p*ss off, we don't welcome people like you. It's a 21st century, establishment, "jobs for the boys" mentality that is just as damaging as the one that came before it.
Diversity of thought is as essential as diversity of colour, background, class, religion etc.
However it is the only form of diversity you appear to be arguing against.
And I was saying about the reality in which I inhabit...
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said women do not have penises, I would be fired almost certainly as I would be contrary to the values I said I would adhere to when I chose to join the company. Therefore by extension I have agreed that yes, it is a firing offence.
We have a set of values and culture that I happen to think are pretty fair and inclusive. If you don't, then don't work there! Nobody is forcing you to.
You disagree with the culture and values our company/people hold - and that's your right. But they have a right to not hire you, or sack you, if you speak contrary to those views - because you agreed to not do that when you joined.
For me it's not an issue, as I think the views are fair and reasonable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752 I wonder how this sort of story will impact the reparations movement, I remember a few weeks ago there was outrage at a Tory councillor commenting about the involvement of Africans in the slave trade. I assumed, like many, he was wrong. Maybe not.
The great majority of slaves taken by Europeans from Africa were sold to them by other Africans. Direct raids in which Europeans snatched people from coastal areas were not particularly common (in contrast with the North African or Barbary slave trade, in which Africans abducted large numbers of Europeans through pirate raids on coastal settlements and ships at sea.)
This is why historians talk about the Triangular Trade when discussing the history of slavery: Europeans (and Americans of European descent) sailed to Africa with ships loaded with trade goods, they bought African slaves from other Africans with the goods, carried the slaves off to work their plantations, and then shipped the goods from the plantations back to their population centres for sale. The value of the plantation goods vastly exceeded the price paid to purchase and feed the slaves, hence the massive profits generated.
People who talk about reparations tend not to mention either the Barbary trade or the sale of African slaves by other Africans. It suits them to simplify history and to portray pre-modern Africans uniformly as defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The African slaves were, of course, defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The many Africans who profited from taking and selling slaves, not so much.
Just because something is complex does not mean it isn't also simple. There are women who profit from and enable sex trafficking. Does this mean that the assertion "sex trafficking is a criminal industry based on the exploitation of women by men" is wrong or "misleading" or "simplistic"? No it does not. Indeed if someone doggedly maintains this, I would question their motives. Ditto here. So tell me - what are your motives?
The difference in this case is that the Triangular Trade would not have existed without the supply of slaves provided by African warlords.
This is not to try and gloss over the traders individual culpability, but you shouldn’t ignore the wrong of the other parts of the chain
Context is fine but to be more interested in the context than the crime raises suspicion that the intention is to defect and obscure. This is when context becomes "context". We see it all the time. Crops up a lot in holocaust denial - where the denial is not outright denial but the nitpicking of detail and/or the downplaying of significance by reference to "grand historical sweep" and other victims and other genocides.
No, actually that is not the case. What your argument is trying to do is say that, if you bring up the role of the African kingdoms in facilitating the slave trade, you are indulging in slavery denial. That is patently false and seeking to silence the covering of the facts by automatically labelling anyone who questions the accepted orthodoxy as a denier.
It's not that. I'm saying that if somebody's sole and regular contribution to a discussion of the transatlantic slave trade is to emphasize that plenty of Africans enabled and profited from it, then this to me is a "tell" of their probable attitude to anti-black racism.
Just the same as if whenever the holocaust crops up, somebody is forever at pains to say it wasn't just Jews who were killed, and 6m is in any case only an estimate, could have been fewer, and what about this other genocide, and this one, and this one, why no "H" day for them? etc etc.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Thanks, do you have any thoughts on my company's values, etc.?
I don't think companies have values. I think individuals have values.
If your employer happens to be a massive donor to the Tory party and posts approving things about Thatcher online does that mean you can't do your job for them as, say, a developer or a marketing manager? If you happen to hold left wing views?
How would you feel if your employer cancelled you as a result of your beliefs? Which hold no relevance to your job?
If by cancelled, you mean fired, I think it would be reasonable as I agreed to a set of values when I joined and if my employer concluded I was contrary to those views, they wouldn't want me working there anymore. To me that's fair.
So let's say my employer is a Christian employer with a strong belief in their Christian views and I am an atheist who believes in abortion and contraception etc. Would the employer be justified in firing me because I don't hold their values?
If you aired those views in the manner in which I am suggesting I air my (hypothetical) views about LGBTQ+ people, I suspect you would get fired?
If you just hold the views, I don't see how they could. You don't have to air them publicly within the organisation.
If the transition period ends in December and the UK ends up on WTO terms with no EU trade deal and then the SNP won a majority at Holyrood next year and Boris allowed indyref2 (I don't think he will but lets say he did) and Yes won, then Scotland would leave the UK while still being outside the single market. Even if it did rejoin the single market and rejoin the EU it would then also be hit by tariffs on exports sent over to England unless and until a trade deal was negotiated with the EU (though it would still need a trade deal with England even if it did not rejoin the EU and single market) and that would largely be on Westminster's terms and there would there would be no free movement from England to Scotland either, Scots would need to meet the points required from immigrants in the rest of the world to come to live in England.
There could even be passport checks at Berwick as the UK is not in Schengen and an independent Scotland would not automatically be in the CTA
Feel the love Scots, feel the love.
HYUFD is the stick, others bring the carrot I suspect.
Yes free speech covers the right to complain about things that offend you. That extends not just to those seeking cancellations but to those complaining about cancellations too. And in Mr Meeks case to those complaining about those complaining about cancellations. And in the case of those attacking Mr Meeks it extends to those complaining about those complaining about those complaining about cancellations.
And for those who attack those who attack Mr Meeks it extends to those complaining about those complaining about those complaining about those complaining about cancellations.
Its simple really isn't it?
It is. Freedom of speech under the law. We have it. To say we don't is an insult to those who really don't. The Toby Youngs of this world are being ineffably precious and entitled. I'd draw a comparison to people - often the same people - making out that mandatory masks in shops during a pandemic is a step along the "slippery slope" to loss of liberty. It's utterly pathetic.
It’s culture war. Both sides feed off each other. Toby Young needs Owen Jones who needs James Delingpole who needs Ash Sukar and so on and so on. Right now it gets a lot of attention. There may be less focus when the economy moves front and centre, which it will.
It doesn't get a lot of focus, out there in the real world off the internet no one cares. No one cares what Owen Jones thinks and no one cares what James Delingpole thinks. It's why newspapers are going bankrupt. A few of my wife's friends came over for dinner yesterday evening and it was a real eye opener that women in their late 20s and early 30s give so little fucks about this stuff, the subject of JK Rowling came up and all of them either didn't care or were broadly supportive of what she said. If, as Alastair is claiming, that the pressure groups are representative then they would all have been raging against her, yet they weren't, mostly they didn't care
I also agree with this. Although the Culture War stimulates me - and I am firmly on one side of it - I do think it's mainly digital and has far less salience in flesh & blood spaces. That said, it is helping the Right in elections and therefore for all its attractions I'd like to see the Left disengage a little, leave the Right swinging at thin air and thus falling over. I think we can do this because to the extent it's about social progress "victory" is assured. Electing Tory governments won't stop it. The values of the young and youngish will soon be mainstream.
Not so soon and bt then their values will have 'developed'.
Not on totemic matters such as minority rights. Young people who embraced gay rights and women's rights in the past did not unembrace them when they hit the big five oh.
I think "Social Progress" is driven by increasing empathy with an increasingly wider population to include first women, then different races, then diverse sexuality, then animals ...
I think the increasing empathy comes communication (imagining other lives in TV, films, novels), interaction (travel, migration) and standard of living (not threatened).
Generally I agree with you that it is a one-way ratchet. Once you empathise it is difficult to reverse. The problem is when you feel threatened. Then you see others as enemies.
If the world in the future is basically benign and ordered, then there will be social progress and a leftish hegemony. If the future is threatening and uncertain then it will be right-wing populism. It is not pre-ordained.
An interesting article - but limited in its scope.
One set of “received opinions” is in the process of being replaced by another set. Both groups feel that anyone not subscribing to the new orthodoxy is beyond the pale and should not be allowed in some way to have a hearing. That applies just as much to those on the “woke progressive” side as it does to the Adam Boultons and Sarah Vines of this world.
(And, btw, when did she become an “eminent political journalist”? She mainly wrote about beauty products - and boy does she need them.)
There is always a rage to impose a conformity on what people should think and say and to use whatever means are available to prevent people from expressing different views to whatever is the fashionable or widely held view of the time. This comes from all parts of the political and cultural spectrum. That is the problem not the petulant reaction of some journalists to criticism.
I hesitate to criticise @AlistairM as he writes very fine headers but I would have liked him to address this issue.
Why the bitchy remark about Sarah Vine? That’s beneath you @Cyclefree
First, she is not an eminent political journalist. And second I was surprised to see her opining on beauty since she had, from what I saw of her, little sense of how to make herself look presentable. It’s like having a fat unfit person advising you on personal training.
The main thing that gets me about people like her and other national newspaper columnists is how they manage to get paid anything at all for their writing. Most of it is formulaic and dull.
The comment was “and boy does she need them”.
If a man had criticised a female journalist based on her looks then you would have rightly been outraged.
You made your point on her qualifications based on her background as a beauty writer
I have made in the past bitchy comments about how both men and women in public life look and dress. And been criticised on here for this. I’m not outraged by men criticising women for their looks more by men who look awful criticising a woman for this - on the beams and motes principle.
I am, if you want to put it like that, an equal opportunities bitch.
More seriously I do think that if you are out in public you should make an effort to look decent, attractive if possible and not an eyesore, in much the same way that I think people should make an effort to keep their front gardens tidy and clean and attractive.
I was with you up until the very last point. It's my front garden and I'll do with it what I wish. If it doesn't rise to the level of provoking official enforcement action, it's nobody's business.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752 I wonder how this sort of story will impact the reparations movement, I remember a few weeks ago there was outrage at a Tory councillor commenting about the involvement of Africans in the slave trade. I assumed, like many, he was wrong. Maybe not.
The great majority of slaves taken by Europeans from Africa were sold to them by other Africans. Direct raids in which Europeans snatched people from coastal areas were not particularly common (in contrast with the North African or Barbary slave trade, in which Africans abducted large numbers of Europeans through pirate raids on coastal settlements and ships at sea.)
This is why historians talk about the Triangular Trade when discussing the history of slavery: Europeans (and Americans of European descent) sailed to Africa with ships loaded with trade goods, they bought African slaves from other Africans with the goods, carried the slaves off to work their plantations, and then shipped the goods from the plantations back to their population centres for sale. The value of the plantation goods vastly exceeded the price paid to purchase and feed the slaves, hence the massive profits generated.
People who talk about reparations tend not to mention either the Barbary trade or the sale of African slaves by other Africans. It suits them to simplify history and to portray pre-modern Africans uniformly as defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The African slaves were, of course, defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The many Africans who profited from taking and selling slaves, not so much.
Just because something is complex does not mean it isn't also simple. There are women who profit from and enable sex trafficking. Does this mean that the assertion "sex trafficking is a criminal industry based on the exploitation of women by men" is wrong or "misleading" or "simplistic"? No it does not. Indeed if someone doggedly maintains this, I would question their motives. Ditto here. So tell me - what are your motives?
Primarily to make a brief reply to a message in which surprise was expressed at the involvement of some Africans in the slave trade, summarising some historical facts. But yes, I'm also deeply sceptical about the reparations movement. All of the people who profited or suffered directly from the Triangular Trade have been dead for a very long time indeed. Therefore, quite where we are meant to begin in assessing who to distribute resources to by way of redress, and especially who to take them from, God alone knows.
There's a world of difference between reappraising history, action against discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity, and redistribution from the wealthy to the poor generally through taxation, and - what? Exacting recompense from countries and their populations for the behaviour of (some of their) ancestors? Race-based levies? I'm really not getting how demanding "reparations" for what happened between the 16th and 19th Centuries is meant to create progress. It is, after all, a term previously applied to vanquished populations being made to pay the price of their own defeat.
I'm not sure how far my ancestors in rural West Wales 'profited' much, if at all, from the Triangular Trade.
You may be surprised. There is a great link to where slaveowner compensation was paid, and whom to on here:
It can be searched by name or geography. Several people with my exact forename and surname were compensated. I dont think we were related, but it does give pause for thought.
And anyone should be impressed by this superb graphic, click on individual ships for details:
Thanks for that Foxy. I shall have a play with it. However I'd be very, very surprised if the agricultural labourers, small farmers and the occasional small trader....... shoemaker, miller ....... who I find in my family tree had any interest in slaving. But thanks, and I know other people who may find it useful.
If the transition period ends in December and the UK ends up on WTO terms with no EU trade deal and then the SNP won a majority at Holyrood next year and Boris allowed indyref2 (I don't think he will but lets say he did) and Yes won, then Scotland would leave the UK while still being outside the single market. Even if it did rejoin the single market and rejoin the EU it would then also be hit by tariffs on exports sent over to England unless and until a trade deal was negotiated with the EU (though it would still need a trade deal with England even if it did not rejoin the EU and single market) and that would largely be on Westminster's terms and there would there would be no free movement from England to Scotland either, Scots would need to meet the points required from immigrants in the rest of the world to come to live in England.
There could even be passport checks at Berwick as the UK is not in Schengen and an independent Scotland would not automatically be in the CTA
Feel the love Scots, feel the love.
Feel the reality Scots, feel the reality.
I'd give it about a month after joining the EU before the bitching at Brussels commenced.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
You don't really get this democracy/free speech thing do you. It was the public debate about anti-semitism and subsequent votes of the people that got rid of Corbyn and his acolytes. I'm glad the anti-semites started to shout out their views and so should you - it's given you a leader of relevance.
Exactly. What did for Nick Griffin was his appearance on Question Time, where we could hear what he had to say in his own words, and make up our own minds about him.
Universities are places where people should learn how to think, not learn what to think.
Not that malformed, old chestnut. If QT 'did' for Griffin, why did 7 months after that appearance did the BNP have its best ever GE result?
Brief rise before a precipitous fall. What it is clear, though, is that seing him on TV did lead to the ruination of a generation and the outrage at his being given that platform was utterly hysterical.
In retrospect I deplore Griffin going on QT not because he's a ghastly racist being given a platform for his ghastly racism, but because it was just another sign of the freakshowification of political coverage, not healthy in general but least so in the state broadcaster. It was just the start of a decade of Farage, Starkey, Hopkins & the like being invited to produce their spew on a regular basis.
The precipitous fall for the BNP came about because UKIP moved onto their anti-immigration, British nationalist territory, with added Brexit & nostalgia. I haven't seen any evidence (as opposed to a feeling on people's water) to persuade me that the QT appearance had much to do with it.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Hmmm....
What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of BLM? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of Momentum? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of the Labour Party? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of a Trade Union?
Please answer my point.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something overtly racist, or offensive to LGBTQ+ people, I would likely lose my job. Do you think that's reasonable, or not?
In general, I would say that only the most extreme views should be cause for damaging someones life.
The problem comes with who defines the "racist" or "offensive to LGBTQ+ people" bit.
Should you loose your job if you announced KKKequese views? Should you loose your job if you announced that "cultural appropriation isn't a real thing"? Should you loose your job if you announced that "transitioning to a different sex is often problematic and causes regret"?
I suspect its the people in the organisation/your colleagues that would decide. I'm fairly sure in our code of conduct, this laid out to be honest.
I think in every case it's likely you'd receive discipline if not sacking but I suspect it would depend on the context.
You are aware that the later example is objectively factual? - transitioning is often problematic and a number of people who have done this, regret this choice.
Which brings us to the interesting point where science meets belief.
Years ago, at university, an acquaintance was working on a computer program that would take a piece of text and work out which sections were written by which author.
This is of extreme value to historians. Nearly all the ancient texts we possess are more recent copies. Multiple generation copies at that. Stealing work or modifying texts for politics/religious reasons was common.
So, this application could show the history - even when the changes were multi-layered or overlapped. To an extent.
To train the system, he applied numerous texts and compared the results to existing evidence of manipulation.
For fun, he applied it some books of the Bible. It came out with results that largely matched the scholarly understanding of the process of accretion of the Bible.
I mentioned his success at a meeting with an academic. Everyone agreed this was some nice work etc.
About a day later a savage email was sent to him, utterly forbidding him to run certain texts through his system. On pain of expulsion from the university.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752 I wonder how this sort of story will impact the reparations movement, I remember a few weeks ago there was outrage at a Tory councillor commenting about the involvement of Africans in the slave trade. I assumed, like many, he was wrong. Maybe not.
The great majority of slaves taken by Europeans from Africa were sold to them by other Africans. Direct raids in which Europeans snatched people from coastal areas were not particularly common (in contrast with the North African or Barbary slave trade, in which Africans abducted large numbers of Europeans through pirate raids on coastal settlements and ships at sea.)
This is why historians talk about the Triangular Trade when discussing the history of slavery: Europeans (and Americans of European descent) sailed to Africa with ships loaded with trade goods, they bought African slaves from other Africans with the goods, carried the slaves off to work their plantations, and then shipped the goods from the plantations back to their population centres for sale. The value of the plantation goods vastly exceeded the price paid to purchase and feed the slaves, hence the massive profits generated.
People who talk about reparations tend not to mention either the Barbary trade or the sale of African slaves by other Africans. It suits them to simplify history and to portray pre-modern Africans uniformly as defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The African slaves were, of course, defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The many Africans who profited from taking and selling slaves, not so much.
Just because something is complex does not mean it isn't also simple. There are women who profit from and enable sex trafficking. Does this mean that the assertion "sex trafficking is a criminal industry based on the exploitation of women by men" is wrong or "misleading" or "simplistic"? No it does not. Indeed if someone doggedly maintains this, I would question their motives. Ditto here. So tell me - what are your motives?
The difference in this case is that the Triangular Trade would not have existed without the supply of slaves provided by African warlords.
This is not to try and gloss over the traders individual culpability, but you shouldn’t ignore the wrong of the other parts of the chain
Context is fine but to be more interested in the context than the crime raises suspicion that the intention is to defect and obscure. This is when context becomes "context". We see it all the time. Crops up a lot in holocaust denial - where the denial is not outright denial but the nitpicking of detail and/or the downplaying of significance by reference to "grand historical sweep" and other victims and other genocides.
No, actually that is not the case. What your argument is trying to do is say that, if you bring up the role of the African kingdoms in facilitating the slave trade, you are indulging in slavery denial. That is patently false and seeking to silence the covering of the facts by automatically labelling anyone who questions the accepted orthodoxy as a denier.
It's not that. I'm saying that if somebody's sole and regular contribution to a discussion of the transatlantic slave trade is to emphasize that plenty of Africans enabled and profited from it, then this to me is a "tell" of their probable attitude to anti-black racism.
Just the same as if whenever the holocaust crops up, somebody is forever at pains to say it wasn't just Jews who were killed, and 6m is in any case only an estimate, could have been fewer, and what about this other genocide, and this one, and this one, why no "H" day for them? etc etc.
You know what I mean, surely.
Actually I think it’s right to highlight that gays and Roma were also notable victims of the Holocaust. That’s not to diminish the tragedy of what the Nazis did to the Jewish people
Though unlike the USSR where communist Eastern Europe was on the border with the West and had to be held back by NATO, China is on the other side of the world and has shown no sign of expanding territorially beyond Taiwan even with expanded influence in Africa
The border areas in question are disputed between China and India as to which belongs to which, China is not going to invade India and try and capture Delhi
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Hmmm....
What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of BLM? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of Momentum? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of the Labour Party? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of a Trade Union?
Please answer my point.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something overtly racist, or offensive to LGBTQ+ people, I would likely lose my job. Do you think that's reasonable, or not?
In general, I would say that only the most extreme views should be cause for damaging someones life.
The problem comes with who defines the "racist" or "offensive to LGBTQ+ people" bit.
Should you loose your job if you announced KKKequese views? Should you loose your job if you announced that "cultural appropriation isn't a real thing"? Should you loose your job if you announced that "transitioning to a different sex is often problematic and causes regret"?
Should you lose your job for saying all lives matter, or men aren’t women?
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
But then we're back to the statue debate. Part of the conservative case there was that if we removed statue A, then wouldn't we have to remove all the other statues as well, up to and including Churchill. Whereas it seems to be working out reasonably calmly; if you are famous for making money out of exploitation, that's bad; if you're famous for standing up to Hitler, that's good even if your overall record is more mixed.
Same thing here. If you have made a living out of offending people, then you may need to rethink your career plans. Nobody is saying you can't say stuff. Comment BTL like the rest of us. Just don't expect to automatically make a well-remunerated living out of it. And with the exception of the TERF wars, which are incomprehensibly mad, the line between "spiky but acceptable" and "beyond the pale" is usually pretty clear. The fact that a minority want to go further doesn't invalidate the case.
Basically, don't abuse the slippery slope argument. Because once you start doing that, when do you stop? (JOKE)
To be honest, though, a fair few of the demonstrators did want to take down the statue of Churchill and, undoubtedly, would have tried (and succeeded) if the y thought they could have got away with it.
It may be an unpalatable truth but I suspect the football thugs turning up at the Churchill statues may have dissuaded a fair few of the student-y types that it was not worthwhile trying their luck. The Mayor of Bristol made a similar point to the artist who put up the BLM statue in place of Edward Colston - he specifically referenced the defacing of the tombstone of the freed slave Scipio Africanus in Bristol as a sign of the possible counter-reaction you get when you start to take matters into your own hands.
I'm sure some of the demonstrators did want to pull down the Churchill statue as well. The point is that they didn't, and wouldn't have been supported if they had.
Veep betting: Rice is at her lowest point yet by my figures - 4.2 on BF
I think one question that hasn't been asked about the Veep nomination is why Biden is holding on so long to announce his running mate. I don't mean in terms of waiting until the Convention but why he has allowed the speculation to go on for so long.
I personally think that Rice would be his preferred pick as he has worked with her over numerous years, is comfortable around her and she doesn't bring much of the baggage that the other contenders bring. But, if that was the case, then there has to be a reason why he has dragged his feet on the nomination.
I suspect the reason is because of concerns over what the Durham investigation into the FBI's handling of the Flynn case will bring out and / or the Senate Republicans decide to turn this into a major political issue. It may be that Biden fears that having Rice as his VP choice will make these allegations centre stage of the election.
It's for that reason I haven't put more money on Rice. In many ways, she ticks the boxes but my fear is that there is something lurking in the background that may mean Biden thinks it's too much of a risk for him, even if she is her preferred choice.
If the transition period ends in December and the UK ends up on WTO terms with no EU trade deal and then the SNP won a majority at Holyrood next year and Boris allowed indyref2 (I don't think he will but lets say he did) and Yes won, then Scotland would leave the UK while still being outside the single market. Even if it did rejoin the single market and rejoin the EU it would then also be hit by tariffs on exports sent over to England unless and until a trade deal was negotiated with the EU (though it would still need a trade deal with England even if it did not rejoin the EU and single market) and that would largely be on Westminster's terms and there would there would be no free movement from England to Scotland either, Scots would need to meet the points required from immigrants in the rest of the world to come to live in England.
There could even be passport checks at Berwick as the UK is not in Schengen and an independent Scotland would not automatically be in the CTA
Feel the love Scots, feel the love.
Feel the reality Scots, feel the reality.
I'd give it about a month after joining the EU before the bitching at Brussels commenced.
The euphoria of independence would cover for any difficulties for quite some time, as I imagine any Brexit downsides will be covered. By the end of a revolution people will put up with a lot worse than the things which may have caused the revolution in the first place.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
He shamed himself. It wasn't the mob.
He has been an arse for countless years, odd they only get shot of him now due to all the PC crap that is going on. No sympathy for him for sure but people are entitled to their opinions but you need to be careful it does not affect your employment if you are in public eye. Will be no loss to never hear his whining supercilious voice ever again.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Thanks, do you have any thoughts on my company's values, etc.?
I don't think companies have values. I think individuals have values.
If your employer happens to be a massive donor to the Tory party and posts approving things about Thatcher online does that mean you can't do your job for them as, say, a developer or a marketing manager? If you happen to hold left wing views?
How would you feel if your employer cancelled you as a result of your beliefs? Which hold no relevance to your job?
If by cancelled, you mean fired, I think it would be reasonable as I agreed to a set of values when I joined and if my employer concluded I was contrary to those views, they wouldn't want me working there anymore. To me that's fair.
So let's say my employer is a Christian employer with a strong belief in their Christian views and I am an atheist who believes in abortion and contraception etc. Would the employer be justified in firing me because I don't hold their values?
Comes up regularly in pharmacy, re the sale of 'morning after' medication. Other way round of course. Employer has no problem with the supply; employee does. And, as a pharmacist he or she has actually to be involved in the sale.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Thanks, do you have any thoughts on my company's values, etc.?
I don't think companies have values. I think individuals have values.
If your employer happens to be a massive donor to the Tory party and posts approving things about Thatcher online does that mean you can't do your job for them as, say, a developer or a marketing manager? If you happen to hold left wing views?
How would you feel if your employer cancelled you as a result of your beliefs? Which hold no relevance to your job?
We have a set of company values and a certain culture.
If I posted something racist, or offensive, it is likely I would lose my job because it's contrary to what our company (which I guess is an extension of what people would perceive to be their values) has as its values.
I don't think that's unreasonable, do you?
In the case you did disagree, you have every right to either not work there or to just get on and do your job. Just don't say anything.
I'm talking about demonstrable facts, not opinions.
Do you believe that saying "women do not have penises" should be a firing offence?
"We have a set of company values and a certain culture" = p*ss off, we don't welcome people like you. It's a 21st century, establishment, "jobs for the boys" mentality that is just as damaging as the one that came before it.
Diversity of thought is as essential as diversity of colour, background, class, religion etc.
However it is the only form of diversity you appear to be arguing against.
And I was saying about the reality in which I inhabit...
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said women do not have penises, I would be fired almost certainly as I would be contrary to the values I said I would adhere to when I chose to join the company. Therefore by extension I have agreed that yes, it is a firing offence.
We have a set of values and culture that I happen to think are pretty fair and inclusive. If you don't, then don't work there! Nobody is forcing you to.
You disagree with the culture and values our company/people hold - and that's your right. But they have a right to not hire you, or sack you, if you speak contrary to those views - because you agreed to not do that when you joined.
For me it's not an issue, as I think the views are fair and reasonable.
Well, if your employer has made it a condition of your employment that you will be dismissed for expressing views outside of the workplace that conflict with their own views, then that employer is probably entitled to dismiss you for doing so.
But, in most cases, I wouldn't think very much of an employer who stipulated such a condition of employment - unless the employer in question is a campaigning organisation.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
So what are some exampled where people have been fired for saying "women don't have penises", or "all lives matter"?
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Hmmm....
What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of BLM? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of Momentum? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of the Labour Party? What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of a Trade Union?
Please answer my point.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something overtly racist, or offensive to LGBTQ+ people, I would likely lose my job. Do you think that's reasonable, or not?
In general, I would say that only the most extreme views should be cause for damaging someones life.
The problem comes with who defines the "racist" or "offensive to LGBTQ+ people" bit.
Should you loose your job if you announced KKKequese views? Should you loose your job if you announced that "cultural appropriation isn't a real thing"? Should you loose your job if you announced that "transitioning to a different sex is often problematic and causes regret"?
I suspect its the people in the organisation/your colleagues that would decide. I'm fairly sure in our code of conduct, this laid out to be honest.
I think in every case it's likely you'd receive discipline if not sacking but I suspect it would depend on the context.
You are aware that the later example is objectively factual? - transitioning is often problematic and a number of people who have done this, regret this choice.
Which brings us to the interesting point where science meets belief.
Years ago, at university, an acquaintance was working on a computer program that would take a piece of text and work out which sections were written by which author.
This is of extreme value to historians. Nearly all the ancient texts we possess are more recent copies. Multiple generation copies at that. Stealing work or modifying texts for politics/religious reasons was common.
So, this application could show the history - even when the changes were multi-layered or overlapped. To an extent.
To train the system, he applied numerous texts and compared the results to existing evidence of manipulation.
For fun, he applied it some books of the Bible. It came out with results that largely matched the scholarly understanding of the process of accretion of the Bible.
I mentioned his success at a meeting with an academic. Everyone agreed this was some nice work etc.
About a day later a savage email was sent to him, utterly forbidding him to run certain texts through his system. On pain of expulsion from the university.
The Irish Free State pinched 3 houses that would otherwise belong to my uncle. Can we have them back please.
Only if we Irish first get back the land that was previously pinched from us by your ancestors and all the others who came over.
It was bought and paid for. We were completely screwed by King Henry in the Treaty of Windsor
Majority previously stolen from rightful owners in one way or another, just a different set of rogues stealing them or people trying to return them to rightful ownership
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Starkey literally said something that was unequivocally racist, "damn blacks". And for that he deserves censure. However I'm not comfortable with destryoying someone's livelihood over a single comment. To use the language of the workplace it should be a written warning rather than a firing offence. If he carries on and does it again or is demonstrably racist in other ways then go ahead and fire him. People should be given the chance to change their ways.
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
But then we're back to the statue debate. Part of the conservative case there was that if we removed statue A, then wouldn't we have to remove all the other statues as well, up to and including Churchill. Whereas it seems to be working out reasonably calmly; if you are famous for making money out of exploitation, that's bad; if you're famous for standing up to Hitler, that's good even if your overall record is more mixed.
Same thing here. If you have made a living out of offending people, then you may need to rethink your career plans. Nobody is saying you can't say stuff. Comment BTL like the rest of us. Just don't expect to automatically make a well-remunerated living out of it. And with the exception of the TERF wars, which are incomprehensibly mad, the line between "spiky but acceptable" and "beyond the pale" is usually pretty clear. The fact that a minority want to go further doesn't invalidate the case.
Basically, don't abuse the slippery slope argument. Because once you start doing that, when do you stop? (JOKE)
To be honest, though, a fair few of the demonstrators did want to take down the statue of Churchill and, undoubtedly, would have tried (and succeeded) if the y thought they could have got away with it.
It may be an unpalatable truth but I suspect the football thugs turning up at the Churchill statues may have dissuaded a fair few of the student-y types that it was not worthwhile trying their luck. The Mayor of Bristol made a similar point to the artist who put up the BLM statue in place of Edward Colston - he specifically referenced the defacing of the tombstone of the freed slave Scipio Africanus in Bristol as a sign of the possible counter-reaction you get when you start to take matters into your own hands.
I'm sure some of the demonstrators did want to pull down the Churchill statue as well. The point is that they didn't, and wouldn't have been supported if they had.
They don't care about the level of support. The polling showed a vast majority of people did not support the way in which the statue of Edward Colston was pulled down unilaterally but they still went and did it. What stops them is thinking they might face some opposition that is prepared to stop them. Again it is unpalatable but since the incidents of the thugs around the statues, you seem to have had far fewer incidents of statues being defaced
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
You don't really get this democracy/free speech thing do you. It was the public debate about anti-semitism and subsequent votes of the people that got rid of Corbyn and his acolytes. I'm glad the anti-semites started to shout out their views and so should you - it's given you a leader of relevance.
Exactly. What did for Nick Griffin was his appearance on Question Time, where we could hear what he had to say in his own words, and make up our own minds about him.
Universities are places where people should learn how to think, not learn what to think.
Nooo.
It was reading the Christmas Story whilst channelling Blofeld that did for Griffin.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
You don't really get this democracy/free speech thing do you. It was the public debate about anti-semitism and subsequent votes of the people that got rid of Corbyn and his acolytes. I'm glad the anti-semites started to shout out their views and so should you - it's given you a leader of relevance.
Exactly. What did for Nick Griffin was his appearance on Question Time, where we could hear what he had to say in his own words, and make up our own minds about him.
Universities are places where people should learn how to think, not learn what to think.
Not that malformed, old chestnut. If QT 'did' for Griffin, why did 7 months after that appearance did the BNP have its best ever GE result?
Brief rise before a precipitous fall. What it is clear, though, is that seing him on TV did lead to the ruination of a generation and the outrage at his being given that platform was utterly hysterical.
In retrospect I deplore Griffin going on QT not because he's a ghastly racist being given a platform for his ghastly racism, but because it was just another sign of the freakshowification of political coverage, not healthy in general but least so in the state broadcaster. It was just the start of a decade of Farage, Starkey, Hopkins & the like being invited to produce their spew on a regular basis.
The precipitous fall for the BNP came about because UKIP moved onto their anti-immigration, British nationalist territory, with added Brexit & nostalgia. I haven't seen any evidence (as opposed to a feeling on people's water) to persuade me that the QT appearance had much to do with it.
You may be right, as I think we would like it to be that simple but is unlikely to be so.
If I personally make the views on my Facebook page about only men have penises or whatever else, my employer won't sack me for that, I don't think. Not sure. They can't see it anyway and I'm not sure they can sack me for airing my own views, as long as I make it clear they are my own.
When I referred to culture and Slack, I meant on our internal social network, so if I posted objectionable/offensive views, I would be disciplined, or sacked.
Comments
It was bought and paid for. We were completely screwed by King Henry in the Treaty of Windsor
Without commenting on the premise in this case, many things are 'well known' and yet not true.
Universities are places of open debate - even by Constitution, surely?
Who do you consider is doing the no platforming and has the Right to prevent open debate because of their own opinions?
Do you mean for example SUs denying use of rooms to events because the speaker is 'unacceptable'? Or do you mean Universities giving in to letter-writing campaigns? Or threats of disruption / violence?
What about physical shouting down of speeches or physical interventions by crowds?
Universities are places where people should learn how to think, not learn what to think.
Blimey. I think that’s pretty close to the joke response level (I forget what that is but it’s at least a couple of points). But who sees him as an asset right now?
But my point was it's potentially a firing offence these days to say "women don't have penises" or to use another example, "all lives matter". These should not be controversial statements. I believe both are true while also supporting trans and minority rights.
The aim of cancel culture is to silence dissenting voices. In order to promote a specific, hard left ideology.
Vote Leave deliberately tried to minimise Farage on TV (and he was successfully barred from all major TV debates bar one from ITV) precisely because they thought the more Farage was on TV the better for Remain not Leave.
That you think Brexit = Farage betrays your own ignorance.
If a man had criticised a female journalist based on her looks then you would have rightly been outraged.
You made your point on her qualifications based on her background as a beauty writer
As I mentioned above, my company is pretty upfront about its cultural values and you agree to be a part of that culture when you join the company. If you don't like the values, either don't join or stay quiet.
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something contrary to those views, it is likely I would lose my job. Do you think that's unreasonable?
As it was he didn't even get much latent sympathy for the rest of the panel tearing into him the entire time. Because he is an odious man.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8532239/Miss-Swimsuit-UK-23-stripped-title-posted-Lives-Matter.html
If QT 'did' for Griffin, why 7 months after that appearance did the BNP have its best ever GE result?
What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of BLM?
What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of Momentum?
What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of the Labour Party?
What if I fired anyone who was a supporter of a Trade Union?
And that the heart of the problem.
If your employer happens to be a massive donor to the Tory party and posts approving things about Thatcher online does that mean you can't do your job for them as, say, a developer or a marketing manager? If you happen to hold left wing views?
How would you feel if your employer cancelled you as a result of your beliefs? Which hold no relevance to your job?
There could even be passport checks at Berwick as the UK is not in Schengen and an independent Scotland would not automatically be in the CTA
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said something overtly racist, or offensive to LGBTQ+ people, I would likely lose my job. Do you think that's reasonable, or not?
These days, its not what you say, its not how you say it, its if its contrary to woke perceptions, you're in trouble. I am retired,I have never heard of Slack. Would she have been sacked if she had written it on a PB thread?. or sent to Room 101 for re-education?
If I posted something racist, or offensive, it is likely I would lose my job because it's contrary to what our company (which I guess is an extension of what people would perceive to be their values) has as its values.
I don't think that's unreasonable, do you?
In the case you did disagree, you have every right to either not work there or to just get on and do your job. Just don't say anything.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2020/07/17/miss-swimsuit-uk-stripped-title-lives-matter-facebook-post-13001805/amp/
Same thing here. If you have made a living out of offending people, then you may need to rethink your career plans. Nobody is saying you can't say stuff. Comment BTL like the rest of us. Just don't expect to automatically make a well-remunerated living out of it. And with the exception of the TERF wars, which are incomprehensibly mad, the line between "spiky but acceptable" and "beyond the pale" is usually pretty clear. The fact that a minority want to go further doesn't invalidate the case.
Basically, don't abuse the slippery slope argument. Because once you start doing that, when do you stop? (JOKE)
We could still get to the start of September with Covid greatly on the wane in the US. It will have a legacy for sure, but with the economy then on the up, that might still give some weird sort of feel-good factor for Trump going into November.
To add, I don't think either candidate is suitable to be the next President. The shallowness of the Democrat field for 2020 has been startling, given the prize was to be the person who would take down Trump. And anyone relaxed about Trump's evident failings because he was a new guy who would "drain the swamp" has been savagely disappointed since 2016. The guy is a clown without an understanding of humour. His intellectual black hole is filled only by his ego and sense of certainty.
A honey badger would have greater moral concerns than Trump.
It seems that when it comes to the subject of the fiscal transfers which result from UK-wide pooling & sharing, supporters of Scottish independence would answer: “I change the narrative to avoid having to change my mind, sir”.
https://www.these-islands.co.uk/publications/i354/fiscal_transfers_and_shifting_narratives.aspx
The problem comes with who defines the "racist" or "offensive to LGBTQ+ people" bit.
Should you loose your job if you announced KKKequese views?
Should you loose your job if you announced that "cultural appropriation isn't a real thing"?
Should you loose your job if you announced that "transitioning to a different sex is often problematic and causes regret"?
Do you believe that saying "women do not have penises" should be a firing offence?
"We have a set of company values and a certain culture" = p*ss off, we don't welcome people like you. It's a 21st century, establishment, "jobs for the boys" mentality that is just as damaging as the one that came before it.
Diversity of thought is as essential as diversity of colour, background, class, religion etc.
However it is the only form of diversity you appear to be arguing against.
It may be an unpalatable truth but I suspect the football thugs turning up at the Churchill statues may have dissuaded a fair few of the student-y types that it was not worthwhile trying their luck. The Mayor of Bristol made a similar point to the artist who put up the BLM statue in place of Edward Colston - he specifically referenced the defacing of the tombstone of the freed slave Scipio Africanus in Bristol as a sign of the possible counter-reaction you get when you start to take matters into your own hands.
I think in every case it's likely you'd receive discipline if not sacking but I suspect it would depend on the context.
Toby Young might be an easy target to go for because he says stupid things sometimes and he's pretty widely disliked outside his own part of the political spectrum, but he can't be treated as a representative of everyone worried about free speech being under threat.
I am, if you want to put it like that, an equal opportunities bitch.
More seriously I do think that if you are out in public you should make an effort to look decent, attractive if possible and not an eyesore, in much the same way that I think people should make an effort to keep their front gardens tidy and clean and attractive.
I would think that the number of commercial entities that have good reason to promote a particular world view would be pretty limited, and that their reasons for doing so are likely to be entirely self-serving (eg a company that does a lot of business in China might sack an employee who publicly criticised the new Hong Kong security law). I would not have a good deal of respect for such a company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_border_dispute
If I went on Slack tomorrow and said women do not have penises, I would be fired almost certainly as I would be contrary to the values I said I would adhere to when I chose to join the company. Therefore by extension I have agreed that yes, it is a firing offence.
We have a set of values and culture that I happen to think are pretty fair and inclusive. If you don't, then don't work there! Nobody is forcing you to.
You disagree with the culture and values our company/people hold - and that's your right. But they have a right to not hire you, or sack you, if you speak contrary to those views - because you agreed to not do that when you joined.
For me it's not an issue, as I think the views are fair and reasonable.
Just the same as if whenever the holocaust crops up, somebody is forever at pains to say it wasn't just Jews who were killed, and 6m is in any case only an estimate, could have been fewer, and what about this other genocide, and this one, and this one, why no "H" day for them? etc etc.
You know what I mean, surely.
If you just hold the views, I don't see how they could. You don't have to air them publicly within the organisation.
To be honest I don't know.
I think the increasing empathy comes communication (imagining other lives in TV, films, novels), interaction (travel, migration) and standard of living (not threatened).
Generally I agree with you that it is a one-way ratchet. Once you empathise it is difficult to reverse. The problem is when you feel threatened. Then you see others as enemies.
If the world in the future is basically benign and ordered, then there will be social progress and a leftish hegemony. If the future is threatening and uncertain then it will be right-wing populism. It is not pre-ordained.
But thanks, and I know other people who may find it useful.
I'd give it about a month after joining the EU before the bitching at Brussels commenced.
The precipitous fall for the BNP came about because UKIP moved onto their anti-immigration, British nationalist territory, with added Brexit & nostalgia. I haven't seen any evidence (as opposed to a feeling on people's water) to persuade me that the QT appearance had much to do with it.
Which brings us to the interesting point where science meets belief.
Years ago, at university, an acquaintance was working on a computer program that would take a piece of text and work out which sections were written by which author.
This is of extreme value to historians. Nearly all the ancient texts we possess are more recent copies. Multiple generation copies at that. Stealing work or modifying texts for politics/religious reasons was common.
So, this application could show the history - even when the changes were multi-layered or overlapped. To an extent.
To train the system, he applied numerous texts and compared the results to existing evidence of manipulation.
For fun, he applied it some books of the Bible. It came out with results that largely matched the scholarly understanding of the process of accretion of the Bible.
I mentioned his success at a meeting with an academic. Everyone agreed this was some nice work etc.
About a day later a savage email was sent to him, utterly forbidding him to run certain texts through his system. On pain of expulsion from the university.
I personally think that Rice would be his preferred pick as he has worked with her over numerous years, is comfortable around her and she doesn't bring much of the baggage that the other contenders bring. But, if that was the case, then there has to be a reason why he has dragged his feet on the nomination.
I suspect the reason is because of concerns over what the Durham investigation into the FBI's handling of the Flynn case will bring out and / or the Senate Republicans decide to turn this into a major political issue. It may be that Biden fears that having Rice as his VP choice will make these allegations centre stage of the election.
It's for that reason I haven't put more money on Rice. In many ways, she ticks the boxes but my fear is that there is something lurking in the background that may mean Biden thinks it's too much of a risk for him, even if she is her preferred choice.
But, in most cases, I wouldn't think very much of an employer who stipulated such a condition of employment - unless the employer in question is a campaigning organisation.
(I accidentally PM'd this.)
Majority previously stolen from rightful owners in one way or another, just a different set of rogues stealing them or people trying to return them to rightful ownership
It was reading the Christmas Story whilst channelling Blofeld that did for Griffin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jreITHdm6NY
In truth, I think the EHCR plus subsequent legal action did a lot.
Could be tricky for HMG as Tory backbenchers are restive over China policy.
If I personally make the views on my Facebook page about only men have penises or whatever else, my employer won't sack me for that, I don't think. Not sure. They can't see it anyway and I'm not sure they can sack me for airing my own views, as long as I make it clear they are my own.
When I referred to culture and Slack, I meant on our internal social network, so if I posted objectionable/offensive views, I would be disciplined, or sacked.
I hope that's clear.