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.
Exactly , I will express my view but am not here to provide reams of research for other people. They can express their own views and if they have zero knowledge of what I am talking about they can go and research themselves. A favourite trick of Carlotta's when she knows your views are correct, it is only used by Tories.
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.
(I accidentally PM'd this.)
I've clarified what I meant above. Please see that.
In summary, I am making a distinction between views aired whilst I am working and those I make on my own personal time. I don't think my company gives a crap about the latter.
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.
I would imagine so, and the same in the medical profession. To be honest though, I suspect those cases generate less outrage because the employer is seen to be on the "right" side of the debate.
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.
The BNP got their highest ever number of votes at the General Election after Griffin appeared on Question Time, more than doubling their previous effort.
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?
We used to strip "beauty queens" of their titles for concealing a pregnancy or a child or a partner. Now we do it for posting racist sentiments on social media. This to me is progress. Although the ideal is probably to not have a "Miss Swimsuit UK" 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?
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
They have stopped because there’s better things to do at the weekend now that footballs back and the pub is open.
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.
(I accidentally PM'd this.)
The Equality Act forbids discrimination on the grounds of philosophical belief, so I don't think stipulating such a condition of employment would be permitted.
Presumably there are exceptions for campaigning organisations (e.g. Greenpeace can expect you to believe in man-made climate change, Christian Aid can expect you to be a Christian). I don't know what CorrectHorseBattery does but for a non-campaigning organisation to say or even imply that you have to hold the 'correct' views to work for them, that seems extremely suspect.
Facemask Nazis is it? Ok name for a thrash metal group, a bit pish for a someone supposedly making a living from fashioning words and ideas into a meaningful form. Still, I'm sure Cammy will soon have her place confirmed in the glittering constellation that includes Pearson, Hopkins, Vine and JHB.
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 am but I've seen footage. Rather unedifying but nothing to get cancelled about as far as what I've observed of him with my own eyes.
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
The polling came after the statue was pulled down, didn't it? After all, before it was pulled down, very few people would have known who Colston was. And whilst there was opposition to the way it was done, there was broad support for the idea that the Colston statue shouldn't be there. I've not seen any poll data for Churchill statues, but I'd have thought that it's safe to assume that there wouldn't be much backing for removing them.
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.
I get that, if your only contribution to the slavery debate is to say "well the Arabs and Africans were the main perpetrators and white people didn"t do that much", it suggests you downplay the slave trade. I think my concern is that any discussion of any involvement of African rulers in the slave trade automatically gets discounted as holocaust denial. The question is where the boundary lies between the two.
I think the odd thing about the debate poorly put together in the header is that, in spite of plenty of evidence that UK activists tend to adopt US causes eventually, we'll be *fine* for this particular phenomenon.
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.
What bollox are you spouting , you are saying when someone elaborates on the whole truth rather than just the part you like to emphasise that they are racist to blacks or anti-semetic rather than just pointing out the whole story. This to me is a "tell" of your limited view of topics
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.
(I accidentally PM'd this.)
The Equality Act forbids discrimination on the grounds of philosophical belief, so I don't think stipulating such a condition of employment would be permitted.
Presumably there are exceptions for campaigning organisations (e.g. Greenpeace can expect you to believe in man-made climate change, Christian Aid can expect you to be a Christian). I don't know what CorrectHorseBattery does but for a non-campaigning organisation to say or even imply that you have to hold the 'correct' views to work for them, that seems extremely suspect.
To be honest I'm not sure how it works in practice - and I am not going to try and find out - but it is my understanding that if you join a company with a pretty clear and obvious set of views, you aren't going to be seen too kindly if you go against them within the organisation itself.
Perhaps saying you'd be sacked was too far but I do suspect there'd be consequences.
Facemask Nazis is it? Ok name for a thrash metal group, a bit pish for a someone supposedly making a living from fashioning words and ideas into a meaningful form. Still, I'm sure Cammy will soon have her place confirmed in the glittering constellation that includes Pearson, Hopkins, Vine and JHB.
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
The polling came after the statue was pulled down, didn't it? After all, before it was pulled down, very few people would have known who Colston was. And whilst there was opposition to the way it was done, there was broad support for the idea that the Colston statue shouldn't be there. I've not seen any poll data for Churchill statues, but I'd have thought that it's safe to assume that there wouldn't be much backing for removing them.
Correct about the polling but I suspect very few pollsters would have had the foresight to ask "should the statue of Edward Colston" be pulled down But after Colston was pulled down, there were a fair few vocal protestors who were calling for the Churchill statue to come down even though (or because of) popular opposition to it. Again, if they thought they could have got away with it, they would have done it. What the public thinks - most of whom they would decry at racist throwbacks - would be of little interest.
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
The polling came after the statue was pulled down, didn't it? After all, before it was pulled down, very few people would have known who Colston was. And whilst there was opposition to the way it was done, there was broad support for the idea that the Colston statue shouldn't be there. I've not seen any poll data for Churchill statues, but I'd have thought that it's safe to assume that there wouldn't be much backing for removing them.
Correct about the polling but I suspect very few pollsters would have had the foresight to ask "should the statue of Edward Colston" be pulled down But after Colston was pulled down, there were a fair few vocal protestors who were calling for the Churchill statue to come down even though (or because of) popular opposition to it. Again, if they thought they could have got away with it, they would have done it. What the public thinks - most of whom they would decry at racist throwbacks - would be of little interest.
I don't think any sensible or sane person was calling for Churchill's statue to be taken down. Certainly not me or any lefties I know.
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 am but I've seen footage. Rather unedifying but nothing to get cancelled about as far as what I've observed of him with my own eyes.
There was a Paula Yates angle IIRC.
His most famous catch phrase was "Most sincerely folks" when it patently wasn't. That's what triggered me.
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
They have stopped because there’s better things to do at the weekend now that footballs back and the pub is open.
What the BLM demonstrators? I wouldn't have had them down as the types who go to the pub and shout about "Eng-er-land"
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.
Sounds like someone was SERIOUSY worried their plagiarism might be discovered!
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
The polling came after the statue was pulled down, didn't it? After all, before it was pulled down, very few people would have known who Colston was. And whilst there was opposition to the way it was done, there was broad support for the idea that the Colston statue shouldn't be there. I've not seen any poll data for Churchill statues, but I'd have thought that it's safe to assume that there wouldn't be much backing for removing them.
Correct about the polling but I suspect very few pollsters would have had the foresight to ask "should the statue of Edward Colston" be pulled down But after Colston was pulled down, there were a fair few vocal protestors who were calling for the Churchill statue to come down even though (or because of) popular opposition to it. Again, if they thought they could have got away with it, they would have done it. What the public thinks - most of whom they would decry at racist throwbacks - would be of little interest.
I don't think any sensible or sane person was calling for Churchill's statue to be taken down. Certainly not me or any lefties I know.
Well this one did (whether she is sensible or not is another matter)
Facemask Nazis is it? Ok name for a thrash metal group, a bit pish for a someone supposedly making a living from fashioning words and ideas into a meaningful form. Still, I'm sure Cammy will soon have her place confirmed in the glittering constellation that includes Pearson, Hopkins, Vine and JHB.
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?
You'll have this answered on Nov 3rd. My view is that this IS a silent majority election and the silent majority have had enough of Donald Trump.
You think those who have had enough of Trump are silent?
It's a view....
Many of them, yes. The ones who with doubts gave him a chance in 2016. They will not go for another 4 years having seen the reality of him in office. This is THE story of WH2020. It's a quiet "had enough" mood. Forget the sound and fury, these are the people who will kick him out. The Quiet Americans.
Facemask Nazis is it? Ok name for a thrash metal group, a bit pish for a someone supposedly making a living from fashioning words and ideas into a meaningful form. Still, I'm sure Cammy will soon have her place confirmed in the glittering constellation that includes Pearson, Hopkins, Vine and JHB.
Facemask Nazis is it? Ok name for a thrash metal group, a bit pish for a someone supposedly making a living from fashioning words and ideas into a meaningful form. Still, I'm sure Cammy will soon have her place confirmed in the glittering constellation that includes Pearson, Hopkins, Vine and JHB.
Not even going with mask fascism, but mask nazism is a clear and desperate attempt to get attention through offence baiting.
I don't think she's correct, mask wearing isn't a particularly nationalistic phenomenom.
She is just a thick middle class numpty writing utter bollox. Probably needed a nap after the taxing work of having some lackey file her nails. Desperate desperate rubbish.
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?
You'll have this answered on Nov 3rd. My view is that this IS a silent majority election and the silent majority have had enough of Donald Trump.
You think those who have had enough of Trump are silent?
It's a view....
Many of them, yes. The ones who with doubts gave him a chance in 2016. They will not go for another 4 years having seen the reality of him in office. This is THE story of WH2020. It's a quiet "had enough" mood. Forget the sound and fury, these are the people who will kick him out. The Quiet Americans.
I'll have to watch some of his rallies, he had a definite pizzaz in 2016, haven't spotted it recently.
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.
Sounds like someone was SERIOUSY worried their plagiarism might be discovered!
It was a religious text. Stating that it had more than one author would be violently offensive to followers of that religion.
I see the usual suspect(s) is defending making people unemployable for having "controversial" opinions. Keep losing.
Nice to talk to you too Max.
Personally I think if I made an obviously racist comment at work, I'd be disciplined and that's reasonable, but that's just me.
I don't think anyone's seriously questioning that. The issue is expressing a view (including a pretty mainstream one) in a purely private capacity. I refer again to Maya Forstater.
I see the usual suspect(s) is defending making people unemployable for having "controversial" opinions. Keep losing.
Nice to talk to you too Max.
Personally I think if I made an obviously racist comment at work, I'd be disciplined and that's reasonable, but that's just me.
I don't think anyone's seriously questioning that. The issue is expressing a view (including a pretty mainstream one) in a purely private capacity. I refer again to Maya Forstater.
Didn't I cover that above? I don't think in a personal capacity, I would be disciplined. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
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 that’s right. The statue-toppling ceased, or at least paused, in the UK, because there was violent pushback. An obvious cost.
In the USA there has been no violent pushback so the toppling continues
To make it clear, I think if in a purely personal capacity you hold a view and you air it, that's really up to you. Not sure you should be sacked for that.
I meant if you air those views in a professional context, then I can see the justification for 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.
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 that’s right. The statue-toppling ceased, or at least paused, in the UK, because there was violent pushback. An obvious cost.
In the USA there has been no violent pushback so the toppling continues
Though Trump has made it illegal with jail for those who topple statues illegally
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 that’s right. The statue-toppling ceased, or at least paused, in the UK, because there was violent pushback. An obvious cost.
In the USA there has been no violent pushback so the toppling continues
Though Trump has made it illegal with jail for those who topple statues illegally
They’re still coming down tho. I read they’d toppled 80 or so at the last count.
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?
You'll have this answered on Nov 3rd. My view is that this IS a silent majority election and the silent majority have had enough of Donald Trump.
You think those who have had enough of Trump are silent?
It's a view....
Many of them, yes. The ones who with doubts gave him a chance in 2016. They will not go for another 4 years having seen the reality of him in office. This is THE story of WH2020. It's a quiet "had enough" mood. Forget the sound and fury, these are the people who will kick him out. The Quiet Americans.
I'll have to watch some of his rallies, he had a definite pizzaz in 2016, haven't spotted it recently.
No, it has a desperate - almost pathetic - feel to it this time around. "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN" he has just baldly tweeted this Sunday morning apropos of nothing.
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?
You'll have this answered on Nov 3rd. My view is that this IS a silent majority election and the silent majority have had enough of Donald Trump.
You think those who have had enough of Trump are silent?
It's a view....
Many of them, yes. The ones who with doubts gave him a chance in 2016. They will not go for another 4 years having seen the reality of him in office. This is THE story of WH2020. It's a quiet "had enough" mood. Forget the sound and fury, these are the people who will kick him out. The Quiet Americans.
Of those who voted for Trump in 2016 his vote with those earning under $50k has fallen from 38% to 36% and amongst those earning $50k to $100k his vote has fallen from 47% to 41% but amongst those earning more than $100k Trump has actually increased his voteshare from 39% to 42% https://twitter.com/PippaN15/status/1284539474354069504?s=20
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 that’s right. The statue-toppling ceased, or at least paused, in the UK, because there was violent pushback. An obvious cost.
In the USA there has been no violent pushback so the toppling continues
Though Trump has made it illegal with jail for those who topple statues illegally
They’re still coming down tho. I read they’d toppled 80 or so at the last count.
Which I expect Trump is not too unhappy about, it means he can keep running on the culture war and blame Democratic governors and state legislatures for being too lax
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 that’s right. The statue-toppling ceased, or at least paused, in the UK, because there was violent pushback. An obvious cost.
In the USA there has been no violent pushback so the toppling continues
Though Trump has made it illegal with jail for those who topple statues illegally
Firstly you can't make something illegal if it's already illegal, secondly he'd need to pass legislation if he wanted to make something illegal, and he hasn't, so no.
On Topic - Tim Shipman's lengthy article in tomorrow's paper goes a good way to explaining this polling, IMO. This is a government sticking to its manifesto, which was popular, and delivering solutions (especially from the Treasury) as well as it can. I think the public are far more forgiving than us activists ever give them credit for, especially in unprecedented emergency situations.
How can I put this - despite the 20k unneccesarry deaths and the millions of #ExcludedUK for most normal people the government have done more than enough to be given a chance. Too many commentators point to the people on the edges and say THIS IS AWFUL thinking everyone else agrees or cares - they don't.
Polling at the moment feels rather futile. The Rona wasn't Black Wednesday or the financial crash with a crisis point that quickly recedes into the past. This thing is still here, things aren't going back to normal no matter how many times ministers try to say it is.
Anecdotage. Went into Aldi mid afternoon. It's a Saturday so in the middle of lockdown that would have meant a queue down the car park. However, crowd mitigation and one way measures have largely been abandoned by supermarkets, so Aldi was *full*. Perhaps 15% of punters had masks or were trying to keep apart. They will be in for a real culture shock when it finally gets imposed next Friday. At which point I expect the inconvenience will encourage people to avoid the shops like the plague again.
Already pointed out the imposition of masks if enforced by shops will stop me shopping there and I will move my food shopping to amazon, already tested it and thats 100£ a week from the local economy and into amazons coffers who as we keep getting told pay no tax so a loss for hmrc too.
@pagan2 you can just as easily shop at Tesco or similar online and have it delivered at time and day of choice , so no need to use Amazon and keep the taxes flowing.
Why in hell do you think I have any reason to keep taxes flowing. The reason for doing the shop online is the stupid rule imposed by the uk government. I will shop normally if the shop ignores the government it is not about punishing the shop. If they don't then I will shop online and do it in such a way that it deprives the government of as much money as possible as they are the ones forcing me to do it.
I'll have to watch some of his rallies, he had a definite pizzaz in 2016, haven't spotted it recently.
This also goes for his supporters on the internets. They're still riled up and enthusiastic about voting for him, but they're no long *having fun*, it's a huge contrast to 2016. The rule in meme warfare is that whoever's having the most fun is winning.
As ever, last 3-5 days subject to revision, weekend reporting effect will have additional effects. Last 5 days included for completeness.
Headline - 8 - lowest since March, weekend or not Seven Days - 8 Yesterday - 4
Excellent news.
I would say - an absence of worse news. Less people are dying. John Donne etc.
There is no upside in this.
As the case numbers show, the disease is being suppressed to a very low level in much of the country. It is not gone, nor will it "go" until a vaccine is available
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...
The excesses of the "woke" brigade piss me off because they can become counter productive but are the "silent majority" really winning the culture wars?
I struggle to think of any area of life that the progressives haven't won the battle over the last few decades. You only have to look back at old films and stuff to see how far the feminists, civil rights activists, gay rights campaigners, animal rights activists and anti-racists have moved the agenda relentlessly in their direction.
Even a decade ago anyone arguing for same-sex marriage would have been laughed at. When I was growing up it was fine to put up a "No Blacks No Irish sign" up in commercial premises. We used to hang people, kill foxes for sport and so on. Divorce and abortion were illegal
Social change is a constant and it pretty much moves in one-direction. The social policies of the current government would be unrecognisable to a Conservative Government of 50 years ago.
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?
We used to strip "beauty queens" of their titles for concealing a pregnancy or a child or a partner. Now we do it for posting racist sentiments on social media. This to me is progress. Although the ideal is probably to not have a "Miss Swimsuit UK" in the first place.
From what I saw in my scan of the article her “crimes” were using the phrase “all lives matter” and suggesting that Floyd maybe have had a criminal record/was not cooperating with the police
I think the second - as I understand it - is a point of fact although clearly not justifying the police officers’ actions.
“All lives matter” is more challenging. It’s clearly been adopted as a slogan by racists and closet racists. Equally it could be a very natural linguistic response to someone saying “black lives matter”. Is there any evidence to suggest that Miss Teen Swimsuit was aware of the significance of that particular phrase?
I am making an assumption here, but I reckon she’s not the brightest lady in the word. There is a real risk she has been treated unjustly.
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
The polling came after the statue was pulled down, didn't it? After all, before it was pulled down, very few people would have known who Colston was. And whilst there was opposition to the way it was done, there was broad support for the idea that the Colston statue shouldn't be there. I've not seen any poll data for Churchill statues, but I'd have thought that it's safe to assume that there wouldn't be much backing for removing them.
Correct about the polling but I suspect very few pollsters would have had the foresight to ask "should the statue of Edward Colston" be pulled down But after Colston was pulled down, there were a fair few vocal protestors who were calling for the Churchill statue to come down even though (or because of) popular opposition to it. Again, if they thought they could have got away with it, they would have done it. What the public thinks - most of whom they would decry at racist throwbacks - would be of little interest.
I don't think any sensible or sane person was calling for Churchill's statue to be taken down. Certainly not me or any lefties I know.
A BLM activist did take a piss against it. I wonder what happened to him?
The Sunday Telegraph have misreported Johnson's words, turning 'I don't want another lockdown' into 'We don't need another lockdown.' Vested interests are playing hard amongst the Telegraph writers. Their personal investment portfolios have been taking a hammering so they are doing everything to try and refloat the economy.
We are in big trouble in the UK. People still have a far too cavalier attitude to hygiene and masks. The correlation between such States and case surges is by now irrefutable.
3 or 4 weeks from now we will be in the midst of a crisis with a surge in cases, widespread panic and the beginning of blue sirens rushing the seriously ill into ICU. Without a lockdown it will be the worst that this country has known. Thousands of daily infections and a rampant virus in the community.
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...
The excesses of the "woke" brigade piss me off because they can become counter productive but are the "silent majority" really winning the culture wars?
I struggle to think of any area of life that the progressives haven't won the battle over the last few decades. You only have to look back at old films and stuff to see how far the feminists, civil rights activists, gay rights campaigners, animal rights activists and anti-racists have moved the agenda relentlessly in their direction.
Even a decade ago anyone arguing for same-sex marriage would have been laughed at. When I was growing up it was fine to put up a "No Blacks No Irish sign" up in commercial premises. We used to hang people, kill foxes for sport and so on. Divorce and abortion were illegal
Social change is a constant and it pretty much moves in one-direction. The social policies of the current government would be unrecognisable to a Conservative Government of 50 years ago.
People are said to get more conservative as they grow older; the alternative view, which I favour, is people stay the same but the zeitgeist drifts left.
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.
What bollox are you spouting , you are saying when someone elaborates on the whole truth rather than just the part you like to emphasise that they are racist to blacks or anti-semetic rather than just pointing out the whole story. This to me is a "tell" of your limited view of topics
I'm not saying that at all. Take another example. Rape, say. Now imagine that whenever we discuss it someone is at great pains to stress that (i) men get raped too and (ii) not all women tell the truth and (iii) much of the time the victim is drunk or otherwise behaved unwisely and put herself in harm's way and (iv) yes it's terrible that so many men get away with it but what about all those men who are falsely accused and get their lives ruined? Etc.
Am I not justified in drawing some conclusions about the probable attitude of that person to gender politics? I think I am. Furthermore I have to do this - draw inferences from OP's language - because that's all I've got to work with.
The Sunday Telegraph have misreported Johnson's words, turning 'I don't want another lockdown' into 'We don't need another lockdown.' Vested interests are playing hard amongst the Telegraph writers. Their personal investment portfolios have been taking a hammering so they are doing everything to try and refloat the economy.
We are in big trouble in the UK. People still have a far too cavalier attitude to hygiene and masks. The correlation between such States and case surges is by now irrefutable.
3 or 4 weeks from now we will be in the midst of a crisis with a surge in cases, widespread panic and the beginning of blue sirens rushing the seriously ill into ICU. Without a lockdown it will be the worst that this country has known. Thousands of daily infections and a rampant virus in the community.
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...
The excesses of the "woke" brigade piss me off because they can become counter productive but are the "silent majority" really winning the culture wars?
I struggle to think of any area of life that the progressives haven't won the battle over the last few decades. You only have to look back at old films and stuff to see how far the feminists, civil rights activists, gay rights campaigners, animal rights activists and anti-racists have moved the agenda relentlessly in their direction.
Even a decade ago anyone arguing for same-sex marriage would have been laughed at. When I was growing up it was fine to put up a "No Blacks No Irish sign" up in commercial premises. We used to hang people, kill foxes for sport and so on. Divorce and abortion were illegal
Social change is a constant and it pretty much moves in one-direction. The social policies of the current government would be unrecognisable to a Conservative Government of 50 years ago.
I think one example where progressives didn't win in the last few decades was the whole issue around PIE in the 70s and advocates pushing for legalisation of relations between children and adults. At the time, that was seen very much as an issue du jour for the progressive left.
What that shows is that many of the wins for the progressive left came about because, while a majority of the people may have opposed changes, it was hard to argue against their fundamental fairness, especially in a society based on Judeo-Christian principles. So saying that gay and black people, women etc should be treated as inferior just because of who they were was difficult to reconcile with the fundamental principle that God loves all and created them in their own image. On the other hand, PIE was a case where it was obviously wasn't a "fairness" thing but people saw through a bunch of perverts looking to claim it was all about their rights in order to push their agenda.
The Sunday Telegraph have misreported Johnson's words, turning 'I don't want another lockdown' into 'We don't need another lockdown.' Vested interests are playing hard amongst the Telegraph writers. Their personal investment portfolios have been taking a hammering so they are doing everything to try and refloat the economy.
We are in big trouble in the UK. People still have a far too cavalier attitude to hygiene and masks. The correlation between such States and case surges is by now irrefutable.
3 or 4 weeks from now we will be in the midst of a crisis with a surge in cases, widespread panic and the beginning of blue sirens rushing the seriously ill into ICU. Without a lockdown it will be the worst that this country has known. Thousands of daily infections and a rampant virus in the community.
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...
The excesses of the "woke" brigade piss me off because they can become counter productive but are the "silent majority" really winning the culture wars?
I struggle to think of any area of life that the progressives haven't won the battle over the last few decades. You only have to look back at old films and stuff to see how far the feminists, civil rights activists, gay rights campaigners, animal rights activists and anti-racists have moved the agenda relentlessly in their direction.
Even a decade ago anyone arguing for same-sex marriage would have been laughed at. When I was growing up it was fine to put up a "No Blacks No Irish sign" up in commercial premises. We used to hang people, kill foxes for sport and so on. Divorce and abortion were illegal
Social change is a constant and it pretty much moves in one-direction. The social policies of the current government would be unrecognisable to a Conservative Government of 50 years ago.
That was half true... until very recently.
Because the Woke Left has won the culture wars - and they have, and it’s been largely a good thing - we’ve now reached a stage where the job is done. So any further ‘progress’ is going to be at the expense of others.
The clearest expression of that is the trans-TERF war. Trans rights must be furthered, theoretically, but if they are, it irritates and then angers many feminists/lesbians, who see THEIR hard fought rights (single sex provision) being degraded.
BLM will face similar problems. Other ethnic minorities, poor white people, Jews, start to say What about us?
It is also very naive to think a society always moves towards a more liberal position. Look at the last hundred years in Iran. Look at the emergence of a de facto blasphemy law in Britain.
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...
'The excesses of the "woke" brigade piss me off because they can become counter productive but are the "silent majority" really winning the culture wars?
I struggle to think of any area of life that the progressives haven't won the battle over the last few decades. You only have to look back at old films and stuff to see how far the feminists, civil rights activists, gay rights campaigners, animal rights activists and anti-racists have moved the agenda relentlessly in their direction.
Even a decade ago anyone arguing for same-sex marriage would have been laughed at. When I was growing up it was fine to put up a "No Blacks No Irish sign" up in commercial premises. We used to hang people, kill foxes for sport and so on. Divorce and abortion were illegal
Social change is a constant and it pretty much moves in one-direction. The social policies of the current government would be unrecognisable to a Conservative Government of 50 years ago.'
They haven't won the battle over uncontrolled immigration, nor yet have they won the battle on transgender bathrooms or toppling statues of Churchill etc and voters still support the death penalty for serial killers and terrorists
As ever, last 3-5 days subject to revision, weekend reporting effect will have additional effects. Last 5 days included for completeness.
Headline - 8 - lowest since March, weekend or not Seven Days - 8 Yesterday - 4
Excellent news.
I would say - an absence of worse news. Less people are dying. John Donne etc.
There is no upside in this.
As the case numbers show, the disease is being suppressed to a very low level in much of the country. It is not gone, nor will it "go" until a vaccine is available
Point taken. I just felt like being optimistic. For once.
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 that’s right. The statue-toppling ceased, or at least paused, in the UK, because there was violent pushback. An obvious cost.
In the USA there has been no violent pushback so the toppling continues
Though Trump has made it illegal with jail for those who topple statues illegally
Firstly you can't make something illegal if it's already illegal, secondly he'd need to pass legislation if he wanted to make something illegal, and he hasn't, so no.
He signed an executive order to get the Attorney General to prioritise the arrest and jailing of those who toppled statues in contravention of Federal Law protecting Federal property
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.
I get that, if your only contribution to the slavery debate is to say "well the Arabs and Africans were the main perpetrators and white people didn"t do that much", it suggests you downplay the slave trade. I think my concern is that any discussion of any involvement of African rulers in the slave trade automatically gets discounted as holocaust denial. The question is where the boundary lies between the two.
Yes, OK, exactly that. And as for me, I judge it the only way I can, case by case. I get a sense of when somebody is seeking to educate and inform and when they are seeking to obscure and deflect, and I'm happy to trust my radar on this.
The Sunday Telegraph have misreported Johnson's words, turning 'I don't want another lockdown' into 'We don't need another lockdown.' Vested interests are playing hard amongst the Telegraph writers. Their personal investment portfolios have been taking a hammering so they are doing everything to try and refloat the economy.
We are in big trouble in the UK. People still have a far too cavalier attitude to hygiene and masks. The correlation between such States and case surges is by now irrefutable.
3 or 4 weeks from now we will be in the midst of a crisis with a surge in cases, widespread panic and the beginning of blue sirens rushing the seriously ill into ICU. Without a lockdown it will be the worst that this country has known. Thousands of daily infections and a rampant virus in the community.
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...
The excesses of the "woke" brigade piss me off because they can become counter productive but are the "silent majority" really winning the culture wars?
I struggle to think of any area of life that the progressives haven't won the battle over the last few decades. You only have to look back at old films and stuff to see how far the feminists, civil rights activists, gay rights campaigners, animal rights activists and anti-racists have moved the agenda relentlessly in their direction.
Even a decade ago anyone arguing for same-sex marriage would have been laughed at. When I was growing up it was fine to put up a "No Blacks No Irish sign" up in commercial premises. We used to hang people, kill foxes for sport and so on. Divorce and abortion were illegal
Social change is a constant and it pretty much moves in one-direction. The social policies of the current government would be unrecognisable to a Conservative Government of 50 years ago.
People are said to get more conservative as they grow older; the alternative view, which I favour, is people stay the same but the zeitgeist drifts left.
I think that you are right, that the zeitgeist generally drifts left. Someone recently posted on here a 1920s Communist manifesto on women's rights, and ignoring some of the language styles, most people these days would shrug and ask why it was even necessary to write it as it was so 'obvious' and so much the case in reality.
Personally, I think we probably start out young and idealistic, then as we have to make our way in the world, get a little self-centered and gimme, then drift more towards personal responsibility and finally, once we have more than enough for ourselves and families, enter a more altruistic, higher purpose stage (less dogmatic and self-righteous than our young idealistic phase).
The Sunday Telegraph have misreported Johnson's words, turning 'I don't want another lockdown' into 'We don't need another lockdown.' Vested interests are playing hard amongst the Telegraph writers. Their personal investment portfolios have been taking a hammering so they are doing everything to try and refloat the economy.
We are in big trouble in the UK. People still have a far too cavalier attitude to hygiene and masks. The correlation between such States and case surges is by now irrefutable.
3 or 4 weeks from now we will be in the midst of a crisis with a surge in cases, widespread panic and the beginning of blue sirens rushing the seriously ill into ICU. Without a lockdown it will be the worst that this country has known. Thousands of daily infections and a rampant virus in the community.
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...
The excesses of the "woke" brigade piss me off because they can become counter productive but are the "silent majority" really winning the culture wars?
I struggle to think of any area of life that the progressives haven't won the battle over the last few decades. You only have to look back at old films and stuff to see how far the feminists, civil rights activists, gay rights campaigners, animal rights activists and anti-racists have moved the agenda relentlessly in their direction.
Even a decade ago anyone arguing for same-sex marriage would have been laughed at. When I was growing up it was fine to put up a "No Blacks No Irish sign" up in commercial premises. We used to hang people, kill foxes for sport and so on. Divorce and abortion were illegal
Social change is a constant and it pretty much moves in one-direction. The social policies of the current government would be unrecognisable to a Conservative Government of 50 years ago.
That was half true... until very recently.
Because the Woke Left has won the culture wars - and they have, and it’s been largely a good thing - we’ve now reached a stage where the job is done. So any further ‘progress’ is going to be at the expense of others.
The clearest expression of that is the trans-TERF war. Trans rights must be furthered, theoretically, but if they are, it irritates and then angers many feminists/lesbians, who see THEIR hard fought rights (single sex provision) being degraded.
BLM will face similar problems. Other ethnic minorities, poor white people, Jews, start to say What about us?
It is also very naive to think a society always moves towards a more liberal position. Look at the last hundred years in Iran. Look at the emergence of a de facto blasphemy law in Britain.
Some people get very upset when I point out that the Dread-Scott decision was a judge making radical law, in order to appease the changing climate of public opinion and avoid social fracture.
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.
That's a good point. But I've always wondered why it is that people believe a government that has no respect for the rights of its own citizens is likely to respect ours.
Further to today's article I'm going to finish by making a cute point. Isn't it curious that so many wealthy people who usually aren't too receptive to egalitarian policies have become so supportive of this new left. Why is this? Is it that they find it refreshing to see the resentful/marginalised/SJWs focused on statues rather than wealth, taxes and corporate activity?
There has been a massive expansion in our universities, much of it around sociology/social policy - the content of such courses often being more about moral campaigns rather than literal truth. No government seemed more keen on expanding universities than new labour - our first 'left' government that did not have a critique of capitalism. Could we be seeing the mirror image on the left of the US republican plutocrats - giving the grassroots red meat on guns and abortion whilst largely ignoring their economic interests? Just a thought.
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...
The excesses of the "woke" brigade piss me off because they can become counter productive but are the "silent majority" really winning the culture wars?
I struggle to think of any area of life that the progressives haven't won the battle over the last few decades. You only have to look back at old films and stuff to see how far the feminists, civil rights activists, gay rights campaigners, animal rights activists and anti-racists have moved the agenda relentlessly in their direction.
Even a decade ago anyone arguing for same-sex marriage would have been laughed at. When I was growing up it was fine to put up a "No Blacks No Irish sign" up in commercial premises. We used to hang people, kill foxes for sport and so on. Divorce and abortion were illegal
Social change is a constant and it pretty much moves in one-direction. The social policies of the current government would be unrecognisable to a Conservative Government of 50 years ago.
I think the difference is that previously we were unwinding injustices (like imprisoning gays, etc). Now we’re are getting into a space where rights are conflicting and that much more challenging.
Social change is a constant and it pretty much moves in one-direction. The social policies of the current government would be unrecognisable to a Conservative Government of 50 years ago.
The acceptability of certain relationships have gone the other way
Social change is a constant and it pretty much moves in one-direction. The social policies of the current government would be unrecognisable to a Conservative Government of 50 years ago.
The acceptability of certain relationships have gone the other way
Block quotes got messed up - that was @OllyT not me
Maybe one of our learned friends could opine but assuming there’s no evidence of Arron Banks in that report this seems to be libellous to me
I'm also no legal expert, either, I hasten to add - but there seems to be a suggestion in the comments that Banks is being used as some sort of 'front' or intermediary for the action.
Who would then be the originator of an action against publication of the Russia report would obviously then be a very interesting question. Perhaps CycleFree or AlastairMeeks can shed some light on the issue.
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
The polling came after the statue was pulled down, didn't it? After all, before it was pulled down, very few people would have known who Colston was. And whilst there was opposition to the way it was done, there was broad support for the idea that the Colston statue shouldn't be there. I've not seen any poll data for Churchill statues, but I'd have thought that it's safe to assume that there wouldn't be much backing for removing them.
Correct about the polling but I suspect very few pollsters would have had the foresight to ask "should the statue of Edward Colston" be pulled down But after Colston was pulled down, there were a fair few vocal protestors who were calling for the Churchill statue to come down even though (or because of) popular opposition to it. Again, if they thought they could have got away with it, they would have done it. What the public thinks - most of whom they would decry at racist throwbacks - would be of little interest.
I don't think any sensible or sane person was calling for Churchill's statue to be taken down. Certainly not me or any lefties I know.
A BLM activist did take a piss against it. I wonder what happened to him?
Wasn't the gentleman in question, ironically enough, "gammon" on the way to protest against BLM? I may be wrong on this.
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...
The excesses of the "woke" brigade piss me off because they can become counter productive but are the "silent majority" really winning the culture wars?
I struggle to think of any area of life that the progressives haven't won the battle over the last few decades. You only have to look back at old films and stuff to see how far the feminists, civil rights activists, gay rights campaigners, animal rights activists and anti-racists have moved the agenda relentlessly in their direction.
Even a decade ago anyone arguing for same-sex marriage would have been laughed at. When I was growing up it was fine to put up a "No Blacks No Irish sign" up in commercial premises. We used to hang people, kill foxes for sport and so on. Divorce and abortion were illegal
Social change is a constant and it pretty much moves in one-direction. The social policies of the current government would be unrecognisable to a Conservative Government of 50 years ago.
'I think the difference is that previously we were unwinding injustices (like imprisoning gays, etc). Now we’re are getting into a space where rights are conflicting and that much more challenging.'
On gay marriage and trans issues and BLM maybe but abortion and homosexuality were legal by 1970 and capital punishment had ended and 50 years ago Heath was welcoming Ugandan Asians of course.
In the economic sphere we had a top rate of income tax of 83% in 1970 and many more nationalised industries, so economically we have gone right even if socially left liberal
My god Biden looks old, I hope he is still up for the fight and the job, he is badly needed.
Biden actually looks older than his advanced years. He’s 77 but looks like he’s in his 80s.
If the US had a 75 year age limit on presidential candidates, neither of these men could stand in November. Which would be good.
Well, I tend to say that if someone can be an effective dictator in their 80s or 90s, then we shouldn't rule out people in their late 70s and 80s as still being able to lead a democratic regime (though the 95 year old Matathir Mohamad is no longer PM of Malaysia), but it would be a rare person still so capable at that age, just as it would be a rare person to be suitably able and qualified at the age limit on the young end.
once upon a time most companies paid in company scrip that could only be spent in company stores. While you can argue well if you dont like it change jobs it wasnt so easy. Laws were passed to stop it
1) Do you agree with those laws or do you regard being paid in company scrip should be allowed
2) if you answer the law was right what is the difference between that and telling companies they have to also accept hard currency and not just cards. In the first the company issuing the scrips dictates where you can purchase things in the second card issuing companies and dont forget there are really only two are limiting where you can shop by giving you a card or not
I have no qualms with people getting a benefit in kind of company scrip so long as other laws are followed including getting paid a minimum wage in hard currency and getting taxed on their benefit in kind.
2: The difference is that cards are hard currency. If you spend pound sterlings in coins, pound sterlings in notes, pound sterlings by BACS transfer, pound sterlings by cheques or pound sterlings by cards your hard currency is pound sterling either way.
If there is a role for the government to pay it is to ensure everyone has access to being able to get a card. A universal service obligation on banks even if it's only for prepayment or debit cards without borrowing options. Other than that there is no role for the government to play, it is a matter for commercial choice by both businesses and consumers.
You didn't get hard currency only company scrip so I take it you answer is No it should not be allowed......so state intervention was good
I fail to see the difference between the state intervention declaring all shops must accept cash and state intervention stating banks must give a bank account to everyone. In fact the second is the worst of the pair for intervention because it takes choice out of peoples hands
So now we have established you don't mind state intervention can you cease your whining when others say that it is sometimes necessary and go read some more Ayn Rand
My god Biden looks old, I hope he is still up for the fight and the job, he is badly needed.
Biden actually looks older than his advanced years. He’s 77 but looks like he’s in his 80s.
If the US had a 75 year age limit on presidential candidates, neither of these men could stand in November. Which would be good.
Well, I tend to say that if someone can be an effective dictator in their 80s or 90s, then we shouldn't rule out people in their late 70s and 80s as still being able to lead a democratic regime (though the 95 year old Matathir Mohamad is no longer PM of Malaysia), but it would be a rare person still so capable at that age, just as it would be a rare person to be suitably able and qualified at the age limit on the young end.
And, of course, the Queen. Doing an impeccable job in her 90s.
I generally think gerontocracy is bad, however, and the USA’s array of crumblies is absurd
Cash vs card is probably going to be the next cultural divide. All the pubs in places like Richmond and Barnes will be card only, whereas a lot of the pubs in Burnley and Redcar will continue to take cash (and most of their customers will be happy with that state of affairs).
I've used minimal amounts of currency since this blew up. Most small places insist on contactless for any value however small. A couple of takeaways that don't do plastic but all bar one can be ordered and paid for online.
There will be some resistance from people who like to use our pretend money in physical form. Me, happy to use contactless on everything if possible. By Google Pay preferably
When I was in Stockholm a couple of years ago, I struggled to find places, bars, restaurants, hotels, museums to take cash. Everything was electronic. That is the future of money.
Indeed it reaches the point that the currency that the transaction takes place in becomes irrelevant. The pound Sterling will vanish not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Upon your next trip to Svea’s kingdom, you will find that the situation has become even more extreme in the past two years, and especially the last six months. Cash is pretty much non-existent now in Swedish society, outwith people over the age of 80 and newer immigrant groups.
Our household (currently, temporarily, six people) never use cash. The last time I actively handled any was after a party I needed to return a couple of heavy boxes of unused booze to Systembolaget, the state monopoly alcohol retailer (which is fantastic by the way, not least because of their extremely easy returns system). I was forced to rummage about in a dusty drawer trying to find a 5 or 10 kronor coin to use to unlock one of their trolleys.
I have maybe handled a banknote max five times in the last 12 months. All five having been given as birthday presents by very elderly people. Banknotes are universally considered a massive pain in the arse, and no local bank offices accept them.
One of the quaint, old-fashioned aspects of visiting other countries is re-acquainting yourself with cash. I still can’t believe that 1p, 2p and 5p coins still exist. Thank goodness for charity boxes!
Getting rid of cash takes power away from individuals and gives it to governments and organisations.
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?
You'll have this answered on Nov 3rd. My view is that this IS a silent majority election and the silent majority have had enough of Donald Trump.
You think those who have had enough of Trump are silent?
It's a view....
Many of them, yes. The ones who with doubts gave him a chance in 2016. They will not go for another 4 years having seen the reality of him in office. This is THE story of WH2020. It's a quiet "had enough" mood. Forget the sound and fury, these are the people who will kick him out. The Quiet Americans.
Of those who voted for Trump in 2016 his vote with those earning under $50k has fallen from 38% to 36% and amongst those earning $50k to $100k his vote has fallen from 47% to 41% but amongst those earning more than $100k Trump has actually increased his voteshare from 39% to 42%
Thanks, interesting. And makes sense given he has governed in the interests of the wealthy.
Social change is a constant and it pretty much moves in one-direction. The social policies of the current government would be unrecognisable to a Conservative Government of 50 years ago.
The acceptability of certain relationships have gone the other way
Block quotes got messed up - that was @OllyT not me
No odds, I'm always looking to play the ball rather than the man so to speak.
The Sunday Telegraph have misreported Johnson's words, turning 'I don't want another lockdown' into 'We don't need another lockdown.' Vested interests are playing hard amongst the Telegraph writers. Their personal investment portfolios have been taking a hammering so they are doing everything to try and refloat the economy.
We are in big trouble in the UK. People still have a far too cavalier attitude to hygiene and masks. The correlation between such States and case surges is by now irrefutable.
3 or 4 weeks from now we will be in the midst of a crisis with a surge in cases, widespread panic and the beginning of blue sirens rushing the seriously ill into ICU. Without a lockdown it will be the worst that this country has known. Thousands of daily infections and a rampant virus in the community.
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...
The excesses of the "woke" brigade piss me off because they can become counter productive but are the "silent majority" really winning the culture wars?
I struggle to think of any area of life that the progressives haven't won the battle over the last few decades. You only have to look back at old films and stuff to see how far the feminists, civil rights activists, gay rights campaigners, animal rights activists and anti-racists have moved the agenda relentlessly in their direction.
Even a decade ago anyone arguing for same-sex marriage would have been laughed at. When I was growing up it was fine to put up a "No Blacks No Irish sign" up in commercial premises. We used to hang people, kill foxes for sport and so on. Divorce and abortion were illegal
Social change is a constant and it pretty much moves in one-direction. The social policies of the current government would be unrecognisable to a Conservative Government of 50 years ago.
I think one example where progressives didn't win in the last few decades was the whole issue around PIE in the 70s and advocates pushing for legalisation of relations between children and adults. At the time, that was seen very much as an issue du jour for the progressive left.
What that shows is that many of the wins for the progressive left came about because, while a majority of the people may have opposed changes, it was hard to argue against their fundamental fairness, especially in a society based on Judeo-Christian principles. So saying that gay and black people, women etc should be treated as inferior just because of who they were was difficult to reconcile with the fundamental principle that God loves all and created them in their own image. On the other hand, PIE was a case where it was obviously wasn't a "fairness" thing but people saw through a bunch of perverts looking to claim it was all about their rights in order to push their agenda.
I don't know how old you are but PIE was never ever the issue of the day for the progressive left, that is a ridiculous claim. I was massively involved with the progressive left in the 70's and it was never more than a fringe issue if that despite how you would like to tar the whole of the progressive left with that smear.
Despite a couple of people like Harmon (?) getting sucked in can you substantiate your assertion that PIE was the issue of the day for the progressive left?
Wikipedia wasn't updated to include the last Opinium Best PM poll, so in fact @MikeSmithson was correct to say Boris' lead over Starmer was down to 2%, as it was 3% (36/33) on July 9th, having been 1% on July 3rd and Starmer having led by 2% in late June.
I wondered why Mike had appeared to post something so factually incorrect, so I checked the Opinium website and it turns out he hadn't done that at all. I'm sorry Mike, for saying you had before I checked the original source
Mr Meeks article is jolly interesting but I cannot really see how his criticisms arise out of the utterly conventional and anodyne remarks of Sarah Vine and Adam Boulton, remarks to which no-one in the liberal and democratic world can take exception as in short compass they offer obvious truths which we all agree with.
Cash vs card is probably going to be the next cultural divide. All the pubs in places like Richmond and Barnes will be card only, whereas a lot of the pubs in Burnley and Redcar will continue to take cash (and most of their customers will be happy with that state of affairs).
I've used minimal amounts of currency since this blew up. Most small places insist on contactless for any value however small. A couple of takeaways that don't do plastic but all bar one can be ordered and paid for online.
There will be some resistance from people who like to use our pretend money in physical form. Me, happy to use contactless on everything if possible. By Google Pay preferably
When I was in Stockholm a couple of years ago, I struggled to find places, bars, restaurants, hotels, museums to take cash. Everything was electronic. That is the future of money.
Indeed it reaches the point that the currency that the transaction takes place in becomes irrelevant. The pound Sterling will vanish not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Upon your next trip to Svea’s kingdom, you will find that the situation has become even more extreme in the past two years, and especially the last six months. Cash is pretty much non-existent now in Swedish society, outwith people over the age of 80 and newer immigrant groups.
Our household (currently, temporarily, six people) never use cash. The last time I actively handled any was after a party I needed to return a couple of heavy boxes of unused booze to Systembolaget, the state monopoly alcohol retailer (which is fantastic by the way, not least because of their extremely easy returns system). I was forced to rummage about in a dusty drawer trying to find a 5 or 10 kronor coin to use to unlock one of their trolleys.
I have maybe handled a banknote max five times in the last 12 months. All five having been given as birthday presents by very elderly people. Banknotes are universally considered a massive pain in the arse, and no local bank offices accept them.
One of the quaint, old-fashioned aspects of visiting other countries is re-acquainting yourself with cash. I still can’t believe that 1p, 2p and 5p coins still exist. Thank goodness for charity boxes!
Getting rid of cash takes power away from individuals and gives it to governments and organisations.
Cash vs card is probably going to be the next cultural divide. All the pubs in places like Richmond and Barnes will be card only, whereas a lot of the pubs in Burnley and Redcar will continue to take cash (and most of their customers will be happy with that state of affairs).
I've used minimal amounts of currency since this blew up. Most small places insist on contactless for any value however small. A couple of takeaways that don't do plastic but all bar one can be ordered and paid for online.
There will be some resistance from people who like to use our pretend money in physical form. Me, happy to use contactless on everything if possible. By Google Pay preferably
When I was in Stockholm a couple of years ago, I struggled to find places, bars, restaurants, hotels, museums to take cash. Everything was electronic. That is the future of money.
Indeed it reaches the point that the currency that the transaction takes place in becomes irrelevant. The pound Sterling will vanish not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Upon your next trip to Svea’s kingdom, you will find that the situation has become even more extreme in the past two years, and especially the last six months. Cash is pretty much non-existent now in Swedish society, outwith people over the age of 80 and newer immigrant groups.
Our household (currently, temporarily, six people) never use cash. The last time I actively handled any was after a party I needed to return a couple of heavy boxes of unused booze to Systembolaget, the state monopoly alcohol retailer (which is fantastic by the way, not least because of their extremely easy returns system). I was forced to rummage about in a dusty drawer trying to find a 5 or 10 kronor coin to use to unlock one of their trolleys.
I have maybe handled a banknote max five times in the last 12 months. All five having been given as birthday presents by very elderly people. Banknotes are universally considered a massive pain in the arse, and no local bank offices accept them.
One of the quaint, old-fashioned aspects of visiting other countries is re-acquainting yourself with cash. I still can’t believe that 1p, 2p and 5p coins still exist. Thank goodness for charity boxes!
Getting rid of cash takes power away from individuals and gives it to governments and organisations.
It's an interesting cultural divide. A chap I know was involved in trying to setup a Challenger Bank effort in the US.
He was very surprised that the regulatory pushback came from the Left - the plan was free sign up, no credit, $5 for a card, free transfers between banks and the the account etc.
So a bank account with no charges, only a one off fee for the card.
The Sunday Telegraph have misreported Johnson's words, turning 'I don't want another lockdown' into 'We don't need another lockdown.' Vested interests are playing hard amongst the Telegraph writers. Their personal investment portfolios have been taking a hammering so they are doing everything to try and refloat the economy.
We are in big trouble in the UK. People still have a far too cavalier attitude to hygiene and masks. The correlation between such States and case surges is by now irrefutable.
3 or 4 weeks from now we will be in the midst of a crisis with a surge in cases, widespread panic and the beginning of blue sirens rushing the seriously ill into ICU. Without a lockdown it will be the worst that this country has known. Thousands of daily infections and a rampant virus in the community.
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...
The excesses of the "woke" brigade piss me off because they can become counter productive but are the "silent majority" really winning the culture wars?
I struggle to think of any area of life that the progressives haven't won the battle over the last few decades. You only have to look back at old films and stuff to see how far the feminists, civil rights activists, gay rights campaigners, animal rights activists and anti-racists have moved the agenda relentlessly in their direction.
Even a decade ago anyone arguing for same-sex marriage would have been laughed at. When I was growing up it was fine to put up a "No Blacks No Irish sign" up in commercial premises. We used to hang people, kill foxes for sport and so on. Divorce and abortion were illegal
Social change is a constant and it pretty much moves in one-direction. The social policies of the current government would be unrecognisable to a Conservative Government of 50 years ago.
I think one example where progressives didn't win in the last few decades was the whole issue around PIE in the 70s and advocates pushing for legalisation of relations between children and adults. At the time, that was seen very much as an issue du jour for the progressive left.
What that shows is that many of the wins for the progressive left came about because, while a majority of the people may have opposed changes, it was hard to argue against their fundamental fairness, especially in a society based on Judeo-Christian principles. So saying that gay and black people, women etc should be treated as inferior just because of who they were was difficult to reconcile with the fundamental principle that God loves all and created them in their own image. On the other hand, PIE was a case where it was obviously wasn't a "fairness" thing but people saw through a bunch of perverts looking to claim it was all about their rights in order to push their agenda.
I don't know how old you are but PIE was never ever the issue of the day for the progressive left, that is a ridiculous claim. I was massively involved with the progressive left in the 70's and it was never more than a fringe issue if that despite how you would like to tar the whole of the progressive left with that smear.
Despite a couple of people like Harmon (?) getting sucked in can you substantiate your assertion that PIE was the issue of the day for the progressive left?
I must admit I don't recall Tony Benn arguing for legalized sex with pre-pubescent children.
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?
You'll have this answered on Nov 3rd. My view is that this IS a silent majority election and the silent majority have had enough of Donald Trump.
You think those who have had enough of Trump are silent?
It's a view....
Many of them, yes. The ones who with doubts gave him a chance in 2016. They will not go for another 4 years having seen the reality of him in office. This is THE story of WH2020. It's a quiet "had enough" mood. Forget the sound and fury, these are the people who will kick him out. The Quiet Americans.
Of those who voted for Trump in 2016 his vote with those earning under $50k has fallen from 38% to 36% and amongst those earning $50k to $100k his vote has fallen from 47% to 41% but amongst those earning more than $100k Trump has actually increased his voteshare from 39% to 42%
Thanks, interesting. And makes sense given he has governed in the interests of the wealthy.
So, in the biggest voting bloc, it has fallen significantly, in the next largest bloc of voters, it has fallen a bit, and in the smallest bloc of voters it has risen a bit.
Personally, I am having some difficulty in squaring this last statistic - a slight increase in support among those on more than $100k - with the other polls plural showing Trump's support in the 'burbs falling off a cliff.
Cash vs card is probably going to be the next cultural divide. All the pubs in places like Richmond and Barnes will be card only, whereas a lot of the pubs in Burnley and Redcar will continue to take cash (and most of their customers will be happy with that state of affairs).
I've used minimal amounts of currency since this blew up. Most small places insist on contactless for any value however small. A couple of takeaways that don't do plastic but all bar one can be ordered and paid for online.
There will be some resistance from people who like to use our pretend money in physical form. Me, happy to use contactless on everything if possible. By Google Pay preferably
When I was in Stockholm a couple of years ago, I struggled to find places, bars, restaurants, hotels, museums to take cash. Everything was electronic. That is the future of money.
Indeed it reaches the point that the currency that the transaction takes place in becomes irrelevant. The pound Sterling will vanish not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Upon your next trip to Svea’s kingdom, you will find that the situation has become even more extreme in the past two years, and especially the last six months. Cash is pretty much non-existent now in Swedish society, outwith people over the age of 80 and newer immigrant groups.
Our household (currently, temporarily, six people) never use cash. The last time I actively handled any was after a party I needed to return a couple of heavy boxes of unused booze to Systembolaget, the state monopoly alcohol retailer (which is fantastic by the way, not least because of their extremely easy returns system). I was forced to rummage about in a dusty drawer trying to find a 5 or 10 kronor coin to use to unlock one of their trolleys.
I have maybe handled a banknote max five times in the last 12 months. All five having been given as birthday presents by very elderly people. Banknotes are universally considered a massive pain in the arse, and no local bank offices accept them.
One of the quaint, old-fashioned aspects of visiting other countries is re-acquainting yourself with cash. I still can’t believe that 1p, 2p and 5p coins still exist. Thank goodness for charity boxes!
Getting rid of cash takes power away from individuals and gives it to governments and organisations.
Cash is going, tho. The only time I use it now is paying my cleaner. Or, like Stuart, to unlock a shopping trolley.
I haven’t used cash inside a shop - or bar or cafe or whatever - for many months.
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
The polling came after the statue was pulled down, didn't it? After all, before it was pulled down, very few people would have known who Colston was. And whilst there was opposition to the way it was done, there was broad support for the idea that the Colston statue shouldn't be there. I've not seen any poll data for Churchill statues, but I'd have thought that it's safe to assume that there wouldn't be much backing for removing them.
Correct about the polling but I suspect very few pollsters would have had the foresight to ask "should the statue of Edward Colston" be pulled down But after Colston was pulled down, there were a fair few vocal protestors who were calling for the Churchill statue to come down even though (or because of) popular opposition to it. Again, if they thought they could have got away with it, they would have done it. What the public thinks - most of whom they would decry at racist throwbacks - would be of little interest.
I don't think any sensible or sane person was calling for Churchill's statue to be taken down. Certainly not me or any lefties I know.
A BLM activist did take a piss against it. I wonder what happened to him?
Wasn't the gentleman in question, ironically enough, "gammon" on the way to protest against BLM? I may be wrong on this.
That was exactly my point.
That “gentleman” who pissed next to a Keith Fletcher’s memorial was locked up 2 or 3 weeks (IIRC). The individual who pissed directly at Churchill... no one cared
Edit: my apologies. I was googling for the image and turned up a Reuter’s story saying it was taken in 2010 during a student fees protest
My god Biden looks old, I hope he is still up for the fight and the job, he is badly needed.
Biden actually looks older than his advanced years. He’s 77 but looks like he’s in his 80s.
If the US had a 75 year age limit on presidential candidates, neither of these men could stand in November. Which would be good.
Well, I tend to say that if someone can be an effective dictator in their 80s or 90s, then we shouldn't rule out people in their late 70s and 80s as still being able to lead a democratic regime (though the 95 year old Matathir Mohamad is no longer PM of Malaysia), but it would be a rare person still so capable at that age, just as it would be a rare person to be suitably able and qualified at the age limit on the young end.
I'm the same age as Biden and I think I would make a good POTUS. Yeh
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
The polling came after the statue was pulled down, didn't it? After all, before it was pulled down, very few people would have known who Colston was. And whilst there was opposition to the way it was done, there was broad support for the idea that the Colston statue shouldn't be there. I've not seen any poll data for Churchill statues, but I'd have thought that it's safe to assume that there wouldn't be much backing for removing them.
Correct about the polling but I suspect very few pollsters would have had the foresight to ask "should the statue of Edward Colston" be pulled down But after Colston was pulled down, there were a fair few vocal protestors who were calling for the Churchill statue to come down even though (or because of) popular opposition to it. Again, if they thought they could have got away with it, they would have done it. What the public thinks - most of whom they would decry at racist throwbacks - would be of little interest.
I don't think any sensible or sane person was calling for Churchill's statue to be taken down. Certainly not me or any lefties I know.
A BLM activist did take a piss against it. I wonder what happened to him?
Wasn't the gentleman in question, ironically enough, "gammon" on the way to protest against BLM? I may be wrong on this.
That was exactly my point.
That “gentleman” who pissed next to a Keith Fletcher’s memorial was locked up 2 or 3 weeks (IIRC). The individual who pissed directly at Churchill... no one cared
Quite right too for the memorial reliever. I would be content for the filthy herbert who urinated on Churchill to share the same cell.
Edit noted, but both are disgusting on so many levels. So lock them both up.
My god Biden looks old, I hope he is still up for the fight and the job, he is badly needed.
Biden actually looks older than his advanced years. He’s 77 but looks like he’s in his 80s.
If the US had a 75 year age limit on presidential candidates, neither of these men could stand in November. Which would be good.
Well, I tend to say that if someone can be an effective dictator in their 80s or 90s, then we shouldn't rule out people in their late 70s and 80s as still being able to lead a democratic regime (though the 95 year old Matathir Mohamad is no longer PM of Malaysia), but it would be a rare person still so capable at that age, just as it would be a rare person to be suitably able and qualified at the age limit on the young end.
I'm the same age as Biden and I think I would make a good POTUS. Yeh
Cash vs card is probably going to be the next cultural divide. All the pubs in places like Richmond and Barnes will be card only, whereas a lot of the pubs in Burnley and Redcar will continue to take cash (and most of their customers will be happy with that state of affairs).
I've used minimal amounts of currency since this blew up. Most small places insist on contactless for any value however small. A couple of takeaways that don't do plastic but all bar one can be ordered and paid for online.
There will be some resistance from people who like to use our pretend money in physical form. Me, happy to use contactless on everything if possible. By Google Pay preferably
When I was in Stockholm a couple of years ago, I struggled to find places, bars, restaurants, hotels, museums to take cash. Everything was electronic. That is the future of money.
Indeed it reaches the point that the currency that the transaction takes place in becomes irrelevant. The pound Sterling will vanish not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Upon your next trip to Svea’s kingdom, you will find that the situation has become even more extreme in the past two years, and especially the last six months. Cash is pretty much non-existent now in Swedish society, outwith people over the age of 80 and newer immigrant groups.
Our household (currently, temporarily, six people) never use cash. The last time I actively handled any was after a party I needed to return a couple of heavy boxes of unused booze to Systembolaget, the state monopoly alcohol retailer (which is fantastic by the way, not least because of their extremely easy returns system). I was forced to rummage about in a dusty drawer trying to find a 5 or 10 kronor coin to use to unlock one of their trolleys.
I have maybe handled a banknote max five times in the last 12 months. All five having been given as birthday presents by very elderly people. Banknotes are universally considered a massive pain in the arse, and no local bank offices accept them.
One of the quaint, old-fashioned aspects of visiting other countries is re-acquainting yourself with cash. I still can’t believe that 1p, 2p and 5p coins still exist. Thank goodness for charity boxes!
Getting rid of cash takes power away from individuals and gives it to governments and organisations.
Cash is going, tho. The only time I use it now is paying my cleaner. Or, like Stuart, to unlock a shopping trolley.
I haven’t used cash inside a shop - or bar or cafe or whatever - for many months.
Lockdown has killed cash for me. Doubt I will ever go back to it.
My god Biden looks old, I hope he is still up for the fight and the job, he is badly needed.
Biden actually looks older than his advanced years. He’s 77 but looks like he’s in his 80s.
If the US had a 75 year age limit on presidential candidates, neither of these men could stand in November. Which would be good.
Well, I tend to say that if someone can be an effective dictator in their 80s or 90s, then we shouldn't rule out people in their late 70s and 80s as still being able to lead a democratic regime (though the 95 year old Matathir Mohamad is no longer PM of Malaysia), but it would be a rare person still so capable at that age, just as it would be a rare person to be suitably able and qualified at the age limit on the young end.
I'm the same age as Biden and I think I would make a good POTUS. Yeh
Comments
In summary, I am making a distinction between views aired whilst I am working and those I make on my own personal time. I don't think my company gives a crap about the latter.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/religion-or-belief-discrimination
Presumably there are exceptions for campaigning organisations (e.g. Greenpeace can expect you to believe in man-made climate change, Christian Aid can expect you to be a Christian). I don't know what CorrectHorseBattery does but for a non-campaigning organisation to say or even imply that you have to hold the 'correct' views to work for them, that seems extremely suspect.
https://twitter.com/camillalong/status/1284770178685952000?s=20
There was a Paula Yates angle IIRC.
Is there a word for beyond naïve?
Probably.
Perhaps saying you'd be sacked was too far but I do suspect there'd be consequences.
Paula Yates was his daughter I think.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8417809/Black-Lives-Matter-organiser-wants-offensive-statue-Winston-Churchill-museum.html
Personally I think if I made an obviously racist comment at work, I'd be disciplined and that's reasonable, but that's just me.
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1284753331236278277
I don't agree with Forstater's sacking.
In the USA there has been no violent pushback so the toppling continues
I meant if you air those views in a professional context, then I can see the justification for it.
https://twitter.com/PippaN15/status/1284539474354069504?s=20
As ever, last 3-5 days subject to revision, weekend reporting effect will have additional effects. Last 5 days included for completeness.
Headline - 8 - lowest since March, weekend or not
Seven Days - 8
Yesterday - 4
There is no upside in this.
As the case numbers show, the disease is being suppressed to a very low level in much of the country. It is not gone, nor will it "go" until a vaccine is available
I struggle to think of any area of life that the progressives haven't won the battle over the last few decades. You only have to look back at old films and stuff to see how far the feminists, civil rights activists, gay rights campaigners, animal rights activists and anti-racists have moved the agenda relentlessly in their direction.
Even a decade ago anyone arguing for same-sex marriage would have been laughed at. When I was growing up it was fine to put up a "No Blacks No Irish sign" up in commercial premises. We used to hang people, kill foxes for sport and so on. Divorce and abortion were illegal
Social change is a constant and it pretty much moves in one-direction. The social policies of the current government would be unrecognisable to a Conservative Government of 50 years ago.
I think the second - as I understand it - is a point of fact although clearly not justifying the police officers’ actions.
“All lives matter” is more challenging. It’s clearly been adopted as a slogan by racists and closet racists. Equally it could be a very natural linguistic response to someone saying “black lives matter”. Is there any evidence to suggest that Miss Teen Swimsuit was aware of the significance of that particular phrase?
I am making an assumption here, but I reckon she’s not the brightest lady in the word. There is a real risk she has been treated unjustly.
Am I not justified in drawing some conclusions about the probable attitude of that person to gender politics? I think I am. Furthermore I have to do this - draw inferences from OP's language - because that's all I've got to work with.
What that shows is that many of the wins for the progressive left came about because, while a majority of the people may have opposed changes, it was hard to argue against their fundamental fairness, especially in a society based on Judeo-Christian principles. So saying that gay and black people, women etc should be treated as inferior just because of who they were was difficult to reconcile with the fundamental principle that God loves all and created them in their own image. On the other hand, PIE was a case where it was obviously wasn't a "fairness" thing but people saw through a bunch of perverts looking to claim it was all about their rights in order to push their agenda.
Because the Woke Left has won the culture wars - and they have, and it’s been largely a good thing - we’ve now reached a stage where the job is done. So any further ‘progress’ is going to be at the expense of others.
The clearest expression of that is the trans-TERF war. Trans rights must be furthered, theoretically, but if they are, it irritates and then angers many feminists/lesbians, who see THEIR hard fought rights (single sex provision) being degraded.
BLM will face similar problems. Other ethnic minorities, poor white people, Jews, start to say What about us?
It is also very naive to think a society always moves towards a more liberal position. Look at the last hundred years in Iran. Look at the emergence of a de facto blasphemy law in Britain.
I struggle to think of any area of life that the progressives haven't won the battle over the last few decades. You only have to look back at old films and stuff to see how far the feminists, civil rights activists, gay rights campaigners, animal rights activists and anti-racists have moved the agenda relentlessly in their direction.
Even a decade ago anyone arguing for same-sex marriage would have been laughed at. When I was growing up it was fine to put up a "No Blacks No Irish sign" up in commercial premises. We used to hang people, kill foxes for sport and so on. Divorce and abortion were illegal
Social change is a constant and it pretty much moves in one-direction. The social policies of the current government would be unrecognisable to a Conservative Government of 50 years ago.'
They haven't won the battle over uncontrolled immigration, nor yet have they won the battle on transgender bathrooms or toppling statues of Churchill etc and voters still support the death penalty for serial killers and terrorists
Personally, I think we probably start out young and idealistic, then as we have to make our way in the world, get a little self-centered and gimme, then drift more towards personal responsibility and finally, once we have more than enough for ourselves and families, enter a more altruistic, higher purpose stage (less dogmatic and self-righteous than our young idealistic phase).
The direction of "Progress" is not written.
Further to today's article I'm going to finish by making a cute point. Isn't it curious that so many wealthy people who usually aren't too receptive to egalitarian policies have become so supportive of this new left. Why is this? Is it that they find it refreshing to see the resentful/marginalised/SJWs focused on statues rather than wealth, taxes and corporate activity?
There has been a massive expansion in our universities, much of it around sociology/social policy - the content of such courses often being more about moral campaigns rather than literal truth. No government seemed more keen on expanding universities than new labour - our first 'left' government that did not have a critique of capitalism. Could we be seeing the mirror image on the left of the US republican plutocrats - giving the grassroots red meat on guns and abortion whilst largely ignoring their economic interests? Just a thought.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/19/politics/joe-biden-donald-trump-suburban-voters-polling/index.html
I struggle to think of any area of life that the progressives haven't won the battle over the last few decades. You only have to look back at old films and stuff to see how far the feminists, civil rights activists, gay rights campaigners, animal rights activists and anti-racists have moved the agenda relentlessly in their direction.
Even a decade ago anyone arguing for same-sex marriage would have been laughed at. When I was growing up it was fine to put up a "No Blacks No Irish sign" up in commercial premises. We used to hang people, kill foxes for sport and so on. Divorce and abortion were illegal
Social change is a constant and it pretty much moves in one-direction. The social policies of the current government would be unrecognisable to a Conservative Government of 50 years ago.
I think the difference is that previously we were unwinding injustices (like imprisoning gays, etc). Now we’re are getting into a space where rights are conflicting and that much more challenging.
If the US had a 75 year age limit on presidential candidates, neither of these men could stand in November. Which would be good.
Ash Sarkar posted on insta in short skirt sucking on an ice lolly.
Later that day a Muslim bloke killed some people.
Digital mob descended on Sarkar accusing her of celebrating the atrocity with her provocative lolly pose. Threats of rape and murder and worse.
Chap in senior position at Oxford Uni chipped in with the mob. Posted "you reap what you sow."
Sarker upset. Complained to Owen Jones. Jones tweeted at Oxford calling for the chap in senior position to be relieved of it.
Nothing happened.
Who would then be the originator of an action against publication of the Russia report would obviously then be a very interesting question. Perhaps CycleFree or AlastairMeeks can shed some light on the issue.
On gay marriage and trans issues and BLM maybe but abortion and homosexuality were legal by 1970 and capital punishment had ended and 50 years ago Heath was welcoming Ugandan Asians of course.
In the economic sphere we had a top rate of income tax of 83% in 1970 and many more nationalised industries, so economically we have gone right even if socially left liberal
I fail to see the difference between the state intervention declaring all shops must accept cash and state intervention stating banks must give a bank account to everyone. In fact the second is the worst of the pair for intervention because it takes choice out of peoples hands
So now we have established you don't mind state intervention can you cease your whining when others say that it is sometimes necessary and go read some more Ayn Rand
I generally think gerontocracy is bad, however, and the USA’s array of crumblies is absurd
Despite a couple of people like Harmon (?) getting sucked in can you substantiate your assertion that PIE was the issue of the day for the progressive left?
Wikipedia wasn't updated to include the last Opinium Best PM poll, so in fact @MikeSmithson was correct to say Boris' lead over Starmer was down to 2%, as it was 3% (36/33) on July 9th, having been 1% on July 3rd and Starmer having led by 2% in late June.
I wondered why Mike had appeared to post something so factually incorrect, so I checked the Opinium website and it turns out he hadn't done that at all. I'm sorry Mike, for saying you had before I checked the original source
It's an interesting cultural divide. A chap I know was involved in trying to setup a Challenger Bank effort in the US.
He was very surprised that the regulatory pushback came from the Left - the plan was free sign up, no credit, $5 for a card, free transfers between banks and the the account etc.
So a bank account with no charges, only a one off fee for the card.
Personally, I am having some difficulty in squaring this last statistic - a slight increase in support among those on more than $100k - with the other polls plural showing Trump's support in the 'burbs falling off a cliff.
NEW THREAD
I haven’t used cash inside a shop - or bar or cafe or whatever - for many months.
That “gentleman” who pissed next to a Keith Fletcher’s memorial was locked up 2 or 3 weeks (IIRC). The individual who pissed directly at Churchill... no one cared
Edit: my apologies. I was googling for the image and turned up a Reuter’s story saying it was taken in 2010 during a student fees protest
Edit noted, but both are disgusting on so many levels. So lock them both up.