Open letter denouncing the "restriction of debate".

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Oooh! Now there's a rabbit hole to go down. What deters the would-be transgressor: the law or the punishment?

It depends, doesn’t it? Some transgressions are obvious: murder, rape, fraud, violence, theft, etc. Some are clear, if you think for a moment: drink driving, using a phone while driving: some are a bit more arbitrary: 70mph motorway limit, congestion charging zones, some public nuisance offences under local bylaws, for example. Some, like drink driving only become offences when the public mood changes. So sometimes you need a law to, er, lay down the law and then some people will obey it because they should. But there will always be some who disobey anyway. What you want to do is reduce the number of those, through effective deterrence.

 

[vuk]

A good article in The Guardian backing the view that “cancel culture” is largely about established elites losing power in the social media age and attempting to discredit minority groups who now actually have the ability to speak and be heard. I firmly believe this to be the case and I am very mindful of it when moderating my little part of the internet.

it's rather baffling because i hate the established elites and you think they are great for society.

 

[Tony L]

it's rather baffling because i hate the established elites and you think they are great for society.

You keep saying this, yet you are the one causing so many moderating headaches shovelling your alt-right Jordan Peterson videos, hopelessly revisionist Evergreen videos, Putin-sponsored RT bullshit, LGBT hate, fringe-nutter Assad love etc onto my website.

To be blunt I’m sick to death of both your ugly content and your preposterous academic elitism, snobbery, posturing and patronising. You used to be an interesting poster back when you stuck to audio, photography, Wagner, Nazi conductors etc, but I really don’t want all this ugly echo chamber YouTube shite here, or the views it so clearly spawns. Seriously, just stick that stuff up your arse and have the basic self-awareness and courtesy to realise you are here as my guest. You are so close to a permanent exit now, but I’d still far prefer you to accept what this site is intended to be and stay.

 

[Cav]

It is neither arrogant, nor sinister, but your efforts to categorise it as such appear to be an attempt to shut down discussion of the point. Which is arrogant.

.

On the contrary. This what you said "There is a subset of society which doesn’t fit into such categories, but which nevertheless shows few signs of being able to make decisions based on rational assessment of the relevant factors. How do we mitigate against the harm they can do to themselves or the wider community?"

I start from the premise that if people are not disqualified for voting in Local and General Elections then they are not so stupid that they need you to save them from themselves.

 

[Woodface]

If they are not legally allowed to express their views, how will we know to shame them?

So you are in favour of upsetting the BAME community for the long term good?

We have rather different ideas on this so let’s leave it there.

 

[Tony L]

I start from the premise that if people are not disqualified for voting in Local and General Elections then they are not so stupid that they need you to save them from themselves.

Agreed. I’d argue if someone is safe to walk alone on a busy street, with traffic etc, they should be allowed to make what they want of the online world. Sure, some people will become hopelessly unstuck, make terrible decisions, fall in with a bad crowd etc, but the alternative is elitism, authoritarianism and national control. I’d far prefer the state to support those who do become badly unstuck than any alternative I can think of.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

On the contrary. This what you said "There is a subset of society which doesn’t fit into such categories, but which nevertheless shows few signs of being able to make decisions based on rational assessment of the relevant factors. How do we mitigate against the harm they can do to themselves or the wider community?"

I start from the premise that if people are not disqualified for voting in Local and General Elections then they are not so stupid that they need you to save them from themselves.

I see you are not picking up my antivaxxer example. Tricky one, that.

 

[mansr]

I start from the premise that if people are not disqualified for voting in Local and General Elections then they are not so stupid that they need you to save them from themselves.

Perhaps voting rights should only be awarded after a basic competency test. Then again, defining fair, objective criteria not open to abuse is probably impossible.

 

[vuk]

You keep saying this, yet you are the one causing so many moderating headaches shovelling your alt-right Jordan Peterson videos, hopelessly revisionist Evergreen videos, Putin-sponsored RT bullshit, LGBT hate, fringe-nutter Assad love etc onto my website.

i seriously don't wish to cause moderation problems. as people here can attest to, i often contact other members via private message (as with dimitry, yesterday) to de-escalate tension and not subject the forum audience to an annoying squabble.

as for the alt-right accusation, surely you don't believe that.

i really, really, really don't like jordan peterson. what i posted (2 years) ago was him on the CBC news and an interview with lindsay shepherd regarding a big university incident that revolved around peterson. i have never posted any of his you tube stuff or articles or quotes from his ridiculous self-help book. i have repeatedly characterized him as precisely the sort of postmodernist thinker he accuses others (quite rightly) of being. slavoj zizek exposed him for his shallow ideas about marx and i think that may have been somewhat responsible for peterson's strange psychological breakdown and temporary retreat from public life. i don't know what else i can say. do i need to throw a brick at the man?

the evergreen video is an after-the-fact documentary that examines it from the perspective of the figure at the center of the scandal. sure, he is going to give a self-centred perspective, but, as with all interviews with people, you take it for what it's worth. weinstein is intelligent and seems like a very decent and honest person. i'm inclined to believe his analysis of dodgy admin/president policies/motives. the very-long video bits however, just speak for themselves, but interpretation does depend on the viewer, ultimately. it's hardly one of those awful "cultural marxism" cut and paste jobs, which someone who hasn't seen it could possibly conclude from the way you're characterizing the thing.

as for RT, i'm pretty sure that i've mainly posted chris hedges' show on that network, though perhaps the occasional interview with john pilger or richard wolff. these are all progressive leftist people who are totally on board with the whole agenda, even some cultural things that i don't entirely agree with. if you have big problems with the medium, then fine -- just make an explicit rule about it. my decisions are always based on content, not delivery mechanism.

not sure where assad comes into play -- you may be thinking of max on that one.


vuk.

 

[MikeMA]

There's also (more than) a hint of ageism going on in some of the discussions, here and elsewhere; 'these guys aren't just white, they're old'. But, hey, I'm a Boomer*, so what do I know?

*Or am I?

I'm most definitely a Boomer and I agree. The term has become loaded with all sorts of negative connotations. It's like saying Millennials are a bunch of snowflakes. No generation has a monopoly on stupidity and none of us can help when we are born. It's the worst kind of casual stereotyping and in any other context would be roundly condemned.

 

[droodzilla]

A good article in The Guardian backing the view that “cancel culture” is largely about established elites losing power in the social media age and attempting to discredit minority groups who now actually have the ability to speak and be heard. I firmly believe this to be the case and I am very mindful of it when moderating my little part of the internet.

This, by the same author, is longer and even better, I think:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/03/the-myth-of-the-free-speech-crisis

 

[DimitryZ]

I see you are not picking up my antivaxxer example. Tricky one, that.

I know an antivaxxer family, through my mother...

One of the things that happens is that they can't put their kids into day care, kindergarten and schools, because they endanger the others.

For some of them it tends to clarify their choices.

 

[DimitryZ]

Perhaps voting rights should only be awarded after a basic competency test. Then again, defining fair, objective criteria not open to abuse is probably impossible.

True story. Had a friend in town who was mentally challenged, though his own guardian. He was a BIG part of the local political process - knew all the politicians, all the issues and made a big difference if he decided to work on the campaign.

 

[Tony L]

i really, really, really don't like jordan peterson. what i posted (2 years) ago was him on the CBC news and an interview with lindsay shepherd regarding a big university incident that revolved around peterson.

I appreciate the long and measured response, but I do take issue about this. What you posted was a video of Peterson actively weaponising that anti-LGBT safe-space incident from the alt-right perspective, and throughout the thread you repeatedly supported that perspective and dismissed the concerns of the minority student population. Lindsay Shepherd predictably went on to be an alt-right poster girl. I remember, along with several LGBT members of this site, repeatedly banging my head on the table that you couldn’t see the issue or just how fundamentally offensive some of this content was to a genuinely diverse site such as pfm. I’d also argue that a lot of what you post, e.g. the Weinstein incident, is but a degree or two of separation from Peterson. I very deliberately don’t watch YouTube politics (I’m subscribed to 70+ music, audio and computer geek type channels and nothing else) and since watching your video link to the Weinstein incident that Peterson twat is back on my ‘recommendations’ list! I spent about half an hour earlier actively going through rejecting all that content and trying to retrain the algorithm!

Anyway, thanks for the rest of the post. I will try to find a middle ground here.

 

[Joe Hutch]

Perhaps voting rights should only be awarded after a basic competency test. Then again, defining fair, objective criteria not open to abuse is probably impossible.

John Stuart Mill recommended a voting test before universal suffrage existed (he was one of the very few to argue for female suffrage before the Suffragist movement emerged towards the end of the 19th century). His proposed test was very simple; the ability to write one's name and perform a simple mathematical calculation would suffice. He also argued that the more educated a person was, the more votes he or she should have, up to a maximum of five votes per individual.

 

[jackbarron]

Hope this article hasn't already been posted: Billy Bragg wrote a piece in The Guardian on Friday about Cancel Culture. He says it doesn't stifle debate, but does challenge the old order. Speech is only free when everyone has a voice, he thinks, and this is why young people are angry. https://www.theguardian.com

I certainly don't agree with everything he says. George Orwell stated in the preface to Animal Farm “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." The way Billy interprets this is the opposite of what I think.

He says "Orwell’s quote is not a defence of liberty; it’s a demand for licence." I don't think it is.

It's an interesting piece though.

"Before the rise of social media, the anger of young people was restricted to pop music. Print and broadcast media kept youth corralled on the margins ...

"The ability of middle-aged gatekeepers (who signed the open letter) to control the agenda has been usurped by a new generation of activists who can spread information through their own networks, allowing them to challenge narratives promoted by the status quo. The great progressive movements of the 21st century have sprung from these networks: Black Lives Matter; #MeToo; Extinction Rebellion. While they may seem disparate in their aims, what they have in common is a demand for accountability."

Jack

 

[Tony L]

As ever BB talks a heck of a lot of sense. I’m relieved to see the lie of ‘cancel culture’ being eroded bit by bit.

 

[vuk]

i was wrong

this is what happens when you don't fully scrutinize something. maybe it's bias from having been beat up by gangs of bullies as a kid several times, but i a have lot of trouble with the concept of a mob. i then confronted myself with the idea of protest as a mob and realized i'd made a mistake.

twitter mobs have to be OK as a general principle. it does give regular people a lot of convenient power. that said, if you're going to invoke the mob and go after someone that way, it had better be for a very good reason -- the sort of reason you could march in the street for and broadcast on signs. you also have to go easy on calls to have the person fired (especially non-millionaires) and there should always be some avenue to redemption. otherwise, the mob is like a gang of bullies.

the other thing i failed to do is scrutinize that harper's signatory list carefully. i have a proper subscription to the magazine (which is excellent) and was waiting to get it in the mail. the general statement is perfectly fine. the list of signatories, upon close examination, is tremendously problematic and that really messes up the whole effort. i get the idea of including so-called left and right, but you have to stick to principled people. as it happens, two of my favourite journalists got together to expose the hypocrisy on that front (see below).

i still think "cancel culture" is a great term and captures something we all seem to understand intuitively, but usage only makes sense in cases involving intimidation or harassment totally disproportionate to the scale of the offense. there is certainly more than enough of that. it loses all meaning, however, when applied to just any old social media disagreement or invoked strategically by a right-wing manipulator like tucker carlson, a "liberal" manipulator like bari weiss or full-on sociopath like david frum.





for those interested (radical leftie content warning)...

 

[AndyU]

While they may seem disparate in their aims, what they have in common is a demand for accountability."

Jack

Except that the majority of people behind a twitter mob use pseudonyms and so are not accountable themselves.

 

[Woodface]

Hope this article hasn't already been posted: Billy Bragg wrote a piece in The Guardian on Friday about Cancel Culture. He says it doesn't stifle debate, but does challenge the old order. Speech is only free when everyone has a voice, he thinks, and this is why young people are angry. https://www.theguardian.com

I certainly don't agree with everything he says. George Orwell said in the preface to Animal Farm “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." The way Billy interprets this is the opposite of what I think.

He says "Orwell’s quote is not a defence of liberty; it’s a demand for licence." I don't think it is.

It's an interesting piece though.

"Before the rise of social media, the anger of young people was restricted to pop music. Print and broadcast media kept youth corralled on the margins ...

"The ability of middle-aged gatekeepers (who signed the open letter) to control the agenda has been usurped by a new generation of activists who can spread information through their own networks, allowing them to challenge narratives promoted by the status quo. The great progressive movements of the 21st century have sprung from these networks: Black Lives Matter; #MeToo; Extinction Rebellion. While they may seem disparate in their aims, what they have in common is a demand for accountability."

Jack

I just think he talks a load of crap

I recall effective protest movements before SM came along, the problem is that it just breeds ‘no effort activism’; celebs opining to camera.

I must admit I find Bragg incredibly irritating, the richer he becomes the more Working class he sounds. Rather affected IMO, but his heart is in the right place I suppose.