JK Rowling & others sign letter decrying 'cancel culture'
Discussion
BBC said:
Some 150 writers, academics and activists - including authors JK Rowling, Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood - have signed an open letter denouncing so-called cancel culture.
They say they applaud a recent "needed reckoning" on racial justice, but argue it has fuelled stifling of open debate.
The letter denounces "a vogue for public shaming and ostracism" and "a blinding moral certainty".
Cancel culture refers to online shaming of individuals who cause offence.
"The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted," says the letter.
Article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-5333010...They say they applaud a recent "needed reckoning" on racial justice, but argue it has fuelled stifling of open debate.
The letter denounces "a vogue for public shaming and ostracism" and "a blinding moral certainty".
Cancel culture refers to online shaming of individuals who cause offence.
"The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted," says the letter.
The letter: https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-d...
Interesting development. It appears the recent attacks JK Rowling has experienced over her trans comments have opened her eyes to how malignant the 'cancel culture' movement is. Wonder if this could be the beginning of a proper discussion regarding free speech and the ability to hold opposing views without 'punishment'.
Some of the world's biggest writers with the biggest platforms complaining about being silenced.
They are not arguing to protect free speech, they are arguing for their speech to be the accepted truth without criticism.
Social media gives a voice to the less privileged in ways that disrupt the control the elite have on the discourse. If they truly believe in free speech then cancel culture is the market place of ideas not buying what they are selling.
They are not arguing to protect free speech, they are arguing for their speech to be the accepted truth without criticism.
Social media gives a voice to the less privileged in ways that disrupt the control the elite have on the discourse. If they truly believe in free speech then cancel culture is the market place of ideas not buying what they are selling.
"The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted," As long as they are my ideas and I don’t have to face any criticism for publishing them!
They are not complaining about threats against people for their ideas, which is wrong, but just for being called to account for their actions on social media. They don’t want free speech, they want freedom to say what they want with no consequences. They want their power to say what they wish without the ability of others to reply back. They want the days of the opinion column in a Sunday paper back.
They are not complaining about threats against people for their ideas, which is wrong, but just for being called to account for their actions on social media. They don’t want free speech, they want freedom to say what they want with no consequences. They want their power to say what they wish without the ability of others to reply back. They want the days of the opinion column in a Sunday paper back.
8.4L 154 said:
Some of the world's biggest writers with the biggest platforms complaining about being silenced.
They are not arguing to protect free speech, they are arguing for their speech to be the accepted truth without criticism.
Social media gives a voice to the less privileged in ways that disrupt the control the elite have on the discourse. If they truly believe in free speech then cancel culture is the market place of ideas not buying what they are selling.
I agree with that, well put and thought provoking. But where does this lead to? They are not arguing to protect free speech, they are arguing for their speech to be the accepted truth without criticism.
Social media gives a voice to the less privileged in ways that disrupt the control the elite have on the discourse. If they truly believe in free speech then cancel culture is the market place of ideas not buying what they are selling.
Electro1980 said:
"The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted," As long as they are my ideas and I don’t have to face any criticism for publishing them!
They are not complaining about threats against people for their ideas, which is wrong, but just for being called to account for their actions on social media. They don’t want free speech, they want freedom to say what they want with no consequences. They want their power to say what they wish without the ability of others to reply back. They want the days of the opinion column in a Sunday paper back.
Rubbish they want the freedom to be able to have an alternative viewpoint without the baying mob hounding your employer to cancel you, to deplatform you for not endorsing group think. You already have the right to reaponse, nobody is disputing that. What you dont have, or shouldnt have, is the right to join the baying mob to destroy somebodies life - as those ‘progressive liberals’ seem to enjoy doing so much - true intolerance if there ever was it. There is a swathe of difference between holding the opinion ‘women should have safe spaces without fear of it being invaded by the people with dicks’, compared to some vile opinion like ‘trans should be killed’. The interesting part is Rowling was an active participant in this cancel culture until she became a victim of it. They are not complaining about threats against people for their ideas, which is wrong, but just for being called to account for their actions on social media. They don’t want free speech, they want freedom to say what they want with no consequences. They want their power to say what they wish without the ability of others to reply back. They want the days of the opinion column in a Sunday paper back.
mx5nut said:
What do we want?
Freedom from consequences!
What we actually want is a reasoned debate without restrictions.Freedom from consequences!
Is it a good or bad idea to teach pre pubescent children about the sexual choices on offer?
Is multiculturalism possible?
Is racism being properly addressed?
Topics which are being stifled by accusations of various 'isms'
I may not like or agree with someones views but I strongly support their right to espouse them.
8.4L 154 said:
Some of the world's biggest writers with the biggest platforms complaining about being silenced.
They are not arguing to protect free speech, they are arguing for their speech to be the accepted truth without criticism.
Social media gives a voice to the less privileged in ways that disrupt the control the elite have on the discourse. If they truly believe in free speech then cancel culture is the market place of ideas not buying what they are selling.
Sorry but you've got that completely the wrong way around IMO. Rowling's recent stance on current Trans activism was met with an immediate backlash with her being shouted down at as being a transphobe and a TERF. Absolutely no debate, no conversation and no attempt to understand her point of view. The people shouting down at her and 'cancelling' her were the ones who didn't want to properly criticise her, they just wanted to shout names and label her. They are not arguing to protect free speech, they are arguing for their speech to be the accepted truth without criticism.
Social media gives a voice to the less privileged in ways that disrupt the control the elite have on the discourse. If they truly believe in free speech then cancel culture is the market place of ideas not buying what they are selling.
Pie got it all bang on with this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5TVLEaqqdI
It was some time ago when I was young, but I remember the blinding moral certainty that the letter refers to. I knew what was the right way. I knew that many others, mainly the ‘old’ people of 40 or more were wrong. I knew only my morals were the right ones and those who didn’t believe me were living in the past.
Had social media been around then, I could have gone online and generated lots of support among others, albeit a minority, and shamed them into compliance with what I thought.
This certainty is the main error I think, and the writers are right to highlight it. It seems that if you disagree with what’s being touted, then mob rule ensures that you are ostracised. Universities were full of youths who were certain of the right way and no other in my day. Later, unis went quiet, but social media have allowed them a voice, which is great, but allowed their certainty to rule, which is oppression.
They are accused on here, a form of social media of course, of being called to account for their actions on social media. Yet that’s not what the letter says. They are accused of not wanting free speech, when that is, rather obviously, the point of the letter. They do not ask for no consequences but a chance to discuss without being damned. They do not ask to stop others answering back (where did that comes from?) but their right to discuss.
Cancel culture is not free speech. It is the marginalisation of those who don’t agree with the opinions of the minority who post on social media.
It’s not only them of course. There is this demand, this rather pathetic demand, one can’t help but assume it is demanded by the pathetic, not to be offended. Yet these appear to have won, with TV companies having banks of lawyers to vet what is said on programmes. We’ve had the death of live TV.
Theirs is a point of view. That it is explained by the first two replies is both sad and ironic.
There’s the old cry of ‘would the one true god, or all of them, protect me from those who are certain.’ What the letter asks is that those with opinions contrary to the convinced by allowed to speak.
Had social media been around then, I could have gone online and generated lots of support among others, albeit a minority, and shamed them into compliance with what I thought.
This certainty is the main error I think, and the writers are right to highlight it. It seems that if you disagree with what’s being touted, then mob rule ensures that you are ostracised. Universities were full of youths who were certain of the right way and no other in my day. Later, unis went quiet, but social media have allowed them a voice, which is great, but allowed their certainty to rule, which is oppression.
They are accused on here, a form of social media of course, of being called to account for their actions on social media. Yet that’s not what the letter says. They are accused of not wanting free speech, when that is, rather obviously, the point of the letter. They do not ask for no consequences but a chance to discuss without being damned. They do not ask to stop others answering back (where did that comes from?) but their right to discuss.
Cancel culture is not free speech. It is the marginalisation of those who don’t agree with the opinions of the minority who post on social media.
It’s not only them of course. There is this demand, this rather pathetic demand, one can’t help but assume it is demanded by the pathetic, not to be offended. Yet these appear to have won, with TV companies having banks of lawyers to vet what is said on programmes. We’ve had the death of live TV.
Theirs is a point of view. That it is explained by the first two replies is both sad and ironic.
There’s the old cry of ‘would the one true god, or all of them, protect me from those who are certain.’ What the letter asks is that those with opinions contrary to the convinced by allowed to speak.
JK used to enjoy all the attention her progressive views on t
tter gave her, virtue signalling about Brexit and immigration and using her followers to embarrass anyone who held a different viewpoint.
Now the shoes on the other foot and she don’t like it.
I just enjoy watching these lefties tear themselves apart in the Pandora’s Box of identity politics.
tter gave her, virtue signalling about Brexit and immigration and using her followers to embarrass anyone who held a different viewpoint. Now the shoes on the other foot and she don’t like it.
I just enjoy watching these lefties tear themselves apart in the Pandora’s Box of identity politics.
8.4L 154 said:
Some of the world's biggest writers with the biggest platforms complaining about being silenced.
They are not arguing to protect free speech, they are arguing for their speech to be the accepted truth without criticism.
Social media gives a voice to the less privileged in ways that disrupt the control the elite have on the discourse. If they truly believe in free speech then cancel culture is the market place of ideas not buying what they are selling.
Utter drivel..They are not arguing to protect free speech, they are arguing for their speech to be the accepted truth without criticism.
Social media gives a voice to the less privileged in ways that disrupt the control the elite have on the discourse. If they truly believe in free speech then cancel culture is the market place of ideas not buying what they are selling.
8.4L 154 said:
Some of the world's biggest writers with the biggest platforms complaining about being silenced.
They are not arguing to protect free speech, they are arguing for their speech to be the accepted truth without criticism.
Social media gives a voice to the less privileged in ways that disrupt the control the elite have on the discourse. If they truly believe in free speech then cancel culture is the market place of ideas not buying what they are selling.
No, cancel culture is a shouty group of other vendors getting what they are selling removed from the shelves of the marketplace.They are not arguing to protect free speech, they are arguing for their speech to be the accepted truth without criticism.
Social media gives a voice to the less privileged in ways that disrupt the control the elite have on the discourse. If they truly believe in free speech then cancel culture is the market place of ideas not buying what they are selling.
I often find that it is worth flipping the argument and see what the reaction would be then
Generally the people calling for deflatforming are a whipped up minority but with disproportionate power.
Now imagine a few hundred people turning up at your home, articles on the TV, in newspaper, social media, letter writing campaigns, bombarding your employer or sponsor. Picketing of place you are due to be, getting venues cancelled.
All because you have a penis and want to run against women.
Would the trans people then be in favour of protesters rights or would they be screaming discrimination.
Generally the people calling for deflatforming are a whipped up minority but with disproportionate power.
Now imagine a few hundred people turning up at your home, articles on the TV, in newspaper, social media, letter writing campaigns, bombarding your employer or sponsor. Picketing of place you are due to be, getting venues cancelled.
All because you have a penis and want to run against women.
Would the trans people then be in favour of protesters rights or would they be screaming discrimination.
8.4L 154 said:
Social media gives a voice to the less privileged in ways that disrupt the control the elite have on the discourse. If they truly believe in free speech then cancel culture is the market place of ideas not buying what they are selling.
DO you truly believe that? If so this explains why they have written the letter. Derek Smith said:
It was some time ago when I was young, but I remember the blinding moral certainty that the letter refers to. I knew what was the right way. I knew that many others, mainly the ‘old’ people of 40 or more were wrong. I knew only my morals were the right ones and those who didn’t believe me were living in the past.
Had social media been around then, I could have gone online and generated lots of support among others, albeit a minority, and shamed them into compliance with what I thought.
This certainty is the main error I think, and the writers are right to highlight it. It seems that if you disagree with what’s being touted, then mob rule ensures that you are ostracised. Universities were full of youths who were certain of the right way and no other in my day. Later, unis went quiet, but social media have allowed them a voice, which is great, but allowed their certainty to rule, which is oppression.
They are accused on here, a form of social media of course, of being called to account for their actions on social media. Yet that’s not what the letter says. They are accused of not wanting free speech, when that is, rather obviously, the point of the letter. They do not ask for no consequences but a chance to discuss without being damned. They do not ask to stop others answering back (where did that comes from?) but their right to discuss.
Cancel culture is not free speech. It is the marginalisation of those who don’t agree with the opinions of the minority who post on social media.
It’s not only them of course. There is this demand, this rather pathetic demand, one can’t help but assume it is demanded by the pathetic, not to be offended. Yet these appear to have won, with TV companies having banks of lawyers to vet what is said on programmes. We’ve had the death of live TV.
Theirs is a point of view. That it is explained by the first two replies is both sad and ironic.
There’s the old cry of ‘would the one true god, or all of them, protect me from those who are certain.’ What the letter asks is that those with opinions contrary to the convinced by allowed to speak.
This.Had social media been around then, I could have gone online and generated lots of support among others, albeit a minority, and shamed them into compliance with what I thought.
This certainty is the main error I think, and the writers are right to highlight it. It seems that if you disagree with what’s being touted, then mob rule ensures that you are ostracised. Universities were full of youths who were certain of the right way and no other in my day. Later, unis went quiet, but social media have allowed them a voice, which is great, but allowed their certainty to rule, which is oppression.
They are accused on here, a form of social media of course, of being called to account for their actions on social media. Yet that’s not what the letter says. They are accused of not wanting free speech, when that is, rather obviously, the point of the letter. They do not ask for no consequences but a chance to discuss without being damned. They do not ask to stop others answering back (where did that comes from?) but their right to discuss.
Cancel culture is not free speech. It is the marginalisation of those who don’t agree with the opinions of the minority who post on social media.
It’s not only them of course. There is this demand, this rather pathetic demand, one can’t help but assume it is demanded by the pathetic, not to be offended. Yet these appear to have won, with TV companies having banks of lawyers to vet what is said on programmes. We’ve had the death of live TV.
Theirs is a point of view. That it is explained by the first two replies is both sad and ironic.
There’s the old cry of ‘would the one true god, or all of them, protect me from those who are certain.’ What the letter asks is that those with opinions contrary to the convinced by allowed to speak.
The baying social media mob is infested with bots and trolls deliberately throwing fuel on the fire, so its claim to moral authority is dubious.
There's nothing wrong with calling people out for sharing abhorrent views but when it leads to their address or business details being shared (often erroneously), it's extremely dangerous and the wrong people get drawn into something unfairly..
Lawrence Fox is an interesting case study. I didn't particularly like the stuff he said but I don't think any of it was outrageous enough to deserve to have his entire career curtailed and his public appearances revoked.
If people are afraid to express their views then you only find out those views exist when they explode. This is the problem authoritarian governments have by not allowing protests. It leaves no mechanism to find out what people think until the pressure gets too much and the cork pops. I think Trump and Brexit were both rooted in unheard frustrations.
Derek Smith said:
It was some time ago when I was young, but I remember the blinding moral certainty that the letter refers to. I knew what was the right way. I knew that many others, mainly the ‘old’ people of 40 or more were wrong. I knew only my morals were the right ones and those who didn’t believe me were living in the past.
Had social media been around then, I could have gone online and generated lots of support among others, albeit a minority, and shamed them into compliance with what I thought.
This certainty is the main error I think, and the writers are right to highlight it. It seems that if you disagree with what’s being touted, then mob rule ensures that you are ostracised. Universities were full of youths who were certain of the right way and no other in my day. Later, unis went quiet, but social media have allowed them a voice, which is great, but allowed their certainty to rule, which is oppression.
They are accused on here, a form of social media of course, of being called to account for their actions on social media. Yet that’s not what the letter says. They are accused of not wanting free speech, when that is, rather obviously, the point of the letter. They do not ask for no consequences but a chance to discuss without being damned. They do not ask to stop others answering back (where did that comes from?) but their right to discuss.
Cancel culture is not free speech. It is the marginalisation of those who don’t agree with the opinions of the minority who post on social media.
It’s not only them of course. There is this demand, this rather pathetic demand, one can’t help but assume it is demanded by the pathetic, not to be offended. Yet these appear to have won, with TV companies having banks of lawyers to vet what is said on programmes. We’ve had the death of live TV.
Theirs is a point of view. That it is explained by the first two replies is both sad and ironic.
There’s the old cry of ‘would the one true god, or all of them, protect me from those who are certain.’ What the letter asks is that those with opinions contrary to the convinced by allowed to speak.
This is well put... Though you've not been immune to this yourself in the last week or two Had social media been around then, I could have gone online and generated lots of support among others, albeit a minority, and shamed them into compliance with what I thought.
This certainty is the main error I think, and the writers are right to highlight it. It seems that if you disagree with what’s being touted, then mob rule ensures that you are ostracised. Universities were full of youths who were certain of the right way and no other in my day. Later, unis went quiet, but social media have allowed them a voice, which is great, but allowed their certainty to rule, which is oppression.
They are accused on here, a form of social media of course, of being called to account for their actions on social media. Yet that’s not what the letter says. They are accused of not wanting free speech, when that is, rather obviously, the point of the letter. They do not ask for no consequences but a chance to discuss without being damned. They do not ask to stop others answering back (where did that comes from?) but their right to discuss.
Cancel culture is not free speech. It is the marginalisation of those who don’t agree with the opinions of the minority who post on social media.
It’s not only them of course. There is this demand, this rather pathetic demand, one can’t help but assume it is demanded by the pathetic, not to be offended. Yet these appear to have won, with TV companies having banks of lawyers to vet what is said on programmes. We’ve had the death of live TV.
Theirs is a point of view. That it is explained by the first two replies is both sad and ironic.
There’s the old cry of ‘would the one true god, or all of them, protect me from those who are certain.’ What the letter asks is that those with opinions contrary to the convinced by allowed to speak.
I agree that the first couple of replies here are demonstrative of the real problems we are going to face moving forwards.
There's also some mileage in the poster who noted JKR was happy to embrace similar methods when it suits.
I guess we are all hypocrites... We will be our own undoing.
For a world that is supposed to be more tolerant and progressive than ever, we live in an age of moral puritanism. Any individual, organisation, film, video game etc that does not espouse the "correct" view is to be deemed problematic and silenced. Words must be changed just in case they offend a small minority. Jokes or comments made a decade ago, or stating there is a biological difference between men and women, is enough to have you sacked from your job. There mere allegation of sexual misconduct will end your career with no one asking for evidence, which in at least one case lead to suicide. An advert featuring a woman in a bikini is banned because of perceived offence. A campaign was lead to ban a video game which had a shampoo bottle labelled "Olgay". People from decades or centuries ago are judged by today's standards. Woman are told they can do whatever job they want, then shamed if it involves displaying their bodies.
The funny thing is, until fairly recently it was the religious right that wanted to "ban this sick filth". Now, it's the progressive left leading the charge. Mary Whitehouse would be proud.
The funny thing is, until fairly recently it was the religious right that wanted to "ban this sick filth". Now, it's the progressive left leading the charge. Mary Whitehouse would be proud.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff