Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Reading that Cave thing properly...People are not refusing to engage in 'difficult ideas', people are boycotting people or companies whose views or actions they find unacceptable and asking others to do the same.

The difficult ideas are the new ones that 'people' are very much engaging with like "What can we do to give everyone an equal voice and an equal opportunity?" "How can we restructure community support and law enforcement to support our marginalised communities?" "How do you raise children so they feel supported to express their gender/identity in a safe and progressive way?"

"How do we retain the status quo and make sure that privileged people don't feel left out?" is not a difficult question.

Edited by cymrococh
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We should of course forgive people who make mistakes and apologise and try to make amends. I’ve never seen an example of a large number of people disagreeing with that. It’s not ok to be racist,

Nick Cave is wrong and Toby Young is a dick. 'Cancel culture' barely exists outside of the minds of 'classical liberal' / alt-right bellends like Toby Young and Niall Ferguson. They're painting a

I think it comes down to black women and trans people daring to have a voice all this tbh.  That’s where the phrasing comes from, that’s inevitably who we are talking about.

35 minutes ago, Kvarme Ate My Food said:

Can you think of an example of someone being sacked for a tweet without deserving it?

Depends if you think someone should be sacked based upon the content of their character I suppose, which I don't (government and positions of power aside)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ant said:

Depends if you think someone should be sacked based upon the content of their character I suppose, which I don't (government and positions of power aside)

There have been numerous cases in the US where fascists and neo-nazis have been sacked when it has come to light that they are fascists and neo-nazis. In this instance do you think it is wrong to sack them?

I also think we're in danger of conflating some distinct albeit overlapping terms here.

Edited by Swan Red
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ant said:

Depends if you think someone should be sacked based upon the content of their character I suppose, which I don't (government and positions of power aside)

Ah

 

Thats a bit weird

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Swan Red said:

There have been numerous cases in the US where fascists and neo-nazis have been sacked when it has come to light that they are fascists and neo-nazis. In this instance do you think it is wrong to sack them?

I also think we're in danger of conflating some distinct albeit overlapping terms here.

No

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, smithdown said:

Someone like Kapaernick Is a HUGE example of cancel culture yet his name never comes up from the Toby Young side.  It’s a glaring glorious example of all the things they fear happening yet they don’t go near it.

 

This is painfully accurate and why I said the term was “too broad and too narrow”. If people who are opponents of it want it to look like more than a tantrum then they have to look at people expressing marginal views in favour of those who have no power that are subsequently sidelined. 
They have to ask if there is genuinely open debate with these ideas being “platformed”. 

The reason why I believe they have to do the above is to maintain their own internal logic. Their belief system cannot begin and end with them not being criticised for saying what they want.

I also think we need to spend some time  asking ourselves about whether or not we want people to have to constantly debate their right to exist. It’s exhausting and demeaning as well as having genuine existential consequences.

I don’t want to do balance for the sake of balance but we do need to do all this with a spirit of love and openness to truth enquiry. It’s not going to be easy but if we have sound guiding principles based on empathy and understanding then we get somewhere

13 minutes ago, Swan Red said:

 

I also think we're in danger of conflating some distinct albeit overlapping terms here.

Yes!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Swan Red said:

So what's different to being sacked for the content of their character in these cases

Posting something on the internet and actively being a neo-Nazi and facist are two different things. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sammy & a said:

This is painfully accurate and why I said the term was “too broad and too narrow”. If people who are opponents of it want it to look like more than a tantrum then they have to look at people expressing marginal views in favour of those who have no power that are subsequently sidelined. 
They have to ask if there is genuinely open debate with these ideas being “platformed”. 

The reason why I believe they have to do the above is to maintain their own internal logic. Their belief system cannot begin and end with them not being criticised for saying what they want.

I also think we need to spend some time  asking ourselves about whether or not we want people to have to constantly debate their right to exist. It’s exhausting and demeaning as well as having genuine existential consequences.

I don’t want to do balance for the sake of balance but we do need to do all this with a spirit of love and openness to truth enquiry. It’s not going to be easy but if we have sound guiding principles based on empathy and understanding then we get somewhere

I wish you were PM, Sammy & a

Edited by Conrad
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ant said:

Depends if you think someone should be sacked based upon the content of their character I suppose, which I don't (government and positions of power aside)

How are we defining positions of power? And is there a difference between what somebody writes on the internet (or in print) and the content of their character?

Basically I'm asking if Kelvin Mackenzie should still get jobs in the media.

Edited by stressederic
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stressederic said:

How are we defining positions of power? And is there a difference between what somebody writes on the internet (or in print) and the content of their character?

Basically I'm asking if Kelvin Mackenzie should still get jobs in the media.

No he shouldn't because he is a proven liar.

I was merely responding to the point originally made about historical tweets being brought up to sack someone 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ant said:

No he shouldn't because he is a proven liar.

I was merely responding to the point originally made about historical tweets being brought up to sack someone 

You went further than that when you said people shouldn't be sacked for the content of their character.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Swan Red said:

You went further than that when you said people shouldn't be sacked for the content of their character.

Which broadly speaking I subscribe to in the context of things posted on the internet, but there is a line I guess. 

There are people I have worked with and work with who have held suspect views do I think they should be sacked...probably not. Unless you're a member of the Westboro Baptist Church I guess 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ant said:

Which broadly speaking I subscribe to in the context of things posted on the internet, but there is a line I guess. 

There are people I have worked with and work with who have held suspect views do I think they should be sacked...probably not. Unless you're a member of the Westboro Baptist Church I guess 

Okay I think there's a line too but this comes back to eric's earlier question. If someone posts racist and neo-nazi stuff on the internet should they be sacked?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ant said:

Which broadly speaking I subscribe to in the context of things posted on the internet, but there is a line I guess. 

There are people I have worked with and work with who have held suspect views do I think they should be sacked...probably not. Unless you're a member of the Westboro Baptist Church I guess 

Suspect?

 

in what way suspect?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Swan Red said:

Okay I think there's a line too but this comes back to eric's earlier question. If someone posts racist and neo-nazi stuff on the internet should they be sacked?

And then extend it out to hateful comments about other groups; women for example, or trans people, homosexuals etc. Bearing in mind that employers also have a duty of care to any of them that they employ who may not feel safe or happy working with somebody who would post such things on the internet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also presumably you have a HR policy on offensive language and acts, so if someone expresses offensive views there will be a process to deal with that which in most cases ends at them being sacked.

Just now, stressederic said:

And then extend it out to hateful comments about other groups; women for example, or trans people, homosexuals etc. Bearing in mind that employers also have a duty of care to any of them that they employ who may not feel safe or happy working with somebody who would post such things on the internet.

Yep

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Swan Red said:

Okay I think there's a line too but this comes back to eric's earlier question. If someone posts racist and neo-nazi stuff on the internet should they be sacked?

I don't see what purpose it solves really unless it affects their colleagues and employers or if a crime has been committed obviously. 

5 minutes ago, smithdown said:

Suspect?

 

in what way suspect?

Slightly xenophobic right wing

Edited by Ant
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stressederic said:

'Slightly' as in, what? 'I don't mind immigration but f*** the Poles'?

This is my point really - you can't just go wanting the sack for anyone who holds views that you might not agree with.

I might think they're slightly xenophobic, you may think its Nazism 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Swan Red said:

Also presumably you have a HR policy on offensive language and acts, so if someone expresses offensive views there will be a process to deal with that which in most cases ends at them being sacked.

Exactly, these things do not happen summarily, there are investigations etc.

I've no idea of the numbers on this, but from my very limited experience and from what I've read I imagine the benefit is more often given to the person reported.

For example, local to me a councillor was reported for making racist comments and has been completely exonerated:

https://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/18646126.complaints-pembroke-dock-councillor-dropped-ombudsman/

Anecdotally, a woman I worked with was well known for making blatantly racist comments but nothing was really done. She was spoken to by management and her reaction was to tell the whole team that she hoped we got food poisoning, again not actually reprimanded.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ant said:

This is my point really - you can't just go wanting the sack for anyone who holds views that you might not agree with.

I might think they're slightly xenophobic, you may think its Nazism 

View I don't agree with: 'Man United are better than Liverpool'

Right wing view I don't agree with: 'Privatisation is good.'

Neither of which are going to lead to me or anyone else calling for someone to be sacked.

View I don't agree with which I don't believe is acceptable: 'X racial group / nationality / sexuality / minority is inferior to me and Y should happen to them.'

If you post the above on the internet, it gets raised with your employer, and after an HR review you lose your job then, frankly, boo-f***ing-hoo. The right to free speech is not the right to consequence-free speech.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ant said:

I don't see what purpose it solves really unless it affects their colleagues and employers or if a crime has been committed obviously. 

Slightly xenophobic right wing

In a cute way

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...