|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 24, 2020 11:39:05 GMT
Even the most cursory look at history will show that values change over time. What is considered acceptable in one society at one point in time is unacceptable in another society and/or at a different point in time. The idea that any one generation or any one society has "got it" and arrived at the final correct set of moral values and is therefore in a position to judge all other societies and generations is just plain daft. Having said that, however, the reality of human nature is that in practice every generation tends to think that its values are the pinnacle of human morality and understanding and to judge others on that basis. Consider: As you read this now, you - whoever your are and whatever your views - will be seen by future generations as a nasty bigot. No doubt about it. Future generations will have different values to us now and some of the values you now hold will be utterly anathema to them, even though no one today sees anything wrong with them. I'm not saying you are (or will be perceived by future generations as) guilty of racism or sexism or homophobia or anything else. You might be, or instead you might be judged guilty of some other -ism or -phobia that no one alive today has even thought of yet. But have no doubt that if your every view and statement were to be scrutinised by future generations, you would be found wanting in lots of ways. Who are you then to judge previous generations? By all means we should say what previous generations did and why we no longer do it and why we consider it to be wrong, but getting on our high horses about previous generations is inherently ludicrous. It's like getting cross at a dog for chasing a cat - no point in getting angry, that's just what dogs do. Likewise there's no point in demonising our ancestors - that's just the way things were back then. "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there". I'm not saying we can't draw attention to things they did that are no longer considered acceptable, nor am I excusing anything, but I think all the anger and self-righteousness and moral crusading directed at the past is a waste of energy and effort that could be better expended on trying to change things today. So my view is we should keep historical people and events in context and in perpective, be humble, "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Values change, absolutely, but I don't see why that means we can't do both - improve the present and not sugarcoat history and make gods out of very flawed men with uneasy legacies.
Statues are symbols and symbols mean things - it's one of the basic tenants of communication (i.e. semiotics and subtext). To argue or trivialize that is to the miss the whole point. As I said above, what does the statue of a Confederate or a slave trader say if it's still up in an environment that is at odds with what it stands for? Intended or not, what does it say to the black communities in those areas: 'your heritage, your legacy, your pain and abuse are meaningless because this rich guy whose wealth and power came from your pain is more important'? Again, symbols mean something.
|
|
|
Post by BHTvsTFC on Jun 24, 2020 17:05:19 GMT
I don't think the arguments that we didn't know any better in those dark and dreary times holds much water as people in those times fought wars to end slavery. People objected to the burning of witches too! But with that in mind we certainly aren't in a state of Utopia at the moment and I think a lot of the criticisms in today's environment are very OTT and part of a desire to be seen as 'relevant and forward thinking' but backed up with a basic argument that is positive and well meaning.
No one even remotely civilised could justify an unequal treatment of any community at the hands of it's government or police force but then criticising some old TV show or film for being part of that problem is stretching the protest a bit too far. I would imagine it's part of the creative process to chop and change, to lampoon, to criticise or to conform, and in an equal society no one should be exempt from that - not Princess Diana, Mother Theresa or God Himself! I always like the saying 'art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.' Sometimes it reminds me of the music blaming that goes side by side with school shootings in America.
I would say that the statue of Colston has no place in a modern society but the modern establishment continues to award the worst of humanity on a regular basis. We have statues of Thatcher and Reagan, and awards given out to people like Nick Clegg and Iain 'I don't care who's died, I'm proud of my reforms' Duncan Smith. We're lead by people like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Vladimir Putin and Tayipp Erdogan because societies as a whole choose them, and that's right here and right now!
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Jun 24, 2020 17:22:28 GMT
Values change, absolutely, but I don't see why that means we can't do both - improve the present and not sugarcoat history and make gods out of very flawed men with uneasy legacies. Statues are symbols and symbols mean things - it's one of the basic tenants of communication (i.e. semiotics and subtext). To argue or trivialize that is to the miss the whole point. As I said above, what does the statue of a Confederate or a slave trader say if it's still up in an environment that is at odds with what it stands for? Intended or not, what does it say to the black communities in those areas: 'your heritage, your legacy, your pain and abuse are meaningless because this rich guy whose wealth and power came from your pain is more important'? Again, symbols mean something. lidar's point is well taken - and admirable - but I do believe there is a difference between striving for a non-judgmental view and endorsing or protecting the wrong kind of symbols. I think the "product of their time" argument has been extended to William Hartnell and certain antiquated views he has become sometimes noted for, and I think I'm still fairly okay with that. Why am I happy to see statues of people with backwards views like slave traders or Confederates come down but would rather leave Hartnell's picture up? I don't think Hartnell owned or traded in slaves or profited from other people's misery, for one thing. I don't think that's what he stood for. What to do with these outdated icons when they come down? I suppose I'll go along with moving them to museums and attaching balanced information to them or even keeping them in the back. I wouldn't be in favor of smashing old Roman statues because the Romans kept slaves. I think if the town tuigirl is talking about meant to honor someone but represented them in a stereotypical way that was "a product of its time" they should simply strive to update the way that person is represented. I'm saddened to think that some people are willing to exploit such issues simply to further personal agendas, or to stimulate controversy to distract from more pressing issues. Censoring literature? I don't seem to think it's a good idea. Given our histories, that's probably a lot of literature and other media to launder, and I don't really know what purpose it serves to whitewash history expect to try to promote amnesia of things that should be remembered so that they aren't repeated. We talk about Talons with the understanding that there were things about it that may not have been appropriate which I think is fine. I don't think we have the luxury of going back and remaking it in a more appropriate manner with original cast, or likewise rewriting other history. If someone is making a historical piece, I think it's understandable if historical slurs find their way into it, and may be part of that processing of remembering some of history's mistakes. I'd be against the idea if a racist thought it was a sneaky way to get in a racial slur in this day and age, but I think context matters and hopefully a broader context easily distinguishes one from the other. The most offensive things I think, are some of what what was done to people, not what they were called. Of course, my own views might be outdated already - my terminology seems to get outdated often enough. I do understand how someone can wake up one morning and be a "product of their time" without even meaning to.
|
|
|
Post by polly on Jun 24, 2020 18:09:25 GMT
If you ask me, when it comes to art and entertainment, cries of "That offends me, get rid of it" should pretty much always be met with "No."
If you think Fawlty Towers or Gone With the Wind is horrible, then don't watch it. Same goes for newer works like Joker or what have you. Take the responsibility to choose for yourself what you are comfortable with. We all have limits. I certainly do. But I wouldn't tell anyone else they couldn't watch something that made me uncomfortable, nor would I judge them for it.
It's worse still when you go beyond the work and start picking over the author. As others have said, values change, and if you are holding out for a perfect human being, you will be left with no one who is up to snuff. I think in general we are too fixated on that. I don't care what JK Rowling thinks about anything besides being a writer. Why should I? The only reason it matters is because we let it.
Public monuments are a somewhat different kettle of fish, and it's not something I relish discussing. But I worry about how far it will go. "That statue is racist, it should be in a museum and not in public." I can understand that logic. But I think the way things are going, the line could easily become, "Why is this museum displaying such racist statues? Get rid of them." Furthermore, like I said, you can start to pick apart any historical figure and you will find they do not conform to 2020 values. So we get rid of Confederate statues, but is that the end of it? Or do we start wanting to get rid of, say, Nelson's column? He wouldn't match up with today's values, either, you know.
I think it's better to leave that particular genie in its bottle.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 24, 2020 19:33:47 GMT
If you ask me, when it comes to art and entertainment, cries of "That offends me, get rid of it" should pretty much always be met with "No." If you think Fawlty Towers or Gone With the Wind is horrible, then don't watch it. Same goes for newer works like Joker or what have you. Take the responsibility to choose for yourself what you are comfortable with. We all have limits. I certainly do. But I wouldn't tell anyone else they couldn't watch something that made me uncomfortable, nor would I judge them for it. It's worse still when you go beyond the work and start picking over the author. As others have said, values change, and if you are holding out for a perfect human being, you will be left with no one who is up to snuff. I think in general we are too fixated on that. I don't care what JK Rowling thinks about anything besides being a writer. Why should I? The only reason it matters is because we let it. Public monuments are a somewhat different kettle of fish, and it's not something I relish discussing. But I worry about how far it will go. "That statue is racist, it should be in a museum and not in public." I can understand that logic. But I think the way things are going, the line could easily become, "Why is this museum displaying such racist statues? Get rid of them." Furthermore, like I said, you can start to pick apart any historical figure and you will find they do not conform to 2020 values. So we get rid of Confederate statues, but is that the end of it? Or do we start wanting to get rid of, say, Nelson's column? He wouldn't match up with today's values, either, you know. I think it's better to leave that particular genie in its bottle. Well, Rowling is someone with a huge following: as a cursory glance at social media will show, plenty jumped to her defence and agreed with her ideas, even though they are based on pseudo-science and tired, non-existent fears about transpeople. Saying 'well I don't care' isn't really an answer to the situation of a public figure sharing harmful ideas with real-world implications and damage (look at the ongoing murders of transwomen in the states, for instance).
I'll pose the same question I did on the Gareth Roberts thread: why do we tell the vulnerable to shut up when they raise complaints against a public figure? Why should we put Rowling above a community that is experiencing hardships right now and, what's more, have only had those troubles increase of a popular public figure endorsing stances that make their lives harder? Why should she get benefits of the doubt, a day in court, and not them? Same with the statues: why are we giving slavers and tyrants more consideration, more thought, than their victims? Why, if one cares about history, should they be exalted and defended above the slaves and people whose lives and communities they destroyed? Aushwitz works precisely because of that choice - the victims and the uncomfortable truth come first. That rabbit hole you suggested doesn't happen.
Why not apply some of that thinking in this discussion? Why protect Coulston or Davis or Lee or Leopold, instead of giving that space over to the lives that were destroyed, and why we should never repeat that again?
|
|
|
Post by polly on Jun 24, 2020 20:02:27 GMT
Well, Rowling is someone with a huge following: as a cursory glance at social media will show, plenty jumped to her defence and agreed with her ideas, even though they are based on pseudo-science and tired, non-existent fears about transpeople. Saying 'well I don't care' isn't really an answer to the situation of a public figure sharing harmful ideas with real-world implications and damage (look at the ongoing murders of transwomen in the states, for instance).
I'll pose the same question I did on the Gareth Roberts thread: why do we tell the vulnerable to shut up when they raise complaints against a public figure? Why should we put Rowling above a community that is experiencing hardships right now and, what's more, have only had those troubles increase of a popular public figure endorsing stances that make their lives harder? Why should she get benefits of the doubt, a day in court, and not them? Same with the statues: why are we giving slavers and tyrants more consideration, more thought, than their victims? Why, if one cares about history, should they be exalted and defended above the slaves and people whose lives and communities they destroyed? Aushwitz works precisely because of that choice - the victims and the uncomfortable truth come first. That rabbit hole you suggested doesn't happen.
Why not apply some of that thinking in this discussion? Why protect Coulston or Davis or Lee or Leopold, instead of giving that space over to the lives that were destroyed, and why we should never repeat that again?
Because the people who agree with Rowling already agreed with Rowling whether she said anything or not. I do not accept the premise that speech is harmful to the point that we all should panic over it. I also do not accept that a writer beaking off will cause violence. That way lies inevitable censorship and I think that is more harmful than hurt feelings. You cannot mandate kindness. Murders are actual crimes for obvious reasons. Distasteful opinions are not. I don't put Rowling or Gareth Roberts above anyone - quite the opposite. That's why I say that I don't care what they have to say - outside of their craft, their opinion is no more valuable than yours or mine, so I don't think we should be listening to them one way or the other. If you want to disagree with them, that's fine, but we've gotten to a point where cancel culture is so rabid that they're not so much activists as they are an angry mob. And for the creators' part, I don't see why they feel the need to tell us all what they think instead of just minding their own beeswax. I am not giving slavers consideration, either, I am giving history its consideration in all its ugliness. I don't recall exalting or defending any of their actions. I simply don't think that history ought to be destroyed or hidden away. And yes, that rabbit hole can very easily happen. Just look at ISIS destroying historical artifacts because they did not fit their dogma. If it did stop at things being relegated to museums I would not be opposed, but I really don't think it will. The goalposts always shift, especially when people are more concerned with being angry than being fair.
|
|
|
Post by nitronine on Jun 24, 2020 21:44:07 GMT
Because the people who agree with Rowling already agreed with Rowling whether she said anything or not. I do not accept the premise that speech is harmful to the point that we all should panic over it. I also do not accept that a writer beaking off will cause violence. That way lies inevitable censorship and I think that is more harmful than hurt feelings. You cannot mandate kindness. Murders are actual crimes for obvious reasons. Distasteful opinions are not. I don't put Rowling or Gareth Roberts above anyone - quite the opposite. That's why I say that I don't care what they have to say - outside of their craft, their opinion is no more valuable than yours or mine, so I don't think we should be listening to them one way or the other. If you want to disagree with them, that's fine, but we've gotten to a point where cancel culture is so rabid that they're not so much activists as they are an angry mob. And for the creators' part, I don't see why they feel the need to tell us all what they think instead of just minding their own beeswax. I am not giving slavers consideration, either, I am giving history its consideration in all its ugliness. I don't recall exalting or defending any of their actions. I simply don't think that history ought to be destroyed or hidden away. And yes, that rabbit hole can very easily happen. Just look at ISIS destroying historical artifacts because they did not fit their dogma. If it did stop at things being relegated to museums I would not be opposed, but I really don't think it will. The goalposts always shift, especially when people are more concerned with being angry than being fair. Someone with a large following like JK can easily sway the uniformed to her beliefs because they trust her, and her real life beliefs can also come up in her work and influence people without them even realising. This leads to further people being transphobic, and the more transphobia there is, the more that group is attacked. Not saying JK is directly responsible for that, but she in part is helping to maintain and encourage a transphobic society. If she was being racist or homophobic people would quite rightly be hurt and outraged. I don't see why transphobia should be any different. I agree that "cancel culture" can go over the top in some cases, but JK has been cancelled many times and she still has a huge platform so it's definitely not as big as issue as people make it out to be. There are many known abusers, both male and female, who still have huge careers in the entertainment industry despite many people saying that they should no longer be allowed to have those careers (+their illegal behaviours that would get regular people arrested, and in the few cases where they actually are punished some music artists still release new music from prison). The only time that I personally can remember that "cancel culture" was taken too far (and it succeeded) was with James Gunn, but in that example it was proven that it was the far right trying to take him down to make the left look over-reactive and spread doubt about their intent. The BLM movement as a whole is encouraging more history to be taught so we can learn from it. I know I can't speak for everyone but in my hometown at least three schools have had open letters sent to them to asking for a wider focus in the history curriculum, and to teach the bad parts of British history not just the good. It could be empty words but all three of those schools have since realeased a statement saying that they are going to attempt to make their History and English courses more inclusive and factual. There has also been a nationwide petition to get the national curriculum changed as well to also cover these issues. Taking down statues of historical racists won't erase history, leaving them up and presenting them as heroes will. I really don't want to sound like I'm being rude here, I genuinely like to have discussions with people who think differently to me as it expands my own beliefs and I don't want you to take offence at this, but I don't think that comparing people taking down statues of slave traders to ISIS isn't the slightest bit fair, and honestly it comes off as uninformed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 22:21:17 GMT
Because the people who agree with Rowling already agreed with Rowling whether she said anything or not. I do not accept the premise that speech is harmful to the point that we all should panic over it. I also do not accept that a writer beaking off will cause violence. That way lies inevitable censorship and I think that is more harmful than hurt feelings. You cannot mandate kindness. Murders are actual crimes for obvious reasons. Distasteful opinions are not. I don't put Rowling or Gareth Roberts above anyone - quite the opposite. That's why I say that I don't care what they have to say - outside of their craft, their opinion is no more valuable than yours or mine, so I don't think we should be listening to them one way or the other. If you want to disagree with them, that's fine, but we've gotten to a point where cancel culture is so rabid that they're not so much activists as they are an angry mob. And for the creators' part, I don't see why they feel the need to tell us all what they think instead of just minding their own beeswax. I am not giving slavers consideration, either, I am giving history its consideration in all its ugliness. I don't recall exalting or defending any of their actions. I simply don't think that history ought to be destroyed or hidden away. And yes, that rabbit hole can very easily happen. Just look at ISIS destroying historical artifacts because they did not fit their dogma. If it did stop at things being relegated to museums I would not be opposed, but I really don't think it will. The goalposts always shift, especially when people are more concerned with being angry than being fair. Someone with a large following like JK can easily sway the uniformed to her beliefs because they trust her, and her real life beliefs can also come up in her work and influence people without them even realising. This leads to further people being transphobic, and the more transphobia there is, the more that group is attacked. Not saying JK is directly responsible for that, but she in part is helping to maintain and encourage a transphobic society. If she was being racist or homophobic people would quite rightly be hurt and outraged. I don't see why transphobia should be any different. I agree that "cancel culture" can go over the top in some cases, but JK has been cancelled many times and she still has a huge platform so it's definitely not as big as issue as people make it out to be. There are many known abusers, both male and female, who still have huge careers in the entertainment industry despite many people saying that they should no longer be allowed to have those careers (+their illegal behaviours that would get regular people arrested, and in the few cases where they actually are punished some music artists still release new music from prison). The only time that I personally can remember that "cancel culture" was taken too far (and it succeeded) was with James Gunn, but in that example it was proven that it was the far right trying to take him down to make the left look over-reactive and spread doubt about their intent. The BLM movement as a whole is encouraging more history to be taught so we can learn from it. I know I can't speak for everyone but in my hometown at least three schools have had open letters sent to them to asking for a wider focus in the history curriculum, and to teach the bad parts of British history not just the good. It could be empty words but all three of those schools have since realeased a statement saying that they are going to attempt to make their History and English courses more inclusive and factual. There has also been a nationwide petition to get the national curriculum changed as well to also cover these issues. Taking down statues of historical racists won't erase history, leaving them up and presenting them as heroes will. I really don't want to sound like I'm being rude here, I genuinely like to have discussions with people who think differently to me as it expands my own beliefs and I don't want you to take offence at this, but I don't think that comparing people taking down statues of slave traders to ISIS isn't the slightest bit fair, and honestly it comes off as uninformed. I should hope too that they learn about the BLM Organisation: www.spectator.co.uk/article/revealed-what-black-lives-matter-really-stands-forAnyone would agree that 'Black Lives Matter'. Yet many Blacks are themselves uncomfortable with the A & O of the Org: Furthermore, I do not think J.K Rowling spoke from a position of hate, or phobia, nor used the language of a bigot: www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/She did however, speak words that many agree with irrespective of her involvement, from the advantage point that she cannot be bullied into silence, nor punished by threat of the loss of employment through being reported. To that end she has the balance of power over her detractors. The language used against her by too many activists however, does belong to the vocabulary of hate and personal attack.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 24, 2020 22:38:59 GMT
Furthermore, I do not think J.K Rowling spoke from a position of hate, or phobia, nor used the language of a bigot: www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/She did however, speak words that many agree with irrespective of her involvement, from the advantage point that she cannot be bullied into silence, nor punished by threat of the loss of employment through being reported. To that end she has the balance of power over her detractors. The language used against her by too many activists however, does belong to the vocabulary of hate and personal attack. There have been numerous, very detailed rebuttals to what JK wrote that both prove that A) she's factually wrong (lying about Maya Forster, lying about retransitioning rates, misrepresenting female mental health) and B) Yes, she used hateful language. For reference:
And here's two great video essays from feminist media critics Sarah Z and Liana Kershner, also countering her points:
This isn't a free speech issue: Rowling openly and deliberately lied to her audience.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,811
|
Post by lidar2 on Jun 24, 2020 22:47:27 GMT
I'm personally conflicted on statues. A statue by its nature should be something or someone to be proud of not a source of controversy. So I don't think statues of slavers should be kept up and although I am instinctively reluctant to side with rioters I do thin the statues should have come down.
Living in Northern Ireland where some people (on both sides of the divide) want to put up monuments to terrorists gives me more sympathy with the BLM movement than I would have expected myself to have on this issue. And unlike slavers who lived 150+ years ago and all their victims are long dead, these are terrorists whose crimes are in living memory and whose victims, or their immediate family, are still living. Any such monument is inevitably divisive, raises tensions and makes reconciliation harder and I would suggest they are used as ways of marking territory as "ours".
I know enough history to know of the Protestant reformers destroying idolatrous Roman Catholic statues in the 16th century as part of the Reformation, so the destruction of statues by mob violence is not a new thing.
So I think that in any community where there are tensions, divisive statues and symbols are a fundamentally bad idea and raise rather than reduce tensions. So the statues of slavers should definitely go.
On the other hand, I deplore the mob violence and anarchy that we have seen recently. And I actually think it is counter productive because real change only comes about when you change people's hearts and minds and you do that by engaging and understanding, not by rioting. Any group wanting to bring about lasting change in society needs to get the middle of the road / common sense / floating voter type of person on board and rioting isn't the way to do that. Rioting actually alienates potential sympathisers and however good it might make the rioters feel in the short terms it is arguably counter-productive in the medium/long term. Once the idea that "they want to take down Churchill's statue" takes hold, it then leads to a "political correctness gone mad" reaction from the usual suspects in the commentariat and the debate and discussion that we ought to be having about racism in society gets side-tracked into a cul-de-sac about what Churchill did or didn't say and what he meant or didn't mean by it
The other point I recognise is that we can't set up some artificial standard of perfection that we expect notable figures of the past (or present) to live up to because all will fall sort in some way or other. And if you take the policy of only having statues for the perfectly squeaky clean people to its logical conclusion, then you will not have statues of anyone ever because there are no perfectly squeaky clean people. And if we end up at the point where we can't have any statue of anyone ever then that can only mean we've taken a wrong turn somewhere along the way.
|
|
|
Post by nitronine on Jun 24, 2020 22:51:25 GMT
Someone with a large following like JK can easily sway the uniformed to her beliefs because they trust her, and her real life beliefs can also come up in her work and influence people without them even realising. This leads to further people being transphobic, and the more transphobia there is, the more that group is attacked. Not saying JK is directly responsible for that, but she in part is helping to maintain and encourage a transphobic society. If she was being racist or homophobic people would quite rightly be hurt and outraged. I don't see why transphobia should be any different. I agree that "cancel culture" can go over the top in some cases, but JK has been cancelled many times and she still has a huge platform so it's definitely not as big as issue as people make it out to be. There are many known abusers, both male and female, who still have huge careers in the entertainment industry despite many people saying that they should no longer be allowed to have those careers (+their illegal behaviours that would get regular people arrested, and in the few cases where they actually are punished some music artists still release new music from prison). The only time that I personally can remember that "cancel culture" was taken too far (and it succeeded) was with James Gunn, but in that example it was proven that it was the far right trying to take him down to make the left look over-reactive and spread doubt about their intent. The BLM movement as a whole is encouraging more history to be taught so we can learn from it. I know I can't speak for everyone but in my hometown at least three schools have had open letters sent to them to asking for a wider focus in the history curriculum, and to teach the bad parts of British history not just the good. It could be empty words but all three of those schools have since realeased a statement saying that they are going to attempt to make their History and English courses more inclusive and factual. There has also been a nationwide petition to get the national curriculum changed as well to also cover these issues. Taking down statues of historical racists won't erase history, leaving them up and presenting them as heroes will. I really don't want to sound like I'm being rude here, I genuinely like to have discussions with people who think differently to me as it expands my own beliefs and I don't want you to take offence at this, but I don't think that comparing people taking down statues of slave traders to ISIS isn't the slightest bit fair, and honestly it comes off as uninformed. I should hope too that they learn about the BLM Organisation: www.spectator.co.uk/article/revealed-what-black-lives-matter-really-stands-forAnyone would agree that 'Black Lives Matter'. Yet many Blacks are themselves uncomfortable with the A & O of the Org: Furthermore, I do not think J.K Rowling spoke from a position of hate, or phobia, nor used the language of a bigot: www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/She did however, speak words that many agree with irrespective of her involvement, from the advantage point that she cannot be bullied into silence, nor punished by threat of the loss of employment through being reported. To that end she has the balance of power over her detractors. The language used against her by too many activists however, does belong to the vocabulary of hate and personal attack. People can be bigoted without using hate speech. Spreading harmful beliefs, beliefs that cause harm to an oppressed group, is bigoted. Just because she didn’t use personal attacks or offensive slurs doesn’t change her beliefs. youtu.be/m-rh-N4eFDU This is a great video on the subject, detailing how JK’s writing is harmful, and that she is either misinformed or is deliberately lying. In regards to the BLM thing, a small number of people do not represent the whole movement, and many parts of that article are deliberately twisting words to make the movement sound bad. For example, the “demolition of prisons” sounds bad, but what people are actually fighting for is more work put into poorer neighbourhoods to stop crime at its roots rather than intervening once the crime has already been committed, thus leading to a lesser need for prisons as there will be fewer criminals.
|
|
|
Post by polly on Jun 24, 2020 22:55:58 GMT
Someone with a large following like JK can easily sway the uniformed to her beliefs because they trust her, and her real life beliefs can also come up in her work and influence people without them even realising. This leads to further people being transphobic, and the more transphobia there is, the more that group is attacked. Not saying JK is directly responsible for that, but she in part is helping to maintain and encourage a transphobic society. If she was being racist or homophobic people would quite rightly be hurt and outraged. I don't see why transphobia should be any different. I agree that "cancel culture" can go over the top in some cases, but JK has been cancelled many times and she still has a huge platform so it's definitely not as big as issue as people make it out to be. There are many known abusers, both male and female, who still have huge careers in the entertainment industry despite many people saying that they should no longer be allowed to have those careers (+their illegal behaviours that would get regular people arrested, and in the few cases where they actually are punished some music artists still release new music from prison). The only time that I personally can remember that "cancel culture" was taken too far (and it succeeded) was with James Gunn, but in that example it was proven that it was the far right trying to take him down to make the left look over-reactive and spread doubt about their intent. The BLM movement as a whole is encouraging more history to be taught so we can learn from it. I know I can't speak for everyone but in my hometown at least three schools have had open letters sent to them to asking for a wider focus in the history curriculum, and to teach the bad parts of British history not just the good. It could be empty words but all three of those schools have since realeased a statement saying that they are going to attempt to make their History and English courses more inclusive and factual. There has also been a nationwide petition to get the national curriculum changed as well to also cover these issues. Taking down statues of historical racists won't erase history, leaving them up and presenting them as heroes will. I really don't want to sound like I'm being rude here, I genuinely like to have discussions with people who think differently to me as it expands my own beliefs and I don't want you to take offence at this, but I don't think that comparing people taking down statues of slave traders to ISIS isn't the slightest bit fair, and honestly it comes off as uninformed. Well, remember the old saying about good intentions and the road to hell... I think it's condescending to assume that Rowling has such power over her readers that they will accept whatever she says. And frankly, if they do, then that's on them. All I'm saying is that she's just not that special and it would do us all a lot of good to stop treating celebrities like they are. Pay her no mind. As for the outrage brigade, it's simply Mary Whitehouse all over again, just with a different cause. The double standard has swung the other way is all. I don't think this kind of behavior is appropriate and it doesn't make for a pleasant environment. It stifles creativity and discourse. It's shattered fandoms into a million pieces where you can't step out of line without a ton of venom coming your way. I remember when Kirk vs Picard was the nastiest nerd fight I had to worry about, now everything is all political all the time and it does nothing but divide people. I feel so completely alienated from everyone over the last few years because everything is so polarized, it seems like nobody can handle their differences anymore without getting at each other's throats. I'm sick of social justice outrage. I'm sick of alt-right temper tantrums. It's all fire with fire, and it's destructive and not constructive. I can tell you're passionate about the topic. And thank you (and thank you to nucleusofswarm as well) for being polite, that's a rare pleasure. But if I'm honest, I don't really want to discuss this anymore. I don't like talking about politics, especially not online. All it does is get everyone hot under the collar. To me, it's the kind of thing that should be private. I don't know the political alignment of most people I know, and I like it that way. Should only matter on voting day, the rest of the time, we're all friends and neighbors. So I broke my own rule and I shouldn't have said anything to begin with. I just want us all to love each other and have a good time while we're on this beautiful planet and be free to do our own thing. All this constant conflict really bothers me. Sorry for picking a fight.
|
|
|
Post by aussiedoctorwhofan on Jun 24, 2020 22:56:28 GMT
I have to say I heartily agree with most things said here. I also like to hear from other countries and how things are handles there. As I come from Germany, we had a certain history with statues and a cult to our glorious leader, Lord and savior. That (luckily for the rest of the world) did not end well. Now certain statues and monuments (and concentration camps) are left standing to educate people. For example the Reichsparteitagsgelände in Nürnberg never was torn down. It is now basically a huge outdoor museum. I think that is much more effective than tearing it down and forget about it. As for the censoring of certain books. We also had a history of that in Germany with the Nazi book burnings. This always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. So the N word is in a historic book? Add a note at front to explain and educate. Do not abolish or hide art because it is uncomfortable. Some art was created to be uncomfortable. Art is a way to address and explain our environment and experiences. Not all of them are good. Nor should they be. Agree. My workmate is Polish, he immigrated here in the early 80's as a young child. He has been back a couple times, with his family, he has made the visit/pilgrimage to Austchwitz for obvious reasons. IMHO there needs to be a benchmark of some sort of what is wrong, to compare to "now". I think there may be 2-3 statues here in Australia that have been spray painted/graffiti'ed over - but nothing like what we see on the news in USA yet.
|
|
|
Post by nitronine on Jun 24, 2020 22:57:56 GMT
On the other hand, I deplore the mob violence and anarchy that we have seen recently. And I actually think it is counter productive because real change only comes about when you change people's hearts and minds and you do that by engaging and understanding, not by rioting. Any group wanting to bring about lasting change in society needs to get the middle of the road / common sense / floating voter type of person on board and rioting isn't the way to do that. Rioting actually alienates potential sympathisers and however good it might make the rioters feel in the short terms it is arguably counter-productive in the medium/long term. I fully understand the sentiment here, and agree with a lot of your points, but historically speaking riots and protests have been the main way that people have been able to make a change. Just look at the Suffragettes or Stonewall to name two (slightly recent) examples.
|
|
|
Post by nitronine on Jun 24, 2020 23:02:25 GMT
Someone with a large following like JK can easily sway the uniformed to her beliefs because they trust her, and her real life beliefs can also come up in her work and influence people without them even realising. This leads to further people being transphobic, and the more transphobia there is, the more that group is attacked. Not saying JK is directly responsible for that, but she in part is helping to maintain and encourage a transphobic society. If she was being racist or homophobic people would quite rightly be hurt and outraged. I don't see why transphobia should be any different. I agree that "cancel culture" can go over the top in some cases, but JK has been cancelled many times and she still has a huge platform so it's definitely not as big as issue as people make it out to be. There are many known abusers, both male and female, who still have huge careers in the entertainment industry despite many people saying that they should no longer be allowed to have those careers (+their illegal behaviours that would get regular people arrested, and in the few cases where they actually are punished some music artists still release new music from prison). The only time that I personally can remember that "cancel culture" was taken too far (and it succeeded) was with James Gunn, but in that example it was proven that it was the far right trying to take him down to make the left look over-reactive and spread doubt about their intent. The BLM movement as a whole is encouraging more history to be taught so we can learn from it. I know I can't speak for everyone but in my hometown at least three schools have had open letters sent to them to asking for a wider focus in the history curriculum, and to teach the bad parts of British history not just the good. It could be empty words but all three of those schools have since realeased a statement saying that they are going to attempt to make their History and English courses more inclusive and factual. There has also been a nationwide petition to get the national curriculum changed as well to also cover these issues. Taking down statues of historical racists won't erase history, leaving them up and presenting them as heroes will. I really don't want to sound like I'm being rude here, I genuinely like to have discussions with people who think differently to me as it expands my own beliefs and I don't want you to take offence at this, but I don't think that comparing people taking down statues of slave traders to ISIS isn't the slightest bit fair, and honestly it comes off as uninformed. Well, remember the old saying about good intentions and the road to hell... I think it's condescending to assume that Rowling has such power over her readers that they will accept whatever she says. And frankly, if they do, then that's on them. All I'm saying is that she's just not that special and it would do us all a lot of good to stop treating celebrities like they are. Pay her no mind. As for the outrage brigade, it's simply Mary Whitehouse all over again, just with a different cause. The double standard has swung the other way is all. I don't think this kind of behavior is appropriate and it doesn't make for a pleasant environment. It stifles creativity and discourse. It's shattered fandoms into a million pieces where you can't step out of line without a ton of venom coming your way. I remember when Kirk vs Picard was the nastiest nerd fight I had to worry about, now everything is all political all the time and it does nothing but divide people. I feel so completely alienated from everyone over the last few years because everything is so polarized, it seems like nobody can handle their differences anymore without getting at each other's throats. I'm sick of social justice outrage. I'm sick of alt-right temper tantrums. It's all fire with fire, and it's destructive and not constructive. I can tell you're passionate about the topic. And thank you (and thank you to nucleusofswarm as well) for being polite, that's a rare pleasure. But if I'm honest, I don't really want to discuss this anymore. I don't like talking about politics, especially not online. All it does is get everyone hot under the collar. To me, it's the kind of thing that should be private. I don't know the political alignment of most people I know, and I like it that way. Should only matter on voting day, the rest of the time, we're all friends and neighbors. So I broke my own rule and I shouldn't have said anything to begin with. I just want us all to love each other and have a good time while we're on this beautiful planet and be free to do our own thing. All this constant conflict really bothers me. Sorry for picking a fight. Like I said I genuinely didn’t want to pick a fight either, and am glad for your politeness also. In fact I agree that people in general are far too ready to attack people with different beliefs to them online these days (probably a mix of the so called “echo chamber” telling them that everyone else is stupid and wrong and the slight anonymity of being online) but really, on both sides, I think (hope) that most people at the end of the day are just decent human beings willing to have a discussion, but it’s a very vocal minority that spoil it for the rest of us and just drive further divide when we should be trying to come together.
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,661
|
Post by shutupbanks on Jun 24, 2020 23:04:49 GMT
Even the most cursory look at history will show that values change over time. What is considered acceptable in one society at one point in time is unacceptable in another society and/or at a different point in time. The idea that any one generation or any one society has "got it" and arrived at the final correct set of moral values and is therefore in a position to judge all other societies and generations is just plain daft. Having said that, however, the reality of human nature is that in practice every generation tends to think that its values are the pinnacle of human morality and understanding and to judge others on that basis. Consider: As you read this now, you - whoever your are and whatever your views - will be seen by future generations as a nasty bigot. No doubt about it. Future generations will have different values to us now and some of the values you now hold will be utterly anathema to them, even though no one today sees anything wrong with them. I'm not saying you are (or will be perceived by future generations as) guilty of racism or sexism or homophobia or anything else. You might be, or instead you might be judged guilty of some other -ism or -phobia that no one alive today has even thought of yet. But have no doubt that if your every view and statement were to be scrutinised by future generations, you would be found wanting in lots of ways. Who are you then to judge previous generations? By all means we should say what previous generations did and why we no longer do it and why we consider it to be wrong, but getting on our high horses about previous generations is inherently ludicrous. It's like getting cross at a dog for chasing a cat - no point in getting angry, that's just what dogs do. Likewise there's no point in demonising our ancestors - that's just the way things were back then. "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there". I'm not saying we can't draw attention to things they did that are no longer considered acceptable, nor am I excusing anything, but I think all the anger and self-righteousness and moral crusading directed at the past is a waste of energy and effort that could be better expended on trying to change things today. So my view is we should keep historical people and events in context and in perpective, be humble, "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Should we have left Jimmy Seville’s crimes in the past, then, and not gotten bothered about them? That’s just how things were with celebrities back in the day, after all. And he was a great philanthropist and all. What about Remembrance Day? For many people, it’s not just a solemn occasion but a time of real pain and sorrow. Should we just forget that, too? I know it’s a piece of whataboutery, but past events are relevant to the descendants of those people that lived it. Many of Saville’s victims had families that were relieved and finally understood why their loved ones felt and acted the way they did. My mum grew up in near-poverty because her father was killed at Tobruk and her mother had to take on menial jobs in order to raise her three kids. We never “did” Remembrance Day or ANZAC Day because it was too raw for her. It still is, nearly 80 years afterwards. Many people today have ancestors that lived in slavery. It’s a living issue, not something that we should ignore with a shrug of “Oh well, best get on with it.”
|
|
|
Post by nitronine on Jun 24, 2020 23:09:57 GMT
Also just a general message to everyone that I’ve replied to, I’m sorry if I came off as rude in any of the posts, it really wasn’t intended. It can be hard for me to detect tone through text, especially when it’s me who’s writing it so sorry if any of it read as rude or disrespectful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2020 1:50:02 GMT
Also just a general message to everyone that I’ve replied to, I’m sorry if I came off as rude in any of the posts, it really wasn’t intended. It can be hard for me to detect tone through text, especially when it’s me who’s writing it so sorry if any of it read as rude or disrespectful. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm finding this discussion well to read. I genuinely like that there are pauses where people are making sure it's not personal. My background is inherently contradictory for discussions like these. I'm a first-generation immigrant from an itinerant family, the son of European settlers and one of the people who raised me, someone I consider a mother, has indigenous heritage. My perspective is deeply multifaceted because it has to be. I find myself empathising/sympathising with a lot of the perspectives here, often contradictory. And, even if I can't come up with a definitive personal answer for me, at the moment, I like that it's getting me to think about these things.
|
|
|
Post by aussiedoctorwhofan on Jun 25, 2020 2:06:07 GMT
Also just a general message to everyone that I’ve replied to, I’m sorry if I came off as rude in any of the posts, it really wasn’t intended. It can be hard for me to detect tone through text, especially when it’s me who’s writing it so sorry if any of it read as rude or disrespectful. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm finding this discussion well to read. I genuinely like that there are pauses where people are making sure it's not personal. My background is inherently contradictory for discussions like these. I'm a first-generation immigrant from an itinerant family, the son of European settlers and one of the people who raised me, someone I consider a mother, has indigenous heritage. My perspective is deeply multifaceted because it has to be. I find myself empathising/sympathising with a lot of the perspectives here, often contradictory. And, even if I can't come up with a definitive personal answer for me, at the moment, I like that it's getting me to think about these things. Even though I am a born and raised Aussie, the other generations were born overseas. English wasn't my grandmothers 1st language. My mother speaks 2. "Our people" were invaded/ partially taken over- my grandmother recalled when she was a youngun being forced to learn a different language and to try and "forfeit" our national heritage. The conflict is still going on. And yes- these discussions are Very Well presented. great to read and experience. Best part of fandom coming out now. Thank you
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2020 2:52:39 GMT
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm finding this discussion well to read. I genuinely like that there are pauses where people are making sure it's not personal. My background is inherently contradictory for discussions like these. I'm a first-generation immigrant from an itinerant family, the son of European settlers and one of the people who raised me, someone I consider a mother, has indigenous heritage. My perspective is deeply multifaceted because it has to be. I find myself empathising/sympathising with a lot of the perspectives here, often contradictory. And, even if I can't come up with a definitive personal answer for me, at the moment, I like that it's getting me to think about these things. Even though I am a born and raised Aussie, the other generations were born overseas. English wasn't my grandmothers 1st language. My mother speaks 2. "Our people" were invaded/ partially taken over- my grandmother recalled when she was a youngun being forced to learn a different language and to try and "forfeit" our national heritage. The conflict is still going on. And yes- these discussions are Very Well presented. great to read and experience. Best part of fandom coming out now. Thank you Same. That's why, I think, the whole discussion circling around the idea of a single unvarying culture in Australia, to offer that perspective, is so difficult. There's often only one generation's difference between what's considered familiar and foreign. My roots are predominantly European 1 (with stops in Canada and New Zealand) and I am Australian. My friends, whose children I'm uncle to, are from Asia and are also Australian. Opposite ends of the Earth geographically, but there's no contradiction there. Uniformity would diminish us. We are one culture and many cultures. All at the same time. When it comes to talking about the past: there's a very immediate sense that it's not one history linked by country, but many histories linked by family lines. 1 - Even that's not uniform. The comparatively recent European immigrant half have very different experiences than the by then long-established European settler half.
|
|