Funkmasterp, I live in a predominantly middle class village in East Lothian, Scotland. Overt and violent racism has happened on multiple occasions, the police have been involved each time and we’ve had one prosecution for a hate crime. These instances flare up when racism is the media, like Danny Bakers monkey reference or if something has happened to someone in the media like Yaxley-Lennon or even Neil Oliver.
Similar has happened to people following what JK has said about transgender people. She’s not been cancelled for asking questions or promoting discussion, it’s her opinions which are denying other peoples identity that have been a problem and had real consequences for some.
There’s a bit of a paradox appearing on the thread with some posters comparing my opinions to Nazism and me to Hitler in an attempt at silencing opinion that counters theirs and preventing discussion. I have in effect previously been cancelled myself for challenging bigoted banter over the internet, because the right to freedom of speech is greater than the responsibility not to promote hate. This is quite a common technique to win the freedom of speech argument and to be able to say what they want without without any responsibility or affording the right to reply. I’ve never actually reported anyone for the opinions or views expressed, even when I’ve been personally attacked and I have generally responded considerately, or at least in tone with the conversation.

The example of university speakers is a good one. Surely the point of academic debate is being able to engage with those you fundamentally disagree with using facts and logic to defeat their arguments?

In an ideal world i agree with you, but the problem is differentiating between events set up to allow for debate and events that are/were providing a pulpit for the speaker to pontificate their views. We’ve all seen enough politicians not answering the question presented to them and giving a tangentally related soundbite instead. I’ve seen that in Q&A’s after academic presentations too.
Even events that are constituted around debate, e.g. the oxford union, result in soundbites and video clips of a guest speaker such as Farage making the rounds, and not the opposing argument delivered by the non-famous person.

To me there are two outcomes of cancel culture:

The loud mouthed idiots carry on regardless because to them any attention is good.

The only way you can argue or express an opinion and maintain ’the moral high ground’ is to define yourself as a victim. Victim groups become more and more tightly defined and smaller and smaller so anyone with power doesn’t have to listen and it becomes harder and harder to talk constructively to anyone outside that group (the feminism v trans argument is a case in point).

The outcome is that the people who really are doing us over don’t have to bother about divide and rule because we’ve saved them the job

It’s when people protest against actual meaningful racism, and then some bellend takes down an episode of the Golden Girls for no reason, which nobody had asked for, and then other bellends say CANCEL CULTURE! ZOMG SNOWFLAKES! and carrying on being racist.

Re “deplatforming”, the term itself is misleading and that’s no coincidence because the people complaining about it, want you to think they have a right to the platform. You are entitled to free speech, you’re not entitled to use someone else’s platform to do it. Not being allowed on someone else’s isn’t “deplatforming”, it’s just nothing happening at all, it was never yours to be de’d it. If you were invited then deinvited, that’s how being invited works sometimes, if you get invited to a party then the person remembers that time you shat in the laundry basket and uninvites you, your human rights are not being infringed.

Sometimes, you can give someone the platform and use it to show an arsehole up. But that’s not easy to do and it’s a stacked deck. Other times, you can have a genuine valuable debate and have the arguments stand and fall on their merits, which also is a positive thing, but that’s less and less common- debates these days are so much about rhetoric tricks, ignoring the question, and lying, and generally winning with your loud voice and strong simple bullshit. And the sort of person that doesn’t get invited, is more likely than not to be the sort of person that will shit on the board then walk around like they’ve won.

University debates are a perfect example of when it’s often not a good idea. You get some 20 year old kid- the university’s elected president, often, or their LGBTQ officer, or the head of a society- full of ideas and optimism, booked to go up against some professional beligerant like Jordan Peterson or Germaine Greer with years of experience in hostile “debates” and in making people look stupid in public while gaining publicity. Why is that a good idea? It doesn’t lead to a good or productive debate.

The example of university speakers is a good one. Surely the point of academic debate is being able to engage with those you fundamentally disagree with using facts and logic to defeat their arguments?

Problem is debate style has moved on, in the old days if you were asked a question you answered it, then someone realised this was completely unnecessary and being asked a question is just an opportunity to repeat the same spiel. Politicians started this, ignore the Q, just say the party line and everyone has copied it since.

Problem is debate style has moved on, in the old days if you were asked a question you answered it, then someone realised this was completely unnecessary and being asked a question is just an opportunity to repeat the same spiel. Politicians started this, ignore the Q, just say the party line and everyone has copied it since.

+1 I agree it’s a problem.

A debate

noun: debate; plural noun: debates
a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.

An imperfect (or perfect?) example of this was the Christopher Biggins vs Carlton Reid debate hosted by Alan Titchmarsh. Opposing arguments were put forward. It ended with an audience vote. Can’t remember if they voted to cancel cyclists or to keep cyclists. I think keep. I’d post a link to the video clip but looks like it’s gone #suspicious #morecancelculture

*Edit – ah here it is:

#canyoucancelmylastcancelcultureclaim
#popularfacts

Quote: Me:

“debates these days are so much about rhetoric tricks, ignoring the question, and lying, and generally winning with your loud voice and strong simple bullshit.”

Actually I fell into a trap here of thinking it’s new, really it’s no such thing. Cicero gets called the greatest orator and he would use literally any trick he could to win a debate. And his rival Hortensius was nicknamed the dancer because his footwork and body movement was considered his strongest tool in a debate. Debates have always been bullshit.

We can’t allow things to get to the point where nobody can open their mouth for fear of retribution or losing their job.

I could open my mouth and never have any fear of retribution or losing my job. Mainly become bigoted shit wouldn’t come out of my mouth…

I could open my mouth and never have any fear of retribution or losing my job. Mainly become bigoted shit wouldn’t come out of my mouth…

Ah…

https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/is-the-term-jungle-drums-racist/

Someone standing outside his shop and berating other people for buying stuff is cancel culture

Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with someone doing either of the above, but each case has to be judged on its’ own merits. And obviously, it all descends in to awful, tit-for-tat farce online where every minor offence is magnified

I would. I want to go about my business in a pleasant environment and not be hassled by fools with a megaphone spouting their views whether I want to hear them or not or agree with them or not.

it’s her opinions which are denying other peoples identity that have been a problem and had real consequences for some.

See here’s where I stop being able to follow the argument. I read what Rowling said, and I cannot find anything that ‘denies other people’s existence’. Could you point me to the bit that says this?

People disagreed with Rowling – that’s fine, I’m no fan of her myself. But why did they send thousands of hate messages to her? They were far, far worse than anything she said.

I’ve never heard of this concept before this thread and I’m not sure I’m any nearer but,

Surely the point of academic debate is being able to engage with those you fundamentally disagree with using facts and logic to defeat their arguments?

“We won you lost shut up and get on with it.” Is this the sort of thing you’re on about? Facts worked well there.

Easily, sorry I chose the wrong phrase. I was attempting to make a reference to acceptance of the transgender community and did so badly.

We can’t allow things to get to the point where nobody can open their mouth for fear of retribution or losing their job. That does not make for a good society. Views should definitely be challenged but people should not be persecuted.

Welcome to Scotland 2021.

Even events that are constituted around debate, e.g. the oxford union, result in soundbites and video clips of a guest speaker such as Farage making the rounds, and not the opposing argument delivered by the non-famous person.

Which brings me to another pet hate, edited footage that either side of an argument can use to further their own agenda. Imagine presenting a scientific paper where your study results were carefully curated and all the duff results filtered out? Context is king and this is why I hate these witch hunts often centred around a collection of patchy facts with only the context of how they are presented to go on.

“We won you lost shut up and get on with it.” Is this the sort of thing you’re on about? Facts worked well there.

No, because of exactly what I’m complaining about. It’s all about who can shout louder and the sooner people (as a whole) understand this and demand proper answers the better.

Welcome to Scotland 2021 2014.

FTFY, the rot set in long ago.

if you get invited to a party then the person remembers that time you shat in the laundry basket and uninvites you,

Are you still banging that drum?

The removal of Waterhouse’s ‘Sylas and the Nymphs’ in the MAG was a case in point. All sorts of puritanical uninformed ordure was spouted against this painting whilst all sorts of crap (and offensive?) video art and posters were being celebrated (that happened to be by a black woman). It was a PR disaster for the gallery. I then found out that the Waterhouse painting was removed because it was the easiest one to get off the wall. I laughed, a lot.

uninformed ordure was spouted against this painting

I’ll bite, Hylas (not Sylas) is a popular figure in 19thC art, as you can get boobies into your pictures and get away with it as it’s Greek Myth, innit.

Imagine presenting a scientific paper where your study results were carefully curated and all the duff results filtered out?

unfortunately that happens far too often. To understand the position and results you now have to  check who has funded the research. There have been many examples especially in pharmaceuticals where academics are funded to give the correct answer

Ah…

https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/is-the-term-jungle-drums-racist/

Sorry, not getting it. Are you saying that I made an ignorant comment about jungle drums and then lost my job? I didn’t by the way, just to put things straight.

My point was, I wouldn’t put bigoted crap out there in the public because I don’t have bigoted crap opinions.

Yep Nick, boobies do need to be seen in context. The Pre-Raphs and 2nd wave, in my view, had many progressive attitudes towards women and inequality. I imagine the Sally Army and Mary Whitehouse would agree with much of what these protesters were objecting to.

The removal of Waterhouse’s ‘Sylas and the Nymphs’ in the MAG was a case in point. All sorts of puritanical uninformed ordure was spouted against this painting whilst all sorts of crap (and offensive?) video art and posters were being celebrated (that happened to be by a black woman). It was a PR disaster for the gallery. I then found out that the Waterhouse painting was removed because it was the easiest one to get off the wall. I laughed, a lot.

Interesting. Let’s put this to the test. Firstly, do you have a link to help verify your account of the story?

Newsweek "Thought Police" cover from 1990. It's really incredible how identical the talking points are, thirty years later. pic.twitter.com/QM2FqjOnWC

— Becca Lewis (@beccalew) July 31, 2020

The link was talking to the workers at the gallery, some of whom were equally bemused and/or irritated. Sonya Boyce’s work is still there in part (the gallery bought it) and some was on loan the Oldham gallery. She wrote in the Guardian to account for her actions. What exactly are you testing?

What exactly are you testing?

I’m testing for narrative trends/personal bias/context-insertion, conspiracy etc etc.

ie if your account is factual and it runs counter to the MAG statements, then the Gallery’s and Sonia Boyce’s accounts are called into question, and of course vice-versa.

Equally, challenging a person’s views needn’t be a case of shutting them down. Nobody ever had their mind changed by someone attacking them, in fact you are more likely to entrench their views.

Much much worse than that…
It creates a divisive society and actually pushes people into the internet ghetto’s of extreme views.

Yep Nick, boobies do need to be seen in context

Well, if you view this particular painting in the “context” of all of Waterhouses’ output, then  Nymphs is probably “peak booby”

For criticism (as opposed to context)  look at Le Dejeuner sur l’herbe and try to figure out what Manet was trying to point out about some of his contemporaries paintings…

I happened to be visiting the gallery and archives for 3.5 years studying an artist. Incidentally, Francis Derwent Wood’s sculpture of a naked woman in the same room also had to go under the guise of Greek mythology but is a brilliant, vibrant and confident celebration of female independence.
Bias about Boyce? Creating endless posters of black stars of the stage, screen and sports field, do not, in my view, present good role models for the young. It’s an invitation to drop out, ‘I don’t need to know about this if I’m going to be a model’. Why not teachers, doctors and lawyers? Videos that seem to suggest that football supporters are all drunk and sing racist songs blaring out in a room of Victorian art is a kind of cancel culture. As much as anything else, it’s all a bit crude.

@kerley:

Sorry, not getting it. Are you saying that I made an ignorant comment about jungle drums and then lost my job? I didn’t by the way, just to put things straight.

I assumed (wrongly?) you were using the royal ‘I’ , ie your positing:

I (one) could open my (one’s) mouth and never have any fear of retribution or losing (one’s) job. Mainly become bigoted shit wouldn’t come out of (one’s) mouth…

In short, what I got from your above statement was ‘if one doesn’t spout bigoted shit then one’s job is safe’

The link I gave was an example of how things sometimes aren’t that simple.

Bias about Boyce?

Either way, about/from, etc. ie vice-versa. I’m trying to determine the veracity or otherwise of two seemingly conflicting accounts of what happened with the painting.

1. Is your account
2. Is the MAG account

Again:

ie if your account is factual and it runs counter to the MAG statements, then the Gallery’s and Sonia Boyce’s accounts are called into question, and of course vice-versa.

The Gallery account is:

Presenting the female body: Challenging a Victorian fantasy

Following a fantastic response to its seven day absence – both at the gallery itself and on-line – Waterhouse’s masterpiece Hylas and the Nymphs returned to public display at Manchester Art Gallery over the weekend.

The painting – part of the gallery’s highly prized collection of Pre-Raphaelite works – was temporarily removed from display as part of a project the gallery is working on with the artist Sonia Boyce, in the build-up to a solo exhibition of her work at the gallery opening on 23 March 2018. Boyce’s work is all about bringing people together in different situations to see what happens. The painting’s short term removal from public view was the result of a ‘take-over’ of some of the gallery’s public spaces by a wide range of gallery users and artists on Friday January 26th.

The event was conceived by Boyce to bring different meanings and interpretations of paintings from the gallery’s collection into focus, and into life. The evening included a series of performances, all filmed by Boyce’s team, addressing issues of race, gender, and sexuality, culminating in the careful, temporary removal of the Waterhouse painting.

(my bold)

kerley

Sorry, not getting it. Are you saying that I made an ignorant comment about jungle drums and then lost my job? I didn’t by the way, just to put things straight.

My point was, I wouldn’t put bigoted crap out there in the public because I don’t have bigoted crap opinions.

That’s your opinion… based on today.
However you don’t know what will be the judgement in the future and if for example “jungle drums” or even something just taken out of context will RETROSPECTIVELY be put into a judgement box that might come back and haunt you in 10yrs.

I’ll bite, Hylas (not Sylas) is a popular figure in 19thC art, as you can get boobies into your pictures and get away with it as it’s Greek Myth, innit.

I was banned from Flickr at one point for a photo of the Capital Building in Rome. The picture was the whole building but if you zoom in far enough my god.. those statues have male genitals.

It was Man city council who asked for it to be returned to the wall after lots of complaints. The original idea was that Boyce’s video would blare out in that gallery. A compromise was reached where headphones were used. They were then removed under the claim they were being damaged so the video quietly blared into the gallery. No such nonsense is found in the collections in Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle or Tate Britain.

That’s your opinion… based on today.
However you don’t know what will be the judgement in the future and if for example “jungle drums” or even something just taken out of context will RETROSPECTIVELY be put into a judgement box that might come back and haunt you in 10yrs.

Is all this just about a term that someone used 10 years ago or is it because of bigoted opinions that have been put out into the public via social media?

The funny thing is one of the only people that has been properly – and rightfully – “cancelled” is David Starkey thanks to his massive racist self own courtesy of arch bootlicker Darren Grimes.

How I laughed.

Yep, Manet makes a good point but they were not uniform in their attitudes. Some did objectify women (Rossetti in my view) others celebrated powerful and beautiful women (Holman-Hunt, Burne-Jones). This movement had a major impact on art (and politics) and to edit out is juvenile vandalism.

I cant see how removing Waterhouse from the MAG was a PR disaster, it got tons of media coverage and really opened up a discussion.

Art thrives from controversy, faux or otherwise. Think about the Turner Prize, it’s whole purpose was to enrage the press and get art into the mainstream, thus increasing the interest and overall market for art and Culture. Art needs people like BillMC with their outrage and uses people like him to get more exposure and expand debate. Keep up the good work Bill.

As Faerie points out, many peoples views have always been cancelled. The hysteria shown when a painting is temporarily removed from a wall, (a temporary cancelling in effect) should give people like Bill a chance to reflect on how certain views have been continuously repressed.

The choice is yours Bill, reflect or rage, do both if you like but you can’t deny you’ve been engaged.

Spawnofyorkshire,

That’s a really good point about events like the Oxford Union debates. Traditionally events like this have been about the act of debating itself more than the subject under debate, en exercise in debating skills, sophistry in its purest form.

With the advent of Youtube and social media the content has become weaponised in a way it hadn’t been previously. It’s a problem, and one that the organisers of such events have not got their heads around yet. They might be clever people at Oxford (though our current Cabinet are doing their best to lay waste to that claim) but they can’t see that they’re part of the problem and that such debates have become both anachronistic and dangerous.

Some did objectify women (Rossetti in my view)

I don’t see how you cannot see Waterhouse’s paintings in any other light other than objectification if you hold that view of Rossetti TBH.

You don’t encourage an interest in the arts by banning and removing, we need to increase accessibility both to the buildings and the art itself*. When people were debating in that gallery, I was astonished by how strident and yet uninformed some of these people were. I guess if all you’re doing is looking for a label to attach and the world is very back and white, you don’t have to think for very long.
There is a world of difference between the motivations and outcomes of Rossetti and Waterhouse but I never look at either for very long. That’s not to say they should be removed. Once you start down the ‘banning to stimulate discussion’ you are inviting in censorious actions from religious and cultural conservatives as with the Satanic Verses. That offends me! Ban the philistines!
*hence my little Youtube on FM Brown

You don’t encourage an interest in the arts by banning and removing

Agreed, but the Waterhouse piece was banned, and it’s removal was as a piece of art.

I guess if all you’re doing is looking for a label to attach

The Pre-Raphs and 2nd wave…These are your words, and if you don’t mind me saying this, “Schools of art” are designed solely as a barrier by people in the Art World to discourage people to take an interest in art, as they perpetuate a myth of “importance and scholarship”. Waterhouse is a Victorian painter who painted young women in various states of undress; so that uptight men (and it’s always men) could look at their tits and call it art.

Once you start down the ‘banning to stimulate discussion’

I’d happily remove Waterhouse from most galleries TBH,  as he’s a bit shit and there’s only space for so many “swooning young busty ladies, who just happen to have forgotten to get dressed this morning” on display everywhere…  (OK, he’s quite accomplished technically), but TBH, there’s nothing of worth in his “art” It’s just old…

I’d rather go to see the work of someone who was merely technically accomplished – Even if it’s of busty ladies, Even if it’s old – than the work of someone who thinks that removing a painting is ‘art’.