FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > The cancel culture hinders debate.
The cancel culture hinders debate.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Johnny Depp wasn't found 'innocent'. Winning a case doesn't prove innocence. There is also no evidence to say he lost work due to being believed to be a wife beater. He lost work due to being involved in a very ugly public case which showed his very ugly lifestyle and made him too ugly to handle at the time. He was just too uncool and that is his own doing. " In all fairness his former wife was just as bad as he was . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really isn't about not allowing others a view that differs to yours. It's about not allowing others to be racist, ageist, sexist , disablist , homophobic etc..... It's still possible to discuss matters about the above without 'othering' For the sake of keeping informed rather than misinformed Gary Lineker wasn't cancelled - his situation had less to do with what he said and more to do with the platform he said it on from the position he is in. " This 100% x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Johnny Depp wasn't found 'innocent'. Winning a case doesn't prove innocence. There is also no evidence to say he lost work due to being believed to be a wife beater. He lost work due to being involved in a very ugly public case which showed his very ugly lifestyle and made him too ugly to handle at the time. He was just too uncool and that is his own doing. In all fairness his former wife was just as bad as he was ." She was worse according to me. I still like him. Just wish I hadn't been privy to what they get up to within their marriage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really isn't about not allowing others a view that differs to yours. It's about not allowing others to be racist, ageist, sexist , disablist , homophobic etc..... It's still possible to discuss matters about the above without 'othering' For the sake of keeping informed rather than misinformed Gary Lineker wasn't cancelled - his situation had less to do with what he said and more to do with the platform he said it on from the position he is in. " Not really , that’s he excuse used to cancel. They decided JK Rowling was transphobic because she said women have periods. It’s basically facism, controlling what can be thought about , talked about and debated and what cannot, any idea or opinion that threatens them is cancelled in a systematic and organised way to manipulate and redefine culture | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really isn't about not allowing others a view that differs to yours. It's about not allowing others to be racist, ageist, sexist , disablist , homophobic etc..... It's still possible to discuss matters about the above without 'othering' For the sake of keeping informed rather than misinformed Gary Lineker wasn't cancelled - his situation had less to do with what he said and more to do with the platform he said it on from the position he is in. Not really , that’s he excuse used to cancel. They decided JK Rowling was transphobic because she said women have periods. It’s basically facism, controlling what can be thought about , talked about and debated and what cannot, any idea or opinion that threatens them is cancelled in a systematic and organised way to manipulate and redefine culture " I never gave an opinion on J.K. Rowling Who are they ? No subject is cancelled. We can talk about anything. Certain bodies , rightly or wrongly, refuse to have dealings with those who they believe have spoken against them - they cancel them. The whole of society doesn't cancel them. Who are the 'they' that have spoken against platforming J.K. Rowling ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". Cancel culture is an autocratic approach used in history by those who use fear to make sure people align to views and bahaviours they deem acceptable. " Exactly, history is full of examples , but if your in a democracy and can’t get elected, the intelligentsia do it this way, through public administrations, universities etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really isn't about not allowing others a view that differs to yours. It's about not allowing others to be racist, ageist, sexist , disablist , homophobic etc..... It's still possible to discuss matters about the above without 'othering' " Nailed it. I think it's quite possible to have debate and differing views - I personally don't see a shortage of debate - but lots of people call "cancel" just because they can't say things they frankly should never have been able to say, but used to get away with. It's the new "PC gone mad", which was also dull. That said, I will also agree that some people do *appear* too easily offended. Both things can be true, but ultimately it's not my place to rule what is offensive to others, and vice versa. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really isn't about not allowing others a view that differs to yours. It's about not allowing others to be racist, ageist, sexist , disablist , homophobic etc..... It's still possible to discuss matters about the above without 'othering' For the sake of keeping informed rather than misinformed Gary Lineker wasn't cancelled - his situation had less to do with what he said and more to do with the platform he said it on from the position he is in. Not really , that’s he excuse used to cancel. They decided JK Rowling was transphobic because she said women have periods. It’s basically facism, controlling what can be thought about , talked about and debated and what cannot, any idea or opinion that threatens them is cancelled in a systematic and organised way to manipulate and redefine culture I never gave an opinion on J.K. Rowling Who are they ? No subject is cancelled. We can talk about anything. Certain bodies , rightly or wrongly, refuse to have dealings with those who they believe have spoken against them - they cancel them. The whole of society doesn't cancel them. Who are the 'they' that have spoken against platforming J.K. Rowling ? " They are the ones in positions of power in big public admin organisations, quangos, bbc , Rusel group universities. The academic Trots after it became unfashionable to follow USSR , needed a new focus. Also organisations like momentum that are skilled in social media manipulation and fake news that infiltrated the Labour Party | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really isn't about not allowing others a view that differs to yours. It's about not allowing others to be racist, ageist, sexist , disablist , homophobic etc..... It's still possible to discuss matters about the above without 'othering' " The issue with some elements of cancel culture on social media is who gets to decide what is right and wrong? And of course algorithms love negativity and push that stuff on people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really isn't about not allowing others a view that differs to yours. It's about not allowing others to be racist, ageist, sexist , disablist , homophobic etc..... It's still possible to discuss matters about the above without 'othering' The issue with some elements of cancel culture on social media is who gets to decide what is right and wrong? And of course algorithms love negativity and push that stuff on people." It scares me to a degree. People drop tit bits and the crowd suck them up and spray it around without the brains to decide if it's true / reasonable or not .... definitely 'Death by Daft Twats' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really isn't about not allowing others a view that differs to yours. It's about not allowing others to be racist, ageist, sexist , disablist , homophobic etc..... It's still possible to discuss matters about the above without 'othering' For the sake of keeping informed rather than misinformed Gary Lineker wasn't cancelled - his situation had less to do with what he said and more to do with the platform he said it on from the position he is in. Not really , that’s he excuse used to cancel. They decided JK Rowling was transphobic because she said women have periods. It’s basically facism, controlling what can be thought about , talked about and debated and what cannot, any idea or opinion that threatens them is cancelled in a systematic and organised way to manipulate and redefine culture I never gave an opinion on J.K. Rowling Who are they ? No subject is cancelled. We can talk about anything. Certain bodies , rightly or wrongly, refuse to have dealings with those who they believe have spoken against them - they cancel them. The whole of society doesn't cancel them. Who are the 'they' that have spoken against platforming J.K. Rowling ? They are the ones in positions of power in big public admin organisations, quangos, bbc , Rusel group universities. The academic Trots after it became unfashionable to follow USSR , needed a new focus. Also organisations like momentum that are skilled in social media manipulation and fake news that infiltrated the Labour Party " Thank you. Are you able to be more specific ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There is also no evidence to say he lost work due to being believed to be a wife beater. " Replaced in the Fantastic Beasts franchise. Replaced in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. Replaced in several ad campaigns for men's cologne and clothes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There is also no evidence to say he lost work due to being believed to be a wife beater. Replaced in the Fantastic Beasts franchise. Replaced in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. Replaced in several ad campaigns for men's cologne and clothes. " No one denied he lost work. We don't know the reason he lost work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As long as no one is purposely rude or antagonistic I love a good healthy debate! But starting a response with 'you are wrong/attention seeking/being stupid/a fool' is definitely not the way to go about replying to anyone in any situation I don't think. " The trouble is that many snowflakes take any alternative view to their narrow-minded trope as antagonistic... It's not antagonistic. It's just a different view | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really isn't about not allowing others a view that differs to yours. It's about not allowing others to be racist, ageist, sexist , disablist , homophobic etc..... It's still possible to discuss matters about the above without 'othering' For the sake of keeping informed rather than misinformed Gary Lineker wasn't cancelled - his situation had less to do with what he said and more to do with the platform he said it on from the position he is in. Not really , that’s he excuse used to cancel. They decided JK Rowling was transphobic because she said women have periods. It’s basically facism, controlling what can be thought about , talked about and debated and what cannot, any idea or opinion that threatens them is cancelled in a systematic and organised way to manipulate and redefine culture I never gave an opinion on J.K. Rowling Who are they ? No subject is cancelled. We can talk about anything. Certain bodies , rightly or wrongly, refuse to have dealings with those who they believe have spoken against them - they cancel them. The whole of society doesn't cancel them. Who are the 'they' that have spoken against platforming J.K. Rowling ? They are the ones in positions of power in big public admin organisations, quangos, bbc , Rusel group universities. The academic Trots after it became unfashionable to follow USSR , needed a new focus. Also organisations like momentum that are skilled in social media manipulation and fake news that infiltrated the Labour Party Thank you. Are you able to be more specific ? " Ofqual produced a leaflet for 14-19 year olds on welding and motor vehicle college courses. On the front page was a young black woman welding, in nice jewellery and without safety goggles. There was a lot of complaints at time particularly from colleges in the north west saying this does not speak to their candidates, people were laughing about it, the intake are in most colleges, 100% young white males without the GCSEs to study academic, Ofqual insisted the colleges were institutionally racist and sexist and that’s why young intelligent black females were not applying | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Totally! It's become quite dreadfully boring ... love a really passionate healthy debate and I'd say most of my friends have differing views to me about most serious things. I'd be bored rigid if everyone thought or had the same beliefs as me ... " Yes, it does become boring doesnt it and yes, it is good to hear a healthy debate for and against | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really isn't about not allowing others a view that differs to yours. It's about not allowing others to be racist, ageist, sexist , disablist , homophobic etc..... It's still possible to discuss matters about the above without 'othering' Nailed it. I think it's quite possible to have debate and differing views - I personally don't see a shortage of debate - but lots of people call "cancel" just because they can't say things they frankly should never have been able to say, but used to get away with. It's the new "PC gone mad", which was also dull. That said, I will also agree that some people do *appear* too easily offended. Both things can be true, but ultimately it's not my place to rule what is offensive to others, and vice versa." I feel those that shout 'cancel culture 'the loudest are often those with the weakest argument or those relying on antiquated theories and viewpoints. The 2A supporters in the USA that scream every time any gun control legislation is mentioned. The Tate supporters who had breakdowns when he was arrested. 'Angry from Bristol' when the Xolston statue was toppled. People who think that any change is wrong, equality shouldn't exist and that any attempt to remove something offensive from public view, be it words in a book, pictures on a screen or government legislation, is an attempt to erase the past rather than just not celebrate it any more. I didn't see anyone decry the removal of a statue of Saville despite him raising millions for charity. I didn't see anyone scream when the Oompah Loompahs were changed from thr original 1964 pygmy s1aves from Africa, yet the recent changes were unacceptable. People like to get angry just because times have changed and things are no longer seen as acceptable by modern, empathetic society. So the cry 'cancel' without even thinking of the reasons why change is proposed. Because it requires no thought, no constructive argument and no discussion. A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are certain groups of people who should be excluded from adult debate. For example, conspiracy theorists who use false information as "proof", and far-right bigots who can't provide credible proof for their hatred. You're never going to engage in a sensible debate with them." I disagree. We see plenty of both on here sadly. But excluding them just makes them think 'the illuminati' are trying to censor them. They need including in debates and to be able to say what they want in order for rational thought, evidence, science, peer reviewed data and facts to be used to counter any statement. Only when these people are given a voice can any kind of education be attempted. A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it is tiring. I noticed it when the Brexit vote was happening, people ended friendships etc. It's dangerous that the mentality is if you don't think exactly as I think your evil. " In many cases that ending of friendships was justified, due to Brexit being sold as many different lies, and how gullible people were to believe them. It showed the true colours (not to mention lack of intelligence) of some people, mainly believing that it would stop immigration from outside Europe, and that we could continue to trade with Europe. So - what are the benefits of Brexit now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it is tiring. I noticed it when the Brexit vote was happening, people ended friendships etc. It's dangerous that the mentality is if you don't think exactly as I think your evil. In many cases that ending of friendships was justified, due to Brexit being sold as many different lies, and how gullible people were to believe them. It showed the true colours (not to mention lack of intelligence) of some people, mainly believing that it would stop immigration from outside Europe, and that we could continue to trade with Europe. So - what are the benefits of Brexit now?" Justified? I assume you were one who ended friendships over a difference of opinion? In my mind of someone was willing to end a friendship over politics, I'm better off without them anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are certain groups of people who should be excluded from adult debate. For example, conspiracy theorists who use false information as "proof", and far-right bigots who can't provide credible proof for their hatred. You're never going to engage in a sensible debate with them. I disagree. We see plenty of both on here sadly. But excluding them just makes them think 'the illuminati' are trying to censor them. They need including in debates and to be able to say what they want in order for rational thought, evidence, science, peer reviewed data and facts to be used to counter any statement. Only when these people are given a voice can any kind of education be attempted. A" Good point. However, when you give such people a voice, it usually turns into them becoming abusive when they realise they've lost the debate. One good example is on a Facebook forum I was in some years ago, they invited the PR manager of UKIP in for discussion with the other (left-wing) members, and we were happy for him to be there for an open discussion. No one was abusive to him - in fact, we were all very constructive and diplomatic in trying to address issues with him, and spoke to him in a civilised, sensible manner. It didn't take long for him to start the usual name-calling and abuse of others, when he realised he was losing. Once the abuse started, he was blocked from the group - and quite rightly so. Not good form, especially when you're views are expected to represent your members. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I watched an interesting program about it and this is also what jordan peterson have talked about. Basically, the short version of what it means is "you cant partake in a discussion if you dont have the right view". Another view of it is what we saw happened to gary linekar, where he got cancelled right away. There are different examples of this and they concluded the program that in order to have a healthy debate, you should beable to question and have a debate with different views, otherwise it becomes rather one sided. What is your view about it and do you also agree that in order to have a healthy debate you should beable to argue against, not just agreeing? "Cancel culture has been around as long as media and before that. Media barons have always been able to put only the views they want on prominent display. The public generally have very little impact on the point of view of the news they consume/have pushed down their throat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it is tiring. I noticed it when the Brexit vote was happening, people ended friendships etc. It's dangerous that the mentality is if you don't think exactly as I think your evil. In many cases that ending of friendships was justified, due to Brexit being sold as many different lies, and how gullible people were to believe them. It showed the true colours (not to mention lack of intelligence) of some people, mainly believing that it would stop immigration from outside Europe, and that we could continue to trade with Europe. So - what are the benefits of Brexit now? Justified? I assume you were one who ended friendships over a difference of opinion? In my mind of someone was willing to end a friendship over politics, I'm better off without them anyway." Yes I was. And that difference of opinion arose when the true racist colours emerged of a few friends. Likewise, I'm better off without bigots or conspiracy theorists in my circle of friends once their beliefs are made public. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it is tiring. I noticed it when the Brexit vote was happening, people ended friendships etc. It's dangerous that the mentality is if you don't think exactly as I think your evil. In many cases that ending of friendships was justified, due to Brexit being sold as many different lies, and how gullible people were to believe them. It showed the true colours (not to mention lack of intelligence) of some people, mainly believing that it would stop immigration from outside Europe, and that we could continue to trade with Europe. So - what are the benefits of Brexit now? Justified? I assume you were one who ended friendships over a difference of opinion? In my mind of someone was willing to end a friendship over politics, I'm better off without them anyway. Yes I was. And that difference of opinion arose when the true racist colours emerged of a few friends. Likewise, I'm better off without bigots or conspiracy theorists in my circle of friends once their beliefs are made public." In which case you ended the friendship over racism, not a difference of political opinion. There's a difference which often people confuse as being one and the same | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are certain groups of people who should be excluded from adult debate. For example, conspiracy theorists who use false information as "proof", and far-right bigots who can't provide credible proof for their hatred. You're never going to engage in a sensible debate with them. I disagree. We see plenty of both on here sadly. But excluding them just makes them think 'the illuminati' are trying to censor them. They need including in debates and to be able to say what they want in order for rational thought, evidence, science, peer reviewed data and facts to be used to counter any statement. Only when these people are given a voice can any kind of education be attempted. A Good point. However, when you give such people a voice, it usually turns into them becoming abusive when they realise they've lost the debate. One good example is on a Facebook forum I was in some years ago, they invited the PR manager of UKIP in for discussion with the other (left-wing) members, and we were happy for him to be there for an open discussion. No one was abusive to him - in fact, we were all very constructive and diplomatic in trying to address issues with him, and spoke to him in a civilised, sensible manner. It didn't take long for him to start the usual name-calling and abuse of others, when he realised he was losing. Once the abuse started, he was blocked from the group - and quite rightly so. Not good form, especially when you're views are expected to represent your members." Yep. Happens on here too. But you have to give them a voice in order to counter their view. Try and hide it and they go underground, as happens now. The Internet is the most common means for BS, fake news and conspiracy theory to be circulated because its a one sided conversation. Look at all the memes circulated during brexit re the Lisobon Treaty. All the alleged new laws coming in that didn't exist, yet became fact simply because people saw it on Facey and clicked 'share'. I managed to speak to a few friends who'd done just that to point out they were lies and only by doing that with two way discussion and engagement did they come to realise they were being catfished. The bigger the platform these people can be seen on in real life the easier it is to show how batshit they and their views are. But only if its an open, impartial discussion. Hence podcasts are generally staged with a cast to fit an agenda. A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it is tiring. I noticed it when the Brexit vote was happening, people ended friendships etc. It's dangerous that the mentality is if you don't think exactly as I think your evil. In many cases that ending of friendships was justified, due to Brexit being sold as many different lies, and how gullible people were to believe them. It showed the true colours (not to mention lack of intelligence) of some people, mainly believing that it would stop immigration from outside Europe, and that we could continue to trade with Europe. So - what are the benefits of Brexit now? Justified? I assume you were one who ended friendships over a difference of opinion? In my mind of someone was willing to end a friendship over politics, I'm better off without them anyway. Yes I was. And that difference of opinion arose when the true racist colours emerged of a few friends. Likewise, I'm better off without bigots or conspiracy theorists in my circle of friends once their beliefs are made public. In which case you ended the friendship over racism, not a difference of political opinion. There's a difference which often people confuse as being one and the same" I wouldn't end a friendship just because someone was on the opposite side of the political fence to me. Only when their views become extreme and in-your-face, and they become unreasonable to debate with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it is tiring. I noticed it when the Brexit vote was happening, people ended friendships etc. It's dangerous that the mentality is if you don't think exactly as I think your evil. In many cases that ending of friendships was justified, due to Brexit being sold as many different lies, and how gullible people were to believe them. It showed the true colours (not to mention lack of intelligence) of some people, mainly believing that it would stop immigration from outside Europe, and that we could continue to trade with Europe. So - what are the benefits of Brexit now? Justified? I assume you were one who ended friendships over a difference of opinion? In my mind of someone was willing to end a friendship over politics, I'm better off without them anyway. Yes I was. And that difference of opinion arose when the true racist colours emerged of a few friends. Likewise, I'm better off without bigots or conspiracy theorists in my circle of friends once their beliefs are made public." I'm the same, I've certainly ended friendships around covid because of conspiracy theorists and similarly I've tried ti never have racist or biggotted friends. I don't expect to agree with my friends on everything buy I do want to be around people who don't share the sane core values. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you have your own opinions? I don’t mean that in a rude way at all. It’s just that I notice your posts are regularly saying “I saw a program that said this”… “I read an article that said this” and then you repeat their views. Seems like you’re easily influenced. Anyway - “cancel culture” is dying, luckily. Everyone is human, everyone makes mistakes. Also it’s becoming apparent that those doing the “cancelling” are weirdos who have no lives themselves " People cite programmes they have heard etc to give their arguments validity. It’s a matter of fact that we get our information from the media and have to form our opinions on the sometimes limited data available to us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture is nothibg more than people assuming a victim complex when they are held accountable for their opinions bevause they believe they have a right not to be challenged on them " 
I honestly believe that cancel culture itself is as much a conspiracy theory as all conspiracy theories themselves.
It's a response to change. Change that some don't like or feel comfortable with. Change that it's much easier to push a hidden agenda on to that accept it's just simply change based on evolving attitudes and opinions.
Happens with so many subjects, not just ones based on perceived censorship and 'erasure of history'. Whether it's climate change, world economics, government alert systems, 5G, 15 minute cities or whatever....it's easier for some to see a secret, hidden agenda, whether orchestrated by some unknown entity or clearly visible group rather than just accept simple change.
Cancel culture is just a convenient name to throw out, nothing more. Much like 'clique'. 
A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture is nothibg more than people assuming a victim complex when they are held accountable for their opinions bevause they believe they have a right not to be challenged on them " Yeah. Some people really fetishise victimhood. There's sometimes a herd mentality - on both sides of the aisle - but cancel culture as a phenomenon is mostly pretending to be victim kink. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really isn't about not allowing others a view that differs to yours. It's about not allowing others to be racist, ageist, sexist , disablist , homophobic etc..... It's still possible to discuss matters about the above without 'othering' For the sake of keeping informed rather than misinformed Gary Lineker wasn't cancelled - his situation had less to do with what he said and more to do with the platform he said it on from the position he is in. Not really , that’s he excuse used to cancel. They decided JK Rowling was transphobic because she said women have periods. It’s basically facism, controlling what can be thought about , talked about and debated and what cannot, any idea or opinion that threatens them is cancelled in a systematic and organised way to manipulate and redefine culture I never gave an opinion on J.K. Rowling Who are they ? No subject is cancelled. We can talk about anything. Certain bodies , rightly or wrongly, refuse to have dealings with those who they believe have spoken against them - they cancel them. The whole of society doesn't cancel them. Who are the 'they' that have spoken against platforming J.K. Rowling ? They are the ones in positions of power in big public admin organisations, quangos, bbc , Rusel group universities. The academic Trots after it became unfashionable to follow USSR , needed a new focus. Also organisations like momentum that are skilled in social media manipulation and fake news that infiltrated the Labour Party Thank you. Are you able to be more specific ? Ofqual produced a leaflet for 14-19 year olds on welding and motor vehicle college courses. On the front page was a young black woman welding, in nice jewellery and without safety goggles. There was a lot of complaints at time particularly from colleges in the north west saying this does not speak to their candidates, people were laughing about it, the intake are in most colleges, 100% young white males without the GCSEs to study academic, Ofqual insisted the colleges were institutionally racist and sexist and that’s why young intelligent black females were not applying " Thanks
You can't tell me who cancelled J.K. Rowling it seems......
Thanks for your effort tho | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree that people should be able to express their opinions. There's a balance between the freedom to do as you please Vs freedom from harm." Of course. Some people, sadly, believe that "free speech" means "hate speech". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really isn't about not allowing others a view that differs to yours. It's about not allowing others to be racist, ageist, sexist , disablist , homophobic etc..... It's still possible to discuss matters about the above without 'othering' For the sake of keeping informed rather than misinformed Gary Lineker wasn't cancelled - his situation had less to do with what he said and more to do with the platform he said it on from the position he is in. This 100% x" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you ever tried to debate with someone who uses "woke" as a general term of abuse, without knowing the true meaning of the word? Now there's a challenge." I find it best to recognise that they're speaking a wildly different dialect. Most of the words mean the same thing, but there's some specialised language that is confined to their cultural milieu. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I watched an interesting program about it and this is also what jordan peterson have talked about. Basically, the short version of what it means is "you cant partake in a discussion if you dont have the right view". Another view of it is what we saw happened to gary linekar, where he got cancelled right away. There are different examples of this and they concluded the program that in order to have a healthy debate, you should beable to question and have a debate with different views, otherwise it becomes rather one sided. What is your view about it and do you also agree that in order to have a healthy debate you should beable to argue against, not just agreeing? "To reach any reasonable conclusion many factors must be considered, the only way to do so is to allow varied views to be discussed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you ever tried to debate with someone who uses "woke" as a general term of abuse, without knowing the true meaning of the word? Now there's a challenge." What is the 'True' meaning of the word woke? i am sure it varies vastly depending who you ask. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is the conflation between being criticised and being "cancelled". Very few people get cancelled in the sense of being driven out of public life. Celebrities who have said and done awful things have been criticised and then ultimately just carried on with their lives as normal." or sacked from their job | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is the conflation between being criticised and being "cancelled". Very few people get cancelled in the sense of being driven out of public life. Celebrities who have said and done awful things have been criticised and then ultimately just carried on with their lives as normal." Or even whip up further attention and audience. That's... the opposite of cancelling? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Problem is both sides want to cancel each other out rather than listening talking reaching compromises The left are shit bags just as much as the right are shit bags. We see this hugely in America with their current right wing conservative ideology going full steam into liberal / gender / body laws " Absolutely! Social media and the left-right popular media divide allow people to jump further into their own echo chambers. I think that's why we're seeing more staunch views and less discussion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are very few people that it's possible to debate with. In my experience that has always been the case. Cancel culture has also existed to an extent since humans could talk. It just has a name now. " Yes, there are only few ones too, as you say it is a big thing now, especially with all the narratives | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you ever tried to debate with someone who uses "woke" as a general term of abuse, without knowing the true meaning of the word? Now there's a challenge. What is the 'True' meaning of the word woke? i am sure it varies vastly depending who you ask." I can hazard a guess by what he thinks the 'true' meaning is.. The reason for this is 'the left' won't listen to the right when they tell them what they mean by it. They just spout the old 'alert to injustice, especially racism' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you ever tried to debate with someone who uses "woke" as a general term of abuse, without knowing the true meaning of the word? Now there's a challenge. What is the 'True' meaning of the word woke? i am sure it varies vastly depending who you ask." To quote: "In its modern-day, politicised (left-wing) context, ‘woke’ is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘originally: well-informed, up-to-date. Now chiefly: alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice’. The Urban Dictionary, meanwhile, explains that ‘being woke means being aware… knowing what’s going on in the community (related to racism and social injustice)’." In other words, consciously awake. Nowadays, this also extends to injustice towards sex, gender, religion etc. The term ‘woke’ is not inherently an insult - however, it has been weaponised in recent years to criticise people – usually in arguments surrounding identity politics. ‘Woke’ has dethroned ‘politically correct’ and ‘snowflake’ as the insult du jour for many internet trolls wishing to mock the hypersensitivity of the left (Piers Morgan, Laurence Fox, The Sun etc) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you ever tried to debate with someone who uses "woke" as a general term of abuse, without knowing the true meaning of the word? Now there's a challenge. What is the 'True' meaning of the word woke? i am sure it varies vastly depending who you ask. I can hazard a guess by what he thinks the 'true' meaning is.. The reason for this is 'the left' won't listen to the right when they tell them what they mean by it. They just spout the old 'alert to injustice, especially racism'" What you mean is, we won't listen to your far-right definiton of "woke". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you ever tried to debate with someone who uses "woke" as a general term of abuse, without knowing the true meaning of the word? Now there's a challenge. What is the 'True' meaning of the word woke? i am sure it varies vastly depending who you ask. I can hazard a guess by what he thinks the 'true' meaning is.. The reason for this is 'the left' won't listen to the right when they tell them what they mean by it. They just spout the old 'alert to injustice, especially racism' What you mean is, we won't listen to your far-right definiton of "woke"." And there we have it, I'm far-right because I can see 2 sides of a coin. This is why the left lose arguments.. Have I made any far-right comments here?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you ever tried to debate with someone who uses "woke" as a general term of abuse, without knowing the true meaning of the word? Now there's a challenge. What is the 'True' meaning of the word woke? i am sure it varies vastly depending who you ask. I can hazard a guess by what he thinks the 'true' meaning is.. The reason for this is 'the left' won't listen to the right when they tell them what they mean by it. They just spout the old 'alert to injustice, especially racism' What you mean is, we won't listen to your far-right definiton of "woke". And there we have it, I'm far-right because I can see 2 sides of a coin. This is why the left lose arguments.. Have I made any far-right comments here?? You've denied the true meaning of the word "woke" in the same way the far-right do. See my post above." I haven't denied anything... I said the left won't listen to the right.. There are multiple meanings of many many words, words always adapt to language, you just won't listen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is the conflation between being criticised and being "cancelled". Very few people get cancelled in the sense of being driven out of public life. Celebrities who have said and done awful things have been criticised and then ultimately just carried on with their lives as normal. or sacked from their job" Which celebreriesvd8byiu think have been unfairly sacked by cancel culture? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you ever tried to debate with someone who uses "woke" as a general term of abuse, without knowing the true meaning of the word? Now there's a challenge. What is the 'True' meaning of the word woke? i am sure it varies vastly depending who you ask. I can hazard a guess by what he thinks the 'true' meaning is.. The reason for this is 'the left' won't listen to the right when they tell them what they mean by it. They just spout the old 'alert to injustice, especially racism' What you mean is, we won't listen to your far-right definiton of "woke". And there we have it, I'm far-right because I can see 2 sides of a coin. This is why the left lose arguments.. Have I made any far-right comments here?? " You've behaved in a rather far-right and narrow-minded way by using "woke" as a disparaging term, and denying its true meaning. Also, your "this is why the left lose arguments" speaks volumes about your beliefs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you ever tried to debate with someone who uses "woke" as a general term of abuse, without knowing the true meaning of the word? Now there's a challenge. What is the 'True' meaning of the word woke? i am sure it varies vastly depending who you ask. I can hazard a guess by what he thinks the 'true' meaning is.. The reason for this is 'the left' won't listen to the right when they tell them what they mean by it. They just spout the old 'alert to injustice, especially racism' What you mean is, we won't listen to your far-right definiton of "woke". And there we have it, I'm far-right because I can see 2 sides of a coin. This is why the left lose arguments.. Have I made any far-right comments here?? You've behaved in a rather far-right and narrow-minded way by using "woke" as a disparaging term, and denying its true meaning. Also, your "this is why the left lose arguments" speaks volumes about your beliefs. " I did no such thing.. I didn't use the word woke apart from in the context of this conversation. You keep running around screaming far-right, you've already lost. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Have I made any far-right comments here?? You've behaved in a rather far-right and narrow-minded way by using "woke" as a disparaging term, and denying its true meaning. Also, your "this is why the left lose arguments" speaks volumes about your beliefs. I did no such thing.. I didn't use the word woke apart from in the context of this conversation. You keep running around screaming far-right, you've already lost." I've lost nothing. To quote your previous post: "I can hazard a guess by what he thinks the 'true' meaning is.. The reason for this is 'the left' won't listen to the right when they tell them what they mean by it. They just spout the old 'alert to injustice, especially racism'" And there you have it - now only do you use "woke" as an insult, but also "the left", which speaks volumes about your beliefs. Truth hurts, doesn't it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Problem is both sides want to cancel each other out rather than listening talking reaching compromises The left are shit bags just as much as the right are shit bags. We see this hugely in America with their current right wing conservative ideology going full steam into liberal / gender / body laws Absolutely! Social media and the left-right popular media divide allow people to jump further into their own echo chambers. I think that's why we're seeing more staunch views and less discussion." Social media is a blight on conceptual free form thinking / debate. People just hide in reinforced echo chambers unfortunately that reinforces views I am going to laugh when it all comes crashing down under heavy censorship inevitably. People will be united then crying over the loss of freedoms then. Without registering they have been walking into this for years and years. In the real world most people appear to be in the middle or simply too busy living their life to worry about all this media stoked nonsense at best of times In my experiences anyway of travelling around the western world . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Have I made any far-right comments here?? You've behaved in a rather far-right and narrow-minded way by using "woke" as a disparaging term, and denying its true meaning. Also, your "this is why the left lose arguments" speaks volumes about your beliefs. I did no such thing.. I didn't use the word woke apart from in the context of this conversation. You keep running around screaming far-right, you've already lost. I've lost nothing. To quote your previous post: "I can hazard a guess by what he thinks the 'true' meaning is.. The reason for this is 'the left' won't listen to the right when they tell them what they mean by it. They just spout the old 'alert to injustice, especially racism'" And there you have it - now only do you use "woke" as an insult, but also "the left", which speaks volumes about your beliefs. Truth hurts, doesn't it!" Wtf are you on about? I do not use the word "woke" as an insult. I also do not use the term "the left" as in insult. You clearly use far-right as an insult to anyone who doesn't conform to your way of thinking, so yes, you have lost this particular battle. You really should try harder. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Have I made any far-right comments here?? You've behaved in a rather far-right and narrow-minded way by using "woke" as a disparaging term, and denying its true meaning. Also, your "this is why the left lose arguments" speaks volumes about your beliefs. I did no such thing.. I didn't use the word woke apart from in the context of this conversation. You keep running around screaming far-right, you've already lost. I've lost nothing. To quote your previous post: "I can hazard a guess by what he thinks the 'true' meaning is.. The reason for this is 'the left' won't listen to the right when they tell them what they mean by it. They just spout the old 'alert to injustice, especially racism'" And there you have it - now only do you use "woke" as an insult, but also "the left", which speaks volumes about your beliefs. Truth hurts, doesn't it! Wtf are you on about? I do not use the word "woke" as an insult. I also do not use the term "the left" as in insult. You clearly use far-right as an insult to anyone who doesn't conform to your way of thinking, so yes, you have lost this particular battle. You really should try harder." You can deny all you want. The proof is in your previous comments for everyone to see. I could continue to debate this with you, but you obviously haven't quite grasped the meaning of the word "debate", and instead just insult the left and "woke" culture. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Have I made any far-right comments here?? You've behaved in a rather far-right and narrow-minded way by using "woke" as a disparaging term, and denying its true meaning. Also, your "this is why the left lose arguments" speaks volumes about your beliefs. I did no such thing.. I didn't use the word woke apart from in the context of this conversation. You keep running around screaming far-right, you've already lost. I've lost nothing. To quote your previous post: "I can hazard a guess by what he thinks the 'true' meaning is.. The reason for this is 'the left' won't listen to the right when they tell them what they mean by it. They just spout the old 'alert to injustice, especially racism'" And there you have it - now only do you use "woke" as an insult, but also "the left", which speaks volumes about your beliefs. Truth hurts, doesn't it! Wtf are you on about? I do not use the word "woke" as an insult. I also do not use the term "the left" as in insult. You clearly use far-right as an insult to anyone who doesn't conform to your way of thinking, so yes, you have lost this particular battle. You really should try harder. You can deny all you want. The proof is in your previous comments for everyone to see. I could continue to debate this with you, but you obviously haven't quite grasped the meaning of the word "debate", and instead just insult the left and "woke" culture." 
My previous comments are there for all to see. None of which are insulting.
Apart from if you class 'the left won't listen' as insulting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Have I made any far-right comments here?? You've behaved in a rather far-right and narrow-minded way by using "woke" as a disparaging term, and denying its true meaning. Also, your "this is why the left lose arguments" speaks volumes about your beliefs. I did no such thing.. I didn't use the word woke apart from in the context of this conversation. You keep running around screaming far-right, you've already lost. I've lost nothing. To quote your previous post: "I can hazard a guess by what he thinks the 'true' meaning is.. The reason for this is 'the left' won't listen to the right when they tell them what they mean by it. They just spout the old 'alert to injustice, especially racism'" And there you have it - now only do you use "woke" as an insult, but also "the left", which speaks volumes about your beliefs. Truth hurts, doesn't it! Wtf are you on about? I do not use the word "woke" as an insult. I also do not use the term "the left" as in insult. You clearly use far-right as an insult to anyone who doesn't conform to your way of thinking, so yes, you have lost this particular battle. You really should try harder." I'm sorry buy I agree with the comment Swinging-Cat made. The comments he quoted don't exactly suggest a Liberal perspective | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the real problem today is that people conflate "freedom of speech" with "freedom from consequences." You are free to say what you want, but if your abhorrent views get you thrown off of a social media platform, or start a movement of people against you, or get your sponsorship deals revoked, that's not cancel culture, that's just you having reached a critical mass of people that happen to think you're an asshole. The only difference between modern times and the old days is that we can all reach much broader audiences, so it's much easier for a lot of people to reach the conclusion that you're an asshole and act accordingly. "Yeah, consequences isn't censorship | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Have I made any far-right comments here?? You've behaved in a rather far-right and narrow-minded way by using "woke" as a disparaging term, and denying its true meaning. Also, your "this is why the left lose arguments" speaks volumes about your beliefs. I did no such thing.. I didn't use the word woke apart from in the context of this conversation. You keep running around screaming far-right, you've already lost. I've lost nothing. To quote your previous post: "I can hazard a guess by what he thinks the 'true' meaning is.. The reason for this is 'the left' won't listen to the right when they tell them what they mean by it. They just spout the old 'alert to injustice, especially racism'" And there you have it - now only do you use "woke" as an insult, but also "the left", which speaks volumes about your beliefs. Truth hurts, doesn't it! Wtf are you on about? I do not use the word "woke" as an insult. I also do not use the term "the left" as in insult. You clearly use far-right as an insult to anyone who doesn't conform to your way of thinking, so yes, you have lost this particular battle. You really should try harder. I'm sorry buy I agree with the comment Swinging-Cat made. The comments he quoted don't exactly suggest a Liberal perspective " So by me saying the left will only see it in their own context means I'm not Liberal? I guess it's OK for him to call me 'far-right' because I don't agree with him?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm sorry buy I agree with the comment Swinging-Cat made. The comments he quoted don't exactly suggest a Liberal perspective So by me saying the left will only see it in their own context means I'm not Liberal? I guess it's OK for him to call me 'far-right' because I don't agree with him?? " Out of curiosity why do you think 'the left' only see things in their own context, rather than the possibility that they've listened to opposing views and fundamentally disagree with them? The argument that one side doesn't listen to the other always confuses me. It's perfectly possible to hear an opposing view, disagree with it and continue to advocate your own stance. That doesn't mean anyone isn't listening, or do you think that just because they don't change their mind? A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve noticed in this thread that debate is talked about as allowing others to express their opinions or being an opportunity to oppose “unacceptable” views. I seem to have missed where it says that debate is also an opportunity to learn from others and use it to examine one’s own values in the light of new information. " ^ this is what it should be about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm sorry buy I agree with the comment Swinging-Cat made. The comments he quoted don't exactly suggest a Liberal perspective So by me saying the left will only see it in their own context means I'm not Liberal? I guess it's OK for him to call me 'far-right' because I don't agree with him?? Out of curiosity why do you think 'the left' only see things in their own context, rather than the possibility that they've listened to opposing views and fundamentally disagree with them? The argument that one side doesn't listen to the other always confuses me. It's perfectly possible to hear an opposing view, disagree with it and continue to advocate your own stance. That doesn't mean anyone isn't listening, or do you think that just because they don't change their mind? A" Maybe it's because you can show them the context of words used in many different manners yet they won't see it. People can have their definition but when a particular word is clearly used and explained in a different context, there is no denying it, the left tend to deny it and stick with their perceived definition | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So by me saying the left will only see it in their own context means I'm not Liberal? I guess it's OK for him to call me 'far-right' because I don't agree with him?? " So 'the right' aren't using woke as an insult? What is the one true definition they use then? B | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really isn't about not allowing others a view that differs to yours. It's about not allowing others to be racist, ageist, sexist , disablist , homophobic etc..... It's still possible to discuss matters about the above without 'othering' For the sake of keeping informed rather than misinformed Gary Lineker wasn't cancelled - his situation had less to do with what he said and more to do with the platform he said it on from the position he is in. " Whilst I agree with all of this, it is worth pointing out that what qualifies as racist, homophobic etc can and does vary from person to person. A classic example of this is the fairly regular threads that pop up on here about wolf whistling. There is always a range of opinions from women going from enjoyment at recieving a whistle, through indifference to dislike and even fear. Some see it as a compliment, others as sexist objectification. With all these subjects there will inevitably be opinions/beliefs that pretty much everyone will agree are offensive while there are others that people will disagree on. Read through any thread on here about the police, clothing choices, abortion, sexual preferences etc etc and there will always be a range of opinions that some will be horrified at and apply the labels you have listed above while others consider to be perfectly acceptable. The problem is, it has been shown that what we believe to be morally right or wrong is an instinctive reaction that we give rational justification to post hoc. Our moral reactions are instinctive and emotional and not readily influenced by reasoned arguments. Understanding this and taking a step back to consider why it is we believe our opinion on a subject is objectively more right than anyone else's is a talent that is in very short supply. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So by me saying the left will only see it in their own context means I'm not Liberal? I guess it's OK for him to call me 'far-right' because I don't agree with him?? So 'the right' aren't using woke as an insult? What is the one true definition they use then? B" 'The right' do use it as an insult but not in the manner 'the left' think they do. I haven't and never will use the word as an insult but apparently I'm 'far right' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It feels like it's often the case that any form of exchange about an emotive subject will descend into name calling and/or finger pointing and ultimately end in further entrenchment in one's own, already strongly held, views. The whole point of debate is just that...to debate, i.e. to put your point of view across and then *listen* to another point of view (without attempting to shout it down) so as to engage in a reasoned discussion. It feels like the ability to do this has been largely lost, with any attempt ending in "f*** you!!". I don't know precisely why, but I suspect there are multiple factors...TV, internet, social media, peer pressures, etc. Maybe the biggest issue is simply human nature... we're all born with pride and pride naturally assumes that someone questioning our viewpoint is actually them questioning us as an individual. And pride's natural response to that is often aggressive and confrontational. Perhaps a little humility would go a long way... But maybe I'm being way too simplistic!" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm sorry buy I agree with the comment Swinging-Cat made. The comments he quoted don't exactly suggest a Liberal perspective So by me saying the left will only see it in their own context means I'm not Liberal? I guess it's OK for him to call me 'far-right' because I don't agree with him?? Out of curiosity why do you think 'the left' only see things in their own context, rather than the possibility that they've listened to opposing views and fundamentally disagree with them? The argument that one side doesn't listen to the other always confuses me. It's perfectly possible to hear an opposing view, disagree with it and continue to advocate your own stance. That doesn't mean anyone isn't listening, or do you think that just because they don't change their mind? A Maybe it's because you can show them the context of words used in many different manners yet they won't see it. People can have their definition but when a particular word is clearly used and explained in a different context, there is no denying it, the left tend to deny it and stick with their perceived definition " But so do 'the right' ? 
I've put both 'the left' and 'the right' in inverted comments purely because they're seen as opposing sides in most arguments but the same would be true for any two opposing factions.
But any definitions, like any opinions, will always be worded or phrased in a way to suit the agenda of a particular group. Nobody owns words and many can have different applicable definitions dependant on context, usage and intended message. So there's no surprise that two fundamentally different ideologies feel words mean different things.
Woke, snowflake, lefty and similar terms do seem to be the go to insults for anyone not agreeing with more liberal ideas and notions though. And the liberal community have their own choice words for those with more right wing views.
I honestly couldn't care less when people call me woke or snowflake just because I have compassion and empathy for certain groups of people that others feel are a blight on society and the root of all evil in the world. And I chuckle at being called a lefty, given I've voted for Labour once in my lifetime and they're pretty much a highly centric 'Tory light' party at present.
Words can be used in many ways. What's important is the message, context and opinion behind them, not the individual definition of each and every one.
A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Have I made any far-right comments here?? You've behaved in a rather far-right and narrow-minded way by using "woke" as a disparaging term, and denying its true meaning. Also, your "this is why the left lose arguments" speaks volumes about your beliefs. I did no such thing.. I didn't use the word woke apart from in the context of this conversation. You keep running around screaming far-right, you've already lost. I've lost nothing. To quote your previous post: "I can hazard a guess by what he thinks the 'true' meaning is.. The reason for this is 'the left' won't listen to the right when they tell them what they mean by it. They just spout the old 'alert to injustice, especially racism'" And there you have it - now only do you use "woke" as an insult, but also "the left", which speaks volumes about your beliefs. Truth hurts, doesn't it! Wtf are you on about? I do not use the word "woke" as an insult. I also do not use the term "the left" as in insult. You clearly use far-right as an insult to anyone who doesn't conform to your way of thinking, so yes, you have lost this particular battle. You really should try harder. I'm sorry buy I agree with the comment Swinging-Cat made. The comments he quoted don't exactly suggest a Liberal perspective So by me saying the left will only see it in their own context means I'm not Liberal? I guess it's OK for him to call me 'far-right' because I don't agree with him?? " I haven't said that its okay for anyone to call you far right. I'll repeat that using woke as an insult and insulting the left hardly seems indicative of a Liberal viewpoint. And personally I find one the easiest way to not be accused of being right wing is to not pist comments thst could be construed as right wing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm sorry buy I agree with the comment Swinging-Cat made. The comments he quoted don't exactly suggest a Liberal perspective So by me saying the left will only see it in their own context means I'm not Liberal? I guess it's OK for him to call me 'far-right' because I don't agree with him?? Out of curiosity why do you think 'the left' only see things in their own context, rather than the possibility that they've listened to opposing views and fundamentally disagree with them? The argument that one side doesn't listen to the other always confuses me. It's perfectly possible to hear an opposing view, disagree with it and continue to advocate your own stance. That doesn't mean anyone isn't listening, or do you think that just because they don't change their mind? A Maybe it's because you can show them the context of words used in many different manners yet they won't see it. People can have their definition but when a particular word is clearly used and explained in a different context, there is no denying it, the left tend to deny it and stick with their perceived definition But so do 'the right' ?
I've put both 'the left' and 'the right' in inverted comments purely because they're seen as opposing sides in most arguments but the same would be true for any two opposing factions.
But any definitions, like any opinions, will always be worded or phrased in a way to suit the agenda of a particular group. Nobody owns words and many can have different applicable definitions dependant on context, usage and intended message. So there's no surprise that two fundamentally different ideologies feel words mean different things.
Woke, snowflake, lefty and similar terms do seem to be the go to insults for anyone not agreeing with more liberal ideas and notions though. And the liberal community have their own choice words for those with more right wing views.
I honestly couldn't care less when people call me woke or snowflake just because I have compassion and empathy for certain groups of people that others feel are a blight on society and the root of all evil in the world. And I chuckle at being called a lefty, given I've voted for Labour once in my lifetime and they're pretty much a highly centric 'Tory light' party at present.
Words can be used in many ways. What's important is the message, context and opinion behind them, not the individual definition of each and every one.
A"I agree with everything you've said there. That was the point I was trying to make, definitions can be switched around depending on who is using said word. I personally only ever see the left getting touchy about it when the word 'woke' is used. Surely the person using the word I'd the one who knows what they mean by it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Have I made any far-right comments here?? You've behaved in a rather far-right and narrow-minded way by using "woke" as a disparaging term, and denying its true meaning. Also, your "this is why the left lose arguments" speaks volumes about your beliefs. I did no such thing.. I didn't use the word woke apart from in the context of this conversation. You keep running around screaming far-right, you've already lost. I've lost nothing. To quote your previous post: "I can hazard a guess by what he thinks the 'true' meaning is.. The reason for this is 'the left' won't listen to the right when they tell them what they mean by it. They just spout the old 'alert to injustice, especially racism'" And there you have it - now only do you use "woke" as an insult, but also "the left", which speaks volumes about your beliefs. Truth hurts, doesn't it! Wtf are you on about? I do not use the word "woke" as an insult. I also do not use the term "the left" as in insult. You clearly use far-right as an insult to anyone who doesn't conform to your way of thinking, so yes, you have lost this particular battle. You really should try harder. I'm sorry buy I agree with the comment Swinging-Cat made. The comments he quoted don't exactly suggest a Liberal perspective So by me saying the left will only see it in their own context means I'm not Liberal? I guess it's OK for him to call me 'far-right' because I don't agree with him?? I haven't said that its okay for anyone to call you far right. I'll repeat that using woke as an insult and insulting the left hardly seems indicative of a Liberal viewpoint. And personally I find one the easiest way to not be accused of being right wing is to not pist comments thst could be construed as right wing" So it's not OK but you keep quiet on what he has said and want to pick up on what I've said? Gotcha
Which comments have I made that could be construed as 'far-right'? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's only debating when people speak AND listen. To many times people can't handle differing opinions and let emotions overpower their words. I like the " we can agree to disagree" Rather than constantly shaming views different to you own. A referees job is never easy" You are right there as well, as some people cant handle differing opinions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I personally only ever see the left getting touchy about it when the word 'woke' is used. Surely the person using the word I'd the one who knows what they mean by it?" Of course, people get touchy when they are being insulted, like you got touchy when you were accused of being 'far right'. B | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm sorry buy I agree with the comment Swinging-Cat made. The comments he quoted don't exactly suggest a Liberal perspective So by me saying the left will only see it in their own context means I'm not Liberal? I guess it's OK for him to call me 'far-right' because I don't agree with him?? Out of curiosity why do you think 'the left' only see things in their own context, rather than the possibility that they've listened to opposing views and fundamentally disagree with them? The argument that one side doesn't listen to the other always confuses me. It's perfectly possible to hear an opposing view, disagree with it and continue to advocate your own stance. That doesn't mean anyone isn't listening, or do you think that just because they don't change their mind? A Maybe it's because you can show them the context of words used in many different manners yet they won't see it. People can have their definition but when a particular word is clearly used and explained in a different context, there is no denying it, the left tend to deny it and stick with their perceived definition But so do 'the right' ?
I've put both 'the left' and 'the right' in inverted comments purely because they're seen as opposing sides in most arguments but the same would be true for any two opposing factions.
But any definitions, like any opinions, will always be worded or phrased in a way to suit the agenda of a particular group. Nobody owns words and many can have different applicable definitions dependant on context, usage and intended message. So there's no surprise that two fundamentally different ideologies feel words mean different things.
Woke, snowflake, lefty and similar terms do seem to be the go to insults for anyone not agreeing with more liberal ideas and notions though. And the liberal community have their own choice words for those with more right wing views.
I honestly couldn't care less when people call me woke or snowflake just because I have compassion and empathy for certain groups of people that others feel are a blight on society and the root of all evil in the world. And I chuckle at being called a lefty, given I've voted for Labour once in my lifetime and they're pretty much a highly centric 'Tory light' party at present.
Words can be used in many ways. What's important is the message, context and opinion behind them, not the individual definition of each and every one.
A
I agree with everything you've said there. That was the point I was trying to make, definitions can be switched around depending on who is using said word. I personally only ever see the left getting touchy about it when the word 'woke' is used.
Surely the person using the word I'd the one who knows what they mean by it?"I understand why some do get touchy though. The literal definition of woke relates to simply being informed, educated and aware. How that has been weaponised to be an insult is insane. Why is being informed and educated in any way negative? To use it as an insult makes zero sense and lacking basic logic. If someone can explain to me and others the reasoning behind it's use, then maybe people would stop getting frustrated when the word is thrown around. A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm sorry buy I agree with the comment Swinging-Cat made. The comments he quoted don't exactly suggest a Liberal perspective So by me saying the left will only see it in their own context means I'm not Liberal? I guess it's OK for him to call me 'far-right' because I don't agree with him?? Out of curiosity why do you think 'the left' only see things in their own context, rather than the possibility that they've listened to opposing views and fundamentally disagree with them? The argument that one side doesn't listen to the other always confuses me. It's perfectly possible to hear an opposing view, disagree with it and continue to advocate your own stance. That doesn't mean anyone isn't listening, or do you think that just because they don't change their mind? A Maybe it's because you can show them the context of words used in many different manners yet they won't see it. People can have their definition but when a particular word is clearly used and explained in a different context, there is no denying it, the left tend to deny it and stick with their perceived definition But so do 'the right' ?
I've put both 'the left' and 'the right' in inverted comments purely because they're seen as opposing sides in most arguments but the same would be true for any two opposing factions.
But any definitions, like any opinions, will always be worded or phrased in a way to suit the agenda of a particular group. Nobody owns words and many can have different applicable definitions dependant on context, usage and intended message. So there's no surprise that two fundamentally different ideologies feel words mean different things.
Woke, snowflake, lefty and similar terms do seem to be the go to insults for anyone not agreeing with more liberal ideas and notions though. And the liberal community have their own choice words for those with more right wing views.
I honestly couldn't care less when people call me woke or snowflake just because I have compassion and empathy for certain groups of people that others feel are a blight on society and the root of all evil in the world. And I chuckle at being called a lefty, given I've voted for Labour once in my lifetime and they're pretty much a highly centric 'Tory light' party at present.
Words can be used in many ways. What's important is the message, context and opinion behind them, not the individual definition of each and every one.
A
I agree with everything you've said there. That was the point I was trying to make, definitions can be switched around depending on who is using said word. I personally only ever see the left getting touchy about it when the word 'woke' is used.
Surely the person using the word I'd the one who knows what they mean by it?"Maybe the left get touchy because its used as an insult by the right? I find it interesting you have taken offence at the suggestion you are far right by another poster yet seem to think the left are being 'touchy' when a deliberate insult is used towards them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm sorry buy I agree with the comment Swinging-Cat made. The comments he quoted don't exactly suggest a Liberal perspective So by me saying the left will only see it in their own context means I'm not Liberal? I guess it's OK for him to call me 'far-right' because I don't agree with him?? Out of curiosity why do you think 'the left' only see things in their own context, rather than the possibility that they've listened to opposing views and fundamentally disagree with them? The argument that one side doesn't listen to the other always confuses me. It's perfectly possible to hear an opposing view, disagree with it and continue to advocate your own stance. That doesn't mean anyone isn't listening, or do you think that just because they don't change their mind? A Maybe it's because you can show them the context of words used in many different manners yet they won't see it. People can have their definition but when a particular word is clearly used and explained in a different context, there is no denying it, the left tend to deny it and stick with their perceived definition But so do 'the right' ?
I've put both 'the left' and 'the right' in inverted comments purely because they're seen as opposing sides in most arguments but the same would be true for any two opposing factions.
But any definitions, like any opinions, will always be worded or phrased in a way to suit the agenda of a particular group. Nobody owns words and many can have different applicable definitions dependant on context, usage and intended message. So there's no surprise that two fundamentally different ideologies feel words mean different things.
Woke, snowflake, lefty and similar terms do seem to be the go to insults for anyone not agreeing with more liberal ideas and notions though. And the liberal community have their own choice words for those with more right wing views.
I honestly couldn't care less when people call me woke or snowflake just because I have compassion and empathy for certain groups of people that others feel are a blight on society and the root of all evil in the world. And I chuckle at being called a lefty, given I've voted for Labour once in my lifetime and they're pretty much a highly centric 'Tory light' party at present.
Words can be used in many ways. What's important is the message, context and opinion behind them, not the individual definition of each and every one.
A
I agree with everything you've said there. That was the point I was trying to make, definitions can be switched around depending on who is using said word. I personally only ever see the left getting touchy about it when the word 'woke' is used.
Surely the person using the word I'd the one who knows what they mean by it?
I understand why some do get touchy though. The literal definition of woke relates to simply being informed, educated and aware.
How that has been weaponised to be an insult is insane.
Why is being informed and educated in any way negative? To use it as an insult makes zero sense and lacking basic logic.
If someone can explain to me and others the reasoning behind it's use, then maybe people would stop getting frustrated when the word is thrown around.
A"Definitions are constantly updated, and as you said, can have multiple meanings. The word 'woke' is used more often as an insult against people who 'think they are informed, educated and aware', key note there is 'think' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm sorry buy I agree with the comment Swinging-Cat made. The comments he quoted don't exactly suggest a Liberal perspective So by me saying the left will only see it in their own context means I'm not Liberal? I guess it's OK for him to call me 'far-right' because I don't agree with him?? Out of curiosity why do you think 'the left' only see things in their own context, rather than the possibility that they've listened to opposing views and fundamentally disagree with them? The argument that one side doesn't listen to the other always confuses me. It's perfectly possible to hear an opposing view, disagree with it and continue to advocate your own stance. That doesn't mean anyone isn't listening, or do you think that just because they don't change their mind? A Maybe it's because you can show them the context of words used in many different manners yet they won't see it. People can have their definition but when a particular word is clearly used and explained in a different context, there is no denying it, the left tend to deny it and stick with their perceived definition But so do 'the right' ?
I've put both 'the left' and 'the right' in inverted comments purely because they're seen as opposing sides in most arguments but the same would be true for any two opposing factions.
But any definitions, like any opinions, will always be worded or phrased in a way to suit the agenda of a particular group. Nobody owns words and many can have different applicable definitions dependant on context, usage and intended message. So there's no surprise that two fundamentally different ideologies feel words mean different things.
Woke, snowflake, lefty and similar terms do seem to be the go to insults for anyone not agreeing with more liberal ideas and notions though. And the liberal community have their own choice words for those with more right wing views.
I honestly couldn't care less when people call me woke or snowflake just because I have compassion and empathy for certain groups of people that others feel are a blight on society and the root of all evil in the world. And I chuckle at being called a lefty, given I've voted for Labour once in my lifetime and they're pretty much a highly centric 'Tory light' party at present.
Words can be used in many ways. What's important is the message, context and opinion behind them, not the individual definition of each and every one.
A
I agree with everything you've said there. That was the point I was trying to make, definitions can be switched around depending on who is using said word. I personally only ever see the left getting touchy about it when the word 'woke' is used.
Surely the person using the word I'd the one who knows what they mean by it?
Maybe the left get touchy because its used as an insult by the right?
I find it interesting you have taken offence at the suggestion you are far right by another poster yet seem to think the left are being 'touchy' when a deliberate insult is used towards them"I have asked for an explanation as to what words I used that would make someone think I was 'far right'. BTW, I haven't taken offence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I personally only ever see the left getting touchy about it when the word 'woke' is used. Surely the person using the word I'd the one who knows what they mean by it? Of course, people get touchy when they are being insulted, like you got touchy when you were accused of being 'far right'. B" I'm not touchy, I just don't know what I've said that could be deemed 'far-right' Especially as it was said after only one response. To me, the person who got touchy is the person who accused me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I personally only ever see the left getting touchy about it when the word 'woke' is used. Surely the person using the word I'd the one who knows what they mean by it? Of course, people get touchy when they are being insulted, like you got touchy when you were accused of being 'far right'. B I'm not touchy, I just don't know what I've said that could be deemed 'far-right' Especially as it was said after only one response. To me, the person who got touchy is the person who accused me" I've read all the comments. I think one can be critical of the left without being far-right. I am at times and I'm politically on the left. That's how I interpreted that you said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Amusing to myself that this has come up after me trying to engage in a healthy debate on here yesterday. (I’m not saying the 2 are linked.) It’s the extremes on both sides that struggle/fail with critical thinking. " Some topics just always attract more people with extreme views I guess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the real problem today is that people conflate "freedom of speech" with "freedom from consequences."" We don’t have freedom of speech in the U.K. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I personally only ever see the left getting touchy about it when the word 'woke' is used. Surely the person using the word I'd the one who knows what they mean by it? Of course, people get touchy when they are being insulted, like you got touchy when you were accused of being 'far right'. B I'm not touchy, I just don't know what I've said that could be deemed 'far-right' Especially as it was said after only one response. To me, the person who got touchy is the person who accused me I've read all the comments. I think one can be critical of the left without being far-right. I am at times and I'm politically on the left. That's how I interpreted that you said. " I'm also critical of the right even though I sit 'centre-right' on the politics scale. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I personally only ever see the left getting touchy about it when the word 'woke' is used. Surely the person using the word I'd the one who knows what they mean by it? Of course, people get touchy when they are being insulted, like you got touchy when you were accused of being 'far right'. B I'm not touchy, I just don't know what I've said that could be deemed 'far-right' Especially as it was said after only one response. To me, the person who got touchy is the person who accused me" Maybe they weren't using 'far right' how you thought they were
B | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I personally only ever see the left getting touchy about it when the word 'woke' is used. Surely the person using the word I'd the one who knows what they mean by it? Of course, people get touchy when they are being insulted, like you got touchy when you were accused of being 'far right'. B I'm not touchy, I just don't know what I've said that could be deemed 'far-right' Especially as it was said after only one response. To me, the person who got touchy is the person who accused me Maybe they weren't using 'far right' how you thought they were
B"Is why they’ve asked repeatedly for people that have said it to explain what they mean. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I personally only ever see the left getting touchy about it when the word 'woke' is used. Surely the person using the word I'd the one who knows what they mean by it? Of course, people get touchy when they are being insulted, like you got touchy when you were accused of being 'far right'. B I'm not touchy, I just don't know what I've said that could be deemed 'far-right' Especially as it was said after only one response. To me, the person who got touchy is the person who accused me Maybe they weren't using 'far right' how you thought they were
B
Is why they’ve asked repeatedly for people that have said it to explain what they mean. "Thank you, its exactly the reason I ask, no one hasn't answered me. It just screams of a 'pack mentality' against someone (wrongly) perceived to be 'far-right' and why I said early on that the 'left' don't listen. Maybe don't listen isn't correct terminology but I've said it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just read all the way through and several on here have highlighted how NOT to debate. I’ve gone through all posts multiple times and am yet to see ANY far right rhetoric from FastandFeisty. Personally think they’ve handled it pretty well (not perfect) and they’re just asking for the people to prove their point. I can’t say I agree on their thoughts on the use of the word “woke”, but they haven’t been insulting with it. This is an awesome thread for showing how people that are so emotionally invested in a topic just respond from emotion." I don't really care whether someone considers themselves left, centre or right politically. But i'm a little put off by the fact that woke has been phrased as being applicable to people who 'think' they're informed or educated. I've known some very educated and informed people be accused of being 'woke' (myself included) over the years and on Fab too. What makes someone capable of establishing if someone is informed and educated or just 'thinks' they are? I'd suggest that use of rational argument, evidence based fact, clear and concise use of peer reviewed data and first hand specialist knowledge in certain areas would make someone both informed AND educated on a particular subject and yet people still throw 'woke' at them. That is one of the reasons it's perceived as an insult thrown about when the person doing the throwing has no argument of their own to fall back on. A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just read all the way through and several on here have highlighted how NOT to debate. I’ve gone through all posts multiple times and am yet to see ANY far right rhetoric from FastandFeisty. Personally think they’ve handled it pretty well (not perfect) and they’re just asking for the people to prove their point. I can’t say I agree on their thoughts on the use of the word “woke”, but they haven’t been insulting with it. This is an awesome thread for showing how people that are so emotionally invested in a topic just respond from emotion. I don't really care whether someone considers themselves left, centre or right politically. But i'm a little put off by the fact that woke has been phrased as being applicable to people who 'think' they're informed or educated. I've known some very educated and informed people be accused of being 'woke' (myself included) over the years and on Fab too. What makes someone capable of establishing if someone is informed and educated or just 'thinks' they are? I'd suggest that use of rational argument, evidence based fact, clear and concise use of peer reviewed data and first hand specialist knowledge in certain areas would make someone both informed AND educated on a particular subject and yet people still throw 'woke' at them. That is one of the reasons it's perceived as an insult thrown about when the person doing the throwing has no argument of their own to fall back on. A" I think I agree. I don’t consider myself “woke” (hate the term) and approach debates in the same way as yourself, with logic & reason. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing to remember about Jordan Peterson is that he talks utter shite and you shouldn't pay attention to him." Couldn’t disagree more with this and would genuinely love to get into a healthy debate about, however it would totally derail this thread ha ha. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is this far right and left?" I think you have to take into account authoritarianism and libertarianism. More like a compass than a simple left-right scale. So Stalin would be Authoritarian left. Someone like Noam Chomsky would be libertarian left. I'm far more forgiving of left-right differences than I am authoritarianism. In the words of Emma Goldman. If I can't dance, I don't want any part of your revolution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing to remember about Jordan Peterson is that he talks utter shite and you shouldn't pay attention to him." Indeed so. The fact that right wing people hold him up as some kind of great thinker is pretty telling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's an old adage - I may not agree with what your views but I respect your right to hold those views." The problem there is that some views don't deserve respect, nor should people be respected for the views they hold. Where do you draw the line as accepting the opinions of others when it comes to racism, sexism, misogyny, misandry, homophobia etc. ? Do you really think people holding highly offensive viewpoints are deserving of any respect at all? It's perfectly acceptable in my mind to detest both certain beliefs and opinions and the people who hold them. A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is this far right and left? I think you have to take into account authoritarianism and libertarianism. More like a compass than a simple left-right scale. So Stalin would be Authoritarian left. Someone like Noam Chomsky would be libertarian left. I'm far more forgiving of left-right differences than I am authoritarianism. In the words of Emma Goldman. If I can't dance, I don't want any part of your revolution." I ADORE this and I’m totally going to pinch to describe how I feel when people quiz what side I sit on. That is a golden quote too!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing to remember about Jordan Peterson is that he talks utter shite and you shouldn't pay attention to him. Couldn’t disagree more with this and would genuinely love to get into a healthy debate about, however it would totally derail this thread ha ha." I agree, whilst much of what he says I do not agree with. It is far from utter shite. His debate with zizek was brilliant, and he acknowledged his assumptions were not infallible. I've also seen him display real emotion and share his experiences in interviews. That's never utter shite. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I watched an interesting program about it and this is also what jordan peterson have talked about. Basically, the short version of what it means is "you cant partake in a discussion if you dont have the right view". Another view of it is what we saw happened to gary linekar, where he got cancelled right away. There are different examples of this and they concluded the program that in order to have a healthy debate, you should beable to question and have a debate with different views, otherwise it becomes rather one sided. What is your view about it and do you also agree that in order to have a healthy debate you should beable to argue against, not just agreeing? "Its just like being in the forums if we all thought the same and had the same opinion it would be monotonous, i realise a lot of guys have the exact same opinion as attractive women not absolutely sure why that is!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing to remember about Jordan Peterson is that he talks utter shite and you shouldn't pay attention to him. Couldn’t disagree more with this and would genuinely love to get into a healthy debate about, however it would totally derail this thread ha ha. I agree, whilst much of what he says I do not agree with. It is far from utter shite. His debate with zizek was brilliant, and he acknowledged his assumptions were not infallible. I've also seen him display real emotion and share his experiences in interviews. That's never utter shite. " Very similar to me. Don’t agree with everything he says, but love the way he conducts debates and he is HIGHLY intelligent. The same can be said for Zizek. I’ve watched that debate soooo many times and it’s awesome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is your view about it and do you also agree that in order to have a healthy debate you should beable to argue against, not just agreeing? Its just like being in the forums if we all thought the same and had the same opinion it would be monotonous, i realise a lot of guys have the exact same opinion as attractive women not absolutely sure why that is! "I wonder what would happen if those women were “woke”, or “far right”? 
*opens can of worms* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is this far right and left? I think you have to take into account authoritarianism and libertarianism. More like a compass than a simple left-right scale. So Stalin would be Authoritarian left. Someone like Noam Chomsky would be libertarian left. I'm far more forgiving of left-right differences than I am authoritarianism. In the words of Emma Goldman. If I can't dance, I don't want any part of your revolution. I ADORE this and I’m totally going to pinch to describe how I feel when people quiz what side I sit on. That is a golden quote too! "Ha we messaged each other at the same time. Peterson would call that Jungian synchronicity lol. Please do I think many on the left or right are actually coming from a place of freedom and liberty. Whether that's free-market or socialism. They are both my kind of people, if that's their goal. I was once quite the anarchist Emma Goldman is such an influence on me. Love her work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just read all the way through and several on here have highlighted how NOT to debate. I’ve gone through all posts multiple times and am yet to see ANY far right rhetoric from FastandFeisty. Personally think they’ve handled it pretty well (not perfect) and they’re just asking for the people to prove their point. I can’t say I agree on their thoughts on the use of the word “woke”, but they haven’t been insulting with it. This is an awesome thread for showing how people that are so emotionally invested in a topic just respond from emotion. I don't really care whether someone considers themselves left, centre or right politically. But i'm a little put off by the fact that woke has been phrased as being applicable to people who 'think' they're informed or educated. I've known some very educated and informed people be accused of being 'woke' (myself included) over the years and on Fab too. What makes someone capable of establishing if someone is informed and educated or just 'thinks' they are? I'd suggest that use of rational argument, evidence based fact, clear and concise use of peer reviewed data and first hand specialist knowledge in certain areas would make someone both informed AND educated on a particular subject and yet people still throw 'woke' at them. That is one of the reasons it's perceived as an insult thrown about when the person doing the throwing has no argument of their own to fall back on. A" Why are you put off by it? If you can come back at those people with clear, reasoned and logical opinion then surely that just shows you in a better light than them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I ADORE this and I’m totally going to pinch to describe how I feel when people quiz what side I sit on. That is a golden quote too!
Ha we messaged each other at the same time. Peterson would call that Jungian synchronicity lol.
Please do I think many on the left or right are actually coming from a place of freedom and liberty. Whether that's free-market or socialism. They are both my kind of people, if that's their goal.
I was once quite the anarchist Emma Goldman is such an influence on me. Love her work."I wish I was intelligent enough to appreciate that joke. Have done ZERO reading into Carl Jung so completely flew over my head…sounded wicked smaht though!
Exactly my thoughts on the left/right thing. Two sides of the same coin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is your view about it and do you also agree that in order to have a healthy debate you should beable to argue against, not just agreeing? Its just like being in the forums if we all thought the same and had the same opinion it would be monotonous, i realise a lot of guys have the exact same opinion as attractive women not absolutely sure why that is!
I wonder what would happen if those women were “woke”, or “far right”?
*opens can of worms*"The guys agreeing would still agree and after sex do a runner | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is this far right and left? I think you have to take into account authoritarianism and libertarianism. More like a compass than a simple left-right scale. So Stalin would be Authoritarian left. Someone like Noam Chomsky would be libertarian left. I'm far more forgiving of left-right differences than I am authoritarianism. In the words of Emma Goldman. If I can't dance, I don't want any part of your revolution." I am none the wiser,but thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing to remember about Jordan Peterson is that he talks utter shite and you shouldn't pay attention to him. Couldn’t disagree more with this and would genuinely love to get into a healthy debate about, however it would totally derail this thread ha ha. I agree, whilst much of what he says I do not agree with. It is far from utter shite. His debate with zizek was brilliant, and he acknowledged his assumptions were not infallible. I've also seen him display real emotion and share his experiences in interviews. That's never utter shite. Very similar to me. Don’t agree with everything he says, but love the way he conducts debates and he is HIGHLY intelligent. The same can be said for Zizek. I’ve watched that debate soooo many times and it’s awesome." Absolutely he's genius level really. He does not let others twist his words or misrepresent him. That's someone with self-respect. I value that over differences of opinion. And I am the same, I decide what my thoughts and feelings are. Don't be straw-manning me. You want to talk then that starts and ends with respecting my personal boundaries always. He's an experienced clinical practitioner he knows when someone oversteps that mark and how to deal with it. Zizek is the polar opposite, a pluralist who tries to appreciate multiple perspectives. Rather than prove there is a specific answer. He seeks an optimal one. When Zizek at the start said, I am not arguing for communism. Peterson didn't say oh yes your are. He sat down and had a discussion. He admitted his assumption was wrong. Instead of rupture there was cohesion. I value both qualities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem with this "far left is as bad as the far right!" stuff is that there isn't any meaningful far left presence or advocacy in the UK. Far left would be hard communism; do we see that advocated anywhere across the media? What we get is people being called "far left" for such outrageous positions as wanting fairer distribution of wealth, action on climate change, and protections for discriminated against groups. There's no sense of balance in UK debate on this." Using your logic there’s no far right then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing to remember about Jordan Peterson is that he talks utter shite and you shouldn't pay attention to him. Couldn’t disagree more with this and would genuinely love to get into a healthy debate about, however it would totally derail this thread ha ha. I agree, whilst much of what he says I do not agree with. It is far from utter shite. His debate with zizek was brilliant, and he acknowledged his assumptions were not infallible. I've also seen him display real emotion and share his experiences in interviews. That's never utter shite. Very similar to me. Don’t agree with everything he says, but love the way he conducts debates and he is HIGHLY intelligent. The same can be said for Zizek. I’ve watched that debate soooo many times and it’s awesome. Absolutely he's genius level really. He does not let others twist his words or misrepresent him. That's someone with self-respect. I value that over differences of opinion. And I am the same, I decide what my thoughts and feelings are. Don't be straw-manning me. You want to talk then that starts and ends with respecting my personal boundaries always. He's an experienced clinical practitioner he knows when someone oversteps that mark and how to deal with it. Zizek is the polar opposite, a pluralist who tries to appreciate multiple perspectives. Rather than prove there is a specific answer. He seeks an optimal one. When Zizek at the start said, I am not arguing for communism. Peterson didn't say oh yes your are. He sat down and had a discussion. He admitted his assumption was wrong. Instead of rupture there was cohesion. I value both qualities. " Me and you would get on very well my friend. I find it way more positive when people are open to every side of the discussion rather than focusing on their own, often skewed, “side”. I started watching a lot of Zizeks debates & talks. He’s so calm & such a genuinely nice human it’s almost captivating even when I don’t necessarily align with what he’s saying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure if cancel culture is what stops the debate. I think the need to be the one in the right/perceived winner etc is what stops debate. If it's a debate, to me it means there is no correct answer just differences of opinion. Nobody knows everything I think if more people accepted that rather than try and appear that they do. Better well informed debates would occur. " But cancel culture prevents debates. It stops it before it can even get to that stage. “You did something we don’t like therefore you are disqualified from partaking” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You lost me at Jordan Peterson. The guy is unhinged. " You lost me on that comment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure if cancel culture is what stops the debate. I think the need to be the one in the right/perceived winner etc is what stops debate. If it's a debate, to me it means there is no correct answer just differences of opinion. Nobody knows everything I think if more people accepted that rather than try and appear that they do. Better well informed debates would occur. But cancel culture prevents debates. It stops it before it can even get to that stage. “You did something we don’t like therefore you are disqualified from partaking”" But who is being cancelled? It's a buzz word in reality isn't it? As I only ever see it being applied to celebrities and famous people. Nobody is going to cancel me as I'm generally unimportant to the majority of people | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You lost me at Jordan Peterson. The guy is unhinged. You lost me on that comment" Unhinged - unsettled, disordered, or distraught: He became unhinged when his friend died. Alternatively Unhinged- having no hinge or hinges, or with the hinges removed: an unhinged gate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You lost me at Jordan Peterson. The guy is unhinged. " This is another example of how NOT to engage in debates/discourse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing to remember about Jordan Peterson is that he talks utter shite and you shouldn't pay attention to him. Indeed so. The fact that right wing people hold him up as some kind of great thinker is pretty telling." I think that the fact someone who is objectively very intelligent, highly educated and who has a very good grasp of a huge amount of scientific research is rejected as talking utter shite by any number of individuals with none of his talents is also particularly telling. Do I like the guy? No not really, he comes across to me as far too preachy and almost evangelical in his approach which makes me dislike him. Do I agree with everything I've heard him say? No, not at all. Am I intelligent enough to understand that my like or dislike of a person and what they say isn't an effective way to judge whether their opinions are utter shite? Yes, of course I am. The kind of person who dismisses the work of someone who has a great deal of expertise and experience in their field simply because they have an emotional reaction to what they say is the exact reason for this whole thread. We cannot debate if we don't start from a baseline of mutual respect. If we start with the fixed and rigid belief that anyone we don't like is talking utter shite, there is absolutely zero point in any discussion. This mindset is cancel culture at it's finest. For what it's worth, I would consider myself someway left of centre in my outlook. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing to remember about Jordan Peterson is that he talks utter shite and you shouldn't pay attention to him. Indeed so. The fact that right wing people hold him up as some kind of great thinker is pretty telling. I think that the fact someone who is objectively very intelligent, highly educated and who has a very good grasp of a huge amount of scientific research is rejected as talking utter shite by any number of individuals with none of his talents is also particularly telling. Do I like the guy? No not really, he comes across to me as far too preachy and almost evangelical in his approach which makes me dislike him. Do I agree with everything I've heard him say? No, not at all. Am I intelligent enough to understand that my like or dislike of a person and what they say isn't an effective way to judge whether their opinions are utter shite? Yes, of course I am. The kind of person who dismisses the work of someone who has a great deal of expertise and experience in their field simply because they have an emotional reaction to what they say is the exact reason for this whole thread. We cannot debate if we don't start from a baseline of mutual respect. If we start with the fixed and rigid belief that anyone we don't like is talking utter shite, there is absolutely zero point in any discussion. This mindset is cancel culture at it's finest. For what it's worth, I would consider myself someway left of centre in my outlook. " Nailed it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You lost me at Jordan Peterson. The guy is unhinged. This is another example of how NOT to engage in debates/discourse." I wasn't really looking for a debate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You lost me at Jordan Peterson. The guy is unhinged. This is another example of how NOT to engage in debates/discourse. I wasn't really looking for a debate "Oh we can all tell.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really isn't about not allowing others a view that differs to yours. It's about not allowing others to be racist, ageist, sexist , disablist , homophobic etc..... It's still possible to discuss matters about the above without 'othering' For the sake of keeping informed rather than misinformed Gary Lineker wasn't cancelled - his situation had less to do with what he said and more to do with the platform he said it on from the position he is in. " Lol that made me laugh! what you think is 'racist, ageist, sexist , disablist , homophobic etc' may be perfectly reasonable to someone else. This is where debate comes in, without creating your own ground rules. You may hear things you dont like/agree with but then you persuade people with your argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You lost me at Jordan Peterson. The guy is unhinged. This is another example of how NOT to engage in debates/discourse. I wasn't really looking for a debate "Why did you join in a 'debate' thread? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some comments on here I now know I'm definitely right wing,I'd rather watch fox news than CNN,in fact CNN can fuck right off,I like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro and also Katie Hopkins,I like Julia Hartley brewer and Mike Graham,you get the picture" Honestly check some of Zizeks content for a view from the other side. If you appreciate JP you should get on well with him too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are we now having a debate about debating? " Not with you apparently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some comments on here I now know I'm definitely right wing,I'd rather watch fox news than CNN,in fact CNN can fuck right off,I like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro and also Katie Hopkins,I like Julia Hartley brewer and Mike Graham,you get the picture Honestly check some of Zizeks content for a view from the other side. If you appreciate JP you should get on well with him too. " Who is zizeks? It's ok I'll check him out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are we now having a debate about debating? Not with you apparently. " Exactly right. A little too right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some comments on here I now know I'm definitely right wing,I'd rather watch fox news than CNN,in fact CNN can fuck right off,I like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro and also Katie Hopkins,I like Julia Hartley brewer and Mike Graham,you get the picture Honestly check some of Zizeks content for a view from the other side. If you appreciate JP you should get on well with him too. Who is zizeks? It's ok I'll check him out" He’s an idiosyncratic philosopher. Some think he’s a Marxist, but have a watch of some his debates, the one with JP is good | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are we now having a debate about debating? Not with you apparently. Exactly right. A little too right." Much like your other posts in here, I’m not sure where you’re going with that. Have an awesome day though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some comments on here I now know I'm definitely right wing,I'd rather watch fox news than CNN,in fact CNN can fuck right off,I like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro and also Katie Hopkins,I like Julia Hartley brewer and Mike Graham,you get the picture Honestly check some of Zizeks content for a view from the other side. If you appreciate JP you should get on well with him too. Who is zizeks? It's ok I'll check him out He’s an idiosyncratic philosopher. Some think he’s a Marxist, but have a watch of some his debates, the one with JP is good "I like JP but he can be too smart for his own good sometimes,he's a bit self indulgent with his words if you get my drift | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some comments on here I now know I'm definitely right wing,I'd rather watch fox news than CNN,in fact CNN can fuck right off,I like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro and also Katie Hopkins,I like Julia Hartley brewer and Mike Graham,you get the picture" I am genuinely curious: how do you feel about Fox News now that the recent Dominion lawsuit and settlement has resulted in the public availability of un refutable evidence that Fox News hosts purposefully and knowingly lied to their audience in order to prevent them migrating to more extreme right-wing outlets like NewsMax and OANN? Or were you genuinely unaware you were being lied to in the first place? As I have a feeling you may question any source I provide, I will just link to a neutrally worded Google search to help you find out more, should you be interested: https://www.google.com/search?q=fox%20news%20hosts%20texts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some comments on here I now know I'm definitely right wing,I'd rather watch fox news than CNN,in fact CNN can fuck right off,I like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro and also Katie Hopkins,I like Julia Hartley brewer and Mike Graham,you get the picture Honestly check some of Zizeks content for a view from the other side. If you appreciate JP you should get on well with him too. Who is zizeks? It's ok I'll check him out He’s an idiosyncratic philosopher. Some think he’s a Marxist, but have a watch of some his debates, the one with JP is good
I like JP but he can be too smart for his own good sometimes,he's a bit self indulgent with his words if you get my drift"Yup he can come across quite preachy at times. He’s the first to admit he’s not always right though and I admire that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You lost me at Jordan Peterson. The guy is unhinged. " By "unhinged", are you rather offensively alluding to the fact that Jordan Peterson has had mental health problems? Do you believe that people with mental health problems are incapable of contributing logically to political or social issues? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some comments on here I now know I'm definitely right wing,I'd rather watch fox news than CNN,in fact CNN can fuck right off,I like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro and also Katie Hopkins,I like Julia Hartley brewer and Mike Graham,you get the picture Honestly check some of Zizeks content for a view from the other side. If you appreciate JP you should get on well with him too. Who is zizeks? It's ok I'll check him out He’s an idiosyncratic philosopher. Some think he’s a Marxist, but have a watch of some his debates, the one with JP is good
I like JP but he can be too smart for his own good sometimes,he's a bit self indulgent with his words if you get my drift
Yup he can come across quite preachy at times. He’s the first to admit he’s not always right though and I admire that."Agreed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I watched an interesting program about it and this is also what jordan peterson have talked about. Basically, the short version of what it means is "you cant partake in a discussion if you dont have the right view". Another view of it is what we saw happened to gary linekar, where he got cancelled right away. There are different examples of this and they concluded the program that in order to have a healthy debate, you should beable to question and have a debate with different views, otherwise it becomes rather one sided. What is your view about it and do you also agree that in order to have a healthy debate you should beable to argue against, not just agreeing? "Yep agree. And sometimes any contrary view may be unfashionable or considered extreme but ill defend the right of people to hold those views and be free to debate them without fear of stupid repurcussions. Freedom of expression is important and one of the values our parents and gtandparents have fought so hard for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This went about as well as I expected." I actually think it’s going a lot better than expected. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You lost me at Jordan Peterson. The guy is unhinged. By "unhinged", are you rather offensively alluding to the fact that Jordan Peterson has had mental health problems? Do you believe that people with mental health problems are incapable of contributing logically to political or social issues?" Oh that's a good answer,I wish I was intelligent enough to have thought of that,alas I'm stupid | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm currently listening to a podcast called the witch trials of JK Rowling. Talks about how cancel culture started and how Internet has created it. So I totally agree, I may find the views of some people abhorrent but the best way to deal with it is to debate and show an alternative view and expose people. Cancel culture is an autocratic approach used in history by those who use fear to make sure people align to views and bahaviours they deem acceptable. " Expose people? For what? Holding different views.? They are entitled to their views exactly the same as any of the more fashionable ones are | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I watched an interesting program about it and this is also what jordan peterson have talked about. Basically, the short version of what it means is "you cant partake in a discussion if you dont have the right view". Another view of it is what we saw happened to gary linekar, where he got cancelled right away. There are different examples of this and they concluded the program that in order to have a healthy debate, you should beable to question and have a debate with different views, otherwise it becomes rather one sided. What is your view about it and do you also agree that in order to have a healthy debate you should beable to argue against, not just agreeing?
Yep agree. And sometimes any contrary view may be unfashionable or considered extreme but ill defend the right of people to hold those views and be free to debate them without fear of stupid repurcussions. Freedom of expression is important and one of the values our parents and gtandparents have fought so hard for. "Wow....I don't often agree with you but that is bang on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This went about as well as I expected. I actually think it’s going a lot better than expected. "I see two camps who are speaking an increasingly divided language, talking past each other. Hey ho. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This went about as well as I expected. I actually think it’s going a lot better than expected.
I see two camps who are speaking an increasingly divided language, talking past each other.
Hey ho."I see one side doing that and the other asking them to explain their reasoning. Maybe I see it one sided as it was aimed at me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You lost me at Jordan Peterson. The guy is unhinged. By "unhinged", are you rather offensively alluding to the fact that Jordan Peterson has had mental health problems? Do you believe that people with mental health problems are incapable of contributing logically to political or social issues?" What the hell! No way. I didn't even know he had mental health problems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This went about as well as I expected. I actually think it’s going a lot better than expected.
I see two camps who are speaking an increasingly divided language, talking past each other.
Hey ho."You mean like the virus forum | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This went about as well as I expected. I actually think it’s going a lot better than expected.
I see two camps who are speaking an increasingly divided language, talking past each other.
Hey ho."More swear words and SHOUTING needed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some comments on here I now know I'm definitely right wing,I'd rather watch fox news than CNN,in fact CNN can fuck right off,I like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro and also Katie Hopkins,I like Julia Hartley brewer and Mike Graham,you get the picture" The "infant CNN can fuck right off" attitude is no different to the "Jordan Peterson talks utter shite" Both are a sign of a closed mind. I deeply dislike Katie Hopkins but that doesn't mean I dismiss her opinions out of hand. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything she's said I agree with but that is probably due to the fact she is championed by the right wing press who will obviously loudly publicise her opinions that fit with their ethos and so clash with mine. It's almost certainly true that my perception of her is skewed as a result of this so while I'm prepared to dismiss specific examples of her beliefs (for example her language when talking about immigration) I won't say she can fuck off. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem with this "far left is as bad as the far right!" stuff is that there isn't any meaningful far left presence or advocacy in the UK. Far left would be hard communism; do we see that advocated anywhere across the media? What we get is people being called "far left" for such outrageous positions as wanting fairer distribution of wealth, action on climate change, and protections for discriminated against groups. There's no sense of balance in UK debate on this. Using your logic there’s no far right then. " Not at all. What's being said is that when people use the phrase 'far left' that the people being labelled aren't far left at all. Just decent, empathetic humans, with a heightened sense of awareness about inequalities, whether that involves economic issues, civil rights or simply about valuing all people the same way, rather than some artificial pecking order based on wealth, status or whatever. Far left would, as has been said, be communism. Nobody is advocating that. Whereas there's most definitely a rise in far right attitudes and politics across the globe. And that has trickled down into many facets of every day life to the extent that people don't even see those views as being right wing at all any more, which is seriously worrying. A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
