Current Affairs Free Speech

[Blue 1]

People increasingly can't handle being challenged in their views, across the political spectrum.

"Cancelling" isn't about stopping other views, it's about marginalising them to the point they aren't tolerated. So you have safe spaces on both sides that become more and more toxic to any form of dissent.

So is free speech under threat? Not quite, because everyone still has the ability to say what they want. The threat is that people are increasingly only allowed to say what they want on very specific platforms based on what I'd call 'a social editorial direction'.

This creates extremism. In the past, people disagreed but they debated and generally accepted if they won or lost the argument. We don't do that anymore - there's no debate, no shades of grey, everything is black and white, right or wrong, and people are willing to die on their own collective hills for their cause, all the time, reason be damned.

And it is extraordinarily dangerous.

Maybe that's because views that were not long ago considered beyond the pale have been pretty much mainstreamed over the last few years.

Not saying I'm right about this or looking for a row, just putting it forward as an idea. I've not given it a huge amount of thought to be honest.

I find all this "culture war" BS a deliberate distraction from us all being properly shafted. It's divide and rule like never before.

 

[coollino]

It works both ways.

Pretty much.

There will be examples where factors probably have been limited, but then you have people like Hopkins, Fox etc who purposefully say something provocative, just so they can shout it and get some money for their new book or something. Andy Ngo too. People who go on about it, use it to make money and then it just loses its meaning.

It's not always the left trying to shut the right too. Just recently Novara Media interviewed Peter Singer and they, unsurprisingly, did not go down well at all. It could be one of the misjudged things I have seen in a while.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

"woke" "cancel culture" are just terms invented by the right wing press to stop people taking offence to their racist/sexist/evil views. Its all a tag-line to deflect from their own misgivings. They are absolute hypocrites who are the perfect example of "can give it out but won't take it"

Look at the outcry about Meghan and Harry giving an interview and having their right of reply to years of false stories and press hounding. "how dare they" "scum" "traitors" "liars"

It's rank hypocrisy.

As we type the Government is busy putting into its right to peaceful existence and cancelling culture and will be lapped up for now by wonks they will be on right side, however, won't be long before it's applied to them. Then the real fun will start.

Justice overhaul to better protect the public and back our police

Cutting crime and building safer communities will be at the heart of new legislation unveiled in Parliament today (9 March 2021).

www.gov.uk

 

[GrandOldTeam]

1. I don't agree with this person - remove their platform.
2. No? I'm going to lobby you until you do.

It's even started happening on here.

Not that long ago I had some absolute clown threaten to instruct his lawyer, go to our advertisers (named) and he'd also send emails to Everton and local press. All because we wouldn't ban someone who had a view he disagreed with.

I had two options there - one was the path of least resistance/ban the bloke he was offended with for an easy life - it's that path I think most organisations will take, especially when their risk is high.

Social media has played a huge part in making issues black and white, and it allows partisan loons to mobilise and give a false sense of significance and plenty will take the path of least resistance and then the circle continues.

 

[coollino]

1. I don't agree with this person - remove their platform.
2. No? I'm going to lobby you until you do.

It's even started happening on here.

Not that long ago I had some absolute clown threaten to instruct his lawyer, go to our advertisers (named) and he'd also send emails to Everton and local press. All because we wouldn't ban someone who had a view he disagreed with.

I had two options there. The path of least resistance/ban the bloke he was offended with for an easy life - it's that path I think most organisations will take, especially when their risk is high.

Social media has played a huge part in making issues black and white, and it allows partisan loons to mobilise and give a false sense of significance and plenty will take the path of least resistance and then the circle continues.

Please say it was about a footballing matter.

 

[Connor]

Get arrested for saying you're english these days

 

[Tubey]

1. I don't agree with this person - remove their platform.
2. No? I'm going to lobby you until you do.

It's even started happening on here.

Not that long ago I had some absolute clown threaten to instruct his lawyer, go to our advertisers (named) and he'd also send emails to Everton and local press. All because we wouldn't ban someone who had a view he disagreed with.

I had two options there. The path of least resistance/ban the bloke he was offended with for an easy life - it's that path I think most organisations will take, especially when their risk is high.

Social media has played a huge part in making issues black and white, and it allows partisan loons to mobilise and give a false sense of significance and plenty will take the path of least resistance and then the circle continues.

Its why you have big businesses 'virtue signalling' - pure irrational fear, desperate to be on the front foot to avoid the minor chance of a lynch mob coming at them. Business by definition has no ideology beyond making money.

It's ridiculous.

 

[Moomin]

1. I don't agree with this person - remove their platform.
2. No? I'm going to lobby you until you do.

It's even started happening on here.

Not that long ago I had some absolute clown threaten to instruct his lawyer, go to our advertisers (named) and he'd also send emails to Everton and local press. All because we wouldn't ban someone who had a view he disagreed with.

I had two options there. The path of least resistance/ban the bloke he was offended with for an easy life - it's that path I think most organisations will take, especially when their risk is high.

Social media has played a huge part in making issues black and white, and it allows partisan loons to mobilise and give a false sense of significance and plenty will take the path of least resistance and then the circle continues.

He did rate Iwobi.

If he is not banned by midnight I will climb Goodison dressed as Bananaman to protest you.

 

[PaddyJames]

Pretty much.

There will be examples where factors probably have been limited, but then you have people like Hopkins, Fox etc who purposefully say something provocative, just so they can shout it and get some money for their new book or something. Andy Ngo too. People who go on about it, use it to make money and then it just loses its meaning.

It's not always the left trying to shut the right too. Just recently Novara Media interviewed Peter Singer and they, unsurprisingly, did not go down well at all. It could be one of the misjudged things I have seen in a while.

We've got the most right wing biased media imaginable. The BBC, Sky News, the main tabloids they don't report on whats really happening. It's all Tory/Murdoch soundbites. Thick people fall for it.

 

[PaddyJames]

1. I don't agree with this person - remove their platform.
2. No? I'm going to lobby you until you do.

It's even started happening on here.

Not that long ago I had some absolute clown threaten to instruct his lawyer, go to our advertisers (named) and he'd also send emails to Everton and local press. All because we wouldn't ban someone who had a view he disagreed with.

I had two options there. The path of least resistance/ban the bloke he was offended with for an easy life - it's that path I think most organisations will take, especially when their risk is high.

Social media has played a huge part in making issues black and white, and it allows partisan loons to mobilise and give a false sense of significance and plenty will take the path of least resistance and then the circle continues.

Wow.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Its why you have big businesses 'virtue signalling' - pure irrational fear, desperate to be on the front foot to avoid the minor chance of a lynch mob coming at them. Business by definition has no ideology beyond making money.

It's ridiculous.

It's no coincidence after being accused of being a misogynist organisation because of the fit birds threat that we stepped up efforts to make @RAFUH a mod.

 

[ToffeeTim]

No idea if it's under threat. Probably not.

But as a society we have kind of forgotten how to agree to disagree with others. Social media may be part of that. You can be friends and like someone who has an entirely different view point on something.

 

[Tubey]

Wow.

Are you honestly surprised?

That happens constantly. People are perpetually offended.

 

[PaddyJames]

Are you honestly surprised?

That happens constantly. People are perpetually offended.

Nah not surprised that people are absolute maniacs. Imagine being that sad and bothered about someone you've never met on the internet disagreeing with you.

 

[Blue 1]

Its why you have big businesses 'virtue signalling' - pure irrational fear, desperate to be on the front foot to avoid the minor chance of a lynch mob coming at them. Business by definition has no ideology beyond making money.

It's ridiculous.

I don't think that's the reason they do it at all. They do it because attaching their name to worthy causes allows them to whitewash their more dubious practices and appear like they're on the "good" side. It's nothing to do with fear.

Additionally, I think it's naive to say business has no ideology beyond making money. Plenty of businesses fund political causes.