Current Affairs Free Speech

[Amw79]

We actually view it pretty much identically. It's just while you see it as meaningless and irrelevant, I see it as dangerous. I wish it had zero impact on anything outside of the Oxford common room - but the fact we and thousands of others are discussing it and news media are running articles on it, it clearly has an impact.

As said, death by a thousand stupid cuts, each one as stupid and pointless as the last, but a cut nevertheless.

It should be utterly irrelevant; in a normal world it'd be some nutcases doing stupid stuff and other nutcases reacting to it. But the problem is the lunatics are threatening to run the whole asylum.

This (bold) is a pretty key difference.

We seem to have collectively forgotten the old adage about today’s newspaper being tomorrow’s fish and chip paper.

Just musing - maybe it’s because when news was predominantly acquired as printed on paper, it reminded people that it ultimately was just disposable trash. Now it’s digital and online forever, which gives it a false sense of importance.

This is all pretty tongue in cheek, by the way, but the vast majority of these culture war stories to me are as meaningless and throwaway as the daily star stories about a soap actor being spotted at the Stringfellows club.

 

[Tubey]

Neither is people kneeling on a football field mate

deadsoft can prefer there is no picture of John Aldridge.

Nobody is saying the footballers can't kneel; they're booing to tell them they don't approve of it and they'd prefer them not to do it. They're not telling them they can't; therein is the difference.

 

[dead_soft]

Your workplace has no hierarchy then?

If not, fine. If someone is ultimately responsible and they wanted to keep it, no, you're insane to think it "should" come down.

Changing the goalposts of the analogy here, it seems, I don't think it 'should' come down, I just don't think it's bizarre to think if everyone voted for it to come down it should stay up. Which is all that happened at Magdalen College. And they're nutcases apparently

 

[dead_soft]

deadsoft can prefer there is no picture of John Aldridge.

Nobody is saying the footballers can't kneel; they're booing to tell them they don't approve of it and they'd prefer them not to do it. They're not telling them they can't; therein is the difference.

I mean going to someone's workplace and loudly booing them is a bit more than expressing a preference.

 

[Tubey]

Changing the goalposts of the analogy here, it seems, I don't think it 'should' come down, I just don't think it's bizarre to think if everyone voted for it to come down it should stay up. Which is all that happened at Magdalen College. And they're nutcases apparently

No I'm not, I said immediately "your boss" in the first reply. You could have clarified immediately; you didn't.

If 100% of your workplace wanted it down but the boss didn't, tough cookie I'm afraid.

 

[Prevenger17]

deadsoft can prefer there is no picture of John Aldridge.

Nobody is saying the footballers can't kneel; they're booing to tell them they don't approve of it and they'd prefer them not to do it. They're not telling them they can't; therein is the difference.

Sorry, I didn't realise all the booing fans were banned and kicked out of the stadium.

 

[dead_soft]

No I'm not, I said immediately "your boss" in the first reply. You could have clarified immediately; you didn't.

If 100% of your workplace wanted it down but the boss didn't, tough cookie I'm afraid.

I said 'everyone in the workplace' and corrected you after. You're the one who added an extra level of hierarchy - maybe it's your thing, no judgement here - but now you've realised there isn't. And that it's not a big deal to take it down. Do you still think Magdalen college grad students are 'nutcases' and 'extremists' for just saying that they didn't fancy a picture of the Queen up. I mean, to use your analogy, they're allowed to change the decor anyway so...

 

[dead_soft]

View attachment 129999


EH U 'KIN BITTERS!! HAVE SOME RESPECTO!!!

Don't worry, no-one's got more respect for this man's right to hang in every office than Tubey

 

[ste d' indica]

Don't worry, no-one's got more respect for this man's right to hang in every office than Tubey

IS 'KIN RIGHT LA!!!

 

[Tubey]

This (bold) is a pretty key difference.

We seem to have collectively forgotten the old adage about today’s newspaper being tomorrow’s fish and chip paper.

Just musing - maybe it’s because when news was predominantly acquired as printed on paper, it reminded people that it ultimately was just disposable trash. Now it’s digital and online forever, which gives it a false sense of importance.

This is all pretty tongue in cheek, by the way, but the vast majority of these culture war stories to me are as meaningless and throwaway as the daily star stories about a soap actor being spotted at the Stringfellows club.

It's not the mechanism of delivery that is the key difference - it's how millions can give instant feedback and elevate/regurgitate the story.

In the past, news would be printed, digested then either elevated by editors or forgotten about. But now, it's discussed in real time, so it gives a false impression of importance, so that menial things are given the impression of being of life or death importance.

This means politicians and traditional media feel beholden to the whims of social media, despite users of Twitter etc. who are politically minded actually consisting of a vanishingly small percentage of the actual population. A few dozen people with a concerted effort on Twitter can make a 'trend' happen that millions of actual people don't give a toss about.

Therein is why I call it dangerous, because increasingly it's the extremes that are dominating public discourse. The 'woke' do or say something stupid, the right react, the media report, everyone on social talks about it and suddenly it's a key political issue despite the fact most people don't give a toss and their only reaction is to despise those who keep doing stupid things.

The Tories love this woke crap as a result. Absolutely adore it. It's free votes for them. The reaction to Starmer taking a knee to pander to a few thousand morons on Twitter is one of sheer delight. It means they can act just as extreme and look reasonable in comparison. The left is its' own worst enemy, and they can't see it; it doesn't matter how obvious it is, they just can't see it, because they're compelled - utterly compelled - to jump on any and every bandwagon. So when the odd sensible person on the left like Burnham today say "come on, this is getting silly", he's jumped on because he's not conforming to the mob.

It really is dangerous to me. I can see why you don't think so, it's the bemusement I wish I felt to all this nonsense, but I can see the harm.

 

[dead_soft]

It's not the mechanism of delivery that is the key difference - it's how millions can give instant feedback and elevate/regurgitate the story.

In the past, news would be printed, digested then either elevated by editors or forgotten about. But now, it's discussed in real time, so it gives a false impression of importance, so that menial things are given the impression of being of life or death importance.

This means politicians and traditional media feel beholden to the whims of social media, despite users of Twitter etc. who are politically minded actually consisting of a vanishingly small percentage of the actual population. A few dozen people with a concerted effort on Twitter can make a 'trend' happen that millions of actual people don't give a toss about.

Therein is why I call it dangerous, because increasingly it's the extremes that are dominating public discourse. The 'woke' do or say something stupid, the right react, the media report, everyone on social talks about it and suddenly it's a key political issue despite the fact most people don't give a toss and their only reaction is to despise those who keep doing stupid things.

The Tories love this woke crap as a result. Absolutely adore it. It's free votes for them. The reaction to Starmer taking a knee to pander to a few thousand morons on Twitter is one of sheer delight. It means they can act just as extreme and look reasonable in comparison. The left is its' own worst enemy, and they can't see it; it doesn't matter how obvious it is, they just can't see it, because they're compelled - utterly compelled - to jump on any and every bandwagon. So when the odd sensible person on the left like Burnham today say "come on, this is getting silly", he's jumped on because he's not conforming to the mob.

It really is dangerous to me. I can see why you don't think so, it's the bemusement I wish I felt to all this nonsense, but I can see the harm.

'The mob' 'the left' 'the woke' - you repeat soundbites. It's nonsense. And you help promote it, you get yourself whipped up into a frenzy like many others about these 'extremists' or 'nutjobs' - they took down a picture! You think you're coming at it from a different angle of 'it just hurts the left' but it's nonsense.


The right have been doing this for decades - it is political correctness gone mad, it is woke being co-opted from black culture to now be a pejorative term. You cannot put all these things together, there is no mob or organisation that is deciding all of these things. It's a moral panic like so many other things have been over the decades and it's so so boring that we allow them to be whipped up.

People might be thinking more about the cultural signifiers and touchstones they place importance on, and this should be applauded not turned into something cry babies can act superior over.

 

[Tubey]

'The mob' 'the left' 'the woke' - you repeat soundbites. It's nonsense. And you help promote it, you get yourself whipped up into a frenzy like many others about these 'extremists' or 'nutjobs' - they took down a picture! You think you're coming at it from a different angle of 'it just hurts the left' but it's nonsense.


The right have been doing this for decades - it is political correctness gone mad, it is woke being co-opted from black culture to now be a pejorative term. You cannot put all these things together, there is no mob or organisation that is deciding all of these things. It's a moral panic like so many other things have been over the decades and it's so so boring that we allow them to be whipped up.

People might be thinking more about the cultural signifiers and touchstones they place importance on, and this should be applauded not turned into something cry babies can act superior over.

How is it a complete myth when you get people going on television saying "the Queen is the number one symbol of white supremacy in the world"? Should that be applauded?

How is that the rights fault? Did they force that guy to say something so mind-numbingly stupid? Did the right force loads of idiots to agree with that? What are people supposed to do with that statement?

Because it's yet another textbook example of the issue - some left wing nutter says something stupid, the right react, the left then defend the stupid person because they feel compelled to, and the left then look stupid to every 'normal' person who comes across it. And Tory rule thus perpetuates forever.

 

[dead_soft]

How is it a complete myth when you get people going on television saying "the Queen is the number one symbol of white supremacy in the world"? Should that be applauded?

How is that the rights fault? Did they force that guy to say something so mind-numbingly stupid? Did the right force loads of idiots to agree with that? What are people supposed to do with that statement?

Because it's yet another textbook example of the issue - some left wing nutter says something stupid, the right react, the left then defend the stupid person because they feel compelled to, and the left then look stupid to every 'normal' person who comes across it. And Tory rule thus perpetuates forever.

It seems a pretty over the top statement but so what? Over the top statements are made all the time. It's good for academic rigour and discussion. What do you mean 'loads of idiots to agree with it'? You mean some twitter lot?

What are people supposed to do? Act like adults and think, 'I don't agree with that statement, but that's okay, I don't agree with lots of things'

You're the one using all this heightened language 'left wing nutter' - he's an academic who has a view. Maybe you disagree, maybe you'll be knee jerk about it, so what? Maybe he is wildly off base, so what? It is a moral panic whipped up by people with a vested interest. The correct response to a moral panic is not 'stop doing what they're panicking about' it's 'make them see this isn't something to worry about'.
It seems, however, people like you and those who wish to believe in some great horror would rather we act like the left is the great villain in this. For starters, plenty of the people on the left don't get particularly worked up about this. Certainly not to the level you do.

Also, it should be noted you say normal person a lot, and it's a pretty crass term to use in debate. It's used as shorthand for one particular type of voter and it's not great to use. I'm not saying you mean it that way but I'm sure you can see what it comes across as.

 

[Tubey]

It seems a pretty over the top statement but so what? Over the top statements are made all the time. It's good for academic rigour and discussion. What do you mean 'loads of idiots to agree with it'? You mean some twitter lot?

What are people supposed to do? Act like adults and think, 'I don't agree with that statement, but that's okay, I don't agree with lots of things'

You're the one using all this heightened language 'left wing nutter' - he's an academic who has a view. Maybe you disagree, maybe you'll be knee jerk about it, so what? Maybe he is wildly off base, so what? It is a moral panic whipped up by people with a vested interest. The correct response to a moral panic is not 'stop doing what they're panicking about' it's 'make them see this isn't something to worry about'.
It seems, however, people like you and those who wish to believe in some great horror would rather we act like the left is the great villain in this. For starters, plenty of the people on the left don't get particularly worked up about this. Certainly not to the level you do.

Also, it should be noted you say normal person a lot, and it's a pretty crass term to use in debate. It's used as shorthand for one particular type of voter and it's not great to use. I'm not saying you mean it that way but I'm sure you can see what it comes across as.

My god if only people did act that way...

And by 'normal', politically I mean where you win elections. The old 'Mondeo Man' way of looking at it. I understand the preference of looking at people as individuals, but elections are about being 'catch all' as much as possible. It's simply pragmatic; the more people you appeal to, the better your chance of being elected.

 

[Jamo Martinez]

Nice to see this place being somewhere of peace and harmony while I’ve been away...

Yes, so don't be going all Katie Hopkins on us. You monster.


You had your vaccine mate? I've got my second dose* next week.


* As I typed this, I remembered where I was and thought I should probably clarify. I'm talking about my second dose of the vaccine.