How is Jim Davidson not cancelled?

[donemeover]

If you've watched the documentary black and white by Ashley Banjo you will see what I mean.

This man is the most racist man I've seen on TV in recent years.

He's a disgrace.

@NotBadConsidering

I have said nothing about Kathleen Stock confused

Yes. I noticed.

You have already decided what I think anyway

You have already decided what I think anyway

I haven’t decided off my own bat. You stated cancel culture doesn’t exist, so you told everyone including me, what you think. You said it’s been invented by “the right” despite multiple examples of it happening right now. The denial of these examples does lead me to infer a few things though.

I just find it sad really. Women are victims of this disproportionately and to dismiss it is beyond my comprehension of how people can’t stand it solidarity of those being bullied.

@NotBadConsidering

You have already decided what I think anyway

I haven’t decided off my own bat. You stated cancel culture doesn’t exist, so you told everyone including me, what you think. You said it’s been invented by “the right” despite multiple examples of it happening right now. The denial of these examples does lead me to infer a few things though.

I just find it sad really. Women are victims of this disproportionately and to dismiss it is beyond my comprehension of how people can’t stand it solidarity of those being bullied.

Yes, you've really misunderstood me. That's partly why I don't bother to explain - because those screaming about 'cancel culture' seem to be the most keen on not actually listening to anyone else. They have one view and if you don't get on board they attack. No better than the people they claim to oppose.

Kathleen Stock has been subject to harassment. I understood her University had backed her.

Yes, you've really misunderstood me. That's partly why I don't bother to explain - because those screaming about 'cancel culture' seem to be the most keen on not actually listening to anyone else. They have one view and if you don't get on board they attack. No better than the people they claim to oppose.

I’m not screaming . You made a claim that was easily refutable. Kathleen Stock has been subject to harassment by those actively partaking in cancel culture.

I would also argue that those who deny it exists are just as guilty of those who partake in it.

“We’re not trying to cancel anyone, what a ridiculous suggestion! We’re just threatening her and subjecting her to harassment and demanding for her resignation from her post, that’s all. It’s not cancel culture.”

Why does it even matter? Because it makes the Overton Window extremely precarious. While it’s easy for everyone to agree that Jim Davidson is horrible, righteous indignation only leads to a path of total intolerance in which the lines become blurred and if you’re not screaming along with the mob all of a sudden you’re on the outside for perfectly reasonable views and will be subjected to the same abuse. It’s bizarre to deny such culture exists and it’s been invented and to continue to do so even in the face of evidence.

Prejudice exists. Power structures exist. Therefore the combination of prejudice + power exists. That is what is defined as 'racism'

No, the law does not support this view which focuses on oppression and imbalance. Please see case below and many others

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/white-heterosexual-male-police-recruit-matthew-furlong-discrimination-employment-tribunal-a8794521.html

Academics and theorists are (unfortunately) paid (sometimes using public funds) to concoct ideas. These are only opinions that can be challenged, they are not dogma and certainly don't always reflect science or what happens in the real world.

Why does it even matter? Because it makes the Overton Window extremely precarious. While it’s easy for everyone to agree that Jim Davidson is horrible, righteous indignation only leads to a path of total intolerance in which the lines become blurred and if you’re not screaming along with the mob all of a sudden you’re on the outside for perfectly reasonable views and will be subjected to the same abuse.

Reasonable people should be at liberty to protest reasonably about anything. They can get things changed or get bookings cancelled or get contracts withdrawn - if done reasonably. We know this must be true because reason would say that if someone entirely unsuitable were given a key position we shouldn't have to quietly accept it. We can organise a petition, write letters, hold meetings, wave placards.

Harassment is a different matter and the two things shouldn't be conflated.

Anyone who wants racists to be allowed to perform in theatres without allowing people to complain about it needs to give their head a shake. It is the manner of complaining/protesting that matters.

People were at liberty to say they disagreed with Kathleen Stock. People are entitled to hold views we think are both right or wrong and to express them. They were absolutely not entitled to harass her.

The issues around harassment are exacerbated by social media, lack of mental health services and lack of police resource of course.

It is the manner of complaining/protesting that matters.

People were at liberty to say they disagreed with Kathleen Stock. People are entitled to hold views we think are both right or wrong and to express them. They were absolutely not entitled to harass her.

But that’s the cancel culture you seek to deny: the elevation of disagreement to harassment in order to make someone suffer. Cancel culture is self-righteous harassment of people who have opposing views. It’s the culture permeating groups of people who think this is a reasonable way to behave. The people who are harassing Stock are totally convinced they are morally right. How has this been invented by “the right”? And why? It makes no sense.

How has this been invented by “the right”? And why? It makes no sense.

To shut down legitimate protest - they can lump it all together.

Never noticed e.g. JHB giving much of a shit about Diane Abbott's death threats.

The right are very keen to portray any protest they want to badge as being from the left as 'cancel culture'.

The culture wars are being stoked constantly.

Cancel culture is self-righteous harassment of people who have opposing views.

IMO cancel culture is a label given to a wide range of protests, some legitimate, some unacceptable.

@rrhuth

How has this been invented by “the right”? And why? It makes no sense.

To shut down legitimate protest - they can lump it all together.

Never noticed e.g. JHB giving much of a shit about Diane Abbott's death threats.

The right are very keen to portray any protest they want to badge as being from the left as 'cancel culture'.

The culture wars are being stoked constantly.

The Times has interviewed Diane Abbott:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/diane-abbott-saturday-interview-why-am-i-abused-so-much-i-m-both-black-and-a-woman-fd2vhdrc5

And she’s been on Times Radio.

I would agree that the right of politics are savvy enough to use cancel culture for their political advantage. Maybe the extreme left should stop partaking in it, and deny them the opportunity. It’s left wing people who are usually mistreated by cancel culture, like Stock, for instance. Or Rosie Duffield being harassed enough to stay away from the Labour conference. It’s not the Tories harassing her, but they know voters don’t like people being harassed either.

The issue is the Right profiting from the Left’s extremism, not the invention of the existence of their extremism.

The issue is the Right profiting from the Left’s extremism, not the invention of the existence of their extremism

IMO the issue is a group of very unpleasant people lumping mainstream centre and moderate left views in with extreme views in an attempt to create two opposing sides to every fucking issue, keeping the country permanently outraged and divided.

In reality, most people exist in the reasonable world.

But yes, lump every single protest about everything into a homogenous 'cancel culture' blob if that suits your them and us worldview.

@rrhuth

The issue is the Right profiting from the Left’s extremism, not the invention of the existence of their extremism

IMO the issue is a group of very unpleasant people lumping mainstream centre and moderate left views in with extreme views in an attempt to create two opposing sides to every fucking issue, keeping the country permanently outraged and divided.

In reality, most people exist in the reasonable world.

But yes, lump every single protest about everything into a homogenous 'cancel culture' blob if that suits your them and us worldview.

So the Right are deviously pitting a moderate, liberal left wing lesbian philosophy professor against the extreme left students to keep the country outraged and divided?

And the Labour Party is not actually ripping itself apart over the attendance at the conference of an MP who stated only women have a cervix, it’s really an unpleasant group on the Right who are secretly stoking the flames behind the scenes to keep the country outraged and divided?

Sure .

The country isn’t divided. It’s united in its despair at the Labour Party, hence the result of the last election. In reality, most people exist in the reasonable world. But it’s individuals like Stock, Duffield, Dreyfus, Jo Phoenix, Selina Todd, who suffer.

I haven’t “lump[ed] every single protest about everything into a homogenous 'cancel culture' blob if that suits your them and us worldview”; I have given you very real examples of this happening to do exactly the opposite. You in fact have developed the homogenous blob view, a definition of cancel culture that you think is insightful for seeing political machinations, but it means you can’t actually see the very real examples right in front of you. Of course some protests are legitimate. That doesn’t mean actual real cancel culture doesn’t exist. But you can’t see it because you seem to think it’s all manufactured outrage at fake claims of cancellation.

Not RTFT.

I don't think it's possible to 'cancel' someone like Jim Davidson, because he doesn't give a shit. I was gobsmacked at how he behaved when speaking to Ashley Banjo, and quite honestly thought the 'I can't breathe' performance Diversity gave was really good.

But JD doesn't give a shit what anyone thinks. He is rude and thoughtless and arrogant, and his 'comedy' is about 50 years out of date.

But if people hate him and slate him and call him names he loves the attention.

And, as I said, it's not possible to cancel him (IMO) because he cares so little. Like if someone I hated - and made me really angry - decided to stop speaking to me - I'd be glad.

Do you think JD is going to give a flying fuck that the left-leaning wokies (as he calls them) will block him on twitter and slag him off? He doesn't care. Same with Piers Morgan. Anyone annoys him and he blocks them. He doesn't care that people dislike him. Neither JD or PM can be cancelled, because they don't care what people think. AND they have enough of a following to carry on with spewing their bile.

The more things change...

twitter.com/daraobriain/status/1451994177445584896?t=uofYxf_KND7O6M5OdpBPAQ&s=09

My sister had the displeasure of Jim Davidson visiting the pub she managed on a daily basis during his holiday. He was absolutely vile and sat propping the bar up all day - trying to order the female staff to be at his beck and call.

I remain genuinely intrigued by the idea that cancel culture was invented by "the right" and doesn't really exist.
It's a really interesting point of view.

I cba to continue @NotBadConsidering, I think the thread was more interesting when it was about JD rather than just slagging off the Labour party. I'm not going to defend them, I don't speak for them.

I don't think it's possible to 'cancel' someone like Jim Davidson, because he doesn't give a shit. Agree with this!

There are plenty of people out there who agree with Jim Davidson's POV. They're not all old either.
They are the people that go to football matches for the sole aim of having a punch up. That make revolting comments about the women they work with. That shout about "fucking immigrants taking our jobs". That give the old ball and chain a quick backhander when she "chats shit" or just dismisses her entirely as only useful as a household appliance and an orifice when he's had 9 pints of Stella.
Sadly the world is plastered with them.

@rrhuth

I cba to continue *@NotBadConsidering*, I think the thread was more interesting when it was about JD rather than just slagging off the Labour party. I'm not going to defend them, I don't speak for them.

Of course, I understand. But if you wanted the discussion to be just about Jim Davidson, then maybe don’t make blanket statements that can be easily refuted about things other than Jim Davidson, like “cancel culture doesn’t exist and has been invented by the right.”

It’s quite clear that not all that is called cancel culture genuinely is, but genuine cancel culture exists and hasn’t been fabricated. This is affecting people’s livelihoods on a daily basis.

Davidson is an unfunny cunt of the highest ranking. I’ve always thoroughly deeply disliked the man. I know people who have worked with him and no one has a good word to say. I don’t know how he’s not landed in prison yet!

@SteveArnottsWaistcoat

Davidson is an unfunny cunt of the highest ranking. I’ve always thoroughly deeply disliked the man. I know people who have worked with him and no one has a good word to say. I don’t know how he’s not landed in prison yet!

The police did try to put him in prison but then discovered that he hadn't broken the law.

The police did try to put him in prison but then discovered that he hadn't broken the law

Perhaps they couldn't find any evidence that he hadn't broken the law?

It's also not so much that he is un-cancelable because he doesn't give a shit, but he's not on telly anymore, he's only playing little venues to a few small groups. It's not like he's filling the O2 night after night. As stated earlier he's made his money anyway.

@Snoozysnoozy. They felt they had the evidence he had broken the law and wanted to charge him. He found evidence to prove what was said about him wasn't true. The police had to drop the case. I mean people might want him in prison but if there's no evidence that he's broken the law, I don't see how that's possible.

@Nightlystroll, it wasn't a dig. Just an observation.