Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU worry that the next generation are not actually that "accepting"

466 replies

Bonsaibreaker · 20/10/2021 19:33

Long story short but chatting with 14 yo DD this evening about many subjects and a family members "views" came up. For background this family member in my view is racist and homophobic.
DD stated FM should be cancelled. Never allowed to speak, voice their opinion ever.

I pointed out to DD that freedom of speech means just that. We can all hold opinions others don't like but we are all free to voice, protest and gather regardless.
DD is of an age where discussion/debate is not an option apparently and if you are offended by another's views you just cancel them instead of debating or accepting their view as different to yours.

This worries me as instead of challenging different opinions the next generation are just silencing them.

YANBU = yes we are growing an intolerant society

YABU = They deserve to be cancelled

OP posts:
DysmalRadius · 21/10/2021 00:55

I'm not sure I really understand - surely, in order to cancel someone, you at least have to let them know they are cancelled?

Take the example of JK Rowling - there was lots of online froth from the instigators, but that in itself sparked debate, so even if the originators of the 'cancellation' were refusing to engage, it didn't actually curb the debate itself and it certainly didn't stop JK from posting, defending herself and engaging with those who were slamming her to have her say.

Similarly, in cases where people have expressed GC views at work, any attempt at 'cancellation' still has to follow employment law which affords the 'accused' the right to defend their position and take it to tribunal etc (as with Maya Forstater etc).

So what is the mechanism by which 'cancelling' someone achieves it's goal?

DysmalRadius · 21/10/2021 00:57

I suppose I am asking:

If your daughter believed that somone held 'cancel-worthy' views, what would she actually do about it?

slashlover · 21/10/2021 00:59

@Bonsaibreaker

Slash I wish it was just all about social media followers. This language is used amongst peer groups at school. Kids are being cancelled from their friendship groups. Cutting off from SM, bullied and excluded at school. It's not confind to influencers with followers.
The thing is, this has been happening since the dawn of time. People were excluded from things when I was at school, it was just called a different name - being sent to Coventry, dinghy (Scotland) etc.
slashlover · 21/10/2021 01:06

I’m curious, if anyone cares to answer… Is it better to hear things you don’t agree with and think are wrong or to not hear them? Do you think by not saying things out loud that people don’t still have the same thoughts and opinions

It depends on the opinion and the people involved. There was an AMA a few weeks/months ago where the OP was "I'm asexual, AMA" and IMO the first few posts were dismissive and horrible. People made their opinions very clear and I honestly could have done without it. I obviously know these opinions exist (I've been hearing them for 20 years) but to see them concentrated one after the other like that actually affected me. I tried to debate but some people weren't willing to engage and instead make jokes and as their minds were made up, tried to explain to me what asexuality was and why nobody should care.

Allycott · 21/10/2021 01:06

@Bringham

You agree they are racist and homophobic though? Do you think DC should just listen to their beliefs?

The right to freedom of speech doesnr cover hate speech

Yes it does. Don't you think it's good to know what you're dealing with?
Original poster
Bonsaibreaker · 21/10/2021 01:06

So stop engaging with me Kanaloa

OP posts:
Original poster
Bonsaibreaker · 21/10/2021 01:12

Cancelling is in my opinion not about the end result of actually cancelling someone.

Its about putting the individual through so much stress, ridicule, public debate, investigation in to their professional and personal life and abuse they effectively cancel themselves in the end.

OP posts:
saltinesandcoffeecups · 21/10/2021 01:16

Thx for those who have answered. I’m still feeling like the question is still on the table though.

What is better in life about silencing those who have differing opinions?

How does it make your life better to not hear things you disagree with?

Does it fundamentally change what people think?

Do you believe that if it’s not said aloud it doesn’t exist?

Is it better to know ‘your enemy’ or for them to go into the shadows?

When does an ally change to enemy? (See my earlier post about Margaret Atwood)

Do we have to agree on everything?

Who makes the rules?

slashlover · 21/10/2021 01:29

What is better in life about silencing those who have differing opinions?

That I don't have to hear/read people openly mocking me, it affects me.

How does it make your life better to not hear things you disagree with?

Again, it depends on the thing. But not hearing the same ignorant things on constant repeat makes my life better.

Does it fundamentally change what people think?

No, but I've never managed to change someone's mind with debate either. Has anyone ever?

Do you believe that if it’s not said aloud it doesn’t exist?

Of course not.

Is it better to know ‘your enemy’ or for them to go into the shadows?

I know my 'enemy' after many years, there's nothing they could say that I haven't heard before.

Do we have to agree on everything?

No, there are certain opinions which are a hard line for me (which will be different for each person) that

Kanaloa · 21/10/2021 01:32

Okay then. But it seems you don’t like hearing that you’ve been hugely contradictory across the thread. Honestly you’re coming across like you just love ‘debating’ a bit too much. Maybe just let your daughter do what she likes.

Original poster
Bonsaibreaker · 21/10/2021 01:38

Kanaloa

I belive in debate I have made that clear.

You posted just to have a nasty dig so no I am not interested in that.
My DD is 14 of course she can't just do what she likes thats a stupid thing to say.
While the older she gets my parental role reduces is true I am still responsible for supporting her in making good choices.

OP posts:
ThumbWitchesAbroad · 21/10/2021 01:44

I think it's about time that Orwell's 1984 was brought back into the school curriculum, as compulsory reading for all 13yos!

Although I do worry that some of them might agree with the concept of wrongthink and Big Brother, since that seems to be the way that a lot of them are going.

Kanaloa · 21/10/2021 01:46

@Bonsaibreaker

Kanaloa

I belive in debate I have made that clear.

You posted just to have a nasty dig so no I am not interested in that.
My DD is 14 of course she can't just do what she likes thats a stupid thing to say.
While the older she gets my parental role reduces is true I am still responsible for supporting her in making good choices.

So you’re not interested in continuing a conversation with someone you feel is just having a nasty dig?

But you think your daughter should continue to ‘debate’ in a family situation with a man much older than her who is openly homophobic and racist. That adds up.

Original poster
Bonsaibreaker · 21/10/2021 01:55

That just shows that you haven't read the thread.

I want DD to challenge opinions or choose to walk away not to cancel the choice for others to hold opinions.
You haven't read the thread and simply wanted to have a nasty dig so I rightly told you not to bother commenting if you felt that way.

OP posts:
WomanStanleyWoman · 21/10/2021 07:35

You haven't read the thread and simply wanted to have a nasty dig so I rightly told you not to bother commenting if you felt that way.

If you can’t see even the tiniest bit of irony in this, there’s no hope for you.

Original poster
Bonsaibreaker · 21/10/2021 07:41

If you can’t see even the tiniest bit of irony in this, there’s no hope for you.

Sure I am a hopless case Hmm

OP posts:
TheKeatingFive · 21/10/2021 07:47

Although I do worry that some of them might agree with the concept of wrongthink and Big Brother, since that seems to be the way that a lot of them are going.

Unfortunately yes

derxa · 21/10/2021 08:06

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

I learned a hard lesson after the Brexit referendum. I was born in the early 1960s. Through my lifetime I genuinely thought the number of people with racist views was falling like a stone, because in the lefty liberal circles I move in nobody said these things. Then, after June 2016, the number of people expressing racist views quite openly rocketed. I realise now they never stopped thinking those things. They had just felt unable to say them openly. Brexit emboldened them to think it was fine now, they could say anything and there would be no consequences.

We had early warning of this in that incident with Gordon Brown and the woman who tried to talk to him about immigration. She wasn't a racist, she had legitimate concerns, but he pigeonholed her as a racist and fobbed her off. Refusing to talk to people about certain things doesn't mean they stop having those concerns. It means an opportunity to exchange information and views is lost and the person written off as a bigot is left feeling slighted. No wonder the far right was able to win so many people over.

Excellent post
Malin52 · 21/10/2021 08:13

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

I learned a hard lesson after the Brexit referendum. I was born in the early 1960s. Through my lifetime I genuinely thought the number of people with racist views was falling like a stone, because in the lefty liberal circles I move in nobody said these things. Then, after June 2016, the number of people expressing racist views quite openly rocketed. I realise now they never stopped thinking those things. They had just felt unable to say them openly. Brexit emboldened them to think it was fine now, they could say anything and there would be no consequences.

We had early warning of this in that incident with Gordon Brown and the woman who tried to talk to him about immigration. She wasn't a racist, she had legitimate concerns, but he pigeonholed her as a racist and fobbed her off. Refusing to talk to people about certain things doesn't mean they stop having those concerns. It means an opportunity to exchange information and views is lost and the person written off as a bigot is left feeling slighted. No wonder the far right was able to win so many people over.

This. People who had reasonable concerns about immigration were shut down as 'racist'. Their views were never challenged. The only people who spoke about their concerns openly were the Farages and Trumps of this world. The only people who spoke to their concerns. No matter if they were a little stronger.
TheKeatingFive · 21/10/2021 08:34

Their views were never challenged. The only people who spoke about their concerns openly were the Farages and Trumps of this world.

Exactly. And it isn't even a surprising outcome. Of course being frozen out of engagement with one side of the debate sends people straight into the arms of the other. That's exactly what 'cancelling' is designed to achieve.

1Week · 21/10/2021 08:57

@DysmalRadius

I'm not sure I really understand - surely, in order to cancel someone, you at least have to let them know they are cancelled?

Take the example of JK Rowling - there was lots of online froth from the instigators, but that in itself sparked debate, so even if the originators of the 'cancellation' were refusing to engage, it didn't actually curb the debate itself and it certainly didn't stop JK from posting, defending herself and engaging with those who were slamming her to have her say.

Similarly, in cases where people have expressed GC views at work, any attempt at 'cancellation' still has to follow employment law which affords the 'accused' the right to defend their position and take it to tribunal etc (as with Maya Forstater etc).

So what is the mechanism by which 'cancelling' someone achieves it's goal?

It's because of the example it sets to ordinary people. After that hullabaloo against a once beloved national treasure, how do comfortable do you think Sue in accounts would feel about objecting to workplace plans to turn the loos mixed sex? Do you think she'd feel she'd get a fair hearing, her views considered, or would she have her card marked?

Thats how it works among ordinary people.

mustlovegin · 21/10/2021 09:10

Does it fundamentally change what people think?

Do you believe that if it’s not said aloud it doesn’t exist?

I think people instigate a cancellation campaign in the hope that the belief will die out or will not catch on.

I agree that you cannot completely eradicate an idea, especially when it's supported by science or held by the majority of people

mustlovegin · 21/10/2021 09:12

But I agree with the OP that those who are targeted can suffer real consequences in the meantime

mustlovegin · 21/10/2021 09:13

After that hullabaloo against a once beloved national treasure, how do comfortable do you think Sue in accounts would feel about objecting to workplace plans to turn the loos mixed sex? Do you think she'd feel she'd get a fair hearing, her views considered, or would she have her card marked?

Yes, the objective is to instil fear

TheKeatingFive · 21/10/2021 09:14

Thats how it works among ordinary people.

Exactly. It's not the impact on rich powerful people. It's what it does to ordinary people's confidence to express their views.