to think society has lost the ability to allow opposing views anymore

[allmixedup12]

there is no space left in the UK/US for opposing views anymore and any kind of debate feels totally polarizing. It seems the public has been dumbed down to understand black and white are the only two colours - i feel uncomfortable raising doubts anymore in public for the fear of being attacked

Brexit vs EU love
Trump vs Democrats
Covid vs Deniers/doubters
BLM vs I'm not racist, and no one else is either
Russia/China bad - UK/US good
NATO is innocent - Putin is Satan (neither is true)
woke vs not woke?
BBC vs RT
Indyref vs Union
Islamophobes vs Liberals

Insane how difficult it has become to voice opposing opinions without being attacked personally as a fascist/racist/insensitive/crazy

"Mainstream media (MSM) is a term and abbreviation used to refer collectively to the various large mass news media that influence many people, and both reflect and shape prevailing currents of thought. The term is used to contrast with alternative media which can often present opinions, views or dissent from various stances."

@allmixedup123
So along the lines of Goldman ect ?

[quote allmixedup12]@cuno I've followed an investigative journalist named John Pilger for several years now and watched many of his documentaries, which opened my eyes on the realities of Iraq & Afghanistan wars, US-China diplomacy, NHS privatization etc. johnpilger.com/ Most times the reality was completely different from what was the popular opinion - which was also unfortunately my opinion before seeing reality

His tweets on the recent Ukraine crises and since then my reading up on the topic from credible sources has made me very very skeptical of mainstream media coverage of the war and i am starting to understand that the reality may be something completely different from what is fed on TV. As much as it breaks my heart for the individual families stuck in the middle of this crises, the causes of this seem far more complex than "Putin is a madman"

this is making me uncomfortable and I am afraid to speak up for fear of losing friends/job/being cancelled in some other form etc. etc. even my own family is looking at me with wtf eyes[/quote]
🤣🤣🤣 Ah the old 'I've done my research' line. You always know when someone says they've done their own research, they mean they have followed a load of conspiracy theorists links, especially when they throw in the phrase 'mainstream media'. If people are afraid of sharing their views it's probably because their 'views' are either incorrect or embarrassing. I am delighted peoole feel uncomfortable, hopefully that will stop them spreading their bigoted, scaremongering bile and crackpot conspiracy theories.

I think there's always been a human tendency to want to enforce rules, belong to a club and denounce heretics. The way people discuss trans rights on Twitter is not much different from old fashioned preachers threatening hellfire and damnation to anyone who didn't follow their rules to the letter, and believers competing to be the most virtuous.

Yeah, I always think that if we went back 130 years these same people would be head of the Temperance Union.

Yep. I found out yesterday that my work subscribes to Stonewall. I'm all for progressing the rights of trans men and women but not at the expense of biological women. It shouldn't be an either/or situation. We should be fighting for both. Stonewall's response to feminists fighting for women's rights is to scream BIGOTS!

@GrolliffetheDragon

Usually when people say "I feel like I can't even say what I think any more without fear of ", that's not a good sign. On MN they're usually opposed to trans rights, in the wider internet/world it'll generally be something racist/sexist/homophobic. Political correctness gorn mad innit. I'm ok with not hearing those views.

Ok - so in work we have a new Equalities Monitoring form, just introduced this year. It doesn't monitor the sex of applicants. I would like to raise this as an issue, but I don't think I can without marking myself as potentially transphobic. Is that reasonable? Is it transphobic to think that the sex of applicants should be included alongside gender identity, ethnicity, sexuality, religion and whether the person identified as disabled or not?

So in my workplace, new hires are meant to do a very objective interview process that is points based. The person with the most points gets the job barring very serious issues.

But they also make a big deal of saying they are open to all kinds of identity groups and encouraging such people to self-identify.

Now, in a few cases this makes sense, if they need special accommodation for example. But in pretty much every instance except certain disabilities, there should be no reason this makes any difference to the interview process.

I've had more than one applicant wonder whether they are in fact preferencing some people who belong to certain groups but claiming not because it would be dodgy, or what the heck is going on. For others, they might wonder if in fact self-identifying might in reality make them less likely to be chosen.

But alas, it is not a discussion that can really be had.

[quote DottyHarmer]@stupidandconcearned of course it is not a good idea to discuss “controversial” subjects at work etc BUT it seems the prevailing wind is “if you’re not with us you’re against us” in some quarters. So if you say no thank you to displaying your preferred pronouns you’re a bigot.

I’ve just become aware of “bi-phobia” which apparently is not being open to bisexuality yourself On an innocuous thread about the delights of Stanley Tucci, on came someone to berate the participants for their mono fancying .[/quote]
You're KIDDING! Ffs

@allmixedup123

is Mearsheimer also “fringe” - or is anyone whose view is not mainstream automatically considered as non credible in your books?

Can you also explain why you think Pilger/Mearsheimer are not to be believed.

Where did I say they were non credible or not to be believed?

It’s not about dismissing people because they don’t have a mainstream view. But it’s equally not about accepting that they hold the “truth”. They have opinions and use evidence to back them up. By all means engage and critically evaluate what they say (same as you would with any opinion), agree or disagree.

If OP had said “I agree with what John Pilger has to say” then fair enough. It’s the assertion that it’s the “truth” and that everything in the “mainstream media” should be treated sceptically is where it gets problematic.

I’ve just become aware of “bi-phobia” which apparently is not being open to bisexuality yourself confused

Well that's ridiculous. I'm bi and biphobia is just the same as homophobia but directed at bisexuals. The sort of "oh bisexuals are greedy/shag around/can't decide/confused/doesn't make sense/more likely to cheat/always up for a threesome" type of stuff.

@Ncwinc

The media?

There is a real differentiation between big, established media, and many of the smaller, more independent media sources.

And then there are also things like personal websites or blogs.

There are also some which fall in between these categories. These are well established different types of publications and if you were to go to a university journalism program they would talk about them as different.

[quote FavouriteFortnight]@allmixedup123

is Mearsheimer also “fringe” - or is anyone whose view is not mainstream automatically considered as non credible in your books?

Can you also explain why you think Pilger/Mearsheimer are not to be believed.

Where did I say they were non credible or not to be believed?

It’s not about dismissing people because they don’t have a mainstream view. But it’s equally not about accepting that they hold the “truth”. They have opinions and use evidence to back them up. By all means engage and critically evaluate what they say (same as you would with any opinion), agree or disagree.

If OP had said “I agree with what John Pilger has to say” then fair enough. It’s the assertion that it’s the “truth” and that everything in the “mainstream media” should be treated sceptically is where it gets problematic.[/quote]
I don't think the OP was saying everyone has to agree with her POV. The point was that she was basically being told that her POV wasn't acceptable.

at which point a number of people came along and essentially said, don't be silly, views are all allowed except if they are stupid like yours.

I wonder if most of it is just annoyance that now there are real consequences to airing bigoted, racist / whatever views. The people who scream the loudest about cancel culture basically want a free pass to say whatever they like with no consequence.

What tosh

@VladmirsPoutine

I wonder if most of it is just annoyance that now there are real consequences to airing bigoted, racist / whatever views. The people who scream the loudest about cancel culture basically want a free pass to say whatever they like with no consequence.

Though I'm sure JKR would appreciate your words.

@VladmirsPoutine

I wonder if most of it is just annoyance that now there are real consequences to airing bigoted, racist / whatever views. The people who scream the loudest about cancel culture basically want a free pass to say whatever they like with no consequence.

It's really worrying that people are still saying this and in doing so defending the suppression of free speech. Sometimes I think though, that those who say it have gained somehow from the current social status being a victim of some kind endows them and so enjoy cancel culture, excuse it and are loathe to give it up.

@MangyInseam

I don't think the OP was saying everyone has to agree with her POV. The point was that she was basically being told that her POV wasn't acceptable.

at which point a number of people came along and essentially said, don't be silly, views are all allowed except if they are stupid like yours.

We’ll much as I don’t think shouting someone down as being a “Putin apologist” is particularly constructive, at least it’s at engaging at some level with the substance of the argument.

What I was cautioning OP against was the temptation to slide into seeing things as truth and lies. As I said, it’s the basis of conspiracy theories, the worst of anti-vax and covid denier logic etc. It’s ducking meaningful engagement with debate, I substituting it with a belief that most people (sheep) are victims of cover up and conspiracy and only the enlightened few see the “truth”.

I’m not saying that’s the point OP is at, but the way she’s talking sounds as though she’s at risk of falling into that trap.

I've just read Pilger nonsensical comment about invasion of Ukraine.
I can only answer with this link: freedomnews.org.uk/2022/03/04/fuck-leftist-westplaining/

[quote allmixedup12]@cuno I've followed an investigative journalist named John Pilger for several years now and watched many of his documentaries, which opened my eyes on the realities of Iraq & Afghanistan wars, US-China diplomacy, NHS privatization etc. johnpilger.com/ Most times the reality was completely different from what was the popular opinion - which was also unfortunately my opinion before seeing reality

His tweets on the recent Ukraine crises and since then my reading up on the topic from credible sources has made me very very skeptical of mainstream media coverage of the war and i am starting to understand that the reality may be something completely different from what is fed on TV. As much as it breaks my heart for the individual families stuck in the middle of this crises, the causes of this seem far more complex than "Putin is a madman"

this is making me uncomfortable and I am afraid to speak up for fear of losing friends/job/being cancelled in some other form etc. etc. even my own family is looking at me with wtf eyes[/quote]
Pilger! Blimey, he must be nearly 90 by now.

@Theluggage15

Russia is not in NATO!!

They probably mean the NATO-Russia Council. Ie not NATO?

He's 82

[quote FavouriteFortnight]@MangyInseam

I don't think the OP was saying everyone has to agree with her POV. The point was that she was basically being told that her POV wasn't acceptable.

at which point a number of people came along and essentially said, don't be silly, views are all allowed except if they are stupid like yours.

We’ll much as I don’t think shouting someone down as being a “Putin apologist” is particularly constructive, at least it’s at engaging at some level with the substance of the argument.

What I was cautioning OP against was the temptation to slide into seeing things as truth and lies. As I said, it’s the basis of conspiracy theories, the worst of anti-vax and covid denier logic etc. It’s ducking meaningful engagement with debate, I substituting it with a belief that most people (sheep) are victims of cover up and conspiracy and only the enlightened few see the “truth”.

I’m not saying that’s the point OP is at, but the way she’s talking sounds as though she’s at risk of falling into that trap.[/quote]
Do you think it is possible you are at risk of consuming the consensus view without questioning it?

thanks for warning me what i'm at risk of

People are going crazy to de Russian-ify everything.

So much I would guess is being driven by what Twitter or other social media platform might say if they don't - and if the SM patform takes against you - look how that can spiral to huge consequences.

My point is that SM just amplifies everything to ridiculous levels so a 'normal' discussion is impossible - an example -The orchestra not performing Tchaikovsky at their upcoming concerts - well they would have run the risk of some SM deciding everyone should not attend their concerts as the orchestra was supporting Russia - and people are so busy being 'kind' and virtue signalling there is probably a risk of that happening.
So they are forced into this extreme position.
This is what happens with most arguments/discussions today.

Quite - cancelling Tchaikovsky . As someone else pointed out, what about Shostakovich? Is he approved? Would people know he is approved ? The Classic FM Countdown this Easter is going to be a bit threadbare…..

There was a really good Radio 4 show about this called the death of nuance or something similar. Worth a listen.

I'd be wary of taking any one journalist at face value though OP. No matter how credible or worthy you think they are. Almost everyone has an agenda of some sort.

I think social media has had a huge part to play in the lack of nuance. People try and reduce complex issues into 140 characters and you lose the depth as a result. The more it happens the more black and white things become. Tribes are formed and suddenly anyone who disagrees is the enemy.

Covid really made this apparent. Lockdowns were a necessary evil at the start in my opinion but I was acutely aware that they would have significant negative impacts on individuals and society. However trying to express this got me lumped in with the deniers and labelled as a "granny killer."

I listed to that programme - very interesting.

I have a bottom imprinted with rusty barbed wire from fence sitting. Like probably many others I have mixed opinions on almost everything. I like some Conservative policies, I like some Labour policies and conversely hate many policies of both. But no, I’m Tory Scum whatever. If I am live and let live but want to retain women’s spaces I’m a bigot and probably on my way to the ducking stool for that and no doubt masses of other transgressions.