To think there is a worrying trend to cancel folk for opinions and thoughts

[ConnieLinggusThe69th]

I'm not saying I agree with the opinions of Roald Dahl (I dont) but I understand if people want to cancel folk for their actions - don't like cancel culture but that seems reasonable somewhat to react to someone's actions

But why the fuck are we extending cancel culture to the thoughts that someone expressed? He hardly evangelised his anti semitic beliefs- he simply held them... but chose to write fiction books... the impact he left on the world was some good stories for most people

Just read they were putting a sign up to apologise for his beliefs in the Roald Dahl museum - he's dead now, how can you apologise post death for someone else's thoughts?!

Yes, the Communist Party is strongly predicted to win the next election. Isn't it?

True, and as previously discussed the Dahl example isn't the best one and OP has agreed with this. However, it is part of the same slippery slope of intolerance of other people's opinion and lack of nuance. It's possible to discuss Dahl's views in the museum so people can make up their own minds without apologising for his views.

Probably not the case for Dahl, but in Nazi Germany there would have been many people who came out with anti-semitic views not because they actually thought that but because they were scared of being branded as committing wrongthink or were simply going along with the ruling groupthink. Some people in the resistance may have even expressed anti-Semitic views in order to divert suspicion.

This could be the family, the descendants of Dahl, wanting to ensure people know that their ancestors' views don't align with their own and to express some form of sincere regret and embarrassment about the distasteful views he may have expressed, especially if they were antisemitic.

I think you are probably correct in your assessment of their motives but I think the more important question is why are they worried that people may think they agree with Dahl's views unless they explicitly say they don't.

Denunciations are coerced out of people to avoid accusations of guilt by association, it's sinister. I feel like I'm watching our entire society getting swept up in a kind of cult that assumes the worst of everyone. No one is allowed to make a genuine mistake, there is no forgiveness, just condemnation and a desire, by spiteful authoritarians, to punish people by destroying their lives.

It's frightening how many people love the feeling of power they get from a good public shunning. I do believe most people are basically decent and used to wonder how authoritarian, genocidal regimes came to power but I don't anymore.

I’m happy to be intolerant of anti semitism. What I object to is this ridiculous pantomime of scourging of the past to demonstrate how holy and good we are, and fake apologies for things that were nothing to do with us.

When I think back to homophobia in the 70s and 80s, everyone who is living, just trying to change the way people behaved, so they wanted gay marriage, they wanted no discrimination at work and representation on TV etc.

What we have now is a situation where our thoughts are controlled. It's not enough for us not to say that men can't be women etc we are not allowed to think of it.

It really is the Emperor's New Clothes. I think we should all be buying that book for our children and grandchildren to read.

Do totalitarians tell people they are totalitarians before they get into power?

Who has had their bank account closed due to their religious views?

My best is on Farage is being disingenuous here. Banks like you if you have money in your account; otherwise, the account is closed. (To simply things.) There's no need to start 'It's all totalitarian' when the case may be he simply didn't follow guidelines.

@FOJN

It's frightening how many people love the feeling of power they get from a good public shunning.

I'm interested in how you know other people's feelings, particularly on this subject?

Not a frequented of the cess pitt of twitter then @OCaptain?

Fair point, I'll amend my remarks:

It's frightening how many people SEEM/APPEAR to love the feeling of power they get from a good public shunning.

Which guidelines did he not follow?

That is a very good point. Look at the totalitarian tendencies of the current Conservative government. It never set those out in its 2019 manifesto.If it could do away with elections at this juncture, it probably would.

That's not what I said. Is it?
Are you often this obtuse.

Are you often this rude?

How do you predict we will slide into communism @LOSTAN ? There are currently no communist political parties in the UK which have even the teeniest tiniest chance of gaining power.

Agree that there are some people who really appear to get a lot of pleasure from public shunning, language policing and "calling out".

If I pass any wisdom on to my kids it's beware a person that takes pleasure doing this. They'll turn on you the moment they get the opportunity.

Well they've tried to rewrite his books to match modern publishing sensitivities. Which went down well. Can't call Augustus Gloop "fat" now. Apparently the phrase "white as a sheet" to refer to someone shocked or scared is also verboten.

Apparently the phrase "white as a sheet" to refer to someone shocked or scared is also verboten

I think if this is about children's books, I can't feel too exercised about it. Trying to avoid white being the default skin colour in children's stories is not a bad thing. Kids need to be able to see themselves in stories and identify with the characters. It helps keep engaged with reading, which is so important.

@AlisonDonut

Which guidelines did he not follow?

I don't know - I'm not Nigel Farage nor a representative of the bank in question. The keyword in my post was "may".

It did turn out to be untrue. The minutes regarding the decision have been released under a Subject Access Request. In them the bank repeatedly says he “meets the EC [economic contribution] criteria for commercial retention”

The potential for money laundering is nonsense too. All Politically Exposed Persons have to have extra scrutiny on their accounts to prevent corruption and some banks have indeed refused accounts to (for example) the daughters of peers because of the admin involved. In this case, he is surely less politically exposed than he was in 2016 when he actually held elected office and actively campaigned.

There has been a slow build up of this over many years...

After the Thatcher years were demonised as being all 'greed is good' there was some backlash to that ending up in the 'be kind' era, so anyone who says anything that is deemed 'unkind' to someone somewhere is at risk of being cancelled.

I look at how people like Katie Hopkins were cancelled many years ago and wonder why we let that happen, really. Yes, whatever, she was sometime very 'unkind' but she didn't kill anyone, didn't incite violence and was just expressing an opinion. I know there will be people who will instantly say 'she deserved it'....but I would argue that she didn't deserve to be cancelled, she deserved to have an opinion that you could disagree with. There was a lot of projection going on in her downfall.

I think anyone who believes we have free speech these days is fooling themselves. Our speech is restricted in many circumstances; I cannot freely talk about trans issues, immigration issues, race issues, religious issues, many family issues such as marriage/divorce, god, you can barely even talk about being a conservative. Covid was a hotbed of censorship too - you could barely even say that maybe it is a mistake to close schools without being written off ( family fallouts were even common), never mind saying you didn't want the vaccine. There is an accepted opinion on all these things, and that is that. I admire all the people who despite this social pressure still speak their actual opinions (e.g. Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farrage) because it really is incredibly brave. Take any of the issues mentioned above and actually imagine yourself freely exploring and articulating any thoughts you have on these matters in front of the nation, and I would take a bet you would censor your own thoughts and speech - hence why I would describe these 'subjects of hate' as actually being brave.

People need to tolerate an opposite opinion to their own, it is part of being a mature person. It is also absolutely vital for your own mental health that you are able to explore an opinion that is different to your own.

According to the bank's own documents, he had enough money in his account and was always courteous to staff. The decision to close his account was because of his political views.

That's an exceptionally long post from someone who thinks don't have free speech.

I understand the telegraph has published a bunch of mails released to Farage in response to DSAR which suggests there may be more substance to his claims than previously thought.

Our speech is restricted in many circumstances; I cannot freely talk about trans issues, immigration issues, race issues, religious issues, many family issues such as marriage/divorce, god, you can barely even talk about being a conservative

@hamstersarse is it that you can't speak freely or that other people don't to listen to you or give you a platform to speak? The two are different.

But it's a post by someone who is completely anonymous. Presumably it's in real life that they feel they are not able to speak freely.