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?!

'all people are multifaceted and you can hold a view that doesn't really effect much of what you do with your life. It's like we want to latch onto the negative for the sake of drama'

Completely @WhatNoRaisins

Have you ever read "The Witches"? This is a dark, deeply misogynist story. The society of witches, who look quite frightening with looming figures, black lined faces and long noses, even print their own money.

*affect

@OCaptain I have, a long time ago when I was a child though

I read a story about witches and whilst I recognise the implication... long nose, print their own money as having been used as racist stereotypes

I wouldn't have made the leap myself whilst reading a fictional story that said they were something entirely different (witches) to being antisemitism

If you see witches with long noses who print money as being Jewish, then is the problem with you?

But you know now that the writer was, indeed, anti-semitic. The point I'm attempting to make to you is that no choice a writer makes is independent of their own ethics, religion or politics. It is a product of those things. We may not see overt, obvious references, particularly in works meant for children, but you can be certain they are there because the mind that created the works held those views. It is inevitable.

There is a fine lone between "I don't agree with what you say but I support your right to say it" and "you shouldn't be allowed to say that". And we all put that line somewhere slightly different.

Many historic figures have views that are extremely questionable now, but were mainstream during that person's lifetime. Take homophobia. The idea that someone could be sacked for being gay is unthinkable now fortunately. In the past, it was illegal and a conviction would bar you from some organisations. All those organisations can do now is apologise... but were they right at the time to condemn illegal behavior?

I do find the idea of bank accounts being closed for your political views quite concerning, more because of the extent it could go to rather than, fir example, a BNP account being shut.

I watched it ages ago, it's very poor. Despite obtaining a PhD for Jammi's 'mesearch', Jammi isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and the analysis of what JKR actually wrote is limited or refashioned into a dog whistle to suit Jammi's agenda.

I wonder if the person recommending this video has read JKR's essay, I've yet to meet anyone who claims it's full of transphobic that's has actually read it.

I saw a thumbnail of a more recent video where Jammi claims to debunk Lisa Littmans work. I opened it knowing I couldn't endure the video but to read some of the comments to get a sense of the content to find that the widely acknowledged limitations of the study seemed to have been presented as groundbreaking gotchas.

It's just tedious shite.

You might be interested to learn that the stereotype of the witch (long nose, pointy hat, black robe, cauldron, etc.) grew from ... anti-semitism in Europe. Sorry.

'You might be interested to learn that the stereotype of the witch (long nose, pointy hat, black robe, cauldron, etc.) grew from ... anti-semitism in Europe. Sorry.'

I wasn't aware of that, I would've assumed it came from paganism myself- I don't believe in it myself but know someone who considers herself a witch (I think a nice one) seems to be her religion as such, I haven't seen any evidence that would make me believe that she actually does much, beyond believing her rituals? are beneficial to her - she uses a cauldron mixing up herbs and stuff- also has a black robe and typical witch hat but I think they might just be props she likes

I don't mean the rituals per se, nor paganism, just the typical imagery of 'witch' that pervades society.

Your orginal post was both rude and condescending and there was no need for it, therefore I called you obtuse.
I suggest you broaden your horizons. Another poster has already mentioned to you re totalitarianism - you seemed quite happy to acknowledge that point of view.

Agree with you here, we are becoming increasingly intolerant. It worries me terribly that things are not subject to debate anymore, everything is branded an ism or phobic and while that might be true sometimes it can only be established to be so after open minded debate surely, not at the outset.

I saw a disclaimer recently on a kids Tom and Jerry DVD, it said the stereotypes represented here do not reflect the makers/promoters views today, but the decision was made to leave these elements in because to delete them would be to suggest they never existed. I thought it got the tone right, no cancelling but educating and explaining.

I've yet to meet anyone who claims it's full of transphobic that's has actually read it.

To be fair I wouldn't be surprised if many of GC people who say they support it also haven't read it. I think this an issue that a lot of people pick a side on and then uncritically support anything that they view to be on their "side". It's almost tribal.

A lot of artists, composers, inventors etc etc were shitty humans with terrible views. We can’t cancel work that has become part of history and thought anyway, it is entrenched.
Cancel culture itself is a fleeting trend, best to just ignore it. It is already passing anyway.

I think Roald Dahl is a bad example because they weren’t just thoughts, they were expressed in print.

Do you know what he said?

“There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere.”

“Even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.”

Can you imagine how it felt for Holocaust survivors or the families of people killed - in recent, living memory - to read that?!

I agree with this - it’s good to have opportunities to discuss those views, rather than pretend they never existed.

Also Roald Dahl has very much not been cancelled - the Wonka film is literally just about to come out.

(Sorry - late to this thread, which really interests me but I haven't yet read all the responses)

Firstly - I think Roald Dahl's nastiness IS apparent from his writing as misogyny and cruelty. If you're a woman, you'd better be pretty and young or you'll be a witch or a bitch, for sure.

But he's a very good writer and I don't advocate cancelling him - Evelyn Waugh was a horrible man, but a an absolute genius comic writer and I'd hate to lose that.

Yes, there is a dangerous orthodoxy now, I think, in public discussion etc etc. You have to agree with the prevailing accepted views on certain things or you'll be ignored at best or villified and cancelled at worst.

Anecdote from my student days in the early 80s, which struck me then as the beginning of this kind of thinking. We were in a seminar (English Lit) and the subject of capital punishment in a novel had come up. A man was expressing his viewpoint very rationally when the very right-on young lecturer glared at him and said 'I HOPE you're not agreeing with it!" I was taken aback, because while I'm very anti-death penalty, I get that some people who've given it much thought and consideration might disagree. And that's allowed!!!!

Until this point in my life I'd been brought up to think that all well-considered views should be listened to - whether you agree with them or not. It stuck in my mind as 'a new wind blowing through academia' even at that young age.

Cancel Culture is effectively thought crime.

It must be stopped.

You cannot control someone's thoughts, so it's pointless trying. If you genuinely feel that you're really a cow, good luck to you. If you fancy dressing up as a pantomime bovine, if you want to sit in a field all day, chewing grass and going "Mooooooooooooooo", crack on. If that makes you happy, I'm happy for you. But, what you CAN'T do is expect me to also believe that you're really a cow. When I look at you, sitting there in your cow costume, I will think "there's a bloke dressed up as a cow", and no amount of purple flags, "Positive Species" workshops or unconscious bias training is going to make me believe that you're really a cow.

I wasn't rude or condescending, but maybe a bit sarcastic. I didn't chuck any insults your way, though. I'd ask you for the same consideration.

I will ask you again: how do you predict we will slide into communism @LOSTAN ? You said:

Welcome to COMMUNISM - because that's where we are heading folks

and I really wondered how you have come to that conclusion. If the Tories lose the next election and Labour wins... Well the Labour party under Starmer are barely left wing, let alone communist.

Yes, I did acknowledge in my reply to the other poster that the current government has some totalitarian tendencies, but it certainly couldn't be described as communist!

So did the concept of goblins. After all this time though, these fictional creatures have become detached from their origins. It wasn't a connection that I ever made as a child and I suspect that most modern-day antisemites aren't familiar with the connections either, they just turn up to rallies where people want to wipe Israel off of the face of the earth.

When I was at university, I can only remember an attempt to no platform once. Even then, I think the talk went ahead. The approach then was that “despicable” views would be tested, be shown to be wrong by debate and then would be scorned. Much better IMO and informative for all concerned, including for the despicable (or not depending on the merits) view holder. If the matter being discussed is upsetting enough that you don’t want to hear it, stay away. Ideas should be tested and then rejected, not the other way round.

I know they're in print now but they were transcripts weren't they? Has he written some kind of antisemitic manuscript that I'm unaware of? 🙈

I used him as my admittedly poor example to illustrate my point thinking he had made some comments in his lifetime but never actually promoted his beliefs as worth anyone else adopting