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?!

I would say that those particular sentences do cross a line, and if in a book intended for children they should be removed, but if they were in writing intended for adults they should stay, with suitable mention in the preface and footnotes. Let people come to their own conclusions and debate them.

I certainly wouldn't extend criticism of a particular view beyond that view itself. Richard Wagner had awful views that I strongly disagree with, but I still enjoy his music. In the same way that while I disagree with RD's antisemitic views, I wouldn't 'cancel' (i.e. ban) everything he ever wrote just because of something he once told a newspaper.

I think I may have missed a point that perhaps if I'd ever studied English lit beyond school I may have thought of that others have been saying about his mind influencing his writing... perhaps that is usually considered if you study author's works...

I thought antisemitism had nothing to do with his stories

Lewis Carroll is somewhat considered to have had gross intentions towards young girls... but I don't really feel at all influenced by reading Alice in Wonderland that he was ever promoting those beliefs beyond himself? Yes they're abhorrent beliefs to me, I thoroughly disagree and condemn them... but that doesn't make me think we need a trigger warning on the content because of beliefs the author held I guess

I also think ... and obv not with Roald Dahl. But there may have been people who had to openly express beliefs that they didn't necessarily personally believe- because that was the only accepted belief or your life would have been in danger at certain times in certain places

We know what can happen with antisemitism and it was horrifying but there are examples today where you have to believe a particular belief or you will face negative consequences- so say someone toes the line and does something in the world that's actually positive in what it leaves... but in 50 years time, it's no longer an acceptable belief yet they expressed it bc at the time it was the norm and expected- not even their own beliefs just ones they had to express to survive (again I do not mean Roald Dahl, this clearly wasn't the case there) ... are we still going to demand the content acknowledges that they ever expressed that belief and make its legacy connected to that belief?

It's not communist economics, no. The repression of views that contradict the establishment viewpoint however bears a lot of similarities with totalitarian regimes.

Absolutely.

No one is banning him though is he?

I think the central premise that we’re less tolerant of alternative views now than historically is incorrect though.

I was at school under Section 28 - teachers couldn’t speak positively about gay people, Jacqueline Wilson has spoken about having to make the decision not to make a character openly gay because the book couldn’t be read in schools if they were. THAT’S censorship- that’s cancel culture.

I think potentially there is a problem with the modern media landscape of creators views/ thoughts being so readily expressed on social media - maybe we don’t need to know what everyone thinks about everything to such a great degree.

Some people would like it if he was. Some people have engaged in harassment campaigns directed at publishers, universities etc. to get them to drop authors or speakers that they disagree with. In some cases they have succeeded. Censorship like that is sinister. It's only a backlash over the last few years that has started to turn the tide back against 'no-platforming'.

No-platforming is not an effective tool against genuinely objectionable vuews anyway. Remember when the BNP won seats in the European Parliament? The BBC invited Nick Griffin onto Question Time, ignoring the protests from people appalled that he was being given a platform. On the show he made a right fool of himself, his party subsequently disappearing without a trace. The best way to tackle genuinely objectionable views is in open debate, forcing them to fester underground will let extremists claim victimhood.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that censorship is a new concept. On the contrary, it's a practice from the past that should stay in the past.

Fair enough IClaudine. It is my personal opinion.

I am in China an awful lot with work (The major Cities) ) and have seen a huge deterioration in those peoples rights especially in the last 12 or so years. In particular HongKong which has had so much of the quality of life stripped away from its citizens. Freedom of speech is dead there. I see that being played out here, slowly but surely.

But that's just scientific fact. It's not a belief.

Again, not opinions. Just facts....

Yes it's a fact but they are calling people bigoted for not having a magical belief that a man's feelings turn him into a woman. The belief is gender ideology. The fact is science and reality.

Absolutely @Moonberri!!

I don’t think I’m saying censorship is a new concept.

I’m saying I’m middle aged& I feel like I’m exposed to more plurality of voices & opinions than I ever have been - I absolutely don’t think books like Empireland by Satham Sanghera or documentaries by David Olugosa would’ve been widely available when I was younger as those kinds of ideas about British history were shut out of the conversation entirely, the documentary Once upon a time in Belfast certainly wouldn’t have been on our screens & I doubt Derry Girls would’ve been either: when I was young we got a very, very one-sided version of the troubles, I’ve already mentioned Section 28 & the complete censorship of those stories in our schools…

It is just surprising to me when people suggest we’re hearing less different & varied opinions now than in the past bcos in my experience, I’m exposed to a much, much wider variety of attitudes & opinions than I ever have been in my lifetime before.

I really agree with this.

the reason I think things are so contentious is because there is a wealth of opinions and diversity. We are all arguing with each other but that’s not the same as being cancelled.

the basic premise of many hop topic arguments boil down to whose rights trumps the other.

trans rights - trans rights vs women’s rights
abortion - mothers life vs babys
strikes - employees vs employers

to a certain extent the issue with people being cancelled is due to what ‘society’ at any point has decided upon whose rights are more important. This has and will change over time, so if you don’t keep up with the current trend then your opinion is deemed bigoted or wrong.

where I think the line between being cancelled and just being argued with is when it affects your life. Eg people can shout down your opinions, but if your employer is then contacted and you are fired that’s where it crosses the line into cancellation (in my opinion)

where I think the line between being cancelled and just being argued with is when it affects your life. Eg people can shout down your opinions, but if your employer is then contacted and you are fired that’s where it crosses the line into cancellation (in my opinion)

I think this is a really key point - people seem to sometimes equate being critiqued/ criticised/ pushed back against/ argued with with being cancelled.

In the case of Roald Dahl, absolutely no one is banning his books - they’re still best sellers, there’s a show of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory touring right now, the Wonka movie is about to come out etc.

But I think it’s fine for people to question whether some of the nastiness that I personally think really does come through in the books - means that it’s time to leave those stories behind.

I think another part of the problem with Roald Dahl question specifically is culture at the moment seems a bit obsessed with nostalgia - endlessly rebooting & reimagining books, films, TV etc from the past rather than focussing on new stories.

Books that were once popular always fall by the wayside if they don’t speak to where society is now & I think that’s fine - they can still be studied etc but in the context of their own time.

I think this is a really key point - people seem to sometimes equate being critiqued/ criticised/ pushed back against/ argued with with being cancelled.

Absolutely. I can't help but smile when people on the sex and gender page write 8 paragraph posts describing how they are silenced. I always think that it's a lot of words for a silent person.

I thought this was going to be about the many people with bank accounts closed because some young bank clerk shares a different political view. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/06/peers-children-denied-bank-accounts-politics/ These are all aspects of the same point - different views getting harder and harder to express without consequences. Yet I remember in the 1970s we could have anti abortion and pro abortion discussions without anyone being cancelled - you just accepted some people held one view and some another.

Maybe try one of the 50 other threads on the topic instead of trying to derail this one.

Xenia, I agree with the PP that this i somewhat derailing. However, you left out an important part of the article. "Peers have revealed that their political work is causing their children to be denied bank accounts under draconian money-laundering rules...." So it isn't really so much about one clerk's distaste against a certain person. It's rules regarding money laundering. Colossal amounts of money. This isn't about ordinary people.

But who is being cancelled for being anti abortion? Jacob Rees Mogg is publicly anti abortion & he airs his views on TV (& in parliament). A view may not be the mainstream view in society any more, so you may get more push back/ stronger arguments than you did in a different era but that’s not being silenced or cancelled - it’s just people disagreeing with you.

Think I made the confusion on this thread by using cancel culture as a term to describe what I don't actually mean is cancelling.... just a trend getting closer to it

I felt it was appropriate to use bc I didn't know how to make the differentiation between responding to actions vs opinions without - it was meant to illustrate a point but it didn't very clearly

I think in general worry over cancel culture is just a moral panic and people would be better placed worrying about the real impact of the hateful or damaging words and views the supposed victims of cancel culture have.

I mean I personally didn't say that I thought cancel culture should stop entirely, I said it seemed reasonable somewhat even if I don't like it particularly as a culture when it's actions that have consequences that lead to it

I am worried we are going to take it too far if we extend it purely to opinions that aren't the savoury ones (but the example I used as I've said a few times wasn't the best)

I think opinions should be allowed to be held and people should have a chance to be informed on their opinions rather than hide them entirely for fear of backlash professionally, financially and reputationally