Douglas Murray on denunciations and Lawrence Fox

[BovaryX]

Douglas Murray takes aim at the cancel culture and denunciation tactics at the heart of # no debate. Those who try to control and police what people think and say have dominated public discourse to its detriment. Many are aware of the existential threat to freedom of speech this faction represents.

Nothing that Fox said on Question Time was at all controversial. He suggested that the Labour party leader might be selected on merit and he suggested that Britain is not a racist country. Both these sentiments are held by the majority of the public. Yet so dominant have the minority-opinion pushers become that many people are persuaded that it would not just be career-damaging but socially fatal to say anything to the contrary. Even when that thing is the truth

I am always astonished at race discussions on MN, in that it's clear that so many white people cannot even discuss racism without taking it as a personal attack

I'm astonished that is what you see, if i'm honest. Most people here are open to dialogue and discussion; but that does not have to mean compliance or agreement, though. There is also an assumption, in what you write, that everyone is white......which in itself is rather racist too. It assumes that everyone that belongs to a particular group thinks or sees things in the same way.

It also seems it's quite OK now to shout down anyone trying to say that, yes, black and brown people experience prejudice still, by saying "free speech!" or by complaining that as a white person you are expected to STFU and take full personal responsibility for slavery or some such rubbish

I don't think there are many on this forum that actively try to close down, or shout down, speech and debate - except for a few who come on to goad - but never really engage. And nobody is denying that racism exists - of course it does. Prejudice will most likely always exist in one form or another, because people can be prejudiced about all sorts of things. That is an inevitability of individuality to some extent.

however, what is now happening, is that people are using an intersectional framework of oppression, in place of actually thinking for themselves. Not all criticism of someone is necessarily racist or sexist or homophobic or transphobic.....it can just be criticism of them as an individual.

And the problem with blanket accusations of prejudice is that they can be spectacularly wrong. See the short film further up whereby a black female interviewer, unknowingly, accuses a black man of 'white privilege', simply for the reason he is disagreeing with what she says.

And the fact that she based her assumptions of his race on a really quite racist agenda of who she believed should work where, and for whom. In her mind, black men did not work for Fox News - so he must be white.

That is the issue. It does not deal with arguments - it makes judgments based on group characteristic alone.

Being the standard white male does put you a little ahead on the starting blocks for most things in life, or at least it prevents people making daft assumptions about you. That's all white male privilege is

The problem with intersectionality is these sweeping generalisations. They may have been useful in the past when the various liberation movements first began - and structural analysis was required in order to locate the levers of prejudice; but personally think it is well past its sell by date, and is now a very blunt and rather self righteous tool- which does not acknowledge the many changes in society

My view is that so much of the current narrative around race has been lifted straight from the American narrative, where race and gender identity are the two scared cows of intersectionalist politics.

The lack of exposure of non-white people who differ in their views on things like how racism manifests etc is really something of a problem I think. And maybe there is pressure within some minority communities to keep those disagreements out of the public eye somewhat, I can see how people might feel that was best - we see that in discussions of women's issues too. In the long term though I think this has been very detrimental, to everyone except perhaps those who want to say that their view is the one held by whatever group they claim to represent.
People reflexively and unthinkingly seem to assume that any example they see of any disagreement over these questions as weird aberrations. I remember years ago reading an interview with Morgan Freeman where he made some comments about racism which didn't quite fit the accepted narrative. People's responses were remarkably dismissive and there was a sense to that he was almost a traitor. That's maybe not an important example, after all he's just an actor, but I think it shows the degree to which we assume all people in a group have one viewpoint - and this was at least 10 years ago.

which does not acknowledge the many changes in society

In many instances it doesn't acknowledge that there even can be changes or reversals in power dynamics. I think this is why people institutionalise biases to those who are seen as powerless, without considering that those biases could easily become vectors for oppression too. The way Yaniv has been able to use human rights tribunals is a good example. But IMO feminism has sometimes been naive about this as well, assuming that there could never be structural preference of women or that it could be a problem if it was institutionalised. I've seen people be very dismissive about boys falling behind in educational settings for example even though it's clearly systemic in origin.

I''ve seen people be very dismissive about boys falling behind in educational settings for example even though it's clearly systemic in origin

I agree. And one of the big negatives of some feminism is the sweeping generalisations made by some about men as a group. Whereby men are always the enemy; & forever privileged.

As societies move from the group identity being the foremost to a more individualistic identity - set amidst the backdrop of increasing and equal rights being enshrined and protected in law - group identities will inevitably break down to some extent. That can probably go too far too - towards a situation where certain material conditions and differences are over-looked. I think the whole radical transgender movement highlights this dilemma perfectly.

"but in real life, in most people's real lives, the boss is mostly a fifty something white guy, and NOBODY is telling him to STFU, so you're quite safe really, aren't you andy?"

I am in the sixty something bracket and my boss is a forty something, white woman who is OK, very professional. My wife has a white, thirty something as a boss and he is an absolute nightmare. In professional, finance and law firms, there are plenty of female bosses, good ones and bad ones.
As someone who was born in a terraced house with an outdoor loo, windows that used to ice up on the inside, I fail to see my "white privilege".

Like many so-called feminists nowadays, you will simply find a way to explain that they're not 'real racists', and excuse them as you excuse the disgusting racist, sexist L Fox as 'not that bad'. No doubt using extreme examples and emotive language such as 'concentration camps' to muddy the waters.

It's this kind of comment that makes it impossible to have a sensible discussion. What do you think it contributes to the conversation to refer to "so-called feminists"? I've been a feminist for 40 years. Nothing "so-called" about it.

I don't think Laurence Fox is "disgusting": if he is, well then, so are millions of other people who no doubt agree with him. I think he's a bit dim and rather ill-informed. According to Janice Turner's article he voted Labour in 2017 - make of that what you will.

Still, I dare say it feels pretty good up on that moral high ground sneering at people less ideologically pure than yourself, and I guess that's the important thing here.

I've always been curious to ask those who are supportive of tactics like #NoDebate, de-platforming, refusing to engage in dialogue and debate, demonising and hounding people out of jobs due to expressing the 'wrong' opinion, people who have 'privilege' shouldn't express their views on certain topics or any views or criticisms they might have can be ignored by default...... What do you hope to achieve?

Do you really think that if you refuse to engage with those who have opposing views or if you cover up / ban such opinions that these ideas and questions automatically disappear from society? That people won't continue to have such thoughts to themselves and in their private conversations?

All that wailing and gnashing of teeth when election results are announced - is it really surprising that when it comes to one person, one vote that people will express what they really think in the privacy of the ballot box?

Genuine progress comes from actual dialogue and debate. If you have rational, well thought out arguments that support your position, it should be possible to explain your reasoning clearly. You will find some common ground, but you will never have complete agreement and people can ultimately agree to disagree.

Maybe the person you are directly talking to won't change their mind, but others around who are listening to the exchange might be persuaded.

@NonnyMouse1337 there aren’t really people who support those tactics per se, as in they are often the first to cry foul when such tactics are used successfully against them. What there are are people that are willing to use any rhetorical tactics to win their arguments or push their agenda.

there aren’t really people who support those tactics per se, as in they are often the first to cry foul when such tactics are used successfully against them. What there are are people that are willing to use any rhetorical tactics to win their arguments or push their agenda

What tactics? Can you translate that into clear English? It's incoherent. An actor on QT gave his opinion. In a democracy, people have the right to express their opinions Do you understand the concept that people have a diversity of views on politics? Is it your opinion that only people who parrot your views are allowed to speak?

RoyalCorgi

It's this kind of comment that makes it impossible to have a sensible discussion. What do you think it contributes to the conversation to refer to "so-called feminists"? I've been a feminist for 40 years. Nothing "so-called" about it

When you'd rather pick apart my comment than denounce racist sexist men like Fox then yes - 'so called feminist'

You mentioned privilege - I didn't.

Fox et al & and selective feminists, I don't see their style as much different albeit feminists who support men like Fox yet claim to be about equality are a bit worse, as they'll go hard to defend their hypocrisy.

You aren't a Feminist if you find offensive comments about women cool, according to whicj man is saying it. Simple as that.

You need to ask men like Fox 'what his comments contribute to the conversation'. Oh wait...

DeeDee

Why do you think you can dictate to the feminists on this board who they should denounce? Don't you realise that feminists have a a diversity of political views? I don't want to cause you to spontaneously combust, but some feminists are Conservative. What's with the fixation with denouncing people? Do you have any concept of freedom of speech?

As someone who was born in a terraced house with an outdoor loo, windows that used to ice up on the inside, I fail to see my "white privilege"
Have you read any of the posts at all explaining what "white privelege" actually means? Its doesn't mean that white people can't be poor or disadvantaged. Just like male privelege doesn't mean that men can't be homeless or that you can't have a female boss.
I don't assume anyone is anything online justhadathought, I can't see them so I cant possibly know what they look like. HTH
To say, though, that race threads on MN don't ALWAYS quickly fill up with posts about how whites can suffer racism too, and how white people are made to feel guilty about racism all the time is just not true, sorry. I try not to open them because its so irritating when people can't look at things in a non individual way.
RE social attitudes changing; the interesting thing is that certainly directly expressed prejudice is now considered widely unacceptable, so yes, people will say they are cool with homosexuality and women being the boss and treating everyone the same blah blah, but at the same time they can go home and let out their real feelings online.
Its like, outwardly society is much more accepting of homosexuality, even in the last ten years, and yet young lesbians are being told they are really men, or they secretly want to be and porn gets increasingly violent towards women, maybe because actually men don't like treating women like equals at work. Women's rights are now written into law but many people think feminism has "gone too far".
Structurally, especially in the public sector, it can seem like you are better off ticking "diversity" boxes, and maybe to some extent you are, but it's still a thin veneer of political correctness over things basically staying the same for most people. The top boss is probably still a white man (at least that was my experience in the public sector).
I genuinely couldn't give a toss about what some second rate actor thinks about anything. He can disbelieve in the concept of privelege, people who think hes a twat can call him a twat. That's free speech isn't it?

BovaryX

Whatever you may say - championing freedom of speech in discussion of a man who lauds racism & sexism = you are not a Feminist, you're just pretending to be.

At the very least I'd see a Feminist as someone who would not align themselves with sexism at any cost. & I don't care if they're Conservative or not.
.
I didn't mention 'Conservative' at all by the way. You did. My comment is about fawning faux-feminists who cry 'but it's freedom of speech!' when a man is blatantly sexist, mostly because they like what he says as a whole.

Fox is dismissive of women unless theyre playing 'the little woman'.

If freedom of speech is so important then hey, any sexist man shouldn't be denounced, whoever he may be.

Just give them the same pass you're striving to give to Fox.

Recently students at a British University were complaining about James Baldwin's use of the word 'negro'. Jumped up little nonentities demanding the censorship of James Baldwin.
I saw a doc of him returning to give US to give a lecture. Some racist came over on the tannoy threatening to kill him, but hey what does he have to offer the new SJWs.
There is real deep racism and the left are running around trying to impose 'etiquette' instead of working for freedom and rights of everyone with everyone. Instead of driving a wedge between racists and the tolerant majority they push them into an alliance.

But free speech means they are allowed to say whatever they want. Even if it's awful.
You seem to be saying a proper feminist opposes free Speech.
That cant be right.

If LF lauded racism on QT in front of millions of viewers, why hasn't he been charged with a hate crime? Do you even know what words mean? You trivialise racism with spurious accusations You might have a severe penchant for denunciations, but you don't get to rewrite the meaning of words, nor do you get to harangue feminists for not jumping aboard your bizarre bandwagon.

^Recently students at a British University were complaining about James Baldwin's use of the word 'negro'. Jumped up little nonentities demanding the censorship of James Baldwin.
I saw a doc of him returning to give US to give a lecture. Some racist came over on the tannoy threatening to kill him, but hey what does he have to offer the new SJWs^

Seriously? How utterly bloody pathetic

Recently students at a British University were complaining about James Baldwin's use of the word 'negro'.

I had one of the most bizarre conversations ever about the word negro and that it had a different history entirely than certain other, more offensive words, and shouldn't be considered through the same lens - that it's an archaic usage rather than an offensive one. The level of hysteria in the discussion was crazy, and giving actual historical evidence of the reasons it fell out of use didn't seem to rate.

Fox is dismissive of women unless theyre playing 'the little woman'

really? where did you get that from DeeDee ? I'd be interested to see the source.....

Defending a person's right to free speech is not the same as endorsing what they are saying. It is part of what many societies would consider Enlightenment values and it is how we maintain civility during difficult discourse. It is something that is incredibly important to protect because it is has serious ramifications if you don't.

People disagree on all sorts of issues and we can be greatly offended and upset by some of these opinions. It does not give anyone the right to threaten or harass the person we disagree with. Criticising the people we disagree with is to be expected. Trying to force people out of their jobs, doxxing them or sending messages threatening violence to them or their family members as is considered the norm for 'cancel culture' is not something to be defended in a civilised society.

Look at countries like Pakistan where people are persecuted or beaten by mobs because they say things that are considered 'offensive' by others. Is this the kind of society you'd want to live in?

Defending free speech is not for those we agree with. It's for those whose opinions we find hurtful or difficult to support, because it works both ways. Our opinions and standpoints could just as easily be offensive to someone else. A civilised society works on that mutual understanding.

I find transgender ideology incredibly offensive and upsetting, yet I would never endorse any attempts to harass or stop a person from putting forward their ideas. I will criticise and even mock their beliefs and opinions, but I will defend their right to say the things they do without violence or intimidation even if it upsets me.

DeeCeeCherry

'Denounced'. Bloody hell sinister language. 'your not a real feminist'

If I denounced everyone around me for being a bit sexist, or a bit daft sometimes (male and female) I would be sending myself to Coventry. Not sure where I could live actually, maybe Brighton or Hoxton. Yikes

Just seen on Twitter some fuckwit post o picture of an SS helmet to JKR... For her crimes against humanity... On holocaust memorial day!

Proportionality people.

I think you'll find that Fox isn't an aberration - that quite a lot of ordinary people agreed with what he said or at least couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. Of course that doesn't make them right but what is it that you want to do about them?

If you want them to reconsider and even change their opinion then you're going to have to have a discussion in which you marshal your arguments and your facts, but also listen to what they have to say and acknowledge common ground where you can find any.

If on the other hand you just want them to shut up then fine, carry on with the denunciations and the insults and the threats. But I'd have thought we'd have learned by now that this doesn't tend to end well come election time.