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

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

Denouncing people isn't my thing, tbh. We live in a democracy not Stalin's Russia.

I'd happily argue with Fox if he was here, but he's not, so I'm arguing with you instead. Picking apart people's comments is what people do on a forum like this. Indeed, you are now spending your time picking apart my comment, so you can't really have it both ways, can you?

This is why free speech needs to be protected.....

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

I actually think Fox is an unsympathetic character; not that bright and not that articulate - but in his awkward, clumsy way he was expressing something that many people have sympathy with.

I wouldn't myself say that there is no racism; just as I wouldn't say there is no sexism, or homophobia, or any other number of prejudices.....What I would say is that all citizens now have equal rights enshrined and protected in law. Beyond that you can't legislate for everything; for people's thoughts and feelings ( short of banning all talk that does not confirm the politically correct 'answer')......although you can test things out in court, as Samira Ahmed has done just recently.

Nobody finds 'offensive' comments cool.......although some of us are becoming more keen to question what is considered offensive. I don't think he said anything particularly offensive. He said what he thought, in albeit inarticulate manner, and I happen to agree that the woman in the audience was being, herself, racist in making the comment she did: in trying to shut down the conversation - with her imagined trump card.

Let's all put our hand up here. I think most of us, as women, have probably done the same ourselves, at some point in the blast several decades........" You' re a man/a white man/a wealthy white man...what would you know?" But i think the conversation has moved on now......and the tactics of the past are no longer fitting or appropriate for the society we live in now.

in the last several decades

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

It is clear that his comments have started a conversation.

I thought what he actually said was pretty mild. He is a bit of a dick and has since enjoyed the media coverage, and seems to think he is a bit of a catch. But not in itself a hanging offense.

Bigger fish to fry than him.

Denounce = to publicly declare wrong or evil

Denunciation solves nothing; nor does it really mean anything. The only way to counter prejudice is to debate the issues as they present themselves.

It's also possible to believe in the concept of privilege, and think that in this case it was inappropriately invoked. Sure, Fox has had a number of advantages in life and probably hasn't been subject to much racial discrimination. But that really isn't an argument that he is wrong about MM. Her argument amounted to "this was about racism" "I don't think so" "Well you are white so you must be wrong". Is that really all there is to support her view? No actual evidence?

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

Yes, social media is largely a sewer...that is best kept away from.......No wonder so many people and especially young people have mental health issues these days......

You can't legislate against people's individual feelings and thoughts.....although you can legislate against actions which break the law. Life is tough - for everyone......we are all subject to prejudice for one reason or other - because that is the nature of human beings.

What else do you propose......brainwashing? People's attitudes change with social change.........apart from that we just have to live with it. Whatever 'it' may be.

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

That is a big generalisation, which somehow seems outdated in these times...even if some men are sexist.

Regarding feminism having "gone too far" - in some respects I agree....Not that women and girls should not have equal opportunities enshrined in law, of course...but that the 'equality' argument only gets you so far......Beyond that we also need to discuss what makes women different from men ( biology and the potential consequences of that)...not just what makes women the same ( in that we're all human beings with our own unique individuality); and how the consequences of our differences need to be honoured and given dignity and space.

My feminism has always been rooted not just in sense of my being a full human being, but in the fact of my body.......and all that has meant and implied for me in my life. After all it is the body/the biology which makes the sexes different.

Her argument amounted to "this was about racism" "I don't think so" "Well you are white so you must be wrong".

Yep. That is it in a nutshell.

No a great way of making a point, or getting people to hear you out.

Now comes the part where I have to admit to not reading the 'right' media......because I was largely unaware of the content of the 'hounding' of Meghan Markle. What exactly was said that was racist? It would be good to be able to differentiate between 'general' hounding and 'racist' hounding.

Harry's mother, Diana, was hounded too..... about how she wasn't very bright having only only two O-levels; about her trashy taste in pop music; about her 'broken' family background; about how she threw herself down the stairs in hysteric fits; her love letters ( to that James guy) in the press, and so on......She later became an icon - but it was certainly not always like that.....she was scrutinised, literally, to death.

If MM had been like Kate, the model royal wife, the papers would have lapped it up. She was never going to be that way. Harry (to his credit) stood up for her. He also seems to have some deeper understanding about what happened to his mother. Both became media pariahs.
I don't see the racism, I see misoginy and elitism.

*I am not a royalist, and have little interest.

@denounce. Denounce to whom? The Central Committee? The thought Police? Big Brother?
He expressed an opinion. It's allowed.

I tend to see what the media did with MM as similar to the way they treated Fergie. Despite the way they treated Diana, suring the Fergie period they were contantly comparing Fergie unfavourably to Diana, saying that there were problems between them, etc. It made for great gossip.

I fully believe that the biggest problem of H&M was that Will and Kate are pretty popular and the media likes them. Combine that with some clumsy media stuff, and possibly a dose of anti-Americanism and anti-Hollywoodism, and they could not win.

Maybe there is some racism in there as well, but there is plenty to explain what happened without that.

@shedquarters. I have no sympathy for someone who knew she was marrying into a family that calls itself The Firm and is dedicated to preserving its wealth, privilege and self interest. Royals are merely robber barons who acquired land and wealth by stealth. The Duchy of Cornwall was stolen land originally. She's an adult who having witnessed the destruction of Diana and Fergie, should have avoided that family like the plague.

Denounce to whom? The Central Committee? The thought Police? Big Brother?
He expressed an opinion. It's allowed.

Wasn’t there a call for him to be denounced by Equity? Surely that’s a bit more career damaging.

A bit more info on The Duchy of Cornwall.
www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1975-05-13a.327.0

I don't see the racism, I see misogyny and elitism

You see, I'm no longer even inclined to call it misogyny....... The tabloids will use whatever salacious feed they can get hold of. Although maybe the reference to Diana's 'histrionics' could be conceived as misogynistic. 'Hysteria' being seen a a feminine malady and all.

Can anyone pin-point precisely what wasracist in the press treatment of Meghan? Those of you calling racism?

From what I can gather, people are saying it is because she was subject to a double standard - relative to Kate. If that is it - then I certainly wouldn't put that down to racism. As I see it, Meghan has a lot more tabloid type baggage than Kate........American a celebrity actress, divorced, broken family, and so on. Kate fulfils the role of princess consort perfectly ( dutiful, demure)...even if her family were subject to scrutiny from the off ( middle class, socially aspirant, ran a party planning business etc)

MsSafina
You are preaching to the choir. I'm not a royalist, but I doesnt mean I can't have some sympathy for the way many of the women have been treated (even Fergie!).
I had sympathy for Diana because he was a young woman who had been drafted in to be a royal incubator. She did a lot to expose the royal family.
I am sure MM understood on one level what was going to happen, but who could really know how it would feel, particularly all the stuff where the papers used her own family against her. She is best off out of it.
Also, part the decision must have been about Prince Andrew. Imagine having to spend time with him.

Anyway.. My feeling, as I said is that I don't think the issue was racism necessarily, more like misogynistic elitism. Which was what I was posting about, on this the LF thread!

You are preaching to the choir. I'm not a royalist, but I doesnt mean I can't have some sympathy for the way many of the women have been treated (even Fergie!)

Of course you don't have to be a fervent royalist to take an interest in and notice media coverage of the royal family. You can hardly avoid it.

A Florida based American friend of mone seems to know more about what is going on with the British royals than I do ...and she is always scathing of monarchy. Funny that........

I'm neither a republican, nor a royalist. I think human nature and all human societies have a tendency to create their own hierarchies and their own 'royalty' - even if it is just Hollywood A-listers. The American president is treated more like royalty than the actual British royals.

Regarding feminism having "gone too far" - in some respects I agree....Not that women and girls should not have equal opportunities enshrined in law, of course...but that the 'equality' argument only gets you so far......Beyond that we also need to discuss what makes women different from men ( biology and the potential consequences of that)...not just what makes women the same
Yes I think we need to recognise our differences, and I always have. Men and women are generally quite different and of course the biology is an issue. BUT far from having " gone too far with equality" I look around at all the women at the bottom of the heap, taking care of the kids, the elderly, jobs they can't progress in, with bad pensions, and think it has barely even got moving before we are told we have taken too much and let's stop being mean to men! Nah. I couldn't agree with you less about that!

It says something that a not particularly heated altercation lasting maybe half a minute involving a minor celebrity has caused such a ruckus. It's been well over a week and The Guardian is still writing snide articles about him, as if the sneery Marina Hyde one weren't enough.

Clearly, Fox's words have resonated with many. This has little to do with him - he's not very famous, articulate or intelligent (from what I can see) - but rather that people are getting tired of this very American fashion of shutting down debate with cries of 'white privilege', 'stale, male and pale' and other tedious terms. People aren't going to stop having opinions just because they can't voice them in 'polite society'. Au contraire.

@IcedPurple. Well said. From what I know, the usual Sloaney types Harry would have gone for shied away from marriage as they knew exactly what the press would put them through. Besides that, I can't imagine anything more dull than cutting ribbons and "charidee" work.

Nah. I couldn't agree with you less about that

Except that is not what I was saying, and you know it. Stop trying to score cheap points. It's not enemy action, it's a discussion.