Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Douglas Murray on denunciations and Lawrence Fox

430 replies

BovaryX · 21/01/2020 08:08

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Imnobody4 · 21/01/2020 11:30

I too have had enough of the rascism tag. The use of accusations of 'privilege' are totally counterproductive. It's a judgement not an observation of fact, what reaction do they expect. It was 'white women's tears' that finished me off.

'ONE of the persistent delusions of mankind is that some sections of the human race are morally better or worse than others. This belief has many different forms, none of which has any rational basis.' Bertrand Russell in the essay 'The Superior Virtue of the Oppressed'

The problem is this gives cover to real rascism which does exist. Nasty vicious and visceral hate.
Can't find the blog at the moment but 2 academics have written about grooming gangs beginning by denouncing the Times for breaking the story in a racialised way. Talk about shooting the messenger.
I find this all extremely dangerous and I place the blame on academics.

justcly · 21/01/2020 11:30

@Needmoresleep

We don't have free speech in this country, so I'm not sure what point you think you're making. In any case, I did not suggest that Fox should have been prevented from speaking, I said that he has no right to define racism. I really shouldn't have to reiterate this, it is perfectly clear in my earlier post.

Yorkshirelass444 · 21/01/2020 11:34

that's just it, nauticant- it's the lecturing, the hypocrisy- that's what people find unbearable- and people are not stupid- they notice. i've been involved in a group whereby myself and my partner bent over backwards to accommodate people, did the lion's share of the work and received complaints and zero thanks for it. we were totally gaslit!! feel a bit silly now but the bullying was all done under wokery- race and gender were frequently mentioned- thank god we're out.

justcly · 21/01/2020 11:36

@BovaryX

It would be a shame if someone were to read your post and wonder why you managed to stomach the anti-Markle comments earlier in the thread, but when a poc attempts to frame the issue, it becomes "tedious". The fact is, you can't divide criticism of Markle from a discussion centring Laurence Fox's behaviour on Question Time, since it was discussions of Markle he was complaining about. But, please do set the parameters of how people may or may not respond. There's nothing more helpful than white people telling black people how they may or may not discuss racism 🙄

BovaryX · 21/01/2020 11:36

and I place the blame on academics

I think the post modernist identity politics obsessives who emerged from the debris after the collapse of the Berlin Wall have created a stultifying environment in social science departments. The emergence of niche lobby groups who weaponize 'hate speech ' accusations to silence criticism are another aspect of this environment. The threat to freedom of speech is something which should concern everyone. As is the impact upon state agencies like the police as is demonstrated by the Rotherham inquiry and its grim conclusions.

OP posts:
BovaryX · 21/01/2020 11:41

There's nothing more helpful than white people telling black people how they may or may not discuss racism 🙄
justcly

Your sloppy assumptions about me speak volumes about you. I am not white. Unlike you, I feel zero need to announce it unless it's relevant. If you can't understand why I think the themes of this discussion are more important than reducing it to a narrow debate about MM? Maybe you should expand your horizons.

OP posts:
Needmoresleep · 21/01/2020 11:51

I said that he has no right to define racism

Why? Because he has the ‘wrong’ skin colour?

justcly · 21/01/2020 11:55

@BovaryX

Apologies, my comment about "white people defining racism" referred to Laurence Fox, as detailed in previous posts. You appear to think that I accused you of racism. I would never do that. I consider the contributors to the FWR board to be friends, even if we do sometimes disagree. If I genuinely thought you were being racist, (I don't) I would disengage and report the post.

I don't think my post did "reduce it to a narrow debate about MM". If anything, it expanded on a theme introduced by nauticant and others. There is a problem with a large section of the media in this country. And yes, I do believe that some of it is racially driven. The visceral pleasure some people get from reading what they view as a take-down of someone richer and more powerful than they, however, may have nothing to do with race. It is how we row back from "this article is racist" to "and the people who read it are too" which I believe is what irritated Laurence Fox (although he articulated it very badly) that is truly interesting. The question of how we move from this to a mature discussion about race (and indeed, other forms of bigotry) will define us for generations. Multi-coloured families like mine seem to manage these conversations very well, and then it gets into the public domain and we're all at each other's throats 🤔

justcly · 21/01/2020 11:58

@Needmoresleep

No, because he simply isn't qualified, any more than he is qualified to define what it is to be working-class.

BovaryX · 21/01/2020 12:04

justcly

You wrote this.

The fact is, you can't divide criticism of Markle from a discussion centring Laurence Fox's behaviour on Question Time, since it was discussions of Markle he was complaining. But, please do set the parameters of how people may or may not respond. There's nothing more helpful than white people telling black people how they may or may not discuss racism

Your words are unambiguous. You assumed I was white and you could lecture me as a POC to a person with white privilege. You even kicked off with an insinuation that my response to your MM comment was motivated by racism. I am not impressed. Furthermore, Fox has every right to define racism. You appear to think that words should be judged on the racial identity of who is speaking Isn't that racist?

OP posts:
Needmoresleep · 21/01/2020 12:06

We all have a right to try to define things. Some people will start from a position of experience so their views will probably carry more weight. Though they are not necessarily right.

Fox has an absolute right to call out accusations of racism. It is unacceptable to be accused of something and not have a right to defend. But this has happened repeatedly since Brexit, in a blanket sort of way that often seems to include half the country. It is disheartening and tiresome, and surely works against proper equality and integration.

BovaryX · 21/01/2020 12:08

It would be a shame if someone were to read your post and wonder why you managed to stomach the anti-Markle comments earlier in the thread, but when a poc attempts to frame the issue, it becomes "tedious

@justcly

Your words on this thread speak volumes about you.

OP posts:
SingingLily · 21/01/2020 12:12

I stand with BovaryX on this.

The fact is, you can't divide criticism of Markle from a discussion centring Laurence Fox's behaviour on Question Time, since it was discussions of Markle he was complaining.

In addition, I see this as reductive. If you want to discuss whether the Duchess of Sussex is attracting criticism solely on the basis of racism, there are about a million other threads where you can argue that to your heart's content.

This thread is about the much wider issue.

justcly · 21/01/2020 12:14

@BovaryX

That is three posts from you attacking me when I have both apologised and attempted to be conciliatory. And you think this speaks volumes about me? You aren't interested in debating this. You're just looking for an echo chamber.

justcly · 21/01/2020 12:15

@SingingLily

Take it up with the person who introduced the subject.

BovaryX · 21/01/2020 12:17

@justcly
If you think quoting your own words back to you is an 'attack?' So be it.

OP posts:
justcly · 21/01/2020 12:19

I think orchestrating a pile-on is an attack.

BovaryX · 21/01/2020 12:23

Douglas Murray concludes with the statement below. The new totalitarians want to silence anyone who questions the current orthodoxy and the subjects which are off limit keep expanding. In an era of #no debate, those who challenge the liberal establishment require courage.

What is important now is not the minority of bullies and would-be totalitarians. People are increasingly proving able to survive their onslaughts. What matters now is observing who stands up and survives the stampedes, so that we can replicate such successes until such a time as the new totalitarians go the way of the old ones

OP posts:
itwaseverthus · 21/01/2020 12:59

justcly "I think orchestrating a pile-on is an attack." Wow, a few people agree with someone and you don't ergo it's a pile on?

LF has as much right as any human to define 'in his opinion' what racism is. You don't like it. It's still a fact. You can't stop him thinking his thoughts, you can't dictate who invites who on to Question Time (or can you?) but the trend of no platforming has obviously given people the idea they truly can control public discourse and opinion. They can't.

NonnyMouse1337 · 21/01/2020 13:04

I'm looking forward to seeing the sort of backpedaling by politicians, celebrities, and other people in the public eye as they realise the tide is turning and the wheels start to come off the gender identity wagon.

No doubt they will loudly declare how they were always supportive of women, LGB people's sexual orientations, freedom of speech etc... while racing against time to delete old posts and tweets.

The internet never forgets though........

nauticant · 21/01/2020 13:06

On the positive side, justcly has given us a pretty neat example of what the thread is about.

RoyalCorgi · 21/01/2020 13:15

One of the significant things that has happened is that class has almost disappeared from left-wing discourse. The idea that all white men are privileged is insane - look at the kind of guy desperately trying to make ends meet on a zero hours contract who can barely afford to pay his rent or feed his family. This obsession with identity politics is how the Democrats lost the support of much of the US working class, and the same is happening here with Labour. Similarly, the idea that those girls in Manchester were "privileged" by virtue of being white is so massively insulting I don't know where to start.

I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist or that black people's experience of racism doesn't matter - of course it does. But it's not the whole story.

BovaryX · 21/01/2020 13:16

nauticant
a pretty neat example of what this thread is about

Absolutely.

the trend of no platforming has obviously given people the idea they truly can control public discourse and opinion. They can't

itwaseverthus

I think the no platforming ideology is an existential threat to freedom of speech, academic freedom, critical thinking. It has been detrimental to policy making, witness the extensive influence of the trans lobby. I also think that the hierarchy of victimhood promoted by identity fixated politicos contributed to the institutional environment which produced Rotherham.

OP posts:
BovaryX · 21/01/2020 13:18

This obsession with identity politics is how the Democrats lost the support of much of the US working class, and the same is happening here with Labour

Absolutely. It is the visceral contempt which so many left wing politicians on both sides of the Atlantic display for the demographic whose support they imperiously demand......

OP posts:
FoxyFan · 21/01/2020 14:02

Dear Lawrence Fox,

On the off chance you are reading this board because we all know luvvies like fan mail....

Do you think the police in Rotherham and other places conveniently used fear of accusations of racism as an excuse for their own failure - and frankly unwillingness - to deal with crimes against women and girls (of all colours)? These same forces don't seem to be scared of racism when it comes to other crimes. Who was telling the police not to investigate brown people? Was it the brown people themselves? Was Mr Khan from the cornershop so very powerful that he had that influence? The police say they feared a race riot. Who said to them, if you arrest a few brown rapists and paedophiles, the whole community will be up in arms because they love their rapists and paedos so much, and they are sick of their rapists and paedos being unfairly targeted? They've managed to carry out counter-terrorism raids across the country without ensuing race riots. Drugs raids also. People of colour and none UK nationalities arrested. Where were all the riots, Lozza?

Could it be that the delightful South Yorkshire Police, who used to turn up for overtime to beat up white, working class miners (and probably the odd brown one), just didn't give a fuck about white, working class girls, like they don't give a fuck about Muslim girls, or in fact any girls, and use excuses like "cultural sensitivity" for inaction. For me, the blame for the Rotherham failures (not the crimes, which lie firmly with the groomers, I'm talking about the lack of arrests) lies with the police, who knew full well what was going on for years. They had years to prepare themselves for their race riot. They could have called on the Home Office to draft in reinforcements to squash any civil unrest - you know, like they did during the miners' strikes.

Why didn't they? Who held the power cards? A few shopkeepers or the authorities? Did those nasty brown men get a free pass because they were brown, or were they given one because it was convenient? Why aren't you complaining about the lack of accountability for the police? Why has nobody been fired over these failures. Please, please, Lol, use your shiny new high profile and prime time acting investigation skills to get to the bottom of this pressing matter. I just can't believe the police were so helpless, am I deluded?

But beware, should you decide to take on this challenge! This is the same crew, along with their West Yorkshire colleagues, who are incapable of dealing with daily cases of DV, rape, harassment against women, but who themselves are harassing gender critical women and indeed, some men. You better watch out, my friend, because they may seem to be your natural ally, but they may be coming for you next if you go on about the trans stuff; plus you won't get any acting gigs on the Beeb again. Both would be a disaster!

Lawrence Fox I absolutely uphold your right to say whatever you like wherever you like. All power to you. No doubt you will accept that people have the right to listen to you and call you a fool if they want to.

Your brand new fans are very happy that you are now calling all the spades, well, spades. I'm sure they will be equally excited when you move on to western societal power structures in general. Do you agree with Douglas Murray, who thinks women are all these sexy little minxes who use their allure to wield power over all the men, and then confuse the poor men with big words like patriarchy? What are your thoughts on the patriarchy, Laurie? Do you think it exists? If structural racism doesn't, then does structural sexism? Just because you are a man, doesn't mean you can't school the women on these matters (or does it, I mean you're entitled to your opinion and all, but as you've never been a woman, do you really know? I'm confused!).

Now, I must talk to you about Question Time. This is supposed to be the (publicly funded) BBC's flagship current affairs programme that allows members of the public to participate. The inclusion of people like you, Russell Brand, Lily Allen and the like has reduced the programme to a bit of a farce, in my humble opinion. Sorry, Laurie, I didn't enjoy your appearance. I want interesting debate from people who know what they are talking about and are at the heart of policy making; not the coke addled musings* of someone who has zero experience in public service or anything outside the entertainment industry. They and you have a zillion other outlets to have your voices heard. Let the plebs have a go, won't you?

(*I'm talking about other celebs there, obvs, not you, you seem like a very clean cut sort of fellow).

I was, however, bloody delighted when Nick Griffin was on QT, because I really like free speech. I wanted people to hear what he had to say, he was leader of a political movement after all. People listened, and largely laughed. Thems the breaks, my friend; whilst you should take all the airtime you are offered as the new National Sage on Prejudice (and the chance to promote your album with a bit of a jolly controversy), you have to accept that, like Griffin, some people might think you are devoid of any original thought.

White privilege, for the hard of thinking (not you of course, Lawrence, you look like you think very hard all the time), is not asking anyone to wear a hair shirt and self flagellate for the crime of being born white and middle class. Nobody can help the circumstances they were born into. It's asking people to walk a mile in someone else's shoes and appreciate that you may have had a head start in life because of what you were born into, and that others will be playing catch up, may never catch up, and their children may never catch up either. It's not just about race, it's about power, opportunity, exposure to a different way of life, connections. Lawrence Fox, it's not just your whiteness that is an advantage. You grew up in beautiful surroundings, filled with books and culture and a first class education, and your parents don't seem at all scary or troublesome. All those happy times and no doubt many a jolly afternoon picnic with scones and lemonade and top directors in attendance will have, I am sure, given you a fabulous start in life. And I hope you thank your blessed parents every day for for giving you this wonderful leg up into the world. But denying that your birth into an acting dynasty has conferred you a privilege makes you look a bit lacking in self awareness. You attacks on working class actors, who probably didn't have all your avenues into the industry, looks a bit mean. (Although, you have some big hairy white balls going after national treasure, Julie Walters, I give you that, I mean, what did she have to do to get ahead, eh?). Having said that, I largely would agree that any Tom Dick or Harry off the council estate could have played Lewis's side kick. It was hardly Shakespearean, was it.

The tiny little lives of the hoi polloi has got a bit better in this country over my nearly 50 years, my friend, but to my mind, not that much power has shifted downwards. However, for all our sakes, if you truly believe that power has shifted away in any meaningful sense in this country, from born to rule white men, then I hope it is I, and not you, who is deluded. Come on here and tell us all the patriarchy is dead, racism is a myth, and that if you wear a frock and offer me a tampon, that's just free speech too. The FWR ladies (sexy little minxes that they are) will have your back!

Good luck with the album, bro!

Yours affectionately,

FoxyFan x