"JK Rowling is a gold-plated hero': Author Anthony Horowitz blasts cancel culture"

[ScreamingMeMe]

Good to see another successful author speaking out

'JK Rowling is a gold-plated hero': Author Anthony Horowitz blasts cancel culture and says writers are 'under siege' and should 'lead the agenda, not be cowed by it'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10483263/amp/Anthony-Horowitz-blasts-cancel-culture-says-writers-siege.html

or do they call views they agree with that are under threat “free speech” and views they don’t agree with “hate speech” or “bigotry” - and in this way justify cancelling somethings and not others, depending on their beliefs? Because that’s what I see happening.

On this board? I think we're pretty much anti cancelling anyone, and some of us are pretty uneasy about hate speech laws.

@Theeyeballsinthesky

Does the same apply to women in men’s spaces?

@ScreamingMeMe

Good to hear.

@allmywhat

Well I have noticed that comments that go against the grain tend to get deleted here pretty easily, presumably because they’re reported. Which is kind of what I expect here. There’s reasons places become echo chambers and that kind of thing is a big one. I’m sure you’ve noticed the same on twitter with the kind of people involved in the cancel culture your against?

[quote Ploppingperp06]@Theeyeballsinthesky

Does the same apply to women in men’s spaces?[/quote]
Maybe you need to read some more threads.

Most regular posters absolutely agree that males have the same right to privacy and dignity away from females.

Do you believe that females pose a safety threat to males though? In that instance safeguarding plays a massive part in why males should not be allowed into female single sex spaces.

Or , like one radio presenter, do you mean men's club spaces like golf memberships? Because that is a completely different scenario.

Again, your posts follow the familiar patterns we see frequently.

comments that go against the grain tend to get deleted here pretty easily,

Err no they don't.

I have noticed that comments that go against the grain tend to get deleted here pretty easily, presumably because they’re reported. Which is kind of what I expect here.

Really? If you post within the guidelines and not make negative generalisations etc about MN and posters on this board, your posts will remain.

There’s reasons places become echo chambers and that kind of thing is a big one.

Are you saying MN is an echo chamber?

In fact, many posts that 'go against the grain' to use your phraseology get robustly discussed and quite often proved to be wrong through posting of original source evidence.

You will find that many poster's on this board LOVE posts to debate over. The more evidence that gets posted gets read by not just those involved in the thread, but the thousands of lurkers that use this as a resource.

[quote Ploppingperp06]@allmywhat

Well I have noticed that comments that go against the grain tend to get deleted here pretty easily, presumably because they’re reported. Which is kind of what I expect here. There’s reasons places become echo chambers and that kind of thing is a big one. I’m sure you’ve noticed the same on twitter with the kind of people involved in the cancel culture your against?[/quote]
They absolutely don't, except on webchats where women are silenced for asking for the definition of 'woman' from politicians.

On normal chat boards it has to be a personal attack to get deleted (and often not even then if no-one reports)

I've seen a very few of the more bonkers and provably wrong anti-vaxx posts deleted (e.g. millions of children are dying from the vaccines type stuff), but loads of anti-vaxx stuff remains.

Apart from on FWR, MN is very pro free speech.

When there's a deletion there's still a deleted post marked. A lot of mums agree on some things, just because people agree doesn't mean that alternative views aren't tolerated it just means those views aren't very common among the very big user group of MN.

[quote Ploppingperp06]@allmywhat

Well I have noticed that comments that go against the grain tend to get deleted here pretty easily, presumably because they’re reported. Which is kind of what I expect here. There’s reasons places become echo chambers and that kind of thing is a big one. I’m sure you’ve noticed the same on twitter with the kind of people involved in the cancel culture your against?[/quote]
Is that a joke? The regular posters on here generally don't report anything but the most horrendous posts as we believe it's best to let them stand for the lurkers. The rules on here are heavily weighted on the TRA side and the threads on this board are constantly monitored and screenshotted to Twitter. I had a comment deleted for using a word that describes the top of a mountain.

I'm always wryly amused by the constant references to 'echo chambers'. Here, where posts can't be edited or deleted and comments remain to be commented on or Twitter, where you can delete, edit or limit who can see posts?

The regular posters on here generally don't report anything but the most horrendous posts as we believe it's best to let them stand for the lurkers.

It is pretty hilarious isn't it, to forget about the lurkers. Who read the links, see the live demonstrations on activist tactics, the sneering, the derision, the complete lack of coherent argument, or if there is some evidence posted, it so often does not quite say what the activist believes it says. And all in long format posts on threads that may be updated regularly with new information.

@Helleofabore

I’m not an activist of any type. Most posts can’t be proven right or wrong because they are based in opinion, thinking otherwise is usually a part of the echo chamber effect “oh 3 people on a forum of people who think like me agree with me therefore I have proved myself right” - that type of thing.

As for posts that go against the grain not being deleted - sure hasn’t been what I’ve observed. Usually any ongoing argument/discussion will garner enough reports from the prominent side (ie in line with the views of people who mostly frequent these boards) to be deleted.

@Waitwhat23

Hasn’t been my experience at all. I’ve seen many deleted posts but I guess they may all be horrendous by someone’s standards.
I wasn’t defended twitter as you seem to suggest - but I really can’t see the difference between “canceling” views on twitter and deleted/banning here. Perhaps Twitter is actually more free.

[quote Ploppingperp06]@Helleofabore

Oh that wasn’t any kind of woke scolding - I don’t want Rowling cancelled for her view on trans people. And it wasn’t about nuance- because I don’t want Horowitz cancelled if he writes something about women let’s say, oh I don’t know, feminists don’t like. I was just wondering if the same people supporting Rowling on these boards would apply that kind of thinking - or do they call views they agree with that are under threat “free speech” and views they don’t agree with “hate speech” or “bigotry” - and in this way justify cancelling somethings and not others, depending on their beliefs? Because that’s what I see happening.

Nobody in the real world cares about “the scolds bridle” or whatever hyperbole. This is a very niche crusade your on.[/quote]
You're still lumping Anthony Horowitz together with Sebastian Faulks!

They're famous for wildly different genres.

[quote Ploppingperp06]@Waitwhat23

Hasn’t been my experience at all. I’ve seen many deleted posts but I guess they may all be horrendous by someone’s standards.
I wasn’t defended twitter as you seem to suggest - but I really can’t see the difference between “canceling” views on twitter and deleted/banning here. Perhaps Twitter is actually more free.[/quote]
I suppose you see what you want to see.

The last comment I saw which was deleted was a string of abuse and misogynistic slurs, including the slightly bizarre comment of 'Westboro' and it stood for quite a while so that the lurkers could see it. I'm assuming it was eventually deleted by MNHQ for 'not being in the spirit'.

As for posts that go against the grain not being deleted - sure hasn’t been what I’ve observed. Usually any ongoing argument/discussion will garner enough reports from the prominent side (ie in line with the views of people who mostly frequent these boards) to be deleted.

And again, posts are only deleted if they do not stay within the guidelines. The guidelines apply to both feminists and activists and those who don't believe they are activists yet use the same tired trope that activists use. Usually, depending on the current political happenings, MNHA might be more lenient to activist posts than other posts.

So, obviously your 'against the grain' posts that you refer to are probably making negative generalisations or are 'against the spirit' of debate. But please, do crack on insisting that well constructed and argued posts will get deleted because someone disagrees. I encourage you to post widely and often to test your theory.

Opinions are like anuses and everyone has one. When it comes to facts and claims that can be proven or disproven, then yes, evidence is often requested or proved by regular posters.

Why do you keep talking about echo chambers? Do you think that you have landed in an echo chamber?

@Helleofabore

You don’t like men’s only golf groups? Why not?

An example of the kind of thing I’m talking about would be more akin to say - the very same scouts that were trying to “cancel” Maya Foryster for her trans opinions and assumedly not wanting such people identifying as women being leaders of girl specific situations within such organisation - being forced to become open to both sexes in the first place. Ironically probably by women very like Maya.
In that situation - what was wrong with having that space for men/boys and why did it have to be taken away? And if it was right that it be taken from them - then why is it not also right that trans women be let into similar women’s spaces? That’s just one such situation for example.

For the record, your posts and others here also follow an extremely similar pattern.

You don’t like men’s only golf groups? Why not?

I asked because an interviewer conflated the two scenarios the other day as a 'gotcha' and looked like a complete fool.

Feminists will fight to access men's groups such as a mens only 'club facility' because often they are used to discuss business and females are left out of that power dynamic.

Single sex spaces where people are receiving intimate care, are in a vulnerable situation, etc. are addressing a completely different need. Same as sports. Same as roles designated to be needed to be a specific sex.

For the record, your posts and others here also follow an extremely similar pattern.

As do yours.

@Helleofabore

Obviously this is something of an echo chamber. I’m not saying that’s wrong but it’s somewhat inevitable when people of predominantly similar beliefs congregate in the one (online) space. I don’t have a problem with that - but again it becomes more so when debate is stifled. The guess by my standards some people here have much lower standards as to what constitutes deletion worthy. Negative generalisations is a pretty low bar for a comment to be deleted as is “against the spirit”, which could mean virtually anything at all.

Again, if you really believe I am some kind of secret activist using tropes you might want to consider that you are effected by an echo chamber - because I have never put foward any opinion of Rowling’s views or pro or anti trans issues. In truth I don’t care much about them and stumbled across this thread because of Horowitz. No doubt I would agree with you in somethings.

If you believe any comment expressing disagreement or simply questioning (as my first comment did) shows evidence of some kind of activism, you really need to consider that you’ve become so passionate about something that is in essence a niche issue to most people, that you are seeing people on “sides” of your battle when they really aren’t and they probably don’t care much. Myself being one such person. When you start to believe this you lose the ability to rationally discuss because you are constantly assigning someone a position they don’t hold and speaking to them as if they do. To an outsider to all this this is obvious, and is indicative of the echo chamber effect.

An example of the kind of thing I’m talking about would be more akin to say - the very same scouts that were trying to “cancel” Maya Foryster for her trans opinions and assumedly not wanting such people identifying as women being leaders of girl specific situations within such organisation - being forced to become open to both sexes in the first place. Ironically probably by women very like Maya.

Do you actually understand safeguarding? Do you understand that a person who has posted sexualised content into the public sphere and inappropriate use of weapon's content is someone who is not suitable to be in a position to ensure the robust safeguarding is upheld by the groups of leaders and guides they were responsible for? Do you also understand that this person posted their Facebook profile of them in the bath in front of a line of small girls with their faces shown while also posting sexualised content? If you think that shows a deep enough understanding of safeguarding to be responsible for children's welfare, then I think you have a different understanding of safeguarding.

In that situation - what was wrong with having that space for men/boys and why did it have to be taken away?

What space was 'taken away' from men and boys? Scouts? perhaps you should take that up with the scouting movement who thought the way to reverse the decline in numbers after significant safeguarding failures was to change the membership to both sexes?

And if it was right that it be taken from them - then why is it not also right that trans women be let into similar women’s spaces? That’s just one such situation for example.

Please explain what you mean here.

@Helleofabore

Should men not discuss business ideas amongst friends? I certainly wouldn’t object to women doing the same. Seems that an old fashioned instinct (applied in a new fashioned way) is at play in the idea/ideal that women should be provided with a place in your golf club scenario - that ideal of men owing provision to women - in this instance a cut of the business that they are apparently capable of creating without said women included at golf.
However unless these men are actually stopping women from doing the same then I can’t really see how that would be thought of as oppressive to women. Unless that is, it is seen by the feminists who fight for that golf club entry as oppressive not to be provided for by these golf playing chummy men in this way.

the very same scouts that were trying to “cancel” Maya Foryster for her trans opinions and assumedly not wanting such people identifying as women being leaders of girl specific situations within such organisation - being forced to become open to both sexes in the first place. Ironically probably by women very like Maya.
In that situation - what was wrong with having that space for men/boys and why did it have to be taken away?

A few things here.

Scouts is not single-sex female. That is, or was, Guides.

Scouts chose to go mixed-sex in order not to close. Guides remained popular, and didn't need to.

Boys could have continued to have single-sex Scouts if there had been the demand and the male leadership, but mostly it was women who stepped up to lead. It wasn't 'forced to happen by women like Maya'.

Obviously this is something of an echo chamber. I’m not saying that’s wrong but it’s somewhat inevitable when people of predominantly similar beliefs congregate in the one (online) space. I don’t have a problem with that - but again it becomes more so when debate is stifled. The guess by my standards some people here have much lower standards as to what constitutes deletion worthy. Negative generalisations is a pretty low bar for a comment to be deleted as is “against the spirit”, which could mean virtually anything at all.

Take it up with MNHQ about the 'pretty low bar'. We do quite regularly. Because it is very regularly us that are getting deleted. you do realise that simply posting a biscuit on this board is delete worthy whereas it is used regularly else where.

Calling this board an echo chamber is something we regularly see by those who have a very superficial knowledge and usage of the board. It becomes quite clear that the robust debates that occur here actually show there are a wide range of opinions being shared.

@FebruaryRainandSleet

If you say so, if you say so.

Hasn’t been my experience at all. I’ve seen many deleted posts but I guess they may all be horrendous by someone’s standards.

Most of the deleted posts here aren't posts that go "against the grain" - they are posts which have offended male individuals who are not regular posters but hang around regularly reporting posts because they can't argue with them.

Tiresome to have the conversation policed endlessly by hostile males, and then have (same shit, different hat on) turn up and say that their policing demonstrates the forum is an echo chamber.