[Ganeshas Rat]

but I think you are misrepresenting the power dynamic by putting "all white people" on one side, and "all PoC on the other."

I think I formulated it poorly then. "White people" are split into different groups, most of them not being political subjects. PoC are always the object. They are used as soldiers by some "white" people against other "white people". In the same way as for example Jews were used in the Russian revolution. Jews appeared in the Russian Empire after Poland's secessions, it was a highly marginalized poor and oppressed group. I of course as a human can't not to emphatize and consider the law in this part too harsh. Still it doesn't change the fact that the groups who defended and agitated for Jews were also the groups who consequently opposed and sabotaged any attempt to improve their state. Because they needed them to be marginalized, they needed them to be radical. So when the revolution properly started there were indeed many Jewish revolutionaries who committed some severe crimes and then got torture, humiliation and death as their reward in '37. While their feats guaranteed Antisemitic mood in Russia for much longer than it would preserve naturally. Triple cheating: fight for your enemy, die by your enemy, be punished for your enemy's deeds.

And that's what will happen with PoCs too. In this case I am just calling to see where wind blows from and blame the hand, not the gun.

[QatzelOk]

PoC are always the object.

Yes, they are. But they are *always the object* on *commercial media.*
In real life, PoC are also *often the subject* of their own lives and of the lives of the people they interact with day-to-day.

This is important to mention because *commercial media* doesn't represent the average person or the ideal comrade. It represents the commercial elite only, and for this group, *PoC* are one of their signifiers that usually means *not like us.*

Commercial media use *types of people* as props, to *tell a story* about how the advertised products will improve your life. Make you a *good type.*

There are other groups of people that commerce targets like this. It's all about money, and getting more of it for yourself so that you do better than others.

[Ganeshas Rat]

They are often the subject of their own lives but not of politics. Which kinda makes sense. People like to doublethink: for example they can simultaneously believe that PoC are being systematically oppressed for how much (last four hundred years) and restricted in access to resources (including intellectual resources) and also that they have control or influence over at least some things. Yep, they were oppressed, that's the reason why they have no capitals nor political power and have no choice but to obey someone who does.

[QatzelOk]

They are often the subject of their own lives but not of politics. Which kinda makes sense. People like to doublethink: for example they can simultaneously believe that PoC are being systematically oppressed for how much (last four hundred years) and restricted in access to resources (including intellectual resources) and also that they have control or influence over at least some things. Yep, they were oppressed, that's the reason why they have no capitals nor political power and have no choice but to obey someone who does.

What you have written here is true about oppressed people whatever their skin color, religion, nationality, or language. So to tie it to "skin color" exclusively like you are doing over and over again... is acutally racist in the true sense of the word.

You are giving too much importance to something insignificant. Skin tone is just one of an almost infinite number of ways to classify different classes in a social hierarchy. Social hierarchy itself is the problem that we will never solve until we eliminate it. And that means the end of our current economic system.

People who want to preserve our current system often try to suggest that it just needs a few adjustments here and there. Maybe a PoC steering a bombing campaign in Iraq, or overseeing the imprisonment of half the poor population.

"Here, PoC, take this Nobel Prize! (smile)" did zero to help the humans of Africa to lead better lives. It was just empty tokenism that "felt good" to a commercial media audience.

So the social hierarchy itself is the central problem. Humans can't live with this. They freak out.

In Canada, the French language and First Nations nationality... were the markers of low class fifty years ago. Language and nation - not skin color. And it was the exact same dynamic that you inaccurately essentialize as "PoC."

[Ganeshas Rat]

What you have written here is true about oppressed people whatever their skin color, religion, nationality, or language. So to tie it to "skin color" exclusively like you are doing over and over again... is acutally racist in the true sense of the word.

No, because I write in the context of the current political situation and media's agenda that is concentrated on the problems of PoC. I myself gave an example of Jews who are considered white in the US. It's relative. Though racial minorities are most vulnerable for exploitation for a simple reason: a proletarian, let's say, could dress like a lord and learn some etiquette, be disguised. But a black slave can't hide they are black.

"Here, PoC, take this Nobel Prize! (smile)" did zero to help the humans of Africa to lead better lives. It was just empty tokenism that "felt good" to a commercial media audience.

That's my point essentially. The whole identity thing concentrates on things that have a cosmetic effect and only create new enemies (unjust awards to 'correct skin color' people or canceling the Oddysey because it was written by a man of wrong skin) while ignoring the real issues. Would any of us born as a black in America, they most likely wouldn't be here at all. A father in prison, a junkie mother, a social school for retards, these things can only lead to a corner and a bullet in the head. And when you start to realize you are trapped and feel rage about it, someone points you to the Odyssey as the source of all problems. And you have no defense against manipulation because there was no one to tell you which books to read. Shea Martin cared about you not getting the Odyssey, so you grew without realizing there is only one way to deal with strangers who occupied your home and mock and laugh at you: to take a bow and shoot everyone.

[Pants-of-dog]

No one is arguing that The Odyssey is the cause of the problems facing black people in the US, or that removing the book from a course is going to make significant changes.

If teachers wanted to make significant political change in the lives of black students, they would openly support BLM. Often they get fired when they do. This is cancel culture.

[Unthinking Majority]

No one is arguing that The Odyssey is the cause of the problems facing black people in the US, or that removing the book from a course is going to make significant changes.

If teachers wanted to make significant political change in the lives of black students, they would openly support BLM. Often they get fired when they do. This is cancel culture.

Political activism by teachers has no room in the classroom. Zero. They're paid by taxpayers to educate people's children objectively, not to indoctrinate them. You wouldn't want a teacher pushing conservative or Pro-Trump stuff on your children would you? Neither would I. If you disagree with me then you're in favour of government propaganda because it pushes your political agenda, which is exactly what I'm talking about. These are impressionable kids.

It's good for students to discuss politics and important issues like BLM protests in the classroom but the teacher should remain objective and not push her own political agenda.

If a teacher wants to remove The Odyssey to make room for other content that's fine, but if they want to remove it for reasons of person political activism like radical feminism as this teacher did that's not in any way acceptable.

Her job is to teach English literature. Her job isn't to teach English literature within a sphere of intersectional feminist theory by combating the white male patriarchy.

[Pants-of-dog]

Political activism by teachers has no room in the classroom. Zero.

Okay, then having The Odyssey in your curriculum as a way of showing support for freedom of speech would be wrong. But having it in your curriculum because it is a good piece of epic poetry would be fine.

And saying that black lives matter should not be a divisive political claim.

They're paid by taxpayers to educate people's children objectively, not to indoctrinate them. You wouldn't want a teacher pushing conservative or Pro-Trump stuff on your children would you? Neither would I. If you disagree with me then you're in favour of government propaganda because it pushes your political agenda, which is exactly what I'm talking about. These are impressionable kids.

Then you are supporting the firing of teachers for voicing political opinions that you find controversial. How is this not cancel culture?

It's good for students to discuss politics and important issues like BLM protests in the classroom but the teacher should remain objective and not push her own political agenda.

If a teacher wants to remove The Odyssey to make room for other content that's fine, but if they want to remove it for reasons of person political activism like radical feminism as this teacher did that's not in any way acceptable.

Her job is to teach English literature. Her job isn't to teach English literature within a sphere of intersectional feminist theory by combating the white male patriarchy.

Yes, you earlier claimed that the motive behind an action somehow makes an action censorship or not censorship. You never explained why this inconsistency exists. I once again invite you to explain how motive makes it censorship.

[Unthinking Majority]

Okay, then having The Odyssey in your curriculum as a way of showing support for freedom of speech would be wrong. But having it in your curriculum because it is a good piece of epic poetry would be fine.

And saying that black lives matter should not be a divisive political claim.

Yes exactly. Why are teachers politicizing a really old piece of literature in our schools? I remember I had a teacher who had a copy of Mein Kampf sitting in his classroom, but it wasn't because he was pushing neo-Nazism, it's because he was a history teacher.

Then you are supporting the firing of teachers for voicing political opinions that you find controversial. How is this not cancel culture?

No that's not what I said. I said teachers shouldn't be voicing or pushing political opinions of any kind in the course of their teaching duties, regardless of what you or I or anyone thinks of those opinions.

Yes, you earlier claimed that the motive behind an action somehow makes an action censorship or not censorship. You never explained why this inconsistency exists. I once again invite you to explain how motive makes it censorship.

Yes I did explain it. The definition of censorship is pretty clear. If you remove a tv show from the air because it gets bad ratings that's not censorship. If you remove a show from air because it's considered "offensive" that's censorship.

noun: censorship

1. the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes exactly.

But the logical consequence of that position is that you think it is fine for books to be suppressed or prohibited, as long as no one says that it is for political reasons.

And this also means that the teachers who were fired for political reasons are being censored since their dismissal is based on political reasons.

Why are teachers politicizing a really old piece of literature in our schools? I remember I had a teacher who had a copy of Mein Kampf sitting in his classroom, but it wasn't because he was pushing neo-Nazism, it's because he was a history teacher.

I do not think teachers are politicising this book. The only ones who are doing so are the ones who are assuming a political motive on the part of the teacher or writing articles about it. But that is free speech.

No that's not what I said. I said teachers shouldn't be voicing or pushing political opinions of any kind in the course of their teaching duties, regardless of what you or I or anyone thinks of those opinions.

And if a teacher does tell their students that the lives of the black students in the class matter as much as anyone else’s? At this point, the teacher has voiced what is, in the USA, a political and divisive claim. What do you do?

Yes I did explain it. The definition of censorship is pretty clear. If you remove a tv show from the air because it gets bad ratings that's not censorship. If you remove a show from air because it's considered "offensive" that's censorship.

noun: censorship

1. the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security

If a show is removed from the air but can still be rented, downloaded, borrowed from the library, and is otherwise available (i.e. not suppressed or prohibited) , is it censored?

I agree that motivation is an important factor, but I do not think it is the most important one and I think the lack of verifiability when it comes to motivation makes it difficult to use motivation as the central criteria on which to judge censorship.

[Unthinking Majority]

But the logical consequence of that position is that you think it is fine for books to be suppressed or prohibited, as long as no one says that it is for political reasons.

And this also means that the teachers who were fired for political reasons are being censored since their dismissal is based on political reasons.

Well teachers don't have free speech in the conduct of their duties as teachers. They can't preach about religion in a public school either. They're public servants and have codes of conduct they need to follow, and if they don't follow them they should be reprimanded like any other job. If it's a private school I guess they can do whatever they want as long as the boss is cool with it.

And if a teacher does tell their students that the lives of the black students in the class matter as much as anyone else’s? At this point, the teacher has voiced what is, in the USA, a political and divisive claim. What do you do?

I don't think saying "the lives of the black students in the class matter as much as anyone else’s" is much of a political opinion since it's the law of the land and in the constitution and probably school policy too.

There would be a difference if a teacher started flying a BLM banner since that's a political slogan and a specific activist group. It would be like the difference in a teacher saying "the lives of cops matter as much as anyone else's" vs the teacher flying a "Blue Lives Matter" banner, which would be inappropriate.

If a show is removed from the air but can still be rented, downloaded, borrowed from the library, and is otherwise available (i.e. not suppressed or prohibited) , is it censored?

Yes, it's being censored by that station, and sometimes the government through censorship boards.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well teachers don't have free speech in the conduct of their duties as teachers. They can't preach about religion in a public school either. They're public servants and have codes of conduct they need to follow, and if they don't follow them they should be reprimanded like any other job. If it's a private school I guess they can do whatever they want as long as the boss is cool with it.

Telling teachers they do not have free speech is far more of an impact and far more like cancel culture than simply removing a book from a reading list.

I don't think saying "the lives of the black students in the class matter as much as anyone else’s" is much of a political opinion since it's the law of the land and in the constitution and probably school policy too.

There would be a difference if a teacher started flying a BLM banner since that's a political slogan and a specific activist group. It would be like the difference in a teacher saying "the lives of cops matter as much as anyone else's" vs the teacher flying a "Blue Lives Matter" banner, which would be inappropriate.

Saying that black lives matter is the law of the land and in the constitution and probably school policy too, and teachers are getting fired for it. And this is because it is also a political slogan and a specific activist group.

Yes, it's being censored by that station, and sometimes the government through censorship boards.

What happens if the station or studio or network is also selling DVDs? Are they still censoring it?

On a more practical and on-topic level, can you think of anyone or anything that has been censored by “cancel culture”? We seem to hear a lot about it but actual examples seem few and far between.

[QatzelOk]

I write in the context of the current political situation and media's agenda that is concentrated on the problems of PoC. I myself gave an example of Jews who are considered white in the US.

Yes, you are speaking about a subject in a manner which is current-media-centric. Which is a disaster because commercial media has a racial agenda. By following the logic and limiting your words to "that which is currently on my screen," you have fallen into the racial trap that our "racially-concentrated media" has set for us.

The Odyssey...black lives matter...cancel culture...

Once again, other posters are essentializing and pigeon-holing what should be a very general discussion, and this specificity - this limiting of the Oberton window by a racially-stratified media industry - is guaranteed to lead to dumb conclusions that cause more harm.

You can't just tinker with a racially-stratified system that creates injustice on a grand scale.

And by limiting discussions on opression to "skin tone," you are supporting our current violent world order of "enlightened capitalism and imperialism" which, when it needs to bomb a resource colony like Iraq, just has to show the media viewer images of light-skin Iraqi men being killed. Patriarchy and "stickin' it to whitey." Right? Or is this just well-branded racism against Arabs?

Do light-skinned Arab men suffer from oppression by anyone?

[noemon]

The SNP has, until recently, looked unassailable. But amidst the drama surrounding the Alex Salmond inquiry, could a backlash to one of the party's headline policy proposals sink the unsinkable?

Opposition to the SNP's proposed hate speech law is clearly growing. The Holyrood government assumed that pushing through the hate speech component of its Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, published in April 2020, would be plain sailing. It would probably attract the middle-class progressives who traditionally supported the SNP; it also looked fairly easy to sell to ordinary Scots as a technical updating of the law inspired by a carefully-drafted official report from a Court of Session judge. Any opposition from free speech supporters could no doubt be waved away as the rantings of a few unworldly enthusiasts. As a result, Justice Minister Humza Yousaf took the Bill seriously, and was in no mood to compromise.

Holyrood badly misjudged. Any intelligent person could see at a glance that the proposals were a monstrosity.

They added greatly to the privileged groups protected from disrespectful references. They also criminalised speech on the basis, not of any intent to foment hatred, but of a mere propensity to do so. The possession of certain literature could have been effectively outlawed, with the police given powers to search people’s homes for offending material.

These proposals could potentially have made the production of plays illegal if any character in them expressed unacceptable prejudices. To make matters worse, there was no attempt to protect speech taking place within people's homes. Honest discussion of disability, mental health and sexuality, could have been affected.

To the SNP's dismay, its proposals attracted almost no enthusiasm and almost universal condemnation. It takes quite something to persuade the Catholic Church to make common cause with the National Secular Society, and the Faculty of Advocates with the Scottish Police Federation and the Free Speech Union; but the SNP succeeded in doing just this.

Holyrood attempted damage limitation, but without success. Last September, Humza Yousaf tried through gritted teeth to buy off the opposition by removing the provisions criminalising speech on account of mere propensity to foment hatred, instead requiring proof of intent to do so. But this was not enough. In the parliamentary Justice Committee scrutinising the Bill, the government has, in the last few weeks, been constrained to excise a great deal more.

Gone are its entire proposals relating to performances of plays, and also those affecting possession of inflammatory materials. In the original Bill, conduct intended to foment hatred had only to be seen as 'abusive, threatening or insulting' by a possibly over-sensitive witness in order to be criminal; now, it has to have that effect on a reasonable person. To the disgust of several noisy pressure groups, explicit protection for robust, even offensive, criticism of transgender rights has been imposed.

These latest changes are due for formal approval at a Justice Committee vote on Tuesday. Given that they are backed by the government, they are likely to be nodded through.

There is a further important, and sensible, proposal from Tory MSP Liam Kerr to introduce a protection for events taking place entirely within a single dwelling, a provision already existing in England. Whether Holyrood will choose to dig its heels in on this issue and court the ire of numerous moderate Scots is uncertain. Unfortunately, it may well do this, if only to show that, at least for the moment, it is still in charge.

But the damage to the SNP's credibility has been done. The now hollowed-out hate speech proposals are very close to Hamlet without the prince, or perhaps Macbeth without the king. Essentially all we have left is this: a narrow, if still worrying, set of proposals to outlaw the intentional stirring-up of hatred against a rather arbitrary collection of protected groups.

Some Scots, especially those who value freedom of speech, might think it better at this point to give up and abandon the whole exercise. Rationally this is probably what the SNP should do. One suspects, however, that Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf have too much political capital invested in the project to do this, and will limp on with the simulacrum they have left.

There is another, much more important, point to draw from this debacle. Until now, despite its increasing authoritarianism – not to mention its questionable efforts at tackling Covid-19 and the Salmond affair that will not go away – it has been fashionable to talk of the SNP as some kind of unstoppable political tank, still advancing towards Indyref 2 and tossing aside all obstructions. What may well worry Nicola Sturgeon about the hate speech affair is that, despite the SNP’s clear commitment, her bluff has been successfully called.

[Pants-of-dog]

It seems to me that freedom of speech and our ability to get wider audiences for whatever idea we have (good or bad) has never been higher and more protected.

Newspapers are allowed to spread misinformation about alleged book bannings.

Teachers are allowed to post videos supporting sexism that reach a worldwide audience.

Zionists can accuse their opponents of anti-Semitism and have articles written about them, and the opposition can do the same.

And questioning whether or not another human being should have rights is a perfectly acceptable discussion to be had almost anywhere and with anyone.

[ThirdTerm]

I guess social media giants based in America are especially restricting free speech in recent years. We are totally at the mercy of American moderators of these social media giants based in California. Katie Hopkins was rightly banned by Twitter but the Trump ban was questionable. He was only complaining about unfair election results and he rarely made racist posts unlike Katie Hopkins, who was permanently suspended from Twitter for violating its hateful conduct policy. There is also a racist anthropology site that was taken down by the American hosting service a couple of months ago. The internet is no longer a free-speech zone.

Controversial commentator Katie Hopkins has been permanently suspended from Twitter for violating its hateful conduct policy, the social media giant said.
Ms Hopkins, who had more than one million followers, was previously suspended in January for a week.
But Twitter said her latest ban is permanent.
The social network did not, however, say which tweets Ms Hopkins had posted, to result in the ban.
"Keeping Twitter safe is a top priority for us - abuse and hateful conduct have no place on our service and we will continue to take action when our rules are broken," it said.

[QatzelOk]

It seems to me that freedom of speech and our ability to get wider audiences for whatever idea we have (good or bad) has never been higher and more protected.
...
Zionists can accuse their opponents of anti-Semitism and have articles written about them...

Your other examples are new. But this one has been around longer than Cancel Culture or the Internet.

[GandalfTheGrey]

It is the Canadian-Jewish student trying to cancel the pro-Palestinian views of the student union of the university.

Evidently you are not reading properly.

Granted I misinterpreted the anti-semitism case - but to be fair, it could easily be interpreted either way.

The anti-semitism weapon and the forces that police it so fanatically are a special category. Your hysterics that led to my yellow card demonstrate perfectly how irrational and absurd this issue has become.

The point I would make though is that the people who run around attacking others with the term "cancel culture" aren't the people who would have the anti-semitism police in mind while they do it.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Cancel culture, in terms of social movements to get rid of people who do or are wrong, has been a tool of the right and the wealthy for most of history. It is only with the inset of social media that marginalised voices even have the ability to get their voices heard. And even now, the right still has the advantage in terms of controlling the positions of power.

The Eton firing is a good example. He teacher was not fired by the left or marginalised people in any way. This was a decision made solely by the Eton administration, which is almost entirely old white conservative men, and their lawyers, who probably are also old, white, conservative men.

And this only made the papers because the man who was fired was not a marginalised person and he had the ability and contacts to make it a press story.

Eton probably fires a few women each year because they refuse to be sexually harassed or have tried talking about it. But those episodes of traditional cancel culture are not mentioned in the news.

Fantastic post. Sums it all up perfectly.

[QatzelOk]

Fantastic post. Sums it all up perfectly.

The dynamic, yes.

Except that she uses "the right" when she ought to say "authoritarian governance" uses "cancel culture censorship" (to cancel opposing views and democratic debates).

This is an important fault with her synopsis.

And questioning whether or not another human being should have rights is a perfectly acceptable discussion to be had almost anywhere and with anyone.

This freedom to speak (and to have rights of any kind) can be taken away in two seconds by an authoritarian government in panic - whether left or right. And we seem to be there now.