Jump to content

Liberalism, what went wrong?


Max Power
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Chinahand said:

I don't think that is right at all, and sadly is rather lazy thinking I didn't used to associate with you.

Many figures who are basically left of centre say there is something significant going on concerning intolerance on the left -examples include Stephen Pinker, Jerry Coyne, John McWhorter, Bari Weiss, Joseph Henrich, Jonathan Haidt, Richard Dawkins, Germaine Greer, JK Rowling.  To describe these people as members of the Populist Right, or associate them with the view point of the Daily Mail is to seriously miss a large part of the picture.

I like the simplification than both the Alt-Right and the Ctl-Left are significantly impacting political discourse especially in the US.  The UK is less affected, but for people to associate Richard Dawkins, Germaine Greer and JK Rowling with the forces of reaction really haven't listened to what they say.  They are basically mainstream centre left in their views - or the mainstream centre left that existed up to recently.  The woke outrage these figures now experience on Twitter or when they attempt to articulate their views on University campuses is new, different and in my view disturbing and a clear symptom of ideological purity being given too much importance than reasonable debate.

To be honest Chinahand whilst I recognise many of the names you have mentioned the only one that I have been aware of a massive reaction to is JK Rowling.  I actually feel somewhat sorry for her as she strayed into a topic that is incredibly challenging.  I think many liberals would struggle to hold a fully informed conversation around transgender topics.  We know that only biological females can give birth, we know that your biological sex can make your more susceptible to certain health conditions but we also know that people can identify as being different from their biological sex.  Just how you square these away is beyond me and that is without getting into the topic of sports, changing rooms, toilets or children being raised as non-binary or with a society imposed gender stereotype. 

I believe Germaine Greer expressed a similar opinion to Rowling on that topic so again I am not surprised that this became a problem for her.

The LGBT community are very active in promoting their rights and who could blame them after what their predecessors went through with all the conversion therapies, criminal convictions and abuse.  

These are high profile cases though.  How many people in everyday life find themselves encountering these problems?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fascinated that people are trying to say Cancel Culture doesn't exist, or are straight away altering their stance to well they said racist/transphobic things and so that's ok.

The journalist who was fired for using the n-word was basically having a serious sociological discussion there was no racist intent.  What is even worse is that the NY Times after firing him stated that there were no circumstances the n-word should be used and so it was legitimate to fire him they then allowed John McWhorter to write this OPED:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jichaelmosem said:

I mean this, specifically.

'You can't even apologise for a slip of the tongue or an unwise choice of words, the liberals have deemed that that slip betrays your true feelings and opinions.'

Have you ever seen this happen to you or anyone you know? 'Liberals', for lack of a better term, are very forgiving of those who are actually sorry.

And, no, screaming 'OH I'M SORRY I GUESS YOU CAN'T SAY ANYTHING ANYMORE CAN YOU' is not an apology.

I alluded to our own Stu Peters earlier, the man very nearly lost his job at Manx Radio for saying something which didn't suit the agenda of a couple of his callers. What he said was pretty innocuous, but the situation escalated, despite him offering an on air apology if he was wrong.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

If it is fine for the NY Times to publish that OPED, they had no grounds what so ever for sacking a journalist for using it too.

Are you talking about Donald McNeil, who wasn’t sacked but resigned (under pressure) and said “Originally, I thought the context in which I used this ugly word could be defended. I now realize that it cannot. It is deeply offensive and hurtful.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I alluded to our own Stu Peters earlier, the man very nearly lost his job at Manx Radio for saying something which didn't suit the agenda of a couple of his callers. What he said was pretty innocuous, but the situation escalated, despite him offering an on air apology if he was wrong.   

Did he? My recollection was there was an investigation that found no wrongdoing.

"The agenda of a couple of his callers" - it was a lot more than that, and we both know it. I'm not sure why you're trying to paint it as such. I really can't be bothered rehashing old ground, but there are plenty of articles describing why "All lives matter" is not innocuous, and why claiming that white people are no more privileged than black people is at best stupid and at worst malicious.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

If it is fine for the NY Times to publish that OPED, they had no grounds what so ever for sacking a journalist for using it too.

They didn't sack him, and the writer of the second article is black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

I'm fascinated that people are trying to say Cancel Culture doesn't exist, or are straight away altering their stance to well they said racist/transphobic things and so that's ok.

Cancel Culture doesn't exist anymore now than it did in the early 90's.  Societies view of what is acceptable has moved and as a result some TV shows no longer get shown or contain an explanation of possible issues at the start.

I was surprised to find "Carry On" films being shown on ITV earlier this year during weekend daytime.  Now I have no issue with these films but if "Cancel Culture" truly existed then there is no way they would have been shown on TV.

I am not going to comment on the journalist you refer too as I am not familiar enough with that matter.

9 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I alluded to our own Stu Peters earlier, the man very nearly lost his job at Manx Radio for saying something which didn't suit the agenda of a couple of his callers. What he said was pretty innocuous, but the situation escalated, despite him offering an on air apology if he was wrong.   

Do you not see the problem with that last sentence?  If that was indeed his stance then the apology could in no way be sincere and would merely be an act of self preservation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly if the best argument that can be provided to demonstrate that cancel culture is a problem is "people can't go round saying the n-word in public anymore" maybe it's not a very good argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, manxman1980 said:

Cancel Culture doesn't exist anymore now than it did in the early 90's.  Societies view of what is acceptable has moved and as a result some TV shows no longer get shown or contain an explanation of possible issues at the start.

I was surprised to find "Carry On" films being shown on ITV earlier this year during weekend daytime.  Now I have no issue with these films but if "Cancel Culture" truly existed then there is no way they would have been shown on TV.

I am not going to comment on the journalist you refer too as I am not familiar enough with that matter.

Do you not see the problem with that last sentence?  If that was indeed his stance then the apology could in no way be sincere and would merely be an act of self preservation.

To be honest I can't recall his exact words, it may have been an apology if he has caused offence?

6 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Did he? My recollection was there was an investigation that found no wrongdoing.

"The agenda of a couple of his callers" - it was a lot more than that, and we both know it. I'm not sure why you're trying to paint it as such. I really can't be bothered rehashing old ground, but there are plenty of articles describing why "All lives matter" is not innocuous, and why claiming that white people are no more privileged than black people is at best stupid and at worst malicious.

Ignoring the fact that it was Stu Peters and we don't want to go over all that again. The point is that it appears that there is no debate allowed, this is just one world view attempting to crush another by force, with no facts needed to back it up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Max Power said:

Ignoring the fact that it was Stu Peters and we don't want to go over all that again. The point is that it appears that there is no debate allowed, this is just one world view attempting to crush another by force, with no facts needed to back it up.

I would welcome debate on it, as would the vast majority of people on both sides.

There are plenty of facts that support the view being put over in that set of calls, so not sure the relevance of that bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Max Power said:

To be honest I can't recall his exact words, it may have been an apology if he has caused offence?

Ignoring the fact that it was Stu Peters and we don't want to go over all that again. The point is that it appears that there is no debate allowed, this is just one world view attempting to crush another by force, with no facts needed to back it up.

What do you want to debate max? Or what do you want to see being debated? I’m betting there’s a countless YouTube channels or Reddit pages I can point you towards. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HeliX said:

I would welcome debate on it, as would the vast majority of people on both sides.

There are plenty of facts that support the view being put over in that set of calls, so not sure the relevance of that bit.

I remember a lot of calls to 'educate yourself' rather than facts forthcoming? 

I don't think it's possible to have a debate on race, feelings are not facts and they seem to be the central issue, particularly when talking about 'micro aggressions'.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Max Power said:

I remember a lot of calls to 'educate yourself' rather than facts forthcoming? 

I don't think it's possible to have a debate on race, feelings are not facts and they seem to be the central issue, particularly when talking about 'micro aggressions'.   

Feelings rather than facts are the main issue in the race debate?

Really?

Do you honestly think there's a shortage of facts to support race problems in the Western world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...