[Closed] What is ‘cancel culture’?

This is quite a good article about it -

https://unherd.com/2020/07/the-historical-narcissism-of-culture-warriors/

Its basically snowflakes searching through years of comments or quotes for something to get offended by, then demanding that the victim have their livelihood removed immediately.

As I understand it, cancel culture is bullying people whose views you disagree with, to deny them freedom of expression, rather than arguing your case against theirs.

I can understand why people don't want to give a platform to racists and promoters of genocide, but we should be able to have a genuine debate about things like, for example, the right of people to express the gender they choose versus the right of vulnerable women to be protected from predatory men.

to deny them freedom of expression,

Nope. Freedom of expression means that you won't be put in jail for spouting whatever drivel comes into your head.

It doesn't mean there won't be consequences or that a business is required by law to give you a platform.

I'm not even going to bother responding to your trans-phobic shite.

In a nutshell:

"you do not fit into my subset of values, opinions and beliefs - based on that you need to lose your job and be vilified all over the internet"

It's 2020, adult conversation and debate is dead, you must only demand everyone agree with you or else

It's quite a broad subject. There are some quite obvious recent examples - take JK Rowling. So cancel culture in that context is people clamouring to denigrate her work and prevent her from operating in the public sphere because of her views on gender.

So unless you're a public figure you probably won't directly experience being cancelled. So if you believe or engage in this your hope is that people won't say or do certain things that you disagree with.

The harm that we all suffer is that people are less likely to engage in the public sphere. So the next time a prominent public person or intellectual feels like saying something about gender / race / religion / science etc. they just won't. This is obviously useful to some but not so good for the rest of.

We can all find a space where "cancel culture" aligns with our beliefs and feels OK, but that doesn't make it right. So Laurence Fox had very little interesting to say and I couldn't really care if I never saw him work again, but you can also find religious nutters using the same approach to recreate the blasphemy laws and they can really gtf. But I would still kind of prefer he wasn't hounded for being a bit of a walloper.

It's a pattern of behaviour that lies somewhere on a scale from 'I disagree with you, here's why...' to absolute knee-jerk mob-mentality bullying that would rightly be decried if the victim was one of your own 'group'.

Some people are used to having a platform to address many people because of their own success (in what ever field), but social media in particular, and society more generally, are no longer one way, top down… if you address loads of people, of many different viewpoints, many will, can, and do, speak back. This does causes genuine problems, but can also descend into “I can say what I want, and you little people can’t challenge me”.

Everyone should read the Jon Ronson book about this - So You've Been Publically Shamed'

I don't really agree with Twitter mob justice but a lot of the moaning about cancel culture seems to be a false right wing victim complex created by over privileged people who don't like being criticised.

Hearing/reading this phrase a lot these days. Is it just the latest flavour of internet BS or is it affecting our lives in every way?

^ I read that back and it makes it sound as if internet BS could not affect our lives in every way. Big mistake! please insert ‘and/or’.

I think claiming it's a "false right wing victim complex" speak more to your owns views than the the issue at hand.

You would be as likely to be cancelled to the max for espousing the virtues of Marx as you would for claiming Schmitt was on to something. Granted you would have different twitter mobs after you, and you would be cancelled in different places but the overall effect would be similar.

I think claiming it’s a “false right wing victim complex” speak more to your owns views than the the issue at hand.

You would be as likely to be cancelled to the max for espousing the virtues of Marx as you would for claiming Schmitt was on to something. Granted you would have different twitter mobs after you, and you would be cancelled in different places but the overall effect would be similar.

Twitter mobs are available to suit all tastes, but I think the phrase "cancel culture" itself is a product of right wing attempts to demean people who want to rethink how we address prejudice in our society.

The people moaning about cancel culture are almost all on the right, IME.

Statement:

I don’t really agree with Twitter mob justice but a lot of the moaning about cancel culture seems to be a false right wing victim complex

Response:

I think claiming it’s a “false right wing victim complex” speak more to your owns views than the the issue at hand.

ISWYDT

I think that responding to a (balanced?) comment such as the first, in such a way as to make it seem like a notably biased comment...speaks more to your own views than the issue at hand?*

*Not calling you ‘notably biased’ not least because I may not have understood why you seem to have painted a (to me clearly balanced) comment as a notably ‘biased’ one? But is *seems* as if you just (inadvertently) accused someone of doing what you yourself just did?

Edit: changed ‘bigoted’ to ‘biased’

If cancel culture doesn't exist, why does the hashtag #cancel(insert name here) trend every time someone steps out of line?

Rights come with responsibility, remember rule 1. People seem to think freedom of speech gives them the right to a platform to spout hateful and ignorant nonsense regardless of the consequences. Crying cancel culture because of snowflakes then getting upset because people don't want to give support is pure arrogance, childishness, and entitlement. It's not discussion that's being shut down, it's formed bigoted opinions that are being dismissed. Words and ideas can have a wide audience and the impact can be devastating for the victims, it's not enough to just ignore it if those words haunt you daily.
Like when Danny Baker equated Harry and Megan's kid to a monkey, it was just a bit of banter but my kids (9 & 11) were called monkey and physically beaten with weapons several times in the weeks after.

I think if you're trying to paint it as a left / right issue you're missing the point.

Many of the recent examples feature people with right wing views but many do not. Many of the issues themselves are not obviously split left / right.

JK Rowling was a well known labour supporter for example.

Rights come with responsibility, remember rule 1. People seem to think freedom of speech gives them the right to a platform to spout hateful and ignorant nonsense regardless of the consequences

The problem is who gets to choose what is acceptable or not. Actually free speech does give the right for people to say what they like includeing hate speech. But the responsibility is them on others to take those opinions on head on and tackle them, expose them and win the debate. If you de platform people then these views don’t disappear. They grow and fester.

Also the people being de-platformed and cancelled are not spouting hate speech. They are just spouting views that certain elements don’t agree with and rather than tackling them head on in debate just attempt to take them out of the equation. It’s also the number 1 tactic hitler employed and all the other murderous dictators in history on their rise to power.

Like when Danny Baker equated Harry and Megan’s kid to a monkey, it was just a bit of banter but my kids (9 & 11) were called monkey and physically beaten with weapons several times in the weeks after.

That is horrendous. Where do you live if you don’t mind me asking? Just seems like something that would happen somewhere with a very rough estate in close proximity, kind of place I grew up on and where some utter contemptuous ****s take great pride in being thick as ****

We can't allow things to get to the point where nobody can open their mouth for fear of retribution or losing their job. That does not make for a good society. Views should definitely be challenged but people should not be persecuted.

We need to exhibit a small degree of 'ignore-culture'. One possibly misguided opinion does not make a persons views or contribution to society completely irrelevant.

It's just another way of people saying 'it's PC gone mad' when someone gets called out for saying offensive stuff

A lot of the people who've been 'cancelled' still seem to have a platform to spout their crap

Rights come with responsibility, remember rule 1.

Absolutely, freedom of speech is not a free ticket to a platform.

Equally, challenging a person's views needn't be a case of shutting them down. Nobody ever had their mind changed by someone attacking them, in fact you are more likely to entrench their views.

We all have a lot of growing up to do.

It’s also the number 1 tactic hitler employed and all the other murderous dictators in history on their rise to power.

This, and it worries me a great deal.

Some people spout some horrendous views, but they will gather momentum and grow if driven underground. Once those views take hold and do grow then they'll be hard to stop and there will be a backlash. The growth of the Nazi's was a prime example of a distasteful group that grew under those conditions, McCarthyism in early 1950's USA (now Trump's 'fake news' idiocy), the witch hunting years in this country is another. When to be accused equals being guilty, society is in trouble.

Debate is not perfect, but it's better than the puritanical attitudes that are on the up now.

The harm that we all suffer is that people are less likely to engage in the public sphere.

Judging by everyone's Twitter feed, the chances of that happening seem remote, if I'm honest.

Debate is not perfect, but it’s better than the puritanical attitudes that are on the up now.

It may be the echo chamber I live in, but I'm not seeing a "puritanical" attitude become more pervasive. I see idiots saying idiotic things and being called out for it, and very occasionally you see the odd difficult question being raised, and being shouted down by ignorance, but I don't think that our public discourse is being overly harmed...It's as robust, loud and obnoxious, funny, scary, trite as it's always been That both the snowflakes and the gammon complain bitterly equally loudly seems to me to be a marker that it's about balanced.

Sorry OP but your choice to bring up such a distasteful subject matter and display such ignorance, means that I have no option other than to report you to the Mods and have your account removed.

I am not prepared to debate this standpoint.

^ Well i laughed.....

We can’t allow things to get to the point where nobody can open their mouth for fear of retribution or losing their job. That does not make for a good society. Views should definitely be challenged but people should not be persecuted.

Yes but we are nowhere near this point.

Freedom of speech does not mean I need to listen to anything someone says, nor not criticise if I disagree.

If I own a megaphone and you want to borrow it because you want to spread your ideas to a bunch of people that wouldn't hear you without the megaphone, then its perfectly legitimate for me to take the megaphone back if you use it to say stuff that I disagree with. Its not your megaphone.

With a few exceptions "cancel culture" is mainly people complaining they have received criticism for spouting bollocks. They often then claim censorship on the same platform they have been "censored" on.

Someone thinking Mike Ashley is a bit of an arse and not buying stuff from his shops is personal choice.

Someone standing outside his shop and berating other people for buying stuff is cancel culture

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with someone doing either of the above, but each case has to be judged on its' own merits. And obviously, it all descends in to awful, tit-for-tat farce online where every minor offence is magnified

If you de platform people then these views don’t disappear. They grow and fester.

I’ve heard this lots. But history suggests that when people are left to spread hate speech, and given platforms by the media of the day to do so, that is when hatred towards groups is allowed to “grow and fester”, not when the media refuses to give them a platform, or seeks to correct or challenge them when they do, or ensures others are given the space to challenge them.

Someone standing outside his shop and berating other people for buying stuff is cancel culture

Would stopping someone standing outside his shop and berating other people for buying stuff also be cancel culture?

I’m thinking more and more that it’s a dubious term. It’s almost meaningless.

Mob pile ons, both on Social Media and outside people’s homes etc is a problem though, if that’s what people are referring to.

'Cancel Culture' is the over inflated ego of the internet.

In the last couple of years it seemed to stem from US universities. Basically, an invited speaker would be uninvited (cancelled) because their topic of discussion was deemed offensive to some people in the audience.

At the time the examples were somewhat iffy, more on the scale of "it's my right not to be offended, therefore you should be cancelled". Now it's been appropriated by all manner of fringe nuts to say that they should be allowed to say what they want where they want it.

IMHO, I think they should, broadly. But they should then have to defend their position and, if it breaks rules on hate speech etc, bear the full consequences of that, including criminal charges as appropriate, as per whatsit white right wing bloke who used to be called Stephen something.

That Obama clip was good, "if all you're doing is casting stones...." sums up a lot of social media..

The example of university speakers is a good one. Surely the point of academic debate is being able to engage with those you fundamentally disagree with using facts and logic to defeat their arguments?

Someone standing outside his shop and berating other people for buying stuff is cancel culture

No, that’s someone standing outside a shop and berating people for buying from said shop. It’s not a ‘culture’ unless it can be shown standing outside of shops berating shoppers is somehow common enough and widespread enough to be considered a ‘culture’. Such would then surely be described as ‘shaming culture’ (or ‘berating culture’ to be more accurate)?

The problem is who gets to choose what is acceptable or not. Actually free speech does give the right for people to say what they like includeing hate speech. But the responsibility is them on others to take those opinions on head on and tackle them, expose them and win the debate. If you de platform people then these views don’t disappear. They grow and fester.

agree

Also the people being de-platformed and cancelled are not spouting hate speech.

Perhaps examples would be useful?

They are just spouting views that certain elements don’t agree with and rather than tackling them head on in debate just attempt to take them out of the equation.

Again, examples would be better here.

It’s also the number 1 tactic hitler employed and all the other murderous dictators in history on their rise to power.

Godwin‘s invoked, and we’re still on page 1!

It's a manifestation of identity politics hence resorting straight to the ad hominem with the latest acronym to bully someone. It's not a clear left-right continuum, witness that debate about trans, it was Germaine Greer who got shot down even though her book was a major contribution to feminist thinking.

I don't really see this as a left/right thing (although both sides will jump on the wagon when it suits them), but there is a class element at play.
There's always been a certain aspect of the middle class in western cultures establishing itself as the arbiter of how people should conduct themselves.
Be it Tipper Gore or Mary Whitehouse trying to control what the kids are listening to/watching or Jamie Oliver meddling in school dinners, there's a feeling this particular group just know better than the rest of us and have the God given right to tell us how to behave.
I think a lot of the current debate online about what can/can't be said stinks of this same borgeios impulse to try and Police the oiks.
It seems driven by the following logic, "if famous or influential people are allowed a platform to say stuff we don't like, all them scrotes following said people might all start saying stuff we don't like, so we need to control the platforms".

It’s not a clear left-right continuum,

Maybe not in them there high-falutin’ blogs or broadsheets written with edumacation as a consideration, etc...but in popular culture/the internets/social media - that boat sailed long ago

The Left = ‘cancel culture snowflakes, something something vaginas’

The Right = ‘freedom culture warriors, something something testicles’

^ Is broadly where we are at. A very (fiscally) profitable and hugely influential social-media business model has grown out of pushing this narrative, namely the ‘anti-SJW’ meme that became manifold talking heads ‘DESTROYING’ ‘The Left’.

Funkmasterp, I live in a predominantly middle class village in East Lothian, Scotland. Overt and violent racism has happened on multiple occasions, the police have been involved each time and we've had one prosecution for a hate crime. These instances flare up when racism is the media, like Danny Bakers monkey reference or if something has happened to someone in the media like Yaxley-Lennon or even Neil Oliver.
Similar has happened to people following what JK has said about transgender people. She's not been cancelled for asking questions or promoting discussion, it's her opinions which are denying other peoples identity that have been a problem and had real consequences for some.
There's a bit of a paradox appearing on the thread with some posters comparing my opinions to Nazism and me to Hitler in an attempt at silencing opinion that counters theirs and preventing discussion. I have in effect previously been cancelled myself for challenging bigoted banter over the internet, because the right to freedom of speech is greater than the responsibility not to promote hate. This is quite a common technique to win the freedom of speech argument and to be able to say what they want without without any responsibility or affording the right to reply. I've never actually reported anyone for the opinions or views expressed, even when I've been personally attacked and I have generally responded considerately, or at least in tone with the conversation.

The example of university speakers is a good one. Surely the point of academic debate is being able to engage with those you fundamentally disagree with using facts and logic to defeat their arguments?

In an ideal world i agree with you, but the problem is differentiating between events set up to allow for debate and events that are/were providing a pulpit for the speaker to pontificate their views. We've all seen enough politicians not answering the question presented to them and giving a tangentally related soundbite instead. I've seen that in Q&A's after academic presentations too.
Even events that are constituted around debate, e.g. the oxford union, result in soundbites and video clips of a guest speaker such as Farage making the rounds, and not the opposing argument delivered by the non-famous person.

To me there are two outcomes of cancel culture:

The loud mouthed idiots carry on regardless because to them any attention is good.

The only way you can argue or express an opinion and maintain ’the moral high ground’ is to define yourself as a victim. Victim groups become more and more tightly defined and smaller and smaller so anyone with power doesn’t have to listen and it becomes harder and harder to talk constructively to anyone outside that group (the feminism v trans argument is a case in point).

The outcome is that the people who really are doing us over don’t have to bother about divide and rule because we’ve saved them the job

It's when people protest against actual meaningful racism, and then some bellend takes down an episode of the Golden Girls for no reason, which nobody had asked for, and then other bellends say CANCEL CULTURE! ZOMG SNOWFLAKES! and carrying on being racist.

Re "deplatforming", the term itself is misleading and that's no coincidence because the people complaining about it, want you to think they have a right to the platform. You are entitled to free speech, you're not entitled to use someone else's platform to do it. Not being allowed on someone else's isn't "deplatforming", it's just nothing happening at all, it was never yours to be de'd it. If you were invited then deinvited, that's how being invited works sometimes, if you get invited to a party then the person remembers that time you shat in the laundry basket and uninvites you, your human rights are not being infringed.

Sometimes, you can give someone the platform and use it to show an arsehole up. But that's not easy to do and it's a stacked deck. Other times, you can have a genuine valuable debate and have the arguments stand and fall on their merits, which also is a positive thing, but that's less and less common- debates these days are so much about rhetoric tricks, ignoring the question, and lying, and generally winning with your loud voice and strong simple bullshit. And the sort of person that doesn't get invited, is more likely than not to be the sort of person that will shit on the board then walk around like they've won.

University debates are a perfect example of when it's often not a good idea. You get some 20 year old kid- the university's elected president, often, or their LGBTQ officer, or the head of a society- full of ideas and optimism, booked to go up against some professional beligerant like Jordan Peterson or Germaine Greer with years of experience in hostile "debates" and in making people look stupid in public while gaining publicity. Why is that a good idea? It doesn't lead to a good or productive debate.

The example of university speakers is a good one. Surely the point of academic debate is being able to engage with those you fundamentally disagree with using facts and logic to defeat their arguments?

Problem is debate style has moved on, in the old days if you were asked a question you answered it, then someone realised this was completely unnecessary and being asked a question is just an opportunity to repeat the same spiel. Politicians started this, ignore the Q, just say the party line and everyone has copied it since.

Problem is debate style has moved on, in the old days if you were asked a question you answered it, then someone realised this was completely unnecessary and being asked a question is just an opportunity to repeat the same spiel. Politicians started this, ignore the Q, just say the party line and everyone has copied it since.

+1 I agree it’s a problem.

A debate

noun: debate; plural noun: debates
a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.

An imperfect (or perfect?) example of this was the Christopher Biggins vs Carlton Reid debate hosted by Alan Titchmarsh. Opposing arguments were put forward. It ended with an audience vote. Can’t remember if they voted to cancel cyclists or to keep cyclists. I think keep. I’d post a link to the video clip but looks like it’s gone #suspicious #morecancelculture

*Edit - ah here it is:

#canyoucancelmylastcancelcultureclaim
#popularfacts

Quote: Me:

"debates these days are so much about rhetoric tricks, ignoring the question, and lying, and generally winning with your loud voice and strong simple bullshit."

Actually I fell into a trap here of thinking it's new, really it's no such thing. Cicero gets called the greatest orator and he would use literally any trick he could to win a debate. And his rival Hortensius was nicknamed the dancer because his footwork and body movement was considered his strongest tool in a debate. Debates have always been bullshit.

We can’t allow things to get to the point where nobody can open their mouth for fear of retribution or losing their job.

I could open my mouth and never have any fear of retribution or losing my job. Mainly become bigoted shit wouldn't come out of my mouth...

I could open my mouth and never have any fear of retribution or losing my job. Mainly become bigoted shit wouldn’t come out of my mouth…

Ah...

https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/is-the-term-jungle-drums-racist/

Someone standing outside his shop and berating other people for buying stuff is cancel culture

Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with someone doing either of the above, but each case has to be judged on its’ own merits. And obviously, it all descends in to awful, tit-for-tat farce online where every minor offence is magnified

I would. I want to go about my business in a pleasant environment and not be hassled by fools with a megaphone spouting their views whether I want to hear them or not or agree with them or not.

it’s her opinions which are denying other peoples identity that have been a problem and had real consequences for some.

See here’s where I stop being able to follow the argument. I read what Rowling said, and I cannot find anything that ‘denies other people’s existence’. Could you point me to the bit that says this?

People disagreed with Rowling - that’s fine, I’m no fan of her myself. But why did they send thousands of hate messages to her? They were far, far worse than anything she said.

I've never heard of this concept before this thread and I'm not sure I'm any nearer but,

Surely the point of academic debate is being able to engage with those you fundamentally disagree with using facts and logic to defeat their arguments?

"We won you lost shut up and get on with it." Is this the sort of thing you're on about? Facts worked well there.

Easily, sorry I chose the wrong phrase. I was attempting to make a reference to acceptance of the transgender community and did so badly.

We can’t allow things to get to the point where nobody can open their mouth for fear of retribution or losing their job. That does not make for a good society. Views should definitely be challenged but people should not be persecuted.

Welcome to Scotland 2021.

Even events that are constituted around debate, e.g. the oxford union, result in soundbites and video clips of a guest speaker such as Farage making the rounds, and not the opposing argument delivered by the non-famous person.

Which brings me to another pet hate, edited footage that either side of an argument can use to further their own agenda. Imagine presenting a scientific paper where your study results were carefully curated and all the duff results filtered out? Context is king and this is why I hate these witch hunts often centred around a collection of patchy facts with only the context of how they are presented to go on.

“We won you lost shut up and get on with it.” Is this the sort of thing you’re on about? Facts worked well there.

No, because of exactly what I'm complaining about. It's all about who can shout louder and the sooner people (as a whole) understand this and demand proper answers the better.

Welcome to Scotland [s] 2021[/s] 2014.

FTFY, the rot set in long ago.

if you get invited to a party then the person remembers that time you shat in the laundry basket and uninvites you,

Are you still banging that drum?

The removal of Waterhouse's 'Sylas and the Nymphs' in the MAG was a case in point. All sorts of puritanical uninformed ordure was spouted against this painting whilst all sorts of crap (and offensive?) video art and posters were being celebrated (that happened to be by a black woman). It was a PR disaster for the gallery. I then found out that the Waterhouse painting was removed because it was the easiest one to get off the wall. I laughed, a lot.

uninformed ordure was spouted against this painting

I'll bite, Hylas (not Sylas) is a popular figure in 19thC art, as you can get boobies into your pictures and get away with it as it's Greek Myth, innit.

Imagine presenting a scientific paper where your study results were carefully curated and all the duff results filtered out?

unfortunately that happens far too often. To understand the position and results you now have to  check who has funded the research. There have been many examples especially in pharmaceuticals where academics are funded to give the correct answer

Ah…

https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/is-the-term-jungle-drums-racist//blockquote >

Sorry, not getting it. Are you saying that I made an ignorant comment about jungle drums and then lost my job? I didn't by the way, just to put things straight.

My point was, I wouldn't put bigoted crap out there in the public because I don't have bigoted crap opinions.

 

Yep Nick, boobies do need to be seen in context. The Pre-Raphs and 2nd wave, in my view, had many progressive attitudes towards women and inequality. I imagine the Sally Army and Mary Whitehouse would agree with much of what these protesters were objecting to.

The removal of Waterhouse’s ‘Sylas and the Nymphs’ in the MAG was a case in point. All sorts of puritanical uninformed ordure was spouted against this painting whilst all sorts of crap (and offensive?) video art and posters were being celebrated (that happened to be by a black woman). It was a PR disaster for the gallery. I then found out that the Waterhouse painting was removed because it was the easiest one to get off the wall. I laughed, a lot.

Interesting. Let’s put this to the test. Firstly, do you have a link to help verify your account of the story?

https://twitter.com/beccalew/status/1289230809157648385?s=19

The link was talking to the workers at the gallery, some of whom were equally bemused and/or irritated. Sonya Boyce's work is still there in part (the gallery bought it) and some was on loan the Oldham gallery. She wrote in the Guardian to account for her actions. What exactly are you testing?

What exactly are you testing?

I’m testing for narrative trends/personal bias/context-insertion, conspiracy etc etc.

ie if your account is factual and it runs counter to the MAG statements, then the Gallery’s and Sonia Boyce’s accounts are called into question, and of course vice-versa.

Equally, challenging a person’s views needn’t be a case of shutting them down. Nobody ever had their mind changed by someone attacking them, in fact you are more likely to entrench their views.

Much much worse than that...
It creates a divisive society and actually pushes people into the internet ghetto's of extreme views.

Yep Nick, boobies do need to be seen in context

Well, if you view this particular painting in the "context" of all of Waterhouses' output, then  Nymphs is probably "peak booby"

For criticism (as opposed to context)  look at Le Dejeuner sur l'herbe and try to figure out what Manet was trying to point out about some of his contemporaries paintings...

I happened to be visiting the gallery and archives for 3.5 years studying an artist. Incidentally, Francis Derwent Wood's sculpture of a naked woman in the same room also had to go under the guise of Greek mythology but is a brilliant, vibrant and confident celebration of female independence.
Bias about Boyce? Creating endless posters of black stars of the stage, screen and sports field, do not, in my view, present good role models for the young. It's an invitation to drop out, 'I don't need to know about this if I'm going to be a model'. Why not teachers, doctors and lawyers? Videos that seem to suggest that football supporters are all drunk and sing racist songs blaring out in a room of Victorian art is a kind of cancel culture. As much as anything else, it's all a bit crude.

@kerley:

Sorry, not getting it. Are you saying that I made an ignorant comment about jungle drums and then lost my job? I didn’t by the way, just to put things straight.

I assumed (wrongly?) you were using the royal ‘I’ , ie your positing:

I (one) could open my (one’s) mouth and never have any fear of retribution or losing (one’s) job. Mainly become bigoted shit wouldn’t come out of (one’s) mouth…

In short, what I got from your above statement was ‘if one doesn’t spout bigoted shit then one’s job is safe’

The link I gave was an example of how things sometimes aren’t that simple.

Bias about Boyce?

Either way, about/from, etc. ie vice-versa. I’m trying to determine the veracity or otherwise of two seemingly conflicting accounts of what happened with the painting.

1. Is your account
2. Is the MAG account

Again:

ie if your account is factual and it runs counter to the MAG statements, then the Gallery’s and Sonia Boyce’s accounts are called into question, and of course vice-versa.

The Gallery account is:

https://manchesterartgallery.org/news/presenting-the-female-body-challenging-a-victorian-fantasy/

Following a fantastic response to its seven day absence – both at the gallery itself and on-line – Waterhouse’s masterpiece Hylas and the Nymphs returned to public display at Manchester Art Gallery over the weekend.

The painting – part of the gallery’s highly prized collection of Pre-Raphaelite works – was temporarily removed from display as part of a project the gallery is working on with the artist Sonia Boyce, in the build-up to a solo exhibition of her work at the gallery opening on 23 March 2018. Boyce’s work is all about bringing people together in different situations to see what happens. The painting’s short term removal from public view was the result of a ‘take-over’ of some of the gallery’s public spaces by a wide range of gallery users and artists on Friday January 26th.

The event was conceived by Boyce to bring different meanings and interpretations of paintings from the gallery’s collection into focus, and into life. The evening included a series of performances, all filmed by Boyce’s team, addressing issues of race, gender, and sexuality, culminating in the careful, temporary removal of the Waterhouse painting.

(my bold)

kerley

Sorry, not getting it. Are you saying that I made an ignorant comment about jungle drums and then lost my job? I didn’t by the way, just to put things straight.

My point was, I wouldn’t put bigoted crap out there in the public because I don’t have bigoted crap opinions.

That's your opinion... based on today.
However you don't know what will be the judgement in the future and if for example "jungle drums" or even something just taken out of context will RETROSPECTIVELY be put into a judgement box that might come back and haunt you in 10yrs.

I’ll bite, Hylas (not Sylas) is a popular figure in 19thC art, as you can get boobies into your pictures and get away with it as it’s Greek Myth, innit.

I was banned from Flickr at one point for a photo of the Capital Building in Rome. The picture was the whole building but if you zoom in far enough my god.. those statues have male genitals.

It was Man city council who asked for it to be returned to the wall after lots of complaints. The original idea was that Boyce's video would blare out in that gallery. A compromise was reached where headphones were used. They were then removed under the claim they were being damaged so the video quietly blared into the gallery. No such nonsense is found in the collections in Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle or Tate Britain.

That’s your opinion… based on today.
However you don’t know what will be the judgement in the future and if for example “jungle drums” or even something just taken out of context will RETROSPECTIVELY be put into a judgement box that might come back and haunt you in 10yrs.

Is all this just about a term that someone used 10 years ago or is it because of bigoted opinions that have been put out into the public via social media?

The funny thing is one of the only people that has been properly - and rightfully - "cancelled" is David Starkey thanks to his massive racist self own courtesy of arch bootlicker Darren Grimes.

How I laughed.

Yep, Manet makes a good point but they were not uniform in their attitudes. Some did objectify women (Rossetti in my view) others celebrated powerful and beautiful women (Holman-Hunt, Burne-Jones). This movement had a major impact on art (and politics) and to edit out is juvenile vandalism.

I cant see how removing Waterhouse from the MAG was a PR disaster, it got tons of media coverage and really opened up a discussion.

Art thrives from controversy, faux or otherwise. Think about the Turner Prize, it's whole purpose was to enrage the press and get art into the mainstream, thus increasing the interest and overall market for art and Culture. Art needs people like BillMC with their outrage and uses people like him to get more exposure and expand debate. Keep up the good work Bill.

As Faerie points out, many peoples views have always been cancelled. The hysteria shown when a painting is temporarily removed from a wall, (a temporary cancelling in effect) should give people like Bill a chance to reflect on how certain views have been continuously repressed.

The choice is yours Bill, reflect or rage, do both if you like but you can't deny you've been engaged.

Spawnofyorkshire,

That's a really good point about events like the Oxford Union debates. Traditionally events like this have been about the act of debating itself more than the subject under debate, en exercise in debating skills, sophistry in its purest form.

With the advent of Youtube and social media the content has become weaponised in a way it hadn't been previously. It's a problem, and one that the organisers of such events have not got their heads around yet. They might be clever people at Oxford (though our current Cabinet are doing their best to lay waste to that claim) but they can't see that they're part of the problem and that such debates have become both anachronistic and dangerous.

Some did objectify women (Rossetti in my view)

I don't see how you cannot see Waterhouse's paintings in any other light other than objectification if you hold that view of Rossetti TBH.

You don't encourage an interest in the arts by banning and removing, we need to increase accessibility both to the buildings and the art itself*. When people were debating in that gallery, I was astonished by how strident and yet uninformed some of these people were. I guess if all you're doing is looking for a label to attach and the world is very back and white, you don't have to think for very long.
There is a world of difference between the motivations and outcomes of Rossetti and Waterhouse but I never look at either for very long. That's not to say they should be removed. Once you start down the 'banning to stimulate discussion' you are inviting in censorious actions from religious and cultural conservatives as with the Satanic Verses. That offends me! Ban the philistines!
*hence my little Youtube on FM Brown

You don’t encourage an interest in the arts by banning and removing

Agreed, but the Waterhouse piece was banned, and it's removal was as a piece of art.

I guess if all you’re doing is looking for a label to attach

The Pre-Raphs and 2nd wave...These are your words, and if you don't mind me saying this, "Schools of art" are designed solely as a barrier by people in the Art World to discourage people to take an interest in art, as they perpetuate a myth of "importance and scholarship". Waterhouse is a Victorian painter who painted young women in various states of undress; so that uptight men (and it's always men) could look at their tits and call it art.

Once you start down the ‘banning to stimulate discussion’

I'd happily remove Waterhouse from most galleries TBH,  as he's a bit shit and there's only space for so many "swooning young busty ladies, who just happen to have forgotten to get dressed this morning" on display everywhere...  (OK, he's quite accomplished technically), but TBH, there's nothing of worth in his "art" It's just old...

I'd rather go to see the work of someone who was merely technically accomplished - Even if it's of busty ladies, Even if it's old - than the work of someone who thinks that removing a painting is 'art'.