I agree completely, there are now many, many instances in the US (but increasingly elsewhere too) of everyday people (not just celebs) who lose their jobs for behaviour that is both common place and commonly tolerated in many other environments. The inconsistency of the application of standards (which certainly aren’t set by lawmakers) is one of this trends biggest problems.
We have criminal and civil courts in place, with a strict burden of proof to ensure that most people’s contribution to society is positive, but more so than at any time in at least the last century (and likely far, far longer) the power of the court of public opinion is at a peak.
The glaring problem, is that those with the least value to contribute to society, tend to be the ones with the most time and space to make their voices heard:
The unemployed vs employed.
The young (who spend much more of their lives online) vs the old who have who have far more real experience. Etc.
And further, if the rise of Trump is a possible consequence of such scenarios (which I believe is a widely accepted reality) then it surely makes sense to moderate that possibility. (At least for us non Trump supporters ;-).
I suspect that a decent portion of Trump's support would be happy/would have been happy, to let him disappear into obscurity if this topic was addressed successfully.
I can’t help drawing similarities between the type of forced apologies we see from figures in the spotlight and the forced confessions of victims of the Chinese state.
When compared with statements of remorse (feigned or otherwise) made in a court of law in response to a fairly conduct trial, I know which system I prefer.
Perhaps, but in the process who will be cast upon the heap?Original Post Deleted
For example, I think it's pretty conclusive that there certain people (not looking at anyone in particular Brit) that are amongst the consistently most offensive commenters on Geo.
Whilst many of 'their' ideas maybe sound, the wrapping is exactly the type of speech that the court of public opinion loves to make an example of.
I'm a firm supporter of the Stephen Fry school of right to offend, but increasingly the court of public opinion is not.
There but for the grace of god go you.
Last edited by Sage; 14-02-2021 at 02:20 PM.
Voltaire's "I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it" does seem to be a value from a bygone era. Zooming out, I see it as a product of our era having increasingly less and less proximity to the real problems of a totalitarian government, perhaps with the end of the Cold War era where suspicion of government overreach was the name of the game.
Today with the free market clearly winning both in the realm of ideas and economics, society's ills are framed as stemming from our choices (i.e. culture) rather than the overreach of institutional power and the understanding that left to our own devices, the free market of ideas and commerce results in winners and losers. Our innate sense of justice naturally sympathises with the losers and the prima facie solution - rightly or wrongly - is that a "neutral" and "objective" moderator needs intervene to rein it in.
This will go in until the moderator naturally overextends it's role through a tendency to stifle views we don't agree with, and the pendulum swings back to seeing them as the oppressor and the pushback for the right to be offensive is valued again. The battlefield returns to a fight between institutional power (i.e. government or Silicon Valley giants censoring content) and personal freedoms as opposed to the winners and losers of a culture wars as it is more framed now. Maybe discussions like this signal an inflection point.
I do see it as just a back and forth on that spectrum though as to which side of the problem society sees as more salient.
So the great white male doesn't get to walk on water anymore and has to watch what he says...boo hoo. Funny that the ones that complain against cancel culture are often those that have issues with racism, homosexuality etc... Generally the same people don't seem to have great issues either when it comes to canceling islam...
End of the day, it can be a thin line between free speech and hate speech and I for one have no issues with people not feeling so free to make racist/homophobic/misogynist remarks in the workplace as in the "good old days". The pendulum swings and while it may swing too far on occasion, it's nothing compared to what minorities/women have endured in the past and it's long overdue.
Sure he is welcome to apologise. It doesn't need to be in the news, on twitter etc etc though. Apologise to the people concerned. The thing about this kind of posturing is that it's purpose is to preach at everyone else.
There seems to be a group of people who want to convince everyone else that they are transphobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist etc even if there is not evidence that they are.
Justin could have apologised to Britney and Janet in person - no one else needed to know. Celebrities have the need to tell everyone.
An excellent analysis, and I’m hopeful an inflection point has been reached, however I’m not sure of that.
There’s is an awful lot of the world that is still nowhere near the level of dysfunction that the US is demonstrating in this. And maybe it’ll be a problem that is most pronounced in the US, but so far the UK at least is following suit to a significant degree.
Agreed, the issue is not in anyway the need for an apology (is there one? I don’t know, nor care), it’s WHAT he is expected to apologise for (His race, sex, opportunity, privilege etc)
And the fact that it’s reported on (or is needed to be reported on) in global media.
One could perhaps argue that the BBC are doing Justin a favour by giving him a platform to express his ‘remorse’ to prevent the cancel culture brigade from further attacks. And i’d also accept arguments saying the exact opposite to be true.
I guess you’re also looking forward to the time when all non Dalit Indians are forced to apologise for the privilege that the caste system has afforded them?
Or muslim men for the continued oppression of women and religious minorities that Islam allows men to benefit from.
I do agree with one concept. If we are going to proceed with smashing traditional societal structures, at the very least we should start with the most oppressive.
Islam please step forward.
I guess you’re also looking forward to the time when all non Dalit Indians are forced to apologise for the privilege that the caste system has afforded them?
Or muslim men for the continued oppression of women and religious minorities that Islam allows men to benefit from.
I do agree with one concept. If we are going to proceed with smashing traditional societal structures, at the very least we should start with the most oppressive.