Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?

[Rately]

A female creator I was following suddenly started saying it wasn't cool to send her rape threats or say that you hope the breast cancer kills her. 

As for Jim Davidson, I'm not sure he has ever been anything other than "outdated, s**** and as such largely ignored" ... Granted he's had a big following amongst certain sections of the army but considering that the intellectual calibre of those sections is slightly smaller than that of their weaponry that really isn't saying much.

It might be worth noting that Jim Davidson won New Faces - the Britain's Got Talent of its day - with an act about his black mate, 'Chalky'. He was absolutely 100% mainstream in the late 70s/early 80s. Even in the 90s he was presenting Big Break and The Generation Game as one of the BBCs highest paid stars. This translated to bums-on-seats at his annual season-long residency at the theatre in Great Yarmouth. His live show was famously racist and sexist (and he had a reputation for being very 'hands on' with the dancers, and as being a surly drunk in the bar after the show). You couldn't help but feel that the BBC (and by extension, the establishment) was endorsing him.

I grew up with him hosting Big Break, so had no idea what an arse he was till many years later. From what I've seen and read over the last few years, i think we can certify him as a gammony gammon.

[repoman]

...  It is difficult because a discussion can't really be had...

I think the ten pages and premise of this thread say otherwise.

It isn't like anyone is changing their mind though and there's a lot of passive aggressiveness.  It's not really a good discussion.  It never is though.

[Tiplodocus]

I think I've read a few things in this discussion that have helped clarify areas of confusion for me and convinced me what the correct course of action should be. So it has helped me.

[IndigoPrime]

To clarify, my point earlier was in response to the notion mediums HAVE to pander to 'SJW' views. Aside from SJW in itself being language weaponised by angry white men, no medium HAS to do anything—decisions made are choices primarily driven by popular demand and occasionally by moral reasoning. What people are mistaking for cancellation is instead decision making based on a direction of travel away from racism and jokes about shitty things to inclusivity. That doesn't stop people doing shows or routines on those things—it just reduces their opportunities for mainstream release.

And ultimately, THAT is what all this comes down to. When we see right-wingers whining about no longer having free speech, they're actually using their free speech to whine. What they really mean is they should be able to say or do whatever they like without consequence and criticism and also that people should have to listen to them at least equally to everyone else. This line of thinking extends to people like Davidson, who blames 'SJWs' for taking away his opportunities when he not only decided to avoid realigning his act with changing tastes, but then made it more counter. That gives him a hardline core that works for smaller clubs, but means he won't be on the BBC. Too bad.

As for changing minds, why would we? My little girl is growing up in a world where most media—including children's books and shows—is still heavily geared towards boys and where toys and activities are increasingly carved out by gender. Moves towards inclusivity are welcomed by me, because I want her to have choice and opportunity. And also, when she reads a comic, why shouldn't she have people like her in them? I so often hear that "well, the thing is, girls will read about boys but boys just won't read about girls". Why? That is a failure of society that needs addressing—that notion men are more important and women are weak/background/to be readily dismissed in swathes of culture.

So, yeah, I'm not going to cry for Jim Davidson not getting a prime time telly spot and I'm going to cheer that The Beano now has a few extra female characters. The isn't woke. This is being happy about a step in the direction of more inclusivity and less hate, but all mediums are still a long, long way from anything that would be considered remotely representative.

[Tjm86]

It isn't like anyone is changing their mind though and there's a lot of passive aggressiveness.  It's not really a good discussion.  It never is though.

There's a fair point here.  Possibly one of the reasons for the 'passive aggression' is that there are so many presumptions bundled up in a lot of the debate.

So one of my personal concerns around the BLM events of the summer is that it generated some discomfort around the idea of 'white privelage'.  To me it felt like there was a generalisation that if you are white, male and middle aged then you have better chances.  Now I would agree with this to a certain extent.  Compared to the sort of prejudice experienced by a lot of other social groups this is probably accurate.

What I would also argue though is that this is not a universal truth.  Social, educational, health, wealth and plenty of other inequalities apply just as easily to white men.  Ethnic minority individuals can display racial prejudice just as easily as well.  Yet there are times when such arguments can be shouted down incredibly aggressively.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that the level of prejudice experienced by every group is taken to the same extreme.  If you are white and male you still stand a far better chance far often than other ethnic groups, even if you don't share the 'privileged' characteristics of the most successful groups.  Rather I would suggest that it might be worth considering why some have difficulties with this discussion.

As for the changing of minds, this is not a quick process at the best of times.  Lasting change is not superficial, it takes time.  Is it a 'good' discussion to be had?  I would say yes precisely because of the 'passive aggression'.  Thoughts need to be aired, recognised, analysed and challenged.  If my thinking is unpalatable and inappropriate then it needs to be corrected.  If it isn't exposed then that is not going to happen.

At the moment we are stuck in echo chambers far too much.  Even here there is an extent to which that is true.  What I personally have always found helpful though is that in addition to the membership actually being from a fairly broad church there is also a high degree of tolerance for diversity of opinion.  We might tackle ideas passionately but ideas are aired.

Ten pages in this is still a fairly respectful and tolerant discussion.  That is surely a good thing, no?

[Modern Panther]

Thought Police: Are we allowed to query people who query "woke"?

[TordelBack]

Tjm makes a great point. So much of the 'all lives matter' and anti-feminism nonsense I see online,  and even in talking to real people, comes down to misunderstanding that 'white/male privilege' does not mean that you personally, random white male, are having an easy ride through life. And people expressing this mistaken belief are often aggressively shouted down, which can only harden their views. I know why, I do it myself, but it isn't helping change hearts and minds.

If there was any effective way of getting that across, that people all over are being shat on by a broken world order, and that addressing racism, sexism, gender-criticism, are just individual (if enormous) dimensions of the change that's needed...

[IndigoPrime]

So one of my personal concerns around the BLM events of the summer is that it generated some discomfort around the idea of 'white privelage'.  To me it felt like there was a generalisation that if you are white, male and middle aged then you have better chances.

Well, in some senses you literally do. For a start, in the USA, where this all originated, you are significantly less likely to be shot and killed by the police. (Similarly, in the UK, black people are far more likely to be stopped and searched.) Does that mean there aren't poor and destitute white people with poor prospects? Of course not. But when you align 'equivalent' people at every level of society, white men are almost always going to be out in front at that level, in front of women and those of a BAME background.

Much of the pushback against BLM and similar movements is white people not wishing to lose their privilege, and very often wealthy white men doing what they always do and setting everyone else against each other. Heck, look at that in the UK. Rich white arseholes are laughing all the way to the bank because the managed to create a vicious culture war from a subject that barely anyone remotely cared about ten years ago (the EU).

[TordelBack]

This is all fine and absolutely true, but does not make sense to the individual that is experiencing hardship.  It puts me in mind of my Dad trying to address my depression by telling me to cheer up because other people have it much worse. Well-meaning,  factually correct, but having the opposite effect to that intended.

'Easier in aggregate' does not mean 'easy for you'.

There has to be a way of engaging everyone in the bottom 90% of society in a desire for change.

[IndigoPrime]

And that's the problem. It seems absurdly easy for the ruling class to pit everyone against each other, every single time.

[Rately]

This is all fine and absolutely true, but does not make sense to the individual that is experiencing hardship.  It puts me in mind of my Dad trying to address my depression by telling me to cheer up because other people have it much worse. Well-meaning,  factually correct, but having the opposite effect to that intended.

'Easier in aggregate' does not mean 'easy for you'.

There has to be a way of engaging everyone in the bottom 90% of society in a desire for change.

To my eternal shame, i have been guilty of having said this to people in my life. Out of anger, out of exasperation. Whatever, it shouldn't have been said. A lot more could be learned by just listening to the person, and realising that a trite comment won't solve anything.

[The Legendary Shark]

And that's the problem. It seems absurdly easy for the ruling class to pit everyone against each other, every single time.

Exactly. Divide and rule. Simples.

They're running out of tricks, though. At first rulers claimed to be gods, then claimed to be chosen by God, then claimed to be natural rulers chosen by genetics, then natural rulers chosen by everyone else. The fact is that rulers have always believed themselves to be superior to the ruled and, far worse, the ruled have always believed themselves to be inferior to the rulers.

To keep us all from questioning our "responsibility to be ruled," we are given many movements and organisations to choose from; everything from Labour or Conservative to BLM or KKK. Some divisions, such as the political parties, are provided from above while grass-roots movements are infiltrated and hijacked, or simply sabotaged, when they start to get popular. The overwhelming majority of movements proceed from the selfsame flawed premise - that You cannot be trusted to understand, think, or act properly, and that You need to be ruled.

You can and you don't.

[repoman]

There can be a degree of meanness and hypocrisy these days from the slightly further left.  For example it seems to be acceptable to post 'all men are trash' (along with the whole 'not all men' thing) or to use 'white' in a negative way.  Does it bother me that much or ruin my day?  Nope, of course not but I can notice the hypocrisy of it.  I wouldn't call it out because at that point you're triggered gammon which for me is something you'd attribute more to dickhead EDL supporters going on about Tommy Robinson or some nonsense.

It's not really the message that's the problem.  I don't hugely disagree with Indy P and, of course, I hope that girls do have every opportunity to do and be whatever they want.  But sometimes it's the way it is said.

I mean I voted to stay in Europe and I wouldn't ever vote Tory but I did see a lot of 'if you vote Leave you're a c**t' stuff leading up to the vote.  That's just not helpful.  In the same way that someone might say that Joe Rogan (for example) is a Nazi.  It's the extremeness of it that doesn't help.  I mean I'm not a Joe Rogan fan but given that my grandfather was forced to dig his own grave and was executed by Nazi soldiers, it's a bit inappropriate just because he might have interviewed some people who have views that are towards the right.

Thought Police: Are we allowed to query people who query "woke"?

I know it's a throwaway comment so forgive me for picking up on it but this isn't unexpected.  In the same way that the further left might use snowflake and triggered which were words often directed at them, it's easy to take some of the concerns directed at "the thought police" and reflect them right back.  It does seem to be par for the course.

The thing is, I consider myself to be on the left but if you really try to debate these things you end up being put in the same camp as white power transphobe skinhead types where instead you just want to note that the balance isn't quite right.  So it's easier to say nothing.  Indeed this is probably the first time I've had a discussion about this and it's not been a ton of fun.  Nothing too serious or whatever but it's definitely more fun talking about TV and film stuff!

[Professor Bear]

It might be worth noting that Jim Davidson won New Faces - the Britain's Got Talent of its day - with an act about his black mate, 'Chalky'. He was absolutely 100% mainstream in the late 70s/early 80s. Even in the 90s he was presenting Big Break and The Generation Game as one of the BBCs highest paid stars. This translated to bums-on-seats at his annual season-long residency at the theatre in Great Yarmouth. His live show was famously racist and sexist (and he had a reputation for being very 'hands on' with the dancers, and as being a surly drunk in the bar after the show). You couldn't help but feel that the BBC (and by extension, the establishment) was endorsing him.

I grew up with him hosting Big Break, so had no idea what an arse he was till many years later. From what I've seen and read over the last few years, i think we can certify him as a gammony gammon.

This seems to have been my experience with Davidson, too, though I honestly don't hate or despise him like others do, because unlike more contemporary comedians like David Baddiel, Davidson is clearly aware that his act has dated and that he's badly-behaved, while Baddiel flat-out refused to even acknowledge his routines featuring blackface and mental health slurs - social media users spamming him with photographic and video evidence have obviously made that impossible these days, but even now he just dismisses it as "a shutdown tactic" to ask him if he thinks blackface is wrong.

there's a lot of passive aggressiveness.

To be honest, comments like this just make it seem like you're actively looking for a reason to be offended.  BDUM TSSH etc.

[IndigoPrime]

it seems to be acceptable to post 'all men are trash'

The problem is that this kind of phrase very often tends to be used and amplified by white men. The attempt is to weaponise such phrases and normalise the claim that raging feminists hate all men and think all men are awful. Feminism at its core is literally about equality. The majority of those against it don't like that because they don't want to lose their built-in advantage. (Or, heaven forbid, boys actually start reading about or watching shows with girls some of the time. Hell, look at the massive shitstorm that happened with Star Wars when they cast four leads, one being a woman and one being black. How will we ever survive now only half of the series leads are white men?)

I did see a lot of 'if you vote Leave you're a c**t' stuff leading up to the vote.  That's just not helpful

I agree entirely, and that continues to this day. Remain lost because positive arguments were never made. Also, although I am reluctant to delve too heavily into the "we must listen to massive racists who want the foreigners out" narrative, people do need to understand the imbalance that exists in this country, which has resulted in nine of the ten most deprived areas in north Europe being in the UK. Natch, the problem is systematic lack of investment from central government, but politicians of all stripes don't like to talk about that, because it points to their failures. (On Labour's side, efforts were at least made; on the Tory side, they couldn't give a fuck about such regions and people—they're just useful to indoctrinate and weaponise.)

Indeed this is probably the first time I've had a discussion about this and it's not been a ton of fun.  Nothing too serious or whatever but it's definitely more fun talking about TV and film stuff!

Well, serious discussions are serious discussions, and that leads to heat. As an admin, I've been keeping a close eye on this thread, and it to my mind has seemed broadly constructive. And you're right in that there are issues of imbalance across the board, which have since been brought up within the discussion.

I think ultimately that we all need to be a bit careful. It's too easy to argue that media 'has' to pander to specific values, where in reality it's moving to where the puck is; similarly, we must remember that imbalance and injustice can and does happen to every area within society and do whatever we can to address and fix that. Telling unhappy white working class men they're all fucking idiots for voting leave or fighting for their own happiness won't help that. But we do as a country need to radically improve general education regarding the ramifications of decisions that are made, and also more heavily understand across the board the great imbalance in society as a whole.