I think you've been VERY charitable to both Norton and Bragg in your choice of photographs given that they both look characters from Lord of the Rings these days!
Freddie Deboer (my favourite US substacker) just did a locked piece on Norton.
Reproducing below, don't tell him. Maybe subscribe to him so I'm doing him a favour ;)
British media personality Graham Norton becomes the latest to act as though calling it “accountability culture” amounts to a cheat code when debating cancel culture. Hey Graham: different people disagree about what constitutes accountability! They disagree about what people should be held accountable for, and what an appropriate punishment might be for it. There are profound differences between what different people mean when they speak about accountability. Therefore to call cancel culture “accountability culture” is simply to beg the question, to assume the conclusion that you’re arguing. It’s just a dodge.
I’m sorry to state the obvious, but this is a common maneuver among people who prefer a more vituperative, less forgiving social culture, to simply change the nomenclature in a way that suggests that the very issues of debate are already settled. You might as well call it Good Goodies Culture by People Doing Good. In both cases you’re simply assuming away the actual debatable content and then suggesting that your opponents adopt your frame.
The central trouble here is assuming that you can debate a topic as big as this completely in the abstract and from 10,000 feet. But “cancel culture” is not an overarching issue but a series of individual incidents, the contours of each we must explore specifically and individually. Everyone has some things that they think should be taboo and meet with social censure, and everyone has some things they think should be permissible and not be met with social censure. The question is, which is which, and what type of censure? You might say that a Democratic party analyst who posted an academic article about riots and accurately quoted its contents deserved to be fired, or you might not. You might say that a professor being suspended from a class for accurately pronouncing a Chinese word is accountability, or you might not. You might say that a university (the biggest and most influential institution in its community) calling a bakery racist for justifiably accusing some of its students of shoplifting is justified, or you might not. Reasonable people can disagree. But all of the cancel culture discourse is simply the aggregate of opinions about discrete incidents like those. Whatever tapestry either side weaves together can only be as strong as the conviction about its individual threads.
Of course, Norton knew what he was doing - he was activating one side of the culture war in a way certain to earn plaudits, not offering a path out of that culture war. Because you can’t settle questions by choosing terminology that assumes the correctness of one side.
Spot on, as usual. Those of us who remember the Life Of Brian "debate" on tv many years ago will enjoy a chuckle at this. BB as Muggeridge and Norton as the deranged and ignorant Bishop is inspired.
That is worrying - very much so - but is entirely expected. Kids start school well before the vast majority own a phone and have access to social media. It's always best to start indoctrination at an early age so what better to do than capture the largest teaching union and ensure that dissenters' voices cannot be heard? What better use of members' funds can there be?
'Trans history'? Likely to be extraordinarily brief, given that about 8 or 9 years ago most people's understanding would have been that 'trans' referred eirher to the very small transvestite population or to the tiny, and usually very shy and unassuming, group of adults who had had surgery. Up until recently photos of Pride gatherings show only the rainbow flag and were celebrations of LGB folk. The pronoun unicorn game is even more recent. It's just a recent trend, utterly unrelated to science and common sense, that's been made into a cult. The equivalent of many people in the eighties believing that Walkmans gave you superpowers or skills of levitation. Things like that didn't take off because there was no internet. It's simple. The history of trans is that it didn't exist. People have been experimenting with sexuality and with clothes and gender roles since time immemorial. But 'trans' in the beard with pink hair sense? I've got shoes with a more comprehensive history.
'Trans history', like the addition of the T and Q and + and everything else onto the term LGB, is a short and brutal piggyback and is an affront to actual history. It's a rewrite of reality to suit an ideological perspective, the kind of reframing that has been done in academia for years. But it's escaped from the page into real life. That theory is being used to re-write history and frame education, culture and legislation doesn't seem to worry so many people, probably as it's couched as 'niceness'. Most teachers are kind and nice people. They are also, in my view at least, keen to please, sometimes naive and increasingly (as us oldies leave) already indoctrinated into the cult before they have even trained.
That so many who wish to rewrite the world to suit this new religion, or who get sucked into it for fear of not being nice, would see themselves as on the political left is shocking enough. That the NEU is wading in to silence opposing voices, and that the left has turned its back on free speech, reasoning and democracy itself? That is utterly appalling.
From an idea by a Twitter follower.... Ricardo di Pandi (@dickydickypand1) 👍🍻
Is that email I received stating I had gift subscriptions to give away real?
Yes, it is a limited period offer I think.
BBC website is still linking to Mermaids.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3hWKnzF4xGnZ0SmtJvWvByP/information-and-support
Kicking Bishop Bragg up the arse.
Love it!
Outstanding work, Mole! 👏
Thanks!
I think you've been VERY charitable to both Norton and Bragg in your choice of photographs given that they both look characters from Lord of the Rings these days!
Haha! They do! And part of me wishes they were both trapped in the Mines of Moria...
Freddie Deboer (my favourite US substacker) just did a locked piece on Norton.
Reproducing below, don't tell him. Maybe subscribe to him so I'm doing him a favour ;)
British media personality Graham Norton becomes the latest to act as though calling it “accountability culture” amounts to a cheat code when debating cancel culture. Hey Graham: different people disagree about what constitutes accountability! They disagree about what people should be held accountable for, and what an appropriate punishment might be for it. There are profound differences between what different people mean when they speak about accountability. Therefore to call cancel culture “accountability culture” is simply to beg the question, to assume the conclusion that you’re arguing. It’s just a dodge.
I’m sorry to state the obvious, but this is a common maneuver among people who prefer a more vituperative, less forgiving social culture, to simply change the nomenclature in a way that suggests that the very issues of debate are already settled. You might as well call it Good Goodies Culture by People Doing Good. In both cases you’re simply assuming away the actual debatable content and then suggesting that your opponents adopt your frame.
The central trouble here is assuming that you can debate a topic as big as this completely in the abstract and from 10,000 feet. But “cancel culture” is not an overarching issue but a series of individual incidents, the contours of each we must explore specifically and individually. Everyone has some things that they think should be taboo and meet with social censure, and everyone has some things they think should be permissible and not be met with social censure. The question is, which is which, and what type of censure? You might say that a Democratic party analyst who posted an academic article about riots and accurately quoted its contents deserved to be fired, or you might not. You might say that a professor being suspended from a class for accurately pronouncing a Chinese word is accountability, or you might not. You might say that a university (the biggest and most influential institution in its community) calling a bakery racist for justifiably accusing some of its students of shoplifting is justified, or you might not. Reasonable people can disagree. But all of the cancel culture discourse is simply the aggregate of opinions about discrete incidents like those. Whatever tapestry either side weaves together can only be as strong as the conviction about its individual threads.
Of course, Norton knew what he was doing - he was activating one side of the culture war in a way certain to earn plaudits, not offering a path out of that culture war. Because you can’t settle questions by choosing terminology that assumes the correctness of one side.
"Good Goodies Culture by People Doing Good." Have never seen liberalism summed up so perfectly!
That video always makes me *livid* but it's incredibly revealing.
And well-observed, Richard Panda. Good observation, nice to see you back.
I have a list of annoying videos for you...
Please post them 😀
Well, If you are SURE!!!
Richard Dawkins 'interviews' creationist Wendy Williams.
I still - after all these years - have not managed to watch the whole thing. I usually have to buy a new monitor before I get very far in...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AS6rQtiEh8
Jesus Moley I was looking for comedy not some pathetic yank looking for dosh
Sigh, I expect I've seen them all :(
Wow, Moley! Thanks for the original, hadn't seen it before. I wish we had a Python for this age.
Me too!
God it would never be allowed in this age
Genuine comedy is lost
Spot on, as usual. Those of us who remember the Life Of Brian "debate" on tv many years ago will enjoy a chuckle at this. BB as Muggeridge and Norton as the deranged and ignorant Bishop is inspired.
Very good 🤣
Thanks!
Sorry to butt in but I read this really alarming development in a post by the very useful Free Speech Union: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fsu-writes-national-education-union-regarding-its-draft-definition-/?published=t&fbclid=IwAR21ilGyYsUSoRytpk7F9rCbD91ZoeB4txI_VO41unMR1ky2EqVlDcXVHXg
That is worrying - very much so - but is entirely expected. Kids start school well before the vast majority own a phone and have access to social media. It's always best to start indoctrination at an early age so what better to do than capture the largest teaching union and ensure that dissenters' voices cannot be heard? What better use of members' funds can there be?
'Trans history'? Likely to be extraordinarily brief, given that about 8 or 9 years ago most people's understanding would have been that 'trans' referred eirher to the very small transvestite population or to the tiny, and usually very shy and unassuming, group of adults who had had surgery. Up until recently photos of Pride gatherings show only the rainbow flag and were celebrations of LGB folk. The pronoun unicorn game is even more recent. It's just a recent trend, utterly unrelated to science and common sense, that's been made into a cult. The equivalent of many people in the eighties believing that Walkmans gave you superpowers or skills of levitation. Things like that didn't take off because there was no internet. It's simple. The history of trans is that it didn't exist. People have been experimenting with sexuality and with clothes and gender roles since time immemorial. But 'trans' in the beard with pink hair sense? I've got shoes with a more comprehensive history.
'Trans history', like the addition of the T and Q and + and everything else onto the term LGB, is a short and brutal piggyback and is an affront to actual history. It's a rewrite of reality to suit an ideological perspective, the kind of reframing that has been done in academia for years. But it's escaped from the page into real life. That theory is being used to re-write history and frame education, culture and legislation doesn't seem to worry so many people, probably as it's couched as 'niceness'. Most teachers are kind and nice people. They are also, in my view at least, keen to please, sometimes naive and increasingly (as us oldies leave) already indoctrinated into the cult before they have even trained.
That so many who wish to rewrite the world to suit this new religion, or who get sucked into it for fear of not being nice, would see themselves as on the political left is shocking enough. That the NEU is wading in to silence opposing voices, and that the left has turned its back on free speech, reasoning and democracy itself? That is utterly appalling.
That is excellent!
That's sublime!