#cancel culture-free | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

Tumblr.com rank in the US is 25.

#cancel culture-free

probablyasocialecologist · 1 year

Link

Here I think it’s time to talk about the very serious right-wing effort to use free speech and freedom more generally as a flag for a political, social and moral project. On campus, for example, the constant harangues about cancel culture and wokeness on the left that you get from the right keep us from seeing enormous amounts of foundation money and use of the state to try to control what is taught, to build institutes and curriculums that comport with a right-wing engine. Guilford College, this little Quaker school in North Carolina takes half a million dollars from a foundation in love with Ayn Rand. Every econ and business major in the college for the next 10 years had to be given a copy of “Atlas Shrugged,” and at the center of the curriculum there had to be a course in which “Atlas Shrugged” was the required textbook. This story has been repeated over and over.

Then you have colleges and universities not so desperate but nonetheless willing to take large amounts of Koch and other right-wing-foundation money to set up institutes, even hire faculty. All of this is under the aegis of free speech, organized as correcting for wokeness and cancel culture. The right is also mobilizing the state. Not just to cancel math textbooks in Florida but the “Don’t Say Gay” bills, the C.R.T. bills. It’s important that we have our eyes wide open about that. Little episodes about cancel culture make great tidbits in newspapers and talk shows, but they don’t represent this larger and deeper project of the right of mobilizing state power and corporations for their agenda in schools.

#free speech #university #wendy brown #right wing #cancel culture

276 notes · View notes

artofkhaos404 · 1 month

Text

I'm tired of rebellion only being acceptable if you rebel in a politically correct fashion.

I'm tired of hate speech being acceptable as long as it's directed at the "correct group."

I'm tired of watching the church bow down to deranged elitists and corrupt government.

I'm tired of truth being manipulated.

I'm tired of cancel culture being normalized.

I'm tired of intolerance being tolerated.

I'm tired of skin color being a factor in judging and loving others.

I'm tired of equality turning into revenge.

I'm tired of gender defining identity, expectations and capability.

I'm tired of the "kill all men" twisted doctrine.

I'm tired of misogyny and chauvinism.

I'm tired of the boxes and the stereotypes...

With no space allowed to exist in between.

Let's start a proper revolution.

A revolution of love.

A revolution of proud existence, proud resistance and total disregard to what is considered "acceptable."

A revolution they can't dictate. They can't profit from. They can't control.

A revolution they can't stick in boxes of left or right or central or up or down or sideways.

Anarchy in its purest form.

Reblog if you see through the political mind manipulation games of the modern world.

23 notes · View notes

dappersautismcreature · 4 months

Text

gonna tentatively say that i think sometimes people (cough twitter cough) overreact to small hiccups when it comes to cultures clashing in the qsmp. you can't expect people to be perfect, if you have that mentality and attack ccs for any interactions you don't give them time to grow or change.

and its not like theres been any really huge racism incidents between ccs, as far as i can tell just some accidental weirdness and culture differences, its LEARNING you make MISTAKES WHEN YOU ARE LEARNINGGGG

im not saying dont criticize ccs for the ways in which they are actually being rude, racist or xenophobic, im saying, A. dont write off their potential for change and B. dont underestimate the fact that they are an adult, with adult friends, who can correct them if need be.

and if you think this is about any substantial racist incidents, i am not talking about that, im talking about people jumping down bad's throat about when he jokingly called etoiles uncultured. im talking about when a cc mispronounces something, or guesses wrong, or takes the easy way out when learning and uses a translator, or when someone says something thats offensive in another language by accident.

again, mistakes, learning, change, they are adults they don't need you to defend them.

#i could add a bit about cancel culture but i hate that term and what it mean #i could talk forever about cancelling deplatforming and the critique of ccs #you think i was raised on commentary YT and didnt learn that you cannot 'cancel' somebody? that cancel culture is toxic but not in the #way that right wingers claim?#fandom crit #discourse #qsmp #maintagging this bitch #feel free to chime in and im teetering on deleting this later

35 notes · View notes

blackswaneuroparedux · 10 months

Text

The university, in which it is possible to combine theoretical pretension with comprehensive ineptitude, has become the natural habitat of the ideological enthusiast. A kind of adventure playground, carefully insulated from reality in order to prevent absent-minded professors from bumping into things as they explore transcendental realms, has become the institutional base for civilisation self-hatred.

Kennth Minogue

#minogue #kenneth minogue #quote #ideology #university #free speech #cancel culture #woke #academia #cambridge #culture

71 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 6 months

Text

By: Nate Silver

Published: Nov 2, 2023

“What Harvard students think” is a topic that invariably receives too much attention. But I don’t think that’s true for evaluating opinion among young people or college students in general — who, after all, will make up the next generation of journalists, business leaders, politicians and pretty much every other white-collar profession. And after seeing the latest polling on what college students think about free speech, I don’t concern over “cancel culture” or the erosion of free speech norms is just some moral panic. In fact, I think people are neglecting how quick and broad the shifts have been, especially on the left.

College Pulse and FIRE — the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a pro-free speech advocacy group — recently published the latest edition of their annual survey. Although I don’t love using data from political groups — even ones I generally agree with — the good in this survey outweighs the bad. The methodology is detailed and transparent. And in surveying more than 55,000 undergraduates, the poll provides a look at student opinion across all sorts of colleges and universities — not just from the loudest or most privileged students at elite institutions.

Although I’ve seen a lot of media coverage about the FIRE survey, I’d never really dug into the details. I’m not sure exactly what I was expecting to see. But given my own political philosophy, I can tell you what I was hoping for: robust student support for free speech — perhaps in contrast to the often lukewarm support it receives among university administrators. Unfortunately, that’s not what the survey found. Here’s what it says instead:

College students aren’t very enthusiastic about free speech. In particular, that’s true for liberal or left-wing students, who are at best inconsistent in their support of free speech and have very little tolerance for controversial speech they disagree with.

Moreover, this attitude is broad-based — not just at elite schools. I was frankly surprised at how tepid student support was. A significant minority of students don’t even have much tolerance for controversial speech on positions they presumably agree with. There are partial exceptions at some schools — including my alma mater, the University of Chicago — suggesting the attitudes of professors and administrators play some role in trickling down to students. But this looks like a major generational shift from when college campuses were hotbeds of advocacy for free speech, particularly on the left.

[ A protest in favor of free speech as part of the Free Speech Movement at UC Berkeley. ]

Students have low tolerance for even mildly controversial speakers

The College Pulse/FIRE survey asks a long battery of questions, but many of them are focused on student perceptions about university administrators and not what they think about free speech themselves. Other questions ask about efforts to disrupt controversial speech — for instance, by shouting down a speaker. In these cases, there can be competing interpretations of what constitutes free speech — i.e. the students might say they are exercising free speech by disrupting the speaker — so these aren’t straightforward to interpret.

However, another set of questions directly asks students about their tolerance for controversial speech with no competing speech interest — specifically, whether a student group should be allowed to invite a speaker on campus. The exact wording of these questions is this:

Student groups often invite speakers to campus to express their views on a range of topics. Regardless of your own views of the topic, should your school ALLOW or NOT ALLOW a speaker on campus who previously expressed the following idea: ______________

Then, the survey presents students with a set of six examples — three pertaining to controversial ideas held by conservative speakers, and three about controversial ideas from liberal speakers. The order in which the students are presented with the examples is randomized in the survey — but here I’ll list them here with the conservative ideas first (which I’ve labeled as C1, C2 and C3) and the liberal ones (L1, L2, L3) second.

C1. Transgender people have a mental disorder. C2. Abortion should be completely illegal. C3. Black Lives Matter is a hate group. L1. The Second Amendment should be repealed so that guns can be confiscated. L2. Religious liberty is used as an excuse to discriminate against gays and lesbians. L3. Structural racism maintains inequality by protecting White privilege.

Let me pause for an annoying little disclaimer. In today’s newsletter, I’m going to use the term “liberal” as synonymous with “progressive” or “left-wing”, even though I generally try to avoid that. Indeed, free speech is a bedrock principle of liberalism as classically defined. But since the FIRE survey uses “liberal” as a stand-in for left1, I’m going to do so as well.

OK, with that throat-clearing out of the way, let me show you the numbers, broken down by students’ self-described political orientation. The figures in the table reflect the percentage of students who would allow the speaker.

If you want to critique the examples FIRE chose, I’m sympathetic up to a point — the conservative statements seem slightly spicier than the liberal ones, although maybe that reflects my personal biases. I figured that the students would have a strong dislike for speakers C1 (“transgender people have a mental disorder”) or C3 (“Black Lives Matter is a hate group”) because they could be seen as promoting hate speech or misinformation. I don’t personally think “hate speech” and “misinformation” are terribly coherent categories, but leave that aside for now. This is a survey of college students, including some as young as 18. So I was just hoping to find general, directional support for free speech — even if not necessarily in every instance from first principles.

But I was much more surprised by responses to speaker C2 (“abortion should be completely illegal”). People obviously have strong feelings about abortion, and a complete abortion ban is unpopular. Still, this is a commonly-articulated, garden-variety unpopular political opinion that doesn’t make any sort of factual claim and can’t reasonably be construed as hateful. You’d think even students with a tentative, half-baked belief in free speech principles would tolerate it. And yet, 57 percent of students — including 68 percent of liberals — thought a speaker expressing this anti-abortion viewpoint shouldn’t be allowed on campus. That number kind of shocked me.

For that matter, tolerance for some of the liberal viewpoints isn’t all that high either. Only 57 precent of students think L2 — the speaker who says religious liberty is used as an excuse to discriminate against gays and lesbians — should be allowed, even though that sort of claim has been common in American political discourse for decades now

Still, to be clear, there’s a big gap between the liberal students and the conservative students. The conservatives are actually quite consistent, with roughly 60 percent support for both liberal and conservative speakers. The liberal students have a relatively high tolerance for liberal speakers, but little tolerance for conservative ones.

This isn’t just a Harvard problem

Harvard and other elite schools often rate poorly in FIRE’s overall free speech rankings — Harvard is dead last in the latest edition, in fact. But the survey data I’ve been describing is just one component of those rankings. When it comes to controversial speakers, students at non-elite colleges are just as intolerant as their Ivy League counterparts. Here are the average numbers across various college typologies:

You can look at this data in a couple of different ways. On the one hand, the Ivy League schools are slightly more tolerant of controversial speakers overall. On the other hand, they have a particularly wide gap between tolerance for liberal speakers and conservative ones. Students at elite small colleges — the so-called Little Ivy group — have an even bigger gap and stand out as being particularly inconsistent. Still, the numbers don’t differ that much from one type of institution to the next. As I’ve said, student support for controversial speech is low across the board.

What about at individual universities? I don’t want to make too much of these rankings because there are potential sample size issues — the survey polled a couple hundred students per school on average. So let me just list the top 5 and bottom 5 schools, which differ from the average enough to be comfortably outside the margin of error.

Hillsdale College, an expressly conservative university, unsurprisingly has off-the-charts tolerance for conservative speakers. To their credit, though, students there also have above-average tolerance for liberal speakers. Meanwhile, the University of Chicago, which has a long history of support for free speech — reiterated in 2014 in the form of something called the Chicago Principles — ranks third. Washington and Lee University, which adopted the Chicago Principles, ranks second.

Why did the campus left turn against free speech?

Rather than provide a comprehensive analysis of the reasons for this shift — perhaps we can go into more detail in future editions of this newsletter — let me just inventory a few hypotheses. By no means are these mutually exclusive — I suspect they all play a role.

Reason #1: Woke ideas are popular on campus and are considerably less tolerant of free speech than traditional liberalism

I’m at the point where I’m tired of putting the term “woke” in scare quotes. Although the word is sometimes abused by conservative politicians, there exists a distinctive and influential set of ideological commitments that differ from traditional liberalism or leftism. And wokeness — or whatever you want to call it — particularly differs from liberalism when it comes fo free speech, as James O’Malley writes:

The ideological shift that has surprised me the most is witnessing “free speech” become coded as a right-wing value, and something that when the phrase is uttered makes people sympathetic to “woke” ideas suspicious. The argument is that unrestricted speech harms people. There isn’t an equal platform to speak in the first place, so racists and other unpleasant people are able to use the norm of free speech to terrorise groups who are oppressed. I think the strangest example of this new norm in action was the response to Elon Musk buying Twitter. Traditionally, liberal ideology is fearful of overreach by powerful figures like billionaires, and is in favour of more permissive speech rules and norms as a hedge against their power. But the “woke” complaint about the new owner is that under Musk’s leadership, Twitter will not be censorious enough, and will be too permissive over what speech is allowed on the platform.

Reason #2: Normie Democrats are turning against free speech because of concerns over misinformation

However, wokeism isn’t the only left-of-center movement that has raised concerns about free speech. Rank-and-file Democrats have shifted on the question too and now strongly prioritize restricting false information over protecting freedom of information:

Note that this shift is fairly recent — it came between 2018 and 2021, so it can’t just be attributed to the election of Donald Trump. (Maybe it had something to do with COVID?) And it’s a big shift — Democrats went from 57/40 in favor of free speech over misinformation in 2018 to 28/70 against it in 2023. A change that large will inevitably trickle down into universities with their mostly liberal students, professors and parents.

Reason #3: The younger generation is risk-averse in general

Teens and young adults in the U.S. increasingly defy the stereotype of younger people taking more risks. Instead, they show increasing rates of depression and neuroticism, and decreasing rates of risky behavior such as drug use and sex. This is particularly true among young people who identify as liberal. If you think controversial speech can cause harm — from psychological trauma to actual, literal violence — you might conclude that it’s not worth the risk.

Reason #4: The United States may be reverting to the mean

The U.S. has historically been an outlier in public support for free speech, and our laws are more protective of it than in many other Western democracies. Britain, for example, has significant curbs on speech, as does Germany. If America is becoming less distinct from the rest of the world — not something I regard as a hard-and-fast fact but a plausible theory, especially in the multicultural environment of universities — we might expect support for free speech to decline.

Reason #5: The adults in the room are often hypocrites

I don’t think it’s always true that people are hypocritical about free speech. Some partisans literally can’t seem to understand that some of us at least strive for a more high-minded, principled approach, even if we don’t always live up to it. Thinking that everyone else is a hypocrite is a convenient belief to hold if you yourself are a hypocrite.

But is there a lot of hypocrisy around free speech? Of course there is. Republicans who rail against wokeness put significant limits of their own on academic freedom. Supposed “free speech absolutist” Elon Musk has often taken a censorious approach toward content he doesn’t like while tolerating censorship by foreign governments.

While I’ve somehow made it this far without using the words “Israel” or “Palestine”, recent international events have uncovered instances of hypocrisy too. I have no interest in refereeing every incident, but cases like this — in which editor-in-chief Michael Eisen was fired from the life sciences journal eLife for retweeting an Onion article that expressed sympathy with Palestinians — fall under any definition of “cancel culture”.

Meanwhile, major donors are reconsidering their contributions to universities whose administrations they say weren’t sufficiently critical of Hamas and the October 7 terrorist attacks. Personally, I think donating to an already-rich, elite private university is one of the least effective possible ways to spend your money, so I’m happy whenever donors find an excuse to pull back. But leaving that aside, I don’t think these donors have really thought through their strategy.

True, a lot of university presidents have expressed a conveniently-timed, newfound commitment to free expression that didn’t match their previous behavior. Still, if I were one of those donors, I’d say “great, and now we’re going to hold you to it. The next time you stray from your commitment to free speech — particularly when it comes to students or faculty who express conservative or centrist viewpoints — we’re going nuclear, permanently ending all contributions to the university and telling all our rich friends to do the same.”

And although I’m not sure I have any business talking to college students — although I have delivered a number of guest lectures and commencement addresses — if I were, I’d use this as a teaching moment, telling students that now that they’ve found out what it’s like to stand up for a controversial, unpopular position, I’d hope they’d be more respectful of the rights of others to do the same.

Because unless someone is willing to do that — to defend free speech in a principled, non-hypocritical way — the game theory says it’s just going to be a race to the bottom. And given the increasingly tenuous commitment to it in many corners of American society, free speech is going to lose out.

1 This is an understandable decision, given that it’s a survey of popular (student) opinion. In conducting a poll, you want to use language the respondents will understand and use themselves.

Reminder: Harvard received a 0.00 score out of a possible maximum of 100.0 in FIRE's College Free Speech Rankings.

In 2020, Harvard ranked 46 out of 55 schools. In 2021, it ranked 130 out of 154 schools. Last year, it ranked 170 out of 203 schools. And this year, Harvard completed its downward spiral in dramatic fashion, coming in dead last with the worst score ever: 0.00 out of a possible 100.00. This earns it the notorious distinction of being the only school ranked this year with an “Abysmal” speech climate.

What’s more, granting Harvard a score of 0.00 is generous. Its actual score is -10.69, more than six standard deviations below the average and more than two standard deviations below the second-to-last school in the rankings, its Ivy League counterpart, the University of Pennsylvania.

#Nate Silver #free speech #freedom of speech #freedom of expression #liberalism #liberal ethics #liberal values #illiberalism #censorship #cancel culture #religion is a mental illness

16 notes · View notes

oasisr · 3 months

Text

Update: I was banned for being mean again. I am very against the trans agenda and when people say they want genderqueer characters in children's games like Animal Crossing, I become very angry. Reddit did not like what I had to say about the manner.

This is not the same PC culture we had in the 80s and 90s. This is something far more nefarious.

Fuck Reddit.

#fuck reddit #anti reddit #free speech #christian #conspiracy #freeblr #bible #conspiracy theory #truther #tradfem #truth #christian woman #cancel culture #pc culture #censorship

8 notes · View notes

irithnova · 4 months

Text

I wish I wasn't shown this because it's even more fucking annoying than her first response

Meeru is absolutely backtracking and no I don't believe she's trying to be self critical for a second.

I quite literally explained to Meeru in my first response to her that Panda's behaviour is genuinely abusive and dangerous (for example, causing someone to relapse in their eating disorder). I even provided Meeru with a WHOLE LIST of the things Panda did which includes blatant racism, suicide baiting, victim blaming, and inappropriate behavior infront of and towards minors.

I then went on a provided Meeru with FOUR screenshots of Panda's behavior, one of the screenshots showing her saying that she wants Manchurians to be genocided. I then pointed out that Meeru's interest in Siberians and Northern Asians is purely orientalist because she has built her blog off of the back of Northern Asian and Siberian cultures, but when being told that her friend Panda is racist against Northern Asians and was even provided a screenshot as evidence for this, she STILL went on to call it "boring cancel culture".

In the first response I also said how MULTIPLE people tried to talk to Panda privately, and she did not listen. Her behaviour is not only dangerous but we have found out that Panda has been trying to control the narrative about what happened to people throughout the fandom and telling them absolute lies about what happened, concealing the extent of her abuse and bad behaviour and outright orchestrating a hate campaign against @/miyuecakes by not only spreading lies about her with 0 evidence throughout the fandom, but by sending her posse to harass her on tumblr.

How did Meeru respond upon being given a list of the things Panda did with four screenshots of ACTUAL evidence?

"Don't blame me for not reading all 80 pages!"

"My family is struggling!"

"I care about Siberians!"

"Why did this come out around Christmas!"

She's now backtracking saying that I can't blame her for not reading all 80 pages when

1) No one fucking forced her to release that post before reading the whole document and it's quite stupid of her to release that post despite apparently not reading it

2) Even if she didn't read the whole document? I provided her with screenshots of Panda's behavior and a list of the things she's done to hurt people.

Despite this, Meeru STILL called it purely cancel culture and dismissed the evidence I gave her!

Stop backtracking!

This post is backtracking central. Oh. So NOW you agree that Panda's behavior was harmful even though I literally told you what she did and gave you evidence in my response to you?

"Why are things being handled in public" bestie I don't think I need to keep explaining to you that multiple people have tried to talk to Panda about her dangerous behavior privately but she didn't listen. She shows 0 desire to change and IMMEDIATELY went to make other friends to lie to about the whole ordeal after she left. This post is a WARNING to people to avoid her.

When I said you were orientalist , I said it was because you were given literal evidence of Panda being racist to Northern Asians , yet you decided to carry on with the narrative that this is cancel culture and that we're overreacting. I didn't say jackshit about Putin girly. If you treat racism against Northern Asians like it's just a newspaper article for you to reblog rather than an actual material reality, and dismiss racism against a Northern Asian just because your friend did it, your so called interest in their cultures means nothing!

Meeru is now blaming ME for why she couldn't read the whole document because she was too busy "defending herself" against my "insults"😂 You lie almost as often Panda does. Again, no one forced you to post that post before finishing the whole document! Don't speak on shit you don't know about !

I have the right to insult someone who stands by an abuser and shits on the victims for speaking out! Thanks !

#Meerudraws #Backtracking is insane !#Potaxiepower #My refs #Also lol @ calling what Panda did to us “drama”#0 fucking empathy from Panda's posse why am I not surprised !#I'm aware that meeru has said she's donated to like the free Buryatia movement or an organisation that is similar #Ok.who fucking cares so have I??#That has nothing to do with the fact that you are completely unwilling to condemn racism against Northern Asians when your friend does it #How can you look at the screenshot I provided you with that showed Panda saying she wanted Manchurians to be genocided #And have the gall to brush it off as just boring cancel culture #Your grand gestures don't mean shit if you aren't willing to condemn your own friend for hating Northern Asians !#Performative as all hell #Just like most of your posts on your account about Northern Asians #I'm not rich I just put more effort into my research and for someone who claims to be obsessed with N Asia #Ur posts are lacking #Why is it that when people are called out for horrible behaviour or condoning horrible behaviour #It's always “BUT I'M POOR! BUT I'M STRUGGLING! BUT I'M THIS ! BUT I'M THAT”#YOU BEING POOR OR YOUR FAMILY SITUATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU BRUSHING OFF A RACIST ABUSERS BEHAVIOUR

6 notes · View notes

probablyasocialecologist · 10 months

Text

To point out that right-wing culture warriors conflate academic freedom and free speech is, in a sense, to give them too much credit. In practice they subscribe to ‘free speech’ and ‘academic freedom’ only when, and to whichever ideological ends, it suits them. The new Higher Education Act was given royal assent just nine days after the passage of the Public Order Act, which eviscerates the right to peaceful protest in the UK – just in time to empower the Metropolitan Police to arrest six members of the anti-monarchy group Republic on the morning of the coronation, with little outcry from the free speech brigade. Rishi Sunak has defended the police and their new powers, saying that people have the right ‘to go about their day-to-day lives without facing serious disruption’. ‘Serious disruption’ – a phrase that appears 94 times in the Public Order Act – now legally includes many of the mildest tactics used by activist groups from the women of Greenham Common to Extinction Rebellion, including locking on, blocking roads and blockading oil terminals. It also includes, according to the Metropolitan Police, carrying rape alarms, for which three women’s safety volunteers were arrested ahead of the coronation.

Right-wing newspapers unironically celebrated Sunak’s appointment of a free speech tsar as another volley in his war on ‘woke nonsense’ – a campaign, as Sunak described it last year, against objectionable viewpoints that have ‘permeated public life’: that biology doesn’t determine gender, that language is malleable, that Britain must own up to its colonial past. You can seek to eradicate such viewpoints from universities. You can also believe that universities should become no-holds-barred venues for free and open debate. But it takes a certain mental flexibility to think that the one can be a way of achieving the other.

Does the right contradict itself? Very well then it contradicts itself. The new Higher Education Act appears on its face to be in conflict with the ‘Prevent duty’ created by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, sponsored by Theresa May when she was home secretary. The government guidance on Prevent says that universities should prohibit visiting speakers who are likely to express ‘extremist views that risk drawing people into terrorism or are shared by terrorist groups’, even where the expression of such views is legal. In 2020 the Department of Education issued guidance on implementing the statutory curriculum which included the requirement that ‘schools should not under any circumstances use resources produced by organisations that take extreme political stances on matters,’ and listed as an example of an ‘extreme’ stance the ‘desire to abolish … capitalism’. Under a new speaker vetting scheme introduced by Jacob Rees-Mogg last year, eight people have been disinvited from speaking at government events, including Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert, and Kate Devlin, who studies the interaction between humans and technology. Both were told their invitations had been rescinded because they had criticised the Tories on social media.

The Higher Education Act makes universities and student unions that are derelict in their duty to uphold free speech liable to investigations and fines by the free speech tsar, as well as to civil claims brought by anyone who feels they have suffered ‘adverse consequences’ because of a university or student union’s ‘action or inaction’. It’s not clear just what this covers, but here are some possibilities, ordered from the certainly actionable to the potentially so: a student union voting to no-platform fascists; a university failing to quash student protest at a visit from, say, a war criminal; a student group putting out a statement condemning a professor for being transphobic; faculty changing a syllabus in response to student complaints about its racist content; students peacefully protesting outside a lecture; a geography department voting not to hire a climate change denier. It isn’t difficult to imagine how these could be framed as violations of the new law; it is for this reason that its opponents worried, as the bill made its way through Parliament, about the vexatious claims it seems bound to generate. In a letter sent last year to the secretary of state for education, Gillian Keegan, the president of the Union of Jewish Students, warned that the bill could ‘foreseeably allow a range of extremists, including Holocaust deniers, legal recourse to obtain compensation if they are denied a platform’. ‘Adverse consequences’ is an extremely low bar: anyone who has been picketed or called names on Twitter might feel they have grounds to make a legal claim. Traditionally, it has been thought that a commitment to free expression required universities not to intervene when students protest or when faculty members publicly criticise other academics or politicians. But the new law threatens to redefine such non-intervention as itself a failure to promote free speech.

#uk politics #free speech #university #cancel culture #conservatism

28 notes · View notes

alchemisoul · 7 days

Text

Cersie Lanister lives in Westeros on Planetos but definitely has "Accountability Culture Proponent" vibes and would make a seamless transition into political leadership within the Liberal in Name Only, Western Maoist, Well-To-Do, Out of Touch, Sheltered, Privately Educated, Metropolitan, Privledged Victim Mileau.

Hell in this world, she would find an effective loophole in the modern era to defend her Incest by claiming that it's actually, "just a social construct" - and thus the shorthand implication thereby rendering something arbitrary and rudderless with unearned confidence. As if that actually meant something.

As if Social Constructivism was an the one and only immutable law (a concept itself rejects on principle by default) and not the bottom of the intellectual barrel of perspectives for information interpretation - or rather the the flagship school of thought for ideologues laundering nonsense into the academy by posing as faux intellectuals.

#liberalsinnameonly #LINOS #LieNose

4 notes · View notes

ebookporn · 9 months

Text

In the midst of the #MeToo movement in 2017, Claire Dederer posed a difficult question in The Paris Review: "What Do We Do With the Art of Monstrous Men?" From that viral essay comes her new book, Monsters, which examines how we morally engage with – or don't – musicians, authors and actors whose work we love, when we condemn their personal actions. In today's episode, Dederer tells NPR's Ayesha Rascoe how this question first arose for her around Roman Polanski movies, and how complex and personal it is to try to separate the art from the artist.

#fandom #cancel culture #problematic authors #artists #me too #free speech #soft censorship

11 notes · View notes

commonsensecommentary · 6 months

Text

“A keen sense of what is demonstrably right and what is unambiguously wrong is an immutable requirement for effective leadership, so it is no surprise that the moral midgets in charge today are continuously slipping and sliding from one catastrophe to another—and dragging us along for the ride.”

49 notes · View notes

blackswaneuroparedux · 9 months

Text

A good society contains many different artists doing many different things. A bad society coerces artists because it knows that they can reveal all kind of truths.

Iris Murdoch in conversation with Brian McGee, 1977.

#murdoch #iris murdoch #quote #literature #novelist #writer #artist #role of the artist #freedom #free speech #group think #censorship #cancel culture #society #arts #culture

29 notes · View notes

satvrnixne · 6 months

Text

I can't finish pieces anymore really, I can't even start. I have over 250 files in my 2023 art folder... I've only managed to get about 25 of those images anything close to finished or presentable. That's only about a 10% success rate and if I break it down by month, it's shrinking by percent over time. My anxiety/OCD is making so I just can't even do the work without giving into a dysfunctional level of perfectionism.

The things I do even let myself post, I have to really struggle to not give into an overwhelming urge not to delete them.

It's getting harder and harder for me to even start things anymore, because of the overwhelming, disproportionate, irrational fear that I will "do it wrong" or that it will have some consequence.

I want to enjoy making art again. Even if I can't push myself to the level of improvement it would take to make a career out of it, I at least want to enjoy doing it. It's leaving a very big void in my life.

Genuinely thinking about starting a Discord support group for artists whose anxiety impacts their ability to create successfully anymore. The intent would be to provide challenges in attempt to overcome the hurdles, while offering mutual support, advice, and encouragement more generally. Improvement focused. The point would be to get back to doing what we love without fear holding us back.

If there already is a support group like this, I would love to know about it.

#the fear from social media call out and cancel culture has literally ruined so many people's creativity i know i'm not alone in this #the awful things people have said to me over the years even prior to that phenomenon still live rent free in my head

10 notes · View notes

Last Seen Blogs

royalmigrationdubai

Royal Migration Review Dubai

mai-is-here

Cappriccioso Fantasia

tomornism

tomorn.co

cherry-joanna

it's all about us

ddtradeupdate

MARKET UPDATES