- 29,705
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Right next to the don't post option.Where's the don't care option?
Right next to the don't post option.Where's the don't care option?
In this instance, he does have a point.Right next to the don't post option.
Where's the don't care option?
This is the whole point of the article that I'm not sure anybody clicked on. Only fringes at the extreme ends of the political spectrum care about the culture wars, as far as the UK people polled are concerned at least.In this instance, he does have a point.
Most of the people that use terms like this are doing so simply to get a reaction out of people. These are the exact kind of people that don't deserve my time. So put me down for a don't care because I'm just going to roll my eyes and walk away.
My thoughts exactly.Where's the don't care option?
Would they be similarly upset seeing a picture of him in the Daily Mail or the Guardian?
Of course people live different experiences than me - I'm just wondering how it can be so different as to be "hurt" by a picture of Prince Philip.Is a picture in a mass-produced gnewspaper the issue at hand or is it an individual picture presented in an normally co-memorial context without any clue as to the originator's intention?
And are you so relaxed about the ideas of hereditary religious and political power and their ownership by a bunch of dysfunctional ***** that you can't accept anybody else is living a different experience from you?
Of course people live different experiences than me - I'm just wondering how it can be so different as to be "hurt" by a picture of Prince Philip.
Have we got to a stage where a university has to issue a trigger warning before a piece on the death of one of their (admittedly controversial) governors, or alternatively, cancel them altogether?
Hot on the heels of this we have Magdalen College Oxford students voting to remove a picture of the Queen because of "recent colonial history".
I think it needs to be said that I'm not against the right to do what they want and protest however they like, rather that I'm amused at the absurdity of some of these decisions.
I'm not sure I follow. You believe they objected because of his privilege and not because of his history of questionable remarks?It's the things he represents as an icon. I refuse to believe that you can't see that.
If you don't put a trigger warning for the piece then the alternative is to not have a piece altogether, which would be unusual for a high profile governor's death.TenEightyOne"Cancel" Prince Philip? How do you suggest that would happen? What are you talking about?
They voted to pull it down because her "involvement" in Britain's colonialism "could make some feel unwelcome".TenEightyOneSo students voted to put up a picture of the Queen, where's the big deal? Can't they choose to put it up? What are you talking about?
I think the Royal Family should end after the Queen dies. My amusement comes on how such trivial things are so offensive to some people.TenEightyOneYour amusement comes across as patronising but of course that's only my opinion. Why is it absurd for people to choose to put up a picture? Why is it absurd for people to say that they're uncomfortable with a particular public icon being associated with their work and study?
I'm feeling an implication in your post that the authority represented by the inherited Families is unquestionable and that it's the rejection of that authority which draws your patronising ire.
Perhaps they could build a giant strawman with a crown on.It's just a funny story, IMO. Do they propose we graffiti on our stamps next? Trade in foreign currency instead of our own bank notes?
I'm not sure I follow. You believe they objected because of his privilege and not because of his history of questionable remarks?
If you don't put a trigger warning for the piece then the alternative is to not have a piece altogether, which would be unusual for a high profile governor's death.
They voted to pull it down because her "involvement" in Britain's colonialism "could make some feel unwelcome".
I think the Royal Family should end after the Queen dies. My amusement comes on how such trivial things are so offensive to some people.
Wut.Perhaps they could build a giant strawman with a crown on.
But what about the picture is so awful? Why is just having the text acceptable?You're confusing having that picture with having the story. With that said there could be few people unaware of his passing and so a photograph wasn't really required. As the university pointed out after the fact it was unwise because of his history of sexist, racist commentary. You actually said 'cancel Prince Philip' - some may consider that a worthy goal but it's sensibly impossible and further evidence of your terror at things that don't exist.
Yes of course it's ok, just as it's ok to take the picture down.TenEightyOneSo you agreed with them voting to put up a picture of the Queen and so that was okay for them to do.
Nope, just that it's ridiculous.TenEightyOneBut they're never allowed to take it down again, is that what you're saying?
No, I imagine some people hate her, same as some hated Mother Theresa. Is it such a significant amount of the population that would warrant such an action? I don't think soTenEightyOneDo you really think the image of the queen is welcoming to everybody? Are you really so socially insulated?
My history's hazy, are you referencing past monarchs' actions? And the present Queen represents that?TenEightyOneI think you've gone a little far there. Destroying British culture, heritage, language, tradition, wealth and landscape so they can supplant our raft of identities with their own narrow version and insist that we call it British is too horrific a legacy, in my opinion. If you think that's trivial then I'd say you're part of the problem.
But what about the picture is so awful?
Yes of course it's ok, just as it's ok to take the picture down. Nope, just that it's ridiculous.
My history's hazy, are you referencing past monarchs' actions? And the present Queen represents that?
It's OK that they have the choice to take it down. It's ridiculous that that was their choice.Is it okay or is it ridiculous? Why did you even mention them taking it down if it isn't an issue to you?
So the window has gone from:TenEightyOneThe present Queen doesn't represent the monarchy? She isn't the head of the Anglican church? Are you for real?
It's OK that they have the choice to take it down. It's ridiculous that that was their choice.
So the window has gone from:
"He was a slave trader (when it was unfortunately legal), take him down"
"He didn't ethically invest in the 18th century, take him down"
"She should be judged on the actions of her ancestors, take her down"
It's not what 40% of the UK want according to Luntz's figures. Who is he to speak for the other 60% and what is he doing over here anyway?“The problem with woke and with cancel culture is that it is never done. The conflict and divisions never end,” he said. “This is not what the people of the UK want — but it’s coming anyway.”
‘Woke’ culture war is biggest dividing line among voters
“Wokeism” and the culture wars are on course to becoming the biggest dividing line in British politics, a prominent pollster has concluded following a major study into voter attitudes.
Frank Luntz, who spent nearly three decades carrying out work for the Republican Party in the US and advised presidents including George W Bush on political language, said that within six to 12 months cultural divisions in Britain would catch up with those in the United States.
“The problem with woke and with cancel culture is that it is never done. The conflict and divisions never end,” he said. “This is not what the people of the UK want — but it’s coming anyway.”
The Labour Party was in touch with its own voter base but “disconnected with everyone else”, he said. Sir Keir Starmer’s party “has got an internal conflict that is unsustainable”.
.............
Some 81 per cent of Tory voters agreed that the UK was a nation of “equality and freedom”, while 19 per cent said it was “institutionally racist and discriminatory nation”. Among Labour voters 52 per cent agreed with the former and 48 per cent with the latter.
According to his findings, 40 per cent of all voters believe cancel culture enforces a “thought and speech police” that can ruin lives, while 25 per cent think it is a good thing because if you say something sexist or racist you should “face the consequences”.
Luntz said that “woke” issues were becoming dominant in British political culture. “Woke begets woke,” he said. “It’s a narrative that Labour is promoting now but the Conservatives will pick it up as a reaction. The damage and the consequences of that chasm is awful.”
“When you have decided that your country is institutionally racist and discriminatory you don’t normally go back.”
Their findings seem like a marked contrast with the figures I presented earlier and subsequent consensus on the thread that most people seem to be indifferent to the "scourge" of woke if in fact it even exists.Jesus crust the right is absolutely obsessed with cancel culture, "wokeism" and all of these other lefty-boogeyman terms they pump out into their media. Standard fare from The Times and a US Republican spin doctor though.
I'm highly sceptical as to whether Labour are campaigning on a "woke" platform rather than the Tories making plans to campaign on a "Labour are campaigning on a 'woke' platform" platform.
Hahaha exactly this.I'm highly sceptical as to whether Labour are campaigning on a "woke" platform rather than the Tories making plans to campaign on a "Labour are campaigning on a 'woke' platform" platform.
They sound like fairly leading questions to me. Boiling down to A) Should the government be there to help the needy. And B) Should the government be there to help the greedy. Even in the comfort of their own home, away from the judgement of others. A majority of people are still more likely to lean more towards A.It's not all bad:
Asked for his advice to Boris Johnson he pointed to findings that suggested voters believed the most important objective for government should be “protecting the poorest, weakest and most vulnerable”. This was the most popular option among those polled, chosen by 40 per cent, far more than the second most popular which was “letting people keep more of their hard-earned income” and chosen by 27 per cent.
That's the argument put forward in the radio segment (it also contains a revealing back to back comparison of George H Bush and Trump's statements on consequences of speech/actions)."Cancel culture" is "political correctness" (BOO!!!). They're both ambiguous bogeymen invoked whenever one doesn't approve of consequences for one's own or another's speech or actions.