The non-PC PC Thread

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be honest I suspect that the RA couldn’t give a collective rats arse about trans issues. They just don’t want to lose money. They don’t want labelling that would detrimentally affect them. It’s the labellers that are to blame. It’s a new form of bullying. “Conform to our opinions or we’ll destroy you.” The RA should have told them to “f^*±k off!” They should accept that people might have opinions that they don’t like. They should accept that they’ve no right to keep insisting that their opinion is the only correct one and that opposing ones should be silenced. They should stop whining and find something constructive to do that doesn’t involve vindictively punishing people (with the help of cowards) that have done absolutely nothing wrong.

If you have to look at something that someone has said and think “well maybe if you looked at it this way or if you construed x as indicating y then it’s possible that a small proportion of z might, under certain circumstances, be upset” then it’s time to pack up and go home. If the artist had said something obviously hateful about trans people then they’d definitely have a point but she categorically didn’t. So they don’t. She had an opinion which differs from theirs. Which is only a level or two down from murder these days.

[etenguy]

OK, clearly the RA is of absolutely no consequence to any artist. I take it all back! We may as well ignore anything they have to say.

Hi Dupin

I have no idea if this artist will suffer in any way by the RA choosing to distance itself from the views of the artist. But let's assume she does. How is that different from the artist choosing to use her privileged position to pronounce on another group of people and potentially causing harm to them. You either defend both to exercise their rights as they see fit or defend neither of them.

First they came for the artists, but I did nothing because I was not an artist...

You could equally say 'first they came for the trans people, but I did nothing because I was not trans.'

[Dupin]

I'm not sure the RA is a public authority, I believe it is a charity

OK, clearly the RA is of absolutely no consequence to any artist. I take it all back! We may as well ignore anything they have to say.

Except the artist is not cancelled - she has a voice, a public platform and can continue to work as an artist.

First they came for the artists, but I did nothing because I was not an artist...

[Dupin]

Hi Herlock

I do hope you are right, although even "trouble at t'mill" Yorkshire types might prefer not to have their factory windows smashed.

For instance, my Alma Mater recently removed a glass window from its Hall. This had been dedicated to the father of modern statistics, and doyen of experimental biological science, Dr R A Fisher. Apparently he had, back in 19-whatnot, been in favour of something called "eugenics". And the current collegiate members of the said institution were *offended* by this. So the college council cancelled the offensive window. (I expect it has gone into store until sense has prevailed; or the current students have left; or the members of the college council continue their journey beyond dusty death.)

Fisher was hardly alone. Eugenics was awfully popular back then. Unfortunately, this guy called Adolf someone or other also liked it. And even today, a very similar concept is put forward, but in the modern jargon is termed something like "sustainable family planning".

As a Windows aside a certain gentleman called Mr William Gates senior was very prominent in eugenics; back then. His offspring is allegedly in favour of sustainable family planning. Quel surprise. Don't quote me, I don't have enough dosh. But looking through this, should we in fact cancel all Windows?

[etenguy]

Cheers Dupin,

I wonder how many companies would have reacted in the same way to the same few complaints? If a factory owner was told that one of his workers had said what the artist had said do we think that the factory owner would have sacked her? No, he’d have told them to get lost and mind their own business.

Hi Herlock

That may be true of some organisations, but many would dismiss employees who made public statements they consider would bring their reputation into disrepute. I have such a clause explicit in my contract.

[etenguy]

The balance of power here is not equitable. Indeed an artist has the right not to exhibit but that is hardly a powerful act since it is likely only to do harm to the artist themselves. But if the Royal Academy cancels an artists work that artist may well be ruined. In many ways, the RA is a powerful public authority. In terms of the Human Rights Act:

"Article 10 protects the right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference. ... Public authorities may restrict this right if they can show that their action ... is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the issue concerned."

Hi Dupin

I'm not sure the RA is a public authority, I believe it is a charity - no lawyer but I don't think their actions amount to government interference.

As for the balance of power, the artist has a public platform and public voice, whereas the people who she opines about have no voice or right of reply.

The artist did not profess to speak for the RA, and said nothing illegal (er, yet),

Agree

or in hatred of any race or creed or indeed individual.

This would warrant discussion - certainly many of those of whom she speaks might argue differently.

It would appear that the RA has acted in line with "cancel culture". On the other hand it does mean that their statue to Joshua Reynolds will remain secure on its plinth.

Except the artist is not cancelled - she has a voice, a public platform and can continue to work as an artist. And surely if you wish to uphold the rights of the artist, you would also recognise the same rights for others.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The balance of power here is not equitable. Indeed an artist has the right not to exhibit but that is hardly a powerful act since it is likely only to do harm to the artist themselves. But if the Royal Academy cancels an artists work that artist may well be ruined. In many ways, the RA is a powerful public authority. In terms of the Human Rights Act:

"Article 10 protects the right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference. ... Public authorities may restrict this right if they can show that their action ... is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the issue concerned."

The artist did not profess to speak for the RA, and said nothing illegal (er, yet), or in hatred of any race or creed or indeed individual.

It would appear that the RA has acted in line with "cancel culture". On the other hand it does mean that their statue to Joshua Reynolds will remain secure on its plinth.

Cheers Dupin,

I wonder how many companies would have reacted in the same way to the same few complaints? If a factory owner was told that one of his workers had said what the artist had said do we think that the factory owner would have sacked her? No, he’d have told them to get lost and mind their own business. It boils down to fear. The RA is scared by comments pointed out by a couple of the new class of people whose job it is to root around for tenuous reasons for being ‘offended’, not because they disagree with or dislike the comments, but because they are scared of the potential repercussions and I’m not talking about the repercussions to trans people. It’s fear of these Orwellian bullies planting one of their nasty little labels on them (ending on ‘phobe’ or ‘ist’) which might end up losing them money. It stinks.

[Dupin]

As for free speech - no-one is silencing or punishing the artist ... free speech works both ways. If the RA disagree with the artist, they are absolutely free to end their association with the artist to demonstrate their views, backing their speech with action. Just as the artist would be perfectly free not to exhibit her work ...

The balance of power here is not equitable. Indeed an artist has the right not to exhibit but that is hardly a powerful act since it is likely only to do harm to the artist themselves. But if the Royal Academy cancels an artists work that artist may well be ruined. In many ways, the RA is a powerful public authority. In terms of the Human Rights Act:

"Article 10 protects the right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference. ... Public authorities may restrict this right if they can show that their action ... is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the issue concerned."

The artist did not profess to speak for the RA, and said nothing illegal (er, yet), or in hatred of any race or creed or indeed individual.

It would appear that the RA has acted in line with "cancel culture". On the other hand it does mean that their statue to Joshua Reynolds will remain secure on its plinth.

[etenguy]

Accepted Eten,

I just think that people are being way too sensitive though. They’re also looking way too hard to find things to be offended about. I can understand why the term ‘snowflake’ came into use. I bet that if you researched deeply enough you could find something that there was ‘offensive’ to someone that every artist has said at some point in their lives. Now that would be funny to see the RA completely memberless. I genuinely hope that none of these people have to go to war. The enemy would only have to call them a few names and they’d be on the deck blubbing.

Hi Herlock

I think this is at the centre of the debate you have started on this thread and is taking place across our media and wider society at the moment. Are people being too sensitive and have they lost their ability to have a decent debate about issues rather than everything becoming confrontational, finger pointing and too often violent? Have we lost our sense of perspective and proportionality? And, based on your posts, I think we probably agree that action and reaction are too often not proportionate and a lot of the debates in society across a range of issues have become tribal and toxic. I could be wrong, but I think it stems from the Brexit debate and divisive politicians and celebrity figures. The labels that have sprung up are purposefully dismissive and used to inflame debate rather than allow an issue to be dealt with eg snowflake, woke, gammon, boomer etc... There has always been an element of this in public debate, but now I think it drowns out any kind of sensible argument. We may disagree about individual issues and specific examples, but in essence I agree with the general point you make.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

I absolutely agree that no-one has the right not to be offended.

We may see the trans debate through different lenses and hold different views on the issues involved. That's fine, we are allowed to disagree - in fact it is often through disagreement in a constructive debate that things change, one way or the other.

As for free speech - no-one is silencing or punishing the artist. The artist has made her views known publicly and continues to do so. But free speech works both ways. If the RA disagree with the artist, they are absolutely free to end their association with the artist to demonstrate their views, backing their speech with action. Just as the artist would be perfectly free not to exhibit her work in a stonewall publication because she disagrees violently with their views. Absolutely people can exercise their right of free speech, even if it offends, but then they should not be surprised that those they offend decide to end their relationship with them.

Accepted Eten,

I just think that people are being way too sensitive though. They’re also looking way too hard to find things to be offended about. I can understand why the term ‘snowflake’ came into use. I bet that if you researched deeply enough you could find something that there was ‘offensive’ to someone that every artist has said at some point in their lives. Now that would be funny to see the RA completely memberless. I genuinely hope that none of these people have to go to war. The enemy would only have to call them a few names and they’d be on the deck blubbing.

[etenguy]

just don’t see how its not dangerously damaging to the future of society if opinions can become punishable. And this is what is happening more and more. I think it was Christopher Hitchen’s who said in a speech (although he may have been quoting someone) “Free speech must include the right to offend.”

Hi Herlock

I absolutely agree that no-one has the right not to be offended.

We may see the trans debate through different lenses and hold different views on the issues involved. That's fine, we are allowed to disagree - in fact it is often through disagreement in a constructive debate that things change, one way or the other.

As for free speech - no-one is silencing or punishing the artist. The artist has made her views known publicly and continues to do so. But free speech works both ways. If the RA disagree with the artist, they are absolutely free to end their association with the artist to demonstrate their views, backing their speech with action. Just as the artist would be perfectly free not to exhibit her work in a stonewall publication because she disagrees violently with their views. Absolutely people can exercise their right of free speech, even if it offends, but then they should not be surprised that those they offend decide to end their relationship with them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

I don't have a problem with the Royal Academy's action. It is up to them if they do not want to be associated with transphobic people and views. I appreciate you don't think what the artist said was anything but her opinion (to which she is entitled), but those views translate into real world violence and RA are free to distance themselves if it does not fit with their values. Imagine if the artist was saying that black people aren't real people - I think most people would not question RA's action in that circumstance. To me these two things are the same.

Hello Eten,

Im not going to get into the whole Trans debate Eten but it appears to be one that’s still disputed by a lot of people including scientists so it’s difficult to see how either side can claim to be correct and then force their opinions on to others backed by punitive actions that can have a major effect on their lives.There also appears to be a lot of women lately (identifying as feminists) who aren’t toeing the line and are being accused of the Orwellian Hate Speech.

A big problem is that anyone says can ‘translate’ into real world violence. It’s down to interpretation. Look at radical Islamic terrorists who believe that the Koran is telling them to kill infidels. Should we try to ban the Koran? How many people use the Bible to justify acts of violence and terror? Do we try and ban the Bible? It’s not the text it’s the exaggerated reaction of certain people. So if someone gives an opinion on this subject I can’t for the life of me see how they can be blamed if some moron does something genuinely transphobic and violent. Nothing that that artist said could be classed as ‘hateful,’ for me. Not even close. Possibly controversial (these days) but that’s all.

I think that this person is correct. Deep breaths are needed on both sides.

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/c...d-b940913.html

I just don’t see how its not dangerously damaging to the future of society if opinions can become punishable. And this is what is happening more and more. I think it was Christopher Hitchen’s who said in a speech (although he may have been quoting someone) “Free speech must include the right to offend.”

[etenguy]

I can’t find the original article that appeared on my screen but this is The Daily Mail’s report.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...legations.html

Hi Herlock

I don't have a problem with the Royal Academy's action. It is up to them if they do not want to be associated with transphobic people and views. I appreciate you don't think what the artist said was anything but her opinion (to which she is entitled), but those views translate into real world violence and RA are free to distance themselves if it does not fit with their values. Imagine if the artist was saying that black people aren't real people - I think most people would not question RA's action in that circumstance. To me these two things are the same.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can’t find the original article that appeared on my screen but this is The Daily Mail’s report.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9698369/Royal-Academy-REFUSES-sell-artists-work-amid-transphobia-allegations.html

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is that definitely the right link, Herlock?

Maybe it's me being a bit slow (and hungover after last night's game)!

That’s weird Ms D. It’s not the right link. I haven’t a clue how I’ve managed that?