By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
First Colbert … now Kimmel on 17:30 - Sep 18 by redrickstuhaart
The uni was fined for limiting free speech? They key here being that in one place the state intervenes to ensure free speech. In the other, the state intervenes to the opposite effect.
Not remotely comparable.
Go and have a look at what Kimmel actually did and said. Nothing disrespectful about Kirk at all (though that would plainly be permitted under the constitution in any event). Rather he played a clip of Trumps response to being asked how he was holding up following Kirk's death- to which he excitedly talked about his new ballroom.
Criticism is being criminalised.
[Post edited 18 Sep 17:32]
exactly this - he was critical but his words were careful and could easily be defended.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
0
First Colbert … now Kimmel on 17:46 - Sep 18 with 1165 views
First Colbert … now Kimmel on 09:59 - Sep 18 by Guthrum
The US system has very limited avenues to do anything about it. If one faction has control of all branches of the government and the Supreme Court, however marginal or contrived, all checks and balances are out of the window. The Founding Father do not seem to have thought of this - as Enlightenment thinkers educated in the Classics, they ought to have known better (just look at the fall of the Roman Republic).
A vote of no confidence in the President does not exist as a mechanism, or has no practical effect, even if it could be got through a partisan Congress. Illness or criminal activity are the only ways of removing the incumbent - and the judges of that are his own supporters in the House.
Street protests have no practical effect and, in any case, the effectively binary political setup ensures that pretty much half the population will support whoever is in power. This doubly so with someone who does not care what those not backing him think (indeed revels in their discomfiture) and takes an imaginary view of the balance of public opinion.
Presumably that why pressure builds and then they have a collective crisis (the Civil War, unrest during suffrage in 1920s, unrest and gangster trade related to prohibition in 20s/30s, civil rights unrest in the 60s). Each of these ultimately lead to/forced new constitutional amendments. It seems we’re some way off another crisis, but if ever an administration is going to create one it will be this one.
First Colbert … now Kimmel on 17:30 - Sep 18 by redrickstuhaart
The uni was fined for limiting free speech? They key here being that in one place the state intervenes to ensure free speech. In the other, the state intervenes to the opposite effect.
Not remotely comparable.
Go and have a look at what Kimmel actually did and said. Nothing disrespectful about Kirk at all (though that would plainly be permitted under the constitution in any event). Rather he played a clip of Trumps response to being asked how he was holding up following Kirk's death- to which he excitedly talked about his new ballroom.
Criticism is being criminalised.
[Post edited 18 Sep 17:32]
I’m not talking about the UK Govt vs US Govt; I’m talking about cultural institutions from the left here and how things have been over last few years etc vs how now the right will be and are fighting back with the power of the press behind him
First Colbert … now Kimmel on 18:11 - Sep 18 by itfcjoe
I’m not talking about the UK Govt vs US Govt; I’m talking about cultural institutions from the left here and how things have been over last few years etc vs how now the right will be and are fighting back with the power of the press behind him
Its not remotely comparable.
-2
First Colbert … now Kimmel on 07:35 - Sep 19 with 474 views
First Colbert … now Kimmel on 16:43 - Sep 18 by lowhouseblue
i think you're right that what is happening now in the US is different in scale and character. when the state gets involved in seeking to censor and punish speech and views which it disagrees with it is quite a different issue. it has a more frightening feel. a lot of what trump is doing is yet to be tested in court - and a lot of it is a second round effect where companies and institutions fear punishment and therefore self-censor.
but the issue in the uk shouldn't be underestimated - even though different. we have had a form on institutional narrowing whereby in key cultural institutions - universities, the arts sector, the not-profit sector, state agencies - only one political view on key cultural issues it acceptable. there is a narrowing of what views are tolerated and as a result a huge degree of self-censorship. people avoid controversial issues and if they have views that differ from the orthodoxy they keep silent. there have been many cases where such institutional narrowing has resulted n discriminatory behaviour by institutions which has been successfully challenged in the courts and in tribunals. my career has been spent in one of the types of institutions listed above and through practical experience i know this to be true.
That's certainly one way of looking at it, although there are others.
All of the organisations you mention seem to me to be both welcoming to and attractive to people from diverse backgrounds, and I, for one, think that is a good thing. In contrast, for example, professional football in the UK has never had any player brave enough to "come out". I imagine much the same is true of those who work in, say, the various trades.
I have experience as a City lawyer and as a lawyer in Whitehall and the contrast couldn't have been greater. As a City lawyer to be gay or to express socialist views would have been a death knell to one's prospects not least because of the attitude of clients. In contrast, the civil service was a place where people of all sorts were welcome and thrived, although people kept their political opinions to themselves. To take one example, the civil service was ahead of the game when it came to part-time working which meant that many very talented female lawyers could job share, something that they just couldn't do in the City.
The concern I have is that there is now a backlash generally, and especially in the private sector, against diversity, so any progress that might have been made is rolled back.
[Post edited 19 Sep 8:55]
0
First Colbert … now Kimmel on 09:11 - Sep 19 with 264 views
First Colbert … now Kimmel on 07:35 - Sep 19 by DJR
That's certainly one way of looking at it, although there are others.
All of the organisations you mention seem to me to be both welcoming to and attractive to people from diverse backgrounds, and I, for one, think that is a good thing. In contrast, for example, professional football in the UK has never had any player brave enough to "come out". I imagine much the same is true of those who work in, say, the various trades.
I have experience as a City lawyer and as a lawyer in Whitehall and the contrast couldn't have been greater. As a City lawyer to be gay or to express socialist views would have been a death knell to one's prospects not least because of the attitude of clients. In contrast, the civil service was a place where people of all sorts were welcome and thrived, although people kept their political opinions to themselves. To take one example, the civil service was ahead of the game when it came to part-time working which meant that many very talented female lawyers could job share, something that they just couldn't do in the City.
The concern I have is that there is now a backlash generally, and especially in the private sector, against diversity, so any progress that might have been made is rolled back.
[Post edited 19 Sep 8:55]
"both welcoming to and attractive to people from diverse backgrounds"
i agree with that and it is good that people from diverse backgrounds are welcomed. but diversity also includes diversity of opinion. what these institutions no longer foster is diversity of opinion. they have become narrow in terms of the opinions they express and tolerate. many have become institutionally intolerant of beliefs which diverge from their current orthodoxy. and a string of discrimination claims have proved that to be the case.
"people kept their political opinions to themselves". exactly that, people self-censor out of fear of repercussions. when institutions are adopting policies which are inherently political and staff are too afraid to speak out that is very unhealthy. in academia staff self-censoring narrows debate and discussion and to leads poor research. elsewhere, the sandi peggie case has yet to be concluded - the degree of bias and intolerance and closed-mindedness alleged against nhs administrators is shocking - it suggests a very unhealthy culture which wouldn't exist if staff felt free to express their views openly. i don't know of one management theory that says having staff who are afraid to speak is a good thing.
[Post edited 19 Sep 9:13]
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
-1
First Colbert … now Kimmel on 09:23 - Sep 19 with 223 views
Siri, is this state interference in media motivated by an ultranationalist, authoritarian political philosophy, that combines elements of nationalism, militarism, economic self-sufficiency, and totalitarianism?
Because the TWTD right wing inteligensia told me I was "making it up" lol.
0
First Colbert … now Kimmel on 09:57 - Sep 19 with 141 views
First Colbert … now Kimmel on 09:11 - Sep 19 by lowhouseblue
"both welcoming to and attractive to people from diverse backgrounds"
i agree with that and it is good that people from diverse backgrounds are welcomed. but diversity also includes diversity of opinion. what these institutions no longer foster is diversity of opinion. they have become narrow in terms of the opinions they express and tolerate. many have become institutionally intolerant of beliefs which diverge from their current orthodoxy. and a string of discrimination claims have proved that to be the case.
"people kept their political opinions to themselves". exactly that, people self-censor out of fear of repercussions. when institutions are adopting policies which are inherently political and staff are too afraid to speak out that is very unhealthy. in academia staff self-censoring narrows debate and discussion and to leads poor research. elsewhere, the sandi peggie case has yet to be concluded - the degree of bias and intolerance and closed-mindedness alleged against nhs administrators is shocking - it suggests a very unhealthy culture which wouldn't exist if staff felt free to express their views openly. i don't know of one management theory that says having staff who are afraid to speak is a good thing.
[Post edited 19 Sep 9:13]
A few observations.
1. My point about people keeping their views to themselves was not self-censorship in the sense you suggest but but instead what, when I worked, seemed to be the prevailing idea that one didn't talk about politics at work.
2. It is clear that the trans debate has given rise to issues because of the interaction between competing rights but leaving that aside are you saying, for example, that academic freedom has been curtailed in the way you suggest outside that area? And are there as many cases as you suggest whether in that arena or elsewhere?
3. If you regard something like personal pronouns as part of the problem, I might add that they have been used in the Cabinet Office and I am not aware of people I know objecting to their use. Indeed, Billy Bragg even changed the lyrics of Sexuality from: “Just because you’re gay, I won’t turn you away / If you stick around, I’m sure that we can find some common ground” to “Just because you’re they, I won’t turn you away / If you stick around, I’m sure that we can find the right pronoun”.
EDIT: No point in wasting an opportunity to post a video of what is a cracking song featuring Kirsty McColl.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
