Jump to content

Fine line between cancel culture and curbing hate speech


Jerry_Atrick
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.theage.com.au/culture/tv-and-radio/jessica-rowe-pulls-podcast-interview-with-pauline-hanson-after-backlash-20210930-p58w62.html

 

I read this article and thought to myself we are headed to bloody riots to civil wars. Society seems to be more polarised than it ever has been in my lifetime. I am trying to work out why and the above article may go some way to explaining one of the factors that is driving the wedge further.

 

I have not listened to the podcast interview - but from the article, it is not so much about Hanson's politics, of which I rarely agree with, but the private side of her life, and how her public life has impacted her private life. For me, it would have been an interesting perspective (if it was in fact as The Age portrayed) in getting to understand what drives her. However, there have been people who rightly campaign against the things she stands for, who led the twitterati in getting the podcast to be shut down. I will give the interviewer the benefit of the doubt and assume she was objective and not platforming Pauline Hanson.

 

If so, this would, to me, be a base of cancel culture and go some way to describe the wedge that is being driven further. "I don't agree with what you say, therefore, you can't say anything." is how I read it, and that is wrong. In fact, it misses an opportunity to understand and engage people positively to address their concerns.. you may not win the day - after all with many of us, our views are entrenched whether we admit to it or not - but at least you may go some way to provide understanding to change the rhetoric a bit.  But by cancelling the discussion - esp where it can give you insights - just widens the divide as people feel they are not being heard.

 

Obvious hate speech should be curtailed as this is not rational discussion, either.. but there is a fine line and the question is which way to we err on the side of?

  • Like 1
  • Winner 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point of view is, when it is proven false and poses a danger to public health, then you block them.

 

Trump's ravings about the election being "stolen" when it was proven not to be, led directly to the insurrection of 6/1 and the deaths of several people.  He was rightly dropped from platforms like Twitter and Facebook then.

People putting out proven misinformation about vaccinations, which may cause hesitant people to not get the jab and therefore put themselves and others at risk of death, should be silenced.

 

These are not things that are a matter of opinion where the "truth" is unknown and the battle of ideas and viewpoints can lead to a greater understanding.  They are things that are proven already by experts so equal "airtime" should not be given to dissenting voices.

  • Agree 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor Pauline! She's always being made the clown by the Meeja, and often puts forward the image of not being the sharpest tool in the shed. But if the podcast was not a direct interview to draw her out on political policy, but could simply be cast as a "girlie chat" about private life, where's the harm in that? If it was a politically based interview and Pauline said stuff one did not agree with, then it's OK to attack the content. 

 

This cult of "Celebrity" that many adhere to doesn't advance the Nation at all. I've said it often, and I'll say it again, "When was the last time you heard any politician stand up and outline their Party's manifesto?" All we get are picket sign slogans. Look at the current United Australia Party ads. Not one outlines the UAP's manifesto. They are all slogans and one liners.

 

I'd like to meet Pauline over a cuppa and scone. I reckon she would be an interesting person to chat with. At least at the end I'd be refreshed, fed and enlightened.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II don't even know I agree that when BS is being spouted, it should be shutdown. A responsible media will challenge it rigorously, because shutting it down will harden resolve of those whose right to speak "freely" is being infringed, and may inadvertently draw followers who wouldn't if they had the facts. A bit like the ABC did here:

 

 

But in Pauline's case, the podcast (allegedly) wasn't about Hanson's politics (or a platform for it), it was about her. And cancelling that because of her politics I think misses an opportunity. Yes, the argument is that she could present's herself as the caring mum who wants a better Australia for her kids.. which I think she does and is - just her idea of a better Australia seems to be out of kilter with reality. But, at least we could hear her story and challenge it.. shutting it down now gives her some sort of legitimacy and potential followers while allowing those who led the revolt to be cast as fanatical activists.

 

Like OME, I wouldn't mind having a cuppa with her.. I would be asking if she would sell her house to white people, because at the moment, ASIO rates white supremacy terrorists as a threat that may rival Islamic extremism: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/asio-boss-warns-terrorist-attack-in-australia-is-probable-within-next-12-months/4f839b10-50f4-44d0-81ec-94c358b79003

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another sign of the fracturing of society, everyone turning against each other. Not much can be done, it will only get worse as world societies collapse under the weight of reality, whilst ideological humanity struggles to keep its dying delusionary approach to life continuing. Problem is, fantasy beliefs and life styles can't compete with the evolving world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, BTW I agree completely. Now more than ever, we must not shut down the fringe area buttons. (Not biased much, am I?).

The result of total censorship can be seen in China, and N Korea. (And religions).

The only way to stabilise and mend this particular fracture in our society, is to have responsible freedom of the press. Misinformation must be briefly allowed, but aired with FACTUAL references to traceable accurate sources. This might encourage the people to follow up "interesting" things that get reported.

Presently, our Meeja seem to think it is quite ok to report some emotionally engaging conspricy, and let it ride without balance, then when challenged by factual argument, seem to give the unverified misinformation equal air time, which serves to give misinformation greater credibility.

In this way the commercial  media are aggravating polarisation in the community.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pauleen's got her recipe for getting enough votes to pay to keep the Party Going. You get so much for each vote you get. She's" Saying what you are thinking' has been the line  She's aligned with The NRA and uses Racism often. She also cracked the Champagne publicly when Trump got in. She gets the most support in QLD and the preferences go to LieNP. She trades her support for favours more for her situation than the People... Plenty of hugs for her from the National/Liberal side butt hey don't sing it from the rooftops. A Bot set up a fund to try to get rid of her and she did do Gaol time. The "Legality" of the fund was questionable and my main point in bringing the matter up is to show how her help is now appreciated as no doubt Palmers Miillions of advertising dollars helps Murdoch and the LNP. Nev

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/10/2021 at 1:08 AM, Jerry_Atrick said:

II don't even know I agree that when BS is being spouted, it should be shutdown. A responsible media will challenge it rigorously, because shutting it down will harden resolve of those whose right to speak "freely" is being infringed, and may inadvertently draw followers who wouldn't if they had the facts. A bit like the ABC did here:

 

Not the first time that it took an Australian journalist to show how dumb American politics has become.

And no wonder Scomo’s government has plans to neuter the ABC.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

The very foundations of our political system (fibs) are being threatened by this radical:

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-13/fact-check-is-it-perfectly-legal-to-lie-in-a-political-ad-/100511796

Old K, did you actually read the story? Independent federal MP Zali Steggall is simply stating a provable fact. There is no law preventing anyone telling porkies in Federal political advertising, and her goal is to amend the Electoral Act to make it illegal in political advertising. 

 

So, whatever she might be otherwise, in this instance she is not a "radical". Unless of course you are a red hot member of a political party's advertising team aiming to use such tactics. Then you would see her idea as radical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Old K, did you actually read the story? Independent federal MP Zali Steggall is simply stating a provable fact. There is no law preventing anyone telling porkies in Federal political advertising, and her goal is to amend the Electoral Act to make it illegal in political advertising. 

 

So, whatever she might be otherwise, in this instance she is not a "radical". Unless of course you are a red hot member of a political party's advertising team aiming to use such tactics. Then you would see her idea as radical.

Yes Nev, I did. I am also a member of Zali’s fan club and follow her career with admiration.

I was trying to make the point that our current political system is based on telling fibs, so her initiative will get plenty of opposition.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...