Iced Earth

Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
I must say though, that I think there are problematic sides to the phenomenon called cancel culture.

When someone becomes a taboo just because they say something that can be seen as controversial - or as supporting someone controversial - freedom of speech suffers.

Right now, as an example, there's a debate going on in the newspaper Aftenposten between some who think a library should drop Harry Potter-themed events due to things JK Rowling has said about transsexual people, and those who think they shouldn't.

That's going too far, I think.
Click to expand...
Yes and changing streetnames of people who did stuff in the 17th century also goes a little far at times, depending on what they did. For historical reasons, and teaching, it is good to not cancel, erase society from darker pages of its past.
Add information, let people know how we now look at deeds of the past. But don't create a botox society.
 
You can put some of the dark history where it belongs. In museums. I can understand running into say, slavers (statues, streetnames) everywhere day in and out is provocative.
 
Forostar said:
Some suggested that Nicko might have played gigs in 1982, others thought Clive played all live concerts until he was replaced.
There was "the Clive article", which was disputed here. Via some factfinding in different directons, it became clear what happened. I'd say it is not that obsessive to learn more. For people into Maiden(('s concert / bandmember) history) it was good to know what was true and what not. Looking up when someone's father died, that is not widely regarded as such a sin, is it? Or that private? Apparently it is public info (when one pays for it).
Click to expand...

It was nice being able to debunk the false news from Clive’s interview.
 
Forostar said:
Yes and changing streetnames of people who did stuff in the 17th century also goes a little far at times, depending on what they did. For historical reasons, and teaching, it is good to not cancel, erase society from darker pages of its past.
Click to expand...
Yeah I wholeheartedly disagree
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yax
I have a fringe stance on this. Personally, I don't think streets should be named after people at all. I also don't like the practice of setting up public statues for individuals or naming buildings or organisations for people. The aim of doing these things is not to educate about history, it is to elevate and idealise people and sometimes to usurp famous names. There are plenty of ways of teaching history without doing this.
 
Yax said:
You can put some of the dark history where it belongs. In museums. I can understand running into say, slavers (statues, streetnames) everywhere day in and out is provocative.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty torn about he subject in general, and like to judge case by case, but for many statues that were destroyed in the BLM era I can understand why it happened. The racism is so alive still and radiates strongly from some of those statues (and less in others).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yax
A statue made several hundreds of years ago can also be seen as a historical artwork. But early 20th century statues made to incite anger and fear is a very clear no for me. Several of these South states statues are like these.

I am less problematic about people in streetnames (although very new names of controversial figures is not recommended). Depends for me on what they did, which is not always easy to rate.
 
Forostar said:
A statue made several hundreds of years ago can also be seen as a historical artwork.
Click to expand...

And nowhere did I say that it can't be. But an old statue is history, whereas setting up a statue today is designing history. There are historical contexts for societies putting up statues in the past, and as such, old statues are necessary to understand those historical contexts. It is not, in my opinion, necessary to leave them in the same contexts, though. You can move a statue to a museum where it can often gain more educational value.
Today, I think our society should have developed past the necessity of putting up a statue for a person. We cannot influence someone setting up a statue for Louis XIV 300 years ago. But today, we have the choice to put up a statue for someone or not. And I think we should choose not to.
 
And nowhere did I say that you said that it can't be Perun. I just felt writing more thoughts, because there are more sides to it.

Yes, moving to a museum can be good, better than destroying at least.

I am not a fan of sterile and clueless streetnames though. I think it is interesting to suddenly read a name of the past (perhaps even a local figure) that can say next to nothing at first, but after finding out more it can be a nice spontaneous little discovery while having a walk. Musea serve good purposes but I do think there can be more interesting links to history, history of people included.
 
MrKnickerbocker said:
As far as “cancel culture” goes, I feel like we’ve just come up with an objectionable phrase that means, “experiencing consequences for poor decisions.”
Click to expand...
The term gets abused by some, and I don’t think it applies in Schaffer’s case, but it refers to a very real trend of activists mobilizing mobs to wage PR campaigns to end people’s careers when they say something that the activist doesn’t like. It’s the economic version of a lynch mob and it’s very troubling. It can be easy to cheer on the mob when you agree with them, but it’s chilling when you don’t agree. And generally I think when someone is exercising their right to free speech and they’re not violating any terms of their employment in doing so, they shouldn’t be subject to this sort of mob response.

Schaffer’s situation is different because he participated in an armed insurrection against the government and attacked officers of the law in the process. He almost certainly violated the terms of his contract with the label, and this is the natural outcome of his actions.

Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
I must say though, that I think there are problematic sides to the phenomenon called cancel culture.

When someone becomes a taboo just because they say something that can be seen as controversial - or as supporting someone controversial - freedom of speech suffers.
Click to expand...
This. Gilbert Gottfried shouldn’t have lost his stupid Aflac gig for making 9/11 jokes. College deans shouldn’t get kicked out for suggesting that children who dress up as characters of different ethnicities for Halloween aren’t culturally appropriating pieces of shit. A professor who uses the word “niggardly” shouldn’t be fired because someone didn’t understand the etymology of the word and got mistakenly offended.

The world is not required to avoid offending people. True exercise of free speech in fact guarantees that everyone will hear things that offend them on a regular basis. People need to learn to accept that fact as part of being a mature adult.

And yeah, social consequences, blah blah, see my earlier mob comment.

Yax said:
Cancel culture is in itself an extension of freedom of speech and a free market. It is consumer power and that can be frightening for people more powerful than the person next door.
Click to expand...
There is some truth to this in #MeToo cases and the like, but there’s also a very dark side to it as noted above. Some random dork on Twitter shouldn’t have the power to end your ability to support your family because he disliked something you said. When applied unfairly, that’s economic terrorism.
 
Forostar said:
I just felt writing more thoughts, because there are more sides to it.
Click to expand...

No need to be defensive. I'm just continuing the discussion. Responding to arguments with new arguments.

Forostar said:
I am not a fan of sterile and clueless streetnames though. I think it is interesting to suddenly read a name that can say next to nothing at first, but after finding out more it can be a nice spontaneous little discovery while having a walk.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't entirely agree with you here, especially on the point that the alternative to a street named for a person is a sterile or meaningless name. There are plenty of interesting street names that don't honour a person. Some refer to locations or buildings that used to be at this street and no longer are, thus preserving the history of the site. Did you know, for example, that the name Wall Street in New York is derived from Dutch Waalstraat from when the city was still Nieuw Amsterdam? Imagine it had been renamed to something like "George Washington Street" at some point - I think a lot of history would have been lost this way.
If we're talking about naming new streets, there's no reason that naming them for a person would be the most informative or educational option. Imagine you called a new street something like "Baobab Lane". You'll have a similar effect wondering, "wtf is a baobab?" and learn about it. Some people might even be inspired to actually plant a baobab there and make others encounter a rare and exotic tree. That would be a cool discovery, wouldn't it? And it might even inspire a sense of community and, drumroll, identity.
Now, I know these are naive examples and that reality is never that simple or that perfect. I'm just saying that there are alternatives if you want to look for them.
 
These are very good examples indeed! But I often see dumb names as well (colours for example), in which case I rather have people.
 
I understand what you mean, but even a mindlessly titled "Yellow Street" or "Sunny Street" could be a starting point for something interesting.
 
I prefer our streets to have names of Irish people and places and local features than former colonial rulers etc. If that goes against history so be it. There used to be a 130 foot pillar in the middle of Dublin's main street dedicated to some English guy until it fell victim to cancel culture. No one remembers who he was now and he's been effectively wiped from every history book. I think his name was Nelson or something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top