[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey (OP)]

For example, if a notable person is caught making a racist comment, or voices denial of something like climate change or the holocaust, should they be "canceled"?

[alancalverd]

No.  Let the fool speak. Some people find nobility in martyrdom but there is no glory in ridicule.

[Europan Ocean]

Only hate speech should be censored, not cancelled, cancelling is a new dictator style idea. Free speech is the rule, the right. Science should be civilly debated.

[Bored chemist]

cancelling is a new dictator style idea.

Not really new.
https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/54474/1/U584575.pdf

[Cassy0110]

Very difficult question, I know people who said smth bad and then changed their opinions. I think public shaming is sometimes enough

[Petrochemicals]

Only hate speech should be censored, not cancelled, cancelling is a new dictator style idea. Free speech is the rule, the right. Science should be civilly debated.

That in itself is hate speech, leveled against those you disagree with. Please censor yourself.

[alancalverd]

The problem with censorship is that it hides the uglier facts of history and can ruin a good song.

The former is obvious but this morning I watched a vintage film clip about the composed of "Lily of Laguna". The harmless chorus is very familiar but like most songs that were born in the musical theater, it has a long introductory verse.

So there on the screen was an obviously white singer and dancer wearing ridiculous black makeup  (it's theater history, like it or not) and giving an excellent rendition of the entire song, but with sudden, intrusive silences where the lyric demanded a word rhyming with  "bigger" or "moon".

Slightly off the subject, Channel 5 ran a good documentary series a year or so ago about life on a warship. At one point the ship was under attack by a bunch of baddies in speedboats. Marines were called to action and were seen boarding their boat and helicopter with the clear intention to sink the speedboats and kick the sh1t out of the gentlemen with teacloths on their heads. Cut to adverts. Return to program, with a warning "The following sequence contains strong language". Never mind the mayhem and flying body parts, apparently if a Marine says "bugger" it could upset someone.

[evan_au]

I think that indiscriminate canceling is a bad thing.

There are people who we would consider enlightened by the standards of their day, but who also did some things that we might disagree with today. Do we cancel the whole person, forgetting that they actually contributed to progress (as we measure it today)?

This often comes out in the context of those who owned slaves, at a time when most rich people owned slaves. Perhaps we should look at how they treated their slaves, rather than the fact that they owned slaves.
- Or in those who wanted to abolish slavery, but who had, at some point in their life had owned slaves.

What about people in the arts, who we now discover did things which we don't approve?

Rather than tear down their statue, do we put a an extra plaque on their plinth, saying that "In 2022, we find good evidence that this person did X, Y & Z. This was made illegal by the ABC bill of 2015..."?

[alancalverd]

Nobody ever criticises the tribal elders who sold the slaves in the first place. Why not?

The same mentality criticises wealthy people for buying village homes at inflated prices and "driving the villagers out". Illogical. Nobody willingly pays more than the seller is asking, so the "guilty" party is surely the greedy villager who sells the house.

[Europan Ocean]

Only hate speech should be censored, not cancelled, cancelling is a new dictator style idea. Free speech is the rule, the right. Science should be civilly debated.

That in itself is hate speech, leveled against those you disagree with. Please censor yourself.

My hate speech? I don't understand. Are you saying you are communist?

[Petrochemicals]

Only hate speech should be censored, not cancelled, cancelling is a new dictator style idea. Free speech is the rule, the right. Science should be civilly debated.

That in itself is hate speech, leveled against those you disagree with. Please censor yourself.

My hate speech? I don't understand. Are you saying you are communist?

Sounds like more hate speech.

[Bored chemist]

Nobody willingly pays more than the seller is asking,

The seller is, in principle asking for "all the money in the world", but what he settles for is "as much as the buyer who will offer the most is prepared to pay".
The problem really is that rich people can outbid poor ones.

[Bored chemist]

Rather than tear down their statue, do we put a an extra plaque on their plinth, saying that "In 2022, we find good evidence that this person did X, Y & Z. This was made illegal by the ABC bill of 2015..."?

OK, by that argument, should we put up a statue of Hitler (or some other villain- take your pick) and say we erected a statue of this guy just to announce how bad he was"?

The problem is that, pretty much by definition, a statue says that the person is seen as an example to follow. We don't erect statues to  failures.
So having a statue to , for example, slave traders, sends a mixed message.

[Europan Ocean]

I think that indiscriminate canceling is a bad thing.

There are people who we would consider enlightened by the standards of their day, but who also did some things that we might disagree with today. Do we cancel the whole person, forgetting that they actually contributed to progress (as we measure it today)?

This often comes out in the context of those who owned slaves, at a time when most rich people owned slaves. Perhaps we should look at how they treated their slaves, rather than the fact that they owned slaves.
- Or in those who wanted to abolish slavery, but who had, at some point in their life had owned slaves.

What about people in the arts, who we now discover did things which we don't approve?

Rather than tear down their statue, do we put a an extra plaque on their plinth, saying that "In 2022, we find good evidence that this person did X, Y & Z. This was made illegal by the ABC bill of 2015..."?

Is there an example on your mind of one such?

[Europan Ocean]

Sounds like more hate speech.

I in my mind I hate communism, the mandates, the loss of free thought and enterprise, religion and the right treatment of human and animal life. I hate abortion and infanticide, I don't like the idea of people ending their own lives, at least they have a say in it.

I don't want to hurt communists, although adversaries like North Korean communists, I hope they topple, like Russia did.

[alancalverd]

OK, by that argument, should we put up a statue of Hitler (or some other villain- take your pick) and say we erected a statue of this guy just to announce how bad he was"?

No, but erasing him from history would be worse.

a statue says that the person is seen as an example

Was, certainly. Is, maybe not.

Time is unidirectional. Where a statue exists, it summarises an earlier generation's approval and might usefully bear a later annotation, but I see no value in or enthusiasm for erecting new statues of anyone currently considered to be scum.

So, what does the panel think of Bomber Harris? Colonial warmonger or savior of multicultural democracy? Che Guevara - terrorist or liberator?

[alancalverd]

I don't want to hurt communists, although adversaries like North Korean communists, I hope they topple, like Russia did.

So you want someone else to hurt them, and you  approve of the current Russian regime?

[evan_au]

Is there an example on your mind of one such?

I was thinking of James Cook, the British explorer, who explored the east coast of Australia, around 1770.
- His statue in Sydney has been graffitied multiple times, accusing him of crimes against the aboriginal population
- There are suggestion that his statue in another location be removed
- But I don't think he committed any crimes against the aboriginal population - all he did was to describe the country to a population who didn't know about it
- This is unlike later settlers who certainly displaced the native population (often violently), and smallpox and other European disease had a devastating impact on the native population.

A better-known example is Abraham Lincoln, who (I have heard) is accused of keeping slaves when he was young.
- I did a quick search, and found that to be unlikely, so I didn't mention it.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery

Perhaps a more dramatic example is John Newton, who was an active participant in the slave trade, but later realized that it was evil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Newton

For many of us today, we have our clothes made in near-slavery conditions, but out of sight, in other nations. How will history view us?

[Bored chemist]

North Korean communists

I'm not aware of any communists in North Korea.
Is there anyone there advocation the idea of "from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs"?

or is there a dictator who pretends to be communist?

Why is it that the only bit of soviet propaganda that anyone believes is that the USSR was communist?
Nobody believes that the "German Democratic Republic" was democratic. Why do they swallow the lie that it was socialist?

[Petrochemicals]

Sounds like more hate speech.

I in my mind I hate communism, the mandates, the loss of free thought and enterprise, religion and the right treatment of human and animal life. I hate abortion and infanticide, I don't like the idea of people ending their own lives, at least they have a say in it.

I don't want to hurt communists, although adversaries like North Korean communists, I hope they topple, like Russia did.

My point is that one person's cause is another person's evil. Freedom fighters in Vietnam where commie rats in the USA in the 70s. Its quite easy to be interpreted as hate speech.

 I admire the USA for its freedom of speech, they can say things that I would probably get a visit from a police officer for in the UK and perhaps a prison sentence. Freedom of speech does enable people to make complete fools of themselves, for example the USA congress protest and incursion.

The slavery re visitation seems once more to be a usa issue that is spilling over to us once more. Slavery has been banned already and judged as wrong. The social situation in the states though is compounded still by the slavery years, unlike in the UK and the former colonies which are pretty much entirely under their own sway.