Is it OK to book bands who sing about killing Tories?

[gherkin8r]

Just now, guypjfreak said:

Well I suppose it's better than killing him lol 

Maybe for Boris but not for me.

Still not very nice though. Personally I'd ban any song that was anything other than nice about anything. 

[guypjfreak]

6 minutes ago, gherkin8r said:

Maybe for Boris but not for me.

Still not very nice though. Personally I'd ban any song that was anything other than nice about anything. 

Gladtoseeyoubury lol 

Peace and tea. G

[Spindles]

If this thread has no other merit, it at least shows that so many of us are united against fascists, even if our methods or ideologies may differ.  More of that please.  Anyone of even the slightest socialist or left wing bent would I am sure agree that we all achieve more through co-operation.

That Shangri La/GFL have caved into the internet induced faux outrage is a bit sad really.  In light of the Jo Cox tragedy I understand why many would feel it was the right thing to do, not least due to the close ties the festival has with the foundation but ultimately, every time censorship by mob rule occurs our lives become a little bit less free.

[mcshed]

9 hours ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Maybe because you've made that up.

That may be made up but he did say during his live Brits performance that we should burn Theresa May's house down. Which in context is an expression of anger at her handling of Grenfell but out of context is a much more specific threat of violence than the vague Kill Tory Scum. I don't think we should be taking all song lyrics literally and cancelling bands based on Daily Mail led moral panic.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Er....that was probably a metaphor.

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, clarkete said:

As someone who provides a medium by which we all exchange messages, you clearly understand that without your medium those messages wouldn't be here. 

yep, I can reduce the messages but I cannot reduce racism. That exists in people's heads not on a page here.

[eFestivals]

4 hours ago, Spindles said:

That Shangri La/GFL have caved into the internet induced faux outrage is a bit sad really.  In light of the Jo Cox tragedy I understand why many would feel it was the right thing to do, not least due to the close ties the festival has with the foundation but ultimately, every time censorship by mob rule occurs our lives become a little bit less free.

very nicely put - but do remember that 'the left' also do censorship by mob rule, and generally (in our 'free' society) they're a lot worse about it than 'the right'.

To my mind it's the censorious attitudes of the left over recent years that has given the attack on Killdren its power.

Edited June 5, 2019 by eFestivals

[HotChipWillBreakYourLegs]

41 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yep, I can reduce the messages but I cannot reduce racism. That exists in people's heads not on a page here.

You can't change what people think.  But you can, and do, help to prevent their views from spreading. 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, HotChipWillBreakYourLegs said:

You can't change what people think.  But you can, and do, help to prevent their views from spreading. 

as I say, I don't believe that's the case.

People don't read racist stuff and think "yeah, I'll think that too now".

[CaledonianGonzo]

I think that's often how it happens.  It's not innate.  It can come from circumstances and family, etc. but people being radicalized online seems to be far and away the biggest threat.

[gherkin8r]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

as I say, I don't believe that's the case.

People don't read racist stuff and think "yeah, I'll think that too now".

Totally agree. Better that people see those views in an open forum where they are then subject to scrutiny as a result of viewpoint diversity than be exposed to them in a setting where they go unchallenged, thus reenforcing their validity. 

5 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

I think that's often how it happens.  It's not innate.  It can come from circumstances and family, etc. but people being radicalized online seems to be far and away the biggest threat.

Im going to go out on a limb here and speculate that the risk of radicalisation on the eFestivals Glastonbury forum is probably fairly low. 

Except maybe in the case of the sisterhood stage. 

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

I think that's often how it happens.  It's not innate.  It can come from circumstances and family, etc. but people being radicalized online seems to be far and away the biggest threat.

nah. People gravitate towards the things online that already define them.

Think about what you do. This website didn't turn you into a glasto addict. You're here because that was your interest already.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, gherkin8r said:

Totally agree. Better that people see those views in an open forum where they are then subject to scrutiny as a result of viewpoint diversity than be exposed to them in a setting where they go unchallenged, thus reenforcing their validity. 

yup - and which is the reason why I don't delete everything which might be deemed on the wrong side of reasonable behaviour. Challenges have to be made.

[clarkete]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Think about what you do. This website didn't turn you into a glasto addict. You're here because that was your interest already.

You really think that the spread of  extreme views hasn't been facilitated by the presence of electronic platforms that connect people together to share those views (and the bogus facts they often use to justify them)?

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, clarkete said:

You really think that the spread of  extreme views hasn't been facilitated by the presence of electronic platforms that connect people together to share those views (and the bogus facts they often use to justify them)?

oh, I do. 100% - but that's completely different to what I said.

That's people of those views already gravitating to where those views are accepted and endorsed.

[priest17]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

oh, I do. 100% - but that's completely different to what I said.

That's people of those views already gravitating to where those views are accepted and endorsed.

Do you not think certain strong emotions, such as fear of the future, money issues, political confusion, can be converted into hatred of a certain group of people with the right amount of misinformation? 

[gherkin8r]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

oh, I do. 100% - but that's completely different to what I said.

That's people of those views already gravitating to where those views are accepted and endorsed.

There is a real danger in todays for me world where you have such polarisation of opinion in general and even the slightest nuance in opinion results in the othering of those holding the "different" opinion. I feel like we are moving towards more segregated society of insular little echo chambers which just perpetuates the situation.

[gherkin8r]

3 minutes ago, priest17 said:

Do you not think certain strong emotions, such as fear of the future, money issues, political confusion, can be converted into hatred of a certain group of people with the right amount of misinformation? 

Absolutely. Do you think that is relevant here? Is cutting someone off from a more mainstream conversation likely to resist those negative forces or exacerbate the problem?

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, priest17 said:

Do you not think certain strong emotions, such as fear of the future, money issues, political confusion, can be converted into hatred of a certain group of people with the right amount of misinformation? 

Yup - but i'd also say you're kidding yourself that it's only because of misinformation/stupid/conned/fear/etc.

Different people hold different values and give each one a different importance to another person - and so they reach a different conclusion.

We could argue over what is an appropriate level of fear from a particular risk, but it's a question without a fixed answer and ultimately just opinion - but not 'misinformation'.

Edited June 5, 2019 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, gherkin8r said:

There is a real danger in todays for me world where you have such polarisation of opinion in general and even the slightest nuance in opinion results in the othering of those holding the "different" opinion. I feel like we are moving towards more segregated society of insular little echo chambers which just perpetuates the situation.

spot on!

I actually think 'the left' have been a big part of this too, with stuff like "people only voted brexit cos of racism". 

It's not just the far right who do the dehumanising thing, or who won't allow context to play its part.

[priest17]

1 hour ago, gherkin8r said:

Absolutely. Do you think that is relevant here? Is cutting someone off from a more mainstream conversation likely to resist those negative forces or exacerbate the problem?

I don't know to be honest. We're passed my level of thinking really at this point, I colour in for a living ahah.

Part of this is probably me not accepting how inept the left has been in the last 10 years. But with things like the Leave campaign flat out lying and cheating* and nothing really coming of it, why should we just let certain people come out and lie in the interest of a balanced argument if they're not held to it? Honestly at this point I'm more asking than debating. Sometimes I wonder if I'm just flat out wrong, every political decision/election/referendum I've ever been a part of has gone against me, at 26 I haven't seen a useful political left force.

 

*I don't think this is why it won

[clarkete]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

oh, I do. 100% - but that's completely different to what I said.

That's people of those views already gravitating to where those views are accepted and endorsed.

But those views (in addition to a whole range of others including those which contrast wholeheartedly) are spreading online today using a mechanism that simply wasn't possible when we were young, whereas people had to pick it up from the papers, meeting halls or pubs.

 

[gherkin8r]

20 minutes ago, priest17 said:

I don't know to be honest. We're passed my level of thinking really at this point, I colour in for a living ahah.

Part of this is probably me not accepting how inept the left has been in the last 10 years. But with things like the Leave campaign flat out lying and cheating* and nothing really coming of it, why should we just let certain people come out and lie in the interest of a balanced argument if they're not held to it? Honestly at this point I'm more asking than debating. Sometimes I wonder if I'm just flat out wrong, every political decision/election/referendum I've ever been a part of has gone against me, at 26 I haven't seen a useful political left force.

 

*I don't think this is why it won

I really don't know either and am similarly disillusioned. 

[bamber]

Threats to kill... It is nearly always men.

On Social Media or in music when someone threatens to kill someone because of what they believe or writes or performs a song about it, you can virtually guarantee it is a man not a woman doing it. All the examples given in this this thread for starters. 

Neil Young performed 'Down By the River' on the Pyramid in 2009 B.T.W. Make of that what you will in relation to the decision to censor this band.

[gherkin8r]

3 minutes ago, bamber said:

Threats to kill... It is nearly always men.

On Social Media or in music when someone threatens to kill someone because of what they believe or writes or performs a song about it, you can virtually guarantee it is a man not a woman doing it. All the examples given in this this thread for starters. 

Neil Young performed 'Down By the River' on the Pyramid in 2009 B.T.W. Make of that what you will in relation to the decision to censor this band.

That pattern extends beyond just the lyrics of songs and into the actual homicide statistics.