Meme - "When a song FULL of vulgarity is nominated for song of the year and we find Dr Suess inappropriate, we have serious issues..."
Oh The Places The Woke Will Go: Dr. Seuss Canceled For ‘Racial Undertones’ - "A national educators organization is telling schools to avoid reading Dr. Seuss because the children’s books allegedly have “racial undertones.” For more than 20 years, March 2 has been recognized as Read Across America Day in honor of Dr. Seuss’s birthday. The reading recognition day was founded by the National Education Association — the nation’s largest labor union — in 1998. This year’s theme is “Create and Celebrate Diversity.” Learning for Justice — a left-wing educators group — is demanding that Dr. Seuss be canceled. A prominent Virginia school district has taken marching orders and ordered its schools to avoid “connecting Read Across America Day with Dr. Seuss.” Loudoun County Public Schools, one of the nation’s most affluent school districts, announced that it will no longer recognize Dr. Seuss on his birthday. In an announcement obtained by The Daily Wire, the school district said that Dr. Seuss’s children’s books contain “racial undertones” that are not suitable for “culturally responsive” learning... Learning for Justice was formerly known as “Teaching Tolerance,” which has promoted radical views on teaching “social justice” and “racial justice” to students as young as five-years-old. Learning for Justice is the education arm of the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). In a magazine article titled, “It’s Time to Talk About Dr. Seuss,” Learning for Justice cites a study from St. Catherine University that claims Dr. Seuss’s children’s literature is rife with “orientalism, anti-blackness, and white supremacy.” The researchers surveyed 50 Dr. Seuss books and concluded that there is not enough diversity in the children’s books, many of which were written in the 1950s... Learning for Justice claims that anyone who defends Dr. Seuss’s problematic work is a racial “apologist” and is making excuses for why “bigotry doesn’t matter.”"
The curious case of Dr. Seuss shows that it’s getting ever more confusing deciding what’s racist – and what’s not – in the arts - "one of the most fascinating reads on the planet is the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer’s List of classifications by cancer sites with sufficient or limited evidence in humans, IARC Monographs Volumes 1–128a... who would’ve thunk that working nights can give you cancer? Or that carpentry and joinery are carcinogenic, or painting, for that matter?... Just like Winnie the Pooh, The Tiger Who Came to Tea, The Teletubbies or Shaun the Sheep, Dr. Seuss’s myriad titles trade on a core psychological trick of the trade: characters that are silly, cuddly and often animalistic, but have human traits, are easier for children to identify with emotionally, while said characters’ lack of ethnocentrism means, for publishers, producers and merchandisers, the world is their oyster. Basically, it’s far easier to hawk kids’ cartoons to a global audience using talking fluffy bunnies and jabbering space aliens with luminous green faces than dark brown ones. Even Peppa Pig is popular in territories where you’d think she’d be haram because pigs are race neutral. Well, sort of... One can see how young, impressionable minds do need protecting from the likes of Dr. Evil – sorry, Dr. Seuss – and his racist buffoonery. But what about Chris Rock’s jive talking zebra, ‘Marty’ in Madagascar or Eddie Murphy’s ‘Donkey’ in Shrek? Many have argued that, despite being voiced by black actors, these stars’ performances are racial stereotypes bordering on minstrelsy."
Stopping The Next Cultural Revolution Starts With Your Home Library - "Just like the zealous Chinese Communists in the 1960s to 1970s, today’s leftist mob is bent on smashing the “old” world so it can build an ideologically purified “new” world on the carnage of the old. Their destruction usually begins with annihilating the most problematic aspect of our society. Few people can find reasons to object to it. The initial acceptance then empowers the mob to target more for elimination, no matter the historical context. Within three years, we went from removing Confederate statues, which most Americans supported, to pulling down statues of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington and renaming their namesake schools and buildings. But today’s leftist mob won’t stop their destruction of our world until it gets all of us. No one is safe because none of us are flawless. They can always find faults with everyone and in everything. In an extreme circumstance, as we learned from China’s Cultural Revolution, some sin of ideological impurity eventually may be washed away by blood. Such ideology-driven destruction will only stop when there is nothing valuable left to be eliminated: all the statues of flawed historical figures have been pulled down; all the problematic books have been burned; all the history has been rewritten; all dissenting voices have been silenced, and people who survive tremble in fear. In such a new world where ignorance is power, future generations of Americans probably will have a childhood like mine: they may never read any books by Dr. Seuss nor hear of Beethoven’s music... Since Big Tech companies like Amazon have sided with woke mobs and used their market power to help enforce the cancel culture, do not rely on their services or servers to fill your shelves (and children’s minds). Stock your freedom library with physical copies of books, movies, music, even statues (if you have enough space) that have been or about to be deemed problematic. As T.S. Eliot said, “The very existence of libraries affords the best evidence that we may yet have hope for the future of man.”"
Dr. Seuss Is Canceled - "The cancel culture bells have tolled for Dr. Seuss, the beloved author of children's books like Green Eggs and Ham, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, and Oh, the Places You'll Go. President Biden declined to mention Dr. Seuss, the pen name of Theodor Seuss Geisel, in his kickoff speech for Read Across America Day, a national event that promotes literacy and is historically connected with Dr. Seuss. (It even takes place on the author's birthday.)... This is not the first time Dr. Seuss has come under fire: In 2017, a librarian criticized First Lady Melania Trump's donation of Seuss books, which are "steeped in racist propaganda, caricatures, and harmful stereotypes." This year, Loudon County schools in Virginia ordered librarians to stop mentioning Dr. Seuss, citing a study that found there were few racial minority characters in his books. (Most Seuss characters aren't even human.)"
Chicago Public Library removing 6 Dr. Seuss books from the shelves while it determines long-term options – Chicago Tribune - "The Chicago Public Library is temporarily removing six Dr. Seuss books from circulation after Dr. Seuss Enterprises announced it would cease to publish the books due to racist and insensitive imagery. ”It is important to recognize that what society understands to be relevant and/or common knowledge changes over time, and so too does the Library and the needs of the communities it serves,” Patrick Molloy, a spokesperson with the library, said in a statement"
Weird how liberals and the media obsess about "banned books" only when it's the right "banning" them
Why Dr. Seuss Is Worth Defending - ""We are part of the broader community who have identified these books as being harmful," Manny Figueiredo, director of education for a school board in Ontario, Canada, said in a statement. "The delivery of education must ensure that no child experiences harm from the resources that are shared." A journalist for the Toronto Star issued an impassioned plea for more libraries to take action—and for Dr. Seuss Enterprises to make amends for its historical failures... Disappearing books from library shelves gets us closer to the classic example of censorship, though of course a physical library possesses a finite amount of space and thus has to consider certain priorities. What's happening to Dr. Seuss is the result of a very specific kind of prioritization, however: One decided upon not by readers or the public at large, but by activist educators peddling a false narrative about the beloved child author's books and characters. This narrative—the result of a highly misleading 2019 report on "Orientalism, anti-blackness, and white supremacy in Dr. Seuss's children's books"—has quickly become influential, motivating much of the recent shift away from Seuss among certain government officials, educators, libraries, and even private publishers. Learning for Justice, an outgrowth of the undeservedly well-regarded Southern Poverty Law Center, cited the report as evidence that it had misjudged The Sneetches, a Seuss story about a group of birds—some with stars on their bellies, some without—who eventually come to realize that their superficial physical differences don't matter at all... nonracism—the idea that skin color should be overlooked—has lost popularity among progressive activists, and anti-racism—the idea that skin color matters a great deal—is in vogue. The former is an egalitarian message at the heart of many Dr. Seuss books; the latter is a smokescreen for all sorts of policies that have very little to do with combating racism: like abolishing standardized tests or spending more time renaming schools than reopening them... There is a disturbing trend among modern liberalism to seek to cast out all such flawed figures, which has the rest of us reasonably worried that no art or artist more than a few years old can possibly stand the test of time... There's not really a law or policy that could fix this problem—though Sonny Bunch's proposal to release now unpublishable works into the public domain is an interesting one... there's good reason in this case to regard the slippery slope with suspicion. The report that led to the cancellation of the six books also stipulates that The Cat in the Hat embodies a "racist tradition" and that Horton Hears a Who! "reinforces themes of white supremacy." I would not be surprised to find the entire Seuss canon under attack a few years from now. To quote the last lines of The Butter Battle Book, "Who's gonna drop it? Will you or will he?" (To which the narrator's grandpa replies: "Be patient. We'll see. We will see.")"
Roo Barker - "In 1953, Dr. Sues published a story called "The Sneetches", which told a story about two races, one of which actively discriminated against the other. The ending of the story was the two races were identical except in how they looked and that the Sneetches realized they were misled into treating each other differently Today Dr. Sues was canceled for allegedly being racist, and given the above, all I can say is there is another example of cancel culture being so so stupid"
John Robson: There is nothing in Dr. Seuss that a leftist can't love but the woke hate him anyway - "They can’t write like Will Shakespeare or Dickens or Seuss,
Or craft tunes like old Mozart; their stuff is no use.
They can’t lead like George Washington, think like John Mill,
And what they cannot do they’re determined to kill...
The past was a plot and that all things were wrong,
Until history ended and you came along.
Thus to Seuss at the close of this poem I return,
And I say with conviction his books must not burn."
Psychologist Explains the Unhealthy Incentives Behind 'Cancel Culture' - " Today, those espousing any opinion that goes against “woke” rhetoric are ridiculed online, fired from their jobs, and some are banned from using popular social media platforms altogether. One University of North Carolina Wilmington professor, Mike Adams, even took his own life after tweets construed as offensive pushed him into early retirement after years of service to the institution. Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind and co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind, has been an outspoken critic of the cancel culture phenomenon for some time. "Part of a call-out culture is you get credit based on what someone else said if you 'call it out'"... This virtue signaling, which is really just a means of proving to society how “good” and “moral” your views are, is only half of the equation, however. Cancel culture is also about personal destruction... There is no opportunity to change one’s mind, nor is there room to defend opinions you genuinely believe. And this is a huge problem for any civil society. Haidt spoke of the importance of protecting open dialogue so that we may live in a society filled with varying opinions from which to choose. "One of the most important [aspects] is that people are not afraid to share their opinions - they're not afraid that they're going to be shamed socially for disagreeing with the dominant opinion"... The odds are high that your opinions about certain issues will change over time"
Meme - "this culture of digging up everybody's past to find ways to invalidate their current success is so sad. as if people don't grow and evolve."
A law that cancels cancel culture? This country is considering it - "Singapore’s government has been “looking at ways to deal with cancel culture,” a spokesperson told CNN – amid what some say is a brewing culture war between gay rights supporters and the religious right following the recent decriminalization of homosexuality in the largely conservative city-state. Authorities said they were “examining existing related laws and legislation” after receiving “feedback” from conservative Christians who expressed fears about being canceled for their views by vocal groups online. “People ought to be free to express their views without fear of being attacked on both sides,” law minister K Shanmugam said in an interview with state media outlets in August. “We should not allow a culture where people of religion are ostracized (or) attacked for espousing their views or their disagreements with LGBT viewpoints – and vice versa,” he added."
Of course, on reddit a lot of people were (deliberately) misunderstanding this, and claiming the government was into cancel culture itself
Why I’m Leaving Mumford & Sons. I loved those first tours. Bouncing off… | by Winston Marshall - "I failed to foresee that my commenting on a book critical of the Far-Left could be interpreted as approval of the equally abhorrent Far-Right. Nothing could be further from the truth. Thirteen members of my family were murdered in the concentration camps of the Holocaust. My Grandma, unlike her cousins, aunts and uncles, survived. She and I were close. My family knows the evils of fascism painfully well. To say the least. To call me “fascist” was ludicrous beyond belief... Then followed libellous articles calling me “right-wing” and such. Though there’s nothing wrong with being conservative, when forced to politically label myself I flutter between “centrist”, “liberal” or the more honest “bit this, bit that”. Being labeled erroneously just goes to show how binary political discourse has become. I had criticised the “Left”, so I must be the “Right”, or so their logic goes... I have spent much time reflecting, reading and listening. The truth is that my commenting on a book that documents the extreme Far-Left and their activities is in no way an endorsement of the equally repugnant Far-Right. The truth is that reporting on extremism at the great risk of endangering oneself is unquestionably brave. I also feel that my previous apology in a small way participates in the lie that such extremism does not exist, or worse, is a force for good."
BBC Radio 4 - Best of Today, Winston Marshall on leaving Mumford and Sons - "‘What’s sort of unpleasant about it is that they went from my bandmates, they went from my friends. And that's not fair on them, because it's got nothing to do with them. But in the public, eye, we were a unity. And that's, I suppose what these internet mobs do, they go for all those people around you. And that's I think what was so troubling for me about the experience, was to see my friends getting dragged under the bus with me, which is not fair on them.’"
In defence of Mark Twain - "Even by the standards of today’s press, The Sunday Times celebrated a new low yesterday. How? At the end of a major article attacking the writer Roald Dahl for anti-Semitic remarks made more than 30 years ago, it appended a one-sentence assault on the supreme American writer Mark Twain (1835-1910) and his classic Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884). Twain was said to have used ‘the racial slur, “n*****”, while the slave, Jim, is characterised as ignorant, superstitious and lacking in education’. This is a wilful misreading of an anti-racist milestone in American literature. Throughout Huckleberry Finn, Twain repeats the word nigger because he is capturing the parlance of the day. Nowadays, though, a simple quotation from more than 130 years ago is enough for professional journalists to throw a great writer to the identitarian wolves. As Twain himself is said to have lamented, ‘a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes’ (a line he may have developed from the radical British satirist Jonathan Swift). Anyone who has read Twain, or seen the brilliant, moving documentary portrait of him by Ken (The Civil War) Burns, would recognise how, in their wisdom, the teenage scribblers at The Sunday Times have got him completely wrong. But again Twain has it right. ‘A man who chooses not to read’, he said, ‘is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read’ (my emphasis)... as Twain grew in stature, he became a vigorous and renowned opponent of racism... Especially around the Spanish-American war of 1898, Twain became one of the most famous leaders of American anti-imperialism... the woke always notice these faults in other people, but never themselves"
Episode 2027 Scott Adams: AI Goes Woke, I Accidentally Joined A Hate Group, Trump, Policing Schools - YouTube - "As you know I've been identifying as black for a while years now because I like you know I like to be on the winning team and I like to help and I always thought well if you help the black community that's sort of the biggest lever you know you could you can find the the biggest benefit... But it turns out that nearly half of that team doesn't think I'm okay to be white which is of course why I identified as black because so I could be on the winning team for a while but I have to say this is the first political poll that ever changed my activities... As of today I'm going to re-identify as white because I don't want to be a member of a hate group... And it feels good not to be in a racist uh hate group anymore so I'm now independent not a member of any group"
People slamming Adams just relied on the media's selective quoting and were unwilling and/or unable to provide the full context and/or the original video, but the full video from 22 February of course puts his words in a different light from the selective quotes the media is using to vilify him
If half of white people did not agree it was okay to be black, the media would be bashing them as a hate group
Monitoring Bias on Twitter - "Adams was horrified that a poll of black people showed only half believe "it's OK to be white." He called this hate and recommended white people live far away from blacks. MSM verdict: Adams is a racist, but not the 20 million black people who think it's not OK to be white."
Frank DeScushin on Twitter - "Newspapers that canceled Dilbert because Scott Adams called black people a hate group regularly suggest that white people are a hate group. Dilbert is a cartoon, but our media is now one too. If Scott’s words make him black people’s enemy, then these words make media my enemy."
Scott Adams says 'racist remarks' were actually hyperbole - Los Angeles Times - "Adams was axed by newspapers, his syndicate and his book publisher. The cartoonist said Monday on his podcast “Coffee With Scott Adams” that he was using hyperbole, “meaning an exaggeration,” to make a point. He said the stories that reported his comments pulled a trick: “The trick is just to use my quote and to ignore the context which I helpfully added afterwards,” he said. But he said that nobody would disagree with his two main points, which were “treat all individuals as individuals, no discrimination” and “avoid anything that statistically looks like a bad idea for you personally.” He also disavowed racists... “We know we have a situation in this country in which there are indications of racial discontent,” he said. He pointed to the recent Rasmussen poll and a Gallup poll from a while back that showed race relations “falling off a cliff” around the time that Trayvon Martin was killed in 2012. That’s when, Adams said, the media discovered that stories about racial hatred “really [get] people going” and were a way to attract customers and make money. He also called attention to social media and diversity, equity and inclusion conversations at the corporate level as influences that were sending a message to Black Americans. “They’re creating a narrative, collectively,” he said, and that narrative is that people are racist. “There’s some amount of the Black population that’s poisoned, they are just poisoned by the narrative. They are victims,” he added. Victims of “programming.” The problem is that while there is “a lot of good” in conversations about DEI and the like, “if you haven’t accounted for the cost of it, you haven’t finished your analysis.”... “Wherever there are groups of people that have been programmed by the media to have a reflexive bad feeling about you, I would avoid them”... Outlets are now reporting that he said all Black people are haters, Adams said. “Did anybody hear me say that? ... So now they’ve turned it into ‘all.’ Is there any scenario where I’ve ever said that all members of a group have something, one thing in common? Ever? Who would say that besides stupid people? This isn’t even racist,” he said. “That would just be stupid.”"
Meme - Brown/Black NPC: "It's not ok to be white."
Dilbert: "If that's how you feel, I don't really want to be around you."
Brown/Black NPC: *upset*
Opinion | Can My Children Be Friends With White People? - The New York Times
From 2017. If you're non-white and say this, you're brave and stunning
Meme - "That's a nice light-hearted social media post you got there.. it'd be shame if someone were to... take it the wrong way."
Cancelled for having a Parler account - "A literary agent has lost her job after her employer discovered she had accounts with Parler and Gab... ‘The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency was distressed to discover this morning, 25 January, that one of our agents has been using the social-media platforms Gab and Parler. We do not condone this activity, and we apologise to anyone who has been affected or offended by this.’ ‘The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency has in the past and will continue to ensure a voice of unity, equality and one that is on the side of social justice’, she continued, before concluding that Colleen Oefelein, the agent in question, was no longer part of the company. There is currently not any suggestion that Oefelein actually posted anything objectionable on either of these platforms... Increasingly, it is not the actual things that people might say on Parler but Parler itself that is being targeted for censorship. Earlier this month, Parler was removed from the Google Play Store, the Apple App Store and, crucially, from Amazon Web Servers, meaning it can no longer properly function. The Big Tech firms insisted that Parler was not doing enough to tackle objectionable content on its site. But according to its chief policy officer, Amy Peikoff, even Parler’s job adverts for content moderators were censored when it was banned from advertising on the jobs app, Workable. You couldn’t make it up. It’s a similar story in the UK. After Parler was taken offline, numerous British media outlets ran exposé-style articles reporting that some Conservative MPs used the app – as if that was in itself a problem. Now anyone who merely uses an app is automatically tarnished thanks to the content others might have posted on it. We have reached the stage of cancel culture where you can be cancelled for what others might have said. This is sinister."
Even having the means to be exposed to wrongthink makes you a dangerous person
40 Percent of Liberal Professors Afraid Of Losing Jobs Over a Misunderstanding - "As the academy gets younger it grows more authoritarian, according to a new survey of over 1,400 faculty members conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The free speech group's findings portend a dark future for higher education if this course isn't reversed—and if faculty minds don't become more open to dissenting viewpoints. Over the past decade or so, many academic departments embraced ideological views in their teaching and research, promoting social justice–laden scholarship as a way of correcting the wrongs of the past. Unsurprisingly, many departments developed left-of-center academic monocultures, becoming unfriendly to differing opinions. Young faculty entering the profession are only adding to this academic echo chamber. As a professor, I'm on the younger side for faculty members. My cohort is much more illiberal than their older colleagues. Two-thirds of faculty over 55 years old said students shouting down a speaker is never acceptable. That number plummets to 37 percent for faculty 35 and under. Shockingly, younger faculty report more acceptance of violence to combat speech. While 97 percent of older faculty say it's never acceptable for students to use violence to stop a campus speech, only 79 percent of younger faculty agree. That one in five younger professors show any level of acceptance for violence to stop speech should alarm all of us. Mixing age with ideology reveals even more pronounced support for illiberal attitudes. Among liberal faculty 35 and under, only 23 percent indicated that students shouting down a speaker is never acceptable, compared with 88 percent of conservative faculty. Moderate faculty in this age group were also much more likely than their conservative colleagues to endorse the acceptability of these tactics. Perhaps most alarming of all, only 64 percent of young and liberal faculty say it's never acceptable for students to use violence to stop a campus speech. Illiberalism runs deep among young liberal faculty members, and their views regrettably resemble those of their students rather than their more senior peers. As newer and far less tolerant numbers of professors replace older faculty, colleges and universities may be in a true crisis if the higher education enterprise destroys its core values. The research also finds that faculty members are self-censoring at higher rates. In 1955, at the end of the second Red Scare after World War II during the age of McCarthy and deep anti-communist fear, 9 percent of social scientists said they toned down their writing for fear of causing controversy. Today, 25 percent say they're very or extremely likely to self-censor their writing in academic publications. More than half of faculty—52 percent—say they're afraid they'll lose their job or reputation over a misunderstanding of something they said or did, or because someone posted something from their past online. While almost three-quarters of conservative faculty expressed this year, 40 percent of even liberal faculty agree. That's staggering: two in five professors who are a part of the prevailing orthodoxy on campus are fearful of losing their jobs over a misunderstanding."
Clearly, 40% of liberal faculty are bigots, because only bigots have anything to fear from "accountability culture"
Graham Norton gets a taste of ‘accountability culture’ - "So Graham Norton has been held to account. That’s what he’d call it, right? He’s left Twitter, apparently after getting a load of flak for comments on the trans issue that he made last week. His allies are outraged. He’s been ‘hounded off Twitter’, they say. He was subjected to a ‘barrage of abuse’, says Pink News. He’s been ‘forced off Twitter’ and that’s ‘desperately sad’, says India Willoughby. What are these people talking about? Didn’t they listen to Graham? Don’t they know that this is just accountability culture and that it’s a very good thing? Live by accountability, die by accountability, right Mr Norton?... It was at the Cheltenham Literature Festival last week that Norton made his comments on cancel culture. He told Mariella Frostrup that ‘cancel’ is the wrong word – ‘the word should be accountability’, he said. Those men ‘of a certain age’ who’ve been able to say whatever they want for years – they’re not being cancelled, they’re just being held to account. ‘Now, suddenly, there’s some accountability’, said Norton, approvingly. ‘It’s free speech’, he said, ‘but not consequence free’. Fast forward a few days and man of a certain age Graham Norton appears to have experienced some accountability culture of his own. Free speech has consequences, as he himself would say, and in this case the consequence has allegedly been a ‘barrage of abuse’ so intense that Norton felt he had to flounce off Twitter... The attempt to turn trans into an issue for ‘experts’ alone is a cynical effort to sideline the common sense of women and men who just know it is morally wrong to carry out mastectomies on healthy young women and to give drugs to gay boys in order to ‘fix’ them. Then there was the performative neutrality in Norton’s stance, his pose as just a ‘bloke on the telly’ who doesn’t want to get involved in this clash. But he is involved. He has taken sides. That was clear from his use of phrases like free speech has consequences and ‘trans kids’. These are not impartial terms. They’re the mottos du jour of the new elites. They are indicators of allegiance to contemporary ideologies, in this case the ideologies of cancel culture and innate transness respectively... the main issue with people like Norton is that they never think they themselves will be cancelled. Like the woke left more broadly, certain celebs are fine with cancel culture because they know it is primarily aimed at people with supposedly ‘unfashionable’ views – like, erm, that people with penises are men – whereas they hold ‘fashionable’ views only, all the correct-think, and thus they’re safe. Usually that’s true. But in this case it has backfired. People angered by Norton’s reluctance to call out the hounding of Rowling have gone looking for his ‘speechcrimes’, and they’ve found stuff. Most shockingly, there’s the time Norton put on a fat suit to mimic Jade Goody, the Big Brother contestant, since deceased... Watching woke types who go on and on about fatphobia and classism (which they don’t actually care about) rushing to Norton’s defence is interesting, is it not? Here’s the thing: Norton’s fat-slag ridicule of Ms Goody was infinitely more offensive than anything JK Rowling has ever said. All Rowling wants is for men to stay out of women’s spaces – it’s hardly Nazism, is it? I’d go further and say that Norton’s Goody act was more offensive than anything John Cleese has said, too – Cleese being one of the men ‘of a certain age’ that Norton alluded to in his cancel-culture chat at Cheltenham. And yet Norton thinks they should face accountability culture, but not him? Make it make sense, Graham... Let’s be honest – accountability culture is a euphemism for sidelining and silencing people with supposedly unacceptable views. Enough. Let everyone speak. Let a thousand opinions bloom"
