American "leftism" a threat to France...

Post Reply New Topic

Certainly!

While Freedom of Speech is a right, having someone watch a program you have produced is a privilege.

Privileges are earned; they are not mandatory.

Politicians and prominent intellectuals say social theories from the United States on race, gender and post-colonialism are a threat to French identity and the French republic.

PARIS — The threat is said to be existential. It fuels secessionism. Gnaws at national unity. Abets Islamism. Attacks France’s intellectual and cultural heritage.

The threat? “Certain social science theories entirely imported from the United States,’’ said President Emmanuel Macron.

French politicians, high-profile intellectuals and journalists are warning that progressive American ideas — specifically on race, gender, post-colonialism — are undermining their society. “There’s a battle to wage against an intellectual matrix from American universities,’’ warned Mr. Macron’s education minister.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/worl ... ities.html

Ahh ... now I understand.

This is along the same lines as previous concerns regarding the insinuation of American words and terms into the French language -- some French people seem to feel anxious about the "Americanization" of their culture, and would seek legislation to suppress it.  (I remember this argument from my high-school French class back in the early 1970s!  It is as pointless now as it was way back then.)  That the people complaining about "American Leftism" seem to be mostly pillars of "French Rightism" only narrows the focus of their concerns.

As long as ordinary French citizens have easy access to American media, it is inevitable that elements of our culture will creep into theirs.  Resistance is futile, n'cest pas?

I still don't get how, say, a rational ideology pertaining to race, could be "undermining French society."

Are the French still upset that they lost Algeria in 1962?

Sounds like Trumpism is insidiously leaking its way into the French political fabric.

(please note: I have nothing against the French. I admire their culture).

Simply 'cancelling' the concern about left-wing influences is not the answer.
Bring the issue under the spotlight and forensically evaluate.
*That* is the scientific methodology in action.
A cyclopean partisan response is not helpful in unveiling the Truth of what is happening.

There are a host of programs in the movie/series industry that have been 'cancelled' as a result of perceived political incorrectness.
This is a simple axiomatic fact.
Anyone who denies this is ill-informed or disingenuous.
Simples.

I guess we miss the irony. The right can "cancel" other people and ideas they don't like, just not the left. The term "cancel culture" is just right-wing political correctness and identity politics.

Based on the context, would it be correct to assume that the "knowing what they say is offensive" you are implying "Y" collectively share was intended to imply a desire on their part to make derogatory generalisations regarding a group of people who are unified around a common characteristic (for example: political affiliation, religion, race, or national origin), or on individual members of the group as a result of their membership of such a group?

Think of it as a desire to have an insurance policy that protects the user to make assertions/claims cognisant that its driven by personal feelings that they know will trigger other people of a different religion, race, sexual orientation or socio-economic group.

To make a play on words for a term coined from Ian Fleming's James Bond, they want "A licence to shrill" in other words to voice their prejudices without fear of being "outed" in public as prejudiced.

For example - many people will say that black people complain too much about racism. Why don't they try and assimilate and become good Aussies instead of whinge? then of course the clever ones will quote Martin Luther King and say that black people should judge white people on the content of their character and not the colour of their skin in order to claim that systemic racism doesn't exist in Australia (which it does) and there is no white privilege (which there is).

But then in the same breath they will say that Sudanese people form gangs and that they are a dangerous community. They will say Sudanese people shouldn't be allowed into Australia. Indeed at least two foreign ministers (Kevin Andrews and Peter Dutton) called for a halt to refugees from South Sudan based on this bias.

Needless to say the Sudan community in Melbourne are scratching their heads wondering "what happened to judging us by the character and not by the colour of our skin?" Good decent Sudanese families are being judged, how do you think they feel (do you care? probably not).

Being allowed to say what you want does have its consequences. The people wanting cancel culture to end also want to be able to hurt others without fear that they will made to account for their actions. That's pretty self-centred and selfish not to mention lacking empathy.

Plenty of times privileges are unearned. Getting a job because of nepotism is a common unearned privilege.

I think this is a misunderstanding of what 'cancel' even means. If you sense that your idea has the same level of substance as something on TV that's 'canceled', perhaps you should think critically about why.

If people are tuning out your abrasive ideas, it's not always because you're a step ahead in reasoning. There are no such guarantees.

I don't believe in at least some of the "political correctness."

But the French statement, to me, goes overboard. It sounds like something a Trump supporter would say.

Like I said, we are past colonialism. I wish the French would be past colonialism, too.

"Just because you are offended, it doesn't make you right"

"People want to be heard"

Naturally, posing a position by saying you cannot challenge my position because that makes you ignorant or manipulative seems to be a type of cancel culture. Why not pose it as a question for debate instead of an absolute statement?

People have minds of their own.
Just because someone says something doesn't mean it has to be accepted.

Often, cancel culture involves the ganging up by a group, against an individual with a different opinion.
I have a problem with the bullying attacks of a group with a mob mentality.
I have a problem with collectivist thuggery.

In addition to simple bullying tactics, there is misrepresentation, buggery of context, outright lies, with the desire to cause emotional, reputational and financial damage.
How can anyone defend the dehumanisation of others?



If racism is such a problem in Australia, why do so many actively seek Aboriginal status?
You are exaggerating the degree of racism, here in Australia, imo.



Uncalled for remark.



Gross generalisation.

I watch and read the media.
The facts are there.
What an odd remark.


https://www.gq.com.au/entertainment/fil ... 70f58b2ed7