There is so much to be gleaned from this interview. I've seen Nina on 2 podcasts some time back and was never aware of this experience. A big takeaway for me: If we start ruining people's lives over their book collections and their curiosity to shatter what have been deemed dangerous or taboo ideas...well...us non- academics who are insatiable readers and love to challenge ideas are done for. I own Albert Speers memoir. I do not support Nazism. I own DeSade as well. It's some of the most difficult work I've ever read. To say the least. That's an understatement, really. I have Communist lit. Feminist works. I'm neither of those. But I used to be deeply fascinated by so many subjects. I wanted to understand. So I very much relate to what Nina says here. There should be no condemnation in examining ideas and philosophy. I hope she'll be able to come through this and still share her ideas.
absolutely, and the consequences are much more far-reaching - it's not at all that the biggest problem here would be the non-academic. "cancel culture" at its core is anti-scientific. there is no possibility of real science if curiosity is limited by any means, which of course the world is already sleepwaking into, since that situation is already happening well-before the "pandemic" situation. and during as well as after said situation, it became much more extreme in a multitude of ways several times worse than it was before.. problem is, the academic world has become mostly corrupt at its institution al level, with most of the journals being complete nonsense with no more real peer review in general, tons of fake studies, frauds getting awards, etc. so, it's already happening and it is going to creep up on everybody, both academics and non-academics alike.
Every modern anti-zionist is worse than a nazi. I say that as an irish-american with no connection to israel. I don't have time to watch this episode if she's one of those. If she's not, someone please tell me and I'll check this out. I need a break from morons who criticize Israel while it's trying to survive.
She had me until she said the "Right don't exist, you have curious ppl and then authoritarians". No, no, no, no. I'm anti-woke but this is total nonsense. And it's impossible to take anyone who says this seriously when there are ppl (often religious, the irony) who say trans individuals are child abusers with no proof. This is not curiosity. This is disgusting Nazi level propaganda. I'd add that ppl who question modern gender identity are not on the level with scum like this
Was the first time i heard anything she was doing as well. She has clearly gone too far in the twitt domain. One reason why i stear well clear of sociopathic media.
id say its antisemitic to say calling someone rich is synonymous with being Jewish... so he fucked himself with that one and Nina still got the blame...
who gives a fuck if its antisemitic. That word is utterly meaningless now. They even openly talk about how they use it as a weapon. Get fucked small hats
True. But it’s all about context. Nuance. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. How many poor Jews have you ever met in America? Are you? Pretty sure none! But it’s not necessarily because they’re Jewish, but it is indirectly. So much of it has to do with Jewish faith and Jewish culture. How like in other cultures they work together they stick together they believe in family. They believe in education with Asians, people to go into stem or learn an instrument. Asians and Jews are very intelligent, but they also have a phenomenal culture and when you combine those two things along with believing accountability and personal responsibility and education, etc., etc., and you tend to end up with a lot of success.
incredibly impressed by her strength to open her self up to criticism on how a human being is not infallible GET OVER IT PEOPLE with respect u have my RESPECT
A further thought. The drift towards authoritarianism is not very subtle. It is the greatest threat facing mankind and should be called out forcefully.
@@illegalsmirfI disagree. How does that framing cohere with the well-publicized cancellation of women who heretically insist that humans can’t change sex? Without knowing you and your story at all, it strikes me that there might be some female-related trauma in your past that causes you to see through that lens. My apologies if I’m completely wrong, and also if that lands too close for comfort. ❤️
@@schwajj Trans people don't claim that people can change sex. They just have biology that gives them deferent gender traits than their outward appearance suggests. Some prefer to have some outward characteristics changed medically, which is anyone's right. Freedom, baby.
A major problem is the double standard at the judicial level based on ideology.. someone who is "out of favor" with the elite is much more likely to be found guilty of libel and given excessive penalties
The idea of racism, not as an administrative system that classes skin color but as a tone of speech that qualifies as "racist", in a lot of ways is just class difference. Coded language is taught in universities that mark you as either elite or uneducated, and the fear that populism is either far-right or racist doesn't do much to obscure the fact that this is a form of legal discrimination against the poor. In Eastern Europe the arrenda system in which the Jewish community held a majority stake was essentially a slave population of the exploited peasantry. The Jewish community usually spoke several languages and were associated with a culture of "cosmopolitanism". The idea that antisemitism is ignorance directed towards the wealth of the Jewish community did result in harm towards Jewish people in the past, but given that the current attitude is to sympathize with the oppressed group in modern language systems using these past examples as a pretext for avoiding criticism isn't a valid use of a potentially real harm that can be done when groups irrationally attack Jewishness as having a type of magical power.
@@jsquire5pa Wasn't there a Tory MP who accused someone of antisemitism after the 7/10 atrocity, and ended up effectively 'losing'? Seems like the consistent factor here is the system will find a way to punish people with disfavored politics. No?
@@ErinMagner82 there is also something to be said about "protecting the oppressed" while simultaneously oppressing the working class on your own country. I think there is a severe lack if critical thinking going on. The world is a nuanced collection of subtle shades of grey but the average "educated" person seems to be taught to see in sharp lines of black and white. I've had conversations with people about this and I can see how much they've thought about it by how quickly they shut down and internally label me something so they don't have to examine their beliefs
Freddie, thank you for standing up for (giving a VOICE, a platform to) those who have been silenced. Intellectual Freedom is so deeply important to our survival and ... there are so few who are speaking out for the right to write, the right to THINK, and the right to HAVE IDEAS and DISCUSS them. While I am jumping up and down and raising my voice and throwing things (I always have to go back and remove all the exclamation marks), you just remain calm and create the space for ACTUAL DISCUSSION. Very, very grateful. This is REAL journalism. (So little of it left).
I wondered why Nina has been platformed less than writers such as Mary Harrington. This explains a lot. Very interesting discussion. Freddie, well done with highlighting the nuance.
Moral of this story... Free speech comes at a very high price. Be careful what you post because people in this woke dispensation can today be with you and the next minute not. I feel for Nina, it clearly affected her mental health as her words were distorted in this way. All the best Nina, may you get back on your feet again ❤❤❤
Trump Tells Christians They Won’t Have to Vote in Future: ‘We’ll Have It Fixed’ During an event in Florida, the former president urged attendees to vote and said that if reelected, they "won’t have to do it anymore
But at the opening ceremony of the Olympics they can blatantly mock a sacred scene for Christians, The Last Supper. Why is free speech only acceptable if it conforms to the tastes of those who currently hold the power?
I feel very bad for Nina. This convo is mostly above my head, but I think if she can keep her heart strong and protected, I think Nina will continue being a big voice in these complicated times we live in. We need to keep discussing difficult topics, even if it means we'll get cancelled. Keep strong Nina! ❤
I am completely baffled to be honest. This conversation is all about spoken or written words and I just do not understand why Nina is having to justify to Freddie what she reads and what she says. It feels so Orwellian and actually very of our time as everything seems to be about language. How about focusing on actions, such as the action of doctors who are cutting healthy breasts off girls based on a lie that you can change sex or the harm being done to poor people who are eating cheap disgusting food which is cutting their lives short. Honestly Freddie, for the first time you made me uneasy in your questioning. It was like you were desperately trying to get Nina to confess that she was a fascist. Nina is a courageous intellect who I have loved hearing speak over the years and I really hope that she comes back from this as strong as ever. I think we are so used to having to be very careful with what we say that hearing someone like Nina speak can be quite a shock. But I love the raw intellect and feel she has a real part to play in providing the courage to speak up against the dark things being done in the name of social justice.
I'm a fan of Nina's, and I think Freddie's line of questioning was perfectly fair. He was distinguishing between "I read these books in order to be able to *defeat* their ideas" - which Nina said at first - and "I read these books because I find some of their ideas *insightful and useful*" (I'm paraphrasing) - which she acknowledged later. There's a significant difference between the two. I think Nina is very courageous, if somewhat naive in her expectations of the litigation. I hope she continues to follow her intellectual interests, and finds a way of getting paid to do it.
@@johnwesleyharding It's manipulative semantics by Freddie. No matter what book you read there will almost always be something in them you agree with, no matter who wrote them. Sayers is trying to make a much bigger deal of that here. HE sets her up with HIS framing of that unremarkable phenomenon as if it was SHE who was somehow not being forthcoming. He pushes her repeatedly to trick her into apparent agreement that goes well beyond what she has repeatedly already proven about her actual beliefs. It's practically entrapment the way he does it. I don't know what gallery he was playing to here but he was not being his usual much more decent self.
@@MimCotton absolutely agreed. It's sometimes quite jarring to see this "quasi-intellectuall" media content usually in form of interviews where interviewers keep spinning the language, demonstrating incompetence at most times (if unaware of what they're doing), or perhaps even some bad intentions (wouldn't know). I've seen this a number of times now on both UnHerd and Novara media, where the entire shtick is that they're alternative but then keep doing the same thing mainstream anchors keep doing, it's just that the actual language/ideologies expressed differs, but it's the same rhetorical nonsense they keep pulling. It's both intellectually dishonest/infantile and unfair to their interviewees, given how it tells the spectator more about the anchor's views/values than the person we came here to listen to.. while also making it harder for that person to actually say what they mean by further complicating something, partly by trying to make a non-problem problematic.. this is textbook quasi-intellectualism, typical fake almost-philosophical discussion which isn't even near what it projects it is..
@@horasefu1438 Hello and greetings. However, I must disagree with most of your assessment (and the one above yours). Firstly, I do agree Novara are detrimentally bias. I haven't seen that in Unherd. It's slightly uncanny this, isn't it? I think it's how Nina presents that adds a little peculiarity. I realised she reminds me of the girl queen from Game of Thrones and strangely the circumstances mirror that in an Alice-like fall into unfathomable fortune; Tests of innocence and bravery, consequences deepening. Fantastical. So saying that, I respectfully think you're actually not giving Nina's agenda enough credit. Allow her this unusual agency of post-event self-foisting she's engaging in. She's weathered, rode and embraced strife, now beckoning these challengers on. It must be liberating. I think Freddy was taking the view to ask the ugly question. Nina would much prefer these questions to be spoken in public with human faces, not behind tribal anonymity. She put the books up there for all to see; It's an act of defiance and an invitation for open questioning. I believe she is relieved by Freddy bluntly asking that which otherwise remains the destructive cache of un-examined presumption; She could engage head on free from a crisis. Nina is combating the cult of 'Public Shaming'', the tumor of censorship, and Freddy played his honest role as Persecutor perfectly.
@@joannawatson1584 try reading the judgment … she initiated the suit and the judge had to determine in the counterclaim whether she harassed the defendant on a civil law (not criminal) standard .. in any event the judge found in her favour on that point notwithstanding the considerable negative pressure she and her co-defendant were putting the claimant under … a martyr for free speech this woman most certainly is not .. I think sayers realised that fairly early on (or before) hence the questions were (entirely justifiably) more pointed ..
Freddie does a great job of gently representing those on the other of the argument so that his guests can articulate as clearly as possible the "answer to the answer". the nested nature of these conversations often gets missed by our echo chambers, and we get the best out any opportunity to talk when we steer the course between two points. Love Nina!
Leaving any of the rest of the conversation to one side, Nina is spot on about the impact of not being able to state facts, and have those facts be meaningful. Opinions are not facts, and neither is your truth, or a lived truth. Starting down the road of not being able to use a word and not having it mean anything factual is the end of rationality. That said, some of the stuff she was posting looks a lot like the sort of bile that makes me stear well clear of the twitt(er)-verse et al. People need to learn that sociopathic media such as X, FB et al are not benefiting society, and we would be far better off without any of them. Online conversations such as those being displayed on these massively public forums by otherwise apparently reasonably intelligent and thoughtful people demonstrates how poor an influence this cancer is on society, and how your words written do not convey the same meanings as words spoken to a friend directly with all the nuance and cadence and inflection you put in to convey your meaning. Sarcasm and irony do not come across so well written down.
One has to defend people with words - going to court was crazy. Nina needed better friends to advise her. It should be enough to show someone up as a liar.
These situations already bring-up the less-asked question: who are the "they"? Who are the people who have the power to cancel? Are the editors, producers, administrators, etc. so absolutely spineless that they cannot draw a line and parse legality vs offence?
What a heroine. God bless Nina and her courage and curiosity for all that life offers. A true creative mind. But did you have to turn the thumbs screws so tightly just to appear fair and right on. I’m sure if we rummaged through your texts and bottom draw it would not be nice…
🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:00:29 *📜 Nina Power details her experiences of being labeled anti-Semitic and the subsequent defamation lawsuit, which led to financial and professional hardship.* 00:01:26 *🎭 Nina Power describes her background as a philosopher, art critic, and writer involved in political debates, particularly around gender and freedom of expression.* 00:02:24 *🗣️ Nina criticizes the misuse of the term "far right" to describe diverse ideological positions that deviate from a narrow mainstream.* 00:03:21 *🚩 Discusses the shift in left-wing politics from class and inequality to identity politics, affecting discourse on free expression and academic freedom.* 00:04:16 *🚺 Nina Power recounts her early involvement in gender-related discussions, leading to social ostracization and "cancellation" within left-wing circles.* 00:05:41 *❌ Describes the personal consequences of speaking out on sensitive issues, resulting in professional and social exclusion.* 00:07:08 *🎨 References to the art and literary community's influence on the public perception of figures involved in cultural and political disputes.* 00:09:04 *📅 Nina discusses the complexities and frustrations of the legal system in handling defamation, highlighting the challenges of proving harm in the internet age.* 00:10:30 *⚖️ Explores the motivations behind pursuing a defamation lawsuit and the unexpected prolongation and escalation of legal conflict.* 00:12:04 *🔍 Discusses the inherent difficulties in differentiating between fact and opinion in defamation cases, emphasizing the importance of factual accuracy over personal opinion.* 00:14:59 *🗣️ Nina asserts the critical difference between free speech and defamation, particularly when false statements cause significant personal harm.* 00:16:23 *🛡️ Highlights the court's dismissal of harassment claims in the lawsuit, underscoring the high threshold for such accusations to be legally recognized.* 21:37 *🛡️ Nina Power clarifies that stating factual information cannot be inherently anti-Semitic, even if it pertains to someone who is Jewish.* 22:05 *⚖️ Despite both claims in the lawsuit being dismissed, Nina was ordered to pay 80% of the legal costs, resulting in her bankruptcy.* 23:02 *🏛️ Nina reflects on her legal battle, emphasizing the importance of standing up against bullying and factually incorrect accusations in civil society.* 24:26 *🌐 Nina agrees with a description of the intellectual scene as fluid and ironic, which could apply to both contemporary right and historical left-wing cultures.* 25:25 *🗣️ Discusses the perceived authoritarian shift in societal norms that restricts open discussion on topics like gender, describing it as a violation of free speech.* 26:23 *🤔 Nina argues that what is often labeled as "right-wing" discourse is actually just curiosity and a desire to discuss reality openly, challenging authoritarian constraints.* 28:15 *📜 Nina discusses the personal impact of being socially ostracized for her views, compounded by personal struggles such as recovering from addiction.* 30:42 *🛸 Nina shares a personal anecdote about experiencing hallucinations during a stressful period, illustrating her vulnerable mental state at the time.* 33:36 *🧠 Discusses how mental distress can lead to transgressive thoughts, highlighting the societal pressures that enforce self-censorship.* 35:30 *✝️ Nina shares how converting to Christianity has provided her with strength and community support, contrasting with her previous state of isolation.* 37:51 *🗨️ Discusses the controversy around her leaked private messages, emphasizing the need to defend privacy and the ability to joke privately with trusted friends.* 39:43 *🚫 Nina argues against the excessive political correctness in society, advocating for the freedom to challenge prevailing cultural mores through irony and humor.* 42:33 *🚫 Nina Power suggests that making topics taboo can inadvertently empower extreme movements by increasing their allure and perceived radicalism.* 43:33 *📱 The controversy around leaked private messages led to Nina Power's resignation from Compact magazine, although she notes the decision was hers in a supportive environment.* 45:01 *🏢 Nina acknowledges her non-traditional, anti-institutional nature and her challenge in maintaining traditional employment due to her controversial views.* 46:28 *📢 Nina discusses the difficulty of defending oneself in the midst of a media-fueled controversy, emphasizing the mob mentality that can distort complex discussions.* 47:27 *📚 Explains her decision to step back from Compact, considering her impact on the project amidst a climate of cancel culture, while highlighting her fundamental disinterest in conforming to political expectations.* 49:21 *📖 Nina defends the value of reading controversial works-not to endorse them but to understand and critically engage with dangerous ideologies.* 51:13 *⚖️ Discusses the hypocrisy in societal reactions to offensive content, questioning why some groups can express extreme views without repercussions while others cannot.* 52:09 *🤔 Nina highlights the intellectual value of exploring controversial ideas, such as the concept of providence in historical and philosophical contexts.* 54:03 *🎭 Advocates for a nuanced approach to understanding authoritarian tendencies, irrespective of political labels, and emphasizes the artistic and political merits of exploring diverse ideological perspectives.* 55:52 *🌐 Nina critiques the social dynamics of online interactions and cancel culture, pointing out the real-world consequences of virtual actions and the often overlooked symbolic nature of public shaming and sacrifice.* 57:21 *📚 Reflects on her personal journey through public controversies, asserting her commitment to intellectual freedom and resilience in the face of social ostracism.* Made with HARPA AI
With regard to Mussolini, it would be wise if Anglo-sphere starts examining Italian Fascist attituted towards Slovenians and Croatians living in lands annexed following 1st World War up to capitulation in 1943 (not to mention Libyans and Ethiopians). Just because they weren't focused mainly on Jews doens't mean that Fascist Italy was in any way less abhorent than Nazi Germany.
Also feel bad for her being grilled about her private chats between friends like everyone hasn’t said weird stuff in private that sounds bad or odd. Even freddie pushing her about the aliens on the bus weirdness. Seems obviously just something weird she said off the cuff not meant to be serious
And of course for going into legal mode. They should all have realised the end result would be bad news for all, except the lawyers. They are the only ones getting paid hansomely for this, with tax payer's money at that, being as they all simply declared bankrupt and don't actually pay for it themselves.
Hmm, I don’t know either of these people or the story. I was expecting to side with this lady from clicking on the video but it’s just a massive mess. Trying to sue people for tweets is always gonna get messy. People need to learn to be the best person you can (integrity) on Twitter and win that way.
@@deldia She's clearly pretty bright, but it seems like she may be a tad autistic as she's clearly got a very direct focus on what she thinks is right, not much of an idea of shades of grey.... Maybe this helped her make the bad decisions she's made here.
I think the taboo subjects and inappropriate conversations in private encounters in part performs a vital function in affirming 'trust' between two individuals or within a group. The very fact that subject matter is generally considered socially unacceptable helps to confirm the bond with all parties aware that what is being said isn't being said and meant in all seriousness and will not go beyond the bounds of the context of where it is being said without shared consent.
Nina is an excellent writer with great ideas and views on modern culture and politics. She is the furthest thing from a nazi and is a victim of another leftist witch-hunt. Good job by UnHerd to speak with her and give her a chance to explain what happened.
People with heterodox opinions that are difficult to pin into one particular box seem to be increasingly a rarity in our society, and the consequences may be more severe than we anticipate.
Not by or from the right at all. Philosopher Jean-Pierre Faye invented Horseshoe Theory. The great writer of totalitarian regimes of language. Methodically rigorous enough to inform Deleuze and Guattari’s theory of signifiers. It’s not Faye’s most complex insight and lends itself to misuse.
British legal system is better than some but is leaving me increasingly more and more disillusioned. Not just by this case, but others too. Nina is a brilliant intellectual, and I find the controversy around her blown out of proportion. The controversy should be around that legal case and not around her character.
Yes, the English Common Law tradition is among the very best. It distressing to see that many of the centuries-old fundamental freedoms have been ousted from their rightful place (it seems). Every Englishman/woman should be reading Coke and Blackstone, also John Stuart Mill, among others. A serious revival is in order. The colonists of the Founding Generation here in America were absolutely steeped in Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, in particular. This fact produced a populace full of formidable adversaries against ever-looming tyranny. Men and women of the Anglo-sphere would do well to reconnect with such notions as are inherent to our culture and in us as a diasporic people. We would do well to see that our common interests are looked to. This is becoming more and more obvious. A more expansive sense of group consciousness is one possibility.
"The State has always one purpose: to limit, control, subordinate the individual and subject him to the general purpose Through its censorship, its supervision, and its police the State tries to obstruct all free activity and sees this repression as its duty, because the instinct of self-preservation demands it. The State does not permit me to use my thoughts to their full value and communicate them to other men unless they are its own Otherwise it shuts me up." Max Stirner
This lady seems an intelligent version of me which means that the person has spent a long time abusing Nina and a legal system, too ignorant to see what is clear, just compounded the matter. Stay strong Nina.
He didn't lie though. He just made inferences and the judge came to the conclusion that ninas own writings would likely be just as damaging to her reputation. It's funny how she harps on about free speech but sued someone for libel
Nina Power speaking with the logos. Freddie Sayers speaking as the worthy adversary. Battle of Ideas festival should pick this up - it would make an excellent panel.
(49:44) My father (born in 1913) spent his life reading every book he could find about the wars (WWI and WWII). He studied history and he read anything that might explain the psychology of war, or the Nazi mind. Having been through the Second WW on a ship in the Pacific (my mother was dodging bombs in London, during the Blitz, driving ambulances), he NEEDED to understand what was behind the madness. He was left wing. I take after him. But I do NOT understand how a majority of us, Left Wingers, are suddenly called 'Right Wing' by the New Left BECAUSE WE WANT TO DISCUSS ISSUES, because we QUESTION things, because we don't just jump on the bandwagon of the latest cause, but ASK QUESTIONS....! Freddie, how can you even suggest that WANTING TO KNOW is disingenuous ? One reads some of those awful books to see if one can somehow figure out where the back door is: WHAT happened to bring people to these godawful, dreadful conclusions...? THAT is why we read the dreck. Why else? What I find (as Nina mentioned), is that people NOW, not only do not want to DISCUSS, but they do not want to THINK! And they are generally inept when it comes to justifying the awful-dreadfulness. Nina, it would seem to me, is making the case for NUANCE and the idea that we are far more complex than Left/Right.... and that, if an idea can fit on a tee-shirt, it probably hasn't been thought through to the end. It is desperately important that we continue to DISCUSS ideas.
I read 'After Many a Summer Dies the Swan' by Aldous Huxley when I was 14 and within was referenced the Marquis de Sade's 'The 120 Days of Sodom'. So I went later that week and found the hefty, brutal tome at my local small town library, to my eventual surprise. Checking out, when the librarian got down to that selection in my stack, she looked me in the eyes and asked "Are you going to READ this?!" I replied "Well, I'm going to try..." After a few pages into chapter one, I could see why she had been wearing that somewhat concerned expression earlier. Looking back, I think she was almost as surprised that it was there in the little library at all as she was that a boy my tender age was borrowing it. But I'm glad it was there, and that I was able to check it out. The Marquis has been referenced in many works of literature and cinema and just conversations in my life since that time, and my life is improved knowing what the hell people are talking about, even, maybe especially, when it is 'ugly'. Look, the librarian knew what it was...
Is this a case of the Left eating the Left? Nina, you may find yourself more comfortable in the centre (now called the far right). Your voice will be very valuable calling out the drift to authoritarianism.
I didn't love the interview questions and dynamic, but I love Nina and can't emphasize enough how much I love this very feminine style of responses, the introspection, the honesty and openness, the modesty. I am so happy to see more female intellectuals like this.
“Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.” Nina does seem like a lovely person and I think it's a shame she lost so much in this quagmire, BUT... there is no more factuality in one a-hole calling another one "anti-semitic" than there is in one a-hole calling another "paranoid schizophrenic". Whereas the mental health claim can at least be put up against a "scientific" measure, the "anti-semitic" claim can never rise above "opinion". It was a terrible idea, suing someone for flinging an insult that is so common as to be ridiculous.
If you listen to the audio/podcast version of this interview, which is about ten minutes longer, they do go into the grindr thing a bit more and the subject is not changed as it is here. No idea why it was edited out for the video. Maybe there's a requirement to keep videos under one hour in length? Just speculating but it's definitely in the audio.
The judge is certainly a wrong 'un, but aren't they all, and surely Nina should have known better not to have anything to do with our legal system. Of course, the world is upside down when someone who has written for the Guardian and the Wire is alleged to be 'right wing', given that they are pretty much the two most left-wing publications in the country. That aside, I'm sure she is right about most things, but it is a very dangerous thing to be right in the contemporary west.
Here's a ChatGPT summary: - Nina Power, a philosopher and former senior editor at Compact Magazine, has been cancelled multiple times for her political opinions. - She sued someone for defamation after being called anti-Semitic, but the legal drama lasted over five years, ending with both sides losing. - Due to the legal costs and revelations from the case, Nina is now bankrupt and out of a job. - The interview aims to explore her story without relitigating the trial. - Nina has a history of being cancelled, particularly around her views on the Gender Recognition Act and her defense of free speech. - She was involved in student fee protests and wrote for The Guardian, focusing on issues like protest, policing, and freedom of expression. - Nina's co-litigant, Daniel Miller, is a literary editor who has also faced cancellation for his political views. - The person they sued, Luke Turner, had previously experienced harassment during a Trump protest art project. - The defamation case involved accusations of anti-Semitism and harassment, with both sides engaging in heated and offensive exchanges on Twitter. - The judge found that while there were factually untrue statements made, they did not meet the threshold for provable harm in a defamation case. - Nina and Daniel were ordered to pay 80% of Luke Turner's legal costs, leading to their bankruptcy. - Nina defends her actions as standing up for principles and against bullying, despite the personal and financial consequences. - The interview delves into the intellectual scene Nina is part of, described as fluid, ironic, and provocative, often blurring the lines between serious and playful discourse. - Nina discusses her mental health struggles, including a psychotic break in 2011, and how these experiences influenced her private conversations. - Private WhatsApp messages between Nina and Daniel, leaked by Luke Turner, have led to further accusations and Nina losing her job at Compact Magazine. - Nina argues for the importance of privacy and the ability to make inappropriate jokes in private, criticizing the current culture of public shaming and cancellation. - She defends her interest in reading controversial and extreme literature as a means to understand and counter disagreeable ideas. - Nina has become a Christian, which she says has helped her cope with her past experiences and current challenges. - Main message: Nina Power's story highlights the complexities and personal costs of cancel culture, the importance of free speech, and the need for intellectual curiosity and resilience in the face of public shaming.
If she's verboten then so am I. Being politically incorrect for comedic effect is something I've always done, and it used to be a feature of the left/people who were against censorship and encroaching on freedoms, now it is turned upon by the drones of 'kindness'. The atmosphere of the last few years has been absurd. As for reading books, so what? People would do well to remember Christopher Hitchens defended David Irving on the grounds of press and intellectual freedom. 'If I didn't read my polar opponents, I'd be even stupider than I am.'
Absolutely disgusting the way this woman has been treated. I'm a Jew and know an anti-Semite when I see one. Nina is NOT one. I hope she just gets on with her life now. Perhaps explore the spiritual world further and get away from all this nonsense from the world of ego. Peace.
I’m of two minds with this. I agree with his point that her losing the case is a benefit to free speech cuz it allows for her accuser’s ability to express his opinion; on the other hand, the hysterical &/or calculated way people gather together to attack and ruin people who don’t go along with the program is also bad news. Her example about killing the cat doesnt wash cuz a cat is either killed or not whereas thoughts aren’t measurable and tangible. I think much of the issue is the public becoming aware(and I think they largely are) that certain words are used to control people through stigmatization and its vital they lose their power and therefore accusations don’t ruin people
