• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cancel culture IRL

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emily's Cat said:
How did that work out for Parler? I have no information on their content... but I do know that they literally created their own paddock
Click to expand...

No, they made their own sign and erected in in Amazon's paddock

Emily's Cat said:
at which point it was the distributors and Amazon hosting services that were pressured to make it unavailable.
Click to expand...

As was their right, its their paddock.

But how it worked out is that they are back up and running again.. they found another paddock...

https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/15/22284036/parler-social-network-relaunch-new-hosting

... a Russian paddock!!!

https://www.hindustantimes.com/worl...o-the-russian-government-101611334474260.html

Oh, how appropriate!!!


Emily's Cat said:
A: I wrote a book.
B: Well, nobody is obligated to publish your book.
A: Okay, I bought my own press and I've printed my own books.
B: Well, nobody is obligated to sell your book for you.
A: Okay, I leased my own store to sell my own books which I printed with my own press.
B: Well... nobody is obligated to lease you space! Landlord - kick them out!

At some point there's a fine line in there between "nobody has to buy it" and actually blocking purchase of it even if it people wanted to buy it.
Click to expand...

If its that important to you, sell it from your own house (no-one can stop you doing that), and install you own servers to host your own website (no-one can stop you doing that either). Advertise using a mass mail campaign.

But really, if you have to go to that extent to sell your product, you really need to closely examine your product and try to understand why literally NO-ONE wants to let you use their facilities to sell it.

This is a level of introspection that Cancel Culture whiners are simply incapable of.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I consider myself among those who whine thusly, but cannot recall making any arguments from free speech (in the constitutional sense) or censorship (in the legal sense).

(Just for the sake of clarification, though, not all censorship is the result of official action. Just ask the MPAAWP. :) )
Click to expand...

I mean, I don't really understand what you're after then. Is it just that you want people to agree with you more often? Like we should only boycott businesses or tune out of programs or criticize public figures when you think it's appropriate?

Because it's my opinion that individuals should be able to decide for themselves who they wish to follow and support and what businesses they choose to patronize, and who they choose to criticize and what that criticism consists of as long as it's within the confines of the law.

Even the MPAA is completely voluntary. If you want a particular rating or want access to certain venues then you have to comply with their guidelines, which others are voluntarily using. You can still film and release anything you want, you'll just have a more difficult time finding theaters to show the film. It's another situation where people aren't entitled to having everything their way.
 
Emily's Cat said:
My general stance is that "Grab the torches and pitchforks" is a bad idea from a social cohesion perspective, even if they're digital torches and text-based pitchforks.
Click to expand...

Are you OK with expressing frustration or displeasure at the actions of others?
 
d4m10n said:
#1202
Click to expand...

While it may be true that people who engage in cancellation activities that you wouldn't just didn't think about it enough and are just being trendy, I think it's also possible they have given it some thought and those same people are allowed to come to different conclusions than you.
 
dirtywick said:
While it may be true that people who engage in cancellation activities that you wouldn't just didn't think about it enough and are just being trendy, I think it's also possible they have given it some thought and those same people are allowed to come to different conclusions than you.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I had a supplier of goods who I found out beat up his wife and threatened to burn their house down with her inside.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/12...e-conviction-quashed-to-allow-overseas-travel

I took a decision not to buy from that supplier any more, and I told him exactly why that was. It wasn't hard for me to come to that decision, even though some of the things he supplied me I cannot get anywhere else.
 
smartcooky said:
Indeed. I had a supplier of goods who I found out beat up his wife and threatened to burn their house down with her inside.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/12...e-conviction-quashed-to-allow-overseas-travel

I took a decision not to buy from that supplier any more, and I told him exactly why that was. It wasn't hard for me to come to that decision, even though some of the things he supplied me I cannot get anywhere else.
Click to expand...

Did your action cause him to stop beating his wife?

**Not being snarky, I'm actually curious if your actions had any positive effect on the situation that you disapproved of.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Did your action cause him to stop beating his wife?
Click to expand...

His wife left him, took the kids and headed back home to China, so, yes I guess.

Emily's Cat said:
**Not being snarky,
Click to expand...

Yes you are

Emily's Cat said:
I'm actually curious if your actions had any positive effect on the situation that you disapproved of.
Click to expand...

Its not always about that.

For me, it is about NOT supporting someone who is reprehensible, or has acted reprehensibly, and not wishing to associate my brand with his.

However, I know his bottom line suffered to the tune of $500 - $1000 per month from me alone, and there were several other retailers who did what I did.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Several went private in order to avoid being banned.

And a few of those are... well... male-centered feminism. Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...

So when you said:
When reddit removes nearly every feminist sub as "transphobic"
Click to expand...

What you meant to say was "When reddit removes a small number of feminist subs, some more went private, and some of those that stayed public I don't like".

Surely you see that the two things differ factually in some major ways.

If you intended your original statement as hyperbole, I'd suggest using something more clear like "When reddit removes a gazillion subs"
 
Reddit is a private business - if they want to have a sex case running the children's subs who are we to argue?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Some say yes, some say no. When reddit removes nearly every feminist sub as "transphobic" even when they haven't said anything hateful or cruel...
Click to expand...

Are you conflating the TERF subreddits as every feminist subreddits? I trust you have some evidence to support that.

Gender Critical, despite being quite the loud voice and causing lots of bad reputation for reddit, was by no means the largest feminist subreddit on the site. There are many other women centered or feminist subreddits still active that are many times larger than GenderCritical ever was.

It seems willfully disingenuous to claim that reddit was broadly banning "feminist" subs. They were banning TERFS. Or, if you prefer to play word games, they were banning a specific subset of trans-exclusionary "gender critical" feminists. Other feminists groups on the site remain unimpacted by the new policy.

but retains subs that advocate for people to attack women, rape women, and silence women... and when those feminist subs are removed as the result of intentional concerted effort on the part of trans activists... then yes, I rather think there's a bit of "cancelling" involved. Cancelling, in this case, is a much kinder word than I'm inclined to use.
Click to expand...

You'll hear no defense on that from me. Reddit admin decisions do seem awfully capricious and only take action after facing PR backlash that threatens their reputation and advertising based business model.
 
"Women are adult human females" isn't nearly a controversial viewpoint as ones that are still allowed on Reddit and I don't believe this is an administrative oversite
 
Trump has called for boycotts of MLB, Coke, and Delta Airlines.

Cue onslaught of cognitive dissonance from those oh-so-worried about this cancel culture plague in 3...2...1...
 
Manger Douse said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/transgende...atement_from_one_moderator_regarding_ongoing/
Click to expand...

Nope, not good enough. Your claim was

Manger Douse said:
Reddit is a private business - if they want to have a sex case running the children's subs who are we to argue?
Click to expand...

The link you posted shows an apology and mea culpa for not finding out about her earlier, allowing her to moderate. It does NOT show that they wanted "to have a sex case running the children's subs"

Show evidence that they willingly and knowingly employed "a sex case" as a moderator
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom