Cancel culture IRL

[Manger Douse]

Nope, not good enough. Your claim was



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

I never said they wanted to I said they could if they wanted to because as you said, they're a private company. I've worked on building sites with better background checks than Reddit have for working with children though mind - how do you explain that?

 

[smartcooky]

I never said they wanted to...

Yes you did, its right there in your post..

"if they want to have a sex case running the children's subs who are we to argue"


You are clearly and obviously inferring that this was a proactive choice on their part.

I guess you are going to withdraw this claim now?

 

[dirtywick]

How will Coca-Cola Corp. know whether I'm boycotting them for #MAGA nation or b/c I'm an upstanding progressive like Will Bunch?

The answer is in your own link

Remember, like “the doomsday machine” in Dr. Strangelove, a boycott doesn’t work if you don’t tell anyone, so be sure to tweet your involvement at @CocaCola, @Delta, @HomeDepot, @UPS, etc., or write them a nice goodbye-for-now letter. When a tough moral question arises, I often ask myself what would Martin Luther King do, because his instincts in public matters were close to infallible. In this case, he told us what he would do.

 

[Manger Douse]

Yes you did, its right there in your post..

"if they want to have a sex case running the children's subs who are we to argue"


You are clearly and obviously inferring that this was a proactive choice on their part.

I guess you are going to withdraw this claim now?

What claim, because it clearly and obviously says *IF* they want to hire sex cases in my post, not *BECAUSE* they want to hire sex cases

 

[d4m10n]

The answer is in your own link

I suppose boycottees could assume that boycotters are roughly proportional to tweeters, but that seems a bit rash to me.

(I seem to recall the MAGA folks having a grudge against Twitter...?)

 

[dirtywick]

I suppose boycottees could assume that boycotters are roughly proportional to tweeters, but that seems a bit rash to me.

I think that if you’re going to boycott then also send a communication stating that you are doing so like he suggested. They don’t need to make assumptions in that scenario

 

[theprestige]

Corporations: "There's all this public outcry, and our profits are dropping. Let's address the complaints before we go out of business... Looks like that worked. It'll be nice to report some good news on the next earnings call."

Skeptics: But correlation doesn't equal causation! Nothing was ever proooved!"

 

[dirtywick]

Kind of a random comment.

 

[smartcooky]

What claim, because it clearly and obviously says *IF* they want to hire sex cases in my post, not *BECAUSE* they want to hire sex cases

Nope. That is not how the language works.

Jimmy stole some apples, and I say...."If Jimmy wants to steal those apples, who am I to complain?", I am clearly claiming Jimmy wanted to steal those apples!

Reddit had a sex case running a subreddit, and you said..."if they want to have a sex case running the children's subs who are we to argue", you are clearly claiming Reddit wanted a sex case running the children's subs.

 

[Manger Douse]

Nope. That is not how the language works.

Jimmy stole some apples, and I say...."If Jimmy wants to steal those apples, who am I to complain?", I am clearly claiming Jimmy wanted to steal those apples!

Reddit had a sex case running a subreddit, and you said..."if they want to have a sex case running the children's subs who are we to argue", you are clearly claiming Reddit wanted a sex case running the children's subs.

if
/ɪf/
conjunction
1.
(introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.
"if you have a complaint, write to the director"

 

[Mumbles]

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).

Part of the issue here is that you're trying to stake out some high moral ground, using the exact same language who use "cancel culture" to discuss rebranding a toy line, a copyright owner not publishing some book or other, a president getting impeached for inciting an attempted overthrow of democracy, a governor facing sexual harassment accusations, and so forth - but not, somehow, a pro sports player being blackballed for insufficient flag worship during a paid patriotism display, a routine tv show being dropped due to low ratings, and the like.

Which is why I keep saying to forget the term. At this point, "cancel culture" is basically a right-wing sneer term - it means next to nothing, but shows your affiliation with the modern US right wing movement. If you aren't with that group, but you use it, then don't be shocked when people confuse you for being exactly like them. Basically, stop walking like a duck, if you catch my drift.

Dictionaries, at best, document usage. In this case, they're well behind, and taking on a more or less impossible task, because the usage is emotional.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What was that reason again?

No, I'm not going down the road of repeating myself ad nauseum. My posts are still there, available for you to re-read if you can't keep track of the most fundamental points of the discussion we're having.

It would take an admin too long a time to do all this work?

It would take anybody too long to set up tens/hundreds of alt accounts and post on them like a normal poster for years just to perform a false flag operation.

 

[Manger Douse]

No, I'm not going down the road of repeating myself ad nauseum. My posts are still there, available for you to re-read if you can't keep track of the most fundamental points of the discussion we're having.



It would take anybody too long to set up tens/hundreds of alt accounts and post on them like a normal poster for years just to perform a false flag operation.

No need to repeat as it seems very clear: A sexual predator, busy with grooming kids wouldn't have enough time to create these false flag posts despite them having admin powers at Reddit. That they've previously been rewarded for false claims of transphobia with literally the keys to the crèche is totally irrelevant to their motivations today.

Forgive me but that sounds like:

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I suppose that making things up is certainly easier than paying attention to what's actually been said. But if you want to talk to me about the opinions I hold and the things I've said, then you'll have to actually talk to me about those things.

 

[Manger Douse]

I suppose that making things up is certainly easier than paying attention to what's actually been said. But if you want to talk to me about the opinions I hold and the things I've said, then you'll have to actually talk to me about those things.

Ok - so then why **isn't** it possible for someone with admistrator powers to make it look like subs such as r/gendercritical are hotbeds of transphobia if not for said Admins being preoccupied with grooming vulnerable children and having previously been rewarded with the keys to tcreche for false claims of transphobia?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Anything is possible.. Well, almost.

 

[Manger Douse]

TQ

Ok - so then why **isn't** it possible for someone with admistrator powers to make it look like subs such as r/gendercritical are hotbeds of transphobia if not for said Admins being preoccupied with grooming vulnerable children and having previously been rewarded with the keys to the creche for false claims of transphobia?

Anything is possible.. Well, almost.

Creating fake shouts of "transphobia" to make it easier for you to **** kids doesn't seem all that unlikely to me - your milage may vary

 

[d4m10n]

I think that if you’re going to boycott then also send a communication stating that you are doing so like he suggested. They don’t need to make assumptions in that scenario...

Except for the assumption about which boycott (far left or far right) is cutting into their profits more. [emoji409]

 

[smartcooky]

if
/ɪf/
conjunction
1.
(introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.
"if you have a complaint, write to the director"

Yes, this is you implying that I have a complaint, otherwise, why would you advise me to write to the director!

The use of "If" doesn't change the fact that you implied Reddit knowingly allowed a sex case to moderate a subreddit for children.

 

[Manger Douse]

Yes, this is you implying that I have a complaint, otherwise, why would you advise me to write to the director!

The use of "If" doesn't change the fact that you implied Reddit knowingly allowed a sex case to moderate a subreddit for children.

But I didn't advise you to write to the director - I just agreed with you that since Reddit is a private company they're free to hire sex cases to moderate the children's subs. I honestly don't see what your problem with me is