• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

In case people forgot what real censorship looks like:

Man who was arrested for 1A protected speech cannot sue cops that illegally arrested him because of qualified immunity.

New life was injected into a free speech legal saga over an "I Eat Ass" bumper sticker yesterday when a federal judge ruled that the expression might violate Florida's obscenity law and would thus be unprotected by the First Amendment.

At the center of the odyssey is Florida man Dillon Shane Webb, who was pulled over in May of 2019 after Columbia County Sheriff's Deputy Travis English took exception to the sticker. Webb declined to censor it on the spot, his vehicle was searched, and he was subsequently arrested and booked in jail for "obscene writing on vehicles" and "resisting an officer without violence." (The "resisting" in question refers to his refusal to alter the sticker's appearance at the officer's demand.)

Those charges were dropped shortly thereafter, with the State Attorney's Office citing the First Amendment.

But the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled yesterday that the case is not so cut and dry, awarding qualified immunity to English and thus dooming the suit Webb brought against him for allegedly violating his free speech rights and for falsely arresting him.

https://reason.com/2021/09/28/florida-man-jailed-i-eat-ass-bumper-sticker-free-speech-qualified-immunity-cops/
 
In case people forgot what real censorship looks like:

Man who was arrested for 1A protected speech cannot sue cops that illegally arrested him because of qualified immunity.



https://reason.com/2021/09/28/florida-man-jailed-i-eat-ass-bumper-sticker-free-speech-qualified-immunity-cops/


He might get something from the department for wrongful arrest but, yea getting a cop personally for wrongful arrest is never going to happen.

Getting something from the department will mean the city or county re-allocating funds which means the punishment for the people actually committing the crime is nothing and essentially makes it de facto legal. It would be like punishing someone who stole $100 with a fine of $1.
 
Getting something from the department will mean the city or county re-allocating funds which means the punishment for the people actually committing the crime is nothing and essentially makes it de facto legal. It would be like punishing someone who stole $100 with a fine of $1.

Ah so like wage theft then.
 
There's a concept in legalese, estoppel. It basically means you if you outright admit you are doing something, you can't then go back and argue terminology.

Let's say a jurisdiction has anti-smut laws, but the laws don't really make it clear what is smut and what isn't.

But you open "Big Dave's House of Smut, That's Right I Said Smut, Come Buy The Smuttest Smut that ever Smutted" and get arrested, you can't THEN go back and argue that what is smut isn't clear because you've already admitted you know which side you are one.

This is what kills so much discourse and why I have such a seething hatred of the "No wait let's stop and define the line" arguments.

If you're are saying "I'm a Nazi" then there is literally no point in trying to have the discussion, or have some someone have it on your behalf, about where to drawn the line. You've already declared which side of it you are on.
 
Silver lining about the far right is that they are often even more incompetent than the stereotypes would have you believe.

BREAKING: hacktivists with Anonymous release a second round of data from the Epik hack. A security researcher who was able to verify the extent of the leak to me described it as "a complete own." At over 300 gigabytes worth of data, this leak is larger than the first.

This leak appears to be fully bootable disk images of Epik servers, including a wide range of passwords and API tokens.

https://twitter.com/stevanzetti/status/1443299000187297795

Cancellations incoming!

ETA: important to remember that this hack is the result of a broader campaign to cancel these people. Epik is a provider of last resort after the more reputable vendors refuse to host their bigoted content.
 
Last edited:
As with some others here, I used to be more of a free speech absolutist, but see the folly of it now.

I do still resist any kind of government department enforcing standards, but only because the pragmatist cynic in me believes that it will inevitably get staffed by fascists and turned on its head.
 
Again one day, God willing, I will find a woman who loves me as much as Internet Free Speech Advocates love Nazis.

You will get fewer Free Speech Advocates to run screeching out of the woodwork at you if you actually go "I'm against Free Speech" then you will if you are against Nazis.

I hope you see this before it gets zorched for being off-topic, but I was reading yesterday about the school in KC (I think) that did not allow their volleyball team to wear t-shirts that promoted racial unity before a match against a team that is known for having a lot of racist crap thrown at them. The school's justification was that "If we allow these shirts, we would have to allow them to wear KKK shirts."

Nominally, that is true, but I have to suggest, if you are concerned that you students are going to be wearing KKK t-shirts to a volleyball game, then you have a much bigger problem at your school than your free speech policy that prohibiting racial unity shirts is not going to fix.
 
I hope you see this before it gets zorched for being off-topic, but I was reading yesterday about the school in KC (I think) that did not allow their volleyball team to wear t-shirts that promoted racial unity before a match against a team that is known for having a lot of racist crap thrown at them. The school's justification was that "If we allow these shirts, we would have to allow them to wear KKK shirts."

Nominally, that is true, but I have to suggest, if you are concerned that you students are going to be wearing KKK t-shirts to a volleyball game, then you have a much bigger problem at your school than your free speech policy that prohibiting racial unity shirts is not going to fix.

Seems they violated a supreme court ruling to me... but those have become pretty meaningless lately.

https://www.uscourts.gov/educationa...es/facts-and-case-summary-tinker-v-des-moines
 
Seems they violated a supreme court ruling to me... but those have become pretty meaningless lately.

https://www.uscourts.gov/educationa...es/facts-and-case-summary-tinker-v-des-moines

The argument is that they don't allow any messages on shirts, and therefore they are not favoring a single viewpoint.

It's like the prayer in schools/board meetings/town councils, etc. If they allow prayer, then they have to allow everyone an opportunity. But that means even atheists. So rather than allow atheists to give the opening benediction, they cancel the whole practice.

It's legally allowed. It makes the public howl like crazy on how the evil atheists are ruining everything by insisting that they have equal opportunity, but zorching the whole thing is better than allowing that.
 
This is the idea behind 'cancel culture', it comes from a video which used to be on YouTube, it was a response to a video that had was subsequently deleted.



I have a copy of the response video which is no longer on YouTube. The person quoted was a Canadian university student.



"Free speech is the right to educated speech. If you utilize your right to 'freedom of speech' but then are socially or politically apathetic, you don't vote, educate yourself on social issues, if you are not involved in the community, if you are not involved in being a citizen, an educated citizen, you have no right to free speech."


(Emphasis mine.)
 
"If you want to expose something, write and submit a proper paper exposing it."

Exposing it how, exactly?

Are there any historical examples of the paper you propose here?

Trying to have any kind of meaningful debate with you is an exercise in unending frustration. You have to be spoon-fed everything, and led baby-step by baby-step through every stage of the most basic, fundamental reasoning, so basic that a 4th grader would have no difficulty in grasping. But OK, I will humour you... for the last time.

Premise: You believe Thing A is bad!

Step 1: Write a paper explaining why you believe Thing A is bad

The End!

How hard was that? If you can't understand something that simple, there is nothing I can do or say that will help.
 
Fascist: "Some people are sub-human and need to culled for the greater good of mankind."

Marketplace of idea supporter: "Well no I don't actually support that, but I support their right to say it".

Someone else: "I think genocide is like REALLY BAD and I'm going to voice my opinion by saying I'll boycott anyone that monetarily supports proponents of genocide whether its their employer, advertiser, investor etc".

Marketplace of idea supporter: "WTF OMG YOU CAN'T DO THAT! What about freedom of speech (for the fascist, but YOU can't say anything that might effect them in any negative way)".

Its absurd.

Absurd is right. The chronology here is dishonest. The Marketplace people are taking the initiative to pre-empt critics? Well, that's horse-****. The mob usually forms first.

It's also amusing that on this construction the Marketplace supporter says an anti-fascist "CAN'T" boycott. So they're not even going to say, "You can go to the mattresses over this, but... you really shouldn't."

Conservative Jonah Goldberg criticizes environmentalists for allegedly being predisposed to masochism. For example, he acknowledges climate change is "a real problem," but says we do not necessarily have to "suffer" by limiting consumption and regulating industry; the free market can unleash technological solutions that are win-win. You know, like how we cut taxes for rich people and then treasury revenues surge. Win-win.

Certainly there are some cases where one has to bite the bullet, and other cases that are win-win-win-win -- so much winning that you're tired of all the winning. It could be a flawed heuristic, but I'm consciously inclined toward the former precisely because I know sub-consciously there are powerful evolutionary mechanisms inclining me toward self-deception-for-material-advantage. Motivated reasoning.

Similarly, when it comes to the culture war stuff, almost all of the incentives push people in the direction of tribal allegiance. Humans want to please their team. A "virtue signaling" defense of free inquiry, especially when it's for increasingly marginalized scumbags who are not in, shall we say, cultural ascent, is probably, all other things being equal, more principled than the position held by a typical person. This should be rather... obvious. For some strange reason, people do not often want to be associated with unpopular figures or opinions.
 
Absurd is right. The chronology here is dishonest. The Marketplace people are taking the initiative to pre-empt critics? Well, that's horse-****. The mob usually forms first.

It's also amusing that on this construction the Marketplace supporter says an anti-fascist "CAN'T" boycott. So they're not even going to say, "You can go to the mattresses over this, but... you really shouldn't."

Conservative Jonah Goldberg criticizes environmentalists for allegedly being predisposed to masochism. For example, he acknowledges climate change is "a real problem," but says we do not necessarily have to "suffer" by limiting consumption and regulating industry; the free market can unleash technological solutions that are win-win. You know, like how we cut taxes for rich people and then treasury revenues surge. Win-win.

Certainly there are some cases where one has to bite the bullet, and other cases that are win-win-win-win -- so much winning that you're tired of all the winning. It could be a flawed heuristic, but I'm consciously inclined toward the former precisely because I know sub-consciously there are powerful evolutionary mechanisms inclining me toward self-deception-for-material-advantage. Motivated reasoning.

Similarly, when it comes to the culture war stuff, almost all of the incentives push people in the direction of tribal allegiance. Humans want to please their team. A "virtue signaling" defense of free inquiry, especially when it's for increasingly marginalized scumbags who are not in, shall we say, cultural ascent, is probably, all other things being equal, more principled than the position held by a typical person. This should be rather... obvious. For some strange reason, people do not often want to be associated with unpopular figures or opinions.

It's about realizing we have a responsibility to the rest of society and our planet itself, and that takes precedence over what is easy or comfortable.

There is no win-win when it comes to climate change; we need to take radical actions now. I recently bought an EV because I am trying to keep my carbon footprint as small as possible. And while I love my new car and will never go back to traditional ICE vehicles, there are sacrifices that I have to make to put up with the lack of range and slow charge times. But the tech will continue to improve and EVs are at the point of viability now.

I have no problem making sacrifices in my life for the good of others, and that's what really separates us and is part of what the 'culture war' is all about. Selfishness, greed, and apathy got us to the point we are at today. These are traits that need to be purged from society.

And we will win the war. :)
 
This is the idea behind 'cancel culture', it comes from a video which used to be on YouTube, it was a response to a video that had was subsequently deleted.



I have a copy of the response video which is no longer on YouTube. The person quoted was a Canadian university student.






(Emphasis mine.)


That's appalling.
 
She asked a yes or no question, which you wordfully dodged answering.

DON'T TELL LIES!!

1. It was not a yes or no question (the words "yes" and "no" do not appear in the question)

2. Her question was "Do you trust the other academics who publish post-modern nonsense in journals that can't tell the difference between post-modern nonsense and completely and utter nonsense that uses post-modern jargon? "

3. I ANSWERED THAT QUESTION DIRECTLY IN THE VERY FIRST ******* LINE OF MY ANSWER - "I wouldn't trust an academic who attempts to publish a fake paper...."

And then, unlike what you do, I justified my answer!

Why do you find it necessary to lie about what has been posted when you disagree with it, and can't come up with a rebuttal? Do you not understand that everyone else here can read, and can tell that you are lying?

(that is not a yes or no question by the way)
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom