Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[smartcooky]

At least you're upfront trying to censor ideas you don't like. [emoji106]

If that is your glib, one-dimensional view of what I said, then, OK, whatever

Perhaps you would have been comfortable being one of the fine people carrying a tiki-torch in Charlottesville on the weekend of August 11 and 12, 2017, chanting "Blood & Soil" and"The Jews will not replace us". You do advocate for absolute free speech after all!

 

[angrysoba]

If that is your glib, one-dimensional view of what I said, then, OK, whatever

Perhaps you would have been comfortable being one of the fine people carrying a tiki-torch in Charlottesville on the weekend of August 11 and 12, 2017, chanting "Blood & Soil" and"The Jews will not replace us". You do advocate for absolute free speech after all!

I think this again misunderstands the distinction, and a big one at that, of saying you uphold the right of speech without having to advocate that particular speech.

If I say, "Sure, I think Communist Parties should be legal", it doesn't mean that I must therefore be a Communist.

If I think it should be legal for the Westboro Baptist Church to say, "God Hates Fags" it doesn't mean I therefore believe that God Hates Fags.

The question should be about the right to that speech and the appropriateness of certain types of speech in certain settings (which is where some of the anti-cancel culture people go wrong because they often assume that just because something is legal it should be permitted in all workplaces).

The point is not that if you support a person's right to say something that you must therefore agree with what they say.

 

[smartcooky]

Also, someone who unironically used the term “Uncle Tom” would probably get fired.

It's a slur; it's only directed at black folks.

I know. It’s racist to use Uncle Tom in the context of a black person acting white or supporting white supremacy etc…

I unequivocally withdraw and apologise for using that term. I knew it was offensive and I shouldn't have used it.

Replace with "scumbag"

 

[Stout]

FIRE

“I hope my story can salvage some measure of integrity in higher education,” said Earnest. “Universities must give more weight to the devastating, long-term effects of their actions on hard-working career academics like myself than they do to the short-term pleasure of being perceived as ‘right’ in the eyes of a small but vocal group of students.”

The linked story is a little too complex to summarize easily. I would like to highlight one aspect of this incident, namely the outrage that the students claimed to feel. I respectfully but strongly question whether the students really were as upset by this as their words and actions suggest. That goes double for the boulder that the University of Wisconsin moved (see upthread). Some have dubbed this performance art. That's a little too kind IMO.

WOW! That's some Satanic Panic level paranoia and pants crapping right there

Quick to judge
Quick to anger
Slow to understand

 

[d4m10n]

Perhaps you would have been comfortable being one of the fine people carrying a tiki-torch in Charlottesville on the weekend of August 11 and 12, 2017, chanting "Blood & Soil" and"The Jews will not replace us".

Bobbymyseh!

Dunno if there's a Yiddish saying for moving the goalposts, but to go from Ayers lecturing in Chicago to Neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville is quite impressive.

 

[smartcooky]

I think this again misunderstands the distinction, and a big one at that, of saying you uphold the right of speech without having to advocate that particular speech.

If I say, "Sure, I think Communist Parties should be legal", it doesn't mean that I must therefore be a Communist.

If I think it should be legal for the Westboro Baptist Church to say, "God Hates Fags" it doesn't mean I therefore believe that God Hates Fags.

The question should be about the right to that speech and the appropriateness of certain types of speech in certain settings (which is where some of the anti-cancel culture people go wrong because they often assume that just because something is legal it should be permitted in all workplaces).

The point is not that if you support a person's right to say something that you must therefore agree with what they say.

Here what you don't undertsand,.

I do not agree with the concept of free speech being absolute, with everyone having the right to say what they like, when they like, regardless of the harm it many cause others, and not suffer consequences for doing so.

I am a firm believer that speech is an action, and that harmful speech against members of protected classes is tantamount to harmful actions against members of protected classes. It is a belief that I will never, ever back away from.

For mine, calling a black man the n-word, calling a Jew a "kike", calling a gay person a "faggot" etc, are functionally the same as discriminating against them in material matters such as employment, housing, education etc.

This is why I 100% support the firing of people whose speech and actions are racist, this is why I 100% support prosecution of people like Scott McCluskey and Simon Silwood. Make them social pariahs for their actions.

 

[smartcooky]

Bobbymyseh!

Dunno if there's a Yiddish saying for moving the goalposts, but to go from Ayers lecturing in Chicago to Neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville is quite impressive.

Its quite simple: Either you think free speech should be absolute, or you don't. There is no nuanced position as long as you hold that view.

You d4m10n , advocate for absolute, unrestricted free speech. Picking and choosing how bad its allowed to be before it does or does not meet your standard for "absolute" is not an option. ALL speech would be free speech, and therefore absolutely allowed. That means I could publish detailed plans for the building of a bomb, call 911 and make a false report of a home invasion, make a public death threat against anyone, and yes, yell fire in a crowded theatre, and you would have to defend my rights to do all these things because you would be defending my free speech rights.

If ANY of these things were unacceptable to you, and you favour the idea of a law that would make any of these things a crime, then that is "speech you don't like" so you aren't really an advocate for absolute free speech, you are just like me, the only difference is that you and I draw the line in different places.

 

[angrysoba]

I unequivocally withdraw and apologise for using that term. I knew it was offensive and I shouldn't have used it.

Replace with "scumbag"

Well, I forgive you. But would smartcooky forgive with you?

 

[Cain]

The braying buffoons won't stop about Superman. Clark Kent's son is bisexual. Why would a ripped, spandex-wearing dude impervious to AIDs have sex with men?? It makes no sense.

Now there's some foul-mouthed colorist quitting his job at DC for reasons not unlike people are quitting Netflix. Aggressively oblivious and hypocritical conservatives are praising him. "What really pissed me off was saying truth, justice, and a better world," Eltaeb [the quitter colorist] added. "**** that it was Truth, Justice, and the American way," he said. "My Grandpa almost died in World War II; we don’t have a right to destroy **** that people died for to give us. It’s a bunch of ******* nonsense."

His grandpa almost died for dumb comic books?? Superman is an illegal alien. He wasn't even born in the United States. He took an American's job and works in the fake news. He could've been a farmer in Kansas, but nooooooooo. He's moving to the big city -- probably to lead double life involving sex with men in phone booths.

Were corporations true to the character when he was used for Cold War propaganda? If nothing else, being dedicated to a "better tomorrow" makes him truer to his roots: It kind of makes sense that an alien would have a more cosmopolitan outlook (the word "cosmopolitan" is derived from "cosmos". The Superman character is based on (or at least has been inspired by) Christ mythology. Is Jesus also an American?

 

[d4m10n]

You d4m10n, advocate for absolute, unrestricted free speech.

Pretty sure I've never advocated for legalizing defamation or death threats. Are you sure you've got the right d4m10n here?

ETA: https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...g-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

 

[smartcooky]

Pretty sure I've never advocated for legalizing defamation or death threats. Are you sure you've got the right d4m10n here?

ETA: https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...g-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

Yes, I'm sure.

If you advocate for absolute freedom of speech then ipso facto, you are advocating for legalizing defamation or death threats - this is unavoidable. The moment you say "well, I don't support legalizing defamation or death threats", then you are drawing a line, and therefore it follows with elegant inevitability, that you are not advocating for absolute freedom of speech. That makes you the same as me, someone who beleives in limited free speech, you just draw the line in a different place.

 

[d4m10n]

If you advocate for absolute freedom of speech...

Why are you talking about this? No one here advocates for absolute freedom of speech so as to include death threats, fraud, criminal conspiracy, etc.

 

[angrysoba]

Here what you don't undertsand,.

I do not agree with the concept of free speech being absolute, with everyone having the right to say what they like, when they like, regardless of the harm it many cause others, and not suffer consequences for doing so.

I am a firm believer that speech is an action, and that harmful speech against members of protected classes is tantamount to harmful actions against members of protected classes. It is a belief that I will never, ever back away from.

For mine, calling a black man the n-word, calling a Jew a "kike", calling a gay person a "faggot" etc, are functionally the same as discriminating against them in material matters such as employment, housing, education etc.

This is why I 100% support the firing of people whose speech and actions are racist, this is why I 100% support prosecution of people like Scott McCluskey and Simon Silwood. Make them social pariahs for their actions.

Huh?

Nobody is a free speech absolutist.

There are, as I said, two points, which should not be confused.

1.) Free speech as a right that should not be infringed, where possible, by the government. This obviously does not include threats of violence etc... but also in some jurisdictions this does not include hate speech. Where to draw the line in terms of harm is a difficult one.

2.) The appropriateness of certain types of speech that while perfectly legal in other contexts, may still be unacceptable in certain employment settings.

People seem to get really confused about these two things.

In addition, there is...

3) ...sometimes claims that protests or criticisms are illegitimate because they are attempts to cancel. However, if you firmly believe in the rights of people under 1, then you cannot really complain too much, or at least consistently, with people doing 3.

 

[smartcooky]

Why are you talking about this? No one here advocates for absolute freedom of speech so as to include death threats, fraud, criminal conspiracy,etc.

And there's the qualifier.

You support free speech, but you draw the line at death threats, which you are happy to see criminalised, i.e. you are happy to censor speech you don't like

I support free speech, but I draw the line at racist speech, which I am happy to see criminalised, i.e. I am happy to censor speech I don't like.

 

[lionking]

And there's the qualifier.

You support free speech, but you draw the line at death threats, which you are happy to see criminalised, i.e. you are happy to censor speech you don't like

I support free speech, but I draw the line at racist speech, which I am happy to see criminalised, i.e. I am happy to censor speech I don't like.

A good thing you aren’t a lawmaker.

 

[Matthew Best]

"What really pissed me off was saying truth, justice, and a better world," Eltaeb [the quitter colorist] added.

Wait - his name is Eltaeb? Is he a big Beatles fan or something?

 

[smartcooky]

A good thing you aren’t a lawmaker.

I'd be par for the course in most countries in the European Union!

 

[phiwum]

Yes, I'm sure.



If you advocate for absolute freedom of speech then ipso facto, you are advocating for legalizing defamation or death threats - this is unavoidable. The moment you say "well, I don't support legalizing defamation or death threats", then you are drawing a line, and therefore it follows with elegant inevitability, that you are not advocating for absolute freedom of speech. That makes you the same as me, someone who beleives in limited free speech, you just draw the line in a different place.

On the other hand, if speech is treated like other potentially harmful acts, then truth is no defense. Some history is genuinely painful to discuss. Some of it is well settled while other bits are more theoretical and require discussion to settle. Without certain freedoms for such discussions, how can we ever learn the truth?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[pgwenthold]

Yeah, I get what you mean. I did say that the principal should have a word with her, but given the second video and the knowledge that she’s been doing this for some time I would think it requires a bit more than a word. I tend to be optimistic about the idea that people can be better so the school admin should look into this, probably issue a warning and some retraining. I still don’t like to support firings as a first response, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it comes to that.

Now it comes out that the school was well-aware, having actually promoted her activity in the yearbook back in 2012.

 

[Upchurch]

No one has asked me, but my take on Dace Chappelle, like most comedians, is that he’s mostly only funny when he’s punching up. Punching down isn’t really comedy. It’s bullying. The fact that he doesn’t seem to realize that he’s punching down says he’s gotten out of touch with the world around him.