• 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.

Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

Elaedith said:
Wait, isn't Neil Young trying to cancel himself over those homophobic remarks he made in the past? It's so hard to keep track.
Click to expand...

Neil Young's hypocrisy is fair game. Feel free to offer whatever criticism you see fit. You can even go so far as to refuse to use any streaming platforms that carry his music and try to encourage others to do the same.

Free speech and the free market in action.
 
Last edited:
Guess what people there's no law that says people have to be morally consistent.

If the pot calls the kettle black guess what, the kettle is still black. It doesn't get off scott free.
 
"People voluntarily can decide which products/services to use and don't have to justify it to you."

There. This is two threads and thousands of posts and nothing said makes that fact any less true, valid, or appropriate to this topic.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Apparently I have cancelled him by never listening to his podcast and wanting to listen to it even less the more I learn about him.
Click to expand...

It's like a few years back when one of those uber-designers made some disparing remarks about (I think) test tube babies or something like that and Elton John called for them be boycotted and I was like "Way ahead of you dude, I've been boycotting them so hard I never even heard of them."
 
johnny karate said:
Counterpoint:
Click to expand...

Cancellation is constructive academic feedback from poc. Or even from cishet white men if they bring up the considerations of poc.

It is another example of 'social power being used by the wrong people' usage of 'cancel culture' over the other claimed usages of it.
 
It doesn't matter if we refer to some specific example or not, the argument is the same.

Nobody has to justify why they stop voluntarily listening to someone.

As stated a dozen times absolutely nothing said in opposition to that amounts to anything beyond "Okay but now the wrong people are doing it and that makes me angry!"
 
JoeMorgue said:
It doesn't matter if we refer to some specific example or not, the argument is the same.

Nobody has to justify why they stop voluntarily listening to someone.

As stated a dozen times absolutely nothing said in opposition to that amounts to anything beyond "Okay but now the wrong people are doing it and that makes me angry!"
Click to expand...

But Kroger Andy!
 
JoeMorgue said:
"People voluntarily can decide which products/services to use and don't have to justify it to you."
Click to expand...
Going to assume you've added the quotation marks for emphasis, but your claim is still incorrect. There are plenty of profoundly bad reasons to voluntarily boycott goods and services, as demonstrated time and again by the American Family Association. Just because they feel righteous doesn't make them right; they cannot begin to justify their actions without resorting to faith-based nonsense.

"Some boycotts are justifiable in terms of broadly shared ethical goals, others are not."
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Going to assume you've added the quotation marks for emphasis, but your claim is still incorrect. There are plenty of profoundly bad reasons to voluntarily boycott goods and services, as demonstrated time and again by the American Family Association. Just because they feel righteous doesn't make them right; they cannot begin to justify their actions without resorting to faith-based nonsense.

"Some boycotts are justifiable in terms of broadly shared ethical goals, others are not."
Click to expand...

Which part of Joe’s statement do you think you’ve refuted?

Is it the part where people have the right to choose which products or services they use?

Or the part where they don’t have to justify it to you?
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
Or the part where they don’t have to justify it to you?
Click to expand...
The part where he implies their choices are justifiable, regardless of their reasons. The key premise of "cancel culture" is that one may not question the righteousness of any given cancelation, to do so puts one on the wrong side of Jehovah or history or what-have-you.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
The part where he implies their choices are justifiable, regardless of their reasons. The key premise of "cancel culture" is that one may not question the righteousness of any given cancelation, to do so puts one on the wrong side of Jehovah or history or what-have-you.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you will back up this claim. JK, you won't, of course.
 
EaglePuncher said:
I'm sure you will back up this claim.
Click to expand...
It's my observation of how cancelers behave when you question their goals and methods. Ask an AFA boycotter or an anti-Rogan canceler why they are doing it, see if they allow their moral premises to be questioned. They don't, that isn't how righteousness works.
 
Last edited:
ABC/7 News editorial on the NYT's ad that seems to be implying that some of their readership would prefer the next reprint of the 'Harry Potter' series state they were written by 'Anon.'


WASHINGTON (TND) — The New York Times just released a new advertisement touting “Independent Journalism,” which, according to the ad, involves “Imagining Harry Potter Without Its Creator.”
Click to expand...


https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/...ansphobic-new-york-times-newspaper-journalism


And a Chicago Tribune editorial pointing out the potential costs of 'Cancellation'...


In December 2020, a tenured law professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago prepared a quiz for his students, using a couple of offensive words to conjure up an imaginary situation. The faculty member, Jason J. Kilborn, was trying to get his students to think about the messy, conflict-ridden world of work-discrimination issues and learn what to do if a manager used those terms and a complaint was filed.




Guess what happened? Students complained about the mere presence of those redacted words in a hypothetical specifically designed to teach them how to deal with them.
Click to expand...


https://www.chicagotribune.com/opin...0220223-ytpsu6tmavcqvhiih2zsombgpu-story.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom