Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[JoeMorgue]

I'm sure you will back up this claim. JK, you won't, of course.

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.

So that's a "No I totally can't backup what I'm saying and have no intention of even pretending I will."

 

[JoeMorgue]

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.

Dig the goddamn wax out of your ears and actually listen for once.

 

[d4m10n]

So that's a "No I totally can't backup what I'm saying and have no intention of even pretending I will."

I've already said it's pointless to try to characterize cancel culture as a whole. All we have are impressions, not data. My impression of the people who strive to cancel others is that they are too fanatical to consider whether they might be taking things too far, and this is why (I presume) they have no problem putting people out of work, health insurance, etc.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've already said it's pointless to try to characterize cancel culture as a whole.

We're now on the 30th page of the 2nd part of a thread about something that YOU have repeatedly said is a problem and YOU still can't define it.

That's insane.

"Cancel Culture" is just a vaguely defined scare word that YOU don't want clearly defined so you can keep alluding to it.

This was made clear pages and pages and pages ago.

 

[d4m10n]

We're now on the 30th page of the 2nd part of a thread about something that YOU have repeatedly said is a problem and YOU still can't define it.

You are mistaken twice in this sentence.

1) I didn't start a thread about "cancel culture," I started a thread about what Danielle did to Andy, but happened to use a phrase which triggered a fair bit of discussion.

2) I defined that phrase here.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You are mistaken twice in this sentence.

1) I didn't start a thread about "cancel culture," I started a thread about what Danielle did to Andy, but happened to use a phrase which triggered a fair bit of discussion.

2) I defined that phrase here.

You know what at this point I'm completely comfortable letting the discussion speak for itself.

 

[d4m10n]

Very good.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.

He didn’t imply they were justifiable. He implied that you thought they should meet your definition of justifiable.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.

Odd how you say this can’t be discussed when there is a whole thread discussing one of these topics. Take it there. And discuss.

 

[EaglePuncher]

deleted. Waste of time.

 

[d4m10n]

He implied that you thought they should meet your definition of justifiable.

I think individuals should have good reasons to justify trying to take away someone else's livelihood, especially in a nation with patchy social and medical safety nets. Do you disagree?

 

[johnny karate]

I think individuals should have good reasons to justify trying to take away someone else's livelihood, especially in a nation with patchy social and medical safety nets. Do you disagree?

I do, since you seem to place the exercise of free speech and freedom of association within whatever warped parameters you have for your ill-defined concept of “trying to take away someone else's livelihood”.

 

[EaglePuncher]

I think individuals should have good reasons to justify trying to take away someone else's livelihood, especially in a nation with patchy social and medical safety nets. Do you disagree?

Since no one was banned from applying to another job, "trying to take away someone else's livelihood" is just another nothingburger.

If some random poor bastard would complain to you about losing his job, you would instantly berate him about the US of A being a country of opportunities yadda yadda yadda.

But if some "conservative" makes some outlandish comments and loses his job at the supermarket as a consequence, it suddenly is "trying to take away someone else's livelihood", like he would not be allowed to work ever again

Same thing with "silencing critical opinions"..

 

[d4m10n]

Since no one was banned from applying to another job, "trying to take away someone else's livelihood" is just another nothingburger.

It's not taking away livelihood unless individuals literally starve to death, yeah?

I do, since you seem to place the exercise of free speech and freedom of association within whatever warped parameters you have for your ill-defined concept of “trying to take away someone else's livelihood”.

I provided half a dozen examples of people using their freedom of speech to get Andy fired, plenty more exist for those who care to look. Are you seriously suggesting it is perfectly ethical to say anything one is legally free to say?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Are you seriously suggesting it is perfectly ethical to say anything one is legally free to say?

No, that's what you seem to be saying.

But of course what you are saying is "mumble mumble, vague, vague, contradition, contradtion" so you can get huffy and defensive whenever anyone says you are saying anything.

 

[d4m10n]

No, that's what you seem to be saying.

Nope. I've tried to keep the line between law and ethics fairly bright.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I think individuals should have good reasons to justify trying to take away someone else's livelihood, especially in a nation with patchy social and medical safety nets. Do you disagree?

I think one should apply due consideration to all of life’s choices. What that means for each of us may differ.

 

[EaglePuncher]

It's not taking away livelihood unless individuals literally starve to death, yeah?

Well, that is what you are implying...if you made that claim just for "dramatic" purpose, you can admit it now (I know you won't though). I already explained to you that "taking away livelihood " did not happen anywhere.

I provided half a dozen examples of people using their freedom of speech to get Andy fired, plenty more exist for those who care to look.

The decision to fire someone is in the hand of the store owner...but you like to paint this as an "Those crazy SJW libruls have been coerced by other crazy SJW libruls to coerce the bosss of this poor, innocent guy to fire him"-issue.

I provided half a dozen examples of people using their freedom of speech to get Andy fired, plenty more exist for those who care to look.

And if some "conservative" uses his freedom of speech to get a leftist fired, you will be all about "Well, here in this case, it was justified"

Are you seriously suggesting it is perfectly ethical to say anyting one is legally free to say?

Cute, how you suddenly recognize the problem.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

In case you're wondering if Disney made the right call to cut bait on Carano, she's on social media suggesting that the Russian invasion and resulting war in Ukraine is another manufactured crisis, like covid, meant to keep the population under control

https://twitter.com/SonnyBunch/status/1498122418531016709?cxt=HHwWioC5qd-Zs8opAAAA

That's what Disney had to look forward to if they continued to associate with this person, an increasingly more insane and conspiratorial public presence from this loon. Considering their options, it's not hard to see why a clean break was what they chose.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

time and money

Since no one was banned from applying to another job, "trying to take away someone else's livelihood" is just another nothingburger.

If some random poor bastard would complain to you about losing his job, you would instantly berate him about the US of A being a country of opportunities yadda yadda yadda.

If you get someone fired, then you took away their livelihood, and that is on you. If he or she spends the time to seek and find another job, then good for them for reinstating their livelihood, but that is another matter. It takes time and money to search for another job and to move. The other thing to consider is that not all jobs are equal and interchangeable. For example, Professor Kilborn may find work at another law school, but there is no guarantee that it will be equal regarding professional opportunity.