• 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

EaglePuncher said:
Nice try. Problem is: Even helping a old lady cross the street is already WAY too woke for "conservatives" like yourself. :)
Click to expand...

You disagree with the smart Black man? That wouldn't be because he's smart would it? Or maybe because he's.... OMG..Perish the thought.
 
Montreal vs. Buffalo

Dr. Keith said:
Was it a twitter campaign or Facebook?
Click to expand...
"The Montreal Gazette reports that the decision followed a 'request' by members of the Ukrainian community that the orchestra cancel [Russian pianist Alexander] Malofeev’s performances." WSWS Whether or not social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) were used was not reported. Despite some resistance, the Buffalo Philharmonic went ahead with a concert with him. I have not found information regarding whether or not there was social pressure regarding Anna Netrebko's being dismissed from the Metropolitan Opera.
 
Stout said:
You disagree with the smart Black man? That wouldn't be because he's smart would it? Or maybe because he's.... OMG..Perish the thought.
Click to expand...

This kind of 'woke are the real racists' attempted reversal is the cutest, most illustrative way the anti-justice crew trot out. It is a cargo cult level of understanding that pretends to ape actual arguments but is just virtue signaling to the racists.

No one actually thinks everyone who disagrees with Obama on anything is a racist. Nor Candice Owen, nor Ben Whatshisname. Pretending that's the criteria people can use to tell when people have racist motivations is like pretending 'cancel culture' is just some neutral descriptor of excessive public shaming when the use is almost exclusively now just more anti-social asshats trying to shame people for having standards.

I know, that's too post modern in that it follows the actual use and doesn't engage in the fiction that sea-lions are making good faith points.
 
tyr_13 said:
This kind of 'woke are the real racists' attempted reversal is the cutest, most illustrative way the anti-justice crew trot out. It is a cargo cult level of understanding that pretends to ape actual arguments but is just virtue signaling to the racists.

No one actually thinks everyone who disagrees with Obama on anything is a racist. Nor Candice Owen, nor Ben Whatshisname. Pretending that's the criteria people can use to tell when people have racist motivations is like pretending 'cancel culture' is just some neutral descriptor of excessive public shaming when the use is almost exclusively now just more anti-social asshats trying to shame people for having standards.

I know, that's too post modern in that it follows the actual use and doesn't engage in the fiction that sea-lions are making good faith points.
Click to expand...

That was actually sarcasm, it should have been obvious, just look at the post I was responding to. This whole "what is cancel culture?" is just a stupid slap fight. It's a simple concept really with one group using the term the way it's meant to be used and the other crapping themselves over it every time it comes up on the Fox news that they're constantly rage monitoring.

It's been going on for a year and a half, that's got to be some kind of record. :thumbsup:
 
Stout said:
That was actually sarcasm, it should have been obvious, just look at the post I was responding to. This whole "what is cancel culture?" is just a stupid slap fight. It's a simple concept really with one group using the term the way it's meant to be used and the other crapping themselves over it every time it comes up on the Fox news that they're constantly rage monitoring. It's been going on for a year and a half, that's got to be some kind of record. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Who are these 2 groups?
 
FIRE on the whole

pgwenthold said:
OK, so I think I got it.

Cancel culture: when public does it, and it is bad, but only when done by the woke crowd.
Censorship: when the government does it, and it's ok, but only if it is against the woke crowd. For example, removing books about Rosa Parks from the library. But it also applies to social media companies enforcing terms of agreement, where it is not ok, if it is woke.

Useful thread. We are getting some clairificaiton.
Click to expand...
Exactly none of these statements matches my position, which is par for the course for this thread. I am anti-censorship; which is why I support FIRE.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
Exactly none of these statements matches my position, which is par for the course for this thread. I am anti-censorship; which is why I support FIRE.
Click to expand...

You continue to lie about what censorship is. That's not our fault.

Nobody who actually thinks "Cancel Culture" is a thing can maintain a consistent, meaningful definition of whatever the hell it is they are on about. That's not our fault.
 
tyr_13 said:
This kind of 'woke are the real racists' attempted reversal is the cutest, most illustrative way the anti-justice crew trot out.
Click to expand...

Everything from that delightful demographic is some version of that.

They've created this complicated mythology around one stupid, wrong, hateful idea.

"Being a decent person is like... super hard. So hard that you can't actually do it. Therefore you shouldn't try. Oh and everyone who tries to be a good person is faking it. And anyone who claims to be a good person is lying and it's super important you expose them for that."

It's where all the talking points; hypocrisy (the internet version), "Virtue Signaling," Cancel Culture, pretension, "Not as X as they think they are," "Need to be taken down a peg," that get used to shut down the base concept of "Minimal human decency" come from.
 
censorship?

JoeMorgue said:
You continue to lie about what censorship is. That's not our fault.

Nobody who actually thinks "Cancel Culture" is a thing can maintain a consistent, meaningful definition of whatever the hell it is they are on about. That's not our fault.
Click to expand...
Aggressive nonsense. Please explain what you think I lied about, and I will respond (let me remind you that censorship only came up because pgwenthold brought it up). I put forward a definition of cancel culture.* Dr. Keith didn't like it, but only half explained why. I went through what was wrong with your definition, but you have yet to attempt to fix it.

This having been said cancel culture denialists are not ideally positioned to define what it is. It is a little reminiscent of SARS-CoV2 denialists discussing what is wrong with the experiments linking this virus to Covid-19, but not quite as bad.
*I also linked to others.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
Aggressive nonsense. Please explain what you think I lied about, and I will respond (let me remind you that censorship only came up because pgwenthold brought it up). I put forward a definition of cancel culture.* Dr. Keith didn't like it, but only half explained why. I went through what was wrong with your definition, but you have yet to attempt to fix it.
Click to expand...

"I demand a long, civil debate where you prove to my standards why my method of arguing is nothing but a stalling waste of time."

It's been two entire threads. If you could debate honestly you would have done it by accident by now.
 
still waiting to hear more about censorship

JoeMorgue said:
You continue to lie about what censorship is. That's not our fault.
Click to expand...
When one makes an unsupported claim, the civil thing to do is to withdraw it. Your claim is worse than unsupported; it is gibberish (other than saying that I oppose censorship, I have not had much to say about it these threads). However, in the interests of civility, I will withdraw previous claims that any commenter within these threads lied in favor of the phrase "spoke falsely."
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
When one makes an unsupported claim, the civil thing to do is to withdraw it. Your claim is worse than unsupported; it is gibberish. However, in the interests of civility, I will withdraw previous claims that any commenter within these threads lied in favor of the phrase "spoke falsely."
Click to expand...

Spare me your moral high ground speech about what's civil.

You demonize people who don't want to interact with people who treat them like crap via the made up term "Cancel Culture" that you couldn't couldn't even come up with on your own.

You only have the strength of other people's conventions, and even then you picked horrible people to parrot.

Again it's not my fault that you don't actually what your own problem is.
 
Last edited:
Stout said:
That was actually sarcasm, it should have been obvious, just look at the post I was responding to.
Click to expand...

If that's true, then Poe strikes again as it's indistinguishable from actual arguments put forth by the anti-woke and general racists. Forgive me if I don't apologize more, because it's consistent with your arguments so it seems a weird thing to be sarcastic about.

This whole "what is cancel culture?" is just a stupid slap fight. It's a simple concept really with one group using the term the way it's meant to be used and the other crapping themselves over it every time it comes up on the Fox news that they're constantly rage monitoring.

It's been going on for a year and a half, that's got to be some kind of record. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

A year and a half are rookie numbers.

One group is using it as it has come to be commonly used (anti-modern, anti-woke, pro-racist) while insisting they're using a different more neutral usage which isn't consistent with their actions. There are a couple other groups with varying degrees of agreement with each other calling BS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom