• 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

Graham2001 said:
That the tools of the censor once established can be used by anyone. The target in this case is 'Woke', the prosecutors are not.



And, they have been subjected to the kind of 'Process Due' the Woke love, the person making the final call on if the accused is guilty is the accuser.
Click to expand...

Sincerely I can make no sense of what you have posted, to me it reads as if there are whole clauses/sentences/words missing that make this make sense to you.

Could you try again and start with assuming I may not know the jargon you are using nor the background to your assumptions?
 
Graham2001 said:
Not strictly 'Cancel Culture' but an interesting dynamic. To summarize, Dave Weigel a reporter at the Washington Post, retweeted a poor taste joke and was censured, suspended, apologised, etc.


Another reporter at the Post, Felicia Sonmez (Looks White, but claims to be LatinX.) launched a twitter crusade against Weigel and anyone who defended him.


She's now been fired from the Washington Post for:





The full NYT article is quite fascinating.



https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/business/media/felicia-sonmez-washington-post.html


Also worth looking at is Jerry Coyne's commentary.



https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022...-for-retweeting-a-joke-even-after-an-apology/
Click to expand...

1) Why isn't that cancel culture?
2) And if it isn't what relevance does it have to the discussion in this thread?

:confused:
 
Darat said:
And?
Click to expand...
And I've never said we should refrain from pressuring corporations just because doing so might be characterized (however unreasonably) as cancel culture.

Darat said:
1) Why isn't that cancel culture?
Click to expand...
I'd say it is, especially if WaPo was reacting to the madness of crowds (on social media) when they disciplined Weigel and sacked Sonmez.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I'm a lot less worried about pressuring corporations than targeting individual employees.
Click to expand...

Yet you’ve criticized it as part of the “cancel culture” problem. You’ve repeatedly bemoaned the “mobs” who “force” corporations to fire people. Seems really convenient for you to be unconcerned about it now that it serves your current argument.
 
How To Undermine Your Own Argument in Two Easy Steps

Step 1: Claim you take no issue with public pressure being applied to corporations:
d4m10n said:
And I've never said we should refrain from pressuring corporations just because doing so might be characterized (however unreasonably) as cancel culture.
Click to expand...

Step 2: Complain about public pressure being applied to a corporation:
I'd say it is, especially if WaPo was reacting to the madness of crowds (on social media) when they disciplined Weigel and sacked Sonmez.
Click to expand...
 
d4m10n said:
And I've never said we should refrain from pressuring corporations just because doing so might be characterized (however unreasonably) as cancel culture.

I'd say it is, especially if WaPo was reacting to the madness of crowds (on social media) when they disciplined Weigel and sacked Sonmez.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to why Graham2001 doesn't think it is.
 
Waiting for the anti woke crowd to scream bloody murder about Juneteenth now being an official US Holiday.
 
Darat said:
I'm curious as to why Graham2001 doesn't think it is.
Click to expand...


Remember when Twitter blocked Trump the mantra was 'Corporations are not bound by the US Constitution' and therefore don't have to abide by it, which the Woke thought was a good thing. Then when Musk made noises about purchasing it and the cry from the Woke was 'The Government has to regulate corporations to protect the vunerable'.


In the Washington Post case I support their actions in regards Weigel, the joke was not funny and I consider it offensive to women. As for Sonmez, her behaviour was completely out-of-line, and if you look at the photograph attached to this commentary by Jerry Coyne, her claims to be LatinX stand on shaky ground.


Going by appearance (Which is what the Woke are obsessed with.) she's White...


Three days ago I reported that Washington Post journalist David Weigel was suspended by the paper for a month for retweeting this dubious and offensive joke:

Even if he returns, I suspect his life at the paper will be forever hard. But since Wiegel apologized for this and deleted the tweet, my view was that a stiff talking-to but his editors and a warning that this must never be repeated would suffice for his punishment. (Surprisingly, in my old age I’m getting less punitive. Maybe it’s my belief in the absence of free will!) But readers disagreed with me, saying Weigel should have been fired, and so be it.

Now, however, the controversy has blossomed further, this time resulting in the outright firing of another Post reporter, Felicia Sonmez. Sonmez not only attacked Weigel, but did worse: she repeatedly attacked The Washington Post despite other reporters asking her to stop. The summary is in this NY Times article (click to read), but you can also read about it on CNN.
Click to expand...


https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/06/10/fracas-at-washington-post-leads-to-firing-of-reporter/
 
scrutiny

Darat said:
Doesn't seem to answer my question which was "Why do you not consider your comments as an example of “cancel culture”?"
Click to expand...
Given that you have not answered my questions, I don't feel compelled to answer yours. Nevertheless, I provided a definition in comments #1725, and I noted that my in question did not fit this definition. If you want to construct an argument to the contrary, the onus is on you to do so.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Given that you have not answered my questions, I don't feel compelled to answer yours. Nevertheless, I provided a definition in comments #1725, and I noted that my in question did not fit this definition. If you want to construct an argument to the contrary, the onus is on you to do so.
Click to expand...

Nope you are still not answering my question with an answer that addresses the question.

According to you your criticism doesn't amount to cancel culture because you were not asking for anyone to be fired. The definition from your post also doesn't require someone to be seeking someone to be fired to be classed as cancel culture. So you do not seem to have a coherent definition for cancel culture as you use the phrase.

So we keep going back to the point of why isn't your criticism cancel culture? You seem to consider your use of social media, your criticisms not to be cancel culture - but apart from the comment about not seeking to have someone fired you have no answer as to why we shouldn't lump you in with all the other people pushing this terrible "cancel culture". I see nothing different to what you are doing compared to what other people are doing that you do consider to be cancel culture.

It is all rather confusing.

(And no I'm not answering your questions to me yet because we still haven't got past the first question I asked you - if you want to invoke a reciprocity rule than I will play along with you but for that to work you need to answer the question I asked you.)
 
Since we're now a dozen nested threads deep and the most basic questions from the Cancel Culture Screechers haven't been answered I am now forced to just assume that "Cancel Culture" is one of:

A) A Culture Club Cover Band
B) A Sourdough Bread Starter
C) A New Line of Cells in Research

And answering questions under that assumption.

How is Cancel Culture's cover of Karma Chameleon?
 
the march of progress

Darat said:
(And no I'm not answering your questions to me yet because we still haven't got past the first question I asked you - if you want to invoke a reciprocity rule than I will play along with you but for that to work you need to answer the question I asked you.)
Click to expand...
At least one question that I asked you was back to March. I suggest you address that question first.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
At least one question that I asked you was back to March. I suggest you address that question first.
Click to expand...

Oh would you just stop it. This isn't some childish game of "I asked you first."

Because keep asking you to answer the goddamn question not because there's some "Roberts Rules Of Order" about it but because of the fact you can't/won't and at this part can't/won't intentionally define what YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
At least one question that I asked you was back to March. I suggest you address that question first.
Click to expand...

Wow - that is so pathetic that I'm embarrassed for you.

We have both been in a lot of the same threads over the last nearly 13 years, can you please provide the tally of questions asked to and answered by each of us - one assumes you have such a tally.....
 
asked and answered

JoeMorgue said:
Oh would you just stop it. This isn't some childish game of "I asked you first."

Because keep asking you to answer the goddamn question not because there's some "Roberts Rules Of Order" about it but because of the fact you can't/won't and at this part can't/won't intentionally define what YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT.
Click to expand...
I have defined it and repeatedly linked to that definition. You are...speaking falsely...again and again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom