Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

If it is relevant to the subject, sure warn that it may be difficult for some, but **** your ******* feelings. We all have em and they all get stomped on every day.
Christians get their precious feelings hurt whenever they are forced to stare unblinking at “Piss Christ” and **** them too.
Life is challenging and painful.

Don’t be a dick, but never back away from painful things because they are painful. Respect those that opt out, but **** those who opt in and complain. Left, Right, Center: stare at your worst and accept the pain you and yours may cause.
Grow and learn.
 
OK, Free Speech Warriors, time to step up and protect an academic who was dismissed by Harvard for voicing an opinion the school deemed wrong.



I can't wait for Barri Weiss and Ryan Douthat to write think pieces defending him. I hope FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest give him a platform. You know, for healthy debate.
 
johnny karate said:
It only counts as "cancel culture" if it hurts the feelings of a right winger.
Click to expand...

Yep. There doesn't have to have been a cancellation, there doesn't have to have been any public outcry or concerted effort, "cancel culture" means whatever a right winger intends it to mean in that moment based on how victimized said right winger can claim to be.
 
Donal said:
OK, Free Speech Warriors, time to step up and protect an academic who was dismissed by Harvard for voicing an opinion the school deemed wrong...
Click to expand...

The politics of Zionism saw cancel culture long before the term became vogue. The viral clip of Helen Thomas ended her career. Norman Finkelstein was set to be granted tenure at DePaul when the president of the university overruled the faculty (thanks in part to a campaign from Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz). Finkelstein was out of a job that guaranteed lifetime employment. Alan Dershowitz, who was caught dead-to-rights for academic misconduct (by Finkelstein) kept his job, thanks to team player Elena Kagan (then the dean of Harvard Law, and protector of plagiarists). Bari Weiss tried to get a professor at Columbia fired while she was an undergrad. Campus Watch groups encouraged students to secretly record professors criticizing Israel. So, yeah, "free speech warriors" should not have any trouble condemning this action, and seeing it as part of a long pattern.

In other contexts, resident cancel culture apologists would have been quick to note that the "victim" still managed to receive lucrative employment, so nobody has been "canceled." In this case, Roth quickly accepted an offer at another Ivy League school, which is supposed to say something about something (whilst carefully ignoring the chilling effect on speech, spirals of silence, etc).
 
Cain said:
The politics of Zionism saw cancel culture long before the term became vogue. The viral clip of Helen Thomas ended her career. Norman Finkelstein was set to be granted tenure at DePaul when the president of the university overruled the faculty (thanks in part to a campaign from Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz). Finkelstein was out of a job that guaranteed lifetime employment. Alan Dershowitz, who was caught dead-to-rights for academic misconduct (by Finkelstein) kept his job, thanks to team player Elena Kagan (then the dean of Harvard Law, and protector of plagiarists). Bari Weiss tried to get a professor at Columbia fired while she was an undergrad. Campus Watch groups encouraged students to secretly record professors criticizing Israel. So, yeah, "free speech warriors" should not have any trouble condemning this action, and seeing it as part of a long pattern.

In other contexts, resident cancel culture apologists would have been quick to note that the "victim" still managed to receive lucrative employment, so nobody has been "canceled." In this case, Roth quickly accepted an offer at another Ivy League school, which is supposed to say something about something (whilst carefully ignoring the chilling effect on speech, spirals of silence, etc).
Click to expand...

Doesn't that prove the point, though? That "cancel culture" as it is usually referenced doesn't exist?

There have always been types of speech and even outgroups that have punished whether or not it was done by some sort of official authority. The internet, especially social media, has made this faster, and a lot louder. And there are plenty of undeserving victims of all political and social stripes.

No one is specifically immune from being on the receiving or giving end, either. Recently, there was an adjunct professor fired from a liberal arts college in Minnesota because she display a painting that included a depiction of Muhammad in her lecture during an art history class. It appears the administration overreacted to perceived Islamophobia.

But, that is a rare example. The conversation surrounding "Free speech" today is completely dominated by grifters and reactionaries, particularly of right-wing flavors. There's plenty of important and nuanced discussion to be had, but it's drowned out by frauds like Barri Weiss and Mike Cernovitch. It's still weaponized by rich and powerful interests to silence ideas they don't like.
 
Donal said:
OK, Free Speech Warriors, time to step up and protect an academic who was dismissed by Harvard for voicing an opinion the school deemed wrong.



I can't wait for Barri Weiss and Ryan Douthat to write think pieces defending him. I hope FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest give him a platform. You know, for healthy debate.
Click to expand...


The Foundation for Individual Rights & Expression has written an article about this, and they compare this case to others on both sides of politics they've dealt with.


The dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School has refused to approve the fellowship of the man — hailed as the “godfather” of human rights work — because he disagrees with his stance on Israel.

HKS, one of the top public policy institutions in the world, has violated Harvard’s clear commitments to free expression by denying former Human Rights Watch executive Kenneth Roth a fellowship because of his purported “anti-Israel bias.” As always, FIRE is neutral on Roth’s views on Israel, as well as the underlying Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and has defended individuals on every side of the issue.
Click to expand...



https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-c...ng-human-rights-champion-ken-roths-fellowship


and they must be right wing because one of their staffers went on GBNews to discuss the Hamline Affair.


Free speech laws and culture are much different on the other side of the Atlantic, but that doesn’t limit FIRE’s advocacy to this side of the pond. Recently, FIRE attorney Alex Morey appeared on the British television station GB News to discuss FIRE’s support for professor Erika López Prater, who was punished by Hamline University for showing a well-known depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in an art history class.
Click to expand...


https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-a...line-university-controversy-british-audiences
 
I've read stuff from FIRE before and I think they are one of the few outspoken parties in this discussion that actually is trying to be objective. I don't always agree with what their members may say, but I think they act in good faith and make reasonable arguments.
 
Graham2001 said:
The Foundation for Individual Rights & Expression has written an article about this, and they compare this case to others on both sides of politics they've dealt with.






https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-c...ng-human-rights-champion-ken-roths-fellowship


and they must be right wing because one of their staffers went on GBNews to discuss the Hamline Affair.





https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-a...line-university-controversy-british-audiences
Click to expand...


FIRE is a legitimate legal organization that generally rises above the fray of “cancel culture” fear-mongering. Not too sure what posting a link to them commenting on this issue does to refute the claim that “cancel culture” is primarily a right wing fever dream pushed by disingenuous hacks and opportunists.
 
wareyin said:
Man, the over the top conservative parody was funny. The serious adoption of conspiracy theory right wing lunatic antics isn't.
Click to expand...

What's the conspiracy theory and how is it right-wing? I suppose we could say the original story is a conspiracy theory: unnamed, influential donors halted this appointment because of a critical HRW report. You didn't seem to have a problem with that. You do seem to have a problem when I identify your tribalistic inconsistencies, and that sort of amuses me.
 
Donal said:
Doesn't that prove the point, though? That "cancel culture" as it is usually referenced doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

"as it is usually referenced" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. In general, it's kind of weird to argue that something does not exist because it has always existed. If cancel culture is "usually referenced" as an entirely new phenomenon with no antecedents in history, then, yeah, I suppose what you're saying works on some level. Instead, I think cancel culture usually refers to the idea that "The internet, especially social media, has made this faster, and a lot louder." Right-wingers opportunistically use it as a cudgel, trying to claim the mantle of "warriors for free speech." That's bad because they're generally not principled defenders of free expression, as demonstrated by "canceling" communists, the Beatles, anti-war opponents, "satanic" metal bands, hip-hop artists, Bill Maher, and even the Dixie Chicks.

Defending expression for what one despises has always been the acid test.

From Greg Lukianoff: We define cancel culture as “the measurable uptick, since roughly 2014, of campaigns to get people fired, disinvited, deplatformed, or otherwise punished for speech that is — or *would be* — protected by the First Amendment.” Source
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
FIRE is a legitimate legal organization that generally rises above the fray of “cancel culture” fear-mongering. Not too sure what posting a link to them commenting on this issue does to refute the claim that “cancel culture” is primarily a right wing fever dream pushed by disingenuous hacks and opportunists.
Click to expand...

Greg Lukianoff, the president of FIRE, disagrees (a previous president of FIRE was conservative David French). The group has received funding by right-wing billionaires. Anyway, Lukianoff is a leading opponent of cancel culture. Maybe the leading opponent. Here's an article he authored: Don’t Stop Using the Term ‘Cancel Culture’

"A culture of censorship—of shaming, shunning, and attempting to destroy people’s lives for ideological reasons—exists in America, and Americans have a name for it: cancel culture.

Let’s not abandon that name in a vain attempt to please the people most responsible for perpetuating the problem."
 
The adjunct prof will likely make more money for less work at a grocery store. The entire adjunct system is a scam. That is the real crime in the story: professor loses position and her life is better for it.
 
Graham2001 said:
The Foundation for Individual Rights & Expression has written an article about this, and they compare this case to others on both sides of politics they've dealt with.






https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-c...ng-human-rights-champion-ken-roths-fellowship


and they must be right wing because one of their staffers went on GBNews to discuss the Hamline Affair.





https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-a...line-university-controversy-british-audiences
Click to expand...

I would advise against anybody going on GBN unless they're a stark raving brexiteer conspiracy theorist. That channel is only interested in hearing those who unfailingly agree with its editorial line.
 
Cain said:
Greg Lukianoff, the president of FIRE, disagrees (a previous president of FIRE was conservative David French). The group has received funding by right-wing billionaires. Anyway, Lukianoff is a leading opponent of cancel culture. Maybe the leading opponent. Here's an article he authored: Don’t Stop Using the Term ‘Cancel Culture’

"A culture of censorship—of shaming, shunning, and attempting to destroy people’s lives for ideological reasons—exists in America, and Americans have a name for it: cancel culture.

Let’s not abandon that name in a vain attempt to please the people most responsible for perpetuating the problem."
Click to expand...

Cool. :thumbsup: None of that contradicts what I posted.
 
Cain said:
"as it is usually referenced" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. In general, it's kind of weird to argue that something does not exist because it has always existed. If cancel culture is "usually referenced" as an entirely new phenomenon with no antecedents in history, then, yeah, I suppose what you're saying works on some level. Instead, I think cancel culture usually refers to the idea that "The internet, especially social media, has made this faster, and a lot louder." Right-wingers opportunistically use it as a cudgel, trying to claim the mantle of "warriors for free speech." That's bad because they're generally not principled defenders of free expression, as demonstrated by "canceling" communists, the Beatles, anti-war opponents, "satanic" metal bands, hip-hop artists, Bill Maher, and even the Dixie Chicks.

Defending expression for what one despises has always been the acid test.

From Greg Lukianoff: We define cancel culture as “the measurable uptick, since roughly 2014, of campaigns to get people fired, disinvited, deplatformed, or otherwise punished for speech that is — or *would be* — protected by the First Amendment.” Source
Click to expand...

You know what else is protected by the First Amendment? Campaigns to get people fired, disinvited, or deplatformed.

But I guess free speech that is unpleasant or offensive is reserved solely for the bigoted and the obnoxious.

For anyone else using free speech in ways other people might not like, we have to come up with scare term that makes it seem like the foundations of society are being threatened.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
You know what else is protected by the First Amendment? Campaigns to get people fired, disinvited, or deplatformed.

But I guess free speech that is unpleasant or offensive is reserved solely for the bigoted and the obnoxious.

For anyone else using free speech in ways other people might no like, we have to come up with scare term that makes it seem like the foundations of society are being threatened.
Click to expand...

Sure, that's why Cancel Culture isn't a violation of the first amendment but it is an attack on free speech. Folks have the right to try an get others fired because they don't like the other guys opinions, The rest of us also have the right to call those folks ********.
 
ahhell said:
Sure, that's why Cancel Culture isn't a violation of the first amendment but it is an attack on free speech. Folks have the right to try an get others fired because they don't like the other guys opinions, The rest of us also have the right to call those folks ********.
Click to expand...

People exercising their right to freedom of association is not an attack on anyone else's right to free speech. If you get fired, disinvited, or deplatformed, you still have free speech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom