Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

Stout said:
I don't see anybody out there trying to debunk it but then again, I'm not the one who referred to it as dubious.
Click to expand...

Fun fact: When a claim is unsubstantiated, you can dismiss it out of hand and call it dubious. There is no further burden on you to debunk anything.
 
Stout said:
What? Hang on, I've got to go get the stoner guy next door to translate that for me,BRB.

OK, nobody is saying cancel culture is some big scary thing that's going to bring about the collapse of society and if somebody somewhere is, then they aren't posting on this thread.

Maybe you've missed the conservative examples of cancel culture or maybe those examples haven't really been cancel culture. Maybe they've been off topic government censorship issues like book bannings or companies, like Seuss, discontinuing a product.

It can't be all that hard to find mobs of conservatives trying to get people fired, can it?
Click to expand...

The governor and Republican legislature of Florida is currently trying to get people fired by enacting a law that suppresses free speech. Do they count as a "mob"?
 
johnny karate said:
We are currently lamenting the firing of one teacher in this thread as "cancel culture" but codifying that exact same situation into law so that every teacher in the state of Florida is under threat of termination somehow isn't "cancel culture". Weird take.
Click to expand...

Again, it's not cancel culture because the far right is doing it. An essential part of cancel culture is that it inovlves situations where the far right is made to allow others to speak.
 
So called Cancel Culture is a fiction.

Its nothing more than a catch-all term for when people who are in positions of power or privilege (such as politicians, university professors, and high-profile sports people, actors and musicians) are forced to face accountability and consequences for their reprehensible behavior or actions or the offensive things they say publicly. The sort of sexist, bigoted and racist remarks and behavior that were simply laughed off in the past are no longer tolerated - a state of affairs that has come about because the current social climate - a climate that has evolved ever since MLK Jnr said "I have a dream" - allows marginalised, oppressed people such as women, Blacks, Latinos and Muslims to express themselves and complain about their treatment in a way that wasn't previously possible.

There probably isn't any single social phenomena demonstrating this more clearly than the #MeToo movement that kicked-off in 2017. Thousands of women have stood up and spoken about their experiences with being forced to put up with the sexual harassment, the assaults and even the rapes they were subjected to by people who had power over their lives. Harvey Weinstein was probably the highest profile perpetrator forced to face consequences for what he did, but even now there are conservative types who claim he was a victim of "Cancel Culture"
 
Stout said:
What? Hang on, I've got to go get the stoner guy next door to translate that for me,BRB.

OK, nobody is saying cancel culture is some big scary thing that's going to bring about the collapse of society and if somebody somewhere is, then they aren't posting on this thread.

Maybe you've missed the conservative examples of cancel culture or maybe those examples haven't really been cancel culture. Maybe they've been off topic government censorship issues like book bannings or companies, like Seuss, discontinuing a product.

It can't be all that hard to find mobs of conservatives trying to get people fired, can it?
Click to expand...

Again, your attempts to get other people to prove your boogie man is real for you are laughable. If you want to prove cancel culture is a thing, it's on you to find examples that really are examples. If you want an example of conservative or liberal cancel culture to be provided, then provide it.

Or just keep on with this pathetic "gosh, it can't be all that hard for you to prove my point for me, can it" routine that we can all see right through. Why stop after it's failed every time so far?
 
wareyin said:
Again, your attempts to get other people to prove your boogie man is real for you are laughable. If you want to prove cancel culture is a thing, it's on you to find examples that really are examples. If you want an example of conservative or liberal cancel culture to be provided, then provide it.

Or just keep on with this pathetic "gosh, it can't be all that hard for you to prove my point for me, can it" routine that we can all see right through. Why stop after it's failed every time so far?
Click to expand...

I suppose it's possible to miss the countless examples of cancel culture posted to this thread however no amount of closing one's eyes, banging one's fists on the table While shouting NO NO NO! is going to make it go away. That's like trying to beat cancer by using crystals and chanting.

Here's a better definition of cancel culture, one that doesn't try to con us with ideas like this is only used on "people who are in positions of power or privilege" Mina's World, Doc Maries, a woman applying to university, a Black high school security guard. LOL pull the other one.

A highly punitive approach to disagreement or perceived transgressions, based on strict fidelity to ideology (usually progressive) that elevates performative outrage over dialogue, factual inquiry, or respect for values such as free speech or fair process. It rejects the value of ideological diversity. It is often exercised by powerful corporations, editors, academic administrators, or unaccountable attackers operating through anonymous social media platforms. It rejects the distinction between offense and harm, between disagreement and discrimination, and between words and actions. It often reduces complex issues to a binary view such as one can only be “anti-racist” or “racist.” It rejects the importance of a person’s intent in making a statement and refuses to take into account how long ago a statement was made, the person’s age at the time they made it, or whether the statement in any way reflects a person’s current thinking.
Click to expand...
 
johnny karate said:
We are currently lamenting the firing of one teacher in this thread as "cancel culture" but codifying that exact same situation into law so that every teacher in the state of Florida is under threat of termination somehow isn't "cancel culture". Weird take.
Click to expand...

johnny karate said:
Fun fact: When a claim is unsubstantiated, you can dismiss it out of hand and call it dubious. There is no further burden on you to debunk anything.
Click to expand...

Gulliver Foyle said:
Again, it's not cancel culture because the far right is doing it. An essential part of cancel culture is that it inovlves situations where the far right is made to allow others to speak.
Click to expand...

They've enacted a law that addresses curriculum of state run schools. So, no, its not cancel culture. Its not a mob, its a legislature and governor doing their job. In way that you and I don't support but still not cancel culture.

The Dixie chicks were, the various letter writing campaigns to get TV shows canceled were. Legislatures enacting bad laws is not, it also happens every day.

But you can go on thinking that cancel culture is only a word conservatives use to tar you and yours with.

I do love the arguments on the left about this though. Cancel culture isn't even a thing and those folks deserve to get canceled.
 
Last edited:
Stout said:
I suppose it's possible to miss the countless examples of cancel culture posted to this thread however no amount of closing one's eyes, banging one's fists on the table While shouting NO NO NO! is going to make it go away. That's like trying to beat cancer by using crystals and chanting.
Click to expand...

Countless, eh? And that's why you're desperately trying to get us to do your legwork and actually find one for you? Sure, pal, pull the other one. It's got bells on it.

Stout said:
Here's a better definition of cancel culture, one that doesn't try to con us with ideas like this is only used on "people who are in positions of power or privilege" Mina's World, Doc Maries, a woman applying to university, a Black high school security guard. LOL pull the other one.
Click to expand...

If your "countless" examples include bars that still exist and coffee shops that couldn't pay their bills, then I certainly understand the desperate attempts to get us to prove your cancel culture boogie man for you.
 
Upchurch said:
Yikes. That isn't even vaguely objective. It's just culture war nonsense.
Click to expand...

Cancel culture seems to be like ghosts. If you've decided they're real then you see them everywhere. If you understand the world a bit better you can see that there are better explanations out there than what the credulous have put forth.
 
ahhell said:
They've enacted a law that addresses curriculum of state run schools. So, no, its not cancel culture. Its not a mob, its a legislature and governor doing their job. In way that you and I don't support but still not cancel culture.

The Dixie chicks were, the various letter writing campaigns to get TV shows canceled were. Legislatures enacting bad laws is not, it also happens every day.

But you can go on thinking that cancel culture is only a word conservatives use to tar you and yours with.

I do love the arguments on the left about this though. Cancel culture isn't even a thing and those folks deserve to get canceled.
Click to expand...

Okay, so apparently, "cancel culture" is about the method and not the results. Threats to free speech only matter if a particular course of action is taken.

And somehow, the actual threats to free speech with demonstrable real-world consequences are just the government "doing their job" and oh well that's just the way it goes, but a letter-writing campaign to express criticism of a famous person is dangerous and needs to be addressed.

I also like the selective and dishonest use of the term "mob". If a bunch of people write letters or post on social media expressing a desire to see someone get fired, they are a "mob", eliciting scary images of an unruly horde armed with bricks and molotov cocktails, brimming with potential violence.

But the extremist Florida government officials and their extremist electorate actively seeking to take a away the rights of people they disagree with through force of law? Not a "mob" at all. Don't be silly. These are respectable people simple "doing their jobs". It "happens every day". Nothing to be concerned about.

I really wonder if "cancel culture" hand-wringers actually think about the implications of their arguments beyond their immediate knee-jerk responses.
 
lionking said:
An ex cathedra announcement of yours? Rubbish.
Click to expand...

Technicality: I'm an atheist, and athiests cannot make ex-cathedra announcements since they are not believers, and therefore cannot be members of the Roman church.

Fact: It was an opinion.. one which I am entitled to hold.. and if you don't like it, you can shove it where the monkey stuffed the nut...

PS: Since you think its all rubbish, I must conclude that you are 100% fine with the behaviour and actions of people such as Harvey Weinstein. Good to know who I'm dealing with!
 
johnny karate said:
Okay, so apparently, "cancel culture" is about the method and not the results. Threats to free speech only matter if a particular course of action is taken.

And somehow, the actual threats to free speech with demonstrable real-world consequences are just the government "doing their job" and oh well that's just the way it goes, but a letter-writing campaign to express criticism of a famous person is dangerous and needs to be addressed.

I also like the selective and dishonest use of the term "mob". If a bunch of people write letters or post on social media expressing a desire to see someone get fired, they are a "mob", eliciting scary images of an unruly horde armed with bricks and molotov cocktails, brimming with potential violence.

But the extremist Florida government officials and their extremist electorate actively seeking to take a away the rights of people they disagree with through force of law? Not a "mob" at all. Don't be silly. These are respectable people simple "doing their jobs". It "happens every day". Nothing to be concerned about.

I really wonder if "cancel culture" hand-wringers actually think about the implications of their arguments beyond their immediate knee-jerk responses.
Click to expand...

I wonder the same about the defenders of cancel culture. Its ok because it doesn't really happen that often? Oh and what about this other thing.

I never said bad laws that bad for freedom of speech don't matter, I just said its not cancel culture. And yes, its the means that define it more than the results.

And a law about school curriculums isn't a free speech issue. Its pretty well established that K-12 teachers in government schools don't have free speech rights on the job. Now, if that law impacts there speech rights off the job, you might have a point. That's not to say that I think the Stop woke act is good, its just different than cancel culture. I do think the way Reps are also attacking speech but doing it through the force of law is worse. It will however be less effective because the courts will over turn most of these efforts.

The stop woke act probably won't be overturned because its about what can be taught in government schools rather than what teachers are saying in their free time. But then I'm no lawyer.

You keep acting like I'm defending the FL legislature or pretending they are doing what they are doing. Nope, I'm not. I'm just saying that cancel culture is actually a thing and I think its bad to try and hound folks out of their jobs because they said something you don't like. Laws that try and limit free speech are also bad, even worse but currently, the US has a quite robust legal regime defending against government limitation on private speech. We don't have any defense against social media mobs geting folks fired.
 
Stout said:
The problem is the refusal to state just who is supposedly supporting the idea of revenge porn when this story had nothing to do with revenge porn. Yes, showing around naked pictures without consent is problematic.



Uh, the 20 or so other guys who were falsely accused. Remember the list on the bathroom wall when this whole incident snowballed into a massive gong show?



Intoxication impairs one's judgement which was no doubt a factor in this guy's decision to betray his then girlfriend's confidence. I'm unaware of lighting conditions having the same effect.
Click to expand...

The “other guys” were not accused of a crime. They were simply ******** who deserved to be ostracized.
As has happened to those who act that way throughout human recorded history.
They were treated as I would treat a friend who defended an action such as the one you cite.
Asses get treated like asses. **** ‘em
 
ahhell said:
I wonder the same about the defenders of cancel culture. Its ok because it doesn't really happen that often? Oh and what about this other thing.
Click to expand...

Defenders of cancel culture? Are those the people in here wailing and gnashing their teeth about how big and scary cancel culture is? Or are they the other side who keeps pointing out that it doesn't really exist?

Cause I think the posters claiming to have all these examples of cancel culture don't think they're defending it, as they keep saying how bad it is.

But I also don't think the people who are pointing out how it's just a right wing culture war whinefest are defending it.

So, who is?
 
ahhell said:
I wonder the same about the defenders of cancel culture. Its ok because it doesn't really happen that often? Oh and what about this other thing.

I never said bad laws that bad for freedom of speech don't matter, I just said its not cancel culture. And yes, its the means that define it more than the results.
Click to expand...

My attitude towards incidents described as "cancel culture" is exactly the same as your attitude towards the government restricting free speech with punitive laws.

And a law about school curriculums isn't a free speech issue. Its pretty well established that K-12 teachers in government schools don't have free speech rights on the job. Now, if that law impacts there speech rights off the job, you might have a point. That's not to say that I think the Stop woke act is good, its just different than cancel culture. I do think the way Reps are also attacking speech but doing it through the force of law is worse. It will however be less effective because the courts will over turn most of these efforts.

The stop woke act probably won't be overturned because its about what can be taught in government schools rather than what teachers are saying in their free time. But then I'm no lawyer.
Click to expand...

I'll give your analysis the due consideration I would from any layperson with zero legal expertise.

Meanwhile, two courts have declared the Stop WOKE Act unconstitutional, along with pretty much every reputable authority on the First Amendment, but you do you.

You keep acting like I'm defending the FL legislature or pretending they are doing what they are doing. Nope, I'm not. I'm just saying that cancel culture is actually a thing and I think its bad to try and hound folks out of their jobs because they said something you don't like. Laws that try and limit free speech are also bad, even worse but currently, the US has a quite robust legal regime defending against government limitation on private speech. We don't have any defense against social media mobs geting folks fired.
Click to expand...

Dystopian authoritarianism under force of punitive laws isn't a big deal as long as it eventually gets adjudicated (fingers crossed), but people saying mean things on Twitter is a dangerous and unstoppable scourge. Got it.

Also, no one can just "get" someone else fired. They can only exercise their Constitutionally-protected right to express a desire to see someone get fired. Whether or not that person actually gets fired is completely out of their control. This is such a stupid myth that I'm embarrassed for anyone who keeps pushing it. It's almost as bad as the dishonest "mobs" narrative.

And I'm still not clear why this expression of free speech is a bigger problem than the expression of free speech that advocates for the eradication of certain minority groups, or that perpetuates hateful stereotypes of those minority groups for the same purpose.
 
johnny karate said:
Also, no one can just "get" someone else fired. They can only exercise their Constitutionally-protected right to express a desire to see someone get fired. Whether or not that person actually gets fired is completely out of their control. This is such a stupid myth that I'm embarrassed for anyone who keeps pushing it. It's almost as bad as the dishonest "mobs" narrative.
Click to expand...

THIS!! 'Nuff said!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom