• 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

johnny karate said:
I'd call it "asking someone to provide a rational basis for their opinion". Calling something "unfair" or "immoral" is easy. Ignorant and dishonest people do it all the time. Providing a rationale for those claims seems to be a little more difficult.
Click to expand...
I'd say the burden of providing a rationale should be upon those who earnestly hope to put someone else out of work in a nation without a robust social safety net.

You do you, though.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
In late breaking cancellation news, a couple more of my fav podcasts are on the chopping block.

https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenArgs/comments/10s6noe/msw_media_and_ag_sever_ties_with_andrew_torrez/
Click to expand...

Interesting....the statement in the link is an image, not text (usually, this is highly suspicious) and there is no link back to the source statement (even more suspicious) MSW Media's website makes no mention of this, and still has him listed alongside Alison Gill.

https://mswmedia.com/show/clean-up-on-aisle-45/


Oh, and Torrez' podcasts "Opening Arguments" and "Clean up on Aisle 45" are both still listed in their show ticker.

That's a bit strange considering they were "...severing ties EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY" two days ago!

Screenshot%20%28231%29.png




NOTE: Not saying you're wrong, its just that I do not regard Reddit, Twitter, Facebook or any social media places inhabited mostly by morons, to be news sources. I do NOT believe anything I read there unless or until it is second-sourced by a real news source.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
Considering that I gave sources, quotes and translations in message #2839... yeah, keep telling yourself it's just some fake news, by someone with an obvious bias. We wouldn't want reality leaking intp your echo chamber, would we? Reality is complex and depressing after all. Loser puppies only listening to and getting their validation from other puppies reassuring each other that, verily, the postman is some evil monster and they saved the world by barking at him, is much more of a comforting delusion, isn't it? :p
Click to expand...

There were no sources in the post to which I was responding, and you only provided a source after you were prompted by another poster. By then, I had lost interest. If your starting point is a sensationalized, biased account, I don't have a lot of confidence in the reliability of the underlying claims. People with strong arguments tend to open with a strong argument.
 
HansMustermann said:
Ya know, I'm not even against a bit of snark AFTER you've properly made and supported your point. Not INSTEAD of. It just being a comfort blanket to dismiss everything that challenges your rationalizations and generally avoid using your brain is still, at the end of the brain, exactly the kind of not using your brain that is my problem in the first place :p
Click to expand...

That's terrific. In the meantime, I will continue to dismiss claims presented in a biased, anecdotal form, and feel perfectly comfortable doing so.
 
d4m10n said:
I'd say the burden of providing a rationale should be upon those who earnestly hope to put someone else out of work in a nation without a robust social safety net.

You do you, though.
Click to expand...

Considering that you champion millionaire MMA fighters who lose acting gigs due to their own behavior and ignore the plight of thousands of teachers in Florida having their academic freedom and careers threatened, your self-righteous "worker's rights" stance rings laughably hollow.
 
d4m10n said:
Any and all mistakes are firing offenses, got it.

Totally not cancel culture.
Click to expand...

Or... and hear me out here... some are and some aren't, and private organizations should be allowed to make those decisions within the law.

If you think that employee legal protections should be strengthened, you won't get any argument from me. But since the people you choose to present as examples of "cancel culture" are rarely, if ever, members of the down-trodden working class, your claim to such a postion doesn't pass the sniff test.
 
Last edited:
tyr_13 said:
Utterly bankrupt comparisons to the Nazis aside, this line of reasoning would mean that you're writing your congressperson to the law changed to stop people from being 'cancelled', right? Not that I support the idea that people should be legally limited in their ability to advocate that others not support a product or personality, but by your argument that's what you'd need to do.

If, you know, you applied the same standards to your own words and actions as you do to the evil 'woke nazis'. You don't because you feel entitled to the same powers you deride others for exercising. It isn't the actions you are opposed to, it's who is doing them and what they target. It's exactly that you disagree with them that you think they shouldn't have the same recourse you do. You're doing what they are, but your arguments shouldn't apply to you?

There really isn't any way around how laughably hypocritical your suggestions are and anything to the contrary are unambiguously,
Click to expand...

That's just about the most stupid thing I've read on this board, and that's including Emre's apologetics and Pixie Of Key's pseudoscience.

Really? If some cretins use mob intimidation tactics, it's somehow MY fault if I don't stop them? Like, if someone tries to bypass freedom of speech and freedom of the press, it's MY fault if I don't also try to subvert basic human rights? That actually makes any sense to you? Doesn't strike you as on par with claiming that someone can't be against, say, murder without also personally resorting to murder? REALLY?

Oh wait, of course it does to the kind of guy trying to fit in with the loudest barking gang, and getting their validation from barking together with the popular pack of clueless puppies. That's how cognitive dissonance works, right? It can't be your fault for arguing for online bullying, it's whoever fails to stop that bullying that are in the wrong, right? :P

Not entirely surprising, given your posting history, mind you :p
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
That's terrific. In the meantime, I will continue to dismiss claims presented in a biased, anecdotal form, and feel perfectly comfortable doing so.
Click to expand...

... claims which, just to make it clear, were supported with actual evidence, including actual links and translations. But hey, if wilful ignorance works for the religious apologists, it must work for you too, right? No need to actually address reality, when you could just deny that it exists, amirite? Just go back to your own imaginary "reality", any you can be back at imagining you're the good guy, amirite? I mean, it may not have worked for literally a hundred religious apologists, but surely it must work for YOU about your own delusions, just because it's YOU, amirite? :p
 
Last edited:
Also, just to clarify, in case it wasn't clear: the issue isn't whether or not they cancel Gronkh. Yeah, the one they're trying to cancel in Rowling. The problem is that by now it spills into harassing other people and trying to bully them into submission for as little as not actively taking the brainless braying brigade's side. It spilled well out of whether you're pro- or anti-trans, and generally WAY out of having anything to do with accountability for what you've actually said or done and whatnot. It spilled well out of even the association fallacy of whether you defend someone associated with either side. It's up to just being the enemy if you're not actively for them.

And THAT is what I find to be WAY out of line, and not "good" in any ethics system.

Any objections to THAT idea?
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
That's just about the most stupid thing I've read on this board, and that's including Emre's apologetics and Pixie Of Key's pseudoscience.
Click to expand...

Actually, I find tyr's comments both intelligent and erudite. Your calling people who object to others' repugnant behaviour "Nazis", on the other hand, IS just about the most stupid thing have I read on this board.

HansMustermann said:
Really? If some cretins use mob intimidation tactics, it's somehow MY fault if I don't stop them? That actually makes any sense to you?
Click to expand...

You're mistaking public pressure campaigns to bring accountability to those who exhibit bigoted behaviour "mob intimidation tactics" ? Seriously?

HansMustermann said:
... claims which, just to make it clear, were supported with actual evidence, including actual links and translations.
Click to expand...

Just to make it clear, the post to which johnny was referring - this one...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14001277&postcount=2837

...was nothing more that a biased rant, full of anecdotal BS and NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

- NO quotes
- NO links
- NO sources
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
You're mistaking public pressure campaigns to bring accountability to those who exhibit bigoted behaviour "mob intimidation tactics" ? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Just to make it clear, the "accountability" and "bigotted behaviour" in this case was just refusing to take a side. That's it.

So to quote you: "Seriously?"

That's what you see as just bringing accountability to/from? Just being neutral about your pet peeve? Not even taking the opposite side, not even the degrees-of-association defending someone on the other side, just refusing to take any side is what you'd hold someone accountable for? THAT is what you'd see as justifiable reason to try to ruin someone's life over? And you genuinely don't see how that's mob intimidation tactics? REALLY? Cognitive dissonance that bad?

smartcooky said:
Just to make it clear, the post to which johnny was referring - this one...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14001277&postcount=2837

...was nothing more that a biased rant, full of anecdotal BS and NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

- NO quotes
- NO links
- NO sources
Click to expand...

Just to make it clear, message #2839, a mere 2 messages later and on the same page, did include those.

So you're saying, what? That one can ignore everything else, even messages on the same page, if that's what it takes for one's cognitive dissonance to work? Like, what, that Pixie Of Key is right, if it took all of 2 messages for one to post an actual GR link? THAT kind of justification? :p
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
Just to make it clear, the "accountability" and "bigotted behaviour" in this case was just refusing to take a side. That's it.

That's what you see as just bringing accountability to/from? Just being neutral about your pet peeve? Not even taking the opposite side, not even the degrees-of-association defending someone on the other side, just refusing to take any side is what you'd hold someone accountable for? THAT is what you'd see as justifiable reason to try to ruin someone's life over? And you genuinely don't see how that's mob intimidation tactics? REALLY? Cognitive dissonance that bad?
Click to expand...

Oh, did someone here or at Hamline University "refuse to take a side and got cancelled for doing so"?... because its Hamline University, and incidents like it that we are talking about at this time. If you want to rant about JK Rowling and World of Warcraft, go make your own thread about it, and stop trying to derail this one.

HansMustermann said:
Just to make it clear, message #2839, a mere 2 messages later and on the same page, did include those.
Click to expand...

Too late by then.
 
Right. So scrolling down 2 messages on the same page, plus like literally the first answer to someone asking for evidence, plus it was BEFORE he wrote his message, is too late for you, justifying your cognitive dissonance dismissing it and pretending it's just some unsupported rant? Like, not actually being unsupported, just taking a whole 2 messages for the actual support? Like, if a GR link was posted a whole 2 messages after someone said Pixie Of Key was wrong, it no longer counts? So to quote myself: Cognitive dissonance that bad?

Because that's not about skepticism or anything. At that point you're just chasing your tail about why it's acceptable to ignore actual evidence, if it lets you keep your silly preconceptions. Like, yeah, there was evidence, but not in the FIRST message, so it doesn't count for you. THAT nonsensical.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
That's just about the most stupid thing I've read on this board, and that's including Emre's apologetics and Pixie Of Key's pseudoscience.
Click to expand...

Taken as a compliment; you're not a reasonable commentator on this topic.

Really? If some cretins use mob intimidation tactics, it's somehow MY fault if I don't stop them? Like, if someone tries to bypass freedom of speech and freedom of the press, it's MY fault if I don't also try to subvert basic human rights? That actually makes any sense to you? Doesn't strike you as on par with claiming that someone can't be against, say, murder without also personally resorting to murder? REALLY?
Click to expand...

You calling them 'mob intimidation tactics' and 'bullying' is meaningless when they are not those things. Your argument was that people should get the laws changed so everyone would know 'what is allowed' before *checks again* they could use their freedom of speech to try to convince others to not support a product or personality.

But you're also using your freedom of speech to try to convince others not to support the personalities arguing that others shouldn't support a product. Your argument applies to you.

You're either unwilling or incapable of applying your own reason to yourself and your in group because you feel so entitled to it that you think their free speech is Nazi tactics that should require a change in law to engage in while yours is akin to refusing to murder.

Oh wait, of course it does to the kind of guy trying to fit in with the loudest barking gang, and getting their validation from barking together with the popular pack of clueless puppies. That's how cognitive dissonance works, right? It can't be your fault for arguing for online bullying, it's whoever fails to stop that bullying that are in the wrong, right? :P

Not entirely surprising, given your posting history, mind you :p
Click to expand...

You're the one so offended that people point out the implications of using some products that you think they shouldn't do that without changing the damn laws. Hel's bells, it's hard to be more of a crybully than that. Your personalization is returned in kind; you're being performative and your reasoning is clearly motivated by feeling bad people think poorly of you online. Really, being called immoral online needs new laws to be allowed and it's me trying to 'fit in'?

You really, truly, just hate people being able to voice disagreement with you that much. Grow up. Your attempt at bullying is as weak as it is hypocritical considering the subject.
 
HansMustermann said:
... claims which, just to make it clear, were supported with actual evidence, including actual links and translations. But hey, if wilful ignorance works for the religious apologists, it must work for you too, right? No need to actually address reality, when you could just deny that it exists, amirite? Just go back to your own imaginary "reality", any you can be back at imagining you're the good guy, amirite? I mean, it may not have worked for literally a hundred religious apologists, but surely it must work for YOU about your own delusions, just because it's YOU, amirite? :p
Click to expand...

What’s funny is that I haven’t disputed or denied any of your claims. I’ve just ignored them because of how poorly they were presented.

And for some reason, this really upsets you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom