• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

wareyin said:
Judging by your examples? Who knows?
Click to expand...
Wasn't asking you.

gnome said:
Also sensing a problem with setting up a definition of the phenomenon, and as backup bringing up examples that it's questionable whether they fit the definition...
Click to expand...
I'd suggest the referring back to the defintion linked here, that is, the performance of group shaming (typically on social media) designed to induce withdrawal of support from a public figure who has committed some transgression.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Wasn't asking you.
Click to expand...

But I was pointing out that your examples don't fit your definitions, as in:

d4m10n said:
I'd suggest the referring back to the defintion linked here, that is, the performance of group shaming (typically on social media) designed to induce withdrawal of support from a public figure who has committed some transgression.
Click to expand...

And, as an example, you linked us to a coffee shop that had a bad business model and couldn't pay the bills.
 
wareyin said:
And, as an example, you linked us to a coffee shop that had a bad business model and couldn't pay the bills.
Click to expand...
Mina's World had trouble paying the bills at first (as we've discussed) but they didn't shut down until after the online shaming campaign against the women of color who owned the business. All the required elements of the linked definition are in place here.

Since you've never actually seen a cancellation in progress, I really wouldn't expect you to recognize one when it happens.
 
d4m10n said:
Mina's World had trouble paying the bills at first (as we've discussed) but they didn't shut down until after the online shaming campaign against the women of color who owned the business. All the required elements of the linked definition are in place here.
Click to expand...

You're working very hard to assume that the "online shaming campaign" gained any traction or caused the shut-down in any way. On the other hand, we know that businesses who can't pay the bills will close down. Mina's World never had a viable business model to pay the bills, as stated by the sole investor.

d4m10n said:
Since you've never actually seen a cancellation in progress, I really wouldn't expect you to recognize one when it happens.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your refreshing honesty, that you've never been able to show me a cancellation in this thread you have about cancellations.
 
d4m10n said:
Re: the distinction between U.S. & Twitter, FIRE writes the following: Seems to me that they can distinguish the two bolded institutions just fine, but are arguing that Twitter adopt a different approach than the one they are taking at present.
Although private social media companies like Twitter may have the authority to determine what content is displayed on their platforms, it is unwise for them to use that power to censor speech solely because it’s unpopular.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

They haven't done this "solely because its unpopular", they have done it because it is disgusting and hateful rhetoric that violated their terms of use. Having an account on Twitter, or Reddit or Facebook is not a right, it is a privilege granted to you by the owners.

Private institutions like CMU are not bound by the First Amendment to promise free expression, but, laudably, the university has chosen to do so, committing that it “values the freedoms of speech, thought, expression and assembly — in themselves and as part of our core educational and intellectual mission.” CMU goes so far as to say the “university must be a place where all ideas may be expressed freely and where no alternative is withheld from consideration.”
Click to expand...

This stuff works both ways... if you believe that Anya has the absolute right to exercise her right of free thought and speak freely about her hatred for someone and to express her wish that that person die a horrible death, then you MUST accept the leadership of the university also has absolute right to exercise their right of free thought and to publicly distance themselves from the hateful rhetoric of their staff. If you don't think this is true, then that makes you a hypocrite, because you are advocating censorship of free thought and free speech... the very thing you are railing against.

Ultimately the university is a place of higher learning, whose aim is to make the world a better, more educated place. It has a reputation to protect, and an absolute right to distance themselves from things that impact on that reputation. Anya had plenty of opportunity to point out the flaws in the British Royal Family's history without descending into the gutter they way she did. That she chose such a disgusting and hateful way to do it tells us more about her than it does about the subject she is embracing.
 
smartcooky said:
...if you believe that Anya has the absolute right to exercise her right of free thought and speak freely about her hatred for someone and to express her wish that that person die a horrible death, then you MUST accept the leadership of the university also has absolute right to exercise their right of free thought and to publicly distance themselves from the hateful rhetoric of their staff.
Click to expand...
Of course Anya and CMU have the legal right to say what they said here in the United States. If you think FIRE was making an argument about their respective legal rights, you should reread what they wrote. If you are talking about something other than legal rights, please tell me what you mean by rights.

smartcooky said:
That she chose such a disgusting and hateful way to do it tells us more about her than it does about the subject she is embracing.
Click to expand...
I really don't care. If the “university must be a place where all ideas may be expressed freely and where no alternative is withheld from consideration” then they are going to have tolerate the expression of ideas which some people find disgusting, from time to time.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Of course Anya and CMU have the legal right to say what they said here in the United States. If you think FIRE was making an argument about their respective legal rights, you should reread what they wrote. If you are talking about something other than legal rights, please tell me what you mean by rights.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about "legal" rights?

If you believe its OK for Anya to say whatever she likes, no matter how vile, but its not OK for her employer to publicly distance themselves from those comments, then you are applying a double standard any way you slice it! You want to censor speech you don't like!

d4m10n said:
I really don't care. If the “university must be a place where all ideas may be expressed freely and where no alternative is withheld from consideration” then they are going to have tolerate the expression of ideas which some people find disgusting, from time to time.
Click to expand...

Fine, then express those ideas at the university, in the classroom, in the lesson to which they apply.

Twitter is not the university, and being a university professor does not give her some special right to violate Twitter's terms of service!
 
d4m10n said:
If you are talking about something other than legal rights, please tell me what you mean by rights.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the same rights you are talking about, at least, they were the same unless you have moved the goalposts.

It is the rights granted by the university when they say... "the university must be a place where all ideas may be expressed freely and where no alternative is withheld from consideration" Those rights apply only within the campus of the university. If Anya wants to say what she did to her students in class, in the context what she is teaching, then she is entitled to do so because that right is granted to her by the university. Those rights however, do not extend outside the university itself. When you attempt to publish those remarks on a hosting service that has terms of service, you are restricted by those terms of service. There is no law that forces a social media platform to host vile content, and nor should there be!
 
wareyin said:
Do you happen to have an example of a cancellation that fits your stated definition of a cancellation?
Click to expand...
Evasion noted.

smartcooky said:
It is the rights granted by the university when they say... "the university must be a place where all ideas may be expressed freely and where no alternative is withheld from consideration" Those rights apply only within the campus of the university.
Click to expand...
*********. Every university admin knows that profs tweets about their ideas in their fields.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
*********. Every university admin knows that profs tweets about their ideas in their fields.
Click to expand...

But not every prof tweets hateful rhetoric, such as hoping for the target of their hate to die a slow and excruciatingly painful death. Universities and their staff are charged with making the world a better place - the kind of rhetoric Anya spouted does not comport with that charge.

The fact is, she has her own website on which she could have freely spouted whatever vile garbage she liked, but if course, outside of her limited field of "scholarship" (if you can even dignify those fields with that term), she is just a Nancy Nobody - at the end of the day, that would not give her enough reach. So she chose to use a popular social media platform in a pathetic attempt to use her imagined status to amplify her vile message. Happily, it backfired on her!
 
Lo, gotta love the woke. Anya goes full crybully

'I see it for what it is: racism,' Anya told The Guardian. 'Not only that, I'm a black woman who's very vocally left-leaning who speaks very openly on antiracism, critical race theory and queer rights.
Click to expand...

Not only am I glad to see that CMU actually has a spine and isn't going to fire her for her black supremacy but I'm starting to relate more to those American parents who want to keep this critical crap away from their children.
 
From the New York Times:


Meg Smaker felt exhilarated last November. After 16 months filming inside a Saudi rehabilitation center for accused terrorists, she learned that her documentary “Jihad Rehab” was invited to the 2022 Sundance Festival, one of the most prestigious showcases in the world.

Her documentary centered on four former Guantánamo detainees sent to a rehab center in Saudi Arabia who had opened their lives to her, speaking of youthful attraction to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, of torture endured, and of regrets.

Film critics warned that conservatives might bridle at these human portraits, but reviews after the festival’s screening were strong.

“The absence of absolutes is what’s most enriching,” The Guardian stated, adding, “This is a movie for intelligent people looking to have their preconceived notions challenged.” Variety wrote: The film “feels like a miracle and an interrogative act of defiance.”

But attacks would come from the left, not the right.
Click to expand...


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/us/sundance-jihad-rehab-meg-smaker.html


And the abject apology of the film's producer...


Dear Colleagues,
First and foremost, I am truly sorry. A film I executive produced, Jihad Rehab, has landed like a truckload of hate on people whom I sincerely love and respect. I know that it could not matter less how it was intended to land, it created deep and unnecessary pain and for that, I take responsibility and apologize.


I am committed to going forward better. I am very committed to not creating any more pain, if only by accident or in ignorance.


The responses to have been painful, significant, bewildering, and deeply stressful for each of us in different ways. Adding to the weight of two years of pandemic trauma, a nation that seems to be melting down around us, and bone-deep exhaustion and anger over centuries of racist patterns, systems, assumptions, and practices was never my intention but that has certainly been the outcome. And perhaps the most painful piece of the puzzle is that I have hurt those whom I have always meant to support.
Click to expand...


https://www.forkfilms.com/jihad-rehab-letter/
 
Yep, white woman strayed out of her lane on that one.

Great kowtow from Disney though.

I guess that film is headed for the burn bag.
 
Newsmax has cancelled Lara Logan

https://www.thedailybeast.com/lara-logan-goes-full-qanon-spews-blood-libel-on-newsmax

She was once actually a reporter on 60 Minutes, but now won't even be invited back to Newsmax.

I mean, just because you accuse immigrants of wanting us to eat insets, cockroaches and dining on the blood of children, why take away their platform? Totally cancelled.

Although I am wondering, at what point in her moronic rant did she actually go over the line? Was it the dining on the blood of children? Or was it the rampant antisemitism? Nah, couldn't have been that or the other loopy QAnon crap.

I'm sure this is an example of acceptable cancel culture, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom