Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[d4m10n]

I support free speech, but I draw the line at racist speech, which I am happy to see criminalised, i.e. I am happy to censor speech I don't like.

Now that we've seen Jon Gruden's emails, how long should he go to prison?

 

[d4m10n]

Punching down isn’t really comedy. It’s bullying.

Is there some sort of progressive stack which makes it clear which sort of folk a rich black man can ethically poke fun at these days? Seems like making fun of white-passing/adjacent cisheteropatriachs has to get old after a short while, they're a fairly boring lot.

 

[Emily's Cat]

People who are not trans.

The current equity fund INCLUDES transgender people, they want ADDITIONAL funding beyond that ONLY FOR transgender people. Do you think that Netflix has a fund JUST FOR black people, or JUST FOR females or JUST FOR gay people? Everyone else shares the same fund, which the transgender people ALSO share. They're asking for extra funds that only they are allowed to use. That's a special privilege.

Zero is lower that the proportion of people who are trans, so yes

Are you actually arguing that Netflix has absolutely zero transgender content?

Yes, they do.

Have you never seen these on a TV program

G, Y, Y7, PG, 14, MA

How about these

D, L, S, V, FV

G - General Audience
Y - Appropriate for all children
Y7 - unsuitable for children under 7 years of age.
PG - Parental Guidance recommended
14 - unsuitable for children under 14 years of age
MA - unsuitable for children under 17 years ofage.

D –Suggestive dialogue
L –Coarse or crude language
S –Sexual situations
V – Violence
FV –Fantasy violence
MA - Mature audiences

These warnings are specifically for groups, like parents of young children, those who might be upset by violence, those who don't want to be surprised by sexual content that might find content disturbing or harmful.

Why do you think these content advisories came about in the first place?

Note that there are no ratings for "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic". Why do you think that "transphobic" should be a specific classification? Do you think that any other "ism" should also be a classification that is determined solely by people that are offended by that particular "ism"?

See above

Irrelevant. None of those ratings suggest alternatives. When a show is rated for Violence, Netflix doesn't seem to feel compelled to "suggest" a show rated "peace" as an alternative.

First the damage has to be undone, the anti-trans, anti LGBTQ, racist and bigoted attitudes of people needs to be changed. That takes treating oppressed groups more fairly and in a less discriminatory manner, and sometimes yes, that means giving them special treatment to compensate or offset the actions and attitudes of bigots, until the wrongs are righted. It also requires certain members of Society to face the harsh reality that they are bigoted ********* that need to be smacked down hard for their bigotry!
.
.

I do so enjoy the males that preach that females are bigots for wanting to preserve female only spaces and acknowledge the reality of female biology. Nothing like seeing a male person opine that females should be punished for not letting some males do whatever they want... and somehow feel righteously justified in doing so.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The problem with this is there are a number of academics who use this "freedom, tolerance, free expression and principle" as a cover for their bigotry. Having some alphabet soup after their names doesn't automatically make them nice people who wouldn't call a black person a ******.

(This from someone who does have some alphabet soup after his name)

All that bigotry exuded by Free Black Thought

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because

1. The petty bickering that goes on in academia is of little interest to me, and

2. I already know that FIRE defends speech I find unacceptable and indefensible, and
3. Any organisation that advocates allowing scumbags like Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, Bill Ayers and Ben "Uncle Tom" Carson a platform to open their vile mouths in front of university students is not an organisation I have any interest in hearing from.

Are you aware that the highlighted is pretty much the entire reason that freedom of speech exists in the first place?

 

[Emily's Cat]

He weighs the same as a duck.

ROFL

 

[Emily's Cat]

Here what you don't undertsand,.

I do not agree with the concept of free speech being absolute, with everyone having the right to say what they like, when they like, regardless of the harm it many cause others, and not suffer consequences for doing so.

I am a firm believer that speech is an action, and that harmful speech against members of protected classes is tantamount to harmful actions against members of protected classes. It is a belief that I will never, ever back away from.

For mine, calling a black man the n-word, calling a Jew a "kike", calling a gay person a "faggot" etc, are functionally the same as discriminating against them in material matters such as employment, housing, education etc.

This is why I 100% support the firing of people whose speech and actions are racist, this is why I 100% support prosecution of people like Scott McCluskey and Simon Silwood. Make them social pariahs for their actions.

The entirely realistic outcome of your view toward speech is one that disallows dissent from the current orthodox view completely. Your view hands over the determination of 'acceptable' speech to a third party, and you do so while blithely assuming that such party will magically always hold the same views as you.

I think you also are blind to the completely subjective and selective nature of your position. For example, how do you feel about male people threatening female people with rape, calling them misogynistic names, and opinion that females should be killed, bombed? Are those types of speech that you think are acceptable and should be protected?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, I forgive you. But would smartcooky forgive with you?

I rather suspect that if the poster were someone other than smarcooky, smartcooky would not accept that apology.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No one has asked me, but my take on Dace Chappelle, like most comedians, is that he’s mostly only funny when he’s punching up. Punching down isn’t really comedy. It’s bullying. The fact that he doesn’t seem to realize that he’s punching down says he’s gotten out of touch with the world around him.

Topsy-turvy world: A black male is "punching down" at middle and upper class white males... whereas those particular middle and upper class white males are "punching up" at females.

 

[dirtywick]

You guys are getting dangerously close to committing a cancel against smartcooky. He’s already been anonymously called out for racist terminology, shamed, and forced to apologize

 

[smartcooky]

You guys are getting dangerously close to committing a cancel against smartcooky. He’s already been anonymously called out for racist terminology, shamed, and forced to apologize

Yeah, just cancel me... like I would give a **** anyway!

Those members of this forum who would cancel me are those who, shall we say, I can take or leave when it comes to debate (see my signature).

They all run away when the going gets tough anyway.

 

[smartcooky]

I rather suspect that if the poster were someone other than smartcooky, smartcooky would not accept that apology.

Never met a genuine apology I didn't accept

The entirely realistic outcome of your view toward speech is one that disallows dissent from the current orthodox view completely. Your view hands over the determination of 'acceptable' speech to a third party, and you do so while blithely assuming that such party will magically always hold the same views as you.

The entirely realistic (and currently observed) outcome of your view toward speech is one that allows anything. Your view allows racism, bigotry, homophobia and transphobia to go unchecked and unimpeded, and greatly helps to divide society, while blithely assuming that everyone else will magically always hold the same views as you.

It is worth noting that countries such as the UK and other European countries have had the kinds of laws I advocate, against hate speech, for at least two decades, and yet the sky has not fallen in any of those places. So far, NONE of your "entirely realistic outcome" has come to pass. I wonder why that is?

I think you also are blind to the completely subjective and selective nature of your position. For example, how do you feel about male people threatening female people with rape, calling them misogynistic names, and opinion that females should be killed, bombed? Are those types of speech that you think are acceptable and should be protected?

Cancel them

PS: you think that being against "threatening rape, calling them misogynistic names, and opinion that females should be killed, bombed"?" is a subjective view? Really? .
.

 

[smartcooky]

The current equity fund INCLUDES transgender people,

No, it doesn't

Are you actually arguing that Netflix has absolutely zero transgender content?

I have a subscription to Netflix. I looked for it, there is none that I can find.

Note that there are no ratings for "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic". Why do you think that "transphobic" should be a specific classification? Do you think that any other "ism" should also be a classification that is determined solely by people that are offended by that particular "ism"?

Well spotted. You should write to the Censor's Office and suggest it

I do so enjoy the males that preach that females are bigots for wanting to preserve female only spaces and acknowledge the reality of female biology. Nothing like seeing a male person opine that females should be punished for not letting some males do whatever they want... and somehow feel righteously justified in doing so.

Boy you have posted some strawmen in the past, but this is the biggest, fattest one yet!

What did you do, buy in bulk?

 

[smartcooky]

Are you aware that the highlighted is pretty much the entire reason that freedom of speech exists in the first place?

Yup, but as must be abundantly clear to you by now (surely), freedom of speech means something entirely different for me than it does for you.

 

[smartcooky]

All that bigotry exuded by Free Black Thought

Non-sequitur. Your reply bears no relationship to the snip of the post you are replying to.

 

[tyr_13]

Is there some sort of progressive stack which makes it clear which sort of folk a rich black man can ethically poke fun at these days? Seems like making fun of white-passing/adjacent cisheteropatriachs has to get old after a short while, they're a fairly boring lot.

This false belief that 'progressives' (a lot of people who are not progressives feel the same way) operate on some kind of 'oppression Olympics hierarchy' is very widespread. It is even the belief of some people who only side with 'the left' because they do think it works that way and they like the power they hope that gives them.

Writings of some around The Closer show they'd be with the authoritarians in a minute if they thought it would give their identity group more power (i.e. TERFs). The confusion over, 'who do I side with, black people or LGBTQ?' means one had framed things so that one is trying to advance a tribe rather than advance justice. Your framing shows the same, wrong, thinking. It isn't who one is 'giving you a pass', but the context of what one is doing.

If a gay man makes fun of or otherwise marginalizes a black man for being black, he's punching down.

If a black man makes fun of a gay man for being gay, he's punching down.

If a rich, white, famous, *******, trans person is mocked by a poor, otherwise upstanding, black cis woman for being trans, that's punching down too.

And if a rich, famous, black comic makes flat jokes mocking not just individual people, but entire marginalized groups, that's still punching down. Chappelle's dumb comments around trans people are really overshadowing how the exact same material was homophobic and racist towards black people. Simply the framing of 'black people vs lgbtq people' denies that black people can also be in the lgbtq community, but he goes further and declares that black people can't really be queer because that's white person ****. A simple (or dishonest) framing could pretend he's punching towards 'rich white men' there, but the actual marginalized people would be lgbtq people of color.

This is problematic because the 'ownership' of black culture he and some other black people (mostly men) try to use to force lgbtq people out of 'being really black' feeds the violence that makes most murders of trans people be against poc.

The idea that you can't be critical of black people when they're being harmful towards people in the lgbtq community because black people 'have it worse' misses the point entirely. Oppression isn't a tradable commodity where you can leverage oppression savings on the oppression future's market then use those oppression points to attack other oppressed groups. It isn't one group against others at all but people working against oppression itself. Simplifying it to 'white people aren't allowed to say things' has been causing too many problems.

 

[d4m10n]

This false belief that 'progressives' (a lot of people who are not progressives feel the same way) operate on some kind of 'oppression Olympics hierarchy' is very widespread.

I used the phrase progressive stack^WP to indicate that I had a specific hierarchical implementation in mind, one used by actual people doing progressive activism. You might ought to have looked it up prior to declaring it unreal.

And if a rich, famous, black comic makes flat jokes mocking not just individual people, but entire marginalized groups, that's still punching down.

Okay, I get it. Anything making fun of anyone who is oppressed in any way is punching down. All comedy will henceforth make fun of well-off white neurotypical able-bodied cisgender heterosexual males who don't suffer from addiction or any other pitiable conditions.

 

[tyr_13]

I used the phrase progressive stack^WP to indicate that I had a specific hierarchical implementation in mind, one used by actual people doing progressive activism. You might ought to have looked it up prior to declaring it unreal.

Said the belief was false as applied to 'progressives' (anti-oppression coalition really) as a whole and in fact pointed out that many 'progressives' do in fact have the same wrong belief. I didn't say the belief didn't exist.

Okay, I get it. Anything making fun of anyone who is oppressed in any way is punching down. All comedy will henceforth make fun of well-off white neurotypical able-bodied cisgender heterosexual males who don't suffer from addiction or any other pitiable conditions.

You don't get it, and you're trying not to. I'm fine with that and have no delusions I'm going to convince you or that you care. That won't stop me from using your writings to point out the flaws in your reasoning though.

I literally said the opposite and said that it isn't who you are 'making fun of' but what you're mocking. Mocking Jenner for her idiotic arguments is fine even though she is a trans woman, mocking her for being a trans woman is punching down. I even gave a bunch of examples.

As someone who worked part time in comedy for almost a decade, there are few things more stupid than the tacit assumption that comedy has to be mocking someone or some group.

 

[d4m10n]

Mocking Jenner for her idiotic arguments is fine even though she is a trans woman, mocking her for being a trans woman is punching down.

Did Chappelle actually do this?

I even gave a bunch of examples.

No, you did not. You provided vague hypotheticals instead of quoting, say, Chappelle.

When he came up with the recurring crackhead bit (for example) was that punching down?

 

[tyr_13]

Did Chappelle actually do this?

I never claimed he did.

No, you did not. You provided vague hypotheticals instead of quoting, say, Chappelle.

Chappelle's material was literally another example I used.

When he came up with the recurring crackhead bit (for example) was that punching down?

Yeah, in many cases it was. Which he realized.

Any talk about 'cancelling Chappelle', which my previous posts weren't even directly about, needs to acknowledge that he literally canceled himself for what, a decade? He realized how racists white people were using his comedy in exactly the way that many of us said they were, he stopped his show, and ran out of the country to find himself. 'They didn't cancel him when he was mocking black people', but he did.