• 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.

Cancel culture IRL

Status
Not open for further replies.
Distracted1 said:
And it is still corrosive.
"....instead of encouraging a better argument, we are encouraging better muffling strategies"
Click to expand...

"Your ideas are bad, go away" is an argument, and one that is increasingly useful as the right wing becomes increasingly unhinged and overtly bigoted.
 
Distracted1 said:
There is a pretty substantive difference between rejecting my arguments and attempting to take away my ability to argue.
Click to expand...

Right wing freaks can go howl in public parks as freely as ever, but should probably get used to being shown the door from private establishments. It sucks to suck, that's always been the case.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Right wing freaks can go howl in public parks as freely as ever, but should probably get used to being shown the door from private establishments. It sucks to suck, that's always been the case.
Click to expand...
You espouse a principle that is being exemplified in the link you posted.
Those who oppose the right of BDS to make their case are using cooperative efforts to show them the door.

You disapprove of it why? Because the ideology seems to be one you support? My predjudice is that said support comes not from a rational examination of the arguments BDS makes- but instead from which "tribe" you imagine they belong to.

And "private interests" are still subject to government pressure- even when that pressure does not take the form of direct legislation. It is quite logical to assume that a request for ones tax records (for example) is a preamble to further action.
 
Distracted1 said:
You espouse a principle that is being exemplified in the link you posted.
Those who oppose the right of BDS to make their case are using cooperative efforts to show them the door.

You disapprove of it why? Because the ideology seems to be one you support? My predjudice is that said support comes not from a rational examination of the arguments BDS makes- but instead from which "tribe" you imagine they belong to.

And "private interests" are still subject to government pressure- even when that pressure does not take the form of direct legislation. It is quite logical to assume that a request for ones tax records (for example) is a preamble to further action.
Click to expand...

The state is not a private organization. The difference between some bigot getting fired from an acting job and the state deciding that certain opinions are unlawful is huge. This is no shortage of people condemning BDS as antisemites in the private sphere, as is their prerogative, but this is not something the state has any authority to endorse officially.

It's unfortunate that bigots can't be reaffirmed everywhere they go that their bigotry is acceptable. Oh wait, actually that's good.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
The state is not a private organization. The difference between some bigot getting fired from an acting job and the state deciding that certain opinions are unlawful is huge. This is no shortage of people condemning BDS as antisemites in the private sphere, as is their prerogative, but this is not something the state has any authority to endorse officially.

It's unfortunate that bigots can't be reaffirmed everywhere they go that their bigotry is acceptable. Oh wait, actually that's good.
Click to expand...
I am losing track of your argument here. Who are the bigots in the BDS censorship? The anti-Semites, or those trying to deplatform them?
 
Distracted1 said:
I am losing track of your argument here. Who are the bigots in the BDS censorship? The anti-Semites, or those trying to deplatform them?
Click to expand...

*Grabs you by the collar and screams it right in your face*

The argument is WE DON'T HAVE TO DEFINE EVERYTHING before just making a world a better place.

The argument is every time we say "This is a bad thing, can we not do" people make it harder for no reason and try to have every discussion BUT that one.
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
I am losing track of your argument here. Who are the bigots in the BDS censorship? The anti-Semites, or those trying to deplatform them?
Click to expand...

When it comes to Israel-Palestine debates, credible and non-credible accusations of bigotry exist on all sides.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I despise twitter, it makes me insane. Not necessarily the content (although I'm sure some of that would) but the format itself.

I gave in and subscribed to YouTube so I don't have to watch the ads, even though I don't actually watch a lot of stuff. I've only got a handful of channels that I subscribe to, but it's worth it to me to stop the stupid ads interrupting in the middle of the thing I'm watching, usually midsentence.

Amazon... now there's an interesting one. I used to use Amazon a lot, it was convenient, easy to find stuff, all in one place. But over the last few years, I've started avoiding it. I'll use it to look for basic ideas, but if I find something I like, I'll go directly to the seller whenever possible. I do this because Amazon has been coddling outright knock-offs, and they've become notorious for taking a product made by a small company, seeing it sell well, then magically a bunch of chinese made exact replicas show up for less and drive the small business out. I like small businesses, and I'm willing to pay more for goods made in the US, or for certain types of goods made in ethical ways (I spend an absurd amount on papadams made in India, by women, in a women owned company).
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to pry into your personal habits, only to point out that our collective personal habits are the only tool we have to combat this change.

All but one of the cancelations you linked to were what I would call moderation disputes. Moderation disputes around here are a thing and I think we have some of the best moderators on the internet and a community that generally has a pretty good feel for the rules and boundaries. By giving so much power to corporate moderators we have to expect such disputes to increase, not decrease.

Also, it may be off topic so please feel free to direct message me a link on the above mentioned papadam. The rest of this post is just fancy dressing to make it look like I cared about something else. You know how the mods are around here.
 
Distracted1 said:
A little late to the party.
Did you look at theclinks posted by EC #1866 ?

This one, https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-olivia-katbi-smith

Discusses BDS "canceling" from the perspective of a Portland activist.

Something from the link regarding the weaponization of social media platforms:

"....The latter strategy, already in evidence, often results in bursts of quick suspensions and reinstatements as groups fink on each other, which in turn incentivizes political antagonists to ever-escalating patterns of mass reporting. This is one of the most predictable angles to the new corporate anti-speech movement: many of the groups protesting the loudest about censorship openly endorse such tactics, when it comes to political foes. The game becomes about who gets whom kicked off first, and/or keeps them off the longest.

As efforts to de-platform groups like the Proud Boys escalate, don’t be surprised if the definition of “Antifa” expands — Facebook this summer removed “980 groups, 520 pages, and 160 ads” as part of a sweep that included some groups connected with the nebulously-defined organization* — as Internet platforms work to convince customers of an even-handed approach. Although the idea that the “slippery slope” is a fallacy is increasingly popular on the left especially, it’s already been shown that with content moderation, bans in any one direction tend rather quickly to result in bans in more directions, as more and more groups learn how to trigger deletion mechanisms. Instead of encouraging a better argument, we’re encouraging better muffling strategies......"
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in Facebook TOS, nor am I surprised they remove content they find controversial or embarrassing.

Is that what "cancel culture" is to you? Someone is stomping on your inalienable right to log onto ZuccNet?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I'm not interested in Facebook TOS, nor am I surprised they remove content they find controversial or embarrassing.

Is that what "cancel culture" is to you? Someone is stomping on your inalienable right to log onto ZuccNet?
Click to expand...

I think you are conflating cancel culture (public reaction) with censorship (government action). One is horrible and the other is just fine. Which is which may depend on the target, it seems.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I think you are conflating cancel culture (public reaction) with censorship (government action). One is horrible and the other is just fine. Which is which may depend on the target, it seems.
Click to expand...

There is a deliberate attempt by aggrieved conservatives to conflate the two. That's my point.
 
Distracted1 said:
A little late to the party.
Did you look at theclinks posted by EC #1866 ?

This one, https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-olivia-katbi-smith

Discusses BDS "canceling" from the perspective of a Portland activist.
Click to expand...

I found this part particularly appropriate for the thread:

I know this has happened to so many Palestine activists, who get put on Canary Mission’s racist blacklist and then who have their lives ruined — they might lose their jobs, and they definitely become the target on these online campaigns — and I know many who were never able to get their accounts back.
Click to expand...

Any lefties care to claim that's not being cancelled, it's perfectly fine, nothing to worry about there?
 
Distracted1 said:
You espouse a principle that is being exemplified in the link you posted.
Those who oppose the right of BDS to make their case are using cooperative efforts to show them the door.
Click to expand...

And?

You disapprove of it why? Because the ideology seems to be one you support? My predjudice is that said support comes not from a rational examination of the arguments BDS makes- but instead from which "tribe" you imagine they belong to.
Click to expand...

I’m unclear why someone exercising their right to free speech should have to explain their justification for doing so, and why that only ever seems to apply to one side of the issue.

And "private interests" are still subject to government pressure- even when that pressure does not take the form of direct legislation. It is quite logical to assume that a request for ones tax records (for example) is a preamble to further action.
Click to expand...

The implication of “coercion” rears its head again. Feels like the counter-cancel culture folks realize they don’t have much of an argument without it.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Any lefties care to claim that's not being cancelled, it's perfectly fine, nothing to worry about there?
Click to expand...

Just to be clear: You want people to respond to someone else’s anecdotal claim as if it were fact? Is this the level of discourse we’re engaging in on a skeptic’s forum?
 
Distracted1 said:
And it is still corrosive.
"....instead of encouraging a better argument, we are encouraging better muffling strategies"
Click to expand...

Never said it was or it wasn’t.

But it does show what I said it does: that by far the historically predominate cancellers haven’t given up and their complaints about cancelling are in fact what we unearthed pretty early on in this thread and that is that it is not the cancelling they object to but that the wrong people are now being cancelled as well as their victims.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom