International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Continuation Cancel culture IRL Part 2 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=354396)

Lplus 30th November 2022 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13956202)
Because....you said it did.

eta: Read the thread. There isn't even a consensus on what cancel culture is, whether it's a new phenomenon, or what counts. That you think this spammed link is a perfect example of something shows that you are already prejudiced to believe that cancel culture exists, and that you know what counts as cancel culture.

But since you appear to refuse to accept cancel culture exists at all, your views on cancel culture are irrelevant.

wareyin 30th November 2022 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lplus (Post 13956213)
But since you appear to refuse to accept cancel culture exists at all, your views on cancel culture are irrelevant.

Brilliant reasoning. The only way your views on a subject can have relevance is if you accept the premise. You can't talk about the Christian God unless you already accept that that God exists. Your views on ghosts are irrelevant unless you've already decided that they exist. :rolleyes:

Lplus 30th November 2022 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13956219)
Brilliant reasoning. The only way your views on a subject can have relevance is if you accept the premise. You can't talk about the Christian God unless you already accept that that God exists. Your views on ghosts are irrelevant unless you've already decided that they exist. :rolleyes:

Well, apart from saying "there's no such thing" how else can you contribute to the discussion of a subject if you don't accept that subject exists? ;)

johnny karate 30th November 2022 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lplus (Post 13956213)
But since you appear to refuse to accept cancel culture exists at all, your views on cancel culture are irrelevant.

Oh good, someone finally willing to articulate what "cancel culture" is and why it's a problem we should all be concerned about.

You have the floor.

wareyin 30th November 2022 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lplus (Post 13956227)
Well, apart from saying "there's no such thing" how else can you contribute to the discussion of a subject if you don't accept that subject exists? ;)

Perhaps by trying to nudge those who have uncritically accepted a premise into examining what they believe and why?

Telling people that unless they agree that ghosts exist, they can't discuss how your example of a haunted water faucet is not actually totally proof of the spirit realm is just a really uncritical way to think. I mean, if all you want is a circle jerk of gullible rubes all telling each other they're right, how exactly is that contributing to a discussion?

smartcooky 30th November 2022 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13956082)
Spammer continues to attempt to get people to listen to a podcast he can't give the details on, explain any points made, or give any other reason to listen to it other than because the spammer himself recommends it.

:rolleyes:

To be fair, when someone posts a link, I would prefer to listen to, watch or read the content of the link myself first, and then discuss what's in it. There is little I find more bloody annoying than sitting in a room watching a documentary someone has recommended, or reading an article someone has given me, and having that same someone trying to give me a running commentary on what I am trying watch or read. I just want to tell them to shut the **** up!

Lplus 30th November 2022 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13956239)
Perhaps by trying to nudge those who have uncritically accepted a premise into examining what they believe and why?

Telling people that unless they agree that ghosts exist, they can't discuss how your example of a haunted water faucet is not actually totally proof of the spirit realm is just a really uncritical way to think. I mean, if all you want is a circle jerk of gullible rubes all telling each other they're right, how exactly is that contributing to a discussion?

That isn't discussing the subject, that's just pointing out your disbelief in the subject. Fine for the first time, but it gets really old after a while.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13956253)
To be fair, when someone posts a link, I would prefer to listen to, watch or read the content of the link myself first, and then discuss what's in it. There is little I find more bloody annoying than sitting in a room watching a documentary someone has recommended, or reading an article someone has given me, and having that same someone trying to give me a running commentary on what I am trying watch or read. I just want to tell them to shut the **** up!

At least you are prepared to look at the article/podcast/whatever. It may or may not agree with any previous prejudices you may have, but you aren't afraid to find out.

wareyin 30th November 2022 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lplus (Post 13956262)
That isn't discussing the subject, that's just pointing out your disbelief in the subject. Fine for the first time, but it gets really old after a while.

Nonsense. We're discussing your belief in the subject, and why you have it, and why you might have things wrong. The discussion is you (well, actually d4m10n since this was originally his right wing crisis du jour) trying to convince skeptics that this is even a thing, not people that you haven't convinced explaining to you over and over that your evidence is weak at best and that there are better explanations for your haunted faucet than ghosts.

wareyin 30th November 2022 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13956253)
To be fair, when someone posts a link, I would prefer to listen to, watch or read the content of the link myself first, and then discuss what's in it. There is little I find more bloody annoying than sitting in a room watching a documentary someone has recommended, or reading an article someone has given me, and having that same someone trying to give me a running commentary on what I am trying watch or read. I just want to tell them to shut the **** up!

There's a vast gulf between someone sitting next to you giving a running commentary on a video you're watching and someone who recommends you watch a video but he doesn't know what goes on in the video or why you should watch it.

d4m10n 30th November 2022 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lplus (Post 13956182)
I've read the link to a written discussion of the subject in post #2492. I think it's a perfect example of cancel culture - what do you think?

I'd say it's less than perfect, but only because of the death threats. Some people think that those are an extension of the angry mob mentality behind "cancel culture" but others would say that illegal threats go beyond what we generally mean to encompass by the phrase, that is, exercise of legitimate speech to prevent someone else from having some particular platform.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13956253)
To be fair, when someone posts a link, I would prefer to listen to, watch or read the content of the link myself first, and then discuss what's in it.

This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable approach. A less reasonable approach might be to characterize the link as spam, while having no idea what it's actually about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13956271)
(well, actually d4m10n since this was originally his right wing crisis du jour)

Here follows a list of all the right wing sources I've cited in my discussion of cancel culture:

johnny karate 30th November 2022 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13956583)
Here follows a list of all the right wing sources I've cited in my discussion of cancel culture:

Here's you citing Libs of TikTok:
Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13851976)
#SummerCancellation season is in full swing.

Back in mid-June, a handful of workers at Mina's World rose up to demand the means of production from the owners of the café (all of whom are women of colour) and to publicly shame them for various offenses against social justice.

Two of the owners made a couple of (hostage style) videos asking for forgiveness and understanding. Here is one of them:

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/sta...85710605848577

The third owner (evidently the main backer) eventually had enough of the workers of Mina's World uniting against her and decided to pull out of the venture. As of early this month, Mina's World has permanently closed.

An interesting overlap between this cancellation and the end of Reply All is that both of them happened at the intersection of social justice, internet culture, and Bon Appetit.


How embarrassing for you. :blush:

d4m10n 30th November 2022 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13956638)
Here's you citing Libs of TikTok

Those videos were originally posted and later deleted from the Mina's World instagram feed, which was decidedly pro-social justice. Not a right wing source.

johnny karate 30th November 2022 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13956648)
Those videos were originally posted and later deleted from the Mina's World instagram feed, which was decidedly pro-social justice. Not a right wing source.

You cited Libs of TikTok. Libs of TikTok is right wing. Hardcore right wing.

You even used the same description of the video by calling it "hostage style".

So you didn't just cite a hardcore right wing source, you also quoted them.

wareyin 1st December 2022 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13956583)
This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable approach. A less reasonable approach might be to characterize the link as spam, while having no idea what it's actually about.

Spammer pretends to get upset that people won't click on the links he refuses to explain or summarize because, like all spammers, the goal is to get the credible to click the link and not to convince anyone even slightly skeptical of his position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13956583)
Here follows a list of all the right wing sources I've cited in my discussion of cancel culture:

Thanks to johnny karate for reminding you of a right wing source you cited. I'm sure that your omission was simply an honest case of you not recalling what you had posted, as that does happen quite a lot for you.

d4m10n 1st December 2022 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13956676)
You cited Libs of TikTok.

No, I cited the Mina's World Instagram feed, where I originally watched both videos. It so happens that LibsOfTikTok archived the video, but they are not the source of the video, obviously. To my knowledge, no other live copies have been posted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13956676)
You even used the same description of the video by calling it "hostage style".

Watch the video for yourself and tell us if they seem under duress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13957020)
Spammer pretends to get upset that people won't click on the links he refuses to explain or summarize because, like all spammers, the goal is to get the credible to click the link and not to convince anyone even slightly skeptical of his position.

Brief summary of every cancel court segment follows:
  • Mike Pesca briefly recounts who is (allegedly) being cancelled and why.
  • Virginia Heffernan (progressive commentator) explains whether she thinks it was a morally justifiable cancellation or not
  • Jamie Kirchick (conservative commentator) explains whether he thinks it was a morally justifiable cancellation or not
  • Mike Pesca (centrist commentator) weighs in on whether he thinks it was a morally justifiable cancellation or not
The most recent episode of cancel court may be found here:
https://player.fm/series/not-even-ma...lescope?t=2015

Oddly enough, it's about James E. Webb and the Lavender ScareWP, the latter of which is a fine example of an irrational culture of cancellation.

johnny karate 1st December 2022 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13957035)
No, I cited the Mina's World Instagram feed, where I originally watched both videos. It so happens that LibsOfTikTok archived the video, but they are not the source of the video, obviously. To my knowledge, no other live copies have been posted.

Watch the video for yourself and tell us if they seem under duress.

You directly linked to the Libs of TikTok Twitter account.

They are right wing.

These two facts are indisputable.

Just take the L and move on.

d4m10n 8th January 2023 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13957101)
You directly linked to the Libs of TikTok Twitter account.

I linked to a copy of a video which no longer existed anywhere else, which I'd originally seen on a very pro-social justice Instagram feed. It is incredibly disingenuous to suggest that somehow counts as parroting right wing ideas, since there was literally no other way to share the video.

In much more recent cancellation news, consider this article from a right wing rag called The New York Times:
A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job. https://nyti.ms/3Xe7oZH

(Hopefully, Libs of TikTok won't reshare it.)

johnny karate 8th January 2023 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13983689)
I linked to a copy of a video which no longer existed anywhere else, which I'd originally seen on a very pro-social justice Instagram feed. It is incredibly disingenuous to suggest that somehow counts as parroting right wing ideas, since there was literally no other way to share the video.

You cited a right wing source and then claimed you don’t cite right wing sources.

No post hoc rationalization changes that.

Quote:

In much more recent cancellation news, consider this article from a right wing rag called The New York Times:
A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job. https://nyti.ms/3Xe7oZH

(Hopefully, Libs of TikTok won't reshare it.)
This article is behind a paywall but I read about it elsewhere. Seems like a professor did not get their contract renewed for a silly reason. Pretty much the entire academic community has come out in support of the professor and has been scathingly critical of the school administration. The college could also lose its accreditation as a result.

So just to be clear: Who are you saying got “cancelled”? The professor? Or the college?

Cain 8th January 2023 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13983689)
In much more recent cancellation news, consider this article from a right wing rag called The New York Times:
A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job. https://nyti.ms/3Xe7oZH

This institution is increasingly dependent upon Muslim customers. Let the free market should decide. As with Gina Carano, the instructor was between contracts (adjuncts are always between contracts), and the university simply decided not to renew. A big deal was made about this distinction with hardly any difference up-thread.

We have a professor who is by all appearances rather progressive; her teaching is pedagogically sound, and she gave multiple warnings. The student subscribes to a mainstream (but conservative) interpretation of Islam and didn't want a warning; she wanted doctrinal conformity.

Craven administrators are all too happy to bend to consumer demands using the latest fashionable pretext. "It's not about gutting standards; it's about being 'equitable.'" In this case, they're throwing contingent labor under the bus because of "hate speech."

From the article:
Quote:

Mark Berkson, a religion professor at Hamline, raised his hand.

“When you say, ‘Trust Muslims on Islamophobia,’” Berkson asked, “what does one do when the Islamic community itself is divided on an issue? Because there are many Muslim scholars and experts and art historians who do not believe that this was Islamophobic.”

Hussein responded that there were marginal and extremist voices on any issue. “You can teach a whole class about why Hitler was good,” Hussein said.

During the exchange, Baker, the department head, and Everett, the administrator, separately walked up to the religion professor, put their hands on his shoulders and said this was not the time to raise these concerns, Berkson said in an interview.

But Berkson, who said he was a strong supporter of campus diversity, said he felt compelled to speak up.

“We were being asked to accept, without questioning, that what our colleague did — teaching an Islamic art masterpiece in a class on art history after having given multiple warnings — was somehow equivalent to mosque vandalism and violence against Muslims and hate speech,” Berkson said. “That is what I could not stand.”

Graham2001 9th January 2023 02:24 PM

Another right-wing publication 'The Guardian' published an Op-ed on this particular story, it points out that what the Hamline administrators have done in this case is entered into a dispute within Islam and put the thumb down on the scale in favor of one view.


Quote:

The actions of Hamline University are a threat not just to academic freedom but to religious freedom, too. They implicitly disavow the variety of traditions that constitute Islam and condemn those traditions as in some sense so bigoted that they cannot be shown in a class on Islamic art history. University bureaucrats are, as non-Muslims, taking part in a theological debate within Islam and siding with the extremists.

That is why, the historian Amna Khalid observes, it is as a Muslim she is most offended by Hamline’s actions that have “flattened the rich history and diversity of Islamic thought” and “privileged a most extreme and conservative Muslim point of view”. In an age in which there are demands for the syllabus to be “decolonised”, she adds, “Hamline’s position is a kind of arch-imperialism, reinforcing a monolithic image of Muslims propounded by the cult of authentic Islam”.

Perhaps the most damaging aspect of Hamline’s action is the use of the language of diversity to eviscerate the very meaning of diversity. This is an issue not confined to Hamline. Too many people today demand that we respect the diversity of society, but fail to see the diversity of minority communities in those societies. As a result, progressive voices often get dismissed as not being authentic, while the most conservative figures become celebrated as the true embodiment of their communities.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ve-but-to-whom


A staffer for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has supplied an op-ed in another newspaper which points out that the "respect for the observant Muslim students in that classroom should have superseded academic freedom" remark opens up a whole can of worms related to 'blasphemy' in general.


Quote:

But Hamline's leaders didn't just create a chilling effect among their entire community. Even worse, the university appeared to endorse restricting academic freedom essentially under the guise of a ban on blasphemy — meaning sacrilege, insult, or offense against religions and religious figures.
Lamenting the "harm" the image caused in a letter to the campus, the university's president and associate vice president for inclusive excellence wrote that "respect for the observant Muslim students in that classroom should have superseded academic freedom" in this situation, "where an image forbidden for Muslims to look upon was projected on a screen and left for many minutes."


"Academic freedom is very important," the administrators added, "but it does not have to come at the expense of care and decency toward others."


A blasphemy exception to academic freedom, which this ultimately would be, isn't a reasonable and narrow cutout that would protect students from perceived harm. Rather, it would be a Pandora's box: Once opened, there would be no stopping the justifications to censor that would flow from it. Just take a cursory look at what constitutes religious offense around the world today.

https://www.startribune.com/banning-...dom/600241100/

autumn1971 9th January 2023 04:36 PM

If it is relevant to the subject, sure warn that it may be difficult for some, but **** your ******* feelings. We all have em and they all get stomped on every day.
Christians get their precious feelings hurt whenever they are forced to stare unblinking at “Piss Christ” and **** them too.
Life is challenging and painful.

Don’t be a dick, but never back away from painful things because they are painful. Respect those that opt out, but **** those who opt in and complain. Left, Right, Center: stare at your worst and accept the pain you and yours may cause.
Grow and learn.

Donal 10th January 2023 09:23 AM

OK, Free Speech Warriors, time to step up and protect an academic who was dismissed by Harvard for voicing an opinion the school deemed wrong.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


I can't wait for Barri Weiss and Ryan Douthat to write think pieces defending him. I hope FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest give him a platform. You know, for healthy debate.

johnny karate 10th January 2023 10:05 AM

It only counts as "cancel culture" if it hurts the feelings of a right winger.

wareyin 10th January 2023 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13985047)
It only counts as "cancel culture" if it hurts the feelings of a right winger.

Yep. There doesn't have to have been a cancellation, there doesn't have to have been any public outcry or concerted effort, "cancel culture" means whatever a right winger intends it to mean in that moment based on how victimized said right winger can claim to be.

Cain 10th January 2023 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donal (Post 13985018)
OK, Free Speech Warriors, time to step up and protect an academic who was dismissed by Harvard for voicing an opinion the school deemed wrong...

The politics of Zionism saw cancel culture long before the term became vogue. The viral clip of Helen Thomas ended her career. Norman Finkelstein was set to be granted tenure at DePaul when the president of the university overruled the faculty (thanks in part to a campaign from Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz). Finkelstein was out of a job that guaranteed lifetime employment. Alan Dershowitz, who was caught dead-to-rights for academic misconduct (by Finkelstein) kept his job, thanks to team player Elena Kagan (then the dean of Harvard Law, and protector of plagiarists). Bari Weiss tried to get a professor at Columbia fired while she was an undergrad. Campus Watch groups encouraged students to secretly record professors criticizing Israel. So, yeah, "free speech warriors" should not have any trouble condemning this action, and seeing it as part of a long pattern.

In other contexts, resident cancel culture apologists would have been quick to note that the "victim" still managed to receive lucrative employment, so nobody has been "canceled." In this case, Roth quickly accepted an offer at another Ivy League school, which is supposed to say something about something (whilst carefully ignoring the chilling effect on speech, spirals of silence, etc).

wareyin 11th January 2023 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain (Post 13985451)
The politics of Zionism ...

Man, the over the top conservative parody was funny. The serious adoption of conspiracy theory right wing lunatic antics isn't.

Donal 11th January 2023 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain (Post 13985451)
The politics of Zionism saw cancel culture long before the term became vogue. The viral clip of Helen Thomas ended her career. Norman Finkelstein was set to be granted tenure at DePaul when the president of the university overruled the faculty (thanks in part to a campaign from Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz). Finkelstein was out of a job that guaranteed lifetime employment. Alan Dershowitz, who was caught dead-to-rights for academic misconduct (by Finkelstein) kept his job, thanks to team player Elena Kagan (then the dean of Harvard Law, and protector of plagiarists). Bari Weiss tried to get a professor at Columbia fired while she was an undergrad. Campus Watch groups encouraged students to secretly record professors criticizing Israel. So, yeah, "free speech warriors" should not have any trouble condemning this action, and seeing it as part of a long pattern.

In other contexts, resident cancel culture apologists would have been quick to note that the "victim" still managed to receive lucrative employment, so nobody has been "canceled." In this case, Roth quickly accepted an offer at another Ivy League school, which is supposed to say something about something (whilst carefully ignoring the chilling effect on speech, spirals of silence, etc).

Doesn't that prove the point, though? That "cancel culture" as it is usually referenced doesn't exist?

There have always been types of speech and even outgroups that have punished whether or not it was done by some sort of official authority. The internet, especially social media, has made this faster, and a lot louder. And there are plenty of undeserving victims of all political and social stripes.

No one is specifically immune from being on the receiving or giving end, either. Recently, there was an adjunct professor fired from a liberal arts college in Minnesota because she display a painting that included a depiction of Muhammad in her lecture during an art history class. It appears the administration overreacted to perceived Islamophobia.

But, that is a rare example. The conversation surrounding "Free speech" today is completely dominated by grifters and reactionaries, particularly of right-wing flavors. There's plenty of important and nuanced discussion to be had, but it's drowned out by frauds like Barri Weiss and Mike Cernovitch. It's still weaponized by rich and powerful interests to silence ideas they don't like.

Graham2001 11th January 2023 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donal (Post 13985018)
OK, Free Speech Warriors, time to step up and protect an academic who was dismissed by Harvard for voicing an opinion the school deemed wrong.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


I can't wait for Barri Weiss and Ryan Douthat to write think pieces defending him. I hope FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest give him a platform. You know, for healthy debate.


The Foundation for Individual Rights & Expression has written an article about this, and they compare this case to others on both sides of politics they've dealt with.


Quote:

The dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School has refused to approve the fellowship of the man — hailed as the “godfather” of human rights work — because he disagrees with his stance on Israel.

HKS, one of the top public policy institutions in the world, has violated Harvard’s clear commitments to free expression by denying former Human Rights Watch executive Kenneth Roth a fellowship because of his purported “anti-Israel bias.” As always, FIRE is neutral on Roth’s views on Israel, as well as the underlying Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and has defended individuals on every side of the issue.


https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-cr...ths-fellowship


and they must be right wing because one of their staffers went on GBNews to discuss the Hamline Affair.


Quote:

Free speech laws and culture are much different on the other side of the Atlantic, but that doesn’t limit FIRE’s advocacy to this side of the pond. Recently, FIRE attorney Alex Morey appeared on the British television station GB News to discuss FIRE’s support for professor Erika López Prater, who was punished by Hamline University for showing a well-known depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in an art history class.

https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-at...tish-audiences

Donal 11th January 2023 02:42 PM

I've read stuff from FIRE before and I think they are one of the few outspoken parties in this discussion that actually is trying to be objective. I don't always agree with what their members may say, but I think they act in good faith and make reasonable arguments.

johnny karate 11th January 2023 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham2001 (Post 13985893)
The Foundation for Individual Rights & Expression has written an article about this, and they compare this case to others on both sides of politics they've dealt with.






https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-cr...ths-fellowship


and they must be right wing because one of their staffers went on GBNews to discuss the Hamline Affair.





https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-at...tish-audiences


FIRE is a legitimate legal organization that generally rises above the fray of “cancel culture” fear-mongering. Not too sure what posting a link to them commenting on this issue does to refute the claim that “cancel culture” is primarily a right wing fever dream pushed by disingenuous hacks and opportunists.

Cain 12th January 2023 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13985637)
Man, the over the top conservative parody was funny. The serious adoption of conspiracy theory right wing lunatic antics isn't.

What's the conspiracy theory and how is it right-wing? I suppose we could say the original story is a conspiracy theory: unnamed, influential donors halted this appointment because of a critical HRW report. You didn't seem to have a problem with that. You do seem to have a problem when I identify your tribalistic inconsistencies, and that sort of amuses me.

Cain 12th January 2023 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donal (Post 13985683)
Doesn't that prove the point, though? That "cancel culture" as it is usually referenced doesn't exist?

"as it is usually referenced" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. In general, it's kind of weird to argue that something does not exist because it has always existed. If cancel culture is "usually referenced" as an entirely new phenomenon with no antecedents in history, then, yeah, I suppose what you're saying works on some level. Instead, I think cancel culture usually refers to the idea that "The internet, especially social media, has made this faster, and a lot louder." Right-wingers opportunistically use it as a cudgel, trying to claim the mantle of "warriors for free speech." That's bad because they're generally not principled defenders of free expression, as demonstrated by "canceling" communists, the Beatles, anti-war opponents, "satanic" metal bands, hip-hop artists, Bill Maher, and even the Dixie Chicks.

Defending expression for what one despises has always been the acid test.

From Greg Lukianoff: We define cancel culture as “the measurable uptick, since roughly 2014, of campaigns to get people fired, disinvited, deplatformed, or otherwise punished for speech that is — or *would be* — protected by the First Amendment.” Source

Cain 12th January 2023 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13986014)
FIRE is a legitimate legal organization that generally rises above the fray of “cancel culture” fear-mongering. Not too sure what posting a link to them commenting on this issue does to refute the claim that “cancel culture” is primarily a right wing fever dream pushed by disingenuous hacks and opportunists.

Greg Lukianoff, the president of FIRE, disagrees (a previous president of FIRE was conservative David French). The group has received funding by right-wing billionaires. Anyway, Lukianoff is a leading opponent of cancel culture. Maybe the leading opponent. Here's an article he authored: Don’t Stop Using the Term ‘Cancel Culture’

"A culture of censorship—of shaming, shunning, and attempting to destroy people’s lives for ideological reasons—exists in America, and Americans have a name for it: cancel culture.

Let’s not abandon that name in a vain attempt to please the people most responsible for perpetuating the problem."

Dr. Keith 12th January 2023 11:27 PM

The adjunct prof will likely make more money for less work at a grocery store. The entire adjunct system is a scam. That is the real crime in the story: professor loses position and her life is better for it.

Gulliver Foyle 13th January 2023 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham2001 (Post 13985893)
The Foundation for Individual Rights & Expression has written an article about this, and they compare this case to others on both sides of politics they've dealt with.






https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-cr...ths-fellowship


and they must be right wing because one of their staffers went on GBNews to discuss the Hamline Affair.





https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-at...tish-audiences

I would advise against anybody going on GBN unless they're a stark raving brexiteer conspiracy theorist. That channel is only interested in hearing those who unfailingly agree with its editorial line.

wareyin 13th January 2023 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain (Post 13986918)
What's the conspiracy theory and how is it right-wing?

The part I quoted. And it's right wing because right wingers are the ones banging on about Zionism in their kooky conspiracy theories.


hth, hand

johnny karate 13th January 2023 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain (Post 13986924)
Greg Lukianoff, the president of FIRE, disagrees (a previous president of FIRE was conservative David French). The group has received funding by right-wing billionaires. Anyway, Lukianoff is a leading opponent of cancel culture. Maybe the leading opponent. Here's an article he authored: Don’t Stop Using the Term ‘Cancel Culture’

"A culture of censorship—of shaming, shunning, and attempting to destroy people’s lives for ideological reasons—exists in America, and Americans have a name for it: cancel culture.

Let’s not abandon that name in a vain attempt to please the people most responsible for perpetuating the problem."

Cool. :thumbsup: None of that contradicts what I posted.

johnny karate 13th January 2023 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain (Post 13986920)
"as it is usually referenced" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. In general, it's kind of weird to argue that something does not exist because it has always existed. If cancel culture is "usually referenced" as an entirely new phenomenon with no antecedents in history, then, yeah, I suppose what you're saying works on some level. Instead, I think cancel culture usually refers to the idea that "The internet, especially social media, has made this faster, and a lot louder." Right-wingers opportunistically use it as a cudgel, trying to claim the mantle of "warriors for free speech." That's bad because they're generally not principled defenders of free expression, as demonstrated by "canceling" communists, the Beatles, anti-war opponents, "satanic" metal bands, hip-hop artists, Bill Maher, and even the Dixie Chicks.

Defending expression for what one despises has always been the acid test.

From Greg Lukianoff: We define cancel culture as “the measurable uptick, since roughly 2014, of campaigns to get people fired, disinvited, deplatformed, or otherwise punished for speech that is — or *would be* — protected by the First Amendment.” Source

You know what else is protected by the First Amendment? Campaigns to get people fired, disinvited, or deplatformed.

But I guess free speech that is unpleasant or offensive is reserved solely for the bigoted and the obnoxious.

For anyone else using free speech in ways other people might not like, we have to come up with scare term that makes it seem like the foundations of society are being threatened.

ahhell 13th January 2023 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13987140)
You know what else is protected by the First Amendment? Campaigns to get people fired, disinvited, or deplatformed.

But I guess free speech that is unpleasant or offensive is reserved solely for the bigoted and the obnoxious.

For anyone else using free speech in ways other people might no like, we have to come up with scare term that makes it seem like the foundations of society are being threatened.

Sure, that's why Cancel Culture isn't a violation of the first amendment but it is an attack on free speech. Folks have the right to try an get others fired because they don't like the other guys opinions, The rest of us also have the right to call those folks ********.

johnny karate 13th January 2023 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahhell (Post 13987150)
Sure, that's why Cancel Culture isn't a violation of the first amendment but it is an attack on free speech. Folks have the right to try an get others fired because they don't like the other guys opinions, The rest of us also have the right to call those folks ********.

People exercising their right to freedom of association is not an attack on anyone else's right to free speech. If you get fired, disinvited, or deplatformed, you still have free speech.

ahhell 13th January 2023 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13987158)
People exercising their right to freedom of association is not an attack on anyone else's right to free speech. If you get fired, disinvited, or deplatformed, you still have free speech.

So then, commies still had freedom of speech in 1950s hollywood?

ETA: There's not much point in taking this further really. I can't imagine a way to convince you that shouting folks down and trying to get them fired for speaking their minds is a bad thing. I don't know how you could convince me its not a bad thing.

I do agree private citizens using their free speech rights to prevent others from speeking is fundamentally different from the government doing it though. Legal use of force and what not, etc. In my mind, that doesn't make it ok to shout folks down just because you disagree with them though.

I'll probably keep at it though, there might be members of the audience who are ambivalent regarding the value of a culture of free speech along with a legal framework of free speech.

johnny karate 13th January 2023 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahhell (Post 13987164)
So then, commies still had freedom of speech in 1950s hollywood?

ETA: There's not much point in taking this further really. I can't imagine a way to convince you that shouting folks down and trying to get them fired for speaking their minds is a bad thing. I don't know how you could convince me its not a bad thing.

I do agree private citizens using their free speech rights to prevent others from speeking is fundamentally different from the government doing it though. Legal use of force and what not, etc. In my mind, that doesn't make it ok to shout folks down just because you disagree with them though.

"Bad thing" =/= "Attack on free speech".

And what constitutes a "bad thing" is subjective. Luckily, we have a fundamental right to freedom of association in this country so that no one's subjective take on what constitutes a "bad thing" will force anyone to associate with people they don't want to.

Also, the Hollywood blacklist was a conspiracy between studio power brokers to deny certain people employment. How you connect that to people who have no actual power to get someone fired saying someone should get fired, I have no idea.

ahhell 13th January 2023 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13987169)
"Bad thing" =/= "Attack on free speech".

And what constitutes a "bad thing" is subjective. Luckily, we have a fundamental right to freedom of association in this country so that no one's subjective take on what constitutes a "bad thing" will force anyone to associate with people they don't want to.

Also, the Hollywood blacklist was a conspiracy between studio power brokers to deny certain people employment. How you connect that to people who have no actual power to get someone fired saying someone should get fired, I have no idea.

You have a valid point, its not an exact parallel between the black list and modern cancel culture. A better comparison would be 1980s family values type letter writing campaigs to get tv shows of the air or the campaign against the Dixie Chicks.

Regardless, in this case, attempts to get folks fired or deplatformed are pretty clearly attacks on free speech. I honestly don't see how that isn't obvious. Its not censorship as its not the government but its still pretty clearly an attack on free speech. A group getting together and saying I don't like what you are saying so we are going to try an keep you from saying it or at least punish you for saying it. The attempts to get folks fired are especially bad in my opinion. Thats basically saying I don't like what you are saying so you shouldn't be allowed to work.

wareyin 13th January 2023 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahhell (Post 13987150)
Sure, that's why Cancel Culture isn't a violation of the first amendment but it is an attack on free speech. Folks have the right to try an get others fired because they don't like the other guys opinions, The rest of us also have the right to call those folks ********.

So...when you call folks ******** it's simply like, your opinion, man. But if those other people say they won't do business with an ******** then they're objectively bad people who are attacking free speech?

You (general) are free to be an ******* or a bigot. But sometimes the consequences of being a bigot in public mean that people don't want to do business with a company that puts a bigot or an ******* out there as a representative. So, you get your free speech to say whatever ******* or bigot thing you want to, but "free speech" doesn't exempt you from the consequences of what you say. And facing the consequences of your own actions is not an attack on free speech. (again, all "you"s in this paragraph are intented to be general you, not ahhell specific you)

johnny karate 13th January 2023 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahhell (Post 13987184)
You have a valid point, its not an exact parallel between the black list and modern cancel culture. A better comparison would be 1980s family values type letter writing campaigs to get tv shows of the air or the campaign against the Dixie Chicks.

That's exactly correct. You'll notice that no one was calling it "cancel culture" back then, and there were no breathless diatribes about the erosion of free speech. In other words, this phenomenon was going on long before we had a catchy name for it, and somehow society hasn't collapsed yet.

Quote:

Regardless, in this case, attempts to get folks fired or deplatformed are pretty clearly attacks on free speech. I honestly don't see how that isn't obvious. Its not censorship as its not the government but its still pretty clearly an attack on free speech. A group getting together and saying I don't like what you are saying so we are going to try an keep you from saying it or at least punish you for saying it. The attempts to get folks fired are especially bad in my opinion. Thats basically saying I don't like what you are saying so you shouldn't be allowed to work.
Other people saying things you don't like will never be an attack on free speech, no matter how much you want it be. It is and will always be just an other expression of free speech.

If you think it's "bad", that is your prerogative. Luckily, you have the right to express that as an expression of your free speech.

As a side note, I think someone saying "you shouldn't be allowed to work" is fairly innocuous in terms of offensive speech, considering that a lot people use their free speech to tell others they shouldn't be allowed to exist.

ahhell 13th January 2023 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13987193)
That's exactly correct. You'll notice that no one was calling it "cancel culture" back then, and there were no breathless diatribes about the erosion of free speech. In other words, this phenomenon was going on long before we had a catchy name for it, and somehow society hasn't collapsed yet.

No, they didn't call it cancel culture but there were definite breathless diatribes against it. As I recall, there was much kvetching about much less aggressive attacks on free speech. Things likethe V chip and labeling records with content warnings got quite a bit of push back.

There were widespread compaigns to get howard stern off the air too. The only thing new about the current version is that there are a lot of leftist who support it. That was not generally the case in the past. It was almost always conservatives in the day.

Quote:



Other people saying things you don't like will never be an attack on free speech, no matter how much you want it be. It is and will always be just an other expression of free speech.

If you think it's "bad", that is your prerogative. Luckily, you have the right to express that as an expression of your free speech.

As a side note, I think someone saying "you shouldn't be allowed to work" is fairly innocuous in terms of offensive speech, considering that a lot people use their free speech to tell others they shouldn't be allowed to exist.
There is a big difference between just saying, I don't think you should work and organizing a compaign to ensure that you don't work.

Every once in a while I run accross folks who just see things so differently from me, I don't even know how to approach the conversation in a way that they can understand and I don't quite know how to see things from their perspective. This might be one of those times.

The thing I find confusing is that until recently it was almost always lefties getting canceled, you'd think lefties would have more sympathy for it as a result.

johnny karate 13th January 2023 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahhell (Post 13987211)
No, they didn't call it cancel culture but there were definite breathless diatribes against it. As I recall, there was much kvetching about much less aggressive attacks on free speech. Things likethe V chip and labeling records with content warnings got quite a bit of push back.

There were widespread compaigns to get howard stern off the air too. The only thing new about the current version is that there are a lot of leftist who support it. That was not generally the case in the past. It was almost always conservatives in the day.

I think you might be zeroing in why this has suddenly become a problem.

Quote:

There is a big difference between just saying, I don't think you should work and organizing a compaign to ensure that you don't work.
The only people who can ensure that someone doesn't work are those that actually do the hiring and firing. Someone saying "I don't think you should be allowed to work" does not have that power.

Quote:

Every once in a while I run accross folks who just see things so differently from me, I don't even know how to approach the conversation in a way that they can understand and I don't quite know how to see things from their perspective. This might be one of those times.

The thing I find confusing is that until recently it was almost always lefties getting canceled, you'd think lefties would have more sympathy for it as a result.
It depends on the specific case, doesn't it? The example of the professor not having their contract renewed because they displayed a picture of Mohammed has created a huge uproar within traditionally "leftist" circles, because it was viewed as unjust.

But if an obnoxious bigot gets fired for being an obnoxious bigot, I'm not sure why anyone should care.

If you are truly interested in having a productive discussion about his issue, it would help if we examined nuances and stopped with the lazy generalities.

autumn1971 13th January 2023 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahhell (Post 13987211)
No, they didn't call it cancel culture but there were definite breathless diatribes against it. As I recall, there was much kvetching about much less aggressive attacks on free speech. Things likethe V chip and labeling records with content warnings got quite a bit of push back.

There were widespread compaigns to get howard stern off the air too. The only thing new about the current version is that there are a lot of leftist who support it. That was not generally the case in the past. It was almost always conservatives in the day.

There is a big difference between just saying, I don't think you should work and organizing a compaign to ensure that you don't work.

Every once in a while I run accross folks who just see things so differently from me, I don't even know how to approach the conversation in a way that they can understand and I don't quite know how to see things from their perspective. This might be one of those times.

The thing I find confusing is that until recently it was almost always lefties getting canceled, you'd think lefties would have more sympathy for it as a result.

The v-chip thing and the record ratings thing were often championed by left-wing politicians.

I just return to the facts of the market; eventually, and even now and in the recent past social media is seen by accountants as the silly ephemera of over-amplified people whose da rings will have little to no effect on the bottom line.

This too shall pass.

Or economics doesn’t work

ZirconBlue 13th January 2023 01:02 PM

Now they're trying to Cancel M&Ms!

d4m10n 14th January 2023 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13987193)
That's exactly correct. You'll notice that no one was calling it "cancel culture" back then, and there were no breathless diatribes about the erosion of free speech.

IIRC, there were a few think pieces if not breathless diatribes.

Quote:

”The Dixie Chicks have taken a big hit lately for exercising their basic right to express themselves, To me, they’re terrific American artists expressing American values by using their American right to free speech,” Springsteen wrote. ”For them to be banished wholesale from radio stations, and even entire radio networks, for speaking out is un-American. The pressure coming from the government and big business to enforce conformity of thought concerning the war and politics goes against everything that this country is about — namely freedom. Right now, we are supposedly fighting to create free speech in Iraq, at the same time that some are trying to intimidate and punish people for using that same freedom here at home. I don’t know what happens next, but I do want to add my voice to those who think that the Dixie Chicks are getting a raw deal, and an un-American one to boot. I send them my support.”
https://ew.com/article/2003/04/23/br...-dixie-chicks/

Quote:

"They're not exactly the people your civics teacher would expect to find at the center of a raging debate over free speech in America."
https://www.salon.com/2003/04/28/chicks_sawyer/

Quote:

Government-sanctioned intolerance has even trickled into our private lives. People brandishing anti-war signs or slogans have been turned away from commuter trains in Seattle and suburban shopping malls in upstate New York. Cafeterias are serving "freedom fries." Country music stations stopped playing Dixie Chicks songs, and the Baseball Hall of Fame cancelled an event featuring "Bull Durham" stars Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, after they spoke out against the war on Iraq.

Compounding the offense is the silence from many lawmakers. There is palpable fear even in the halls of Congress of expressing an unpopular view.

Why should this disturb us? Because democracy is not a quiet business. Its lifeblood is the free and vibrant exchange of ideas.
https://www.aclu.org/other/freedom-u...st-911-america


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.