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)

tyr_13 5th September 2022 08:16 PM

Perhaps this is an actual cancellation? People objected to some statements by an indie game dev, and reviewed their game poorly. The dev decided to keep making the same statements and a few more, until the outrage generated by people trying to 'cancel' them left Valve with little choice but to remove the game from Steam.

Of course the statements were targeted harassment and anti-trans, anti-masking, statements including in their patch notes. This includes specific harassment of a trans woman streamer who had been doxed, swatted, and then stalked by famous trans bigots at KiwiFarms. People targeted by them have gone through a lot of hell, to the point where several have killed themselves.

But the violations of the TOS that the dev engaged in ALSO did create a lot of online outrage. So where they cancelled? Does supporting illegal activity mean this cancellation doesn't count for some reason?

https://kotaku.com/keffals-steam-dev...-pc-1849487860

wareyin 6th September 2022 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13892209)
How about outside of this thread?

I don't have the sense that you think the phrase "cancel culture" refers to anything which has actually happened, anywhere, at any time.

This is your hobby horse. This is the thing you're claiming is happening, and apparently to a degree that is in some way bad or troubling. But now you'd like me to go trawling the web to try to find better examples than a coffee shop that never could pay the bills or a podcast falling apart due to creative differences? Why do I need to find evidence for your claim?

d4m10n 6th September 2022 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13894789)
Why do I need to find evidence for your claim?

I'm just not getting the sense that you think cancellations ever happen at all, and you seem oddly reluctant to say whether cancellation is a real cultural phenomenon or not.

Here's a new potential cancellation for today:

https://twitter.com/andrewdoyle_com/...26537803120641

https://twitter.com/SpitfireAudio/st...96663470211072

https://twitter.com/GSpellchecker/st...74505604284416

wareyin 6th September 2022 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13894930)
I'm just not getting the sense that you think cancellations ever happen at all, and you seem oddly reluctant to say whether cancellation is a real cultural phenomenon or not.

Which part of "your claim, your burden of proof" is tripping you up? The part where it's been rather difficult for you to supply good evidence?

This is evidence that taking public controversial stances can cause your employer to ask you not to, sure. Are employers not supposed to be able to distance themselves from troublemaking employees' public acts of mischief?

d4m10n 6th September 2022 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13894944)
Which part of "your claim, your burden of proof" is tripping you up?

The part where you quoted the claim to be proven.

Put that aside for a moment, though. I'm trying to understand whether you believe "cancellation" is a word which refers to something real, like St. Nicholas, or something mythical, like Santa Claus. If no one has ever been cancelled, in your view, then we aren't even talking about the same phenomenon and may as well be speaking different languages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13894944)
Are employers not supposed to be able to distance themselves from troublemaking employees' public acts of mischief?

This thread isn't about what employers are able to do, but what they ought to do.

wareyin 7th September 2022 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13895222)
The part where you quoted the claim to be proven.

Ah, ok. If, in this thread that's a continuation of your "cancel culture IRL" hobby horse you make no actual claim that cancel culture is even a thing, then I guess we don't have to worry about it now do we?

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13895222)
Put that aside for a moment, though. I'm trying to understand whether you believe "cancellation" is a word which refers to something real, like St. Nicholas, or something mythical, like Santa Claus. If no one has ever been cancelled, in your view, then we aren't even talking about the same phenomenon and may as well be speaking different languages.

Please find some unambiguous "cancellation" that isn't better explained by more mundane details, and then we can discuss.

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13895222)
This thread isn't about what employers are able to do, but what they ought to do.

I see. Are you of the opinion that an employer shouldn't take steps to limit public harms that an employee does to the employer?

At what point does the right of an ******* to take public ******* stances outweigh the rights of an employer or venue to choose who they publicly support? Do the ******** always take precedence in your opinion?

d4m10n 7th September 2022 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13895645)
Please find some unambiguous "cancellation" that isn't better explained by more mundane details, and then we can discuss.

I'm not sure what would make it unambiguous, in your view. You don't seem to believe anyone has ever attempted to have anyone cancelled, despite a few dozen examples of people trying to get other people deplatformed or worse.



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

wareyin 8th September 2022 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13896214)
I'm not sure what would make it unambiguous, in your view. You don't seem to believe anyone has ever attempted to have anyone cancelled, despite a few dozen examples of people trying to get other people deplatformed or worse.



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

It generally is frustrating for "honest" purveyors of a woo concept that people look critically at what they're claiming and usually find plenty of mundane explanations that fit better without having to add extraneous assumptions in to make it fit.

d4m10n 8th September 2022 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13896497)
It generally is frustrating for "honest" purveyors of a woo concept that people look critically at what they're claiming and usually find plenty of mundane explanations that fit better without having to add extraneous assumptions in to make it fit.

There is nothing remotely magical or wooish about a mob of people demanding that someone be deplatformed, demonetized, disemployed, or disemboweled for expressing unpopular ideas.

wareyin 9th September 2022 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13897265)
There is nothing remotely magical or wooish about a mob of people demanding that someone be deplatformed, demonetized, disemployed, or disemboweled for expressing unpopular ideas.

Ok, so you just want to complain about mobs of people? And give it a new name to make it sound like it's this new thing that should be very concerning?

gnome 9th September 2022 07:00 AM

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, then when asked for better examples, pointing to the rejection of the flawed ones and insisting that clearly the person asking for examples is unsatisfiable.

Or... maybe solid examples are difficult to find because it's not so widespread as some would have you believe.

d4m10n 9th September 2022 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13897886)
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...

Which defintion?



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

smartcooky 10th September 2022 07:50 PM

Uju Anya needs to be cancelled
 
Surprised to find that no-one has brought this up here until now.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-...negie-n1298818

After learning Thursday that Queen Elizabeth II was on her deathbed, a Carnegie Mellon University professor, Uju Anya, sent out a contentious tweet: “I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating.”
So some nobody professor of something no-one cares about says nasty things about Queeny, and suddenly, she fame and name recognition she does not deserve. I'm somewhat disappointed that she is Black. I was hoping she would be white so that I could say what I really think of her without someone having a chance to whip out the race card and accuse me of being a racist.

The university responded accordingly...

"We do not condone the offensive and objectionable messages posted by Uju Anya today on her personal social media account. Free expression is core to the mission of higher education, however, the views she shared absolutely do not represent the values of the institution, nor the standards of discourse we seek to foster."


And this is where I part company with the left in general. I agree with the University except that I don't think they have gone far enough. I think they should fire her arse forthwith!

Wishing a painful, excruciating death on anyone says more about the wisher than it ever would about the wishee. It makes Anya a vile and very nasty person. She should just keep opinion like this to herself.

Now make no mistake. I am not a Royalist... I don't give a fat rat's arse about them, and don't care whether they exist or not. I believe the world would be neither better or worse off without them, but that doesn't mean I would wish any of them to die painfully or in an excruciating fashion. Much as I dislike The Fat Orange Turd, and don't care if he lives or dies (although in his case, the world would in a better place without him) I would never wish a painful death on him.

Of course, as expected, some of the usual suspects have popped their heads up to defend her because of some crap about "universities being places of free and independent thought" or some such other banal garbage. **** it I say. Words matter, and when people in her position make disgusting remarks like hers, they matter even more - I don't want people like her influencing young minds towards the kind of hatred and bigotry she is obviously infected with.

She should be handed her walking papers first thing Monday morning!

d4m10n 10th September 2022 07:53 PM

Basically, this.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

smartcooky 10th September 2022 08:46 PM

https://www.thefire.org/fire-urges-t...ciating-death/
"Is wishing someone ‘excruciating’ pain protected by the First Amendment? You bet!"
Once again, FIRE seems unable to distinguish between the 1st Amendment, which forbids the US Government from infringing the individual's right to free speech, and a Social Media Platform's right to decide what content they will or will not host, and a University's right to disassociate themselves from the hateful rhetoric of their staff.

Brainster 10th September 2022 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13899420)
https://www.thefire.org/fire-urges-t...ciating-death/
"Is wishing someone ‘excruciating’ pain protected by the First Amendment? You bet!"
Once again, FIRE seems unable to distinguish between the 1st Amendment, which forbids the US Government from infringing the individual's right to free speech, and a Social Media Platform's right to decide what content they will or will not host, and a University's right to disassociate themselves from the hateful rhetoric of their staff.

I agree that her comments were hateful and I am not predisposed to think highly of her scholarship. According to her webpage:

Quote:

Dr. Uju Anya is a university professor and researcher in applied linguistics, critical sociolinguistics, and critical discourse studies primarily examining race, gender, sexual, and social class identities in new language learning through the experiences of African American students.
Critical is code for the stuff that comes out of the south end of north-bound bulls.

But, I'm with FIRE and d4m10n on this; this is not an offense for which she should be fired. There is a strong argument that she should not even be reprimanded. Even though you are a classy enough person not to wish even Donald Trump such pain (not kidding about that), you would agree that there is a spectrum of opinion on that among Democrats in the USA that mostly ranges from "how much pain are we talking about here, really, compared to..." and "can I be the one to administer the punishment?"

I fully expect a response from one person about how no Democrat would think that followed by ten responses from Democrats that say yes they would.


And at that level of agreement, you gotta accept that it's free speech.

smartcooky 11th September 2022 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 13899454)
I agree that her comments were hateful and I am not predisposed to think highly of her scholarship. According to her webpage:

Critical is code for the stuff that comes out of the south end of north-bound bulls.

But, I'm with FIRE and d4m10n on this; this is not an offense for which she should be fired. There is a strong argument that she should not even be reprimanded.

As you are probably aware, I am very much a liberal... if I lived in the USA, I would be a firmly Democrat voter, and there would be almost nothing that would make me vote Republican.

That said, there are some things where I am distinctly, right of centre, and this is one of those things. There is no way that a social media platform should be required to host hateful rhetoric. Twitter shut down The Fat Orange Turd (and they were right to do so) and they removed Anya's hateful tweet (also the right decision). I also think universities ought to have the absolute right to distance themselves from hateful and vile comments, or any public comments that reflect badly on the university, made by staff or student. Silence risks being interpreted as agreement and assent. If I was a student at that college, I would be demanding her sacking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 13899454)
Even though you are a classy enough person not to wish even Donald Trump such pain (not kidding about that), you would agree that there is a spectrum of opinion on that among Democrats in the USA that mostly ranges from "how much pain are we talking about here, really, compared to..." and "can I be the one to administer the punishment?"

I fully expect a response from one person about how no Democrat would think that followed by ten responses from Democrats that say yes they would.


And at that level of agreement, you gotta accept that it's free speech.

I'm sure you are right about that, but how many would actually come out and post that they hope such and such a Republican colleague would die a painful and excruciating death? In other words, think what you like but shut up about your hatred and bigotry. IMO, people like Uju Anya are no different than The Fat Orange Turd, they say hateful things and help to make the world a worse place

d4m10n 11th September 2022 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13899420)
Once again, FIRE seems unable to distinguish between the 1st Amendment, which forbids the US Government from infringing the individual's right to free speech, and a Social Media Platform's right to decide what content they will or will not host, and a University's right to disassociate themselves from the hateful rhetoric of their staff.

Re: the distinction between U.S. & Twitter, FIRE writes the following:
Quote:

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. There is value in viewpoint diversity and in possessing knowledge about others’ arguments. By shutting down Anya’s speech, Twitter not only prevented Anya from expressing her viewpoint, but also prevented the public from learning more about her and hearing a perspective that they may not have considered discrimination — when moderating content on its platform. To promote a culture of free expression — which FIRE believes should be encouraged across American society — Twitter must allow minority and dissenting viewpoints to exist on its platform.
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.

They make basically the same argument for how Carnegie Mellon should approach this incident:
Quote:

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.”
I've yet to see a good argument that Uju Anya needs to be deplatformed or disemployed in order to protect something worth protecting in this case.

ETA: Came across an interesting pull quote from this MSNBC op-ed
Quote:

It underscores how vulnerable
public intellectuals are to
controversy-driven social
media pile-ons.

Man, I wish we had a useful phrase for this cultural phenomenon.

wareyin 12th September 2022 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13898548)
Which defintion?



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Judging by your examples? Who knows?

wareyin 12th September 2022 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13899631)
I've yet to see a good argument that Uju Anya needs to be deplatformed or disemployed in order to protect something worth protecting in this case.

(I certainly hope "disemployed" doesn't catch on, it sounds both clunky and pretentious.)

I don't think Anya should be fired, per se, but the University is certainly within its rights to distance themselves from an employee making controversial statements. The "something worth protecting" is the reputation of the University. If you only have a "platform" to shout hate speech on because of your employer or some other private company, your employer and that private company are not obligated to continue giving you the platform that you've been misusing. If Anya wasn't a Carnegie Mellon University professor, then her tweet wouldn't have got the attention that it did. Carnegie Mellon remaining quiet about her tweet gives the impression that they agree with it. Anya was free to say it only so far as saying it will not cause her to be jailed, she is not and should not be free from any of the consequences of using her position as a University professor to amplify her speech.

d4m10n 12th September 2022 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13900260)
Judging by your examples? Who knows?

Wasn't asking you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13897886)
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...

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.

wareyin 12th September 2022 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13900271)
Wasn't asking you.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13900271)
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.

And, as an example, you linked us to a coffee shop that had a bad business model and couldn't pay the bills.

d4m10n 12th September 2022 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13900328)
And, as an example, you linked us to a coffee shop that had a bad business model and couldn't pay the bills.

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.

wareyin 12th September 2022 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13900338)
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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13900338)
Since you've never actually seen a cancellation in progress, I really wouldn't expect you to recognize one when it happens.

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 12th September 2022 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13900378)
Mina's World never had a viable business model to pay the bills, as stated by the sole investor.

Do you happen to recall why the sole investor pulled out?

wareyin 12th September 2022 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13900387)
Do you happen to recall why the sole investor pulled out?

Do you happen to have an example of a cancellation that fits your stated definition of a cancellation?

smartcooky 12th September 2022 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13899631)
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.
Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.”
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.

ponderingturtle 13th September 2022 01:29 PM

Here we go true cancel culture. An event canceled due to threats of violence.

https://www.dallasnews.com/arts-ente...after-threats/

d4m10n 13th September 2022 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13900631)
...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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13900631)
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.

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.

smartcooky 13th September 2022 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13901608)
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.

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!

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13901608)
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.

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 14th September 2022 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13901768)
Who said anything about "legal" rights?

If you are talking about something other than legal rights, please tell me what you mean by rights.

smartcooky 14th September 2022 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13902420)
If you are talking about something other than legal rights, please tell me what you mean by rights.

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!

d4m10n 14th September 2022 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13900407)
Do you happen to have an example of a cancellation that fits your stated definition of a cancellation?

Evasion noted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13902663)
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.

*********. Every university admin knows that profs tweets about their ideas in their fields.

smartcooky 14th September 2022 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13902666)
*********. Every university admin knows that profs tweets about their ideas in their fields.

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!

Stout 15th September 2022 03:11 PM

Lo, gotta love the woke. Anya goes full crybully

Quote:

'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.
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.

Graham2001 26th September 2022 02:20 AM

From the New York Times:


Quote:

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/u...eg-smaker.html


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


Quote:

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.

https://www.forkfilms.com/jihad-rehab-letter/

Stout 28th September 2022 04:10 PM

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.

d4m10n 13th October 2022 02:49 PM

Sam Harris #300 - A Tale of Cancellation
 
https://twitter.com/MakingSenseHQ/st...09093059764224

pgwenthold 21st October 2022 07:16 AM

Newsmax has cancelled Lara Logan

https://www.thedailybeast.com/lara-l...bel-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.

d4m10n 23rd October 2022 08:21 AM

Interesting episode focused on how to free oneself from cancel culture without leaving leftism or liberalism behind in the process:

https://twitter.com/TheBARPod/status...99485760372738

wareyin 24th October 2022 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13929521)
Interesting episode focused on how to free oneself from cancel culture without leaving leftism or liberalism behind in the process:

https://twitter.com/TheBARPod/status...99485760372738

A link to a tweet which is a link to a podcast? I feel like you can at least get one or two more hoops people need to jump through to hear a podcast that you have no comment on.

Lemme guess, we should all just tolerate the bigots and allow them to have the stage as though their bigotry deserves equal treatment?

d4m10n 26th October 2022 08:47 AM

Bigots should be allowed to have stages, yes.

Hell, I once heard an entire sermon from someone who said I deserved to be tortured by fire forever.

wareyin 26th October 2022 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13931452)
Bigots should be allowed to have stages, yes.

Hell, I once heard an entire sermon from someone who said I deserved to be tortured by fire forever.

You being cool with listening to and supporting bigots isn't a good argument that bigots should be allowed to use someone else's platform to spread their bigotry.

autumn1971 26th October 2022 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13929521)
Interesting episode focused on how to free oneself from cancel culture without leaving leftism or liberalism behind in the process:

https://twitter.com/TheBARPod/status...99485760372738

Do they talk about the ability of companies being free to do cost/benefit analyses to determine when to make their own economic decisions?
Or do they simply give up on market economics?

catsmate 26th October 2022 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13931452)
Bigots should be allowed to have stages, yes.

Hell, I once heard an entire sermon from someone who said I deserved to be tortured by fire forever.

:rolleyes:
Some of us understand the Paradox of Tolerance.

catsmate 26th October 2022 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by autumn1971 (Post 13931574)
Do they talk about the ability of companies being free to do cost/benefit analyses to determine when to make their own economic decisions?
Or do they simply give up on market economics?

So many "conservatives" only care about 'the market' when it suits their ideology.

d4m10n 26th October 2022 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 13931578)
Some of us understand the Paradox of Tolerance.

Some of us understand that it's okay to be skeptical of the Paradox of ToleranceWP instead of taking it as an article of faith.

catsmate 2nd November 2022 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13931723)
Some of us understand that it's okay to be skeptical of the Paradox of ToleranceWP instead of taking it as an article of faith.

So you'll be curing evidence for its (supposed) errancy?:rolleyes:

d4m10n 2nd November 2022 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 13936164)
So you'll be curing evidence for its (supposed) errancy?

Sure thing. Tell me what kind of intolerance you are hoping to perform and we'll see if Popper's argument actually support it.

Gulliver Foyle 5th November 2022 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 13931583)
So many "conservatives" only care about 'the market' when it suits their ideology.

Just as the right only care about free speech when its their speech being ignored. When they block evrrybody else from speaking we're supposed to just accept it and "move on".


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.