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)

smartcooky 22nd October 2021 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13636477)
You guys are getting dangerously close to committing a cancel against smartcooky. He’s already been anonymously called out for racist terminology, shamed, and forced to apologize

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

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

They all run away when the going gets tough anyway.

smartcooky 22nd October 2021 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13636439)
I rather suspect that if the poster were someone other than smartcooky, smartcooky would not accept that apology.

Never met a genuine apology I didn't accept

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13636438)
The entirely realistic outcome of your view toward speech is one that disallows dissent from the current orthodox view completely. Your view hands over the determination of 'acceptable' speech to a third party, and you do so while blithely assuming that such party will magically always hold the same views as you.

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13636439)
I think you also are blind to the completely subjective and selective nature of your position. For example, how do you feel about male people threatening female people with rape, calling them misogynistic names, and opinion that females should be killed, bombed? Are those types of speech that you think are acceptable and should be protected?

Cancel them

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

smartcooky 22nd October 2021 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13636406)
The current equity fund INCLUDES transgender people,

No, it doesn't

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13636406)
Are you actually arguing that Netflix has absolutely zero transgender content?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13636406)
Note that there are no ratings for "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic". Why do you think that "transphobic" should be a specific classification? Do you think that any other "ism" should also be a classification that is determined solely by people that are offended by that particular "ism"?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13636406)
I do so enjoy the males that preach that females are bigots for wanting to preserve female only spaces and acknowledge the reality of female biology. Nothing like seeing a male person opine that females should be punished for not letting some males do whatever they want... and somehow feel righteously justified in doing so.

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

What did you do, buy in bulk?

smartcooky 22nd October 2021 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13636419)
Are you aware that the highlighted is pretty much the entire reason that freedom of speech exists in the first place?

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

smartcooky 22nd October 2021 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13636409)
All that bigotry exuded by Free Black Thought

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

tyr_13 22nd October 2021 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13636074)
Is there some sort of progressive stack which makes it clear which sort of folk a rich black man can ethically poke fun at these days? Seems like making fun of white-passing/adjacent cisheteropatriachs has to get old after a short while, they're a fairly boring lot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

d4m10n 22nd October 2021 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13636573)
This false belief that 'progressives' (a lot of people who are not progressives feel the same way) operate on some kind of 'oppression Olympics hierarchy' is very widespread.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13636573)
And if a rich, famous, black comic makes flat jokes mocking not just individual people, but entire marginalized groups, that's still punching down.

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

tyr_13 22nd October 2021 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13636604)
I used the phrase progressive stackWP to indicate that I had a specific hierarchical implementation in mind, one used by actual people doing progressive activism. You might ought to have looked it up prior to declaring it unreal.

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

Quote:

Okay, I get it. Anything making fun of anyone who is oppressed in any way is punching down. All comedy will henceforth make fun of well-off white neurotypical able-bodied cisgender heterosexual males who don't suffer from addiction or any other pitiable conditions.
You don't get it, and you're trying not to. I'm fine with that and have no delusions I'm going to convince you or that you care. That won't stop me from using your writings to point out the flaws in your reasoning though.

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

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

d4m10n 22nd October 2021 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13636610)
Mocking Jenner for her idiotic arguments is fine even though she is a trans woman, mocking her for being a trans woman is punching down.

Did Chappelle actually do this?

Quote:

I even gave a bunch of examples.
No, you did not. You provided vague hypotheticals instead of quoting, say, Chappelle.

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

tyr_13 22nd October 2021 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13636623)
Did Chappelle actually do this?

I never claimed he did.

Quote:

No, you did not. You provided vague hypotheticals instead of quoting, say, Chappelle.
Chappelle's material was literally another example I used.

Quote:

When he came up with the recurring crackhead bit (for example) was that punching down?
Yeah, in many cases it was. Which he realized.

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

Emily's Cat 22nd October 2021 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13636477)
You guys are getting dangerously close to committing a cancel against smartcooky. He’s already been anonymously called out for racist terminology, shamed, and forced to apologize

This made me laugh. :D :thumbsup:

Emily's Cat 22nd October 2021 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13636527)
Never met a genuine apology I didn't accept

Fair enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13636527)
The entirely realistic (and currently observed) outcome of your view toward speech is one that allows anything. Your view allows racism, bigotry, homophobia and transphobia to go unchecked and unimpeded, and greatly helps to divide society, while blithely assuming that everyone else will magically always hold the same views as you.

I disagree. Disallowing that speech doesn't make the beliefs go away. It just makes people who don't hold those beliefs extremely paranoid about anything they say that might be misinterpreted.

Allowing that speech also allows it to be challenged and debated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13636527)
It is worth noting that countries such as the UK and other European countries have had the kinds of laws I advocate, against hate speech, for at least two decades, and yet the sky has not fallen in any of those places. So far, NONE of your "entirely realistic outcome" has come to pass. I wonder why that is? ;)

There is that whole bit where females in Scotland and Northern Ireland are being arrested and charged with "hate crimes" for posting some pretty basic science and feminist views on social media.


Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13636527)
Cancel them

Cancelling them would get me labeled a "transphobe" and probably get me harassed IRL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13636527)
PS: you think that being against "threatening rape, calling them misogynistic names, and opinion that females should be killed, bombed"?" is a subjective view? Really? :jaw-dropp.
.

Yes, it is subjective. It's *reasonable* and *rational* but still subjective. It's based on what I, personally, with my cultural background and my moral premises, thinks are acceptable versus not acceptable. I think a lot of people agree with me, but that agreement doesn't make it objective.

Emily's Cat 22nd October 2021 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13636536)
No, it doesn't

Really? Do you happen to have a copy of their policy, and perhaps you can quote where transgender people are excluded?

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13636536)
I have a subscription to Netflix. I looked for it, there is none that I can find.

Your Netflix-fu is weak.
At a minimum... Disclosure

I'd say Orange is the New Black, and also Sabrina the Teenage Witch. Both of those feature fairly prominent transgender characters.

Also Q-Theory, and The Danish Girl.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13636536)
Well spotted. You should write to the Censor's Office and suggest it

Why would I do that? I think it's an incredibly stupid and repressive idea!

Emily's Cat 22nd October 2021 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13636538)
Yup, but as must be abundantly clear to you by now (surely), freedom of speech means something entirely different for me than it does for you.

I am well aware. It seems that for you freedom of speech mostly means freedom to speak as long as they agree with you.

smartcooky 22nd October 2021 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13636661)
I am well aware. It seems that for you freedom of speech mostly means freedom to speak as long as they agree with you.

Glibness and ignorance in one phrase.

There is a veritable abundance of things I disagree with that I would allow people to express freely.

Climate change denial
Conspiracy theories
Government policies
Tax dodges for corporations and rich people
Support for the death penalty
Astrology
Fortune telling
Support for unrestricted gun ownership

....this is just a tiny sample...

I draw the line at bigotry against protected classes of people, e.g. racism, homophobia, transphobia

You draw the line at a much lower level.

smartcooky 22nd October 2021 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13636660)
Really? Do you happen to have a copy of their policy, and perhaps you can quote where transgender people are excluded?

Goal post shift. I never said they were excluded

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13636660)
Your Netflix-fu is weak.
At a minimum... Disclosure

I'd say Orange is the New Black, and also Sabrina the Teenage Witch. Both of those feature fairly prominent transgender characters.

Also Q-Theory, and The Danish Girl.

Disclosure: "this program is not available in your country"

Orange is the New Black: "this program is not available in your country"

Q-Theory: "this program is not available in your country"

Danish Girl:
"this program is not available in your country"

Sabrina is a program for teenagers... I've never seen that

smartcooky 22nd October 2021 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13636650)
I disagree. Disallowing that speech doesn't make the beliefs go away. It just makes people who don't hold those beliefs extremely paranoid about anything they say that might be misinterpreted.

Good, that is the effect I would hope for. Think about what you say before you say it means it is much harder to spread your racism and bigotry. I made the mistake of not doing that in post#311 and was rightly called for it by angrysoba.

Eventually the racists and bigots die off, leaving descendants who are far less likely to be racist and bigots, Its called breaking the cycle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13636650)
Allowing that speech also allows it to be challenged and debated.

Weak sauce indeed. If you eliminate the speech, there is no need to debate it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13636650)
There is that whole bit where females in Scotland and Northern Ireland are being arrested and charged with "hate crimes" for posting some pretty basic science and feminist views on social media.

The is well above were I draw the line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13636650)
Cancelling them would get me labeled a "transphobe" and probably get me harassed IRL.

Wait! Opposing the idea of "threatening female people with rape, calling them misogynistic names, and opining that females should be killed, bombed?"
would get you labelled a transphobe? Seriously?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13636650)
Yes, it is subjective. It's *reasonable* and *rational* but still subjective. It's based on what I, personally, with my cultural background and my moral premises, thinks are acceptable versus not acceptable. I think a lot of people agree with me, but that agreement doesn't make it objective.

You have a somewhat strange definition of "subjective"

lionking 22nd October 2021 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13636734)
Glibness and ignorance in one phrase.

There is a veritable abundance of things I disagree with that I would allow people to express freely.

Climate change denial
Conspiracy theories
Government policies
Tax dodges for corporations and rich people
Support for the death penalty
Astrology
Fortune telling
Support for unrestricted gun ownership

....this is just a tiny sample...

I draw the line at bigotry against protected classes of people, e.g. racism, homophobia, transphobia

You draw the line at a much lower level.

Well this is just a ridiculous list. The biggest threat to humanity is climate change, yet you will not censor debate about this, just your definition of "bigotry".

Upchurch 23rd October 2021 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13636447)
Topsy-turvy world: A black male is "punching down" at middle and upper class white males... whereas those particular middle and upper class white males are "punching up" at females.

Yes, because trans people have so much power compared to a popular celebrity who, despite all the handwringing, still has 5 comedy specials and a Comedy Central series on the world’s largest streaming service.

Also, are you under the impression that trans people are “middle and upper class white males”?

smartcooky 23rd October 2021 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13636777)
Well this is just a ridiculous list.

In your opinion :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13636777)
The biggest threat to humanity is climate change, yet you will not censor debate about this

Yes, and?

BTW, the Climate denial thread is thataway ----->

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13636777)
just your definition of "bigotry".

Bwahahaha! Seriously?

These are the general definitions I use

Prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

The treatment of members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

How about you? What definition do you use?

PS: You should know what bigotry looks like... Manus Island rings a bell does it?

d4m10n 23rd October 2021 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13636633)
Yeah, in many cases it was.

So in some cases the crackhead bits were okay?

Can you think of a one-hour set which doesn't include "punching down" as you've defined it? I'm curious to know what ethical comedy—the sort of comedy which needn't be protested, decatalogued, divested, or otherwise canceled—really sounds like.

(...but please don't make me watch Hanna Gadsby again.)

tyr_13 23rd October 2021 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13636980)
So in some cases the crackhead bits were okay?

Some parts were, yeah. This isn't a hard concept you're pretending is outrageous.

Quote:

Can you think of a one-hour set which doesn't include "punching down" as you've defined it?
So many that it really makes it difficult, and unwise to take your challenges seriously. I can't think of a single one from Bo Burnham or John Mulaney that doesn't meet your challenge. Even Bill Engvall and Larry the Cable Guy have entire sets that don't punch down once.

Quote:

I'm curious to know what ethical comedy—the sort of comedy which needn't be protested, decatalogued, divested, or otherwise canceled—really sounds like.

(...but please don't make me watch Hanna Gadsby again.)
No you're clearly not. You're again trying to make an argument you don't have to defend by putting up challenges and 'just asking questions'. Keep up with your straw version of my argument all you want, it doesn't make your argument valid.

d4m10n 23rd October 2021 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13637022)
I can't think of a single one from Bo Burnham or John Mulaney that doesn't meet your challenge. Even Bill Engvall and Larry the Cable Guy have entire sets that don't punch down once.

So...white male comics. Makes sense, I suppose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13637022)
This isn't a hard concept you're pretending is outrageous.

It's not difficult so much as it is homogenizing and boring.

tyr_13 23rd October 2021 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13637022)
Some parts were, yeah. This isn't a hard concept you're pretending is outrageous.



So many that it really makes it difficult, and unwise to take your challenges seriously. I can't think of a single one from Bo Burnham or John Mulaney that doesn't meet your challenge. Even Bill Engvall and Larry the Cable Guy have entire sets that don't punch down once.



No you're clearly not. You're again trying to make an argument you don't have to defend by putting up challenges and 'just asking questions'. Keep up with your straw version of my argument all you want, it doesn't make your argument valid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13637056)
So...white male comics. Makes sense, I suppose.

It's not difficult so much as it is homogenizing and boring.

What do you define 'boring' as? From your objections it would be 'anything that doesn't demean oppressed groups for being those groups.

d4m10n 23rd October 2021 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13637100)
What do you define 'boring' as?

Those specific white dudes are boring, IMO.

Do you support any QTBIPOC comics?

tyr_13 23rd October 2021 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13637156)
Those specific white dudes are boring, IMO.

That wasn't the challenge you set. You've hand waved twice over now, but will not actually meet a similar challenge. How many 'white dudes' aren't 'boring' and as 'homogenizing' as these stand ups as close in style as *checks notes* Larry The Cable Guy and Bo Burnham? I'm just trying to 'gauge your standards' that doesn't rely on punching down as comedy. So far we have they can't be white guys.

Quote:

Do you support any QTBIPOC comics?
Not a single one. /s :rolleyes:

I know the argument you desperately wish you could make is that people like me are the 'real racists' but you don't have the courage to admit that race might actually be an issue. Still you want to distract from my proven point. Your tastes are worthless in deciding the value of my original point and as you're not going to even try addressing it I'm done again with you.

dirtywick 23rd October 2021 12:35 PM

So are we now determining whether cancel culture is justified based on how funny or boring the speech is?

Dave Chapelle is just following his formula anyway, he’s the guy that “goes there” he’s retreading his last comedy special where he goes after trans people and creates a controversy and complains about how unfair he’s got it and if you don’t watch his thing then your basically supporting cancel culture. Talk about boring Davd I already saw this one last time.

In any case the real question here is what’s the problem? Dave says something some people don’t like, they make their case why it was bad, it’s up to the general public to decide whether or not they have an opinion to add and ultimately if want more or less Dave Chapelle comedy. To me that sounds a lot more like free speech in action than only Dave Chapelle gets to talk and if you don’t like his jokes you should just grow up and get over yourself.

smartcooky 23rd October 2021 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13637172)
I know the argument you desperately wish you could make is that people like me are the 'real racists' but you don't have the courage to admit that race might actually be an issue. Still you want to distract from my proven point. Your tastes are worthless in deciding the value of my original point and as you're not going to even try addressing it I'm done again with you.

:bigclap

Absolutely nailed it there!!

d4m10n 23rd October 2021 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13637172)
Not a single one.

If you're comfortable promoting the idea that only white male comics are doing it right, just own it.

It makes perfect sense to me that they'd be extra careful about "punching down," as the kids say, but I'm incredibly skeptical of the idea that they are adding more value than the average replacement level comic.

d4m10n 23rd October 2021 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13637176)
Dave says something some people don’t like, they make their case why it was bad, it’s up to the general public to decide whether or not they have an opinion to add and ultimately if want more or less Dave Chapelle comedy.

Check the Rotten Tomatoes audience ratings [emoji534]

tyr_13 23rd October 2021 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13637172)
Not a single one. /s :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13637191)
Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13
Not a single one.

If you're comfortable promoting the idea that only white male comics are doing it right, just own it.

It makes perfect sense to me that they'd be extra careful about "punching down," as the kids say, but I'm incredibly skeptical of the idea that they are adding more value than the average replacement level comic.

If anyone had any hope there was a chance d4m10n was engaging honestly or wasn't paying attention, look at what he cut out to try to make my argument indicate something it absolutely does not.

This is what the 'reasonable' critics of 'cancel culture' have to do. They have to outright lie in their arguments. It is sad how often that works when people could just scroll up, but people generally just gloss over the posts so it can still work.

dirtywick 23rd October 2021 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13637198)
Check the Rotten Tomatoes audience ratings [emoji534]

95%

Well, tell me more about how dangerous cancel culture is to free speech in comedy

smartcooky 23rd October 2021 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13637198)
Check the Rotten Tomatoes audience ratings [emoji534]

Bwhahahah! I take great notice of Rotten Tomatoes ratings

A low rating is "must watch" for me
A high rating means I can usually skip it.

smartcooky 23rd October 2021 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13637222)
If anyone had any hope there was a chance d4m10n was engaging honestly or wasn't paying attention, look at what he cut out to try to make my argument indicate something it absolutely does not.

I have long since lost any hope of of getting honest debate.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13637222)
This is what the 'reasonable' critics of 'cancel culture' have to do. They have to outright lie in their arguments. It is sad how often that works when people could just scroll up, but people generally just gloss over the posts so it can still work.

..... and I figured this one out a long time ago.
.
.

d4m10n 23rd October 2021 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13637225)
Well, tell me more about how dangerous cancel culture is to free speech in comedy

Are you generalizing from Dave Chappelle to the rest of comedy?

d4m10n 23rd October 2021 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13637222)
They have to outright lie in their arguments.

I've said nothing untrue or misleading. If you believe I've done so, FFS, use the quote function.

d4m10n 23rd October 2021 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13637237)
A high rating means I can usually skip it.

Are you talking about critic ratings or audience scores?

smartcooky 25th October 2021 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13637303)
Are you talking about critic ratings or audience scores?

Really, this is :offtopic but I'll answer, and then drop the subject

I take no real notice of film critics, amateur or professional. If the subject material interests we, I watch the movie myself, and make my own decision, and find it is often the opposite view from that of the critics

Examples...

Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker. Universally acclaimed and No 1 on many critics lists. I found it boring, tedious and repetitive. I walked out of the movie theatre at around the 45 minute mark.

Philip Alden Robinson's Sneakers. Pretty much panned across the board. Most ratings less than 50%. I thoroughly enjoyed it - its in my movie library and I have rewatched it a few times.

d4m10n 25th October 2021 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13638140)
Really, this is :offtopic but I'll answer, and then drop the subject.

I don't think the massive gap between elite opinion and audience reviews is off-topic in this specific case.

ETA: Sneakers was and remains awesome. I still have it on Laser Disc.

SuburbanTurkey 25th October 2021 05:23 AM

I don't think it can be underestimated how much self-aggrandization is a motivating factor for these cancel culture weirdos:

Quote:

Her appeal to older financiers was known but it became crystal clear when her session entitled “Talking Back to Cancel Culture” drew a capacity crowd that left some stuck outside in a queue. Weiss spent several minutes criticising her former employer The New York Times and decried what she called the “philosophy of woke”.

At one point Weiss compared her professional travails to the life of Galileo Galilei, the Italian scientist who was forced to renounce his views on heliocentrism to avoid being burnt at the stake. Her interviewer, the conservative political pollster, Frank Luntz, implored Weiss to throw her hat in the ring for the open US Senate seat in Weiss’ home state of Pennsylvania, an idea that was greeted with a burst of applause, marking the rare Milken conference talk where those in the audience were not fiddling with their phones.
https://www.ft.com/content/5d840a5c-...reType=nongift

Ahh yes, I suppose giving a popular speech to a standing-room only audience of wealthy elites is very much like the suffering of Galileo .

ponderingturtle 25th October 2021 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13636536)
I have a subscription to Netflix. I looked for it, there is none that I can find.

Look into documentary Disclosure on the history of how trans people have been portrayed in media.

ponderingturtle 25th October 2021 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13636910)
Yes, because trans people have so much power compared to a popular celebrity who, despite all the handwringing, still has 5 comedy specials and a Comedy Central series on the world’s largest streaming service.

Also, are you under the impression that trans people are “middle and upper class white males”?

They already killed all the trans women of color. But TERF's got to TERF.

angrysoba 25th October 2021 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13638246)
I don't think it can be underestimated how much self-aggrandization is a motivating factor for these cancel culture weirdos:



https://www.ft.com/content/5d840a5c-...reType=nongift

Ahh yes, I suppose giving a popular speech to a standing-room only audience of wealthy elites is very much like the suffering of Galileo .

Milkin?! That’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time. Got convicted for insider trading! I remember thinking it would be a hilarious name for a pair of con artist financiers to call their firm Milkin and Madoff. Very Dickensian.

Seriously, is there anybody who is not rich who is buying Bari Weiss’s books or listening to her podcasts to find out how much she has suffered, and agreeing with her unironically that the world has gone mad?

ponderingturtle 25th October 2021 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13638246)
I don't think it can be underestimated how much self-aggrandization is a motivating factor for these cancel culture weirdos:



https://www.ft.com/content/5d840a5c-...reType=nongift

Ahh yes, I suppose giving a popular speech to a standing-room only audience of wealthy elites is very much like the suffering of Galileo .

And yet express the wrong opinion on Israel and all those warriors against cancel culture will for some reason be canceling you.

angrysoba 25th October 2021 05:37 AM

She’s certainly Milkin her fifteen minutes of fame.

angrysoba 25th October 2021 05:43 AM

By the way, I called it in the other thread and I think I will be proved right that Peter Boghossian’s “cancellation” will be followed by “working” at something called Ralston College, which has sharing buttons for all major social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Parler etc… despite as yet having not had any courses, may not have any buildings and apparently has three courses available. You can learn Shakespeare from Tatiana McGrath and learn Samuel Johnson from Theodore Dalrymple. At this point you may be wondering whether or not Bogo has graduated from writing hoax papers to supporting and fundraising for a hoax university.

smartcooky 25th October 2021 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13638246)
I don't think it can be underestimated how much self-aggrandization is a motivating factor for these cancel culture weirdos:

Quote:

At one point Weiss compared her professional travails to the life of Galileo Galilei, the Italian scientist who was forced to renounce his views on heliocentrism to avoid being burnt at the stake.
Ahh yes, I suppose giving a popular speech to a standing-room only audience of wealthy elites is very much like the suffering of Galileo .

"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.” — Robert L. Park

angrysoba 25th October 2021 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13638689)
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.” — Robert L. Park

What's ironic about this is that Bari Weiss is not so much Galileo as some disgruntled clergyman after the Catholic Church has accepted heliocentricity.

"When the Sun is considered the centre and the Earth that we stand on goes round it, the world has gone mad!"

Emily's Cat 25th October 2021 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13636739)
Goal post shift. I never said they were excluded

Dafuq? This is some serious semantic tomfoolery. I said the current Equity fund already covers trans people, you said it did not. That means that trans people are not included in the Equity fund... therefore excluded. Don't play silly word games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13636739)
Disclosure: "this program is not available in your country"

Orange is the New Black: "this program is not available in your country"

Q-Theory: "this program is not available in your country"

Danish Girl:
"this program is not available in your country"

Sabrina is a program for teenagers... I've never seen that

Take that up with your country then. Don't pretend that there is no content for trans people on Netflix in the US, which is where the employees are that protested and demanded that they need to have *more* content for trans people.

Emily's Cat 25th October 2021 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13636745)
Good, that is the effect I would hope for. Think about what you say before you say it means it is much harder to spread your racism and bigotry. I made the mistake of not doing that in post#311 and was rightly called for it by angrysoba.

I think you need to carefully re-read my post again.

Because if your intent is to put people WHO DO NOT HOLD BIGOTED VIEWS into a state of constant paranoia... I think you might want to re-evaluate your views.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13636745)
If you eliminate the speech, there is no need to debate it.

Orwell would be so incredibly proud of you, ushering in the fascist dystopia with such fervor. You're a shoo-in for Inner Party.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13636745)
Wait! Opposing the idea of "threatening female people with rape, calling them misogynistic names, and opining that females should be killed, bombed?"
would get you labelled a transphobe? Seriously?

Yes. Quite literally.

Margaret Atwood, who has been a pretty die-hard trans supporter, recently "liked" an article that made the case that seeking transgender rights is a very good thing, but that being toxic and violent in ones activism is a bad thing.

She has now been labeled as a transphobe, received numerous threats, and has been doxxed alongside wishes of harm.

She didn't even actually say that it's bad to threaten females with rape, harm, etc. All she did was "like" an article that said it's bad... and well... now she's firmly in transphobe territory and the subject of that exact behavior.

So yes. I am serious.

ETA: This is the article that Atwood liked, and it is written by a transwoman.

Trans rights? Yes. Toxic, in-your-face activism? No

And this is a composite of the responses that Atwood received:
https://twitter.com/KatarinaHill2/st...057876480?s=20

And some more:
https://medium.com/@rebeccarc/margar...s-bd61ed7575ce

This is Margaret Atwood.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:26 AM.

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