Continuation Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

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

This made me laugh.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Never met a genuine apology I didn't accept

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Cancel them

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

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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? .
.

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]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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?

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

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]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

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

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

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]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

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.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

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.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

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.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

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?

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

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]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

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]

Originally Posted by lionking

Well this is just a ridiculous list.

In your opinion

Originally Posted by lionking

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 ----->

Originally Posted by lionking

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]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

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]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

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.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

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]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

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.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

What do you define 'boring' as?

Those specific white dudes are boring, IMO.

Do you support any QTBIPOC comics?

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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

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]

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]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

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.

Absolutely nailed it there!!

[d4m10n]

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.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

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

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Not a single one. /s

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Check the Rotten Tomatoes audience ratings

95%

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

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Check the Rotten Tomatoes audience ratings

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]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

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.....

Originally Posted by tyr_13

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]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

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]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

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]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

A high rating means I can usually skip it.

Are you talking about critic ratings or audience scores?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Are you talking about critic ratings or audience scores?

Really, this is 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]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Really, this is 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.

[TurkeysGhost]

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]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

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]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

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]

She’s certainly Milkin her fifteen minutes of fame.

[angrysoba]

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]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

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]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

"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]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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.