Continuation Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[JoeMorgue]

This is like someone going "Just because he calls himself a Rapist doesn't mean he rapes people."

Yes it does. WORDS MEAN THINGS.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I'm sure the cancel culture pundits will be along any time now to condemn these racist and censorious groups going around trying to mass purge books from public schools:



https://www.thedailybeast.com/far-ri...luther-king-jr

I predict crickets, or mealy mouthed platitudes about fairness.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Oh my God are we seriously having the "It's totally unreasonable (and not... TRUE SKEPTIC(TM)) to assume that just because someone says they are a Nazi that they are actually a Nazi" argument YET ******* AGAIN.

Yup.

As long as you have the enablers, the ostriches with their heads buried in the sand, the supporters of "the marketplace of ideas" and the "eVerYone ShoULd GeT a FaIr HeaRiNG" crowd, and those who invoke Torquemada every time their own arguments tank, then you will get this argument.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Not to beat this drum yet again but this also sounds a lot like the "I can't ignore you engaging the troll, so you have to ignore the troll" thing which I can't stand.

This fits in well with my observation that among this... type of people it's seen as better to have no standards (intellectual, moral, ethical, legal, whatever) then it is have standards and commit the Cardinal Sin of not living up to a 100% strawman, super-literal, no accounting for context version of them.

Here's how their thought process seems to works.

1. Someone tells them anything. This triggers the "How dare you tell me what to think!" subroutine. The idea that someone else has given them information they don't have offends them on a deep level and it drives them crazy. So much of their personal identity is wrapped up in "thinking for themselves" that they have started to actively rejected external information.

2. They immediately start looking for reasons the other person is a "hypocrite." And the way they do this is take the person's values, create a hyper-strawman version of them, find an incident where the person didn't live up to that version of their "standards.

For instance. AOC is actually pretty poor for a member of Congress, but she does make a halfway decent living, drives a fairly nice car, stuff like that. I mean just living in DC is goddamn expensive so I'm sure on a literal level she does throw around more money than average. But AOC is pretty far on the Right and speaks out a lot on class and wage disparity and the ultrawealthy. So the fact that AOC drives a Tesla means she's a... HYPOCRITE while a Republican Congressman worth many, many times more isn't. She is demonized for having standards. If you don't have standards you can never be a hypocrite, never be pretentious, never have to be taken down a peg, can't ever be "not as smart as you think you are" and all those other faults that these people focus on. The only sin you can commit to these people is aiming high and not making it. Wallow in the gutter and you can never let anyone down.

Now me, I operate much more on the "The pot can call the kettle black and the kettle can still be black" side of things. Hypocrisy is certainly an annoying personal trait but it doesn't override actual facts. Not matter the pot and kettles opinion of each other's blackness the RGB and Luminosity values of said pot and said kettle are verifiable facts that exist indendenatly. If I point a DataColor ColorReader at the pot and it returns an RGB value of #000000 the pot is black and the kettle's opinion is no longer needed or matters. The pot, the kettle, or anyone else can be hypocritical about the color of the pot or kettle they want, the facts don't change.

A person who says global warming is a problem and drives a nice car is STILL ******* CORRECT THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A PROBLEM. Class Disparage isn't not a thing just because AOC doesn't live in a cardboard box and take the bus.

This is why discussions with them always have to take place in some fantasy world they are making up. They never want to discuss events as they actually happened but alternate timelines they are making up in the brain where they can control all the variables.

That's why we have a dozen threads at random point on this board where there's one person who on top of a hill going "If you ignore all the reasons I'm wrong and judge my argument solely on my alternative universe version of events then you'll have to admit I'm right."

Did you mean to write "left" there?

Its kinda like criticizing Greta Thunberg for *gasp* riding on a diesel powered train and then deciding because of this she can be ignored and climate change is fictional.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Did you mean to write "left" there?

Yeah brain fart.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Yup.

As long as you have the enablers, the ostriches with their heads buried in the sand, the supporters of "the marketplace of ideas" and the "eVerYone ShoULd GeT a FaIr HeaRiNG" crowd, then you will get this argument.

Fascist: "Some people are sub-human and need to culled for the greater good of mankind."

Marketplace of idea supporter: "Well no I don't actually support that, but I support their right to say it".

Someone else: "I think genocide is like REALLY BAD and I'm going to voice my opinion by saying I'll boycott anyone that monetarily supports proponents of genocide whether its their employer, advertiser, investor etc".

Marketplace of idea supporter: "WTF OMG YOU CAN'T DO THAT! What about freedom of speech (for the fascist, but YOU can't say anything that might effect them in any negative way)".

Its absurd.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Are you aware that you're advocating for civil war and murder?

IS he? Where?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Fascist: "Some people are sub-human and need to culled for the greater good of mankind."

Marketplace of idea supporter: "Well no I don't actually support that, but I support their right to say it".

Someone else: "I think genocide is like REALLY BAD and I'm going to voice my opinion by saying I'll boycott anyone that monetarily supports proponents of genocide whether its their employer, advertiser, investor etc".

Marketplace of idea supporter: "WTF OMG YOU CAN'T DO THAT! What about freedom of speech (for the fascist, but YOU can't say anything that might effect them in any negative way)".

Its absurd.

100%, yet we have "fascists are people too" members right here on this forum, whose posts are exactly like those responses.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Its kinda like criticizing Greta Thunberg for *gasp* riding on a diesel powered train and then deciding because of this she can be ignored and climate change is fictional.

I'm sure it's been a "thing" on some level for pretty much ever, but for me the modern version of it it started when "Al Gore doesn't live in a solar powered cardboard box, ergo environmentalism is just leftist pseudo-science" stopped being the subtext and started being the text in the early 2000s.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

100%, yet we have "fascists are people too" members right here on this forum, whose posts are exactly like those responses.

Well I don't disagree with "fascists are people too" and still deserve civil rights. That doesn't mean anyone should be required to give them a platform to spew their **** about. As if we lose something valuable by not hearing them out.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Fascist: "Some people are sub-human and need to culled for the greater good of mankind."

Marketplace of idea supporter: "Well no I don't actually support that, but I support their right to say it".

Someone else: "I think genocide is like REALLY BAD and I'm going to voice my opinion by saying I'll boycott anyone that monetarily supports proponents of genocide whether its their employer, advertiser, investor etc".

Marketplace of idea supporter: "WTF OMG YOU CAN'T DO THAT! What about freedom of speech (for the fascist, but YOU can't say anything that might effect them in any negative way)".

Its absurd.

Not only does this give the fascists more latitude, it means not applying that same standard to themselves.

Fascists have dehumanized people by falsely claiming that certain groups are inherently dangerous and trying to replace white people. This has lead directly to mass murder in the recent past (El Paso, Tree of Life, a very vile etc). This speech can't be used to judge the character of the people literally paying for it to be advanced, and you have to still associate with theses people, because not doing so would dehumanize them and might lead to murder in the future. This is why you cannot correctly find the fascists inherently dangerous.

But the deluded centrist somehow misses that if that is the standard not only should they be trying to hold the fascists to it too, but if they held themselves to it they are doing that to the people judging the character of the fascists, which by the deluded centrists standard would mean they are dehumanizing which can lead to murder.

It's absurd all the way down.

[JoeMorgue]

Everyone has rights. That's a pointless truisms that says nothing.

A rapist has rights. That doesn't mean "rapists" and "person who rapes" have different meanings.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

You'll need to provide a link showing where murdering fascists is being suggested as a solution. I just haven't seen it here.

You forgot that in the LaLa Land of the Enablers and Marketplace of Ideas supporters, Cancel Culture = Murder Culture!

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Everyone has rights. That's a pointless truisms that says nothing.

A rapist has rights. That doesn't mean "rapists" and "person who rapes" have different meanings.

I'm not sure it is, fascists generally don't think so.

[JoeMorgue]

I love the Marketplace of Ideas. As I concept I will always support it.

But it's meaningless if every idea has to stay in it forever. The Marketplace of Ideas is allowed to make decisions and go "Okay we've decided this is wrong."

Again there's an always an ulterior motive for people who want the debate to never end.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Did you mean to write "left" there?

Its kinda like criticizing Greta Thunberg for *gasp* riding on a diesel powered train and then deciding because of this she can be ignored and climate change is fictional.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah brain fart.

Wanna fix it while you are still in the edit window?

[jnelso99]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

This is like someone going "Just because he calls himself a Rapist doesn't mean he rapes people."

Yes it does. WORDS MEAN THINGS.

Sure, the guy has Nazi tattoos and wears Nazi paraphernalia, chants Nazi slogans, and runs a Nazi website, but if you don't know if they subscribe to the economic policies of 1940's Germany, you can't call them a Nazi and are apparently a horrible person for even suggesting it.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Wanna fix it while you are still in the edit window?

Yeah I fixed it. Thanks for the heads up.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again there's an always an ulterior motive for people who want the debate to never end.

From time to time you actually come across the true believers, but generally that is not the case. It's like finding a libertarian who's not in it just for the kiddie rape and tax evasion.

There are a couple "cancel culture" pundits who I actually find take a pretty consistent view of this, bemoaning censorious right and left alike. Still don't think they have a point, but it's nice for some intellectual honesty.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

From time to time you actually come across the true believers, but generally that is not the case. It's like finding a libertarian who's not in it just for the kiddie rape and tax evasion.

I was in it for the legalized pot* but since our democratic governor did it there really is nothing about their party I find appealing.

*I flirted with libertarianism for about one semester in college.

[TurkeysGhost]

In case people forgot what real censorship looks like:

Man who was arrested for 1A protected speech cannot sue cops that illegally arrested him because of qualified immunity.

Quote:

New life was injected into a free speech legal saga over an "I Eat Ass" bumper sticker yesterday when a federal judge ruled that the expression might violate Florida's obscenity law and would thus be unprotected by the First Amendment.

At the center of the odyssey is Florida man Dillon Shane Webb, who was pulled over in May of 2019 after Columbia County Sheriff's Deputy Travis English took exception to the sticker. Webb declined to censor it on the spot, his vehicle was searched, and he was subsequently arrested and booked in jail for "obscene writing on vehicles" and "resisting an officer without violence." (The "resisting" in question refers to his refusal to alter the sticker's appearance at the officer's demand.)

Those charges were dropped shortly thereafter, with the State Attorney's Office citing the First Amendment.

But the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled yesterday that the case is not so cut and dry, awarding qualified immunity to English and thus dooming the suit Webb brought against him for allegedly violating his free speech rights and for falsely arresting him.

https://reason.com/2021/09/28/florid...immunity-cops/

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

In case people forgot what real censorship looks like:

Man who was arrested for 1A protected speech cannot sue cops that illegally arrested him because of qualified immunity.



https://reason.com/2021/09/28/florid...immunity-cops/

He might get something from the department for wrongful arrest but, yea getting a cop personally for wrongful arrest is never going to happen.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

In case people forgot what real censorship looks like:

Man who was arrested for 1A protected speech cannot sue cops that illegally arrested him because of qualified immunity.



https://reason.com/2021/09/28/florid...immunity-cops/

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

He might get something from the department for wrongful arrest but, yea getting a cop personally for wrongful arrest is never going to happen.

Getting something from the department will mean the city or county re-allocating funds which means the punishment for the people actually committing the crime is nothing and essentially makes it de facto legal. It would be like punishing someone who stole $100 with a fine of $1.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Getting something from the department will mean the city or county re-allocating funds which means the punishment for the people actually committing the crime is nothing and essentially makes it de facto legal. It would be like punishing someone who stole $100 with a fine of $1.

Ah so like wage theft then.

[JoeMorgue]

There's a concept in legalese, estoppel. It basically means you if you outright admit you are doing something, you can't then go back and argue terminology.

Let's say a jurisdiction has anti-smut laws, but the laws don't really make it clear what is smut and what isn't.

But you open "Big Dave's House of Smut, That's Right I Said Smut, Come Buy The Smuttest Smut that ever Smutted" and get arrested, you can't THEN go back and argue that what is smut isn't clear because you've already admitted you know which side you are one.

This is what kills so much discourse and why I have such a seething hatred of the "No wait let's stop and define the line" arguments.

If you're are saying "I'm a Nazi" then there is literally no point in trying to have the discussion, or have some someone have it on your behalf, about where to drawn the line. You've already declared which side of it you are on.

[dirtywick]

nazis aren't the real nazis

[TurkeysGhost]

Silver lining about the far right is that they are often even more incompetent than the stereotypes would have you believe.

Quote:

BREAKING: hacktivists with Anonymous release a second round of data from the Epik hack. A security researcher who was able to verify the extent of the leak to me described it as "a complete own." At over 300 gigabytes worth of data, this leak is larger than the first.

This leak appears to be fully bootable disk images of Epik servers, including a wide range of passwords and API tokens.

https://twitter.com/stevanzetti/stat...99000187297795

Cancellations incoming!

ETA: important to remember that this hack is the result of a broader campaign to cancel these people. Epik is a provider of last resort after the more reputable vendors refuse to host their bigoted content.

[Delphic Oracle]

As with some others here, I used to be more of a free speech absolutist, but see the folly of it now.

I do still resist any kind of government department enforcing standards, but only because the pragmatist cynic in me believes that it will inevitably get staffed by fascists and turned on its head.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again one day, God willing, I will find a woman who loves me as much as Internet Free Speech Advocates love Nazis.

You will get fewer Free Speech Advocates to run screeching out of the woodwork at you if you actually go "I'm against Free Speech" then you will if you are against Nazis.

I hope you see this before it gets zorched for being off-topic, but I was reading yesterday about the school in KC (I think) that did not allow their volleyball team to wear t-shirts that promoted racial unity before a match against a team that is known for having a lot of racist crap thrown at them. The school's justification was that "If we allow these shirts, we would have to allow them to wear KKK shirts."

Nominally, that is true, but I have to suggest, if you are concerned that you students are going to be wearing KKK t-shirts to a volleyball game, then you have a much bigger problem at your school than your free speech policy that prohibiting racial unity shirts is not going to fix.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I hope you see this before it gets zorched for being off-topic, but I was reading yesterday about the school in KC (I think) that did not allow their volleyball team to wear t-shirts that promoted racial unity before a match against a team that is known for having a lot of racist crap thrown at them. The school's justification was that "If we allow these shirts, we would have to allow them to wear KKK shirts."

Nominally, that is true, but I have to suggest, if you are concerned that you students are going to be wearing KKK t-shirts to a volleyball game, then you have a much bigger problem at your school than your free speech policy that prohibiting racial unity shirts is not going to fix.

Seems they violated a supreme court ruling to me... but those have become pretty meaningless lately.

https://www.uscourts.gov/educational...r-v-des-moines

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Seems they violated a supreme court ruling to me... but those have become pretty meaningless lately.

https://www.uscourts.gov/educational...r-v-des-moines

The argument is that they don't allow any messages on shirts, and therefore they are not favoring a single viewpoint.

It's like the prayer in schools/board meetings/town councils, etc. If they allow prayer, then they have to allow everyone an opportunity. But that means even atheists. So rather than allow atheists to give the opening benediction, they cancel the whole practice.

It's legally allowed. It makes the public howl like crazy on how the evil atheists are ruining everything by insisting that they have equal opportunity, but zorching the whole thing is better than allowing that.

[Graham2001]

This is the idea behind 'cancel culture', it comes from a video which used to be on YouTube, it was a response to a video that had was subsequently deleted.



I have a copy of the response video which is no longer on YouTube. The person quoted was a Canadian university student.

Quote:

"Free speech is the right to educated speech. If you utilize your right to 'freedom of speech' but then are socially or politically apathetic, you don't vote, educate yourself on social issues, if you are not involved in the community, if you are not involved in being a citizen, an educated citizen, you have no right to free speech."

(Emphasis mine.)

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

"If you want to expose something, write and submit a proper paper exposing it."

Exposing it how, exactly?

Are there any historical examples of the paper you propose here?

Trying to have any kind of meaningful debate with you is an exercise in unending frustration. You have to be spoon-fed everything, and led baby-step by baby-step through every stage of the most basic, fundamental reasoning, so basic that a 4th grader would have no difficulty in grasping. But OK, I will humour you... for the last time.

Premise: You believe Thing A is bad!

Step 1: Write a paper explaining why you believe Thing A is bad

The End!

How hard was that? If you can't understand something that simple, there is nothing I can do or say that will help.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Fascist: "Some people are sub-human and need to culled for the greater good of mankind."

Marketplace of idea supporter: "Well no I don't actually support that, but I support their right to say it".

Someone else: "I think genocide is like REALLY BAD and I'm going to voice my opinion by saying I'll boycott anyone that monetarily supports proponents of genocide whether its their employer, advertiser, investor etc".

Marketplace of idea supporter: "WTF OMG YOU CAN'T DO THAT! What about freedom of speech (for the fascist, but YOU can't say anything that might effect them in any negative way)".

Its absurd.

Absurd is right. The chronology here is dishonest. The Marketplace people are taking the initiative to pre-empt critics? Well, that's horse-****. The mob usually forms first.

It's also amusing that on this construction the Marketplace supporter says an anti-fascist "CAN'T" boycott. So they're not even going to say, "You can go to the mattresses over this, but... you really shouldn't."

Conservative Jonah Goldberg criticizes environmentalists for allegedly being predisposed to masochism. For example, he acknowledges climate change is "a real problem," but says we do not necessarily have to "suffer" by limiting consumption and regulating industry; the free market can unleash technological solutions that are win-win. You know, like how we cut taxes for rich people and then treasury revenues surge. Win-win.

Certainly there are some cases where one has to bite the bullet, and other cases that are win-win-win-win -- so much winning that you're tired of all the winning. It could be a flawed heuristic, but I'm consciously inclined toward the former precisely because I know sub-consciously there are powerful evolutionary mechanisms inclining me toward self-deception-for-material-advantage. Motivated reasoning.

Similarly, when it comes to the culture war stuff, almost all of the incentives push people in the direction of tribal allegiance. Humans want to please their team. A "virtue signaling" defense of free inquiry, especially when it's for increasingly marginalized scumbags who are not in, shall we say, cultural ascent, is probably, all other things being equal, more principled than the position held by a typical person. This should be rather... obvious. For some strange reason, people do not often want to be associated with unpopular figures or opinions.

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by Cain

Absurd is right. The chronology here is dishonest. The Marketplace people are taking the initiative to pre-empt critics? Well, that's horse-****. The mob usually forms first.

It's also amusing that on this construction the Marketplace supporter says an anti-fascist "CAN'T" boycott. So they're not even going to say, "You can go to the mattresses over this, but... you really shouldn't."

Conservative Jonah Goldberg criticizes environmentalists for allegedly being predisposed to masochism. For example, he acknowledges climate change is "a real problem," but says we do not necessarily have to "suffer" by limiting consumption and regulating industry; the free market can unleash technological solutions that are win-win. You know, like how we cut taxes for rich people and then treasury revenues surge. Win-win.

Certainly there are some cases where one has to bite the bullet, and other cases that are win-win-win-win -- so much winning that you're tired of all the winning. It could be a flawed heuristic, but I'm consciously inclined toward the former precisely because I know sub-consciously there are powerful evolutionary mechanisms inclining me toward self-deception-for-material-advantage. Motivated reasoning.

Similarly, when it comes to the culture war stuff, almost all of the incentives push people in the direction of tribal allegiance. Humans want to please their team. A "virtue signaling" defense of free inquiry, especially when it's for increasingly marginalized scumbags who are not in, shall we say, cultural ascent, is probably, all other things being equal, more principled than the position held by a typical person. This should be rather... obvious. For some strange reason, people do not often want to be associated with unpopular figures or opinions.

It's about realizing we have a responsibility to the rest of society and our planet itself, and that takes precedence over what is easy or comfortable.

There is no win-win when it comes to climate change; we need to take radical actions now. I recently bought an EV because I am trying to keep my carbon footprint as small as possible. And while I love my new car and will never go back to traditional ICE vehicles, there are sacrifices that I have to make to put up with the lack of range and slow charge times. But the tech will continue to improve and EVs are at the point of viability now.

I have no problem making sacrifices in my life for the good of others, and that's what really separates us and is part of what the 'culture war' is all about. Selfishness, greed, and apathy got us to the point we are at today. These are traits that need to be purged from society.

And we will win the war.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Graham2001

This is the idea behind 'cancel culture', it comes from a video which used to be on YouTube, it was a response to a video that had was subsequently deleted.



I have a copy of the response video which is no longer on YouTube. The person quoted was a Canadian university student.






(Emphasis mine.)

That's appalling.

[d4m10n]

"empirical results"

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

"empirical results"

Emily's Cat asked a question, you are dodging the answer.

Not unexpected!

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Emily's Cat asked a question...

She asked a yes or no question, which you wordfully dodged answering.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

She asked a yes or no question, which you wordfully dodged answering.

DON'T TELL LIES!!

1. It was not a yes or no question (the words "yes" and "no" do not appear in the question)

2. Her question was "Do you trust the other academics who publish post-modern nonsense in journals that can't tell the difference between post-modern nonsense and completely and utter nonsense that uses post-modern jargon? "

3. I ANSWERED THAT QUESTION DIRECTLY IN THE VERY FIRST ******* LINE OF MY ANSWER - "I wouldn't trust an academic who attempts to publish a fake paper...."

And then, unlike what you do, I justified my answer!

Why do you find it necessary to lie about what has been posted when you disagree with it, and can't come up with a rebuttal? Do you not understand that everyone else here can read, and can tell that you are lying?

(that is not a yes or no question by the way)