Cancel culture IRL

[tyr_13]

It is kind of entertaining that some maintaining that 'cancel culture' is a meaningful problem in and of itself act like if several people are failing to clear the bar, the bar must be unacceptably high. In many contexts, that is actually true.

But 'don't support blatant lies to rationalize the overthrow of our democracy' isn't in any way a high bar. Don't post amazingly false equivalencies that have the effect of minimizing the Holocaust. Don't intentionally mock trans gender people and if you accidentally do, apologize. These aren't like the Catholics thinking the Protestants were evil; the fact that some conclusions were wrong or debatable doesn't make correct conclusion impossible. It doesn't even mean some conclusions like 'don't march with obvious literal Nazis' are not close calls. Some calls are actually pretty easy.

People have more of the benefit of the doubt than people are pretending.

[Delphic Oracle]

Gosh, we liberals have so much to be ashamed of.

Thank you for chastening us before we became dangerous to decent society.

[Darat]

Huge attempted clean up the long derails in this thread. Keep to the topic of this thread which is meant to be about “Cancel Culture”. Thanks.

Posted By:Darat

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

2) You’re concerned with free speech and yet you seem to want to curtail the free speech rights of people who wish to exercise it calling for boycotts of which you personally disapprove. Critics of “cancel culture” never seem to be able to account for this contradiction.

I mean... it's not like the entire first half of my post was drawing a distinction between boycotts and coercion or anything, right? I mean, I totally insisted that they're exactly the same thing and railed against boycotts, right?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I mean... it's not like the entire first half of my post was drawing a distinction between boycotts and coercion or anything, right? I mean, I totally insisted that they're exactly the same thing and railed against boycotts, right?

You should save some of those eye-rolls for your repeated and baseless insistence that businesses are somehow being “coerced”. They richly deserve it.

It’s nothing more than a fantasy wokescolds have manufactured to let themselves off the hook for being against free speech of which they disapprove while pretending to be free speech advocates.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I mean... it's not like the entire first half of my post was drawing a distinction between boycotts and coercion or anything, right? I mean, I totally insisted that they're exactly the same thing and railed against boycotts, right?

I guess you can decide the meaning of the word "coercion", however legally speaking none of your examples were of coercion.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/cri...rcion-law.html

Lets take your tuna example for instance. They boycotted the manufacturer or brand rather than grocery store chains that sold it. Great. But boycotting a grocery store would also not be coercion. It would also have been likely impracticable for many people since they may have not had the option to shop for food at a grocery store that did not sell dolphin safe tuna.

I'm risking whataboutism here, but what about when the AFA called for a boycott of 7-11 and Walden Books for selling magazines they disagreed with. They urged people not to shop at those chains at all, instead of just not buying certain publications. Don't pretend the right hasn't done the same thing in the past and indeed present, that the left is doing now.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You should save some of those eye-rolls for your repeated and baseless insistence that businesses are somehow being “coerced”. They richly deserve it.

It’s nothing more than a fantasy wokescolds have manufactured to let themselves off the hook for being against free speech of which they disapprove while pretending to be free speech advocates.

This is so completely bass-ackward from my position. I'm not against anybody's free speech. That's the whole point!

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

This is so completely bass-ackward from my position. I'm not against anybody's free speech. That's the whole point!

Then you should probably stop using disingenuous terms like “coercion” when referring to people exercising free speech.

[Brainster]

A Slate podcast host has been suspended for taking McNeil's side:

Quote:

Pesca went on in a subsequent message: “The question is: Is an out loud utterance of that word, in a work environment, fire-able, censurable, etc… Even as a point of clarification to a question exactly about the use of that word. I thought not necessarily. I agreed with John McWhorter. But that’s (notice the date) 2019 thinking. McNeil was originally disciplined in 2019. Just a little while later society seems to have rendered a different verdict.”

A few minutes later, Rachelle Hampton, a black staff writer, joined the conversation and wrote, “Feel like it’s weird that everyone’s dancing around the point that working in an environment where white people feel empowered to say the n-word in service of whatever argument they want to make is incredibly hostile for black people.”

In that conversation Pesca himself did not use the n-word. The article goes on to note that he had used the word in the past, but always in the same context, of whether is is allowed to be mentioned at all. In 2021, there really is no debate on the issue. One would have to be a fool to use that word if you are white. But Pesca is being cancelled for suggesting that McNeil should not have been fired, which is apparently an unacceptable opinion to hold.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Brainster

A Slate podcast host has been suspended for taking McNeil's side:



In that conversation Pesca himself did not use the n-word. The article goes on to note that he had used the word in the past, but always in the same context, of whether is is allowed to be mentioned at all. In 2021, there really is no debate on the issue. One would have to be a fool to use that word if you are white. But Pesca is being cancelled for suggesting that McNeil should not have been fired, which is apparently an unacceptable opinion to hold.

I love when people badly misrepresent what is stated in an article and also link the article. Such a hilarious self-own. Did you think no one would actually read it?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Man, it's gonna be terrible when all the Trump CHUDs stop reading Slate, really gonna hit them in the pocket books.

[johnny karate]

Entitled jack ass is suspended from his job after offending coworkers with his inappropriately-expressed opinions on a controversial topic that he wouldn’t shut up about:

Quote:

“I feel outraged,” a Slate staffer told me when asked about Pesca’s participation in the conversation. “I cannot believe I had to watch him enthusiastically provoke people on whether or not it is appropriate to use a racist slur.” Other Slate staffers that spoke to Defector expressed frustration and anger at Pesca’s insistence on having that particular conversation. “I don’t want to be in a workplace where people feel emboldened to have this argument. People’s humanity is not an intellectual debate,” one said.

[dirtywick]

hey man, some people just really need to use racial slurs at work.

If you think about it, they’re the real victims here.

[SuburbanTurkey]

CPAC just cancelled one of their speakers. IS NOWHERE SAFE FROM THIS BLIGHT!!!!

Quote:

We have just learned that someone we invited to CPAC has expressed reprehensible views that have no home with our conference or our organization. The individual will not be participating at our conference.

https://twitter.com/CPAC/status/1363961280818774029

One of the speakers is a pretty overt anti-Semite. After this was commented on in the press, CPAC cancelled

Quote:

THIS IS #CENSORSHIP AT ITS BEST! ALL BECAUSE I SAID “I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE VALIDITY OF #JUDAISM AND AM WILLING TO PLACE $50,000 ON MY SELF TO DEBATE THE TOP #JEWISH RABBI”’ NOW IM NO LONGER INVITED TO @CPAC_TV
#RACIST , #DICTATORSHIP , #YOUNGPHARAOH

https://twitter.com/PHARAOH_ATEN_/st...78334435237888

The theme for CPAC this year is "America Uncancelled". Womp womp.

[Cavemonster]

Quote:

We have just learned that someone we invited to CPAC has expressed reprehensible views

I thought that was how you got invited to CPAC?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I thought that was how you got invited to CPAC?

Do any of the Cancel Culture types have a problem with firing people in the Trump administration for saying the election was fair and square?

No? Is it only when discussing the N-word that cancel culture becomes a problem?

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Do any of the Cancel Culture types have a problem with firing people in the Trump administration for saying the election was fair and square?

No? Is it only when discussing the N-word that cancel culture becomes a problem?

I think its OK when the right does it, because we all know and expect them to be intolerant and authoritative.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Cain

Suffering harassment, loss of employment, among other things.

What "other things"?

Quote:

They should digitally alter her likeness to protect these children.

What in the ever-living **** is this stupid straw-man supposed to mean?

Quote:

It's not clear what you're talking about.

Sure it isn't.

Quote:

"Objecting" is doing a lot of work here. Again, the intention of the anti-Semistism matters, as does the nature of the "objection."

Why should a stupid person spreading dangerous racist conspiracy theories be more able to spread dangerous racist conspiracy theories than a malicious person spreading the exact same dangerous racist conspiracy theories? Doesn't the actual harm come from the dangerous racist conspiracy theories actually being spread? Especially if the person doing the spreading has a certain degree of cultural caché and thereby an audience who will actually listen to them.

And you still didn't answer the actual question. I can ask it for a third time: "Assuming that there actually is a 'culture war', why is objecting to someone posting antisemitism escalating the culture war while posting antisemitism isn't?"

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I mean... it's not like the entire first half of my post was drawing a distinction between boycotts and coercion or anything, right? I mean, I totally insisted that they're exactly the same thing and railed against boycotts, right?

Yes, roll eyes indeed. Because it only serves as a hypocritical distinction for why it's ok to try to cancel someone for stuff YOU find justifiable (e.g., if they're the owner of some fishing boat), but it's not ok if it's for what you don't like. The former gets neatly filed under 'boycott', the latter under 'cancel culture'.

Guess what? Even using your example of a boycott you find perfectly ok, in the UK as of 2019, small coastal vessels, most of them owned by some guy who has that as his only way to make a living, make up about 79% of the UK fishing fleet. THOSE were the guys your apparently justified boycotts were trying to "cancel", by targeting the companies doing business with them.

But it's apparently ok if THOSE have to look for a new job because you pressured the food companies to no longer do business with him, but apparently it's not ok if it's about a twit spouting bigoted stuff on Twitter.

Guess also what? Contrary to your made up distinction, those boycotts too were ALSO targeting companies and individuals only tangentially connected to the problem. Most of the restaurant owners, or even companies canning and selling canned tuna, didn't own the fishing boats. They just bought it from the guys doing the actual fishing. Yet you were ok with them being caught in that. Just apparently not when it's about a twit posting bigoted stuff on Twitter.

Guess also what? Same goes for your other rationalizations. Nobody is harrassing customers of Disney+ either, for example. I haven't yet met anyone who tried to prevent me from getting that subscription renewed. It's the exact same boycott that is being threatened.

Yeah, yeah, OMG, but targeting the vendor might deprive other people of their fix of seeing the twit on Disney+, bla, bla, bla. But that's no different from boycotting a restaurant for selling tuna. The restaurant might go out of business (most of them are barely staying afloat even without a boycott,) or go "screw it!" and change their menu to burgers instead to bypass the whole debacle entirely, and deprive the local tuna lovers of their fix. Not that it's the end of the world, but neither is the other one. What matters is that at the end of the day it's still the same mechanism in action.

You just bend over backwards to do frankly illogical rationalizations as to why the boycotts you find ok are ok, while the ones you don't are not ok.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I thought that was how you got invited to CPAC?

Racism, generally speaking, is probably acceptable to the fine people at CPAC. Anti-Semitism is something the mainstream right still sorta cares about, in their bizarre way. Unconditional support of Israel is a litmus test for these people, so I imagine open anti-Semitism is a bit hard to stomach.

Surprised Nick Fuentes hasn't tried to spring on this and get the guy as a speaker for AFPAC.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I think its OK when the right does it, because we all know and expect them to be intolerant and authoritative.

Don't say "them", it's a trigger pronoun for the right.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I thought that was how you got invited to CPAC?

You are supposed to keep it in dog whistles and code words instead of blatant racism/antisemitism.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I love when people badly misrepresent what is stated in an article and also link the article. Such a hilarious self-own. Did you think no one would actually read it?

What exactly did you feel I misrepresented?

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

You are supposed to keep it in dog whistles and code words instead of blatant racism/antisemitism.

Well, no, the featured speaker is Toupee Fiasco, so they're apparently fine with completely obvious white supremacism.

Pharaoh Whoever, though, is a *black* anti-semite (I mean, really, who would have guessed that a non-rapper with the word "Pharaoh" in his name would be a kook?), and that's a bit much. I mean, if Candace Owens wants to spew racism against black people, great, but not anti-semitism.

...wait, is she invited? She did say that thing about Hitler...

Anyway, it's kinda like how that Milo guy was cool at CPAC until they discovered that Joe Rogan clip about how men having sex with live boys was acceptable.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Brainster

What exactly did you feel I misrepresented?

The part where you claimed he was “cancelled for suggesting that McNeil should not have been fired”.

It’s a conveniently sanitized version of what happened and doesn’t even approach telling the full story.

[johnny karate]

Gina Carano is not okay with Pedro Pascal posting the publicly-available office phone number of an elected official:

Quote:

"I adore Pedro. I adore him," Carano said in an interview with conservative commentator Ben Shapiro posted online on February 21, 2021. "I know he's said and done some hurtful things. I don't think that posting anybody's number on social media, is okay."

Yeah, she doesn’t sound like an insufferable pain in the ass at all.

[JoeMorgue]

After 33 pages I'm still not getting what the issue we're supposed to be solving here is.

"People do things I don't like, ergo I stop voluntarily interacting with them."

That's neither a problem to be solved or some new phenomenon that needs a new scary name the Boomers can use in hushed tones.

The only thing that has changed is the less privileged and powerful people now have the ability to do it to the more privileged and powerful because of new technology tools so the only thing that has changed is who's having to deal with the consequences of their actions and I just answered my own question...

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

After 33 pages I'm still not getting what the issue we're supposed to be solving here is.

"People do things I don't like, ergo I stop voluntarily interacting with them."

That's neither a problem to be solved or some new phenomenon that needs a new scary name the Boomers can use in hushed tones.

The only thing that has changed is the less privileged and powerful people now have the ability to do it to the more privileged and powerful because of new technology tools so the only thing that has changed is who's having to deal with the consequences of their actions and I just answered my own question...

In a related story, Ted Cruz calls his neighbors who leaked group texts to the media about their Cancun trip a not-very-nice name.

“Snitches get stitches” is not bound by social class.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

In a related story, Ted Cruz calls his neighbors who leaked group texts to the media about their Cancun trip a not-very-nice name.

“Snitches get stitches” is not bound by social class.

Ted Cruz is a famously hated individual, even by his own political allies. I am not surprised at all people in his immediate social circle would choose to publicly embarrass him in this way. A universal hatred of Cruz may be the last fiber that is holding this deeply divided nation together.

Originally Posted by Lindsey Graham

“If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you,

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

After 33 pages I'm still not getting what the issue we're supposed to be solving here is.

"People do things I don't like, ergo I stop voluntarily interacting with them."

That's neither a problem to be solved or some new phenomenon that needs a new scary name the Boomers can use in hushed tones.

The only thing that has changed is the less privileged and powerful people now have the ability to do it to the more privileged and powerful because of new technology tools so the only thing that has changed is who's having to deal with the consequences of their actions and I just answered my own question...

We clarified this a few pages ago: one should not hastily join online movements.

That is the entirety of the point of this thread. No attempt to define "hastily", "join", or "movement" has made any progress. Most examples of when people hastily joined online movements and how bad that has been for society, not the individuals, have typically been either misleading or not very probative.

In short, your frustration is the point. You've been Rick Rolled for 33 pages and you never even got see the man dance. Those hips, why do people hate him so?

[johnny karate]

Conservatives claim “The Muppet Show” is “cancelled” after Disney+ makes it available to nearly 100 million people:

Quote:

Last week, Disney+ began adding the disclaimer to the classic television show, which originally aired in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The 12-second message notes that the “program includes negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures,” adding that while the content remains intact they “want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together.”

....

Despite the fact that Disney+ is not removing any episodes or even censoring the broadcasts in question, Fox hosts and guests on Monday breathlessly portrayed this decision as the latest example of “woke” liberalism engaging in “cancel culture.”

To all the well-meaning liberals in this thread, you really need to find a way to distinguish yourselves and the quality of your arguments from these idiots, because they are hijacking this thing and making you look ridiculous.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

I mean, really, who would have guessed that a non-rapper with the word "Pharaoh" in his name would be a kook?

He is a rapper, isn't he?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Conservatives claim “The Muppet Show” is “cancelled” after Disney+ makes it available to nearly 100 million people:



To all the well-meaning liberals in this thread, you really need to find a way to distinguish yourselves and the quality of your arguments from these idiots, because they are hijacking this thing and making you look ridiculous.

If conservatives can't tell the difference between a thing being removed from availability and a thing being published with fanfare to 100 million subscribers then I think that a) the burden is not upon the liberals and b) even if it were, these particular conservatives are too stupid to understand any explanation, no matter how clear it is.

[JoeMorgue]

Back when a certain Conservative Large Canine was a regular on the board I learned there was nothing more insufferable then a Conservative who learned a new favorite word and feels the need to use it in every possible context, no matter how insane.

Remember how many members of the GOP independently decided that saying that the "Democrats are trying to Cancel the President" during his impeachment was the most clevereast thing evar?

"Cancel" is just their new favorite word, one applied to everything (real and imagined) that the Left does wrong?

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Conservatives claim “The Muppet Show” is “cancelled” after Disney+ makes it available to nearly 100 million people:



To all the well-meaning liberals in this thread, you really need to find a way to distinguish yourselves and the quality of your arguments from these idiots, because they are hijacking this thing and making you look ridiculous.

Apparently two episodes aren't available. One hosted by Chris Langham who is convicted for possession of child pornography and Brooke Shields. No one really knows why the Brooke Shields episode is missing. Other segments have also been cut, but that seems to be because of music rights.

https://ew.com/tv/why-muppet-show-ep...m-disney-plus/

I'm just nitpicking. Adding a 12 second warning is not canceling, and before this it wasn't streaming anywhere else.

[dann]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Originally Posted by Lindsey Graham

“If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you,

Wouldn't that be true of Lindsey Graham as well?!

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by dann

Wouldn't that be true of Lindsey Graham as well?!

Only if you called his wife ugly beforehand.

[johnny karate]

While we are all still in shock over the tragic injustice of a millionaire not being allowed to play outer space dress-up, this shouldn’t be overlooked:

Collin College Professor says State Rep. Jeff Leach Tried to Get Her Fired

Quote:

That month, Burnett got in trouble with her employer after she tweeted during the vice-presidential debate that Pence, who repeatedly talked beyond his designated time, needed to shut his “little demon mouth up.” She’d also retweeted a post calling him a “scumbag lying sonofabitch.”

Afterward, the school publicly apologized, even though its policy dictates that administrators have an obligation to defend professors’ free speech. In an email to faculty, district President Neil Matkin also complained he’d received “contacts from legislators” demanding Burnett’s termination.

...

Leach has long painted himself a champion of the First Amendment. But during the 2019 legislative session, he also filed a bill that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram wrote would weaken a Texas law preventing lawsuits stifling free speech; an amended version was later signed into law.
More recently, Leach came under fire for a tweet in which he appeared to defend an alleged Capitol insurrectionist’s right to wear a “Camp Auschwitz” shirt. The lawmaker wrote that while he doesn’t approve of the man’s ostensible Nazism, he would still “fight for his right to be an ass.”

Burnett also pointed to a 2018 Facebook post in which Leach declared he’d uphold the right for teachers to say “Merry Christmas.”
“He’s positioned himself as a real champion of free speech,” Burnett said. “But it’s apparently only speech he likes that he will champion.”

The state legislator in question is, of course, a Republican and he used the power of his office to attack the free speech rights of a private citizen.

Wokescolds, pour one out for Gina Carano if you must, but maybe start paying attention to actual threats to free speech and who is threatening it.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

While we are all still in shock over the tragic injustice of a millionaire not being allowed to play outer space dress-up, this shouldn’t be overlooked:

Collin College Professor says State Rep. Jeff Leach Tried to Get Her Fired


The state legislator in question is, of course, a Republican and he used the power of his office to attack the free speech rights of a private citizen.

Wokescolds, pour one out for Gina Carano if you must, but maybe start paying attention to actual threats to free speech and who is threatening it.

Have to agree with Burnett. It takes some kind of ******* to try to get someone fired for tweeting out an opinion they find objectionable.

And Leach is truly a scumbag for claiming to be in favor of free speech while attempting to cause material harm to someone exercising that speech.

Kudos, also, to the school for not firing Bennett for expressing an opinion (even if that opinion was -ironically- that someone else needed to "shut his mouth")
Good point.

[dirtywick]

A government official using the power of their office to interfere with someone’s speech is a much different matter also.