|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jan 22, 2021 18:08:16 GMT -5
I feel like the distinguishing between boycott and cancel culture is meaningless on some point. How does boycotting a show substantially differ from trying to get someone fired? If enough people boycott a show, why wouldn't the employer fire the employee costing them money, against which the boycott is aimed at?
The other attributes ascribed to cancel culture are for a very large part "internet culture". Swatting was started by gamers. Qanon people almost murdered people with the Pizzagate BS. Stop the Steal caused the deaths of 5 people so far and countless threats. Gamergate. For God sake, the woman who flipped off Trump's limo received that treatment by the same people complaining loudest about liberals and cancel culture. Etc. Etc.
None of those examples are 'liberal cancel culture' and yet all have similar characteristics to those you ascribe to 'cancel culture'. That's not cancel culture, that's the messed up society of the internet. Its the flesh search engine, not cancel culture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 18:58:25 GMT -5
Ah yes, not wanting people to push bigotry or false claims about voter fraud that led to an attempted coup (or similar like Alex Jones did) is truly the worst thing ever. How dare anyone ever oppose them. Ironically, Baron, you want to "cancel" "cancel culture" thus, silencing their thoughts and acting as the thought police by your own logic. The difference being that I'm not threatening them and their families to force them to bend the knee. Like any other terrorist, the best way to beat them is to render them irrelevant. The other attributes ascribed to cancel culture are for a very large part "internet culture". Swatting was started by gamers. Qanon people almost murdered people with the Pizzagate BS. Stop the Steal caused the deaths of 5 people so far and countless threats. Gamergate. For God sake, the woman who flipped off Trump's limo received that treatment by the same people complaining loudest about liberals and cancel culture. Etc. Etc. None of those examples are 'liberal cancel culture' and yet all have similar characteristics to those you ascribe to 'cancel culture'. That's not cancel culture, that's the messed up society of the internet. Its the flesh search engine, not cancel culture. None of them, however, have all those traits, not is it 'internet' culture. It is, by and large, for example, American, whereas 'Internet' culture is global. And to be blunt, I've never said 'liberal' cancel culture. It's ain't just liberal or conservative. While you're all caught up in the drama of liberal vs conservative, you fail to grasp that extremism isn't just limited to one or the other, and while the majority of, for example, domestic terror attacks right now are Conservative in nature, not *all* of them are.
|
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jan 22, 2021 18:58:59 GMT -5
I have to agree with Walrus that equating speech with thought is a sophism. All speech is thought, without coherent thought there would be no speech. Yet I make the conscious decision to turn my thought into speech here, just as I have made the decision to hold my tongue here just as many times. Thoughts you keep in your head, speech you willingly release into the public, its where thought crosses into speech.
This.
It's patently obvious that it is possible to have thoughts without speech and, thusly, that they are not the same.
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Jan 22, 2021 19:03:47 GMT -5
I think you guys are talking past each other. Perhaps someone can define how 'cancel culture' differs from a boycott.
A boycott is refusing to purchase someone's goods or watch their shows, and having nothing to do with them. This is, in my opinion completely acceptable behavior.
Cancel Culture expands on financial attack, including efforts to force them out of their jobs, homes, and to inflict targeted harassment against the subject, their employers, and their families in an effort to force them to either leave or to conform to whatever it is the perpetrators want. This can include murder attempts via swatting or arson in more extreme cases.
That's a sensible definition, one I completely agree with. There are some people who I completely support 'cancelling' (as opposed to boycotting). Basically, anyone who makes their living stoking and enabling extremism. Everyone from Tucker Carlson to whoever currently holds Arafat's position. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 19:08:45 GMT -5
That's a sensible definition, one I completely agree with. There are some people who I completely support 'cancelling' (as opposed to boycotting). Basically, anyone who makes their living stoking and enabling extremism. Everyone from Tucker Carlson to whoever currently holds Arafat's position. Unfortunately the history of terrorism suggests that sort of approach is counter productive and results in more extremists not fewer. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jan 22, 2021 19:12:33 GMT -5
None of them, however, have all those traits, not is it 'internet' culture. It is, by and large, for example, American, whereas 'Internet' culture is global. And to be blunt, I've never said 'liberal' cancel culture. It's ain't just liberal or conservative. You are applying the excesses of some people to the entire thing. I'm pretty sure the restaurant owner that refused service to Sarah Sanders endured all the points you mentioned. You're being wilfully blind. Internet culture in America is on its own fucking level. People aren't swatting others in my country, its an American thing. Seriously, if you want to argue that, then 'cancel culture' isn't just American either, China's public had the flesh search engine down before they even started uttering the phrase 'cancel culture'in the US. You once again present it as a binary choice. Because some go to far, the entire idea of holding public personas who have said some absolutely racist or harmful stuff personally accountable should be swept aside? You started off by mentioning the liberals in your opening argument. Nobody here is pretending left wing extremists don't exist. But if you organize a list of the most pressing problem, they would be a hell of a lot lower than right wing extremists at this moment. |
|
|
|
Post by hatoflords on Jan 22, 2021 19:35:06 GMT -5
It’s easy to turn hypothetical evils into binary choices. That’s the whole point. Don’t talk about what anyone actually did. Talk about what other hypothetical people might do.
It’s a distraction carnifex.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jan 22, 2021 19:35:57 GMT -5
Ah yes, not wanting people to push bigotry or false claims about voter fraud that led to an attempted coup (or similar like Alex Jones did) is truly the worst thing ever. How dare anyone ever oppose them. Ironically, Baron, you want to "cancel" "cancel culture" thus, silencing their thoughts and acting as the thought police by your own logic. The difference being that I'm not threatening them and their families to force them to bend the knee. Like any other terrorist, the best way to beat them is to render them irrelevant. Actually, there is no difference. You're acting exactly like the majority of people in "cancel culture," which is to say expressing their dislike of something, without any threats to anyone's family or themselves. I'm sure you can pull up tweets as "proof" of violence against "canceled" people, but I'm sure you'll need to dig through dozens upon dozens of tweets to find them and will conveniently ignore them so you can cherrypick your evidence just like you originally did, and got upset when asked to present evidence of your claims. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jan 22, 2021 19:37:18 GMT -5
It’s a distraction carnifex. [At this point its starting to feel more like a metal Dread in a sock... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 19:46:53 GMT -5
It’s easy to turn hypothetical evils into binary choices. That’s the whole point. Don’t talk about what anyone actually did. Talk about what other hypothetical people might do. It’s a distraction carnifex. Hey, hat, if I'd only dealt in the hypothetical, you might have a point there, but since that's not the case, I find myself asking again, are you sure you're not missing some posts here? |
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Jan 22, 2021 20:01:32 GMT -5
That's a sensible definition, one I completely agree with. There are some people who I completely support 'cancelling' (as opposed to boycotting). Basically, anyone who makes their living stoking and enabling extremism. Everyone from Tucker Carlson to whoever currently holds Arafat's position. Unfortunately the history of terrorism suggests that sort of approach is counter productive and results in more extremists not fewer. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Is it your position that it is desirable that Alex Jones is free spout his stochastic terrorism and let the marketplace of ideas sort it out? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 20:05:27 GMT -5
Actually, there is no difference. You're acting exactly like the majority of people in "cancel culture," which is to say expressing their dislike of something, without any threats to anyone's family or themselves. I'm sure you can pull up tweets as "proof" of violence against "canceled" people, but I'm sure you'll need to dig through dozens upon dozens of tweets to find them and will conveniently ignore them so you can cherrypick your evidence just like you originally did, and got upset when asked to present evidence of your claims. Yeah, In four years or however long it is, when you guy are screaming about cancelling congress as you try to storm the capitol, I'm gonna bring this back up again, since I've reached the point of deja vu again in this discussion and I'm pretty sure last time it was with Whemb and instead of Cancel Culture it was MAGA. Is it your position that it is desirable that Alex Jones is free spout his stochastic terrorism and let the marketplace of ideas sort it out? Interestingly, it appears to be already doing exactly that without the President of the United States serving as an amplifier. I think that taking a hands off approach for a while will show if that will be the most effective response or not. The next big controversy of any actual substance I foresee is Congress trying to reestablish rules for the media both social and otherwise regarding content and bias, but that's more opinion than Prediction. |
|
|
|
Post by tannhauser42 on Jan 22, 2021 20:15:07 GMT -5
I have to agree with Walrus that equating speech with thought is a sophism. All speech is thought, without coherent thought there would be no speech. Yet I make the conscious decision to turn my thought into speech here, just as I have made the decision to hold my tongue here just as many times. Thoughts you keep in your head, speech you willingly release into the public, its where thought crosses into speech.
This.
It's patently obvious that it is possible to have thoughts without speech and, thusly, that they are not the same.
By all means, continue to take your digs at me, dance on my grave, have your fun bullying the guy who had already admitted he can't effectively defend himself. And, just to drive the point home, I NEVER FUCKING SAID "ALL" THOUGHT IS "ALL" SPEECH! Go fuck yourselves with your false accusations of sophism and shove it right up your dishonest asses. I'm out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 20:17:38 GMT -5
Gentlemen, I think we've all reached the point that we should break here and return to this with cooler heads.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jan 22, 2021 20:39:39 GMT -5
Actually, there is no difference. You're acting exactly like the majority of people in "cancel culture," which is to say expressing their dislike of something, without any threats to anyone's family or themselves. I'm sure you can pull up tweets as "proof" of violence against "canceled" people, but I'm sure you'll need to dig through dozens upon dozens of tweets to find them and will conveniently ignore them so you can cherrypick your evidence just like you originally did, and got upset when asked to present evidence of your claims. Yeah, In four years or however long it is, when you guy are screaming about cancelling congress as you try to storm the capitol, I'm gonna bring this back up again, since I've reached the point of deja vu again in this discussion and I'm pretty sure last time it was with Whemb and instead of Cancel Culture it was MAGA. Why you won't even respond to any point anyone brings up? I.E., whether or not people like Alex Jones deserved to be "canceled" over how they (non-criminally) harmed people. Gentlemen, I think we've all reached the point that we should break here and return to this with cooler heads. Oh, fuck off Baron. You're the one driving tensions up repeatedly. You've stormed off in a tantrum almost equal to despic's, you've insulted all of us who've raised counter-points, you've argued almost exclusively in bad faith, you have stubbornly refused to address any point that anyone brings up over and over, and you've doubled down repeatedly until you called everyone who thinks differently than you is a future terrorist. You've been letting your emotions rule you, and now you have the gall to pretend to be the levelheaded one here. You're such a fucking hypocrite. You're the one who refused to have any sort of civil discussion, and the differences between you and despic at this point are shockingly few. By all means, continue to take your digs at me, dance on my grave, have your fun bullying the guy who had already admitted he can't effectively defend himself. And, just to drive the point home, I NEVER FUCKING SAID "ALL" THOUGHT IS "ALL" SPEECH! Go fuck yourselves with your false accusations of sophism and shove it right up your dishonest asses. I'm out. I admit, I thought your argument/point was more in the vein of "listen to when people tell you who they are," and I think regardless of what you think your ability to state your position is, you should try. |
|
