Senate Has Cancel Culture Gone Too Far?

I was planning to answer you on this, but I saw Vivec's post after.

Regarding hateful and divisive statements and speech, I think that the problem you have in the U.S. is because you have put so much emphasis on freedoms, such as freedom of speech, without clearly defining the frameworks of these freedoms. Here for example in Canada, hateful speech are illegal and you can go to jail if you're holding a hateful speech towards other people or groups. But I do remember having read in an article by a political analyst saying that hateful speech aren't condemnable on the American side as here, since the law supposes that "words don't hurt" (a ridiculous statement in my opinion since it has been demonstrated in history that hateful speech can hurt and create divisions). My hypothesis is that this whole "cancel culture" is a reaction (maybe even an over-reaction) to years, or decades of scruffiness towards freedom of speech in the U.S., which has led to more divisions in their society. I don't think it's specific to capitalism as Vivec said, but it's specific to problems American society and culture are facing today. And it's now being exported elsewhere.

 

You're free to disagree with whatever you want, you're just wrong. Debate Dorks have no vested interest in these topics they feel "need a conversation." Marginalized people are tired of having to debate their existence. These are just real facts. You go online and debate the topics you want to debate, marginalized people have to live with these topics 24/7. It's bad for mental health. It's why people chuds deem "snowflakes" try to create times and places where marginalized people can truly relax.

Your example really has nothing to do with this or "cancel culture" so I'm not really sure why you wrote all that out. I've also still yet to see from you a list of people who were truly cancelled and why you think they shouldn't have been. I've also yet to see a retort from you over my claim that cancellation isn't something consciously done but a mere consequence of capitalism.

I'm going to explain here why I think your example is not related to what we're talking about. For one thing, it's clear that there's been a miscommunication. I don't mean to imply that marginalized people can't or don't participate in debate. What I'm saying is that it's wrong that Debate Dorks insist on debating against the real lived experiences of people worse off than them. When you do this, you are participating in an either conscious or unconscious effort to harm the mental health of these people. Now I'm already picturing your protestations in my mind, offended that I'm suggesting that there are people trying to harm others, but the fact is that harm is occuring to them. You closing your eyes to it doesn't change what's happening.

I don't know why you keep trying to make this an "you're an American!" thing but, no offense, you're a poor man's Watto here. I wasn't born in the United States, I wasn't raised in the United States.

Yes it is. Debate is for the privileged. You have the privilege to debate and discuss something because it doesn't affect you.

Let's try a different topic. Whether or not you have the right to eat. Let's go over to your house, take away your food, and whether or not you're ever going to eat again is determined by me. Every day I take an action to deprive you of the ability to eat. Oh you're buying groceries? Cops beat you up. Oh, sorry, no restaurant is going to serve you. Now, how about a societal conversation over whether or not you get to eat food. Or, you know, you come over to my house, point a gun to my head and say you'll blow my brains out if I don't stop making it that you can't eat.

This is the relationship LGBTQ and other marginalized people have with society. You're a trans woman and I'm society that is preventing you from something will save your life, according to doctors (which is living as your expressed gender identity). Debate is a stalling tactic that prevents us from moving forward with saving your life. Because every day that we debate is a day you get closer to an untimely death. You yourself write later on that you feel fundamental topics of existence shouldn't be reopened. But the problem is they haven't been solved. Access to healthcare is about existence. Police brutality is about existence. Whether or not you have a right to food is existence. These are all topics of existence.

Dude, he's talking about Wocky's list of enemies in Wocky's signature. This isn't about you at all. Calm down.

 

related but more pertinent due to the objective vs present point

V.I.Lenin

edit: also SWfan, privilege is not necessarily even in have access to a forum, but rather the time, energy, and want to discuss politics on a star wars forum of all things. It is not a personal indictment

 

I haven't read it, but one of my texts in my pseudoarcheology course references a book "Black Olmecs and white Egyptians: a parable for professional archaeological responses to pseudoarcheology" by David S. Anderson, which covers a bit of the dubiousness of trying to assign any black or white race to Egypt when the phenotypical history of Egypt is so complex that neither an apply.

Just thought I'd share in case anyone is interested in reading up on how retroactive ideas of "this mysterious group was really this race" are not just flawed, but actually shift politically. With black Olmecs being a thing used to disparage Amerindians, but then callously adopted by liberals to build up a heritage of black diaspora at the expense of indigenous people.

 

Correct that’s why I am in favor for any speech or freedom of expression so long as it’s not saying you want someone to die.

 

what of hatespeech, libel, and walking into a theater and shouting fire?

 

Shouting during a remembrance ceremony.

 

yeah....never a good look

 

I am afraid to ask this question: what's going on in UK today?

 

Jeremy Corbyn's opponents have created a narrative that he and his allies are antisemetic. This narrative is false and hadn't gone away. Now, a report, under new leadership post election, came out saying that he perpetuated Antisemitism. He denied the findings and so he's being suspended.

The facts are that every time anyone criticizes Israel they get accused of Antisemitism.

EDIT: Sorry the people who did it was the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which I thought was a part of Labour but isn't. It sounded like a Labour thing, in my defense. That said, my point still stands.

 

Yeah, I suspected something on those lines. It seems that in UK this narrative turns out to be even more powerful than in US. Of course, we do not know how things would have gone if Bernie weren't Jewish.

 

"Antisemitism" has become a meaningless charge thanks to Zionists, kind of like how "SJW" and "incel" have become meaningless as well.

 

You omitted another one for which this is even more true - you know which - but I feel you.

 

There was a leaked labour report which documented that over half of the Antisemitism complaints against labour in 2019 came from one person who was affiliated with the EDL. Furthermore, one person was the subject of 29 complaints for the same incident.



The ECHR seems to not care.

 

The Israel lobby is good at getting people canceled.
Like Gretta Duisenberg, the widow of the first president of the ECB. She did this in 2002:



Got canceled.

 

More nonsense from that island: The BBC has new rules which prevents BBC staff from joining LGBTQ Pride Parades. The reasoning? Due to opposition to transgender rights in the UK, Pride is now considered a "controversial gathering" if it includes transgender people.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...les-prevent-staff-joining-lgbt-pride-protests

 

Broke down (and linked) the EHRC document in UK politics. It's an interesting read.

 

Journalists and news media too often fail to understand the difference between objectivity and neutrality.
As long as you pursue the truth, there is nothing wrong in having opinions and taking stances.

 

I get iffy on hate speech. If the government can say what is or is not allowed what is stopping them from applying that to you and me. I am almost certainly saying this because I am a white male so I have never experienced hate speech not really. Being called gay slurs when your not really gay is not hate speech. But banning hate speech seems like a slippery slope.

 

No, that's still hate speech and it harms gay people even if you aren't gay. Its intention is to perpetuate negative attitudes and stereotypes about gay people.

 

As I said I am almost certainly wrong here as I am coming at this as a straight white dude.

I am in favor of people being fired for what they say and society calling them out. I just don’t know if I want the government to have that power

 

Yeah, I mean WTF -- that's like hate speech 101. Othering and "someone is a pejorative" is like basic... that was one of basically the auto-fails when I was running an online raiding guild and we were trialing people...

 

About that one, gay slurs were a prominent part of how I was bullied as a kid and as a teenager - and they were the slurs used by those kids' parents to push negative attitudes and stereotypes about gay people. Unchecked hate speech propagates, whether its relays are mature or immature.