Cancel Culture

[Synco]

I honestly just found parts of it funny and parts of it not. That's it.

C'mon, there's more to it. It's a political video posted in a political thread inside a diverse forum. There's a message.

I also don't claim to have adversaries nor claim they are too irrational to have a reasonable discussion. Shamans(not Shamana) clearly doesn't like me though which he's entitled to. I am not often that fond of myself either.

Don't mean here on the Caf. Or rather, only by extension.

What I mean is that you post several articles/videos per week which declare in no uncertain terms that the political left is tribal, disinterested in rational argument, authoritarian & identitarian. Thus claiming the counterposition of reason, tolerance, maturity, etc. pp. One such post (of the 'anti-extremist' variety) came just 2 minutes before the video in question.

So I note the gap between that and stuff whose only aim is to confirm stereotypes, heap ridicule on the opponent, and radiate a smug sense of superiority.* It's a piece of political identitarianism, ironically.

(Not that ridicule is necessarily bad or self-congratulary, just saying.)

--------
* And plugging cacao, of course.

 

[Wibble]

I don't buy that the BBC's comedy is too far to the left, but too London-centric/metropolitan I do think is a fair point.

Wonder what the "worst offending shows" are. Whatever they are they don't have anything like the zealotry and lack of humour of stuff like C4's The Last Leg or Alternative Election Night.

The Last Leg - zealotry and lack of humor? We get it repeated here and while it isn't neccesarily hilarious what zealotry is there?

 

[Gehrman]

C'mon, there's more to it. It's a political video posted in a political thread inside a diverse forum. There's a message.

Don't mean here on the Caf. Or rather, only by extension.

What I mean is that you post several articles/videos per week which declare in no uncertain terms that the political left is tribal, disinterested in rational argument, authoritarian & identitarian. Thus claiming the counterposition of reason, tolerance, maturity, etc. pp. One such post (of the 'anti-extremist' variety) came just 2 minutes before the video in question.

So I note the gap between that and stuff whose only aim is to confirm stereotypes, heap ridicule on the opponent, and radiate a smug sense of superiority.* It's a piece of political identitarianism, ironically.

(Not that ridicule is necessarily bad or self-congratulary, just saying.)

--------
* And plugging cacao, of course.

Which again was comedy that makes fun of the hard left as well as the hard right which i also thought was funny and with a few changes would have a been more spot on for our times. You might also have noticed that I put have up video's of Brent Tahone who is a parody of Trump supporters which these days constitute the hard right in America at least.

In the general i'm more contrarian to some of the things that the going on now(mainly the "culture wars") than most people on the Caf, but I have honestly have not claimed I feel anyone here on the caf is beyond rationel dicussion. Some people in the real word clearly are beyond rationality whatever political spectrum they may claim to belong.

I'm sorry, if some of my posts come across as smug, but I certaintly can't be the only sinner in that regards on the Caf.

If you knew my voting history, you'd know that for the last 12 years I've voted for the most left wing party in my country, but i've grown up in a classical liberalist and conservativehousehold with a father who 1st hand witnessed and suffered directly at hands of Mao's cultural revolution, so I don't hold the same contempt for right wingers as some do here on the caf and I don't consider it a smear. But that's probably also because the definition on the social media has become so simplistic that it's equated with the far right or maga supporters.

 

[Synco]

Which again was comedy that makes fun of the hard left as well as the hard right which i also thought was funny and with a few changes would have a been more spot on for our times. You might also have noticed that I put have up video's of Brent Tahone who is a parody of Trump supporters which these days constitute the hard right in America at least.

I'm aware of that facet, and I acknowledged it in the part you bolded ('of the anti-extremist variety' = a self-understood centrist position). Doesn't make specific criticisms less prejudiced and self-congratulatory, especially since Mr. Cleese (like most liberal 'anti-extremists') forgot to look in the mirror there.

In the general i'm more contrarian to some of the things that the going on now(mainly the "culture wars") than most people on the Caf, but I have honestly have not claimed I feel anyone here on the caf is beyond rationel dicussion. Some people in the real word clearly are beyond rationality whatever political spectrum they may claim to belong.

I'd say most of the pieces you post are bang on part of the 'culture wars'. Its authors only fail to understand it.

I'm sorry, if some of my posts come across as smug, but I certaintly can't be the only sinner in that regards on the Caf.

That's certainly true. But note that I didn't say you acted smug, it was part of my description how the video works as identitarian backslapping instead of being an insightful parody of anything.

All of this is a good illustration of how this kind of hostility to the 'hard left' usually involves identitarians painting themselves as crusaders against identitarianism. That lack of self-awareness is astonishing. Gonna write something in the same vein about Douglas Murray.

If you knew my voting history, you'd know that for the last 12 years I've voted for the most left wing party in my country, but i've grown up in a classical liberalist and conservativehousehold with a father who 1st hand witnessed and suffered directly at hands of Mao's cultural revolution, so I don't hold the same contempt for right wingers as some do here on the caf and I don't consider it a smear. But that's probably also because the definition on the social media has become so simplistic that it's equated with the far right or maga supporters.

Well, the context of the stuff you post is mostly the politics of Western societies. To understand the deep-seated contempt for right wing politics (mainstream and fringe), you have to understand in which ways these politics, ideologies, and everday practises marginalize, threaten, and harm actual people.

 

[Gehrman]

I'm aware of that facet, and I acknowledged it in the part you bolded ('of the anti-extremist variety' = a self-understood centrist position). Doesn't make specific criticisms less prejudiced and self-congratulatory, especially since Mr. Cleese (like most liberal 'anti-extremists') forgot to look in the mirror there.

I'd say most of the stuff you post is bang on part of the 'culture wars'. Its authors only fail to understand it.

That's certainly true. But note that I didn't say you acted smug, it was part of my description how the video works as identitarian backslapping instead of being an insightful parody of anything.

All of this is a good illustration of how this kind of hostility to the 'hard left' usually involves identitarians painting themselves as crusaders against identitarianism. That lack of self-awareness is astonishing. Gonna write something in the same vein about Douglas Murray.

Well, the context of the stuff you post is mostly the politics of Western societies. To understand the deep-seated contempt for right wing politics (mainstream and fringe), you have to understand in which ways these politics, ideologies, and everday practises marginalize, threaten, and harm actual people.

On the subject of Douglas Murray, I have actually tried to contact the currently most well-known(or at least online active) and articulate contrarians such as Douglas, the writers on Spiked-online, James Lindsay, Coleman Hughes and Inaya Folarin Iman and urged them to share a platform or a stage and have a long debate with an articulate opponent from the "other side" who actually disagrees with them, but they have told me that they have tried many times and havn't found anyone willing to do so. Personally I would love them to have a long debate shared on youtube or on a podcast with an opponent who disagree's with them, so they can be challenged on their views and their followers as well. Most of the interviews or debates they engage in is mainly with people who agrees with them and it becomes an echo chamber. It would be far more stimulating to seem them debate, when they are being thoroughly challenged on their views, on both sides.

 

[Synco]

On the subject of Douglas Murray, I have actually tried to contact the currently most well-known(or at least online active) and articulate contrarians such as Douglas, the writers on Spiked-online, James Lindsay, Coleman Hughes and Inaya Folarin Iman and urged them to share a platform or a stage and have a long debate with an articulate opponent from the "other side" who actually disagrees with them, but they have told me that they have tried many times and havn't found anyone willing to do so. Personally I would love them to have a long debate shared on youtube or on a podcast with an opponent who disagree's with them, so they can be challenged on their views and their followers as well. Most of the interviews or debates they engage in is mainly with people who agrees with them and it becomes an echo chamber. It would be far more stimulating to seem them debate, when they are being thoroughly challenged on their views, on both sides.

Having read a chunk of one of Murray's books after you posted him on here, this unwillingness doesn't surprise me one bit.

To reiterate:

To understand the deep-seated contempt for right wing politics (mainstream and fringe), you have to understand in which ways these politics, ideologies, and everday practises marginalize, threaten, and harm actual people.

 

[berbatrick]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[berbatrick]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

let's see if he gets her physically cancelled!

 

[berbatrick]

Free speech doesn't meant freedom from consequences

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[calodo2003]

Free speech doesn't meant freedom from consequences

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Must be something in the Central Florida water system that affects Republican business owners a certain way...

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_2092582

 

[berbatrick]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

felix beiderman for emperor

 

[Untd55]

Free speech doesn't meant freedom from consequences

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Understandable considering the enormous tax hikes Biden wants to impose. Do people think that businesses and the rich are just going to sit back and watch their income fall? No, they are going to cut costs, and the best way to do that is to fire staff.

People may be all for increasing tax rates on the rich, but the truth is they will compromise anything to make sure their income will not be effected.

(I'm not talking about the sacking of the staff for speaking out about it, by the way)

 

[KirkDuyt]

Understandable considering the enormous tax hikes Biden wants to impose. Do people think that businesses and the rich are just going to sit back and watch their income fall? No, they are going to cut costs, and the best way to do that is to fire staff.

People may be all for increasing tax rates on the rich, but the truth is they will compromise anything to make sure their income will not be effected.

(I'm not talking about the sacking of the staff for speaking out about it, by the way)

Is he though? Biden is about as corporate as it gets. There is no way this guy will hurt his rich buddies. He's not exactly the poster boy of socialism.

 

[Untd55]

Is he though? Biden is about as corporate as it gets. There is no way this guy will hurt his rich buddies. He's not exactly the poster boy of socialism.

Doesn't he want a 67% wealth tax? Whether it goes through or is just empty words is another matter, but that it has even been mention will get rich people sweating. Some people's greed knows no bounds.

 

[balaks]

Is he though? Biden is about as corporate as it gets. There is no way this guy will hurt his rich buddies. He's not exactly the poster boy of socialism.

He is a terrible candidate but still infinitely better than the utter shit show he is up against.

 

[Marcosdeto]

this is an interesting view on cancel culture

btw, i think it really exists and that is a shame

 

[BobbyManc]

Cancel culture is so insidious. First, your given a platform on the BBC, then the Jeremy Kyle show, then ITV start giving you a platform to say what you’d do as Prime Minister. These right-wing “celebs” stand no chance against the powerful left institutions

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[berbatrick]

PC gone mad on campus, who will stop these lefty professors

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/11/19/hoover-has-gone-too-far/

Came across this because the author's chess coach is a popular youtuber, and he mentioned it.

 

[Marcosdeto]

I mean this:

 

[Marcosdeto]

And this:

 

[Marcosdeto]

And this


i guess that even a redcafe scout will understand what i mean when i say that cancel culture exists

 

[Sweet Square]

And this:

Yet another disgusting attack on private property from the freedom hate conservative movement.

 

[Marcosdeto]

Yet another disgusting attack on private property from the freedom hate conservative movement.

Oh, private property! That’s a good one!

 

[caid]

Oh, private property! That’s a good one!

They aren't cancelled and you've picked 3 good sources for the hysteria around politics in America.

 

[Marcosdeto]

They aren't cancelled and you've picked 3 good sources for the hysteria around politics in America.

One example, was kirk and owens being harrassed in a restaurant for what they think
The other was ben shapiro being denied to give a lecture in a university for what he thinks
The last was a teacher at an ivi league university being harassed by students for what he thinks

in my book, that is cancel culture: the idea that someone has the power to denny others to think differently and express it

 

[Gehrman]

Cancel culture is also about trying to public shame people. For already well-known people like Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro the only effect from this is they will get far bigger audience and more supporters.

 

[fergieisold]

And this:

ugh, he’s just trying to get publicity here. I’m not against him speaking and I don’t disagree with some of his points...but just rock up and be reasonable. He wanted that narrative of being denied entry.

 

[caid]

One example, was kirk and owens being harrassed in a restaurant for what they think
The other was ben shapiro being denied to give a lecture in a university for what he thinks
The last was a teacher at an ivi league university being harassed by students for what he thinks

in my book, that is cancel culture: the idea that someone has the power to denny others to think differently and express it

I was talking about Kirk, Owens and Shapiro, i have no opinion on the university teacher. They think differently and have a massive platform to express it. They still do, so i don't see where the cancellation is coming from.
They're victims of a political atmosphere they helped create and perpetuate, so its hard to feel too sorry for them beyond finding it a sorry state of affairs. They're the counterpart to the left sjw harassing them in the street, they're as much as or a much larger problem.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

One example, was kirk and owens being harrassed in a restaurant for what they think
The other was ben shapiro being denied to give a lecture in a university for what he thinks
The last was a teacher at an ivi league university being harassed by students for what he thinks

in my book, that is cancel culture: the idea that someone has the power to denny others to think differently and express it

One example, was kirk and owens being harrassed in a restaurant for what they think
The other was ben shapiro being denied to give a lecture in a university for what he thinks
The last was a teacher at an ivi league university being harassed by students for what he thinks

in my book, that is cancel culture: the idea that someone has the power to denny others to think differently and express it

Cancel culture is when someone does or says something controversial or inappropriate (which can be something they put on social media many years ago) that kicks off a wave of outrage online, that results in them being “cancelled” Which can mean a lot of different things but often involves losing a job or piece of work they might have got otherwise. When someone is cancelled it’s usually over a single incident and not something they wanted or expected to happen.

The examples you bring up here are a different phenomenon. Which would usually be called “no-platforming”. This is when people with controversial opinions are denied a platform to express them. The type of person who gets de-platformed has usually made a deliberate decision to make a career out of being controversial and are not surprised at all when they are refused a platform. In fact many of them (e.g. Shapiro) deliberately engineer situations like the one in the video you shared.

 

[Wolverine]

One example, was kirk and owens being harrassed in a restaurant for what they think
The other was ben shapiro being denied to give a lecture in a university for what he thinks
The last was a teacher at an ivi league university being harassed by students for what he thinks

in my book, that is cancel culture: the idea that someone has the power to denny others to think differently and express it

Cancel culture is mostly overhyped moral panic, by whiney snowflakey types with zero self-awareness and nothing interesting to say
Usually they'll whine about how their free speech is being stifled on platforms where they have access to a wide audience or national newspapers.

 

[Marcosdeto]

I was talking about Kirk, Owens and Shapiro, i have no opinion on the university teacher. They think differently and have a massive platform to express it. They still do, so i don't see where the cancellation is coming from.
They're victims of a political atmosphere they helped create and perpetuate, so its hard to feel too sorry for them beyond finding it a sorry state of affairs. They're the counterpart to the left sjw harassing them in the street, they're as much as or a much larger problem.

I don’t feel sorry for them, i feel sorry for the whole society that is in hands of a few that think their opinion is the only that should be heard and that they are entitled to stop not only others to talk, but others to listen

and if shapiro, owens and/or kirk ever forced someone to shut up and didn’t let other ideas be expressed i will also think they are part of the cancel culture and a disgrace for liberties

 

[fergieisold]

Cancel culture is mostly overhyped moral panic, by whiney snowflakey types with zero self-awareness and nothing interesting to say
Usually they'll whine about how their free speech is being stifled on platforms where they have access to a wide audience or national newspapers.

Tbf it’s the snowflakes types that are causing it.

 

[Marcosdeto]

Cancel culture is when someone does or says something controversial or inappropriate (which can be something they put on social media many years ago) that kicks off a wave of outrage online, that results in them being “cancelled” Which can mean a lot of different things but often involves losing a job or piece of work they might have got otherwise. When someone is cancelled it’s usually over a single incident and not something they wanted or expected to happen.

The examples you bring up here are a different phenomenon. Which would usually be called “no-platforming”. This is when people with controversial opinions are denied a platform to express them. The type of person who gets de-platformed has usually made a deliberate decision to make a career out of being controversial and are not surprised at all when they are refused a platform. In fact many of them (e.g. Shapiro) deliberately engineer situations like the one in the video you shared.

Well, first "controversial" doesn't mean "wrong" or "hate speach", it just means it's not accepted by many. This happened through history many times and, here we are, the world is round and the universe doesn't turn around us.

who is to say what's "inappropriate"?

Not long ago the idea of gay people getting married was "inappropriate", now, at least were i leave, is a right

And Shapiro may have engineered situations like that. So? does it make it acceptable to be cancelled? what is it that he says that people who are not going to listen to him, feel they have the right to stop other people to do it? and who is going to make that decision? those kids? why? what gives them that right?

 

[Marcosdeto]

ugh, he’s just trying to get publicity here. I’m not against him speaking and I don’t disagree with some of his points...but just rock up and be reasonable. He wanted that narrative of being denied entry.

of course he wanted that, because one of his paradigms against them is exactly that

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Well, first "controversial" doesn't mean "wrong" or "hate speach", it just means it's not accepted by many. This happened through history many times and, here we are, the world is round and the universe doesn't turn around us.

who is to say what's "inappropriate"?

Not long ago the idea of gay people getting married was "inappropriate", now, at least were i leave, is a right

And Shapiro may have engineered situations like that. So? does it make it acceptable to be cancelled? what is it that he says that people who are not going to listen to him, feel they have the right to stop other people to do it? and who is going to make that decision? those kids? why? what gives them that right?

I wasn’t getting into the rights and wrongs of cancel culture or de-platforming. I was just explaining the difference.

 

[Sweet Square]

And Shapiro may have engineered situations like that. So? does it make it acceptable to be cancelled? what is it that he says that people who are not going to listen to him, feel they have the right to stop other people to do it? and who is going to make that decision? those kids? why? what gives them that right?

Er......private property.

 

[Marcosdeto]

I wasn’t getting into the rights and wrongs of cancel culture or de-platforming. I was just explaining the difference.

oh
ok

how was my "who's to say what's inappropriate?" speach

Rev Martin Luther King must be proud of me

 

[Marcosdeto]

Er......private property.

stop it
you must know is not that

 

[Wolverine]

Proceeds to lecture about free speech

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Pogue Mahone]

oh
ok

how was my "who's to say what's inappropriate?" speach

Rev Martin Luther King must be proud of me

I’m basically on your side here. I’m not a fan of no-platforming, as I don’t like the idea of “protecting” anyone from ideas (obvious exception being hate speech etc) Plus I don’t like the way it gives these controversial opnions more power. Let them speak and let ridiculous ideas be ridiculed.

Having said that, I also don’t like the way twats like Ben Shapiro (and I really do think he’s a twat) have a whole grift around being no-platformed and love the attention it gives them. Plus this isn’t really about free speech. It’s about the freedom to decide who you do and don’t want to hire to speak at an event you’re organising.