• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

johnny karate said:
But if these comics were actually true to the principles of free speech they claimed to espouse, they wouldn't have to worry about their livelihoods being impacted by other people expressing their rights to free speech and free association.
Click to expand...
No one would ever boycott over comedy done in conformance with the ideals of free speech? Pull the other one.
johnny karate said:
Karma's a bitch.
Click to expand...
No, it's a myth.
 
Weiss has long been a vocal supporter of a curiously narrow definition of free speech. That hypocrisy, shared by many, brought us to where we are today: Nasty tweets were a harbinger of incipient totalitarianism, but now the Trump administration is trying to imprison and deport people for pro-Palestinian advocacy, and it’s fine. The “PC Police” were trying to “outlaw make-believe,” but when Republican states ban books from schools and public libraries, it’s fine. These dumb lefties believe that words are violence, but when the federal government says left-wing speech is violence worthy of firing or prosecution, it’s fine. Protests on college campuses were a national crisis, but now that the federal government wants to ensure that entire universities comply with right-wing ideology when it comes to whom they hire, what they teach, and whom they admit, it’s fine.​
​
Social-media companies implementing moderation policies is censorship, but when those moderation policies favor right-wing speech and outright bigotry, it’s fine. The “illiberal left” was leading an “epidemic of self-censorship,” but now that the owners of entire corporations compel their workers to shape content in order to win the favor of the right-wing president, it’s fine. Liberal snowflakes on campus were trying to censor academic inquiry, but now the Trump administration is slashing funding for research it deems “DEI” and censoring museums and federal historical sites for being insufficiently jingoistic, and it’s fine. We are rapidly approaching a system where the government uses its authority to decide which forms of speech are acceptable to publish or broadcast. And, of course, that’s fine.​

The highlighted bits really could've used some sort of evidence in support.

If I wanted to show up Weiss as a hypocrite, I'd at least link to where she said those practices were acceptable.
 
Last edited:
i think that’s also speaking towards the trend of the curiously narrow free speech definitional hypocrisy shared by the many. weiss made a more specific transgression of free speech
 
dirtywick said:
weiss made a more specific transgression of free speech
Click to expand...
If she applied one standard to the left (or some group) and a different standard to the right (or some opposition group) when those two situations were reasonably closely analogous and should have been analyzed under the same standard, then it should be pretty easy to show that she did so. Just asserting "it's fine" over and over without linking strikes me as shoddy reasoning, even for an editorial piece.
 
again i think it's merely to point out that the entire cancel culture free speech warrior movement, as a whole, was hypocritical on all those issues and they include weiss in that group because she was prominent in it's foundation and has her own much more specific free speech warrior hypocrisy, so i don't read it that way.

but if you're correct and i'm misreading it then sure, they should link it.
 
dirtywick said:
i think it's merely to point out that the entire cancel culture free speech warrior movement, as a whole, was hypocritical on all those issues
Click to expand...
I think you'd be hard pressed to show that dedicated free speech advocacy groups (such as FIRE) give conservatives a pass when they suppress speech, so I do not accept this claim.
 
well, perhaps. i don’t follow fire so i can’t comment. did fire comment on any of those events listed in the quote you pulled? and if so what were their positions?

in any case, i don’t think the articles criticisms are directed primarily at them either since i wouldn’t consider weiss a dedicated free speech advocate
 
ew.com

CBS News anchor makes shocking plea to viewers amid Bari Weiss takeover: 'Don't just trust me'

'CBS Evening News' anchor Tony Dokoupil urged viewers to hold journalists accountable for accuracy and pushed back against 'corporate interests' amid Bari Weiss' takeover.
ew.com ew.com

cbs announces new direction for newsroom under weiss leadership, earning trust and accountability

He then criticized his media peers, telling viewers that on "too many stories, the press has missed the story" because, as he estimated, they've "taken into account the perspective of advocates and not the average American, or we put too much weight in the analysis of academics or elites, and not enough on you," the viewer.
Click to expand...

and less experts, more average american opinions
 
d4m10n said:
I think you'd be hard pressed to show that dedicated free speech advocacy groups (such as FIRE) give conservatives a pass when they suppress speech, so I do not accept this claim.
Click to expand...

dirtywick didn't say "free speech advocacy groups", dirtywick said "cancel culture free speech warrior movement", and dirtywick is absolutely correct.

For instance, there was no large-scale outcry from the anti-cancel culture folks about this, which is far worse than anything their phantom "twitter mobs" ever did. And that includes particpants in this thread. Endless posts about "Kroger Andy" and the Stars Wars lady, but not a peep about 600 people fired for their comments about Charlie Kirk.

That's because the anti-cancel culture movement was always bereft of any principle except for ◊◊◊◊◊◊ people wanting to impose their ◊◊◊◊◊◊ behavior on the rest of us without consequence.
 
i have no doubt free speech advocacy groups call out both sides. i don’t think bari weiss and those like her and as a whole the anti cancel culture movement were free speech advocates, and i don’t think the article was addressing actual free speech advocacy groups.
 
dirtywick said:
i have no doubt free speech advocacy groups call out both sides. i don’t think bari weiss and those like her and as a whole the anti cancel culture movement were free speech advocates, and i don’t think the article was addressing actual free speech advocacy groups.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Weiss and her ilk are "free speech advocates" in name only and the entire "cancel culture" grift machine was a scam from the beginning.
 
I don't remember, did any Conservative champions of free speech leap to the defense of the Dixie Chicks when they were cancelled back in 2003 for publicly criticizing President Bush for the invasion of Iraq?

The Dixie Chicks were blacklisted by many country radio stations, received death threats and were criticized by other country musicians. Sales of their music and concert tickets declined and they lost corporate sponsorship.
Click to expand...

en.wikipedia.org

Dixie Chicks comments on George W. Bush - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
dirtywick said:
i have no doubt free speech advocacy groups call out both sides
Click to expand...
Do you doubt whether free speech groups like FIRE (and the most notable spokespeople for those groups) wrote polemics against the rise of cancel culture? Can we assume their arguments were incorrect because they were also supported by the sort of hypocrites who failed to apply them when conservatives took power? I don't think it makes any sense to argue that cancelling public figures for airing controversial opinions is just fine because The Free Press & co. have failed to call out both sides when they suppress opposing views, just as I don't think it makes any sense to pretend that only conservatives are tempted to suppress opposing views.
 
Last edited:
i think it makes sense to say the popular conservative cancel culture movement was lying when they said they were concerned about free speech

edit

you also never answered my question if fire was critical of any of the events in the quote. no problem. here’s a new one: do you consider fire to be a conservative group?
 
Last edited:
dirtywick said:
do you consider fire to be a conservative group?
Click to expand...
Not really. Why are we focusing on conservative groups? I don't recall bringing them up in the OP or quoting their arguments at any point.

Do we even have any conservatives here in the thread to defend their ideas?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Not really. Why are we focusing on conservative groups? I don't recall bringing them up in the OP or quoting their arguments at any point.

Do we even have any conservatives here in the thread to defend their ideas?
Click to expand...

we are discussing the article i linked and you quoted which was about the conservative cancel culture hypocrisy.
 
Imagine Little Debbie sponsoring legislation to outlaw Hostess snack cakes because they're unhealthy. If you go along with that because Hostess treats have a lot of sugar in them, then you've been conned. You haven't made the grocery store selection healthier; you've just given a monopoly on the thing you oppose to one specific corporation, consolidating their control over it.

The exact same thing is true when one goes along with the creator of professor lists or the deporters of Israel critics because it is technically true that some people yelled on Twitter a few times.
 
d4m10n said:
Do you doubt whether free speech groups like FIRE (and the most notable spokespeople for those groups) wrote polemics against the rise of cancel culture? Can we assume their arguments were incorrect because they were also supported by the sort of hypocrites who failed to apply them when conservatives took power? I don't think it makes any sense to argue that cancelling public figures for airing controversial opinions is just fine because The Free Press & co. have failed to call out both sides when they suppress opposing views, just as I don't think it makes any sense to pretend that only conservatives are tempted to suppress opposing views.
Click to expand...

"Canceling" isn't really a thing. It's a buzzword used a euphemism for what used to be considered social consequences for bad behavior.

And when the people who weaponized this buzzword under the guise of "free speech" fail to call out actual instances of speech suppression, it not only makes them raging hypocrites but calls into question the entire enterprise.

I'll put it to you this way: You tried to convince us that the Star Wars lady getting fired and your favorite podcast getting cancelled was a Very Serious Problem, but have said nothing in this thread about the 600 people who were fired because of their comments about Charlie Kirk. This, by the way, is a much larger number than any accounting of people fired because of "cancel culture".

So why should anyone take anything you have to say on this subject seriously?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

d4m10n
  • Locked
Cancel culture IRL
87 88 89 90 91
Replies
4K
Views
161K
Darat
Darat

Back
Top Bottom