Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[Delphic Oracle]

How on earth do you not understand that these are the tactics of the inquisition and the nazi part?

I suppose a holocaust denier might think losing their job and suffering some social ostacization is akin to the worst Nazi behaviors.

But anyone not blinded by hate should know better.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I suppose a holocaust denier might think losing their job and suffering some social ostacization is akin to the worst Nazi behaviors.

But anyone not blinded by hate should know better.

Look the holocaust is like all things, something that all parents should be able to opt out their kids from learning about. I mean what if one kid knows his great granddad was a guard at the death camps? That could give him feel bads and so that is why the holocaust should not be taught.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Those that don't have the stomach for extracting social costs for being an open fascist aren't going to like what usually happens when nothing is done to stop fascism.

"Cancelling" nazis is the nice way to deal with this problem. Later the solutions become much less pleasant.

 

[Cain]

A woman was fired after she was accused of telling a Black dog walker in Williamsburg to stay in his 'hood'

She tried claiming she never said it, but a white guy gave her up.

 

[ponderingturtle]

A woman was fired after she was accused of telling a Black dog walker in Williamsburg to stay in his 'hood'

She tried claiming she never said it, but a white guy gave her up.

Ah but what about all the problems of blacks not saying in their own neighborhoods like real estate agents try to keep. I remember how happy our neighbor was that we were a proper white couple who bought the house instead of you know.

 

[mumblethrax]

A woman was fired after she was accused of telling a Black dog walker in Williamsburg to stay in his 'hood'

She tried claiming she never said it, but a white guy gave her up.

The best thing about this story is that the CEO of the company who fired her expressed hope that the affected parties would "find resolution" and offered to help if he could.

Who better to broker the peace than the guy who just fired her.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The best thing about this story is that the CEO of the company who fired her expressed hope that the affected parties would "find resolution" and offered to help if he could.

Who better to broker the peace than the guy who just fired her.

That's odd. What exactly does he even mean by "resolution"?

She got fired and publicly shamed for being a racist POS. That's the resolution.

 

[mumblethrax]

That's odd. What exactly does he even mean by "resolution"?

She got fired and publicly shamed for being a racist POS. That's the resolution.

He probably means something like "I'm a narcissistic dimwit who wants to inject myself into this story for no good reason." The self-interested reason for having zero tolerance policies is so you can plausibly disassociate your brand from racism; to then re-associate your brand with the employee you just fired makes very little sense.

 

[smartcooky]

A woman was fired after she was accused of telling a Black dog walker in Williamsburg to stay in his 'hood'

She tried claiming she never said it, but a white guy gave her up.

Fired, and she deserved it.... racist gets consequences for her racism. Bloody good, warms my heart!

"The Joseph then turns to another man, and says "I'm sorry, you were right here watching this entire thing. Did she not just stand here and tell us to stay in our hood?"

The man in the video replies: "She did."​

That bystander will now be marked by her as a "race traitor"

 

[smartcooky]

He probably means something like "I'm a narcissistic dimwit who wants to inject myself into this story for no good reason." The self-interested reason for having zero tolerance policies is so you can plausibly disassociate your brand from racism; to then re-associate your brand with the employee you just fired makes very little sense.

That is an extremely cynical attitude. You have no idea whatsoever as to what he had in mind, you're just pulling stuff you made up out of the hole between your buttocks!

 

[mumblethrax]

That is an extremely cynical attitude. You have no idea whatsoever as to what he had in mind, you're just pulling stuf you made up out of the hole between you buttocks!

I have some idea as to what he had in mind, since he actually said it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And this is the mistake you, and people like you, keep making. Its not about "wrong beliefs" and "right beliefs", its about what we should regard as acceptable in a humane, caring and civilized society, and what should be not acceptable. In short, its not about good v bad, its about good v evil!

So... The inquisition was doing good by encouraging people to turn in their neighbors as heretics, because all non-christians are evil? The nazis were doing good by having 'good' citizens inform on their jewish aquaintances because jews are evil?

I'm still rather of the opinion that labeling beliefs as inherently evil, and then advocating and applauding the doxxing of those who hold those beliefs so that they can be persecuted is an evil tactic, regardless of how holy you think your cause is.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Personally I dont think you need the quotation marks if we’re talking about Holocaust denial.

If your neighbors found out you were running secret Holocaust denial and white supremacy sites and no longer want to associate with you, they have every right to feel that way.

Oh, I see. That totally makes sense, and completely justifies doxxing people and advocating for their social and economic persecution!

Look, I can choose not to associate with people who hold views I find execrable. Everyone should make their own choices about who they associate with, how much they are willing to accept that other people hold views they disagree with very strongly.

But that's not what this is. This isn't Joan next door finding out that Greg is a closeted nazi. This is anonymous person on the internet hacking a bunch of people and throwing their information out for everyone to see, with the express intention of ruining their lives and getting them attacked.

I don't approve of that at all, no matter how strongly I disagree with the beliefs of those who are being exposed. I strongly disagree with a *lot* of beliefs expressed here. I rather strongly disagree with the beliefs expressed by posters who advocate for or laud violence against those whose politics don't match their own, or who don't adhere to the same dogmatic partisan tenets that they espouse.

But to intentionally expose their identities and try to get them harmed, that's so much of a social transgression and I'm constantly amazed at how many people think it's just peachy.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sorry, trying to browbeat me into some diseased worldview where one is required to be agnostic on the merits of fascism or other genocidal ideologies is not going to work.

It's both hilarious and generally good that these people who thought they were safe to go mask-off fash are suddenly getting outed to their surrounding communities.

There's a difference between being agnostic to another person's views that you strongly disagree with... and actually seeking to see them harmed - socially, economically, and potentially physically.

It's entirely possible for an intelligent and principled person to speak out and argue against fascist beliefs without actually desiring to see the fascist-belief-holder beaten into submission, rendered destitute, and deprived of society.

The advocacy for coercively ruining and threatening those with views you find abhorrent IS fascism.

 

[dirtywick]

Oh, I see. That totally makes sense, and completely justifies doxxing people and advocating for their social and economic persecution!

Look, I can choose not to associate with people who hold views I find execrable. Everyone should make their own choices about who they associate with, how much they are willing to accept that other people hold views they disagree with very strongly.

But that's not what this is. This isn't Joan next door finding out that Greg is a closeted nazi. This is anonymous person on the internet hacking a bunch of people and throwing their information out for everyone to see, with the express intention of ruining their lives and getting them attacked.

I don't approve of that at all, no matter how strongly I disagree with the beliefs of those who are being exposed. I strongly disagree with a *lot* of beliefs expressed here. I rather strongly disagree with the beliefs expressed by posters who advocate for or laud violence against those whose politics don't match their own, or who don't adhere to the same dogmatic partisan tenets that they espouse.

But to intentionally expose their identities and try to get them harmed, that's so much of a social transgression and I'm constantly amazed at how many people think it's just peachy.

I just wanted to say that trying to shame people for treating actual nazis like “nazis” actually treat everyone else is a pretty hot take.

Well I totally understand why of all people on the internet Nazis would want to remain anonymous. I don’t necessarily condone hacking people in principle and have mixed feelings on doxing. That said, it happened. I don’t think you can really expect everyone else not to react to finding out someone is a real life nazi. Whether Joan found out on her own or someone else told her it’s what happened. It’s a weird principal stance to expect people to carry on their personal relationships because they found out in an “unfair” way, and doubly so to expect that to be the default stance in my opinion.

But by all means, if you want to be that forgiving that you’d willingly associate with Nazis because they wanted to do it secretly I think that’s your choice to make. I think most people, rightfully, would not.

 

[rdwight]

That's odd. What exactly does he even mean by "resolution"?

She got fired and publicly shamed for being a racist POS. That's the resolution.

I mean, you can really confidently say she is a racist POS from a 20 second clip and a description from only one side? Seems a lot to infer from a short snapshot of her life. Maybe a bit of an extreme position?

 

[d4m10n]

I mean, you can really confidently say she is a racist POS from a 20 second clip and a description from only one side? Seems a lot to infer from a short snapshot of her life. Maybe a bit of an extreme position?

https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1442599627761623044

 

[Delphic Oracle]

So... The inquisition was doing good by encouraging people to turn in their neighbors as heretics, because all non-christians are evil? The nazis were doing good by having 'good' citizens inform on their jewish aquaintances because jews are evil?



I'm still rather of the opinion that labeling beliefs as inherently evil, and then advocating and applauding the doxxing of those who hold those beliefs so that they can be persecuted is an evil tactic, regardless of how holy you think your cause is.

"Rule of so" writ large.

There's a world of difference between social consequences for possessing immutable qualities and the same for wilfully chosen behaviors and actions. Registering domain names and operating websites are not "beliefs," they are actions.

Defending people who foment, support, and contribute to bigotry that brings real harm to others from consequences for doing so is an odd hill to want to die on.

But there you are, at the peak.

Wave your flag proudly, I raise one finger on each hand in salute to your noble stand.

 

[smartcooky]

So... The inquisition was doing good by encouraging people to turn in their neighbors as heretics, because all non-christians are evil?

False equivalence fallacy.
Rule of So.

The nazis were doing good by having 'good' citizens inform on their jewish aquaintances because jews are evil?

False equivalence fallacy.
Rule of So

I'm still rather of the opinion that labelling beliefs as inherently evil, and then advocating and applauding the doxxing of those who hold those beliefs so that they can be persecuted is an evil tactic, regardless of how holy you think your cause is.

When it comes to fascists, racists, bigots, white supremacists and other far right scumbags, there is no middle ground, no grey area - you are either against them or you are for them. If you claim to be agnostic regarding these groups, you are lying to yourself and are part of the problem. You become an enabler who helps to make them stronger, more powerful and more widespread. Evil thrives in darkness. It hates the light for fear that it will be exposed. People with your attitude help evil to stay hidden.

"Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."
-John Stuart Mill

 

[Boudicca90]

There's a difference between being agnostic to another person's views that you strongly disagree with... and actually seeking to see them harmed - socially, economically, and potentially physically.

It's entirely possible for an intelligent and principled person to speak out and argue against fascist beliefs without actually desiring to see the fascist-belief-holder beaten into submission, rendered destitute, and deprived of society.

The advocacy for coercively ruining and threatening those with views you find abhorrent IS fascism.

I used to be naïve and believed that all viewpoints were valid to express in this country and that free speech was absolute. "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." was my general viewpoint. Surely in the marketplace of ideas, the 'right' ideas will win over the 'wrong' ideas?

Real life doesn't work that way, and allowing fascists, Nazis, and white supremacists a public platform to speak and spread their filth only enables them to gain power. And people like you, who seem to see all sides as generally equal, are unwitting accomplices.