On "Cancel Culture"

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Jul 20, 2020.

  1. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    the republican party is not the whole right wing. the republican party is far right. their are plenty of normal right wingers who vote third party, don't vote, or even vote for democrats.
    thats a literal oxymoron. antifa isn't facist that you claim it is only shows your biases and ignorance. and the right wing attitude to label everything
    ok so than why did you imply they didn't exist? where the fuck do you think democrats get their support from. its certainly not from actual far left people.
    what far left. at best you have people like sanders and AOC who barely qualify as left wing.
    So you think a party that believes in equal rights should encourage people who are against equal rights?

    i didn't avoid what you said. i just pointed out just how ignorant it is. you think that the democrats are being propped up by people who hate them. it wasn't a strawman. it was implicent in your moronic belief that the democratic base is the far left.

    no an actual fact.

    so you posted 2 graphs that (checks notes) does nothing to disprove that the overton window in the us skews to the right. again no fallacy. i was saying it was wrong i was providing context to what else was said

    you rarely cite anything. just look at your meaningless graphs, no cite. so you thats technically plagerism but one that happens on the internet all the time so no foul.
    given you have zero understanding of anything outside of your rightwing viewpoint that is doubtful. also their is a difference between the news and opinion pages.

    heard of it. fail to see why your mentioning it considering im neither an extremist nor fundamentalist. poes law would cover your posts far more than mine. i mean considering ive literally satirized you be referencing alice's adventures in wonderland your suggestion that it would be difficult to assume hyperbole wasnt on the table rather laughable.

    you are not the group. first of considering you have peddled in racist dog whistles and tropes why do you think you have a presumption of ignorance? you are a proven liar.

    this begs the question of who you think lives in latin america if nor hispanics?

    no you didn't. you posted an article that showed mexico was doing poorly. but it is not doing worse than the us because we are literally doing the worse. we are 10th in cases per a million mexico is 56 we are 10th in deaths per a million mexico is 14th. the only was we are beating mexico is testing which quite frankly isn't saying much we should be. give it a couple weeks that could change but as of right now that statament is not true

    clearly no you don't,
    im not inserting anything they're there.
    i don't demand anyone see anything in terms of race but lets look at your actual claim which you have repeatedly tried to pretend is something it isn't.

    this is your exact quote. suggesting that the covid was always going to come through the southern border. the people coming through the southern border are almost exclusively hispanic. implying that hispanics would bring it here no matter what we did. considering outside of mexico and brazil latin america is doing better than the us. this is an incredibly racist suggestion. even if im willing to give you the benefit of the doubt which you most certainly don't deserve it still reeks of xenophobia.

    except it is

    your the one who claimed covid 19 was always going to be brought to this country by a hispanic person not me. yet some how that makes me the racist for pointing that out.
    im not. if you could stop making racist claims youd never hear me mention it.

    yes you did. unless you think latin america isn't uniformly hispanic

    you know exactly what im refering to.
    phone. and grammar nazidom is basically an admission you don't have an argument.
    so reading your posts makes me a mind reader because im literally only responding to what you wrote.

    still projecting.

    nope stil your implications
    i never said anything remotely like that.
    its your argument. i specifically said it was due to republican misrule. seriously how dishonest are you.

    nice to know you recognize yours posts as meaningless.

    learn how to read. every argument you make is against a strawman.
    one doesn't have to be to understand the need for seriousness.

    so facts are reality defying nonsense? wow you are a nutter

    of course not. you ignore what written and tilt at windmills. nice to know you can't handle being called on your bullshit.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    See, reality doesn't agree with our neighbor, Vociferous, so all he can do is change the subject and cry. Remember, this part starts with↑ failing to discern between Democrats and leftists, and even that was a clumsy maneuver in a rubber-glue retort↑ that fails to distinguish thought from action.

    The thread is actually about "cancel culture"; one of Vociferous' fellow advocates wanted to have the discussion, yet this is what comes of it. Well, what, really, did we expect? The question quoted in the topic post was an attempt to distract a discussion about prejudice and law enforcement.

    We should observe that certain people cannot discern between behavior and viewpoint: If we oblige people to behave decently, then some political views need to seek new expression. Some people think this is cancellation, or suppression of a political view. Like the old question of equal or special rights, some people just aren't capable of perceiving or understanding the difference. But if you also add in the old, related political canard about crime, punishment, and psych defense, you'll see an underlying expectation emerge, that certain forms of dangerous or otherwise problematic behavior must be shielded from criticism because folks just can't help themselves.

    And it is, in fact, a common behavior among supremacists. I sometimes remind that some arguments are harder to justify rationally than others. We also ought to wonder, from time to time, at the exceptions and excuses people make. One joke would be that changing the subject is among the leading discursive methods at Sciforums. Analysis would suggest identifiable themes about how that works. You've been around, awhile, PJ, so certain themes in all this are pretty apparent to you.

    Several months ago, the staff had another one of its disputes that never get resolved. The demonstrable results of that problematic episode include that changing the subject in order to troll threads one doesn't like is acceptable behavior for some people and political views, and that doing so will sometimes be rewarded.

    You've been around, awhile, PJ; you can probably kind of guess how it goes.

    There is a literary metaphor that doesn't quite work because the moralization that goes with it, about expecting better of people, in addition to being stupid in and of itself, also fails to account for infliction beyond explicitly natural circumstance. But if we attend a different literary consideration, and observe who is amusing themselves, compared who is obliged by the principle of actually believing in what they are saying to use words responsibly, you already know what we will find.

    As a question of behavior, those who delight in bad faith, hoping to disconcert at the very least, while posturing an outward appeal—uh ... what is it they call it, virtue signaling?—are given some functional cover because otherwise, certain political viewpoints might not be represented in the discourse at Sciforums.


    Not all funny stories are truly funny. For instance, funny story: Once upon a time, someone I respect noted the manner in which explicit supremacist hostility made participation at Sciforums an undesirable experience, a literally dreadful prospect. And, no, that's not funny. What it actually referred to is supremacist bigotry, and the idea of experiencing such hatred as the price of admission for participating at Sciforums. It really isn't funny.

    Some months later—not real long, as I recall—someone delivered a similar line to me, but about someone else. And every once in a while, you might notice me reminding that function matters. Someone else found the price of admission at Sciforums disconcerting: While devoting much effort to disingenuous behavior, the constant criticism of disingenuousness was discouraging.

    It's also true, you've been around long enough that if I say it's not a new complaint, you probably have some idea of what that means.


    One of the generally apparent aspects about these behaviors as political viewpoints—i.e., if the problematic behavior is forbidden, it necessarily follows that some political argument silenced—is that they are strangely, intrinsically antithetical. As downstream complaints against a critique, they are invested almost entirely in identifying against something; the plot twist, of course, is that the something they identify against is a critique of something else that the anti-identification pretends to refuse. Like the late Den Hollander, or infamous hoaxer Lindsay; it's not "misogyny", but, "anti-feminsim". In that framework, it's not a matter of being for misogyny, but identifying against some sinister iteration of feminism while desiring circumstances that just happen to coincide with misogynistic outcomes.

    And of that latter, Lindsay, what do we call his anti-antiracism?


    Yes, there are variations on the theme; I actually know people, in another question, who would be on the right side of history if they gave a damn about such things, but that actually isn't their point. For them, it really does start to look as if the point is the comfort of having someone to hate.

    And if we consider a point about birds of a common feather, well, Venn overlap isn't nearly as surprising as they would pretend.


    Anecdote: I once had a dispute with someone who decided to remind me to check a dictionary; thing is, I'd already told him he was at a point where his only course was to redefine words. As you might expect, given the setup, the difference between what he wanted and what the dictionary said was that I would need to strike definitions from the dictionary in order to accommodate his argument. I mention it because it comes up, from time to time.


    Recently at Sciforums, a public discussion arose regarding potential racist advocacy. It was an interesting inquiry because the question of advocting for something is a fraught prospect: At Sciforums, seeking normalization of and sympathy toward, or even an advance in legal status for, the infamous and dangerous is not presupposed to constitute advocacy for that whatever.

    Even setting that obscure aspect aside, the entire episode was—y'know, never mind. You get the drift.


    In the distraction along the way in this discussion, it really is unclear what to tell the guy who thinks the party that rejected the socialist and the reformer in favor of an old white institutionalist, just passed on universal healthcare and marijuana legalization in platform arguments, hems and haws about police reform, has undertaken the duty of preserving warzone deployment, and must necessarily be dragged kicking and screaming to meet the basic needs of Americans is somehow the left; he's not really capable of explaining how that works—I mean, coherently.

    "Fascist 'antifa'"? Hey, remember once upon a time when we had that dirty Muslim-Nazi-Jew-Commie in the White House? Or the time Obama was Hitler, and Democrats Jews?

    These right-wing jokers don't change, much. Remember how people used to bawl about liberal elitists, and all that? Really, to think this all is what we were supposed to take seriously?


    Oh, right, this thread is about cancel culture. So, yeah, did you hear the one about the Republican U.S. Senator who complained that celebrity endorsements of her opponent is "more proof that the out of control cancel culture wants to shut out anyone who disagrees with them"? A sitting U.S. Senator suggesting that being defeated in an election is proof that her opponents are out of control?

    And, yeah, also, BLM is eroding the nuclear family. And something about the flag. The statement itself (qtd. in Deb↱) really delivers the kick lacking in the reportage (e.g., Wise↱).

    But, yeah, I love that bit about, "anyone who disagrees". Still, really, it's an election. And, yes, when you lose, it's over. But, cancel culture?



    No, I don't really have any good advice, in the moment, but it occurs to mind that, oh, yeah, that's why we pretend to take them seriously. This is the Republican Party mainline, these days.

    Remember also, Vociferous↑ is the one who thinks he would "be happy to be profiled and occasionally inconvenienced in the hopes of making myself safer", but apparently hasn't stopped to consider the prison bid; moreover, if police kill him, he can't be happy about being profiled.


    Fascist antifa. We can just add it to the list. It's not quite s-apostrophe↗, but still. If the inability to discern between thought and action tells us anything, it's that they haven't learned much these last thirty-five, forty years.


    @SopanDeb. ".@SenatorLoeffler out with a statement that says WNBA players supporting her opponent is an example of 'out of control cancel culture.'" Twitter. 4 August 2020. Twitter.com. 4 August 2020. https://bit.ly/2XtKD7M

    Wise, Justin. "Loeffler knocks WNBA players for wearing shirts backing Democratic challenger". The Hill. 4 August 2020. TheHill.com. 4 August 2020. https://bit.ly/3i6MgzYv
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    No. What gave you that idea? You know, if you want to know what I think, you have only to ask. You don't have to guess.

    You must realise that nothing you wrote in your reply actually engaged with the substance of what I wrote there. Or don't you?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    They're right about a lot of other stuff, too.
    As Karl Rove put it, the left makes judgments based on reality - and that's how (according to Rove) they lose (he regarded that as a weakness, because he thought the Republicans were making the reality - a superior position).
    Wingnuts can never tell the difference between rightwing and conservative.

    The Democratic Party just nominated for the Presidency a guy who is solidly to the right of Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, in the process kicking the entire left wing of the Democratic Party in the teeth, in order to pander to the myth of the "independent" Republican voter.

    That's what they did in 2000, 2004, and 2016, as well. Despite that pandering they lost the white male vote and the elections.
    To be fair to their record, that's also what they did in 1992 and 1996 - and managed not to lose the elections, at the price of seeing Reagan's foreign and economic policies established and reinforced. In 2008 they nominated an unknown quantity - not a lefty, but possibly more liberal than Nixon - and won, but again lost on policy (and again got blamed for the policies they adopted - not only did they fail to pick up Republican voters by adopting bad Republican policies, but they got blamed for those policies when they didn't work).
    What would happen if they nominated someone as left and libertarian as the median American citizen is unknown - they haven't done that in fifty years.
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2020
  8. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Okay, ignoring that you replied to a post specifically responding to: "Trump is trying to intimidate critical media organizations"...

    So you're aware of the distrust of the media predating Trump?

    Yeah, when you talk about some vague "attempt to sow distrust" without ever mentioning who you think may be doing it, it seems designed to be a slippery post.
    Next time I'll just call out the conspiratorial vacuousness.
  9. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    About a week ago on another forum I mentioned that Trump was trying to cripple the Post Office to suppress democratic votes. One Trump supporter called me insane for saying that.

    And yesterday Trump threw him under the bus by admitting he was trying to do just that.

    It's a hard time to be a Trump supporter.
  11. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    No, refusing extra "relief" funding to the USPS is not crippling the post office.
    Quit buying the conspiracies.
  12. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    If you believe that, let me tell you about the new anticom movement to fight communism. We're fighting to centralize power in the US so we can do the things needed to fight the Chinese communists. 9_9
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    While you are at it, don't forget the silly gun toting conspiracy nuts claiming their divine rights to carry guns.......or those other conspiracy nuts, like Trump, trying to paint Obama as a non-american...or the other fuckwits trying to make excuses for every crazy utterances that the idiot that is their President chooses to claim...
  14. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    You really don't understand what a conspiracy is, do you? Vocabulary lesson:
    conspiracy - a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.​
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Sure I do...have being dealing with such idiots for years now.
    Let me give you a fuller definition....
    The act of conspiring.
    an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
    a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose:He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
    Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
    any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

    And to further educate you, all those defining aspects require plenty of lying, gullibility, foolishness, ignoring empirical evidence to show otherwise.
    Practical examples. eg: claiming Obama is non american, fabricating and misinterpreting "rights" to mean one needs a gun/rifle to protect himself, the red neck fools that make excuses every time their President says something stupid.
    Religion and ID could be thought of as another conspiracy.
  16. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    your CANCELLED !

    must be due for a nationwide strike to dead lock and a lock out
    is that the next big cancel culture move ?

    all those rural people who will lose their mail service ... hhmmm ...
    (they wont lose it because they have already lost half of it to private business, they will lose the other half of the cost they pay through tax to help maintain a culture, society and jobs so the cost will become preventative of normal behaviors)
    many have mentioned such a future where a simple single envelope will cost many dollars to deliver as the profit margin is handed off or stolen by parcel companys who have built their cost and profit base off taking over the parcel industry
    there will be no incentive to make low cost regular deliveries and probably drive hyper inflation into the home delivery market in rural and semi rural areas
    while moving envelope delivery in high density areas to a loss based charity process where mail integrity is abandoned as a no rights customer relationship

    predatory business model with predatory service
    your lucky if you get anything delivered , now shut up and pay the bill
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2020
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Let's elaborate some.....Isn't there some conspiracy among some crazy red neck racist americans, that the government wants all their guns?
    Sure there is!!
    And then we have the inane Trump inspired conspiracies with regards to Obama...
    Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

    Here's some more that may go against your grain....
    24 outlandish conspiracy theories Donald Trump has floated over the years
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    And Trump just threw you under the bus. Again. Trump said he is doing it to deny people the ability to vote by mail.
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    So again Vociferous, why are you buying into so many obvious conspiracies. Is your supposed right to own a gun/s, rifle/s so near and dear to your heart, that you and your lot must fabricate some nonsensical self protection conspiracy?
  21. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    No, you threw yourself under the bus.
    I never said Trump was refusing the extra funding for any other reason. He's refusing the huge extra funding Dems want to bolster the already failing USPS in order to handle mail-in ballots. Since those have already proven highly vulnerable to fraud, it makes no sense to spend so much on inevitable voter disenfranchisement. And denying that extra funding doesn't cripple or kill the USPS.

    And as usual, I don't expect you to understand the difference between "deny people the ability to vote by mail" and trying to stave off voter disenfranchisement.
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Yes, I'm aware of that.

    Wasn't I clear? I was talking about Trump trying to sow distrust.
  23. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    the us postal service is not failing. its being deliberately sabotaged. and mail in ballots have not been proven to highly vulnerable to fraud. thats just you lying as usual. voter fraud and ballot fraud just does not happen on a statistically significant level. if you took every single instance of proven fraud from the past 40 years. true fraud. not typos or mistakes. you might be able to flip a handful of voting precincts, not anything that matters would change the outcome of an election.

    do you understand the difference. because in 46 states people will be getting their ballots to late to cast them thanks to your fuhrer's attacks on the post office.

Share This Page