Sure, if we are talking about the advancement of how to pile up billable hours.
Elanor Roosevelt
- Thread starter CO. Hoosier
- Start date
CoH, you are correct when observing my point in regard to your post wasn't clear.
My example of the suffragettes taking to the streets over the idea of equality and voting was to point out that a group with an idea but little or no power in the "marketplace of ideas" has limited options to be heard.
One of those options taken by many groups over the years is to take their cause to the streets in the form of a protest. A local grassroots protest assembled by word of mouth and hard work can be the only option in the marketplace of ideas.
"taking their cause to the streets" should always be protected; and regulated in accordance with public safety. blocking highways when people are trying to get to and from work is complete BS. peoples' nerves are frazzled enough during a pandemic.
You block highways and pack together like sardines you’re sending a message that black lives matter and my cause is more impt than your getting to and from work and my cause is more important than spreading a deadly virus during a pandemic.
Last edited:
As I said now for the third time, I agree protests serve an important purpose in creating or changing public policy. We have many good examples even including the temperance movement. That’s not the same thing as saying any protest serves a role in the marketplace of ideas. Continuing with woman’s suffrage, a protest about that today would certainly include organized boycotts or worse directed towards anybody with a contrary view. We have outlawed and otherwise regulated the nature of anti-abortion protests and I don’t hear many complaints about that. I don’t think protests intended to harass and penalize others for their opinions are part of the marketplace of ideas.
Im talking about everything from consumer protection to ending segregation to criminal justice. All those reforms began with lawyers arguing cases before protests or legislation.
Where did you find my picture?
Protesting seems to have Dan Snyder changing the name of the Washington Redskins.
The Onion suggests the new name will be DC Redskins...
The Onion suggests the new name will be DC Redskins...
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
The name redskins needed to be cancelled decades ago. This isn’t a cancel culture victim.
I don't know if it is or is not, I made no such claim. I know this, if you Google "Cancel Culture" "Washington Redskins" you will see many people decrying the name change as cancel culture. I don't see a real, solidly agreed upon definition for "cancel culture". Many people are using it as "I do not agree with this so it is 'cancel culture' and I do agree with that so it is not". As a result, it seems pretty amorphous.
There are people who see Louis CK's firing as cancel culture, others say it is deserved. Just Google it, you will see. I have no doubt there are abuses, you posted an example. I am saying this idea that there is some widespread disaster unfolding is also including in the Redskins, poor Louis CK, little old Harvey Weinstein. We need to develop a specific definition for the term. And if it involved me defending the Redskins, CK, or Weinstein, I am out.
Go ahead, Google "Washington Redskins" "Cancel Culture", orr "Louis CK" "Cancel Culture. Somewhere there has to be a definition that says it is OK to want Matt Lauer fired but not OK to demand a person put a sticker in their cubicle. But Googling the words "cancel culture" is showing many, many more of the former than the latter.
If you haven’t watched it in Google Dave Chapelle’s bit about Louis CK
I agree. Trump should stop acting like a pea-brained junior high school adolescent.A public official expressing an opinion about police issues is one thing. A public offical acting like a pea-brained junior high adolescent is another.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
No, I still don’t think that you fully get what we decry as cancel culture. You’re pointing to reactions to obvious problems (CK’s deviant behavior, Redskins awful name, Lauer’s alleged rape) as positive “cancel culture” outcomes. Those aren’t cancel culture, those are necessary outcomes.
The cancel culture that moderate conservatives rally against are for instance what is happening to my friend at work, or what happens when someone from the Intellectual Dark Web tries to give a talk at a university or a venue (the cancellers try to get it cancelled - these are Nazi propagandists, they are academics who have informed opinions that differ from the masses), the backlash against Rowling, the backlash against Terry Crews or Wiley for their stepping away from the community lines and criticizing BLM, etc. That’s cancel culture.
You can sum it up by saying it’s the systemic suppression of ideas and viewpoints that don’t fit the woke left’s agenda - laden behind trump card accusations of racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc without any evidence other than a differing opinion. That’s dangerous cancel culture. Firing a creep that assaults people in his office is not. I don’t know anybody claiming it is.
Seems to me that most posters here get what you are saying, they just don't have it at the top of their priority concerns. Probably because they are aligned with the shift to a more liberal-minded society.
As that happens new lines are being drawn as to what thinking is outside societal norms. But many of the people pushing hardest have been on the outside up until now. That doesn't mean they will ultimately define where the lines are drawn. It just means they feel empowered now to speak-up.
But I don't see any movement to shut down Harpers for publishing The Letter.
I was reading this Time Magazine story about Cancel Culture, https://time.com/5735403/cancel-culture-is-not-real/. I want to specifically call out this paragraph:
I write frequently about racism and Islamophobia and have received more death threats, calls for my firing and racist insults than I can keep track of. But when people who believe cancel culture is a problem speak out about its supposed silencing effect, I know they’re not talking about those attacks. When they throw around terms like “cancel culture” to silence me instead of reckoning with the reasons I might find certain actions or jokes dehumanizing, I’m led to one conclusion: they’d prefer I was powerless against my own oppression.
We know that society has not been particularly good at listening to Blacks, gays, trans, Muslims, etc. I do not think anyone is going to dispute that. So in the past if a Islamic writer like the author above received hate mail and demands she be fired, it wasn't a tragedy. But Yglesias does and it is a tragedy.
I truly believe you are concerned and I believe you have a definition I might well accept. But again, Google "Washington Redskins" "Cancel Culture" and tell me your definition is the same definition everyone (or even the majority) is using. I am far from sure it is.
For a long time we told trans people, Muslims, etc, that their opinions didn't matter and too many of us (myself included) didn't stand up and demand they have a right to speak out. Now the complaint is that the people who were being short changed by the system seem to have the power and the people who had the power are being shut out and it is a tragedy. At the big level, the dealing with celebrities and big named writers, maybe they should have stood up for the others 20 years ago.
That in no way justifies the micro level, your friend and the sticker in the cubicle. But if you think the large number of Fox stories on "cancel culture" is about the little person, it isn't what I am seeing in Google. But when Muslims were speaking out about prejudice after 9/11, I didn't see Fox complaining.
I am not sure your definition and Fox News' definition are the same.
Let me ask you this. I am not proud of the fact that their are people I agree with on a lot of issues who are very much anti-military. It isn't a large number, but they are out there. These are people who would very much like to call veterans terrible names like after the Vietnam War. I hear them complain about the group think of "we have to thank the veteran" and how it silences them. Does that fit in to what you are saying? I know a person who felt disgusted when a plane applauded a service member boarding back circa 2005 and feared for their safety if they spoke up about their views of the US military. Is that the same type of group think?
I am very non-confrontational by nature. I don't want your friend to feel confronted. And if we see that as cancel culture, I am with you. But when I google "cancel culture", those are not the stories appearing.
It definitely exists. A couple of years ago, Bill Maher was invited to give the keynote speech at UC Berkeley on the anniversary of the free speech movement. He was uninvited when the event coordinators learned he was going to speak freely.
Liberals can be their own worst enemy if given a chance. It’s unfortunate because you now see it being exaggerated by Trumpers in an election year.
People like to defend their own. That's why police almost never testify against other police. Chapelle clearly doesn't like celebrities being judged even when they are in the wrong. So he blames the women for not running out immediately. That's the same blame that people have used to defend guys forever. If the women didn't want to see his item, they should have left. If they didn't want to be raped, they should have worn more clothes or not be out alone or whatever.
Chapelle knows his defense of Louis CK, Michael Jackson, and Kevin Hart will hurt him with some people.but that still leaves more than enough for him to get by.
I’m not sure he defends him the way you suggest. Did you watch it?
He doesn’t so much defend him. He talks about it.
I have not seen it, I read a review of his special that dealt with Jackson, CK, and Hart. I'll try to find the actual performance later.
A very thoughtful post, Marv. This part of Ranger's post jumped out at me,
I'd find it a more interesting conversation if it didn't seem like the concern was so narrow. Ranger has come at me in this thread with a warning that some day they'll come for you (and the assumption that "they" haven't already.) One wonders...is the concern the existence of the shoe or that it is now on the other foot?
Two things:
1. This is a mic drop post. Bravo.
2. I really believe until Ranger stops focusing on his pet term, "woke", he will not be able to have a serious conversation.
JMHO
FWIW, I think Ranger is right that a troubling "cancel culture" exists. The troubling aspect is not a function of accountability, but rather the rush to judgment, the lack of any proportionality, the lack of humility, the lack of concern for confirming any details or context, the false assumption of self-purity, the lack of any concern for fairness, etc.
Sure, not everyone agrees on definitions or applicability and sure, it's subjective. But none of that negates the argued reality that what qualifies as "cancel culture" is problematic. And pointing out examples of fair accountability is irrelevant to that expression of concern.
Sure, not everyone agrees on definitions or applicability and sure, it's subjective. But none of that negates the argued reality that what qualifies as "cancel culture" is problematic. And pointing out examples of fair accountability is irrelevant to that expression of concern.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
And to that second quote of his, does anyone think if a progressive celebrity said Christmas should not be a holiday that the right would not attack them? It is not a one way street except that, until very recently, progressives bit their lips.
It definitely exists. A couple of years ago, Bill Maher was invited to give the keynote speech at UC Berkeley on the anniversary of the free speech movement. He was uninvited when the event coordinators learned he was going to speak freely.
Maher did end up speaking. And I think he should have. That said, he has a history of saying derogatory things about Islam. Would not Muslims in that ceremony also have a right to point out that Maher makes them uncomfortable?
If a celebrity were to suggest Christians are to blame for violence in the world, who thinks they would be invited to keynote a commencement at a major university and have no detractors?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Marv you still don’t understand. It’s not about criticism. It’s about cancelling. When administrators cave to the cancel cries then it’s happened. Sure Islamic people would be upset. Then they should participate and debate. Pointing out facts about Islam polling data should be discussed - not cancelled.
You seem hellbent in making this an issue of criticism. Cancel culture is not about criticism it’s about stifling speech of those with opposing viewpoints.
I will argue that Marv brings up well thought out arguments. But I agree.
Yes.
It seems like you have used it in every post in this thread, and once you have labeled something with such a pejorative name, it becomes unworthy of discussion. It's too easy to call something "woke", then just dismiss it.
I am certainly not the expert on how to post, considering most of my stuff is just trying (lamely) to be humorous, but I do enjoy reading other opinions here, especially when intelligently stated. You are usually one of those posters, as is Marvin, and several others.
Take that for what it's worth.
And you confuse it with "woke". You do not think radicals, Muslims, gays, etc have experienced this? Disney was boycotted when they offered same sex benefits. Ellen's sitcom was targeted for cancellation. I recall people trying to get Life of Brian pulled from theaters. How are those different? Those are attempts to stifle free speech. Fox did not care when Ellen was cancelled but thought it was a travesty when Tim Allen's was. Can anyone tell me why one was correct and the other was cancel culture.
You really do not think people pressured studios to not use Jane Fonda?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
So your argument is that it’s been done in the past so it’s not a problem now?
what does bringing up Fox have to do with my discussion. Whatever bad points I’ve made in the past should still be roundly clear that I think the current state of GOP affairs stinks out loud. But I’m talking about cancel culture which is predominantly and nearly unequivocally coming from liberals right now. The strange part is that they often target other liberals.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
It’s meant to be a pejorative. It was once a label that virtue signaling snoots wore as a badge of honor and it’s backfired spectacularly against them. Even Obama thinks woke culture stinks.
I know it's a pejorative. That's the point. I just feel that you are calling everything you disagree with in this discussion as "woke", thus cancelling it (see what I did there).
Once again, JMHO.
And as Buzz123 used to say, "Your mileage may vary".
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Point taken and considered. I think enough people know my true colors here to know I’m not a bigot who rallies against people becoming enlightened. But I think it’s clear that the “woke” circle is clearly intertwined with cancel culture so much so that perhaps it’s the same circle with a different name. If my usage of the same term that Barack Obama used to criticize his audience keeps you out of the discussion, so be it.I know it's a pejorative. That's the point. I just feel that you are calling everything you disagree with in this discussion as "woke", thus cancelling it (see what I did there).
Once again, JMHO.
And as Buzz123 used to say, "Your mileage may vary".
First of all, the phrase "cancel culture" appears nowhere in The Letter. That phrase is a construct in order to foster a lazy random discussion. In reality, as Thrysis noted, "cancel culture" covers a myriad of circumstances and summing those up in a bumper sticker makes for unwarranted simplification of otherwise important things. The Letter focuses on social restrictions on freedom of expression. That is a serious issue and using words like "cancel culture" to frame the debate is pretty much useless.
Secondly: "We know that society has not been particularly good at listening to Blacks, gays, trans, Muslims, etc." I guess my response is: "So what?" Just as I don't believe a person's views should be discounted by immutable characteristics, I don't think immutable characteristics are an enhancement either. One of the responses I ran across about The Letter was directed to Matt Yglesias. The responding letter began with: "As a trans woman . . . ". In other words, the response wasn't about The Letter, it was about the trans issue because of Rowling's and other supposedly anti-trans signatures. The subtext is that if you don't agree with a person on trans issues, you can't speak about freedom of expression.
I once had a discussion with a news paper columnist about bylines in the news business. My argument was that if we eliminate all bylines, the quality of news reporting and opinion writing would increase. Correspondingly, the readers of the news and opinions would read with more of an open mind. I'd rather read a good opinion about racism not knowing what race the author is than one knowing that information.
This is why I included the Elenor Roosevelt quote in my post. We are too tied into reading with filters. An Old White Guy's view is to be considered differently from a young female black when discussing almost any issue. We have come to accept who is saying stuff as a very important filter to what they say.
It does not make it right now, but what the heck was done to stop it in the past? Nothing because np one dared stifle white males.
Using the Maher example above, I asked why should a Muslim sit through a speech by someone who has made anti Islamic comments? So if Jane Fonda went to address a veteran's group they should be forced to allow it?
My point going way back is that there is a line. Our debate is where should it be. If a celebrity uses the N word, people have a right to not go see them. I argue they have a right to urge others not to go see them. Is that wrong? So how far under the N word do we draw the line seems to be the question.
But what is really strange is that for me personally, I do not join in these boycotts. I do value the speech. But that also means I did not write ABC's advertisers demanding her show be left on the air. So it turns out I am culpable.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Why would a veterans group invite Jane Fonda? If a university invites Jane Fonda to speak, and a bunch of veterans harangue administrators so badly that the event gets cancelled - that’s a problem. And that’s what happens all the time. That’s the point you’re missing.
edit: and it’s not necessarily a problem if an offended person encourage others to not go see a person. The problem, again, is when the venue or the hosting group or the whatever is basically told “if you let this person speak you’re a racist / homophobe / misogynist and we’ll make sure everyone knows it” and caves in and cancels the event. None of your what ifs have sniffed that yet. When these things happen, only one side controls the flow of information and that’s both illiberal and un-American.
Last edited by a moderator:
Latest posts
-
Joe Lunardi has IU as an 8/9 in next years tourney
- Latest: GeorgeStrait IU
-
-
-
