Cancel Culture
- Thread starter Buchan
- Start date
Can’t say I disagree with that
Tough to not view that through the same prism as Pepe Le Pew.
Makes sense it is being trumpeted by the Post. Outrage opportunists gonna outrage opportunist.
Makes sense it is being trumpeted by the Post. Outrage opportunists gonna outrage opportunist.
It's not just the post though. Anyway I think stabbing her in the heart with a adrenaline stick like in Pulp Fiction would be pretty cool.
Same.
Their response to being made fun of is almost as good:
No matter how much of an idiot you make yourself look like, never try the puppet master defense.
Twitter. Every single day it reminds me of the Special Olympics joke you’d get cancelled for tweeting.
So Daily Mail / this Dan Wooton cock admits cancel culture is good, so long as the person getting cancelled is someone you don't like.
Discipline them for...?
Holding the flag the wrong way around (shouldn't the red triangle be on the left?)
Lefties get a guy fired because it turns out in college he wore blackface to a bunch of parties and sexually assaulted women.
Righties get a journalist fired because it turns out in college she was part of an organisation that demand a country be held accountable for their human rights violations.
And on a forum somewhere someone is shouting "THey'Re ExacTLy tHe SaME tHinG."
At least he’s honest. That’s the way it works for everyone. As you can see in this thread.
For the record, I don’t know who he is but I’m sure he’s a cock and I doubt the list of people he’d enjoy seeing cancelled is the same as my own.
Agreed. The right-wing would be doing everything they could to not allow this hero to speak
For that alone he should be cancelled.The way he spells philosophising is by far the most upsetting thing about that tweet.
That’s a bit nuts. The words “espouses, advocates, or promotes” are doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Wonder what they make of Hemingway?
A bill making the advocating of a boycott of some Israeli products illegal was just ruled illegal by a US court. There are similar bills in most US states, ruled by both parties, including insane loyalty oaths in Texas, which could now all go the same way. It was overruled on free speech grounds.
I wonder if the free speech stuff also applies to bills like this one, since I know that restricting students' speech has been permissible before.
Anyway, I think this underlines why the cancel culture debate has never been about free speech. Firstly, social media callouts, even calls to ban, etc, are free speech, as much as whatever is being called out. Secondly, the big names talking about cancel culture as a threat to free speech have now watched bills in various US states and guidelines in the UK prohibiting colleges from teaching controversial subjects, and seem to be unbothered/supportive of them.
This reminds me of the "physical removal" debate of libertarianism. Taken at face value, libertarianism is based on a non-aggression principle (NAP)- one cannot interfere in any way with another's property*. Leftists and some liberals do not agree, and would organise to stop this conception of society. Hence, libertarians like Hans Herman Hoppe advocate the "physical removal" (murder/forced displacement) of leftists from society, and rule by a monarch who enforces the NAP. Just like cancel culture warriors talking about defending free speech and advocating restrictions on speech, here you get the NAP suspended to allow the NAP to function.
In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, . . . naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.
*the left objections will always be about what defines and legitimates private property
article is interesting for how very, very, far definitions of bad words are getting stretched:
It's funny how he references his attempt to win a seat in the Texas State Senate as evidence that his views are mainstream and popular. He got a whopping 3.5% of the vote, behind four other Republicans and one Democrat.
a more respected source now has the same take:
...
also, unrelated to the thread, but i noticed the same party has come out with another hot take:
This is the real american centrism. If someone ran on this ''platform' with a Qanon step mom as VP they would win the biggest landslide in american history.
Also some truly brilliant comments.
The guy is by accident the one true genius of our time
Also he is Canadian.
Also he is Canadian.