Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Pol Lounge General News Thread of "This doesn't deserve it's own thread"

Pol Lounge General News Thread of "This doesn't deserve it's own thread" (Page 64)
Thread Tools
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2021, 11:06 AM
 
I think this is intertwined with the Paradox of Tolerance. A society that is 100% free and permissive inevitably sees that freedom destroyed. If the market was truly open and free, it would inevitably be subject to the monopoly of a few giant corporations, and we would no longer have a free and open market.

If we demand that all voice, opinions, and ideas get equal and fair treatment, eventually we get Nazis.

I don't feel bad about people with intolerant, bad, or destructive views losing their ability to spread those views, because I believe tolerance is important to a functioning society.

I think you're of the position that a free market in inherently good, so limiting anyone's access to spread their views and profit off of them, no matter how wrong, bad, or destructive those views are, is interfering with the free market and therefore bad.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2021, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I think this is intertwined with the Paradox of Tolerance.
Popper says what we’re not supposed to tolerate: those who would deny us the right to argue against them.

Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I don't feel bad about people with intolerant, bad, or destructive views losing their ability to spread those views, because I believe tolerance is important to a functioning society.
It really sounds like you’re describing a much larger group than the one Popper describes.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2021, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Popper says what we’re not supposed to tolerate: those who would deny us the right to argue against them.
as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise
Given the current level of political rhetoric and the widespread support for voter suppression measures, it sure seems as if intolerance and hateful ideologies are positioning themselves to chip away at democracy. It's hard to rationally argue against a boot on your neck.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2021, 09:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post

What about leaning on vendors not to carry it?
But is that whats happening here?
I won't pretend to know how many people contact Netflix or whoever to threaten leaving the platform, but ultimately if you are seen to support someone accused of bigotry, its too easy to get painted as endorsing the bigotry at hand. Thats always going to hit your bottom line in any field at all but particularly a left-leaning one.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2021, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Given the current level of political rhetoric and the widespread support for voter suppression measures, it sure seems as if intolerance and hateful ideologies are positioning themselves to chip away at democracy. It's hard to rationally argue against a boot on your neck.
I’m not sure how to reply to this.

I feel we judge the scale of the threat and the resilience of our democracy so differently, we’re not sharing a common frame of reference.

FWIW, if I considered the threat as large as you seem to, and considered our democracy as fragile, I would probably agree with you.
( Last edited by subego; Dec 28, 2021 at 02:01 PM. )
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2021, 04:40 PM
 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...sm-legal-phase

That article connects a lot of dots. Maybe it's alarmist, maybe not.

I think I've mentioned this before, but I feel like you insist on assuming all parties are acting in good faith, or at least acting based on fairly transparent motives. It's how someone can look at all of the current voter suppression efforts and think, "Yes, these are good ideas for protecting democracy." But as I'm sure I've mentioned before, republican leaders and strategists have explicitly stated that they are NOT acting in good faith.

I mean, they literally came out and said,

"We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities."

Straight up, they just outright said that shit. And we're still debating whether or not the millions of incarcerated Americans deserve to be in prison, or if a militarized police force is a good thing, or if poor people deserve food or clean water or medicine.

Our democracy seems resilient to sudden change (A deep read about last Jan 6th and how the outcome of that day basically came down to a coin flip has me less convinced of that). But it is absolutely powerless against the kind of continental drift of destructive policy creep that has been instituted by design for the past several hundred years, and especially the last 40.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...r-carlson.html

“One of Derek’s most lasting and damaging impacts on this white nationalist movement is that he convinced his father to scrub Stormfront of all racial slurs, all Nazi insignia … Derek thought the way [they were] going to reach more people is, instead of of using this kind of language, [they] need to play to this false, but unfortunately, very widely spread sense of white grievance that still exists in big parts of this country.”
...
Black claimed that Fox News host Tucker Carlson is doing a better job at promoting white nationalist rhetoric than SPLC–bona fide white nationalists are:

“It’s really, really alarming that my family watches Tucker Carlson show once and then watches it on the replay because they feel that he is making the white nationalist talking points better than they have and they’re trying to get some tips on how to advance it.”
Every bill to "protect our elections," every complaint about "PC culture," every jab at diversity hires or SWJs or socialism is a specifically designed, tested, and vetted message pushing a very specific agenda. They told us exactly what they're doing, but people still just take everything Republicans and conservative media say at face value. These people leave their $400,000 acreages, hop into their $80,000 trucks, drive to their 6 figure union jobs, and then complain to each other about how they are oppressed, downtrodden, and their very way of life is at stake.

W and Trump both lost the popular vote but became president anyway. After decades of gerrymandering and voter suppression by lawmakers explicitly acting in bad faith, what confidence do you have in the will of the people being represented in our elections?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2021, 10:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m not sure how to reply to this.

I feel we judge the scale of the threat and the resilience of our democracy so differently, we’re not sharing a common frame of reference.

FWIW, if I considered the threat as large as you seem to, and considered our democracy as fragile, I would probably agree with you.
Two thirds of the UK voted for left-wing parties at the last election and yet we have a far-right government with a massive majority in place. They basically can't lose votes in the Commons. On anything.

The resilience of democracy to voter suppression tactics is an illusion. I bet the left/right divide in the US is pretty similar and yet the GOP can still get a worthless douchebag like Trump elected.

Correct me if I remember wrongly, but don't you support 2A on the basis of it providing a check against government? Yet when actual anti-democratic measures are policy for one party (That inexplicably has a realistic chance of winning elections) you think we're all making too much fuss? This is a bizarre state of affairs indeed.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2021, 06:14 PM
 
Human behavior evolved two survival strategies and hardwired us to follow them.

The first strategy is to win at war. The second strategy is to seek progress. Conservatives embody the former, liberals the latter.

Conservatives have a distinct advantage in politics because politics is war, and conservatives are purpose-built to win wars.

This doesn’t scare me because liberals have a distinct advantage when it comes to almost everything else. Home turf for conservatives is war. Home turf for liberals is…

News media
Entertainment
Science
Philosophy
Language

Despite the conservative advantage when it comes to war, to call the deck otherwise stacked in favor of liberals is a gross understatement.

To be clear, this isn’t a complaint. It’s an explanation of why I judge the threat level from conservatives the way I do. It’s because liberals are far, far more powerful than they think they are. So powerful they can stay neck-and-neck with conservatives using only a fraction of the power at their disposal.
( Last edited by subego; Dec 29, 2021 at 07:58 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2021, 08:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I mean, they literally came out and said,

"We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities."
I wanted to address this quote directly, but need to make it clear this challenge isn’t meant to apply to the rest of your post (which I want to explore in greater detail, but have been busy).

Among the cohort of Americans born in 1913, would you say Nixon was more racist, less racist, or on par?

Edit: for reference, LBJ was born in 1908 (and in a different part of the country of course). Twenty years before Nixon and LBJ’s fathers were born, slavery was still legal.
( Last edited by subego; Dec 30, 2021 at 09:21 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2021, 09:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Correct me if I remember wrongly, but don't you support 2A on the basis of it providing a check against government? Yet when actual anti-democratic measures are policy for one party (That inexplicably has a realistic chance of winning elections) you think we're all making too much fuss? This is a bizarre state of affairs indeed.
With the 2A, if one goes off half-cocked, it causes more damage than it protects against. I mean, make no mistake. Actively using the 2A to check the government makes one a terrorist. The transgression by the government needs to be bad enough it justifies terrorism.

I posit this applies to other checks as well. If the transgressions justify abandoning the principle of free speech, then so be it, but just like a justified terrorist is still a terrorist, a justified abandonment of the principle of free speech is still an abandonment of principle.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2021, 09:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
But is that whats happening here?
I wasn’t arguing it was. Sorry it wasn’t clear.

My point was somewhere along the line, “cancelation” escalates past an expression of free market principles to interference with the free market.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2022, 06:01 AM
 
Literal cancellation would, but those being cancelled aren't being cancelled. Its just a hyperbolic term designed to inspire more sympathy and outrage on behalf of the cancelled. I would say 90% of the time these people ought to know in advance that what they plan to say will get them in hot water. And its not that difficult to find the space to be edgy without saying anything bigoted.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2022, 11:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I wasn’t arguing it was. Sorry it wasn’t clear.

My point was somewhere along the line, “cancelation” escalates past an expression of free market principles to interference with the free market.
Can you give examples where the reaction went beyond “expression of free market principles” and explain how they fit into your mental model?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2022, 11:43 PM
 
Interference by or with payment processors and crowdfunding sites is the standout. That strikes me as the opposite of free market principles.

I’m not sure I understand the mental model question. Can you elaborate?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2022, 03:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Interference by or with payment processors and crowdfunding sites is the standout. That strikes me as the opposite of free market principles.
I meant specific cases of people who you would consider having been cancelled and others that did not cross the border according to you? Take your favorite pick amongst e. g. celebrities, actors and actresses, comedians, politicians, businesses, etc. I don’t want to bias the discussion, so I have decided to refrain from listing any names. I’m not interested in hypotheticals, though.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2022, 11:09 PM
 
Maybe naming someone isn’t a bad idea. I tend to disagree with most “cancelations”, but it’s a free speech thing, not a free market thing.

Edit: and as soon as a name comes in, my biases will be present regardless of which of us triggers them.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2022, 11:34 PM
 
Don’t worry about biases. I am just worried that if we keep things in the abstract, we will get nowhere fast.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2022, 11:38 PM
 
I’m not really sure what the question is. Are we still talking about “free market principles”? That could be anyone banned by a payment processor. Alex Jones. Milo. Gab. Porn. Trump is in the category. I don’t think any of these people or entities should be banned from payment processors. I don’t think anyone should in general, unless their business is illegal somehow.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2022, 11:54 PM
 
Edit: Oops - missed the "politics" part. Post moved to its own thread in the Lounge, as there doesn't seem to be an equivalent thread.

thanks subego (below)
( Last edited by reader50; Jan 4, 2022 at 01:20 AM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2022, 12:13 AM
 
It’s politics, because he got his mole canceled.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2022, 09:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m not really sure what the question is.
You made a broader point about you drawing the line where free market principles are interfered with and I wanted some examples that did and did not cross the line of cancelations to understand in what way you consider them differently.

So can you come up with someone who you consider canceled and someone who many others might consider as having been canceled but you personally do not?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2022, 09:46 AM
 
Is there something wrong with the list I gave?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2022, 11:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I wanted to address this quote directly, but need to make it clear this challenge isn’t meant to apply to the rest of your post (which I want to explore in greater detail, but have been busy).

Among the cohort of Americans born in 1913, would you say Nixon was more racist, less racist, or on par?
I have no yardstick for this, I have no idea. I feel like you've made a similar statement before, saying that Trump is "standard rich old white guy racist." I don't think you mean to say his racism is okay, but the implication is that some amount of racism is expected or excusable.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2022, 02:31 PM
 
Expected, yes.

I get the impression I am more willing to excuse it than most here. Since that’s the case, if someone wants to claim I consider it more okay/acceptable, I can’t really deny it.


Edit: perhaps a different way to express my expectations is to say people are what they are within a context.
( Last edited by subego; Jan 4, 2022 at 04:18 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2022, 07:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is there something wrong with the list I gave?
Yes, it does not illuminate anything as you don’t give any qualification.

Plus, your list of people, organizations or businesses who you claim do not have access to a payment processor seems to be false: I don’t know who or what Gab is, but:

- You can buy T-Shirts, iodine spray and other assorted knick knacks from Alex Jones’s Infowars store. So he has to have a deal in place with a payment processor.
- Common lore is that porn implemented the first payment processors online. I can pay for porn if I want to. I don’t want to post any links, though … 
- You can donate to Donald Trump’s Super Pac right now. So there must be a deal with a payment processor in place.

Apart from “Gab” (who- or whatever that is), the market seems to provide for even grifters like Alex Jones. (To me market place means that you can find some payment processor, but not that every individual payment processor has to enter into a contract with every individual or organization.)

It seems your focus on payment processors is not really helping. So let’s forget about payment processors specifically. Can you give examples of people, businesses or organizations that in your mind have been canceled?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2022, 08:18 PM
 
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2022, 10:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Plus, your list of people, organizations or businesses who you claim do not have access to a payment processor seems to be false
I didn’t make this claim.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2022, 10:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I didn’t make this claim.
I'm confused. You wrote (emphasis mine):
Originally Posted by subego
That could be anyone banned by a payment processor. Alex Jones. Milo. Gab. Porn. Trump is in the category. I don’t think any of these people or entities should be banned from payment processors.
How can I read this other than you claiming that “these people or entities” are banned from payment processors (first sentence), but in your estimation shouldn't be (last sentence)?

And when at least 3 of the entities listed do have a working payment processor, they aren't banned from payment processors. (I forgot to check what Milo is doing these days, last I heard he was working for some QVC-like channel, and I didn't know what Gab was.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2022, 03:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Can you give examples of people, businesses or organizations that in your mind have been canceled?
My “favorite” example is the NYT firing Quinn Norton. The Wiki entry discusses it. I’m still fucking livid about this even though it was four years ago.

The day the Times announced they hired her, an internet campaign to get her fired formed and succeeded. This was based on Norton’s past tweets, which when taken out of context make her appear racist and homophobic.

She’s the opposite of these things. Her tweets when taken in context bear this out. Anyone who’s even remotely familiar with her knows the accusation is in fact so ridiculous as to be beyond insulting.

This points to one of the flaws of cancelation. It can succeed quite well despite the evidence being superficial.


On the other side of the coin, Milo ultimately got canceled pretty hard. What did him in was getting dumped by his audience. It makes me sad his audience wasn’t ready to handle the real Milo, but like everybody’s saying, that’s how the market works. Earlier events in his cancelation journey, like getting banned from Twitter, are far less cut and dried. That’s not to say it can’t have been a free market response, but it’s tougher to demonstrate because he was making Twitter a ton of money.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2022, 03:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I'm confused. You wrote (emphasis mine):
My apologies for putting this in a way that was unclear!

I’ll rephrase it, but right now I’m wiped.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2022, 08:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My “favorite” example is the NYT firing Quinn Norton. The Wiki entry discusses it. I’m still fucking livid about this even though it was four years ago.

The day the Times announced they hired her, an internet campaign to get her fired formed and succeeded. This was based on Norton’s past tweets, which when taken out of context make her appear racist and homophobic.

She’s the opposite of these things. Her tweets when taken in context bear this out. Anyone who’s even remotely familiar with her knows the accusation is in fact so ridiculous as to be beyond insulting.

This points to one of the flaws of cancelation. It can succeed quite well despite the evidence being superficial.
The name rings a bell, but I don’t remember the story off-hand.
But I think I understand the kind of case you are thinking of: someone made statements in the past, sometimes far past and has either changed their minds or some essential context was missing. When it “came out”, a mob hyped up the story and an organization thought they had to react quickly, swiftly and decisively. I remember a few similar cases where e. g. a young woman made an inconsiderate tweet before going on a long flight to Africa (?), and when she landed, she found out the tweet had exploded and she was without a job. Another one is Teen Vogue’s previous editor, although good old office politics may have played a role here, too.

Is that roughly what you are getting at? And can you think of other people that fit that mold?
Originally Posted by subego View Post
On the other side of the coin, Milo ultimately got canceled pretty hard. What did him in was getting dumped by his audience. It makes me sad his audience wasn’t ready to handle the real Milo, but like everybody’s saying, that’s how the market works. Earlier events in his cancelation journey, like getting banned from Twitter, are far less cut and dried. That’s not to say it can’t have been a free market response, but it’s tougher to demonstrate because he was making Twitter a ton of money.
I’m surprised you characterize what happened to Milo as being canceled. Milo was a troll, people like us (who grew up in online forums) could tell right away. But like you wrote, he was dumped by his audience. In my understanding of the term, an essential component of someone getting canceled is that a small, vocal minority (e. g. a Twitter mob) works to have someone lose their jobs and/or their good standing with the public. At least in Milo’s case, that isn’t what happened. He killed his own career. The big trigger was Rogan’s interview of him on his podcast where Milo told his story of sexual abuse, but denied it being characterized as abuse. His words weren’t taken out of context or condensed to something that they were not. Another factor to me is that cancelation implies the person was the victim of someone else or of a group of individuals. That isn’t the case here.

I’m curious: why do you view Milo’s implosion as a cancelation?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2022, 01:42 PM
 
Working on a reply, but a minor correction. Milo didn’t crash and burn on Rogan. It was some other show nobody’s ever heard of.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2022, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I remember a few similar cases where e. g. a young woman made an inconsiderate tweet before going on a long flight to Africa (?), and when she landed, she found out the tweet had exploded and she was without a job.
Here's a really relevant article about this woman and other "normal" people who actually have been effectively cancelled:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/m...ccos-life.html

These are actual people angering a small mob for whatever reason, and that mob works to put their livelihood at risk. Roseanne Barr is still worth 80 million, she can't be cancelled.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2022, 02:36 PM
 
All the people working on her new show got knock-on canceled, though.


ETA: not a perfect analogy, but if I shoot someone and they don’t die because they’re wearing a bulletproof vest, I’m still guilty of shooting them. Rosanne (and JK) have bulletproof vests of wealth, but I’m not sure that changes the moral standing of those who attack them.

ETA2: I can see why someone would refer to the paradox of tolerance when discussing, say, a white supremacist. Can a paradox of tolerance argument be made against JK?
( Last edited by subego; Jan 5, 2022 at 03:29 PM. )
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2022, 06:46 PM
 
Milo's pretty sharp so I always assumed he was one of those conservatives who knew full well he was siding with/promoting unsavoury bigoted views and people but was happy to do it because he enjoyed the sport of winding up lefties and was making lots of money from it (Much like Ann Coulter). He got so popular that he got too comfortable with his new friends and forgot how awful they really are so when he was honest about his enthusiasm for underage gay sex he clearly didn't think they'd turn on like they predictably did. I can't say I miss him.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2022, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Milo's pretty sharp so I always assumed he was one of those conservatives who knew full well he was siding with/promoting unsavoury bigoted views and people but was happy to do it because he enjoyed the sport of winding up lefties and was making lots of money from it (Much like Ann Coulter). He got so popular that he got too comfortable with his new friends and forgot how awful they really are so when he was honest about his enthusiasm for underage gay sex he clearly didn't think they'd turn on like they predictably did. I can't say I miss him.
He is smart and literally was a professional troll. He knows which buttons to push and when. I always assumed he was in for the grift and fame.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
ETA2: I can see why someone would refer to the paradox of tolerance when discussing, say, a white supremacist. Can a paradox of tolerance argument be made against JK?
JK = JK Rowling? Has Rowling been cancelled?!? Has she lost book contracts?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2022, 10:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
JK = JK Rowling? Has Rowling been cancelled?!? Has she lost book contracts?
Not that I’m aware of, but I imagine that’s not for lack of trying.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2022, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I’m curious: why do you view Milo’s implosion as a cancelation?
Like I said, Milo’s cancelation was a journey. Him getting dumped by his audience was distinct from him getting dumped from Twitter.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2022, 11:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Not that I’m aware of, but I imagine that’s not for lack of trying.
But then, has she actually been canceled? Or as a public person with a large (Harry Potter-sized) audience has she been subject to criticism? In her case, all I can see is the latter with no repercussions. I fail to see how this amounts to canceling her. Why do you think it does?
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Like I said, Milo’s cancelation was a journey. Him getting dumped by his audience was distinct from him getting dumped from Twitter.
Which is why (last I checked) he is selling trinkets on TV rather than being the enfant terrible of the right that he was. Also here, I fail to see how he was canceled: it wasn't a small group of vocal critics that peddled trumped up charges based on distorted readings of past utterings. It was his fans leaving him, because of his problematic relation to the abuse of minors (because of his own sexual abuse).

Let's compare that to Rowling: she hasn't lost tons of fans and I reckon Universal Studios theme parks still have Harry Potter rides. There are still movies that play in the Hogwarts Universe in the pipeline, some of which I am going to watch with my wife.


I noticed in your examples that it seems to me you use “canceled” also in the sense of “attempted to cancel”.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2022, 11:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I noticed in your examples that it seems to me you use “canceled” also in the sense of “attempted to cancel”.
Is it not correct to consider attempted [X] to be on a similar plane as [X]?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2022, 01:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is it not correct to consider attempted [X] to be on a similar plane as [X]?
The thing is that I don't consider these examples similar at all. If some of Rowlings deals (book deals, merch, etc.) came on or at least close the the chopping block, then maybe. But seeing as what happened, it's just a nothingburger. So no, they aren't similar to what I'd consider cancelations.

You see, that's the thing: if you apply these loose standards, then truly “cancelations are everywhere” even though nothing has substantially changed. And the “cancel culture”/“canceling”/etc. are just the latest addition to the outrage dictionary like, say, Critical Race Theory or woke. Or the way some people want to use the word “rape”. They are just used to stoke up feelings from people, but not to describe anything close to the original meaning, very often intentionally. Put another way, they perpetuate the lack of nuance that underlies what I'd consider true cancelations, where e. g. people were the victim of a mob or were confronted with something they said many years ago (and perhaps had changed their minds) or something was taken out of context. Something where the punishment is disproportionate to the crime. And my standards are much higher for people with some level of fame. E. g. Roseanne and Dave Chapelle (not that I want to equate them, of course) have, to borrow your phrase, armor than a person who isn't famous and just writes a dumb tweet before hopping on a plane.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2022, 07:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Not that I’m aware of, but I imagine that’s not for lack of trying.
„I imagine“ is imagined truth. There is nothing factual about that statement. She isn’t cancelled: none of the people you have mentioned are „cancelled“.

They face public opposition, because openly voicing the opinion that somebody is saying something stupid or dangerous is as much a part of free speech as that person having said it in the first place.
JK, and even less Roseanne Barr, are not the victims here. They said stupid or even hideous things, publicly, and people are publicly stating contrary viewpoints.

Further: I don’t know whether it explicitly exists in the U.S., but here, freedom of business means that I have the right to choose my customers and my products (with exceptions: I cannot discriminate against minorities, and healthcare follows a different set of rules, for reasons obvious to socialists ).

People are freely voicing opposition to statements made by others, and businesses are choosing no longer to do business with them.

When people are „cancelled“ here in Germany because people are tired of their shit or they simply run up against hate speech laws, they invariably play the victim card — and then usually go on to find less restrictive hosting in Russia. That’s almost too on-the-nose, if you ask me, but their audience doesn’t seem to notice or mind, here in Germany.

Oddly, it seems to always be alt-right or outright Nazi disinformation spreaders who are affected, and it’s always hosting in Russia that resolves the alleged „cancellation“.

Also, „cancel culture“ as a term seems to belong to and only affect the right.

That’s a little weird, isn’t it.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2022, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Also, „cancel culture“ as a term seems to belong to and only affect the right.

That’s a little weird, isn’t it.
I think Al Franken was the litmus test for "Will your hold your own side to the same standards?" There was a mob trying for "retaliation cancellings," at least for a while. They went after Dan Harmon but failed. They got James Gunn for a bit but he came back.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2022, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Expected, yes.

I get the impression I am more willing to excuse it than most here. Since that’s the case, if someone wants to claim I consider it more okay/acceptable, I can’t really deny it.

Edit: perhaps a different way to express my expectations is to say people are what they are within a context.
Two thoughts I have here. One, with regards to context. If your great grandpa spends Thanksgiving dinner complaining about the "spooks" that live next door, that's wrong and bad and I don't excuse it. But I think it fits into your idea of "expected." However, a group of people conspiring to dishonestly provoke public fear and use that fear to dismantle groups they felt threatened the power structure they relied on and benefited from, which eventually led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of lives, and the incarceration of millions of people - I don't think you can go, "Welp, that's just our kind of racist grandpa, he was born in the '20s. What can you do?"

Second thought is that I don't think it really matters if I'm able to shrug off the racist thoughts or actions of anyone regardless of context, because racist thoughts or actions have no power over me. I'd be inclined to listen to those whose lives ARE directly impacted by the historical and continual casual racism and microaggressions faced every day, even when it's perpetuated by people who are just a "product of their context."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2022, 02:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
However, a group of people conspiring to dishonestly provoke public fear and use that fear to dismantle groups they felt threatened the power structure they relied on and benefited from, which eventually led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of lives, and the incarceration of millions of people - I don't think you can go, "Welp, that's just our kind of racist grandpa, he was born in the '20s. What can you do?"
So I’m clear, are you talking about Nixon and his crew here?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2022, 02:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I think Al Franken…
…should be president right now.

Just sayin’.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2022, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So I’m clear, are you talking about Nixon and his crew here?
I think that picking Nixon out and saying, "Is he extra racist or just the normal amount of racist" kind of misses the point and probably gives too much credit to the position of president. The existing power structure - be it people, political parties, corporations, lobbyists, religious leaders, anyone with influence - propagated a narrative that produced the reality we live in today. It wasn't just Nixon, and it wasn't just that administration.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
…should be president right now.

Just sayin’.
That's why I bring him up - he was quick, smart, funny, and could take down Trump. It kind of makes you wonder if he wasn't targeted on purpose...
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2022, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
That's why I bring him up - he was quick, smart, funny, and could take down Trump. It kind of makes you wonder if he wasn't targeted on purpose...
Doesn’t everyone in presidential-tier politics get targeted on purpose?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2022, 05:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
The existing power structure - be it people, political parties, corporations, lobbyists, religious leaders, anyone with influence - propagated a narrative that produced the reality we live in today. It wasn't just Nixon, and it wasn't just that administration.
I assumed the point of the Nixon example was that it’s evidence of intent, or to put it another way, there is a distinction between the deluded and the malicious.

As you’ve pointed out, this is my schtick. I always question it when a behavior is attributed to malice, because it’s usually not anywhere near that simple. If someone is accused of it, I’m going to look at things like when, where, and how they were raised.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2022, 08:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Doesn’t everyone in presidential-tier politics get targeted on purpose?
he was totally targeted though.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:04 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,