Cancel Culture: a case study

[Mike Cl]

What I find interesting is that many people say they have the freedom/right to say whatever they want.  What they don't want to hear or understand is that I have a right to respond.  And they have to take responsibility for what they say and they don't want to hear about any consequences they receive for saying what they say.

This is much like theists that tell us that abortion (for example) is an infringement upon their freedom of religion.  What they don't want to understand is that stance is actually an infringement of my rights, not theirs.  If they don't want an abortion (or whatever they are complaining about) then don't get one.

[Cassia]

Do Americans have a right to be racist? Do Americans have a right to say hateful things about individuals or groups of people? Should what people say on their own time allow employers and schools to fire them? There doesn't appear to be a consensus. The temptation is to censor people who say disagreeable or hurtful things but, as someone who admittedly has a history of saying disagreeable things, I prefer to allow people as much latitude as possible. The singer in question should use whatever language she wants, particularly since music is an artistic expression, and listeners should be able to criticize her for it. I would take issue if YouTube kicked her off the platform.

I would like for it to be put to a vote at least. We need to set some legal precedents. Is it OK to publish material that denies the wholesale, racially motivated slaughter of millions committed by the Nazis. Should it be legal to publicly deny the genocide and persecution of Native Americans?  Should we allow the publication of instructions to build WMDs? Personally I think that if intent to harm is proven, then a penalty is in order.

[Blackleaf]

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

I don't think this counts as cancel culture, but it is an interesting case. Public schools are (poorly) funded by the government, which does, I believe, make this an actual issue of free speech. Usually when people talk about "my free speech," they're not actually talking about free speech. Platforms like YouTube have no obligation to respect all opinions equally. They can ban someone for any reason they want. They're a private business. Here, I think the school was within their rights. The student's comments were hateful and unproductive. Like, she made no suggestions to improve, but was just lashing out. But at the same time, I think you have to show a little mercy with kids. You can't expect them to have as good judgement as adults. They're wired differently. Suspending a student for an entire year seems excessive

[GSOgymrat]

I would like for it to be put to a vote at least. We need to set some legal precedents. Is it OK to publish material that denies the wholesale, racially motivated slaughter of millions committed by the Nazis. Should it be legal to publicly deny the genocide and persecution of Native Americans?  Should we allow the publication of instructions to build WMDs? Personally I think that if intent to harm is proven, then a penalty is in order.

Last week I read Giving the Devil His Due by Michael Shermer and he has publically debated holocaust deniers. He sides with free speech and I tend to agree with him.

It is my contention that we must protect speech no matter how hateful it may seem. The solution to hate speech is more speech. The counter to bad ideas is good ideas. The rebuttal to pseudoscience is better science. The answer to fake news is real news. The best way to refute alternative facts is with actual facts. - Shermer, Michael. Giving the Devil his Due (p. 37). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

[Baruch]

What I find interesting is that many people say they have the freedom/right to say whatever they want.  What they don't want to hear or understand is that I have a right to respond.  And they have to take responsibility for what they say and they don't want to hear about any consequences they receive for saying what they say.

This is much like theists that tell us that abortion (for example) is an infringement upon their freedom of religion.  What they don't want to understand is that stance is actually an infringement of my rights, not theirs.  If they don't want an abortion (or whatever they are complaining about) then don't get one.

In Commie-fornia you have a right to say what you weed ;-)  Of course you folk would burn down every religious institution and every non-Democrat political building.  That is your "freedom of speech".  I will never be against hate speech, because without hate, I would have little to say ;-))

[Baruch]

Do Americans have a right to be racist? Do Americans have a right to say hateful things about individuals or groups of people? Should what people say on their own time allow employers and schools to fire them? There doesn't appear to be a consensus. The temptation is to censor or punish people who say disagreeable or hurtful things but, as someone who admittedly has a history of saying disagreeable things, I prefer to allow people as much latitude as possible. The singer in question should use whatever language she wants, particularly since music is an artistic expression, and listeners should be able to criticize her for it. I would take issue if YouTube kicked her off the platform.

Black Americans have a right to be a drug using/selling hoodlum ;-)  Why are you against White crime?  Black crime = reparations, White crime = racism.  I would love to see all the Black loving Whites get what is coming to them (reincarnated as a Watts drug dealer).

[Baruch]

I would like for it to be put to a vote at least. We need to set some legal precedents. Is it OK to publish material that denies the wholesale, racially motivated slaughter of millions committed by the Nazis. Should it be legal to publicly deny the genocide and persecution of Native Americans?  Should we allow the publication of instructions to build WMDs? Personally I think that if intent to harm is proven, then a penalty is in order.

Pure Bolshevism.  You were born 100 years too late, Comrade!

[Baruch]

I don't think this counts as cancel culture, but it is an interesting case. Public schools are (poorly) funded by the government, which does, I believe, make this an actual issue of free speech. Usually when people talk about "my free speech," they're not actually talking about free speech. Platforms like YouTube have no obligation to respect all opinions equally. They can ban someone for any reason they want. They're a private business. Here, I think the school was within their rights. The student's comments were hateful and unproductive. Like, she made no suggestions to improve, but was just lashing out. But at the same time, I think you have to show a little mercy with kids. You can't expect them to have as good judgement as adults. They're wired differently. Suspending a student for an entire year seems excessive

Schools have rights, as "in loco parentis" but since y'all want to cancel parents, I see this as moot.  What you want is bloody dictatorship, with lots of drugs (like the SS, who were motivated by cocaine pills).

Holocaust deniers are real.  But the Commie-caust deniers are far more common.

[GSOgymrat]

What I find interesting is that many people say they have the freedom/right to say whatever they want.  What they don't want to hear or understand is that I have a right to respond.  And they have to take responsibility for what they say and they don't want to hear about any consequences they receive for saying what they say.

When I was 19 I worked the night shift at a convenience store for minimum wage in the worst part of Asheville. This was 1985 and Asheville had a small-town atmosphere in many ways. I had a gay pride t-shirt that I wore occasionally but not at work. Wearing a t-shirt that says "No one knows I'm gay" is nothing today but at the time and place it was provocative. My manager called me into the office and said there was a complaint because they had "a known homosexual" working for them. She said she wasn't going to fire me but "in the future you need to be more careful." So the consequence of my free speech was having my meager employment threatened.

When people say "people don't want to accept consequences for what they say" they need to consider who is delivering those consequences and why.

[Cassia]

Pure Bolshevism.  You were born 100 years too late, Comrade!

You missed the whole "put it to a vote part". But then again now we see how conservative boot-lickers don't really care for the vote when they are the losers, LOL.
I think Holocaust deniers are unworthy of any honest academic "debate". I prefer that these issue of potential "hate crimes" are dealt with by ballots instead of a handful of judges. I have no fear that a majority of Americans would ever support, raise a bill or vote to ban pro-LGBTQ public expression. However, I do believe certain events were so terrible that they have the capability of causing physical/mental damage if they are publicly denied. We should have a say in how public deniers are dealt with. There are already laws against causing panic, liable and bearing false witness, so no you can not legally just say or print whatever you want .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Shit will eventually calm down, or maybe nukes will be deployed. Either way is fine by me.

[Blackleaf]

When I was 19 I worked the night shift at a convenience store for minimum wage in the worst part of Asheville. This was 1985 and Asheville had a small-town atmosphere in many ways. I had a gay pride t-shirt that I wore occasionally but not at work. Wearing a t-shirt that says "No one knows I'm gay" is nothing today but at the time and place it was provocative. My manager called me into the office and said there was a complaint because they had "a known homosexual" working for them. She said she wasn't going to fire me but "in the future you need to be more careful." So the consequence of my free speech was having my meager employment threatened.

When people say "people don't want to accept consequences for what they say" they need to consider who is delivering those consequences and why.

Yeah, this is not about free speech. That's just discrimination. Being gay is not a political statement.

[Baruch]

Yeah, this is not about free speech. That's just discrimination. Being gay is not a political statement.

Being gay isn't a political statement, but using it as a political meme is.  Being Black or White isn't a political statement, but using them as a political meme is.  There is no escape from the insanity of politics.  Both R and L lead to extinction.

Free speech?  The Virginian at the saloon talking to Trampas ... "Smile when you say that!"

[GSOgymrat]

Yeah, this is not about free speech. That's just discrimination. Being gay is not a political statement.

Although I'm glad wearing a gay pride shirt isn't considered a political statement in 2020 in America, wearing a t-shirt stating you were gay in 1985 in the South was definitely a political statement and that is what got me into trouble. At the time, that shirt pissed a lot of people off.

[Baruch]

Although I'm glad wearing a gay pride shirt isn't considered a political statement in 2020 in America, wearing a t-shirt stating you were gay in 1985 in the South was definitely a political statement and that is what got me into trouble. At the time, that shirt pissed a lot of people off.

And did you love every minute of attracting hostile attention?  Today the woke want to murder the MAGA hat people?  So moral!

In some places I wouldn't be caught dead in a Dem or Rep t-shirt.  And I am not sure those should be protected forms of speech.  What about a "I am a Chinese agent" or "I am a traitor" t-shirts?  Just how open minded are y'all?  I see no evidence that people today are beyond mere tribal warfare.