Society/Culture Has cancel culture gone too far?

[Scallop Industry Thug]

This makes no sense. I challenge anyone to understand your argument based on this.

It's summarising your argument. So yeah, it makes no sense.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It's summarising your argument. So yeah, it makes no sense.

You run out of petrol so quickly.

You wade in like you've got something to say but you are fundamentally unable to string a sentence together or connect the dots.

I wish I could summarise your argument but, as usual, you don't have one.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

You run out of petrol so quickly.

You wade in like you've got something to say but you are fundamentally unable to string a sentence together or connect the dots.

I wish I could summarise your argument but, as usual, you don't have one.

campaigner, you're half as smart as you think you are.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

campaigner, you're half as smart as you think you are.

And it's still more than enough to have you covered.

Why do you keep engaging when within two posts it becomes clear that you've got nothing to say?

Do you think that if you just keep plugging away, some people will mistake you for having an argument? That seems to be your strategy.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

And it's still more than enough to have you covered.

Why do you keep engaging when within two posts it becomes clear that you've got nothing to say?

Your argument is flimsy. It's based on nothing.

You've become like the campaigner in your signature. An angry turnip with nothing to say but whinges about the left.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Your argument is flimsy. It's based on nothing.

It's based on a series of examples. And if it's so flimsy, why are you completely unable to address it?

Every time you try, you hit the wall in about two posts. Who do you think you're kidding?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

It's based on a series of examples. And if it's so flimsy, why are you completely unable to address it?

Every time you try, you hit the wall in about two posts. Who do you think you're kidding?

Show some introspection.

You've boiled your argument down to some 'impulse'. Not a statute, or an economic outcome, or an embedded inequality.

And yet you're keep pissing into the wind, accusing me of having a flimsy argument.

Flog.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Show some introspection.

You've boiled your argument down to some 'impulse'. Not a statute, or an economic outcome, or an embedded inequality.

How do you think this is an argument?

We're talking about an illiberal impulse to silence, remove or "cancel" speech or content that is deemed offensive or in breach of certain orthodoxies. It happens on the right and it happens on the left, and we should reject it wherever it manifests.

Like this.

Does the fact there is no statue, economic outcome or embedded inequality mean it doesn't exist? Is that your magic rule?

Within one post, you're just blowing bubbles.

And yet you're keep pissing into the wind, accusing me of having a flimsy argument.

Yeah, because you have no coherent response to the above argument. You've demonstrated it repeatedly.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Does the fact there is no statue, economic outcome or embedded inequality mean it doesn't exist? Is that your magic rule?

Yeah, it requires some evidence. Not just you regurgitating what you saw on some site.

Jog on.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yeah, it requires some evidence. Not just you regurgitating what you saw on some site.

Jog on.

My evidence is a statement from the National Black Justice Coalition. Is it inadmissable because it appears in a news report online? Is that another of your magic rules?

In response, civil rights advocacy group the National Black Justice Coalition asked Netflix to remove the special from their catalogue.

“With 2021 on track to be the deadliest year on record for transgender people in the United States — the majority of whom are Black transgender people — Netflix should know better,” executive director David Johns said.

“Perpetuating transphobia perpetuates violence. Netflix should immediately pull The Closer from its platform and directly apologise to the transgender community.”

So these folks insist Dave Chappelle's special is "transphobic". How exactly?

They also claim that it needs to be removed. It's not enough for them to not watch it. It's so offensive that no one should be able to watch it. That is the essence of cancel culture.

And they also want you to believe that Dave Chappelle's special actually "perpetuates violence" against trans people. This is petty, illiberal nonsense, recasting speech as a form of symbolic violence in its own right, and we should reject such thinking wherever we encounter it.

You're yet to formulate a response to this, beyond an association fallacy that we shouldn't condemn this rubbish because sometimes conservatives talk disingenuously about cancel culture. That's a ridiculous, intellectually bankrupt argument that does absolutely nothing to address the issue.

You either think content should be removed because some folks are "offended", or you demand a much better reason than that.

 

[Verdun]

You either think content should be removed because some folks are "offended", or you demand a much better reason than that.

ie better get that defamation going!

 

[Sweet Jesus]

ie better get that defamation going!

Feel free to make an argument any time. I'm frankly not sure where you're coming from any more, after you demanded I explain cancel culture and then disappeared into the hedge once I did so.

I've already explained the difference between defamation law and cancel culture.

I know this might be a novel ideas for you folks, but at some point you have to be able to articulate your view and why you hold it, ideally supported with a reasoned argument. You can't just hover in the ether, hoping an argument formulates itself by magic.

 

[Verdun]

Feel free to make an argument any time. I'm frankly not sure where you're coming from any more, after you demanded I explain cancel culture and then disappeared into the hedge once I did so.

I've already explained the difference between defamation law and cancel culture.

No mate, I was at work - not sure what you do during the day.

You have explained nothing, nothing on cancel culture nothing on defamation law.

Nothing.

You have given your OPINION no facts. Spend a lot of time havi

Do you believe that anyone has ever used defamation law when they are 'offended' to shut up / cancel others?

 

[adelaidecrows]

My evidence is a statement from the National Black Justice Coalition. Is it inadmissable because it appears in a news report online? Is that another of your magic rules?



So these folks insist Dave Chappelle's special is "transphobic". How exactly?

They also claim that it needs to be removed. It's not enough for them to not watch it. It's so offensive that no one should be able to watch it. That is the essence of cancel culture.

And they also want you to believe that Dave Chappelle's special actually "perpetuates violence" against trans people. This is petty, illiberal nonsense, recasting speech as a form of symbolic violence in its own right, and we should reject such thinking wherever we encounter it.

You're yet to formulate a response to this, beyond an association fallacy that we shouldn't condemn this rubbish because sometimes conservatives talk disingenuously about cancel culture. That's a ridiculous, intellectually bankrupt argument that does absolutely nothing to address the issue.

You either think content should be removed because some folks are "offended", or you demand a much better reason than that.

Its not transphobic. The problem with people who want a specific narrative, they refuse to allow any talk that isn't positive. They don't even want the conversation. The same things happen with racism. Any discussions regarding a specific race, like the state of aboriginal communities etc often are shut down due to racism accusations. It was considered racist through the narrative to even talk about it, if you are white that is. This is what the trabs community is trying to do. Shut down any and all non positive discussion even if it's calling something like it is.

Many who are criticising Dave haven't even bothered to watch the special and I even doubt that the trans employee at netflix even watched it. I think they had their back up he even got the special and were going to complain no matter what.

On SM-N981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No mate, I was at work - not sure what you do during the day.

You have explained nothing, nothing on cancel culture nothing on defamation law.

Nothing.

You have given your OPINION no facts. Spend a lot of time havi

Stop pretending. These points have both been addressed.

You can't just bluff your way through.

Do you believe that anyone has ever used defamation law when they are 'offended' to shut up / cancel others?

Mere "offence" is not the basis of a defamation suit.

Defamation law is a legal protection against reputational damage. You can't file a defamation suit saying "I was offended".

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Its not transphobic. The problem with people who want a specific narrative, they refuse to allow any talk that isn't positive. They don't even want the conversation. The same things happen with racism. Any discussions regarding a specific race, like the state of aboriginal communities etc often are shut down due to racism accusations. It was considered racist through the narrative to even talk about it, if you are white that is. This is what the trabs community is trying to do. Shut down any and all non positive discussion even if it's calling something like it is.

Many who are criticising Dave haven't even bothered to watch the special and I even doubt that the trans employee at netflix even watched it. I think they had their back up he even got the special and were going to complain no matter what.

To be clear, I don't object to folks criticising or even protesting. But when that tips over into demands for it to be removed, because it's "offensive", we should resist that. IMO there should be a very high bar to start removing content on those grounds.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

My evidence is a statement from the National Black Justice Coalition. Is it inadmissable because it appears in a news report online? Is that another of your magic rules?

Yeah you keep posting the same article. Other LGBT groups happy to criticise, the netflix employee thing never asked for a removal.

Yet you fixate on one statement. An indication of where you're at, and lack of argument.

So these folks insist Dave Chappelle's special is "transphobic". How exactly?

Irrelevant. You can think it's fine, other are perfectly enttled to think it's transphobic. You're hard pressed to argue it isn;t when he identifies himself with 'team terf'.

But irrelevant. You can piss and moan; others are within their rights to label something bigoted.

And they also want you to believe that Dave Chappelle's special actually "perpetuates violence" against trans people. This is petty, illiberal nonsense, recasting speech as a form of symbolic violence in its own right, and we should reject such thinking wherever we encounter it.

Who is we? Who are you speaking for?

If you're making the argument that de-humanising speech can't lead to dehumanising actions, you're ******* deluded.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yeah you keep posting the same article. Other LGBT groups happy to criticise, the netflix employee thing never asked for a removal.

Yet you fixate on one statement. An indication of where you're at, and lack of argument.

People are free to criticise, although I question the allegations of transphobia. But criticism alone is not cancel culture. That relates to the push to have content removed.

The statement is an example of that. It couldn't be more straightforward.

What is your argument against that?

Irrelevant. You can think it's fine, other are perfectly enttled to think it's transphobic. You're hard pressed to argue it isn;t when he identifies himself with 'team terf'.

But irrelevant. You can piss and moan; others are within their rights to label something bigoted.

The allegations of "transphobia" are central to their criticisms, so it's entirely relevant. Folks are entitled to their own opinion, and sure, they can label anything as they like.

But everyone else is also within their rights to make their own assessments and dismiss those criticisms if they're not valid. And if we are to assess whether the criticisms are valid or not, then of course we could start by asking whether the special was indeed "transphobic" or constituted "hate speech", as some have claimed.

His support for JK Rowling's position is not automatically evidence of transphobia. That's ridiculous.

Tell me specifically what he said during the special that constitutes "transphobia".

Who is we? Who are you speaking for?

I am making the case for liberal values generally, and rejecting the illiberal idea that speech or content should be removed simply because some people were "offended". It's illiberal when it comes from the left. It's illiberal when it comes from the right.

Do you disagree with that position?

Should we, liberal societies at large, start accommodating religious offence just as readily?

If you're making the argument that de-humanising speech can't lead to dehumanising actions, you're ******* deluded.

I haven't said that. Try again.

 

[adelaidecrows]

To be clear, I don't object to folks criticising or even protesting. But when that tips over into demands for it to be removed, because it's "offensive", we should resist that. IMO there should be a very high bar to start removing content on those grounds.

Its happening now. Two years ago the way things got cancelled is because sponsors got targeted by a loud minority for potential boycott threats and sponsors got scared and as such helped put pressure on tv channels to remove a TV show or sack an actor etc. That's why the media ran to optus to see if they will demand Tex get sacked. They had become accustomed to it. But the tone from sponsors is they are after money. While they don't want to be dragged through the mud, at the same time they are learning to just let things play out. A loud minority is generally a toothless tiger. Sponsors have learned not to flinch. Which is good. What we are seeing now as a result is these loud minorities being frustrated and they are doing disruptive violent protesting to get their way. It's not working.

On SM-N981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Verdun]

Stop pretending. These points have both been addressed.

You can't just bluff your way through.

Mere "offence" is not the basis of a defamation suit.

Defamation law is a legal protection against reputational damage. You can't file a defamation suit saying "I was offended".

If you do not think defamation law is not used for those that feel 'offended' and have more power than others to use the law for their benefit you are naive. The ability to use a defamation suit for the mere offence occurs.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

If you do not think defamation law is not used for those that feel 'offended' and have more power than others to use the law for their benefit you are naive. The ability to use a defamation suit for the mere offence occurs.

Mere "offence" is not the basis of defamation law. That's what distinguishes it from cancel culture.

Read that again slowly if you must.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Mere "offence" is not the basis of defamation law. That's what distinguishes it from cancel culture.

Clueless. The narrative being pushed by this defamation stuff is to 'shut the * up'. Powerful men, using the implicit threat of being inAnyvolved in the legal system to chill speech.

It's not a flashy, woke or edgelord statement, but its white wealthy men controlling access to speech and determining those who are heard. This notion of a cancel culture oppressing these people is patently ******* dumb. Anyone who buys into it is a halfwit.

 

[Verdun]

Mere "offence" is not the basis of defamation law. That's what distinguishes it from cancel culture.

Read that again slowly if you must.

Mate you are a bit slow...


Defamation law is used continually by the offended, by those who can afford it against those who can not.

Cancel cutlure

catch up.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Clueless. The narrative being pushed by this defamation stuff is to 'shut the fu** up'. Powerful men, using the implicit threat of being inAnyvolved in the legal system to chill speech.

Defamation law is a legal protection against reputational damage.

That has nothing to do with cancel culture, which relies on "offence" and generally has no basis in law.

The difference is obvious.

It's not a flashy, woke or edgelord statement, but its white wealthy men controlling access to speech and determining those who are heard. This notion of a cancel culture oppressing these people is patently ******* dumb. Anyone who buys into it is a halfwit.

I'm not the one asserting a connection.

One is a legal protection, based in law. The other isn't. It's that simple.

You may as well start arguing that copyright law is cancel culture as well because Paul McCartney won't let you re-record all the Beatles' songs and sell them as your own work.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Defamation law is used continually by the offended, by those who can afford it against those who can not.

Cancel cutlure

catch up.

Can you string a sentence together?

Defamation law is a legal protection. Cancel culture, on the other hand, generally has no basis in law.

They are unrelated.