Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 3

[Scallop Industry Thug]

You tell me.

Apparently certain phrases, like "cancel culture", are off-limits because they've been invoked in bad faith by RWers.

That won't fly.

You seem to be doing a good job of saying unsayable things.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You seem to be doing a good job of saying unsayable things.

Despite your objections. So maybe you should find another line of argument?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Despite your objections. So maybe you should find another line of argument?

You've invented a spectre to rebel against.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You've invented a spectre to rebel against.

What does that even mean?

I am critical of certain illiberal impulses and tactics. It's perfectly straightforward.

I criticise them when there are examples from the religious right. And I criticise them when there are examples from the progressive left. That's how principles work.

These impulse and tactics aren't new. I didn't need to invent anything.

Your argument is what exactly?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

what,s yours?

That an undefined left is defending values that you pretend you stand for...or did but don't...or used to or...something...by protesting...threateing to boycott...or cancel by...how?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

what,s yours?

I just told you.

That an undefined left is defending values that you pretend you stand for...or did but don't...or used to or...something...by protesting...threateing to boycott...or cancel by...how?

Try to say something coherent.

I've made my arguments at length several times.

Feel free to recap.

Here and here.

Your rebuttal so far has been limited to "but RWers talk about cancel culture so it's bad to talk about it".

 

[Gethelred]

I just told you.

Try to say something coherent.

I've made my arguments at length several times.

Feel free to recap.

Here and here.

Your rebuttal so far has been limited to "but RWers talk about cancel culture so it's bad to talk about it".

I agree with you concerning the illiberal desire to censor speech, especially comedy. I do not think it's wise to use the words that the alt right appropriated the meaning of in order to demonise. The phenomena that they call 'cancel culture' is genuinely as old as time:

Ostracon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

... and has undergone a wide variety of expressions. As you correctly point out, social media is new, so the expression of that desire to silence people is new, but the desire itself is not new at all.

The problem with using the phrase 'cancel culture' is that it tries to paint the phenomenon as a new one, and by using the words in the manner they do you further embed their alternative meanings into the vernacular.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I agree with you concerning the illiberal desire to censor speech, especially comedy. I do not think it's wise to use the words that the alt right appropriated the meaning of in order to demonise. The phenomena that they call 'cancel culture' is genuinely as old as time:

Ostracon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

... and has undergone a wide variety of expressions. As you correctly point out, social media is new, so the expression of that desire to silence people is new, but the desire itself is not new at all.

The problem with using the phrase 'cancel culture' is that it tries to paint the phenomenon as a new one, and by using the words in the manner they do you further embed their alternative meanings into the vernacular.

I don't claim the impulse behind cancel culture is new. The religious right were doing it for years. We were accustomed to that. But the fact it's now being deployed by the progressive left, amplified by social media, is new.

It's left-leaning folks in their 20s and 30s who are actually quite illiberal on this issue. That's new.

I'm not going to not use certain words just because someone else uses them too. I have no time for the alt-right. But that won't stop me criticising illiberal behaviour on the progressive left, in whatever terms apply.

 

[Gethelred]

I don't claim the impulse behind cancel culture is new. The religious right were doing it for years. We were accustomed to that. But the fact it's now being deployed by the progressive left, amplified by social media, is new.

It's left-leaning folks in their 20s and 30s who are actually quite illiberal on this issue. That's new.

I don't think it's new that left wing people have illiberal impulses at all!

Societal freedom and its opposite do not exist on the left/right spectrum; they're different impulses, bound up in notions of not egalitarianism but trust. Do you trust the person next to do the right thing? Do you trust those in power to do the right thing?

If no to the former and yes to the latter, you're in favour of authoritarian approaches, regardless of your perspectives on organisation or economics (the left/right dichotomy); if yes to the former and no to the latter, you are disinclined to be predisposed towards tyranny.

I'm not going to not use certain words just because someone else uses them too. I have no time for the alt-right. But that won't stop me criticising illiberal behaviour on the progressive left, in whatever terms apply.

Then you are genuinely permitting those with duplicitous purposes to deny you language to depict them accurately.

I have another question, linked to this one. Can you call someone a fascist and have that statement be other than ironic? Can you call someone a fascist and be accurate?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I don't think it's new that left wing people have illiberal impulses at all!

The expression of these impulses is new, as are the orthodoxies they're defending.

And on the issue of "silencing offensive speech", that has largely been the obsession of the right.

Obviously we're not talking about the CCP here.

I have another question, linked to this one. Can you call someone a fascist and have that statement be other than ironic? Can you call someone a fascist and be accurate?

What are you getting at?

 

[Gethelred]

The expression of these impulses is new, as are the orthodoxies they're defending.

I know. We've both acknowledged this.

What are you getting at?

Well, there's a fair proportion of the new right who are trying to redefine what the word 'fascist' means, to broaden it to mean 'authoritarian' as opposed to specifically referring to palingenetic ultranationalism, which is the accepted definition of the term. They did this as part of their desire to redefine Nazism as left wing, as well as their appropriation of the term 'woke' and their labelling of things they don't like as CRT.

And yes, I'm aware that you object to CRT.

By using the terms they've appropriated in the way they've appropriated them, you are accepting their definitions of those words and their 'spin' of reality. You are, in essence, participating in the new right's acceptance of postmodernism; you accept their creation and cultivation of reality. You accept that 2+2=5.

Or, you don't use their definitions or accept their reality. You don't allow them to redefine the terms used to depict them or allow them to redefine their own history to edit it in the directions they want to disguise, spin or hide. You maintain your steadfast adherence to the facts, and you maintain your liberalism.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Well, there's a fair proportion of the new right who are trying to redefine what the word 'fascist' means, to broaden it to mean 'authoritarian' as opposed to specifically referring to palingenetic ultranationalism, which is the accepted definition of the term. They did this as part of their desire to redefine Nazism as left wing, as well as their appropriation of the term 'woke' and their labelling of things they don't like as CRT.

And yes, I'm aware that you object to CRT.

By using the terms they've appropriated in the way they've appropriated them, you are accepting their definitions of those words and their 'spin' of reality. You are, in essence, participating in the new right's acceptance of postmodernism; you accept their creation and cultivation of reality. You accept that 2+2=5.

Or, you don't use their definitions or accept their reality. You don't allow them to redefine the terms used to depict them or allow them to redefine their own history to edit it in the directions they want to disguise, spin or hide. You maintain your steadfast adherence to the facts, and you maintain your liberalism.

I'm sceptical of attempts to redefine fascism, whether by the right or the left. And my objection to CRT depends what you mean by CRT.

The rest of your argument is pure theory, pure abstraction, which I obviously don't accept.

The term "cancel culture" aptly describes the illiberal impulses and tactics I'm condemning. I certainly don't suggest it exists exclusively on the left. Clearly the RW has its own targets.

 

[Gethelred]

The rest of your argument is pure theory, pure abstraction, which I obviously don't accept.

What's not to accept?

You've been privy to posters on here when they attempted to try and paint Nazism as left wing, and historical fascism as left wing. You've been part of conversations concerning 'woke' and other parts of the right's painting of the illiberal left. You're using their definitions of these terms, and have accepted their view on what these various words mean.

It's propaganda, and propaganda exists in the theoretical and the abstract.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

What's not to accept?

You've been privy to posters on here when they attempted to try and paint Nazism as left wing, and historical fascism as left wing. You've been part of conversations concerning 'woke' and other parts of the right's painting of the illiberal left. You're using their definitions of these terms, and have accepted their view on what these various words mean.

It's propaganda, and propaganda exists in the theoretical and the abstract.

I don't accept that by accurately using the term "cancel culture", I am furthering RW propaganda or endorsing their alternative reality. And that has absolutely nothing in common with repackaging Nazism as LW. That's absurd. Nor am I using "their definitions" of anything. I'm using words as I understand them.

Frankly, I don't have a lot of time for the argument that a word or a term should be off limits simply because folks you disagree with also use it.

Not only is it misguided, it redirects the argument away from the phenomenon the word describes.

When Trump started talking about "fake news" to describe any media that criticised him, it didn't mean we should all retire the term. It still accurately described the phenomenon of online misinformation, which was its original meaning.

I'll continue to describe the impulse to "cancel" accordingly, regardless of who's doing it.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The issue is you’re being swept along.

A critique of something as bigoted in some way is perfectly permissible.

You’re allowing yourself to agree that criticism is an attempt at cancelling.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The issue is you’re being swept along.

Nonsense. Your argument is dishonest. I'm entirely in control of my own critiques. I'm not parroting anything from the alt-right or elsewhere.

And you're no longer debating "the issue". Rather, you're insisting I shouldn't make certain arguments because you deem them taboo. Because the RW talks about "cancel culture" so it should be off limits to everyone else. That's absolute rubbish, and I have zero regard for it. And, of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

It's almost like you've conceded the point that these illiberal impulses exist on the left and would prefer to haggle over whether certain phrases are allowed to be used to describe them. I have contempt for that kind of abdication followed by sideways shuffling. It's dumb, dishonest and, frankly, it makes you sound chickenshit.

Instead of your insipid attempts to blacklist certain phrases, how about you make your arguments and I'll make mine?

You can deny the obvious if you think that's worthwhile. If you think it affirms your solidarity with the left and your opposition to the right. Go for it. But I have no interest in that.

A critique of something as bigoted in some way is perfectly permissible.

You’re allowing yourself to agree that criticism is an attempt at cancelling.

But I don't agree to that. So your argument fails.

Criticism on its own doesn't constitute "cancel culture". I've been quite explicit about that. It's the impulse to remove, erase or silence "offensive" content or speech that sends up a red flag. Folks can criticise as much as they like. But when they say that no one should be exposed to this content, that no one should have that choice, that's illiberal.

By indulging those impulses, we risk inadvertently approving the moral framework for blasphemy complaints.

Do you have an argument that doesn't rely on an association fallacy?

 

[Chief]

Because the RW talks about "cancel culture" so it should be off limits to everyone else.

I think he’s saying the right wing invented the idea that “cancel culture” is a leftist problem.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Criticism on its own doesn't constitute "cancel culture". I've been quite explicit about that. It's the impulse to remove, erase or silence "offensive" content or speech that sends up a red flag. Folks can criticise as much as they like. But when they say that no one should be exposed to this content, that no one should have that choice, that's illiberal.

By indulging those impulses, we risk inadvertently approving the moral framework for blasphemy complaints.

Do you have an argument that doesn't rely on an association fallacy?

Look at ho intent you are on pretending someone is trying to silence you. You take every criticism as an attempt at black listing. Why do you want this?

You’ve fallen into the trap of pretending criticism is an attempt st cancelling.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I think he’s saying the right wing invented the idea that “cancel culture” is a leftist problem.

How does that invalidate my critique, when I explicitly state the opposite?

Go and argue with someone defending the RW position.

This is an association fallacy.

Tucker Carlson says such and such, so I'm somehow answerable for that? No, I don't think so.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Look at ho intent you are on pretending someone is trying to silence you. You take every criticism as an attempt at black listing. Why do you want this?

You’ve fallen into the trap of pretending criticism is an attempt st cancelling.

I've said several times that mere criticism is fine and doesn't constitute "cancelling".

For example, trans folk should criticise Dave Chappelle all they like. But when you have groups calling for his special to be removed because it's "dangerous", that's petty and illiberal. And yes, it's an example of cancel culture.

I don't think you're trying to "silence me". I think your argument is flimsy and now relies on objecting to certain terms rather than discussing the impulses they describe.

"OMG we can't call it cancel culture because that's what Tucker Carlson says."

This is ridiculous. And it deliberately sidelines the point, which is about the illiberal impulses, in favour of a discussion about what we should or shouldn't call those impulses.

In short, I think you're dishonest and have been reduced to asserting association fallacies because anything more is beyond you.

Basically, you should clean up and go home.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

For example, trans folk should criticise Dave Chappelle all they like. But when you have groups calling for his special to be removed because it's "dangerous", that's petty and illiberal. And yes, it's an example of cancel culture.

Maybe I havent followed this closely enough.

I never saw a group calling for it to be removed.

Do you have evidence?

Here's how seriously he took it. “If This Is What Being Canceled Is, I Love It”. He will seize on it as a commercial exercise.

Just like all the others who pretend they're being cancelled to sell books, docos, pods, clicks etc.

Basically, you should clean up and go home.

Get ****ed, Ill say what I want.

You accuse me of flimsy arguments, yet your summation of 'cancel culture' boils down to 'illiberal impulses'.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Maybe I havent followed this closely enough.

I never saw a group calling for it to be removed.

Do you have evidence?

Netflix subscribers call for removal of Dave Chappelle special mocking trans people

Comedian’s show, ‘The Closer’, has been widely criticised

www.google.com

“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.”

Get f’ed, Ill say what I want.

And I'll tell you that your arguments are dishonest and inadequate.

You accuse me of flimsy arguments, yet your summation of 'cancel culture' boils down to 'illiberal impulses'.

It is an illiberal impulse. And I've discussed it at far greater length than that several times.

You're dishonest.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Netflix subscribers call for removal of Dave Chappelle special mocking trans people

Comedian’s show, ‘The Closer’, has been widely criticised

www.google.com

And I'll tell you that your arguments are dishonest and inadequate.

It is an illiberal impulse. And I've discussed it at far greater length than that several times.

You're dishonest.

You can point to impulses. I can point to policy positions. To legislation. To actual cancel 'victims' acknowledging how it's financially lucrative.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You can point to impulses. I can point to policy positions. To legislation. To actual cancel 'victims' acknowledging how it's financially lucrative.

Keep shuffling sideways.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Keep shuffling sideways.

Keep pumping away at that clickbait. Keep getting outraged. Keep supporting cancelled celebs like Chappelle and Rowling.