Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Colon, Feb 24, 2021.
Which international human rights organization do you donate to?
Ah student feedback. Boy does that get interesting sometimes. Occasionally deeply insightful. Occasionally misspelled complaints about a foreign ta's 4th language fluency. Occasionally poems regarding their teacher's anatomy. It's a rich playground. No judgement either way other than one powerpoint slide on its own is pretty slim.
I give directly to George Soros
Cancel culture - Wikipedia
At least in a colon's case it's coming out the correct end.
It's hard to say. 10+ years ago the world around us was pretty different.
Would be great to see the students held to their own standards when it comes to political actions of people they don't like. Trump also condemned violence, for example. Why is it good enough for Islamic leaders in particular, but not good enough for others?
While > 90% of polled Islamic followers are against killing civilians, it's still one of the most common + highest death toll groupings of terror attacks worldwide. The bullet points in that list are taken from extremist interpretations of the faith, but we do observe them practiced at large scales...and in areas where those practices happen they are certainly human rights challenges.
I've seen comments on the attractiveness of faculty's attire and some other interesting things too, lol.
Super awesome hand drawn pictures are my favorite. The best one I think I've seen was a duck.
That doesn't answer the question, or indeed bare any relevance to it.
What does the op have to do with cancel culture?
The notion of cancel culture is a variant on the term call-out culture and constitutes a form of boycotting involving an individual (usually a celebrity) who is deemed to have acted or spoken in a questionable or controversial manner.
Merriam-Webster notes that to "cancel", as used in this context, means "to stop giving support to that person"
Dictionary.com, in its pop-culture dictionary, defines cancel culture as "withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive."
The topic in question:
A “prisoner of conscience”, Amnesty’s website says, is “someone has not used or advocated violence but is imprisoned because of who they are”.
Amnesty International took an internal decision to stop referring to [Alexey] Navalny as a prisoner of conscience ... and this decision does not change our resolve to fight for his immediate release, and for an end to his politically motivated persecution by the Russian authorities
I do not see the connection.
The "vibe" would seem to be what, "a 15 year old purity test" or something. Isn't that the gripe?
Using the term "cancel culture" usually seems to imply an exasperation with unreasonable *******ness with regards to purity. Otherwise people I know don't really say it. They'll say some other term if they actually want something censored publicly or privately.
But what is the relevance of cancel culture? They continue to call for his release.
Wouldn't the implication then be that it was a petty unnecessary ******* move?
An organization acts in a way that caves to public pressure to ostracize someone publicly, and that somehow doesn't qualify as being thrust out of a social or professional circle?
"Not jailed" is a different degree of punishment to "cancelled". At least for now.
Is it not the purity test, but with a consequence of failing it being withdrawal of support. The latter does not seem to be there in the OP.
It is normally used when the failure of purity test is questionable, not the advocacy of violence based on ethnicity.
Then there's the difference. Cancel culture seems to imply that the purity test is actually the point, the fun. I think the term actually catches a real vibe there, sometimes.
I think the implication is that it is bad. No one is calling facebook no longer distributing the Tatmadaw's page cancelling, but did for Trump. I suspect the difference is the global communities opinion of the 2.
The purity test being the point and fun is bad. It's an accusation of bullying. Why would not popular opinion be essentially the only thing that matters, there, short of naked power? Persecution is often popular. That will roll into the implication.
Oh, I thought you knew something about the topic. Your initial comment was just sardonic
This is the point of boycotts, that if you rely on "the public" buying your stuff, then you should not do things that "the public" find objectionable. It is generally a powerful tool for the powerless to influence the powerful. It is sometimes miss aimed, but I think it has done more good than harm over the years.
They didn't cave to public pressure. They are that pressure. This is them doing what it is they do, what they were set up to do, what they define themselves as doing. This is the antithesis of hypocrisy.
I genuinely have no idea of the point you are making here. Please explain.
That goes against what they themselves said about why they did it.
Well, sure, boycotts being boycotts. This isn't a commercial transaction at point, is it? The powerless taking down the powerful a peg? People don't usually call it "cancel culture" if they agree what is going on. It's an accusation of cowardly bullying of a political prisoner regarding his "humanitarian status" or whatever being downgraded, isn't it? Political prisoner suddenly faces downgrade of international victimhood status: shock, surprise, horror, on my, why would we be jaded as hell over this one?
Separate names with a comma.