Oh that. Your post wasn't consistent. How you feel about that is another matter. On the one hand you claim politics are getting more cutthroat (on certain topics) and cited instances of forums getting more insular and people being annoyed off of them. The tools and results you have seen glances of. The imposition starting from outside the community in question seems to be where the rub lies. On the other hand, these dynamics are as old as time? Remember when I said static? You're stating that in other domains, the activity I'm describing has taken place. You somewhat understand what I'm getting at, at least historically. I'm assuming those two modes of thought will interact at some point, seeing as they share the same "locality."
You stopped short of explaining the inconsistency. Politics can both be getting cutthroat, and these dynamics can be as old as time. Assuming those are the two parts contrasted by putting one in each hand. I could be reading you wrong, but you're being pretty vague an increasing amount of the time, which makes reading you wrong easier than it would otherwise be.
It's not a matter of understanding what you're getting at. There are various readings of your comments, for each comment, a lot of the time. It seems on purpose. You want to generalise and be vague without committing to what you refer to as "narrow" specifics. But you raise specifics when you want to allude to something (as you did with forum moderation, which kicked off the tango).
The most involved reading I have is that you're silently equating "cancel culture", as a modern phrase that people use, with my general arguments about how the concept has existed throughout human history. In that case, my apparent contradiction is refuting the phrase as important while agreeing to the behaviour. If that assumption holds (which I doubt, because you're leaving a lot of open-ended remarks that can be interpreted a number of ways), my argument is that "cancel culture" isn't an accurate label for such a description. Which I've said before.
To a certain extent people have to make some base assumptions for a conversation to happen. We're not mindreaders. Many assumptions miss the mark. Some hit the mark. How to discern which is which and calibrate accordingly is an interesting topic on its own.
It could be an interesting topic. Regardless, the whole thing about assumptions wasn't for your benefit. Honestly, it wasn't for your benefit at all. People like to drop in and snag the odd line out of posts, particularly longer ones. It's tedious, but assuming the discussion is worth the time, I like to be sure so that people (generally) can't twist my words into accusations.
Still. I would assume this means you didn't quite learn enough about this type of discourse from those prior experiences. Fascinating. From my perspective, it's indirect and multi-angled, not circular. Contrast how you and Senethro reacted when I dropped my non-yellow heads of state question versus how amadeus acted. It was something of a ruse and he saw through it, as far as I can tell. He also delivered one of the better responses. When Senethro responded, he made an edit. I took this to be self-correction, impulse versus a more considered thought. The latter is what he, in fullness, meant. You appeared to resonate with his situation. You said you're uncomfortable with examining your edits. Also fascinating.
Oh, I did (learn). But like I said - I don't like assumptions. If I
assume some of your motivations here is to throw a line into a thread and amuse yourself with the responses, it colours any constructive debate that could be had. It's better for my arguments if I don't. And yet, you're doing a good job to demonstrating that you are treating this (at least at times) as some form of game. Just like you tried again with those last two sentences, there. That's a mistaken assumption at the start of the quote, and another at the end of it. I hope that's helpful calibration
I take that as a lack of personal interest in its application, which is fine.
Another miss on an assumption. I'm interested in the phrase being used as a semantic cudgel against a variety of activities that actually have nothing to do with actual problems. That's an application of the phrase, whereas you're apparently more interested in the application of the (conservatively-defined) concept.
I'm pretty sure that will upset the fashion-makers on the other side of the Atlantic.
Which isn't a refutation that the phrase
is poorly-defined (or loosely-defined, if you'd like. Maybe it's very well defined, and it's vague on-purpose).
I was asked a question about CFC in particular. That's a change in scope. I also said "in this instance." I have been talking about other instances in this thread too. Some explicitly, many more implicitly. So no, I did not define the scope as cancel culture as it relates to CFC. Who is trying to impose that constraint, I wonder?
...
See above. See above again. Make it a third time. I believe in you! Give it your best look.
You commented on a post by Senethro saying how bannings (on CFC) were relevant to cancel culture. You said, and I quote,
"a relevant topic in a thread about cancel culture". That's specifically what I replied to (starting with my post from "In that vein"). It seems silly that we've got to this level of going back through the thread. You defined the scope of this tangent as cancel culture as it relates to CFC (via bannings, and whose alleged influence is colouring said banning).
You keep answering points with more questions, or circular allusions to past replies (where you also don't give a specific, conclusive answer). I don't know what the point is, really. Maybe it's just your style. It strikes me as a very non-committal form of argument that lets you ask questions of others while offering up little concrete yourself. Not really my bag, but it's only an assumption I'm making anyhow.
Unconstructively, and yes.
Perfectly constructively. You're free to disengage at any time - I'm not
making you reply. I want to discuss the narrow scope as defined by comment about forum bans (further refined by your particular alleged concern for "woke progressives", though that's mostly secondary). While relating itself to cancel culture. This tangent could've been done posts ago, but you seem to prefer introducing generalisations (without concluding the point they're supposed to relate to).
Well if you want to pin yourself in that rut so bad, be my guest. You know what I don't like about direct arguments? The approach can be pretty obvious at times. Enough to anticipate and prepare for. I know you want me in that rut. That's where you're prepared to engage. I am however refusing to commit to occupying the rut, and that's frustrating you, apparently. It's one thing to maneuver yourself into the tangent. It's another thing to draw someone else there. Sometimes diction has the habit of provoking movement.
If you dislike direct arguments, you shouldn't allude to specific things happening on specific forums. You should keep it general from the start. That doesn't prevent direct arguments completely, but it'd certainly reduce their frequency. I can't be blamed for responding with my opinions - to exchange opinions is why I
visit this subforum (or most forums, really).
That said, the reason you give is more of this gamification silliness. I don't want you in any rut. I'm being genuine, though of course I'm taking care in my arguments. I want you to say things clearly and precisely - that doesn't mean it has to be
short. You seem to think you're frustrating me (another assumption - we really have opened the gates here!), from what language I wouldn't know. You talk about manoeuvres and the like, but it was me asking for clarification. You're acting like you never
wanted to answer on this tangent, which is baffling. Why spend time on all these posts if the tangent you created otherwise? Seems a bit pointless.
Well, now that you're off on this tangent...
I suppose it depends on which group of people you ask. Some people would not feel welcome in a conservative-dominated environment.
Some people wouldn't, no. It's like I said way back - rather typical in-group / out-group stuff. I'm glad we finally reached a conclusion with regards to a single point, however minor.
You're definitely charging at this assumption. This thread is about cancel culture, not specifically woke progressivism permeating a forum to the exclusion of people they don't tolerate.
Doesn't that fall under "cancel culture"? Isn't that why you specifically mentioned the relevance of said exclusions, and when asked further down the line, cited "woke progressives" as your concern in this particular instance?
What I find interesting is the leap to asking whether I care about whether the alt-right would attempt to employ cancel culture, rather than asking the more basic question of whether the alt-right could or does engage in cancel culture, along with other groups. I gather this stems from a concern about which side or sides I am more sympathetic to than others. This ties back into your inquiry about why I am here. The topic is cancel culture. I am discussing it, and spending a lot of time on the concept of a cultural takeover. It takes (at least) two to tango.
Hah, I used "tango" up there before properly reading your last bit here. That wasn't intentional. Neat, though.
I didn't ask if the alt-right engaged in such, because it absolutely engages in "cancel culture". So do mainstream conservatives and the like. There are examples in this very thread (of conservatives, specifically). So that's a redundant question. The salient question is whether you care about "cancel culture" as a whole (however nebulous), or if you only care about it when specific subsets allegedly engage in it. That's a simple yes or no answer, which I'm sure at this point you'll object to. It's not a trap, or something I am predicting you'll answer one way or another. It's another concluding point to a part of a tangent, is all.
I could also say "a manifestation of." Not moot.
