How do you end 'cancel culture'?

[TheMeInTeam]

People can use their own judgement. We aren't stupid.

Human history is rife with examples of why this "standard" by itself isn't a good idea when it comes to punishing people.

 

[FriendlyFire]

And to think 2008-2016 you were all riding so high and mighty.
Oh how things have changed... lol.

Given the state of the country its kinda ironic

 

[Robert Can't]

Sure maybe but its not like people who are "victims" of cancel culture are being fired by the mob. They are being fired by HR departments who presumably do have set standards.

 

[Ajidica]

People can use their own judgement. We aren't stupid.

I suppose I might be a little confused as to what 'being cancelled' actually means. Using JK Rowling, what does 'being cancelled' mean? Haven't bought any of her books in over a decade, haven't intentionally watched any Harry Potter movie since the 3rd one, have (and had) no intention to consume any of her writings, and never cared what she wrote on her twitter feed besides a vague knowledge that it was increasingly problematic. However, despite 'being cancelled' I have learned more about her views and seen her name more over the last few weeks that the last several years. If 'cancelling' someone means elevating them and turning them into a symbol for a particularly lazy view of 'free expression', I think 'cancelling' may want to go home and rethink its life.

 

[Robert Can't]

I suppose I might be a little confused as to what 'being cancelled' actually means. Using JK Rowling, what does 'being cancelled' mean? Haven't bought any of her books in over a decade, haven't intentionally watched any Harry Potter movie since the 3rd one, have (and had) no intention to consume any of her writings, and never cared what she wrote on her twitter feed besides a vague knowledge that it was increasingly problematic. However, despite 'being cancelled' I have learned more about her views and seen her name more over the last few weeks that the last several years. If 'cancelling' someone means elevating them and turning them into a symbol for a particularly lazy view of 'free expression', I think 'cancelling' may want to go home and rethink its life.

Specifically to this example there is more to the backlash against JKR than just wanting less success for her. The lies and misinformation that she spread were damaging to real people's lives and are held by many people. In making a public display of why these views are wrong and harmful it demonstrates to others that these views are unacceptable and explains why they are based in untruths. Its a teaching and learning opportunity. And then what is the other option? Allowing those views to be continually disseminated to her massive fanbase without examination?

So yeah cancelling of JKR might have shoved her further into the light but that light is exposing dark things that deserved to be exposed.

Another example would be how the exposing of the abuses of power at MICA and such led to many other predatory people in the art education world being exposed. It put them in the light but the light did not shine on them favourably. Also unlike JKR those things did result in actual consequences for those people with firing and such.

I'm not sure it is possible to really cancel JKR

 

[Arwon]

I suppose I might be a little confused as to what 'being cancelled' actually means. Using JK Rowling, what does 'being cancelled' mean? Haven't bought any of her books in over a decade, haven't intentionally watched any Harry Potter movie since the 3rd one, have (and had) no intention to consume any of her writings, and never cared what she wrote on her twitter feed besides a vague knowledge that it was increasingly problematic. However, despite 'being cancelled' I have learned more about her views and seen her name more over the last few weeks that the last several years. If 'cancelling' someone means elevating them and turning them into a symbol for a particularly lazy view of 'free expression', I think 'cancelling' may want to go home and rethink its life.

Which is, again, pretty good evidence that it ain't actually a real thing

Incidentally this free speech martyr threatened to sue a website for saying a true thing, and forced an apology from them today. http://theguardian.com/society/2020...website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day

(UK deffo laws are, um, bad)

 

[BCheek]

There is nothing good, funny, or deserving of mockery and derisions when someone is mentally ill or addicted to drugs and fit for confinement. It is always sad. I have had to defend myself from people like this in my job and it is not fun. My anger usually gets up when it happens but it does not justify your vitriolic judgement or attitude, but of course you seem to do this at the slightest pretense. I suggest therapy for your anger issues.

There's very good reasons why there's laws limiting the use of drugs and alcohol and these are prime examples. The people who get strung out and endanger or harm others deserve to be locked up and should be locked up. People who say all drugs should be legal have not witnessed the negative impacts of drug use. They're speaking from a place of ignorance.

 

[Estebonrober]

There's very good reasons why there's laws limiting the use of drugs and alcohol and these are prime examples. The people who get strung out and endanger or harm others deserve to be locked up and should be locked up. People who say all drugs should be legal have not witnessed the negative impacts of drug use. They're speaking from a place of ignorance.

this isn't true either and is just bad logic.

https://www.mic.com/articles/110344...ed,in the form of a guaranteed minimum income.

We would be far better off treating it outside of the prison system. Financially (which is probably the only part you care about), judicially (the amount of lives ruined by bad drug laws), and socially (the lack of actual rehabilitation into productive citizens is almost certain once one is convicted felon).

 

[Berzerker]

So blacks are more likely to be drug users, just like they're more likely to commit murder and violent crimes is that what you're saying?

I dont think they're more likely to use drugs, they're just more likely to be arrested and jailed longer.

Then you best be prepared to go to jail like they did. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Would you have enforced the fugitive slave act?

An lolbertarian. No one cares about the constitution. It's dead. It's been dead for awhile.

Then why preach about 'the law'?

You wouldn't say that if you ever worked in a hospital and had to deal with violent strung out people the cops drag in high as a kite and drunk out of their minds.

Who was talking about violent people?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I suppose I might be a little confused as to what 'being cancelled' actually means. Using JK Rowling, what does 'being cancelled' mean? Haven't bought any of her books in over a decade, haven't intentionally watched any Harry Potter movie since the 3rd one, have (and had) no intention to consume any of her writings, and never cared what she wrote on her twitter feed besides a vague knowledge that it was increasingly problematic. However, despite 'being cancelled' I have learned more about her views and seen her name more over the last few weeks that the last several years. If 'cancelling' someone means elevating them and turning them into a symbol for a particularly lazy view of 'free expression', I think 'cancelling' may want to go home and rethink its life.

It's more of a problem for people closer to average. The woke mob thread has some examples, I've read about more in everything from comics/US voice acting to professional sports to this: https://abovethelaw.com/2020/06/tur...acist-facebook-posts-even-if-you-delete-them/

 

[BCheek]

this isn't true either and is just bad logic.

https://www.mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.hN1sFVYxF#:~:text=At the turn of the millennium, Portugal shifted,in the form of a guaranteed minimum income.

We would be far better off treating it outside of the prison system. Financially (which is probably the only part you care about), judicially (the amount of lives ruined by bad drug laws), and socially (the lack of actual rehabilitation into productive citizens is almost certain once one is convicted felon).

These "studies" are often conducted poorly and when you follow them over a longer period of time they usually fail. They cherry pick facts and ignore crime and homelessness stats in the areas where these rehabilitation centers and injection sites are. I can name dozens of examples where these kinds initiatives have failed miserably. Usually they reduce overdoses, at the expense of others in that community who are subjected to higher rates of crime and other social issues due to high amounts of drug use.

 

[Estebonrober]

I dont think they're more likely to use drugs, they're just more likely to be arrested and jailed longer.



Would you have enforced the fugitive slave act?



Then why preach about 'the law'?



Who was talking about violent people?

Its probably not okay when I get happy when libertarians actually speak to their values they supposedly hold. It happened when Rand Paul finally spoke out against federales kidnapping protesters. . .Alas I would like to see more action behind those words.

 

[Estebonrober]

These "studies" are often conducted poorly and when you follow them over a longer period of time they usually fail. They cherry pick facts and ignore crime and homelessness stats in the areas where these rehabilitation centers and injection sites are. I can name dozens of examples where these kinds initiatives have failed miserably. Usually they reduce overdoses, at the expense of others in that community who are subjected to higher rates of crime and other social issues due to high amounts of drug use.

"I don't like your facts so I'm just going to categorically act like none of them can possibly be real because of "feelings".

3 million imprisoned in the US. The worst police state in the world. "This is fine"

 

[Estebonrober]

People can use their own judgement. We aren't stupid.

Human history is rife with examples of why this "standard" by itself isn't a good idea when it comes to punishing people.

Isn't this exactly how "judgement of your peers" works? wtf is going on in here? I just keep finding these "brilliant" pearls.

 

[Seon]

He believes in an objective reality rather than consensus reality so it checks out

 

[BCheek]

I dont think they're more likely to use drugs, they're just more likely to be arrested and jailed longer.

I suppose you also don't think they're more likely to commit violent crime too although only ~15% of the population they account for ~50% of the murders. People ignoring hard data and substituting that for wishy-washy excuses and platitudes they cannot prove is asinine.

Would you have enforced the fugitive slave act?

Probably not because I have no interest in being part of law enforcement and would not have owned slaves. If I lived in the south, would I have fought in the civil war on the side of the south? Yes.

Then why preach about 'the law'?

I'm not preaching about the law. I'm stating an objective fact - that if you break the law and get caught you will have to face the consequences so don't cry about it later and larp as a victim because you're not one.

What you're doing is making up your own legal *edit spelling* interpretation *edit spelling* then holding up the constitution and going, "You see, there it is!" When there's no precedent for that. It's the same thing lefties do during the gun

Who was talking about violent people?

If you think you're going to legalize all drugs and not have people who get high and drunk then do violent things when we have that now you're foolish.

 

[BCheek]

"I don't like your facts so I'm just going to categorically act like none of them can possibly be real because of "feelings".

Or perhaps I have first hand knowledge on the subject, enough to know that the article you linked is garbage "science."

3 million imprisoned in the US. The worst police state in the world. "This is fine"

Black on black crime.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Sure maybe but its not like people who are "victims" of cancel culture are being fired by the mob. They are being fired by HR departments who presumably do have set standards.

The difference between that presumption and reality is unfortunate. But yes, if cancel culture is to stop the trash behavior of HR departments in this regard is going to have to be a major component of why it stops, since they're the ones effectively rewarding the behavior. Cancel culture doesn't work if the consequences are mostly shouting into the void and nothing else.

He believes in an objective reality rather than consensus reality so it checks out

There's a reason we believe the world is round and revolves around the sun these days. Sometimes, consensus is all we have. When it isn't, objective reality does in fact trump consensus reality.

I suppose you also don't think they're more likely to commit violent crime too although only ~15% of the population they account for ~50% of the murders. People ignoring hard data and substituting that for wishy-washy excuses and platitudes they cannot prove is asinine.

It's sad how this gets ignored today as some kind of racial implication, when you consider it against demographic crime data from, say, the 1960s or even earlier (or in other countries). How well does this historic data fit peoples' models? Most don't seem to care to even consider it.

The reality of the crime rate is there, but it's like we're scared to find out why. That or the status quo is comfortable for people catering to that vote because they can play it as a card to keep that vote so long as casual relations are kept out of the discussion.

 

[BCheek]

The reality of the crime rate is there, but it's like we're scared to find out why. That or the status quo is comfortable for people catering to that vote because they can play it as a card to keep that vote so long as casual relations are kept out of the discussion.

And how many of those violent crimes are drug related? Lots.

 

[Berzerker]

There's very good reasons why there's laws limiting the use of drugs and alcohol and these are prime examples. The people who get strung out and endanger or harm others deserve to be locked up and should be locked up. People who say all drugs should be legal have not witnessed the negative impacts of drug use. They're speaking from a place of ignorance.

Do you want to ban alcohol and tobacco?