The Real problem with cancel culture

[The Minsky Moment]

Federal property is collective state property.  If you own a house with your wife, in many places, she would be owed half of it when you divorce. If she denies you the right to enter the house, refuses to sell her share or buy yours, she is in total illegality.


The proper procedure would be to go to court.


But if she hires a squad of armed men to protect the house from you, you would go to the police and have them removed.  But if its the police occupying your house, is she still acting in good faith?  Is the State acting in good faith? 


You know as well as I do that Federal buildings are paid by revenues collected in the name of, and from all citizens of all States.  People pay taxes to build and maintain the infrastructures.  If one party leaves, it is owed a part of that building.  Since buildings can't be moved, you usually negotiate a settlement.


The Feds were unwilling to negotiate.  Going to court wasn't an option because a Supreme Court with only Northerners would never have agreed to cede a Federal property to individual States.


When the Americans seceded from the UK, they took all the buildings that was in the territory.  Despite Great's Britain objections.  If the British troops didn't vacate the property, it was attacked.  This is the same as the South did.  They declared independence, the North refused to recognize it and negotiate in good faith to surrender the Forts, so they fired on it to expel the intruders.


It was as wrong as any war is any war is wrong.  But occupying the Forts was just as wrong.


It's not like wars are defined by an extremely complex set of rules that all parties agree to under the supervision of a neutral arbiter.

OK.
I have decided to secede from the US.
But that treacherous bastard Biden won't negotiate in good faith over my fair share of federal property.  My demands are reasonable - I've paid significant tax revenue over the years and I think one nuclear armed cruise missile is more than a fair deal.
Yet the Pentagon and the White House refuse to respond to my generous offers!  And when I followed your rational suggestion and brought a case in family court they got it dismissed! They even sent the FBI to poke around and ask questions - can you believe it?
Clearly I would be justified in taking brutal and violent action against my wicked and unreasonable oppressors.

[Razgovory]

We had a Supreme Court of only Northerners?

[garbon]

Not sure why we should be stuck to repeating the mistakes of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Agreed.  The mistakes were to not let States gain their independence.  That always brings conflicts.


How many dead because Russia wouldn't let Tchetchnia go?  How many dead in Sudan?  How many Kurds killed by Saddam and the Turk's regime?


Was it really worth it to fight independence of a nation to the bitter end to simply try and preserve the country's unity?  Is it really worth the amount of dead to keep people in a State against their will?

Disagree as the South isn't trying to declare independence anymore.

[Razgovory]

Is Viper really saying that the Confederacy was entitled to one-half of each US base?  Because that seems daft.

[Habbaku]

He has no coherent argument here - he is just bouncing around from one silly thing to another because he really, really, really needs to believe that rebellion is awesome.

And btw viper, not a single southern state got 50%+1 votes for secession from the people who lives in those states. Not one.

  First Rule of Holes applies.

I've always wanted to ask: what's the Second Rule of Holes?

When you're at the bottom of a hole, don't shit in it?

How else will you get out of it?

The power of love.

[The Brain]

Aww.

[Jacob]

It's nice to see the right wing embracing cancel culture and deplatforming. This underscores nicely that - in Canada at least - a significant amount of the concern about "cancel culture" has little to do with free speech and is much more concerned about what political viewpoints are cancelled or not.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is standing by his accusation that environmentalist David Suzuki was inciting violence with his comments at a climate change protest over the weekend.

The premier first made the claim in a tweet that linked to a National Post article, which quoted Suzuki as saying: "There are going to be pipelines blown up if our leaders don't pay attention to what's going on."

Suzuki made the comments amid a "Funeral for the Future" protest in Victoria on Saturday, organized by the environmental group Extinction Rebellion.

At a news conference on Tuesday, Kenney reiterated that he believes Suzuki is implicitly inciting people to eco-terrorism.

"It's like in the gangster movies where they say, 'You know, nice little pipeline you've got there. It'd be a terrible thing if something happened to it.' This is totally irresponsible," he said. 

Kenney added that Suzuki has a track record of outrageous comments that should have had him "cancelled."

He cited an example from 2016, when Suzuki opined that former prime minister Stephen Harper should serve prison time for "wilful blindness" to climate change, which was reported by the National Post at the time.

"We resolve differences peacefully and democratically — not by threatening to throw our opponents in jail," Kenney said.

"And now he's basically saying, 'Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, be a terrible thing if something happens to those pipelines.' This is outrageous and should be called out as such."

The premier also criticized CBC News and other organizations for giving Suzuki a platform.

Suzuki responds

Suzuki told CBC News he does not condone blowing up pipelines, but that he suggested he fears it may happen if groups get fed up with inaction.

"Our leaders are not listening to the urgency that is demanded to meet the issue of climate change. And I was worried that this is just the next step — if it goes on — to people blowing up pipelines," he said.

Many climate-related protests have been examples of "peaceful civic disobedience," Suzuki said, suggesting the violence is coming from government and the RCMP.

"If you look at the people at Fairy Creek, what are they doing? They're fighting to protect Mother Earth, and the violence is all coming from the forces that want to maintain the status quo," said Suzuki, referring to anti-logging protests on Vancouver Island that have continued for more than a year.

Suzuki said he feels Kenney is deflecting from the important issue of climate change by making things political, as well as knocking the credibility of critics.

"He doesn't discuss climate change. It's all, 'These people are against the Alberta economy or they're foreign-funded radicals,'" he said.

"I would suggest that, right now, his avoidance of the serious discussion about climate change [and] Alberta's role in that and where to go in the future is something that is very, very serious for voters to think about."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenney-suzuki-climate-change-1.6260987

[PDH]

Cancel culture is not a new thing, it is not a new problem.  It is a basic part of how societies determine if things have moved beyond the pale into the dangerous wilds.  Ostracism, shame, all sorts of methods are employed to keep those who offend the norms in line.  Very small tribal groups will fission if the rifts are deep enough.

What has changed is the immediacy that the internet affords those outraged.  Calls for action right now, testimonials on how something impacted negatively, all are heightened and amplified by the medium itself.

It is neither a left thing nor a right thing, it is a far more vast issue as it is part of an ill-defined and unregulated sea change in how people are speaking with one another, voicing personal outrage, and feeling butt-hurt about what is said.

[viper37]

OK.
I have decided to secede from the US.
But that treacherous bastard Biden won't negotiate in good faith over my fair share of federal property.  My demands are reasonable - I've paid significant tax revenue over the years and I think one nuclear armed cruise missile is more than a fair deal.
Yet the Pentagon and the White House refuse to respond to my generous offers!  And when I followed your rational suggestion and brought a case in family court they got it dismissed! They even sent the FBI to poke around and ask questions - can you believe it?
Clearly I would be justified in taking brutal and violent action against my wicked and unreasonable oppressors.

A citizen can not "secede" from its country.  A region can.  A citizen can not organize elections.  A citizen is not sovereign, even if you had a micro-nation on an abandoned oil platform, Minsky the country would be sovereign, not Minsky the citizen of the Minsky country.

A better analogy would the Minsky citizen deciding to leave the US for Europe.

You want to sell your house/condo, but the government sends in military troops to occupy it: you're leaving, but everything you own stays in NYC because the State has paid for your security and provided you with a decent quality of life over the years

Do you accept this willingly?

Had Scotland seceded from Great Britain and the UK sent is army to occupy all offshore platforms and military bases, do you believe Scotland should just had accepted that they lost on this, and life goes on and all?  Thankfully, they negotiated like grown ups before the referendum.

[HVC]

Viper, question for you separate from the southern rebels, if native reserves or municipalities voted to secede to Ontario or a maritime province would you object? where the cut off between an acceptable and unacceptable separation?

[viper37]

It's nice to see the right wing embracing cancel culture and deplatforming. This underscores nicely that - in Canada at least - a significant amount of the concern about "cancel culture" has little to do with free speech and is much more concerned about what political viewpoints are cancelled or not.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is standing by his accusation that environmentalist David Suzuki was inciting violence with his comments at a climate change protest over the weekend.

The premier first made the claim in a tweet that linked to a National Post article, which quoted Suzuki as saying: "There are going to be pipelines blown up if our leaders don't pay attention to what's going on."

Suzuki made the comments amid a "Funeral for the Future" protest in Victoria on Saturday, organized by the environmental group Extinction Rebellion.

At a news conference on Tuesday, Kenney reiterated that he believes Suzuki is implicitly inciting people to eco-terrorism.

"It's like in the gangster movies where they say, 'You know, nice little pipeline you've got there. It'd be a terrible thing if something happened to it.' This is totally irresponsible," he said. 

Kenney added that Suzuki has a track record of outrageous comments that should have had him "cancelled."

He cited an example from 2016, when Suzuki opined that former prime minister Stephen Harper should serve prison time for "wilful blindness" to climate change, which was reported by the National Post at the time.

"We resolve differences peacefully and democratically — not by threatening to throw our opponents in jail," Kenney said.

"And now he's basically saying, 'Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, be a terrible thing if something happens to those pipelines.' This is outrageous and should be called out as such."

The premier also criticized CBC News and other organizations for giving Suzuki a platform.

Suzuki responds

Suzuki told CBC News he does not condone blowing up pipelines, but that he suggested he fears it may happen if groups get fed up with inaction.

"Our leaders are not listening to the urgency that is demanded to meet the issue of climate change. And I was worried that this is just the next step — if it goes on — to people blowing up pipelines," he said.

Many climate-related protests have been examples of "peaceful civic disobedience," Suzuki said, suggesting the violence is coming from government and the RCMP.

"If you look at the people at Fairy Creek, what are they doing? They're fighting to protect Mother Earth, and the violence is all coming from the forces that want to maintain the status quo," said Suzuki, referring to anti-logging protests on Vancouver Island that have continued for more than a year.

Suzuki said he feels Kenney is deflecting from the important issue of climate change by making things political, as well as knocking the credibility of critics.

"He doesn't discuss climate change. It's all, 'These people are against the Alberta economy or they're foreign-funded radicals,'" he said.

"I would suggest that, right now, his avoidance of the serious discussion about climate change [and] Alberta's role in that and where to go in the future is something that is very, very serious for voters to think about."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenney-suzuki-climate-change-1.6260987

Kenney does not advocate for cancellation.  He is simply saying that if this kind of call to violence came from the right, the people would be cancelled.

Suziki is skirting into dangerously close GOP territory.  "I'm not calling for violence, I'm just saying people will resort to violence if we don't get what we want".  It comes as no surprise that the left is totally fine with this kind of discourse - as long as it comes from its side.

Here's a quote from 2017, translation by me:

«On ne fait pas d'appel à la violence, mais on ne peut pas la condamner », dit le porte-parole du rassemblement anti-raciste, Simon Pouliot. Il dit comprendre que des manifestants soient à cran en raison de la montée de l'extrême-droite"[/i]

"We do not call for violence, but we can not condemn it",  says the spokesperson for the anti-racism gathering, Simon Pouliot.  He says he understand that some protestors are angry given the rise of far-right.

Where's that far right threatening everyone today in Quebec and Canada?  It wasn't even there in 2017, the violence came from the left.  It's a nice excuse they gave themselves, like always. Just like Suziki.

[Jacob]

"He doesn't advocate cancellation, he's just saying they should be cancelled" 

[Berkut]

Where do these ideas come from?  What histories are you reading?

Was there an election or not in 1860?

Berkut, and others, say the Southern States weren't a democracy because Black men weren't allowed to votes. 

No, I said that they were not a democratically formed because the purpose of their formation was explicitly to keep black people enslaved, therefore any claim that their formation was democratic is either outright racist (because you are arguing that black people should not be allowed a say in their status) or deeply ignorant. We've eliminated the "deeply ignorant" explanation at this point.

Why was the US a democracy in 1860 without universal voting rights for Blacks? 

Because there is no reason to presume that had there been universal voting rights for blacks in 1860, they would have all voted to dissolve the Union. Are you making such a claim?

Why were the Southern States allowed to hold Federal elections under the same rules they used to separate, why was one election totally valid and the others after that totally invalid?

One was a vote to protect the enslavement of black people, and the other was not. As has been explained over and over and over again.

Is this distinction really that hard for you to understand?

[Berkut]

He has no coherent argument here - he is just bouncing around from one silly thing to another because he really, really, really needs to believe that rebellion is awesome.

And btw viper, not a single southern state got 50%+1 votes for secession from the people who lives in those states. Not one.

How many citizens of the 13 colonies voted directly for secession?  How many citizens of Texas voted for secession from Mexico?


They elected representatives who voted on different matters, including secession or attachment to another country.  That's how things were done back then. You are again changing the rules specifically to exclude the Southern States.

Not a single southern state had a vote where 50%+1 of their people voted for a representative who was in favor of succession.

Unless, of course, you don't count black people as people who deserve votes. Which appears to be your claim now.

[Berkut]

Lets imagine there are ten people who are going to go to lunch.

Of these 10 people, 7 of them fucking hate hate hate McDonalds. No matter what, they really really don't want to go to McDonalds.

Now, lets vote on where we are going for lunch. But only 4 people get to vote, and 3 of them really love McDonalds. So the vote is 3-1 in favor of McDonalds.

viper would call this democracy, and claim that his was perfectly legit, and in fact an ethical and moral way to go about deciding where to have lunch.

Lets imagine a similar case, where there are 10 people who are going out for drinks. Now, it turns out that there are only three options, and nobody much cares which one they go to. Everyone is pretty happy about any of them.

Only four people are around to vote, and they choose Bobs Tavern, 3-1, and everyone is happy with that, because really, it didn't matter that a bunch of people didn't get to vote, because they just didn't care.

Same thing in both cases, but if someone were to come along and argue vehemently that in the first case the choice of McDonalds was arrived at democratically, they would be idiots. It was not.

In the second case, nobody much cares. Was it democratic? I guess - there was a vote, and it's not like there was any reason to imagine it would have gone different if everyone got a vote, since we know that nobody much cared. You can argue that it was not REALLY democractic but it won't have much moral or ethical weight, because it didn't actually harm anyone anyway, that the democracy wasn't very inclusive.

A bunch of people voting on whether to keep other people enslaved is NOT FUCKING DEMOCRATIC IF YOU DON'T LET THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE THE SLAVES GET A VOTE. To suggest otherwise might not be racist, but it is morally and ethically at least as bad, if not worse.