The Real problem with cancel culture

[Berkut]

But not lunacy in the league of George Soros is funding cultural Marxism in our classrooms to turn the kids all communist.

How about a rational discussion about the 1619 project, and how it should be presented within classrooms?

Is there any reasonable discussion allowed there? I don't think there is, and it is very much because of the left's "woke" crowd shouting down anyone who dares challenge the conventional wisdom.

Reasonable, rational discussion is being shut down in the exact manner you accuse the right of doing. You say anyone shouts "woke!" at any reasonable left wing idea. Fair, and true.

But at the same time, any criticism of what you call "fringe" ideas (and what a lot of people on the left do not consider fringe at all) is shouted down as "That is just the right calling anything they don't like woke!".

[Josquius]

How about a rational discussion about the 1619 project, and how it should be presented within classrooms?

Is there any reasonable discussion allowed there? I don't think there is, and it is very much because of the left's "woke" crowd shouting down anyone who dares challenge the conventional wisdom.

This is the first I've heard  of this project so can't comment much on it specifically.
At a glance it does seem like the kind of thing that would bring the gnashing of teeth from the anti-woke crowd.
And yes, in response that would lead to some knee jerk defensiveness from left wingers at any perceived criticism.
Again though, the core problem isn't where you think it is.

Reasonable, rational discussion is being shut down in the exact manner you accuse the right of doing. You say anyone shouts "woke!" at any reasonable left wing idea. Fair, and true.

But at the same time, any criticism of what you call "fringe" ideas (and what a lot of people on the left do not consider fringe at all) is shouted down as "That is just the right calling anything they don't like woke!".

And when you get slightly less nutty people defending the crazies because they're on the right side, etc... thats the right's culture war at work.
Quite the opposite of "Cancel culture" rather this is a kneejerk defence against cancel culture.
Again, the problem isn't "Woke". Its "Anti woke".

There we come to the problem being people on the right calling anything they don't like woke. :p

Disagree with socialised health care if you like. But it's clearly not crazy. Same too for me and privatised health care - backwards and wrong. But not lunacy in the league of George Soros is funding cultural Marxism in our classrooms to turn the kids all communist.

*We* haven't come there.  You've come there because that's where you always come when this issue comes up.

You said "there's no discussion" and "we would agree on that."  I'm saying there is plenty we would not agree about.

So you're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing? Or you can't actually see there is a line between "Stuff that I strongly disagree with" and "Lunacy"?
I'm pretty sure there's a host of stuff on both the right and left where we'd agree the person is crazy.

[viper37]

We had a Supreme Court of only Northerners?

How many Southern judges stayed in the court after the secession of their own State?  I can not find anything on it, I only a remember of a few judges who left for the State, but I can't remember where they were assigned.

However, I did find this for later:
In the midst of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln appointed Salmon P. Chase to be Chief Justice. Chase had strong anti-slavery credentials and had previously served Lincoln as Secretary of the Treasury. His post-Civil War tenure featured several key decisions affirming the indestructibility of the Union. Chase was considered highly ambitious, even for a politician. In 1872, Chase, while serving on the Supreme Court, ran for the Presidency, but his efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Chase continued to serve as Chief Justice until his death in 1873.

It's clear that once the hostilities had began, Lincoln's govt packed the court to make sure there would be no ambiguities about who's the boss.  Seems the Republicans are consistent in that vision.

[viper37]

Viper is incorrect in any case to say that the votes on Southern secession were carried out on the same rules as the Presidential election.  Only three states had such votes (Virginia, Texas, and Tennessee - which did it twice after the pro-secession folks disliked the first result).  The remaining states did it as a mere piece of legislation.

Rules, not method.

Had the Southern legislature not seceded, would the North have launched an invasion of slave-states to end this despicable practice?  No.  Simple as that.

The people voted in their 1860 election.  There was no challenge to the validity of the votes then in Southern States. There were no challenge for Maryland's elections where slaves couldn't vote.  There were no challenges anywhere.  Until the States seceded to protect what they saw as a huge threat to their economic future and way of life.  Then suddenly, just like that, they ain't a democracy anymore.

[Syt]

How many Southern judges stayed in the court after the secession of their own State?  I can not find anything on it, I only a remember of a few judges who left for the State, but I can't remember where they were assigned.

Based on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

John Catron (Democrat from Tennessee) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Catron

Despite Catron's opinion in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case and his pro-slavery stance, Catron resented the secession of his home state of Tennessee because he felt the American Union should be preserved at all costs, a reflection of his Jacksonian views. Following President Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Catron left to "ride circuit" in the states of Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky. However, when Catron attempted to return to Nashville to perform his circuit duties, he was told that his very life could be in danger due to his views. Catron was forced to flee the state of Tennessee and reside permanently in Louisville, Kentucky, away from his wife and friends, who sympathized with the Confederacy. Catron's stance on the southern rebels was to "punish treason and will."

James Moore Wayne (Democrat from Georgia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Moore_Wayne

Justice Wayne served on the Supreme Court for 32 years, one of the longest terms for any justice. His leanings stayed consistent and many of his decisions believed power resides in the federal offices such as the U.S. Congress. He held to this in the Dred Scott case, supporting Chief Justice Taney's opinion in the face of harsh criticism by many. With the beginning of the Civil War, Wayne was thrust into personal and professional crisis. He chose to remain with the Court while his own son left the U.S. Army to fight as a general in the Confederate Army. Another one of his colleagues, John Campbell, also left the Court to serve in the Confederacy. However, Wayne held to his nationalistic views, although it made him unpopular in his home state of Georgia, believing there was no legal support for a state to secede. He also felt that by remaining on the Court he could continue to support Southern causes. After the war ended, he never forgot his Southern roots and labored hard to protect the South from undue penalties.

A third resigned at the start of the war (John Archibald Campbell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Campbell )

[Berkut]

Viper is incorrect in any case to say that the votes on Southern secession were carried out on the same rules as the Presidential election.  Only three states had such votes (Virginia, Texas, and Tennessee - which did it twice after the pro-secession folks disliked the first result).  The remaining states did it as a mere piece of legislation.

Rules, not method.

Had the Southern legislature not seceded, would the North have launched an invasion of slave-states to end this despicable practice?  No.  Simple as that.

The people voted in their 1860 election.  There was no challenge to the validity of the votes then in Southern States. There were no challenge for Maryland's elections where slaves couldn't vote.  There were no challenges anywhere.  Until the States seceded to protect what they saw as a huge threat to their economic future and way of life.  Then suddenly, just like that, they ain't a democracy anymore.

I really ahve to assume that you are just willfully lying at this point.

I never said they were not a democracy, I said secession cannot be validated on the claim that it was a democratic process, not morally or ethically. You cannot have a vote about slavery, and then say the vote was democratic if you didn't let the slaves vote.

Whether that makes the greater polity "democratic" or not is a matter of semantics.

I've explained this SEVERAL times now, and you just go right back to pretending like you don't understand what I am saying, and argue against something else entirely - whether or not the Confederacy itself was a "democracy" or not. Which is entirely uninteresting in any way shape, or form.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Both ends of the political spectrum (here in the US) can be summed up with a single sentence.

"You disagreed with me! With ME! You are a <leftist/racist> who is only saying that because you hate <America/women> And all your views are based on little more than spite, evil, and stupidity!"

[Berkut]

Both ends of the political spectrum (here in the US) can be summed up with a single sentence.

"You disagreed with me! With ME! You are a <leftist/racist> who is only saying that because you hate <America/women> And all your views are based on little more than spite, evil, and stupidity!"

One distrinction though. The right would say something like "communist" rather then "leftist" since leftist isn't actually considered bad by leftists.

The difference, however, is that

1. Racism and its legacy is actually a real problem in America,
1A. There are actual racists out there,
2. There aren't any actual communists on the left.
2A. There are some people who one could argue hate America on the left, insofar as how you define "America".

[Eddie Teach]

*There are still actual communists, they are just marginalized.

[Berkut]

*There are still actual communists, they are just marginalized.

Sure, and there are Moonies and Scientologists as well. They have about as much relevance. Not at all comparable to the number of people who are fighting against fixing racial inequality.

[Josquius]

*There are still actual communists, they are just marginalized.

Enough to fit in an especially large bus.

[The Brain]

In Sweden they normally get 5-10% of the votes.

[Razgovory]

Viper is incorrect in any case to say that the votes on Southern secession were carried out on the same rules as the Presidential election.  Only three states had such votes (Virginia, Texas, and Tennessee - which did it twice after the pro-secession folks disliked the first result).  The remaining states did it as a mere piece of legislation.

Rules, not method.

Had the Southern legislature not seceded, would the North have launched an invasion of slave-states to end this despicable practice?  No.  Simple as that.

The people voted in their 1860 election.  There was no challenge to the validity of the votes then in Southern States. There were no challenge for Maryland's elections where slaves couldn't vote.  There were no challenges anywhere.  Until the States seceded to protect what they saw as a huge threat to their economic future and way of life.  Then suddenly, just like that, they ain't a democracy anymore.

You are making a classic mistake of Southern Apologists:  The cause of the war was not decided by the North.  It was decided by the South.  The war was fought over slavery because that is the stated reason of the Southern states.  The motives of the aggressor are more important than the motives of the defender.  So no, the Northern States would not invade the South absent a war.  They would prefer to kill slavery through legislature.  The South forced the issue when it attacked the army.  I don't know how popular abolition was before the war, but as the war went on it became very popular.  As Union armies encountered slaves soldiers became more and more disgusted with the practice.  Such feelings reverberated through out the north.

[Eddie Teach]

Right, the motives of the aggressor are more important in "the war of Northern Aggression".

[Sheilbh]

Sure, and there are Moonies and Scientologists as well. They have about as much relevance. Not at all comparable to the number of people who are fighting against fixing racial inequality.

I don't think their influence is anywhere near as comparable but I think the hard left is as alive as it's been in decades and is having a lot of inluence on debates in the left. It's through alternate media like, say, Jacobin, Tribune, Novara etc. But it's definitely there and stronger than any time I can remember (and as I say generally good because there are lots of interesting ideas from it).