Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[grumbler]

I think the key distinction between cancel culture and the older forms of boycott protests is that the older forms were willing to stop when they won.  Cancel culture tries to wage total war even when the subject being cancelled apologizes or is shown to be correct.  That's what is so speech-dampening about cancel culture: the consequences of minor actions can be so severe and inescapable. 

[Josquius]

My recollection of the 80s is that the South African regime was shunned because it was oppressing non-whites. Not because of any opinions it had expressed.

Which is what generally happens when the powerful have opinions- they're able to put them into action.

And I disagree. Hate speech is a very real and harmful thing. Cancel the hate preacher and you can stop a suicide bomber from killing hundreds.

but then, you will be accused of islamophobia and be cancelled yourself...

Not really.
A lot of people who call for harsh judgement on hate preachers are Islamophobes. That their broken clock has for once hit a correct time doesn't change who they are.
But when a judge lays down the law on a actual hate preacher you don't see any massed up swelling of hate against him for being Islamophobic- except of course by the extremists themselves, desperately trying to staple the accoutrements of the left to their nurgle-infested far right bodies.

Some religious person who decides to leave their cult will become cutoff from all family and friends of that religious circle.  It's also a form a cancel-culture.  It's not the same as criticizing or boycotting scientology.

In your example, boycotting South Africa because of the Apartheid was not cancel-culture.  Ostracizing Charlize Theron because she's a white South African would be cancel culture, and profoundly unfair too, in her specific case.

If you can't see the difference between the too, if you can't see how profundly unfair cancel-culture has become for trivialities, you are as far gone on the opposite side as Berkut can be on his.

Limits on free speech should be limited to violent speech, or extremely racist speech that can incite to ostracization or violence of certain groups, irrelevant of their general status.  I won't make any difference between a black artist saying all whites are stupid and a white artist saying all blacks are stupids.

But I won't cancel either of them.  I won't stage protests in front of their house, burn their cars, their garage, their barns, whatever.  I won't wish for that to happen either.  I won't call for someone to violently "solve their case".  I won't stage protests in front of every venue they play in the way Tipper Gore did in the 80s.  I certainly won't lobby local and national politicians to outlaw some forms of entertainment, specifically the ones of these artists.

As I said- its not good or bad. Its just a natural part of being human. Some use it for bad purposes, some for good.
The difference we see in the modern day is that it is far more possible for the powerless to be able to use it whilst historically it has been quite restricted to the rich. Sometimes they use this for negative purposes, but more often than not for good.
We hear a lot in the press of people making a typo and losing everything in their life as they accidentally said a slur on twitter or some such... what you hear less of is the way in 2022 it is decidedly uncool to be a raging homophobe because this will destroy your career.

I disagree on people's reaction to apartheid not being cancel culture too. Its the ur-example of people power of this sort (though please correct me of an earlier one).

[The Brain]

My recollection of the 80s is that the South African regime was shunned because it was oppressing non-whites. Not because of any opinions it had expressed.

Which is what generally happens when the powerful have opinions- they're able to put them into action.

So you agree that the South African boycott was based on actions, and not opinions?

[Josquius]

My recollection of the 80s is that the South African regime was shunned because it was oppressing non-whites. Not because of any opinions it had expressed.

Which is what generally happens when the powerful have opinions- they're able to put them into action.

So you agree that the South African boycott was based on actions, and not opinions?

I suspect you think you've got a gotcha here, but its lost on me where you're going.
Are you arguing that once something reaches the point of being put into law any act against it becomes a completely different thing?

[The Brain]

My recollection of the 80s is that the South African regime was shunned because it was oppressing non-whites. Not because of any opinions it had expressed.

Which is what generally happens when the powerful have opinions- they're able to put them into action.

So you agree that the South African boycott was based on actions, and not opinions?

I suspect you think you've got a gotcha here, but its lost on me where you're going.
Are you arguing that once something reaches the point of being put into law any act against it becomes a completely different thing?

I think that there is an enormous difference between acting against actions and acting against expressed opinions. I don't see how historical actions against actions would be relevant in a discussion about current actions against opinions.

[Josquius]

My recollection of the 80s is that the South African regime was shunned because it was oppressing non-whites. Not because of any opinions it had expressed.

Which is what generally happens when the powerful have opinions- they're able to put them into action.

So you agree that the South African boycott was based on actions, and not opinions?

I suspect you think you've got a gotcha here, but its lost on me where you're going.
Are you arguing that once something reaches the point of being put into law any act against it becomes a completely different thing?

I think that there is an enormous difference between acting against actions and acting against expressed opinions. I don't see how historical actions against actions would be relevant in a discussion about current actions against opinions.

I'd argue it isn't such a binary and instead its a gradual scale from having a vague notion up to being completely gung ho putting your all into acting.
Prevention is usually better than cure so it often is wise to say, speak up against a proposed law before it is passed.

Note that there have been examples of actions judged as being cancel culture in recent times. For instance that chicken chain's donations to anti-gay organisations and the reaction they received. Ironically the initial donation wasn't cancel culture but the reaction was?

[The Brain]

My recollection of the 80s is that the South African regime was shunned because it was oppressing non-whites. Not because of any opinions it had expressed.

Which is what generally happens when the powerful have opinions- they're able to put them into action.

So you agree that the South African boycott was based on actions, and not opinions?

I suspect you think you've got a gotcha here, but its lost on me where you're going.
Are you arguing that once something reaches the point of being put into law any act against it becomes a completely different thing?

I think that there is an enormous difference between acting against actions and acting against expressed opinions. I don't see how historical actions against actions would be relevant in a discussion about current actions against opinions.

I'd argue it isn't such a binary and instead its a gradual scale from having a vague notion up to being completely gung ho putting your all into acting.
Prevention is usually better than cure so it often is wise to say, speak up against a proposed law before it is passed.

Note that there have been examples of actions judged as being cancel culture in recent times. For instance that chicken chain's donations to anti-gay organisations and the reaction they received. Ironically the initial donation wasn't cancel culture but the reaction was?

What does speaking up against proposed laws have to do with cancel culture?

[Admiral Yi]

I think that there is an enormous difference between acting against actions and acting against expressed opinions. I don't see how historical actions against actions would be relevant in a discussion about current actions against opinions.

Certainly you will agree that there are a host of actions that are quite benign, and opinions that are quite aggressive and possibly damaging.

[The Brain]

I think that there is an enormous difference between acting against actions and acting against expressed opinions. I don't see how historical actions against actions would be relevant in a discussion about current actions against opinions.

Certainly you will agree that there are a host of actions that are quite benign, and opinions that are quite aggressive and possibly damaging.

Do you think that this makes the boycott against South Africa relevant in a discussion about cancel culture?

[Admiral Yi]

I thought you were starting  a tangent.  My bad. 

[The Brain]

No worries.

[Josquius]

What does speaking up against proposed laws have to do with cancel culture?

Everything?
Why express an opinion on social issues if you don't wish to see it passed into law?

[The Brain]

What does speaking up against proposed laws have to do with cancel culture?

Everything?
Why express an opinion on social issues if you don't wish to see it passed into law?

I don't follow.

[Josquius]

What does speaking up against proposed laws have to do with cancel culture?

Everything?
Why express an opinion on social issues if you don't wish to see it passed into law?

I don't follow.

To make up a random example- A law to ban trans people from walking the streets would come about because a large number of people are expressing the view that trans people shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets. A large number of people would come to have this view because of a small number of people selling it.
When people criticise somebody for being a racist its not just that person being a dick that they're calling out. Its the potential future implications of such stuff being normalised.

[The Brain]

What does speaking up against proposed laws have to do with cancel culture?

Everything?
Why express an opinion on social issues if you don't wish to see it passed into law?

I don't follow.

To make up a random example- A law to ban trans people from walking the streets would come about because a large number of people are expressing the view that trans people shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets. A large number of people would come to have this view because of a small number of people selling it.
When people criticise somebody for being a racist its not just that person being a dick that they're calling out. Its the potential future implications of such stuff being normalised.

You're all over the place. I don't think we'll make more headway.