Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[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.

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

Curious. Seems pretty straight forward, massively simplifying things, and directly on topic to me.

[viper37]

that second guy has to be a Canadian expat.

Why is that?

It's a joke because he's insisting that everyone speaks English.

It's something you see from time to time in Canada.

[Berkut]

[
...which is why we should be against anyone cancelling those they don't like through stifling free speech.

This isn't complicated.

So let hate preachers continue to do their thing, anti abortion extremists to hang around outside clinics screaming their nonsense, teachers to tell kids whatever they fancy, dodgy regimes to do whatever they want with zero consequences for their businesses etc...

Yes, yes (depending), no (is that a problem?), and I don't know what you mean by a "dodgy regime".

I'm not sure I'm following you now...  Are you saying the guys showing up at military funerals to protest gay marriage should be allowed unhindered because they exercise their right to free speech?

what about those in Yi videos?

Not being allowed to disrupt a funeral is not being cancelled.

I think I've made it pretty clear what I am talking about.

[viper37]

By the definition that you posted, I think it's fair to say that Colin Kaepernick was successfully cancelled as a result of his actions in favour of Black Lives Matter.

These two are certainly good examples of mob behavior to cancel people for simply disagreeing with their comments.

Some of those examples I'm more okay with than others. Some I actively approve of, others I'm more like "yeah, that kind of sucks but I'm not upset", and others I think are pretty horrible. On reflection my reaction maps pretty well to my political beliefs, which I don't think is surprising. I'd be curious how other languishites feel about these incidents (or others).

Actions are obviously different than expression political opinions.
Not a country fan, but I remember Morgan Wallen.  He was a drunk, he got defended by his black friends, but his career is still over and done.  Why?  As they were exiting his home, he called one his friend "my *iggah, a good guy" and told his other friend to take care of him.
Like I said, career over.  He was a moderately successful country singer before that, but it's not someone you'll hear of again.  His crimes are that he's too liberal to be defended by the GOP-turds and and he used to n*word, causing instant hysteria amongst the thought police.

I suppose there are many other examples out there, but it seems to me that a great number of attempted "cancellings" are unsuccessful and end up working out okay for the targets.

Verushka Lieutenant-Duval.  She's not likely to get any kind of career outside of UQAM, which is akin to a community college.

On the other hand things, by your definition things like "deplatforming" is a separate (but probably related) concept. Objecting to - say - Jordan Peterson speaking at a campus does not particularly harm him, even if successful. It probably helps his brand, and his voice continues to be heard.

[/quote]
"deplatforming" hurts one's revenue in this day & age.

Me being banned from Languish means I'm free to pursue more successful ventures
Some influencer banned from from Tik Tok or Instagram due to public pressure means the loss of many $$$ in sponsorship.  It's like a radio/tv host losing his job, his main source of income.  It can lead to financial problems and depression.

Imho, it should be reserved to the strictest offenders.  Saying you are against abortion and gay marriage should not guarantee your exclusion from all social circles and resulting in you being persona non granta everywhere but on Fox News.

Using the word *iggah in a friendly context shouldn't be the same as saying "stupid ***ger, look where you're going!" when you hit a black person on the street.

[Berkut]

I recall in incident a few years ago where an executive in Vancouver was filmed kicking a dog he was looking after (IIRC not enough to cause lasting harm, but definitely enough to cause it distress). People on the internet identified him and he lost his job over it.

Some of those examples I'm more okay with than others. Some I actively approve of, others I'm more like "yeah, that kind of sucks but I'm not upset", and others I think are pretty horrible. On reflection my reaction maps pretty well to my political beliefs, which I don't think is surprising. I'd be curious how other languishites feel about these incidents (or others).

I try very hard to NOT let me views on this stuff map to my political beliefs, since I know that means I am not acting on principle at all.

I do have different views on specific examples, but they map more to

1. The specifics of the situation, and the ability of the people involved to respond fairly. I am more tolerant of action that violates my principles when the circumstances are such that other principles would be violated otherwise (a big part of this speaks to power dynamics, and how society fails to give some people a fair voice).

2. The relevance and damage not just to those specifically involved, but to others not involved. The chilling effect of social ostracization of unpopular views on campus is extremely concerning IMO - as an example.

3. In general, I have very little trust in power given to mobs, for any reason. They lack control, accountability, or reason. This goes back to #1 though. 

I don't think riots are a great way to express political views, for example, and in fact, all things being equal, I would say a riot is a terrible thing and something society should actively (even violently if necessary) suppress. But all things are NOT equal, and if you don't give people a voice or power, and they get shit on long enough, then they are inevitably going to turn to whatever other level they can pull to express what those in power have effectively stopped them from expressing.

I would not say I actively approve of any examples of what I consider to be the efforts of society to shame people into not speaking their minds through pressure applied through the mob. The tool is so blunt and unwieldy that it will inevitably not just suppress the speech that might be truly objectionable, but to suppress the speech of everyone.

Lastly, I actually really do believe that there is power in the truth, rationality, and the principles of a liberal society. I think we can and will win the culture war not by embracing the mobs power to shut up people who say the wrong things, but through the power of people to win the debates through reason and better arguments. Where there are technical and systemic failure that make the grounds of that debate skewed towards populism, ignorance, and intolerance, we should fix those failures, not embrace them.

[viper37]

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.

Of course, to avoid having a law that bans transexuals from walking down the street, we must censor anyone who talks of transexuals from walking down the street, to be on the safe side.

Just as we should censor all muslim because mulslim hate preachers come from the free expression of muslim speech.

It ain't a question of discussion, a question of education, it's simply a question of who we censor first.

[Josquius]

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.

Of course, to avoid having a law that bans transexuals from walking down the street, we must censor anyone who talks of transexuals from walking down the street, to be on the safe side.

Just as we should censor all muslim because mulslim hate preachers come from the free expression of muslim speech.

It ain't a question of discussion, a question of education, it's simply a question of who we censor first.

Again the world doesn't work on binaries.
Nobody is calling for hit squads to be sent out after the lone village idiot shouting about how transexuals should be banned from leaving their homes.
However most rational people would see an issue if somebody with a prominent platform starts making such pronouncements and encouraging their followers to take action.

[Sheilbh]

The Vancouver dog story has just reminded me of the absolute chaos provoked by cat bin lady here about ten years ago

[Josquius]

The Vancouver dog story has just reminded me of the absolute chaos provoked by cat bin lady here about ten years ago

Longer I think. IT Crowd covered it- just this week I was chatting with some people and we realised quite how old that is now. 

[Sheilbh]

Makes sense - in my head she's very linked with 'that bigoted woman'.

Theory: British tabloids pioneered cancel/call out culture of summoning a mob, doxxing and punishing people outside of norms?

[DGuller]

Actions are obviously different than expression political opinions.
Not a country fan, but I remember Morgan Wallen.  He was a drunk, he got defended by his black friends, but his career is still over and done.  Why?  As they were exiting his home, he called one his friend "my *iggah, a good guy" and told his other friend to take care of him.
Like I said, career over.  He was a moderately successful country singer before that, but it's not someone you'll hear of again.  His crimes are that he's too liberal to be defended by the GOP-turds and and he used to n*word, causing instant hysteria amongst the thought police.

I just realized why there is such a strong anti-woke sentiment among the liberals.  The liberals are the biggest potential victims of the cancel campaign.  They're the ones who will wind up with no home if they get canceled.

[garbon]

Actions are obviously different than expression political opinions.
Not a country fan, but I remember Morgan Wallen.  He was a drunk, he got defended by his black friends, but his career is still over and done.  Why?  As they were exiting his home, he called one his friend "my *iggah, a good guy" and told his other friend to take care of him.
Like I said, career over.  He was a moderately successful country singer before that, but it's not someone you'll hear of again.  His crimes are that he's too liberal to be defended by the GOP-turds and and he used to n*word, causing instant hysteria amongst the thought police.

A person who still has his music playing on country music stations and tour dates include big country venues like the Grand Ole Opry has his career finished?

And according to wiki:

In March 2022, the album established the all-time record for longest duration in the #1 spot (61 weeks and counting) on Billboard's Country Albums chart.

[grumbler]

Again the world doesn't work on binaries.
Nobody is calling for hit squads to be sent out after the lone village idiot shouting about how transexuals should be banned from leaving their homes.
However most rational people would see an issue if somebody with a prominent platform starts making such pronouncements and encouraging their followers to take action.

Again, the law works on binaries (guilty/not guilty).  Rules are based on binaries (violates rule/does not violate rule)  To suppress only the speech you find offensive means that only you can be the judge of what is offensive.  The limit should not be what "most rational people would see an issue" with, but rather "what we as a society decide the boundaries of the rules on behavior should be."  I have no problem allowing speech that I have an issue with, so long as it comports to the law.  Hate speech that is incitement to violence is already against the law, but speech calling for action short of violence is not, even if we have an issue with it.

[Josquius]

Again the world doesn't work on binaries.
Nobody is calling for hit squads to be sent out after the lone village idiot shouting about how transexuals should be banned from leaving their homes.
However most rational people would see an issue if somebody with a prominent platform starts making such pronouncements and encouraging their followers to take action.

Again, the law works on binaries (guilty/not guilty).  Rules are based on binaries (violates rule/does not violate rule)  To suppress only the speech you find offensive means that only you can be the judge of what is offensive.  The limit should not be what "most rational people would see an issue" with, but rather "what we as a society decide the boundaries of the rules on behavior should be." 

Does the law work that way?
As I understood it when you get into stuff like this there's a huge amount of debate to be had. Hell. Even when it comes down to murder there's debates about motivation, circumstances, etc...

I have no problem allowing speech that I have an issue with, so long as it comports to the law. 

I see no problem with disagreeing with people even if they're not breaking any laws.

Hate speech that is incitement to violence is already against the law, but speech calling for action short of violence is not, even if we have an issue with it.

I'm pretty sure there's lots of examples of speech that doesn't directly involve incitement to violence having laws against it- even in the US. Begging for instance. Libel. Porn.

[grumbler]

Again the world doesn't work on binaries.
Nobody is calling for hit squads to be sent out after the lone village idiot shouting about how transexuals should be banned from leaving their homes.
However most rational people would see an issue if somebody with a prominent platform starts making such pronouncements and encouraging their followers to take action.

Again, the law works on binaries (guilty/not guilty).  Rules are based on binaries (violates rule/does not violate rule)  To suppress only the speech you find offensive means that only you can be the judge of what is offensive.  The limit should not be what "most rational people would see an issue" with, but rather "what we as a society decide the boundaries of the rules on behavior should be." 

Does the law work that way?
As I understood it when you get into stuff like this there's a huge amount of debate to be had. Hell. Even when it comes down to murder there's debates about motivation, circumstances, etc...

There is no verdict other than guilty and not guilty.  The not guilty verdicts can be somewhat nuanced, but they are not guilty verdicts nonetheless.

I have no problem allowing speech that I have an issue with, so long as it comports to the law. 

I see no problem with disagreeing with people even if they're not breaking any laws.

Truisms are mere truisms.

Hate speech that is incitement to violence is already against the law, but speech calling for action short of violence is not, even if we have an issue with it.

I'm pretty sure there's lots of examples of speech that doesn't directly involve incitement to violence having laws against it- even in the US. Begging for instance. Libel. Porn.

There are many things against the law.  That is a mere truism.  What does that have to do with our discussion here? And, BTW, I know of no jurisdiction where mere speech that is begging is illegal.  A man begging a woman to marry him is breaking the law?  Absurd.