The question would be who blatantly politicized it and was the other side upset about it? That certainly doesn't seem clear. Should woman be subject to draft? If they weren't before, like without being able to serve or vote, etc, but are/can now, shouldn't we further equality? Not everything is as equal as it should be, based on what equality is supposed to be, across the board, positive and negative.

It wasn't that only one side was doing it, it was that one side more recently has been making it more political. The other side has also followed suit because by turning a blind eye it wasn't going away and was causing harm, so they fought fire with fire basically. You can say that's not the right way to deal with it, but others would say it shouldn't have been politicized and put into negative actions in the first place.

I didn't initially say only one side was doing it, I said one side was starting it. I should've pointed out I meant more recently, as I stated after you disagreed with some points about the past that had merit.

Politicizing what exactly? Saying what should or should not be ok to say is inherently political. When Socrates was put on trial, it was for denouncing religion and democracy. So, it's been political since at least ancient greece #cancelled Socrates. 

Saying they started this doesn't work for me. It had been ongoing basically forever, and as far as I know there has never been any pause. When is "recently"? And how do you know who started it "recently"?

And again, for me, the bigger question is why it matters who started it or who does it more. As far as I can tell, people have the right to not support anything for whatever reason (within exceptions that are part of the law, for example defamation, libel, invasion of privacy, civil conspiracy, incitement, etc.).  If people can successfully convince others to agree with them, I'm not seeing the problem. People have freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the freedom to spend their money how they choose. I may disagree in some cases on whether or not the thing they're targeting deserves it, but I can't see why the tactic itself is morally wrong. 

Who was taking the high road? Just because it's pointed out that someone started something, doesn't automatically mean you're taking the high road, it just means you're saying they did it first. Now if you blatantly point how how they're the only problem and the other side it faultless, then yes, you'd have a point. I didn't say that though. I said everything seen as positive has a negative, like the other side reacting, however they react, which as you should've read, I pointed out both sides aren't perfect. You're not considering everything that was said, plus taking it out of context based on what I was originally replying to. Hopefully this clears it up if that's not what you understood.

I didn't agree with some of your examples which you seem to agree with from what I make of it, but the others I agreed with as I said you had some useful points based on the past. My comment was more specific which I followed up on, which you did agree with as to social media, did you not?

As per the who started it first question, I already thought about it and knew it would lead nowhere because we're not going to be able to put a finger on the exact start of cancel culture, and even if by some chance we could, we couldn't come close to tying that to the political parties of today because of how much things have changed since back then.

Again, it's not that cut and dry as you state, which I never made the case it was to begin with, taking into account I meant more recently, which I made clear after your initial reply. As to when it is a problem, that's not something you can pin point to perfection either, but when innocent people are being harmed wrongfully by a system, there needs to be something in place to account for that. Like appealing in court. The problem with cancel culture, is that basically doesn't exist. Your voice can even be silenced at times by instantly being removed from platforms, and even if you can sue them, which you may still lose, that's an indirect answer that still doesn't properly solve the problem. It's why we no longer ask the people in the courtyard, on the spot, whether someone should be hung or not. We have a much more civil system and process, which still isn't perfect, but miles better than a quick thumbs up or down and then judgement.

Back to the actual election.

In polling, things are continuing to look good for Biden.

In national polls, his lead is 8.2%. If the race is going to narrow up, it'd have to be very soon. With Clinton vs Don the polls did narrow up starting in late October. That being said, more people were undecided, and with Clinton v. Don the polls fluctuated throughout the race. This time around, they've been pretty consistent with 6-8% leads for Biden basically since June.

In state levels IPSOS has Biden up by 5 and 6 in PA and Wisconsin respectively, pretty much in line with recent polls. Public Policy polling has Biden up by 4 in NC. Fivethirtyeight now has Biden as the favorite to win. On the other side, Ohio has gone back to a pure tossup, partially due to our buddies at Trafalgar, who again are the one pollster that predicted Trump wins in certain states, mainly because they overrated him everywhere. But, even taking their poll at face value, Trump up by 4, paints a bleak picture for Trump. If Trump lost about 4 points in Ohio, he almost certainly lost a little ground in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, states where he won by razor thin margins.

Last, Biden is up by 8 according to the times in Arizona. Arizona is not a must win for Biden, but it basically functions like getting the mask in Crash Bandicoot. It allows Biden to take one hit (losing Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, or Pennsylvania) without dying. Although, if he lost PA and won Arizona, he'd still need to win either NE-2 or ME-2 to win, but it seems likely he'll take at least one of those.

Overall, fivethirtyeight has Biden at an 81% chance to win, Trump at 18% with a 1% chance of a tie. For comparison, Clinton had a 33% chance on election day. So, Biden's in a better position.

I'm not 100% sure on what you're asking in the first question. I think it's who particularly started using social media? In that case, I don't really know, but my intuition would be likely left leaning people. But, I'm not sure why it matters which side specifically started using this technology to cancel another person. 

Innocent people can be hurt by speech. I'm actually writing an article for a law journal right now arguing that courts need to have better remedies for when people are injured by speech, although it's not specifically addressing cancel culture. It's actually focused on the far right XD. 

But, if we allow free speech, people are going to be hurt by it. That's just the way it is. If people are calling for cancelling in such a way that violates someone's rights or subjects them to undue harm, they have remedies in tort law. 

That's definitely not a perfect solution, but I think it's kind of the best we could do. The alternative seems to be to say that someone can not say anything disparaging about a person, company, whatever, and the harm of that vastly outweighs the harm caused by people asking for something to be cancelled that maybe doesn't deserve it. It's the same argument with the second amendment. If we allow people to have guns, some people are going to get shot who do not deserve it. We feel as a society (not everyone agrees of course) that the value in allowing people to have guns outweighs the harm that they can do, and that if you get shot unjustly, the court system handles that.

If we want to allow free speech, this is one of the consequences. What do you think would be a better system?

Probably won't answer for a little while, because like I said, I am actually working on an article about the first amendment and remedies for speech torts (a tort is a violation of civil law) and I should really be doing that. So take your time. I'm all for balancing a person's rights for protection from undue harm against another person's right to free speech, but I just don't see what the better option is in this scenario.

Just pointing out the fact I meant more recent. 

Cracking down on speech is another beginning to an end. Same thing will happen like cancel culture as it is now. Some softies will be protected but others will use it for ill will. Then the opposition will do the same in return, and next thing you know, the majority are now all victims. A country full of nothing but victims because of words. I wonder what could go wrong?

Perhaps social cancel culture of today could have a better thought out system like the legal system, maybe tied to it, that's something agreed upon by both sides so as to be non biased. Maybe, maybe not. I really haven't though that through but can already see positives and negatives. Though a courtyard for both sides with on the spot decisions is not a smart way forward. Both sides will eventually destroy each other or get nowhere this way.

I don't know. I think many successful and positive movements have used similar tactics. The Montgomery Bus Boycotts were an example of cancelling, weren't they? And, I don't know anything about your beliefs regarding that stuff, but I'm hoping you'd think the result of that was good. Boycotting discriminatory business was a huge part of civil rights. All that was is cancel culture without social media.

I don't think there's anything wrong with calling to cancel someone who deserves it. Again, I think that's part of free speech. I wouldn't be opposed to a way to give more protection or recourse for those who don't deserve it, but I can't think of a system better than what we have now, to do so. If you figure one out, let me know. 

I'd like to respond to these parts of your respective posts.

1) When I refer to "cancel culture", I'm not talking about individual people buying or not buying this or that (let alone people, which I kind of have a more fundamental issue with...), I'm talking about people joining forces to block the release of a product (ensuring no one can acquire it) or to get people who posit ideas you disagree with (or who just belong to the "wrong" demographic) socially blacklisted such that they cannot have careers or platforms to speak at all, etc., or perhaps, at an extreme, to physically terminate their existence. I'm talking about things like organized harassment and boycott campaigns, not just individual people making free choices about what to do with their own lives. Just wanted to be clear about this distinction, as we seem to be conflating the two things to an extent. When I say "cancel culture", I'm referring to a climate of intolerance for differences between people, be those differences demographic or ideological. It's something I'm against on principle.

2) I would acknowledge that yes, it's mostly so-called liberals and progressives who participate in what we today refer to as cancel culture. There are too many obvious examples to even list here just from the last few years. However, conservatives are hardly non-participants and, frankly, this being a gaming forum after all, everyone here should know that quite well by now. I mean need I even mention #Gamergate? Or that little minor scruple (massive sarcasm implied; it was not minor) the online gaming community just had over the fact that The Last of Us Part II is allowed to exist over the summer? Or how about my personal favorite, the 2017 campaign against Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus on the grounds that gunning down Nazi soldiers in a video game is suddenly anti-white and left wing now that Donald Trump was president? Would you characterize these social movements -- all of which have been directly experienced by most people here from one end or the other -- as say left wing social movements, for example? Because I'd characterize them instead as anti-feminist and white chauvinist, as applicable. The whole purpose of all these movements was to stop the development or release of certain video games and/or to punish the creators by ending either their careers or their lives. Gamergate was, in fact, alarmingly successful at achieving its aims in the short run. Lots of people -- almost all of them women -- were run out of the gaming industry and there were even examples of Steam releases getting delayed as a result of Gamergate-related harassment campaigns. I remember that movement with particular ire because it was just about the worst gaming-related experience I've ever had and some of my favorite titles (like Gone Home) were targeted. And here I'm just highlighting examples that are specifically gaming-related; there have been countless others as well in recent years that have clearly coming from a right wing perspective, like everything the One Million Moms does, for example. Or yeah, the firing of Colin Kaepernick over his political opinions and the NFL's prohibition of any show of support for Black Lives Matter by their athletes at the behest of the president and his supporters. This is NOT just all leftists or kids, it's a general cultural attitude and problem.

1. Are you against it, or are you suggesting it is something that needs to be somehow regulated?

If the former, you're as allowed to want to cancel cancel culture, however you define it, as much as they're free to cancel things they don't like. If it's the latter, I think that you're opposing free speech. 

2. You could think that (maybe you're right maybe you're wrong), but you're not in a position to really acknowledge it. We're just dealing with anecdotes here. The plural of anecdote is not data.

So let's take JK Rowling as an example. We'll avoid opening the can of worms of whether we agree with what she says, cause that's not relevant to this point at least. We'll assume for the sake of argument that I hold the position that because of her comments I don't think any company should platform her, and that you feel that she said nothing wrong. I think we both agree that she was perfectly legally entitled to say what she's said.

Is it wrong for me to refuse to buy products from any company with any ties to her?

Is it wrong for me to encourage my friends and family to do the same?

Is it wrong for me to organize a boycott of all those companies?

Is it wrong for me to spread word of that boycott on social media?

Basically, at what point does it shift from me exercising my freedom of speech in promoting my opinion, and become cancel culture? Should we regulate it at some point, and how?

Personally, I'm mostly on board with the Supreme Court's interpretation, and think it's fine until it drifts into any type of prohibited speech. Harrassment/incitement/true threats/intentional infliction of emotional distress/negligent infliction.../ conspiracy/ invasion of privacy, etc.

(Not actually how I feel btw. When this pandemic ends I'm going to go to Universal Studios, ride the new Hagrid ride, and have a butterbeer.)

Edit: I'm actually going to repost this in US Politics, and you can reply there. We've veered off course from the election.