People should use any legal means at their disposal to silence them. Other countries take it a step further, and utilize the law to do so directly. I am not necessarily opposed to that, but would have to study more about how it works in European nations that employ such laws.

I know it wasn't addressed towards me, but I figured someone ought to answer it...

Yes, I absolutely can stay on topic and am doing so as best I can. If you think I am not, feel free to pose a direct question, and I will answer it. 

If you discuss America being founded about freedom of speech you are talking about the first amendment. Because that is what protects freedom of speech. The interpretation of that Amendment is what determines the boundaries of our freedom of speech. If you're talking about what freedom of speech means or should mean in America, you are talking about the first amendment. You cannot discuss one without the other.

Your school is wrong. There's nothing special about Americans. We react the same as anyone else to speech we don't like, on both sides of the spectrum. The difference is that it is illegal to criminalize speech about matters of public concern due to the first amendment. That's all. And even that's not an accurate portrayal of American history. For many years seditious libel, encouraging rebellion against the government, was illegal. Speaking against the draft was illegal. During the cold war people were blacklisted and ostracized for support of socialism. Teaching evolution was banned. There were laws against atheists holding public office, and there are still plenty of places in America where you will be ostracized for openly being an atheist. In some states, a non-violent sexual advance by a person of the same gender is still legal grounds for provocation to violence. In 13 US States (all red) it is illegal to defame beef (or other food products). People were lynched to silence them. American history is full of examples of vicious forms of social censorship, and a lot of it was and is from the right.

So, maybe you should learn a bit about the history of free speech in America before talking about the good ol' days where a man could speak his mind without fear. Cause that never existed. I wouldn't talk about freedom of speech in Sweden cause I know fuck all about that, and I stay in my lane. 

But, if you wish, fine. Let's discuss whether cancel culture is a good thing, independent of any law.

Allow me to respond to your comment. First off, it's not censorship as defined by law... but since you want to ignore the law since it disagrees with your personal values, if it condemned all calls for censorship, then that would not make it one sided. If it ignores calls for censorship when it's from one side, then it's one sided. Similarly if it only posts positive stories about Trump, that's one sided. Unless you'd like to take the position he's done nothing worthy of criticism.

Moreover, the site did not reach to Google for comment and relied solely on the position of one side of the story, reporting it as fact. It is one-sided in the most literal sense of the word.

So, back to my question about cancel culture. Which you said is the biggest threat to America or something like that. 

Do you believe that it is wrong to call for someone's private employer to fire them based on speech that you disagree with?

If so, then please, your opinion on this,

If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 24, 2017

"If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!"

Do you support Donald Trump's right to call for athletes to be fired for speech he does not approve of? Yes or no question man. Typing 2 to 3 letters should not be hard.

You ignored my point, i'm talking about disingenuous narrative found in the amount of content only leaning one way and not the seperate articles.To make an analogy i would give a Playstation magazine(that has deals with sony) for example, can the articles be right, yes but they tend to have a less neutral tone in favor of playstation so i do not trust them as much as i would trust a reviewer/outlet that writes for all consoles in a skeptical manner.

The kind of people that site clings to i have heard,read articles from, and i know where they stand and also do not think i'm here to blindly advocate for everything the left puts out,i take the same approach with leftist media.

Bolded : Stating that has no use in an online conversation and it even has little use in the corona conversation, you can elaborate us on your knowledge on the virus if you like?

I certainly agree with your line "American history is full of examples of vicious forms of social censorship, and a lot of it was and is from the right."

I'm aware of those examples. And it was wrong. McCarthyism was a deep historical injustice. The religious right has often been deeply intolerant and totalitarian in the past.

That's why it's worrying that so many on left today seem to deny that cancel culture even is a thing.

About Trump tweeting, calling NFL players to be fired because they disrespect the flag. It's not entirely comparable. Let me explain.

The problem with cancel culture is that you tend to attack a person in the hardest way possible, disproportionately. Often in indirect ways.

A prime example being a college professors perhaps tweets something or writes something that offends some people, but the punishment is that he loses his job. Even though he never did anything wrong at his job.

With the NFL players it's about their performance at their job. If there was a rule that said you cannot kneel, and yet some players kneeled, it wouldn't be wrong to call for some consequences, reasonable reprimands. Now firing them for it would be too severe and disproportionate, and second, I don't think there even exists a clear rule that players must stand up for the flag and national anthem.

So I do not support Trump's call to fire them.

But more typical for cancel culture would be if Trump urged people, his supporters and masses of activists to attack the NFL players in indirect ways in order to punish them.

Let's say there were activists who would contact the private sponsors of NFL players and demand they drop their sponsorship contracts with kneeling players, or that they would pressure celebrities, parties and PR events that these players mingled with, and demand that they disinvite the NFL players in question. Or that the mob would pressure and shame all the other NFL players who don't kneel and force them and shame them to dissociate themselves from the kneeling players. That's the form of really nasty cancel culture.

So I do not support what Trump is doing, but it's not a good example of modern cancel culture.

Okay, point taken.

In regards to corona virus, my point was that being critical towards lockdown strategies shouldn't be seen as controversial. In particular looking at it as a Swede, since Sweden chose a very mild lockdown strategy and as a doctor since I have some insight.

I'm not claiming your average M.D is an expert of the corona virus, but through my job I get an angle on the pandemic that perhaps many ordinary citizens don't. I get a sense of how dangerous it is, a sense of risk. I work with risk assessment every day. If you get a lump on your stomach and you present it to me, it's my job to evaluate the risk and decide how likely it is dangerous or not and weather there is reason to go forward with further examination and if it's worth it. I try to decide how much risk is acceptable, both to me and to the patient.

From my perspective, corona virus is not that much more deadly than the seasonal flu. It just happens to affect so many people at the same time instead of being spread over several seasons. This will make it look more dangerous than it is.

There are also direct negative health effects from the covid hysteria. I see how people hesitate to seek healthcare for other serious diseases in fear of contracting covid, or in fear of burdening a strained health care system during a pandemic, which results in increased suffering and even death.

I'm amazed at how extreme the measures against covid have been all over the world with economical costs that are horrendously disproportionate to the lives saved.

In the economics of health care, every saved human life has a measured cost/expense. And with covid, we have accepted costs that are perhaps up to ten times higher for each saved life than what is usual practice in health care.

There is absolutely no rule that players have to stand for the national anthem. Which you know... so I don't know why you even entertained the possibility. Such a rule would be a clear violation of the first amendment.

So, players exercise speech a person doesn't approve of. They call for them to be fired, regardless of how well they perform their actual job, which you admit is severe and disproportionate. Yet this is not an example of cancel culture?

By that definition can any individual be a part of cancel culture on their own? If so, give an example.

And you say you're a practicing medical doctor? Do your patients know you view them this way?

It's not primarily me. The health system at the top views healthcare and cost-benefit this way. I was taught that in Sweden, very roughly speaking, each year of prolonged life expectancy for one patient is worth perhaps $200,000 in healthcare costs. It's a higher number when it comes to young people and a bit less with the elderly. So if there's a brand new cancer drug that costs say $300,000 for one treatment, but on average only extends 6 months of a patients remaining lifetime, that drug most likely won't be approved in Sweden.

But we who are personnel on the ground are not made aware about costs very much at all, because it's important that we don't become fixated with costs, and it's important that we treat everyone equally. There's a delicate balance. But certainly most doctors are aware of different costs of medicines, blood samples, different xrays etc.

Rule or rule.  I didn't mean a rule that would violete the law. But everything is not so black or white.

I didn't think there was a rule because when the NFL BLM debate was at its peak, I heard in the newspapers there wasn't. But I entertained the possibility that there possibly would be something more than just informal tradition. Perhaps something written on paper. This can't be uncommon in the sports world. "Before players enter the field in FIFA World Cup games they are to stand in a line with the teams separated from each other". I could imagine there exists things like that, but I am just guessing.

I said "it's not a good example of modern cancel culture". Yes, you could say it's clearly an attempt to cancel another person wrongfully, but it's not typical for the modern phenomenon of cancel culture. It's isolated ramblings by Trump more than it's an elemental part of a coordinated campaign.

Also there is a different motivation, a different psychology. Trump and most right wingers aren't driven by an urge to silence and marginalize the opposition. I instinctively feel there is a great difference, but I haven't analyzed the actual difference in depth so I can't explain the full extent to why there's a difference.

I'm sure we could find it out together, but you are not interested in this. You seem more interested in downplaying the phenomenon of cancel culture, deplatforming and the attacks on free speech commited by progressives.

I think it's a bit surreal when people deny it, and there's a few here on VGC in recent years who dismiss it right off the bat similar to you.

I think it's lame that whenever worried people either on the right or left call attention to cancel culture and censorship, you have a phalanx on the left that simply dismisses the whole thing by claiming that cancel culture is just as big of a problem on the right, and point out that Big tech are private companies who have the legal right to decide what is and what isn't allowed on their platforms. But it isn't the same.

To me this is the most important political subject of our time, the biggest threat to our liberal democracy.

Have you heard about Bret Weinstein and Evergreen college? Your stance on that would help me understand how you view this phenomenon.

I am not downplaying anything. Calling for the cancellation is free speech and it's protected. I often do not approve of it, like with Trump's constant calls for cancellation, but supporting free speech means supporting things you do not like.

There was most certainly a concerted effort to silence those kneeling in the NFL. The difference is it was largely unsuccessful. 

As for Bret Weinstein, I would have to look into it more, as my knowledge on the subject is from reading on wikipedia 2 minutes ago. My gut reaction is that I probably agree with him that the school's policy on absence day or whatever was a bad idea, and I support his right to criticize it. I disagree with the students' position, but support their right to protest, to the extent that their actions conformed with laws, rules of the university and so forth. Based on what he said, I don't think there was any reason for him to be fired. But, the students have a right to feel differently and express that, just as Trump has a right to call for an NFL player to be fired. The college absolutely had a duty to protect him and he has a right to sue for their failure. I am very much not confident in this opinion as again, my knowledge is limited to wikipedia, so I don't know the particulars. 

"Also there is a different motivation, a different psychology. Trump and most right wingers aren't driven by an urge to silence and marginalize the opposition. I instinctively feel there is a great difference, but I haven't analyzed the actual difference in depth so I can't explain the full extent to why there's a difference."

And... this is really the heart of it. You view the activity differently when the right wing does it, and you don't really have a valid reason, you just "feel" that it's the case. And I'm going to suggest that it's because you hold far right views, you see views like yours being condemned, you probably gravitate towards sources that report that to you, and confirmation bias causes you (like most people) to count the hits and ignore the misses. Notice when it's something that's effecting you or people like you, and ignore it when it effects others. When the right does it you rationalize it... like somehow calling for someone to be fired for their opinion is not an effort to silence the opposition. 

You're making bold fucking claims here, claiming a group is the biggest threat to western democracy (which feels kind of cancelly tbh) and "I instinctively feel" is a shitty explanation. If you haven't analyzed it in depth, maybe you should.

That's all I've got to say about that.

It's cool that you checked out Bret Weinstein a little bit. He represents the part of the left, and he calls himself a progressive and a radical, that is just as worried about wokeness and cancel culture as conservatives and classical liberals are.

"I instinctively feel" is a shitty explanation. Yeah, I know it doesn't sound very persuasive. But I'm an honest person and you could full well have given me credit for displaying uncertainty about a particular angle. I'm full aware of confirmation bias, echo chambers and all that. Full disclosure. Being aware of biases, or at least showing the attitude that you try to be, I think helps for an honest conversation.

No, it's not the heart of it. I analyze these topics all the time. It's just a matter of time until I can provide a more complete explanation to why cancel culture in our society right now is fundamentally different between the left and the right. But to me it feels like you aren't honest about this, you seem more interested in "your side" winning. Not that that is the end of the world, most of us naturally want our side to win.