By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Google Bans Censorship-Resistant Competitor, LBRY

Slimebeast said:
JWeinCom said:

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.

 

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.



Around the Network
JWeinCom said:
Slimebeast said:

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.



Slimebeast said:
JWeinCom said:

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.

Said that was all I have to say on the matter, and it is, but I do have to defend myself.

You can feel however you want, but your feelings are not evidence. If you're accusing me of dishonesty "I feel" isn't good enough. I absolutely want my viewpoints to win out, and would love to use my voice to make that happen. That is not dishonesty. Dishonesty means I've said something I know to be false and I absolutely have not. Show me where I have, or retract that.



JWeinCom said:
Slimebeast said:

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.

Said that was all I have to say on the matter, and it is, but I do have to defend myself.

You can feel however you want, but your feelings are not evidence. If you're accusing me of dishonesty "I feel" isn't good enough. I absolutely want my viewpoints to win out, and would love to use my voice to make that happen. That is not dishonesty. Dishonesty means I've said something I know to be false and I absolutely have not. Show me where I have, or retract that.

All right, I take back that accusation. My intent wasn't to accuse you of dishonesty and it wasn't meant as a rhetorical trick. But I felt the need to express my frustration that I still suspect you might see more than you admit about cancel culture (more in line with the definition that I have used). But if you don't then fine, I believe you.



Slimebeast said:
JWeinCom said:

Said that was all I have to say on the matter, and it is, but I do have to defend myself.

You can feel however you want, but your feelings are not evidence. If you're accusing me of dishonesty "I feel" isn't good enough. I absolutely want my viewpoints to win out, and would love to use my voice to make that happen. That is not dishonesty. Dishonesty means I've said something I know to be false and I absolutely have not. Show me where I have, or retract that.

All right, I take back that accusation. My intent wasn't to accuse you of dishonesty and it wasn't meant as a rhetorical trick. But I felt the need to express my frustration that I still suspect you might see more than you admit about cancel culture (more in line with the definition that I have used). But if you don't then fine, I believe you.

Ok then.

I see a infinitesimally small part of the world, as any human does. I can't say which side does it more or less. What I can say is that I've seen examples of both sides calling for people they don't like to be deplatformed, calling for people they don't like to be fired, and calling for boycotts of products and companies they object to, for reasons wholly divorced from business. That is objectively true. 

And in all cases, provided laws are otherwise followed, I support a speaker's right to call for deplatforming, firing, boycotts, etc, whether or not I agree that it's actually deserved. That's freedom of speech.