"Cancel Culture" 3

[Darth Richard II]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Heh

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/24/homestylefamilyrecipescom-will-not-cave-cancel-culture/#click=https://t.co/M1N6MOiXfb

Hah,I needed that this week.

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, TrueMetis said:

I'd be curious to look at the correlation between "true democracies" (which the US isn't) and Free Speech. I'd bet there isn't much of one.

Look, I get the desire to want to be able to debate people out of believing their nonsense, but you can only watch it not fucking work except for one time in several hundred until you realize that it just isn't effective. Heck if you go to some of my older posts you can probably watch my feelings go from "debate is the best" to "okay the main douchebag won't be convinced, but maybe it'll make the audience think" to "fuck it I just want to make fun of these people."

Ten or twelve years ago I was still a believer in the power of rational debate. The rise of the Tea Party, the impervious of the right wing to facts and reason, and Trump's very existence put me off that.

[maarsen]

16 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Ten or twelve years ago I was still a believer in the power of rational debate. The rise of the Tea Party, the impervious of the right wing to facts and reason, and Trump's very existence put me off that.

Really? Since I was aware of creationists and flat earther in my early teens I had little faith in rational debate. I am in my early 60s now.

[DanteGabriel]

6 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Really? Since I was aware of creationists and flat earther in my early teens I had little faith in rational debate. I am in my early 60s now.

It was easier to disavow those folks as outliers. Millions of Teahadis and over 60 million Trump voters was a startling testament to the irrationality of humans.

[Kalbear]

Behold the power of free speech - hundreds of Sinclair tv stations to blame Fauci for creating the virus. 

 

 

[karaddin]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Behold the power of free speech - hundreds of Sinclair tv stations to blame Fauci for creating the virus. 

 

 

This strikes me as what defamation law should actually be intended to prevent, rather than the shit JK was threatening to sue over. I know those are different legal jurisdictions and probably represent the two ends of the spectrum here.

[Kalbear]

I dont think defamation does it justice. This is criminal negligence that will result in people dying. 

[Guy Kilmore]

Getting people to change is a challenge.  Our biology is predisposed against it (I.E. we want to maintain homeostasis).  In the work that I do in mental health and social work, the opportunities for change comes from the relationships that we form and how we leverage it.  I frequently fall into the trap of wanting to use rational debate to work on changes in though, habit and unhealthy patterns and where it has it's place, it is often discounted unless there is that personal connection.  Even then, it can be too, you usually need the weight of something personal to the person behind it.  A lot of times that is the person just being at rock bottom.

I don't see how rational debate, on it's own, can move a person to change, or even people to change without some evocative emotions behind it or a personal relationship to leverage.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

19 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

And what type of heavy restriction do you want? I’m not opposed to some restrictions, but those restrictions would have to be pretty narrow and tight.  Otherwise you end up getting likes of hate speech law, like what is being passed in Ethiopia, which is so broad and vaguely defined, that there are real concerns it will become an instrument of suppressing dissent.

Anyway, I’d hope in advocating for more heavy restrictions you will realize two things. One, don’t assume it will be your side calling the shots. And two, make sure those laws are very well drafted so we can avoid situations like:

1. France.  People facing criminal conviction for wearing T-shirts that say “Long Live Palestine, boycott Israel.”
2. A British Muslim teenager, Azar Ahmed, arrested for saying unkind things about British soldiers on his facebook page.
3. The UK. Harry Taylor, an atheist getting a six month suspended sentence for leaving both anti-Christian and anti-Muslim fliers in the religious room of a Liverpool airport.
4. A leftist activist in France who got convicted and fined for holding up a sign, in reference to President Nicolas Sarkozy, that said “Get Lost Jerk”.
5. A leftwing website in Germany being shut down for allegedly stirring up “unrest”.
6. A group of Muslim men being arrested in Germany for wearing orange vest that said “Sharia Police”. Fortunately, the German court had the sanity to throw the case out, but last I’ve heard their decision maybe appealed.
7. France’s ban on Burqas
8. A protestor in France arrested and fined for calling somebody a “homophobe”.
9. Barry Thew. UK. Arrested for wearing an anti-police t-shirt.
10. Simon Ledger, UK. ArreYsted for singing Kung Fu Fighting.
12. Jan Boehmermann. Germany. Prosecuted for making fun of Erdogan.
13. Sabina Guzzanti. Almost rosecuted for making joke about the Pope.
14. D’Asia R. Perry and Joy Shuford. Maryland. Charged with a hate crime for burning MAGA sign on the theory, Trump supporters are a protected group. Las I heard the charge was dropped. Still what a pain the ass for something so stupid.
15. Canada. Activist advocating the boycotting of Israel, threatened with prosecution under Canadian hate crimes law.
16. China. A human rights lawyer indicted for “inciting ethnic hatred”.
 

I’m well aware that the United States puts limits on free speech. I have commented on that. But, where the US differs is that it is extremely hesitant to engage in subject matter or viewpoint regulations in open forums. I have commented before on the restricted environment versus open forum. It is an important distinction.
And I have just listed a number of troubling cases in countries that just “do fine”.
 

And one wonders how this emotional appeal changed to make people change their mind. I guess reports of Trumps screwups, misdeeds, etc. had nothing to do with it.

Look I’m a fan of Robert Schiller’s work. Asset price bubbles happen because people are often driven by emotion and herd mentality etc. But, then at some point reality sets in. The rational exuberance may go on for quite awhile, but then the bubble pops. 

Let’s be thankful that Trump doesn’t have the ability to shut down the press and silence his critics. Though the US is not all that great when it comes to freedom of the press compared to some other countries. Finally, even if your preferred speech regulations had been made law, that is no guarantee that would have stopped Trump from winning. Maybe some kind of regulation combats the extreme supporters and nuttjobs at the margin.
 

The examples you’ve given is part of the reason why I'm not in favor having government have even more restrictions on speech. 

Even in regards stopping ”bad speech” government could just clamp down on speech out of bigotry or political interests.

To the bolded within regards there's a ”feminist.” or ”progressive”justification trotted out by many as saying bans for Burqas, niqab, hijabs’s and even Burqinis are needed to protect or Respect women’s rights, when the main reason clearly is just plain xenophobia and/or anti-Muslim bigotry.

 

[DanteGabriel]

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Behold the power of free speech - hundreds of Sinclair tv stations to blame Fauci for creating the virus. 

 

 

This calls for a sternly worded open letter!

[DMC]

18 hours ago, Ran said:

Leading up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and his Nobel Prize in 1964, his favorability and unfavorability in polling was about even; I'm not sure he'd be considered the most hated man in America at that time.

Yeah there's actually surprisingly decent data on MLK's approval at the time.  Gallup did polling on this from 1963-1966, and the shift is clear:

• 1963:  41% positive, 37% negative
• 1964:  43%, 39%
• 1965:  45%, 45%
• 1966:  32%, 66%

He also made their list of most admired men in 1964 (4th) and 1965 (6th).  Interestingly, Gallup employed a "scalometer" method during these polls that had respondents rank King from +5 to -5.  This article shows that those that intensely disliked King (a -5) increased from 25% in 1963, to 30% in 1965, to 41% in 1966.  Comparatively, he was not as intensely liked, garnering a +5 by 14% in 63, 13% in 65, and down to 8% by 66.  Gallup did not poll on him in 1967-68, but a Harris poll in 68 showed him with nearly 75% disapproval, and nearly 60% of African Americans thought he was irrelevant at that point.  Even after his death, a NORC poll showed that while most Americans registered sadness, shame, anger, or fear upon his death, a full 31% thought he brought it on himself.

So, it's fair to say that he was intensely disliked by a significant portion of the population - even when his overall approval was at its heights.  But it wasn't until 1966 - when he embarked on the Chicago Freedom Movement and actively opposed Vietnam, that the American public at large turned on him.  And embarking on the 1968 Poor People's Campaign that aggressively confronted LBJ's (failing and neglected) War on Poverty.  Basically, the shift happened when he started taking on the liberal establishment.

It's also a misnomer to say that most Americans opposed the CRA and VRA at the time of passage.  An October 1964 Pew poll showed support for the CRA at 58% with 31% disapproving.  And a 1965 Harris poll showed even white Americans supported the Selma demonstrators (as opposed to Alabama) at a 46% to 21% clip.  As for the VRA, a 1965 Harris poll (not sure if it's the same one) showed 53% in favor with 33% opposed.  JFK's assassination and the Johnson Treatment may have been crucial to the passage of each bill, but it's fair to say they never would've gotten through without solid approval from the public.  And while it's virtually impossible to measure or demonstrate MLK's effect on that public opinion 55 years later, I think it's a fair assumption to suggest his activism had a substantial impact on shifting attitudes.

[maarsen]

10 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

It was easier to disavow those folks as outliers. Millions of Teahadis and over 60 million Trump voters was a startling testament to the irrationality of humans.

Religious attitudes were much stronger in the 70s than now for creationist beliefs. I guess with their downfall, the irrational amongst us took up teahadism and Trump. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Behold the power of free speech - hundreds of Sinclair tv stations to blame Fauci for creating the virus. 

 

 

Both sides should debate this publicly. 

[sologdin]

the recipe parody is comical, though inapposite.  it would be closer if the discussion were about banning ingredients of nazism--does that ban sweep up all far right philosophy? not just gobineau and rosenberg, but also evola, heidegger, de maistre, burke, maurras, schopenhauer, bergson, kierkegaard, amd so on? and is it limited doctrine that engages in disparate treatment, or does it extend to statements that have a disparate impact?

there has after all been productive engagement with far right authors.  both benjamin and agamben worked with carl schmitt's ideas; foucault and marcuse both have heideggerian roots. they don't need to adopt the fascist politics in carrying on a debate.

[HoodedCrow]

Well, our family in Canadian multiethnic suburbia was solidly behind Dr King and against the vietnam war.

i checked with my much older sister. Doesn’t remember any racial slurs. But she did have a golliwog doll. She thought of it as a cartoon doll. My parents probably thought it would be better than barbies. (We didn’t think rabbits could talk, despite Bugs Bunny being a favorite.) 

I remember little black sambo, a book in the library, with hundreds of others. Without the American context, you would not think intelligent and color was a racist link, when we had lots of examples of black regular folks, including teachers and doctors. Very little slave culture in Canada. There was some, except that they could legally quit!

i personally was roommates with a guy who’s family had been slaves four generations back. They fled the US. He was an Edmonton dairy farm child. Black family owned, by his parents. He is allergic to hay...He is more Canadian than me( just two gens). He felt strange singing in Seattle gospel singing groups. Not An American anymore!

By the way, I think of my English/Viking ancestors as enslavers and enslaved. It can change, but it takes a long time. First Nations right here also enslaved other tribes. Italians are mixed with many descendants of slaves. There is hope.

Brer rabbit is about race , though, isn’t it??

 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

Brer rabbit is about race , though, isn’t it??

Yes that's why Disney is (finally) overhauling its Splash Mountain ride.  Sad thing is?  They had already shelved Song of the South in the US after its last theatrical release in 1986 (albeit continued to sell it on VHS internationally), even though Splash Mountain didn't open until 1989.

[Varysblackfyre321]

Hmm, the saying of “Go woke, get broke,” seems to be a visage of cancel culture.

Basically an attempt to pressure companies to stop any progressive messages they’d been pushing,  out of the threat of loss of income.

 

[maarsen]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

Yes that's why Disney is (finally) overhauling its Splash Mountain ride.  Sad thing is?  They had already shelved Song of the South in the US after its last theatrical release in 1986 (albeit continued to sell it on VHS internationally), even though Splash Mountain didn't open until 1989.

I remember Song of the South when I was a kid in the 60's. I thought then 'people watch this stuff?' 

[Lord of Rhinos]

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Hmm, the saying of “Go woke, get broke,” seems to be a visage of cancel culture.

Basically an attempt to pressure companies to stop any progressive messages they’d been pushing,  out of the threat of loss of income.

 

I've always heard it as "Go woke, go broke".  The presupposition seems to be that main stream American culture doesn't like woke politics and will therefore reject the piece of pop culture without the need for an organized boycott.  It gets deployed selectively "lol, did you see the box office for the new Charlies' Angels movie? Go woke, go broke" vs.  Captain Marvel ".....".

[Larry of the Lawn]

I mean we know that most corporations are only going to ape progressive causes or values when it's clearly in their financial interest to do so.  Corporate speech vs individual speech is a way more interesting topic than 'cancel culture' is calling me names.