Cancel Culture… can we talk about it (isn’t it just boycotts)?

[Varysblackfyre321]

30 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Through social media small, vocal minorities have gotten an outsized impact on public opinion

It’s odd that people think conglomerates never do their own surveys, polling, or look at reliable surveys and polls to try to gage public sentiments towards certain attitudes or behaviors and have that dictate their particular stances on a given issue.

And that they only listen to what’s trending on Twitter or YT—which often some conservative degenerate so eh.

30 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Most people don’t give a shit about many of these issues,

What issues are you referring to specifically? Abortion? Gay representation? How the country is handling Immigration? 

And what data are you using to base your proclamation that most people don’t give a shit about said issues?

And even if most people didn’t; is it possible more of the public take a stance you find wrong on a particular issue? 

30 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Ignore them and the issues will just blow over.

What minorities specifically? And how are you gagging they’re in the minority? 

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What issues are you referring to specifically? Abortion? Gay representation? How the country is handling Immigration?

I would suggest ‘stuff people said on Twitter’ is stuff people don’t care about. Faux outrage over people using the wrong word etc is the sort of thing that gets more attention than it deserves.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

would suggest ‘stuff people said on Twitter’ is stuff people don’t care about.

What stuff specifically said on Twitter? By who? And on what topic?

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What stuff specifically said on Twitter? By who? And on what topic?

Anything said on Twitter is given greater volume and importance because it’s a vital tool of people in the media.

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Anything said on Twitter

What. Specifically  Is. said. On. Twitter. That no one cares about.

What topics get talked about that you think most people are completely apathetic towards.

[DaveSumm]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What. Specifically  Is. said. On. Twitter. That no one cares about.

 

I mean … most of Twitter? 

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I mean … most of Twitter? 

Exactly. Twitter is it’s own echo chamber that is given disproportionate coverage in the news and used as a barometer of peoples views, even though most people don’t use it. 

[sologdin]

Vocal minorities like the NRA?

or qanonists? or climate deniers? or people who think trump won in 2020?

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, DaveSumm said:

I mean … most of Twitter? 

This means nothing essentially.

What specifics  topics do you see discussed on that you think most people don’t care about at all?

 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Twitter is it’s own echo chamber that is given disproportionate coverage

Yeah the far-right do love whining about Twitter and treating rumblings on their as the sole mover for companies to do things they don’t like.

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

or qanonists? or climate deniers? or people who think trump won in 2020?

Yeah, if you stayed terminally online Twitter those groups can seem much more present, or influential than they are.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Exactly. Twitter is it’s own echo chamber that is given disproportionate coverage in the news and used as a barometer of peoples views, even though most people don’t use it. 

Twitter is a godsend for journalists. They can do a vox pop without ever leaving the office. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

48 minutes ago, mormont said:

Twitter is a godsend for journalists. They can do a vox pop without ever leaving the office. 

And  right wing reactionary YouTubers. You can make a shit ton of money by making videos ranting and raving about how  a Tweet with five likes represents represents all progressive or liberal sentiments in regards to a topic.

for example; Rose of Dawn’s video on “trans activists” being outraged by femboys. Her evidence of the existence of the outrage was mostly a couple tweets with a handful of likes.

 

[Heartofice]

10 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And  right wing reactionary YouTubers. You can make a shit ton of money by making video ranting and raving in front of a monitor about how a Tweet with five likes expressing an opinion that will enrage the conservative mob.

 

I think it’s fair to say there are reactionary mobs and people exploiting the fact that there are reactionary mobs 

[Varysblackfyre321]

23 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I think it’s fair to say there are reactionary mobs

Sure.

I agree completely 

 the right wing reactionary mob on social media is massive ever eager to hoot and howl about how a couple nobodies on Twitter said something they don’t like. people do exploit the degenerates outrage to be sure.

 

[IFR]

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Sure. 
Ex. Everything you’ve said.

Then you're not understanding what I'm saying. It's unfortunate that we are not communicating well with each other. I had cited universities in Germany as a case where people suffered social and legal consequences for ideas they promoted. I do not know why you would follow that with the suggestion that I disagree with my own premise. I disagree that professors teaching relativity should have been deplatformed.

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Where did I say people can’t be allowed to believe such a thing? 

I'm not suggesting you said so. I put that in rhetorically. Generally if you don't want a message spread, it's to control behavior. It's easier to control behavior if you control belief, and historically efforts to control behavior aimed at controlling belief.

You only address the control of message; I'm syntactically adding belief because the two are connected.

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Dude you can express your ideas without having money or a private platform 

Its okay for daycare center to not hire someone who says child-porn should be legal.

Its okay for a Jewish baker to not hire a neo-nazi

Companies are perfectly entitled to make public relations business moves. To further your example, I think Christian bakers should be able to fire someone who goes on about gay rights while at the business. (Although in one's private time, I think one should be able to endorse whatever opinion one wants.)

Just to be clear, because I can see this being misunderstood. Businesses should have the right to make decisions in their financial interests. Consumers should have the right to make decisions in their interests too. I do not agree with exercising those rights when it involves a coercive effort to eliminate the free exchange of ideas.

Spotify is making a business decision in their (dubious) financial interest. Fine. I don't agree with their decision, but it is within their rights to do so. I do not agree with the demographic that is attempting to coerce them remove Joe Rogan's platform either. It is, again, within their right to do so, and as I said at the very start, it is an effective tactic of social engineering, but I don't agree with it. 

Joe Rogan has his opinions, and he has an audience that enjoys listening to his opinions. 

You have your opinions, and perhaps some people agree with your opinions. I do not agree with some of the things you say, but I support your ability to express your thoughts without me carefully trying to police whether it will lead enough vulnerable minds astray and therefore require me, with my dowsing rod to the Truth of the Universe in hand, to try to deplatform you from expressing them.

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Not really. It’s a legitimately insulting position to take that no one who’d ever debated  Hitler in public used facts and logic to counter his depravity.

As I said, and I repeat here, I think facts and logic have very little to do with it. I don't think the public opinion at large, anywhere and at any time, is based on facts and logic, regardless of your political orientation.

6 hours ago, karaddin said:

I'd go a step further and suggest that the acknowledgement it would have taken someone very charismatic is already conceding that the whole point of debate, ie the facts and logic, could not have done it. 

I feel like I should requote my post, since that's two people who misread it.

8 hours ago, IFR said:

Interesting thought. Yes, I think so. I do not believe that Hitler and Nazism was an inevitable endpoint for Germany. I feel comfortable speculating that had there been a particularly charismatic politician, they could have curbed German resentment into something that didn't involve genocide. And facts and logic have little to do with effective persuasion.

We'll never know though. 

Facts and logic can be used, but they are incidental to a public debate. I feel like this isn't an obscure observation. Remember the debates between Clinton and Trump? Clinton made some stuff up, Trump made most stuff up, and you get polling data that put it on an even split as to who "won" the debate.

6 hours ago, karaddin said:

 Why is out competing someone in the field of charisma more noble than simply silencing them when their argument, and therefore the literal stakes (and actual historical outcome in this case) if you lose, is genocide. 

That is what China is doing right now. Why bother to deal with the social disorder of arguing against Uygher beliefs when you can simply silence them? That was what the Nazis did. Why argue with pro-Jews when you can just silence them? Any genocide itself employs silencing as a tactic (not necessarily cancel culture, although there will commonly be an element of that too).

We know retrospectively that jingoism gained power in Germany, and that led to genocide (and the suppression of non-jingoistic beliefs). 

We do not however know that any particular message will invariably lead to that outcome.

You evaluate the risk-reward of the free expression of ideas in favor of going against it at your discretion. I evaluate it in favor of free speech.

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Sure.

I agree completely 

 the right wing reactionary mob on social media is massive ever eager to hoot and howl about how a couple nobodies on Twitter said something they don’t like. people do exploit the degenerates outrage to be sure.

 

Sure 

I agree completely 

The internet is full of people looking to exploit outrage because that is where the incentive lays

[Varysblackfyre321]

42 minutes ago, IFR said:

Then you're not understanding what I'm saying

I disagree but agree to disagree here.

But I’m right lol.

42 minutes ago, IFR said:

I'm not suggesting you said otherwise

Thank you.

42 minutes ago, IFR said:

Generally if you don't want a message spread, it's to control behavior. I

Absolutely.

I don’t want people with HIV to willfully not seek medication or have bareback sex with strangers because they’ve been convinced HIV/AIDS is a hoax.

I’m comfortable with canceling HIV-deniers on Twitter.

42 minutes ago, IFR said:

It's easier to control behavior if you control belief, and historically efforts to control behavior aimed at controlling belief.

Why is it automatically bad for a culture to have a set of values and expect members to adhere to those values?

42 minutes ago, IFR said:

rights while at the business. (

Hey question if I seriously say most Americans are idiots who deserve to be sterilized whilst I’m off the clock should my employer be bound to keep me around?

42 minutes ago, IFR said:

I do not agree with exercising those rights when it involves the removal of the free exchange of ideas.

So, to be clear you do want the Cp advocate to keep their job at the day-care. So long as they keep their advocacy off the clock.

42 minutes ago, IFR said:

but I support your ability to express your thoughts without me carefully trying to police whether it will lead enough vulnerable minds astray

Eh.

I think in general it’s fantasy to expect even a non-negligible portion of society to not exercise a degree of social ostracism based around ideological predilections. The best we could do  is to try and insure people are getting excluded for better reasons than they’re gay, a jew, or a black person.

Better reasons such as they hate Jews.

42 minutes ago, IFR said:

As I said, and I repeat here, I think facts and logic have very little to do with it.

Yeah debate can be entertaining but people don’t actually need facts or logic to win over a significant portion or even a majority of a crowd.

They just have to be a better showman and/or appeal to the already present biases amongst the crowd.

Which is why I am 100% certain if the Allied powers took your preferred approach in dealing with Nazism after WW2 the Nazis would have rose back to power and attempted another Genocide within a couple years. 
Canceling them was the right thing to do.
 

42 minutes ago, IFR said:

That is what China is doing right now. Why bother to deal with the social disorder of arguing against Uygher beliefs when you can simply silence them?

Question do you think more or less Germans would deny the Holocaust happened  today if publicly arguing it wasn’t a crime or at the very least social suicide in Germany?

[Varysblackfyre321]

32 minutes ago, IFR said:

I disagree that professors teaching relativity should have been deplatformed.

Oh wait you never answered whether or not professors who argue Jews are trying to replace white people should keep their job.

I want you to say yes my principled free-speech companion. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, sologdin said:

Vocal minorities like the NRA?

or qanonists? or climate deniers? or people who think trump won in 2020?

Don't forget those who think zombie JFK Jr. is coming back to lead a Republican revolution. 

[IFR]

21 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I disagree but agree to disagree here.

But I’m right lol.

Maybe.

21 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Absolutely.

I don’t want people with HIV to willfully not seek medication or have bareback sex with strangers because they’ve been convinced HIV/AIDS is a hoax.

I’m comfortable with canceling HIV-deniers on Twitter.

Sure, I'm aware of your position.

21 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Hey question if I seriously say most Americans are idiots who deserve to be sterilized whilst I’m off the clock should my employer be bound to keep me around?

I mean, it sounds like you actually do think most Americans are idiots, and since you know better you should be able to determine for them what information they are allowed to be exposed to.

But to answer your question, no I don't think a business should fire people for their personal opinions expressed outside a business.

23 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

So, to be clear you do want the Cp advocate to keep their job at the day-care. So long as they keep their advocacy off the clock.

A little advice, by the way. I would choose another example to employ for your reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy. There are people here who are sensitive to topics such as sexual assault, and may not appreciate its capricious use as a debate tactic. I encourage you to focus on the neo-Nazi bakers and white supremacist professors, which are less sensitive topics.

I know you don't mean harm, but it's worth keeping in mind.

35 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Question do you think more or less Germans would deny the Holocaust happened  today if publicly arguing it wasn’t a crime or at the very least social suicide in Germany?

I don't know.

37 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah debate can be entertaining but people don’t actually need facts or logic to win over a significant portion or even a majority of a crowd.

They just have to be a better showman and/or appeal to the already present biases amongst the crowd.

Which is why I am 100% certain if the Allied powers took your preferred approach in dealing with Nazism after WW2 the Nazis would have rose back to power and attempted another Genocide within a couple years. 
Canceling them was the right thing to do.

Possibly. You could say that about Darfur, too. Instead of debating, should intercession have occurred earlier? On the other hand, so many previous wars would have been far less tragic if instead of evolving into a war they remained a debate.

But I don't know why you think I'm opposed to stopping genocide. One can be against the act of genocide and still support unrestricted free speech.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 minutes ago, IFR said:

I mean, it sounds like you actually do think most Americans are idiots, and since you know better you should be able to determine for them what information they are allowed to be exposed to.

How many millions of Americans are devoted believers in the big lie that Trump didn’t lose the 2020 Presidential election?  How many buy into the steaming pile of horseshit called “QAnon”?