Atwood/Rowling - Public Debate is weakening

[The Green Barbarian]

The difference is that those individuals gave their personal opinions, which were construed as hateful...

They were "construed as hateful" by idiots, who never should have been listened to in the first place, but because they can scream louder than everyone else, Roseanne and Don Cherry lost their jobs. Their "personal opinions" weren't "hateful", and the fact that the CBC and ABC were bullied into firing these people truly is a long-lasting stain of giant shame. And that's the culture that Leftists like Atwood and Rowling created. It's actually kind of funny watching them try and put the monster back in the bottle. Too late. Too many people have taken this whole "I decide what is hate and what can be said in the public domain" thing way way way too far.

[whatwhat]

Imagine saying a company (Nike) who earned $10 billion dollars in 2019 has been cancelled.
Imagine saying a company (starbucks) that earned $26.5 Billon dollars in 2109 has been cancelled.


Perhaps you think Criticism now means Cancelled, it does not. ask just Rosanne & Don Cherry. They lost their jobs, Nike and Starbucks will be fine.

Cancel Culture is Cancel Culture, the idea behind it is still the same regardless of how much money is involved. And yes, people were literally burning their Nike apparel because they didn't like what Nike was doing. I would say that's a bit more then criticism.

As Omnitheo stated, JK Rowling and Don Cherry will be fine, regardless that they lost their jobs. They are multi-millionaires. They are fine.

Self awareness is hard skill to learn, and accept. And sometimes it is hard to accept that maybe our "team" is also capable of doing things that we criticize the other "team" for doing. But continuing to make excuses for why your side is allowed to do it, name calling the other side etc will just continue to create a deeper divide. Honestly, this entire thread is just going to turn into a p*ss*ng match about the "right" verses the "left" instead of actually discussing the idea around Cancel Culture. What a waste of what could have been a good discussion.

[rustled]

These "rich people" will be "fine".

Interesting justification.

"Construed as hateful" - by whom? Who gets to define "hate speech" these days? The purveyors and those who profit from victim culture?

Is "hate speech" saying anything that has the potential to offend someone? Or, saying anything that might offend a critical mass of people? What's the magic number? How does one measure the level of offence potentially experienced by those who may choose to be offended?

Is it reasonable to try to stamp out anything that might give offence? Would it not be preferable to equip people with adequate critical thinking skills to ensure they're not taking everything personally?

There's good reason we have courts to determine guilt and assign penalty - lynch mobs are too often too hasty in their rush to judgment.

It's interesting to see people who are accustomed to having their negative words about "others" adored by the masses suddenly realize the consequences when they become the "othered" - kicked off the "team" they helped create, by people who have assigned them to the "team" of the "enemy".

[JagXKR]

k?

I've provided video essays on the topic going into it in depth from multiple viewpoints.

What have you got?

Life experience and my own eyes and ears.
Book smart is not smart. It's pedantic and elitist. Usually out of touch with reality.
To be ignored as unhelpful.
And multiple viewpoints? Are you kidding!
Ridiculous to use that term when they are from the same left wing myopic ideology.

[davegourd]

Don Cherry could have issued a simple apology and kept his job. He wasn't "canceled" in the slightest

Rowling has a new high-profile video game releasing about her books in the near future, a Universal Studios ride based on her books, and her work is still wildly successful. If she's being "canceled" then I'd also like to be canceled

[Omnitheo]

k?

I've provided video essays on the topic going into it in depth from multiple viewpoints.

What have you got?

Life experience and my own eyes and ears.
Book smart is not smart. It's pedantic and elitist. Usually out of touch with reality.
To be ignored as unhelpful.
And multiple viewpoints? Are you kidding!
Ridiculous to use that term when they are from the same left wing myopic ideology.

Ah, intelligence is elitist. Because personal experience (which is subject to psychological biases) somehow trumps that. Hmmmmmmmmm

And yes, I did post multiple viewpoints. One by author and literary critic Lindsey Ellis, with how to grapple with discovering that an artist who's work you admire is openly hateful (including to yourself potentially) and how to come to terms with that, or whether it's possible to separate that from their work of art. One by actor/writer Cody Johnston detailing hypocrisy in rich comedians who are in no way cancelled as they still have their audience but complain about being cancelled. And one from philosophy youtuber Natalie Wynn detailing her experiences with being cancelled by people on the left who are part of her audience simply because she associated with "the wrong" trans person.

Perhaps your life experiences have not prepared you for the idea that there exists a wide political spectrum with conflicting ideas and viewpoints containing people who have differing viewpoints even amongst their peers, and that the universe isn't simply "left vs right" "white vs black"

[rustled]

Don Cherry could have issued a simple apology and kept his job. He wasn't "canceled" in the slightest

Rowling has a new high-profile video game releasing about her books in the near future, a Universal Studios ride based on her books, and her work is still wildly successful. If she's being "canceled" then I'd also like to be canceled

"Say what we want you to say or lose your job" is quite the slippery slope.

If the rights of rich people in the public eye are tossed under the bus to appease the mob, what likelihood is there that the rights of middle class or poor folk might be protected when the mob turns on them?

[Omnitheo]

Coming in strong with the strawmen and false equivalence I see.

Natalie Wynn isn't rich. Nor are many artists or individuals who find themselves coming under fire for real or perceived injustices leading to them being "cancelled".

The difference is when people with considerable wealth and power use that as a platform to dispense hate, and then cry out "I've been cancelled" whilst selling out comedy tours and signing new book deals on the false premise that somehow their lives have been ruined just because they spoke their mind...by hating trans people.

[rustled]

The difference is when people with considerable wealth and power use that as a platform to dispense hate, and then cry out "I've been cancelled" whilst selling out comedy tours and signing new book deals on the false premise that somehow their lives have been ruined just because they spoke their mind...by hating trans people.

Who gets to decide what constitutes "hate" - "hate speech" - using a platform to "dispense hate"?

Who designated these folk to be judge and jury?

[Omnitheo]

Hate speech is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation"

Took 2 seconds on a google search. But anyone not trying to make bad faith arguments already knows that without having to google.

[Sparki55]

I literally said
Of course you also have extremists on both ends, like leftists attacking a trans woman for associating with "the wrong" trans people. Or Right wingers attacking children and their parents for simply being a survivor of a school shooting.

You also literally said:

"the left" attacks and "cancels" people or companies for bigotry, hate speech, sexual predation, wife abuse etc. Whereas "the right" "attacks" and cancels people and companies for trying to bring attention to inequalities, or standing up for equality, respect, justice etc.

Take both those statements and what the conclusion of your own thoughts are is as follows: both sides have extremists and that is bad but in general the left attacks are good and the right attacks are bad.

How is that a great example? You think destroying statues of slave owners and traitors to the nation is destroying history? How does one exactly "change the meaning" of a flag? The flag represents a secession movement from the US that existed solely to maintain the right of humans to enslave other human beings for profit. The "nation" that flag represents lasted as long as High School. You can't just gaslight and re-write history and claim that this flag is something different. Just like nazi flags, it belongs in a museum. A reminder of a dark time in US history that the country overcame and moved beyond. Adding a stripe to that flag is no different from taking a nazi flag and putting a blue background on it instead of a red one. It would simply let nazis pretend that they aren't flying a nazi flag, while they fly a nazi flag knowing full well what it means to them and others.

No, I didn't say anything about destroying history, talk about putting words in people's mouths...

The Nazi flag was removed from display right after they lost the war. If it was so important that this flag no longer existed, why did it take 155 years to decide it is no longer acceptable? Why not force the removal of your enemy's flag immediately? Instead, this flag became a symbol of southern pride, far removed from the hate you think it brings.

Your argument tactics are transparent.

My point still stands:

People screamed bloody murder and forced the flag out of existence, giving fuel to the people who own these flags to respond erratically and emotionally, creating a further divide. Try a new tactic, one focused on bringing groups together.

[rustled]

Who gets to decide what constitutes "hate" - "hate speech" - using a platform to "dispense hate"?

Who designated these folk to be judge and jury?

Hate speech is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation"

Proving what - the Cambridge Dictionary will assess whether or not what Cherry said is "hate speech"? That anyone who can read a dictionary gets to be judge and jury?

[Sparki55]

Hate speech is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation"

And exactly what part of Don Cherry's remark expressed hate or violence towards a person or group?

You won't answer this, you'll deflect with a bunch of definitions and explain to me how insensitive and unintelligent I am. I've taken care of that myself so enlighten me. What part of his remark was expressed hate or violence towards a person or group?

[Omnitheo]

Hate speech is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation"

And exactly what part of Don Cherry's remark expressed hate or violence towards a person or group?

You won't answer this, you'll deflect with a bunch of definitions and explain to me how insensitive and unintelligent I am. I've taken care of that myself so enlighten me. What part of his remark was expressed hate or violence towards a person or group?

Why are you asking me? You have google. You have the multiple other threads on the subject to re-read.

“You people ... that come here, whatever it is, you love our way of life, you love our milk and honey,” Cherry said. “At least you could pay a couple of bucks for poppies or something like that.

Not interested in rhetorical questions and bad faith arguments. This discussion has been had to death in other threads and I'm sure you're already familiar with those conversations and why it was perceived as it was.

I even remarked on how I felt about it, and don't believe it's nearly as "hateful" as something like JK Rowling calling gender therapy "the new conversion therapy" or saying that trans women are just gay but there's a conspiracy to change them into women. Or other off the deep end nonesense

[Queen K]

Cancelled! "the reason we have so many damned blacks is that" were the very words by which he has been dropped and had to resign from honourary posts. Could he have been debated and maintained his book contract? Or is it only right to simply cancel him out?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/03/uk/david ... index.html