cancel culture basically is a form of online reputation tarnishing and career ruining practice that is often used to fabricate controversy when there is no reason for there to be controversy. For example, misinterpreting a simple quote from a public figure to mean something “offensive” just to ruin that public figure’s reputation.
Yes
No
Kind of
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Updates
+1 y
I knew there were going to be comments saying “conservatives do it too”. And yes you’re correct but it is far less common amongst conservatives than it is amongst the social justice crowd. There are even some left wing public figures who express disapproval of cancel culture in general.
Updates
+1 y
Tuo Quoque and whataboutism
Do you think “cancel culture” is a form of thought police?
believe it or not I was a far left-wing person most of my life. I'm sure that with the smugness of today's kids involved in that saying that they would try to laugh that off because nothing is far left enough. but we were about actual tolerance, Free Speech, against any kind of racism I'm just held true to the values that a liberal always has been about. Now that they have the majority of power when the left they have no need for free speech anymore or all of the values that we stood. if they if you don't agree with them they want to shut you down and they behave exactly like wouldn't you know it A NAZI! the thing they claim to be against. they don't even realize that because they do not know enough about history to know what an actual Nazi behave like. before you dismiss me I want to point out that I am very well-versed in the Germany I would go as far as to say I'm an expert. And saving remarks about that study Nazism because I like Nazis. that's just retarded and I'm sure you wouldn't say that about one of your beloved College professors oh, but then again the only standard of the leftist is the double standard. sorry to be so nasty but you support you and ideology that was bought with the precious blood that I hold dear to me and I'll take this very seriously. I'm ready to go to war with the left left, men paid with precious blood this nation and its culture. We are the greatest nation that has ever existed upon this planet. We have plentiful Harvest and shelter if you know about history would understand what I'm saying. It has not always been this way and what a shame for a bunch of twits to totally Overlook that and not appreciate it. Whenever someone tells me to chill out or take it easy I point out that I hold this dear to me and I take this very seriously. I'm ready to go to war with the left literally. And I trust my judgment for once in my life. I used to not trust my judgment because I always doubt 2 months ahead of everybody else, right. And I know that something bad is coming to this country if these Progressive slugs achieve complete power. If you are a progressive and you are not aware of the things that I'm talking about or if you disagree with me I'm not saying that you are personally a bad person, you may not understand or fully be aware of the total picture. Am I? Absolutely and I'm hundred percent sure of it and I never say that never have said that about many things in my life but this this I'm sure of
I was a victim of cancel culture and had to give up a almost 10 year career because some triggered feminist piece of trash went on a witchhunt and wanted me fired because I pointed out their sexism.
I don't think that "cancel culture" is a form of "thought policing," but rather a form of holding people accountable for their actions. Many times, victims of what people call "cancel culture" have been disrespectful towards certain people and/or, in many cases, violated the policies of their employer or codes of conduct. If a person is a public figure and does choose to be publicly disrespectful towards others, such people have the right to stop supporting him or her. If this person publicly violates company or government policy on social media, which could potentially result in bad press, the company or government the person works for has every right to terminate the person from employment. In addition, I've noticed that "cancel culture" seems to have some racial or otherwise cultural or political bias. For instance, people only seemed to have named it "cancel culture" when others began holding White people accountable for their actions, such as getting them fired after making public racist comments on social media or refusing to support celebrities after making publicly making disrespectful comments towards other groups of people.
However, when the NFL player Colin Kapernick, for example, took a knee during the national anthem, the NFL "canceled" him by not offering him a contract, as well general public for not supporting him despite him being within his constitutional right to kneel. Such is extremely ironic for a country that prides itself in free speech. "Cancel culture" is a phenomenon that people seem to support or oppose, as long as the person in question expresses a viewpoint that matches their own. As soon as the person in question gets held accountable and disciplined for something that their supporters agree with, suddenly "cancel culture" becomes a problem. Thus, my issue isn't with "cancel culture" itself, but rather the bias surrounding it. That means if you're, generally speaking, a person that doesn't support cancel culture and truly believe that it is a form of "thought policing," then you ought to support any action that people have a right to engage in as well, which includes taking knees, peaceful (Black Lives Matter) protests, not supporting religion, or supporting any political or cultural viewpoint that doesn't match your own without them facing consequence or unfair treatment.
@adfsdf1996: That still doesn't change the fact that this anti "cancel culture" view is biased. For example, when a person gets fired for wearing a Black Lives Matter shirt or mask on the job, or when women boycotted and "cancelled" the Black owned "The Honey Pot" feminine care brand due to the owner saying that she wanted to help uplift Black girls, the anti "cancel culture" was completely silent. The point that I'm making is that, seemingly, it is 100% fine for conservatives to "cancel" things, but it's suddenly considered "thought policing" when someone cancels a conservative. If you're going to be against "cancel culture," you also need to be against it when those with opposing views get cancelled as well. That means, for example, if a person or company says "Black Lives Matter," and people take issue with that and want to cancel him, her, or the company, that should also be considered "thought policing" as well. Do you agree with that or not?
Cancel culture is just used as an excuse to harass people and send them death threats and justify such dehumanizing acts by claiming they are a bad person.
@adfsdf1996: No, it's just that it's mainly called "cancel culture" when it happens to conservatives. When a conservative actually "cancels" something or someone, the anti "cancel culture" crowd is extremely quiet. There are many cases of people being "canceled" for saying things or supporting views that conservatives disagree with and it's common. Also, I'm not "cherry picking." I'm simply giving examples of instances that prove my point. I'm simply saying that if it happens, it should be called out regardless, not ignored simply because you disagree with it. @hunter7754: Not if they actually are bad people or do something that they should be held accountable for.
Criticism is not the same as cancel culture. Giving a a one star review isn’t “cancel culture”. Cancel culture involves going to great lengths in an effort to damage the reputation and or ruin a person’s career.
"Cancel culture, also known as callout culture, is the removal (“canceling”) of support for individuals and their work due to an opinion or action on their part deemed objectionable to the parties “calling” them out."
If you leave a negative review saying that you refuse to support a person or service because you misinterpreted a statement the person made as "racist," that is indeed an example of "cancel culture." That's not just criticism. I'm guessing it's only called "cancel culture" when conservatives are the victims of it. When conservatives do it, it's 100% acceptable.
"Not if they actually are bad people or do something that they should be held accountable for. "
So that justifies doxing, and sending death threats to them, their friends, and or anyone associated with them? Because they said something you didn't like? Also who are you to claim someone else is bad?
Cancel culture is basically some idiot with too much time on their hands going "I'm bored with my own life so I'm gonna start drama". So they find some person to harass, they stalk their twitter feed, and find a politically incorrect joke they made 10+ years ago, then they proceed to send the person death threats, post their address online, send a mob of twitter crybullies onto them and try to get them fired.
THAT is cancel culture in action.
Ironic how many of the same people complaining about how cyberbullying and harassment are so bad are perfectly fine with dishing it out in the name of 'social justice'.
I guess though if someone hurts my feelings, I'm justified then in posting their address online, sending them death threats and harassing them and their family right? After all, I think they're a bad person and need to be held accountable.
@Hunter7754: What people call "cancel culture" doesn't have anything to do with doxing and making threats. People do that regardless despite "cancel culture." However, those are not acceptable behaviors, as leaking someone's personal information and communicating threats are illegal. "Cancel culture" simply refers to "the removal of support for individuals and their work due to an opinion or action on their part deemed objectionable to the parties “calling” them out." People have every right to stop supporting a person based on what they say or do. However, whether or not it's justified is a different story and removal of support doesn't automatically mean to dox a person or make threats. People can also be considered "bad" people as well. For example, if a person is considered a rapist, they're considered a bad person. People have every right not to support the work of a rapist. When all those women made those accusations against Bill Cosby for example, many people instantly considered him a bad person and "canceled" him quickly, even without actual evidence.
@adfsdf1996: Not the reviews I "made up..." I didn't make up any reviews. You can actually read all the reviews yourself you know. Plenty of people said that they weren't going to support the owner anymore for saying that she wanted to uplift Black girls. Of course, to some people, that's "racist" because uplifting Black girls must mean downplaying every other girl. As a result, the company doesn't deserve support. I disagree with that. However, the actual reviews or arguments for not supporting The Honey Pot is not my point. My point is the anti "cancel culture" crowd was very silent when this news did break. It makes me think that the anti "cancel culture" crowd is simply biased and hypocritical because they only seem to speak out when conservative views get cancelled, while, at the same time, cancelling businesses and people that support more liberal views. I say if you're truly against "cancel culture," you should be against all forms of cancelling, not just the ones that could potentially cancel what you believe in.
Again, you are cherry picking and ignoring the fact that cancel culture is far more prevalent among liberals than it is among conservatives. And you seem to think the cancel culture exhibited by the liberals is always correct when it’s usually not. It’s usually a petty form of censorship.
Because what you seem to supporting is censorship of anyone who doesn’t agree with you while at the same time wanting to be exempt from any form of criticism. Criticism is not cancel culture, that’s a simple fact.
There’s a big difference between the on paper cancel culture and the cancel culture that is in practice.
@adfsdf1996: My argument is pretty simple. My position on "cancel culture" is that people have the right to stop supporting a person, business, or whatever for any reason, especially if that person or business expresses views that could be harmful. For example, if a doctor or medical worker gets on social media using the N-word, he or she should be fired because his or her views are potentially harmful to Black people that might be in his or her care. However, I noticed that people that tend to disagree with this tend to be the anti "culture culture" crowd. What you describe as cancel culture is actually not just common with liberals. As I said, you have people that cancel things whenever they feel something is feminist, supportive of Black Lives Matter (such as many businesses during the protests), when people take a knee, when certain people get accused of rape without evidence, along with many other instances. Conservatives have done that and it is not mere "criticism." Conservatives have boycotted businesses, for example, that support Black Lives Matter. That is a form of "cancelling." You 100% support conservatives cancelling things, which they commonly do, and when someone calls them out on it, you just call it "criticism." That proves your bias. Again, if you truly believe "cancel culture" is bad, call it all out.
The idea of canceling something because it’s radical goes both ways. It seems you have a bias that makes you assume that your side is always correct and shouldn’t be criticized. But in reality most of the “conservative cancel culture” is directed at left wingers who promote radical views (Misandry, anti theism, misanthropy etc) not just for being liberal.
@adfsdf1996: I don't have a problem with criticism at all. People should be able to criticize or cancel whatever they want to for whatever reason, just like how Trump attempted to cancel Goodyear tires yesterday for banning MAGA hats. I believe that he has every right to do that. The problem that I have is that people are not likely to consider Trump's call for a boycott "cancel culture" because people only seem to oppose "cancel culture" when conservatives are the targets. I feel that if you truly believe that "cancel culture" is thought policing, but you support Trump's boycott for Goodyear tires, then it's hypocritical, plain and simple.
It’s ironic how you don’t seem to have any issue with conservatives frequently being unjustly targeted by cancel culture, yet you still have the audacity to call me “hypocritical”. Funny how you also don’t mention how conservatives frequently have to “self censor” themselves. www.google.com/.../
@adfsdf1996: I haven't made assumptions about your political views, but I know that your view is definitely anti cancel culture. What I've done was call out the bias regarding the anti cancel culture crowd, as they seemingly never call out conservatives that cancel things. It's only called "cancel culture" when people target conservatives. My argument is that I don't care if you oppose cancel culture or not, but if you do, just make it fair. The boycott is not based on "misinformation." A Goodyear in Kansas doesn't allow the phrases "Blue Lives Matter" or "MAGA." It doesn't matter if the entire organization doesn't support it. This offended Trump and regardless of what he thought, he still called for a boycott, which seems to be working because their profits have dropped 6% since. The issue isn't Goodyear; it's his reaction that I'm speaking on and its relevance to our discussion. As for my issue with cancel culture regarding conservatives, it depends on whether or not the conservative is truly "unjustly" a victim of cancel culture. If the reasons are unjust, then I disagree with the reasoning. However, I still support people's right to "cancel" what they wish because that's what the first amendment guarantees, but I don't always agree with the reasoning behind it. Do you support Trump's boycott of Goodyear, or are you going to call him out for "thought policing" Goodyear?
*sighs* If you would have read the article you would have understood that Goodyear had to clarify their position because of the confusion. Was Trump wrong, sure because he jumped to conclusions but again this is more cherry picking and not addressing the elephant in the room of how conservatives often have to self censor themselves and are more prone to cancel culture than the liberals.
ah, cancel culture. i understand it when the person did something especially horrible, but if it is taken out of context and twisted/misinterpreted, i have an issue. thing is that there are so many pathetic people in the world who hate their own lives and can't bear it when someone else has a little bit of success.
It is, if you're worried about what someone or some people will do to you for speaking your mind, then they are infact policing your thoughts and what you say.
The worst form of cancel culture is when the government cancels people for various reasons (Example: Whistle Blowing) If a person sees it's government doing evil, and they are afraid because they have seen the consequences of exposing that evil, that's the government having control over your thoughts and actions. Cancel culture it's really a new thing, it's been there forever. Noise makers screaming online, while dangerous, it's still a lame form of cancel culture because it's not really as dangerous as the former. A person is in much more danger when thier own government or authority figures cancel them... Could even lead to a "sudden accident" which lead to your sudden death.
That may be true but corporate America is jumping when they say jump. It's unbelievable that these powerful billionaire led corporations are being controlled by teens
Cancel culture is voting with your dollars buy on a big scale. Also you can cancel something youndont support most of the times. Also if you or your product is too good nobody cares longer than a week
People cancled funamation becuase of the sexual assault lies.
Gay People try to cancel chick fil la but the chicken Was too good
Republicans tried to cancel captain marvel and star wars but still went to watch it.
Black people tried to cancel kanye but dont realy care or kanye base is more suburb white kids
Interesting thought. Hadn't thought about it like that. It kinda looks like the thought police version 0.0.1 tho. They don't seem to use logic and are just hunting for all the small thinga that might cancel someone. I'm sure it originally came from a good place, but nowadays it just seems like a way for people to throw their anger at random people they know nothing about
It can be and I'm distressed about it. I don't think we should tolerate outright racism and hatred, but neither should we go out of our way to find long-ago quotes, or to take words out of context. Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" is full of the n-word, because he accurately reflected the speech of the time. It's one of the greatest anti-racist works in American literature.
I think it's only fair. I feel no remorse towards celebrities or influencers who get cancelled over racist past comments for example. They are "INFLUENCERS" they "INFLUENCE" that's literally their job to know how to treat the mass watching them. Plus they're mostly millionaires, and they will continue to be so, why am I -a simple woman who works over 40 hours a week for minimum wage- to worry about whether their brand would be affected by their OWN behavior or nor?
Public figures, particularly politicians have plenty of time to write speeches, ones that are often proof read by their team. There is no excuse for saying things that could be misinterpreted. However they do like to deliberately make things a little fuzzy just to be safe so they can wiggle out of any backlash.
“Little fuzzy” sounds more like an excuse to misinterpret what public figures or anyone says, just so you can tarnish their credibility. Especially if you don’t agree with their political views.
If these public figures are worried about that, since they have the time to carefully write their speeches, they don't have to make it 'a little fuzzy'. Congratulations on the deliberately misinterpreting what was said, publicly. you had the time to plan your response, you must have deliberately left it 'a little fuzzy' then huh?
I support voting with your dollar, if you don't like the way a company does business then it's your money spend it where you want. There's too much corporate leniency. Of course I also believe in fact checking and due diligence.
No, it's action police for things that aren't technically illegal but probably should be. Like sexual harassment, racism, hate speech, etc. Thoughts are fine. You can think about being an asshole all day. It's only a problem when you actually act like an asshole.
In 2003 "The Dixie Chicks were blacklisted by thousands of country radio stations, and the band members received death threats. The backlash damaged sales of the Dixie Chicks' music and concert tickets."
Well, that's a stupid article. First of all its "classic canceling episode" was 15 years after the example I just posted of the right wing doing something like this (where they ignored, by the way, the "But you know we’re behind the troops 100 percent." part).
Secondly, citizens bringing things to people's attention is really not the same as businesses quietly keeping "openly gay actors out of the movies and black musicians off the radio", if anything it's the opposite.
Finally it's REALLY not the same as the government locking people up for expressing opinions they don't like, which is what real totalitarianism is like.
You’re just like most of the people on your side of the political spectrum, you don’t seem grasp the fact that cancel culture is far more prevalent on your side of the political spectrum than it is amongst conservatives alone.
All you did was pick specific instances to say “Hurr durr right wingers do it too.” But the difference is that what you seem to think is “right wing cancel culture” is nothing more than cherry picking.
Cancel culture is about making people and companies aware of socially unacceptable behaviour by individuals. It's not my fault most of the culprits are right-wingers. Al Franken isn't, though.
And, no, I just showed that the right wing did what they're complaining about now, first.
There’s a big difference between what is “on paper” and what is actually in practice.
You say “Socially unacceptable” but what you really mean is people who simply don’t buy into Socjus nonsense and may even criticize socjus. Sounds like censorship.
Except it isn't censorship, because (a) it's not the government doing it and (b) people and companies can make up their own minds whether something is acceptable, or not.
Always looking for technicalities in order to infringe on a person’s rights. You do realize that the amendments protect common people from other common people as well right. It’s not just protection from the government.
Companies and organizations have the right to enforce rules in their domains, it doesn’t give them the right to act like the NKVD and try to enforce rules elsewhere.
They're not "enforc[ing] rules elsewhere", they're refusing to support places they don't want to. Like various Fox News programs. You can't force companies to buy advertising on Laura Ingraham's show, can you?
You want a current example? This is for a company which, like most others, doesn't allow political apparel during work hours. Not for saying, for example, that parents of dead children are "crisis actors", a massacre didn't really happen, or anything like that, just not allowing MAGA hats at work.
"Don’t buy GOODYEAR TIRES - They announced a BAN ON MAGA HATS. Get better tires for far less! (This is what the Radical Left Democrats do. Two can play the same game, and we have to start playing it now!)." twitter.com/.../1296092859226042368
Choosing not to support a company goes both ways. I know you far left wingers like to assume only you guys can boycott companies while expecting everyone else to support your companies. But that’s not how things work pal, at least not here in the US.
You have no right in trying to force people to support a company that holds far left wing views while you boycott companies who don’t hold far left wing views. That’s blatant hypocrisy.
Oh, come on, even you can see that "the presenter attacks school children who survived a massacre" is not the same as "they don't let people wear my hat", surely?
There's no "forcing", there's explaining. At least when it's done by the left. Are you really calling not allowing people to wear political slogans at work "far left wing views"?
@goaded “ Oh, come on, even you can see that "the presenter attacks school children who survived a massacre" is not the same as "they don't let people wear my hat", surely?”
Apples and oranges
“ There's no "forcing", there's explaining. At least when it's done by the left. Are you really calling not allowing people to wear political slogans at work "far left wing views"?”
BS, trying to get people fired just for expressing non socjus political views says otherwise wise.
"Apples and oranges" Exactly, one is reasonable and humane, the other is petulant and inconsequential.
"trying to get people fired just for expressing non socjus political views says otherwise wise." Even if those views are counter to the company's stated policies? Like I said, it's explaining: "Your employee has done this, do you approve?" The employer is free to say yes, and we are free to take away our custom, if they do.
It's not my fault if being hateful is bad for business!
“ Exactly, one is reasonable and humane, the other is petulant and inconsequential.”
Nonsense since you cherry picked a biased example.
“ Even if those views are counter to the company's stated policies? Like I said, it's explaining: "Your employee has done this, do you approve?" The employer is free to say yes, and we are free to take away our custom, if they do.”
Are you thick? I’m talking about the easily offended who try to get people fired from their jobs just because of their political views.
“ It's not my fault if being hateful is bad for business!”
You’re delusional, everything you don’t agree with is “hateful” all while ignoring all of the hate shown by your political ideology. Criticism isn’t hate and that’s a simple fact, it’s not my fault that you think you are exempt from any criticism.
Hardly cherry-picking. At least the Trump example of telling people not to buy at Goodyear because they don't let people wear MAGA (or any other political apparel) at work was the latest, highest profile example from the right. What's an equally petty example from the left that actually had any effect?
"I’m talking about the easily offended who try to get people fired from their jobs just because of their political views." Again, show me an example. I think the important word is "try". Does it ever work?
“ Hardly cherry-picking. At least the Trump example of telling people not to buy at Goodyear because they don't let people wear MAGA (or any other political apparel) at work was the latest, highest profile example from the right. What's an equally petty example from the left that actually had any effect?”
Thank you for the example. A company was informed that two of the charities they had been donating to, The Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, had histories of opposing same-sex marriage (I see the Salvation Army is trying hard to distance themselves from their earlier positions, and avoid political action; good for them!). I guess the case was made, otherwise Chick-Fil-A wouldn't have stopped donating.
Which MHO? The short one where we see one side of the story, or the stream of conciousness one?
I'm sure that someone who would say "triggered feminist piece of trash" and call people like them "mentally ill children" would be completely honest and trustworthy, and never break any company policies regarding sexism.
There’s plenty of far left wingers who assume that feminism should be exempt from any form of criticism all while they mud sling anyone who disagrees with them.
Do you consider them “trustworthy” only because they are on your side of the political spectrum?
No. For example, there was a nutcase who claimed that all PiV (look it up, or guess, you'll probably be right) sex is rape. But the victim complex works on both sides.
"I just called my co-worker a bitch, and I got fired!" Well, duh! (Unless you work at Fox News, of course.)
1.) Then you get the point that the political left has it’s many issues
2.) Point where he said that, which you won’t be able to because he never said that. All he said was that he was pointing out how sexism works both ways.
I wasn't quoting him that time, it was a hypothetical example.
Any large group is going to have some inconsistencies and individuals with strange views. The difference is that we listen to people's points of view and take account of them. We don't have the outliers run the country.
4 Americans dead in Benghazi? 11 different hearings, much wailing and gnashing of teeth!
1000 Americans dying every day of a disease that was "completely under control" and "... that’s a problem that’s going to go away”? Acceptable.
Companies should have the right to choose who they want to work with. People have been fired because of dumb things they do or say in public since ages ago, not sure why the SJWs are being triggered by ""cancel culture"" now :))
By definition yes. It is the removal of media or speech for the reason being that it goes against what they want you to think and frame it as if your removal is you being a bad person, you can’t even challenge the narrative.
Well... no, since it-- "cancel culture"-- doesn't exist.
This is also a grave misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the term "thought police," which would only be asked by someone who has never actually read "1984," from which the concept originates.
... Um. Did you not actually read the very description that you yourself just posted? Again, it's not what you're describing here, and again, "cancel culture" doesn't exist.
Well champo, I think you could probably help yourself out in a few ways here. 1) Read the thing that you yourself posted here, and reread your own post. They don't match. 2) I think you additionally may want to look up what an "Ad hominem logical fallacy" is, since you just committed one. Wikipedia can thankfully help you with that as well. And, 3) I don't have a "political ideology." There are facts, and there are non-facts. That is all.
Um... no, you're wrong because you're wrong, not because you disagree with me. Again, I would suggest the Wikipedia page for "ad hominem logical fallacy" again, but it appears that you're unable to read Wikipedia. I don't know how else to help you, except to write to you in soothing tones. (pats you on the head) There there. It'll all be okay someday buddy. It'll all eventually make sense. Good luck out there okay? Always look both ways before crossing the street, and eat your green vegetables.
@Walrus_au Calling opposing views on a topic “uncivilized” just because you disagree with them is thought policing because you think they aren’t entitled to their views. You can’t expect everyone to agree with your political ideology.
Ranting about how one race is inferior is a little more than a different political opinion or ideology.
Now being that you are listed as coming from america, chances are you are some form of christian. The book you subscribe too as the most important set of rules endorses slavery, and clearly states women are worth less than half men, it doesn't surprise me that you cannot understand how racist and sexist screeds are more than just differing political opinions.
But the flip-side of that, these people are putting their ideas out there into the great marketplace of ideas. Too force others to support or platform them is in direct opposition to the tenets of capitalism.
Do you see people trying to force you to platform 'liberal ideology'? why should others be forced to platform 'conservative ideology' (which is for some reason so often remarkably difficult to differentiate from hate speech)
Uncivilised simply because it is the antithesis of a healthy civiisation. the conservative ideology has clearly moved from the good of the many - to the good of whoever has the money or force of authority or arms.
1.) Strawman fallacy When did I ever say one race is inferior to others?
2.) And save the anti Christian nonsense, you do realize religion doctrine changes over time don’t you? Not to mention you like to take things out of context.
3.) Clearly you know nothing about American culture, It’s not the conservatives who are pushing their ideas into the market place to force conformity, that’s your side of the political spectrum spectrum that doing that.
4.) You think it’s “Uncivilized” because you like to apply hasty generalizations to an entire group.
"1.) Strawman fallacy When did I ever say one race is inferior to others?" Not a straw man at all. YOU did not say anything about races, you complained about people being 'cancelled' for doing just that. Careful you don't get allergies to all the straw you keep trying to bury your arguments in.
@Walrus_au You far left wingers sure like to make faulty assumptions and also exhibit hypocrisy. You hate on Christians, conservatives and anyone who’s on the right side of the political spectrum yet you always fail to acknowledge the flaws of your political ideology.
So tell me, what makes you think that your political ideology is somehow exempt from criticism? With that being said, it’s irritating how non American left wingers such as yourself likes to think they know America’s politics when most of the stuff you think you know is nothing more than far left wing propaganda.
And in case you are wondering I’m actually a mixed ethnic minority.
"2.) And save the anti Christian nonsense, you do realize religion doctrine changes over time don’t you? Not to mention you like to take things out of context."
Ahhh, the context argument. you clearly haven't read your book. Or you would be hoping I hadn't. So I'll bite. Just what context is required to make owning another person as a slave anything other than immoral? Just what context makes it ok to beat that person till they go down, just so long as they get up within the next couple of days?
"3.) Clearly you know nothing about American culture, It’s not the conservatives who are pushing their ideas into the market place to force conformity, that’s your side of the political spectrum spectrum that doing that."
Someone has been putting together their own straw man. No. I pointed out how this 'cancel' culture is the result of market forces. You just complain because your ideas are failing in the marketplace of ideas. the solution, get better ideas. Your solution, much like the ford car that kept blowing up, ignore the problem and cry persecution when it is pointed out.
“YOU did not say anything about races, you complained about people being 'cancelled' for doing just that. Careful you don't get allergies to all the straw you keep trying to bury your arguments in.”
You really are thick aren’t you. The strawman is you bringing up the argument about race in the first place.
“ Ahhh, the context argument. you clearly haven't read your book. Or you would be hoping I hadn't. So I'll bite. Just what context is required to make owning another person as a slave anything other than immoral? Just what context makes it ok to beat that person till they go down, just so long as they get up within the next couple of days”
"4.) You think it’s “Uncivilized” because you like to apply hasty generalizations to an entire group."
You aren't doing to good ta listening are you? No, it is uncivilised because it places greed over the lives, health and wellbeing of people. It is uncivilised because it is hate-speech. Good luck getting that straw man not to catch on fire, your arguments have been sucked dry by so many before you. Try coming up with your own.
"So much for your pseudo intellectualism. "' So much for you not conforming exactly to every stereotype of conservative bigot who is frightened to think their own arguments and the real situation through.
“ Someone has been putting together their own straw man. No. I pointed out how this 'cancel' culture is the result of market forces. You just complain because your ideas are failing in the marketplace of ideas. the solution, get better ideas. Your solution, much like the ford car that kept blowing up, ignore the problem and cry persecution when it is pointed out.”
Keep deluding yourself, Once again you prove you know nothing about American culture. And the fact you think it has solely to do with market forces affirms your ignorance. Market forces may have something to do with cancel culture but it’s not the only thing.
Tu Quo Quay You, Sir. Are not only a bold faced liar, but you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself.
Just because some knob-head hero of yours screams 'fake news' and attempts to re-write history within minutes of being quoted, doesn't mean that conforms to reality, and it doesn't make it anything other than dishonest.
I did notice, that you carefully avoided addressing my responses to your arguments. I'll try to assume that you are giving it thought. As yet I don't believe you are an interlocutor who is worthy of the benefit of the doubt, but I am open to being proven wrong.
Ahhh that dishonesty. That is all and exactly what it is about. It is only those who are reduced to ranting on the street corner that claim otherwise. When you let go of the false assumptions of persecution, you will have a better chance of seeing the reality underlying it.
It’s seems you’ve ignored my replies only to go on a pseudo intellectual smart ass rant. So I’ll repeat what I said earlier.
You far left wingers sure like to make faulty assumptions and also exhibit hypocrisy. You hate on Christians, conservatives and anyone who’s on the right side of the political spectrum yet you always fail to acknowledge the flaws of your political ideology
So tell me, what makes you think that your political ideology is somehow exempt from criticism? With that being said, it’s irritating how non American left wingers such as yourself likes to think they know America’s politics when most of the stuff you think you know is nothing more than far left wing propaganda.
And in case you are wondering I’m actually a mixed ethnic minority.
@Walrus_au People like you make me laugh. You act like you are some kind of genius but in reality you just spout off incoherent drivel to make yourself seem smarter than you s risky are. You even post essays of incoherent rants in separate replies which is nothing more than Gish galloping at it’s finest. But keep believing this fantasy of yours that you are some how well versed in American politics even though all you know is the stereotypes and propaganda that your political ideology likes to promote as facts.
You then have the audacity to make assumptions about Christians an s when I give you a link that refutes your BS you say “no that’s not fair”. Typical anti theist rhetoric. Whenever contradictions to your hate appear, you tuck your tail and run away.
"So tell me, what makes you think that your political ideology is somehow exempt from criticism? With that being said, it’s irritating how non American left wingers such as yourself likes to think they know America’s politics when most of the stuff you think you know is nothing more than far left wing propaganda. "
So, just a few issues here - "left winger" regardless of the 'level of extremity' is a term irrelevant to my political opinions. Is my political opinion, or do i think that of the left is immune to criticism? Not at all. But I do demand that criticism be based in reality and facts, which is probably why I ignore most of your criticism.
As for knowing about American politics, america has made it almost impossible for most outside countries to not know many of the key-points and have a dog in the fight.
But since the party you support is clearly a puppet of the russian oligarchy, knowledge of American politics is less relevant than knowledge of russian foreign policy.
As for your ethnicity? Why should I care? It is irrelevant to a political discussion, you have made it plain you support a group that is very heavily sexist, racist and bigoted. And when you fly with crows - or in this case klansmen, you can expect to be painted with the same pillowcase.
You send me circular argumentative drivvel, and then get all butt-hurt when I show you the respect you have earned, the same respect you show anyone who is not groveling to your fantasy story.
I have things in life that are far more important than you could, or would ever be. And your fallacious, 'fake news' based arguments are even less important. Dangerous, sure, that kind of lie can be very dangerous. But it deserves less respect than my toilet bowl.
So enjoy your butt-hurt. Reality will still turn up and smack you with facts you fail to acknowledge, regardless of how much you claim they don't exist.
That's the good thing about reality, it doesn't care how much you buy in. Unlike conservative ideology.
@Walrus_au More gish galloping drivel where you pretend to know about American politics. If you actually knew anything about American politics that isn’t propaganda from your biased media then maybe you wouldn’t be spewing out all this nonsense. You even said you have a dog in the fight all while criticizing the American political right by pointing out stereotypes and using mudslinging.
@Walrus_au All those links I posted are my older critiques of your political ideology in which I point out the hypocrisy you far left wingers tend to exhibit.
So don’t give me that “Hurr durr Christians are sexists” nonsense which you leftists like to delude yourselves into believing. https://www.openbible.info/topics/respecting_women Tell me, if Christians are sexists then why do many women practice Christianity?
You only care about criticism that is based on “facts”
In other words, you only care to listen to criticism that is either easy to refute or makes the political right look bad. Yeah that’s a very funny way of saying you don’t think the political should be criticized.
Ohhh wow, I didn't think there was anyone as blithely stupid as that. You want to talk about the bible and respect for women?
Right from the fucking beginning, women have been a secondary afterthought in the bible. Hey adam needs somewhere to stick his dick, lets rip out a rib and put a hole in it!
Let's move on a shade to genesis 3:16, where the god character makes it plain that women are subject to the commands of men
Then adams punishment for the SAME 'CRIME' is to have to work for a living
(let's just ignore that the very idea of the crime is blithley stupid in the first place, punishing people who don't know good from evil for doing something they had no idea could be evil, and all because you stuck the fucking tree right there in front of them in the first place.)
Genesis 4:19 and 23. Where it starts with Lamech collecting wives like pogs.
of course, the first daughters born according to the bible, were 800 years later, and were never named (that's some fine respect right there!) so hell if I know where lamech got the women, but hey, what does it matter, they are just women right? drill some holes in some ribs!
Genesis 7:2 the female is THE PROPERTY of the male. as in owned by, as in just like a comic book or pog or toy-car, do what you want to it, sell it, beat it, etc etc.
Skipping over more lovely women respecting stuff, let's look at Lot, who offered up his virgin daughters to a mob for raping. That's some respect right there huh? But what does it matter when they are just property, rip the heads off those barbie dolls.
I haven't even got out of genesis yet. Either you haven't read the book (quite likely from my experience) or you are just a straight up liar. That kind of 'respect' goes on all through the bible. Women are worth less than men, cannot inherit as much as their brother, if raped, a nominal fee is paid to the father and then she has to marry her rapist, you break it you bought it basically.
I call christianity uncivilised based on the story they cling too. the clearly fictitious story, that lauds a villain with a higher body count that almost any other fictional character, as a hero. Hell at least Darth Vader was a sympathetic villain, yahweh is anything but.
Damn straight I only care about criticism based on facts. If it is not based in reality, it is meaningless. So if all your criticism is based on the fantasy stories you've bought so far, you've come to a gunfight with paper-planes.
Now I know, you intended air-quotes to make the claim that these 'facts' were made up. But you and I both know, that presenting the kind of fantasy story you throw up there that is so far divorced from reality as to be clearly less believable than harry potter, gives you the grounding of, well, frankly, nothing at all to claim knowledge of facts and reality. And as I have said before, It doesn't matter how much you don't like it, denying reality doesn't make it go away, and it doesn't make you immune from it.
Are there women who vote and believe against their best interests? Absolutely. It is the entire premise of the current GOP. Sell people on a narrative that they can be one of the rich elite so as to get votes, then ensure that the workforce is suitably impoverished so as they cannot take action to improve their situation, they are so busy working 2 or 3 jobs just to keep the roof over their head that they haven't got time to protest, that further education is a luxury that there is no way they could afford.
Make a pull yourself up by your bootstraps narrative, while ensuring that you have not only the monopoly on bootstraps, but a way to carefully avoid giving them to 'unfavorables'
@Walrus_au *Yawn more gish galloping. It seems that I have struck a nerve considering that you bothered to reply with more nonsense after you said you are done replying.
First of all, you are misinterpreting the Bible. Something you anti theists like to do in order to suit your skewed narrative. Not to mention the cherry picking.
Read all the context before making stupid remarks.
As for the GOP, more stupid propaganda from you. If the GOP were truly as sexist as you claim it is then there wouldn’t be any women voting republican or even supporting anything that is remotely republican. Furthermore it was a republican who ended anti miscegenation laws in the US. Something you left wing Canadians most certainly know nothing about.
I don’t expect you left wing Canadians to understand anything about hypocrisy or double standards considering that it took a conservative politician in your country to issue an apology to the Japanese-Canadian community for the internment camps of WWII.
@adfsdf1996 You dishonest liar. There is NO context that makes a father offering his daughters to a mob for raping anything other than monsterously immoral. There is NO possible context that says a raped woman must marry her rapist is even remotely moral.
You need to go read the book, not the apologetics that lie about the book.
This continues - the 'context' argument is nothing more than trying to palm off facing the reality.
If this is the level of what you consider reasonable argument, fuck off and quit crapping on my chess board. You obviously not only don't know what reality is and how it relates to facts, but you clearly don't care.
When even a cursory glance at the very first book of the bible, just bringing out the highlights, shows clearly that the best possible position for women is as a prized possession, not as a person with their own rights, picking a couple of tenuous verses that you have to squint carefully at to claim to be pro-woman does nothing.
Why would anyone waste their time debating with someone who is so foundation-ally dishonest that they can't even see their own lies for themselves?
I mean really, Why? Why should I take you seriously?
The thing that is honestly the most amusing here is that I make some kind of effort to respond to much of what you have wrong, and instead of facing that, you notice there is a lot, disgard it as a 'gish gallop' and add more dishonest and incorrect claims that should be responded to.
Just another example of why no-one should take you seriously
@Walrus_au You sure like to gish gallop, make strawman arguments and use ad hominems don’t you? The fact you are oblivious to how you are trying to overwhelm me with essays of drivel divided in separate replies.
Aw what’s the matter, can’t stand the fact someone called you out on your drivel? One of the many differences between you and I is that I don’t need to key smash an entire essay to prove a point. I only need a couple short paragraphs to refute your rants.
@adfsdf1996 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Hebrew_Bible Let's keep this simple If you want to defend the book, step 1. READ the fucking book don't bother throwing up the spoutings of professional liars that make excuses for the worst shit possible.
you want to hear less corrections from me, make less false statements.
I know, you don't feel the least bit of shame for your lies here. Because even in your book there is a command to ignore the commandment about bearing false witness if it involves an unbeliever.
No? Haven't read that? Funny, one of the 3 of the 10 commandments that has any real value and you are fine violating it repeatedly, and you don't even go looking for justification.
Not that it matters, I bet you are wearing fabrics of mixed cloth, hypocrisy clearly means nothing to you, about as little as reality or truth.
Ahhhh - so rather than reading it for yourself, you'd rather read people paid to lie about it.
scared I might be right? Coward.
You and I BOTH know, that every one of those instances were the bible condones incest, rape, genocide, infanticide, etc etc seriously, I could go on for a hell of a long time here, there is NO possible context that makes any of them better.
Joyful is the hearts of those who dash the heads of the infants on the rocks.
If a man rapes an unmarried woman, he is to go to her father, pay him 50 sheckles of silver and marry her. He is not allowed to divorce her. (note how it doesn't talk about her divorcing him? That is because no-one considers the rights of the garden spade to divorce the gardner, or the oven to divorce the house owner.)
Keep lying to yourself, it will catch you sooner or later. One day you may just screw up the courage to read your own magic book, I mean you claim to be pinning your hopes of eternal life on it right? Shouldn'd you have at least read it? And when you do, we can have a discussion about it where I am not far more informed on the topic as you. It's just embarassing for you. And the worst bit is, you don't even know enough to be embarassed.
Wow I’ve never seen so many fallacies in one comment. I’ve gotta give you props for that feat.
Ad hominems, Gish galloping, strawman, generalizations, misinterpretations, false dichotomies, red herrings and non sequiturs all in one. But then again your whole argument from the start has been nothing but fallacy. Ironically the real liar here is you considering how you keep nitpicking and trying to make others believe lies you believe.
You can have your own opinions, but trying to claim your own facts is called delusoinal. Good for you, self diagnosing.
One day you may just have the courage to face reality. you may want to pray that day comes before the reality smacks you upside the head while you are ignoring it.
@Walrus_au Still projecting? Everything you say I’m doing, you are actually doing.
I literally gave several links that refute all your points and even explained what’s wrong with your narrative but yet you still have the audacity to say I’m lying. The fact you keep coming back to throw petty insults really shows how delusional you are.
you are still so afraid of having your ideas and ideologies tested in the marketplace of ideas? Got your panties in a bunch because they are failing the tests. So pathetic.
don't like that your shit gets ignored and cancelled , get better shit.
12.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Don't be so insular and small minded.
So called "cancel culture" is itself just a manufactured controversy. Mainly by old White men, and entitled Karens, who don't want to face up to their gaslighting.
Conservatives may not do it as often but I do think trying to silence the nations' leading infectious disease expert during the deadliest pandemic in a century is way worse than any kind of "thought police" the left engages in.
If you need an expert to explain common sense to you then that’s a sign of blatant stupidity.
But back to the original point. Of course it’s wrong Fauci is getting the “cancel culture” treatment but again that’s only one example and him being an expert doesn’t make it more significant than the more numerous examples of the far left canceling people just for not being PC.
Of course he isn't but that doesn't mean that the stakes aren't way higher here than any kind of "cancel culture" the left has engaged in (even if you lumped all those incidences together).
And the idea that people trying to de-platform people they don't agree with on social media sites has the potential to impact more lives than the leading epidemiologist receiving death threats (an illegal means of trying to silence someone) in the midst of the deadliest pandemic in a century is yours.
And right wingers frequently assault people for saying things that aren't "Patriotically Correct" but you're not complaining either. In fact right wingers assaulted anti-lock down counter protesters for arguing that the lock-down was necessary to fight the virus (you know, a view that is scientifically correct). Are you really this desperate to push the narrative of the "censorious left"?
No but we're not going to sit here and pretend that trying to get political commentators de-platformed is a bigger problem than the leading epidemiologist getting death threats in the midst of a pandemic.
As for which side is worse when it comes to politically motivated violence as a whole, we've known that for a long time: www.typeinvestigations.org/.../
Niether do most left wingers. Now back to the issue of cancel culture. What happened to Fauci isn't the only issue. Did you forget about how a bunch of Jewish journalists got (((echoed))) in 2016 for speaking out against Trump?
Which also came with threats and harassment. You are within your first amendment right to request that a social media company not give someone a platform and refuse to do business with them or anyone who runs adds on their site. You are not within your first amendment right to threaten someone for voicing an opinion that you don't like.
Actually I didn't claim that you said it was "OK" to threaten people, I said it was worse than boycotting platforms that give a voice that you don't agree with. Oh the irony, your straw-man accusation is a straw-man.
Oh and now I'm supposed to mention every incident of egregious behavior committed by the left or I'm a hypocrite? How many times have you complained about the rioting committed by BLM and failed to acknowledge BLM activists murdered?
Now you're pulling Red Herrings on top of straw-men.
People receiving death threats for what they say is very relevant to cancel culture, that someone didn't point out every egregious act committed by their side is a distraction (i. e. a red-herring). So now you're projecting as well.
That point was that the right employs more despicable means to enact cancer culture like using holocaust references to threaten Jewish reporters, not that everyone on the right is a Nazi so again you're misusing fallacies (i. e. senselessly rambling).
Actually there were many instances of reporters getting threatened for Anti-Trump views. But I could say that about your complaints about "cancel culture" in general.
What happens is you show that cancel culture is at least as common among conservatives as it is among "the social justice crowd" but going back to my original post, the stakes involved in conservative cancel culture are way higher.
No but I'll tell you that knit picking doesn't make your case. Now you could say that about the threats that Fauci faced are knit picking to but given his position and the current situation, that's like saying I'm knit picking one example of which terrorist organization commits the worst attacks when said attack was done with a nuclear weapon.
Now let me guess: you're going to cry "false equivalence" -_- But it's not, the point that scale matters is valid in either case.
Oh please, saying that because I didn't mention X attack by the left is just a pathetic attempt to contrive hypocrisy. It's just a shallow tu quo que because you're so desperate to push the narrative of the censorious left controlled by the SocJus/Social liberal/Cultural Marxist boogeyman.
But here's another example of my knit picking: I think the greatest perpetrators of terrorism in the US in 2001 were Islamic extremists because I'm knit picking the World Trade Center attacks.
Except that it’s a self evident fact that the mainstream media has an anti right wing bias, considering that right wingers are always depicted in negative stereotypical manners.
Here’s a rhetorical question. Who has more power, those that have the most influence in the mainstream media or those few far right extremist whackos?
No set of statistics are going to incorporate all factors (that's a throw-away argument on your part) and polarization isn't synonymous with extremism but there is a correlation (which is why we see more politically motivated killings committed by the right).
If the average position of the members of a political party move further to the right, there will be more people falling into the right wing extremist category; that's pretty basic math.
Again, no it';s just wherever the line was drawn for what would be considered "right wing extremist", if the average position of a party moves further to the right, the more people within that party will cross that threshold.
Usually, not always and environmental negligence is an extreme position to take because the consequences are severe (look what removing the regulation prohibiting the selling of endangered species in wet markets did).
Both global warming and the origin of the virus in wet-market from a hybridized bat/pangolin pathogen are widely accepted by climatologists and epidemiologists.
Wow, I didn’t think you’d stoop so low but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. The elephant in the room that isn’t brought up is how the Japanese-American internment happened under a social democrat‘: administration who your side of the political spectrum considers to be some sort of “hero”. And really, you are using something Takei said as an argument? Seriously?
Immigration centers have actually been around since the 1970s so to assume they are an invention of Trump is pretty ignorant. Does that make them right, absolutely not considering there are many human rights issues with those centers. But the real criticism should be directed at Trump’s poor handling of this already existing protocol.
Most people are aware that FDR was a Social Democrat and he ordered the internment of the Japanese. But there isn't just one elephant in the room; there is a whole herd and while you might nit pick one of them (that FDR was a Social Democrat) you're ignoring the matriarch (there was a war going on). Does that justify his actions? No but it does make ascribing his decision to his position on the political spectrum and unsupportable conclusion. You want to give the Republicans credit for passing the restitution bill (even though most voted against it), listen to what Reagan said at 1:20
But none the less it was an extreme response and no, he didn't invent them but he did expand them all the while the number of undocumented migrants in the country went down under the same rate as Obama so it's not like we suddenly faced an immigration crisis that provoked Trumps' policy.
You literally cherry picked a part of the video. Not once did he try to justify the Japanese-American internment in the video or ever. You like to claim that most republican politicians did not approve of the bill but you fail to acknowledge that the Japanese internment was primarily restricted to the West Coast ( considering that only 13% of the US population blatantly advocated genocide of the Japanese and most anti Japanese incidents happened on the West Coast.
Adding in new protocols on a already existing faulty system isn’t extremist it’s negligence. If Trump were to advocate the deportation of every ethnic minority in the country then that would be extremist.
I'm not "knit picking" your straw-manning. He said it was the wrong thing to do but it wasn't for us to judge those who made the decision in the time of peril, not that it was justified. No kidding it was all on the West coast; that's where an attack by the Imperial Japanese military was most likely to happen (there's another elephant in the room that you're ignoring in your vain attempts to make the left look as bad/worse than the right when it comes to discrimination). And deporting minorities is where you draw the line for what would be considered "extremist"? Really?
1.) He’s discouraging hindsight bias and it’s still knit picking on your part or rather you subtly trying to justify the internment camps.
2.) Yet you ignore the fact it was a deliberate rounding up of loyal citizens based on their race. Not to mention the one drop rule was considered as well. Yeah you’re definitely trying to justify the internment.
3.) Deporting minorities despite being citizens falls into the category of extremism. Much like how rounding up loyal citizens is extremist.
If I was trying to "justify" the internment I wouldn't have compared it to a policy that I oppose in the first place. Saying that FDRs' decision was based on the fact that the US was at war versus his political views isn't "subtly justifying it". And no shit deporting a minority would be extremist, but the point is that there are plenty of other actions that could be considered extremist.
You saying I'm trying to justify it is just projection on your part. I could just as easily say you ascribing the issues in the detention centers to negligence is you trying to justify it. The difference of course that one injustice is still ongoing (not saying the past doesn't matter, just that what's happening now is more relevant).
You went from talking about Fauci to mudslinging the right wing.
And criticism of certain media sources isn’t whining, it doesn’t matter how “prestigious” a media source is, that doesn’t make it exempt from criticism.
I was mudslinging the right for trying to shut down more important public education sources using more despicable means (which is relevant to cancel culture). And criticizing the media is one thing but pushing executive orders to control them is another issue entirely. And yet "classical liberals" and the "new center" keep saying the left is way worse when it comes to Orwellian measures.
“ I was mudslinging the right for trying to shut down more important public education sources using more despicable means (which is relevant to cancel culture).”
You’ve got to listen to both sides before making such bold statements that hold little substance due to exaggeration. conservativeleaders4ed.org/.../
“ And criticizing the media is one thing but pushing executive orders to control them is another issue entirely.
You are still acting as if Trump speaks for the entire right wing as a whole. Last I checked, his executive order to combat online censorship is not actually enforceable; it only looks good on paper. If he wants to make it enforceable he would have to revise the first amendment and make the first amendment stronger, which isn’t happening.
“ And yet "classical liberals" and the "new center" keep saying the left is way worse when it comes to Orwellian measures”
At least the moderates aren’t trying to de platform those they disagree with. Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy exhibited by many left wing groups.
1. What do conservative views on K-12 education have to do with this? 2. Even though he was stopped, he still tried to run afoul of the first amendment (ironically while claiming to be fighting censorship). 3. Yeah, the left are the hypocritical ones when the "classical liberals" and "new center" claim to be impartial but overwhelmingly bash the left even though it's demonstrable that the Republicans have been drifting further to the right all the while claiming "impartiality" because they have their head stuck down the anti SJW rabbit hole. What a load.
1) Where did I bring it up? 2) "Online censorship" would be an corporate internet giant hacking and/or disabling someone's own website. What the orders were against was de-platforming. 3) More things they do are brought to light by social media but we know that of the two parties, the Republicans are becoming more extreme. Are you really still hiding behind the facade of impartiality?
1.) “ I was mudslinging the right for trying to shut down more important public education sources using more despicable means (which is relevant to cancel culture).”
2.) Don’t you think de platforming is a form of censorship?
3.) Again, you seem to think that being more critical is a form of “extremism”. It’s not that I’m impartial it’s that I’m neither democrat or republican. Being impartial to politics is a synonym for being apolitical which most people aren’t considering that most people have opinions on political matters.
1) I meant public *information sources 2) If I don't let someone put a Trump bumper sticker on my vehicle, am I censoring them? 3) You repeatedly stated "you don't have a dog in this fight" but if I recall, you're part of an extremist right-wing ideology:
1.) Again, you are nitpicking Trump while ignoring the fact that he isn’t the only right winger out there.
2.) That’s your personal property, so no that’s not censorship. While social media is used by the public. For someone who likes to advocate change in a system, you don’t seem too eager when the change comes from someone with opposing views.
2.) Between Democrat and republican. I do have my own political views but I don’t consider myself either democrat or republican. And are you seriously citing propaganda from a anarchist as a credible source?
1) Given that he was voted to represent them, it's hardly knit picking.
2) If I make my own website, it doesn't give people the right to use it to spread your message and to decide who I do and don't give a platform to is my freedom of speech so I don't like changes that run afoul of the freedom of speech by anyone (no matter their political affiliation).
1) Neither does all the cancel culture SJWs but many still hold the same views on the topic.
2) I wouldn't but don't pretend that being denied a platform is censorship.
3) It's tearing down the facade of "freedom" the "libertarian" party has concocted; you're taking power away from the public sphere (government) and giving it to private unaccountable organizations.
1.) The fact SJWs share the same views on a topic makes them a group think
2.) It is a unwritten form of censorship.
3.) sounds like more communist propaganda. Considering that’s not what libertarians want, what libertarians actually want is to minimize the authoritarian power of the government not redistribute the power to individual organizations. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism
1) Just like many conservatives have the same mind-set.
2) It's unwritten and a not a form of censorship at all.
3) "Libertarian" capitalists (more accurately described as propretarianists) want the government to act as a means to enforce what power corporations have under the guise of "freedom of contract": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsfV9GewvF8
1.) Agreeing on certain topics and being sycophantic are two different things.
2.) Just cause it’s not written doesn’t mean it’s not censorship. De-platforming based on censorship is the equivalent of breaking a norm, even though it’s not illegal it will still attract outrage.
3.) Are you seriously using some leftist “comedian’s” debate a with one libertarian politician as affirmation of your own biases?
3) That the "freedom of contract" is an oxymoron is a fact no matter who claims it (again, you're attacking the bias to deflect the argument off the issue). And the only reason you think that proprietarianism ('libertarian' capitalism') advocates individual liberty is your bias makes you see the issue from the perspective of "negative rights" when positive rights are needed to protect individual liberty as well. Without them, the vast majority of the population lives at the mercy of corporations.
Well, at least we know why you talk about "proto-totalitarian ideologies" so much: you don't want them cutting in on your action. They want to dominate people's lives? Bullshit that's what you see as your fucking job.
2.) But he didn’t and he doesn’t speak for everyone that is on the right side of the political spectrum. Social media sites can de platform anyone they like but if the people start to boycott those social media websites then those social media websites can’t complain since they provoked the boycott.
3.) And the left’s “equality” is an oxymoron. What you are describing is anarchism, which the libertarians are not. What libertarians tend to support is a night-watchman state, not anarchy.
“ Well, at least we know why you talk about "proto-totalitarian ideologies" so much: you don't want them cutting in on your action. They want to dominate people's lives? Bullshit that's what you see as your fucking job.”
2) He speaks for more people on the right than do SJWs do for the left.
3) Acting as a night watchman is only enforcing negative rights, not positive ones so I'm not conflating it with anarchy and what I'm saying that you talking constantly about "proto totalitarian groupthink" when you subscribe to a totalitarian idea is just projection.
1.) Are you seriously trying to defend SJWs which are a group of extremists? That’s like trying to defend neo Nazism.
2.) No he doesn’t, he only speaks for some.
3.) A limited government isn’t referring to only negative rights.
4.) More mudslinging but then again to you anyone on the right somehow advocates “totalitarianism”. Last I checked the right aren’t the ones trying to rescind the second amendment, ban religion, control the entertainment/arts or enforce newspeak.
1) SJWs are no where near as extreme as Nazis; a better comparison would be with the Republican party because at the RNC they used the same kind of BS SJWs did.
2) He speaks for the majority of them which is why they elected him. And he still speaks for more people on the right than SJWs do for people on the left.
3) No kidding, the Libertarian limited government would enforce negative rights but take away positive rights (social security, funding for education, healthcare, minimum wages, workers protection etc...).
4) There are elements of the right who want to restrict the first amendment (including the one in office) and the one before him tried to force religion into the public sphere and has used the war on drugs as an excuse to get private prisons big bucks. But saying that certain elements of the right are totalitarian (like fascists and 'libertarians') isn't saying that everyone on the right is totalitarian. So pretty much everything faux centrists claim the SJWs are doing, the RNC has been doing at least a decade before anyone ever heard of an SJW.
Also the right expanded the military even if the ideology you subscribe to advocates a smaller military budget. But I doubt most 'libertarians' would have an issue with corporations raising private paramilitaries.
Except I'm not saying military power isn't necessary, I'm saying our military budget is overblown and that Eisenhower warned against defense contractors getting too much influence (which given our military budget relative to our GDP when compared to other countries) they have obtained. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on3KFBXQI2E
The notion that we spend so much because we've assumed responsibility is utter tosh because many of our allies in the regions mentioned in that article have way higher military budgets than other countries in their regions and our soldiers cost more? OK lets' downsize the number of personal we have to really emphasize quality over quantity.
Does how much they pay us come close to breaking even so our per GDP budget is comparable to other countries? Doubt it. And arguing that we need to have a strong military but should bear arms to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical (with said military) is contradictory.
Did you not see the statistics showing that even with the gap in spending, the military strength of the US when compared it’s rivals is not much different?
The idea of the right to bear arms nowadays is strictly for self defense and hunting.
1) I've seen slippery slopes but saying that if we have a budget twice versus for times that of our enemy we'll be fighting with sling shots is ridiculous.
2) That the person the right elected to represent them is more representative of them than a few internet personalities are of the left is "anti-right propaganda"? Are you that blinded by your partisan bias?
2) I said "That the person the right elected to represent them is more representative of them than a few internet personalities are of the left is "anti-right propaganda"? Are you that blinded by your partisan bias?" then you asked if he would represent the left so you were hinting at it. But he would be more representative than the SJWs.
The point is that you think Trump speaks for everyone that is right wing. Which brings up the hypothetical rhetorical question that if Biden wins in November, would he be speaking on behalf of the left wing as a whole.
Your making a straw man again. I didn't say that he is completely representative of the right, just that he's more representative of the right than the SJWs are of the left.
As there has always been radicals on the left but given that the data shows that they right has been getting more radical; this whole perception of the left becoming more radical is just an artifact of people getting more voices through social media.
Yeah, because seeing a bunch of whiners on line is more indicative of which side is "radicalizing" than the political actions of elected officials in your view; OK -_-
See, I didn't actually make that claim that the Right does pander to "alt-Right" and you can find plenty of incidences of people on the left denouncing SJWs & Antifa. The point is that now you're asserting anecdotal claims because you're desperate to hold on to the narrative that the left has become more radicalized and intolerant than the right.
The difference here is that the acedotal example holds way more significance than the narrative you are trying promote of the right somehow being one big faction.
Bringing up aliens is showing a flaw in the narrative that the republicans have been moving further to the right while the democrats have been relatively steady how?
No seriously you have no case, stop embarrassing yourself.
Yeah it is because saying that the republican party as a whole has moved further to the right pushing more people into the extremist category isn't saying everyone in it is an extremist.
Yeah, it is a false comparison because saying it was and wasn't aliens are mutually exclusive. Saying that more people have become extremist on the right and not everyone on the right are extremists aren't mutually exclusive so it's a BS comparison.
Saying a trend has been observed isn't saying that it will continue indefinitely into the foreseeable future. Are you really this desperate to hold on to the narrative of the Orwellian left who labels anyone they don't agree with extremist?
Better to over rely on statistics than anecdotes and you're just using the "the left calls everything they don't agree with racist/extremist/homophobic" to discredit an argument by attacking the partisan position.
Just cause something hasn’t been substantiated by “statistics” doesn’t always make it anecdotal. The data is there, it just hasn’t been thoroughly refined into “statistics”.
Yeah, it hasn't been analyzed to determine if the observed variation can't be explained by random chance but your whining about all the SJWs is still just a combination of anecdotes and knit picking because you're desperate to hold onto the narrative of the radicalized left.
But in a country of 300+ million people in the age of social media anything can be easily blown out of proportion and seem much more prevalent than it is prior to any kind of statistical analysis. So at least my whining is based on observable trends versus knit picked data points.
Syntactically yes but the point remains I'm looking at composite data sets while you knit pick examples to fit your narrative of the "radicalizing left".
How many times do I have to point out that your statistics don’t incorporate every factor and only focuses on one group. Not to mention that the results could be influenced by bias.
“SJW fear mongering”. Pointing out the obvious isn’t fear mongering. What is fear mongering is how you keep acting as if the right wing is some potential fascist boogeyman. Plus, more and more people are actually starting to speak out against SJWs.
Of course no statistical test can do that but it still is more representative than an anecdote. And it could be flawed because of a partisan bias but that doesn't mean it is so that's just a throwaway statement on your part. More and more people aren't talking about SJWs, less and less people care about them. Seriously it's not 2016 anymore.
Just as rationalizing a riot isn't defending it, saying that SJWs aren't as big of an issue as fear mongering authoritarians would like everyone to believe (especially advocates of total tyranny who falsely claim to be for liberty) isn't defending them.
There are more SJWs than elected officials? You do know that every township and county in the country has elected officials right? And even so the SJWs weren't elected to represent the people on the left and the same argument could be made of the alt-right/white supremacists.
Could you be any more blinded by your partisan bias that you apply such a blatant double standard?
Are you oblivious to the fact that a person doesn’t need to be an elected official to influence a country’s society not to mention that not every elected official is right wing.
They don't but it's also an obvious fact that people who are elected are going to be on average more representative of their constituency than a major media figure. You don't know when to quit do you?
I’m not the who keeps replying with the same refuted arguments. It’s been almost a month and yet here you are still spouting off the same arguments over and over.
Say the majority elects someone, but that elected official proves to be the opposite of what the majority assumed he or she was. Does this elected official still speak for those who voted for him or her?
The notion that media figures are more representative of elected individuals is utter bilge so the only one stuck on a loop here is you. And in that case, no but that's not the case at hand now.
Don’t know what you mean by case at hand but it seems that you didn’t quite understand what I said.
I said that should an elected official turn out to be the opposite of what his or her supporters/voters expected then that elected official can hardly speak for his or her initial supporters.
Didn’t seem like you quite understood which is why I had to simplify it for you. As for the RNC re-nominating Trump, not their fault that many of the other candidates dropped out or didn’t impress them.
I understood what you said and I understand that it was just deflection on their part. And even if you can't judge their constituency by a politicians' actions you can still judge them by what they campaigned on. And either way they're still more representative than a bunch of internet commentator no matter what kind of weird "what ifs" you can come up with to try to push your narrative that the left is the more radicalized of the two sides in the US.
You still have no evidence that he doesn't represent his base of support so you're entire counter to elected officials being more representative of the right than SJWs are to the left is a what if and even if it was true it still wouldn't make the cut as a counterargument. And I actually showed data that indicated that the right was becoming more radicalized and you're only calling it knit picked because you're desperate to cling on to the "regressive left" mythos and you'll find some any way to spin the facts (no matter how ridiculous) to fit your narrative. And that's why this thread has been going on for so long.
You've been claiming that anecdotes are better than data which is blatantly false so yes you are. This is just showing how desperate you are to manipulate information to portray the left as "proto totalitarian".
Individual data points/anecdotes are exceptions. As in you’ll only find one or two unique instances. But when something happens every once in a while it can’t be called an “anecdote”.
Well in a country of 300+ million people it may be better to describe it as knit picking as opposed to legit case that the left is becoming more radicalized than the right because of "all the SJWs".
Fox news is part of the mainstream media and they do plenty of left bashing. Now they're just one outlet but a big part of that is right wing ideas can't compete in the free market place of ideas.
“ but a big part of that is right wing ideas can't compete in the free market place of ideas.”
Like the first amendment: freedom to listen to what I want to listen to, freedom to watch whatever movies/tv shows I want to watch, freedom to wear what I want, freedom to practice whatever religion I want. Freedom to practice any common hobby I want. Freedom to criticize whoever/whatever I want.
The first amendment doesn't guarantee the right to use any platform you want to do carry out the aforementioned activities. You can't recognize this and you're talking shit about how my partisan bias sounds? Oh the irony.
That's because you keep using throw away statements in a vain attempt to debunk them. And if you try to get a media site to shut down by hacking it, then that's censorship; trying to financially do so with boycotts isn't.
No and if the boycott was organized for expressing leftist views I'd encourage like minded people to give the website their business to support them but I wouldn't call it to censorship like a pouting, dramatic brat.
Easy to say that to a hypothetical. But even then boycotting a website will most likely not cause a website to be shut down since most of the people who use that website will still be giving it business.
But if that's the case then "cancel culture" isn't an issue. But nonetheless, if they get harassed by radical leftists, they can do what Carlos Maza did to Stephen Crowder for his bigoted mudslinging.
I'm glad the he got Crowder to stop harassing him and that remark about communism was obvious hyperbole. But it's ironic that you whine about how repressive communism is when you support a system of total tyranny.
How do I support “total tyranny”? Look in the mirror, I’m not the one that supports an ideology that tries to
1.) dictate what kind of tv shows, movies or video games are made 2.) control what a person wears 3.) control what music a person listens to 4.) control what religion a person chooses to follow 5.) control common hobbies a person practices 6.) control what a person eats 7.) revise the second amendment 8.) defends communist regimes 9.) justifies censorship
Not to mention the blatantly hypocrisies like scapegoating groups your ideology considers “privileged”.
I don't support any of those things but if we follow the libertarian world view and ditch corporate regulations (including anti-trust laws) it would be pretty easy for the production of those items and services to be monopolized and then private unaccountable organizations (versus the popular will of the public) would decide that for the rest of the population.
Fascism and proprietarianism (so called "libertarianism) are two sides of the corporatist coin. While fascism abolishes negative rights to expand corporate power at the expense of individual liberty, proprietarianism does the same via the abolition of positive rights (social security, public works etc...).
Except that libertarians mostly believe that a person should be able to opt out of social security in favor of personal retirement accounts, not necessarily abolish social security.
Abolishment of individual rights≠ abolishment of positive rights. Not to mention that private services already exist without libertarianism being the most dominant system.
Libertarians actually support strong individual rights, probably much stronger than either republicans or democrats. So calling libertarianism fascism is simply mudslinging.
Anyone can 'opt out of social security by not cashing their benefits just like they can opt out of public police protection and hire their own private security force but in either case you still pay into it because the economic opportunities your income is based on depends on those services.
I didn't say that abolishing positive rights and abolishing negative rights are the same thing but that abolishing either or are both methods to reconcile corporate (private) power at the expense of state (public) power.
2.) You don’t understand the idiom of the double edged sword do you? propertarianism could bring about more greedy corrupt corporations, while too much state control can bring about both authoritarianism and totalitarianism. And didn’t you just call libertarianism “propertarianism”?
1. Benefiting off a social service without paying into it is a BS sense of entitlement.
2. Every sword has two edges but that doesn't mean that they're as sharp and if power is to be concentrated in one side, better it be in the one that the public has a say in versus private unaccountable organizations to whom any threat to public well being is just an externality.
1.) If a person doesn’t want to pay for a service, then why shouldn’t they be able to opt out? Not saying I disagree with the concept of social security.
2.) Smart assery/sarcasm isn’t a valid argument here. Plus, guys like Stalin, Mao and FDR would disagree with you.
Was the public able to stop Stalin’s purges? Was the public able to stop the Great Leap Forward? Was the public able to stop the Japanese-American internment?
1) Because their economic opportunities are dependent on that service; someone may not go to college but their taxes still go to fund public Universities because their standard of living is dependent on people being educated.
2). No, but the fact that one is accountable to the public well being versus their own personal gain does and one not being perfect doesn't legitimize your counter.
1.) You see how it sounds to generalize an entire political movement? If you actually knew enough about libertarians, you’d realize that libertarians also come in different shapes in sizes, which means you’d understand that many libertarians only support lower taxes.
2.) Sounds like you are trying to justify the holodomor and Japanese-American internment. An injustice is an injustice whether it be for personal gain or “the greater good” it’s still an injustice.
I know libertarians come in many shapes and sizes: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism But proprietarianism (despite what it's referred to in the US) isn't one of them because what they advocate is as far from "liberty" as you can get.
And it sounds like you're trying to misrepresent what I said AGAIN. In the previous statements I stated that it's a double edged sword but one edge is blunter than the other; not that you can't get hurt by the blunter edge.
Actually I said that they were exclusive (hence the link to Libertarian Socialism) and that proprietarians incorrectly (well a more accurate adverb would be 'deceptively') describe themselves as "Libertarians".
Actually it's proprietarians who are the opposite of libertarians; it's just that in the US the term has been distorted to mean the opposite of what it actually means because what proprietarianism advocates is privatized total tyranny. A governments' responsibility is the benefit of the public well being. Now it can fail at that (by negligence or malice of those in power) but corporatism (whether it'd be in the form of fascism or proprietariansm) cannot for one reason and one reason only: a system cannot fail at that it wasn't meant to do.
No, they're actual libertarians because they actually believe in you know LIBERTY. But I think I know proprietarians complain about totalitarian idealisms; they want to have total control over people's lives: (3:26-3:36) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtSv3x6lh3o
Yep because there are other forms of communism besides the ones you discuss and if you're going to cry "no true Scotsman" because they haven't come to power as of yet doesn't mean that the ideology doesn't exist or that they're automatically associated with the communist idealisms that came to power. Like I said, a state can fail in enacting the publics will or acting on behalf of the well being of the public but corporate entities were never intended to. They were only ever meant to consolidate power in the hands of the few which is why as bad as authoritarian communism may be, it couldn't hold a candle to proprietarianism in terms of repressive cruelty.
How many tries are you leftists going to give communism before you realize that it doesn’t work? Typical tankie revisionism.
How do you think the Soviet came to power in the first place? Do you think guys like Trotsky and Lenin made it known that their regime would be oppressive? Of course not. Not to mention that their revolution was led by both anarcho-communists and marxists to install a new totalitarian regime that brought misery to millions across Europe for several decades.
Speaking of which I’m sure you wouldn’t be to happy to hear someone say that there are different types of fascism, some worse than others.
A new totalitarian regime versus what? Pretty much all regimes were totalitarian in Eastern and central Europe prior to the second world war. But remind me how did the age of "Libertarian" capitalism (the idea that you subscribe to, not just one on your side of the spectrum) work out (the gilded age) the progressive era came about for good reason.
I’m sure many of those people who fled from the communist regimes will be more than thrilled to hear some American socialist tell them they “had it so good”. The difference is that I’m not trying to defend the third reich, while you seem to be defending guys like Stalin, Mao, ceausescu and Pot.
And I’ve said multiple times that while I vote libertarian because I agree with their ideas towards society, I’m politically independent. Yeah so much for you throwing labels like confetti. And as a matter of fact libertarians hold ideas that are prevalent amongst both the democrats and republicans so yeah not bad for an American third party that gets the best of both worlds.
More accusing me of fallacy accusations you use literally in the next paragraph. But don't complain about me "defending" proto-totalitarian idealisms (especially when I'm just debunking your fear mongering about) when you vote for a fully totalitarian one.
You haven’t debunked anything, all you have been doing is knit picking and using various fallacious arguments, not to mention that you are oblivious to your own hypocrisy.
And last I checked I’m not the one who is trying to defend the third reich while claiming Biden is on his way to become a dictator.
It would be fitting if I was calling all right wing organizations "fascits" which I'm not. I'm calling proprietarians and fascists two sides of the corporatist coin; there are many other right wing ideologies besides those totalitarian ones.
It would be if I claimed that everyone on the right (not that right wing extremism and certain branches are extremist) is extremist which I didn't. But the idea that the left has been more radicalized doesn't have any evidence to back it up.
Again, it’s hard to find proof of left wing extremism when left wing extremism is often incorrectly called “activism”. You also don’t seem to understand that there are different types of extremism.
But even then, simply typing “stats on far left extremism” on any search engine will still give you some stats on far left extremism.
Well given that we're both in the US I was assuming that we're talking about what's going on in this country as a whole and them being different kinds doesn't mean that they're not comparable.
Well if you measure them by a standard that can be measured in both (such as their voting position over time and the rise of terrorist attacks) then the right has the edge in terms of extremism.
Left wing extremism usually involves rioting, looting and vandalism but you won’t find much statistics on left wing extremism because many so called “experts” incorrectly label it as “activism” or try to make left wing extremism seem minuscule. www.google.com/.../
OK, but if we're going to count that as extremism, then it would also make sense to call supporting the policies behind mass incarceration (you know what's driving the riots) extremist as well. prospect.org/.../...ate_and_incarceration_rate.jpe
And yes, Bill Clinton passed the "three strikes law" BUT he did that when violent crime rates were greater than the incarceration rates and is now against the policy.
The only way they can be compared is if it’s measuring their size and shape. Trying to compare which one is better is a faulty comparison because they both have different types of nutrients.
No, this is just you trying to claim they're incomparable to weasel yourself out of a corner (like making throwaway statements about statistics not being perfect). The impact of mass incarceration has been far more detrimental than the riots so in that sense they are perfectly comparable so it's easy to say one is worse. Same with Global warming and covid downplaying.
Wrong again, private prisons are financing republican campaigns so they can keep more people in prison and turn greater profit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxNiNv97ZdM You're staring out on a world on fire and complaining about the ashes.
The duration of the crime time and policies that increase recitivism. But companies profiting from imprisoning black people, who could have ever seen that coming -_-
I'm saying we shouldn't people incarcerated as long and encourage and repeal policies that encourage recitivism. As for what race has to do with this: www.aclu.org/.../...parities_aclu_submission_0.pdf
Plenty of countries have less recitivism than the US and it's got nothing to do with incompetence but keeping the pockets of their corporate financiers lines.
Yeah, because their prisons and judicial systems are actually meant to rehabilitate; ours are not by design because that would mean less money for private prisons.
If by defend you mean point out that many of the movements you glorified in your take were as (if not more) authoritarian than communist regimes or point out that the Western allies also installed authoritarian (imperialist) regimes after the second world war, then yes I'm defending communist regimes. But lets not forget that you support a system of privatized (total) tyranny and you're whining about me "defending" communist regimes. There are Republicans and Democrats within the judicial systems but as we can see it's the republican policies that put more people in prisons.
1.) That’s coming from a guy who called 1950s South Korea more authoritarian than North Korea.
2.) Me believing that wealth redistribution is wrong and that a person shouldn’t have to forfeit everything they worked so hard to earn doesn’t mean I support privatization.
3.) Again you don’t seem to understand the bigger issue which is wrongful imprisonments and outdated prison systems. There is nothing that says conservatives have to support private prisons, you are just trying to attribute negative practices to republicans and the right wing in general because they are on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
-I didn't say that nor did I say that was true of all the regimes you mentioned. I said "many" not "all". Apparently you lack reading comprehension skills.
-If by "wealth redistribution" you mean social services then yeah, you do support a system of corporate power at the expense of individual liberty via the abolition of positive rights (fascists do the same except they abolish negative rights).
-No one is saying people on the right have to support privatized prisons I'm saying that they're more inclined to.
2.) I was mostly referring to how you like to defend the rioters/looters. Which is pretty much wealth redistribution to the extreme. Hence the question why should people have to forfeit things they’ve worked so hard to earn?
-In my first remark I said "many" so I'm not back peddling. -Are you honestly so thick that you keep saying I defended the riots when I was rationalizing them. By your logic MLK was also defending them. -So is saying republicans are more often pro gun. So what?
1.) Explain how South Korea is more authoritarian than North Korea.
2.) Pointing the obvious isn’t fear mongering.
3.) The second amendment and privatized prisons do not correlate with each other. They are tow different things in which the second amendment is a value while private prisons aren’t values.
1) You're straw-manning again; I didn't say that regime was more authoritarian. Now you're just getting desperate.
2) Endlessly harping on about them while ignoring what's causing people to riot is lying by omission and fear mongering.
3) I never said that there was a correlation between the two. Sit down; you're dizzy from all that spinning and desperately grasping at straws. Is accepting that the right is more radicalized than the left really so hard for you?
1) Because you deliberately misrepresented my statement that many of the regimes you discussed were more authoritarian as me saying all were more authoritarian.
2) That also doesn't mean we shouldn't focus on draining the swamp driving people to riot or let people deflect attention away from it.
1.) What is getting ridiculous is how you are ignoring that you mentioned it first on the other post.
2.) There’s nothing authoritarian about criticizing them. If you were only trying to understand their behavior you wouldn’t be constantly talking about them.
3.) You probably haven’t but there are many within your side of the political spectrum who would gladly abolish the second amendment amendment if they could.
You’re the one who keeps using the same arguments over and over.
@ADFSSF1996 What the hell are you talking about? Do you really not understand what cancel culture is? Maybe telling you this might help you understand: You are literally trying to "cancel" cancel culture. That's it. People are "canceling" certain people or groups or whatever who share, support or engage in dangerous or harmful ideas, believes or activities. Someone vouching for totalitarianism is at high risk of being a "victim" of this so called "cancel culture". And you call it totalitarianism to try to forbid totalitarianism, but fail to grasp that by your own logic that makes you totalitarian? Well.
I have to admit thlugh that calling cancel culture "proto totalitarianism" and then proceeding to talk ablut trying to sounding edgy almost made me smirk.
Criticism is not “cancel culture”. It’s you who doesn’t seem to understand what cancel culture is. Or perhaps you think cancel culture is some form of civil rights advocacy when it’s not.
@ADFSDF1996 Cancel Culture is basically the same thing as boycotting. Do think boycotting a company is totalitarianism? Do you think people calling on to boycott a company are some sort of "company policy police"? Yeah, didn't think so.
@-Asca- Red herring since you seem to be ignoring the obvious which is how cancel culture is often misused to censor people who have different political views.
That's still not nearly the same. Further, there is usually proof; many of them you just have to show the video or tweets of them saying crappy things. In the case of #MeToo, there's usually more than one person making the accusations.
@goaded That is a logical fallacy, and also bullshit. For hundreds of years the entire population of the Earth believed it was flat. It isn't. For the exact fallacy, look at:
Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy,[1][13] specifically a fallacy of relevance,[14][15] and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).[13][3][8] It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people,[11] stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.[11][16]
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions