Cancel culture has gone too far

[gwb-trading]

No one is pretending, except those claiming that some new culture is afoot. Boycotts have been around for centuries, at least.

The people that want to cancel Dr. Seuss, are not necessarily the same people that want to cancel My Pillow.

Did they say The Civil Rights movement was brought on by the civil rights mob?

Why do you stigmatize the attempts society is making to improve itself. You never ever answered the question as to whether or not you thought school children should have access to the Dr. Seuss books in questions.

The merits don't seem to matter to you. You just don't like grassroots movements that change society. I could imagine how you'd felt during The Civil Rights movement ... with all that change going on.

Your beliefs don't seem to be congruent with democracy.

In a democracy, The People (The Mob, The Culture, call us what you will, comrade) are the ultimate authority. Period.

Once again it appears you don't understand the difference between Cancel Culture and civil advocacy.

 

[userque]

Once again it appears you don't understand the difference between Cancel Culture and civil advocacy.

Maybe you don't understand that the difference is subject to opinion.

 

[gwb-trading]

Maybe you don't understand that the difference is subject to opinion.

There's a very clear line.

Let's look at a local example in N.C.

A town council member votes against the expansion of a low incoming housing complex. At the time of the vote he states that the complex would be detrimental to the surrounding community (the direct neighbors are petitioning against the expansion), and the people living in the complex were lower income and needed to take personal responsibility to reduce the litter blowing out of the complex (both of which are documented).

Tell me which of the responses below is civil advocacy and which is cancel culture.

• A group of citizens in the town protest the council member's vote outside of city hall, contact all the council members email addresses outlining their dismay at his remarks, contact the local TV station and news papers to let their dismay be known. Demand a retraction of his comments that possibly appeared to imply that the people in the complex were responsible for being low income and were litterers. These town citizens organize their protest and emails online via a Facebook group they create and a Twitter handle used for coordination of events. The council member later clarifies his statement after the response of the community.
• A group online that primarily includes people who don't live in the town - call the town council member a racist, demand that he be fired from the town council. They organize on-line by tweeting in every thread possible with hashtags what a horrible person this council member is while spamming many Facebook and other groups with misinformation. The quotes they attribute to the council member are false and are spammed all over the internet by a dedicated group of people. These individuals dox the council member's home address and phone numbers. The council member's family deals with threats coming in on their home and cell phones at all hours of the day and night... while their teenage children get threats to rape them over text as well as sexually oriented pictures. One evening a firebomb is tossed on their porch which makes the council member's house unlivable. The town council member who had served the town for over a decade quits the council and moves out of the town.

So tell me which of the above is civil advocacy and which is cancel culture.

 

[userque]

There's a very clear line.

Let's look at a local example in N.C.

A town council member votes against the expansion of a low incoming housing complex. At the time of the vote he states that the complex would be detrimental to the surrounding community (the direct neighbors are petitioning against the expansion), and the people living in the complex were lower income and needed to take personal responsibility to reduce the litter blowing out of the complex (both of which are documented).

Tell me which of the responses below is civil advocacy and which is cancel culture.

• A group of citizens in the town protest the council member's vote outside of city hall, contact all the council members email addresses outlining their dismay at his remarks, contact the local TV station and news papers to let their dismay be known. Demand a retraction of his comments that possibly appeared to imply that the people in the complex were responsible for being low income and were litterers. These town citizens organize their protest and emails online via a Facebook group they create and a Twitter handle used for coordination of events. The council member later clarifies his statement after the response of the community.
• A group online that primarily includes people who don't live in the town - call the town council member a racist, demand that he be fired from the town council. They organize on-line by tweeting in every thread possible with hashtags what a horrible person this council member is while spamming many Facebook and other groups with misinformation. The quotes they attribute to the council member are false and are spammed all over the internet by a dedicated group of people. These individuals dox the council member's home address and phone numbers. The council member's family deals with threats coming in on their home and cell phones at all hours of the day and night... while their teenage children get threats to rape them over text as well as sexually oriented pictures. One evening a firebomb is tossed on their porch which makes the council member's house unlivable. The town council member who had served the town for over a decade quits the council and moves out of the town.

So tell me which of the above is civil advocacy and which is cancel culture.

In my opinion, I see American free speech at work.

If the speech crosses the criminal/tort line, then remedies should be pursued.

Labeling the speech of others as 'good' or 'bad' or 'this' or 'that' is a matter of opinion. And we all can have different opinions. That's why our democracy tries it's best not to label speech as 'good' or 'bad,' as you attempt to do; as Russia does, as China does, and as North Korea does.


______________________________
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall

 

[gwb-trading]

In my opinion, I see American free speech at work.

If the speech crosses the criminal/tort line, then remedies should be pursued.

Labeling the speech of others as 'good' or 'bad' or 'this' or 'that' is a matter of opinion. And we all can have different opinions. That's why our democracy tries it's best not to label speech as 'good' or 'bad,' as you attempt to do; as Russia does, as China does, and as North Korea does.


______________________________
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall

So you side-stepped the question with no answer.

Once again... which of the above is civil advocacy and which is cancel culture?

There is a clear difference between the two.

 

[userque]

So you side-stepped the question with no answer.

Once again... which of the above is civil advocacy and which is cancel culture?

There is a clear difference between the two.

It's not a side step. Your question is flawed.

You assume that my answer is one of the two choices you gave me. The objections are that: you are testifying and that: you are assuming facts that are not in evidence. There is no evidence that my answer is only one of the two choices you gave me.

Despite your attempt to pigeon hole my answer. I merely answered truthfully. Sorry if you didn't like it.

Again, you seem to have a problem with free speech comrade. It seems, you believe everything to be either your way, or the highway.

 

[gwb-trading]

It's not a side step. Your question is flawed.

You assume that my answer is one of the two choices you gave me. The objections are that: you are testifying and that: you are assuming facts that are not in evidence. There is no evidence that my answer is only one of the two choices you gave me.

Despite your attempt to pigeon hole my answer. I merely answered truthfully. Sorry if you didn't like it.

Again, you seem to have a problem with free speech comrade. It seems, you believe everything to be either your way, or the highway.

So basically you cannot tell the difference between proper civil advocacy and cancel culture. Got it.

Thanks for your confirmation.

 

[userque]

So basically you cannot tell the difference between proper civil advocacy and cancel culture. Got it.

Thanks for your confirmation.

Yes, one has a real meaning. The other is rooted in fallacy.

 

[Cuddles]

No one is pretending, except those claiming that some new culture is afoot. Boycotts have been around for centuries, at least.

The people that want to cancel Dr. Seuss, are not necessarily the same people that want to cancel My Pillow.

Did they say The Civil Rights movement was brought on by the civil rights mob?

Why do you stigmatize the attempts society is making to improve itself. You never ever answered the question as to whether or not you thought school children should have access to the Dr. Seuss books in questions.

The merits don't seem to matter to you. You just don't like grassroots movements that change society. I could imagine how you'd felt during The Civil Rights movement ... with all that change going on.

Your beliefs don't seem to be congruent with democracy.

In a democracy, The People (The Mob, The Culture, call us what you will, comrade) are the ultimate authority. Period.

He's drank the kool-aid, he's gone. He'll toe the line when fox says dark money disclosure efforts, citizens united rescission efforts, and voter disenfranchisement boycotts are "cancel culture"

 

[userque]

He's drank the kool-aid, he's gone. He'll toe the line when fox says dark money disclosure efforts, citizens united rescission efforts, and voter disenfranchisement boycotts are "cancel culture"