• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Megathread Cultural Appropriation and Cancel Culture Discussion

Yeah it seems like a modern iteration of the boycott, something that has long been a tactic in protests, strikes etc
 
I find the reaction to Justin Bieber's look (and other reactions like it) to be kind of surprising and strange, but it's not cancel culture, it's just people being judgmental based on appearance and groupthink, as people do and have always done.
 
w01fg4ng said:
Agreed, however this implies it's not always annoying and ridiculous, right?

I mean, freedom is a pretty cool thing, right?
Click to expand...
Well, yes and no. Absolute freedom is anarchy, literally. I'm not a huge fan of anarchy myself. There are limits to everything, even freedom. No yelling fire in crowded theater's is the classic example as it relates to freedom of speech. That's a legal example of the limits of free expression. Society has always imposed its own unwritten limits though, outside of those imposed by law. Employers hire recruits that wear a tie to the interview more often than those that don't for example. There's no law that they have to do that, there's not even a rule that they have to do it. They do it though, and few ever question whether it's right or wrong for them to do it. It's just an accepted thing in society that if you really want a job, you suck it up and put on that piece of clothing that everyone hates wearing. That's a limit on your freedom, but for most people it's just not worth the time and effort to object to it and so the practice continues.

That's really where the issue lies. Cancel culture is protest. It's legitimate protest, because like you say protest is a right. The point isn't whether people have the right to do it, the point is whether they should do it. Do people, and should they, really care enough about it to create the kind of disharmony that their protest creates? Is it fair and courtesy to disrupt people's lives for an issue that many, and often most, people think is annoying and ridiculous? Many people see the causes that cancel culture seeks to advance as being worth less than the cost in terms of social disharmony that results from their protest.
 
w01fg4ng said:
So things like death threats, even if joking, shouldn't be taken lightly?
Click to expand...
Could you please unload the question :p.

In all honesty, that's not a question I would typically attempt to answer devoid of its context. As you imply in the question, context is important here.
 
Let's use your "no yelling fire in a crowded theater" rule for our example. Let's say instead, this joker of a person in the theater said "everybody down or else I shoot", but he wasn't armed. He simply liked to see their reaction. Would this be something protected by the first amendment?

If no, would this be something that should be censored if possible?

If yes, where is the line drawn? Only fires?
 
Well, legally that would be for a court to decide. I would suggest that likely falls into the same category as yelling fire in a crowded theater because the end result is the same. If most people reasonably believed it to be serious then that speech instigates panic in a manner likely to result in direct harm (people being trampled). In that situation I suspect a court would determine that the speech was not protected.

Where is the line drawn? Direct harm. Speech that results in direct harm is likely to be censored. More contentious speech is that which results in indirect harm, such as incitement to violence. In the US much of that speech has been ruled to be protected, yet outside the US it is ruled to not be. While jurisdictions outside the US aren't constrained by the first amendment obviously, they are subject to the UN conventions on human rights which assert similar protections on speech. It is interesting then that the rulings are different - though this reflects different cultural values and the resulting implications on the interpretation of the limits of free speech.
 
aemetha said:
Speech that results in direct harm is likely to be censored.
Click to expand...
Your fire in the theater is a good example, however it also showcases the direct harm misinformation causes. The list of things to cancel seem to be pretty daunting. We've only scratched the surface.
 
w01fg4ng said:
Fucking nothing less than scum ass mother fuckers of this planet earth.
Click to expand...
I’m increasingly inclined to agree, and I don’t exclude myself one bit.

That’s largely why I’ve always tried to acknowledge and embrace my feeble mortality and million faults, instead of walking in shame or imagining a halo and a CV to fit.
 
I feel awful for the boomers that got caught up in that January sixth Psyop. The indoctrinated are so insane they are changing the definitions of words to fit their narrative. Most people don’t even know what an insurrection is, but I suppose it sounds sexy so bending things works out. Burning down cities, executing wrong thinkers, and many other deaths an entire summer is peaceful protesting, but letting a bunch of boomers, antifa, glowies, trumpers walk into the capital for selfies is a literal threat to our democracy! The sad thing is that people are so brain washed they literally think this way.
 
alasdairm said:
you were at the capitol on january 6th?

alasdair
Click to expand...
Hi. In case you ask for real, I don’t always just assume one way or another, not at all I’m UK mate I’m sure you were just jesting and bringing context I have clearly not read hence missed.

Call it a general sentiment about humanity on the whole regarding the level to which most people actually care, and how unreal so many are too.

I mean, that said I do care and I sure am real, not correct, but real, but like I say a lowly mortal nonetheless.
 
Dropperneck said:
The indoctrinated are so insane they are changing the definitions of words to fit their narrative. Most people don’t even know what an insurrection is, but I suppose it sounds sexy so bending things works out.
Click to expand...
www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of INSURRECTION

an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com
www.dictionary.com

Definition of insurrection | Dictionary.com

Insurrection definition, an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government. See more.
www.dictionary.com www.dictionary.com

insurrection noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

Definition of insurrection noun in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation, picture, example sentences, grammar, usage notes, synonyms and more.
www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com
dictionary.cambridge.org

insurrection

1. an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and…
dictionary.cambridge.org dictionary.cambridge.org

The term seems pretty well defined. As to the taking selfies part, it takes a really special kind of delusion to see that and not see the crowd chanting for the hanging of the vice president, smashing down barricades, breaking windows and assaulting police officers. So what if some of the people there weren't doing that? That doesn't mean that there wasn't an insurrection, as defined in numerous dictionaries, taking place.
 
aemetha said:
www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of INSURRECTION

an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com
www.dictionary.com

Definition of insurrection | Dictionary.com

Insurrection definition, an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government. See more.
www.dictionary.com www.dictionary.com

insurrection noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

Definition of insurrection noun in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation, picture, example sentences, grammar, usage notes, synonyms and more.
www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com
dictionary.cambridge.org

insurrection

1. an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and…
dictionary.cambridge.org dictionary.cambridge.org

The term seems pretty well defined. As to the taking selfies part, it takes a really special kind of delusion to see that and not see the crowd chanting for the hanging of the vice president, smashing down barricades, breaking windows and assaulting police officers. So what if some of the people there weren't doing that? That doesn't mean that there wasn't an insurrection, as defined in numerous dictionaries, taking place.
Click to expand...
A bunch of people were freely allowed to walk into the state capital where they took selfies and did some light vandalism. Most of these people were agent provocateurs like antifa John Solomon, cia assets like the leader of the proud boys, and a some were peaceful boomer protesters. I definitely disagreed with it, and called the psyop happening before it happened. Everyone with sense knew they couldn’t allow the election fraud evidence to be litigated for 24 hours on national television, which is what was about to happen.
Insurrection the way it’s described is where a group of people violently overthrow the government and start passing laws and have the intent of taking over.
By Miriams definition Portland and every other major city has had constant insurrections over the past year, With CHAZ being an extreme example.
ftr I am fine with people disagreeing, I just get annoyed with dishonesty, and narratives based on propaganda. Not directing this at you, just very tired.
 
I won't disagree with you on the subject of the protests being violent, clearly they were. Those protests you note though weren't attacks on the seat of government, or expressly calling for the hanging of an elected official at the time and place where that official was known by the crowd to be performing an official duty. The capitol qualifies as insurrection because it can be clearly linked to an attempt to attack the government, while the violent protests elsewhere could not be so linked.

That's not to say that those other protests were not more serious crimes either. The way the law works is you establish a crime is committed by a person to determine guilt, then you sentence them based on the seriousness of that crime within a specified range of penalties for that crime. I could see people being charged with violence at protests receiving stiffer sentences than those sentenced for insurrection based on insurrection offenses being at the lower end of the scale and the protest offences at the higher end of the scale.

The issue I have is not one of finding any of the events particularly offensive. It's the pretending stuff didn't happen (on both sides of the political divide) because of a perception of unfairness. If there were members of the group committing an insurrection, it's accurate to say there was an insurrection on that day, even if other members of that group were not committing an insurrection. Those responsible for that offense should be held accountable for it according to the seriousness of their crimes, as should those who took part in violence in other protests.
 
AutoTripper said:
Hi. In case you ask for real, I don’t always just assume one way or another, not at all I’m UK mate I’m sure you were just jesting and bringing context I have clearly not read hence missed.
Click to expand...
w01fg4ng's post - that you quoted - was about the jan 6th rioters specifically.

you said that you didn't exclude yourself from his description of them which implied you were there...

i'm not really sure what your comment means outwith that context.

alasdair
 
aemetha said:
I won't disagree with you on the subject of the protests being violent, clearly they were. Those protests you note though weren't attacks on the seat of government, or expressly calling for the hanging of an elected official at the time and place where that official was known by the crowd to be performing an official duty. The capitol qualifies as insurrection because it can be clearly linked to an attempt to attack the government, while the violent protests elsewhere could not be so linked.

That's not to say that those other protests were not more serious crimes either. The way the law works is you establish a crime is committed by a person to determine guilt, then you sentence them based on the seriousness of that crime within a specified range of penalties for that crime. I could see people being charged with violence at protests receiving stiffer sentences than those sentenced for insurrection based on insurrection offenses being at the lower end of the scale and the protest offences at the higher end of the scale.

The issue I have is not one of finding any of the events particularly offensive. It's the pretending stuff didn't happen (on both sides of the political divide) because of a perception of unfairness. If there were members of the group committing an insurrection, it's accurate to say there was an insurrection on that day, even if other members of that group were not committing an insurrection. Those responsible for that offense should be held accountable for it according to the seriousness of their crimes, as should those who took part in violence in other protests.
Click to expand...
They attempted to burn down the Portland federal court house many times now. We can agree to disagree on some of this stuff, but I don’t see you as being unreasonable. If an actual insurrection ever happens, and not political theater, it will be warranted. And that’s as close to fed posting as I will get. These former generals/admirals are very right https://flagofficers4america.com/opening-statement#393e50a9-590e-4cf3-a356-84bf2eec4e5b
 
You remember that book "The Coming Insurrection"? It was written by some French left-wing hipsters. It was pretty good actually (although I can also understand why many readers would find it long-winded and obtuse), it was on Glenn Beck's reading list for a moment lol

According to the authors of TCI, what happened at the Capitol would almost certainly be described as an insurrection. Then again, they were often inclined to classify any civil unrest down to rowdy drunken soccer fans hurling beer bottles at cops as one, so take that for what it's worth

Some people at that event were just so shockingly unaware of their actions...the least they could've done was put on a mask (which they had the perfect pretense for with the pandemic!) before going in there and taking a massive shit on a bunch of powerful people in an extremely public way. They thought they would be able to do that, go in bare-faced and take a massive dump on powerful people as your pals shoot video and not have those same people make it come back on them? They shouldn't have been huffing so many MAGA fumes prior
 
The event was contrived, it’s was a psyop, I could link where we were talking about it’s necessity in late December. Anyone that’s aware of the happenings knew they couldn’t have a televised litigation of the election fraud. There was no way they could give that a forum. So they employed some folks to walk into the capital. There was no resistance, and it’s well documented with left wing actors like John Solomon that this was the plan. Sadly some relatively innocent people got roped in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top