• 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

Audiobook said:
I think it's garbage to start canceling people just because we don't agree with everything they have to say.

Like sorry, I don't have to agree with everyone. Or agree with someone based on identity politics.

I can also still read Harry Potter and not be a bigot. Like staph lol.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing. The right to free speech is highly misunderstood (I speak from an American perspective here).

What free speech provides is you have a right to say pretty much whatever you want provided it's not a threat or slanderous against other people (and isn't rhetorical hyperbole or some other exception) without fear of the government coming and harming you either via life or properly.

It in no way guarantees you that the rest of society has to cooperate and participate in providing your megaphone, or in helping you get an audience.

If private companies don't wanna be associated with your speech because it's that repugnant, you don't have a right thay protects against that.

That's my view anyway. You have a right against legal repercussion, you have no right against social repercussion. If your horrible attitudes ostracize you from your peers, too bad.

And hey if you wanna argue that private enterprise has too much power. Fine, I can get on board with that, but the solution isn't letting them keep their monopoly and trying to regulate it, it's either to break the monopoly, or create a state alternative.
 
indeed.

free_speech.png


alasdair
 
Audiobook said:
I never said anything like anyone has to listen to me or provide me a platform...or anyone a platform...so yea...

What I am saying is that when people start saying, “oh this person is totally bad and you should not interact with their stuff ever,” I question it. Because I think we all have a right to read what someone has to say and think for ourselves.

If people don’t wish to associate with me or interact with me fine. I don’t particularly want to interact with people who do not wish to interact with me anyways.

The same goes for everyone. No one has to interact with you or agree with you if they do not want to. No one owes ANYONE anything for the most part (like if you have kids you owe it to them to make sure they are taken care of for example, but that’s one of the few times).

I just don’t like people telling me who or what I can read or interact with. That’s what I am saying.
Click to expand...

Ok that's reasonable. I'm not clear on how anyone was really telling you who you can interact with though. This was about Amazon and other private organizations refusing to work with an entity that they feel doesn't reflect their values.
 
alasdairm said:
it seemed implied in "we all have a right to read what someone has to say".

who confers such a right?

alasdair
Click to expand...

Is that right not implicit by the right to free speech? I mean, if I can't choose to read what someone has to say, has their right to speech not been infringed then?

That said, we of course have no right to have that discourse in a specific place. And have no right to have a private party pay to facilitate it.
 
i'm just trying to understand your position.

i think your question was, more specifically, "not you personally, buy you a company like twitter, what right do you have to tell me what i can and can't read?" is that correct?

well, i'm not telling you what you can and can't read. i'm telling you that you can't read it here.

alasdair
 
nuttynutskin said:
Wow really intelligent response as usual... I guess you're generally in favor of tech giants having a monopoly on who gets to say what on the internet?
Click to expand...

What happened to believing private businesses have the right to decide who they do business with?

That used to be a widely accepted belief among the right.
 
JessFR said:
What happened to believing private businesses have the right to decide who they do business with?

That used to be a widely accepted belief among the right.
Click to expand...

A mom and pop bakery owned by Christians not wanting to bake "gay" cakes because it goes against their beliefs when there's about a million other bakeries to choose from that will is a lot different IMO than every single major internet service provider banding together to actively cancel out and ban websites because of the political opinions voiced on them. YMMV
 
nuttynutskin said:
A mom and pop bakery owned by Christians not wanting to bake "gay" cakes because it goes against their beliefs when there's about a million other bakeries to choose from that will is a lot different IMO than every single major internet service provider banding together to actively cancel out and ban websites because of the political opinions voiced on them. YMMV
Click to expand...

Well yes, it is different, but does it make a difference?

I absolutely 100% do not believe that if these private companies were doing this to left wing interests that the right wouldn't still be backing the rights of private companies. I think this difference only came into existence to justify the hypocrisy of allowing the homophobic discrimination but not right wing discrimination.

I think they're hypocrites.
 
Audiobook said:
Maybe in some cases like child porn sure.
Click to expand...
This is where the conversation is being continued here in America. It would be short sighted to end the conversation at "child porn bad, everything else good or not so bad".

Specifically, the conversation today is mostly about inciting violence. It's not something to just make a joke about and move on. It doesn't work like that. The FBI has their hands full in researching these types of violent intents and threats and for good reasons.

Not only does this subject require a decent amount of critical thinking but it deserves it. We deserve it. Oversimplifying the issue only hurts us. Let's talk about it.
 
JessFR said:
Well yes, it is different, but does it make a difference?

I absolutely 100% do not believe that if these private companies were doing this to left wing interests that the right wouldn't still be backing the rights of private companies. I think this difference only came into existence to justify the hypocrisy of allowing the homophobic discrimination but not right wing discrimination.

I think they're hypocrites.
Click to expand...

So regardless of anything else, you generally support companies being able to band together to monopolize free speech?
 
Audiobook said:
That's another case where I think we should look at curtailing speech. I didn't mention all situations I think we need to curtail speech or at least look at doing so.

It's not easy bc you want there to be a free exchange of ideas. But you also don't want people to get hurt as a result of other's speech.

It's not a simple issue by ANY means.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree it's very difficult and dangerous as well to go too far in either direction.

An example of a cancel culture that has gone too far would be the storming of the capital and killing police officers and attempted killing of elected officials as well as democracy as we know it. They woke up one day and listened to Trump or Guiliani and agreed with their violent rhetoric and decided to join the Trump train headed straight to Auschwitz. Toot Toot! All aboard!!

How can they justify doing such a horrible and violent thing to the American people?

Misinformation is largely what has lead people down the wrong path. These people who stormed the capital genuinely believe that the election is fraudulent and they spread their lies to each other simply brainwashing each other into oblivion. Again, these people are oversimplifying their concerns. It's easier to just believe what your friends said to you on Facebook than it is to actually research anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top