• 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

Foreigner said:
Some are equating cancel culture with boycotting. They are not exactly the same thing. Boycotting is about commercial or social protest, which anyone can do, and is part of cancel culture, but cancel culture goes further.
Click to expand...

I agree, and likely mix my use of the two.

From your description, I would outline that boycotting is 'I will take away any support I give you' whereas cancelling is 'I will take away anyone's ability to support you'. What we're seeing right now is cries from the left to punish others for voicing support of the right, and big tech taking away anyone's ability to support the right.
 
w01fg4ng said:
I'm still shocked at how quickly the right not only turn on their own but are able to go right for the death threats at the same time.

Click to expand...


Those people arent "the right" as we've traditionally had. They're deluded cultists loyal to trump alone. It doesn't matter what was true yesterday, if trump says something today, it's true.

What's really amazing is while these people will excuse his lying public, in private they don't think he's a liar at all, they quite obviously believe anything he says.
 
Burnt Offerings said:
This is a strong statement. What evidence do you have to support this?
Click to expand...

I've seen liberals on Twitter who go on cancelling sprees where they're not happy until they're fired from their job and have no future job prospects. No one will hire them because they fear the mob targeting them. To even communicate with the cancelled person could mean you yourself are in danger of being cancelled.
 
I know all about the shame-a-thons that the Twitterati do. It's no surprise, as the format of the medium itself seems custom designed for trite, reactionary & ignorant "hot takes". The statement I quoted seemed much darker than that, though, almost like people are getting sent to a libtard Dachau somewhere
 
mal3volent said:
The standard we have for elected officials is a completely separate thing. Politics literally is a popularity contest. Normal people's lives aren't.
Click to expand...
I'd have to say that celebrities and people who intentionally or for a living are in the publics view (social media influencers) are not normal people. They gained their riches by being popular or likable. If one of these people say something, and the general public responds unfavorably, it is hardly having anything 'stolen away from the VIP.
It is them suffering a loss do to the consequences of their actions.

I give general public a much longer rope. But if you have no problem using your real identity to promote hate speech on Facebook, I have no problem screenshotting your post and sending it to your job and any job you'll ever have again.
Now before you say that's not cool know that 1) I feel no remorse for openly sharing something someone else themselves already openly shared, but wanna cry foul when said thing shared reaches eyes they didn't want it too. "THEN WHY DID YOU POST IT TO BEGIN WITH?"
 
Judge Refuses To Reinstate Parler After Amazon Shut It Down

A federal judge is refusing to restore the social media site Parler after Amazon kicked the company off of its web-hosting services over content seen as inciting violence.

The decision is a blow to Parler, an upstart that has won over Trump loyalists for its relatively hands-off approach to moderating content. The company sued Amazon over its ban, demanding reinstatement.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein sided with Amazon, which argued that Parler would not take down posts that threatened public safety even in the wake of the attack on the U.S. Capitol, and that it is within Amazon's rights to punish the company over its refusal.

"The Court rejects any suggestion that the public interest favors requiring AWS to host the incendiary speech that the record shows some of Parler's users have engaged in. At this stage, on the showing made thus far, neither the public interest nor the balance of equities favors granting an injunction in this case," Rothstein wrote on Thursday.
Click to expand...

alasdair
 
You can make the argument that it's about competition but the courts will laugh at you. ;)

Does Amazon even compete in the social media sphere?
 
cduggles said:
This is great, but I would think that a private company shouldn’t have to host any site it doesn’t want to?
Click to expand...


Buisness decisions wouldnt always be a matter of hosting or selling whatever they personally want.

Maybe there are certain rules and guidelines that state what the host would advertise and charge fees to host and getting the marketing through traffic is more the point.
 
JessFR said:
Does Amazon even compete in the social media sphere?
Click to expand...

Amazon, Google and MS have bullied their way into marketshare through expensive loss-leading, creating a defacto cartel economy of hosting.

I think at this level of influence it's ridiculous to even pose the question of whether it's right to "force"1 a "private"2 company to abide by common carrier legislation when their business models literally revolve around inserting themselves into the commons to act as gatekeepers.

But, alas, nobody wants to acknowledge how insane this is because then we might have to be confronted by the opinions of people we've been told are bad and shouldn't matter.

1 - nobody forced them to control the market.
2 - none of these companies are private.
 
alasdairm said:
^ private as opposed to not owned by the government (rather than private as opposed to publicly traded). but i suspect you may already know this.

alasdair
Click to expand...

This. Publicly traded doesn't make it not private property. It just makes it private property that it owned broadly by more people. It's still not owned or answerable to the public in the sense of the tax payers.

If you wanna break up these monopolies I wouldn't argue with that. Other than to say you're a hypocrite if I've seen you previously use the private property argument to let people discriminate against people in the past.

But what's crazy is letting them stay in their monopolies and turning them into de facto state sponsored legal monopolies.
 
alasdairm said:
^ private as opposed to not owned by the government (rather than private as opposed to publicly traded). but i suspect you may already know this.

alasdair
Click to expand...

No, I didn't realize state-owned is where you delineate between private and public. I tend to draw the line where a company becomes publicly traded, because at that point the government could buy a controlling interest in the corporation, and did, during the bailout spree of the GFC.

OTOH, a sole proprietorship is unambiguously private, as its fate is intertwined with that of a private citizen.

JessFR said:
If you wanna break up these monopolies I wouldn't argue with that. Other than to say you're a hypocrite if I've seen you previously use the private property argument to let people discriminate against people in the past.

But what's crazy is letting them stay in their monopolies and turning them into de facto state sponsored legal monopolies.
Click to expand...

I would say it's a cartel economy rather than monopoly. I'm not sure what you mean by the rest, I don't recall being in favour of any discrimination.

Governments do delineate though, between a sole proprietor and a major corporation when it comes to whether or not they have the right to refuse your business.

In Canada, for example, a publicly-traded bank cannot just refuse you the right to open a bank account with them.

Part of the reason why is that banks also play a role as identity providers. This is probably the best argument for why social media corporations should be regulated as common carriers. For better or worse, they are trusted identity providers.
 
thujone said:
No, I didn't realize state-owned is where you delineate between private and public.
Click to expand...

IME 'state owned' is state owned, or government run. Public means it is owned by stock holders, answerable to those shareholders, and subject to one set of laws. Private has always meant an individual, or family, owned business. Private doesn't have to publish financial records, whereas Public does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top