collusion is a serious allegation. what evidence do you have that the companies involved acted in concert?
alasdair
Megathread Cultural Appropriation and Cancel Culture Discussion
- Thread starter mal3volent
- Start date
collusion is a serious allegation. what evidence do you have that the companies involved acted in concert?
alasdair
nuttynutskin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10,736
Uh, Idk... That they all deplatformed Parler at the same time? lulz
so no proof. just an assumption.
thanks.
alasdair
thanks.
alasdair
Iceman1216
Bluelighter
This is the end result of Not paying attention to the rapid growth of the Cyber-world!! These are private companies that people choose to use that are run by individuals. no one is forced to use my service, I dont like you, I own and control my platform, you are gone???
This will go the way of Standard Oil and John D Rockefeller , Governments, and politicians are scared of way too much concentrated POWER!!!
Problem that I see is that Noone in political power in the World has any real understanding of this technology, or how to control it?? And control it for WHO??
This will go the way of Standard Oil and John D Rockefeller , Governments, and politicians are scared of way too much concentrated POWER!!!
Problem that I see is that Noone in political power in the World has any real understanding of this technology, or how to control it?? And control it for WHO??
You don’t think that happened cuz everyone was glued to their mobile devices watching it all go down in real-time and all simultaneously being disgusted with it?
I doubt with how fast everyone bailed they would even have time to “band together” and make a decision. I could see several large companies bailing then the rest follow suit but that’s just how it works.
-GC
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
The insidious part of cancel culture is the way it seems to be the thin end of the wedge of a larger move to do away the the fundamentals of justice in the Anglosphere that took 1000 years to properly evolve into the fairest (but not infallible) system in human history.
1. Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
2. The right to face your accusers
3. The importance of precedent, judgement by one’s peers, and the judicial notion of a ‘reasonable person’
4. No retrospective criminisation of individuals through new laws
5. Due process
6. The right of appeal
7. The right to redress after a miscarriage of justice
8. The standard of reasonable doubt
9. The compounding factor of intent or malice aforethought
10. Habeus Corpus
Losing any one of these increases the risk of tyranny but it seems they are all targets for activists these days.
1. Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
2. The right to face your accusers
3. The importance of precedent, judgement by one’s peers, and the judicial notion of a ‘reasonable person’
4. No retrospective criminisation of individuals through new laws
5. Due process
6. The right of appeal
7. The right to redress after a miscarriage of justice
8. The standard of reasonable doubt
9. The compounding factor of intent or malice aforethought
10. Habeus Corpus
Losing any one of these increases the risk of tyranny but it seems they are all targets for activists these days.
w01fg4ng
Bluelighter
Emotional reactionary responses @nuttynutskin and @Iceman1216 to my post without any conversation/response to me is kind of like waking up one morning and deciding you don't like something without any further thought.
Iceman1216
Bluelighter
I guess I have " Contempt Pryor to Investigation" Lol Lol
All of these only exist in Theory , or for a Ruling Class!! BLM has shown me as a Very Privileged white person the uneven distribution of (LAW & ORDER)
Shady's Fox
Bluelighter
I just read this afternoon that Trump jr asked Musk to create a new social platform, ahahaha.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Amusing but I'm gonna go and be a buzz kill here and say that watching that, soon as I got to about a minute in when he asks why the bill of rights has 10 rights.
It strikes me that either the author hasn't read the bill of rights or assumes everyone else hasn't because, there is in fact the 9th amendment which exists for absolutely no purpose other than to say that listing 10 rights does not imply that those are the only 10 rights that exist.
That's just the start of the flaws in the video, because it also points out how rights aren't rights if they can be taken away, and that's the thing. When rights are denied in America you can claim (even if ineffectually) that the government is behaving illegally.
The British "bill of rights" along with those in many other countries are meaningless for pretty much exactly that reason. They have no more force in law than any other piece of law. Unlike the constitution they don't override future laws, future laws override them. So even if they infringe them its not unlawful. Parliamentary Supremacy.
It also confuses the bill of rights with constitutional amendments generally. Amendments beyond the 10th aren't part of the bill of rights.
Which brings me to the biggest argument the video misses completely and really should have mentioned (again I can only assume the author isn't aware of it). That the bill of rights was entirely limited to the federal government in the beginning. And didn't prohibit the states violating your rights any time they liked.
This is why the states all have their own bill of rights too, because the federal ones originally didn't restrain state actions until incorporation in the (if I recall correctly) 14th amendment.
I do loooove the comment about how right to food and housing is sooooo much more important than right to guns. And I completely agree. However generally speaking American political philosophy doesn't emphasize any positive rights other than the fight to vote.
Somehow we got it into our head positive rights other than voting are all socialist.
And the right to vote was originally more limited too. Originally voters didn't vote for president at all. And didn't until sometime in the 19th century iirc.
Last edited:
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
That may well be true. But the goal should be to expand them to all if you want genuone justice and freedom from tyranny. Not destroy them for everybody.
Iceman1216
Bluelighter
Thank you!! I am not sure that this "Total Buzz Kill" will not be called "FAKE NEWS" as is the total answer to any topic the Right does not have a True, and logical answer for (BTW I am from the right Lol , just disgusted with its Hijacking !!
Iceman1216
Bluelighter
They should NOT NEED TO BE EXPANDED!!!!!
They are Laws of the land
Not of a certain Race, Religion , or Creed !!
You just mage my point
Thank you
I'm late to this thread, but I have a contribution to make. It's kind of sad.
I live in a small-ish community that has fairly homogeneous values. During the summer, a recent young business owner came out on Facebook during the anti-police riots to write a long critique about Black Lives Matter. He was very statistical and a bit cold, but I have met this guy in person and I would not call him deranged, bigoted, or anything like that. Actually, he's gay and has a disability, and he had a sort of disenfranchised upbringing. One of his family members is a cop and I think that's where his rant came from.
Anyway... his post got shared far and wide and a total witch hunt ensued. The more he tried to explain himself the deeper a grave he dug. He got cancelled by the community. Yes, it was democratic and I understand the reasoning. On the other hand, it was totally ruthless and inhuman. The guy's business of 15 years totally went under and then he killed himself a short time later. One can only assume he had pre-existing mental problems. Then the community mourned him and there was all this regret about how harsh people were. But even in the aftermath of his death, the die-hard progressives were still saying that his death was unfortunate but his message was wrong and deserved to be called out.
My sense is that cancel culture is justified when there are serious things on the line, but the cancel culture has gone too far. I am seeing people getting doxxed, having their private lives invaded and upended, and essentially an endless, ruthless assault on their livelihood with the intent of utterly destroying them. I can't support cancel culture because it's largely not reconciling anything. I get it, activism has to be brutal sometimes, especially when the oppressor isn't listening... but how does an eye for an eye really help our society to evolve? Erasure is a colonial tool and I generally don't support it.
You can't get rid of a problem by pretending it never existed. That's called denial, which is ironically a trait of oppressor culture!
I live in a small-ish community that has fairly homogeneous values. During the summer, a recent young business owner came out on Facebook during the anti-police riots to write a long critique about Black Lives Matter. He was very statistical and a bit cold, but I have met this guy in person and I would not call him deranged, bigoted, or anything like that. Actually, he's gay and has a disability, and he had a sort of disenfranchised upbringing. One of his family members is a cop and I think that's where his rant came from.
Anyway... his post got shared far and wide and a total witch hunt ensued. The more he tried to explain himself the deeper a grave he dug. He got cancelled by the community. Yes, it was democratic and I understand the reasoning. On the other hand, it was totally ruthless and inhuman. The guy's business of 15 years totally went under and then he killed himself a short time later. One can only assume he had pre-existing mental problems. Then the community mourned him and there was all this regret about how harsh people were. But even in the aftermath of his death, the die-hard progressives were still saying that his death was unfortunate but his message was wrong and deserved to be called out.
My sense is that cancel culture is justified when there are serious things on the line, but the cancel culture has gone too far. I am seeing people getting doxxed, having their private lives invaded and upended, and essentially an endless, ruthless assault on their livelihood with the intent of utterly destroying them. I can't support cancel culture because it's largely not reconciling anything. I get it, activism has to be brutal sometimes, especially when the oppressor isn't listening... but how does an eye for an eye really help our society to evolve? Erasure is a colonial tool and I generally don't support it.
You can't get rid of a problem by pretending it never existed. That's called denial, which is ironically a trait of oppressor culture!
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Thing is, what you're describing isn't simply cancel culture. It's basically internet mob mentality. And it's far from limited to the left.
You see similar shit when feminists are attacked by mobs of right wing types online. People online are crazy and give death threats over anything.
What I'm saying is, the existence of indisputably wrong cases of internet vigilantism don't make all "cancel culture" bad.
The problem I think is when it goes from "I won't do business with you" to "and I'll also attack anyone else who does!".
Once again humans suck at being moderate.
I see a simple solution to all of this... Don’t say stupid shit on social media. People want to say these big statements on a public platform for the very reason to get attention from others, even if it’s just a messily 20 followers it’s for attention.
I’ve read a few stories now of the supppsed bad side and truly it all comes down to people saying stupid shit. Would you walk into a black neighborhood and start screaming the n word?
We aren’t owed a social media presence, if you decide to say something moronic for all the world to see expect potential consequences. We live in a different world and just as you should watch what photos you put up (for example potential employers may look you up) you should watch what shit you say online. It’s just how it is now...
Maybe I’m cold to this reality cuz I don’t do social media beyond forums, but ya this seems like a stupid problem to me. Hopefully this forces people to turn it off and live their lives again.
-GC
I’ve read a few stories now of the supppsed bad side and truly it all comes down to people saying stupid shit. Would you walk into a black neighborhood and start screaming the n word?
We aren’t owed a social media presence, if you decide to say something moronic for all the world to see expect potential consequences. We live in a different world and just as you should watch what photos you put up (for example potential employers may look you up) you should watch what shit you say online. It’s just how it is now...
Maybe I’m cold to this reality cuz I don’t do social media beyond forums, but ya this seems like a stupid problem to me. Hopefully this forces people to turn it off and live their lives again.
-GC
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
I hate social media, so I wanna agree with you in a lot of respects here.
But at the same time, it strikes me as kinda bs.
Society can't develop if people can't speak out against injustice. And it's entirely arbitrary what is considered stupid shit to be shouted down, and what is ahead of its time.
While I don't use social media I have certainly earned enemies on the left because I respectfully spoke my honest opinion.
And even if what you say really is repugnant, that still doesn't in any way justify the extremes people go to in sending death threats and shit.
You might also say that if you go out and and scream the n word in a black neighborhood you should expect to get attacked. And that may well be true in the most coldly literal sense. But it's still morally wrong and shouldn't be defended or tolerated.
And while I agree with a lot of the traditionally left wing social policies, there are indeed ones I think are bullshit. That have earned me the wrath of certain left wing types I've known in my life.
I'm pro life, I've always defended George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin (in the sense that I believe the evidence shows its extremely likely he had no choice), I've argued against a lot of aboriginal welfare policies. I know the left can be extremist assholes too.
No you aren't owed a social media presence. But that means if you say stupid shit, you should get unfollowed or unfriended or down voted or whatever stupid shit they do. It doesn't mean people should be calling your house threatening you or trying to deprive you of any way to function in society.
There's a world of difference between petitioning for people not to work with racist companies, and dedicating enormous resources to destroying an individuals small business because he said that he doesn't agree with BLM or something, simply out of spite.
And extremists tend to see everything in extremes... Obviously. Either you're with them or against them. They refuse to tolerate honest disagreement with their views. Right and left alike.
Horseshoe theory proves true yet again.
I agree completely, I guess I’m not as familiar with cancel culture as I’d like to believe cuz I thought it mainly consisted of people just being harassed via social media or boycotted. The stories I’ve read, only the most extreme seem to get death threats. Almost always the biggest issue was the person losing their job.
Calling people out on social media, losing your account, people not shopping at your store is one thing. Threatening to murder someone is never right.
Either way, I still stand by the statement that folks could avoid this all by ditching social media. There’s many anonymous ways to get your ideas and points out there without putting your head on a chopping block. I’ve just got very little sympathy for many of these people, it sounds like first world white person problems.
-GC
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
I think social media is destructive in piles of ways. At the same time, it seems too much like victim blaming to me to say that they just shouldn't use it.
I don't really have any problem if a small business goes bankrupt because the owner is a bigot in a fairly diverse neighborhood and people in that area decide they don't wanna shop there in such numbers that they have to close. That's just the price you pay for being a member of the community, if you can't get along with your fellow humans, it will cause you problems.
But it's quite different if say, someone starts a whole Facebook community or something just to tell people that they have to not shop at their store or they too are a bigot and will be targeted next. That's when it's gone too far and I can't get on board with it.
It's when it gets this mob mentality, where anyone who doesn't embrace the mob is also an enemy, that it loses any support I might have for their position.