David P - How Does the Right Want to "Fix" Cancel Culture?

Post Reply New Topic

https://youtu.be/bjWoOqfLCpQ

All pretty spot on. The right complains constantly about cancel culture but they offer no 'solution' to it that is not authoritarian or reactionary.
What solution would they have to keep Dr Seuss from being 'cancelled' (read: had a small number of books stop being printed by publishers)? It sounds like the solution is either the government steps in and dictates which books they can or can't publish (which is anti-free market), or the solution is we become a society that does not care as much about racism (which is bad for reasons which should be obvious).

What about Gina Carano being 'cancelled' for suggesting that being a republican now is like being a jew in nazi Germany? (Let's ignore which party virtually all Americans neo-nazis vote for for a moment). Do we want to dictate to companies who they can and can't employ and why (anti-free market), or do we want society to change that we don't mind if people throw around the holocaust to act like they are being oppressed for having to face social consequences for saying such things?

As for Colin Kaepernick and Cindy McCain, this is just further evidence of the longstanding tradition among the right of cancelling those who aren't conservative enough or who don't act 'patriotic' enough. Cancelled Republicans tend to be cancelled for not being hardline enough. Which is further evidence that any calls from the GOP for a return to centrism are gaslighting.

Shame on me for not mentioning the group formally known as The Dixie Chicks in my historical conservative cancel culture thread.

The only way to stop the current rise in cancel culture is to keep on trying to convince people that erring on the side of noncensorship and non-canceling is the lesser of two evils. It is looking very bad at the moment for these main reasons.
1. It is a lesser of two evils issue. Human nature wants to get rid of problems as soon as possible by any means necessary.
2. The conservative hypocrisy discussed in the video. Do what I say and not what I do is nice in theory but when one does bad things others will ignore whatever one says. You can argue that it illogical and it is but that is how things work.

All opponents of cancel culture can do is be mindful of calling out censorship from all sides and especially from people you agree with and to avoid as much as possible from advocating canceling things you strongly disagree with which is easier said than done, we all have our triggers.

said plenty of times that loud voices on the right have hijacked the phrase 'cancel culture' and now use it at every possible turn simply as a way of justifying their position, as they claim it is in response

If they can make people believe that cancel culture is a widespread problem then their claimed response to it is also justified in the eyes of many

If your boss decided to fire you because you're queer, and he felt that your lifestyle didn't represent the company well, you'd probably scream discrimination. Seems you pick and chose when you're "anti-free market."

Nice strawman, there.

New children's book...

If a "queer" person can do the job as well as a "non-queer" person, why fire the person?

Correspondingly, according to the logic exhibited by those who believe in the ideology of the "at will" concept, a "queer" person could fire someone for being cis, male, heterosexual, and Christian.

No one can "fix" it as it is a strategy.

Well, seeing as how I live in Arkansas, and conservatives here are trying to "cancel" women and queer people, I'm not terribly interested in imaginary hypotheticals.

Can't you see that I'm advocating for the rights of "non cis" folks?

I'm not one of those people in Arkansas seeking to cancel women and queer people. Attack them!

She isn't saying you're attacking them, she's saying you're bringing up irrelevant hypotheticals in the face of actual concerns.

This cancel-culture, censorship garbage has really gone from the Sublime to the Ridiculous......

I bought up the "hypothetical" to expose the absurdity of those who would seek to fire somebody of ability just because they live an "alternative" lifestyle.

It's not a likely situation to occur though. Yes, hypothetically that employer could seek to discriminate against the majority in some reciprocal fashion but it would have virtually no impact and invite substantial backlash. This is why the majority is able to exert pressure on minorities in ways they can't respond in kind to.

That would be illegal discrimination, get a lawyer.

I tend to keep my definition of "cancel culture" limited to attempts to erase opinion not so much erasing people based on how they were born. I also try to avoid trying to call canceling by terrorism "cancel culture".

Of course, I understand the above are extreme versions of "canceling".

I do that for similar reasons as trying to avoid Nazi analogies. Terrorism and discrimination are visceral canceling and thus easy to understand why it is dangerous. Firing, boycotting, shaming are both protected free speech, and unlike discrimination or terrorism often difficult and for some impossible to see when it is overdone and when it starts going down that "slippery slope" to criminality.