150 public figures sign open letter decrying cancel culture

[Jikucia]

Canel Culture is ruled by mob mentality. Nothing good comes from mob mentality. Mob mentality plus the mental security of being an anonymous voice on the internet equals nastiness, pettiness, and the usual drivel. Although I disapprove of cancel culture- I can't say I'm surprised; people will be people- I do support people saying and choosing to do with the time and money as they please. So, even though I would encourage people to stay away from cancel culture, those who participate in it shouldn't be punished or silenced.
There are some who wish to pick and choose which types of cancel culture should be accepted. This will not be helpful. Even though the world operates in shades of gray + the entire spectrum of the rainbow, rules are best done when they respond in Black and White only. Therefore, companies (Social media companies in particular) should either accept the existence of cancel culture or bar all of it.

[Grenartia]

All the whining about "cancel culture" and "Orwell gone mad" would be a lot more believable if the people complaining weren't guilty of totally shitty things, or being simps for them. It just comes across as really gaslighty instead.

If people don't want to face the consequences for shitty words and shitty actions, they shouldn't do and say shitty things. If someone has the freedom to say and do shitty things, other people should equally have the freedom to act on those things.

You not liking something doesn’t make it shitty.

No. But when you do or say things that advance ideologies and attitudes that lead to inequality, that is shitty.

Cancel culture is just a mark of laziness.

What a lazy thing to say.

When there are real consequences, it's better to assume that they're honest than ruin an innocent person's life. Cancel culture doesn't even give people that opportunity, and it should.

It does if there is a demonstrated and genuine change in belief that those people do not have those same opinions.

J.K Rowling has been spurting stupid shit for a while now, and is only a victim of her own arrogance and stupidity.

Precisely.

[Proctopeo]

You not liking something doesn’t make it shitty.

No. But when you do or say things that advance ideologies and attitudes that lead to inequality, that is shitty.

[Galloism]

When there are real consequences, it's better to assume that they're honest than ruin an innocent person's life. Cancel culture doesn't even give people that opportunity, and it should.

It does if there is a demonstrated and genuine change in belief that those people do not have those same opinions.

J.K Rowling has been spurting stupid shit for a while now, and is only a victim of her own arrogance and stupidity.

J.K. Rowling is a mixed bag for sure. She’s said some horrible things about trans people, and she should be criticized for that.

But she’s also one of they only ones to stand with a victim of domestic violence against his abuser, her abuse, and her hate mob.

[The Black Forrest]

They people are seeking to exclude or intimidate people like the white supremacists.

Or got scared after being threatened with violence repeatedly and made a poor decision. Or made a bad choice in Halloween costume. Or was against racism against white people, or special privileges for black people.

Or any one of a million other things.

Violence in the work place is already illegal. If you made a bad decision which lost the company money? It’s normal to loose your job.

There are rules about Halloween costumes.

Do you have an example of say a black guy going to a kill the white people rally and not loosing their job>

How is it protecting the business. Bob is a white racist and I won’t shop here anymore.

Yes you will - just as people who hated gay people or black people learned to shop at places where they were employed post the civil rights act, you would learn to do the same.

Hmm? No they won’t actually. If you are going to be treated as trash, you aren’t going to be going there. If a guy puts on a smile and then you see him on TV talking about those niggers, you aren’t going back.

It’s interesting you are comparing people who were discriminated against as being the same as those discriminating.

The white racists are the ones who caused those acts to happen.

White racists caused the civil rights act?

In a manner of speaking I guess. And it was a huge success. We should really expand it to cover free time actions, particularly when such actions are political.

California actually already legally protects political opinions of workers by law. The sky hasn’t fallen.

You are protected for being a demo/repub/anarchist/whatever. You aren’t protected for hate.

Businesses tend to want to fit in the communities. If the community is saying white supremacists antagonizing people is a bad thing......he should be free of consequences?

If he is not doing it at work, then it is not an employment infraction, and thus irrelevant to his employment. if the employer expects certain standards 24/7, they should also be held liable for back pay for the employee’s entire tenure for 24/7 of employment. If he’s a 24/7 representative, that means you have to pay for it.

You assume he is doing the work. For all you know he shorted the effort against the undeserables.

That’s 6686 hours of overtime per year, btw.


If the employer is so dedicated to having their employees represent them 24/7, they must pay them 24/7.

No not really. Words have ramifications as to do actions. Seriously dude. Think about it. You want a guy who works for the poor having a pod cast about the poor being a blight on society? Hey but it was off the clock so its ok?

[Costa Fierro]

J.K. Rowling is a mixed bag for sure. She’s said some horrible things about trans people, and she should be criticized for that.

And she is.

But she’s also one of they only ones to stand with a victim of domestic violence against his abuser, her abuse, and her hate mob.

And that still doesn't excuse her shitty things.

The point is that criticising people for what they say because what they say is wrong is not "cancel culture", it isn't censorship and it does not impinge on freedom of speech, which is what these people are claiming it does.

[Galloism]

Violence in the work place is already illegal.

This has nothing to do with what I said.

If you made a bad decision which lost the company money? It’s normal to loose your job.

There are rules about Halloween costumes.

Do you have an example of say a black guy going to a kill the white people rally and not loosing their job>

I can’t think of a single example of the cancel culture crowd going against a black racist. Even the ones in Chaz literally demanding segregation.

How is it protecting the business. Bob is a white racist and I won’t shop here anymore.

Yes you will - just as people who hated gay people or black people learned to shop at places where they were employed post the civil rights act, you would learn to do the same.

Hmm? No they won’t actually. If you are going to be treated as trash, you aren’t going to be going there.[/quote]

If he treats you like trash at the workplace, that’s an employment infraction.

If a guy puts on a smile and then you see him on TV talking about those niggers, you aren’t going back.

Yes, you will. Because you’ll understand that the business has no choice, and when you need a gallon of milk, you’ll go to the store closest to you.

It’s interesting you are comparing people who were discriminated against as being the same as those discriminating.

It’s a very pragmatic thing. When you take actions in an attempt to make people destitute based on mob mentality, you will not only hit unacceptable targets (as I already mentioned), even when you hit acceptable targets, you are causing social problems worse than what you’re trying to cure.

What’s your goal? Increase homelessness? Increase starvation? Drive them to suicide?

They don’t just vanish into an alternate universe.

The white racists are the ones who caused those acts to happen.

White racists caused the civil rights act?

In a manner of speaking I guess. And it was a huge success. We should really expand it to cover free time actions, particularly when such actions are political.

California actually already legally protects political opinions of workers by law. The sky hasn’t fallen.

You are protected for being a demo/repub/anarchist/whatever. You aren’t protected for hate.[/quote]
It’s the only way to protect the innocent, what is considered “hate” varies greatly.

We’ve already seen refusal to discriminate be considered hate.

Businesses tend to want to fit in the communities. If the community is saying white supremacists antagonizing people is a bad thing......he should be free of consequences?

If he is not doing it at work, then it is not an employment infraction, and thus irrelevant to his employment. if the employer expects certain standards 24/7, they should also be held liable for back pay for the employee’s entire tenure for 24/7 of employment. If he’s a 24/7 representative, that means you have to pay for it.

You assume he is doing the work. For all you know he shorted the effort against the undeserables.[/quote]

In which case, that would be an employment infraction, and a firable offense.

This is different from the working doing the job they were hired to do sufficiently, but you don’t like what he does off the clock when you’re not paying him.

That’s 6686 hours of overtime per year, btw.


If the employer is so dedicated to having their employees represent them 24/7, they must pay them 24/7.

No not really. Words have ramifications as to do actions. Seriously dude. Think about it. You want a guy who works for the poor having a pod cast about the poor being a blight on society? Hey but it was off the clock so its ok?

If he does his job well, and investigation of his work is exemplary, beyond reproach, does it matter to the job he was hired to do?

[Galloism]

J.K. Rowling is a mixed bag for sure. She’s said some horrible things about trans people, and she should be criticized for that.

And she is.

But she’s also one of they only ones to stand with a victim of domestic violence against his abuser, her abuse, and her hate mob.

And that still doesn't excuse her shitty things.

The point is that criticising people for what they say because what they say is wrong is not "cancel culture", it isn't censorship and it does not impinge on freedom of speech, which is what these people are claiming it does.

Mostly I think the pursuing them at their work and harassing their employer in an attempt to leave them destitute is beyond pale.

Doesn’t apply to jk Rowling in particular, but we’ve seen it used multiple times against people that didn’t deserve being made destitute.

[The Holy Mercurian Empire]

According to Popper, the sort of view you claim to defend would seem to leave room for "reactionaries" to give rational arguments for their views in the public sphere, so long as they don't resort to or encourage violence.

Are you willing to listen to "reactionary" arguments? Or will you deny us even that?

“ as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion”

Because of the environment in which we find ourselves, the continuous failures of neoliberalism/neoconservatism, we cannot guarantee that reactionary ideas will be kept in check.
Rather, they find in the current state a welcome home, and so they must be denied the right to spread their ideas.

So, just to be clear, even if a "reactionary" - an evangelical, say - were to offer reasoned arguments for their position, your view is that they should be silenced and denied access to the public sphere?

That sounds like intolerance of those holding different opinions - which is bigotry.

Is bigotry just magically okay when the target is on the right?

[Gormwood]

“ as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion”

Because of the environment in which we find ourselves, the continuous failures of neoliberalism/neoconservatism, we cannot guarantee that reactionary ideas will be kept in check.
Rather, they find in the current state a welcome home, and so they must be denied the right to spread their ideas.

So, just to be clear, even if a "reactionary" - an evangelical, say - were to offer reasoned arguments for their position, your view is that they should be silenced and denied access to the public sphere?

That sounds like intolerance of those holding different opinions - which is bigotry.

Is bigotry just magically okay when the target is on the right?

So tell us how you would make the position that transgenders are unnatural freaks who made themselves so by choice sound "reasonable," for example.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

This all seems to be some sort of anti popularity contest, where its okay to harm people with the least popular political opinion.

I think its shit to deliberately harm people.

[Gormwood]

This all seems to be some sort of anti popularity contest, where its okay to harm people with the least popular political opinion.

I think its shit to deliberately harm people.

Calling people out for normalizing or even promoting discrimination against a minority group that can even reach violent levels is now "harming people with the least political popular opinion".

[The Holy Mercurian Empire]

So, just to be clear, even if a "reactionary" - an evangelical, say - were to offer reasoned arguments for their position, your view is that they should be silenced and denied access to the public sphere?

That sounds like intolerance of those holding different opinions - which is bigotry.

Is bigotry just magically okay when the target is on the right?

So tell us how you would make the position that transgenders are unnatural freaks who made themselves so by choice sound "reasonable," for example.

I'd say that the extreme discomfort they seem to experience as a result of being "born in the 'wrong' body" is indicative of some kind of psychological disorder. Certainly, that's the view we take when the "wrongness" of the body has to do with BMI. Why should we take a different view when the "wrongness" has to do with genetalia?

[Gormwood]

So tell us how you would make the position that transgenders are unnatural freaks who made themselves so by choice sound "reasonable," for example.

I'd say that the extreme discomfort they seem to experience as a result of being "born in the 'wrong' body" is indicative of some kind of psychological disorder. Certainly, that's the view we take when the "wrongness" of the body has to do with BMI. Why should we take a different view when the "wrongness" has to do with genetalia?

Mental Illness, the same line of attack that was used against homosexuality for years.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

This all seems to be some sort of anti popularity contest, where its okay to harm people with the least popular political opinion.

I think its shit to deliberately harm people.

Calling people out for normalizing or even promoting discrimination against a minority group that can even reach violent levels is now "harming people with the least political popular opinion".

Im guessing you have a reputation for being deliberately disingenuous.

A lot worse than calling out for a lot less than the nebulous act of "normalisation" is what's being discussed here.

Harm is harm no matter who it is inflicted on.

[The Holy Mercurian Empire]

I'd say that the extreme discomfort they seem to experience as a result of being "born in the 'wrong' body" is indicative of some kind of psychological disorder. Certainly, that's the view we take when the "wrongness" of the body has to do with BMI. Why should we take a different view when the "wrongness" has to do with genetalia?

Mental Illness, the same line of attack that was used against homosexuality for years.

As far as I can tell, homosexuality was dropped from the DSM for political reasons rather than scientific ones.

[Free Federal States]

Mental Illness, the same line of attack that was used against homosexuality for years.

As far as I can tell, homosexuality was dropped from the DSM for political reasons rather than scientific ones.

Have you actually met a homosexual person and had a legitimate conversation with them? Or do you just hate? Because I’ve met several LGBTQ+ people in my lifetime, and they’re smart, kind, and friendly, just like everybody else. Based on my own firsthand experience, I can tell you that nothing suggests a mental disorder, lower IQ, or lack of cognitive thinking ability.

[Costa Fierro]

And she is.



And that still doesn't excuse her shitty things.

The point is that criticising people for what they say because what they say is wrong is not "cancel culture", it isn't censorship and it does not impinge on freedom of speech, which is what these people are claiming it does.

Mostly I think the pursuing them at their work and harassing their employer in an attempt to leave them destitute is beyond pale.

Doesn’t apply to jk Rowling in particular, but we’ve seen it used multiple times against people that didn’t deserve being made destitute.

Destitution is a consequence of their actions. If they don't like it, they shouldn't be a shitty person.

[The Alma Mater]

Mental Illness, the same line of attack that was used against homosexuality for years.

As far as I can tell, homosexuality was dropped from the DSM for political reasons rather than scientific ones.

Why yes, that's the problem - you saying "as far as I can tell" when you actually mean "I did not bother to do any research, but this is what I want to believe so I will ignore everything else".

[Grenartia]

Mental Illness, the same line of attack that was used against homosexuality for years.

As far as I can tell, homosexuality was dropped from the DSM for political reasons rather than scientific ones.

>1972
>LGBT+ having enough political influence to pressure a scientific organization into making a purely political, rather than scientific, change of policy

What the actual fuck?

Don't yall realize if we actually had that much power all the way back then, it wouldn't have taken 3 separate Supreme Court decisions in the new millenium to repeal sodomy laws, institute marriage equality, and make employment discrimination illegal?

Like, honest question for people who believe that nonsense narrative. WHY do you actually believe it? It makes no fucking sense.

[Luminesa]

When there are real consequences, it's better to assume that they're honest than ruin an innocent person's life. Cancel culture doesn't even give people that opportunity, and it should.

The only people I see actually facing any serious consequences are the well-off. Actual, unironic millionaires. People who could live comfortably the rest of their lives without a job.

It does hit less wealthy and glamorous people as well, like that girl on Tumblr who got death threats for drawing a Native American MLP OC and a Rose Quartz that was just a tad skinnier than the actual character. When she posted from her hospital bed recovering from a suicide attempt after all that, her cyberbullies were STILL calling her a “failure” and saying she should try again.

[Kurnugia]

So tell us how you would make the position that transgenders are unnatural freaks who made themselves so by choice sound "reasonable," for example.

I'd say that the extreme discomfort they seem to experience as a result of being "born in the 'wrong' body" is indicative of some kind of psychological disorder. Certainly, that's the view we take when the "wrongness" of the body has to do with BMI. Why should we take a different view when the "wrongness" has to do with genetalia?

Gender dysphoria is a mental illness and treatment is transitioning. But I doubt you want that.

[Ostroeuropa]

Also worth noting to all the progressives here arguing the right-wing is worse,

Both Contrapoints and Philosophytube have testified in their videos that they have experienced neo-Nazi and reactionary harassment, and harassment from the left wing cancel culture types.

Both of them said the cancel culture was way worse.

[Galloism]

Mostly I think the pursuing them at their work and harassing their employer in an attempt to leave them destitute is beyond pale.

Doesn’t apply to jk Rowling in particular, but we’ve seen it used multiple times against people that didn’t deserve being made destitute.

Destitution is a consequence of their actions. If they don't like it, they shouldn't be a shitty person.

I hope you enjoy working to support them. Because if they can’t provide for themselves, the state will have to, and you’ll have to support the state.

Not to mention, there’s plenty of people getting caught up in it who did either nothing wrong or only had relatively minor infractions, not deserving of being made destitute by the mob.

[Nuroblav]

Destitution is a consequence of their actions. If they don't like it, they shouldn't be a shitty person.

And who is to determine what is and isn't 'shitty'?