150 public figures sign open letter decrying cancel culture

[James_xenoland]

Actually, we want bigotry to stop - a lot of this cancel culture stuff is based on bigotry. But it's reverse direction bigotry, so it's ok.

So people who are condemned and boycotted for saying transgenders are abominations of nature are The Real Victims?

Well they aren't perpetrators of any REAL crime! So where does that leave hysterical mob overreaction and attempts to ruin them and blackmail those around them? It makes the mob a bunch of bullies melting-down over the idea that someone has the wrong opinions, trying to ruin lives. (i.e. petty shitheads)

Scary thought for you I know, that shitty words and opinions aren't crimes.. But such is the reality and "price" we pay for living in a free society.

[Galloism]

Actually, we want bigotry to stop - a lot of this cancel culture stuff is based on bigotry. But it's reverse direction bigotry, so it's ok.

So people who are condemned and boycotted for saying transgenders are abominations of nature are The Real Victims?

When you only do it based on the race or sex of the person, yes it is.

It's like when a black guy gets shot for having a gun in a standoff situation where a white guy wouldn't. He's certainly responsible for the standoff situation, but if he's killed due to his race, he's also a victim of racism.

Such it is with the cancel culture stuff - it's extensively bigoted in its application, so even if the person in question had their part in starting it, when it is targeted in application based on sex and/or race, it's bigoted.

[Stylan]

This letter reveals that the only people who dislike cancel culture are the rich upper-class liberals that are supposedly "manical SJWs." I mean half of these fucktards work at Ivy League schools.

[Galloism]

Regarding cancel culture w/r/t worker rights - you know which unions historically have no problem defending the prejudices of their members? Cops.

At large, workers have basically no rights in the US as is, so that toothpaste is out of the tube, unfortunately.

What shocks me is how capitalists decry this - the threat of boycott and trial in the court of public opinion absent enforcement of the state is an explicitly capitalist social motion. That it had been adopted by "the left" is an interesting bit of synergy.

You say synergy. I say hypocrisy.

Of course I say it's hypocritical to both.

But I'm on the left - I've always been for workers rights.

[Galloism]

Precisely, when is criticizing cancel culture an intrinsic part of your personal identity or a subject of discrimination?

You can criticize it all you want, we're not changing each other's minds here. All I'm saying is Moo Juice:gender Identity is a lousy hypothetical

But I didn't ever use moo juice:gender identity.

That's a straw man.

I said moo juice:organizing online hate mobs. Try addressing the actual post.

[The Emerald Legion]

So people who are condemned and boycotted for saying transgenders are abominations of nature are The Real Victims?

When you only do it based on the race or sex of the person, yes it is.

It's like when a black guy gets shot for having a gun in a standoff situation where a white guy wouldn't. He's certainly responsible for the standoff situation, but if he's killed due to his race, he's also a victim of racism.

Such it is with the cancel culture stuff - it's extensively bigoted in its application, so even if the person in question had their part in starting it, when it is targeted in application based on sex and/or race, it's bigoted.

Technically speaking, the Primary Definition of Bigotry has nothing to do with race or sex, because the word has it's origins in religious conflict. It means someone who's unwilling to tolerate ideas.

[Galloism]

When you only do it based on the race or sex of the person, yes it is.

It's like when a black guy gets shot for having a gun in a standoff situation where a white guy wouldn't. He's certainly responsible for the standoff situation, but if he's killed due to his race, he's also a victim of racism.

Such it is with the cancel culture stuff - it's extensively bigoted in its application, so even if the person in question had their part in starting it, when it is targeted in application based on sex and/or race, it's bigoted.

Technically speaking, the Primary Definition of Bigotry has nothing to do with race or sex, because the word has it's origins in religious conflict. It means someone who's unwilling to tolerate ideas.

You know, somewhere in the back of my mind I just said to myself "you knew that, dumbass", but for some reason I've been using it wrong.

I should have racist/sexist, or more general, prejudiced.

[The Holy Mercurian Empire]

When you only do it based on the race or sex of the person, yes it is.

It's like when a black guy gets shot for having a gun in a standoff situation where a white guy wouldn't. He's certainly responsible for the standoff situation, but if he's killed due to his race, he's also a victim of racism.

Such it is with the cancel culture stuff - it's extensively bigoted in its application, so even if the person in question had their part in starting it, when it is targeted in application based on sex and/or race, it's bigoted.

Technically speaking, the Primary Definition of Bigotry has nothing to do with race or sex, because the word has it's origins in religious conflict. It means someone who's unwilling to tolerate ideas.

This. If you can't stand someone who thinks that marriage is between one man and one woman and lasts for one lifetime, you're a bigot. If you're so wrapped up in ideas about "gender identity" that you refuse to give someone who claims that gender tracks sex a hearing, you're a bigot. If you want to silence someone who believes that life begins at conception in the name of "woman's rights," you're a bigot.

Bigotry is about obstinate devotion to one's own opinions, and intolerance of all others. That describes "cancel culture" pretty well, I think.

[Diarcesia]

Technically speaking, the Primary Definition of Bigotry has nothing to do with race or sex, because the word has it's origins in religious conflict. It means someone who's unwilling to tolerate ideas.

This. If you can't stand someone who thinks that marriage is between one man and one woman and lasts for one lifetime, you're a bigot. If you're so wrapped up in ideas about "gender identity" that you refuse to give someone who claims that gender tracks sex a hearing, you're a bigot. If you want to silence someone who believes that life begins at conception in the name of "woman's rights," you're a bigot.

Bigotry is about obstinate devotion to one's own opinions, and intolerance of all others. That describes "cancel culture" pretty well, I think.

What they were doing didn't spring from a vacuum. A few generations ago, to go against the status quo can't be tolerated. Like "gays should go to conversion therapy", "blacks should know their place" and "if you got raped you asked for it" intolerable.

What's happening now is an overcorrection.

[The Holy Mercurian Empire]

This. If you can't stand someone who thinks that marriage is between one man and one woman and lasts for one lifetime, you're a bigot. If you're so wrapped up in ideas about "gender identity" that you refuse to give someone who claims that gender tracks sex a hearing, you're a bigot. If you want to silence someone who believes that life begins at conception in the name of "woman's rights," you're a bigot.

Bigotry is about obstinate devotion to one's own opinions, and intolerance of all others. That describes "cancel culture" pretty well, I think.

What they were doing didn't spring from a vacuum. A few generations ago, to go against the status quo can't be tolerated. Like "gays should go to conversion therapy", "blacks should know their place" and "if you got raped you asked for it" intolerable.

What's happening now is an overcorrection.

Fun fact. I don't agree with any of the above statements in scare quotes.

Admittedly, if there were any evidence that conversion therapy actually worked I'd support it, but sans that, it's not something I can get behind.

[Diarcesia]

What they were doing didn't spring from a vacuum. A few generations ago, to go against the status quo can't be tolerated. Like "gays should go to conversion therapy", "blacks should know their place" and "if you got raped you asked for it" intolerable.

What's happening now is an overcorrection.

Fun fact. I don't agree with any of the above statements in scare quotes.

Admittedly, if there were any evidence that conversion therapy actually worked I'd support it, but sans that, it's not something I can get behind.

Not saying you do, only that it happened.

[West Leas Oros 2]

This letter reveals that the only people who dislike cancel culture are the rich upper-class liberals that are supposedly "manical SJWs." I mean half of these fucktards work at Ivy League schools.

Give me one example of cancel culture benefitting proletarians.

[Atheris]

This letter reveals that the only people who dislike cancel culture are the rich upper-class liberals that are supposedly "manical SJWs." I mean half of these fucktards work at Ivy League schools.

Most of the people I've seen decry cancel culture aren't rich upper-class people.

[West Leas Oros 2]

This letter reveals that the only people who dislike cancel culture are the rich upper-class liberals that are supposedly "manical SJWs." I mean half of these fucktards work at Ivy League schools.

Most of the people I've seen decry cancel culture aren't rich upper-class people.

Also, what if someone who were working-class was “cancelled”. What then?

[The Lone Alliance]

This letter reveals that the only people who dislike cancel culture are the rich upper-class liberals that are supposedly "manical SJWs." I mean half of these fucktards work at Ivy League schools.

Half of them were actually supporters of Cancel culture until it came for them.
It's like the French Revolution a lot of the earlier revolutionaries loved it when the mob came for their enemies, then the Revolution advanced to the point where they were the enemies then it wasn't so fun.

[Plzen]

Remember, social pressure is only a bad thing when it starts to target conservative interests.

While on one hand I firmly believe in live and let live, on the other hand I also have zero sympathy for those who were perfectly content to let other people be pushed around with unspoken social pressure and are only complaining about it now that social pressure is targeting people they like.

---

-snip-

Or, to summarise,

“The left should sabotage themselves by rejecting people on their side that don’t share liberal-democratic values. Meanwhile, we’ll perfectly happily keep accepting racist or religious-fundamentalist votes.”

[West Leas Oros 2]

Remember, social pressure is only a bad thing when it starts to target conservative interests.

While on one hand I firmly believe in live and let live, on the other hand I also have zero sympathy for those who were perfectly content to let other people be pushed around with unspoken social pressure and are only complaining about it now that social pressure is targeting people they like.

What does this even mean?

[Atheris]

Remember, social pressure is only a bad thing when it starts to target conservative interests.

While on one hand I firmly believe in live and let live, on the other hand I also have zero sympathy for those who were perfectly content to let other people be pushed around with unspoken social pressure and are only complaining about it now that social pressure is targeting people they like.

I feel like I had a stroke reading this.

[Plzen]

What does this even mean?

It’s an open secret in this country that pro-union people have a hard time finding office jobs, and I hear the most interesting stories from my LGBT friends about what society feels like to them.

People being shunned, ostracised, harassed, or openly denounced - often quietly, but sometimes not-so-quietly - for being “controversial” is nothing new.

I find it interesting that this whole outrage over cancel culture started right around that time when this age-old ostracisation started to go after people for social-progress reasons.

Where was all this outrage two decades ago?

[West Leas Oros 2]

What does this even mean?

It’s an open secret in this country that pro-union people have a hard time finding office jobs, and I hear the most interesting stories from my LGBT friends about what society feels like to them.

People being shunned, ostracised, harassed, or openly denounced - often quietly, but sometimes not-so-quietly - for being “controversial” is nothing new.

I find it interesting that this whole outrage over cancel culture started right around that time when this age-old ostracisation started to go after people for social-progress reasons.

Where was all this outrage two decades ago?

As I’ve said before, other people being hypocrites shouldn’t mean defending a bad idea. Am I pissed that unionists and LGBT were “cancelled” in the past and nobody gave a shit? You’re damn right. Am I ALSO pissed at modern cancel culture harming people for “social-progress reasons”? Yes. You can denounce both, even if others don’t. As a matter of fact, you kind of have to denounce both, unless you want to be a hypocrite.

[The Lone Alliance]

What they were doing didn't spring from a vacuum. A few generations ago, to go against the status quo can't be tolerated. Like "gays should go to conversion therapy", "blacks should know their place" and "if you got raped you asked for it" intolerable.

What's happening now is an overcorrection.

Actually it's more a defending of a new status quo, social media, as well as most of the tech companies are strong supporters of this current Identity culture which cancel culture is part of... of course everyone knows that they actually don't really care that much about marginalized people but neither do a lot of the people who practice cancel culture.

The largest people pushing it aren't actually marginalized, they're actually rather privileged themselves, but I believe that part of the nature of it, it's less about the actual marginalized people and more about the cultural power that a bunch of people get to weld.

The problem is that this new status quo claims that it's one that cares about marginalized voices but in truth that caring is rather selective, I mean despite several months of protests and claiming that everyone cares about BLM there has been little push towards actual meaning police reform and a whole lot of window dressing instead.... perfect example.

There's also a large number of marginalized groups still on the wayside, such as poor people in general who don't have problems with police but are still suffering....Not every poor black person lives in a harsh inner city with corrupt police, but apparently starving to death while poor is fine as long as the police don't shoot you.

But really the modern status quo doesn't care about those marginalized people, because it's not cost effective to do so, so they'll speak up about identity groups when it looks good to do so and then go back to ignoring them once some small token fixes are made.

I also think that this new status quo is quite fragile, there are large massive parts of western culture that have not bought into this status quo and there's a lot of resistance, so the only way to enforce the status quo is through cancel culture, so they see stuff like this and they're instantly afraid because I think a lot of people have come to believe that without cancel culture people might say things that go against this status quo, and then we'll be dragged back into the "Dark ages" of bigotry and racism and other bad things...

The problem is that once canceled nothing's stopping all the canceled people from gathering together and creating a counterculture that's full of all those nasty things, after all you can't cancel them again?

Of course then there's the other threat, what if the marginalized groups start speaking up about the real issues affecting them, seizing the spotlight from the cancelers in the process?

Really though I don't think ending cancel culture will the genie back into the bottle so I think that fear is wrong. I think the worst thing that will happen is people will have to deal with being offended again...

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

What they were doing didn't spring from a vacuum. A few generations ago, to go against the status quo can't be tolerated. Like "gays should go to conversion therapy", "blacks should know their place" and "if you got raped you asked for it" intolerable.

What's happening now is an overcorrection.

Actually it's more a defending of a new status quo, social media, as well as most of the tech companies are strong supporters of this current Identity culture which cancel culture is part of... of course everyone knows that they actually don't really care that much about marginalized people but neither do a lot of the people who practice cancel culture.

The largest people pushing it aren't actually marginalized, they're actually rather privileged themselves, but I believe that part of the nature of it, it's less about the actual marginalized people and more about the cultural power that a bunch of people get to weld.

The problem is that this new status quo claims that it's one that cares about marginalized voices but in truth that caring is rather selective, I mean despite several months of protests and claiming that everyone cares about BLM there has been little push towards actual meaning police reform and a whole lot of window dressing instead.... perfect example.

There's also a large number of marginalized groups still on the wayside, such as poor people in general who don't have problems with police but are still suffering....Not every poor black person lives in a harsh inner city with corrupt police, but apparently starving to death while poor is fine as long as the police don't shoot you.

But really the modern status quo doesn't care about those marginalized people, because it's not cost effective to do so, so they'll speak up about identity groups when it looks good to do so and then go back to ignoring them once some small token fixes are made.

I also think that this new status quo is quite fragile, there are large massive parts of western culture that have not bought into this status quo and there's a lot of resistance, so the only way to enforce the status quo is through cancel culture, so they see stuff like this and they're instantly afraid because I think a lot of people have come to believe that without cancel culture people might say things that go against this status quo, and then we'll be dragged back into the "Dark ages" of bigotry and racism and other bad things...

The problem is that once canceled nothing's stopping all the canceled people from gathering together and creating a counterculture that's full of all those nasty things, after all you can't cancel them again?

Of course then there's the other threat, what if the marginalized groups start speaking up about the real issues affecting them, seizing the spotlight from the cancelers in the process?

Really though I don't think ending cancel culture will the genie back into the bottle so I think that fear is wrong. I think the worst thing that will happen is people will have to deal with being offended again...

Nice

[Knask]

Cancel culture has now been cancelled, and we should cancel anyone who cancels anyone in the future.

[Liriena]

Also, on the issue of giving a voice to the voiceless, the open letter rings doubly hollow in context. This letter exists as a reaction from largely neoliberal and neoconservative figures against "cancel culture" coming from the left side of the spectrum, and in defense of extreme opinions on the right. As I said before, extreme opinions on the right aren't voiceless. They have hundreds of thousands and even millions of followers online, and often enjoy tacit or open support from the mainstream media and from the political establishment. You know who is actually voiceless? Who had to actually improvise an online communication network in social media in order to get any sort of mainstream attention to their grievances? Those who opposed police brutality, who only received mainstream attention when they finally set something on fire. Black Americans whose systemic discrimination and marginalization has for years been denied by huge right-wing media platforms. Native Americans whose brutal repression at Standing Rock was largely ignored or enabled by the mainstream. Trans people, who in the UK in particular have to deal with defamation from both sides of the political mainstream. Oh, and let's not forget the poor, working or otherwise, whose media representation largely boils down to "inspirational" stories or demonization.

That's a very 'gripping' story. But not a very reasonable or logical one, nor does it actually address the letter/issue.. Just more hand-waving and whining over ideological inventions and fantasies. I'm not sure if you are able to comprehend this but,.. everything not stopping and centering around one small group of the "correct" people, is no more a case of being "voiceless," as being a vanishingly tiny minority is to being "marginalized". Please gain some perspective! First we shouldn't think about this because "wrongthinkers" agreed with it, then it was just simply the "wrong" people, next it was because it wasn't the "right" people... As usual, it's motorized goalpost with progs. Moving from one crutch excuse to another in order to hand-wave away all reasonable concerns and problems, is not a good look.

???

Cancel culture has now been cancelled, and we should cancel anyone who cancels anyone in the future.

Nobody can ever be criticised or shamed in public again?

Neat!

Shameless social progressivism is back on the menu, boys!

[Kowani]

It's not surprising that in the age of Trump people want bigotry to be consequence free for the bigots and for people on the receiving end to just suck it

Actually, we want bigotry to stop - a lot of this cancel culture stuff is based on bigotry. But it's reverse direction bigotry, so it's ok.

Yes, unironically. Shame reactionaries whenever possible.
This is basic Paradox of Tolerance stuff, seriously.