150 public figures sign open letter decrying cancel culture

[Rusozak]

A free society can't censor itself into progress. People being punished just because they said something, which modern activists preceive as offensive, 10 years ago is ridiculous. People change their opinions all the time.

As do what is acceptable about society. Remember when you could crack jokes about a fictional fat kid without being blacklisted for fat shaming? Imagine trying to do another reboot of Willy Wonka today.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Cancel culture was bad in 1642, and it remains bad now.

[Picairn]

As do what is acceptable about society. Remember when you could crack jokes about a fictional fat kid without being blacklisted for fat shaming? Imagine trying to do another reboot of Willy Wonka today.

First world problems. Lack of serious issues (starvation, droughts, poverty, etc.) makes people search for smaller things to complain about. I wonder the cancel culture activists have ever experienced actual, government-enforced racism and sexism in other parts of the world.

[Rusozak]

As do what is acceptable about society. Remember when you could crack jokes about a fictional fat kid without being blacklisted for fat shaming? Imagine trying to do another reboot of Willy Wonka today.

First world problems. Lack of serious issues (starvation, droughts, poverty, etc.) makes people search for smaller things to complain about. I wonder the cancel culture activists have ever experienced actual, government-enforced racism and sexism in other parts of the world.

Nah. Bullying someone closer to home for something said in poor taste years ago is easier for fulfilling their false sense of being champions for justice. That's all it is, ego. How many of these people actually research and find out what it is people they claim to be defending want?

[Uiiop]

A free society can't censor itself into progress. People being punished just because they said something, which modern activists preceive as offensive, 10 years ago is ridiculous. People change their opinions all the time.

That seems like a false generalization. Mobs can and do accept when people change their minds. It varies from each individual mob sure. James Gunn will say so but there aren't really absoutle rules in this like you implied.

As do what is acceptable about society. Remember when you could crack jokes about a fictional fat kid without being blacklisted for fat shaming? Imagine trying to do another reboot of Willy Wonka today.

First world problems. Lack of serious issues (starvation, droughts, poverty, etc.) makes people search for smaller things to complain about. I wonder the cancel culture activists have ever experienced actual, government-enforced racism and sexism in other parts of the world.

False demonization can't be pined down to solely privilege. The fact that cancel drama can come from the black and trans community should be proof enough.

This rhetoric is more about being offended at people passionately disagree with you rather than actually analyzing why they're wrong. Narcissism and privilege may play some role in this mob yes but you're acting like it's a sole factor just because "How dare they be wrong!"

Not very pragmatic of you.

[The Emerald Legion]

A free society can't censor itself into progress. People being punished just because they said something, which modern activists preceive as offensive, 10 years ago is ridiculous. People change their opinions all the time.

That seems like a false generalization. Mobs can and do accept when people change their minds. It varies from each individual mob sure. James Gunn will say so but it ain't an absolute.

First world problems. Lack of serious issues (starvation, droughts, poverty, etc.) makes people search for smaller things to complain about. I wonder the cancel culture activists have ever experienced actual, government-enforced racism and sexism in other parts of the world.

False demonization can't be pined down to solely privilege. The fact that cancel drama can come from the black and trans community should be proof enough.

... No offense but the black and Trans Community are far more privileged than the people living in literal mud-huts surviving off subsistence farming and wondering where they're going to get their clean water.

[Necroghastia]

Three word responses aren't exactly the best way to start a discussion. If you want to provide me with specific examples of how and why that's a violation of someone's human rights, I would be more than willing to listen to you. Until such time, however, I am going to continue to be willing and able to provide people with professional and appropriate consequences for the actions that they take.

There's no discussion here.
Its in the name "freedom of speech".
Not "its only okay to say popular or fashionable things"

You're just wrong, looking for excuses to willingly cause harm to people.

You do realize that, in saying that people cannot take action against words and actions that they find disagreeable, you are restricting freedom of speech? Perhaps even more than "cancel culture?"

[Uiiop]

That seems like a false generalization. Mobs can and do accept when people change their minds. It varies from each individual mob sure. James Gunn will say so but it ain't an absolute.


False demonization can't be pined down to solely privilege. The fact that cancel drama can come from the black and trans community should be proof enough.

... No offense but the black and Trans Community are far more privileged than the people living in literal mud-huts surviving off subsistence farming and wondering where they're going to get their clean water.

I doubt you'll find mud-hats have reached a state where they only go after deserving people. Nor would Picairn claim that they haven't faced government enforced bigotry even in america.

[Picairn]

Mobs can and do accept when people change their minds.

Really? Tell that to people whose lives were ruined for things they said a long time ago.

False demonization can't be pined down to solely privilege. The fact that cancel drama can come from the black and trans community should be proof enough.

Except that even black and trans communities live better in America than the rest of the world. In China, blacks are being evicted from their homes. In the Middle East, gay people will be executed if found.

[Picairn]

This rhetoric is more about being offended at people passionately disagree with you rather than actually analyzing why they're wrong. Narcissism and privilege may play some role in this mob yes but you're acting like it's a sole factor just because "How dare they be wrong!"

Not very pragmatic of you.

Does "passionately disagree" include going out of your way to push for cancelling people on the Internet?

[Uiiop]

Mobs can and do accept when people change their minds.

Really? Tell that to people whose lives were ruined for things they said a long time ago.

False demonization can't be pined down to solely privilege. The fact that cancel drama can come from the black and trans community should be proof enough.

Except that even black and trans communities live better in America than the rest of the world. In China, blacks are being evicted from their homes. In the Middle East, gay people will be executed if found.

You can ask Hbomberguy and james gunn. Like i said it varies between mobs.
Oppression Olympics is dumb. Oppressed people can and will freak out over stupid shit. That oppression doesn't take their minds off of anything and make it easier to freak out over nothing. If what you said was true PSTD trigger wouldn't be a thing. They would just focus on pain rationally rather than falsely associate things with their trauma. A huge chuck of why this is a thing is that on a mirco level that builds.

This rhetoric is more about being offended at people passionately disagree with you rather than actually analyzing why they're wrong. Narcissism and privilege may play some role in this mob yes but you're acting like it's a sole factor just because "How dare they be wrong!"

Not very pragmatic of you.

Does "passionately disagree" include going out of your way to push for cancelling people on the Internet?

Yes.
Murder is an intensive irrational offensive act and yet we acknowledge there are non-narcissist reasons for doing so. In fact, we look into trauma was one of the many reasons people act like that. I don't see why we can't apply the same metric for an lesser evil.

That and the same logic that you draw this conclusion from is the same from victim blamer of suicide. There are key differences to be sure but not the kind that means you can all people who are PC narcissists.

[Plzen]

Why do people think that mobs with unclear direction and unclear purpose is a phenomenon exclusive to developed countries?

It’s just that spontaneous mobs in countries with less firm democratic traditions tend to be much more extreme in their purpose, like “kill the Tutsis” instead of merely “shame the Tutsis”.

[Uiiop]

Why do people think that mobs with unclear direction and unclear purpose is a phenomenon exclusive to developed countries?

It’s just that spontaneous mobs in countries with less firm democratic traditions tend to be much more extreme in their purpose, like “kill the Tutsis” instead of merely “shame the Tutsis”.

To falsely accuse so many people of something so bad you have to kill is an outrage! They must be sadist trillionaires with no worry to be able to find excuses to butcher such innocents.

It's just an excuse to counter shame and virtue signal without actually engaging with the problem

[Vassenor]

If cancel culture was real, JKR wouldn't still have 14 million twitter followers and Mel Gibson's last film would've been made in 1991.

[Uiiop]

If cancel culture was real, JKR wouldn't still have 14 million twitter followers and Mel Gibson's last film would've been made in 1991.

Cancel culture is a broad and vague term. Not every instance being effective isn't an argument for it's non-existence.

[Vassenor]

If cancel culture was real, JKR wouldn't still have 14 million twitter followers and Mel Gibson's last film would've been made in 1991.

Cancel culture is a broad and vague term. Not every instance being effective isn't an argument for it's non-existence.

And most of the people screaming about being a victim of it haven't actually been cancelled. Often they've just been publicly criticised and nothing more.

Like this guy ranting about being a victim of Cancel Culture before pointing out he's not been removed from any positions or faced any sanctions. All that happened was that people on the internet criticised him for spreading harmful pseudoscience.

[Kurnugia]

That seems like a false generalization. Mobs can and do accept when people change their minds. It varies from each individual mob sure. James Gunn will say so but it ain't an absolute.


False demonization can't be pined down to solely privilege. The fact that cancel drama can come from the black and trans community should be proof enough.

... No offense but the black and Trans Community are far more privileged than the people living in literal mud-huts surviving off subsistence farming and wondering where they're going to get their clean water.

"Sure a black man got stranggled to death by a police officer, but before we get too busy with it, we should really talk about the slums of Nairobi."

[Picairn]

"Sure a black man got stranggled to death by a police officer, but before we get too busy with it, we should really talk about the slums of Nairobi."

Except what the cancel culture group on social media has gone out of their way to cancel people for much less. This is the worst form of misrepresentation I have ever seen.

[Diarcesia]

Cancel culture is a broad and vague term. Not every instance being effective isn't an argument for it's non-existence.

And most of the people screaming about being a victim of it haven't actually been cancelled. Often they've just been publicly criticised and nothing more.

Like this guy ranting about being a victim of Cancel Culture before pointing out he's not been removed from any positions or faced any sanctions. All that happened was that people on the internet criticised him for spreading harmful pseudoscience.

That it didn't happen to him doesn't mean cancelling that caused people to be indefinitely unemployable doesn't exist.

The criticism is about the latter, because it leads to the question of "Are all bigots absolutely, unambiguously unredeemable?". That implies malicious intent on each and every one of them.

[Ifreann]

Imagine being fundamentally opposed to the idea of being called out for saying racist or hateful shit and having consequences for those actions.

Freedom of Speech does not equal Freedom from Consequences.

Imagine being a Leftist or Liberal who attacks the work opportunities of others by weaponizing mobs and pressuring their bourgeois corporate employers to give them the boot, all because they have an unpopular opinion that you find slightly distasteful.

Just because it's not being supported by a guy named MacArthy doesn't make it any less witch-hunty and shady.

Leftists support democratic control of the workplace by the workers. I don't think you're going to get very far arguing that it's hypocritical for leftists to support workers in removing racists and other bigots from their midsts, thus improving conditions in their workplace.

[Prozitia]

You guys are honestly funny. Have fun trolling, "freedom fighters".

[James_xenoland]

If he wasn’t on the clock, the company has no right to police his behavior. If they want to police his behavior 24/7, they need to be paying him 24/7.

Employees are employees hired to do a job. Not slaves.

It would be just as inappropriate as it would be to fire someone for writing a “God is Dead and Religious people are idiots” opinion article to the newspaper - even if your customers were predominantly religious.

Soo? If by his actions he is hurting his employer? He is exempt? Sorry there are ramifications for actions. Just as a community can punish you so should an employer. Especially with hateful actions.

Your solution is simply turning things over to the employee. Not exactly a solution. Being off the clock doesn’t give you the right to sticking it to the employer. Especially in such hateful manor.

The problem is not as simple as you would think. There has to be give and take.

I don't follow your logic here.. or lack there of.. What does the employee's personal political beliefs have to do with his employer? If he isn't wearing his uniform or claiming to be a face of the company outside of his work then he isn't sticking it to anyone. Getting doxed by a bunch of extremist loonies stalking him and trying to blackmail them is not the employees fault or problem. And nobody's being punished remember.. as this would take that possibility off the table. You can't punish a company for not giving into your demands when those demands are illegal.

The problem is this line of reasoning is that you just justified firing people who participate in pride parades, or blm rallies, supporting the black panthers, or participating in a demonstration that devolved into a riot, or any one of a hundred million other political actions.

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

He or she won’t be hurting their employer if the public understands the law is on the side of the worker, just as, with time, people who punished businesses for hiring black people or openly gay people or such gradually stopped. Because the law that protects workers from retaliation also protects employers from their customers when they all broadly refuse to engage in unjust and illegal retaliation.

This is all irrelevant. I know it's hard for some people to grasp today, with the edu system, esp higher, being what it is today in terms of critical, non dogmatic thinking skills.. so hold on.. People are well within their right to believe in things you don't. Rights don't stop where your feelings/ego/crusade begins. Unless they are doing something illegal, protecting their rights is no different than protecting anyone else's in a free society.. in fact it wouldn't be a free and open society if it didn't. Some people need to learn how to get over themselves and gain some perspective!

They say they applaud a recent "needed reckoning" on racial justice, but argue it has fuelled stifling of open debate.

There's no need for debate.

The reason why people are claiming that this "cancel culture" is a thing is because they've previously said things that are hateful, sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. that society no longer accepts or condones. And these people fully believe the opinions that they have and express, but cannot understand why it would cause hurt to people whom they are directed at. It's not surprising that we have people like J.K Rowling and Margaret Atwood signing these petitions, they're old, and still set in ways in which they believe their opinions and beliefs to be correct.

More to the point though this is not about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech discussions are never about the right to say something. They're always about people responding to what they say. Hence why I say it is not a freedom of speech discussion but a freedom from consequences. Because they want to be able to say things without being criticised. For them, criticism is tantamount to censorship and suppression, and therefore they believe that free speech should be speech that cannot be criticised.

Do not be fooled into thinking that they are defending a noble freedom enshrined in most constitutions around the world. They are defending their perceived right to be free from criticism and the consequences of their actions.

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.

Yawn.. More of this fallacious non-reasoning.. "whaaaaa people want to take away our power to blackmail, intimidate and ruin people we don't like!!!"
Seriously.. Come back when you have an actual argument and not just a logical fallacy pretending to be one.

[The Reformed American Republic]

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 find this position laughable. You are an individual who has political views many would find distasteful and it is a possibility that this can happen to you, as you are a MRA. I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune then.

[Vassenor]

And most of the people screaming about being a victim of it haven't actually been cancelled. Often they've just been publicly criticised and nothing more.

Like this guy ranting about being a victim of Cancel Culture before pointing out he's not been removed from any positions or faced any sanctions. All that happened was that people on the internet criticised him for spreading harmful pseudoscience.

That it didn't happen to him doesn't mean cancelling that caused people to be indefinitely unemployable doesn't exist.

The criticism is about the latter, because it leads to the question of "Are all bigots absolutely, unambiguously unredeemable?". That implies malicious intent on each and every one of them.

So we shouldn't criticise people who actively spread views known to be harmful (such as the ROGD myth in this case) because it might ruin their future?

[Picairn]

Imagine being fundamentally opposed to the idea of being called out for saying racist or hateful shit and having consequences for those actions.

Freedom of Speech does not equal Freedom from Consequences.

Imagine citing a line frequently uttered and abused by dictators (e.g. Idi Amin) as an appropriate justification for disproportionate retribution upon all kinds of hateful statements, regardless of a lack of a clear cut definition on what constitutes a hateful statement (mostly it is defined by the mobs' perception) or varying degrees of offensiveness in said statement.

Protip: Nobody cites free speech to defend their position. People cite free speech so that censors will let them speak.

"Protection against the tyranny of government isn't enough, there needs to be protection also against the tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling." - John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty"
https://shetterly.blogspot.com/2015/11/ ... n.html?m=1
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/299489443951368216/
https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkc ... index.html