150 public figures sign open letter decrying cancel culture

[Liriena]

Nonetheless, a line has been drawn and an all-out culture war in defense of absolute free speech must be waged in every corner of the world against would-be cancelers of all stripes, including both state and non-state actors alike.

Right-wingers have been waging a "culture war" against all manner of left-wing boogeymen for decades. Your demands are redundant and only play into the right's perpetual ideological fantasies that justify their chilling of left-wing dissent.

[Liriena]

If companies were no longer permitted to fire Employees for political reasons, there would be no reason to pressure companies to do so.

The reasoning behind that "political reasons" is the fact that a person becomes a source of loss -rather than revenue- to the company. By that logic, you're violating that company's freedom of association and forcing it see loss in its revenues (or PR or whatever else) just so a racist can be free from the consequences of his action.

Shhhhh, let The Emerald Legion embrace labour rights

[Liriena]

Also, most of today's left have zero idea what racism is.

Today's left has been objectively correct in identifying the criminal justice system, voter suppression and Confederate apologia as racist, so those are three strikes against your tired old smear.

[The Emerald Legion]

Which is irrelevant.

"You're misrepresenting her arguments!"
"No, she did argue that"
"That's irrelevant!"

Y'know it's kind of funny. The left wing in America likes to play this shell game a lot. Flying a rainbow flag is cheap, easy, and requires almost nothing from them. Most Americans aren't so outright homophobic that they get upset about it either.

Exactly. The public at large is either supportive of or apathetic towards these shows of support for the LGBT+ community, so making those shows of support earns some good will and earns a little ire. On the balance it makes money so up go the rainbow flags. Same reasoning is applied to firing people who become publicly controversial.

This has nothing to do with Cancel Culture. Cancel Culture doesn't take advantage of some majority status. It's a sudden alarming shock mob that's intent is to get the legendarily risk averse corporate America to knee jerk into compliance.

You would have me believe that a lunatic fringe of politics has somehow tricked the companies who spend small fortunes on market research into believing that they are actually the majority and that to defy them is to risk losing all their customers? You would have me believe that social media platforms, whose entire business model is gathering as much information about their users as possible so as to sell that to advertisers, can be fooled about what the majority of their users want by a tiny and unpopular minority?

I don't know. How do they do that when the Union is the one persecuting them while also stealing their money?

Maybe we could have legal insurance? Just like any other big fee.

Bad idea to rely on a business whose financial interest lies in never giving you any money if they can avoid it.

---

I saw this blog post from what seems to be a left-wing author who has a good take on this whole thing.

And so this open letter in Harper’s about free speech and debate. Please, think for a minute and consider: what does it say when a completely generic endorsement of free speech and open debate is in and of itself immediately diagnosed as anti-progressive, as anti-left?

Emphasis not mine.

Appeals to free speech can be, and have been, made in bad faith.

I'm sorry.... Are we having an argument over that? No we aren't. We're having an argument over why she's doing this. Cluex4 it has nothing to do with your Autism red herring.

Indeed. This doesn't mean the public at large is supportive of Cancel Culture or the most rabid attack dogs of the LGBT community.

Social Media is dominated by an extreme minority of users. Always has been.

Not quite as bad as handing your money to someone who's never obliged to return it and may just kick you out.

[Liriena]

Because to be utterly blunt, outside your hip lefty bubble, Trans politics are widely viewed as outright fucking insane.

To be utterly blunt, you know fuck all about "trans politics" and deserve to be publicly criticised for it, just like J.K. Rowling.

[Qabea]

Publicly shaming and harming bigots to the degree they lose careers/friends/status/homes is the only cultural weapon against bigotry that actually has teeth. It should be encouraged.

I mean, ruining someone's life or driving them to suicide in multiple cases because they have different beliefs or ideas than you is deeply problematic and immoral.

[Grootfries Rijk]

Publicly shaming and harming bigots to the degree they lose careers/friends/status/homes is the only cultural weapon against bigotry that actually has teeth. It should be encouraged.

I mean, ruining someone's life or driving them to suicide in multiple cases because they have different beliefs or ideas than you is deeply problematic and immoral.

No it is not. Tolerating inherently ideologies built upon intolerance (i.e. transphobia, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) -and its practice by their followers- is what is immoral and deeply problematic.

EDIT: I just noticed the suicide part. I retract my statement.

[Liriena]

Publicly shaming and harming bigots to the degree they lose careers/friends/status/homes is the only cultural weapon against bigotry that actually has teeth. It should be encouraged.

I mean, ruining someone's life or driving them to suicide in multiple cases because they have different beliefs or ideas than you is deeply problematic and immoral.

True. Suicide fucking sucks and any losses a "cancelled" person suffers should not be so severe that they can never recover. Most people deserve a chance at redemption. Even conservatives.

[Ifreann]

Possibly the best example I have ever seen of a supposed victim of cancel culture being full of shit. Natasha Tynes claims her book deal was cancelled after vicious Twitter campaign. In fact her book was published under threat of lawsuit.

[Liriena]

I mean, ruining someone's life or driving them to suicide in multiple cases because they have different beliefs or ideas than you is deeply problematic and immoral.

No it is not. Tolerating inherently ideologies built upon intolerance (i.e. transphobia, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) -and its practice by their followers- is what is immoral and deeply problematic.

This is something that I feel most people in this thread have failed to touch upon: a lot of the people who are "cancelled" hurt or endanger others. J.K. Rowling using her huge platform to peddle TERF propaganda while living in a country where TERFs have institutional power increases the chances of trans people losing what rights they have. Her involvement in the fake hysteria over "early onset gender dysphoria" could lead to even further gatekeeping for trans minors, not to mention lack of support from families, which could lead to a lot of trans kids not making it to adulthood.

And the unfortunate truth is that screaming at J.K. Rowling and other huge public figures on social media is one of the few ways regular people have to hold them accountable.

[Qabea]

I mean, ruining someone's life or driving them to suicide in multiple cases because they have different beliefs or ideas than you is deeply problematic and immoral.

No it is not. Tolerating inherently ideologies built upon intolerance (i.e. transphobia, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) -and its practice by their followers- is what is immoral and deeply problematic.

Eh, there's a huge difference between saying "meh, your takes are shitty but I really don't care about what what you think" and attacking someone to the point where they are shunned by friends and family and can't get a job, basically making suicide look like a pretty good option.

I mean, ruining someone's life or driving them to suicide in multiple cases because they have different beliefs or ideas than you is deeply problematic and immoral.

True. Suicide fucking sucks and any losses a "cancelled" person suffers should not be so severe that they can never recover. Most people deserve a chance at redemption. Even conservatives.

Generally this. While I don't think conservatives are inherently problematic, people are entitled to a second chance.

[Proctopeo]

I saw this blog post from what seems to be a left-wing author who has a good take on this whole thing.

And so this open letter in Harper’s about free speech and debate. Please, think for a minute and consider: what does it say when a completely generic endorsement of free speech and open debate is in and of itself immediately diagnosed as anti-progressive, as anti-left?

Emphasis not mine.

Appeals to free speech can be, and have been, made in bad faith.

and appeals against it are generally astonishingly stupid

Because to be utterly blunt, outside your hip lefty bubble, Trans politics are widely viewed as outright fucking insane.

To be utterly blunt, you know fuck all about "trans politics" and deserve to be publicly criticised for it, just like J.K. Rowling.

Are we talking "we should be able to change our names and genders on our legal documents" or "actually, BIGOT, sexuality is fake and if you have a genital preference you're literally Hitler!" sorts of things here? Both fall under the umbrella, but only the latter is outright fucking insane; the former is rather reasonable.

And no, the latter is not really an exaggeration, people actually believe shit along those lines.

[Liriena]

No it is not. Tolerating inherently ideologies built upon intolerance (i.e. transphobia, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) -and its practice by their followers- is what is immoral and deeply problematic.

Eh, there's a huge difference between saying "meh, your takes are shitty but I really don't care about what what you think" and attacking someone to the point where they are shunned by friends and family and can't get a job, basically making suicide look like a pretty good option.

True. Suicide fucking sucks and any losses a "cancelled" person suffers should not be so severe that they can never recover. Most people deserve a chance at redemption. Even conservatives.

Generally this. While I don't think conservatives are inherently problematic, people are entitled to a second chance.

Conservatives are arguably the most destructive political force in contemporary times.

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

Eh, there's a huge difference between saying "meh, your takes are shitty but I really don't care about what what you think" and attacking someone to the point where they are shunned by friends and family and can't get a job, basically making suicide look like a pretty good option.


Generally this. While I don't think conservatives are inherently problematic, people are entitled to a second chance.

Conservatives are arguably the most destructive political force in contemporary times.

What. Are we living on the same planet because the only thing conservatives really do is budget balancing.
I’m guessing Islamic extremism just doesn’t exist along with all the other movements of organized violence/disruption.

[Ifreann]

"You're misrepresenting her arguments!"
"No, she did argue that"
"That's irrelevant!"


Exactly. The public at large is either supportive of or apathetic towards these shows of support for the LGBT+ community, so making those shows of support earns some good will and earns a little ire. On the balance it makes money so up go the rainbow flags. Same reasoning is applied to firing people who become publicly controversial.


You would have me believe that a lunatic fringe of politics has somehow tricked the companies who spend small fortunes on market research into believing that they are actually the majority and that to defy them is to risk losing all their customers? You would have me believe that social media platforms, whose entire business model is gathering as much information about their users as possible so as to sell that to advertisers, can be fooled about what the majority of their users want by a tiny and unpopular minority?


Bad idea to rely on a business whose financial interest lies in never giving you any money if they can avoid it.

---

Appeals to free speech can be, and have been, made in bad faith.

I'm sorry.... Are we having an argument over that? No we aren't. We're having an argument over why she's doing this. Cluex4 it has nothing to do with your Autism red herring.

It would be easier to follow what you were talking about if you just engaged with what I'm saying instead of going of on "You mean [something else entirely]".

Indeed. This doesn't mean the public at large is supportive of Cancel Culture or the most rabid attack dogs of the LGBT community.

Social Media is dominated by an extreme minority of users. Always has been.

That somehow fool Twitter itself about what Twitter users in general want. Hmm.

Not quite as bad as handing your money to someone who's never obliged to return it and may just kick you out.

That's literally how insurance works.

[Liriena]

Are we talking "we should be able to change our names and genders on our legal documents" or "actually, BIGOT, sexuality is fake and if you have a genital preference you're literally Hitler!" sorts of things here?

Who knows? Transphobes tend to like lumping everything together into a pile of scary mush.

Mind you, I haven't seen many prominent trans people saying that having "genital preferences" is a moral failing in and of itself, let alone "literally Hitler!!!". What I have seen is trans people talking about chasers, about people who ask or comment on their genitalia inappropriately, and about people who become negatively and violently fixated on their genitalia to the point of hurting and even murdering trans people out of fear of being perceived as being of a sexual orientation other than the one they identify as. And sometimes trans people will vent about how demoralizing it is to be rejected for being trans, but I've never seen a trans person frame that in terms of the other person being morally obligated to date them.

[Biotopia]

What do you think, NSG? Do we fight for freedom, uphold liberalism, and defend democracy, or do we embrace ideological servitude while dishonestly pretending to be against slavery in all its forms? Feel free to answer in the poll provided.

I’m assuming this is satire, because nobody could seriously frame the situation as this in good faith.

[Liriena]

Conservatives are arguably the most destructive political force in contemporary times.

What. Are we living on the same planet because the only thing conservatives really do is budget balancing.

They also deny climate change, undermine labour rights, collaborate with murderous authoritarian governments and movements, wage a bloody war on terror abroad, impose mass surveillance on their own citizens, condone police brutality and militarization, oppose multiple human rights movements, undermine public services like health care and education, and undermine the welfare state.

Conservatism has arguably killed far more people in the past forty years than neo-nazis have.

[The Emerald Legion]

Appeals to free speech can be, and have been, made in bad faith.

and appeals against it are generally astonishingly stupid

To be utterly blunt, you know fuck all about "trans politics" and deserve to be publicly criticised for it, just like J.K. Rowling.

Are we talking "we should be able to change our names and genders on our legal documents" or "actually, BIGOT, sexuality is fake and if you have a genital preference you're literally Hitler!" sorts of things here? Both fall under the umbrella, but only the latter is outright fucking insane; the former is rather reasonable.

And no, the latter is not really an exaggeration, people actually believe shit along those lines.

To very briefly Summarize, somewhere in the middle.

While Rowling obviously comes at this from a different point of view than me, the jist is that yes, you should be able to change your name/gender on your legal documents, but that institutions should still be permitted to use physical biological sex as a qualifying characteristic. For example, whether legitimately trans or simply trying to game the system, A biological man with no surgical treatment whatsoever should not be allowed in a battered women's shelter, or placed in a women's prison, or allowed to compete in women's sports.

Basically, Trans activists like to slide in on the idea of sex and gender being seperate, but once they have their foothold, they tend to greatly conflate the two subsuming sex into gender, and thereby trying to erase biological sex.

[Ifreann]

What. Are we living on the same planet because the only thing conservatives really do is budget balancing.

They also deny climate change, undermine labour rights, collaborate with murderous authoritarian governments and movements, wage a bloody war on terror abroad, impose mass surveillance on their own citizens, condone police brutality and militarization, oppose multiple human rights movements, undermine public services like health care and education, and undermine the welfare state.

Conservatism has arguably killed far more people in the past forty years than neo-nazis have.

Weird, I swear I can hear the tortured cries of damned souls, as if someone had just opened the Black Book of Communism...

[Liriena]

Basically, Trans activists like to slide in on the idea of sex and gender being seperate, but once they have their foothold, they tend to greatly conflate the two subsuming sex into gender, and thereby trying to erase biological sex.

This is false.

[Ifreann]

and appeals against it are generally astonishingly stupid


Are we talking "we should be able to change our names and genders on our legal documents" or "actually, BIGOT, sexuality is fake and if you have a genital preference you're literally Hitler!" sorts of things here? Both fall under the umbrella, but only the latter is outright fucking insane; the former is rather reasonable.

And no, the latter is not really an exaggeration, people actually believe shit along those lines.

To very briefly Summarize, somewhere in the middle.

While Rowling obviously comes at this from a different point of view than me, the jist is that yes, you should be able to change your name/gender on your legal documents, but that institutions should still be permitted to use physical biological sex as a qualifying characteristic. For example, whether legitimately trans or simply trying to game the system, A biological man with no surgical treatment whatsoever should not be allowed in a battered women's shelter, or placed in a women's prison, or allowed to compete in women's sports.

Basically, Trans activists like to slide in on the idea of sex and gender being seperate, but once they have their foothold, they tend to greatly conflate the two subsuming sex into gender, and thereby trying to erase biological sex.

Show us these people trying to erase biological sex.

[Greed and Death]

I think JK is ideal. Cancel culture is bad.

But even if they have really vile view points ? Yes even if they have really vile viewpoints.

The same reason the Supreme Court used a child molester for Miranda rights. ie Yes they have this rights yes even if it involves molesting children.

I feel like it needs to be mentioned. When people are fired from their work, its not because they're Cancelled and as such inherently evil. It's because they are no longer profitable as an employee. When an actor gets fired, its because the company believes that its revenue would go down if the now-Cancelled actor was to continue working for them. What are you going to do, force people to buy her books/watch his movies/whatever?

That is a vastly over simplified view of the effects of cancel culture. If it were simple boycotting it would have no where near the effect. What happens during a cancel is the employer receives emails including threats that makes the cost far beyond what would be generated during boycott. The other problem is it is the less popular and well know people that are more likely to get blackballed. JK Rowling can always find a publisher for her books because she is a guaranteed money.

[The Emerald Legion]

Basically, Trans activists like to slide in on the idea of sex and gender being seperate, but once they have their foothold, they tend to greatly conflate the two subsuming sex into gender, and thereby trying to erase biological sex.

This is false.

No it's not.

To very briefly Summarize, somewhere in the middle.

While Rowling obviously comes at this from a different point of view than me, the jist is that yes, you should be able to change your name/gender on your legal documents, but that institutions should still be permitted to use physical biological sex as a qualifying characteristic. For example, whether legitimately trans or simply trying to game the system, A biological man with no surgical treatment whatsoever should not be allowed in a battered women's shelter, or placed in a women's prison, or allowed to compete in women's sports.

Basically, Trans activists like to slide in on the idea of sex and gender being seperate, but once they have their foothold, they tend to greatly conflate the two subsuming sex into gender, and thereby trying to erase biological sex.

Show us these people trying to erase biological sex.

I'm sure you're already familiar.

[Proctopeo]

Are we talking "we should be able to change our names and genders on our legal documents" or "actually, BIGOT, sexuality is fake and if you have a genital preference you're literally Hitler!" sorts of things here?

Who knows? Transphobes tend to like lumping everything together into a pile of scary mush.

Mind you, I haven't seen many prominent trans people saying that having "genital preferences" is a moral failing in and of itself, let alone "literally Hitler!!!". What I have seen is trans people talking about chasers, about people who ask or comment on their genitalia inappropriately, and about people who become negatively and violently fixated on their genitalia to the point of hurting and even murdering trans people out of fear of being perceived as being of a sexual orientation other than the one they identify as. And sometimes trans people will vent about how demoralizing it is to be rejected for being trans, but I've never seen a trans person frame that in terms of the other person being morally obligated to date them.

It's not a prominent belief, but it's definitely one that's present and has some traction, in my experience.

Basically, Trans activists like to slide in on the idea of sex and gender being seperate, but once they have their foothold, they tend to greatly conflate the two subsuming sex into gender, and thereby trying to erase biological sex.

This is false.

No, you're false!

To very briefly Summarize, somewhere in the middle.

While Rowling obviously comes at this from a different point of view than me, the jist is that yes, you should be able to change your name/gender on your legal documents, but that institutions should still be permitted to use physical biological sex as a qualifying characteristic. For example, whether legitimately trans or simply trying to game the system, A biological man with no surgical treatment whatsoever should not be allowed in a battered women's shelter, or placed in a women's prison, or allowed to compete in women's sports.

Basically, Trans activists like to slide in on the idea of sex and gender being seperate, but once they have their foothold, they tend to greatly conflate the two subsuming sex into gender, and thereby trying to erase biological sex.

Show us these people trying to erase biological sex.

The closest I can think of atm are the dumbasses who try and claim that biological sex is a spectrum, though there's definitely someone somewhere who wants to entirely erase the concept.