A new era of censoriousness?

2

Comments

  • hrd2imgnhrd2imgn Southwest Burbs of ChicagoPosts: 4,302
    brianlux said:
    hrd2imgn said:
    Political correctness is essential point of the woke  mobs unless you are part of the woke mob.  One of the most hypocritical notions of thw century.  In your outrage it is okay to be the very thing you despise.  

    The woke mob is no better than a petulant child demanding more ice cream.  Killing in the  name of, is still killing.

    I appreciate and admire the goals of those- especially younger people- to promote a more equitable society, speak out against racism, demand an end to police brutality, put an end to homophobia, and (highest on my own list of priorities) take better care of the planet that sustains us.  What I have trouble with from ALL sides is people being unwilling to listen to each other and allowing all voices to be heard.  I may not like what someone else says, but if we deny someone the right to speak their mind, we deny everyone's right.  (And of course I'm not saying it's OK to yell "fire" in a crowded theater or threaten others, etc.)

    My other concern is with people jumping on band wagons without educating themselves first.  I read a lot of stuff on social media written by people who seem to think they are enlightened.  Shit, I'm almost 69 and I still have a lot to learn.  I think we all do.
    I am with you, almost no attempt at discourse from the left anymore, just a lot of yelling, name calling and extortion.  It is okay to disagree, but with the woke culture that is not the case and they destroy you for dissent.  It is a form of Marxism and Communist thinking we should be speaking against at every chance we can. That mindset is responsible for over 100 million Dead- comply or we will destroy you for the betterment of society.  Hollywood is reaping what they sow now, only a matter of time before the mob turns on those in it, God help them all.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,882
    hrd2imgn said:
    brianlux said:
    hrd2imgn said:
    Political correctness is essential point of the woke  mobs unless you are part of the woke mob.  One of the most hypocritical notions of thw century.  In your outrage it is okay to be the very thing you despise.  

    The woke mob is no better than a petulant child demanding more ice cream.  Killing in the  name of, is still killing.

    I appreciate and admire the goals of those- especially younger people- to promote a more equitable society, speak out against racism, demand an end to police brutality, put an end to homophobia, and (highest on my own list of priorities) take better care of the planet that sustains us.  What I have trouble with from ALL sides is people being unwilling to listen to each other and allowing all voices to be heard.  I may not like what someone else says, but if we deny someone the right to speak their mind, we deny everyone's right.  (And of course I'm not saying it's OK to yell "fire" in a crowded theater or threaten others, etc.)

    My other concern is with people jumping on band wagons without educating themselves first.  I read a lot of stuff on social media written by people who seem to think they are enlightened.  Shit, I'm almost 69 and I still have a lot to learn.  I think we all do.
    I am with you, almost no attempt at discourse from the left anymore, just a lot of yelling, name calling and extortion.  It is okay to disagree, but with the woke culture that is not the case and they destroy you for dissent.  It is a form of Marxism and Communist thinking we should be speaking against at every chance we can. That mindset is responsible for over 100 million Dead- comply or we will destroy you for the betterment of society.  Hollywood is reaping what they sow now, only a matter of time before the mob turns on those in it, God help them all.

    Well, we're half way on the same page anyway, hrd2imgn.  There is little attempt at discourse from many on both sides- left and right.  That was the point I hoped to make with all of this. 

    The name calling certainly goes both ways. 

    As for extortion ("the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats"), I'm not sure how that pertains to the left.  But maybe you meant "extortion" metaphorically.

    I am also not one to outright dismiss Marxism or Communism any more than I am prone to outright dismiss the idea of a Republic or a Democracy because, as history has clearly shown, all of those concepts have been twisted, abused, subsumed, or otherwise generally fucked up on a number of occasions and in various places. 

    As for Hollywood, I wonder if you are talking about actors who are vocal about their political beliefs?  I don't see a lot of political movies coming out of Hollywood.  Same with music, although there are plenty more example of music that presents a political leaning and some that is outright politically proclamatory.   But being a Pearl Jam fan, I'm sure you know that!
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • static111static111 Posts: 1,170
    I think people are confusing censorship with consequence free speech.  It’s not censorship if private citizens tell you to go to hell and pressure your advertisers or publishers to deplatform you.  I have yet to see any “victim” of so called cancel culture whose voice being removed from the debate has had a negative to the societal discourse as a whole.   Just because someone has something to say doesn’t mean that anyone is required to give them voice.  If what they have to say is so important they can start from a soapbox and their words and movement will grow and you can create your own platform. Look how great that worked out for Alex Jones
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,882
    static111 said:
    I think people are confusing censorship with consequence free speech.  It’s not censorship if private citizens tell you to go to hell and pressure your advertisers or publishers to deplatform you.  I have yet to see any “victim” of so called cancel culture whose voice being removed from the debate has had a negative to the societal discourse as a whole.   Just because someone has something to say doesn’t mean that anyone is required to give them voice.  If what they have to say is so important they can start from a soapbox and their words and movement will grow and you can create your own platform. Look how great that worked out for Alex Jones

    I beg to differ.  I think censorious in neither censorship nor consequence of free speech.  I believe it is this:

    1. censorious - harshly critical or expressing censure; "was censorious of petty failings" critical - marked by a tendency to find and call attention to errors and flaws; "a critical attitude".

    The crux of the issue, as I see it, is a certain kind of attitude of some who see themselves as "woke" (whatever the fuck that means) telling others they are just WRONG and to shut the fuck up.  In other words, there is a certain set of people who really have no interest in dialog, let alone open debate but, rather, diatribe.

    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • static111static111 Posts: 1,170
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    I think people are confusing censorship with consequence free speech.  It’s not censorship if private citizens tell you to go to hell and pressure your advertisers or publishers to deplatform you.  I have yet to see any “victim” of so called cancel culture whose voice being removed from the debate has had a negative to the societal discourse as a whole.   Just because someone has something to say doesn’t mean that anyone is required to give them voice.  If what they have to say is so important they can start from a soapbox and their words and movement will grow and you can create your own platform. Look how great that worked out for Alex Jones

    I beg to differ.  I think censorious in neither censorship nor consequence of free speech.  I believe it is this:

    1. censorious - harshly critical or expressing censure; "was censorious of petty failings" critical - marked by a tendency to find and call attention to errors and flaws; "a critical attitude".

    The crux of the issue, as I see it, is a certain kind of attitude of some who see themselves as "woke" (whatever the fuck that means) telling others they are just WRONG and to shut the fuck up.  In other words, there is a certain set of people who really have no interest in dialog, let alone open debate but, rather, diatribe.

    Looks like I was the confused one.  I still say that views and opinions at the debate level should offer something to the discourse as a whole.  If all views are allowed you will end up with uneducated views being blunt forced into the discourse and normalized.  There are some people and belief systems views that have such a high level of cognitive dissonance that an actual exchange and debate is not possible. I am still all for calling attention to errors and flaws, my own misunderstanding of censorious included.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,882
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    I think people are confusing censorship with consequence free speech.  It’s not censorship if private citizens tell you to go to hell and pressure your advertisers or publishers to deplatform you.  I have yet to see any “victim” of so called cancel culture whose voice being removed from the debate has had a negative to the societal discourse as a whole.   Just because someone has something to say doesn’t mean that anyone is required to give them voice.  If what they have to say is so important they can start from a soapbox and their words and movement will grow and you can create your own platform. Look how great that worked out for Alex Jones

    I beg to differ.  I think censorious in neither censorship nor consequence of free speech.  I believe it is this:

    1. censorious - harshly critical or expressing censure; "was censorious of petty failings" critical - marked by a tendency to find and call attention to errors and flaws; "a critical attitude".

    The crux of the issue, as I see it, is a certain kind of attitude of some who see themselves as "woke" (whatever the fuck that means) telling others they are just WRONG and to shut the fuck up.  In other words, there is a certain set of people who really have no interest in dialog, let alone open debate but, rather, diatribe.

    Looks like I was the confused one.  I still say that views and opinions at the debate level should offer something to the discourse as a whole.  If all views are allowed you will end up with uneducated views being blunt forced into the discourse and normalized.  There are some people and belief systems views that have such a high level of cognitive dissonance that an actual exchange and debate is not possible. I am still all for calling attention to errors and flaws, my own misunderstanding of censorious included.

    No worries.  But I do think one could argue that uneducated views should be heard because if you quell someone's voice, they will probably lose all interest in becoming further educated.  Of course, if they simply continue to say the same thing that is proven to be false- I like "there is no global warming"- then at that point I'm all for ignoring that voice. 
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of foreverPosts: 21,892
    Why not ignore rather than silence?  For all those who refuse to even listen, there are likely more willing to engage in a productive and learning sense.  Even if nothing comes of it, the effort itself is important.

    If you would want to be heard, why deny that to others based solely on differing opinions?





    AND I CANNOT STAND THE TERM "WOKE".
    (that felt good)
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,882
    hedonist said:
    Why not ignore rather than silence?  For all those who refuse to even listen, there are likely more willing to engage in a productive and learning sense.  Even if nothing comes of it, the effort itself is important.

    If you would want to be heard, why deny that to others based solely on differing opinions?





    AND I CANNOT STAND THE TERM "WOKE".
    (that felt good)

    I would love to see the term "woke" put to bed.  :lol: 
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 16,015
    brianlux said:
    hedonist said:
    Why not ignore rather than silence?  For all those who refuse to even listen, there are likely more willing to engage in a productive and learning sense.  Even if nothing comes of it, the effort itself is important.

    If you would want to be heard, why deny that to others based solely on differing opinions?





    AND I CANNOT STAND THE TERM "WOKE".
    (that felt good)

    I would love to see the term "woke" put to bed.  :lol: 
    OK, boomers.
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of foreverPosts: 21,892
    dankind said:
    brianlux said:
    hedonist said:
    Why not ignore rather than silence?  For all those who refuse to even listen, there are likely more willing to engage in a productive and learning sense.  Even if nothing comes of it, the effort itself is important.

    If you would want to be heard, why deny that to others based solely on differing opinions?





    AND I CANNOT STAND THE TERM "WOKE".
    (that felt good)

    I would love to see the term "woke" put to bed.  :lol: 
    OK, boomers.
    I’ll boom YOU!
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,882
    dankind said:
    brianlux said:
    hedonist said:
    Why not ignore rather than silence?  For all those who refuse to even listen, there are likely more willing to engage in a productive and learning sense.  Even if nothing comes of it, the effort itself is important.

    If you would want to be heard, why deny that to others based solely on differing opinions?





    AND I CANNOT STAND THE TERM "WOKE".
    (that felt good)

    I would love to see the term "woke" put to bed.  :lol: 
    OK, boomers.

    "boomers" LOL

    Something perhaps to consider:  The more you know, the more you know you don't know.  "Woke" implies some kind of "enlightenment" or "all knowing".  I was younger once and thought that way.  Now I realized I'll never have all the knowledge and wisdom I would like to posses.  It keep me moving forward.  Someday, I suspect some gen x'ers and millennials will look back on calling themselves "woke" and will (hopefully) laugh at their own naivete.
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon I'm from Winnipeg, you idiot! (Chris Jericho)Posts: 22,032
    i'm so sick and tired of this. the labeling has gotten out of control. joe rogan is a racist and anti-trans. jk rowling is anti-trans. bryan adams is a racist. justin trudeau is racist. roseanne is a racist. everything is fucking cancelled. 

    look, some shit needs to be tossed into the dust bin. but public discourse without measured and respectful response isn't one of them. 

    joe rogan think it's unfair that trans women get to compete in sports against cis women. anti trans? ridiculous. it's biology. supported by the results in most instances, i might add. "i was always a woman" isn't a viable defense. make a division for trans athletes. boom. solved. 

    bryan adams was mad that his concert tour was cancelled because of wet markets. people called him racist against chinese customs and people. the guy's a fucking vegetarian and never mentioned china or chinese people. he's just mad his concerts got cancelled and thinks the open slaughter and consumption of animals is disgusting. 

    trudeau wore black face before anyone knew it was racist. trudeau haters want him to resign. had andrew sheer done it, they would have explained it away, just like people have accused me of doing with trudeau. 

    rowling made some comment about the usage of the word "people" in reference to those who menstruate. apparently, this was transphobic because it isn't just women who menstruate. however, she was trying to keep the light on the fact that women all around the world actually fucking die because of that. but nope. TRANSPHOBIC. 

    roseanne made a fucking mistake on twitter and loses her job and probably millions because of one fucking tweet. she said she was on ambien or some shit. no one believes her. you never said anything stupid when drunk or high?

    but we are so polarized into sides and teams now, everyone gets labelled with something as a point against that team. 

    public discourse is fucking dead. 
    1993 - Gimli, MB (Sun/Mudfest)
    2003 - Fargo, ND
    2005 - Winnipeg, MB
    2011 - Minneapolis, MN (EV)
    2011 - Winnipeg, MB
    2014 - St. Paul, MN
    2020 - Ottawa, ON
  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 16,015
    George Carlin was mentioned earlier. Another one of his bits that comes to mind as it pertains to this conversation is the "some people are really fucking stupid!" bit in which he divides those we might consider ignoring into "fucking stupid," "full of shit," and "fucking nuts." He notes that it takes about eight seconds to spot these people. 

    I know he's a comedian, but I've found this to be true. Sure, I've likely mistaken some people in those eight seconds before deciding to move on with my life, but I also don't think I did anyone a great disservice just by discarding his/her opinion.

    No one has a right to be heard, read, viewed, etc. I think social media (and political threads on rock band fan club forums) has conditioned many people to believe in the opposite.
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • static111static111 Posts: 1,170
    dankind said:
    brianlux said:
    hedonist said:
    Why not ignore rather than silence?  For all those who refuse to even listen, there are likely more willing to engage in a productive and learning sense.  Even if nothing comes of it, the effort itself is important.

    If you would want to be heard, why deny that to others based solely on differing opinions?





    AND I CANNOT STAND THE TERM "WOKE".
    (that felt good)

    I would love to see the term "woke" put to bed.  :lol: 
    OK, boomers.
    Beat me to it!
  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of foreverPosts: 21,892
    dankind said:
    George Carlin was mentioned earlier. Another one of his bits that comes to mind as it pertains to this conversation is the "some people are really fucking stupid!" bit in which he divides those we might consider ignoring into "fucking stupid," "full of shit," and "fucking nuts." He notes that it takes about eight seconds to spot these people. 

    I know he's a comedian, but I've found this to be true. Sure, I've likely mistaken some people in those eight seconds before deciding to move on with my life, but I also don't think I did anyone a great disservice just by discarding his/her opinion.

    No one has a right to be heard, read, viewed, etc. I think social media (and political threads on rock band fan club forums) has conditioned many people to believe in the opposite.
    I've done the same, based on instinct and the other person's behavior/actions/words (or lack thereof) - sometimes it's someone face-to-face, or one I'm hearing or seeing for the first time.

    As to the right to be heard, if I had something to say that could be divisive or inflammatory (or merely taken that way?), I'd rather speak my mind and have others pooh-pooh it, than not being able to speak at all.

    Perhaps the word "right" is semantics?  Perhaps "should be able to" is more appropriate?  I don't know.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon I'm from Winnipeg, you idiot! (Chris Jericho)Posts: 22,032
    dankind said:
    George Carlin was mentioned earlier. Another one of his bits that comes to mind as it pertains to this conversation is the "some people are really fucking stupid!" bit in which he divides those we might consider ignoring into "fucking stupid," "full of shit," and "fucking nuts." He notes that it takes about eight seconds to spot these people. 

    I know he's a comedian, but I've found this to be true. Sure, I've likely mistaken some people in those eight seconds before deciding to move on with my life, but I also don't think I did anyone a great disservice just by discarding his/her opinion.

    No one has a right to be heard, read, viewed, etc. I think social media (and political threads on rock band fan club forums) has conditioned many people to believe in the opposite.
    100 freaking percent
    1993 - Gimli, MB (Sun/Mudfest)
    2003 - Fargo, ND
    2005 - Winnipeg, MB
    2011 - Minneapolis, MN (EV)
    2011 - Winnipeg, MB
    2014 - St. Paul, MN
    2020 - Ottawa, ON
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,882
    hedonist said:
    dankind said:
    George Carlin was mentioned earlier. Another one of his bits that comes to mind as it pertains to this conversation is the "some people are really fucking stupid!" bit in which he divides those we might consider ignoring into "fucking stupid," "full of shit," and "fucking nuts." He notes that it takes about eight seconds to spot these people. 

    I know he's a comedian, but I've found this to be true. Sure, I've likely mistaken some people in those eight seconds before deciding to move on with my life, but I also don't think I did anyone a great disservice just by discarding his/her opinion.

    No one has a right to be heard, read, viewed, etc. I think social media (and political threads on rock band fan club forums) has conditioned many people to believe in the opposite.
    I've done the same, based on instinct and the other person's behavior/actions/words (or lack thereof) - sometimes it's someone face-to-face, or one I'm hearing or seeing for the first time.

    As to the right to be heard, if I had something to say that could be divisive or inflammatory (or merely taken that way?), I'd rather speak my mind and have others pooh-pooh it, than not being able to speak at all.

    Perhaps the word "right" is semantics?  Perhaps "should be able to" is more appropriate?  I don't know.

    dankind said:
    George Carlin was mentioned earlier. Another one of his bits that comes to mind as it pertains to this conversation is the "some people are really fucking stupid!" bit in which he divides those we might consider ignoring into "fucking stupid," "full of shit," and "fucking nuts." He notes that it takes about eight seconds to spot these people. 

    I know he's a comedian, but I've found this to be true. Sure, I've likely mistaken some people in those eight seconds before deciding to move on with my life, but I also don't think I did anyone a great disservice just by discarding his/her opinion.

    No one has a right to be heard, read, viewed, etc. I think social media (and political threads on rock band fan club forums) has conditioned many people to believe in the opposite.
    100 freaking percent

    This really does get into semantics.  What does it mean to "have the right to be heard"?  Obviously no one has the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  But what about the person who says and honestly believes "the Chinese started COVID-19 and they suck!"  Now, you know I wouldn't say that, but I'm not sure we can say, "you have no right to say that".  They do, don't they?  If not, how do make that illegal?  How do you enforce that?

    One of the things I'm seeing through all of this (and this includes some of the protests) is that there are basically four kinds of people when it comes to discussing current events:

    1.  People who don't care and don't engage in such discussion.
    2.  People who care but don't say anything for fear of being berated (or worse).
    3.  People who believe the best way to learn and to inform is through civil dialog.
    4.  People who have strong feelings about things and yell and scream at those who have differing opinions.

    Which of these do you suppose is most effective both in terms of learning something and in terms of convincing others to at least consider your beliefs?

    We're seeing a lot of people lately who fall into the 4th group.  I don't know about you folks, but I can't think of any time I have change my beliefs because someone screamed and yelled at me about their position.
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon I'm from Winnipeg, you idiot! (Chris Jericho)Posts: 22,032
    brianlux said:
    hedonist said:
    dankind said:
    George Carlin was mentioned earlier. Another one of his bits that comes to mind as it pertains to this conversation is the "some people are really fucking stupid!" bit in which he divides those we might consider ignoring into "fucking stupid," "full of shit," and "fucking nuts." He notes that it takes about eight seconds to spot these people. 

    I know he's a comedian, but I've found this to be true. Sure, I've likely mistaken some people in those eight seconds before deciding to move on with my life, but I also don't think I did anyone a great disservice just by discarding his/her opinion.

    No one has a right to be heard, read, viewed, etc. I think social media (and political threads on rock band fan club forums) has conditioned many people to believe in the opposite.
    I've done the same, based on instinct and the other person's behavior/actions/words (or lack thereof) - sometimes it's someone face-to-face, or one I'm hearing or seeing for the first time.

    As to the right to be heard, if I had something to say that could be divisive or inflammatory (or merely taken that way?), I'd rather speak my mind and have others pooh-pooh it, than not being able to speak at all.

    Perhaps the word "right" is semantics?  Perhaps "should be able to" is more appropriate?  I don't know.

    dankind said:
    George Carlin was mentioned earlier. Another one of his bits that comes to mind as it pertains to this conversation is the "some people are really fucking stupid!" bit in which he divides those we might consider ignoring into "fucking stupid," "full of shit," and "fucking nuts." He notes that it takes about eight seconds to spot these people. 

    I know he's a comedian, but I've found this to be true. Sure, I've likely mistaken some people in those eight seconds before deciding to move on with my life, but I also don't think I did anyone a great disservice just by discarding his/her opinion.

    No one has a right to be heard, read, viewed, etc. I think social media (and political threads on rock band fan club forums) has conditioned many people to believe in the opposite.
    100 freaking percent

    This really does get into semantics.  What does it mean to "have the right to be heard"?  Obviously no one has the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  But what about the person who says and honestly believes "the Chinese started COVID-19 and they suck!"  Now, you know I wouldn't say that, but I'm not sure we can say, "you have no right to say that".  They do, don't they?  If not, how do make that illegal?  How do you enforce that?

    One of the things I'm seeing through all of this (and this includes some of the protests) is that there are basically four kinds of people when it comes to discussing current events:

    1.  People who don't care and don't engage in such discussion.
    2.  People who care but don't say anything for fear of being berated (or worse).
    3.  People who believe the best way to learn and to inform is through civil dialog.
    4.  People who have strong feelings about things and yell and scream at those who have differing opinions.

    Which of these do you suppose is most effective both in terms of learning something and in terms of convincing others to at least consider your beliefs?

    We're seeing a lot of people lately who fall into the 4th group.  I don't know about you folks, but I can't think of any time I have change my beliefs because someone screamed and yelled at me about their position.
    people have a right to say anything they want. but they don't have a right to be heard. i mean, i say shit all the time on twitter, but i don't have many followers and i'm not entitled to anyone reading or responding to it. same goes here. there have been folks who whine about not being responded to. whine all you wish. you have no right to force anyone to listen to you. 

    i was once, many AMT moons ago, occasionally a number 4, which personally i think was borne out of feelings of intellectual/knowledge inadequacy. then i spent a lot of time listening, which turned me into a number 3. there are times, obviously, where i catch myself being close to a number 4 again, and i try my best to reign myself in. 
    1993 - Gimli, MB (Sun/Mudfest)
    2003 - Fargo, ND
    2005 - Winnipeg, MB
    2011 - Minneapolis, MN (EV)
    2011 - Winnipeg, MB
    2014 - St. Paul, MN
    2020 - Ottawa, ON
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 2,732
    edited July 28
    i'm so sick and tired of this. the labeling has gotten out of control. joe rogan is a racist and anti-trans. jk rowling is anti-trans. bryan adams is a racist. justin trudeau is racist. roseanne is a racist. everything is fucking cancelled. 

    look, some shit needs to be tossed into the dust bin. but public discourse without measured and respectful response isn't one of them. 

    joe rogan think it's unfair that trans women get to compete in sports against cis women. anti trans? ridiculous. it's biology. supported by the results in most instances, i might add. "i was always a woman" isn't a viable defense. make a division for trans athletes. boom. solved. 

    bryan adams was mad that his concert tour was cancelled because of wet markets. people called him racist against chinese customs and people. the guy's a fucking vegetarian and never mentioned china or chinese people. he's just mad his concerts got cancelled and thinks the open slaughter and consumption of animals is disgusting. 

    trudeau wore black face before anyone knew it was racist. trudeau haters want him to resign. had andrew sheer done it, they would have explained it away, just like people have accused me of doing with trudeau. 

    rowling made some comment about the usage of the word "people" in reference to those who menstruate. apparently, this was transphobic because it isn't just women who menstruate. however, she was trying to keep the light on the fact that women all around the world actually fucking die because of that. but nope. TRANSPHOBIC. 

    roseanne made a fucking mistake on twitter and loses her job and probably millions because of one fucking tweet. she said she was on ambien or some shit. no one believes her. you never said anything stupid when drunk or high?

    but we are so polarized into sides and teams now, everyone gets labelled with something as a point against that team. 

    public discourse is fucking dead. 

    I remember Joe Rogan from the underrated sitcom "News Radio." If not for the thread on him here I would not even know he was a controversial figure.

    That said, I don't think it's as simple as all of these people deserve passes just because we want to make sure not to be woke, PC, or "cancellers."  So I'll take take them one-by-one and try to find some nuance.

    joe rogan: I only know the "controversy" from the above post.  And as someone who tries to be all of these terrible things, I admit sports is a tricky one.  Not know the context, tone, etc., it sounds like there was some un-needed cancelling because athletics is a very tricky thing when it comes to gender ID. 

    Bryan Adams: First, Bryan Adams is the guy who, when David Duke used his song at a rally in the 1980s, got so frustrated he pulled his records out of the State of Louisiana.  Second, what he said wasn't racist.  So, yeah, I suppose he received scrutiny he did not need to.  Didn't really take away "discourse" though, and I had to google this just to remind myself and it took a long time to find.  I don't think he's been cancelled.

    Trudeau: Tough one. He's not that old. I'm 46 and don't remember any time when people didn't think blackface was racist.  When the leader of the country is shown to have done that, I don't have a problem with having to answer questions.  I'm not really sure what the outcome should be, though.

    JK Rowling:  Has she been "cancelled?"  A lot of people are upset with her and I suppose some may boycott her next book but am I supposed to be upset with that?  I still won't go to Chick-Fil-A because they gave money to Focus on the Family.  Am I cancelling them?  Do I have an obligation to go there?  She's probably the one on this list I feel least bad for because she seems to be on a bit of a crusade, making unsolicited comments. She deserves criticism. 

    Roseanne: Was this the tweet with her dressed as Hitler?  She's gone off the deep end and is either a hard-core white nationalist or is trying too hard to make some other point.  I don't feel that bad for her either.

    Jussie Smollett ruined his career and was essentially cancelled. Is that equally unfair?

    Anyway, if I'm all over the map, good.  That's the intent.  There's so much nuance here that it cannot be one size fits all.  And even though I agree with you on Rogan, Adams (though don't agree that he was cancelled) and am unsure what to think about Trudeau, what I'm inferring here is "never give into the liberal mob," which is why I ask whether Smollett should be cancelled.  Or Kaepernick. Or the Dixie Chicks.

    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 2,732
    Come to think of it, the one thing we all have in common is a band that's been on the business end of "cancel culture." It was before that was a term, but still.  They took some crap for talking smack about W at a time when he was historically popular (and the mask-slamming instance in Denver).  They probably did not lose a ton of fans because 1) it's a small/dedicated group, 2) the fans probably tend somewhat toward the band's politics, and 3) people got over it.  My take was that if they wanted to do that, they did so knowing they might lose fans (and future album sales). And while I rolled my eyes at everyone crying about it (this message board was a hot spot in 2003), it's everyone's right if they want to boycott, etc.

    That said, it was before "cancel culture" became a thing.  When you're old like me, 2003 doesn't seem that long ago. But in terms of the internet it was.  No Twitter. No facebook.  Myspace? (who cares?).  There were people really upset at the band, but there wasn't the quick spreading of that kind of thing back then. I'd be some right-wing casual fans have no idea about what happened in 2003 (maybe some of you young'ns don't).

    In any case, I never felt too badly for the band. Those who are cancelled that I do feel bad for tend to be misunderstood people. Rogan might be an example. I think the best example, even though it doesn't count (because the right's allowed to cancel) is Kaepernick. He made people  uncomfortable and ultimately we could not get out of our own way in terms of not understanding nuance.  You could argue that he, like PJ/2003 should have seen it coming.  But this was the ultimate shutting down of meaningful dialog.  I could make the same argument for Rowling; she appears anti-trans to me (then again, it's amazing how many people think Kaep is anti-American) but it's  relatively new movement and you could argue that her tweets are an opportunity for dialog rather than getting angry at her.  Ugh.  The whole thing is starting to hurt my head.
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,882
    brianlux said:
    hedonist said:
    dankind said:
    George Carlin was mentioned earlier. Another one of his bits that comes to mind as it pertains to this conversation is the "some people are really fucking stupid!" bit in which he divides those we might consider ignoring into "fucking stupid," "full of shit," and "fucking nuts." He notes that it takes about eight seconds to spot these people. 

    I know he's a comedian, but I've found this to be true. Sure, I've likely mistaken some people in those eight seconds before deciding to move on with my life, but I also don't think I did anyone a great disservice just by discarding his/her opinion.

    No one has a right to be heard, read, viewed, etc. I think social media (and political threads on rock band fan club forums) has conditioned many people to believe in the opposite.
    I've done the same, based on instinct and the other person's behavior/actions/words (or lack thereof) - sometimes it's someone face-to-face, or one I'm hearing or seeing for the first time.

    As to the right to be heard, if I had something to say that could be divisive or inflammatory (or merely taken that way?), I'd rather speak my mind and have others pooh-pooh it, than not being able to speak at all.

    Perhaps the word "right" is semantics?  Perhaps "should be able to" is more appropriate?  I don't know.

    dankind said:
    George Carlin was mentioned earlier. Another one of his bits that comes to mind as it pertains to this conversation is the "some people are really fucking stupid!" bit in which he divides those we might consider ignoring into "fucking stupid," "full of shit," and "fucking nuts." He notes that it takes about eight seconds to spot these people. 

    I know he's a comedian, but I've found this to be true. Sure, I've likely mistaken some people in those eight seconds before deciding to move on with my life, but I also don't think I did anyone a great disservice just by discarding his/her opinion.

    No one has a right to be heard, read, viewed, etc. I think social media (and political threads on rock band fan club forums) has conditioned many people to believe in the opposite.
    100 freaking percent

    This really does get into semantics.  What does it mean to "have the right to be heard"?  Obviously no one has the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  But what about the person who says and honestly believes "the Chinese started COVID-19 and they suck!"  Now, you know I wouldn't say that, but I'm not sure we can say, "you have no right to say that".  They do, don't they?  If not, how do make that illegal?  How do you enforce that?

    One of the things I'm seeing through all of this (and this includes some of the protests) is that there are basically four kinds of people when it comes to discussing current events:

    1.  People who don't care and don't engage in such discussion.
    2.  People who care but don't say anything for fear of being berated (or worse).
    3.  People who believe the best way to learn and to inform is through civil dialog.
    4.  People who have strong feelings about things and yell and scream at those who have differing opinions.

    Which of these do you suppose is most effective both in terms of learning something and in terms of convincing others to at least consider your beliefs?

    We're seeing a lot of people lately who fall into the 4th group.  I don't know about you folks, but I can't think of any time I have change my beliefs because someone screamed and yelled at me about their position.
    people have a right to say anything they want. but they don't have a right to be heard. i mean, i say shit all the time on twitter, but i don't have many followers and i'm not entitled to anyone reading or responding to it. same goes here. there have been folks who whine about not being responded to. whine all you wish. you have no right to force anyone to listen to you. 

    i was once, many AMT moons ago, occasionally a number 4, which personally i think was borne out of feelings of intellectual/knowledge inadequacy. then i spent a lot of time listening, which turned me into a number 3. there are times, obviously, where i catch myself being close to a number 4 again, and i try my best to reign myself in. 

    You're alright in my book. HFD.
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon I'm from Winnipeg, you idiot! (Chris Jericho)Posts: 22,032
    edited July 28
    OnWis97 said:
    i'm so sick and tired of this. the labeling has gotten out of control. joe rogan is a racist and anti-trans. jk rowling is anti-trans. bryan adams is a racist. justin trudeau is racist. roseanne is a racist. everything is fucking cancelled. 

    look, some shit needs to be tossed into the dust bin. but public discourse without measured and respectful response isn't one of them. 

    joe rogan think it's unfair that trans women get to compete in sports against cis women. anti trans? ridiculous. it's biology. supported by the results in most instances, i might add. "i was always a woman" isn't a viable defense. make a division for trans athletes. boom. solved. 

    bryan adams was mad that his concert tour was cancelled because of wet markets. people called him racist against chinese customs and people. the guy's a fucking vegetarian and never mentioned china or chinese people. he's just mad his concerts got cancelled and thinks the open slaughter and consumption of animals is disgusting. 

    trudeau wore black face before anyone knew it was racist. trudeau haters want him to resign. had andrew sheer done it, they would have explained it away, just like people have accused me of doing with trudeau. 

    rowling made some comment about the usage of the word "people" in reference to those who menstruate. apparently, this was transphobic because it isn't just women who menstruate. however, she was trying to keep the light on the fact that women all around the world actually fucking die because of that. but nope. TRANSPHOBIC. 

    roseanne made a fucking mistake on twitter and loses her job and probably millions because of one fucking tweet. she said she was on ambien or some shit. no one believes her. you never said anything stupid when drunk or high?

    but we are so polarized into sides and teams now, everyone gets labelled with something as a point against that team. 

    public discourse is fucking dead. 

    I remember Joe Rogan from the underrated sitcom "News Radio." If not for the thread on him here I would not even know he was a controversial figure.

    That said, I don't think it's as simple as all of these people deserve passes just because we want to make sure not to be woke, PC, or "cancellers."  So I'll take take them one-by-one and try to find some nuance.

    joe rogan: I only know the "controversy" from the above post.  And as someone who tries to be all of these terrible things, I admit sports is a tricky one.  Not know the context, tone, etc., it sounds like there was some un-needed cancelling because athletics is a very tricky thing when it comes to gender ID. 

    Bryan Adams: First, Bryan Adams is the guy who, when David Duke used his song at a rally in the 1980s, got so frustrated he pulled his records out of the State of Louisiana.  Second, what he said wasn't racist.  So, yeah, I suppose he received scrutiny he did not need to.  Didn't really take away "discourse" though, and I had to google this just to remind myself and it took a long time to find.  I don't think he's been cancelled.

    Trudeau: Tough one. He's not that old. I'm 46 and don't remember any time when people didn't think blackface was racist.  When the leader of the country is shown to have done that, I don't have a problem with having to answer questions.  I'm not really sure what the outcome should be, though.

    JK Rowling:  Has she been "cancelled?"  A lot of people are upset with her and I suppose some may boycott her next book but am I supposed to be upset with that?  I still won't go to Chick-Fil-A because they gave money to Focus on the Family.  Am I cancelling them?  Do I have an obligation to go there?  She's probably the one on this list I feel least bad for because she seems to be on a bit of a crusade, making unsolicited comments. She deserves criticism. 

    Roseanne: Was this the tweet with her dressed as Hitler?  She's gone off the deep end and is either a hard-core white nationalist or is trying too hard to make some other point.  I don't feel that bad for her either.

    Jussie Smollett ruined his career and was essentially cancelled. Is that equally unfair?

    Anyway, if I'm all over the map, good.  That's the intent.  There's so much nuance here that it cannot be one size fits all.  And even though I agree with you on Rogan, Adams (though don't agree that he was cancelled) and am unsure what to think about Trudeau, what I'm inferring here is "never give into the liberal mob," which is why I ask whether Smollett should be cancelled.  Or Kaepernick. Or the Dixie Chicks.

    as happens often with me, i wasn't clear. lol. i wasn't trying to say all of these people have been cancelled. only roseanne has. but everyone has had the scarlet letter placed on them in the form of the label of being a (insert here)-phobe/ist. and i'm sick of it. 

    jussie smollet got what he deserved. faking a crime to get attention to the movement is not tolerable. 

    i'm also 46. i had no clue until recently that blackface was racist. to me it was part of the costume; if you are dressing up as a mr t, you wore black makeup. if a black person wanted to dress up as shirley temple, go ahead and wear whiteface. that's all it was to me. a costume piece. i never did it, but that was probably just more out of laziness than anything else. i did not know the history of it. i believe trudeau didn't either. i am also getting a little tired of people saying "how could you not know?". that's not an answerable question. you know when you are told. there was no interent back then. costumes sometimes WERE SOLD with black makeup, were they not?

    no, rowling hasn't been cancelled. that's not the point. the point is she's been labelled anti-trans, which is, in my opinion, bullshit. especially if you read her response to the backlash.she's feminist, which, apparently, you can't be at the same time as being pro-trans.  

    i don't think sports is a tricky thing whatsoever when it comes to gender ID. you compete with others in the same biological sex category you were born with. or don't play. that simple. if mike tyson started identifying as a woman just so he could be the first two-gender boxing champion, there would be outrage. why not the same for track and field sports, mma, etc? if a trans woman wants to play darts against cis women, or chess, fine and dandy. anything that is more physical than mental or skillful? hard nope from me. 

    why would we cancel kaepernick? or the dixie chicks? i don't personally find either them did anything remotely controversial. the chicks was a name and nothing more. kaepernick was exercising his right to protest peacefully. lady A has some answering to do, though, with how they are suing a black woman named Lady A for the rights to the name, even though she's been using it for 20 years. come on. "we're changing our name so it's no longer racist, but now we're going to sue a black woman for the rights to that name". how fucking tone deaf is that. 

    roseanne's issue was this: Barr appeared to take aim late Monday at Valerie Jarrett, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, in a tweet that identified the administration official by her initials: “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj.” was it disgusting? absolutely. was it career defining? i honestly can't answer that. but i just hate how these networks and big corporations bow down to what the right calls the "mob" instead of maybe doing an investigation? in today's age, there is no trial. there is no investigation. just an immediate public hanging and then we move on. 
    Post edited by HughFreakingDillon on
    1993 - Gimli, MB (Sun/Mudfest)
    2003 - Fargo, ND
    2005 - Winnipeg, MB
    2011 - Minneapolis, MN (EV)
    2011 - Winnipeg, MB
    2014 - St. Paul, MN
    2020 - Ottawa, ON
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,882
    OnWis97 said:
    Come to think of it, the one thing we all have in common is a band that's been on the business end of "cancel culture." It was before that was a term, but still.  They took some crap for talking smack about W at a time when he was historically popular (and the mask-slamming instance in Denver).  They probably did not lose a ton of fans because 1) it's a small/dedicated group, 2) the fans probably tend somewhat toward the band's politics, and 3) people got over it.  My take was that if they wanted to do that, they did so knowing they might lose fans (and future album sales). And while I rolled my eyes at everyone crying about it (this message board was a hot spot in 2003), it's everyone's right if they want to boycott, etc.

    That said, it was before "cancel culture" became a thing.  When you're old like me, 2003 doesn't seem that long ago. But in terms of the internet it was.  No Twitter. No facebook.  Myspace? (who cares?).  There were people really upset at the band, but there wasn't the quick spreading of that kind of thing back then. I'd be some right-wing casual fans have no idea about what happened in 2003 (maybe some of you young'ns don't).

    In any case, I never felt too badly for the band. Those who are cancelled that I do feel bad for tend to be misunderstood people. Rogan might be an example. I think the best example, even though it doesn't count (because the right's allowed to cancel) is Kaepernick. He made people  uncomfortable and ultimately we could not get out of our own way in terms of not understanding nuance.  You could argue that he, like PJ/2003 should have seen it coming.  But this was the ultimate shutting down of meaningful dialog.  I could make the same argument for Rowling; she appears anti-trans to me (then again, it's amazing how many people think Kaep is anti-American) but it's  relatively new movement and you could argue that her tweets are an opportunity for dialog rather than getting angry at her.  Ugh.  The whole thing is starting to hurt my head.

    Well said, OnWis.  I know I've had to learn to not be so quick to cancelling out someone.  I still need to learn to do that better.  I think most of us can, if we choose to go at least try.   And of course that doesn't mean we have to accept everything we hear no matter what, and it sure doesn't mean we have to go along with people who are tyrants, despots, torturers and the like. 
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 2,732
    OnWis97 said:
    i'm so sick and tired of this. the labeling has gotten out of control. joe rogan is a racist and anti-trans. jk rowling is anti-trans. bryan adams is a racist. justin trudeau is racist. roseanne is a racist. everything is fucking cancelled. 

    look, some shit needs to be tossed into the dust bin. but public discourse without measured and respectful response isn't one of them. 

    joe rogan think it's unfair that trans women get to compete in sports against cis women. anti trans? ridiculous. it's biology. supported by the results in most instances, i might add. "i was always a woman" isn't a viable defense. make a division for trans athletes. boom. solved. 

    bryan adams was mad that his concert tour was cancelled because of wet markets. people called him racist against chinese customs and people. the guy's a fucking vegetarian and never mentioned china or chinese people. he's just mad his concerts got cancelled and thinks the open slaughter and consumption of animals is disgusting. 

    trudeau wore black face before anyone knew it was racist. trudeau haters want him to resign. had andrew sheer done it, they would have explained it away, just like people have accused me of doing with trudeau. 

    rowling made some comment about the usage of the word "people" in reference to those who menstruate. apparently, this was transphobic because it isn't just women who menstruate. however, she was trying to keep the light on the fact that women all around the world actually fucking die because of that. but nope. TRANSPHOBIC. 

    roseanne made a fucking mistake on twitter and loses her job and probably millions because of one fucking tweet. she said she was on ambien or some shit. no one believes her. you never said anything stupid when drunk or high?

    but we are so polarized into sides and teams now, everyone gets labelled with something as a point against that team. 

    public discourse is fucking dead. 

    I remember Joe Rogan from the underrated sitcom "News Radio." If not for the thread on him here I would not even know he was a controversial figure.

    That said, I don't think it's as simple as all of these people deserve passes just because we want to make sure not to be woke, PC, or "cancellers."  So I'll take take them one-by-one and try to find some nuance.

    joe rogan: I only know the "controversy" from the above post.  And as someone who tries to be all of these terrible things, I admit sports is a tricky one.  Not know the context, tone, etc., it sounds like there was some un-needed cancelling because athletics is a very tricky thing when it comes to gender ID. 

    Bryan Adams: First, Bryan Adams is the guy who, when David Duke used his song at a rally in the 1980s, got so frustrated he pulled his records out of the State of Louisiana.  Second, what he said wasn't racist.  So, yeah, I suppose he received scrutiny he did not need to.  Didn't really take away "discourse" though, and I had to google this just to remind myself and it took a long time to find.  I don't think he's been cancelled.

    Trudeau: Tough one. He's not that old. I'm 46 and don't remember any time when people didn't think blackface was racist.  When the leader of the country is shown to have done that, I don't have a problem with having to answer questions.  I'm not really sure what the outcome should be, though.

    JK Rowling:  Has she been "cancelled?"  A lot of people are upset with her and I suppose some may boycott her next book but am I supposed to be upset with that?  I still won't go to Chick-Fil-A because they gave money to Focus on the Family.  Am I cancelling them?  Do I have an obligation to go there?  She's probably the one on this list I feel least bad for because she seems to be on a bit of a crusade, making unsolicited comments. She deserves criticism. 

    Roseanne: Was this the tweet with her dressed as Hitler?  She's gone off the deep end and is either a hard-core white nationalist or is trying too hard to make some other point.  I don't feel that bad for her either.

    Jussie Smollett ruined his career and was essentially cancelled. Is that equally unfair?

    Anyway, if I'm all over the map, good.  That's the intent.  There's so much nuance here that it cannot be one size fits all.  And even though I agree with you on Rogan, Adams (though don't agree that he was cancelled) and am unsure what to think about Trudeau, what I'm inferring here is "never give into the liberal mob," which is why I ask whether Smollett should be cancelled.  Or Kaepernick. Or the Dixie Chicks.

    as happens often with me, i wasn't clear. lol. i wasn't trying to say all of these people have been cancelled. only roseanne has. but everyone has had the scarlet letter placed on them in the form of the label of being a (insert here)-phobe/ist. and i'm sick of it. 

    jussie smollet got what he deserved. faking a crime to get attention to the movement is not tolerable. 

    i'm also 46. i had no clue until recently that blackface was racist. to me it was part of the costume; if you are dressing up as a mr t, you wore black makeup. if a black person wanted to dress up as shirley temple, go ahead and wear whiteface. that's all it was to me. a costume piece. i never did it, but that was probably just more out of laziness than anything else. i did not know the history of it. i believe trudeau didn't either. i am also getting a little tired of people saying "how could you not know?". that's not an answerable question. you know when you are told. there was no interent back then. costumes sometimes WERE SOLD with black makeup, were they not?

    no, rowling hasn't been cancelled. that's not the point. the point is she's been labelled anti-trans, which is, in my opinion, bullshit. especially if you read her response to the backlash.she's feminist, which, apparently, you can't be at the same time as being pro-trans.  

    i don't think sports is a tricky thing whatsoever when it comes to gender ID. you compete with others in the same biological sex category you were born with. or don't play. that simple. if mike tyson started identifying as a woman just so he could be the first two-gender boxing champion, there would be outrage. why not the same for track and field sports, mma, etc? if a trans woman wants to play darts against cis women, or chess, fine and dandy. anything that is more physical than mental or skillful? hard nope from me. 

    why would we cancel kaepernick? or the dixie chicks? i don't personally find either them did anything remotely controversial. the chicks was a name and nothing more. kaepernick was exercising his right to protest peacefully. lady A has some answering to do, though, with how they are suing a black woman named Lady A for the rights to the name, even though she's been using it for 20 years. come on. "we're changing our name so it's no longer racist, but now we're going to sue a black woman for the rights to that name". how fucking tone deaf is that. 

    roseanne's issue was this: Barr appeared to take aim late Monday at Valerie Jarrett, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, in a tweet that identified the administration official by her initials: “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj.” was it disgusting? absolutely. was it career defining? i honestly can't answer that. but i just hate how these networks and big corporations bow down to what the right calls the "mob" instead of maybe doing an investigation? in today's age, there is no trial. there is no investigation. just an immediate public hanging and then we move on. 
    They were cancelled. Much of country radio stopped playing the Dixie Chicks.  I guess they still have a career, unlike Roseanne but I think the main difference there is that it's easier to overcome in music (if you're well-established) in that individuals can still consume your art.  Harder for Roseanne if a TV channel won't even put her on TV.

    Kaepernick lost his career over it.*  The NFL gave into the pressure of it's primarily white-Nationalist fan base.  It was a mob (a different one) and he was cancelled.  He's found other ways around it because it turns out standing up for social justice gets at least a bit more sympathy than being racist.  I'm not really sure what should happen with someone like Roseanne.  But I can't weep for her. 

    All this said, I don't necessarily disagree with your point as much as it might seem.  There certainly are missed opportunities for discourse out of people like Kaepernick and Rowling. (Not so much Roseanne).

    *oh god, are we going to have to have a debate over how good he was...it's not the point.

    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of foreverPosts: 21,892
    I always thought blackface was racist. 

    Yeah, this whole thing and everything it’s morphed into, hurts my noggin as well.  
  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of foreverPosts: 21,892
    What exactly is “cancelling someone“? 

    All these terms!
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 31,882
    hedonist said:
    What exactly is “cancelling someone“? 

    All these terms!

    No kidding!  A whole new modern lexicon.  Makes my head spin! 
    “In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result.”
    -James Allen










  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon I'm from Winnipeg, you idiot! (Chris Jericho)Posts: 22,032
    OnWis97 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    i'm so sick and tired of this. the labeling has gotten out of control. joe rogan is a racist and anti-trans. jk rowling is anti-trans. bryan adams is a racist. justin trudeau is racist. roseanne is a racist. everything is fucking cancelled. 

    look, some shit needs to be tossed into the dust bin. but public discourse without measured and respectful response isn't one of them. 

    joe rogan think it's unfair that trans women get to compete in sports against cis women. anti trans? ridiculous. it's biology. supported by the results in most instances, i might add. "i was always a woman" isn't a viable defense. make a division for trans athletes. boom. solved. 

    bryan adams was mad that his concert tour was cancelled because of wet markets. people called him racist against chinese customs and people. the guy's a fucking vegetarian and never mentioned china or chinese people. he's just mad his concerts got cancelled and thinks the open slaughter and consumption of animals is disgusting. 

    trudeau wore black face before anyone knew it was racist. trudeau haters want him to resign. had andrew sheer done it, they would have explained it away, just like people have accused me of doing with trudeau. 

    rowling made some comment about the usage of the word "people" in reference to those who menstruate. apparently, this was transphobic because it isn't just women who menstruate. however, she was trying to keep the light on the fact that women all around the world actually fucking die because of that. but nope. TRANSPHOBIC. 

    roseanne made a fucking mistake on twitter and loses her job and probably millions because of one fucking tweet. she said she was on ambien or some shit. no one believes her. you never said anything stupid when drunk or high?

    but we are so polarized into sides and teams now, everyone gets labelled with something as a point against that team. 

    public discourse is fucking dead. 

    I remember Joe Rogan from the underrated sitcom "News Radio." If not for the thread on him here I would not even know he was a controversial figure.

    That said, I don't think it's as simple as all of these people deserve passes just because we want to make sure not to be woke, PC, or "cancellers."  So I'll take take them one-by-one and try to find some nuance.

    joe rogan: I only know the "controversy" from the above post.  And as someone who tries to be all of these terrible things, I admit sports is a tricky one.  Not know the context, tone, etc., it sounds like there was some un-needed cancelling because athletics is a very tricky thing when it comes to gender ID. 

    Bryan Adams: First, Bryan Adams is the guy who, when David Duke used his song at a rally in the 1980s, got so frustrated he pulled his records out of the State of Louisiana.  Second, what he said wasn't racist.  So, yeah, I suppose he received scrutiny he did not need to.  Didn't really take away "discourse" though, and I had to google this just to remind myself and it took a long time to find.  I don't think he's been cancelled.

    Trudeau: Tough one. He's not that old. I'm 46 and don't remember any time when people didn't think blackface was racist.  When the leader of the country is shown to have done that, I don't have a problem with having to answer questions.  I'm not really sure what the outcome should be, though.

    JK Rowling:  Has she been "cancelled?"  A lot of people are upset with her and I suppose some may boycott her next book but am I supposed to be upset with that?  I still won't go to Chick-Fil-A because they gave money to Focus on the Family.  Am I cancelling them?  Do I have an obligation to go there?  She's probably the one on this list I feel least bad for because she seems to be on a bit of a crusade, making unsolicited comments. She deserves criticism. 

    Roseanne: Was this the tweet with her dressed as Hitler?  She's gone off the deep end and is either a hard-core white nationalist or is trying too hard to make some other point.  I don't feel that bad for her either.

    Jussie Smollett ruined his career and was essentially cancelled. Is that equally unfair?

    Anyway, if I'm all over the map, good.  That's the intent.  There's so much nuance here that it cannot be one size fits all.  And even though I agree with you on Rogan, Adams (though don't agree that he was cancelled) and am unsure what to think about Trudeau, what I'm inferring here is "never give into the liberal mob," which is why I ask whether Smollett should be cancelled.  Or Kaepernick. Or the Dixie Chicks.

    as happens often with me, i wasn't clear. lol. i wasn't trying to say all of these people have been cancelled. only roseanne has. but everyone has had the scarlet letter placed on them in the form of the label of being a (insert here)-phobe/ist. and i'm sick of it. 

    jussie smollet got what he deserved. faking a crime to get attention to the movement is not tolerable. 

    i'm also 46. i had no clue until recently that blackface was racist. to me it was part of the costume; if you are dressing up as a mr t, you wore black makeup. if a black person wanted to dress up as shirley temple, go ahead and wear whiteface. that's all it was to me. a costume piece. i never did it, but that was probably just more out of laziness than anything else. i did not know the history of it. i believe trudeau didn't either. i am also getting a little tired of people saying "how could you not know?". that's not an answerable question. you know when you are told. there was no interent back then. costumes sometimes WERE SOLD with black makeup, were they not?

    no, rowling hasn't been cancelled. that's not the point. the point is she's been labelled anti-trans, which is, in my opinion, bullshit. especially if you read her response to the backlash.she's feminist, which, apparently, you can't be at the same time as being pro-trans.  

    i don't think sports is a tricky thing whatsoever when it comes to gender ID. you compete with others in the same biological sex category you were born with. or don't play. that simple. if mike tyson started identifying as a woman just so he could be the first two-gender boxing champion, there would be outrage. why not the same for track and field sports, mma, etc? if a trans woman wants to play darts against cis women, or chess, fine and dandy. anything that is more physical than mental or skillful? hard nope from me. 

    why would we cancel kaepernick? or the dixie chicks? i don't personally find either them did anything remotely controversial. the chicks was a name and nothing more. kaepernick was exercising his right to protest peacefully. lady A has some answering to do, though, with how they are suing a black woman named Lady A for the rights to the name, even though she's been using it for 20 years. come on. "we're changing our name so it's no longer racist, but now we're going to sue a black woman for the rights to that name". how fucking tone deaf is that. 

    roseanne's issue was this: Barr appeared to take aim late Monday at Valerie Jarrett, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, in a tweet that identified the administration official by her initials: “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj.” was it disgusting? absolutely. was it career defining? i honestly can't answer that. but i just hate how these networks and big corporations bow down to what the right calls the "mob" instead of maybe doing an investigation? in today's age, there is no trial. there is no investigation. just an immediate public hanging and then we move on. 
    They were cancelled. Much of country radio stopped playing the Dixie Chicks.  I guess they still have a career, unlike Roseanne but I think the main difference there is that it's easier to overcome in music (if you're well-established) in that individuals can still consume your art.  Harder for Roseanne if a TV channel won't even put her on TV.

    Kaepernick lost his career over it.*  The NFL gave into the pressure of it's primarily white-Nationalist fan base.  It was a mob (a different one) and he was cancelled.  He's found other ways around it because it turns out standing up for social justice gets at least a bit more sympathy than being racist.  I'm not really sure what should happen with someone like Roseanne.  But I can't weep for her. 

    All this said, I don't necessarily disagree with your point as much as it might seem.  There certainly are missed opportunities for discourse out of people like Kaepernick and Rowling. (Not so much Roseanne).

    *oh god, are we going to have to have a debate over how good he was...it's not the point.

    no, haha, i won't get into the whole kaep was good enough debate. but i don't consider him cancelled, nor the chicks, they both still have careers. kaep turned his situation into a massive deal with nike. to me that's not being cancelled. being cancelled to me is universal, not just one side of the debate. 
    1993 - Gimli, MB (Sun/Mudfest)
    2003 - Fargo, ND
    2005 - Winnipeg, MB
    2011 - Minneapolis, MN (EV)
    2011 - Winnipeg, MB
    2014 - St. Paul, MN
    2020 - Ottawa, ON
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 11,429
    I grew up in northern B.C. and I had never even heard of “blackface” as a concept until not so many years ago. It just didn’t  tend to be on the radar as a social issue for Canadians until much more recently than in the USA. I’m not trying to argue it isn’t racist, just arguing that the “I always knew it was racist” perspective has more of an American context. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 2,732
    OnWis97 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    i'm so sick and tired of this. the labeling has gotten out of control. joe rogan is a racist and anti-trans. jk rowling is anti-trans. bryan adams is a racist. justin trudeau is racist. roseanne is a racist. everything is fucking cancelled. 

    look, some shit needs to be tossed into the dust bin. but public discourse without measured and respectful response isn't one of them. 

    joe rogan think it's unfair that trans women get to compete in sports against cis women. anti trans? ridiculous. it's biology. supported by the results in most instances, i might add. "i was always a woman" isn't a viable defense. make a division for trans athletes. boom. solved. 

    bryan adams was mad that his concert tour was cancelled because of wet markets. people called him racist against chinese customs and people. the guy's a fucking vegetarian and never mentioned china or chinese people. he's just mad his concerts got cancelled and thinks the open slaughter and consumption of animals is disgusting. 

    trudeau wore black face before anyone knew it was racist. trudeau haters want him to resign. had andrew sheer done it, they would have explained it away, just like people have accused me of doing with trudeau. 

    rowling made some comment about the usage of the word "people" in reference to those who menstruate. apparently, this was transphobic because it isn't just women who menstruate. however, she was trying to keep the light on the fact that women all around the world actually fucking die because of that. but nope. TRANSPHOBIC. 

    roseanne made a fucking mistake on twitter and loses her job and probably millions because of one fucking tweet. she said she was on ambien or some shit. no one believes her. you never said anything stupid when drunk or high?

    but we are so polarized into sides and teams now, everyone gets labelled with something as a point against that team. 

    public discourse is fucking dead. 

    I remember Joe Rogan from the underrated sitcom "News Radio." If not for the thread on him here I would not even know he was a controversial figure.

    That said, I don't think it's as simple as all of these people deserve passes just because we want to make sure not to be woke, PC, or "cancellers."  So I'll take take them one-by-one and try to find some nuance.

    joe rogan: I only know the "controversy" from the above post.  And as someone who tries to be all of these terrible things, I admit sports is a tricky one.  Not know the context, tone, etc., it sounds like there was some un-needed cancelling because athletics is a very tricky thing when it comes to gender ID. 

    Bryan Adams: First, Bryan Adams is the guy who, when David Duke used his song at a rally in the 1980s, got so frustrated he pulled his records out of the State of Louisiana.  Second, what he said wasn't racist.  So, yeah, I suppose he received scrutiny he did not need to.  Didn't really take away "discourse" though, and I had to google this just to remind myself and it took a long time to find.  I don't think he's been cancelled.

    Trudeau: Tough one. He's not that old. I'm 46 and don't remember any time when people didn't think blackface was racist.  When the leader of the country is shown to have done that, I don't have a problem with having to answer questions.  I'm not really sure what the outcome should be, though.

    JK Rowling:  Has she been "cancelled?"  A lot of people are upset with her and I suppose some may boycott her next book but am I supposed to be upset with that?  I still won't go to Chick-Fil-A because they gave money to Focus on the Family.  Am I cancelling them?  Do I have an obligation to go there?  She's probably the one on this list I feel least bad for because she seems to be on a bit of a crusade, making unsolicited comments. She deserves criticism. 

    Roseanne: Was this the tweet with her dressed as Hitler?  She's gone off the deep end and is either a hard-core white nationalist or is trying too hard to make some other point.  I don't feel that bad for her either.

    Jussie Smollett ruined his career and was essentially cancelled. Is that equally unfair?

    Anyway, if I'm all over the map, good.  That's the intent.  There's so much nuance here that it cannot be one size fits all.  And even though I agree with you on Rogan, Adams (though don't agree that he was cancelled) and am unsure what to think about Trudeau, what I'm inferring here is "never give into the liberal mob," which is why I ask whether Smollett should be cancelled.  Or Kaepernick. Or the Dixie Chicks.

    as happens often with me, i wasn't clear. lol. i wasn't trying to say all of these people have been cancelled. only roseanne has. but everyone has had the scarlet letter placed on them in the form of the label of being a (insert here)-phobe/ist. and i'm sick of it. 

    jussie smollet got what he deserved. faking a crime to get attention to the movement is not tolerable. 

    i'm also 46. i had no clue until recently that blackface was racist. to me it was part of the costume; if you are dressing up as a mr t, you wore black makeup. if a black person wanted to dress up as shirley temple, go ahead and wear whiteface. that's all it was to me. a costume piece. i never did it, but that was probably just more out of laziness than anything else. i did not know the history of it. i believe trudeau didn't either. i am also getting a little tired of people saying "how could you not know?". that's not an answerable question. you know when you are told. there was no interent back then. costumes sometimes WERE SOLD with black makeup, were they not?

    no, rowling hasn't been cancelled. that's not the point. the point is she's been labelled anti-trans, which is, in my opinion, bullshit. especially if you read her response to the backlash.she's feminist, which, apparently, you can't be at the same time as being pro-trans.  

    i don't think sports is a tricky thing whatsoever when it comes to gender ID. you compete with others in the same biological sex category you were born with. or don't play. that simple. if mike tyson started identifying as a woman just so he could be the first two-gender boxing champion, there would be outrage. why not the same for track and field sports, mma, etc? if a trans woman wants to play darts against cis women, or chess, fine and dandy. anything that is more physical than mental or skillful? hard nope from me. 

    why would we cancel kaepernick? or the dixie chicks? i don't personally find either them did anything remotely controversial. the chicks was a name and nothing more. kaepernick was exercising his right to protest peacefully. lady A has some answering to do, though, with how they are suing a black woman named Lady A for the rights to the name, even though she's been using it for 20 years. come on. "we're changing our name so it's no longer racist, but now we're going to sue a black woman for the rights to that name". how fucking tone deaf is that. 

    roseanne's issue was this: Barr appeared to take aim late Monday at Valerie Jarrett, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, in a tweet that identified the administration official by her initials: “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj.” was it disgusting? absolutely. was it career defining? i honestly can't answer that. but i just hate how these networks and big corporations bow down to what the right calls the "mob" instead of maybe doing an investigation? in today's age, there is no trial. there is no investigation. just an immediate public hanging and then we move on. 
    They were cancelled. Much of country radio stopped playing the Dixie Chicks.  I guess they still have a career, unlike Roseanne but I think the main difference there is that it's easier to overcome in music (if you're well-established) in that individuals can still consume your art.  Harder for Roseanne if a TV channel won't even put her on TV.

    Kaepernick lost his career over it.*  The NFL gave into the pressure of it's primarily white-Nationalist fan base.  It was a mob (a different one) and he was cancelled.  He's found other ways around it because it turns out standing up for social justice gets at least a bit more sympathy than being racist.  I'm not really sure what should happen with someone like Roseanne.  But I can't weep for her. 

    All this said, I don't necessarily disagree with your point as much as it might seem.  There certainly are missed opportunities for discourse out of people like Kaepernick and Rowling. (Not so much Roseanne).

    *oh god, are we going to have to have a debate over how good he was...it's not the point.

    no, haha, i won't get into the whole kaep was good enough debate. but i don't consider him cancelled, nor the chicks, they both still have careers. kaep turned his situation into a massive deal with nike. to me that's not being cancelled. being cancelled to me is universal, not just one side of the debate. 

    Well then I don't think any of your examples, except maybe Roseanne were cancelled...then again, I think I took this too far into that term. But in any case Bryan Adams, Rogan, Rowling, and Trudeau still have careers.  So if we're talking "shutting down" then Kaep and the Chicks qualify and are every bit as much a part of this as the others.
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
Sign In or Register to comment.