Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on ""Cancel Culture" War is a Fight Against the Free Market" video.
-
4
-
@nostrum6410 Conservative types have been cancelling things for centuries ... other religions, other denominations, women's ankles, women's knees, women's thighs, women wearing pants, women in the workplace, women's votes, foul language, gays, trans, PDA, sex, tons of books they didn't like, music they didn't like, unionists, socialists, blacks, black votes, etc. It's insanely hypocritical, when they complain about "cancel culture".
3
-
2
-
@bravesirkevin You seem to be moving the boyfriend into the position of the publisher, or whatnot, and giving him the ability to outright stop her from associating with someone else, completely against her will, rather than simply giving her an ultimatum, and letting her choose.
If she's the one making the decision, and he's the one giving an ultimatum, then she's the publisher. She's the one with the power to make the final decision. You seem to be ignoring that she could choose to keep the friend and ditch the boyfriend. You're trying to deny his right to say "it's me or them". You're trying to deny his right to not want to associate with the other person she has brought into his life, allowed into the space he's in.
You've also repeatedly agreed that it's okay to give an ultimatum, with every example I've given that includes what you agree is a valid reason to do so. Which, again, means your "analogy" could only come anywhere close to actually being analogous if there was absolutely zero valid reason for giving the ultimatum. Who decides that?
And, the whole point of bringing up the Dixie Chicks, was to point out hypocrisy. Those pro war nationalist right wingers made out like they had a valid reason for trying to cancel the Dixie Chicks, and now many of those same people are crying about "cancel culture", as if cancelling is always wrong. You seemed to be straddling that same hypocrisy line, where you agree to cancelling if you agree with the reasons, but we're still trying your damnedest to make out like cancelling, in general, is "abuse".
Again, who is asking for people to be cancelled for absolutely zero reason? It's not really a thing, right? So, you are determining that reasons you agree with are valid reasons to cancel, and reasons you don't agree with are "abuse". You need to be arguing against specific reasons, arguing why you think it's wrong for those reasons, and give up making out like it's always wrong, because you already completely failed in that department.
2
-
1
-
1
-
@bravesirkevin No warping. You straight up seem to be restricting my human rights. So I can't ever threaten to stop using a company's services, if I don't like the service they're providing, or the environment they're allowing for? That sounds like you're the one demanding I either stay in an abusive relationship, or just leave quietly, with no middle ground of coming to a compromise for the relationship. Either that other guy is doing something inappropriate, or he's not, right? If he is, she might agree with my argument and ditch him. If he is, but she won't ditch him, you would rather me endure the inappropriate behavior, and just whine about it, without taking an actual stance? If he isn't, she might think my argument is nuts and ditch me. Or, maybe she'd tell me to stop being paranoid, or she'll leave me. Or, would you likewise have her either endure a paranoid boyfriend, or leave quietly, with no option of compromise?
Banning the Dixie Chicks largely started at the top and went down. Right wing media corporations made a big deal about it, and the ones that also owned music stations stopped playing their music. It wasn't like they were coerced by the masses. That's back to private companies deciding for themselves. Can they, or can't they? Can they share their displeasure with the Dixie Chicks with the public?
Not being able to make demands from a service you're paying for, or a service that's making money off you, sounds nonsensical. If an apocalypse preacher is shouting at people in a restaurant, does everyone simply have to endure it? You can't tell staff to make the preacher stop, or you'll take your business elsewhere?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bravesirkevin Holy fuck, you're all over the place. Your original "analogy" didn't include any possible valid reason. I give an example, adding a possible valid reason. You didn't like me adding a possibly valid reason, and again made a zero valid reason "analogy". Then, I address that, and you say I'm going to extremes. Now, you say there could be many reasons. Right, and can any of those reasons be valid? Bad influence? If her friend is a junky or alcoholic, and is leading her down the same path, is having an intervention, and giving an ultimatum, "abuse"? If my kid falls in with the wrong croud, and they talk the kid into stealing something, is it "abuse" to say they can't hang around with that crowd anymore? That sounds like absolute nonsense. Your "analogy" only seems to work if the reasoning is based on absolutely nothing. But, again, when I point out that's not analogous to anything, you think I'm the one who's extreme.
Plenty of people think Israel is doing no wrong. So it's okay to boycott, if you think they're doing wrong, or not?
As someone else mentioned, you seem to be the one arguing against freedom of association, by not allowing people to say they don't want to associate with certain people.
Why would the preacher be "not allowed" to preach in a restaurant? Are you saying businesses can set rules for behavior on their private property, and fully have the right to kick people out who violate those rules? And it doesn't count as abuse? What if they don't have a rule, yet, for a certain behavior? Is it "abuse" to ask management for a new rule, that gets someone kicked out?
Who is doing anything analogous to going into a church and demanding a preacher stop preaching?
1
-
@bravesirkevin I figured it out? So, you agree you could be violating the boyfriend's rights, by making a blanket "abuse" claim. And, there you go again. One second saying there could be valid reasons (if you agree with the reasons) and the next second making a blanket statement about "cancel culture".
I'm pretty sure you're way wrong about the "always". You've already agreed that cancelling people for incitement is valid, and things like racism, bigotry, sexism, that themselves try to diminish others rights, etc. Are you saying none of that kind of cancelling is happening, or are you saying it doesn't count as "cancel culture", like right wingers claim it does?
Plus, conservative types have been cancelling things they find offensive, for centuries. Sometimes opinions, but definitely not "always" opinions. For example, swearing and nudity aren't opinions. They're simply things they don't want to hear or see, on certain media, or at specific times of day. Burning, or trying to ban, Harry Potter books wasn't because religious nuts disagreed with the opinions in Harry Potter. It's because they think magic = evil. Does centuries of that kind of cancelling not count as "cancel culture"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Halon's Razor Pipelines don't generally own all the land they're built on. So, yeah, you kind of need the property owner's permission, which is the public's property, if it's on government land.
Sure, just register your business as a private Christian cake club, or a religious organization. "Public accomodations" were designated so people couldn't go without food, shelter, water, etc. If you can't survive without FB, or Twitter, then you have an addiction problem. They are private clubs, albeit very large ones, with rules for membership.
1
-
@bravesirkevin I actually gave the two options of either the boyfriend is justified, or he's not. Now you're just boldface lying. You were the one portraying it as only one possible option, that he wasn't. Then you agreed he could possibly have valid reasons. My counter examples made you contradict your bullshit blanket statements. It's called reducto absurdum, and is a method for showing fallacies, which your statements have been riddled with. Even now, you're making the ridiculous statement that the "abuser" could be justified, but still use "mistreat". That's like saying killing someone in self defense is justified but still call it "murder". It's nonsensical, contradictory, gibberish.
I gave an example of a white nationalist posting something, and you agreed it would be okay to cancel them. I take it you've also never heard of the intolerance paradox, where you can't tolerate intolerance, if you want a tolerant society. Yes, I'm totally "bigoted" against bigotry, racism, and sexism. Who is cancelling Republicans, just for being Republican, or Christians, just for being Christian?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Halon's Razor It's a long pipeline, going over various lands, ffs. Some is disputed native land, or very near native land and the natives don't think their well being or cultural landmarks were considered. Much was private property, taken through eminent domain. All of the land, the federal government has treated as their own. You don't like eminent domain. Okay, and do you like Trump reversing Obama's Keystone decision, just 2 years later? You can renegotiate in favor of the pipeline, in just 2 years, but not against in 4?
A cake shop is a kind of bakery, ffs. Laws don't tend to list all the possible sub categories. If you want to restrict your customers, have memberships. Even private clubs that open part of the club to the general public on some days, can get themselves considered "public accomodations". Don't do that.
1
-
@Halon's Razor So, eminent domain land grabs were bad, okaying the deal was bad, but reverting back is also bad. So, if something is bad, or goes wrong, you don't allow for fixing it, because ... deal. Like, keep spending billions on faulty jets, because ... deal? Keep selling Saudi weapons, because ... deal? Don't renegotiate drug prices, because ... deal? Don't renegotiate international trade agreements, because ... deal?
The supreme court, after Republicans blocked one appointment for almost a year, and then put in 2 new conservative judges, for one. For another, they didn't outright rule that the shop had the right to discriminate. They ruled that the state commission hadn't been neutral enough.
1
-
@Halon's Razor I only think there's, broadly, maybe 100 half decent Democrats in congress, atm. More narrowly, only a dozen, or so, decent ones. And, that's up, from previous years, and decades. So, you can shove the strawman bullshit.
Isn't it wrong to keep spending taxpayer dollars on garbage, keep giving weapons to a humanitarian crisis, keep infringing on native lands and keep battling eminent domain lawsuits (still happening), etc.?
1
-
@Halon's Razor You know, odds are, if I already don't like what the corporate Dem lawmakers are doing, I'm not going to like what any Republican lawmakers are doing, right? It's not like they're going to be left of corporate Dems on much of anything.
I'll find as much common cause with Republicans as a Libertarian would find with the CCP. They want to move things in the completely opposite direction than I'd like to see happen, for the most part. Corporate Dems, don't move any direction, much, which is somewhat better than the wrong way. Progressives want to move things in a direction I'd like to see.
Or, with all the litigation going on (multiple federal suits, and dozens of eminent domain suits), you don't consider the deal cemented in stone, like you did.
1
-
1
-
@bravesirkevin What are you even talking about? Fascists weren't censored, and rational thought didn't win out. Intolerance was tolerated and rational thought wasn't gloriously victorious. Trump just got done convincing tens of millions of people not to believe any media, any courts, any election officials, any doctors, any nurses, any scientists, any other politicians, anybody, even to not believe their own lying eyes, if any of those contradicted Supreme Leader. He pulled off the most Big Brother like propaganda campaign in US history. He even convinced 28% of Republicans (still millions of people) to embrace overt fascism, saying they didn't want him to concede under any circumstances. They were okay with openly ending the democratic process and keeping an unelected ruler in power. Do you think all horrible ideas that have taken over countries just magically popped into the minds of the masses one day, or something? I don't think you know much about history, at all.
Did women win the right to vote, simply by convincing everyone with rational argument? No. They had to protest, as well as make ultimatums, on top of rational debate. And then, after pushing the majority to their position, they forced it on the remaining irrational sexists. Did slavery end simply with rational argument? Did segregation end simply with rational argument?
Just how long do you think we "need" to debate racism, exactly? Do you not consider the subject settled? Numerous countries have hate speech laws (which are simply similar to defamation and threat laws extended to groups of people, rather than just an individual) and those countries top the US, which doesn't have hate speech laws, on multiple freedom indexes. You slipped all the way down the slope to severely intolerant regimes, regimes that actually rose up by freely spreading their intolerant ideas.
1
-
1
-
@bravesirkevin Ironic, coming from someone who apparently didn't read, or didn't grasp, what I actually said about fascism. Hell, you didn't even seem read, or grasp, a quote you posted yourself, in its entirety. You seem to think fascists magically appeared in positions of power, one day, that their intolerant ideas just magically popped into the minds of the masses. Apparently, you would have been defending their "right" to promote the idea of having a single dictator make all the wrong decisions, promote the idea of ending democracy. You'd be someone claiming that them being able to spread their anti-democratic ideas, that would end people's most important form of speech, as a good thing, right up until they did attain positions of power. And then you'd be screwed. Debating exactly what form of democracy to have is different than debating whether zero democracy is bad, right? Aren't we done with that debate? Dictatorships are bad, aren't they?
Debating solutions to rape or murder, is different than debating whether we want them happening in society, or not. What is the benefit of a Richard Spencer promoting the idea that a racist society, a single race society, would be good? To me, that's like someone promoting the idea that allowing people to rape and murder whoever they want, would be good. That person is insane, and is promoting things that would harm, and clearly violate the human rights of others. It appears, to me, to be an attempt at incitement, because if enough people bought the ideas being promoted, terrible things would happen to others. You said you were against incitement, but it seems like you would defend incitement, as it's happening.
You also don't seem to grasp a little word, like "simply". Did I say there was zero rational argument behind any of those things? No. I asked if there was "simply" rational argument, which already implies there was some. You know, "simply", as in only, or just. And, I didn't even state exactly how complex I imagined anything to be.
Saudi isn't even 100 years old. 19th century European women, travelling in the previous Ottoman Empire, thought women in the Empire had more freedoms than them. That same Empire had decriminalized homosexuality, while countries in Europe, and states in the US, were still considering it illegal, or a mental health issue, and locking people up. The freedom loving Brits were the ones who instead handed land to a theocratic monarchy, and the freedom loving US is the country who has rewarded that theocratic monarchy's behaviour the most. Both of those freedom loving countries have also overthrown democratically elected non religious fanatics, in the ME, just because their economics leaned a bit to the left. And, they've outright backed religious fanatics, as well. American colonies still had Puritans, 100 years in, who didn't allow women to do much. And, are you now promoting Britain using ultimatums, in business dealings, to cancel other countries' ideas of how to do things, as a good thing? That wasn't abusive boyfriend behaviour?
You, basically, just argued that it's perfectly fine for the Dr Seuss folks to decide that racist images aren't really family friendly, or social media platforms to decide their TOS to appeal to whatever audience they want to attract. It's perfectly fine if a business guesses what its consumers want. Totally abuse if consumers tell a business what they want.
I don't watch CNN, or FOX. So, my solution is to watch neither, rather than both. Seriously? You think it's possible that local Republican election officials, state level Republican officials, conservative judges (some even appointed by Trump himself), federal Republican election security officials, and even some right wing media, joined up to cover up widespread election fraud? You think it's possible that politicians worldwide, media worldwide, doctors worldwide, nurses worldwide, scientists worldwide, are perpetrating a covid hoax? Do you also think it's possible that the Democrat party are a bunch of devil worshippers that eat babies, or whatever?
1
-
@bravesirkevin Fascism: Extreme anti-socialism, it's the number one thing Mussolini stated fascism was opposed to. Anti union, they destroyed unions and outlawed striking. Ultra nationalism, everyone work together to make the nation great, with an idea of what makes for an ideal nationalist, and those further from the ideal being considered un-. Authoritarian, building up policing, surveillance, and the military. They were backed by leading industrialists, large land owners, religious leaders, and even monarchists and nobility ... the rich and powerful. Propagandists, that created cults with cult leaders. And, anti democratic. The US already had a problematic democracy, with gerrymandering, voter suppression, the bullshit electoral college, the senate being able to block bills from the far more representative house. Overtly overthrowing the democratic process is really only the last nail in the coffin that Republicans need to hammer in, to go all out fascist. Even a bunch of corporate Dems only need to hammer in a few more nails, and are borderline.
You know fascists were, and are, fascists before attaining complete control, right? Trump, and many Republican lawmakers proved themselves to be overt fascists, ready to hammer in that last nail. Over 70% of Republicans were going along with all that bullshit. And 28% of Republicans surveyed didn't want Trump to concede, under any circumstances. The Jan 6 storming of the capitol was closer to being a coup than Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch, and had more people participating. I'm pretty sure it's you that doesn't know what fascism actually is. "Fascism is the complete opposite of Marxian socialism", Mussolini. The Marxist ideal is a stateless non-authoritarian democratic socialism. The complete opposite is an ultra-nationalistic authoritarian crony capitalist dictatorship.
By implying I want one party, because I don't think racism, sexism, and bigotry, need a platform, like you do, means you're arguing that the Republican party is all about racism, sexism, and bigotry, or that they somehow couldn't be a party without those "ideas". Well done. You're making that party sound great. In reality, I'd actually like to see no parties. Vote for individuals and their stated policy positions. Politics as a team sport is stupid and lazy.
Mail in voting was up all over the country. I'm quite sure that, if you looked at the other states (that Trump didn't challenge), you'd find a similar breakdown, that more voters voting for the candidate who encouraged voting by mail, voted by mail, and more voters voting for the candidate who encouraged voting in person, voted in person. The only difference between the states that were challenged, and the rest of the country, was that their Republican state legislators didn't update their election system, to start counting mail in ballots early. So, unlike the rest of the states, you got to witness the day of voting count, and then the mail in voting count being added after. Trump used the imagery of that process as propaganda. With zero evidence, from his election night podium, he started spewing his voter fraud crap. He was perfectly fine with just beforehand saying he won states the AP had called for him, the night of. His daughter even congratulated him when the AP called Alaska for him, days after he had started spewing his voter fraud and anti AP bullshit.
You know even after winning in 2016, he was also baselessly declaring widespread voter fraud, claiming that's why he didn't win the popular vote, right? He even set up an election integrity commission. It was finding nothing of the sort, so he quietly ended it. Trump just throws shit and hopes it sticks. This time it has gotten his friends, that threw shit with him, hit with billion dollar defamation lawsuits. I guess they'll get their day in court, like they wanted, lol.
Do you think it's just a coincidence, that countries that rolled out testing quicker and tested at higher rates, rolled out masks quicker and had higher mask use, created apps for covid tracking, etc., faired better than countries that didn't do those things, only did some, and did what they did slower? The US and UK were testing at a rate of 5 people per confirmed case, for example, while Vietnam (shares a long border with China) and S Korea were testing 50+ people per confirmed case. Do you think it's just a coincidence that Sweden, for example, is in the top 25 for covid deaths per million, with a covid death rate 5-10x higher than its neighbouring Nordic countries? Quarantines have been a pretty standard response to epidemics, for centuries now. Doctors and nurses wearing even cloth masks, way before the newer disposable masks, was pretty standard stuff. You're worried governments want to keep powers, that they've actually always had, to make people stay indoors, generate less revenue, and have to pay out more in assistance? Why would they want that? To what ends? It makes zero sense. Do they all have shares in UberEats, or something? Remember when the British government wanted to keep on telling people to turn off their lights, to ration food, to enter shelters whenever they said, etc., after years of war? Me either. And, I'm quite sure, now, that you're the one that doesn't know what fascism is.
Btw, I didn't say I was American. I'm Canadian. I also don't have a horse in the race. You, and the other guy, created a horse for me from pure imagination. US Corporate Dems, and maybe a very few less extreme Republicans, are almost like Canadian Conservatives (right). I wouldn't ever vote for, or show support for, them because I like their policies. It would only ever be to oppose something worse. I don't even tend to vote Liberal (centre-right, kind of like the broader US progressive caucus maybe), and only did once, to get rid of Harper. I tend to vote NDP (more centrist, like the Justice Dem style progressives and Bernie). To me, most US Republicans (far right) are batshit crazy. We had our Conservative party split, before, and some created an even further right party. It failed. Only 14% of Canadians surveyed said they'd vote Trump. That almost half of Americans voted for him is insane. We also have hate speech laws, haven't hit your slippery slope, and are still ranked higher than the US on freedom indexes. We had a not horrible, but still only mediocre, covid response. If the US had a similar, just mediocre response, they could have had 300k fewer covid deaths. The US response was horrible. Massive incompetence, at multiple levels. I was telling Cuomo lovers that he was as incompetent as Trump, from the start. We also put our asylum seekers up in hotels, not prisons. Plenty of Canadians stay in the US longer than they're supposed to, and don't get rounded up and tossed in those ICE prisons.
You, literally, chastised me for adding options to justify ultimatums. Then, still used the words "abuse" and "mistreat", to describe justified ultimatums. Now you're justifying ultimatums, and more. You also, still seem to have zero clue what I asked, about women's suffrage, slavery, and forced segregation. You can blather on about rational arguments and "negotiations" all you want. Again, I never said that didn't happen, and outright implied it did. It still won't change the fact that that's not all it took. Slavery not standing up to old English law, the authority, in mainland England, is that authority forcing its will on those who wanted slaves. Declaring people pirates and chasing them down was force. Making trade ultimatums was force. The US having to go to war was force. Not having the option to not sell your slaves to be freed, and keep them, was force. The authority, backed by the will of the majority, forced that will on the irrational holdouts, that couldn't simply be reasoned with. Almost everything you've described was force.
There are Scottish clubs, Irish clubs, Italian clubs, Greek clubs, Catholic schools, Muslim schools, Jewish schools, schools for people of various European descent, boys' clubs, girls' clubs, women's clubs, men's clubs, women's gyms, men's gyms, women's sports, men's sports, etc., etc., etc. What kind of segregation are you worried about, exactly, that's even remotely equivalent to Jim Crow style segregation?
A busiiness guessing that doing X will lose them consumers, or doing Y will gain them consumers, or doing A would be good for public relations, or doing B wouldn't be good for public relations ... decisions businesses have been making for centuries ... are now "abuse", if they feel any kind of pressure (they always have, and always will, feel the pressure of possibly doing something that tanks business), or if their customer base or the public just comes out and tells them so they don't have to guess. But multiple ways of forcing the idea that black people aren't animals, the idea that they shouldn't be property, on people in your country, people in your colonies, and even people outside your country or empire ... all good. So, the finding that FB was giving right wing media, like Shapiro, more algorithm weight was them supporting Democrats? Odd support.
1
-
@bravesirkevin @bravesirkevin Holy crap, you are completely clueless. What I said was that fascism is the opposite of the Marxist ideal, which can also be called anarchism, or libertarian socialism. An authoritarian form of crony capitalism vs a non authoritarian democratic socialism. Socialism is abroad category, like capitalism, not a narrow position, like fascism. 100% privately owned and operated on one end and 100% publicly owned and operated on the other end, with various degrees of mixed economies in between ... not counting the military, justice system, and basic government, which even Ayn Rand fans, US Libertarians, and the like, argue are needed for a functioning full blown capitalist society. Don't even have those and you get ancap on one side and anarchism, ansoc, on the other. Have those, and go super authoritarian, and you've got fascism on one side and capital C Communist countries on the other. You're a complete joke. There were a number of socialist enclaves in Italy. They weren't created by the federal government. Mussolini and his fascists went after them even before gaining power. It's one of the reasons the King handed Mussolini power, to quash rising socialism ... from the bottom. Anarchists in Spain set up communities, as well, from the bottom. They didn't always get along with the more authoritarian Soviet style communists, but they sided with them against Franco and his fascists. Much like Libertarians and ancappers side with Republicans, when it comes to certain things. Saying socialism is opposed to liberty, when it comes in a libertarian flavour, is completely idiotic.
Rofl! What a load of crap. If something lasts (for how long exactly?), then there was no force involved? There was zero force involved in the American Revolution? Zero force involved in taking the land from natives? Zero force involved in CCP takeover of China? Zero force involved in defeating fascists? Zero force in colonizing Australia with criminals? Zero force in adding Scotland and Wales to England, to become the UK? Northern Ireland? Zero force in adding Quebec to Canada? Seriously, history is jammed packed with successful uses of force, and people then accepting the results. That's pretty much the basis for how peace treaties work, after force is used. To pretend like the law isn't force is just as nonsensical. Laws are "enforced" by police "forces". If the law says you can't have a slave, but you really like the idea of having a slave, then you'll most likely get your ass tossed in jail, if you try for it. Did the South leave the union over slavery, enshrining slavery in their new constitution? After winning, did the North let them keep their slaves, if they wanted, or were they forced to give them up? You've gone from contradicting yourself to babbling complete and utter nonsense.
Yeah, all the Chinatowns, in various North American cities, have been nothing but trouble. Sounds like a warzone every Chinese New Year. And the Scottish pipe bands are a bunch of hooligans. Please don't tell me you want everyone to be of one culture. You just don't want them gathering together, in the same spot, or what? You didn't use the right winger words, but you implied their "reverse racism" is going on. Where at?
You've already argued that it wasn't "abuse", for say abolitionists to pressure and convince enough lawmakers to abolish slavery, and then enforce it on the rest of society. Yet, you're still going on as if someone pressuring a company is "abuse". Hell, you've just justified a whole ton of crap, with your acceptance = no force argument.
1