Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nah, it’s not that bad yet. For sure there have been some excesses, but you have to have some fairly high status to get mobbed like that. Most of my politics get frowned on by the left and the right, and in no way have I ever gotten close to being canceled, nor do I know anyone else personally who has been canceled.
This thought came to me few hrs back. I think, it will fit reasonably into the topic discussed.
It came upon me that, in a sense, "canceling" trend is real democracy in action.
What is democracy? Demos is people, cratos is rulership. Demos cratos is rule by the people.
The way democracy was set up here, was via electorate, if I used proper word, as I am quite far from politics. People elect certain figures, entrusted with people permission to govern the country, for the best of the people.
Well, in "cancel" trend, certain decisions are taken directly by the people and, to immediate satisfaction of the people. Demos decided not to have a certain person occupy a certain position and accomplished removal of that person pretty much, directly, from that position, by direct pressure onto structures, that can take such action.
That, though in very rudimentary form, is direct democracy or, direct rule by the people.
Now, how good or bad is it, is up for debate. In a certain way, it reminds me of classic democracy in say Athens, when angry mob could overturn any government or official in matter of a day, if it wished so. Same happened in Rome, where even most powerful emperors were scared ...less of angry Romans.
It silences people, silences discussion, silences ideas, due to fear, which is not conducive to a functioning democracy, it is essentially a democracy in name only, sort of like how so many people were on board with the Bolsheviks, lol.
The Bolsheviks basically had this cancel culture also, which of course when they took power, turned into the purges and Red Terror. In its early years, merely saying anything against Soviet power would be declared "anti Soviet activities", and you could go to jail, assets taken, not allowed to work, etc, ostracized from society for even wanting to bring up any idea that goes against what the powers to be wanted. This kept a lot of people, a whole lot of people, silent, afraid to act and speak up, or even just join them out of fear.
Cancel culture, basically I do not like your ideas, so instead of just debating them, will bully and hope to silence you and any supporters by other means, like economics, because a person in fear losing their job, their livelihood, rather just be quiet, or just nod in agreement, than be homeless, financially devastated.
This is pretty much the standard totalitarianism tactic, used throughout history.
Being called out for your behavior, and couching that as an equal to being "canceled" is simply proof of the fact that we seem to have a pressing need to label every aspect of human social dynamics. What people are calling "the cancel culture" is simply the fact that, in a modern society, hooked together with all manner of informational electronica, we can get a mass consensus in a very short time frame, and so we praise, or condemn, with all the weight that instant communication allows.
Someone utters a derogatory comment, that person is widely recognized, a celeb, or a politician, high profile CEO, etc, and his/her reputation can be smashed instantly with widespread condemnation. It's not so much a culture change, nor is it a cultural oddity brought to the fore by the left, but it most certainly speaks to the idea of instant communication being a potentially damaging tool..
American society didn't have a lot of problems associated with the fact of overt racism, gender bias, homophobia, or the ill treatment of the poor and destitute, so why the howling today when people are called out for their behavior that was once buried in "polite society.."
I haven't seen people on the right cancelling anyone for any of the opinions spelled out in your list.
I was taught growing up that racism was bad, sexism, intolerance of people's sexuality, intolerance for someone's religion were all bad but in recent years I've discovered it's all a bunch of lies.
Racism is okay if it's against whites.
Sexism is OK if it's against men.
Intolerance over sexual lifestyle is OK if it's against straight people trying to have traditional families.
Religious intolerance is OK if it's against Christians.
And now destroying people's lives because of their ideology is OK if their ideology is not leftism or progressivism.
None of what I was taught is wrong is really wrong, it was just being used to further the interests of the wrong people. Now I guess, it is being used to further the interests of the right people, so it's OK. Social justice isn't about equality and tolerance it's about turning the tables and revenge.
When the Townshend Acts were passed, American colonists responded with a boycott of British goods and the merchants who sold them. From Massachusetts to Georgia it took effect. In Massachusetts, violator's names were published in the Boston Chronicle. This tradition continues today. Businesses can't have it both ways, kowtowing to politicians and then avoiding the consequences. Americans have choices and there is nothing wrong with spending one's money with those who share one's values.
Being called out for your behavior, and couching that as an equal to being "canceled" is simply proof of the fact that we seem to have a pressing need to label every aspect of human social dynamics. What people are calling "the cancel culture" is simply the fact that, in a modern society, hooked together with all manner of informational electronica, we can get a mass consensus in a very short time frame, and so we praise, or condemn, with all the weight that instant communication allows.
Someone utters a derogatory comment, that person is widely recognized, a celeb, or a politician, high profile CEO, etc, and his/her reputation can be smashed instantly with widespread condemnation. It's not so much a culture change, nor is it a cultural oddity brought to the fore by the left, but it most certainly speaks to the idea of instant communication being a potentially damaging tool..
American society didn't have a lot of problems associated with the fact of overt racism, gender bias, homophobia, or the ill treatment of the poor and destitute, so why the howling today when people are called out for their behavior that was once buried in "polite society.."
Derogatory comment - like calling someone an N word or similar racial term? I can give you that. Let them suffer for being rude.
What about if someone disagrees with progressive dogmas? We have people losing their jobs for mere disagreement with climate change hysteria, for any disagreement with any of the BLM demands and basically for voicing an opinion that doesn't 100% align with progressive dogmas.
There a professor in an university that are under police protection because he disagreed with this cancel culture and there is another one because he refused to inflate the grades of some group of students.
Those people didn't use derogatory terms. They simply disagreed with something the tolerant progressives believe in. What about those situations? Should they lose their job and fear for their lives?
Derogatory comment - like calling someone an N word or similar racial term? I can give you that. Let them suffer for being rude.
What about if someone disagrees with progressive dogmas? We have people losing their jobs for mere disagreement with climate change hysteria, for any disagreement with any of the BLM demands and basically for voicing an opinion that doesn't 100% align with progressive dogmas.
There a professor in an university that are under police protection because he disagreed with this cancel culture and there is another one because he refused to inflate the grades of some group of students.
Those people didn't use derogatory terms. They simply disagreed with something the tolerant progressives believe in. What about those situations? Should they lose their job and fear for their lives?
Please provide links to your examples, as others may wish to read the whole story. Thank you.
It doesn't matter what exactly someone disagree with the tolerant progressives. The mere fact of disagreeing with them - is considered an act of violence and they demand that person to be 'cancelled'.
Just google "university demand resignation" or similar and you will find dozens or hundreds articles about professors being bullied into total 100% agreement with every single progressive dogma or they are facing suspensions.
That's how we get "97% of scientist agree with ..." arguments. God forbid, they don't agree.
Is this the way to settle political disagreements? By bullying the opponents into submission?
It doesn't matter what exactly someone disagree with the tolerant progressives. The mere fact of disagreeing with them - is considered an act of violence and they demand that person to be 'cancelled'.
Just google "university demand resignation" or similar and you will find dozens or hundreds articles about professors being bullied into total 100% agreement with every single progressive dogma or they are facing suspensions.
That's how we get "97% of scientist agree with ..." arguments. God forbid, they don't agree.
Is this the way to settle political disagreements? By bullying the opponents into submission?
Having read both stories I'm pretty certain that these professors were not disciplined merely because they disagreed with the students. They were disciplined on account of their unnecessary (and somewhat hostile) elaborations on their decisions. It wasn't necessary for either of them to mount a soapbox. One would think that a university professor should be smarter than that -- but what seems to pass for "smart" these days is delivering a snappy comeback.
Derogatory comment - like calling someone an N word or similar racial term? I can give you that. Let them suffer for being rude.
What about if someone disagrees with progressive dogmas? We have people losing their jobs for mere disagreement with climate change hysteria, for any disagreement with any of the BLM demands and basically for voicing an opinion that doesn't 100% align with progressive dogmas.
There a professor in an university that are under police protection because he disagreed with this cancel culture and there is another one because he refused to inflate the grades of some group of students.
Those people didn't use derogatory terms. They simply disagreed with something the tolerant progressives believe in. What about those situations? Should they lose their job and fear for their lives?
I understand your point, and I think we could try to make a case for every single incident wherein the "victim" was unfairly maligned by "popular" opinion. My point was that social media technologies have altered society to the extent that people who exhibit an obvious and destructive bias with respect to people of color, gays, women, etc, will be swiftly admonished for their trespasses. Your question regarding the Professors experience with student demands only points out the fact that while people can be organized around the fact of social injustice, they can also be terribly unfair. Are your examples a telling of an unfair incident? Yes, they are, but we're talking about human interaction here, and unfairness in that space is unfortunately all too common.
I don't think we will ever see a time in which all human endeavors will include an absolute fairness, but, that doesn't mean we need to condone unfair acts, the pendulum of social change swings back and forth, and while most hope for a centering, they also understand that the dynamics of social justice demands often brings it's own injustices to the party. Social condemnation through the use of social media will now be part of our everyday lives, and we will undoubtedly see some instances of unfairness, and in that vein, it would be unfair to characterize all of organized condemnation as a total negative.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
