Letter on Justice and Open Debate

[SomeRandom]

This isn't about the KKK. If we're talking about quashing the KKK and eliminating them from existence, then I'm with you all the way. Same for Nazis or white nationalists or whatever they might call themselves - those who are obviously and publicly embracing that toxic ideology, then yes, I agree with that. I think it should still be "allowed," at least inasmuch as it's necessary to educate people and be able to identify it.

Perhaps I’m not being as clear as I should be. I was using the KKK as an illustration of the threshold of tolerance a society has. I was trying to say that I think the threshold is changing. Away from the more obvious “ills” and focusing more on the more palatable but still rather ugly ideas.
Whether or not this is a good thing, okay I might be more in agreement with you than disagreement. Because I don’t want to just push ideas away or silence ideas. I agree that we should be debunking them. But it then turns into a game over who is right. I guess that’s politics in a nutshell really.

But for those who aren't like that, but may have put their foot in their mouth or said something stupid while drunk or did a dumb thing in high school and get called out on it decades later...that's where it goes too far. Many of those who get "quashed" are not KKK and don't necessarily deserve to be treated as if they are. Some things need to be put into better perspective.

Okay that I agree with. Saying stupid things on the internet, especially as just a dumb high school kid, or just being drunk shouldn’t have such long term consequences. I mean I still post stupid crap online all the times I’d be cancelled like a hundred times over.

I have no fear of any idea, however ridiculous or repugnant it might be. Maybe I've grown somewhat immune to it, as I've had many interactions and travels in my life where I've encountered so many strange people with bizarre ideas.

Lol sounds like my time in retail. There are some erm “interesting” people in the public.

As you mention Hitler, the ironic thing is, he's not disallowed at all. There are volumes and volumes written about Hitler, not to mention countless documentaries, movies, etc. He has no statues or monuments, yet he's probably one of the most single recognizable figures in the 20th century. I think it's important to study history and learn from it, but one thing that might get glossed over is connecting the past to the present in a coherent manner.

I kind of meant during his time, no one really took his toxicity all too seriously. Until it was too late.
But I myself have a sizeable collection of books on Hitler. He’s fascinating. A complete and utter monster, repulsive to be sure, but fascinating nonetheless. Had a high school teacher who had such a hate boner for him that we could easily get her on a rant instead of having to do our work. Even worked during my English classes with her (she had a double degree.)

Apart from Hitler, some people have openly wondered how people could have been so blind as to support him in the first place.

Oh I have a book about that I’m hoping to read soon. It’s called the Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler by Laurence Rees. I doubt I will be able to fathom the support even after trying my feeble amount of research. But I’m beyond curious to at least try.
Did you know there were Jews who supported him? Both seriously and some who did so ironically? History is crazy!!

Or even when we look at our own history, one might well ask: What was wrong with our forebears? Why did they do all these horrible and atrocious things to innocent people? I tend to attribute it to greed more than outright hatred or malice. One such "deplorable," Thomas Jefferson said: "Money, not morality, is the principle commerce of civilized nations." This is the mindset which has driven our national consciousness, and it still largely remains in place today.

Well not being American I can’t say that I’m all that familiar with the founding fathers. But I do agree with the sentiment of Mr Jefferson. I don’t know if that’s necessarily a good thing, though.

No, but they can conceivably cry to others who might sympathize. Again, it's a matter of practical politics, which is mainly a numbers game. The ideas are not being quashed in any way, shape, or form. They will continue to fester either way, so maybe this tactic isn't the wisest course of action, from a practical and objective viewpoint. There are consequences for everything we do, on both sides of the spectrum.

Fair point.
In case my sentiments before were mistaken, I want to be clear that I don’t really like the idea of simply quashing ideas. Unless they’re like Nazis or something. I was simply trying to say, perhaps badly, that as society becomes more away of the consequences of certain ideas, there will be more criticism of them by default. And you know I think this cancel culture stuff skews rather young. So there will be an overcorrection of sorts. I don’t necessarily agree with its implementation. But there are instances where I’m not terribly surprised that someone has been “cancelled.” Like Rowling is now cancelled I guess because the fandom doesn’t really like transphobia. I think this is the second time so I’m not surprised that fans who are trans folk and their allies are now refusing to buy or give Rowling any support. That is their right in a capitalist society, would you not agree?
Though she does not deserve any hate mail or death threats, I hope no one has resorted to such behaviour. And if they did, shame on those people.
Like cancel culture to me is more along the lines of an author says something that is very homophobic for example. They lose monetary support, even boycotted.
I mean people are free to espouse whatever they want. In turn people are allowed to voice their displeasure. Including with those spending habits.
I do think harassing people for whatever sentiment is way too far though.

"Crybullies" are those who are as hostile and aggressive as bullies, but they also rely heavily on playing the victim card as well, expecting sympathy and support from the masses. Now, with a letter like this, many of them seem even more upset that they appear to be losing that sympathy and support they've grown to depend on.

The Crybullies, sure. But not everyone who is critical of the letter falls into that category. There is always nuance. I’m very wary of the shield of free speech. It too can be weaponised to shut down conversation.

Personally, that's the aspect which I find the most disconcerting. My view is that, if people want to stand up against injustice or the kind of toxic ideas that might need to be quashed, there might be other ways of doing so. For one thing, it might be necessary to parse and examine the actual ideas which are being quashed, but if the ideas are disallowed and we can't talk about them, it's a little difficult to actually do that. Instead, people just end up arguing over symbols and slogans that supposedly represent the idea, but not about the actual idea itself.

I can agree with that. But one can be so focused on defending to the death the right for it to be said, that no actual discourse of the original idea occurs at all. Its a very easy smokescreen. This is what I meant by the weaponising of free speech.

Of course, it's understood that there are consequences to what people say, but if, according to you, someone gets on a platform and says racist things, others might still want to look at the actual "things" being said and make their own determinations as to whether or not it's racist. Not everyone would subscribe to the same standard. People say things like "dog whistle" as if it's supposed to mean something.

You don’t know the concept of dog whistling? I remember being introduced to that during a documentary about hate groups during the age of the internet. I mean I suppose it’s become a meme now, so it might not carry the same “potent” meaning in certain contexts.

All I'm suggesting is that people should strive to speak with clarity and precision. People should say what they mean and mean what they say, and when called upon to explain and justify their reasoning, they should do so without hesitation or some quick one-liner.

I agree.

I agree with you about the consequences of what people say, but on the other hand, if someone chooses to visit the consequences upon someone, they might want to put more effort into it if they expect to get more support.

Perhaps. I see this as a concentrated form of boycotting culture that the older generations employed. Though I can certainly agree that it’s very hard to sympathise with people using cancel culture as a weapon. That said some of the targets are even harder to sympathise with. Looking at you, Kevin Spacey. (And I so used to love his movies/shows. )

In short, the "crybullies" are not trying very hard. They may want to quash certain ideas, but they're not putting in an honest effort. They're looking for shortcuts and quick fixes. They're all style over substance, and that's where their problems begin and end.

Well I mean, it is the internet. You were expecting????

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One cannot simply allow I dunno the KKK to function with simple civil discourse. Because the ideology is simply too toxic and if allowed, can fester and will actually hurt people. So it must be quashed.

When President Grant sent the army after them, the Klan never really went away, and instead went underground and resurfaces as one new wave after another. These stronger actions can be too strong. Not only can it send things underground and make it harder to keep a track of, it can also add a forbidden fruit level of temptation. Pushing too hard often pushes people opposite of the intended direction.

 

[SomeRandom]

When President Grant sent the army after them, the Klan never really went away, and instead went underground and resurfaces as one new wave after another. These stronger actions can be too strong. Not only can it send things underground and make it harder to keep a track of, it can also add a forbidden fruit level of temptation. Pushing too hard often pushes people opposite of the intended direction.

Like a sort of Newtonian law?
I mean underground movements will always push back. I get that. But I don’t know how else you would push against something like the KKK. Those people as a group are far too gone, imo. You might have some individual success, so I mean if one thinks they can have success in that Avenue, by all means. But I think part of me will always side with the “Jack Kirby” approach. Someone supports Hitler, they get a beat down. I know we’re supposed to be rational and not let our emotions get the better of us. But Nazis are one of two things that I can’t abide. (The other being pedos.) Even if I favour rehabilitation, intellectually speaking. There’s a block for me, I’m sorry.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think I found the definitions you're referring to. None fit very well.

Labels are indeed imperfect, eh.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not even sure what conservative is. I test out liberal mostly cause I have no interest in religious moral values.

I feel conservative is more about being self-sufficient as much as possible. Relying on the government as little as possible. "Liberals" seem to feel they need the government keeping everyone in line. I'm more concerned about who's keeping the government in line because it doesn't seem to be the voters.

Your lack of religious moral values would counter-indicate conservatism IMO.
But you could still be one for all I know.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I mean underground movements will always push back. I get that. But I don’t know how else you would push against something like the KKK.

More social engineering and policy and investigation reaches that many, especially in America, would never go for. Its a conflict of ideologies, and granted ideas are terribly difficult to fight. You cant even fight them with bullets. It was basically necessary then to send in the army, but as we can see it only shrunk and slowed the Klan. The ideologies that make it possible for those ideas to grow and thrive were never addressed, and largely still have not been addressed (and infact has went backwards in some areas such as the idea the Civil War wasnt fought over slavery (and thats with statues so they allegedly didnt forget history that ig was fought to preserve slavery)).

 

[SomeRandom]

More social engineering and policy and investigation reaches that many, especially in America, would never go for. Its a conflict of ideologies, and granted ideas are terribly difficult to fight. You cant even fight them with bullets. It was basically necessary then to send in the army, but as we can see it only shrunk and slowed the Klan. The ideologies that make it possible for those ideas to grow and thrive were never addressed, and largely still have not been addressed (and infact has went backwards in some areas such as the idea the Civil War wasnt fought over slavery (and thats with statues so they allegedly didnt forget history that ig was fought to preserve slavery)).

So how do we succeed against things like the Klan?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So how do we succeed against things like the Klan?

Promoting the opposite.

 

[SomeRandom]

Promoting the opposite.

Don’t we do that now? I mean maybe America is different I dunno. But even in Primary School we were being warned about anti Semitic beliefs and the dangers inherent in racial supremacy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Don’t we do that now? I mean maybe America is different I dunno. But even in Primary School we were being warned about anti Semitic beliefs and the dangers inherent in racial supremacy.

Where I grew up has a strong history of Klan support (it even held the largest Klan rally in history). A place where people can brag about their family of higher ranking Klan status, and be proud about it. Confederate flags (including the real Stars n Bars) are a common sight. Of course were taught not to hate and to accept differences, but the social learning has earned Indianas reputation as the Northern most Southern State. It took me living in California for over a year for me to get sensitized to racist displays, because it's common in the 80-some percent white/20-some percent black Indiana, and not something I see often in the about 50/50 latino/white California (even seeing interracial couples here as a common thing was a new site for me).

 

[SomeRandom]

Where I grew up has a strong history of Klan support (it even held the largest Klan rally in history). A place where people can brag about their family of higher ranking Klan status, and be proud about it. Confederate flags (including the real Stars n Bars) are a common sight. Of course were taught not to hate and to accept differences, but the social learning has earned Indianas reputation as the Northern most Southern State. It took me living in California for over a year for me to get sensitized to racist displays, because it's common in the 80-some percent white/20-some percent black Indiana, and not something I see often in the about 50/50 latino/white California (even seeing interracial couples here as a common thing was a new site for me).

Whoa!

 

[Stevicus]

Perhaps I’m not being as clear as I should be. I was using the KKK as an illustration of the threshold of tolerance a society has. I was trying to say that I think the threshold is changing. Away from the more obvious “ills” and focusing more on the more palatable but still rather ugly ideas.

Whether or not this is a good thing, okay I might be more in agreement with you than disagreement. Because I don’t want to just push ideas away or silence ideas. I agree that we should be debunking them. But it then turns into a game over who is right. I guess that’s politics in a nutshell really.

Yes, I agree that the threshold is changing. I also agree that we should be debunking these ugly ideas, as you say. But that may also be a part of the problem, since the ideas themselves aren't really being "debunked," per se. They're just being reworked and repackaged.

Take, for example, a term like "white privilege," which seems to come up a lot these days, although a lot of people aren't really buying into it. That aside, however, the underlying context is that people are being classified and categorized into different "races" using the same defining characteristics as the KKK used.

The basic idea of otherizing and lumping people into groups is still fostered and even encouraged in the context of identity politics, so the "idea" is not being debunked at all. It's quite the opposite, actually. It's easy to say "get rid of the KKK, tear down the statues of racists, etc.," but to actually challenge and attack the underlying ideas - that's a lot more complicated and will require a lot more work. But that's a tall order in a superficial, myopic, short-attention-spanned society like ours.

Okay that I agree with. Saying stupid things on the internet, especially as just a dumb high school kid, or just being drunk shouldn’t have such long term consequences. I mean I still post stupid crap online all the times I’d be cancelled like a hundred times over.

Politics is often about persuasion, even more so than "who is right."

Lol sounds like my time in retail. There are some erm “interesting” people in the public.

One thing that sometimes gets missed in discussions about America's history of racism is that it's also a part of family histories as well. Very often, when the issue is addressed (particularly by white liberals), they often portray it as if they're on the outside looking in. There is apparently some disconnect between the past and present, as if they view America of the past is a completely different country.

That's why there's so much focus on the CSA or Nazi Germany, which are commonly used as examples in attempts to attack and debunk the ugly ideas in question, while avoiding any attacks on "sacred cows" which might undermine patriotism and faith in America as the "shining city on the hill" (as Reagan put it).

I kind of meant during his time, no one really took his toxicity all too seriously. Until it was too late.
But I myself have a sizeable collection of books on Hitler. He’s fascinating. A complete and utter monster, repulsive to be sure, but fascinating nonetheless. Had a high school teacher who had such a hate boner for him that we could easily get her on a rant instead of having to do our work. Even worked during my English classes with her (she had a double degree.)

I've encountered a wide variety of opinions about Hitler myself. But as an American who grew up around ultra-patriots during the Cold War, many saw the Soviet Union as the "real" enemy. Pop culture would often mock or make fun of Hitler and the Nazis as a bunch of buffoons and imbeciles - nothing to be scared of or worried about. But the Soviets...they were the really scary ones.

Maybe it has something to do with America being physically untouched during the war (no German bombs fell on our soil), as well as being on the winning side. I've talked to Europeans who lived under German occupation (or their relatives did), and they have a completely different perspective than many Americans who never had to suffer through that.

That may be part of what's happening now, since Americans are often insulated from things and tend to look at most events as a spectator, not really a participant. This is a common criticism against liberals who have been insulated and sheltered in academia or other such upper-class bastions. That doesn't make them bad people, but it may make them more detached and out of touch with things.

Oh I have a book about that I’m hoping to read soon. It’s called the Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler by Laurence Rees. I doubt I will be able to fathom the support even after trying my feeble amount of research. But I’m beyond curious to at least try.
Did you know there were Jews who supported him? Both seriously and some who did so ironically? History is crazy!!

Hitler's ideas weren't really that new or original. German nationalism had been a thing even before Hitler was born (as was the case in other countries as well). So the foundation and widespread belief in that philosophy was already there, and it was even intensified under the Kaiser during WW1. Then, after being defeated in that war and the national humiliation and resentment which followed, Hitler came along at the right time and place.

But the other side of it as also something that often gets missed. People tend to look at the charisma or individual personality of someone like Hitler, and it's sometimes treated as something mystical or something not of this world. A lot of people simply can't understand how anyone could have supported someone like Hitler (or Stalin or Mao, for that matter). Some people even ask the same questions about Trump, as they just quite fathom just how these things happen.

All one really has to do is simply look at the situation which existed before these men came to power. What kind of government did they have before, and how badly did they have to screw up in order to lose so many hearts and minds to some kind of madman? When one looks at that side of the question, then there really is no mystery.

Well not being American I can’t say that I’m all that familiar with the founding fathers. But I do agree with the sentiment of Mr Jefferson. I don’t know if that’s necessarily a good thing, though.

Well, the world can still operate based on the principle uttered by Jefferson. It is a workable, viable system - but it comes with consequences - such as many of the ugly ideas we want to quash.

I think there's a cause and effect at work. I've tended to believe that if there had been no Kaiser or Tsar, there would have been no Hitler or Stalin. The Kaiser and Tsar were cousins, members of the same family which included Queen Victoria and the British royal family as well. America's Founding Fathers were profoundly anti-monarchist, although a certain sentiment or legacy still remained.

 

[Stevicus]

Fair point.
In case my sentiments before were mistaken, I want to be clear that I don’t really like the idea of simply quashing ideas. Unless they’re like Nazis or something. I was simply trying to say, perhaps badly, that as society becomes more away of the consequences of certain ideas, there will be more criticism of them by default. And you know I think this cancel culture stuff skews rather young. So there will be an overcorrection of sorts. I don’t necessarily agree with its implementation. But there are instances where I’m not terribly surprised that someone has been “cancelled.” Like Rowling is now cancelled I guess because the fandom doesn’t really like transphobia. I think this is the second time so I’m not surprised that fans who are trans folk and their allies are now refusing to buy or give Rowling any support. That is their right in a capitalist society, would you not agree?

Well, sure, I've never bought anything by Rowling and never had any interest in those stories.

I agree that the cancel culture skews somewhat young. I'm a child of the 1960s myself, so I was raised in an era of protest, change, and the ongoing crusade against social and racial injustice. I don't really have anything against the process of "cancel culture," in and of itself. Boycotting is a perfectly valid form of political protest, so I have no quarrel with that.

But I get what you're saying about "overcorrection," but on a side note (about cancel culture skewing young), I've noticed a kind of "generation gap" which exists. That's a natural phenomenon, but I think it's a cause for a lack of understanding.

However, I look back at some of the early crusaders for social justice and civil rights back in the day - they were fighting against an entire institution, an entrenched system of racism which had grown into an imperialist, militarist, quasi-fascist structure. Anyone who wanted to work for social and racial justice was scrutinized, harassed, and sometimes murdered/assassinated. The FBI had a whole program working against them. Those who marched for justice were attacked with dogs and brutally beaten. They had a great deal of courage and determination which was admirable.

But there was also an air of optimism, a desire for peace, love, justice, and hope. It was not about hatred or revenge, at least not with most people. The radical extremists which came out of that era never really gained any traction or following, so they evaporated rather quickly. Most sensible people realized that they couldn't really win that way anyway.

But nowadays, with the way it's going, I don't really see that anymore. There's no optimism, no hope. It seems there's more an air of vindictiveness in it all, rather than any honest attempt to persuade or win people's hearts and minds.

Though she does not deserve any hate mail or death threats, I hope no one has resorted to such behaviour. And if they did, shame on those people.
Like cancel culture to me is more along the lines of an author says something that is very homophobic for example. They lose monetary support, even boycotted.
I mean people are free to espouse whatever they want. In turn people are allowed to voice their displeasure. Including with those spending habits.
I do think harassing people for whatever sentiment is way too far though.

It's hard to say. For me, it would depend on the context and what is actually being said. I've only just recently become acquainted with the acronym "TERF" and its meaning. A lot of people may not quite understand the message which they're trying to send. It also might divide factions which would ordinarily be on the same side in general issues on social justice and civil rights.

Again, in terms of practical politics, one thing that left might try to restrain is the propensity to prey on each other and cause further splits and splintering among factions. She's clearly not a Nazi or anything like that, and if she said something regrettable, then maybe she can be afforded the opportunity to elaborate or clarify her remarks. I don't know. It just seems going a bit too far to suddenly think that she's totally irredeemable at this point.

Heck, even George Wallace came to regret many of the things he did in the past, and some people forgave him. People do change over time, but the "cancel culture" doesn't seem to allow for that. Once someone is declared "deplorable," they're beyond any redemption or forgiveness. It's that kind of rigidity and intransigence which may be at issue here.

The Crybullies, sure. But not everyone who is critical of the letter falls into that category. There is always nuance. I’m very wary of the shield of free speech. It too can be weaponised to shut down conversation.

It can be weaponized, yes, but money is what supplies the equipment and ammunition. The corporate media and political action committees also use the shield of free speech, and that should be a much larger concern than a few peripheral figures here and there.

I can agree with that. But one can be so focused on defending to the death the right for it to be said, that no actual discourse of the original idea occurs at all. Its a very easy smokescreen. This is what I meant by the weaponising of free speech.

I suppose it can work out that way, but if it can be weaponized, then a certain degree of care might be required. It's not really the "free speech" which is the issue. It's, as you noted earlier, the toxic content of that speech, but even then, it's not really that either. We have to ask ourselves, why is it toxic? Why is it intoxicating?

Maybe it's because the "toxin" or poison has been in us all along. Maybe there's something fundamental about human nature; I don't know. I think the solution is to change the structure of society entirely, from top to bottom. Most people seem to want to keep the structure intact, while only shifting around the paradigm a bit. People seem to believe that as long as every identity group is represented on the corporate board of directors, then everything will be okay. As long as nobody says anything that offends or upsets people, then everything will be okay. This is the message which is being sent.

You don’t know the concept of dog whistling?

I know it now, but I knew of the same concept under different terms. I've heard it called "stealth racism" in the past. But my point is, not everyone is in tune with that. Not everyone hears the dog whistle, so that's where more explanation is required.

I remember being introduced to that during a documentary about hate groups during the age of the internet. I mean I suppose it’s become a meme now, so it might not carry the same “potent” meaning in certain contexts.

I have to keep reminding myself that there's a whole generation out there which has no clue about what the world was like before Al Gore invented the internet. Sometimes I even have trouble remembering myself.

I agree.


Perhaps. I see this as a concentrated form of boycotting culture that the older generations employed. Though I can certainly agree that it’s very hard to sympathise with people using cancel culture as a weapon. That said some of the targets are even harder to sympathise with. Looking at you, Kevin Spacey. (And I so used to love his movies/shows. )

I rewatched LA Confidential recently. It doesn't really affect my watching of the movie, since I'm watching a story (although some of it was based on true events involving racist thugs/cops in LA back in the 50s).

I just noticed that HBO is reshowing The Towering Inferno, which has O.J. Simpson in it. But it was still a good movie just the same.

Well I mean, it is the internet. You were expecting????

I've heard the internet described as "one large self-referential circle jerk," which there may be some truth to that.

 

[Tambourine]

Another problem is that the characteristic of "cancel culture" and the shaming language that comes with it is that it is way too reliant on people's emotions and doesn't do enough to demonstrate critical thinking, logic, or reason.

That's great talk if you have no skin in the game and therefore don't care about the outcome. I wonder what people who are actually interested and involved in these issues would have to say about that, though.

The interesting thing about this, at least when seeing the reactions and criticisms against this letter, is that apparently, some people are more concerned about wanting to shame and ostracize people rather than actually call attention to the issues they purport to care about.

It is interesting that you think that these two things are mutually exclusive. Why would you think so?

In other words, there are some people are far too trigger happy when it comes lumping anyone and everyone into the "basket of deplorables." The more people get lumped into that basket, the fewer supporters there will be for the supposed "non-deplorables."

Do you think it is worthwhile to enter into dialogue with a person who does not want to be convinced that you have the right to live your life as you choose?

However, I look back at some of the early crusaders for social justice and civil rights back in the day - they were fighting against an entire institution, an entrenched system of racism which had grown into an imperialist, militarist, quasi-fascist structure. Anyone who wanted to work for social and racial justice was scrutinized, harassed, and sometimes murdered/assassinated. The FBI had a whole program working against them. Those who marched for justice were attacked with dogs and brutally beaten. They had a great deal of courage and determination which was admirable.

Fortunately, these days, there are no fascists and no entrenched systems of racism, no activist would ever face harassment or legal troubles, and the police very definitely are no longer beating up people in the streets.

 

[Tambourine]

When President Grant sent the army after them, the Klan never really went away, and instead went underground and resurfaces as one new wave after another. These stronger actions can be too strong. Not only can it send things underground and make it harder to keep a track of, it can also add a forbidden fruit level of temptation. Pushing too hard often pushes people opposite of the intended direction.

Going underground also means being cut off from access to mainstream political discourse, public support, and legal access to funding.

Obviously if your organization enjoys widespread support among the wealthy elites like the Klan did, things are going to be more difficult, but illegally very definitely is a major setback for any political organization, so long as that illegality is actually enforced.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Going underground also means being cut off from access to mainstream political discourse, public support, and legal access to funding.

Obviously if your organization enjoys widespread support among the wealthy elites like the Klan did, things are going to be more difficult, but illegally very definitely is a major setback for any political organization, so long as that illegality is actually enforced.

Enforcing it has consistently shown as being excessively difficult. Even in Germany, the Nazis and their i.ages are banned. There are plenty of work arounds, however, such as displaying a Confederate flag instead.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Apparently, this letter published in Harpers is raising some hackles.

A Letter on Justice and Open Debate | Harper's Magazine



I've noticed this general trend, even among some of the posters here on RF.

Another thing I've noticed is that this particular phenomenon has been going on for a long time, at least more than 30 years since Jimmy the Greek got fired. So, the tactic has gotten stale. Even if it may have been effective once upon a time, it appears that diminishing returns are setting in.

Another problem is that the characteristic of "cancel culture" and the shaming language that comes with it is that it is way too reliant on people's emotions and doesn't do enough to demonstrate critical thinking, logic, or reason.



The interesting thing about this, at least when seeing the reactions and criticisms against this letter, is that apparently, some people are more concerned about wanting to shame and ostracize people rather than actually call attention to the issues they purport to care about.



In other words, there are some people are far too trigger happy when it comes lumping anyone and everyone into the "basket of deplorables." The more people get lumped into that basket, the fewer supporters there will be for the supposed "non-deplorables."



This is very true. The best way to fight an idea is with another idea. But it's also possible that those who embrace "cancel culture" really have no other ideas. They've created an intellectual wasteland of stale, fossilized ideas, and they're at a dead end now. That's what is really being revealed here, not so much that they're intolerant meanies who get people fired for specious reasons. The fact that shaming and ostracism are the only things they can think of, that would indicate a certain degree of vacuousness and anti-intellectualism.

Thoughts?

At least for J.K. Rowling, I'll say that this is a pleasant surprise. I'll take this as a sign that she's turned a new leaf and has stopped trying to silence her critics with harassment and threats of legal action, such as this recent example:

J.K. Rowling threatens legal action against Coquitlam transgender activist over tweets

There's no possible way that someone would be so hypocritical as to keep silencing others while complaining about being "silenced" themselves, right?

 

[Stevicus]

That's great talk if you have no skin in the game and therefore don't care about the outcome. I wonder what people who are actually interested and involved in these issues would have to say about that, though.

I'm not sure if this makes any difference, but perhaps you can elaborate and define specifically what you mean by "skin in the game." If we're talking about civil rights protesters going up against dogs, fire hoses, and jack-booted thugs, that's one thing. If we're talking about upper class special snowflakes who feel "triggered," that is yet another thing.

It is interesting that you think that these two things are mutually exclusive. Why would you think so?

Because they're going after people and not addressing issues. Their attitude is vindictive, not instructive. That's the difference.

Do you think it is worthwhile to enter into dialogue with a person who does not want to be convinced that you have the right to live your life as you choose?

Well, that's a rather bold assumption about someone you don't even know. Unless you can read minds, I'm not sure how you would conclude that someone does not want to be convinced that you have the right to live your life as you choose.

Again, if you're going to make judgments of people or draw conclusions about their character, then at least have something to back it up other than "because I say so." That's not good enough, in my opinion.

Fortunately, these days, there are no fascists and no entrenched systems of racism, no activist would ever face harassment or legal troubles, and the police very definitely are no longer beating up people in the streets.

If you think that things of today are exactly the same as they were 50-60 years ago, then you haven't been paying much attention. You're suggesting absolutely zero progress has been made, and that's just not true.

 

[Stevicus]

At least for J.K. Rowling, I'll say that this is a pleasant surprise. I'll take this as a sign that she's turned a new leaf and has stopped trying to silence her critics with harassment and threats of legal action, such as this recent example:

J.K. Rowling threatens legal action against Coquitlam transgender activist over tweets

There's no possible way that someone would be so hypocritical as to keep silencing others while complaining about being "silenced" themselves, right?

I guess it would depend on whether it's specifically directed at an individual versus making a vague, generalized statement about a group. For example, if someone said "white men can't jump," I, as a white man, would not take it personally. If someone said "Stevicus can't jump," that would be specific to me, which would be a different situation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess it would depend on whether it's specifically directed at an individual versus making a vague, generalized statement about a group. For example, if someone said "white men can't jump," I, as a white man, would not take it personally. If someone said "Stevicus can't jump," that would be specific to me, which would be a different situation.

So you're okay with silencing speech, but only as long as it's speech that refers to a specific person?