Letter on Justice and Open Debate

[Tambourine]

I haven't read all of the Tweets associated with her, but the bottom line is, if she's actually inciting violence and making online threats, then there is legal recourse to deal with that. If she's just spouting off BS and stating her opinion, then it has no legal weight whatsoever and has no physical power to harm anyone - at least nothing that seems readily apparent to me.

Now that's what the cool kids call a false dichotomy: Either speech is legal and therefore utterly harmless, powerless, and incapable of causing action in the physical world in any way or form, or it is directly causing physical harm; either a person has total physical power of a tyrant or dictator, or they are just stating an opinion; either we habe brutal slavery and murder, or it's just playful giggles.

If you don't like what she said and want to participate in a boycott, that's cool. I have no problem with that; it's everybody's right.

You mean, like this:

Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes.

?

 

[Stevicus]

You mean, like this:

?

I think we're drifting into oblivion here. Perhaps it might be better if you give me a brief outline of what your position is here and what your exact grievance is with me or the writers of the letter in the OP.

Is it possible for people to have similar goals while still disagreeing over the best methods to achieve those goals? Or are you more of a "my way or the highway" kind of person?

 

[Tambourine]

In this particular instance, the concerns raised in the letter seem to be a general observation of the tone and direction certain public debates seem to be headed. It's not necessarily something that has personally affected any of the signers of the letter, which relates to your earlier point about those who don't have "any skin in the game." That seems to make all the difference, doesn't it?

Yes. Snowflakes are being triggered, and they whine in open letters about all the people who are mean to them on the Internet. Unlike actual bigotry on the internet that causes real harm to marginalized people, this is somehow a real and serious issue that must be adressed ASAP, because heaven help those who are mean to millionaire celebrities on the Internet.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes, for the most part. It's not necessarily openly spoken ideas or radical viewpoints from extremists. Sometimes one can find imagery from mainstream media which fosters certain perceptions and ways of thinking. For example, I've often seen tropes in movies and TV where there might be a scene of a white person getting lost in the middle of a black neighborhood where they instantly become a target. It's similar with the TV news when they cover inner city crime or gang stories, and it's relatively common to hear people recount personal anecdotes.

Yes. Representation matters, as they say. Media can certainly influence one’s perception.

Even liberals might quietly talk about their fears in this regard. My mother was very much a liberal, but even she had moments such as when she went into a shopping mall in the South Central (L.A.) area which was full of black people and she instantly got dirty looks as she entered. So, she turned around and left, mainly out of fear. It's not uncommon to hear white people talk about their cities and advise people as to "which areas to avoid" due to fears of crime and violence. It's these kinds of fears which we will ultimately have to address, as a society.

I happen to think that most hatred is rooted in fear, so any kind of tactic or method which increases the level of fear in society would be counterproductive.

Interesting.

The haters are already afraid, so threatening them or attempting to coerce them only feeds into that fear and causes an escalation. The "cancel culture" only works for those who are public and have a reputation to uphold, but the ones you need to worry about are those you don't know about, the ones who hide in the shadows or don't reveal themselves. Or (as with recent events) they might be one of the few "bad apples" in police departments whom we don't find out about until they do something horrendous.

Hmm I see your point. But I’m not fully on board with just allowing them their platform just because of free speech. By all means debunk their ideas and let them speak. But nobody is entitled to a platform.
And if the audience rejects you, well, that’s on you.

It's a spectacle that may work temporarily in situations where you have numerical superiority in a group of people which already agrees with you. I'm not sure how persuasive it would be to those who don't already agree with you. It might be intimidating to some. It might scare them into silence, at least temporarily until they can find some people who agree with them.

You underestimate the power of righteous justification and surprisingly discount the power of fear. I mean these “underground” and insidious movements are known for deliberately stoking people’s latent fears. It might be hidden behind more spectacle these days. I mean that’s how a lot of these movements recruit, even today, isn’t it?

Well, yes, exactly. That's the problem that's been ongoing in US politics for a very long time.

For what it’s worth, at least you guys make it entertaining to watch.
Nothing more boring than parliamentary arguments lol

It could be, although it's a phenomenon which existed before the internet. Some people have justified this mentality as a kind of "payback." They might argue that whites have discriminated against blacks for so long that a certain level of "reverse racism" is justified as a way of ultimately leveling the playing field.

Yes I have encountered this sentiment before. I almost fell into this trap back in high school. But it’s a very toxic pit of anger and despair. It’s easy to fall into wanting revenge when you hear of the past atrocities committed against your “own kind.” But I also come from a very “live and let live” philosophy/religion. Let the past die, I say. In that specific circumstance, anyway.

I can understand the justifications, but there is still an inherent flaw in the perception of categorizing and classifying people into these identity groups. The same social constructs which have fostered racism still exist, and this is the fatal error of identity politics. Even if they believe they're justified and think that it's ultimately for the greater good, they're still stuck in that same trap and embracing a core ideal which we both agree to be ugly and repugnant.

I find that to be a fair criticism.

Well, it is contradictory, and that's the point I'm making here. Neither side really has a set of principles they stand behind consistently. There are too many exceptions and loopholes, and when called on it, they might try to play the "false equivalency" card as a way of weaseling out of it.

I guess that’s what happens when you have a group of individuals. Some core beliefs and goals, but still with their own individual opinions.

Again, over the course of my life, I've encountered a lot of people who have views and attitudes similar to that of Trump. That's why I've always been flabbergasted about how some people work themselves up into a tizzy, expressing such shock and outrage over Trump. It makes me think that they've never traveled throughout the USA. They've never sat and listened to people talk about politics outside of their own particular echo chambers.

Well I only visited California, full disclosure. They seemed very friendly and warm as a people. I guess what was a bit bizarre for me watching Trump at least was his rhetoric. I was forcibly reminded of Hitler’s speeches. You know the whole “make us great again” thing? I’m not saying he’s comparable to Hitler, it’s just hard not to think of that when hearing such rhetoric. But like I said I kind of just shrugged it off as just US spectacle. Surely the constitution would never allow Trump to be a dictator. Right?

Plus, it's not always that simple. For example, most of my grandparents' generation would, by today's standards, be considered "deplorable." But they weren't one-dimensional beings, and in time, even they changed and moderated their views on a great many things. But they would still occasionally say the kinds of things which, if heard today, would trigger a Twitter storm of calling them "deplorables."

Well not everyone from previous generations moderates themselves in the same way. People can change, that doesn’t mean they will. But we can still respect the fact that people have terrible flaws and encourage them to change. Twitter is a hell hole though lol

Yes, in a manner of speaking. "Institutionalized" implies something official, but this may be something deeper within the culture. Officially, the "institution" (aka the "establishment") has denounced and mostly outlawed racism at all levels of society and in all walks of life. Whatever racism still exists is, by definition, "unofficial," or something more subtle and stealthy (as you mentioned with your point about "dog whistling"). Or it might be underground, hiding in the shadows, or maybe relegated to that alt right pipeline you mentioned. Maybe it's just some kind of sub-conscious thing that exists in the hearts and minds of people, which could rear its ugly head at times one might least expect it (such as when white cops are dealing with black suspects).

I don’t think institutionalised racism is supposed to be taken literally. It’s like you said, it’s more of an unofficial subconscious kind of thing. Although maybe there are old laws that can shape negative outcomes based on race. I’m not American so I can’t say for sure. Just that it wouldn’t be surprising.

That's where it can be somewhat mystifying in such situations, as if the cops suddenly forget all their training, their education, and whatever else they might have learned about the country and society in which they lived. Somehow, some of them revert into some kind of primitive neanderthal, but is it the institution which makes them that way, or is there something else at work?

Perhaps it’s both. You guys seem to militarise your police force like a lot. Even TV shows have lamented that cops see the public as their enemy, which makes them combative not actual police. And I mean that could be a combination of training, the work culture and perhaps even lived experiences. We have our own issues but it doesn’t seem as extreme as the US.

I think a lot of people are unhappy these days, both the "powerful" and the "powerless." I think that much is obvious. I think what's disappointing is that, our society and culture seemed to be heading in a positive direction once upon a time, enacting far-reaching reforms and great changes in the hope of building a more progressive and tolerant nation. But as a country, we didn't really stay the course. Something went awry, although I have my own theories as to where we went wrong.

Hmmm. Well sooner or later something has to give. I remain cautiously optimistic, which is odd for me. But I guess I want to believe that we’re better than this.

 

[SomeRandom]

I don't believe I've seen that movie, although I've seen footage or read about some rather horrific events throughout history.

It was pretty good. German language film if I’m not mistaken. Though for the life of me I can’t remember the name. Very harrowing.
Though I too have read/seen some horrifying history.

The thing is, America didn't want to see itself as world heroes back in those days. Up until the World Wars, America didn't really even see itself as a world power and had no real interest in getting involved in European geopolitics. It was WW1 and later, WW2, which turned America's policies around.

Huh, that’s interesting. Also “world heroes” hehe is that really how Americans see themselves?

In fact, Americans are reminded over and over again how "we waited too long" and chose to remain uninvolved by refusing to join the League of Nations. In today's politics, that was regarded as a serious mistake, which is the main justification for us constantly rushing in to every little situation that's out there.

Really? Wow. So “dragging your feet” in WWII essentially led to Team America: World Police?
Interesting.

In order for America to function in its role as the world's "peacekeeper" or "policeman" or "guardian of freedom and democracy" (or however anyone might perceive us), it's necessary to bolster patriotism and public support for the military and our interventionist policies.

I think this is how many people might see America. Perhaps because of this movie though lol

I was responding to your question about whether or not Americans are taught about Hitler and the hateful ideology he represented, and the answer is yes, but it's done from the standpoint that it's not our ideology and had nothing to do with us. The bottom line is that it's always other people from other countries doing these horrible atrocities, not us. The belief is that "we" would never do anything like that, because America is a land of freedom and opportunity, a beacon of hope, the shining city on the hill, and so on. (And if there are any dark pages from our history, then we still attribute it to "other people," such as the Confederacy. But since "we" defeated the Confederacy, "we" are still the good guys. See how it works?)

Oh so you’re taught to shirk responsibility?
I don’t think that has changed my perception for the better, but at least you seem alright.

I have a problem with that approach to history, because it doesn't really teach any worthwhile lessons. It seems more melodramatic and reminiscent of comic book superheroes and archvillains.

As opposed to teaching kids the US are heroes devoid of flaws?
Besides the ANZAC legend is taught to young primary (elementary) aged kids typically. Well it was at my school anyway. So the melodramatic approach was somewhat intentional.
Sorry should have been more specific.
As we got into the later years of school History was more serious and studious. More about using different citations and utilising differing perspectives from past events.
Interestingly in grade 8 or 9 we had to “solve” the mystery of who shot JFK. More as an illustration of how to formulate an argument based on our interpretation of available evidence. Though why it was his association I do not know. Celeb status maybe lol

Well, not so much to the "flag" itself but what it represents. Political leaders are worshiped in a way similar to rock stars or entertainers. As long as they keep making hits and pleasing their fan base, they'll be worshiped, but fans can also be very fickle, too. They can turn rather quickly. Look at how Trump is losing fans and slipping in the charts.

Yes your politics are far more entertaining than most.

Well, it's hard to make any kind of predictions like that, at least when it comes to individual political systems. Our own system has checks and balances designed to prevent any one individual from taking absolute power, which is largely how Trump has been kept in check. Originally, the Founding Fathers didn't want the President to have that much power at all, but at some point during the 20th century, the aptly named "Imperial Presidency" descended upon us, so now the President holds all this power which many wish Trump didn't have.

Hmm interesting. I get the impression that many are still giving Trump the side eye. But I think there’s still faith that he can’t become a dictator. Not in America of all places.

But that's whole trouble with a society run by fear and greed and the belief that we need a strong, interventionist government to deal with all these supposed enemies and threats all around us. A widespread belief in America is that it's okay to give the government that kind of power and the benefit of the doubt wherever possible. After all, "we" would never do anything wrong or immoral, would "we"? The police are our friends, and the military and intel community are all fighting for our freedom and to keep America safe.

Hmm I’m hearing a lot of hesitance to self reflect, culturally speaking. Do you think that’s what has caused so called cancel culture? A realisation of these flaws and an overcorrection?

Americans have kind of a love-hate relationship with politics. There are many Americans who criticize or even hate the government, but many will say they still love America itself. Sometimes, it's difficult to separate the two, especially comes to the flag, the National Anthem, the military, our foreign policy, and the various military actions our country gets involved in.

Interesting. You guys do seem to take Jingoism very seriously, if you don’t mind me saying so?

To some extent, there's a certain peer pressure at work, in order to press others to be more patriotic and loyal to America. Even many liberals and Democrats have caved in to such pressure.

Do you think that’s a consequence of being such a young country?

I remember back in 2002-03, when there was talk of attacking Iraq over that whole WMD debacle, and the people who were the loudest warmongers would come up with the most ridiculous rejoinders when faced with someone in opposition to the war. The common tactic was guilt by association. That is, if you were against the war, it meant that you were in favor of Saddam Hussein and approved of the atrocities his regime was committing.

Wow. I was a bit too young to really remember the Iraq war. All I knew was the towers fell and I guess we had to go to war by your side. Oddly I do remember the protest songs more than anything. But that could just reflect my older cousin’s political stances more than anything

This was a classic tactic used during the Cold War, and in many ways, it still gets used today.

I've even seen it used among Democrats who hate Trump. Not everyone hates Trump with the same degree of zeal and ferocity as others, and somehow, even that can become a point of contention.

Wow. You guys politicise everything. But I guess it’s effective?

Some Americans justify it from the point of view of national self-interest. When the "freedom" and "democracy" argument falls flat, then the fallback is "this is for our national interests."

I remember this scene from the movie Missing, about an American father trying to find his son during the coup in Chile in 1973. He ultimately realizes that he's been getting the runaround and that the embassy personnel have been lying to him, so he goes to confront them. It sums up quite a bit about how Americans perceive the world. I saw this when I was still a teenager.

Wow.

Barry Goldwater was a US politician and Senator from the state of Arizona (where I live). He also ran for President in 1964 against Lyndon Johnson. He was an arch-conservative. He was highly respected, but some of the more moderate Republicans thought he was a bit too extreme. Goldwater was quoted as saying "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." He's still very much revered here in Arizona.

Whoa. Sounds like an err interesting fellow.

When he ran for president, a lot of people were afraid he might lead us into nuclear war, and Johnson won handily.

Oh really? Wow.

Well, I guess one could say that a "constitutional monarchy" isn't really the same thing as the old-fashioned dictatorial monarchies they had in the past. Still, it seems rather silly to take it seriously nowadays. There are even many Americans who become entranced by the whole "royal" thing, like out of some kind of storybook.

I agree. Who cares about the snooty royals. Though it does amuse me that the “Merry Monarch” Charles the Second was seen as far preferable to the more stifling government at the time.

 

[Left Coast]

A reply from a group of academics and journalists has been published in response to the Harper's piece:

A More Specific Letter on Justice and Open Debate

All I can say is...

Mic drop.

 

[Stevicus]

Hmm I see your point. But I’m not fully on board with just allowing them their platform just because of free speech. By all means debunk their ideas and let them speak. But nobody is entitled to a platform.
And if the audience rejects you, well, that’s on you.

True enough, but if the audience rejects a speaker, then what would anyone be worried about? The whole fear over toxic ideas is that they could compel and captivate an audience and potentially spread. But if people are already rejecting those ideas anyway, then I'm not sure what the issue is.

You underestimate the power of righteous justification and surprisingly discount the power of fear. I mean these “underground” and insidious movements are known for deliberately stoking people’s latent fears. It might be hidden behind more spectacle these days. I mean that’s how a lot of these movements recruit, even today, isn’t it?

It was the same righteous justification back in the 1950s, but different tactics had to be used since those in favor of social justice were a small minority up against the entire establishment.

For what it’s worth, at least you guys make it entertaining to watch.
Nothing more boring than parliamentary arguments lol

Well, yes, it does have its entertainment value. That's you have to remain upbeat and keep a sense of humor when discussing U.S. politics.

Yes I have encountered this sentiment before. I almost fell into this trap back in high school. But it’s a very toxic pit of anger and despair. It’s easy to fall into wanting revenge when you hear of the past atrocities committed against your “own kind.” But I also come from a very “live and let live” philosophy/religion. Let the past die, I say. In that specific circumstance, anyway.

I agree.

Well I only visited California, full disclosure. They seemed very friendly and warm as a people. I guess what was a bit bizarre for me watching Trump at least was his rhetoric. I was forcibly reminded of Hitler’s speeches. You know the whole “make us great again” thing? I’m not saying he’s comparable to Hitler, it’s just hard not to think of that when hearing such rhetoric. But like I said I kind of just shrugged it off as just US spectacle. Surely the constitution would never allow Trump to be a dictator. Right?

I've seen old newsreel footage of Hitler's speeches, but I really didn't see that many similarities. I thought he was more similar to Reagan who also had similar rhetoric and reacted negatively against the general philosophy and social justice campaigns of the 1960s. That should have been a red flag to Democrats back then, but many of them crossed over and voted en masse for Reagan. Because capitalism.

Well not everyone from previous generations moderates themselves in the same way. People can change, that doesn’t mean they will. But we can still respect the fact that people have terrible flaws and encourage them to change. Twitter is a hell hole though lol

True.

I don’t think institutionalised racism is supposed to be taken literally. It’s like you said, it’s more of an unofficial subconscious kind of thing. Although maybe there are old laws that can shape negative outcomes based on race. I’m not American so I can’t say for sure. Just that it wouldn’t be surprising.

I think it's important to pinpoint and properly identify the sources of the kind of toxic, malignant ideas under discussion. Not just the obvious stuff, but also the subtle stuff and things that might be ignored or given a pass.

Perhaps it’s both. You guys seem to militarise your police force like a lot. Even TV shows have lamented that cops see the public as their enemy, which makes them combative not actual police. And I mean that could be a combination of training, the work culture and perhaps even lived experiences. We have our own issues but it doesn’t seem as extreme as the US.

The funny thing is, I've had arguments with left-wingers about the police, who think we should give the police the benefit of the doubt and that society should give them a blank check of support. Democratic administrations like Clinton and Obama were four-square in favor of militarization of the police and the racist-inspired War on Drugs.

Hmmm. Well sooner or later something has to give. I remain cautiously optimistic, which is odd for me. But I guess I want to believe that we’re better than this.

Some believe that there are agitators and agents provocateur out there stirring the pot, which may be true to some extent. There are even those who appear to take offense at anyone making a call for civility.

 

[SomeRandom]

True enough, but if the audience rejects a speaker, then what would anyone be worried about? The whole fear over toxic ideas is that they could compel and captivate an audience and potentially spread. But if people are already rejecting those ideas anyway, then I'm not sure what the issue is.

And audience rejecting someone is the best case scenario. Really. But sometimes the “provocateurs” bank on it in order to appear as some sort of martyr. Or are adopted as a martyr symbol. Whatever. Like that Milo Yianoppolus guy. Only really got cancelled after he was found out to support, well ebophilia (sp?) at least. I think we literally banned him here lol

And that guy has said some really vile crap before that and people either flocked or protested or both. So I mean, sometimes people will want to see a circus, it seems. Although my biggest grievance against Milo really was that he seemed to be some kind of self styled Oscar Wilde wannabe. And I happen to really like Wilde. He was a far classier artist and a far better troll.
Anyway, I guess my point is that this seems to be more of a tit for tat game. Ideally crowds would turn on a person and that would be that. But instead people are paying attention to these ideas for the irony or to be “edgy” or whatever. Maybe that is a consequence of so called cancel culture, maybe cancel culture was the response. I’m not entirely sure.

It was the same righteous justification back in the 1950s, but different tactics had to be used since those in favor of social justice were a small minority up against the entire establishment.

I mean I guess.

Well, yes, it does have its entertainment value. That's you have to remain upbeat and keep a sense of humor when discussing U.S. politics.

Hey man, sometimes all you can do is laugh at the absurdity that is life err... politics.

I've seen old newsreel footage of Hitler's speeches, but I really didn't see that many similarities. I thought he was more similar to Reagan who also had similar rhetoric and reacted negatively against the general philosophy and social justice campaigns of the 1960s. That should have been a red flag to Democrats back then, but many of them crossed over and voted en masse for Reagan. Because capitalism.

So have I. I dunno, to me the Donald has that kind of “vibe.”
So Democrats voted for Regan who is a republican right? I’m not old enough to remember Regan so I dunno.

I think it's important to pinpoint and properly identify the sources of the kind of toxic, malignant ideas under discussion. Not just the obvious stuff, but also the subtle stuff and things that might be ignored or given a pass.

Agreed.

The funny thing is, I've had arguments with left-wingers about the police, who think we should give the police the benefit of the doubt and that society should give them a blank check of support. Democratic administrations like Clinton and Obama were four-square in favor of militarization of the police and the racist-inspired War on Drugs.

Whoa! Traitors!! No but seriously, whoa.

Some believe that there are agitators and agents provocateur out there stirring the pot, which may be true to some extent. There are even those who appear to take offense at anyone making a call for civility.

Perhaps.
I think “the kids” call those people grifters.

 

[Stevicus]

It was pretty good. German language film if I’m not mistaken. Though for the life of me I can’t remember the name. Very harrowing.
Though I too have read/seen some horrifying history.

When I was younger, movies and TV shows were a lot less graphic, and I think they tried to avoid showing anything to horrifying on TV.

Huh, that’s interesting. Also “world heroes” hehe is that really how Americans see themselves?

I don't think all Americans actually believe it, but that's what we're constantly told, over and over and over again. It suggests a feeling of obligation to the world. "If not us, then who?"

Really? Wow. So “dragging your feet” in WWII essentially led to Team America: World Police?
Interesting.

Yes, essentially. The commonly held view these days is that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor "jolted America out of isolationism." That view is not entirely accurate, as we stopped being "isolationist" when FDR implemented Lend-Lease and later imposed an embargo on Japan. If we had been truly isolationist, Japan would have left us alone.

I think this is how many people might see America. Perhaps because of this movie though lol

It's hard to say. I've encountered a number of non-Americans who appear to be reasonably well-informed about America, but sometimes I wonder just how much information people actually get. It's one thing to read about a place or visit for a short time, but to actually live here and have family going back generations, that's another matter.

Oh so you’re taught to shirk responsibility?
I don’t think that has changed my perception for the better, but at least you seem alright.

"Shirk responsibility"? I wouldn't put it like that. Surely you're not suggesting that the U.S. was responsible for Hitler and his regime?

But I guess in some ways, the current wave of destroying Confederate statues might be a way of deflecting blame away from "America" itself and putting it on an unrecognized regional government that only lasted for four years. Finding a scapegoat is certainly preferable to having to face certain bleak truths about one's own history and existence.

In a way, I see this related to "cancel culture," as a way of scapegoating certain targeted individuals to pay for all America's sins, while that somehow lets others off the hook. In a very real sense, "cancel culture" is actively encouraging some to shirk responsibility while seeking out others to blame.

As opposed to teaching kids the US are heroes devoid of flaws?

Both approaches are wrong, in my opinion. I think a more balanced and objective approach would be more beneficial. History need not be melodramatic or appeal to emotion.

Besides the ANZAC legend is taught to young primary (elementary) aged kids typically. Well it was at my school anyway. So the melodramatic approach was somewhat intentional.
Sorry should have been more specific.
As we got into the later years of school History was more serious and studious. More about using different citations and utilising differing perspectives from past events.
Interestingly in grade 8 or 9 we had to “solve” the mystery of who shot JFK. More as an illustration of how to formulate an argument based on our interpretation of available evidence. Though why it was his association I do not know. Celeb status maybe lol

When I was in school, the JFK assassination was still in the realm of "recent" history, so our printed textbooks and course curricula were not yet fully up to date. Also, the approaches to history were in a state of flux, so I was often treated to the traditional "Americana" version and some of the more revised versions.

It's interesting that you bring up the JFK assassination. I was born about a month after the JFK assassination, so while I was growing up, I quickly realized that it was an important event and it was still in most people's active memory. My aunt was a big fan of JFK and even did a wood sculpture of the assassination. A lot of liberals at the time rejected the findings of the Warren Commission and honestly believed there was some sort of conspiracy, possibly involving the CIA or other warmongering types who ostensibly felt that Kennedy was in the way.

Conspiracy theories about JFK and other such theories were rather common back in the day. At the time, liberals had more of a reason to be wary and suspicious of the Federal government, while conservatives were still very much pro-military and pro-government. By the 1990s, that situation had reversed, where it was suddenly the conservatives believing in conspiracies and taking a more anti-government approach, while the liberals took a more anti-conspiracy position and a pro-government approach.

Yes your politics are far more entertaining than most.

In some ways, I've always thought of American politics as too tame. In some countries, I've seen footage of their parliament or legislature having all out brawls. Now, that's exciting.

Hmm interesting. I get the impression that many are still giving Trump the side eye. But I think there’s still faith that he can’t become a dictator. Not in America of all places.

Not sure what you mean by the side eye. But yes, there's no chance of Trump ever becoming a dictator. I can't even imagine most of his supporters going along with that.

Hmm I’m hearing a lot of hesitance to self reflect, culturally speaking. Do you think that’s what has caused so called cancel culture? A realisation of these flaws and an overcorrection?

I've lived long enough to be able to see that there has been some self-reflection on America. One beef I have with cancel culture is that a lot of these youngsters seem to think they're the first ones to ever self-reflect on America or realize our flaws. As if they just discovered all this yesterday. A few people seem to think that they hold some kind of "special enlightenment" which is only known to them, while believing that the rest of us are just a bunch of poor, dumb, ignorant slobs. It's this wantonly arrogant and condescending attitude which puts a lot of people off.

Interesting. You guys do seem to take Jingoism very seriously, if you don’t mind me saying so?

Again, we were heading in a different direction in the 1970s, particularly after Watergate and the end of our involvement in the Vietnam War. Jingoism and militarism were very much unpopular in the public eye. As a kid, I was discouraged from even joining the Boy Scouts, as that kind of thing just wasn't what the cool kids were doing. Reagan and his robotic followers changed all that, and suddenly being a warmonger was cool again.

Actually, it probably started with the Iranian hostage crisis from 1979-81, which aided Reagan's election immensely. If you want to blame someone for America's resurgence of jingoism, then the government of Iran might be a likely candidate. Prior to that, Carter had been a champion for human rights, peace in the Middle East, and pushing for America to be more environmentally conscious and more responsible energy producers, yet even many in his own party opposed him. But the Iranians made him look weak, and it demonstrated to the public that taking a softer, more conciliatory approach was viewed as weakness by the outside world. Therefore, American jingoism came back with a vengeance.

That's part of the reason why many people believe in conspiracy theories about 9/11, because it's difficult to fathom how and why so many foreign enemies could be so incredibly dumb as to attack Americans. The only ones who benefit are the warmongers and imperialists.

It's for much the same reason that cancel culture is kind of dumb, since it assumes that going after some easy, vulnerable target will somehow achieve some political end in their favor. They think they're teaching some kind of "lesson," which they hope will take hold, but it seems to be having the opposite effect.

Do you think that’s a consequence of being such a young country?

Not anymore. We're not as young as we used to be. The problem has to do with a certain perception and contrived image of America as being the "guardian of democracy and freedom." That view didn't really come about until we reached a certain level of maturity around the time of the World Wars.

Wow. I was a bit too young to really remember the Iraq war. All I knew was the towers fell and I guess we had to go to war by your side. Oddly I do remember the protest songs more than anything. But that could just reflect my older cousin’s political stances more than anything

There were protest songs against the Iraq war? I guess I must have missed those. I recall the protest songs of the 60s and 70s, of course.

Wow. You guys politicise everything. But I guess it’s effective?

Sometimes it's effective, sometimes not. I don't think I've seen it this polarized, though.

Wow.

You never saw that movie? It's kind of hard to find, as I think it had more of a niche audience; not exactly a big money blockbuster.

Whoa. Sounds like an err interesting fellow.

Actually, it was Goldwater who was finally able to convince Nixon to resign.

Oh really? Wow.

This was a famous ad from the 1964 campaign.

Of course, Johnson was the one who escalated the Vietnam War, so I guess he wasn't really one to talk.

 

[Tambourine]

A reply from a group of academics and journalists has been published in response to the Harper's piece:

A More Specific Letter on Justice and Open Debate

All I can say is...

Mic drop.

Thank you for posting this link. Unfortunately, it seems that this thread has already moved on from the usual performative rage over "political correctness" and "SJWs" and now seems to be mostly navel gazing at imperialism or whatever.

 

[Stevicus]

And audience rejecting someone is the best case scenario. Really. But sometimes the “provocateurs” bank on it in order to appear as some sort of martyr. Or are adopted as a martyr symbol. Whatever. Like that Milo Yianoppolus guy. Only really got cancelled after he was found out to support, well ebophilia (sp?) at least. I think we literally banned him here lol

To be honest, I never heard of this Milo guy before people started wanting to cancel his speeches. That's the thing. They draw more attention to the people they're trying to quash, which draws in more people who are simply curious and wanting to know what all the fuss is about.

The cancel culture makes these people out to be more powerful and influential than they really are.

And that guy has said some really vile crap before that and people either flocked or protested or both. So I mean, sometimes people will want to see a circus, it seems. Although my biggest grievance against Milo really was that he seemed to be some kind of self styled Oscar Wilde wannabe. And I happen to really like Wilde. He was a far classier artist and a far better troll.
Anyway, I guess my point is that this seems to be more of a tit for tat game. Ideally crowds would turn on a person and that would be that. But instead people are paying attention to these ideas for the irony or to be “edgy” or whatever. Maybe that is a consequence of so called cancel culture, maybe cancel culture was the response. I’m not entirely sure.

Sometimes, it has the opposite effect. Whenever some organized group of people operate with some kind of vendetta against someone, it's natural to question where they're coming from, who is organizing them, and how it reflects on the political establishment. If people see this "cancel culture" as a bunch of pro-government shills and stooges working for the benefit of the ruling class, then there are those who might view them with suspicion and cynicism.

I mean I guess.

Hey man, sometimes all you can do is laugh at the absurdity that is life err... politics.

Well, it is absurd, just as cancel culture is absurd. Some people take things far too seriously. They think that some obscure nobody on the internet is somebody "dangerous" and has to be stopped. A lot of people are losing all sense of proportion.

If you're not opposing government or the ruling class, and instead choosing to focus on some obscure private citizen, then you're doing it wrong.

So have I. I dunno, to me the Donald has that kind of “vibe.”
So Democrats voted for Regan who is a republican right? I’m not old enough to remember Regan so I dunno.

Yes, Reagan was a Republican. He used to be a Democrat, though, just as Trump was once a Democrat.

The "vibe" that I've gotten from Trump is that he wanted to become president as something to do, just like he had his own TV show at one time. Some wealthy people who don't really have to do any real work find expensive hobbies, such as those who get into yacht-racing or that tycoon who was trying to sail around the world in a hot air balloon. Many wealthy people also like to buy sports teams, not so much for the money, but just the prestige and fame. Trump running for president seems like kind of the same thing.

Whoa! Traitors!! No but seriously, whoa.

Yes, exactly. That's why I often question the motives of the so-called "cancel culture," because they've supported many of the same ideals which led us to the point we're at now. They've been duped by the ruling establishment and doing their dirty work, yet they believe they're on the "cutting edge" of enlightenment.

Perhaps.
I think “the kids” call those people grifters.

The "kids" got their glasses on and don't know who their friends are.

 

[SomeRandom]

When I was younger, movies and TV shows were a lot less graphic, and I think they tried to avoid showing anything to horrifying on TV.

We didn’t really censor anything after prime time. I haven’t watched free to air TV for a while, so maybe that’s changed. But man some of the movies I saw (particularly foreign movies) were pretty brutal and often unflinching. Made the Sopranos seem tame but I did watch that religiously as a kid too.
Also really random but I never understood how sometimes we were able to show things from HBO on free to air. Isn’t HBO in America a subscription channel?

I don't think all Americans actually believe it, but that's what we're constantly told, over and over and over again. It suggests a feeling of obligation to the world. "If not us, then who?"

Oh really? Is that why you position yourselves as a superpower? I guess the popular notion I grew up with from media was that America just can’t resist getting into other people’s business. Even video games mock that. Though I acknowledge that it’s usually tongue in cheek, so I guess it’s just a bit of ribbing.

Yes, essentially. The commonly held view these days is that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor "jolted America out of isolationism." That view is not entirely accurate, as we stopped being "isolationist" when FDR implemented Lend-Lease and later imposed an embargo on Japan. If we had been truly isolationist, Japan would have left us alone.

Oh, this is bringing back half remembered modern history classes. Forgive my haziness.

It's hard to say. I've encountered a number of non-Americans who appear to be reasonably well-informed about America, but sometimes I wonder just how much information people actually get. It's one thing to read about a place or visit for a short time, but to actually live here and have family going back generations, that's another matter.

Like I said, politics isn’t really my forte. History isn’t either but it’s something I want to get into. I’m afraid I don’t know much about America before Bush Jr.
But I’m learning from this convo so I’m happy. For what it’s worth I don’t think people really see you guys like the “World Police.” I was kind of just kidding around.

"Shirk responsibility"? I wouldn't put it like that. Surely you're not suggesting that the U.S. was responsible for Hitler and his regime?

Of course not. I’m saying that you guys couldn’t possibly hold similar ideas.
You know pretending that Hitler was so obviously evil that Americans simply could not be like him? Or did I misunderstand you?

When we learnt about Hitler it was through the lens of “everyone is susceptible to propoganda and we should always call out whenever we see such repugnant ideas here. Lest we end up like the Germans.”
And “don’t think the allies were immune to racism or ethnic cleansing, they weren’t.”
So it was very clear from the start that the Allies weren’t necessarily the good guys, just probably less genocidal than Hitler overall. So just kind of “less bad, kinda.” To be fair this was in grade 8, so I assume some simplifications had to be made.
I recall my teacher even commented on how outdated the term the “Axis of Evil” was and made sure to be clear that she had to use the term simply for historical accuracy.

But I guess in some ways, the current wave of destroying Confederate statues might be a way of deflecting blame away from "America" itself and putting it on an unrecognized regional government that only lasted for four years. Finding a scapegoat is certainly preferable to having to face certain bleak truths about one's own history and existence.
Perhaps. It could also be a cleansing by fire of sorts. Tear down the old and the new shall arise from the ashes. Though I don’t really have a dog in that race. They can pull down all our statues here and I don’t think I would care.

In a way, I see this related to "cancel culture," as a way of scapegoating certain targeted individuals to pay for all America's sins, while that somehow lets others off the hook. In a very real sense, "cancel culture" is actively encouraging some to shirk responsibility while seeking out others to blame.

Or it is simply another consequence for being a dick?
I’m not actively pro censorship. I’m at best ambivalent on cancel culture, really.
But social and political consequences for “speech” isn’t anything new, right?

Both approaches are wrong, in my opinion. I think a more balanced and objective approach would be more beneficial. History need not be melodramatic or appeal to emotion.

Ehh I think for kids it might need to be. Only to get them interested.

When I was in school, the JFK assassination was still in the realm of "recent" history, so our printed textbooks and course curricula were not yet fully up to date. Also, the approaches to history were in a state of flux, so I was often treated to the traditional "Americana" version and some of the more revised versions.

How does one “Americanfy” a president getting shot exactly?

It's interesting that you bring up the JFK assassination. I was born about a month after the JFK assassination, so while I was growing up, I quickly realized that it was an important event and it was still in most people's active memory. My aunt was a big fan of JFK and even did a wood sculpture of the assassination. A lot of liberals at the time rejected the findings of the Warren Commission and honestly believed there was some sort of conspiracy, possibly involving the CIA or other warmongering types who ostensibly felt that Kennedy was in the way.

Wow geez.

Conspiracy theories about JFK and other such theories were rather common back in the day. At the time, liberals had more of a reason to be wary and suspicious of the Federal government, while conservatives were still very much pro-military and pro-government. By the 1990s, that situation had reversed, where it was suddenly the conservatives believing in conspiracies and taking a more anti-government approach, while the liberals took a more anti-conspiracy position and a pro-government approach.

Whoa there were conspiracy theories back then too? Well I guess that shouldn’t be surprising. But still wow.

In some ways, I've always thought of American politics as too tame. In some countries, I've seen footage of their parliament or legislature having all out brawls. Now, that's exciting.

Haha yeah the brawls in parliament are certainly popcorn worthy.

Not sure what you mean by the side eye. But yes, there's no chance of Trump ever becoming a dictator. I can't even imagine most of his supporters going along with that.

Cool.

I've lived long enough to be able to see that there has been some self-reflection on America. One beef I have with cancel culture is that a lot of these youngsters seem to think they're the first ones to ever self-reflect on America or realize our flaws. As if they just discovered all this yesterday. A few people seem to think that they hold some kind of "special enlightenment" which is only known to them, while believing that the rest of us are just a bunch of poor, dumb, ignorant slobs. It's this wantonly arrogant and condescending attitude which puts a lot of people off.

Isn’t that how most youthful movements are though?

Again, we were heading in a different direction in the 1970s, particularly after Watergate and the end of our involvement in the Vietnam War. Jingoism and militarism were very much unpopular in the public eye. As a kid, I was discouraged from even joining the Boy Scouts, as that kind of thing just wasn't what the cool kids were doing. Reagan and his robotic followers changed all that, and suddenly being a warmonger was cool again.

You guys seem to flip flop a lot.

Actually, it probably started with the Iranian hostage crisis from 1979-81, which aided Reagan's election immensely. If you want to blame someone for America's resurgence of jingoism, then the government of Iran might be a likely candidate. Prior to that, Carter had been a champion for human rights, peace in the Middle East, and pushing for America to be more environmentally conscious and more responsible energy producers, yet even many in his own party opposed him. But the Iranians made him look weak, and it demonstrated to the public that taking a softer, more conciliatory approach was viewed as weakness by the outside world. Therefore, American jingoism came back with a vengeance.

That's part of the reason why many people believe in conspiracy theories about 9/11, because it's difficult to fathom how and why so many foreign enemies could be so incredibly dumb as to attack Americans. The only ones who benefit are the warmongers and imperialists.

Oh.

It's for much the same reason that cancel culture is kind of dumb, since it assumes that going after some easy, vulnerable target will somehow achieve some political end in their favor. They think they're teaching some kind of "lesson," which they hope will take hold, but it seems to be having the opposite effect.

Well, I dunno. Perhaps. There will always be pushback against social change.

There were protest songs against the Iraq war? I guess I must have missed those. I recall the protest songs of the 60s and 70s, of course.

Oh yeah. According to some they were deliberately boycotted by some of the radio stations at the time. So I’ve heard.
System of a Down’s BYOB (stands for Bring your own Bomb) was a particular favourite of mine in high school lol
There was also 21 Guns by Greenday. Rise Against did a few, Bad Religion, Bruce Springsteen, the Gorillaz, etc
Hell, even Fall Out Boy got in on the action.
Also if I’m not mistaken the Dixie Chicks were even cancelled by, I guess your right wing, or their conservative audience for speaking out against Bush. I vaguely remember that being on the news lol

Sometimes it's effective, sometimes not. I don't think I've seen it this polarized, though.

Maybe. Maybe it’s just social media amplifying it?

Actually, it was Goldwater who was finally able to convince Nixon to resign.

Wow I’m not well versed on American history lol

Of course, Johnson was the one who escalated the Vietnam War, so I guess he wasn't really one to talk.

Again I’m not terribly familiar with American history. I probably got most of my “American” information about the Vietnam war from Forrest Gump lol
I don’t really know Nixon outside of “I am not a crook.”

 

[Stevicus]

Thank you for posting this link. Unfortunately, it seems that this thread has already moved on from the usual performative rage over "political correctness" and "SJWs" and now seems to be mostly navel gazing at imperialism or whatever.

You've got it reversed. The "performative rage" is from those who are vindictive, who want to punish and ostracize, who want to create unnecessary melodrama, and who don't want to rationally discuss any solutions to the problems facing society.

 

[Stevicus]

We didn’t really censor anything after prime time. I haven’t watched free to air TV for a while, so maybe that’s changed. But man some of the movies I saw (particularly foreign movies) were pretty brutal and often unflinching. Made the Sopranos seem tame but I did watch that religiously as a kid too.
Also really random but I never understood how sometimes we were able to show things from HBO on free to air. Isn’t HBO in America a subscription channel?

I never really did watch The Sopranos. I might watch it at some point. I think censorship has gotten lax in more recent decades, so a lot of things they couldn't show when I was a kid are now on regular TV. As for showing things from HBO on regular TV, I guess it's a matter of whoever holds the copyrights and who's willing to pay for it.

When I was in junior high school, there was a TV miniseries called Holocaust, which was quite graphic for regular TV, and they ran warnings to viewers. But even then, it wasn't anywhere near as graphic as some of the later productions I've seen.

Oh really? Is that why you position yourselves as a superpower? I guess the popular notion I grew up with from media was that America just can’t resist getting into other people’s business. Even video games mock that. Though I acknowledge that it’s usually tongue in cheek, so I guess it’s just a bit of ribbing.

That may be true for America's ruling class, but most people aren't aware enough of the outside world to ever consider getting into other people's business all on their own. It's usually when the media start broadcasting stories about how some foreign leader in the world is "evil" and does all kinds of horrible things. When you start noticing more and more negative attention is paid to a particular country or faction, then you know the ruling class is priming the public to support another military action.

Oh, this is bringing back half remembered modern history classes. Forgive my haziness.

Like I said, politics isn’t really my forte. History isn’t either but it’s something I want to get into. I’m afraid I don’t know much about America before Bush Jr.
But I’m learning from this convo so I’m happy. For what it’s worth I don’t think people really see you guys like the “World Police.” I was kind of just kidding around.

"World Police" is kind of a misnomer anyway. A better analogy might be a bunch of mercenaries working as Mob enforcers, since most of what they do is for big business, not for the sake of the people, justice, or to enforce any actual laws.

Of course not. I’m saying that you guys couldn’t possibly hold similar ideas.
You know pretending that Hitler was so obviously evil that Americans simply could not be like him? Or did I misunderstand you?

Yeah, in a way, many Americans believe in American exceptionalism and that it's simply not possible for any kind of evil, despotic regime could come to power. I've seen this view most often whenever there's any discussion about conspiracy theories involving the CIA or the military; the most common argument used by those challenging conspiracy theories is that "this is America, our government would never do such a thing."

When we learnt about Hitler it was through the lens of “everyone is susceptible to propoganda and we should always call out whenever we see such repugnant ideas here. Lest we end up like the Germans.”
And “don’t think the allies were immune to racism or ethnic cleansing, they weren’t.”
So it was very clear from the start that the Allies weren’t necessarily the good guys, just probably less genocidal than Hitler overall. So just kind of “less bad, kinda.” To be fair this was in grade 8, so I assume some simplifications had to be made.
I recall my teacher even commented on how outdated the term the “Axis of Evil” was and made sure to be clear that she had to use the term simply for historical accuracy.

Americans have been conditioned to believe that our "system" is the be all and end all, that our system is so great that anything like Hitler could never happen. That's why many Americans are strict constitutionalists who believe that by remaining faithful to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, it can prevent any kind of tyranny from descending.

That's why, among other things, American courts have made a point of allowing Nazis the right to exercise their First Amendment rights like any other citizens - even if it means having to use a large police force to protect ten guys in brownshirts from a thousand people who want to tear them to shreds.

But despite that, many might still believe that the best way to protect our country and political system from those who would usurp it is by practicing our principles and remaining true to our stated political beliefs. Once we cross that line and say "it's okay to forcibly quash a particular idea, as long as that idea is repugnant enough," then we could end up going down a very slippery slope.

Or it is simply another consequence for being a dick?
I’m not actively pro censorship. I’m at best ambivalent on cancel culture, really.
But social and political consequences for “speech” isn’t anything new, right?

No, but it just depends on whether the response is measured enough and appropriate to the offense.

Case in point: Many years ago, a city official from Washington DC used a word at a public meeting which means "stingy" or "miserly." This particular word (I won't repeat it here, but you can look it up) shares two morphemes with another word, the "n-word," which is an extremely offensive racial epithet. The other word has a completely different root and etymology, yet they sound similar when uttered. This guy was attacked mercilessly as a racist and was forced to resign his position, although there were some politicians, including civil rights activist Julian Bond, who came to the guy's defense. Because reasonable, thinking people could see that this guy was being treated unfairly and the outraged reaction against him was stupid and irrational.

So, that's what you have to look at. Yes, there are social and political consequences for "speech," but that's a knife which cuts both ways. If the reaction and consequences seem too severe and inappropriate to the offense, then there could be a counter-reaction and "consequences for the consequences."

Ehh I think for kids it might need to be. Only to get them interested.

I don't think it got that many kids interested, at least in my experience. A lot of kids thought history was "booooring." Although a lot of guys were interested in battle tactics and military history. My history teacher in high school taught the Civil War, but focused mainly on the battles and strategies - like it was a game of chess or a football game. The actual causes and ideas were of secondary importance, but the battles were really cool.

One of the first war movies I saw (which kind of inspired me to study history more closely) was called To Hell and Back. It was with Audie Murphy, who played himself, the most decorated US soldier in WW2, and who started a career in acting after the war. It followed his own personal story, landing in Africa, then Sicily, Italy, and then southern France. The actual causes of the war weren't really addressed; they weren't part of the plot. The Germans were just a nameless, faceless enemy they were trying to overcome. The battles and the combat were the central part of the plot, but the actual ideas and causes of the fighting were not really mentioned.

How does one “Americanfy” a president getting shot exactly?

Not sure what you mean by "Americanfy," but JFK was a somewhat polarizing figure with some Americans. There were a lot of Americans who really hated Kennedy, whether because he was a liberal, a Catholic, and/or a supporter of civil rights. He was also lambasted as a womanizer and alleged to have Mob ties. Others have argued that he was a threat to the military-industrial complex and/or the CIA and their nefarious covert operations all over the world. It was also believed that he was too soft on communism and that he was not zealous enough in the eyes of those who were staunch anti-communists during the Cold War era. He was unfairly blamed for the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion.

After the assassination and the release of the Warren Report, a lot of people found reason not to believe the "official story" the government was trying to pass off on them. While there were many conspiracy theories which jumped all over the map, there was a general feeling that there was some kind of rogue element in the government and political system which routinely lies and doesn't play by the rules of ethical conduct. Later on, there were other assassinations which rocked the 60s, such as Malcolm X, MLK, RFK, along with other revelations such as the exposure of COINTELPRO, the Pentagon Papers, and ultimately culminating in Watergate and the resignation of Richard Nixon.

That may have led some people to believe that, however bad things had gotten, at least the system "worked" eventually, since Nixon was drummed out of office and so many misdeeds of our government were ultimately exposed (which still led doubters to wonder what they're not telling us). We were making vast reforms in civil rights, and women and people of color were breaking many barriers that were unthinkable a generation earlier. There was still a lot more work to do, and the economy was starting to frazzle a bit.

Wow geez.

If you're ever interested in a fascinating debate, you might want to look up forums which discuss the JFK assassination. There are essentially two camps, the CTers (conspiracy theorists) and the LNers (lone nutters, or those who believed Oswald acted alone). There was a time when I got caught up in that debate myself, on a now defunct message board which discussed the Oliver Stone movie JFK. I went in with an open mind, prepared to listen to both sides, but I looked at it more as an unknown, a mystery. I don't think anyone really knows if there really was a conspiracy or if Oswald really acted alone and no one else had any idea of what he would do.

I'm still somewhat neutral on the subject, although my experience has been that the LNers were far more intolerant and outright abusive than that CTers I've talked to.

Whoa there were conspiracy theories back then too? Well I guess that shouldn’t be surprising. But still wow.

I think there have always been conspiracy theories in some form or another for as long as recorded history. In America, there has also been a deep-seated mistrust of government and politicians, so it's easy to see how some people might be inclined to presume the worst. This might have come to a head during the Cold War and especially as the Vietnam War started to escalate. I think that people were starting to realize that they had been lied to, so that may have led them to try to study, learn, and discover what the "real truth" might actually be. Who's pulling the strings? Who decides what the people are allowed to know? Who benefits from the policies and activities of our government and military? Who's lying and who's telling the truth?

We were taught to question authority and to not take something at face value. If an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is. My grandfather was a salesman for 50 years, and he taught me the same thing about salesmen. That's something that many Americans do understand, or at least, we used to.

 

[Stevicus]

Isn’t that how most youthful movements are though?

Perhaps, although there are still consequences. The divisions within the Democratic Party hurt them politically, and that's how Nixon got elected in '68. It's how Trump got elected in '16. The hippies were a youthful movement during the 60s, but even they went awry. We ended up with Reagan in 1980, and that's when the country started going into an even stranger direction.

You guys seem to flip flop a lot.

I've often heard it compared to a pendulum which goes back and forth.

Well, I dunno. Perhaps. There will always be pushback against social change.

It depends on the goals, methods, and what actual changes someone wants to make.

Oh yeah. According to some they were deliberately boycotted by some of the radio stations at the time. So I’ve heard.
System of a Down’s BYOB (stands for Bring your own Bomb) was a particular favourite of mine in high school lol
There was also 21 Guns by Greenday. Rise Against did a few, Bad Religion, Bruce Springsteen, the Gorillaz, etc
Hell, even Fall Out Boy got in on the action.
Also if I’m not mistaken the Dixie Chicks were even cancelled by, I guess your right wing, or their conservative audience for speaking out against Bush. I vaguely remember that being on the news lol

If I recall correctly, the backlash against the Dixie Chicks was because they made those statements to a foreign audience, as if they were "apologizing" for America.

This relates to an earlier idea which came to prevalence around the time of the first Persian Gulf War back in 1990-91. The idea that we should "support the troops" no matter what, even if one disagrees with the war itself. It was still okay to question and criticize the politicians, but one should never disrespect the troops or what they're fighting for. A lot of this had been influenced by the experiences recounted by veterans of the Vietnam War who were spat upon and openly disrespected and derided just because they happened to be in the military during that war. That was their own version of "cancel culture" back in the day, but upon reflection, many expressed regret for taking attitudes which were hostile and harmful towards people who really didn't deserve it. So, by the time of the Gulf War, there was a general feeling of "okay, we won't diss the troops this time; we'll be nice to them, but we still hate Bush."

Maybe. Maybe it’s just social media amplifying it?

Possibly. Some of it may be due to an inability to spot agitators, particularly in anonymous forums associated with social media.

Wow I’m not well versed on American history lol

Actually, a lot of Americans aren't well-versed on their own history or geography or current political system. A lot of Americans can't even name their own senators or representatives to Congress.

Again I’m not terribly familiar with American history. I probably got most of my “American” information about the Vietnam war from Forrest Gump lol
I don’t really know Nixon outside of “I am not a crook.”

I did have occasion to befriend a number of Vietnam veterans, and they told me some things about the war and what it was like. A close friend of mine was a Seabee in Vietnam. I guess one might characterize his views as "right-wing" and even "conspiratorial" to some degree. Although he was very religious and a big believer in Bible prophecy. He also believed in UFOs. He hated politicians and the general ways and means of government. There were those who believed in the basic cause of the war, but they didn't approve the way the government was conducting the war.

Nixon was a fascinating fellow. He was really the first president I remember in active memory, at least as I started to learn what the president actually was and the basics of our political system.

 

[Tambourine]

You've got it reversed. The "performative rage" is from those who are vindictive, who want to punish and ostracize, who want to create unnecessary melodrama, and who don't want to rationally discuss any solutions to the problems facing society.

All those triggered upper class snowflakes who signed that open letter in your original post, yes.

 

[Stevicus]

All those triggered upper class snowflakes who signed that open letter in your original post, yes.

You still never clarified what you meant by "skin in the game" from your post #34. I've asked you for clarification numerous times, and you keep ducking the question. Essentially (unless you wish to clarify), you're saying that those with "skin in the game" should be exempted from demonstrating critical thinking, reason, or logic when they express themselves on political issues.

This is what got us on this side discussion, but every thing you've posted since then has been nothing but the same old unresponsive tirade.

At least, those who signed the open letter in the OP, at least they're trying to build bridges and open the lines of communication. That seems to me to be the first step towards resolving differences, but you don't want to do that? You just want to vent and complain without listening to any solutions or proposing any of your own.

 

[Tambourine]

At least, those who signed the open letter in the OP, at least they're trying to build bridges and open the lines of communication.

By telling their critics to shut up, and by shutting down valid avenues of critique such as boycots, public call outs, and deplatforming, all while pronouncing their supposed persecution from the platform of a major American publisher's flagship magazine. But at least, they did their best to open lines of communication among one another, and agreeing that public criticism and harassment are the same thing, and must end at once.

That seems to me to be the first step towards resolving differences, but you don't want to do that?

Shutting down their critics' speech has the habit of removing their critics' ability to respond, so I guess in a way you are correct - if one side has been removed from a conflict, their differences could be seen as having been "resolved".

You just want to vent and complain without listening to any solutions or proposing any of your own.

What solution is there to be found when we already dismiss one side of the discussion as "triggered upper class snowflake" whose grievances are not even worth discussing, let alone taking seriously?

It seems to me that you are simply put out by the fact that I consider your stance on this issue highly disagreeable, and are doing your best to paint my position as unreasonable and irrational while trying to hide that you simply do not consider the other side of the discussion as even worthy to include.

 

[Tambourine]

This relates to an earlier idea which came to prevalence around the time of the first Persian Gulf War back in 1990-91. The idea that we should "support the troops" no matter what, even if one disagrees with the war itself. It was still okay to question and criticize the politicians, but one should never disrespect the troops or what they're fighting for. A lot of this had been influenced by the experiences recounted by veterans of the Vietnam War who were spat upon and openly disrespected and derided just because they happened to be in the military during that war. That was their own version of "cancel culture" back in the day, but upon reflection, many expressed regret for taking attitudes which were hostile and harmful towards people who really didn't deserve it.

As far as I have found out, the idea that the anti-war movement was actively hostile towards military veterans may have been largely untrue, and might have been perpetuated by US right-wing politicians and media after the fact. It would make sense to me - after all, most of the soldiers who served in Vietnam were conscripts who had been drafted into the war against their will, and quite a few of them were likely active in the anti-war movement out of simple self preservation.

What the Vietnam War did change significantly was the way the US military approached its relationship to media and journalism. The 2nd Gulf War is significant here because it premiered the kind of highly curated, highly controlled content of militarily-supplied information that would become SOP for US war journalism all the way into the Iraq Occupation. It was only with the emergence of Al Jazeera as a genuine alternative to US war journalism that the narrative controlled by the US military would start breaking down. (One could argue that this played a role in the US centrist mainstream media's massive loss of credibility among the electorate, and the proliferation of alternate and anti-mainstream narratives).

(On a personal note, I actually started out in Media Studies between 9/11 and the start of the Iraq War (before I would eventually switch majors to Philosophy), so I vividly recall the academic discourse on the changing nature of war journalism that was fed by the prominence of embedded reporting during that time - which, as I said, broke down at the same time as people started taking Al Jazeera seriously as an alternate source of news from the war. I remember staying up late to watch CNN features of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

 

[Stevicus]

By telling their critics to shut up, and by shutting down valid avenues of critique such as boycots, public call outs, and deplatforming, all while pronouncing their supposed persecution from the platform of a major American publisher's flagship magazine. But at least, they did their best to open lines of communication among one another, and agreeing that public criticism and harassment are the same thing, and must end at once.

Who's telling whom to shut up, and who's shutting down valid avenues of critique? As far as I can tell, they were merely asking others to find other ways of expressing their disapproval, and maybe even sitting down to discuss their differences and grievances without having a chip on their shoulder. I don't see how that's so unreasonable, unless you like having a chip on your shoulder.

No one is saying you can't boycott anyone or call out anyone or deplatform anyone (depending on who the owner of the platform is). But I don't see how that opens up the lines of communication. It seems more like burning a bridge and stubbornly entrenching oneself. If you must do it, then go ahead, but I don't see how it's productive. I don't see how it helps anything.

Shutting down their critics' speech has the habit of removing their critics' ability to respond, so I guess in a way you are correct - if one side has been removed from a conflict, their differences could be seen as having been "resolved".

Who has been shut down? How have they been shut down? Maybe if you'd clarify what you mean or what you're referring to, we might be able to clear the air here.

What solution is there to be found when we already dismiss one side of the discussion as "triggered upper class snowflake" whose grievances are not even worth discussing, let alone taking seriously?

Well, I'm here, having the discussion, and asking you for more information and clarification, which you continually refuse to provide. I'm sorry that you're bothered by the "snowflake" remark; seriously, I didn't direct it against you at all.

If you have grievances, then I think they're worth discussing. But I think that's the whole point here, isn't it? If you truly have grievances against someone over what they might have said, then if you refuse to actually discuss it and instead try to boycott/cancel/deplatform, then it's as much as putting your finger in your ears and saying "La la la! I can't hear you!"

Again, no one is saying you can't do that, nor is anyone making any active effort to prevent you from doing that. But it also sends the message that the grievances are not worth discussing.

It seems to me that you are simply put out by the fact that I consider your stance on this issue highly disagreeable, and are doing your best to paint my position as unreasonable and irrational while trying to hide that you simply do not consider the other side of the discussion as even worthy to include.

I have no problem if you consider my stance on this issue highly disagreeable, but you don't even have the common courtesy to explain why in plain, understandable terms. That's the whole bottom line here: Communication.