🐱 Make Them Say Exactly What is Being Canceled

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
CatParty


Free speech on the political right is a grift, and here’s how it works.

First, you take something like the Dr. Seuss estate deciding to remove six books with racist depictions of people of color from future publication. Then, you ignore the content of what led to the decision in the first place, leaning heavily only on the name of the beloved children’s author and imply that more wholesome content (Tucker Carlson chose The Sneetches) is under general attack. Having buried the original point, you are now free to make the discussion about whether something can be said instead of what was actually said. Libs owned, repeat ad infinitum.

There are some very salient criticisms of cancel culture. Extremely online people use it as justification for large scale harassment campaigns against random nobodies because it’s frankly easier to elicit a reaction from them than getting a celebrity or politician to notice you. It’s also led to a lot of cannibalism within marginalized communities. Far too many people are looking to have an epic burn tweet end up in a Buzzfeed article.

That said, criticism from the right about canceling is almost always framed as a censorship issue. It’s not because it’s true. After all, calling someone a racist asshole is in fact protected speech as well. It’s because it puts liberals on the defensive.

Governor Greg Abbott recently has expressed support of Senate Bill 12, a nonsensical piece of garbage legislation from Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Tyler) that would somehow keep social media companies from demonetizing or banning Texans for political speech companies feel goes against their terms of service. It’s part of the long-running delusion conservatives have that their voices are being censored on social media over mere opinions that aren’t politically correct.

No one is being banned for conservative speech. Former President and current Florida Man Donald Trump didn’t lose his Twitter account because he advocated eliminating the minimum wage or returning to the gold standard. He lost it because he was pathologically unable to stop screaming outright lies about a stolen election to millions of followers, some of whom later stormed the U.S. Capitol with apparent intent to kill or capture sitting members of Congress and/or his own vice president.

Like the Dr. Seuss discussion, conservatives only want to talk about the fact that something is no longer being said in the public sphere, not what was actually the subject under discussion. It’s easy to defend Trump or any number of other grifters and conspiracy theorists when they are merely one side of the political spectrum being. It’s far harder to justify outright lies, racist comments, and possible threats.

The best way to win that conversation is to not have it in the first place and accuse the rest of the world of silencing their constitutionally protected opinions. Problem is, it’s not their opinions. They’re just wrong. The depictions in those Dr. Seuss books involve drawing Africans as monkeys and East Asians as offensive stereotypes. Any reasonable person would agree they are racist. How good a person Seuss became later or how progressive other books he wrote are is really immaterial. This is not about the soul of a man long dead and gone to his reward. It’s about what sort of images we want children to have in their heads when they peruse the school library going forward.

If you insist on arguing with free speech grifters (a damn fool thing to do, but here I am, too), never let the conversation descend into generalities. Shove Seuss’ art in their faces and ask, “are you comfortable with kids seeing this specific image?” When they lament that their favorite fearmongering alt-right personality is no longer welcome on social media, demand to know if they are okay with what they said. Make them take a stand on the subject at hand.

Whether conservatives want to admit it or not, these are conversations about content, not rights. As our general understanding of the dangers of unchecked bigoted speech and misinformation becomes better, more and more individuals will exercise their choice to not host those things within their spheres of influence. That isn’t the death of conservatism, unless you want to admit that conservatism offers little beyond lies and liberal tears these days.
 
why are you against a family, that owns some book rights, deciding to no longer publishing a book they don't want to
I am and always have been 100% opposed to copyright passing to families or estates. Copyright is already fucked, but at the very least it should end with the death of the author. At that point, it should be public domain.

as far as social media, once they start applying their “terms of service” equally to everyone all the time, then I’ll have no issues with them enforcing them. But if they can’t do that, then they shouldn’t be be allowed to enforce them at all.
 
To some extent I agree with you - like with the NFL or Gilette, if you anger enough people so much that they’re willing to change their shopping/viewing habits then clearly there is a problem that needs to be fixed.

What shouldn’t be allowed (by any group) is the idea that 2 or 3 people looking to stir up trouble, or some leader of a group can essentially decide, by fiat, to just shut down anyone they don’t like or disagree with.
What I'm saying is might makes right.
 
Conservatives and Trumpers had no problem with cancel culture when they wanted to cancel the NBA this past summer or the NFL a few years ago when Colin Kaepernick was kneeling during the anthem. They're just seething and dilating now because racist stuff is getting removed and that makes them assblasted
This is nonsensical.
 
Was watching a documentary a week or so ago, mostly about the Boxer Rebellion, and it had some pictures taken of early 1900s Chinese street life.

The Dr Seuss illustrations are similar to what that era of Chinese people actually looked and dressed like. Complete with queue ponytail. Chinese history actually has massacres of people for not having the government-mandated hairstyles. That might be too uncomfortable for twitterati baizuo to acknowledge though.
Yeah, I don't understand why an *outdated* portrayal is now a "racist" portrayal. The two are very different things.

"Make them say exactly what is being canceled"

Pepe le pew, Speedy Gonzales and Dr. Seuss...?
Obviously, they want to shame people into "admitting" that what is being "cancelled" is 'racism' and 'sexism', and who in good conscience could be against cancelling either of those things? [/sarcasm]

Problem is, how they're defining/misdefining those terms.

EDIT: Thank you kind mod for fusing my unintentionally double posts. <3
 
Última edición:
Obviously, they want to shame people into "admitting" that what is being "cancelled" is 'racism' and 'sexism', and who in good conscience could be against cancelling either of those things? [/sarcasm]

Problem is, how they're defining/misdefining those terms.
It has nothing to do about racism. It's a shit test to weed out non submissives.
 
"That isn’t the death of conservatism, unless you want to admit that conservatism offers little beyond lies and liberal tears these days."

Cry me a river of liberal tears, Jef, for they feed my very soul and give me the lulz I so desperately need.
(Yet another liberal neckbeard idiot journo. He's more than a professional annoyance, he's a tard.)

Ver archivo adjunto 1985117

Ver archivo adjunto 1985118

Guaranteed he's not qualified to write about any of those things. And he looks like a crappy bass player in a pay to play bar band. :lol:
 
This is nonsensical.
How so?

as far as social media, once they start applying their “terms of service” equally to everyone all the time, then I’ll have no issues with them enforcing them. But if they can’t do that, then they shouldn’t be be allowed to enforce them at all.
Well, maybe if Trump didn't use Twitter to incite a bunch of his cult to try and overturn the election results and then violate the TOS by lying about election fraud to send said retard cult into a frenzy, he wouldn't have gotten banned. You break the TOS, you can get banned. That's the breaks.
 
Última edición:
Conservatives and Trumpers had no problem with cancel culture when they wanted to cancel the NBA this past summer or the NFL a few years ago when Colin Kaepernick was kneeling during the anthem. They're just seething and dilating now because racist stuff is getting removed and that makes them assblasted
I dont want any of that canceled. I'm not a conservative nor a Trumper. I am just someone who can recognize the bad news that cancel culture is.
 
I dont want any of that canceled. I'm not a conservative nor a Trumper. I am just someone who can recognize the bad news that cancel culture is.
It's always been going on, though, and it always will. It's human nature to not support something when they don't like the values of the person who runs it
 
Yeah, I don't understand why an *outdated* portrayal is now a "racist" portrayal. The two are very different things.

I think that's one of the scummiest fucking things about this. It's not just that it's not proppah, or accurate, or nice now, it's that it was allegedly ALWAYS wrong. "They" just didn't know it yet. Which is, of course fucking bullshit!

The Disney faggots who put a disclaimer in front of The Muppets make plain the delusion involved with this mindset. "These sterotypes were wrong then-" Bitch, no they fucking weren't. This time-travel moralizing is cancerous and ahistorical.
 
Conservatives and Trumpers had no problem with cancel culture when they wanted to cancel the NBA this past summer or the NFL a few years ago when Colin Kaepernick was kneeling during the anthem. They're just seething and dilating now because racist stuff is getting removed and that makes them assblasted
There's a vast difference. Kapernick and the NBA were merely called pieces of shit; nobody on the Right wanted them utterly erased from the face of the earth.

(Also, Kapernick started getting political as a smokescreen for the fact that he sucked and was on the brink of getting cut from the team. So he quit, then cried foul that nobody would take him).
 
What is this? The fifth article denying cancel culture? Guess now that their guy won, time to stuff the genie back in the bottle.
 
It's always been going on, though, and it always will. It's human nature to not support something when they don't like the values of the person who runs it
That isn't what cancel culture looks like to me. People aren't even allowed to talk after being "cancelled". It used to simply be that no one would listen to them, but now it removes one's ability to even communicate.
 
How so?


Well, maybe if Trump didn't use Twitter to incite a bunch of his cult to try and overturn the election results and then violate the TOS by lying about election fraud to send said retard cult into a frenzy, he wouldn't have gotten banned. You break the TOS, you can get banned. That's the breaks.
I didn’t say anything about Trump, Mr. Rent-Free. How about the Washington Post getting banned for reporting on Biden’s laptop? How about what’s his face getting banned for calling Carlos Mazza a faggot?

If using the term “faggot” violates TOS, then everyone using it should be banned. If insulting people is against TOS then everyone insulting people should be banned. Otherwise, the TOS appears to be “if you offend people we like, you get banned”. Which is not applying the TOS equally.
 
There's a vast difference. Kapernick and the NBA were merely called pieces of shit; nobody on the Right wanted them utterly erased from the face of the earth.

(Also, Kapernick started getting political as a smokescreen for the fact that he sucked and was on the brink of getting cut from the team. So he quit, then cried foul that nobody would take him).
I've always maintained that if Kapernick was any good he would still be playing today, regardless of his politics. The NFL will overlook anything if the player is talented.
why are you against a family, that owns some book rights, deciding to no longer publishing a book they don't want to
Canceled = erased
Boycott = choosing not to support or engage; product/service still exists

Why would the family of Dr. Seuss pull those books? Because they've seen what happens to products and companies if they don't bend the knee in some way--they're erased. Better to sacrifice a few books for the sake of dozens that have had a positive, iconic effect on several generations.
Well, maybe if Trump didn't use Twitter to incite a bunch of his cult to try and overturn the election results and then violate the TOS by lying about election fraud to send said retard cult into a frenzy, he wouldn't have gotten banned. You break the TOS, you can get banned. That's the breaks.

Let's not pretend these companies don't hide behind TOS like it's their mother's skirt. There's garbage galore on social media but the only ones that TOS seems to apply to are people who aren't drinking the leftist kool-aid.
 
I didn’t say anything about Trump, Mr. Rent-Free. How about the Washington Post getting banned for reporting on Biden’s laptop? How about what’s his face getting banned for calling Carlos Mazza a faggot?

If using the term “faggot” violates TOS, then everyone using it should be banned. If insulting people is against TOS then everyone insulting people should be banned. Otherwise, the TOS appears to be “if you offend people we like, you get banned”. Which is not applying the TOS equally.
If people don't report the people using it, then how is Twitter to know? Plenty of right-wingers don't get banned for saying "faggot", either. I am assuming you were referring to Trump getting banned from Twitter because that's typically what you assmad right-wingers are whining about these days when it comes to Twitter

There's a vast difference. Kapernick and the NBA were merely called pieces of shit; nobody on the Right wanted them utterly erased from the face of the earth.

(Also, Kapernick started getting political as a smokescreen for the fact that he sucked and was on the brink of getting cut from the team. So he quit, then cried foul that nobody would take him).
Not true at all. Plenty of conservatives were calling the NFL to get cancelled by networks and things like that. Plenty were calling to cancel The Lorax, too, when it was pro-environmentalism back in 2012.

Yeah, Kaepernick was going to be cut until he did that, but doesn't affect what I say.
 
"We don't like what you're doing, and don't plan to spend further time or money with your goods or services".


"We don't like what you're doing, and we're finding out every single one of your customers/fans/followers that expresses discontent, so we can so we can brand them as racists and call their employers to get them fired from jobs unrelated to what we don't like that you're doing. Then we're going to scream at every business or individual up and downstream of what you're doing to get THEM to drop you by calling you/your thing racist. As a bonus, if you ever do anything again, we're going to follow you around doing this forever until you stop doing things, such as breathing.

Oh, and we'll have beardos in every corner of the media carrying water for this, and if you still won't stop, I hope you don't like money, because we're cutting you off from banking. But remember this is just "consequences for your actions".


These things are definitely equivalent. :story:

And the most insidious part is that once it happens enough, people are falling over themselves to suck off these totalitarian freakshows and ask how high to jump before anyone says anything. You know, kind of like how the fucking mafia works, rather than a civilized society founded on the principles of free speech and "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it".
 
Atrás
Top Abajo