The “MAGA people” were 14 year old boys on a school trip. Nobody should have been “taking them to task”.
The fact that he’s Native American is irrelevant. He didn’t “defuse” the situation. He made it worse (whether deliberately or through his own stupidity is unclear). Regardless, Nick Sandmann did nothing wrong.
I don’t think anybody knows what he supports now. Honestly, I wouldn’t blame him one bit for supporting Trump after how he was treated. I wouldn’t blame him for hating the left for the rest of his life. It’d be a perfectly normal, human reaction.
And that is why I said it had some merit, but the supreme court told him and others to pound sand.
Tought so, that is why it was omitted by your sources then, it is very relevant considering who were cancelled (murdered too) in the past.
Actually, the USA Today was updated with reports from 2024, he has done a lot of the right wing talk show rounds and as an adult now, he still likes to be seen as a snowflake.
I have discussed cancel culture with my partner, who grew up in the Soviet Union. There are aspects that worry him, but he’s a lot more worried about oppression coming from the right wing now. In his opinion, we’re a lot closer to what the Soviet Union was like now that the right is in power.
In democracies, the government is a representative of the people. Why exactly is it bad for ordinary people to censor speech via their vote in elections, but good for them to censor speech via social media mob? The government at least will give the accused a trial rather than assuming guilt, and has checks and balances to try to prevent tyranny of the majority.
And I’ll remind you again that ordinary Americans recently elected Trump. What does that imply about their collective judgement and ability to discern truth from falsehood? The delivery of consequences for actions was taken away from ‘the people’ and given to official representatives of the government - police and courts - for good reasons.
Coming back to the question of what should be cancel-worthy. Looking at the law in America is instructive: there are exceptions to the First Amendment, but they are not “things that are really bad, I know it when I see it”. There may be a question as to whether any individual act qualifies, but the exceptions themselves are defined: incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, defamation, obscenity, child pornography, fraud, and speech integral to illegal conduct. These aren’t fixed in stone: the Supreme Court can modify them or decide if some category should be added. But they do prevent a slippery slope and provide a coherent basis for debate. If I object to McCarthyism but think it’s fine to ban shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre, you are unlikely to say that means my position is not principled, or that we are merely disagreeing on degree of censorship.
Uh, I don’t think they are good reasons, based on the examples I posted already.
Based on the examples, it is clear to me that gross exaggerations of “the left sending people to the gulag” were more like making their lives a bit inconvenienced really. While the right is sending people to real gulags, not only for anti-migration bigotry, but also to suppress freedom of speech with almost all the full force of the government.
In recent weeks, several international university students have been taken by immigration agents or had their legal status questioned.
Turkish graduate student Rumeysa Öztürk was detained by masked agents in plainclothes as she walked to meet friends for dinner. She says she is being targeted over an op-ed about Gaza that she wrote in the Tufts University student newspaper.
Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil was arrested in his university housing despite being a legal permanent resident. He says he was taken over his peaceful protests against Israel’s war in Gaza.
I still don’t understand what you’re trying to say, or how it relates to what I’ve actually said. Are you saying it’s censorship if I say “that guy sucks and should shut his mouth”? Or if I convince others to agree? Or only if it’s organized? Or only if he doesn’t deserve it?
That’s fair enough. The US right is doing extremely concerning things, and it would be quite mad to vote for today’s Republican party, even if you object strongly to aspects of the left.
That doesn’t mean it’s no big deal to demand people watch every word they say forever, though. Two things can both be wrong.
(My idea of a ‘safe space’ is one where I am accepted as myself and don’t have to be constantly paranoid about accidentally offending someone and suffering unpredictable consequences. The diametric opposite of the modern social justice conception of a safe space. My problems are the result of autism, but I would hardly wish the same stress and uncertainty on everyone.)
If people boycott the business because they sincerely think the owner is a Nazi, But then it turns out that (a) he isn’t, and (b) there was never really any good reason to believe that he was, do you think a boycott of people who initiated the original boycott would be justified? Just curious.
I’d have to know more details, but in principle anyone can call for a boycott, for any reason at all, and try to convince others to take part based on their arguments.
If it’s hard, it’s because the word ‘Nazi’ is overused. If, by ‘Nazi’, you mean “A person who sincerely espouses key tenets of National Socialism including, but not limited to, ultranationalism, authoritarianism, and racial hierarchy “ then the answer is ‘Yes, obviously’. It’s the easiest question imaginable.
If, on the other hand, by ‘Nazi’ you mean “Voted for Trump”, then the answer is an equally obvious ‘No’, although there are plenty of people (some on this board) who’d absolutely disagree with that.
And if, on the third hand, you mean something different again, then the answer is ‘It depends’.
I recently worked in a role promoting DEI initiatives. Every single person I know in the DEI industry understands that inclusion includes everyone, even those with controversial opinions.
I fear that a very small group of people is hijacking this conversation for political purposes.
I know, for instance, that most of Target’s DEI initiatives weren’t actually DEI. They were using affirmative action, which is not a DEI principle. And it seems that the majority of the people who oppose DEI are actually opposed to affirmative action, which is a stance I agree with. But I also think that actual DEI initiatives are absolutely crucial to the survival of this country.
You fail to understand that that’s just a part of being human in society. Everyone has to watch what they say. You’re literally asking other people to watch every word they say forever so that you don’t have to do likewise.
I agree, it reminded of what John Greene said about why you need to learn history:
Student:
Mr. Green, Mr. Green! Is this going to be on the test?
Mr. Green:
Yeah, about the test… The test will measure whether you are an informed, engaged, and productive citizen of the world. It will take place in schools, bars, hospitals, dorm rooms, and places of worship.
You will be tested on first dates, in job interviews, while watching football, and while scrolling through your Twitter feed. The test will assess your ability to think about things beyond celebrity marriages, whether you’re easily swayed by empty political rhetoric, and whether you can see your life and your community within a broader context.
The test will last your entire life and will consist of millions of decisions that, when taken together, make your life uniquely yours.
The hypothetical was about a Nazi. Not a MAGA lunatic.
On that subject:
I regularly refuse to give money to MAGA businesses around here, as well, and encourage my associates who are also anti-MAGA to do the same. It would be easy to avoid my soft boycotts; allow me to get my oil changed or tires replaced WITHOUT shoving your odious views in my face, and I wouldn’t even know what your views are, and thus your business wouldn’t be impacted. This extends to electronically dangling your shit out in the world via social media; if Joe Schmo, the owner of Joe’s Tires, posts on Facebook (or nowadays, Nextdoor, which is becoming a real hive of scum and villainy around here) about his hatred of <insert group here>, I’m not going to be frequenting his tire shop.
In a land that worships the dollar, my loudest useful action is preventing those dollars from going to fund shitheads.