Let’s see some specific quotes, then, because I’m pretty sure you’re (once again) mischaracterizing my words.
It was only ever possible to give some people the illusion of speech without consequences by suppressing the free speech of others.
That really seems more like it’s up to his friends, doesn’t it? Don’t they have any agency?
Yes, i can’t make anyone boycott him.
Endorsing boycotts and doxxing:
(‘they’ referring to “boycotts, doxxing, and other actions aimed at censoring ideas Andy disapproves of, and punishing anyone who tries to speak about them”, and no, we do not agree here.)
On ‘ordinary people’ having the power to censor:
I’m not going to continue to talk in circles with you. If you are just doing to keep saying you don’t understand, and denying what you’ve repeatedly said yourself, then we are done here.
Cite for this bullshit. Just utter bullshit. When have I ever said that any idea I disapprove of should result in boycotts and doxxing?
If you’re going to continue to grossly mischaracterize my words, then I agree that we’re done.
Almost all of that ire was manufactured by the right. And nowadays the right-wing in power continues to show that bigotry was the end result of the cancellation of a procedure that helped women, the disabled and minorities (that had merit) to be a part of the workplace.
The crusade against women and minorities that the U.S. government has unleashed since Donald Trump’s inauguration as president is doing incalculable harm to government and public service. The “anti-DEI” campaign is turning into a witch hunt against anyone who has embraced the idea—and government policy until January—that a more representative government is better equipped to address the country’s rapidly expanding challenges. This notion does not contradict the idea of meritocracy but rather is a way of ensuring that institutions and organizations harness additional, untapped talent. Starting in the first Trump administration, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts were launched to ensure that women and minorities have an equal chance to compete for jobs and promotions. Just as tariffs are immensely destructive to American livelihoods and prosperity, the DEI witch hunt, if not quickly halted, will deprive the government of expertise and experience and cause the next generation to shun public service.
And the bigotry? By their fruits you should know them, when they cancel many other items that had little to do with DEI, but they are more related to the bigotry that is a big part of their efforts.
The Trump administration has rescinded a historic settlement designed to improve wastewater treatment services for residents in majority-Black communities in Lowndes County, Alabama, where inadequate infrastructure has long led to raw sewage exposure.
On Friday, April 11, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the termination of the 2-year-old agreement made with the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) under the Biden administration, describing it as an “illegal DEI and environmental justice policy.”
And they would be what exactly?
Yeah, I’m sort of confused about the whole, “Don’t cancel people for views that are inside the Overton Window” dictat, because… how would that even be possible? If an idea is solidly in the middle of the Overton window, meaning about 50% of people support the idea, and 50% of people oppose it, how exactly do I make them into a social pariah? Half the people agree with them!
I think, to some, canceling is magically powerful, and can’t be defeated by normal, mortal means.
Fair question. One answer is that US society is very polarised. You couldn’t cancel a conservative talk radio presenter no matter how awful his views, because you are not his audience, you aren’t likely to be in his social circle or to live next door to him; your lives barely intersect. But a liberal university professor is in much more danger, even though the opinions she might share are only mildly right of other liberals, because she is in a profession dominated by people with left of centre views, and the same type of people likely make up her friends and neighbours.
Conversely, the talk radio host is in danger of being cancelled by conservatives, perhaps if he criticises Trump, while the professor is free to disparage him without consequence.
The unfortunate result of this is to make society even more polarised, as those with less ideologically aligned views are often at most risk.
The other factor is a “loudest voices” one. If a bunch of activists start a campaign, email someone’s boss etc, then a business may panic and fire the offending employee, even though it would have quickly blown over because the majority did not care. But this also makes other people reluctant to speak out, and can even lead to a false consensus - maybe only broken when people are free to express their real opinion in the privacy of the voting booth.
California professor arrested by ICE
“According to some reports, Caravello was trying to dislodge a tear gas canister that was stuck underneath someone’s wheelchair when he was taken into custody. However, Essayli alleges Caravello was arrested for throwing a canister.”
It’s hard to take hypothetical concerns like yours seriously when the actual danger is coming from the right.
See, this seems really unlikely. What business would fire a good employee over some kerfuffle that would would blow over quickly? Do you think employers are somehow uniquely stupid?
Well, some…
Huh - my actual lived experience is the exact opposite - I lived under the extremely censorious Apartheid regime, yet I and many others here are extremely grateful for our post-Apartheid speech laws, especially the ones around crimen injuria. Because we know (through that lived experience) that some words are violence.
Western democracies were (are) giant, flaming hypocrites about it.
Firstly: older. I wouldn’t call him old. Just much older than her.
Secondly - who said anything about concluding his guilt in that exchange? We were discussing the balance of probabilities of someone being abusive to their partner. In which case the stats clearly speak to where those probabilities actually lie, not where wolfpup would like them to be. They was the one appealing to probability here ,I was just responding.
Who said anything about where I would like them to be? I don’t know either Dysktra or Hardwick and I don’t have a “like” here. I was using this case as an example of how cancel culture, through the power of social media, allows just one single person to destroy another’s career, and the victim typically has no recourse. Libel is very difficult to prove, especially in the US, and especially in real-life circumstances that are often nuanced.
But what are these “stats [that] clearly speak to where those probabilities actually lie”? Is it just that some men are abusive? I’m sure you don’t really want to go down that road. I could show you crime statistics, for example, organized by race, by type of crime, and by age category. There are clear patterns there, but if that tells you anything about the likelihood that a particular individual probably is (or is not) guilty, that is the dictionary definition of prejudice – literally, pre-judging someone irrespective of specific facts.
What I’m focused on here, which you apparently are not, is what can be factually said about the sequence of events. First, Dykstra writes an essay containing allegations considered serious enough that two television networks and a website immediately sever all association with Hardwick. According to Wikipedia, all three – AMC, NBC, and the website Nerdist – launch independent investigations. Dysktra refused to have anything to do with any of them. Following the investigations, all three organizations independently reinstated Hardwick.
Those are the raw facts. We don’t know any more than that about what really went down between Dykstra and Hardwick, but those are the facts on which I base my assessment of probabilities, as indeed it seems that those three entities did, too. If Hardwick were actually the sort of sexual predator that Dykstra tried to describe, he’d likely do it again. The harm that this would do to the carefully managed image of the organizations that reinstated him would be immeasurable.
That’s the basis of my reasoning that Dykstra’s essay, on the balance of probabilities, was not considered very credible by those who investigated it. The basis of your reasoning is not clear, but it appears to be an irrelevant and prejudicial application of broad statistics.
Well, you DO know that Hardwick is a W#ite m#le, so statistically speaking he’s a lying rapist. Or something.
You didn’t need to make a conclusion or “assessment of probabilities” at all. You know pretty much nothing about what really happened with any certainty, just like everyone but those personally involved.
You chose to cast aspersions and make negative implications against a woman who, factually speaking, did nothing more than write about her version of her own experiences. IMO you shouldn’t do that. No one should. You made the choice and now you’re being criticized for it.