Vice? Or sin?
Semantics. You wanted it to change from an Apartheid government to a non-Apartheid government; you didn’t want to abolish government in South Africa in general (I assume).
Whenever I hear these “headlines” given, once the whole story comes out, it’s not nearly as simple as it is made to be. There’s a reason why these accusations are made vague and uncited, isn’t there?
No, sophistry on your part. We wanted to end the Apartheid government. We ended the Apartheid government. What it’s replaced with doesn’t signify, any more than if I boycott Chick-Fil-A, it closes and a KFC pops up in its place.
Yes. Same as the math and music stuff above.
No. Is this something that anyone is actually advocating for?
I’m not sure why you put racism in quotes, and I’m not sure why you have chosen to make the assertion that you have in your “question”.
It certainly is being a jerk, considering other human beings to be lesser than you based on their skin color. But it’s not unforgivable by any means. Depending on how much damage one has done with their racism, forgiveness may be hard to win, and sincerity may be questioned, but people can accept that people change. I’m sure that there will be some who will never forgive, but singling them out is simply nutpicking, not making any sort of useful point.
As am I. But don’t we as a collective society have some say? Explain to me why I can’t put up a billboard featuring child pornography without accepting that there are some things that are “arbitrarily” considered to be not in good taste.
Unless you think that I should be allowed to put up such billboards, then we agree that there are some things that society shouldn’t allow. Now we are just debating where that line is.
That’s a good definition for the right to use as a boogieman, but not one that actually reflects reality very well at all.
cite?
He’s talking about that kid in the MAGA hat who, it was reported, was screaming at some Native American person. That story fell apart, but I think there were people here saying that the kid had a punchable face, and so on.
He said that members of this board threatened him with physical violence.
Either he is talking about a different incident, or he’s not remember this one very accurately.
I have no doubt that some members of this board where talking about hitting that kid in the Pit thread. If I can find the thread, I’ll PM you.
This thread does bring forth in some of its posts part of what the “real problem” involves: the loss of the notion of nuance and of that Case X might be different and worse than Case Y and thus merit a different reaction; the rise of bothsidesism and itsallthesameism and the repeated playing the hypocrisy card to the point it has lost meaning.
Were they saying that he has a punchable face, or actually threatening violence against him, as was claimed?
I think that Denis Leary has a punchable face as well, but that doesn’t mean that I’d actually hit him.
I think this is a hijack that really doesn’t need to be discussed here. I’m not sure why anyone lets these threads get hijacked by vague, uncited claims about both sides anyway.
If it’s a hijack to make vague unsupported claims, then sure, mayhap they shouldn’t make them.
But asking someone to back their vague unsupported claims seems reasonable.
Ultimately, for most people, cancel culture all comes down to whether it’s for your team or not.
I’m reminded of the words of conservative blogger Matt Walsh: Two years ago he said that if you block traffic to protest, you’re an asshole, period, but in recent days he has said that he supports the Ottawa truckers because “It’s not complicated. I support blocking when it’s for a good cause and oppose when it’s for a bad cause. Simple as that.”
^^^^ this. Loudly and repeatedly, this.
I think that this oversimplifies pretty much everything that has been said, and ignores the rest.
We know that conservatives have no problem with hypocrisy, especially if they can tu quoque it and blame their hypocrisy on liberals.
Or - and here’s a crazy idea - we could use nuance and context when we address issues like this, and not act like we can’t recognize the difference between Mark Twain using the word in Huck Finn, and Michael Richards screaming the word in rage at an audience member.
Well, as a queer guy. when I’m talking to someone I don’t know, it’s nice to have some sort of gauge on how safe it is for me to mention that I’m queer. If someone’s sporting a pride sticker on their laptop, it’s probably okay for me to mention that I have a boyfriend. Marking your pronouns in Outlook provides a similar cue to trans people. This is, in the literal sense of the term, “virtue signaling” - you’re literally signaling that you have a particular virtue, so that people know you’re okay to be around - but I don’t think the motive here deserves the pejorative implication of the term.
Does it become less of a virtue signal if the hipster in question is Black? And either way, why is that a bad thing?
I hate Virtue signaling when it’s brought up apropos of nothing.
If you’re on a podcast about playing Dungeons and Dragons don’t randomly start lecturing me to support my local Chinese food restaurant because of racism against Asians. Not only does it have no real point, you’re also talking to an audience who odds are isn’t in the middle of of boycotting their local Chinese food restaurant. It does nothing except artificially inflate your own ego.
Is that something that happens, or is that just a random example that you made up?