Saying that someone was rightfully canceled is just as bad as saying someone was wrongfully canceled-in and of itself the word “canceled” doesn’t tell us jack shit about what went down…unless, maybe, that person was killed.
TV shows are canceled-the actors are out of a job temporarily.
Broadway shows are canceled-stage crew and performers are out of a job temporarily.
Projects are canceled-the people assigned to them go do something else.
People, unless permanently removed from life, are not canceled.
So what then? What if millions of people still choose to participate there because they happen to prefer the environment that emerges under their unobjective and inconsistently-applied rules, in spite of not having “the prestige of a forum for public discourse”?
As relates to online forums, your position here seems to reduce to “everyone should be treated by objective rules, or it’s not a fair forum”, which is fine as far as it goes. But I’m not sure what conversation there is to be had, if the only force of the “should” is your judgment of whether these entities are fair.
And that’s why people keep asking what legal framework applies or ought to apply here, because if this is a doctrine with no teeth, no consequence except your judgment of whether a forum properly qualifies as an avenue of public discourse, then it’s just your own personal ideal, with no really compelling reason for us to elevate it above any other theory of rights.
Because you wouldn’t want to lose it arbitratily.
I am highlighting how your attempts to change the definition of words makes no sense, yes.
A right is something that you inherently have and requires due process to remove. A privilege is something granted and can be removed for any or no reason. You don’t want to lose your driver’s license or posting privileges through no fault of your own, so we often grant privileges contingent on good behavior and rules as to what that good behavior is, but that doesn’t make them rights.
The problem is that people have taken some of these privileges for granted for so long, that they think that they have a right to them, that they are inherent rights that should require due processes to remove, and that removing them for anything short of illegal acts is a violation of their rights.
And your other contention is completely incorrect as well. No one here thinks that it’s only a right if it’s in the constitution, that’s pure straw. There are a number of rights, like the right to vote, the right to use public accommodations without discrimination, the right to housing and employment without discrimination, and so on that are not in the constitution. Some have been codified into legislation, and some should be, but even if the government isn’t recognizing it, many of us still think it is a right, it’s simply a right that the government doesn’t yet recognize, and we will work to try to change that.
Now, there are some people on the right who would challenge that. I seem to remember Bricker would often ask, “Where in the Constitution does it give the right to vote?” or other such nonsense, indicating that he certainly didn’t believe in any rights not on that ancient piece of parchment. But I don’t think that that’s the position of anyone in this thread, so to claim that it is is simply wrong on your part.
So, you have a right to speak whatever you want (with a few exceptions). But, you don’t have a right to a platform, you don’t have a right to an audience, and you don’t have a right to be free from consequence from what you said. If you lose your platform and audience because of the things that you have said, your rights have not been violated.
You are incorrect, Sir. According to the renowned constitutionalist Chuck D, we must party for the right to fight.
If I were to put a label on this, the real problem as it were, I would call it “platform culture.” That is, the problem isn’t cancel culture per se, it’s the idea that people who already have a platform are entitled to maintain it, irrespective of how bad their behavior or how toxic the ideology they spew from their platform may be. Platform culture.
I stopped reading Dilbert some time before they took away his curled tie, I must have sensed something wrong was coming I could not identify at the time.
Gotta give this to SDMB: “rabbit holes” or “nuh-huh v. yeah-huh” dammit-let-me-have-the-last-word debate loops at the Dope tend to have a lot more substance than in other sites and lead you to interesting places.
ISTM that also includea an element of having created a dependency on the expectation of having a “platform”.
In old media times, “having a platform” was a rare privilege. Oh sure, everyone could haul a soapbox out to Speakers’ Corner at the park, or convince the newsstand owner to let you put a few copies of your mimeographed zine in the rack next to the porn. But a serious platform where you could be seen and heard by many far and wide and become actually influential, was rare. And it was not unknown to lose it so you were careful to not risk it unless the cause was really worth it. But in the end, in the old time, being “canceled” was clearly an individual thing: a breaking of a business relationship, being be told to go find some other publisher/media outlet to work with.
FFW to 2023 and now everybody has a platform and followers and follows a hundred “influencers” from world rulers to TikTokers (and dreams of being one of them), and it is assumed that somehow having a wide-reaching platform is an essential part of being a living, working, figure, how can you deprive someone of that… and being “canceled” is redefined as some sort of unthinkable holistic ostracism being impossed on the whole of the putz class.
Adams, curiously, should know better since he came up through the ranks of traditional media, with publishers and editors and syndicates who could have just told him to keep his day job. He should know he was not owed continued status, and he himself stated re: his cancellation by the syndicate that he in fact understood, yes, that is a business decision. Of course he then turned around to sing from the standard hymnbook, that yes it was a business decision but only caused by fear of the “woke” mob. What can you do, some people…
A bit of schadenfreude for you to revel in.
It looks like he let his domain expire and it got snapped up by a cyber squatter who’s probably wanting a hefty chuck of change to return it.
Interestingly, my company’s firewall now blocks it. Not sure if it’s because of the recent racism or because of the cyber squatting.
Looks like Scott Adams still owns it.
I assume he just changed it so that it points to other things he is into.
That used to have his daily comic – has it been totally dropped and he’s not writing it anymore?
Looks like he’s gone to a subscription model.
I was kind of wondering. With Adams’ phiz and links to others in his interest, it looked like he still owned it. Squatters have random links (Refinance your mortgage now) and a way to contact them about buying the domain.
I’m thinking you’re probably correct. I’m not going to sign up for an account to find out if it’s free or not.
Well, I’m done with him. I was annoyed by his latest shenanigans, but still read Dilbert because I still found it funny. But when I saw this page today, I threw up my hands. I refuse to indulge the bozo anymore.
He is advertising his subscription comic, Dilbert reborn, as a “spicier” Dilbert Somehow I’m reminded of Bender. “You don’t want me in your comic syndicate, I’ll just build my own syndicate with Blackjack and Hookers!”
Specifically, it redirects to his LinkTree, which is a place where a creator can put all the links to their various projects and/or social media. It was a convenient way to give a single link if you didn’t have your own website or similar.
You have to love Cody Johnston.
Of course in the spicy Dilbert universe he gets tossed from the blackjack table for counting cards and the pointy-haired pimp delivers only shrill feminist hookers.
Who ever thought of Dilbert, “This would be funnier with more racism and sex jokes”?
Andrew Dice Clay?