Yep. But the right does not want consequences for their actions. They want to be able to grab women’s privates, etc. “They let you do it when you’re rich”. This is what they aspire to.
They don’t want “Free Speech”. They want “Consequence Free Speech”
It’s less work than learning from people who draw actual funny comics such as:
That was actually the cartoon I had in mind when I made my post.
That’s basically what cancel culture is, though. The debate shouldn’t be about whether cancel culture is good; it should be about when cancelling someone is appropriate.
Scott Adams should be hung around the neck of everyone who complains about cancel culture.
But would he curl outwards?
Doubt it. Elon is an African-American.
Never fear, on today’s podcast he tries to de-escalate and soften his stance.
Oh, wait…
“Again, it’s nothing to do with any individual, and no discrimination involved here. I’m just saying: as a personal, career decision, you should absolutely be racist whenever it’s to your advantage and that’s for men, for women, for Black or white, Asian or Hispanic. Every one of you should be open to making a racist career decision.”
Yes, they don’t believe in free speech, civil rights, or equality in general. They believe that they’re entitled to special privileges and other people aren’t giving them those. They see themselves as aristocrats and they’re annoyed that all of us peasants aren’t bowing properly.
I wonder if Alex Jones will have him on in order to have another chance to look the reasonable person in the room.
So, as long as racism benefits the racist, racism is fine. Alrighty then.
You know, I — honestly have no idea what you two are talking about. When I talk with right-wing folks, they sound like they don’t want Consequence Free Speech; they’re fine with, and want, consequences for speech. And, speaking as someone who is pretty right-wing: I don’t want Consequence Free Speech in general, just like I’m fine with the consequences ensuing for Adams in particular.
Am I doing it wrong?
Then why are they always complaining when speech results in consequences?
I believe that some speech should result in negative consequences from me, and that some speech shouldn’t — and so, when I come across a case I think is the former, I act accordingly as to consequences; and when I come across a case I think is the latter, I’m happy to (a) make clear that I don’t see it as one of the former, as well as to (b) argue as to why.
Near as I can tell, they — do likewise, I guess?
Well, there is a test of that here now, do you think that what Scott Adams is saying now does deserve consequences, or not?
Yes, I do.
Thanks, I really don’t like it when many do discussions for pages before clarifying that.
I think you’re outside of the right wing mainstream. Most right wingers nowadays believe that they personally should be free from consequences for their speech and actions. But they don’t believe that other people should have the same consequence free lifestyle.
If a teacher wants to teach the wrong curriculum, the law should prohibit that. If a woman wants to have an abortion, the law should prohibit that. If you want to ban armed people from coming on to your property, the law should prohibit that. If your ancestors came to this country a hundred years ago, the law should prohibit people from doing the same thing today - especially if those people are coming from a different country than your ancestors came from. If black people want to protest on a public street, the police should break it up. If the police don’t break it up, you should be free to go to the protest and shoot some protestors. And if black people aren’t protesting, you and your buddies should be free to grab your guns and drive around town looking for a black guy you can shoot because you think he’s trespassing. If you don’t like who got elected President, you should be free to riot in the capital. And after you riot, you should be allowed to go home and not be arrested - because you’re a white guy who tired to overthrow the government not a black guy protesting against police brutality.
Jeanine Pirro said Parler losing support from companies after being heavily involved in the January 6 insurrection attempt was “censorship”.
MTG claimed she was being attacked by a “cancel culture mob” from her position in the House of Representatives, in front of a packed press conference.
Countless people on the right have claimed being kicked off Twitter for deliberately violating their rules is cancel culture.
You seem to be carefully averting your eyes from the glaring victim culture on the right.
Don’t know if this is a consequence, but I suspect it is: the Oregonian has dropped Dilbert. The replacement is Frazz.
Googling, I find the Oregonian is not alone:
If they were a decent newspaper they would have been carrying Frazz anyway. They only get half a point for dropping Dilbert.