They had Frazz in the online edition, but not in the dead tree edition. They’ve now moved it to the paper edition so everyone gets it.
OK - another half point because I’m feeling generous today.
You might be right; or you might just be basing your impression of “most right wingers nowadays” on the ones who shout the loudest or act the looniest or get talked about most in the news and social media. Without somehow obtaining a statistically unbiased sample, or at least paying way more attention to a way larger swath of right-wingers than I want to, I don’t feel at all qualified to say how “most right-wingers” think.
I must be, because you go on to say stuff that strikes me as equally weird. Take, say, this: “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” — I don’t feel that way, and I can assure you that the right-wingers I talk with express the exact opposite sentiment.
Atamasama says: “Countless people on the right have claimed being kicked off Twitter for deliberately violating their rules is cancel culture.” Which — okay, finally, I’m glad to hear something that doesn’t sound jarringly weird: I take it that such people think the, uh, Twitter rules in question were put in place for reasons they’d describe as reflecting ‘cancel culture’ motivations and they’d be — correct? Incorrect? Depending on the specifics, I figure they could well be correct; and, if they owned their own site, they’d presumably put rules in place that reflect their values; and, if given the chance, they’d probably want to make the case for their values with those who make Twitter’s rules. But: so what?
If their voices are muzzled voluntarily and they sit on their hands, does it matter what they think? Last time I checked, we don’t vote by telepathy.
IMHO if there are right-wingers that do not support the loonies, the problem now is that the ones that are not loonies are nowadays very painfully quiet and do not withdraw support to the ones that do crazy shit.
Things like this are missing from right wing leaders and influencers for a long time now:
And yes, McCain had no problems “cancelling” a nut back then. (too bad that to get support he got a VP candidate that brought more nutters into the Republican Party)
You’ve got it all wrong! They aren’t complaining when speech results in consequences. They are complaining when their speech results in consequences.
No need to invoke double standard or hypocrisy arguments. They don’t care. They even have an answer when asked “who gets to decide what speech has consequences?” They get to decide.
If opposition to speech having consequences wasn’t a mainstream part of the current right wing, then why is there even a term for “cancel culture”? “Cancel culture” just means that there are consequences for some speech. Why is that worthy of its own name?
I’m not sure I follow.
Consider the opposite: the clichéd situation where a right-winger says “get woke, go broke” when explaining that this or that corporation has taken a left-wing stance they disagree with, and so they’re going to take their business elsewhere, and they figure that so many people who agree will do likewise as to cause consequences worth noting due to said speech.
Forget a term for it; they deploy a whole phrase, and with gusto. Is that worthy of a whole phrase?
It’s all shibboleth binding US against THEM.
“Cancel Culture” doesn’t mean there are consequences for some speech, it refers quite specifically to complaining about consequences for speech that one thinks should be consequence-free. It’s always deployed as a reaction to someone being censured for something they said or did, with the implication that the problem is the punishment rather than the crime.
Or he could go on nightly news and tell viewers about a Dilbert strip.
News Anchor: Up after the break, we have Ty Roberts with sports. But first, here’s Scott Adams with today’s “Dilbert.” Over to you. Scott.
Scott Adams Thanks, Walter. Okay, today we have Asok the Intern in the conference room with Pointy-Haired Boss. Asok says, “I think the sales reps from Elbonia might be engaging in corporate espionage.” And then the Pointy-Haired Boss says…
So far, no word from the Chicago Tribune if they’ll drop this piece-of-shit comic strip. The Tribune is way overdue for replacing lots of its other dinosaur comic strips as well, like Mr. Boffo and Animal Crackers.
Say “goodnight Scott”.
I stand corrected about Adams not getting canceled. His ass is getting canceled hard.
As it should, for fucks’ sake his comments stand out even in today’s environment of normalizing hate speech.
Dropped by The Oregonian, with an explanation of the difference between “cancelling” and editing:
Letter from the Editor: Why we are no longer running the comic strip ‘Dilbert’ - oregonlive.com
Yes, I think this is accurate.
To simply “cancel” someone has no negative connotation with respect to the people doing the canceling. But “cancel culture” is an idiom with an intrinsic negative connotation, implying that the practice of canceling is ubiquitous and unjustified. You can say “there is nothing wrong with canceling people”, but if you say “there is nothing wrong with cancel culture” that just means that you don’t understand the idiom.
We’ve had similar discussions about the idiom “virtue signaling”, which similarly carries a negative connotation. You can say “there is nothing wrong with signaling virtue”, but you cannot say “there is nothing wrong with virtue signaling”.
The Washington Post on Saturday asked Adams how many newspapers are still carrying the strip, to which he said: “By Monday, around zero.”
Obscenely wealthy, mumbles about free speech, posts barely coherent unfiltered nonsense with ugly alt-right tendencies, out of a job, totally unqualified to run a social media company…
Wasn’t Elon looking for someone to take over as CEO?