“When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
But Amazon sells a nearly infinite number of both flags and crosses, so I don’t think we’re at serious risk here.
Excellent, I will send you a list of private companies that I think the government should break up.
This new era of Government oversight is going to be fantastic!
Look at these headlines:
I think, when it comes to the issue of transgenderism, we oughtn’t be too quick to use labels like ‘hate speech’ and TERF etc… Transgender issues are complicated and nuanced, and there’s legitimate debate to be had over whether currently employed strategies for treating transgenderism have optimal outcomes for patients.
An in-group you are part of, and I am not. No. Cancellation still comes down harder and more frequently on women and minorities. But now we have to fear it from both sides. Thanks so much.
But this ain’t that.
It’s that simple.
And I’m not sure that a tsunami in one direction is the appropriate way to counter a perceived tsunami coming from the other direction.
Raise the individual issues, like this Amazon issue or the – whatever her name is from The Mandalorian – and let’s rip into it thoughtfully.
Which still leaves me with … this … just ain’t that.
The dishonest and pedantic here are going to say it’s not the government doing the censorship so what’s the problem?
I think people who are skeptical about whether ‘cancel culture’ exists should be obliged to explain why, if it’s just another far-right moral panic, so many sensible left-leaning people take it seriously. Barack Obama has spoken out against it, as have Emmanuel Macron and Salman Rushdie, and there are many more. If cancel culture doesn’t exist, what are these people seeing?
Your answer to this is to force Amazon to sell every book?
The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation doesn’t seem to give shit one about people dying because of distracted drivers.
It it time to Pit Komen ?
Octopus ? Go.
Ahem.
Who has denied it exists? It’s existed for decades and much longer. Black people and women have been getting “canceled” for centuries if they stepped outside of the narrow guidelines society had for them.
The only big difference is that now it’s not just rich white folks who get to decide who is canceled. Now pretty much everyone has some influence, to varying degrees. The powerful still have the most influence, of course, but this is the first time that the “little people” can actually consistently create consequences for speech from the powerful that they find unacceptable. And the powerful (and their pawns) are really, really pissed about it.
When an article says "Fifty-five percent of students agreed their campus climate “prevents people from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive.”, that leads me to wonder:
- Is this any different from before?
- Are these people even conservative? Perhaps they’re afraid of the demonstrably violent right-wing bigots.
- Why are conservatives suddenly OPPOSED to personal responsibility?
There’s legitimate debate to be had over how best to handle medical issues involved with transgender identity, true.
And people who disapprove of transgender rights still have the same constitutional rights they always had to hold and express their opinions, which is naturally going to result in debate (if nothing worse) with people who disagree with them and are willing to engage with them.
But I don’t think any legitimate purpose is served, from a human rights standpoint, by treating transgender identity as though its very existence is open to debate. (I also think it’s inappropriate to pathologize the existence of transgender identity, but I’m assuming that when you referred so broadly to “treating transgenderism” in “patients”, what you meant to say was “treating gender dysphoria”, or some such.)
Gibberish that doesn’t address the issue at all. Par for the course from you.
Translation: “I can’t address your argument.”
That’s a bit misleading if you think that it contributes to any sort of silencing. That’s always been the case. There are plenty of subjects that you don’t bring up in certain situations.
I avoid politics of any sort with my family. That’s not any sort of nefarious plot, that’s because they will always end with hurt feelings.
I don’t engage in politics with my clients, or most of the random people that I am surrounded by, because that will start unpleasant arguments.
The only thing that has really changed is that there are a few more things that are generally not acceptable. It used to be acceptable to tell race based jokes, and now, unless you are with people you know will find them funny, it’s not. It used to be acceptable to bash minorities, and now, it’s not so acceptable.
If people are living in “fear” then they are simply being paranoid. It’s not thought police, it’s not conformity.
Free speech has never meant that you were free from the consequences of speech. It has meant that for certain groups for a while, that there were certain groups who were more or less immune to facing the consequences of advocating certain positions.
That’s really the only thing that has changed. Those groups no longer have the same protections that they used to have, and now have to face similar consequences (but still usually not nearly as severe) of their speech that everyone else has had to face for centuries.
Stop playing the victim. You are not being persecuted. People judging you for your actions is not the fascistic state that you like to pretend that it is.
I think he addressed it nigh unto perfectly:
And, with the Interwebs, instead of just offending the 35 people at the PTA meeting, you can offend hundreds of thousands, or even millions, in an instant.
@k9bfriender. People are not being paranoid. They are rationally afraid of these ‘consequences’ you speak of. The consequences of losing your job, friends, respect… that’s the opposite of irrational. It has a chilling effect. It silences people.
The only question is, do you want them silenced?