111–120 of 219 posts
This seems to be happening across political and social contexts.
Social media has massively amplified the penalty for making a mistake or offhand remark. People used to make tasteless jokes all the time and it was treated as it was, just a joke and life continued. Now anything out of the pale that catches the attention of some sort of influencer spells doom. Anyone caught at a bad moment on camera is pilloried, made out to be the anti christ and have people actively seeking out th…
> Publicly espousing an unpopular opinion now can be career suicide Let's not pretend this is new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist The difference now is that visibility is more uniformly distributed across the population.
Let's not pretend the scale of the phenomenon today and mass surveillance capacity of today plus mass exposure and permanent public record of social media, web forums, even public spaces and events (e.g. with someone recording a video) is in any way comparable to the McCarthy era.
Or the the "offenses" people get social-mob-attacked, pilloried, and fired are in any way comparable to the offenses (even if BS) people were prosecuted for in that day: being considered an enemy of the state working to overthrow the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a non-American who is right of centre, and I can see "my" people adapting cancel culture tactics as well, and I resent it. IMHO such victories are rotten to the core. "Shall there be two cities of Minas Morgul, grinning at each other across a dead land filled with rottenness?" The only thing I can do about it is to interact civilly with like-minded people of totally different political persuasions and hope that…
I live in the States but wasn't raised here. One of the things you might not know is that unless you live in a middle east or China, right of center is left in the States.
You have a lot less conservative Christians in Europe (perhaps with the exception of Poland), but a lot more blatant ethnocentrist nationalists - a legacy of former decades and centuries where everyone was threatened by everyone else. (Exceptions apply.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make it sound like this only happens on the democratic side. Republicans have similar echo chambers. I think conformity happens within circles. Then it's a question how big the circle is. I agree with your main concern though, online vs real life credit systems.
Republicans do have similar echo chambers. My personal experience, as someone who has moved from left to right but still hangs out in a lot of left leaning circles, the right tends to be more tolerant of dissent. It's getting harder to remember life before the internet, but it was largely similar. Different pockets of people had different beliefs and tended to choose an echo chamber. As you said, the circles are bigg…
...some restrictions may apply. Abortion, gay rights, immigrants, any non Christian religion; especially Muslims, policy brutality against people of color, healthcare to all, living wages the list goes on...oh and Biden actually winning the election.
However, I am not trying to attack you. To give you credit, media is more extreme and biased, except for specific news outlets and sites. Of course based on your beliefs we might not agree on which ones those are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that I never had a chance of being on a hollywood blacklist in the first place. I don't even use social media, and it's still possible I could say something off-color somewhere and find myself canceled.
Or not say something. Refusing to join in can be an offense. Sort of a “join us or die” accept killing is not usually needed to shut someone down. Shunning is usually enough these days.
In my opinion, this social cooling is the strongest argument in favour of privacy. Imagine there's a camera in your living room. You don't know if it's turned on, whether anyone is watching, or why they would be. However, I guarantee that air guitar solos will be fewer and further between. You won't walk around naked, pick your nose or watch questionable content anymore. You might even avoid certain conversations. Ev…
Pretty rich, coming out of an organization that assaulted and chased Vincent Canfield out of CCC for . . . . owning trollish domain names. I'm sure the presenter doesn't necessarily share the Congress's values, but it's funny nonetheless.
> Pretty rich, coming out of an organization that assaulted and chased Vincent Canfield out of CCC for . . . . owning trollish domain names. Are you sure it wasn't him being an open and virulent racist[1]? Edit: I should say that I have the dubious distinction of actually haven spoken to vc for several years on IRC. He might have started as a troll, but he's failed in the way that every bad troll fails: by getting hi…
Even if he is an outright nazi (debatable, but he sure uses nazi stuff for "trolling" and "humor" as he puts it), and even if he refused to leave (he said he was in the process of leaving, CCC said he refused to leave) etc, this is not OK nor is it legal. You call the police and, file trespassing charges and have the police remove him and the courts sanction him.
Even if he was physically violent in the time prior to the video (which nobody alleges, just a hypothetical), he clearly wasn't anymore at this point, and you do not get to retaliate; you file assault charges and have the police remove him or arrest him.
If he screamed nazi salutes or demanded the murder of ethnic groups (which nobody alleges either), then... you call the police for trespassing, and since this was in Germany, for using prohibited nazi signs/slogans (§ 86a StGB) and or "incitement of the public" (Volksverhetzung, § 130).
If he was filming (he said he did start to film once security became aggressive, CCC said filming in the space is a big no-no in general), then you still do not get to assault him.
The only legitimate reason for security to use violence would be if they had to defend themselves or others from physical attack. And no, words and disobedience are not the kind of violence that entitles you to violent self-defense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or not say something. Refusing to join in can be an offense. Sort of a “join us or die” accept killing is not usually needed to shut someone down. Shunning is usually enough these days.
"Silence is violence" and "In a racist society it is not enough to be non-racist, we must be anti-racist".
Let's use Gender as a quick example, why not? A few years ago, I couldn't have said I thought about it at all. For better and for worse, it wasn't part of the discourse. Now, I'm not all that different, yet it comes up again and again. I'm often forced to choose a side, even when it's all hypotheticals and virtues. I feel forced because online media is permanent, each statement is my closing argument. When the litiga…
In what situations are you forced to choose a side? In conversations with your friends/family? At your place of employment (in whatever form that may be)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the worst is kids. If you think you can go off track and say dumb things as an adult, think of the 14yo self. I thank God I was a teenager before the modern internet. There is no forgiveness. The doors of college education can be shut on a whim for a bad joke. Where and when I grew up, your political opinion was irrelevant to your college admission. You didn't have to demonstrate your committment to the polical c…
Wait where do you have to "demonstrate your committment to the polical cause of the moment" to apply to college
Specifically, equity explicitly entails redistributing resources based on lack of privilege. This is instead of equality, which entails providing everyone with the same resources and opportunity.
Now we are left with question of how to fairly distribute resources. These are centralized decisions made by career bureaucrats. If the distinction was made along economic lines, this would not be all that political. However, lines are commonly drawn along race, gender, and sexual orientation. Now those making these decisions have decide based on belief structures about what groups are the least privilege. These structures are inherently political and a poor proxy for economic status.