131–140 of 633 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a norm not a law. Be open to a broad array of viewpoints and opinions, as a general rule. It makes you a better human being.
It's an aspirational norm, but it's nobody's practiced norm; virtually everybody has lines they draw. So what does it tell us that we can aspire to having that norm? I'd argue: not much.
The problem with the debate on "cancel culture" is a lack of specificity. The fact is that there are certain occasions where "canceling" seems fine, and others, where it does not. And I think a problem with the progressive argument is the refusal to acknowledge that there can ever be any excesses. For example, there is the case of Dorian Abbot, who was disinvited from an MIT lecture after he wrote an op-ed criticizin…
Or Chelsea Manning who was disinvited from speaking at Harvard after pressure from the government
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As you point out, while boycotting someone based on your perception of their opinion is not new, the modality of mass mob boycotts of individuals over things potentially taken out of context is entirely new. … One other thing that's new, in America, is the idea that speech is less important than people's feelings. They used to kill people for advocating for integration and civil rights. Actual mobs used to assemble…
Speech is far more free in the US today than in, say, the 1950s and 1960s. But I would argue less free than, say, the 1990s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>For the supposed paper of record, I found the choice to use the decidedly contemptuous language to refer to the right wing (that I italicized above) very telling. I genuinely don't know how else they could describe what's going on. Braying means speaking loudly and harshly - an accurate description of how many public figures on the right discuss cancel culture. It's colorful language, sure, but it's an op-ed, which…
I don't disagree that it is an accurate (and somewhat inflammatory) description of how figures on the right discuss cancel culture. What I'm saying is that it is an ineffective means of changing anyone's mind that they must care about changing. As participants in the culture war often do, they claim to want peace while also wanting victory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>For the supposed paper of record, I found the choice to use the decidedly contemptuous language to refer to the right wing (that I italicized above) very telling. I genuinely don't know how else they could describe what's going on. Braying means speaking loudly and harshly - an accurate description of how many public figures on the right discuss cancel culture. It's colorful language, sure, but it's an op-ed, which…
I don't disagree that it is an accurate (and somewhat inflammatory) description of how figures on the right discuss cancel culture. What I'm saying is that it is an ineffective means of changing anyone's mind that they must care about changing. As participants in the culture war often do, they claim to want peace while also wanting victory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speech is far more free in the US today than in, say, the 1950s and 1960s. But I would argue less free than, say, the 1990s.
What are things that you would say in the 1990's that you wouldn't feel comfortable saying today?
> "Our failure to have a serious discussion about defining “cancel culture” encourages this. When some people vaguely complain about “cancel culture” in a way that lends itself to promoting this constant partisanship, other people not unreasonably see it as partisan." Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does. Each one of us h…
What do you mean by “rights”? Legal rights or moral rights? If legal rights, under which law in which jurisdiction? I agree very many cases of “cancellation” are not illegal, and as such not violating anyone’s legal rights - but a lot of people seem to approach this with a narrow focus on the US 1st Amendment (hereafter 1A), when this isn’t a US-only issue, and even in the US there are other laws involved than just 1A - a private company firing someone for their publicly expressed political views cannot violate 1A, but it might violate state laws against political discrimination in employment (such as California Labor Code section 1101), and those state laws can also be understood as creating (or recognising) legal rights. Also, law is not static, it evolves through case law and legislation, so something which is legal today might not be legal in the future-people who believe that we have a problem with “cancel culture” are likely to lobby for laws against it, and we’ll see if they succeed.
If one acknowledges the existence of ethics/morality independent of the law, it follows people may have ethical/moral rights which are violated even if their legal rights (in a certain jurisdiction at a certain time) are not being violated.