I keep hearing this narrative rationalizing regressive behavior: This time is different, because we need to prevent it from being like that other time.
The tangent is related and I appreciate your reflection.
It is valuable that you recognize what might be an inconsistency, even if you don't act or change your views because of it. Maybe you'll find a distinction and keep those views.
I view her situation as different because Disney has a very clearly defined brand that is supposed to be family-oriented, and she was compensated to participate in the perpetuation of that brand. Also, my understanding is that she was not technically canceled, but rather they simply decided not to re-up the professional relationship. Giuliani, on the other hand, is an expressly political figure and has little tacit expectation of supporting Google's market image.
It appears that the cancel-vultures were already circling Gina for her stance on biological gender in women's sports. So there's another tricky definition of "family-oriented", where either side could claim differing interpretations.
What ostensibly had her canceled was her observation about that other regressive time where intolerance of differences was normalized.
For myself I don't think Giuliani should be deleted from Youtube, Carano from Disney, or anyone else for that matter. It is also worth noting that CGTN is still on YouTube, Twitter is still listing various CCP accounts under "promoted followers". "Travel to Xinjiang", is suggested to me. Content whitewashing human rights abuses is fine for Twitter. Farrakhan, Khomeini and a host of other anti-semetic, holocaust denying voices are still present on that platform.
Ultimately the both-sides argument, "Therefore you must also censor Cenk Uygur", just reinforces a platform's moral authority in censorship. Claims of hypocrisy should be used in favor of open discussion instead.
I don't think canceling these people refutes their ideas as effectively as an open debate. For the average western person Khomeini's blatant falsehoods can easily be countered with establishment information, they are no threat.
The question becomes, are the masses of the hard-left unable to mount a suitable response to someone like Carano's critiques of their excesses, and therefore intolerance, cancelling becomes the only remaining option?
For critics, this becomes an easy snipe.
You'll also notice that the social media space is not dominated by exchanges between thought leaders in the realm of culture or economics. Instead, the champions are politicians or celebs who offer the unnuanced observations one would expect from pop culture.
Pop figures do battle, wage the war of ideas and culture with ineptitude. Cancelling is akin to ejecting them from the arena, perhaps unjustly. Nobody likes the officials when they rule against your team.
For Seuss, I think it is worth noting that he started with and evolved from racial views many would find offensive today. The obvious refrain is that we can't judge the past by the standards of the present. However to that I would add that a single mistake (or a collection of them) doesn't amount to the totality of one's character. Especially when the individual has reformed.
Not only is the past being judged retroactively, but PC judgement is increasing to absurdity. It's the crybullies and control freak lynch mob who want to find the next scapegoat to "cancel" to feel self-righteous, like a damn French Revolution crowd eager to see the gore. Since they're never going to "solve" human biases with nitpicking, they can go home now and have a "Mission Accomplished" party... they only made the world suck more, disappointed millions, and accomplished nothing.
Liberals seem to have a view that it's impossible they're anything like the troglodytes on the other side: uneducated, superstitious, gullible.
But it's clear that this strain of thought on the left, book-burning without fire - is a mirror image of the crazy Midwestern Christian fundamentalist mom that thinks that satan is lurking in Harry Potter, rock music and video games and TV.
15 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 43.2 ms ] threadI like the maxim that you shouldn't eradicate or ban books, no matter the reason. Just contextualize them to soften the shocking or vile parts.
But I can't reconcile it with my support of removing Giuliani from YouTube (not a total non sequitur...it's from a discussion in another submission).
I guess if Giuliani were to write the content of his videos in book format I'd have no problem with it.
It is valuable that you recognize what might be an inconsistency, even if you don't act or change your views because of it. Maybe you'll find a distinction and keep those views.
How do you feel about Gina Carano?
What ostensibly had her canceled was her observation about that other regressive time where intolerance of differences was normalized.
For myself I don't think Giuliani should be deleted from Youtube, Carano from Disney, or anyone else for that matter. It is also worth noting that CGTN is still on YouTube, Twitter is still listing various CCP accounts under "promoted followers". "Travel to Xinjiang", is suggested to me. Content whitewashing human rights abuses is fine for Twitter. Farrakhan, Khomeini and a host of other anti-semetic, holocaust denying voices are still present on that platform.
Ultimately the both-sides argument, "Therefore you must also censor Cenk Uygur", just reinforces a platform's moral authority in censorship. Claims of hypocrisy should be used in favor of open discussion instead.
I don't think canceling these people refutes their ideas as effectively as an open debate. For the average western person Khomeini's blatant falsehoods can easily be countered with establishment information, they are no threat.
The question becomes, are the masses of the hard-left unable to mount a suitable response to someone like Carano's critiques of their excesses, and therefore intolerance, cancelling becomes the only remaining option?
For critics, this becomes an easy snipe.
You'll also notice that the social media space is not dominated by exchanges between thought leaders in the realm of culture or economics. Instead, the champions are politicians or celebs who offer the unnuanced observations one would expect from pop culture.
Pop figures do battle, wage the war of ideas and culture with ineptitude. Cancelling is akin to ejecting them from the arena, perhaps unjustly. Nobody likes the officials when they rule against your team.
For Seuss, I think it is worth noting that he started with and evolved from racial views many would find offensive today. The obvious refrain is that we can't judge the past by the standards of the present. However to that I would add that a single mistake (or a collection of them) doesn't amount to the totality of one's character. Especially when the individual has reformed.
This one surprises me. He died 31 years ago. I presume you're talking about Khamenei...I do recall an account of his being banned recently.
Phonetically similar, confusing for me. Here's his Twitter.
All books are equal, but some books are more equal than others.
But it's clear that this strain of thought on the left, book-burning without fire - is a mirror image of the crazy Midwestern Christian fundamentalist mom that thinks that satan is lurking in Harry Potter, rock music and video games and TV.
Wokeness is a fundamentalist religion.