BulletMagnet wrote:BIL wrote:The point that critics are silenced, rather than engaged with or ignored.
I don't think that point is quite as easy to pin down as you suggest; just off the top of my head, consider a hypothetical situation where the owner of a business takes a public, controversial stance on an issue, which prompts a number of customers to take their money elsewhere and eventually forces the place to close down. Was this merely a textbook case of the Libertarian ideal of "speaking with your wallet", or was the owner "silenced" even though his ability to say whatever he wanted was never actually limited or taken away?
That does indeed sound like a starkly textbook example of the former. No business is entitled to your money, let alone if you find them disagreeable for whatever reason. The alternative brings to mind a protection racket, "pay up or else."
For a contrasting example of the latter, see the long-running Masterpiece Cakeshop of Colorado case, in which activists tried to destroy a business outright over the owners' religious convictions. This again brings to mind a brutish racket, a curiously inclusive mafia.
(I am a visitor from a land where attacking a man's livelihood thus would expose the aggressor to quite another local treat: execution by torture, likely involving fire. An altogether nastier type of
"bun" than they might've hoped to extort!
So I often wonder - why is this stunt always attempted with milquetoast white people? The below paragraphs may suggest IDPOL, but I suspect the primary cause is a well-inculcated - and not at all unwarranted - fear of retaliation from less genteel quarters, be they geographic and/or cultural.
The third world - it's a shithole!
Maybe the solution to all this strife is to leave people alone, even ones you vehemently disagree with. Either that, or drop the pretense and declare war. That may be where this is all going anyway.
Dumpster Mattress Defenders: Rehumanized Themselves And Faced To Bloodshed
Sorry BM, there goes my centrism flaring up again. I'm a big flappy COONT!
)
If the point's fluttering about the place like a moth, something's gone very wrong.
I was honestly thinking more along the lines of the situation than the speaker - i.e. is there a difference of degree, if not overall intent or attitude in evidence, between, say, a man making disparaging comments about women to a lone male friend, as opposed to saying them directly to a woman, or in a setting where women are obviously supposed to hear them - but now that you mention it methinks even your take is itself messier than is immediately evident.
I do think I misunderstood you - but since we're on the subject, my example was to do with the tendency of Anglophone media (and from what I'm told by foreign observers, much of theirs) to either bury or promote stories, according to political correctness. Here in England, Pakistani Muslims are an Oppressed Underclass - so we get the ongoing horror story of Rotherham and similarly-benighted areas. Straight white men are Brutal Oppressors, so naturally, there is no such compunction in reporting on even the vilest acts involving them. (nor should there be, I hope I don't need to add)
Even
the journalist who finally got the ball rolling on Rotherham held his tongue initially, because by his own admission, he was afraid of giving ammunition to the extreme right. His police counterpart reported an identical malaise within the force, which led her to resign (presumably as she'd have been fired anyway).
There's nothing messy or illusive about this and similar cases at all - it's a well-documented pattern in English public life. Even now, you will commonly see the media slander vast swathes of humanity, referring to our disproportionate numbers of non-white sex traffickers as "Asians," despite their largely hailing from the same tiny slice of rural Pakistan; backwaters with distinct, entrenched traditions of restorative gang rape, retributive disfiguring, and other delightful (and very female-friendly!) practices.
I've been away from this all for a while, because I'm a lucky ducky who only observes this stuff very tangentially and frankly it depresses my dick soft and floppy like cheese, but I'll rustle up some old notes if anyone thinks I'm talking out my ass. I've noticed broadly similar in the US media's downplaying of your astonishing rates of urban black-on-black murder. An entirely different kind of social ill, to be sure, but the refusal to so much as acknowledge reality (report it, even) is unmistakable, after a couple decades' this side of the pond.
Again, just going off the top of my head, I can't speak for the UK but here in the US I'd find it very difficult to deny that a white person calling a black one "nigger" has a lot more history and weight behind it than the black person calling the white one "cracker" - I'm inclined to suspect the same of a German person calling a Jewish one a "kike" as opposed to being called a "kraut". Should that be taken into account when deciding how to react to such situations, or must we consider any and all such acts completely equal in severity by default to be fair?
To bridge my tangent to your point (hopefully! obscenely late here), I think cases of white victims being singled out and preyed upon by non-white offenders should be treated identically to ones in which their racial characteristics are inverted. Objectively speaking, because beatifying some populations while demonising others is
Balkanization 101, with many centuries of subsequent carnage to attest. Personally, because I think it's really shitty to penalise someone for being born the wrong thing. Wow much brave stance mirite.
White girls are subhuman whores subject to any and all depravity imaginable, up to and including murder, while Pakistani girls are sacrosanct and to remain unblemished - unless they get blemished, then you should murder them too. If this is not the stuff of "racism" or "religiously-motivated hate crime," what is, exactly?
This doesn't strike me as a matter for the law, outside of civil suits for blatant cases of defamation.
I was under the impression that one of the main stated problems with "cancel culture" was precisely that it exists outside the realm of hard-and-fast law, i.e. "mob rule", and that the societal sickness is only getting worse by the day; in the absence of legal and/or legislative efforts to rein it in, how do you envision the problem being solved?
I actually don't think there is much of a problem, when it comes to things like Gina Carano grabbing the Hawt Hawt Holocaust Potato and getting burnt, or her vastly more powerful counterparts Rogan and Rowling chowing down on their own respective third rails to little apparent damage. Certainly not a matter for the law, imo. Let activists stitch together as many "N-Word Compilations" as they like, as long as the inevitable reprisals starring beloved faces from across the aisle are allowed, too. This is an internet-augmented flareup of the mass media's usual Histrionics 4 Clickz racket. It was around before we were born, and will persist after we're dead, assuming Burgerpocalypse doesn't take it all away before that.
Outside of celebrity and its usual excesses, I don't think statute should or even could do much to help the likes of Kathleen Stock - effectively a JK Rowling sans the unassailable wealth, who actually
was harmed by the screeching opprobrium she kicked up. At this point, I think those with conviction and means should do what they can to help those they feel have been victimised. (again, as with defamation, civil suits are another matter - I could certainly see bringing a case for wrongful termination, in some of the high-profile academic firings of recent years)
The willful ignorance of media and government in the face of politically unpalatable stories, alluded to above - I don't consider that "cancel culture." That's a pathological tribalism as old as our species. There's no eradicating that, only mitigating it. Talking helps, I believe. As in,
the ability to talk. Take that away and historically, shit happens. This is where cancel culture creeps into the frame, with its popularising of the silencing tactics recently embraced by that Mexican twink and his morbidly obese West Memphis piglet.
BareKnuckleRoo wrote:BIL wrote:Although, given Rowling is a mother, perhaps he means something more exotic, like the trauma inflicted upon Delhi's Nirbhaya in the infamous 2012 case? The possibilities for vicious gynocentric violence really are endless.
Lately it appears to be fashionable to for her detractors
to tell her to choke on their "girlcock". When they're not sending death threats, that is.
On a related note, the same groups that target her also find it fashionable nowadays for homosexuality to be cancelled. This
specifically happens to lesbians, who are told that
their same sex attraction is insufficiently inclusive and therefore bigoted.
It's all so thuggishly hypermasculine, isn't it? Dicks rammed in here, shoved up there, lots of choking and crushing and killing imagery; see also Fallon Fox and that other trans MMA fighter enthusing about smashing women's faces in. Overcompensating clowns revelling in the gynocidal carte blanche du zeitgeist. A riddle for the ages that many of these newly-minted "record holders" failed utterly competing as men.
Maybe it's all a long con? Like attracts like, that old Y-chromosomally augmented affinity for murderous violence. I'd make a rare PPV purchase to see Jon Jones overpower and strangle Alana McLaughlin within an inch of his life.
Chappelle attacker not only had a knife on him, it was concealed in a replica gun! Now that's thinkin'.
).
More celebrity trash PLS 
I mean it was very nearly the on-stage assassination of a beloved comedian, but still more pls 
"WAAA TEN ON ONE WTFFF" Walk it off, sugar tits 
) I'm inclined to believe that the uproar over pornographic lesson plans is considerably overblown (seriously, the more you even consider the phrase "pornographic lesson plans" the more ludicrous it sounds), but to whatever extent such instances do exist, therein lies another free speech quandary to wrestle with; others have already brought up the matter of precisely what grade level such material would be taught to, but even ignoring that, what if some kids and their parents are not bothered by it, and others are? 
Ideologically speaking, obviously. IDPOL nutters couldn't fight a real war, there aren't enough of them.
