The Cancel Culture thread! WOO!

[BIL]

AW NAW! NOT DAVE! NAWWWWWW :O

Chappelle cancelled. AGEEN! :[ Interesting story! Is Dave indulging in a bit of FYGM?

My admittedly limited knowledge of the subject matter at hand makes it, frankly, difficult for me to completely wrap my head around this, and I'm attempting to at least gain some measure of understanding about where this sort of reaction stems from; frankly, I doubt that listening to the show itself would offer much insight to this end.

I suspect it might offer more insight than you think. Joe is a dopey amiable sort, to the point many find him soporific. He also doesn't seem to enjoy giving offense for its own sake, the way more vindictive sorts in his line of work do (as you say, he hardly needed to give that apology). I'm the same way - maybe that's projection, maybe not, who can really tell from the cheap seats. But from your posts, it sounds like you've read him as more of an arrant shock jock ala Imus/Cumia.

My only point to Strider was that portraying the elevation of black America as an across-the-board success paints an incomplete picture.

I suppose one would have to get deeper into the weeds as to what precisely the "elevation" of black America comprises, but, if I may use plain language here, it sounds like you think that efforts to "elevate" blacks and other long-oppressed groups in the US have had negative effects as well as positive ones

To clarify slightly, "elevate" as in "lift out of horrendous circumstances no human beings should've ever been in." Millions of people being no longer legally defined as subhuman chattel, with discriminations against them that were once celebrated in the mainstream now roundly regarded with disgust, in roughly the space of a lifetime - on that scale, given the appalling situation beforehand, I don't think the negatives even register.

Things are still far from acceptable for millions of black Americans, is the only point I was making.

the most oft-cited example in your posts (in my estimation, anyway) being a tendency to "dogpile" anyone or anything singled out as "offensive" without attempting to sort through whatever mitigating nuance might be present therein.

Yes - although I hasten to add, I don't consider the bad actors pushing this hypersensitive grievance culture to be representative of anything but their own short-sighted grift. Black and white alike, I know the average person is intelligent enough to distinguish good actors from bad ones, and honest enough not to pretend otherwise.

Spoiler

^^^ these aren't average people (neither is Juicy)

Off the cuff it would appear, to be blunt, that you've put a good deal more thought into these sorts of issues than I have, so I am curious, if you think that the well-intentioned initiatives that got us here were flawed to the extent that it's unleashed something fundamentally dangerous, what, if anything, do you think was/is a viable alternative to the same end?

Many black commentators have decried 1960s welfare incentives as destroying the black nuclear family, formerly of equal or better stability than the white one. I don't have the expertise to concur or disagree.

However, contrary to popular racist wisdom, I've seen exactly the same patterns in other parts of the globe, some of them among the whitest on the planet. Fatherlessness does seem to be a particularly debilitating issue, no matter the demographic. How could it not be, imo. Young men are tempestuous by nature. They also tend to be extremely horny and foolhardy, setting up an all too familiar cycle of short-term gratification and long-term ruin. Obviously, plenty of guys make it to stable adulthood without fathers, but I can't imagine it helping on balance.

These places tend to be very poor as well, of course - but some are considerably wealthy.

Oh! Good timing!

Sure, and whether you feel this way or not let me surface a couple of things here - I'm not questioning your bonafides to comment, or whether it's sufficiently black.

Cool, cool. I too find IdPol prohibitions on "outsider" speech ridiculous, and essentially racist in themselves - as if empathy weren't a thing, and the kids of lily-white European descent I grew up with weren't just as sensitive to these outrages. Or as if we of mixed or African heritage had some unique psychic connection to horrors centuries removed. As if not having any Jewish classmates somehow compromised teachings on the Holocaust. If the IdPol version of reality were true, our species would be even more fucked than it already is.

Just emphasising, if only to avoid seeming cavalier, that I'm well aware of the New World's often hideous timeline. Nobody who graduated from our national curriculum, whether of African, European or other ancestry, could fail to be, really.

Where do the catastrophic rates of murdered black Americans over the last fifty years or so figure into this progress? How about their tragic rates of educational attainment? Cheap shot, I know, sorry.

One the one hand, patronizing "they can't help it" takes from liberals on this topic are a popular subgenre of diet racism all their own.

The worst shit, that. 3; Useless and offensive.

On the other hand, from a macro perspective it's pretty much an axiomatic sociological fact that poverty and desperation breed crime, and that moralizing doesn't stop it, and police crackdowns don't stop it. Within the context of American plutoracy, area poverty produces shitty schools, neglected neighbourhoods and broken infrastructure; a self-sustaining feedback loop, all wrapped up with an "it's your fault for not working harder and listening to so much rap music" bow...

...it's not a race thing, the US has a country full of drug-addled poor white communities as corollary evidence.

Strongly concurring here (only editing for mousewheel conservation). I know sociology gets a bad rap, but beyond pure economic explanations, anomie is a tragically useful concept. People go to shit fast without hope.

Among first-world nations, what marks the situation of black America out to me is the homicide rate. I may be slightly rusty here... but I recall hearing that the wealthiest black neighbourhood in the US has a higher rate of violent crime than the poorest white one. Another thing I often see in conservative black circles is the disparity between legal gun ownership in rural America, versus the rate of gun murders in cities.

There seems to be a uniquely horrible confluence of economic, cultural and technological factors at work here.

But again, in this considerable matrix of negatives, I don't see the blasphemisation of words playing much of a role, for good or ill. We've long arrived at a broad consensus in the Anglosphere, that using such slurs - and I mean using them, as intended, to brand their target as subhuman, a contemptible dumb beast - is the mark of a vile character. In all honesty, I see stunts like the Rogan hitpiece or similar as jeopardising this.

Like, divorced from this centuries-long mending of New World horror, I could stand back and remark "lmao! gottem!" as if Rogan had been caught playing pocket hockey while gazing languidly at a beautiful female guest. This though, I find disturbing. (and hilarious, in the blackest of black 2000AD/Robocop sense...)

But how has brutalising language to the point that certain words are as hazardous to one's social hygiene as a mouthful of shit helped those matters? You say the "n-word" taboo is emblematic of all that good progress. I think this is a misattribution, and an oversimplification. A formerly accepted, celebrated word has become roundly despised, and anyone espousing its sentiments will face widespread condemnation. That is progress. Making the word literally unsayable is not progress. This is not the behaviour of a mature society.

America is a fountainhead of technological and intellectual revolution... but my dude. America is nothing resembling a mature society.

Yeah I know

But even still, there's no reason to make a bad situation worse. Sam Jackson made a perfectly reasonable request, and the interviewer squirmed about like he was being asked to dropkick a baby across a freeway. Despite Tarantino's usual pulp embellishments, the crux of Django Unchained is all too reflective of historical trauma. An inability to look history in the eye isn't much better than an inability to comprehend it at all.

I, personally, might not say that maybe taking some of those fingers off the n-word trigger is the cultural Jenga block that will bring it all crashing down.

What troubles me is the notion of secular blasphemy law via mob rule. It's beneath us.

I hope I've not come across as a free speech absolutist (as said, I don't think polite society can support them) or an (oof) edgyboi, the last page or so. I hope I've made it clear I regard that word with contempt, and when I've context to say or write it, kept at the length of an outstretched arm. I'm still not going to say "n-word," or "k-word," or "c-word." I find it infantile and, on a certain level, disturbing. As if a word itself can corrupt the user's tongue or hand from without, rather than reality's total inverse, of words expressing what's within.

If someone's finger is on the n-word trigger, they're probably some variety of asshole. If someone has a decade+ contextless highlight reel of them blasting Hard Rs, I'll need further context to determine if I'm looking at a Rogan (harmless hippy, false alarm) or a Cumia (wishin' a coloured gentleman would).

As I saw it, the problem was that "black lives matter" is an agreeable blandishment (rather like being "anti-fascist"). "Black Lives Matter" is an organisation, with a mission statement endorsing the dismantling of the nuclear family (curiously redacted since), one of a few screaming red warning flags I can recall.

Oh no. All the moral panics over Marxist post-gender rap utopia were retconned in after the fact.

Haha, ok. It's how I regarded it. It must be the latent autist in all Hard Gamers, leading me to analyse their patterns. ;3

This isn't about a comedian saying edgy things about minorities. (oh hell naw) It's about a sizzle reel spanning twelve years and thousands of hours, arranged so that Rogan fires off Hard Rs like an overheating Ma Deuce.

It is though. Watch the India Arie video you linked, she posts the exact clip.

I've watched it. :O The "Planet of the Apes" clip could never stand on its own as a hitpiece, and was accordingly relegated to second banana. "Stoner comedian says something racist about black people, then immediately walks it back, a decade ago" ? Zzz. If it had the juice, it'd have been wheeled out on its own.

Oh look! A painstakingly sourced and compiled highlight reel! Now that's gonna leave a mark! And even better, make the weak shit afterward look ten times worse! Hitjobs 101.

"I thought he was just kinda insensitive - then he said the n-word twenty times in a row!"

As an aside, I respect the Mortal Kombat Queen Sindel hair game, but man she fell off.

Yeah, I thought the same. 3: (right after my initial thought of "Boy, I wish I was hearing that name again in less retarded circumstances")

The genetic nucleotide difference between me and the blackest guy on Earth is 0.1%. If someone walks through life thinking "black people have a different brain" he's flying a certain kind of flag. There are many flavours of dumb, but if you keep picking racist pistachio it's because you kinda like it.

I really think this more about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. He's probably heard that Ashkenazi Jews and "Asians" tend to score really high on IQ tests, and he certainly knows the US has no shortage of world-beating black athletes.

"Yeah, but there's lots of dumb as fuck Jews and Asians, and short tubby black dudes, too" you might say. I don't know if Rogan's brain works that far ahead, beyond mashing given populations' statistical outliers together like Human Voltron.

Seems like a fun dude.

[photo of dildo enthusiast]

It's as tasteless as I'd expect of him - particularly the "white way of life" thing - but at the same time, I'd expect a racist to scoff at the notion of non-white peoples ever hoping to emulate their genetic superiors.

I'd be interested to hear what he thinks of Chris Eubank, a friendly chap who's extolled broadly similar endorsements, only in non-hideous fashion. (he refers to "English" culture as a model of excellence. which I suppose makes him a black Nazi, or something, to half of the internet. oh well)

[Blinge]

Youze never said anything a bit yikes?

No, though methinks there's an argument to be made that folks with millions of viewers/readers/listeners might be expected to hold themselves to a somewhat higher standard, especially when discussing issues of importance (again, his vaccine talk is infinitely more concerning to me than the racial slurs; that's not just a "random thought" you have and quickly dismiss), though the "I'm just some random guy shooting from the hip with occasionally hilarious results" shtick Rogan and others traffic in obviously clashes directly with such a notion. In any event, as I've noted several times, he's at least apologized and promised to change things up to some degree, and time will tell if he's true to his word.

For fuck sake.

the Yikes thing was in reference to the planet of the apes story. That story was from 2012, looks like.. when he had a tiny viewership.
Either you've got a bit lost in the sauce there or you're divorcing context to make your point.

It looks like a good response to my post, one that nullifies it, even.
but it's a cheap trick, deliberate or not.


Edit:

Chris Eubank

Chris Eubank doesn't do trash talk, he does detritus discourse

[Blinge]

Rofl MischiefMan, that JRE parody?
I didn't see it before.
I'm floored 4 minutes in and this is SPOT ON

[BulletMagnet]

But from your posts, it sounds like you've read him as more of an arrant shock jock ala Imus/Cumia.

Not so much that, but rather someone who's willing to traffic, albeit less stridently (well, until you get into stuff like this), in much of the same rhetoric as the more "hardcore" talk radio types ("why do only they get to use those words?" "the vaccine is an excuse to spy on you!") in order to angle for the same audience. He might back off a bit when things get a bit too hot, but again, I very highly doubt he'll ever do anything to outright repudiate the fringe members of his listener base (which, I might add, is a criticism often leveled at his most visible critics by his supporters).

Yes - although I hasten to add, I don't consider the bad actors pushing this hypersensitive grievance culture to be representative of anything but their own short-sighted grift.

You do, however, seem to believe that the "Sharptons" (to invent a new shorthand) have taken over, or at least exercise considerable influence over, a sizeable portion of the groups and movements ostensibly moving towards continuing the progress you cite; this, of course, presents the quandary of which among their various actions should be considered "legitimate" and which are, to use your terminology, "race grift". Naturally, no completely "quantitative" means to determine this exists or ever will, which leaves said judgement largely to each person's individual take; sure, some things are cut-and-dry enough that most folks will come to the same conclusion, but when you get into thornier territory, i.e. what was the speaker's intention/context/etc. when a particular term pops up, it's kind of an inevitable free-for-all. There are sound arguments to err on both the side of caution and the side of free expression, but it always feels icky, at least to me, to attempt to hash that sort of thing out while the much larger and more consequential root issue lurks in the background. It just sort of feels like it does a lot of the work for the folks who don't want any such progress made.

However, contrary to popular racist wisdom, I've seen exactly the same patterns in other parts of the globe, some of them among the whitest on the planet.

This would seem to dovetail nicely with what I mentioned earlier about the rhetoric surrounding "community collapse" very suddenly shifting depending on whose community we're talking about; to rephrase it a bit, you've noted that some have suggested that welfare incentives directed towards black communities have in some respects backfired, but when it comes to the latter-day emergence of those same social ills in white communities the only solution I see being floated from any side of the proverbial aisle is more generous welfare aimed squarely in their direction (can you imagine the reaction if someone said we needed to deploy more cops in white communities, or implement harsher prison sentences for meth use?), and I very much doubt that anyone's wringing their hands about the unintended side effects that might result from such aid, let alone taking a second look at any other social factors distinct to said communities. I know you stated outright that you don't intend to second-guess anyone on this issue and are not at all obligated to humor me, but I am still curious about what you make of this.

Making the word literally unsayable is not progress.

For whatever it's worth there has been at least some pushback on this front; I forget which black comedian it was, but he said he always hated it when white people used the phrase "the n word", because "you don't want to say it, but we all know what it means, so as soon as I hear the euphemism you're forcing me to say it inside my head". I would also imagine that most people, regardless of race, don't support banning Huckleberry Finn and the like simply because the word is in there.

As a personal anecdote to that end, a few years back I sang with a local barbershop chorus, and around that time the national barbershop organization (yes, it exists) was making an effort to come to terms with its own racially fraught history (the style itself originated within minstrel groups mocking black music). At one point they interviewed a top-ranked black singer about the subject, and his take on the older, more "fraught" songs in the catalogue was that they should no longer be performed, but should be preserved, as a reminder of where we've been.

The "Planet of the Apes" clip could never stand on its own as a hitpiece, and was accordingly relegated to second banana.

Pun intended?

the Yikes thing was in reference to the planet of the apes story.

I'm aware, though I did admittedly veer off from the topic at hand here, since one thing I still think is very worth pushing back on here is the idea that the slur is the "main event" here, not the vaccine quackery. So yeah, I have to cop to that...though since I'm a jerk, I'll also say that people with a sizable megaphone might also be expected to exercise a modicum of discretion when it comes to "racially-charged" language as well, or at least be prepared for some noise (not "cancelling") if they choose not to. Might as well wish for a unicorn for my birthday, eh?

[BIL]

But from your posts, it sounds like you've read him as more of an arrant shock jock ala Imus/Cumia.

Not so much that, but rather someone who's willing to traffic, albeit less stridently (well, until you get into stuff like this), in much of the same rhetoric as the more "hardcore" talk radio types ("why do only they get to use those words?" "the vaccine is an excuse to spy on you!") in order to angle for the same audience. He might back off a bit when things get a bit too hot, but again, I very highly doubt he'll ever do anything to outright repudiate the fringe members of his listener base (which, I might add, is a criticism often leveled at his most visible critics by his supporters).

The hit reel wasn't intended to portray Rogan as an oafish stoner, something he certainly is (Me: "Kill all pedos." Rogan: "Duuude, when I was fifteen? That hot MILF coulda done WHATEVER to me, bro! Rape, what?! I'd be suckin' her titties, eatin' her pussy, fuckin' her in my bed ALL NIGHT ahahaha!" Me: "Yeah same tbh").

It was intended to portray him as a remorseless bigot with an easy knack for a hideous slur, something he really isn't. (hence nobody taking the reel seriously, and someone promptly making TYT and Biden editions)

Is Rogan hardcore? Dunno bro. ¯\(O_O)/¯ One man's hardcore is another's Cali-spawned, drug-abusing, wop darkie/spic/kike/chink-loving puppet of the Jewish media and pusher of sodomites and whores, leading Murica to blue ruin with his support of that bloodsucking heeb Bernie Sanders.

What's certain is that hardcore doesn't damage careers. Racist can, making it hitjob ammo par excellence - but when the charge is this flimsily ginned-up? At most, the hitters will get a consolation prize. ("Wow - Murica REALLY IS RACIST, if they won't fire Rogan for saying the n-word twenty times fast!")

Yes - although I hasten to add, I don't consider the bad actors pushing this hypersensitive grievance culture to be representative of anything but their own short-sighted grift.

You do, however, seem to believe that the "Sharptons" (to invent a new shorthand) have taken over, or at least exercise considerable influence over, a sizeable portion of the groups and movements ostensibly moving towards continuing the progress you cite; this, of course, presents the quandary of which among their various actions should be considered "legitimate" and which are, to use your terminology, "race grift".

Even being as charitable as possible, and allowing the Sharptons into the progressive tent, I don't know if there's been much continuance of MLK et al's work, sadly. I would expect poverty, the 1960s being just yesterday in historical terms.

(was recently reminded of this first-year lawschool favourite, haha)

But the killing seems outsized given even that. Infinitely more-learned people than myself have debated it for decades, it's an entire field of study unto itself. All I know is it's bad out there bro.

Naturally, no completely "quantitative" means to determine this exists or ever will, which leaves said judgement largely to each person's individual take; sure, some things are cut-and-dry enough that most folks will come to the same conclusion, but when you get into thornier territory, i.e. what was the speaker's intention/context/etc. when a particular term pops up, it's kind of an inevitable free-for-all. There are sound arguments to err on both the side of caution and the side of free expression, but it always feels icky, at least to me, to attempt to hash that sort of thing out while the much larger and more consequential root issue lurks in the background. It just sort of feels like it does a lot of the work for the folks who don't want any such progress made.

Unfortunately, Sharptons tend to hide behind innocents. It's simple enough to ferret them out - do you know the Freddy's Fashion Mart incident? - but humans being tribal, and Sharptons shameless by nature, it can be damnably hard to find anyone who'll listen. (which is why the man himself has survived, albeit looking like The Crypt Keeper's less energetic cousin)

I don't think it's at all deleterious to point these grifters out. Or to ask them precisely what good they're doing. Not with the appalling bodycounts among the communities they claim to fight for, and their tendency to harden hearts.

However, contrary to popular racist wisdom, I've seen exactly the same patterns in other parts of the globe, some of them among the whitest on the planet.

This would seem to dovetail nicely with what I mentioned earlier about the rhetoric surrounding "community collapse" very suddenly shifting depending on whose community we're talking about; to rephrase it a bit, you've noted that some have suggested that welfare incentives directed towards black communities have in some respects backfired, but when it comes to the latter-day emergence of those same social ills in white communities the only solution I see being floated from any side of the proverbial aisle is more generous welfare aimed squarely in their direction (can you imagine the reaction if someone said we needed to deploy more cops in white communities, or implement harsher prison sentences for meth use?), and I very much doubt that anyone's wringing their hands about the unintended side effects that might result from such aid, let alone taking a second look at any other social factors distinct to said communities. I know you stated outright that you don't intend to second-guess anyone on this issue and are not at all obligated to humor me, but I am still curious about what you make of this.

Welfare is important; police are, too. Again, I can't be expected to defend strangers, but I will say that to me, the solution is clearly not either/or. It's not binary, digital. Like most human issues, it's a balancing act.

"The key to life is balance," read the little plaque on the shitter door at my mom's office. I don't think the double entendre was intended, though valid nonetheless - healthier input means healthier output! - and the wider point has stayed with me, rather like a sufficiently fibrous meal. Even water and oxygen will kill you, in extreme concentrations. Life is a tightrope act from the cellular level up.

Echoing Strider, I don't say that because it sounds nice and groovy, maaan, but because I see it reflected in reality. Two years on, the withdrawal of policing in American cities post-Floyd has done demonstrable harm. NYC, Philly, Minneapolis, the list is terribly long. So I think there's a clear indicator of "too far left," there. On the other hand, US policies on marijuana offences, to name one infamy, are plainly as toxic as the water in tragic Flint. Too far right.

"Centrist" is a pejorative at the moment, but whatever, I don't care. I think at this point in the story of black urban America, it's clear neither extreme is helping.

Making the word literally unsayable is not progress.

For whatever it's worth there has been at least some pushback on this front; I forget which black comedian it was, but he said he always hated it when white people used the phrase "the n word", because "you don't want to say it, but we all know what it means, so as soon as I hear the euphemism you're forcing me to say it inside my head". I would also imagine that most people, regardless of race, don't support banning Huckleberry Finn and the like simply because the word is in there.

We can only live in hope!

As a personal anecdote to that end, a few years back I sang with a local barbershop chorus, and around that time the national barbershop organization (yes, it exists) was making an effort to come to terms with its own racially fraught history (the style itself originated within minstrel groups mocking black music). At one point they interviewed a top-ranked black singer about the subject, and his take on the older, more "fraught" songs in the catalogue was that they should no longer be performed, but should be preserved, as a reminder of where we've been.

Sounds like an intelligent and thoughtful chap. I concur, some things need to be retired from active circulation, but erased? Never. That's profoundly dangerous to any society's collective future.

The "Planet of the Apes" clip could never stand on its own as a hitpiece, and was accordingly relegated to second banana.

Pun intended?

Jesus. Nope, not even my usual "Dammit, wonder if I should say 'no pun intended,' no, that just makes me look like a douche who wants everyone to acknowledge his genius wordplay!"

Bananas are great. Stops candy cravings and provides potassium + fibre. Restores HP in Shock Troopers! Grab 'em quick, before a monkey steals 'em!

[Blinge]

I don't eat bananas cause i don't want my guts to turn into Professor Burp's Bubble Works

[BIL]

That's another good thing about eating natural - overindulgence deterrent! Raisins, bananas, dates, good sweet stuff, but if you nyam 'em too much you gon shit your pants motherfucker!

[emphatic]

ITT: Cancelled pants.

[Sengoku Strider]

AW YEAH, FREEDOM TIME! Trump's got his own Twitter clone now! Big tech's about to get Chris Kyled.





That world-shattering moment when you discover it's the lawyers who are, in fact, the alpha males.

[Koa Zo]

For those kinds, what's the point of the trial when they've already determined the outcome is execution?
I suppose that adds legitimacy to their desire to kill those they oppose. MAGA indeed.

[o.pwuaioc]

Welfare is important; police are, too. Again, I can't be expected to defend strangers, but I will say that to me, the solution is clearly not either/or. It's not binary, digital. Like most human issues, it's a balancing act.

"The key to life is balance," read the little plaque on the shitter door at my mom's office. I don't think the double entendre was intended, though valid nonetheless - healthier input means healthier output! - and the wider point has stayed with me, rather like a sufficiently fibrous meal. Even water and oxygen will kill you, in extreme concentrations. Life is a tightrope act from the cellular level up.

Echoing Strider, I don't say that because it sounds nice and groovy, maaan, but because I see it reflected in reality. Two years on, the withdrawal of policing in American cities post-Floyd has done demonstrable harm. NYC, Philly, Minneapolis, the list is terribly long. So I think there's a clear indicator of "too far left," there. On the other hand, US policies on marijuana offences, to name one infamy, are plainly as toxic as the water in tragic Flint. Too far right.

"Centrist" is a pejorative at the moment, but whatever, I don't care. I think at this point in the story of black urban America, it's clear neither extreme is helping.

"Centrism" I think has become a no-no word because too often it means "center between an extreme and a moderate position." Centrism doesn't actually posit anything intrinsically, so much as it tries to placate two sides. I think that is a problem. What's the center between genocide and the status quo? Nothing good.

But moderation and reasonableness have their just place. I think here too people often conflate moderation and reasonableness with overly-cautious tip-toeing. Moderation should be more about testing the water to ensure the plan is going well, why reasonableness is about ensuring the plan actually makes sense and will accomplish its task. It's all effective strategy. Let's not castigate strategy just because some cling to ineffective plans! We can take a firm foot when necessary and remain put when necessary. "Choose your battles" isn't just a silly cliche.

I wouldn't really consider that these to be the same thing as centrism, though.

[BulletMagnet]

"Centrism" I think has become a no-no word because too often it means "center between an extreme and a moderate position."

I'd frankly take it a step further and state that what so frequently gets labeled a "centrist" position these days is very much about supporting an extreme position while acting like you don't; if someone asks you about a particular hard-line candidate or law on the ballot and you say "well, I have my reservations" but then you inevitably go out and vote for it, the only difference between you and an open wingnut advocate is that you tried to avoid criticism of your views.

Calling yourself a "centrist" essentially means you get to act like there is a "red line" you won't cross when it comes to what you'll support in a particular direction, when such a limit doesn't actually exist. At least that's how it seems to always play out here in the USA.

Also, Rittenhouse is asking for donations so he can sue a whole bunch of people.

[BIL]

Well, he was referred to by several parties as a racist white supremacist murderer. Textbook defamation. You'd accept those labels being slapped on you? If some emotionally incontinent talking head chucked that filth on my name, I'd split their asshole in two like an overripe mango.

[Blinge]

[o.pwuaioc]

What an absolutely daft way of saying "please don't forget about your own!" This is what I'm talking about: strategize, people!

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Could be fake and designed to create this outrage. We know there's Chinese and Russian actors working on social media to spread disinformation and sow chaos against western states, so I'd say Poe's Law applies here.

[o.pwuaioc]

Could be fake and designed to create this outrage. We know there's Chinese and Russian actors working on social media to spread disinformation and sow chaos against western states, so I'd say Poe's Law applies here.

I could see someone saying this, but I think your interpretation is more likely.

[BulletMagnet]

Textbook defamation. You'd accept those labels being slapped on you?

Depends on how willing you are to cheer a particular someone on to sue the bastards: just to cite a few semi-recent high-profile examples from this side of the pond off the top of my head, Obama was accused countless times by countless media figures of (just for starters) both being an America-hating secret Muslim and not being born in the country...and one of his most prominent detractors on this front ended up succeeding him. Hillary Clinton was both called a closeted lesbian and smeared as having conceived her daughter via an affair (and that Chelsea was forced to undergo plastic surgery to better resemble Bill). Perhaps my personal favorite was Justice David Souter, upon his retirement, being called a "goat-fucking child molester" (and the person who said it was soon thereafter hired by CNN).

There are, of course, boatloads of this sort of thing on both sides of the aisle (though it's clear where I would posit the most numerous and egregious examples originate); were their situations any less "textbook defamation" than Rittenhouse's? Should they all have sued? Especially since some of them could more plausibly argue that said claims did them tangible harm than Rittenhouse could? Or would they have earned themselves the "frivolous" label?

[BIL]

Presidents and Secretaries of State will almost certainly qualify as public figures, and therefore need to prove actual malice, not mere negligence, to win defamation claims. That said: if they believed they had cases, then sure, why not.

Rittenhouse was a random kid who ended up on the wrong side of a violent mob. He has a more realistic chance of proceeding as a private citizen, where he will need only prove negligence. Cenk Whateverthefuck and Joe Biden casually labelling him a "murderer" and a "white supremacist" are pretty easy layups.

Back to my question, though: if I casually labelled you a murderer and a race supremacist, and you had the means to hit me back legally, would you just laugh it off? Those are pretty vile things, as is imo devaluing them into worthlessness by casually slinging them about. Personally IDGAF what some genocide-denier talking head or rotting venal puppet think of me, let a total stranger, but there is decent principle here.

[BulletMagnet]

He has a more realistic chance of proceeding as a private citizen, where he will need only prove negligence.

Methinks this will be a tougher sell as time goes on, at least if Rittenhouse continues along his current trajectory. Even if you want to discount the various media appearances and such in the wake of the trial as inevitable and temporary spikes in exposure, this whole lawsuit thing is being done via the high-profile launch of a specifically branded fund; if he'd done the interviews and gone largely back to private life that would have been one thing, but it seems pretty clear from here that he intends to ride the wave of his acquittal and ride it hard. I'd certainly like to hear someone argue that he 1) hasn't become a household name, and 2) has any regrets whatsoever about that having happened.

Back to my question, though: if I casually labelled you a murderer and a race supremacist, and you had the means to hit me back legally, would you just laugh it off?

It would depend, I like to think. To keep things focused on Rittenhouse's situation for a moment, one of his complaints listed in the article is that "people still call me a murderer after I was legally acquitted" - would, say, the likes of O.J. Simpson or even Bill Cosby or Bill Clinton (or Donald Trump, who has constantly threatened such action since long before he got into politics) have grounds to sue over the same sort of thing following their own highly controversial acquittals, or are people who still call them a murderer or rapist or illegitimate allowed to express in such a manner that they strongly disagree with the verdict rendered (putting aside the "public figure" consideration)?

The "white supremacist" thing is considerably thornier, since it 1) Deals with his innermost motivations, which get inevitably theoretical very quickly, and 2) Wasn't part of the trial anyway, since the people he shot were white. That latter complaint I'd be more willing to give him (or a theoretical "you") the benefit of the doubt on, but it's obvious he's not stopping there.

[BIL]

Methinks this will be a tougher sell as time goes on, at least if Rittenhouse continues along his current trajectory.

There's nothing to sell, assuming he's restricting himself to comments made while his trial was ongoing.

In that regard, being exceedingly charitable to those he's suing, you might argue he "inserted himself into the public debate" by attending Kenosha that night. How well this would hold up, given his "publicity" stemmed directly from being chased down and attacked by an enraged felon with a long track record of extreme violence, then chased down and attacked again by his armed cohorts, I don't know. I imagine state-level precedent might illuminate here.

To keep things focused on Rittenhouse's situation for a moment, one of his complaints listed in the article is that "people still call me a murderer after I was legally acquitted" - would, say, the likes of O.J. Simpson or even Bill Cosby or Bill Clinton (or Donald Trump, who has constantly threatened such action since long before he got into politics) have grounds to sue over the same sort of thing following their own highly controversial acquittals, or are people who still call them a murderer or rapist or illegitimate allowed to express in such a manner that they strongly disagree with the verdict rendered (putting aside the "public figure" consideration)?

That gets into statements of opinion (protected under your First Amendment) versus fact. AFAIK, Simpson actually could sue you on those grounds, given he maintains he's never killed anyone, with a legal ruling in support of that (cough). Rittenhouse obviously admits he did, in self-defense. I imagine any defamation action would succeed or fail on judicial interpretation. "Murder" does have a specific legal definition. Here on Cuck Island it includes "malice aforethought," an element quashed by a successful claim of self-defense, that is, killing expressly to avoid being killed oneself by an aggressor. The US statute I saw quoted in the Rittenhouse trial had a particularly excellent bit of prose, referring to the actions of a "depraved and indifferent heart."

The four people he shot at were variously 1) chasing him down at length while he fled, 2) attempting to stomp/bludgeon his head while he was on the ground (contrary to the pampered wisdom of Western comfort, where knife fights are not catastrophic encounters feared by history's toughest men, but just a part of growing up - a good kick or sledge to the skull from above is an excellent way to kill someone, particularly if you hit a good spot; the temple and the artery its juncture thinly shields is an infamous vulnerability) and 3) pointing a gun in his face (this guy survived, while the guy next to him who suddenly thought better of approaching was allowed to leave unscathed).

A good advocate could have a field day here, though again I'm sure a lot would come down to judicial interpretation. "Murder" is widely used in public discourse to casually describe any and all acts of homicide, however just or injust. Cenk, First of His Name and Licker of John Flynt's Taint, would probably fall back on this latter definition to escape liability.

The "white supremacist" thing is considerably thornier, since it 1) Deals with his innermost motivations, which get inevitably theoretical very quickly

I wouldn't be confident on that defense. Biden's statement could easily be construed to suggest not some nebulous "Yeah tbh unchecked illegal immigration has had some consequences" thought, but membership, goals, orders - evidence of which there appears to be fuck all.

The "OK" symbol doesn't count. Or if it does, I weep for humanity. That was a joke started by 4chan. The mainstream media fell for it. It's a sendup of the mainstream's frothing demand for new hate crimes.

2) Wasn't part of the trial anyway, since the people he shot were white.

It wouldn't have to be part of the trial, only a statement made in public (in this case during a television interview and a Biden 2020 campaign ad).

De facto you're correct. I don't think the prosecution attempted at any point to suggest Rittenhouse showed up to "kill black people," to name one of the more pungent loafs of bullshit being served around the public square at the time.



Which makes Biden's endorsing of this viewpoint all the stranger. Then again, this is a man who in his youth referred to integrated schools as "racial jungles" he dreaded sending his children into. Maybe he was just overcompensating.

[Blinge]

three black lives.. w-what?

[BIL]

MLK, X, and Tupac 3;

[Blinge]

i can't tell if that guy was joking or is so high on his horse that he didn't even check what happened

[BIL]

The latter - those reactions were depressingly common, but combined with his fart-huffing bio, his was one of the more photogenic. Like a Diet Joss Whedon, minus the vicious misogyny. :O

"I create worlds, and then I populate 'em with smart, witty people who don't think they're heroes (but they are)."

[BulletMagnet]

In that regard, being exceedingly charitable to those he's suing, you might argue he "inserted himself into the public debate" by attending Kenosha that night.

In terms of whether or not Rittenhouse could be considered a "public figure" I'm honestly not so much concerned with that fateful night in Kenosha or even the ensuing trial, but rather what he's done after he was very suddenly thrust into the limelight, namely efforts like this donation fund which are pretty obviously intended to keep him there. Precisely where the law might draw the line on this front I honestly couldn't tell you, but at the very least he doesn't strike me as a particularly reluctant celebrity.

"Murder" does have a specific legal definition.

That's a fair point, though one additional rhetorical possibility you didn't list here is that because the authorities eventually determined that, despite making what even some of his supporters call a poorly thought out initial decision to strut into town packing heat that night (if memory serves he even said as much himself in an interview with The Blaze) that in the end all of the killings were still justified, those who think he should have borne at least some responsibility for what transpired could say he'd committed "state-sanctioned murder" or something like that, along the lines of how some folks generally opposed to "stand your ground" laws might put it.

If you really want to dig into my mind's most cynical reaches about the current situation, however, I can't help but wonder if this will eventually turn out to be another "Build the Wall" kind of fundraiser, where the vast majority of the funds end up very quickly repurposed after the initial effort didn't quite pan out. But that's a whole other ball of wax.

[Ed Oscuro]

What an absolutely daft way of saying "please don't forget about your own!" This is what I'm talking about: strategize, people!

People can be extremely empathetic only of their in-group - which can lead to outcomes like fanatical terrorism, or just your garden-variety tone deafness as seen here.

Personally, I think it's appropriate and OK for people to call out their pet issues, like "we need to be skeptical of what the authorities tell us" or "the US bombed Somalia today, why isn't it in the news?"

I am enjoying a degree of schaenfreude towards the self-described "anti-Imperalist Left" getting publicly humiliated because of their penchant for believing anti-US lies, but they still don't seem to be learning the right lesson from this mess. "I don't trust what the US says" is one thing, but people are fooling themselves into believing that Noam Chomsky or some millionaire political streamer is a substitute for real news (and, at the top of that food chain, the lesson should be "real life doesn't care about your priors and theories, dumbass!). It wasn't just the US Government that predicted the Russian invasion of Ukraine; there was plenty of open source intel which supported Pres. Biden's claims if you just looked. "Anti-imperialism" for some people seems to mean "isn't Russia still a Communist utopia? I like those guys."

So yeah, cancel the whole lot of 'em, useless tankies.

[BIL]

AW YEAH, FREEDOM TIME! Trump's got his own Twitter clone now! Big tech's about to get Chris Kyled.

(image: BEEFEH STEW)

Oi Strider, your boi unexpectedly popped up on my new favourite Friday night background noise. Worra rascal! He habe sick beatz & INSIGHTFUR rhymes! (u want dat stuff dats raw?!?!! )

[xxx1993]

https://animesenpai.net/nagatoros-voice ... EEWGw5OBVM

Looks like cancel culture is going after Sumire Uesaka because of her love for Russia and its culture in the midst of the Ukraine War.

[Sengoku Strider]

Could be fake and designed to create this outrage.

Looks like you got it in one:

Oi Strider, your boi unexpectedly popped up on my new favourite Friday night background noise. Worra rascal! He habe sick beatz & INSIGHTFUR rhymes! (u want dat stuff dats raw?!?!! )

Dammit, I've jumped world lines again.



I have got to get a new microwave.

What do you all call the Berniestone Bears here?