5 ms·

> This is why we can have an election outcome that no one in the media predicted. I'm surprised you chose this as the prime example. I think things surrounding

• briefcomment 6y ago
  Yes, those are better examples.
• pjc50 6y ago
  The statues are not arbitrary and many of them have been objected to for years. Similarly, US police have been routinely murdering people for years. What social media has done is allow the creation of a "headless" protest movement that can outrun attempts to take it down. In both cases, some people have leapt in and gone too far because they enjoy the chaos, but don't let that obscure the real issues. No, the problem of social media is reactionary movements arising against entirely fake problems, like "pizzagate".
  • umvi 6y ago
    > The statues are not arbitrary and many of them have been objected to for years. Christopher Columbus and Francis Scott Key aren't arbitrary? It's not like they were removed by a democratic process. The majority had no say. A loud minority decided they needed to come down for arbitrary reasons and did it without permission. Anyone challenging them would be browbeaten by the loud minority mobs on social media and cancelled (employers pressured to fire them, etc.). Loud minorities have effectively been making entire corporations cower and kowtow on social media during recent weeks.
    • augustt 6y ago
      Columbus has been a point of contention for a while now. Regardless, corporations are not saying BLM because some tiny segment of the country thinks that. A majority of America supports the movement, and that's being reflected by PR now. The last line of defense for conservatives is "well actually there's a silent majority that thinks otherwise" and "actually most people don't care, they're just virtue signaling". And this works well when the Fox+ apparatus are the ones creating boogeymen out of minor things like CHAZ.
      • umvi 6y ago
        > Columbus has been a point of contention for a while now That's a given, but it's arbitrary in that he's not generally recognized as a "symbol of slavery" like Confederate flags or statues are, so it's just minorities taking advantage of turmoil to bypass the democratic process and impose their will on everyone. On a side note, I personally think it's wrong to retroactively "cancel" historical figures because we now judge their actions to modern morals. It's better to recognize they were victims of their time and not judge them as harshly - "with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" and all. Most of the founding fathers had slaves, but let's face it, most of us would have had slaves as well had we been born in their shoes. If we really decide it's a good idea to hold historical figures to modern standards, and cancel them if they fail the test, prepare for people in 2525 to retroactively cancel us and all of our heroes because we don't live up to the lofty (unknown) morals of 2525. > Regardless, corporations are not saying BLM because some tiny segment of the country thinks that. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about meaningless virtue signalling that corporations attempt to try to ingratiate the small, but extremely loud, mobs on social media (think GitHub changing master branch name). It's a corporation's worst PR nightmare to be harangued by the mob on social media.
        • pjc50 6y ago
          The confederate statues were erected many years after the war they had lost, specifically to promote white supremacy. Lee wasn't ""cancelled"", he surrendered, and was shown considerably more mercy than the 20th century showed to the surrendering Nazis. Putting up a statue of Lee was whatever the opposite of virtue signalling is - vice signalling?
          • google234123 6y ago
            I'm not sure what the point of is of bringing up how Lee was treated at the end of the civil war. It's hard to say how handling things different at that time would have actually gone.
        • triceratops 6y ago
          > he's not generally recognized as a "symbol of slavery" He's not recognized as a symbol of plantation slavery because it didn't exist at the time. But he enslaved the native population of Hispaniola and was incredibly inhumane and cruel to them. So much so that the Spanish crown "canceled" him. Crazy, right?[1] He also never set foot on the US mainland. There aren't really any good reasons to have statues of the guy around. > Most of the founding fathers had slaves Is anyone taking down statues of Jefferson, Washington, Adams and co? You're drawing a false equivalence between them and Confederate leaders. Confederate leaders engaged in high treason, and took up arms against their countrymen to defend their right to own other human beings. They deserve to be "canceled". There was already a public hearing about all of this 160 years ago. It was called the Civil War and they lost. The only reason these people weren't tried and executed for treason is because the Union saw fit to offer generous terms in order to end the conflict quicker and save lives (note how it never occurred to the Confederates that they too could save the lives of their own people, if only they gave up on their determination to own other human beings). 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#Accusations_of_tyranny_and_brutality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#Accusatio...
    • rayiner 6y ago
      > Christopher Columbus I’ve been calling for the cancellation of Columbus since at least 2015. In part because he was a genocidal maniac. But mainly because it would give us an excuse to turn Columbus Circle in DC into a proper intersection.
    • GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
      Implying that these statues were put up were done so by a democratic process?
  • stronglikedan 6y ago
    Grant is most certainly arbitrary.
  • google234123 6y ago
    Your statement that US police have been routinely murdering people for years is exaggerated.