7 ms·

> Yet you are also refusing to use her name? What a baffling question. I genuinely have no idea what you're getting at. > It is about the threat. It feels we

by DanBC 6y ago

> Yet you are also refusing to use her name? What a baffling question. I genuinely have no idea what you're getting at. > It is about the threat. It feels weird that to talk about cancel culture you pick someone who's at no risk of being cancelled.

rglullis 6y ago
> I genuinely have no idea what you're getting at. I mentioned articles that declared would only mention her by initials to avoid calling her name, you followed that pattern. If it was not deliberate, it was an interesting coincidence. > It feels weird that to talk about cancel culture you pick someone who's at no risk of being cancelled. No one can deny the fact that JK Rowling and Martina Navratilova were more than "criticized" for their "opinions". They were misrepresented in their views to create attrition with some minority group, then coerced into getting some kind of apology for saying something that in no way entices animosity towards said minority and still after that get their work and professional relationships harassed to try to get them ostracized. This by itself is already is cancel culture, not the fact that people actually get canceled. It feels even weirder that you are trying to minimize the harm caused by cancel culture by pointing out the fact that someone survived it.
- DanBC 6y ago
  People have been calling her JKR for years. > They were misrepresented in their views Rowling was not misrepresented. She really said those things. > then coerced into getting some kind of apology She hasn't apologised. She's made no concessions. She's repeated what she said. > harm caused by cancel culture by pointing out the fact that someone survived it No, I'm pointing out that she was never at any risk at all from being cancelled. You keep talking about how dangerous cancel culture is, and how people keep being attacked. But you're entirely one-sided in your "analysis". You've failed to account for JKR's 14 million followers that she uses to harass people. You never mention the people driven off platforms by the people you're defending. You cherry pick examples to try to get sympathetic victims, but when you do that you're unable to find anyone who actually got cancelled, and you provide examples of people who are at zero risk of cancellation and who keep saying whatever they want.
  - rglullis 6y ago
    > You've failed to account for JKR's 14 million followers that she uses to harass people. Unless you can actually point to a specific tweet where she sends her followers to harass someone, can you please drop the emotional rhetoric? > you're unable to find anyone who actually got cancelled, and you provide examples of people who are at zero risk of cancellation and who keep saying whatever they want. Oh, you mean survivorship bias? Yes, you are totally right! It is virtually impossible to find an up-and-coming talented writer who is able to express any controversial opinion without fearing for their careers. Why do you think is the more likely explanation: (a) every younger and talented writer shares the same world-view and are completely aligned with the vanguard of social justice or (b) every you writer is aware now that there are "things you can not say", i.e, cancel culture? You make it sound like them saying "whatever they want" and "face no risk of cancellation" is a bug. Like, people should not have the right to express any kind of conflicting opinion or they would have to face a struggle session. Do you realize how fucked up that is?

by DanBC 6y ago

rglullis 6y ago

> I genuinely have no idea what you're getting at. I mentioned articles that declared would only mention her by initials to avoid calling her name, you followed that pattern. If it was not deliberate, it was an interesting coincidence. > It feels weird that to talk about cancel culture you pick someone who's at no risk of being cancelled. No one can deny the fact that JK Rowling and Martina Navratilova were more than "criticized" for their "opinions". They were misrepresented in their views to create attrition with some minority group, then coerced into getting some kind of apology for saying something that in no way entices animosity towards said minority and still after that get their work and professional relationships harassed to try to get them ostracized. This by itself is already is cancel culture, not the fact that people actually get canceled. It feels even weirder that you are trying to minimize the harm caused by cancel culture by pointing out the fact that someone survived it.

DanBC 6y ago
People have been calling her JKR for years. > They were misrepresented in their views Rowling was not misrepresented. She really said those things. > then coerced into getting some kind of apology She hasn't apologised. She's made no concessions. She's repeated what she said. > harm caused by cancel culture by pointing out the fact that someone survived it No, I'm pointing out that she was never at any risk at all from being cancelled. You keep talking about how dangerous cancel culture is, and how people keep being attacked. But you're entirely one-sided in your "analysis". You've failed to account for JKR's 14 million followers that she uses to harass people. You never mention the people driven off platforms by the people you're defending. You cherry pick examples to try to get sympathetic victims, but when you do that you're unable to find anyone who actually got cancelled, and you provide examples of people who are at zero risk of cancellation and who keep saying whatever they want.
- rglullis 6y ago
  > You've failed to account for JKR's 14 million followers that she uses to harass people. Unless you can actually point to a specific tweet where she sends her followers to harass someone, can you please drop the emotional rhetoric? > you're unable to find anyone who actually got cancelled, and you provide examples of people who are at zero risk of cancellation and who keep saying whatever they want. Oh, you mean survivorship bias? Yes, you are totally right! It is virtually impossible to find an up-and-coming talented writer who is able to express any controversial opinion without fearing for their careers. Why do you think is the more likely explanation: (a) every younger and talented writer shares the same world-view and are completely aligned with the vanguard of social justice or (b) every you writer is aware now that there are "things you can not say", i.e, cancel culture? You make it sound like them saying "whatever they want" and "face no risk of cancellation" is a bug. Like, people should not have the right to express any kind of conflicting opinion or they would have to face a struggle session. Do you realize how fucked up that is?