3 ms·

> 'Cancel culture' isn't force, it's culture. That's why they call it 'cancel culture', and not 'cancel force.' Funny, it turns out a lot of people would rather

> 'Cancel culture' isn't force, it's culture. That's why they call it 'cancel culture', and not 'cancel force.' Funny, it turns out a lot of people would rather not do business with racists, misogynists, homophobes, neo-Nazis, and assorted religious bigots, whodathunkit. Don't do business, sure, but harassing your political opponent's family and getting them fired still is culture and not force? And it can't even be both? And the best argument you can come up with is that it's not literally called "cancel force"? That seems reasonable. > Someone from the government showing up with a gun and telling me I can't marry a consenting adult of my choice Show me just one example of this happening today. Just one. You're grasping at straws here arguing based on arbitrarily defined semantics, things that never happened and randomly accusing me of trolling (that one's especially low), while ignoring the central point. To quote you, sounds like you've made up your mind on this issue.

CamperBob2 6y ago
Show me just one example of this happening today. Just one. See https://www.claerygreen.com/Family-Law-Blog/2015/April/Filing-Taxes-for-Same-Sex-Married-Couples-in-Cal.aspx https://www.claerygreen.com/Family-Law-Blog/2015/April/Filin... . If Proposition 8 had been allowed to stand, and if a gay couple had claimed the state tax break reserved for heterosexual married couples, the state revenue agency would have rejected their return and demanded payment of the additional tax they owed, plus interest and penalties. Then, if the couple refused to pay, eventually someone with a gun would have come to their door. Try it yourself, if you don't believe me. It happens every day to people who refuse to pay their taxes. That's the very definition of "force." It's the only power a government ultimately has. And it's a much bigger deal than being harassed on Facebook. With Brendan Eich's help, a mob of seven million people attemped to bring this hypothetical scenario to life. Since then, the Trump administration has stocked the Federal courts with hundreds of far-right judges, including several rated 'unqualified' by the ABA, whom I suspect would have let the law stand. Hopefully we won't have to find out. If the next Brendan Eich refrains from trying to incorporate the Bible into state and Federal law because he's terrified of what might happen to his career, I'm OK with that. To quote you, sounds like you've made up your mind on this issue. That's a safe assumption.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  If you need to preface it with "If X had happened" then it's not an example of something happening. > Since then, the Trump administration has stocked the Federal courts with hundreds of far-right judges, including several rated 'unqualified' by the ABA, whom I suspect would have let the law stand. Do you even realize how big of an assumption this is? "I suspect" is definitely not sufficient to justify ruining people's careers. To the contrary, it's emblematic of mob justice. > If the next Brendan Eich refrains from trying to incorporate the Bible into state and Federal law because he's terrified of what might happen to his career, I'm OK with that. First off, that's a really grandiose way to say "he donated $1000 to an unfashionable cause". Secondly, canceling is a pretty shitty way to fix this problem, don't you think? So shitty you might even call it counterproductive? You don't think this is going to lead to more bottled up hate down the road? You don't think this kind of thing is exactly what got Trump elected in the first place? Thirdly, and most importantly, cancel culture doesn't stop at Eich. People are getting canceled for far more harmless offenses than his. Because, same as Proposition 8, cancelers are nothing but a hate mob ascribing themselves moral superiority in order to justify their morally reprehensible actions, but unlike Proposition 8 no one even has the power to keep the mob in check. Regarding your last sentence - you obviously support gay marriage, do you think you're open minded? Are you really?
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    If you need to preface it with "If X had happened" then it's not an example of something happening. I think that's the core of our disagreement. I'm not in favor of harassing Eich with 2 AM phone calls or flaming bags of dogshit on his front porch or whatever it was that people were doing to his family. But I'd like to think that if I worked for Mozilla, I'd do whatever I could to get him ejected from the company, or at least from my part of the org chart. He doesn't need my sympathy, after all, with over half the voting population of California on his side. I'm sure he'll land on his feet. Do you even realize how big of an assumption this is? "I suspect" is definitely not sufficient to justify ruining people's careers. To the contrary, it's emblematic of mob justice. Specifically demanding that I provide proof that the events I'm concerned about have in fact happened is a great example of sealioning. It's a DoS attack against the conversation. You'll either move the goalposts as soon as I cite anything concrete, or dismiss highly-plausible predictions as merely hypothetical, as you've done here. I could have cited the story behind Loving v. Virginia or any number of similar cases, but in past debates, people on the other side of the fence have answered that by saying that unlike race, sexual orientation is a choice and consequently shouldn't be protected by law. So then, all of a sudden, I have to defend that proposition. The general rhetorical strategy you've employed here is to force your opponent to think multiple moves ahead, as in a chess game. That's fine in a classical game where there's a well-defined victory condition that we can both strive to reach, but in the game of direct democracy we're literally making up the rules as we go along. Eich's side fights dirty, so is it surprising that the other side thinks it has to as well? Secondly, canceling is a pretty shitty way to fix this problem, don't you think? So shitty you might even call it counterproductive? You don't think this is going to lead to more bottled up hate down the road? You don't think this kind of thing is exactly what got Trump elected in the first place? That's certainly a valid threat. We'll see how it plays out this time around. Fox News is a helluva drug, and it's entirely possible that we're beyond redemption as a society. Re-electing Trump will certainly reinforce that notion, but I don't think it's going to happen. Americans are good at taking down cardboard heroes once we catch on. Still, I won't lie -- when I looked up the voting statistics on Prop 8 for the earlier reply, I was pretty bummed. The proposition received an order of magnitude more 'yes' votes, in California of all places, than I thought it did. Eich's position is a strong one. Regarding your last sentence - you obviously support gay marriage, do you think you're open minded? Are you really? A few years ago I'd have agreed with you in principle here, but recent events have convinced me that Karl Popper's 'paradox of tolerance' is a valid concern. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/paradox-tolerance https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/paradox-tolerance supports your position by quoting Popper himself: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise." The trouble is that religion trumps rational argument. Seven million people voted for Proposition 8 because people like Eich told them they would go to hell if they didn't. Being "open-minded" enough to tolerate this point of view appears to be suicidal, because any sort of atrocity can be justified the same way. (Note that nothing I've written requires me to support gay marriage, any more than what you've written requires you to be against it. But when you're making up the rules for either a game or a government, it's best to think abstractly.)

CamperBob2 6y ago

Show me just one example of this happening today. Just one. See https://www.claerygreen.com/Family-Law-Blog/2015/April/Filing-Taxes-for-Same-Sex-Married-Couples-in-Cal.aspx https://www.claerygreen.com/Family-Law-Blog/2015/April/Filin... . If Proposition 8 had been allowed to stand, and if a gay couple had claimed the state tax break reserved for heterosexual married couples, the state revenue agency would have rejected their return and demanded payment of the additional tax they owed, plus interest and penalties. Then, if the couple refused to pay, eventually someone with a gun would have come to their door. Try it yourself, if you don't believe me. It happens every day to people who refuse to pay their taxes. That's the very definition of "force." It's the only power a government ultimately has. And it's a much bigger deal than being harassed on Facebook. With Brendan Eich's help, a mob of seven million people attemped to bring this hypothetical scenario to life. Since then, the Trump administration has stocked the Federal courts with hundreds of far-right judges, including several rated 'unqualified' by the ABA, whom I suspect would have let the law stand. Hopefully we won't have to find out. If the next Brendan Eich refrains from trying to incorporate the Bible into state and Federal law because he's terrified of what might happen to his career, I'm OK with that. To quote you, sounds like you've made up your mind on this issue. That's a safe assumption.

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
If you need to preface it with "If X had happened" then it's not an example of something happening. > Since then, the Trump administration has stocked the Federal courts with hundreds of far-right judges, including several rated 'unqualified' by the ABA, whom I suspect would have let the law stand. Do you even realize how big of an assumption this is? "I suspect" is definitely not sufficient to justify ruining people's careers. To the contrary, it's emblematic of mob justice. > If the next Brendan Eich refrains from trying to incorporate the Bible into state and Federal law because he's terrified of what might happen to his career, I'm OK with that. First off, that's a really grandiose way to say "he donated $1000 to an unfashionable cause". Secondly, canceling is a pretty shitty way to fix this problem, don't you think? So shitty you might even call it counterproductive? You don't think this is going to lead to more bottled up hate down the road? You don't think this kind of thing is exactly what got Trump elected in the first place? Thirdly, and most importantly, cancel culture doesn't stop at Eich. People are getting canceled for far more harmless offenses than his. Because, same as Proposition 8, cancelers are nothing but a hate mob ascribing themselves moral superiority in order to justify their morally reprehensible actions, but unlike Proposition 8 no one even has the power to keep the mob in check. Regarding your last sentence - you obviously support gay marriage, do you think you're open minded? Are you really?
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  If you need to preface it with "If X had happened" then it's not an example of something happening. I think that's the core of our disagreement. I'm not in favor of harassing Eich with 2 AM phone calls or flaming bags of dogshit on his front porch or whatever it was that people were doing to his family. But I'd like to think that if I worked for Mozilla, I'd do whatever I could to get him ejected from the company, or at least from my part of the org chart. He doesn't need my sympathy, after all, with over half the voting population of California on his side. I'm sure he'll land on his feet. Do you even realize how big of an assumption this is? "I suspect" is definitely not sufficient to justify ruining people's careers. To the contrary, it's emblematic of mob justice. Specifically demanding that I provide proof that the events I'm concerned about have in fact happened is a great example of sealioning. It's a DoS attack against the conversation. You'll either move the goalposts as soon as I cite anything concrete, or dismiss highly-plausible predictions as merely hypothetical, as you've done here. I could have cited the story behind Loving v. Virginia or any number of similar cases, but in past debates, people on the other side of the fence have answered that by saying that unlike race, sexual orientation is a choice and consequently shouldn't be protected by law. So then, all of a sudden, I have to defend that proposition. The general rhetorical strategy you've employed here is to force your opponent to think multiple moves ahead, as in a chess game. That's fine in a classical game where there's a well-defined victory condition that we can both strive to reach, but in the game of direct democracy we're literally making up the rules as we go along. Eich's side fights dirty, so is it surprising that the other side thinks it has to as well? Secondly, canceling is a pretty shitty way to fix this problem, don't you think? So shitty you might even call it counterproductive? You don't think this is going to lead to more bottled up hate down the road? You don't think this kind of thing is exactly what got Trump elected in the first place? That's certainly a valid threat. We'll see how it plays out this time around. Fox News is a helluva drug, and it's entirely possible that we're beyond redemption as a society. Re-electing Trump will certainly reinforce that notion, but I don't think it's going to happen. Americans are good at taking down cardboard heroes once we catch on. Still, I won't lie -- when I looked up the voting statistics on Prop 8 for the earlier reply, I was pretty bummed. The proposition received an order of magnitude more 'yes' votes, in California of all places, than I thought it did. Eich's position is a strong one. Regarding your last sentence - you obviously support gay marriage, do you think you're open minded? Are you really? A few years ago I'd have agreed with you in principle here, but recent events have convinced me that Karl Popper's 'paradox of tolerance' is a valid concern. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/paradox-tolerance https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/paradox-tolerance supports your position by quoting Popper himself: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise." The trouble is that religion trumps rational argument. Seven million people voted for Proposition 8 because people like Eich told them they would go to hell if they didn't. Being "open-minded" enough to tolerate this point of view appears to be suicidal, because any sort of atrocity can be justified the same way. (Note that nothing I've written requires me to support gay marriage, any more than what you've written requires you to be against it. But when you're making up the rules for either a game or a government, it's best to think abstractly.)