4 ms·

Rob Monster is a neo nazi cultivator. I hate cancel culture but if anyone deserves to be “cancelled” it’s his kind.

by trianglem 6y ago

tmpz22 6y ago
"Nazis deserve to be cancelled" is a controversial statement to some HN users.
- XorNot 6y ago
  They're getting downvoted because it's an asinine statement - "I hate cancel culture but...". So actually they don't hate it, they haven't even thought about it, and in this one instance when they did they concluded that people are right. They're just stopping short of considering that view any further because then they'd be like those people who are definitely wrong. Because they are.
  - trianglem 6y ago
    Cancel culture has been frivolously applied to a lot of situations where it does not make sense to. Rob Monster literally has said himself he wants to provide a place to foment specifically far-right ideology. He is extremely deserving of a “cancel”.
- ttt0 6y ago
  Yes, it is. I don't think that you should be cancelled for being a communist, a nazi, a black nationalist or whatever, simply for holding such opinions. Really outrageous thing to say, I know.
  - andrewzah 6y ago
    " a nazi" People refusing to speak with you or buy things from you is not "being canceled". You do not have a right to force people to listen to you, or force people to do business with you. You are protected from the -government- by the 1st amendment, and other laws prohibit you or your business from discriminating based on protected classes. You are not protected from the court of public opinion, and rightly so. Of course you should be free to say "I agree with Nazi views", and of course I should be allowed to say "that's idiotic, goodbye". I really don't understand how people seem to think that I -must- respect your opinion no matter what it is, and that I -must- continue to speak with you or do business with you. Where is -my- freedom? If you disagree, then don't give me money and maybe my business will fail! But I should be free to do that.
    - ttt0 6y ago
      Why does FCC even exists then? It clearly violates the freedoms of private companies. What about their freedoms?
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        Great question. While access to the airwaves clearly bumps up against questions of First Amendment rights and protections thereof, the airwaves themselves are a finite national resource---at least the way the system was originally set up, two signals cannot share the same carrier frequency, so the FCC has the responsibility of allocating those resources. The allocation criteria include responsible use of the resources by those to whom they've been allotted for the public good, because those resources have been de facto denied to other private citizens. What that "for the public good" clause means, though, is forever under scrutiny and up for debate. For historical reasons, the FCC distinguishes obscene or profane material from the general category of material with a viewpoint. The FCC is constrained from sanctioning broadcasters for broadcasting a particular view, but does have general authority to sanction across the board for profanity broadcast within a certain time range (when children are assumed present) and from obscene material at all points in time. For more information: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-freedom-speech https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-freedom-speech The Internet did not grow up in an ecosystem of similar government constraints because it is not a resource with the physical finiteness of communication spectrum---we can always attach more computers. Plus, if I understand the philosophy correctly, a fundamental difference was understood between broadcast material---what's your user can receive whether or not they wish to but just leaving their receiver tuned to the relevant station---and online material, which the user only receives if they make an explicit request for. All of that having been said, this is all muddy, and arguments can certainly be made that various aspects of it are incorrectly reasoned, outdated, or bad analogy.
- moistbar 6y ago
  Yes, I imagine that accusing someone of being a Nazi without any proof would go over poorly here.
  - trianglem 6y ago
    He has said himself that he want to provide a space to foment and cultivate far-right ideology on the internet. That’s a Nazi and your prevaricating is obvious.
    - moistbar 6y ago
      The fact that you immediately translate the phrase "far right" into "Nazi" is on you, bud. You also have yet to provide a source for any of this.
- tor12 6y ago
  funny thing. most cheering on cancellation is closer to the then nazi party ideologically then the ones being cancelled. not all tho.
andrewzah 6y ago
Cancel culture is not really a thing, as much as comedians like to talk about it (on huge platforms like netflix). People are speaking with the only thing companies give a damn about- money. They want people to be held accountable for things, and are actually willing to put money where their mouth is. If you disagree with that, then you disagree with free market capitalism. It's not even really political, as people on both sides get "canceled"- I mean, occasionally get held accountable for their actions. There are dumb instances (like Al Franken, Aziz Ansari, Jeffrey Tambor) and others where people jump the gun, but overall I can't say it's really a bad thing. People need to be held accountable for their actions, end of story. As the saying goes: if you see shit everywhere you go, check your shoe.
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  I mean, you can assert that baselessly, or you could read literally anything about the prevalence of "cancellation" in both the private and public spheres, especially among gen-z cohorts: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/style/cancel-culture.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/style/cancel-culture.html Maybe it hasn't affected you or your circle, by name, but it's ridiculous to assert it "isn't really a thing"
  - andrewzah 6y ago
    The court of public opinion has always existed. People now realize that they can assert their opinions and hold people accountable, whereas in the past other people may have just shrugged and gone "well, that's just how it is". In the case of the article you linked, the first example of "canceling" was someone walking out of a classroom after requesting a song to not be played. This is not unreasonable given the R.Kelly allegations and documentary. The second example of "canceling" is literally just deciding to ignore someone, and make other people aware of it and reason behind it. How on earth is that a new phenomenon? She had a valid reason too! The third example with James Charles is also not unreasonable, and by "canceled" they really mean "people got upset and didn't want to watch his videos anymore". Are you seriously going to argue that if I get upset with someone, I should continue to watch their videos? That's not canceling someone! So I'm going to repeat it: Cancel "culture" is not really a thing. People from these last two generations are more vocal about their beliefs. And good for it.

Rob Monster is a neo nazi cultivator. I hate cancel culture but if anyone deserves to be “cancelled” it’s his kind.

tmpz22 6y ago

"Nazis deserve to be cancelled" is a controversial statement to some HN users.

XorNot 6y ago
They're getting downvoted because it's an asinine statement - "I hate cancel culture but...". So actually they don't hate it, they haven't even thought about it, and in this one instance when they did they concluded that people are right. They're just stopping short of considering that view any further because then they'd be like those people who are definitely wrong. Because they are.
- trianglem 6y ago
  Cancel culture has been frivolously applied to a lot of situations where it does not make sense to. Rob Monster literally has said himself he wants to provide a place to foment specifically far-right ideology. He is extremely deserving of a “cancel”.
ttt0 6y ago
Yes, it is. I don't think that you should be cancelled for being a communist, a nazi, a black nationalist or whatever, simply for holding such opinions. Really outrageous thing to say, I know.
- andrewzah 6y ago
  " a nazi" People refusing to speak with you or buy things from you is not "being canceled". You do not have a right to force people to listen to you, or force people to do business with you. You are protected from the -government- by the 1st amendment, and other laws prohibit you or your business from discriminating based on protected classes. You are not protected from the court of public opinion, and rightly so. Of course you should be free to say "I agree with Nazi views", and of course I should be allowed to say "that's idiotic, goodbye". I really don't understand how people seem to think that I -must- respect your opinion no matter what it is, and that I -must- continue to speak with you or do business with you. Where is -my- freedom? If you disagree, then don't give me money and maybe my business will fail! But I should be free to do that.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    Why does FCC even exists then? It clearly violates the freedoms of private companies. What about their freedoms?
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      Great question. While access to the airwaves clearly bumps up against questions of First Amendment rights and protections thereof, the airwaves themselves are a finite national resource---at least the way the system was originally set up, two signals cannot share the same carrier frequency, so the FCC has the responsibility of allocating those resources. The allocation criteria include responsible use of the resources by those to whom they've been allotted for the public good, because those resources have been de facto denied to other private citizens. What that "for the public good" clause means, though, is forever under scrutiny and up for debate. For historical reasons, the FCC distinguishes obscene or profane material from the general category of material with a viewpoint. The FCC is constrained from sanctioning broadcasters for broadcasting a particular view, but does have general authority to sanction across the board for profanity broadcast within a certain time range (when children are assumed present) and from obscene material at all points in time. For more information: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-freedom-speech https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-freedom-speech The Internet did not grow up in an ecosystem of similar government constraints because it is not a resource with the physical finiteness of communication spectrum---we can always attach more computers. Plus, if I understand the philosophy correctly, a fundamental difference was understood between broadcast material---what's your user can receive whether or not they wish to but just leaving their receiver tuned to the relevant station---and online material, which the user only receives if they make an explicit request for. All of that having been said, this is all muddy, and arguments can certainly be made that various aspects of it are incorrectly reasoned, outdated, or bad analogy.
moistbar 6y ago
Yes, I imagine that accusing someone of being a Nazi without any proof would go over poorly here.
- trianglem 6y ago
  He has said himself that he want to provide a space to foment and cultivate far-right ideology on the internet. That’s a Nazi and your prevaricating is obvious.
  - moistbar 6y ago
    The fact that you immediately translate the phrase "far right" into "Nazi" is on you, bud. You also have yet to provide a source for any of this.
tor12 6y ago
funny thing. most cheering on cancellation is closer to the then nazi party ideologically then the ones being cancelled. not all tho.

andrewzah 6y ago

Cancel culture is not really a thing, as much as comedians like to talk about it (on huge platforms like netflix). People are speaking with the only thing companies give a damn about- money. They want people to be held accountable for things, and are actually willing to put money where their mouth is. If you disagree with that, then you disagree with free market capitalism. It's not even really political, as people on both sides get "canceled"- I mean, occasionally get held accountable for their actions. There are dumb instances (like Al Franken, Aziz Ansari, Jeffrey Tambor) and others where people jump the gun, but overall I can't say it's really a bad thing. People need to be held accountable for their actions, end of story. As the saying goes: if you see shit everywhere you go, check your shoe.

bpodgursky 6y ago
I mean, you can assert that baselessly, or you could read literally anything about the prevalence of "cancellation" in both the private and public spheres, especially among gen-z cohorts: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/style/cancel-culture.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/style/cancel-culture.html Maybe it hasn't affected you or your circle, by name, but it's ridiculous to assert it "isn't really a thing"
- andrewzah 6y ago
  The court of public opinion has always existed. People now realize that they can assert their opinions and hold people accountable, whereas in the past other people may have just shrugged and gone "well, that's just how it is". In the case of the article you linked, the first example of "canceling" was someone walking out of a classroom after requesting a song to not be played. This is not unreasonable given the R.Kelly allegations and documentary. The second example of "canceling" is literally just deciding to ignore someone, and make other people aware of it and reason behind it. How on earth is that a new phenomenon? She had a valid reason too! The third example with James Charles is also not unreasonable, and by "canceled" they really mean "people got upset and didn't want to watch his videos anymore". Are you seriously going to argue that if I get upset with someone, I should continue to watch their videos? That's not canceling someone! So I'm going to repeat it: Cancel "culture" is not really a thing. People from these last two generations are more vocal about their beliefs. And good for it.