3 ms·

> ironically. You cannot square the need to stop "cancel culture" and free speech; they are incompatible. Absolutely not, opposing and trying to overcome canc

> ironically. You cannot square the need to stop "cancel culture" and free speech; they are incompatible. Absolutely not, opposing and trying to overcome cancel culture does not violate anyone's free speech. No one is being muzzled and told they cannot speak. Cancel culture simply being opposed as with any other political discussion does not violate anyone's freedom of speech.

ashtonkem 5y ago
Which is why I say it can also be vague. “Oppose and overcome cancel culture”, well what precisely are you suggesting? How do you recommend that “cancel culture” be opposed? I presume you’re making a recommendation beyond expressing a general resistance to it, right?
- infamia 5y ago
  For me, the reason it's vague, is because everyone's opposition will come in different forms. Some will engage on forums like this, others will donate time and/or money to organizations that promote free speech, etc. For the purposes of this discussion it doesn't matter, as long as folks opposing cancel culture don't fall into the same oppressive and regressive tactics that cancel culture (i.e. trying to intimidate and forcibly silence others).
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    So you’re going to side step towards “organizations that promote free speech”. And what, exactly, do those organizations recommend? What policies or actions do they support or take themselves? After all, you’re saying you oppose “cancel culture”, surely that opposition has to take some form somewhere, right?
    - infamia 5y ago
      > After all, you’re saying you oppose “cancel culture”, surely that opposition has to take some form somewhere, right? Presumably, those groups mainly would try to increase awareness and support free speech (get in the news, post articles like on this site, encourage activism like what John Cleese did, etc.), while others might lobby the government to oppose/support laws around freedom of speech. As I originally stated, this is all entirely self-consistent, as long as everyone is free to speak.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        > support laws around freedom of speech. And that’s where my alarm bells started to go off. I have never heard an anti-“cancel culture” bill that doesn’t end up being authoritarian and anti-free speech gobbley gook. After all, the only solutions here are to restrain the free speech of the “mob”, or to restrict the free association rights of businesses and other people. It’s always very poorly thought out, unconstitutional junk that’s at best thrown out to sate the culture war crowd with the desperate hope that the courts will strike it down before we’re stuck with the actual consequences. At worst, it’s actually an authoritarian push by cynical politicians who hope to use it as a cudgel to beat their opponents with the power of the state.

ashtonkem 5y ago

Which is why I say it can also be vague. “Oppose and overcome cancel culture”, well what precisely are you suggesting? How do you recommend that “cancel culture” be opposed? I presume you’re making a recommendation beyond expressing a general resistance to it, right?

infamia 5y ago
For me, the reason it's vague, is because everyone's opposition will come in different forms. Some will engage on forums like this, others will donate time and/or money to organizations that promote free speech, etc. For the purposes of this discussion it doesn't matter, as long as folks opposing cancel culture don't fall into the same oppressive and regressive tactics that cancel culture (i.e. trying to intimidate and forcibly silence others).
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  So you’re going to side step towards “organizations that promote free speech”. And what, exactly, do those organizations recommend? What policies or actions do they support or take themselves? After all, you’re saying you oppose “cancel culture”, surely that opposition has to take some form somewhere, right?
  - infamia 5y ago
    > After all, you’re saying you oppose “cancel culture”, surely that opposition has to take some form somewhere, right? Presumably, those groups mainly would try to increase awareness and support free speech (get in the news, post articles like on this site, encourage activism like what John Cleese did, etc.), while others might lobby the government to oppose/support laws around freedom of speech. As I originally stated, this is all entirely self-consistent, as long as everyone is free to speak.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      > support laws around freedom of speech. And that’s where my alarm bells started to go off. I have never heard an anti-“cancel culture” bill that doesn’t end up being authoritarian and anti-free speech gobbley gook. After all, the only solutions here are to restrain the free speech of the “mob”, or to restrict the free association rights of businesses and other people. It’s always very poorly thought out, unconstitutional junk that’s at best thrown out to sate the culture war crowd with the desperate hope that the courts will strike it down before we’re stuck with the actual consequences. At worst, it’s actually an authoritarian push by cynical politicians who hope to use it as a cudgel to beat their opponents with the power of the state.