3 ms·

>Donald Trump Trump was banned from twitter after he already lost the presidency, and banning from a mediocre low-IQ forum is not how most cancel culture oppon

>Donald Trump Trump was banned from twitter after he already lost the presidency, and banning from a mediocre low-IQ forum is not how most cancel culture opponents define it, the dominant conception has an essential material aspect to it, such as firing from a job, harassment or extra-legal violence. >Plenty of politicians and celebrities have been cancelled for racist, sexist and otherwise abusive behavior, but I don't know what your line for "genuinely powerful" is, either Not OP, but I suspect his\her line for "genuinely powerful being cancelled" is that the cancellation is not planned and catalysed by a "more powerful" entity. When and if "cancelling" is ever used against a powerful person, there are often extremely obvious marks of an equal or superior in power person(s) behind it. When this doesn't happen, the cancellation attempt fails (e.g. Sexual allegations against Joe Biden failing).

krapp 5y ago
>Trump was banned from twitter after he already lost the presidency, and banning from a mediocre low-IQ forum is not how most cancel culture opponents define it, the dominant conception has an essential material aspect to it, such as firing from a job, harassment or extra-legal violence. Opponents of cancel culture absolutely considered Donald Trump to be a victim of it. They still hold him up as an example of cancel culture being more powerful than the sovereignty of states, arbitrarily able to remove the political power of even a sitting President at a whim, because they also argue that social media companies hold monopoly control over the majority of human communication, so being banned from them is equivalent to being erased from modern society.
- Banana699 5y ago
  >Opponents of cancel culture absolutely considered Donald Trump to be a victim of it. I have no doubt you can find some opponents of cancel culture who believe that to be true, the point is whether this is a meaningful or influential subset next to the vast majority that believes that it's the material harm of mob action that makes the practice barbaric and harmful. >they also argue that social media companies hold monopoly control over the majority of human communication This is an objective fact by all reasonable measures of the words "monopoly" and "majority". Are you saying this to support their argument or to contradict it? >being banned from them is equivalent to being erased from modern society. "Erased" is a bit of a strong word, being banned from social media is probably for the better interests of the banned person's mental health and IQ. But it does amount to silencing, the oft-repeated example here is how telephony companies and mobile providers can't censor or degrade the service according to the content that users share across their networks. I have never seen a convincing argument for why social media is any different than mobile phones such that this doesn't hold.
- jhgb 5y ago
  > Opponents of cancel culture absolutely considered Donald Trump to be a victim of it. Is that an existential or universal claim?

krapp 5y ago

>Trump was banned from twitter after he already lost the presidency, and banning from a mediocre low-IQ forum is not how most cancel culture opponents define it, the dominant conception has an essential material aspect to it, such as firing from a job, harassment or extra-legal violence. Opponents of cancel culture absolutely considered Donald Trump to be a victim of it. They still hold him up as an example of cancel culture being more powerful than the sovereignty of states, arbitrarily able to remove the political power of even a sitting President at a whim, because they also argue that social media companies hold monopoly control over the majority of human communication, so being banned from them is equivalent to being erased from modern society.

Banana699 5y ago
>Opponents of cancel culture absolutely considered Donald Trump to be a victim of it. I have no doubt you can find some opponents of cancel culture who believe that to be true, the point is whether this is a meaningful or influential subset next to the vast majority that believes that it's the material harm of mob action that makes the practice barbaric and harmful. >they also argue that social media companies hold monopoly control over the majority of human communication This is an objective fact by all reasonable measures of the words "monopoly" and "majority". Are you saying this to support their argument or to contradict it? >being banned from them is equivalent to being erased from modern society. "Erased" is a bit of a strong word, being banned from social media is probably for the better interests of the banned person's mental health and IQ. But it does amount to silencing, the oft-repeated example here is how telephony companies and mobile providers can't censor or degrade the service according to the content that users share across their networks. I have never seen a convincing argument for why social media is any different than mobile phones such that this doesn't hold.
jhgb 5y ago
> Opponents of cancel culture absolutely considered Donald Trump to be a victim of it. Is that an existential or universal claim?