5 ms·

Notice the usage of the word “cancel” in an attempt to play the victim and attract sympathy for what amounts, essentially, to intellectual dishonesty.

by epgui 4y ago

pessimizer 4y ago
When you impose a decision on someone they do not like, they do not have to play the victim, they are the victim. We can discuss whether they are a victim that you sympathize with or whether you think that they deserve their treatment, but accusing them of "playing the victim" is about as profound and distracting as accusing people of "playing the race card." edit: I need to add that it is also intellectually dishonest to dismiss arguments based on who you think the arguments have been designed to appeal to.
- flebron 4y ago
  That seems a weird use of the word. By that notion, every convicted criminal is a victim, because the court imposed a sentence that they, presumably, do not like. This removes practically all meaning from the word "victim". In common parlance, well-understood consequences of one's own actions occurring does not make one a victim.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > This removes practically all meaning from the word "victim". No, it removes the personal judgement from the word "victim," where we decide whether a particular victim deserves their punishment as a preliminary to discussing their situation. ----- edit: i.e. where sympathetic people who are killed are victims, and unsympathetic people are killed are being portrayed as victims. It's an attempt to distract from the material facts of a situation with arguments about language. edit 2: In the spirit of tripling down, I'm also giving this discussion more credit than it deserves. This is about someone saying that the word "cancel" implies the word "victim." So here's the implied argument afaict. 1) Using the word "cancel" to refer to an imposition on your work means that you're implying you're a "victim." 2) A "victim" is someone who is undeserving of what has happened to them. 3) This person is deserving of what has happened to them. 4) Therefore, they are dishonest.
    - enkid 4y ago
      But your original reply didn't say "he didn't call himself a victim," it tried to argue why he was a victim. The gp to this reply was pointing out how absurd your definition of victim is. It's not making an argument about whether or not he called himself a victim, it makes an argument about what you yourself defined as a victim.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        I've made that argument, and you can accept it or not. The larger point is that accusing people of playing victims is always a distraction from actual argument, and the entire thread is evidence of that. It started with irrelevance and ended nowhere.
        posterboy 4y ago
        > The larger point is that accusing people of playing victims is always a distraction from actual argume Yes, and when they are really playing they become the victim of their own ploy.
  - bdowling 4y ago
    If a court ignored the law and imposed a criminal sentence merely because it didn't like the defendant, then that would be an injustice and you would call the convicted person a victim.
- epgui 4y ago
  Point of order: a non-domain-expert produced a thing he called a “documentary”, and then he was criticized for totally reasonable reasons by actual subject matter experts. Using the word “cancel” in this context is petty.
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    It is petty if it specifically avoids mention of any of the evidence, and instead invents groundless personal accusations. Hancock is being proved right about his accusers.
    - posterboy 4y ago
      It's damning evidence enough that Netflix aren't having an expert on the show, isn't it?
      - moloch-hai 4y ago
        Might depend on whether they were invited and declined. But inventing spurious ad hominem accusations instead of offering a plausible counter-narrative is not a good look.
        epgui 4y ago
        What exactly are you referring to when you say “ad hominem accusations”? I don’t follow.
        moloch-hai 4y ago
        Calling him racist.
        epgui 4y ago
        They don't call him racist. Read the referenced material carefully.
bl0rg 4y ago
Some claim he's supporting racist conspiracy theories in their headlines. I'd say that's an attempt at canceling him. He's good at taking on the victim role though, I'll give you that.
- boppo1 4y ago
  How is he helping a racist conspiracy theory?
  - bl0rg 4y ago
    Something about Atlanteans being white (I don't recall this ever being a point of Graham, and I don't think Plato mentioned it either) and bringing civilization to brown folk (who later brought it to white folk), implying that brown folk are lesser. Yeah, it's not their best work.
  - 015a 4y ago
    Their argument is: 28 years ago, Graham wrote a book about this theory (Fingerprints of the Gods) where he used the language "ancient white civilization". Why precisely he used this language may require deeper research, but it was at-least in part because Quetzalcoatl was described in Aztec literature as being white (to my knowledge this is not controversial), and Graham believes that the Quetzalcoatl story isn't a myth or legend, but rather a spoken-word memory of a visitor from this more-ancient civilization. Part of his theory (which is well explained in the show) is that there are a handful of ancient cultures like the Aztecs who have stories of an "enlightened visitor" like Quetzalcoatl, bringing the knowledge necessary to elevate their cultures into organized society. In other words: these ancient cultures, who are mostly non-white, were "saved" by an ancient white civilization. Having followed him loosely since then: he does not use this language anymore; certainly not in Ancient Apocalypse. If, upon reading that, your conclusion is "mainstream academia may actually be out to get him": you're beginning to understand why people like Dr. Hoopes [1] just need to shut up, go outside, and find more actual evidence to disprove him. Slinging insults like that only adds credence to his statement that mainstream academia is out to get him, which by proximity adds credence to the rest of his theories. But, what he would say is: mainstream archaeology is a lot better at insulting and talking than they are at digging; and independent of his theories, there's substantial evidence to conclude this to be true. [1] https://boingboing.net/2022/11/27/archaeologists-reveal-the-white-supremacist-nonsense-behind-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse.html https://boingboing.net/2022/11/27/archaeologists-reveal-the-...

Notice the usage of the word “cancel” in an attempt to play the victim and attract sympathy for what amounts, essentially, to intellectual dishonesty.

by epgui 4y ago

Notice the usage of the word “cancel” in an attempt to play the victim and attract sympathy for what amounts, essentially, to intellectual dishonesty.

pessimizer 4y ago

When you impose a decision on someone they do not like, they do not have to play the victim, they are the victim. We can discuss whether they are a victim that you sympathize with or whether you think that they deserve their treatment, but accusing them of "playing the victim" is about as profound and distracting as accusing people of "playing the race card." edit: I need to add that it is also intellectually dishonest to dismiss arguments based on who you think the arguments have been designed to appeal to.

flebron 4y ago
That seems a weird use of the word. By that notion, every convicted criminal is a victim, because the court imposed a sentence that they, presumably, do not like. This removes practically all meaning from the word "victim". In common parlance, well-understood consequences of one's own actions occurring does not make one a victim.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > This removes practically all meaning from the word "victim". No, it removes the personal judgement from the word "victim," where we decide whether a particular victim deserves their punishment as a preliminary to discussing their situation. ----- edit: i.e. where sympathetic people who are killed are victims, and unsympathetic people are killed are being portrayed as victims. It's an attempt to distract from the material facts of a situation with arguments about language. edit 2: In the spirit of tripling down, I'm also giving this discussion more credit than it deserves. This is about someone saying that the word "cancel" implies the word "victim." So here's the implied argument afaict. 1) Using the word "cancel" to refer to an imposition on your work means that you're implying you're a "victim." 2) A "victim" is someone who is undeserving of what has happened to them. 3) This person is deserving of what has happened to them. 4) Therefore, they are dishonest.
  - enkid 4y ago
    But your original reply didn't say "he didn't call himself a victim," it tried to argue why he was a victim. The gp to this reply was pointing out how absurd your definition of victim is. It's not making an argument about whether or not he called himself a victim, it makes an argument about what you yourself defined as a victim.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      I've made that argument, and you can accept it or not. The larger point is that accusing people of playing victims is always a distraction from actual argument, and the entire thread is evidence of that. It started with irrelevance and ended nowhere.
      - posterboy 4y ago
        > The larger point is that accusing people of playing victims is always a distraction from actual argume Yes, and when they are really playing they become the victim of their own ploy.
- bdowling 4y ago
  If a court ignored the law and imposed a criminal sentence merely because it didn't like the defendant, then that would be an injustice and you would call the convicted person a victim.
epgui 4y ago
Point of order: a non-domain-expert produced a thing he called a “documentary”, and then he was criticized for totally reasonable reasons by actual subject matter experts. Using the word “cancel” in this context is petty.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  It is petty if it specifically avoids mention of any of the evidence, and instead invents groundless personal accusations. Hancock is being proved right about his accusers.
  - posterboy 4y ago
    It's damning evidence enough that Netflix aren't having an expert on the show, isn't it?
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      Might depend on whether they were invited and declined. But inventing spurious ad hominem accusations instead of offering a plausible counter-narrative is not a good look.
      - epgui 4y ago
        What exactly are you referring to when you say “ad hominem accusations”? I don’t follow.
        moloch-hai 4y ago
        Calling him racist.
        epgui 4y ago
        They don't call him racist. Read the referenced material carefully.

bl0rg 4y ago

Some claim he's supporting racist conspiracy theories in their headlines. I'd say that's an attempt at canceling him. He's good at taking on the victim role though, I'll give you that.

boppo1 4y ago
How is he helping a racist conspiracy theory?
- bl0rg 4y ago
  Something about Atlanteans being white (I don't recall this ever being a point of Graham, and I don't think Plato mentioned it either) and bringing civilization to brown folk (who later brought it to white folk), implying that brown folk are lesser. Yeah, it's not their best work.
- 015a 4y ago
  Their argument is: 28 years ago, Graham wrote a book about this theory (Fingerprints of the Gods) where he used the language "ancient white civilization". Why precisely he used this language may require deeper research, but it was at-least in part because Quetzalcoatl was described in Aztec literature as being white (to my knowledge this is not controversial), and Graham believes that the Quetzalcoatl story isn't a myth or legend, but rather a spoken-word memory of a visitor from this more-ancient civilization. Part of his theory (which is well explained in the show) is that there are a handful of ancient cultures like the Aztecs who have stories of an "enlightened visitor" like Quetzalcoatl, bringing the knowledge necessary to elevate their cultures into organized society. In other words: these ancient cultures, who are mostly non-white, were "saved" by an ancient white civilization. Having followed him loosely since then: he does not use this language anymore; certainly not in Ancient Apocalypse. If, upon reading that, your conclusion is "mainstream academia may actually be out to get him": you're beginning to understand why people like Dr. Hoopes [1] just need to shut up, go outside, and find more actual evidence to disprove him. Slinging insults like that only adds credence to his statement that mainstream academia is out to get him, which by proximity adds credence to the rest of his theories. But, what he would say is: mainstream archaeology is a lot better at insulting and talking than they are at digging; and independent of his theories, there's substantial evidence to conclude this to be true. [1] https://boingboing.net/2022/11/27/archaeologists-reveal-the-white-supremacist-nonsense-behind-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse.html https://boingboing.net/2022/11/27/archaeologists-reveal-the-...