7 ms·

" In my view, too many critics of “cancel culture” are recklessly promoting not the speech of the powerless, but the censorious resentment of the powerful." Ye

" In my view, too many critics of “cancel culture” are recklessly promoting not the speech of the powerless, but the censorious resentment of the powerful." Yep, to often when i see these anti woke, cultur war, anti cancel culture critics. What they are actually doing is attacking people's free speech and defending the authoritarians that are actually trying to limit speech and other rights. They convinced themselves that free speech should protect them from criticism. When criticism is free speech.

bad_username 3y ago
Let me divert from Musk specifically for a moment. The "anti woke cancel culture critics" are in fact concerned with the inorganic, overwhelming influence that a specific family of ideologies has today over the means of modern communication. Observe the similarity with the left themselves, who are concerned with the inorganic, overwhelming influence that a specific class of wealthy people have today over the means of modern production. Massive advertising companies banding together to protect a specific narrative is as "free speech" as a bunch of colluding megacorps is "free market". And as much as the left resist the disproportionate influence of oligarchs on economy, the proponents of the actual free speech will resist the disproportionate influence of ESG-driven advertising giants on information.
- diob 3y ago
  Can you give some concrete examples of inorganic, overwhelming influence? And then perhaps contrast it with some concrete organic, overwhelming influence examples. But that's a bonus.
  - spondylosaurus 3y ago
    Maybe an organic overwhelming influence is how there's a lot of gay and Jewish people in musical theater? Unless it's actually an inorganic influence (thanks to the shady machinations of Big Sondheim...)
    - jancsika 3y ago
      I've only ever understood "organic" to refer to one of four things: 1. Chemistry 2. Farming/food (under one of various specifications) 3. An oddly-named composition technique in which phrases of music are built up using musical "Lego blocks", championed by Beethoven (and used by Sondheim, btw)[1] 4. I didn't do my research but I'd like to exhibit superiority to some other thing/group. (Otherwise, that other thing is more precisely described as "astroturfing," "fraud," "shills," etc.) 1: this used to be a bit superior, but it's old and obscure now so I grandfathered it in
- kstrauser 3y ago
  You mean when the advertising companies pulled their money from Twitter after its owner said Jews "pushing [...] hatred against whites" was "the actual truth"? Darn those woke hippies at... let's see... IBM! Or maybe, just maybe, the simpler explanation is that they don't want their ads running alongside that trash.
  - foolswisdom 3y ago
    That's not exactly what happened though https://x.com/billackman/status/1725898682438979972?s=46&t=Kaob3YzifQURZEWiVpyhaA https://x.com/billackman/status/1725898682438979972?s=46&t=K...
    - kstrauser 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - davidw 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - rpmisms 3y ago
        "Jewish Communities" doesn't mean "All Jews", and that's obvious to anyone not looking for a reason to be angry. Muslim communities just bombed the hell out of Israel, and that's not islamophobic to say, because it doesn't implicate all Muslims.
        Yoric 3y ago
        I don't know about that. As a reader, I find that "Jewish Communities" very much sounds like "All Jews" and "Muslim Communities" very much sounds like "All Muslims". If that's not what the authors mean, I'm sure that there are much, much better phrasings.
        rpmisms 3y ago
        That may very well be your own bias. If I say "Christian Communities hate gays", you'll probably think of one or two specific communities. When I saw "Jewish Communities" in gp's headline, I immediately thought "oh, the ADL", because they're bigots and don't really hide it.
- mindslight 3y ago
  I'm just sitting here as a small-l libertarian that's in tune with the concept of logical reductions (eg Turing completeness, NP-completeness, etc), wondering when people will wise up to the idea that sufficiently coercive corporations are indistinguishable from government and vice-versa. Arguing over this false dichotomy uses up all the air in the room, when we should actually be focusing on the amount of control being exerted. The richest person in the world has plenty of options to speak his mind, regardless of big advertisers no longer doing business with him due to his apparent views. Whereas I'm actually more supportive of the ability of the original poster to post his racist diatribe while not being censored by Twitter [0], if for nothing else than so these racist shitheads don't think too hard before outing themselves. [0] Not that this is even a concern with the current "X" for this particular type of content.
  - Freedom2 3y ago
    As a big-L Libertarian, I totally get where you're coming from. It's spot on - focusing on this government vs. corporation debate is missing the forest for the trees. What really matters is how much power any entity has to stomp on our liberties, whether it's the feds or big tech. The richest guy can say whatever he wants; he's got the means to bypass the usual channels. But what about the average Joe? That's where our concern should be. It's not about agreeing with what's said, but making sure everyone can say it. We need to keep our eyes on the real issue: preventing anyone, government or corporate, from getting too much control over our free speech. It's all about that freedom, not getting bogged down in who's the bigger threat.
  - b112 3y ago
    people will wise up to the idea that sufficiently coercive corporations are indistinguishable from government and vice-versa I will 100% agree that large-corp is a threat to democracy, and specific freedoms. But indistinguishable? Come on. A government can prevent you from speaking your mind, via legislation and the judicial branch. In terms of raw power, they have the capability to throw you in jail, they can detain you, they can prevent protest, pass laws to make your specific actions literally result in incarceration, they have armies, and police, and state spies, and on and on and on. Corporations may sometimes avail themselves of some of that power, but it is still the state wielding it. Corporations by themselves have little direct power, compared to states themselves. And yes, corporations will perform tasks for the state, and the state will sometimes perform tasks for corporations. But that's not my point. My point is, having a large corporation does not immediately provide for a massive army at the direct control of a CEO. It's just not indistinguishable, at all. So yes, looking at the specific powers of each entity is a good idea. Just.. keep it in perspective.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Could you please be more vague? What “specific family of ideologies”? What “specific narrative”? If it is so specific, surely you could say what it is…
  - uoaei 3y ago
    Reminds me a lot of the Let's Go Brandon crowd. The explicit and literal point of the First Amendment is that you're allowed to say "Fuck Joe Biden" loud and proud with no repercussions. Ditto for any other politician. Self-censorship to prove a non-existent point is totally backwards and self-defeating and demonstrates the level of civic understanding at play there.
    - zmgsabst 3y ago
      Let’s Go Brandon became a meme because a news anchor censored the crowd obviously chanting “fuck Joe Biden!” on air. People were mocking actual censorship in the media, by repeating the phrase — often accompanied by “fuck Joe Biden”, as in the numerous tracks about the meme. Which were also censored at first (eg, on iTunes). How you got from that to “self-censorship to prove a non-existent point” is mystifying.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        > It started at an Oct. 2 NASCAR race at the Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama. Brandon Brown, a 28-year-old driver, had won his first Xfinity Series and was being interviewed by an NBC Sports reporter. The crowd behind him was chanting something at first difficult to make out. The reporter suggested they were chanting “Let’s go, Brandon” to cheer the driver. But it became increasingly clear they were saying: “F—- Joe Biden.” https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-what-does-it-mean-republicans-joe-biden-ab13db212067928455a3dba07756a160 https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-what-does-it-mean... So, no, the crowd was not "censored" by a news anchor. The adoption of "Let's Go Brandon" as a euphimism for "Fuck Joe Biden" may well have been tongue in cheek, but it wasn't mocking media censorship.
        3y ago
- threeseed 3y ago
  > Massive advertising companies banding together Except companies don't communicate with each other and coordinate strategy. They all saw the Media Matters report and individually responded.
- LargoLasskhyfv 3y ago
  People are sheepl, that's why they baa so awfully, large and loud in a brainwashed crowd.
paulddraper 3y ago
> What they are actually doing is attacking people's free speech and defending the authoritarians that are actually trying to limit speech and other rights. Huh, I'm lost? Can you cite an example? To be clear, "___ is a lunatic and advocating for bad things" is a criticism. "___ is a lunatic and their message should not be permitted" is limiting speech
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > "___ is a lunatic and their message should not be permitted" is limiting speech No. That advocates for limiting speech, but is not itself limiting speech. If I say meat should be banned, that doesn't actually prevent you from eating a burger. The distinction here is important.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    Oh sure, supports limiting speech. Point is, I got lost in the parent's gyrations.

bad_username 3y ago

Let me divert from Musk specifically for a moment. The "anti woke cancel culture critics" are in fact concerned with the inorganic, overwhelming influence that a specific family of ideologies has today over the means of modern communication. Observe the similarity with the left themselves, who are concerned with the inorganic, overwhelming influence that a specific class of wealthy people have today over the means of modern production. Massive advertising companies banding together to protect a specific narrative is as "free speech" as a bunch of colluding megacorps is "free market". And as much as the left resist the disproportionate influence of oligarchs on economy, the proponents of the actual free speech will resist the disproportionate influence of ESG-driven advertising giants on information.

diob 3y ago
Can you give some concrete examples of inorganic, overwhelming influence? And then perhaps contrast it with some concrete organic, overwhelming influence examples. But that's a bonus.
- spondylosaurus 3y ago
  Maybe an organic overwhelming influence is how there's a lot of gay and Jewish people in musical theater? Unless it's actually an inorganic influence (thanks to the shady machinations of Big Sondheim...)
  - jancsika 3y ago
    I've only ever understood "organic" to refer to one of four things: 1. Chemistry 2. Farming/food (under one of various specifications) 3. An oddly-named composition technique in which phrases of music are built up using musical "Lego blocks", championed by Beethoven (and used by Sondheim, btw)[1] 4. I didn't do my research but I'd like to exhibit superiority to some other thing/group. (Otherwise, that other thing is more precisely described as "astroturfing," "fraud," "shills," etc.) 1: this used to be a bit superior, but it's old and obscure now so I grandfathered it in
kstrauser 3y ago
You mean when the advertising companies pulled their money from Twitter after its owner said Jews "pushing [...] hatred against whites" was "the actual truth"? Darn those woke hippies at... let's see... IBM! Or maybe, just maybe, the simpler explanation is that they don't want their ads running alongside that trash.
- foolswisdom 3y ago
  That's not exactly what happened though https://x.com/billackman/status/1725898682438979972?s=46&t=Kaob3YzifQURZEWiVpyhaA https://x.com/billackman/status/1725898682438979972?s=46&t=K...
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - davidw 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - rpmisms 3y ago
      "Jewish Communities" doesn't mean "All Jews", and that's obvious to anyone not looking for a reason to be angry. Muslim communities just bombed the hell out of Israel, and that's not islamophobic to say, because it doesn't implicate all Muslims.
      - Yoric 3y ago
        I don't know about that. As a reader, I find that "Jewish Communities" very much sounds like "All Jews" and "Muslim Communities" very much sounds like "All Muslims". If that's not what the authors mean, I'm sure that there are much, much better phrasings.
        rpmisms 3y ago
        That may very well be your own bias. If I say "Christian Communities hate gays", you'll probably think of one or two specific communities. When I saw "Jewish Communities" in gp's headline, I immediately thought "oh, the ADL", because they're bigots and don't really hide it.
mindslight 3y ago
I'm just sitting here as a small-l libertarian that's in tune with the concept of logical reductions (eg Turing completeness, NP-completeness, etc), wondering when people will wise up to the idea that sufficiently coercive corporations are indistinguishable from government and vice-versa. Arguing over this false dichotomy uses up all the air in the room, when we should actually be focusing on the amount of control being exerted. The richest person in the world has plenty of options to speak his mind, regardless of big advertisers no longer doing business with him due to his apparent views. Whereas I'm actually more supportive of the ability of the original poster to post his racist diatribe while not being censored by Twitter [0], if for nothing else than so these racist shitheads don't think too hard before outing themselves. [0] Not that this is even a concern with the current "X" for this particular type of content.
- Freedom2 3y ago
  As a big-L Libertarian, I totally get where you're coming from. It's spot on - focusing on this government vs. corporation debate is missing the forest for the trees. What really matters is how much power any entity has to stomp on our liberties, whether it's the feds or big tech. The richest guy can say whatever he wants; he's got the means to bypass the usual channels. But what about the average Joe? That's where our concern should be. It's not about agreeing with what's said, but making sure everyone can say it. We need to keep our eyes on the real issue: preventing anyone, government or corporate, from getting too much control over our free speech. It's all about that freedom, not getting bogged down in who's the bigger threat.
- b112 3y ago
  people will wise up to the idea that sufficiently coercive corporations are indistinguishable from government and vice-versa I will 100% agree that large-corp is a threat to democracy, and specific freedoms. But indistinguishable? Come on. A government can prevent you from speaking your mind, via legislation and the judicial branch. In terms of raw power, they have the capability to throw you in jail, they can detain you, they can prevent protest, pass laws to make your specific actions literally result in incarceration, they have armies, and police, and state spies, and on and on and on. Corporations may sometimes avail themselves of some of that power, but it is still the state wielding it. Corporations by themselves have little direct power, compared to states themselves. And yes, corporations will perform tasks for the state, and the state will sometimes perform tasks for corporations. But that's not my point. My point is, having a large corporation does not immediately provide for a massive army at the direct control of a CEO. It's just not indistinguishable, at all. So yes, looking at the specific powers of each entity is a good idea. Just.. keep it in perspective.
ryandrake 3y ago
Could you please be more vague? What “specific family of ideologies”? What “specific narrative”? If it is so specific, surely you could say what it is…
- uoaei 3y ago
  Reminds me a lot of the Let's Go Brandon crowd. The explicit and literal point of the First Amendment is that you're allowed to say "Fuck Joe Biden" loud and proud with no repercussions. Ditto for any other politician. Self-censorship to prove a non-existent point is totally backwards and self-defeating and demonstrates the level of civic understanding at play there.
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    Let’s Go Brandon became a meme because a news anchor censored the crowd obviously chanting “fuck Joe Biden!” on air. People were mocking actual censorship in the media, by repeating the phrase — often accompanied by “fuck Joe Biden”, as in the numerous tracks about the meme. Which were also censored at first (eg, on iTunes). How you got from that to “self-censorship to prove a non-existent point” is mystifying.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      > It started at an Oct. 2 NASCAR race at the Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama. Brandon Brown, a 28-year-old driver, had won his first Xfinity Series and was being interviewed by an NBC Sports reporter. The crowd behind him was chanting something at first difficult to make out. The reporter suggested they were chanting “Let’s go, Brandon” to cheer the driver. But it became increasingly clear they were saying: “F—- Joe Biden.” https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-what-does-it-mean-republicans-joe-biden-ab13db212067928455a3dba07756a160 https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-what-does-it-mean... So, no, the crowd was not "censored" by a news anchor. The adoption of "Let's Go Brandon" as a euphimism for "Fuck Joe Biden" may well have been tongue in cheek, but it wasn't mocking media censorship.
      - 3y ago
threeseed 3y ago
> Massive advertising companies banding together Except companies don't communicate with each other and coordinate strategy. They all saw the Media Matters report and individually responded.
LargoLasskhyfv 3y ago
People are sheepl, that's why they baa so awfully, large and loud in a brainwashed crowd.

paulddraper 3y ago

> What they are actually doing is attacking people's free speech and defending the authoritarians that are actually trying to limit speech and other rights. Huh, I'm lost? Can you cite an example? To be clear, "___ is a lunatic and advocating for bad things" is a criticism. "___ is a lunatic and their message should not be permitted" is limiting speech

mcpackieh 3y ago
> "___ is a lunatic and their message should not be permitted" is limiting speech No. That advocates for limiting speech, but is not itself limiting speech. If I say meat should be banned, that doesn't actually prevent you from eating a burger. The distinction here is important.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Oh sure, supports limiting speech. Point is, I got lost in the parent's gyrations.