4 ms·

If you're wanting to claim that `Cancel Culture` never happened, then I'm afraid, at this point in history, the burden of proof is on you, not me. lol.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
I made no claim. But the OP did make a claim that "calling things lies that we all know ended up being true" I challenged that with a request for actual examples. Feel free to link to them.
- quantadev 2y ago
  No one needs proof Cancel Culture was real. Everyone knows at this point. So you can pretend you need proof if you want, but you're not fooling anyone.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    Handwaving is not providing examples. Please try again.
    - quantadev 2y ago
      You can go to the wikipedia page. You don't need to be spoon-fed.
      - intended 2y ago
        See, thats not how it works in productive conversations. “Adult” so to speak conversations online, require the person making the claim to provide the evidence. The act of not providing the evidence, is essentially a sign of not having an argument, and resorting to bluffs in the hope that people will take the emotions as facts. But thats entirely self defeating - it reduces your argument to one about feels and vibes. I always find this to be annoying, because I dont think people are so inaccurate. You may well have evidence, and bringing it up makes the case. And if you dont find evidence, then you improve your own argument. You end up checking and figuring out what made you hold that position. It’s just a lost chance. And if people said they dont care to do this, then why the heck did they make the effort? You just lost your peace for no reason.
        quantadev 2y ago
        sorry, I only read your first sentence, but for something as well known as "Cancel Culture" if someone claims it must be proven to exist before it can be discussed then that is the person who's not acting in good faith, and has immediately discredited themselves, due to ignorance of very well known facts. Asking people to list evidence for well known things is a well known troll-tactic, and often used as a way to deflect and redirect a discussion into the specifics of specific cases, especially when the main argument has nothing to do with any of the specific cases.
        intended 2y ago
        Hey come now. I read all your sentences. Be fair. You may be getting downvoted but I think that you are arguing in good faith. If it helps. I’m not a troll. There IS a norm where the person making the claim is expected to provide evidence the evidence. If you asked me, I would have to get something to show you. (Do ask, if only it creates effort on my side to make it fair) And I don’t think the issue here is whether cancel culture exists. If you go through your comment chain, your original claim was that it was countless example, ie one of magnitude. Based on that, you dismissed fact checking entirely. Which is what people are basically responding to. Not that cancel culture didn’t exist- but that it was mostly wrong. And therefore - that fact checking is mostly wrong. I also have seen fact checking in other countries other than America - it’s absolutely correct in many situations, but is still problematic because it’s unpopular.
        quantadev 2y ago
        The above person was trying to pretend there's no evidence for the existence of Cancel Culture, totally discrediting themselves. To be honest, there are indeed MSM/CNN watchers who are so completely brainwashed that they do genuinely believe that; but more than likely they're trolling so I just avoid them entirely.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

I made no claim. But the OP did make a claim that "calling things lies that we all know ended up being true" I challenged that with a request for actual examples. Feel free to link to them.

quantadev 2y ago
No one needs proof Cancel Culture was real. Everyone knows at this point. So you can pretend you need proof if you want, but you're not fooling anyone.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Handwaving is not providing examples. Please try again.
  - quantadev 2y ago
    You can go to the wikipedia page. You don't need to be spoon-fed.
    - intended 2y ago
      See, thats not how it works in productive conversations. “Adult” so to speak conversations online, require the person making the claim to provide the evidence. The act of not providing the evidence, is essentially a sign of not having an argument, and resorting to bluffs in the hope that people will take the emotions as facts. But thats entirely self defeating - it reduces your argument to one about feels and vibes. I always find this to be annoying, because I dont think people are so inaccurate. You may well have evidence, and bringing it up makes the case. And if you dont find evidence, then you improve your own argument. You end up checking and figuring out what made you hold that position. It’s just a lost chance. And if people said they dont care to do this, then why the heck did they make the effort? You just lost your peace for no reason.
      - quantadev 2y ago
        sorry, I only read your first sentence, but for something as well known as "Cancel Culture" if someone claims it must be proven to exist before it can be discussed then that is the person who's not acting in good faith, and has immediately discredited themselves, due to ignorance of very well known facts. Asking people to list evidence for well known things is a well known troll-tactic, and often used as a way to deflect and redirect a discussion into the specifics of specific cases, especially when the main argument has nothing to do with any of the specific cases.
        intended 2y ago
        Hey come now. I read all your sentences. Be fair. You may be getting downvoted but I think that you are arguing in good faith. If it helps. I’m not a troll. There IS a norm where the person making the claim is expected to provide evidence the evidence. If you asked me, I would have to get something to show you. (Do ask, if only it creates effort on my side to make it fair) And I don’t think the issue here is whether cancel culture exists. If you go through your comment chain, your original claim was that it was countless example, ie one of magnitude. Based on that, you dismissed fact checking entirely. Which is what people are basically responding to. Not that cancel culture didn’t exist- but that it was mostly wrong. And therefore - that fact checking is mostly wrong. I also have seen fact checking in other countries other than America - it’s absolutely correct in many situations, but is still problematic because it’s unpopular.
        quantadev 2y ago
        The above person was trying to pretend there's no evidence for the existence of Cancel Culture, totally discrediting themselves. To be honest, there are indeed MSM/CNN watchers who are so completely brainwashed that they do genuinely believe that; but more than likely they're trolling so I just avoid them entirely.