4 ms·

After years of nonsense complaints about non-existent “cancel culture” and “censorship” campaigns, here we have the real thing happening right in front of our e

After years of nonsense complaints about non-existent “cancel culture” and “censorship” campaigns, here we have the real thing happening right in front of our eyes. Literal “forbidden” words being deleted from government documents and already-published material. This is truly disgusting, disturbing, and vile.

1shooner 2y ago
I don't support any of this reactionary nonsense, but there are certainly lists of forbidden words that grew along with the DEI movement. Of course they were forbidden for different (I'd say better) reasons, but it was ultimately also asserting power through control of language.
- cantstopmenow 2y ago
  How much of that accompanied foreign dissolution of Congressionally-mandated institutions?
- azernik 2y ago
  How much of that was actually removed in a crash effort, and how much was just fliers saying "please use this other word in the future"?
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > the DEI movement. "DEI" is not a movement, it is just a rebranding of Affirmative Action to emphasize the goals and break the association with (long explicitliy illegal, but often popularly associated with Affirmative Action) quota systems.
  - tbrownaw 2y ago
    I don't recall AA coming with affinity groups and explicit celebration and centering of differences.
thrwthsnw 2y ago
It’s kind of lame that these guys are blacklisting words based on some master list. Normally these things get grandfathered in but I guess they’re just blindly following orders after getting sold down the river. It seems like an insane waste of manpower if you ask me. I’d hate to be the low man on the totem pole slaving away at this kind of bitchwork and getting ragged on by the bossman if I missed a word.
- darkwater 2y ago
  Why didn't you use the n-word as well? Also, do you really think it's the same? I mean, the parody you wrote with what's actually happening?
IshKebab 2y ago
> non-existent “cancel culture” Wow I've never heard anyone deny the very existence of cancel culture before. Or is this some kind of semantic distinction-without-a-difference?
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  “Cancel culture” as a distinct novel thing doesn't exist; ostracism of people that diverge from a group’s values has existed forever, “cancel culture” is just a name applied to it by those indulging in certain beliefs that had previously been unquestionably dominant after they had become sufficiently controversial that those opposed to them were a significant-enough group that the ostracism that that previously dominant group had previously applied to its opponents sometimes had substantial impact in the other direction.
  - tbrownaw 2y ago
    > “Cancel culture” as a distinct novel thing doesn't exist Remember that something being a culture is about pervasiveness and normalization. It's not a mob harassing your employer because you posted photos with the wrong brand of political attire; it's it being culturally acceptable for a mob to harass your employer because you posted photos with the wrong brand of political attire. Sure people protesting things is old, like you say. As are groups deciding to not associate with certain people. But that is not in fact the same a nominally-impartial authorities encouraging protests for the purpose of having an excuse to impose a hecklers' veto on things they don't like. And it is not the same as targeted harassment of anyone outside the ostracising group who doesn't bow to their demands.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > Remember that something being a culture is about pervasiveness and normalization. It's not a mob harassing your employer because you posted photos with the wrong brand of political attire; it's it being culturally acceptable for a mob to harass your employer because you posted photos with the wrong brand of political attire. And, and that's been true forever; in fact what is attributed to cancel culture is mild compared to what has been socially acceptable within living memory for displays of political wrongthink, what changed is that that comparatively mild social consequence became acceptable against the side which had previously only been the giver but not receiver of socially acceptable consequence for noncompliance with their norms.
tdeck 2y ago
It's almost like the "free speech warriors" were never being intellectually honest or actually making good faith arguments, but instead pretending to make arguments in order to frustrate, irritate, distract, and waste people's time.

1shooner 2y ago

I don't support any of this reactionary nonsense, but there are certainly lists of forbidden words that grew along with the DEI movement. Of course they were forbidden for different (I'd say better) reasons, but it was ultimately also asserting power through control of language.

cantstopmenow 2y ago
How much of that accompanied foreign dissolution of Congressionally-mandated institutions?
azernik 2y ago
How much of that was actually removed in a crash effort, and how much was just fliers saying "please use this other word in the future"?
dragonwriter 2y ago
> the DEI movement. "DEI" is not a movement, it is just a rebranding of Affirmative Action to emphasize the goals and break the association with (long explicitliy illegal, but often popularly associated with Affirmative Action) quota systems.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  I don't recall AA coming with affinity groups and explicit celebration and centering of differences.

thrwthsnw 2y ago

It’s kind of lame that these guys are blacklisting words based on some master list. Normally these things get grandfathered in but I guess they’re just blindly following orders after getting sold down the river. It seems like an insane waste of manpower if you ask me. I’d hate to be the low man on the totem pole slaving away at this kind of bitchwork and getting ragged on by the bossman if I missed a word.

darkwater 2y ago
Why didn't you use the n-word as well? Also, do you really think it's the same? I mean, the parody you wrote with what's actually happening?

IshKebab 2y ago

> non-existent “cancel culture” Wow I've never heard anyone deny the very existence of cancel culture before. Or is this some kind of semantic distinction-without-a-difference?

dragonwriter 2y ago
“Cancel culture” as a distinct novel thing doesn't exist; ostracism of people that diverge from a group’s values has existed forever, “cancel culture” is just a name applied to it by those indulging in certain beliefs that had previously been unquestionably dominant after they had become sufficiently controversial that those opposed to them were a significant-enough group that the ostracism that that previously dominant group had previously applied to its opponents sometimes had substantial impact in the other direction.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  > “Cancel culture” as a distinct novel thing doesn't exist Remember that something being a culture is about pervasiveness and normalization. It's not a mob harassing your employer because you posted photos with the wrong brand of political attire; it's it being culturally acceptable for a mob to harass your employer because you posted photos with the wrong brand of political attire. Sure people protesting things is old, like you say. As are groups deciding to not associate with certain people. But that is not in fact the same a nominally-impartial authorities encouraging protests for the purpose of having an excuse to impose a hecklers' veto on things they don't like. And it is not the same as targeted harassment of anyone outside the ostracising group who doesn't bow to their demands.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > Remember that something being a culture is about pervasiveness and normalization. It's not a mob harassing your employer because you posted photos with the wrong brand of political attire; it's it being culturally acceptable for a mob to harass your employer because you posted photos with the wrong brand of political attire. And, and that's been true forever; in fact what is attributed to cancel culture is mild compared to what has been socially acceptable within living memory for displays of political wrongthink, what changed is that that comparatively mild social consequence became acceptable against the side which had previously only been the giver but not receiver of socially acceptable consequence for noncompliance with their norms.

tdeck 2y ago

It's almost like the "free speech warriors" were never being intellectually honest or actually making good faith arguments, but instead pretending to make arguments in order to frustrate, irritate, distract, and waste people's time.