3 ms·

Yep. Imagine I punch you. You say: "Don't punch me". I punch you again. Then you punch me back. I say: "Aren't you being hypocritical? I thought you were

Yep. Imagine I punch you. You say: "Don't punch me". I punch you again. Then you punch me back. I say: "Aren't you being hypocritical? I thought you were against punching." The path forward at this point is for the left to admit they made a mistake, apologize, and work to negotiate a new set of ground rules.

ceejayoz 1y ago
Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies#Tinky_Winky_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies#Tinky_Winky_contro... Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_comments_on_George_W._Bush https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_comments_on_Georg... Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._national_anthem_kneeling_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._national_anthem_kneeling_... Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_O%27Connor_on_Saturday_Night_Live https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_O%27Connor_on_Satu... But sure, the left invented it.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
  It's not about who "invented" it. It's about who started the most recent round. We had a big discussion about cancel culture just a few years ago, where the left responded to complaints about it by saying: "cancel culture doesn't exist", "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences", "free speech isn't hate speech", "you're just saying that because you're a racist/sexist/etc." In other words: "Our ideology justifies large-scale, systematic application of public shaming for mild noncompliance with our ideology. We aren't going to stop doing this." A lot of prominent left-wingers simply lack the moral authority to complain. What goes around comes around. If you, specifically, were complaining about left-wing cancel culture, I'll grant you have the moral authority to complain about right-wing cancel culture as well.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > It's not about who "invented" it. It's about who started the most recent round. Starting when? Several of the examples are quite recent; there's no point in my life where people of both political persuasions weren't boycotting or criticizing things. > freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences This remains entirely true. The First Amendment protects us from government-applied consequences. Being fired for being an asshole by a private employer has always been kosher. Being fired because the FCC threatens your employer with revocation of their broadcast licenses over protected speech has not.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
      >Several of the examples are quite recent The only one I'd consider recent is US national anthem kneeling. I'm in my mid-30s. I only have the vaguest memories of cancel culture around 9/11. I have very vivid memories of progressive cancel culture during the late Obama administration and onwards. It very much was not a one-off sort of thing. It was a systematic practice which was systematically justified. The 9/11 stuff died down as 9/11 receded into the past. Progressive cancel culture only started dying down when Elon Musk bought Twitter. I agree that progressive cancel culture was mostly not implemented with the help of the government. I agree that Brendan Carr overstepped in a way that wasn't a simple case of "tit for tat", and I think he should be fired. On the other hand, consider Karen Attiah. If you took what she said, but replace "white men" in her statement with "black women", and imagine a white man saying it, he absolutely would've been risking his job just a few years ago. People were fired for far less.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        > I only have the vaguest memories of cancel culture around 9/11. Maybe you agreed with the canceling enough it wasn't noticeable; I cited two specific examples directly related to that day. It was… not a fun time to be anti-war. Go back a few years and you'll find further prominent examples, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puppy_Episode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puppy_Episode > On the other hand, consider Karen Attiah. I disagree with her firing, but there are no First Amendment concerns here. The Washington Post is free, under the First Amendment, to be shitty, even with regards to employment. They canceled her, as is their right, and as our ape evolutionary cousins do despite a lack of language, social media, or political parties. "I don't like you, so I won't associate with you" is deeply ingrained in us.
southernplaces7 1y ago
As I said in another reply above, where's the room for a firm set of beliefs and moral framework, or perhaps a principled stand against or for something by this dogshit logic of yours? The only important thing is to get them votes and followers then? The conservatives can fuck off just as hard as the radical left if that's all that matters.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
  >moral framework Tit-for-tat is a moral framework.
  - southernplaces7 1y ago
    So is Nazism, that doesn't mean all moral frameworks are created equal. Also, tit for tat is a type of cynical pragmatism, not a thing based on some principle (misguided or not) which is a basic requirement of a moral framework; the notion of doing something or not doing it because you feel it to be right, regardless of benefit.

ceejayoz 1y ago

Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies#Tinky_Winky_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies#Tinky_Winky_contro... Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_comments_on_George_W._Bush https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_comments_on_Georg... Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._national_anthem_kneeling_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._national_anthem_kneeling_... Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_O%27Connor_on_Saturday_Night_Live https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_O%27Connor_on_Satu... But sure, the left invented it.

0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
It's not about who "invented" it. It's about who started the most recent round. We had a big discussion about cancel culture just a few years ago, where the left responded to complaints about it by saying: "cancel culture doesn't exist", "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences", "free speech isn't hate speech", "you're just saying that because you're a racist/sexist/etc." In other words: "Our ideology justifies large-scale, systematic application of public shaming for mild noncompliance with our ideology. We aren't going to stop doing this." A lot of prominent left-wingers simply lack the moral authority to complain. What goes around comes around. If you, specifically, were complaining about left-wing cancel culture, I'll grant you have the moral authority to complain about right-wing cancel culture as well.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > It's not about who "invented" it. It's about who started the most recent round. Starting when? Several of the examples are quite recent; there's no point in my life where people of both political persuasions weren't boycotting or criticizing things. > freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences This remains entirely true. The First Amendment protects us from government-applied consequences. Being fired for being an asshole by a private employer has always been kosher. Being fired because the FCC threatens your employer with revocation of their broadcast licenses over protected speech has not.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
    >Several of the examples are quite recent The only one I'd consider recent is US national anthem kneeling. I'm in my mid-30s. I only have the vaguest memories of cancel culture around 9/11. I have very vivid memories of progressive cancel culture during the late Obama administration and onwards. It very much was not a one-off sort of thing. It was a systematic practice which was systematically justified. The 9/11 stuff died down as 9/11 receded into the past. Progressive cancel culture only started dying down when Elon Musk bought Twitter. I agree that progressive cancel culture was mostly not implemented with the help of the government. I agree that Brendan Carr overstepped in a way that wasn't a simple case of "tit for tat", and I think he should be fired. On the other hand, consider Karen Attiah. If you took what she said, but replace "white men" in her statement with "black women", and imagine a white man saying it, he absolutely would've been risking his job just a few years ago. People were fired for far less.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > I only have the vaguest memories of cancel culture around 9/11. Maybe you agreed with the canceling enough it wasn't noticeable; I cited two specific examples directly related to that day. It was… not a fun time to be anti-war. Go back a few years and you'll find further prominent examples, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puppy_Episode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puppy_Episode > On the other hand, consider Karen Attiah. I disagree with her firing, but there are no First Amendment concerns here. The Washington Post is free, under the First Amendment, to be shitty, even with regards to employment. They canceled her, as is their right, and as our ape evolutionary cousins do despite a lack of language, social media, or political parties. "I don't like you, so I won't associate with you" is deeply ingrained in us.

southernplaces7 1y ago

As I said in another reply above, where's the room for a firm set of beliefs and moral framework, or perhaps a principled stand against or for something by this dogshit logic of yours? The only important thing is to get them votes and followers then? The conservatives can fuck off just as hard as the radical left if that's all that matters.

0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
>moral framework Tit-for-tat is a moral framework.
- southernplaces7 1y ago
  So is Nazism, that doesn't mean all moral frameworks are created equal. Also, tit for tat is a type of cynical pragmatism, not a thing based on some principle (misguided or not) which is a basic requirement of a moral framework; the notion of doing something or not doing it because you feel it to be right, regardless of benefit.