F Champ Receives Lifetime Ban, Racism in the FGC/USA, and Other Prevalent Social Discussions

[ChaosTheory]

Regarldless, NOW IS NOT THE TIME.

Have some sensitivity. Look at what came to light in the last week. A lot of people are dealing with real pain right now, and there are lives that as a result of some of these things have never been the same.

If you want to joke about/make fun of this stuff, this just isn't the time and place for it.

I don't think anybody joked about whatever specific incident just made the news. People are discussing general principles.

Also, when are people in the world not dealing with pain? It's a constant and it spans any subject/situation you want to imagine.

Do we stifle discussion (or joking) of car accidents, Alzheimer's, robbery, or other tragedies because someone is always dealing with them?

Or is it only when it's involving a publicized case involving fighting game players because you play fighting games?

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Do we stifle discussion (or joking) of car accidents, Alzheimer's, robbery, or other tragedies because someone is always dealing with them?

This is a prime example of what I mean about lacking context.

This isn't a "someone is always dealing with them" situation. Note that I didn't say you can't choose what you want to do elsewhere, in general. I said that in light of what happened this week, and what this thread is discussing (very real victims in our own community), this is not the time and this thread is not the place for joking about sexual assault.

If someone posts a thread about getting mugged at an FGC event, that thread is not the place to crack jokes about robbery victims. That shouldn't be too hard to understand.

This is context. It's taking words and putting them in a time, place, and looking at how they relate to what's going on around you.

 

[ItsYaBoi]

I don't know guys, I reckon we could sort out the KKK if we just amicably sat down and spoke to them.

/s

Hateful views - or those that help propagate them - don't deserve a platform. Sick of seeing this "b b b b but both sides" shit when one side is CLEARLY in the wrong. @jokey77 no matter how much you try to 'intelligently' dress it up by writing essays and being more veiled in your slickness (which isn't fooling me at least), you're still playing the middle man and not condoning abhorrent behaviour enough. It's transparent as fuck and easy to see through. The whole "just asking questions" angle is one that many on the right try to use when they're actually intending to act in bad faith. It's the trojan horse of online discussion. Next will come the "I'm not on the right" when your viewpoint happens to seriously align with theirs. You'll probably take this as attacking you, but it's entirely what's happening from my observations within this entire thread. Feel free to try and prove me wrong, but I've been in these kind of online discussions too many times and I'm tired of it not being called out.

You're either an ally, or you're in the way/hindering progress.

 

[Ram]

I don't know guys, I reckon we could sort out the KKK if we just amicably sat down and spoke to them.

Mr. Daryl Davis has done this exact thing. He was directly and indirectly responsible for ~200 KKK members quitting the clan.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

Mr. Daryl Davis has done this exact thing. He was directly and indirectly responsible for ~200 KKK members quitting the clan.

And what about the rest? Or their King President who's out there in the middle of a plague, spreading disinformation, protecting Confederate statues and demanding apologies from Bubba Wallace because now the Rebel Flag isn't welcome in Nascar anymore?
Nothing against Daryl Davis or your point, but the problem of how deeply ingrained racism is in America extends far beyond a couple of hundred people as it stands now. The lengths that people will go to and risk their own well-being just to hold on to their own destructive ideals is terrifying. As @CrimsonShadow alluded to earlier, it's something that needs to be dealt with on ALL sides, with as much effort and vigor as humanly possible. A situation like FChamp isn't an overblown conclusion or a challenge to freedom of speech; it's a statement saying that we should no longer abide that sort of language or sentiment on ANY level, and that top players and well-known figures have a responsibility in a post-ESports FGC to set a higher standard of example, not push the boundaries of what can or can't or shouldn't be said just because they think they'll get away with it.

 

[Ram]

And what about the rest? Or their King President who's out there in the middle of a plague, spreading disinformation, protecting Confederate statues and demanding apologies from Bubba Wallace because now the Rebel Flag isn't welcome in Nascar anymore?
Nothing against Daryl Davis or your point, but the problem of how deeply ingrained racism is in America extends far beyond a couple of hundred people as it stands now.

Well I think Mr. Davis shows us that 1 person can make a big difference. So my answer to your question of "and what about the rest?" is to follow Mr. Davis' example: interact with (and maybe even befriend) people who have misguided views (which are usually based on ignorance and fear), have open discussion(s) with them, and try to understand, as Mr. Davis put it, "why do you hate me when you know nothing about me?"

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

Well I think Mr. Davis shows us that 1 person can make a big difference. So my answer to your question of "and what about the rest?" is to follow Mr. Davis' example: interact with (and maybe even befriend) people who have misguided views (which are usually based on ignorance and fear), have open discussion(s) with them, and try to understand, as Mr. Davis put it, "why do you hate me when you know nothing about me?"

That's a damn good answer.

Again, I'm not saying flipping 200 guys isn't a big accomplishment, because it absolutely is. But those people I was alluding to earlier, who to borrow from your quote are the type to truly hate people they know nothing about and have no desire for open discussion, have been empowered out in the open in the last four years in ways we've never seen in America. It needs to be understood, uncomfortable though it certainly is, that there will always be that group for whom befriending and discussing and trying to meet in the middle will get you absolutely nowhere. And it's often those same immovable people who will scream the loudest against things like accountability, wearing masks, being civil to one another, and other matters of human decency, just to sow the fight between the sides who would otherwise not hesitate to do as you and others suggest and try and parlay their way toward peace.

Like people who make Candace Owens avatars and openly try and bait arguments over people who need to be bullied, but immediately block and hide from the people who call out their shitty attempts at trolling, for example.

We've covered a LOT of ground in this thread, and will likely cover a whole lot more, and I am thankful that that level of insipid stupidity is such a small minority on this forum.

 

[ItsYaBoi]

Mr. Daryl Davis has done this exact thing. He was directly and indirectly responsible for ~200 KKK members quitting the clan.

Cool, fair play to him - genuinely.

But there’s a large portion of the KKK who will NOT change and no level of discourse will budge them. What do you suggest we do with those people? Allow them to spread their hateful shit without any consequences? (potentially recruiting more people). Or for there to be consequences, such as being removed/banned (off private platforms with their own TOS btw) and/or being fired from their place of work etc?

Some people really can’t change - and to think that every single person has the capability and self reflection needed to be able to change is extremely naive.

 

[Ram]

But there’s a large portion of the KKK who will NOT change and no level of discourse will budge them. What do you suggest we do with those people?

Couple of answers I can think of...

(1) There is strength in numbers, so if you can decrease the numbers, you will decrease the strength. Hopefully in this way, those people whose minds can't be changed for the better will be de-powered (to some degree) because their former peers (who ARE willing to sit down and have a discussion and listen to logic and reason) have left the clan

(2) Let them die out. Even within my own family, younger generations (like mine) are trying to not hold the same prejudices and negative views as my parents/grandparents. Like I've said earlier in this thread, teaching the next generation to be better than the current generation is an overall solution I am really invested/interested in, and just from this thread alone, it is clear that pretty much everyone wants this too. Will person X join the KKK because person X's elders were in the KKK? perhaps. But at the same time, maybe just as many person Y's, whose elders were also in the KKK, will understand that the clan's ideologies are dumb and representative of societal regression and stagnation, will decide to not join. In this way, over time and over several generations, I hope that the size of crappy organizations like the KKK will be decreased, and eventually one day will become ~0.

 

[ItsYaBoi]

Couple of answers I can think of...

(1) There is strength in numbers, so if you can decrease the numbers, you will decrease the strength. Hopefully in this way, those people whose minds can't be changed for the better will be de-powered (to some degree) because their former peers (who ARE willing to sit down and have a discussion and listen to logic and reason) have left the clan

(2) Let them die out. Even within my own family, younger generations (like mine) are trying to not hold the same prejudices and negative views as my parents/grandparents. Like I've said earlier in this thread, teaching the next generation to be better than the current generation is an overall solution I am really invested/interested in, and just from this thread alone, it is clear that pretty much everyone wants this too. Will person X join the KKK because person X's elders were in the KKK? perhaps. But at the same time, maybe just as many person Y's, whose elders were also in the KKK, will understand that the clan's ideologies are dumb and representative of societal regression and stagnation, will decide to not join. In this way, over time and over several generations, I hope that the size of crappy organizations like the KKK will be decreased, and eventually one day will become ~0.

Option 2 is extremely naive, and is not the answer. For example, Nazis were the enemy of the world almost 100 years ago. Yet there seems to be a rise of neo Nazis in the nations that defeated that ideology. You’re also giving these people time to then spread their hate and potentially recruit others.

 

[jokey77]

I think the main issue that I see coming up with you, and one that is critical to discussing anything at all, is context.

Context is critical -- you can't just discuss statements, historical events, etc. by isolating them from everything that was happening around them. And that seems to be your main stumbling block.

Thanks for criticizing me. - I'd really appreciate if you told me what other factors I should keep in mind.

There is just one thing that I try not to do. It has to do with the famous "Is-ought-problem". I do not want to discuss the actual state of a system in order to conclude on a morally ideal state. This is what happens a lot in everyday discussions.

Maybe this is why I disregard many of your moral considerations! I don't mean to be disrespectful doing so!

For example, Fascism? Have you ever looked at fascist societies, and how they were cleaned up? The countries that turned it around banned all fascist symbolism, made laws against that kind of speech, and don't stand for espousing those views in public in longer.

And still it is those Western countries that the BLM seems to be dissatisfied with the most...

Besides I'd really like to know what fascist societies you are talking about exactly. I am coming from Europe and we are looking back at a long history of totalitarian regimes. Yet I haven't heard of a single society that got changed to the better by an angry internet-mob. Even the Nazis (luckily) got stopped by foreign military forces that dictated said laws.

The French Revolution might come to mind, yet this one was special: I think that the age of enlightenment went hand-in-hand with a scientific revolution that made the religiously shaped world order seem absurd. We can discuss this further, but I don't think that the French Revolution is a good example to prove your cause.

So maybe you can tell me what fascist societies you are talking of? Besides I'd like to know if you think that any democratic society ever got changed to the better, once have begun to disregard democratic decision-making and instead intimidate those who think differently.

Fascism by definition depends on ultranationalism, which is the belief that certain people belong in your nation, others do not, and that the advancement of a small group of people is worth completely tossing away the lives of others who do not look like you or have your same bloodline. It's not based on opinions, it's based on how you look, where you were born, etc.

This is one definition indeed. You can link "fascism" to "ultranationalism". In this case I agree with what you say. I propably should have used the term "Totalitarianism". I meant forms of government that pursue dissenters. An example would be Lenin's or Stalin's Communist Party, which also started with a revolution of the masses and then cost the lives of billions of people.

Anyone who's actually studied the history of fascism would never compare a movement for equality, or people speaking up against sexual harassment and bullying, to an ultranationalist state. What is happening here is the exact opposite of the kind of complacency and passivity that allowed fascist regimes to come to power. Fascism was all about exclusivity -- these movements are about inclusivity and making a safer space for all. And just like the movement that banned fascism, you can't do that unless you're willing to be vocal and forceful about disempowering these kinds of bigoted and intolerant elements in your society. They thrive on complacency.

I would really like to get deeper into this!

Personally I think that you can also discriminate people because of their beliefs. This might even be the more dangerous thing, because you immunize yourself against criticism from your own circle.

Let me just give one historic example: In the 17th centruy Shekespears "Othello" was published. The hero was a black man, a honorable general. In the same century the Europeans started the Thirty Years War because of dissenting religious beliefs.

The thing is: I do not want to relativize racism in any way. I do want to stand up for what (I think that) the BLM movement stands for. However I have yet to find out how I can do so without giving the the impression that left-wing rhetoric and their aggressiveness towards dissenting ideas was okay. It is not and it is dangerous. This is my dilemma...

Anyway, that's one example, out of many -- but I would encourage you to not just throw these terms around and actually look at what they mean. Context is everything.

Yes, sir! - I should propably be more careful with the terms I use. I must add that I am no native speaker, so I am propably hard to understand and using inappropriate words a lot. This is another reason why I really appreciate your time to answer me. Thank you.

A few pages ago I asked you what the BLM "actually stands for", but you gave no answer. I am still interested in this question, because I think that - under the surface - the BLM movement is pursuing very hetrogenic ideals. They might be united by buzzwords like "equality", whereby each would propably define these terms differently.

So to sum things up. If you want me to take a closer look at some ideas/terms, then I would appreciate your help:

1.) Can you give me some examples of societies that got changed to the better by actions similar to cancel culture?
2.) Can you give me an example of a democratic society that got changed to the better once people began to disregard democratic decision-making and instead intimidate those who think differently?
3.) Communist regimes have often started with a revolution and then killed millions of dissidents. Should we also consider this facet of history before we qualify foreign opinions as "inadmissible"?
4.) What does the BLM movement actually stand for?

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Thanks for criticizing me. - I'd really appreciate if you told me what other factors I should keep in mind.

There is just one thing that I try not to do. It has to do with the famous "Is-ought-problem". I do not want to discuss the actual state of a system in order to conclude on a morally ideal state. This is what happens a lot in everyday discussions.

Maybe this is why I disregard many of your moral considerations! I don't mean to be disrespectful doing so!



And still it is those Western countries that the BLM seems to be dissatisfied with the most...

Besides I'd really like to know what fascist societies you are talking about exactly. I am coming from Europe and we are looking back at a long history of totalitarian regimes. Yet I haven't heard of a single society that got changed to the better by an angry internet-mob. Even the Nazis (luckily) got stopped by foreign military forces that dictated said laws.

The French Revolution might come to mind, yet this one was special: I think that the age of enlightenment went hand-in-hand with a scientific revolution that made the religiously shaped world order seem absurd. We can discuss this further, but I don't think that the French Revolution is a good example to prove your cause.

So maybe you can tell me what fascist societies you are talking of? Besides I'd like to know if you think that any democratic society ever got changed to the better, once have begun to disregard democratic decision-making and instead intimidate those who think differently.



This is one definition indeed. You can link "fascism" to "ultranationalism". In this case I agree with what you say. I propably should have used the term "Totalitarianism". I meant forms of government that pursue dissenters. An example would be Lenin's or Stalin's Communist Party, which also started with a revolution of the masses and then cost the lives of billions of people.



I would really like to get deeper into this!

Personally I think that you can also discriminate people because of their beliefs. This might even be the more dangerous thing, because you immunize yourself against criticism from your own circle.

Let me just give one historic example: In the 17th centruy Shekespears "Othello" was published. The hero was a black man, a honorable general. In the same century the Europeans started the Thirty Years War because of dissenting religious beliefs.

The thing is: I do not want to relativize racism in any way. I do want to stand up for what (I think that) the BLM movement stands for. However I have yet to find out how I can do so without giving the the impression that left-wing rhetoric and their aggressiveness towards dissenting ideas was okay. It is not and it is dangerous. This is my dilemma...



Yes, sir! - I should propably be more careful with the terms I use. I must add that I am no native speaker, so I am propably hard to understand and using inappropriate words a lot. This is another reason why I really appreciate your time to answer me. Thank you.

A few pages ago I asked you what the BLM "actually stands for", but you gave no answer. I am still interested in this question, because I think that - under the surface - the BLM movement is pursuing very hetrogenic ideals. They might be united by buzzwords like "equality", whereby each would propably define these terms differently.

So to sum things up. If you want me to take a closer look at some ideas/terms, then I would appreciate your help:

1.) Can you give me some examples of societies that got changed to the better by actions similar to cancel culture?
2.) Can you give me an example of a democratic society that got changed to the better once people began to disregard democratic decision-making and instead intimidate those who think differently?
3.) Communist regimes have often started with a revolution and then killed millions of dissidents. Should we also consider this facet of history before we qualify foreign opinions as "inadmissible"?
4.) What does the BLM movement actually stand for?

It just seems to be a waste of time to argue because you don’t actually read the history, then you make these broad assumptions, and then it’s left to me to go dig things up which you’re not going to read, as you just jump to another point.

For example, in 1960 in West Germany it was made illegal to incite hatred or defame parts of the population in order to breach the public peace. Austria banned Holocaust denial in 1947. Germany, Belgium, Italy, France, Luxembourg etc. have laws against holocaust denial that were all passed throughout the last few decades, not forcibly by the Allied powers immediately after winning the war. And in many cases these laws are broad -- for example, France has banned public and private defamatory speech based on nationality, race, specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap, and they prohibit declarations that justify or deny crimes against humanity, not just the Holocaust.

Racism is not 'democracy'. Neither is sexual assault, neither is homophobia. They are precisely the opposite of what democracy is supposed to be. So the truth is that you cannot have real democracy unless you defend the tenets of it from people who want to push these exclusionary ideals. Simply saying "all beliefs are ok" is not enough.

Anybody pushing racism, or making excuses for ethnic/sexual harassment, or any form of categorical hate is anti-democratic.

Likewise, you could have taken 2 seconds to google what BLM means as expressed by the founders:
https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

I'm also not making up the definition of Fascism. That's what it means. The dictionary definition says "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual " which is the definition of ultranationalism.

I don't know if you're intentionally trying to gaslight, or trolling, or what -- but at some point it just becomes a big waste of time if you aren't doing your own research.

 

[Marlow]

1.) Can you give me some examples of societies that got changed to the better by actions similar to cancel culture?

Sure. America, civil rights movement.

 

[Marinjuana]

For example, in 1960 in West Germany it was made illegal to incite hatred or defame parts of the population in order to breach the public peace. Austria banned Holocaust denial in 1947. Germany, Belgium, Italy, France, Luxembourg etc. have laws against holocaust denial that were all passed throughout the last few decades, not forcibly by the Allied powers immediately after winning the war. And in many cases these laws are broad -- for example, France has banned public and private defamatory speech based on nationality, race, specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap, and they prohibit declarations that justify or deny crimes against humanity, not just the Holocaust.

I usually disagree with these sorts of laws. I think they are anti-free speech, but I can see how they could reduce racism or troublesome views. But you mention France's broader hate speech laws, which I think are troublesome. Scorcese's Last Temptation of Christ had to release with a warning label about it not being an adaptation of the bible, journalists and comedians have faced lawsuits from religious organizations for slights(at times losing and being fined), you can go to jail for "praising" terrorism.

I'm actually seeing now that there's a recent law that got struck down for constitutional concerns, but it was all about regulating the internet for the sake of stopping criminal behavior, which in this case included this broader hate speech. Imagine if TYM got requests from the government to take derogatory stuff down and you would get fined if you didn't do it within a couple days, well apparently that's essentially what it was. All of this stuff creates a chilling effect on free speech and free expression, which are cornerstones of Democracy.

 

[M2Dave]

There's been too much talking in my post already, but since you decided to quote me I'm getting to the point finally. Do you think people who are racist should have consequences for doing so related to work or do you think they should be able to say whatever they want at work? I will take yes or no, not all these stories about corrupt politicians or things I'm not arguing.

Racism, as is the case with sexual harassment, violates safe workplace laws and has absolutely nothing to do with free speech.

I am uncertain why you are so focused on racism. When I say freedom of consequences, I am referring to people losing their jobs for tweeting "All Lives Matter" or criticizing Black Lives Matter, which describes itself as a political and ideological movement, according to the website. Why are people getting fired for tweeting their political perspectives?

As I have said before, free speech does not exist to protect popular speech about kittens being cute, warm, and fuzzy. Free speech exists to protect controversial thoughts, ideas, and opinions. Just because I support someone's right to post despicable tweets does not mean I support the message. This difference is pivotal to understand. Liberals used to support free speech until they engaged in woke culture.

Sure. America, civil rights movement.

The Civil Rights movement was about holding America accountable for failing to deliver its promise that "all men are created equal... endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Cancel culture is a totalitarian movement that persecutes people and dehumanizes their character for holding opinions that are not consistent with Marxism.

I fail to see a connection.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Racism, as is the case with sexual harassment, violates safe workplace laws and has absolutely nothing to do with free speech.

I am uncertain why you are so focused on racism. When I say freedom of consequences, I am referring to people losing their jobs for tweeting "All Lives Matter" or criticizing Black Lives Matter, which describes itself as a political and ideological movement, according to the website. Why are people getting fired for tweeting their political perspectives?

As I have said before, free speech does not exist to protect popular speech about kittens being cute, warm, and fuzzy. Free speech exists to protect controversial thoughts, ideas, and opinions. Just because I support someone's right to post despicable tweets does not mean I support the message. This difference is pivotal to understand. Liberals used to support free speech until they engaged in woke culture.



The Civil Rights movement was about holding America accountable for failing to deliver its promise that "all men are created equal... endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Cancel culture is a totalitarian movement that persecutes people and dehumanizes their character for holding opinions that are not consistent with Marxism.

I fail to see a connection.

It’s pretty hard to have liberty and the pursuit of happiness when you’re being harassed by people for your gender or the color of your skin.

Also, totalitarianism centralizes power in the government, under a dictator or central leader who maintains absolute power, rather than in the people. I do not think you understand what it means.

 

[Espio]

Racism, as is the case with sexual harassment, violates safe workplace laws and has absolutely nothing to do with free speech.

I am uncertain why you are so focused on racism. When I say freedom of consequences, I am referring to people losing their jobs for tweeting "All Lives Matter" or criticizing Black Lives Matter, which describes itself as a political and ideological movement, according to the website. Why are people getting fired for tweeting their political perspectives?

As I have said before, free speech does not exist to protect popular speech about kittens being cute, warm, and fuzzy. Free speech exists to protect controversial thoughts, ideas, and opinions. Just because I support someone's right to post despicable tweets does not mean I support the message. This difference is pivotal to understand. Liberals used to support free speech until they engaged in woke culture.

Probably because the thread is about racism so why wouldn't I be talking about racism? He faced consequences for his ignorant, inappropriate comment. I'm talking about the premise of the thread. I would assume that was quite obvious based on the title of the thread. I have no interest in talking about or moving the debate goal posts to topics I'm not arguing hence why I am "focused" on it.

I don't even know what you're talking about because people can say whatever they want and I'm aware of what the purpose of free speech is. You quoted a post by me originally detailing that racist comments in the work place have consequences. You then proceeded to bring up examples that have nothing to do with what I said. If you agree that racism shouldn't be part of the work place then what are you arguing with me about? Did I argue that criticizing BLM should lead to being fired? We both know the answer to this question.


I don't know of anyone getting fired for saying they are "All Lives Matter" or disagreeing with the premise of BLM, People are getting fired for espousing racism or calling the police on black people for no reason though. I will be shedding zero tears for them. I've seen people call us monkeys, savages etc on social media since the protests happened. Anyone with common sense would not want people embarrassing their company with this type of shit because doing nothing about it would reflect poorly on the company.

 

[M2Dave]

It’s pretty hard to have liberty and the pursuit of happiness when you’re being harassed by people for your gender or the color of your skin.

I am not disagreeing, but the same is true for unemployment and exile.

Most liberals in today's world connect every single issue to race, gender, sexual orientation, and citizenship status and if you disagree every so slightly with the proposed solutions, you are called names. If you criticize Black Lives Matter, you are a racist. If you point out that wages between men and women are almost the same when you account for hours worked, you are sexist. If you happen to be very religious, which I am not, and define marriage between one man and one woman, you are homophobic. If you are against open borders, you are xenophobic. These responses are designed to silence individuals. They are not designed to promote a meaningful conversation. Therefore, in some sense the term totalitarianism applies.

I don't know of anyone getting fired for saying they are "All Lives Matter" or disagreeing with the premise of BLM.

Click here and here for a couple of examples.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Most liberals in today's world

I think this is part of my issue with your arguments. If you start by shoehorning everybody into "liberal" and "conservative" (which by themselves are extremely reductive categories that don't take into account the nuanced nature of personal views), then it's already impossible to see people for what they are.

If you further exacerbate this issue by trying to shoehorn the entirety of these arbitrarily-divided groups of people into the most extreme examples of their views, then you're venturing even further beyond a reasonable platform for discussion.

What several people have attempted to say here, is that issues like fighting against racism and sexual assault shouldn't be divided into political categories of "liberal vs. conservative", etc. They should be things we can (mostly) all agree on as basic tenets of fairness and human rights.

Beyond that, I don't think it's possible to see everyone the same way for just "criticizing BLM".. I think it depends on what those criticisms are, and how closely they align with the arguments that racists have been using to marginalize people of color in this country for decades. Also, is this person only saying negative things about BLM, and never positive ones? Becuase that wouldn't strike me as a particularly objective point of view. Context matters a ton, which is something I've been harping on in this thread.

 

[haketh]

If Cancel Culture was real Louis CK wouldn’t have a career anymore for multiple sexual assaults & harassment cases

 

[jokey77]

It just seems to be a waste of time to argue because you don’t actually read the history, then you make these broad assumptions, and then it’s left to me to go dig things up which you’re not going to read, as you just jump to another point.

You're pretty reproachful for someone who just did the same. To refute this accusation, I would like to be the one to "dig things up" this time.

For example, in 1960 in West Germany it was made illegal to incite hatred or defame parts of the population in order to breach the public peace. Austria banned Holocaust denial in 1947. Germany, Belgium, Italy, France, Luxembourg etc. have laws against holocaust denial that were all passed throughout the last few decades, not forcibly by the Allied powers immediately after winning the war. And in many cases these laws are broad -- for example, France has banned public and private defamatory speech based on nationality, race, specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap, and they prohibit declarations that justify or deny crimes against humanity, not just the Holocaust.

I said that laws against the Nazis were originally dictated by Allied Forces and I still stick with this opinion. Looking at Germany I refer to the "Law No. 104 on the Liberation from National Socialism and Militarism", in connection with Austria I refer to the "Prohibition Law". Both were passed during the occupation after 1945.

You mix up laws against National Socialism and laws against incitement and/or defamation. These are very different things.

It is propably true that the freedom of speech underlies more restriction in Europe than it does in the United States. However you seem to have a wrong impression of what this actually means:

In Austria there was a case of "cancel culture". A female member of the National Counsil was victim of sexual harrassment. The owner of a craft beer shop has (allegedly) sent her horrible sexual remarks on Facebook. She then used her Twitter Account to make this public. The result were the expected online mobbings against the owner of the craft beer shop. Later this whole case went to Court and she (!) was convicted. However, the decision has since been reversed (see here for details).

There propably are more laws that prohibit certain expressions of opinion in Europe. However said laws could be also used to condemn cancel culture. At the very least, it can be said that typical actions of cancel culture (e.g. the publication of confidential chat transcripts) would often be in a legal grey area.

One thing is safe to say: Online mobs are seen as a problem rather than an ideal in the light of European laws.

Besides we are talking about democratic laws that were the result of a democratic process. They are no "success story" of online mobs. I am perfectly fine with this procedure. The democratic legislation is what I believe in. I don't trust people trying to "bypass" it though.

Racism is not 'democracy'. Neither is sexual assault, neither is homophobia.

Neither is the persecution of people with dissenting ideas.

They are precisely the opposite of what democracy is supposed to be. So the truth is that you cannot have real democracy unless you defend the tenets of it from people who want to push these exclusionary ideals. Simply saying "all beliefs are ok" is not enough.

We both stick with Carl Popper here, yes! We gotta be careful when it comes to exclusionary ideals (e.g. allowing online lynchings to take over).

In this regard I agree with what @M2Dave wrote: The whole idea behind Free Speech is not to protect comfortable speech, but to not exclude uncomfortable speech. This is how "bubble-thinking" can be avoided.

Anybody pushing racism, or making excuses for ethnic/sexual harassment, or any form of categorical hate is anti-democratic.

I agree 100%!

I'm also not making up the definition of Fascism. That's what it means. The dictionary definition says "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual " which is the definition of ultranationalism.

I don't know if you're intentionally trying to gaslight, or trolling, or what -- but at some point it just becomes a big waste of time if you aren't doing your own research.

I do apologize once again for using a confusing term. As I said: I actually meant "totalitarian" regimes (e.g. communist regimes that emerged from a revolution and went on to kill billions of people). However I do think that we can learn from history in this regard (e.g. the importance of allowing foreign opinions and discourse).

 

[Marlow]

The Civil Rights movement was about holding America accountable for failing to deliver its promise that "all men are created equal... endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Cancel culture is a totalitarian movement that persecutes people and dehumanizes their character for holding opinions that are not consistent with Marxism.

I fail to see a connection.

I think that's an incredibly gross misinterpretation of Cancel Culture. I'd say that Cancel Culture is a form of group shaming — excluding someone who has done something objectionable or offensive, or withdrawing support from corporations or public leaders for the same reason. This exact type of practice had it's roots in the Civil Rights movement, which would often include boycotts or sit ins as protests against racist practices. These celebrities/twitter users/whoever aren't being "canceled" because of their political views, they're being canceled because they made racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks.

Also, Cancel Culture is not strictly limited to the Political Left. In the 1950's people were being blacklisted for being suspected communists. This even happened as recently as the 1980's. Plenty of Pro-Life groups have pushed for boycotts of companies or people who have donated money to Planned Parenthood. President Trump has just recently tried to "cancel" Bubba Wallace and Colin Kaepernick

 

[Marlow]

https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/12/30/20879720/what-is-cancel-culture-explained-history-debate

I feel like this article does a good job defining and examining Cancel Culture. @M2Dave @jokey77 I just find your definitions of Cancel Culture to be gross misrepresentation of what it's actually about.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

You're pretty reproachful for someone who just did the same. To refute this accusation, I would like to be the one to "dig things up" this time.



I said that laws against the Nazis were originally dictated by Allied Forces and I still stick with this opinion. Looking at Germany I refer to the "Law No. 104 on the Liberation from National Socialism and Militarism", in connection with Austria I refer to the "Prohibition Law". Both were passed during the occupation after 1945.

You mix up laws against National Socialism and laws against incitement and/or defamation. These are very different things.

It is propably true that the freedom of speech underlies more restriction in Europe than it does in the United States. However you seem to have a wrong impression of what this actually means:

In Austria there was a case of "cancel culture". A female member of the National Counsil was victim of sexual harrassment. The owner of a craft beer shop has (allegedly) sent her horrible sexual remarks on Facebook. She then used her Twitter Account to make this public. The result were the expected online mobbings against the owner of the craft beer shop. Later this whole case went to Court and she (!) was convicted. However, the decision has since been reversed (see here for details).

There propably are more laws that prohibit certain expressions of opinion in Europe. However said laws could be also used to condemn cancel culture. At the very least, it can be said that typical actions of cancel culture (e.g. the publication of confidential chat transcripts) would often be in a legal grey area.

One thing is safe to say: Online mobs are seen as a problem rather than an ideal in the light of European laws.

Besides we are talking about democratic laws that were the result of a democratic process. They are no "success story" of online mobs. I am perfectly fine with this procedure. The democratic legislation is what I believe in. I don't trust people trying to "bypass" it though.



Neither is the persecution of people with dissenting ideas.



We both stick with Carl Popper here, yes! We gotta be careful when it comes to exclusionary ideals (e.g. allowing online lynchings to take over).

In this regard I agree with what @M2Dave wrote: The whole idea behind Free Speech is not to protect comfortable speech, but to not exclude uncomfortable speech. This is how "bubble-thinking" can be avoided.



I agree 100%!



I do apologize once again for using a confusing term. As I said: I actually meant "totalitarian" regimes (e.g. communist regimes that emerged from a revolution and went on to kill billions of people). However I do think that we can learn from history in this regard (e.g. the importance of allowing foreign opinions and discourse).

Like Dave, I don’t think you understand what totalitarianism means. It necessarily means a dictator or autocrat grabbing power and the people’s voice meaning nothing. If it’s not run by an autocrat, it’s not totalitarianism, which is why these comparisons don’t make any sense. The goal of totalitarianism isn’t to enable the people to do anything; it’s to remove power from the people and centralize it an an autocrat who alone controls everything regardless of what people think.

Second, this has nothing to do with comfortable or uncomfortable speech. No one is saying “Well is it comfortable racism or uncomfortable racism?” The point is to end the use of all racism, hate speech, etc. as a tool to harass and subjugate people by their ethnic background. And this is why it connects directly to the laws against hate speech, not just to those which cover declaring oneself a member of the Nazi party, or something like that. That was the entire point.

And you have to make some pretty strange leaps of logic to characterize people fighting for equality and inclusion as “lynching”. They are not asking to kill people or jail them without trial. They are simply asking for the world to take things seriously that they’ve been sweeping under the rug for decades to centuries. You don’t seem to understand that they are speaking out because the voices of victims have traditionally not been heard. That is the opposite of everything totalitarianism represents.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

I think that's an incredibly gross misinterpretation of Cancel Culture. I'd say that Cancel Culture is a form of group shaming — excluding someone who has done something objectionable or offensive, or withdrawing support from corporations or public leaders for the same reason. This exact type of practice had it's roots in the Civil Rights movement, which would often include boycotts or sit ins as protests against racist practices. These celebrities/twitter users/whoever aren't being "canceled" because of their political views, they're being canceled because they made racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks.

Also, Cancel Culture is not strictly limited to the Political Left. In the 1950's people were being blacklisted for being suspected communists. This even happened as recently as the 1980's. Plenty of Pro-Life groups have pushed for boycotts of companies or people who have donated money to Planned Parenthood. President Trump has just recently tried to "cancel" Bubba Wallace and Colin Kaepernick

I tried explaining that and was promptly blown off and called an ideologue. I wish you better luck than I had.

Still waiting to hear from ANYONE how the left is on the same level as the right in matters of racism, sexual harassment, homophobia, xenophobia, intimidation, or any other manner of being god-awful human beings, but I guess I'll just chalk it off to not being deserving of an answer because I'm not trying hard enough to meet in the middle. Yeah, that's it.

If Cancel Culture was real Louis CK wouldn’t have a career anymore for multiple sexual assaults & harassment cases

The fact that that man still gets work absolutely blows my mind. Controversy sells, I guess.