I would agree with that description of what they are doing, and agree that some truly detestable opinions should maybe be cancel-able. But I think the most common form of hypocrisy is not saying what you mean. That is, when you declare a pretty unambiguous rule (don't cancel people for their personal opinions), and then when it comes time to actually test it you suddenly declare an exception. Because the obvious assumption is the outgroup is simply going to continue to declare exceptions until fair rules become "my rules."
While I do think Carr's comments make this situation legally murky to put it mildly, if you make the kind of money Kimmel makes speaking with a lawyer is the smart thing to do. You should absolutely pay a few thousand to see if it's worth pursuing millions.
I'm a fan of three-strikes type rules. If one guy does it there are multiple possible explanations but if people keep leaving maybe something is going on.
An ex-Presidential intervention. Meaning there was no element of "Will the FCC try to go after me if I refuse?"
Even if all of the above were true (and I don't grant that):
Yeah imagine an administration putting pressure on a television channel to fire a comedian they didn’t like.
A former President is not an administration in any meaningful way. He doesn't even have any real government influence during the Trump presidency.
Even I have to push back on this one. While anti-gun people are almost exclusively on the left, the left contains people who like guns, people who think gun ownership should be possible but harder, and people who want to ban all guns.
From what I can find on Robinson, all I've found on his political leanings is that didn't really vote one way or the other and that he bickered with his conservative family on trans issues but didn't really talk about much else politically. Which seems directionally left but the limited info we have suggests he was largely single-issue trans rights.
Nybbler is correct that it's not a microaggression. A microaggression is similar to a backhanded compliment - "You're pretty hardworking for a black guy."
That said, there is nothing new under the sun. Cancel culture is nothing but the current iteration of wanting bad things to happen to people you dislike and the people you hate to have no power to do the same to you. One side may have more influence at any given moment, but even the minority will try and fail at it.
People who act as PR attract hate because attracting attention is their job, but at the end of the day people still know it wasn't the PR guy who decided to put in day 1 $50 DLC. They know that their hate for the PR guy is a proxy for those who hold direct power. I left off "and the lefties are informed at some point who Brian is" because I thought it was implied. People might not really know him, but when they talk about "late-stage capitalism" derisively they are talking about people exactly like Brian.
I would hardly call Kirk load-bearing either. I acknowledge that political spokespeople have different styles, audiences, and levels of charisma but I don't think they're that special snowflake either.
I think it's a matter of, at the end of the day the target does at least influence whether the method is bad. I wouldn't want the government to send assassins in the middle of the night, unless the target is Bin Laden. More like, "There are bad methods, but..."
For Brian Thompson, the belief is there that he took money from people with the promise that he would help heal them when they are sick, then reneged on that promise. Ergo he is harming if not killing people, and suffering no consequences for it. His sins are extreme enough that it's easy for them to reconcile.
Kirk doesn't quite meet that bar. Sure, lefties say that words are violence. But I'd bet money that if it were hypothetically possible to run an experiment where you gathered a large group of hardcore lefties and said, "I'm putting you in a room with Brian Thompson and Charlie Kirk. Here's a gun with one bullet." I don't think the results would be even close.
I'm not magicalkittycat.
Though you did get me wondering about how much of historical resistance was lead by hippies (though they're certainly among them!). Some of this was interesting but didn't really get too much into which groups particularly opposed it. The vaccine-autism link started in 1998 but was popularized by lefty celebrities. The furthest back hard data I can find shows that Democrats and Republicans were pretty equal on vaccines from 2002-2015, with Democrats being slightly more trusting.
To my knowledge, vaccines are a horseshoe issue and you'll find it on the left and right.
I don't think most sane forms of this argument are "We should aim for 0 crime" vs. "We should aim for some crime." Rather, it's over whether the current amount of crime is optimal or how much we should be willing to change to aim for some lower number.
I'm sure plenty of left-leaning people didn't think Kirk had literally 0 empathy for dead people, rather that it was on the level of thoughts and prayers. The downsides of policy are not evenly felt by the population, so it was, "Guy who had never suffered the bad effects of his policy tells us that the problems with his policy are tolerable."
A better analogy, but still flawed. Everyone agrees that male and female exist (though I suppose there's room there when talking about nonbinary). However the left has has turned the desire to be acknowledged and respected into an obsession, something to be asserted rather than established. And the easiest way to do that is to do something loud yet easily packaged. It's not "I think therefore I am," it's "I act therefore I am." They aren't so much trying to force you to acknowledge a god, they're trying to get you to acknowledge them as a unique person by making you acknowledge how they act.
I didn't say it was my opinion. I said it's where I think a large amount of the people around the political center are at. And this analogy doesn't work, because performing a prayer is an additional task, whereas you were probably referring to someone with a pronoun regardless. This is more comparable to the euphemism treadmill.
I'd say there's a variation. Let's take BLM for example. Some guy dies after a cop puts a knee on his neck for several minutes and he's asking for help. This has enough scandalous accusations in it to generate discourse. So somewhere between 15 and 26 million people protest. There are a range of views someone might hold regarding police in America. Here are some:
-
Police in America rarely face consequences when they commit bad behavior.
-
Police in America often commit bad behavior.
-
When one police officer commits bad behavior, others protect him from punishment.
-
This bad behavior disproportionately affects minorities.
-
Police in America are racist, often intentionally so.
-
All structures in America are racist
-
America requires radical transformation to resolve racist structures.
...and so on.
Where I'm going with this is there are clearly escalating claims being made. But what happened to George Floyd and people's general beliefs are such that a lot of the populace believes at least some of these claims. And the amount of outrage was enough that people were willing to tolerate or overlook the stronger claims (especially with a friendly media) because they wanted to see some sort of reform when it comes to police accountability.
I think you can repeat that with a lot of progressive arguments. The general public is probably sympathetic to the weaker, saner versions of progressive arguments. And that's enough for the left to get by, usually. However, some cracks appear. When it comes to trans issues for instance, the Overton window is probably centered around the point of, "I don't really think trans women are women, but if I'm just casually talking with someone and not sleeping with them, I don't want the other person to be unhappy and it's no big deal to say "she" instead of "he." " But the progressive activist is only happy with that status quo to the extent that they think there's enough goodwill to push it further. But what if there isn't enough goodwill there? The activist has to keep pushing, but the public is tired of being pushed. Combine that with a Biden administration that seemed to care more about student loan forgiveness than raising inflation, and you get Trump.
Depends what you mean by "didn't [help]." From what I can tell, many were transferred to Cape Cod and moved to other parts of the country. A few ended up staying. I can't find any articles saying they were deported, though the usual caveats of liberal media apply there. California does put a lot of resources and protection towards migrants, for better and worse.
As for the promises:
I'd quibble whether a ceasefire that quickly ended actually made a meaningful difference, but honestly that's not why I'm responding.
There are centrist Dems and Progressive Dems. Mamdani can excite the progressives and piss off the centrists, even beyond the DNC party figures.
That and even Progressives aren't single issue. Trump is very much not identical to Dems on other issues Progressives care about, such as Ukraine, LGBT, social safety net/homelessness, and so on.
If they were willing to accept Trump to try and force Dems to realign, I suppose that's their choice, but the daily protests suggest that if that's what they were thinking they aren't happy with the result.
At least in my case, because I believe Trump's norm violations are bigger, more frequent, and with worse justifications.
What? The left is pro-immigrant because they have an overly naive desire to help everybody (at least those who do not hold a set of beliefs they despise). The left was mad about Martha's Vineyard because reportedly said immigrants were given a bunch of promises that Maryland never made, and that a relatively small town doesn't have a lot of capacity for helping a lot of people arriving at the exact same time.
You're talking about Steam refunds. I'm talking about chargebacks. The oft-repeated argument is credit card companies hate porn because people get their rocks off and try to chargeback, or tell their wives it was fraud. But no, if you try to go around Steam support and charge back with the bank you're pretty much never interacting with Steam again.
Also, I don't think Steam has a lot of chargebacks, because if you do they ban your entire account and every game you've ever purchased.
I do still think a lot of it was Romney's social awkwardness and saying it in a very memey way. But I do acknowledge that a Democrat doing a similar thing would get less flak, in a dating in the workplace kind of way. Not necessarily none, because Howard Dean and Hillary both have gotten some mockery from the left for coming across as fake or socially awkward.
That said, it was later claimed that the statement was a lie, and that feminist groups had sent Romney the resumes on their own initiative rather than him requesting them.
They are listed as an Australian pro-life feminist group. Pro-life tends to map to the right, feminism to the left. Both sides of the GamerGate coin are trying to tie them to the other side, though there's always a risk mapping another country's left and right to yours. That said, I don't know that the evidence is there that Collective Shout is really responsible for Visa's behavior, or a convenient scapegoat.
Double checking my memory, and not really seeing much of that. More that the perception created of him was that he was only cared about women in order to check a box.
- Prev
- Next
You don't even need to guess. Cancel culture is all about the views one finds morally offensive and thinking others should not be able to express those ideas publicly. That is, actively punishing people for their views on LGBT, Israel/Palestine, or criticism of the right.
More options
Context Copy link