Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization
Register

User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 57
  1. ISO #1

    Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Im curious how people feel about this driving global movement. More and more we see people leveraging 'You have to stop doing/saying 'A' because it makes me feel 'B.' Outside of the fact that avoids any personal accountability for individuals to manage their emotions it leverages them as a victim of another persons actions and weaponizes social mechanisms against that other group/individual in an attempt to force them to change or sensor them.

    It was always 'kinda bad' but now its progressed into second hand social justice warriors fighting for causes for others even when that cause may not even exist. Recently this happened with Twitch banning the phrase "Blind Playthrough" after a bunch of social justice warriors advocated its offensive to the handicapped.

    We also have trends of people pushing false claims of fearing for their safety in order to weaponize law enforcement against people they dont like. Swatting has become a common practice and I personally know quite a few people who have had their romantic partner make up stories to hurt them financially and legally with absolute impunity even when it can be proven.

    So how do you guys feel about this? How far do you think it will go? How acceptable is it for people to be 'offended' on behalf of a group they are not a part of? How appropriate is it to force others to change their behavior to cater to your belief system in a free society? Is there even a way to combat this issue?
    Last edited by Helz; December 12th, 2020 at 04:28 PM.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  2. ISO #2

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    cancel culture isn't new. It's just kind of shifted from the majority cancelling minorities to now the minorities cancelling the majority.

    I mean, having to fear getting "cancelled" by being accused of racism and then losing your job etc. as a white person is not a great thing, sure
    but it's not quite as bad as having to fear getting "cancelled" for having black skin and getting thrown into slavery.

    So, I would frame it in a positive light as at least we are making some "progress", right? Ideally the effects of cancelling keep getting smaller as time goes on, but I think it's disingenuous to frame it as a new thing that's recently gotten worse. It's gotten worse for some people but much better for others.
    Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?

  3. ISO #3

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Im curious how people feel about this driving global movement. More and more we see people leveraging 'You have to stop doing/saying 'A' because it makes me feel 'B.' Outside of the fact that avoids any personal accountability for individuals to manage their emotions it leverages them as a victim of another persons actions and weaponizes social mechanisms against that other group/individual in an attempt to force them to change or sensor them.

    It was always 'kinda bad' but now its progressed into second hand social justice warriors fighting for causes for others even when that cause may not even exist. Recently this happened with Twitch banning the phrase "Blind Playthrough" after a bunch of social justice warriors advocated its offensive to the handicapped.

    We also have trends of people pushing false claims of fearing for their safety in order to weaponize law enforcement against people they dont like. Swatting has become a common practice and I personally know quite a few people who have had their romantic partner make up stories to hurt them financially and legally with absolute impunity even when it can be proven.

    So how do you guys feel about this? How far do you think it will go? How acceptable is it for people to be 'offended' on behalf of a group they are not a part of? How appropriate is it to force others to change their behavior to cater to your belief system in a free society? Is there even a way to combat this issue?

    Fore warning: The content in this post deals almost exclusively with "Cancel Culture" as it relates to individual celebrities such as comedians rather than company policy changes as Helz highlighted with Twitch above nor as it relates cases of "swatting" or purported abuse of self-alleged victimization. However, it is at least tangentially related to the concept of "cancel culture" hence why I am putting it here.

    I will admit, I haven't done much personal research into this matter, but here's a 30-minute show that has talked about this "Cancel Culture" topic before and given the numerous articles they usually (visually) point out across an entire video when making a claim I tend to trust them. I counted 44 articles/sources on this video alone, across numerous different news sources (I didn't count # of unique sources though), and this does not include the dozen or more video clips that are shown as evidence during the video nor the many images of tweets or comments of people. I should note though that this show is quite satirical and comedic at times so it isn't like you're hearing an absolutely formal essay.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szybEhqUmVI

    Note: This was made about a year ago on September 25th of 2019, so slightly out of date when it uses the words "recent" and etc.

    Here's a roughly 6-minute excerpt of what he says, starting from 5:44 in the video:

    Spoiler : ~6 minute excerpt :

    [...]Which is why I'm really going to hone it in. I'm not talking about a bunch of people dog piling some rando for saying dumb **** on twitter that would have never gotten attention had someone pointed it out. I'm talking about famous people, comedians, entertainers being "Cancelled" or fired from jobs or gigs because someone dug up an offensive statement or tweet or photo from their past. That is of course why we're using the word "Cancelled" and why any recent article is talking about people like Shane Gillis or that Justin Trudeau fellow from Up America with all the trees. Also, to be clear, the idea that an entire person's career could be ruined, like ended over a couple of offensive tweets is terrible and I'm not a fan of that. Unsubscribe.

    Luckily, that's literally never happened, really. Like it's not a thing, at all. You don't believe me? Just ask my good friend Bill Burr again. This time saying that Cancel-culture isn't a problem.

    [Shows 16-second clip starting at 6:43 of the video]

    This version of him is right. The answer to the question "Has Cancel-Culture and SJWs gone too far?" is a resounding, not really. Most audiences love offensive **** and the few who don't usually walk out, Twitter hasn't changed that. In fact, name a comedian or entertainer who has their career cancelled over a few statements or jokes they made, like truly canceled. Rosanne Barr, she's probably the closest one, although currently planning a comeback as we speak. James Gunn, not exactly like it actually affected his career and he is, in fact, back at the job he was fired from, plus a Suicide Sqaud do-over film featuring only some of the original cast that we're apparently just going to allow DC to do. But anyway, not related. Gilbert Gottfried is no longer a duck because he made fun of dead people, but his career isn't over. Paula Deen, you know, that really racist lady is currently hosting cooking shows like nothing happened. Alec Baldwin just got his own Celebrity Roast. Heck, even Mel "The-Jews-Start-All-The-Wars Sugar-Tits" Gibson has received multiple Oscar nominations within the last few years. Then Gary Oldman defended him, said that Hollywood was quote "run by Jews" and went on to win an Oscar for Best Actor. So thanks, all the Jews that run Hollywood, for that aware you gave him, or so I've heard from Gary Oldman.

    Scarlett Johansson is a torrent of hilariously bad comments and we **** love her. SNL fired Jenny Slate for not saying racial slurs, but the word **** at midnight on a Saturday. She too, is doing great. Another person who literally got canceled was Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect, and it wasn't because he offended the snowflakes by being racist or homophobic, or when he compared mentally ill people to dogs, or the numerous times he said it was cool for a female teacher to **** their 14-year-old male students, or any number of his terrible, lazy, scumbag opinions he espouses on his long-running not-cancelled show currently on HBO. No, Politically Incorrect got cancelled because Maher implied the United States was cowardly for launching missiles from 1,000 miles away and then the White House Press Secretary used his government position to condemn private citizen Maher and sponsors pulled because he insulted the troops and then he got cancelled. So maybe the real snowflakes are our government and military.

    But again, this isn't a judgment on these people or whether or not they should have faced harsher consequences, or whether or not the actual **** up free speech issue is when a comedian gets cancelled for insulting the government or military. Those opinions are up to you, the viewer. Rather, I'm just asking the simple question, who exactly has been cancelled? Sinead O'Connor for criticizing the pope? Yeah, but where's the cancel-culture epidemic that's going around and hurting these poor celebrities? I'll go even further and mention some celebrities, who not only said **** things, but also did **** things.

    Roman Polanski is a rapist and yet has also won all of the awards and even got to be in a Rush Hour film where he played a rapist as a comedy bit.

    [6-second clip from Rush Hour 3]

    Casey Affleck drunkenly and nakedly got into the bed of the cinematographer of the film he was working on, and is still directing and starring in movies, putting him very much in a power position. TJ Miller has been accused of rape and definitely called-in a fake bomb threat within the same year he was in a **** Spielberg film. I could go on for a solid hour. Like, once you actually go down the list, you realize that the pearl-clutching panic has nothing to do with offended Millennials so much as entitled rich people who are upset that there are now slightly more consequences to their actions. And that, incredibly, it turns out that big corporate giants like Marvel and Saturday Night Live sometimes, but not always, play it safe when it comes to not hiring absolute ghouls or mild ghouls. That's it, the big outrage is that potentially racist or abusive people aren't getting all the power that they think they deserve while still probably getting too much power.

    While it has a lot of funny moments, this is painfully evident in Dave Chapelle's new standup special[...]


    I do strongly recommend you watch the rest of it, if you're interested, because I think it had good points related to this topic (Cancel culture as it relates to celebrities such as comedians) and was enjoyable later on.
    Last edited by MartinGG99; December 12th, 2020 at 08:04 PM. Reason: Grammar
    A.K.A "That One Idiot"

  4. ISO #4

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Maybe I should have excluded the use of the words "Cancel culture" as this seems to be taking a tangent unrelated to what I was talking about. I was talking about the concept of Cancel culture in terms of weaponizing victimization which I do believe has existed for a long time but is becoming prominent and acceptable recently.

    We even have large organizations like Twitch pandering to it to grab the 'appearance' they care about the handicapped although if they gave 2 fucks about blind people they would probably integrate some commonly used accessibility features instead of vomiting PR messages about how 'blind playthroughs' is an insensitive term to appease social justice warriors.

    I think my point on Swatting addresses the situation more directly. You have a youtuber who has political or ideological opinions you disagree with so you call 911 and say he has hostages to get a swat team to kick in his door to punish him and cancel his voice.

    Or maybe you have an election you disagree with so you spread false news about fraud to cancel the decision. Or maybe you choose to go 'peacefully' light some shit on fire and assault some cops.

    I do not think these behaviors are normal and maybe they existed before but the moves to invalidate opinions you disagree with have never been done on the level they are now. On the most basic level this invalidation is exactly what cancel culture is and I see it as much on the small personal level as I do on the large scale.

    One thing I think very specifically changed is the impunity that comes with weaponizing systems against individuals. I had a long conversation with an old construction super about a friend of mine who had to drop 5k to get a legal defense against his wife who got a free 'victim lawyer' after she claimed he tried to attack her when he was not even in the same state. Even though he had 100% emphatic proof he still had to go to jail, bond himself out, and then hire lawyers to defend himself. After the fact nobody cared that she had committed felony fraud and perjury under the logic that punishing her would discourage real victims from coming forward. That old superintendent had a similar story that happened 30 years back in the same area and his ex got punished hard for wasting government resources and had to pay his legal fees.

    Maybe this makes things a bit more clear?
    Last edited by Helz; December 13th, 2020 at 12:24 AM.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  5. ISO #5

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Or maybe I just never should have used the words "Cancel culture" >.<
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  6. ISO #6

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Maybe to be more clear, I had a great time getting fucked up with some native american friends of mine on an Indian reservation. Shit gets pretty wild out there and those guys are really down to earth so I asked them how they felt about the Washington redskins changing their name and they slammed silly privileged white people fighting for fake causes. By the end of the night we declared Washingtons team the "Dildos" by the way.

    But the issue is not that there was a supposed 'victim' in the Native American population. It was that there was a bunch of people who were not even Native American being offended on behalf of Native Americans.

    Just take a moment and think about how fucked up it is as a society that our social justice movements have gone from fighting inequality into people making up causes to fight for while leveraging community's they do not even belong to as victims. What does that reflect in our ability to understand social boundaries and how disrespectful is it to pretend a community can not voice their own opinion so someone just fights on their behalf without even talking to them about it?
    Last edited by Helz; December 13th, 2020 at 12:34 AM.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  7. ISO #7

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    To address the point of being "offended on behalf of others", I think that's a way of rephrasing the concept of empathy. I do agree in many cases it goes too far, and often communities are weaponized. But at the same time I feel like that's victim blaming because any backlash to this victimization of others is due to the so-called opposition to the movement. It's also important to look at the opposite scenario: if there is a cause that a group (particularly a minority) is passionate about, and wants change done for it. And then everyone is like "well that's not my problem because I'm not part of group X so I'm going to do literally nothing". Is that a preferable outcome to you?

    The example of people changing names and terms is a great one though, because I think it demonstrates a tremendous fragility. Look I'll be honest here, I can't say that "blind playthroughs" is an egregious term to me, or that I even particularly care about the name the Redskins, at least on a personal level (the latter is a little fucked up but I'm too far removed from the issue to care that much). The same goes for any of the other terms that people have pissed themselves over in the recent past like "master" in computer science.

    Hence, I haven't advocated for any of them, I just don't really care.

    But there are at least a handful of people that do care about those terms and get personally offended by them. Cool, whatever, if they want to change the terms to spare those people offence then I don't really care. I'll try to use the new terms if they aren't ridiculous and everything is done in good faith, because it's just a word and especially if it's a word, term, or name I use extremely rarely I probably wouldn't even notice.

    What I can't understand, and I won't mince words here, is the profoundly pussified response of "ohhhhh nooooo you can't change word :'((((((" that I see all the time. I've seen this so much that to this point it's laughable at how mad the so-called internet hardasses get over someone using a different word. It extrudes the same type of loser incel energy as someone making cancer jokes to someone who just said their mom died of cancer. It's legitimately stupid as fuck and I can't imagine the personal lives of people who get so worked up over stuff like that, and demonstrates a tremendous hypocrisy. At least the people who wanted the changes were doing so in relatively good faith.

    Regarding companies doing this stuff, yes it's absolutely pandering. I don't think a single one of them cares about the causes they push. Whether or not you think it does social good is up to one's own judgment, I haven't thought about it too hard and I'd rather be objective than to make guesses. But in the end it's a matter of free markets and companies being able to do what they want to maximize profit, so I can't criticize them for it. It's also people's right to support companies whose values (or at least whose social impact) align with their own opinions. This happens all over the place, look at the whole thing with Goya Beans and how much success they had over that.

    The swatting thing is abhorrent, and I think swatting should be punished to the full extent, regardless of why it's done.

  8. ISO #8

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    I think it may be true people cynically weaponize or ignore the established processes to their own ends in a way they didn't 40 years ago. Exploiting laws intended to protect or agitating for riots is just one part of that. I'm thinking of filibustering or gerrymandering in politics. Or pervasive copyright lawsuits leveraged by companies. Or some of those high profile health and safety lawsuits. Or even metoo. I suspect ppl are much more disillusioned with due process and the supposed sanctity of the law. Remember when ppl gave a fuck about shit like watergate? Me neither. I dunno, maybe I'm just talking out my ass.

    I assume exploiting ppl's sympathy for the downtrodden for personal or political gain is something that has been constantly happening tho. And language evolves as socio-political shifts take place. Words that were benign become offensive, words that were offensive become benign. That process is accelerating because our social and cultural evolution is accerating with the age of information, I'd assume? The internet can make anyone's grievances viral. Before, noone would know about it until a reporter cared to cover it. And the incentives of companies to protect their PR catalyzes this new process.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  9. ISO #9

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    dunno. i personally feel as though cancel culture and victimization have definitely gotten more visible in recent times. one thing i noticed is that
    many of the people engaged in it are very aggressive and get personal very quickly if you comment negatively on issues related to it. whats interesting is that many of the people im talking about are just regular joes like you and me - just regular people who are usually not connected in an official or even unofficial manner to the issue they purport to fight for/against.

    maybe the end of the cold war means we have no more enemies outwith and have forgotten what constitutes a real issue, and are instead looking for an enemy within?

  10. ISO #10

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    I also think that when it comes to this type of thing, it's a matter of social pressure applied in the greater context and reach of the internet, so it becomes more visible. Combined with a general lack of perspective, that makes it seem like it's a particular class of people or opinion getting oppressed when really it's just vaguely people that can't read a room or understand nuance in context.

    I've spoken IRL with a good friend who was griping about how because of "the left" people can't do things like criticize Islam or policies that take a so-called critical approach to Muslim migration. I asked him: aren't you doing these things right now? What negative consequences are you getting from saying this? Isn't the current president of the US someone who very directly criticized Islam, surely he would have gotten cancelled?

    Likewise, I have good friends who are very leftist, and sometimes we let absolutely vile jokes fly. Things that we absolutely would not say in bigger company. Because we understand that the two of us are comfortable with saying these types of things, and that it's all in good humour and we mean nothing by it.

    I'd also be surprised if I went to a random group of coworkers and started babbling about pro-leftist shit (like that white people should be castrated or whatever the latest strawman is) that people would be super comfortable. I might even get written up.

    The thing I'd like to wonder, from people who genuinely think cancel culture is some sort of spectre that impacts right-wing opinions (because let's be real, it's mostly them complaining about it) is: in what way does cancel culture actually, directly impact you? What do you want to do that you think cancel culture prevents you from doing? And given that, in what ways is cancel culture different from a social enforcement of basic human conversational decency?

  11. ISO #11

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    The main issue I have with cancel culture is the lack of due process and the assumption of guilt as default. I don't say this because I want to instantly discredit the alleged victim, but for due process to be able to work and get to the bottom of things before lives are ruined. Ignoring the vitriol thrown around, I believe this is the crux of most people who are against cancel culture however it gets misconstrued by the people on the other side of the fence as protecting the guilty.

  12. ISO #12

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Oh yeah, for sure. Me too. For me personally thia mostly manifests itself as extreme personal aggression displayed by people when you criticize things they agree with
    This may have something to do with ignorance. Lol
    Or more broadly worsening education. This reminds me of the following video
    https://youtu.be/vMSmUzDt-7U

  13. ISO #13

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    cancel culture isn't new. It's just kind of shifted from the majority cancelling minorities to now the minorities cancelling the majority.

    I mean, having to fear getting "cancelled" by being accused of racism and then losing your job etc. as a white person is not a great thing, sure
    but it's not quite as bad as having to fear getting "cancelled" for having black skin and getting thrown into slavery.

    So, I would frame it in a positive light as at least we are making some "progress", right? Ideally the effects of cancelling keep getting smaller as time goes on, but I think it's disingenuous to frame it as a new thing that's recently gotten worse. It's gotten worse for some people but much better for others.
    retarded post.

    not every white person ever has hated or will hate every black person. the majority doesnt oppress the minority. the people in charge, or most vocal, oppress everyone who doesnt follow their train of thought. THAT is cancel culture. it's not race. it never has been. its always been ideology.

    im sorry if u feel some semblance of white guilt or some shit, but.. thats on u bub.

  14. ISO #14

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruno View Post
    retarded post.

    not every white person ever has hated or will hate every black person. the majority doesnt oppress the minority. the people in charge, or most vocal, oppress everyone who doesnt follow their train of thought. THAT is cancel culture. it's not race. it never has been. its always been ideology.

    im sorry if u feel some semblance of white guilt or some shit, but.. thats on u bub.
    Ah, it's not race. That's why slaves during the entire colonial era in the Western (Christian) world happened to be non-white, while people "of the same race" weren't enslaving eachother...
    You're right that ideology plays a big part (to come back on the example of slavery, Muslims only enslaved non-Muslims, and slaves were different from their masters by their culture, not their race), but saying that race plays no role in discrimination and oppression is ridiculous. Even today, people will get judged only for the color of their skin, which is absolutely not related to ideologies since people can't know your ideology just by looking at you in most cases.

    You do bring up an important point, though: it's not because someone is white that he's automatically a racist oppressor who should be ashamed of existing. That's simply reversing racism as a revenge, not solving any issues and even less finding any truth. It's sad that the fight against discrimination saw a significant part of itself turned into such nonsense, because it discredits the movement as a whole when the movement is absolutely justified and needed... just not under its current dominant form.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  15. ISO #15

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    So how do you guys feel about this? How far do you think it will go? How acceptable is it for people to be 'offended' on behalf of a group they are not a part of? How appropriate is it to force others to change their behavior to cater to your belief system in a free society? Is there even a way to combat this issue?
    That isn't cancel culture lmao

    Cancel "culture" is holding people accountable to their actions (ie, shia lebouf domestically abuses his partners -> people no longer want to consume his media -> "CaNcELleD")

    What you're talking about it something else. Like the Cleveland baseball team finally changing their name, since they used a race of people as a mascot, when they've been asked for decades to change it by said people. I don't even think its about being offended, its about respect.

    Is cancel culture abused? Sure, what isn't. But you seem to be more offended people were asked to stop using the term blind playthrough than the "sJws" ohhnoo what bad people
    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    President Fielzanks walks up to his stage, preparing his n1 speech. In front of him, his two cronies MM and David stood. In front of him, his immaculately written n1 speech was prepared. 'Gentleman, what is the soul of capitalism?', he asked his small audience. 'Money?', MM guessed. 'Waifus?', David asked. 'No' Fielz replied, disappointed in his trash scumteam .
    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    Naz would never forget the Chik-Fil-A Sauce

  16. ISO #16

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Im having a bit of trouble with the idea that everyone deserves respect, and that people ought to be respected solely on the basis of arbitrary group membership. I dont think people should be respected solely because they are black, gay, Muslim. This is not to say that they should be disrespected; merely that respect shouldnt be given merely out of consideration for their minority/disadvantaged status.

    Perhaps people should be more mindful of someone in that situation, and thats an acceptable proposition. The problem is when non-issues are turned into imaginary problems whose importance is vastly overstated. I dont think what I just said even captures the extent to which outrage culture (which is the cause of cancel culture) can create problems out of essentially thin air. Worse yet, it also demands strict punishment for deviating from its arbitrary and often incoherent rules, and punishes ‘deviant’ thought as though it were a form of crimethink.

    One problem with making up arbitrary rules and them doling out infractions for them is that due to them being arbitrary people wont know where the boundaries of said rules lie, and worse yet it is always possible for someone to aggressively expand the vague limitations imposed by the ruleset. Little by little you have to cede more of your thinking and (in my personal opinion) value system to the ruleset or risk being labeled a moral deviant.

  17. ISO #17

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Ah, it's not race. That's why slaves during the entire colonial era in the Western (Christian) world happened to be non-white, while people "of the same race" weren't enslaving eachother...
    You're right that ideology plays a big part (to come back on the example of slavery, Muslims only enslaved non-Muslims, and slaves were different from their masters by their culture, not their race), but saying that race plays no role in discrimination and oppression is ridiculous. Even today, people will get judged only for the color of their skin, which is absolutely not related to ideologies since people can't know your ideology just by looking at you in most cases.

    You do bring up an important point, though: it's not because someone is white that he's automatically a racist oppressor who should be ashamed of existing. That's simply reversing racism as a revenge, not solving any issues and even less finding any truth. It's sad that the fight against discrimination saw a significant part of itself turned into such nonsense, because it discredits the movement as a whole when the movement is absolutely justified and needed... just not under its current dominant form.
    It waa illegal to enslave Christians. Way back in the Middle Ages, Slavs often ended up as slaves in civilized Europe because they were Pagan and the Church allowed Christians to own non-Christian slaves. Also, its not as if whites were the only ones in on the African slave trade: in West Africa they had the cooperation of several of the native kingdoms in capturing slaves: when at war, the petty kings in the region would often have prisoners sold off as slaves to the visiting european traders.

    Also, one thing that most people dont know about is that slavery actually still exists. Guess where? In Africa. Its still going on there.

    Now one thing I dont understand from what Bruno said is his assertion that it wasnt thw majority oppressing the minority (?)? I dont know what this statement means because throughout history its almost universally being the case that if a minority had less power than the majority and they didnt get along so well, inevitably conflicts would arise and if one conquered the other, some form of tyranny was inevitable. Its only recently (last 200 years) been the case that has trend has started to be reversed, and its not even in most places around the world - only the West.

    This reminds me of an ad I saw from China once. A washing machine ad. This black dude shows up and the nice fair Chinese girl puts him in the washing machine and out he comes as a Chinese dude. I laughed so hard at how ridiculously racist that ad was and thought it was ridiculous how they were portraying being black as somehow being filthy. Quite funny but it showcased this strange insistence on painting Western civilization and white people as somehow the most racist people on the planet. Absolutely no thought is given to how racist other parts of the world can get at times. I doubt for example that many people have even heard of the ethnically motivated Rwandan Genocide, which didnt even happen that long ago (I believe it was in ‘96).

  18. ISO #18

  19. ISO #19

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Im curious how people feel about this driving global movement. More and more we see people leveraging 'You have to stop doing/saying 'A' because it makes me feel 'B.' Outside of the fact that avoids any personal accountability for individuals to manage their emotions it leverages them as a victim of another persons actions and weaponizes social mechanisms against that other group/individual in an attempt to force them to change or sensor them.

    It was always 'kinda bad' but now its progressed into second hand social justice warriors fighting for causes for others even when that cause may not even exist. Recently this happened with Twitch banning the phrase "Blind Playthrough" after a bunch of social justice warriors advocated its offensive to the handicapped.

    We also have trends of people pushing false claims of fearing for their safety in order to weaponize law enforcement against people they dont like. Swatting has become a common practice and I personally know quite a few people who have had their romantic partner make up stories to hurt them financially and legally with absolute impunity even when it can be proven.

    So how do you guys feel about this? How far do you think it will go? How acceptable is it for people to be 'offended' on behalf of a group they are not a part of? How appropriate is it to force others to change their behavior to cater to your belief system in a free society? Is there even a way to combat this issue?
    Well I suppose it depends. I think its perfectly reasonable to be offended at someones insistence that the Armenian Genocide or the Holocaust didnt occur (both of these things personally piss me off and I have no idea how people can believe them). I dont think you really need to be able to ‘do’ something about it necessarily to have the moral justification to be offended on behalf of someone else, its more that the problem has to be a real one, and the person who offended you has to be serious and fully aware of what they are saying. I suppose you have to take context into account too, although I cannot think of any specific example right now.

    Is it acceptable to shut someone down, ruin their life over something they offended you? Maybe. Maybe not. I definitely dont think it should be an institutional kind of protection though: like, I honestly think that denying the holocaust should 100% come with no legal repercussions whatsoever. I dont think that people are always fully aware of what they are saying and some of these people just dont know any better and could be persuaded otherwise in the right circumstances. The problem is that the right circumstances have a much harder time occurring if the person is not even allowed to go against consensus. If youre not allowed to believe in something, the temptation to believe it will be just that much higher.

    Now, I think the repercussions would primarily be social. Theres lots of people who will be disgusted at your denial of the Holocaust, and some people would likely deny you employment if they found out. I may be a bit of an extremist here but I would 100% fire/not hire someone who made an antisemitic remark and was 100% serious about it. I absolutely abhor antisemitism and want nothing to do with it.

    So TL; DR I guess to some extent it is acceptable, so long as the issue is real and the person doing the offending is 100% serious about it, and fully aware of what they are saying?

  20. ISO #20

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Well I suppose it depends. I think its perfectly reasonable to be offended at someones insistence that the Armenian Genocide or the Holocaust didnt occur (both of these things personally piss me off and I have no idea how people can believe them). I dont think you really need to be able to ‘do’ something about it necessarily to have the moral justification to be offended on behalf of someone else, its more that the problem has to be a real one, and the person who offended you has to be serious and fully aware of what they are saying. I suppose you have to take context into account too, although I cannot think of any specific example right now.

    Is it acceptable to shut someone down, ruin their life over something they offended you? Maybe. Maybe not. I definitely dont think it should be an institutional kind of protection though: like, I honestly think that denying the holocaust should 100% come with no legal repercussions whatsoever. I dont think that people are always fully aware of what they are saying and some of these people just dont know any better and could be persuaded otherwise in the right circumstances. The problem is that the right circumstances have a much harder time occurring if the person is not even allowed to go against consensus. If youre not allowed to believe in something, the temptation to believe it will be just that much higher.

    Now, I think the repercussions would primarily be social. Theres lots of people who will be disgusted at your denial of the Holocaust, and some people would likely deny you employment if they found out. I may be a bit of an extremist here but I would 100% fire/not hire someone who made an antisemitic remark and was 100% serious about it. I absolutely abhor antisemitism and want nothing to do with it.

    So TL; DR I guess to some extent it is acceptable, so long as the issue is real and the person doing the offending is 100% serious about it, and fully aware of what they are saying?
    What even is a real issue though? Excuse my curtness, but the holocaust has already happened. Whether people acknowledge it has everything to do with "respect" more than anything else. You can try to make some slippery slope argument about how enough people not acknowledging it may lead to the same mistakes being made again but ppl don't need to acknowledge the existence of the holocaust to understand the process of genocides in general (othering, dehumanization, extermination, denial). I'm confused as to how you can appreciate this as bad but not appreciate the genocidal undertones of the various ways in which the US has historically (and continues to) piss over Native American culture.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  21. ISO #21

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Im having a bit of trouble with the idea that everyone deserves respect, and that people ought to be respected solely on the basis of arbitrary group membership. I dont think people should be respected solely because they are black, gay, Muslim. This is not to say that they should be disrespected; merely that respect shouldnt be given merely out of consideration for their minority/disadvantaged status.
    This convo has inevitably evolved beyond what Helz intended due to his unfortunate selection of examples. I'm not going to entertain the thread if it veers off track further than this.

    It's not about respecting ppl solely on the basis of group membership. I don't know if you're working from a different definition of respect which involves some kind of deferrence or admiration. But when Naz refers to "respect" she means "respecting ppl's personal shit". It's something we extend to everyone irrespective of group membership.

    If we're working from the same definition, then I'll say that form of respect is not something which needs to be "earned". You may be understandably tempted to revoke it if ppl do not give it to you, and maybe you would - that's kind of fair enough. But you shouldn't need them to demonstrate some kind of virtuous action before you show them that kind of respect. You should show ppl that kind of respect by default. Sometimes it'll blow up in your face, but that's not an excuse not to do it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  22. ISO #22

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    I don't think ppl should be fired for their political views under any circumstances, so long as they demonstrate they aren't going to threaten the cohesion or integrity of the workplace by bringing said divisive views up, and do not make their coworkers feel uncomfortable (beyond the inevitable discomfort the coworkers have upon knowing their views). If they want to privately deny the holocaust in the shower, that's on them. Ultimately, if those types of ppl are fired from all their jobs they won't have anything to do with their day but attend nazi rallies =P. Actually working with coworkers from the groups they hold in contempt / whose experience they don't understand is the only realistic chance they have of ever changing their views.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  23. ISO #23

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    What even is a real issue though? Excuse my curtness, but the holocaust has already happened. Whether people acknowledge it has everything to do with "respect" more than anything else. You can try to make some slippery slope argument about how enough people not acknowledging it may lead to the same mistakes being made again but ppl don't need to acknowledge the existence of the holocaust to understand the process of genocides in general (othering, dehumanization, extermination, denial). I'm confused as to how you can appreciate this as bad but not appreciate the genocidal undertones of the various ways in which the US has historically (and continues to) piss over Native American culture.
    I agree. Acknowledging the Holocaust comes out of respect for what the people involved had to go through. The issue as I see it is when a problem becomes an imagined one. I think the name of some sports team in Washington is one of those issues that doesnt actually exist (I assume thats what youre talking about). I dont see that calling your team the ‘Washington Redskins’ is disrespecting native americans. Its kinda the opposite in my view. If you name your team after something you obviously like or think highly to some degree of that thing.

    Is it okay to deny that the Trail of Tears happened? No, it isnt, and thats I would say a real problem to a degree (although nowhere near as bad as the Holocaust, because it happened in the relatively remote past and didnt have the same death toll). As for the current genocidal manner in which NAs are being treated, I’d very interested in hearing what you’re talking about here!

  24. ISO #24

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    I don't think ppl should be fired for their political views under any circumstances, so long as they demonstrate they aren't going to threaten the cohesion or integrity of the workplace by bringing said divisive views up, and do not make their coworkers feel uncomfortable (beyond the inevitable discomfort the coworkers have upon knowing their views). If they want to privately deny the holocaust in the shower, that's on them. Ultimately, if those types of ppl are fired from all their jobs they won't have anything to do with their day but attend nazi rallies =P. Actually working with coworkers from the groups they hold in contempt / whose experience they don't understand is the only realistic chance they have of ever changing their views.
    Well as an employer I dont think people who are heartless/stupid enough to deny the holocaust are worth having around, and as a person I do not want them anywhere in my close proximity. I respect the avenue of thought you took here because I realize what unlawful firing practices lead to, but I disagree.

  25. ISO #25

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    This convo has inevitably evolved beyond what Helz intended due to his unfortunate selection of examples. I'm not going to entertain the thread if it veers off track further than this.

    It's not about respecting ppl solely on the basis of group membership. I don't know if you're working from a different definition of respect which involves some kind of deferrence or admiration. But when Naz refers to "respect" she means "respecting ppl's personal shit". It's something we extend to everyone irrespective of group membership.

    If we're working from the same definition, then I'll say that form of respect is not something which needs to be "earned". You may be understandably tempted to revoke it if ppl do not give it to you, and maybe you would - that's kind of fair enough. But you shouldn't need them to demonstrate some kind of virtuous action before you show them that kind of respect. You should show ppl that kind of respect by default. Sometimes it'll blow up in your face, but that's not an excuse not to do it.
    Well as I see it theres two kinds of respect at play here, respect for the culture and respect for humanitarian tragedies. The former should not be freely given, but the latter we agreed should be. Now when I see the Washington Redskins/Indians/whatever they’re called, I see more of the above at stake rather than the latter. I dont think all cultures deserve respect on this world. I dont think Eastern Orthodox, African or Latino culture deserve any ‘respect’. Of course, we should treat everyone with some basic human courtesy regardless of which culture they belong to. I see this as somewhat inconsenquential because no matter how much people try to equalize cultural achievements between groups, things will stay the same and nobody will actually act as though all cultures are equal. I mean, compare the number of people who visit Paris to the number of people who visit cultural sites in Sub-Saharan African countries.

  26. ISO #26

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Well as I see it theres two kinds of respect at play here, respect for the culture and respect for humanitarian tragedies. The former should not be freely given, but the latter we agreed should be. Now when I see the Washington Redskins/Indians/whatever they’re called, I see more of the above at stake rather than the latter. I dont think all cultures deserve respect on this world. I dont think Eastern Orthodox, African or Latino culture deserve any ‘respect’. Of course, we should treat everyone with some basic human courtesy regardless of which culture they belong to. I see this as somewhat inconsenquential because no matter how much people try to equalize cultural achievements between groups, things will stay the same and nobody will actually act as though all cultures are equal. I mean, compare the number of people who visit Paris to the number of people who visit cultural sites in Sub-Saharan African countries.
    I think the issue here is you're regarding the entirety of the culture at once. I find aspects of christian and islamic culture deeply deplorable, but if, for whatever reason, I find myself in a church (making a delivery or smth who knows) and someone asks me to take my hat off, I won't thrust my finger into the air and declare it my right not to take my hand off because christian culture is unworthy of my respect. I will just take my hat off, and save the finger thrusting for when they try to take sex ed out of schools or what have you. My point is I think cultures are entitled to the same respect, on the condition the culture doesn't infringe your values. And in the latter case you just don't respect those aspects of the culture. You don't need to dismiss the culture entirely. Whether cultures are equal is irrelevant to this principle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    I agree. Acknowledging the Holocaust comes out of respect for what the people involved had to go through. The issue as I see it is when a problem becomes an imagined one. I think the name of some sports team in Washington is one of those issues that doesnt actually exist (I assume thats what youre talking about). I dont see that calling your team the ‘Washington Redskins’ is disrespecting native americans. Its kinda the opposite in my view. If you name your team after something you obviously like or think highly to some degree of that thing.

    Is it okay to deny that the Trail of Tears happened? No, it isnt, and thats I would say a real problem to a degree (although nowhere near as bad as the Holocaust, because it happened in the relatively remote past and didnt have the same death toll). As for the current genocidal manner in which NAs are being treated, I’d very interested in hearing what you’re talking about here!
    Without sounding too dramatic, the US and Canada have been trying to eradicate and trivialize all aspects of Native American culture for 100s of years, because it is the stain at the core of their national identities and undermines the legitimacy of their nations. What they are gong through is the "denial" phase of their own genocides. Now, when ppl use the word genocide they imagine something quite extravagant. I don't mean it that way. There was no central mass murder of the Native Americans (though there were a few smaller ones). However, continual and deliberate eradication of a culture also falls under the definition of "genocide". Canada was forcing Native American kids to go to boarding schools where they'd be goaded by the teachers to reject their Native American identity up until the 80's (quite recent!). Native American sites and cultural features get trivialized or desecrated to undermine their importance (like carving the heads of presidents into Mt. Rushmore, which was a sacred site to some Natives), etc.

    I presume there are legitimate concerns this business with the "Washington Redskins" is an extension of that. afaik, this isn't the first time they've been asked to change the name. Even if you think it's absurd to view this as part of genocide denial, I return to the above point - this is also effectively refusing to take your hat off in church. It is not an infringement of your values to change the name, unless you think you truly believe you have a sacred, untouchable right to whatever name you please. If ppl's personal shit can be reasonably respected, then just do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Well as an employer I dont think people who are heartless/stupid enough to deny the holocaust are worth having around, and as a person I do not want them anywhere in my close proximity. I respect the avenue of thought you took here because I realize what unlawful firing practices lead to, but I disagree.
    Meh, my views are probably the extreme ones. I presume most ppl would disagree with me. Maybe it should be discussed in a separate thread because it's only tangentially related to the original point. To keep it short, yes I hate the idea of employers having precedent to fire workers for their beliefs, even if only in extreme cases. And honestly, ppl can have some utterly batshit awful views of the world and still be otherwise agreeable / competent workers. We have to live with ppl together in a society, and while most of them at least fully acknowledge the holocaust (in our countries) they still hold some gross views that you're going to have to learn to cope with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  27. ISO #27

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    I think the issue here is you're regarding the entirety of the culture at once. I find aspects of christian and islamic culture deeply deplorable, but if, for whatever reason, I find myself in a church (making a delivery or smth who knows) and someone asks me to take my hat off, I won't thrust my finger into the air and declare it my right not to take my hand off because christian culture is unworthy of my respect. I will just take my hat off, and save the finger thrusting for when they try to take sex ed out of schools or what have you. My point is I think cultures are entitled to the same respect, on the condition the culture doesn't infringe your values. And in the latter case you just don't respect those aspects of the culture. You don't need to dismiss the culture entirely. Whether cultures are equal is irrelevant to this principle.



    Without sounding too dramatic, the US and Canada have been trying to eradicate and trivialize all aspects of Native American culture for 100s of years, because it is the stain at the core of their national identities and undermines the legitimacy of their nations. What they are gong through is the "denial" phase of their own genocides. Now, when ppl use the word genocide they imagine something quite extravagant. I don't mean it that way. There was no central mass murder of the Native Americans (though there were a few smaller ones). However, continual and deliberate eradication of a culture also falls under the definition of "genocide". Canada was forcing Native American kids to go to boarding schools where they'd be goaded by the teachers to reject their Native American identity up until the 80's (quite recent!). Native American sites and cultural features get trivialized or desecrated to undermine their importance (like carving the heads of presidents into Mt. Rushmore, which was a sacred site to some Natives), etc.

    I presume there are legitimate concerns this business with the "Washington Redskins" is an extension of that. afaik, this isn't the first time they've been asked to change the name. Even if you think it's absurd to view this as part of genocide denial, I return to the above point - this is also effectively refusing to take your hat off in church. It is not an infringement of your values to change the name, unless you think you truly believe you have a sacred, untouchable right to whatever name you please. If ppl's personal shit can be reasonably respected, then just do it.



    Meh, my views are probably the extreme ones. I presume most ppl would disagree with me. Maybe it should be discussed in a separate thread because it's only tangentially related to the original point. To keep it short, yes I hate the idea of employers having precedent to fire workers for their beliefs, even if only in extreme cases. And honestly, ppl can have some utterly batshit awful views of the world and still be otherwise agreeable / competent workers. We have to live with ppl together in a society, and while most of them at least fully acknowledge the holocaust (in our countries) they still hold some gross views that you're going to have to learn to cope with.
    I think you go too far. It's a tricky balancing act obviously - fire anybody who gives the slightest hint of bigotry and you're going too far in that direction. But don't fire anybody for their beliefs? Your workers reflect you and if you won't fire somebody who is openly blatantly bigoted then it implies you are okay with that, and you're going to pay the price by people rightfully boycotting you/your company. At the end of the day, money talks, and most people are replaceable, so if you out yourself as a bigot then you're gonna get shown the door. That's not even a morality thing, it's just good business.
    Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?

  28. ISO #28

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    I realize my post on not all cultures deserving respect makes it seem like I’m saying its okay not to care about the societal ills siffered by certain groups lmao. I was talking about something else which I believe to be related to outrage culture. I agree that I’m not going to go around shitting on peoples culture just because.

  29. ISO #29

  30. ISO #30

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Preliminary disclaimer: I completely agree with yzb on the existence and the depth of the genocide against Native Americans.

    About "taking your hat off when asked to in church" and the anology with the Redskins, there is a critical disctinction lacking, a distinction that is at the core of the debate. Taking your hat off in a church even though you're not Christian is a mark of respect you and most people (myself included) are prone to show because you have some respect for Christianity and for its good sides, even if you're see a lot of bad sides to it and even if you don't believe in the Christian God. However, if you were asked to take off your hat as a mark of respect to something that is purely bad or nonsensical to you without any significant good sides, I'm pretty sure your reaction will be different (not that you'll explicitely think that on the moment, but rather that your perception of the entity you despise will influence your action). Think about some ridiculous cults or about satanism, for example. You're probably not going to take your hat off unless the space-alien-messiah points a laser spear at you when he asks you to do it.
    Well, the same thing applies to the analogy. If you believe that being outraged by the name of a sporting team created decades ago is ridiculous and brings nothing good to society (because it doesn't contribute to the fight against real racism, it's just a supposedly symbolic move that does literally nothing), then chances are you won't agree with the name change.
    That being said, I can understand people being offended by that (not sure "The Niggers" would be an acceptable team name either, and both names are similar, even though my example is a bit more extreme...) Both views are understandable imo.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  31. ISO #31

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    But the issue is not that there was a supposed 'victim' in the Native American population. It was that there was a bunch of people who were not even Native American being offended on behalf of Native Americans.

    Just take a moment and think about how fucked up it is as a society that our social justice movements have gone from fighting inequality into people making up causes to fight for while leveraging community's they do not even belong to as victims. What does that reflect in our ability to understand social boundaries and how disrespectful is it to pretend a community can not voice their own opinion so someone just fights on their behalf without even talking to them about it?
    Sounds like they're wasting their time and if they're not causing any trouble then I see no harm in that.

    I would like to ask you to contemplate the 2nd paragraph of this quote for me. I see possible hypocrisy and projection in it, do you?
    In my view, both - you and the groups you're talking about - are looking for unnecessary injustices to fight.



    On a similar topic: I think it's morally more complicated when it's not one ethnic group choosing to unnecessary stand up for another, but when one ethnic group tells another ethnic group what to do. *cough* Evergreen *cough*.
    Spoiler : :
    to anyone who doesn't remember Evergreen, here's a quick recap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-st73zhZL3A
    also "Bret Weinstein Reasons with Evergreen Protestors" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nawe3lC74jI
    Though I personally don't necessarily agree with Bret - I found it funny how useless (argumentation wise) the protesters became once they're met with unexpected resistance..
    Last edited by OzyWho; December 16th, 2020 at 04:42 AM. Reason: Changed my mind

  32. ISO #32

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Preliminary disclaimer: I completely agree with yzb on the existence and the depth of the genocide against Native Americans.

    About "taking your hat off when asked to in church" and the anology with the Redskins, there is a critical disctinction lacking, a distinction that is at the core of the debate. Taking your hat off in a church even though you're not Christian is a mark of respect you and most people (myself included) are prone to show because you have some respect for Christianity and for its good sides, even if you're see a lot of bad sides to it and even if you don't believe in the Christian God. However, if you were asked to take off your hat as a mark of respect to something that is purely bad or nonsensical to you without any significant good sides, I'm pretty sure your reaction will be different (not that you'll explicitely think that on the moment, but rather that your perception of the entity you despise will influence your action). Think about some ridiculous cults or about satanism, for example. You're probably not going to take your hat off unless the space-alien-messiah points a laser spear at you when he asks you to do it.
    Well, the same thing applies to the analogy. If you believe that being outraged by the name of a sporting team created decades ago is ridiculous and brings nothing good to society (because it doesn't contribute to the fight against real racism, it's just a supposedly symbolic move that does literally nothing), then chances are you won't agree with the name change.
    That being said, I can understand people being offended by that (not sure "The Niggers" would be an acceptable team name either, and both names are similar, even though my example is a bit more extreme...) Both views are understandable imo.
    I think that your example shows an underlying issue in all of this which is the matter of social respect and acceptance. The reason you take off your hat in church and not to some cult, even if you disagree with Christianity, is not necessarily because of respect but because of the social consequences of not doing so. At the risk of sounding edgy, I respect Christian institutions as much as the wild out-there cults that exist, but I and most people know that nobody will care if you don't take your hat off for a weird cult, in fact, a lot of people will likely respect you more. But you will draw ire in most of the western world for brazenly disrespecting Christianity like that. I think the pressure to adhere to these customs is what drives most people's decisions.

    This goes back to the the idea of these so-called naming things, and why I think a lot of people complaining about this type of stuff are either actually socially stunted or just massive pussies. If one wants to fight for keeping the Redskins name, or whatever other dumbass freeze peach issue you want to fight for like the ability to say racial slurs as much as you want, then you do so with the knowledge that you gain pretty much nothing but attract a lot of social ire (as well as respect from a certain crowd, if you so desire that). If one wants to do that, do it, but own the consequences. If someone goes around arguing for provocative causes like that, and then people don't want to be their friend or associate with them because they're kind of annoying, and on top of that they complain that other people are treating them in a way they don't want to be treated without making any effort to respect them (and often, making the effort to actively disrespect their wishes), you know what that makes that person?

    An actual bitch.

  33. ISO #33

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Not to be a scumpainter but can either MM or yzb provide sources? With the amount of people sharing the attitudes you two have it makes me wonder where the bad people genociding Native Americans are.
    Last edited by Oberon; December 16th, 2020 at 07:38 AM. Reason: grammar is hardt

  34. ISO #34

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadi..._school_system

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_genocide

    and as you already know

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

    As I said, there was obviously no central mass slaughter of the Native Americans. So, if your definition of genocide is strict, you may have to classify the treatment of the native americans as some other form of mass persecution. But whatever it was it wasn't nice lol. Definitions of genocide generally include the deliberate eradication of a culture through other coercive or violent means. I was thinking of one of those definitions.

    I'm not the most informed person to talk to on this subject, but tbqh what I'm telling you is common knowledge. Their holy sites and culture has also been intentionally desecrated over time, but sadly the only example I can come up with is the iconic and well-known examples like mt rushmore. If someone more informed than me could help me out here that'd be appreciated.

    There were a variety of contemporary attitudes to Native Americans. But effectively all the colonial superpowers took it for granted that their fate was the collective decision of the collonial superpowers. They'd make treaties buying and selling land to one another that they didn't even have de facto control over, because it was a "duh" thing that they'd eventually be taking and expanding into it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  35. ISO #35

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Interestingly, I’d heard of Canada having a racial problem with First Nations rather than Black people, unlike the US. Maybe this school system is comparable to Segregation in the US, since it seems to have happened in more or less the same time period?

  36. ISO #36

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    well the last school wasn't closed until 1996 or something. They literally went as long as they could before the feminist sjws emerged and made racism punishable by death
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  37. ISO #37

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Meh, this theory of genocide continuing even now seems a little hard to believe, that’s all. Maybe it’s just because I’m not American and thus unfamiliar with the exact context, but that’s how it looks from my position.

  38. ISO #38

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    and this racism shouldn't really be conflated with the segregation racism too much. The motives and the psychology seems v different to me imo. In segregation, the whites felt threatened that all the black ppl would overrun their culture with degeneracy and crime. This is much more ideological. The schools were trying to eradicate the Native American identity entirely
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  39. ISO #39

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Meh, this theory of genocide continuing even now seems a little hard to believe, that’s all. Maybe it’s just because I’m not American and thus unfamiliar with the exact context, but that’s how it looks from my position.
    I don't understand what you're missing here. I'm not expositing a "theory". Maybe you're getting to hung up on my usage of the word "genocide". All I'm saying is ppl in Canada and the US, at various levels of government and power, have lead a myriad of atrocities against Native Americans to marginalize their influence and strengthen the legitimacy of their nations. I have given examples of how this happened in really bad ways way back in the day, and how it happens in very bad but less bad ways up until v recently.

    The western world is in the denial stage, as evidenced by the fact I can literally cite you a genocide that happened in California and you still say "meh idk not buying the theory". You're literally exhibiting the exact same double-think the holocaust deniers you rebuked above possess. Adolf Hitler took direct inspiration for his "Lebensraum" idea from the American "Manifest Destiny". Bruh
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  40. ISO #40

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    To be clear, I don't hold anything against you for this. Like 40-50% of the British ppl think the British Empire was a force for good and there's lots of ppl who deny / "have intellectual doubts" about genocides or other great atrocities that their country or another country has committed. It is sadly extremely common. I do expect improvement from someone like yourself who is decently educated tho.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  41. ISO #41

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    if you possessed a cultural identity that was totally detatched from the US (u were chinese or some shit idk) you'd look at this and just go "yeah, fair". You have a serious bias here
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  42. ISO #42

  43. ISO #43

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    I have no doubt the US and Canada conducted what can essentially be seen as genocides against native americans in the past. What I’m disputing is the idea that its still going on.
    It's not just "essential seen as", it's literally what it is. About it still going on, probably not, but racism there and elsewhere is definetly not purely and simply gone.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  44. ISO #44

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I think that your example shows an underlying issue in all of this which is the matter of social respect and acceptance. The reason you take off your hat in church and not to some cult, even if you disagree with Christianity, is not necessarily because of respect but because of the social consequences of not doing so. At the risk of sounding edgy, I respect Christian institutions as much as the wild out-there cults that exist, but I and most people know that nobody will care if you don't take your hat off for a weird cult, in fact, a lot of people will likely respect you more. But you will draw ire in most of the western world for brazenly disrespecting Christianity like that. I think the pressure to adhere to these customs is what drives most people's decisions.

    This goes back to the the idea of these so-called naming things, and why I think a lot of people complaining about this type of stuff are either actually socially stunted or just massive pussies. If one wants to fight for keeping the Redskins name, or whatever other dumbass freeze peach issue you want to fight for like the ability to say racial slurs as much as you want, then you do so with the knowledge that you gain pretty much nothing but attract a lot of social ire (as well as respect from a certain crowd, if you so desire that). If one wants to do that, do it, but own the consequences. If someone goes around arguing for provocative causes like that, and then people don't want to be their friend or associate with them because they're kind of annoying, and on top of that they complain that other people are treating them in a way they don't want to be treated without making any effort to respect them (and often, making the effort to actively disrespect their wishes), you know what that makes that person?

    An actual bitch.
    About the hat: It would seem your definition of what should be respected is "something other people have respect for, since if I don't sheep them or at least look like I'm sheeping them, they'll be angry". I don't live guided by a desire to please others, I live guided by my principles and by logic as much as I can. A life lived in a "social conformity" contrary to your personal beliefs only due to a fear of shunning is a life lived in vain imo. The point of life, if it exists and I believe it does (be it only to find what it is lol), is certainly not to turn into a sheep herd member.
    Note that this doesn't mean you can't have the principle to not cause trouble and make people angry for no reason. But in such a case, you have that principle because you believe it's bad for X logical reason, not because "what will others think oh noes".

    And by the way, as I said, I don't oppose changing the "Redskins" name of the team because it's a pretty clear and unambiguous reference to a purely racist reality. I'm mostly playing the devil's advocate by saying the other view is also valid.
    Last edited by Marshmallow Marshall; December 16th, 2020 at 01:05 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  45. ISO #45

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    I have no doubt the US and Canada conducted what can essentially be seen as genocides against native americans in the past. What I’m disputing is the idea that its still going on.
    oh my bad. I was just trying to say they're in the "denial" phase of the genocide i.e. it's already happened and now various ppl are downplaying it in various ways to escape patriotic guilt
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  46. ISO #46

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    I dont understand why the Redskins name is racist. Isnt the point that the people you name your team after are supposed to be heroic/stalwart/some shit? I mean, at the very least nobody is gonna name their team after some people they do not respect. If some team in Winsconsin were called the ‘Wisconsin Vikings’ literally nobody would give a shit.

  47. ISO #47

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    I dont understand why the Redskins name is racist. Isnt the point that the people you name your team after are supposed to be heroic/stalwart/some shit? I mean, at the very least nobody is gonna name their team after some people they do not respect. If some team in Winsconsin were called the ‘Wisconsin Vikings’ literally nobody would give a shit.
    I respect black people. That doesn't mean I should put on blackface at Halloween.

  48. ISO #48

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Magoroth View Post
    I respect black people. That doesn't mean I should put on blackface at Halloween.
    It's not even that. No Natives ever had red skin, they painted themselves in red or something lol

    Also, stop impersonating xD
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  49. ISO #49

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    I dont understand why the Redskins name is racist. Isnt the point that the people you name your team after are supposed to be heroic/stalwart/some shit? I mean, at the very least nobody is gonna name their team after some people they do not respect. If some team in Winsconsin were called the ‘Wisconsin Vikings’ literally nobody would give a shit.
    it's a slur. And though it may be interpreted as a respect of their strength, it can also be interpreted as bestializing the native americans. You name your team after things that are strong and savage like bears and lions (and vikings) and shit. If it was chosen a year ago that'd be one thing but the name was chosen in like the 1930s - deep in segregation times - so they probably meant it in the bestializing sort of way. The intended effect was probably a snappy way of calling your team "the barbarians" or something.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  50. ISO #50

    Re: Cancel culture and the weaponization of victimization

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    About the hat: It would seem your definition of what should be respected is "something other people have respect for, since if I don't sheep them or at least look like I'm sheeping them, they'll be angry". I don't live guided by a desire to please others, I live guided by my principles and by logic as much as I can. A life lived in a "social conformity" contrary to your personal beliefs only due to a fear of shunning is a life lived in vain imo. The point of life, if it exists and I believe it does (be it only to find what it is lol), is certainly not to turn into a sheep herd member.
    Note that this doesn't mean you can't have the principle to not cause trouble and make people angry for no reason. But in such a case, you have that principle because you believe it's bad for X logical reason, not because "what will others think oh noes".

    And by the way, as I said, I don't oppose changing the "Redskins" name of the team because it's a pretty clear and unambiguous reference to a purely racist reality. I'm mostly playing the devil's advocate by saying the other view is also valid.
    I think that regardless of how you present outwardly, your instincts are driven by the desire for social conformity. Even despite that, I think logic falls in line with my line of reasoning. Logically, you'll come to the realization that taking your hat off is little hassle for earning, or at least not losing, the respect of others. Same with the whole naming thing that people cry about.

    I get your point on the Redskins, don't worry.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •