Open letter published to fight "Cancel Culture"

[martybegan]

Deciding you don't want to purchase the work of someone you disagree with is not censorship.

Now if the government decides to not allow her to speak, then I'll join her.

Calling for companies to fire someone because you disagree with them is, it just isn't government censorship.

It's petty and cruel, especially over things like words a person says.

People have always let a company know why they will or will not buy their products.

It's why you never saw "Coca-Cola presents Lenny Bruce".

The thing is today a much smaller percentage of the population can exert undue influence beyond their numbers.

When that loan company fired the mother of the cop in Georgia, no one said they would stop using the mortgage company if she was still working there.

They never even published what she said that was so offensive, they just hid their twitter behind the approval wall and ran and hid.

They were trying to avoid the possibility of an ugly scene in the workplace. Agree or disagree does an employer have that right?

They may have the right to fire her, but by doing so in the way they did they have basically made it impossible for her to be hired by anyone else. That should be treated as libel/slander and they should be sued, to at least force them to admit exactly why they fired her and what she did.

Also, just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right.

All she supposedly did was defend her step son.

I hope you get fired one day for something this stupid, you gutless hack.

 

[martybegan]

Deciding you don't want to purchase the work of someone you disagree with is not censorship.

Now if the government decides to not allow her to speak, then I'll join her.

Calling for companies to fire someone because you disagree with them is, it just isn't government censorship.

It's petty and cruel, especially over things like words a person says.

You mean like the King County detective who posted the "All Lives Splatter" meme on facebook and is currently on administrative leave pending an internal investigation"?

Honestly I'd be very suprised if anything other than him being written up happens, however if law enforcement officers/detectives have no qualms about displaying their bias in this manner, how can you ever trust them to not be biased in their enforcement or administration of the law? That's what the problem is and those individuals who either don't know any better or don't care, don't have the necessary qualities to work in law enforcement, in my opinion.

So you want autonomous robots working in law enforcement?

People will always have biases, unless you start making these....

 

[pknopp]

I'm reading another article and it seems she is upset with "Public Shaming" of people for what they say.

That is a cornerstone of society. We get nowhere as a society if people never spoke up to say "you are wrong".

If it were just "you are wrong" followed by reasonable discourse on WHY, nobody would have a problem.

But, it's not.

It's "you are a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenomorph" with no discourse and a demand for punishment.

Completely NOT liberal!!!

If you read much of what I write I am no fan of name calling but unfortunately it's not something new.

I'm not really sure how you call out something like racism without calling it what it is.

Here's a hint: if the reason something is "racist" requires an explanation (which is never given) maybe you should reconsider.

A meaningless statement. Reasons are gave all the time.

The story in this OP itself prove otherwise, dude. JK Rowling said something about "those who menstruate" being women and all hell broke lose. No explanation. Just typical shit flinging.

IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!!!

Whether she is right or wrong isn't the point. She doesn't want people to counter her in public whether they are right or wrong.

 

[pknopp]

Free speech is not the right to have no one counter your speech.

Counter with speech, yes. Counter with punishment and intimidation, no.

There is a very clear distinction there.

People are saying "I do not support what she is saying". They have as much right to say that as she does to say what she says.

Is that all that happens in Cancel Culture, in the big picture?

If so, why is it called "Cancel Culture" to begin with?

People love to come up with these new labels for things that are not new for some reason.

I guess it helps push the news. "Cancel Culture"?

Whats that? Click.

As an example. I was a documentary on an underground comic book writer that got himself into trouble over his comics. Now I will agree that the part where the government got involved was wrong.

But there is a reason they were "underground" comics that had to print their own material. Publishers simply weren't interested in their work.

They didn't have an obligation to publish it.

I think this is new in that it has clearly accelerated. Either we believe in true freedom of expression, unencumbered, or we do not.

The venues to disagree (or even agree) have expanded. That's simply the nature of things.

Again, she is free to say whatever she wants. What she (and you) want it the ability to say what you want without anyone saying you are wrong.

I'll say it for the third and last time: It's NOT about opposing an idea with SPEECH. THAT is the POINT of it.

I don't know why you don't want to recognize that, but three tries is enough for me.

Why? Because you've not actually made any other point.

Dude,

I disagree with almost everything Mac says, or is likely to ever say -
On this point, he has destroyed you.

Lol....OK.

It is okay

Your answers don't even address the point.

The point is people do not want countered in public for what they say in public.

Too bad.

No. People don't want to be destroyed without actually being countered.

Example:

"all lives matter"

"You racist, sexist, homophobic, xenomorph! Fire him"

Then, it actually happens.

Want proof?

No. I've addressed that already.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I'm reading another article and it seems she is upset with "Public Shaming" of people for what they say.

That is a cornerstone of society. We get nowhere as a society if people never spoke up to say "you are wrong".

If it were just "you are wrong" followed by reasonable discourse on WHY, nobody would have a problem.

But, it's not.

It's "you are a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenomorph" with no discourse and a demand for punishment.

Completely NOT liberal!!!

If you read much of what I write I am no fan of name calling but unfortunately it's not something new.

I'm not really sure how you call out something like racism without calling it what it is.

Here's a hint: if the reason something is "racist" requires an explanation (which is never given) maybe you should reconsider.

A meaningless statement. Reasons are gave all the time.

The story in this OP itself prove otherwise, dude. JK Rowling said something about "those who menstruate" being women and all hell broke lose. No explanation. Just typical shit flinging.

IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!!!

Whether she is right or wrong isn't the point. She doesn't want people to counter her in public whether they are right or wrong.

I didn't make the argument that she was right or wrong.

The point is that NOBODY argued why she was "wrong" (she was not) until way late in the game. Nothing but "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenomorph" boycott threats.

 

[Billiejeens]

Free speech is not the right to have no one counter your speech.

Counter with speech, yes. Counter with punishment and intimidation, no.

There is a very clear distinction there.

People are saying "I do not support what she is saying". They have as much right to say that as she does to say what she says.

Is that all that happens in Cancel Culture, in the big picture?

If so, why is it called "Cancel Culture" to begin with?

People love to come up with these new labels for things that are not new for some reason.

I guess it helps push the news. "Cancel Culture"?

Whats that? Click.

As an example. I was a documentary on an underground comic book writer that got himself into trouble over his comics. Now I will agree that the part where the government got involved was wrong.

But there is a reason they were "underground" comics that had to print their own material. Publishers simply weren't interested in their work.

They didn't have an obligation to publish it.

I think this is new in that it has clearly accelerated. Either we believe in true freedom of expression, unencumbered, or we do not.

The venues to disagree (or even agree) have expanded. That's simply the nature of things.

Again, she is free to say whatever she wants. What she (and you) want it the ability to say what you want without anyone saying you are wrong.

I'll say it for the third and last time: It's NOT about opposing an idea with SPEECH. THAT is the POINT of it.

I don't know why you don't want to recognize that, but three tries is enough for me.

Why? Because you've not actually made any other point.

Dude,

I disagree with almost everything Mac says, or is likely to ever say -
On this point, he has destroyed you.

Lol....OK.

It is okay

Your answers don't even address the point.

The point is people do not want countered in public for what they say in public.

Too bad.

You can repeat that to yourself, all that you want.
Maybe in another thread where that is being discussed.
That is not the discussion in this thread.

 

[pknopp]

Deciding you don't want to purchase the work of someone you disagree with is not censorship.

Now if the government decides to not allow her to speak, then I'll join her.

Calling for companies to fire someone because you disagree with them is, it just isn't government censorship.

It's petty and cruel, especially over things like words a person says.

People have always let a company know why they will or will not buy their products.

It's why you never saw "Coca-Cola presents Lenny Bruce".

The thing is today a much smaller percentage of the population can exert undue influence beyond their numbers.

When that loan company fired the mother of the cop in Georgia, no one said they would stop using the mortgage company if she was still working there.

They never even published what she said that was so offensive, they just hid their twitter behind the approval wall and ran and hid.

They were trying to avoid the possibility of an ugly scene in the workplace. Agree or disagree does an employer have that right?

They may have the right to fire her, but by doing so in the way they did they have basically made it impossible for her to be hired by anyone else. That should be treated as libel/slander and they should be sued, to at least force them to admit exactly why they fired her and what she did.

Also, just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right.

All she supposedly did was defend her step son.

I hope you get fired one day for something this stupid, you gutless hack.

NO, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should or have to do it. That's not really the discussion though.

Our rights also come with negative aspects. The argument is that they are still better than the alternative.

As I retire in the 24th my employer better get busy.

 

[pknopp]

Deciding you don't want to purchase the work of someone you disagree with is not censorship.

Now if the government decides to not allow her to speak, then I'll join her.

Calling for companies to fire someone because you disagree with them is, it just isn't government censorship.

It's petty and cruel, especially over things like words a person says.

You mean like the King County detective who posted the "All Lives Splatter" meme on facebook and is currently on administrative leave pending an internal investigation"?

Honestly I'd be very suprised if anything other than him being written up happens, however if law enforcement officers/detectives have no qualms about displaying their bias in this manner, how can you ever trust them to not be biased in their enforcement or administration of the law? That's what the problem is and those individuals who either don't know any better or don't care, don't have the necessary qualities to work in law enforcement, in my opinion.

So you want autonomous robots working in law enforcement?

People will always have biases, unless you start making these....

When you are ignorant enough to make your biases known in public it leads to one questioning your rational thinking.

If as a detective you are not able to understand why a biased opinion may hurt your ability to do your job, then.........well.

 

[pknopp]

Free speech is not the right to have no one counter your speech.

Counter with speech, yes. Counter with punishment and intimidation, no.

There is a very clear distinction there.

People are saying "I do not support what she is saying". They have as much right to say that as she does to say what she says.

Is that all that happens in Cancel Culture, in the big picture?

If so, why is it called "Cancel Culture" to begin with?

People love to come up with these new labels for things that are not new for some reason.

I guess it helps push the news. "Cancel Culture"?

Whats that? Click.

As an example. I was a documentary on an underground comic book writer that got himself into trouble over his comics. Now I will agree that the part where the government got involved was wrong.

But there is a reason they were "underground" comics that had to print their own material. Publishers simply weren't interested in their work.

They didn't have an obligation to publish it.

I think this is new in that it has clearly accelerated. Either we believe in true freedom of expression, unencumbered, or we do not.

The venues to disagree (or even agree) have expanded. That's simply the nature of things.

Again, she is free to say whatever she wants. What she (and you) want it the ability to say what you want without anyone saying you are wrong.

I'll say it for the third and last time: It's NOT about opposing an idea with SPEECH. THAT is the POINT of it.

I don't know why you don't want to recognize that, but three tries is enough for me.

Why? Because you've not actually made any other point.

Dude,

I disagree with almost everything Mac says, or is likely to ever say -
On this point, he has destroyed you.

Lol....OK.

It is okay

Your answers don't even address the point.

The point is people do not want countered in public for what they say in public.

Too bad.

You can repeat that to yourself, all that you want.
Maybe in another thread where that is being discussed.
That is not the discussion in this thread.

And yet it is. She complained about "public shaming" otherwise known as being called out in public.

 

[martybegan]

Deciding you don't want to purchase the work of someone you disagree with is not censorship.

Now if the government decides to not allow her to speak, then I'll join her.

Calling for companies to fire someone because you disagree with them is, it just isn't government censorship.

It's petty and cruel, especially over things like words a person says.

People have always let a company know why they will or will not buy their products.

It's why you never saw "Coca-Cola presents Lenny Bruce".

The thing is today a much smaller percentage of the population can exert undue influence beyond their numbers.

When that loan company fired the mother of the cop in Georgia, no one said they would stop using the mortgage company if she was still working there.

They never even published what she said that was so offensive, they just hid their twitter behind the approval wall and ran and hid.

They were trying to avoid the possibility of an ugly scene in the workplace. Agree or disagree does an employer have that right?

They may have the right to fire her, but by doing so in the way they did they have basically made it impossible for her to be hired by anyone else. That should be treated as libel/slander and they should be sued, to at least force them to admit exactly why they fired her and what she did.

Also, just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right.

All she supposedly did was defend her step son.

I hope you get fired one day for something this stupid, you gutless hack.

NO, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should or have to do it. That's not really the discussion though.

Our rights also come with negative aspects. The argument is that they are still better than the alternative.

As I retire in the 24th my employer better get busy.

You only answered one of my statements.

 

[martybegan]

Deciding you don't want to purchase the work of someone you disagree with is not censorship.

Now if the government decides to not allow her to speak, then I'll join her.

Calling for companies to fire someone because you disagree with them is, it just isn't government censorship.

It's petty and cruel, especially over things like words a person says.

You mean like the King County detective who posted the "All Lives Splatter" meme on facebook and is currently on administrative leave pending an internal investigation"?

Honestly I'd be very suprised if anything other than him being written up happens, however if law enforcement officers/detectives have no qualms about displaying their bias in this manner, how can you ever trust them to not be biased in their enforcement or administration of the law? That's what the problem is and those individuals who either don't know any better or don't care, don't have the necessary qualities to work in law enforcement, in my opinion.

So you want autonomous robots working in law enforcement?

People will always have biases, unless you start making these....

When you are ignorant enough to make your biases known in public it leads to one questioning your rational thinking.

If as a detective you are not able to understand why a biased opinion may hurt your ability to do your job, then.........well.

So again, you want robots.

 

[pknopp]

Deciding you don't want to purchase the work of someone you disagree with is not censorship.

Now if the government decides to not allow her to speak, then I'll join her.

Calling for companies to fire someone because you disagree with them is, it just isn't government censorship.

It's petty and cruel, especially over things like words a person says.

People have always let a company know why they will or will not buy their products.

It's why you never saw "Coca-Cola presents Lenny Bruce".

The thing is today a much smaller percentage of the population can exert undue influence beyond their numbers.

When that loan company fired the mother of the cop in Georgia, no one said they would stop using the mortgage company if she was still working there.

They never even published what she said that was so offensive, they just hid their twitter behind the approval wall and ran and hid.

They were trying to avoid the possibility of an ugly scene in the workplace. Agree or disagree does an employer have that right?

They may have the right to fire her, but by doing so in the way they did they have basically made it impossible for her to be hired by anyone else. That should be treated as libel/slander and they should be sued, to at least force them to admit exactly why they fired her and what she did.

Also, just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right.

All she supposedly did was defend her step son.

I hope you get fired one day for something this stupid, you gutless hack.

NO, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should or have to do it. That's not really the discussion though.

Our rights also come with negative aspects. The argument is that they are still better than the alternative.

As I retire in the 24th my employer better get busy.

You only answered one of my statements.

If she feels she has been wronged she has the right to sue. People have done that many times.

 

[Mac1958]

Obviously there are people who don't see a distinction between (a) disagreeing verbally with someone and (b) actively working to punish them for their words.

My question is: Do they REALLY not see the distinction, or are they CHOOSING not to see the distinction?

 

[pknopp]

Deciding you don't want to purchase the work of someone you disagree with is not censorship.

Now if the government decides to not allow her to speak, then I'll join her.

Calling for companies to fire someone because you disagree with them is, it just isn't government censorship.

It's petty and cruel, especially over things like words a person says.

You mean like the King County detective who posted the "All Lives Splatter" meme on facebook and is currently on administrative leave pending an internal investigation"?

Honestly I'd be very suprised if anything other than him being written up happens, however if law enforcement officers/detectives have no qualms about displaying their bias in this manner, how can you ever trust them to not be biased in their enforcement or administration of the law? That's what the problem is and those individuals who either don't know any better or don't care, don't have the necessary qualities to work in law enforcement, in my opinion.

So you want autonomous robots working in law enforcement?

People will always have biases, unless you start making these....

When you are ignorant enough to make your biases known in public it leads to one questioning your rational thinking.

If as a detective you are not able to understand why a biased opinion may hurt your ability to do your job, then.........well.

So again, you want robots.

I want people who are able to think and think through the repercussions of their actions.

 

[martybegan]

Deciding you don't want to purchase the work of someone you disagree with is not censorship.

Now if the government decides to not allow her to speak, then I'll join her.

Calling for companies to fire someone because you disagree with them is, it just isn't government censorship.

It's petty and cruel, especially over things like words a person says.

People have always let a company know why they will or will not buy their products.

It's why you never saw "Coca-Cola presents Lenny Bruce".

The thing is today a much smaller percentage of the population can exert undue influence beyond their numbers.

When that loan company fired the mother of the cop in Georgia, no one said they would stop using the mortgage company if she was still working there.

They never even published what she said that was so offensive, they just hid their twitter behind the approval wall and ran and hid.

They were trying to avoid the possibility of an ugly scene in the workplace. Agree or disagree does an employer have that right?

They may have the right to fire her, but by doing so in the way they did they have basically made it impossible for her to be hired by anyone else. That should be treated as libel/slander and they should be sued, to at least force them to admit exactly why they fired her and what she did.

Also, just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right.

All she supposedly did was defend her step son.

I hope you get fired one day for something this stupid, you gutless hack.

NO, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should or have to do it. That's not really the discussion though.

Our rights also come with negative aspects. The argument is that they are still better than the alternative.

As I retire in the 24th my employer better get busy.

You only answered one of my statements.

If she feels she has been wronged she has the right to sue. People have done that many times.

typical dodge answer.

 

[martybegan]

Deciding you don't want to purchase the work of someone you disagree with is not censorship.

Now if the government decides to not allow her to speak, then I'll join her.

Calling for companies to fire someone because you disagree with them is, it just isn't government censorship.

It's petty and cruel, especially over things like words a person says.

You mean like the King County detective who posted the "All Lives Splatter" meme on facebook and is currently on administrative leave pending an internal investigation"?

Honestly I'd be very suprised if anything other than him being written up happens, however if law enforcement officers/detectives have no qualms about displaying their bias in this manner, how can you ever trust them to not be biased in their enforcement or administration of the law? That's what the problem is and those individuals who either don't know any better or don't care, don't have the necessary qualities to work in law enforcement, in my opinion.

So you want autonomous robots working in law enforcement?

People will always have biases, unless you start making these....

When you are ignorant enough to make your biases known in public it leads to one questioning your rational thinking.

If as a detective you are not able to understand why a biased opinion may hurt your ability to do your job, then.........well.

So again, you want robots.

I want people who are able to think and think through the repercussions of their actions.

No, you want terminators. programmed to do what you wish them to do.

 

[pknopp]

Obviously there are people who don't see a distinction between (a) disagreeing verbally with someone and (b) actively working to punish them for their words.

My question is: Do they really not see the distinction, or are they CHOOSING not to see the distinction?

You have a right to say to someone that you will no longer support them for supporting the actions of another.

This isn't something new. I have no group or business I'm boycotting but I don't get to tell others what to do in this regard.

Free Speech comes with possible repercussions. It's a part of free speech.

 

[pknopp]

Deciding you don't want to purchase the work of someone you disagree with is not censorship.

Now if the government decides to not allow her to speak, then I'll join her.

Calling for companies to fire someone because you disagree with them is, it just isn't government censorship.

It's petty and cruel, especially over things like words a person says.

People have always let a company know why they will or will not buy their products.

It's why you never saw "Coca-Cola presents Lenny Bruce".

The thing is today a much smaller percentage of the population can exert undue influence beyond their numbers.

When that loan company fired the mother of the cop in Georgia, no one said they would stop using the mortgage company if she was still working there.

They never even published what she said that was so offensive, they just hid their twitter behind the approval wall and ran and hid.

They were trying to avoid the possibility of an ugly scene in the workplace. Agree or disagree does an employer have that right?

They may have the right to fire her, but by doing so in the way they did they have basically made it impossible for her to be hired by anyone else. That should be treated as libel/slander and they should be sued, to at least force them to admit exactly why they fired her and what she did.

Also, just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right.

All she supposedly did was defend her step son.

I hope you get fired one day for something this stupid, you gutless hack.

NO, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should or have to do it. That's not really the discussion though.

Our rights also come with negative aspects. The argument is that they are still better than the alternative.

As I retire in the 24th my employer better get busy.

You only answered one of my statements.

If she feels she has been wronged she has the right to sue. People have done that many times.

typical dodge answer.

You said they should be sued. I said she has that right. Did you want me to disagree?

 

[Fang]

Looks like Mac1958 took his medication today,

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Obviously there are people who don't see a distinction between (a) disagreeing verbally with someone and (b) actively working to punish them for their words.

My question is: Do they REALLY not see the distinction, or are they CHOOSING not to see the distinction?

It's easier to punish than it is to debate.

That's what happened to Milo Yiannopoulos. He was way too dangerous to the PC left because his mere existence completely shit all over their narrative. Bill Mahar mercifully (to the left) found a way to get him "cancelled."