Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby, maybe you just missed the post below, but your (lack of a) response leads me to think that complaining about cancel culture is a way to avoid discussing the very real bad things that some people do, and instead to talk in a vague way about free speech. Your commitment to free speech would be more convincing if you tried to deal with what actually happened with Adam Rapoport, instead of using a phony victimization of him. YMMV.

I’ll reply twice...

My prior reply got me thinking, what is the impact of cancel culture on humor? Unquestionably negative.

And humor is a way people from different backgrounds can find common ground and, more importantly, a way for victims to fight back.

I watched Chappelle’s 8:46 and felt the need to go thru his best bits from his Comedy Central show.

The stuff holds up 15 years later. Genius. He skewers, mocks, and shows the abject stupidity of racism at a level I think only Richard Pryor has previously approached.

But could he make that show today? No.

That’s tragic. Because as teaching moments go, when my child has watched that show, The Lesson Stuck. The question the show demands any kid ask is, “Why would anyone hate people of another color?”

And as a parent you can answer, as I have, “Because bigots are idiots. Like the idiots in the skits. That’s why.”

If we geld comedy in deference to cancel culture idiocy, we lose one of the most potent weapons against all forms of bigotry.

You can soberly decry bigotry all day long, and if that’s the exclusive method, you’ll exhaust and bore people. Alternatively, you can do some of that while also mocking it, and if mock it well, in the moment it takes the listener to laugh, you’ve taken away 70% or more of the bigot’s claim to credibility. That which can be effectively mocked is shown to be weak.

But you can’t do both if the people who are doing the sober messaging are officiously alleging bigotry on the part of the humorists doing the mocking.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In other words, Rapoport deserved to be fired for other reasons, and we don't need to discuss his costume at all. So Williamson's choice to include him as an example of cancel culture was intentionally misleading (remember: Williamson cited to that NPR article as his source), an effort to manufacture an example of cancel culture out of a set of facts that suggest something else was going on.

I didn’t say he deserved to be fired for other reasons. I said the other reasons are valid bases upon which to ask that he be fired or that he be fired. Whether they were proven or not, or if in reality the photo led to the firing, is unknown.

One would think if the discrimination claims were strong, there’d have been a claim made to the EEOC.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’ll reply twice...

My prior reply got me thinking, what is the impact of cancel culture on humor? Unquestionably negative.

And humor is a way people from different backgrounds can find common ground and, more importantly, a way for victims to fight back.

I watched Chappelle’s 8:46 and felt the need to go thru his best bits from his Comedy Central show.

The stuff holds up 15 years later. Genius. He skewers, mocks, and shows the abject stupidity of racism at a level I think only Richard Pryor has previously approached.

But could he make that show today? No.

That’s tragic. Because as teaching moments go, when my child has watched that show, The Lesson Stuck. The question the show demands any kid ask is, “Why would anyone hate people of another color?”

And as a parent you can answer, as I have, “Because bigots are idiots. Like the idiots in the skits. That’s why.”

If we geld comedy in deference to cancel culture idiocy, we lose one of the most potent weapons against all forms of bigotry.

You can soberly decry bigotry all day long, and if that’s the exclusive method, you’ll exhaust and bore people. Alternatively, you can do some of that while also mocking it, and if mock it well, in the moment it takes the listener to laugh, you’ve taken away 70% or more of the bigot’s claim to credibility. That which can be effectively mocked is shown to be weak.

But you can’t do both if the people who are doing the sober messaging are officiously alleging bigotry on the part of the humorists doing the mocking.

I'm not sure what you're responding to, other than sub-tweeting Adder, but I find Chappelle's recent stuff excellent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I didn’t say he deserved to be fired for other reasons. I said the other reasons are valid bases upon which to ask that he be fired or that he be fired. Whether they were proven or not, or if in reality the photo led to the firing, is unknown.

So you are willing to assume that he was fired for the wrong reasons, but you are not willing to assume that he was fired for the right reasons, even though a fair reading of the NPR story is that he had it coming. Sounds like believing in "cancel culture" involves projecting a simple narrative about "cancel culture" on ambiguous situations where something else entirely might have been going on. If you just assume cancel culture is a huge problem, then you can believe cancel culture is a huge problem.

One would think if the discrimination claims were strong, there’d have been a claim made to the EEOC.

Only if one has never, ever, ever thought about why many people would not think of making well-founded discrimination claims to the EEOC. But this is good -- it's another examine of using assumptions and the burden of proof to create a case of cancel culture. 'No one sued him -- he must have been unfairly victimized by cancel culture.'

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So you are willing to assume that he was fired for the wrong reasons, but you are not willing to assume that he was fired for the right reasons, even though a fair reading of the NPR story is that he had it coming. Sounds like believing in "cancel culture" involves projecting a simple narrative about "cancel culture" on ambiguous situations where something else entirely might have been going on. If you just assume cancel culture is a huge problem, then you can believe cancel culture is a huge problem.



Only if one has never, ever, ever thought about why many people would not think of making well-founded discrimination claims to the EEOC. But this is good -- it's another examine of using assumptions and the burden of proof to create a case of cancel culture. 'No one sued him -- he must have been unfairly victimized by cancel culture.'

Again you have mischaracterized me. I don’t know why he was fired. Nor do you or the person who prepared the NPR story. I’m not assuming anything.

Your second point also mischaracterizes me. I did not say that the absence of an EEOC filing meant Rappoport was an unfair victim. Consistent with my first point in this reply to you, why he was fired is unknown.

You are trying to convert your assumptions into facts and assert that I am challenging facts. I am not challenging facts. I am challenging your assumptions.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not sure what you're responding to, other than sub-tweeting Adder, but I find Chappelle's recent stuff excellent.

I’m not subtweeting Adder. It was merely an extension of my thought while working out (the mind races there).

It’s more a point for anyone who thinks cancel culture isn’t dangerous. To humor, it’s lethal.

I’m glad you’re in agreement with me on Chappelle’s recent stuff. If not on his old stuff, I’d ask you to reconsider. Its genius is only more apparent from the distance. He was so far ahead of his time.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Turns out that the political party that now stands for infecting grandparents, tear-gassing moms and caging children isn't as popular as it used to be.

do you fact check this crap, or just post it? We all know you don't, but I needed to ask. #spreadingrussianmemes

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Again you have mischaracterized me. I don’t know why he was fired. Nor do you or the person who prepared the NPR story. I’m not assuming anything.

Your second point also mischaracterizes me. I did not say that the absence of an EEOC filing meant Rappoport was an unfair victim. Consistent with my first point in this reply to you, why he was fired is unknown.

You are trying to convert your assumptions into facts and assert that I am challenging facts. I am not challenging facts. I am challenging your assumptions.

You shared the Williamson article, which trotted Rapoport out as an example of cancel culture. If you had read it closely, you might have noticed it was BS. I knew more about what happened with him than what is in that NPR story -- i.e., that he had it coming, not just because he sent a single stupid tweet -- which is why I noticed that Williamson misrepresented the NPR story. I wasn't assuming anything. You're the one who thought the article added up to something.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’m not subtweeting Adder. It was merely an extension of my thought while working out (the mind races there).

It’s more a point for anyone who thinks cancel culture isn’t dangerous. To humor, it’s lethal.

I’m glad you’re in agreement with me on Chappelle’s recent stuff. If not on his old stuff, I’d ask you to reconsider. Its genius is only more apparent from the distance. He was so far ahead of his time.

I like all of his stuff. I don't think the way the culture has changed has made it any harder for him to do great work.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

do you fact check this crap, or just post it? We all know you don't, but I needed to ask. #spreadingrussianmemes

It explains why Republican support for Trump stays so high. Republicans who don't support him stop saying they identify with the party.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You shared the Williamson article, which trotted Rapoport out as an example of cancel culture. If you had read it closely, you might have noticed it was BS. I knew more about what happened with him than what is in that NPR story -- i.e., that he had it coming, not just because he sent a single stupid tweet -- which is why I noticed that Williamson misrepresented the NPR story. I wasn't assuming anything. You're the one who thought the article added up to something.

I offered a couple of quick cites in response to your request for examples of cancel culture. You found one of the hundreds of instances cited and asserted that it was not accurate. I'll accept your representation that you know more about Rappoport and that he was fired for more than the tweet. Okay. What of all the others who have been subjected to abuse by lunatics for merely stating things that are not sufficiently orthodox for the left wing woke mafia?

Here's how the cancel culture debate works:

1. There are idiots out there who comprise "cancel culture" - legions of morons who freak out at anything that even slightly trips their insanely low bar for being offended. And there are organizers who will aggregate them and channel their unlettered views into a rage campaign which will get picked up by the media if the target is famous enough.

2. Everyone privately acknowledges these practices are taking place, as they are increasingly common and done in public. We all see this craziness. It's a typical moral panic where emotional people get wildly emotional about everything and act out and opportunists package their anger and use it for gain.

3. We all know it's an immature mix of trolling and virtue signalling.

4. BUT... Some of us agree with the aims of cancel culture. We think its practitioners are useful idiots. I think some of us think that we have to shut down the other side of the debate to achieve the social change some of us think is desperately needed. Ends justify the means.

5. Unfortunately, one cannot openly argue the ends justify the means (though some cancel culture defenders come quite close), or defend cancel culture in the abstract, as the concept of trying to squelch or shame opposing debate, rather than tackle it on the merits, offends a basic premise of liberal thinking: the open exchange of ideas.

6. Some of us accept 5 and wind up supporting things like the very sensible Harper's Letter.

7. Some of us don't, and find ourselves in a lousy position. We're forced to come up with a defense for immature cancel culture proponents and that unspoken "ends justify the means" mentality underpinning cancel culture.

8. These people resort to specious arguments:

a. "No one is being cancelled. They can still speak." This is of course bullshit. Many targets lose jobs or platforms, and if not, they are browbeaten by colleagues who agree with cancel culture or wish to telecast adequate progressive bona fides to protect themselves. These targets become pariahs.

b. "'Counter-speech' calling for firing or deplatforming is free speech." This is actually true. But this is authoritarian. On the exact same continuum as Trump calling for protestors to be beaten.

c. "Power dynamics requires us to use cancel culture. We're underdogs. We need a bigger platform for our orthodox woke voices, and that can only be achieved by toppling some of the establishment voices and shutting down competing smaller voices that do not agree with us." Again, this is authoritarian.

d. "We're victims, and when you challenge us, you hurt us." (The 'words are violence' argument.) This one is too frivolous to entertain. Thankfully, it's largely relegated to the fantasyland of academia.

e. "Cancel culture is made up." Empirically, a waterfall of data and instances can be offered to dismiss this rubbish.

f. "Cancelled people have actually been fired because they suck, not because of pressure from cancel culture proponents." This is the "Megyn Kelly Defense." NBC was indeed looking to can her for bad ratings. And Rappoport, according to your inside knowledge, is another instance of it. But these are exceptions to the rule. The usual rule is that the institution in which the target works is exposed to pressure from cancel culture nitwits and feels the need to either: (i) put the target on leave until the issue fades; or, (ii) fire or press for the individual's resignation. Corporations are the most vile manipulators and enablers of cancel culture. For more on that, look up the endless articles decrying the cynicism and opportunism of "woke capitalism."*

Cancel culture is real, and indefensible, and a practice for low minds. I remain an advocate for addressing it as follows: Roll One's Eyes and Stop Reading. Do not feed the trolls.
________
* https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...talism/614086/

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’m not subtweeting Adder. It was merely an extension of my thought while working out (the mind races there).

It’s more a point for anyone who thinks cancel culture isn’t dangerous. To humor, it’s lethal.

I’m glad you’re in agreement with me on Chappelle’s recent stuff. If not on his old stuff, I’d ask you to reconsider. Its genius is only more apparent from the distance. He was so far ahead of his time.

Yup. There’s no good comedy anymore...

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I like all of his stuff. I don't think the way the culture has changed has made it any harder for him to do great work.

Because he's bigger than the game. People like Chapelle will not only laugh off loony cancel culture critics - they'll make them the butt of the next joke. But if he were a new comic pitching Chapelle's Show today he'd never get it greenlit.

And Chapelle is still being slammed by the extreme left. He was called out as a transphobic for his third to last special. He turned around in his next special and made even more jokes about trans people.

But here's the thing -- he's not transphobic. Never was. Never could be. He's a guy who is poking fun at a group the way he pokes fun at every group. Nobody has done funnier bits using stereotypes than Chapelle.

If people want to say "We're trans and we're proud!" good for them. But does that mean Chapelle, or any other comic, cannot make fun of them? No. They're a target, just like every other group.

"Congratulations. You're legit!" And with legitimacy - with people recognizing you as a distinct group in our society deserving of all the respect that all other distinct groups receive - you're a target for humor. Just as Chapelle satirized using Japanese, Jewish, Uptight Suburban White, Black, and Redneck stereotypes, he gets to satirize the Trans people, too. It's actually a compliment. But scolds are too stupid to understand nuance. They're dumb, and Dumb and Literal almost always go hand in hand.

But we're all just proles in this domain. Here's one of the masters explaining all that needs to be said about the limits of comedy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuTqBd_ycHA

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yup. There’s no good comedy anymore...

Only because the big comics have decided to respond to cancel folks by making fun of them, or saying "Fuck off." This gives the little guys some cover.

It's hard for a scold to take on a pro like Chris Rock or Jerry Seinfeld. They can slay a literal, earnest mind in under 30 seconds. Or better yet, being masters of facial expression (a huge part of stand up), they can just roll their eyes at those people.

ETA: Also, the Joe Rogan Element, as I’d call those media consumers and producers, which is huge, is seeing through the looking glass on this stuff. They’re immunized to it because they don’t give a shit. They say whatever they like. And connected to them you have people like Harris and Maher, who can outthink any cancel culture proponent alive. The backlash to cancel culture is going to be spectacular. And companies like Spotify are happy to fund it to the tune of $120mil. (I wish they’d have bought Harris too.) The conflict is going to be fun to watch. And a really excellent teaching moment about free expression for Gen Z.

[Icky Thump]

The bad news is that the federal forces in Portland are private security people.

https://twitter.com/ltgrusselhonore/...534386176?s=20

The good news is that it means the military likely will in no way listen to 45.