Objectively intelligent.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

Nah. It's because writing comedy is entirely about understanding how people react to the words you use. Lazy comics take cheap shots at people more marginalized than them. They know what they are doing.

Meanwhile, good comics try to avoid punching down and are funnier for it. Louis CK had other issues, but he also did material on touchy topics because he was careful about how he approached them. A big part of Jim Jefferies's persona is walking the line but staying on the non-creep side.

Yeah, you can still make money being Nick Di Paolo or one of Rogan's mouth-breathing hanger ons, but that shit ain't funny.

ETA: What's especially annoying about these types of discussions is that literally everyone moderates what they say to a degree. No on is out there doing Scott Joplin routines. Heck, no one is out there doing Andrew Dice Clay or Kinison. The world changes. Which is an opportunity for the unscrupulous to pretend like they are refusing to change with it to make money of of dupes who think it's edgy. But even they have lines.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Nah. It's because writing comedy is entirely about understanding how people react to the words you use. Lazy comics take cheap shots at people more marginalized than them. They know what they are doing.

Meanwhile, good comics try to avoid punching down and are funnier for it. Louis CK had other issues, but he also did material on touchy topics because he was careful about how he approached them. A big part of Jim Jefferies's persona is walking the line but staying on the non-creep side.

Yeah, you can still make money being Nick Di Paolo or one of Rogan's mouth-breathing hanger ons, but that shit ain't funny.

ETA: What's especially annoying about these types of discussions is that literally everyone moderates what they say to a degree. No on is out there doing Scott Joplin routines. Heck, no one is out there doing Andrew Dice Clay or Kinison. The world changes. Which is an opportunity for the unscrupulous to pretend like they are refusing to change with it to make money of of dupes who think it's edgy. But even they have lines.

Carlin nailed it: Everything, and I mean everything, is fair game, and can be funny, if done right.

The problem isn’t comics trying to be edgy. Comics are always edgy, and some of the funniest stuff can be quite mean. The problem is an audience that is saying certain things are taboo. Bullshit. Taboo is a made up word. The line is different for every audience member. No audience member who feels uncomfortable has the right to tell everyone else what they can or cannot hear or laugh at.

Somewhere along the last few years, however, people have started to assume they have a right to silence others from hearing what they want to hear.

Fuck those people. Seriously. Fuck them.

ETA: I don’t think that Diaz guy who Rogan loves is funny at all. He’s dumb, Dice-like. But do I care if he’s a sexist pig and some people like his dimwit humor? No. I just don’t watch the guy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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/

Some of the responses to the Harper's Letter said, basically, sure everyone is favor of free speech in the abstract, but also everyone agrees that there are some things that are just out of bounds. You agreed. Another response to the letter said, hey, the problem with the letter is that it refers to a bunch of difficult situations in a sort of abstract way, glossing over real problems in a way that makes one side (e.g., J.K. Rowling's) look better than it really looks when you drill down a little into what actually happened. In other words, the idea of "cancel culture" is being exploited by people who did things that are not particularly defensible, and who are making a lot of noise about the "culture" more generally because they don't want to talk about what actually happened in certain instances specifically.

This is exactly what Williamson (and you, by extension) did with Rapoport. You don't have dig very hard to see that he was fired because of a history of discriminating against people who worked for him, not because he posted the wrong picture on Instagram.

There is, in fact, another pattern here, one you don't want to see. Bennett, pretty clearly, was not fired because people were offended by Cotton's views, but because he managed the op-ed and the fall-out so poorly -- in particularly, telling other people they needed to be exposed to Cotton's views and then admitting he hadn't read the op-ed. Bennett wasn't fired after the op-ed ran, but only after the story kept getting worse as he put gasoline on the fire. J.K. Rowling, who signed the Harper's letter, now is in the news for using libel lawyers to extract money from a news site for children that did not like her views about trans people. She is actually suppressing speech, not the "morons" who are "easily offended" who don't like her views about trans people. "Cancel culture" becomes a way to delegitimize and dismiss the people criticizing her without paying attention to what she and they are actually saying and doing. (For the record, I don't agree with all of the criticisms of her.) Even if the phenomenon you're trying to describe is true and problematic in some cases, it is being used as a smokescreen in other cases so that people can avoid what's really going on.

This is why I keep inviting you to talk about the specifics of actual cases, to respond to actual people instead of referring nebulously to "idiots" and "morons" and "organizers." Just as you say may agree with the aims of culture culture, others may agree with what you would say about specific cases. But we'll never know if you keep tilting at windmills.

You've put a lot of words in quotes in your post. Trying quoting someone.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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

So if Chapelle is not being silenced (or "cancelled," if you prefer), what's the problem?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think it's good news. Using mercenaries delegitimizes what the Administration is trying to do, and opens the door for Congress to prevent federal money from being spent for them, not that Congress seems to be very interested in using the best tool it has to rein in the Executive Branch.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So if Chapelle is not being silenced (or "cancelled," if you prefer), what's the problem?

He’s too big to cancel. If he were a less accomplished comic pitching it today, his show would be rejected as way too potentially offensive.

Imagine how many brilliant shows like his have been rejected because network heads fear the cancel police?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Some of the responses to the Harper's Letter said, basically, sure everyone is favor of free speech in the abstract, but also everyone agrees that there are some things that are just out of bounds. You agreed. Another response to the letter said, hey, the problem with the letter is that it refers to a bunch of difficult situations in a sort of abstract way, glossing over real problems in a way that makes one side (e.g., J.K. Rowling's) look better than it really looks when you drill down a little into what actually happened. In other words, the idea of "cancel culture" is being exploited by people who did things that are not particularly defensible, and who are making a lot of noise about the "culture" more generally because they don't want to talk about what actually happened in certain instances specifically.

This is exactly what Williamson (and you, by extension) did with Rapoport. You don't have dig very hard to see that he was fired because of a history of discriminating against people who worked for him, not because he posted the wrong picture on Instagram.

There is, in fact, another pattern here, one you don't want to see. Bennett, pretty clearly, was not fired because people were offended by Cotton's views, but because he managed the op-ed and the fall-out so poorly -- in particularly, telling other people they needed to be exposed to Cotton's views and then admitting he hadn't read the op-ed. Bennett wasn't fired after the op-ed ran, but only after the story kept getting worse as he put gasoline on the fire. J.K. Rowling, who signed the Harper's letter, now is in the news for using libel lawyers to extract money from a news site for children that did not like her views about trans people. She is actually suppressing speech, not the "morons" who are "easily offended" who don't like her views about trans people. "Cancel culture" becomes a way to delegitimize and dismiss the people criticizing her without paying attention to what she and they are actually saying and doing. (For the record, I don't agree with all of the criticisms of her.) Even if the phenomenon you're trying to describe is true and problematic in some cases, it is being used as a smokescreen in other cases so that people can avoid what's really going on.

This is why I keep inviting you to talk about the specifics of actual cases, to respond to actual people instead of referring nebulously to "idiots" and "morons" and "organizers." Just as you say may agree with the aims of culture culture, others may agree with what you would say about specific cases. But we'll never know if you keep tilting at windmills.

You've put a lot of words in quotes in your post. Trying quoting someone.

Let’s take the most lurid example: Rowling. She didn’t write anything controversial. She simply said men are men and women are women. Is that true? Well, science can debate that. It can also debate whether a trans woman is a woman in the same regard as a woman born a woman.

Instead of allowing that, the extremists on the left insist there is no dispute in these areas. Which is untrue. Psychiatrists are still untangling gender and sex.

So if one disagrees with Rowling, what should be the response? Well of course it should be to state why one thinks she’s wrong. Ah, but did that happen? No. An idiot brigade has called for her head. Boycott her books, don’t watch the films. How dare she hold such an opinion!

That’s cancel culture in a nutshell. “I’m right!!! I’m right and you’re evil and need to go away if you disagree with me! I’m a victim, or on the side of victims!”

All one can do is roll his eyes.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Carlin nailed it: Everything, and I mean everything, is fair game, and can be funny, if done right.

The problem isn’t comics trying to be edgy. Comics are always edgy, and some of the funniest stuff can be quite mean. The problem is an audience that is saying certain things are taboo. Bullshit. Taboo is a made up word. The line is different for every audience member. No audience member who feels uncomfortable has the right to tell everyone else what they can or cannot hear or laugh at.

Somewhere along the last few years, however, people have started to assume they have a right to silence others from hearing what they want to hear.

Fuck those people. Seriously. Fuck them.

ETA: I don’t think that Diaz guy who Rogan loves is funny at all. He’s dumb, Dice-like. But do I care if he’s a sexist pig and some people like his dimwit humor? No. I just don’t watch the guy.

And yet others making the exact same choice makes you angry enough to write long screeds about them...

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

And yet others making the exact same choice makes you angry enough to right long screeds about them...

The people I am complaining about are people who are trying to tell others what they can or cannot watch. What they can or cannot laugh at.

They are making an exactly opposite argument than I am. I say if you’re offended, turn the channel. It’s not your cup of tea. They’re saying no - if you offend me, I want you shut down, made a pariah.

It’s low class idiocy. Your grandparents told you to mind your own business, right? There’s wisdom in that. These people are officious meddling annoyances. They’ve a right to say what they like. And those of us who exhibit some manners and seek to get along with our fellow humans with whom we might disagree have a right to stare down our noses at them. And roll our eyes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He’s too big to cancel. If he were a less accomplished comic pitching it today, his show would be rejected as way too potentially offensive.

Imagine how many brilliant shows like his have been rejected because network heads fear the cancel police?

"Imagine" being the operative word here. Imagine how many people don't sail to Bermuda because their boats are small and they don't want to be eaten by the Kraken? Bigger boats have no problem, of course.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He’s too big to cancel. If he were a less accomplished comic pitching it today, his show would be rejected as way too potentially offensive.

Imagine how many brilliant shows like his have been rejected because network heads fear the cancel police?

I mean, likely none? Stuff that sells gets made. In this particular instance, there's a market specifically for the pushback (see, Rogan).

But you also should think about what doesn't get made because creeps in comedy make women in comedy uncomfortable and unsafe. Dave Becky (super powerful comedy manager) threatened and blackballed the women that complained about Louis CK's behavior. (See also, Weinstein).

I think the consensus was that Joey Coco Diaz was mostly joking about demanding blow jobs for stage time, but regardless, listen to women in comedy for any amount of time and you will hear them say that there's a creep problem in comedy.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Let’s take the most lurid example: Rowling. She didn’t write anything controversial. She simply said men are men and women are women. Is that true? Well, science can debate that. It can also debate whether a trans woman is a woman in the same regard as a woman born a woman.

Instead of allowing that, the extremists on the left insist there is no dispute in these areas. Which is untrue. Psychiatrists are still untangling gender and sex.

So if one disagrees with Rowling, what should be the response? Well of course it should be to state why one thinks she’s wrong. Ah, but did that happen? No. An idiot brigade has called for her head. Boycott her books, don’t watch the films. How dare she hold such an opinion!

That’s cancel culture in a nutshell. “I’m right!!! I’m right and you’re evil and need to go away if you disagree with me! I’m a victim, or on the side of victims!”

All one can do is roll his eyes.

No, she denied that trans women are women, repeating a bunch of the usual nonsense. And she isn't having a scientific debate, she's having a political one.

But how has she been "cancelled?" A whole bunch of famous people were willing to sign a letter defending her. She's got her billions. Her works are still everywhere.

But some people may not buy her stuff anymore because they don't like her views. Boo hoo.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Let’s take the most lurid example: Rowling. She didn’t write anything controversial. She simply said men are men and women are women. Is that true? Well, science can debate that. It can also debate whether a trans woman is a woman in the same regard as a woman born a woman.

Instead of allowing that, the extremists on the left insist there is no dispute in these areas. Which is untrue. Psychiatrists are still untangling gender and sex.

So if one disagrees with Rowling, what should be the response? Well of course it should be to state why one thinks she’s wrong. Ah, but did that happen? No. An idiot brigade has called for her head. Boycott her books, don’t watch the films. How dare she hold such an opinion!

That’s cancel culture in a nutshell. “I’m right!!! I’m right and you’re evil and need to go away if you disagree with me! I’m a victim, or on the side of victims!”

All one can do is roll his eyes.

I have not gotten too far into the Rowling/trans thing, but I've gotten far enough into to know that many people have stated why they think she's wrong without calling for her head, resulting in the sort of extensive debate that you think should be happening. She has views, they have views, views are exchanged, other people form views, everything is awesome. I'm not clear who has asked whom for her head, or to boycott her books, or not watch the films, but so what? She still has her head, you can buy her books and watch her films, and she is emphatically not silenced. If that's "cancel culture," it's not different from the way things have always worked, and it's not harming anyone. If you want to roll your eyes at her critics without reading what they think, go nuts, but you don't need to get on a high horse about free speech and cancel culture to do that.

But here's the irony. While you are waxing rhapsodic about the threat to free speech from the critics of Rowling, who is still one of the richest women in the UK and has absolutely no problem speaking freely, she is using lawyers to silence others.

A news website aimed at British schoolchildren has agreed to pay an unsubstantiated amount after it implied that JK Rowling’s comments on gender caused harm to trans people.

The Day, which is recommended by the Department for Education and is designed to prompt teenagers to discuss current affairs, faced legal action from the Harry Potter author after publishing an article entitled: “Potterheads cancel Rowling after trans tweet”.

In the article, which some schools issued as homework, children were told that Rowling had objected to the use of the expression “people who menstruate” in place of “women”. It also referenced objections to Rowling’s recent comments from Harry Potter actors such as Daniel Radcliffe.

The original article in the Day asked teenagers to consider whether it is possible still to enjoy great works of art by “deeply unpleasant people” such as Pablo Picasso and Richard Wagner.

It said: “Since the 1950s, the civil rights movement has used boycotts to take money and status away from people and organisations harming minorities and shame them into change [sic] their behaviour. Online it is often called ‘cancelling’.”

The Day, which was founded and is run by the former Daily Express editor Richard Addis and is sold through subscriptions to around 1,500 schools, has now apologised after Rowling hired libel lawyers. The Day said: “We accept that our article implied that what JK Rowling had tweeted was objectionable and that she had attacked and harmed trans people. The article was critical of JK Rowling personally and suggested that our readers should boycott her work and shame her into changing her behaviour. Our intention was to provoke debate on a complex topic.

“We did not intend to suggest that JK Rowling was transphobic or that she should be boycotted. We accept that our comparisons of JK Rowling to people such as Picasso, who celebrated sexual violence, and Wagner, who was praised by the Nazis for his antisemitic and racist views, were clumsy, offensive and wrong.

“Debate about a complex issue where there is a range of legitimate views should have been handled with much more sensitivity and more obvious recognition of the difference between fact and opinion. We unreservedly apologise to JK Rowling for the offence caused, are happy to retract these false allegations and to set the record straight. We shall be making a financial contribution to a charity of JK Rowling’s choice.”

So Rowling is a great example. Your "cancel culture" is not silencing anyone, but Rowling, signatory of the Harper's letter and a leading "victim" of "cancel culture", is.

ETA: "She didn't write anything controversial"? Ah. That word means something different than you think it does.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The people I am complaining about are people who are trying to tell others what they can or cannot watch. What they can or cannot laugh at.

You are telling people not to speak in a way you dislike.

Also, how does anyone ever learn anything if we're not allowed to share our views? You've never had an "oh, I didn't realize" experience? I remember bits of Song of the South from when I was a kid. It was normal. How am I don't to learn that it was problematic if no one is allowed to point it out?

ETA: Specifically as to Rowling, I was looking forward to reading the Harry Potter books to the kid. She's not old enough yet, but soon. But we have a trans family member. It's going to be awhile before she will be old enough to be introduced to them with the proper context to avoid developing a relationship with Rowling that she may later regret. That probably means I won't wind up reading them to her at all (up to her whether she decides to read them herself later on). Poor JK!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

You are telling people not to speak in a way you dislike.

Also, how does anyone ever learn anything if we're not allowed to share our views? You've never had an "oh, I didn't realize" experience? I remember bits of Song of the South from when I was a kid. It was normal. How am I don't to learn that it was problematic if no one is allowed to point it out?

ETA: Specifically as to Rowling, I was looking forward to reading the Harry Potter books to the kid. She's not old enough yet, but soon. But we have a trans family member. It's going to be awhile before she will be old enough to be introduced to them with the proper context to avoid developing a relationship with Rowling that she may later regret. That probably means I won't wind up reading them to her at all (up to her whether she decides to read them herself later on). Poor JK!

Specifically as to Rowling, this is the best thing I recall reading about the contretemps, but it's been a while and I don't recall much of what it said. In any event, it refutes Sebby's characterization of her critics.

Not sure I get your approach to what culture Tiny gets to like. You are going to keep the books away because of things that Rowling said later?