Cancel culture is fine in some cases

[Hypatia]

What do you mean?

There are situations where it is necessary to be self-restrained in order to benefit others more through exercising that kind of restraint.

 

[Mole]

Sometimes discipline of speech does not necessarily entail totalitarianism.

You are right, Hypatia, however free speech does not mean undisciplined speech. Free speech is best disciplined by literacy and education.

So we find the illiterate and the semi-literate use undisciplined speech, they are governed by their emotions, and have no respect for the literate and educated.

My favourite Pagan is Hypatia, who was the highly literate librarian of the Great Pagan Library of Alexandria, before it was burnt to the ground by the Christians.

To meet Hypatia click Agora (2009) - Official Trailer - YouTube.

 

[Kephalos]

It's safe to say that anything Stefan Molyneux says is wrong ispo facto.

 

[Mole]

There are situations where it is necessary to be self-restrained in order to benefit others more through exercising that kind of restraint.

Yes, Hypatia, literacy teaches us emotional restraint. Literacy enables counter intuitive thinking, and almost all of science is based on counter intuitive thinking.

Yes, Hypatia, the librarian of the Great Pagan Library of Alexandria was literate and emotionally restrained, so much so, Hypatia discovered the Earth moved around the Sun.

And it is the ill-literate from spoken tribes who are emotionally unrestrained. This is necessary for tribal people, who are in immediate emotional contact with each other, in real time through voice.

I have met such people in the tribes of Papua New Guinea, our nearest neighbour. They are very different from a literate people.

Unfortunately we are retribalisng under the pressure of our mobile phones, and we are becoming more emotionally unrestrained.

And it is important to remember: restraint is the hallmark of emotional intelligence.
,

 

[Mole]

It's safe to say that anything Stefan Molyneux says is wrong ispo facto.

So rather than address the issues or talk about yourself, you personally insult someone else?

What would happen if we all followed your example?

 

[Virtual ghost]

The essence of liberal democracy is the limitation of power, and free speech is necessary for liberal democracy to work

We notice authoritarians, totalitarians, radical religion, cults, and ideologues of the left and right, make it their priority to smother free speech. They do this because they know free speech stands between them and power.

In response to the totalitarians of the 20th century we wrote, signed, and ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, enshrining free speech as s human right

In ideal situation yes, but often this just isn't that simple. Especially if we aren't talking about consolidated democracy (what is clear majority of the world at this point).
Not to mention that too much liberalism can easily allow radicalism to go unchecked until it is just too late to avoid mess. Actually some of the worst people ever were democratically elected, because they managed to game the system to their advantage. After all this tolerance is why today we have access and presence of media from totalitarian countries in our choice of news. What stands because of advancement in technology on one hand and empty tolerance or greed on the other. In other words just if you are tolerant in this way that may still mean that you are taking your part in murders. Since under total liberalism of speech the totalitarian speech is speech like any other. Therefore this simply can't be the final answer to this question in all cases.



As a kid I was personal witness to red army air-force hitting the top office in my country. Therefore for me your point is simply empty idealism. All these conventions and laws mean nothing if you don't have something concrete to back them up in practice. Under the assumption that you are even in the area where they are applied or relevant. After all I see that you down under are having some problems with losing ports in your own country to openly totalitarian and red government. Therefore such moral declarations are more of abstraction than something of concrete help in holding the problem at bay in practical sense. After all this is good example of how freedom of rhetoric and profit allows this kinds of glitches, even if they make no real sense for the case of democracy in this concrete example. Even if they are indeed the pillars of "liberal democracy". However they as such got gamed and they no longer serve their main purpose.

So how do we make sure our civilization promotes the "right" kinds of free speech and discourages the "wrong" kind without breaching into totalitarianism?

We actually use our heads for a change.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

We actually use our heads for a change.

I'm not sure if I want to bet on folks in power using their heads.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I'm not sure if I want to bet on folks in power using their heads.

And that is exactly why we must not take anything of this too lightly. Since remaking or bypassing laws under the totalitarian influences really isn't that hard to achieve. After all current situation happened exactly because BS became a legit talking point. "That is my opinion and you have to deal with it" talk. What means that you can short circuit the free speech in community. What basically means that it has a built in weakness that can be exploited.


All I am trying to say is that some problems wouldn't fix themselves if people don't start to use their heads.

 

[Mole]

In ideal situation yes, but often this just isn't that simple. Especially if we aren't talking about consolidated democracy (what is clear majority of the world at this point).
Not to mention that too much liberalism can easily allow radicalism to go unchecked until it is just too late to avoid mess. Actually some of the worst people ever were democratically elected, because they managed to game the system to their advantage. After all this tolerance is why today we have access and presence of media from totalitarian countries in our choice of news. What stands because of advancement in technology on one hand and empty tolerance or greed on the other. In other words just if you are tolerant in this way that may still mean that you are taking your part in murders. Since under total liberalism of speech the totalitarian speech is speech like any other. Therefore this simply can't be the final answer to this question in all cases.

As a kid I was personal witness to red army air-force hitting the top office in my country. Therefore for me your point is simply empty idealism. All these conventions and laws mean nothing if you don't have something concrete to back them up in practice. Under the assumption that you are even in the area where they are applied or relevant. After all I see that you down under are having some problems with losing ports in your own country to openly totalitarian and red government. Therefore such moral declarations are more of abstraction than something of concrete help in holding the problem at bay in practical sense. After all this is good example of how freedom of rhetoric and profit allows this kinds of glitches, even if they make no real sense for the case of democracy in this concrete example. Even if they are indeed the pillars of "liberal democracy". However they as such got gamed and they no longer serve their main purpose.

We actually use our heads for a change.

In our functioning liberal democracy all power is limited, and even free speech is limited by defamation laws, criminal laws, civil law, and by convention. And our laws are backed by an independent Judiciary, an independent and armed Police Force, and a free press.

And as restraint is the hallmark of emotional intelligence, so the social restraint in Oz is the hallmark of social intelligence.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

And that is exactly why we must not take anything of this too lightly. Since remaking or bypassing laws under the totalitarian influences really isn't that hard to achieve. After all current situation happened exactly because BS became a legit talking point. "That is my opinion and you have to deal with it" talk. What means that you can short circuit the free speech in community. What basically means that it has a built in weakness that can be exploited.


All I am trying to say is that some problems wouldn't fix themselves if people don't start to use their heads.

We could start by penalizing people who spread BS, but we've shown a precedent for not doing anything about for decades at least and now we're trying to actively rehabilitate those people because they are now supposed to represent some golden age when "norms" were adhered to on a bipartisan basis. Politicians and "news" companies generally face no consequences for spreading BS and even get rehabilitated and exonerated if enough time is passed that the goldfish brains forget about what they actually did. Somehow I don't think that if we actually do have laws against spreading misinformation, that it will be those politicians and news agencies that will end up getting penalized.

 

[Virtual ghost]

In our functioning liberal democracy all power is limited, and even free speech is limited by defamation laws, criminal laws, civil law, and by convention. And our laws are backed by an independent Judiciary, an independent and armed Police Force, and a free press.

I know, but this really isn't fully free speech. I would call this "reasonable speech".
However even with this it seems you got some problems with influence from abroad, since the system can be gamed no matter how tight it is. Especially if influencer is powerful.



I don't want you to fail in this "problem", especially since here there is basically identical problem. I am simply saying that bypassing the system with time is always possible and sometime it wouldn't feel like that if the whole thing is nicely packed. Therefore sometimes it is better to keep some things at the distance even if that just isn't "socially nice". What is a form of cancel culture in the end.

 

[Mole]

I know, but this really isn't fully free speech. I would call this "reasonable speech".
However even with this it seems you got some problems with influence from abroad, since the system can be gamed no matter how tight it is. Especially if influencer is powerful.

I don't want you to fail in this "problem", especially since here there is basically identical problem. I am simply saying that bypassing the system with time is always possible and sometime it wouldn't feel like that if the whole thing is nicely packed. Therefore sometimes it is better to keep some things at the distance even if that just isn't "socially nice". What is a form of cancel culture in the end.

Cancel Culture is cultural Marxism.

And yes, you are right, freedom requires eternal vigilance.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Cancel Culture is cultural Marxism.

And yes, you are right, freedom requires eternal vigilance.

Not really. Perhaps as a term in this form it is, but cancel culture in various forms is old as civilization.
We in Eastern Europe renamed many streets and even cities so that they no longer have names that are openly associated with Communism. "The road of Socialist revolution" for example. However this is the move I really wouldn't consider to be "cultural Marxism".

We could start by penalizing people who spread BS, but we've shown a precedent for not doing anything about for decades at least and now we're trying to actively rehabilitate those people because they are now supposed to represent some golden age when "norms" were adhered to on a bipartisan basis. Politicians and "news" companies generally face no consequences for spreading BS and even get rehabilitated and exonerated if enough time is passed that the goldfish brains forget about what they actually did. Somehow I don't think that if we actually do have laws against spreading misinformation, that it will be those politicians and news agencies that will end up getting penalized.

This is the reason why we Europeans have created foundations to build our own Social media/network. Since we find the rules of American ones to be too lose. Because if you give fully free speech to everyone in Europe as an equal partner, you are basically revitalizing all of the Europe's totalitarian systems. Whose loyalists are quickly bubbling to the surface and often game the system in doing so.


While I am saying all of this on American site exactly because I think you as well could use some clean up of media space. Since some stuff in there are downright idiotic.

 

[Lark]

What I think is bizarre sometimes is that all these right wing buzz words, "cancel culture", "echo chambers", "triggering", "virtue signalling" etc. they are all pretty clever, in fact they often describe conscious and unconscious trends, efforts and wishes of the right wing themselves who're inclined to deploy them a lot.

That in itself is interesting, like is it a case of true projection by the people inventing it or is it a more "knowing", conscious, "deliberate" practice, ie "I dont care about the obvious hypocrisy, I am aware of it"?

Finally, the people coming up with all this, whether its projection or something else, I suspect have got to be more aware of what they are doing, than most of the people who carry it on or use it "short cuts", in their own thinking. I wonder if this is a case of marketing and advertising trump academia in terms of their insights about people and popularity?

 

[Lark]

Not really. Perhaps as a term in this form it is, but cancel culture in various forms is old as civilization.
We in Eastern Europe renamed many streets and even cities so that they no longer have names that are openly associated with Communism. "The road of Socialist revolution" for example. However this is the move I really wouldn't consider to be "cultural Marxism".








This is the reason why we Europeans have created foundations to build our own Social media/network. Since we find the rules of American ones to be too lose. Because if you give fully free speech to everyone in Europe as an equal partner, you are basically revitalizing all of the Europe's totalitarian systems. Whose loyalists are quickly bubbling to the surface and often game the system in doing so.


While I am saying all of this on American site exactly because I think you as well could use some clean up of media space. Since some stuff in there are downright idiotic.

I dont think there is such a thing as cultural marxism, properly understood Marx thought that all culture, ie religion, ideology, was nothing more than the shadow cast by the mode of production and class struggle/ruling class interest.

Maoism contains more of a cultural aspect, I mean it was explicitly about cultural revolution, even if I think ultimately it was just another personality cult in the finish and could not transcend capitalism in the finish (what has succeeded in doing that to be honest? Without reverting to an earlier kind of life? Or a worse one). In the Chinese context Maoism is often a sort of "conservative protest", which would be totally different from what most of those who coined the phrase "cultural marxism" are talking about.

Of the different sorts of Marxisms which could be said to have a cultural aspect there's no a single culture by any stretch of the imagination but a bunch of cultures or subcultures. GDH Cole though it was inevitable that this sort of thing would happen, though he was talking about a much wider "socialist" movement and he thought national and historical characteristics were totally unavoidable and explained totalitarianism in one place and libertarianism in another (within different socialisms).

Although that's not what the people who invented "cultural marxism" are talking about, I think its largely invented or deployed by people interested in "culture wars", in part because its the old fashioned "talk about anything other than money and the distribution/redistribution of wealth". I say in part because I think its just a term of abuse. You may as well just use some of the other names for bogeymen, like "red menace" or whatever, its just an attempt to respawn the older, familiar "cold war" world, which is less confusing for a lot of people who're "aging out" but still exercise influence.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

What I think is bizarre sometimes is that all these right wing buzz words, "cancel culture", "echo chambers", "triggering", "virtue signalling" etc. they are all pretty clever, in fact they often describe conscious and unconscious trends, efforts and wishes of the right wing themselves who're inclined to deploy them a lot.

That in itself is interesting, like is it a case of true projection by the people inventing it or is it a more "knowing", conscious, "deliberate" practice, ie "I dont care about the obvious hypocrisy, I am aware of it"?

Finally, the people coming up with all this, whether its projection or something else, I suspect have got to be more aware of what they are doing, than most of the people who carry it on or use it "short cuts", in their own thinking. I wonder if this is a case of marketing and advertising trump academia in terms of their insights about people and popularity?

This stuff predates Trump and I think really started to gain traction back in seventies with buzzwords like “silent majority” used by people like Nixon. Of course political advertising buzzwords and dog whistles have always been around as reactions to any change leading to more inclusiveness in democracy, it’s really after civil rights and integration when the right started getting clever about it. Guys like Atwater really spearheaded those types of dogwhistles and buzz words heard by Reagan and the Bushes and later Trump.

 

[Lark]

This stuff predates Trump and I think really started to gain traction back in seventies with buzzwords like “silent majority” used by people like Nixon. Of course political advertising buzzwords and dog whistles have always been around as reactions to any change leading to more inclusiveness in democracy, it’s really after civil rights and integration when the right started getting clever about it. Guys like Atwater really spearheaded those types of dogwhistles and buzz words heard by Reagan and the Bushes and later Trump.

I agree with what you've got to say, definitely, Reagan was the first to use mail shots and targetted political "marketing" and "political advertizing" (if you exclude more classical propaganda, which was more of a deliberate exercise in intentional manipulation and popular lying, I mean if you want to focus on that you could go back to at least the Williamite wars in Ireland and the oft spread messages about conspiracies to massacre all the members of one community or another but that's an older thing still).

In the UK there was a great documentary that's hard to find at the moment (typically) called The Century of The Self, in which the main finding is that all the research from day dot of psychoanalysis and psychology was adopted, rapidly, by government in order to better exercise social controls.

There's also the trend since the seventies, when business first thought that academia could be a problem, they created as a counter the "think tank" which were usually highly ideologically motivated groups, like the Institute for Economic Affairs in the UK, who produce content to try and popularize the ideas of Austrian Economists and that type of thing.

Personally, I think that a lot of the current academic preoccupations are manufactured or products of manipulations, its all about avoid discussion of wealth distribution/redistribution and the left has pretty much gone along with it.

I do think that A LOT of the right's criticism of the left is great, although it "goes double" for the right itself, which is pretty paradoxical.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I dont think there is such a thing as cultural marxism, properly understood Marx thought that all culture, ie religion, ideology, was nothing more than the shadow cast by the mode of production and class struggle/ruling class interest.

Maoism contains more of a cultural aspect, I mean it was explicitly about cultural revolution, even if I think ultimately it was just another personality cult in the finish and could not transcend capitalism in the finish (what has succeeded in doing that to be honest? Without reverting to an earlier kind of life? Or a worse one). In the Chinese context Maoism is often a sort of "conservative protest", which would be totally different from what most of those who coined the phrase "cultural marxism" are talking about.

Of the different sorts of Marxisms which could be said to have a cultural aspect there's no a single culture by any stretch of the imagination but a bunch of cultures or subcultures. GDH Cole though it was inevitable that this sort of thing would happen, though he was talking about a much wider "socialist" movement and he thought national and historical characteristics were totally unavoidable and explained totalitarianism in one place and libertarianism in another (within different socialisms).

Although that's not what the people who invented "cultural marxism" are talking about, I think its largely invented or deployed by people interested in "culture wars", in part because its the old fashioned "talk about anything other than money and the distribution/redistribution of wealth". I say in part because I think its just a term of abuse. You may as well just use some of the other names for bogeymen, like "red menace" or whatever, its just an attempt to respawn the older, familiar "cold war" world, which is less confusing for a lot of people who're "aging out" but still exercise influence.

Well, to me this is the term that is pretty unclear, however I treat it as "all things Communism".
However the fact is that cancel culture can be deployed against any ideology and as such this "tool" doesn't really belong to any specific ideology.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I think it is a problem when it is a bandwagon effect instead of individual choice. It's ironic that U.S. culture holds the ideal of individualism but it seems like every choice has to be validated by the bandwagon. I think there can be a natural cancelation effect if enough people make an individual choice away from something, but I disagree with having large scale groups canceling other groups or individuals. That is the foundational problem with society in general. Make your own choices and don't stop watching a comedy or listening to a musician because your fucking pastor doesn't like them. I know it's actually at the organizational level and not even community level canceling, but that makes it even worse than blindly obeying pastors and whomever else. "We're all canceling this". "No, we aren't."

 

[Lark]

Well, to me this is the term that is pretty unclear, however I treat it as "all things Communism".
However the fact is that cancel culture can be deployed against any ideology and as such this "tool" doesn't really belong to any specific ideology.

Yeah, the first people I ever read about deciding to "bust organizations by driving them broke" were libertarian/conservative/capitalist ones.

They suggested using the postal system to hurt such organizations buy sending them heave parcels (I think even bricks) as the receipt of it occasioned a charge to them for lack of postage.