The next battleground-'Cancel Culture & Identity Politics' - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15152047
noemon wrote:I did not say right or left anywhere.


Cute. Replace 'left' with "This current ultra-liberal generation" - as you described in the OP, if it makes you feel better. It makes no difference - as I'm pretty sure you didn't have pro zionist conservatives in mind when you started attacking so called 'cancel culture' and 'identity politics' - right? And yet, this group is, IMO, the worst purveyors of it.

Admin Edit: Rule 1 Violation
#15152053
GandalfTheGrey wrote:Cute. Replace 'left' with "This current ultra-liberal generation" - as you described in the OP, if it makes you feel better. It makes no difference - as I'm pretty sure you didn't have pro zionist conservatives in mind when you started attacking so called 'cancel culture' and 'identity politics' - right? And yet, this group is, IMO, the worst purveyors of it.


Your misrepresentations are not cute at all however.

Ultra-liberal generation refers to myself and of course both liberals and conservatives are included in it and does not refer just to those engaging in "cancel culture". I was making a different point:

noemon wrote:I have personally at times dismissed the matter as a fad that will pass being personally unable to calculate that there actually exists a critical mass of people that truly prefer to molly-coddle the new generation instead of teaching them the harsh realities of the world and letting them make their own conclusions. This current ultra-liberal generation was taught and nurtured by racist, sexist, heterosexual and "toxic" masculinity, we still turned out into hyper-sexual feminist metrosexuals so cannot really see the cause of concern and the hyper-drive to mute people and their views.
#15152060
noemon wrote:Ultra-liberal generation refers to myself and of course both liberals and conservatives are included in it and does not refer just to those engaging in "cancel culture". I included myself and I do not consider myself engaging in that. I was making a different point:


I don't know what you mean by 'liberal' here. I know in America it is basically synonymous with left/progressive. In Australia it means pro-freedom, as in classical liberalism. Either way it makes no sense to throw both left/progressives and conservatives into the one basket called "ultra liberal".

In any case, your OP was clearly targeting the left/progressive side in their sensitivity over things like anti-feminism, anti-queer, and of course anti-semitism (the latest frontier against the left). None of your arguments or examples related in any way to how the conservatives carry on - only progressives. Claiming otherwise is just dishonest.

And thus I am suggesting a double standard here: you are clearly directing your criticism at what the left/progressives/liberals (whatever you want to call them) does vis-a-vis cancel culture/identity politics, while at the same time you seem to want to turn a blind eye to the same behaviour from the right and conservatives. Even to the point where you cite an example which, prima facie (you have yet to give me evidence demonstrating otherwise), is merely a case of right wing pro-Israeli zionists getting butt-hurt by people daring to criticise their pro-zionist views. Yet, you appear to want to present it as the opposite.

Why does this matter? Because the same criticism you level in the OP is used in the most cynical way possible by the right to try and deflect attention away from their racism, mysoginism, homophobia etc etc. To the extent that they themselves engage in their own cancel culture behaviour - your butt-hurt zionist who effectively shut down criticism of zionists at a university campus a most excellent example.

Admin Edit: Persistent Rule 1 Violation
#15152063
GandalfTheGrey wrote:I don't know what you mean by 'liberal' here. I know in America it is basically synonymous with left/progressive. In Australia it means pro-freedom, as in classical liberalism. Either way it makes no sense to throw both left/progressives and conservatives into the one basket called "ultra liberal".

In any case, your OP was clearly targeting the left/progressive side in their sensitivity over things like anti-feminism, anti-queer, and of course anti-semitism (the latest frontier against the left). None of your arguments or examples related in any way to how the conservatives carry on - only progressives. Claiming otherwise is just dishonest.

And thus I am suggesting a double standard here: you are clearly directing your criticism at what the left/progressives/liberals (whatever you want to call them) does vis-a-vis cancel culture/identity politics, while at the same time you seem to want to turn a blind eye to the same behaviour from the right and conservatives. Even to the point where you cite an example which, prima facie (you have yet to give me evidence demonstrating otherwise), is merely a case of right wing pro-Israeli zionists getting butt-hurt by people daring to criticise their pro-zionist views. Yet, you appear to want to present it as the opposite.

Why does this matter? Because the same criticism you level in the OP is used in the most cynical way possible by the right to try and deflect attention away from their racism, mysoginism, homophobia etc etc. To the extent that they themselves engage in their own cancel culture behaviour - your butt-hurt zionist who effectively shut down criticism of zionists at a university campus a most excellent example.


My OP was clearly not targeting anybody either on the left or on the right and hence why I mentioned various examples including the case of the Canadian-Jewish student which you initially totally misunderstood as you clearly misunderstand quite a few things presumably by reading too quickly and imposing your own prejudices on the text. I did not claim that this case is a case of "leftist cancel-culture". That is your nonsensical presumption based on nothing at all.

Bold part: Why would I need to give you evidence for something I do not even claim? :eh:

I do not believe that cancel culture is predominantly left or right nor any of the crap you presume I do.
#15152066
noemon wrote:I do not believe that cancel culture is predominantly left or right nor any of the crap you presume I do.

I think the left is more into cancel culture these last several years. Before that it used to be mostly the uptight Christian conservatives who got themselves into a moral panic and wanted to ban all the controversial people/things they didn't like ie: Elvis shaking his hips on TV, Madonna, Marilyn Manson, gangster rap, Mortal Kombat/Doom, South Park, Dungeons and Dragons/Harry Potter (witchcraft ooooh!) etc.

All these morally sensitive people offended by everything are super annoying and need to stop telling everyone what they can and can't do.
#15152070
noemon wrote:including the case of the Canadian-Jewish student which you initially totally misunderstood as you clearly misunderstand quite a few things presumably by reading too quickly and imposing your own prejudices on the text. I did not claim that this case is a case of "leftist cancel-culture". That is your nonsensical presumption based on nothing at all.


I asked you to explain and I'm still waiting.

Simple question: is the example of "cancel culture" here the zionist student demanding compensation from the university because he felt students were anti-semitic towards him, or the students for calling him (allegedly) anti-semitic names (and therefore "cancelling" his zionist views)??



I do not believe that cancel culture is predominantly left or right nor any of the crap you presume I do.


The examples of cancelling you gave in the OP are *ENTIRELY* from the left. The issues you raised that were subject to cancelation (anti-feminism, anti-queer etc) are almost always concerns raised by leftist/progressives.

I can but judge you only on what you say.
#15152071
Unthinking Majority wrote:Before that it used to be mostly the uptight Christian conservatives who got themselves into a moral panic and wanted to ban all the controversial people/things they didn't like ie: Elvis shaking his hips on TV, Madonna, Marilyn Manson, gangster rap, Mortal Kombat/Doom, South Park, Dungeons and Dragons/Harry Potter (witchcraft ooooh!) etc.


There was no movement as such that we know today as cancel culture. The word wasn't even invented then.

The word was invented *SPECIFICALLY* as a criticism of the left/progressives, and is just another partisan beating stick the right uses to a) attack the left and b) deflect from their own racism/misogyny/homophobia etc
#15152074
GandalfTheGrey wrote:There was no movement as such that we know today as cancel culture. The word wasn't even invented then.

The word was invented *SPECIFICALLY* as a criticism of the left/progressives, and is just another partisan beating stick the right uses to a) attack the left and b) deflect from their own racism/misogyny/homophobia etc


So trying to silence opposing opinions is not something leftists do?

I think that is also not something only "one" side does. I think the case of Noah Lewis can also be seen as a response to being cancelled himself, given the reasons leading him to choose to leave.
#15152076
Also, I posted this in another thread but I think it may be relevant to the topics ITT:

wat0n wrote:I agree Whites are the ones who are (probably) the subgroup where participation in identity politics has experienced he greatest growth by far. But it's not just a matter on how many take part in it but in how far things are taken to.

For instance, concepts like "colorblindness" are now being regarded as undesirable by both racists and anti-racists alike regardless of the race/ethnicity of those involved, even though it has the virtue of "de-binarizing" the debates around race. That was definitely not the case a few decades ago. The fact that a substantial number of Whites is adopting a form of identity politics centered on victimhood is also relevant in its own right - having two opposing sides regarding each as being victims is the recipe for deadlock.

Furthermore, we are also experiencing some multipliers that also help to exacerbate these issues. One of them is the rise of social media, which makes it possible to communicate with a lot of people in real time almost anywhere (for the first time in human history for that matter), helps to spread all the identity-centered ideologies along with making it easy to engage in moral grandstanding and the current format which punishes long posts makes it hard to add some nuance to any claims (because nuanced arguments are usually long), thereby extending and exacerbating identity politics (and extremism in general). Another is the current wave of irrationalism that is currently invading Western societies, which is a separate problem in its own right and allows people to come up with all sorts of ridiculous beliefs (e.g. conspiracy theorists of all stripes, flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, etc). At last, we're also experiencing a labor-replacing automation that naturally has some large short and medium term costs for any society, even if it's necessary for its long-term economic development.

If I had to make a parallel to the past, the best one would not be the Civil Rights Movement. The best one would be more like the European romantic nationalism of the 19th century, which also took the form of an exacerbated identity politics not seen since the Wars of Religion of the 16th and 17th centuries. The 19th century also saw, as a result of the first wave of the Industrial Revolution, both labor-replacing automation of many jobs (some of which would disappear throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries) and a greater access to cheaper communications owing to the much lower costs of print texts (a result of industrialization of printing); and also saw its own wave of irrationalism in the form of Romanticism and a pushback against the rationality advocated by the Enlightenment. And yes, this was an example of exacerbated White identity politics as well.


The historical parallel to 19th century romanticism is also one reason of why I agree with @noemon, as far as the way identity politics is currently being practiced goes, is a problem.
#15152086
Fasces wrote:They might not have used the word, but if it quacks like a duck...


The word itself is important - because thats the weapon.

Any criticism of bigotry can simply be dismissed by screaming "cancel culture!" - without having to go to the trouble of actually addressing the criticism. It sounds clever, its catchy, and all of a sudden its a rallying cry for the right to unite behind. Cry "cancel culture" and the usual suspects will blindly flock to your cause - without having to know what your cause even is (outside knowing that its about 'progressive bashing').

Just another stick to beat the partisan drum beat.
#15152119
GandalfTheGrey wrote:I asked you to explain and I'm still waiting.

Simple question: is the example of "cancel culture" here the zionist student demanding compensation from the university because he felt students were anti-semitic towards him, or the students for calling him (allegedly) anti-semitic names (and therefore "cancelling" his zionist views)??


It is the Canadian-Jewish student trying to cancel the pro-Palestinian views of the student union of the university.

The examples of cancelling you gave in the OP are *ENTIRELY* from the left. The issues you raised that were subject to cancelation (anti-feminism, anti-queer etc) are almost always concerns raised by leftist/progressives.

I can but judge you only on what you say.


Evidently you are not reading properly.
#15152125
'Identity politics' is a concept that differentiates the Republican Party from the Democratic Party. It is quite natural, considering the 'culture' of the members. The Republican Party's members are predominantly white Americans from the less-industrialized states*. The Democratic Party, in contrast, contains ethnic and racial groups which form a much greater percent of the members. It should not come as a surprise that those groups have desires and interests particular to their specific backgrounds. The term 'Identity politics' should not be a pejorative.

* The Democratic Party, once known for the 'Solid South', lost the southern states to the Republican Party following President L.B. Johnson's signing of the Equal Rights Act.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the prophylactic Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

Reminder. I try to respond to all who quote my posts. If you do not get a response from me, it may be that you've made it onto my 'Ignore' list.
#15152159
Cancel culture, in terms of social movements to get rid of people who do or are wrong, has been a tool of the right and the wealthy for most of history. It is only with the inset of social media that marginalised voices even have the ability to get their voices heard. And even now, the right still has the advantage in terms of controlling the positions of power.

The Eton firing is a good example. He teacher was not fired by the left or marginalised people in any way. This was a decision made solely by the Eton administration, which is almost entirely old white conservative men, and their lawyers, who probably are also old, white, conservative men.

And this only made the papers because the man who was fired was not a marginalised person and he had the ability and contacts to make it a press story.

Eton probably fires a few women each year because they refuse to be sexually harassed or have tried talking about it. But those episodes of traditional cancel culture are not mentioned in the news.
#15152181
GandalfTheGrey wrote:'non-events cynically used to deflect attention away from real events'

I think this is a very important concept for this thread, regardless if you are leftist, rightist, or neither.

That so much of what is currently "politics" (including PC and Cancel Culture) is mainly theatre... tells you who dominates media, and how they are constantly looking for new ways to exploit it to further their own causes and self-interest.

Most of these "stories" are very constructed, and just screaming "morality!" Like so much commercial media.

HOW IT WORKS

*Media-Featured Events* that affect a particularly trendy community can, out-of-nowhere, just suddenly start surfacing on every commercial source,
and then the bad guys of the media story are very publically excommunicated by a medieval mob of hate (viewers) acting emotionally and as a gang.

This is neither left or right. It's just ignorant and reactionary.
#15152345
Pants-of-dog wrote:The Eton firing is a good example. He teacher was not fired by the left or marginalised people in any way. This was a decision made solely by the Eton administration, which is almost entirely old white conservative men, and their lawyers, who probably are also old, white, conservative men.


It's a normal situation. Why would PoC and other marginalized people be in charge anywhere? They are marginalized. Their only role is to work as muscles of ochlocracy for people who deeply hate them (as demonstrated by the whole George Floyd thing). The 'Cancel culture' is just a tool of some white men to control other white men while PoC having as much influence as mythical Marxists' 'proletarians', as fauna.
#15152388
Ganeshas Rat wrote:It's a normal situation. Why would PoC and other marginalized people be in charge anywhere? They are marginalized. Their only role is to work as muscles of ochlocracy for people who deeply hate them (as demonstrated by the whole George Floyd thing). The 'Cancel culture' is just a tool of some white men to control other white men while PoC having as much influence as mythical Marxists' 'proletarians', as fauna.


I like the spirit and mechanics of what you have written here, but I think you are misrepresenting the power dynamic by putting "all white people" on one side, and "all PoC on the other." As we all should know by now, skin tone as signifier is arbitrary, and its use to create class division is constructed (by money).

The vast majority of "white people" are also feared and hated by their own elites, and live the same kind of mindless alienation as many PoC do. That white plebs are targetted (by oligarchs) with different propaganda, is just a clever way of creating division among people who, in fact, have virutally the same interests. In fact, we all have the same interests, in the end. (Maslow Needs Ladder)

That a tiny minority of mostly white people (but which includes many PoC vassals like Obama and Harris and most of our PcD pop stars) are able to strip away everyone else's agency and kinship while destroying the ecosytems and world peace... means that this class must be eliminated, and that power relations must be equalized. Pronto. Every second counts.

Isolating different skin colors (to provide easy variables in a formula) in order to create easy-to-target bad guys in a proposed formula that describes power relations... is exactly what the rich and powerful would like the schmoes like us to do. It's "the bad methodology" that our masters hope we will continue to pursue.

But it's a dead end and leads to more marginalization and racism. I wonder if, under capitalism and its flawed logic, any real progress against classism (and its by-product - racism) can be made. Maybe not. Capitalism supported Apartheid later than any other system on the planet. And the rich depend on "class and race difference" to justify their own gluttony.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 21

With 'allies' like these who needs enemies? Chin[…]

Undocumented Aliens and Crime

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/17[…]

Atheism is Evil

Moral relativism does not seem to say that nothing[…]

March 6, Friday A skirmish on the White River,[…]