Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

toonkee

Cancel Culture is the Child of Money is Speech

Recommended Posts

If you want the market forces to rule all systems, you literally want people to vote with their dollars, so do not cry when your speech becomes a bad business decision.     

I do not like cancel culture for the record. It's unstable and dumb, but you get what you pay for. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, toonkee said:

If you want the market forces to rule all systems, you literally want people to vote with their dollars, so do not cry when your speech becomes a bad business decision.     

I do not like cancel culture for the record. It's unstable and dumb, but you get what you pay for. 

 

I disagree with the Supreme Court decision that money = free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, toonkee said:

If you want the market forces to rule all systems, you literally want people to vote with their dollars, so do not cry when your speech becomes a bad business decision.     

I do not like cancel culture for the record. It's unstable and dumb, but you get what you pay for. 

 

I’m not understanding what the two have to do with one another. Can you please explain?

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
1 minute ago, BSUTOP25 said:

I’m not understanding what the two have to do with one another. Can you please explain?

It's basically just another person trying to figure out a way to justify the speech suppression by Big Tech that we are currently seeing.

You know... Democrats trying to explain why censorship is a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, #1Stunner said:

It's basically just another person trying to figure out a way to justify the speech suppression by Big Tech that we are currently seeing.

You know... Democrats trying to explain why censorship is a good thing.

I said it was bad.

Read!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

I’m not understanding what the two have to do with one another. Can you please explain?

I think he's trying to juxtapose the repugnance many on the right have to "cancel culture" and the warm embrace many on the right have to "money is speech", while pointing out that they're the same thing - when someone becomes a liability, they become "cancelled" more by being dropped by any businesses than people ignoring them.

 

I don't get the complaints about either. People saying socially unacceptable things have pretty much always been excluded from many jobs; culture has always changed throughout people's lives to make previously acceptable things unacceptable. Not a lot new under the sun.

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
Just now, toonkee said:

I said it was bad.

Read!

"But you get what you pay for...."

"so do not cry when your speech becomes a bad business decision."

 

(i.e., nothing we can do about it....just sit back and let it happen)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner

We are a better society when we allow people to say things that we disagree with.   (excluding, of course, obvious crimes)

But certain segments of power don't want people with opposing views to express themselves, at the risk that they might be persuasive.   What if a clown like Donald Trump gains a following!?!?!?!?!   What if (God help us), a guy like Ron Paul says something that gains a following!!!!???

 

So... It is better to couch their speech that we disagree with as "National Security" and "Dangerous" and "Violence".....that way we can exclude them and prevent their speech.

 

#BanRonPaul (he's apparently dangerous)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

"But you get what you pay for...."

"so do not cry when your speech becomes a bad business decision."

 

(i.e., nothing we can do about it....just sit back and let it happen)

Saying it can happen doesn't mean it should happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
48 minutes ago, toonkee said:

If you want the market forces to rule all systems, you literally want people to vote with their dollars, so do not cry when your speech becomes a bad business decision.     

I do not like cancel culture for the record. It's unstable and dumb, but you get what you pay for. 

 

 

Why are the Palestinians and Palestinian journalists bitching about being silenced and censored by Facebook.......

The Palestinians got what they paid for (those cheap bastards).

If the Palestinians don't like that they have been silenced by Facebook, then they can start their own Facebook.   It's a private company.    Silence the Palestinians---they don't deserve an unpopular voice.    /Sarcasm

We cannot regulate private companies (Democrats 2021--- #NoMoreRegulations)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

An illiberal disgust for a value does not make babies with a liberal value. False equivalence.

Your false equivalence argument is false because of the false assumptions therein.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

I’m not understanding what the two have to do with one another. Can you please explain?

The market right now is saying it's bad business to host, promote or entertain certain speech.  So market forces or nah?

Our society and legal systems are structured so that money determines the value and power of everything.  Maybe we need to change that if we don't want the market to regulate our liberal values, as Lawlor put it.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

 

Why are the Palestinians and Palestinian journalists bitching about being silenced and censored by Facebook.......

The Palestinians got what they paid for (those cheap bastards).

If the Palestinians don't like that they have been silenced by Facebook, then they can start their own Facebook.   It's a private company.    Silence the Palestinians---they don't deserve an unpopular voice.    /Sarcasm

We cannot regulate private companies (Democrats 2021--- #NoMoreRegulations)

 

 

Uh...that's ultimately government cracking down on speech, not the market. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, toonkee said:

The market right now is saying it's bad business to host, promote or entertain certain speech.  So market forces or nah?

Our society and legal systems are structured so that money determines the value and power of everything.  Maybe we need to change that if we don't want the market to regulate our liberal values, as Lawlor put it.  

 

With all due respect, my opinion is this is a bit of a stretch Toons. Comparing the SCOTUS decision on speech to cancel culture is like comparing GoState's back fur to falafel. 

With regard to whether or not a private entity can regulate speech on their platform, of course they can. It doesn't always make it right but so be it. I questioned Facebook's strange decision to lock Ron Paul's account but never did I claim they don't have the legal right to do so. If we're talking PACs and representation/taxation, that's still a completely separate issue from public pressure on an entity to fire someone or destroy their reputation. I guess I'm just not understanding the parallel here. Still happy to listen and ponder if you want to explain a bit more.

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

An illiberal disgust for a value does not make babies with a liberal value. False equivalence.

lmao isn't "Cancel culture" just people exercising their freedom of association? 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, happycamper said:

lmao isn't "Cancel culture" just people exercising their freedom of association? 

There’s quite a difference between I don’t want to associate with this person and I’m going to make a point to make sure nobody can associate with this person. One is freedom, the other is an unrepentant asshole that may even be oblivious as to how gaping they are.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, thelawlorfaithful said:

There’s quite a difference between I don’t want to associate with this person and I’m going to make a point to make sure nobody can associate with this person. One is freedom, the other is an unrepentant asshole that may even be oblivious as to how gaping they are.

who on earth is "making sure nobody can associate with this person"?

It's "so and so is cancelled, by which me mean, has violated social norms", and then said social norms are published, and a lot of people agree that yes, those transgressions merit severing association. 

You sound awfully adverse to, uh, consequences, lawlor

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...