Has Cancel Culture Gone Too Far

[Coto]

oops. My bad.

 

[IFireflyl]

I'm not reading all 8 pages of replies. While skimming it seemed that it was mostly just people attacking people instead of a civilized discourse. Maybe I'm wrong, but I got tired of reading what I was reading in the other posts. I'm just leaving my $0.02 on the original topic.

Cancel culture has gone too far. Honestly, for the past decade we have been letting people play the victim card more and more, and it has gotten to a point where there are far too many things you can say and do that can be found as offensive. People have the right to feel the way that they feel. If they feel offended the only thing the "offender" can do is look at what was said and done, and then decide if what they did was intended to be offensive. If it wasn't intended to be offensive, then there is nothing further that needs to be done. If it was intended to be offensive then there should be some sort of reparation, usually in the form of an apology (not cancel their TV show, get money, etcetera).

To be clear, the intent normally matters, but not always. If someone says rape should be socially acceptable, and then they say they weren't trying to be offensive, that's not okay. Part of what I said requires the use of common sense, and that is something that I feel is sorely lacking in this day and age. People got mad at Jimmy Kimmel for black face a long time ago. He wasn't being offensive. He was a comedian being funny. Jimmy Kimmel worked with Adam Carolla and they had some (what would now be considered) very offensive material. It wasn't meant to be offensive. It was meant to be comedy. Robert Downy Jr. played a black actor in Tropic Thunder. He wasn't trying to be offensive. He was playing a role, and it was for comedy.

The far left (and I say far left because I don't think the normal leftist fits into this trope) has saturated our culture with insanity. Feelings matter more than facts to them, and our society is being warped by this. Transgender used to be considered a mental illness because someone felt like they were something that they were not. Instead of seeking help for these individuals the far left has now caused society to adhere to their new standards on sex versus gender, and people can be whatever they feel like. They won't allow this with race (I can't say that I feel like I should be black, so now I'm black), or age (I can't say that I feel like I'm 65, so now I can retire and collect my Social Security money), but this is now allowed and socially acceptable for gender. This is so completely illogical that I don't understand how this happened. When feelings supersede facts you get anarchy.

Furthermore, we're now moving back to segregation. In this thread someone mentioned the new term that was coined: BIPOC. This stands for Black, Indigenous and People Of Color. Black and Indigenous people were already referred to within the scope of POC. Now they're separate, but equal. Can anyone tell me what's wrong with that? We're literally segregating black people again, but under their terms. It's no longer about equality. I keep hearing about reparations, and I have to wonder what these people think they need reparations for. Your ancestors suffered, and now you live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world where the poorest people are still better off than most of the world population. Is there racism in the United States? Of course. Is there systematic or institutionalized racism? Not from what I have seen (and if you disagree, provide proof of it). Instead of crying "Foul!" on the specific instances of racism we have people rioting and protesting over a minority of cases.

Literally less than 1,000 people per year are killed by cops, and black people account for less than a third of those deaths. Considering that over 10,000,000 people a year are arrested, don't you think the cases are being blown way out of proportion? Especially considering that this doesn't take into consideration that the majority of the cop shootings/killings are not due to police brutality. I agree that cops should be held accountable when they take a life due to police brutality or ineptitude. I also agree that there are probably racist cops, and that those cops should be fired (or worse if they actually are committing crimes - and racism, while bad, isn't illegal). What I don't agree with is this BLM overreach that isn't attempting to gain equality.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Of course notimp does not have to reveal this detail. But I would be surprised if he was not "white" nor Christian.
I believe Christianity has messed up many people in the West.

Notimp, ask yourself: At what point will an African-American think "Mh, the NBA is kind of too black. Let´s give this Asian guy a spot in the team. He does not really know how to throw but he is kind of funny and there are some Asians in the audience."

 

[notimp]

So are you "white"? If not, are you by any chance Christian?

Your way of thinking is rare among Non-Christians and Non-Europeans.

@Coto: I am not Chinese. I only live there. I was raised (as a minority) in Germany. But I agree with your judgement.

I am, I am.

But the argument I'm making is different.

I don't care about race. I really dont. But I acknowledge that race is a cultural factor. And if some 'feat' or effort, or even just education style - has made it so one group or race especially excels at aceing the SATs, I don't think that this then is an advantage that should perpetuate into the future, maybe to the detriment of other societal structures (how about 'stability' as a factor?). Maybe. i dont know if thats the case that is made - this is theoretical.

I don't care about religion, I really dont. And religion is not even as much as a cultural factor anymore, so we dont have to talk about it at all.

So here are my deliberations:
- I acknowledge that there is structural racism, and that that means, that to address it you sometimes also need to play to those factors, and not just say they arent there - and optimize to some theoretical standard of excellence, thats just 'simpler'. This also means, that structural racism in some sense is produced by that notion. I don't know how to get out of this quagmire.

Certainly not by ignoring it, and then producing no aspirational rolemodels for an entire race for years, they could strive towards, thereby increasing unrest potential. (Extreme example. I don't know how Harvard is arguing it internally.)

- I dont think absolute transparency is a way to run institutions, or companies, or a state.

- I do think people that feel entitled to a place in life because of a score are stupid. And know very little about life.

- I do think that education should be free. I'm not for locking knowledge away from anyone. But I also recognize that slots in Harvard are limited.

- I dont think that 'excellency' in test scores should be the only selection factor.

edit:
- But I do think, that if you are only doing it to 'make the campus look more diverse' that this is stupid and should stop. (If you are doing it for different reasons, I have to see the reasoning.)

 

[notimp]

Harvard btw publically said, that it does not engage in 'racial balancing':
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2020/5/16/harvard-reply-brief-admissions-appeal/

They then replied, the entire application process is magic (complex and also partly subjective ), and you cant find anyone that has witnessed actual discrimination.

Which is exactly how you would respond to those legal claims, regardless if you were lying or not.

This is basically 'creating ambiguity'.
--

Also US law, strangely says exactly what I just came up with... huh..

Race-conscious admissions policies may be legal, but must pass the “strict scrutiny” test, which requires that the use of race serve a “compelling governmental interest” — like the educational benefits that stem from diversity — and be “narrowly tailored” to satisfy that [compelling governmental] interest.

src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard

Seems as if logic ultimately does work..

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Seems as if logic ultimately does work..

The US government´s logic works because they do not claim not to care about race. Even Trump proudly talks about low unemployment of different minority groups (and doesnt even mention his own race, btw).

This statement...

I don't care about race. I really dont. But I acknowledge that race is a cultural factor.

[BTW just to make sure: You do acknowledge the genetic basis for race, right? Because some people do not]

...and this statement contradict each other.

I acknowledge that there is structural racism

 

[IFireflyl]

This statement...

I don't care about race. I really dont.

...and this statement contradict each other.

I acknowledge that there is structural racism

They don't contradict each other. Someone can acknowledge an issue and also be apathetic about it. For example, many people understand that there are homeless people. Many of those same people also don't care about homeless people.

Additionally, he could have meant that he doesn't care about race as in, "I don't care if you're black, white, yellow, brown, green, orange, etcetera. We're all human beings and that's all that matters to me during an interaction with a fellow human being." That wouldn't contradict him saying that there is structural racism.

P.S. I don't actually believe there is structural racism. I don't see any evidence for that. There are racists, definitely. But at a structural or institutional level I do not see any evidence that proves this.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

They don't contradict each other. Someone can acknowledge an issue and also be apathetic about it. For example, many people understand that there are homeless people. Many of those same people also don't care about homeless people.

That is incorrect. He is clearly not apathetic towards it. That´s why we have been discussing the plight of African-Americans. Yet he claims he does not care about race. Yet he finds Harvard´s practice unfair.
He does not care about his own race (as he has stated).

Additionally, he could have meant that he doesn't care about race as in, "I don't care if you're black, white, yellow, brown, green, orange, etcetera. We're all human beings and that's all that matters to me during an interaction with a fellow human being." That wouldn't contradict him saying that there is structural racism.

That´s the typical "I don´t see color" claim. But he does see it. That´s why we talk about BLM, Harvard etc.

 

[IFireflyl]

That is incorrect. He is clearly not apathetic towards it. That´s why we have been discussing the plight of African-Americans. Yet he claims he does not care about race. Yet he finds Harvard´s practice unfair.
He does not care about his own race (as he has stated).

What I said is not incorrect. I didn't say that's how HE felt. I was only saying that people in general can acknowledge something while simultaneously not care about it.

That´s the typical "I don´t see color" claim. But he does see it. That´s why we talk about BLM, Harvard etc.

I did not mean a literal, "I don't see color." I meant, "I won't treat you differently from any other person based on your skin color." I really figured that should be obvious. I can treat someone with a different skin color than me the same way that I treat someone with the same skin color as me, while also partaking in conversations about skin color.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

I thought the word "someone" was referring to him specifically. My bad.

A large Columbus statue has been brought down in the US btw.

 

[IFireflyl]

I thought the word "someone" was referring to him specifically. My bad.

A large Columbus statue has been brought down in the US btw.

I understand your confusion! The big problem with Americans is that they don't have the ability to forgive. People in history have done really crappy things. The problem is that the crappy things they did were, for the most part, the same crappy things everyone was doing. So Americans are tearing down statues of people because of the bad things they did, discarding all of the good things they did, and refusing to acknowledge that the bad things were responsible for was solely due to the culture they were raised in.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

I mostly agree. But I would erase the word "solely". Only a minority of rich people could afford slaves. And of coure, there were also many "white" slaves in the US, let alone in the Middle East (where Subsaharan Africans were castrated btw, that´s why there are not many "Blacks" over there)

However, I do think people could have known that it was morally wrong. There was simply less pressure to act against it.

 

[IFireflyl]

I mostly agree. But I would erase the word "solely". Only a minority of rich people could afford slaves. And of coure, there were also many "white" slaves in the US, let alone in the Middle East (where Subsaharan Africans were castrated btw, that´s where there are not many "Blacks" over there)

However, I do think people could have known that it was morally wrong. There was simply less pressure to act against it.

You're right about the word solely. I have crossed that out.

And to be clear, I agree that people should have known it was morally wrong. I just can't hold a fire to them for the way that they behaved because I wasn't there, and I don't believe that we should use hindsight to judge people that were living in a time of life that most people truly can't comprehend. Having said that, we can still learn from the mistakes that they made.

 

[notimp]

The US government´s logic works because they do not claim not to care about race. Even Trump proudly talks about low unemployment of different minority groups (and doesnt even mention his own race, btw).

This statement...

[BTW just to make sure: You do acknowledge the genetic basis for race, right? Because some people do not]

...and this statement contradict each other.

You are wrong on pretty much all accounts.

First - the one where you are correct. That legal text snippet indeed says, that the government can 'address' race to a point where it may even be racist (looking at race in an application form) - but only in very narrow circumstances, when 'addressing race differences' is in the compelling interest of said government.

Whatever Trump says is a different thing entirely he doesnt make the law, and throws racial epitaphs pretty much all day. Signs presidential decrees and cant get anything done.

But the point is, that there is a legal clause, for when the government is allowed to be racist (act on race differences in a way that in our case disadvantages asians, if its int he 'higher interest' of that government (= higher good argument, f.e. 'for the stability of society). And it is defined, that it has to be 'narrow use'. So you cant use it all day on everything.

I don't acknowledge the genetic basis of race, because race normally and historically is either a self attribution (I am ...), or an attribution made based on easily perceivable visual characteristics. We had this argument in here before. Blood groups also are a genetic difference between different groups, we don't pronounce races based on bloodtypes - and whatever you find genetically to separate one racial group from another, its done after the fact and never clear cut.

Back to our example of

In Ethiopia they are on the verge of another war between their ethnic groups again (first time in years) https://www.google.com/search?q=Hundessa

There it is Tigrayer vs. Oromo vs. Amhare

People there also call their differences racial, and if you want to hear a statement of some dude crying over one person being killed, because he was "pure ethiopian", you know an Oromo.. Here, knock yourself out:
https://www.dw.com/en/ethiopia-the-killing-of-hachalu-hundessa-cuts-deep/a-54024538

Also we have people of mixed race in which case the genetic differentiation becomes really stupid.

Race was always an attribution made by "seeing a difference" and then "calling it something" - the 'genetical foundation' only came in later, and was always used as a pseudoscientific excuse - for something that existed earlier: Race terminology and racism. There is no scientific definition of what consists a human race (thats what Nazis tried to establish, and we got rid of), or another - genetically, race is only used as a label (you have to call something, something when talking about it), not as a 'genetic class' (species).
--

Me not caring about race - and at the same time acknowledging that other people do ("structural racism does exist") and also believing that you have to act on it, when addressing it - is not the same thing.
--

And this is the problem I have with you - your logic is faulty, you accuse others of being inconsistent, when the only detail/elaboration you personally allow is on the level of "if you believe racism exists, you must care about using it" (why?), and "but government is always racist". And then not looking at the argumentation for a law that literally says - you cant be racist, except in this narrow case (higher governmental interest, f.e. in promoting diversity).

You havent even acknowledged the point, that by agreeing that you need 'cultural diversity' you are promoting race differences, and that there is no way around it.

You basically want to stay within your believe system, and not go any step further.

edit: Also, this entire 'top down government decides this way' thing is a power relationship, and not fair. In fact, it is entirely unfair from the individuals point of view. But the point being made is, that it might still be needed, for societal reasons. In narrow cases, while you are not allowed to overdo it, or make it a general argument.

Why? Because (exaggeration!), you dont want half of your highest level students to be asian, if you acknowledge that this might lead to public unrest, because many people believe in and act on racial group identities. Its the "I'm not racist, but sometimes I have to act racist" argument, that doesnt go over well with students (public), when given outright. So you dont give that argument publicly. But its there in law, specifically for that case (promoting cultural diversity in the governments interest).

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

You havent even acknowledged the point, that by agreeing that you need 'cultural diversity' you are promoting race differences, and that there is no way around it.

I have not agreed that we need cultural diversity. I am completely fine with even a 99% African-American NBA or a 25% Jewish Hardvard.
In the end, your acceptance of forced equity is based on the threat of violence: Too many Jews in the upper class? "Oh we can´t have that, otherwise we need to kill them"
(This is not a quote of yours; it is symbolic)

I don't acknowledge the genetic basis of race

Then I have nothing more to say. This is more ridiculous than the flat earth theory.
Solve this riddle for us: If race does not have a genetic basis, then why do two Slavic parents have Slavic children? Why does Obama have fairer skin than his father and darker skin than his mother? etc etc
According to your logic Obama could have looked like an East-Asian...

 

[0x3000027E]

This thread is populated by the opinions of 'white privilege", so the opinions expressed don't have any bearing and should quite frankly be ignored. Removed, if possible. Unless these voices are silenced, others will be offended.

 

[th3joker]

Shut up and let the real men come in and fix what this hyper feminized (see karens aka whiney bitches) society has fucked up

 

[0x3000027E]

karens

Ah, yes, "Karen", another attempt to silence a woman from having a public voice.

From now on, anytime a woman speaks her mind in public, let's label her a "karen" and plaster the video online so she can be ridiculed. Sounds like real progress.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

real men

Ha. Would love to see your list.

 

[notimp]

Here is your condensed version for people who need that: People with large earlobes are obviously race PLUNKO. And because we can find markers for large earlobes, thereby PLUNKO obviously is genetic.

Either born PLUNKO or not, I always say!

Hail race PLUNKO. Its genetic. Also, we can show, that Plunko people often came from Sweden. Now its doubly genetic!


This is just a simply way to show you - how much race without a cultural concept makes sense.

We know nothing about PLUNKO people. And suddently everyone feels its silly.

PLUNKO people, btw? Also very agressive. Better warn the police. Oh and very intelligent. They get 30% of all available slots at Harvard.

 

[IFireflyl]

This thread is populated by the opinions of 'white privilege", so the opinions expressed don't have any bearing and should quite frankly be ignored. Removed, if possible. Unless these voices are silenced, others will be offended.

"White privilege" is a crutch that's used by POC. In America we're all privileged.