Subj : Re: Computer Kits To : boraxman From : Jeff Date : Sun Jan 30 2022 12:07:52 On 31 Jan 2022, boraxman said the following... bo> Je> All of those views (except the first) are now considered unacceptable bo> Je> because they attempt to limit what people can do with their lives. Ar bo> Je> those not examples of bullying? Are those not aggressive attempts at bo> Je> "cancel culture" in their own right? Are those not attempts to convin bo> Je> others that certain behaviors should not be socially acceptable? It bo> Je> seems quite fitting to me that these oppressive opinions should be me bo> Je> with the same "cancel culture" that they seek to impose on others. bo> They were limited because they were considered to be immoral. There are bo> still things that are limited, because they are considered to be bo> immoral, such as professing a preference for your own race. Society attempted to self-regulate by limiting things of which it did not approve. And you have no problem with this, until you're the one of whom society does not approve? So you're saying that passing judgment on others is ok, but having judgment passed on oneself for passing judgment on others is not? Interesting. bo> This thinking is nihilistic, because you would have to accept EVERY bo> view, even the "bigoted" and "racist" views. Are not people engaging in bo> cancel culture infringing upon peoples rights to hold "bigoted" views. Nope. Tolerance is notoriously intolerant of intolerance. bo> If you are policing what I think, then YOU are the oppressor. No one is "policing" what you think. In terms of actual "policing," your speech is largely protected (with a few exceptions) from legal consequences. In terms of metaphorical "policing," your speech is nowhere guaranteed to be protected from social consequences. bo> Cancel culture is oppressive. Period. Only if you feel that you are entitled to a forum and an audience for your speech, and believe that free speech should be free of consequences, neither of which is true. bo> Je> Am I? Or is minimizing, harassing, and demonizing gays, interracial bo> Je> couples, and non-binary individuals skirting with supporting bo> Je> authoritarianism? Which is the poison and which is the antidote? bo> All evil in this world is perpretated by people who think they are doing bo> good. They take action against people they believe are in the wrong, and bo> justify oppression, silencing, censorship, destroying them personally. Social pressure can be used for good or evil. It's how a society self-regulates, whether that society is a national population or a bowling league. bo> Its the same old story. Communists murdered people and they honestly bo> believed they were killing the bad guys, getting rid of harmful views. bo> Nazi's honestly believed they were getting rid of harmful views. bo> Spanish Inquisition believed they were doing good. People with bo> religious and dogmatic views who think they know what views the world bo> needs to have in order to make us better begin removing those who don't bo> go along. Murder and physical torture cross the line into illegal behavior. As far as I'm aware, we're not talking about people being murdered for expressing unpopular views on social media. Perhaps a more appropriate example would be the blacklisting of accused socialists by the House Committee on Un-American Activities during the McCarthy era, although that was more than social pressure in that it had the force of government behind it. bo> Same old story, same old cycle, same old evil. Cancel Culture is just bo> another chapter in this evil. Yes, they are EVIL. Ideologies finding bo> reasons to persecute. The cases we're dealing with don't involve this sort of evil. Comparing a boycott to, for example, the Chinese Cultural Revolution is a massive exaggeration. Jeff. --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32) * Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (21:1/180) .